Case Title: IMO Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act Rules

Citation: 

Docket Number: a-44-02

State: new-jersey

Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Date: 2004-07-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized). The Court determines whether General Permit 23 (GP23), N.J.S.A. 7:7A-5.23, which permits the limited expansion of existing cranberry growing operations in the Pinelands National Reserve (Pinelands), violates the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Clean Water Act or CWA), 33 U.S.C.A. 1344, the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act (FWPA), N.J.S.A. 13:9B-1 to 30, or the State's Surface Water Quality Standards (SWQS), N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.1 et seq. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service classify cranberries as a "wetland crop species" that "must be grown in wetlands or areas altered to create a wetlands environment." The fruit requires easy access to large amounts of clean water, at least 227 gallons per minute per acre of bog. The bogs are flooded with water in winter and early spring to protect against frost, during the summer for irrigation purposes, and at harvest time. The Pinelands overlies the vast, seventeen-trillion gallon Cohansey aquifer, one of the largest virtually untapped sources of pure water in the world. The high water table and sandy acidic soils of the Pinelands are essential to the growth of the cranberry. Due to a confluence of favorable variables, farmers have been harvesting cranberries in the Pinelands for almost two centuries. The Pinelands also harbors a wide variety of rare, threatened and endangered plant and animal species. Stringent federal and state regulations have been passed to protect this resource. Building or expanding a cranberry growing operation in a wetland implicates a complex permitting scheme. Under the CWA, parties seeking to discharge dredged or fill material into wetlands may do so only if they have secured a "section 404" permit from the Corps. The CWA, however, specifically allows states to assume permitting authority for waters within their jurisdictions so long as the state's program is at least as stringent as the federal 404 program. New Jersey's FWPA was approved in 1994 as satisfying the federal assumption requirements. Under the FWPA, an applicant seeking to engage in regulated activities in State open waters or wetlands must secure either a general or an individual permit from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). General permits, such as GP23, are designed to streamline the permitting process for certain activities that have only a minimal impact, individually and cumulatively, on the environment. In part, the FWPA provides that the DEP may issue general permits for activities that it has determined will have no significant adverse environmental impact on freshwater wetlands, provided that the issuance of the general permit for any such activities is consistent with the provisions of the federal statute and has been approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Draft general permits proposed by the State must be forwarded to the Regional Administrator of the EPA, who may approve or interpose objections that, if not resolved, will prevent the adoption of the permit. The DEP's first two drafts of GP23 were not adopted because of objections by the EPA. DEP modified the permit to accommodate the EPA's recommendations. Those modifications included defining "loss" and "no net loss of wetlands," creating a hierarchy of various wetlands types to protect high value wetlands, and providing the Commissioner with broad discretionary power to modify, suspend or revoke authorizations. The EPA withdrew its objections based on the DEP's modifications and determined that GP23 would have no more than minimal environmental effect on the aquatic environment. The permit was adopted on September 13, 1999. Although GP23 theoretically authorizes individual operators to expand up to fifty acres during the five-year life of the permit, a statewide cap of 300 acres limits the growers' activities in the aggregate. A coalition of environmental organizations (coalition) challenged the validity of GP 23 under the federal and state statutes. A unanimous panel of the Appellate Division rejected the challenge. 351 N.J. Super. 362 (2002). HELD : General Permit 23, N.J.A.C. 7:7A-5.23, permitting the limited expansion of existing cranberry growing operations in the Pinelands National Reserve, does not violate provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C.A. 1344, the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 13:9B-1 to 30, or the State's Surface Water Quality Standards, N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.1 et seq. 1. As with any administrative regulation, GP23 must be accorded a presumption of validity. The coalition bears the heavy burden of demonstrating that the regulatory requirements found in GP23 are arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Deference to DEP's interpretation is justified by the fundamental maxim that the opinion as to the construction of a regulatory statute of the administrative agency charged with the enforcement of that statute is entitled to great weight. This Court has sustained executive branch rulemaking unless it was clear that the agency action was inconsistent with the legislative mandate. (Pp. 20 21). 2. In respect of the FWPA, DEP has the authority to issue permits allowing the discharge of dredged or fill material into wetlands situated in the Pinelands. The coalition argues, however, that compulsory mitigation is required under the FWPA for all adverse environmental impacts attributable to activities requiring a general permit or an individual permit, and that the mitigation and "no net loss" provisions of GP23 are insufficient to meet this requirement. The coalition contends that the mitigation requirements of the FWPA and its implementing regulations can be met only through the creation or restoration of wetlands to compensate for any damage done pursuant to GP23 at a one-to-one ratio for all wetland impacts, including disturbances. Although N.J.S.A. 13:9B-13a requires "all appropriate measures" by way of mitigation, restoration, and minimization of "adverse environmental impacts" and "wetland disturbances," section (b) is permissive and states only that the DEP "may require creation or restoration" of wetlands of equal value and, then, only when wetlands have been "lost" through a permitted activity. A review of the legislative history reveals that the creation or restoration of wetlands to compensate for adverse impacts attributable to permitted activity is by no means mandatory, but merely a weapon in DEP's larger mitigation arsenal. The Court finds, therefore, that the mitigation provisions of GP23 are consistent with the FWPA. (Pp. 16 23). 3. The Court rejects also the coalition's claim that GP23 is impermissibly less stringent than the comparable federal permit for the expansion of cranberry growing operations. The Court affirms the Appellate Division's findings that, on balance, the state restrictions are as stringent as the federal, and that the mitigation, protection for endangered species, and upland alternatives requirements for GP23 meet federal standards. In respect of amendments to the mitigation requirements for nationwide permits found in General Condition 19 that were implemented after GP23 was adopted, the Court adds that General Condition 19 mandates compensatory mitigation when necessary to ensure that the adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. When the EPA dropped its objections to the final draft of GP23, the agency informed the DEP by letter that the permit would have no more than minimal environmental effects on the aquatic environment. (Pp. 23--28). 4. Finally, the Court finds that the State's antidegradation policy was not violated by the adoption of GP23. In 1987, the CWA was amended to require the State s Surface Water Quality Standards (SWQS) to include an antidegradation policy to ensure that existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses would be maintained and preserved. The State's antidegradation policy must be at least as stringent as the federal program and it is subject to EPA approval. Under the State's policy, N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d), no irreversible changes may be made to existing water quality that would impair or preclude attainment of the designated uses of a waterway. To effectuate that mandate, New Jersey established four categories of state waters receiving differing levels of protection. The waters of the Pinelands are considered nondegradation waters, and are afforded the highest level of protection from changes in existing water quality. However, the SWQS also state that the antidegradation policy is not intended to interfere with water control in the operation of cranberry bogs. Moreover, cranberry bog water supply and other agricultural uses are included among the designated uses of Pinelands waters. A broad reading of the exemption is consistent, therefore, with the goals of the SWQS to maintain and protect the existing uses of the waters of this State. Given the favored status accorded both agriculture generally and cranberry agriculture in particular, the DEP's broad interpretation of the exemption is reasonable. (Pp. 28 36). The judgment of the Appellate Division is AFFIRMED. JUSTICE ZAZZALI, concurring, agrees with the Court's legal conclusion that N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d) exempts GP23 from antidegradation review, but he considers the coalition's interpretation more consistent with the goals of the State's antidegradation policy. He believes it is for the Legislature to take corrective action, however. JUSTICES VERNIERO, LaVECCHIA, ALBIN and WALLACE join in CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ's opinion. JUSTICE ZAZZALI filed a separate concurring opinion. JUSTICE LONG did not participate. IN THE MATTER OF FRESHWATER WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT RULES, STATEWIDE GENERAL PERMIT, CRANBERRY EXPANSION, PROMULGATED BY NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. Argued September 8, 2003 Decided July 20, 2004 On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 351 N.J. Super. 362 (2002). Thomas A. Borden argued the cause for appellants, American Littoral Society, Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife Federation, New Jersey Audubon Society, New Jersey Environmental Federation, New Jersey Environmental Lobby, New Jersey Public Interest Research Group Citizen Lobby, Inc., Sierra Club, New Jersey Chapter, and Pinelands Preservation Alliance (Rutgers Environmental Law Clinic, attorneys; Edward L. Lloyd, of counsel). Rachel J. Horowitz, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Patrick DeAlmeida, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel). CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ delivered the opinion of the Court. This case raises questions in respect of the validity of General Permit 23 (GP23), N.J.A.C. 7:7A-5.23, adopted by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in 1999. See footnote 1 AppellantsSee footnote 2 claim that GP23, which permits the limited expansion of existing cranberry growing operations in the Pinelands National Reserve, violates provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C.A. 1344, the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act (FWPA), N.J.S.A. 13:9B-1 to -30, and the State s Surface Water Quality Standards (SWQS), N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.1 et seq. A unanimous panel of the Appellate Division rejected appellants challenge in its entirety. In re Freshwater Wetlands Prot. Act Rules, Statewide General Permit, Cranberry Expansion, Promulgated by the New Jersey Dep t of Envtl. Prot. (In re FWPA), 351 N.J. Super. 362 (2002). We granted certification on December 16, 2002, 175 N.J. 171, and now affirm. [Id. at 199-200 (citations omitted).] The department shall issue additional general permits on a Statewide or regional basis for the following categories of activities, if the department determines, after conducting an environmental analysis and providing public notice and opportunity for a public hearing, that the activities will cause only minimal adverse environmental impacts when performed separately, will have only minimal cumulative adverse impacts on the environment, will cause only minor impacts on freshwater wetlands, will be in conformance with the purposes of this act, and will not violate any provision of the Federal Act: The Administrator will assess the administration and enforcement of the State Program on a continuing basis for equivalence and consistency with the CWA, this agreement, and all applicable federal requirements and policies for the adequacy of enforcement. This assessment will be accomplished by: (1) timely EPA review of information submitted by [DEP] in accordance with this agreement; (2) permit overview; (3) compliance and enforcement overview; and (4) annual review of [DEP] program activities. Activities in areas under the jurisdiction of the Pinelands Commission pursuant to [the Pinelands Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 13:18A-1 to 29] shall not require a freshwater wetlands permit, or be subject to transition area requirements established in this act, except that the discharge of dredged or fill material shall require a permit issued under the provisions of the Federal Act, or under an individual or general permit program administered by the State under the provisions of the Federal Act and applicable State laws, provided that the Pinelands Commission may provide for more stringent regulation of activities in and around freshwater wetland areas within its jurisdiction. a. The department shall require as a condition of a freshwater wetlands permit that all appropriate measures have been carried out to mitigate adverse environmental impacts, restore vegetation, habitats, and land and water features, prevent sedimentation and erosion, minimize the area of freshwater wetlands disturbance and insure compliance with the Federal Act and implementing regulations. b. The department may require the creation or restoration of an area of freshwater wetlands of equal ecological value to those which will be lost, . . . . a. The cumulative total acreage of disturbance per cranberry production operation, including but not limited to, filling, flooding, ditching, or clearing, does not exceed 10 acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands; b. The permittee notifies the District Engineer in accordance with the Notification General Condition. The notification must include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands; and, c. The activity does not result in a net loss of wetland acreage. This NWP does not authorize any discharge of dredged or fill material related to other cranberry production activities such as warehouses, processing facilities, or parking areas. For purposes of this NWP, the cumulative total of 10 acres will be measured over the period that this NWP is valid. [Final Notice of Issuance, Reissuance, and Modification of Nationwide Permits, 61 Fed. Reg. 65874, 65919 (Dec. 13, 1996).] Nationwide Permits are issued subject to twenty-six General Conditions, including General Condition 19, which details mitigation requirements for NWP34 authorizations. Notice of Final Issuance and Modification of Nationwide Permits, 65 Fed. Reg. 12818, 12893-97 (Mar. 9, 2000). Appellants apparently concede that GP23 complies with the federal mitigation requirements in place at the time GP23 was adopted. They contend that subsequent changes to General Condition 19 render GP23 inconsistent with NWP34. Ibid. Under General Condition 19, Mitigation is described as follows: 19. Mitigation. The project must be designed and constructed to avoid and minimize adverse effects to waters of the United States to the maximum extent practicable at the project site (i.e., on-site). Mitigation will be required when necessary to ensure that the adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. The District Engineer will consider the factors discussed below when determining the acceptability of appropriate and practicable mitigation necessary to offset adverse effects on the aquatic environment. (a) Compensatory mitigation at a minimum 1:1 ratio will be required for all wetland impacts requiring a PCN. Effluent limitations are promulgated by the EPA and restrict the quantities, rates, and concentrations of specified substances which are discharged from point sources. See [33 U.S.C.A.] 1311, 1314. [W]ater quality standards are, in general, promulgated by the States and establish the desired condition of a waterway. See [33 U.S.C.A.] 1313. These standards supplement effluent limitations so that numerous point sources, despite individual compliance with effluent limitations, may be further regulated to prevent water quality from falling below acceptable levels. [Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91, 101, 112 S. Ct. 1046, 1054, 117 L. Ed. 2d 239, 251-52 (1992) (quoting EPA v. California ex rel. State Water Res. Control Bd., 426 U.S. 200, 205, n.12, 96 S. Ct. 2022, 2025, n. 12, 48 L. Ed. 2d 578, 583, n.12 (1976)).] Effluent limitations are regulated through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Program (NPDES), which authorizes EPA to issue permits for individual point source discharges into the nation s waterways. 33 U.S.C.A. 1342; E.I. du Pont, supra, 430 U.S. at 119, 97 S. Ct. at 970-71, 51 L. Ed. 2d at 212. In essence, NPDES permits transform generally applicable effluent limitations . . . into . . . obligations imposed for specific discharges. E.I. du Pont, supra, 430 U.S. at 119-20, 97 S. Ct. at 970-71, 51 L. Ed. 2d at 212 (quoting State Water Res. Control Bd., supra, 426 U.S. at 205, 96 S. Ct. at 2025, 48 L. Ed. 2d at 583-84). DEP assumed authority to administer the NPDES program in New Jersey in 1982 pursuant to the New Jersey Water Pollution Control Act, N.J.S.A. 58:10A-1 to 43. In re Issuance of a Permit by the Dep t of Envtl. Prot. to Ciba-Geigy Corp., 120 N.J. 164, 169 (1990). The state statute prohibits the discharge of pollutants [from point sources] into any state waters without a New Jersey Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) permit. Ibid. (citing N.J.S.A. 58:10A-6a). In 1987, the CWA was amended to require the SWQS to include an antidegradation policy, 33 U.S.C.A. 1313(d)(4)(B); 40 C.F.R. 131.12(a), to ensure that [e]xisting instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses shall be maintained and preserved. Jefferson County, supra, 511 U.S. at 705, 114 S. Ct. at 1905-06, 128 L. Ed. 2d at 723-24 (quoting 40 C.F.R. 131.12(a)(1) (1993)); Ciba-Geigy, supra, 120 N.J. at 176-77. Like FWPA permits (which must be as stringent as their federal analog), the State antidegradation policy must be at least as stringent as the federal program, 40 C.F.R. 131.6(d), 131.12, and is subject to EPA approval. 33 U.S.C.A. 1313(c)(3); 40 C.F.R. 131.5. In Ciba-Geigy, supra, we explained that under the state policy, N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d), [n]o irreversible changes may be made to existing water quality that would impair or preclude attainment of the designated uses of a waterway. 120 N.J. at 177. To effectuate that mandate, New Jersey has established four categories of state waters that receive differing levels of protection from discharges affecting existing water quality. N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d); Ciba-Geigy, supra, 120 N.J. at 177-78. The waters of the pinelands are designated either FW1 or PL, N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.4, and classified as Outstanding National Resource Waters of the State. N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.15(i). Those waters are considered nondegradation waters, N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)(4), and are afforded the highest level of protection from changes in existing water quality. 40 C.F.R. 131.12(a)(3); N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d). Under the state antidegradation policy, [n]o changes shall be allowed in waters which constitute an outstanding National or State resource or in waters that may affect these outstanding resource waters. N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)4 (emphasis added); see 40 C.F.R. 131.12(a)(3) ( Where high quality waters constitute an outstanding National resource, such as the waters of National and State parks and wildlife refuges and waters of exceptional recreational or ecological significance, that water quality shall be maintained and protected. ). Similarly, [f]or Pinelands waters, the Department shall not approve any activity which alone or in combination with any other activities, might cause changes, other than toward natural water quality, in the existing surface water quality characteristics. N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)(6). IN THE MATTER OF FRESHWATER WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT RULES, STATEWIDE GENERAL PERMIT, CRANBERRY EXPANSION, PROMULGATED BY NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. JUSTICE ZAZZALI, concurring. I join the Court s opinion in full, including Part IV.B., which addresses the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection s (DEP) interpretation of N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)(6)(ii)(1) exempting General Permit 23 (GP23) from antidegradation review. I agree with the Court s legal conclusion on that issue, but write separately to underscore my reasoning and my concern. Appellants challenge DEP s construction of N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)(6)(ii)(1), a regulation that DEP promulgated. When reviewing an agency s interpretation of its own regulation, we must give substantial deference to the agency unless its interpretation is inconsistent with the governing legislation. DiMaria v. Bd. of Trs. of Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 225 N.J. Super. 341, 351 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 113 N.J. 638 (1988). For the reasons expressed by the Court, I agree that DEP s construction of N.J.S.A. 7:9B-1.5(d)(6)(ii)(1) is reasonable and that we therefore must afford it substantial deference. Ante at ___ (slip op. at 34-35). Nonetheless, I am persuaded that appellants interpretation of N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)(6)(ii)(1) better serves the express intent of New Jersey s antidegradation policy to give pinelands waters the highest level of protection from changes in water quality. As noted by the Court, pinelands waters are classified as Outstanding National Resource Waters of the State, N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.15(i), and under our antidegradation policy, [n]o changes shall be allowed in such waters, N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)(4) (emphasis added). The policy further provides that with respect to waters in the pinelands, DEP shall not approve any activity which alone or in combination with any other activities, might cause changes, other than toward natural water quality, in the existing water quality characteristics. N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)(6)(ii). As the Court explains, appellants argue that the exemption for water control found in N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)(6)(ii)(1) does not relieve DEP of its obligation to subject GP23 to antidegradation review. Water control, as they construe the term, encompasses the flow and volume of water and not its content. They, therefore, contend that GP23 applicants must comply with the stringent water quality standards applicable to pinelands waters as long as compliance does not interfere with the management of the quantity of water and the direction of its flow essential to cranberry bog operations. Conversely, under DEP s reading of the exemption for water control, the agency can issue GP23 authorization and allow the expansion of cranberry bogs without having to assess the impact of that expansion on the quality of pinelands waters. Because appellants interpretation requires DEP to monitor the effects of GP23 on water quality, thereby ensuring that the waters in the pinelands are protected from change, I believe it is more consistent with the goals of our antidegradation policy. Notwithstanding my preference for appellants reading of the regulation, I recognize that [o]ur task is not to decide which among several competing interpretations best serves the regulatory purpose. Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, 512 U.S. 504, 512, 114 S. Ct. 2381, 2386, 129 L. Ed. 2d 405, 415 (1994). I therefore reluctantly concur in the Court s opinion. If DEP has erred, as I believe it has, it is the Legislature that must take corrective action. IN THE MATTER OF FRESHWATER WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT RULES, STATEWIDE GENERAL PERMIT, CRANBERRY EXPANSION, PROMULGATED BY NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. DECIDED July 20, 2004 Chief Justice Poritz PRESIDING OPINION BY Chief Justice Poritz CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINIONS BY DISSENTING OPINION BY (1) The removal, excavation, disturbance or dredging of soil, sand, gravel, or aggregate material of any kind; (2) The drainage or disturbance of the water level or water table; (3) The dumping, discharging or filling with any materials; (4) The driving of pilings; (5) The placing of obstructions; (6) The destruction of plant life which would alter the character of a freshwater wetland, including the cutting of trees[.] For the purposes of [GP23], State open waters and wetland types are ranked in the order that they shall be considered for use for the expansion of a cranberry growing operation, as follows: 1. State open waters; 2. Abandoned blueberry fields; 3. Abandoned cranberry bogs; 4. Abandoned agricultural fields; 5. Freshwater wetlands dominated by emergent vegetation; 6. Freshwater wetlands dominated by scrub/scrub vegetation; 7. Forested freshwater wetlands that are not Atlantic white-cedar wetlands; and 8. Atlantic white-cedar wetlands.