Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0243
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2008-11-28T05:00Z

NEW JERSEY’S STORMWATER REGULATIONS

HELP COMMUNITIES AND PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT

The Problem

New Jersey, the most densely populated States in the nation, is
experiencing growing pains.  People are moving from settled areas into
the countryside.  The price that we are paying for this sprawling
development is that our streams are being degraded, water supplies
diminished, and communities flooded.  Existing regulations and
prevailing land use development practices have proven to be ineffective
in controlling development’s contribution to these growing problems
and this downward spiral.    

The Proof

Under a federally mandated clean-up program, sixty-five percent of New
Jersey's assessed waterways fail to meet water quality standards. Failed
water quality in our waterways destroys streams and pollutes surface
drinking water supplies.

The impervious surface that accompanies development increases the volume
of runoff, which conventional detention basins are not designed to
address. One study estimates that a flood event expected once every 100
years could occur every 5 years when impervious cover reaches 65%. The 2
to 5-year storms cause a lot of flood damage and channel erosion, and
contribute significant levels of nonpoint source pollution.

Because the peak flows from tributaries and detention systems merge
causing an increase in instream volume over a longer period of time, the
conventional detention basin approach exacerbates downstream flooding.  

One recent study demonstrated that a typical suburban-density
development with the typical 23% impervious cover would deprive
groundwater aquifers of over 40 million gallons of recharge per square
mile annually.

A stream gone dry due to diminished base flow from groundwater aquifer

New Jersey has lost an estimated 40% of its wetlands and continues to
lose more each year.  Impervious cover over 10% harms wetlands and loss
of wetlands increases soil erosion, damages water quality and allows
increased sedimentation and polluted runoff into streams.

Economically, the costs increasing stormwater runoff are heavy.  Despite
over $25 billion being spent by the Army Corps since the early 1970’s,
annual flood losses average more than $4 billion per year, triple what
they were in 1951. In 1997, after heavy rainfalls, Atlantic and Monmouth
Counties had to open Red Cross shelters to aid over 4600 victims; in
1999, Hurricane Floyd damaged 12, 700 New Jersey homes costing more than
$26 million in Disaster Housing Assistance grants and $7.5 million to
repair public buildings and community infrastructure in the state.  In
year 2000, four dams failed in Northern New Jersey; the extensive
flooding that occurred prompted President Clinton to declare some New
Jersey communities, disaster areas.  

The cost of traditional stormwater controls has risen for the developer
from about 25% of construction costs to 32%, raising the cost of
development and the price of housing.

New Jersey’s Stormwater Regulations 

NJ Department of Environmental Protection adopted revised stormwater
regulations in February 2004.  These new rules require use of preventive
and mitigative stormwater solutions when land is developed.  The rules
focus on reducing the volume of stormwater runoff, ensuring needed
groundwater recharge, and putting in place stormwater runoff water
quality standards.  This approach replaces the old, ineffective
detention basin stormwater systems that were previously used to control
stormwater from development.  By using these new strategies, the new
regulations will reduce flood damages, drought conditions, erosion, and
pollution of our waterways and drinking water supplies at the source. 
The regulations don’t stop growth but they reduce its harmful impacts.

How do they work and how do they help?

The regulations encourage conservation of existing natural features on a
development site to prevent runoff.  Effective use of conservation
design reduces the total volume of stormwater runoff, mitigates peak
rate impacts by increasing time of concentration, and effectively
minimizes a host of water quality, water temperature, and other vital
water resource impacts.  Natural features such as headwaters, wetlands,
floodplains, living ecosystems and their habitats are protected
providing multiple environmental benefits. 

The regulations minimize impervious surfaces and protect natural
drainage features such as permeable soils and vegetation.  Avoiding soil
compaction on a site allows undisturbed soils to infiltrate rainfall and
remove pollutants.  Preserving native vegetation maximizes the
efficiency of a site to capture, store, and percolate which in turn
reduces volume and velocity of runoff.  “A mature forest can absorb as
much as 14 times more water than an equivalent area of grass” and a
neighborhood with 40% tree cover can reduce stormwater runoff volume by
60% more than a neighborhood without trees.  Soil erosion is also
prevented – existing soils and vegetation can reduce sediment
pollution by 90%.  And natural vegetation removes and processes nonpoint
source pollution such as nutrients and heavy metals. 

The regulations protect public safety and reduce flood damages by
reducing the volume of runoff from a development site.  Infiltration
best management practices (BMPs) that retain the runoff from a 2-inch
storm (1 yr. storm event=2.5 in. rainfall in 24 hrs.) can reduce the
annual storm runoff volume by 95%.  

The regulations insure recharge of aquifers, encouraging infiltration
through protective site design and best management practices.  It is
required that 100% of the water that recharged the aquifer on a site
before development continues to recharge after development or that the
stormwater measures employed prevent an increase in the amount of runoff
washed from the site after development in the small, i.e. 2-year storm. 
Retaining the smaller, more frequent storms (95% of all rainfall in the
region is delivered in storms smaller than the 2-yr. storm) restores the
bulk of the rainfall to the natural hydrologic cycle.  Through
infiltration, groundwater is recharged, streams maintain healthy base
flows, and water is evaporated and transpirated, primarily through
vegetation.

The regulations prevent or minimize the sources and use of pollutants on
a site in order to protect water quality from nonpoint source pollution.
 The rules require a reduction in the amount of total suspended solids
by 80% of the load anticipated from the new development and reduce
nutrients to the maximum extent feasible from the new development.  How
is this done?   BMPs and conservation design principles are employed to
accomplish these water quality goals.  For instance, preserving a
forested riparian buffer along a stream on a development site can
eliminate 80% of phosphorus and will allow about 80% of nitrogen and
pesticides to be biodegraded.  And incorporating open space into a
development design can reduce stormwater runoff volume by 20% to 60%.,
as well as significantly reducing nonpoint source pollutants.

The regulations protect environmentally sensitive areas.  Habitats for
threatened and endangered species, FW 1 and Category 1 (C1) Waters are
given extra protection.  A 300 foot buffer of natural vegetation,
required for C1 waters, is necessary to insure that the exceptional
water quality of these streams are not degraded and also protects
wildlife and the living ecological community of the buffer and
floodplain. 

The regulations provide social and community benefits through the
protection of water resources, reduction of flooding and drainage
damages, preserving environmental quality, preservation of open space
and biological diversity.  And economic values are also served.  For
instance, riparian buffers enhance property market values – e.g.
Pennypack Park, Philadelphia has been shown to increase by 38% the value
of nearby properties.  Preserving and improving water quality and the
replenishment of surface waters allows for less expensive treatment of
downstream drinking water to achieve safe standards.  Also, insuring the
recharge and protection of aquifers safeguards the groundwater that is
the sole source of water for well owners.  And a healthier environment
and an aesthetically pleasing landscape enhance the quality of life of
New Jersey’s residents. 

The new regulatory approach benefits the economy.  Developers benefit by
avoiding disturbance of a site – minimizing clearing during the
construction phase can reduce earth movement and erosion and sediment
control costs by up to $5000/acre.  In a survey conducted by the
National Association of Home Builders, 43% of homebuyers paid a premium
of up to $3,000, 30% paid premiums of $3,000 to $5,000, and 27% paid
premiums of over $5,000 for homes with trees.  "Two regional economic
surveys documented that conserving forests on residential and commercial
sites enhanced property values by an average of 6 to 15% and increased
the rate at which units were sold or leased."  "It has been
conservatively estimated that over $1.5 billion per year is generated in
tax revenue for communities in the U.S. due to the value of
privately-owned trees on residential property."  And research has found
that people are willing to pay up to 15% more for homes with trees with
an estimated value of about $6,750 a tree.  Developments incorporating
open space have greater marketability – in Bucks County, the Fairview
subdivision (23% open space, 31% farmland) was the fastest selling
subdivision in its price range.

The stormwater rules are in effect now and municipalities are required
to enforce them through Residential Site Improvement Standards, which
have been revised to reflect the new stormwater regulations.  Therefore,
municipalities are responsible for implementing them locally today. 
However, there are other changes to local regulations needed to
accomplish full implementation for all development and to address
existing sources of nonpoint source pollution.  

The federal government recognized that nonpoint source pollution is the
primary cause of stream degradation across the Nation.  In an effort to
address this, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency required all
states to revise their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
program (NPDES) by 2005.  New Jersey adopted a rule change to its NJPDES
program in tandem with these new stormwater regulations, setting in
motion a schedule for compliance at the local and County level.  

Affected municipalities are to adopt a Municipal Stormwater Plan into
their Master Plan by April 2005; guidelines about how to do this have
been provided by NJDEP and most towns have complied.  By April 2006, the
municipality’s development regulations are to be amended to be
consistent with the Plan and the state rules and a Municipal Stormwater
Ordinance is to be adopted.  Communities can work with others in their
watershed to address regional issues and implement watershed-based
regional stormwater plans to cut across political boundaries in order to
protect shared resources and natural assets.

Finally, the rules encourage redevelopment of urban areas by including
special exceptions, which combats sprawl development and provides
compelling environmental benefits.  A Delaware Estuary Program study
found that concentrating growth in existing centers "resulted in a
savings of $28.8 million in local road costs, $9.1 million in annual
water treatment costs, $8.3 million in annual sewer treatment costs, as
well as an 8.4% reduction in overall housing costs and a 6.9% savings in
annual costs of local public sector services."  

Prepared by Delaware Riverkeeper Network 

300 Pond Street, Second floor 

Bristol, PA 19007 

Phone: 215-369-1188  

Visit us at www.delawareriverkeeper.org

 Widener Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic analysis, 1999;
EPA Office of Water, National Water Quality Inventory: 1998 Report to
Congress,   HYPERLINK http://www.epa.gov/305b/98report/nj.html 
www.epa.gov/305b/98report/nj.html 

 NRDC, Stormwater Strategies, 1999 on Hollis, G.E., “The Effect of
Urbanization on Floods of Different Recurrence Interval”, Water
Resources Research, vol.11, no.3, June 1975, p.434

 Pennsylvania Handbook of Best Management Practices for Developing
Areas, Prepared by CH2MHILL, Spring 1998, p. 6-2

 Bruce K. Ferguson, Stormwater Infiltration, CRC Press, 1994, p. 165

 Stormwater Management Systems, Porous Pavement System with Underground
Recharge Beds, Engineering Design Report, Cahill Associates, Spring,
1993

 NJDEP, Division of Science, Research, and Technology, “Creating
Indicators of Wetland Status (Quantity and Quality): Freshwater Wetland
Mitigation in New Jersey”, March 2002.

 Hicks, Anna L., “Impervious Surface Area and Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Response as an Index of Impact from Urbanization on
Freshwater Wetlands”, unpublished MS Thesis, Dept. of Forestry and
Wildlife Management, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 1995.

 Clean Water Network and NRDC,  "Wetlands for Clean Water, How Wetlands
Protect Rivers, Lakes and Coastal Waters from Pollution", April 1997

 National Wildlife Federation, Higher Ground, A Report on Voluntary
Property Buyouts in the Nation's Floodplains, July 1998

 "Flood Policy and Flood Management: A Post-Galloway Progress Report",
River Voices, Vol8, No. 2, Summer, 1997

 Brown and Schueler for Chesapeake Research Consortium, “The Economics
of Stormwater BMP’s in the Mid-Atlantic Region”, 1997

 DNREC and Brandywine Conservancy, Conservation Design for Stormwater
Management:  A Design Approach to Reduce Stormwater Impacts from Land
Development and Achieve Multiple Objectives Related to Land Use,
September, 1997, p. 4-24 - 4-25

 DNREC and Brandywine Conservancy, Conservation Design for Stormwater
Management:  A Design Approach to Reduce Stormwater Impacts from Land
Development and Achieve Multiple Objectives Related to Land Use,
September, 1997, p. 2-23

 Gary Moll, "America's Urban Forests:  Growing Concerns", American
Forests, Autumn 1997

 NRDC, Stormwater Strategies, 1999 on Hollis, G.E., “The Effect of
Urbanization on Floods of Different Recurrence Interval”, Water
Resources Research, vol.11, no.3, June 1975

 Bruce K. Ferguson, Stormwater Infiltration, CRC Press, 1994, p. 38;
DNREC and Brandywine Conservancy, Conservation Design for Stormwater
Management:  A Design Approach to Reduce Stormwater Impacts from Land
Development and Achieve Multiple Objectives Related to Land Use,
September, 1997, p. 3-6 & 3-7; Pennsylvania Handbook of Best Management
Practices for Developing Areas, Prepared by CH2MHILL, Spring 1998, p.
1-25

 Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, "Reducing the Impacts of
Urban Runoff: The Advantages of Alternative Site Design Approaches",
April, 1997, p. 27

 Bruce K. Ferguson, Stormwater Infiltration, CRC Press, 1994, p. 168.

 David Welsch, Forest Resources Management, USDA Forest Service,
“Riparian Forest Buffers: Function and Design for Protection and
Enhancement of Water Resources.

 Center for Watershed Protection, Better Site Design: A Handbook for
Changing Development Rules in Your Community, August, 1998,  p. 94;
DNREC and Brandywine Conservancy, Conservation Design for Stormwater
Management:  A Design Approach to Reduce Stormwater Impacts from Land
Development and Achieve Multiple Objectives Related to Land Use,
September, 1997, p. 3-21

 Center for Watershed Protection, Better Site Design: A Handbook for
Changing Development Rules in Your Community, August, 1998,  p. 95

 Todd, "Making Decisions About Riparian Buffer Width," International
Conference on Riparian Ecology and Management in Multi-Land Use
Watersheds, Conference Proceedings, American Water Resources
Association, August 28-31, 2000; Fischer, Martin and Fischenich,
"Improving Riparian Buffer Strips and Corridors for Water Quality and
Wildlife," International Conference on Riparian Ecology and Management
in Multi-Land Use Watersheds, Conference Proceedings, American Water
Resources Association, August 28-31, 2000

 Center for Watershed Protection, Better Site Design: A Handbook for
Changing Development Rules in Your Community, August, 1998, p. 134.

 Center for Watershed Protection, "Better Site Design: A Handbook for
Changing Development Rules in Your Community", August, 1998, p. 146
citing DE DNREC, 1997.

 Cheryl Kollin, "Designing with Nature and Showing the Benefits", Land
Development, National Association of Home Builders, Winter, 1997

 Center for Watershed Protection, Better Site Design: A Handbook for
Changing Development Rules in Your Community, August 1998 citing two
studies by Morales and Weyerhauser.

 Center for Watershed Protection, Better Site Design: A Handbook for
Changing Development Rules in Your Community, August, 1998 Citing USDA
and the National Arbor Day Foundation

  Editor, "Yes, It Does Grow on Trees", Garden Design, 2000.

 Center for Watershed Protection, Better Site Design: A Handbook for
Changing Development Rules in Your Community, August, 1998, p. 97

 Arnold and Gibbons, "Impervious Surface Coverage, the Emergence of a
Key Environmental Indicator", APA Journal, Spring 1996, p. 254, citing
Burchell, Dolphin and Moskowitz, 1995