The most pressing topic at the meeting was the DEP’s stop work order on a stormwater management project. The DEP rejected the proposed vortex units in the grant agreement, citing they did not meet the revised standards for pollutant removal. These units, previously accepted in multiple projects, now required a pollutant removal efficiency threshold adjustment from 80% to 50%. This change necessitated modifications to the devices, sparking concerns about the project’s cost, feasibility, and timeline. The commission noted that redesigning the project could incur an additional $500,000 beyond initial projections.

Further complicating matters, the DEP insisted on conducting new soil tests instead of relying on existing soil surveys that were previously accepted. They also requested revisions to the rain garden maintenance plan, which the commission agreed to undertake, although they deemed it unnecessary. The DEP set a completion deadline of July 31st, followed by a review period until October 31st. The commission expressed frustration with the DEP’s inflexibility, especially considering the initial proposal underwent a review process and was approved. The sudden requirement for alternative devices seemed counterproductive, with potential financial implications involving the forfeiture of $800,000 in federal funds.

The commission explored whether an appeal process was available, but the DEP maintained a strict stance on compliance with the new standards. Concerns were raised about the devices on the DEP’s approved list, which were reportedly more expensive to maintain and unsuitable for the existing site conditions, potentially requiring more complex configurations.

In addition to the stormwater project, the commission discussed the requirements for a manufacturer treatment device (MTD) in stormwater management rules. There was debate about the certification requirements, with one participant arguing that their situation did not apply to these rules as it was not related to new development. The conversation shifted to seeking further assistance, possibly involving higher authorities such as the commissioner or governor. It was also noted that an update to the MTD section in 2023 occurred after their grant application was approved, raising questions about grandfathering implications.

Addressing shoreline protection, a participant inquired if a letter to the DEP had received a response, which it had not. They planned to pursue a meeting in January, though there was frustration over the inability to engage with relevant stakeholders. Concerning the 319 grant, it was confirmed that it was not received and would be removed from the agenda.

Despite these challenges, the commission reported a successful cleanup event on October 25th, with approximately 160 participants removing over a ton of debris. A subsequent storm allowed for additional debris collection, bringing the total to 2,400 pounds. There was collaboration with New Jersey Natural Gas in these efforts. Members praised the volunteers and the event’s organization.

The commission also discussed a land purchase by JCP&L, raising concerns about environmental impacts, particularly tree removal for new power poles. A participant emphasized the need for JCP&L to replace any removed trees, citing a previous failure to fulfill such commitments. A letter addressing these concerns was planned ahead of a public meeting on December 16th.

An update on sewer line work in Ocean Township reassured residents that smoke observed from sewers was not alarming. A memo was shared about delays in dredging Fireman’s Pond due to issues with the dewatering process and equipment access, causing a temporary halt in progress.

The meeting concluded with a representative from the New Jersey watershed ambassador program introducing himself and outlining his role in fostering watershed stewardship through educational outreach and community partnerships. The commission expressed enthusiasm for his involvement, aligning with a cleanup scheduled for March.