TESTIMONY OF THE JERSEY SHORE PARTNERSHIP
REGARDING PUBLIC TRUST AND THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT RULES: PUBLIC ACCESS, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: N.J.A.C. 7:7E-8.11 AND 8A.

Dr. Richard T. Dewling, P.E., DEE
President, The Jersey Shore Partnership, Inc.
January 17, 2008
101 Hooper Ave., Toms River, NJ
Administration Bldg. Room 119


The Jersey Shore Partnership (JSP), which is an advocate for initiatives that are important to the Jersey Shore coastal communities, shares DEP’s goal of ensuring public access to public beaches. However, it is important to recognize that the primary purpose of shore protection projects is to protect life and property from coastal storms.

Given the critical public health and safety objectives of these projects, it is very important that any new regulations not impose unnecessary or burdensome requirements on local partners or private property owners. Such requirements may conflict with or impede shore protection projects which serve to provide for the safety of our citizens in a cost-effective and environmentally sensitive way.

In addition, as noted in the original proposal and proposed revisions, these beach nourishment projects are a collaborative undertaking among federal, state and local partners. The rule should reflect this collaborative approach and provide the flexibility necessary to support the development and implementation of public access plans that incorporate the actual beach access needs of municipalities, and the physical and financial limitations of diverse shore communities. This approach will ensure enhanced public access, maximize the economic benefits generated by both tourism and local economies, and protect the legitimate interests of town residents.

While these comments may be relevant to other sections of the rulemaking, the JSP has focused on the sections related to beach nourishment projects and Shore Protection Program Funding. The JSP supports the changes in the proposed amendments, as well as the new and amended rules, that recognize that shore projects are implemented in phases over time, and limit requirements to the project area. However, we do not think the changes go far enough to address municipal concerns and provide support (rather then impediments) for critical shore protection projects. We request the following additional changes:

• Legal disputes over specific regulations should not impede critical shore protection projects.

 Provide for specific guidelines, economic and technical assistance for towns to develop public access plans, while respecting the community character.

 Where feasible, encourage and provide support for multi-town and regional access plans to avoid unnecessary duplication, assure integrated planning and the efficient expenditure of limited public funds.

 Where there are state, federal or other public beaches and facilities nearby assure that a state plan, administrative order and public access plan are in place, and coordinated with potentially affected communities before requiring a local access plan.

 The State should adopt plans to expand public access along its own roadways throughout the coastal region and provide resources to the communities to administer that access.

 With regard to perpendicular access, revise the language to establish a ¼ mile (on average) standard as a planning goal, and require that in no case shall perpendicular access exceed ½ mile as required by the Corps of Engineers. The locality would need to provide an explanation and justification in its public access plan of why it could not meet the ¼ mile goal, what alternatives were considered, and why such more frequent access is not necessary to support the beach capacity.

 Add another exception which provides that the distance between public access ways may exceed ¼ mile where it is necessary to protect natural features or community character, and it can be demonstrated that there is adequate access to accommodate public demand and beach capacity.

 Identification and repeal of “any ordinance that limits access …in conflict with the Public Trust Doctrine” should be made an element of the public access plan, and not a separate requirement.

 The exception to access for jetties and groins should be amended to include “or other projects where it is demonstrated that there is a significant [rather than extraordinary] risk of injury.”

 Require construction of additional access, rest rooms and parking only to the extent of available funds (5 percent of the project cost plus local match) unless additional funds can be identified to allow for timely project implementation.

 Provide assurance that public restroom facilities required by the amendments meet the regulations for Public Bathing places as prescribed in NJAC 8:26-1.1 et seq. It is obvious that the use of portable toilets as prescribed in the NJDEP rules, which indicate that “Alternatively, portable toilets can be used at an estimated cost of $600 to $800 per season per portable toilet,” would not meet the NJDOH standard. Moreover, if something less than these standards are considered, the NJDOH should establish the requirements to ensure consistency among all of the county and town Health Departments that will be involved to make sure that such alternative facilities meet public health requirements.

 Provide that nothing in this rule shall be construed to require the municipality to use condemnation or eminent domain to acquire property to provide parking.

 The State should commit to expand investment to acquire public properties for public access and open space along the coast and tidal waterways. For example, private beach acquisition should receive top priority for the next 5-10 years.

 I thank you for the opportunity to present our comments today.

Submitted by:
The Jersey Shore Partnership, Inc.
One River Centre, Bldg. #3
331 Newman Springs Rd., Red Bank, NJ
732-212-4145