Letter below was submitted to the Bernards Township Committee on 10-29-17.
To: Mayor and Members of Bernards Township Committee
Subject: Quarry Redevelopment: Lake Water Quality and Development Intensity
You held an excellent meeting this past Tuesday, October 24. Announcement of the draft “ordinance” frightened many people over the weekend into thinking you were planning to pass something quickly. This got their attention and produced a large turnout. You assured them that this was not your intent, and things settled down. You heard many rational and important comments, presented in a civil manner.
One important issue was only touched on, and I will elaborate on that below.
MOA Contaminants: The PB received lots of data on soil and well water sampling in the MOA area during the Rehab Plan 2011 hearings. Since that time discussions of future lake water quality have focused on the long term risks of leaching of harmful substances from the MOA soils to the lake and their impacts. I talked about this many times and three former members of the PB raised this issue at your meeting.
The last data that I have seen is from 2012 and the indications from it were equivocal. However, as I write here my premise is that the harmful substances in the MOA area will not adversely affect long term lake water quality and make it unsuitable for human uses–fishing, swimming, and non-motorized boating. This premise must, of course, be confirmed by actual tests of future lake water to assure that it is in fact suitable for these uses before they are authorized.
Development Intensity, 2004 Concept Plan: During the Rehab Plan 2003 hearings we addressed the potential water quality problems in a body of water, that is essentially a closed system. At minimum, aerators will be required to mix oxygen with the water and prevent algae growth.
All non-volatile substances that enter the lake from the air, or via overland flow, or via seepage will tend to remain there. So it will be essential to minimize the entrance of harmful substances like pesticides, goose droppings, and residual automotive products.
These hearings prompted the proposal to have a long term lake management plan.
In the concept plan for the property entitled Quarry Park and Lakeview Village, that I designed in 2004, I put the main road with curbs and storm sewer near the south edge of the lake, and raised it a little so that it would be a barrier to overland flow from the townhouses proposed higher up on the south slope. There would be no overland flow directly to the lake from the developed area.
I put a row of shrubs along the south edge of the lake to serve as a goose barrier.
Using the concept site plan that Kevin Page submitted in the rehab package, I estimated that regular 2-acre zoning regulations would yield 34 to 35 single family houses. In 2004 a trade of the development right for one single family house for two development rights for townhouses seemed reasonable. So I proposed four rows of 17 townhouses like those in Amherst Mews in The Hills, a total of 68. I proposed shrubbery and ground cover that would require little maintenance.
My gut in 2004 said that this plan would probably work, but I am not a lake expert and could not guarantee this.
Development Intensity, 2017 Quarry Redevelopment Concept Plan: The plan presented and discussed on Tuesday proposed very dense development and much of it was very close to the lake edge. It would be impossible to prevent direct overland flow from this development to the lake, and the amount of potentially harmful material that would enter the lake would probably be very large.
Apart from a requirement for a lake management plan, I find no mention in the 63-page plan document of the impacts on water quality of this dense development. A lake management plan is not enough. We need to assess the risks to water quality from the proposed development. Then reduce them to an acceptable level by scaling back the development and or by removing the contaminants with a water treatment plant operating on a continuous basis. This must be worked out before an ordinance is written and adopted.
It’s easy to make quick estimates of traffic by using standard factors for average trips per day or by hour for different categories of development. Examples: Trips during commuter hour from a single family home, and same for 1000 feet of office space. There may be similar factors for pollutants generated by different categories of development, but I’m not sure.
What I am sure of is the need for a water quality professional to review this proposal. I recommend that you hire Steve Souza and his Princeton Hydro firm. He has expertise in restoration and management of fresh water streams and lakes. He was the consultant for the PB during most of the quarry rehab hearings, and in my opinion he was very helpful.
I urge you to get Steve involved immediately. Thank you for considering this proposal.
Bill Allen, 10-29-17