DRAFTREPORT ON PROPOSED MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN

STAFFORD TOWNSHIP, OCEAN COUNTY AND THE PINELANDS COMMISSIONREGARDING LANDFILL CLOSURE AND BUSINESS PARK REDEVELOPMENT

June 28, 2006

I. THE PROPOSAL

A. Background

Stafford Township proposes to close its 55 acre licensed landfill and three areas containing debris(old landfill) totaling 25 acres through a redevelopment agreement with a developer, WaltersHomes, Inc. The agreement provides that the developer will properly close the licensed landfill andremediate the old landfill at its expense in return for the opportunity to redevelop the Township’sbusiness park (also located on the site) as a mixed use, residential, office and commercialdevelopment.

Several Ocean County facilities located in the business park and within the footprint of the oldlandfill will need to be demolished in order to close the landfill. Ocean County proposes to rebuildthese facilities in the north-westerly portion of the site.

1. Existing Site Conditions. The landfills and the business park are situated on an approximate 363acre site in Stafford Township located just south of Route 72, adjacent to the Garden State Parkway.The site is located within a Pinelands Regional Growth Area, bordered by the Stafford ForgeWildlife Management Area on its southerly and westerly sides.

The site contains the 55 acre licensed landfill which the Township operated until 1983. The threeareas where solid waste was deposited (old landfill) are generally located within the partiallydeveloped business park and are assumed to have been informal waste disposal sites dating back tothe 1950's. No waste has been discarded in these three areas since the 1970's.

The site also contains the Township’s business park, which the Commission approved fordevelopment in 1990. As a result of 5 subsequent public development approvals for additionalresubdivision of the business park, the business park currently consists of approximately 67 lots, 12of which have been developed to date. The facilities presently located within the business parkinclude the State of New Jersey motor vehicle inspection station, the Stafford Townshipmaintenance garage, Stafford Township’s 1,000,000 gallon elevated potable water tank, the OceanCounty animal shelter, the Ocean County garage, the Ocean County recycling center and leaf

2

1 8 acres of the old landfill are subsumed within the 34 developed acres of the businesspark.

2 During an intensive 2006 survey program, which is still underway, 24 Pine Snakes havebeen confirmed.

3 Two Pine Snakes emerged from this den in this past Spring.

4 No Pine Snakes emerged from this den this Spring.

compost site, the Ocean County social services building, the Township recycling drop off center, anOcean County Resource Center (an office building), and a communications tower.

2. Existing Land Cover. Approximately 184 acres (51%) of the 363 acre site are disturbed. Thisincludes the 55 acre licensed landfill, 34 acres of developed land associated with the business park,17 acres of the old landfill located outside the developed area,1 and 78 acres within previouslymined/excavated areas. The landfill and surrounding excavated areas are used extensively (andillegally) by all terrain vehicles. About 179 acres of the site (49%) are forested.

3. Wetlands. A significant wetlands system, the Mill Creek, is located to the north of the sitebetween it and Route 72, but less than one half of an acre of that wetland system extends onto thissite. In addition, two small, isolated wetlands (1.1 and 1.7 acres) are surrounded by roads and rampsleading to the Garden State Parkway.

4. Plant and Animal Habitat. Surveys of the property have confirmed the presence of two speciesof plants (Knieskern’s Beaked Rush and Little Ladies Tresses) and two species of animals(Northern Pine Snake and Southern Gray Treefrog) that are considered threatened or endangered inthe Pinelands. As such, they are afforded special protection. In addition, the Pine Barrens Treefrog,another protected animal specie, may inhabit wetlands proximate to the site along the Mill Creek.

The local populations of both protected plant species are located within the footprints of thelandfills.

One or more local populations of the Southern Gray Treefrog are centered around two existingstormwater basins on the site, one of which is a lined stormwater pond that overlies part of the oldlandfill.

Northern Pine Snakes inhabit the site as evidenced by the fact that twelve individuals were capturedduring a 2004 on-site survey.2 Based upon observations of a gravid female snake, at least one nest islikely located within the south-westerly portion of the licensed landfill. Pine Snake winter denswere identified, one of which (known as the eastern den) is located in partially buried debris withinone of the small, isolated pockets of waste.3 One other den (known as the western den) is located onan eroding slope adjacent to the licensed landfill.4 Survey results suggest that extensive foraginghabitat is also located on the site. Since Pine Snakes have been extensively documented within theStafford Forge Wildlife Management Area which adjoins this site on its southerly and westerly

3

5 The 1994 approval superceded a less comprehensive 1988 closure plan.

6 The construction of a new $750,000 Animal Shelter for the County not related to thelandfill closure.

7 Because of void space in the soils, the volume of natural soil material decreases when itis compacted.

8 To obtain soil needed for landfill closure, approximately 104 acres of the site will beexcavated, about 68 acres of which is currently forested.

borders, it is unknown whether the individuals discovered on this site are a distinct population orare part of a larger population.

B. Landfill Closure Proposal

1. 1994 Proposal.5 In 1994, the Pinelands Commission approved a Stafford Township plan to capthe licensed 55 acre municipal landfill. Since the old landfills had not been fully studied at thattime, the plan only addressed the mining of buried debris under Hay and Recovery Roads and onone of the business park lots. Although approved, the closure plan was not implemented. TheTownship has now updated and revised its closure plans to fully address both the licensed and oldlandfills.

2. Old Landfill. Approximately 430,000 cubic yards of buried debris will be “mined” from the OldLandfill and relocated to the licensed landfill. It is estimated that mining will occur at varyingdepths, the maximum depth of which will be 28 feet. In order to mine the Old Landfill, portions ofHay and Recovery Roads and several existing facilities located within the landfill area will bedemolished. Most of these facilities will then be reconstructed near the existing communicationstower in the northerly portion of the site. The developer will contribute $2 million6 toward OceanCounty’s $20 million facility relocation plan.

Any hazardous material which is not suitable for relocation to the licensed landfill will be properlydisposed of in accordance with a specific plan that has been prepared for Department ofEnvironmental Protection and Pinelands Commission approval. The mined area will then bereclaimed with approximately 516,000 cubic yards7 of soil material obtained elsewhere on the site.

3. Licensed landfill. The 55 acre licensed landfill requires significant re-grading to assure properpost-closure drainage. Although the material mined from the old landfill will be used to helpproperly contour the landfill, approximately 493,000 cubic yards of natural soil material will still beneeded for daily and final landfill cover.8 This will be obtained elsewhere on the site.

As required by the CMP, an impermeable (geomembrane) cap will be installed to preventprecipitation from leaching through the landfill and releasing contaminants into the groundwater.The final cover system will include a vegetative cover to stabilize soils and provide open grassland

4

9 As part of the re-development proposal, up to 20 acres of the capped landfill will beused by Ocean County for leaf composting

habitat9. A substantial stormwater recharge facility will be constructed to handle stormwater runoff.In addition, a passive system will be constructed to collect and vent landfill gases. The system willallow for additional landfill gas emission control should that become necessary.

4. Timing. The landfill closure schedule must be coordinated with the County in order to assure thatthe closure work, once started, can proceed uninterrupted. Relocation of the Ocean Countyfacilities is estimated to take 12 to 15 months and must be completed before the existing facilitieslocated over the unlicenced landfills can be demolished. However, landfill mining and closure workcan begin in other areas concurrently. Closure should be completed within 12 to 18 months.

5. Post closure. Post closure requirements must be guaranteed. These include monitoring andmaintenance for a 30 year period and a financial guarantee assuring the long term effectiveness andintegrity of the closure plan. As part of these post closure guarantees, the Department ofEnvironmental Protection may require groundwater treatment if water quality monitoring results arenot satisfactory.

6. Estimated cost. The direct costs of the landfill closure plan are estimated to be $31 million.Adding engineering, facility relocation, financing and management expenses, the total costs mayapproach $45 to $60 million.

C. Redevelopment Proposal

1. 1990 Development Plan. Stafford Township proposed, and in 1990 the Pinelands Commissionapproved, a business park development plan. This plan, along with several other business parkdevelopment approvals, called for the creation of approximately 67 lots to be developed for avariety of business and industrial uses. Over the years, 12 of the lots have been developed, most ofwhich are located in the eastern part of the site, some within the footprint of or in close proximity tothe old landfill.

2. New Plan. The Township now proposes to abandon that business park development plan in favorof a mixed residential, commercial and office redevelopment plan approved under New Jersey’sredevelopment statutes. The elements of this plan are outlined below.

3. Housing. Up to 565 market rate housing units will be built, consisting of single family detacheddwellings and townhomes. The development of 30% of the market rate housing, or about 170 units,will require the sue of Pinelands Development Credits. In addition, up to 112 multi-family,affordable housing units will be constructed.

4. Community facilities. A swimming pool, clubhouse and passive recreation areas encompassing20 acres will be developed. A separate 70,000 square foot private ice rink is proposed on HayRoad.

5

10 An English intersection uses a two phase traffic signal (which allows simultaneous lefthand turns to and from a site) and additional traffic lanes approaching the intersection to increasethe intersection’s capacity.

11 The redeveloper initially proposed to finance a Department of EnvironmentalProtection plan to develop a 236 acre (900 to 1,500 foot wide) fire break adjacent to this site,within the Stafford Forge Wildlife Management Area. Since that plan has neither been officiallyproposed by the Department nor endorsed by the Pinelands Commission, the required fire breakwill be developed on-site.

5. Commercial space. A total of 650,000 square feet of commercial space will be constructed.This will consist of approximately 100,000 square feet of neighborhood-scale retail and office spacewith the balance devoted to major retail uses.

6. Office space. An additional 25,000 square feet of office space is proposed on Hay Road toreplace existing offices.

7. Transportation improvements. From Route 72, Recovery Road provides access to the site. Italso affords southbound access to the Garden State Parkway and east and westbound access fromthe Parkway to Route 72. Recovery Road and the Parkway entrance will be completelyreconstructed. To provide additional traffic capacity, the developer proposes to construct anEnglish intersection10 with dual signals on Route 72 and a signal on Recovery Road at the Parkwayramp.

8. Relocating existing facilities. In addition to the facilities which must be relocated to close thelandfills, several other facilities are to be relocated to facilitate the redevelopment project. TheCounty maintenance garage and animal shelter will be relocated to Hay Road where new facilitieswill be built. The Andwin office building which houses the County Social Services office will alsobe relocated to Hay Road. The Stafford Township elevated water storage tank will be replaced onsite near the licensed landfill. The concept plan also envisions relocating the motor vehicleinspection station to a site on Hay Road east of the new County facilities. The State of New Jerseyowns this 5 acre parcel and has not yet committed to this relocation.

9. Fire break. In order to satisfy Pinelands requirements for fire breaks around large developments,a 200 foot wide perimeter fire break will be maintained along the southern property line. Fire breaksto the east, north and west are satisfied by the Garden State Parkway, the Mill Creek wetlandssystem and the licensed landfill, respectively.11

10. Land Clearing. The redevelopment plan itself will involve the clearing of approximately 95acres of forested land. The balance of the redevelopment area is located within the existingdeveloped areas and the areas to be cleared as part of landfill closure.

11. Timing. Construction of the mixed use development could begin immediately after the landfillwork is completed. Sales of homes could begin in the third year of construction and may continuefor approximately 8 years. New office and commercial space will be constructed as market

6

conditions dictate but not before the Old Landfill is excavated.

D. Relationship of Proposal to the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan

1. CMP Consistency. As proposed, the landfill closure/redevelopment project is not consistentwith the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan. Specifically, it is inconsistent with thewetlands buffer standards of N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.14 (because the required transportationimprovements to the Garden State Parkway interchange will infringe on the buffers to two smalland isolated wetlands), the rare plant standards of N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.27 (because populations oftwo rare plants will be destroyed), and the rare animal habitat protection standard of N.J.A.C.7:50-6.33 (because critical habitat for two rare animal species will be destroyed). These impactsare more fully described in Section III of this report.

2. Intergovernmental Agreement. N.J.A.C. 7:50-4.52(c)2 authorizes “intergovernmentalmemoranda of agreement with any agency of the Federal, State or local government whichauthorize such agency to carry out specified development activities that may not be fullyconsistent” with the provisions of the CMP if the agreement includes “measures that will, at aminimum, afford an equivalent level of protection of the resources of the Pinelands.” It isthrough this vehicle that the Commission has the discretion to approve this landfill closure andredevelopment project.

II. COMMISSION STAFF AND COMMITTEE REVIEW

Stafford Township’s proposal was first brought to the Executive Director’s attention in June2004. Following a preliminary review, the Executive Director briefed then-Department ofEnvironmental Protection Commissioner Bradley Campbell in March 2005 and requested that hedesignate key Departmental representatives to cooperatively review the proposal with thePinelands Commission. Following a meeting between the Executive Director and then-AssistantCommissioners Watson and Seebode, a technical review team composed of DEP Endangeredand Non-Game Species Program and Division of Solid & Hazardous Waste representatives andPinelands Commission Planning, Science and Regulatory Programs staff was formed to reviewthe proposal. This technical group has met individually and collectively throughout the past yearto review a variety of landfill closure and threatened and endangered species issues.

On April 4, 2005, the Executive Director briefed the Commission’s Public and GovernmentPrograms Committee. Since then, the Committee has reviewed this proposal at seven meetings.As a result of the Committee’s review, the staff pursued several additional areas of inquiry. Mostnotably, detailed examinations of the proposal’s financial projections were conducted. Theseexaminations, conducted initially by Camden County Improvement Authority Finance DirectorJim Blanda and then by Dr. James Nicholas, an economist who has consulted for theCommission on other real estate and land development matters, were done to determine whether

7

12 In his April 11, 2006 memorandum, Dr. Nicholas projected a pre-tax return of 13.4%for the project, taking into account the costs of closing the landfills. This is less than the 15% orhigher return that Dr. Nicholas suggested would normally be expected for a project with thislevel of risk.

13 Although a great deal of public input was received at the Public and GovernmentPrograms Committee’s meetings, the formal public review process, which includes a publichearing, affords an opportunity for many interested parties to officially comment on the pros andcons of the proposal and for the Executive Director to formally evaluate those comments.

14 Although precise calculations of leachate from the landfills is not possible, the H2MGroup (under contract to the Department of Environmental Protection) estimated in 2003 that thelicensed and unlicensed landfills generate almost 5.5 million cubic feet (41 million gallons) ofleachate each year.

the redeveloper’s financial projections were reasonable.12 Dr. Nicholas’ examination alsoprovided a methodology that allowed the Commission’s staff economist to evaluate the financialimplications of a variety of alternative development concepts. Throughout the Committee’s andstaff’s preliminary review, six landfill closure options and eight different redevelopmentconfigurations were examined.

On January 3, 2006, the Executive Director submitted a memorandum to the Public andGovernment Programs Committee wherein he analyzed a number of questions and issuesregarding the proposal. A draft Memorandum of Agreement and a preliminary set of findingswas then prepared for the Committee’s review. The draft Memorandum of Agreement proposeda series of environmental measures which are further described in Section III.C. of this report.After three Committee meetings at which the draft Memorandum of Agreement was refined, theExecutive Director submitted the proposed Memorandum of Agreement for formal publicreview.13

III. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS

The following preliminary findings were based upon the available information and the ExecutiveDirector’s analysis conducted prior to the formal public review process.

A. Landfill Closure

1. The landfills are currently polluting ground and surface water.14 Historic water quality datadisclosed that groundwater pollution had occurred in the past and more recent data through 2005 forthe licensed landfill confirms that a number of constituents (arsenic, cadmium, iron, lead andsodium) continue to exceed groundwater quality standards and that others (ammonia, chlorine,chromium, chloroform, manganese, pH, silver, total dissolved solids and zinc) exceed naturallyoccurring background levels in the Pinelands. Recent test pits and wells also confirm similar

8

15 Although Southern Gray Treefrogs inhabit a second stormwater basin that will not bedestroyed, it is likely that they represent a separate population.

impacts (ammonia, aluminum, arsenic, calcium, chromium, iron, lead, manganese, sodium andbenzene) from the old landfill. The Mill Creek, located just to the north of the site, is being affectedby elevated levels of ammonia, fecal coliform, methylene chloride and alpha chlordane. Althoughdevelopment in and around the Ocean Acres area likely contributes to these elevated surface watercontaminant levels, there is little doubt that the landfill itself is exacerbating the problem.

2. Excavating the old landfills and closing the licensed landfill with an impermeable cap will,over time, significantly reduce leachate emanating from the landfills. This will have positivewater quality impacts. Positive water quality results are further ensured through post closureguarantees whereby the Department of Environmental Protection may require groundwatertreatment if water quality monitoring results are not satisfactory.

3. A small finger of the licensed landfill (approximately two acres) extends into the Mill Creekwetlands complex. If landfill contouring and grading in this area will further infringe on thewetland, the waste in this small area should be excavated and moved.

4. The work associated with landfill mining and closure will destroy local populations of twoprotected species of plants. This is contrary to the requirements of N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.27. If thelandfills are to be closed, there is no feasible way to avoid these impacts because these plantpopulations are located on the landfills themselves.

5. The excavation of the waste materials in the old landfill will destroy one stormwater basinlocated within the landfill’s footprint that supports Southern Gray Treefrogs, a protected animalspecie in the Pinelands. These Treefrogs likely represent a local population whose loss would notbe consistent with the habitat protection standards of N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.33.15 There is no feasibleway to avoid these impacts because this stormwater basin is located on top of the Old Landfill.

6. The landfill excavation and closure work will have an adverse impact on Northern Pine Snakehabitat, a protected animal in the Pinelands. These impacts are the result of (1) excavation of anarea of debris in which a Pine Snake winter den (known as the eastern den) has been verified, (2)the excavation of soil for landfill closure in an area in which a second winter den (known as thewestern den) has been confirmed and in which a nest is likely to exist and (3) the destruction offoraging habitat that extends throughout a significant portion of the site.

Although it may be argued that this does not violate the habitat protection standards of N.J.A.C.7:50-6.33 because there are thousands of acres of habitat surrounding this site and the PineSnakes inhabiting this site may be part of a much larger population known to exist in the area,there is no way to document the size and extent of that population. Absent that, it must beassumed that these Pine Snakes may constitute a separate population and that the destruction ofdenning, nesting and foraging habitat is contrary to the CMP’s habitat protection standards.

9

16 Because of public bidding and prevailing wage rate requirements, the Township reportsthat direct cost of landfill closure would increase from $31 to $45 million if it assumedresponsibility to contract for the work. The Township reports that its remaining debt capacitywas $43,847,334 and that this debt limit must satisfy all of its capital needs, not just landfillclosure.

7. There is a feasible way to avoid some of the impact on Pine Snake habitat. This can beaccomplished by spending an additional $14 million to import more than 1 million cubic yards ofsoil material needed for landfill closure, thereby avoiding the need to excavate approximately104 acres of land on the site, much of which represents foraging habitat. However, this will notavoid the destruction of the eastern den, which is located in the isolated debris pocket, nor is itlikely that the western den can be protected since it is located near the toe of a steep slope that iseroding and which may need to be graded for erosion control and safety purposes. If soil isimported for landfill closure, it must also be accompanied by a significant redesign of theredevelopment project (further discussed in Sections III.C.8. and 9.) to achieve any meaningfulhabitat benefits.

8. Stormwater runoff from the capped landfill can be managed in accordance with CMPstormwater management standards.

9. The direct cost of closing the landfills is estimated to be $31 million if undertaken by theredeveloper. This estimate does not include engineering, permitting, management,administration, facility relocation, road reconstruction and financing costs which could increasethe costs to $45 to $60 million. These estimates also do not include the $14 million cost ofimporting soil, as discussed above.

10. It is unlikely that the closure of the landfills can be accomplished within the foreseeablefuture unless it is financed through the redevelopment of the site. This finding is based upon thefollowing:

• the Township has made good faith efforts to close the landfills for more than 12 years butwas unable to find a workable plan until the responsibility for landfill closure was made acondition for redevelopment of the business park;

• if the Township were to pursue landfill closure on its own, the costs are likely to exceedStafford Township’s debt limit;16

• low interest loans through the State’s Environmental Infrastructure Trust would stillcount toward the Township’s debt limit;

• other potential state funding programs are based on tax revenues generated from a site’sredevelopment and are reimbursed after redevelopment is completed; and

• litigation seeking cost recovery from third parties who used the landfills is probably notfeasible because by law the litigation must be targeted to entities who dischargedhazardous waste. Moreover, such litigation is lengthy and costly, and recovery isspeculative at best, even in cases where responsible parties are identified.

10

B. Redevelopment

1. A mixed use development as proposed here is consistent with Pinelands land use policiesbecause the site is located within a Pinelands Regional Growth Area. Stafford Township will,however, need to obtain Pinelands Commission approval of its redevelopment plan and zoningordinance to expressly authorize this use and to meet Pinelands Development Credit zoningrequirements, which in this case will require the redemption of 170 rights.

2. The financial analyses conducted by Mr. Blanda and Dr. Nicholas suggest that theredeveloper has presented a somewhat optimistic assessment of the financial return from thislandfill closure and redevelopment project. Dr. Nicholas reported in his April 11, 2006memorandum that the net pre-tax return for low risk, proven projects is expected to be 8% andthat higher risk, unproven projects (such as this one) would be expected to return 15% or higher.Dr. Nicholas’ proforma on this project (which accepted the optimistic assumptions of theredeveloper) concluded that it would generate a pre-tax return of 13.4%.

3. Although one may argue that the redevelopment project affords other benefits, the singleenvironmental benefit is that it will finance the closure of the landfills.

4. Stormwater can be managed in accordance with CMP standards.

5. The proposed transportation improvements are designed to reduce congestion on arearoadways. As such, they should also meet the CMP’s requirements at N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.94 thatcarbon monoxide standards not be exceeded at places of maximum concentration and at sensitivereceptors. To ensure that final designs meet CMP standards, the staff should continue tocoordinate its review of the transportation and air quality plans with the Departments ofTransportation and Environmental Protection, respectively.

6. The transportation improvements involving access to and from the Garden State Parkway willhave an affect on two isolated pockets of wetlands. These wetland pockets are presentlyencircled by existing roadways but the proposed road improvements will place impervioussurfaces closer to the wetlands than is the case now. Although a detailed examination of thewetlands and the road alignments may conclude that the action is consistent with N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.14, it is more likely that the proposed work will be found to be inconsistent with those wetlandbuffer standards. Appropriate wetland buffers will be maintained for all other wetlands.

7. The redevelopment project will have an adverse affect on habitat for the Northern Pine Snake.Development of the site will foreclose the possibility of Pine Snakes re-populating the areasdisturbed during the landfill closure process. In addition, up to 95 acres of forested foraginghabitat, which will not be disturbed during landfill closure, will be lost.

One might argue that these impacts do not contravene the CMP’s habitat protection standardbecause the landfill closure work itself, not the redevelopment project, is destroying “critical”

11

17 The proforma discloses that such a project would generate a loss of $15.6 million. Thisdoes not reflect certain additional expenses that were unknown when the proforma wascompleted.

18 The proforma shows that such a project might yield a 6.8% gross return, beforeaccounting for a number of additional expenses that could not be factored into the financialanalysis. Dr. Nicholas has concluded that a high risk project such as this would likely need toyield a 15% or higher return to attract a developer and the support of lending institutions.

habitat. Whether or not one agrees with this premise, it is clear that the redevelopment projectwill adversely impact Pine Snake habitat.

8. A relatively modest redesign of the redevelopment project which reduces its footprint by 75acres would have a positive impact on Pine Snake habitat. However, such a scaled backredevelopment plan can not be implemented because financial analyses clearly demonstrate thatit would generate a loss.17

9. A very modest scaling back of the redevelopment project, which reduces its footprint by only22 acres can result in the protection of the westernmost Pine Snake den. Even this type of plan isvery unlikely to be pursued because the net return is so low.18

10. As with all development projects, there will be other environmental consequences which,while consistent with the CMP’s development standards, nonetheless represent a change incurrent conditions. For example, increased impervious coverage, traffic and landscaped areaswill increase non-point source pollution.

C. Environmental Measures

If the Commission were to authorize this proposal pursuant to the intergovernmental agreementprovisions of N.J.A.C. 7:50-4.52(c)2., it would need to find that the proposed variations fromthe standards of the CMP are “accompanied by measures that will, at a minimum, afford anequivalent level of protection of the resources of the Pinelands.” As a result of our preliminaryreview, the following measures were incorporated into the proposed Memorandum of Agreementthat was submitted for public review. It should be noted that these measures are over and aboveother recommended conditions of the proposed Memorandum of Agreement, including, forexample, the purchase of up to 170 Pinelands Development Credit rights.

1. Open Space. Stafford Township will purchase and protect 570 acres of land to supplement itsregular open space acquisition program. This represents three times the amount of forested landsto be disturbed by the project.

2. Green Building Design. Stafford Township will require its designated redeveloper toincorporate Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design features into both the residential

12

and commercial components of the redevelopment project. The purpose of these green buildingprinciples is to significantly reduce structural stormwater facilities, consumptive energy use,consumptive water use and non-point source pollution.

3. Route 72 Pollution. Stafford Township will require its designated redeveloper to design andimplement improved stormwater management measures to reduce the amount of non-pointsource pollution entering Mill Creek where Route 72 crosses the Creek. Since Route 72 is a statehighway, this will need to be coordinated with and approved by the New Jersey Department ofTransportation.

4. Landfill Re-use. Stafford Township shall limit the amount of acreage on the licensed landfill,once capped, that can be used for leaf composting to no more than 20 acres.

5. On-site Conservation. Stafford Township shall record a perpetual conservation easement topermanently protect opens space on the redeveloped Business Park site.

6. Species Management. Stafford Township will require its designated redeveloper to prepareand implement a species management plan to protect the four rare plant and animal species fromharm during construction, reestablish the rare plants and Pine Barrens Treefrogs on the site andto reestablish the Pine Snakes proximate to the site.

IV. PUBLIC HEARING

Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:50-4.52(c)3, a public hearing to receive testimony concerning theproposed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the New Jersey Pinelands Commissionand Stafford Township was duly advertised, noticed and held on May 22, 2006 at the OceanAcres Community Center, 489 Nautilus Drive, Manahawkin, New Jersey at 7:00 p.m. Approximately 150 people attended the hearing.

Commission staff present included John Stokes, Larry Liggett, Ken Carter, John Bunnell, StaceyRoth, Nadine Young, Paul Leakan and April Fijalkowski. Commissioners present included BettyWilson and Edward Lloyd.

At the outset of the public hearing, Executive Director Stokes introduced the Commission staff andCommissioners present at the hearing and indicated that the earliest time that the full Commissioncould consider this MOA would be at its June 9, 2006 meeting. However, it was conceivablethat the project might be reviewed at a subsequent meeting.

Stacey Roth provided a summary of the proposed MOA. She indicated that the Commission hadthe authority under the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) to enter intointergovernmental memoranda of agreement with any governmental agencies to authorizedevelopment that may not be consistent with the standards of the CMP, provided it wasdemonstrated that the proposed development would afford an equivalent or better level of

13

protection to the resources of the Pinelands. The MOA was intended to authorize StaffordTownship to proceed with the proposed closure of the landfill and remediation of the otherunlicenced landfills onsite. Additionally, the MOA would authorize the relocation of certainexisting Township, State and County facilities and allow redevelopment of the site pursuant tothe redevelopment plan adopted by Stafford Township. The MOA would also authorize amodified Pinelands application process, eliminating the requirement for individual developmentapplications to be submitted to the Commission. Using a map, Stacey Roth oriented the publicwith the location of the concerned 363 acre site. She indicated that on November 1, 2005, theTownship adopted a redevelopment plan for the Stafford Business Park site. Thatredevelopment plan called for the closure of the landfills, the relocation of State, Township andCounty facilities onsite, relocation of various roads and an existing office building, andresidential and commercial development onsite. Stacey Roth explained that Commission staffhad determined that the proposed development was consistent with most of the standards of theCMP, except threatened and endangered species protection standards and wetlands bufferstandards. She indicated that the proposed development would have irreversible adverse impactson the following threatened and endangered plant and animal species: Little Ladies Tresses(Spiranthes tuberosa), Knieskern’s Beaked Rush (Rhynchospora knieshernii), Southern GrayTreefrog (Hyla chrysocelis) and Northern Pine Snake (Pituophis m. melanoleucus). As part ofthe MOA, Stacey Roth indicated that Stafford Township was proposing a number of measures,which in its opinion, would afford at least an equivalent level of protection to the resources ofthe Pinelands. These measures included the purchase of 570 acres of land for conservationpurposes; deed restricting open space onsite; requiring the developer to incorporate low-impactsite and green building design measures, including Leadership in Energy and EnvironmentalDesign (LEED) certification of the commercial component; requiring the developer toinvestigate and implement improved stormwater management measures to the portion of Route72 that crosses Mill Creek and requiring the developer to submit a Species Management Plan toaddress the threatened and endangered species issues associated with the development. StaceyRoth indicated that proper closure of the landfill was required by law and necessary to protectthe surface and groundwater of the Pinelands.

Mayor Carl Block of Stafford Township provided a brief history of the landfill and the proposedproject. He indicated that the Township closed the landfill (stopped accepting waste) in 1983, asdirected by DEP. In October 1987, the Township submitted applications to the DEP and theCommission for the formal closure and capping of the landfill. In 1990, the Commissionapproved an application for the development of the Stafford Township Business Park. Between1991-1993, the Commission approved several individual applications for development in theBusiness Park. Mayor Block indicated that in 1994, DEP issued a major landfill disruptionpermit authorizing the Township to remove and consolidate buried debris within the BusinessPark to the existing landfill area. In 1994, the Commission also issued an amended approvalpermitting the Township to remove 25,000 cubic yards of buried debris under Hay Road andRecovery Road and 78,000 cubic yards of buried debris from Block 25, Lot 61 and disposed ofat the landfill site. In June 1999, the Commission issued an approval allowing the consolidationof buried debris and the construction of a temporary permeable cap, with the condition that animpermeable cap be installed once funding became available. In 2001, DEP notified the

14

Township that it must sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) by January 1, 2002 tocommit to the closure and capping of the landfill. In 2004, the Stafford Township Business ParkCommission designated Walters Group as the redeveloper of the Stafford Business Park. Theproposal included the assumption of all landfill closure costs by Walters Group. Mayor Blockindicated that the proposal before the Commission represented the best option to fund the closureof the landfill in accordance with DEP and Commission regulations.

Joe DelDuca, a representative of Walters Group, the Township’s designated redeveloper, gave apresentation regarding “green building” design. He indicated that Walters Group had alreadyinvested thousands of dollars and staff time designing the current proposal. Mr. DelDuca brieflyexplained some of the aspects of the LEED Program, including water conservation, water quality(stormwater) and energy saving measures that would be included in the project.

John Stokes conducted the hearing at which the following testimony was received:

Dr. Fred Seeber, Councilman for Stafford Township, indicated that he had served as liaison tothe Business Park Commission for 15-16 years. He indicated that the Business ParkCommission had reviewed various proposals through the years to develop the Business Park,however very few proposals included closure of the landfill. He expressed concern over theeffects of not closing the landfill properly and indicated that the current proposal was anexcellent opportunity for the Township to obtain the funding to close the landfill. He urged theCommission to approve the MOA.

John Spodofora, Councilman for Stafford Township, indicated that he also served as chairman ofthe Stafford Township Environmental Commission. He indicated that the EnvironmentalCommission had spent a lot of time reviewing the project and recognized the negative impacts tothreatened and endangered species. However, the Environmental Commission also recognizedthe negative impacts to groundwater that would result from not closing the landfill. He indicatedthat when the results of the Mill Creek testing that was done as part of the Manahawkin Lakeproject were compared with current groundwater testing results, it appeared that the amount ofpollutants leaching into the groundwater was increasing. Therefore, the EnvironmentalCommission supported the current proposal.

John Stokes questioned whether the Township could provide the results of the stream testing thatresulted from the Manahawkin Lake project. John Spodofora indicated that it was a Countyproject and that he would submit a copy of the results to the Commission for review.

Jean DiPaola, Councilwoman for Stafford Township, indicated that she formerly served asExecutive Director of the Southern Ocean County Chamber of Commerce and as Chair of theStafford Business Park Commission. She indicated that the businesspeople of Ocean Countyunderstood the relationship between a clean environment and its effects on tourism, one of theleading industries of the area. She indicated that she supported the capping of the landfill andbelieved the current proposal was the best means to fund the landfill closure. She urged theCommission to approve the MOA.

15

Sal Sorce, a Manahawkin resident, indicated that he was opposed to the proposal. He expressedconcern over the limited opportunities available for residents to comment and express theiropinions on the proposed project. He requested that the Township provide for a special ballot tovote on the proposed project.

Don DeCarrol, a Manahawkin resident, expressed concern over the adverse effect the landfillwas having on surface and groundwater. He indicated that he had reviewed the water testingresults from the H2M report and found that there were several contaminants of concern leachingfrom the landfill including arsenic, lead, benzene and methylene chloride. He indicated that inorder to protect the people of the area, the Commission should approve the MOA.

Marian Knowles, a Stafford resident, indicated that she agreed with the comments of the Mayor,Township Councilmen and the Walters Group and supported the proposal. She indicated that thecurrent proposal made smart environmental and business sense.

John Szymanski, a Stafford business owner and an Eagleswood resident, indicated that thebenefits of the proposal far outweighed the negative impacts on threatened and endangeredspecies. He indicated that he agreed with the Mayor’s statements regarding the length of timethe Township had spent on the problem. Mr. Szymanski commended the expertise of thedeveloper and indicated that the proposal was an excellent opportunity to resolve the landfillclosure problem.

Carleton Montgomery, Executive Director of the Pinelands Preservation Alliance (PPA),indicated that PPA opposed the project as proposed and asked the Commission to invite theTownship, County and DEP to participate in a fact-based investigation of the appropriate way toresolve the matter consistent with applicable environmental regulations, instead of entering intoan MOA. He indicated that the Township had falsely lead the public to believe that a choicebetween water quality protection or maintaining consistency with CMP regulations must bemade. Mr. Montgomery indicated that the proposal would set a precedent for the future,indicating that the DEP and Commission will waive their environmental rules to approve majordevelopments to finance impermeable caps on municipal landfills. He indicated that the currentproposal undermined the CMP and sacrificed important Pinelands resources. He questionedwhether an impermeable cap was necessary to close the landfill, indicating that no analysis hadbeen completed demonstrating that an impermeable cap was necessary to close the landfill andthat the installation of an impermeable cap would improve water quality. Mr. Montgomerysuggested that the Commission review whether a less expensive permeable cap could be used toclose the landfill, which would preserve natural habitat and avoid the necessity for a massivenew development. He indicated DEP recently approved the installation of a permeable cap toclose a landfill in Galloway Township, costing the Township less than $500,000. Mr.Montgomery indicated that review of the water quality data indicated that the landfill was at ornear the end of its leaching life and that the leachate did not exceed federal or state clean waterdrinking standards, except for Iron. He suggested that Commissioners focus on the currentgroundwater quality data, rather than past data, since the landfill changes over time. Heindicated that although the landfill was a temporary source of pollution to the groundwater, the

16

proposed new development would be a source of pollution forever. Mr. Montgomery indicatedthat the same chemicals found in the leachate from the landfill are also found in stormwaterrunoff. He indicated that the County owned one quarter of the old landfill and therefore waspartially responsible for landfill cleanup. He indicated that the proposal used the landfill closureas an excuse for major development. He indicated that there was no rational basis to concludethat the proposed landfill capping would resolve the groundwater contamination problem. Heindicated that the proposed MOA would change the Commission’s environmental policy bydoing two things the Commission had never permitted before: 1.) authorizing the relocation ofNorthern Pine Snakes and 2.) authorizing private development through an MOA.

Eric Stiles, Vice President of NJ Audubon Society, indicated that he was a former zoologist forthe Endangered and Non-game Species Program. He indicated that to date, 11 Northern pinesnakes had been captured onsite. This data indicated that there was a hyper-density of pinesnakes inhabiting the site. Mr. Stiles indicated that the landfill provided a unique habitat for thesnakes and therefore he opposed the proposal, due to its effects on Northern pine snake criticalhabitat. He indicated that the CMP required protection for threatened and endangered speciescritical habitat and that the MOA did not afford protection for threatened and endangeredspecies. Mr. Stiles indicated that he had reviewed the water quality data and that the current dataindicated that landfill was not causing surface or groundwater contamination. He suggested thatthe Township and the Commission consider using a less-expensive permeable to close thelandfill. He indicated that Dr. Larry Niles of the Endangered and Non-game Species Programindicated in a memorandum that he would not support relocation of Northern Pine Snakes. Heindicated that this memo would be submitted to the Commission. Mr. Stiles indicated that he didnot support the current proposal or the proposed MOA.

Dr. Emile DeVito, a representative of the NJ Conservation Foundation, indicated that he agreedwith the comments of the PPA and the NJ Audubon Society and opposed the proposal. Heindicated that he was on the Endangered and Non-game Species Advisory Committee which didnot support the relocation of pine snakes. He indicated that the relocation of pine snakes was ataking of habitat, a taking of species and constituted a violation of the NJ Endangered and Non-game Species Protection Act. Dr. DeVito indicated that the project needed to be scaled backsince the project, as proposed, would impact critical habitat for threatened and endangeredspecies and the quality of the Stafford Forge Wildlife Refuge. He expressed concern over theamount of excavation necessary to cap the landfill, indicating that such excavation could bemuch deeper and avoid critical habitat for threatened and endangered species, therefore noteffecting as much acreage as currently proposed. Dr. DeVito indicated that the current waterquality showed only minor contamination leaching from the landfill. He suggested that theCommission review the use of a less-expensive permeable cap to close the landfill, thereforeeliminating the necessity of the current scale of redevelopment to fund closure costs.

Dr. Walter Bien, indicated that he was a NJ property owner and snake biologist who had donesnake research in the Pinelands for years. He suggested, since snakes are density dependent, thatthe surrounding area also be studied to determine the quantity of snakes present and the impactsrelocation would have on them. He expressed opposition to the current proposal, indicating that

17

the experimental design of the proposal was flawed and that additional information must beacquired to adequately design such a proposal.

Marie Elena O’Connor, a 35 year resident of Stafford Township, indicated that she supported theproject and that many residents in Stafford Township had expressed support for the project toher.

Helen Henderson, a representative of Save Barnegat Bay, indicated that she agreed with thecomments of PPA, NJ Audubon Society and NJ Conservation Foundation and opposed theproject. She indicated that there were other less costly alternatives available to close the landfillthat would not require the proposed redevelopment to fund landfill closure. She indicated thatSave Barnegat Bay would be submitting written comments which would include a copy of theEnvironmental Security Technology Certification Program, which would detail the alternativecapping solutions available for landfill closure.

Bob Gajewski, a resident of Cedar Run, indicated that he formerly served on the Board of Healthand Industrial Commerce Commission and was familiar with the landfill. He indicated thatinitially he was opposed to the proposed project, but after reviewing the details, he indicated thathe thought the project would work. He indicated that people were more important thanthreatened and endangered species.

Margaret Meissner-Jackson, a representative of the Ocean County Sierra Club, expressedopposition to the proposal. She expressed concern about the accuracy of the economic reportpresented to the Commission by the redeveloper for the proposed project. Ms. Meissner-Jacksonindicated that she agreed with previous comments recommending that the Commission exploreless costly alternatives to close the landfill, including the use of a permeable cap.

Trevan Houser indicated that he owned Land Resource Solutions which specialized inBrownfield redevelopment, particularly landfills. He indicated that he supported theredevelopment of the site. However, he expressed concern about the misconceptions regardingthe appropriate closure methods for landfills and the impacts that landfills had on groundwater. He indicated that the most updated information indicated that closing landfills with animpermeable cap was not good waste management. Impermeable caps isolated waste and didnot treat the waste in any meaningful way. Mr. Houser cautioned the Commission on makingany decision without fully understanding the implications of such a decision on the resources theCommission was responsible for protecting. He expressed concern that no one had analyzedexactly what effects the proposed landfill closure and redevelopment would have ongroundwater. He indicated that capping the landfill may not improve the groundwater qualitybased on current data and research. Mr. Houser indicated that until the Commission had dataindicating the effects of the proposed closure of the landfill on the resources of the Pinelands, theCommission should not make a determination regarding such a proposal. He urged theCommission to explore less costly, scientifically based alternatives for landfill closure.

John Stokes asked Mr. Houser if a landfill was clearly polluting the groundwater, what the

18

alternative closure plan would be that addresses groundwater pollution without installing a liner. Mr. Houser indicated that groundwater treatment was the only way to abate groundwatercontamination. Capping a landfill would only contain the contamination and change thegeochemical conditions within the landfill and the equilibrium that it had reached with itsenvironment and may also result in detrimental impacts to the groundwater due to the change ingeochemistry.

Jeff Jaekel, a Stafford resident, expressed support for the proposed project. He indicated thataddressing the groundwater contamination resulting from the landfill outweighed threatened andendangered species issues.

Michael Murphy, a Stafford resident, indicated that the proposed project was an excellentopportunity to fund the closure of the landfill.

Lee Snyder, a resident of the Pinelands and a member of the Sierra Club, expressed opposition tothe proposed project. He indicated that the proposed project was not consistent with CMPstandards and urged the Commission to adhere to CMP standards.

John VanWaalwijk, a Manahawkin resident, indicated the proposed project was a greatopportunity for the Township to resolve the landfill issue.

Vince Caldarella expressed concern over the amount of time it had taken to find a means toresolve the landfill issue and indicated that the proposed project was a great way to obtain thefunding to close the landfill.

John Wright expressed concern over the credibility of Stafford Township officials and WaltersGroup representatives. He questioned why swimming was not banned in Mill Creek andManahawkin Lake if such leaching from the landfill was occurring. He indicated that he wasopposed to the current proposal.

Steven Rossi expressed support for the proposed project, indicating that it appeared there was noother option available to resolve the issue.

Paul Krier, an Ocean Acres resident, indicated that he was uncertain as to whether he supportedor opposed the project. He questioned the accuracy of the projected costs for the project,indicating that he had seen various different costs for the project. He indicated that he hoped theCommission used its expertise to make a logical decision. Mr. Krier also indicated that it washard to believe that the proposed redevelopment would have little to no environmental impacts.

Frank Kowalczyk, a Stafford resident, expressed support for the project. He indicated that thehealth of the citizens of Stafford was more important that the mortality of a few dozen snakes.

Esther Sodeikes, a 37 year Stafford resident, expressed support for the project.

19

Angela Ominski, President of the Southern Ocean County Chamber of Commerce, indicated thatthe Chamber of Commerce supported the project and that it was a sound economic andenvironmental project.

Wesley Bell, former Stafford government official, questioned the redeveloper’s experience andexpressed opposition to the proposed project.

Penny Miller, an 11 year Manahawkin resident, Chair of the Business Park Commission,President for State Business and Professional Women and a Sovereign Bank employee, indicatedthat the Commission had reviewed the proposal and determined that the current proposal madethe most economic sense.

William DeCamp, Jr., President of Save Barnegat Bay, expressed opposition to the proposalindicating that the proposal would set a precedent for many environmental issues in thePinelands, including the relocation of Northern pine snakes. He expressed concern that,although John Stokes attended a public information session held by several environmentalgroups regarding the proposal, he did not speak at the session. He questioned why the MOA didnot specify that the proposed dwelling units would be age-restricted. He indicated that theTownship officials were overwhelming the public with words and urged the Commission not toapprove the MOA.

Scott Dechen indicated that although he was concerned about threatened and endangeredspecies, he was also concerned about the effects of the unclosed landfill on the health of humansand expressed concern over the amount of time the landfill had been left improperly closed. Heexpressed support for the proposed project.

Patricia Jones, a resident of Ocean Acres, expressed opposition to the project and suggested thatthe residents of Stafford vote on the proposal. She expressed concern that although the proposedresidential dwellings were age-restricted, the 112 proposed apartments were not proposed to beage-restricted. She questioned whether the proposal would resolve the groundwater qualityissues, since the contaminants had already leached into the groundwater.

Keith Marcoon, a resident of Ocean Acres, expressed concern over the projected cost of theproject and questioned whether the project would be in taxpayers’ favor. It appeared that therewere additional alternatives that the developer and the Township could research and investigate. He indicated that once excavation of the unlicenced landfills commenced, the concerned materialmay extend deeper than predicted and increase the costs of cleanup.

Carol Lieber, a resident of Manahawkin and Vice President of Business and ProfessionalWomen of Southern Ocean County, indicated that she supported the project and commended thework of the Township and developer.

John Smith, a resident of Stafford, expressed opposition to the project and its potential effects onenvironmental resources.

20

Mike Sebexen, an Ocean Acres resident, expressed support for the project.

Glen Courter, a Stafford resident, expressed support for the project.

James Smith, a 25 year Stafford resident, questioned the validity of the data presented to theCommission by the Township and the developer and expressed opposition to the project.

Anne Marie Woods, a Stafford resident, indicated that she agreed with the comments of CarletonMontgomery, Dr. Emile DeVito, Eric Stiles and Dr. Walter Bien. She indicated that she wasneither for nor against the proposed Business Park but urged for moderation of the development. Ms. Woods questioned the consistency of the proposed project with CMP MOA regulations,questioning how an MOA could benefit a private developer when CMP regulations onlypermitted the Commission to enter into MOAs with public agencies. She also expressed concernover the relocation of threatened and endangered species and how this MOA could set aprecedent regarding threatened and endangered species relocation.

Jim Harrington, a Stafford resident, questioned whether Northern pine snakes were threatened orendangered, because it appeared that there was an overpopulation of them. Since these specieswere found in such disturbed conditions, it appeared that they were extremely adaptable andhearty. He questioned whether the leaching resulting from the landfill was a threat, sincenothing had been done within the past 20 years. He also expressed concern over the extremelylarge amount of money associated with the project.

Bill Brant, a Stafford resident, expressed support for the project He indicated that the DEP hadmandated the closure of the landfill and that regardless of whether the proposed redevelopmentoccurred, threatened and endangered species would be effected as a result of the landfill closure.

Joseph D’Adamo, a resident of Ocean Acres, expressed opposition to the project indicating thatthe threatened and endangered species were present prior to people. He also expressed concernover the increased development in the area.

Mayor Carl Block indicated that closing the landfill drove the project instead of the proposedredevelopment. He indicated that although there may be less-costly, new alternatives availablethan the proposed impermeable cap, the Township must close the landfill as required by DEP.

John McKinney, an attorney representing the Township, indicated that the project involvedcompeting environmental concerns – threatened and endangered species issues versus theclosure of the landfill in accordance with DEP regulations. He indicated that the proposedproject addressed both issues. Mr. McKinney explained the difficulty of the Township takingfinancial responsibility for landfill closure and entering into litigation to resolve liability issues. He urged the Commission to approve the MOA.

There being no further testimony, the hearing concluded at 11:00 p.m.

21

Written comments on the proposed MOA were accepted through Noon on May 24, 2006 andwere submitted by the following parties:

1) May 11, 2006 letter and video cassette tape from Sal Sorce, a Manahawkin resident,expressing concern over the elimination of public comments from the televisionbroadcast of Stafford Township Council Meetings and suggested that all Staffordresidents be included in the decision making process.

2) May 22, 2006 memorandum from Mayor Carl Block of Stafford Township detailing theinformation concerning the history of the project and expressing support for the projectas he presented at the May 22, 2006 public hearing.

3) May 21, 2006 facsimile from Chris and Geoff Schmidt, Manahawkin residents, urgingthe Commission to refrain from reducing or waiving CMP standards for the proposedproject.

4) Copy of a May 19, 2006 letter from Carleton Montgomery of the PPA to CommissionerLisa Jackson of the DEP asking the DEP to consider whether the proposed imperviouscover for the landfill was necessary and appropriate.

5) May 18, 2006 email from Eleanor George expressing opposition to the proposed projectand expressing concern for the increasing development in the area.

6) May 24, 2006 letter from John E. Walsh from Schoor Depalma responding to the issuesraised by PPA in its May 19, 2006 letter to DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson.

7) May 22, 2006 letter from Kathleen Lardiere, a Stafford resident, expressing concernabout the increased development in the area and its impact on the environment andexpressing opposition to the proposed project.

8) May 23, 2006 email from Juliet D’Adamo, a Stafford resident, expressing opposition tothe proposal.

9) May 23, 2006 email from Cathy Annunziata, a Stafford resident, indicating that theproposed residential development would have a negative effect on the environment andexpressing opposition to the project.

10) May 22, 2006 email from Richard and Sandra Bunger, Stafford residents, expressingopposition to the proposal due to the negative effects the proposed development wouldhave on the environment.

11) May 17, 2006 email from Anne and Bill Bungo, Stafford residents, indicating that theysee no other alternative than the Walters Group’s proposal to close the landfill.

22

12) May 16, 2006 email from Sue Smith, a Stafford resident, questioning the length of time ithad taken to address the landfill issue and expressing opposition to the proposal.

13) May 13, 2006 email from Frank McDonnell, a Stafford resident, indicating that theproposal was an excellent way to fund the landfill closure.

14) May 13, 2006 email from Jane McDonnell, a Stafford resident, indicating that thetaxpayers of the Township could not afford to close the landfill and expressing supportfor the proposal.

15) May 24, 2006 letter from Joseph DelDuca, a representative from Walters Group,responding to the issues raised by PPA in its May 19, 2006 letter to DEP CommissionerLisa Jackson.

16) Copy of a May 24, 2006 letter to Joseph DelDuca of the Walters Group from Mark A.Swyka of Cornerstone Environmental Group, LLC responding to the issues raised byPPA in its May 19, 2006 letter to DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson.

17) May 24, 2006 letter from John Sahradnik, an Ocean County official, addressing questionsraised during the May 22, 2006 public hearing in regards to the County’s obligation tocontribute to the costs associated with the closure of the landfill.

18) May 24, 2006 email from Jean Vogrin expressing opposition to the project andquestioning the effects the project would have on Hays Road.

19) May 25, 2006 letter from Trevan Houser of Land Resource Solutions, a company thatredevelops Brownfield properties, indicating that although he was not directly opposed tothe proposed redevelopment or the MOA, he was concerned about the misinformationsurrounding the project and indicated that the MOA contained inaccurate informationregarding landfill closure.

20) May 23, 2006 email from Lee Snyder containing a written copy of his testimony at theMay 22, 2006 public hearing.

21) May 23, 2006 email from Tom Annunziata expressing opposition to the proposal andexpressing concern about the pollution that would result from the proposedredevelopment.

22) May 23, 2006 letter from John McKinney, Jr., Counsel to Stafford Township, respondingto several comments made at the May 22, 2006 public hearing regarding the allocation ofremediation costs among multiple parties.

23) May 23, 2006 email from Sal Sorce, a Stafford resident, thanking the Commission for theopportunity to speak at the May 22, 2006 public hearing.

23

24) May 23, 2006 letter from Frederic Otten, a Surf City resident, suggesting that theCommission consider recommending that the site be incorporated in to the Ocean CountyPark System after closure of the landfill and requesting that the Commission carefullyconsider the long term effects of the proposal on the Pinelands.

25) May 23, 2006 letter from Vincent Caldarella, a Manahawkin resident, expressing supportfor the proposal.

26) May 19, 2006 letter from Joseph and Pamela Tomasella, Stafford residents, indicatingthat the landfill must be capped as soon as possible and expressing support for theproposal.

27) May 24, 2006 letter and supplemental information from Carleton Montgomery of thePPA detailing the reasoning for PPA’s opposition of the proposal, including the negativeprecedent that the proposal would set for environmental policy in the Pinelands, the lackof evidence indicating that the landfill was negatively effecting water quality, the impactsthe proposed development would have on threatened and endangered species habitats andthat the proposed MOA did not provide an equivalent level of protection to the resourcesof the Pinelands.

V. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S ANALYSIS OF THE COMMENTS

As is evident from the oral testimony offered at the hearing and the written comments we havereceived, people cited a variety of reasons for supporting or for opposing the proposedMemorandum of Agreement. Some of these (such as tax benefits/impacts; the amount, type andquality of development; traffic; and the Township’s decision-making process; etc.) are within thepurview of the Township and its governing body and, therefore, are not directly germane to thePinelands Comprehensive Management Plan and the Commission’s decision on the proposedMemorandum of Agreement.

However, a number of other points have been raised which do bear upon the Commission’sdecision in this matter. These generally relate to the financial aspects of the project, the landfillclosure plan, water quality, threatened and endangered species, the proposed environmentalmeasures included in the Memorandum of Agreement, the basis for the Memorandum ofAgreement, the precedents this type of Memorandum of Agreement may set, and onemiscellaneous matter. To more fully inform the Commission’s decision-making process, theExecutive Director has focused the following analysis on those points that raise key questionsabout the merits of the Township’s current proposal.

A. Project Finances

1. Comments. Several different concerns were expressed about the financial aspects of thelandfill closure and redevelopment project. Questions were raised about the reliability of thelandfill closure estimates. It was also suggested that Stafford Township has enough bonding

24

19 This equates to a direct cost of closing the licensed landfill of approximately $258,000per acre.

capacity to finance landfill closure and that Ocean County (and possibly the New Jersey MotorVehicle Commission) has a legal obligation to help pay for closure of the old landfill. Financialconcerns were expressed about the redevelopment proposal on two counts: that the PinelandsCommission is not responsible to ensure that the redeveloper realizes a profit; and that a smallerdevelopment configuration that protects at least one pine snake den might be possible from afinancial standpoint.

2. Background. The most recent estimate of direct costs to the developer for landfill closure is$31 million. This estimate is based upon bids submitted in mid-2005 and reflects $11.8 millionto excavate the old landfills, $14.2 million to close the licensed landfill19, $3.5 million for postclosure maintenance and monitoring and $1.5 million for post closure guarantees. If one adds tothat other related costs, such as engineering, project management, facilities relocation, roadreconstruction, and loan cost and interests, the cost could approach $60 million.

Regarding the project’s overall financial picture, Dr. Nicholas’ April 11, 2006 memorandumprojects a pre-tax return of 13.4%, which does not account for certain additional expenses thatwere unknown at the time the proforma was completed. As reported in Sections III.B.8. and 9.,analyses of scaled back development configurations ranged from negative returns to a high of6.8%.

3. Reliability of Closure Estimates. Various parties have cited estimates of $18 million to $70million and questioned their reliability. Although these questions are understandable, thisdisparity is due to the fact that some estimates were prepared many years ago and did notaccount for all of the expenses, including, for example, the cost of excavating the old landfills.As reported in Subsection A.2. above, the most recent and comprehensive estimate of $31million in direct closure costs was based upon actual bid information submitted approximatelyone year ago. Although this is a very reliable estimate, it is important to note that it is now a yearold and doesn’t reflect many of the “indirect” costs described in Subsection A.2, above.

4. Stafford Township’s Bonding Capacity. If Stafford Township were to implement the closureplan itself, the direct costs of landfill closure would increase to at least $45 million. This is dueto the public bidding process and the requirement that Stafford Township abide by prevailingwage rates. The State of New Jersey places ceilings on the amount of debt local governments cancarry at any point in time. In 2005, Stafford Township’s debt ceiling was $98,375,778, of whichcurrent debt totaled $54,528,444. The balance would be insufficient to finance direct landfillclosure costs. In 2006, the Township’s total debt ceiling increased to $120,804,696, leaving$63,775,196 to finance new debt. This would be sufficient to cover direct landfill closure costsbut would not be adequate to finance the remaining, indirect costs of landfill closure and otherTownship capital projects, such as roads, stormwater improvements, fire and emergencyequipment, open space purchases, etc.

25

20 In addition to “smaller” redevelopment plans, a plan with the same number ofresidential units but with a modified housing mix that included multi-family units was alsoinvestigated. The return was less than if the number of units is reduced without changing thehousing mix.

21 Dr. Nicholas advised that lenders evaluate risk and return when determining whether toprovide financing and that a return much below 15% be unlikely to attract a developer, let alonean institution to finance the project.

5. Other Responsible Parties. Although it has been suggested that Ocean County (and perhapsthe Motor Vehicle Commission) might bear some responsibility for paying for the cost of landfillclosure, Ocean County denies any liability (see written comment #17 appended to this report.)Moreover, the Department of Environmental Protection ordered the developer to include a smallportion of the Motor Vehicle Commission property in the closure plan.

Without a voluntary admission of liability on the part of others, the Township’s only recoursewould be to seek cost recovery through the courts, a process which by all accounts is risky,costly and lengthy. In the meantime, the Township would be obligated to pay for the landfillclosure, which, based on the analysis in A.4., above, it can not realistically handle.

6. Redeveloper’s Profit. It is true that the Pinelands Commission does not base it’s regulatorydecisions on the profits that a developer may or may not realize. In this case, however, theTownship argued that this redevelopment proposal was essential to pay for the landfills’ closure.To determine if the redevelopment project could be scaled back and still finance the landfills’closure, the Commission analyzed the proposal from a financial standpoint. The conclusion ofDr. James Nicholas, an independent financial expert whose services the Commission has utilizedin the past, was that the pre-tax return of this proposal, in its entirety, is likely to be 13.4%, arelatively modest return for a project with this degree of risk.

7. Alternative Redevelopment Plans. In addition to an analysis of different landfill closureoptions, the Commission staff investigated eight alternative development configurations thatwould reduce the amount of Pine Snake habitat lost as a result of the proposal. Each of theseoptions sought to preserve certain areas of the site by reducing the development “footprint”andinvolved a financial analysis to assess how a smaller redevelopment plan20 would affect thefinancial viability of the overall project.

All but one of the smaller redevelopment configurations resulted in a negative return. Asreported in Section III.B.9. of this report, a conceptual plan that would protect the westerly den(closest to the landfill to be capped) and 22 acres of surrounding land that would connect it to theStafford Forge Wildlife Management Area was estimated to net a pre-tax return of 6.8%, nottaking into account several added expenses. This return is significantly less21 than what wouldlikely be required for a project such as this.

26

22 For example, the mistakes include inappropriate assumptions that consider some of themanagement fees and sales expenses as profit, incorrect (and lower) costs for the purchase ofPinelands Development Credits and reporting in the table on page 4 of the memorandum that a19.1% return on cost would be realized for the project as currently proposed when the attachedwork sheets (using the author’s incorrect assumptions) report the return to be 15.8%. Althoughno supporting documentation was provided for Cases 2 and 3 in that table, it is inconceivablethat the estimated returns are accurate, particularly when considering that the return for Case 2(which reduces the number of residential units by 45) is projected to yield a higher return thanMr. Mates’ calculation for the project as currently proposed.

A March 29, 2006 memorandum from DEP staff member Bill Mates, which discusses theproject’s finances, was attached to written comment #27. It is unfortunate that the Commission’sstaff was neither previously aware of nor consulted about the DEP analysis because thememorandum contains errors and inappropriate assumptions which suggest a higher return thanthe other financial analyses.22 In spite of these mistakes, however, the first paragraph of thatmemorandum concludes that “the project cannot be downsized sufficiently to protect Den 1 (thewestern den) without jeopardizing the economics of the Stafford Township landfill closure.”Although the memorandum goes on to state that a conclusion on Den 2 (the eastern den) cannotbe reached with the information available, the author could have readily obtained thatinformation by contacting our office. Nonetheless, since the protection of Den 2, according tothe memorandum, involves more land than Den 1, a logical assumption would be that it toowould jeopardize the landfill closure.

B. Landfill Closure Plan

1. Comments. Some comments argue that there are alternative landfill closure approaches thatwill be less expensive (and perhaps more appropriate) than the current proposal. If true, a smallerredevelopment project could be designed which would allow for a larger percentage of the site tobe conserved, thereby protecting on-site pine snake habitat. The main points raised in these comments are that the use of impermeable caps are inappropriate for closing older landfills; thatsoil excavation can be concentrated so as to conserve more of the site; that less expensive,permeable landfill caps are being approved elsewhere; and that less expensiveevapotransipiration (ET) caps, also referred to as biocaps, should be considered. A concern wasalso expressed that excavation of the old landfill could disperse airborne asbestos.

2. Background. The landfill closure plan as currently proposed calls for the old landfill to beexcavated and that excavated material to be used to contour the licensed landfill. Animpermeable geomembrane will then be installed on top of the 55 acre licensed landfillApproximately 1 million cubic yards of soil will be excavated from the site to reclaim the oldlandfill and for daily and final cover for the licensed landfill.

3. Impermeable Caps. Pinelands Commission regulations require that landfills be capped withan impermeable material unless an alternative is available that addresses public health and

27

23 A minimum of 130,680 cubic yards of the amended soil is reported to be needed forthis 55 acre licensed landfill.

ecological risks and affords an equivalent level of protection. The Commission relies upon DEPregulations for technical design specifications. Those regulations require that impermeable capshave a permeability of 1x10-7 cm/sec. In this case, a 40mil LLDPE geomembrane which meetsthat requirement is proposed. The membrane will be underlain by gas venting/bedding soil andoverlain by a total of 24 inches of drainage soil, cover soil and topsoil.

In addition to the fact that DEP regulations require them, impermeable caps have been andcontinue to be widely used throughout the country for closing landfills. The water qualityimplications of impermeable caps are discussed in Section V.C.4. of this report.

4. Soil Excavation. The landfill closure plan proposes to utilize approximately 1 million cubicyards of soil material to reclaim the old landfill after the waste is excavated and to provide fordaily and final cover material for the licensed landfill. Although the importation of soil materialfrom off-site sources was investigated and found to be financially infeasible due to an estimated$14 million increase in costs, it is true that on-site soil mining could be concentrated in someareas of the site as a means to limit the total area of disturbance. This would necessitate deeperexcavation in those areas to be mined, rendering those areas generally unsuitable fordevelopment.

The purpose of a concentrated soil excavation program would be to leave larger areas of the siteundisturbed so as to better protect Pine Snake habitat. Whether or not such a program isworkable is a function of whether it could be accomplished without jeopardizing the viability ofthe redevelopment project which is financing the landfill closure. As discussed in SectionsIII.B.8. and 9. and Section V.A.7., above, reconfiguring the development footprint renders theproject infeasible.

5. Permeable Caps. It has also been suggested that a more “permeable” cap should beconsidered at this site so that the savings would allow the redevelopment project to bedownsized, thereby protecting more pine snake habitat. Since DEP rules do allow for morepermeable (1x10 -5 cm/sec) caps under certain circumstances, the costs for such a cap wereinvestigated last year and verified again recently to determine if the cost savings were significantenough for the staff to recommend that the Commission relax its landfill closure and waterquality standards in this case to achieve significant habitat protection.

In order for the requisite permeability standard to be met, on-site soils need to be amended withimported, low permeability material, such as bentonite. Based on the actual costs ($41.07 percubic yard) for amended soil at another closure project, the in-place costs for the Staffordlicensed landfill were estimated to be $5.37 million.23 This is $2.6 million more than the cost ofthe geomembrane cap and the necessary cover soil. Therefore, this option has been ruled out.

28

24 We are continuing to research the particulars of the Galloway landfill closure plans.

It was also suggested that the DEP approved a natural cap for the closure of the GallowayTownship landfill, the cost of which might be less than $500,000. Based upon discussions withMr. Bruce Witkowski of DEP (personal communications on May 23, 2006 and June 28, 2006)and information from DEP files, we understand that DEP approved a geomembrane cap in 1994and, after further groundwater testing, approved a semi-permeable cap in 2003. Some peoplehave questioned whether the 2003 DEP closure plan approval requires a 1x10-5 cm/sec cap butwe are advised that it must meet that regulatory standard. Although original cost estimates werereportedly in excess of $4 million, we have no reliable information on current cost estimates.The Galloway landfill has yet to be closed and we understand that the Township continues toexplore alternative closure options. In a June 1, 2006 letter regarding those alternative closureoptions, DEP advised the Township that any change from the currently approved closure planwill require DEP. approval. In accordance with DEP regulations, any such alternative must meetthe1x10-5 cm/sec permeability requirement.24

6. Evapotranspiration Caps. Evapotranspiration (ET) caps have been suggested as a lessexpensive way for the landfills to be closed. If true, the savings can allow the redevelopmentproject to be downsized, thereby protecting more pine snake habitat.

ET caps are designed to take advantage of natural processes to prevent precipitation fromleaching through landfills and other contaminated sites. A soil layer and vegetative cover aredesigned so that the soil layer collects and retains precipitation; natural evaporation from the soiland transpiration from the plants then utilize the water, thereby preventing it from leachingthrough the underlying waste site.

Since DEP regulations do not consider ET caps to be a proven technology, they are notauthorized for use in closing landfills in New Jersey. However, the Department can authorize theuse of “experimental” technologies as part of a research program and has informally expressedsome willingness to consider an ET cap research project, provided it is small in scale and isinstalled over a section of a landfill with an impermeable liner. These conditions do not apply atthe Stafford landfill.

Nonetheless, we did investigate the use of ET caps elsewhere in an effort to determine how welladvanced and researched the technology is. Recognizing DEP’s regulations, our goal was tosearch for clear and convincing evidence that (1) an ET cap would prevent leaching at theStafford landfill and (2) save enough money to significantly reduce the redevelopment project. Ifthat evidence was found, the Executive Director intended to request that DEP considerbroadening its experimental research criteria to allow an ET cap at the Stafford landfill.

We reviewed dozens of reports and articles on ET caps and found the following to be mostrelevant to our deliberations.

29

25 Hauser, V. L. et al. 2001. Natural Covers for Landfills and Buried Waste. pp. 768-775.Journal of Environmental Engineering, Volume 127, Number 9.

26 Hauser, V. L. et al. 2001. Alternative Landfill Covers. Sponsored and Supported by The Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence.

27 Environmental Security Technology Certification Program. 2002. Impact of LandfillClosure Designs on Long Term Natural Attenuation of Cholrinated Hydrocarbons. Departmentof Defense.

28 The Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, Alternative Landfill TechnologiesTeam. 2003. Technical and Regulatory Guidance for Design, Installation, and Monitoring ofAlternative Final Landfill Covers.

29 Madalinski et al. 2003. Evapotranspiration Covers: An Innovative Approach toRemediate and Close Contaminated Sites. Wiley Interscience. DOI 10.002.10094.

• The US Air Force has investigated the use of ET caps as a less expensive alternative totraditional means of landfill closure. A 2001 paper25 appended to written comment #27and a more complete report by those authors26 indicate that short-term field experimentsdemonstrate that ET caps can fulfill the requirement that landfill covers minimizeinfiltration of precipitation into waste. Unfortunately, these experiments were conductedin areas with precipitation rates between 6-29 inches per year, far less than the average of45 inches in the Pinelands. The authors report that short growing seasons, unsuitable soilsand high rates and amounts of precipitation may prevent the use of ET caps and concludethat “[c]limate is a primary determinant of ET cover performance at a given site and theevaporation-to-precipitation ratio is naturally the most favorable in arid and semi-aridareas.” Areas west of the Mississippi River were found to be most conducive while, inareas east of the Mississippi River, it was reported that an ET cover with a top layer ofclay soil might be needed to prevent infiltration.

• A Department of Defense 2002 report27 recommended that low-permeability (not ET)caps be used where the climate is characterized by abundant rainfall. The report furthernotes that ET caps may be appropriate if precipitation rates are such that infiltration canbe controlled without the addition of a low permeability cap.

• A 2003 technical guidance document28 again stresses the importance of precipitation andatmospheric parameters in the success of ET caps. The document further states that “[i]ncold climates where transpiration is essentially nonexistent during the winter, a covershould be capable of storing all or most of the precipitation that occurs during thatperiod.”

• Another 2003 report29 identifies 64 sites where ET covers have been proposed, tested orinstalled in the United States. The report notes that “ET covers are generally considered

30

30 2003 May 20. Environmental Protection Agency, Technology Innovation Program,Alternative Landfill Cover Profiles.<http://cluin.org/products/altcovers/usersearch/lf_details.cfm> Accessed 2006 June 22 and June28.

31 Wildlife Habitat Council. The Woodlawn Wildlife Area.<http://www.wildlfiehc.org/brownfields/woodlawn.cfm> Accessed 2006, June 28.

applicable in areas that have arid or semi-arid climates” and that these types of coversmay not be appropriate at landfills where gas emissions need to be controlled, a situationthat exists at the Stafford landfill. The report also concludes that “limited data areavailable to describe performance of ET covers in terms of minimizing percolation, aswell as the covers’ ability to minimize erosion, resist biointrusion, and remain effectivefor an extended period of time.”

• The Environmental Protection Agency is sponsoring an Alternative Cover AssessmentProgram involving ET caps at 12 sites throughout the Country. This program, which willcompare “conventional” and ET caps at these sites, is now underway. An AlternativeLandfill Cover database, which reports on these demonstration projects and otheralternative landfill closure projects, is also maintained.30 Several projects that might haveapplicability to the Pinelands were reviewed. The early results of a demonstration projectin Albany, Georgia do show that a small-scale ET cap is performing better than acompacted clay cover at the same site. Results from a Cincinnati, Ohio project show ageneral reduction of pre-closure leachate with leachate production lower in summer buthigher in the winter months, presumably because of fluctuating evapotranspiration rates.Performance data are not available for two other projects: a small scale demonstrationproject in College Park, Maryland which is just getting underway; and a project justcompleted but not evaluated in Honeybrook, Pennsylvania.

Another project in Woodlawn, Maryland31 involved a natural (not ET) cover over alandfill where water quality monitoring indicated that natural attenuation of thecontaminated groundwater was occurring. Based upon the water quality informationdiscussed in Section V.C. which follows, this is not the situation at the Stafford landfill.

Although we are by no means experts in this field, it appears that ET caps show promise asalternative landfill covers, particularly in areas with favorable evapotranspiration to precipitationratios. Preliminary results from the Albany, Georgia project suggest that an ET cap may work inhigher rainfall areas but in an area where other conditions (e.g., growing seasons) are notcomparable to New Jersey. The Cincinnati, Ohio project shows a reduction in infiltration ratesafter the cap was installed but leachate continues to be produced. Most importantly, however, wehave not found conclusive evidence that the technology is proven to work in climatic conditionscomparable to New Jersey.

31

32 See Appendix A, Written Comment #27

33 Environmental Protection Agency. May 2006. Technology News and TrendsNewsletter.

It is also unclear whether an ET cap would yield significant savings at the Stafford Landfill site.ET cap designs are necessarily very site-specific and the associated costs appear to be highlyvariable. Although several-year old cost estimates for Warren Air Force Base indicated that anET cap could be constructed there for $147,000 per acre32, more recent reports estimate the costsfor a full scale ET cap at Albany, Georgia at more than $600,000 per acre.33

Based upon the absence of conclusive performance and cost information, it is uncertain whetheran ET cap could be designed to eliminate infiltration at the Stafford landfill and at a significantlylower cost than the current proposal. Although the Executive Director intends to discuss thepossibility of a research project elsewhere in the Pinelands with DEP, full scale use of an ET capat the Stafford landfill is not a viable alternative.

7. Airborne Asbestos. Landfill testing conducted by several consulting firms has not disclosedthe existence of asbestos in the waste material to be excavated from the old landfill. However, anoperations and maintenance manual has been prepared as part of the overall landfill closure plan,one section of which specifically addresses dust control. The plan calls for water spraying tocontrol dust during excavation and transport, and for cover to be placed over landfill areas beingexcavated at the end of each day. C. Water Quality

1. Comments. While some comments posit that closure of the landfill will yield significantwater quality benefits, others dispute that contention. The dispute centers on several arguments:that excessive levels of contaminants are not emanating from the landfill and do not pose asignificant health risk; that groundwater quality is actually improving; that test results do notexceed background levels; that there is no evidence that an impermeable cap will improve waterquality in this instance; and that non-point source pollution resulting from the subsequentredevelopment will offset any water quality benefits that might be realized from the landfillclosure.

2. Background. In 2005, the Commission’s staff analyzed groundwater monitoring data datingfrom 1986 through the middle of 2005. These data were collected during a 1986 EnvironmentalProtection Agency analysis, quarterly monitoring of the licensed landfill pursuant to a NewJersey Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit and a 2003 investigation undertaken byH2M Associates, Inc. on behalf of the NJ Department of Environmental Protection. The H2Minvestigation was done because DEP had advised the Township that it would close the landfill ifthe Township didn’t take action.

32

The staff’s initial conclusions were that a number of constituents (aluminum, ammonia, arsenic,benzene, cadmium, calcium, chlorine, chloroform, chromium, iron, lead, manganese, pH, silver,sodium, total dissolved solids and zinc) exceed groundwater standards that the DEP and thePinelands Commission have established for the Pinelands. Moreover, some of the pollutants(such as aluminum, ammonia, arsenic, benzene chromium, iron, lead, manganese, and sodium)exceeded the much less protective groundwater standard (Class 2) that applies to some areasoutside the Pinelands.

3. Contamination. Based upon the comments received, Commission staff again evaluated theavailable water quality information.

a. H2M Report. As late as 2003, H2M reported that quarterly groundwater monitoringresults disclosed that “exceedances have been routinely detected in the ground waterabove permit levels (Class 2 standards) for lead, ammonia/nitrogen, mercury, totaldissolved solids, barium, iron, cadmium, zinc, sodium and manganese.”

H2M installed 10 new shallow ground water monitoring wells in 2002 , four of whichwere at the old landfill, and four deep ground water monitoring wells, one of which waslocated at the old landfill.

Monitoring results from the new and six pre-existing shallow wells at the new landfillshowed that calcium hardness, total dissolved solids, ammonia, aluminum, arsenic,chromium, iron, lead, manganese, mercury and thallium exceeded Class 2 standards. Inaddition to these parameters, benzene was also detected above the Class 2 standards inleachate samples collected from test pits.

Monitoring results from the shallow wells at the old landfill showed that total dissolvedsolids, ammonia, aluminum, arsenic, chromium, iron, lead, manganese, sodium andbenzene exceeded Class 2 standards. The same type of exceedances were found inleachate samples taken from test pits.

The report also noted exceedances of several parameters in the deep monitoring wells.

It is important to again note that all of these results represent exceedances of a much lessprotective groundwater standard than both DEP and the Pinelands Commission haveestablished for the Pinelands.

b. Trends. Commission staff analysis of the monitoring data do not support the notionthat groundwater quality is improving. Although total dissolved solids does seem to showa decline since 2000, other parameters such as lead, arsenic, cadmium, zinc andmanganese do not show declines. Periodic spikes in arsenic (5.7 times higher than Class2 standards), cadmium (2½ times higher than Class 2 standards), lead (12 times higherthan Class 2 standards), and iron (83 times higher than Class 2 standards) also exist.There are peaks and valleys in concentrations over the testing periods but, as would be

33

34 Lord, D. G., et al., 1990. Hydrogeochemical data from an acidic deposition study atMcDonalds Branch basin in the New Jersey Pinelands, 1983-86. U. S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigation Report 88-500; Rhodehamel, E. C. 1979. Hydrology of the New Jersey

expected, they bear a strong correlation to rainfall events.

The staff also looked at longer term trends by comparing 1994-2000 data for arsenic,chromium and zinc to 2000-2005 data. Arsenic concentrations are slightly higher nowthan before, chromium has increased significantly and zinc concentrations are stable.

Several other points are worth noting about several specific points raised in writtencomment #27. First, the notion that virtually no tests exceeded applicable water qualitystandards is dispelled by the facts that there were 209 Class 2 ground water exceedancesfrom 2000 to 2005 and 18 other parameters exceeded background levels 627 times.Second, as reported by H2M, iron is typically found in landfill leachate and theexceedances here were found at more than one well. Third, H2M also reports sodium as atypical leachate constituent. Fourth, the number of chloroform and manganeseexceedances are recurring and are not limited to one year each. Fifth, cadmiumexceedances have been reported for four years. Sixth, tricholorethylene exceedances havebeen reported for two years.

c. Background Ground and Surface Water. The suggestion that the monitoring resultsdo not show meaningful ground or surface water contamination seems to ignore the factthat Pinelands water quality standards are being exceeded, mistakenly assumes that someof the ground and surface monitoring points at which contamination has been found arenot affected by the landfill (and shows that pollution is emanating from other sources)and erroneously assumes that laboratory results that are lower than Practical QuantitationLevels are unreliable.

The Mill Creek stream sampling point is presumed to be affected by the landfill becauseof its proximity to the landfill and the fact that ground water moves in that direction andprovides the vast majority of a stream’s flow in the Pinelands. However, it is also logicalto assume that Mill Creek water quality at that point is also affected by the Ocean Acresdevelopment. Similarly, attempting to compare “up-gradient” and “down-gradient”monitoring well data overlooks the fact that the groundwater wells are very close to thelandfills and affected by its leachate.

Although ambient groundwater quality data are not available upgradient from this site, its quality can be inferred. The H2M report finds that groundwater generally flows to theeast and towards the northeast as one gets closer to Mill Creek. Expansive forested areasare situated to the west of the landfill and, based upon research undertaken by theCommission’s Science Office, and groundwater would be expected to exhibitcharacteristic Pinelands water quality.34

34

Pine Barrens. Pages 147 - 167 in R. T. T. Forman, editor. Pine Barrens: ecosystem andlandscape. Academic Press, New York, New York, USA.

35 In October 2005, PQLs were lowered for 14 of the constituents monitored.

36 Benson, C. 2000. Liners and Covers for Waste Containment. Proc. Fourth KansaiInternational Geotechnical Forum, Japanese Geotechnical Society, Kyoto, Japan. 1-40.

Lastly, Practical Quantitation Levels (PQLs) represent regulatory standards for testingthat can be reliably achieved among laboratories within specified limits of precision andaccuracy during routine laboratory operating conditions.. They do not account for the factthat variable testing equipment and methods are used by different laboratories and sometesting protocols can detect lower levels of certain parameters. Method Detection Limits,which may often be reported at lower levels than PQLs, define the minimumconcentrations that a specific run of the testing equipment can measure. Although valueslower than the PQL should be viewed with some caution, there is no reason to universallydiscard them.35

d. Public Health. The concentrations of many parameters (such as arsenic, ammonia,iron, lead and a variety of organic compounds) found here are dangerous to humanhealth. However, the actual public health risk is likely to decrease as these concentrationsare diluted as ground and surface water flows away from the site. The H2M reportidentified six domestic water wells within a one mile radius of the landfill, the closest ofwhich is located about 600 feet to the southeast.

Mill Creek flows into Manahawkin Lake, approximately one mile to the east of thelandfills. Manahawkin Lake is a public swimming and recreation area. The OceanCounty Health Department tests for fecal coliform but does not currently test the lake forthe constituents found during the landfill monitoring program.

4. Water Quality Benefits of Impermeable Caps. Although we are no experts on the use ofimpermeable caps, we have attempted to gain a better understanding of the water quality benefitsthey provide. It is widely recognized that the purpose of an impermeable cap is to preventrainfall from infiltrating through the waste material and leaching pollutants from the waste.

We are aware of reports that compacted clay and geosynthetic clay liners suffer from frost-related damage and desication; however, geomembrane liner results are less clear. Since thereare several different types of geomembrane liners, including HDPE (high-density polyethylene),LLPDE (linear low-density polyethylene), PP (polypropylene) and PVC (polyvinyl chloride),one must be cautious about overgeneralizing. Although we are aware of various reports thatconclude that HDPE geomembranes can suffer from punctures, tears and oxidation, Benson36

reports that LLDPE geomembranes (the type proposed here) can undergo much greater stresslevels than other types of geomembranes and are used in applications where additional punctureresistance is required. Benson also reports that geomembranes are almost never installed without

35

37 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 1998. Evaluation of SubsurfaceEngineered Barriers at Waste Sites. EPA 542-R-98-005.

38 As mentioned previously, these results need to viewed with caution because thedesigns for those landfills are different than the Stafford design.

39 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 2003. New Jersey StormwaterBest Management Practices Manual. Final Draft.

punctures. EPA, on the other hand, reports37 that, in its national assessment of 36 waste sites, two sites with geomembranes realized immediate water quality improvements.38 EPA alsoreported that design and construction quality assurance/construction quality control, which has improved more for caps than for vertical barriers, also contribute to containment performance.

It seems clear from our review that clay caps can suffer from severe performance problems.Geomembrane caps may suffer from puncture problems but the LLPDE geomembrane proposedat the Stafford landfill is a newer polymer which is puncture resistant. Although the landfillclosure plan proposed here is clearly not fail safe, DEP can require leachate treatment if it isnecessary. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the estimated 41 million gallons of leachateemanating from these landfills each year will be significantly reduced over time.

5. Redevelopment Impacts. It is true that the redevelopment project carries with it impacts onwater resources, primarily from non-point, stormwater runoff. While it is not possible tospecifically quantify all of the “before” and “after” conditions, several factors are relevant to ageneral assessment.

• Stormwater may contain a broad range of pollutants including sediment, nutrients, tracemetals, pesticides, petroleum hydrocarbons and pathogenic and non-pathogenicbiologicals (bacteria, protozoa, and viruses). Many of these substances (such as metalsand nutrients) are also leaching from the uncapped landfills based upon their detectionduring water quality testing of the site. The following table illustrates a few examples:

Constituent Typical StormwaterConcentration39

Well #1a ConcentrationRanges -Stafford Landfill

Cadmium 2 parts per billion 1 to 10 parts per billion

Copper 10 parts per billion 2 to 50 parts per billion

Lead 18 parts per billion 1 to 73 parts per billion

Zinc 140 parts per billion 5 to 300 parts per billion

One must view these comparisons with some caution. Although the stormwater data

36

represent concentrations in the stormwater itself, the well data reports on groundwaterconcentrations after leachate from the landfill has been diluted to some degree.

• Capping and properly grading the landfills will mitigate the uncontrolled release ofleachate. Leachate treatment provides an added measure of safety should the landfill capnot perform well.

• State-of-the-art stormwater management measures will be employed in theredevelopment of the Stafford Business Park site. These stormwater managementmeasures aim to reduce, to the maximum extent feasible, non-point pollutants associatedwith stormwater runoff. New Pinelands and DEP stormwater management standardsrequire the implementation of low impact development (LID) strategies to reduce adverseimpacts from runoff through sound planning and through the use of techniques thatpreserve or closely mimic the site’s natural hydrologic response to precipitation. Thesepollutant removal criteria require that total suspended solids be reduced by 80%.

• In addition to incorporating LID site design, the project proposes to utilize a treatmenttrain approach in which structural stormwater management facilities will be arranged inseries, exceeding the 80% TSS removal criteria required by DEP and the PinelandsCommission. Applying DEP’s TSS removal calculation methodology, the project willachieve 96% removal of total suspended solids from all impervious surfaces, excludingrooftop runoff which will be segregated.

• Removal of 96% of the total suspended solids is expected to result in significantreductions in sediment, nutrients, pesticides, metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, andbiologicals as each of these pollutants adsorb or absorb to solids suspended in stormwaterrunoff.

• The project proposes to incorporate “Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design”measures into the development, specifically obtaining 50% or more of the credits forwater efficiency and turf management. This will reduce the amount of fertilizers andpesticides typically applied to managed turf and landscaped areas and will also reduce thepotential for leaching into the groundwater.

• The project proposes to include stormwater improvements in the vicinity of the Route 72and Recovery Road intersection where stormwater is now discharged directly into MillCreek. The goal is to reduce total suspended solids that are now discharged directly intothe creek by at least 50%.

Taken in their entirety, these measures offer significant water quality benefits. The project mayalso serve to highlight how higher intensity, mixed use projects can significantly reduceconsumptive water use non-point source pollution.

D. Threatened and Endangered Species

37

1. Comments. Most of the aforementioned concerns regarding landfill closure, project financesand water quality were offered to suggest that the project can be redesigned to better protect pinesnake habitat located on this site. In addition, several other related comments were offered inopposition to the proposed Memorandum of Agreement: that the site is a unique micro-habitat;that the DEP’s Endangered and Non-Game Species program has rejected the relocation of pinesnakes in this case; that snake density (and an area’s carrying capacity) must be considered ifpine snakes are to be relocated; and that any program to monitor pine snake relocation must bevery carefully designed to account for a variety of factors. One other comment offered anopinion that the destruction of the Southern Gray Tree Frog pond does not violate the CMP’sstandard for the protection of habitat for threatened or endangered animal species.

2. Background. Twelve pine snakes were captured during a 2004 survey and 24 snakes havebeen captured so far in an intensive survey effort which began in April 2006. Moreover, weknow of two pine snake winter dens (although one of them was not used this past winter) and,because of the 2006 survey also know that nests are located on the site.

This site can also be viewed in a larger context. The 17,000 acre Stafford Forge WildlifeManagement Area adjoins this site to the south and west. The Wildlife Management Area isrecognized as a prime habitation area for Pine Snakes and undoubtedly encompasses at least partof the home range of many of the Pine Snakes discovered on this site.

3. Importance of this Site. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the Stafford landfill/businesspark site is an important Northern Pine Snake site. The Executive Director is aware of no otherproposed development site within the past five years (when snake surveys were begun on a muchwider-scale) where as many pine snakes were found. Although it is true that much of the primehabitat on the site is the result of past landfilling and soil excavation activities, this site’slocation adjacent to the 17,000 acre Stafford Forge Wildlife Management Area (where pinesnakes have been well documented) suggests that the site was inhabited by pine snakes beforethe man-made disturbances occurred.

4. Endangered and Non-Game Species Program. Commission staff has been consulting withDEP’s Endangered and Non Game Species Program (ENSP) staff regarding this project for morethan a year. Although the Executive Director never received any official letter from ENSP onthis matter, it is because of concerns about pine snake habitat that so many alternatives to protecton-site habitat have been evaluated over the past year. Moreover, ENSP staff have been workingwith Commission staff during the past three months to formulate a rare species management planin the event that the Commission authorizes the landfill closure/redevelopment project.

5. Species Management Plan. The proposed species management plan is being carefullydeveloped to fully respond to the criteria specified in the proposed Memorandum of Agreement.If the landfill closure and redevelopment project is authorized, the rare plant and animal speciesimpacted by the project will be moved out of harm’s way and placed in appropriateenvironments identified by Commission and ENSP technical staff. The staffs recognize that twoof the species (Litttle Ladies Tresses and the Northen Pine Snake) may well pose greater

38

40 Zappalorti, R. T., and H. K. Reinert. 1994. Artificial refugia as a habitat-improvementstrategy for snake conservation, p. 369-375. In J. B. Murphy, K. Adler, and J. T. Collins (eds.),Captive Management and Conservation of Amphibians and Reptiles. Society for the Study ofAmphibians and Reptiles, Ithaca (New York). Contributions to Herpetology, volume 11.

challenges than the other species.

Relative to pine snakes, the effectiveness of artificial hibernacula has been evaluated to someextent. Zappalorti and Reinert 40 studied 25 artificial hibernacula in Ocean County and found that73 Pine Snakes (and 66 other snakes, including corn snakes) were observed at the hibernaculaover a three year period during their overwintering and active seasons. Ecdysis, courtship,mating and ovipositing for Pine Snakes were observed and six clutches of Pine Snake eggs werefound. Based on their observations, Zappalorti and Reinert suggested that artificial hibernaculamay be a useful habitat-improvement measure.

ENSP and Commission technical staff also take seriously the proposed Memorandum ofAgreement’s requirement to monitor whatever measures are taken. A comprehensive researchdesign is under development.

6. Southern Gray Tree Frog. The Executive Director does not agree with the proposition thatthe elimination of a Southern Gray Tree Frog pond on this site does not violate the CMP’s rareanimal habitat protection standard. Commission biologists believe that the tree frog population inthis pond is not part of a larger population: thus, the removal of the pond (although necessary toexcavate the old landfill) will irreversibly and adversely affect this local tree frog population,contrary to CMP standards.

E. Environmental Measures

1.Comments. Several different types of comments were offered on some of the environmentalmeasures proposed in the Memorandum of Agreement. One questioned why the Townshipshould be obligated to purchase land and Pinelands Development Credits. Other commentsquestioned whether the purchase of 570 acres of land adequately compensates for the loss ofhabitat, largely because that land (if not purchased) is not subject to the same developmentimpacts as this site. Finally, it was argued that the other environmental measures included in theMemorandum of Agreement have no demonstrable impact on Pinelands resources and do notequate to the loss of habitat.

2. Background. The environmental measures as currently proposed in this intergovernmentalagreement are described in Section III.C. of this report.

3. PDCs and Open Space Purchase. Since this proposal is not consistent with the Pinelands’endangered species protection standards of N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.27 and N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.33 and thewetland buffer standards of N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.14, the Commission can only authorize it through a

39

41 The ratio increases if the county’s land purchase is added.

42 It has been reported that the NJDEP is now pursuing a similar approach when projectssubject to the Coastal Area regulations must mitigate habitat impacts. For example, we areadvised that habitat mitigation proposals have been proposed within the Coastal Area at a ratioof 2:1 and involve the purchase of land within Pinelands Forest Areas.

special intergovernmental agreement. All such agreements must be accompanied by measuresthat afford at least an equivalent level of natural resource protection as would be achieved if theproposal were fully consistent with the CMP. Although the purchase and redemption ofPinelands Development Credits is a normal part of higher density residential developmentprojects that are located in Regional Growth Areas (as this one is), the Township’s purchase of570 acres of land and the County’s purchase of 75 acres of land do go beyond the normalrequirements of the Pinelands protection program. More on this follows.

4. Compensating for Habitat Loss. The proposed agreement calls for the purchase of 570 acresof land by Stafford Township as one of several environmental measures that are collectivelydesigned to afford at least an equivalent level of natural resource protection as would beachieved if the proposal were fully consistent with the CMP. Ocean County proposes tocomplement the Township’s land acquisition by purchasing 75 acres of land.

In evaluating whether the environmental measures proposed in this agreement provide anappropriate level of protection of the resources of the Pinelands, one should not ignore the factthat water quality results will be better than those one would expect under the normal standardsof the CMP. In addition, the 570 acres of land to be purchased and protected is three times theamount of undisturbed land on the Business Park site.41 An argument that the land to be acquiredis already “protected” by CMP regulations (because it is located in a Pinelands Forest Area andconstitutes pine snake habitat which is afforded protection by CMP regulations) overlooks thefacts that the CMP does authorize some (albeit modest) development in Forest Areas and theCMP habitat standard protects only critical habitat located on the development site. The CMP’ssite-specific regulatory standard is much less effective in protecting watersheds and their wide-ranging habitat values than an approach that seeks to protect large, contiguous areas ofrepresentative Pinelands landscapes, a goal which will be furthered by the land purchases calledfor in this agreement.42

F. Memorandum of Agreement

1. Comments. Two points were made that this Memorandum of Agreement should not beconsidered because the CMP’s rules do not allow such an agreement to authorize privatedevelopment and because the Commission has never before authorized the relocation of PineSnakes.

2. Background. The Comprehensive Management Plan (N.J.A.C. 7:50-4.52(c)2.) authorizes

40

“intergovernmental memoranda of agreement with any agency of the Federal, State or localgovernment which authorize such agency to carry out specified development activities that maynot be fully consistent” with the provisions of the CMP. This provision was added to the CMP in1994. A total of 14 so-called deviation agreements have been approved by the Commission todate.

3. Authority for this Intergovernmental Agreement. Of those 14 deviation agreements, sixauthorize development to be undertaken by private entities. Notably, one of those (an agreementwith the New Jersey Highway Authority which authorized private telecommunications cables tobe installed within the Garden State Parkway) was approved before the 1994 rule change andwas a driving force behind that rule change to expressly authorize these types of agreements.

One can argue in hindsight that the regulatory language could have been more explicit inacknowledging that intergovernmental agreements can have a private component; however, therecan be no doubt that the regulatory history of the rule and the Commission’s decisions since thenauthorize intergovernmental agreements with private components. The fact that the privatecomponent here is a redevelopment project, duly authorized as a public purpose by New Jerseyredevelopment statutes, further supports the appropriateness of this agreement.

4. Relocation of Pine Snakes. The Commission is often faced with development proposals inareas known to be inhabited by pine snakes. When applying its site-specific habitat protectionstandard which calls for the protection of “critical” habitat, the Commission usually protectsparticularly important parts of a property (such as dens, nests and surrounding areas that connectto open space) and constricts development to less critical portions of the property. In these cases,the Commission has not generally imposed an explicit development condition requiring thecollection of pine snakes that might be encountered during development of a property. Instead, ithas relied upon the protections afforded under New Jersey’s statewide endangered species laws.

Because of the extensive natural resource inventory work done on this site, we know that pinesnakes will be encountered as the development unfolds. This would be true even if additionalareas of the site were to be conserved. With that knowledge, it was the Executive Director’sopinion that it would be prudent to take affirmative steps to protect the pine snakes from harmduring construction.

The Executive Director is aware of one other case where the Commission authorized therelocation of Pine Snakes. That case also involved the relocation of Corn Snakes. A waiver ofstrict compliance was approved in 1984 for the development of what was then known as theHovsons project in Berkeley Township. Because Pine Snakes and Corn Snakes would beimperiled by the development of this residential community, that approval required that thesnakes be collected and relocated to the southernmost portion of the property, where the habitatwas improved through the construction of artificial hibernacula (dens). That land was thendonated to the New Jersey Audubon Society.

G. Precedents

41

1. Comments. Two arguments in opposition to the proposed Memorandum of Agreementpostulate that it will set bad precedent. Specifically, the concerns are that intensiveredevelopment proposals will be coupled with many landfill closure proposals throughout thePinelands and that the relocation of Pine Snakes will make it difficult for the Commission toenforce its habitat protection standards when reviewing future development proposals. Anotherconcern was that Commission representatives have not thoroughly considered the Staffordlandfill issue because of contradictory and confusing statements about precedent in this case.

2. Other Landfill Closure Proposals. Based upon information that the Department ofEnvironmental Protection maintains, there are a total of 60 landfills within the Pinelands, 41 ofwhich are public landfills. Of those, three are federally owned, five are state owned, 1 is countyowned and 32 are municipally owned. Nine of the landfills that have not yet been properlyclosed according to Pinelands and DEP requirements (including the Stafford landfill) are locatedin Regional Growth or Pinelands Town management areas, land use zones where redevelopmentsimilar to that proposed at the Stafford site would be permitted. Approval of thisintergovernmental agreement would signal the Commission’s resolve to properly close Pinelandslandfills and will set a precedent for closure of other Pinelands landfill sites that are comparableto the Stafford situation. It does not set a precedent for intensive redevelopment proposals innon-growth areas of the Pinelands

3. Enforcement of Habitat Protection Standard. It is certainly possible that some people mayinterpret this proposed agreement as a sign that the Commission is not intent on enforcing itsstandards to protect habitat for rare plants and animals. However, such a view ignores thecompeting environmental objectives that exist here and the substantial “offsetting”environmental measures that are proposed. Finally, it ignores the fact that extensive analysesconducted in this case have concluded that there are no practical ways to close the landfills andprotect important habitat on-site.

4. Contradictory Precedents. It has also been suggested that the Commission and its staff havemade contradictory statements about precedent, indicating on the one hand that this proposedagreement will set a precedent for other landfill closure projects but, on the other hand, statingthat the Stafford agreement is unique and will not set a precedent. This is an oversimplification.

The proposed Stafford agreement is predicated on twelve conditions that distinguish it frommany other potential landfill closure proposals in the Pinelands. These are that:

• More than 50% of this 363 acre site has been disturbed as a result of landfilling, soilexcavation, off-road vehicle use and industrial and office development. The siteincludes the Township’s 55 acre licensed landfill, the old landfill totaling 25 acres andthe already developed 34 acres of the Township’s business park, which partially overliesthe old landfill. Unauthorized off road vehicle use occurs on the licensed landfill andpreviously excavated areas (about 78 acres) on the site.

42

• The licensed and old landfills are polluting ground and surface waters. Although thelandfills have not accepted waste for more than 20 years, they are still pollutinggroundwater and the Mill Creek, a Pinelands stream located just to the north of theproperty. Monitoring data as recent as 2005 show unacceptable levels of arsenic,cadmium, lead, chromium, chloroform, silver and other constituents.

• Although the landfills are required to be environmentally closed pursuant to Stateand Pinelands requirements, they have not yet been closed. A Township plan toenvironmentally close the landfill was approved by the Pinelands Commission andsubsequently amended in 1994; however, that plan has not been implemented. In 2001,the Department of Environmental Protection reiterated the Township’s obligation to closethe landfill and advised that, absent Township action, the Department itself would takesteps to close the landfill at the Township’s expense.

• The Township pursued several means to pay for landfill closure but they were notsuccessful. Throughout the 1990's, the Township pursued several options to close thelandfill, including public funding, landfill closure options involving the use of recycledmaterials that might reduce closure costs, and a golf course development project to helpfinance closure costs. None of these efforts were successful.

Although the Pinelands Commission approved a subdivision plan for 67 lots within theBusiness Park in 1990 (the sale of which may have helped to finance landfill closure),only 12 of the lots, most of which house public facilities, have been developed, in spite ofmarketing efforts by four realty firms.

• The mixed use redevelopment project now proposed pursuant to New Jersey’sredevelopment statutes will pay for the landfills’ closure. As an alternative means topay for landfill closure, the Township sought to engage a redeveloper for the BusinessPark. These efforts began in 1997 and, after two attempts, resulted in the selection ofWalters Development Company in 2004. The Township plan calls for the developer toclose the landfills and redevelop the Business Park as a mixed-use, residential andcommercial project.

• Alternative funding options for landfill closure remain unlikely. If the Townshipwere to close the landfill itself, it and the related costs would total between $45 and $60million, an amount that would effectively double the Township’s current debt. At worst,such an increased debt load would not be permissible under New Jersey law whichestablishes debt “ceilings” for municipalities. At best, it would significantly diminish theTownship’s ability to bond for other necessary capital projects, such as roads, drainage,fire and emergency equipment, open space purchases, etc.

An analysis of state funding possibilities by Pinelands Commission staff failed to identifyany meaningful opportunities. Lastly, a cost recovery lawsuit against parties who usedthe landfills offers virtually no chance for success because, among other things, there is

43

no evidence of a legally defined hazardous waste discharge, a key element in such alawsuit.

• The site is located within a Pinelands Regional Growth Area where intensiveresidential and commercial development is expected. This site has direct access to twomajor highways (New Jersey State Route 72 and the Garden State Parkway) and islocated just to the south of a several thousand home, pre-Pinelands subdivision known asOcean Acres. Because of its location, the existence of the landfills, other disturbance onthe site and the availability of public sewer and water, the Pinelands Plan anticipated thatthe site would ultimately be developed for residential and commercial uses.

• The two rare plants found at the site are located within the footprint of the landfillsand can not be protected in place. It is not possible to properly close the landfillswithout directly impacting the locations of Knieskern’s Beaked Rush and Little LadiesTresses, two protected plant species in the Pinelands.

• One of two stormwater basins that are now inhabited by Southern Gray Treefrogsis located within the footprint of the old landfill and can not be protected in place. Alined stormwater basin was approved for construction some years ago because it overliesthe old landfill. Southern Gray Treefrogs, a protected animal specie in the Pinelands,have since migrated to the basin which will be eliminated due to the excavation of thewaste which underlies it.

• Landfill closure and redevelopment scenarios which might protect some NorthernPine Snake dens, nests or foraging areas on the site are not achievable. The NorthernPine Snake, another protected animal specie in the Pinelands, is known to inhabit thissite. Two winter dens, nests and foraging habitat have been confirmed on the site.Alternative landfill closure options and redevelopment configurations have beenanalyzed in an effort to avoid landfill closure or redevelopment activities in variousportions of the site that affect denning, nesting and/or foraging areas. These alternativesare not realistic because of a variety of technical and financial reasons.

• Although the Business Park site clearly contains important habitat for the NorthernPine Snake, protected habitat land surrounds the site to the west and south. StaffordForge Wildlife Management Area, comprising approximately 17,000 acres, is known tocontain important Pine Snake habitat and to support extensive Pine Snake populations.

• Significant environmental measures will be undertaken as part of the project. Morethan 570 acres of land close to this site will be purchased and conserved for ecologicalpurposes. The redevelopment project will incorporate state-of-the-art “green building”designs to promote pedestrian-oriented development, reduce energy and water use,improve indoor air quality and reduce pollution from stormwater runoff. Finally, anexisting stormwater discharge problem on Route 72 which affects the Mill Creek will bealleviated.

44

Steps will also be taken to protect the rare plants and animals found on the site. The rareplants will be relocated to a protected area on the site, a pond suitable for Tree Frogs willbe developed and Northern Pine Snakes will be captured and located within other areaswhere the habitat is to be improved.

To the extent that these or comparable conditions exist elsewhere, the Stafford agreement willstand as a precedent.

H. Miscellaneous

1. Comment. One person expressed concern that Hay Road (a sand road that extends to the westfrom this site) will be converted to an emergency access route to serve this development.

2. Background. The CMP’s fire management program (N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.124) generally requiresthat residential developments of 25 or more units provide two accessways that are sufficient toaccommodate fire fighting equipment. The conceptual redevelopment plan proposed here callsfor ingress and egress via an island boulevard to Recovery Road which, in turn, has direct accessto the Garden State Parkway and Route 72, two major emergency and evacuation routes.

3. Hay Road. The improvement of Hay Road for emergency access has never been proposed.Hay Road would not be suitable as an emergency evacuation route in the event of a seriouswildfire because it runs from this site to west, the direction from which wildfires would likelyemanate. Moreover, Hay Road is located within the Stafford Forge Wildlife Management Areawhich is afforded legal protection from “conversion” to other than natural resource-related uses.

VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

It is the Executive Director’s conclusion that there is no practical way to properly close theselandfills absent redevelopment of the site. However, landfill closure and redevelopment activitiesas proposed will impinge on normally required wetland buffers to two isolated wetlands and,most importantly, destroy important habitat for the Northern Pine Snake and three other rareplant and animal species. Unfortunately, our analysis of alternatives to lessen the habitat impactshas not borne fruit. Thus, the Commission is faced with a very difficult choice - whether toproperly close the landfills or to protect rare plant and animal habitat.

In weighing these choices, the Executive Director is mindful that the Pinelands protectionprogram is built on two pillars, protection of the region’s water resources and an ecosystem-based approach to the protection of the Pinelands landscape. Approval of this agreement violatesneither of those two tenets and, in fact, helps to reinforce the Commission’s water quality andwaste management policies which are constantly questioned by applicants and others becausethey require protective and remedial measures which go beyond normal New Jerseyrequirements. This two-pronged approach in no way trivializes the importance of protectinghabitat for rare plants and animals; rather, it recognizes that a landscape-level/land-use based

45

approach, which protects large expanses of the Pinelands environment, is the most effective wayto protect the Pinelands’ indigenous plants and animals.

The special environmental measures outlined in Section III.C. of this report, coupled with theintergovernmental agreement changes described below, satisfy the requirements of N.J.A.C.7:50-4.52(c)2.

Therefore, the Executive Director recommends that the Commission approve the accompanyingintergovernmental agreement, dated June 28, 2006. This proposed agreement incorporatesseveral editorial and substantive changes from that which was submitted for public review. Thesubstantive changes include: revisions to Sections IV. and VI.A.15 to reflect more specificperformance standards for the improved on-site stormwater management measures, specificallythat structural stormwater management facilities shall be designed and arranged to remove atleast 96% of the total suspended solids from the stormwater; revisions to Sections IV. andVI.A.15 to reflect more specific performance measures for the Route 72 stormwaterimprovement project, specifically that total suspended solids that are now directly discharged toMill Creek shall be reduced by at least 50%; revisions to Sections VI.A.14 and VI.B.10 thatrequire the Township and the County to complete the land purchases within three years;revisions to Section VI.A.17 to provide that the Township reimburse the Commission forexpenses to monitor implementation of the agreement (in addition to reimbursement forexpenses for developing the agreement); and revisions to Environmental Condition No. 4(Attachment B to the agreement) that expressly recognize the need for temporary snake barriersand the potential need for permanent snake barriers.

DRAFTJune 28, 2006

1 The parcel also contains three areas of waste totaling approximately 25 acres in size where waste wasdeposited in the 1950’s thru 1970’s. As part of the landfill closure the waste located in these areas will beexcavated and placed on the former Township landfill prior to installation of the impermeable cap.

1

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENTAMONGST

STAFFORD TOWNSHIP,OCEAN COUNTY,

ANDTHE NEW JERSEY PINELANDS COMMISSION

I. PURPOSE

This Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is entered into amongst Stafford Township(“Stafford”), Ocean County (the “County”), and the New Jersey Pinelands Commission (the“Commission”). This MOA concerns property located within Stafford Township, OceanCounty, commonly known as the Stafford Business Park (the “Business Park”), which consistsof approximately 363 acres that had been previously subdivided into approximately 67 separatetax lots. With the exception of two lots, Block 13, Lot 64 and Block 25, Lot 62, the remaining65 lots are under Township, County or State ownership and contain the former Townshiplandfill1, several County and Township facilities, a New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commissioninspection station, and a Township owned water tower. The Commission is an independentpolitical subdivision of the State of New Jersey created pursuant to Section 4 of the PinelandsProtection Act, N.J.S.A. 13:18A-1 et seq., and charged with the implementation of the Act andthe Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan (the “CMP”), N.J.A.C. 7:50. The Commissionis also the planning entity authorized under Section 502 of the National Parks and RecreationAct of 1978.

Stafford has designated the Business Park as an area in need of redevelopment pursuant toSection 6 of the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law (“Redevelopment Law”), N.J.S.A.40A:12A-6. Pursuant to Section 8 of the Redevelopment Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-8, Stafford hasdesignated its governing body as the redeveloping entity. On November 1, 2005, by OrdinanceNo. 2005-102, the Mayor and Town Council of Stafford adopted the redevelopment plan entitled“Redevelopment Plan for the Stafford Business Park,” prepared by Schoor DePalma and datedNovember, 2005 (Last revised to reflect Planning Board comments on October 5, 2005) (the“Redevelopment Plan”) attached hereto as Exhibit 1. This Redevelopment Plan calls for theclosure of the Township’s former landfill site, development of a mixture of housing stocks andresidential uses, including affordable housing, supportive neighborhood commercial andrecreational opportunities and development of modern retail and office space. TheRedevelopment Plan also calls for the relocation of Stafford (water tower), County (ResourceCenter, Recycling Center/Garage, Animal Shelter and Composting Facility) and State (NJ MVCInspection Station) facilities. In accordance with the requirements of the Redevelopment Planand as permitted by the Redevelopment Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-8, Stafford has contracted witha redeveloper to redevelop the Business Park. This MOA is required in order to permit Staffordto proceed with the proposed closure of the landfill and the redevelopment of the Business Park

DRAFTJune 28, 2006

2

pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan, and to permit the relocation of the County and Statefacilities.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Stafford Business Park

The Business Park consists of approximately 363 acres located west of the Garden StateParkway, south of State Highway 72 and north and adjacent to the northeastern corner of theStafford Forge Wildlife Management Area (hereinafter the Business Park Site). TheCommission approved a public development application creating the Business Park on July 13,1990 (Pinelands Application No. 1987-1159.002, attached hereto as Exhibit 2). As a result of 5subsequent public development approvals for additional resubdivisions of the Business Park, theBusiness Park is currently comprised of approximately 67 lots. Twelve of these lots have beendeveloped to date. The site is depicted on the plan attached hereto as Exhibit 3. Stafford ownsapproximately 332 acres of the Business Park; the County owns approximately 16.25 acres of theBusiness Park; the State owns approximately 5 acres of the Business Park and the remainingapproximately 11 acres (two lots) of the Business Park are privately owned. The lots thatcomprise the Business Park and the owners of each lot are listed on Exhibit 4. The BusinessPark is located in a Pinelands Regional Growth Area as defined in the Pinelands CMP.

1. Ocean County Facilities in the Stafford Business Park

Within the Business Park are various lots owned by the County and on which are located variousCounty facilities. These County facilities include an animal shelter, the Ocean County ResourceCenter, the Ocean County Recycling Center/Road Department Garage, composting facility andassociated office space. As discussed below, buried waste extends onto certain of the County-owned lots, and in some instances waste is located beneath the existing structures and pavement. All of these County facilities are either antiquated and/or of insufficient size to meet theCounty’s needs, and thus require modernization and/or enlargement.

2. State Facility in Stafford Business Park

A New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission inspection station is located near the intersection ofRecovery and Hay roads within the Business Park. Buried waste is also located on a portion ofthis site.

3. Township Facilities in Stafford Business Park

On the west side of Recovery Road, Stafford has a recycling drop-off facility. This facility islocated partially over buried waste. The Township also has an existing water tank located onBlock 25.02, Lot 10.

B. The Stafford Township Landfill

Stafford operated a sanitary landfill on approximately 55 acres in the western area of theBusiness Park on portions of Block 25, Lot 93; Block 13, Lot 22.01; and Block 13, Lot 68. This

DRAFTJune 28, 2006

3

facility is sometimes known as the “New Landfill” and is referred to herein as the “Landfill”. The Landfill was registered with New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (the“NJDEP”) in August 1970 as Facility No. 15623001. The Landfill ceased accepting solid wasteon December 31, 1983. On May 13, 1994, the Pinelands Commission issued an amended publicdevelopment approval for the closure of the Landfill (Pinelands Application No. 1987-1159.001). To date, Stafford has not closed the Landfill in accordance with its approved closureplan, the requirements of the Pinelands CMP, N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.75, and the NJDEP’s Solid WasteRules, N.J.A.C. 7:26-2A.9. Among other things, the Landfill lacks an impermeable cap, propergrading, and a methane gas management system. Because Stafford lacks the financial resourcesto close the Landfill, as discussed below, Stafford has developed a redevelopment plan, pursuantto Section 7 of the Redevelopment Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-7, that includes the closure of thelandfill. The Redevelopment Plan calls for Stafford to redevelop the Business Park bycontracting with a redeveloper, as permitted by the Redevelopment Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-8. The redeveloper, acting as Stafford’s agent, will close the landfill at its own expense.

A leachate plume and seeps are emanating from the Landfill and contaminating the surface andground waters of the Pinelands. Current monitoring data, quarterly from 2001 to 2005, showsexceedances of the Class 2 Ground Water Quality Standards (“GWQS”) for a variety ofconstituents (arsenic, cadmium, iron, lead, sodium). In addition, a much larger set ofconstituents (ammonia, arsenic, cadmium, chlorine, chloroform, chromium, iron, lead,manganese pH, silver, sodium, total dissolved solids (TDS), and zinc) exceed the Pinelandsbackground standards. Constituents emanating from the Landfill have been detected in MillCreek. The proper closure of the Landfill, including but not limited to installing an impermeablecap, is required by law and essential in order to protect the surface and ground waters and otherresources of the Pinelands.

C. The “Old Landfill”

On the eastern side of the Business Park are three areas approximately 25 acres in size. Theseareas are sometimes collectively referred to as the Old Stafford Township Landfill (“OldLandfill”). The Old Landfill reportedly was used for disposal of solid waste from approximately1955 to 1970, prior to promulgation of the Solid Waste Rules, and prior to the creation of theCommission in 1979. The Old Landfill occupies part of Block 25, Lot 61 and extends under Hayand Recovery roads and several other parcels including Block 25, Lot 27.01 to the north (OceanCounty Resource Center); Block 13, Lot 60 to the northwest across Recovery Road (StaffordTownship Recycling Drop-Off Facility); Block 13, Lot 55 (State of New Jersey Motor VehicleCommission Inspection Station); and Block 25.01, Lot 59 to the west across Recovery Road(Ocean County Recycling Center/Road Department garage). Hay Road separates Block 13, Lot60 and Block 25.01, Lot 59 at its intersection with Recovery Road. The Old Landfill has notbeen closed in accordance with the requirements of the Pinelands CMP, N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.75, andthe Solid Waste Rules, N.J.A.C. 7:26-2A.9. The lots that comprise the Old Landfill and theowners of each lot are listed on Exhibit 5. Stafford also lacks the financial resources toremediate the Old Landfill.

Monitoring data shows that leachate is emanating from the Old Landfill and that a variety ofconstituents (total dissolved solids, ammonia, aluminum, arsenic, calcium, chromium, iron, lead,manganese, sodium and VOC benzene) exceed the Class 2 GWQS and Pinelands background

DRAFTJune 28, 2006

4

levels. Remediation of the Old Landfill is essential in order to protect the surface waters,groundwaters and other resources of the Pinelands.

D. The 2005 Landfill Closure Plan

On or about January 2005, Stafford submitted to DEP a Major Landfill Waste DisruptionApproval Report and Request for Beneficial Reuse Approval for the Old Landfill, and a LandfillClosure Report for the Landfill (collectively the “Closure Plan” attached hereto as Exhibits 6 &7). These submissions propose to close the Old Landfill by excavating all of the buried wastefrom the area of the Old Landfill and regrading this area with clean fill. The non-hazardouswaste excavated from the Old Landfill will be reused in the closure of the Landfill. TheTownship retains responsibility for the proper disposal, i.e. in accordance existing environmentallaws, of any excavated waste that may not be reused in the Landfill closure. The closure of theLandfill will include grading to allow for proper drainage, and construction of a final coversystem, landfill gas controls, and stormwater controls, all in accordance with the Pinelands CMP,N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.75, and the Solid Waste Rules, N.J.A.C. 7:26-2A.9. The Closure Plan alsoproposes the construction of an impermeable cap over the Landfill in accordance with thePinelands CMP and the Solid Waste Rules. No leachate collection has been required for theclosure of the Landfill. However, the NJDEP may subsequently require installation of a remedialtreatment system should installation of the impermeable cap fail to control the leachateemanating from the Landfill. If installed, the Township will retain responsibility for theoperation and maintenance of such pump and treat system. The pump and treat system wouldlikely be installed along the northerly side of the landfill, because the groundwater testing showsthe direction of flow to be south to north. The Closure Plan also provides for excavating soilfrom borrow areas throughout the Business Park as clean fill for the Old Landfill and as coverand grading material for the Landfill closure. This will involve moving approximately 70,000truck loads of material around the Business Park including, among others things:

Excavating approximately 430,000 cubic yards of waste material from the Old Landfilland beneficially reusing this to grade and contour the Landfill.

Excavating approximately 516,000 cubic yards of clean fill from borrow areasthroughout the Business Park and using this as clean fill for the Old Landfill.

Excavating approximately 493,000 cubic yards of additional clean fill from borrow areasthroughout the Business Park and using this for cover and grading material at theLandfill.

The direct costs of the Closure Plan are estimated to be approximately $31 million. (See Exhibit8). When engineering, facility relocation, financing and management costs are added, the totalcosts for the closure may approach $45 to $60 million.

E. The Redevelopment Plan for Stafford Business Park

1. Stafford’s Designation of the Business Park as an Area in Need ofRedevelopment

DRAFTJune 28, 2006

5

On August 2, 2005, the Mayor and Stafford Township Municipal Council adopted ResolutionNo. 2005-223 directing the Stafford Township Planning Board to conduct a preliminaryinvestigation into whether the Business Park site met the statutory criteria for designating it as an“area in need of redevelopment” as defined in the Redevelopment Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-1 etseq. On September 21, 2005, by Resolution No. 2005-49, the Planning Board recommended tothe governing body that the Business Park be designated as “an area in need of development”and that designation was subsequently made by resolutions dated October 4, 2005 (ResolutionNo. 2005-264), attached hereto as Exhibit 9 and November 1, 2005 (Resolution No. 2005-286),attached hereto as Exhibit 10 and Ordinance No. 2005-102, attached hereto as Exhibit 11.Pursuant to Section 7 of that Act, N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-7, Stafford adopted the Redevelopment Planand designated its governing body as the redeveloping entity in accordance with Section 8 of thatAct, N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-8. Pursuant to Section 7 of the Redevelopment Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-7, the Redevelopment Plan amends the applicable provisions of Stafford’s zoning ordinancewithin the Business Park. The Redevelopment Plan has been submitted to the PinelandsCommission for its review, in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:50, Subchapter 3. One of the standardsthat must be addressed as part of the certification process is whether Stafford’s amended zoningordinance provides sufficient opportunity for the use of Pinelands Development Credits. Itshould be noted that as part of this Agreement, Stafford has agreed to amend its RedevelopmentPlan to authorize construction of 30% of the market rate residential units through the use ofPinelands Development Credits.

2. The Components of the Redevelopment Plan

The Redevelopment Plan provides for the closure of the Landfill and Old Landfill in conjunctionwith the redevelopment of the Business Park. Because Stafford lacks the financial resources tocomplete the closure and provide for the post-closure care of the Landfill and the Old Landfill inaccordance with the requirements of the Pinelands CMP and the Solid Waste Rules, theRedevelopment Plan contemplates that Stafford will contract with a redeveloper (the“Designated Redeveloper”) pursuant to Section 8 of the Redevelopment Law, N.J.S.A.40A:12A-8. The Redevelopment Plan calls for the closure, and post-closure care of the Landfilland the Old Landfill. The Plan also provides for the development of a mixture of housing stocksand residential uses, including affordable housing, supportive neighborhood commercial andrecreational opportunities, development of modern retail and office space and the relocation ofvarious State and County facilities. (See Exhibits 12 & 13)

The development of the Business Park, in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan, involves thefollowing:

• Resubdivision of the existing Business Park

• Excavation of the buried waste in the Old Landfill and reuse of such waste in theclosure of the Landfill.

• Closure of the Landfill, including installation of a pump and treat system, ifsubsequently required.

DRAFTJune 28, 2006

6

• Relocation of various County (animal shelter, the Resource Center, RecyclingCenter/Road Department Garage and composting facility), State (New Jersey MVCInspection Station) and Stafford (recycling drop-off facility) facilities and associatedsite improvements.

• Relocation of Recovery and Hay roads and the utilities located therein.

• Relocation of an existing private office building (Andwin Facility) and associatedconstruction of an ice skating rink.

• Residential development consisting of no more than 565 market rate residential units,plus up to an additional 112 residential units to be reserved for individuals of low andmoderate income. The residential development will include a clubhouse and relatedamenities (hereinafter this shall be referred to as the “residential component” of theredevelopment project.).

• Commercial development consisting of up to 650,000 square feet of commercialspace, including but not limited to retail development (hereinafter this shall bereferred to as the “commercial component” of the redevelopment project.).

• Road improvements, including but not limited to: (1) the widening of Recovery Roadin the vicinity of Route 72; and (2) improvements to an existing interchange (Exit 63)of the Garden State Parkway at Route 72 and signalization on Route 72.

F. The County’s Proposal

The County proposes to relocate its existing facilities from the lots on which they are nowlocated to newly subdivided lots as described in Exhibit 14 pursuant to a Property ExchangeAgreement entered into between the County and Stafford. This agreement reflects the history ofdiscussions between Stafford and the County regarding the County’s need for additional propertyto replace and, in some instances, expand its facilities (Resource Center, RecyclingCenter/Garage and Animal Shelter) located within the Business Park. The new County facilitieswill be larger and/or more modern. The total cost of this development is approximately $20million. The County will receive $2 million toward these costs and a new $.75 million animalshelter in accordance with the terms of the Property Exchange Agreement. The subdivision andsite plan for the County facilities is attached hereto as Exhibits 14 & 15 (the “CountyDevelopment Plan”). In addition, the County Composting Facility will be relocated on theclosed Landfill and will occupy no more than 20 acres of the 55 acre area of the Landfill thatwill be capped. Closure of that portion of the Landfill and construction of the impermeable capthereon must proceed before the Composting Facility can be relocated. To allow for smoothoperation of each of the County facilities, each new County facility must be constructed beforesuch facility is vacated and demolished, and thus before waste excavation on the lot in the OldLandfill on which such County facility is now located can commence. There are environmentalbenefits associated with the relocation of the County facilities. In addition to allowing theexcavation of waste located under the existing facilities, the new facilities will incorporate lowimpact site design principles and will be sized to provide better stormwater control. The bulk ofthe County’s recycling operations will now be conducted indoors, further minimizing

DRAFTJune 28, 2006

7

contaminated stormwater runoff and litter. Furthermore, the Public Works garage will also seeimproved stormwater control as a result of the ability to store and maintain more equipmentindoors. Moreover, the County has agreed to pursue the purchase of 75 acres of land thatconstitutes suitable habitat for Northern Pinesnake as part of its open space acquisition program.

III. IMPACTS ON THE RESOURCES OF THE PINELANDS ASSOCIATED WITH THECLOSURE AND REDEVELOPMENT PLANS

Based on a review of the documents delineated in Attachment A, the provisions of the PinelandsCMP and the terms of this MOA, including the Environmental Conditions delineated inAttachment B, it appears that the development activities proposed in the Closure andRedevelopment Plans will be consistent with the minimum requirements of the Pinelands CMP,with the exception of the following: threatened or endangered plant and animal standards(N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.27 and 6.33) and the standards pertaining to wetland buffers (N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.6and 6.14).

A. Threatened or Endangered Species Habitat

Implementation of the Closure and Redevelopment Plan will have irreversible adverse impactson the survival of two local populations of threatened or endangered plants (N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.27)and on habitats that are critical to the survival of two local populations of threatened orendangered animal species designated by the NJDEP pursuant to N.J.S.A. 23:2A-1 et seq.(N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.33) Specifically, Little ladies tresses (Spiranthes tuberosa), a threatened orendangered plant of the Pinelands, can be found in three areas totaling approximately 740 squarefeet, which are located within an approximately 9,240 square foot rectangular area on Block 25,Lot 61, a portion of the Old Landfill. Knieskern’s beaked rush (Rhynchospora knieshernii), afederally designated threatened plant species, can be found on the Landfill at Block 25, Lot 93. Both of these local populations of threatened or endangered plants will be eliminated as a resultof the closure of the Landfill and remediation of the Old Landfill. In addition, critical habitat forSouthern Gray Tree Frog (Hyla chrysocelis), an endangered animal species as designated by theNJDEP at N.J.A.C. 7:25-4.1, can be found within two existing stormwater basins located withinthe Business Park. One of these basins sits atop a pile of buried waste from the Old Landfill.Consequently, this basin, and its associated tree frog habitat, will be removed as part of theexcavation of waste from the Old Landfill. Furthermore, the Business Park contains criticalhabitat for Northern Pine Snake (Pituophis m. melanoleucus), a threatened animal speciesdesignated by the NJDEP at N.J.A.C. 7:25-4.17. Pinesnake dens have been found within theconfines of the Business Park site. One den is located within a pile of exposed debris within thearea of the Old Landfill and another is located proximate to the Landfill on an eroding slope. Inaddition, potential nesting habitat likely exists on the site given the initial trapping of a gravidfemale Pinesnake on site and the subsequent retrapping of the same snake who was no longergravid. Moreover, much of the Business Park constitutes foraging habitat for the localpopulation of Northern Pinesnakes. Closure of the Landfill and remediation of the Old Landfill,including the excavation of fill from borrow areas throughout the Business Park required for theclosure of the Landfill and remediation of the Old Landfill, will result in the elimination of atleast two dens and destruction of foraging habitat. In addition, implementation of theRedevelopment Plan, including relocation of the various County, State and Stafford facilities,

DRAFTJune 28, 2006

8

relocation of the Andwin facility and the subsequent redevelopment of the Business Park, willresult in the elimination of much of the remaining foraging habitat in the Business Park.

B. Wetlands Buffers

The Pinelands CMP prohibits development in wetlands and wetland transition areas locatedwithin the Pinelands except as specifically authorized by Subchapter 6, Part I. N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.6.A portion of the Landfill extends into approximately 2 acres of Block 13, Lots 22.01 and 68 thatwas formerly wetlands and wetlands buffers. This area will be covered with an impermeable capduring the implementation of the Closure Plan. It does not appear that the Landfill extends intoexisting wetlands areas, however, this will be confirmed during the closure of the Landfill. In theevent it is determined during the course of implementing the Closure Plan that any waste relatedwork will extend into any wetlands area, the waste material located in such wetland areas will beexcavated and relocated to existing areas of the Landfill that are not wetlands, but which may bewetlands transition areas.

Moreover, the proposed off-site roadway improvements including widening of Recovery Road,enlargement of the Garden State Parkway ramps and construction of stormwater retention basinsin the vicinity of such ramps will result in further encroachments into two isolated wetlandtransition areas located south of N.J. State Highway Route 72, east of the southbound GardenState Parkway and west of Recovery Road.

In addition, in order to minimize impacts to the two threatened or endangered plants species(Little ladies tresses and Knieskern’s beaked rush) adversely impacted by the closure of theLandfill and the remediation of the Old Landfill, enhancement of a wetlands buffer area locatedbehind Block 13, Lot 55 is being considered in order to facilitate relocation of the two species tothis location. .

IV. MEASURES PROPOSED TO AFFORD AN EQUIVALENT OR BETTER LEVEL OFPROTECTION FOR THE RESOURCES OF THE PINELANDS

As discussed in Paragraph III above, implementation of the Closure and Redevelopment Planswill result in impacts to certain threatened and endangered animal and plant species and theircritical habitat and to wetlands buffers. Consequently, the proposed development is notconsistent with a strict application of the following requirements of the Pinelands CMP: 1)N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.27 (Development prohibited in the vicinity of threatened or endangered plants),2) N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.33 (Protection of threatened or endangered wildlife required), 3) N.J.A.C.7:50-6.6 (Development Prohibited (Wetlands and wetlands transition areas)) and N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.14 (Wetland Transition Areas).

In order to provide an equivalent level of protection of the resources of the Pinelands, Stafford isproposing to purchase and deed restrict against future development at least 570 acres of land (atleast three times the forested lands to be disturbed as a result of the implementation of theClosure and Redevelopment Plans) in the Forest Area, a portion of which will be located withinthe Mill Creek drainage area to offset for wetlands impacts, and the remainder of which willconstitute suitable Pinesnake habitat, (See Exhibit 16). This land will supplement purchasesmade by the Township in accordance with its “Open Space” acquisition program.

DRAFTJune 28, 2006

9

Stafford is also is proposing the following additional offsets:

• Limiting the amount of acreage on the capped Landfill to be utilized for the relocation ofthe County leaf composting facility to no more than 20 acres and revegetating the balanceof the Landfill with native Pinelands vegetation;

• Recording, in the Ocean County Clerk’s office, a conservation easement to ensure thatthe Landfill and other open space area on the redeveloped Business Park site, includingwetland buffer areas, shall remain undeveloped as open space in perpetuity;

• Requiring its designated redeveloper to incorporate low impact site design measures intothe residential and commercial components of the redevelopment project so as to reducethe size and reliance upon structural stormwater management facilities, reduceconsumptive water use and reduce non-point source pollution. With the exception ofrooftop runoff, where structural stormwater management facilities are utilized, they shallbe designed in series to attain 96% removal of total suspended solids as calculatedaccording to the NJDEP Stormwater BMP Manual. In addition, the redeveloper shallimplement low maintenance landscape designs and beneficial re-use of stormwater;

• Requiring its designated redeveloper to incorporate “green building” design features intothe residential component of the redevelopment project, including but not limited, todesign features delineated in the “Rating System for Pilot Demonstration of LEED® forHomes Program”, Version 1.72” and Project Checklist – Version 1.73 or the currentversion in effect at the time of registration of the commercial component with the UnitedStates Green Building Council for LEED certification and to integrate “green building”design measures into and obtain “Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design”(LEED®) certification from the United States Green Building Council for the commercialcomponent of the redevelopment project. To obtain LEED® Certification for thecommercial component, the designated redeveloper shall satisfy the requirements andutilize the technologies and strategies set forth in the “LEED®-NC, Green BuildingRating System for New Construction and Major Renovations Version 2.2, dated October2005, or the current version in effect at the time of registration of the commercialcomponent with the United States Green Building Council for LEED certification. Inaddition, the designated redeveloper shall obtain 50% or more of the available creditsfrom the Sustainable Sites and Water Efficiency categories for both the residential andcommercial components. The LEED® documents referenced herein may be obtainedfrom the U.S. Green Building Council at http://www.usgbc.org and are incorporatedherein by reference;

• Requiring its designated redeveloper, at its own expense and in consultation with theDepartment of Transportation and the Pinelands Commission, to investigate andimplement improved stormwater management measures to reduce total suspended solidsdirectly discharged to the Mill Creek where it crosses Route 72 during a NJDEP waterquality design storm by a minimum of 50%. Where such measures require ongoingmaintenance of structural stormwater management BMP’s, Stafford Township agrees toguarantee said maintenance of the BMP’s in perpetuity. Such stormwater management

DRAFTJune 28, 2006

10

measures shall be implemented upon receipt of the Department and Commission’sapproval and completed before construction permits are issued for the commercialcomponent of the Redevelopment Plan; and

• Requiring its designated redeveloper to submit a Species Management Plan, consistentwith Environmental Condition 4, to the Pinelands Commission staff for its review andapproval in consultation with the NJDEP. Such plan shall be designed and implementedat the designated redeveloper’s expense to achieve the following goals: protect thethreatened and endangered plant and animal species located at the Business Park sitefrom harm during the implementation of the Closure and Redevelopment Plans,reestablish the impacted threatened or endangered animal species on, proximate to theBusiness Park site, or at other appropriate areas designated by the Pinelands Commissionand the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and reestablish theimpacted plant species on the site.

V. THE BASIS FOR THE MOA

The Pinelands CMP (N.J.A.C. 7:50-4.52(c)2), authorizes the Commission to enter intointergovernmental memoranda of agreement with any agency of the Federal, State or localgovernment which authorize such agency to carry out specified development activities that maynot be fully consistent with the provisions of the Pinelands CMP, specifically N.J.A.C. 7:50-5and 6. The agency must demonstrate, and the Commission must find, that any proposeddevelopment that is not fully consistent with the standards of the Pinelands CMP is accompaniedby measures that will, at a minimum, afford an equivalent level of protection of the resources ofthe Pinelands as would be provided through strict application of the standards of the PinelandsCMP.

As discussed above, implementation of the Closure and Redevelopment Plans is not fullyconsistent with the threatened or endangered plants (N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.27) and animals (N.J.A.C.7:50-6.33) standards of the Pinelands CMP as well as those standards pertaining to developmentin wetlands transition areas (N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.6 and 6.14). Consequently, as part of this MOAand discussed in detail in Paragraph IV above, Stafford and/or the County have agreed toundertake, or require the designated redeveloper to undertake, measures that will, at a minimum,afford an equivalent level of protection of the resources of the Pinelands than would be providedthrough the strict application of the standards of the CMP.

As discussed above, proper closure of the Landfill and remediation of the Old Landfill isrequired by law and necessary to protect the surface and groundwaters of the Pinelands.Moreover, relocation of the County facilities to new, modern facilities on the Business Park sitewill also provide better stormwater control and have a positive impact on the surface andgroundwater resources of the Pinelands.

All of these measures, when taken together, will afford at least an equivalent level of protectionof the resources of the Pinelands impacted by implementation of the proposed Closure andRedevelopment Plans as would be provided through strict application of the Pinelands CMP. Asa result, entry of this MOA authorizing deviation from the standards of the Pinelands CMP

DRAFTJune 28, 2006

11

pertaining to threatened or endangered plants or animal species (N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.27 & 6.33) andwetlands and wetlands transitions areas (N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.6 and 6.14) is warranted.

In accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:50-4.52(c)1, the Commission also may enter intointergovernmental memoranda with any agency of the Federal, State or local government whichauthorizes such agency to carry out specified development activities without securing individualdevelopment approvals from the Commission. As discussed above, measures are proposed thatwill afford an equivalent level of protection of the resources of the Pinelands. As a result, entryof a MOA authorizing alternative application procedures is also warranted.

VI. AGREEMENTS

A. Stafford agrees that:

1. It will require its designated redeveloper to implement the Closure andRedevelopment Plans, as delineated in Paragraphs II.D and II.E.2 above, inaccordance with the list of documents set forth in Attachment A, attached heretoand made a part hereof.

2. It will require its designated redeveloper to implement the Closure andRedevelopment Plans, as delineated in Paragraphs II.D. and II.E.2 above, inaccordance with all obligations of this MOA and the Pinelands CMP, unless adeviation therefrom is expressly authorized by this Agreement.

3. It will require its designated redeveloper to obtain any and all certificates,licenses, consent, approvals or permits required from any local, State and/orFederal entity prior to commencing implementation of the Closure andRedevelopment Plans, as delineated in Paragraphs II.D and II.E.2 above. No partof this MOA is intended to nor shall release Stafford and/or its designatedredeveloper from the responsibility to obtain all other required local, State and/orFederal approvals.

4. It will require its designated redeveloper to implement the Closure andRedevelopment Plans, as delineated in Paragraphs II.D and II.E.2 above, inaccordance with all of the Environmental Conditions set forth in Attachment B,attached hereto and made a part hereof, and the terms of this Agreement.

5. Any activity not specifically identified in Paragraph II.D. and II.E.2 and describedin the documents listed in Attachment A, will require a formal application to theCommission in accordance with the Pinelands CMP (N.J.A.C. 7:50-4.52(b)) andthat proposed development may not commence until an application has beencompleted with the Commission and the Commission has issued an approval.

6. To the extent that either new information becomes available or changes are madeto the scope or design of the components of the Closure or Redevelopment Plansare made that result in more than a de minimis change to the impacts associatedwith any of the components delineated in Paragraphs II.D and II.E.2 above anddescribed in the documents listed in Attachment A, such information or changes

DRAFTJune 28, 2006

12

shall be submitted to the Pinelands Commission staff for review and for aconsistency determination by the staff in accordance with Paragraph VI.C.7.

7. For the Resubdivision of the Existing Business Park, including the property to betransferred to the County in accordance with the Property Exchange Agreementbetween Stafford and the County, Stafford or its designated redeveloper shallprovide the following information to the Commission staff at least forty five (45)days prior to undertaking any development activities with regard to the Closure orRedevelopment Plans:

a. A narrative statement indicating whether all lots being created meetmunicipal zoning requirements, are permitted uses in the Regional GrowthArea and are consistent with all applicable environmental requirements ofthe Pinelands CMP, Subchapter 6, unless a deviation from such standard isexpressly authorized by this Agreement.

8. For the proposed closure of the Landfill and remediation of the Old Landfill,Stafford or its designated redeveloper shall provide the following information tothe Commission staff at least forty five (45) days prior to undertaking anydevelopment activities with regard to the Closure Plan:

a. Revised Landfill closure plans, Sheet No. 1, accurately depicting theverified wetlands lines and the 300’wetlands buffers to the Mill Creekwetlands complex and to the wetlands located off-site to the south of theparcel;

b. A detailed Stormwater Management Plan that complies with the standardsset forth in N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.84 and this MOA;

c. A detailed Species Management Plan that complies with the requirementsof Environmental Condition No. 4;

d. A detailed Revegetation Plan prepared in accordance with therequirements of N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.24 requiring revegetation of all but 20acres of the capped Landfill with Native Pinelands grasses; and

e. A list of other permits or approvals required prior to commencement ofany construction activity.

9. For the proposed relocation of the Stafford Recycling Drop-off, Stafford WaterTower, Recovery and Hay roads and the utilities located there under, relocation ofthe Andwin Facility and associated construction of an ice skating rink andconstruction of the proposed residential and commercial developments and off-site roadway improvements, Stafford or its designated redeveloper shall providethe following information to the Commission staff at least forty five (45) daysprior to undertaking any of these projects:

DRAFTJune 28, 2006

13

a. Detailed plans for each project, which include: 1) a depiction of thewetlands and wetlands transition areas previously delineated by Staffordor its designated redeveloper and accepted by Commission staff ascomplying with the requirements of N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.3; and 2) the limits ofclearing and land disturbance associated with each project;

b. A detailed Stormwater Management Plan for each project that complieswith the standards set forth in N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.84 and this MOA;

c. A detailed analysis demonstrating compliance with all ambient air qualitystandards in N.J.A.C. 7:27, including carbon monoxide, in accordancewith the requirements of N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.93 and 6.94;

d. A detailed Revegetation or Landscaping plan that complies with therequirements of Environmental Condition No. 1 and N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.24;

e. A detailed statement demonstrating that each project complies with theterms and conditions of this MOA and all applicable requirements of thePinelands CMP from which a deviation has not been authorized by thisMOA;

f. A list of other permits or approvals required prior to commencement ofany construction activity.

10. For the proposed relocation of the New Jersey Motor Vehicle CommissionInspection Station, Stafford or its designated redeveloper shall provide thefollowing information to the Commission staff at least forty five (45) days prior toundertaking any of these projects:

a. A copy of any agreement executed between Stafford and/or its designatedredeveloper and the State of New Jersey regarding the relocation of theinspection station;

b. A letter from the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission authorizingStafford or its designated redeveloper to construct a new inspection stationon the Business Park site on its behalf;

c. Detailed plans which include a depiction of the wetlands and wetlandstransition areas previously delineated by Stafford or its designatedredeveloper and accepted by Commission staff as complying with therequirements of N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.3; and the limits of clearing and landdisturbance associated with the project;

d. A detailed Stormwater Management Plan for each project that complieswith the standards set forth in N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.84 and this MOA;

DRAFTJune 28, 2006

14

e. A detailed analysis demonstrating compliance with all ambient air qualitystandards in N.J.A.C. 7:27, including carbon monoxide, in accordancewith the requirements of N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.93 and 6.94;

f. A detailed Revegetation or Landscaping plan that complies with therequirements of Environmental Condition No. 1 and N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.24;

g. A detailed statement demonstrating that the project complies with theterms and conditions of this MOA and all applicable requirements of thePinelands CMP from which a deviation has not been authorized by thisMOA; and

h. A list of other permits or approvals required prior to commencement ofany construction activity.

11. If it is determined by the Executive Director that any portion of the projectsdelineated in Paragraphs VI.A. 7 through 10 is inconsistent with the requirementsof this MOA or the Pinelands CMP from which a deviation has not beenauthorized by this Agreement, Stafford agrees, on behalf of itself and itsdesignated redeveloper, to modify that project until the Executive Directordetermines that it is consistent with all requirements. If Stafford disagrees withthe Executive Director’s determination, it may file a complete PublicDevelopment Application and seek formal approval from the PinelandsCommission for such project.

12. Neither it nor its designated redeveloper will commence a project delineated inParagraphs VI.A. 7 through 10, and VI.B.1 until:

a. It or its designated redeveloper receives written authorization from theCommission staff indicating that that proposed project is consistent withthe requirements of this MOA and the Pinelands CMP or to the extent thatnew information is involved or changes made to the scope or design of aproject pursuant to Paragraph VI.A.6 above, it or its designatedredeveloper has received written authorization from the Commission staffpursuant to Paragraph VI.C.8; and

b. The Environmental Conditions set forth in Attachment B have beencomplied with or a mechanism ensuring compliance therewith has beenput into place.

13. Stafford agrees to amend its Redevelopment Plan to authorize construction of30% of the market rate residential units through the use of PinelandsDevelopment Credits and to submit the original and revised Redevelopment Planto the Pinelands Commission for its review and certification, in accordance withN.J.A.C. 7:50, Subchapter 3.

14. Stafford agrees to purchase and deed restrict against future development at least570 acres of land (at least three times the forested lands to be disturbed as a result

DRAFTJune 28, 2006

15

of the implementation of the Closure and Redevelopment Plans) in the ForestArea, a portion of which will be located within the Mill Creek drainage area tooffset for wetlands impacts, and the remainder of which will constitute suitablePinesnake habitat. Evidence of the purchase and deed restriction shall beprovided to the Executive Director within three years of the effective date of thisMOA;

15. In addition to agreeing to comply and requiring its designated redeveloper tocomply with the Environmental Conditions set forth in Attachment B, Staffordalso agrees to:

• Limit the amount of acreage on the capped Landfill to be utilized for therelocation of the County leaf composting facility to no more than 20 acres andrevegetating the balance of the Landfill with native Pinelands vegetation;

• Record, in the Ocean County Clerk’s office, a conservation easement toensure that the Landfill and other open space area on the redevelopedBusiness Park site, including wetland buffer areas, shall remain undevelopedas open space in perpetuity;

• Require its designated redeveloper to incorporate low impact site designmeasures into the residential and commercial components of theredevelopment project so as to reduce the size and reliance upon structuralstormwater management facilities, reduce consumptive water use and reducenon-point source pollution. With the exception of rooftop runoff, wherestructural stormwater management facilities are utilized, they shall bedesigned in series to attain 96% removal of total suspended solids ascalculated according to the NJDEP Stormwater BMP Manual. In addition, theredeveloper shall implement low maintenance landscape designs andbeneficial re-use of stormwater;

• Require its designated redeveloper to incorporate “green building” designfeatures into the residential component of the redevelopment project,including but not limited to design features delineated in the “Rating Systemfor Pilot Demonstration of LEED® for Homes Program”, Version 1.72” andProject Checklist – Version 1.73 or the current version in effect at the time ofregistration of the commercial component with the United States GreenBuilding Council for LEED certification and to integrate “greenbuilding”design measures into and obtain “Leadership in Energy andEnvironmental Design” (LEED®) certification from the United States GreenBuilding Council for the commercial component of the redevelopmentproject. To obtain LEED® Certification for the commercial component, thedesignated redeveloper shall satisfy the requirements and utilize thetechnologies and strategies set forth in the “LEED®-NC, Green BuildingRating System for New Construction and Major Renovations Version 2.2,dated October 2005, the current version in effect at the time of registration of

DRAFTJune 28, 2006

16

the commercial component with the United States Green Building Council forLEED certification. In addition, the designated redeveloper shall obtain 50%or more of the available credits from the Sustainable Sites and WaterEfficiency categories for both the residential and commercial components. The LEED® documents referenced herein may be obtained from the U.S.Green Building Council at http://www.usgbc.org and are incorporated hereinby reference;

• Require its designated redeveloper, at its own expense and in consultationwith the Department of Transportation and the Pinelands Commission, toinvestigate and implement improved stormwater management measures toreduce total suspended solids directly discharged to the Mill Creek where itcrosses Route 72 during a NJDEP water quality design storm by a minimumof 50%. Where such measures require ongoing maintenance of structuralstormwater management BMP’s, Stafford Township agrees to guarantee saidmaintenance of the BMP’s in perpetuity. Such stormwater managementmeasures shall be implemented upon receipt of the Department andCommission’s approval and completed before construction permits are issuedfor the commercial component of the Redevelopment Plan; and

• Require its designated redeveloper to submit a Species Management Plan,consistent with Environmental Condition 4, to the Pinelands Commission stafffor its review and approval in consultation with the NJDEP. Such plan shallbe designed and implemented at the designated redeveloper’s expense toachieve the following goals: protect the threatened and endangered plant andanimal species located at the Business Park site from harm during theimplementation of the Closure and Redevelopment Plans, reestablish theimpacted threatened or endangered animal species on, proximate to theBusiness Park site or at other appropriate areas designated by the PinelandsCommission and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection andreestablish the impacted plant species on the site.

16. It will acquire the additional land required pursuant to Paragraph VI.A.14. above,without the use of Township “Open Space” acquisition funds, Green Acresfunding or any other source of public funding dedicated to land acquisition forrecreational or conservation purposes; and

17. It will reimburse the Commission for the staff time expended in developing andmonitoring the implementation of this Agreement. Reimbursement shall beperiodically remitted to the Commission within 60 days of the Township’s receiptof a duly documented request for payment.

B. The County agrees that:

1. For the relocation of Ocean County facilities and associated site improvements, itor Stafford’s designated redeveloper shall provide the following information to

DRAFTJune 28, 2006

17

the Commission staff at least forty five (45) days prior to the commencement ofany development activities with regard to such facilities:

a. A copy of the detailed plans for the proposed Animal Shelter;

b. Revised site plans accurately scaling the wetlands buffer line located onBlock 13, Lot 68, correcting the legend on Sheet 5 to accurately reflect thesymbol for the buffer line used in the plan and including the notation that“No development permitted in wetlands or within 300’ of wetlands;”

c. A detailed Stormwater Management Plan that complies with the standardsset forth in N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.84 and this MOA, including a letter from theCounty certifying that it will be responsible for maintenance of anystormwater measures constructed as part of the County facilities relocationproject and this MOA;

d. A detailed analysis demonstrating compliance with all ambient air qualitystandards in N.J.A.C. 7:27, including carbon monoxide, in accordancewith the requirements of N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.93 and 6.94;

e. A detailed Revegetation or Landscaping plan that complies with therequirements of N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.24 and requires the use of nativePinelands seeds, shrubs and plant species, except that limited non-nativespecies may be utilized around the foundations of buildings; and

f. A list of other permits or approvals required prior to commencement ofany construction activity.

2. It, Stafford or Stafford’s designated redeveloper shall implement the relocation ofthe Ocean County facilities and associated site improvements identified inParagraph II.F.2 above, in accordance with the relevant documents set forth inAttachment A, attached hereto and made a part hereof.

3. It, Stafford or Stafford’s designated redeveloper shall implement the relocation ofthe Ocean County facilities and associated site improvements identified inParagraph II.F.2 above, in accordance with all obligations of this MOA and thePinelands CMP, unless a deviation therefrom is expressly authorized by thisAgreement.

4. It, Stafford or Stafford’s designated redeveloper shall obtain any and allcertificates, licenses, consent, approvals or permits required from any local, Stateand/or Federal entity prior to commencing implementation of the relocation of theOcean County facilities and associated site improvements identified in ParagraphII.F.2 above. No part of this MOA is intended to nor shall release the County ,Stafford and/or Stafford’s designated redeveloper from the responsibility toobtain all other required local, State and/or Federal approvals.

DRAFTJune 28, 2006

18

5. It, Stafford or Stafford’s designated redeveloper shall implement the relocation ofthe Ocean County facilities and associated site improvements identified inParagraph II.F above, in accordance with all of the Environmental Conditions setforth in Attachment B, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and the terms ofthis Agreement.

6. Any activity not specifically identified in Paragraph II.F above and described inthe relevant documents listed in Attachment A, will require a formal applicationto the Commission in accordance with the Pinelands CMP (N.J.A.C. 7:50-4.52(b)) and that proposed development may not commence until an applicationhas been completed with the Commission and the Commission has issued anapproval.

7. To the extent that either new information becomes available or changes are madeto the scope or design of the Ocean County facilities and associated siteimprovements, identified in Paragraph II.F above, are made that result in morethan a de minimis change to the impacts associated with the relocation of suchfacilities and described in the relelvant documents listed in Attachment A, suchinformation or changes shall be submitted to the Pinelands Commission staff forreview and for a consistency determination by the staff in accordance withParagraph VI.C.7.

8. If it is determined by the Executive Director that any portion of the relocation ofthe Ocean County facilities and associated site improvements identified inParagraph II.F above, is inconsistent with the requirements of this MOA or thePinelands CMP from which a deviation has not been authorized by thisAgreement, the County agrees, on behalf of itself, Stafford and/or Stafford’sdesignated redeveloper, to modify that project until the Executive Directordetermines that it is consistent with all requirements. If the County disagrees withthe Executive Director’s determination, it may file a complete PublicDevelopment Application and seek formal approval from the PinelandsCommission for such project.

9. Neither the County, Stafford nor Stafford’s designated redeveloper willcommence the relocation of the Ocean County facilities and associated siteimprovements identified in Paragraph II.F above, until:

a. The County, Stafford or Stafford’s designated redeveloper receives writtenauthorization from the Commission staff indicating that that proposedproject is consistent with the requirements of this MOA and the PinelandsCMP or to the extent that new information is involved or changes made tothe scope or design of a project pursuant to Paragraph VI.B.7 above, theCounty, Stafford or Stafford’s designated redeveloper has received writtenauthorization from the Commission staff pursuant to Paragraph VI.C.8;and

DRAFTJune 28, 2006

19

b. The Environmental Conditions set forth in Attachment B have beencomplied with or a mechanism ensuring compliance therewith has beenput into place.

10. The County agrees to purchase 75 acres of land that constitutes suitable habitatfor Northern Pinesnake as part of its open space acquisition program. Evidence ofthe purchase shall be provided to the Executive Director within three years of theeffective date of this agreement.

C. The Pinelands Commission agrees that:

1. It will not require the filing of formal public development applications inaccordance with the Pinelands CMP, N.J.A.C. 7:50-4.52(b) for the projectsdelineated in Paragraphs II.D and II.E.2 above;

2. Based on its review of the documents delineated in Attachment A, the provisionsof the Pinelands CMP and the terms of this MOA, including the EnvironmentalConditions delineated in Attachment B, and with the exception of those standardsfor which a deviation is being granted pursuant to this MOA, the proposedResubdivision of the Business Park appears to be consistent with the requirementsof the Pinelands CMP, provided that the additional information required pursuantto Paragraphs VI.A.7 above is submitted to and deemed consistent by thePinelands staff.

3. Based on its review of the documents delineated in Attachment A, the provisionsof the Pinelands CMP and the terms of this MOA, including the EnvironmentalConditions delineated in Attachment B, and with the exception of those standardsfor which a deviation is being granted pursuant to this MOA, the proposed closureof the Landfill and remediation of the Old Landfill appears to be consistent withthe requirements of the Pinelands CMP, provided that the additional informationrequired pursuant to Paragraph VI.A.8 above is submitted to and deemedconsistent by the Pinelands staff.

4. Based on its review of the documents delineated in Attachment A, the provisionsof the Pinelands CMP and the terms of this MOA, including the EnvironmentalConditions delineated in Attachment B, and with the exception of those standardsfor which a deviation is being granted pursuant to this MOA, the proposedrelocation of Ocean County facilities and associated site improvements, appearsto be consistent with the requirements of the Pinelands CMP, provided that theadditional information required pursuant to Paragraph VI.B.1 above is submittedto and deemed consistent by the Pinelands staff.

5. Based on its review of the documents delineated in Attachment A, the provisionsof the Pinelands CMP and the terms of this MOA, including the EnvironmentalConditions delineated in Attachment B, and with the exception of those standardsfor which a deviation is being granted pursuant to this MOA, the proposedrelocation of the Stafford Recycling Drop-off, Stafford Water Tower, Recovery

DRAFTJune 28, 2006

20

and Hay roads and the utilities located there under, relocation of the AndwinFacility and associated construction of an ice skating rink and construction of theproposed residential and commercial developments and off-site roadwayimprovements, appear to be consistent with the requirements of the PinelandsCMP, provided that the additional information required pursuant to ParagraphVI.A.9 above is submitted to and deemed consistent by the PinelandsCommission staff.

6. Based on its review of the documents delineated in Attachment A, the provisionsof the Pinelands CMP and the terms of this MOA, including the EnvironmentalConditions delineated in Attachment B, and with the exception of those standardsfor which a deviation is being granted pursuant to this MOA, the proposedrelocation of New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission Inspection Station, appearsto be consistent with the requirements of the Pinelands CMP, provided that theadditional information required pursuant to Paragraph VI.A.10 above is submittedto and deemed consistent by the Pinelands Commission staff.

7. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of the information submitted in accordance withParagraphs VI.A.7 through 10 and VI.B.1, the Commission staff will providewritten authorization in accordance with Paragraph VI.C.9 or a writtenexplanation of inconsistencies in accordance with Paragraph VI.C.8 below.

8. If the Executive Director determines that any portion of a proposed project isinconsistent with this MOA and/or the provisions of the Pinelands CMP, then theCommission staff shall provide a written explanation of the deficiencies andidentify specific actions that must be taken by Stafford or its designatedredeveloper to remedy such deficiencies.

9. If the Executive Director determines, after review of information submitted inaccordance with Paragraphs VI.A.7 through 10 and VI.B.1 and/or in response toany deficiency letter issued by the Commission staff pursuant to ParagraphVI.C.8, that a proposed project is consistent with this MOA and the provisions ofthe Pinelands CMP, a written authorization shall be issued to the County, Staffordor Stafford’s designated redeveloper settling forth this determination. This writtenauthorization shall constitute a public development approval.

10. Based upon the environmental measures provided by the terms of this MOA,including those measures discussed in Paragraph IV above and the EnvironmentalConditions delineated in Attachment B, deviation from the following standards ofthe Pinelands CMP are warranted: 1) N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.27 (Developmentprohibited in the vicinity of threatened or endangered plants), 2) N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.33 (Protection of threatened or endangered wildlife required), 3) N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.6 (Development Prohibited (Wetlands and wetlands transitions areas)) andN.J.A.C. 7:50-6.14 (Wetland Transition Areas).

E. Stafford and the Pinelands Commission agree that should Stafford’s designatedredeveloper obtain any public funding for the Closure of the Landfill or the

DRAFTJune 28, 2006

21

implementation of the Redevelopment Plan, other than pursuant to a BrownfieldsRedevelopment Agreement in accordance with the Municipal Landfill Site Closure,Remediation and Redevelopment Act, N.J.S.A. 13:1E-116.1 et seq., 75% of such monieswill be contributed to the Pinelands Conservation Fund.

VII. EFFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION

A. In accordance with N.J.S.A. 13:18A-5(h), this MOA shall take effect following theconclusion of the Governor’s review period and approval of the Pinelands Commissionminutes authorizing entry of this MOA and then upon approval and signature by theauthorized representatives of all parties to this agreement.

B. This MOA shall remain in effect unless amended by written consent of all parties.

VIII. SIGNATURES

NEW JERSEY PINELANDS COMMISSION

Date: ________________________ By: ______________________________John C. Stokes, Executive Director

Approved as to form by:

Date: ________________________ By: _____________________________ Valerie Haynes, DAGState of New Jersey

TOWNSHIP OF STAFFORD

Date: ________________________ By: _____________________________ Carl Block, Mayor

DRAFTJune 28, 2006

22

OCEAN COUNTY

Date: ________________________ By: _____________________________ Alan Avery, County Administrator

ATTACHMENT A

Stafford Landfill and Business Park Documents

APPLICATION MATERIALS:

Major Landfill Waste Disruption Approval Report and Request for Beneficial Reuse Approvalfor the Old Stafford Township Landfill

Prepared by EMCON/OWT, Inc./Shaw Environmental, Inc.Dated January 19, 2005

Revisions for Landfill Closure Report for the Stafford Township Landfill(2 binders)Prepared by EMCON/OWT, Inc./Shaw Environmental, Inc.Dated January 19, 2005; revised August 3, 2005

SITE PLANS:

Engineering Plans for the Waste Disruption and Closure of the Old Stafford Township Landfill,consisting of 11 sheets, prepared by Shaw EMCON/OWT, Inc./Shaw Environmental, Inc. anddated as follows:

Cover Sheet - January 2005Sheets 1 through 10 - January 19, 2005

Engineering Plans for the Closure of the Stafford Township Landfill, consisting of 16 sheets,prepared by Shaw EMCON/OWT, Inc./Shaw Environmental, Inc. and dated as follows:

Cover Sheet - January 2005; revised November 2005Sheets 1, 2, 10 & 14 - January 19, 2005; revised November 7, 2005Sheets 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12 & 13 - January 19, 2005; revised November 3, 2005Sheets 7, 8 & 9 - January 19, 2005; revised July 29, 2005Sheet 10A - November 3, 2005

Landfill Closure Tree Clearing Plan, prepared by Speitel & Speitel, Inc., dated September 15,2005 and revised September 26, 2005

Landfill Closure Borrow Area Plan, prepared by Speitel & Speitel, Inc., dated September 16,2005 and revised September 26, 2005

Topographic & Wetland Survey, prepared by Thomas J. Ertle & Associates, LLC, datedNovember 11, 2005 and revised February 2, 2006

Southern Recycling Relocation Project plans (County facilities relocation plans), consisting of22 sheets, prepared by Hatch Mott McDonald and dated as follows:

Cover Sheet - December 2005Sheets 2 through 22 - December 14, 2005

2

Lot Consolidation-Subdivision Plan, prepared by Thomas J. Ertle & Associates, LLC,dated June 21, 2005 and revised February 20, 2006.

Stafford Park Mixed Use Development (Conceptual Plan), prepared by Minno & Waskoand dated February ??, 2006

Concept Plan-Route 72 & Recovery Road Roadway Improvements, prepared by TRCRaymond Keyes Associates, dated August 1, 2005 and revised February 22, 2006

AIR QUALITY:

New Jersey Department of Transportation Concept Review Application Traffic ImpactStudy, prepared by TRC Raymond Keyes Associates and dated August 1, 2005

Stafford Park Mixed-Use Community Project Air Quality Analysis of Mobile Sources,prepared by TRC Environmental Corporation and dated August 2005

Traffic Impact Study Addendum No. 1, prepared by TRC Raymond Keyes Associatesand date March 15, 2006

1

ATTACHMENT B

Environmental Conditions

General Conditions

1. Only native Pinelands grasses, seeds, shrubs and plant species shall be used, inaccordance with N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.24, for revegetation or landscaping performed as part ofthe implementation of the Closure and Redevelopment Plans, except that limited non-native plant species may be utilized around building foundations.

2. The Pinelands Commissions staff shall be permitted to inspect the Business Park siteduring implementation of the Closure and Redevelopment Plans to ensure compliancewith the conditions and provisions of this MOA.

Threatened or Endangered Species

3. In accordance with the requirements of an approved Species Management Plan asrequired pursuant to Environmental Condition No. 4, at least one biologist qualified inthe identification of each of the threatened or endangered plants and animals and theirhabitats, as defined at N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.27 and 6.33, shall be present at any location withinthe Business Park site where activities in furtherance of the implementation of theClosure and Redevelopment Plans are taking place. The biologist(s) shall ensure that allactivities conducted in accordance with the Closure and Redevelopment Plans do notadversely impact any habitat critical to the survival of any threatened or endangeredspecies of plants or animals, other than permitted by the terms of this Agreement, andthat any such plants or animals discovered during construction are protected.

4. If any threatened or endangered animal species are discovered during implementation ofthe Closure and Redevelopment Plans, such species shall be captured by the qualifiedbiologist(s) and relocated in accordance with a Species Management Plan to be preparedand submitted by Stafford, or its designated redeveloper, to the Pinelands Commissionstaff for its review and approval in consultation with the NJDEP. Such plan shallimplement the goals set forth in Paragraph VI.A.15 and shall include, but not be limitedto, identification of field measures, construction practices, time restrictions and protocolsdesigned to minimize the impacts to threatened or endangered species and theirassociated habitat located at the Business Park site, and shall identify locations wheresuch threatened or endangered species will be relocated, measures that will be funded andimplemented to ensure the survival of such relocated threatened or endangered species,including but not limited to the construction of Pinesnake hibernacula and temporary orpermanent barriers, as necessary, to preclude species returning to the site; new southerngray treefrog ponds; plant relocation sites, and a long term monitoring protocol toevaluate the success of the relocations. Funding for permanent barriers, if found to benecessary, shall be guaranteed by Stafford, or its designated redeveloper.

5. No site work may commence in furtherance of the Closure or Redevelopment Plan untilStafford, or its designated redeveloper, submits the Species Management Plan to theCommission staff and receives written confirmation of the staff’s acceptance of suchplan.

2

6. The Pinelands Commission and the NJDEP, Office of Natural Lands Management orEndangered and Non-Game Species Program (ENSP) shall be notified immediately ifany threatened or endangered plants or animal species or habitat critical to their survival,other than those species and their associated habitat discussed in this Memorandum ofAgreement, are discovered during the implementation of the Closure or RedevelopmentPlans. If any Southern Gray Tree Frogs (Hyla chrysocelis) or Northern Pine Snakes(Pituophis m. melanoleucus), are discovered during the implementation of the Closureand Redevelopment Plans, the applicable provisions of the Species Management Plan,discussed in Environmental Condition No 4, shall be implemented. Except as providedin Environmental Condition No. 8, for all other threatened or endangered plant or animalspecies, all activities in the vicinity of such species or critical habitat shall immediatelycease pending direction from Pinelands Commission staff, which will be provided inconsultation with the NJDEP, ENSP. During that time, the qualified biologist(s) shalltake all reasonable steps to ensure that such species or critical habitats are protected.

7. Except as otherwise provided in the Species Management Plan, known Northern PineSnake dens shall not be disturbed during hibernation periods nor shall any potentialnesting areas be disturbed during the nesting season.

8. The Species Management Plan prepared pursuant to Environmental Condition No. 4,shall include a plan for the re-establishment of the two threatened or endangered plantspecies (Little ladies tresses and Knieskern’s beaked rush) located on the Business Parksite. Such plan shall include a long term monitoring protocol to evaluate the success ofthe relocations. If the plants are not successfully established within two years, Stafford,or its designated redeveloper, shall submit a schedule to implement the contingency plancontained within the Species Management Plan for the Commission’s approval and, onceapproved, shall implement such contingency plan.

9. Ponds designed to support the local population of Southern Grey Tree Frog shall beincorporated into the design for redevelopment of the Business Park.

10. Except as otherwise provided in the Species Management Plan, the potential nesting areafor Northern Pine Snakes located in the vicinity of the northwesterly property boundaryof the Business Park shall not be disturbed and shall be fenced off from the other areas ofthe site to be disturbed during implementation of the Closure and Redevelopment Plans.

Wetlands and Wetland Transition Areas

11. Appropriate measures, such as the installation of hay bales, shall be taken during theimplementation of the Closure and Redevelopment Plans, including but not limited toimplementation of the off-site improvements to Route 72, Recovery Road and GardenState Parkway Interchange 63, to preclude sedimentation from entering wetlands.

12. No activities shall occur in wetlands or wetlands buffers unless expressly authorized bythe provisions of the MOA.

3

13. No heavy equipment may be placed, operated or stored within wetlands unless priorapproval is obtained from the Executive Director for waste removal purposes. Heavyequipment may be placed in wetlands buffers for the limited purpose of relocating theLittle ladies tresses and Knieskerns beaked rush, removing waste from the Old Landfillclosure, capping of the Landfill, or construction of the off-site improvements to Route 72,Recovery Road and Garden State Parkway Interchange 63.

14. Any wetlands or wetlands buffers disturbed as a result of implementation of the Closureor Redevelopment Plans shall be graded to natural conditions and seeded with nativePinelands grass species suitable for such areas, except as otherwise authorized by theterms of this Memorandum of Agreement.

15. No storage/staging areas (i.e. locations for the storage, temporary or otherwise, ofequipment or materials for the project) shall be located within wetlands or areas within300 feet of wetlands unless approved by the Pinelands Commission staff prior toutilization of such areas.