Department of Environmental Protection FY 2019-2020

Discussion Points

1. In 2004, the “Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act” was enacted into law. The national Highlands Region has been recognized as a landscape of special significance by the United States Forest Service and is designated as a Special Resource Area in the State Development and Redevelopment Plan. The State portion of the national Highlands Region is nearly 800,000 acres, or about 1,250 square miles, covering portions of 88 municipalities in seven counties. The New Jersey Highlands is an essential source of drinking water, providing clean and plentiful drinking water for one-half of the State's population, including communities beyond the New Jersey Highlands, from only 13 percent of the State's land area.

The “Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act” promised landowners in the Highlands preservation area that they would be properly and fully compensated for the loss in property values they suffered as a result of the law. Yet, over the last 14 years, the State has not met this commitment in full. Last year, the department indicated that they had received 246 offers from landowners to sell their land in the Highlands.

• Question: How much funding has been spent by the State and other entities to compensate landowners in the Highlands region for property value loss? How much funding is still needed to provide full compensation for property value loss? How many of the 246 offers from landowners in the Highlands have the department purchased? What were the funding sources for these purchases?

Answer: Since August 10, 2004 the DEP has spent nearly $174.5 million to acquire 30,290 acres in the Highlands. Local governments and nonprofit organizations have used $105.1 million in Green Acres funding to preserve 12,030 acres. In addition, the Highlands Council undertakes its own acquisition/funding initiatives.

According to the Highland Council’s 2018 report, approximately 314,796 acres of the Highlands Region, or 37%, is currently preserved. Of that, 209,767 are in the Preservation Area and 105,029 are in the Planning Area.

We do not have a number for total value in the Highlands, but DEP has received 253 offers from landowners to sell their land, with an asking price of $179 million. We are currently working with 64 landowners, with another 21 that are under consideration. The asking price for pending offers is nearly $26.9 million. (Asking price does not represent appraised values.) Since last April, the DEP invested nearly $6.5 million to preserve 1,920 acres in the Highlands. Local governments and nonprofits preserved 389 acres using $2,539,422 in Green Acres funding. We expect additional requests for acquisition funding from local governments and nonprofit organizations under our March 2019 funding round.

Acquisitions in the Highlands were completed using funding from the Corporate Business Tax dedication and the Garden State Preservation Trust, supplemented with federal grants. Local government and nonprofit organizations match their Green Acres awards with local open space taxes, local general funds, and private funds.

1 Department of Environmental Protection FY 2019-2020

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

2. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is a regional cap and trade program to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the power sector. The program began holding auctions in 2008. Nine states in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic currently participate in the program. New Jersey participated until Governor Christie pulled the State from the program in May 2011. On January 29, 2018, Governor Murphy issued Executive Order No. 7 to start the process of re-entering the RGGI compact. Under the executive order, the department was required to initiate the rulemaking process for promulgating regulations for the administration of New Jersey’s full participation in RGGI. The department is also required to create guidelines for the allocation of funds realized by the State as a result of New Jersey’s participation in RGGI. According to the executive order, these guidelines will ensure that funds are allocated to projects that will serve communities that are disproportionately impacted by the effects of environmental degradation and climate change, and which will alleviate the negative effects on human health and the environment. Supplementary budget information forecasts $5.75 million in FY 2019 revenues to the Global Warming Solutions Fund, where revenues from RGGI participation are deposited. In addition, Governor Murphy sent a letter on February 16, 2018 to the RGGI states notifying them of New Jersey's intent to rejoin RGGI "as a partner in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving the health of residents, and growing the economy in our region." Last year the department indicated that once it successfully negotiates its CO2 emissions allocation with other RGGI states, it would be able to complete the rule making.

The compact limits the overall amount of carbon that can be generated in the power sector. Each state has an annual carbon allowance budget. Fossil fuel-fired power plants producing 25 megawatts or more within the RGGI states purchase carbon emission allowances at state auctions held quarterly. States then use the proceeds from the allowance auctions to invest in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and social programs. Each state decides how they will spend their revenue.

• Question: When does the department believe the negotiations for the CO2 emissions will be complete? When does the department believe the rule making process will be complete?

Answer: The RGGI states will formally vote to add New Jersey at such time that both of our rule proposals are adopted and effective. The Department held public hearings regarding the rule proposals on January 25, 2019 and provided a 60 day comment period which closed on February 15, 2019. The Department anticipates adopting the two rules by early summer 2019.

• Question: Given that RGGI has functioned for 10 years, does the department believe that RGGI’s current mission should be modified or expanded, for example, beyond the power sector, to improve its effectiveness? Could RGGI serve as model for other regional initiatives to control greenhouse gas emissions? Does the department believe that the auction as it currently operates sets a high enough price on carbon emissions? That RGGI carbon allowances should be stricter?

2 Department of Environmental Protection FY 2019-2020

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

Answer: The Department considers RGGI one of many tools/strategies to address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Department is working collaboratively with other State Agencies and researching many other methods to address greenhouse gas emissions in other sectors. Including expanding electric vehicle charging infrastructure and the number of electric vehicles utilized, enhanced waste management methods, control strategies on halogenated gases and more.

An example outside of the electric generation sector is the Transportation Climate Initiative or TCI which looks to implement a regional cap and invest system for the transportation sector. The Department is currently evaluating the feasibility of participating in such a system.

The RGGI market operates like all other markets in that price is established based on demand for the commodity. The Department along with the BPU has evaluated the projected costs of allowances under various market conditions and determined that New Jersey will realize emission reductions by participating in RGGI without resulting in an undue cost burden to ratepayers.

The Department is comfortable with the predicted market reactions to New Jersey rejoining RGGI. New Jersey along with all the other RGGI members will continue to assess the effectiveness of the RGGI program throughout the program’s duration.

3. The Drinking Water Quality Institute (DWQI), which advises the department on drinking water standards, recommended maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) in March 2017 and PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonate) in June 2018. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency conducted testing from 2013 to 2015 and found these chemicals in 3.4 percent of New Jersey public water systems, almost twice the national rate of 1.9 percent. In a joint statement, the Governor’s Office and the department acknowledged the need for a quick turnaround for adopting new regulations for these contaminants, yet did not specify when the recommendations of DWQI would be adopted.

• Question: What are the considerations in adopting the standards recommended by DWQI? What is the plan for implementing MCLs for New Jersey public water systems? If there is not a plan, why not? What is the timeline for implementing MCLs for New Jersey public water systems? If no timeline is set, why not?

Answer: The rate occurrence for New Jersey vs. the nation noted in the question refer to PFOS. The rates are even more concerning for PFOA, which were detected in nearly 11% of samples in New Jersey as part of the same sampling effort as compared to 2% nationwide. PFAS contamination is not unique to New Jersey but it does occur at a higher rate here. That’s why New Jersey continues to be at the forefront with respect to both the science and the regulation of these contaminants.

3 Department of Environmental Protection FY 2019-2020

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

Pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the Department is authorized to promulgate MCLs after considering the recommendation of the Drinking Water Quality Institute (DWQI) if there are adverse health effects associated with a contaminant and the contaminant may be found in public water supplies in New Jersey. At the Commissioner’s direction, the Department can move forward to propose and adopt an MCL as an amendment to the NJ Safe Drinking Water rules. The adoption of an MCL includes not only the setting of a standard but also establishes which water systems will need to monitor for the contaminant and at what frequency. The rulemaking process also necessitates an evaluation of the costs incurred by water systems to test and treat for the contaminant. The Department authors an economic impact statement that may include estimates of the cost of treatment based on likely occurrence and of testing based on current prices and the number of those systems required to test. Water systems may comment, at this time, on the accuracy of the cost estimates, as well as other implementation issues, such as frequency of monitoring and the availability of waivers to reduce or discontinue monitoring.

During the rule process, implementation decisions are made that include the timeline and impact of the potential rule requirements on all public water systems. This may vary depending on the specific contaminant that is being addressed, associated health effects (i.e. chronic vs. acute), occurrence, analytical capability, and similarity to other regulated contaminants. The Department considers existing Federal or State monitoring frameworks in making this determination, since these serve as the groundwork for monitoring requirements. Most frameworks set forth four quarters of initial monitoring at public water systems, as well as additional requirements based on the results of this initial monitoring.

DEP finalized an MCL for Perfluorononanoic Acid (PFNA) and 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (1,2,3- TCP) on September 4, 2018. DEP proposed MCLs for Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and appeared in the April 1, 2019 New Jersey Register. DEP asked the DWQI to add 1,4 dioxane to their work plan, DWQI recently closed a “Call for Information” regarding 1,4-Dioxane, and members are reviewing relevant literature. A meeting where updates will be discussed is expected to be scheduled in late spring or early summer. DWQI is working to establish a schedule and priorities for the review of other contaminants of emerging concern.

4. The “Global Warming Response Act” (GWRA) was passed in 2007 to address the issue of global warming through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The law requires the department to create a greenhouse gas emissions monitoring and reduction program. The law also established the “2020 limit” that would gradually reduce greenhouse gas emissions levels to 1990 levels by 2020. According to data available through the department website, it appears that New Jersey is on track to meet this goal for 2020. The next major marker in the law is reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent of the 2006 levels by the year 2050.

Twelve natural gas projects are currently pending in New Jersey that would potentially impact meeting the 2050 goal and the Governor’s stated goal of 100 percent clean energy by 2050. The projects are eight pipeline compressor stations and four natural gas-fired power plants. According to a report by Empower NJ, a coalition of environmental organizations committed to establishing 4 Department of Environmental Protection FY 2019-2020

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

a moratorium on fossil fuel projects in the State, the twelve natural gas projects would increase greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent. Governor Murphy’s office has previously stated its desire to move the State in the direction of using renewable energy sources for at least 50 percent of the State’s electricity infrastructure by 2030 as part of its Energy Master Plan. The Empower NJ report states that the pending natural gas projects would make it impossible to achieve the GWRA requirements and Governor Murphy’s 2050 goal.

According to the department, the federal Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program does not provide the State enough specificity to be able to regulate high global warming potential (GWP) gases. Further, the GWRA reporting only requires the department to monitor and report on high GWP gases if it’s determined that these are a significant contributor to the State’s ability to meet its greenhouse gas limits.

• Question: What does the department envision as the next steps for New Jersey and the State’s reduction of greenhouse gas emissions? Does the department believe we are on track to meet the goal set for 2050? What does the department see as the future of NJ’s energy infrastructure?

Answer: The Department is working collaboratively with its sister agencies to explore all potential strategies for reaching the 2050 goal. Clearly strategies that reach beyond the electric generation sector are needed. The Department and its sister agencies are evaluating policies to address emissions from transportation, residential, commercial and industrial sectors as well as others.

Implementation of Governor Murphy’s aggressive clean energy policies are an important first step in achieving the 2050 goal. As stated earlier, this Administration will continue to refine its clean energy focus to ensure an achievable pathway to 2050.

The Department supports the efforts of BPU in planning and evaluating energy infrastructure as it relates to meeting emission goals. In the short-term, continued growth in solar and wind while maintaining existing nuclear capacity are vital in achieving emission reductions from the energy sector. Further out, development of energy storage and other yet to be commercialized technologies will likely play a role in meeting clean energy goals.

• Question: How does the department think the natural gas projects will impact the goals established by the GWRA and the Governor’s Energy Master Plan? Does the department believe that the added emissions from these plants will prevent attainment of these reduction goals? If so, please explain. If not, why not?

Answer: The Department acknowledges the impacts that new natural gas projects pose toward achieving the 2050 emission goals. The Department is currently engaged in research to support the BPU’s development of the Energy Master Plan and the Department’s charge to develop the Global Warming Response Act 2050 strategic plan. These plans will delineate the state’s path to the 2050 emission goals.

5 Department of Environmental Protection FY 2019-2020

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

The Department understands that new natural gas projects have the potential to increase the state’s inventory of greenhouse gas emissions. However, the construct of the EMP and 2050 plans mentioned above, will ensure that fossil fuel generation will not impact the State achieving its energy goals for 2050.

• Question: Can the department provide a more specific emissions inventory of high GWP gases? What additional authority or resources would be required to improve the inventory? Does the department believe this is a priority to meet the 2050 goals?

Answer: The Clean Air Council is holding a hearing in April 2019 on the subject of highly warming gases and will make recommendations on the possibility of collecting more and/or better data. Additional rulemaking would be required to collect more detailed data from lower threshold sources. The Department believes it currently has the authority under the Clean Air Act and the Global Warming Response Act to address these pollutants.

The current quantity of high global warming potential does not make up a significant portion of New Jersey’s overall greenhouse gas inventory. However, projected estimates of these gases are anticipated to increase closer to 2050 and future policies will need to be developed to address these pollutants.

5. The department routinely engages in lengthy rulemaking processes covering an array of issues to spell out precisely how to regulate a particular area, activity, or resource. Further, since the department's rules are required to protect the environment, incorporate the most recent science, and reflect the department's current priorities, they are subject to ongoing modification through the rulemaking process.

• Question: How is the workload allocated between program experts, legal experts, or rule writers during the rulemaking process? How many hours are required by staff in each category listed above for different types of rulemaking, such as those that are considered major and minor rulemaking changes? To what extent are private sector consultants utilized in the rulemaking process? For each of the last two completed fiscal years, what were total expenditures on private sector consultants for services that supported the rulemaking process?

Answer: The Department’s rulemaking process consists of six phases – launch, technical drafting, legal review, proposal, comment response and adoption. The Department’s Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) and the subject program (Program) work cooperatively during each phase, with the aggregate rulemaking responsibility allocated approximately 65% to the subject programs (Program) and 35% to the Department’s Office of Legal Affairs (OLA), though the relative workload allocation varies at each phase. Specifically, during the launch phase, which includes determining rule scope and conducting internal and external stakeholder briefings, the allocation is estimated at 90% (Program)/10% (OLA), with the Program handling most matters internally and OLA providing general guidance, review and feedback on any issues that might emerge during this initial stage. Similarly, during the 6 Department of Environmental Protection FY 2019-2020

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

technical drafting phase, the Program retains primary responsibility (approx. 75%) with OLA responding to inquiries and providing guidance on policy decisions, legal issues that may arise during drafting and compliance with rulemaking procedures, and standards. At present, OLA is working to provide more direct assistance during the drafting process to ensure potential issues are identified at the earliest possible time and to streamline the later rulemaking phases. These two initial phases are typically the most time intensive and OLA is working to provide additional assistance and input during these phases to increase rulemaking efficiency.

Upon completion of the initial draft and submission for legal review, OLA becomes primarily responsible (approx. 75%) for the remaining phases of the rule process. During legal review, OLA bears approximately 90% of the workload, thoroughly reviewing all aspects of the rule, providing comments and coordinating review by the Attorney General’s Office, Commissioner and other high-level policy advisors, the Governor’s Office and the Office of Administrative Law, and, where necessary, other State and governmental entities. The Program remains involved to provide requested information and respond to comments from the various reviewers. Upon completion of legal review, OLA is almost solely responsible for finalizing the proposal for publication with the Office of Administrative Law, with OLA and the Program jointly handing comment responses (50/50 allocation) and OLA again bearing almost sole responsibility for preparing and finalizing the adoption document for final publication to conclude the process.

The aforementioned allocations of responsibility remain largely consistent between major and more minor rulemakings, with the workload being a matter of degree. Major rulemakings typically take 6 of more months of constant and consistent attention during each stage, while comparatively minor rulemaking may be completed with focused attention in anywhere from several weeks to 2-3 months, depending on the scope.

Finally, the use of outside private consultants is rare, though the Department does, at times, utilize retired former employees on a part time basis through the retired employee program, which limits individuals to no more than 944 hours per year.

6. In July 2017 New Jersey enacted the “Water Quality Accountability Act,” (WQAA) N.J.S.A.58:31-1 et seq., which requires most public water systems in the State to implement an asset management plan to inspect, maintain, repair, and renew their drinking water infrastructure. The act establishes some requirements for asset management plans and gives the department the authority to adopt regulations requiring additional programs, plans, or provisions. The Joint Legislative Task Force on Drinking Water Infrastructure final report noted that, while the WQAA is a critical first step toward rehabilitating the State’s aging water infrastructure, successful implementation of the law will depend effective regulation and oversight by the department.

• Question: Does the department intend to propose rules to implement the WQAA? How does the department intend to enforce and oversee implementation of the law? Will the department review each water system’s asset management plan? Does the department have sufficient staff and resources to implement the WQAA effectively? 7 Department of Environmental Protection FY 2019-2020

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

Answer: Does the department intend to propose rules to implement the WQAA? Yes, DEP has held two stakeholder meetings (November 27, 2017 and October 22, 2018) which were used to discuss, with stakeholders, the requirements of the Act, to discuss DEP’s concepts for the proposed WQAA rules, and to develop a strategy for its effective implementation. Discussions during the second stakeholder meeting specifically focused on how requirements of the WQAA would be codified, clarified the asset management requirements, and introduced the concept of water loss audits as a replacement for the annual unaccounted-for-water submission. DEP also discussed with the stakeholders the possibility of increasing situations in which it may request Technical, Managerial and Financial (TMF) capacity information from water systems. The DEP intends to propose WQAA regulations by the end of 2019.

How does the department intend to enforce and oversee implementation of the law? With the development of a centralized portal, the Department will be able to receive all materials related to this rule in an electronic format. The data submitted will be evaluated by the Department in order to more accurately identify the status of water systems as they comply with the tenets of the rule and WQAA. Additionally, the increased amount of data that will be provided to the Department will allow more precise analysis of the status of water systems. This will follow in the spirit of the NJ Joint Legislative Task Force, which identified the need to provide technical assistance to struggling systems prior to failure, rather than after. Certification statements made by water systems will also be evaluated for accuracy, particularly if a water system is under an Enforcement action. The Department will not allow the submittal of paper documents once the portal is available. Until the rule is adopted and the portal is operational, DEP has notified all applicable systems that their Asset Management Plans must be made available for review by Compliance and Enforcement. DEP also noted that the systems will be required to certify that their Asset Management Plans have been implemented by the annual certification deadline, which is October 2019.

Will the department review each water system’s asset management plan? No. Asset Management Plans are primarily meant to assist the water systems. Asset Management Plans and programs are complicated and system-specific.

Following the Water Quality Accountability Act, 287 public water systems in NJ which have >500 service connections were required to develop Asset Management Plans by April 19, 2019. Water systems will be required to self-report the status of their plans in an Annual Certification statement in October 2019. Compliance and Enforcement (C&E) staff is also examining asset management plans during site inspections. Rulemaking has also been initiated to codify the Act’s requirements into the Department’s regulations. DEP is working to assure that all public water systems have asset management programs through the following: o Phased enforcement of Regulatory Requirements o Principal Forgiveness for Financing Asset Management Program Development and Asset Management Plans/ Condition of State Financial Support via the Environmental Infrastructure Financing Program o Condition of Compliance and Enforcement Terms o Partnerships with NGOs and Industry Associations and Water System Operators 8 Department of Environmental Protection FY 2019-2020

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

The DEP does not currently have staff with the skill sets needed to conduct detailed reviews of Asset Management Plans and programs. The DEP is developing a program that relies primarily on the certification of Asset Management Plans by responsible entities, annual reporting of routine metrics and inspections. The DEP will be proposing to require the annual submission of itemized metrics to the centralized portal. The Department proposes to make these metrics publicly available through “Data Miner,” which will allow the public at large to compare the metrics from different water systems, and thereby improve accountability and transparency. Some examples include, but are not limited to: Water main breaks per mile of water main in previous year; Percentage and miles of water mains replaced in the previous year; Number of lead service lines in distribution system; Number of lead service lines replaced in the previous year; Infrastructure leakage index (a metric within the American Water Works Association (AWWA) audit which shows how well a Distribution system is managed with respect to leakage); Unaccounted real losses; Total volume loss; Data validity score (a measure within the AWWA audit which evaluates the trustworthiness of the data included in the audit); Number of violations, (e.g. M&R and MCL); Water rates (cost per 1,000 gal); Net asset value over previous five years; Net debt as a percentage of revenue; and Percentage of Vacancies. Submission of metrics will demonstrate improvements and actions taken by water systems. The Department will also require systems to self-report on the status of the implementation of the Plans thru an annual certification statement signed beginning October 2019.

Does the department have sufficient staff and resources to implement the WQAA effectively? Currently, the DEP is relying on the certification required in the Act. Once the regulations are adopted, DEP will rely on the review of electronically reported metrics for review; however, additional staff may be needed to implement a water loss program.

7. As amended by the voters of the State on November 4, 2014, the State Constitution dedicates four percent of Corporation Business Tax (CBT) revenues for open space, farmland and historic preservation, water programs, public and private site remediation, and underground storage tank programs for FY 2016 through FY 2019, and further increases this annual dedication to six percent commencing in FY 2020. Specifically with regard to open space, farmland, and historic preservation, for FY 2016 through FY 2019, of the four percent Corporation Business Tax dedication, the State Constitution dedicates annually 71 percent for open space, farmland, and historic preservation purposes.

The “Preserve New Jersey Act,” P.L.2016, c.12 (N.J.S.A.13:8C-43 et seq.) implements, for State FY 2017 through FY 2019, the constitutional dedication of CBT revenues for open space, farmland, and historic preservation revenues. The “Preserve New Jersey Act” provides, for FY 2016 through FY 2019, 60 percent of the dedicated CBT revenues are allocated each year for the Green Acres program: 55 percent would be used for State open space acquisition and development projects; 38 percent would be used for grants and loans to fund local government open space acquisition and development projects; and 7 percent would be used for grants to fund open space acquisition and development projects undertaken by qualifying tax exempt nonprofit organizations. Of the funding for State open space acquisition and development projects: 50 percent would be used for acquisition projects and 50 percent would be used for development projects. Further, of the 9 Department of Environmental Protection FY 2019-2020

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

funding for State open space development projects, up to 22 percent would be used for stewardship activities undertaken on lands administered by the Division of Fish and Wildlife and up to 22 percent would be used for stewardship activities undertaken on lands administered by the Division of Parks and Forestry.

• Question: Please provide a breakdown of the department’s use of the appropriated funds for State capital and park development projects. For each project, please provide its location and cost. Please identify the stewardship activities undertaken on lands administered by the Division of Fish and Wildlife and the stewardship activities undertaken on lands administered by the Division of Parks and Forestry, as well as the cost for each of the identified stewardship activities. For each activity, please identify the location and cost.

Answer: Please see Attachment to Question #7.

8. A number of public water systems in the State have exceeded the federal action level for lead in drinking water, including water systems serving several of the State’s largest cities. Additionally, in response to required testing, many school districts across the State have reported elevated lead levels in their drinking water. Lead is a cumulative toxin that affects multiple body systems, and is particularly harmful to young children. Specifically, lead can affect a child’s brain development, resulting in reduced intelligent quotient, behavioral changes, and reduced educational attainment, all of which are believed to be irreversible. Experts now agree that there is no safe level of lead in the body.

The State’s water sources generally do not contain lead. Rather, lead enters the drinking water through the water delivery infrastructure, including lead service lines, plumbing, solder, and fixtures. Changes in water chemistry cause these materials to corrode and leach lead into the drinking water. Although the federal Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) requires water systems to conduct corrosion control treatment to reduce the amount of lead in drinking water, these measures are not always fully effective, as they rely on strict monitoring, reporting, treatment, and oversight. Witnesses for the Joint Legislative Task Force on Drinking Water Infrastructure testified that the federal LCR is outdated and in need of significant revision, particularly with regard to its sampling, public education and notification, corrosion control treatment, and remediation requirements.

The American Water Works Association estimates that, in New Jersey, 350,000 homes and businesses are served by lead service lines. However, little is known about the location of these service lines because very few water systems have completed lead service line inventories, and none have been made available to the public. According to the most recent data the Legislature has obtained, only one water system in the State is currently required to replace its lead service lines under the LCR, although several systems are replacing their lead service lines voluntarily. In 2017, the New Jersey Infrastructure Bank (NJIB) made $30 million in grants available for full lead service line replacement projects in low-income neighborhoods. However, this represents a fraction of what is needed to comprehensively address lead infrastructure.

10 Department of Environmental Protection FY 2019-2020

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

• Question: Does the department intend to propose updates to the federal LCR? If not, why not? What else is the department doing to protect the public, and children in particular, from lead in drinking water?

Answer: The DEP is considering whether changes to the Lead and Copper Rules are appropriate. We are looking at how we could address issues such as Lead Service Line Replacement, Corrosion Control Treatment, Tap Sampling, Public Education and Transparency, Copper Requirements. In addition, the DEP works in partnership with the Infrastructure Bank to provide low cost financing for capital improvements to water infrastructure. The DEP Commissioner establishes funding priorities and the allocation of principal forgiveness as part of the Intended Use Plan. The recent DEP Intended Use Plan (issued final on March 22, 2019) includes the allotment of $30 million dollars to provide up to 90% principal forgiveness for lead service line replacements for eligible water systems.

What else is the department doing to protect the public, and children in particular, from lead in drinking water? o DEP continues to implement and enforce the federal regulations to the fullest extent possible. In January 2015, the Division began a self-assessment and determined that improvements were necessary to ensure consistent implementation of the Rule throughout the State. o DEP continues to coordinate with the USEPA, the New Jersey Governor’s office, other NJ state agencies, including New Jersey Department of Health, non-profit organizations, and states around the country to better assist systems protect their customers, i.e., the public, from lead in drinking water. o DEP continues to assist water systems like Newark and Trenton with funding drinking water system infrastructure projects, such as lead service line replacement, through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and the NJIB.

• Question: Is the department taking any additional steps to educate and inform the public about the existence of lead in drinking water and the possible existence of lead service lines at their homes and businesses? If so, how? If not, why not?

Answer: Yes. o DEP is routinely working with the Environmental Justice Advisory Committee, and has participated in past public outreach events, including First Lady Tammy Murphy’s community festivals. Several additional groups have recently contacted the Division to seek assistance; therefore, the DEP hopes to bring all entities together to focus on the common goal of exposure reduction by developing readily accessible resources. o The DEP updated its website, focusing on different groups, including consumers, with helpful information specific to each group. o The DEP provides technical assistance and review of public education/notices that are developed by water systems that go out to the public once an action level exceedance is identified to ensure that all information is clear and accurate. o Regarding the presence of LSLs, the DEP and a majority of the water systems do not know the location of LSLs in the state. This is not just an issue in New Jersey, many 11 Department of Environmental Protection FY 2019-2020

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

water systems in the U.S. are facing a similar challenge. DEP has been working with water systems to make good faith efforts to identify the LSLs through regular maintenance activities, review of water system and municipal records, during water main breaks and customer inquiries, and if necessary reaching out to customers. o DEP recently requested that all community water systems provide an estimate of the number of LSLs in their system. These values will be data managed internally and will be used by the DEP to make decisions on areas to focus on in the future. o The Lead and Copper Rule does not require water systems to inform property-owners if they have a LSL. As mentioned above, many water systems do not have accurate records of the exact locations of LSLs in their system. In addition, many water systems in New Jersey only own the portion of the service line between the main and the curb- stop; and therefore, do not have records or control over what materials are located on the property-owner side. Though not required by the LCR, some water systems, like Newark Water Department, have websites indicating the location of known lead service lines, and some water systems, like Trenton Water have information on their website on helping customers determine if they have a lead service line.

• Question: Does the department intend to require water systems to complete lead service line inventories? What does the department estimate would be the cost to public water systems and to the State of such a requirement? Does the department intend to require more water systems to conduct lead service line replacement?

Answer: Does the department intend to require water systems to complete lead service line inventories? Yes. In January 2019, the Department required all community water systems to submit initial summaries of lead service lines (LSL) inventories on a form provided by the Department. The Department is not aware of any nontransient noncommunity water systems in New Jersey having a LSL. Technically per the LCR all Community Water Systems and Non-Transient Non-community Water Systems should have completed a materials evaluation when the rule took effect, which would have included information on LSLs; however, it was not required to be submitted to the State.

The Department is primarily collecting lead service line information from the water systems as part of the Lead and Copper Sampling Plan reviews. As DEP calls sampling plans in, we have also been requesting the number of LSLs to be included in the plan. If the water system is unsure, they must include a plan on steps they will take moving forward to identify LSLs in their system. In addition, in February 2019, the Department requested the total number of Lead Service Lines from the remaining community water systems that have not been required to submit their sampling plans. Approximately 80 systems still need to submit this information. However, many water systems do not have accurate information on the location and number of lead service lines in their distribution system. Many of the water systems’ records are dated and inaccurate and there is no easy method for identifying lead service lines in the field. In addition, many systems in New Jersey do not own the entire service line; therefore, if changes have been made on the homeowner side of the service line, the water system may not have been informed.

12 Department of Environmental Protection FY 2019-2020

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

The department plans to manage the LSL inventory summaries and rely on the systems to manage the actual inventories. The systems are in a better position to ensure that the inventories are accurate and updated as needed.

What does the department estimate would be the cost to public water systems and to the State of such a requirement? Although it is unknown at this time exactly how many lead service lines are in existence in New Jersey, AWWA estimates the number to be approximately 350,000. Assuming an average replacement cost of $6,500/line ($3,000- 10,000 depending on location), it is estimated it would cost approximately $2.3 billion to replace all LSLs in New Jersey. This estimate does not consider those additional costs associated with identification and planning for the replacement of these lines.

Does the department intend to require more water systems to conduct lead service line replacement? In accordance with the Federal LCR, systems are only required to conduct lead service line replacements after corrosion control treatment has been installed and that system receives an ALE. Currently, there are three water systems in the State that are required to replace lead service lines under the LCR; Newark, Trenton and Suez/Hackensack. However, the DEP does recommend that customers proactively replace their lead service lines.

• Question: How has the NJIB spent the $30 million it has made available for lead service line replacement projects? Does the department or NJIB anticipate that any additional funding will be made available for such projects? If so, when could the additional funding be anticipated?

Answer: The Department has set aside $30 million for principal forgiveness for LSL replacement projects. The LSL replacement program offers 90% principal forgiveness and 10% funding from DEP at 0% interest for communities with a median household income (MHI) less than the MHI for the county in which they are located. Project applicants are capped at $1, 5 or 10 million per water system per year per water system based on population served by the water system.

The Department prioritized the replacement of lead service lines by offering up to $30 million of grant like funding (principal forgiveness) under the Environmental Infrastructure Financing Program. Under the recently finalized State Revolving Fund Intended Use Plan, which sets out the Department’s funding priorities, the Department will offer 90% principal forgiveness for a total project cost of up to $10 million dollars for a large system that meets affordability criteria.

The Department has also received applications from water systems that do not exceed the lead action level but are interested in replacing lead pipes. These systems are eligible for the base program, under which funding is prioritized by project rank over readiness to proceed. Funding for LSL replacement is a priority both nationwide and for the Department. However, with only $30M available for principal forgiveness, there are still a limited number of projects that can be funded. The need throughout the State surpasses the current amount of funds available. 13 Department of Environmental Protection FY 2019-2020

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

9. The “Water Supply Management Act” (N.J.S.A. 58:1A-1 et seq.) requires the department to adopt, and update at least once every five years, a Statewide Water Supply Plan. Prior to 2017, the plan had not undergone a major revision since 1996. In May 2017, the department issued a new Statewide Water Supply Plan, but the plan only makes projections of regional water supply demands out to 2022, and does not contain specific recommendations for addressing water deficits. Additionally, although the plan emphasizes the need for greater investment in our existing water infrastructure assets, additional water supply facilities, and new interconnections, it gives little sense of how these things should be accomplished, or when and where new facilities and interconnections should be built. There is also nothing in the plan regarding the protection of watersheds and water supply sources.

• Question: Does the department intend to issue any updates or revisions to the Statewide Water Supply Plan? If not, why not? If not through the vehicle of the Statewide Water Supply Plan, how will the department provide guidance to policymakers, water supply providers and the public to ensure the future availability and protection of our water supply?

Answer: Yes, the Department plans to provide an update to the Water Supply Plan. The Plan will use the robust data that was published in 2017 to develop several Statewide policies, with focuses on climate change (develop a climate change adaption plan), deficit areas, agriculture water use, asset management, and water supply emergency and resiliency planning.

The Department is also working on updating the data that will be used to inform the 2022 Statewide Water Supply Plan.

The DEP ensures the protection of available supplies. The water allocation permit review process evaluates a number of factors including: available stream flow during low flow conditions, aquifer drawdowns, potential impacts to surrounding water systems and individual wells, etc. and relies on regional water supply studies provided by US Geological Survey (USGS). In addition, the DEP uses the information contained within the Water Supply Plan to inform decisions regarding the issuance of new or increased allocations.

The safe drinking water permit programs also ensure that there is adequate supply and infrastructure prior to approvals to extend drinking water service. The Statewide Water Supply Plan provides an important vehicle to estimate regional water supply demands, existing approved supplies the potential to meet those demands while protecting the new or increased sources.

10. On February 28, 2019, the department announced the first projects it is proposing to fund from the Volkswagen Environmental Mitigation Trust. The department announced that it was transmitting to the trust for approval the allocation of $11.2 million from New Jersey's share of the federal Volkswagen settlement, of which $3.2 million is to be used for hundreds of electric vehicle charging outlets across the State, and $8 million for new electric NJ TRANSIT buses for the City of 14 Department of Environmental Protection FY 2019-2020

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

Camden. The same announcement included a reiteration of Governor Murphy’s commitment to use 15 percent of the total $72.2 million settlement moneys, $10.8 million, for electric-vehicle charging stations.

The department also stated that it would use the $3.2 million allocated to electric vehicle charging outlets to award grants for approximately 827 charging outlets at 533 charging stations under It Pay$ to Plug In - New Jersey's Electric Vehicle Charging Grant Program, more than doubling the number of non-residential charging outlets in the State. Of the total allocation, $2.7 million is intended for 781 Level 2 charging outlets (25 miles per charging hour), with the balance for 40 Level 1 charging outlets (4.5 miles per charging hour) and six fast direct current (D.C.) chargers. Local governments, private for-profit and private not-for-profit firms and locations may seek grants.

• Question: When is approval for these projects from the Trust expected? What is the application and approval process for the allocation of these moneys? Is approval required for each specific grant by the Legislature and the Governor?

Answer: The Trustee has 60 days to review the funding application, and if approved, another 15 days to transfer the money to DEP. The Trustee’s current average review time is 57 days. Once the Trustee transfers the money into DEP’s dedicated account, DEP will start the process of executing grant agreements with the entities that submitted applications for the $3.2 million worth of charging stations. The grant agreements are boilerplate documents used on a daily basis by all programs in DEP for distributing grants to third parties. Approval from the Legislature and Governor is not required for these individual grant agreements; they receive management level signature at DEP.

• Question: After the $11.2 million allocation, how much money remains available to the State from the Volkswagen settlement? What types of projects does the department plan to fund with these moneys? Does the department anticipate allocating additional funds from the State’s share of settlement moneys during Fiscal Year 2019 and 2020?

Answer: After the $11.2 million allocation, there is $61 million remaining which we anticipate allocating over the next two fiscal years although the Consent Decree allows up to ten years to disburse the funds. For the $61 million in remaining funding, DEP anticipates: 1. funding $7.6 million more of charging station projects (the maximum amount allowed under the federal Consent Decree); and 2. $53.4 million more of projects that meet the goals of the Beneficiary Mitigation Plan that was finalized in October 2018 (www.state.nj.us/dep/vw) – specifically, electrification in overburdened communities. DEP anticipates requesting approximately an additional $16 million from the Trustee in FY19 for non charging station projects, and approximately $22 million from the Trustee in FY20 for charging station and non charging station projects.

15 Department of Environmental Protection FY 2019-2020

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

• Question: Has the federal grant used to fund the It Pay$ to Plug In - New Jersey's Electric Vehicle Charging Grant Program to date been fully expended? What sources will support the program after Volkswagen settlement funds are exhausted? When do you anticipate requiring additional moneys in the department budget to fund this program?

Answer: The initial $850,000 of funding for the program was a combination of various one-time funding sources including a federal grant. We do not have a sustainable funding source for the program after the Volkswagen funds are exhausted.

11. Voters approved a constitutional amendment in November 2017 dedicating all State revenue annually derived from settlements and judicial and administrative awards relating to natural resource damages in connection with claims based on environmental contamination to repair, restore, or replace damaged or lost natural resources of the State, or permanently protect the natural resources of the State, or for paying the legal or other costs incurred by the State to pursue those settlements and awards. These revenues are to be credited to a special account in the General Fund, for appropriation from time to time by the Legislature. The first priority for the use of these revenues is in the immediate area in which the damage to the natural resources occurred in connection with the claim for which the moneys were recovered. If no reasonable project is available to satisfy this first priority, or if there are moneys available after satisfying the first priority for their use, the second priority is use in the same water region in which the damage to the natural resources occurred in connection with the claim for which the moneys were recovered. If no reasonable project is available to satisfy the first or second priority, or there are moneys available after satisfying the first or second priority for their use, the moneys may be used without geographic constraints. Up to 10 percent of the moneys appropriated pursuant to this paragraph may be expended for administrative costs of the State or its departments, agencies, or authorities incurred in utilizing these revenues.

The Governor’s proposed FY2020 budget states that $100,500,000 was credited to the special account in FY2018 and that an estimated $32,387,000 will be credited to the account in FY2019. The budget does not provide a projection of how much money will be credited to the account in FY2020.

• Question: Please list the specific natural resource damage (NRD) and natural resource recovery costs (NRRC) settlements or actions that resulted in revenue received in FY 2017, FY 2018, and FY2019 as of March 1, 2019, and that are expected to result in revenue by the close of FY 2020. For each specific result, please describe the fund/account to which the revenues were/will be credited, the location of the environmental or natural resource damage that led to the action, and the actual or intended use of the revenue, including any spending plan and timetable.

Answer: See Attachment NRD Question #11 (1).

16 Department of Environmental Protection FY 2019-2020

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

• Question: Please describe the process by which projects funded from this revenue source are selected and prioritized for submission to the Legislature. Is there any public participation in the project selection process? In addition to the requirements of the Constitution, is there a formal project grading or evaluation system that informs project selection and prioritization?

Answer: NRD Restoration project funding is administered through DEP-lead projects and competitive granting programs (discussed in later bullet).

To determine the types of DEP-lead projects to be funded using NRD recoveries, DEP’s different programs identify projects of types of projects appropriate for funding and DEP conducts stakeholdering to develop and scope project concepts. These stakeholders include federal (NOAA, USFWS, NMFS, USEPA, USCOE), and local government agencies, government working groups (NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program, Harbor Spill Governments Committee, etc.), environmental groups (NY/NJ Baykeeper, NJ Audubon, River Keeper Network, Nature Conservancy, etc.), and local community groups (Newark Ironbound CC, Friends of Liberty State Park, Camden SMART, etc.). Through public participation, stakeholders are not only involved in project identification, but are consulted through project development and design.

Unless a project or type of project is selected through a grant solicitation, DEP does not rely on a formal grading or evaluation system in identifying projects for selection and prioritization. However, DEP does evaluate projects based on several guiding principles, including: projects should be consistent with Constitutional Amendment; projects should seek to restore the same resource that was injured; larger projects should seek to be transformative, in terms of ecological or human use; projects should be considered based on the degree of environmental uplift (ecological and/or human use benefits); projects should achieve the greatest environmental uplift while minimizing administrative processes and overhead costs; and projects should be sustainable, with minimal ongoing operation and maintenance requirements.

• Question: Please provide a list of all unsettled or unresolved environmental contamination cases or administrative actions in which the State has asserted in court hearings, arguments, or documents, or in administrative hearings, public records, or public documents, a claim for NRD and NRRC. For each such case or other action, please provide the names of the parties, the amounts in NRD and NRRC asserted by the State, the county and municipality in which the contamination at issue occurred, damage figures, and, if applicable, the name of the contaminated facility or property.

Answer: See Attachment NRD Question # 11 (2). •

17 Department of Environmental Protection FY 2019-2020

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

• Question: Does the department intend to develop a grant and loan program to award natural resource damage monies to local governments and nonprofit organizations for projects? If so, how much money or what percentage of natural resource damage collections does the department intend on setting aside for such a program? What would the criteria be for eligible recipients and eligible projects for the grants and loans? How would applicants apply? How would the department choose recipients? How would the department ensure that the NRD monies were used for qualified NRD purposes by the recipients of the grants and loans?

Answer: DEP has administered approximately $75 million worth of competitive grants using NRD recoveries and anticipates continuing this practice with a portion of current and future recoveries. Of the $99,371,295 in MTBE recoveries identified in the recent appropriations bill (S3110/A4578), approximately $20 million is proposed to be allocated statewide and $10 million in the Hudson-Raritan estuary for grants/loans to municipalities and public entities for water quality, water supply, and wastewater improvements.

Pending evaluation of presently nominated potential restoration projects, some portion of the additional $50 million supplemental appropriation identified in S3110/A4578 will also be available for competitive grants in the Hudson-Raritan estuary drainage for habitat restoration and public access enhancement.

In addition to municipalities and public entities, non-profit environmental or community groups will also be eligible for grant funding if they satisfy specific grant solicitations criteria.

Eligible recipients and eligible projects will be determined by specific grant solicitations as different allocations of the recoveries will require specific types of projects in specific geographic areas. For instance, the $20 million identified in S3110/A4578 for statewide water supply and wastewater improvements, will be administered through DEP’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund program. This program may have specific requirements that differ from other programs receiving NRD recovery funding. In addition to providing funds to established granting programs, DEP may also solicit grant proposals to conduct restoration through means other than established granting programs.

Applicants can apply to specific grant solicitations by submitting proposals that satisfy conditions and specifications of the solicitation. Choice of recipients will be based upon criteria identified in specific solicitations and will likely consider criteria such as project applicability, level of benefit provided, project readiness, likelihood of success and ability to cost share. All grants will likely be issued as reimbursement grants. Reimbursement will only be made available upon grantee’s compliance with a post-award grant agreement and verification that all necessary funding is available to completely construct the project.

12. In 2015 the New Jersey Constitution was amended to change the allocations for the dedication of revenues for environmental purposes. Beginning in July 2019, the Constitution dedicates an amount equal to six percent of the revenues collected under the Corporation Business Tax (CBT) Act of which 78 percent is allocated for open space, farmland, and historic 18 Department of Environmental Protection FY 2019-2020

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

preservation. The remaining 22 percent is allocated for water quality programs, underground storage tank programs, brownfield cleanups, and publicly-funded site remediation. The publicly- funded site remediation program has been subject to the largest reduction, from 28 percent of the amount dedicated to five percent. That change represents a 73% reduction in the share of annual CBT revenues dedicated for that purpose, which approximates a reduction of $15 million per year since FY 2015. The allocations for brownfields and underground storage tanks have provided a relatively stable amount of funding over the past few fiscal years.

The constitutionally dedicated funding for brownfields remediation is appropriated to the Hazardous Discharge Site Remediation Fund for loans and grants. In January 2018, the statutory allocation of moneys from the fund was amended to change funding priorities and impose different grant and loan caps.

• Question: How has the publicly-funded site remediation program been affected by the significant reduction in constitutionally dedicated funding? Are fewer orphan sites where the responsible party cannot be identified or does not have the resources to clean up, being remediated by the State? Please provide a list of sites for which the State has responsibility and the amounts expended for each site for cleanup and for staff oversight in FY 2018. Has the department used other sources of funding for this purpose such as revenue from the tax collected pursuant to the Spill Compensation and Control Act? Is so, please provide a detailed breakdown of the funding sources and amounts used to fund the needs of the program.

Answer: The reduction in constitutionally dedicated funding has significantly impacted publicly- funded site remediation. The initial reduction to only $5 million per year from approximately $20 million was not enough to provide for the basic priorities of the program, including funding for: immediate environmental concern cases involving contamination of drinking water and vapor intrusion into occupied buildings; operation of ongoing remediation projects; and Superfund match payments for federally funded projects. The Department was forced to use other funding sources.

The increase to an estimated $10.5 million this fiscal year is also going to fall short for our basic need. The costs associated with responding to contaminants of emerging concern (primarily PFAS and 1,4, dioxane) are expected to overwhelm the existing funds available for responding to just the drinking water exceedances associated with these compounds. This does not even account for ground water cleanup costs.

If the responsible party is unknown, unable, or unwilling to perform the remediation, the Department will take action to ensure any receptors are protected and possibly conduct source removal actions. Any potential exposures through drinking water and/or vapor intrusion are addressed, but the underlying groundwater contamination is not investigated, only monitored. The Department does not have the resources to remediate low level soil contamination and ground water contamination for most cases. It should be noted, the Department does not have the resources, financial or staff, to perform the same level of response actions required of responsible parties. 19 Department of Environmental Protection FY 2019-2020

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

Contaminants of emerging concern are expected to exacerbate this situation.

There are currently 247 sites in the remediation process using public funds (see Attachment Sites Question #12 (1). Unfortunately, the amount expended per site is not immediately available. These are sites at which the responsible party either is not conducting remediation or cannot conduct remediation. In these situations, the Department will conduct the remediation using public funds in order to be protective of the public health and safety and of the environment.

Not included in the attached list of sites are “unknown source” investigations, and activities in areas of suspected contamination, since these are not “sites.” An Unknown Source Investigation starts at a point of contamination that has been reported to the Department and works back to determine the source of the contamination. These activities are not for sites; rather, the goal is to find the contaminated “site.” Additionally, public funds are also spent sampling areas where contamination is suspected.

Taxes collected pursuant to the Spill Compensation and Control Act have not been used to supplement CBT funding. Spill tax collections are used for SRWMP salaries/operating, Spill Fund Claims, and munitions sites remediation. Other sources of funding that have been used are: • Remediation Guarantee Fund - $1,399,744 YTD • 1986 Hazardous Discharge Bond - $14,066,054 YTD • 1996 Hazardous Discharge Bond - $420,369 YTD

• Question: Please provide a breakdown of the number of applications that have been approved for funding, received funding, and have not yet been funded from the Hazardous Discharge Site Remediation Fund. Please provide a list of the projects and grant and loan amounts awarded to each project in the last two fiscal years. What is the cash balance of the Hazardous Discharge Site Remediation Fund? How much money, if any, is being generated from the repayment of loans granted from the Hazardous Discharge Site Remediation Fund?

Answer: o EDA has approved 34 HDSRF applications for a total amount of $5,945,872 in calendar year 2018. These applications are approved at the EDA Board meeting (2nd Tuesday of the month).

o EDA has disbursed a total of $9,310,428 in calendar year 2018 for 92 projects that are continually funded from approved grants. These are projects that have received prior funding with grants and loans that have been approved and have ongoing disbursement requests.

o NJDEP has 88 total HDSRF applications for a total request amount of $24 million in the queue. These are projects that have requested funding but have not yet been reviewed by DEP and forwarded to EDA.

20 Department of Environmental Protection FY 2019-2020

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

o See Attachment HDSRF Question #12 (2) for list of projects and amounts approved by HDSRF for FY 2018/FY 2019.

o As of January 2019, there is a cash balance of $8,025,822.47 in the fund.

o EDA tracks those funds being generated from the repayment of loans granted from the HDSRF. Per EDA repayments for the past four years are as follows:

In Calendar Year: 2019 $17,352.18 2018 $56,006.95 2017 $242,696.50 2016 $ 85,032.10

13. The department announced this week that the Resilient NJ program is making a total of $250,000 in grant funding available to nonprofits, colleges, and universities for projects that will assist the department in in helping communities prepare for storms and sea-level rise attributed to climate change. The department’s press release indicated that these grants were funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as part of its National Disaster Resilience Competition, which works to make communities more flood-resilient after major natural disasters.

• Question: Can you elaborate on the importance of programs like these for New Jersey? What other initiatives and projects does the department envision for the State to combat the effects of climate change, and what State funding may be needed for these projects? What other sources of federal funding are available to reduce the State’s costs of combating climate change?

Answer: In light of the increasing threat of climate change to New Jersey, the Department of Environmental Protection has initiated a number of programs and activities that will support local governments and other state agencies make informed decisions to make our communities and state facilities more resilient to climate impacts. Climate change and its impacts can be a very complex and overwhelming issue, making state leadership and guidance vitally important to our communities.

The Resilient NJ program is one way that DEP is providing guidance and technical assistance to New Jersey communities. The primary outcomes of the HUD-funded program will be the development and implementation of Regional Resilience Action Plans in 4 multi-municipal regions of the State. These regions were selected through a competitive grant offering and include: • Jersey City Team – Jersey City, Newark, Hoboken, Bayonne, the HOPES Community Action Partnership and the Ironbound Community Corporation. • Middlesex County Team – Middlesex County Office of Planning, Old Bridge, Perth Amboy, Sayreville, South River, Woodbridge and the Lower Raritan Watershed Partnership. • Long Beach Island Team – Long Beach Township, Barnegat Light, Beach Haven, Harvey Cedars, Ship Bottom, Surf City and the Long Beach Island Community Center. 21 Department of Environmental Protection FY 2019-2020

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

• Ventnor Team – Brigantine, Atlantic City, Ventnor, Margate, Longport, Northfield, Pleasantville, Atlantic County and the American Red Cross.

DEP is currently implementing a similar regional planning project with 15 municipalities in northeast Monmouth County called NJ FRAMES. These planning programs provide the technical and planning assistance to assist our communities identify and implement their vision of a resilient and sustainable future. They include significant public and stakeholder involvement and are coordinated with county and state Offices of Emergency Management. The recent funding opportunity for nonprofits, colleges, and universities will further enhance the state’s efforts to provide guidance and assistance.

Commissioner McCabe also announced in October of last year that the department was initiating development of a Coastal Resilience Plan for New Jersey. This plan will seek to evaluate policies, programs, and regulations that must be modified or created to reduce risk, increase coordination across and within agencies, improve awareness and support local municipalities in achieving adaptation. The plan will guide policies, regulations, resource allocation and funding in the coastal zone to: reduce the impacts of coastal hazards; increase resilience for structures, infrastructure systems, environmental resources, and coastal communities; address the needs of socially vulnerable populations; and attract equitable and sustainable investment.

There remains a significant need to provide local governments with planning, technical, and financial assistance. Much of the funding for these activities has come from post-Sandy federal awards. As that funding source dries up, DEP will seek additional sources of funding to further state efforts to support resilience across New Jersey.

14. Recycling of solid waste remains an important means of minimizing waste disposal costs and preventing environmental degradation. The State currently imposes a State recycling tax of $3.00 per ton of solid waste, the revenues of which are deposited in the State Recycling Fund administered by the department. The fund supports direct recycling grants to municipalities or counties (in those instances where a county, at its own expense, provides for the collection, processing, and marketing of recyclable materials on a regional basis); State aid to counties for preparing, revising, and implementing solid waste management plans, support community oversight projects and public information and education programs concerning recycling activities; grants to institutions of higher education for recycling demonstration, research, or education, including professional training; and State recycling program planning and program funding, including administrative expenses. The market for recyclable materials, especially plastic, has contracted since China shut down its market one year ago. Further, the rise in popularity of single stream collection, where all recyclables are collected in one bin, has resulted in contamination of cardboard and paper, which prevents those items from being recycled.

• Question: How has the change in the market for recyclable materials affected the State's rate of recycling? What percentage of recyclable materials collected in the State is being sent for disposal to landfills or incinerators? Because the tonnage grants to municipalities do not allow collected recyclable materials that are disposed of as solid waste to be included in their reporting, has the department identified those local governments that have more successful recycling programs and assisted those 22 Department of Environmental Protection FY 2019-2020

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

municipalities and counties that are not recycling as successfully? What is the department doing, if anything, to improve local markets for recyclable materials or to otherwise increase rates of recycling? Does the department support the elimination of single stream recycling to improve the marketability of recyclable materials?

Answer: We will not know how the collapse of the China market has affected the recycling rate until later in 2019 because the 2018 recycling numbers are not due to be reported until April 30, 2019 for recycling done in 2018 and that data won’t be analyzed until later in 2019. Anecdotally, based on the strong effort at all levels of government and industry to reduce the amount of ‘contamination’ or non-recyclable residue in the recycling stream, we would expect to see a reduction in the recycling rate, which may be a more accurate indication of true recycling.

We do not know the exact amount of recyclable material ending up in the disposal stream as waste audits are the only way really to know that. Waste audits are expensive and time consuming to conduct and have never been accomplished on a State-wide basis. The Department is not aware that the China market ban has caused any counties or municipalities in New Jersey to remove materials from their mandated recyclable list. The Department is working toward several research projects that would allow for more accurate assessment of recycling, including food waste reduction in New Jersey. The Department, due to more efficient data management, will soon be able to generate a recycling rate for every municipality in New Jersey for 2017. However, the $3.00 per ton tax on solid waste is distributed to the counties based on amount of solid waste generated and to municipalities based on the reported tonnage recycled (by material type) two years prior. Thus, grant money is not distributed based on low recycling performance.

In regard to helping recycling markets, the Department has re-apportioned how the $3.00 ton tax is distributed so as to assign a larger portion of the grant monies toward materials typically included in the single stream recycling system (paper, plastic, glass, etc.) that are affected by China markets. This helps reduce the additional recycling costs currently being felt by Municipal recycling programs.

The Department does not have an official stance on single stream vs. dual stream, but encourages municipalities to examine all aspects of their program to determine if single versus dual stream is the best option for them. It should be noted that dual stream programs generally produce lower residue rates.

15. P.L.2016, c.87, signed into law on January 9, 2017, amended the “Electronic Waste Management Act” to revise the State’s electronic waste management laws. The collection and disposal of electronic waste has become an important environmental issue in the technology age. The law requires each manufacturer of “covered electronic devices” to provide for the collection, transportation, and recycling of its market share in weight of all covered electronic devices collected in a program year. Last year the department reported that all but two manufacturers have submitted their required plans and 38 manufacturers have submitted plans to be administered by a group plan. 23 Department of Environmental Protection FY 2019-2020

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

The law also requires every “authorized recycler” that does not hold a permit from the department as a class D recycling center to register with the department and pay an annual $15,000 registration fee. The fee will be used by the department to cover the costs of the development, implementation, and review of recordkeeping and data systems required of authorized recyclers, technical advice provided by the department to authorized recyclers, the review and analysis of reports required to be submitted by authorized recyclers, monitoring the disposition of recyclable materials recovered during the recycling of covered electronic devices, and any other technical analysis performed by the DEP pursuant to the act. The law also allows the department to assess a per-pound fee of $0.50 multiplied by a manufacturer’s market share in weight obligation for a manufacturer that fails to collect, transport, and recycle covered electronic devices under the law. The law repealed an annual fee of $5,000 required to be paid each January 1 from manufacturers of televisions selling 100 or more televisions in the State.

The law further allows the department to establish a Statewide standard program to collect, transport, and recycle covered electronic devices, and enter into contracts for the services required for the proper collection, transportation, and recycling of covered electronic devices. If a Statewide standard program is established, then any manufacturer with a market share of 10 percent or less must fulfill its recycling obligation by participating in the Statewide standard program. A manufacturer, or group of manufacturers, to whom the department provides a market share of greater than 10 percent may participate in the Statewide standard program, if one is established, or may submit its own plan for approval.

The bill also establishes the “Electronic Waste Management Fund.” All program revenues and penalties would be deposited in the fund for administration and enforcement and other costs of the program. According to the department, full implementation of the law began on January 1, 2018.

• Question: What is the current status of the electronic waste recycling program? What is the status of the implementation of the law? Are local governments still subsidizing the collection of electronic waste? If so, how much are they spending?

Answer: The original Electronic Waste Management Act (EWMA) was signed into law in January 2008. The statute provided a phased implementation of the Act beginning on January 1, 2010, when the Act required manufacturers of computers and televisions to register and pay registration fees.

Manufacturers’ recycling plans initially were due June 1, 2010, and implemented January 1, 2011, the start of the statutory ban on the disposal of covered electronic devices as solid waste.

This phased implementation process was executed as a practical matter based on the timing and availability of the data and information needed to develop the recycling goal. The recycling goal was used to determine each manufacturer’s collection obligation for the following year. Contracting to establish collection sites for a program year begins early the year before. 24 Department of Environmental Protection FY 2019-2020

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

When the revised law was enacted in 2017, the effective dates in that law had been established for 2016. Because the effective dates had already passed, and the program year had already begun, DEP adopted a phased implementation approach. Full implementation began January 1, 2018.

• The 2018 Estimated obligation was 70 million pounds. o The estimate was based on best available data, and the Department estimated that 52.5 million lbs of returned covered electronic devices (CEDs) would be TVs, 8.7 million CED would be Computers and about 5 million pounds of CED desktop printers and CED desktop fax machines would be collected in NJ in 2018. o Semiannual reports received in August, covering the period from Jan 1 - June 30, 2018 suggest that at the half way mark, ~41% of that estimated 70 million pound obligation was collected. o The department is currently analyzing the data received in the Feb 1 Semiannual Reports to determine the total weight of CEDs collected in 2018.

• Local Government Units (LGUs) included in manufacturer collection plans are not paying for e-waste recycling. • Local Government Units that choose to collect CEDs but are not included in manufacturer collection plans are only required to report weight collected via semi-annual reports but are not required to report costs. o The Department connects LGUs with manufacturers and authorized recyclers to encourage manufacturer collection plan inclusion. o Many LGUs receive Recycling Enhancement Act grant money to fund non- CED recycling programs.

• Question: How many authorized recyclers have registered with the department? How many authorized recyclers still have to register with the department?

Answer: In 2019, a total of 8 out-of-state authorized recyclers registered with the Department. 4 in-state Class D Recycling facilities (who do not pay fees) were included as authorized recyclers in the 2019 approved manufacturer plans. All known authorized recyclers have registered as required.

• Question: Have all manufacturers provided an annual plan to the department? If not, why not? Last year two manufacturers that had not submitted plans were referred to the enforcement program. What is the status of those actions? Have any manufacturers submitted a plan to be administered by a group plan administrator this year? If so, how many? Have operators of collection locations reported to the department on a semi-annual basis? If not, why not? Has the department determined if there are a sufficient number of locations for electronics collection in each county in the State? If not, why not?

25 Department of Environmental Protection FY 2019-2020

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

Answer: For 2019, all but three manufacturers have submitted manufacturer collection plans. In spite of the Department’s continued compliance assistance efforts, these three manufacturers have not submitted plans and have been referred to the Compliance and Enforcement Program for enforcement action.

A total of 45 manufacturers have submitted plans to be administered by one of the group plan administrators.

Not all collection sites have reported. • The Department continues to conduct outreach to collection site locations included in manufacturers’ plans that have not submitted semi-annual reports to advise them of the requirement to submit semi-annual reports. • The Department continues to conduct outreach to LGUs to identify those that operate collections sites not in manufacturers’ plans and to advise them of the requirement to submit semi-annual reports.

The Department evaluated the collection sites proposed in the manufacturers collection plans and through a significant compliance assistance effort has approved a collection site network that ensures that sufficient numbers and locations of electronics collection opportunities are available in each county throughout the State.

• Question: Does the department still believe it is not necessary to establish a Statewide standard program? What is the basis for this conclusion?

Answer: The Department is currently implementing the revised law and does not believe it is necessary at this time to establish a statewide standard plan based on the following: • The Department has received feedback from NJ County Recycling Coordinators, who have local knowledge of their county’s needs in assessing and determining that the approved collection system is sufficient. County feedback indicates that the current collection network is sufficient. • The Department has determined the currently approved and operating collection system is sufficient to provide adequate and convenient e-waste collection opportunities for consumers. The current process is fulfilling the intent of the legislation.

• Question: Has the department been collecting all fees authorized to be assessed under the act? If so, please provide a breakdown of the fees collected by category and amount. If not, why not?

Answer: The Department has collected the following registration fees for 2019: • Manufacturer Registration Fees Received, to date = $235,000.00.

26 Department of Environmental Protection FY 2019-2020

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

• Two manufacturers have not paid the 2019 registration fee and have been referred to the Compliance and Enforcement Program. • Authorized ecycler Registration Fees Received, to date = $120,000.

16. The New Jersey Infrastructure Bank (NJIB) provides low interest loans for the design, construction, and implementation of clean water and safe drinking water infrastructure projects. The NJIB’s loans have two components: (1) an NJIB (AAA-rated) market-rate loan; and (2) an interest-free loan provided by DEP. The NJIB’s market-rate loans are funded through revenue bonds that the NJIB issues. The DEP’s interest-free loans are funded by federal State Revolving Fund (SRF) capitalization grants, as well as the State’s matching funds for the SRF, loan repayments, State appropriations, and interest earned on those funds. Currently, in order to receive the SRF capitalization grants, the State is required to provide a 20 percent “match” to the federal funds. Historically, the State has provided this match through general obligation bonds – the last bond issue was in 2003 – but the State could also make an appropriation.

It is projected that the DEP will run out of State matching funds for clean water projects sometime between FY2020 and FY2022. At that time, the State will need to identify a new source of funding; otherwise it will not be able to receive the federal funds it needs to make loans for crucial clean water infrastructure projects. The NJIB has already restructured its loans to less-favorable terms, and deprioritized certain borrowers, to compensate for the lack of funding.

• Question: How much money does the department need each year to provide matching funds in order to receive the federal SRF capitalization grants? How much money does the department currently have for this purpose, and when does the agency anticipate that it will run out of funds? What other sources of revenue is the department using to make the State match?

Answer: The Department needs to provide a 20% match for the State Revolving Fund capitalization grants, so the amount of match varies depending on the amount of the annual federal grant. The Department generally need between $3-4 million per year in Drinking Water SRF match funds and $13.5 million for the Clean Water SRF.

The Department currently has approximately $29 million in DWSRF match funds available (May 2019). This will provide about 10 years in match money for the DWSRF. The CWSRF currently has an estimated $8.6 million in available match funds remaining from SFY2019, which when added to resources for SFY2020, would give the CW program approximately $25.2 million in match funds.

The Department is using 1981 bond loan repayments as DWSRF match. In addition to the $29 million available, approximately $55 million is anticipated to be repaid in the future, for a total of about 21 years of match. The CWSRF has identified resources totaling approximately $67.5 million in match funds, which are projected to be exhausted in SFY2022.

• Question: Should the Legislature consider a more permanent source of revenue for clean water and drinking water infrastructure projects, for instance, as it has for the 27 Department of Environmental Protection FY 2019-2020

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

Green Acres program? Does the department have any recommendations for new revenue sources to support these projects and the State’s match?

Answer: Yes. For the past 32 years, the DEP and I-Bank have leveraged available State and federal funds (provided to the DEP through the State Revolving Fund Capitalization Grant Program) with publicly issued tax-exempt bonds to maximize capital improvements for water infrastructure. The totals for low interest long term loans over this period is $6.85 Billion, saving New Jersey ratepayers and estimated $2.54 billion in interest costs and principal forgiveness. This is also estimated to have translated into an over 130,000 direct construction jobs.

The need for water infrastructure improvements is expected to outpace available funding in State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2019 for Drinking Water and SFY 2027 For Clean Water. While the DEP is considering several steps to try to address the shortfalls, for example by moving funding from the clean water program to the drinking water program, these are not permanent solutions. Additional State funding is needed. We look forward to working with the Legislature to find a solution.

17. The FY 2020 Budget-in Brief indicates that the department will establish a new Office of Climate Resilience. The office will work with communities to identify climate change impacts and build on the department’s comprehensive coastal resilience planning effort and its work constructing resilient structures along New Jersey’s coastline and in vulnerable locations.

• Question: How much funding will be available for the Office of Climate Resilience? What is the expected staff size? How many staff members are expected to be hired? Have any positions been eliminated or any resources been shifted in order to accommodate for this new office? Is the Office of Climate Resilience a reorganization of existing staff and resources? How will the effectiveness of the office be measured?

Answer: The final funding level of the Office of Climate Resilience has not yet been determined. Funding will be from existing sources. Available sources that have funded the Office of Coastal and Land Use Planning in the past include federal Coastal Zone Management funds, CBT Watershed Management funds, and a limited amount of General Fund support provided through the Land Use and Water Resource Management programs.

The Office of Climate Resilience will continue to support the Department’s obligations as part of the National Coastal Zone Management Program, which has clearly defined deliverables. Additionally, the office will develop and implement the Coastal Resiliency Plan and provide support to municipalities for resiliency planning through technical assistance, grants and other online tools.

• Question: Does the office plan on working with, and building upon, the efforts of the Office of Coastal and Land Use Planning, the Bureau of Flood Resilience, and the 28 Department of Environmental Protection FY 2019-2020

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

Division of Coastal Engineering? If so, in what capacity? Does the Office of Climate Resilience intend to enhance the mission of the existing offices in the department that are currently working on coastal resilience planning efforts? Are there new functions to be performed by the Office of Climate Resilience that are not being performed within the current organizational structure of the department?

Answer: Does the office plan on working with, and building upon, the efforts of the Office of Coastal and Land Use Planning, the Bureau of Flood Resilience, and the Division of Coastal Engineering? Yes.

If so, in what capacity? Almost all of the staff for the Office of Climate Resilience will come from the Office of Coastal and Land Use Planning so the work of that office will be rolled into the Office of Climate Resilience. There will be close collaboration between the Office of Climate Resilience and the Bureau of Flood Resilience and the Division of Coastal Engineering, especially in the development of a Coastal Resiliency Plan.

Does the Office of Climate Resilience intend to enhance the mission of the existing offices in the department that are currently working on coastal resilience planning efforts? The Office of Climate Resilience will reside in the Office of the Commissioner and play a cross- cutting role in working with all the DEP offices. This shift will allow for the elevation of the mission to the Office of the Commissioner to support Governor Murphy’s priorities.

18. P.L.2019, c.32 established several multiyear schedules for gradually raising the State minimum wage from currently $8.85 per hour to not less than $15.00 per hour. The increase may affect department staff, third parties that provide services to or on behalf of the department, and programs with means-tested eligibility criteria.

In FY 2020, the general State minimum wage will rise as follows: 1) on July 1, 2019 to $10.00 per hour; and 2) on January 1, 2020, to not less than $11.00 per hour. The general minimum wage schedule will increase to at least $12 per hour on January 1, 2021; $13 per hour on January 1, 2022; $14 per hour on January 1, 2023; and $15 per hour on January 1, 2024.

• Question: Please quantify the fiscal impact to the department in FY 2020 of the increases in the minimum wage of department employees from $8.85 to $10 per hour on July 1, 2019 and from $10 to $11 per hour on January 1, 2020, and the number of employees or seasonal or temporary and contract employees who will be impacted by each increase. Relative to current compensation levels, please provide the same information assuming an hourly minimum wage of $12, $13, $14, and $15.

Answer: There are no full-time DEP employees who earn less than $11 per hour currently, and thus the increase in the State minimum wage will have no impact on the departmental cost of full time employees in FY 2020. It is difficult to predict how contractual salary scales will be adjusted in future years, and so it is unclear if the increase in the minimum wage will have any impact on DEP full-time employees. Note that we plan and budget on a single fiscal year cycle, and we do not plan multi-year budgets. 29 Department of Environmental Protection FY 2019-2020

Discussion Points (Cont’d)

In terms of DEP’s current part-time employees, DEP currently employs 44 hourly workers at less than $10/hour and 57 hourly workers from $10 to $11/hour. However, DEP’s future summer seasonal hiring will also be impacted by the minimum wage increase. The fiscal impact of this change is still being determined.

The impact on temporary staff is expected to be minimal in FY 2020. DEP currently has 9 temps at less than $10/hour and 16 from $10 to $11/hour.

• Question: Please quantify the fiscal impact to the department in FY 2020 of the increases in the minimum wage of employees of third parties that provide services either to the department, including temporary employment services, or on behalf of the department according to contractual agreements. Relative to current compensation levels, please provide the same information assuming an hourly minimum wage of $12, $13, $14, and $15.

Answer: DEP does not expect increases in the cost of third-party services other than temp services at this time.

• Question: Please quantify the fiscal impact to the department in FY 2020 of the increases in the minimum wage of enrollees in programs run by the department that have means-tested eligibility criteria. Relative to current compensation levels, please provide the same information assuming an hourly minimum wage of $12, $13, $14, and $15. Please list the programs with income-based eligibility criteria that will be affected by P.L.2019, c.32 and for each such program specify the law’s projected effects on enrollment, the benefits provided to enrollees, and the projected cost savings to the department.

Answer: DEP does not have such programs with income-based eligibility criteria.

30 Preserve New Jersey State Recreational Lands Capital and Development Spending

obligated or Location spent Abbott Meadows WMA, Barn/Sheds Asbestos/Demolition $ 8,890 Allaire State Park, Barn Roof Replacement $ 9,760 Allaire State Park, Concession & Visitors Center Mold Abatement $ 16,290 Allaire State Park, Managers House Exterior Painting $ 18,300 Allaire State Park, Managers House Window Restorations $ 8,237 Allaire State Park, Visitors Center Roof Replacement $ 506,600 Allamuchy State Park, 60 Stuyvesant Rd Residence Demolition, $ 12,950 Allamuchy State Park, Allamuchy Pond Sluice Gate Repair $ 33,070 Allamuchy State Park, Freeborn House Demolition $ 16,486 Allamuchy State Park, Hensley Property Demolition $ 12,595 Allamuchy State Park, Jefferson Lake Dam Repairs $ 12,090 Allamuchy State Park, Knowles Residence Demolition $ 13,750 Allamuchy State Park, Walters Property Demolition $ 13,170 Allamuchy State Park,Cranberry Lake Dam Repairs $ 16,535 Assunpink WMA Boat Ramp Parking Lot Improvements $ 126,379 Assunpink WMA, Various Dam Renovations $ 165,485 Assunpink WMA, Dams 18 & 19 Riser Repairs $ 13,440 Barnegat Lighthouse State Park, Bulkhead Replacement $ 1,500,000 Barnegat Lighthouse State Park, Lighthouse Office Roof Repair $ 17,820 Barnegat Lighthouse State Park, Lighthouse Repairs $ 14,890 Bass River State Forest, Oswego Dam Repairs $ 53,575 Bass River State Forest, Sewage Pump Replacment $ 14,462 Belleplain State Forest, Campground Hookups $ 1,000,000 Belleplain State Forest, East Creek Cabin Roof Replacement $ 16,925 Belleplain State Forest, Road Improvements $ 318,723 Brendan T Byrne State Forest , Lucky 13 Cabin Asbestos/Demolition $ 47,000 Brendan T Byrne State Forest Garage Ceiling Replacement, $ 34,095 Brendan T Byrne State Forest Maintenance Ceiling Replacement $ 16,750 Brendan T Byrne State Forest, Lebanon Lake Dam Repair $ 57,500 Brendan T Byrne State Forest, Otter Pond Dam Decommissioning $ 14,980 Brendan T Byrne, Whitesbog Water Tower Roof Repair $ 28,750 Cheesquake State Park, Bathhouse Roof Replacement $ 35,750 Clinton WMA Emergency Sinkhole Repair $ 17,450 Clinton WMA, 24 Route 173 Residence Demolition $ 14,825 Clinton WMA, 24 Rte 173 Residence Demolition $ 48,785 Clinton WMA, 50 Rupell Rd Demolition $ 19,000 Clinton WMA, Dam Repairs $ 11,819 Clinton WMA, Road Improvements $ 32,998 Clinton WMA, Source Run Pond Dam Repairs $ 11,819 Clinton WMA, Well Abandonments, $ 11,070 Colliers Mills WMA, Colliers & Turn Mill Dam Improvements $ 18,587 Columbia Lake WMA, Delaware River Access Improvements $ 14,900 Columbia Lake WMA, Powerhouse Demolition $ 39,984 D & R Canal State Park, Office Gutter/Trim Repair $ 13,125 D & R State Park, Canal Path Improvemnts $ 78,625 D&R Canal State Park, Office Flooring Replacement $ 12,415 Dennis Creek WMA, Delsea Woods Entrance Road, $ 316,058 DFW/NRO Office A/C Replacement $ 14,400 Drumthwacket Historic Site, Emergency Gas Line Repairs $ 21,318 Drumthwacket Historic Site, Emergency Generator Electrical Repairs $ 3,442 Drumthwacket Historic Site, Emergency Roof Repairs $ 5,875 Drumthwacket Historic Site, New Gas Meter/Line $ 4,332 Drumthwacket Historic Site, North Porch Repairs $ 24,850 Drumthwacket Historic Site, Parking Lot Restoration $ 101,977 Drumthwacket Historic Site, Roof Replacement $ 620,098 Drunthwacket Historic Site, HVAC Repairs $ 10,168 Flatbrook WMA, Roy's Bridge Repair $ 50,908 Flatbrook WMA, Haney's Mill Bridge Repairs $ 42,128 Flatbrook WMA, Road Improvements $ 30,000 Forest Fire Service, Aeroflex Tower Roof Replacement, $ 59,525 Forest Fire Service, Aeroflex Tower Window Replacements $ 49,000 Forest Fire Service, Coyle Field Concrete Repairs, $ 30,000

Attachment for Question #7 1 of 5 As of 3/21/19 Preserve New Jersey State Recreational Lands Capital and Development Spending

obligated or Location spent Forest Fire Service, Coyle Field Maintenance HVAC $ 22,500 Forest Fire Service, Coyle Field Office HVAC Replacement $ 40,299 Forest Fire Service, Division A Complex, Exterior Lighting Upgrade $ 8,906 Forest Fire Service, Division A Office A/C Replacement $ 21,945 Forest Fire Service, Division C New Pole Barn $ 350,000 Forest Fire Service, Division C Office Complex, Window Replacement $ 33,449 Forked River State Marina, Bulkhead Repairs $ 2,284,986 Forked River State Marina, Maintenance Building New Fire Alarm System $ 11,905 Forked River State Marina, Office Exterior Repairs $ 1,066,538 Fort Mott State Park, Historic Guardhouse Roof Repairs $ 14,235 Ft. Mott State Park, Museum A/C Replacement $ 14,990 Grover Cleveland Birthplace Historic Site Porch Renovations $ 14,252 Grover Cleveland Birthplace, Carriage House Phase 3 $ 1,000,000 Hackettstown Fish Hatchery AST Install $ 108,946 Heislerville WMA, East Point Lighthouse Berm Stabilization $ 17,811 High Point State Park, Monument Electrical Repair $ 12,550 High Point State Park, Office Roof Repair $ 168,991 Hopatcong State Park, Office Roof Repair $ 13,150 Hopatcong State Park, Road Improvements $ 8,200 Imlaystown WMA, Imlaystown Lake Dam Renovations $ 81,388 Island Beach State Park Marina, Piling Repairs $ 8,960 Island Beach State Park OBA2, Overhead Door Replacement $ 13,026 Island Beach State Park Ocean Bathing Area 1, Emergency Hot Water Replacement $ 12,633 Island Beach State Park, A21 Solar/Electrical Upgrades $ 111,387 Island Beach State Park, Former Berkley Seafood Sewer Disconnect $ 16,900 Island Beach State Park, Meter Pan Emergency Replacement $ 8,960 Island Beach State Park, Ocean House Chimney Restoration $ 27,325 Island Beach State Park, Office HVAC Repair $ 11,697 Island. Beach State Park, New Sanitary Sewer $ 5,000,000 Jenny Jump State Forest, Ghost Lake Dam Repairs $ 34,000 Jenny Jump State Forest, Water Tank Replacment $ 19,712 Kittatinny Valley State Park Big Barn Roof Replacement $ 121,000 Kittatinny Valley State Park, Fuel Tank Upgrades $ 12,380 Kittatinny Valley State Park, Ice House/Garden Shed Roof Replacement $ 22,810 Kittatinny Valley State Park, Long Barn Roof Replacement, $ 35,726 Kittatinny Valley State Park, Milk House Roof Replacement $ 37,302 Kittatinny Valley State Park, Piggery/Smoke House Roof Replacement $ 37,396 Kittatinny Valley State Park, Twin Lakes Dam Repairs $ 9,875 Leonardo State Marina Burlington Ave Bulkhead Replacement $ 1,164,189 Leonardo State Marina, Floating Dock Repairs $ 49,300 Leonardo State Marina, Restrooms Flooring Replacement $ 29,990 Liberty State Park, Boat Ramp Replacement $ 500,000 Liberty State Park, New Playgrounds $ 760,315 Mad Horse Creek WMA, Shack #1 Demolition $ 11,239 Mad Horse Creek WMA, Shack #2 Demolition $ 11,239 Mad Horse Creek WMA, Shack #3 Demolition $ 11,240 Mad Horse Creek WMA, Shack #4 Demolition $ 11,240 Manahawkin WMA, Boat Ramp Improvements $ 10,542 Maple Lake WMA/Menantico Pond WMA Floating Docks $ 17,085 Millville WMA, Boat Ramp Improvements, $ 12,163 Millville WMA, Hansey Creek Access $ 14,750 Millville WMA, Shooting Range Berms $ 114,195 Monmouth Battlefield State Park, Carriage House Renovations $ 64,990 Monmouth Battlefield State Park, Cobb House Landscape Restoration $ 5,100 Monmouth Battlefield State Park Farmhouse Stabilization $ 47,265 Monmouth Battlefield State Park, Gas Pump Upgrades $ 10,853 Monmouth Battlefield State Park, Historci Leanto Restoration $ 54,245 Monmouth Battlefield State Park, Visitors Center Geothermal Emergency Repairs $ 16,950 Monmouth Battlefield State Park, Water Treatment Plant Roof Repair $ 12,250 Nacote Creek, Greenbank Law Enforcement Offices Renovations $ 326,210 Nacote Creek, Greenbank Office Change of Use $ 11,930 Nacote Creek, Greenbank Office Emergency Lighting $ 5,625

Attachment for Question #7 2 of 5 As of 3/21/19 Preserve New Jersey State Recreational Lands Capital and Development Spending

obligated or Location spent Nacote Creek, Greenbank Office, Septic Pump Replacement $ 5,000 Nacote Creek,Greenbank Office Parking Lot/Roadway Improvements $ 160,820 Parvin State Park, 960 Parvin Mill Rd Residence Demolition $ 61,300 Parvin State Park, Jaggers Point Restroom Renovations $ 827,794 Parvin State Park, Parvin Lake Dam Rehab $ 39,690 Parvin State Park, Site Electrical Repairs $ 29,000 Parvin State Park, Water Supply System Repair $ 11,353 Parvin State Park, White Bridge Repairs $ 14,964 Parvin State Park, White Bridge Repairs $ 39,875 Pequest Trout Hatchery, Chilled Water Coil Emergency Replacement $ 13,955 Pequest Trout Hatchery, Office Roof Rehabilitation $ 321,369 Pequest Trout Hatchery, Pond Stair Repairs $ 11,875 Pequest WMA, Oxford Bait & Tackle Demolition, $ 3,470 Princeton Battlefield State Park, Clarke House Emergency Waterline Repairs $ 17,308 Proprietary House Historic Site Fire Code Violations Abatement $ 14,545 Prospertown Lake WMA, Boat Ramp Improvements $ 8,776 Ramapo Mountian State Forest, Dam Repairs $ 54,775 Ringwood State Park, Ringwood Manor Roof Replacement $ 1,782,198 Ringwood State Park, Road Improvements $ 53,999 Ringwood State Park, Skylands Manor Roof Repairs $ 750,856 Ringwood State Park, Skylands Office Boiler Replacement $ 15,948 Ringwood State Park, Well Treatment System Installation $ 21,315 Rockport Game Farm, Asbestos Abatement/Demolition Cruz Residence $ 45,586 Rockport Game Farm, Asbestos Abatement/Tank Removal Ackerman House $ 49,200 Round Valley Recreation Area Gas Pump Replacement $ 8,620 Round Valley Recreation Area, Mine Fence Installation $ 16,910 Round Valley Recreation Area, Swimming Area Aerator Repairs $ 6,461 Round Valley Reservoir, Boat Ramp Improvements $ 53,143 Round. Valley Boat Ramp Improvements $ 16,673 Ryker Lake WMA, Access Road Repairs $ 23,300 Shaws Mill WMA, Dam Repairs $ 15,750 South Branch WMA Road Improvements $ 35,500 Spruce Run Recreation Area, Bathhouse Emergency Waterline Repairs $ 19,761 Spruce Run Recreation Area, Campground RV Hookups $ 354,125 Spruce Run Recreation Area, Gas Pump Replacements $ 20,163 Spruce Run Recreation Area, Pump Station #5 Sewer Pump Replacement $ 64,290 Spruce Run Recreation Area,Fire Hydrant Replacements $ 10,183 Stafford Forge WMA, Dam Repairs $ 54,775 State Park Police Monmouth Office Barn Painting $ 10,607 State Park Police Monmouth Office Interior Painting $ 7,922 State Park Police, Kittatinny Office Roof Repair $ 10,850 State Park Service Central Regional Office Training Center Flooring $ 10,340 State Park Service Central Regional Office, Foundation Repairs $ 17,000 State Park Service Central Regional Office, Porch Repairs, $ 74,723 State Park Service, Central Regional Office Training Center Siding Replacement $ 31,140 Stephens State Park, Entry Bridge Piers Repair $ 35,240 Stephens State Park, Road Improvement $ 18,101 Stokes State Forest, Road Improvements, $ 7,899 Stowe Creek State Park, 723 Stow Creek Rd Residence Demolition $ 30,075 Swartswood State Park, Road Improvements $ 26,698 Swartswood State Park, Swartswood, Lake Aerator Improvements $ 17,170 Trenton Battle Monument Historic Site, Restoration $ 725,000 Trout Brook WMA, Camp Kiemesha Demolition $ 82,975 Trout Brook WMA/Hainesville WMA Boat Access Road Improvements $ 40,000 Tuckahoe WMA, Boat Ramp Improvements $ 10,310 Tuckahoe WMA, Gibson's Creek Access $ 14,500 Tuckahoe WMA, Office Emergency Electrical Repairs $ 6,500 Voorhees State Park, Hoppock Picnic Shelter Repair $ 16,750 Wading River WMA, Bozarth Property Demolition $ 12,320 Wading River WMA, Holloway House Demolition $ 19,445 Walt Whitman House Complax, 328 Mickle St Window Replacements $ 63,900 Walt Whitman House Complex, Interpretive Center $ 1,000,000

Attachment for Question #7 3 of 5 As of 3/21/19 Preserve New Jersey State Recreational Lands Capital and Development Spending

obligated or Location spent Washington Crossing State Park, 1424 River Rd Demolition $ 52,000 Washington Crossing State Park, Gas Pump Replacement $ 7,750 Washington Crossing State Park, Road Improvements, $ 100,000 Washington Crossing State Park, Visitors Center Well Repairs $ 13,900 Washington Crossing State Park. New Visitors Center Masterplan $ 1,000,000 Waterloo Historic Village, Ironmasters House Stabilization $ 138,000 Waterloo Historic Village, Mule Bridge Repairs $ 55,528 Wawayanda State Park, Bearfort Dam Repair $ 10,960 Wawayanda State Park, Maintenance Roof Replacement $ 29,747 Wawayanda State Park, Maintenance Shop Mold Remediation $ 12,634 Wawayanda State Park, Road Improvements $ 32,500 Wawayanda, State Park, Kazmar Pond Dam Removal $ 53,000 Wharton State Forest, Crowley's Landing Boat Ramp Permitting $ 14,880 Wharton State Forest, Batsto Corn Crib Roof Repair $ 61,877 Wharton State Forest, Batsto Mansion Dormer Repairs $ 49,350 Wharton State Forest, Batsto Mansion Roof Replacement $ 700,000 Wharton State Forest, Batsto Mansion/Visitors Center Geothermal Repair $ 47,947 Wharton State Forest, Greenbank New Pole Barn $ 408,000 Wharton State Forest, Harrisonville Dam Low Level Outlet Repairs $ 14,970 Wharton State Forest, Maintenance AST Replacement $ 110,815 Wharton State Forest, Sorrow Rd Bridge Repair $ 75,520 Wittingham WMA, Boat Ramp Improvements $ 7,950 Worthington State Forest, Campground Road Repair $ 24,250 Worthington State Forest, Old Mine Road Improvements $ 346,114 Worthington State Forst, Road Improvements $ 32,395 $ 30,757,940 Stewardship Fish & Wildlife obligated or Parks and Location spent Forestry Amwell and Ryker Lakes, Habitat Restoration $ 11,000 Fish & Wildlife Amwell Lake WMA, Habitat Restoration $ 5,000 Fish & Wildlife Amwell, Assunpink #6, Imlaystown Dam Inspections $ 10,850 Fish & Wildlife Assunpink WMA, Habitat Restoration $ 52,500 Fish & Wildlife Belvidere/Delaware Access Hazardous Tree Removal $ 9,290 Fish & Wildlife Black River WMA, Hazardous Tree Removal $ 6,967 Fish & Wildlife Clinton/Pequest WMA, Habitat Restoration $ 24,000 Fish & Wildlife Dix WMA, Habitat Restoration $ 30,000 Fish & Wildlife East Point Lighthouse Feasibilty Study $ 39,117 Fish & Wildlife Hackettstown Fish Hatchery, Culture Building & Hatch House Assessments $ 14,920 Fish & Wildlife Hackettstown Fish Hatchery, Workshop & Biology Classroom Building Analysis $ 14,705 Fish & Wildlife Higbee Beach WMA, Habitat Improvements $ 20,000 Fish & Wildlife Maskells Mill & Thundergut Ponds, Union Lake Dam Inspections $ 14,280 Fish & Wildlife Millville WMA, Habitat Restoration, $ 15,781 Fish & Wildlife Millville WMA, Lake Audrey Habitat Resotation $ 66,673 Fish & Wildlife Pequest Trout Hatchery Nursery & Lighthouse Building Analysis $ 14,995 Fish & Wildlife Pequest Trout Hatchery, Office & Garage Building Assessments $ 14,995 Fish & Wildlife Pequest WMA, Habitat Restoration $ 5,000 Fish & Wildlife Pequest WMA, Hazardous Tree Removal $ 23,612 Fish & Wildlife Salem River WMA, Habitat Restoration $ 8,361 Fish & Wildlife Salem WMA, Habitat Restoration $ 10,880 Fish & Wildlife South Branch WMA/Clinton WMA Habitat Restoration $ 70,000 Fish & Wildlife Sparta Mountain WMA, Habitat Restoration $ 7,450 Fish & Wildlife Sparta Mountain WMA, Habitat Restoration $ 23,321 Fish & Wildlife Tuckahoe WMA, Habitat Restoration $ 83,759 Fish & Wildlife Tuckahoe WMA, Habitat Restoration $ 50,000 Fish & Wildlife Union Lake WMA, Dam Inspection $ 13,540 Fish & Wildlife Weldon Brook WMA, Habitat Restoration $ 17,438 Fish & Wildlife Whting WMA, Habitat Restoration $ 55,800 Fish & Wildlife Wildcat Ridge WMA, Habitat Restoration $ 8,000 Fish & Wildlife Wittingham WMA, Habitat Restoration, $ 8,150 Fish & Wildlife Total Stewardship Fish & Wildlife $ 750,384

Attachment for Question #7 4 of 5 As of 3/21/19 Preserve New Jersey State Recreational Lands Capital and Development Spending

obligated or Location spent Allamuchy State Park, Allamuchy Pond Dam Inspection $ 8,690 Parks & Forestry Allamuchy State Park, Cranberry Lake Bridge Analysis $ 39,790 Parks & Forestry Allamuchy State Park, Cranberry Lake Seepage Monitoring Plan $ 12,100 Parks & Forestry Brendan T Byrne State Park, No Name Dam #101 Inspection $ 14,890 Parks & Forestry Cape May Point State Park, Fence Installation CBT/M $ 16,435 Parks & Forestry D&R Canal State Park, Hazardous Tree Removal $ 28,716 Parks & Forestry Deer Park, Hopatcong, Saxton Falls Dam Inspections $ 9,975 Parks & Forestry Dr. Still Historic Site Guiderail Installation CBT/M $ 16,900 Parks & Forestry Drumthwacket Historic Site Hazardous Tree Removal $ 22,120 Parks & Forestry Drumthwacket Historic Site, Accessiblity Study $ 10,610 Parks & Forestry Drumthwacket Historic Site, Chimney Analysis $ 14,290 Parks & Forestry Drumthwacket Historic Site, First Floor Kitchen Analysis $ 13,970 Parks & Forestry Drumthwacket Historic Site, Roof Evaluation $ 8,105 Parks & Forestry Hacklebarney State Park, Hazardous Tree Removal $ 13,935 Parks & Forestry High Point State Park, Office Interior Renovation CBT/M $ 12,300 Parks & Forestry Hopatcong State Park, Lake Hopatcong Dam Inspection $ 13,060 Parks & Forestry Island Beach State Park, OBA1 Renovations CBT/M $ 17,360 Parks & Forestry Island Beach State Park, OBA2 Renovations CBT/M $ 17,340 Parks & Forestry Jenny Jump State Forest, Ghost Lake Dam Inspection $ 10,960 Parks & Forestry Liberty State Park, Terminal Roof Structural Analysis $ 14,846 Parks & Forestry Monmouth Battlefield State Park, Hazardous Tree Removal $ 6,350 Parks & Forestry Musconetcong State Park, Swirl Chamber Analysis $ 12,960 Parks & Forestry Parvin State Park, Hazardous Tree Removal $ 5,760 Parks & Forestry Proprietary House Structural Evaluation $ 8,670 Parks & Forestry Ramapo, Sally's Pond, No Name #40 Dam Inspections $ 10,060 Parks & Forestry Ringwood State Park, Greenwood Lake Dam Classification Analysis $ 13,910 Parks & Forestry Ringwood State Park, Greenwood Lake Dam Inspection $ 13,060 Parks & Forestry Round Valley Recreation Area, Hazardous Tree Removal $ 6,896 Parks & Forestry Round Valley Recreation Area, Wilderness Campground Improvements CBT/M $ 12,245 Parks & Forestry State Park Service Northern Region Highlands Applicability Review $ 12,216 Parks & Forestry Stephens State Park, Hazardous Tree Removal $ 6,978 Parks & Forestry Stokes State Forest, Lake Ashroe Dam Inspection $ 3,795 Parks & Forestry Stowe Creek State Park, Wood House Historical Documentation $ 8,460 Parks & Forestry Swartswood State Park, Hazardous Trees $ 232,200 Parks & Forestry Swartswood State Park, Skellinger Dam Classification Analysis $ 14,560 Parks & Forestry Trenton Battle Monument Historic Site, Condition Assesment $ 14,960 Parks & Forestry Twin Lights Historic Site, Hazardous Tree Removal, $ 9,120 Parks & Forestry Walt Whitman House Complex, Button House Architectural Documentation $ 12,685 Parks & Forestry Washington Crossing State Park, Hazardous Tree Removal $ 175,007 Parks & Forestry Wawayanda, East Cove, Greenwood, Green Turtle Dam Inspections $ 12,080 Parks & Forestry Wharton State Forest, Atsion Hazardous Tree Removal $ 11,550 Parks & Forestry Worthington State Forest, Hazardous Tree Removal $ 363,566 Parks & Forestry Worthington State Forest, Wilderness Sanitary Units Demolition $ 25,250 Parks & Forestry Total Stewardship Parks & Forestry $ 1,308,730

Butterfly Bogs, Lebanon, Prospertown Dam Inspections $ 10,530 Fish & Wildlife/Parks & Forestry Batsto, Harrisville, Oswego, Stafford Forge Dam Inspections $ 14,040 Fish & Wildlife/Parks & Forestry Cranberry Lake, Camp Ryker, Steenykill Dam Inspections $ 9,675 Fish & Wildlife/Parks & Forestry Elmer Lake, Thundergust, Harrisonville, Shaws Mill Dam Inspections $ 14,996 Fish & Wildlife/Parks & Forestry Hopatcong, Greenwood, Union Lake Dams Inspections $ 12,100 Fish & Wildlife/Parks & Forestry Skellinger, Willow Crest, Maskells Mill, Warren Mill Dams Inspections $ 14,995 Fish & Wildlife/Parks & Forestry Warren Mill, Skellenger, Willow Crest, Silver Lake Dam Inspections $ 14,930 Fish & Wildlife/Parks & Forestry

Total Stewardship for projects that cover both Fish & Wildlife and Parks & Forestry $ 91,266 Total Stewardship $ 2,150,380

Total State Park and Development Projects $ 32,908,320

Attachment for Question #7 5 of 5 As of 3/21/19 NRD Settlements FY 17, FY 18, FY 19 & FY20

FY 17 Hazardous Discharge Site Cleanup Fund Settlement net of Legal Settlement Location of Damage Full Settlement Fees Committed/ Spent Intended use of Revenue Timetable Penetone Corp Tenefly, Bergen Co $319,500 $319,500 $0 TBD Construction Underway, MTBE - Lyondell Statewide $1,218,992 $969,421 $969,421 Harrison Ave Landfill Completed in 24 Months Bound Brook, Somerset American Cyanamid - Wyeth $64,490 $64,490 $29,490 House demo related to spill Complete Co Construction Underway, MTBE - Crown Central Statewide $275,000 $220,000 $220,000 Harrison Ave Landfill Completed in 24 Months

Oil Spill Delaware Funds used to complete design Athos - Mad Horse Creek $275,042 $275,042 $0 Mad Horse Creek Estuary of habitat restoration

Construction Underway, MTBE - Conoco Phillips Statewide $39,000,000 $31,200,000 $31,200,000 Harrison Ave Landfill Completed in 24 Months

South Brunswick, South Brunswick Asphalt $500,000 $500,000 $0 Middlesex Co FY 17 Total $41,653,024 $33,548,453

FY 18 Hazardous Discharge Site Cleanup Fund Settlement net of Legal Settlement Location of Damage Full Settlement Fees Committed/ Spent Intended use of Revenue Timetable Western Hunterdon & SPC/Matawan LLC Mercer Co. $3,822 $3,822 $0 Construction Underway, MTBE - Lyondell Statewide $150,458 $150,458 $150,458 Harrison Ave Landfill Completed in 24 Months

Design Underway, Constrcution MTBE - Sunoco Statewide $64,000,000 $50,273,192 $45,500,000 Liberty State Park likely to commence w/in 2 years

Subtotal HDSCF $64,154,280 $50,427,472

Attachment NRD Question #11(1) Page 1 of 3 FY18 Constitutionally Dedicated NRD Fund Settlement net of Legal Settlement Location of Damage Full Settlement Fees Committed/ Spent Intended use of Revenue Timetable

MTBE - BP Statewide $32,000,000 $32,000,000 N/A Cape May Point Saltwater Intrusion Mitigation 24 months and Habitat Restoration (389 acres), Atlantic White Cedar Forest Watershed Restoration(20,000 acres Ocean, Burlington, Burlington, Gloucetser, Atlantic Cos), Natural Resource Damage Assessments, Water quality improvements & CSO Repair Projects NY/NJ Harbor, Statewide water supply a & waste water MTBE - Shell Statewide $68,500,000 $55,683,243 N/A improvements. Other habitat Restoration, Open 24 months space aquisition for Ground Water Recharge.

Subtotal Constitutionally Dedicated $100,500,000 $87,683,243

FY 18 Total $164,654,280 $138,110,715

FY 19 Hazardous Discharge Site Cleanup Fund Settlement net of Legal Settlement Location of Damage Full Settlement Fees Committed/ Spent Intended use of Revenue Timetable

MTBE - Lyondell Statewide $24,548 $24,548 $0 TBD 24 months

Subtotal HDSCF $24,548 $24,548

Attachment NRD Question #11(1) Page 2 of 3 FY 19 Constitutionally Dedicated NRD Fund Settlement net of Legal Settlement Location of Damage Full Settlement Fees Committed/ Spent Intended use of Revenue Timetable Cape May Point Saltwater Intrusion Mitigation and Habitat Restoration (389 acres), Atlantic White Cedar Forest Watershed Restoration(20,000 acres Ocean, Burlington, Burlington, Gloucetser, Atlantic Cos), Natural Resource Damage MTBE - BP Statewide $32,387,419 $22,729,306 N/A 24 months Assessments, Water quality improvements & CSO Repair Projects NY/NJ Harbor, Statewide water supply a & waste water improvements. Other habitat Restoration, Open space aquisition for Ground Water Recharge.

Subtotal Constitutionally Dedicated $32,387,419 $22,729,306

FY 19 Total $32,411,967 $22,753,854

FY 20 Constitutionally Dedicated NRD Fund - Estimated Settlement net of Legal Settlement Location of Damage Full Settlement Fees Committed/ Spent Intended use of Revenue Timetable

Expected receipt in MTBE- Lukoil Statewide $22,000,000 $17,600,000 * TBD TBD FY20

Subtotal Constitutionally Dedicated $22,000,000 $17,600,000

FY 20 Total $22,000,000 $17,600,000

FY 17 , FY 18, FY 19 and FY20 Total $260,719,271 $212,013,022

* Legal Fees estimated at 20% of settlement

Attachment NRD Question #11(1) Page 3 of 3 Pending NRD Cases as of 3/29/2019

County and Anticipated Case Defendants Status Municipality Recovery in FY 2020

Multiple oil company MTBE Litigation Statewide Partial settlement $22,000,000 [1] defendants

Settlement Being Hercules Middlesex Hercules Inc. Negotiated Approx. $250,000 Omega Drive plus 2.27 acres of Groundwater Bob Baldwin’s Transportation Settlement Being Sussex land or $30,000 if Contamination Inc, et al. Negotiated certain conditions Area are not met

conservation Sayreville Landfill Settlement Being easement on 24.15 Middlesex III Superfund Site Novartis, Curtiss Wright, et al. Negotiated acres of land; $22,989 for NRDA

Warren

(Washington Pechiney Plastics Packaging, Pohatcong Valley Borough; Inc., Bristol Myers Squibb Co., Complaint Filed Superfund Site Washington Twp., et al. Franklin Twp., Greenwich Twp.)

Middlesex Hess Port Reading Hess Corp., Buckeye Partners Complaint Filed (Woodbridge Twp.) Gloucester Lail Property Site (Paulsboro, East Exxon Mobil Corp. Complaint Filed Greenwich) Atlantic (Atlantic Deull Fuel Co., So. Jersey Gas Deuell Fuel Complaint Filed City) Co., et al. Camden Puchack (Pennsauken Twp., SL Industries, Inc. Complaint Filed Wellfield Site City of Camden)

Solvay Specialty Polymers USA, Statewide PFAS Inc., Solvay Solexis, Inc., E.I. Directive, Dupont De Nemours & Co., Information Statewide Issued DowDupont, Inc., The Request and Chemours Co. FC, LLC, The Notice to Insurers Chemours Co., and 3M Co.

1 of 2 Attachment to Question 11(2) Pending NRD Cases as of 3/29/2019

County and Anticipated Case Defendants Status Municipality Recovery in FY 2020

Passaic Multiple oil company MTBE Litigation Statewide Partial settlement $22,000,000 [1] Dupont Pompton E.I.defendantsDupont De Nemours & Co., Complaint Filed Lakes Site (Pompton Lakes The Chemours Co. FC, LLC, et al. Borough, Wanaque Borough)

Dupont Pompton Passaic Lakes Directive (Pompton Lakes E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., Issued and Notice to Borough, Wanaque The Chemours Co. FC, LLC, et al. Insurers Borough)

Salem Dupont E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., Chambersworks The Chemours Co. FC, LLC, and Complaint Filed Site The Chemours Co., 3M Co., et al. (Pennsville Twp., Carneys Point Twp.)

Dupont Repauno Gloucester E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., Complaint Filed Site (Greenwich Twp.) The Chemours Co. FC, LLC, et al.

E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., Middlesex Dupont Parlin Site The Chemours Co. FC, LLC, 3M Complaint Filed (Sayreville Borough) Co., et al

[1] The Department anticipates receiving $22,000,000 from Lukoil and related entities during Fiscal Year 2020.

Note: Until the State presents its claims at trial, it would not be appropriate to publicly discuss the amount of money the State is seeking or expects to recover through settlements since these matters are the subject of negotiations.

2 of 2 Attachment to Question 11(2) PUBLICLY FUNDED RESPONSE ELEMENT - ACTIVE SITES PI Name 111 135 BLACK HORSE PIKE 1576 MAPLE AVENUE 243 NORTH TEXAS AVENUE 282 HILLSIDE AVENUE 287 ROUTE 22 EAST 299 HICKORY STREET 377 N 11TH ST 398 NORTH OLDEN AVE 4 MAIN STREET 426 429 LAKE AVENUE 5 DEVON AVENUE 502 SOUTH MAIN STREET 651 WHITE BRIDGE ROAD 661 SOUTH BROAD STREET 7025 BERGENLINE CORP, AKA ZENITH CLEANERS 8 ALYEA STREET 901 GARDEN STREET 912 SOUTH AVENUE A TO Z AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR CENTER ACCUTHERM INCORPORATED ALAN & SON CAR CARE CENTER ALEXANDER CLEANERS INC ALFONSOS RESTAURANT ARCH CLEANERS ARKY PROPERTY ARTHUR GUNDACKER PROPERTY ATLANTIC & CONARD AVE GWC ATLANTIS AVENUE STORMWATER OUTFALL BALO PRECISION PARTS BASIN ROAD GROUNDWATER CONTAM BAY AVENUE BP BELLEVILLE AVE & DAVEY ST GW CONTAMINATION BIG HILL SANITARY LANDFILL BLUE SWAN CLEANERS BOG CREEK FARM BRANCH OIL CO BRIGHT START DAY CARE BROAD AVE & BELLVIEW PL GROUND BURNT FLY BOG CAPRIO CLEANERS CHAMPION DYEING & FINISHING CO CHAMPION ENVELOPE CORP CHEESEQUAKE STATE PARK

page 1 of 6 Attachment to Sites Question #12 (1) PUBLICLY FUNDED RESPONSE ELEMENT - ACTIVE SITES PI Name CHESTER AVE & N 16TH ST CHESTNUT STREET VAPOR INVESTIGA CLEAVELAND INDUSTRIAL CENTER CLOVER CLEANERS COIN LAUNDROMAT CORP COIN O WASH COLONY CLEANERS COMBE FILL NORTH LANDFILL COMBE FILL SOUTH LANDFILL CONCORD CHEMICAL COMPANY INC COSDEN CHEMICAL COATINGS CORPORATION COUNTRY TOWING CURTISS WRIGHT CORP CUSTOM CLEANERS & TAILORS INC CUSTOM CRAFT CLEANERS CUTLER METALS DACOTAH AVE & LAKE SHORE DR GW CONTAMINATION DAGASTINES FRIENDLY SERVICE INC DAN'S AUTO REPAIR (FORMER) DELTA DELUXE DRY CLEANERS DENTON 10 MAIN LLC DEREWAL CHEMICAL CO DEULL FUEL COMPANY DIAMOND ALKALI COMPANY DOVER GAS INC EAST 28TH STREET EDGEWOOD VILLAGE ELECTRONIC PARTS SPECIALTY ELLIS PROPERTY EMERSON QUALITY PRESS INCORPOR ESSO SERVICE STATION WATERFORD TOWNSHIP ESTELLES PLACE EVERGREEN PRODUCTS EXPORT RESTORATION CENTER (BP GAS) EXTRA VALUE BUDGET & GAS EXXON F SHARP SCREW MACHINE PRODUCTS (FORMER) FAIRCLOUGH & SONS INCORPORATED FAMILY COLLECTIVE DAY CARE FORMER FANTASTIC DRY CLEANING FENIMORE SANITARY LANDFILL FLAVOR & FRAGRANCE SPECIALTIES

page 2 of 6 Attachment to Sites Question #12 (1) PUBLICLY FUNDED RESPONSE ELEMENT - ACTIVE SITES PI Name FLORENCE LAND RECONTOURING (FLR) LANDFILL FRENCHTOWN MOBIL FUEL 1 FUELMART INCORPORATED GALLOWAY SERVICE CENTER GARDEN ST & 3RD ST GROUND WATER GARDEN STATE CLEANERS GARY'S GAS & GO GEMS LANDFILL GIBBSTOWN CLEANERS @GIBBSTOWN GRANT INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED GRANT STOR LA PLACE GW PLUME GREENWICH TWP PFNA GW CONTAMIN GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION HIL HACKENSACK BOLT & NUT COMPANY INC HALLER TESTING LABORATORIES HEMLOCK AVENUE LANDFILL FORMER HOPE AUTO CARE HORSESHOE ROAD SUPERFUND SITE HP DELTA INC HUDSON COUNTY CHROMATE 15 HUDSON COUNTY CHROMATE 165 INPLANT JAMES H JAMES LANDFILL JANVIER ROAD GROUND WATER CONT JERRY DAVIS EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER JERRYS CLEANERS JERRYS CLEANERS JOANS CLEANERS INC JOHN L ARMITAGE COMPANY JUROMSKI PROPERTY KAUFFMAN & MINTEER INC AKA K & M, INC KENNYS CLEANERS KEYSTONE METAL FINISHERS (FORMER) KINDERKAMACK ROAD & WAYNE KINGSLAND REDEVELOPMENT AREA PROJECT LANG PROPERTY LASALLE AVENUE & LIBERTY STREET GW LEVARI CITGO LIBERTY STATE PARK LINDERS FRENCH CLEANERS LIPARI LANDFILL LOGAN TWP PFNA GROUND WATER CO

page 3 of 6 Attachment to Sites Question #12 (1) PUBLICLY FUNDED RESPONSE ELEMENT - ACTIVE SITES PI Name MAIN ST & GORDON ST GW CONTAMIN MAIN ST PUMPING STATION MANSFIELD TRAIL DUMP MANUELS DRY CLEANERS INC MARKET & ERIE GROUND WATER CON MARLTON LAKES GROUND WATER CO MC CANFIELD & SONS FORMER MERCADO AND SONS DRY CLEANING MERCER CNTY GERIATRICS CENTER METALTEC AEROSYSTEMS MILL BROOK MYSTERY OIL MILLINGTON ASBESTOS OU2 - TIEHLMAN PORTION MONROE SPEED WASH MOORESTOWN WATER DEPT MOUNTAIN RIDGE DR GROUND WATER MUNCHKIN VILLAGE DAYCARE CENTER MUNICIPAL SANITARY LANDFILL AUTHORITY MURRAY AND GLOBLE STREET GWC N EAST AVE & E FOREST GROVE RD G NANES FINISHING & ASSEMBLING COR NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER NAVAL WEAPONS STATION EARLE NEIGHBORHOOD GARAGE OCTAGON OIL CO (FORMER) OLDMANS TWP PFNA GROUND WATER ONE HOUR MARTINIZING CLEANERS P&R PETROLEUM PENNWALT CORP PETERS MINE ROAD OIL SPILL PINELAND VILLAGE PITSTOP NOW BRIDGEWATER EXXON PLANET CLEANERS POHATCONG VALLEY GRD WTR CONTAMINATION POLE TAVERN GULF POST ROAD GROUND WATER CONTAM PRECIOUS LITTLES EARLY CHILDHOOD DEV PRICES LANDFILL 1 PRIDE CLEANERS & TAILORS PRIDE SOLVENTS & CHEMICAL CO NJ PRINCETON RECYCLES PURE EARTH RECYCLING NJ INC RAILS COMPANY RIVERWALK II CONDOMINIUMS

page 4 of 6 Attachment to Sites Question #12 (1) PUBLICLY FUNDED RESPONSE ELEMENT - ACTIVE SITES PI Name ROCHELLE AVE & W PASSAIC ST ROEBLING STEEL COMPANY(FORMER) ROMES COASTAL RO-NAT EMBROIDERY COMPANY INCORPORATED RONSON METALS CORPORATION ROUTE 94 & RT 661 GROUND WATER C S ORANGE AVE & TRENCHARD PL S WHITE HORSE PK & KINGS HWY GW CONTAMINATION SAINTE MARIE CLEANERS SAINTE MARIE CLEANERS SALS AUTO REPAIR SCHENK CLEANERS SCOTT AVENUE GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION SNOW WHITE LAUNDROMAT SOUTH BLACKHORSE PIKE VI MOUNT E SOUTH BRUNSWICK ASPHALT COMPANY SOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING COMPANY SOUTH JERSEY CONTAINER CORPORATION SOUTH JERSEY MARINA SOUTH MAIN & HUDSON SOUTH ORANGE COMMUTER PARKING SOUTH POST ROAD GROUNDWATER C SOUTH WHITE HORSE PIKE & PINE STREET SPRING LANE WELL CONTAMINATION STELIGA SHOPPING CENTER STOR-DYNAMICS - ATLAS CONVEYOR MFG STRAUSS DISCOUNT AUTO STRIP MALL @ 250 SICKLERVILLE RD STRUTHERS-DUNN INC (FORMER) SUGGS AUTO BODY BLDG FORMER SUMMIT FINISHING INC SUNNY DAYS SCHOOL SUNSHINE CLEANERS SUPER CLEANERS SWEDESBORO EXXON SWEDESBORO PFNA GROUND WATER SYNCON RESINS THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC LLC THOMAS D COLAVITO INC TIP TOP CLEANER TIPS TRAILER PARK & SALE TOWNE & COUNTRY CLEANERS TRENTON FIBRE DRUM CO., INC.

page 5 of 6 Attachment to Sites Question #12 (1) PUBLICLY FUNDED RESPONSE ELEMENT - ACTIVE SITES PI Name UNIMATIC MANUFACTURING CORP UNITED LACQUER UNIVERSAL CHAIN CO INC URBAN CASTING CO. INC. US NAVAL AIR STATION LAKEHURST @ JB MDL US RADIUM CORPORATION V OTTILIO & SONS VAILSBURG MIDDLE SCHOOL VASSAR AVE & ALDINE ST GW CONTAM VAUXHALL ROAD & SWANSTROM PLACE VINELAND CHEMICAL COMPANY INCORPORATED WACO TAILORS WAITE ST & 6TH AVE GROUND WATER WARREN GLEN LANDFILL & SLUDGE LAGOON WAYNE CT & PASSAIC AVENUE GROUN WEISBECKER INC LAUNDRY & CLEANER WELL 6 WHITE LAUNDRY WHITNEY RAND MANUFACTURING CORP WICKATUNK GARAGE WILLIAMS PROPERTY WILLOCKS COURT GRD WTR CONTAMINATION WILLOW & ORANGE ST GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION WILSON SCHOOL WINSLOW TWP LANDFILL WOODBINE AVENUE PUMP STATION W WOODBURY CITY PFNA GW CONTAMIN WOODBURY HEIGHTS PFNA GROUND WOOLWICH TWP PFNA GROUND WATE Y-PARKE INC Z 2 CLEANERS ZACCARDIS CLEANERS TOTAL: 247

page 6 of 6 Attachment to Sites Question #12 (1) HDSRF BOARD APPROVALS - NJEDA FY 2018 - FY 2019 Jul-17 1500 Main Avenue Associates 66,878.00 Macrietta Realty Company 248,126.00 Whitefleet, Wayne and Paula 6,090.00 Aug-17 Rahway Redevelopment Agency(BDA 235,708.00 Superior-MPM (Manufacturing Property 200,000.00 Woodbine Borough(Woodbine Municipal 129,645.00 Elizabeth City((BDA) Former Exact 32,070.00 Milford Borough(A&L Oil Co. Inc.) 9,105.00 Sep-17 New Jersey Community Development 34,581.00 Oxford Township(Former Oxwall Tool 113,116.00 Sandyston Township(Tri-State Steel 6,468.00 99 Chapel Street LLC 254,108.00 Elizabeth City(Kull Property) 188,102.00 Zeus Realty Corp 201,690.00 Oct-17 Elizabeth City(Apple Tree Village) 31,880.00 Newark City(Scientific Chemical 304,686.00 Paterson City(BDA Paterson Steam Plant) 420,308.00 Contini, Peter 33,499.00 Nov-17 Montclair Township(Southend Pyramid) 41,022.00 Perth Amboy City(Second Street Park) 718,869.00 County of Monmouth(327 Greenwood Road) 99,605.00 Dec-17 Peterson, Brian T. 5,223.00 Aberdeen Township(former South River 545,766.00 Aberdeen Township(former South River 989,390.00 Kerbel-Sheriff Partners 193,126.00 National Park Borough(Robert Hawthorne 286,257.00 Verkerke, Joan and Ronald Winters 27,343.00 Jan-18 Trenton City(Storcella Property) 523,782.00 North Caldwell Borough(Walker's Pond) 34,887.00 Feb-18 Merighi, Phyllis 3,473.00 Nagi B. Botros aka Nagi Botros Sidham 191,077.00 Apr-18 Closter Borough(Closter Swim Club) 66,800.00 Paterson City(22 26 McBride Ave) 40,681.00 Minardi, Peter 15,500.00 May-18

1 of 2 Attachment to Question #12 (2) Alpha Borough(Leigh Fuel Corporation) 3,500.00 St. Anthony's Roman Catholic Church(St. 17,030.00 Jun-18 Glassboro Borough(Former Bill's Auto 60,638.00 Madison Borough(Bayley Ellard Field) 409,313.00 Monroe Township(Monroe Twp Sanitary 18,787.00 Jul-18 Sandyston Township(Tri-State Steel 30,809.00 Aug-18 Asbury Park City(Springwood Avenue Turf 245,738.00 Mount Holly Township(Frmr Regal Custom 80,215.00 Perth Amboy City(Former Municipal 30,818.00 Trenton City(Hetzel Field) 188,894.00 Lackey, Christopher 29,283.00 Sep-18 Cape May County 119,505.00 Somerville Borough(Color Technology) 455,730.00 Camden Sophisticated Sisters Drill 98,344.00 Oct-18 Pennington Borough(Pennington Borough 301,604.00 Sprague's Oil Service, Inc 61,400.00 Asbury Park City(Asbury Park Fire 67,500.00 Camden Lutheran Housing, Inc. 66,325.00 Nov-18 Camden Redevelopment Agency(Camden Town 883,447.00 Hainsport Township(Frm Hardware & 77,872.00 Pittsgrove Township(US Grain and Feed 141,286.00 Trenton City(Freight Yards) 141,199.00 West Orange Township(Selecto Flash Inc.) 129,177.00 Merchantville Borough(Merchantville 46,962.00 Dec-18 St. Raphael RC Church 11,300.00 National Park Borough(Robert Hawthorne 264,516.00 Trenton City(Clinton Commerce Center) 1,088,480.00 Mar-19 Monmouth Conservation 39,085.00

2 of 2 Attachment to Question #12 (2)