Save Ritzer Field

DaveSchmidt said:

The state DEP’s wetlands information is probably more relevant. Here’s an excerpt:

“In a wetland, the water level will be at, above, or just below the surface of the ground for some duration of time at least once per year. A wetland does not have to be wet constantly. Some wetlands retain this high amount of water throughout the entire year while others will only be wet during certain intervals, such as during a particular season. The water in a wetland might come from a nearby waterway (such as the ocean, a river, a stream, or a creek) or from precipitation. It could also seep up from below the surface of the ground.”

https://dep.nj.gov/wlm/lrp/wetlands/

We’ve entered a technical area of the discussion that I feel ill equipped to judge.

Welp.  Guess my yard is a wetland as there has been some visible ponding as of late given all of the rain. 

Steve said:

DaveSchmidt said:

The state DEP’s wetlands information is probably more relevant. Here’s an excerpt:

“In a wetland, the water level will be at, above, or just below the surface of the ground for some duration of time at least once per year. A wetland does not have to be wet constantly. Some wetlands retain this high amount of water throughout the entire year while others will only be wet during certain intervals, such as during a particular season. The water in a wetland might come from a nearby waterway (such as the ocean, a river, a stream, or a creek) or from precipitation. It could also seep up from below the surface of the ground.”

https://dep.nj.gov/wlm/lrp/wetlands/

We’ve entered a technical area of the discussion that I feel ill equipped to judge.

Welp.  Guess my yard is a wetland as there has been some visible ponding as of late given all of the rain. 

I am pretty sure my property was a vernal pond location before the land was cleared for farming.

joan_crystal said:

February 7th 10:22 AM  document, which is the last in the chain, asks:  "Can you tell us when we will get the results for Ritzer being a wetland?" That suggests as of 2/7/2024 the wetlands status of Ritzer had not yet been determined.

FWIW the email asking for the results is from Jan. 31 at 4:02 pm the 2/7 10:22 am time stamp is when the document was pdf'ed. The email from 2/6 at 5:37 pm from Spiezle Group to Eric Burnside and Kevin Gilbert pretty directly states that based on the civil engineering groups (CME Associates) site inspection there was no observation of a presence of wetlands and therefore no further action is necessary by SOMSD regarding this subject. That is the last email in the chain.

Here is some of the information I sent to the BOE on January 22, asking if they could possibly not be aware of Ritzer's NJDEP wetland status.

(Sorry, having to do this a piece at a time)

There are a number of different types of wetlands

Here's the definition I found of the type of wetland at Ritzer.

This is a evidence showing the presence of a stream on Ritzer.

A 19th-century map on the DEP website also shows this stream.

The field, right before Columbia was built.

The stream was enclosed in a pipe sometime between 1925-1930.

Manhole still in sidewalk where pipe exited field.

The pipe shows up again in the Rahway River Corridor Study, but it seems like they forgot this is a not just a drain but a stream that originates a half-mile uphill.

The piped stream still seemed to be there.

Hurricane Ida showed the pipe is still carrying the stream.

A stream, even if in a pipe, is still part of a surface water tributary system.

So, in any case, it seems like there's a lot of water at this site.  Notice that the stream had ALREADY been enclosed in a pipe for 65 years BEFORE the NJDEP identified Ritzer as a type of wetland.  The stream and the subsurface saturation both point to the same thing -- the landscape drains to this area.

It is just not true that "no further action is necessary by SOMSD regarding this subject." If the BOE wants to persist in this, they must go through the process of obtaining an LOI with all the documentation and notification requirements this involves.  They have not initiated this process, because the neighbors would have been notified, and they have not been.  Any plans the architect has developed for where artificial turf fields could be located were developed without obtaining information about the precise location of wetlands boundaries.  A few random soil samples does not cut it.  They did not bother to find this out.  

DaveSchmidt said:

yahooyahoo said:

It's interesting that the results of the soil samples were never mentioned in the emails.

Jan. 31 (reply included in the third email down in the link):

“… but initial indication from taking the samples was no — they saw nothing in the soil that would suggest wetland characteristics.”

Jan. 31 - 4:02 p.m.
"Hi Scott, that is good news. But, can you tell us how fast we can get the final report/results? Thank you."

Soil samples are not mentioned again in the email thread.

yahooyahoo said:

Soil samples are not mentioned again in the email thread.

Right. Which isn’t the same as “never mentioned.”

In any case, if the final soil results differed from the preliminary results, you’d think Scott would know better than to email a week later that “the site inspection observed no presence of wetlands.”

jspjnc said:

It is just not true that "no further action is necessary by SOMSD regarding this subject." If the BOE wants to persist in this, they must go through the process of obtaining an LOI with all the documentation and notification requirements this involves.  They have not initiated this process, because the neighbors would have been notified, and they have not been.  Any plans the architect has developed for where artificial turf fields could be located were developed without obtaining information about the precise location of wetlands boundaries.  A few random soil samples does not cut it.  They did not bother to find this out.  

Is that true for the original turf plan originally approved four years ago or just the expanded version now up for a BOSE vote? 

yahooyahoo said:

Jan. 31 - 4:02 p.m.
"Hi Scott, that is good news. But, can you tell us how fast we can get the final report/results? Thank you."

Soil samples are not mentioned again in the email thread.

No but it is mentioned in a request for follow up that the engineering firm's site inspection showed no wetlands, which I read as the final report conclusion, maybe that is the wrong takeaway. The contention in the email chain is that Civil Engineering consultants are saying there is no wetlands and subsequently no need for an LOI. Is the implication that the BOE and the various engineering firms hired to consult on the plans are lying? Or just wrong and incompetent? I would believe the latter, but not the former. 

pmm121 said:

yahooyahoo said:

Jan. 31 - 4:02 p.m.
"Hi Scott, that is good news. But, can you tell us how fast we can get the final report/results? Thank you."

Soil samples are not mentioned again in the email thread.

No but it is mentioned in a request for follow up that the engineering firm's site inspection showed no wetlands, which I read as the final report conclusion, maybe that is the wrong takeaway. The contention in the email chain is that Civil Engineering consultants are saying there is no wetlands and subsequently no need for an LOI. Is the implication that the BOE and the various engineering firms hired to consult on the plans are lying? Or just wrong and incompetent? I would believe the latter, but not the former. 

The consultants say an LOI is not needed. Does the NJ DEP agree with this? All that really matters is what the DEP thinks. 

I don't think the consultant is lying. They are providing an expert opinion. However, they aren't the DEP. I'd rather have a final ruling from the DEP so the BOE isn't voting for more funds two or three years from now to manage drainage requirements.

It is the DEP, not the project engineer, who determines whether or not there are wetlands here.  There needs to be an official ruling.  This requires an LOI.  Initiating the process to obtain the LOI requires notifying neighbors, who then have the right to submit additional documentation and request a fact-finding hearing.  The neighbors are in touch with the DEP, who has asked to be alerted if there are any attempts to do anything to the field before this whole process can unfold.

I find it interesting that the architect/engineer does not acknowledge that there is a stream here.  The evidence for this seems pretty strong.  Perhaps they did not know about or suspect this before January 22, but they have known about it since.  A stream is different from a storm drain, and I expect would be treated differently by the DEP.  The DEP has my slides.  

jspjnc said:

Hurricane Ida showed the pipe is still carrying the stream.

Yes, my highschooler’s response is « well, yeah, we knew there was a stream there.  I remember when they had to dig a big hole to fix the pipe. » He definitely recognized the photo of the hole!

jspjnc said:

I find it interesting that the architect/engineer does not acknowledge that there is a stream here.  The evidence for this seems pretty strong.  Perhaps they did not know about or suspect this before January 22, but they have known about it since.  A stream is different from a storm drain, and I expect would be treated differently by the DEP.  The DEP has my slides.  

If it is a stream, do you think the originally approved turf plan would present a problem? Should there not be an athletic field there at all? 

There are so many issues here!  First, a grass athletic field at this location presents NO PROBLEM, and is an excellent use of this type of wetland.  Even when the stream pipe burst during Ida, the field absorbed the water -- look at that picture.  That would have spelled disaster for turf.  Their current plan -- to reroute the 36 inch pipe containing the stream over right next to the school building, seems pretty risky.  They show this pipe making a series of 90 degree turns (?!), wrapping around the field and joining two 15 inch pipes (that are supposed to handle all the water from 3 (impermeable) acres of turf) at the bottom of the field.  All of this water then drains into the 30 inch main under Valley Street.  36 inch pipe + 15 + 15 =< 30 (?) how is that going to work?

The stream also raises possible jurisdictional issues.  Is this Maplewood's stream, since its headwaters and the length of its flow are in Maplewood?  Does Maplewood have some kind of right-of-way through the field?  What does the DEP say about this?  I really don't know, but it seems like it could complicate the whole issue.

jspjnc: IF you were on site to take the manhole cover photo today, can you confirm that there was a turf blanket running across the field,  parallel to Valley?