NEW JERSEY REGISTER

VOLUME 49, ISSUE 16

ISSUE DATE: AUGUST 21, 2017

RULE ADOPTIONS

AGRICULTURE

DIVISION OF AGRICULTURAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES

STATE SOIL CONSERVATION COMMITTEE

49 N.J.R. 2787(a)

Adopted Amendments: N.J.A.C. 2:90-1.3, 1.4, 1.9, and 1.14

Soil Erosion and Sediment Control on Land Disturbance Activities

Proposed: September 19, 2016, at 48 N.J.R. 1847(a).

Adopted: June 12, 2017, by the State Soil Conservation Committee and Douglas H. Fisher, Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Chairman, State Soil Conservation Committee.

Filed: July 17, 2017, as R.2017 d.152, without change.

Authority: N.J.S.A. 4:24-3 and 4:24-42.

Effective Date: August 21, 2017.

Operative Date: December 7, 2017.

Expiration Date: December 8, 2017.

Summary of Public Comments and Agency Responses:

The following is a summary of the comments received and the Department's responses. Each commenter is identified at the end of the comment by a number, which corresponds to the following list:

1. Jean Public, resident

2. Carol Ann Short, Esq., CEO, New Jersey Builders Association

3. Cliff Lundin, District Manager, on behalf of Sussex Soil Conservation District Board

4. Stan Hales, Ph.D., Director, Barnegat Bay Partnership

Comments shown in quotation marks are the verbatim statements as received by the Department; comments not shown in quotation marks have either been summarized or condensed for the purpose of clarity.

Summary, Social and Economic Impact Statements, and General Comments

1. COMMENT: The commenter expressed support of the notice of proposal and conveyed an interest in maintaining a dialog with the State Soil Conservation Committee (SSCC), Soil Conservation Districts, and New Jersey Department of Agriculture staff to ensure that the Standards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control (Standards) would be implemented in practice as intended and without creating a new process embedded with unnecessary delay. (2)

RESPONSE: The State Soil Conservation Committee appreciates the comment and looks forward to continuing a productive working relationship.

2. COMMENT: The commenter states that engineering has not been brought into these Standards enough. (1)

RESPONSE: The State Soil Conservation Committee disagrees with the commenter's assessment. Both of the Standards considered were developed in consultation with professional engineers representing broad interest groups.

3. COMMENT: The commenter believes there was a lack of input and consideration of public safety and public health interests. The commenter further identified tularemia, arsenic, and other toxic chemicals as a concern and suggested greater participation from public health groups. (1)

RESPONSE: The State Soil Conservation Committee appreciates the concerns raised by the commenter, however, such public health concerns are beyond the mandates of the SSCC and the Soil Conservation Districts and not a part of this rulemaking. Other State and local agencies have regulatory authority for monitoring public health and safety.

4. COMMENT: The commenter states "It cannot be just agribusiness interests involved and those allied with ag interestsl ike (sic) rutger co-op usda, nrdc, nrcs,etc (sic). They are all strongly allied with agribusiness. We do not want skewed biased law or codes. We have enough of those already on the books. And our NJ soil is vital to all of NJ, not just ag. Please open up the meetings to have many viewpoints." (1)

RESPONSE: The development of the proposed soil restoration measures took approximately four years and involved receiving many viewpoints as the commenter suggests. There were representatives from the New Jersey Pinelands Commission, Rutgers University, USDA-NRCS, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, several soil conservation districts, members of the State Soil Conservation Committee, and the Pinelands Preservation Alliance were members of the Standards committee. The SSCC sought to balance the needs, interests, and concerns of a wide variety of constituents and thus took these varying points of view into account in the development of the proposed amendments. The proposed amendments will be applicable to land disturbance activities subject to the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act, and may include certain agriculturally related activities.

5. COMMENT: The commenter notes that the "legislation was apparently intended to address an issue identified in the coastal plain area of the state" and asks if soil compaction has been studied and identified as an issue in the remainder of the State. The commenter further asks if one Statewide standard is appropriate and if the "proposed standard has been subjected to a pilot implementation on sites in the various geographic provinces of the state." (3)

RESPONSE: The advent of the proposed amendments arose directly from the State Legislature based on input from the public, particularly concerned with Barnegat Bay. Although the Department has not conducted scientific soil compaction studies anywhere in New Jersey, the expectation is that as the implementation of the proposed soil restoration measures occurs, the SSCC will obtain a great deal of information and become better informed on which areas of the State have greater soil compaction concerns requiring specific treatments and will then be in a position to make adjustments to the Standards as necessary.

6. COMMENT: The commenter states "It is clear from the summary included with the proposed amendments that the State Soil Conservation Committee (SSCC) has misinterpreted the intent of the 2010 Soil Restoration Act (SRA). The SRA was promulgated to protect and enhance water quality throughout the State, with the understanding that healthy, uncompacted soils increase recharge to groundwater, reduce stormwater impacts, and lessen the need for soil additives (i.e. fertilizers and pesticides) to maintain healthy vegetative cover. This focus on water quality and water supply is especially critical given the predicted impacts of changing climatic conditions and an increasing human population along New Jersey's coast. Unfortunately, the amendments, as currently proposed, do nothing to further the protection of water quality and water supplies throughout the state." (4)

RESPONSE: The SSCC recognizes that land development activities are dynamic and soil restoration measures may be performed in various landscapes and settings. The Act requires that soil restoration measures are developed to the "... maximum extent possible ..." are "cost-effective" and based on the "intended land use." In addition, the Legislature amended the definition of "disturbance" to include soil compaction, which "degrades soil so as to make it less conducive to vegetative stabilization." The SSCC believes that a primary objective of the Act is to enhance or protect the ability of the soil to produce and sustain vegetative growth, under those varied landscapes and settings. Benefits to water quality and water supplies are secondary benefits to proper soil erosion and sediment control.

7. COMMENT: The commenter states "The proposed guidelines often do not meet the previously published recommendations of Rutgers University and other soil-allied agencies (i.e. USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service), suggesting that the proposed amendments were not in fact prepared in cooperation with these groups, as required." (4)

[page=2788] RESPONSE: The development of the proposed soil restoration measures took approximately four years and involved representatives from the New Jersey Pinelands Commission, Rutgers University, USDA-NRCS, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, several soil conservation districts, members of the State Soil Conservation Committee and the Pinelands Preservation Alliance were members of the Standards committee. The SSCC, which includes representatives from Rutgers University and Rutgers Cooperative Extension, sought to balance the needs, interests and concerns of a wide variety of constituents and, thus, took many recommendations and varying points of view into account in the development of the proposed amendments.

8. COMMENT: The commenter states "The cost-benefit analyses referenced throughout the summary do not appear to have been conducted by the state agricultural college or extension stations (Rutgers), and were never officially accepted by the SSCC or its subcommittees. As such, the analyses are not consistent with the requirements of the Soil Conservation Act. A new cost-benefit analysis of the activities proposed in the 2012 draft standards should be undertaken by professional environmental economists at Rutgers University and used as a basis for determining the cost effectiveness of any proposed activities. The referenced cost-benefit analyses do not appear to have taken the cost of water, or the ecosystem services provided by properly restored soils, into account. Full cost-benefit analyses conducted by state agencies throughout the United States since 2010 have shown time and again that soil restoration strategies as proposed in the original language of the Soil Restoration Act and the 2012 proposed standards are both cost effective and practical." (4)

RESPONSE: The SSCC consulted with Rutgers University and their professional economists, who, after a lengthy assessment, advised the SSCC that studies identifying a dollar value of 'benefits' was not readily available, and suggested that a rigorous study could be undertaken but would be both costly and lengthy. Detailed information regarding the multitudinous range of land uses, topography, soils, climate variations and long-term maintenance practices of property owners, and the interrelationships between these factors would need to be known in order to have the slightest degree of accuracy in assessing the monetary value of the 'benefits'. Additionally, it is understood that without ongoing efforts on the part of the future property owners to continue employing management practices, such as the application of additional compost, soil aeration, and proper turf management, the initial efforts to improve soil conditions by developers will decline in a few years after typical use. The regulatory authority of the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Program ceases upon the completion of construction and the issuance of a Final Report of Compliance by the Soil Conservation District. Therefore, the program cannot reasonably ensure that property owners will continue to be proactive in how they care for the soil and vegetation on their properties and sustain any benefits achieved by the initial restoration.

9. COMMENT: The commenter suggests that the State Soil Conservation Committee develop a regular schedule for Rutgers University to lead collaboration with appropriate agency and other partners to review and evaluate on-site soil practices, standards, and related procedures. (4)

RESPONSE: The SSCC, which includes representatives from Rutgers University and Rutgers Cooperative Extension, routinely assesses the efficacy of the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Standards making updates as needed. A review schedule is outside the amendments proposed in this rulemaking.

10. COMMENT: The commenter states that "when the Soil Restoration Act was passed in 2010 New Jersey led the nation in addressing the impacts of soil disturbance and in recognizing the importance of soil restoration to a functioning ecosystem, including human uses and benefits. Since 2010, a number of other states have passed comprehensive soil restoration standards that provide cost effective and practical ways to increase the benefits we receive from functioning soils. Since 2010, it is also estimated that approximately another 100 square miles of New Jersey's landscape has been developed, with most of that acreage likely not undergoing adequate soil restoration as a result of NJDA's delay in developing and implementing an effective soil restoration standard." (4)

RESPONSE: As of this date, it is correct that a number of states, such as Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Maryland have begun to address soil restoration, which includes the requirement of topsoil in their permanent stabilization efforts on construction sites. Actually, the motivation behind the rise of soil compaction concerns around the country is related to the fact that these states allow developers to attempt to grow vegetation in subsoil devoid of any organic matter. By comparison, New Jersey has required the use of topsoil, along with subsoil scarification, since the original standards were adopted in 1972. Additionally, there have been provisions to address soil compaction in the Standards since 1985 applicable to projects occurring between 2010 and the present.

Subchapter 1 Comments

11. COMMENT: The commenter states "the rule apparently excludes from the need for soil restoration, areas which are not intended to be re-vegetated. As such, the rule could possibly have a negative secondary impact of increasing non-vegetated areas. Has this impact been considered?" (3)

RESPONSE: The SSCC does not envision that the modification to the Standard for Land Grading will be a sufficient driving force to induce a widespread change in the decision making process for how project soils are stabilized.

12. COMMENT: The commenter notes that the existing and proposed topsoil standard (section 1.A.) defines "topsoil" as being "free of ... stones." And it is virtually impossible in Sussex County to locate topsoil which is free from stone. The commenter suggests that a maximum amount of stone or stone size should be specified. (3)

RESPONSE: The Standard for Permanent Vegetation includes limitations on "debris, objectionable weeds and stones." Typically, stony topsoil is screened prior to application though this is not a requirement in the Standards.

13. COMMENT: The commenter requests the basis for the 2.75 percent organic matter content requirement for "imported topsoil" under section 1.A of the topsoil standard and questions if the percentage is based on weight, volume, or carbon content. The commenter questioned how this is to be enforced and will the soil conservation districts have the right to require testing or to require certification of imported topsoil. (3)

RESPONSE: The value of 2.75 percent has been included in the Standard for Topsoiling since 1979, and is not proposed for change. Districts are authorized to require testing if the quality of soil or its organic matter content is dubious, however, the Department is unaware of any instance when this testing was deemed necessary.

14. COMMENT: The commenter states that the proposed Standard for Topsoiling does not specify the organic matter content and quantity based on soil texture. The commenter notes that "later in the proposed revision, imported topsoil is required to have a minimum organic matter content of 2.75 percent" and suggests that this requirement should be established for all soil areas restored under the SRA. (4)

RESPONSE: This part of the Standard was not modified and has contained this requirement, originally provided by USDA-SCS since 1979. If in-situ soil is found to be unsuitable for establishing vegetation and soil must be imported, then it must meet the minimum requirements established.

15. COMMENT: The commenter states, "Research conducted by Rutgers University and others has conclusively shown the benefits of amending compacted soils with organic matter from water retention and recharge, and water quality perspectives. Because soil amendments reduce the need to water turf, soil amendments have long-term economic benefits. Again, this economic benefit was not incorporated into the cost-benefit analysis." (4)

RESPONSE: The SSCC acknowledges that there is benefit to amending compacted soils, however, the theory that compost added during initial site construction will exist 'long-term' is not fully supported by soil or agronomic science or the collective experience of New Jersey Soil Conservation Districts for the past 40 years. Since compost is consumed by microorganisms and is oxidized due to its organic nature, it is not a permanent alteration to the soil matrix. It is not [page=2789] viewed as a long-term economic or other benefit unless it is periodically replenished by direct addition and re-incorporation. The long-term soil conditions are ultimately determined by the management practices of the future property owners. Activities such as mowing, foot traffic, watering, fertilizing, and climatic factors (rain, snow, drought) ultimately determine the long-term, steady state condition of the soil. As these factors vary from location to location around the State, neither the developers nor the soil conservation districts have control with any predictable fashion over the long-term land management and the impacts to any economic benefits initially derived.

16. COMMENT: The commenter questioned if the soil conservation district has the right to request to review the results of any tests conducted on "topsoil substitute" as identified in the standard for topsoil, section 1.B. The commenter suggests the State Soil Conservation Committee consider a notification requirement in the event a topsoil substitute is utilized. (3)

RESPONSE: The use of topsoil substitute should be addressed during plan review prior to project certification. Topsoil substitute is often used on mine reclamation sites due to the expense of importing 'real' topsoil. On such sites a district can request that this information be added to the plan.

17. COMMENT: The commenter questioned the criteria for determining "alternate depths" with respect to topsoil as provided in the Standard for Topsoil, section 4.B. In addition, the commenter questioned if there is a minimum trigger level of iron sulfide to require the utilization of 12 inches of topsoil, could the soil conservation district require testing and what are the criteria for triggering the testing requirement. (3)

RESPONSE: The criteria would be based on a more stringent design specification from the engineer when more or less topsoil material may be required as in topdressing acid bearing soil deposits. The requirement for 12 inches of topsoil when iron sulfides are encountered was not proposed for change. Typically, the presence of acid bearing materials is known either from mapping or from observation. There is nothing to preclude a soil conservation district from requesting testing to be conducted if they suspect the presence of acid bearing materials due to poor vegetative growth.

18. COMMENT: The commenter states that the proposed language in the Standard for Topsoiling, section 4.C requires permanent vegetative cover to be established on at least 80 percent of the soils to be stabilized, but there is no description of when this determination is to be made. The commenter suggests that a clearly defined time period after which or at which point the 80 percent vegetative cover is determined is necessary. (4)

RESPONSE: The reference in section 4(c) is to section 7 of the Standard for Permanent Vegetative Cover and is provided as a cross-reference. Section 7 states that 80 percent coverage is the definition of 'permanently stabilized' and must be mowed at least once to demonstrate acceptability.

19. COMMENT: The commenter notes that in the proposed Standard for Land Grading, planning criteria, item 1, a "safe angle of repose" is required and questions if there is a maximum angle and a chart of permissible angles for specified materials. (3)

RESPONSE: Safe angle of repose as referenced in the Standard is dependent on the soil material present and would be determined by the design engineer.

20. COMMENT: The commenter states that under the Standard for Land Grading, Soil Management, and Preparation, "exemptions to compaction remediation: It is unclear why golf courses are specifically excluded. While there may be industry-specific designs for portions of the playing surfaces (greens), golf courses often included as parts of larger developments that include substantive site clearing and stockpiling outside of the industry-specified design areas (entrance ways, club houses and surrounds, fairways, etc.) (4)

RESPONSE: If portions of a golf course are not governed by golf industry soil design standards, then the requirements for soil remediation would apply. The commenter misunderstands the application of the exemptions that are otherwise clearly defined.

21. COMMENT: The commenter states that the exemption from compaction remediation "for 'areas receiving temporary vegetative stabilization' is unnecessary and should be eliminated from the proposed standard. Often during the course of construction, large areas are cleared. If construction is delayed, these sites are subject to erosion from wind and/or water, and require temporary stabilization. Later these areas are returned to active construction activity and disturbance. Under the draft standard, these areas appear to be exempt from the standards after their return to active disturbance, as they received temporary stabilization. In addition, stockpiled areas receiving temporary vegetation would also be exempted, despite the word 'stockpiled' being specifically included in the definition of disturbance under the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act." (4)

RESPONSE: There are standardized procedures for construction site development. Areas of a site that are temporarily stabilized due to delays in construction will not be required to conduct remediation measures at that time since they will eventually be re-disturbed at some point in the future when construction recommences and the site developed. At that time, remediation measures would be required (either testing or actual remediation). Stockpiles by their nature are temporary and will be used in the future to finish the site and have no need of "restoration."

22. COMMENT: The commenter notes that in the proposed Standard for Land Grading, page 2, only "deep scarification/tillage (6" minimum depth)" is required and states the "practice of amending soils with needed organic matter was perceived to be too expensive and removed from the Standards. The commenter further states that "the cost-benefit analysis that underlay that decision was substantially flawed and should be redone by Rutgers University." (4)

RESPONSE: The requirement to deep till, if necessary, is to be done on the subsoil at least six inches deep. The requirement for organic matter is contained in the Standard for Topsoiling. With the subsequent application of five inches of topsoil, firmed in place, a total 'uncompacted' soil depth of at least 11 inches will be provided. Deeper scarification may actually create a soil profile that is so well drained that turf grass may be difficult to establish resulting in a loss of vegetation which is contrary to both the existing Act and its amended portions relating to soil restoration. As previously noted, Rutgers University and their professional economists, after a lengthy assessment, advised the SSCC that there were no existing studies or data specifically analyzing the monetary benefits of implementing the restoration measures as proposed, suggesting that a rigorous study could be done but would be both costly and lengthy.

23. COMMENT: The commenter notes that in the proposed Standard for Land Grading, page 2, Soil Management and Preparation, there is discretion in the types of testing utilized to determine if soil remediation is required. The commenter questions if there is a procedure for soil conservation districts to mandate the use of one or more of the testing methodologies. The commenter questioned if the State Soil Conservation Committee considered generating a table or chart relating the proposed land use or area of disturbance with the type of testing to be utilized. The commenter questioned if the State Soil Conservation Committee considered a notification requirement by the applicant prior to soil testing. (3)

RESPONSE: The use of testing is completely at the discretion of the applicant. Soil district staff do not measure or assess properties of materials used for construction. The purpose of the tests is to allow for a variety of conditions to be evaluated if and when conditions preclude one type of test or another.

24. COMMENT: The commenter suggests that the term "firm" in reference to the use of a wire flag is vague and suggests further defining the term. (3)

RESPONSE: The test method states that a 15.5 gauge wire is to be used. A typical wire of that gauge is used for survey flag markers and is noted in the Standard.

25. COMMENT: The commenter states that under the Standard for Land Grading, Soil Testing Method Options, the soil compaction measurement methods described in the proposed standards are inaccurate and suggests that soil compaction should be measured routinely using a handheld static-cone penetrometer. The commenter further suggests that a minimum of 10 soil compaction measurements be collected for each site with a 300 psi reading with corresponding depth as a way to determine degree of compaction on the site. (4)

[page=2790] RESPONSE: Two of the testing methods, nuclear densitometer and tube bulk density, provide an actual measurement of the soil bulk density in grams/cc. The two other tests are included to provide a simple means of determining if compaction is present. Both the 'wire flag' test and the penetrometer test are recognized and used by the USDA-NRCS as a means of detecting soil compaction, which is considered to be excessive. A penetrometer is an agricultural instrument and is routinely used to give an indication of compaction on farm fields and is typically used as a regulatory tool on construction sites. The accuracy of the instrument is highly variable and dependent upon many factors, such as soil moisture and texture, rocks and debris, and the experience of the user. These methods are included as simple, repeatable, and cost effective means to identify compacted soils. Should the results not prove conclusive, the developer has the option of using more sophisticated tests, as noted. The Department is proposing a conservative threshold of a minimum of 11 inches below the finished grade to be free of compacted soil. The number of measurements is dependent on project size.

26. COMMENT: The commenter states that under the Standard for Land Grading, Soil Testing Method Options, Tube Bulk Density Method 3 tests are to be "performed 'utilizing only undisturbed samples (sic),' " and suggests that the samples should be collected from disturbed areas. The commenter also states that the "proposed standards also prevent this test from being used in some of the most common and applicable soil types in New Jersey," with specific reference to Downer soils. The commenter suggests that the "appropriate methods for soil bulk density testing on sands and loamy sands can be found in a study conducted in New Jersey (Ocean County Soil Conservation District et al., 2001)." (4)

RESPONSE: The term "undisturbed" does not refer to certain locations around the site. It refers to the condition of a soil sample taken (for example, it must be extracted as an "undisturbed" unit of soil and transported to a laboratory without breaking it up. The limitations of using this method on cohesionless soils are established by the method itself, not the SSCC. The reason for the limitation is that a soil sample of known volume must be extracted as a unit. If the soil is cohesionless, it will not remain in the tube when it is extracted and the volume measurement will be inaccurate. Other methodologies may be more suitable to determine bulk density of cohesionless soils. The SSCC reviewed the Ocean County Soil Conservation District report when it was first published and found numerous conclusions not supported by scientific evidence, which called the overall study into question. The SSCC relies on proven methodologies in the development of the Standards and we believe the options provided represent the most reasonable approach to evaluate a broad spectrum of soil types.

27. COMMENT: The commenter suggests that table 19-1 in the Standard for Land Grading be revised based on the most recent data available and verified by research from Rutgers University. (4)

RESPONSE: The SSCC utilized values that recognized that conditions on construction sites varied and were not in themselves "optimal" (such as might be found in a lab or nursery). The SSCC believes the values in the table represent a reasonable approach to limiting compaction and allow for vegetative establishment.

28. COMMENT: The commenter states that the term "specifications" in the Standard for Land Grading, Soil Testing Method Options 5, was misspelled. The commenter also questioned what standard is to be used when considering alternative testing methods.(3)

RESPONSE: The SSCC thanks the commenter and will make the spelling correction in the Standards document. The SSCC anticipates that the design engineer will request an alternate method when none of the included methods are appropriate. A justification would be necessary explaining why another method is more suitable. Districts often receive requests for deviations from certain requirements in the Standards. A common request is to use permanent vegetative seed specifications that are specially adapted to a particular land use which may not be represented in the Standards.

Federal Standards Statement

Executive Order No. 27 (1994) and P.L. 1995, c. 65 require State agencies that adopt, readopt, or amend State rules that exceed any Federal standards or requirements to include in the rulemaking document a comparison with Federal law. N.J.A.C. 2:90-1 is solely related to the administrative functions of the State Soil Conservation Committee and the Soil Conservation Districts and is not subject to any Federal requirement or standards.

Full text of the adoption follows:

SUBCHAPTER 1. SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ON LAND DISTURBANCE ACTIVITIES

2:90-1.3 Standards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control

(a) The State Soil Conservation Committee adopts and hereby incorporates into the rules of this subchapter by reference as standards for soil erosion and sediment control those standards published in the "Standards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey" and identified as revised on December 14, 2015, as the technical basis for local soil conservation district certification of soil erosion and sediment control plans. Specifically, these standards include the following:

1. Vegetative Standards:

. . .

Topsoiling...............................................................8-1

Revised December 14, 2015

. . .

2. Engineering Standards:

. . .

Land Grading.............................................................19-1

Revised December 14, 2015

. . .

3. (No change.)

(b)-(c) (No change.)

2:90-1.4 Application

(a) (No change.)

(b) Applications for certifications of soil erosion and sediment control plans shall include the following items:

1. (No change.)

2. Up to four copies of the soil erosion and sediment control plan at the same scale as the site plan submitted to the municipality or other land use approval agency, which includes the following information detailed on the plat:

i.-viii. (No change.)

ix. For residential development, erosion control measures which apply to dwelling construction on individual lots with notation on the final plat that requirement for installation of such control measures shall apply to subsequent owners if title is conveyed;

x. Plans for maintenance of permanent soil erosion and sediment control measures and facilities during and after construction, which include the designation of persons or entity responsible for such maintenance; and

xi. Where applicable, the location and details for all proposed soil restoration areas including appropriate notes and sequencing;

3.-5. (No change.)

(c)-(g) (No change.)

2:90-1.9 Procedure

(a)-(k) (No change.)

(l) The sequence of construction shall be an integral component of the certified plan and shall be followed by the applicant or their agent during all phases of the project. The sequence shall incorporate the installation of temporary and permanent controls, and shall include, but not be limited to, clearing and grading, cuts and fills, temporary diversions, sediment basins, tracking controls, temporary and permanent stabilization, soil restoration measures, and dust control. The sequence of construction may be revised and shall be resubmitted to the district for approval during construction to address site concerns.

(m) (No change.)

2:90-1.14 Reports of Compliance

(a)-(l) (No change.)

(m) Where soil restoration measures are required, a standard form adopted by the SSCC must be utilized indicating the type of soil test method used, test location, test results, and proposed remediation methods. This form shall be provided to the soil conservation district prior to the Report of Compliance inspection. The district shall withhold [page=2791] an ROC, CRC, or FROC for any project that has not provided this form or it is determined that the remediation area has not adequately addressed restoration measures.