Fw: GARDEN STATE ENVIRONEWS 020125

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message ----- From: Phil Reynolds Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 12:53 AM gsenet-l@... Subject: GARDEN STATE ENVIRONEWS 020125 020125GARDEN STATE ENVIRONEWS:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: TABLE OF CONTENTS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ {*} WOMEN NEAR HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES AT GREATER DOWN'S RISK {*} THE MOST POORLY TESTED CHEMICALS IN THE WORLD {*} PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR GREEN TREE CHEMICAL - PARLIN {*} STATE EXTENDS DROUGHT WARNING TO SEVEN MORE COUNTIES {*} WEST MILFORD DEAL MAY INVITE DEVELOPMENT {*} BUSH TO COMMIT MORE THAN $20M FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION {*} PURGE AT THE OFFICE OF STATE PLANNING {*} DON'T OVERREACT: MCGREEVEY KILLS OFFICE OF STATE PLANNING {*} PINELANDS COMMISSION TO STUDY GROWTH IN TWO TOWNS {*} DEER REPRODUCING LIKE RABBITS {*} HIGHLAND'S COALITION DIRECTOR/CAMPAIGN COORDINATOR {*} JEWISH CENTER ECO-FAIR 2002 - JAN 27 {*} N/S BRANCH RARITAN WMA COMMITTEE MEETING - JAN 30 {*} WALLKILL RIVER WATERSHED PAC MEETING - FEB 21::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::WOMEN NEAR HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES AT GREATER DOWN'S RISKDate: 020125From: http://www.ireland.com/By Dick Ahlstrom, Science Editor, Irish Times, January 24, 2002The risk of birth defects such as Down's syndrome is 40 per centhigher for pregnant women living within three kilometres of hazardouswaste landfill sites, according to new research. Its authors call formore measurement of the exposure of people living near landfills tochemicals.The report follows a number of studies linking birth defects toliving adjacent to hazardous waste dumps. This latest research by Dre Vrijheid of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicineis published this morning in the Lancet.The researchers used data collected in 1998 as part of the"Eurohazcon" study, which looked for non- chromosomal birth defectssuch as cleft palate and spina bifida in those living near dumps. Thatearlier work showed a 33 per cent increased risk of these defects inthose living within three kilometres of a hazardous dump.The new study looked for chromosomal defects leading to conditionssuch as Down's syndrome and it identified a significantly increasedrisk. The detailed analysis included 23 landfill sites in five EUcountries and identified a 40 per cent higher risk.The team looked at 245 cases of chromosomal defect and another 2,412healthy individuals, and made statistical adjustments so that themother's age when pregnant and socio-economic factors did not distortthe results.It compared risks for those living within three kilometres andbetween three and seven kilometres away from a hazardous dump. Thesedistances were chosen on the advice of landfill specialists as zonesof "most likely exposure" to substances coming from the dumps.Dr Vrijheid found that the increased risk of both chromosomal andnon-chromosomal defects remained similar when results were pooled orwhen separated into individual areas.The similarity could be interpreted in two ways, she suggested.Either landfill exposures are causally related to risk of congenitaldefects or it was a chance effect arising from those chosen as healthycontrols. She ruled out hidden socio-economic factors because theseinfluence chromosomal and non-chromosomal defects differently.The mother's age when pregnant can increase the risk of conditionssuch as Down's but Dr Vrijheid also ruled this factor out. Afteradjusting for age, the risk of chromosomal defects increased for thoseliving near the dumps.The study could not measure how much, if any, exposure mothers had tochemicals from the landfills.* * *© The Irish Times::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::THE MOST POORLY TESTED CHEMICALS IN THE WORLDDate: 04 Jan 2002From: ilena@... (Ilena Rose)FACTS AND FIGURES* More than 7 million recognized chemicals are in existence, and approximately 80,000 of them are in common use worldwide (GAO 1994b).* A 1979 inventory of chemicals mandated by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) contained 62,000 chemicals that were reported by manufacturers as being in commercial use at that time. The inventory is up to 73,757 chemicals as of February 2001.* EPA and the FDA have no idea exactly how many chemicals are used in consumer products, nor what products they are used in.* An unknown number of new chemicals are not among this total. Only new organic chemicals - chemicals that contain carbon - are added to the list. New chemicals that are exempt from the official listing process include inorganics, pesticides, food additives, some large polymer molecules, and any chemical produced in low quantities.- - -REGULATIONS AND TESTING REQUIREMENTS: NEW VS. OLD CHEMICALS. . .NEW CHEMICALSNew chemicals are defined here as chemicals that have yet to enter orare still within the Premanufacture Notification (PMN) process. Duringthe 90 day PMN process EPA staff can ask for some limited data on thetoxicity and physical characteristics of a chemical, although theyrarely do. EPA reviews between 2000 and 2500 applications through thePMN program each year, or between 40 and 50 new chemical applicationseach week. (EPA 1997, pg. 6 and 44).* More than half of all PMNs come in the door with no toxicity or environmental fate data. Data on physical and chemical properties like melting point and boiling point may have been submitted for a small percentage of these chemicals (DiCarlo et al 1986, referenced in EPA 1997).* 8 out of every 10 PMN applications are approved within three weeks, with or without test data (EPA 1997, pg 36).* 90% of 23,971 PMN chemicals approved by EPA between 1976 and 1994 were approved with no restrictions on their proposed use and production and with no requests for additional test data, regardless of the amount of data submitted.It is not just health data that is lacking in the PMN process. Thereis precious little data of any kind submitted with PMNs, chieflybecause none is required. As 3M puts it on their PMN forms posted onEPA's web site, "You are not required to submit the listed test dataif you do not have it." And chemical manufacturers almost never haveit.* Fewer than 5 of every 100 PMN submissions have any data pertaining to how toxic the chemical might be to wildlife (ecotoxicity data) (Zeeman et al. 1993, referenced in EPA 1997, pg 11).* Fewer than 4 of every 100 PMN submissions contain any measured values for physical and chemical properties of the chemical (Lynch et al 1991, referenced in EPA 1997, pg 11). This is an extraordinarily significant omission, because EPA routinely uses parameters like a chemical's boiling point and melting point to estimate risks to human health.* Fewer than 1 of every 100 PMN submissions contain any biodegradation data - an indicator of how persistent the chemical will be in the environment (Boethling and Sabljic 1989, referenced in EPA 1997).Because it receives virtually no data from industry, EPA relies onestimates of key parameters to judge if the chemical might be toxic tohumans, for the vast majority of new chemicals. EPA's standardapproach includes a concept called the structure-activity relationship(SAR), which is a comparison of the chemical with other chemicals thatare structurally similar for which toxicity data are available. Inessence, EPA uses test results for chemical cousins to estimate howtoxic a new chemical might be. This is a risky way to do business. TheGeneral Accounting Office points to a case where EPA underestimatedthe risk of a chemical (dialkyldialkoxysilane) by a factor of 100because they were forced to rely on SARs in their original riskassessment (GAO 1994b).- - -OLD CHEMICALSOld chemicals are defined here as all chemicals that were on themarket when TSCA passed in 1976, plus any chemical that has made it tomarket through the PMN process. EPA has even less authority to requiretests for old chemicals than for new ones. For old chemicals EPA mustgo through a rulemaking to request a single test on a single chemical.As of 1998, EPA had requested tests for only 263 chemicals, or onlyabout 0.4 percent of the (approximately) 70,000 "old" chemicals incommercial use in the United States (ED 1998). These are only singletests for one effect, such as cancer, or perhaps just an acutetoxicity test. This does not mean that EPA has requested comprehensivetesting for 263 chemicals.What about high production volume chemicals? Isn't industryparticipating in a wildly successful voluntary test program?In 1998, EPA reported that the most heavily used chemicals incommerce are largely untested:* 43% of 2,800 chemicals produced in volumes of 1,000,000 per year or more, have no basic toxicity data, or screening level data, at all.* 50% have incomplete screening data.* Only 7% of these so-called high production volume (HPV) chemicals have a complete set of screening level toxicity data.Screening level data, even if they indicate a problem, are notsufficient to restrict the use of a compound.On October 9, 1998 EPA's administrator Carol Browner sent letters tothe CEO's of more than 900 chemical companies that manufacture HPVchemicals, inviting them to participate in EPA's voluntary testinginitiative, the "HPV Challenge Program." As of February 2001, 28months after these invitations were mailed, industry had submittedonly 17 testing work plans to EPA - and EPA has not received theresults of any new tests.About half of the companies have not responded, and presumably willnot respond to the invitation, while 469 companies have indicated somelevel of commitment. Of the 2,863 chemicals initially identified, 25%(708 chemicals) remain entirely without a commitment for testing fromthe manufacturers.The program deadline for all tests to be completed recently slidseveral years - EPA is now asking for all new test results to besubmitted by 2005, but if past is prologue this deadline is not likelyto be met.- - -CURRENT STATUS OF HPV TESTINGThe EPA website on the HPV challenge program now refers people to anindustry-sponsored site (http://www.hpvchallenge.com) for updates onindustry commitments under the program. Industry data on this siteshow that:* 34 tests were completed in 1999 (5 physical property tests, 14 environmental fate tests, 6 ecotoxicity tests, and 9 toxicity tests)* 29 tests were completed in 2000 (5 physical property tests, 5 environmental fate tests, 7 ecotoxicity tests, and 12 toxicity tests)Only 21 of these 63 tests are directly relevant to human health.As of February, 2001, none of these test results had been submittedto EPA under the HPV program.Companies that fail to participate in the voluntary initiative may besubjected to formal testing requirements under legally binding testrules. In December 2000 EPA issued the first of these test rules,covering 37 of the 708 chemicals for which there is no voluntarytesting commitment. If EPA continues this rulemaking pace each year,test rules for all 708 chemicals will be in place in the year 2022.- - -REFERENCESEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1997. Chemistry AssistanceManual for Premanufacture Notification Submitters. Office of PollutionPrevention and Toxics. EPA 744-R-97-003. March 1997.General Accounting Office (GAO). 1994b. Toxic Substances Control Act:Preliminary Observations on Legislative Changes to Make TSCA MoreEffective (Testimony, 07/13/94, GAO/T-RCED-94-263).Environmental Defense Fund (ED). 1998. Toxic Ignorance. Washington,D.C.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. Chemical Hazard DataAvailability Study. What do we really know about the safety of highproduction volume chemicals? EPA's 1998 baseline of hazard informationthat is readily available to the public. Office of PollutionPrevention and Toxics. April 1998.General Accounting Office (GAO). 1994a. Toxic Substances Control Act:Preliminary Observations on Legislative Changes to Make TSCA MoreEffective (Testimony, 07/13/94, GAO/T-RCED-94-263). Summary availableon http://www.gao.gov.http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org/factfiction/testing.asp::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR GREEN TREE CHEMICAL - PARLINDate: 020125From: 609-292-9880RE: Draft Permit Modification for Green Tree Chemical Technologies,Inc., Parlin, EPA ID No. N.TR 000 035 477, Hazardous Waste Facility(HWF) Permit No. 1219C1HP04.Dear Sir or Madam:The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division ofSolid and hazardous Waste, is giving public notice pursuant toN.J.A.C. 7:26G-13 (40 CFR 124.10) of the preparation of a draftmodification to the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit for the abovereferenced facility.We wish to extend to you the opportunity to comment on the draftmodification and related documents. The enclosed information includesa copy of the Notice of Public Comment Period and Fact Sheet for theabove referenced facility. The current HWF permit authorizes storageof on-site generated nitrocellulose waste in a three-sided concretecontainment structure. This modification will authorize the operationof an existing open pit burner, which is currently operated as aninterim status unit, to thermally treat waste nitrocellulose inaccordance with applicable hazardous waste regulations found at Parts260-266, 268 and 270, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations(CFR).The Notice of Public Comment Period, which provides an opportunity torequest a public hearing pursuant to 40 CFR 124.11, has been placedfor publication in the Chronicle and the Home News Tribune. You areadvised that should this notice result in the scheduling of a hearing,a subsequent notice of the hearing will be provided in accordance with40 CFR 124.12.Be advised that if the proposed agency action does not result in apublic hearing, the public comment period will close 45 days after thepublication of this notice and a final decision on the permitmodification request will be taken in accordance with 40 CFR 270.42.If you have any questions regarding the draft permit modification orthe notice for public comment, please contact me at (609) 292-9880.Very truly yours, Fontana, Chief- - -Bureau of Hazardous Waste and Transfer FacilitiesNOTICE OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODON THE PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT MODIFICATION UNDER THERESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACTThe State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection(NJDEP) has reviewed an application by:EPA ID NO. NJR 000 035 477Green Tree Chemical Technologies, Inc.50 South Minisink AvenueParlin,NJ 08858for the operation of a open pit burner to burn waste nitrocellulose.The open burning unit is regulated as a miscellaneous unit under 40CFR 264 Subpart X. The application was originally submitted by theprevious owner/operator of the facility, Hercules, Inc., to the USEPARegion II.THE DRAFT PERMIT MODIFICATIONThe NJDEP issues HWF permits to regulate ongoing activities involvingtreatment, storage, and/or disposal of hazardous waste. The NJDEP hasprepared a draft HWF permit modification and is accepting comments onthe draft. The modification involves inclusion of open burning ofwaste nitrocellulose as an authorized activity under Condition 1 ofSection III of this permit and revision of various conditions of thepermit to reference related documents and specify appropriaterequirements of 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart X (Miscellaneous Units).FACILITY DESCRIPTIONGreen Tree Chemical Technologies, Inc. (Green Tree) and itspredecessor, Hercules, Inc., have manufactured nitrocellulose, aproduct resulting from the reaction of cellulose with a mixture ofnitric and sulfuric acid, at the Parlin site since 1916, The type ofnitrocellulose manufactured at the site is used as an ingredient toproduce lacquers and coatings. Waste nitrocellulose is generated atthe facility when it is not salable because of failure to meetmanufacturing specifications or expired shelf life and not reworkablebecause of contamination with dirt, wood, or other non-hazardousmaterials. Waste nitrocellulose is classified as hazardous waste dueto its characteristics of ignitability and reactivity. The currenthazardous waste facility (HWF) permit issued to Green Tree authorizesstorage of waste nitrocellulose in a three-sided concrete containmentstructure. The proposed modification of the HWF permit would authorizethe operation of an existing open pit burner, which is currentlyoperated as an interim status unit, to thermally treat wastenitrocellulose in accordance with applicable hazardous wasteregulations found at Parts 260-266, 268 and 270, Title 40 of the Codeof Federal Regulations (CFR).WHERE TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONCopies of the draft permit modification were forwarded to the Mayor'sOffice in Sayreville, the Middlesex County Planning Board Office, andthe NJDEP Public Access Room. Anyone wishing to obtain a copy of afact sheet on the facility, the draft permit modification, and/orfurther information, or to arrange to review the administrative recordshould first contact:Mr. Fontana, ChiefBureau of Hazardous Waste and Transfer FacilitiesDivision of Solid and Hazardous Waste401 E. State StreetPOB 414Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0414(609) 292-9880HOW TO PROVIDE YOUR COMMENTSThe public comment period begins today and extends for forty-five(45) days from the date of this notice. Direct all written comments bythe end of the comment period to Mr. Fontana at the aboveaddress. Only those conditions being modified are open to publiccomment. A request for public hearing may be submitted as part of thewritten comments, stating the nature of issues proposed to be raisedin the hearing. A public hearing will be scheduled in accordance with40 CFR 124.12 should the NJDEP find, on the basis of requests, asignificant degree of public interest in the draft permit or receivewritten notice of opposition to the draft permit modification. Shouldthe NJDEP decide to approve the permit modification, a response tocomments document will be issued which will identify any changes fromthe draft version of the permit, and describe and respond to allsignificant issues raised during the public comment period. A noticeof the decision will be sent to each person who submits writtencomments or who requests such notice.LEGAL REFERENCES FOR THIS PROPOSALThe HWF permit covers ongoing hazardous waste activities that areregulated by the Solid Waste Management Act (N.J.S.A. 13:1E-l et seq.)on the State level and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA) on the Federal level. Fontana, ChiefBureau of Hazardous Waste and Transfer Facilities* * *Department of Environmental ProtectionDivision of Solid and Hazardous Waste401 East State StreetPOB 414Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0414Phone# (609) 292-9880Fax# (609) 633-9839::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::STATE EXTENDS DROUGHT WARNING TO SEVEN MORE COUNTIESDate: 020125From: http://www.newsday.com/Associated Press, January 25, 2002Trenton - The state has extended its drought warning to seven morecounties.The warning issued Thursday by the state Department of EnvironmentalProtection means five of New Jersey's six drought-management regionsnow fall under the warning. The new counties affected are Bergen,Essex, Hudson, , Monmouth, Ocean and Passaic.The warning for the other regions, which include 13 counties alongthe Delaware River and the coast, was issued in November.Although the warning carries no mandatory restrictions, stateenvironmental officials have asked residents and businesses inaffected areas to curb unnecessary water use and practiceconservation.Individual municipalities are permitted to establish their own waterrestrictions regardless of what the state does.State officials said rainfall in 2001 was below normal for tenmonths, and precipitation for the past three months has been 50percent below average.* * *Copyright © 2002, The Associated Press::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::WEST MILFORD DEAL MAY INVITE DEVELOPMENTDate: January 25, 2002From: Jill Hamell [mailto:jhamell@...]By Brown, Staff Writer, Bergen Record, January 25, 2002West Milford - After three decades of fighting Newark's watersheddevelopment schemes, township officials are forging a deal that wouldinvite construction on a small piece of the city's environmentallysensitive land.The size of the deal is small, involving only five acres of Newark's35,000-acre holdings in Passaic, , and Sussex counties. But itmarks a drastic departure from the township's hard-line stand againstNewark's prior development bids. And critics fear that it could openthe floodgates to development of North Jersey's watershed lands on amuch broader scale.Under the pending agreement, the township would rezone a portion ofNewark's land along Macopin Road to allow some of the commercialdevelopment the city has long sought.In exchange, the township would gain access through Newark's land tobuild a road into a proposed golf course, conference center, and hotelcomplex, said those familiar with the arrangement. The township hasentered into the development venture with a private concern, and thegolf course site - 466 acres of woods and wetlands - is cut off fromexisting roads by Newark's land.Deals that transfer publicly owned watershed land for development areprohibited under a decade-old state legislative moratorium. Townshipofficials said they would work with Newark to get an exemption fromthat rule.Newark's forested holdings in the rugged Highlands were acquired acentury ago to shield from pollution five massive reservoirs. Thosereservoirs, in the Pequannock River basin, provide drinking water toan estimated 550,000 residents and thousands of businesses in Newarkand surrounding municipalities.For residents of communities with portions of that watershed,including West Milford, the land amounts to a backyard wilderness -the largest contiguous forested area in North Jersey.Township officials who back the Macopin Road land exchange say it iscritical to advancing the golf course project, billed as a much-neededshot in the arm for a community with a dwindling commercial tax base."It could give us a million dollars every year" in new propertytaxes, said West Milford Mayor Moshman. "Over 20 years, that's20 million. You can buy a school, a new library, and pave your roads."Others say the deal sends the wrong message to state officialscharged with enforcing the prohibition against watershed development,known as the Watershed Protection and Moratorium Act."It's pretty hard to cut one deal like this and not open the door toanother," said Ross Kushner of the Pequannock River Coalition. "Thisputs West Milford on a slippery slope."Len , a retired New York investment banker, is the township'spartner on the proposed 18-hole golf course with adjoining hotel andconference center., who calls the project a "Highlands heritage center," has lednegotiations with Newark on the Macopin Road land exchange. He said adeal could be finalized within six months.The township has spent about $700,000 on the golf course project overthe past decade, for land acquisition, engineering and design work,and repairs to a failing dam jointly owned by and the township.Despite approving more than a dozen work contracts for the project,the Township Council has never taken a vote on the project as a whole.Terms of the deal with Newark call for 1.5 acres of the city's landto be rezoned, and for the township to get 3.5 acres for a half-mileaccess road. The parcel is now zoned R-4, meaning one house can bebuilt per four acres.The land drains into Newark's Echo Lake reservoir via s Creek,then into Macopin Creek and, farther downstream, the Pequannock River.West Milford Township Attorney said that because EchoLake is tapped for drinking water only in emergencies - such as thecurrent water shortage - any deal with the city may be exempt from thewatershed moratorium.The state Department of Environmental Protection rejected a similarargument two years ago after Newark leased 400 acres to promoter Scher for a proposed amphitheater. The agency declared that deal void.Exactly what Newark would do with its piece of rezoned land isunknown. Zinnerford , head of the Newark Watershed Conservationand Development Corporation, which manages the city's vast holdings inthe Highlands, did not return calls for comment."Newark is considering some sort of commercial structure," saidTownship Manager Hetrick.Newark also would get the water supply contract for the golf complex,entailing the provision of an estimated 40 million gallons of waterper year.Ironically, the township's golf course proposal represents the sortof development it previously has denied Newark.Housing subdivisions, shopping centers, hotels, an outdooramphitheater, a conference center, and a golf course have all beenproposed by the financially strapped city as a means of profiting fromits watershed land.Each of those development bids was turned aside. A costly lawsuitbrought by West Milford in 1978 killed the initial project - 5,000condominiums on 2,000 acres. More recent proposals were blocked by thelegislative moratorium.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::BUSH TO COMMIT MORE THAN $20M FOR WATERSHED PROTECTIONDate: 020125From: http://yosemite1.epa.gov/PRESIDENT BUSH TO COMMIT MORE THAN $20 MILLIONFOR WATERSHED PROTECTIONEPA ANNOUNCES NEW INITIATIVE TO PROTECT ANDPRESERVE AMERICA'S WATERWAYSJan. 25, 2002President Bush will include $21 million in his 2003 budget for a newEPA initiative to protect, preserve, and restore waterways across thecountry. This effort was announced by EPA Administrator ChristieWhitman during a visit to the Minnesota Valley National WildlifeRefuge in the Minneapolis/St. area.The Administrator announced as part of this community-basedinitiative, EPA will target up to 20 of this country's most highly-valued watersheds for grants. EPA will be working cooperatively withstate governors, tribes and other interested parties on thisinitiative. This program will also support local communities in theirefforts to expand and improve existing protection measures with tools,training and technical assistance."As we mark the 30th anniversary of the Clean Water Act this year, wehave much to celebrate and many challenges left to face with regard toour nation's water resources," Whitman said. "I have heard a watersheddefined as "communities connected by water," a good reminder that weall live downstream from someone. I am proud to say that the BushAdministration needs no reminding of that fact."President Bush understands the importance of watershed protectionand he is taking action to make America's waterways cleaner andhealthier for the families that enjoy them," Whitman continued. "Inhis 2003 budget, President Bush has included $21 million for a new EPAinitiative to copy successful approaches and techniques to protecthighly valued watershed resources throughout the country. With thePresident's commitment to watershed protection, I am confident that wecan preserve and protect our precious waterways for futuregenerations."Whitman noted that the program "recognizes the important role thatstates and local communities have in helping to achieve our commongoals, by giving them the power to do what works."Water quality problems including habitat loss and alteration,nutrient enrichment, pathogens, and invasive species continue to harmwatersheds nationwide. These problems prevent our resources frommeeting water quality goals and deprive the public of economic,recreation, and drinking water opportunities. The problems are complexand require local assessment, involvement and commitment. Thisinvestment will capitalize on the lessons learned from existingcommunity-based protection efforts. Information on the watershedprogram is available at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed* * * Milbourn 202-564-7824 / milbourn@...United States Environmental Protection AgencyHeadquarters Press ReleaseWashington DC::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::PURGE AT THE OFFICE OF STATE PLANNINGDate: 020126From: JeffGollin@...PUZZLING DISMISSALSAn Asbury Park Press Editorial, 1/25/02The purge at the Office of State Planning has raised doubts aboutGov. McGreevey's commitment to the fight against sprawl. The governorfired the entire professional staff of the office this week in whatwas described as a cost-saving move. The firings, which includedseveral people who had helped write the State Development andRedevelopment Plan, came as the office was prepared to shift into highgear.McGreevey's strong support for the State Plan during his campaign hadgiven the planning office reason to be optimistic. Although thefirings don't necessarily reflect a change in policy by the McGreeveyadministration, the loss of experienced planners effectively slows anyeffort to implement the plan's development guidelines.If the governor simply intends to put his own people in charge of theoffice, this was an odd way to go about it. If indeed, budget concernswere the driving force, the governor may be planning to leave theoffice unstaffed indefinitely. That would be tantamount to outrightopposition to the goals of state planning.Last year, McGreevey endorsed most of the planning objectives in acomprehensive report issued by the nonprofit New Jersey Future. Thoseobjectives for the most part coincided with the goals of the StatePlan. That's why the mass firings at the Office of State Planning areso puzzling.The governor needs quickly to clarify his position on the State Planto reassure the people of New Jersey that he intends to pursuepolicies to combat sprawl.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::DON'T OVERREACT: MCGREEVEY KILLS OFFICE OF STATE PLANNINGDate: 25 Jan 2002From: " Pringle" {davidpringle@...}Don't overreact to the OSP State Plan. Substantively, the Governor iscommitted to combatting sprawl effectively. Politically, even if hewasn't, there's no way he would flip on a high profile campaign plank"I'm pro-State Plan, and the other guy's anti", so publicly soquickly.Could and should the layoffs been handled better? ... Absolutely!Should the restructuring of OSP been announced prior to orsimultaneous to the layoffs? ... Yes, but after 8 years of anAdministration of almost all talk and very little action, OSP needs ashake-up while preserving 1) the best staff, 2) what momentum thereis, and 3) institutional memory.Stay on guard, don't panic, and stay tuned - we should be confidentthe baby won't get thrown out with the bathwater here. Pringle, Campaign DirectorNJ Environmental FederationNJ Chapter of Clean Water Action1 Lower Ferry Rd., Trenton, NJ 08628phone: 609-530-1515fax: 609-530-1508email: dpringle@...::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::PINELANDS COMMISSION TO STUDY GROWTH IN TWO TOWNSDate: 020125From: http://inq.philly.com/Philadelphia Inquirer, January 25, 2002New Lisbon - The Pinelands Commission announced yesterday that itwould use a $187,000 grant to study development and growth in theregion's most rapidly proliferating areas.The Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation grant will fund more than 16 monthsof study of two towns in the Pinelands' regional-growth areas, wheremore than 100,000 new homes are expected in coming years, according toa commission report. The towns have not been determined, Pinelandsofficials said.A consulting firm will track land use, zoning changes and developmenttrends in the towns. The commission will then use the data to educateother Pinelands municipalities about how to deal with rapid growthwhile preserving natural resources.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::DEER REPRODUCING LIKE RABBITSDate: 25 Jan 2002From: "Jay Biskup" {jayb@...}THE STATE WE'RE INColumn By Michele S. Byers, Executive DirectorNew Jersey Conservation FoundationJanuary 23, 2002 - Volume XXXII, No. 4New Jerseyans have mixed feelings about a group of neighbors thathave been multiplying rapidly in suburbs around the state. A recentstudy by Rutgers University's Cook College revealed that 95 percent ofus like seeing deer in our forests and open spaces; while at the sametime, 50 percent of us are convinced there are too many!This ambivalence is evident any time you see deer by the road: yourfirst thought is probably "Oo! How beautiful (or cute)!" But beforethat thought runs through the circuits of your brain, a more primaldefense mechanism engages, and Bambi and friends quickly becomedangerous threats to life and limb.You're not crazy if you react that way - after all, 26 percent of theCook College poll respondents have hit a deer (costing an average of$667 in repairs), and more then three-quarters have slowed down,swerved or stopped to avoid collisions.Deer are naturally drawn to feast on grasses at the roadside, and,New Jersey's deer herd has swollen to an estimated 175,000 - up from amanageable 75,000 in the 1950's. And as more-and-more land isdeveloped, deer have less forest habitat. As a result, human-deer"interactions" are also way up.For New Jersey's forest ecosystems, the current deer population isn'tjust an inconvenience - it's a survival issue. Too many deer eat youngsaplings, leaving our forests with only mature trees and invasiveplants. There's no room left for the next generation of trees.As the poll indicates, there is an economic cost as well. In additionto auto repair bills, 24 percent of those polled said deer had damagedtheir landscaping; more than half of these had spent an average of$277 over three years to prevent deer damage with fencing, netting andrepellents.Five hundred years ago, a deer looking for five-star dining in NewJersey would have been hard pressed. NJCF's Manager of Science andStewardship, Dr. Emile DeVito, describes it this way: "New Jersey'sdense forests provided a shady ecosystem without many grasses. Thedeer population was held in check by the scarcity of food and presenceof natural predators like cougar and wolves."New Jersey's expanding colonial population took the place of naturalpredators and wiped out New Jersey's deer herd. It doesn't seempossible today, but by the late 19th century, there were virtually nodeer in the state!But times have changed:"New Jersey's farms and suburbs have transformed New Jersey into ayear-round smorgasbord for deer," Emile continues. "Crops, meadows,gardens, shrubbery and lawns offer a multi-course buffet. Today, adeer with the munchies need go no further than the roadside, or underpower lines, to find a plethora of imported cool-season grasses thatstay green from March all the way into December."The Cook College poll shows there's no consensus among New Jerseyansabout how to reverse this trend: in part because there really is nosimple answer. There are many ways to control the deer population, butnone that will satisfy both sides of our love-hate relationship withthese majestic nuisances!* * *Please visit NJCF's website at http://www.njconservation.org, orcontact me at 1-888-LAND-SAVE or by e-mail toinfo@...,for more information on conserving NewJersey's land and natural resources.New Jersey Conservation FoundationBamboo Brook170 Longview RoadFar Hills, NJ 07931(908) 234-1225Fax: (908) 234-1189::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::HIGHLAND'S COALITION DIRECTOR/CAMPAIGN COORDINATORDate: 25 Jan 2002From: " Z." {davidz@...}The Highland's Coalition is seeking a Director/Campaign Coordinatorto develop and manage a campaign to protect land in the Highlandsregion of NY, NJ, PA and CT.The Director will coordinate advocacy, outreach and mapping effortswith member groups, serve as spokesperson, assist with fundraising,and supervise staff & consultants.If you are a consensus builder with an advanced degree in naturalresources, planning, policy or administration; experience with project & staff management, fundraising and media relations; excellent written & oral communication skills; and devotion to saving open lands, sendcover letter & resume to Highlands Coalition Search Committee, c/o Hauser, NJCF, 170 Longview Road, Far Hills, NJ 07931, e-mail tomaria@... or fax to (908) 234-1189.Competitive salary & benefits. EOE M/F/V/D* * * ZuidemaCommunications ManagerNew Jersey Conservation Foundation170 Longview RoadFar Hills, NJ 07931(908) 234-1225(908) 234-1189 faxdavidz@...::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::JEWISH CENTER ECO-FAIR 2002 - JAN 27Date: 25 Jan 2002From: "Marla Kotler" {mkotler@...}The Jewish Center Eco-Fair 2002 will take place on Sunday, January27, 2001 from 1:00-3:30 p.m. in the Social Hall of The Jewish Center,435 Nassau Street, Princeton. The cost for this event is $5 forcongregants and $8 for non-members. Admission price includes eco-snacks, game tickets and literature. Full eco-meals will be availablefor an additional cost. This inter-faith family event seeks to informthe local community about environmental awareness, holistic living andthe agricultural component of faith through many different activitiesand information sessions for all ages.As children participate in carnival-like games in order to learnabout basic environmental concepts, adults can stroll from booth tobooth learning more about local environmental organizations, organicand GMO-free living, women's health, alternative healing and so muchmore! The Enviro-Band will entertain families as they enjoy theorganic-Vegan treats of the `Kind Cuisine.' From there, a series oflectures by various specialists will be offered while children canengage in experiential, environmental games with specialist, BarbaraLerman-Golomb. This event is sure to produce lasting memories andinsight on how to improve one's lifestyle.For information or interviews, contact Marla Kotler:609-921-0100 x209.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::N/S BRANCH RARITAN WMA COMMITTEE MEETING - JAN 30Date: 25 Jan 2002From: Deborah Newcomb {dnewcomb@...}Just a reminder that the North & South Branch Raritan WatershedManagement Area Committee will be meeting on Wednesday, January 30thfrom 6:30 - 8:30 pm at the New Jersey Water Supply Authority AnnexBuilding in Clinton.An agenda has been posted on the project web page athttp://www.raritanbasin.org/Phase_2/Agendas/Jan30NSBranch.pdf, but foranyone who may be interested, Tom Borden, Visiting Assistant ClinicalProfessor of the Rutgers University Law Clinic will be giving apresentation on the Municipal Land Use Law as it relates to WatershedManagement at the meeting.If you have any questions or need additional information, please donot hesitate to contact me at the number listed below. Otherwise, wehope to see you on Wednesday night. And for anyone who might be new tothe watershed planning process, we will be holding a brief session fornewcomers starting at 5:45 pm.Thank you,DebbieStaff Lead, N & S Branch Raritan WMA* * *Debbie NewcombWatershed Protection SpecialistNJ Water Supply AuthorityPOB 287So. Bound Brook, NJ 08880dnewcomb@...732.356.9344 x24732.356.9461 (Fax)::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::WALLKILL RIVER WATERSHED PAC MEETING - FEB 21Date: 25 Jan 2002From: "SCMUA" {scmua@...}Dear Wallkill Watershed PAC Members:The next Wallkill Watershed Public Advisory Committee Meeting will beheld at on Thursday, February 21, 2002 from 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM at thelin Borough Municipal Building located at 46 Main Street, inlin Borough.On March 6, 2002, Phase I of the watershed management contract forthe Wallkill River Watershed comes to a close. Therefore, this PACMeeting on February 21st will be an extremely important meeting as itwill be the last one of the Phase I contract period. At this meetingthe PAC will be advised on the status of the required deliverables, aswell as discuss the Phase II proposed scope of work. Receivingfeedback and input from the PAC members is essential as we prepare forthe next two years of the Wallkill River Watershed Management Project.In the near future, you can expect to receive an agenda, as well asall of the necessary meeting materials. For now, I ask you to pleasemark February 21st on your calendar, as your attendance will begreatly appreciated.If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at973-579-6998 Ext. 109 or by email at scmua@....Thank you,iel SajdakWallkill River Watershed Outreach Coordinator:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Back issues of the Garden State EnviroNews are available at http://www.gsenet.org/library/11gsn/11gsn.htm:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Garden State EnviroNet, Inc. 19 Boonton Ave, Boonton NJ 07005 Tel: 973-394-1313 - Fax: 973-394-9513 mailbox@... - http://www.gsenet.org EnviroNews mailing lists: Text - gsenet-L-subscribe@... HTML - gsenet-LH-subscribe@...