GARDEN STATE ENVIRONEWS 040217
GSENet
GARDEN STATE ENVIRONEWS
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
TABLE OF CONTENTS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{*} OP/ED: TEARING DOWN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
{*} FLORIO LAUNCHES PINELANDS REVIEW AGENDA
{*} PINELANDS PANEL TO CHARGE FEES FOR REVIEWS
{*} OP/ED: HOW DOES THE GARDEN STATE GROW
{*} THE SHOWDOWN OVER SPRAWL IN THE HIGHLANDS
{*} JUDGE OVERTURNS E. BRUNSWICK'S DENIAL OF TAMARACK HOLLOW
{*} CITIES BUILT ON FERTILE LANDS AFFECT CLIMATE
{*} WATER-RIGHTS RULING COULD THREATEN SPECIES PROTECTION
{*} THE ICE AGE COMETH
{*} POWERFUL INTERESTS MAY CLASH IN PUSH TO HEAL THE OCEANS
{*} FIRM IS HIRED FOR TESTING AT BURLCO LANDFILL
{*} REGULATORS SAY MORE CAN BE STORED ONSITE IN POOLS
{*} RUTGERS ENVIRO-NOTES DEBUTS
{*} TEWKSBURY INSTITUTE OF HERPETOLOGY UPDATE
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
THE DODGE $5000 CHALLENGE GRANT
To date we have received $2,490.
We need $2,510 to meet our goal.
Deadline is May 31, 2004!
For more information, please visit:
http://www.gsenet.org/support/donate.php
* * *
Visit Our Website For Complete Calendar, Job Listings,
Links, NewsStand, Library and Much More
http://www.gsenet.org/
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
OP/ED: TEARING DOWN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Date: 040215
From: Star-Ledger
By James J. Florio
President Bush's proposal to cut spending at the Environmental
Protection Agency by more than 7 percent is one more reminder of
something we are coming to know ali too well. It seems that hardly a
week goes by without some new environmentally degrading policy
initiative from Washington.
The sheer volume of these proposals threatens to anesthetize us to
their harmful impacts. Existing laws to reduce toxic mercury emissions
are loosened by the cynically labeled "Clear Sides" plan. The
Department of Defense, in the name of post-9/11 national security,
wants total exemption from environmental laws. The EPA proposes new
changes to allow the coal industry to profit from filling in valleys
and streams with mining waste under its "Mountain Top Removal" policy.
It goes on and on.
That the administration is insensitive to clean air and clean water
concerns by this time surprises no one. But the obvious impact of each
dangerous policy act masks the even more serious structural damage
quietly being done to the nation's system of environmental protection.
One clear example of this phenomenon is the recent issuance of a rule
that would limit inspections of polluting industrial smokestacks.
Such sources of pollution are regulated under the Clean Air Act.
Periodic inspections of potential polluters by state and federal
officials are the best way to ensure compliance with the law: if you
get caught, you're in trouble. But now, Washington is limiting the
current requirement of at least two inspections every five years to no
more than two inspections every five years.
This is promoted as relief for business from regulatory burdens. Not
only is such a policy change a threat to public health, it has radical
ramifications that threaten to fall below the radar. That's because
federal environmental laws have always been regarded as setting a
national protective standard below which no one should go.
For example, the national quality of our drinking water should
establish a minimum standard below which no state can fall. States,
however, are permitted to set and enforce higher standards as they see
fit. Federal environmental law is a floor not a ceiling.
But limiting pollution testing at industrial facilities will, in
effect, establish a new approach to environmental law. Under such an
approach, for example, a state would not be allowed to be more
vigilant than the federal government. Federal law would effectively
pre-empt the ability of states to be more protective of their citizens
than is currently the case. If the law is to be changed, let the law
so be changed - but don't change it on the sly through regulatory
modifications and redefinitions out of sight of the general public.
We should not be surprised by this environmental policy-making
sleight-of-hand. It has become a regular feature in Washington over
the past three years. At least Newt Gingrich was forthright in wanting
to repeal many environmental laws, but he was killed politically for
his effort. His ideological successors are clever enough not to risk
head-on assaults. Rather, they conjure up measures designed to
effectively repeal laws without the public relations burden of doing
it in accordance with the Constitution.
The bottom line: a law that is un~enforced is no law at all. Cutting
funding for law enforcement means less law enforcement. And these
reductions have been a staple of the past three budgets. Elimination
of funding, as was the case with Superfund assessments against
chemical and oil companies, ensures that you run out of money for
cleanup of toxic waste dumps. The result is there is none of the
remediation that the law requires.
Likewise, redefining threshold terms for law enforcement effectively
repeals the law. This is the case with the New Source Review
provisions of the Clean Air Act, which provide for modern pollution
prevention technology on all coal-fired polluting utilities as an
alternative to shutdowns. Routine maintenance was allowed for an
interim period, but now "routine maintenance" is being redefined so as
to allow for continued, indefinite operation without the installation
of the best available environmental technology. In other words,
perpetual pollution under color of law.
Adherence to the letter of the law has traditionally been thought of
as a hallmark of conservatism. But when it comes to protecting the
environment, this administration is anything but conservative. That
shouldn't be a surprise either. People who have no compunctions about
making up reasons to go to war are not about to let a little thing
like the law stand in the way of radical policies that help some make
profits but threaten our right to clean air and clean water.
- - -
James J. Florio is the former governor of New Jersey.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
FLORIO LAUNCHES PINELANDS REVIEW AGENDA
Date: 040215
From: http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/newjersey/
By Alan Rappeport Staff Writer, (609) 272-7219
Press of Atlantic City, February 14, 2004
New Lisbon - Pinelands Commission Chairman James J. Florio created a
new panel Friday aimed at maintaining the harvesting, land
preparation, and re-vegetation practices that protect the Pinelands,
commission officials said.
The panel will review the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan to
ensure that forestry remains an economic and cultural resource in the
Pinelands. It will focus on public and privately owned land.
"Forestry is a traditional activity in the Pinelands," Florio said.
"When done properly, forestry can help to revitalize the forest
landscape.
The Pinelands Commission's last comprehensive review of forestry
standards was nearly a decade ago and the time is now right to take a
fresh look at how well the program is working and what we can do to
improve it."
Michael Catania, former Deputy Commissioner of the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection will chair the eight-person
committee.
"Together we will work to ensure the viability of commercial forestry
and that the highest standards of forest ecological health are met in
the Pinelands," Catania said.
The committee was first established in 1987 to review harvest and
forest management plans for state-owned lands.
"A healthy forest resource is one of the most important tools for
protecting air quality, wildlife, open space and water resources in
our rapidly growing state," Florio said.
* * *
To email Alan Rappeport at The Press: ARapp...@pressofac.com
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
PINELANDS PANEL TO CHARGE FEES FOR REVIEWS
Date: 040215
From: http://www.phillyburbs.com/
By Paul Leakan, Burlington County Times, February 15, 2004
Pemberton Township - Looking to ease its budget woes, the state
Pinelands Commission will begin charging developers for environmental
reviews for some proposed projects.
The commission voted 9-3, with one abstention, to approve the new
fees during its regular meeting here Friday morning.
Commission officials said they created the fees because of budgetary
concerns.
The commission oversees de-velopment in the 1.1-million-acre
Pinelands reserve in New Jersey. It is facing a potential $700,000
deficit for fiscal year 2005. The shortfall could result in the loss
of up to seven staff positions, according to the commission.
Pinelands Commission Chairman Jim Florio said there are solid
arguments on both sides in the debate about the fee proposal.
"I think the proposed fees strike a balance that is meritorious,"
Florio said.
The commission spends approximately $950,000 a year in personnel
costs for environmental reviews on development applications.
Fees for developers could generate $50,000 in revenue for the
Pinelands panel this year and more than $350,000 a year in following
years, the commission said.
The Cherry Hill-based Builders League of South Jersey has expressed
concerns, saying the new fees aren't needed and will result in higher
prices for new homes.
"They really don't need the personnel they claim they do," Rick Van
Osten, executive vice president of the Builders League, said of the
commission. "All of these costs should be incurred at the municipal
and county level, not adding another fee."
Carleton Montgomery, executive director of the nonprofit Pinelands
Preservation Alliance, said his organization be-lieves the fees are
warranted.
"The truth is that every governmental agency has fees for its work,"
he said. "The Pinelands Commission was probably unique in New Jersey
for having no fees. They just can't afford to do that anymore, given
the state budgetary problems."
The Pinelands panel will not charge to review applications for one
housing unit or for development applications from public agencies.
The commission will charge $100 a home for the first 25 units, $75 a
home for developments with 26 to 100 units and $50 a home for
developments of more than 100 units.
The panel will charge $200 per application for commercial,
institutional, industrial or nonresidential developments, or 1 percent
of the total construction costs.
There will be a $30,000 cap on fees.
* * *
Email: ple...@phillyBurbs.com
(c)2004 Copyright Calkins Media, Inc. All rights reserved.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
OP/ED: HOW DOES THE GARDEN STATE GROW
Date: 040216
From: http://www.ctnow.com/
By Barbara L. Lawrence, Hartford Courant, February 15, 2004
Ah, Connecticut, the land of quaint villages with steeples thrusting
through the tree canopy...and New Jersey, as viewed from the turnpike
and late-night comedy: crumbling cities and ticky-tacky suburban
sprawl. How could New Jersey possibly offer Connecticut ideas on how
to grow?
In truth, our states have much more in common than these stereotypes
indicate.
The reality is two states with pockets of extraordinary affluence and
enough solidly middle-class towns to rank us one and two in the nation
in per-capita income. On the flip side, we both have more than our
share of places that land-use and tax laws have made it easy to leave
behind - our cities and older communities. As a result of our
disinvestment in existing places, and our penchant for digging up yet
another field or forest to grow another crop of McMansions or big-box
stores, we also share threatened water supplies, seemingly unending
traffic, high tax bills for new infrastructure and collapsing cities
in need of state-financed life support. These are the wages of sprawl.
In the 1970s, when it looked like there was little hope for America's
cities, the mayor of Newark, Kenneth Gibson, said, "Where America's
cities are going, Newark will get there first." In New Jersey we now
say, "Where development in America is going, New Jersey will get there
first." New Jerseyans have accepted as fact that we will be the first
state to be fully built out. That means if the land is not in public
ownership, and it does not have any major environmental constraints,
something will be built on it. Depending on your economic predictions,
that could be in as little as 30 years, but certainly in this century.
But we have not accepted the vision of endless sprawl and decayed
downtowns. We are chipping away at the laws and policies that caused
the problems. We no longer talk about whether we will change our
practices, but when. Indeed, we know how to wage this war, and we are
working on building the political consensus it will take to win.
New Jersey has a very aggressive and popular open space purchase
program, championed by the last two governors. State government is
spending about $180 million per year to buy farmland and open space
for environmental protection and recreation. Because citizens like
this program, 35 percent of our municipalities and all 21 counties
have passed local referendums raising their own taxes to create
dedicated local funding for land purchases. Even with all this
spending, and a wealth of successful land trusts, we are not likely to
meet our goal of 40 percent of the state in permanent protection
before we run out of money or open land. Purchasing open space, though
a necessary means of curbing sprawl and revitalizing communities,
won't do the whole job.
The most successful alternative to buying land has been the
comprehensive planning and regulatory system represented by the
Pinelands National Reserve. About 20 percent of New Jersey is under
the protection and management of a state-appointed New Jersey
Pinelands Commission. The Pinelands is the largest essentially
contiguous tract of open space on the mid-Atlantic coast. It remains
an intact ecosystem in amid the most densely populated state in the
nation because of a farsighted planning regime adopted in the 1970s.
Planning and zoning authority was taken from the towns in the district
and was only returned to them when they changed their local plans and
ordinances to comply with the regional plan.
Though it didn't completely stop sprawl, which still takes place in
the areas designed for growth, the Pinelands is a model for other
areas of our state, and can be for places in Connecticut where
environmental resources are at risk from the insidious ecological
impacts of sprawl, namely open land fragmentation and pollution. Gov.
James E. McGreevey recently appointed a task force to look at
preservation issues in another region of our state, the Highlands,
from which half of all New Jerseyans get their drinking water (and
which extend into Connecticut). The task force is set to report in
early spring.
For most of the state beyond the Pinelands, we have a statewide plan,
adopted in 1992, that calls for channeling new growth to existing
communities and protecting open lands. Unfortunately, we didn't have
the political consensus to call for mandatory implementation of the
plan, and we still don't.
But we're getting there. The plan, called the State Development and
Redevelopment Plan, was crafted with the involvement of thousands of
local officials and interested citizens. It has gained strength in the
past year. After a big flap last year over whether the State Plan map
or a map created by the Department of Environmental Protection would
have precedence, we are now slowly lining up our state regulations and
spending practices with the State Plan.
That may not sound exciting, but it can have a profound effect. For
example, New Jersey's Board of Public Utilities has proposed that by
2007, utilities will be prohibited from paying to extend gas, water or
electricity to non-growth areas. If developers want to build there,
they have to pay, and the costs cannot be passed along to the
ratepayers. At the same time, developers will get financial benefits
for building in State Plan growth areas.
As a model for other states, this is an important lesson in how an
agency, using its ordinary powers, can affect where growth happens.
Another key to fighting sprawl is stopping growth where we don't want
it. A major step in this direction took place on Feb. 2, with the
adoption of new stormwater regulations by the Department of
Environmental Protection. The new rules created a 300-foot no-
development buffer along 600 miles of the state's most important
fresh-water streams. This measure adds significant protection for the
drinking water supply and will put some 300,000 acres of
environmentally sensitive land off-limits for development.
Despite our reputation for endless low-density auto-dependent sprawl,
New Jersey has found ways to take land out of the development stream.
Now we have to make smart growth happen where and how we want it.
Although some builders still insist on development in any place at any
time, there is a growing group of developers who have figured out how
to make redevelopment profitable. We need to encourage them. With all
566 municipalities making land-use decisions, the ability to deal with
more sophisticated and complex types of development varies greatly
across the state.
There remains much to be done to promote the growth side of smart
growth. We have a very good brownfields cleanup law, and we adopted a
building code revision in the 1990s that made residential renovations
of old buildings easier and cheaper. It has been copied by many other
states. We also have a new vacant properties law that will make their
rehabilitation easier. But these are small pieces. It is still cheaper
and easier to build on greenfields than to redevelop in existing
places.
Perhaps our biggest obstacle, like Connecticut's, is our extreme
over-reliance on the property tax system, particularly for schools. As
a result, towns crave commercial ratables and have an aversion to
residential development. It has gotten to the point that children are
seen as a serious liability to be avoided, even to the extent of using
zoning to discourage housing for families. This is not good for our
economic or social well-being.
If we are going to succeed in shaping and locating the next wave of
development in the Garden State to bring more benefits than costs, we
will need to strike a deal with the development community. State and
local government must make it easier to develop in the places where
the State Plan calls for growth, and developers must be flexible to
change their business models to capitalize on new growth
opportunities. We are moving in that direction.
The view from the New Jersey Turnpike is still likely to be pretty
gritty for years to come, but look behind the noise barriers and
beyond the oil refineries and you are likely to find villages with
steeples peeping through the trees and fine older suburbs and cities
on the mend. We have evidence we're making some of the right moves,
and we know we don't have much time left.
- - -
Barbara L. Lawrence is executive director of New Jersey Future, a
nonprofit research and advocacy organization that has advanced land
conservation and community redevelopment in the Garden State for
nearly two decades.
* * *
Copyright (c) 2004 by The Hartford Courant.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
THE SHOWDOWN OVER SPRAWL IN THE HIGHLANDS
Date: 040215
From: Star-Ledger
EDITOR TOM MORAN INTERVIEWS TOM GILBERT, HIGHLANDS COALITION
The Highlands, a giant arc of mountainous land stretching from
Connecticut to Pennsylvania, runs along the front line in New Jersey's
fight against sprawl.
A race is under way in the Highlands today. Open space is dwindling
as builders answer a relentless demand for new homes and businesses.
But the state faces enormous public pressure to preserve this
breathtakingly beautiful land, with its huge stores of pristine waters
and roughly 250 species of endangered or threatened plants and
animals.
Gov. James E. McGreevey is preparing to take dramatic steps to slow
the building boom in the region. Tom Gilbert, director of the
Highlands Coalition, discussed the issue with Deputy Editorial Page
Editor Tom Moran.
Q. We are told the governor is about to halt all development on about
100,000 acres in the Highlands. Is this a turning point in the fight
against sprawl?
A. It's a very significant step. The governor said protecting the
Highlands is a top priority, and he's really followed through on that.
He pledged an additional $50 million to preserve open space and
farmlands in the Highlands, and voters overwhelmingly approved. He
also convened a task force to look at strategies to protect the
region, and with it, the water supply for over half the state,
There is widespread agreement on the task force, and from the public
at hearings, that we need to protect the core areas of the Highlands,
especially those areas that are vital to the water supply. And there's
agreement that we need regional planning.
Q. Is preserving 100,000 acres enough? Some environmentalists want to
save 350,000 acres, or about half the entire Highlands region.
A. At the end of the day, approximately 350,000 acres need to be
preserved or protected. But it's going to take a variety of tools.
If we had all the money in the world, we could buy much more. But
even preserving 100,000 acres is going to cost between $500 million
and $1 billion. I think that's a bold and realistic target for how
much land should be acquired.
Q. What other strategies can preserve more land?
A. Regulations and regional planning. For example, if some areas need
protection but could accommodate some growth in the right location, we
could enhance regulatory protection for certain water sources. The
state is taking steps in that direction by ensuring 300-foot buffers
around critical waterways.
Regional planning is the third leg of the stool. It can identify the
areas that can handle low-density development, and the areas where
growth is appropriate and should be encouraged.
Q. Is this fair to property owners in the Highlands? If you owned land
there, how would you feel if the state suddenly told you that you
cannot build on it?
A. The state is going to make sure landowners get the value out of
their land by acquiring them at fair market value.
Q. But the purchases may be several years down the road, and the
restrictions on development will take effect immediately, right?
A. It remains to be seen what the nature and extent of those
restrictions will be. It will have to be legally defensible. And we
could use other strategies, like a transfer of development rights.
That would allow landowners who can't build to sell their development
rights to a developer, who would then be able to build at a greater
density somewhere else.
Q. How do you strike the balance between preservation and the need to
build new homes and businesses?
A. In the Highlands, where you're talking about 15 percent of the
state's land that supplies over half the state's population with
drinking water, I don't think balance should be the goal. I don't see
how we can risk this water supply.
Yet we need to be fair, and have a better idea of how much growth can
take place without endangering the water supply. We don't have a good
answer to that questions yet.
Q. We tap the Passaic River and treat it to get drinking water. Why
does the Highlands water supply need to remain pristine?
A. It's cheaper to preserve land than to treat water. And by
preserving the land, you get a host of other benefits, including open
space, recreation, and a place for wildlife. To me, that's a far more
attractive vision, and makes good economic sense,
Q. Developers say that the state is driving up the cost of homes by
preserving massive amounts of open space, while failing to remove
barriers to building. Do you buy that?
A. Home values are rising, though I don't think it's fair to attribute
that solely to preservation efforts.
Q. But do those effort contribute to the rise?
A. It's been shown that having significant public open space has a
positive impact on property values.
Q. Does preservation also create a shortage of buildable land?
A. At some point, quite possibly yes. But we have to recognize there
have to be limits to growth, At some point, between the land that's
being preserved and the land that's being developed, there will be
none left. In the Highlands, that could happen within 30 years,
according to the (United States) Forest Service.
Q. The Highlands region spreads across seven counties and 90
municipalities. Are they on the same page when it comes to planning
for building?
A. Clearly not. Some parts want more growth, as in Sussex and Warren
counties. Some towns in Bergen County basically want to buy up the
last remaining pieces.
Q. Do we need a regional planning authority, as in the Pinelands and
the Meadowlands.
A. We've heard a strong call from the public that some kind of
regional planning entity is needed. The challenge is to knit something
together that can address the different needs of Highlands communities
while protecting the statewide interests of protecting the water,
recreation and open space resources,
It's clear the status quo isn't working. With every new development,
that's another straw into the water supply. At some point, you pass
the point where you can sustain the supply, and we just don't have a
handle on when we'll cross that threshold, There's no way to address
that problem without some kind of regional planning entity.
Q. Is this effort a heavy political lift for the governor?
A. When you look at the overwhelming public support for open space
preservation, it's a political winner, But in other respects it is a
heavy lift. There are strong interests, including developers, who hold
sway with the Legislature. So this could be very divisive.
Q. Could this be his legacy?
A. Absolutely. The Pinelands, and now the Meadowlands, are nationally
recognized examples of good regional planning. They are oases in the
most densely populated state in the nation. The governor has an
opportunity to add the Highlands to that list, and to safeguard the
integrity of the water supply for over half the state. I can think of
no greater gift for future generations.
Q. How do you rate the governor on environmental issues generally?
A. He's had tremendous courage. I can't think of any other governor -
not just in New Jersey but around the nation - who has made the
environment as high a priority as Gov. McGreevey has.
We're seeing real signs of progress, in particular with protecting
the water supply. State expenditureS on open space preservation in the
Highlands and elsewhere have risen dramatically. And the wheels are in
motion for a tremendous accomplishment in the Highlands.
Q. How about the federal role in this effort. Who's been helpful?
A. Rep. (Rodney) Frelinghuysen and Sen. (Jon) Corzine have been
leading the charge. They are prime sponsors of the Highlands
Conservation Act, which would provide $100 million in federal matching
funds over 10 years to preserve land. It's been passed by the House,
with the help of the entire New Jersey delegation. And Sen. Corzine is
leading the charge, with Sen. (Frank) Lautenberg's help, to get it
passed in the Senate this year.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
JUDGE OVERTURNS E. BRUNSWICK'S DENIAL OF TAMARACK HOLLOW
Date: 040216
From: http://ebs.gmnews.com/
MATZEL & MUMFORD WINS APPROVAL FOR HOMES OFF FRESH PONDS RD.
By Vincent Todaro, Sentinel Staff Writer, February 12, 2004
The 56-home Tamarack Hollow development will become a reality after
all. East Brunswick's denial of the controversial development off
Fresh Ponds Road was overturned last week by Judge James Hurley in
state Superior Court, New Brunswick, where developer Matzel & Mumford
had appealed the decision.
Hurley ruled Feb. 2 that the East Brunswick Planning Board was
"unreasonable" in refusing preliminary subdivision approval of the
development and told the Hazlet-based developer to move forward by
working with the state on the proposed wastewater treatment facility
that was part of the basis for the board's denial.
On April 30, the board voted 7-2 against the plans after numerous
hearings in which many residents raised objections to the proposal and
local environmentalists in particular said the sewage system would be
damaging to an already sensitive area.
The application represents the only large-scale housing plan filed in
the Rural Preservation zone, effective since 2001. The zone allows one
home per 6 acres but provides a cluster provision allowing one home
per 3.5 acres as long as 75 percent of the total acreage remains open
space. Matzel & Mumford's plans complied with the cluster provision.
Hurley instructed the developer to seek state Board of Public
Utilities and Department of Environmental Protection approvals for the
development. Concerns about the facility and whether it could
eventually be expanded with other area residences tying into it were
among the reasons the board turned down the application.
"As a board, we had concerns about the wastewater, and those will be
addressed by the DEP," said Mayor William Neary, who also sits on the
board.
"I'm glad that we're vindicated and our zoning stays in place, and
the concern of the environment will be addressed by the state," he
said.
Board Attorney Lawrence Sachs said that even though Matzel & Mumford
never refused to get DEP and BPU approval for the facility, it will
now be forced to do so.
Sachs said the judge reversed the board's decision because he found
that the application satisfied the criteria needed for the preliminary
subdivision approval. Matzel & Mumford still must come before the
Planning Board for final approval.
Sachs said the judge also demanded that the developer submit proof
from PSE&G that it has no objection to granting an access easement
across its right of way. In addition, the developer must provide more
well monitoring test results in the area of the disposal bed for the
wastewater treatment facility.
"It will be interesting to see how the testing comes back," Neary
said.
Township Council President and Planning Board member David Stahl said
the application still needs to go before the council for a franchise
license to run the plant.
David Fisher, a vice president of Matzel & Mumford, said he is aware
of the conditions laid out by the judge but he feels the lawsuit was a
real victory for the company.
"He essentially agreed with all of our testimony, that we complied
and there was no reason [for the board] to deny it," he said.
Former Planning Board member Richard Walling, who was outspoken in
his opposition to the development, said the township dropped the ball
and could have done a better job fighting it.
"The decision does not come as a surprise, because the reasons stated
by the Planning Board did not rise to the legal standards [needed for
a denial]," Walling said. "This was a political decision and not a
Planning Board one, which is not good government."
He said he and others wanted the application denied on land use
grounds, such as sustainable environmental concerns, but the board did
not do so and thus made it easy for Matzel & Mumford to win in court.
He said the denial could also have been based on procedural grounds.
The board based its decision on traffic concerns in addition to
concerns about the wastewater facility.
Walling said if the board had allowed opponents to present more facts
and witnesses, it would have been in a stronger position to defend its
decision.
In a guest column published in the Sentinel last May, Walling pointed
out that a DEP memo obtained through the open public records process
was critical of the application and gave reasons why the development
should not exist. Other residents also voiced strong opposition to the
development, as did members of the Lawrence Brook Watershed
Partnership, which pointed out that more than 7,000 trees would be
destroyed.
The 56 homes will be built on 1-acre lots on a tract west of Fresh
Ponds Road and north of Church Lane, adjacent to a second tract that
will house the wastewater plant. The total development area includes
about 231 acres, with 75 percent to remain open space.
Fisher has said that no new homes will be able to be seen from any of
the existing streets including Fresh Ponds Road, Church Lane and
Beekman Road, and that two active farms will remain as part of the
open space, protected from future development.
"We're very pleased," Fisher said of last week's ruling. "It's the
decision we were hoping for."
He said it is premature to say when construction will begin, but his
best guess is the spring of 2005.
* * *
Copyright (c) 2004 GMN. All Rights Reserved.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
CITIES BUILT ON FERTILE LANDS AFFECT CLIMATE
Date: 12 Feb 2004
From: "Jacques van Oene" {j.va...@chello.nl}
February 11, 2004
While cities provide vital habitat for human beings to thrive, it
appears U.S. cities have been built on the most fertile soils,
lessening contributions of these lands to Earth's food web and human
agriculture, according to a study by NASA researchers and others.
Though cities account for just 3 percent of continental U.S. land
area, the food and fiber that could be grown there rivals current
production on all U.S. agricultural lands, which cover 29 percent of
the country. Marc Imhoff, NASA researcher and lead author of a current
paper, and co-author Lahouari Bounoua, of NASA and University of
Maryland, College Park, added that throughout history humans have
settled in areas with the best lands for growing food.
"Urbanization follows agriculture - it's a natural and important
human process," said Imhoff.Throughout history, highly productive
agricultural land brought food, wealth and trade to an area, all of
which fostered settlements.
"Urbanization is not a bad thing. It's a very useful way for
societies to get together and share resources," said Bounoua. "But it
would be better if it were planned in conjunction with other
environmental factors." Studies like this one, which appears in the
current issue of Remote Sensing of Environment, may lead to smarter
urban-growth strategies in the future.
The researchers used two satellites offering a combination of daytime
and nighttime Earth observation data and a biophysical computer model
to derive estimates of annual Net Primary Productivity (NPP). NPP
measures plant growth by describing the rate at which plants use
carbon from the atmosphere to build new organic matter through
photosynthesis. NPP fuels Earth's complex food web and quantifies
amounts of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, which plants remove from
the atmosphere.
Nighttime-lights data from the Defense Meteorological Satellite
Program and a vegetation-classification map created at NASA's Goddard
Institute of Space Studies, New York, were used to portray urban,
peripheral and non-urban areas across the United States. In this way,
the researchers calculated the extent and locations of U.S. urban and
agricultural land.
In addition, observations from the Advanced Very High Resolution
Radiometer instrument, aboard the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's polar orbiting satellites, were used to calculate the
Normalized Difference Vegetation Index. This index is a measure of
plant health, based on the principle that plants absorb solar
radiation in the red part of the spectrum of sunlight used for
photosynthesis during plant growth. These data were then entered into
a Stanford University computer model to derive NPP.
The computer model created a potential pre-urban American landscape,
which was used to compare and estimate the reduction of NPP due to
current urban-land transformation.
For the continental United States, when compared to the pre- urban
landscape, modern cities account for a 1.6 percent annual decline in
NPP. This loss offsets the gain in NPP of 1.8 percent annually from
increased farmlands. The result is striking, given the small area that
cities cover, relative to agricultural areas.
A reduction of this magnitude has vastly unknown consequences for
biological diversity, but it translates to less available energy for
the species that make up Earth's complex food web. The loss of highly
fertile lands for farming also puts pressure on other means to meet
the food and fiber needs of an increasing population. On the local
scale, urbanization can increase NPP, but only where natural resources
are limited. It brings water to arid areas, and "urban heat islands"
extend the growing season around the urban fringe in cold regions.
These benefits, however, do not offset the overall negative impact of
urbanization on NPP.
NASA scientists developed the city lights map, and the U.S.
Geological Survey used a technique to create the Normalized Difference
Vegetation Index data. Research partners include the University of
Maryland's Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center, the World
Wildlife Fund, and the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford
University.
For more information and images on the Internet, visit:
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2004/0202cityland.html
For more information about NASA on the Internet, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov
- - -
Elvia H. Thompson
Headquarters, Washington
(Phone: 202/358-1696)
Krishna Ramanujan
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
(Phone: 607/273-2561)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
WATER-RIGHTS RULING COULD THREATEN SPECIES PROTECTION
Date: 040215
From: http://www.enn.com/
CALIFORNIA WATER-RIGHTS RULING COULD THREATEN SPECIES PROTECTION
By Seth Hettena, Associated Press, February 13, 2004
San Diego - An effort to save two rare fish more than a decade ago
could come back to haunt environmentalists after a recent court
decision awarded millions of dollars in compensation to farmers who
lost water in the process.
If the December ruling by a federal judge survives expected legal
challenges, the government could find itself forced to pay much more
for efforts to protect endangered fish, draining resources away from
conservation.
The eventual result would have implications across the West, where
the federal government often clashes with property owners in attempts
to save species on the brink of extinction.
"There may be implications for how the Endangered Species Act is
implemented," said Alf W. Brandt, the Interior Department lawyer who
argued the government's case. "There may be implications for how water
diversions are made."
The case stemmed from the government's efforts to protect endangered
winter-run chinook salmon and threatened delta smelt between 1992 and
1994 by withholding billions of gallons from farmers in California's
Kern and Tulare counties.
Court of Federal Claims Senior Judge John Wiese ruled that the
government's halting of water constituted a "taking" or intrusion on
the farmers' private property rights. The Fifth Amendment to the
Constitution prohibits the government from taking private property
without fair payment.
Wiese's Dec. 31 ruling, which awarded $26 million to a group of
California farmers for the water diversion, is a clear victory for
champions of property rights, who have sought to rein in what they see
as regulatory excesses committed in the name of the environment.
"What the court found is that the government is certainly free to
protect the fish under the Endangered Species Act, but it must pay for
the water that it takes to do so," said Roger J. Marzulla, the
attorney representing the water districts that brought the claim.
Environmentalists called the ruling a stealth attack on the
Endangered Species Act that could gut efforts to preserve species in
the future by making them too costly to enforce.
"The purpose of these suits is simply a backdoor attack on
environmental laws," said Barry Nelson, a senior policy analyst with
the National Resources Defense Council. "And frankly, it's to bust the
federal budget as the price tag for complying with environmental-
protection laws."
Along the California-Oregon line, for example, a similar court case
could leave the government with a $100 million bill for water diverted
from farmers in 2001 for species protection.
Wiese's ruling could also have a significant impact in California,
where courts have halted diversions of water to protect the
environment, said John D. Echeverria, executive director of the
Environmental Law and Policy Institute at the Georgetown University
Law Center.
"Although this is a case against the United States, it might well
lead to billions of dollars in claims against the state of
California," Echeverria said.
The question now is whether the Justice Department will choose to
appeal. If the ruling is appealed and upheld, efforts to protect fish
throughout the West could become even more costly.
The U.S. Forest Service is being sued over a plan to close irrigation
ditches in the Methow Valley in Washington state to provide additional
water for endangered fish runs. In New Mexico, the Bureau of
Reclamation is seeking court approval to take water from farmers and
cities to help the endangered Rio Grande silvery minnow.
Marzulla scoffed at the notion that the judgment will break the
government's bank. He noted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service budget
includes about $4 million to protect elderberry bushes along the
Sacramento River that may host an endangered beetle.
"This judgment is nothing," Marzulla said. "It's not going to do
anything other than...give some small quantity of justice to a few of
the farmers who were injured in what was really a pretty rash act."
The Endangered Species Act needs to be reined in, Marzulla said. He
said protecting species, the original goal of the act, has been lost
in the past 30 years as the law has been steadily broadened into a
habitat-protection statute.
"We're trying to use a hammer to drive a screw into the wall," he
said. "It's not working very well. It's very clumsy, and it caused a
lot of damage in the process."
* * *
Copyright (c) 2004 Environmental News Network Inc.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
THE ICE AGE COMETH
Date: 13 Feb 2004
From: "Peter Montague" {Pe...@rachel.org}
By Thom Hartmann, Thomhartmann.com, February 1, 2004
While global warming is being officially ignored by the political arm
of the Bush administration, and Al Gore's recent conference on the
topic during one of the coldest days of recent years provided joke
fodder for conservative talk show hosts, the citizens of Europe and
the Pentagon are taking a new look at the greatest danger such climate
change could produce for the northern hemisphere - a sudden shift into
a new ice age. What they're finding is not at all comforting.
In quick summary, if enough cold, fresh water coming from the melting
polar ice caps and the melting glaciers of Greenland flows into the
northern Atlantic, it will shut down the Gulf Stream, which keeps
Europe and northeastern North America warm. The worst-case scenario
would be a full-blown return of the last ice age - in a period as
short as 2 to 3 years from its onset - and the mid-case scenario would
be a period like the "little ice age" of a few centuries ago that
disrupted worldwide weather patterns leading to extremely harsh
winters, droughts, worldwide desertification, crop failures, and wars
around the world.
Here's how it works.
If you look at a globe, you'll see that the latitude of much of
Europe and Scandinavia is the same as that of Alaska and permafrost-
locked parts of northern Canada and central Siberia. Yet Europe has a
climate more similar to that of the United States than northern Canada
or Siberia. Why?
It turns out that our warmth is the result of ocean currents that
bring warm surface water up from the equator into northern regions
that would otherwise be so cold that even in summer they'd be covered
with ice. The current of greatest concern is often referred to as "The
Great Conveyor Belt," which includes what we call the Gulf Stream.
The Great Conveyor Belt, while shaped by the Coriolis effect of the
Earth's rotation, is mostly driven by the greater force created by
differences in water temperatures and salinity. The North Atlantic
Ocean is saltier and colder than the Pacific, the result of it being
so much smaller and locked into place by the Northern and Southern
American Hemispheres on the west and Europe and Africa on the east.
As a result, the warm water of the Great Conveyor Belt evaporates out
of the North Atlantic leaving behind saltier waters, and the cold
continental winds off the northern parts of North America cool the
waters. Salty, cool waters settle to the bottom of the sea, most at a
point a few hundred kilometers south of the southern tip of Greenland,
producing a whirlpool of falling water that's 5 to 10 miles across.
While the whirlpool rarely breaks the surface, during certain times of
year it does produce an indentation and current in the ocean that can
tilt ships and be seen from space (and may be what we see on the maps
of ancient mariners).
This falling column of cold, salt-laden water pours itself to the
bottom of the Atlantic, where it forms an undersea river forty times
larger than all the rivers on land combined, flowing south down to and
around the southern tip of Africa, where it finally reaches the
Pacific. Amazingly, the water is so deep and so dense (because of its
cold and salinity) that it often doesn't surface in the Pacific for as
much as a thousand years after it first sank in the North Atlantic off
the coast of Greenland.
The out-flowing undersea river of cold, salty water makes the level
of the Atlantic slightly lower than that of the Pacific, drawing in a
strong surface current of warm, fresher water from the Pacific to
replace the outflow of the undersea river. This warmer, fresher water
slides up through the South Atlantic, loops around North America where
it's known as the Gulf Stream, and ends up off the coast of Europe. By
the time it arrives near Greenland, it has cooled off and evaporated
enough water to become cold and salty and sink to the ocean floor,
providing a continuous feed for that deep-sea river flowing to the
Pacific.
These two flows - warm, fresher water in from the Pacific, which then
grows salty and cools and sinks to form an exiting deep sea river -
are known as the Great Conveyor Belt.
Amazingly, the Great Conveyor Belt is the only thing between
comfortable summers and a permanent ice age for Europe and the eastern
coast of North America.
Much of this science was unknown as recently as twenty years ago.
Then an international group of scientists went to Greenland and used
newly developed drilling and sensing equipment to drill into some of
the world's most ancient accessible glaciers. Their instruments were
so sensitive that when they analyzed the ice core samples they brought
up, they were able to look at individual years of snow. The results
were shocking.
Prior to the last decades, it was thought that the periods between
glaciations and warmer times in North America, Europe, and North Asia
were gradual. We knew from the fossil record that the Great Ice Age
period began a few million years ago, and during those years there
were times where for hundreds or thousands of years North America,
Europe, and Siberia were covered with thick sheets of ice year-round.
In between these icy times, there were periods when the glaciers
thawed, bare land was exposed, forests grew, and land animals
(including early humans) moved into these northern regions.
Most scientists figured the transition time from icy to warm was
gradual, lasting dozens to hundreds of years, and nobody was sure
exactly what had caused it. (Variations in solar radiation were
suspected, as were volcanic activity, along with early theories about
the Great Conveyor Belt, which, until recently, was a poorly
understood phenomenon.)
Looking at the ice cores, however, scientists were shocked to
discover that the transitions from ice age-like weather to
contemporary-type weather usually took only two or three years.
Something was flipping the weather of the planet back and forth with a
rapidity that was startling.
It turns out that the ice age versus temperate weather patterns
weren't part of a smooth and linear process, like a dimmer slider for
an overhead light bulb. They are part of a delicately balanced teeter-
totter, which can exist in one state or the other, but transits
through the middle stage almost overnight. They more resemble a light
switch, which is off as you gradually and slowly lift it, until it
hits a mid-point threshold or "breakover point" where suddenly the
state is flipped from off to on and the light comes on.
It appears that small (less that 0.1 percent) variations in solar
energy happen in roughly 1500-year cycles. This cycle, for example, is
what brought us the "Little Ice Age" that started around the year 1400
and dramatically cooled North America and Europe (we're now in the
warming phase, recovering from that). When the ice in the Arctic Ocean
is frozen solid and locked up, and the glaciers on Greenland are
relatively stable, this variation warms and cools the Earth in a very
small way, but doesn't affect the operation of the Great Conveyor Belt
that brings moderating warm water into the North Atlantic.
In millennia past, however, before the Arctic totally froze and
locked up, and before some critical threshold amount of fresh water
was locked up in the Greenland and other glaciers, these 1500-year
variations in solar energy didn't just slightly warm up or cool down
the weather for the land masses bracketing the North Atlantic. They
flipped on and off periods of total glaciation and periods of
temperate weather.
And these changes came suddenly.
For early humans living in Europe 30,000 years ago - when the cave
paintings in France were produced - the weather would be pretty much
like it is today for well over a thousand years, giving people a
chance to build culture to the point where they could produce art and
reach across large territories.
And then a particularly hard winter would hit.
The spring would come late, and summer would never seem to really
arrive, with the winter snows appearing as early as September. The
next winter would be brutally cold, and the next spring didn't happen
at all, with above-freezing temperatures only being reached for a few
days during August and the snow never completely melting. After that,
the summer never returned: for 1500 years the snow simply accumulated
and accumulated, deeper and deeper, as the continent came to be
covered with glaciers and humans either fled or died out.
(Neanderthals, who dominated Europe until the end of these cycles,
appear to have been better adapted to cold weather than Homo sapiens.)
What brought on this sudden "disappearance of summer" period was that
the warm-water currents of the Great Conveyor Belt had shut down. Once
the Gulf Stream was no longer flowing, it only took a year or three
for the last of the residual heat held in the North Atlantic Ocean to
dissipate into the air over Europe, and then there was no more warmth
to moderate the northern latitudes. When the summer stopped in the
north, the rains stopped around the equator: At the same time Europe
was plunged into an Ice Age, the Middle East and Africa were ravaged
by drought and wind-driven firestorms.
If the Great Conveyor Belt, which includes the Gulf Stream, were to
stop flowing today, the result would be sudden and dramatic. Winter
would set in for the eastern half of North America and all of Europe
and Siberia, and never go away. Within three years, those regions
would become uninhabitable and nearly two billion humans would starve,
freeze to death, or have to relocate. Civilization as we know it
probably couldn't withstand the impact of such a crushing blow.
And, incredibly, the Great Conveyor Belt has hesitated a few times in
the past decade. As William H. Calvin points out in one of the best
books available on this topic ("A Brain For All Seasons: human
evolution & abrupt climate change"): "The abrupt cooling in the last
warm period shows that a flip can occur in situations much like the
present one. What could possibly halt the salt-conveyor belt that
brings tropical heat so much farther north and limits the formation of
ice sheets? Oceanographers are busy studying present-day failures of
annual flushing, which give some perspective on the catastrophic
failures of the past. In the Labrador Sea, flushing failed during the
1970s, was strong again by 1990, and is now declining. In the
Greenland Sea over the 1980s salt sinking declined by 80 percent.
Obviously, local failures can occur without catastrophe - it's a
question of how often and how widespread the failures are - but the
present state of decline is not very reassuring."
Most scientists involved in research on this topic agree that the
culprit is global warming, melting the icebergs on Greenland and the
Arctic icepack and thus flushing cold, fresh water down into the
Greenland Sea from the north. When a critical threshold is reached,
the climate will suddenly switch to an ice age that could last
minimally 700 or so years, and maximally over 100,000 years.
And when might that threshold be reached? Nobody knows - the action
of the Great Conveyor Belt in defining ice ages was discovered only in
the last decade. Preliminary computer models and scientists willing to
speculate suggest the switch could flip as early as next year, or it
may be generations from now. It may be wobbling right now, producing
the extremes of weather we've seen in the past few years.
What's almost certain is that if nothing is done about global
warming, it will happen sooner rather than later.
- - -
This article was adapted from the new, updated edition of "The
Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight" by Thom Hartmann, due out from
Random House/Three Rivers Press in March.
# # #
Rachel's Environment & Health News
Environmental Research Foundation
POB 160
New Brunswick NJ 08903-0160
T: 732-828-9995
F: 732-791-4603
E: e...@rachel.org
W: http://www.rachel.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
POWERFUL INTERESTS MAY CLASH IN PUSH TO HEAL THE OCEANS
Date: 16 Feb 2004
From: "Peter Montague" {Pe...@rachel.org}
By Craig Welch, Seattle Times Staff Reporter, Feb. 16, 2004
A presidential panel next month will urge Congress and the White
House to make the science that determines how much fish can be taken
from the seas more independent from the fishing interests that now
help set and allocate fishing harvests.
How the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy proposes to make that change
is likely to ignite fierce political battles between powerful seafood
interests - including a largely Puget Sound-based Alaskan fishing
fleet - and a growing armada of ocean-related environmental groups
that are throwing millions of dollars into campaigns to reform
oversight of the nation's commercial-fishing industry.
Next month, a 16-member panel appointed by President Bush is expected
to release the first government report in 35 years on the state of the
oceans.
While details of that report remain under wraps, members of that
panel, appearing in Seattle over the weekend for a meeting of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, painted a
troubling portrait of our seas, citing serious problems with
agricultural and chemical runoff, overfishing, coastal development and
habitat destruction.
In a series of scientific panels and a town-hall-style meeting this
weekend to improve communication between scientists, policymakers and
the public, this much became clear: The transition from an exhaustive
accounting of what's wrong with oceans to concrete steps to reverse
those trends will be a monumental - and potentially messy - task.
For example, the commission plans to recommend that a pilot project
of "regional ecosystem councils" oversee and coordinate activities -
from coastal and inland development along river systems that feed
seas, to the introduction of invasive species - so each marine region
is managed as one biological system.
But it remains unclear how those groups would interact with the nine
regional fishing councils - dominated by fishing interests, academics
and government officials - that now help decide how much, where and
who gets to fish.
"It's not an effort to supplant the fisheries councils," said Seattle
resident William Ruckelshaus, former administrator for the
Environmental Protection Agency and a member of the president's ocean
commission. "We're very explicit about that."
But he and fellow commission member Andrew Rosenberg, dean of life
sciences and agriculture at the University of New Hampshire, said the
track record of fishing councils varies dramatically across the
country.
New England's cod fishery has collapsed, as has fishing for several
species of rockfish along the Pacific coast, and government scientists
now consider a third of all commercial fish species that they have
assessed "overfished."
While scientists advising the councils in several cases through the
years raised questions about stocks being depleted, those fishing
councils continued, in some cases, to allow more fishing instead of
having to allocate smaller amounts of the catch.
"Sometimes, the easiest thing for them to do has been to make the pie
bigger," Rosenberg said.
In response, both commission members said they want to separate the
science that leads to a "total allowable catch" from decisions about
who gets what amount of that catch. But neither would specify
precisely how to make that change.
"It's really unclear what they intend," said Dave Fluharty, a
University of Washington professor and longtime member of the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council, which oversees fishing in Alaska.
"It's almost an East Coast vs. West Coast thing. In Alaska, we've
always followed the scientific advice in terms of setting quotas. In
New England, where Andy (Rosenberg) worked, the scientists
consistently got rolled."
Alaska's seafood industry, which takes in 40 percent of all fish
harvested in the U.S., has been consistently reminding commission
members that every one of the groundfish stocks there is listed by the
government as "sustainably managed."
Meanwhile, environmental groups, such as Oceana, also have been
lobbying Congress in preparation for the report's release next month
to governors, and ultimately, the president.
* * *
Craig Welch: 206-464-2093 or cwe...@seattletimes.com
# # #
Rachel's Environment & Health News
Environmental Research Foundation
POB 160
New Brunswick NJ 08903-0160
T: 732-828-9995
F: 732-791-4603
E: e...@rachel.org
W: http://www.rachel.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
FIRM IS HIRED FOR TESTING AT BURLCO LANDFILL
Date: 040216
From: http://www.phillyburbs.com/
By John Reitmeyer, Burlington County Times, February 16, 2004
The Burlington County Board of Freeholders is paying an engineering
firm $103,500 this year to test emissions and prepare reports on
conditions at the county landfill complex along the Florence-Mansfield
border.
The biggest task to be performed by Camp, Dresser & McKie of Edison,
Middlesex County, is quarterly testing for methane gas emanating from
the surface of the 522-acre complex. The freeholders approved a
contract with the firm during their public meeting last week.
Company technicians will conduct sweeps of the landfill to search for
areas where the gas may be escaping at levels that are higher than
government standards allow. Methane is created at the landfill as
materials decompose.
The landfill has a complex system of flares and blowers to control
the methane. The system can be stressed to the point that the gas
seeps out of the landfill, particularly when there is a lot of
precipitation, said Mary Pat Robbie, director of the county Department
of Resource Conservation, which administers the landfill.
Last year, the state Department of Environmental Protection issued
the county an alert because odors from the landfill exceeded state
air-pollution guidelines.
The quarterly methane sweeps will give county officials a better idea
of where the hot spots are and should lead to better odor controls,
Robbie said.
"They've been very helpful," she said of the effectiveness of the
tests.
Any area on the landfill where readings are too high will be flagged
by the technicians, covered with layers of soil by the county and then
retested, Robbie said.
The firm will also compile numerous reports on landfill conditions
that must be submitted to federal and state environmental protection
agencies.
The landfill has been accepting garbage since it opened in 1989.
Governmental oversight of the facility is becoming increasingly tight
as more "cells" at the complex become filled with trash, Robbie said.
"The bigger you get, the more regulations you have to comply with,"
Robbie said.
The landfill is expected to remain open through 2018.
* * *
Email: jreit...@phillyBurbs.com
(c) 2004 Copyright Calkins Media, Inc. All rights reserved.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
REGULATORS SAY MORE CAN BE STORED ONSITE IN POOLS
Date: 040215
From: http://msnbc.msn.com/
NEW TWIST IN NUCLEAR WASTE DEBATE
Associated Press, Feb. 13, 2004
Washington - The risks of storing more used radioactive fuel rods
from nuclear power plants underwater in adjacent pools are less than
previously thought despite the new specter of terrorism, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission officials said Thursday.
Farouk Eltawila, who directs NRC's division of systems analysis and
regulatory effectiveness, told a National Academy of Sciences panel
that "previous NRC studies are overly conservative" and don't "take
advantage of all the work that we have done the past 25 years."
The new classified study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, will
be shown to the scientific panel on Friday. The study shows that more
spent fuel rods can be stored safely in pools of water next to
reactors and that the storage facilities are well protected against
potential terrorist attacks, Eltawila said.
The storage pools are typically about 25 feet wide by 20 feet high,
constructed to allow for convective cooling and with racks for storing
the rods.
The implications of the new study are that power companies would not
have to spend money transferring the fuel rods to dry storage casks
until they can be buried at a permanent repository now under
construction at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
"Not only does it cost too much, it's not necessary," said John
Vincent of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's top trade
group.
Although he hasn't yet seen the study, Princeton University professor
Frank von Hippel called its conclusion an attempt to save electric
power companies billions of dollars. He said allowing more high-
density storage of nuclear waste will only heighten the terrorism
risks.
"It's very sad," said von Hippel, a frequent critic of the nuclear
industry and its regulators. "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has
been captured by the industry."
The National Academy panel is meeting this week at Congress' request
to review the safety and security of commercial nuclear spent fuel
until a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain is completed sometime
during the next decade.
Von Hippel and German scientist Klaus Janberg pointed to their own
research showing that the risks are greater than the NRC believes.
They also noted that Germany and Switzerland require their spent fuel
pools to be built inside containment buildings, a feature that the
United States doesn't require.
* * *
(c) 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
RUTGERS ENVIRO-NOTES DEBUTS
Date: 16 Feb 2004
From: Bruce Barbour {bar...@AESOP.Rutgers.edu}
CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH, NEWS, AND ACTIVITIES FROM THE
NJ AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION AND THE RUTGERS COMMUNITY
Hello...
The first edition of Rutgers Enviro-Notes is now available online at:
http://www.rce.rutgers.edu/environotes/
This publication has arisen from the need to tell each other what we
are doing and the need to tell audiences outside the University what
we are doing. Our target audience is the faculty and staff of Rutgers
who work with or are interested in environmental subjects. We will
also distribute, by request, to interested audiences outside of
Rutgers be they governmental, commercial, non-profit or academic.
Rutgers Enviro-Notes will have a static web site so news services can
check in on it regularly and other web sites can make links to it. My
hope is to keep the items simple and the newsletter quick and easy to
read, yet informative.
Hopefully, most, if not all of you, to contribute from time to time.
As an e-newsletter we will make liberal use of links to deliver
readers to more detailed information when appropriate. This also will
allow us to be somewhat free-form with respect to the length of each
edition.
We plan one issue per month, at the beginning of each month. So
contributions and notices need to be to me by the end of each month.
That's about it. We are here, we are free, what more can you ask?
Hope you enjoy it and find it useful.
- - -
Rutgers Enviro-Notes is a publication of Rutgers Cooperative
Extension.
Bruce Barbour, Editor. Contact: Bar...@rce.rutgers.edu.
Priscilla Hayes, Campus News. Contact: Ha...@aesop.rutgers.edu.
Use of items from this newsletter is freely permitted but attribution
to Rutgers Cooperative Extension is requested.
* * *
Bruce M. Barbour
Environmental Program Leader
Rutgers Cooperative Extension
POB 900 - Court House
Morristown NJ 07963-0900
T: 973-285-8307
F: 973-605-8195
E: bar...@rce.rutgers.edu
W: http://www.rce.rutgers.edu
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
TEWKSBURY INSTITUTE OF HERPETOLOGY UPDATE
Date: 13 Feb 2004
From: "Tewksbury Institute of Herpetology" {mrodr...@tiherp.org}
TIH Members and Friends,
Our updated website is now online http://www.TIHerp.org. Over 100
pages have been added with many new color photos and plenty of new
content. We are still working on some of the links and will have them
up soon.
In the OVERVIEW section we have added new taxonomy lists and are
working on several others. We have also added a chelonian extinction
list here with some really great photographs plus our new zoogeography
section that announces our first publication published by EO Wildlife
Conservation and Artistry in association with the Tewksbury Institute
of Herpetology.
The FACILITY section has several new updated sections with
information about the site, construction, greenhouses...etc. all with
lots of new photographs.
The PROGRAMS section has been updated to include the educational
programs we have been collaborating with others on, assurance colony
information, research programs, horticulture and fisheries programs,
links to great websites, and one of my favorite new features, our
library section. You can download many articles, papers and
miscellaneous email messages in this new library section along with
some of the recent news videos and press releases. New papers, video,
photographs...etc. will be updated and added soon.
The NEWS section has all our recent news coverage information, we
have been all over the globe already. We have staff information here
along with volunteer information. We need lots of help to make this a
reality so get involved someway by volunteering your time and or
skills if you can.
The ABOUT US section has information about who is involved and all
the people that have helped us in some way or other, if your name is
missing please let us know. Important contact information can be found
in this section.
We have some stuff available in the SALES section and we hope to have
more stuff for sale soon.
Most importantly, our TO HELP section has instructions for
contributions. We need funding to make this a reality. We are a
501(c)(3) non-profit corporation, so any donation you make is tax
deductible.
The above is a brief description of some the new stuff but there is
plenty more online. Please take a few moments to browse around and let
us know what you think.
Thank you,
Maurice & Richard
Come visit us at http://www.TIHerp.org.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Many thanks to our volunteers: Tina Bologna, Jerry Cullins,
Peter Montague, Paul Neuman, Penny Pollock-Barnes, Phil
Reynolds, Pat Rolston, and to all you folks out there who
contribute in so many ways. If you have a couple hours a
week, and would like to help out, please email us at:
mai...@gsenet.org
George-Therese Dickenson - Editor - dick...@gsenet.org
Ivan Kossak - Executive Director - kos...@gsenet.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Back issues of the Garden State EnviroNews are available at
http://www.gsenet.org/library/11gsn/11gsn.php
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Garden State EnviroNet, Inc.
19 Boonton Ave, Boonton NJ 07005
Tel: 973-394-1313 - Fax: 973-394-9513
mai...@gsenet.org - http://www.gsenet.org/
EnviroNews mailing lists:
TEXT - subscribe-en...@gselist.org
HTML - subscribe-en...@gselist.org