Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

GARDEN STATE ENVIRONEWS 031117

1 view

Skip to first unread message

GSENet

unread,

Nov 17, 2003, 1:16:33 AM11/17/03

031117

GARDEN STATE ENVIRONEWS

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

TABLE OF CONTENTS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{*} OAKLAND: HOUSING OK'D ON OLD CAMP TODD SCOUT SITE
{*} WAKE UP CALL FOR THE RAMAPO RIVER WATERSHED
{*} POMPTON LAKES SET TO SEIZE DISPUTED ACREAGE
{*} OLD BRIDGE REJECTS 1,442-UNIT PLAN
{*} MILLVILLE ENVIRONMENTALISTS VOICE CONCERN
{*} SOUTH ORANGE RESIDENTS CALL AX OF BUILDER TOO SHARP
{*} NJFUTURE FACTS - NOVEMBER 14, 2003 EDITION
{*} SOLDIERS AND SAILOR PARK RETURNED TO PUBLIC
{*} ENVIRONMENTALISTS OPPOSE HERBICIDE SPRAYING ALONG SHORE
{*} NJT TAKES BIDS ON REMOVING CONTAMINATED SOIL FROM CAMDEN
{*} PROPOSED CANADIAN INCINERATOR FOR NJ TOXIC WASTES
{*} ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTION ACT 'BROKEN'
{*} OP/ED: LANDS WORTH LEAVING ALONE
{*} HARD TO GET COMPROMISE ON 2-STROKE ENGINES
{*} COMING TO TERMS
{*} CAMPBELL LAUDS TOXIC CRAB PUBLIC HEALTH OUTREACH
{*} NJAS LAUNCHES INSTITUTE FOR FIELD NATURALISTS
{*} DELAWARE RIVERKEEPER NETWORK CRAFT SHOW - DEC 12, 13

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Visit Our Website For Complete Calendar, Job Listings,
Links, NewsStand, Library and Much More
http://www.gsenet.org/

* * *

Many thanks to our volunteers: Jerry Cullins, Jeff Hook,
Peter Montague, Paul Neuman, Phil Reynolds, 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.

* * *

Our Fall Fundraising Campaign is under way!
To donate, please visit:
http://www.gsenet.org/support/donate.php

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

OAKLAND: HOUSING OK'D ON OLD CAMP TODD SCOUT SITE

Date: 16 Nov 2003
From: "Tony L." {railtra...@yahoo.com}

By Brian Aberback, Record Staff Writer, November 16, 2003

Oakland - A divided Planning Board has approved a housing development
on a 73-acre former Boy Scout camp atop the Ramapo Mountain ridge
line.

The board voted 4-3 to approve LMK Associates' plan for 22 luxury
homes on the property known as Camp Todd after the developer agreed at
the last minute to withdraw two of its five steep-slope variance
requests.

All hope may not be lost in preserving Camp Todd, which sits in the
Highlands. The county and state have expressed interest in acquiring
the land as open space. A spokeswoman for the state Department of
Environmental Protection said the agency has made an offer on the
property, but couldn't provide any details.

John Schepisi, attorney for LMK, said the company isn't interested in
selling Camp Todd but would entertain offers. Schepisi said the
property is worth $10 million to $12 million.

He said he's aware of the state's interest but added that there's no
deal pending. "If the state wants to make an offer my client can't
refuse, then I'm sure we'll consider it," Schepisi said Friday.

Board members Thomas Buonocore, John Morris, Thomas Potash, and Mayor
Robert Piccoli voted for the development following 18 months of
hearings. Elaine Rowin, Jeffrey Levine, and Councilwoman Donna Kurdock
voted against it.

Schepisi agreed just before the vote to eliminate requests for
variances to allow half of two homes to be built into steep slopes.
The builder could still appear before the zoning board in the future
to try to build the two homes with less intrusion into the steep
slopes.

Those who voted in favor of the project said the three remaining
variance requests weren't significant enough to deny the application.
Those variances asked that 5 percent of one home and some transitional
grading be allowed to encroach on steep slopes.

"The rest of the lots really do conform," Piccoli said. He added that
LMK gave the borough at no cost Lake Todd and the land surrounding it,
which accounts for about 45 of the 73 acres.

"The Planning Board did an outstanding job of dealing with a tough
application," Piccoli said.

Potash also emphasized that LMK worked with the board to minimize the
project's impact.

"We've forced the developer to move homes and roadways [away from the
ridge line]," Potash said. "We've protected the steep slopes, in my
opinion."

Kurdock countered that the development agreement between the borough
and LMK called for the project to be built within existing ordinances,
and that the developer should have been held to that contract.

Those opposed to the development cite it as a classic example of
suburban sprawl and note that building on steep slopes can result in
soil erosion and excess runoff.

Camp Todd sits above the Ramapo River Reserve, a 400-unit development
whose construction on steep slopes may have contributed to a mudslide
during Tropical Storm Floyd that damaged several homes.

Opponents also fear that building and blasting on the property will
disturb nearby wetlands, streams, groundwater, and animal habitats.

"It still remains a high-risk project," Rowin said. "I'm concerned
about the destruction of one of Oakland's beautiful natural
resources - the mountain."

Environmentalists at the meeting Thursday were dismayed by what they
saw as a decision that contradicts Governor McGreevey and other
officials' calls to stop sprawl and preserve open space in the
Highlands, a series of ridges that stretches through New York, New
Jersey, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania.

"It's right in the heart of the Ramapos," said Dennis Schvejda,
conservation director of the New Jersey Sierra Club. "Tonight, another
piece of the Highlands died."

The tract is regarded as an ideal location for preservation. It sits
between Camps Tamarack and Glen Gray, which account for more than 900
acres of county-owned open space.

* * *

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

WAKE UP CALL FOR THE RAMAPO RIVER WATERSHED

Date: 15 Nov 2003
From: Geoff Welch {gwe...@optonline.net}

By Chris McKenna, Times Herald-Record, November 15, 2003

Kiryas Joel - Speakers made a few splashes yesterday at a public
hearing on the village's plan to build a 13-mile pipeline to tap one of
New York City's water tunnels.

Public officials, environmentalists and others raised concerns they
said should be addressed in an environmental impact statement for the
$25
million water-supply project.

But in comments afterward, an engineering supervisor for the New York
City Department of Environmental Protection suggested that no issues
raised so far are serious enough to derail the ambitious project.

"We have always been of a mind that this project is approvable and
should go forward," said Paul Aggarwal, supervisor for the engineering
design review group for the DEP's Bureau of Water Supply.

The village has proposed tapping into the Catskill Aqueduct in Vails
Gate, to secure a bountiful water supply for its booming population, now
at around 15,000. It now relies on 14 wells, which it says are not
enough
to meet peak demand. It hopes to have the aqueduct connection completed
by
2007.

During the hearing in the basement of the Ezras Choilim Health
Center, Aggarwal listed a number of issues he wants the village and its
consultants to address more fully in their environmental statement, now
in
draft form.

For instance, he asked how the village will treat the additional
sewage it produces, and what it will do when water demand exceeds the 2
million gallons a day it's requesting.

Assemblywoman Nancy Calhoun, R-C-Blooming Grove, raised other
environmental issues, but also questioned why the village has allowed
housing construction to continue if its water shortage was so dire.

Two representatives of the Upper Delaware Council voiced concern that
New York City will draw more water from its Delaware Aqueduct if Kiryas
Joel and others connect to the Catskill Aqueduct. They feared that would
lower the level of the Delaware River.

Geoff Welch of the Ramapo River Committee raised concern that
development in Kiryas Joel and the surrounding area is polluting the
Ramapo River watershed, which supplies drinking water to 2 million
people in New York and New Jersey. Kiryas Joel is at the headwaters of
the
Ramapo, he said.

Two of the 10 speakers applauded the project - Kiryas Joel School
Superintendent Steven Benardo and Manny Mangual, a liaison for the
Kiryas Joel Alliance political group.

The village and its consultants must now consider comments from the
hearing and those it receives in writing and incorporate its responses
into a final environmental statement.

* * *

Geoff Welch
Ramapo River Committee
POB 1217
Hillburn NY 10931
T: 845-536-4145
E: gwe...@optonline.net

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

POMPTON LAKES SET TO SEIZE DISPUTED ACREAGE

Date: 14 Nov 2003
From: "Tony L." {railtra...@yahoo.com}

By Jan Barry and Barbara Williams, Record Staff Writers

November 14, 2003

Pompton Lakes - A battle royal is shaping up over a riverside tract
that both the borough and a non-profit group want.

The 19-acre tract off Willow Avenue and Riverdale Boulevard is owned
by real estate broker Leon Feinbloom. Helping People Help Themselves,
a Paramus-based civic group that wants to build a youth camp, signed a
contract in July to buy the land for $600,000. Borough officials want
to buy it for open space and to prevent potential pollution of a
nearby municipal well.

The Borough Council authorized condemnation proceedings Wednesday and
set aside $226,000 for the tract. That figure is based on a market
appraisal of the land done for the borough.

But the non-profit group also is vowing to press its point in court,
claiming the borough is engaging in unfair zoning.

Complicating matters, both the borough and the non-profit group were
recently awarded state Green Acres grants to buy the tract. Pending
approval by the Legislature, the municipality will get $120,000 and
Helping People Help Themselves will receive $167,500.

"The non-profit group received the grant to acquire the 19.5-acre
tract, to retain and improve the softball and soccer fields, put in
trails for walking, running, hiking, bicycling, off-road vehicles, a
camping and fishing area, playground, and pool," said Jack Kaskey, a
state Department of Environmental Protection spokesman. Kaskey said it
is not unusual for two groups to get state grants for the same parcel,
because each grant is not enough for the full purchase.

Unlike typical conservation buyouts by two or more parties, however,
Pompton Lakes and Helping People Help Themselves are at loggerheads
over use of the property. Borough zoning officials rejected the
group's plan for an all-terrain vehicle track, a proposal that the
organization's leader is now willing to drop.

Borough officials have been seeking to buy the land since a developer
obtained an option to buy the tract three years ago and sought
rezoning from a conservation designation to one that would allow
construction of town houses in the flood plain.

Faced with massive opposition by residents who endured flooding just
months before from Tropical Storm Floyd, the council dropped a
contemplated rezoning ordinance. The developer withdrew the plan, and
the borough began seeking money for a buyout.

In July, the council voted to spend $54,000 to buy an adjacent 5.6-
acre parcel, using funds from the borough's open space trust fund. The
borough was awarded a $140,000 open space grant by Passaic County to
help buy flood plain parcels, and the council wants to use that money
for the Feinbloom tract.

Diane Marichal, who heads Helping People Help Themselves, also is
determined to buy the tract. In the wake of the zoning board's ruling,
Marichal said she is willing to drop plans for the ATV track, which
she previously stated would provide income to help buy the property
and operate a youth camp.

"I really want to make this place a great center for both the
underprivileged kids and the children of Pompton Lakes, so I'm going
to go before the mayor and council to tell them I'll forget all about
ATVs if we can make this work," Marichal said. "But if they won't work
with me at all, I'm going to Superior Court" and claim the borough is
engaging in "selective zoning."

The matter is headed for court in any case. The council authorized
its attorney to file condemnation papers in state Superior Court. If
either side doesn't like the market value set by a judge, the dispute
could go to a jury trial, said Borough Attorney Kenneth Petrie.

* * *

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

OLD BRIDGE REJECTS 1,442-UNIT PLAN

Date: 031117
From: http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/middlesex/

By Sally Goldenberg, Star-Ledger Staff, November 14, 2003

The Old Bridge planning board finally shut the door on a massive
development that has been in the board's hands for 16 years.

Citing environmental concerns and fears of rising property taxes that
usually follow an influx of new homes, the board denied large-scale
land owner John Brunetti the right to build a 1,442-unit development
with 600,000 square feet of office and commercial space west of Route
9.

Brunetti's lawyer, Michael Fitzgerald, vowed to sue the township and
several members of the planning board following the 4-4 vote Wednesday
night that killed his client's development in the 42-square-mile
township.

"It was a shame," Fitzgerald said. "I think that everybody on the
board seems to have forgotten that it was a previously approved
general development plan."

The board first approved Brunetti's conceptual plan in 1987, but the
two entities have battled over the details during the past five years.

Fitzgerald said Brunetti met the board's environmental regulations
through retaining walls and buffers, offered 20 acres for a new school
and promised land and funds for a firehouse to serve the new
residents.

But some board members were not swayed.

"Everybody uses the Route 9 corridor. I would think people would
welcome some of the amenities that were being offered, but I don't
know about all of it, with the housing," said Mayor Barbara Cannon,
who voted against Brunetti's proposal.

Though Cannon disapproved of the application based on concerns about
wetlands on parts of the site, she said she's also pleased that the
heavily populated township will not have to endure another large
residential development.

"I think some kind of revenue-producing facility, such as an office
complex or commercial facility (would be appropriate) because it is a
prime location for that," Cannon said, conceding a developer will
likely build homes on the parcel.

"I just think it's unrealistic to think that whole area's going to
remain as open space," she added.

But she hopes for fewer homes.

Planning board chairman George Koehler shook his head at her notion.

Recalling Brunetti's proposal for more than 10,000 residential units
in 1998, Koehler said the developer has made tremendous accommodations
to meet the board's demands over the past five years.

The chairman, who voted for the application, now dreads an even
larger residential development in its place.

"I'm concerned about a very high-density proposal, much higher than
he's proposing," Koehler said.

He acknowledged that the township, with its easy access to Routes 9,
18 and 35 and the Garden State Parkway, is no longer the rural haven
it once was but said its fate lies in development.

"I don't think there's anyone who's come in here who hasn't said, 'I
don't want anyone to move here after me and I want my street to be a
dead-end street,'" he said.

But the township is accepting more developments and should embrace
Brunetti's land offering for a new school, Koehler said.

Just last week the zoning board approved about 440 units of age-
restricted housing, citing the need for a tax base that won't drain
the school system.

Even if Brunetti wins a lawsuit, the future of his site is
questionable. An area that is zoned for houses and offices may only
qualify for commercial, industrial and office use under the township's
new master plan that the council is preparing to adopt soon, township
officials said.

If the plan changes the use for his land, the applicant can seek
deviations in the master plan from the township council or seek a
variance from the zoning board.

Township planner Sam Rizzo said if the land use shifts, Brunetti's
former approval from the planning board to build homes on the parcel
would likely stand.

"He still right now has a valid general development plan, so my guess
is he would pursue that protection," Rizzo said.

* * *

Sally Goldenberg works in the Middlesex County bureau. She can be
reached (732) 404-8083.
Copyright 2003 The Star-Ledger.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

MILLVILLE ENVIRONMENTALISTS VOICE CONCERN

Date: 031116
From: http://www.nj.com/news/bridgeton/local/

By Matthew Ralph, Bridgeton News Staff Writer, November 14, 2003

Millville - General Development Plan (GDP) approval received in
August for the Preserve at Holly Ridge, an active adult community and
golf course, has only fueled the growing movement among
environmentalists unwilling to compromise on the development of land
they say should remain in tact and untouched.

The $191 million 903-unit community planned for a 1,446-acre tract
off Route 49 commonly known as the Conectiv property or the Holly
Farm, has been touted by the city as a project both economically and
environmentally feasible.

Supporters have repeatedly praised the developer Millville 1350's
plan, which proposes building on 206 acres, putting a golf course on
184 acres and preserving the remaining 916 acres.

Environmentalists, however, say that any development would disrupt
critical habitat in one of the largest preserved areas in the state
that includes nearly 5,000 acres of wild and scenic land off limits to
development in the Manumuskin and Manantico Creek preserves

Last month, a lawsuit was filed with Cumberland County Superior Court
by the Rutgers Environmental Law Clinic against the city planning
board representing Citizens United to Protect the Maurice River and
its Tributaries, the Association of New Jersey Environmental
Commissions, the NJ Conservation Foundation, and the NJ Audobon
Society.

The suit claims the planning board failed to take important
procedural steps and make necessary findings on the impact the
development would have on the community.

"They didn't make the necessary findings," said Attorney Carter
Strickland. "The evidence wasn't before them. No one spoke about
pesticide use or other matters in relation to the proposed golf
course; water withdraw isn't spelled out in any detail. Additionally,
the proposed safeguards are too general and vague and not enforceable
to really allow for a finding of no impact."

Strickland said the city has until the end of the month to file a
response.

Dr. Kim Warker, city director of planning and community development,
said the suit comes as no surprise.

"They have always had an all or nothing position with that property,"
Warker said. "Our position is that somewhere between all or nothing is
a reasonable compromise and this development seemed to be a model for
that. To me, the important part is the board based the decision and
that opinion on expert testimony that was provided, which told them
that there would not be negative impact to the species in the
environment, that the project could be built in a way that was very
compatible with the environment."

Jay Laubengeyer, director of the Delaware Bayshores program for the
Nature Conservancy of New Jersey, said the all or nothing approach is
for good reason.

The Conservancy has been interested in purchasing the property from
Conectiv for the past eight years, submitting an offer with Green
Acres two years ago that was subsequently turned down by Conectiv.

"There's no development around it at all," Laubengeyer said. "It's
all been preserved. Our preference is to see the entire tract
preserved and it would make a lot of sense for the state to own and
manage it.

Eric Stiles, vice president for conservation at the NJ Audobon
Society, said the uniqueness of the property is too great of an asset
to ever compromise.

"It's the donut in a hole of a very large greenbelt," Stiles said.
"Acre for acre it has one of the highest densities for threatened and
endangered species in the state."

Stiles also contends that the response of environmental groups, which
reaches beyond those named on the suit to include the Sierra Club, NJ
Public Interest and Research Group, NJ Environmental Federation,
Delaware River Keepers Network, and several other groups, is not a
reaction to development, but a continuation of the effort to preserve
the land for generations to come.

"Throughout the state there are a number of areas that you can
compromise on in terms of development, but this is clearly not one of
those areas," he said.

East Main Street resident Peter Cooper, who spoke at length against
the development at a public hearing held by the planning board in
August, shares Stiles' concern for the future legacy of the entire
area of preserved land that stretches from Millville to Maurice River
Township.

"I grew up out here," the 35-year resident said in an interview
earlier this week. "The place is filled with all kinds of wildlife.
It's a pure place and it would be a shame because no matter what they
do it's going to disturb the environment that is here.

"Once this place is gone, it's gone. You're not going to be able to
bring it back. It doesn't seem like it's worth the trade-off."

Environmentalists hope that trade-off never becomes a reality, but
that's exactly what the city with a "best of both worlds" approach, is
hoping for.

* * *

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

SOUTH ORANGE RESIDENTS CALL AX OF BUILDER TOO SHARP

Date: 031117
From: http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/essex/

NEIGHBORHOOD ANGRY OVER SCOPE OF CUTTING

By Pamela Weber-Leaf, Star-Ledger, November 16, 2003

They say they've just lost their natural paradise, a place where deer
and fox roamed and owls hooted under a canopy of green. And the fact
that it was not theirs to lose doesn't make it any easier for a small
but vocal band of homeowners around a grown-over rock mining site in
South Orange.

When the four-year saga of development plans for the former Kernan's
Quarry tract below the village's Newstead section came to a close in
March, local environmentalists hailed the event as a partial victory.

Planning Board approval for 69 luxury homes to be built on privately
owned land, once slated for up to 900 rental units by a different
developer, was greeted at the time as an acknowledgment that the
area's tranquil character should be preserved.

But as fall began and the leaves showed their first signs of red and
gold, workers began arriving to remove the woods in force. While the
slender ash, birch and maple trees at the center of the parcel dated
only to about 1989 - when quarry operations ceased - a number of older
trees had stood at the perimeter for what neighbors estimate was more
than a century.

That's when the uproar started.

Or, to put a decidedly different spin on the old saw, if a tree is
felled in a small forest, and people are there to hear it, it makes a
pretty deafening sound.

"If they had confined their development to the pit area, the
neighborhood would still look the same," said Joel Levin, whose
contemporary home was designed with windows for maximum view of the
trees just across Underhill Road. "But when they first started cutting
all these huge trees down, people were milling around and talking
about them in the past tense. It's not just tree-huggers who think
that the bigger (ones) are something to respect and cherish.

"It was like a wake."

The variance granted to builder Pulte Homes did not specify the
number of trees that were allowed to be cut down on the 30-acre
property. But Levin and his allies want an accounting from South
Orange officials, whom they now say should have required greater
restrictions on landscaping changes when approving the plan.

A spokesman for Michigan-based Pulte was not able to say over the
past 1 1/2 weeks exactly how many trees were cut down; however, he
disputed claims that some were nearly 200 years old.

"Old-growth trees are probably something different from what
(residents) saw on the site," said Michael Turner, a representative
for Pulte's regional office in Bernardsville.

But village leaders say that's beyond their control. And to control
what's within their authority, the officials say, they have had
inspectors monitoring the work site daily.

"I understand (the opponents') position, but the bottom line is, the
Planning Board did approve it," said Village Administrator John Gross,
referring to the 7-1 vote in March. "Compared to what by court order
was allowed to be built there, this project was a substantial
improvement."

A lawsuit settled in 1992 with a Connecticut builder had permitted
that company to put up 198 housing units, down from the nearly 900
first proposed. Pulte must now also preserve as open space about 10
acres composed mostly of ecologically fragile wetlands at the
property's northern end, below a steep ridge leading to Newstead
Elementary School.

It was not clear whether a walking path to be built around the marsh
will be open to the public, or only to owners of the seven single-
family and 62 "manor" homes that will occupy the site by the projected
late 2005 completion date.

The only planning board member who would comment on the matter,
Arthur Taylor, said he felt confident that Pulte had fully addressed
questions he and several of his colleagues had asked about the
project's impact on the landscape.

"I am expectant that whatever is done in the quarry is in compliance
with what was in the plan," Taylor said. "That's the contractor's
responsibility, and it's the village's responsibility for overseeing
that."

But members of the grassroots Coalition to Preserve South Orange are
enraged, and say the contractor should never have been permitted to
clear certain sections of trees and shrubs separating the quarry from
the neighborhood. Among other problems, erosion and flood control
would be thwarted by removing this buffer, Janine Bauer, the sole
dissenting planner, had said at the time.

Levin and other coalition members noted that there was a small outcry
when just a few trees were felled to make way for an animal shelter on
Walton Road. They also note that South Orange's year-old master plan
shows the village is more than 50 acres short of recreation and other
open space; however, no study was ever done of the feasibility of
turning the quarry space into playing fields.

"It's easy to point a finger at the developer and say, 'They came in
and raped the land,'" said Marilu Gregory, whose husband, village
Trustee Patrick Joyce, founded the coalition that today includes more
than 400 member families. "I don't think it was realistic to just
leave the property as it was, but the town certainly could have been
more creative.

"This is something that could have been a shining asset for
everybody," Gregory said from her home on the ridge overlooking the
site.

* * *

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

NJFUTURE FACTS - NOVEMBER 14, 2003 EDITION

Date: 14 Nov 2003
From: "New Jersey Future" {njfu...@njfuture.org}

NJ Future Facts
November 14, 2003 Edition

NEW WAY TO PAY FOR SCHOOLS

** Approximately 55 cents of every dollar paid in property taxes goes
to fund local public schools.

** About 25 cents funds the work of municipal government. The
remaining 20 cents per dollar goes to the county for parks, roads and
social services.

** Both the Governor and the Legislature have proposed the cost of
schools be offset by special impact fees assessed on new development.

** There has been much public comment on impact fees by state leaders
since the election. Impact fees are expected to receive priority
attention in the final weeks of this Legislative session, which runs
until the new Legislature is sworn in in mid-January.

(Source: 2002 Legislative District Data Book, Rutgers University
Center for Government Services)

- - -

IMPACT FEES CAN STOP, OR SPUR, SPRAWL

Covering the high cost of public schools with property taxes has two
significant consequences:

It limits our choice of housing, because it pushes municipalities to
favor development that attracts few or no school children, such as
senior housing and commercial development, or large-lot homes.

It serves as a brake on residential development, and so reduces the
amount of housing that's available, even as it slows the rapid
consumption of land.

Impact fees could help offset the cost of school financing. But
unless impact fees are tied to better municipal planning, they will
bring little more to New Jersey than accelerated and well-financed
sprawl. And what municipality would want neighboring communities to
have access to impact fees without the better planning that takes
regional issues into account?

Impact fees could also be used to achieve one of the Governor's oft-
stated aims of bringing local plans into compliance with the State
Plan, provided that impact fees are extended only to communities that
agree to achieve Plan conformance. Impact fees should be waived for
construction of affordable housing, which is in desperately short
supply across New Jersey.

Without links to better planning, impact fees will simply subsidize
sprawl. If impact fees are allowed only in communities with solid land
use planning, they could be an incentive for smarter growth.

* * *

Future Facts Contacts: Tim Evans, NJF Research Director,
time...@njfuture.org and Sue Burrows, NJF Communications Director,
sbur...@njfuture.org

New Jersey Future's "Future Facts" is published twice monthly.
Comments and questions can be directed to Sue Burrows, NJF
Communications Director, sbur...@njfuture.org. New Jersey Future is
the state's oldest and largest smart growth group and a nonprofit,
nonpartisan organization. Visit our website at
http://www.njfuture.org.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

SOLDIERS AND SAILOR PARK RETURNED TO PUBLIC

Date: 14 Nov 2003
From: "carol" {ca...@njconservation.org}

THE STATE WE'RE IN
By Michele S. Byers, Executive Director
New Jersey Conservation Foundation
November 12, 2003 - Volume XXXIII, No. 44

Years of hard work just paid off with the return of 53 acres to
public ownership. This happened at a time when some public land, under
pressure to be developed for other uses, is going out of public
ownership!

The land, the "Soldiers and Sailor" property - nearly 53-acres
located on the New Jersey State Home for Disabled Soldiers in
Middlesex County, had been declared surplus and was slated for sale by
the state to an office park developer.

The "Soldiers and Sailors" property is almost entirely forested and
was found to be critical migratory songbird habitat by a New Jersey
Audubon Society study done for New Jersey Conservation Foundation's
Greenways to the Arthur Kill report.

The study also found that the land is important to fish and wildlife,
with habitat for 97 species of breeding and migratory birds, including
the endangered red-shouldered hawk. It also serves as a basin for much
of the area's stormwater runoff.

Returning this site back to public ownership took a lot of hard work
and the tenacity of local and state government officials including
Senator Joseph Vitale and Governor McGreevey, then Mayor of
Woodbridge, many community activists like Dennis Miranda from NJCF and
the Arthur Kill Coalition, Joy Grafton of the Association of New
Jersey Environmental Commissions, Jane Tousman of the Edison Open
Space Committee, Walter Stochel of the Edison Greenways Group, Robert
Spiegel from the Edison Wetlands Association and Florence Caparaso, a
devoted Woodbridge activist - to name but a few, also helped make this
happen!

As we preserve more and more natural lands, farms, and open spaces in
this state-we're in, we find that our job is never done. Preserved
lands are continually subjected to diversion for all kinds of uses,
mostly not related to open space preservation. Examples include
colleges, firehouses, roads, utility lines, parking lots, and housing
developments!

The newly created preserve at the "Soldiers and Sailors" site will be
managed by the state's Natural Lands Trust, and will help preserve the
quality of life of the many residents of a nearby apartment complex.
The preserve will exponentially expand public access to a larger
wetland forest complex that straddles Evergreen Road along the South
Branch of the Rahway River, and connects to Roosevelt County Park
upstream.

Woodbridge Township Mayor Frank G. Pelzman said it like this: "One of
the most important gifts we can give to future generations is open
space. This recreation preserve will not only provide an area where
children can learn about the environment, but will create a place
where residents can relax and enjoy nature."

That's exactly why so many folks worked so hard for so many years!

Make sure you are watching your "preserved lands" and keeping them
preserved!

* * *

I hope you'll contact me at 1-888-LAND-SAVE or
in...@njconservation.org, or visit NJCF's website at
http://www.njconservation.org, for more information about conserving
New Jersey's precious land and natural resources.

* * *

Carol K. Banhart
New Jersey Conservation Foundation
Bamboo Brook
170 Longview Road
Far Hills, NJ 07931
Phone: 908-234-1225 x105
Fax: 908-234-1189

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

ENVIRONMENTALISTS OPPOSE HERBICIDE SPRAYING ALONG SHORE

Date: 031116
From: http://www.nj.com/newsflash/jersey/

Associated Press, 11/16/03

Salem - Environmentalists have asked state officials to stop issuing
herbicide permits to Public Service Electric & Gas, which has been
spraying part of the Delaware Bay shoreline in recent years.

Jane Nogaki of the New Jersey Environmental Federation said the group
also wants to force the utility company to put scientists critical of
the spraying practice on the project's advisory panel.

"We keep saying to the Department of Environmental Protection, 'At
what point are you going to pull the plug on this?"' Nogaki told The
Star-Ledger of Newark.

DEP Commissioner Bradley Campbell said his agency would take a close
look at the issue when PSE&G applies for a new herbicide permit next
year.

The company began spraying the herbicide in 1996 as part of its
efforts to get rid of invasive weeds called phragmites and to restore
marshes that served as great aquatic nurseries.

PSE&G had decided to undertake an estuary enhancement program in
order to help offset fish deaths at its Salem nuclear power plant,
which takes in some 3 million gallons of water every day from the bay,
killing fish.

The company says that the herbicide, which contains the chemical
glyphosate, disappears from the environment within hours and causes no
lasting harm.

"There's no strong scientific data to indicate it causes a problems,"
said Ken Strait, a biologist who manages the marsh program for PSE&G.

* * *

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

NJT TAKES BIDS ON REMOVING CONTAMINATED SOIL FROM CAMDEN

Date: 031116
From: http://www.nj.com/newsflash/jersey/

Associated Press, 11/15/03

Camden - NJ Transit has decided to accept bids for removing a mound
of contaminated dirt piled beside its new light rail line.

The rail agency already has begun trucking one-third of the 123,000
cubic yards of soil out of state. It is taking bids for the rest.

NJ Transit began the process without going to bid to demonstrate its
commitment to the community where the soil was heaped, spokeswoman
Lynn Bowersox told the Courier-Post of Cherry Hill.

Now that the process has begun, Bowersox said, NJ Transit has time to
"try to get a better deal."

The dirt was excavated from the right of way along NJ Transit's 34-
mile, Camden-to-Trenton light rail line, which is expected to begin
running Feb. 15. The agency is unsure exactly where the dirt came
from.

It contains low levels of hazardous substances, such as lead, zinc,
arsenic, cadmium and polychlorinated biphenyl. The levels are
acceptable for industrial areas, provided the substances are capped,
but they are considered unsuitable for residential areas.

Trucking contractors were asked to submit two bids: One for hauling
the dirt to an unspecified disposal site and another to convey the
dirt to nearby railroad cars.

* * *

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

PROPOSED CANADIAN INCINERATOR FOR NJ TOXIC WASTES

Date: 031114
From: http://canadaeast.com/

ENVIRONMENTAL WAR OF WORDS HEATS UP OVER PROPOSED N.B. INCINERATOR

By Chris Morris, Brunswick News, November 14, 2003

Fredericton (CP) - A New Brunswick environmental group has accused
provincial environment officials of bowing to political and corporate
pressure in approving the construction of a toxic waste incinerator.

But as the war of words over the incinerator intensified Thursday,
the environment minister fired back against the Conservation Council
of New Brunswick, accusing the environmental group of twisting the
facts to frighten people about the project.

"We have a group that is using any type of slight of hand and
misinformation they want to raise fear in the hearts of New
Brunswickers," Brenda Fowlie said. "This project is being given a full
review and pollution control equipment is being put in place. "

Bennett Environmental Inc. is building the $10-million incinerator in
the northern New Brunswick town of Belledune. It will be used to burn
hydrocarbons and creosote from industrial sites.

David Coon and Inka Milewski of the Conservation Council said
documents obtained under the province's Right to Information Act show
that former environment minister, Kim Jardine, was ready in December
2002 to call for a full environmental impact assessment of the
incinerator project.

However, one month later she had changed her mind for some reason and
said no assessment was needed.

Milewski said it appears the minister, defeated in the provincial
election last June, bowed to pressure from another government
department - Business New Brunswick.

"There was a lot of pressure from Business New Brunswick on behalf of
their client, Bennett Environmental," Milewski said.

She said that among other things, the government jet was used to
ferry Bennett and government officials around the province.

But Fowlie said Jardine's December letter dealt with Bennett's first
proposal for a larger project, not the smaller incinerator now being
built.

Although the incinerator is under construction, it has not yet
received full operating approval.

The company has reportedly landed a $200-million, three-year contract
to treat contaminated soil from a hazardous waste site in New Jersey.
Much of that soil would be brought in and treated in Belledune.

Coon said New Brunswickers can't have any confidence in the
environmental approval process.

"The lesson is clear," he said. "New Brunswickers can no longer have
faith in our environmental assessment process to protect the public
interest if it is trumped by political interference."

* * *

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTION ACT 'BROKEN'

Date: 031116
From: http://www.latimes.com/

A TOP INTERIOR OFFICIAL SAYS THE LAW SHOULD BE REVISED
TO GIVE ECONOMIC AND OTHER INTERESTS EQUAL FOOTING
WITH ENDANGERED ANIMALS AND PLANTS

By Julie Cart, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer, November 14, 2003

Santa Barbara - A senior official of the U.S. Interior Department, in
a wide-ranging critique of the Endangered Species Act, said Thursday
that the needs of an expanding population, agriculture interests and
burgeoning development in the West should be given equal consideration
with endangered plants and animals.

Attending an endangered species conference in Santa Barbara,
Assistant Secretary of Interior Craig Manson criticized the critical-
habitat provision of the law, which limits development in areas
favored by threatened species, saying such designations aren't
necessary for the perpetuation of many plants and animals.

Manson oversees the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the agency
responsible for enforcing the Endangered Species Act.

In an interview before his speech here, Manson said the 30-year-old
environmental law is "broken" and should no longer be used to give
endangered plants and animals priority over human needs.

"The problem is the act was not written with a great deal of
flexibility," he said, adding that the interests of developers and
private property owners in some cases should prevail over endangered
species.

"There are so many things we did not anticipate 30 years ago. It was
almost written in a public policy vacuum, without any consideration of
the potential impacts of the act on larger and different issues. We
didn't anticipate the potential conflicts. We have to recognize that,
A, we can't protect everything, and, B, we have to carefully examine
whether we should try to protect everything, and at what cost?"

But former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, who also was a speaker
Thursday, was sharply critical of the Bush administration's
stewardship of endangered and threatened species.

"There is nothing wrong with the Endangered Species Act. It works,"
said Babbitt, who served during the Clinton administration. "The
problem is this administration is not enforcing it and it doesn't want
it to work. They want it to fail."

Babbitt said the act can be highly flexible, citing a compromise
involving the San Francisco Bay delta. There, state and federal
officials came up with a plan for diverting water to San Joaquin
Valley farmers and Southern California city dwellers that left enough
to sustain native fish in the delta. Babbitt said the agreement is a
model of how the act can foster positive change.

But Babbitt agreed with Manson on critical habitat, saying the
statute could be struck down today with "no real-world consequences,"
noting that habitat provisions lie elsewhere in the act.

The Bush administration has placed fewer plants and animals on the
endangered species list than any other in the act's 30-year history.
Bush has listed 20 species since taking office. President Clinton
listed 211 during his first three years in office.

Conservationists note that none of the listings made during Bush's
tenure were done voluntarily by the Fish and Wildlife Service. All
came as a result of lawsuits or petitions from private groups.

This week, the Senate passed a bill that would exempt military bases
from some sections of the act, including the critical-habitat
provision. Manson said he supports the bill.

Manson, a former California Superior Court judge, served six years as
general counsel for the California Department of Fish and Game.

In a recent interview with The Times, Manson questioned the wisdom of
extreme efforts to stave off extinction of all species. "If we decide
we are going to spend $100 million to save a species we've imperiled,
why are we doing that? Are we doing that because it serves human
interests to do that? Are we doing that for the exercise of saving
something that nature can't take care of : regardless of our efforts?
If we are saying that the loss of species in and of itself is
inherently bad - I don't think we know enough about how the world
works to say that."

The act's purpose, he said, "is not to create a perpetual hospice for
threatened or endanged species. It's our responsibility to get them to
the point of recovery."

Conservation groups are highly critical of Manson's stance toward
critical habitat, citing the Fish and Wildlife Service's own
statistics that show endangered species with critical habitat
designation are twice as likely to be improving as species without.

"The reason groups like mine pursue protection with critical habitat
is that the science is absolutely clear that species with critical
habitat are doing better," said Kieran Suckling, executive director of
the Center for Biological Diversity.

* * *

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

OP/ED: LANDS WORTH LEAVING ALONE

Date: 031117
From: http://www.nytimes.com/

NY Times Editorial, November 14, 2003

Last April, Interior Secretary Gale Norton and Gov. Michael Leavitt
of Utah struck a deal that removed federal protection from about 2.6
million acres of land in Utah that her predecessor, Bruce Babbitt, had
designated as potential wilderness. The consequences of that deal are
now becoming clear. The Bureau of Land Management, part of Interior,
recently announced plans to sell oil and gas leases on 16,000 acres in
and near Desolation Canyon, a fragile landscape that would almost
certainly have remained off limits under the Babbitt policy.
Environmental groups have filed protests aimed not only at protecting
Desolation Canyon but also at sending a larger message: that the fate
of these and other lands of national significance should ultimately be
decided by Congress, not the oil and gas industry.

The conservationists have reason to worry, for what we are seeing is
the unhappy confluence of two states of mind. One is the
administration's indifference to the value of wilderness - indeed, Ms.
Norton has essentially renounced her authority to recommend more lands
for wilderness protection. The other is the durable fantasy that the
nation can deal with oil dependency and natural gas shortages if the
drillers are let loose on public lands.

The net result has been a strategy of fast-tracking oil leases
throughout the West, most conspicuously in areas that the Interior
Department regarded as worthy of wilderness designation in the days
before the Bush administration. In addition to the Utah lands,
Vermillion Basin in Colorado, Jack Morrow Hills in Wyoming and other
areas rich in wildlife and scenic beauty may soon be up for grabs. And
the 100-mile-long Rocky Mountain Front in northern Montana, currently
under Forest Service protection, is also in the Interior Department's
sights.

It's not as if the oil and gas companies have no place else to go, or
as if the resources under these wild and scenic lands are large enough
to make a real difference to national security. They aren't. Fully 88
percent of the public lands in the Rocky Mountains are open for oil
and gas drilling; in Wyoming, the figure is 94 percent. At issue,
really, are scraps of land, places the Wilderness Society calls "too
wild to drill." Relative to the country's overall needs, these scraps
contain only trivial amounts of oil and natural gas.

Nobody expects the administration to abandon its basic doctrine that
aggressive exploitation of the public domain is necessary to achieve
energy independence. Yet a rebellion is slowly taking shape, not only
among Mr. Bush's usual adversaries in the conservation movement and in
Congress, but also among some of his natural constituents, like the
Republican ranchers in Wyoming who worry about the impact of coal-bed
methane extraction on their water supplies and the sportsmen who do
not want the oil and gas companies anywhere near the Rocky Mountain
Front. These are people who tend to vote for Mr. Bush. But they are
not at all happy with what he is doing on the federal lands.

* * *

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

HARD TO GET COMPROMISE ON 2-STROKE ENGINES

Date: 16 Nov 2003
From: "Peter Montague" {Pe...@rachel.org}

By Joan Leary Matthews, Albany Times Union, Nov. 16, 2003

Snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles and personal watercraft (more
commonly known by the trade name Jet Skis).

Users love them because they're fast, they're noisy and they provide
access to wilderness areas. Others loathe them because - well -
they're fast, they're noisy and they provide access to wilderness
areas.

These opposing views play out locally and nationally - from the
village of Lake George's ban as of 2006 on personal watercraft within
1,500 feet of the shoreline of the "jewel of the Adirondacks" to the
Bush administration's decision to open more federal lands to
snowmobilers.

The concerns presented by these vehicles are many: air, water and
noise pollution, wildlife habitat destruction and perceived affronts
to the less tangible "quality of life."

Air, water, and noise pollution can be traced to the type of engines
traditionally installed in these vehicles - carbureted two-stroke
engines. These engines are noisy, and the combustion process is not
complete, causing greater exhaust emissions from these vehicles than
from a car.

With this two-stroke technology, approximately one-third of the fuel
goes directly into the air and water. In 1998, California officials
found that one personal watercraft emitted the same amount of smog-
forming pollution in seven hours as a new car driven 100,000 miles.

Habitat destruction is another flash point. Animals, like humans, can
be alarmed by the speed and noise of these vehicle. Personal
watercraft can destroy loon nests, and snowmobiles and ATVs can harm
the terrain of other species.

Apart from the environmental issues that arise, quality of life
concerns are perhaps more rooted in one's preferred choice of
recreation. From the canoeist, cross- country skier and hiker's
perspective, quiet and solitude are a major part of the outdoor
experience. They question why anyone would want to drive a loud,
smelly, polluting vehicle and lose that connection with nature.

In contrast, the operator of the personal watercraft, ATV or
snowmobile may question why one needs to "do all that work" when these
vehicles can get you where you want to go to faster, and you can have
loads of fun getting there. Vehicle operators insist that they have a
right to recreate the way that they want - though it may not be the
choice of other people.

Government officials need to respond - at least to the environmental
concerns raised by the vehicles. The question is, how?

One response is to ban these vehicles completely - throughout the
state or the country. Is this realistic? I'll go out on a limb here
and say probably not.

Partial bans, either lake-by-lake or within a lake, are next on the
list. In the early 1990s, Efner Lake, in Corinth, banned the use of
personal watercraft. Other bans have occurred in designated areas of
lakes, exemplified by the village of Lake George's decision, which
also sets rules that affect other personal recreation vehicles.

Another response is to require changes to the technology - for both
engines and fuel. This approach is showing some promise at the federal
and state levels. Since the 1990s, the federal government has set
emissions limits that have resulted in changes to these engines.
California has established even more stringent emissions limits.

The state Department of Environmental Conservation recently adopted
California's standards requiring more stringent emissions controls on
personal watercraft, beginning with the 2006 model year (though more
reluctantly - it had to be sued to do what the New York Legislature
told it to do).

But how to address that other aspect of vehicle use - individual
choice of recreation? Do we really want everyone to enjoy the same
type of recreation? Perhaps it's best to address the easier and more
tangible environmental issues and leave the recreation choice alone.

* * *

# # #

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

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

COMING TO TERMS

Date: 031115
From: Janet...@aol.com

OUR NAMES FOR PEOPLE WHO RESPECT THE ENVIRONMENT
SHOULD BE AS VARIED AS THE WAYS WE SEE IT

By John P. Wiley, Jr., Smithsonian Magazine, December 1998

Fifty-five years ago, when I was happily tracking mice in the newly
fallen snow and pasting wildlife stamps into paper albums, there was
no doubt in my mind as to what I was. Clearly I was a conservationist,
someone who believed the natural world was endlessly fascinating and
beautiful, and that therefore as much of it as possible should be
saved. You'd think people who want to conserve would be called
conservatives or something of the sort, but that's not how it works.
Moreover, few people I know refer to themselves as conservationists
anymore. Today anyone who cares about any aspect of the "natural
world" is called an environmentalist or, in Euro jargon, an enviro.

In what I understood to be its original definition, a conservationist
was a reasonable person, one who understood and agreed with Gifford
Pinchot, who was the first chief of the U.S. Forest Service. Yes, we
would save some of nature, but we would also extract some of nature's
wealth, whether it be timber, minerals, fish and game, or even salt
hay. The passionate few, who wanted nature just plain saved wherever
possible, guarded against any and all kinds of human interference,
were known as preservationists. That has always been an extreme
position, one often resented even by conservationists. (A few years
before her death, I suggested to my mother - a lifelong
conservationist, not to mention teacher of natural history - that a
certain tract of land should be preserved to the extent of prohibiting
all human intrusion. "You mean just let it rot?!" she protested.)

When the term "environmentalist" became popular, I understood it to
denote people who were concerned about the physical environment, the
pollution of our air and water. They could be found in small boats at
night, taking samples of what a factory was dumping into a river, or
in legislative hallways or courtrooms by day, where they pushed the
passage, and then enforcement, of laws that would protect our health.
They might never be found in the places conservationists were found,
nature preserves and tidal flats, exploring stream valleys or tree
lines. And they might not care very much at all about the demise of
dusky seaside sparrows or California gnatcatchers.

All of us are environmentalists, in the sense that we would just as
soon have clean air and water. A lot of us are conservationists, as
witness the millions who belong to one or more of the "Big 10"
conservation groups: the National Wildlife Federation, the National
Audubon Society, the Sierra Club and the rest. Not a few of us are
out-and-out preservationists, although nowadays we go by different
names. (One, unfortunately, is "tree hugger.") Metaphorically
speaking, our instinct is to build fences around whatever is left. The
smallest loss hurts: the sight of bulldozers tearing out the young
trees and all the understory on a last vacant lot in an otherwise
completely developed section of a suburb is surprisingly painful.

A hard-eyed realist might argue that nothing "natural" remains
anywhere in the world, so there's no use mourning what no longer is.
It's certainly true that nature "ain't what she used to be." The most
remote parts of the American backcountry teem with organisms from
other lands: salt cedar and Russian olive, common reed and purple
loosestrife. Rivers that once ran clear are now not all that far from
being slurries; some rivers no longer flow at all. When I go walking
in rural Virginia, where solid hardwood forest once stood, I have to
push through tree of heaven and around the multiflora rose, and carry
clippers to chop futilely at the Japanese honeysuckle that is trying
to strangle everything in sight. The air itself brings oxides of
nitrogen and sulfur, ionizing radiation, a mist of particles too fine
to see, unburned jet fuel and all manner of effluvia.

In the long, long view, however, everything is natural. Leave aside
the valid argument that human beings are part of nature and therefore
everything we do is natural. The changes wrought by the ice ages,
coming and going, were natural. The apocalyptic changes that occurred,
apparently when an asteroid hit Earth, were natural. The first
appearance of photosynthesizing organisms, which exuded oxygen, a gas
poisonous to all then living creatures, was catastrophic, but it was
natural. The eruption of so much carbon dioxide from Lake Nyos in
Cameroon that people and animals around it died for lack of oxygen was
natural, as was the bringing together by flowing water of enough of
the right kind of uranium to start a nuclear chain reaction 1.75
billion years ago in what is now Gabon. If it's natural that
continents break up and drift apart, surely it's natural that
airplanes and ships should inadvertently carry living things from one
continent to another, and hobbyists and collectors consciously move
them from one to another. Does it matter that starlings and the
invasive mile-a-minute vine were not here when the first Europeans
arrived?

What unites river keepers, protesters in treetops, middle-aged
birders, children discovering aquatic invertebrates, tropical
biologists, environmental lawyers and toddlers stumbling after
butterflies is not mystical worship of pristine ecosystems but a
respect, even a reverence, for life. I don't mean a fanatical respect.
(I remember well the times, not all that many years ago, when it
seemed I was spending more for cockroach bombs than I was spending for
food each week. And even though I'm goofy about dogs, I'm very happy
that cardiac surgeons first learned their coronary bypass skills
operating on dogs rather than people.) The kind of respect for life
I'm driving at does go beyond any potential usefulness to ourselves,
however. We've all heard about the medicines expected to be discovered
in as yet unknown living organisms. The potential is very real. But
there's more to it than that. The natural world has been described as
our life-support system, harking back to the metaphor of Earth as
spaceship. Last year Robert Costanza of the University of Maryland and
his coauthors tried something that a recent briefing in the British
journal Nature said has been described as both "heroic" and
"foolhardy." They tried to put a dollar value on all the services the
natural world provides us: water filtering and storage, flood
mitigation, pest control, soil generation, air filtering, plant
pollination, oxygen production, and on and on. (Their result: $33
trillion a year, more than the combined gross national products of all
the countries in the world.)

Mainstream economists largely dismissed the paper, according to
Nature, on the grounds that Costanza and his group didn't properly
understand what they were doing. But some thought that even if the
attempt was flawed, it was still useful. Trudy Cameron, of the
University of California, Los Angeles, called it "a recklessly heroic
attempt to do something that's futile." She went on to say, however,
that the paper has been "very useful - it has stirred things up a
lot." Dollars aside, we must recognize the value to science of each
and every living thing on the planet, the loss of which is like the
loss of a volume from an encyclopedia.

I'm thinking more of a respect for life for its own sake, whether it
be a hovering dragonfly or the intricate orange flower of the
jewelweed plant. I'm thinking of the perfection of a white caterpillar
crawling along the ground, or a roseate spoonbill feeding or a dolphin
leaping. I'm thinking of the biologist E. O. Wilson writing, in
Biophilia, "...mysterious and little known organisms live within
walking distance of where you sit. Splendor awaits in minute
proportions."

An invisible army of men and women have devoted their lives to
studying our fellow organisms and, it is safe to say, developed a
respect for them, grudging or otherwise. The umbrella term "field
biologist" seems inadequate. A quick glance through the directory of
the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History produces
botanists of all sorts, as well as entomologists, mammalogists,
ornithologists, herpetologists, microbiologists, ichthyologists and
more. There are field biologists working in all levels of government
and for any number of conservation organizations as well as profit-
making companies. Most, needless to say, are not in it for the money.
Some are ever so slowly creating a new discipline, called conservation
biology, complete with journals and meetings devoted to exactly what
the name implies. We don't yet have a word for people who stay out of
the woods altogether, so that they won't trample seedlings underfoot.
(The Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess, who first coined the phrase
"deep ecology," is supposed to have had such misgivings.) We don't
have a word for the person who joins no organization, sends no money,
attends no public meetings, but from time to time picks up knapsack
and canteen and spends a day or a week soaking up the world of woods
or desert or estuary.

To use the word "enviro" to label anyone who has respect for all
forms of life is to embrace a poverty of language that we don't have
to tolerate. My old taxonomy of preservationist, conservationist and
environmentalist is just about as pauperized. What we need is a new
field guide, complete with distinguishing characteristics, so we'll be
able to name all the ways of looking at a very complicated world. Then
at least we'll know who we're talking about.

* * *

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

CAMPBELL LAUDS TOXIC CRAB PUBLIC HEALTH OUTREACH

Date: 14 Nov 2003
From: "Hugh Carola" {hu...@hackensackriverkeeper.org}

THE CRAB PROJECT: A REPORT TO THE COMMUNITY

DEP COMMISSIONER LAUDS PARTNERSHIP FOR
PUBLIC HEALTH OUTREACH ON TOXIC CRABS

November 14, 2003

Bayonne - Government officials and community leaders came together
here on the shores of Newark Bay for The Crab Project: Report to the
Community. "The purpose of our being here is to review a year's worth
of work on an unprecedented public health initiative," said Captain
Bill Sheehan, Executive Director of Hackensack Riverkeeper. The Crab
Project involves Hackensack Riverkeeper, the NJ Department of
Environmental Protection, and several community-based organizations to
educate people about the dangers of eating Blue claw crabs from the
Newark Bay Complex.*

The daylong event featured reports from four community groups that
received NJDEP grants this year to educate people in their communities
about the crabs, which are contaminated with harmful levels of Dioxin
and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBS). Among the worst contaminated
sites within the Complex is a six-mile stretch of the Lower Passaic
River into which dioxin was dumped by chemical manufacturer Diamond
Shamrock in the late 1960s.

DEP Commissioner Bradley Campbell was the featured speaker here at
the Robbins Reef Yacht Club who told the attendees that; "The groups
represented here today are the most effective means of getting this
critical information to the people who need it most." He was joined in
his praise by Ms. Kerry Kirk Pflugh, Manager of Outreach and Education
for the DEP's Division of Watershed Management. Other speakers
included:

* Andrew Arboleda of the Immigration & American Citizenship
Organization (IACO), located in Passaic, NJ. Mr. Arboleda related
to the attendees how his organization published four articles about
the Project in its bimonthly newsletter, La Guia Del Inmigrante,
and reached over 10,000 readers. Over the past year, IACO has also
been showing the Spanish-language version of the DEP-produced Fish
Consumption Advisory video in the waiting room of its Passaic
office.

* Michelle Garcia, Executive Director of Newark's Ironbound Community
Corporation, explained how more than 1,700 people were reached last
year by her organization. From after-school programs to "Toxic
Tours" to one-on-one encounters, ICC volunteers and staff educated
people in English, Spanish and Portuguese along the banks of the
Passaic River.

* Troy Hudson from the Elizabeth Presbyterian Center in Elizabeth, NJ
spoke about the Center's outreach to children and to expectant
mothers through its "Fishing Safely" program. "The most important
thing to me is to get the message across to little kids and to
pregnant women," said Mr. Hudson who added, "They are the ones who
are most in danger from this toxic legacy."

* Michelle Doran McBean, CEO of Future City, Inc. in Elizabeth, NJ
unveiled a large tabletop display that detailed her organization's
work over the past year to reach those most at risk from the
contamination. Ms. McBean also explained how Future City was able
to link the Crab Project with a program designed to warn people
about the dangers of lead in drinking water.

Due to scheduling conflicts, representatives from the Jewish
Renaissance Medical Center in Perth Amboy, NJ were unable to attend.
However their work to educate people in the Arthur Kill area was duly
noted by Ms. Kirk Pflugh and Captain Sheehan.

"The best news of the day is that the DEP is committed to another
round of Crab Project grants for next year," said Captain Sheehan,
whose organization administered the $60,000.00 worth of grants this
year. "Each of the recipients did a tremendous job and reached
literally thousands of people but there is still a lot of work to be
done," he added.

- - -

*The Newark Bay Complex includes the Bay, the lower Hackensack River
from the Bay to the Oradell Dam, the lower Passaic River from the Bay
to Dundee Dam in Passaic, the Arthur Kill and the Kill Van Kull. A
total of forty-two municipalities in six counties (Bergen, Passaic,
Hudson, Essex, Union, and Middlesex) are affected by the Advisory.
People found fishing for crabs in those waterways risk a fine of up to
$3,000.00 for the first offense (NJAC 7:25-14, 18A).

Digital photographs are available upon request.

Hackensack Riverkeeper is the leading environmental organization
working on Hackensack River issues.

* * *

Hugh M. Carola, Program Director
Hackensack Riverkeeper
231 Main Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
201-968-0808
201-968-0336 (FAX)
http://www.HackensackRiverkeeper.org

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

NJAS LAUNCHES INSTITUTE FOR FIELD NATURALISTS

Date: 14 Nov 2003
From: "Green Gram" {gree...@njaudubon.org}

The New Jersey Audubon Society has created a new Institute for Field
Naturalists (IFFN), an outgrowth of the Society's tradition of
extended, in-depth natural history workshops.

IFFN WORKSHOPS:

* offer a comprehensive look at topics spanning the spectrum of
natural history and conservation

* include field and classroom sessions at or near one of NJAS's nine
staffed nature centers

* are designed for adults of all experience levels; the single
criterion is a keen interest in the subject matter

All participants in IFFN workshops will receive a certificate on
completion, and professional development credits are available for
teachers.

Check http://www.njaudubon.org/IFFN for complete information on IFFN,
including listings of upcoming workshops and downloadable registration
forms.

COMING WORKSHOPS INCLUDE:

OWLS, HAWKS AND WINTER WATERFOWL ON NJ'S DELAWARE BAYSHORE
January 23-26, 2004, NJAS Center for Research and Education
(609) 861-0700
Four days of birding and learning.

NATURE INTERPRETATION
Feb. 14 & 15, 2004, NJAS Center for Research and Education
(609) 861-0700
The art and science of developing and presenting programs about
nature.

MAMMALS OF THE NORTHEAST
February 20 -22, 2004, NJAS Scherman-Hoffman Wildlife Sanctuary
(908) 766-5787
Overview of northeastern land mammal identification, ecology, tracks
and signs.

ENGAGING SPRING
March 7 & March 29 2004, Plainsboro Preserve, (609)-897-9400
Learn the science behind spring's arrival & spring backyard habitat
tips.

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS
May 1-2, 2004, NJAS Scherman-Hoffman Wildlife Sanctuary (908) 766-5787
Status, identification and ecology of many species.

FIELD BOTANY OF CENTRAL JERSEY AND THE PINE BARRENS
June 12-13, 2004, Plainsboro Preserve, (609)-897-9400
Strengthen your knowledge of plants at the height of the flowering
season.

HAWK MIGRATION ON THE RIDGES
October 1-2, and November 5-6, 2004,
NJAS Scherman-Hoffman Wildlife Sanctuary (908) 766-5787
Weather patterns, sources and destinations of migrating raptors, field
identification.

ENGAGING FALL ON THE NEW JERSEY COAST
October 9 - 10, 2004, Plainsboro Preserve (609)-897-9400
The coast prepares for winter: migration, autumn colors.

TREES, SHRUBS AND VINES OF THE MID-ATLANTIC
October 23 - 24, 2004, NJAS Scherman-Hoffman Wildlife Sanctuary
(908) 766-5787
Knowing woody plants is essential to naturalists.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

DELAWARE RIVERKEEPER NETWORK CRAFT SHOW - DEC 12, 13

Date: 14 Nov 2003
From: "Debby Colgan" {blu...@mindspring.com}

CRAFTERS/ARTISTS HOLIDAY CRAFT SHOW TO BENEFIT
DELAWARE RIVERKEEPER NETWORK

Thirty-seven artisans will be selling their own works of jewelry,
pottery, clothing, glass, wood, fine art, and a diversity of small
gift items on December 12, Friday night 5 to 9:00 pm and Saturday,
December 13, 10 am to 5:00 pm at the Prallsville Mill, Stockton, NJ
(4 miles north of Lambertville, NJ on Rt. 29).

The Show will benefit the Delaware Riverkeeper Network.

For information call 215-369-1188

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Phil Reynolds - Editor - reyn...@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

0 new messages