WolfeNotes.com

For information, go to: Stop These Wars

[Update 3 – 12/7/10 – Bergen Record reports: N.J. Gov. Chris Christie open to cutting bear hunt shortMy guess is that all the phone calls, media coverage, and photos of dead bears are having an impact – keep up the pressure on the Goveror!]

Update 2: 12/5/10 – Star Ledger set up story: On eve of N.J. bear hunt, both sides of debate plead their cases

Update 1: 12/4/10 – here are Rutgers Professors Tavss Reports critiquing DEP F&W justification for the bear hunt – click on – more after I read them:

• An Investigation Into the reported Surge of Serious Bear Incidents in New Jersey From 2007 To 2009

CONCLUSION

• There was a reported surge in bear incidents in 2008 and 2009.
• The cause of the reported surge in 2009 was investigated.
• It was not caused by a surge in bear population.
• It was not caused by a decrease in bears’ natural food supply.
• It was caused by a combination of scientifically unacceptable practices:

1. multiple sources for collecting and interpreting the data in 2009 (as compared to 2007)

2. many duplicate records in 2009 (as compared to 2007)

3. frequent mis-categorizations of type in 2009 (as compared to 2007)

4. many faxed police department reports in 2009 (as compared to 2007)

• The collection and interpretation of data in 2009 were scientifically flawed.

When adjustments were made to correct these errors, linear regression analyses of the resulting data demonstrated that from 1999 to 2009 there was actually a statistically significant decrease in complaints, not an increase.

• Correlation of reduction in nuisance black bear complaints with implementation of (a) a hunt vs. (b) a non-violent program

CONCLUSION

The New Jersey Fish and Game Council issued a report on Comprehensive Black Bear (Ursus americanus) Management Policy. That document defines the New Jersey Fish and Game Council’s policies and recommendations regarding the continued management of resident black bears in New Jersey. A primary objective of the Council policy is to use bear management approaches that will reduce human conflicts/complaints regarding black bears. The primary approaches being considered to meet this objective are (a) a hunt and (b) a non-violent approach (educating the public about bears’ propensity to eat garbage, bear-proofing garbage containers, enforcing ordinances regarding garbage, etc.). Data from three national parks, three local communities, five states (including New Jersey) and one Canadian province were studied to determine the effects of these two approaches on the reduction of human complaints/conflicts. The results demonstrate that at every site in which the hunting approach was evaluated no effect in reducing the human complaints/conflicts was observed while at every site in which the non-violent program was evaluated, the non-violent approach was demonstrated to be markedly effective in reducing human complaints/conflicts. It is particularly important to note that in the state of New Jersey the number of complaints has been statistically significantly declining over the last seven years, consistent with using the non-violent approach. It is recommended that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection consider revision of the proposed policy of the New Jersey Fish and Game Council so as to enhance the non-violent approach to managing New Jersey’s black bears, an approach that has already been proven to be successful in New Jersey and elsewhere, and concurrently terminate the hunting option, an approach that has been proven not to be effective.

“Christie Lies – Black Bears Die – Cancel the Hunt!

“No Blood for Votes – Cancel the Hunt!” were the chants echoing on the Statehouse steps this afternoon, as about 50 protestors demanded that Governor Christie block the black bear hunt scheduled to begin Monday morning.

According to a DEP press release I just received as I am writing this, an Appeals Court rejected attempts to block the hunt:

A state Appellate Division Court today dismissed a legal challenge to the Department of Environmental Protection’s Comprehensive Black Bear Management Policy (CBBMP), clearing the way for a week-long bear hunt that will take place in Northwest New Jersey starting on Monday.

A two-judge panel rejected a request for an injunction made by the New Jersey Animal Protection League and the Bear Education and Resource Group to prevent the State’s first black bear hunt since 2005.

As further evidence of their pro-hunt bias, DEP seems almost to celebrate the Court’s decision, and goes beyond mere vindication to an obnoxious posture of gloating:

“The facts and science are clear,” said DEP Commissioner Bob Martin. “There are a growing number of black bears in New Jersey and a resultant increase in public complaints about bear and human encounters. This is clearly a public safety issue that requires responsible action by DEP and the Fish and Game Council.”

But the facts and the science are not “clear”, and they never are. Human judgements always must reconcile scientific uncertainty to make decisions.

Regardless, even if they were, science can not be used to evade responsibility for making a deeply unpopular policy decision that has profound ethical implications and that fails to reflect democratic preferences.

What DEP Commissioner Martin fails to comprehend is that DEP is a public agency and the state’s wildlife resources legally are owned by the people of the state (if ownership is even a legitimate concept for wildlife). DEP merely stewards those resources as a public trust obligation. DEP is accountable to the public, not the hunters.

DEP, the Fish & Game Council, and the less than 1% of NJ residents that hunt, do not own the black bear population.

This is America – the public’s values and preferences must play a role in DEP’s wildlife management decisions.

In this case, the public strongly opposes the hunt, which is being driven by the pro-hunting faction that dominates the NJ Fish & Game Council.

The facts and the science are in dispute regarding everything from the actual black bear population, the effect of hunting on population, the trends in bear nuisance complaints, the actual threats to humans posed by bears, the effect of hunting on reducing bear nuisance complaints, whether hunting reduces risks to humans, the effectiveness of non-lethal alternatives, among other issues.

According to a Rutgers scientist, Dr. Edward Tavss, the DEP’s Division of Fish and Wildlife justification for the hunt is scientifically flawed.

But DEP arrogantly dismisses all these competing scientific and wildlife management policy views.

There also are profound ethical questions about the morality of what amouts to slaughtering bears to satisfy a recreational trophy hunting faction. (I was told that DEP F&W staff are giving the GPS locations of bears to hunters, based on tagged collars. What kind of sport is that?)

There are public policy questions about public anti-hunting preferences and ethics that transcend science. Balancing the risks to communities in bear country is just one of these policy factors that involve judgement and human values, not solely science.

Should humans have expectations of total safety if they choose to build homes and live in bear habitat?

If human wastes (garbage) feed the bears and stimulate bear population growth, who is then responsible for human bear conflicts associated with growing bear and human populations increasingly located in bear habitat?

If hunters drive bears out of the woods into suburban areas, who is responsible?

Those kind of issues have not been seriously considered by DEP, because the decision process is driven by the pro-hunting faction that controls the Fish and Game Council.

The mere recent attempt to pass legislation to balance the composition of the F&G Council to put non-hunting public members on the Council triggered a huge and ugly political attack by organized hunting interests. Legislators are literally afraid of these people.

Those same hunting groups have politically endorsed Governor Christie, creating the appearance of a quid pro quo.

And just like Christie’s bullying pit bull political style, Anthony P. Mauro, the head of the pro-hunt NJ Outdoor Alliance, called environmental groups “eco-terrorists”. In the same style, here’s arrogant attack dog Governor Christie, ridiculing deeply felt beliefs:

One demonstrator, Edita Birnkrant, the New York director of Friends of Animals, appealed to Christie to use his gubernatorial power to stop the hunt.

Christie was unswayed. He called the group’s claims “laughable” at a news conference Friday and said the hunt was “environmentally, ecologically sound.”

The hunt is scheduled for Monday – groups are urging people to call Governor Christie (@ 609-292-6000) and ask him to kill the hunt.

More to follow – photos below.

[Update #2 – 12/7/10 – The Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee released the stormwater and TMDL bills (see below) yesterday. Senator Smith did a fine job sheparding the bills. Smith proposed 5 “technical amendments” to the TMDL bill, which received the support of Chairman Sarlo and members of the Committeee, but because they were not yet in written form and OLS could not finish drafting, the 5 amendments will be done on the Senate floor.

The Senate will hear the 7 bill BBay package later this month. While the Smith amendments do not go as far as recommended below (e.g. 300 foot buffers on tributaries, integration with CAFRA and other DEP permits, et al); or address problems associated with lack of DEP standards, monitoring, assessment and eutrophication stressor thresholds; or provide funding, they do improve the TMDL bill as follows:

1) the TMDL shall not delay implementation of existing BMP’s and DEP shall use all existing authority to the “maximum extent practicable” (this is Tim Dillingham’s amendment. It responds to a straw man argument that a TMDL could delay DEP’s efforts. But DEP has done NOTHING but watch as the Bay dies and DEP opposed the TMDL bill in Committee, so the delay argument is BS. In fact, just the opposite is true: the legislative mandate is the kick in the ass that what will get DEP in the game and moving;

2) the TMDL shall include an implementation plan, schedules for tasks, annual benchmarks to measure progress, etc. to assure the TMDL is implemented in a “timely manner” (I’ll take credit for that one, but I think Senator Beck may own it);

3) DEP shall use existing information and science;

4) redefine “Barnegat Bay” to “Barnegat Bay ecosystem” to assure that tributaries and wetlands are included. This is a good idea, but it skirts the regulatory status of the geographic extent of the bill, i.e. the TMDL will govern the entire watershed; does not resolve BMPs for riparian buffers; does not clarify the regulatory status and requirements for non-point source pollution, like agriculture, golf courses; and does not adddress pollution offsets for future growth adn new development, etc. This ambiguity will not fool or placate the Builders and it could threaten passage of floor amendments, as these issues are policy in nature and not “technical”; and

5) change “nitrates” to “nitrogen”. You can listen to the hearing – stormwater bill starts at time 17 minutes, and the TMDL bill at minute 22.]

Update #1 – 12/4/10 – The fertilizer issue is important, but reducing nitrogen concentration in residential fertilizers can never address a total nitrogen loading problem. Worse, the focus on residential fertilizers is dominating far larger problems, especially over-development (no development, no fertilizer, no septic, no impervious surface, no stormwater, no loss of recharge, and so on ). The result is a severe narrowing of environmentalists’ advocacy for more aggressive and comprehensive enforceable solutions. Those flaws are brought out in Mike Miller, Atlantic City Press story, where environmentalists’ demands are lame:New Jersey may ban winter fertilizing to protect waterways

Exemption of golf courses and farms is a huge loophole – both are major sources of  nutrient pollution to the Bay. No disrespect to Tim Dillingham, but self regulation by landscapers is a joke. And is Assemblyman McKeon engaging in classics, with an allusion to Narcissus, who was led to the reflecting pond by Nemesis, and fell so in love with his reflection that he fell in and drown?

“The Barnegat Bay is well on its way to becoming a giant reflecting pool,” McKeon said.

Note to McKeon: failure to dramatically reduce nutrient loads to the Bay is not an aesthetic or nuisance issue. Ecosystems can crash. A polluted, warm, shallow, coastal lagoon like the Bay is a perfect petrie dish to grow exotic organisms that can create toxic harmful algal blooms (HAB). A toxic HAB would make stinging jellyfish seem like a picnic, and the media circus and panic that would ensue would make medical waste washups seem mild. A HAB would wipe out billions of dollars of property value and economic tourism.  end update]

A brief update on the status of the package of bills to protect Barnegat Bay.

Since the last Senate Environment Committee meeting on November 15, there have been important developments:

• The Asbury Park Press has editorialized in support (“Stop Stalling on Bay Bill)” and rain gardens
• Governor Christie told the Bay to DROP DEAD!
• The TMDL (S 2341) and stormwater utility (S 2275) bills are up in Senate Budget Committee on Monday (12/6/10) at 2 pm. I suspect that opponents will try to use cost arguments to kill both bills
• Save Barnegat Bay is working to get the fertilizer bill (S 1411) posted on the Senate Budget Committee’s agenda for next Monday or Wednesday, while fertilizer industry lobbyists are working hard behind the scenes to kill the bill. Here is SBB alert:

SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE MUST ACT ON FERTILIZER BILL – A-1411 (sic)

The all-important  lawn fertilizer bill that Save Barnegat Bay has been working on for three years, S-1411, needs to be voted in the Senate Budget Committee this Monday, December 6 or Wednesday, December 8.  If it is not, the bill will be threatened with major delays and possible gutting by Scotts Miracle-Gro’s lobbyists.

In order for the bill to receive timely passage, Senator Paul Sarlo, the Chairman of the Budget Committee must put S-1411 on the Budget Committee schedule for this Monday, December 6th or Wednesday, December 8th.

PLEASE PHONE the office of Senator Sarlo:  201-804-8118 

Please request of Senator Sarlo that he: 

(1) Put S-1411 – the lawn fertilizer bill – on the Budget Committee Agenda for Monday, December 6 or Wednesday December 8  
(2) Support the amendments of the bill’s sponsor (Senator Bob Smith), and
(3) Release the bill for a vote by the full Senate.

• I met yesterday with Senator Beck (R-Monmouth), at her request, to brief her on the TMDL program and my prior recommendations to amend and strengthen S 2341.

Because I am not a lobbyist and work openly, I share my recommendations below. That openess policy is not likely to get me many legislative meetings. But wouldn’t it be nice if all lobbyists were this transparent and accountable? (be the change you want to see!)

December 3, 2010

Dear Senator Beck:

Thank you for taking the time to meet yesterday concerning S 2341, the Barnegat Bay TMDL bill.

I’d like to 1) summarize our discussion; 2) provide examples you requested of EPA programs and other State TMDLs, including TMDLs for coastal lagoons, and 3) put a little more meat on the bones of the 3 basic legislative options I see.

I) Summary

1. I outlined Section 303 of the Clean Water Act TMDL program. DEP TMDL regulations (NJAC 7: 15-1 et seq) incorporate the federal EPA program regulations.

Under EPA regulations (40 CFR 130.7), a TMDL must be submitted to EPA for review and approval. A TMDL must comply with the following requirements:

(1) be designed to attain and maintain the applicable water quality standards, (2) include a total allowable loading and as appropriate, wasteload allocations (WLAs) for point sources and load allocations for nonpoint sources, (3) consider the impacts of background pollutant contributions, (4) take critical stream conditions into account (the conditions when water quality is most likely to be violated), (5) consider seasonal variations, (6) include a margin of safety (which accounts for uncertainties in the relationship between pollutant loads and instream water quality), (7) consider reasonable assurance that the TMDL can be met, and (8) be subject to public participation.

In the Chesapeake TMDL, EPA is also requiring pollutant offsets to address new pollutant loads caused by future growth. This offset policy is a key to controlling new pollutant loads from projected growth in the Barnegat bay watershed. For EPA Chesapeake TMDL information, click to read:

2. I then laid out the strengths of the BBay National Estuary Program (science, management plan, strategy, local support) but outlined the weakness in that management model that have led to failure to achieve management goals and allowed the continuing decline in water quality (partnership approach and lack of regulatory teeth). click link for BB NEP.

3. I outlined DEP’s lack of numeric surface water quality standards for nitrogen, the limitations in DEP’s soon to be adopted “narrative standard”, and the process by which DEP would develop either a numeric water quality standard or numeric thresholds to enforce a narrative standard.  click link for DEP “narrative nutrient criteria” rule proposal pending adoption.

If you’d really like to get far into the weeds on how this process works, here is EPA’s Nutrient Criteria Guidance for estuarine and coastal waters

And here are EPA AMBIENT WATER QUALITY CRITERIA RECOMMENDATIONS for nutrients in NJ’s eco-region – see values for total nitrogen and chlorophyl a

4. I outlined what I see as the flaws in the current DEP TMDL program and the benefits of a legislatively beefed up TMDL program:

The DEP TMDL program is broken due to a multitude of program design, regulatory, resource, bureuacratic silo, scientific unertainty, and management leadership issues.

5. I recommended that – especially given DEP testimony on S2341 that basically opposed the TMDL option – that legislation not only mandate that DEP adopt a TMDL, but specify a timetable and implementation requirements, most importantly with respect to riparian buffers, CAFRA, to clarify the regulatory the status of non-point pollution, and integrate the TMDL with other DEP permit programs. These legislative requirements could apply statewide, and improve the state’s TMDL program, which effects about 70% of NJ’s waters which are impaired and currently not meeting water quality standards.

6. Last, I summarized what I see as the benefits of the TMDL program, including:

• a pollution budget, which sets an enforceable total cap on pollution, mandatory numeric pollution reductions, and allows monitoring and measurement of progress towards water quality goals and thereby promotes accountability
• deadlines and schedules for discrete tasks, which promote efficiency, accountability, and public participation and oversight
• a “margin of safety” to account for scientific uncertainty
• a “reserve” margin to account for future growth, limit additional new pollutant loads, and provide a framework for pollution off-sets and mitigation
• TMDL would triggger 300 foot buffers as water quality BMPs on all tributaries
• TMDL is a tool to enforce the current CAFRA statute, which says DEP may deny a CAFRA permit due to “impairment”. This leverage could reduce development intensity, reduce impervious surfaces, increase preservation of natural vegetation, and strengthen current DEP stormwater maangement at future CAFRA developments.
• provide federal oversight and federal resources
• address all pollution sources, point source and non point source, regardless of ownership. The TMDL approach provides a framework to pursue the most cost effective retrofits and pollution source reductions in a phased manner over time
• TMDL allows for integration with ongoing scientific work, DEP permitting, and the overall BBay NEP management plan – no need to reinvent the wheel
• TMDL provides regulatory teeth.

II) EPA and Other State coastal lagoon and stormwater TMDLs

You asked for example of other state TMDLs. In addition to Chesapeak Bay, see:

Maryland Newport Bay – shallow coastal

Massachusetts TMDL – and Bay programs

Mid atlantic TMDL – stormwater examples

California scope of work – TMDL coastal lagoon

III) Legislative Options moving forward

I see 3 options:

1. Amend the current version of S 2341 to declare the Bay impaired and mandate that DEP adopt a TMDL

2. Draft a new bill to mandate a TMDL and specify implementation requirements and timetables

3. Await DEP’s Plan and draft a new bill to strengthen that DEP plan under a legislative TMDL framework

Option 2 is optimum, but would take work and could be a heavy lift. This option could include a basic variant (i.e. codify current EPA and DEP regualtions in legislation and direct DEP to implement a TMDL) or a stronger version (i.e. specific implementation requirements and schedules).

I am glad to work with you, Senator Smith, and OLS to flesh out this option.

Most of the TMDL progam elements were touched upon in my prior note to Senator Smith and Kevil. Basically, this would involve putting current EPA TMDL regulations in bill form and assigning deadlines to the major tasks involved.

New implementation requirements would need to be included to assure that DEP integrates the TMDL findings in permits and approvals issued in the Barnegat bay watershed.

Implementation in all DEP permit programs is current law. Specifically, under DEP rules, a TMDL amends an areawide water quality management plan. Under the Water Quality Planning Act, all DEP permits must be consistent with the areawide water quality management plan. Legislative provisions in a new TMDL could make this current law requirement more transparent and force DEP to implement current law, which they are not doing now.

Similarly, CAFRA already provides that DEP may deny a CAFRA permit based upon “impairment” of water quality. That provision is ignored, but a TMDL bill could enforce it by requiring DEP to enforce current law and integrate TMDL pollutant load reductions, BMP’s, and offset requirements in new CAFRA permits.

New legislation could strengthen current DEP best management practices.

Here are current EPA TMDL requlations

Under EPA TMDL regulations, a state adopted water quality BMP become enforceable, thus making a non-binding BMP a regulatory requirement.

Under NJ DEP’s stormwater management regulations (NJAC 7:8-5.5), the 300 foot riparian buffers are a state adopted water quality BMP.

Connecting the dots of EPA and DEP regulations, this means that a TMDL would impose 300 foot buffers on all Barnegat Bay watershed tributaries.

Beause this is a new and controversial interpretation of EPA and DEP regulations, this buffer requirement would need to be clartified and specified in legislation.

Please let me know how I can be of further assistance.

Bill Wolfe, Director

NJ PEER www.peer.org

PO Box 112 , Ringoes, NJ

c: Chairman Smith

Kevil Duhon, Senate Majority

Again showing the highly partisan and ideological disdain for regional planning and environmental protection that prompted installation of Nancy Wittenberg as head of the Pinelands Commission, Governor Christie today installed Marcia Karrow as head of the NJ Meadowlands Commission (originally the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission, HMDC).

The Meadowlands Commission, created in 1969, was NJ’s first regional planning entity and is responsible for environmental planning, solid waste management, land use zoning, and economic development planning in a 30.4 square mile portion of urbanized Bergen and Hudson Counties.

In contrast, Karrow is an inexperienced former conservative legislator from rural Hunterdon County.

An aggressive and vocal opponent of the NJ Highlands Council’s regional planning efforts and the NJ State Plan, Karrow’s sole qualification for the Meadowlands job appears to be that she chaired the Christie DEP Transition Team. That team crafted a series of extreme anti-environmental recommendations.

[Update: here’s what we wrote about Karrow last November:

Christie, by the way, just announced that Marcia Karrow, a Hunterdon County legislator and another vigorous opponent of the Highlands Act and DEP regulations, will chair the transition team’s environment subcommittee. How much more writing needs to be on the wall before the Trenton based environmental lobbyists wake up and engage?

The environmental threat posed by the Christie agenda was just doubled by the announcement of Marcia Karrow’s role overseeing the DEP transition (see this for an example of Karrow’s policy wisdom and these bills she sponsored: 1) an overt attempt to gut DEP rulemaking or 2) this radical property rights bill or 3) the Polluters Defense Act) or 4) this all out attack on the Highlands Act, the Council and DEP regulations: 0r 5) repeal of core elements of the Highlands Act and DEP water regulations; or 6) farmers water giveaway (and I left out lots of other crazy right wing stuff, like mandating English as the official state language, restoring the death penalty, expanding gun rights, radical property rights, attacks on urban NJ and public employees and dysfunctional California minority rule.)]

Karrow’s DEP transition recommendations bear repeating in light of the Meadowlands appointment, which illustrates NJ’s crony patrongage politics at its worst and makes the Wittenberg Pinelands appointment seem absolutely green. Governor Christie should be ashamed of himself for this cynical appointment.

So here are the Karrow Report rollback recommendations, listed in the order they appeared in the Report. Some of the worst are boldfaced (link to DEP Transition Report)

scale back or eliminate selected strategies that contribute the least to environmental improvement.

Reexamine regulations to ensure they are properly focused on specific, well defined goals, and minimize or eliminate peripheral requirements. An example of this is the waterfront Public Access rule adopted by DEP in 2007 without direction from the Legislature, which completely changed the existing waterfront public access framework and imposed onerous new fees without standards for how the fee would be applied or calculated.

Eliminate the Office of Policy, Planning and Science and allocate policy and planning responsibilities to the appropriate regulatory programs

Establish an advisory panel of external experts to advise DEP on matters of scientific and technological innovation.

Reinstate the Alternative Dispute Resolution program under the Counselor to the Commissioner which had helped expedite settlements, thus reducing the number of disputes referred to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) as contested cases.

Establish an Office of Economic Analysis at the Department of State or the Office of the Governor as a shared service for all State agencies and tasked to provide advice directly to commissioners regarding economic drivers including the projected economic effect of new regulations. This office should also assist in risk assessment analysis for when agencies are setting regulatory policy.

For every rule proposal, require a comprehensive discussion and peer review of the science the DEP considered in support of each element of the proposal, and for every rule adoption, the science relied upon by those commenting to support different policy choices, and any agreement, disagreement and uncertainty regarding the science.

Require the Office of Economic Analysis to evaluate the economic and financial impacts of proposed rules or other major regulatory decisions, including the potentially adverse impacts associated with taking no action

Require the Office of Economic Analysis to evaluate the analyses of economic impacts received from interested parties during the public comment period.

Convene one or more informal meetings with stakeholders to discuss rulemaking objectives and accept input on policies, and whenever appropriate, distribute draft rule text to stakeholders for comment prior to the preparation of rule proposals.

The DEP must fundamentally overhaul the way development projects are regulated and streamline the permitting process. The State must create an office that provides a single point of entry with an accountable person to shepherd companies pursuing complex projects through the regulatory process. The DEP must immediately suspend the implementation of requirements that have not been properly adopted through rulemaking, and immediately reconsider existing regulations that impose requirements that are not grounded in sound science, are impractical to satisfy, and conflict with other State environmental and land use policies.

Create a business/project ombudsman in the Office of the Governor to create a single point of entry for complex projects.

Provide that jurisdictional determinations (determinations as to whether or not a permit is necessary) may be requested and provided on-line.

Delegate land use permitting to the Meadowlands, Highlands, and Pinelands Commissions for the areas within their jurisdiction.

Eliminate duplicative reviews by accepting the approvals conducted under the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL) from other governmental jurisdictions when appropriate; for example, stormwater management plans need not be subject to multiple reviews.

Delegate land use permitting at brownfields sites to the Site Remediation Program

Immediately suspend the inappropriate use of the Landscape Project mapping of purported Threatened and Endangered species habitat.

Immediately rescind Administrative Orders requiring the application of 300-foot buffers from certain streams or rivers where existing rules require a 150-foot buffer.

Immediately suspend the practice of conditioning permits on the imposition of conservation easements on portions of property not subject to the pending application.

Revise existing rules to allow for the greater use of waivers and exceptions to specific requirements when project applicants demonstrate that alternatives will yield the equivalent or better environmental results. Immediately direct, as a matter of policy, that hardship waivers allowed under existing rules be granted when justified.

Reexamine buffer requirements in urban/disturbed areas and Planning Areas 1 and 2 designated for growth under the State Development and Redevelopment Plan (hereinafter referred to as the State Plan) as applied to wetlands, C-1 waters and potential Threatened and Endangered species habitat under Flood Hazard, Stormwater, and Wetlands rules.

Revise the Water Quality Management Planning rules (WQMP); update and improve sewer service areas through regional planning and coordinate with the State Plan.

Utilize the previously recommended business ombudsman to overcome existing regulatory hurdles without undermining environmental protections.

With respect to the State’s efforts to seek compensation for damages to natural resources (NRD), we recommend that NRD efforts fall under the jurisdiction of the Site Remediation Program, and that rules be adopted to provide transparency, certainty and consistency in the assessment of those damages.

Revise the Interim Rule to limit its scope to SRRA required elements. For example, the provisions of the interim rule applying new requirements for vapor intrusion were not mandated by SRRA and should be subject to fuller pubic review and comment before adoption. Vapor intrusion occurs when contaminants in groundwater or soil emit vapors that enter structures and could have a potential impact on human health.

Apply the DEP’s efforts toward compliance assistance to all site remediation professionals and responsible parties.

Review and revise current requirements pertaining to vapor intrusion within building structures, including how and when to test, notification, and/or mitigate

Transfer all responsibility for NRD assessment restoration and recovery to Site Remediation.

Adopt regulations regarding NRD assessment, restoration and recovery that are transparent, stable and predictable.

There needs to be a recognition that agriculture, like every other business in New Jersey, has been overregulated and burdened by DEP rules. Farmers should be recognized as stewards to the land and treated as partners in land preservation not potential polluters.

Revenue generation should be maximized through the use of concessions, camping and park rentals and forest management.

There needs to be a full examination of DEP’s existing self-audit policy utilized by the regulated community, to ensure it does not create disincentives for voluntary disclosure and provides adequate and appropriate time to correct violations

There needs to be a full examination of DEP’s administrative penalty regulations to ensure they are fair and consistent

There needs to be a full examination of the implementation of the “Grace Period” regulations to ensure that they follow the legislative intent of the Grace Period statute. The Grace Period statute was aimed at making a distinction between minor and non-minor violations and providing an appropriate time to correct those violations. However, the DEP has inappropriately implemented the regulations by issuing automatic violations with limited time to respond.

Simplification of the permitting process: Title V Permits which are permits for certain large facilities, administered by the DEP as required under the federal Clean Air Act, have become extremely cumbersome and voluminous in New Jersey. Steps should be taken to reduce the complexity of these permits.

Chromium Standard: Re-evaluate the current chromium standard, taking into consideration natural baseline levels and peer reviewed scientific data.

Prevailing wage at brownfield sites: In order for the State to attract investment and compete for economic development with bordering states, New Jersey must eliminate the prevailing wage requirement under State reimbursement programs for brownfield sites.

If you had not had fallen
Then I would not have found you
Angel flying too close to the ground

And I patched up your broken wing
And hung around a while
Tried to keep your spirits up
And your fever down

I knew someday that you would fly away
For love’s the greatest healer to be found
So leave me if you need to
I will still remember
Angel flying too close to the ground

Fly on, fly on past the speed of sound
I’d rather see you up
Than see you down

Leave me if you need to
I will still remember
Angel flying too close to the ground  ~~~ Willie Nelson