Posts Tagged ‘NJ’

NJ is rapidly becoming the City State not the Garden State

Written by Mike Pisauro on August 5th, 2010 in land use, Wetlands | No Comments »

Researchers from Rowan and Rutgers University have recently released a new report looking at the changes in NJ’s land use from 1986 to 2007. A prior report looked at the changes from 1995 to 2002. This report adds the period between 2002 to 2007. This report shows some very amazing facts.

The rate of development in NJ increased by 7% from 2002 to 2007. From 1995 to 2002 NJ lost an average of 15,123 acres per year to urbanization, but that increased to 16,061 acres per year from 2002 to 2007. As we continued to increase urbanization in the State of New Jersey we lost forests, wetlands, open space, and forestlands. These land use changes have ramifications. For example we lost 66.3 square miles of forest over 21 years. This loss of land to urbanization has many negative environmental impacts. The loss of forests has increased the fragmentation of habitat and has created more fringe areas. Species that rely on large areas of habitat will have less large areas to hunt, bred and to live. Fringe habitat encourages invasive species to take over.

We continue to lose wetlands to urbanization. From 2002 to 2007 we lost 8,652 acres of wetlands or the slightly more than the total area of the Hackensack Meadowlands. It is somewhat surprising at the level of wetlands loss since 1995 as overall federal policy is for zero wetlands loss. Another issue with NJ’s wetlands loss is NJ’s water quality. It is well accepted that when a watershed has 10% or more of its land covered by impervious surface that watershed is impacted to various degrees. Increasing impervious cover will have an impact on water quality as well as flooding. NJ’s 2008 Integrated Water Quality Report shows that NJ’s waters are not fairing well. 63% of the streams that could be assessed did not meet the standards for aquatic life. 41% of our waters do not meet the designation for recreational use and we do not know enough to determine the status of another 40%. Interesting, the report reveals that fish and invertebrate communities were commonly impacted in urban areas and that “increase in impervious surfaces was related to a negative response in the aquatic invertebrate community.” As we continue to pave over NJ our water quality will decrease. This will also cause continued efforts to clean up our streams, rivers and lakes to be a more expensive proposition.

Another interesting fact the report reveals is that almost 50% of the development has taken place outside of the areas designated for growth within our state plan. This is contrary to NJ’s State Plan, but a look at this issue will have to wait for another post.

EPA has enforcement action online, DEP has some info but not as much

Written by Mike Pisauro on May 25th, 2010 in Federal | No Comments »

I came across a very interesting tool yesterday for about the tenth time. I learned about this tool several years ago and then forgot about it. Every now and then I am reminded about it. The tool is a map from EPA that shows many of its enforcement actions in a given area. These are actions brought against a facility that has violated a permit. You can zoom in to a specific area and select whether you would like to see enforcement actions for air, water, land, criminal, cross media or federal facilities. A screenshot of all the enforcement actions in the NJ area is below.

EPA Enforcement Actions in NJ

Once you have isolated an area you can click on one of the flags to learn move about the facility.

Site specifics of enforcement action

While NJ does not have a similar system to locate enforcement actions, you can located licensed facilities. DEP has the i-MAPNJ web program.

DEP's licensed sites list

Sometimes information is very useful. Hopefully DEP will update the information available to the public.

Take a few moments to celebrate Earth Day!

Written by Mike Pisauro on April 22nd, 2010 in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Today is Earth Day. In fact it is the 40^th Anniversary of Earth Day. I have given a lot of thought what my post will be on Earth Day. There is a lot going on in NJ that I could be writing about and need to write about. There is the recently released Red Tape Review. There is DEP’s Administrative Order that did what the legislature could not do last year. The A.O. continues to allow local government not to update decades old wastewater management rules. I could have written about the assault on NJ’s endangered species. In short there is a lot I could have written about and will write about soon.

Instead of writing of the many negative things going on in NJ, I wanted to write about something positive. My inspiration for this post literally flew into mind. For Earth Day, I want to write about two things. First, below is a picture of a raptor that was eating its dinner on my kid’s swing set last night. It was amazing. It was the first time I had seen something like that so up close and so close to home. It fascinated my kids. I want my children to have many experiences like this. I want my children to be able to have free access to a healthy environment. It is moments like this that drive me to continue to lobby for the environment and to be part of the solution.

Bird eating its dinner

The second thing I wanted to write about was more of a challenge. What is one thing that you can do today that will make the environment better? It does not have to be a major item. It could be something little. It could be picking up a piece of litter you see on the ground. It could be taking a short shower instead of a long one. You could choose to drink tap water instead of bottled water. What will you do to do today?

Obama Administration channels Bush and opens up the seas to oil

Written by Mike Pisauro on April 5th, 2010 in Federal, Global Warming, Ocean, Politics | No Comments »

Last week the Obama Administration announced that it would open up the outer continental shelf or oil and gas production. It was a proposal that is very reminiscent of the Bush Administrations removal of the decades old ban on offshore drilling which I wrote about in “Another short sighted solution that solves nothing.” While this proposal sounds like a Bush administration plan, it is supposed to be part of a broader energy strategy. President Obama in is announcement of the plan said:

I want to emphasize that this announcement is part of a broader strategy that will move us from an economy that runs on fossil fuels and foreign oil to one that relies on homegrown fuels and clean energy. And the only way this transition will succeed is if it strengthens our economy in the short term and the long term. To fail to recognize this reality would be a mistake.

The problem with the plan is that I do not thin it will do what it is supposed to do. The Obama Administration’s plan to open up the OCS will do little to reduce fuel prices or availability of fossil fuels. It is also naïve to think that the oil and gas developed off our coasts will remain in the country. That oil and gas will go to the highest bidder no matter where they are located. It will also subject to the OCS from additional pollution. Pollution that is caused by the drilling process. Pollution that is caused by leaks in the systems of offshore drilling platforms, vessels and from the pipelines. Pollution that may arise from spills and other accidents.

Our oceans are already severely impacted by our pollution. To increase the amount of chemicals that are leaked into the oceans through the drilling process is not going to help our oceans. Also, is there were to be a major spill, that would devastate NJ’s economy. In 200?, NJ tourism was the second or third biggest industry in the State. If an oil spill was to occur off our coast, it could foul our beaches. And oil spills do occur. In January of this oil an oil tanker spilt 450,000 gallons in Port Arthur, Texas. In 2007 a tanker spilled 57,000 gallons of fuel into the San Francisco Bay causing $70 million of damage to the fisheries and beaches. I am not even mentioning The Valdez. By some estimates Hurricane Katrina caused 6.5 millions gallons of oil to be spilled into the environment.

There is another problem with opening up the OCS for oil and gas exploration. Even though the President suggests this is a short term plan. The short term plan seems to be counter to the Administrations clean energy platform and to combating global energy. As President Obama said last years United Nations Conference on Climate Change:

Now, as the world’s largest economy and as the world’s second largest emitter, America bears our responsibility to address climate change, and we intend to meet that responsibility. That’s why we’ve renewed our leadership within international climate change negotiations. That’s why we’ve worked with other nations to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. That’s why we’ve taken bold action at home — by making historic investments in renewable energy; by putting our people to work increasing efficiency in our homes and buildings; and by pursuing comprehensive legislation to transform to a clean energy economy.

I am also very concern that this new push for more oil and gas signals a retreat from or at least will impact our Country’s move toward renewable energy and to away from a commitment to combat climate change. How are we going to stop incentivizing oil and gas when we open up more areas for drilling? Are we going to lease them out for their full value? How are we going to grow the green energy while telling the world that oil and gas is here to stay? How do we credibly tell the world that we will lead it in solving climate change, when we cannot let go of the past.

Opening up the OCS for more oil and gas exploration is the wrong policy for many reasons.

Was 2009 the year for renewables in NJ?

Written by Mike Pisauro on February 10th, 2010 in Green Building, land use, legislation, Renewable Energy, Solar, Uncategorized, Wind | No Comments »

A lot has happen since I wrote Renewables and Land Use Law in 2008. 2009 may be one of the best years for renewable energy in New Jersey. Several laws were passed 2009-2010 in NJ that help move the acceptance and adoption of renewable energy in NJ.

There were two very significant bills. The first modifies NJ land use laws. P.L. 2009 C. 146 adds the definition of inherently beneficial to the land use statutes. Up to now what was inherently beneficial was determined on a case by case basis and only after litigation. The recently enacted law defines inherently beneficial (for the first time) to include “wind, solar or photovoltaic energy facility or structure.” Being inherently beneficial is very useful for land use applicants who are seeking a D variance from their local land use board. D variances are the toughest to get and require the applicant to show that the positive aspects of the project outweigh the negatives. If your proposed project is inherently beneficial you automatically meet the positive requirements of a D variance. What is left is showing that the proposal does not create a substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially impact the zone plan and township ordinances.

Another law that will have far ranging implications is P.L. 2009 c. 244. This law goes even farther than P.L. 2009 c. 146. In essence this bill requires municipalities to allow small wind turbines within their borders. The bill provides that municipalities “shall not unreasonably limit such limitations or unreasonably hinder the performance of such installations.” Under the bill municipalities cannot enact ordinances that unduly restrict the installation of renewable energy. A small wind energy system or turbine is one which is primarily for onsite consumption of electricity. It is considered an unreasonable for a municipality to:

Prohibit small energy systems in all districts within the municipality
Restricting tower height by applying generic height ordinances that does not make allowance for tower heights.
Requiring setbacks more than 150 percent of the system height.
Setting noise level lower than 55 decibels.
Setting electrical or structural criteria that exceed the applicable UCC standards

This is a very important step forward for wind turbines in NJ. It will not remove all barriers to the installation of wind turbines as a town could require a setback of 150% which many property owners may not meet. Given that the towers for small wind energy systems are rated for hurricane winds, the setbacks really are overly restrictive.

P.L. 2009 c. 35 provides that on industrial property of 20 or more acres solar and wind systems are permitted uses. This would prevent municipalities from requiring variances for the installation of these systems. An applicant would only need a construction permit to install these kinds of systems.

P.L. 2009 c. 33 requires developers of new residential housing to offer as an option to their purchaser’s solar energy systems. This requirement applies developments of 25 units or more. The systems also must be covered under the New Home Warranty and Builder’s Registration Act. Interesting the Legislature set out a section of findings prefacing this law. The State has declared that, “[t]hat the installation of even small scale solar energy systems will combat global warming and reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign energy sources, resulting in a significant environment benefit.” I would suggest a similar finding can be found for wind in the State of NJ.

P.L. 2009 c. 289 revises our electricity generation laws. In particular it increases the amount of electricity that utilities selling power in NJ have to get from solar sources. The law also changes the requirement from a percentage of total electricity generation to absolute numbers. Under this law the State of NJ is requiring that utilities supply either directly or purchase from other generators the following gigawatt hours of electricity generated from solar systems:

2011	306 Gwhrs	2019	1,858 Gwhrs
2012	442 Gwhrs	2020	2,164 Gwhrs
2013	596 Gwhrs	2021	2,518 Gwhrs
2014	772 Gwhrs	2022	2,928 Gwhrs
2015	965 Gwhrs	2023	3,433 Gwhrs
2016	1,150 Gwhrs	2024	3,989 Gwhrs
2017	1,357 Gwhrs	2025	4,160 Gwhrs
2018	1,591 Gwhrs	2026	5,316 Gwhrs

After 2026 the State will still require at least 5,316 Gwhrs of electricity from solar sources. The law allows for the number of Gwhrs to be increased.

The law also permits that the above schedule can be increased by 20% if in the three preceding years there were enough or excess SRECs to meet the requirements and the average price of SRECs in the same three years decreased.

The State changed the system from requiring a percentage of energy to absolute numbers because of the intent in the Energy Master Plan to reduce overall all energy demand. If the RPS requirements remained as a percentage the State would start generating less electricity from renewable energy sources the more successful the EMP was.

The next two are not renewable energy bills but also fairly significant for the energy usage of NJ.

P.L. 2009 c. 106 requires the Department of Community Affairs to develop new enhanced energy codes. These codes are based upon the projected energy costs for the next tens years. The enhanced energy codes shall be designed to increase energy conservation for buildings. In 2006 buildings accounted for 39% of the energy use in the United States. So by enhancing the energy efficiency of new or renovated buildings will go a long way to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and overall energy usage. The new codes are to be set so any increased in cost to meet the new codes will be paid back within seven years from the reduced energy usage.

Lastly, P.L. 2009 c. 33 allows BPU to give grant money to install energy efficiency, renewable energy, reduction in peak demand, and reduction in energy usage for commercial and industrial business with high peak demand. As industry is one of the largest users of energy in NJ some have argued that more money should be spent to help them reduce their energy demands and thus help NJ reduce its consumption of fossil fuels. I am frankly not that convinced that industry should be given this kind of hand out given that many of these energy efficiency, renewable energy systems will pay the company back in a relatively short time frame.

All of these new laws move renewable energy in NJ forward. They make it less expensive to buy, obtain permits and install. The laws improve the market for renewable energy by creating a greater demand. While NJ has moved forward we still have some road to travel. There are several bills being considered for the 2010-2011 legislative session that will again impact NJ’s energy and environmental future. I will look at these bills in a future post.

NJ declares wind and solar energy as inherently beneficial

Written by Mike Pisauro on December 28th, 2009 in land use, legislation, Renewable Energy, Solar, Wind | No Comments »

Last month, the Governor finally signed legislation that decrees that wind turbines and solar panels are inherently beneficial under New Jersey’s land use laws. This is a step forward for wind energy in New Jersey.

Up to now, in most cases if a person or business wanted to install a wind turbine in New Jersey they would have to seek a variance. A variance is usually necessary because the wind turbine does not meet the height restrictions in most towns. Some towns also consider the wind turbine as non-permitted structure. In either event in many instances an applicant for a wind turbine must file for a D variance. D variances are the toughest type to get.

In order to obtain a D variance an applicant must get the approval of 5 of the 7 board members i.e. more than a majority. Also the applicant must prove that the wind turbine is has benefits to society that outweigh the negatives. It also must meet other positive requirements. One would think that proving wind turbines have a positive effect to society and that positive effect outweighs any negative effect. The one thing that can be sure is that when a hearing for a wind turbine is scheduled anybody and everybody will be there to protest with complaints that are in large part invalid (in my humble opinion).

This is where P.L. 2009 C. 146 comes in. This new law defines inherently beneficial under our land use laws. Before this bill what was inherently beneficial was left up to the individual land use boards and ultimately to the courts to decide on a case by case basis. This law defines inherently beneficial as, ‘a use which is universally considered of value to the community because it fundamentally serves the public good and promotes the general welfare. Such uses includes, but is not limited to, a hospital, school, child care center, group home, or a wind, solar or photovoltaic energy facility or structure.” The law in essence removes one small hurdle to the installation of wind energy to NJ. Once a project is considered inherently beneficial it now longer has to prove that the benefits to the public outweigh the negatives. It is assume that the benefits outweigh the negatives.

There was opposition to this bill before it was passed and the League of Municipalities issued a statement on the law arguing that this is taking the power from the municipalities and the courts. In particular the League noted that by including wind and solar energy as inherently beneficial that further legal challenges will be forthcoming.

I agree with the League on this issue, merely declaring wind and solar energy as inherently beneficial does not mean that litigation over the systems will end. I am aware of at least two lawsuits in NJ involving the installation of a wind turbine. I suspect as the green economy grows and the need for clean reliable renewable energy grows more and more businesses and individuals will like to install wind turbines. Those applications will continue to be denied by land use boards for real reasons as well as NIMBY reasons. This will lead to a multitude of lawsuits whose costs will far outstrip the energy benefits to the owner.

While P.L. 2009 C. 146 is a good start, what NJ needs is a laws that prevents townships from prohibiting (either directly or indirectly) the installation of wind turbines in their borders. California has a similar law:

any ordinances regulating small wind energy systems adopted by local agencies have the effect of providing for the installation and use of small wind energy systems and that provisions in these ordinances relating to matters including, but not limited to, parcel size, tower height, noise, notice, and setback requirements do not unreasonably restrict the ability of homeowners, farms, and small businesses to install small wind systems in zones in which they are authorized by local ordinance. It is the policy of the state to promote and encourage the use of small wind energy systems and to limit obstacles to their use.” The statute goes further to provide that, “[t]he implementation of consistent standards to achieve the timely and cost-effective installation of small wind energy systems is not a municipal affair . . . but is instead a matter of statewide concern.” Ca. Gov’t Code §65892.13(a)(5).

If New Jersey is going to meet its terrestrial goals of 200 megawatts of energy from terrestrial wind turbines in the state by 2020 it needs to do more than talk about supporting wind and P.L. 2009 c. 146. We need to do more.

NJ's Open Space in Jeopardy

Written by Mike Pisauro on October 31st, 2009 in Sustainability | No Comments »

On November 3rd we all get a choice on whether we will preserve NJ or not. On November 3rd we get to vote in favor of preserving open spaces, farmland and historic sites. We get to vote yes to ballot question #1.

I have a guest post on the Green Jersey blog on why we all should vote yes. I have also written about the importance of open space on this blog

You can also read more about NJ’s open space program at the NJ Keep it Green Facebook page.

On November 3rd, please vote for NJ’s open space program.

NJ's Endangered and Non-game Species Conservation Act

Written by Mike Pisauro on October 18th, 2009 in Endangered Species | No Comments »

Recently, a builders association petitioned New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection to remove the northern pine snake from the threatened species list under NJ Threatened and Non-game Species Conservation Act. Hopefully, in the future, I will look at the actual merits of the petition, but I wanted to take this chance to explain NJ’s endangered species act equivalent.

NJ enacted the Endangered and Non-game Species Conservation Act (ENSCA) in 1972 prior to the Federal Government’s enactment of the Endangered Species Act. Some people say that the Federal government modeled their act after New Jerseys. NJ’s ENSCA act can be found at NJSA 23:2A-1. The State in enacted the law set forth the policy of the law:

a.         That it is the policy of this State to manage all forms of wildlife to insure their continued participation in the ecosystem.

b.         That species or subspecies of wildlife indigenous to the State which may be found to be endangered should be accorded special protection in order to maintain and to the extent possible enhance their numbers; and

c.         That the State should assist in the protection of species or subspecies of wildlife which are deemed to be endangered elsewhere by regulating the taking, possession, transportation, exportation, processing, sale or offer for sale or shipment within this State of species or subspecies of wildlife including those on any Federal endangered species list.

The Act defines threatened as “a species that may become endangered if conditions surrounding it begin to or continue to deteriorate.” The ENSCA makes it unlawful to take, possess, transport, export, process, sell or offer for sale and species listed as endangered under NJ or Federal law or any nongame species regulated under this act. It is therefore illegal for someone to “take” an endangered or threatened species.

The Act similar to the Federal ESA broadly defines “take.” Under NJ’s act “take is defined as “to harass, hunt, capture, kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill wildlife.” Under this broad definition the destruction of habitat could be considered as a take.

A violation of the act can result in civil and criminal actions against the offender. There are also monetary penalties and injunction power available to the State to punishing offending behavior.

The presence of endangered or threatened species can also impact the implementation of several other laws. For example, the existence of or probable existence of T&E species or habitat can influence whether a stream is classified as category 1 or not. If a waterway is a category one, it is subject to stricter requirements for pollution discharges, and 300 foot buffers. In fact the freshwater wetlands regulations prohibit the issuance of a permit if the Dept. finds that it will jeopardize the survival of T&E species under the State or Federal lists. N.J.S.A. 13:9B-9

Another example is that the Pinelands Commission Regulations provide that:

[n]o development shall be carried out unless it is designed to avoid irreversible adverse impacts on habitats that are critical to the survival of any local populations of those threatened or endangered animal species designated by the Department of Environmental Protection [DEP] pursuant to NJSA 23:2A-1 et seq.

The above examples give you the sense of the power that NJ’s ENSCA can have if implemented properly. It can provide buffers along streams to provide necessary habitat and reduces impacts to the streams. The less pollution and larger buffers not only assist in the survival of the species but can have added indirect benefits to us as well. These benefits can range from the obvious less toxins in our water, to more land around streams to prevent flooding and recharge of aquifers. So protecting T&E species can also mean protecting ourselves.

Why are we still dumping on our shore?

Written by Mike Pisauro on September 9th, 2009 in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Labor Day is over and the shore season is over. Over the last several weeks of this summer I took my family to the shore. I love the shore. As a kid, I went to the NJ shore every summer with my family and I want to carry on the tradition with my children. When I was a kid I do not remember seeing garbage on the beach. I do not remember, at least until I was older, medical waste washing up on the beach. When I was a child, I do not ever remember having a condom float by me as I swam in the ocean. That is exactly what I saw a couple of weeks ago.

My children are not so lucky. And that is a shame. Over the Labor Day weekend, my kids picked up several pieces of garbage that had either been left on the beach by thoughtless people or had washed upon from the ocean. To my pride they put the garbage in the garbage where it belonged. This is what they and I saw as we took a short walk one evening (excuse the photography).

Garbage on the Shore 2 Garbage on the Shore 3 Garbage on the Shore 4

Around the same time I was looking at the garbage on the beach, 24 syringes washed up on the beaches of Long Beach Island over a few days period. A news article ,written by Michelle Lee of the Press of Atlantic City, reported that LBI’s health officer believed that the syringes were because of combined sewer overflows and bad surf.

People need to stop littering at the beach and off their boats. Government needs to upgrade combined sewer overflows that that garbage cannot be washed out to see. Government needs to enforce the litter laws and anti-dumping laws.

Our coastal environment is too important to treat it as a place to dump our garbage. It is too important to our economy. It is too important to a tradition that my and many families in New Jersey have. I do not want to ever have to explain to my child why a condom is floating past them in the ocean or that they have to watch were they walk on the beach so that they do not step on glass or syringes. I want them to see and enjoy the beauty of New Jersey’s shore. Ocean and Bird Ocean

EPA finds DEP's site remediation program lacking again.

Written by Mike Pisauro on September 8th, 2009 in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Recently, the U.S. EPA released an audit report critical of NJ’s Department of Environmental Protection. This audit report is on the heels of another negative audit report of the DEP’s handling of the remediation of contaminated sites. The most recent audit looked to at whether DEP’s Quality System was in compliance with EPA’s required Quality control systems, whether DEP was implementing their Quality System and whether DEP was insuring that the data from their monitoring projects were adequate. Instead of rehashing the entire report, I want to focus on the EPA’s finding regarding the Site Remediation Program.

None of the Site Remediation Program’s bureaus interviewed do any project assessment and/or process improvement beyond data validation, (i.e. no field audits, no split samples, no internal assessment, etc.) The EPA assessment team was told that Responsible Party contractors and/or NJDEP contractors are “certified professionals and taken at their word.

It is kinda scary to think that DEP has a culture that allows for a complete disregard for the statutory and regulatory requirements. We have seen over the last several years the impacts of DEP not confirming the information they have received from outside contractors. I.e. W.R. Grace, Edison Ford plant, etc.

This audit report should be viewed in light of the recently enacted Licensed Site Professionals Law. The LSP law deputizes outside contractors to decide how contaminated a site is, how best to clean the site and to determine the site is now clean and to issue the equlivant of No Further Action letters. Once the LSP program is up and running will DEP continue to be so trusting?

When the LSP bill was racing through the legislature Environmental Organizations, including the NJEL, strenuously argued that DEP need to engage in aggressive oversight. DEP fought enviros on this as well as enviros’ request that DEP maintain control over the worst sites. The end result is that DEP cannot audit LSPs or even require the LSP board to audit an LSP. DEP can merely recommend that an LSP receive an audit. In fact the DEP’s ability to review or audit a site is mostly limited to document reviews and “shall review the performance of a remediation.” §21b. Another section of the law provides that DEP and LSP board can “investigat[e], sampl[e], inspect[], or copy[] any records, condition, equipment, practice, or property” Even if DEP has the authority, will they overcome their culture of trusting the “professionals” and will they independently verify the information they receive from the professionals to ensure that sites are remediated and the environment and our health are protected.

Green Pages NJ

Subscribe to Updates

Get Our Newsletter

Publications

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives

Search