Thank you for your comments on this project. At the request of several commenters and to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment, the NJDEP will be extending the public comment period on this settlement, as originally announced in the attached notice, by 30 days to May 31, 2014. The NJDEP will also continue to accept all public comment that is received prior to the Department rendering a permitting decision.
BI-COUNTY / PINNACLE PROPERTY
Additional Topics/Information/Ideas for letters
From an email By Erich Kamm, Esq.
At the recent meeting in Oakland a number of people expressed their desire to write letters in opposition to the proposed settlement, but did not have enough specific information to do so. This memo hopefully serves to provide some ideas and basic information to assist you in writing letters. Along with this memo attached please find three “technical” letters to the DEP from 2008 addressing the C-1 stream, COAH, and water diversion/quality, which contain some good material. Please also see the address list emailed with this memo containing NJ and federal contact addresses at bottom of article.
If you do not know much about the issue, start by reviewing the article by Scott Fallon in The Record (4-21-14): http://www.northjersey.com/news/long-stalled-oakland-housing-development-approved-after-settlement-with-regulators-1.1000388 . Next, review the three attached letters in opposition to the development from 2008, which provide a good summary of issues. Finally, please read through this memo. Then, take action.
I will assume you just read Mr. Fallon’s Record article, and will proceed from there: After the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) rejected the “Bi-County” (a/k/a “Pinnacle”) development in 2008, the builder appealed. The DEP appears to simply have reversed their prior decision, which is unusual both from a substantive and procedural perspective. Approximately three weeks ago, on April 5 or thereabouts, the DEP disseminated a “Notice of Intent to Settle” with Bi-County, which essentially approves the construction project. The Notice of Intent to Settle provides for a public comment period of 30 days, whereby people may submit written comments to the proposed settlement.
This memo serves in a limited capacity of helping people formulate letters in opposition to the development.
I have not had time to prepare a thorough/comprehensive list of ideas, nor have I had time to fact-check anything. Please consider everything herein as opinion. This has all happened very quickly, so this is the best I can do on short notice. Please forgive the typos, etc. If you have more letter ideas, or if you want to share your letters as samples, please disseminate them.
The public comment period ends within a matter of days, so please, THIS WEEKEND, dedicate at least an hour to completing one letter, and then mailing, faxing, and emailing to the people on the attached list and to any other person or entity you think might need to see your comments. Spread the word, and please help others prepare letters.
There will be more to this effort in the near future, but for now, please play an important part in writing letters in opposition to the proposed settlement agreement and to the development as a whole. The important thing is to simply register your opposition. Do not get too bogged down in details. Keep it simple, and please send it out to numerous people on the address list- cut and paste the addresses, and fax/email, too. There are US contacts on the address list as well, because there is a federal law (The Highlands Conservation Act), signed in 2004, which includes the Bi-County site in the priority high-value conservation area. Also, there may be some national cultural significance to the site, which played a part in the Revolutionary War.
A suggestion for your lead sentence to the Governor and the DEP would be something like, “I oppose the proposed settlement between Bi-County Development Corp. and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.” Or, if you are writing to your District 39 and 40 representatives, or to your federal representatives, you may want to start your letter with a statement such as “I am writing to you to ask for your assistance in opposing the proposed settlement between the DEP an Bi-County Development Corp, and I am asking your assistance to preserve the subject property for the following reasons…”
Feel free to cut and paste- you might want to put them into your own words simply to keep the letters from looking suspiciously similar.
ADDITIONAL TOPICS / IDEAS / INFORMATION FOR LETTERS
IMPROPER NOTICE:
It appears from comments made at the Oakland meeting that notice was not properly served as per the terms of the proposed Settlement Agreement at Paragraph 1 (page 13). Please check out the proposed settlement agreement, and if improper notice applies to you, there is a good topic upon which to base your letter. If this concept does not apply to you, or if you have no direct knowledge of anyone affected by this issue, you probably should not include this issue in your letter.
ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE OF THE SITE:
The Bi-County property is, in and of itself, an amazingly diverse environmental gem with steep slopes, wetlands, unique geology, mature forest, and all of the attendant flora and fauna characteristics of such features. However, the true environmental value of the site is that it is a “corridor” ridgeline and migratory tract which connects the High Mountain Wilderness area (bordered by Franklin Lakes, Wayne, North Haledon, William Paterson University) to the Ramapo Mountains in Oakland. The Bi-County property is an integral part of the Preakness Mountain “Macrosite.” As the “Bi-County” name implies, the property has a regional value and significance beyond municipal and county borders, recognized as such by Bergen County, Passaic County, the State of New Jersey, and the federal government. The local municipalities, Bergen and Passaic counties, the State of New Jersey, and private groups have spent millions of Dollars preserving the macrosite, including the preservation of the High Mountain Wilderness Area (Wayne/North Haledon) and contiguous tracts including the Haledon Reservoir (Franklin Lakes), the NJ Capital Partners site (Oakland), and the Great Oak Park (Oakland). Indeed, a few years ago Oakland attempted to purchase the Bi-County property from the developer, and even designated and received grants of millions of Dollars to do so, but the developer has refused to sell or negotiate with Oakland. By bulldozing, blasting, and building high-density housing on the Bi-County tract, the corridor will be severed, effectively isolating the High Mountain Wilderness Area, in stark contrast to basic preservation planning at all levels, which recognizes the need and preference to preserve open space corridors and migratory tracts in favor of isolated pockets of open space.
Other Characteristics of the Site:
The Site is in the Highlands Preservation Area, and has been identified/recognized by the New Jersey Natural Heritage program as part of the Preakness Mountain Macrosite, with a biodiversity rank of B2 (very high biodiversity significance). New Jersey has also designated the area as a Priority Conservation Site. The site also contains endangered species and a C-1 stream with intermittent feeders. The ridge was also a sentry lookout and communication site during the Revolutionary War.
FEDERAL HIGHLANDS CONSERVATION ACT:
The Highlands Conservation Act, signed by President Bush on 11/30/04, was enacted to assist local and state governments in acquiring priority properties for land conservation. The Act recognizes the Bi-County site as part of the Highlands priority preservation area. See the USDA Forest Service Northeastern Area Forestry Map dated June 2004: http://www.na.fs.fed.us/highlands/maps_pubs/highlands_map.jpg The federal Highlands Conservation Act recognizes the value and priority of conserving land and natural resources in the Highlands region spanning New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania, and the Bi-County site has been identified by the USDA Forest Service as having a high conservation value. In letters to our federal representatives, please remind them of this Act, and request funding for acquisition. Also remind them that this site was a Revolutionary War lookout site- maybe that can provide some level of federal assistance. As I indicated last night, the only way to truly preserve this property is to buy it, and we will need to pool funding sources to do so.
CATEGORY 1 STREAM:
This site contains a Category 1 (or “C-1”) stream. Category One waters are defined in the existing Surface Water Quality Standards rules at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.4 as waters protected from any measurable changes in water quality because of their exceptional ecological significance, exceptional recreational significance, exceptional water supply significance, or exceptional fisheries resources. Category One waters have more stringent antidegradation requirements than Category Two waters. (To see that preceding plagiarized sentence from its original source, and for more information on C-1 streams, go to http://www.nj.gov/dep/wms/bwqsa/c1waters.htm.) C-1 streams are protected by buffer areas. In addition to the C-1 streams themselves, intermittent feeder streams which feed into C-1 streams or which serve as the headwaters are also supposed to be afforded the same buffer protection as the streams. The feeder streams on the Bi-County property are not afforded any setback buffer protection.
The site plan determines that the C-1 stream designation mysteriously ends right near the property line (see the “Limit of C-1 Water per Maser Consulting” on the site plan), even though the stream is depicted as continuing up the mountain, but without the C-1 designation and without the C-1 300’ setback. Without the C-1 designation on the upper portion of the stream, and without the C-1 setback, the builder is able to squeeze in “Road D” and “Road Z,” along with the numerous townhouses in the lower right portion of the site plan.
In addition, there is no question that the C-1 stream, which runs down Long Hill, will suffer measurable changes. With the surface runoff from all the cars, impervious services, perfectly manicured and fertilized lawns, all of which will drain right into the C-1 stream and ultimately the Ramapo River, it is clear that the C-1 stream is in danger of washout and pollutants.
The C-1 stream drains into the Great Oak Park property, where in the past 20+ years of isolation/disuse, nature has reclaimed an amazing wetlands area with incredible biodiversity, and which serves as a natural filtering mechanism and also as the heart of the species diversity on the Great Oak Park property. This fragile downstream ecosystem will suffer from the runoff and washout.
The stream then drains into the Ramapo River, which recharges the aquifer from which Oakland draws its water, and which is also pumped up to the Wanaque Reservoir.
SMART GROWTH PRINCIPLES:
Both the New Jersey DEP and the federal US EPA adhere to and encourage “smart growth principles.” The basic concept is that cities/towns should have areas of urban, compact development in town centers where transportation and services are within walking distance, while preserving critical environmental areas of open space, water supply, and natural beauty. That is also a basic objective of low-income housing principles. The proposed development, and the builder’s plan to put low income housing on a mountain, where there will be access to nothing without a car, is completely opposed to the DEP’s and EPA’s smart-growth principles. Oakland does not need, and does not want, the COAH-required housing units to be located on the Bi-County site. Rather, Oakland plans to meet its COAH requirements with downtown siting which will comply with the “smart growth” principles advocated by the EPA and DEP. For more information on this, please see the 2008 letter #3.
WATER DIVERSION / WATER QUALITY:
Please see the attached 2008 letter #2. Incidentally, this is the issue upon which the DEP based its initial rejection in 2008. I have tried, but I fail to see how the DEP simply reversed on this issue, other than the basic concept that the DEP erred in rejecting the development in 2008 because they failed to consider Oakland’s 1990 Wastewater Management Plan (see the 4th and 5th “Whereas” clauses in the proposed settlement agreement at pages 2 and 3). Much has changed in the 25 years since then.
ENDANGERED SPECIES:
The Bi-County ridgeline is home/habitat of the endangered “barred owl.” The DEP has disingenuously concluded that preservation of the wetlands (which must be preserved anyway) and the preservation of an additional 16 acres, will protect the barred owl. However, as previously stated, the wetlands require preservation anyway, so in that regard there is no consideration of the owl habitat. In addition, the “16 acres” identified as the consideration for the barred owl, is scattered among four or so “Additional Conservation Areas” which are essentially extreme steep slope areas where there could be no construction anyway. On the site plan the “Additional Conservation Areas” are labelled A-D and are all located on the extreme steep slopes. I must give credit to the developer for the “creative marketing” in labeling these unbuildable areas as “Additional Conservation Areas” as though they are actually setting aside these areas out of their concern for the environment. Accordingly, there is no consideration whatsoever for the barred owl. In fact, the mountaintop cedars on the ridgetops, which are prime habitat for owls, will be bulldozed and replaced with “Road F” and high-density houses numbered 38 through 78. The other ridgetop with cedars will be paved with “Road E” and houses 1 through 11, along with the water tower and service road. One must sensibly ask what is the point of classifying a species as endangered if there is no protection follow-through? Incidentally, and of no consequence to this effort, two weeks ago one of the residents on Long Hill showed me, through a telescope, a great horned owl nest (with a newborn watching us curiously) right in the location of what will be “Road B.” What an amazing sight.
WETLANDS ENCROACHMENTS:
The wetlands protection areas/setback zones contain numerous encroachments, which are labelled on the site plan as “Buffer Reduction” areas. The setbacks are then compensated or mitigated by “Buffer Expansion Areas.” Similar to the misleadingly labelled “Additional Conservation Areas” on the extreme steep slopes, many of the Buffer Expansion Areas are areas which would not be built anyway due to the natural corner cuts of the roads and housing layouts. If the DEP and the builder are using the wetlands and setbacks as the determinative protection for the barred owl, one would think the setback areas would be rigorously enforced. There is one house located entirely within the wetlands protection area, the majority of seven houses are located in the wetlands protection areas, and there are another seven houses partially located within the wetlands protection areas. That’s a total of fifteen houses (maybe 17 houses) located in the wetlands protection areas, which the DEP has determined to be “adequate” protection for the endangered barred owl. The foregoing mentions only the actual structures themselves, but along with the structures there will be the manicured, fertilized, pesticized lawns of those 17 houses (and more- the structures which are located just outside of the wetlands protection buffers) which will be located in the wetlands protection zones, all draining right downhill into the wetlands themselves. One would think that if the DEP recognizes the wetlands areas as an “Exceptional Resource Value” and as the prime protection area of the endangered barred owl, then the DEP would take seriously the protection of the wetlands and the wetlands protection buffer zones.
In addition, the total area of “buffer reduction” (i.e. areas of wetlands protection area violations or encroachments) exceeds the area of buffer expansion (which are essentially worth less the further the distance from the wetlands).
There is also an entire section of wetlands which is being completely eliminated to make way for Road A and E and houses 1, 2, and 3.
ATTACHMENTS
http://theoaklandjournal.com/?attachment_id=20145
http://theoaklandjournal.com/?attachment_id=20143
http://theoaklandjournal.com/?attachment_id=20144
The main person to whom you should send your letters:
1. Becky Mazzei, Environmental Specialist 2
Division of Land Use Regulation,
P.O.Box 420, Mail Code 501-02A
Trenton, NJ 08625-0420
Becky.Mazzei@dep.state.nj.us
OTHER:
NEW JERSEY:
2. Governor Christie
Office of the Governor
PO Box 001
Trenton, NJ 08625
609-292-6000
http://www.state.nj.us/governor/contact/
3. Commissioner Bob Martin
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
401 E. State St.
7th Floor, East Wing
P.O. Box 402
Trenton, NJ 08625-0402
4. Lt. Governor and Secretary of State Kim Guadagno
Office of the Governor
PO Box 001
Trenton, NJ 08625
5. Terry Pilawski, Bureau Chief
BUREAU OF WATERSHED REGULATION
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
P.O. Box 420, 401 East State Street
Mail Code 401-07C
Trenton, NJ 08625-0420
(609) 984-6888
39th District — Represents Oakland
6. State Senator Gerald Cardinale
350 Madison Ave.
Cresskill, NJ 07626
sencardinale@njleg.org;
7. Assemblyman Robert Auth
350 Madison Ave.
Cresskill, NJ 07626
asmauth@njleg.org;
8. Assemblywoman Holly T. Schepisi
287 Kinderkamack Road
Westwood, NJ 07675
aswschepisi@njleg.org;
40th District — Represents Wayne
9. State Senator Kevin J. O’Toole
155 Route 46 West
Suite 108
Wayne, NJ 07470
senotoole@njleg.org;
10. Assemblyman Scott T. Rumana
155 Rt. 46 West, Suite 108
Wayne, NJ 07470
asmrumana@njleg.org
11. Assemblyman David C. Russo
22 Paterson Ave.
Midland Park, NJ 07432
asmrusso@njleg.org;
FEDERAL:
12. Senator Robert Menendez
528 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
One Gateway Center, Suite 1100
Newark, New Jersey 07102
973.645.3030
973.645.0502 (fax)
13. Senator Cory Booker
141 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
One Gateway Center
23rd Floor
Newark, NJ 07102
Phone: (973) 639-8700
Fax: (973) 639-8723
14. Representative Scott Garrett
266 Harristown Rd, Suite 104
Glen Rock, NJ 07452
phone: 201-444-5454
fax: 201-444-5488
15. US EPA Region 2
Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
Phone: (212) 637-3000
Fax: (212) 637-3526