Michael H. Levin, Ph.D.
Communications to: www.EnvironResearchAssoc.com 

Months have elapsed since the deer hunt at Haverford Reserve. Two (2) requests for an “Exit Report on the outcome have not been answered.  Commissioners approved this hunt based upon almost no scientific assurance that it would effectively reduce the deer population.  One commissioner even asked for pictures to determine effectiveness of a deer reduction program and at least one motion-activated camera was purchased and installed (it was stolen along with several tree stands and eventually retrieved by a combined force police raid). Baiting took place which undoubtedly attracted animals from a much wider area.  About 45 animals were killed (not counting inevitable cripples) during about 480 hours of hunting, for as tally of over 10 man hours per deer killed.  The number of hunters has not been specified although there were 9 tree stands; neither commissioners nor former commissioners were reported to have participated in the hunt (nor exercised direct oversight over the Exit Report including key topics on: number of deer killed with their age, weight, condition and the like that are really important for any professionally orchestrated wildlife management study). Without such an Exit Report there is no definable method of determining whether the hunt successfully did other than kill some animals.  Results will appear on the ERA website

Text of questions concerning the Superfund Site, answers received from EPA, and evaluation of those answers is presented on the ERA website <www.EnvironResearchAssoc.com> .  EPA’s responses are superficial, incomplete, do not include or reference data and are in all ways disappointing concerning the Wood Preservers Site, Gum Factory Property (in its entirety) and at least 77 private residences and associated public lands downgradient, all of which are defined by EPA as The Superfund Site (NPL 542) for which ~$25.Million of taxpayer money has thus far been expended without definable results. In the past, key members of Haverford’s Environmental Advisory Committee have viewed EPA’s chosen remedy as one to be condemned, poor, or inappropriate for this community; despite this, neither commissioners nor a citizens group has emerged to challenge EPA either to improve the remedy or to forecast the future.  As a consequence, the entire site is likely to be unfit for new construction.           

15. Resolution No. 1703-2009 Public Hearing (3/9/09) Announcement Motion: To adopt Resolution No. 1703-2009 approving a Public Hearing to be held on Monday, April 13, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in the Commissioners Meeting Room, 2325 Darby Road, Havertown, PA regarding an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan consisting of maps, charts and textual material for the redevelopment of the Haverford Road business corridor and Phase I of the Eagle Road business corridor. 

This above-referenced corridors were not included in Haverford’s Comprehensive Plan published in 1988; it can be concluded that this was a “hot potato” even then. The existing Comprehensive Plan was developed in years before that; in the intervening period of time between then and now still other changes occurred.  Although a Comprehensive Plan should be done whenever there are major changes, it probably should be revised as a whole rather than on an ad-hoc basis because revisions would affect still other areas of Haverford Township.  Accordingly, some minor revisions now in the 1988 plan for the corridors should not be confused, or fulfill, planning objectives for a complete revision of Haverford’s Comprehensive Plan. Other than the 1988 plan, there has been no historical background either of the township as a whole or of the corridors presented to guide Haverford’s  planning process.