WolfeNotes.com

Governor Christie’s Environmental Protection Transition Report called for the elimination of the Landscape Project map .

That and other recommendations would be a huge setback for protection of threatened and endangered species habitat and ecosystem protection. Here is the Report recommendation (note the use of the word “purported”, which attacks DEP science):

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

DEP Commissioner Bob Martin agreed with that specific recommendation during his Confirmation hearing on Monday. He claimed that the Landscape Project Map was being inappropriately used for regulatory purposes and that it must be abandoned and replaced by a non-regulatory alternative.

Today, the Endangered and Non Game Species Advisory Committee met to discuss, among other things, the Landscape Project and “Transition Issues“.

Here is the Agenda:

The Landscape Project has enormous potential and is a cutting edge GIS tool. It needs to be strengthened and more effectively implemented. Protection of T&E (including rare and critical ecosystems) and mapped habitat needs to be made mandatory in DEP water resource and land use permit regulatory programs, and also authorized as a basis for local land use Master planning and zoning decisions under the Municipal Land Use Law. But the Christie/Martin move is exactly the OPPOSITE and instead would weaken protections. According to DEP:

The Landscape Project is a pro-active, ecosystem-level approach for the long-term protection of imperiled species and their important habitats in New Jersey. The project began in 1994 by the N.J. Division of Fish Wildlife’s Endangered and Nongame Species Program (ENSP). It’s goal: to protect New Jersey’s biological diversity by maintaining and enhancing imperiled wildlife populations within healthy, functioning ecosystems.

The Landscape Project focuses on large land areas called “landscape regions” that are ecologically similar with regard to their plant and animal communities (Figure 1). Using an extensive database that combines imperiled and priority species location information with land-use/land-cover data, the Endangered and Nongame Species Program has identified and mapped areas of critical importance for imperiled species within each landscape region.

Landscape Project critical habitat maps (Figure 2) were developed to provide users with peer-reviewed,scientifically-sound information that is easily accessible via the internet and hard copy (paper maps). Critical habitat maps were designed for use by anyone, but especially those individuals and agencies who have the responsibility for making land-use decisions, i.e., municipal and county planners and local planning boards, state agencies, natural resource and lands managers, the general public, etc.

Critical area maps can be integrated with planning and protection programs at every level of government – state, county and municipal, can provide the basis for proactive planning, zoning and land acquisition projects.

Most importantly, the critical information Landscape Project products provide can be used for planning purposes before any actions, such as proposed development, resource extraction (such as timber harvests) or conservation measures, occur. Proper planning with accurate, legally and scientifically sound information will result in less conflict. Less time will be wasted, and less money spent, attempting to resolve endangered and threatened species issues.

The high point of the hearing was the opening salvo – for old baseball fans out there it was a high and tight fastball, Bob Gibson style – a harsh question by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Scutari:

What do you say to those who note that you have no environmental training, environmental experience, or government experience and that you don’t know the issues or how State government works?

But there was absolutely no follow through and it was all downhill from there as most Committee members simply left the hearing room (there were 3 remaining when the vote came), listened silently, or asked softball questions.

On policy, the Committee deferred to Senator Bob Smith, who Chairs the Environment Committee.

Smith was flummoxed and seemed like he couldn’t get out of there fast enough. He asked something like 23 questions rapid fire – so fast and so shallow – almost as if there were a 24 second shot clock running down. Martin replied in equally rapid fire and superficial fashion.

Substantively, Martin dug in, defended his qualifications, claimed “DEP is broken”, but pretended that the solutions were all about leadership, management, and information technology (i.e. simplistic just “change the culture at DEP” slogan).

Martin defended the controversial elements of Christie’s policy agenda. Martin distanced himself from just 2 Transition Report recommendations: 1) the elimination of the Category One stream buffers and 2) the recommendation to delegate DEP permitting to the Pinelands Commission and Highlands Council. Gee, thanks a lot!

The only push back Martin got on Christie policy was with respect to the Christie Executive Order #2 federal consistency policy. Smith asked Martin that he closely reconsider EO #2 policy to rollback NJ’s strict State air regulations to the federal minimums under the Clean Air Act. Martin didn’t reply but instead emphasized his desire for “federal alignment” (aka “rollback”).

Senator Weinberg also asked Martin to consider NJ’s poor air quality and adverse health effects, and to moderate his approach to focus on the business community as “customers” in light of the public interest and the mission of DEP to protect the environment.

The questioning was totally ineffective and secured zero policy commitments. The above is about all there is. It was a sad empty joke.

The Committee approved the nomination unanimously without discussion. Martin’s nomination moves on to certain Senate approval.

The hearing contrasted with prior testimony and questioning of Banking and Insurance, and Health and Senior Service Commissioner nominees, where the candidates were forced to engage by Committee members in serious and thoughtful policy dialogue, and Committee members staked out clear policy positions.

I’ve been to several DEP Commissioner Senate confirmation hearings, and this was by far the worst in terms of issues engaged.

All in all, Martin’s hearing was a complete abdication – by both the Committee and the environmental groups who obviously either did nothing to raise concerns with Martin’s  candidacy prior to the hearing, or are totally ineffective. Few even attended and no one testified.

Dave Pringle signed up to testify and was called, but he was conveniently not in the room. How convenient!

The abdication was particularly acute in this case, because it is not as if they didn’t have an unprecedented amount of controversial policy ammo to work with.

Governor Christie and Mr. Martin have offered up more than enough material to criticize: from the Executive Orders, regulatory moratorium; to the Transition Report, to Martin’s red meat press interviews statements, and to rapidly moving pending legislation – up on Thursday – to implement Christie’s Executive Order #2 and portions of the Transition Report that seek to rollback NJ state standards to federal minimums and gut hundreds of DEP technical guidance documents needed to implement and enforce current regulations. Additionally, I have been feeding Committee members and Senate staffers analyses for weeks.

So the Committee members either: 1) just don’t care about the environment; 2) or didn’t want to go there because they support the Christie rollback agenda; or 3) they were keeping their powder dry for higher priority issues, like the budget fight. But I really don’t care what the reasons were, the performance was pathetic.

I will write about the substance of the hearing tomorrow. Those that wish to listen can do so here (click on Judiciary).

One thing I will say right now – and I introduced myself and told Marin this to his face – Martin factually misspoke on Paterson air toxics study.

His mistakes were not minor or hyper technical scientific issues where one could excuse a layman’s mistake. Martin either intentionally mislead the Committee or he didn’t get a full briefing from DEP scientists. The issues in question are: 1) the history of the project; 2) why EPA awarded the grant; 3) the scope of work and justification for why the research was conducted; and 4) why Paterson was selected for the study.

More to follow on all this tomorrow.

Governor Christie’s nominee to head the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Bob Martin, goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee today for confirmation hearings.

Yesterday, we wrote about the environmental and public health metrics Martin must address. Today, we suggest policy and regulatory questions the Committee should probe.

Ten Questions the Senate Judiciary Should Ask Robert Martin

Nominee for DEP Commissioner

1. Qualifications – With a BA in economics and MA in finance, your professional experience is in business consulting.

• Do you have any science, legal, or regulatory training or experience?
• Do you have any large organization CEO/management experience?
• Have you managed a large budget?
• Have you recently done any local civic or volunteer work on protecting the environment, or membership in any group related to the environment?
• Please describe the training, knowledge, experience, and commitment that you feel qualifies you for Office of DEP Commissioner, a complex regulatory agency with a staff of almost 3,000 and budget of $300 million.
• Please provides specific examples of your work at the firm Accenture – did you work on privatization and deregulation policies and practices, especially for water and energy public utility systems?  Please provide details.  Will you pursue a similar agenda at DEP?

2. Regulatory Moratorium – Governor Christie issued a series of Executive Orders (#1-4) that, among other things, imposed moratorium on adopting proposed regulations; mandated cost benefit analysis (CBA); established new “common sense” policies, including mandatory cost benefit analysis, federal consistency and waivers; and revised longstanding administrative law practice by creating a “Red Tape Review Group” and a Regulatory Czar in the Lt. Governor’s Office who may block or influence the content of proposal and adoption of regulations. EO #1 blocked twelve major DEP rules.  [See http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1310 ]

• Which if any of the 12 rules blocked will not be adopted as proposed?  Please explain in detail any specific changes and the rationale for blocking or revising any proposed rules.
• Please detail your understanding of the statutory authorization of CBA and its role in regulatory decision-making at DEP.  What is your plan to implement the new policy to mandate cost benefit analysis?
• DEP has one economist on staff, and he is not trained in CBA.  How will CBA be conducted (and staffed)?
• Assistant Commissioner Wittenberg recently testified to the Senate Environment Committee that the draft Oyster Creek NJPDES cooling tower permit will be subject to a CBA.  Is this legal to do so after the draft NJPDES permit has been issued for public comment?

The framework of federal environmental law allows and encourages states to be more stringent.  For the last 35 years, New Jersey has pursued a policy – generally – of more stringent requirements than federal minimums.

• Please justify the EO #2 policy to mandate that DEP requirements that are more stringent than federal counterparts be subject to additional justification and that new State rules adopt the federal program rules.

3. Transition Report – The DEP Transition Report made numerous controversial recommendations.

Please describe in detail which specific recommendations you have accepted and plan on implementing at DEP, and those that you have rejected.

4. Pending Administrative Order on Guidance – Assistant Commissioner Kropp recently testified to the Assembly Regulatory Oversight Committee that you would soon issue an Administrative Order making all current DEP Guidance voluntary and restricting enforcement to the express provisions of regulation.

• Please describe the rationale and impacts of this order.
• What DEP Guidance documents and Technical Manuals would be impacted?

5. Scientific Integrity – The Corzine Administration announced a plan to create a Science Advisory Board. Appointments to that Board were never made.  PEER has recently prevailed in an Open Public Records Act lawsuit to force DEP to reveal the names of nominees to the board and their corporate sponsors.  [See http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1306]

• What is your plan for a Science Advisory Board and how will you assure that no regulated entities with economic stakes in science and policy are members of that Board?

The DEP has been criticized for policies and practices that politicized science within DEP and restricted the public release of data and scientific reports.  [See http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1220]

• What is your plan to assure that political concerns and the DEP press office do not interfere in DEP science?
• How will you make DEP science more open and transparent?

6. Transparency – Governor Christie has made a commitment to increasing transparency in government.  The Corzine administration denied petitions filed PEER that sought rules to increase transparency and accountability at DEP. [See http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1295]

The PEER rules would 1) require public disclosure of meetings and communications between DEP policy makers and representatives for regulated industries and developers; 2) post calendars of top officials on the web; and 3) ban gag orders so that scientists, inspectors and other professional staff can speak honestly to the public and the media without fear of retaliation.

• Will you agree to reconsider and act to approve these transparency petitions?

7. Environmental Justice – DEP recently issued a Report that found that NewJersey’s urban areas and minority and lower income groups are disproportionately impacted by pollution.  NJ EJ Advisory Council in March 2009 issued a Report to DEP with recommendations, including new requirements to improve urban air quality, address cumulative impacts, and mandate additional pollution controls and risk assessment requirements.

• Do you support these recommendations and how will you address New Jersey’s pressing urban environmental quality deficits?

8. DEP Role in Economic Development – You have stated that you want DEP to play a more active role in promoting economic development.  However, the relationship between DEP environmental regulation and the current economic recession has not been established.

Do you believe that DEP and environmental regulations are factors in causing this recession? If so, please explain and provide supporting evidence.

DEP is a regulatory agency created to protect public health and the environment, and promotion of economic development is not the legislative mission of DEP or the policy of state environmental laws. Please explain what you meant by these remarks.

9.  Water Resource Protection – The Water Supply Master Plan is long overdue.

• When will it be proposed?

The Corzine administration weakened the DEP “Category One” water protection and stream buffer program. [See http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1058]

• Will you restore the prior C1 methodology to assure protection of 300 foot buffers and upgrade Category One designations for all 1,600 “Candidate C1 Waters” listed in the March 2003 NJ Register?  If not, why not?

10.  Implementation of the Global Warming Response Act –

• What is your plan to implement deep GHG emission reductions to meet the requirements of the GWRA?

In 2005, DEP adopted a regulation that defined GHG’s as “air contaminants” under the New Jersey Air Pollution Control Act.  This authorized DEP to regulate GHG emissions.

• When will you propose regulations based on this authority to implement specific DEP regulatory controls on all sectors and major sources of GHG emissions?

Mr. Martin Managed a Mess of Meaningful Metrics.

A Mess of Meaningful Metrics Mr. Martin Managed.

If Mr. Martin Managed a Mess of Meaningful Metrics,

Then how Many Meaningful Metrics Must Mr. Martin Meet?

On Monday, Bob Martin, Governor Christie’s nominee for Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), undergoes his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Martin is a corporate consultant who has experience in privatization and deregulation. He advocates management metrics and holding employees accountable.

So we thought we would lay out some metrics for the Judiciary Committee to hold Mr. Martin accountable to (see also: Environmental Indicators Technical Report NJDEP).

Where we lack current or complete data below, we urge the Judiciary Committee to ask Mr. Martin what the facts are, to develop meaningful indicators, and to commit to numeric performance metrics. We urge the Committee to make Martin walk the walk:

1. Air Quality

NJ fails to meet the federal Clean Air Act’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The entire state does not meet health based standards for air pollutants ozone, fine particulates, and numerous cancer causing toxic chemicals Here’s just one illustration by DEP of the huge public health impacts and economic costs of air pollution:

The health effects associated with exposure to fine particles are significant, mainly due to the fact that particles of this size can easily reach into the deepest regions of the lungs.

Significant health effects associated with fine particles exposure include:

• Premature mortality;
• Aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease;
• Decreased lung function and difficulty breathing;
• Asthma attacks; and
• Serious cardiovascular problems, such as heart attacks and cardiac arrhythmia….

A particular concern for New Jersey with respect to PM2.5 is its ability to aggravate asthma. The NJDEP has estimated that approximately 1,900 deaths and 53,000 cases of asthma in the State each year are attributable to exceedances of the PM2.5 annual standard, with associated medical costs of approximately $15 billion. (link) …

According to the most recent Federal and State estimates, 765,125 New Jersey residents have asthma. In 2004, asthma sufferers in New Jersey accounted for 15,679 hospitalizations, which represents approximately one out of every 50 hospitalizations. Of these asthma hospitalizations, 5,175, or about one-third, were children. There were 1,838 deaths due to asthma between 1989 and 2003 in New Jersey. The risk of death from asthma increases considerably with age, with the over-65 population having the highest rates. (see: Asthma in New Jersey Annual Update 2006. New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services, August 2006 (click on this for document)

2. Water Quality

More than 65% of streams and rivers and 100% of lakes fail to meet water pollution standards and lack cleanup plans. Statewide Fish Consumption Advisories warn that fish and shellfish are too toxic to eat.

3. Safe Drinking Water

Over 12% of residential drinking water wells fail health based standards.

4. Loss of Farmland, Forests, and Wetlands

NJ continues to lose more than 15,000 acres of the last remaining forests, farms, and wetlands per year to new development.

5. Land Use and Land Cover – Over development

NJ is the nation’s most developed state, with the highest population density, impervious cover percentage, and cars and roads per square mile.

6. Rising Green House Gas Emissions

Despite the rhetoric, according to federal Department of Energy statistics, NJ’s greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise steeply.

7. Natural Resources are Capital Assets

Consider the economic benefit findings below which don’t include public health benefits of DEP pollution control and environmental quality programs and calculate the economic returns (ROI) on that small DEP investment!

Executive Summary

Our results are summarized below; all figures are 2004 dollars. The figures include only ecosystem services; they do not include ecosystem or abiotic goods or secondary economic activity related to a given ecosystem.

Wetlands provided the largest dollar value of ecosystem services: $9.4 billion/yr for freshwater wetlands and $1.2 billion/yr for saltwater wetlands. The most valuable services were disturbance regulation ($3.0 billion/yr), water filtration ($2.4 billion/yr), and water supply ($1.3 billion/yr) for freshwater wetlands, and waste treatment ($1.0 billion/yr) for saltwater wetlands. (Disturbance regulation means the buffering of floods, storm surges, and other events that threaten things valued by individuals or by society as a whole.)

Marine ecosystems provided the second-largest dollar amount of ecosystem services: $5.3 billion/yr for estuaries and tidal bays and about $389 million/yr for other coastal waters, including the coastal shelf out to the three-mile limit.

Fisheries (It should be noted that the fish and shellfish obtained from these ecosystems are covered elsewhere in this report and are not included in these totals.) Nutrient cycling (i.e., waste dilution and removal) was the most important service provided by marine ecosystems, with a value of $5.1 billion/yr.

Forests cover the largest area of any ecosystem type in New Jersey, and because of that the total value of the ecosystem services they provide is one of the highest at $2.2 billion/yr, excluding the value of timber. Habitat services are currently the most important of these services ($1.4 billion/yr); other important services provided by forests include water supply and pollination (about $238 million/yr each) and aesthetic and recreational amenities ($179 million/yr).

Urban green spaces and parks cover relatively little of New Jersey but has a relatively high dollar value per acre and provides an estimated $419 million of ecosystem services annually, principally aesthetic and recreational amenities ($361 million/yr). Ecoservice values for other types of urban land and for barren land were not investigated in this study.

Beaches (including dunes) provided by far the highest ecoservice value per acre; their small area limited their annual ecoservice value to about $330 million, mainly disturbance regulation ($214 million/yr) and aesthetic and recreational amenities ($116 million/yr).

 

Agricultural land includes both cropland (estimated at $78 million/yr of ecosystem services) and pastureland (estimated at $45 million/yr). These values relate solely to the services provided by farmland, mainly habitat services from cropland ($75 million/yr) and waste treatment services from pasture land ($26 million/yr). They do not include the value of the food provided by farms, which is covered elsewhere.

Open fresh water and riparian buffers provided services with an estimated annual value of $66 million and $51 million respectively, mainly water supply ($64 million/yr) and aesthetic and recreational amenities ($51 million/yr). Another part of this report covers the value of water as an ecosystem good.

The total value of these ecosystem services is $19.4 billion/year. If we exclude studies which were not peer-reviewed and/or which did not report on original research, the result is a lower estimate of $11.6 billion/year. However, this exclusion makes it impossible to estimate values for a number of ecosystems and/or ecoservices, and we believe that the higher figure better represents the value of the services provided by New Jersey’s  ecosystems. If the excluded studies are added back but weighted at 50%, the total value of ecosystem services would be $15.5 billion/year.

8. Toxic Site Cleanup Metrics

NJ has the most (114) federal Superfund sites and more than 20,000 other toxic sites.The NJ DEP’s state cleanup program has been privatized, and now “Licensed Site Professionals” (LSP) are in charge of certifying cleanup with little or no DEP oversight. Given the inherent potential for abuse, DEP must develop engineering performance metrics that look beyond paper certifications of cleanup by the LSP’s. One approach would be for DEP, based on more than 25 years of cleanup experience, to develop benchmarks and numeric metrics that state of the art cleanup technology can achieve for soil and groundwater. DEP must then promulgate these performance metrics as cleanup standards and require that LSP’s measure and report actual pounds of toxic chemicals actually removed at a cleanup site. DEP could then compare the LSP removal rates with state of the art performance metrics to monitor LSP certifications and enforce real cleanup requirements.

9.  Toxic Chemical Production

The problem is their toxic product. NJ industries use over 15 BILLION pounds of hazardous chemicals per year. That number has grown slightly from 1990 – 1998 (most recent data reported by DEP Pollution Prevention). That’s almost 2,000 pounds for each resident.

Hundreds of NJ Communities are threatened by scores of dangerous chemical facilities, where an accident or terror attack could kill more than 100,000 residents.

 

10. Cancer rates

NJ has the nation’s highest cancer and asthma rates. Cancer clusters caused by industrial chemical emissions have been documented in Toms River and Pompton Lakes.

11.  Flood Damages

According to DEP:

Each year, New Jersey sustains millions of dollars of flood damage, which is borne not only by those directly affected by flooding but also by taxpayers through relief measures and increased insurance premiums. Without Statewide regulations governing minimum construction standards in flood hazard areas, each individual county and municipality would have its own standards, or would have no standards whatsoever beyond the minimum requirements established by local building codes and the National Flood Insurance Program. By providing a stringent Statewide standard, the system of approval becomes more predictable for individuals designing and constructing within flood hazard areas and provides the highest level of protection for the public.

… the more stringent requirements of the proposed new rules may cause some development to relocate outside the flood hazard area altogether. This does not necessarily incur costs to the regulated community so much as it is likely to reduce the profit margin on potential development in flood hazard areas. Consequently, it is possible that the proposed new restrictions on development in flood hazard areas and riparian zones will reduce the value of existing property in these areas, but may also cause property values outside these areas to rise. (link to DEP Document)

DEP also found that flooding and destruction of water resources are caused by over-development:

Nonpoint source pollution is dependent upon factors of topography, vegetative cover, population concentration, and land use. Buildings, roads, driveways, parking areas, lawns and even agricultural land uses add contaminants to stormwater and prevent or reduce the percolation of water into the soil, resulting in:

• Increased runoff of nonpoint source pollution and sedimentation of streams;
• Increased stormwater runoff and faster and higher flood peaks;
• Increased scour and erosion of streambanks;
• Reduced recharge to ground water and lower stream base flow; and
• Destruction of wildlife habitats.

The effects of development and increased impervious surfaces in watersheds combine to degrade the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the State’s streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, and estuaries. (link)

12. Coastal Risks

NJ’s precious shore is highly over-developed and vulnerable to storms and sea level rise.

13. Soil Erosion and Soil Compaction

Construction practices by NJ builders compact soil, making it behave more like pavement than soil. This increases flooding, pollutes streams, and depletes groundwater recharge which jeopardizes water supply and ecological integrity.  

14. Industry Compliance rates

The data clearly illustrate two fundamental policy considerations: first, traditional mandatory frequent inspections and mandatory fines and penalties for violations of permits vastly improve both environmental compliance and performance rates (see: Clean Water Enforcement Act). Second, voluntary compliance is an oxymoron and abject failure (see EPA Inspector General Reports:

• Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reduction Programs Have Limited Potential, 08-P-0206, July 23, 2008
• Voluntary Programs Could Benefit from Internal Policy Controls and a Systematic Management Approach, 2007-P-00041, September 25, 2007 
• Ongoing Management Improvements and Further Evaluation Vital to EPA Stewardship and Voluntary Programs, Report No. 2005-P-00007, February 17, 2005

15. Material Consumption and Solid Waste Generation rates

Solid waste disposal is strictly regulated in NJ. But life-cycle environmental impact analysis shows that by far the majority of impacts – as high as 90% – are the result of activities prior to disposal – from mining to manufacture to transportation and distribution. This suggests the need for a material management policy that stresses reductions in material use and gross over-consumption rates. But the Whitman DEP  abandoned the life-cycle assessment approach and source reduction policies in 1994. Since then, material use, consumption rates, and garbage generation rates continue to rise, despite efforts to recycle (see: DEP State Solid Waste Management Plan).

16. Low impact Food production for local in state consumption

NJ is not sufficient in food production and industrial farming practices are unsustainable in terms of high energy, water, chemicals and fertilizer use; soil erosion and loss of soil fertility; and lack of local in state markets for sustainably, locally, and organically grown produce. We need metrics to promote sustainable, healthy, and low impact local agriculture.

17. Renewable Energy Production

Where did all that Clean Energy Fund money go?

18. Urban Environmental Quality and Environmental Justice

NJ’s racially and economical segregated urban communities bear unjust disproportionate pollution and health burdens.

19. Preventable environmentally related disease

Dr. Robert D. Bullard, of Clark Atlanta University, the man known as “the father of the US environmental justice movement” spoke recently at Drew University. Bullard pioneered mapping the relationships between race, income, and pollution. It only took NJ DEP 35 years to apply Dr. Bullard’s mapping methodology in NJ- see: DEP Discovers Discrimination – Dumps Environmental Justice Issue in Christie’s Lap (and 30 to engage the issue in Camden).

Dr. Bullard’s talk was titled Growing Smarter: achieving healthy and livable communities for all.

Bullard had great photographs and slides to illustrate his data on everything from the lack of access to fresh fruit and vegetables at local grocery stores (despite a preponderance of liquor stores), lack of green space, limited recreational opportunities, and unhealthy schools and homes located right next to industrial pollution sources like chemical factories and power plants.

Citing a closed hospital in a black neighborhood in Atlanta, he said the message it sent to the community was “shut up and die”.

Bullard seamlessly integrated basic health prevention (diet and exercise) with spatial analysis of land use, transportation, energy, health, educational and environmental polices.

Bullard’s overarching theme was “we must put health at the center of our policies” and that citizens and communities must organize to fight for sustainable, just, and healthy communities.

20. Strong Bi-Partisan Public Support for Environmental Protection

A recent Monmouth University/Gannett Poll found widespread public support for strong environmental regulations (See the press release and poll results and methodology by clicking here).

Seventy Nine (79%) of NJ residents said they would be upset in Governor Christie relaxed environmental regulations (42% very upset and  37% somewhat upset).

Support was highest among Democrats, where a surprising 91% supported strong environmental regulations, while  75% of Independents and even 67% of registered Republicans said they would be upset if NJ’s environmental regulations were relaxed in response to the state budget and economic crisis.

Just 15% were not too upset and a mere 4% actually supported rollbacks, saying they were not upset at all  (link)

This process [i.e. the moratorium, Red Tape Review Group, cost/benefit analysis, and new federal standards policy of Gov. Christie’s Executive Orders 1-3] could just enable them to have a better understanding of what they’re getting themselves in to.” Dave Pringle

Tonight, NJN TV News covered the controversy over DEP’s proposed drinking water standard for the chemical perchlorate. Legal adoption of that standard has been blocked by the Christie Executive Order #1 moratorium and “Red Tape Review” process (the story runs from time 12:45 – 15:22).

The perchlorate standard is the first big test of the Christie DEP because it is stricter than federal standards, is based on public health, and has not been justified by cost/benefit analysis. Therefore, the proposal exposes major flaws in Christie’s Executive Orders #1-3, which mandate cost benefit analysis and seek to limit NJ DEP rules to federal minimums.

Here’s what the DEP said about the US EPA’s federal approach to perchlorate (which shines a bright light on the flaws in Christie policy under EO#2 to rollback NJ’s  strict State standards to federal minimums):

It should be noted that on October 10, 2008 USEPA issued a preliminary regulatory determination for perchlorate through its drinking water Contaminant Candidate List process (73 Fed.Reg., page 60262). USEPA preliminarily determined that a drinking water standard (MCL) for perchlorate is not needed. Instead USEPA will publish a final non-enforceable health based guidance level at the same time its final regulatory determination is issued. The USEPA regulatory determination established a drinking water Health Reference Level for perchlorate of 15 μg/l. The Department has submitted comments expressing concerns with the USEPA preliminary regulatory determination. The main points made in the comments are: 1) A health based level of 15 μg/l is not protective of infants, as they would be exposed to several times the RfD at this concentration. 2) USEPA should adopt a Federal drinking water standard, rather than drinking water guidance, since perchlorate occurs in public water supplies at levels of health concern at a frequency sufficient to warrant regulation. (proposal at page 6. emphasis supplied)

Here’s how DEP explained the critical difference between the stricter NJ law and the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. NJ law allows consideration of only 3 specific factors, which do not include costs. In contrast, the federal law allows consideration of economic costs, so public health is balanced with costs under the weaker federal program. Consideration of compliance costs undermines science and always operates to weaken public health protection. Again, this distinction illustrates major flaws in the Christie cost benefit analysis requirement, which is inconsistent with and in conflict with NJ Safe Drinking Water law:

The [Drinking Water Quality] Institute considers three factors when recommending MCLs: health effects, technological ability to measure the contaminant level, and ability of existing treatment technologies to meet the MCL. For chemicals causing effects other than cancer (noncarcinogens), the goal is the elimination of all adverse health effects resulting from ingestion, within the limits of practicability and feasibility. The Federal standard-setting process considers these factors and an additional economic factor. (proposal at page 19-20)

We wrote about this issue in detail on March 2 (see:”Christie Rule Freeze Kills Drinking Water Standard“) and again to analyze additional drinking water rules impacted by the Christie moratorium after the DEP “stakeholders meeting” on March 10 (See:”Safe Drinking Water Jeopardized by Christie Moratorium“). Note that we assign blame to both the Corzine and Christie Administration’s for the perchlorate fiasco.

DEP refused to go on the record for the NJN story. But, Ed Rodgers, an award winning reporter at NJN reported that DEP stated the Christie moratorium and Executive Orders would have “no impact” on the decision on the perchlorate proposal. This is a flat out false statement by DEP, because the perchlorate proposal was specifically targeted by Executive Order #1 and listed in Attachment A to that Order. DEP is required to comply with all EO’s 1-3.

Because the perchlorate proposal is blocked by the EO#1 moratorium, legally, DEP may not adopt the proposal until the moratorium is over on April 20, 2010. But the proposal legally expires on March 16, before the end of the EO#1 moratorium. The only way to adopt the rule would be to exempt the proposal from the Christie moratorium.

Because DEP re-opened the fromal public comment period until March 15, adoption also would require that DEP respond to public comments in 1 day. Both actions would be deeply embarrassing and illustrate why EO #1 was ill advised and expose the “re-opened” formal public comment period and informal stakeholder processes a sham (* and would confirm exactly the criticisms we have levied).

Furthermore, DEP published a legal public notice, pursuant to EO’s #1, #2 and #3, extending the written public comment period on the perchlorate proposal until March 15 and DEP held a March 10 “informal stakeholder meeting” on the proposal. Both the legal public notice and the meeting document that the perchlorate standard was subject to and NOT exempted from the EO #1 moratorium on the basis of the public health and other exemption criteria in EO #1.

We’re really getting into the procedural weeds here, but as I’ve written previously, DEP Acting Commissioner Martin could have recommended to the Lt. Gov. that the perchlorate standard and other Safe Drinking Water Act program rules be exempt from EO #1 on the basis of public health. The EO provided criteria and set up a procedure that gave Martin a 10 day period to do so. But he clearly did not, as evidenced by the public notice and extension of the comment period.

So it now is obvious that Bob Martin’s DEP – just days before his Senate confirmation hearing on Monday – is scrambling for a way out of the box that Christie’s Executive Order put him in. That is regrettable, but understandable.

But what is not understandable (or tolerable) is Dave Pringle of NJEF’s comments in the NJN story. Shamefully, it is now undeniable that Pringle is willing to mislead the public and provide cover to let Christie and DEP off the hook.

I watched the NJN segment live, so I don’t have a transcript, but Pringle said “NJ law is stronger than federal law”. Has Pringle read EO #2? That Order requires DEP to adopt federal standards and erects barriers to stronger state DEP rules by requiring cost benefit analysis and additional justification for the exception when NJ rules are allowed to be stricter than federal minimums. 

Pringle is basically spun the purpose of the EO’s and moratorium as designed to allow the Christie Administration time to “let them know what they were getting into”. Instead, they are designed to scale back and kill various DEP rules and fundamentally revise regulatory policies and procedures (see extensive analysis of this in the below links).

The perchlorate standard has been delayed for almost 5 years. It was initially recommended by scientists at the NJ Drinking Water Quality Institute back in October 2005. After years of delay and inaction by former NJDEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson, the standard finally was proposed last March 16, of 2009 by DEP Commissioner Mark Mauriello.

We heard nothing publicly from Dave Pringle criticizing this delay. Pringle Chaired the DWQI Health Effects Subcommittee and knew all about the inside story, so his silence over the 5 years of delay is inexcusable.

But when Pringle’s friend Lisa Jackson faced criticism for failing to take action on DWQI scientific recommendations, she was defended by Dave Pringle. In defending Lisa Jackson, Pringle  blamed then Governor Corzine for the problem. Just a little over one year ago, in a national news story, Pingle said:

[DEP Commissioner Lisa] Jackson’s supporters blame Corzine, not Jackson, for New Jersey’s failure to regulate perchlorate.

“I am very disappointed that the state hasn’t moved faster on developing a perchlorate standard,” said David Pringle of the New Jersey Environmental Federation, who sat on the panel that urged the state to regulate perchlorate. “That being said, I fully lay the blame on the governor’s office. DEP was ready to roll two years ago. It was the governor’s office that prevented us from moving forward faster.“  Jan. 13, 2009 ProPublica

The perchlorate standard finally was proposed by DEP in March 2009. It should have been adopted BEFORE the Corzine Administration left office. But it wasn’t.

Instead, Governor Christie’s moratorium has legally blocked its adoption. But has Pringle criticized Christie the way he slammed Corzine? No.

As a result of Christie’s 90 day moratorium and Red Tape Review Process, which ends on April 20, 2010, the DEP proposal will expire (on March 16, 2010). The only way out is for the Governor or DEP Commissioner to explicitly exempt the rule from the Christie moratorium. But this would put egg on the face of the Governor and illustrate how ill advised that Order was. So obviously, DEP doesn’t want to admit doing that.

But Pringle is again providing cover. After blaming and strongly criticizing Corzine  for inaction, he lets Christie of the hook with the same lame and misleading bullshit spin he used to let Jackson off the hook.

And if the DEP does manage somehow to adopt the proposal before Tuesday March 16 deadline – which I strongly doubt – it will only be because of the political pressure brought to bear by the criticism of this blog, real advocates, and media exposure, and surely not the apologetics and political cover provided by Dave Pringle.

For more details on the Christie EO’s, the “Red Tape Review Process”, and what it all means, see:

Water Pollution Enforcement Put Under the Gun of Christie Moratorium

Safe Drinking Water Jeopardized by Christie Moratorium

Oil Industry Seeks Clean Air Rollback Under Christie Moratorium

Clean Water Held Hostage by Christie Moratorium

Democrats in Legislature Join Christie “Red Tape” Environmental Rollback Juggernaut

Christie Rule Freeze Kills Drinking Water Standard for Chemical Found in Rocket Fuel & Military Explosives

DEP Creates Sham Process To Cover Defects in Christie Orders

Christie Regulatory Moratorium Blocks Major Environmental Protections

Christie Environmental Rollbacks Echo Whitman’s Failed Policy

Christie Regulatory Czar Given The Power and Tools To Rollback Environmental and Public Health Protections

Christie off on the “Right” Foot – Executive Orders Attack Environmental Protections