Solid Waste Disposal – No Effort to Comply With Environmental Requirements

[Breaking 3/15 1:55 pm – Well, we have a response! DEP announces closure of Bulls Island campground. Per DEP press release:

The Department of Environmental Protection’s Division of Parks and Forestry has decided to permanently close the upper river campground at Bull’s Island Recreational Area along the Delaware River in Hunterdon County. The division will remove weakened trees in restoring the campground to a natural state.

Although I agree with DEP on the campground closure (but probably not the tree removal), wouldn’t it make more sense to seek public input on these kinds of parks management decisions BEFORE issuing them as edicts?

I mean, we are talking about public parks! And that still does not excuse the lack of soil erosion, sediment control and riparian mismanagement.

Update: 3/15/12 –  After 5 days and no reply from DEP, I figured I’d remind Commissioner Martin about his “customer service metrics”:

Commissioner –Any progress in responding to my inquiry on Bulls Island? Have you pulled the contracts and permits and found out what’s going on there yet?

I know you stress “customer service” and have fought hard to change the culture at DEP to make it more responsive, so I do look forward to a response.

BTW,  the article below ran in the Hunterdon County Democrat, provided just in case the DEP news clipping service missed it: What’s with this? Dumping at Bulls Island State Park in Kingwood

Yours truly, one tough customer,

Bill Wolfe – end update

Perhaps you’ve heard of the DEP press stunts: last October DEP held the “Barnegat Bay Blitz“, and now this week, the “Delaware Blitz – Dash for the Trash”:

(12/P22) TRENTON – – Volunteers from a host of organizations such as scout troops, schools, businesses, and environmental and nonprofit groups, as well as local residents will fan out across portions of the Delaware River and Bay from Sussex to Cape May counties on March 10-18 to clean up litter and debris as part of the first-ever Dash for the Trash.

Well, some of those Dashing volunteers should join DEP Managers at Bulls Island State Park to clean up the mess that DEP just made along the Delaware River.

Perhaps DEP enforcement and Hunterdon County Soil Conservation Service staff can join them too and issue Commissioner Martin the well deserved enforcement violation notices for:

• solid waste disposal;
• stream encroachment and wetlands fills;
• soil erosion and sediment control requirements;
• water quality violations

There was not even an attempt to prevent harms and comply with environmental regulations.

If a small developer did that, he’d be hammered by DEP enforcement.

What looked like fill material was being bulldozed along about 400 feet of the floodplain. It was full of solid waste: tires, metal, bottles and cans, chunks of steel and construction debris, wood, and PVC pipe.

If that was imported fill, the generator (source) of that fill was so bold as to illegally commingle highly visible solid waste, then there is a good possibility that invisible stuff, like chemical and asbestos contamination is there as well.

So, DEP needs to sample that soil for contamination and take enforcement action against the contractor, the hauler who transported it to the site, and the generator/source of the fill material (if it was imported).

If the soil was not imported, at least DEP could clean it up, not bury it!

There was no soil erosion and sediment controls (silt fence, hay bails, drainage controls, etc), and there was bulldozing of soil and solid waste directly into the river.

 

And after the enforcement actions are taken and the site restored, maybe someone can explain what looks to be the pending slaughter of scores of spectacular sycamore trees.

I saw scores of old trees marked for destruction, likely in response to last year’s tragic death, where an old sycamore fell on the tent of a camping family.

It seems like DEP lawyers – concerned solely about liability – have written the Park restoration plan, not foresters and park planners.

I am a camper myself and am aware of the fact that there are far too few camp sites at NJ State Parks.

Nonetheless, given the remarkable grove of old trees covering Bulls Island, I’d prefer to close the park to camping rather than lose the trees so that campers can be safe.

Let’s see what DEP Commissioner Martin has to say.

Dear Commissioner Martin:

I took a walk at Bulls Island State Park this morning, and was shocked and appalled at what I saw.

There were numerous violations of DEP solid waste, stream encroachment, and water quality regulations, and Soil Erosion and Sediment Control requirements along the Delaware River and D&R Canal (see photo’s below).

Additionally, it appears the numerous magnificent old trees on the island are slated to be cut down.

It is very poor park and environmental management to sacrifice these special trees in order to reduce risks for a handful of campers for a few days of the year.

It would be preferable to save the trees and eliminate camping from the Island.

The illegal fill and construction practices are appalling and must be corrected and land restored.

Given the visible illegal solid waste commingled in the fill material, I strongly urge you to sample this material for contamination and take enforcement actions against all parties involved – from the generator, to the transporter, to the construction contractors.

I urge your immediate attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Bill Wolfe 609-397-4861

Will Forest and Public Lands Management Be Privatized?

[Update: 3/20/12 – Just as predicted, the bill is now being sold as a positive compromise measure – see NJ Spotlight story: Compromise Solution Could Help Restore Health of NJ Woodlands

[Updates below]

Responding to tremendous public opposition, Senator Smith has scrapped his controversial “forest harvest” bill, and agreed to redraft a substitute bill to address some of the concerns raised.

Smith made that announcement at the outset of yesterday’s Senate Environment Committee marathon hearing, which was dedicated exclusively to the merits of the “forest stewardship” issue.

Smith indicated that the plan going forward would be: 1) to listen to the testimony today, 2) to consider DEP’s suggested amendments, 3) to hold an “Earth Week” “stakeholder meeting” on April 26 at 10 am, and then 4) use all that input to redraft a substitute bill for consideration in early May. The substitute bill would be available for public review sometime after April 26, after the OLS Committee aid got a chance to digest the material and redraft a bill.

In a parallel effort preceding yesterday’s hearing, DEP apparently held a recent “Stakeholder meeting” of their own – with a hand picked group of foresters, hunters, and supportive “conservation” groups (the phrase is put in quotes, because some of those conservation groups actually are forestry and mitigation consultants, with economic stakes in the forestry bill).

That DEP “Stakeholder” meeting – coupled with a call for political Kumbaya by Mike Catania – were used to create the false appearance of an emerging consensus in support of a public lands forestry program, if not the specifics of the “forest harvest” bill.

The DEP meeting resulted in recommended amendments, which were distributed to and available only to a small set of hand picked allies. I was not even aware of this meeting and had no access to the DEP amendments – I am trying to get them now.

Smith played right along with this game too.

I get tired of this manipulative bullshit by DEP and the acquiescence of certain conservation groups, which has hit an all-time low. [Update: Clarification: I am advised by legislative staff that the problem “was my fault … not bad behavior by DEP”.]

Smith and the Democrats need to be calling out DEP on this exclusionary and non-transparent “Stakeholder” process cover, not playing along with it.

Anyway, getting back to yesterday’s hearing.

Smith indicated the following broad outlines of what the new substitute bill would look like:

• rename the bill “Forest Stewardship” and eliminate all references to “harvest”, which he repeatedly insisted was a poor choice of words and not the intent of his legislation;
• base the program on Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) standards and include the FSC’s third party private certification and audit process;
• include the Pinelands and prescribed burns as a management tool (consolidate with S368);
• enhance the public review process
• include additional “wild area” restrictions

The hearing was a marathon (you can listen here).

Virtually all state conservation groups testified – the overall tone was one of seeking consensus, but there remained several important outstanding substantive disagreements that were downplayed in what I believe was a  misguided effort to follow Catania’s political strategy.

My testimony was brief, given that it came at the very end of an almost 3 hour hearing.

I raised concerns with the rejection of the US Forest Service regulatory model in favor of a private 3rd party FSC model, based only on the claims of some testimony that suggested they were “bureaucratic” and would paralyze effective action.

This model sounds a lot like the kind of privatization Senator Smith created with his “Licensed Site Remediation Professionals” (LSRP) bill (AKA “mercenaries”).

Last year, DEP proposed to expand this LSRP privatization model into land use permits, a move that was blocked by severe criticism and legislative oversight hearings.

Now, privatization seems to be creeping into forest and public lands management.

[Note: Gov. Christie issued a privatization policy by Executive Order 17 and already announced State Parks privatization plans in his Administration’s “Sustainable Funding Strategy for NJ State Parks“]

Instead of government regulators and enforceable regulations controlling forest management programs, the FSC approach would basically be controlled by certified foresters overseen by a privatized third party certification program.

I pledged to do some research on the US Forest Service’s stated rationale for preferring a regulatory model over the private FSC model.

A related troubling issue is the role of contract certified foresters in the program. DEP and forester testimony stressed the benefits of contracting out work to private consultants. What is not clear is exactly what work would be contracted oiut and how contractors would be held accountable.

Per DEP testimony, apparently the NY and Pennsylvania programs restrict contractors, while the Maryland program does not. DEP testified that they looked to the Maryland program for a model, so there is another potential privatization mechanisms under the contracting power as well.

There were several science and management issues discussed that are either too detailed or beyond my expertise to weigh in on effectively here.

My bottom line sense right now is that this legislative initiative still remains a threat.

The bill is being driven by self interested groups: certified foresters (seeking contracts and money), hunters (seeking more game that would result from creation of more early successional habitat), and “conservation” groups (seeking contract revenues and federal and state grants).

Senator Smith and conservation groups have invested a huge amount of political capital in the initiative, it is becoming bipartisan and is gaining momentum and is thus likely to pass in some form.

At this point, given this likelihood, perhaps the most effective damage control strategy is to try to limit the geographic scope of the bill, expand safeguards, limit the revenue generation and ability to cash cow and cross subsidize projects, and limit the program to a 5 year demonstration pilot program at 3 or so sites in different regions of the state.

And so I’ll close by paraphrasing the testimony of a former Readington Mayor:

How will cutting 100 year old oaks from Cushetunk Mountain make that recreation area a better place?

Right: just how will that work?

[Update: 3/14/12 – “Controlled burns” causing health problems]

Update: The bill will include so called “prescribed” or “controlled burns” – is this another example of an “out of control burn”?

In a decision that I hope prompts engagement across a wide field of abuse of executive power by Governor Christie, a NJ Appellate Court rejected the Governor’s attempt to remake state government.

Colleen O’Dea at NJ Spotlight writes the story about the Court’s decision on COAH, which rejected the Governor’s attempt to eliminate the Council on Affordable Housing (go over and read the whole thing:

Appeals Court Reins in Christie’s Push to Reorganize State Agencies – Court’s sharp rebuke of governor’s plan to shut down fair housing agency could have wide implications.

What I’d like to do here is briefly explore the implications for the issues I focus on.

Perhaps the Court’s rebuke will – in the vernacular – spur the Legislature to grow some balls.

And by growing balls, I don’t mean the standard partisan sniping and cheap political stunts, like the recent efforts on fracking and RGGI.

No, I mean taking on the Governor and asserting the real power of the branch of government that sets policy, the Legislature.

Back in January, I laid out several examples of Christie’s unilateral efforts to remake State environmental, planning, and regulatory policy (see: Christie Vetoes a Picture of Executive Overreach:

The primary focus of Christie’s over-reach are with respect to setting policy and consolidating executive power over major policy controversies, including:

• environmental regulation and policy (EO #1 – 4),
• State Planning (EO 78),
• privatization, (EO 17)
• the controversy over DRBC oversight of fracking
• Regional greenhouse gas emissions (RGGI)
• Consolidation of control over regulatory policy in the Lt. Gov.
• Control over Highlands Council
• De facto moratorium on drinking water standards (Institute has not met for 18 months)
• Executive (DEP) waiver of environmental laws
• public access to coastal waters and river fronts
• elimination of various in but not of entities (EO 15)

The public policy established by the Legislature is under attack by Christie’s Executive action.

Christie’s Executive Orders and DEP’s regulatory initiatives often include policies, criteria, and standards that are either not found in the enabling legislation, or flat out contradict the Legislatively set policy.

Yet, aside from the Joint Resolution (SCR239) to block DEP’s waiver rule, oversight hearings on DEP’s proposed privatization of land use permit reviews, and the reversal of DEP’s proposed elimination of the D&R Canal Commission, there has been virtually no legislative oversight or pushback.

Through all those executive moves, Governor Christie has seized the reins of the policy making apparatus and basically told the legislature to pound sand.

The most recent example is yesterday’s DEP adoption of the “waiver rule” – a rule that is not authorized by the Legislature and poses conflicts with the narrow and strictly limited legitimate waivers that are:

Critics have condemned it as the single worst decision ever to come out of the agency.

“It is so vague that it opens the door to all forms of abuse, which will result in protections of the environment and public health taking a backseat to politics and economic development,” said Bill Wolfe, director of New Jersey Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. (N.J. DEP adopts rule allowing for waivers from regulations – Sandy Bauers, Philadelphia Inquirer)

The lawless arrogance of the waiver rule is illustrative of the Christie MO: it concentrates unilateral and virtually standard-less power in DEP Commissioner Martin to waive compliance with environmental laws passed by the legislature. Compare that to your 8th grade civics book’s foundational principle: “We are a government of laws, not men”

The same arrogant Christie approach to seize policy powers is evidenced by the Governor’s efforts to bypass the Legislature (who have passed bills to ban fracking in NJ) and promote the extremely controversial practice of fracking by using his powers at the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC).

And just like the waiver rule strips the Legislature of policymaking powers, so too does Christie’s various “common sense” and “Red Tape” executive orders, which reverse virtually all legislative policies to protect public health and the environment.

Those Christie Orders unilaterally and without legislative authorization revise the substantive standards of environmental laws and regulations.

So, with the Court prompt the Legislature to step up to the plate?

Stay tuned.

Prallsville Mills on D&R Canal State Park along the Wild & Scenic Delaware River – at the confluence of Wickecheoke Creek – a very fine place to visit.