WolfeNotes.com

 

I’m still so sick over the Star Ledger endorsement of Gov. Christie that I can barely think straight.

Despite the fact that they correctly called Christie “a catastrophe” on the environment – a devastating blow I would normally salute.

Luckily, retired Star Ledger columnist and education expert Bob Braun can think straight and write eloquently and with passion.

Braun wrote a tremendous piece pointing out the contradictions and cowardice of that editorial board endorsement – this is truly a must read piece, including the comments from readers, which destroy Tom Moran’s education arguments in support of Charter schools, see:

The Star-Ledger wants us to vote for a man it calls a catastrophe and a fraud. No, thanks.

Today, Senator Buono followed up on this debate, and I say BRAVO!

Buono blasts Christie’s education policies, Star-Ledger’s endorsement at retired teachers’ lunch

Any teacher or education supporter – or environmentalist – who votes for Christie is out of their mind.

Drafting MOA, with No Policy Guidelines or Science Based Standards – Behind Closed Doors

Commission Remains in Denial and Dragging Its Feet on Addressing Climate Change Issues

Opposition Growing as Critical December “Go/No Go” Decision Looms

Dozens of opponents of the South Jersey Gas Co. Pipeline jammed a meeting of the Pinelands Commission’s Policy & Implementation Committee  yesterday to voice opposition to what one activist dubbed “The Christie-Norcross Pipeline”.

Signaling support for the project, Commission Chairman Lohbauer recently directed staff to prepare a “Memorandum of Agreement” (MOA) with the Board of Public Utilities (BPU) that would allow the pipeline project to proceed, despite the fact that it violates the forest protection standards of the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP).

The economic feasibility of the pipeline project is related to the re-powering of the BL England plant, which is under a critical “go/no go” decision by the end of December under a DEP enforcement Order. Similarly, the viability of the BL England plant re-powering is dependent upon approval of the pipeline. It is unlikely that the BL England plant or the pipeline would get financed under regulatory risk. (see this briefing by Ms. Roth on June 28, 2013 minutes)

 There are rapidly approaching deadlines including RC Cape May Holdings determination by May 1, 2014 that it will indeed repower the plant or face complete cessation of operations of the coal fired units. Unless repowered, the Amended Administrative Consent Order (AACO) with the DEP requires the complete shut down of the 2 coal fired units by September 30, 2013 and May 1, 2014, respectively. 

Both projects have received all other DEP and BPU approvals – so the Commission will decide the fate of this $500 million regional fossil infrastructure deal. And it looks like SJG and BL England are demanding the Commission’s approval before the end of December, so we are rapidly approaching a critical juncture.

Under Pinelands rules, a MOA is limited to a “public agency’s development plans”.

The growing opposition has denounced the MOA as an outrageous and illegal abuse, because the pipeline is a private corporate project and BPU is a regulatory agency, not a “development agency”. It was interesting to note that the growing coalition opposing the project now includes the Philadelphia chapter of Move On.Org.

First to testify was Sierra Club Director Jeff Tittel.

Tittel noted that as he spoke, Gov. Christie and South Jersey political boss Sen. President Sweeney were holding a groundbreaking ceremony for a new 700 megawatt natural gas plant in Woodbridge. Gov. Christie is supporting 3 new gas plants with a capacity of about 2,000 megawatts, not including the BL England plant that would be served by the SJG pipeline.

Tittel said that the BL England plant and pipeline were not needed, because  there is a glut of power in NJ. A major new Susquehanna Roseland power line through the Delaware Watergap will import even more dirty coal power.  All this new power supply is coming at a time when NJ’s electric energy demand is falling, demand management programs are underfunded,  1,100 megawatts of solar has come on line, 1,100  megawatts of offshore wind are planned, and there is a huge untapped potential for more energy efficiency, solar, and wind power.

Tittel then warned the Commission that a MOA with BPU to cover for a private pipeline project would open pandora’s box, and set a dangerous precedent. He ran through a list of possible abuses of the MOA mechanisms with other NJ government regulatory agencies – suggesting that the Casino Control Commission could partner with Trump and build a casino in the Pines, or the Sports and Expostion Authority could execute a MOA to build another Xandu in the Pines.

A MOA is an agreement that must show that the project can proceed and provide an “equivalent level of protection” through some kind of “offsets” that can mitigate negative impacts on the Pinelands.

As I’ve written, the Commission conceded that it lacks any technical standards, methods, or Guidelines about what constitutes an “equivalent” level of protection and what a scientifically defensible “off-set” would be. This can only lead to wholesale bargaining and a corrupt cash deal, like the Commission previously did in approving a power line along the GS Parkway.

A former Pinelands Commissioner  chastised the Commission for even considering a MOA to circumvent the CMP.

I testified again to suggest that a MOA was premature. I again urged the Commission to get independent expert support; to develop standards and methods for a “equivalent level of protection” “offset” under a MOA; and to include climate change impacts within the scope of its review.

I then noted that Mr. Tittel’s energy planning and infrastructure comments were well taken and should have been addressed by the Commission during the BPU review of the project. BPU issued its approval back on June 21, 2013.

Under NJ’s energy deregulation scheme, the BPU can no longer require a “demonstration of need”. Therefore, critical energy infrastructure capacity and planning issue are made solely by corporations based on profits, not need.

The Pinelands Commission is not bound by this deregulatory scheme and could address these critical infrastructure planning concerns under its CMP planning power.

However, instead of protecting the Pinelands and raising these critical issues when they were under BPU review, the Commission Director and lawyer were following orders from Gov. Christie’s Office and supporting the project.

In fact, with no Commission policy direction at the time – at least publicly expressed like Chairman Lohbauer recently did in directing staff to prepare a MOA – Director Wittenberg and Counselor Roth were quietly supporting and facilitating the project, in a way designed to keep critical BPU and DEP approvals below the radar before the kind of public awareness and opposition we now see could form and have an impact.

In fact, according to the Commission’s April 12, 2013 minutes:

Notice how Ms. Roth failed to note that BPU review was under way and that it was a critical time to put any Commission concerns on the table.

Note how there is no heads up to the public that BPU will be holding public hearings.

Instead, Roth quietly characterizes the project as a done deal to be the subject of a negotiated MOA.

Roth and Wittenberg were just following orders from the Gov.’s Office and negotiating with BPU, DEP, and SJG behind closed doors and under the public and media radar.

And they were doing that intentionally to avoid the public opposition that we now see.

Just look at the coordinated chronology of 3 state agencies: 1) after the Commission’s staff sent the green light MOA signal in April, 2) DEP issued a revised ACO that promoted re-powering BL England in may, and 3) BPU issued the pipeline approval in June.

All of this staff agency support was coordinated by the Governor’s Office – thus the apt new name for the project as “The Christie Norcross Pipeline”.

Like I said, it’s Chinatown.

The Star Ledger ran an absolutely infuriating editorial today that blames red tape and bureaucrats for the failed response to Sandy, see N.J. bureaucrats are stonewalling Hurricane Sandy victims

As I wrote yesterday, the current intolerable situation is way beyond stonewalling.

I predicted all this would happen way back last November when Christie named Furzan as Czar – and have written about the multiple flaws in that appointment numerous times since then (e.g. see this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this).

The arrogance, incompetence, patronage, cronyism, self promotion, lack of transparency, lack of public accountability, and lack of a science based plan to guide recovery and redevelopment were cemented in place by the Gov. when he chose to name a Czar and consolidate power and control through the federal block grant program funding, rather  than engage in an open and public planning process.

But, instead of drilling down on those issues and conducting real investigative journalism and reporting the facts, the media did nothing but cheerlead for Gov. Christie and stoke multiple misleading myths.

The media ignored the substance and continued cheerleading, even after obvious policy contrast stories were teed up by NY Gov. Cuomo’s response to Sandy and President Obama’s Executive Order.

And all that is what built his favorable poll ratings and enabled the policy failures and resulting  human suffering on the ground we are seeing now.

Since Ferzan’s appointment by the Gov.,  it has only gotten worse, and the Gov. has politicized and self promoted shamelessly, just as I predicted back in January: Gov. Christie Launches Re-Election Campaign in Belmar.

It continues today – most recently an amazing example occurred yesterday.

On Monday, during a Legislative hearing in Toms River, the Gov. got blasted for failure to distibute ONE DOLLAR from a  $600 million pot of federal money to help people rebuild damaged homes, know as the RREM program. Yet, the Ledger had a favorable headline about a planned future release of just $8 million of the $600 million.

Repeat: not one dollar distributed, at a time when thousands of people are homeless.

First of all, that story was broken by the Wall Street Journal, not a NJ media outlet. Second, it got very little coverage in NJ outlets and even less the stories on Monday’s Toms River hearing.

But far worse, the RREM failure was cited by Senator Buono in the last debate, and again ignored by media.

So, after virtually ignoring a massive EPIC RREM failure, what does the Star Ledger and the rest of the media do?

They trip over themselves to write a positive story – based exclusively on another Christie press stunt – about a new $57 million chunk of federal money to help homeowners!!!

So, I blame the media for the epic failure of democracy and the likely re-election of an incompetent fraud.

Next in line are the “bi-partisan” Machine Democrats who “worked with the Gov.”, instead of looking out for their own people and holding him accountable.

Last in line are the cowardly “environmentalists” hiding under their desks – and planning advocates and academics – all of whom knew how fucked up this all was and said nothing, either out of fear, career, or financial interests of their organizations.

Below we repost the original November 2012 prediction:

NJ Gov. Christie Slams Door Shut on Coastal and Climate Change Reforms In Wake of Sandy

November 28th, 2012Bill Wolfe

 

Junta:  noun. A council or committee for political or governmental purposes; especially:  a group of persons controlling a government especially after a revolutionary seizure of power.

[See End notes]

I use the word carefully and with precision, because the Christie Administration has earned it in every respect with regard to the issues surrounding Sandy recovery.

Last night, that became apparent, as Gov. Christie’s again defied legislative oversight and used legislative surrogates to attack critics.

At a prior legislative hearing, it was Senator Beck (R-Monmouth), who shamelessly attacked affordable hosting advocate Staci Berger (I wrote about that here).

Prior to that, it was Assemblywoman Schepisi (R-Bergen/Passaic) who attacked affordable housing advocates, shamelessly demanding “Just how much do you want? (see this)

Last night, it was Assemblyman McGuckin’s turn (R-Ocean) [and McGuckin isn’t even on the Environment Committee – he sat in the hearing as a legislative courtesy because the hearing was held in his district county.]

McGuckin was so disgusting in his McCarthyite bullying attacks on Christie critic Jeff Tittel of the Sierra Club that the audience booed and shouted him down: (Asubry Park Press):

Tensions bubbled over a couple of times.

When Smith criticized Gov. Chris Christie’s administration for not sharing information requested in letters or emails, or attending the hearings, Sen. Jennifer Beck, R-Monmouth, said Smith never once called the Department of Community Affairs commissioner. When Beck said the state will have spent $8 million by month’s end from the $600 million program to help people elevate their homes, an audience member shouted, “That is shameful!”

“You’ve got to tell the governor the program’s broken!” one yelled later, as audience members forcefully rejected Beck’s assertion that information is readily available by making a phone call.

After Sierra Club state director Jeff Tittel criticized the Christie administration on various issues, including the wisdom of rebuilding in flood-prone area, Assemblyman Gregory McGuckin, R-Ocean, repeatedly questioned whether his group supported letting all Ocean County residents rebuild their homes on the homes’ old footprints. Some audience members began calling McGuckin a bully.

Senator Beck also again carried the Gov.’s water, but she too was so transparently partisan she too was shouted down by the crowd (see Star Ledger story)

But, I’m getting ahead of myself here.

Let’s do a little thought experiment:

What would the US press corps call the Executive Branch leader of a hypothetical Central American Country who did the following:

• appointed a personal crony as Czar to control spending of $30 billion in taxpayer money;
• seized billions of dollars in taxpayer money and used it according to his own plan, with no public input or legislative, judicial or media oversight;
• vetoed legislation that would provide transparency in how money was spent;
• use his minority party apparatus in the legislative branch to block legislative efforts to plan and program public funds;
• spent millions of those public funds in television commercials promoting himself;
• spent millions of those public funds to reward his personal cronies and political contributors;
• distributed millions of those public funds via no bid contracts to political insiders;
• bought off the machine leaders of the oppositional political party;
• grossly mismanaged millions of dollars, including providing millions of dollars in grants to wealthy business elites while poor and middle class people were homeless and rendered destitute;
• used public funds to hold numerous self promotional media stunts and ribbon cutting ceremonies for publicly funded projects
• stacked public “Town Hall” meetings with political supporters who asked softball questions and intimidated and attacked critics and inquiring media;
• refused to submit to public oversight and appear before the Legislature to explain his policies and defend his performance
• refused to appear before newspaper editorial boards to explain and defend his record;
• used political surrogates to attack and smear critics
• denied science as an “esoteric” issue he had no time to consider;
• bribed quisling environmental “advocates” with state funds and other perks to silence them;
• was flown around in a helicopter and driven in black SUV caravan’s, surrounded by military armored security; and
• regularly attacked critics and intellectuals.

What would the US call that Chief Executive of that hypothetical central american country?

An authoritarian? a dictator? a Junta?

NJ Gov. Christie has done all this and more.

[End note: oops, I almost forgot this one – how about using State Police to eject me from a public meeting in the DEP public hearing room – I rely on Deputy Attorney General George Schlosser – who I was talking to at the time and witnessed the entirety of this sordid episode – as my witness!

And this was unprecedented and fairly extreme as well:  State Officials Block Open Testimony by DEP Nuclear Whistleblower

Pinelands Ecosystems Highly Sensitive to Water Levels – Climate Change Will Alter Hydrology

“American Die”

 

I can’t remember if I cried, when I read about his widowed bride.

But something touched me deep inside, the day, the music, died.  ~~~ American Pie  –(Don Mclean 1971)

Don McLean couldn’t remember, but I recall that I cried when I read about the NY Times story  Savoring Bogs and Moose, Fearing They’ll Vanish as the Adirondacks Warm .

That article reported on science conducted by NY DEC and Cornell University, which projected the decline and eventual loss of spruce-fir forests and alpine tundra in the Adirondacks as a result of climate change.

Mr. Jenkins, who is the author of the book “Climate Change in the Adirondacks: The Path to Sustainability,”spends much of his time on the water and in the woods, documenting the ecosystem with a notebook and a camera. He thus brings an unusual perspective to the scene. Where a casual observer might behold diversity and continuity, he projects decades into the future and finds absence and loss.

“Nothing we see here is found at temperatures 10 degrees warmer, and very little makes it to five degrees warmer,” Mr. Jenkins said matter-of-factly on a mild fall day. “We will be in a climate that this community has never known in its history. One has to go back to world climate levels we haven’t seen in 15 million years.” …

A major study of the impact of climate change on New York State drew similar conclusions. In a 600-page report published last month, scientists from Cornell and Columbia Universities, as well as the City University of New York, said that temperatures would rise as much as nine degrees by the 2080s. They also projected the decline and eventual loss of spruce-fir forests and alpine tundra in the Adirondacks.

Mr. Jenkins has yet to detect signs of stress in trees and plants, which respond slowly to alterations in temperature. Northern mammals like moose and pine martens are holding steady, though they, too, are sure to suffer. “They are both at their thermal limits here,” he said.

Yet there is ample evidence elsewhere that the region is already reacting to a warmer climate. “For the hunters, farmers, hikers and birders, the change in the climate, especially in the past 10 to 15 years, is just too great to write off,” he said

Repeat: loss of the spruce-fir forests. Gone. Forever.

Growing up, my family vacationed in the Adirondacks. The pristine lakes and streams and wild forests just rocked my young world.

The thought that those forests would be gone forever – that my grandchildren and all boys and girls might never again experience what I did – forever – is just too depressing for words. From awe to despair.

I don’t have that emotional attachment to the Pinelands – but I’m sure many do – and that they would share my feelings too.

So, what about the Pinelands? What will climate change do to the Pinelands?

Yesterday, I wrote about current impacts to forests from warming and insects (see: Climate change already impacting Pinelands forests).

But in addition to temperature driven insect threats, Pinelands scientists have done considerable research on how water levels impact Pinelands ecology.

While this research was originally intended to assess water withdrawals, much of this work is relevant to assessing the hydrological impacts of climate change, because fundamental science and climate models project that climate change will alter temperature, rainfall, and drought patterns that drive Pinelands water levels and ecosystem dynamics:

Physiological Indicators

In plants, stress due to marginal-growth conditions associated with altered hydrologic regimes may be reflected by physiological responses long before death or obvious growth reductions become apparent. Because many of the indicator-plant species to be studied are woody shrubs, their response to alterations in water regime may be slow. It can be expected that wetland-adapted plants will experience drought stress if subjected to hydrologic conditions that are optimal for upland plants. Moreover, differences in tolerance to both dry soils and wet soils may eventually drive changes in community composition. Physiological measurements can serve as an indicator of the stresses that may eventually lead to changes in community composition.

Landscape Models

The models developed as part of the species, community, and ecosystem-process field studies will be translated into GIS-based models that will be used to estimate the effects of hydrologic changes across the landscape of the study areas. The GIS-based species and community gradient models will be used to assess the landscape-scale distribution of community types and individual species and their response to changes in hydrologic regime. The ecosystem-process landscape models will be used to estimate water stress and photosynthesis under different hydrologic-regime scenarios. The goal is to develop models that can be applied throughout the Pinelands area.

Anuran-larval Development

Intermittent ponds are important breeding habitat for many native Pinelands frog and toad species, including Pine Barrens treefrogs, northern spring peepers, and southern leopard frogs.  The successful recruitment of these species depends on the maintenance of adequate water levels for larval development.  Altered hydrology may have a more pronounced effect on late-breeding species such as the Pine Barrens treefrog because their transformation from larvae to adults occurs closer to the period when ponds usually dry. The central question to be addressed by the anuran research conducted by Pinelands Commission scientists is how larval development is related to intermittent-pond hydrology.

Pinelands Commission scientists have done lots of research that shows that Pinelands ecosystems are very sensitive to water  –

Now they need to apply that science to climate change induced hydrological modification – not just water withdrawals.

[Note: tree frog:(Fla)

The impending global climate change may be a threat to the Pine Barrens treefrog due to predicted longer drought periods, more severe storms and floods, less available fresh water, increasing temperatures, and sea level rise (Field et al. 2007).

So when political hacks at the Commission and DEP say that they don’t have the tools to consider climate change in reviewing proposals to build massive fossil fuel infrastructure like the South Jersey Gas Co. pipeline, call them out on that.

Check it out:

Final Reports and Publications

Reports:
Bunnell, J. F. and J. L. Ciraolo. 2010. The potential impact of simulated groundwater withdrawals on the oviposition, larval development, and metamorphosis of pond-breeding frogs. Pinelands Commission, New Lisbon, New Jersey, USA. (click here)

Ehrenfeld, J. G., and S. Yu.  2010.  Nitrogen dynamics study final report.  Part II. Dynamics of nitrogen under field conditions.  Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA. (click here)

Laidig, K. J. 2010. The potential impact of simulated water-level reductions on intermittent-pond vegetation. Pinelands Commission, New Lisbon, New Jersey, USA.  (click here)

Laidig, K. J., R. A. Zampella, A. M. Brown, and N. A. Procopio. 2010. Development of vegetation models to predict the potential effect of groundwater withdrawals on forested wetlands. Pinelands Commission, New Lisbon, New Jersey, USA.  (click here)

Laidig, K. J., R. A. Zampella, and C. Popolizio. 2010. Hydrologic regimes associated with Helonias bullata L. (swamp pink) and the potential impact of simulated water-level reductions. Pinelands Commission, New Lisbon, New Jersey, USA.  (click here)

Lathrop, R. G., Y. Zhang, Z. Maio, and J. Bognar.  2010.  Landscape level modeling of the potential effect of groundwater-level declines on forested wetlands in the New Jersey Pinelands.  Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.  (click here)

Procopio, N. A. 2010. The effect of streamflow reductions on aquatic habitat availability and fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages in coastal plain streams. Pinelands Commission, New Lisbon, New Jersey, USA.  (click here)

Publications:
Bunnell, J. F. and J. L. Ciraolo.  2010.  The potential impact of simulated ground-water withdrawals on the oviposition, larval development, and metamorphosis of pond-breeding frogs.  Wetlands Ecology and Management 18:495-509. (click here)

Charles, E. G. and R. S. Nicholson. 2012. Simulation of groundwater flow and hydrologic effects of groundwater withdrawals from the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer system in the Pinelands of southern New Jersey. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012-5122, 219 p. (click here)

Ehrenfeld, J.G. and S. Yu. 2012. Patterns of nitrogen mineralization in wetlands of the New Jersey Pinelands along a shallow water table gradient. American Midland Naturalist 167:322-335. (click here)

Kennen, J. G. and M. L. Riskin.  2010.  Evaluating effects of potential changes in streamflow regime on fish and aquatic-invertebrate assemblages in the New Jersey Pinelands: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5079, 34 p. (click here)

Laidig, K. J.  2012. Simulating the effect of groundwater withdrawals on intermittent-pond vegetation communities.  Ecohydrology 5:841-852. (click here)

Laidig, K. J., R. A. Zampella, and C. Popolizio. 2009. Hydrologic regimes associated with Helonias bullata L. (swamp pink) and the potential impact of simulated water-level reductions. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 136:221-232. (click here)

Laidig, K. J., R. A. Zampella, A. M. Brown, and N. A. Procopio.  2010.  Development of vegetation models to predict the potential effect of groundwater withdrawals on forested wetlands.  Wetlands 30:489-500. (click here)

Procopio, N. A.  2012. The effect of streamflow reductions on aquatic habitat availability and fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages in coastal plain streams.  Ecohydrology 5:306-315.

Sumner, D. M., R. S. Nicholson, and K. L. Clark. 2012. Measurement and simulation of evapotranspiration at a wetland site in the New Jersey Pinelands. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012-5118, 30 p. (click here)

Walker, R. L., P. A. Reilly, and K. M. Watson.  2008.  Hydrogeologic framework in three drainage basins in the New Jersey Pinelands, 2004-06:  U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5061, 147 p. (click here)

Walker, Richard L.,  R. S. Nicholson, and D. A. Storck.  2011.  Hydrologic Assessment of Three Drainage Basins in the Pinelands of Southern New Jersey, 2004-06.  U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011-5056, 145 p.  (click here)

Yu, S. and J. G. Ehrenfeld.  2009.  The effects of changes in soil moisture on nitrogen cycling in acid wetland types of the New Jersey Pinelands (USA).  Soil Biology and Biochemistry 41:2394-2405. (click here)

Zhang, Y., Z. Miao, J. Bognar, and R. G. Lathrop Jr. 2011.  Landscape scale modeling of the potential effect of groundwater-level declines on forested wetlands in the New Jersey Pinelands.  Wetlands 31:1131-1142.