DEP Can’t Stop Lying About Fenimore Landfill Issues
Drake’s Brook is Legally Listed by DEP as “Impaired”
Will NJ reporters hold DEP accountable?
Source: NJDEP: Clean Water Act Section “303(d) Impaired Waters List” (2012)
In a June 25, 2014 article in the prestigious national technical publication “Engineering News Record” (ENR), the DEP press office dismissed PEER criticisms about denying a public records request for a DEP water quality study on Drake’s Brook, a stream polluted by the Fenimore landfill, see the ENR article:
Specifically, PEER made this claim:
… what neither the residents of Roxbury nor SEP knew was that state DEP biological monitoring data showed that the two streams running around the landfill were impaired. This Stressor Indicator report is based on sampling studies from 2009-2010 showing the deleterious impacts on aquatic life in the Drakes Brook watershed from Fenimore.
DEP press office denied that PEER claim and told reporters from ENR this big whopper. The ENR reported:
At the center of the controversy is a New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection report that has not yet been made public. Critics allege that NJDEP has delayed its release because the document may show that materials from the landfill impaired water quality in local streams. The agency contends that when the report comes out next month, it will not show any significant and lasting damage to the watershed from the landfill.
[…]
Wolfe says biological monitoring data shows that two streams running around the landfill were impaired. Had that information been made public, the Fenimore never would have received a re-opening permit from the DEP, the site would not have been declared a brownfield site, and the solar project would not have gone forward, Wolfe alleges. The report that includes the biological monitoring data from 2010 “is not a draft—it is being withheld because its findings are deeply embarrassing to the Christie people,” he says.
Ragonese denies that the draft report shows anything abnormal, and adds that the final report—part of a routine watershed analysis—will be released in coming weeks. Also this summer, NJDEP plans to put out a request for proposals to cap the site, and begin work on closing the landfill before the end of the year.
DEP is flat out lying here.
It is very easy, based on published DEP documents – even without the specific “Drake’s Brook Stressor Indicator Report” that DEP is withholding – to demonstrate that DEP is lying when they claim that: 1) Drake’s Brook is not impaired, 2) that the Fenimore landfill is not a contributor to the impairment, and 3) that the Stressor study was part of “routine watershed monitoring”.
According to DEP’s own 2012 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Impaired Waters” list, Drakes Brook is listed as “impaired” for 19.5 miles above Eyland Avenue, Roxbury.
The excerpt from the DEP 2012 “Section 303(d) “Impaired Waters List” with respect to Drakes Brook is provided at the top of this post to make it even easier to see the DEP lies.
More detailed “assessment unit” specific information on Drake’s Brook impairment is provided in this DEP document, which shows “non attainment” (impairment) for aquatic life – trout designated uses.
Here is a prior DEP 2008 “Ambient Biological Monitoring Report” that documents Drake’s Brook impairment and explains exactly what the “Stressor Indicator Report” is designed to measure:
Source: NJDEP Ambient Biological Monitoring Report (2008)
DEP’s subsequent “Stressor Indicator Strategy” shows Fenimore landfill and an impaired Drakes Brook. (in that document, DEP noted and photographed the same multiple landfill “leachate seeps” that I did).
Even further evidence is that DEP proposed to remove (“delist”) a 21 mile stretch of Drake’s Brook below Eyland Avenue from the prior 2010 “impaired water list (see DEP’s 2012 “Delisting document“) (so that stretch was impaired as well)
Contrary to what DEP press office states, Impairment is “abnormal”.
Contrary to what the DEP press office states, a “Stressor Indicator Report” is not a “routine watershed analysis”.
The purpose of such a study is to determine the causes and sources of impairment. It is a regulatory exercise to target regulatory compliance issues, not some routine water quality monitoring. According to DEP:
NJDEP also conducts targeted physical, chemical and biological water monitoring for needs such as further evaluation of waters previously listed as impaired on NJ’s Impaired Waterbodies List, TMDL development/implementation, and in response to environmental spills.
See DEP’s own “New Jersey’s Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Strategy: 2005 – 2014” for a detailed discussion of those issues.
Exposing DEP lies is like shooting fish in a barrel.
We will be prepared to discuss these issues when DEP finally releases the Drake’s Brook Report.
At this point, we are concerned that DEP will edit the original Report or spin the findings like they have in the ENR comments.
We will be watching this closely and will keep you posted.
Let’s hope that the journalists covering this issue are equally diligent and skeptically scrutinize DEP claims in light of evidence – including the evidence above.