WolfeNotes.com

Christie Ducks Protesters at Private Gated Millionaire’s Compound

Christie “Not Welcome In Connecticut”

This was no stage managed Christie Town Hall.

Gov. Christie’s fundraiser at an exclusive private gated compound in Connecticut yesterday was jolted by hundreds of protesters, who set up a gauntlet along what protesters thought was the only entrance route to the exclusive compound.

But, in a cowardly move that perfectly echoed his veto of gun safety legislation, Christie took the back door into his Billionaire’s Boys fundraiser and, showing his arrogance and contempt for democracy, evaded the signs and chants of protesters: “Not One More!”

The location, far from the “sacrifice zones” in his home state, was the perfect backdrop to illustrate the the warped priorities of the Gov. – a man that manufactures a budget crisis by providing $2 billion in welfare to corporations while cutting pension contributions, education, and social programs, is right at home in a private gated community of the 0.01 percent, hosted by a hedge fund manager Vulture Capitalist.

[Perhaps a reporter – just one – could ask Gov. Christie, specifically, just how those billionaire hedge fund managers – i.e Vulture Capitalists – and Wall Street financiers – i.e. speculators and fraudster who took down the economy – “create jobs”.  Make the Gov. defend his discredited trickle down austerity policy with some evidence.]

The attempt by Christie to promote his national political aspirations in Connecticut was also a deeply painful insult to many, in the wake of the Sandy Hook elementary school slaughter.

While the political issue that brought out protesters was gun safety and outrage over Gov.’s Christie’s veto of a bill that would restrict high capacity magazine clips that facilitate mass slaughters like that went on in Connecticut’s nearby Sandy Hook school, there were other important – let’s say “non-trivial” – political implications of the large protest of Christie.

[Perhaps an intrepid reporter – just one – could ask the Gov. why he feels that legislation to stop the slaughter of children in schools is “trivial”. Make him defend his own veto and disgusting rhetoric.]

The protest hopefully will begin the process of puncturing the Christie media myth and narrative as a candidate that is warmly embraced on the campaign trail in other states as a moderate, bi-partisan, “strong leader” and “straight shooter” (no pun intended).

Christie needs to receive many more of these kind of pushback protests, in every state – including his own – that he visits in his quest for the Republican Presidential nomination for 2016. Bird dog the bastard!

If every single issue group harmed by Christie’s policies were to organize similar Christie “welcomes” in every state he visits, then maybe the media would begin to look at his record and accurately portray the Gov.’s miserable record, and not simply echo and reinforce the narrative the Gov. is trying to build.

The Gov. is bowing to deeply unpopular special interests – the Billionaire’s, the corporations and polluters, the NRA, etc – in a cynical attempt to court the Republican wing nut base, who vote heavily in Republican primary states.

Second, the crowd was composed of what appeared to be a good fraction of upscale and clearly moderate people. When these folks start taking to the streets in protest, that sends a strong message to others that are similarly outraged by the rightward political shift in this country, and is a source of optimism that movement politics are surging.

Something to build on – take a look at the scene:

 

 

I Entered “Some Kind of Environmental Hell”

THIS PROPERTY CONDEMNED

Under the cities lies a heart made of ground
But the humans will give no love. ~~~ “A Horse With No Name”  America (1972 – listen)

Chris Hedges has written and spoken about places he calls “sacrifice zones” – (in addition to hitting those links, you should watch Bill Moyers’ interview before proceeding with this post).

We have another nomination for that odious distinction.

I closed my last post about the Troy Chemical Superfund site with a photo and caption that contrasted Troy’s lush suburban corporate office park headquarters in Morris County with the conditions of their workers in urban Newark, NJ.

So, today, we take a look at those Newark conditions I observed while visiting the Troy Chemical facility.

The full experience requires far more than a mere look at these photos: the place assaults not just the visual perception, but senses of smell, taste, hearing, feeling, and the moral conscience.

I’m no writer or artist, but the scene was out of Dante or Blake or Bosch – surely beyond the “dark satanic mills” industrial nightmare.

I simply could not take photos of the people I saw.

For to do so would dehumanize, humiliate, and shame them for the utterly deplorable conditions imposed on them – as they emerged from sleeping in their cars, labored in oppressive heat and pollution, or gathered socially in rubble strew abandoned and toxic landscapes that served as makeshift parks and “public” places. Green Acres, not.

The first thing I noticed as I got off the highway and onto local roads was the terrifying assault of noise and fumes from the low flying landing jets and the constant barrage of trucks.

The air was almost moist with the sweet nauseating fumes of organic chemicals.

As I drove at 15 mph (the maximum speed on what passed for a paved road could safely handle) with the windows down, breathing the odors of the huge sewage plant was almost an improvement, as its musky smell masked the organic chemicals and choking truck fumes.

As I parked the car in abandoned lot and walked around, fearing that it might be stolen and that I might get shot, the heat blasting down from the sun and reflecting back up from the pavement and the dust from the rubble strew beyond pothole pocked local roads was oppressive.

Huge 2 – 3 foot mounds and depressions almost made driving a car impossible in places.

Construction debris, piles of soil, and junk of all sorts was disposed of randomly by the roadside.

Mountains of stacked cargo crates towered – adjacent to impromptu landfills of so called “recyclable” debris.

Stagnant waters, swamps, and mudflats gave off a stench that could make a person wretch.

Abandoned grafitti marked industrial buildings crumbled – not even the homeless squatted there.

The place I was at was not some third world country – but in the heart of the largest city in one of the richest States in one of the wealthiest countries of the world.

But amid the chaos and debris and human depravity I could not even photograph, I noticed that the light poles had solar arrays.

Welcome to Newark, NJ – portions of the place I’ve previously written about as “the worst place in NJ – Toxic Torture“ –

I heard that DEP is looking to enforce illegal waste disposal, so take a look (or is DEP only interested in the pretty places? Do DEP enforcement people ever even wander into this neighborhood down these mean streets?):

Note: belated hat tip to Piri Thomas, whose great book of that title I read in Junior High School, along with the poetry of Amiri Baraka, the recently deceased father of the current Newark Mayor, who back then was called LeRoi Jones:

THIS PROPERTY CONDEMNED

 

The NJ Senate and Assembly Environmental Committees will hold their joint annual hearing on the shore on Monday at 10 am in Toms River municipal building, see this for the hearing agenda.

There are plenty of important shore issues to consider, most obviously:

• Gov. Christie’s failed Sandy redevelopment policies
• DEP’s massive rule proposal that would rewrite 30 years of shore protection regulations that invite more development to hazardous locations while ignoring climate change and sea level rise
• Gov. Christie’s failed “10 Point Management Plan” for Barnegat Bay and its continued ecological decline
• Gov. Christie’s failure to move forward with off shore wind development
• The need to finance infrastructure and enforce illegal “Combined Sewer Overflow” discharges
• The need to develop a Climate Change Adaptation Plan
• The need for a Coastal  Managent Plan & Coastal Commission (pending Barnes legislation)
• Ocean acidification and climate change impacts on oceans, bays, and natural resources
• declining ecosystem health due overfishing, pollution, and habitat loss
• pending proposals to promote off shore oil and gas drilling and LNG export
• need to impose NJPDES permit nutrient controls on inland and shore waste water discharges that are causing dead zones, harmful algal blooms, and low dissolved oxygen levels in coastal waters

I’m sure you have additions to this list. I hope they don’t include beach litter cleanup or fake bicycle lanes or planting native vegetation along $250 million highways in flood hazard zones (and those that typically tout NJ’s favorable performance on beach bacteria closure should look at the new EPA standards and hold DEP officials accountable to that).

Please turn out on Monday, and let legislators and Governor Christie know how you feel.

In addition to several prior detailed letters on issues on the agenda and proposed amendments to the bills pending, I just fired off this quick notes to friendly Committee members – I’m a 1 man operation and did what I could do. (see below)

DEP Has Failed To Meet Any Commitments Made On Barnegat Bay Nutrient Pollution

Documents Show That Gov. Christie’s “Commitment” is A Sham

DEP refuses to enforce “narrative” nutrient & ecological standards

This abuse happens all the time – the media get totally spun by DEP about science and regulatory issues.

And this example is about as clear cut as it gets. Follow below how I compare the press release spin with the exact same issues in regulatory documents.

Let’s begin our story with Governor Christie’s ” commitment” to Barnegat Bay, expressed in a May 4, 2010 press release:

Governor Chris Christie has made a commitment to determine the best approach to address the ecological health of the bay and to consider how to deal with effects on the bay of cooling systems at the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant.

Now, one year later, here is the Christie DEP’s spin on Barnegat Bay, in a July 20, 2011 press release where DEP was demonstrating their “new” water monitoring network to reporters:

“The Christie Administration is committed to the ecological restoration of Barnegat Bay,” Commissioner Martin said. “The data collected by this network will provide the foundation for the development of appropriate water quality standards for the bay. At the same time, this research will enable us to focus policies and resources to make sure that we are addressing the complex problems the bay faces as effectively and quickly as possible.”

Keep in mind that everyone agrees that Barnegat Bay water quality and the “ecological restoration” the Gov. is allegedly committed to are driven by nutrient pollution – which includes nutrients   phosphorus and nitrogen, but nitrogen is the primary pollutant of concern in salt water.

So lets look at the DEP scientific and regulatory exchange with EPA – a tougher audience than news reporters – regarding how the data collected by that monitoring network is analyzed and applied in federal Clean Water Act regulatory programs – with a laser beam focus on Barnegat Bay nutrients.

First, let’s look at the 2012 Water Quality Assessment Methods Document adopted by DEP in July 2012, 1 year AFTER this press event:

Barnegat Bay: The Department, in cooperation with Barnegat Bay stakeholders, has initiated a comprehensive study of the Barnegat Bay Estuary and its tributaries that will provide water quality data to determine the locations and extent of water quality impairment. The Department is currently developing indexes to assess biological health and other methods for identifying the causes and sources of water quality impairment within the watershed, with the goal of developing watershed-specific nutrient criteria. Additional information about this effort is available on the Department’s Web site at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/barnegatbay/plan- wqstandards.htm. Because of its priority status, the Barnegat Bay initiative is proceeding on a different timeline than the 2012 303(d) List, which must be submitted to USEPA by April 2012. The Department will still include the Barnegat Bay in its statewide assessment of water quality for 2012; however, that assessment will be based primarily on concentrations of dissolved oxygen, levels of pathogenic bacteria, and other relevant data, as described in the 2012 Methods Document. This assessment will also utilize the extensive water monitoring data collected in Barnegat Bay and the tributaries throughout 2011 as part of this priority initiative. New assessment methods developed for the Barnegat Bay will be proposed for public review and comment separately from the draft 2012 Methods Document and, once those new methods are finalized, they will be employed to assess the waters of the Barnegat Bay Watershed. The Department expects the water quality assessment of the Barnegat Bay to be completed by 2013.

So, the DEP basically excluded Barnegat Bay from the 2012 assessment and impairment listing process, but promised to fix all that by 2013.

Not only that, they got caught trying to delist the northern portion of the Bay for low dissolved oxygen levels without adequate justification, according to EPA.

The DEP also took lots of strong criticism on the 2012 Methods document – from EPA and the Pinelands Preservation Alliance – about how the DEP’s water quality standards, nutrient policies, and assessment methods applied to Barnegat Bay’s problems – basically, commenters took the Department to task because they do not apply to Barnegat Bay, a criticism that the DEP confirmed, see this DEP response to comments:

Got that?

Repeat: “no assessments will be made to determine whether the narrative nutrient criteria is met for those waters”

DEP just refused to enforce the current nutrient standards (and other current SWQS that apply to ecological health).

Let’s repeat it for good measure:

Until assessment methods and thresholds are developed for lakes, estuaries, ocean waters, and non-wadeable rivers, and incorporated into the Methods Document, no assessments will be made to determine whether the narrative nutrient criteria is met for those waters. 

Wow – DEP flat out admitted that nutrient criteria are meaningless because DEP lacks methods to monitor and assess and enforce them!

But, they said that Gov. Christie is committed to the ecological health of Barnegat bay and the they will fix all these problems “by 2013″.

So, now that were’ past 2013, let’s look at the 2014 draft Water Quality Assessment Methods Document to see how deficiencies documented in the 2012 cycle were remedied and whether DEP honored the specific commitments they made. DEP said, by 2013, they would:

• provide the foundation for the development of appropriate water quality standards for the bay
• provide water quality data to determine the locations and extent of water quality impairment
• develop indexes to assess biological health and other methods for identifying the causes and sources of water quality impairment within the watershed
• develop watershed-specific nutrient criteria
• develop nutrient assessment methods and thresholds for lakes, estuaries, ocean waters, and non-wadeable rivers

Did DEP meet ANY of these commitments? Any single one? Did they apply them in the 2014 cycle?

The answer is a RESOUNDING NO TO EACH AND EVERY ONE.

Th DEP didn’t even try. The didn’t even allocate adequate resources to meet the commitments.

So let’s look at what DEP has done in the 2014 cycle –

Remarkably, in addition to not meeting the 2012 commitments and those of the Governor, they actually made the situation worse.

First, DEP excludes most if not all of the data collected by the “new” monitoring network they touted back in 2011:

The 2014 303(d) List will be developed using all appropriate and readily available data collected between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2012 in accordance with a Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP) approved by the Department or EPA and uploaded into the Department’s Water Quality Data Exchange (WQDE) system at http://www.nj.gov/dep/wms/wqde, USEPA’s STORET data warehouse, or the USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) by July 1, 2013.

Most obviously. Rutgers’ study by Dr. Kennish – although it as “in accordance with a Quality Assurance Program Plan approved by the Department” –  is not final and will not be considered.

[Note to Littoral Society: DEP does not accept “citizen” data – read the excerpt above. Water quality data must in “accordance with a Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP) approved by the Department or EPA”. That rules out your app and citizen data. Citizens and apps can not replace government regulators.]

Second, DEP even failed to commit sufficient resources so that they could apply the new monitoring and assessment approach they touted:

In 2010, the Department initiated the Barnegat Bay Ten-Point Action Plan as a model approach for water quality assessment and restoration on a regional basis, to be replicated throughout New Jersey. …

Since the degree of rigor that could be applied in Step 2 of the 2012 Integrated Assessment was limited because it was applied on a statewide basis with limited resources and time; starting with the 2014 cycle, the comprehensive assessment will be applied more thoroughly, with the focus on a selected region.

Third, since nutrients are the critical pollutants of concern in Barnegat Bay, let’s look at DEP water quality nutrient standards apply, how they assess the nutrient standard in 2014.

Nutrients: The SWQS include narrative nutrient criteria that apply to all freshwaters of the State, in addition to the applicable numeric criteria for phosphorus. The narrative nutrient criteria prohibit nutrient concentrations that cause objectionable algal densities, nuisance aquatic vegetation, or render waters unsuitable for designated uses. Biological data, along with continuous dissolved oxygen, pH, and Chlorophyll a data (where available) are used as translators of the narrative nutrient criteria, as explained in Section 4.4. 

That’s right. DEP actually made this worse than the 2012 Report, where is response to comments 25 & 26 (from EPA) DEP stated that the narrative nutrient standard technically applied to all waters (including Barnegat bay), but that DEP just didn’t have the tools to measure compliance with and enforce those standards.

Now, DEP is not even making that concession. DEP now says the narrative nutrient criteria applies only to freshwaters. They don’t even say that the nutrient narrative criteria technical applies to Barnegat bay and other salt and estuaries waters, but can’t be enforced to due a lack of assessment methods.

So, let’s be clear: DEP does not have a numeric standard for nutrient impacts and worse, DEP’s narrative nutrient standard does not apply to Barenegat Bay!  And there are no assessment methods or thresholds for lakes, estuaries, ocean waters, and non-wadeable rivers.

That’s like saying the 65 mph speed limit does not apply to the Turnpike! There’s not even  “don’t go too fast” “narrative standard for the speed limit. There is no fucking limit at all!

DEP Math:

(No applicable water quality standards) + (no assessment methods)  = no impairment and TMDL problems!

But that can’t be right – let’s now go to Section 4.4. and see what it says:

Well, the title of Section 4.4 makes it pretty clear the the narrative nutrient standard does not apply to Barnegat Bay – and even for wadeable freshwater streams it is unenforceable and virtually meaningless:

4.4 Assessment of Nutrient Impacts in Freshwater Streams    

…  Numeric criteria are not currently defined in terms of the frequency and duration that the criterion could be exceeded and still support a healthy aquatic community. Defining the best means to interpret the numeric criteria and/or refining the criteria is an ongoing task as set forth in the Department’s Nutrient Criteria Enhancement Plan, which is available on the Department’s Web site at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/wms/bwqsa/nutrient_criteria.htm.

Ongoing task?  Right.

Governor’s commitment?

Only in the press releases.

That’s a real commitment by Gov. Christie, eh?

 

EPA Finds NJ Lagging In Submitting TMDLs for “High Priority Waters”

DEP Lacks Scientific Justification for Numerous Delistings

The Clean Water Act requires that State’s assess the quality of all State waterbodies to determine whether they meet water quality standards designed to assure that they are fishable and swimmable and support aquatic life.

Waters that fail to meet standards must be listed as “impaired” and subject to an enforceable regulatory cleanup plan known as a “TMDL”, for Total Maximum Daily Load”, commonly called a “pollution budget”.

State’s must submit this Section 303 (d) impaired waters list for review and approval by the US EPA every two years.

Here’s what we said about the NJ DEP’s most recent 2012 Report to EPA, which attempted to delist the Barnegat Bay:

• BOGUS BARNEGAT BAY CLEAN BILL OF HEALTH IS DEATH SENTENCE – Removing It from Impaired Waters List Precludes Remedial Action for Years

Trenton — In a regulatory sleight of hand, the Christie Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has proposed to remove the ailing Barnegat Bay from the official list of water bodies slated for remedial action in the next two years. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) proposal to remove Barnegat Bay from the 2012 list of impaired waters flies in the face of a recent Rutgers University study that found the Bay on the verge of ecological collapse.  If approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the effect will be disastrous for Barnegat Bay’s future viability, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). …

All of the ecological trends in Barnegat Bay are pointing downwards and this critical water body may soon reach a tipping point to becoming a dead zone,” stated New Jersey PEER Director Bill Wolfe, noting that Governor Chris Christie vetoed legislation last year requiring a TMDL for Barnegat Bay.  “The DEP is defying the science and clearly violating the Clean Water Act by using regulatory powers in a political attempt to echo Governor Christie’s veto of a TMDL for the Bay. This amounts to a death sentence for Barnegat Bay.”

Well, we now know that we were right. And our criticism was valid far beyond DEP’s “regulatory sleight of hand” on Barnegat Bay.

In an August 1, 2012 letter to DEP, recently obtained by a FOIA request, EPA found numerous serious deficiencies in NJ’s Report: