The Bergen Record today finally wrote the story on the Dupont Acid Brook Delta cleanup plan (see: Cleanup may put wildlife at risk)

That could be the worst headline I’ve ever read – it is Dupont’s mercury emissions that “put wildlife at risk”, not the cleanup!

But aside from the horrible headline, the story itself is pretty good – that’s a self compliment, as we pitched the entire story, soup to nuts, and spent hours briefing reporter Jim O’Neill and providing all the various Dupont and DEP documents (see: DUPONT POMPTON LAKE POLLUTION MAY BE HEADED DOWNSTREAM — DEP Scientists’ Questions Could Prompt Feds to Expand DuPont Cleanup Scope

But you wouldn’t know any of that from reading the story, which makes it appear like all we did was post documents that Ed Meakem previously had been given under OPRA.

While noting the Meakem OPRA, I find it curious that the story fails to note that DEP denied me access to these same scientific documents under the state Open Public Records Act, claiming they were “deliberative”, despite the fact that DEP previously had released these same documents to Ed. The fact that DEP selectively hid the documents from me ought too tell you something about the lack of integrity at DEP.

I must note that the story left out a key point: DEP scientists found that Dupont’s science was “misleading” regarding fish tissue mercury concentrations. The fish tissue concentrations in Pompton Lake and downriver are the lynchpin to the whole argument about Dupont’s mercury emissions as the source.

To his credit, reporter Jim ONeill clearly understood and nailed that issue:

A state scientist expressed alarm about elevated mercury levels in fish downstream from the lake in a May 2008 internal email — and named DuPont as the likely source. “It is clear that fish in Pompton Lake are elevated in mercury relative to the rest of the watershed,” wrote Gary Buchanan, chief of the state Department of Environmental Protection’s natural resources science bureau.

“All the weight of evidence points to the Acid Brook Delta mercury (i.e., DuPont) as the source of elevated mercury in the fish,” Buchanan wrote. “Of particular note is the elevated levels of mercury in fish directly downstream of Pompton Lake. This raises a flag about downstream transport of mercury.”

Dupont explicitly restricted the scope of the cleanup to just 26 acres of the Acid Brook Delta and expressly refused to consider downriver sediments and impacts, so that “flag about downstream transport of mercury” finding is HUGE.

The fact that fish tissue mercury concentrations are significantly higher in Pompton Lake and downriver than the surrounding region is the smoking gun that points to Dupont as the cause of the problem.

Dupont tried to misrepresent that critical data and the DEP called them on it.

That is HUGELY SIGNIFICANT.

One other point warrants followup is the issue of “background” mercury levels.

I was extremely disturbed by this EPA statement, which agrees with Dupont’s misrepresentations about the “background” levels of mercury:

“The removal of the sediments from the delta will capture nearly all of the mercury contamination that can be directly attributed to DuPont’s discharge,” said DEP spokesman Larry Ragonese.

Ariel Iglesias, the EPA’s regional deputy director of environmental protection and planning, agreed. “The rest of the lake’s mercury concentrations are more representative of background concentrations, even above the lake,” Iglesias said.

That is bullshit, my friends.

And as I previously wrote, EPA’s Iglesias’s statement contradicts EPA’s own Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Guidance on how to derive “background”.

According to the USEPA, background refers to constituents that are not influenced by the discharges from a site, and is usually described as naturally occurring or anthropogenic (USEPA, 2002a). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2002a. “Role of Background in the CERCLA Cleanup Program.” Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

NJ DEP takes the same scientific position on background.  According to NJ DEP’s Ecological Evaluation Guidance:

Background area samples should be collected from an area outside the site’s potential influence and not in locations directly influenced by or in proximity to other obvious sources of contamination.

The issue is such fundamental importance that I was compelled to write EPA Region 2 Administrator Judith Enck and US FWS the following letter:

Dear Administrator Enck:

Last week, I conducted a file review of the Dupont RCRA issues at the NJ DEP RCRA Enforcement field office.

Please be advised that I saw records that Dupont had two “open burning areas” – 500 lbs of mercury and lead containing hazardous waster per day were permitted to be “cooked” there, with no emission controls.

Other significant mercury sources include the shooting pond (a RCRA regulated land disposal unit) and local air and water emissions from manufacturing operations.

Dupont, NJ DEP, and EPA claims about mercury “background” levels have no supporting data, no scientific basis, and are inconsistent with EPA’s own definition and OSWER Guidance on how to derive “background” levels.

Specifically According to the USEPA, background refers to “constituents that are not influenced by the discharges from a site“, and is usually described as naturally occurring or anthropogenic (USEPA, 2002a). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2002a. “Role of Background in the CERCLA Cleanup Program.” Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

According to NJ DEP Ecological Evaluation Guidance:

“Background area samples should be collected from an area outside the site’s potential influence and not in locations directly influenced by or in proximity to other obvious sources of contamination.”

EPA’s statements on mercury background do no reflect the mercury data for the emissions I just summarized above.

Dupont has not provided data on the age of sediments or speciated metals within the sediments to provide some indication of historical background and deposition.

With all that in mind, I take strongest exception to this EPA statement from today’s Bergen Record:

“The removal of the sediments from the delta will capture nearly all of the mercury contamination that can be directly attributed to DuPont’s discharge,” said DEP spokesman Larry Ragonese.

Ariel Iglesias, the EPA’s regional deputy director of environmental protection and planning, agreed.“The rest of the lake’s mercury concentrations are more representative of background concentrations, even above the lake,” Iglesias said.”

We expect better science from EPA and now look to US FWS to correctly analyze this issue.

Bill Wolfe

Baldpate Mountain - Park closed for hunting

Here’s the latest from Baldpate Mountain – we last wrote about that from the land of Green Fakers (a prescient tale in light of the debacle at Ringwood Manor SP – Historic Site).

The entire Mercer County Park was completely closed to the public today – for hunting.

The so called “deer management” program there is PR cover for a political deal cut with gun clubs and hunters that used the land for many years before it was acquired by Mercer County (with state taxpayer Green Acres dollars).

I’m no wildlife biologist, but I doubt that hunting in the Park can make a dent in the deer population in the area and prevent excessive browse. I suspect that, from a deer population control standpoint, hunting is an ineffective management tool.

Baldpate Mountain is surrounded on 3 sides by forested private lands of prime deer habitat that prohibit hunting. Any hunting related herd reductions in the park likely would be offset by migrating deer populations from surrounding lands.

No, this is about special privileges for hunters – not “deer management”.

But to hell with the efficacy of the hunt and whether it can reduce forest damage due to deer browse.

There are principles involved.

First of all, Baldpate is a public park purchased with Green Acres taxpayer dollars.

I’m offended that an entire public park can be closed to the public, while certain special interests can use public lands as a their own private playground.

Second, there is no reason to close the park to allow hunting on Saturdays. The park is closed to the public and open exclusively to hunters for 1 Saturday in November, 4 in December and 4 in January, and 2 in February.

For people who work during the week, that is an unacceptable restriction.

Total park closure for hunting are: November (2 days); December (18 days); January (16 days) and February (6 days). The park is closed more than half the months of December and January.

That’s way too much time dedicated exclusively for hunters, who represent a tiny fraction of Mercer County residents.

I hiked in the park today and was thrown out by the Park Ranger after about a 3 mile trek.

I entered through the trailhead at Washington Crossing State Park – no closure signs were posted there.

I walked for over an hour on trails through the woods. I noticed unusual litter (coffee cups) and wide gully damage to the trails from ATV’s, things I had never seen before at Baldpate.

As the trail entered the open area by the outbuildings, I noticed several pickup trucks and ATV’s. There was a lot more damage there from truck tires in the mud. I was pissed and was going to complain, when I noticed that the men were hunters with guns.

So, discretion being the better part of valor, I kept my mouth shut and walked by.

Shortly after, a Ranger arrived (I’ve never seen a Ranger in the Park, so he must be there protecting hunters).

He pulled up and told me the park was closed and that my dog must be on a leash. He warned me that it was dangerous to be in the woods because there were hunters active.

He asked where I entered the Park. I replied that I entered up by the Washington Corssing trailhead and that no closure signs were posted.

He told me I had to return the way I came – damn idiot!

If it was unsafe to be in the woods, why would he want me to go back in the woods?

So, I told him no, I would leave the park via the roads.

I told him about all the ATV and pickup truck damage I saw. I complained that if a hunter kills a deer, he should be required too drag it out of the woods. The hunters are a bunch of fat, lazy, pussies!

ATV’s should not be allowed – what’s next, helicopters and drones?

• What is AOC 106? What contaminants are present there?
• The air and water mercury emissions from Dupont obviously impacted the entire area.
• The DEP Ecological screening criteria for mercury should be 1 ppm (derived by DEP science), not 2 ppm.
• DEP proposed a surface water water quality standard for mercury in 2003 - as directed by US FWS and approved by EPA - far lower than the freshwater chronic aquatic 0.77 ppb value reported.
• This wildlife standard was 0.00053 ppb for mercury - see this (page 7-10)
• For all the EPA letter of support, US FWS Biological Opinion upon which the DEP proposal was based, and DEP approval documents, see this.  end update

Surprise! Surprise!

The Bergen Record reports that new EPA data show that the Dupont polluted Acid Brook - previously certified as cleaned up by Dupont and NJ DEP -  is still polluted by lead, mercury, and TCE and that those pollutants are flowing into Pompton Lake, see:

Contamination returns to brook at DuPont’s Pompton Lakes site

POMPTON LAKES — Tests reveal parts of the Acid Brook, which run through the former site of the DuPont explosives factory, have been recontaminated with toxic metals and chemicals, more than 15 years after the company and the federal government said the tributary was entirely cleaned.

L. Grace Spencer, Chairwoman, Assembly Environment and Solid Waste Committee

The first bill released under the leadership of the new Chair of the Assembly Environment Committee would regulate hockey rinks and Zamboni emissions (see A186).

Not exactly a major threat.

I was tempted to do a YESMEN stunt, and request the following amendments:

1) link it to DHSS School/Day care center indoor air program so as to be sure to get laxer standards than those set by DEP (DHSS set standards for children based on a 1 in 10,000 risk level, which is 100 times weaker than DEP standards for healthy adult males, which are based on 1 in a million);

2) link the bill to DEP Vapor Intrusion indoor air program so as to be sure to guarantee that the program is voluntary, unenforceable, and based on private consultant’s judgment, not regulations and standards;

3) link the program to DEP’s Hazardous Air Emissions (HAP) program so as to assure inadequate monitoring and enforcement;

4) link the bill to the DEP environmental standards program to assure delay, as a result of the de facto moratorium on new standards declared by DEP Commissioner Martin

5) refer the bill to the NJ Drinking Water Quality Institute, which is the graveyard, as DEP Commissioner Martin has blocked any meetings (DWQI, which meets quarterly, has not met for over 18 months);

6) make the program implemented via a SIP amendment – this assures years of delay and no EPA oversight.

7) refer the bill to the DEP Science Advisory Board, which is dominated by industry representatives and a sure way to derail, delay, and weaken it.

II)  Soil Testing (A1289)

This is a good bill that could avoid the kind of public outrage and avoidable health risks when contaminated soil is discovered at local parks, playgrounds, and schools across the state.

Yet the bill was opposed by the DEP and the League of Municipalities on narrow compliance cost grounds.

Why is DEP opposing efforts to supplement DEP efforts at the local level?

Why are local officials ignoring their constituents legitimate public health concerns?

III)  Drugs in Drinking Water (A733)

This is a huge public health and ecological problem that the pharmaceutical industry is working hard to keep under the media radar screen and off the legislative and regulatory agenda. (see:

• USGS National Water Quality Assessment Program
• USGS Pharmaceuticals, Hormones, and other Organic Wastewater Contaminants
• FILTER THE CHEMICAL SOUP IN NEW JERSEY’S DRINKING WATER — Available Treatments Could Screen Hundreds of Unregulated Compounds from Taps
• NY Times Series  - Toxic Waters

Here is the band aid measure they are backing to do that:

BTW< the bill’s statement of purpose must be revised to reflect the data collected by the USGS National Water Quality Monitoring Program and the US EPA Unregulated Contaminants program.

It is definitely not good form to cite the Associated Press as a source.

IV)  Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI – A1998)

Now we arrive at groundhog day.

What is it about RGGI that brings out all the bullshit, from all sides?

It was so bad, I had to sign up to testify to call bullshit and rebut the fundamental misconceptions and just flat out errors.

Dave Pringle started things off by claiming RGGI involved issues of national security and reducing reliance on foreign oil imports.

Dave, RGGI applies only to the electric sector. NJ does not rely on oil to produce electricity (see the Energy Master Plan) so RGGI will have zero impact on foreign oil imports and national security (and yes, I’ve read the national security documents and am familiar with the national security concerns resulting from massive climate change impacts globally. But since RGGI has no impact on GHG emissions, again that legitimate concern is dismissed – see below).

Jeff Tittel was next and he did a good job in characterizing RGGI as a modest effort that produced jobs and funded low income residential energy efficiency.

But he seriously misspoke twice by claiming RGGGI reduced greenhouse gas emissions and was modeled on the Clean Air Act 1990 amendments establishing the SOx Acid Rain Program.

As DEP correctly testified last year, the current RGGI cap is 30% ABOVE current emissions, and thus RGGI would allow emissions to INCREASE, not be REDUCED.

So, it is false to claim that RGGI reduced GHG emissions or emissions of traditional pollutants and will do nothing to slow global warming or improve air quality.

RGGI is not a cap on emissions because it applies ONLY to the electric sector. Total GHG emissions could INCREASE if other sectors, like cars and buildings, increased emissions. RGGI does nothing about any of that.

The 1990 Acid Rain program was based on a legislative mandate for 50% SOx reductions over  a 10 year period. Those reductions were enforced via state regulatory programs under the Clean Air Act. There was a true cap and legally mandated deep emissions reductions over an enforceable timetable implemented via State Implementation Plans (SIPs) and facility permits.

None of that is true for RGGI.

RGGI is based on an electric sector, has no cap, is implemented via an auction program, and is not mandatory reductions over time or implemented in clean air act regulatory programs.

I addition to calling bullshit on my ENGO colleagues’ spin and falsehoods, we also called out lies by the NJ Business and Industry Association, Chamber of Commerce, and Chemistry Council.

Those groups tried to argue that RGGI should not be restored because it has no impact on and is undermined by “leakage”, or emissions from neighboring states, like Pennsylvania power plants. The argued that there should be a narrational program for this global problem.

So, I called BS and advised the Committee that all those groups lobby in Washington DC to block:

• US support of international Climate Change treaties, like Kyoto
• updating National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone
• directly regulating GHG emissions
• inter-state emissions (Haze rule)
• mercury emissions from power plants

So it is complete hypocrisy to oppose NJ state level programs for failure of national efforts, when they are responsible for blocking national and international efforts.

And the flat out egregious lie by the NJ Chemistry Council that RGGI killed 27,000 chemical industry jobs is so facially false is unworthy of rebuttal.

Shame on all bullshitters in Trenton.

Face-off! Don't choke on those Zamboni emissions!

Bank collapses into stream. PCBs were found in areas along banks of Quequacommisacong Creek, in the sediment (sludge) of a discharge pipe from the facility and in the sediment downstream of the facility outfalls.

Premature to Expect Redevelopment When Full Cleanup Is Years Away

[Update: 2/3/12

I don't want to create the misimpression that EPA screwed up this site.

DEP asked EPA to get involved and to list the site under Superfund.

Specialty Paper was required to cleanup the site under NJ State laws immediately after it shut down operations.

DEP failed to enforce NJ State cleanup laws at the site: (or file liens for cleanup costs):

In August 2001, Curtis Specialty Papers submitted a preliminary assessment report and remedial investigation work plan to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) as part of the State's Industrial Site Recovery Act. The company identified 20 areas of concern at the Curtis Specialty Papers, Inc. site. In July 2003, Curtis Specialty Papers shut down its operations and declared bankruptcy. The facility was abandoned and left unsecured. On October 20, 2006, NJDEP and their emergency response contractor began activities that included securing oil and hazardous materials containers, classifying materials for waste disposal, inspecting above ground storage tanks, collecting and stowing empty containers at the former hazardous materials storage area, and transporting and disposing of materials. Approximately two dozen drums and lab packs were removed from the facility.

Additionally, there could be problems related to a legal settlement with Crown Vantage- I am still trying to understand the ownership structure, it is possible that Crown purchased the liability of a subsidiary Specialty Paper, the RP at the site.

An EPA consultant's Report traces the ownership history

Bingo!

A prior 2001 DEP settlement with Crown Vantage and $1 million settlement may explain DEP inaction at the Specialty Paper site.

Check this out - focus on highlighted text - "any and all property". According to a recent Appellate Division decision:

Approximately six years after Crown purchased the landfill, it filed for bankruptcy protection in the Northern District of California. As part of those bankruptcy proceedings, it filed a motion under 11 U.S.C.A. § 554 to abandon its interest in this landfill, as well as several others that it owned and operated. The DEP objected to this abandonment because of the potential risks to the environment posed by abandoned landfills. To secure the DEP's agreement to this motion, Crown agreed to pay $1 million to the DEP to be used "to investigate, close, clean-up, or otherwise remediate any environmental condition on any and all property" of Crown in New Jersey. Based upon this payment, the DEP withdrew its objection to the motion, and the bankruptcy court entered an order on March 2, 2001, authorizing the abandonment of this property. The order entered by the bankruptcy court simply referred to abandoning the property and did not mention the 1991 agreement that structured the manner in which the landfill was to operate, nor did it convey title to the underlying land.

Following entry of that order, the DEP used a majority of the funds from Crown to close up another of Crown's landfills that it considered to require immediate attention. The DEP did no more with the Warren Glen landfill than to periodically visit it and to mow the grass to keep it from becoming overgrown.

So, what explains DEP failures and the EPA Superfund listing?

Were the DEP's hands tied by a sweetheart $1 million bankruptcy settlement?

Did DEP try to cover their mistake by asking EPA for a Superfund cleanup?

Did EPA play right along with that game?

Are RP's wiggling off the hook? - end update]

It seems like whenever I go looking for trouble, I manage to find it.

Last summer, I testified at the public hearing on the Riegel Paper Superfund site up the Delaware River from me. I raised a series of concerns about EPA’s proposed final cleanup there, and issues with nearby Riegel paper sites (see: EPA Crown Vantage Landfill Superund Site Cleanup Plan Proposed

In followup, EPA promised – but failed – to email me the final EPA Record of Decision documents, response to my comments, and future public notices.

So, always suspicious when I get blown off by the bureaucracy, I decided yesterday to visit the related nearby Curtis Specialty Paper Superfund site and do some document reviews today.

Surprise surprise! It seems I just came across another cascading series of either errors or attempts to hide important information.

First of all, the EPA webpage for the Curtis Specialty Superfund site in Milford NJ does not include links to any remedial documents that would provide information regarding the pollution problems and risks at the site.

Second, the NPL Superfund listing public notice link that is provided on the EPA webpage is incorrect. So it is not easy to find the basis for the NPL listing. I had to Google to find it, and came across this sketchy NPL Site Narrative and rationale (which is not linked on the main EPA page for Curtis Specialty):

Need for NPL Listing:

The State of New Jersey referred the site to EPA. Other federal and state programs were evaluated but are not viable at this time. The State has written a letter of support for placing this site on the NPL.

[The description of the site (release) is based on information available at the time the site was evaluated with the HRS. The description may change as additional information is gathered on the sources and extent of contamination. See 56 FR 5600, February 11, 1991, or subsequent FR notices.]

So, having no clue what a “subsequent Federal Register Notice” is, we moseyed on over to the February 11, 1991 Federal Register cited.

Here is what I am looking for:

The Headquarters Superfund docket contains:

• HRS scoresheets for each proposed site;
• a documentation record for each site describing the information used to compute the HRS score;
• information for any site affected by particular statutory requirements or EPA listing policies; and
• a list of documents referenced in the documentation record.

But we found none of that or anything specific about Curtis Specialty site or the EPA Superfund listing documents. We found EPA reference to a 1991 Fed Reg. notice odd, because the CS cite wasn’t abandoned until 2003.

Third, while we found nothing on pollution, we did find all the good news, including a a September 23, 2009 press release announcing Superfund listing of the site, where EPA set the tone and shaped local expectations:

“We have already addressed the most immediate threats at this site and secured it to prevent access and further deterioration,” said Acting Regional Administrator George Pavlou. “Now it is time to take a close look at what might be needed to protect the surrounding community into the future. By listing this site, we can move forward on a further investigation of additional threats that the site may pose over the long-term.”

I really can’t comprehend how EPA could imply that the major problems are solved and allow local folks to form expectations that redevelopment is remotely on the horizon, when the facts of the site are troubling and the Superfund process takes years.

EPA doesn’t even have the RP’s legally on the hook for cleanup and the extent of cleanup is not clear (RI underway), but it could include costly and complex investigation of the groundwater and the Delaware River and off site sediment removal.

Superfund cleanup likely will have a significant impact on the feasibility of any future redevelopment.

So people need to focus on putting the public health horse (i.e. a permanent cleanup to residential standards that is protective of and compensates fro damages to stream and river natural resources) before the redevelopment cart -

EPA did flag problems:

EPA’s future investigations will center on polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), the main contaminant of concern at the site. PCBs have been detected in soil at the site and along the banks of Quequacommisacong Creek. PCBs have also been found in pipes that discharge from the site to Quequacommisacong Creek and in the creek. PCBs are probable human carcinogens, which may also have serious effects on the immune, neurological and reproductive systems. The creek is a fishery, and feeds into the Delaware River, which is adjacent to the site. The Delaware River is a major fishery, and there are many sensitive environments, such as wetlands and habitats for endangered species in the vicinity.

Here’s what the Quequacommisacong Creek looks like today, about 200 feet from confluence with the designated Wild and Scenic Delaware River – there are posted warning signs and police tape, but no fences and it sure doesn’t look like any cleanup has occurred there:

notice the police tape restricting access to the stream bank, which is washing out and collapsing into the stream!

EPA consultants reinforced these unrealistic expectations in a July 2010 Report:

Reuse Assessment Report  (July 2010)

The Reuse Assessment provides information to develop a realistic understanding of reasonably anticipated future use of the site. It considers information related to land use and planning, such as property ownership, physical constraints, zoning and local ordinance, regulatory constraints, and community input. In the end, this Reuse Assessment presents an understanding of potential future use, which can be used to inform the Superfund process to ensure protection of human health and the environment.[...

The USEPA named IP and GP as responsible parties associated with the site, and on June 4, 2009, IP and GP entered into an AOC with the USEPA to perform an RI/FS at the site. [Note: RI/FS is study, not cleanup]. IP and GP subsequently purchased the site in June 2009. IP, GP, and USEPA amended the AOC on November 8, 2010 to include pre-demolition activities at the site. [ Note: again, this is not complete cleanup].

Take a look at the redevelopment potential there – hardly “shovel ready”:

Monday’s Hunterdon County Democrat story repeats these wildly unrealistic expectation of site redevelopment and reuse: Milford citizens group meets tonight too discuss Riegel Paper Mill site needs, nice cleanup ends

Organizer Rob Castagna and wife Linda own Chestnut Hill Bed and Breakfast and have some ideas they’d like to advance. “The big question we have is: What’s next? What happens when the property is all cleaned out and there’s nothing left?”

I don’t know what EPA or local officials and residents are thinking about, but does this site look like there is no “further deterioration” and that it is time for redevelopment planning?

The EPA consultants are preparing a RI/FS.

EPA does not have a binding commitment from the polluters to cleanup the site, but merely to study it.

So take a look at all the progress – and see what it looks like from the front yards of nearby residents:

Cairn Tree - Cushetunk Mountain - Round Valley

[Update 1/31/12 - Tom Johnson NJ Spotlight writes the story: Trying to Set a Fair Price for Private Use of Public Lands - Conservationists dismiss DEP's flat fee as far too low

Environmentalists questioned whether the state would still be undervaluing land if the proposed 15 cents per square foot is adopted by the administration.

Bill Wolfe, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, suggested a much higher benchmark of $1.25 per square foot for leasing of open lands. He noted that two utilities trying to expand a high-voltage power line through the Delaware Water National Recreation Area recently offered to spend $30 million to buy up open space around that project. Under his calculations, Wolfe said that comes out to about $13 per square foot. end]

The Senate Environment Committee heard 2 important bills today regarding state lands.

Commercial Logging on State Lands – Forest Stewardship (S1085)

Committee Chairman Bob Smith, sponsor of the hugely controversial commercial logging bill that failed in last session’s lame duck, reintroduced that bill (S1085).

To restart the legislative process this session, today he posed a narrow question to focus testimony:

Smith asked each person testifying to stick to the question: “What is the state of the state’s forests”.

Seeming like he was pissed off by the blindsided criticism he received on his lame duck bill, Smith asked the various conservation groups to get together and provide a unified position in support of the bill, or provide an alternative solution. Revealing his frustration, Smith said:

I’m not meeting with you – meet amongst yourselves.

Smith will move a bill on March 8 – he asked for public comments by March 1.

So, now is the time to provide input:

Contact info:  SenBSmith@NJLeg.org. Be sure to copy Committee aid Kevil Duhon at KDuhon@NJLeg.org

You can listen to the testimony by clicking on this link. (scroll down to Environment Cmte).

I testified that the state of the forests were an integral part of the quality of life of the people of the state. Forests are public resources that provide competing benefits for public use and enjoyment and any attempt to manage them raises conflicting ecological objectives.

Given these competing uses and conflicts, public control is essential.

Legislation must assure that “perverse incentives” are eliminated from driving the forest management program. Those perverse incentives include revenues for commercial foresters and fees for DEP managers, which will lead to economic considerations being elevated above the public interest and forest ecology.

Forests are in decline, threatened, and vulnerable to threats posed by global warming, over-development, fragmentation, the narrow views of scientists and “experts”, and misguided government officials and corporations who views forests as commodities.

Public preferences, including aesthetic enjoyment, must be given equal consideration with science in any forest management initiative.

Economic Value of State lands  - S826

This bill grew out of the debacle over the Tennessee Gas Pipeline lease.

I wrote about this set of issues numerous times:

• DEP Report: Highway Right-of-Way Land 8 Times More Valuable Than State Parks and Forests
• Fair Market Value Leases for Energy Infrastructure Could Fund Parks System
• Christie Cuts Sweetheart Deal with Gas Industry
• NJ Subsidizing Oil and Gas Pipelines That Cross State Lands
• NEW JERSEY PARKS LOSE MILLIONS IN UNCOLLECTED LEASE PAYMENTS — Park Closures Could Be Averted by Reaping Concessionaire and Easement Revenue

According to the bill summary:

The bill is a very good idea to force corporations to pay the taxpayers the full economic value of leasing the public lands.

The bill needs to be amended as follows:

• The bill only applies to new conveyances of lands. The bill must be expanded – as recommended by 3 OLS AUdits – to require that current leases be renegotiated to reflect fair market value
• The bill should set a minimum floor prices far in excess of the DEP’s uniform ceiling price of 15 cents per square foot, which is far too low. The range of market values runs from $1.25.square foot set by the NJ Turnpike Authority for fiber optic cables in the Turnpike ROW to $13 per square foot recently offered as mitigation by PSEG for the powerline through the Delaware Water Gap (S-R line calls for a 50-200 ft ROW expansion, assume 100 ft average width, over 4.3 linear miles)

$ 30 million/(4.3 linear miles) x (5280 ft./mile) x (100 feet ROW) = $13.21/sq. ft

• prohibit Utilities from passing though costs and recovery by ratepayers

"The Judas Kiss" (1866) by Gustave Doré.

Here’s four cogent quotes on the proposed $30 million mitigation proposal by power companies to justify destruction of core values of Delaware Watergap National Recreation Area; the Appalachian National Scenic Trail; and the Wild and Scenic Delaware River:

“It is not the role of the National Park Service to negotiate mitigation at this stage of the process, before any decision is made.” ~~~ John Donahue, NPS, Supervisor of DWGNRA; Pam Underhill, Supervisor, ANST – June 27, 2011 letter to PPL Electric Utility

“Creating jobs is my highest priority as President, and investing in our nation’s infrastructure can help create those jobs and grow our economy,” said President Obama. “That’s why I’m asking agencies across the federal government to identify infrastructure projects that will put folks back to work and help make our country stronger, and take immediate steps to push these projects across the finish line.” White House Announces Steps to Expedite High Impact Infrastructure Projects to Create Jobs (8/31/11)

Bill Wolfe of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility called the utilities’ recently announced offer to buy and preserve $30 million in nearby lands as “mitigation” for the power lines a test of the National Park Service’s integrity. “It’s an offense to the public process,” Wolfe said.  ~~~ Pocono Record 1/25/12

To mitigate the loss, the utilities behind the line — PSE&G and PPL — last week announced an offer of land worth $30 million for public preservation. The “thousands of acres of land” has been identified as priorities by conservation groups, according to Karen Johnson, a PSE&G spokeswoman. ~~~ Morris Daily Record 1/26/12

I generally steer well clear of religious matters, having never really shaken off youthful Catholic indoctrination.

But certain projects force gut checks. And this particular set of circumstances rises to and justifiably moves me to invoke religious metaphor.

I listened closely to the testimony at the public hearings on the S-R line through the Watergap.

I was not surprised or bothered when PSE&G’s corporate flacks supported the S-R power line, downplayed the impacts, and claimed that “mitigation” can offset any unavoidable harms.

That is to be expected: PSEG earns a significant share of their profits on transmission investments (a higher ROI that any other investment).

PSE&G is a corporation whose first duty is to maximize profits and shareholder value. Of course they would love to use $30 million of ratepayers’ money to leverage even higher profits – press statements to the contrary, screw the consequences.

And I was not surprised when labor unions and workers supported a power line, because we’re in a deep recession and the unemployment rate is almost at Depression levels. They have families to support, need jobs, and are being duped by their leadership.

And I am not even surprised when government agencies, like the Highlands Council, compromise their mission and integrity and take mitigation bribes in exchange for approvals.

On any economically significant decision, the political pressure is incredible. On these high profile projects, government agencies become mere pawns of political hacks, corporate interests, and the careerists who manage them who will do what they are told.

And of course, I was not surprised by President Obama’s

• support of Fast Tracking approval of the project
• CEQ Program to compromise the nation’s foundational environmental law, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
• wrongheaded Executive Order 13563 and attacks on government regulation as “red tape” under the Republican slogan “America is Open for Business” (technically, all of them as bad or worse than the Christie policies I routinely criticize here).

Obama never betrayed me – I never trusted him or expected much.

One thing’s for sure: if a Republican President were doing what Obama is, the Beltway ENGO’s would be in a tizzy and activists groups would be in the streets.

But what I am absolutely shocked, disgusted and feel betrayed by is when publicly trusted self described “conservation” advocates – with an economic stake in mitigation projects no less – shamelessly publicly undermine project opponents and support mitigation.

If expert “conservationists” can’t speak truth to power and hold politicians accountable, how is it possible for the public to democratically do so?

Given President Obama’s support for expediting the approval of this project – and political commitments by Secretary of Interior Salazar that preceded Obama’s support – it is obvious that final decisions are being made in Washington DC based on money and politics, not science and the public interest.

With that so obvious right now, the conservation community needs to unify and do the same thing that Bill McKibben did on the  Keystone XL Project: take the gloves off , protest, and target and hold the President accountable.

The last thing we need is for so called conservationists to be negotiating insider sweetheart mitigation deals with the power companies and providing cover for this sham deal.

But unity and in your face protest and political opposition won’t happen in this case.

And if it won’t happen on a power line through the Watergap, just when would it happen?

And it won’t happen NOT because of legitimate differences in tactics, style and tone within the conservation community. The conservation community is diverse, which is usually a strength.

(but those mild mannered conservationsits somehow can abandon their moderate, reserved stance to exaggerate the impacts of windmills on birds – but ignore or downplay bird mortality caused by power lines. I even heard absurd testimony about opportunities to improve bird habitat in power line ROW. Why is that? Could it have anything to do with financial interests in mitigation and relationships with PSE&G?)

Projects of this magnitude and political profile warrant unity and aggressive political tactics.

But Unity and aggressive oppositional tactics won’t happen because some in the “conservation” community are tacitly supporting the project by corrupt means and for corrupt motives.

The corrupt means are behind the scenes negotiations with PSE&G/PPL on “mitigation” that Karen Johnson confirmed in the above quote (exactly which groups, Karen?).

John Donahue of NPS correctly describes how wrong that is.

And if its wrong for government, it’s absolutely evil  for conservationists, who are supposed to be free of the kind of political influence government managers are subject to.

The corrupt motives stem from the fact that those groups will benefit from or even be funded to do some of the mitigation work.

Yet those conflicts of interest go undisclosed, undermining unity, providing political cover, misleading the public, and betraying all norms and expectations regarding integrity.

All that For Thirty Pieces of Silver?

(source: adbusters)

Proponents of a saltwater fishing fee over the past several years had argued it was needed as a way to raise money for just such research, but the state decided instead to create a saltwater fishing registry with no fee. (AC Press 1/28/12)

Kirk Moore of the Asbury Park Press wrote a story back on April 1 that warned that the river herring fishery would be closed in 2012:

DEP Commissioner Bob Martin - refused to support salt water angler fee

UPPER FREEHOLD — Beset by a crushing workload, decimated staff and years of inadequate funding, the state Bureau of Marine Fisheries is preparing a draft plan to identify what can be jettisoned from a program that serves a $2 billion industry in New Jersey … yet gets less than 1 percent of that from the state budget.

Already there’s a plan to suspend fishing for river herring in 2012 because state biologists won’t be able to fulfill legal requirements under the coastwide herring management plan, said marine bureau chief Brandon Muffley. It’s just one of 22 plans for various species that must be kept updated under interstate and federal rules.

“By default, if you can’t prove your fishery is sustainable, you’re out of compliance,” Muffley said. River herring are the first to be set aside because biologists “need to do one for each individual river system,” he said. …

That story prompted this screed here: Ocean Ecosystems, Fishermen, and Shore Economy Harmed by Craven Politics –

From an Administration that champions cost-benefit analysis, this is particularly ludicrous

Gov. Chris Christie

Kirk Moore has a superb and what should be explosive story in today’s Asbury Park Press: Fisheries caught in budget’s tight net – Herring catch on hold, others may follow.

Moore’s story tells the sad tale of how the shortsighted ideology and craven politics of Governor Christie – catering to the irrresponsible selfish greed of some in NJ’s recreational fishing lobby -  are harming the science and management of coastal ecosystems and fisheries.

The fisheries story is just the latest example of backtracking on ocean ecosystems. [ ...]

So, fishermen should ask Jimmy D. over at RFA why they are not allowed to catch more fish.

It’s because NJ lacks the data to support management decisions.

Next time fishermen complain about restrictive quotas, or catch sizes, or bag limits, they shouldn’t criticize the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) or the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Council (ASMFC) or the DEP.

Just call Jimmy D at RFA.

Jimmy Donofrio, lobbyist, Recreational Fishing Alliance

You would think that warning would have resulted in some reasonable moderation of the selfish and shortsighted fishing group lobbyists – like RFA – and their craven legislative supporters to reach a compromise on the salt water registry funding issue.

But no.

Anti-government, anti-science, anti-regulatory, and anti-tax Ideology and selfish special interest group politics prevailed.

The folks who would like to starve the beast and make government small enough to drown in the bathtub won.

As a result, as predicted, in a huge embarrassment to the Christie Administration, NJ shut down the river herring fishery.

The Press of Atlantic City reports:

New Jersey bans the catch and sale of river herring after failing to provide adequate data

New Jersey has shut down its river herring fishery partly because it does not have the personnel or the funding to collect the data it needs.

That means fishermen who net the herring, mostly for the bait business, can no longer do so. Recreational anglers, including fly fishermen, no longer may target them. If an angler catches a river herring by accident, it now must be thrown back. …

State Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Bob Martin closed the fishery in state waters Thursday, said Brandon Muffley, head of the state Bureau of Marine Fisheries.

Heck of a Job Chris Christie, Bob Martin, and Jimmy D.!!

[Endnote: Over at SL, my man George Hayduke III says:

The money is there – it’s the hiring freeze. CC will not let the DEP back fill the positions because having a government as small as it was when Chrisy Whitman was in office is a talking point. despite having the money and 10% unemployment.

[Update: While we are on the topic of fisheries management, here’s an extraordinary statement by the Jersey Coast Anglers Association, expressly distancing themselves from the Governor. I feel bad for Tom Fote:

Clarification on NJ ASMFC Vote on Menhaden

by Mark Taylor

(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association)

I have spoken to many people who do not understand New Jersey’s vote on the menhaden addendum at the ASMFC meeting. I am writing this article to inform you that at the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) Menhaden Board, Tom Fote is not representing Jersey Coast Anglers Association (JCAA). He is there as the Governor’s Appointee to the ASMFC. He is at that board doing the work of the Governor. This means he represents the Governor and his votes reflect the Governor’s opinion. JCAA does not have a vote at ASMFC. Like every other individual and organization, JCAA makes its opinion known at public hearings and in written comments. JCAA’s testimony and written comments were clearly in support of the addendum. And that addendum was passed without New Jersey’s support. If you are unhappy with a vote by the Governor’s Appointee to ASMFC, you can certainly let him know you disagree. However, you need to make your opinions known directly to the Governor since he can direct his appointee to vote in a specific way on a specific issue.

Last Sunday (1/22/12), on a brilliant crisp morning I got out to Ken Lockwood Gorge. With snow scarce and gone after just two days, it was special. I walked the Gorge and returned on the Columbia Trail. Great loop. Some views:

from bridge just below Columbia trailhead

view from Columbia trail heading back up the Gorge

on the Columbia Trail

It was a packed house last night in Andover for the third and final public hearing on the Susquehanna Roseland power line proposal through Delaware Watergap National Recreation Area and the Appalachian Trail corridor.

I testifed on Tuesday’s hearing – one of only 18. But last night, there was a huge line to signup for testimony (I was #63). The trade unions brought a lot of people, but there were far more park lovers and opponents in attendance.

The Public comment period closes on January 31, 2012, so be sure to get your cards and letters in. Here is the link to submit comments.

Don’t forget to mention that you support the preferred “No Build” alternative and that the proposed “mitigation” money is totally unacceptable in principle.

The Park, the AT, and the integrity of NEPA and the National Park Service are not for sale to the highest corporate bidder.

State Story: Impossible to meet deep GHG emissions reductions required by NJ’s Global Warming Response Act via reliance on natural gas.

The Bergen Record ran a story about EPA’s greenhouse gas emissions reporting data (see: PSE&G Bergen Station tops emission list

PSE&G’s Bergen Generating Station in Ridgefield releases more greenhouse gases into the air each year than any other large industrial source in New Jersey, according to a new federal report.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s report is the first-ever list of how much carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases are released by large industrial sites and landfills nationwide. There are 98 such facilities in New Jersey, which release a combined 26.2 million metric tons of gases each year.

WooHoo! First ever!!

But calm down, don’t go getting excited about anything, the story is much to do about nothing.

I’ll just note a few brief points about the real significance and what the focus of the story should have been:

1. National Story: EPA fails to regulate greenhouse gas emissions

Greenhouse gas emissission reporting is an alternative to regulation of emissions.

EPA has yet to adopt mandatory GHG emission reduction regulations under the Clean Air Act.

The new EPA GHG reporting program is an analogue of the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) program.

The naive premise of these disclosure programs is that industry will be shamed into making voluntary emissions reductions once the public is made aware of the data.

The premise is false – voluntary measures can not and don’t work. Disclosure merely prompts various gaming strategies to create the paper appearance of reductions.

But there are alternative policy tools that work to reduce emissions – the basic choices are mandatory regulations or market prices.

But reporting requirements that are not linked to either regulation of emissions or setting a market price on emissions are ineffective.

This is all made obvious when one notes that the EPA GHG emissions reporting program was signed into law by President Bush. As EPA noted:

On December 26, 2007, President Bush signed the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act which authorized funding for EPA to ‘‘develop and publish a draft rule not later than 9 months after the date of enactment of this Act, and a final rule not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, to require mandatory reporting of GHG emissions above appropriate thresholds in all sectors of the economy of the United States.’’ Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110–161, 121 Stat 1844, 2128 (2008)

We all know that President Bush was no champion of climate change or EPA. This is just more Obama continuity with Bush.

2. State Story: NJ’s largest emissions source is a natural gas plant

PSEG Bergen Generating Station is fired by natural gas.

Natural gas is supposed to be a “clean fuel”, right? A “bridge fuel” to a green energy future, right?

WRONG! (”clean” natural gas just another perverse part of The Twilight Zone of Energy Policy).

Governor Christie’s Energy Master Plan promotes a massive increase and heavy reliance on natural gas.

Scientists have found that the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of natural gas are as bad or possibly worse than coal, as I wrote:

Climate Benefits of Natural Gas May Be Overstated

http://www.propublica.org/article/natural-gas-and-coal-pollution-gap-in-doubt

The Propublica article incudes this link to EPA technical documents on revisions of greenhouse gas emissions factors for natural gas:

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/29077/new-epa-data-subpart-w-tsdf.pdf

We can not possibly meet the deep GHG emissions reductions required to comply with NJ’s Global Warming Response Act via an energy strategy or EMP that promotes natural gas.

3.  State Story: RGGI is kicking a dead horse – one that deserved to die anyway

The RGGI game is over until Governor Christie is gone or the Democrats in Trenton grow a spine.

It is a useless exercise to waste bullets shooting that dead horse.

RGGI was fatally flawed anyway, and deserved to die  - unless real emissions reduction based caps and enforceable measures were injected.

Why ignore the NJ Global Warming Response Act and focus on RGGI?

If you want to focus on RGGI, why are EPA data not compared to RGGI caps and NJ Global Warming Response Act targets and DEP emissions inventory?

Why fail to criticize Obama and EPA’s abject failure to move forward on the global warming front? Which brings us to #4.

4. National Story: Obama Collapse

My goodness, forget about Bill McKibben’s misguided praise of Obama’s Keystone XL.

The man has totally collapsed on energy and global warming policy – far worse than Texas oil man Bush (as we’ve written here for some time).

Obama State of the Union address BRAGGED about expanding oil and gas production and yesterday Obama announced 21 million acres of Gulf of Mexico oil and gas leases. From the SOTU:

Nowhere is the promise of innovation greater than in American-made energy. Over the last three years, we’ve opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration, and tonight, I’m directing my Administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources. Right now, American oil production is the highest that it’s been in eight years. That’s right – eight years. Not only that – last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past sixteen years.

Where is the ENGO outrage over that?

5. State Story:  NJ has had its own GHG emissions inventory for over a decade

NJ has a GHG emissions inventory program.

It was created by another Republican Governor who opposed regulation, named Christie Whitman.

Republicans love this kind of voluntary fluff that creates the appearance of progress, but requires business and industry to do nothing to improve their environmental performance.

But current Governor Christie has gone so far to the right he’s blocked even that lame Whitman emissions inventory program, see: CHRISTIE SHREDS NEW JERSEY CLIMATE CHANGE PROGRAMS — Kills Emission Reporting, Diverts Green Energy Fund & Defunds Climate Office

Other huge issues are ignored too, for example, issues that are ignored and/or not quantified, including:

• public health costs of air pollution caused by carbon power

$120 billion annual environmental costs of coal power

social costs of carbon

multi-billion dollar net benefits of environmental regulations

subsidies to the energy industry

(or some of the other absurd aspects of NJ energy policy).

Now these are the issues that ENGO’s should be focused on and the press should be reporting.

But I hear crickets.

Pompton Lake - fish unsafe to eat due to toxic mercury from Dupont plant

US Fish and Wildlife Service Review Could Expand Dupont Cleanup

Today we disclose hot internal DEP documents, including DEP’s review comments on Dupont’s ecological assessment of mercury pollution in Pompton Lakes.

fish consumption advisory - Loss of access to the fishery is a natural resource injury that Dupont must compensate the public for.

We disclose that DEP took the highly unusual step and calculated a cleanup standard to protect fish and wildlife from mercury bioaccumulation known as a “Bioaccumulation Based Sediment Quality Value for Pompton Lake (”BSQV)“.

DEP likely developed its own standard to pushback against flaws in the Dupont science. However, the DEP standard was not incorporated in the subsequent Dupont cleanup plan, which raises questions about why.

But we do know that DEP didn’t want us to have this hot document  - DEP denied our OPRA request for it on the sham basis that it is “deliberative”. The DEP documents can not be deliberative because DEP approved the Dupont remedial investigation plan in 2008 and the only pending decision for which deliberation is underway is by US EPA, not NJ DEP.

DEP also found that Dupont science was “misleading” regarding mercury fish tissue concentrations and raised a red flag regarding likely downriver mercury sediment impacts.

This information is now key, because Dupont is seeking to minimize their cleanup obligations and US Fish and Wildlife Service is currently reviewing the Dupont plan.

The Dupont cleanup plan does not consider upland or downriver impacts, and is limited to dredging sediments from a small 26 acre hot spot area of the lake known as the Acid Brook Delta.

EPA must approve or reject the plan, based on US FWS and public comments.

We look forward to the review comments by the ecological professionals at the US Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS) NJ Field Office – see this for their environmental contaminants program.

US FWS does critically important work – especially in NJ’s toxic landscapes – and something you don’t hear much about from NJ bird conservation groups or press reports.

Read all about it in news from our friends at PEER

DuPont Pompton Lake Pollution May Be Headed Downstream

DEP Scientists’ Questions Could Prompt Feds to Expand DuPont Cleanup Scope

Trenton — New Jersey state scientists have pointed to evidence that mercury from a toxic waste site at Pompton Lakes is migrating down the Ramapo and Wanaque Rivers through contaminated sediment, fish and wildlife, according to agency documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).  These documents surface just as federal agencies are reviewing the DuPont dredging plans to determine their ecological adequacy.

Pollution from the old E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Company ammunition plant has proven to be more than a 20-year long nightmare for the 450 homes exposed to deadly vapors and other effects.  Now it appears that this pollution nightmare may be spreading.

State Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) scientists found much higher levels of mercury in Pompton Lake fish than found elsewhere, raising red flags about bio-availability of the mercury and downriver sediment pollution.  They said the ecological assessment in the DuPont plan to dredge a 26-acre section of Acid Brook Delta, a small part of the 260-acre polluted Pompton Lake, was “misleading” particularly in characterizing data on mercury in fish tissue.  Moreover, DEP calculated a sediment cleanup standard needed to protect fish and wildlife but DuPont’s plan did not incorporate that standard.

The adjoining Ramapo and Wanaque watersheds are affected by contaminated sediment flow as are their fish and wildlife, which bio-accumulate mercury through the food chain.  The current DuPont dredging plan only addresses a small portion (10%) of the Lake and does not consider downriver sediment impacts.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service are now considering and must both sign off on this plan.  PEER is urging Fish & Wildlife scientists to revisit the DEP standard during their review of the DuPont plan.

“These federal oversight agencies must look at these DEP findings and should conduct a de novo review of the scientific basis for the DuPont cleanup plan,” stated New Jersey PEER Director Bill Wolfe, noting that DEP had denied him access to these internal scientific documents under the state Open Public Records Act, claiming they were “deliberative” but had previously released these same documents to a different requester. “Right now we are a critical juncture in the future of Pompton Lakes.”

The DuPont plan is supposed to be based upon a site-specific ecological standard designed to protect fish and wildlife from the bio-accumulative effects of mercury in sediments.  Federal review could expand the scope of the proposed cleanup and could also find additional injuries to natural resources for which DuPont must compensate the public.

For more than a century, DuPont’s operations poured heavy metals and other toxins into Pompton Lake.  The plume of pollution has spread to groundwater underlying homes and businesses, causing vapor intrusion problems.

###

Read the DEP comments on the DuPont cleanup

See the memo for the DEP scientists

Look at DEP readings

View the DuPont cleanup plan

Examine the background on Pompton Lakes

I haven’t reviewed the Report and make no comment on it.

I don’t want to rain on anyone’s parade, but there are much more pressing currently existing radiological risks from drinking NJ water.

I’ve written about that here several times, so instead of rehashing all that, see this PEER Press release which has  links to the official documents.

RADIOACTIVE WELLS POSE BIGGER RISKS IN NEW JERSEY — Hundreds of Thousands Exposed Daily to Rad Levels Many Times over Safety Limits

We disclosed that new scientific findings presented at the May 7, 2010 meeting of the state Drinking Water Quality Institute (DWQI), the extent and depth of radioactivity levels are grounds for renewed concern:

• Official “Private Well Testing Act” data show that 10.7% of wells in the coastal plain violate the drinking water Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for gross alpha (i.e., radiological contaminants). Levels in excess of 30 times the MCL have been reported;

• Additional health risks in Northern New Jersey due to uranium are now being discovered; and

• The treatment system for gross alpha from radium is NOT effective in treating risk for uranium. Thus, homeowners who install certain treatment systems incorrectly think they are protected, when they are not protected if uranium is the source of radiation in their well water.

Maps depict serious problems - in this case, polluted drinking water wells

[Important Update Below!]

First they abolished the DEP Office of Policy and Planning, killing the State Planning and coastal planning programs.

Then they killed the Landscape Project Map.

Then they whacked the Water Quality Management Planning Maps showing environmentally sensitive areas where sewers could not be extended.

Then they killed the State Plan Policy Map.

I knew they hated maps like above showing “The 51,028 wells sampled represents about 13% of the estimated 400,000 private wells used for drinking water in New Jersey.“

I also knew they are hiding maps of toxic groundwater plumes (see p. 15).

And we warned that DEP was suppressing this Big Risk map of toxic sites.

Not to forget that DEP is several years late in releasing the Water Supply Master Plan Update.

So, we all know they hate maps that can be linked to regulations, but what do they have against selling copies of the Wetlands Maps?

2/1/2011: NJDEP Freshwater Wetlands Maps (1986) No Longer for Sale

Effective February 2, 2011, the Department will no longer sell copies of the NJDEP Freshwater Wetlands Maps (1986). While the 1986 mapping is no longer available from the Department, you can access an updated version of the 1986 mapping online through the Department’s geographic information system (GIS) NJ-GeoWeb at www.nj.gov/dep/gis and choosing interactive mapping on the sidebar. The layer “Wetlands (2007)” is located under the land section of the layer manager. Be advised that the wetlands mapping is based on aerial photography and has not been ground verified through the Freshwater Wetlands “Letter of Interpretation” process. As such, they cannot be utilized for regulatory purposes.

Full size paper copies of the NJDEP Freshwater Wetlands Maps (1986) were distributed to all municipal clerk and county clerk’s offices for public use. If you have a need for this earlier mapping, please contact your municipality or county for availability and location. If you have general questions regarding freshwater wetlands regulations, please visit the NJDEP, Division of Land Use Regulation’s website at www.nj.gov/dep/landuse or call (609) 777- 0454 and choose the number one (1) for freshwater wetlands.

[Update: Oops! My bad! I forgot to mention one map that Christie and DEP love (drumroll: see below).

DEP loves it, because radon is naturally occurring. Nature doesn't have powerful lawyers, lobbyists, and corporate campaign contributors. Any mitigation of radon risks are purely voluntary and the costs are borne by homeowners. And the people impacted tend to be rural northwest republicans.

They love it so much that Christie declared January Radon Action Month - and DEP is doing PR and urging people to sample indoor air in their homes.

But they forgot about the radon risks posed by drinking water and using that water indoors, for showers, cooking, etc.

So, why is DEP continuing to fail to develop drinking water "Maximum Contaminant Levels" (MCL's) for radon and radionuclides recommended years ago by the NJ Drinking Water Quality Institute?

We exposed that DEP inaction here RADIOACTIVE WELLS POSE BIGGER RISKS IN NEW JERSEY — Hundreds of Thousands Exposed Daily to Rad Levels Many Times over Safety Limits

Now contrast DEP "Action" response to radon risks with INACTION in response to very similar risks from chemical vapor intrusion.

Vapor risks are caused by economically and politically powerful chemical companies,who have legions of lawyers and lobbyists. Remediation and mitigation must be obtained by DEP enforcement mandates. The costs are borne by the powerful chemical companies that caused the problem. The risk are borne primarily by urban democrats.

So DEP will not be releasing any Vapor Intrusion Risk maps or urging the public to test indoor air.

In fact, DEP just did the OPPOSITE. And that tells you everything you need to know about this Administration.

Now ain't that a Tale of Two Risks!

source: Sussex Herald