Archive

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Environmental Groups Praise Murphy Environmental Record, Setting An Unprecedented And Incredibly Low Bar

April 8th, 2024 No comments

Little Done 6 Years Into The Murphy Administration

Christie Regulatory Rollbacks Remain

Bend Over, Earth Day Is Coming

The NJ environmental community just released the most false praise of and groveling before Governor Murphy and his flaccid DEP in NJ history. Read it and weep:

Dear Governor Murphy,

Over the past seven years of your administration, New Jersey has made remarkable progress in becoming a national leader on environmental and climate action.

Never before has a Governor who has done so little on the environment received so much praise.

Never before – including the Whitman and Christie DEP’s – has DEP done so little on the regulatory front and so much on the press office public relations front.

There is an easy to understand and accurate barometer to measure that failure right on DEP’s own website.

Just look at the DEP Rule Re-adoption Without Change page.

Regulations expire every 5 – 7 years. The expiration is intended to provide an opportunity of continuous improvement, as science and conditions change and lessons are learned about flaws in the regulations. But DEP may readopt without changes to maintain the status quo.

The Murphy DEP has readopted 51 regulations without change, including 8 years of Christie DEP rollbacks.

The pro-business and strongly ideologically anti-regulatory Christie DEP rolled back protections in freshwater wetlands rules, and forestry and public access to the coast and rivers and landfill closure and flooding and Highlands protection and sewer plants and clean water and stormwater management and private site cleanup and coastal zone management  and a broad waiver post Sandy and toxic cleanup program and septic systems a broad waiver of regulations and Green Acres and OPRA public records  and drinking water and phosphorus (water quality) and water pollution and rocket fuel in drinking water (and other unregulated chemicals).

Get that? By re-adopting all these regulations without change, the Murphy DEP has approved of all these Christie DEP rollbacks.

In addition, the Christie budgets slashed DEP funding and staffing, Christie Executive Orders rolled back DEP’s discretionary power and abolished programs and institutions, the Christie DEP failed to act on numerous fronts, e.g. land use, air and water quality, chemical safety (TCPA an RTK), etc and even blocked the Drinking Water Quality Institute from meeting for several years.

Christie DEP settled billion dollar Natural Resource Damage (NRD) lawsuits for pennies on the dollar.

The Murphy DEP has maintained that pro-corporate practice (e.g. see BASF and American Cyanamid deals) and done nothing to strengthen the NRD program to improve DEP’s legal leverage and avoid having to settle for peanuts.

Six YEARS into the Murphy Administration, and NONE of this dismantling and rollbacks have been restored and strengthened by the Murphy administration. One Murphy Executive Order on regulatory policy may even make Christie’s policy even worse.

Revealing a similar pattern, the Murphy DEP adopted just 13 new regulations. Most of them were either required by federal EPA, were minor rules, or were weak efforts that are full of loopholes.

Some were even supported by the chemical industry. The DEP even openly admits this in a response to the Chemistry Council:

In recent years, the Department has streamlined the risk assessment process for air permits by providing the regulated community with a simple-to-use Risk Screening Worksheet (Worksheet) (http://www.nj.gov/dep/aqpp/risk.html). The use of this Worksheet eliminates the need to perform refined air quality modeling for a significant number of permittees. If the facility has the potential to emit one or multiple HAPs, the Worksheet can assess risk at the same time for multiple HAPs. Similarly, when a permittee runs an air quality model for the refined risk assessment for one pollutant, the permittee can use the same run for multiple pollutants.

Notice that DEP did not mandate cumulative risk assessments for multiple hazardous pollutants, or require consideration of undue burdens and health vulnerabilities of at risk environmental justice communities, or establish stricter modeling and air monitoring, particularly in urban areas where schools and people live in close proximity to toxic polluters.

They did just the OPPOSITE and made them weaker.

Yet the current Director of Sierra Club, NJ Chapter recently testified to the Senate Environment Committee and claimed, paraphrase, “as a former DEP employee, I can assure the Committee that DEP has strict hazardous air pollution requirements”!!! 

The Murphy DEP’s highly touted signal accomplishments on the regulatory front – e.g. rejoining RGGI, CO2 emissions rules for a handful or power plants, environmental justice, “forever chemical”, and inland flooding rules – are full of loopholes and will have little or no impact on current greenhouse gas emissions and levels of pollution in EJ communities (see above HAP regulation).

The flood rules were obsolete before they were even proposed, because they relied on the outdated 100 year flood and rainfall events.

The “forever chemicals” rule just exposed DEP’s failure to regulate hundreds of currently unregulated chemical and mandate state of the art treatment for drinking water to remove these chemicals.

Finally, the Christie DEP was led by a former corporate consultant from Accenture, Bob Martin. Martin did his corporate consulting in Europe with European players.

The Murphy DEP is even worse, led by Shawn LaTourette, a former corporate lawyer who represented some of NJ’s worst corporate polluters. He has gross conflicts of interest right here in NJ.

Yet while Bob Martin was criticized as too pro-business, there has not been a peep of criticism of Shawn LaTourette, just the opposite. Gov. Murphy even had the balls to call LaTourette an “Erin Brokovich” public interest lawyer, a disgusting lie that went unchallenged by the press or environmental groups.

Not surprisingly, DEP’s failure to act and maintain continuity with the Christie DEP has led to an explosion of warehouse developments, further loss of the few remaining acres of forests and farms, stagnation on the water quality front as global warming drives even worse outbreaks of harmful algae blooms, and greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption and vehicle miles traveled are all increasing. Bears are being slaughtered. Loggers continue to manage NJ forests. The solar industry is declining and off shore wind is off track. The Energy Master Plan is in shambles. Electrification of buildings is stalled. I could go on but won’t.

[Update: A long time Trenton observer sent me this note:

Murphy is  worse then Christie – DEP budget is lower and has significantly less staff -bigger backlog of park repair – Turnpike widenings  Murphy further weakened storm water rules was even criticized by Trump fema – more roll backs or weaken of clean up rules – more privatization- sprawl is back – ~~~ end update]

 In conclusion, it is obvious why this lame letter was released right now.

We are two weeks from Earth Day.

The DEP will make an Earth Day announcement, enviro’s will praise it and declare victory. They’ll take the press clips to their Foundation donors as evidence of success.

The press will  write glowing headlines and stories.

And nothing will change.

[End Note: The NJ Spotlight story URL gives the game away. The letter was organized by corporate friendly anti-regulatory Coalition for the Delaware River Watershed. More on exactly who they are coming soon. A teaser: (note: this post is old and the primary subject mater is no longer accurate):

I just learned that NJ League of Conservation Voters, NJ Audubon, and NJ Conservation Foundation (they are pathetic cheerleaders, along with their $100 million Wm. Penn Foundation created faux grassroots fundraising focused front group The Coalition for the Delaware Watershed) are doing a public event with the DRBC.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Historic: Murphy DEP Approves Huge Housing Development That Will Destroy Exceptional C1 Stream Buffer And Wetlands Above A Reservoir

April 8th, 2024 No comments

DEP Waived Compliance With Stream Buffer, Water Quality, Flood, & Stormwater Regulations

In A Historic First, DEP OK’d A Parking Lot Over Massive Septic System

Project Is By Politically Wired Kushner Companies And Langan Engineering

A massive 71,250 gallon per day novel septic system under a parking lot, along a tributary to a reservoir.

What could go wrong?

1 (167)

The Murphy DEP likes to issue self serving press releases stressing the “Historic” nature of their actions: historic first gay Commissioner; historic environmental justice law; historic off shore wind program et cetera.

But you won’t see any press releases from DEP announcing a truly historically bad approval of a massive housing project – 360 units, with 700 parking spaces – known as Colts Neck Manor.

In order to issue that historic approval, DEP had to waive and bend beyond recognition a series of water resource, wetlands, stormwater, and C1 stream buffer regulations.

Wonks can read the DEP approval document’s response to hundreds of public comments opposing the project for all the gory details.

The project is located along the Category One designated Yellow Brook (“exceptional water supply significance”), a tributary to the Swimming River Reservoir that serves over 350,000 people in Monmouth County. DEP waived the 300 foot buffer protections along the Brook, putting the water supply of 350,000 people at risk. DEP issued: (@ page 5)

a hardship exception for proposed construction activities within the 300-foot riparian zone. … the permit allows for 3.34 acres of riparian zone vegetation to be permanently disturbed

Kushner Companies has a hardship? Are you kidding me?

An opponent of the project explained the implications of that: @ p.28 – 29)

28. COMMENT: New information included in the proposed NJPDES-DGW permit reveals that the “clear” effluent from the Amphidrome Treatment Plant proposed for the Colts Neck Manor site WILL contain Fecal Coliform Bacteria above the DEP compliance threshold. The effluent could additionally contain a variety of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals to be released into disposal fields on-site and allowed to enter the groundwater and the aquifer below. When this material, including Fecal Coliform Bacteria, is intercepted by groundwater layers, which flow toward Yellow Brook, then these toxins will migrate into Yellow Brook and flow directly to the Swimming River Reservoir, along with other stormwater contaminants entering Yellow Brook and the Reservoir.

In the 1970’s and ’80’s, DEP approved a bunch of small on site wastewater management systems. Many of those systems failed to operate properly, were poorly maintained by the developer (who abandoned them and walked away, leaving homeowners holding the bag) and polluted steams and groundwater.

DEP is repeating those errors by approving this novel and massive underground septic scheme.

There are regulated freshwater wetlands on site and adjacent to the Brook. DEP rules prohibit approval of a sewer service area that includes wetlands. But, DEP issued another historic bending of the wetlands and WQMP rules to approve the project. Check this out:

The Department determined that there are wetlands located on the proposed project site based on the “Wetlands 2012” GIS data layer, in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:15-4.4(e)4; however, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:15-4.4(j)3, the applicant provided a Freshwater Wetlands Letter of Interpretation (LOI)/ Line Verification (File #1309-02-0008.1/FWW140001) confirming that there are no wetlands within the sewer service area.

The DEP issued another historic approval of a novel septic system. The 71,250 gallon per day septic system is 3 times larger than only 3 other systems built nationally and the largest I am aware of in New Jersey.

In another historic first, the novel septic system will be buried underneath a parking lot.

An opponent of the project put it succinctly:

8. COMMENT: Putting a waste management system under blacktop is insane, especially since I’m not sure if it has ever been done before or on such a large scale. The site also contains clay soil which doesn’t percolate well.

The DEP did not apply the recently updated more stringent inland flood hazard and stormwater regulations.

Again, DEP had to invent an historic interpretation to certify the permit application as “technically complete” to waive the new regulations.

An opponent summed that up:

44. COMMENT: The Stormwater Management system for this site is not in compliance with NJDEP or the town’s Stormwater Regulations. The steep slopes, wetlands, and stream corridor all lie in a buffer that is not to be disturbed. The added impervious surface must comply with current Best Management Practices. The site engineers are trying to avoid complying with Best Management practices through complicated engineering devices requiring rigorous and meticulous maintenance. Is this what we want to allow in a critical and degraded stream corridor that is one of the most important ones to serve our already degraded and threatened Swimming River Reservoir?

The DEP also completely ignored the State Plan, which maps the land as Planning Area 4 (agriculture) and Planning Area 5 (environmentally sensitive), where this kind of sprawl development is strongly discouraged.

Yes, this was truly an historic DEP approval.

And a truly historic failure to hold DEP accountable by NJ environmental groups.

A massive 71,250 gallon per day septic system under a parking lot, along a tributary to a reservoir.

What could go wrong?

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Murphy DEP Dismisses Criticism Of American Cyanamid Superfund Natural Resource Damage Settlement

April 5th, 2024 No comments

DEP Provides A Non Responsive Response To Public Comments

1 (166)

(Caption – Source: US EPA)

I just received DEP’s response to the comments I submitted on the proposed corporate sweetheart deal they cut with American Cyanamid at the Superfund site along the Raritan River (for comments, see:

The key criticism of the deal was the total lack of a factual basis to justify the deal:

“There is no document published by DEP that provides a science based assessment of natural resource damages or the economic value of these damaged resources or the nexus between the NRD damages and the restoration plan or how the public will be compensated fully for those damages.”

Ironically, the DEP response suffers exactly the same flaws as the Settlement itself: DEP spouts slogans and broad conclusions that are not supported by any science, facts, data, or other evidence.

DEP arrogantly dismissed my criticism with these broad and unsupported conclusions:

Thank you for your comments on the above-referenced proposed Consent Decree. After reviewing your comments, the Department has concluded that they did not present any information that would indicate that the proposed Consent Decree is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The commitments of Wyeth set forth in the proposed Consent Decree satisfactorily address the injury to, loss of, or damage to the floodplain, riparian, upland, and wetland natural resources of the American Cyanamid Superfund Site. Furthermore, the location of the Duke Farms Forested Floodplain Restoration Project, only 2.2 miles from the American Cyanamid Superfund Site, creates a strong ecological and economic nexus between the restoration work and the injury to natural resources
and further supports the Department’s conclusion that the proposed Consent Decree is fair, reasonable, and consistent with the Spill Act.

I fail to understand how DEP can continue to get away with this.

The DEP claims that the restoration project is 2.2 miles from the site, and that location “creates a strong ecological and economic nexus between the restoration work and the injury to natural resources.”

But they fail to note the restoration location is UPRIVER from the Cyanamid Superfund site. Most of the off site damage from Cyanamid occurred DOWNRIVER, as contamination from the site flowed down river.

Could you imagine EPA letting Hudson River PCB polluter General Electric off the hook for a tiny restoration project (112 acre wetlands and $78,000) along the Hudson River in the Adirondacks?

No other program in DEP operates this way.

DEP is supposed to be a regulatory agency who makes science and law based decisions in a transparent and accountable fashion.

How can the Department negotiate and execute an agreement without identification and quantification of the ecological and economic damages?

Given that there are no DEP documents or even facts provided, how is the public to assess whether this agreement fully restores and fully compensates the public for NR injuries?

How can a court determine whether it is in the public interest?

I fail to understand how DEP can implement such an important environmental program in the absence of science, economics, and transparency.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

The US Air Force Is The Biggest Arsonist In The Pinelands

April 4th, 2024 No comments

The US Air Force Starts One Pinelands Fire Every 10 – 14 Days

DEP Misled The Pinelands Commission About The Military Objectives Of Logging Plan

There is so much propaganda being distributed by the Murphy DEP and printed as fact by NJ media that I find it difficult to keep up.

So, I apologize that I’m a little behind in getting out the real story behind this recent garbage journalism, fed by the most manipulative gaslighting DEP Commissioner ever, Shawn LaTourette: (NJ Spotlight)

That story celebrates military funding and portrays DEP in a very favorable light in terms of protecting Pinelands communities from wildfires. That story misleadingly creates the impression that DEP’s military funded wildfire management “fire breaks” (33 miles of them) were designed to protect adjacent communities.

But it gets the reality badly wrong and turns what should be a scandal at DEP into praise.

First of all, there is no mention of the fact that the most recent, largest, and controversial DEP wildfire management project, funded by the military, involved 1,400 acres of logging and 13 miles of “firebreak” roads. (that single project is 40% of all the total 33 miles of “firebreaks” and far more land destroyed than the other 20 miles of firebreak).

The 1,400 acres and 13 miles of firebreak roads are located no where near any community or human development! The remotely located logging and the firebreak do NOT protect any community, as DEP and NJ Spotlight would have you believe.

This remote location led to a Pinelands Commisioner openly questioning the rationale for the project. Pinelands Commissioner Doug Wallner, a retired National Park Service expert on wildfire, noted that the DEP plan failed to provide a justification and failed to consider the “no alternative” option. Wallner noted that he had reviewed the maps and that there was little or no people or property at risk or benefit from the logging and firebreak plan.

Here’s what Commissioner Wallner said, verbatim: (watch and listen to the YouTube, Wallner’s remarks begin at time 40 minutes, 20 seconds)

I guess the biggest comment I have is that it seems like it’s a given in the amendment that wildfire is of consequence. So I’d like to see some fleshing out of why, other than just reducing fire hazard, what is the consequence of wildfire? 

I didn’t see any communities nearby or things that are significantly threatened from extreme wildfire.

I did read that it was dense and that it was high fuel loading and everything. But still, I would like some kind of indication of what’s threatened by an extreme wildfire that might happen there.

That project (1,400 acres of logging and 13 miles of roads clearing) was designed to protect the Air Force training mission and Warren Grove US Air Force base.

Worse, the DEP failed to disclose the military funding and military objectives of this project to the Pinelands Commission, the public, and the media during the Pinelands Commission’s review. That is an outright deception by DEP that we called out at the time, see:

DEP Commissioner LaTourette is now trying to turn that totally unacceptable deception and forest mismanagement into a favorable press story.

The DEP also grossly exaggerates wildfire risks. Of the over 1,000 wildfires in NJ, over 90% of them are two acres or less in size. These are basically dumpster fires or roadside grass fires that pose NO risk, see:

If the DEP were serious about reducing wildfire risk and protecting communities (instead of their funding and jobs), they would limit new development in DEP mapped high wildfire risk locations and mandate safety measures at existing development., see:

Yet DEP recently denied this petition for rulemaking to force those protections, see DEP denial document:

There were NO press reports on any of that.

Finally, the DEP fails to disclose and the media fail to report that the US Air Force starts more Pinelands fires than any arsonist.

According to the US Air Force’s  own REPI program fact sheet:

“Every year training activities ignite one fire every 10-14 days, which are suppressed on-site….

So, the US Air Force is funding DEP to reduce the risks to the US Air Force training mission and facilities, not Pinelands Communities.

The US Air Force training missions are creating wildfire risks, not reducing them.

DEP is intentionally misleading the public about all of this.

And the press is reporting lies and has no integrity to report the facts.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Cronyism And Conflicts Of Interest At The Murphy DEP

April 3rd, 2024 No comments

In Response To My Ethics Complaint, Assistant Commissioner Cecil Finally Filed A Recusal Memo

Amazingly, Cecil Tried To Keep It Secret As A “Privileged And Confidential” Memo

Cecil’s Long Delayed Recusal Is Limited In Scope To Sparta Mountain

1 (165)

(Caption: “Forest Stewardship” in the Pinelands – DEP & NJ Audubon support these clearcuts)

Based upon learning that DEP Division of Fish and Wildlife recently hired a former NJ Audubon staffer (another high handed move and at best a crony hire, to be discussed in a subsequent post), I thought I’d check in on the status of the ethics complaint I filed against DEP Assistant Commissioner John Cecil for conflicts of interest arising from his prior work at NJ Audubon.

The multiple connections and revolving doors between Murphy Governor’s Office and DEP and NJ Audubon raise red flags and really warrant a close look. (also forthcoming)

By way of some background and context, Cecil is a strong advocate of the scientifically dubious “Young Forest” “active management” policy that promotes logging of intact mature forests, as is the DEP’s new crony hire.

Cecil presented these twisted scientific and active management views to Senator Smith’s Forestry Task Force and he implements these flawed policies in DEP forest and natural resource management programs he supervises.

The members of Senator Smith’s Task Force should have been made aware of Cecil’s conflicts and been able to understand both his strong scientific bias and conflicts of interest, which totally undermine any expectation of independence, scientific objectivity, and service to the public interest.

So I filed an OPRA request to learn if Cecil had been sanctioned by the State Ethics Commission and determine if he filed the necessary recusal documents to avoid gross conflicts of interest he has.

I got a highly unusual rapid response from DEP that provided Cecil’s recusal memo.

So we must declare victory in the filing of the ethics complaint.

But upon review of that recusal memo, we find that Cecil went from the frying pan to the fire! (see letter and chronology below).

We also learned that DEP violated OPRA by denying my initial request for Cecil’s ethics disclosure documents, on the stated basis that such records were “”confidential personnel” records that were exempt from OPRA. That was a lie, which DEP now exposes by providing exactly those ethics documents.

Amazingly, I caught DEP Commissioner LaTourette in exactly this same unethical game when I filed an ethics complaint that forced him to file and amend his recusal documents.

Ignoring these ethical lapses, both LaTourette and Cecil long delayed recusal and when Cecil did he tried to keep it secret by classifying the memo as “Privileged And Confidential” – which obviously is false because DEP just gave the memo to me in response to my OPRA request for it.

And the memo is so narrow in scope that it amounts to more unethical behavior, so I let him know exactly how I feel, see:

———- Original Message ———-

From: Bill WOLFE <b>

To: “john.cecil@dep.nj.gov” <john.cecil@dep.nj.gov>

Cc: “shawn.latourette@dep.nj.gov” <shawn.latourette@dep.nj.gov>, senbsmith <SenBSmith@njleg.org>, sengreenstein <sengreenstein@njleg.org>, “senmckeon@njleg.org” <senmckeon@njleg.org>, “Keys, Mary Ann [ETHICS]” <Maryann.Keys@ethics.nj.gov>

Date: 04/03/2024 8:57 AM EDT

Subject: Recusal Memo

Dear DEP Assistant Commissioner Cecil:

I am in receipt of your October 21, 2022 recusal memo to Commissioner LaTourette, which I received today via OPRA discovery.

At the outset, I must note that you classified this memo as “Privileged and Confidential”. It is neither. I must object to your attempt to keep this memo secret. I find this particularly ironic as your stated intent in recusal was to “avoid an appearance” of a conflict of interest.

How would the public appearance of a conflict be remedied or mitigated via a secret “Privileged and Confidential” recusal memo?

I also must note that you filed the subject recusal memo after over 18 months serving at DEP in a management capacity.

The chronology is troubling.

On August 24, 2022, the Department denied my OPRA request for your ethics disclosure and recusal documents on the basis that such records were “confidential personnel records” exempt from OPRA.

On August 25, 2022, I filed a complaint against you to the State Ethics Commission, see:

http://www.wolfenotes.com/2022/08/ethics-complaint-filed-against-murphy-dep-assistant-commissioner-john-cecil/

On September 19 and October 14, 2022, I supplemented that complaint via emails.

Given this chronology, I must infer that you filed the subject recusal only in response to the State Ethics Commission’s review (or perhaps upon direct Order from the Ethics Commission. I request your clarification on the events that triggered your filing. I will file another OPRA today to determine if the Ethics Commission issued direction.)

You did not self initiate this recusal upon hiring at DEP or in response to Commissioner LaTourette’s direction or the DEP Ethics Officer’s guidance, because both were copied on and fully aware of the ethics complaints cited above.

Again, I find this ironic, because I previously forced Commissioner LaTourette to file an ethics recusal document, again via OPRA, see

https://www.njspotlightnews.org/2021/02/shawn-latourette-acting-nj-dep-commissioner-recuses-lng-controversial-plan-former-client-gibbstown-enviros-raises-questions/

One would think DEP managers would learn from their mistakes.

In addition to the extraordinary delays and intransigence in your response to this matter, I also must strenuously object to the legal basis and substantive scope of the recusal.

The legal basis of your recusal is limited to the “appearance” standard, when in fact you had direct and actual conflicts (plural), given your prior work at NJ Audubon and your work at DEP, as I documented in my August 25, 2022 ethics complaint.

The substantive scope of your recusal is limited to the Sparta Mountain Forest Stewardship Plan. However, as I documented in my August 25, 2022 ethics complaint, you have the appearance of and potential conflicts in many regulatory decisions, personnel decisions, and policy matters under your management control at DEP.

Regarding personal matters, I also must now note, having learned of it yesterday, that the DEP Division of Fish and Game recently hired Kristen Meistrell, a former NJ Audubon staffer who I believe worked under your direction at NJ Audubon. That is cronyism, if not another ethical lapse.

So once again, given the above flaws, you (and DEP Commissioner LaTourette) have failed to meet your ethical obligations and basic principles of public service.

Do better.

Bill Wolfe

cc: Legislative leaders copied on original ethics complaint

State Ethics Commission

Categories: Uncategorized Tags: