But the age of truth will soon appear, Aquarius arrives
A man’s a man who looks a man right between the eyes.

~~~ Crosby Stills, Nash, and Young (1970) (listen)

I picked this guy up on the way home from Trenton today – he was crossing the street.

Funny, I picked a snapping turtle up off Rt. 29 just last night in Stockton by Prallsville Mills – almost lost a finger! Back to back turtle rescue – must be an omen!

Although I gave some kick ass testimony to the Senate Environment Committee on the waiver rule, the turtle was the highlight of my day.

I knew turtles were slow, but never knew how patient one must be to wait for them to come out of their shell.

After more than an hour standoff, the turtle won the battle of wills – and I lost a good shot of the bright color of his neck and legs.

Aquarius arrives!

But not so fast! – I came across that snapping turtle last night on Rt. 29 on my way home from Bull’s Island.

I went out there last night too see how the high flowing river was impacting the recently installed restoration work along the Canal and riverfront.

According to some hacks in DEP management, I was “trespassing” again. WRONG!

The restoration work was Ordered by the US Army Corps on Engineers (USACE), along with the Hunterdon County Soil Conservation District (SCD). Both agencies took enforcement action for violations of the USACE dredge permit by the NJ Water Supply Authority and engaging in illegal un-permitted bulldozing and fill on 450 feet of the riverfront.

You recall, these are the reckless and wanton violations of environmental laws that Larry Rangonese of the DEP Press Office  called me “completely ridiculous and irresponsible” for reporting to government agencies and the press.

Are the USACE and Hunterdon SCD “completely ridiculous and irresponsible” too Larry?

As a result of my “completely ridiculous and irresponsible actions“, all that illegal fill was removed before it could be washed out by last night’s high flowing river.

Rich Boornazian, former real estate man - now DEP Assistant Commissioner for Natural and Historic Resources

Now that the Canal and riverfront are being restored, I have a word of advice for DEP Commissioner Bob Martin and his real estate hack of an Assistant Commissioner for Natural Resources regarding their hair brained scheme to clear cut mature trees and all vegetation – including huge 200 year old sycamores - from 5.22 acres of the Island:

Fogeddaboudit!

Word on the street is that phone calls were made from high places in DEP to advise that Commissioner  Martin has decided and warn environmentalists to just sit down and shut up (and stop “trespassing”).

As my grandfather used to say: well, I’ve got new for you pal!

DEP Bob Martin - "the decider"

First of all, you are not some kind of King that can go around arrogantly dictating these destructive decisions with no public input or consultation with federal and state agency partners with interests in the Island.

Second of all, the alleged “science” supporting your clearcut decision is fatally flawed.

Third, your perception of environmental risk is warped.

Air and water pollution from chemical plants and oil refineries and toxic waste sites are no problem and deserve “regulatory relief” and “customer service” by DEP, but TREES are  DEADLY? Are you kidding me!

You make Ronald Reagan’s statement that trees cause air pollution seem progressive!

And most importantly, this will be  a huge fight-  and I plan to see to it that  you will lose and that the trees and critters – will win. WE are not gonna let this happen. Period.

DEP  Preference for Riverfront View:

DEP bulldozed vegetation and filled Delaware Riverfront - no permits. USACE ordered restoration - looks like DEP has not revegetated.

Here’s my preference for a riverfront view – DEP would destroy this by a clearcut:

Let’s repeat that: Here’s DEP preference:

My preference – which would be destroyed by DEP clearcut:

Tomorrrow the Senate Environment Committee will hear a substitute version of Senator Smith’s controversial “Forest Harvest” bill, S1085 (old version).

There are a bunch of significant and controversial bills on the agenda, including SCR 59, a legislative veto of the “waiver rule” (See excellent NJ Spotlight story), so the forestry bill could fly under the radar.

I’ve written previously about the troubling forest and public lands issues raised by that bill, and some of those issues remain in the substitute version. But, for today, I will leave the forestry aspect to others, who have far more knowledge than I.

Instead, today I will focus on one disturbing aspect of the bill that has gotten no attention.

NJ 2002 PM 2.5 emissions (Source: NJDEP)

The bill would promote “controlled burns” as a forestry management technique, on a statewide basis. The bill would also encourage more burning of firewood.

Thus, the bill would have significant adverse impacts on air quality and public health.

Here is NJ DEP emissions inventory data for particulate matter.

Please read my letter to Chairman Smith, the sponsor, requesting that the controlled burn provisions be eliminated.

Dear Senator Smith:

I wanted to provide emissions data and science to support my concerns on the controlled burn provisions of substitute for S1085, which I understand will be expanded from the Pines to statewide. 

As you know, north jersey hardwood forests are ecologically very different from Pines, particularly with respect to the role of fire. The human population, population density (exposure potential) and ambient air quality in north jersey are significantly worse as well. 

In addition to air quality and public health concerns, please be advised that increased incremental emissions from prescribed burns (and residential wood burning from harvested wood) would need to be factored into NJ’s SIP. 

Thus, the forestry practices of S1085 could have an unintended and significant consequence of forcing costly emissions ratchet down on other commercial and industrial sources to achieve instate PM 2.5 NAAQS.

The Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA) made a presentation to the NJ Clean Air Council on April 11, 2012 that provided emissions inventory data and projections.

MARAMA identified prescribed burns and wood burning stoves as significant sources of PM 2.5 (and other pollutants, including ozone precursor VOC’s).

According to the MARAMA regional air emissions inventory, PM 2.5 emissions in NJ declined from 19,350 tons per year in 2002, to 14,292 tons in 2007, a significant 35% reduction. Thus, new emissions from prescribed burns expanded by the bill would wipe out this progress on clean air and adversely effect public health.

Worse, PM 2.5 emissions were projected to rise (most current model) to 15,926 TPY in 2009, an 11.4% increase.

With additional emissions from forestry managed controlled burns and more combustion from wood burning stoves, compliance with EPA NAAQS air quality standards is made more difficult and costly.

]]> http://www.wolfenotes.com/2012/05/forest-bill-would-jeopardize-clean-air-and-public-health/feed/ 2 http://www.wolfenotes.com/2012/05/dep-science-and-regulatory-standards-in-disarray/ http://www.wolfenotes.com/2012/05/dep-science-and-regulatory-standards-in-disarray/#comments Wed, 16 May 2012 11:41:18 +0000 Bill Wolfe http://www.wolfenotes.com/?p=20418 Corporate Control Over New Jersey’s Environmental Science

 New Regulatory Standards Blocked – Existing Standards Prone to Rollback

DEP Commissioner Bob Martin’s testimony before the Senate Budget Committee last week let some very big cats out of the bag. Let me explain:

1. The Science Advisory Board is Prone to Abuse

Martin confirmed our warnings about the DEP Science Advisory Board (SAB).

Martin stated that the DEP SAB would be charged with the science regarding drinking water standards – and all other environmental standards set by DEP, including groundwater, surface water, and soil standards. We see major problems with that (see press release below from PEER)

2. The Drinking Water Quality Institute is Dead

Martin was asked about why the Drinking Water Quality Institute was no longer meeting and why DEP had not adopted scores of new drinking water standards the DWQI had recommended.

In response, Martin confirmed our prior warnings that the NJ Drinking Water Quality Institute (DWQI) has effectively been killed. The DWQI has not met for over 18 months and DEP has not adopted and of its recommendations to strengthen and update scores of drinking water standards to reflex current science and protect the health of NJ residents. Martin has issued a de facto moratorium in response to embarrassing media reports on recommendations by the Health effects Committee on controversial chromium standards.

The DWQI was created by the Legislature and given the responsibility to develop science based recommendations to DEP regarding promulgation of health based drinking water standards known as “maximum contaminant levels” (MCLs).

3. The Highlands Septic Density Standard is Vulnerable

Martin raised Red Flags regarding the SAB in terms of an imminent decision he will make in litigation on the Highlands septic density standard.

In addition to the numeric standards mentioned above, there are other regulatory standards that Martin has asked the SAB to review, most importantly, the 88 acre “septic density standard” in the Highlands. That density standard is the backbone of the Highlands Master Plan and the DEP Highlands regulations.

The Highlands septic density stand is based on a modification to the DEP’s nitrate dilution model. The longstanding DEP “nitrate dilution model” was revised to reflect the Highlands Act mandate to protect groundwater from degradation, based on “deep aquifer recharge”  (see: DEP Basis and Background document).

That standard is under attack politically and by litigation filed by the NJ Farm Bureau (see: Is Bob Martin Sabotaging the Highlands Septic Density Standard?

In response to the Farm Bureau litigation, in early 2010, Martin pledged to the Court that he would take “a fresh look” at that standard.

A year later, as the DEP was about to submit briefs to the Court that would defend or jettison that standard, the SAB issued a Report to Martin on it. The SAB issued findings to Martin on the nitrate dilution model in a March 14, 2011 Report.

The SAB Report basically supported the DEP’s nitrate dilution model, specifically its use on a regional scale to support land use planning. However, the SAB was not specific in findings regarding how the model was modified and applied in the Highlands.

Given that ambiguity,  we warned:

Dangerously, the SAB findings may serve as a pretextual scientific basis to unravel the Highlands septic density standard in the DEP Highlands regulations.

The Court’s June 2011 hearing of the case was again postponed. Martin finally must respond to the Court next month – that response will determine the fate of both the septic density standard and the land use protections in the Highlands.

4.. There is a de facto Moratorium on Science Based Regulatory Standards 

Martin revealed that the science and regulatory standards development process at DEP is badly broken. There no longer is a smooth integration between DEP science and the promulgation of regulatory standards.

It is now transparently obvious that the SAB is being used as cover for an informal moratorium on DEP regulatory standards.

Basically, Martin has derailed the relationship between DEP science and the translation of that DEP science into regulations.

Our friends from PEER explain below:

Corporate Takeover of New Jersey’s Environmental Science

Hand-Picked Science Advisors Meet in Secret to Produce Un-Reviewed Reports     

Trenton — With no legislative involvement, New Jersey has handed control over key environmental and public health science to a politically-selected group of advisors, several of whom have industry ties, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).  As a result, Governor Chris Christie has snuffed out independent public agency science and shelved years of important scientific work on vital topics such as risk assessment and development of standards governing drinking water safety, air and water quality, toxic cleanups, and land use planning and regulation.

The 16-member Science Advisory Board is selected by and answers to the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).  In public testimony, Bob Martin, the current Commissioner, says he has charged this interdisciplinary advisory board with making scientific calls on a broad portfolio of eco-issues.  Yet, despite this outsized role, the Science Advisory Board –

• Does not allow the public to attend its meetings, which occur mainly via conference calls;
• Has no posted agenda or regular schedule of meetings.  The Board last met in June 2011;
• Works only on issues put before it by the Commissioner;
• Lacks any independent review of its work products, which may or may not be published subject to the sole discretion of the Commissioner; and
• Allows a “confidential” screening for potential conflicts-of-interest from employers or clients, again subject to the sole purview of Commissioner Martin.

“By using an essentially private advisory board, the Christie administration has put a very tight choker leash on any genuine scientific inquiry into an array of burning environmental issues,” stated New Jersey PEER Director Bill Wolfe, a former DEP analyst.  “Scientific integrity benefits from true transparency, rigorous peer review and robust public debate – all elements absent from how this Board operates.”

The stultifying shadow of the Science Advisory Board is already having big effects:

• The state’s 27-year old Drinking Water Quality Institute, which determines the scientific basis of maximum contamination levels for chemicals in drinking water, has been virtually jettisoned.  In March 2009, the Institute issued a report recommending new or tighter standards for 13 chemicals but that report was shelved and its chair resigned in frustration;

• The Science Advisory Board has only produced two very narrow reports.  One of those reports, on diesel emission retrofit technology, is so opaque as to be virtually useless; and

• Commissioner Martin indicates he plans to use the board as a tool to weaken or eliminate current standards on stream buffers and aquifer protections.

“This Advisory Board is employed as a crowbar to decouple science from the development of public health and environmental standards such that regulatory standard-setting has been completely derailed – which was likely the game plan all along,” added Wolfe, pointing out that it was outgoing Commissioner (now EPA Administrator) Lisa Jackson who eliminated the DEP Science Division as part of a Gov. Jon Corzine initiative creating the Science Advisory Board.  “By politicizing environmental science, affected industry not only has a seat at the table, it controls the table and what is put on the table for consumption.”

###

Examine lack of transparency or process in Science Advisory Board (SAB)

See industry ties into SAB

Look at one of its few indecipherable reports

Review how Christie functionally dismantled Drinking Water Quality Institute

View how corporate pay-to-play works in New Jersey

Revisit Lisa Jackson role in abolishing DEP Science Division and creating SAB

New Jersey PEER is a state chapter of a national alliance of state and federal agency resource professionals working to ensure environmental ethics and government accountability 

Superfund Is Designed to Protect Human Health and The Environment

EPA Cleanup Allowing Local Interests to Place Too Much Focus on Redevelopment and Local Property Tax Ratables

I wandered up the Delaware River to Milford NJ on a rainy Monday night for an EPA update on the progress of Superfund cleanup of the former Curtis Specialty Papers industrial site.

This site is located on the banks of the Delaware, a Congressionally designated “Wild and Scenic River” and adjacent to one of NJ’s most heavily used State Parks, the nationally recognized D&R Canal State Park. It is environmentally sensitive, to put it mildly.

Right now, the site is a huge regional eyesore for those living, bicycling, driving, or walking along the river.

PCB’s and other toxic contaminants from the site may be migrating off-site and into the river.

The EPA did a good job in presenting fairly detailed reports on various aspects of the cleanup – site characterization and long awaited building demolition are underway.

So, let’s keep it simple and just say that my comments tonight to EPA on how to strengthen the cleanup approach curiously generated far too much resistance from certain local politicians, who seemed more concerned with redevelopment issues and local property tax ratables, than they were in protecting public health and the environment.

It seems that EPA is deferring to these local interests in certain aspects of the site cleanup. Let me explain:

During the course of tonight’s meeting, several residents and local officials spoke up to  downplay the risks from the site. They did so in a way that consistently praised and protected the interests  of the corporate RP’s (International Paper and Georgia-Pacific).

Of course, I didn’t quite see things this way and spoke up to make my point clear.

Several times, it got heated and local political hacks attacked me personally – one man, repeatedly. If he weren’t so old and fat, I might have just kicked his ass on the spot!

Unfortunately, many of the 23 local residents who attended the meeting seemed to agree with a priority focus on redevelopment and tax ratables. The local line: “That plant used to provide 40% of our tax base.  If you keep focusing on cleanup issues, we won’t be able to redevelop and get a new ratable in there”

Some even went so far as to request that EPA use the cleanup process to improve their own private property, upstream of the site!

CAG members repeatedly objected to my reasonable recommendations, even minor and basic stuff that would not cost taxpayers a dime, like asking for:

• installation of fences and warning signs to limit site access to kids;
• revegetation of the former industrial wastewater impoundment area along the river that was excavated and now looks like a huge ugly scar along the river;
• providing an opportunity for the public to comment on important EPA regulatory agreements before they are finalized, like the historical resources MOA and the draft remedial work plan documents;
• clearly attributing the localized PCB contamination to the corporate responsible parties (there were a host of excuses claiming that other sources were the problem);
• I opposed costly,  unnecessary, and unauthorized EPA actions that are solely designed to maximize the redevelopment of the site, things like like preserving building slabs, foundations, and surveying elevations to anticipate NJ DEP flood hazard and redevelopment permit restrictions (all this focus on redevelopment, while ignoring the fundamental issue of cleanup standards for the site, which ultimately will determine the site’s reuse potential).

Why would local residents oppose any of that?

So, let’s tell this disappointing story from the beginning.

My primary objective in attending this meeting was to impress upon EPA the need to immediately stabilize the stream bank (see above photo).

But I also planned to take EPA to task for putting the cart before the horse and generating totally unrealistic expectations among local residents and officials.

Specifically, EPA generated unrealistic expectations by releasing a July 2010 site reuse report, instead of focusing on far more important cleanup concerns, like stabilizing the stream bank, stoping ongoing toxic releases to the Delaware River, and  demolishing old industrial eyesores.

I criticized EPA and wrote about that in this February 1, 2012 post, which focused on the stream bank.

But aside from the stream bank, even the EPA reuse report dodged the most important issue, which is: what cleanup standards will EPA require?

Will EPA mandate that the cleanup meet more stringent, more costly, and protective residential standards, or lax low cost industrial standards?

The choice of cleanup standards and extent of cleanup (i.e. a) residential cleanup standards and permeant removal or b) industrial standards and a cap) will determine the future use of the site.

That decision will reveal whether EPA finds that the public health and environment are more important than real estate redevelopment and local tax ratables.

And I’ll be damned – tonight I learned that EPA and contractors met in January on that same emergency stream bank stabilization issue I raised in my February 1 post!

Of course, the Wolfenotes Feb. 1 post played absolutely no role in any EPA reconsideration of priorities at the site -which happened in January!

But I’m being petty – surely it was a pure coincidence that –  after years of ignoring the problem and a focus on a site reuse Report – EPA finally decided to make stream bank stabilization the a pressing issue.

The meeting broke down at the end as I objected to the constant ad hominem attacks, so I will have to report in future on when the next meeting is.

[Update: 5/15 – I sent EPA a note just now to remind them that the EPA’s own CAG Guidelines prohibit ad hominem attacks – because the CAG is an EPA creation and they sponsor and manage the meetings, I expect EPA to enforce those common sense restrictions.

Dupont Field, Pompton Lakes, NJ (July 9, 2008)

[Update 5/14/12: Watch Fox News coverage: "NJ community devastated by contaminated water".

It is shocking that the spokesman for Dupont, one of the largest chemical companies in the world, can't get his chemical names right "PEC and TEC"  and can't seem to speak for a State Department of Health study that found elevated rates of certain cancers that are associated with the specific chemicals in the groundwater that Dupont put there! And it is not surprising that Dupont can't commit to a date for cleanup of the Lake because the US Fish and Wildlife Service found serious flaws in Dupont's ecological assessment of bio-accumulative mercury in sediments and EPA is unable to approve the Dupont cleanup plan (and that photo at time 4:10-4:12 came from this December 2011 Wolfenotes post! - end update.]

I got a call from my friends Lisa Riggiola and Ed Meakem asking to come up to Pompton Lakes to join residents doing interviews with Fox news. No fan of Fox news and highly skeptical of their angle, still, I wandered back to the scene of the crime yesterday (I’m told Fox will broadcast the story Sunday night at 10 pm on the Geraldo Rivera show. Something tells me that they will give me the “government lied” soundbite). The whole thing brought a song to mind – Paul Simon “Still Crazy  after all these years” (I like the Willie Nelson version – so listen and then read on!)

Dupont rep (fat, left) talks to Fox reporter (R)

The Fox crew seemed legitimately concerned and interested in the story. Their reporter interviewed several residents at the Lake, in homes in the vapor plume, and at the Dupont facility. He seemed over-whelmed by the outpouring of numerous disasters and human tragedies that resulted from Dupont corporate greed and abuse and government indifference, incompetence, and timidity.

The Fox reporter asked that I go with him on the Dupont site tour, to help him with questions of the Dupont spokesman. I agreed to do that, but, repeating a pattern, when we arrived for the tour/interview, the Dupont rep. would not let me on the site! When Fox reporter asked why, the Dupont guy said  ”we didn’t know Wolfe was coming”.

The Fox crew filmed along Barbara Drive and the (former) soccer field.

This brought back memories – The photo above is what “Dupont Field” looked like on July 9, 2008, when I wrote this in my Star Ledger NJ Voices column:

This soccer field is named Dupont Field. It is completely surrounded by groundwater monitoring wells and a “pump and treat” system. I was told that the highly polluted groundwater is pumped out of the ground, treated, and then recharged back into the ground ON the soccer field. So kids play on a hazardous wast treatment unit! Only in NJ! 

Kids unknowingly played on that “field” for years while Dupont, DEP and EPA looked the other way. But my criticism and disclosure forced Dupont to close the field, which now shamefully looks like this (below).  The only grass that was mowed was the narrow path to the groundwater monitoring wells – another insult to the residents of Pompton Lakes:

But an abandoned soccer field is the least of the problems Dupont created at Pompton Lakes. How would you like this view from the front porch of your home:

Home on Barbara Drive, has vapor intrusion. See blue groundwater monitoring well in foreground.

But while the view is bad, the toxic gases seeping into the homes is far worse for people who live in the 450 homes above “the plume”.  Take a look at the stack running up the side of the building. That’s a “vapor mitigation system”.

home on Barbara Drive with vapor mitigation system

Residents were poisoned in their homes by Dupont pollution – something known as “vapor intrusion”. Dupont, DEP, and EPA knew about the vapor problem for over a decade but didn’t inform homeowners, who unknowingly were needlessly exposed to cancer causing chemical gases (hit this link for a chronology of who knew what when).

Outrageously, the residents were not told about the vapor intrusion problem until  after residents executed a legal settlement with Dupont that waived their ability to sue Dupont [read US District Court decision]. In the summer of 2008, just after the ink was dry on that litigation settlement agreement , DEP and EPA suddenly claimed to have discovered the vapor problem.

But, this is not the first time that DEP withheld scientific information from the public to shield Dupont – the same  thing happened during litigation on PFOA contamination of groundwater from Dupont’s Chambersworks facility in South Jersey. DEP did not release site remediation information until a lawsuit there was settled.

EPA also issued false certifications to Congress that groundwater and human health exposure at the site were “under control”.

These kinds of potential frauds and conspiracies warrant investigation.

After the Fox interview (and lunch with Lisa and Helen), I took a hike on the historic Cannonball Trail, which runs along the edge of the Dupont property. I couldn’t resist taking advantage of an opening in the fence to ramble the Dupont site.

I could not find the two “open burning areas”, where as late as the 1990′s, a DEP issued and EPA rubber stamped RCRA permit allowed Dupont to openly burn huge amounts of hazardous waste, with no air emission controls. This hazardous waste contained high concentrations of mercury, which volatilized when the waste was combusted. The resulting air emissions deposited locally, and poisoned soil, water, and fish and wildlife of the entire region with bio-accumulative mercury.  I could find no estimates of the total waste or mercury loading from these outrageous DEP approved “open burning” practices.

But I did manage to find the infamous “shooting pond”, technically known as a RCRA regulated hazardous waste surface impoundment.

For decades, Dupont detonated countless explosives in the pond, according to Dupont, more than 2.5 million per year. This contributed to severe toxic contamination with high levels of lead, mercury, selenium and a host of organic chemicals in surrounding impacted groundwater, soils, and surface water (the pond drains to a stream).

"shooting pond" Dupont site.

While this is ancient history, the tiny toxic shooting pond is actually a perfect microcosm of the Dupont disaster.

So let me give you just two examples of egregious falsehoods represented by Dupont – and regulatory failures by DEP  and EPA.

Way back in 1987, DEP proposed to terminate a NJPDES groundwater pollution permit for the shooting pond. This finally would have stopped this outrageously polluting practice. But Dupont strenuously opposed that DEP action. Of course, they invoked the Big Lie about killing Jobs.

According to a July 17, 1987 letter from Mr. Bernard J. Reilly, Dupont’s “Senior Counsel” opposing DEP’s draft permit termination:

Impact on Employment of a Shutdown of the Shooting Pond

If the DEP does not stay the final denial… the remaining permitted storage space will be consumed by approximately the end of November 1987. With no storage capacity and no alternative for destruction, the plant would be required to stop production and layoff in excess of 250 employees (emphasis mine).

Dupont did not just threaten plant closure. The also lied about the environmental conditions at the shooting pond:

“As NJDEP is aware, the stream flowing through the Shooting Pond area is intermittent. Despite the fact that the stream flow stops during dry weather, we have never observed evidence of migration of water from the pond to the stream” (emphasis mine)

I was there today, and I observed and photographed “evidence of migration of water from the pond to the stream“. The shooting pond was discharging a significant water flow to the stream. The stream did not appear to be intermittent. I understand that we are more than 4 inches below average rainfall for this time of year. Take a look:

stream flows from Shooting Pond

Amazingly, DEP caved in to this blackmail and lying and agreed to Dupont’s request to stay the permit denial. The shooting pond continued to operate and pollute for over 2 more years, a deadline imposed by Congress in 1984 legislation known as HSWA.

How many more Dupont lies and threats – and DEP and EPA regulatory collapses – were there over the last 25 years?

Below are some additional photos of interesting stuff at the site. I was particularly bothered by the “hazardous road warning” - a warning Dupont provided to their employees but that residents never got.

The signs instructing employees on what valves to turn also do not inspire confidence – this is how an EXPLOSIVES PLANT was run?

hazardous warnings on site, but not off site

Turn this valve to blow up the place!

A rusty old pipe discharged to this little pond, which drained to a stream. Wonder what was discharged there?

And what the heck are these? Readers who know, please tell us! 

infrastructure near North plant - what is it?

“Dupont Field of Schemes” – Multi- Billion Dollar Corporation Can’t Cut the Grass

Says He’s “Parked” the Long Overdue Water Supply Master Plan

Reveals Failure to Upgrade C1 Waters – Signals Pending Rollbacks

Perhaps invoking “The Jersey Comeback” – another slogan – multiple times in his testimony was the last straw.

Or maybe it was the diversion of over $680 million in Clean Energy Funds.

DEP Commissioner Bob Martin (file photo, but he may have had the same suit and tie on yesterday!)

Or using the “Barnegat Bay blitz” volunteer litter cleanup event as cover for the Governor’s vetoes of the Barnegat Bay storm water and Clean Water Act’s TMDL bills – legislation that would have put real teeth and funding in Bay cleanup efforts.

Or the gall of calling renewable energy “critical to the future of NJ” and touting a “strong commitment” to renewable energy, while Governor Christie’s Energy Master Plan:1) reduces NJ’s renewable goals from 30% to 22.5%; 2) imposes a “cost test” and policy to “eliminate subsides” that have undermined the solar marketplace; and 3) promotes cheap natural gas and sweetheart deals for gas pipelines that have destroyed the economics of renewables, while the Christie BPU drags its feet on ORECs, which has slowed offshore wind investments;.

Or the portrayal of the Governor’s voluntary Barnegat Bay plan as a “model” and alternative to enforcing the Clean Water Act.

Or the utter hypocrisy of Martin’s emphasis on the “moral responsibility” to disproportionately and overburdened urban communities, while doing jack shit on cumulative impact standards and environmental justice.

Or the unilateral RGGI exit – or the waiver  rule – or the Highlands fiascoes.

Whatever. Take your pick. But Martin’s bullshit finally did not work.

Because today, DEP Commissioner Bob Martin finally faced some tough legislative oversight questions during the Senate Budget Committee hearing on Governor Christie FY’13 proposed DEP budget.

The Democratic Senator who grew a spine was Linda Greenstein (D-Mercer). Greenstein is a moderate who is Vice-Chair of the Environment Committee and does her homework.

Her specific and critical questions, presented in a friendly demeanor – with pointed followup questions – seemed to bollox Commissioner Martin (listen here). It was a continuous head exploding joy to watch. Here are the highlights:

1. Greenstein started by asking about the impacts of diversion of $30 million in cleanup funds on the brownfields program. She got no response.

2. She the nailed Martin on the impacts on workers, firefighters, and communities of deep cuts to DEP’s pollution prevention and Right to Know programs, noting that DEP had just 2 inspectors for 8,000 facilities!

In response, Martin spun, but under tough followup questions, was forced to admit that he was unfamiliar with the facts (and no one among his 8 member million dollar management team entourage could help him with the facts – it was embarrassing).

3. Criticizing the Governor’s RGGI withdrawal, Greenstein noted that the Governor’s rationale for that withdrawal was that RGGI was not effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. So she pressed Martin by asking:

what are we doing as an alternative to more effectively reduce GHG emissions?

Crickets – Martin could not point to anything he was doing on GHG emission reductions.

Greenstein also directly challenged Martin’s slogan that RGGI was “just another tax”.

4. In a very smooth issue transition, Greenstein noted that RGGI revenues funded forest stewardship programs. She asked:

What plans do we have to implement forest stewardship?

Martin:

Nothing specific on that.

Imagine that – the DEP budget zeroes the RGGI money and increases the Forest Resource Management budget by $2.2 million, yet Comisssioner Martin had no clue on what those funds would be used for!

5. Waiver rule. Greenstein immediately cut to the chase:

What gives DEP the idea that there is legislative authority to do this and that it will not implicate equal protection issues?

Martin thanked the Senator for asking the question, because he said that there was a lot of “misinformation out there” – and immediately after saying that Martin released this whopper of a flat out lie:

DEP already has the ability to provide over 100 variances and waivers – those laws were set up by the legislature.

Wow. Who knew that DEP had 100 waivers already!? I’m speechless. I wanna see the list of 100! Demand the list of 100 waivers!

6. Christie withdrawal from EPA Ozone standards lawsuit. Greenstein said:

It makes us look like we’re behind all these other states that joined the lawsuit.

Martin replied that plant-by-plant individual Clean Air Act Section 126 lawsuits are our approach.

7. Greenstein then reminded Martin the the Drinking Water Quality Institute (DWQI) was created by the Legislature to develop recommendations to DEP on  science based drinking water standards.

She noted that the DWQI is a nationally respected body that – historically – was active and met frequently. In 2009 – 2010, Grenstein correctly noted, as we’ve repeatedly written here – that the DWQI recommended numerous revisions to existing standards to reflect current science and to develop new standards for unregulated  pollutants.

She then asked Martin why the Drinking Water Quality Institute had not met in over 18 months and why DEP had not implemented their scientific recommendations to lower scores of drinking water standards to reflect current science.  Greenstein specifically asked about Martin’s views on the DWQI. Here is Martin’s reply:

We’ve since set up a broader group, called the Science Advisory Group (sic). We’ve chosen to put that group in place to deal with issues, including water related issues. 

HELLO!

Martin just admitted what I have written here multiple times – including Martin’s outrageous attacks on DWQI scientists.

Contrary to the statute, Martin has killed the DWQI and outsourced the science and the development of drinking water standards – and all all other environmental standards – to his industry influenced Science Advisory Board.

Martin just admitted a total disregard for and direct violation of State law.

The NJ Safe Drinking Water Act tasked the DWQI with developing drinking water standards, not the SAB.

The SAB was created by DEP Commissioner’s Adminsitrative Order and has NO LEGISLATIVE authorization whatsoever!

What will the legislature do to remedy this egregious violation of law?

8. Greenstein wanted to know the status of the State Water Supply Master Plan.

Greenstein -

During the campaign, the Governor made a number of public statements about the delays in updating the Water Supply Master Plan. What is your thinking – is it going to be implemented? When will we see this plan?

Martin:

When the Governor developed the State Strategic Plan, we parked the WSMP.

Repeat: PARKED.

NJ has a historic structural drought condition and we are again entering a drought. And DEP is again unpreprared to manage it.

As we have warned, the current plan is based on 16 year old data and its update is many years overdue.

And the DEP Commissioner admits that he “parked” the Water Supply Master Plan!

Yikes!

I had to leave the hearing shortly after that.

If that ridiculous admission of negligence and incompetence can pass without any notice, then it’s time for me to go before my head explodes.

(and I didn’t even write about the Category One waters rollback now underway – Martin was pressed by Greenstein and he openly confirmed that he not only failed to increase C1 designations, but that he was in the process of rolling back EXISTING C1 designations!)

So, listen to the tape yourself for the rest of the hearing.

Curtis Specialty Paper site - 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.

EPA will hold a public meeting to discuss progress on the cleanups of the Crown Vantage (Alexandria Township) and Curtis Paper (Milford) Superfund sites, located on the Delaware River.

The meeting will be held on Monday May 14, 2012 at 7 pm at the Milford Fire House.

Hit this link for EPA’s agenda for the meeting.

Lots of work has gone on for years, and the Crown Vantage Landfill Superfund site is in the final phase of design and remedial action. I wrote about some of the issues there in this July 2011 post.  I recommended a permanent cleanup –  additional removal of buried drums – and some natural resource and sampling work. Unfortunately, EPA responded in writing to but basically ignored my recommendations in the final ROD.

The Curtis Specialty  Papers Superfund site is not nearly as far along in the cleanup process.

I rambled around the site and wrote about some problems there back in this  February 1, 2012 post: Does this site look ready for redevelopment?

I’ll review the most recent documents and try to attend the meeting and raise some of those issues.

Probably the most important immediate concern is to remove any contamination and stabilize the erosion of the stream bank (see above photo). Apparently, sediments are contaminated and moving off site into the Delaware River.

Folks are urged to attend!

May Day - Union Square, NYC

[Update: 5/15/12 - just came across this right on story from the gothamist - consistent with my experience, it includes some scary videos of NYC cops chanting "move, move, move": Police and Protesters Clash by Wall Street After Euphoric May Day

I went to New York for May Day. I was there to support labor (and OWS  and  OWS ) and  participate in what appears to be the building of bridges to the Occupy Movement. (I've  previously urged various other occupations).

May Day protesters and Occupy march on Broadway

But how does a festive and wonderful peaceful protest (above) turn into a near police riot? (below):

Police gather in Vietnam Veteran's park in preparation for evicting protesters. (9:55 pm)

I wanted to put a little time and distance between the event and writing about it, both so I could cool down and reflect on some of the coverage of the event.

Well, it’s been a week and I’ve moved on to other work, took and deep breath, and read Chris Hedges’ piece, “The People’s Bishop”, which again ratified my take on things.

So, now I will write about what I saw and felt that day.

I guess some will call this narrowly and negatively focused sour grapes from one of the people that the NYC cops manhandled down in Vietnam Veteran’s Park (a little after 10 pm, which apparently the cops decided was closing time). I got abused by while exercising what I naively believed were constitutionally protected rights.

But I found this snarky observation relevant:

So Obama was running both as the peace candidate and the tough guy who ordered Navy Seals to shoot an old man in bed. And he just happened to position himself that way in a televised speech on the same day that Ray Kelly wanted us to be suspicious of brown people with bombs in their butts. And that just happened to be the day that protest season began with Occupy Wall Street putting untold thousands of people who hate corporate capitalism into the streets.

I know. It’s just a coincidence. Or conspiracy theory. The .01% who rule the United States would never stoop to such stunts to knock Occupy Wall Street off the front page and surround it with mentions of terrorism. It was somebody else who beat up all those protestors in parks around the United States last fall.

Like the author of that piece, I too spent all day in Union Square, later marching with about 25,000 people down Broadway to Wall Street.

Like the author, I too think it was no accident that the media downplayed the May Day protests and again distorted their meaning with respect to labor history and the current pro-labor anti-corporate Occupy Movement, while focusing on and exaggerating isolated incidents of violence (all while ignoring police violence, that I again experienced first hand).

I was at the tail end of the Broadway parade, so shortly after I arrived in the Wall Street district, the cops were moving in to crush any attempts to “occupy” public space of any kind.

Protester either reading or channeling David Harvey's newest book "Rebel Cities" - I am reading that now!

I guess the problems start with zealous cops.

I was harassed along the end of the route, by aggressive cops on scooters, who ran into me and hit me several times as I marched in the parade (and refused to yield to them).

Broadway, NYC, 7:25 pm - cops on scooters were harassing marchers. This guy hit me three times!

I guess it’s not far from being assaulted by scooters in the street to being physically manhandled by cops in the park. Can cops arbitrarily and unilaterally decided when to issue a curfew on peaceful protest? I thought, not in the USA!

VV Park - 9:55 pm - cops announce park is closed, order people to leave immediately or face arrest

Shortly after the police announced closure of the park, they moved in with force. I was taking photos of their tactics and was soon myself physically removed from the park by 3 different police officers. The first grabbed me by the collar and violently tried t throw me to the ground. A few moments later, another cop, after shoving me several times, was quickly joined by 5 more cops. He physically grabbed me by the arm and dragged me  out of the park and threw me on the sidewalk. Moments later, as I was hotting photos of protesters being dragged into police vans, I was picked up by the belt of my pants and carried away by a short and violent cop (beware of short men with badges on steroids!).

police move in on protesters, evicting an assaulting them in the process of violating their rights.

Police were randomly grabbing people out of the crowd, violently throwing them to the ground, and arresting them:

police pounce on protester

After being roughed up and handcuffed, protesters were taken to several waiting police vans, who had converged on the site, redolent of some banana republic repression:

apologies for the poor quality - it was dark out and I was shooting at maximum ISO

As the handcuffed protester were dragged into waiting vans by police, they shouted their names out. As the protesters started chanting and repeating their names, the police quickly slammed the van doors shut, to prevent fellow protesters from supporting them and shaming police violence and repression.

cops (foreground) throw protesters into police van

When I complained about my own violent mistreatment and that of protesters to at least 6 white shirted police supervisors, all of them revealed an ignorant and arrogant hostility to fundamental constitutional rights of speech, association, and peaceful redress of grievances.

that sign about sums up my feelings

They all told me the same story – that I had disobeyed a lawful police order – and that anything a policeman ordered was lawful and that there was no right to disobey a policeman’s order.

Like I said, NYC cops are out of control.

I really find it difficult to accept that police are this violent in crushing non-violent peaceful and lawful protest. It is intolerable to me and should be seen as unacceptable by the American people as a fundamental assault on our values and Constitution, which not only protects, but promotes the right to dissent.

So, an otherwise great day was ruined by violent, disrespectful, and/or arrogant and ignorant police.

Well, on the bright side, at least the “Dodgers” were in town for a Double Header!

The "Tax Dodgers" have a message from corporations to the American people.

This is Tree #163.

The DEP Bull’s Island consultant’s report describes it as an “amazing tree” – a Sycamore “over mature” but in “good health”. Over 145 feet tall. Based on the health of the tree, its risk of falling, and then hitting something to cause damage, the consultant recommended that it NOT be cut.

DEP plans to clearcut it anyway:

• Based on the consultant report and a technical review by DEP forestry experts, we are proceeding with removing all vegetative material in the upper river section of Bull’s Island
• Once the area is cleared, the Department will proceed with replanting the area with appropriate floodplain vegetation that matures at smaller heights and does not pose a public safety risk.
• Field foresters from the northern region have made a preliminary visit to the site to assess the value of the wood and the site conditions. They are actively identifying all merchantable trees in the upper river campsite area and creating an inventory in preparation of the bid.

~~~ memorandum from DEP Assistant Commissioner Natural and Historic Resoruces Amy Cradic to DEP Commissioner Bob Martin: February 8, 2012

I did a field investigation at Bull’s Island this morning with Emile DeVito (PhD) of  NJ Conservation Foundation. We looked at each tree assessed and came up with some serious questions, both about the methodology and findings of that Report and DEP’s plans to clearcut the Island based on that report.

Emile documented numerous rare birds in those trees.

Too disgusted to write right now – but Much More to follow, I can assure you: (I am 5’10″ and my waist has blown up to almost 35″ – so that should give you some indication of the girth):

Tree #163 - Bull's Island State Park (5/7/12)

Here is contact info for members of that Committee - be sure to send them cards and letters about your budget concerns (see below for helpful information).

I worked on several budget issues recently and will be posting my own analysis and concerns, but, until then, I thought I’d post the Office of Legislative Services (OLS) questions to DEP and the DEP replies.

Unfortunately, I don’t have a link so must post the entire document. The OLS Question is followed by the DEP reply (and still not yet posted on OLS website) :

1. In the FY 2012 Budget, $6.7 million was appropriated to the DEP to pay for the costs of replanting trees and impacts of the deforestation on municipalities from the New Jersey Turnpike roadway widening project from Interchange 6 to Interchange 9.

• Question: How much of this money was actually received by the municipalities?  Please provide a breakdown of the amounts paid to each municipality. 

Answer:  During FY 2011, $4.87 million was paid by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority directly to the six municipalities.  Currently the DEP is developing grant agreements that will encumber the FY 2012 funding of $6.7 million from the Global Warming Solutions Fund to the six municipalities.  The chart below provides the specific allocation to each municipality. 

• Question: In addition, what are the total compensatory amounts each municipality is scheduled to receive, by fiscal year, under its Stipulation of Settlement? 

Answer: The detail of each municipality’s compensation is listed below

2. On May 26, 2011, the Governor announced that New Jersey will become the first state to withdraw by the end of 2011 from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a 10-state consortium that utilizes a regional carbon cap-and-trade system to curb carbon emissions.

• Question: How will this decision impact efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide) emissions, the DEP’s budget and the funding of clean energy projects by the State?

Answer: New Jersey’s withdrawal from RGGI will not impact efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and will not impact funding of clean energy projects by the State.

RGGI is not effective in reducing GHG emissions and is unlikely to be in the future. 

First, RGGI allowances never worked to change behavior. They did not spur energy producers to choose lower carbon fuels or more efficient production technologies. When RGGI began, the industry projected that the cost of allowances would eventually be as high as $20-30 per ton of emissions, compared with the average 2011 price of less than $2 per ton. The system failed to work as its designers intended it to work.

Second, New Jersey’s carbon emissions are already below the limits for 2020 established in New Jersey’s Global Warming Response Act (GWRA), the legislation that permitted participation in RGGI. According to GHG inventory data from 2008, before RGGI was implemented, GHG emissions are down in New Jersey due to increased use of natural gas and decreased use of coal. The market, not RGGI, has created incentives to reduce the use of carbon-based fuels. Preliminary data analysis shows that New Jersey will continue to maintain the 2020 limit through 2020 without participation in RGGI. In addition, DEP will no longer incur the costs associated with administration of the RGGI program.

Third, New Jersey now has laws that provide significant market incentives for power generation from wind, solar, and natural gas, so any benefits that the RGGI tax may have had are miniscule. In fact, since the GWRA was passed, 14 new laws have been passed that all accomplish the goals of promoting clean energy without participation in RGGI. RGGI has not changed behavior and it does not reduce emissions.

The State receives adequate funding from the Societal Benefits Charge (SBC), which funds programs for renewable energy, energy efficiency and ratepayer assistance.  As the Governor stated in his veto message for a bill that would have required the State’s participation in RGGI, “RGGI does nothing more than impose a tax on electricity. Moreover, it creates an unlevel playing field for our resident businesses that must compete from the fourth highest energy cost state in the country.”  Elimination of this duplicative charging program is one step that needed to be taken in controlling energy costs for New Jersey ratepayers.    

3. One of the five goals of the DEP listed in the proposed FY 2013 Budget Overview on page D-101 is “Restoration and Enhanced Protection in Environmentally Overburdened Communities.”  As explained, this involves the development of a new paradigm for the protection of communities overburdened by environmental stresses.

• Question: What criteria are used to define and select the overburdened communities to be restored/protected?  Please list each specific community thus far identified, any resources expended in that community, the source of those expenditures, and the work performed or funded.  What source and amount of funding will be used in FY 2013 to achieve this goal?  Please specify how this goal will be accomplished and in what time frame.

Answer: As part of DEP’s Goal 3, the Department is developing a new paradigm for protection of environmentally overburdened communities by evaluating multiple source impacts on human health and the environment.  This new paradigm will eventually be incorporated into decision making processes in all programs. DEP will bypass the typical approach of considering only one media’s environmental impact or focusing on pollutants on a stack-by-stack, facility-by-facility or site-by-site basis.  Instead, DEP is developing the Cumulative Impacts Method: a way to integrate data to identify the cumulative environmental impacts from multiple sources on a community, estimate the burden, and compare the impacts on different geographic areas. Since science is not yet able to identify cumulative risks from multimedia impacts, this is not a risk assessment tool, but rather a data screening tool that DEP will use to help identify overburdened communities and the environmental impacts on those communities.

4. A new Parks Management Grants-in-Aid appropriation for “Public Facility Programming” is recommended in the amount of $2.125 million in the proposed budget.

• Question: Please explain the purpose and justification for this appropriation.  Where and when funds will be spent, and by what process will grantees be selected?  Which public facilities will be affected, and what will be accomplished?

Answer: The FY 2013 budget as proposed by Governor Christie includes a $2.125 million Grants-in-Aid program to support State-owned or federal facilities of statewide or national significance that have been operating with the help of non-profit organizations. The intent of this Grants-in-Aid funding is to allow DEP to partner with non-profit organizations to ensure that New Jersey’s treasures are not abandoned if short-term assistance can help a facility become self-sustaining.  Examples of eligible entities could include the Battleship New Jersey in Camden, Morven Museum and Garden in Princeton and the Old Barracks in Trenton.

In July the DEP will develop a grant application process outlining the specific requirements and defining what specific costs would be eligible for reimbursement.

5. According to program data in the proposed budget, the DEP has 2,741 filled positions for FY 2012 and projects a total of 2,782 filled positions in FY 2013, for a net gain of 41 positions.  22 of these new positions will be for administration and support services.

• Question: Why is the DEP increasing staff in this area?  What is the justification for these positions?  What are the titles and specific job responsibilities of this staffing increase?

Answer:  The Department is not increasing its staffing level. Overall the Department’s staffing level is dropping slightly when compared to its authorized FTE level in FY 2012.  The filled level of 2,741 reflects only those staff on the payroll at Pay Period #2, not the authorized hiring level. For example, employees on leave would not be included within the 2,741. 

The “increase” to the Department’s Administrative and Support Services area, which includes the Department’s Management and Administration, Communications and Legal Affairs, reflects the shifting of staffing resources through lateral mobility to address key Departmental priorities associated with transformation, including more efficiently serving the public through implementation of the permit coordination initiative, improving customer service, providing greater transparency through expanded communications with constituents, stakeholders and the media, and shifting of other key administrative staff to backfill vacancies in administrative areas in lieu of new hires.

6. Newly recommended budget language on page D-118 of the FY 2013 Budget would appropriate “such sums as are necessary,” subject to the approval of the State budget director, from remediation management and response appropriations supported by the Hazardous Discharge Site Cleanup Fund and the New Jersey Spill Compensation Fund, respectively, for “costs associated with the Administration and Support Services program.”  No legislative approval of these appropriations would be required under this language.  The OLS estimates that this language would authorize as much as $34 million in appropriations supported by those two funds to be shifted to the Administration and Support Services program.  This program, recommended for $16.3 million in original appropriations in FY 2013, comprises the Commissioner’s office, central administrative functions such as personnel, payroll, budget and accounting and information technology, and “sets policies and develops short- and long-range plans and strategies” for the department.  A staff complement of 244 is projected for FY 2013, up 22 from FY 2012.

• Question: Does the department concur with the OLS estimate of appropriations potentially allocated to the Administration and Support Services program under this language, and if not, what is the correct amount?  What amount does the department estimate will be allocated to the Administration and Support Services program under this language?  Is the language intended to fund only staff and other costs in the program that are exclusively devoted to remediation management and response duties?  If so, why is an open-ended authorization to reallocate funds recommended, rather than an authorization limited in amount and/or based on costs directly related to remediation management and response?  If not, what circumstances or considerations justify the Legislature authorizing such a potentially large expansion of resources for the program?

Answer:  The Department does not agree with the above estimate of appropriations allocated to the Administrative and Support Services program.  The total amount allocated to Administrative and Support Services in FY 2013 is $3,416,000, which includes $2,038,000 in salaries plus applicable fringe and indirect charges.  The language which is proposed is the result of the legislative direction in the FY 2012 Appropriations Act to utilize $767,000 from the Spill Fund to support the Department’s Administrative and Support Services and does not represent an expansion of the program..  The intent of the language is to cover unfunded Administrative and Support Services costs.

7. The southern pine beetle continues to cause extensive damage to the New Jersey Pinelands with a dramatic increase of infestations in Atlantic, Cape May, Cumberland, and Ocean Counties.  According to the DEP, approximately 70 percent of the outbreaks are taking place on private lands and the infestation is on pace to equal or surpass the estimated 14,000 acres of trees killed in 2010, the worst year on record since the southern pine beetle was first detected in the State.  In response, the DEP announced it is developing a plan to offer financial assistance to municipalities and landowners to address infestation on private lands.

• Question: Please describe the specific funding, budget, and staff resources that the DEP is utilizing to combat the spread and control of this insect.  Absent resource constraints, what would be the proper budget and staffing levels to sufficiently support this activity?

The specific funding that supports the Department’s Southern Pine Beetle Suppression program includes US Forest Service funding of $235,000 along with an anticipated Federal Grant of $426,000.

Currently the Department has assigned its forestry staff on a part-time basis to address the immediate needs.  This includes 12 FTEs in varying percentages (20% – 80%) along with dedicated hourly staff to remove diseased trees.  The cost of this effort has been approximately $300,000.

In concert with the efforts of the Pinelands Commission and local governments, DEP has adequate resources to address the problem.

• Question: What type and amount of financial assistance will be provided to municipalities and landowners?

DEP has established a financial assistance program that will allocate approximately $365,000.

Municipal/landowner assistance programs – total for 3 years

USFS Cost-share grants for home/landowners with >5 woodland acres $  90,000

USFS Cost-share grants for municipalities $175,000

USFS Cost-share firewise grants $100,000

        $365,000

8. During the month of August, New Jersey experienced extensive flooding and storm damage throughout the entire State caused by record rainfall amounts and Hurricane Irene.

• Question: Please explain and provide a breakdown of the cost and budgetary impact this event had upon DEP operations and with regard to cleanup and repairs to damaged facilities and to natural and other resources of the State (parks, forests, coast, beaches, marinas, historic sites, dams, watersheds, shellfish beds, etc.).

Answer: Three storms have impacted DEP in FY 2012:  Hurricane Irene, Tropical Storm Lee and the October snow storm.  Not only did these storms impact our operating facilities, but the Department provided specific response activities during the height of the flooding with staff from Park Police, Forest Fire, Dam Safety and Flood Control, Water Resources and Compliance and Enforcement.  Overall the Department’s claimed costs exceed $2.5 million, with $2.05 million associated with Hurricane Irene damage and response activities; $163,000 related to storm damages and response activities tied to Tropical Storm Lee and $325,000 in damages connected to the October Snow Storm.  

The detailed expenses by program are listed on Attachment I.

The greatest impact to our facilities (buildings, roads, and bridges) was seen on the D&R Canal, at Wharton State Forest and the Walt Whitman House from Hurricane Irene; at Stokes State Forest and northern New Jersey facilities from Tropical Storm Lee; and the range pens for the game bird hatchery at Rockport Game Farm in Hackettstown from the October snow storm.  The Department’s Site Remediation Program took the lead on the cleanup of contamination from damaged home heating oil tanks after major flooding affected 97 homes on Lake Hiawatha during Hurricane Irene.

• Question: To what extent were costs claimed and recovered from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)?

Answer:  Of the $2.5 million total in claimed costs for all three events, approximately $1.86 million will be reimbursable from FEMA.  So far the Department has received $4,480 related to the operations of our Communications Center during the Hurricane Irene event.

9. On December 9, 2010 the Governor unveiled a comprehensive Barnegat Bay restoration plan, consisting of 10 key policy provisions, that includes projects to help improve, protect, and maintain the water quality of Barnegat Bay.

• Question: What are the estimated costs to implement these provisions and the total cost of the plan?  Please provide a breakdown of the specific funding sources and allocations that will be utilized to implement the key policy provisions.

Answer: The Governor’s 10-point plan for restoration of Barnegat Bay has been embraced by the Department of Environmental Protection as a top goal. Detailed information is available at http://www.nj.gov/dep/barnegatbay/.  Addressing the issues which have led to a degradation of water quality requires multiple and complex tactics.  Different parts of the Bay experience different levels of impact.  A team of DEP staff have been working on various aspects. 

Following is the breakdown by each of the 10 policy provisions:

1. Close Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Plant – The State has negotiated and entered into an agreement with Exelon Corporation to cease electric generation operations at the Oyster Creek Generating Station by the end of 2019.  As part of this agreement, Exelon is required to remit an annual payment of $100,000 to conduct research and programs for the protection of the Barnegat Bay ecosystem.  So far during FY 2012, $22,000 has been spent.  The balance will be spent in FY 2013.  

2. Fund Stormwater Runoff Mitigation Projects – The State has identified and prioritized funding for projects designed to address nutrient pollution of Barnegat Bay from stormwater runoff.  In FY 2012, 5 FTE worked on evaluation of projects totaling $17 million that were submitted to the Department.  In FY 2013, $11 million will be expended on 12 distinct projects in the watershed, ranging from retrofit of stormwater basins and using green infrastructure to replace pavement, to street cleaning equipment and a truckwash facility.  The Department has dedicated 2.5 FTE to shepherd these projects through the process and to evaluate additional projects as they become available.

3. Reduce Nutrient Pollution from Fertilizer - On January 5, 2011, Governor Chris Christie signed legislation that established the most restrictive standards in the nation for nitrogen content in fertilizer and application rates for use.  The new law establishes a new content standard for fertilizer that will reduce excess nutrient runoff into the Bay by decreasing the total amount of nitrogen in fertilizer and increasing the amount of slow-release nitrogen.  The law also creates a fertilizer application certification program for professional fertilizer applicators, administered by the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station at Rutgers University in consultation with the DEP.  The DEP, in consultation with the Barnegat Bay Partnership, key environmental groups, and industry, will continue to provide public education for homeowners on the effects of fertilizer runoff into the Bay.  In FY 2012, the fertilizer certification program was established, and educational materials developed.  Approximately $150,000 was expended by Rutgers. 

4. Require Post-Construction Soil Restoration – On January 5, 2011, Governor Chris Christie signed into law a measure that requires the Secretary of Agriculture and the Commissioner of Environmental Protection, through the State Soil Conservation Committee, to propose modifications to the existing soil erosion and sediment control standards.  These standards are being developed. 

5. Acquire Land in the Watershed – Acquiring available, ecologically sensitive lands along Barnegat Bay and its tributaries is a cost-effective and critical measure to prevent development activities that could further degrade the Bay’s water and ecological quality.  More than 2,000 acres have been acquired to date through expenditures of approximately $3.2 million on State Projects and $1.8 million on local projects. The program is on track to preserve 3,000 acres by the end of FY 2013. Funding is through the existing Green Acres program. 

6. Establish a Special Area Management Plan – A Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) will be developed in collaboration with members of the Barnegat Bay Partnership and other planning authorities in the region.  Funding for the SAMP comes from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.  The SAMP will begin with a toolbox of best management practices, ordinances, and water quality improvement projects for mayors to voluntarily adopt and implement, but will customize these tools for specific area types, thus directing the limited municipal resources to activities that have high probability of effectiveness.

7. Adopt More Rigorous Water Quality Standards – After adopting narrative nutrient criteria for coastal waters on December 21, 2010, the DEP and its partners launched a new comprehensive ambient water quality monitoring network in the Barnegat Bay watershed on June 6, 2011.  In FY 2011, $1.7 million was expended on gauging stations and water quality measurements to assess the baseline water quality conditions in the Bay.  An understanding of the quantity of water flowing into and out of the Bay, as well as its circulation within the Bay, is critical to understanding the behavior of the Bay and the movement of pollutants within it. The Department has enlisted 10 partners, including local and county governments, State and Federal agencies, a science high school, a university and other organizations to assist the Department in sample collection and analysis. In FY 2012, $2.6 million was set aside to accomplish the many tasks involved with sampling 12 tributaries and 14 bay stations in a synoptic fashion.  For FY 2013, expenditures of $951,000 are expected.  Funding sources include the Corporate Business Tax, EPA grants under parts 106 and 319 of the Clean Water Act, United States Geological Survey matching funds, and volunteer efforts from the Barnegat Bay Partnership, Ocean County Utilities Authority, Ocean County Health Department, Monmouth University, Pinelands Commission, MATES school, Brick Township Municipal Utilities Authority, Environmental Protection Agency, and ReClam the Bay.  At DEP the staffing time dedicated to this project was 6 FTE in FY 2012 and will be 12 FTE in FY 2013. 

8. Educate and Engage the Public – The DEP is implementing a strategy that leverages the media, environmental advocates, and the Barnegat Bay community to educate and engage the public on the impacts of their actions.  Within the Department about 1.5 FTE is spent on various aspects of this strategy, including presentations, press releases, development of educational materials and displays, maintenance of the public information website (http://www.nj.gov/dep/barnegatbay/), coordination of volunteers, and answering questions from the public. The highest profile example of these activities is the Barnegat Bay Blitz. On October 19, 2011, more than 2,400 volunteers (including DEP Commissioner Martin, other DEP officials and staff) picked up trash and debris in each of the Barnegat Bay watershed’s 37 municipalities. Volunteers came from a wide array of local groups including students, senior citizens, environmentalists, business and local government leaders, and even military personnel from Fort Dix. The 2011 blitz was a major success: volunteers gathered 739 bags of trash and 578 bags of recyclables, plus three 30-yard dumpsters and three dump trucks.  Donations of materials (garbage bags, gloves, dumpsters, etc.) and disposal fees totaled approximately $20,000.  An even bigger Barnegat Bay Blitz is planned for May 9, 2012, with additional sponsors, volunteers, and local involvement.  

9. Fill in the Gaps on Research – The DEP Office of Science has been working with the Science Advisory Board, state universities, the U.S. Geological Survey, the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Barnegat Bay Partnership to develop and fund additional research projects that will fill in the data gaps, help address how we improve water quality and advance habitat restoration on the Bay, and establish baseline conditions of the Bay. For FY 2012, $1.2 million was expended in contracts to research institutions, and for FY 2013, another $1.4 million is planned to continue the research projects.  Funding sources include Corporate Business Tax, Spill Fund, a Performance Partnership Grant from EPA (multi-media) and the Safe Drinking Water Fund.  

10. Reduce Water Craft Impacts – Boats and personal watercraft can harm the Bay by damaging submerged aquatic vegetation and disrupting aquatic habitats.  Education, enforcement and research are necessary to comprehensively address the problem. For FY 2012 and FY 2013, an enforcement and education initiative is envisioned which will provide education initially, then warnings and citations eventually, to boaters who do not observe safe and environmentally friendly requirements about distance from shore, speed, or careless or reckless operation of their watercraft.  This effort is led by DEP Park Police and Conservation Officers, with assistance from the New Jersey State Police, Marine Police Bureau, and in concert with the municipal Chiefs of Police within the Barnegat Bay watershed.  This initiative will be conducted during normal business operations, thus minimizing any extra expenditure of funding. Some funds will be expended for educational materials so that people are aware of the regulations that are in place to responsibly operate watercraft on the Bay.

As DEP aggressively implements the Governor’s 10 points, various staff within the Department continue to contribute in additional ways in the course their normal job duties.  Enforcement has been active in identifying sources of pollution and taking necessary steps to mitigate those sources.  The air program has dedicated resources to ensuring that air pollution sources are considered in the modeling inputs for assessing sources of pollution to the Bay and has called attention to the “anti-idling” provisions of the law which prohibit unnecessary idling of watercraft as well as vehicles within the watershed.  The New Jersey Geological Survey has contributed to the science. 

• Question: What will be the impact on the DEP’s budget and staff resources?

Answer: Programs have leveraged funding from local sources to obtain personnel and operating fund contributions which, when brought together in a single purpose (under a single project plan) can lead to greater insights about necessary steps to improve water quality in the Bay.  The outside resources have not been quantified in this analysis with the exception of the direct contribution of over $1 million from the United States Geological Survey over the two-fiscal-year period. For FY 2011, 2012 and 2013, a total of over $43.5 million is budgeted for Barnegat Bay-related work, with about 17 FTE per year spending time on the project. Of the $43.5 million most is from federal sources and leveraged EIT funding addressing the clean water and stormwater management needs of the Barnegat Bay.  The greatest value of the Barnegat Bay 10-point plan has been to invigorate the citizens living in the watershed to empower them to take part (large or small) in improving the health of the Barnegat Bay. 

10. On May 4, 2011, the DEP implemented the New Jersey Saltwater Recreational Registry Program.  This program will obtain more accurate and timely recreational fishing data, and will help fisherman and policy makers work together to better account for the contributions and impacts of saltwater anglers on ocean ecosystems and coastal economies.

• Question: How much did it cost the DEP to implement the program and what are the projected annual operating costs and staff resources needed to administer the registry program for FY 2013 and beyond?

Answer: The development cost of the Registry Program was $123,200, including the initial administrative costs associated with establishing the Administrative Order for the Registry Program, creation of the website and database, and execution of an agreement (MOA) with the National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Salary Costs $54,900

Database Development   57,600

Operating   10,700

          $123,200

The future costs, based on the current program’s design, are estimated to run at $73,600. 

Salary Cost   $42,800

IT Costs   28,800

Operating       2,000

$73,600

11. On August 18, 2011 the DEP unveiled a comprehensive set of guidelines that revamps and modernizes New Jersey’s inconsistent and outdated policies and fee schedules regarding the leasing of State lands that prevented the State from being fairly compensated for private use of those lands.

• Question: Have all the guidelines been adopted and implemented?  How much additional revenue has been received in FY 2012, thus far, and what amount is projected for FY 2013?  Where and when will this added revenue be utilized?

Answer: The recommendations outlined in the Interagency State Land Lease Valuation Panel Report pertain to multiple New Jersey State agencies.  The recommendations that fall under the sole jurisdiction of the DEP have been implemented.  Many of the other recommendations that fall under the purview of other agencies or shared responsibility, such as some of the councils or commissions that are related to DEP, have also been implemented.  Most significant among these are changes to the method DEP uses to assess leases of linear corridor projects across State land.  Implementing the recommendations from the report regarding linear projects has resulted in decreased costs and increased revenue for the State of New Jersey for the private use of State land.  As new leases are let and expiring or outdated leases are renewed, the new policy is resulting in significant revenue increases for these linear projects.  Other agencies that have already implemented the recommendations of the interagency panel include Office of the State Treasurer, New Jersey Water Supply Authority, and the New Jersey Tidelands Resource Council.

Back in an April 25, 2011 post, I posed this question:

When will NJEF revoke their Christie endorsement?

Well, it looks like a variant of that moment is coming – a press advisory by NJEF indicates that NJEF will issue some form of public statement, likely distancing themselves from the Christie Administration.

But how do you take this stuff back?

~~~ “Environmentalists look forward to working with Christie ”  -  Daily Record Nov. 8, 2009 

“We are optimistic going forward that Christie will keep his promises to put an emphasis on science over politics and to ensure we are developing in the right places,” Pringle said. “He had the strongest environmental agenda and the most detailed plans.”

~~~ “Eco-Lobby frets over rules freeze” - Asbury Park Press November 23, 2009

David Pringle, campaign director for the New Jersey Environmental Federation, said “the state has a lot of inefficiencies and overlapping and conflicting rules, and there’s plenty of things that have absolutely no impact on environmental and public health protection.”

~~~ “DEP rules under review, agency’s fate uncertain” (DEP Transition Report) - Asbury Park Press Feb. 6, 2010

But Karrow wrote and takes full responsibility for the report, according to David Pringle, a member of the panel that issued the report. He is campaign director for the New Jersey Environmental Federation, a coalition of 100 groups and 100,000 individual members.

However, Steve Wilson, a spokesman for the New Jersey Business and Industry Association, said a colleague David Brogan, vice president for environmental policy helped write the report.

~~~ “Kudos and caution greet Christie’s business boost – Backers cheer changes that let firms weigh in early on new rules. Some environmentalists worry” (DEP Transition Report) – Philadelphia Inquirer Feb. 14, 2010

The business community is thrilled, while environmental advocates worry the economy will be used as a cover to dismantle longtime protections.

Christie is “saying that the state has to reform and redo its regulatory process so that it’s no longer a disincentive for new investment,” said Hal Bozarth, executive director of the Chemistry Council of New Jersey. “That’s frankly the first time in my long tenure that I’ve heard those things.” [...]

Dave Pringle, campaign director of the New Jersey Environmental Foundation, which endorsed Christie, was the sole representative of environmental advocacy groups on the DEP transition team. While he disagreed with the tone of the report, Pringle said it contained many ideas his group supported, including prioritizing science over political considerations.

~~~  ”Christie enacts moratorium on regulations” NJN TV news story – March 12, 2010

“This process [i.e. the moratorium, Red Tape Review Group, cost/benefit analysis, and new federal standards policy of Gov. Christie's Executive Orders 1-3] could just enable them to have a better understanding of what they’re getting themselves in to.” Dave Pringle

~~~ “DEP to begin massive overhaul” –  Bergen Record Oct. 8, 2010

Bill Wolfe with Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility is also concerned. “DEP’s mission, established by law, is to protect the environment and public health, not grow the economy,” he said. “Martin’s views are at odds with law, almost 40 years of practice, and the reality of environmental policy, where compliance burdens often cost industry real money. ‘Greater flexibility’ is merely a code for providing ‘regulatory relief.‘ ”

David Pringle of the New Jersey Environmental Federation was more reserved in his assessment of the plan. “It’s a healthy process for an agency to look at how they’re doing things and modernize to be more effective,” he said.

~~~ “DEP looking to private contractors to oversee some permit applications” - Bergen Record Oct. 1, 2010

“It’s good the DEP would still have final say on permits, but a lot of this conflicts with what Governor Christie said during the campaign about not privatizing the land-use program,” said David Pringle. [...]

“This is not a privatization of the land-use permit process,” the DEP’s Hajna said. “The contractor won’t sign off on permit applications. They will provide technical assistance on an as-needed basis. Final approval would still go through DEP staff.”

~~~ “Environmental groups worry about Christie agency” –  Philadelphia Inquirer Oct. 13, 2010 

Bill Wolfe, director of the New Jersey Chapter of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said dispute resolution was particularly prone to abuse because it was designed to overrule the judgment of DEP staff.

“The danger comes not only in using politics and intervention from above to overrule the technical judgment of staff, but when those meetings go down, there’s not really accountability or transparency,” Wolfe said. “If it were on the record with full disclosure, there would be an entirely different dynamic.”

Not all environmental advocates are on the same page. Dave Pringle, campaign director for the New Jersey Environmental Foundation, which endorsed Christie, a Republican, over incumbent Democrat Jon S. Corzine in the last election, said that while the Office of Dispute Resolution under Whitman was used to undermine environmental law, the Christie administration has assured the foundation that that will not be the case this time around.

Pringle said his organization was willing to withhold judgment until the evidence was in.

Business advocates welcome the new office. 

~~~ “Christie names Judge Lee Solomon to head BPU” – NJ Newsroom January 21, 2010

“Lee Solomon has the legal, environmental, personal, and political background to ensure a cleaner, greener 21st century”, said Sharon Finlayson, the [NJ Environmental] Federation’s chairwoman.

In addition to Christie’s energy industry agenda, the BPU is expected to play an important role implementing some of the key pieces of the governor’s environmental agenda including:

Implementing the Global Warming Response Act and Energy Master Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with greater emphasis on clean renewables and energy efficiency;

~~~ “The Myth of a divided environmental community” NJ Spotlight, Mike Catania Op-Ed June 29, 2011

To be sure, the governor has gotten an awful lot of mileage out of the fact that the NJ Environmental Federation somehow deluded itself into endorsing him. And it has been downright embarrassing to watch Dave Pringle twist himself into a pretzel during the past 18 months trying desperately to find a way to say something positive and upbeat about the governor’s latest assault on New Jersey’s environmental regulatory infrastructure.

~~~ “To keep NJ parks in funds, Christie will allow some privatization” (Phil Gregory, Nov. 2, 2011

The plan looks good, according to Dave Pringle of the New Jersey Environmental Federation.

“For us, the two litmus tests were entrance fees–and those are staying the same–and no naming rights, and that’s not in there.” Pringle said. “It’s appropriate to provide better amenities and concessions for our parks consistent with the mission of those parks.”

~~~ “THE 43rd PRESIDENT: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; Whitman Seen as Strong Choice for E.P.A.” –  NY Times Dec. 21, 2000

“[...] … David S. Pringle, campaign director of the New Jersey Environmental Federation, commended the governor’s open-space program and other initiatives in her second term.

”She’s gone from bad to better, and hopefully it’ll go to good’‘ at the E.P.A., Mr. Pringle said.

These are just a few examples of overt media support – there were countless other behind the scenes slimy moves by Pringle and NJEF.

For example, NJEF and Pringle provided cover for the Christie betrayal on mandating installation of cooling towers at Oyster Creek nuke plant, a move that would have shut the plant down, not extended its operating life 10 more years.

NJEF also defending the Governor’s fatally flawed Barnegat Bay plan and provided cover for veto’s of storm water and TMDL legislation.

NJEF has done virtually nothing on holding Christie accountable for his betrayal on  his promise to develop and implement environmental justice and cumulative impact standards for heavily burdened urban communities.

But perhaps the most damaging was to undercut those – myself included – advocating early opposition to gutting of the Water Quality Management Planning rules and rejecting participation in the DEP “Fakeholder process”.  Instead of mounting an environmental defense campaign to defend the WQMP rules, the Pringle led faction spent many months, resources, and countless hours in the room with the DEP Fakeholders – a HUGE missed opportunity to generate public pressure to block the gutting of those rules.

The cover NJEF provided emboldened the Governor and DEP Commissioner Martin to take even more radical steps in gutting environmental and public heath protections (e.g. the waiver rule, Highlands appointments, et al).

NJEF false praise and support undermined and delayed efforts by the entire environmental community to mount an environmental defense campaign, generate public and legislative opposition, and hold the Governor accountable.

The NJEF spin bamboozled some reporters and distorted news coverage, leading to countless equivocal “he said/she said” stories that continue to pollute public discourse.

NJEF also provided cover for anti-environmental legislators and loyal Christie backers.

Pringle’s support of Christie’ park funding plan is especially bad. The Christie Plan ignores collection of easement revenue form power lines and pipelines. It unfairly shifts burden to the public.  It increases commercialization of public parks. It will facilitate crony profiteering at the expense of public parks mission. It does nothing to address then huge maintenance backlog. Pringle is an idiot and a tool.

And, with all this and more, NJEF  simply disgusted and pissed me off.

Regardless of my disgust, any moves NJEF could make at this point would not undo the damage and come far too late to warrant forgiveness, after over 2 years of environmental abuse which was masked by NJEF political and media shilling.

[Update: I just got a call from a reporter - apparently, NJEF issued a Report Card on Christie - I think D overall grade, with an F on global warming. While I didn't take issue with the grades (having not reviewed it), I did question why NJEF released this Report card now (too little, too late, and not nearly enough to redeem themselves) and why was there was no mention of over 2 years of support and enabling the policies they now grade so poorly.]

Ecuadoran girl

woman Occupying Union Square

Army Corps Requires Restoration of Riverfront Fill  - Dredging Stopped

Riverfront restoration underway, as a result of US Army Corps enforcement

Here is another quick update on Bull’s Island, including important new developments.

At our request, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) conducted compliance reviews and halted the dredging operation for permit violations. The Corps ordered restoration of un-permitted illegal fill and destruction along 450 feet of the Delaware River and along approximately 4,000 feet of the D&R Canal.

Restoration work is underway (see above photo). We understand that the USACE directed the NJ Water Supply Authority – who did the un-permitted work – to submit permit applications.

We understand that the National Parks Service has expressed concerns regarding consistency  with the Lower Delaware Wild & Scenic River Management Plan, an management agreement to which DEP is a party.

We learned that Bull’s Island provides habitat for federally protected Indiana bat and migratory birds – see the below press release and letter to USFWS asking for enforcement of the Endangered Species Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

We also observed cutting of trees, which raises additional USFWS issues (see letter and photo below – from our friends at PEER ).

DEP Parks forester cuts trees (3/24/12)

NEW JERSEY WAR ON “KILLER TREES” VIOLATES FEDERAL LAW
Bull’s Island Is Habitat for Endangered Bat and Protected Migratory Birds

Trenton — Ongoing and planned forestry work on Bull’s Island State Park is at odds with federal wildlife protections, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) which today asked the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to intervene.  New Jersey officials are cutting old growth sycamore trees and plan to clear-cut more than 200 trees from state parkland on the banks of the Delaware River.

The state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has not consulted with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service which enforces the Endangered Species and Migratory Bird Treaty Acts.  The giant sycamores on Bull’s Island provide ideal shelter for a variety of wildlife, including the critically endangered Indiana bat as well as the Cerulean Warbler and a dozen other protected migratory birds.  The Island also abuts protected bald eagle foraging habitat.

DEP actions that are the focus of the PEER complaint include:

• Cutting several large sycamores during the height of nesting season.  Scores of additional trees are tagged, apparently for removal; and
• A plan to denude the northern portion of Bull’s Island (from the wing dam to the tip).

“Thinning trees during nesting and roosting season flouts basic wildlife management tenets,” stated New Jersey PEER Director Bill Wolfe, noting that the area is also within a Wild & Scenic River corridor and DEP is contravening the multi-agency management plan it signed.  “The state is managing this unique river park like a municipal golf course which gets mowed whether it needs it or not.”

In a separate operation, DEP dredged the Delaware & Raritan Canal in violation of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and local Soil Conservation District permits.  The state agency also bulldozed riparian vegetation and dumped dredge fill along 450 feet of the Delaware River bank.  In response to a PEER complaint, the Corps has halted the dredging and ordered restoration of the riverfront.

Federal wildlife laws protect both the animals and the habitat upon which they depend. Moreover, detailed federal guidance on how these lands are supposed to be managed stresses the need to minimize tree clearing, to avoid digging and dozing and, above all, to avoid cutting trees and branches during nesting season.  Not only do current DEP actions violate these protective measures but the agency’s plan to clear-cut a large portion of the Island destroys much of its wildlife habitat value.

“State officials are not immune from prosecution for violating federal wildlife laws,” Wolfe added. “It would behoove the DEP to consult with all its partners – federal, regional and local – before blundering forward on its own.”

###

Read the PEER complaint to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Look at DEP clear-cut plans

See Fish & Wildlife Service guidance on Indiana bat

View Fish & Wildlife Service management plan for the Cerulean Warbler

Examine the Wild & Scenic River management plan for lower Delaware

New Jersey PEER is a state chapter of a national alliance of state and federal agency resource professionals working to ensure environmental ethics and government accountability

Bull's Island (looking south down Delaware River)

Just a perfect day

problems all left  alone

weekenders on our, its such fun  ~~~  Perfect Day (1972) Lou Reed

After a few weeks of technical difficulties, we’re back on line.

I have several updates to post – will wait till Monday to start all that.

Too perfect a day to write.

Delaware River, just below Bull's Island

There were record high temperatures yesterday, and as you can see, the river is flowing well below normal.

But if you look at the last 10 years of USGS flow data,  the picture is far worse.

As you can see, not only is the river flowing well below normal, but the level is decreasing at a time of year when it is usually rising steeply.

Bad sign.