WolfeNotes.com

Cleanup Decisions Are The Responsibility of Government Regulators, Not Corporations

Christie DEP Supported EPA capping scheme

Activist Political Pressure Must Target The Actual Levers of Power

This stuff makes me nuts.

To be clear, I think it’s great that local residents in Ringwood are petitioning their local government to nix a dirty deal with Ford that would allow Ford to cap the Superfund site there and avoid millions of dollars in cleanup costs.

Bergen Record:

The EPA had been poised to order a full removal when the borough decided to build a recycling center on the site, causing the EPA to agree that placing a barrier over the pollution would be an appropriate solution. The move lowers Ford and the borough’s cleanup bill from $32.6 million for excavation to $5.4 million for the capping plan. Ford will pay for the recycling facility.

But in doing so, the role of local government in cleanup decisions is distorted and the press coverage makes corrupt corporate “negotiations” appear legitimate.

Ford should have no role – none – in choosing the cleanup plan. Ford’s only role in the cleanup plan should be to pay for it.

Government regulators should make cleanup decisions on the basis of protecting public health and the environment and should ORDER  – not negotiate with – Ford to implement cleanup plans.

The press coverage muddies the water on these fundamentals and fails to convey the regulatory reality and target and clearly hold the actual decision-maker accountable.

For example, see this, from the Bergen Record:

Chuck Stead, a professor of environmental studies at Ramapo College, told the group that Ford had removed 97,000 tons of toxic material from Rockland County because local officials put pressure on the company.

“It’s more than a doable thing,” he said of excavating Ringwood. “To me the only difference between the New York and New Jersey side of the state line is the political will.”

No doubt local officials – who just so happen to pay Professor Stead – put pressure on the company.

But local officials and the company did not make the cleanup decision.

The cleanup of the Ford Rockland County site was conducted under the State of New York’s cleanup program and oversee by the NY State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC).

The DEC made the decision, not local government. (read it here)

NYSDEC developed the proposed remedy after reviewing the detailed investigation of the site and evaluating the remedial options in the “feasibility study” submitted under New York’s State Superfund Program by Ford Motor Company.

Next Steps

NYSDEC will consider public comments as it finalizes the remedy for the site. The selected remedy will be described in a document called a “Record of Decision” that will explain why the remedy was selected and respond to public comments.

The cleanup of the Ford Ringwood NJ site is overseen by US EPA under the federal Superfund program.

EPA is in charge of making the cleanup decision in Ringwood.

But EPA has effectively abdicated that responsibility by allowing the Ringwood local government to collude with Ford to alter the EPA’s preferred cleanup plan (excavation) and allow the site to be capped.

This is a gross abuse of the Superfund cleanup law.

If Professor Stead were honest, he would blast EPA for allowing this to happen, instead of creating the false appearance that local officials in NY drove the NY DEC’s cleanup decision.

In terms of political will, of course the correct comparisons are between: 1) NY DEC and New Jersey’s DEP; 2) NY DEC and US EPA and 3) local governments in Ringwood, NJ and Ramapo, NY.

The Christie DEP would look very bad by this comparison – but once again, NJ DEP escapes any accountability for the fact that the Christie DEP SUPPORTED the corrupt EPA capping plan.

The NJ DEP concurred with the EPA approved Ford scheme (see Appendix V of the ROD for DEP letter),

DEP should get just as  strongly criticized as EPA.

In practice, States are given a far stronger role in Superfund cleanup decisions than the law and EPA regulations actually provide for, i/e

State concurrence on a ROD is not a prerequisite to EPA’s selecting a remedy, i.e., signing a ROD, 

Under EPA policy, State’s are asked to concur with EPA proposed Superfund decisions – and EPA almost always bows and defers to State preferences. (After my criticism, EPA has taken down links to their concurrence policy – searching for fresh links now. Here is EPA model State concurrence letter for NPL listing decisions.).

That is a another bad EPA policy that also escapes any accountability in the news coverage.

If the policy flaws and decision-makers are not identified, they are not likely to be fixed and held accountable.

That’s why it’s important to get this stuff right.

Notes on Cleveland

Rockefeller Center, NYC, NY

Morris Berman, from “The Twilight of American Culture”:

If we can pull together the threads of this discussion so far, it would seem that four factors are present when a civilization collapses:

(a) Accelerating social and economic inequality

(b) Declining marginal returns with regard to investment in organizational solutions to socioeconomic problems

(c) Rapidly dropping levels of literacy, critical understanding, and general intellectual awareness

(d) Spiritual death—that is, Spengler’s classicism: the emptying out of cultural content and the freezing (or repackaging) of it in formulas—kitsch, in short.

The New York Times, reporting on Day 1 of the Republican National Convention in Cleveland:

We’re in grave danger

The lineup of speakers presented a United States in danger, threatened from abroad and from within, a once-proud nation on the very brink of chaos and dystopia. Six of the speakers were military veterans, including Marcus Luttrell, the celebrated former Navy SEAL, who bluntly warned that “the enemy is here.” A half-dozen more were relatives of Americans murdered by foreign terrorists or illegal immigrants — threats to the nation’s safety and cohesion that often mingle in the Trump worldview. Another was the former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who likened the country to a circa-1980s New York in need of a strong hand. “There is no next election,” Mr. Giuliani warned. “This is it!”

Quoted in Berman:

Sallust’s description of Rome in 80 B.C.—a government controlled by wealth, a ruling-class numb to the repetitions of political scandal, a public diverted by chariot races and gladiatorial shows—stands as a fair summary of some of our own circumstances….

—Lewis Lapham,Waiting for the Barbarians

No need to wait any longer – the Barbarians are at the gate.

Heat Waves Are Evidence of and Influenced By Climate Change

Thought I’d post this after reading anther inane story about the current heat wave – failure to mention this science is a not so subtle form of climate change denial.

How is it possible that news reporters and editors don’t know this? I realize that many in media flunked the non-college track High School science courses – and didn’t even take statistics and probability courses – but the Google does all the work now.

Why are they self censoring the issue? Are they afraid of criticism of the climate deniers? Or is money involved? What explains their professional journalistic negligence? Where is the State Climatologist?

From US EPA (boldface mine)

Key U.S. Projections

• By 2100, the average U.S. temperature is projected to increase by about 3°F to 12°F, depending on emissions scenario and climate model. ^[1

• An increase in average temperatures worldwide implies more frequent and intense extreme heat events, or heat waves. The number of days with high temperatures above 90°F is expected to increase throughout the United States, especially toward the end of the century.^[1] Climate models project that if global emissions of greenhouse gases continue to grow, summertime temperatures in the United States that ranked among the hottest 5% in 1950-1979 will occur at least 70% of the time by 2035-2064. ^[1]

“I take great pride that the US Fish and Wildlife Service and NJ Audubon recognizes and validates the environmental contribution we have made with the original design of our two world class golf courses in Bedminster. They currently provide for over 200 acres of habitat for indigenous and migratory grassland birds. With this partnership we look forward to their professional guidance in further improving and expanding the habitat at this wonderful property.” said course owner Donald J Trump.

“Trump National is demonstrating an outstanding commitment to sustaining native wildlife populations.” said Eric Stiles, President for New Jersey Audubon. “They are solidifying a symbiotic relationship with the surrounding community to foster environmental awareness and a conservation ethic while enhancing wildlife and natural systems in New Jersey.”

Link to full text

This is what weenie conservation looks like

(7/9/14) Taken on way to public hearing on DEP CAFRA rule proposal – see “Why Don’t We Do It In The Road”

Here is a perfect example of the worst aspects of troubling tendencies in the NJ Conservation community and media. This goes way beyond greenwash – another band aid on a gaping wound sold as progress.

Governor Christie, NJ conservation groups, legislators, and the media just congratulated themselves and celebrated passage of a law designed to protect diamondback terrapin. The law was described as a “key step for the species”.

The prohibition on harvesting the turtles will no doubt have a positive impact on the species. But a “key step”? Don’t think so.

However, glowing press reports and praise by conservationists – devoid of context – left the general public with a completely false and overly favorable assessment, while key issues were ignored.

The bill faced no opposition and was passed unanimously in both houses of the Legislature and signed by Governor Christie, NJ’s worst environmental governor.

Christie took the opportunity to issue an over the top press release:

“Today we join other Atlantic coastal states that have taken an important step to prevent this unique species from any further decline toward extinction. The diamondback terrapin is a natural treasure and integral part of our coastal landscape in New Jersey, and this action will help to ensure the species remains a feature of our natural landscape for generations to come,” said Governor Christie.

That is total bullshit – extinction is a distinct possibility and those extinction threats are greatly magnified in the “generations to come” – particularly as a result of the climate denial, coastal land use and fossil fuel dominated energy policies of Governor Christie.

And useful idiots said crap like this:

“It’s a good move,” said Bill Sheehan, director of the Hackensack Riverkeeper. “Now we just have to keep up with the poachers. It’s up to the proper agencies to enforce this.”

It’s not the poachers you need to worry about there Captain Bill.

Here is the real story you were not told that makes a mockery of what you were led to believe. I tried to use this same turtle species to suggest that story a few years ago (and this post and this post).

“Ghost Trees – evidence of sea level rise and storm surge impacts Jake’s Landing, Dennis Township, Cape May” – Source Rutgers CRSSA, Lathrop.

Primary Threats To Diamondback Terrapin

We learn from Defenders of Wildlife

Threats

The diamondback terrapin is threatened by habitat destruction, road construction (terrapins are common roadkill) and drowning in crab traps.

Climate change is also poised to bring major changes to the terrapin’s habitats and life cycle. By the end of this century, sea level is projected to rise between 2.25 feet under a low emissions scenario and up to 3.25 feet under the highest emissions scenario.

Due to land subsidence in the Northeast, the effect of the rise will seem about 10 to 20% higher than the actual. Salt water incursion into brackish tidal marshes will alter their character and potentially make large areas saltier than the terrapin can tolerate. Storm surges and beach erosion threaten their preferred nesting habitats. And higher temperatures on nesting beaches could skew the sex ratios of offspring.

Prohibition on harvesting turtles will have absolutely no impact on reducing the threats of climate change and habitat destruction.

Actual Conditions and Status of Threats

I recently wrote to document a range of devastating climate change impacts on the NJ shore – including rampant overdevelopment.

Here is an excerpt that is directly relevant to the diamondback terrapin, from NJ DEP’s Coastal Assessment and Strategy – 2016-2020: (@ page IV-115)

Tidal marshes can adapt and keep pace with sea level rise through vertical accretion and inland migration, but must remain at the same elevation relative to the tidal range and have a stable source of sediment. Coastal wetlands risk permanent inundation if sea levels rise faster than the rate by which they can accrete. Through the process of vertical accretion of sediment and organic matter, the tidal salt marsh surface will rise in relation to sea level, i.e., the marsh can continue to grow ‘up’ into a rising sea (Cahoon 2010). When sea level rises faster than marsh accretion, tidal marshes are drowned and replaced by unconsolidated shore (i.e., mud or sand flat) and eventually open water (Cahoon and Guntenspergen, 2010). The degree of wetland loss is directly related to the rate of sea level rise compared to the accretion rate. The combination of sea level rise and vertical accretion forces coastal wetlands to migrate inland causing upslope transitional brackish wetlands to convert to saline marshes and the saline marshes on the coastline to drown or erode.57 

Along portions of New Jersey’s coast, development located upland of the marsh edge forms a physical barrier to the gradual movement of marshlands inland, blocking the inland migration of these ecosystems as sea level rises. One concern along New Jersey’s coast is that rising sea level will reduce the extent of some coastal marshes, changing them from vegetated areas to mud flats or open waters and that upland development will prevent the migration of tidal wetlands landward, resulting in an overall reduction of the extent of these vital components of the coastal ecosystem.

In a study from July, 2014, Modeling the Fate of New Jersey’s Salt Marshes Under Future Sea Level Rise, conducted by the Rutgers University Center for Remote Sensing and Spatial Analysis, modeling results suggests that if sea level rises between one to two feet by 2050, existing tidal salt marsh in New Jersey could decline by approximately 5%, being replaced by open water and unconsolidated shore. One foot of sea level rise may cause more than 9,300 acres of salt marsh to convert to open water and nearly 2,000 acres of salt marsh could be impeded from retreat. The modeling also found that at a sea level rise of three feet or greater, salt marshes are not able to vertically accrete fast enough, increasing the loss and conversion of salt marsh. While the predicted loss may be balanced by ‘new’ marsh (i.e., unimpeded marsh retreat zone) it is unclear whether this ‘new’ marsh will have the same ecological value in the short-term (i.e. over decadal time scales) as the established tidal salt marshes that may be lost.

New Jersey’s coastal wetlands on the Atlantic Coast are bordered by roads and extensive development. This hard infrastructure provides little or no natural buffer to our coastal wetlands. Adequate low elevation natural land cover buffers may allow coastal wetlands to migrate landward over time as sea level rises. Coastal buffers may also provide much-needed sediment required for coastal marsh elevations to rise with the rising sea level over time. The combination of sea level rise and vertical accretion forces coastal wetlands to migrate inland causing upslope transitional brackish wetlands to convert to saline marshes, and the saline marshes on the coastline to drown or erode. Along portions of New Jersey’s coast, development located upland of the marsh edge forms a physical barrier to the gradual movement of marshlands inland, blocking the inland migration of these ecosystems as sea level rises. Further, because the State’s Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act allows buffers to range in size from zero, in some cases, to 150 feet maximum, there has been an inclination to match, but not exceed, these buffer widths for coastal wetlands. As a result, over time, the width of buffers adjacent to coastal wetlands has declined.

Delaware Estuary Threats

Turtle habitat includes the Delaware estuary, which DEP documents is also threatened: (page IV-74)

The Delaware Estuary is also experiencing climate change-related issues such as the inability of wetlands to keep pace with sea level rise due to the lack of sediment; the impacts of sea level rise on wetlands health and extent; land subsidence; and the migration of alien or invasive species into wetlands. The estuary also has water quality issues due to runoff, development, and industrial discharges.

Subsidence Threats

In addition to climate change driven coastal marsh and Delaware threats, the NJ Coastal plan is also subsiding (sinking): (page IV-114)

To understand how salt marshes drown or expand, we need to have an understanding of the balance between sediment supply, sea level rise, and vegetation. If the marsh platform evolves to an elevation lower than mean high tide, either through reduced sedimentation, land subsidence, or an increased rate of sea level rise, then these marsh plants will die and the marsh will drown. Drowning often results in a rapid loss of marsh elevation; once marsh plants die, the marsh sediments become susceptible to erosion, and marshes rapidly convert to subtidal flats (e.g., Fagherazzi et al., 2006)51.

Residents of New Jersey’s coastal zone can see and note changes to the marsh edge. As Downe Township Deputy Mayor Lisa Garrison noted in a recent article, “Erosion is changing the face of the meadows.” A recent study in New Jersey found interior marsh (i.e. marsh platform) loss from expanding channel networks and pond development is causing significant dissection of the marsh platform.52 The researchers noted that the reduction in marsh habitat area has accelerated due to perimeter shore line erosion, sea-level rise, and coastal submergence. For example, along a marsh shoreline within the Mullica Great Bay estuary system, the researchers found that the rate of loss of saltmarsh habitat amounted to 1.6 m yr. between 1995 and 2008. As a means of reducing mosquito problems several organizations within the state developed and refined techniques for Open Marsh Water Management (OMWM). OMWM is a land management practice designed to control mosquitos by creating open water ponds on marsh or parallel grid ditching and salt hay farming to increase tidal exchange on the marsh.

The erosion of marsh edge and marsh platform can also result in an indirect impact to coastal shoreline development because marshes reduce storm surge wave heights due to their position in the coastal landscape and the plants growing on the surface. Severe erosion of the marsh edge results in a retreat of the marsh mat, thereby reducing the extent of the marsh.53 Several recent reviews (Gedan et al., 2011; Shepard et al., 2011; Spalding et al., 2013)545556 have found that salt marshes have a moderating influence on attenuating storm surge and waves and a moderately positive role in shoreline stabilization.