WolfeNotes.com

Senate Environment Committee Condemns Christie ExxonMobil Deal

Senator Lesniak: “This is about restoration and reparation”

Chairman Smith: Deal “shocks the conscience”

The Senate Environment Committee hearing room was standing room only this morning.

(I will write about the ExxonMobil deal in a subsequent post – I am now reading the DEP’s $8.9 billion NRD Restoration Plan.)

[*Update – since Sean Sullivan at Star Ledger has a good story, think I’ll hold off on that NRD post. I don’t have a lot to add to what I’ve already written and it’s going to take more time to digest the DEP’s Restoration Plan – plus I came across some EPA RCRA documents I want to critique as part of that.

One thing I will note here is that Senator Lesniak’s testimony emphasized and echoed my prior post about the distinction between remediation and restoration – and why the deal is even WORSE than its been portrayed in media.  end update]

I sat through hours of testimony from historic preservationists, farmland preservationists, and open space advocates – all with their hands out asking for more money.

At least the woman with the red wig who went to Atlantic City with her $100,000 bank heist knew she was handling stolen money.

But not the Keep It Green – Greed Coalition.

They all sat around and praised and congratulated each other for their fine work.

I’ve written about these issues numerous times – most recently on water program cuts –  so let me cut to the chase now.

After stealing $71 – $80 million from core DEP programs and inserting a punitive provision into law that prohibits DEP site remediation program from using existing Constitutionally dedicated CBT funds for staff salaries, members of the Keep It Green Coalition today had no regrets.

They didn’t even make quiet noises about “tough choices” or even mention the importance of restoring cuts to the DEP’s “green side” and natural resources.

Nope – nothing.

No regrets, no shame, and no recognition that their theft will have serious negative consequences for key programs that operate across the state if funds are not restored in the budget process.

Instead, they called for more restrictions on DEP parks staff funding, while calling for increases in administrative costs and staff funds for their organizations, and more funds for their pet “stewardship” projects.

I made the following points:

1) Legislators and the various advocates of the Open Space – with their hands out today – will need to work just as hard to support restoration of the DEP program cuts that will result from the money they have stolen.

2) The funding plan completely ignores huge unmet and long ignored needs, including:

• urban parks
• urban forestry
• community gardens

[Clarification: The bill provides: In addition, the bill provides that a local government unit or a qualifying tax exempt nonprofit organization may use a grant or loan for recreation and conservation purposes for the construction of a community garden.

• urban farmers markets in “food deserts”
• Afforestation and carbon sequestration

3) the terms “stewardship” is vague and prone to abuse. It should be strictly limited or deleted. Public funding should be zero.

4) At a time when for DEP programs are being slashed and public employees laid off, all non-profit funding should be zero.

NJ Audubon, NJ Conservation Foundation, and Land Trusts have large staffs and are well endowed elite organizations. Their Boards are comprised of elite individuals and corporations and they serve wealthy land owners and corporate speculators.

They are not Habitat For Humanity. Let them hold fundraisers.

The incredible irony is that the Open Space program has been justified primarily as protecting land and water resources.

The most cost effective policy tools to protect land and water resources are: DEP planning and land use regulations and limits on water supply and wastewater infrastructure and capacity. They have resulted in the strongest development restrictions.

Yet those very DEP programs – plus their science support – are the programs that are slashed by open space!

The costs (negative impacts from the programs that are cut) exceed the benefits of open space.

We don’t pay polluters not to pollute – so why do we pay private land owners and developers not to destroy natural resources, consume water, and pollute streams?

I’m beginning to think of Open Space funding as a form of privatization – a shifting of resources from public institutions and regulation that provide broad public benefits, to fund private groups and wealthy landowners in narrow ways that provide primarily private and local benefits.

I followed that up with this quick note:

Deep Cuts At DEP Must Be Restored

A Detailed Look At Water and Monitoring Cuts

Tomorrow (Monday 3/9/15), the Senate Environment Committee will hear the open space funding implementation bill (see S2769).

But, you probably won’t hear anything about that in the press, because the Committee is also hearing a Resolution condemning Governor Christie’s Exxon deal, which is getting press saturation as an emerging scandal.

SCR-158 (Sweeney/Smith, B/Lesniak) (pending intro and referral) – Condemns, and strongly urges rejection of,  proposed $225 million settlement in lawsuit brought by NJ against Exxon Mobil for natural resource damages at Bayway and Bayonne oil refinery sites and certain other sites in NJ.

So, I thought I’d post an analysis put together by John Miller of the NJ Association of Flood Plain Managers of the cuts to various DEP water and monitoring programs caused by the Open Space diversion (does not include the site remediation cuts).

We’ve written about all this many times before.  While we prefer to go to readers and legislators with tightly focused issue briefs (that’s why it’s called Wolfenotes!), Miller goes into much greater detail on the programs that are cut. It’s always good to provide information and nice to get other credible points of view out there, so here goes: thanks John!

Water Resources Impacts of NJDEP CBT reassignment

• CBT covers roughly 8% NJDEP salaries department-wide; 61 positions in water resources direct and 42  Water Monitoring and Standards staff funded (update 123 jobs)
• CBT for water resources programs will drop from $15 to $5 million; now $11 million salary/benefits and $4 for operations
• Barnegat Bay monitoring would be hit (Governor and Sen. Smith’s priority) andother water quality monitoring for the ocean (coastal counties), all surface and groundwater statewide, shellfish monitoring needed by FDA to verify safety of the shellfish industry on the coast
• Flood projections and warnings would be compromised in floodprone watersheds such as the Passaic and Raritan Watersheds; we can’t be without these systems from a public safety standpoint
• Drought monitoring and projections would be hampered for underground aquifers; this is where most of South Jersey gets its water for drinking
• NJ Weather and Climate Network overseen by NJ State Climatologist in jeopardy as result of CBT (or using that money to make up for CBT reallocation); this about $90K per year; this is really important data for climate projections and future conditions

Context

• Drinking water quality monitoring, availability, aquifer health, drought monitoring critical for public safety and maintenance of water supply and wastewater operations
• Flood warning, emergency management operations, projections for evacuations, road closures and public action all crucial for lives and property
• Shellfish industry monitoring needed to assure public health
• Water quality for recreation, beach closures, water quality warnings, and ultimately property values in water dependent communities based on water quality improvements that are long term data intensive
• Articles that have correct detail:

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/11/open_space_ballot_question_passes_but_threatens_other_

environmental_programs_advocates_say.html#incart_river

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/14/09/30/ballot-question-to-preserve-open-space-could-hurt-more- than-it-helps/

NJGWS Water Monitoring Networks FY2015 CBT Funding

Seven ambient water monitoring networks and projects in New Jersey are supported by annual CBT state funding of over $1.3M to the New Jersey Geological & Water Survey (NJGWS) and the Water Monitoring Management program (WMM). These are: Stream Gauging, Ground and Surface Water Quality, Ground Water Levels, Coastal Plain Synoptic, Drought Monitoring and Precipitation Mesonet. Networks are cooperatively operated with match funding of $1.3M from the US Geological Survey (USGS).

Network Descriptions and Costs

The Stream Gauging network collects continuous stage and discharge data at 67 stations and low flow data at 45 stations for water supply, watershed management, waste load allocation, site evaluations, floods, droughts and fish & wildlife management. FY2015 NJGWS & WMM funding from CBT is $310K and USGS match is $310K

The Ground and Surface Water Quality networks collects ground water quality information at 150 wells and 114 stream stations statewide and provides information for water resource planning & allocation, watershed management, land use impacts, pollution sources and fish & wildlife management. FY2015 NJGWS and WMM funding from CBT is $363K with a USGS match is $586K to CBT & other funding sources.

The Ground Water Level network collects water level data from 168 observation wells in all the major aquifers and provides long-term status and trends on ground water resources. It documents water use influences on these resources for water supply planning and allocations. FY2015 CBT funding is $91K with a USGS match of $178K.

The Coastal Plain Synoptic determines long-term ground water levels and chloride concentrations in approximately 800 wells in the confined aquifers of the New Jersey coastal plain. Data is needed for water supply planning and allocation decisions and serves as an early warning system for salt-water intrusion and overuse of the aquifers. FY2015 CBT funding is $88K with a USGS match of $150K to CBT & other funding.

The Drought Monitoring network uses satellite telemetry, to provide real-time conditions for streams (47) and ground water wells (20). Additional stream low flow measurement stations (35) and continuous ground water well level recorders (19) are also operated. This network provides information statewide on ambient conditions for quick response to drought (or flood) events. FY2015 CBT funding is $138K with USGS match of $70K.

The Mesonet Precipitation Monitoring network provides real-time precipitation information statewide for use in assessing drought (or flood) indicators. FY2015 NJGWS funding from CBT is ~$180K.

Justification for ongoing support of the New Jersey Weather and Climate Network

Prepared by Dr. David Robinson, NJ State Climatologist December 2014

The New Jersey Weather and Climate Network (NJWxNet) is a real-time network of 58 stations from High Point to Cape May. The NJWxNet provides important information to decision makers involved with protecting the health and safety of NJ residents and those involved with managing the infrastructure and commerce of the state. The network contributes to extreme weather monitoring, drought assessment, other water supply issues, fire danger evaluation and general environmental monitoring across the Garden State.

A rich array of environmental data and derived products are associated with air temperature, precipitation, wind speed and direction, barometric pressure, solar radiation, soil temperature and moisture, fuel moisture and temperature, and snow depth. Observations are gathered via cellular communication on a five-minute basis, quality controlled, archived and disseminated via the web in tabular, graphic and map formats (http://njweather.org). There is at least one NJWxNet station in every county, with the exception of Essex and Union, where nearby stations lie within several miles of their borders.

Currently, the NJDEP provides $90,000 of annual support for network operations. DEP funding has been continuous since the early 2000s, when funding assisted in the purchase and installation of some of the network’s first stations. Presently, NJDEP funds cover approximately 30% of network operating expenses. Other funding comes from the National Weather Service and the US Forest Service. In the past, the NJ Office of Emergency Management and NJ Department of Transportation have contributed some support.

During Sandy, a continuous flow of data from no fewer than 80% of the stations at any point during the storm was maintained and available to the Governor and others at the state emergency management headquarters, to local emergency managers, the National Weather Service, the media and the general public. This included stations up and down the coast. Only stations not solar or generator powered were off line.

The NJWxNet is operated at a much lower expense than a number of weather networks in other states. Any loss of support raises the threat of vastly reducing the reliability and even the existence of the network. Jobs would be lost, stations closed, maintenance reduced, and communication limited.

For further information regarding the NJWxNet please contact Dr. David Robinson, NJ State Climatologist and Professor of Geography, Rutgers University at 848-445-4741 or david.robinson@rutgers.edu.

New Jersey Water Monitoring Networks

In order to assess the quantity and quality of the state’s water resources, the State of New Jersey has developed, and maintains, a number of water monitoring networks. The data collected is used by NJDEP as natural resource “vital signs’ that describe the condition of the state’s water resources and also to determine the effectiveness of their resource management programs. The data are also used by water suppliers, the National Weather Service, the USEPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, and many other government agencies, private water companies and industrial water users .

Seven ambient water monitoring networks and projects in New Jersey are supported by annual CBT state funding of over $1.3M. These are: Stream Gaging, Ground Water Levels, Ground and Surface Water Quality, Coastal Plain Synoptic, Drought Monitoring and Precipitation Mesonet. These networks are cooperatively operated and maintained by the US Geological Survey (USGS). The USGS provides federal matching funds of $1.3M annually.

Stream gaging network- This statewide network collects continuous stage and discharge data at 67 stations and low flow data at 45 stations. The NJDEP uses the streamflow data for water supply planning, watershed management, waste load allocation, drought declarations and response, and fish & wildlife management. In addition, the NJDEP uses this network to insure compliance with the Water Allocation Permit program and to establish regulatory limits for the state floodplain management program. FEMA also relies on the stream flow data to maps flood prone areas for the national flood insurance program. The National Weather Service Mid Atlantic River Forecast Center uses the stream gage network to predict flooding. The real time streamflow data is used by state and local emergency management agencies for their flood warning systems and to order evacuations.

Groundwater levels monitoring network –There are 180 wells used by the NJDEP to assess the condition of the groundwater aquifers across New Jersey. Water level data collected at these wells provides long-term status and trends which are used for water supply planning and allocations and to assess the effectiveness of the state groundwater management programs.

Surface and ground water quality networks – The water quality of the streams and rivers in New Jersey are monitored at 80 locations . The data is used by NJDEP to develop an integrated water quality assessment report and determine whether the waters are meeting water quality standards. The state is required to monitor the surface waters of the state to comply with the Federal Clean Water Act and related state statutes.

The water quality of the state’s shallow ground water is monitored at 150 wells. The locations of the monitoring wells are selected to assess the impact of various land use activities on ground water quality. This data allows NJDEP to identify potential threats to human and ecological health from surface and ground water pollution and provides information for water resource planning & allocation, watershed management, and fish & wildlife management.

Coastal Plain Synoptic – This network determines long-term ground water levels and chloride concentrations in approximately 800 wells in the confined aquifers of the New Jersey coastal plain. Data is needed for water supply planning and allocation decisions and serves as an early warning system for salt-water intrusion and overuse of the aquifers.

The Drought monitoring network – This network uses satellite telemetry to provide real- time streamflow conditions at 47 locations and 20 ground water wells . In addition, low flow measurements are taken at 35 stream stations and continuous ground water well levels are collected at another 19 wells. This network provides information statewide on ambient conditions for quick response to drought (or flood) events.

New Jersey Water Monitoring Networks

The Stream Gaging network collects continuous stage and discharge data at 67 stations and low flow data at 45 stations throughout the state of New Jersey.

These monitoring locations are used to assess and manage the state’s water supply. The NJDEP uses the streamflow data to determine the quantity of water available for water supply and to assess the impact of water withdrawals on that supply. The NJDEP regulatory and enforcement programs use the data to insure minimum passing flow requirements are met by water allocation permittees.

Streamflow data is also used for the NJDEP watershed management programs. Specifically, the data is used to determine waste load allocations, which are needed to set pollutant discharge limits for waste water treatment plants and other dischargers.

The NJDEP uses streamflow data to establish ecological limits of hydrologic flow alteration for their fish & wildlife management programs.

Stream flow data is also used by the National Weather Service to forecast floods, and by the NJDEP, FEMA and the US Army Corps of Engineers to establish the boundaries for regulatory floodplains. State and local emergency managers use this information to plan and manage emergency evacuations during flood events

The Ground and Surface Water Quality networks collect water quality data at 150 wells and 114 stream stations statewide.

The data collected from these monitoring sites are essential to determining the impact of various land uses and other pollution sources on the water quality of the state’s surface and ground water resources.

The data are also used to determine which streams and rivers are meeting the state and federal water quality standards and to develop the list of ‘impaired waters’ as required by the federal Clean Water Act . (see attached article)

The surface water quality data is combined with the flow data from the stream gaging network to determine pollutant loads and to establish regulatory Total Maximum Daily Loads ( TMDL’s).

Water quality data is used to assess water quality trends over time which allows NJDEP to determine the effectiveness of water resource planning, permitting and enforcement programs.

The Ground Water Level network collects water level data from 168 observation wells in all the major aquifers throughout the state.

The data from this network provides long-term status and trends on ground water resources. It is also used by the NJDEP water supply planning and water allocation programs to document the impacts of water withdrawals on these resources and on other permitted withdrawals.

The Coastal Plain Synoptic determines long-term ground water levels and chloride concentrations in approximately 800 wells in the confined aquifers of the New Jersey coastal plain. Data is needed for water supply planning and allocation decisions and serves as an early warning system for salt-water intrusion and overuse of the aquifers.

The synoptic groundwater network was used to document declining water levels in aquifers along the coast of New Jersey, which resulted in salt water intrusion that threatens public water supplies from Perth Amboy to Cape May City. This network also documented ground water level declines in Cumberland County that were determined to be caused by excessive ground water pumping in the State of Delaware.

The Drought Monitoring network uses satellite telemetry to provide real-time conditions at 47 stream locations and 20 ground water wells. This network also includes low flow stream measurements at 35 stream locations and 19 continuous ground water well level recorders. This information from this statewide network is essential for determining when drought declarations should be issued, for assessing the effects of drought restrictions and deciding when drought declarations can be terminated.

NJDEP Programmatic impacts

The loss of the CBT funds for these NJDEP water monitoring networks could also result in the loss of federal matching funds. In FY 14 the United States Geological Survey provided approximately $1.3 million to support the NJDEP networks. Without the CBT funds, these federal matching funds would be in jeopardy.

The loss of the CBT funding may also affect staffing levels in the NJDEP water resource programs. A total of 123 NJDEP positions in their water resource programs are funded by the CBT. These programs include the New Jersey Geologic and Water Survey, the Bureau of Water Quality Standards and Assessment, the Bureau of Freshwater and Biological Monitoring, and the Water Quality Management Planning Program.

The loss of these positions could adversely affect a number of critical NJDEP water resource programs, including the watershed characterization and management initiative which is assessing the status of the state’s ground-water resources. This initiative requires knowing the geologic and hydrologic properties of a watershed. The New Jersey Geologic and Water Survey contributes essential information for the characterization process including the location, extent, and productivity of aquifers, the distribution and rates of ground-water recharge, data on ground-water quality, and the amount of ground- water discharge to surface streams (base flow).

The Survey also analyzes and reviews hydrogeologic reports submitted in support of water supply diversion applications for the Water Allocations, provides input to Well Permitting on the drilling, abandonment and sealing of wells penetrating multiple aquifers and maintains and updates geologic and hydrologic databases used by Water Supply and DEP permit applicants. In addition, the Survey conducts regional water resource assessments and regional ground water models required by the 1981 Water Bond Act and provides geologic & hydrologic information to the regulated community for locating high capacity industrial and municipal wells.

The Bureau of Freshwater and Biological Monitoring is responsible for monitoring the ambient conditions of the state’s fresh and ground water resources. The data collected is used to assess the water quality of the state’s water resources.

The Bureau of Water Quality Standards and Assessment (BWQSA) is responsible for the development, adoption, and administration of New Jersey’s surface and ground water quality standards. BWQSA is also responsible for conducting and coordinating water quality assessments of all waters of the State, including assessment of data collected by other agencies and watershed associations (e.g., regional and local government agencies and volunteer monitoring organizations). These assessments are reported through the New Jersey Water Quality and Assessment Integrated Reports.

The Integrated Reports are intended to provide effective tools for maintaining high quality waters and improving the quality of waters that do not attain their designated uses (i.e., contain impaired waterbodies). The Integrated Reports describe attainment of the designated uses of surface waters of the State, as specified in the New Jersey Surface Water Quality Standards (N.J.A.C. 7:9B), which include: aquatic life, recreation, drinking water, fish consumption, shellfish consumption, industrial and agricultural. In addition to identifying impaired waterbodies, the Integrated Reports identify subwatersheds where there is no water quality impairment, i.e., all designated uses are attained.

The primary purpose of the Water Quality Management Planning Program is to establish policies, procedures, and standards which were developed to restore, enhance and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters of the State. Attainment of the water quality standards is essential to protect public health, to safeguard fish and aquatic life and scenic and ecological values, and to enhance the domestic, municipal, recreational, industrial and other uses of water.

Water Monitoring Fact Sheet

ACWA Annual Meeting – August 4-7, 2013
Roundtable 3 – Monitoring Program Adaptations: Criteria and More

1. Clean Water Act (CWA) Monitoring Objectives

Monitoring is a core water program. Congress recognized monitoring as the foundation for Clean Water Act implementation when making it one of two eligibility requirements for states receiving 106 grants. The other eligibility requirement is enforcement authority.

CWA Monitoring Objectives include:

• Establishing, reviewing, and revising water quality standards (Section 303(c)).
• Reporting on the extent of waters that support the goals of the Act, and determining water quality standards attainment (Section 305(b), 314, 205).
• Identifying impaired waters (Section 303(d)).
• Identifying causes and sources of water quality impairments (Sections 303(d), 305(b), 319, 205, 604). Supporting the implementation of water management programs
• Water quality based permits reflecting receiving water characteristics and assimilative capacity (Section 402).
• TMDL models using ambient data to develop and validate load estimates (Section 303(d))
• Watershed Plans, including source water protection plans
  Supporting the evaluation of program effectiveness (Sections 303, 305, 402, 314, 319, etc.).

Additional Monitoring Objectives include:

• BMP effectiveness monitoring
• Emergency response needs baseline data, quick response hazard assessment, and long- term impact assessment (e.g., BP spill, TVA coal ash, Hurricane Sandy, etc.)

2. Key Questions Answered by Monitoring

A State monitoring program that meets CWA objectives should be able to answer the questions below for the different water types (e.g., rivers, lakes, estuaries)and water uses (e.g., recreational, aquatic life). Different monitoring designs may be needed to answer different questions, or to assess various types of criteria.

• What is the overall quality of waters in the State?
• To what extent is water quality changing over time?
• What are the problem areas and areas needing protection?
• What level of protection is needed and how do we achieve that through point and nonpoint controls?
• What are the most effective monitoring and assessment indicators to track progress?
• How effective are clean water projects and programs at protecting and restoring water quality?

3. Programs and Functions Which Depend on Monitoring include:

• Assessment & Listing – CWA 303(d) and 305(b)
• Water Quality Standards
• NPDES Permits
• TMDLs and Modeling
• Watershed Protection/Restoration
• BMP Effectiveness
• Source Water Protection
• Fish and Shellfish Consumption Advisories
• Compliance & Enforcement
• Emergency Response

4. State Long-term Water Monitoring Strategies

All states develop and maintain a monitoring strategy that describes how monitoring objectives are or would be met, and the resources needed for implementation (Elements of a State Monitoring and Reporting Program, EPA, 2003). For each water type, these plans include: objectives, designs, indicators, quality assurance, data management, analysis and assessment, reporting, resources and infrastructure, and programmatic evaluation.

The State strategies identify monitoring gaps, help States set monitoring priorities, and guide program enhancement funding from the 106 Monitoring Initiative Grant. Examples of funded enhancements include new State lab capacities, fish tissue monitoring, data management, new biological monitoring protocols and index development. Some states have used the strategies, and the identification of monitoring gaps, to secure additional monitoring funding through State legislative mandates.

5. Potential Funding Sources for State monitoring programs include:
   • CWA 106 base grant – Water Pollution Control Programs
   • CWA 319 grant – Non–point source program
   • CWA 604 grant – Water Quality Management Planning
   • BEACH grant (available at least through FFY14)
   • CWA 106 Monitoring Initiative – For monitoring gaps/enhancements
   • State General Funds
   • State Permitting Fees
   • State Dedicated Funds (e.g., Watershed, Water Monitoring)
   • Leverage Partner Resources – government (federal, interstate, local), private, nonprofit & volunteer
6. Water Monitoring Councils Assist with Monitoring Challenges
   • Through communication, collaboration & coordination, Councils improve water quality through development of partnerships, sharing data and promoting the efficient use of resources
   • The National Water Quality Monitoring Council (NWQMC), co-chaired by EPA and USGS, includes 10 state representatives and > 40 members from many types of organizations
   • Water resource management in 18 States/Regions is benefitting from the partnerships and data exchange developed through their Water Monitoring Councils
   • State Water Monitoring Councils include: CA, CO, FL, IN, MD, MI, NJ, ND, OH, OK, UT, VA, WI National Water Quality Monitoring Council

EPA Finalizes List of Polluted Water Bodies in New Jersey

PCBs, Arsenic, and Phosphorus are Most Common Pollutants

Contact: John Martin, (212) 637-3662, martin.johnj@epa.gov

(New York, N.Y. – October 24, 2014) From Raritan Bay to the Maurice River in Cumberland County, New Jersey continues to struggle with meeting federal water standards. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has approved the 2012 list of waters in New Jersey that are considered either impaired or threatened by pollutants. An impaired water body does not meet federally- approved water quality standards even after pollution controls have been put in place. A threatened water body is expected to be impaired within two years. The list helps establish regulatory priorities for addressing threats from water pollution.

“Identifying and prioritizing the state’s most seriously polluted waters are important steps in the effort to reduce water pollution,” said Judith Enck, EPA Regional Administrator. “Since the Clean Water Act was adopted, water quality in New Jersey’s rivers, lakes and streams has improved, but we still have a very long way to go. By investing in infrastructure and by implementing green infrastructure to control stormwater runoff, communities throughout New Jersey can improve water quality. Also, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection is tackling a decades-old problem by putting in place more stringent regulatory controls at combined sewage outfalls in the Camden and NY/NJ harbor areas. As New Jersey finalizes and fully implements these permits, we expect to see improvements in water quality.”

The most common pollutants causing impairment in New Jersey water bodies includepolychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (14% of impairments), arsenic (13%), phosphorus (9%), and low dissolved oxygen (8%). New Jersey’s 2012 list identifies 1770 instances in which a pollutant is causing an impairment of a water body that keeps it from supporting its “designated use” for drinking water, swimming and recreation, fishing or other activities specified by the state. Seventeen water body/pollutant combinations that were on New Jersey’s impaired waters list in 2010 were not included in the 2012 list, in many cases due to the work of state and local government agencies and local community groups to improve water quality.

The list notes the most common sources of water pollutants, which include urban/stormwater runoff, combined sewer overflows from systems that capture both domestic sewage and stormwater, and air pollution. A pollutant may come from more than one source.

The Clean Water Act requires states to assess the quality of their waters and to report their findings to the EPA every two years. The list is compiled by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and is a valuable tool for reaching the Clean Water Act goal of “fishable and swimmable” waters for all of New Jersey.

The list specifically includes impaired waters for which the development of budgets for the amount of water pollution allowed is necessary. The budgets define the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards. They are developed by states and approved by the EPA once the agency determines that the budget will allow the water body to achieve water quality standards.

I was planning to fix and re-write part 3 of our Pipe Dream series this morning before heading off to Trenton, but the snow has wiped out the Legislature’s hearings and my focus has been diverted by former DEP Commissioner Brad Campbell’s explosive NY Times Op-Ed, the expanding Exxon scandal, and today’s NJ Spotlight poll on the Pinelands pipeline, which I am compelled to make a few comments on.

• Political Posturing – Democrats in High Dudgeon

Senator Sweeney has pledged to kill the Christie Exxon Dirty Deal.

While of course I am pleased by that, I have to note that there is a lot of posturing going on here. Once again, the Democrats are getting a pass and are playing environmentalists and media (praise and cover coming just at a time when Sweeney was taking a lot of heat on his Pinelands abuse, Smith on Open Space funding, Prieto on Liberty State Park development, and Campbell on the Ferriero corruption trial ).

1) Senate President Sweeney, Senate Environmental Committee Chairman Smith, & Senator Lesniak all did nothing for YEARS as some of us were warning – repeatedly – that the DEP NRD program needed to be beefed up by regulations and stronger enforcement. We even petitioned the Christie Comptroller to investigate what we correctly saw as a huge multi-million taxpayer ripoff and giveaway to polluters:

PEER is asking the Comptroller to review the performance of the NRD, determine the extent to which taxpayers are not attaining full NRD recoveries and make recommendations for putting the program back on track in a more transparent and accountable fashion.

We got crickets on all that.

In contrast, the State Chamber of Commerce as not shy about their concern in opposing NRD – so the inaction by Legislators to strengthen the NRD program effectively promoted the Chamber’s agenda to minimize NRD liability. As they framed that concern in a 2008 legislative hearing on key priorities:

We have to keep in mind, at the same time, the challenges that are before us. As we go away from the pristine parcels of land and start to develop in those areas, there are challenges of developers with regard to natural resource damages, permit delays, environmental justice, and other litany of issues.

2) They all did not block the $50 million cap in last year’s budget language;

3) Regardless, legally, the $50 million cap would have been over-ridden by the November 2014 voter approval of the Constitutional Open Space ballot, but Senator Smith amended his SCR84 to delete NRD settlements as one of the dedicated revenues sources.

As we’ve written several times now, dedication of NRD settlement revenue was included in the introduced version of the SCR84, (lines 31-35 on page 3), but that was OPPOSED by NJ Keep It Green Coalition (what we have called on of the biggest blunders of all time.

How’s that opposition to NRD dedication looking now? After the loss of $140 million on the Passaic settlement and at least $200 million in Exxon deal? That $340 million is more than 4 YEARS of funding from your paltry deal you struck on Open Space (about $80 million this year). HECKOFAJOB!

• Former DEP Commissioner Campbell”s explosive NY Times Op-Ed

Brad Campbell, DEP Commissioner 2002 – 2006

Brad Campbell has a killer Op-Ed running in the NY Times today. It was so strong, it has spawned a news story as well.

Of course, in his legitimate focus on the Christie corrupt political intervention, Campbell conveniently omits the policy problems we have brought to the fore, that continue to be ignored in the bright light of the growing scandal.

Ironically, even Gov. Christie’s Transition Report on DEP included the same recommendation we have advocated on the need for NRD regulations:

With respect to the State’s efforts to seek compensation for damages to natural resources (NRD), we recommend that NRD efforts fall under the jurisdiction of the Site Remediation Program, and that rules be adopted to provide transparency, certainty and consistency in the assessment of those damages.

And blowing our own horn: We were the first to report Brad Campbell’s role in expanding the NRD program and the fact that the deal was likely leaked by career professionals in DEP or the AG’s Office, a fact Campbell confirmed today in a NY Times Op-Ed.

On Monday, 3/2/15, we wrote:

The settlement was apparently leaked to the NY Times, who ran a huge story on Friday. I assume it was leaked by some one from DEP or the AG’s Office who was outraged by the sellout.

Today, confirming that, Campbell wrote:

Former colleagues of mine in state government, where I served as commissioner of environmental protection from 2002 to 2006, have told me that Mr. Christie’s chief counsel inserted himself into the case, elbowed aside the attorney general and career employees who had developed and prosecuted the litigation, and cut the deal favorable to Exxon.

Finally, while I’ve given him strong praise for vastly expanding a moribund NRD program that was on life support under the Whitman DEP, of course Campbell is guilty of the same kind of compromises and dirty deals he criticizes. (See: A new Green Deal for the City of Linden – where I discuss some aspects of this and how NRD settlement revenues could anchor renewal).

One NRD settlement in particular, i.e. the Dupont statewide NRD settlement, where not only did Dupont get a deal worth pennies on the dollar, they also donated contaminated land to the State: (see: Dupont Deal Gave State More tainted Soil, Bergen Record 12/6/10)

Bill Wolfe of the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility’s New Jersey chapter agreed. “DuPont got a sweetheart deal and DEP didn’t do their homework,” Wolfe said. “The deal must be renegotiated and DuPont forced to pay fair compensation, especially to Pompton Lakes residents who have suffered for decades.”

Bradley M. Campbell, an environmental lawyer with offices in Trenton and Washington, was the state Department of Environmental Protection commissioner at the time of the agreement with DuPont. Asked why such a settlement included property that was polluted, Campbell said he didn’t think any of the settlement property was contaminated.

[* full disclosure: I was hired by Campbell in 2002 and worked for him from 2002-2004.

• Spotlight Poll on Pinelands Pipeline

I see these silly reader polls in increasing frequency in the brain dead media, so I’m not exactly enthused to see them at Spotlight.

It is so obvious that they are designed to polarize and stoke debates in a desperate attempt to attract readers and clicks.

But Spotlight does those things in their own unique way, typically with a more intelligent framing of the issues and a broader range of choices.

But stil, the poll becomes a way to propagate arguments,  spin issues, and mislead readers without taking any responsibility for the argument that is framed in the polled question.

Today’s poll does that by regurgitating some pipeline industry arguments as the first two questions, while at the same time leaving out of valid anti-pipeline arguments that could be framed as poll questions.

That is unworthy of Spotlight. Those kind of games are beneath Spotlight and if Spotlight wants to make policy arguments, then they should write them down in an editorial and not hide behind them in poll questions.

Which takes me to the two best arguments for opposing gas pipelines that were not even mentioned in the poll, which I would frame thusly:

• Pipelines and fracked natural gas provide no new manufacturing jobs and only a handful of temporary short term construction jobs. NJ already has far more gas pipeline capacity than the state consumes. The costs far exceed the benefits

• The planet is approaching irreversible tipping points for runaway climate change that would destroy civilization as we know it. We must stop all extraction of fossil fuels and investments in fossil infrastructure and make a rapid transition to renewable energy.

Poll that!

NJ Falling Further Behind on the Jobs Front –

Missing Strategic Manufacturing Opportunities 

No Vision, No Leadership On Energy & Economic Development

US Pipe plant, closed (Burlington, NJ)

Like almost everything else in the US and world economy, NJ was once a pioneer in pipe manufacturing.

Not any more.

Like so many industries NJ pioneered, shortsighted corporate profit driven decisions and failure to innovate and invest led to decline and obsolescence (and export of US jobs to third world countries where corporations could exploit labor and the environment with impunity, a well documented process that began over 40 years ago, known as “deindustrialization“, which would later become known as “global trade” and “financialization”.

That process has created what Chris Hedges calls “sacrifice zones”. Neoclassical economists, in contrast, call this the “creative destruction” of capitalism. Marxists economists describe the process as revealing the contradictions of capitalism. Economic historian Karl Polanyi lays out the dynamic and framework in his classic 1944 book as The Great Transformation).

A symbol of this failure, the closed US Pipe plant on the Delaware dates to 1866 –  those mothballed industrial sites are now producing more tourism revenue than manufacturing revenue, see:

• U.S. Pipe Closing New Jersey Plant – (historical plant overview)
• Griffin Pipe

The decline is not limited to 19th century heavy industrial manufacturing technologies –

A recent NJ Department of Labor report titled:  New Jersey’s Advanced Manufacturing Cluster Winter 2014 – 2015  focuses on so called “advanced manufacturing”. The report paints a shockingly dismal picture:

New Jersey’s manufacturing sector averaged marginal growth of 0.3 percent per year from 1997 through 2008, but tumbled to decline by an annual average of 5.1 percent from 2008 through 2013    

(Source: NJ Dept. Of Labor)

Look at that chart – at that NJ jobs gray line dropping like a stone – it is astonishing!

Repeat: under Gov. Christie, NJ’s “advanced manufacturing” sector “tumbled to decline by an annual average of 5.1 percent from 2008 through 2013″. 

Last month, Senate President Sweeney seemed to show an inkling of strategic understanding of this set of challenges.

During a Senate Environment Committee hearing, Sweeney emphasized that he had done his homework and strongly supported off shore wind development based on the number of manufacturing jobs it could produce in NJ.

Sweeney began the discussion of a pro-wind bill, S-2711 after 4 years of inaction by the Christie Administration. Sweeney had some strong words (verbatim remarks by Sweeney):

In March 2011, BPU was supposed to publish the wind regulations. The  fact that the BPU has not published regulations is a clear statement from the Administration that they’re opposed to wind energy, at the cost of the economy of the state of NJ.

We would have captured 1,000 manufacturing jobs in this industry. We were so far ahead of other states, up and down the east coast.

Gov. Christie’s failure to follow through on off shore wind development cost NJ over 1,000 good manufacturing jobs.

The Gov.’s diversion of $1 billion of Clean Energy Funds has cost thousands more good paying contractor and trade union jobs.

So, given those failures in wind, clean energy, and advanced manufacturing, what is Sweeney focusing his political energies and investing his political capital on?

A handful of temporary construction jobs installing another natural gas pipeline, though the Pinelands, no less.

Senate President Sweeney recently defended his role – in what the Asbury Park Press editorial Board called ” a new low in sleaziness” – in support of the South Jersey Gas Co. pipeline through the Pinelands, see:

Sweeney defends role in Pinelands Commission flap

NEPTUNE – Senate President Stephen Sweeney and Gov. Chris Christie have had some famous disagreements, but not over Christie’s pick for a seat on the Pinelands Commission.

Sweeney, D-Gloucester, says he has no apologies for actions he took that led to the Senate Judiciary Committee approving Ocean City resident Robert Barr in an 8-4-1 vote Tuesday. […]

“I am in favor of the pipeline, I absolutely am. I’m not backing away from that,’’ Sweeney said. “I’m not against the Pinelands. I want to save the jobs.’’ […]

Sweeney said the Pinelands will be fine if developer South Jersey Gas wins final approval because the company’s application is laden with beefed-up environmental standards.

“I had South Jersey Gas jump through hurdles, and for one reason: They’re going to make a lot of money selling gas,’’ Sweeney said.

So, Senator Sweeney,  it’s jobs, eh?

Or is it the corporate profits?

Or is it really all about the “hurdles” SJG jumped through (a euphemisms for campaign contribution shakedowns? Kickbacks?)?

• False Promise On Jobs

First, let’s take a look at the jobs claims.

A recent Report by the Chair of the Department of City and Regional Planning Department at Cornell (the program I attended) about the job creation associated with fracking is instructive for looking at the economic geography of the pipeline industry as well, see: The false promise of fracking and local jobs

But opening the door to fracking doesn’t lead to the across-the-board economic boon most people assume. We need to consider where oil and gas industry jobs are created and who benefits from the considerable investments that make shale development possible. A look at the job numbers gives us a much better idea of what kind of economic boost comes with fracking, how its economic benefits are distributed and why both can be easily misunderstood.

The Cornell Report concludes that: 1) far fewer jobs are created than claimed by industry and their paid cheerleaders; 2) there is little impact on the in-state unemployment rate; and 3) there are small in-state economic benefits.

Ironically, literally adding insult to injury, the Report concludes that the majority of the few good jobs that are created by fracking primarily benefit Texas not the Marcellus shale states where the drilling is occurring that suffer all the public health and environmental impacts and public health risks & harms:

This [data] tells us that the production sites aren’t necessarily the places that get the economic boost. The most skilled workers on drilling crews are from Texas and Oklahoma and they return home to spend their earnings. 

So, how many NJ based jobs would the SJG Pinelands pipeline create and how are this jobs and economic benefits distributed?

What jobs and economic benefits does NJ receive? Are they commensurate with the costs? Who wins, who loses?

Pipeline supporter Senator Van Drew (D-Cape May) estimates that the pipeline would create just 75 temporary construction jobs and retaining 60 jobs at BL England plant (Cape May Herald).

A recent Rutgers University econometric Report suggests somewhat larger job creation.

(And don’t think I didn’t notice how Rutgers is touting job creation associated with fossil infrastructure, while Cornell is critiquing and demolishing fossil energy industry jobs and economic claims – could that be related to energy industry contributions to Rutgers? – Good questions for another day!)

The pipeline would cost about $100 million and the BL England plant re-powering about $400 million. So this is a $500 million investment that would be paid for by NJ residents and businesses.

What benefits would NJ get for that significant investment?

No new manufacturing jobs would be created in this $500 million pipeline and power plant project.

That is virtually no return on a massive investment that NJ ratepayers will finance.

In terms of retaining existing jobs, that is an incredibly tiny jobs to investment ratio: a cost of some $8.3 million per job retained!

And just like fracking, the good manufacturing jobs are located in Texas and Louisiana –

According to US Economic Census data, Texas is #1 in pipe manufacturing jobs and Louisiana #2, with over 10,000 jobs. 

Meanwhile, NJ pipe manufacturing jobs are hardly visible – just 250 – 499 jobs at 18 NJ plants, with just 4 of this plants employing more than 20 workers.

According to the NY Times, the steel manufacturing jobs from all the fracking and pipeline expansions are  few, and they are located in Ohio steel mills. Few new additional jobs are projected due to heavy automation:

In Canton, Timken executives said they expected to complete the Faircrest mill’s additions by 2014, and production will increase to 925,000 tons annually from 750,000 tons this year. Mr. Miraglia said 425 people worked at the plant and that automation in the new buildings most likely meant that few if any jobs would be added.

So, what does all this tell us?

1) There is virtually no real strategic economic development or energy planning going on in NJ State Government.

Instead, there are Pipe Dreams and “new lows in sleaziness”.

2) What little economic development policy there is is reactionary and limited to costly and ineffective corporate subsidies that reflect no larger strategic vision.

Energy policy is driven by existing fossil fuel dominated producers and distributors and the narrow and blinkered policies of ratepayer concerns.

3) We are missing huge opportunities to develop good manufacturing and construction jobs in energy efficiency and renewable nervy industries.

4) In addition to fatal failure to focus on jobs and economic development using long standing traditional methodologies and policy tools, the climate change imperative and existing economic tools like the social costs of carbon are completely ignored.

5) Therefore, it seems apparent to me that the supporters of alternative energy also are missing opportunities to make effective economic development arguments and to critique the aforementioned flaws.

Corps Denies Public Hearing Request

Federal Agencies Ignore Obama Climate Adaptation Policy for Vulnerable Coastal Plant

BL England plant circled in red. Areas in yellow are flood risk areas based on FEMA flood hazard maps plus the most conservative estimate of sea level rise (0.3 feet by 2050). The entire BL England plant is within this flood zone. (Source: Pinelands Preservation Alliance, link below)

The US Army Corps of Engineers, in a Friday afternoon move designed to minimize news coverage, issued a final dredging permit for the controversial BL England power plant in Upper Township, NJ.

The purpose of the permit is:

R.C. Cape May Holdings, LLC proposal [is] to perform hydraulic maintenance dredging to the B.L. England Generation Plant’s intake and outfall located in Great Egg Harbor Bay at Upper Township, Cape May County, New Jersey. The applicant’s stated purpose and need for the proposed work is to ensure an adequate supply of condenser cooling water for the intake, to avoid sediment re-suspension at the outflow and to ensure an adequate mixing regime for thermal discharge. A ten year maintenance permit is being requested for the proposed activities.

We learned of this draft permit very late in the process and were able to submit only cursory general comments, which is the main reason why we asked for an extension of the public comment period (for our comments, see):

• US Army Corps of Engineers Proposes Draft Dredging Permit for Controversial BL England Plant

Our requests strictly followed the criteria in NJ DEP rules to justify an extension or a request for public hearing. The Corps denied that extension request.

The Corps also denied our request to hold a public hearing, but provided no rationale for either denial. I am not familiar with the Corps rules and the basis for reviewing such requests, but the Corps seems to have just blown the requests off with no basis stated.

But none of that comes as a surprise, as the Corps is not generally perceived to be enthusiastic about dealing with environmental critics in public hearings.

But, what I was surprised by – perhaps because I have little experience in dealing with the Corps permit process – was how the Corps’ decision completely ignored President Obama’s Climate Adaptation Policy, issued on Nov. 1, 2013, so it was binding on the Corps, see:

• Executive Order — Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change

More recently, that Nov. 1, 2013 Obama Executive Order was expanded upon by a January 30, 2015 Order, see:

• Executive Order – Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a Process for Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input

The new Order included a proposed new Federal Flood Risk Management Standard that would require federal agencies to select one of three approaches for establishing the flood elevation and hazard area they use in siting, design, and construction:

• Use data and methods informed by best-available, actionable climate science;
• Build two feet above the 100-year (1%-annual-chance) flood elevation for standard projects, and three feet above for critical buildings like hospitals and evacuation centers; or
• Build to the 500-year (0.2%-annual-chance) flood elevation.

I wonder if the BL England intake structures, facility, and dredging plans – or the Corps permit – consider these standards?

The Pinelands Preservation Allaince prepared an analysis of the vulnerability of the BL England plant in terms of sea level rise and storm surge. Maps that show portions of the BL England site as within the flood elevations –

In our comments, we wrote:

3) the plant is located in a coastal hazard zone and is vulnerable to climate change driven sea level rise and storm surge. The issue of coastal vulnerability and all forms of energy and critical infrastructure is a hugely controversial and significant issue to the people of NJ.

Even though the new Federal Flood Risk Management Standard is not legally in effect yet, the Corps had an obligation, under the prior Obama 2013 Executive Order, to consider these kind of climate change vulnerabilities and risks.

Without discussion, the Corps dismissed them, and they spread the blame and pointed fingers at their sister federal agencies for ignoring them too:

No objections to the issuance of this permit were received from other Federal resource agencies (United States Environmental Protection Agency, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service and the National Park Service) concerning the effects of the proposed work on resources within their jurisdictions.

So, the entire federal government simply ignored President Obama’s Executive Order on adaptation to climate change – an Order that they are legally bound to implement.

And they did this just at the time Obama issued another Order and proposed new Federal Flood Risk Management Standards.

This is not a minor oversight. Will they be held accountable?