WolfeNotes.com

Plan Developed By Private Consultant Behind Closed Doors 

Public Comments Will Be Ignored

With this increase in frequency of precipitation, New Jersey may experience more flooding events. More intense, frequent flooding could lead to significant habitat loss for wildlife. Salt marshes and estuaries that serve as critical feeding grounds for birds and waterfowl, and as nursery habitats for commercial fish, could be lost (State of New Jersey 2010). Future climate change may also lead to sea level rise which could lead to more frequent and extensive flooding. See Section 5.2 (Coastal Erosion) for detailed information regarding sea level rise (NJDEP 2013c).

[Update: 3/22/14 – National media coverage, but none so far in NJ:

• Mother Jones:  Watchdog: Chris Christie’s Post-Sandy Proposal for Federal Funds Is “a Contradictory Mess”

• Huffington Post:  Chris Christie’s State Agencies Are Worried About Climate Change, Even If He Isn’t – end update].

The Christie Administration quietly posted its first post-Sandy Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) on the Office of Emergency Management website last week – there were no press releases, Town Hall topics, or ribbon cutting ceremonies touting the Plan.

[The Plan was developed with no public outreach or participation (see “Plan Development” section), and the version submitted to FEMA will not consider public comment, according to an official OEM spokesperson.]

The HMP is federally mandated as a condition of receiving federal disaster assistance funding.

Despite the extent of Sandy devastation and scientific consensus on climate change and sea level rise, the Plan plays lip service to real hazard mitigation efforts to reduce vulnerabilities and risks of sea level rise and climate change driven extreme weather events.

Consider the figure above on heavy precipitation events (they lead to floods) as a perfect example of how the HMP plays lip service to the risks of climate change. Existing data shows a trend of more frequent and heavy rainfall events. Climate change is predicted to increase the frequency and severity of heavy precipitation even more, leading to more and worse flooding.

Yet despite existing data and climate change projections, the Plan proposes no measures to mitigate flood risks in response to this science – like updating inland river flood maps, or increasing flood elevations, or increasing building design requirements (2-3 feet of freeboard instead of just 1), or limiting development, or using the more conservative 500 year flood event instead of the 100 year event.

[NJ’s inland river flood maps are 30+ years old and Christie DEP has opposed legislation that would mandate that DEP update them. The HMP does nothing to “mitigate” that set of problems!]

The Plan also is full of contradictions and flaws – here’s a map of my favorite.

This map shows the the portion of the barrier island in Mantoloking as a “low”susceptibility – or  risk – for erosion from sea level rise and storm surge – the exact location where storm surge cut the barrier island and wiped out Rt 35 and the bridge across Barnegat Bay! LOOK!

Here is what that “low” susceptibility location looked like after Sandy:

Read the complete story and get links to the documents below, from out friends at PEER:

Press Release

For Immediate Release:  Thursday, March 20, 2014

Contact:  Bill Wolfe (609) 397-4861; Kirsten Stade (202) 265-7337

Christie Sandy Hazard Reduction Plan a Contradictory Mess

No Public Input or Legislative Review of Belated Plan to Qualify for Federal Funds

Trenton — The Christie administration has posted a sprawling post-Sandy Hazard Mitigation Plan which conflicts with its own announced projects, ignores known threats, and contains numerous flaws, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), which is calling for legislative oversight hearings.  Required as a prerequisite for significant federal infrastructure aid, the plan was prepared by a private consultant with no outside review.

All states must have a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-approved hazard mitigation plan to be eligible for disaster recovery assistance and mitigation funding.  Although it is due by the end of March, New Jersey did not release its Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) until last week.  Even a cursory review suggests a number of fundamental flaws, including:

• The plan condemns the hard anchoring of seawalls, jetties and groins as exacerbating coastal erosion, but New Jersey is already building those “hardening” projects on eroding coastal stretches, such as the $40 million steel seawall to “protect” the $265 million reconstruction of highly vulnerable Rt. 35 which was washed out by Sandy storm surge;

• While finally acknowledging the reality of climate induced sea-level rise, it offers no plan to address flooding that will inundate some of the most populous Jersey Shore stretches, including severe back bay flooding along Barnegat and Raritan Bays, the areas hardest hit by Sandy. A Rutgers professor has called back bay flooding “New Jersey’s Achilles heel”; and

• The plan is studded with obligatory references to scientific findings on the effects of climate change but does not integrate that science into state planning or changes in building codes, project designs, regulations or plans to spend billions of federal aid dollars.

“This plan reads like it was put together at the last minute by a sleep-deprived college student furiously cutting and pasting regardless of whether it is coherent,” stated New Jersey PEER Director Bill Wolfe, noting, for example, that the report touts the role of the Office of Coastal Management in the DEP Commissioner’s Office which no longer exists after Gov. Christie abolished it.

“In order to qualify for federal funds, the Christie administration is forced to give lavish lip service to climate change but its rhetoric is disconnected from its actual plans.”

Similar deficiencies have prompted the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) Office of Inspector General to expand its audit and enforcement efforts on New Jersey’s plan for spending nearly $1.5 billion in federal reconstruction aid, partly in response to a PEER complaint.  In addition, the state’s muddled criteria for distributing energy infrastructure grants to municipalities, where certain cities like Hoboken, were mysteriously shortchanged, has a separate legislative investigation.

The last-minute nature of this latest state plan has also precluded legislative or other outside scrutiny:

• The state is soliciting public comments by April 11, nearly two weeks after the plan will have been submitted to FEMA;
• Nor was any public hearings or outreach to solicit public input in developing the plan; and
• The planning was outsourced to a private consultant who conducted invitation-only meetings.

“What is the point of soliciting public comment that will be utterly ignored?” Wolfe asked, pointing out that the same small band of officials and consultants who dragged out these previous plans that are now under question are at work here.  “The process employed here typifies governing style that is hyper-politicized, fiercely insular and ultimately utterly ineffective.”

###

See the New Jersey Hazard Mitigation Plan

View sampling of errors on the HMP 

Look at HUD expanded oversight of New Jersey plans

Examine problems with state’s allocations of emergency energy grants

Revisit Christie inability to admit climate change effects

#

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

Commission Approves 5% Salary Increase for Staff

Reviews Electric Utility ROW Management Program

Will Upcoming CMP Plan Review Incorporate Lessons from Pipeline Battle?

[Update below]

I went down to the listen in on the Pinelands Commission’s March meeting on Friday. I wanted to gauge the mood and assess where the Commission is at in the wake of the bruising South Jersey Gas Co. pipeline battle.

Some, including Cape May Senator Jeff Van Drew and SJG, apparently have not given up and are waging a rearguard action to reconsider the pipeline project, so diligence is warranted.

I was not intending to speak, but after listening to the staff presentations and public comment, I decided to offer a few suggestions for going forward. Here’s a few things I heard and what I said:

• Salary increase for staff

The Commission is understaffed, has unfilled vacancies, and the existing staff are under-paid. That set of issues exploded during a September 13, 2013 presentation by Communications Workers of America – I wrote about that in this post.

Pinelands professional positions are not paid as well as similar professional work in DEP, staff have not had a raise in several years, and staff have been forced to increase contributions to health care and retirement plans, so a raise is long overdue.

Well, it looks like some good came out of that because the Commission finally agreed to give staff a 5% raise – but, the Resolution was unclear about whether that 5% was for salary, or for salary and benefits. Regardless, it does not make up for lower base salaries, a pay freeze, and increased contributions to benefit plans.

• Vegetative Management Plan in Electric Utility Right of Way

The science program presented its Review of the Utility Right of Way Vegetation Management Plan (for a program overview, see this).

For the 2010 – 2012 Progress Report, see this.

It was painful to look at the pictures of the ROW cuts through the forest.

The Progress Report shows that there are serious non-compliance issues with respect to wetlands:

The remaining approximately 24% of the 1,141 spans managed over this three- year period had a prescription that called for trees to be cut manually. This prescription is required in wetlands where forest or tree sprouts occur in the ROW. Mowing is not permitted in spans with this prescription. This prescription appears to be the most challenging for the utility companies to conduct due to the increased manpower needed and difficulty accessing these wetland spans without special vehicles and equipment. Of the 3,041 total Pinelands Area spans, 642 spans, or 21%, have a “cut trees manually” prescription. As discussed in the individual year summaries, not following this prescription, either by mowing or by using vehicles to cut, or assist in the cutting of vegetation, was a problem in all three years.

In addition, the overall program seems narrowly focused on the land area in the ROW. That narrow focus seems to be preventing a broader  assessment of the impacts of the ROW disturbance (and maintenance activities) on Pinelands resources and forest health.

I suggested that the Commission consider developing that kind of scientific assessment and beef up wetlands enforcement. Perhaps utilities should be required to pay for the scientific assessment and to restore existing degraded ROW lands and mitigate impacts of ROW on forest and other Pinelands resources, including public access and visual impacts.

On the positive side, Emile DeVito PhD just advised that the Pinelands ROW plan does not allow use of toxic herbicides:

As you probably know, they are using vast amounts of herbicide in the rest of NJ, even in the preservation zone of the Highlands. In these places outside the Pinelands, where the ROWs are blitzed with broad-spectrum herbicide that kills all woody plants as well as many other dicot species, resulting in a “scorched earth” effect that is obvious and easy to spot, huge numbers of native plant and animal populations species are being severely impacted, not to mention the long-term effects on soil and water.

• CMP Plan Review

The Commission is now engaged in the fourth in depth review of the Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP).

Commissioner Ashum, who celebrated her 90th birthday at Friday’s meeting, asked the Commissioners to provide ideas they wanted addressed in Plan review process. The Commission is seeking public input as well:

Previous reviews resulted in changes that included simplified permitting for the development single-family dwellings, a ban on new mining operations in Pinelands-designated Forest Areas, waste management facility siting policies, forestry standards and application requirements, and the mandatory clustering of residential development in the Forest and Rural Development Areas, among many other initiatives.

The public’s participation and insight will be critical in this project. To that end, a Plan Review Committee composed of five Commission members has been formed. This Committee will meet monthly to guide the development of the Plan Review based on feedback from members of the public and specific focus groups, such as the 53 Pinelands municipalities, seven Pinelands counties and many other parties.

Fred Akers of Great Egg Watershed gave a good overview of the recent history in upgrading regional energy infrastructure. Fred noted that in the last 10 years, both South Jersey Gas and Atlantic City Electric have made major capacity expansion upgrades to regional electric and gas infrastructure to accommodate growth that never occurred.

Fred noted that the BL England plant was slated to close when these infrastructure expansion decisions were made.

Despite over-capacity and lower growth, they still want more.

Fred closed by saying  (paraphrase)- “I don’t want Great Egg Bay to end up looking like Barnegat Bay” [Ocean County’s Commissioner Avery did not seem pleased by that jab – I was looking at his face at the time.]

I suggested that the Commission consider lessons learned during the SJG pipeline battle, particularly additional transparency, public participation, and inter-governmental coordination reforms.

Of course, the MOA loopholes must be closed as well.

The Commission also must address how the CMP can address climate change impacts now occurring, as well as an overall energy policy

I pledged to provide written comments on those issues – I urge readers to weigh in as well.

[End note – I intentionally did not raise the controversial issues regarding the status of the recusal of Commissioner Ed Lloyd and the ethics complaint filed on Counselor Roth.

I bit my tongue on this, despite Commissioner Galletta’s ridiculous threat.

Galletta objected to the Commission practice on recusal, whereby a Commissioner that is recused must leave the room and not listen to or participate in discussion or voting on the issue.

Galletta said he would no longer leave the room because that violated his rights as a citizen. He challenged the legal staff (Counselor and AG’s) to provide clear “judicial precedent” on that requirement to leave the room.

Galletta apparently is clueless – Commission ethics requirements need to be made stronger, not weaker. – end]

[Update – 3/16/14 – Speaking of recusals, here’s a message for Galletta – from Bergen Record

In contrast to the lack of rules for abstentions, New Jersey’s administrative code requires state legislators and members of state agencies to publicly give reasons for recusals and to leave the room when related issues are discussed. While those rules do not apply to county or municipal governments, Purcell said he advises local officials to do the same.

Does Galletta want to emulate the ethics of the Port Authority?

What Ever Happened To Sprawl, “Sustainable Development” and The New Urbanism?

Where Are the Professional Planning Advocates?

Due to the lack of agenda items, the State Planning Commission  will not be meeting on Wednesday, March 19, 2014. ~~~ Source: email from Office for Planning Advocacy (3/12/13)

[Update below – a reader answers my closing question]

At a time when NJ faces multiple simultaneously occurring crises that cry out for a rational, transparent, participatory, planning based public policy response, NJ’s state-wide planning institution, the NJ State Planning Commission, has been effectively dismantled by Governor Christie.

The Commission joins the Council on Affordable Housing on Governor Christie’s shit list.

[* Note – In addition to his “Kill List“, Obama has his own shit list, see here.]

The Commission’s main focus and mission, implementing the 1985 State Planning Act and overseeing the State Development and Redevelopment Plan, have been subordinated to and diverted by Gov. Christie’s “Business Action Center“, while the State (land use) Plan has been replaced by a corporate  economic development strategy.

So, after receiving another email notice yesterday that the Commission’s regularly scheduled meeting was again cancelled due to “lack of agenda items“, this morning I called SPC Director Gerry Scharfenberger to ask him when the Commission last met and why meetings keep getting cancelled.

Poor Gerry, I could almost sense in his voice that the last thing he wants is to become involved in the “What’s Wrong with Christie’s Government” story – and to be dragged into that by me, of all people!

In response to my questions, Gerry said he thought the Commission met in December, but he could not recall how many times they met last year.  He called my question on that a “pop quiz” he could “not answer off the top of my head” (those are direct quotes folks!).

• No Need for Commission When You’ve Got Czars

I can only assume that Governor Christie thinks he does not need a Planning Commission and all those pointed headed socialist planners when he’s got:

• A Powerbroker at the Port Authority

• A Sandy Recovery Czar

• A Lt. Gov. Red Tape Czar to slash job killing Red Tape

• A DEP [CEO] Commissioner to provide “customer service” and “promote economic development”

But these Christie folks are doing nothing in response to multiple crises, such as developing:

• plans to implement the Global Warming Response Act and deeply cut current emissions
• plans to adapt to climate change
• plans to recover and redevelop from Sandy devastation
• plans to manage our increasingly vulnerable water supplies
• plans to restore our crumbling infrastructure
• plans to expand public transit and promote bicycling alternatives to cars
• plans to stop home foreclosures and develop affordable housing
• plans to put thousands of unemployed and under-employed residents back to work
• plans to redevelop abandoned shopping malls, commercial properties, and big box retail outlets in declining older suburbs
• plans to develop alternative energy, local distributed power, and “smart energy” micro-grids
• plans to revitalize our blighted cities
• plans to expand production of local and healthy foods
• plans to fund open space, parks, and recreational facilities
• plans to build and refurbish our public schools
• plans to strengthen protections for natural resources and the Highlands and Pinelands regions
• plans to preserve the spectacular and highly vulnerable Delaware Bayshore
• plans to promote environmental justice
• plans to cleanup thousands of toxic waste sites

No, instead of addressing these concerns, the Christie Administration says there are “no agenda items” for the State Planning Commission.

Just another day in Governor Christie’s failed government.

But, where are all the well funded professional planning advocates, like NJ Future, PlanSmart NJ, the Regional Plan Association,  NJ SEED and the Dodge Foundation?

I’ve not heard one peep of criticism of the Governor  from them for this abdication and hostility towards planning.

[Update: An informed  reader responds:

Saw your query in today’s Wolfenotes, and that’s an easy one to answer….

“But, where are all the well funded professional planning advocates, like NJ Future, PlanSmart NJ, the Regional Plan Association,  NJ SEED and the Dodge Foundation?”

They are all a bunch of fucking cowards is the simple answer. However the more precise answer is that, while it is true that they certainly are world-class chicken shits of the highest order, the driving force at work here is that the economic imperative for them to actually practice what they preach just is not there. They all continue to prosper like flies on the back of an elephant regardless of who is in charge.

There are other reasons as well, but I think that is a very big one. –

I completely agree and couldn’t have said it better myself.

Was Mr. Samson Involved in This One Too?

[Update below]

Completely un-noticed in the fine print of Governor Christie’s second round $1.4 billion Sandy Action plan is another sweetheartt deal between the Christie Administration and the Port Authority.

Once again, NJ benefits financially from a Port Authority decision.

Once again, it is not at all clear who made this decision or how it was made.

The Port Authority sustained over $2 billion in damage from Superstorm Sandy. Future actual damage costs may be considerably higher.

NJ has a State obligation to pay for some portion of the damage to Port facilities and infrastructure. It is not clear what exactly that share is (I need to do additional research and could use come help from one of those intrepid journalists out there that are putting the Port under a microscope).

But, somehow, NJ officials (who?) made a deal with the Port Authority (how and when?) for the Port Authority to pick up NJ’s State match obligations for those damages.

You can find this deal buried in the fine print of the Christie “Action Plan“, on page 2-29:

The Port Authority has estimated total damages from Superstorm Sandy to exceed approximately $2 billion, which does not include possible future latent damages. The Port Authority has also identified additional resiliency and mitigation projects. It is the State’s understanding that the Port Authority intends to satisfy its Sandy-related damage and resiliency costs through one or more of the following sources of funds: grant proceeds from the Federal Transit Administration and FEMA; proceeds from insurance; and available Port Authority capital funds, including through the issuance of its debt obligations.

At this time, the State anticipates that the Port Authority will meet its local share requirements, but the State will continue to assess and evaluate financial conditions at the agency. The State will also further consider the Port Authority’s unmet needs and cost share requirements if a third tranche of CDBG-DR funds is announced.”

So, the Port Authority will “meet [NJ’s] local share requirements”.

Not one penny of federal HUD funds to NJ will be spent on the Port Authority.

How nice.

Did the Port agree to this out of the goodness of their hearts, or were other factors involved?

Was Mr. Samson involved in this deal too?

On what basis did the State (Christie ADmin) reach this “understanding” about Port funding and on what basis is their “expectation” founded? A law? A regulation? A HUD or Port Authority policy? A PA Resolution? A contract? A prior funding document? A Port Authority Plan?

Or a phone call or email  to Samson, Baroni, or Wildstein?

Readers want to know. Have at it intrepid journalists, the red meat is on the table.

[Update – just happened upon this little gem – Baroni was the point man on the issue 

“No one in New Jersey or in New York or at the Port Authority has forgotten the impact of Hurricane Sandy and the lives that we lost,” Deputy Executive Director Bill Baroni told commissioners during this afternoon’s monthly board meeting. “Hurricane Sandy resulted in an estimated 2.2 billion dollars in damages and losses to our agency.” ~~~ Star Ledger, 10/16/13

Wonder why Strunsky didn’t seem to ask Baroni who was paying for all that damage. – end update

The Tyranny of Low Expectations Shrinks Any Real Sandy Rebuild Debate

“Don’t Make Waves” Attitude A Grossly Irresponsible Abdication

Spending a quarter a billion dollars on a barrier island highway – “fortified” by sea walls – is the epitome of folly

“The reality is that, in a couple of decades, I don’t think we’re going to be talking about the issues regarding Highway 12 because it’s not going to be there anymore,” said Robert Young, director of the Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines at Western Carolina University. “The idea that we are going to keep that highway there – it’s just not going to happen.” […]

Barrier islands can be as ephemeral as dreams. Early residents knew that. They lived on the back side of the islands, away from waves and erosion, and were prepared to move their houses as necessary. ~~~  NATURE’S TOLL ROAD – Rebuilding N.C. 12 threatens the Outer Banks’ existence (read the whole thing – a 4 part series).

Instead of Highway 12, just insert Rt. 35. [Yes, I realize that erosion is far more severe on the Outer Banks than in NJ.]

This is the debate from North Carolina about development on barrier islands that is simply being ignored in NJ.

Instead of a science based effort to plan for the future of NJ’s barrier islands, we get surrender from the so called “environmental critics” of the Christie Administration’s plan to spend $265 million to rebuild a highly vulnerable barrier island roadway that was wiped out by Superstorm Sandy:

“If you do it right, it could be self-sustaining,” said Bennett, who works with private developers to design projects using hardy trees and shrubs that require little water and maintenance. The model for landscaping a coastal highway lies just beyond the south end of Route 35, Bennett says — in the northern natural area of Island Beach State Park, where red cedar trees, hollies and bayberry line the roadway. […]

DeCamp admits that politically the promise to put everything back in place after Sandy is powerful:“The mood of the public is, don’t make waves.” ~~~   Critics: DOT ignoring environmental concerns

What?

First of all it’s our job as professionals and advocates to “make waves”.

But much more importantly: You can’t build a highway on a barrier island and “do it right” and it can never be “self sustaining”.

Numerous other inlets opened and closed along the islands, but nobody much cared because the residents traveled by boat.

Then came the 1900s and the rise of the automobile. The islands had no paved roads – in fact, all of Dare County had no paved roads – but boats brought vehicles to the islands, and soon the Midgett family had started a bus service, driving up and down the sand to carry islanders to the ferry that crossed Oregon Inlet. Four-car ferries started running between Hatteras, Ocracoke and the mainland.

Ironically, this “Don’t make waves” attitude comes at a time when the federal government is beginning to consider coastal processes and understand the nature of coastal risks and is beginning to shift national policy to adapt to vulnerabilities and design more “resilient” communities.

Federal policy now includes incentives to abandon development, to discouraging  rebuilding on, and to purchase high hazard and environmentally sensitive coastal lands.

How lame is it that President Obama’s Executive Order and HUD CDBG regulations have more vision and backbone than NJ’s coastal advocates seem to be able to muster? [calls to landscape a roadway with native vegetation is setting a remarkably low bar].

As I’ve written here for a long time, NJ’s failure to plan for transportation, land use, and overall coastal management in the wake of Sandy originates in Governor Christie’s emotional reaction and pledge to rebuild everything virtually in place as it was before the storm.

The Christie policy of more pumping more sand on the beach, construction of artificial dunes (currently mostly just piles of sand), and partial elevation of rebuilt homes is a costly short term approach that provides a false sense of “safety” and invites even larger future tragedies.

Spending a quarter of a billion dollars on reconstruction of a barrier island highway – “fortified” by sea walls – is the epitome of folly.

The Gov. has made “strategic retreat” a taboo topic of public discussion.

Even relatively minor transportation and land use changes like a smaller footprint for Rt. 35, more investment in bicycles and pedestrian modes of travel, and redesign of communities are not on the agenda.

Major reforms like a ferry and public transit system and no more cars on the barrier islands are viewed as hopelessly utopian.

As I’ve noted, from a regulatory perspective, the “right to rebuild” storm damaged private property provision of CAFRA – greatly magnified by DEP Commissioner Martin’s Order to deregulate rebuilding of public infrastructure – have blocked any public planning process for NJ’s coast (as has opposition to a bill to create a new Coastal Commission to do this planning).

The Christie Administration’s coastal policy has been driven exclusively by the huge economic development interests  – real estate, not science and planning.

The economic interests have seized on that policy – including the press – in a way that makes any real public discussion of planning impossible.

And nothing will begin to change until the coastal advocates can grow a spine and say this publicly.

Of course, when the next Sandy hits, I guarantee Congress will not open the federal treasury to bail NJ out again.

Then, maybe if the private sector real estate interests have to assume all the risks with no public subsidy, they will think a little harder about “rebuild madness”.