Goat Hill, West Amwell, NJ – Delaware overlook just south of Lambertville
Washington’s Rock, overlooking Delaware (just south of Goat Hill overlook)
looking north
News: “Magnificent”, “Historic” Goat Hill Overlook is Preserved in West Amwell
For trails and historic info: see this
Glacier National Park
[Note: I shot all these photos in Glacier NP. The air is hazy due to many fires in the Rockies that summer.]
A superb must read Report by the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization brings really bad news (excerpts from Executive Summary of Report below – although the Report has wonderful photography, the photos are mine. The haze in some shots was due to forest fires in southern Rockies):
A loss of ice and snow in the park is likely. Because of human-caused changes in our climate, Glacier could lose all or nearly all of its glaciers, which shaped the park and after which it is named.“ perhaps in the relatively near future. Seven years ago, scientists projected that even modestly hotter summers could eliminate by 2030 all glaciers in one basin in the park. Since this study was published, the glaciers in the basin have melted faster than projected. Now, one of the study’s authors believes they might be gone in just 10 years. According to an April 2010 update by the U.S. Geological Survey, of the 37 named glaciers in the park, only 25 remain large enough to still be considered glaciers. Of the 12 that have melted away, 11 have done so since 1966.
A hotter climate is also expected to reduce snowfall and snowpack accumulation in the park. One recent study projects that near the end of this century, peak snowpack levels in the park may be reached 41 days earlier than in mid-20th century, and that snow could cover the ground for about 70 fewer days a winter. With mountains not snow-capped as much or as long into the summer, the scenery that draws most visitors to Glacier would be affected.
A loss of water in the park in summer may result from higher temperatures, earlier snowmelt, and a loss of summer meltwater from glaciers, with widespread ecosystem effects. (See section 5.)
A loss of wildlife in Glacier could result fromhuman-caused climate change. (See section 6.) This could disrupt the unique mix of natural wildlife the park now supports, which offers Americans the best chance they have in the lower 48 states to see the full range of mammal predators present at the time of European settlement of the continent, including grizzly and black bears, wolves, lynx, wolverines, mountain lions, and more, as well as other large mammals including mountain goats, bighorn sheep, and elk. The park’s staff is concerned that climate change could lead to “wholesale changes in species composition.” One study suggests that Glacier could experience the second largest influx of new mammal species of eight studied national parks, as ecosystem changes could lead to new, warmer-environment species moving into the park. Wolverines and lynx are at particular risk in the park, as for both spring snow cover apparently is an essential habitat requirement. Grizzly bears, bighorn sheep, mountain goats, pikas, ptarmigan, and trout could also be harmed by changes in the climate.
A disruption of plant communities in the park also could take place. (See section 7.) Some forests in the park could be replaced by grasslands. Other forests could decline because of hotter, drier conditions. The park’s expanses of alpine tundra, meadows, and wildflowers, plus a rare cedar-hemlock ecosystem, could all be reduced. Infestations of insects such as mountain pine beetles could increase.
More wildfires are likely, leading to more campfire bans, closures of trails, and reduced visitation. (See section 8.)
A loss of fishing can result if high water temperatures stress trout enough to lead to fishing closures or to elimination of trout from certain streams. (See section 9.)
More downpours and flooding are likely to be caused by increases in extreme storms, which can result in closures of park areas and reduced visitation. (See section 10.)
The otherwise superb Report was polluted with this piece of “clean coal” garbage by NRDC:
Accelerating the development and deployment of emerging clean energy technologies to lower long-term emission reduction costs. That means incentives and investments in renewable electricity, lowcarbon fuels, and carbon capture and storage, including a federal renewable energy standard, as well as infrastructure upgrades to support transmission capacity for these renewable assets. Finally, regulations to require any new coal-fired power plant to capture and permanently geologically sequester at least 85 percent of its carbon dioxide emissions, along with state and federal regulatory frameworks for site selection, operation, and monitoring for carbon capture and geologic storage systems.
There is no such thing as “clean coal”. World renowned global warming scientist Dr. Jim Hansen has called NRDC out on this.
NRDC should be ashamed of advocating for it via the CCS technological boodoggle.
Raritan Bay Slag Superfund Site – children’s playground in background
[Updates below
EPA Region 2 Administrator Judy Enck, Congressman Frank Pallone, and local officials from Old Bridge held a press conference yesterday to discuss the cleanup of the Raritan Bay Slag Superfund site with concerned community members and environmental groups (see this and this and this for info about the site and this for press coverage. and NBC TV).
lead slag dumped on beach, leaches lead
The problems date back to the 1970’s. The beach is contaminated with extremely high levels of lead, as a result of construction of a sea wall and jetty with lead smelter slag waste. The lead has leached out of the slag and contaminated sand, sediment, and fish. Somehow, despite the fact that NJ DEP knew about the problem for years, this illegal waste disposal and construction was allowed to occur. Later, public funds were spent on a park on top of the contamination, so due diligence and site investigation failed. After all this, people were unknowingly exposed to high levels of lead for years, yet nothing was done. Cleanup cost (to taxpayers) is estimated at over $100 million. Someone should be in jail.
According to EPA:
large chunks of slag are everywhere along beach
The Raritan Bay Slag site currently consists of three areas that contain lead slag from blast furnace bottoms, a byproduct of metal smelting, which was used to construct a seawall and a jetty along the southern shore of the Raritan Bay in Old Bridge Township and Sayreville, and areas of Margaret’s Creek in Old Bridge.
The first area is the Laurence Harbor seawall, adjacent to the Old Bridge Waterfront Park in the Laurence Harbor section of Old Bridge Township. The second area consists of the western jetty in Sayreville and extends from the Cheesequake Creek Inlet into Raritan Bay. The third is approximately 50 acres associated with Margaret’s Creek, where elevated lead levels have been identified.
Lead levels on the beach are in the 150,000 – 200,000 ppm range (that’s 15-20%!). The NJ DEP residential soil cleanup standard for lead is 400 ppm, so the beach exceeds safe levels by 500 times. Lead is a potent neuro-toxin that harms the development of children’s brains:(link)
new mom strolls with infant past toxic lead beach. She knew nothing about the lead problems at the beach or in general.
Small children can be exposed by eating lead-based paint chips, chewing on objects painted with lead-based paint, or swallowing house dust or soil that contains lead.
Children are more vulnerable to lead poisoning than adults. A child who swallows large amounts of lead may develop blood anemia, severe stomachache, muscle weakness, and brain damage. If a child swallows smaller amounts of lead, much less severe effects on blood and brain function may occur. Even at much lower levels of exposure, lead can affect a child’s mental and physical growth.
moms strolls past high lead warning sign at Superfund site
Exposure to lead is more dangerous for young and unborn children. Unborn children can be exposed to lead through their mothers. Harmful effects include premature births, smaller babies, decreased mental ability in the infant, learning difficulties, and reduced growth in young children. These effects are more common if the mother or baby was exposed to high levels of lead. Some of these effects may persist beyond childhood.
The Star Ledger wrote a set up story that ran on Tuesday. As is typical, they focus on inconvenience to local beach-goers. They downplayed the public health risks – and didn’t even mention why lead is a health risk (which is why the beach is a Superfund site). But the Ledger did find time to mention real estate values and blast EPA for cleanup delays. In addition to ignoring the public health and environmental problems at the site, the Ledger coverage also didn’t report on the larger policy issue and how industry lobbyists and republican backers are blocking efforts to restore the funding of the Superfund program (lack of funds shifts the cleanup burden from polluters to taxpayers).
children play virtually on top of unstabilized lead Superfund site. The Park has not been completely sampled to determine lead levels, yet remains open.
Pallone and EPA officials met with a small group of residents after the press conference and site tour. I missed it to take my own tour but returned an hour later to listen to the finish.
A well informed and angry resident asked EPA why – with all the evidence – they had not taken enforcement and cost recovery actions. As reported in the Courier-News story:
The jetty and seawall were made from lead slag from blast furnace bottoms, a byproduct of metal smelting. A letter on file with the state Department of Environmental Protection on National Lead stationery and dated from the 1970s states that a trucking firm was taking lead from a National Lead plant and dumping it at the sites.”‘ (link)
EPA was asked point blank why they were not going after NL Lead and the trucking firm (the same company that built the sea wall).
***EPA lamely replied: “We don’t get sites cleaned up by going to court”. –
EPA surrendered enforcement *litigation options – just what the polluters like to hear! Failure to sue polluters is inexplicable given the evidence in this case, especially given that Superfund is broke and taxpayers are picking up the cleanup tab.
[***Update: This may get longer than the original post, but please read as this is important. I received a call today from EPA Region 2 to explain that I got the facts and EPA’s position on enforcement and the taxpayer tab wrong. EPA advised me that: 1) Superfund enforcement in this case is cost recovery for the cleanup; 2) EPA is researching and will soon name “potentially responsible parties” (PRP’s) (the first step in the cleanup cost negotiation and settlement process); 3) EPA will do cost recovery; and 4) funding has been authorized for remedial investigation and removal.
I try hard to be accurate. While I appreciate EPA’s efforts to assure the public that the facts and their positions are communicated clearly, I will note the following in response to EPA’s clarification:
1) my post provided a linked to EPA’s own press statement and internet links. EPA’s press statement and program links said nothing about: a) enforcement policy; b) the status of identifying or naming PRPs and RPs; c) EPA’s cost recovery, treble damages, and natural resource damage restoration & lost public use claims plans for the site; and d) a commitment to a settlement timetable. If EPA wants good information provided to the public, then they need to sharpen their own press releases and web materials instead of relying on correcting bloggers (I am good, but not that good!);
2) I quoted EPA Walter Mudgan accurately, and noted that I had not been in the briefing for the first hour (so I may have missed something). I spoke with Mudgan privately immediately after he made that statement and he did not clarify it;
3) EPA has multiple statutory enforcement tools. In addition to RCRA and Clean Water Act enforcement authorities that are punishment oriented, as opposed to Superfund remediation oriented (that Region 2 failed to note), EPA has at least 4 Superfund cleanup oriented enforcement options. These options include issuing unilateral Administrative Orders and pursuing litigation. EPA has had sufficient time to complete investigation, name PRP’s ,and issued PRP notification letters. If they were not ready to have done so for the press conference, then EPA should have – in writing – made their intentions explicit regarding their overall cleanup plans, timetables, status and source of funding, and enforcement/settlement principles, including the specific statutory authority they would rely on. click on and See EPA – Interim CERCLA Settlement Policy
VXII. Targets for Litigation
The Regions should identify particular cases for referral in light of the following factors:
-substantial environmental problems exist:
-the Agency’s case has legal merit;
-the amount of money or cleanup involved is significant;
-good legal precedent is possible (cases should be rejected where the potential for adverse precedent is substantial);
-the evidence is strong, well developed, or capable of development;
-statute of limitations problems exist;
-responsible parties are financially viable.The goal of the Agency is to bring enforcement action wherever needed to assure private party cleanup or to recover costs. The following types of cases are the highest priorities for referrals:
-107 actions in which all costs have been incurred:
-combined 106/107′ actions in which a significant phase has been completed, additional injunctive relief is needed and identified, and the Fund will not be used:
-106 actions which will not be’ the subject of Fund-financed cleanup.Referrals for injunctive relief may also be appropriate in cases when it is possibile, that Fund-financed cleanup will be undertaken. Such referrals may be needed where there are potential statute of limitation concerns, or where the site has been identified as enforcement-lead, and prospects for
successful litigation are good.
EPA has adopted an “enforcement first” policy for removal and remedial actions at CERCLA sites. This means that when PRPs for a site have been identified, EPA typically will first pursue the PRPs to conduct the site response rather than conduct the cleanup with Superfund money. EPA may seek to obtain PRP participation through settlements, unilateral orders, or litigation. In addition, EPA may take the lead for cleanup activities and seek to recover its costs from PRPs. At 95 percent of non-federal facility Superfund sites where there are known viable, liable parties, the Agency endeavors either to reach a settlement or take an enforcement action before the start of a remedial action.
EPA still hasn’t made their enforcement response actions for the site absolutely clear.
All that being said, while my original post was factually accurate and EPA could have done a lot better, upon reflection my sense is that I was – at this stage of the cleanup – overly critical of EPA and I may have overstated the taxpayer liability at this site. But, in saying this, I am essentially giving EPA a lot of trust – lets hope they can honor that trust.
End update]
Update #2 – 4/18/10 – I gladly stand corrected for below criticism of media for ignoring this story. Asbury Park Press: “Polluter pays” tax sought to fund cleanup of Superfund sites”
Update #1: 4/9/10 – note important clarification above on EPA enforcement policy]
Of course, we rarely read about or see what’s really important in the press coverage.
proud mom and young son – in background, EPA public health warning sign and Superfund cleanup contractors.
xxxx
Vietnamese immigrant fishes in Raritan Bay, off toxic beach in Old Bridge
I went to Old Bridge today for a typical EPA press conference with Congressman Frank Pallone and local officials regarding progress on the EPA cleanup of extraordinarily high levels of toxic heavy metal lead on the beach (from 150,000 – 200,000 ppm, see this and this and this for info about the site.)
Instead of attending the indoor briefing, I took a walk on the beach and met a man fishing. I asked him if he was aware of the lead problem and that fish were too toxic to eat.
He shyly responded that he couldn’t speak English. Not recognizing his accent, I asked where he was from.
He replied “Vietnam”.
My immediate reaction was to say “I am sorry for what my government did to your country“. Don’t know if he understood.
After that, not much energy to post text and photo’s of NJ politicians.
While Risks Rise – Christie Cuts Funds and Rolls Back Regulatory Protections
[Updates below]
The University of New Hampshire (UNH) just issued an important and amazingly timely Report: Trends in Extreme Precipitation Events for the Northeastern United States 1948-2007. (h/t to “Enviroguy” Todd Bates’ blog, Asbury Park Press). The UNH Report was covered in a national AP story in today’s Bergen Record:
BOSTON – ” The Northeast is seeing more frequent “extreme precipitation events” in line with global warming predictions, a study shows, including storms like the recent fierce rains whose floodwaters swallowed neighborhoods and businesses across New England.
The study’s results are consistent with what could be expected in a world warmed by greenhouse gases, said UNH associate professor Cameron Wake. He acknowledged it would take more sophisticated studies to cement a warming link, though.
“I can’t point to these recent storms and say, that is global warming,” he said.
What is more certain, researchers said, is the potential economic impact should the 60-year trend continue and require billions of dollars in infrastructure improvements to things in the region including roads, bridges, sewers and culverts.
Todd’s blog post and the Bergen Record fail to localize the UNH Report and apply its findings to NJ’s recent severe coastal storm damage and inland flooding.
So, let me take a very brief shot here – and by doing so, perhaps challenge NJ’s media and policy makers to engage a more thorough analysis and response. But first, the press just needs to ask simple questions:
Why is no one analyzing the same rainfall and flooding data and correlating it with land use changes here in NJ? (hint: it’s not due any to lack of hydrology data or land use/land cover data or precipitation data)
Why is the relationship between global warming and increased storm frequency/intensity/pattern rarely if ever made by the same tired meteorologists quoted in the NJ news stories?
The UNH Report makes two very obvious and fundamental findings we have been repeating for many years (e.g. see this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this, especially the Ocean County soil compaction analysis). We have the same phenomena right here in NJ. Yet, both UNH findings are ignored completely in NJ’s media coverage of flooding and global warming issues, as well as in NJ’s policy and regulatory responses:
1) global warming is causing increasingly severe and frequent storm events, which are directly related to increased precipitation and flooding events:
Flooding events are relatively rare but naturally occurring in the Northeastern United States. For example, New Hampshire has averaged about one major, destructive flood per decade since the early 20th century. A major concern is that New Hampshire has recently experienced three major flooding events that followed three major extreme precipitation events (October, 2005, May, 2006, and April, 2007)2 (Table 1). As this report goes to press, major, but as yet unquantified, multiple flooding events are taking place here in March, 2010.
Decision makers currently use outdated flood-risk information and floodplain maps, based on historic rainfall and peak-discharge data that do not represent recent historical or current rainfall patterns.3 To facilitate effective planning, decision makers also require information on the future implications of changing land use and climate at a local scale, where climate change impacts are felt and understood most clearly.4 This study aims to provide a quantitative understanding of the current trends in extreme precipitation for the Northeast so that resource managers, municipal, county, state, and federal representatives, and other stakeholders have a baseline of information from which to prepare for and adapt to future climate change.
2) land use changes – i.e. development – are making the problem far worse
The growth in flood damage is partially due to an increase in impermeable surfaces in our watersheds, combined with more building in flood-prone areas. New England has experienced considerable development in many of its watersheds, with the consequent increase in impermeable surfaces such as asphalt resulting in more rapid runoff. Flooding is therefore more predominate, even with the same amount of rainfall.
The NJ Department of Environmental Protection is well aware of these serious issues and has been issuing warnings for years. For example, here are NJDEP’s Coastal Assessment and Strategy Report findings: (discussed in Letter on Catastrophic Storm Risk legislation (A3236))
“While the precise rate of sea level rise is uncertain, current models indicate that global warming will cause the rate to increase. Recent projections forecast that relative sea level rise at the New Jersey coast will be between 0.31 m and 1.10 m by 2100. The approximate central value of this range, 0.71 m is more than twice the rise that occurred during the last century. This increase would result in the threat of more sustained extreme storm surges, increased coastal erosion, escalating inundation of coastal wetlands and saline intrusion.
Many parts of New Jersey’s densely populated coastal area are highly susceptible to the effects of the following coastal hazards: flooding, storm surge, episodic erosion, chronic erosion, sea level rise, and extra-tropical storms. Reconstruction of residential development and the conversion of single family dwellings into multi-unit dwellings continues in hazardous areas; the value of property at risk is increasing significantly. With anticipated accelerating sea level rise and increasing storm frequency and intensity, vulnerability to the risks of coastal hazards will not abate; it will only become more costly.
In certain instances, structural engineering solutions will not be practical or economically feasible. In these cases future public and private development and redevelopment must be directed away from the hazardous areas. While some derogatorily refer to this option as “retreat,” from the perspective of sound planning based on the best available science, the concept actually involves “strategic adjustment.” Prudent planning requires that we expand upon the existing studies of the societal, economic, and environmental costs of possible mitigative actions while the greatest number of alternatives exist.
These findings led DEP to hold a September 25, 2006 Insurance industry seminar (see this), at a time that the insurance industry was threatening to walk away from the NJ shore due to huge multi-billion loss risks:
TRENTON- As Corzine Administration officials met quietly behind closed doors with insurance and finance industry leaders to discuss a statewide insurance fund to finance catastrophic shore storm risks, environmentalists called on the Governor to incorporate much needed coastal development and global warming policy reforms in any industry bailout package.
Numerous scientific studies and NJDEP Reports show that the over-developed NJ shore is increasingly vulnerable to hurricane and storm related wind, storm surge, and flooding damage. Those risks are magnified by the effects of global warming induced sea level rise. NJ already is among the worst states in the nation for payouts on repeat claims under the federal flood insurance program. While risks are great and growing, DEP’s own studies show that public awareness is low, and local and state disaster planning and emergency response capabilities are woefully inadequate.
Despite these significant risks, continued over-development, particularly in known high hazard areas along the shore, puts more people and property in harms way, greatly increasing not only risks to life and property. The probability is increasing for a catastrophic coastal storm event that would cause huge economic dislocation.
The multi-billion dollar scope of the problem and potential insurance liability has led insurance industry leaders to withdrawn from insurance markets in the tri-state region, and to seek a public bailout of insured liability.
In response to this industry concern, Corzine Administration officials in the Departments of Insurance and Environmental Protection have been meeting to negotiate a policy initiative. There is rumored to be a meeting with industry leaders today.
Coastal vulnerability and increased flooding risks were a significant justification for NJ’s Global Warming Response Act. DEP recently issued the Final Report mandated by the GWRA. Adaptation strategy recommendations are found in Chapter 4 of DEP’s December 24, 2009 Global Warming Response Act Recommendations Report. DEP calls for the development of a comprehensive adaptation plan:
Despite our best efforts to mitigate climate change in New Jersey, the State must develop a comprehensive plan to adapt to current and future changes in climate. CO2 and other GHGs are known to remain in the atmosphere for decades, and even up to centuries, from the time they are emitted into the atmosphere.99 Even if all emissions were stopped immediately, there would be a lag between mitigation of emissions and cessation of warming. Thus, New Jersey is expected to face many public health, ecological and economic impacts with specific consequences noted by the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment.
Predictions are that in coming years, sustained higher temperatures during the summer months will make our citizens especially vulnerable to heat-related illness. Warmer temperatures and increases in short-term droughts are expected to have impacts on agriculture and water supply availability. Warmer temperatures will lead to more intense rain events which, coupled with rising seas, will leave our coastal and riparian areas especially vulnerable to flooding, with additional repercussions for water supply. Sea level rise will impact coastal communities and coastal habitats. Non-climate stresses, such as dense population, high impervious cover, high nutrient loading, and high flooding potential, or a combination of these factors, will exacerbate vulnerability to climate change.101 These are just some examples of the long-term impacts we expect concurrent with our efforts to mitigate GHG emissions.
Thus, a comprehensive adaptation policy must be developed as a key component of any long term climate change action plan. Addressing these issues today just makes sense; they are complicated and require thoughtful approaches. It is hard to predict precisely which of the losses to New Jersey might be irreversible, yet, we must acknowledge that some may be permanent. Still, we cannot, as some say, “wait it out.†While climate change might cause irreparable losses in some areas, it may also create economic opportunities in others. For example, spending to construct and/or adapt buildings and homes for storm resilience may be a good investment for property owners in terms of personal safety and financial exposure, while providing a positive outcome for communities in terms of reduced emergency services and preservation of a neighborhood. Similarly, water conservation measures for protection against more intense droughts in the long-term can certainly result in benefits for mitigation of droughts in the shortterm.
Yet, the Christie Administration, to save a few hundred thousand dollars, is seeking to eliminate the DEP’s Office of Climate Change, which is the Office that is developing this important programs and planning effort.
So, as I said, I tried to briefly sketch the scope of the NJ issues raised by the UNH Report.
Let’s hope these issues get more attention by media and policymakers. There is plenty of information provided above.
Then, perhaps the severely negative implications of the Christie de-funding and regulatory rollback efforts are more widely understood so that they can be stopped and reversed.
Other contributors to the UNH Report: Carbon solutions New England and Clean Air – Cool Planet
[Update: Twelve years after I wrote this, check out his essay:
There is also the possibility that the human species goes the other way and adapts. Organisms always wind up hitting a juncture where they either adapt to a new situation or go extinct, and we are approaching our juncture now. […]
Once we move out of our narrative manipulation-driven model of competition and domination, and into a lucidity-driven model of collaboration with each other and with our ecosystem, a lasting peace will open up to us all. ~~~ Caitlin Johnstone
[Update: more evidence: “NJ Under Brushfire Watch” ~~~ end update]
