WolfeNotes.com

Bull's lsland - DEP already cut down this sycamore. Seeded and hayed grass is part of riverfront restoration (5/7/12)

Quick update – important new developments!

The D&R Canal Commission met this morning.

Bull’s Island was not on the agenda. The DEP representative on the Commission said nothing about Bull’s Island, even when asked to do so during the public comment session.

The DEP Bull’s Island Park Superintendent was not in attendance.

Executive Director Marlen Dooley summarized the Superintendent’s monthly Report. It managed to say nothing about Bull’s Island (consistent with DEP gag order). But the Superintendent’s Report did note that there were lots of public questions on the new boat launch fees, which were described as the public’s “biggest concern”. So it looks like now even the Parks Superintendent has entered the spin zone.

The NJ Water Supply Authority monthly report also ignored Bull’s Island (surprise surprise! – Of course, they don’t want to talk about USACE stop work and restoration orders or Hunterdon County SCD enforcement that resulted from their flagrant violations!).

To her credit, ED Dooley broke the silence and said that she was discussing review plans with DEP and was given assurance that the Commission would review any DEP plans prior to implementation. Dooley also succinctly noted:

Bull’s Island [public] questions continue about our review levels

I again put the issue on the table during the public comment session (for prior discussion, see the DRCC April 18, 2012 meeting minutes).

I advised the Commission of significant public concerns regarding DEP’s plans to clearcut trees and remove all vegetation from the northern tip.

I noted the lack of any State Park planning process, and contrasted that with the open public process used for the Lumberville-Raven Rock pedestrian bridge maintenance project, where the public and the DRCC were provided ample opportunity to weigh in on and influence all aspects of the project, including scheduling and important project design details.

I asked that the Commission fill that planning vacuum. I suggested that the Commission develop fact sheets about their review process for any clearcut plan and ask DEP to provide public information and provide an opportunity for the public to weigh in in an early and meaningful way onthis controversial yet still undefined project.

I criticized DEP’s continuing refusal to provide public information on their plans for the Park. I noted DEP’s current practice of providing partial and misleading information in press releases and the Park Superintendent advice to the public, e.g. DEP is advising the public that they plan to restore the northern section with native vegetation and make it a “natural area”, but is not divulging clearcut or tree removal plans.

I advised the Commission that I has spoken to over 100 people, all of whom but one strong object to a clearcut or tree removal.

I advised them that I had reached out to and gotten calls from federal agencies including USFWS and NPS, and was meeting with local governments, environmental Commissions, and environmental groups.

I asked if the DRCC review included consideration of engineering issues, such as erosion and maintaining the current mouth to the canal, or ecological concerns, such as habitat, or consultation and coordination with involved federal review agencies, including USFWS, NPS, USACE, and USEPA. I noted fatal flaws in the basis for the DEP’s plan.

I mentioned regulatory reviews and the Delaware Lower River Wild and Scenic River Management Plan and I highlighted the importance of a transparent process, instead of being forced to file OPRA requests and blog to get information out to the public.

Several Commission members – and members of the public – also stated that they had been contacted and had heard concerns and gotten questions about Bull’s Island.

This giant sycamore would be cut, despite consultant's recommendation to keep

Commissioner Alison Mitchell suggested some form of open process, akin to a routinely held pre-conference meeting with project applicants, so the public could gather information and shape plans for the Island. She warned the Commission to avoid the pressure of expedited reviews of what is becoming a controversial project.

Commissioner John Loos noted the contrast between DEP Greeen ACres regulations, which require that local governments conduct robust and open planning for open space preservation, yet DEP excludes the public when making major decisions about State parks and state lands.

Loos recommended that the Commission hold a information gathering session and invite all interested parties to attend and share information and concerns.

Commissioner  David Knights questioned why the Commission should take the lead, when this was a DEP project, there were many other state, federal and local agencies involved, and there was no application yet filed for review. Knights suggested DEP hold informal meetings or public hearings. Knights then noted that he did not share and strongly differed with Mr. Wolfe’s criticism of DEP.

Commissioner Phyllis Marchand noted that she was getting questions from the public regarding Bull’s island and suggested that perhaps instead of the type of event recommended by Mr. Loos (which she felt would become adversarial) that the Commission ask DEP to present and informal plan and allow the public to comment on it at a special meeting.

Marchand’s approach seemed to garner consensus and the DRCC Counsel then jumped in to say he would work with Executive Director Dooley on a letter to DEP requesting a presentation, along the lines of a pre-application conference.

Later, Chairman Jessen asked me whether DEP had calculated logging revenues. I told him of DEP bid documents and emails suggesting that the project would at best break even, and could lose money.

Commissioner Loos asked me about the bird habitat on the Island, which I explained – and added that there were state rare, threatened and endangered (and species of special concern) plant and animal species present on the Island.

That pretty much ended the meeting.

Afterwards, I spoke with DRCC legal Counsel to ask when we might expect the letter to DEP Commissioner Martin requesting a presentation. He refused to provide a timeline.

I told him that regulatory constraints will stop and tree cutting to no later than the fall, so asked for that letter sooner rather than later.

We will continue to keep you posted.

In the meantime, I’ve posted up plenty of DEP documents for you to use in generating opposition to clearcut or tree removal plans on Bull’s Island – see this and this and this – and don’t forget to hit the links!).

Restoration work along canal - required as a result of enforcement actions - is flooded out by high river flows (May 16, 2012)

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

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

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

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

Although I gave some kick ass testimony to the Senate Environment Committee on the waiver rule (listen – I speak about 50 minutes in), the turtle was the highlight of my day.

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

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

Aquarius arrives!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fogeddaboudit!

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

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

DEP Bob Martin - "the decider"

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

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

Third, your perception of environmental risk is warped.

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

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

[reminds of Martin’s similar warped perception of risk in canceling oyster reef restoration n Raritan Bay, based on imaginary and exaggerated risks of poaching. All while ignoring real risks emphasized by FDA threats to shut down NJ fisheries.]

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

DEP  Preference for Riverfront View:

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

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

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

My preference – which would be destroyed by DEP clearcut:

Senate Environment Committee to Hear Substitute “Forest Harvest” Bill

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

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

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

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

NJ 2002 PM 2.5 emissions (Source: NJDEP)

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

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

Here is NJ DEP emissions inventory data for particulate matter.

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

Dear Senator Smith:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Corporate Control Over New Jersey’s Environmental Science

 New Regulatory Standards Blocked – Existing Standards Prone to Rollback

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

1. The Science Advisory Board is Prone to Abuse

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

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

2. The Drinking Water Quality Institute is Dead

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

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

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

3. The Highlands Septic Density Standard is Vulnerable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Given that ambiguity,  we warned:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our friends from PEER explain below:

Corporate Takeover of New Jersey’s Environmental Science

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

See industry ties into SAB

Look at one of its few indecipherable reports

Review how Christie functionally dismantled Drinking Water Quality Institute

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

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

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

Superfund Is Designed to Protect Human Health and The Environment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why would local residents oppose any of that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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