WolfeNotes.com

Commission Approves 5% Salary Increase for Staff

Reviews Electric Utility ROW Management Program

Will Upcoming CMP Plan Review Incorporate Lessons from Pipeline Battle?

Source: Pinelands Commission Progress Report on ROW Management Plan (3/14/14) – Let’s hope the Commission is not as stuck as this truck!

[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.

Bob Kull virtually begs Christie Administration to allow professional planners to play a role in Sandy recovery (2/21/14)

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.

Professional History Raises Concerns

[Update below]

[Update: 3/26/14 – – NJ Spotlight does a story focused on outgoing Director Collier – hard hitting journalism it’s not, see:  DRBC’S OUTGOING DIRECTOR SAYS DELAWARE RIVER BASIN NEEDS STRONG REGULATOR.

The headline begs the question we discuss below. – end update]

I just read that Steve Tambini was named as the new Executive Director of the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC), see: Basin commission names new executive director.

Tambini assumes leadership at a critical time, when the DRBC faces the hugely important and controversial issue of whether to make the current moratorium on fracking in the basin a permanent ban.

Predictably, Jeff Tittel of Sierra Club is on top of that issue and used the announcement to lay down a marker in calling for a permanent ban on fracking, joined by retiring Congressman Rush Holt (see:  Environmentalists, congressman call for fracking ban in Delaware River basin.

But the DRBC policy on fracking is set by the DRBC Commissioners – the Governors of NY, NJ, Penn, and Delaware, plus a federal Obama Administration representative, a slot filled by the US Army Corps of Engineers–  not Mr. Tambini.

Politically right now, it seems like the Gov.’s of NY and Delaware are supporting the current moratorium, while NJ and Pennsylvania are inclined to support fracking. While the Obama Administration is strongly pro-gas and fracking, it is not likely that they would break the deadlock among the DRBC states.

So, the focus for retaining the fracking moratorium or making it a permanent ban should be on the Governors, not Tambini.

While the DRBC Executive Director can have a significant influence on the technical aspects of how fracking is regulated, the big policy decision is about whether fracking should be banned. Tambini could have only minimal influence on that decision.

For a host of policy, planning and technical reasons, all evidence suggests that fracking can not be effectively regulated. And even if it could be, fracked gas is another fossil fuel that must be kept in the ground, not burned.

But, aside from the fracking issue, Tambini’s appointment raised a whole bunch of red and yellow flags in my mind.

First, we have the revolving door and corporate power issue – Tambini spent his career in a private water company.  That raises a host of concerns about the influence of private corporations on regional water policy and the management of a public resource.

Tambini’s background experience is suggestive.

Tambini’s bio touts his work on the Tri-County Water Supply project. That project was primarily about: a) expanding demand, markets, and franchise areas; b) controlling allocation of water supplies; and c) regional growth and development. The groundwater depletion issue served as cover for that corporate profit and development driven agenda:

Prior to his current position as Vice President of Operations at Pennsylvania American Water, Mr. Tambini held important leadership posts at New Jersey American Water. He played a key role in the planning, implementation and regulatory approval for the development of New Jersey American’s Delaware River Regional Water Treatment plant and Tri-County Water Supply, which successfully addressed regional groundwater decline in South Jersey and continues to provide water supply to numerous N.J. communities in Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester counties.

Second, Tambini is a trained engineer.

The underlying conflicts in many water resource management issues revolve around back end technical engineering approaches, versus front end public policy, ecologically informed, and regional planning driven approaches.

Placing a corporate engineer in charge of those regional planning and public policy issues is not a good sign, especially at a time when the Delaware basin is facing increasing pressures on water resources from regional growth and land use change, and adapting to the impacts of climate change.

Those challenges require vision, leadership, and commitment to public interest planning.

Third, Tambini appears to lack government experience.

The Christie Administration is the poster child for problems that emerge from installing private sector people in government management positions.

Fourth, Tambini’s touts his role on the NJ Water Supply Advisory Council. That is nothing to brag about, because the NJ Water Supply Master Plan is decades out of date and seriously flawed.

Last, Tambini is a graduate of Clarkson University. I began my education at Clarkson (it was a College back in 1975).  Clarkson has great hockey and is a very good technical school for engineers, but there’s not a lot of vision and broad training there.

Personally, I do not know Mr. Tambini. Of course, Tambini deserves the benefit of the doubt and I wish him well and hope I am proven wrong on all of these concerns.

[Update: 3/13/14 –  Just came across Tambini’s statement.

I always worry when people invoke their “values” as a qualification or virtue, and then don’t specify what those “values” are.

I find Tambini’s “respect for his employer” as an excuse for not making any public statements until he assumes office to be, at best, odd. That seems to be a misplaced priority – his first duty is to the public and to be accountable and accessible to the public. If he can’t honor that duty and work for his employer at the same time, he should resign or should have insisted that the announcement not be made until he was ready to assume the DRBC position.

More likely, it was simply an excuse to dodge the press – again, the red flags are set off. ]

Unclear If Goal Is To Erect Hurdles to New Superfund Sites or to Provide Public Involvement & Transparency

DEP Still Has Not Adopted “Remedial Priority System”

A bill that would significantly change the process for designating a toxic site on the federal Superfund “National Priorities List” (NPL) list was approved by the Assembly Environment Committee yesterday, despite no explanation of the intent of the bill by the sponsor (Committee Chairwoman Grace Spencer) and our testimony that raised serious concerns regarding the need for amendments (listen to testimony).

Although the bill purports to provide transparency and public involvement in the critically important Superfund listing decision, curiously, the bill was supported by the Chemical industry and business interests. That’s a strong indication that the intent of the bill is to create hurdles to any future listing of any additional Superfund sites.

There are provisions of the bill that lend credence to that industry attack (see point #5 below), where the bill allows DEP to consider alleged delays and impacts on local communities in deciding whether to recommend Superfund listing to EPA.

The bill (A2340- Spencer, Greenwald), would require that DEP prepare a technical report and hold a public hearing before recommending to EPA that a NJ site be considered by EPA for inclusion on the federal Superfund NPL.

The bill opens a Pandora’s box of controversial issues regarding exactly how a toxic site gets listed on the federal Superfund NPL: i.e. who makes that decision, on what basis the decision is made, the public’s right to know and role in those decisions, and what are the roles of the federal and state governments.

The most controversial illustration of that Pandora’s box is the ongoing battle in Pompton Lakes to get the Dupont site listed on the NPL and cleaned up under the Superfund program. The issue has strongly polarized the community – with at risk residents who live in the “the plume” urging Superfund cleanup, and Dupont, local officials, and downtown business interest opposing the “stigma” that they believe Superfund would give the community.

In fact, some have already speculated that the bill may be a preemptive strike by Dupont to block Superfund listing.

So, let me take a step back and provide the context, and close with the amendments I recommended:

• Superfund NPL Listing Process – State Role Grows To Effective Veto Power

Under federal Superfund law, the decision to list a site on the NPL is a federal decision made by US EPA.

It is supposed to be made primarily based on science and risk to human health and the environment. The tool EPA relies on to screen sites based on these factors is a point scoring system known as the “Hazard Ranking Score” (HRS). Sites that score 28.5 or greater on the HRS are eligible for Superfund listing.  Here is EPA’s fact sheet on the three ways that a site can get listed.

What EPA’s fact sheet omits is a discussion of the State role in Superfund listing and what is known as EPA’s State “concurrence policy”.

For political reasons, beginning in the Clinton’s Administration’s “reinventing government” initiative, EPA began to back away from a strong federal role over states and instead pursued a “cooperative federalism” approach, with an intent to establish “partnerships” with States.

In the Superfund program, this led to seeking a State’s “concurrence” with EPA’s science and risk based recommendations to list a site on the Superfund NPL (here is EPA’s model concurrence letter). EPA basically asks the State’s permission before listing a site in that State.

The relationship goes both ways – similarly, a state can request that EPA consider a site for NPL listing. This is the recommendation to EPA that the NJ legislation seeks to make transparent and participatory, in order to hold the state DEP accountable.

Over time, EPA’s political concession to a stronger state role has led to State’s having an effective veto power over Superfund NPL listing decisions.

Worse, all these decisions are made in the dark, absent any formal process or public involvement.

Flawed Energy Grant Program Indicator of  Christie Policy and Management Problems

Anonymous Activist Whistleblower Shone Light on Government, Enabled Media Investigation

The real story is that, without insiders willing to provide critical information to shed light on what is really going on, the public rarely gets a glimpse into the real working of their government.  In the end, OPRA is toothless and the real power lies with whistleblowers willing to share information. ~~~ (3/10/14) Source: the whistleblower for Hazard Mitigation Energy Grant story

Thankfully, it looks like we’ve overcome persistent pushback and spin from DEP Press Office spokesman Larry “X-Files” Ragonese on the Sandy Hazard Mitigation Energy Grant program SANFU story.

But, instead of highlighting policy flaws, mismanagement, and political abuses, the media narrative seems to be narrowing and the problems are all being blamed on incompetence and technical errors.

And the hero of the story – the internal source who provided the documents – has been ignored by the self congratulatory media and the opportunistic political pile-ons.

Along those lines, the Star Ledger editorialized on Sunday, see: Shorting Hoboken’s Sandy aid

And today, NJ Spotlight reports that the coverage received praise from Senate leaders and prompted legislations, see: SANDY STORY ON MISALLOCATION OF FUNDS EARNS KUDOS FROM SENATE PRESIDENT

So, let me first tell the backstory on how this story developed, because it illustrates serious problems, and then explain why the there is a lot more than incompetence and technical errors involved.

• Backstory

The published media reports don’t tell of how DEP’s Larry Ragonese repeatedly tried to derail this story and attack and discredit the source – which in this case, is me and my whistleblower source.

A source involved with and critical of the process provided internal documents to me. After careful review, the documents appeared authentic. After speaking with the source, I was assured of her/his credibility and learned a lot about the internal workings of the HMPG program.

Because I respected their investigative work on the Port Authority, I then gave this story to a WNYC reporter on an exclusive basis in late January.

The internal information I provided included the “final” spreadsheet on grant allocations to Towns, which included the point scoring methodology and all the rankings. I also provided internal emails and memoranda that my source gave to me.

I later learned that, apparently, NJ Spotlight reporter Scott Gurian had been working on this same program but was getting stonewalled – State officials would not provide the information he requested.

At the same time I provided WNYC the documents, I began writing PEER’s report and Press release [which we issued on Feb. 3, see: JERSEY SANDY ENERGY GRANT AWARDS RAISE MORE QUESTIONS – Hazard Mitigation Funding Criteria Ignores Municipal Need and Hazard Severity

“The Governor’s scoring spreadsheet looks more like a game of bureaucratic bingo than a rational, need-based selection process,” stated New Jersey PEER Director Bill Wolfe, noting the abrupt termination of the state’s main contractor and the growing uncertainty over distribution of Sandy money. “Many of these requests were virtually identical, yet a few were accepted while many others rejected. No wonder our mayors are confused and suspicious.”

For at least a week, WNYC/NJ Spotlight reviewed the material I provided and ran it by State officials. Ragonese was an obstructionist. I had multiple conversations with WNYC to re-assure them about the documents and my source and rebut pushback they seemed to be getting but was not fully shared with me.

I was assured that WNYC would run the story, but I gave a February 3 deadline, which is when PEER would issue its press release.

The rest if a matter of public record. But it took another month from the first 2/3/14 WNYC story for the larger story to emerge. The take-home points are:

1) had a whistleblower not given me the documents, the story would never have been told. State officials would have continued to stonewall NJ Spotlight, who would have lacked sufficient credible information to write the story;

2) had PEER not been involved and capable of working with the whistleblower and WNYC/NJ Spotlight, the story would not have emerged;

3) The Christie administration and DEP regularly abuse OPRA – Scott Gurian of NJ Spotlight was not able to get these documents – i.e the spreadsheet, the scoring methodology, the allocations of grant funds, and the internal documents and emails he used to write his story;

4) DEP Press Office routinely attacks critics, withholds information, and spins stories. In this case, internal documents were able to penetrate that spin and expose those attacks and lies. In most cases, those documents are not available; and

5) Had the Wolfenotes blog not been available to publicize the documents and pressure and criticize DEP and media, none of this would have occurred.

Moral of the story?

Blow the whistle – engage in anonymous activism! Be a public interest hero! Drop a dime on the hacks!

• Christie Policy and Management Flaws

Many of problems with this program stem from the BPU/DEP underlying energy policy and a lack of commitment by the Christie Administration to the BPU/DEP policy objectives.

Those problems are compounded by the involvement of multiple agencies that do not have a history of working closely with each other, i.e DEP, BPU, Office of Emergency Management, and Governor Christie’s Sandy Czar. You could say they were winging it.

At the outset, when the grant program was designed, the DEP and BPU wanted to provide incentives for long term “energy resilience”, not short term band aides like diesel generators. They agreed with this NREL finding: