WolfeNotes.com

EPA Response to PEER IG Request Failed To Report Ozone Levels

This is no conspiracy theory

Source: USEPA - Region 2 Letter to PEER (2/28/14)

There’s a lot of pushback against Christie critics going on along various fronts –  after repeated attempts to suggest bias (or worse) in order to discredit Legislative investigations (that’s why Assemblywoman Bonnie Watson Coleman resigned so quickly from the Committee after her remarks that Christie should resign), it appears that a far more aggressive rhetorical pattern is emerging.

The general idea is that critics are “deranged” by Bridgegate and engaging in “conspiracy theories” and “paranoid” “X-File” pure political attacks.

This “debunking” “conspiracy theory” spin is a Christie construct, designed to portray critics as “delusional” and “paranoid” in order to discredit them.

I see the origin of this pushback theme in the rumor that the Governor flew over the GW Bridge in the helicopter on 9/11/13.

The recent GWB air monitoring story followed a similar media trajectory.

Just days ago, we saw that happen again when DEP Press Office spokesman and former Star Ledger reporter Larry Ragonese used those tactics when he called critics of the Administration’s Hazard Mitigation Energy Grant program “X-Files” and “paranoid”.

And yesterday,  Politico nationalized that Christie pushback meme in this story:  EPA debunks one Bridgegate conspiracy.

Since I was the originator of two of these stories, I want to make a few points on the GWB air monitoring story  (I already responded to the HMPG pushback in this post).

One of the objectives of our request to the EPA Inspector General to investigate why a NJ air monitoring station in Jersey City was not functioning during 3 days during Bridgegate was to put the issue of air quality impacts and the adequacy of the air monitoring network on the scandal consumed media radar and to build public awareness around these issues (when was the last media coverage of the details on the air monitoring network?)

DEP’s Ragonese disparages and dismisses this as “glomming on to scandal”.

But take a look at the data table above. [We would not have it assembled by EPA if PEER didn’t initiate the IG review.]

Fine particulate air quality levels in Ft. Lee more than doubled during Bridge-gate – from 7.6 ug/m(3) on Saturday September 7 to 16.1 ug/m(3) on Tuesday September 10 (levels in NY increased even more). Levels declined after Bridge-gate ended (Thursday) as measured on Friday 9/13 (in both NY and NJ – showing how commuter traffic impacts air pollution).

That Ft. Lee monitoring station’s data that EPA provided in response to our IG request is not available on the DEP’s website “multi-station Report”), so there was no way that I could be aware of it (thus our error on the claim that the Jersey City station was “closest).

And that data does not report ambient ground level ozone levels, the air people walking and stuck in traffic were breathing.

I guarantee levels were unhealthy, because: a) mobile source emissions (cars and trucks) emit ozone precursors. Traffic dramatically increases emissions; b) it was sunny and hot during the week on September 9, 2013; c) ozone forms in the presence of sunlight and heat; and d)  NJ does not comply with the EPA ground level ozone standard during the summer.

• Conclusions

1. Bridgegate contributed to air pollution and had adverse health effects on the people stuck in traffic and on the street.

That is a fact – why can’t EPA just say that traffic causes air pollution – and because Bridgegate worsened traffic it made air pollution worse? Or would that be straying too far beyond the narrow confines of the IG review request?

2. The EPA and DEP air monitoring network is not able to measure local “hot spot” conditions – i.e. the real world – street level where people breath the air.

3. The EPA response did not report trend conditions – and relied on the NAAQS as the benchmark, not fluctuations that may have been caused by or related to Bridgegate traffic.

4. The EPA response provided no explanation of analysis of why the DEP Jersey City station was down (and did not discuss the significance of the fact that that station only monitors PM 2.5, not ozone).

5. Unfortunately, EPA’s response to PEER’s IG review request narrowly focused on the PM 2.5 and Jersey City air monitoring station, and thereby ignored all these issues.

And that’s no conspiracy theory – it’s regulatory politics as usual.

Complaint Alleges Ethical Lapse During Recusal of Pinelands Commissioner Ed Lloyd

Was Pinelands Lawyer Following Orders From Gov. Christie’s Office?

Pinelands Commission lawyer Stacey Roth (L) confers with Deputy Attorney General after Commission rejected SJG pipeline Memorandum of Agreement (1/10/14)

[Update below]

A south jersey resident filed an “attorney ethics grievance” complaint against Pinelands Commission attorney Stacey Roth.

The complaint was filed on March 2 by Dr. Steven Fenichel of Ocean City. [The complaint was filed with the Office of Attorney Ethics:

The Office of Attorney Ethics acts as the investigative and prosecutorial arm of the Supreme Court of New Jersey in discharging the Court’s constitutional responsibility to supervise and discipline New Jersey attorneys.]

The complaint alleges that Roth acted unethically during her involvement in the controversial forced recusal of Pinelands Commissioner Ed Lloyd, who also is a Professor of Law at Columbia Law School.

There are conflicting statements and news reports on why and how Commissioner Lloyd was forced to recuse himself from participating in the review of the controversial South Jersey Gas Co. proposed gas pipeline.

As far as I know, aside from Lloyd’s written statement, which he read into the public record during a Pinelands Commission meeting, there are no official documents on the matter. I find that shocking and totally unacceptable that a matter of such significance was handled by State officials and Ms. Roth on an oral basis.

Of particular note is that Ms. Roth is quoted by the New York Times as advising Mr. Lloyd that she was just following orders from Governor Christie’s Office.

Lloyd’s claim is lent credence by the State Ethics Commission but – after the Times story appeared -subsequently denied by Executive Director Wittenberg in an attack on Lloyd:(ThinkProgress story)

Nancy Wittenberg, Executive Director of the Pinelands Commission and a Christie appointee, disputes Lloyd’s version of events. “We never spoke to the governor’s office on this,” she told ThinkProgress. “That was a quote from Ed, and maybe he didn’t remember it right, but it’s not true.”

In other words, we have a very serious matter on our hands, involving Gov. Christie’s Office, the Attorney General’s Office, the State Ethics Commission, and the reputations of a Pinelands Commissioner (an attorney and law school professor) and the Commission’s attorney.

Dr. Fenichel states:

[*Note: Here is the Lloyd statement referenced above. This was delivered to the Pinelands Commission by Lloyd. This is the same version that Dr. Fenichel references on Columbia Law School letterhead.]

The New York Times story referenced in the complaint focused on the Lloyd recusal matter and it exposed contradictions between Lloyd’s statement, Roth’s statement, and the statement of the Executive Director of the State Ethics Commission.

Prior to the NY Times coverage, I attended the Pinelands Commission meeting and wrote about the Lloyd recusal issue at the time occurred in some detail, see:  Christie Administration Plays Ugly Hardball In Pinelands Pipeline Controversy –

The Lloyd recusal story got NJ media coverage as well, see:

• Pinelands board member told to recuse himself over pipeline
• Ed Lloyd, state Pinelands Commission member, targeted by Christie’s administration

I later wrote about the issue again in this post: (NY Times reporting is in italics)

as documented by the NY Times:

“The deputy attorney general told Mr. Lloyd that he could appeal to the Pinelands Commission’s ethics lawyer. Mr. Lloyd was working on that appeal when his phone rang. It was the ethics officer.

“She said, ‘Don’t shoot the messenger, but on orders of the governor’s office, I went to the State Ethics Commission and they have ordered you to recuse yourself.’

But it turns out that the Roth apparently lied – the State Ethics Commission did NOT issue the Recusal Order:

“From here, the case grows murkier still. On Wednesday I called the attorney general’s office, and a spokesman, Leland Moore, sent an email reply. We advised Mr. Lloyd to recuse himself, he noted, and recommended that he consult with the State Ethics Commission.

The Ethics Commission, Mr. Moore noted, “apparently made the same determination.”

I called the Ethics Commission, and its executive director said this was not true. “We haven’t made such a determination,” said Peter Tober, the executive director. “It came from the attorney general or the Pinelands ethics officer.”

So, perhaps the legal ethics complaint process will reveal the real story of exactly what went on.

It should be very interesting – we’ll keep you posted.

[end note: and this controversy has Wolff & Samson involvement as well, see this and this:

Influence Pipeline: Christie Administration Tried To Jam Through Project To Benefit Top Operative, Officials Allege

[Update: In addition to the Lloyd recusal matter, I have questioned Ms. Roth’s judgement, objectivity and independence, for example, several times she has made public statements that suggest a strong pro SJG bias. For details, see this. –

Roth also was caught on tape blurting out an unsupported legal opinion that the Commission has no jurisdiction regarding climate change impacts – end update].

Huge Majority Say “Christie is a disgrace”

Yesterday, NJ SPotlight polled their readers on Governor Christie’s performance on Sandy – for results, see:

What do you think of Gov. Christie’s handling of Sandy so far?

While obviously not scientific or statistically valid, it was an interesting poll because instead of the typical “YES/NO” question or phrase polled, Spotlight provided a full descriptive 4-5 sentence well written paragraph with nuance.

Just what one would expect from a quality journalistic outfit whose motto is “Where issues matter“.

A whopping 72% super-majority agreed with this assessment:

Christie is a disgrace. He’s used Sandy as a way to prop up his popularity and later violated the public trust by playing politics with recovery money. First, he uses it to market himself in tourism ads across the country. Then he plays politics with the money by threatening officials that their towns will suffer if they don’t pay homage to him. Now, it seems like his administration isn’t even taking the process of allocations seriously. What will we find out next? How anyone on the Shore can support him is beyond my comprehension.

I can’t improve on that – perfectly captures my thoughts.

Perhaps even more stunningly, the poll found that just 1%  – not a typo, ONE PERCENT – of Spotlight readers agreed with this assessment:

Christie showed true leadership the week of the storm. People are still struggling but that’s to be expected when you have to deal with a federal bureaucracy as well as the devastation facing our municipalities. There are no easy answers and Christie shouldn’t be blamed for not solving these difficult issues.Christie showed true leadership the week of the storm. People are still struggling but that’s to be expected when you have to deal with a federal bureaucracy as well as the devastation facing our municipalities. There are no easy answers and Christie shouldn’t be blamed for not solving these difficult issues.

Wonder why Spotlight readers can seem to get asked a question by the Governor at one of his infamous “Town Hall” shams.

And it’s shameful that Spotlight readers’ assessment rarely – if ever – makes it into the news coverage.

Chew on that over your coffee this morning.

Chronology, Documents, and Emails Show That DEP is Spinning on Sandy Grant Program Awards

DEP  Press Office Calls Criticism By Former Commissioner Mauriello and Their Own Data “X-Files”

Source: NJDEP, presented on Oct. 28, 2013 to grant awardees

“The idea that there’s something nefarious to this, that the people that have dedicated their time to this, are sitting in a room to concoct ways to deny towns funds, it’s getting to be an X-file,” he [DEP Ragonese] told NJ.com. “It’s paranoia to the nth degree, and it’s wrong.”

The final awards are expected to be released sometime in April, he said.

“If we do something wrong, they can call us on it,” he said. “Don’t call us on it until it’s done.” ~~~ Christie Administration criticizes WNYC Sandy report, says Hoboken aid figures not finalized  (3/5/14)

Before you even begin to read this story, take a good look at the map above.

The map was created by DEP on October 22, 2013. Note that it maps the location of grant “awardees” – that’s past tense, as in “final”, i.e. your town received a grant. That DEP map was presented by BPU to a mandatory meeting of grant recipients on October 28, 2013. The hundreds of towns that were denied grants under the Christie Administration’s grant award scoring system were NOT invited to this meeting.

OK, keep that in mind, as we now move to today’s story.

Christie administration spokesmen are denying critical media reports of mismanagement of a $25 million Sandy Hazard Mitigation Grant Energy program fund.

Extraordinary straw man arguments and unprecedented rhetorical attacks include calling the coverage “X-files” and “paranoid” – which is really quite amazing because the story was based on DEP’s own data and supported and sourced by former DEP Commissioner Mark Mauriello.

NJ Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) press spokesman Larry Ragonese claims that WNYC & NJ Spotlight’s investigative Report –  which showed that the program is mismanaged and “riddled with errors” – is just flat out wrong, and the critics are “X-files” paranoids.

Hey Larry, no one is claiming that DEP staffers are “sitting in a room to concoct ways to deny towns funds”.

What I and others are claiming is that the energy grant program was seriously flawed in design, mismanaged, “riddled with errors”, and politicized.

At best, DEP, BPU, Gov.’s Office, et al mismanaged the process and withheld information for obviously political reasons (i.e. the towns that were denied).

At worst, the vague criteria and murky review process provided opportunities for political interventions on allocation decisions.

The evidence to support the politicization claims I’ve made is that emails and documents I was provided by an insider involved in the process show that Gov. Christie’s Office was involved in the design of the program and coordinated a plan to notify grant recipients and issue press releases just weeks before the election (use the “good news” to promote the Governor’s political interest), while those towns that did not receive grants were kept in the dark (suppress the bad news).

In attacking critics, Ragonese makes two excuses for what he characterizes as technical errors that are obvious lies. He claims that:

1) grant funding allocations were “preliminary” and subject to revision; and

2) there were minor human errors in data entry of 19,000 data points.

Because these lies and spin are being reported uncritically by the Star Ledger and NJTV – and WNYC/Spotlight have not publicly defended their reporting as far as I know – I need to document the real story.

• Poor Design and Mismanagement Explain Mistakes and Delays

I’ll rebut the second “human error” point first.

The grant allocation spreadsheet was generated by data sets – using a computer, not manual tabulations. If DEP managers are using pencils in this day and age, they should be fired.

But more importantly, the big mistakes result from:1) the design of the grant program – vague policy objectives, poor guidance to applicants, overly complex and procedurally murky review process, no transparency or public participation, or legislative or media oversight, et al; 2) the point system based scoring methodology, which produced results that were absurd and not rationally based on need; and 3) poor program management and bureaucratic bumbling and incompetence.

The fact that NJ had to ask for two extensions of FEMA’s 1 year deadline on this program has not been reported. 

That fact alone demonstrates that the program was mismanaged.

More importantly, the delay by the State flies in the face of Gov. Christie’s finger pointing – as he prances around sham Town Hall – blaming federal bureaucrats for all the Sandy problems.

This Sandy grant program was totally under the control of Gov. Christie’s administration.

• Chronology shows that Grant allocation were “final” back in October

Ragonese’s claim that the grant allocation decisions are still “preliminary” is absurd.

Multiple documents and a basic chronology show that they were final way back in October 2013 – here it is (in addition to the map above):

BTW, OEM may have managed the “grant distribution process” but I have emails that show (Bridget Kelly’s) Gov. Christie Office of Inter-Governmental Affairs made phone calls to the towns that got the grants. Good news promotion weeks before an election – no wonder CHristie got endorsed by emergency responders –

And with $210 million more in grants coming down the pike in Second Round HUD money, no wonder no municipal officials are criticizing the administration – read this letter that makes that threat implicit.

• Conclusions:

1) This is not just about Hoboken – this is a statewide program. But the story does expose multiple lies by Christie administration officials – just read this document claiming that Hoboken was not shortchanged in light of the HMPG allocations.

2) The performance on this $25 million program does not inspire confidence that the Christie Administration’s much larger $210 million “Energy Resilience Bank” proposed as part of the HUD CDBG second round $1.4 billion plan is workable.

3) DEP Press Office is serving political objectives, not a good faith straight source of reliable information.

4) Star Ledger and NJTV are lame lapdogs in uncritically regurgitating DEP spin.

5) The irony is that I support the distributed energy, micro-grid, and renewable energy goals of the program.

*** But, if the BPU supports those goals in this $25 million grant program and in the $210 million proposed “Energy Resilience Bank”, why are theory not mandating that NJ utilities implement these same programs in BPU review of  multi-billion “NJ Strong” resilience plans?

More to follow on that question.

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