Rutgers Scientific Research Conclusively Documents Ecological Decline Of Barnegat Bay

Christie DEP Blocking Release of Embarrassing Report for Political Reasons

DEP Manufactures Doubt To Prevent Publication of Damning Science

[Update: 7/18/14 – Killer Editorial:  State Apathy Killing Barnegat Bay

What should happen now is that the state declare Barnegat Bay an “impaired” waterway under the Clean Water Act, which would force DEP to create a strict action plan to reduce pollution into the bay. That’s what an activist group of former government environmental workers is calling for, and there appears to be little responsible choice now. Otherwise, the state might as well pull the plug and let the bay die.

Taking such aggressive cleanup action, however, means some meaningful — and potentially costly — regulatory restraints on coastal development, and Christie undoubtedly wants no part of that.

Update: 7/16/14 – read Kirk Moore’s superb Asbury Park Press story: NJ Must Act On Bay Report, Watchdog Group Says

“This is amazing that DEP won’t release the study when it’s been in a peer-reviewed journal,” Bill Wolfe of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility said Tuesday about highlighted portions of the Rutgers report.

The findings show the bay “may be spiraling to a point of ecological no return,” said Wolfe, a former DEP analyst who obtained the report and related documents through a Freedom of Information Act request to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which provided funding for the $480,000 project.

[Update below – explanation of how DEP is blocking release]

A Rutgers research Report, completed over a year ago, comprehensively documents the ecological decline of Barnegat Bay.

The Report proves, beyond any doubt, that the Bay is “impaired” and it recommends that a “Total Maximum Daily Load” (TMDL), required under the Clean Water Act, be implemented as the primary means of reducing  current pollution, preventing future pollution, and restoring the health of the Bay.

But the Christie DEP is blocking the release of this research Report in order to avoid compliance with the Clean Water Act’s TMDL requirements and to prevent exposure of the failure of Gov. Christie’s Management Plan and serious flaws in DEP water quality standards, monitoring, and assessment programs, which fail to show the true declining health of the Bay.

Documents we obtained via FOIA of US EPA reveal a concerted effort by DEP to “manufacture doubt” – a fraudulent tactic pioneered by the tobacco industry – and undermine the credibility and scientific conclusions of the Rutgers research.

The Report also ties the Bay health to nutrient pollution caused by over-development and thus would lead to enforceable regulatory restrictions on future land use in the watershed, as is therefore strongly opposed by local builders and economic development interests.

Read the documents and get the full story, from our friends at PEER:

For Immediate Release:  Tuesday, July 15, 2014

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

Study Documenting Barnegat Bay Decline Kept in Limbo

Land Use Driving Nutrient Loading; Pollution Diet Needed to Avert Tipping Point   

Trenton — The first quantitative biotic index for Barnegat Bay finds the estuary in steep decline and calls for major changes in how it is managed, according to text posted today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).  The comprehensive study by Rutgers University researchers has been kept from publication by the Christie administration which claims Barnegat Bay is a success story.

The massive study bears the unwieldy title “Assessment of Nutrient Loading and Eutrophication in Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor, New Jersey in Support of Nutrient Management Planning” and is authored by Rutgers researchers Michael Kennish, Benjamin Fertig and Richard Lathrop.  It finds Barnegat Bay to be in “significant ecological decline” and in a “highly eutrophic” condition.  The “poorly flushed” estuary does not easily rid itself of pollutants.  The net result is an increase in brown tides (harmful algal blooms), loss of eelgrass beds, shrinking abundance of clams and loss of marine habitat.

The study concludes that declines in water quality are “strongly related to land use” and finds the highest levels of nutrient loads connected to developed areas, as opposed to forested tracts.  As development spreads it spurs “cascading changes” that push the Bay toward an as yet undetermined “tipping point.”

“This study conclusively documents that Barnegat Bay is in deep trouble and may be spiraling to a point of ecological no return,” stated New Jersey PEER Director Bill Wolfe, who obtained the study through a Freedom of Information Act request from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  “The science is inescapable that our land use practices directly affect the health of the Bay.”

Governor Chris Christie had vetoed legislation requiring adoption of a pollution diet in the form of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Barnegat Bay.  Instead, Christie signed a largely cosmetic bill on lawn fertilizer controls.  By contrast, the Rutgers study recommends a much stronger prescription:

• The study says adoption of a TMDL containing a “strict limit on nutrient and phosphorus loads” is “a necessary element” for recovery of the Bay;

• It calls for stronger storm-water controls, open space preservation, soil restoration and other measures to prevent pollutants from reaching the Bay; and

• Underlines that a TMDL and better land management are not an either/or proposition but that achieving both is “critical” to Bay recovery.

“This study should be guiding state policy on Barnegat Bay rather than gathering dust on a shelf,” added Wolfe who has been advocating a TMDL for the ailing estuary.  “The Christie people do not want this study to see the light of day because it shows that their so-called recovery package for Barnegat Bay is itself just a different type of ‘nutrient load.’”

###

See the study’s “Key Findings’

Look at its recommendations

 View the Executive Summary

Revisit bogus Christie attempt to declare the Bay unimpaired

  

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

[Update: I just got a good question from a reader asking how DEP is blocking release of this study.

I should have made that more clear.

The study is EPA funded, but partially funded by the DEP. For administrative reasons, EPA decided to contract the management of the research to a private professional water resource group in New England.

DEP serves on the study’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The other TAC members are EPA and Barnegat Bay Partnership (BBP). The BBP is funded by EPA and DEP, so they know which way the wind blows, and have raised similar objections to the study, including some criticisms that lack scientific merit.

The TAC signed off on the scope of work and QA/QC plans for the study, met regular for over 2 years with Rutgers to review data and progress, and must sign off on the final report before it is released. Despite all this, late in the process the TAC raised numerous significant criticisms of the study – two rounds of review comments and responses from Rutgers (over 100 pages, be glad to provide upon request).

This is a classic example of “manufacturing doubt” – by injecting false uncertainty into science to undermine findings you disagree with.

The New England group – at EPA and or DEP request – is conducting a peer review process of the work. They refused to provide the documents to me so I obtained them by FOIA to EPA. So EPA views the report as “final”.

New England won’t release until peer review comments are in and DEP and EPA approve.

DEP is using TAC and approval powers to bury this report and prevent its release.

Ironiclly, the Report was published in the peer reviewed scientific literature in the March  edition of the journal Estuaries and Coasts – that version provided upon request as swell – just email me.

The fact that the study passed scientific journal peer reviews but not DEP strongly suggests that DEP is blocking it for political reasons. – end update.]