WolfeNotes.com

Failure to meet minimum federal requirements may jeopardize federal funding and eligibility under National Flood Insurance Program

FEMA Joins EPA In Criticizing Proposal for Failure to Meet Federal Requirements

Will The Obama Administration Enforce Federal Law?

[Update: 9/23/15 –  Tom Johnson at NJ Spotlight covers the story:

• FEMA WEIGHS IN ON PROPOSED DEP RULE CHANGES, WARNING OF POTENTIAL FLOOD HAZARDS ~~~ end update]

In a detailed July 31, 2015 comment letter (provided upon request), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) filed strong objections to the Christie DEP’s 900+ page massive proposed new rules that would weaken existing flooding and water quality protections and promote development in hazardous locations, including extremely hazardous “V” wave zones and on piers in the Hudson river.

NJ League Of Municipalities warns “lower state standard” jeopardizes NFIP coverage

FEMA’s objections were shared by the NJ League of Municipalities, who wrote that the DEP rule could result in  suspension from the federal flood insurance program:

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) provides subsidized flood insurance to protect property owners. As a condition of eligibility however, participating municipalities must adopt local flood plain management measures to reduce or avoid flood damage. Properies located in a participating municipality , which do not have flood insurance, are denied both direct federal financial assistance (citation) and federally related financing by private lending institutions (citation). At present, 550 New Jersey municipalities participate in the program.

Participating municipalities must enforce their local flood plains (sic) management measures. Indeed, if “communities do not adequately enforce their flood plain management regulations, they can be placed on probation and potentially suspended from the NFIP (citation).

[…]

This may be an issue for some municipalities in reviewing applications to develop properties within V zones…. By creating a lower state standard, these regulations put great pressure pressure on local building officials ..

Consequently, we would ask that the proposed regulations be amended so that they are better aligned with the NFIP.

So, what that all means is that if a homeowner – unknowingly and with DEP and local approvals – were to build to DEP’s lax standards and suffer damage from a a future storm or flood, they might find themselves ineligible for flood insurance reimbursement.

Got it? How irresponsible is that?

The Christie DEP is recklessly putting life and property at risk, while duping homeowners, who have no way of understanding these regulatory risks.

The FEMA letter joins a letter by US EPA objecting to the Christie DEP proposal regarding potential violations of the Clean Water Act (see NJ Spotlight story on EPA objections).

FEMA Objections illustrate radical federalism policy reversal by Christie Administration

FEMA raised several concerns regarding the failure of DEP’s proposal to meet minimum federal requirements.

Historically, DEP regulatory policy has been that if a federal agency raises concerns about failure to meet minimum federal requirements, then the DEP responds to that federal concern and revises the proposal accordingly.

The Christie DEP has reversed that longstanding policy, and is flouting FEMA and EPA objections.

This conflict sets the stage for a battle with the Obama administration over the question of whether and how they will enforce federal law in NJ. See:

• CHRISTIE CLIMATE DENIAL IMPERILS SANDY RECOVERY FUNDS

• FEMA to States: No Climate Planning, No Money

FEMA’s objections are not obscure technical “red tape” minutia – they involve major substantive issues that according to FEMA only address “the design of buildings in flood hazard areas“.

Here’s a list (excerpts only):

COMMENT #1

[proposed] rules do not include specific requirements for the location or protection of utilities and equipment that serve buildings, including electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities. Nor do existing rules require the use of flood damage resistant materials below the base flood elevation.

COMMENT #2

The rules use, but do not define, the terms “residential” and “nonresidential”. … The lack of clarity … complicates comparisons with NFIP dry flood-proofing requirements.

COMMENT #3

[The proposal] … allows construction or conversion of a building on a pier in the Hudson river. …The preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps identify V Zones in some areas along the shore of the Hudson River. Allowing new construction over water in Zone V is not consistent with the NFIP, which prohibits new construction of buildings in Zone V if located seaward of the mean high tide. 

COMMENT #4

[The proposal – cite] has requirements for the construction of new habitable buildings. If the test for feasibility results in lowest floors lower than the Base Flood Elevation, then this is inconsistent with the NFIP ( additional complex technical comment on the lowest floor elevation – flood-proofing]

Comment #5

[The proposal – citation] is inconsistent with the NFIP in that there are no distinctions between Zone A and Zone V, coastal high hazard areas where wave heights are predicted to be 3 feet or more during base flood conditions.  In addition, the rules are inconsistent with the NJ UCC, which also distinguishes requirements as a function of whether a location is in a coastal high hazard area or flood hazard area. The rule does not address NFIP specifics about foundation limitations in Zone V (e.g. pilings and columns and free-of-obstruction), does not require buildings in Zone V to be landward of the reach of the mean high tide, does not require the design of buildings in V zones to be certified by an architect or engineer, and the only use of the undefined term “breakaway walls” is in the definition of wet flood-proofing. In addition, the next addition of the NJ UCC is expected to have requirements for areas designated as subject to moderate wave action, which will create another inconsistency with the FAHCA rules.

These are not minor, particularly comment #5.

What was DEP thinking?

Given the League of Municipalities NFIP and EPA water quality objections – along with hundreds of public comments opposing a series of rollbacks – this proposal must be abandoned or vetoed by the Legislature as “inconsistent with legislative intent”.

Map of the Day

(Source: US Energy Information Administration)

Note: this map is as of 2009 – President Obama has bragged about significant increases since then by his Administration.

EPA Allows Truck Depot At Site, While Still No Building Demolition or Cleanup

[Updates below]

Here’s the promotional lead for the Delaware River Scenic Byway:

Only one place in America has  “Washington’s Crossing” and it is on the Delaware River Scenic Byway. Walk where George Washington and other Revolutionary War figures camped and navigated the waters of New Jersey’s “West Coast.”

From New Jersey’s capital, Trenton, through the charming riverside towns of Titusville, Lambertville, Stockton, Raven Rock and Frenchtown contemplate the area ‘s rich history and architecture of the 17th, 18th and 19th century.

Driving the Delaware Scenic Byway just north of lovely upscale Frenchtown, you are assaulted by a huge hulking industrial nightmare as you enter the more working class river town of New Milford:

long shut down coal cogeneration power plant still standing at site

No wonder the Scenic Byway ends at Frenchtown – Milford seems to have been excluded from the “area’s rich history and architecture” (as was Cadwalader Park, a Frederick Law Olmstead design).

Welcome to the Curtis Specialty Superfund site – evidence that Milford has been abandoned by government as well.

The Byway was a spectacular conception of local artists and historians, but we wish there was a lot less emphasis on automobile dependent scenery and the economic aspects of tourism, and a lot more on managing water quality & quantity of the Delaware River, management of land use, State parks and the superb natural resources of the Congressionally designated Wild & Scenic river corridor.

But, let’s get back on the main topic of this post.

I’ve written about this site before, see:

• Does This Superfund Site Look Ready for Redevelopment?
• EPA to Hold Public Meeting On Crown Vantage and Curtis Paper Superfund Sites
• EPA Curtis Specialty Superfund – Is The Priority Site Cleanup or Redevelopment?
• EPA Puts Corporations In Charge of Superfund Cleanup Science

(just curious: I wonder how many of the “Stop the Pipeline” folks worked on any of these issues?)

EPA has made a series of mistakes overseeing cleanup of the site, primarily due to a heavy reliance on corporate science, elevation of cleanup costs in decision-making, and bowing to local economic development interests (similar problems were made at the cleanups of the nearby Crown Vantage Landfill Superfund site and the virtually unregulated other nearby Curtis Papers/Crown Vantage landfill, the one with “natural leachate” discharging directly into the Delaware River).

EPA mistakes include ignoring PCB risks along Q-Creek (allowing the stream bank to washout unknown quantities of PCBs into the river) and prematurely issuing a redevelopment report that raised unrealistic expectations for both cleanup and redevelopment.

But finally, in May 2015, EPA released a cleanup plan – it is yet to be implemented (and we think it is flawed and does not go far enough on site cleanup and ecological investigation and compensation for natural resource injuries due to off site impacts on fish and water quality of the Delaware River).

Then, just following that small positive momentum, EPA, via an August 28, 2015 email advised the Community Advisory Group (CAG) of the following:

Hello CAG Members,

We wanted to let you know that the front parking lot of the Curtis Paper site will be used over approximately the next 30 days as a staging area for trailers from the nearby GP box plant.  GP is implementing a minor construction project which necessitates the temporary relocation of the trailers.  It’s possible that the temporary use of the parking lot might result in increased traffic.  The town has been notified and I will let Alexandria know also.

The trailers stored will either be empty or contain paper products.  IP/GP will be controlling access to the site and restricting the trailers to the parking lot.

EPA does not have any objection to this activity.  However, if the situation changes – either a longer duration or an increased number of trailers, we will be notified and reach out to you again.  Please don’t hesitate to email me with any questions or concerns.

Could you imagine if a local government approved a truck depot in your front yard and let you know via an email? EPA never would pull this stunt in Princeton. 

Here’s what that looks like from the road:

note the “No trespassing” signs

The decrepit cogeneration plant and old Crown Vantage distribution warehouse are not the only eyesores – that are health and safety threats as well – on the site. Take a look at this, perhaps just 100 feet from a lovely occupied residential neighborhood on Delaware Ave:

Delaware Ave homes – Perhaps EPA is unaware that Superfund sites and truck depots are not compatible land uses.

Here’s what it looks like from the residential neighborhood – note the “No Trucks Allowed” sign in the foreground:

“No Trucks Allowed”!

It is bad enough that the West Milford community has been forced to live with this toxic eyesore for decades.

But for EPA to allow use of the Superfund site for a truck depot – merely to save the Corporations money – and then to announce their approval of that via email with no opportunity for public comment is way over the top – adding insult to industry.

[Update: here is my note to EPA:

[Update 9/29/15 – here is EPA’s reply:

Bill,

Thank you for your email.  The site security was provided by the RP, not an EPA contractor.  The town of Milford was aware of the request to use the front parking lot as a temporary staging and they had no objections and neither did EPA.  The last trailer was removed from the site this past Saturday, Sept. 26  – within the 30 day timeframe which was provided to us.

EPA did not find the use of the parking lot inappropriate.  We are now between the Proposed Plan and the ROD for the Curtis site.  It will be released shortly and I will be sure to send it to all CAG members.

Pat

Premier Delaware River State Park Abandoned and Closed To The Public

Christie DEP Letting Magnificent Park Rot

Delaware River looking north from the tip of Bulls Island (9/12/15)

It’s been our experience that many people care deeply about Bulls Island State Park and would be willing to volunteer time to develop and support a landscape and natural resource conservation based plan to reopen the Island for passive public use.

With some leadership at DEP, I don’t believe it would be difficult to create such a public and professional advisory group to prepare such a plan and to secure public, media, and DEP and D&R Canal Commission approvals and even a legislative appropriations to fund it.

Last we were aware, in November 2014, the DEP had secured approval by the D&R Canal Commission for a demolition plan for existing buildings and infrastructure at Bulls Island State Park – so it seemed progress was being made in developing a plan for reopening the site to public use, see:

• DEP Gets Approval To Demolish Bulls Island Campgrounds & Buildings

We had hoped that the park could be re-opened to the public for the 2015 season.

So the dog and I made an outing today to visit Bulls Island and see for ourselves what’s going on there.

What we saw was deeply disturbing – see photos below, with notes in captions (apologies for poor quality – it was raining and foggy at times).

We have the worst of all possible worlds: 1) public access is eliminated while buildings and infrastructure literally rot and 2) ecologically, natural resources are mismanaged as invasive species and weeds choke native vegetation.

Bulls Island is one of the finest State Parks and a marvelous place to enjoy the beauty of the Delaware River. Some of the finest Delaware river scenes can be had walking along the river front trail, amid the grace of huge old sycamores.

Delaware Rive views obscured by overgrown weeds

The tranquility of the trees and the river can be enjoyed while strolling or from benches. There are multiple points of direct access to the river for fishing, playing fetch with the dog, getting your feet wet, or just watching and listening to the river flow.

this bench used to be a wonderful place to take in river views and listen to the river flow

The fact that the DEP has closed the northern portion of the island for over 4 years now and done absolutely nothing to develop a plan for the park to reopen for limited public use is a scandal.

Almost a year after the D&R Canal Commission approved the demolition, the buildings and infrastructure have not been demolished and are still there rotting and the place is overrun by weeds.

There is no plan to restore and reopen the Island – literally nothing is being done.

DEP Commissioner Martin and Rich Boornazian the real estate hack he installed as Assistant Commissioner over NJ’s State Parks system should both be ashamed of themselves. Take a look:

Even the “Area Closed” signs are overgrown by weeds

scores of park benches rotting beneath weeds

Christie DEP’s Asset Management

this used to be the lovely central campground area

building neglected, rotting in place, and not yet demolished

playground still not demolished and removed

gorgeous river views obscured by weeds

Ironically, attempt to “modernize” water pipes backfires

Oliver Street, Bordentown NJ (9/11/15)

A jackhammer inside 30 feet exceeds the pain threshold of the human ear.

And scares hell out of the dog. Even the backyard wasn’t far enough away, the racket made him howl! So he’s now pacing the living room floor and panting in obvious unease.

I can’t think either.

So, now we get to the interesting problem.

The water line in front of my house began leaking (visibly) on Wednesday and today the Bordentown Water guys are here to repair it.

It is the third water line failure in just half my block in the last few months. In fact, the jackhammer is re-opening a hole they dug to repair a water line break just a few weeks ago.

My house was built in 1900, so the water infrastructure is old.

But its not the older infrastructure that is failing.

I asked the repair guys what was causing the problem and whether all the recent breaks were related.

He told me that sometime back in the 1970’s – he emphasized “long before I was born”, making me feel ancient – the city installed plastic pipe laterals from the main line to the houses.

[Update – another worker told me the plastic lines were installed throughout the township in 1976. They are all beginning to fail. On top of that, he said last winter that had numerous cracked and frozen pipes. “If we have another bad winter, w’re in trouble.” – end update]

The plastic was a new material and assumed to be better – following a typical myth that “modern” is superior.

It was installed and packed with stones. Over time, the ground settling and vibrations have caused the stones to crack the plastic pipe.

I asked the man if that plastic pipe was installed through all of Bordentown – he shrugged. He either honestly didn’t know or wouldn’t answer my question.

Heckofajob!

It would make an interesting story for an intrepid reporter to investigate how widespread installation of that kind of plastic pipe is and how much those mistakes are now costing NJ local governments, water ratepayers, and taxpayers.

Do we now have enforceable controls in place to prevent similar problems in the future?

That would be important to know, particularly as NJ becomes the gas pipeline state.

Is anyone game for that?

[Update – 12:45 pm – Uh oh. After re-opening the hole and shutting off the water, the water kept flowing, leading to a more extensive search for the source of the leak.The assumption was that it was my neighbor’s lateral.

The jackhammer has started up again as they are expanding the hole in search of the source of the leak. It is either my lateral of the next neighbor’s.

We’ll keep you posted! ~~~ end update]

the excavation expands in search of source of leak – later fund to be the lateral to my house.

head of the crew holds up pice of broken plastic pipe. My lateral was found as the source of the leak!

that’s the black plastic pipe installed to my home, the source of the leak.