WolfeNotes.com

New Orleans City Park

I urge the Commission to conduct technical reviews and submit technical comments on DEP regulatory proposals, instead of vague and misleading political endorsements.

The NJ Pinelands Commission is by law an independent regional planning and regulatory agency.

The Commission is bound by law to base its decisions and actions on the best available science in accordance with the policies and standards adopted in the Pinelands Protection Act and codified in the Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP).

The Pinelands Act directs and authorizes the Commission to adopt more stringent regulatory standards than DEP, in order to protect unique and sensitive Pinelands ecosystems.

The Commission is independent and not a political institution or an arm of the Governor’s Office (despite the fact the Gov. Murphy installed his political loyalist as Chair of the Commission).

Yet, based on my review of recent comments submitted to DEP in support of DEP’s recent flood rules, it is obvious that the Commission has been captured by the Governor’s Office and is running political interference for the Gov. and the DEP.

So, I just fired off this letter to the Commission:

Dear Pinelands Commission:

Please consider the following as public comments during your upcoming public meeting.

I just read the Pinelands Commission’s 2/2/23 written comments submitted by Stacey Roth on proposed DEP stormwater management and Flood Hazard Act regulations.

The Commission supported those proposed rules on the following basis:

“Development within the State of New Jersey must be designed and constructed to manage not only for today’s flood conditions but for the significantly higher precipitation level anticipated to occur in the future.“

Yet, according to the DEP proposal itself, the proposed rule’s precipitation, runoff, flood elevation, and storm frequency data do not reflect current conditions and do not reflect projected (modeled) conditions.

Accordingly, as explained below, the Commission’s comments are not accurate.

1. DEP based the rule on the 100 year storm event, despite the fact that NJ already has experienced several far more severe 500 year storm events.

DEP’s proposal documents the fact that NJ has suffered 500 year (or more) Storm events and flooding (proposal @ page 10):

Specifically, the remnants of Tropical Storm Ida resulted in flooding significantly more severe than FEMA’s published 100-year flood at various locations in New Jersey:

Raritan River at Bound Brook:

• Flooding during Tropical Storm Ida equaled 1999’s Hurricane Floyd, which was the highest elevation ever recorded at Bound Brook.
• Including Floyd, flooding at this location in the past 23 years has equaled or exceeded FEMA’s 500-year flood elevation three times.
• The Raritan River during Tropical Storm Ida peaked at 42.13 ft NGVD (41.21 ft NAVD) which is 3.01 feet above FEMA’s 100-year elevation (38.2 ft NAVD) and 0.21 ft above FEMA’s 500-year flood elevation (41.0 ft NAVD).

Raritan River at Bridgewater

• Flooding during Tropical Storm Ida peaked at roughly FEMA’s 500-year flood elevation (41.0 ft NAVD) which is 2.8 ft above FEMA’s 100-year flood elevation (38.2 ft NAVD)

Millstone River at Manville:

• Flooding during Tropical Storm Ida peaked at roughly one foot above FEMA’s 500-year flood elevation (43.5 ft NAVD) which is 2.5 ft above FEMA’s 100-year flood elevation (41.0 ft NAVD). Thus, flooding at this location peaked at approximately 3.5 feet above FEMA’s 100-year flood elevation.

DEP then explains the significance of the 500 year flood event: (@page 11):

“These examples illustrate not only that Ida was a significant flood event that exceeded the anticipated flooding depicted on available flood mapping products, upon which many roads and buildings were financed, constructed, and insured in the impacted communities, but also that there is an upward trend in the number and severity of flood events in the State. As noted above, flooding in Bound Brook has exceeded FEMA’s 100-year flood elevation four times and FEMA’s 500-year flood elevation three times since 1999, which leads to the conclusion that we are already experiencing increased flooding as compared with past recurrence interval calculations.”

Despite the facts that NJ is already experiencing 500 year floods and that climate science projects that extreme storms will significantly increase in rainfall amount, rainfall intensity (short severe bursts of rainfall that create floods), and extreme rainfall frequency, the DEP did not even use the 500 year storm.

Instead, DEP merely added a 25% “safety factor” addition to the current 100 year storm event they’ve been using for decades.

And look how they then falsely stated that it would be adequate – a statement made before the facts on 500 year storms are summarized on page 10-11: (@page 5):

“This rulemaking incorporates anticipated greater depths of precipitation for the two, 10, and 100-year storm events for the purposes of stormwater management.These proposed amendments are necessary to ensure that buildings, roads, stormwater management features and other structures are designed and constructed to manage and be protective for today’s flood conditions and precipitation as well as anticipated future conditions and precipitation. […]

Specifically, the flood hazard area design flood elevation is based on a flood that is 25 percent greater than the 100-year peak flow rate in the stream or river being analyzed and mapped.”

The technical regulatory fine print for this standard is on page 102:

“6. Table 3.6B below sets forth the change factors to be used in determining the projected 100-year storm event for use in this chapter”

The 100 year storm – even with an additional 25% “safety factor” increment – can not “ensure that buildings, roads, stormwater management features and other structures are designed and constructed to manage and be protective for today’s flood conditions and precipitation as well as anticipated future conditions and precipitation.”

That proposed new standard is already exceeded now, never mind projected climate driven increases.

DEP admits this multiple times in the proposal:

“More than 12 rivers exceeded their 100-year flood levels”

“On August 27 and 28, 2011, Hurricane Irene resulted in record breaking floods on many New Jersey streams, with 33 USGS stream gauges recording peak flows equal to or greater than the 100-year recurrence interval (USGS, 2011).”

DEP exposed the inadequacy of the 100 year design storm for the purpose of justifying their new 25% “safety factor”.

But, ironically, in doing so, DEP also exposed the flaws in relying on the 100 year flood.

2. DEP Ignores Land Use Increases In Development. DEP’s proposed new standards are obsolete for the same reasons that DEP correctly rejects current rainfall methods

Just some basic observations make it obvious that, in addition to underestimating extreme rainfall amounts and flood elevations, DEP is failing to consider a basic driver of increased flood impacts.

Flooding is a combination of the amount and timing of rainfall and the ability of the landscape to absorb that rainfall.

NJ is a highly developed state.

Development destroyed forests, wetlands, and natural landscapes that absorb rainfall and dampen flooding. It also puts people and property at risk when located in areas prone or vulnerable to flooding.

Development also increases impervious surfaces that dramatically increase the generate stormwater runoff volumes.

Yet the DEP proposal ignores the changes in land use and impervious surfaces that generated huge volumes of stormwater that contribute to bad land use decisions that result in devastating deadly flooding.

The proposal ignores existing development, it will influence new development at the margin, and it therefore depends on market forces, not any overarching State Land use and climate plan or infrastructure investment program.

A critical Star ledger editorial got that:

“A lot of New Jersey was developed prior to the stormwater regulations,” Obropta said. “The state needs to require municipalities to begin retrofitting existing development with stormwater management if we have any hope to reduce flooding.”

The proposal ignores existing development.

The proposal does very little to cap or reduce impervious surfaces or stop the loss of natural lands like forests, wetlands and stream buffers. It guarantees that the flooding problems will get worse.

I urge the Commission to conduct technical reviews and submit technical comments on DEP regulatory proposals, instead of vague and misleading political endorsements.

Bill Wolfe

Shortly After LaTourette’s “Not On My Watch”, DEP Cancelled Public Open House

DEP Then Issued A Report That Included Billionaire’s Development Scheme

Gov. Murphy Pulls The Rug Out From Under DEP Commissioner LaTourette

Murphy DEP Commissioner LaTourette recently got great press with a bold sounding quote that drew a bright red line in the sand in opposition to commercial development of Liberty State Park. A Jersey Journal (3/18/23) editorial opened with it:

“Not on my watch.”

That was New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Shawn LaTourette’s declaration during a news conference Thursday morning when pressed time and again about the possibility of private interests eclipsing the public’s right to access and enjoy Liberty State Park in Jersey City.

So, no stadium, LaTourette said.

No concert arena.

No huge sports complex.

No infringement on Caven Point Peninsula.

“This land can never be used for anything other than conservation and recreation purposes,” he said. “Period.”

Powerful and crystal clear, right? No means No, right?.

Wrong. That misperceived “bold” statement included corporate lawyer-like slick qualifications – in other words, it was gaslighting.

A careful reading of LaTourette’s full quote reveals that he qualified that bold claim, and doubled down with another faux bold claim i.e. (“Period.”) (emphases mine):

To be clear, LaTourette’s stance doesn’t mean that nothing will be built. And it doesn’t mean that community amenities like public ballfields and a community rec center are off the table. Just the opposite is true.

“There are a number of considerations that go into what constitutes ‘conservation and recreation purposes,’” he said when speaking of what is legally allowed in the state park.

So, first of all, when we speak of recreation, we mean primarily outdoor recreation. We also mean that it must be fully accessible to the public. So, facilities that serve the purpose of purely revenue generation, they could never take hold on this land. Period.”

“Primarily” and “purely” are weasel words.

Thankfully, the editors at the Jersey Journal, who have been closely following this issue, detected the LaTourette gaslighting and wrote a supportive but skeptical editorial that challenged Governor Murphy to back his Commissioner up by supporting legislation that would enforce that commitment: (Jersey Journal editorial):

While it’s probably safe to assume that LaTourette was speaking with the blessing, or at least the knowledge, of his boss, Gov. Phil Murphy, we wish Murphy himself would come out in such strong – and even stronger – terms.

Well, I guess it was NOT “safe to assume” that Commissioner LaTourette was speaking for Gov. Murphy.

Just days after LaTourette’s bold “NOT ON MY WATCH”, the DEP cancelled a highly publicized public “Open House” meeting: (from Friends Of Liberty State Park):

Friends of LSP CONDEMNS LSP CANCELATION OF DEP LSP OPEN HOUSE TO SHOW PLANS 

The Friends of Liberty State Park assert that it seems very clear that billionaire Paul Fireman and his funded surrogates pressured their friend Governor Murphy who then outrageously ordered the NJDEP to cancel its well-publicized  March 23rd Open House to show its LSP plans. The billionaire, ignoring the clear and strong statements on March 16th, by NJDEP Commissioner Shawn LaTourette against such commercial venues and stating, “Privatization of a public asset that is owned by no one because it belongs to everyone is not a thing, period, full stop”. 

The NJDEP first announced the Open House on March 9th and last week’s stories, emails, social media and Fireman digital ads, have publicized the event, and as the DEP stated in its cancelation notice, there was significant interest in the LSP “revitalization program” plans.

The Governor’s apparent caving in to the billionaire’s wishes, is embarrassing to the DEP and it is shamefully disrespectful of the public to cancel an event with two days notice.

But it gets even worse.

After canceling the DEP Open House, days later DEP then issued a March 2023 Report: “Summary of Advisory Group Considerations And Recommendations – Liberty State Park Design Task Force”

An email from Sam Pesin, longtime leader of Liberty State Park distributing the DEP Report noted: (emphasis mine):

The DEP also released it summer report from last year’s tax force whose mandate was to make recommendations ….. Fireman’s proxies pushed forward its sports and entertainment complex plans. …

The DEP Report put Fireman’s plans …. in the Appendix…

Which reminded me that old school investigate journalist IF Stone advised that people should always read government documents from back to front and closely scrutinize the appendices and footnotes. That’s where the real stuff is always buried.

Fireman’s development schemes are “in there”.

DEP stealthed them into the Report in the Appendices and they did so with an obscure link described as the “Liberty State Park For All Independent Concept Plan”

DEP’s Report provided an opportunity for DEP to reject Fireman’s development plans. DEP could have and should have rejected them out of hand.

That would have put Gov. Murphy on the spot and finger him as the source of any future development schemes.

But Fireman’s plans not only were included in the DEP Report, DEP made a commitment to make “further inquiry” on them:

“This report summarizes the deliberations of the LSP-D Task Force, including its advisory considerations and recommendations, identifies implementation considerations and areas for further inquiry and evaluation, and includes within its appendices other concepts generated outside the auspices of the LSP- D Task Force but presented to its greater membership.”

Here’s how DEP tried to wiggle out of this outrageous failure. They responded to Fireman’s plan in a FOOTNOTE (on page 9)!!!

The fact that Fireman’s development plans were NOT rejected out of hand, were responded to in a lame footnote, and were instead included in the Report – with a DEP commitment to “further inquiry” – tells you all you need to know about DEP “leadership”.

“Not on my watch”? My ass.

If LaTourette had any integrity at all he would have resigned after the Governor knee capped and humiliated him by canceling the DEP scheduled Open House and not honoring his “not on my watch” line in the sand.

But, I doubt that LaTourette ever really meant what he said – I’d bet he was gaslighting all along and the Governor and the public and the media took him seriously.