Another News Management Job Brought To You By $100 Million From The Wm. Penn Foundation
All The News Money Can Buy
Today’s NJ Spotlight story that focuses on the Delaware River fisheries impacts of the drought is another illustration of news management, questionable journalistic ethics, and of sham science and spin from the NJ Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), see:
I’ve long written about the water quality impacts from drought – a major issue that is again ignored by today NJ Spotlight story – and I wrote specifically last month about concerns with trout impacts of low river flows and and NYC reservoir releases, see:
The spin from DEP quotes in today’s NJ Spotlight story almost seems intended to rebut that criticism. So, I need to drill down on the falsehoods, omissions and misleading DEP claims.
First of all, the “journalistic source” for the NJ Spotlight story was created, funded by, and is a mouthpiece of the Wm. Penn Foundation ($50,000). They are the propaganda arm of Penn’s $100 million Delaware Watershed initiative. I’ve long been critical of Penn’s narrow, corporate friendly, and anti-regulatory issues focus and strategy. They often provide cover for regulatory failures and most always bring the safe “good news” that never offends the corporate and political powers that be. They always seem to manage to rely on “expert sources” from the groups and campaigns that they are funding.
In this case, Wm. Penn has pulled off a triple dip:
- Penn created and funds the news outlet that reported the story (Delaware Currents)
- Penn funds the “expert” source quoted by that news outlet (Friends of the Upper Delaware River). In turn, Friends of UD is part of a Penn funded coalition of groups and Penn funds an even larger interlocking set of “partners”. They are an incredibly inbred, transactional, and self serving group.
- Penn funds the secondary news outlet that picked up the story (NJ Spotlight)
The NJ Spotlight story begins on solid ground, with some accurate statements by the FUDR source about trout, the same points I made last month:
“It’s a perfect storm of conditions during a critical time for trout, particularly the brown trout that are spawning in the fall,” said Jeff Skelding, the executive director of Friends of the Upper Delaware River.
But then the story suddenly shifts to the DEP, who make a series of false, misleading and diversionary statements. So let’s drill down on each DEP quote to show how what they said is irresponsible, misleading or distorted – and what they left out is even worse.
After the FUDR highlight the negative impacts on trout, the DEP fisheries expert reveals that they don’t give a damn about any trout or wildlife issues up-river in New York:
“If we’re going to have a drought, we’re fortunate that it’s occurring from the fall into the winter,” said Shawn Crouse, chief of the Bureau of Freshwater Fisheries at the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s Fish & Wildlife division.
This DEP statement not only ignores up-river conditions in NY, it frames the issue as summer versus winter conditions, which narrows the focus to the water quality parameters of dissolved oxygen and temperature, conveniently ignoring concentrations of other pollutants that threaten drinking water, aquatic life, fisheries, and ecosystems. For example:
Oftentimes, in periods of low water in winter, chemicals or toxins will move more slowly through the stream system & exist in higher concentrations. This may cause chemical or physical characteristics to be worse during the winter months.
DEP even makes the lack of concern with up-river conditions explicit:
Unlike in the Upper Delaware, trout spawning seasons are less of a concern in the stretch of the Delaware River that passes through New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
“We don’t have year-round trout supporting conditions, so we actually don’t get any spawning,” Crouse said.
Gee, now what are “trout spawning conditions”? NJ waters are too polluted to support trout reproduction!
DEP then goes on to speculate about the “good news” on low drought flows:
Up the food chain, waterfowl may have an easier time finding food.
“If there’s less water, foraging for bald eagles and waterfowl should actually be a little bit easier, since the fish are a little bit more concentrated,” Crouse said.
That’s like the climate denial folks who make sham claims that the increasing CO2 levels driving global warming is actually GOOD, because it increases plant photosynthesis rates and agricultural productivity.
But here’s where DEP goes off the rails with misleading statements about science.
Brook trout, New Jersey’s only native trout species, do spawn in other parts of the state and some tributaries of the Delaware River.
“They are, for the most part, relegated to headwater streams,” Crouse said. “Fortunately, headwater streams have a lot of groundwater or springs feeding them, so they’re generally more consistent during summertime high temperatures or drought situations.”
This is false.
NJ headwater streams tend to run bone dry during the summer, even before actual drought conditions exist. Groundwater levels decline and don’t provide adequate recharge. In rural areas dependent on agricultural irrigation and wells, residential wells go dry (my well well dry in West Amwell). For example, take a look at Delaware tributaries Copper Creek and Alexauken Creek:
The DEP’s comments about the water quality impacts from wildfire again are misleading and a diversion.
In the spring, Justin Rozema, the NJDEP’s assistant fisheries biologist, will take a team to survey an area that may have been affected by wildfires.
“He is planning to do a fishery survey in proximity to one of the wildfires, in an attempt to determine its impact,” Crouse said. “The major threat there would be lost forest canopy, because that would allow additional solar impact on the stream, warming it up.”
First of all, the spring will be far too late to assess the water quality and ecological impacts of wildfire.
The major impacts on water quality are mostly immediate and short term, see: (California DFG)
Immediate Effects of Fire on Aquatic Systems
Forest fire often directly affects water quality in nearby streams and other bodies of water. These direct influences are also considered immediate effects, as they are manifest either during fire or very shortly thereafter. Here we describe the direct effects of forest fire on water temperature and chemistry that have been observed by scientists in the Northern Rockies. We then discuss expected and observed responses of aquatic invertebrates, amphibians, and fish to these fire-caused changes in water quality.
By waiting until spring to sample, DEP will miss most of the impacts. See no evil.
Second, DEP again tried to limit the scope of water quality issues to temperature.
Wildfires have dramatic impacts on water quality, and temperature is just one of many: (USGS)
Wildfires pose a substantial risk to water supplies because they can lead to severe flooding, erosion, and delivery of sediment, nutrients, and metals to rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. The USGS works with federal and state land managers and local water providers to monitor and assess water quality after wildfires in order to help protect our Nation’s water resources.
After wildfire, loss of canopy vegetation and changes to soil properties can result in more water flowing over the land surface during storms, leading to flooding, erosion, and delivery of sediment, ash, pollutants, and debris to surface water. This can result in decreased water quality, loss of reservoir storage capacity, stream habitat degradation, and increased treatment costs for drinking water providers.
I’ve previously written about how logging in New York’s Catskill’s resulting in “100% trout mortality” in nearby streams due to toxic aluminum concentrations, see USGS:
“Clearcutting caused a large release of nitrate (NO3 -) from watershed soils and a concurrent release of inorganic monomeric aluminum (Alim), which is toxic to some aquatic biota. The increased soil NO3 – concentrations measured after the harvest could be completely accounted for by the decrease in nitrogen (N) uptake by watershed trees, rather than an increase in N mineralization and nitrification. The large increase in stream water NO3 – and Al concentrations caused 100-percent mortality of caged brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) during the first year after the clearcut and adversely affected macroinvertebrate communities for 2 years after the harvest.”
DEP ignored that science and denied my petition for rulemaking to set water quality standards for aluminum
So DEP wants to downplay any issues related to water quality – because if they knew, people might begin asking tough questions about their drinking water and how DEP manages public land and regulates development, water pollution, and drinking water.