Father and son go fishing, but find destruction instead

Like that proverbial Village in Vietnam that had to be destroyed to be saved, the DEP is destroying one of the few last remaining natural places to provide public access – you can view pictures of the destruction here.

Read the press acounts by Star Ledger here:

Naturalists dispute state’s idea of improvement

By BRIAN MURRAY

Sunday, August 02, 2009 –

The South Branch of the Raritan River sparkles on sunny summer mornings, crackling and babbling as it snakes through the towering, tree-covered ridges that define Ken Lockwood Gorge.

The wildlife management area is a 445-acre stretch of natural beauty tucked away in Hunterdon County, and its allure has attracted more than the usual mix of trout anglers whipping their fly rods and hikers searching for a brief afternoon of rustic serenity. Moms pushing strollers, friends walking dogs, picnickers lugging coolers and families pedaling bicycles are more frequent sights along the 2.5 miles of dirt, potholed road that hugs the south-side of the river bank.

Now they have company.

Backhoes, earth-movers and gravel-filled dump trucks are rumbling into the hemlock-lined gorge, along with engineers helping the state Department of Environmental Protection to accommodate throngs of visitors with what they call “improvements.” But some naturalists are calling it the destruction of the very thing people come to enjoy.” [link]

I’ve previously written and posted photo’s of the beauty of Ken Lockwood Gorge here.

But here is the recent story of how I happened upon this outrage.A few weeks back, on a fine July 1 day, my friend Benson Chiles gave me a call – he wanted to check out the fishing at a place called Natirar, a Somerset County park on the South Branch of the Raritan River. Glad to get out on a gorgeous day, I met him there. After a few hours with no luck, I suggested he might do better over at Ken Lockwood Gorge, so we headed over there.

I can’t tell you how pissed off we were to see this ugly, poorly designed and needless destruction. A paved road, parking lots, fishing piers, and drainage pipes suited for an interstate highway project in one of the last pristine places in NJ! 

I came back the next day and took pictures which I circulated to my colleagues and the press in an effort to to get word out to try and stop the project. I later found out that DEP defended the project as access and drainage “improvements”. But, curiously, the October 18, 2006 original project press release by former DEP Commissioner Jackson’ said nothing about any roads or piers – in fact, DEP press release issued at the time falsely claimed the road would become a trail and be closed to traffic – and no mention of pavement or piers.

But the trail only/road closure plan was scrapped along the way. DEP Deputy Commissioner Jay Watson has refused to identify who the “public” was that DEP allegedly responded to.

To clear this all up (someone at DEP is misleading the public), I filed an OPRA to find out what’s going on – my file review is tomorrow, 8/19/09.

We will keep you posted.

postscript – ironically, the Ken Lockwood destruction came to my attention at the same time I was re-reading Edward Abbey’s classic essay “INDUSTRIAL TOURISM AND THE NATIONAL PARKS” where he nails exactly what is going on here – just insert state for national:

“There may be some among the readers of this book, like the earnest engineer, who believe without question that any and all forms of construction and development are intrinsic goods, in the national parks as well as anywhere else, who virtually identify quantity with quality and therefore assume that the greater the quantity of traffic, the higher the value received. There are some who frankly and boldly advocate the eradication of the last remnants of wilderness and the complete subjugation of nature to the requirements of — not man — but industry. This is a courageous view, admirable in its simplicity and power, and with the weight of all modern history behind it. It is also quite insane. I cannot attempt to deal with it here….

The Park Service, established by Congress in 1916, was directed not only to administer the parks but also to “provide for the enjoyment of same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” This appropriately ambiguous language, employed long before the onslaught of the automobile, has been understood in various and often opposing ways ever since. The Park Service, like any other big organization, includes factions and factions. The Developers, the dominant faction, place their emphasis on the words “provide for the enjoyment.” The Preservers, a minority but also strong, emphasize the words “leave them unimpaired.” It is apparent, then, that we cannot decide the question of development versus preservation by a simple referral to holy writ or an attempt to guess the intention of the founding fathers; we must make up our own minds and decide for ourselves what the national parks should be and what purpose they should serve.

The first issue that appears when we get into this matter, the most important issue and perhaps the only issue, is the one called accessibility. The Developers insist that the parks must be made fully accessible not only to people but also to their machines, that is, to automobiles, motorboats, etc. The Preservers argue, in principle at least, that wilderness and motors are incompatible and that the former can best be experienced, understood, and enjoyed when the machines are left behind where they belong — on the superhighways and in the parking lots, on the reservoirs and in the marinas.

What does accessibility mean? Is there any spot on earth that men have not proved accessible by the simplest means — feet and legs and heart? Even Mt. McKinley, even Everest, have been surmounted by men on foot. (Some of them, incidentally, rank amateurs, to the horror and indignation of the professional mountaineers.) The interior of the Grand Canyon, a fiercely hot and hostile abyss, is visited each summer by thousands and thousands of tourists of the most banal and unadventurous type, many of them on foot — self-propelled, so to speak — and the others on the backs of mules. Thousands climb each summer to the summit of Mt. Whitney, highest point in the forty-eight United States, while multitudes of others wander on foot or on horseback through the ranges of the Sierras, the Rockies, the Big Smokies, the Cascades and the mountains of New England. Still more hundreds and thousands float or paddle each year down the currents of the Salmon, the Snake, the Allagash, the Yampa, the Green, the Rio Grande, the Ozark, the St. Croix and those portions of the Colorado which have not yet been destroyed by the dam builders. And most significant, these hordes of nonmotorized tourists, hungry for a taste of the difficult, the original, the real, do not consist solely of people young and athletic but also of old folks, fat folks, pale-faced office clerks who don’t know a rucksack from a haversack, and even children. The one thing they all have in common is the refusal to live always like sardines in a can — they are determined to get outside of their motorcars for at least a few weeks each year.

This being the case, why is the Park Service generally so anxious to accommodate that other crowd, the indolent millions born on wheels and suckled on gasoline, who expect and demand paved highways to lead them in comfort, ease and safety into every nook and corner of the national parks? For the answer to that we must consider the character of what I call Industrial Tourism and the quality of the mechanized tourists — the Wheelchair Explorers — who are at once the consumers, the raw material and the victims of Industrial Tourism. …

Accustomed to this sort of relentless pressure since its founding, it is little wonder that the Park Service, through a process of natural selection, has tended to evolve a type of administration which, far from resisting such pressure, has usually been more than willing to accommodate it, even to encourage it. Not from any peculiar moral weakness but simply because such well-adapted administrators are themselves believers in a policy of economic development. “Resource management” is the current term. Old foot trails may he neglected, back-country ranger stations left unmanned, and interpretive and protective services inadequately staffed, but the administrators know from long experience that millions for asphalt can always be found; Congress is always willing to appropriate money for more and bigger paved roads, anywhere — particularly if they form loops. Loop drives are extremely popular with the petroleum industry — they bring the motorist right back to the same gas station from which he started.

read the whole Abbey essay here 

With Barnegat Bay’s survival in question, action demanded

Friday, July 31, 2009

STAR-LEDGER STAFF

It’s choked by invasive aquatic weeds, infested with jellyfish and devoid of clams and oysters that used to support an entire shellfish industry.

The Barnegat Bay, which separates mainland Ocean County from a barrier island of seashore towns, has been the subject of numerous studies, all pointing to the slow death of a fragile ecosystem over the last two decades. …

As commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection last year, Lisa Jackson publicly stressed the need to restrict the levels of nitrogen in lawn fertilizers that wash into the bay after rainstorms. Nitrogen promotes the excessive growth of algae and other plants, and deprives water of oxygen for native marine life, a condition known as eutrophication.

Bill Wolfe, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said neither Jackson — who now heads the federal Environmental Protection Agency — nor her interim replacement, acting Commissioner Mark Mauriello, has addressed the nitrogen issue” [click for story]

Tim Dillingham of American Littoral Society explains why the Bay is dying:

Barnegat Bay nearing point of no return

August 14, 2009 7:07AM

 

Barnegat Bay is nearing the brink of ecological death.

The Bay is an environmental treasure that has been struggling to survive pollution created by decades of overdevelopment and a failure of local and state government to protect it. Unchecked sprawl development, ill-considered use of fertilizers and polluted runoff are the principle villains. Additionally, the Oyster Creek nuclear generating station uses and heats billions of gallons of Bay water every day, killing marine life in the process.

The Bay has lost its ability to provide a healthy, robust habitat for shellfish and other living creatures that rely on clean waters. The Bay is also unable to provide for our recreational enjoyment as it did in so many childhoods because it has now become home to stinging sea nettles and harmful algae blooms — thriving because of the pollution.

One of the crown jewels of the Jersey Shore, the Bay supports a $3.5 billion dollar economy built on crabbing, fishing, swimming, boating, waterfront property values, a robust rental market and breathtaking views. It is a premiere eco-tourist destination and its jobs and revenue-generating power are inextricably linked to its ecological health” [full Op-Ed here]

While Tim did a nice job describing the problems in the Bay, he failed to identify solutions and hold officials accountable for the decline of the Bay’s health. There are plenty of things that can be done right now to stem the decline and move towards restoring the health of the bay.

In an article prior to the recent joint Senate and Assembly oversight hearing on the Bay, Kirk Moore of the Asbury Park Press identified key measures, mostly associated with enforcing standards and limiting pollution from nitrogen, a nutrient that accelerates eutrophication:

Lack of fertilizer rules likely a key issue at hearing

Senate Environment Committee to address Barnegat Bay water

BY KIRK MOORE – TOMS RIVER BUREAU – JULY 25, 2009

LACEY – Delayed action on cleaning up Barnegat Bay with fertilizer controls and a new state standard for nitrogen in surface waters are likely to be a focal point when the state Senate Environment Committee holds a public hearing here Thursday. …

The environmental group Save Barnegat Bay still is trying to get traction for its model ordinance for controlling use of lawn fertilizer, considered one of the larger sources of nitrogen emissions to the bay through storm water runoff. Nitrogen compounds in the bay act just as they do in fertilizer on land, fueling blooms of algae that scientists say are tilting the bay’s ecosystem at a basic level, to the detriment of native species like clams and eelgrass. …

“The DEP could do a lot more to help,” said Bill Wolfe, an activist and former DEP employee who worked for years on water quality issues. “DEP could have a model ordinance and offer technical advice” to spare municipal governments the cost of research and implementing fertilizer controls, he said.

Wolfe also takes the state agency to task for failing to deliver on a new nitrogen standard to protect the bay that was backed by former DEP commissioner Lisa Jackson before she left to take on the job of Environmental Protection Agency administrator for the Obama administration.

“If DEP had a (nitrogen) standard, they could pull the trigger and mandate local action,” Wolfe said [click for article]

DEP is responsible for protecting the Bay, which is of statewide and national significance. But for years that have sat on the sidelines, not developed or enfored standards to protect the Bay, and rubber stamped development permits that have paved the way to ecological collapse.

The problems have finally drawn the attention of the Legislature. On July 30, a joint hearing was held by the Senate and Assembly environment committees. I attended the hearing and prepared testimony that focused on 10 things DEP could do right bnow to imrove the Bay’s condtions.

DEP Deputy Commissioner testifies to the joint Senate and Assembly hearing on the health of Barnegat Bay –

I was deeply disappointed by DEP Deputy Commissioner John  Watson’s 25 minute power point presentation. Watson completely ignored DEP’s responsibilities and failed to note tools DEP could rapidly deploy to stem water quality problems. The DEP “Action Plan” Watson presented amounted to a pack of band aids cynically offered to create the misleading appearance that they are doing something.

If DEP were serious about protecting the bay, they would: 

1) adopt enforceable nitrogen standards and enforce nitrogen BMPs in regulatory programs;
2) classify all streams draining to the bay as “Category One’ waters, which provide 300 foot wide protected naturally vegetated buffers;
3) enforce cumulative impact standards in the CAFRA coastal permit program to limit the growth of addition soil/vegetation disturbance and new impervious surfaces, pollution sources and water withdrawals;
4) mandate cooling towers at Oyster Creek;
5) adopt the Ocean County Soil Conservation Service study recommendations on soil compaction and modify “TR 55” manual to force builders to change site construction and storm water management practices;
6) mandate water conservation measures and cap current water withdrawals;
7) provide technical and financial assistance to Towns;
8 ) enforce the Clean Water Act’s “TMDL” program.

YET DEP DID NOT EVEN MENTION ONE OF THESE REGULATORY TOOLS!

Yes, polluters and developers are pleased that DEP was silent – All’s Quiet on the Regulatory Front – despite the fact that just last summer DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson held a pres conference and made commitments to take regulatory actions, particularly to develop nitrogen standards and controls (nitrogen is the pollutant ht is driving the eutrophication that is killing the bay).

When DEP can not even talk about real solutions that involve enforcement of DEP regulations, adopting the findings of DEP scientists, and restricting development, something is terribly wrong.

DEP has totally abdicated its responsibility.

That should be an outrage to all New Jeresyeans.

Oh, before closing, about that 800 pound gorilla in the hearing room. You can’t make this stuff up.

The joint Legislative hearing was held in the district of Assemblyman Van Pelt, who just days before had been criminally indicted for taking bribes.

Van Pelt had been a member of the Assembly Environment Committee.

Van Pelt was indicted for agreeing to pressure DEP to issue CAFRA and wetlands permits. He bragged that he had successfully secured DEP permits and that “DEP works for me” and that he “knew the right guys” at DEP to “work the system”. Unlike Mr. Watson of DEP, Van Pelt sure didn’t hesitate to focus on specific DEP permit actions.

Shockingly, despite the fact that Van Pelt had used his legislative oversight power as a member of the Environment Committee in a criminal way, Committee Chairman John McKeon was silent.

Despite the fact that DEP was cast in an extremely negative light in the indictments, DEP Deputty Commissioner Jay Watson was silent.

McKeon and Watson’s cowardly silence spoke volumes.

DEP Headquarters, Trenton, NJ

NEW JERSEY ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY AT HEART OF BRIBERY SCANDAL – New Rules Needed to Ban “Pay-to-Play” and Protect Staff from Strong-Arm Tactics

Washington, DC – Last week’s indictment of 44 people, including several New Jersey officials and two state legislators, underscores that “pay-to-play” is alive and well in the Garden State, especially within its Department of Environmental Protection , according Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Today PEER proposed new rules to end the closed door dealings within DEP that fuel corrupt practices and put its professional staff in an untenable position.

To facilitate development projects, state legislators pressure DEP to improperly approve permits, sign-off on incomplete clean-ups and shelve enforcement actions. Typically, legislators deliver their messages to the DEP Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioners, who in turn direct staff. As one of the indicted lawmakers, state Rep. Daniel Van Pelt, who sits on the committee overseeing DEP, bragged to the FBI confidential informant, he knows the “right guys” who “work the channels”.

“The back channels into DEP need to be shut down” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “As long as DEP does its business behind closed doors, corruption will continue to blossom.”

Today PEER is proposing transparency rules for DEP that are virtually identical to ones which the agency rejected when PEER first proposed them in 2007. These rules would provide:

• Notice of Meetings. DEP convenes closed-door meetings with lobbyists, legislators and other insiders with no public attendance or publication of meeting agendas. The agency defends this secrecy as a matter of  executive privilege and the deliberative process privilege;
• Publication of Top Officials Calendars. The DEP Commissioner and top deputies routinely make decisions on enforcement and other pollution control policies in meetings with legislators and corporate executives, often from the same companies charged with violations. DEP shields appointment calendars to protect the privacy interests of attendees; and
• Repeal Gag Orders Forbidding Staff from Talking to Media and Public. Under current DEP rules, agency scientists and other specialists are barred from speaking without prior approval from the agency Press Office. DEP says this is needed to enforce the chain-of-command.

“A big problem in New Jersey DEP is that the professional staff has little recourse when confronting management orders to less than faithfully execute the law,” Ruch added, noting that the state’s whistleblower law does not protect employee disclosures about threats to public health, manipulation of science, mismanagement or ethics violations. “Sunlight is the best hope for deterring sleazy deals.”

Political influence over DEP is now so deep that it is an accepted fact of life. For example, in a July 14, 2009 letter, DEP Acting Assistant Commissioner Scott Brubaker explained why he was setting aside water anti-pollution rules because legislators had introduce a bill to bully DEP to bend over for a favored project:

“The Department is also under pressure from the development community, which fears that the Department will unilaterally remove sewer service areas. Recently, legislation has been introduced that would extend the submission deadline. Together these added burdens would preclude the Department from adopting any new or updated wastewater management plan for the foreseeable future. Any Department effort to withdraw sewer service areas would encourage this legislation.”

“So long as DEP succumbs to political pressure, it invites that pressure,” Ruch concluded.

###

Examine the DEP role in latest bribery scandal

Read the PEER petition

View the DEP letter acknowledging political bullying

Look at DEP rebuff of transparency rules in 2007

See the full text of the federal criminal complaints

Camden is NJ’s poorest and most segregated city – ground zero for environmental injustice

NEW JERSEY ALTERS HEALTH STUDY UNDER INDUSTRY PRESSURE –  Industry Allowed Private Meetings to Lobby for Changes in Camden Study

Washington, DC – Facing a lawsuit, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has released documents outlining how an air pollution study of Camden neighborhoods was re-written to allay industry objections. The released e-mails depict a clubby, closed door climate in which the state regulators seek to assuage industry concerns even while keeping the affected community in the dark, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

At issue is an October 6, 2008 study by DEP scientists in partnership with the University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey entitled “Final Report: Contribution of Particle Emissions from a Cement Facility to Outdoor Dust in Surrounding Community”. It assesses how much dust is blowing from piles of granulated blast furnace slag at the St. Lawrence Cement Facility onto adjacent Camden neighborhoods. The report concluded that:

• There was a significant impact on nearby homes: “The estimated contributions of cement dust to outdoor dust measured by deposition dust samplers ranged from 4.9% to 18.2% … and 5.6 to 21.8%”; and
• Simple controls are available: “A cover over the piles would be a reasonable and well tested way to control these fugitive emissions.

After this final report was posted on the DEP website, industry consultants sent objections to Nancy Wittenberg, DEP Assistant Commissioner for Environmental Regulation and a former lobbyist for the New Jersey Builders Association. DEP removed the “final report” from its website and Wittenberg set up a closed-door June 2, 2009 meeting with industry consultants to review their concerns.

In response to an Open Public Records Act request filed by former DEP employee Bill Wolfe for the final report and agency communications with industry, the agency initially claimed that no documents could be released because they were “deliberative” in nature and covered by “attorney-client privilege”. After PEER informed DEP that it was preparing to file suit challenging the basis for non-disclosure as bogus, on July 17, 2009 DEP released the requested material “except for the revised study which is slated for publication later this week, according to an agency official.

“In New Jersey, even science is negotiable,” stated PEER Senior Counsel Paula Dinerstein, who helped prepare the lawsuit. “Notably left out of the loop are the people in Camden who have to breathe this stuff daily and get no say as to whether a tarp over the slag heaps would be a commonsense step.”

This also appears to be yet another recent instance where state political appointees inappropriately screen scientific work. In fact this June, DEP formalized its political review process for all technical reports.

“DEP has become a serial offender against government transparency and scientific integrity,” added Wolfe. “This is only one sample of DEP cooking the books and then violating OPRA to cover the smell.”

###

Read the withdrawn Camden dust study “final report”

Look at the e-mail exchanges between DEP officials and industry

View the court-house steps OPRA reversal by DEP

See the industry comments on the dust study

Examine how DEP political appointees vet scientific and technical reports

Huge cost overruns, construction delays, and subsidies doom nuke renaissance – “Things have not gone as planned”

[Update – 3/29/17 – seven years and billions of dollars later:

• Westinghouse Bankruptcy Move Casts Shadow Over World Nuclear Industry ~~~ end update]

[Update: 11/15/09 – more nails – The reactor relapse takes 3 hits to the head ]

In a devastating story, the New York Times Business page lands what could be a knockout blow to the nuclear industry’s attempt to revive nuclear power. Nuke industry PR has argued that new “safe” and “cost effective” engineering designs have solved the safety and economic issues, while the global warming crisis warrants a huge expansion. But the Times story destroys those myths, on purely economic grounds:

In Finland, Nuclear Renaissance Runs Into Trouble
By JAMES KANTER
Published: May 28, 2009
OLKILUOTO, Finland — As the Obama administration tries to steer America toward cleaner sources of energy, it would do well to consider the cautionary tale of this new-generation nuclear reactor site.
The massive power plant under construction on muddy terrain on this Finnish island was supposed to be the showpiece of a nuclear renaissance. The most powerful reactor ever built, its modular design was supposed to make it faster and cheaper to build. And it was supposed to be safer, too.
But things have not gone as planned.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html?em
(more)

At the same time construction costs are escalating, the industry is seeking even more subsidies by taxpayers and electric rate-payers.
The Times story is a huge warning to the Obama energy planners and to State level public utility regulators and policy makers.
Would NJ Legislators and/or the BPU allow electric consumers to get stuck with footing the bill for a failed technology?

According to the Times story:

“In the United States, Florida and Georgia have changed state laws to raise electricity rates so that consumers will foot some of the bill for new nuclear plants in advance, before construction even begins.”
[…]
The industry has had more success in getting states to help raise money. This year, authorities permitted Florida Power & Light to start charging millions of customers several dollars a month to finance four new reactors. Customers of Georgia Power, a subsidiary of the Southern Co., will pay on average $1.30 a month more in 2011, rising to $9.10 by 2017, to help pay for two reactors expected to go online in 2016 or later”.
But resistance is mounting. In April, Missouri legislators balked at a preconstruction rate increase, prompting the state’s largest electric utility, Ameren UE, to suspend plans for a $6 billion copy of Areva’s Finnish reactor.”

Any move by NJ BPU to allow rate increases to subsidize nuclear construction risks would be a political nightmare.
Finally, would private investors ignore “warning lights” and take on investment risks under current (and projected) market and regulatory conditions?

“On top of such problems come the recession, weaker energy demand, tight credit and uncertainty over future policies, said Caren Byrd, an executive director of the global utility and power group at Morgan Stanley in New York.
“The warning lights now are flashing more brightly than just a year ago about the cost of new nuclear,” she said.”

All this is something to watch for as the Corzine Energy Master Plan – which embraces new nuclear power capacity – moves towards implementation.