Land use permitting update 7/15/2018

One week ago today the New Jersey Superior Court issued an order that I must apply for a range of land use permits for Money Island within 30 days. The immensity of the task is overwhelming. I’ve heard from others who have experience in the land use permitting business that it will be impossible to meet the deadline but I am resolved to do the best job I can. I spoke with the proposed project engineer and government consultant have not yet responded to my request for work proposal, Most concerning is that the proposed investors have abandoned the project after learning of the strict court order. They envisioned working with a more cooperative government and they view the current action as hostile. I will make applications and appeals for new sources of funding but for now I am focused on completing the permitting process.

Today I spent most of the day on the NJDEP fuel tank permit and Fire Safety issues. It felt good to finally makes some progress with these difficult government requirements. I found government resources to be helpful but my contacts in the private sector to be unfamiliar with the concepts. FOr example, our fuel delivery company was unable to respond to the type of air pollution control system in use at the point of fuel delivery.

For the other issues, the Office of Consumer Affairs controls the fire safety issues and they raised new issues that have not been raised before in decades of annual inspections. These new requirements trigger additional expenses. These are also the subject of a 30 day order but I don’t know what relative authority the two orders have in relation to each other. The point is that I can accomplish both, but don’t have enough money to pay for both orders at once.

I estimate that the fuel tank permit application will cost about $800 and the Fire Safety order will cost about  $800. The marina business has no net revenue and has actually run at a deficit for at least ten years. So the money comes from my own earnings or other sources. I’ve budgeted $500 per month for the permitting costs which is all I can possibly contribute. The challenge now seems to be convincing government to give me more time to pay. We’ll see how that goes.

By the end of the summer I expect to meet the new fuel tank permit demands and the new Fire Safety demands. Then we can turn attention to wastewater management, shoreline development, and other unresolved issues.

Advertisements

Bigger isn’t better

fishing2

This cartoon by Darrin Bell of The New Yorker illustrates the obsession we have with the false belief that  “bigger is better”. Our State of New Jersey and the Marine Fisheries Council have fallen into the trap that encourages recreational fishermen to harvest the largest breeding stock fish while throwing smaller ones back, often to die.

Scientists know that this practice is unsustainable. Yet we as a society refuse to change it. Yet we are not alone. History provides plenty of example where denial of the facts led to extinction of species, even of humans. One thing we do know about extinction is that it happens more rapidly than anyone would have guessed. We are living dangerously when we focus on “bigger is better”.

Sustainable fishing depends on managing the harvest of smaller and more abundant juvenile fish. Large trophy fish should be protected, or at least should not be the target. There is no shame in that, and in fact should be promoted as a positive approach. I’ve been told directly by industry and government leaders that this practice won’t change in my lifetime no matter how loudly the scientific and environmental communities object.

We live in an age where ignoring and/or denying facts is popular. All I can do is to be a voice for the truth. I am individually committed to encouraging sustainable fisheries and my small business will do what it can to change the current culture of “bigger is better”.

One step forward, one step back

In our long-term effort to restore Money Island and repurpose the resources for a future of sustainable aquaculture, it often feels like we are taking one step forward and one step back. Today the two extremes hit particularly hard.

“Fall seven times. Get up eight.” – Japanese Proverb

On December 30 Senator Booker sent an online message to Tony saying that he was interested in receiving more information about Baysave’s project at Money Island. That sparked a flurry of follow-up activity, calls and referrals that kept us busy all week. It is clear from multiple sources that the federal government wants to see us succeed. Early this morning I had a scheduled phone call with one of New Jersey’s best business financing experts. She works in North Jersey but was referred by Stockton SBA and has been helping us for several months. She said that she had brought our redevelopment plan to a lender who wants to fund the project and match the USDA’s program to expand aquaculture here. Great news! I worked on some spreadsheets to support the idea and we scheduled another call for Friday.

Then only a few hours later a representative from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Resources called to say that the state declines to discuss a resolution of the old land use and permitting issues that existed before the Baysave project began. She seemed surprised to support the result. We discussed that this is unusual for the state to refuse to participate in alternate dispute resolution. This is copy of the confirmation letter denying alternative dispute resolution: BaySave ltr from NJDEP.

I can imagine no respectable reason why the state would refuse to enter into discussions on resolution of environmental issues under any circumstances. Most personnel in the department support our efforts. I have occasionally been critical of the agency and once even turned in an employee for attempted bribery years ago. This most recent action, unfortunately, represents the agenda of a small minority of NJDEP officials.

In reality, the state’s action today probably has little to do with us and has more to do with swampy politics. Nevertheless, we will continue to work our restoration and redevelopment plan one step at time, relying on the strong support expressed by the many other forces of government and the community.

Post-Sandy conflict continues at the NJ bayshore

Renewed threats by NJDEP while waiting for infrastructure updates at Money Island NJ

In the months after Superstorm Sandy many of the government agencies, environmental groups and local citizens pulled together here at the NJ bayshore. We attended countless planning meetings discussing priorities and a game plan toward environmental and financial sustainability. For us here in Money Island that meant changing our game plan to aquaculture.

We never anticipated the difficulties that would follow: insurance fraud, denial of all government aid, and years of delays. Yet it seemed that all the stakeholders were willing to keep working to do what it takes to rebuild our community recognizing the reality of sea level rise and increased flooding. All o the stakeholders were working together except one: certain individuals in the NJDEP. Most NJDEP officers supported our recovery plans but a few emerged as antagonists.

Today I received another nasty-gram from one of the antagonists. I thought that we had reached an agreement last summer when I met with these officials. I agreed to a short list of immediate corrections and they agreed to be patient until the Cumberland County infrastructure upgrade plans were complete. Apparently not so. Today’s message threatens a number of more immediate actions with response times of 20 to 35 days. Last night we heard an update that the water and sewer project is moving forward, but we are still talking about years until resolution, not days.

This was the email I received from NJDEP today:

Dear Mr. Novak:

Attached is an Administrative Order (AO) issued by the Department for violations at properties owned by Baysave A NJ Nonprofit Corporation, including at Money Island Marina.   A hard copy is being mailed to you as Baysave’s  registered agent as well as to Baysave’s bankruptcy counsel.   

Please read the attached document carefully.  Contained within the enclosed document are instructions for requesting an Administrative Hearing.  Each statute cited has different timeframes within which the hearing request must be received by the Department and failure to request a hearing per the instructions will result in loss of your right to a hearing for violations pertaining to that statute.  The Department does not have the authority to extend those statutory timeframes.  Specifically, the timeframes are as follows:

  • For violations cited pursuant to N.J.S.A.  58:12A-10(d) and N.J.A.C.  7:10-3.5 et seq., as described in paragraphs 13, 15, and 30e of the attached AO, a request for a hearing must be received within thirty-five (35) days.
  • For violations cited Pursuant to N.J.S.A.  58:10A-10d(2) and N.J.A.C. 7:14-8.4 et seq., as described in paragraphs 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 30a through 30d of the attached AO, a request for a hearing must be received within twenty (20) days.
  • For violations cited Pursuant to N.J.S.A.  26:2C-1 et seq. and N.J.A.C. 7:27-8.3(b), as described by paragraphs 16 and 30f of the attached AO, a request for a hearing must be received within twenty (20) days.
  • For violations cited Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 et seq., N.J.S.A. 13:19-18(b), N.J.S.A. 13:9A-9(d), and N.J.S.A. 12:5-6(e), as described by paragraphs 19, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 30g through 30l of the attached AO, a request for a hearing must be received within thirty-five (35) days.

Please reply to this e-mail so that I know that you received the document.  If you have any questions concerning the enclosed AO, you may contact Ginger Benckert of my staff at (609) 614-3655 or at ginger.benckert@dep.nj.gov.

Very truly yours,

Mary Simpson, Chief

Southern Bureau of Water Compliance and Enforcement

I always try to be positive and emphasize that we should all be working together to solve these environmental challenges. I also often remind government people that I came into management of this specific situation after Sandy and serve as a volunteer, not a paid employee, in contrast to the DEP officers. My response today:

Mary:

I received your email addressed to Baysave Corporation about violations at Money Island. Yes, addressing these issues remains our major challenge and the focus of our mission toward environmental sustainability.

As you heard in our last meeting, Baysave accepted the challenge of resolving decades of missteps by various public and private stakeholders at Money Island that became evident by the early 2000s. The total amount of property-based liabilities exceed the land value at Money Island by a factor of 10:1 so a private stakeholder solution is simply not possible. I’m sure you know that neither Baysave nor I created any of these problems but that we have worked very hard to resolve them for many years. In 2004 I proposed a public/private partnership to address the infrastructure issues at Money Island and in 2010 Baysave was formed as the lead organization for environmental sustainability.

Baysave’s trustees remain fully committed to resolving these issues as soon as humanly possible. We have raised tens of thousands of dollars since Sandy to address these and many other specific issues of concern. A large portion of our fundraising is for the purpose of paying for various state permits, applications and inspections. We have made significant progress so far toward environmental sustainability in the face of overwhelming challenges. Even since we met last summer, I have worked with various agencies and, as far as I can see, have taken every known path towards resolution of these overwhelming infrastructure issues.

I remain committed to resolving the remaining issues as soon as humanly possible. I hope you recall that when we met last I agreed to and followed through with all of the specific action steps you requested.

As far as the wastewater issues, various public officials have directed me to refer these questions to Mayor Campbell who has taken the lead on this issue. He has the authority to speak for all of Money Island stakeholders who share these same concerns. We are currently revising our wastewater handling plan and will continue to work with all authorities until the issue is resolved.

I am copying Mayor Campbell, State Senator Van Drew and Representative LoBiondo who lead the movement toward environmental sustainability here. We must continue to rely on the combination of public and private efforts to reach the end goal of a clean, sustainable and fully compliant working waterfront community at Money Island.

I also tried to reach Ginger Benkert as you suggested for further information, but the telephone number listed in your email appears to be an error.

We look forward to working with your department to resolve these concerns.

Tony Novak, CPA, MBA, MT

www.tonynovak.com

Mobile/Text: 856-723-0294

Skype: novak.tony

I continue to believe that sanity will eventually prevail in this battle and that we will reach a solution that works for all stakeholders. Baysave and the other NJ bayfront communities have a solid plan for recovery, compliance  and sustainability. We have the technology and the drive to transform into a clean water-based economy. Many other aquaculture communities up and down the east coast of the U.S. have already done it and serve as our models. All it takes is time and money.

 

EPA proposed budget cuts affecting the Delaware Bay

As far as I know, the EPA has apparently not commented on the authenticity of this budget proposal published in several newspapers. Senator Booker communicated some degree of doubt in a tweet yesterday. The line items most likely to affect us in the Delaware Bay region of New Jersey are highlighted. In most cases that are relevant to us, the EPA funds programs administered by the State of New Jersey so it is difficult to forecast exactly what the impact will be.

The program administrators I communicated with this week, mostly through social media, are seriously concerned.

Program 2016 2018 Change
SF Bay (EPA) 4.8 0 -100%
Great Lakes restoration (EPA) 300 10 -97%
Endocrine disruptors (EPA) 7.5 0.445 -94%
Enviro education (EPA) 8.7 0.555 -94%
Chesapeake Bay (EPA) 73 5 -93%
Puget Sound (EPA) 28 2 -93%
US Mexico border (EPA) 3 0.275 -91%
Radon (EPA) 2.9 0.505 -83%
Gulf of Mexico (EPA) 4.5 1 -78%
Environmental justice (EPA) 6.7 1.5 -78%
Small minority business assistance (EPA) 1.7 0.4 -76%
Climate protection (EPA) 95 29 -69%
Research – air climate energy (EPA) 92 46 -50%
Sustainable and Healthy Communities (EPA) 140 76 -46%
Brownfields (EPA) 25 14 -44%
Safe & sustainable water resources (EPA) 107 70 -35%
Research – chem safety & sustainability (EPA) 89 62 -30%
Lead RRP (EPA) 13.3 9.4 -29%
Leaking underground storage tanks (EPA) 11.3 8 -29%
Right to Know (TRI) (EPA) 13.9 10.7 -23%
Tribal capacity building (EPA) 14.4 11.8 -18%
Marine Pollution (EPA) 10.1 8.6 -15%
Compliance monitoring (EPA) 101 88 -13%
Civil Enforcement (EPA) 171 153 -11%
Diesel emissions reduction act (state grants) 50 0 -100%
Multipurpose grants (state grants) 21 0 -100%
Targeted airsheds (state grants) 20 0 -100%
US-Mexico border targeted watershed (state grants) 10 0 -100%
Beach water quality testing (state grants) 9.5 0 -100%
Radon (state grants) 8 0 -100%
Brownfields (state grants) 48 33 -31%
Tribes – air quality management (state grants) 12.9 8.9 -31%
Pesticides implementation (state grants) 12.7 8.8 -31%
Toxic substances compliance (state grants) 4.9 3.4 -31%
Wetlands (state grants) 14.7 10.2 -31%
Underground injection (state grants) 10.5 7.3 -30%
Drinking water grants (state grants) 102 71 -30%
Nonpoint source pollution (state grants) 165 115 -30%
Air quality grants (state grants) 228 159 -30%
Water pollution control (state grants) 230 161 -30%
Lead (state grants) 14 9.8 -30%
Tribal general assistance program (state grants) 65 46 -29%

First score for fishermen

News reports say that fishermen had a role in convincing Republicans in Washington to abandon HR 621 that would have led to the sale of 3.3 million acres to oil and gas drillers.