WolfeNotes.com

DEP Needs To Stop Spinning and Start Listening

[Update below]

Bull’s Island Petitioner # 21,054 added a special note to his petition – in CAPS, presumably for emphasis so DEP could hear his shout all the way from Florida:

13:08, Sep 19, frank wegel, FL
AS A PAST RESIDENT OF kINGWOOD TWP. I STROGLY OPPOSE CLEAR CUTTING OF THIS MOST BEAUTIFUL NATURAL SITE. PLEASE SAVE IT FOR MY GRANDCHILDREN WHO STILL LIVE IN KINGWOOD

I came across this poignant statement while reviewing the Bull’s Island petition signatures.

I began that review because I just received an email from an intrepid reporter questioning the validity of the petition.

These could have been independent, honest, good faith questions – but I doubt it.

My immediate reaction was: why would someone seek to validate social media petition signatures?

I can only imagine that the reporter called the DEP press office for comment and – reacting to prior critical press coverage that made them look like the fools they are – the DEP press Office must have planted those malignant seeds in this reporter’s intrepid mind.

Apparently, someone found my name twice among the first 1,000 signers.

Wow! Wolfe signed twice! Gotcha! Liar, Cheater and Fraud I say! It’s Fraud!! We’ve finally nailed that Wolfe for Fraud!

While boring in on the validity issues, the intrepid reporter also questioned the relevance of the petition:

I’ve gone through the first 1,000 or so entries and I’ve noticed that this petition is worldwide. What kind of effect do you think this might have in the DEP taking it seriously?

Take it seriously? Worldwide-shmaldwide –

Petitioner # 21,054 doesn’t even live and vote in NJ, so I guess DEP should just dismiss his universal and fundamental human concerns about the future health of the place his grandchildren will inherit, right?

People in other countries? Fuck them, they don’t work, invest, and vote here, right? They must be part of the freeloading 47%.

Here’s my reply to the reporter (and indirectly to the assholes in the DEP press office).

I guess I can forget about ever getting this guy or his editors to publish any of my work, but I hope you find it useful and of interest:

Hi XXXX  – apologies for delay in response, I was off line yesterday in Philly. This response is on the record. Call me to clarify.

As you know, what happens in NJ is of concern to people everywhere – for example, did you follow the recent controversy where DEP proposed to demolish a world famous piece of landscape art in the courtyard behind the DEP building?

Check out how that story took off, as reported by NJ Spotlight:

Plan to Demolish Public Sculpture Meets With Pushback –  The DEP’s decision to tear down the ‘Green Acres’ sculpture at its headquarters has raised a group of vocal critics — and a number of questions about public art

“A July blog post in the Huffington Post arguing for New Jersey to keep Tacha’s sculpture earned 100,000 re-tweets, said Charles Birnbaum, author of the post and president of the Cultural Landscape Foundation (CLF) in Washington, D.C.”

And this was the conclusion and happy ending of that story, again as told by NJ Spotlight:

Outdoor Sculpture in Trenton Saved From Demolition –  DEP is the place to be for ‘Green Acres’ as NJ reverses plan to replace public art

That stupid DEP move to destroy important landscape art prompted a world wide reaction opposing the DEP plan – the opposition went viral and DEP ultimately agreed to stand down and not destroy it!

Bull’s Island is repeating that case – except instead of art, DEP is proposing to destroy a real landscape

In terms of the Bull’s Island petition, as you know, social media is not geographically bounded. 

When something goes viral like the petition did, it is an indicator that something has struck an important cord of public concern.

As to the mechanics and validity of the petition, personally, I circulated the petition on my Twitter account and I sent it via email to the organizations  (i.e. NJCF, Sierra, Delaware Riverkeeper) and other people I am working with on Bull’s Island (this includes a good size NJ group working on both Bull’s Island and the Hot Dog Man controversy).

Where the petition went from there is beyond both my control and knowledge –

I have no idea how my name was entered twice, although I think that the petition site (Care2) is set up to prevent that. You’d have to call them to get the details on that.

Who knows, you could get a big scoop on “petition fraud”. You’d probably find more of that than “voter fraud”. Who knows, your investigative work could lead to new laws to restrict petitioning! (that’s snark, if it isn’t obvious!)

As to whether DEP should take it “seriously” in gauging public opinion and making decisions, I offer the following comments:

1) How DEP evaluates information is their business, not mine. I make no comment on that, other than to note that there are multiple consistent lines of public opinion evidence opposing DEP’s plan (that all reinforce the petition’s findings).

2) I have gotten Municipal Resolutions passed that opposed the DEP plan.

In response, instead of communicating with those towns to understand their concerns, DEP attacked me, and threatened and lied to local officials.

DEP’s Cathy Randazzo – a patronage appointment who has ZERO environmental training and no college degree – told one local official that sycamore’s were an “invasive species“. That astonishing info was stated in a public hearing by a  local official. That is NEWS, no?  (but you’d rather spend time validating petition signatures)

3) Experts and the memberships of three major well respected conservation groups have opposed the DEP plan – news, no? Sierra, NJCF, and Riverkeeper have more than 20,000 members combined –

4) I have spoke to hundreds of people at Bull’s Island and along the D&R Canal. 

I have gone to merchants in Lumberville and Stockton.

Of all those people I spoke with, only 3 have not condemned the tree cutting – and 1 did so because he had been told that I was the guy who blocked the NJWSA from dredging the Canal and that there would be worse flooding because of my obstructionist extremism!

If you think my anecdotal results are not representative, I invite you to go into the field and take your own public opinion survey – or post a question on your webiste – or hire a real polling firm. Ask the public:

Should DEP cut down mature 200 year old massive trees in a Public State park forest to reduce the risks of a tree falling on campers? Yes or No?

I GUARANTEE and overwhelming majority will say no.

5) The Philadelphia Inquirer recently reported that the D&R Canal Commission received 80 emails opposing DEP tree cutting.

Maybe the identities should be investigated and those emails validated too?

6) Federal, regional, state, and local environmental agencies have intervened – DEP might want to consider that too (i.e. USACE, USFWS, National Parks Service, DRBC, DRCC, Hunterdon County, local Resolutions).

DEP should start listening to the public and stop spinning them! 

[Update: 4:40 pm – The Hunterdon County Democrat is seeking your view on DEP’s tree cutting plan – hit this link and submit a comment: Your comments: State management plan to decide fate of centuries-old trees at Bull’s Island State Park , where falling tree killed camper

Fracktivists Converge On Philadelphia Convention Center

festive mood in Philly (September, 20, 2012)

[Breaking Update: Christie vetoes fracking waste legislation – end]

The contrast could not have been more stark:

While over a thousand righteous Fracktivists were out in the street, Pennsylvania Governor Corbett and his environmental Secretary were rubbing elbows with fat cat gas industry lobbyists and executives inside the Philadelphia Convention center.

The mood on the street was festive, with rousing speeches, emotional testimonials from families that have been harmed by fracking, music, and great food. Here’s a good rundown of the day’s events

street scene, outside Convention Center. Philly has great murals!

And I was glad to rejoin my Pittsburgh friends from Marcellus Shale Protest – Ken, Loretta, and Mel –  who again lead the way!

Marcellus Shale Protest leads the way - Pittsburgh Rocks!

But it was pretty ugly up there in the air conditioned corporate suites, where the arrogant corporate CEO’s and lobbyists in suits gawking at the crowd through the windows prompted a bird flipping ceremony from the street protestors.

As if to champion and epitomize the corrupt corporate cronyism that is destroying our democracy and the earth, Gov. Corbett had the audacity to attack the protesters. In the course of doing so, Corbett expressed a warped vision that would turn the clock back to the 19th Century: more fracking, more chemical plants, more pollution, and LESS regulation:

Corbett said the drillers are here to stay. He said shale gas has already spurred a nascent recovery in Pennsylvanias manufacturing sector, pointing to Shells proposed multibillion-dollar petrochemical plant in western Pennsylvania and a recent deal to prevent a Philadelphia refinery from closing in part by expanding the use of gas from the Marcellus formation, which holds the nations largest reservoir of gas.

We need vision, one that ties this states future to an economy unshackled by needless regulation, but which guards against the desolation of cut-and-run practices, Corbett said. Pennsylvania is getting it right.

Hot Damn! Literally, if you understand the terrifying math of global warming!

And I thought NJ Gov. Christie was bad!

[Breaking Update: Christie is just as bad: Christie vetoes fracking waste legislation

But politician Corbett is at least an elected official, theoretically accountable to the voters and is therefore free to spout outrageous gas industry lies and warped visions.

But  environmental Secretary Krancer is not. The head of the Pa DEP is a regulator, who is supposed to be a neutral and balanced administrator of the environmental laws in the public interest, basing decisions on science and facts, not politics, power, and corporate money. He is not supposed to wallow in the sewer of gas industry money and partisan politics.

But instead of independence and integrity, Krancer revealed himself as a disgusting corporate whore and unethical political hack:

Corbetts environmental secretary, Michael Krancer, later took part in a panel discussion on natural gas and the presidential race. Playing the role of surrogate for GOP nominee Mitt Romney, Krancer attacked President Barack Obamas energy policy as nothing but whats above the ground, or wind and solar above all while touting Romneys energy plan.

Krancer, a harsh critic of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, also denounced his federal counterparts as rogue and out-of-control.

After remarks like that, his credibility is zilch – and how can he ever be trusted or believed again?

Do they have ethics laws in Pennsylvania? Who will file the complaint?

Big Brother was there too – the Philly cops were filming the entire event

National Surveillance State tactics at peaceful political demonstration

I spoke with them at length to question this practice. When asked, the on scene commander and the photographers found absolutely nothing improper with police filming people exercising and engaged in constitutionally protected rights. Welcome to the Corporate National Security and Surveillance Police state. (supremely ironic, in that I’m now reading Seth Rosenfeld’s superb book: Subversives: The FBI’s War on Student Radicals, and Reagan’s Rise to Power

The Philly event was sponsored by Shale Gas Outrage.

It follows similar great protests in Trenton NJ, and Albany NY, and Washington DC’s Stop the Frack Attack” –  Greenpeace and Mountaintop mining folks have done great recent work too – looking for links.

The Extreme Energy movement and direct action tactics are growing – get your ass out in the streets and join in!  Here’s a few more shots from Philly.

[Update: I just saw this – it is an interesting example of the problems we face. At literally the same time folks were in the streets, some NJ environmental lobbyists were in the Statehouse. The inside game can not be effective until Movement street heat increases dramatically.

Get on the Bus!

Prallsville Mills - Stockton NJ at confluence of Wickecheoke Creekand Delaware River (March 7, 2012)

DEP Backs Away From February Clearcut Plan – Says No Decisions Made 

[Update: 9/22/12 – Lehigh Valley live has story on this hearing:  Environmental group gathering signatures to fight Bull’s Island tree removal – end update]

The D&R Canal Commission held their regular monthly meeting this morning at their lovely Prallsville Mills office.

Bull’s Island was not on the agenda, but again served as the Gorilla in the Room.

Again, mum was the word on Bull’s Island – the DEP representative on the Commission, the Executive Director, Park Superintendent and the NJ Water Supply Authority did not initiate any comments or provide a current status report on what is going on behind the scenes on Bull’s Island.

During the public comment session, I provided an update since the last meeting (see this and this). I emphasized the growing public opposition to any tree cutting on Bull’s Island and the strong preference for a Natural Area designation.

I noted the DEP’s February clearcut plan, the Department’s comments in the Philadelphia Inquirer September 2 story, and a recent expansion of the flawed “tree collar” health assessment to the central portion of the Island. I noted that this was the only official information available to the public, and challenged DEP to present current information to the public about what their plans were for the Island.

When previously asked these questions, DEP refused to comment. So, to my surprise, DEP finally responded today!

In response to my questions, the DEP representative on the Commission said DEP met yesterday, and then indicated that the prior February plan is not their current thinking and that all options are on the table (presumably including a preservation option to make the Island a Natural Area, although when asked he refused to confirm this).

[Note: But if all options are on the table, just where is this DEP table and who has seats at it?]

I then again challenged the Commission, as steward of the Park, to provide a public forum where the public could express their views and preferences about the future of the Island.

I stressed that if they passively wait for DEP to submit an application for tree cutting, then it will be too late.

If DEP were to submit an application for tree removal, the Commission and the DEP would be locked into a narrow technical regulatory debate that did not address the fundamental policy and planning issue, which is: whether the Island should be preserved as a Natural Area or have trees cut down to make it “safe” for campers and recreational use.

To their credit, the Commission accepted that challenge!

The discussion started off on a sour note. Commissioners Marchand and Knights, noting the controversial nature of the issue, recommended that the Commission take no action and instead wait and see what DEP decided to do. Knights emphasized that he trusted DEP and did not share my skeptical views.

But then Commissioner Alison Mitchell spoke about the Commissions’ planning powers, distinguishing those powers from the regulatory review of a DEP application.

In response, Acting Chairman Loos noted the current Master Plan designates the southern portion as a Natural Area and the northern portions of Bull’s Island as a rural area, including for recreational use. Loos suggested that the Commission could amend the  Master Plan with respect to the Island.

Loos seemed to agree with Mithcell’s recommendations with respect for the need for a pro-active planning process to address “the future of Bull’s Island”. He  then requested that next months meeting agenda include an item to discuss procedures for amending the Master Plan.

The D&R Canal State Park Master Plan is 23 years old, last updated and adopted in May 1989.

The Master Plan provides an excellent historical overview, assessment of current conditions, and a vision for the Park’s future. The Plan explains the roles and responsibilities of the various agencies with involvement in the Park, and provides a resource inventory of the Park.

The Vision, principles, and objective adopted by the Plan (p. 31) are particularly important and relevant. The Plan emphasizes the unique nature of a linear park.

The Plan recognizes that despite the multi-uses of the Park, there is a special need for “serenity and separation from the man-made world”. To assure that serenity,  the Plan explicitly rejects compromising the protection of designated uses by competing uses.

The principle and strong sense of separation from man-made activities in the rural portions of the Park are core values.

Of particular relevance to Bull’s Island debate is this principle:

To the extent that it is practical, the Canal Park is an area that should be maintained in its natural state.

With respect to Bull’s Island, the Plan provides:

We welcome a planning process that focuses on maintaining Bull’s Island in its natural state.

Please, come to the next meeting on Monday October 15 and let the Commission know how you feel about that.

[Note: Here are the Commission’s planning powers – note that “portions” of the Master Plan may be updated and amended periodically, in the absence of a comprehensive update:

13:13A-13. Master plan for physical development of park; review of State projects, permits.

13. a. The commission shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, and, after a public hearing, or public hearings, and pursuant to the provisions provided for in subsection 13 b. of this act, adopt a master plan or portion thereof for the physical development of the park, which plan may include proposals for various stages in the future development of the park, or amend the master plan. The master plan shall include a report presenting the objectives, assumptions, standards and principles which are embodied in the various interlocking portions of the master plan. The master plan shall be a composite of the one or more written proposals recommending the physical development and expansion of the park either in its entirety or a portion thereof which the commission shall prepare after meetings with the governing bodies of the affected municipalities and counties, and any agencies and instrumentalities thereof.

b.     In preparing the master plan or any portion thereof or amendment thereto the commission shall give due consideration to: (1) the function of the canal as a major water supply facility in the State; (2) the necessity to provide recreational activities to the citizens of this State, including but not limited to, facilities, design capacities, and relationship to other available recreational areas; (3) existing historical sites and potential restorations or compatible development; (4) the range of uses and potential uses of the canal in the urban environments of the older, intensively developed communities through which it passes; and (5) designated wilderness areas to be kept as undeveloped, limited-access areas restricted to canoeing and hiking. In preparing the master plan or any portion thereof or amendment thereto the commission shall consider existing patterns of development and any relevant master plan or other plan of development, and shall insure widespread citizen involvement and participation in the planning process.

c.     The commission shall act in support of local suggestions or desires to complement the park master plan. Consultation, planning, and technical expertise will be made available to local planning bodies that wish to implement land-use policy to enhance the park area. The commission shall act on or refer complaints by citizens’ groups or private residents who discover hazardous situations, pollution, or evidence of noncompliance with use regulations.

More than 20,000 people sign petitions to oppose

• “Based on the consultant’s report and a technical review by DEP forestry experts, we are proceeding with removing all vegetative material in the upper river section of Bull’s Island.

• Once the area is cleared, the Department will proceed with replanting the area with appropriate floodplain vegetation that matures at smaller heights and does not pose a public safety risk.”

~~~  DEP memorandum (February 8, 2012) to Commissioner Martin implementing his prior July 2011 decision.

[Update #2: 9/22/12 – Lehigh Valley live story:  Environmental group gathering signatures to fight Bull’s Island tree removal –

Although the department has yet to file a plan with the canal commission for approval, Bill Wolfe — director of New Jersey Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility — said he’s noticed a large number of trees he believes are marked for cutting.

While commissioners were not scheduled to discuss the Bull’s Island proposal last week, Wolfe made sure the issue remained in the public eye by announcing that his group — PEER — had collected more than 20,000 signatures on a petition opposing any state plan to remove trees from the island. In a statement announcing the petition drive, PEER indicates the state has expanded its original plan to remove trees from a 5-acre area to a larger area totaling roughly 44 acres.

Wolfe cited a news report that indicated the commission has received more than 80 emails regarding Bull’s Island.

“This is a very significant public concern,” he said, suggesting the commission has been ignoring the issue.  end update]

Update #1:  9/19/12 – read the Hunterdon County Democrat story – don’t miss the comments at the bottom: State management plan to decide fate of centuries-old trees at Bull’s Island State Park, where falling tree killed camper 

Bill Wolfe of West Amwell Township, an activist and former DEP employee, accused the state this week of “ignoring mounting public opposition,” and proceeding with an “expanded plan to deforest Bull’s Island.” An online petition protesting clear-cutting at the state recreation area has garnered 20,000 signature, he reported. Signers listed addresses from around the world.  –

Of course, here’s my favorite comment:

It’s been more than 6 months after the DEP’s original plan to clearcut Bull’s Island Sate park was exposed – which blocked DEP from cutting and prompted US Fish and Wildlife Service and others to intervene (see: Bull’s Island Being Blitzed by DEP)

And after the enforcement actions are taken and the site restored, maybe someone can explain what looks to be the pending slaughter of scores of spectacular sycamore trees.

I saw scores of old trees marked for destruction, likely in response to last year’s tragic death, where an old sycamore fell on the tent of a camping family.

….. given the remarkable grove of old trees covering Bulls Island, I’d prefer to close the park to camping rather than lose the trees so that campers can be safe.

During this 6 month period, public opposition to the DEP plan has continued to grow, prompting severe criticism by experts (see letters by NJ Audubon and NJCF).

In response, the D&R Canal Commission has repeatedly requested that DEP make a public presentation of their plan for the Island and provide an opportunity for public review and comment.

Instead, DEP has hunkered down, dug in, used press office spin, and refused to provide requested information. DEP has simply and arrogantly dismissed concerns of experts and the public:

DEP spokesman Larry Ragonese disagreed.

“A couple of critics have gone out of the way to hammer the DEP,” Ragonese said.

Those “couple of critics” are now over 20,000 people  – yet DEP is expanding the area of tree removal. The latest from out friends at PEER:

20,000 Protest New Jersey Plan to Clear-Cut Bull’s Island

Tree Removals Expand as State Eschews Public Review or Expert Consultation

Trenton — Ignoring mounting public opposition, New Jersey is proceeding with an expanded plan to de-forest Bull’s Island State Park along the Delaware River scenic corridor, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) which has gathered more than 20,000 signatures in protest of the plan.  With cutting slated to begin this fall, state officials have yet to reveal their precise plan or to consult with other federal and state agencies that have expressed concerns.

Bull’s Island hosts a magnificent floodplain forest, including stands of rare 200-year-old sycamore old growth.  The Island is a bird watchers mecca, sheltering eagles and rare migratory songbirds such as the Cerulean and Yellow-throated warblers.  It is a key component of the Delaware & Raritan Canal State Park, one of the most renowned scenic corridors east of the Mississippi.

In 2011, a camper was tragically killed and his wife injured when a huge sycamore snapped and fell on their tent.  The Island’s northern end where they were camping has since been closed to all camping.  In the ensuing months, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) conducted a tree “health assessment” and developed a “comprehensive management plan,” according to its website.

Despite ecological objections from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and other agencies, the DEP has –

• Enlarged the original plan from the 5-acre northern end to address the much larger central (“down river”) portion of the island.  Several scores of trees have been marked, apparently for removal across an area covering half of the 88-acre Island;

• Proceeded in secrecy, denying public record requests for plans while indicating that DEP will develop its plan internally without consulting any outside agencies or experts; and

• Ignored alternative approaches.  Its own internal consultant, for example, recommended that the inherent risks be managed through traffic and use restrictions, not cutting – a suggestion which appears to have been ignored.

“There is no reason state forest management should be treated as a state secret,” stated New Jersey PEER Director Bill Wolfe, who has made numerous attempts to disgorge DEP plans.  “DEP should disclose not only what it intends to cut but what and when it plans to restore.  These plans should be subjected to public review and comment.”  The DEP plan is still not on tomorrow’s Delaware & Raritan Canal Commission monthly agenda despite requests by the Commission and the public over the past 6 months.

PEER is urging that the entire Island be made a no-cut zone as is currently the case for the southern portion of the Island, a designated natural area. Although other public agencies and private ecological experts have raised a wide variety of sylvicultural, habitat and erosion issues, DEP appears to be relying solely on the assessment of root health from one tree-cutting firm which, presumably, would have a bias for recommending removal.

“By concentrating on individual trees, DEP has lost sight of the forest – and its values,” Wolfe added, noting that he ultimately expects 50,000 to sign the PEER petition protesting DEP Bull’s Island plan.  “This tremendous petition outpouring demonstrates that people across the country, not just from New Jersey, care what happens to Bull’s Island.” 

###

See and sign the online citizens’ petition to Save Bull’s Island

Look at expanded DEP plans for central part of Island

View DEP refusal to reveal management plans

Revisit concerns by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and other agencies

Examine tree cutter consultant report and genesis of the controversy

New Jersey PEER is a state chapter of a national alliance of state and federal agency resource professionals working to ensure environmental ethics and government accountability