Pinelands Director Admits Coaching Pipeline Applicant
Commission Meeting Tomorrow Sure to by Controversial
They Think We Are Stupid
“Joint Base-Gate” Scandal Heating Up
It is said that pride comes before a fall.
The Pinelands Commission’s Executive Director Nancy Wittenberg has admitted coaching New Jersey Natural Gas Company on the regulatory implications of alternative pipeline routes, yet finds that to be acceptable routine practice, akin to advising a homeowner not to build a deck in a wetland and instead locate it in an upland portion of the property.
Really – she actually made that analogy.
Wittenberg’s admission came in response to a request I made for the Pinelands Commission to support an independent investigation into whether NJNG and officials of Joint Base concocted a false “pretense of a military purpose ” in order to evade regulatory scrutiny by the Pinelands Commission.
In a terse email, Chairman Lohbauer late today responded to that request, basically dismissing the concern. Lohbauer wrote:
Good afternoon.
I can appreciate your concern over this allegation; when it was raised, I asked Executive Director Wittenberg to look into the matter and report back to the Commission about it. She was prepared to report to us at our upcoming meeting (tomorrow), but in light of your email request, she has shared her information with me so that I may respond to you now.
Director Wittenberg confirmed that Pinelands staff met with officials of NJ Natural Gas on May 6, 2015 regarding a proposed natural gas pipeline project. She indicated that the applicant had several route alternatives, two of which traveled through the Joint Base. She added that one route passed in small part through a Forest Management Area. She said that they discussed the regulatory constraints of each route and provided guidance on the regulatory requirements. She added that Commission staff did not suggest the route on the Base.
The Director described the discussion this way: “This is common practice for us when we meet with applicants. We note any potential issues associated with the project and provide information on the available options. Other examples of such preliminary guidance include explaining the regulatory constraints for building in wetlands or in an area with there is known threatened/endangered species habitat.”
She went on to note that Pinelands staff did not write any emails that the speaker (and now you) have referenced, and added that these emails “do not characterize what occurred at the meeting.”
You note that you have filed a complaint regarding these allegations, as is your right, and request my support. I accept Director Wittenberg’s representation of the meeting, and I would not seek or endorse an investigation of the matter.
Sincerely,
Mark Lohbauer
Hey Lohbauer – my name in not “Good afternoon”! I wrote the email to you as Chairman and you are responding to me, so basic protocol says you address the reply to me. R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
But in his non-responsive response, Lohbauer actually thinks he’s put this whole matter to bed.
Lohbauer quotes Wittenberg admitting that she coached NJNG:
“This is common practice for us when we meet with applicants. We note any potential issues associated with the project and provide information on the available options. Other examples of such preliminary guidance include explaining the regulatory constraints for building in wetlands or in an area with there is known threatened/endangered species habitat.”
NJNG is a major corporation with sophisticated lawyers and engineers – the last thing they need is advice and coaching form the Pinelands Commission staff.
The role of Commission staff is to protect the Pinelands and the public interest – period – not to serve as a behind the scenes consultant to a private major gas corporation.
We’ll keep you posted for what is shaping up to be a battle tomorrow at the Commission meeting.
We will share our initial reply to Lohbauer, outlining why this is not over, but just beginning.
We will explain to the Commission why NJNG wanted a military purpose; how a military purpose is subject to weaker Pinelands standards; and why a letter from Joint Base commanders was an important regulatory document and amounts to the smoking gun showing collusion and conspiracy between Pinelands staff and NJNG.
PS – this is not the first time Wittenberg allowed corrupt regulatory review practices to occur with a gas pipeline corporation. We will go into some detail about that “SJG email-gate” too.