NJ Highlands Council Denies Petition Seeking To Address Climate Emergency And Reduce Extreme Wildfire Risk
Council Claims Current Regional Master (RMP) Plan Is Adequate
But RMP Does Not Even Address Climate Or Wildfire Risks
The NJ Highlands Council just denied my petition for rulemaking that sought additional land use and development restrictions to reduce “extreme wildfire” risks associated with the climate emergency. (read the petition, also see:
While I am surprised by how quickly it was made, I am not surprised by that decision, given the Council’s failure to take action to address the climate emergency (which contrasts to ongoing climate planning by the Pinelands Commission), and their recent promotion of new development in the region, and failure to respond to exploding new development threats from warehouses and industrial solar “farms”, see:
The Council’s denial basically claimed that the current Regional Master Plan (RMP) adequately addresses the climate and wildfire risks I identified. The Council wrote:
The Highlands Council agrees with Petitioner that wildfire prevention, combating climate change and protection of the natural resources in the Highlands Region are essential actions; however, the Highlands Council has determined that a rule change is unnecessary at this time.
At this time? If not now, when? We’re in a climate emergency.
In addition to agreeing with the science and need for the policies I recommended, the Highlands Council was forced to admit that extreme wildfire risks are real. The Council wrote:
Many of the “extreme” wildfire hazard areas – areas where Petitioner would like to see development banned – are located in the Preservation areas of the New Jersey Highlands.
Here the Council misrepresents the petition by omission. I not only sought development bans, but new land use and development controls. And not only for new development but also for existing development.
The Council concluded – with no supporting science, factual evidence, maps, or citation to the provisions of the RMP – that the RMP adequately addressed these risks. The Council wrote:
in accordance with the Highlands Act and the RMP, strong restrictions on development are already in place in these areas.
However, that conclusion is belied by the fact that the Highlands Act and the RMP do not even mention wildfire and climate risks, never mind provide adequate land use and development controls to prevent and reduce those risks.
The terms “climate” and “wildfire” are not even mentioned in the Regional Master Plan.
Neither “climate” or “wildfire” is a basis for any of the land use planning and development standards of the RMP.
“Global warming” is mentioned exactly once in the RMP, and not in relation to land use and wildfire:
▶ Air Quality – This element addresses the connection between land development patterns, automobile transportation and the creation of air pollutants affecting the Highlands Region. Because development patterns also affect energy use, improved regional growth patterns also help address global warming issues to some extent. The element also calls for additional monitoring of toxic air pollutants from both within and nearby the Region.
The technical “stewardship” support documents for the RMP mention “climate change” only in relation to “carbon trading”. It mentions “wildfire” only as a descriptive element in “Forest Stewardship Plans” and US Forest Service grants (see p. 22 and Appendix C). Again, this is not a basis for land use or development restrictions and fireproofing requirements to address climate or wildfire risks.
The Council’s claim is not only not supported by any evidence, it is flat out false. And the Council didn’t even attempt to demonstrate that the current RMP standards are substantively equivalent to or somehow incorporate climate and wildfire science and policy.
The Council’s denial also claimed that the lengthy 6 year plan review and update process was adequate, instead of responding to the urgency of the climate emergency now.
The Council claimed that they recently went though a plan update process:
The RMP was most recently amended in 2019; a public comment period was held from March 27 through May 28, 2019, and the Highlands Council held six public hearings in locations throughout the state to solicit public comment.
That is a transparent attempt by the Council staff to control the issue agenda and the planning process and avoid accountability, see:
In reliance on the Plan update process, the Council failed to provide any evidence that any of the recent RMP updates or public hearings actually addressed the climate emergency and wildfire risk management science, findings, maps, and recommendations in the petition. At a minimum, that would be required to support their claim that the Plan update process is superior to the petition mechanism.
The Council’s denial is an egregiously flawed document. It lacks any statutory, regulatory, cartographic, data, or scientific basis to support the denial.
The Council makes mere vague assertions and conclusions, which are not backed up or supported by anything. Flimsy is too generous a description of this work product. The denial is a series of empty, fact free, unsupported assertions.
Government decisions must be rational and based on articulated evidence in the administrative record.
It is obvious that the Council did not take my petition seriously.
If there’s a pro-bono land use or environmental lawyer out there, give me a ring. This is a classic “arbitrary and capricious” slam dunk win.
This denial is related to Senator Smith’s Forestry Task Force work (and a very poor signal for the upcoming DEP Climate PACT regulations and the Pinelands Commission and DEP’s decisions on the petition):
[End Note: One of my objectives in filing the petition was to raise public awareness of the issues of climate, wildfire, and land use.
Another was to pressure the Highlands Council to adopt a policy of managing wildfire risk – primarily if not exclusively – through land use and development controls and fireproofing existing structures, instead of the damaging “active management” of prescribed burns, “thinning” and forest “treatments” (logging).
Finally, I had hoped to generate some pushback to DEP’s attempts, in their Forest Action Plan, Natural And Working Lands Strategy, and other “Forest stewardship” initiatives, to using wildfire risks as pretext for logging. (for recent examples of that abuse, see:
Highlands Council Executive Director Lisa Plevin was on the Zoom call for the Legislative Forestry Task Force, so she is involved in these issues now. That will be a venue for address these issues now. See:
Here’s the relevant text of the Council’s denial:
The Highlands Council Response to the Petition The Highlands Council has determined to deny this petition for rulemaking. The Highlands Council agrees with Petitioner that wildfire prevention, combating climate change and protection of the natural resources in the Highlands Region are essential actions; however, the Highlands Council has determined that a rule change is unnecessary at this time.
As outlined below, notwithstanding Petitioner’s Petition for Rulemaking, the Highlands Council has strong protections in place to address the aforementioned issues. The Highlands Council encourages a comprehensive regional approach to implementing the 2004 Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act (the Highlands Act) (N.J.S.A. 13:20-14 and 15) . The Highlands Act established the Highlands Council and charged it with the creation and adoption of the Highlands Regional Master Plan (RMP) to protect and enhance the natural resources within the New Jersey Highlands. Many of the “extreme” wildfire hazard areas – areas where Petitioner would like to see development banned – are located in the Preservation areas of the New Jersey Highlands; in accordance with the Highlands Act and the RMP, strong restrictions on development are already in place in these areas. Additionally, the Highlands Act requires the Highlands Council to review and update the RMP every six years, after public hearings.
The Highlands Act contemplates that amendments to the RMP will arise principally out of this six-year reexamination. Accordingly, the Highlands Council follows this outlined structure to review and update the RMP in a manner that is consistent with the Highlands Act and ensures robust public participation. The RMP was most recently amended in 2019; a public comment period was held from March 27 through May 28, 2019, and the Highlands Council held six public hearings in locations throughout the state to solicit public comment. Petitioner is encouraged to comment on the Highlands Council ’s next RMP amendment which will take place in 2024.