WolfeNotes.com

DEP Forest Clearcut Makes A Mockery Of Gov. Murphy’s Climate Executive Orders 

No Consideration of Climate Impacts Or Carbon Storage And Sequestration

Just 10 Days For The Public To Demand Gov. Murphy Veto Minutes To Block This Insanity

“REMEMBER: Only you can prevent forest clearcuts”

Just *** 10 days – that’s all the public has to block what could the worst decision ever made by the Pinelands Commission:

WHEREAS, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 13A-5h, no action authorized by the Commission shall have force or effect until ten (10) days, Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays excepted, after a copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Commission has been delivered to the Governor for review, unless prior to expiration of the review period and Governor shall approve same, in which case the action shall become effective upon such approval.

[***Clarification: a reader just correctly advised that the minutes must be approved before submission to the Gov. at the next Pinelands Commission meeting, which is scheduled for Thursday, November 10 – 9:30 a.m. So the 10 day clock starts on Nov. 10 and the public has until after Nov. 20 (add the weekend days). Sorry for the error.]

I wrote about that debacle recently before today’s approval, see:

• Murphy DEP Seeking to Log Over 1,300 Acres And Construct 13 MILES Of “Firebreak” Through Precious Pinelands Forests

There was no public comment this morning before the Pinelands Commission voted to approve an insane clearcut logging plan by the Murphy DEP Forest Fire Service. Three Commissioners expressed strong reservations and voted to oppose (I don’t have a vote count yet. [Update the vote was 8 YES -2 NO with 1 abstention and 2 no shows. Murphy political appointees Matos and McCurry voted YES. I was shocked by Ed Lloyd’s YES vote, especially after he criticized the plan. Lohbauer and Lettman voted NO. Good for them, but Lettman said nothing.]

Only 3 people provided oral comments at the formal public comment period. NO ONE even mentioned climate or opposed logging. Pinelands Preservation Alliance (Carleton Montgomery and Jason Howell) raised minor concerns with T&E habitat and ORV access. A third person supported it.

Gov. Murphy’s recent political appointments to the Commission – with the exception of Theresa Lettman – were political loyalists and/or followed orders and voted YES to approve the Murphy DEP plan.

The DEP plan suffers numerous fatal flaws, all of which I forced the Commission and staff to confirm specifically, on the record, including the following facts (these facts were so astonishing, I initially thought the staff and Commissioners were referring to the initial proposal that the Commission refused to approve and DEP modified, so I forced the Commissioners and staff to confirm them in my testimony, which they did – listen here – staff presentation and Commission discussion and vote begins at time 32:45. Public comments by myself and Georgina Shanley come much later, after the vote, beginning around time 2:10:00.):

• There was no consideration – by DEP or the Commission staff –  or review of climate impacts, including an increase in carbon emissions from logged trees, loss of carbon storage, and loss of carbon sequestration capacity.

• There was no justification provided by DEP in terms of reducing wildfire risks to people and property and there is little or no people or property at risk in region to be logged and provided firebreaks.

• The Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) lacks current science based policies and standards to address climate change, forest carbon storage and sequestration, and wildfire risk management.

• Clearcut logging will cut and remove 90-95% of trees from 1,100 – 1,300 acres, a total of 2.4 MILLION trees cut and removed.

• There will be 13 miles of 50 feet wide “firebreaks” where trees will be clearcut (an additional 79 acres) and herbicides applied to control the invasive species that are created by and will result from the logging.

• There are 1,041 acres eligible for additional herbicide treatments to reduce invasive species that are created by and result from logging.

• There will be ongoing prescribed burns on these logged acres. Prescribed burning does not require application to the Pinelands Commission.

• Wetland and T&E habitat are provided only 100 foot buffers.

• The Pinelands Commission staff lack expertise in forestry and wildfire management and they therefore deferred to DEP on the science, policy, and management issues related to same. Read below how many times Pinelands staff hid behind “the applicant indicates” and made no independent findings of fact or science.

• The Pinelands Commission accepted the applicant (DEP’s) assertions at face value as science based and factual and best management practices, despite the fact that the latest science demonstrates that “forest thinning” does not reduce the probability of wildfire or the intensity, scale or risks to people and property from wildfires.

Here is how the Commission staff describe this clearcut – Orwellian slogans highlighted: (scroll to the end of the document to find staff recommendation)

A total of approximately 1,304 acres of forest thinning is proposed to occur in a pine-dominated forest type and a pine-shrub oak forest type. The applicant represents that the acreage subject of the proposed forestry contains an abnormally high density of tree and shrub layer and is classified as overstocked. The applicant further represents that this overstocking creates a very high forest fire fuel load and encourages the persistence of ladder fuels, which in turn lead to a very high risk of wildfire. […]

Approximately 1,041 acres of pine-dominated forest type will be thinned twice. The applicant proposes that this acreage will be “thinned low and from below.” This type of thinning cuts and removes those trees that are the shortest in height and smallest in diameter. The applicant indicates that these trees generally act as forest fire “ladder fuels” by connecting the plants and shrubs on the ground with the upper canopy of taller trees. The proposed “low and from below” thinning will reduce the forest from 2,075 trees per acre to 204 trees per acre. Canopy cover will be reduced from 68% to 43%.

[Note: that density reduction is a 90% tree removal rate, for a total of 1,947,711 trees.]

Approximately 255 acres of pine-shrub oak forest type will be subject to a variable density thinning treatment. This thinning will reduce the forest from 1,940 trees per acre to 74 trees per acre. Canopy cover will be reduced from 74% to 30%.

[Note: that density reduction is a 96% tree removal rate, for a total of 475,830 trees.]

Approximately 8 acres of pine-shrub oak forest type along the western outside edge of the Allen Road firebreak will be subject to a “feathered” variable density thinning treatment. The applicant indicates that this type of thinning creates a gradual transition in tree density from zero trees per acre created by the proposed forest firebreak to 33 trees per acre for a distance back from the proposed forest firebreak of 75 feet. Canopy cover will be reduced from 74% to 19% by the “feathered” variable density thinning treatment. The applicant indicates that this “feathered” treatment is intended to reduce the harsh forest edges and create a more visually appealing aesthetic between the proposed forest firebreak and the variable density thinning treatment.

[Note: “zero trees per acre” is a clearcut.]

On top of all these flaws, we may have another egregious revolving door conflict of interest by DEP Assistant Commissioner John Cecil. Let me briefly explain:

The Pinelands Commission issued the approval, with a condition that:

1. The proposed forestry activities shall adhere to the “Proposal for Silvicultural Activity on State Forest and Park Lands New Jersey State Forestry Service,” dated August 22, 2022.

Assistant Commissioner Cecil has management control over State Forest and Park lands.

As such, unless he recused, he had to approve that document that became a condition of Pinelands Commission approval.

Cecil also would be involved in managing the approved logging project in accordance with that condition.

But just before Cecil joined DEP, when he was a manager of forestry at NJ Audubon, Cecil made a presentation to the Pinelands Commission advocating for forestry and criticizing the public for seeking to preserve forests, see:

Cecil’s NJ Audubon presentation was titled: Forest Conservation – NJ Pinelands

https://www.nj.gov/pinelands/home/presentations/NJ%20Pinelands%20Forests%20

Thus, unless he recused, Cecil has another gross conflict of interest that violates State ethics laws.

It’s Chinatown.

[End Note: In an incredibly cynical move, before voting to approve, the Commission paid homage to Gov. Florio and dedicated their library to him. Florio was the architect and prime sponsor for the federal law that created the Pinelands National Reserve and CMP. He’s rolling in his grave over this logging sham.

Exaggerated Wildfire Risk Used As Pretext To Log Forest

Pinelands Commission To Waive Compliance For Huge Forest Destruction

DEP And Pinelands Commission Rejected Land Use Restrictions To Reduce Wildfire Risks

Pinelands Commission Denied OPRA Public Records Request For DEP Meeting Documents

[Update below]

Here we go again with some extremely disturbing decisions on logging, climate, and wildfire.

The Pinelands Commission will meet on October 14. The meeting Agenda includes an insane proposal to waive strict compliance with Pinelands regulations for a massive DEP logging project:

• Public Development Projects and Waivers of Strict Compliance: 
• Resolution Approving With Conditions (1) Application for Public Development:
• Application No. 2007-0318.001 – NJDEP, NJ Forest Service Amended application for approximately 1,304 acres of forestry and approximately 13 miles of forest firebreak

This DEP logging proposal caught my eye 2 months ago upon reading the Pinelands Commission’s July Monthly Management Report, which very vaguely mentioned a meeting with DEP to revise their prior logging plans that the Commission previously considered but refused to approve:

On July 13, 2022, the Commission staff met with representatives of NJDEP Forest Service and the Forest Fire Service to discuss these two applications. App. No 2007-0318.001 proposes1,304 acres of forestry and the creation of approximately 13 miles of forest firebreak in Bass River and Little Egg Harbor Townships. App. No 1990-0868.033. App. No 1990-0868.033 proposes the spot treatment of herbicide to control invasive plant species within 16.4 acres previously cleared to restore the visibility from the Bass River State Forest fire observation tower. These are the two applications that were considered by the Commission in 2021. Neither application received eight votes to be either approved or denied by the Pinelands Commission. Concern was expressed by NJDEP representatives regarding the Commission’s position on herbiciding and forestry considering the Commission’s regulations. Concern was also expressed by NJDEP regarding forest fire safety in the area of the proposed 13-mile forest firebreak. Other topics discussed at the meeting included NJDEP pursuing an New Jersey Office of Administrative Law (NJ OAL) hearing for the two applications. Alternatively, NJDEP may choose to amend and submit two new applications to the Commission for the proposed activities.

It is pretty obvious that the DEP is twisting the Pinelands Commission’s arm and pressuring them for approval.

I immediately filed an OPRA public records request to the Commission to get the documents and find out what is going on (August 9, 2022):

I request a copy of the: a) July 13, 2022 meeting attendance list, b) meeting agenda, c) meeting notes, d) any written materials prepared for, distributed, or discussed at the meeting; and e) correspondence between the DEP and Commission staff regarding subject matter briefings and/or preparations for the meeting.

Just as quickly, the Pinelands Commission denied that request and claimed that they had “no responsive records”. Let’s call it the “immaculate meeting”.

I found that hard to believe and requested a clarification. The Pinelands Commission staff reiterated that they had no records related to that DEP meeting. So on August 25, I blasted them (with a copy to Commissioner Lohbauer and Acting ED Grogan):

Mr. Carter:

Thank you for the clarification.

I find it astonishing that the Commission staff can hold a meeting with DEP on important and controversial science and public policy matters without written invitations, email communications, meeting agenda’s, meeting attendance sheets, meeting notes, any written meeting subject matter, or any meeting followup communications.

I am copying Acting Director Grogan to express my serious concerns about such lack of basic management controls. The Commission staff are not CIA case officers, they are public servants.

This is not good government and it makes transparency, public participation, Commission oversight, and accountability impossible.

Respectfully,

[Note: Keep in mind that current DEP Assistant Commissioner John Cecil, who oversees public forests, is a champion of logging. 

Last spring (March 2021), just before he left NJ Audubon to join DEP, Cecil, made an important forestry presentation to the NJ Pinelands Commission’s Climate Committee.

Cecil’s NJ Audubon presentation was titled: Forest Conservation – NJ Pinelands, see:

https://www.nj.gov/pinelands/home/presentations/NJ%20Pinelands%20Forests%2017Mar2021.pdf

That Cecil presentation advocated “active management” and “young forest” policies, while criticizing public perceptions.

I wonder if Cecil was at the meeting and if he was involved in the DEP’s development and approval of this logging project? If so, it would be another egregious ethics violation.]

So, in the absence of DEP’s application, let me speculate about what it entails.

But first, met me highlight relevant context:

1) Two Years after being pressured by the public and finally agreeing to consider the issue, the Pinelands Commission still has no plan to study, monitor, and protect Pinelands forests from the impact of climate change, see

• The Pinelands Commission Finally Takes A First Baby Step On Climate Policy

2) The Commission has no regulatory requirements or standards in the Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) to consider the climate impacts of regulated activities they review under the CMP, including forest management (logging) or to consider, prevent, reduce or mitigate greenhouse gas emissions or to promote renewable energy. (nor does DEP, see:

• Murphy DEP “Forest Action Plan” Sparks Controversy Over Conflicts With Climate Goals And Logging State Land

3) The DEP and the Pinelands Commission recently rejected a petition for rulemaking to restrict development and improve the management of at risk property in designated extraordinarily high risk wildfire zones, see:

• Murphy DEP, Pinelands Commission, and Highlands Council Urged To Restrict New Development In Areas Of “Extreme” Wildfire Risk

• Pinelands Commission Erects Barriers To Petition To Strengthen Wildfire Development Standards

• Murphy DEP Denies Climate Wildfire Risk Petition

4) The Commission was denounced by the public, environmental groups, and media for lax regulation under the CMP “waiver” provisions during the huge debate on the SJ Gas pipeline, and, in response, acknowledged the problem and they pledged to reform such lax oversight, see:

• Persistent Agitation Drove Pinelands Pipeline Victory

5) The DEP Commissioner – and the NJ Forest Fire Service – have held several press events in the Pinelands on wildfire risks. The DEP Commissioner was called out for exaggerating those risks and DEP walked them back in a recent “Addendum” to their Climate Science Report.

The DEP Climate Report explicitly walked back DEP Commissioner LaTourette’s prior public statements that exaggerated NJ wildfire risks. The DEP now says:

While the scale of wildfires in NJ does not compare to regions in the western United States, a significant portion of its homes are adjacent to forested areas, making even the small fires a concern for human health & property.

We called DEP Commissioner LaTourette out on those exaggerations, specifically the exaggerated and false comparison with western fires:

• Murphy DEP Caught Blowing Smoke On Wildfires

• NJ Forests And Climate Are Nothing Like California And Western Forests – Don’t Let Fake Wildfire Fear Justify Logging

6) Senate Environment Committee Chairman Bob Smith has formed a “Forestry Task Force” and directed them to develop legislative and policy reform recommendations. That task force is currently deliberating and is very likely to recommend reduced (or a moratorium) on logging on public lands and will address the science of climate change and wildfire risk.

Why would the Commission rush through a waiver on DEP logging before those recommendations are considered by the legislature?

7) The NJ Legislature recently passed a law that provides legal liability relief (immunity) for damages caused by wildfires that result from “prescribed burns”  gone wrong (*like the recent US Forest Service debacle in New Mexico). Virtually no one is aware of that reckless legislation. See these posts on prescribed burns and the repeal of immunity for harms.

So, with that context in mind, how could the Commission possibly consider a “waiver of strict compliance” for logging Pinelands forests?

I) DEP Forestry Is Likely Logging, Masked As “Forest Thinning” And Justified To Prevent Wildfire

Based on several DEP press events in the Pinelands on wildfire, it is obvious that this is the DEP’s agenda and sham justification.

II) DEP “Firebreaks” Would Create a 13 Mile Scar Through Pinelands Forests

The DEP proposal is for 13 miles of “firebreak”. Despite the DEP’s claims about the need to protect public safety from wildfires, they refused to consider far less destructive and far more effective land use and property management (fireproofing structures).

DEP rules define firebreak:

Firebreak: A natural or constructed barrier used to stop or check fires that occur, or to provide a control line from which to work. A firebreak shall consist of non-flammable type materials such as gravel, sand, or paved roads, irrigated lawns, gardens and orchards, or ponds, lakes, and other watercourses that meet a specified width. This width is to be measured outward 1-1/2 times the height of fuels available to burn directly adjacent to the object. When used in conjunction with a fuelbreak, the size of the firebreak may be reduced.

The forest varies by composition and height, but here is the dominant forest:

Black oak, chestnut oak, scarlet oak and white oak cover 40 percent or more of the ground and contribute 50 percent or more of the tree stems in oak-pine forests [….]

The oak- pine forest canopy ranges from 35 to 50 feet high but in stands left unburned for a century or more, the trees may be 75 to 100 feet tall.

So – worst case – the width of a DEP firebreak could be (75-100) X (1.5) =  112 – 150 feet wide!

The forest acreage clearcut for 13 miles of firebreak – not including adjacent corridor, wildlife, water and quality impacts and the carbon emission, lost carbon storage, and lost carbon sequestration impacts from this massive linear development forest destruction – would be:

13 miles (5,280 ft/mile) X (150 feet width)/(43,640 sq. ft/acre) = 236 acres.

Which leads to big questions, like:

How is it possible for the Pinelands Commission to issue a waiver for this magnitude of destruction?

What the hell is the Pinelands Preservation Alliance and NJ Conservation Foundation and the Sierra Club, NJ Chapter – the main conservation groups that defend the Pinelands – doing? (and Sierra is a Co-Chair of Sen. Smith’s Forestry Task Force).

More to follow.

[Update: 10/10/22 – EMile DeVito of NJCF tells me to relax, no big deal, bigger fish to fry: (my emphasis)

Hi Bill. This is not a terrible as it sounds. The logging is nearly all “thinning from the ground up” to remove lower levels of fuel load, and leaving all the mulch in the forest to decompose, very little wood removal,  and the firebreak is 30 feet of clearing  for meadow on each side of the narrow sand road. Pinelands Commission got some improvements regarding herbicides and also vernal pond and rare snake considerations. Way bigger things to fight about In the Pines,  for example the unresolved Wetlands violation at Whitesbog and the proposal by JJ White company to create more modernized cranberry bags in the historic district.

So now the “not as terrible as it sounds” standard drives conservation group advocacy priorities!

After a full summer on the Salish Sea and Puget Sound, we decided to head south down the coast to avoid inland wildfire smoke.

But, after 2 weeks on the spectacular Washington and Oregon coasts and rainforests – including some rain and fog – we longed for dryer mountains and forests, so we headed east out of Tillamook, Oregon.

We didn’t stop in Portland and headed for the Columbia River Gorge.

Mt Hood was shrouded in smoke and the temperatures were in the 80’s (too hot for me), but the smoke wasn’t as bad as I feared so we headed east up the Columbia River to the Snake, Salmon, Clearwater, and Lochsa Rivers and forests beyond.

Some scenes:

We stopped to view the infamous Bonneville Dam – why do they always put the fish hatcheries by the dams that kill them?

But we must admit that we enjoyed the Bonneville Fish Hatchery – we never saw a live sturgeon before and the salmon were beautiful, even in a fake setting. The pet rainbow trout were pretty too!

 

Clearwater River, Idaho:

Obama Executive Order Created Broad Program, Backed Federal Regulatory Authority

Trump Repealed Obama Order

Biden Restoration Order Actually Gutted The Obama Order

As Biden is about to depart on his Hurricane Ian PR tours (Puerto Rico and Florida), I want to put a little historical and policy meat on the bones of an important story about continuing government failures that were exposed by Hurricane Ian.

I’m sure Joe Biden and the lapdog media are not going to say anything about how privatization of energy and other Neoliberal economic reforms  – including Congress’s passage of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act – have contributed to the disaster in Puerto Rico.

Of course, this is more of the same of what Rutgers Professor Naomi Klein exposed in the post-Katrina response as “Shock Doctrine – Disaster Capitalism”.

But there are other government policy failures that warrant attention.

Let’s start with Obama’s Executive Order on climate adaptation. He issued that as a followup to his Order on Sandy, which I contrasted at the time with NJ Gov. Christie’s response. (see also:

• Christie’s Sea Wall Follies

At the time it was issued, following the Hurricane Katrina and Superstorm Sandy disasters, it got little press attention.

But the details of Obama’s Executive Order 13653 “Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change” actually directed broad and sweeping climate adaptation programs, including the use of federal regulatory authority.

Here’s the core text:

Sec. 3. Managing Lands and Waters for Climate Preparedness and Resilience. Within 9 months of the date of this order and in coordination with the efforts described in section 2 of this order, the heads of the Departments of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, NOAA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, and other agencies as recommended by the Council established in section 6 of this order shall work with the Chair of CEQ and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to complete an inventory and assessment of proposed and completed changes to their land- and water-related policies, programs, and regulations necessary to make the Nation’s watersheds, natural resources, and ecosystems, and the communities and economies that depend on them, more resilient in the face of a changing climate. Further, recognizing the many benefits the Nation’s natural infrastructure provides, agencies shall, where possible, focus on program and policy adjustments that promote the dual goals of greater climate resilience and carbon sequestration, or other reductions to the sources of climate change. The assessment shall include a timeline and plan for making changes to policies, programs, and regulations. Agencies shall build on efforts already completed or underway as outlined in agencies’ Adaptation Plans, as discussed in section 5 of this order, as well as recent interagency climate adaptation strategies such as the National Action Plan: Priorities for Managing Freshwater Resources in a Changing Climate, released October 28, 2011; the National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy, released March 26, 2013; and the National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan, released April 16, 2013.

Of course, the Order was never implemented by the Obama administration. Another example of symbolic gesture over real reform.

The Obama Order was later repealed by President Trump’s Executive Order 13,783 “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth”.

The news coverage of the Trump Order did not even mention the climate adaptation provisions of the repealed Obama Order.

In Orwellian fashion, not surprisingly, the Biden White House has literally flushed that Trump Order down the Memory Hole:

All of which takes us now to the Biden Administration’s policy.

Biden issued Executive Order 14,008: Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad

Revealingly, the Order does not mention the word “regulation”.

As such, it greatly scales back and weakens the Obama Order.

On top of that, Biden’s “Bipartisan” infrastructure funding law and inflation reduction act included provisions and side deals to scale back federal regulatory authority and promote accelerated expansion of infrastructure, with no climate impact assessments or adaptation planning & mitigation measures at all.

The Biden Executive Order is very thin gruel on the important policy issues involved in adaption –

Here’s the full text on adaptation, which is limited in scope to federal government procurement and management of buildings and property:

Sec. 211.  Climate Action Plans and Data and Information Products to Improve Adaptation and Increase Resilience.  (a)  The head of each agency shall submit a draft action plan to the Task Force and the Federal Chief Sustainability Officer within 120 days of the date of this order that describes steps the agency can take with regard to its facilities and operations to bolster adaptation and increase resilience to the impacts of climate change.  Action plans should, among other things, describe the agency’s climate vulnerabilities and describe the agency’s plan to use the power of procurement to increase the energy and water efficiency of United States Government installations, buildings, and facilities and ensure they are climate-ready.  Agencies shall consider the feasibility of using the purchasing power of the Federal Government to drive innovation, and shall seek to increase the Federal Government’s resilience against supply chain disruptions.  Such disruptions put the Nation’s manufacturing sector at risk, as well as consumer access to critical goods and services.  Agencies shall make their action plans public, and post them on the agency website, to the extent consistent with applicable law.

You can kiss all that pretend regulatory stuff good-bye. Biden is a corporate Neoliberal. He won’t even do symbolic regulatory gestures like Obama.

So, when Biden tours another climate disaster, would it be too much to expect that the national press corps or climate activists to ask some tough questions about Biden’s actual climate record, based on the foregoing?

I’m not holding my breath.

Murphy DEP Continues To Abdicate And Rely On Failed Local Land Use Plans

Market Failure And Perverse Local Incentives Demand State Regulation

NJ Spotlight just wrote another stunningly misleading climate – land use story, basically repeating the myth that local land use controls are effective in adapting to the climate emergency, despite blatant contradictions with their own prior reporting and sources in the story itself.

Amazingly, today’s reporting comes after it took NJ Spotlight – based on the biased opinions of the corporate planning group NJ Future – almost 2 years of warehouse development stories to finally report that reliance on local “home rule” and the voluntary NJ State Plan is “doomed to fail”. (NJ Spotlight, 9/12/22)

As an author of the 1986 State Planning Act, Gilbert said he and other drafters were told by the administration at the time to remove language that would dilute home-rule power while building up regional or statewide authority over the planning process.

“The governor and legislative leaders knew that to convince the collective towns and cities to give up this power, they would have to offer something in return. Furthering the public good was not enough.”

The latest attempt to establish statewide or regional planning policy is doomed to fail for the same reason, Gilbert argued.

“Hope springs eternal among planners,” he said. “But we don’t seem to be willing to learn from our mistakes. So here we have again another toothless wish list of wonderful things for towns to do.”

After almost 30 years of lies by State Plan supporters, it took almost 40 years for the media to tell the truth and report that the toothless State Plan was INTENTIONALLY “doomed to fail”.

Equally amazing, today’s climate – land use story – which focuses on land use planning and local property taxes – comes literally in the wake of Gov. Jim Florio’s death.

Not surprisingly, news coverage of Florio’s legacy failed to mention his outgoing State of the State address in 1994, which highlighted and warned about the voluntary State Plan, the dangers of “home rule”, and over-reliance on local property taxes. Florio said:

During the past few years, one very important tool for fighting property taxes and promoting responsible development has been working its way to completion. The State Plan was begun in 1985 by Governor Kean, and finally approved in 1992.

It’s the backbone of the effort I’m talking about today. My last contribution to that effort took place this morning, when I signed an Executive Order that will end the piecemeal implementation of our new State Plan. It requires all agencies of state government to immediately begin to coordinate their actions with each other and with the objectives of the Plan.

To fix those problems, Florio’s final action as Gov. was to issue Executive Order #109 to put State teeth in the State Plan – another key legacy that went unreported.

(Worse, in prior coverage of Florio’s legacy, NJ Spotlight not only failed to report this legacy, they provide a platform for Governors Christie Whitman and Tom Kean – the very people who reversed Florio’s accomplishments.)

So, with that context in mind, what did NJ Spotlight do?

They AGAIN relied on NJ Future as an expert source and AGAIN emphasized failed voluntary local planning and AGAIN let Murphy DEP off the hook for continuing abdication of DEP’s legal and moral responsibilities.

Do people forget that Murphy DEP Commissioner actually said THIS on the record? (NJ Spotlight, 10/14/20)

Although developers and builders fear the new rules will tighten limits on where they can build in coastal and inland areas, the regulations are unlikely to do that, LaTourette said in an interview with NJ Spotlight News. …

“We’re not at a point, nor do we think it’s our role, to tell people: ‘Don’t build here, you shouldn’t build there, you can’t do that,’” LaTourette said. “It is about making folks assess their risk and recognize the risk they are taking on. We are not saying: ‘You cannot build in a future flood-risk area.’ We’re saying that in a future flood-risk area, you need to at least do what you do now in an existing flood-risk area, which is: assess the risk, and notice that risk. It will forever live in the deed record of that property.”

“Not our role”. “Deed record” buyer beware. The Market rules. Right.

So let me explain today’s continuing media and regulatory failures.

In a rambling and convoluted complex climate story titled “How climate change could sink NJ’s tax base — and not just at the Shore”, the reader has to dig for and infer the lede – which is that real estate market profits and perverse local tax incentives are ignoring and compounding climate risks by continuing to develop in highly inappropriate locations, all while the Murphy DEP continues to abdicate a State responsibility.

Spotlight reported:

While few municipalities in New Jersey have started to plan for this impact, it’s something that Stratton, the Hoboken official, views as a future threat that’s commingled in a ball of financial risks associated with climate change.[…]

But that doesn’t mean local leaders are ready to make major changes. On the contrary, ongoing coastal development in many parts of the state will increase the value of private property and the scale of property-tax revenues jeopardized by rising seas.

“I haven’t seen it affecting development, new development or redevelopment in any way,” Herrington said. [Herrington is at the Urban Coast Institute at Monmouth University]

Despite this municipal planning failure, market failure, and perverse economic incentives, the Murphy DEP has done nothing but talk:

A slow state response

Statewide efforts are underway, but those processes tend to move slowly. New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection announced an emergency rulemaking push following last year’s devastation from Ida, an attempt to create new restrictions on development in floodplains. But that effort has ground to a halt, with the state facing heavy pushback from business groups

So, what are the solutions? What level of government has the lead responsibility? Again they go local:

Kasabach sees coastal communities as having three choices as sea level rise eats away at properties.

And who is framing these failed local alternatives?

Kasabach [NJ Future] said it’s imperative the state move forward with the proposed floodplain rule.

“That’s going to give local officials more support to be able to make those tough planning decisions about areas where they’re not going to reinvest infrastructure dollars, where they’re not going to encourage redevelopment to take place,” Kasabach said.

Meanwhile, a recently enacted state law requires each of the state’s 564 municipalities to incorporate a climate change risk assessment into their master plan updates. Kasabach called the law a game-changer.

“As towns are starting to realize they need to meet this requirement, they’re starting to have the right kinds of conversations about their land use (and) future projections about what things are going to look like,” Kasabach said.

Let’s break that down:

1) NJ Spotlight again relies on Kasabach of NJ Future, which is the same corporate planning outfit that misled them for 2 years on the warehouse story by emphasizing failed local planning and the “doomed to fail” toothless State Plan.

Instead of accurately describing NJ Future as a private corporate planning group, they misled readers with this:

New Jersey Future, a nonprofit group focused on urban design.

NJ Future describes themselves: 

New Jersey Future has:

• Served as chief advocate for the adoption and implementation of the State Development and Redevelopment Plan, New Jersey’s smart growth blueprint for revitalizing communities and protecting natural resources.

After decades of misleading the people of NJ about the intentionally, by design, “doomed to fail” toothless State Plan, and then again repeating those same lies on the warehouse problems, NJ Future’s credibility should be zero and they should not be the sole source to outline alternatives. Period.

2) Note how Kasaback contextualized DEP’s regulations as merely support for local planning. He says it’s the municipalities that are to make the “tough planning decisions”, thereby again localizing a State responsibility.

3) In this story itself, NJ Future Kasaback’s emphasis on municipal planning is contradicted by other sources, who say municipalities are doing very little or nothing.

4) As I explained in detail, the law Kasaback mentions is NOT a “game changer”.

That law (according to NJ Spotlight’s spin):

requires each of the state’s 564 municipalities to incorporate a climate change risk assessment into their master plan updates. Kasabach called the law a game-changer.

Just like the voluntary State Plan is toothless, so too are Municipal Master Plans toothless, and for the same legal reasons.

Under NJ’s Municipal Land Use Law, the local Master Plan is NOT enforceable. There is no, what is called “mandatory conformity” requirement.

The local zoning code, which is enforceable and controls development, is not required to conform with the Master Plan.

So a “climate change risk assessment” sounds good, but it is a meaningless exercise, merely – to quote Jim Gilbert –

“another toothless wish list of wonderful things for towns to do“.

[Update: a well informed reader sent me this note on the “Climate Change Risk Assessment”: (my emphasis)

It only applies when a town redoes its master plan which is rare every 20 years or more – its not included the Periodic MP review which is every 10  years but its not mandatory- also there no mandatory implementation of the plan or zone changes required.

[End Note: With respect to the Hoboken sea wall solutions NJ Spotlight cheerleads for and why they will fail, see also:

• Christie’s Sea Wall Follies