WolfeNotes.com

DEP Sought $995,000 Pentagon Grant To Fund Pinelands Logging Project

Purpose Of Project Was To Reduce Smoke For Air Force Training Missions

DEP Press Release Confirms Our Suspicions

Today, the Murphy DEP issued a press release that confirmed exactly what we suspected about why the DEP was so aggressively pursuing such a flawed logging plan for the Pinelands forests that lacked any credible ecological or wildfire prevention objectives and directly contradicted climate forestry goals.

Because DEP did not provide – and we could not discern – a logical and science based rationale for the DEP’s Pinelands logging plan, we suspected that it was motivated by other objectives, including securing Department of Defense funding and meeting Air Force military training objectives.

On November 21, 2022, we wrote to question DEP’s real motivations, see:

• Is Military Money And Protection Of Warren Grove US Air Force Range Driving Insane DEP Pinelands Logging Plan?

We are dumfounded as to why DEP wants to log an isolated 1,400 acre parcel of Pinelands forests. There are major negative ecological and climate impacts of the plan and no justification for it.

According to Pinelands Commissioner Wallner, there is no wildfire management logic to support DEP’s plans to log 1,304 acres and create 13 road miles of 50 foot wide clearcut to create a “firebreak”.

Pinelands Commisioner Wallner – a retired National Park Service wildfire expert – noted that he reviewed the DEP maps of the area and that there was no people or property at risk and that DEP provided no wildfire justification for the plan. …

So why is DEP aggressively pushing the Plan? Why did the Pinelands Commission approve it. And why are NJ leading conservation groups so aggressively supporting it?

Given the proximity to the USAF Warren Grove Range and support of NJ Conservation Foundation, we think we may have found who really could be pulling the strings behind the scenes: the US Air Force.

I previously wrote about the USAF’s “REPI” program, see:

• NJ DEP & NJ Conservation Foundation Partner With Military To Burn NJ Forests – No Consideration of Climate Impacts

Today, the DEP brazenly issued a press release that confirms our suspicions and exposes the fact that DEP concealed the objectives of seeking DoD funding and lied to the public and the Pinelands Commission about the reason for the project, see:

• NEW JERSEY RECEIVES $995,000 FEDERAL GRANT FOR WILDFIRE
  MITIGATION EFFORTS IN AREA OF JOINT BASE MCGUIRE-DIX-LAKEHURST

TRENTON – The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection is set to receive $995,000 from the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) to reduce wildfire risk in the areas surrounding Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, Warren Grove Range, Naval Weapons Station Earle and Sea Girt National Guard Training Facility, Commissioner Shawn M. LaTourette announced today…

Funds from this grant round will be used to construct a strategic firebreak adjacent to the Warren Grove Gunnery Range in Bass River State Forest, with project work expected to begin in April 2023…

Additionally, forest thinning on 1,305 acres will reduce combustible vegetation known as ladder fuels and improve wildlife habitat. Ladder fuels are small trees and low vegetation beneath the forest canopy. Most large trees in the project area will remain, which will keep the canopy intact.

DEP not only concealed their DoD grant funding and lied about the objectives of the logging project – which are explicitly to support the US Air Force’s military training mission, not forest ecology or climate – the DEP again lied by falsely claiming that the logging “will keep the canopy intact.”

We’ve written several times to explain the deep reductions in canopy cover, as even the Pinelands Commission’s approval document describes.

And there is no doubt that DEP issued the press release today to hide behind the larger story of today’s Legislative hearing on the Forestry Task Force recommendations.

This is the most dishonest and manipulative deception I’ve ever experience in working with DEP for over 30 years.

It is reprehensible and totally unacceptable. I condemn it in the strongest possible terms.

I filed an OPRA request to DEP today to get all the documents on the DoD grant and will be writing more in future posts to expose this deception.

I wrote the following letter to the Pinelands Commission to express my disgust with DEP’s manipulation and lies:

Dear Director Grogan –

Please see my note below regarding DEP’s press release today about DoD REPI program funding for the Pinelands Wildfire plan recently approved by the Commission.

Please share my concerns and email with all Commissioners and Chuck Horner who conducted the review of the DEP plan. Note that DEP’s press release today claims that canopy cover will be maintained and that this claim directly contradicts the numerical data on reduction in canopy cover documented in the Commission’s approval document.

This is deeply disturbing, as it appears that DoD REPI funding and REPI program objectives drove the DEP wildfire plan – not the DEP’s public stated objectives – and that the DEP intentionally withheld this information from the Commission and the public. I filed an OPRA request today with DEP to document the REPI grant application process.

I would hope that you and the Commissioners agree that such manipulation and dishonesty in government is reprehensible.

Respectfully,

Bill Wolfe

Spotlight Reports “Good News” On Fish But Fails To Mention Fish Consumption Advisories

Again, No Mention of Delaware Toxics Problems Or Industrial Pollution

Journalistic Malpractice – Failure To Warn

(*** source: NJ DEP)

[Prior Update was deleted – here’s’ a correction from Pennsylvania publication: NJ DEP issued consumption advisories for PFAS. Curious, I don’t recall this story running in NJ Spotlight. I’ll check]

Back in the day, DEP managers had to actively spin, suppress, and/or cover up the science and data that documented unhealthy levels of toxic chemicals in the environment and fish and wildlife.

I have first hand knowledge of all that.

After almost a decade in DEP’s toxic chemical regulatory programs, in 1994 I was forced out of DEP for blowing the whistle on a corrupt DEP scheme to suppress and lie about alarming DEP research that found unexpectedly high levels of mercury in freshwater fish. (I was rehired at DEP and vindicated in 2002).

The DEP managers feared negative press coverage and the criticism by an outraged public that always ensued.

The DEP managers feared public demands for stricter regulation and enforcement of laws.

The DEP managers feared the political pushback they would receive from chemical, pharmaceutical, and oil industrial polluters and their Legislative puppets.

DEP managers fear loss of revenue and budget cuts. The jobs of DEP fish and wildlife program staff are funded by fishing and hunting license fees. The public’s revulsion of toxic fish and wildlife reduce those revenues.

NJ’s Fisheries contribute millions to NJ’s economy. Toxic fish and shellfish lead to FDA restrictions and loss of commercial fishing industry profits.

Headlines like this are nightmares for a captured DEP and their corporate friends in polluting industry:

• More Dual Sexed Fish Documented In NJ Rivers

• USGS Study Documents High Levels of Prescription Drugs In Streams – Source is Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Plants

• Manufacturing Facilities Release Pharmaceuticals to the Environment (USGS)

The DEP managers feared the embarrassment, criticism, and pressure that would be exerted on the Governor from all quarters.

But not any more – the Big Pharma and chemical industry lobbyists have won the war.

Today, the DEP managers no longer sweat bullets. The media just ignore all that.

So, after today’s repeated misleading coverage of the Delaware River by NJ Spotlight (which I’ve warned them about repeatedly), I fired off this note to reporter Jon Hurdle, with a copy to his sources at the Delaware Riverkeeper. I’m particularly disappointed with Maya Von Rosum, who knows better. I gave up on Hurdle long ago.

People seriously must demand to know why NJ Spotlight would tacitly encourage poor and minority communities to consume unsafe fish tainted by toxic chemicals by misleading reports on the health of the river’s fisheries, while failing to report on fish consumption advisories, toxic sediments, ongoing industrial toxic pollution, chemical water quality, and extremely disturbing chemically induced ecological impacts like dual sexed fish.

This can’t be an inadvertent oversight – it happens repeatedly. It’s journalistic malpractice – at best – or an incompetent or corrupt coverup at worst.

*** A knowledgeable reader again reminds me that I again failed to mention that DEP fish consumption advisories downplay risk because Fish Advisories are set at a 1 in 10,000 individual lifetime risk for cancer, not 1 in 1,000,000 like drinking water risks are.

Here’s my note to Mr. Hurdle:

Jon – there are numerous fish consumption advisories issued on the Delaware. Why no mention?

Do you think urban fishers should be unknowingly eating those fish, with Spotlight’s tacit encouragement? Talk about EJ!

Industrial legacy? Industrial discharges are not all over. And there is a pre-treatment program too. Why no mention? Google Dupont, Haas (Wm. Penn) and DRBC Toxics and DEP toxics in Biota work.

There are TMDLs on the river. No mention.

There is an anti-degradation policy in the Clean Water Act – no mention.

There are loopholes in DEP’s proposed variance rule based on cost, especially in EJ Communities (your story implied they were Trader Joe’s wino’s). No mention. In case you missed it:

http://www.wolfenotes.com/2022/08/murphy-dep-proposed-huge-loophole-in-clean-water-standards/

State regulatory protections for headwater tributary streams, like 300 foot C1 buffers on the NJ side – they don’t exist on PA tributaries – totally ignored.

I could go on.

Do better.

The Framework Is A Formula For Status Quo Logging And Climate Neglect

Importantly, mechanical thinning results in a substantial net loss of forest carbon storage, and a net increase in carbon emissions that can substantially exceed those of wildfire emissions (Hudiburg et al. 2013, Campbell et al. 2012). Reduced forest protections and increased logging tend to make wildland fires burn more intensely (Bradley et al. 2016). This can also occur with commercial thinning, where mature trees are removed (Cruz et al. 2008, Cruz et al. 2014). As an example, logging in U.S. forests emits 10 times more carbon than fire and native insects combined (Harris et al. 2016). And, unlike logging, fire cycles nutrients and helps increase new forest growth. ~~~~ Letter To Congress By Over 200 Scientists

A full year after it was formed, tomorrow the Senate Environment Committee Chairman Bob Smith appointed co-chairs of Smith’s Forestry Task Force will present their “Framework” recommendations to an unusual joint hearing of the Assembly and Senate Environment and Agriculture Committees.

Keeping with Senator Smith’s tight control of this entire process, Trenton sources tell us that there will even be Smith hand picked invited guests that will testify, but no open public testimony and certainly critics need not apply. Smith is clearly frustrated by his decade long failure to pass controversial pro-logging legislation. He created the Task Force as a vehicle to provide cover for a new package of the same old bills.

Upon its draft release for a few days of public comment during the holidays in December, I bulleted some criticisms, calling the document a “non-starter”, see:

• Legislative Forestry Task Force Recommendations Are A Non-Starter (Part Two)

I hate to say it, but I told you this was coming. I initially tried to set guardrails and policy priorities for this runaway train, but my recommendations were not even considered and summarily rejected, see:

• Forestry Task Force Urged To Support a Moratorium On Logging Pending Climate Reforms

So here we are, one year later (and with even more flawed DEP forestry plans and even more PR campaigns underway, including the Pinelands wildfire plan, DEP “Natural Lands”, and a new “Urban Heat Island” initiative.)

So, here’s just a heads up on issues to listen closely to, because the slogans and spin will be overwhelming:

I)  Critical Issues The Framework Ignores

1. The Framework applies only to publicly owned forested lands – not private lands where logging may continue unregulated. Public lands are only about one half of NJ’s forests. NJ can not protect forest resources or seriously respond to the climate crisis by ignoring half of NJ’s forests:

Recommendation 1:

The NJDEP should be directed to initiate and conduct a statewide planning and mapping process for forested public land

The same narrow scope and restriction to public lands is applied to afforestation and reforestation:

Recommendation 5:

The NJDEP should be directed to identify areas where afforestation and reforestation should occur on public lands.

2. The Framework explicitly grandfathers all current DEP Forest Management Plans (like Sparta Mountain and other Highlands and Pinelands logging) and programs, including recent scientifically flawed and destructive Statewide forestry policy under the DEP Forest Action Plan and the forestry related issues in the DEP 80X50 Climate Science Report.

The Framework hides this massive loophole under the following caveat, which is presented right up front and not in the body of the recommendations:

None of the recommendations are intended to interfere with current approved forest management plans and their associated activities.

3. The Framework does not recommend that science based carbon storage and sequestration goals, policies, verified quantification methods, and regulatory standards be created and enforced by DEP.

4. The Framework makes no recommendations to regulate forest resources as forests (e.g. like wetlands, streams, wildlife, and groundwater are regulated by DEP as public resources), or to mandate that forestry practice fully comply with existing DEP regulations, like wetlands, Category One waters, Highlands, or stormwater management.

5. The Framework does not recommend: a) creation of a pro-forestation policy, b) preservation of existing forests and large old trees, c) that NJ’s current narrow Reforestation Act “no net loss” law be expanded to all tree removal projects, or d) that a new urban forestry program be created and driven by mitigation offsets from development projects and additional new carbon revenues (not merely current law which provides just 10% of RGGI revenues). For some ideas on that, see:

• Time To Expand NJ’s “No Net Loss Reforestation Act” To Address The Climate Emergency And Environmental Justice

The only positive recommendation (#6 – DEP to designate carbon reserves) is accompanied by a HUGE “exception” loophole that guts any carbon reserve program before it is even created. DEP is already logging NJ forests based on “forest health” and “wildfire risks” and “carbon defense”:

Carbon reserves should be defined similar to “ecological reserves” in the Natural Areas Program as areas “managed to allow natural processes to proceed with little or no habitat manipulation with the exception that management will occur only to address ecological or safety threats, as approved by an oversight council** that includes a mix of NJDEP representatives and private interests representing appropriate expertise.

Read this excellent article for an overview of exactly what’s coming tomorrow:

• High Country News Engages in Climate Change Denialism and Greenwashing

II) The Framework Recommends Flawed Status Quo Forestry And Continued Mismanagement

In addition to the above serious flaws of omission, the Framework is equally flawed by what it recommends.

1. The Framework promotes logging and supports the DEP’s current flawed policies:

Recommendation 7:

The NJDEP should be directed to identify areas where active management is needed to promote future carbon sequestration, maintain biodiversity, and to address current and future threats to ecological health.

This is consistent with the carbon sequestration goals identified in the NJDEP Global Warming Response Act 80×50 report,* which discusses proactive management for carbon defense including thinning and burning.

The DEP Forest Action Plan and Pinelands and Highlands forestry plans currently justify “active management’  and “thinning” – which are euphemisms for logging – to promote ecological health, prevent wildfire, and as “carbon defense”. The Framework uncritically accepts these flawed DEP policies (see above letter to Congress).

2. The Framework promotes expansion of current DEP prescribed burn policies and practices and supports the Prescribed Burn Act:

Recommendation 12:

The NJDEP should continue to use fire as an important management tool based upon sound science. The most significant action the agency can take on this issue is to fully implement the Prescribed Burn Act,

In the wake of a major New Mexico wildfire that was started by a prescribed burn, the US Forest Service recognized the need to reform prescribed burn models and practices in light of new science on climate, public safety, and air quality. NJ’s development and population density raise serious safety issues, yet very few people understand that the Prescribed Burn Act provided an ill advised liability exemption for damages from an out of control prescribed burn like New Mexico.

NJ also has serious Clean Air Act non-attainment public health issues for ultra-fine and fine particulates (PM 2.5), which are made much worse by prescribed burns. The framework ignores all this science. See:

• DEP Will Hold An Important Public Hearing On NJ’s Clean Air Plan For Fine Particulate Pollution (PM 2.5)

3. Bowing to and reflecting the power of the hunting lobby – which controls much of DEP’s Forestry Policy – the Framework recommends creation of a commercial market for the sale of deer meat!

Recommendation 14:

The NJDEP should be directed to measure and reduce deer densities in our public forestlands to ecologically sustainable levels, with guidance from the Science Advisory Panel.* Specifically, the NJDEP should identify and implement new and innovative steps,** such as establishing a pilot program for commercial sale of venison,

How sick is that?

4. Cynically, under the guise of prohibiting commercial logging, the Framework actually promotes commercial logging! The Framework also supports the propaganda and bad science of the forest products industry:

Recommendation 15:

The NJDEP should not include commercial profit as a goal in any forest management plan* on public land.

Commercial timber management should not be a goal for any forest management plan on public land. Wood products can be sold in instances where cutting and removal of wood is a necessary part of an approved plan with ecological health, climate, or other non-commercial goals.

The DEP currently exploits flawed and scientifically false justifications – like wood products sequester carbon and “thinning” promotes ecological health – to justify logging. They allow logging contractors to profit from the sale of wood by giving away timber and logged products for free, thereby masking the real costs of the logging program.

5. The Framework supports creation of carbon markets that would commodify and monetize our forests:

Tomorrow, listen closely to NJ “conservation leaders” as they sell out and support this garbage.

Today is “Presidents’ Day”, so here are a few “Presidential” thoughts for “America Is Back” – Proxy War – Blow Up Pipelines – Raytheon runs the Pentagon – “Drenched in innocent blood” – “Nothing fundamentally will change” – longtime Corporate Joe Biden:

1) George Washington’s Farewell address – beware foreign entanglements

“Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.”

2) FDR – excessive corporate power is Fascism

“The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.”

3) Eisenhower – dismantle the military industrial complex

“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. . . .Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. . . . In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

4) JFK – Time for peaceful revolution

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

5) LBJ – On lying – then facing political reality and doing the right thing

“In Asia, we face an ambitious and aggressive China but we have the will and we have the strength to help our Asian friends resist that ambition. … we are not about to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves.”

“My fellow Americans: – As President and Commander in Chief, it is my duty to the American people to report that renewed hostile actions against United States ships on the high seas in the Gulf of Tonkin have today required me to order the military forces of the United States to take action in reply.”

“I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president.”

6) Nixon – The importance of being earnest

“I am not a crook”

7) Ford – Red Lines – He was not bluffing

“The communist leaders in Moscow, Peking and Hanoi must fully understand that the United States considers the freedom of South Vietnam vital to our interests. And they must know that we are not bluffing in our determination to defend those interests.”
Gerald Ford, US House of Representatives minority leader, July 1965

8) George W. Bush – On Achievement

“Mission accomplished”

9) Obama – On Idle threats (his version of “noting fundamentally will change”)

“Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn’t buying that.”

“My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”

A dragon lives forever, but not so little boys
Painted wings and giant’s rings make way for other toys. ~~~ Puff the Magic Dragon (1965)