WolfeNotes.com

The US Air Force Starts One Pinelands Fire Every 10 – 14 Days

DEP Misled The Pinelands Commission About The Military Objectives Of Logging Plan

There is so much propaganda being distributed by the Murphy DEP and printed as fact by NJ media that I find it difficult to keep up.

So, I apologize that I’m a little behind in getting out the real story behind this recent garbage journalism, fed by the most manipulative gaslighting DEP Commissioner ever, Shawn LaTourette: (NJ Spotlight)

• Military program funds wildfire protections in the Pinelands

That story celebrates military funding and portrays DEP in a very favorable light in terms of protecting Pinelands communities from wildfires. That story misleadingly creates the impression that DEP’s military funded wildfire management “fire breaks” (33 miles of them) were designed to protect adjacent communities.

But it gets the reality badly wrong and turns what should be a scandal at DEP into praise.

First of all, there is no mention of the fact that the most recent, largest, and controversial DEP wildfire management project, funded by the military, involved 1,400 acres of logging and 13 miles of “firebreak” roads. (that single project is 40% of all the total 33 miles of “firebreaks” and far more land destroyed than the other 20 miles of firebreak).

The 1,400 acres and 13 miles of firebreak roads are located no where near any community or human development! The remotely located logging and the firebreak do NOT protect any community, as DEP and NJ Spotlight would have you believe.

This remote location led to a Pinelands Commisioner openly questioning the rationale for the project. Pinelands Commissioner Doug Wallner, a retired National Park Service expert on wildfire, noted that the DEP plan failed to provide a justification and failed to consider the “no alternative” option. Wallner noted that he had reviewed the maps and that there was little or no people or property at risk or benefit from the logging and firebreak plan.

Here’s what Commissioner Wallner said, verbatim: (watch and listen to the YouTube, Wallner’s remarks begin at time 40 minutes, 20 seconds)

I guess the biggest comment I have is that it seems like it’s a given in the amendment that wildfire is of consequence. So I’d like to see some fleshing out of why, other than just reducing fire hazard, what is the consequence of wildfire? 

I didn’t see any communities nearby or things that are significantly threatened from extreme wildfire.

I did read that it was dense and that it was high fuel loading and everything. But still, I would like some kind of indication of what’s threatened by an extreme wildfire that might happen there.

That project (1,400 acres of logging and 13 miles of roads clearing) was designed to protect the Air Force training mission and Warren Grove US Air Force base.

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

Worse, the DEP failed to disclose the military funding and military objectives of this project to the Pinelands Commission, the public, and the media during the Pinelands Commission’s review. That is an outright deception by DEP that we called out at the time, see:

• Murphy DEP Concealed Efforts To Secure A $1 Million Pentagon Grant And Flat Out Lied About The Reason For Pinelands Wildfire Logging Plan

• Latest Pinelands Wildfire Raises Serious Questions About DEP Forest Management

DEP Commissioner LaTourette is now trying to turn that totally unacceptable deception and forest mismanagement into a favorable press story.

• DEP’s Own Analysis Of The Dynamics Of The Wharton State Forest Wildfire Illustrates Why Their “Forest Thinning” And “Firebreak” Logging Plan Won’t Work

The DEP also grossly exaggerates wildfire risks. Of the over 1,000 wildfires in NJ, over 90% of them are two acres or less in size. These are basically dumpster fires or roadside grass fires that pose NO risk, see:

• Murphy DEP Caught Blowing Smoke On Wildfires

If the DEP were serious about reducing wildfire risk and protecting communities (instead of their funding and jobs), they would limit new development in DEP mapped high wildfire risk locations and mandate safety measures at existing development., see:

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

Yet DEP recently denied this petition for rulemaking to force those protections, see DEP denial document:

There were NO press reports on any of that.

Finally, the DEP fails to disclose and the media fail to report that the US Air Force starts more Pinelands fires than any arsonist.

According to the US Air Force’s  own REPI program fact sheet:

“Every year training activities ignite one fire every 10-14 days, which are suppressed on-site….

So, the US Air Force is funding DEP to reduce the risks to the US Air Force training mission and facilities, not Pinelands Communities.

The US Air Force training missions are creating wildfire risks, not reducing them.

DEP is intentionally misleading the public about all of this.

And the press is reporting lies and has no integrity to report the facts.

Oh, No! Say It Ain’t So!

Job Posting Seeks Skills In “Resolving Customer Issues”

One of the most ideological and damaging environmental policies of the Christie Administration was DEP Commissioner Bob Martin’s “customer service” management initiative. Every DEP staffer was required to take “customer service” training, essentially like a business school indoctrination session.

That management initiative fundamentally transformed the DEP from an independent “regulatory agency” into an overt “service provider” to the business community. The “goods and services” DEP “sold” to its “customers” were quick and easy rubber stamp permit and regulatory approvals, in exchange for permit fees (a deep perversion of the original “polluter pays” policy).

The DEP staffers were transformed from public servants into sales clerks to the business community.

This is not a semantic or tangential issue. The culture and management policy of a regulatory agency are critically important to its functions and ability to serve the public interest and protect human health and the environment.

A “customer service” policy legitimizes and openly celebrates the corrupt corporate capture model.

I strenuously opposed that initiative, see:

• Bob Martin’s Escort Service

• North Carolina Environment Gets a Taste of Christie DEP “Customer Service” Policy

• The Right Kind of Customer Service

So I was disturbed to just now see that corrupt management initiative embraced by the Pinelands Commission.

The Commission just posted a job announcement for a Management Information Specialist. Among the required skills and responsibilities were “Resolving Customer Issues”. Read it and weep:

JOB OPPORTUNITY – The New Jersey Pinelands Commission, an independent state agency with regulatory jurisdiction over the million-acre Pinelands Area, is accepting applications for the full-time position of Management Information Systems Specialist 4.

This position supports the Pinelands Commission’s Information Systems internal helpdesk. The successful candidate will have excellent communication skills and a desire to make users more comfortable with the technologies they use daily. Responsibilities include: ensuring a timely response to all user inquiries and escalating support tickets to appropriate staff when necessary; organizing resources so they are easy to locate; maintaining an inventory of supplies; resolving customer issues, answering questions and offering access to helpful resources; maintaining accurate documentation and creating new documentation to address recurring problems; and following up with customers as needed to ensure any problems are resolved.

I immediately called bullshit and demanded the Executive Director Grogan delete this “customer service” garbage:

———- Original Message ———-

From: Bill WOLFE <b>

To: “Grogan, Susan [PINELANDS]” <Susan.Grogan@pinelands.nj.gov>

Cc: Mark Lohbauer <mlohbauer@jgscgroup.com>

Date: 03/19/2024 10:28 AM EDT

Subject: Fwd: Job Opportunity: Pinelands Commission Management Information Specialist 4

Dear Director Grogan:

This function is included in the solicitation:

“resolving customer issues”

The common definition of “customer” is:

“a person or organization that buys goods or services from a store or business.

“Mr. Harrison was a regular customer at the Golden Lion”

The Commission is a public agency and does not sell anything and thus has no “customers”, see:

https://www.nj.gov/pinelands/about/business/

If I am wrong about that and missed some commercial function, please correct me and tell me what goods and/or services are sold to “customers” by the Commission.

If not, please delate this function from the job posting.

I still recall the negative implications of the Christie DEP’s “customer service” management initiative and I’d hate to learn that this is being emulated by the Commission.

Wolfe

DEP Plan Calls For Over 200 Miles Of Roads In 123,000 Acre State Forest In The Pinelands

Pinelands Preservation Alliance Folds And Backs The DEP Plan

(Caption: Source: Bill Wolfe, see: Anarchy In The Pines)

The Orwellian hacks at the Murphy DEP – an Agency led without objection from environmentalists by former corporate polluter lawyer Shawn LaTourette, DEP’s first Commissioner who served as a corporate lawyer – just revived a zombie off road vehicle promotional program – previously called the Motorized Access Plan – and renamed it the  “Visiting Vehicle Use Map”.

As if “visitors” to a State Park in a federally protected “National Reserve” and a State legislatively protected and UN designated Biosphere Reserve have any reasonable expectation of driving 4 wheel drive vehicles around in the woods.

The DEP is trying to normalize a “visit” to a State forest as including a jeep ride through the woods.

Park visitors have a reasonable expectation of driving on roads to access specific recreational areas: trailheads, beaches, river fishing and canoe access, campgrounds, picnic areas, etc.

Park visitors have reasonable expectations to hike trails, canoe rivers, swim in lakes, find solitude, smell the flowers, listen to the birds and squirrels and the wind blow, and observe and photograph plants, landscapes, and wildlife.

But they don’t have a reasonable expectation to simply cruise around the woods in monster 4 wheel drive vehicles, especially not in the federally and State protected, strictly regulated, ecologically unique, and sensitive Pinelands forests. And we know from long experience that some fraction of those “visitors” will drive off roads and destroy sensitive lands (and we also know that DEP lacks the resources and resolve to strictly enforce, punish, and deter violations).

(Source: NJ DEP from the wetlands section of the road plan)

I can understand the leaderless and totally politicized DEP to cater to the ATV/ORV crowd, but it is mind blowing that the Pinelands Preservation Alliance – their mission is in their name – to support a DEP road plan, and not only to support it, but the spineless bastards even called for even more “visitors” in vehicles and even more DEP road maintenance!

More visitors means more damage: more DEP road maintenance means more visitors and higher speeds and thus more risk to other passive users and destruction. What the hell is PPA thinking?

And the cowardly PPA Executive Director Carleton Montgomery made his fine staffer Jason Howell deliver that compromise!

Watch the NJ TeeVee coverage and see that!

Jason has done outstanding work to educate the public on the destruction of the Pines by ATV, ORV and other motorized uses. Jason took me on this tour of destruction, see:

• Anarchy In The Pines

(*of course NJ Spotlight followed PPA’s compromise and misled readers by favorably portraying the DEP plan as “limiting” vehicle use instead of legalizing and promoting it!)

I gave Carleton Montgomery a piece of my mind and you should too:

Carleton: I was very disappointed to see Jason on NJ Spotlight news supporting the DEP road plan and calling for even more “road maintenance” and more vehicles in Pines forests (especially after all of Jason’s superb work on this issue).

It sure appears that PPA has elevated public access over PPA’s preservation and conservation objectives (and surrendered to the political power of try ATV crowd).

I have not followed the details of this DEP planning process, but in addition to opposing the DEP policy and objectives, I would doubt the science behind the DEP’s plan. So, I would encourager you to consider this study of regional road density network and conservation values.

Did DEP (or the Pinelands Commission) do anything remotely like this analysis in their road network “planning process”? See:

Density Analysis Using Weighted Metrics Sensitive to Landscape Conservation Effects

https://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc00/professional/papers/PAP404/P404.htm

Do better.

Wolfe

PBS Explicitly Supports “Clearcuts” As A Necessary “Young Forest” Management Tool

Forest Ecology and Climate Science Ignored And Distorted 

NJ Audubon And DEP Scams Are Praised

(PBS documentary screen shot of clearcut logging in the Pinelands to create a “Young Forest”. Maybe that logging was done by DEP and the machine funded by the Pentagon “REPI” grant – see below)

We’ve been writing for some time about the national propaganda campaign by the forest products industry to promote a “Young Forest Initiative” (YFI). That PR campaign is designed to dupe the public – who strongly support preservation of forests – into accepting logging under various scientifically false or dubious rationales.

So, I was appalled – but not surprised – to watch a PBS “documentary” “Keeping the Pinelands” on NJ Pinelands forests. That 26 minute video spouted every false and misleading propaganda narrative and talking point of the forest products industry funded “Young Forest Initiative”.

The full extent of this industry propaganda was revealed by this scientific paper, which exposed the misleading claims of the proponents of the YFI. Read this paper before watching the PBS video, see:

• Forest-clearing to create early-successional habitats: Questionable benefits, significant costs

1.2.1. Genesis of the campaign and the “Young Forest Initiative”

A concerted campaign is working to slow and reverse the natural decline in early-successional habitat and species that accompanied the regional reduction in deforestation, intensive forestry, and agriculture. This campaign is promoting early-successional habitat through multiple activities: clearcutting, “group selection,” and other forms of patch clearfelling in established forests; intensive “mechanical treatments” such as brushhogging and mowing; and herbicide application and prescribed fire in successional habitats and younger forests, which are often accompanied by other mechanical treatments (DeGraaf and Yamasaki, 2003; Oehler et al., 2006; American Bird Conservancy, 2007; Schlossberg and King, 2007; King et al., 2011; Yamasaki et al., 2014).

[…]

Wildlife Management Institute (WMI) soon began expanding the YFI to a national campaign (Gassett, 2018; Weber and Cooper, 2019). Recognizing the controversial nature of such widespread forest-clearing, the organization hired a marketing firm to “shape an overall communications strategy” (Seng and Case, 2019). This firm administered opinion surveys and focus groups that showed most forest landowners value beauty, scenery, nature, and biodiversity far more than logging or financial return. A plan was then devised to promote early-successional habitats through an extensive network of partnerships. Terms which focus group participants found unappealing, such as clearcutting, early-successional habitats, shrub, and scrub, were replaced with the more appealing “young forests.” Simple and positive language emphasized forest “health,” wildlife, habitat diversity, and scientific-sounding outcomes. A pseudo-historical pitch was crafted to emphasize the decline of once common and familiar species without acknowledging the highly artificial and historically anomalous nature of their former abundance (see Table 2 for more details). Numerous publications were produced, such as, “Talking About Young Forests,” to help “natural resource professionals…effectively advocate for creating and managing young forest habitat on public and private lands” (Oehler et al., 2013).

It’s almost as if the industry spinners wrote the script – or PBS worked off their talking points.

The PBS narrative was delivered by all the usual suspects involved in the NJ “forest management” campaign to promote logging and spur revitalization of the forest products industry in NJ, all while keeping DEP bureaucrats and their sycophants in the conservation community well fed, see:

• DEP Logging Logic: From “Young Forests” To Outright “Land Conversion”

My sense is that this PBS documentary was pitched and framed by NJ Audubon and originated as a response to very embarrassing recent debacles, including:

1) DEP’s clearcut of over 20 acres of forested wetlands in Glassboro Wildlife Management Area

This was a hugely embarrassing story that received widespread national scathingly critical coverage, including by The NY Times, Associated Press and Philadelphia Inquirer .

That debacle clearly exposed the scientific fraud behind the YFI claims of logging to support wildlife habitat; see:

• Internal DEP Documents Show DEP Deliberately “Clearcut” Forested Wetlands In Glassboro Wildlife Management Area

• Murphy DEP Claimed That Illegal Clearcut Of Mature Wetlands Forest Was “Agriculture”

• NJ Conservation Foundation And NJ Spotlight Discover DEP Logging!

2) the DEP’s massive 1,400 acre logging project in the heart of the Pinelands.

That logging was allegedly to provide “carbon defense” and reduce wildfire risk, but it was actually a Pentagon funded project to protect the training mission of the US Air Force Warren Grove base, see:

• If 2.4 Million Trees Fall Will Trenton Hear it?

• Military Secrets In The NJ Pinelands: Behind Closed Doors, Military Funding Has Huge Influence On DEP Management Of State Forests

• Murphy DEP Concealed Efforts To Secure A $1 Million Pentagon Grant And Flat Out Lied About The Reason For Pinelands Wildfire Logging Plan

• DEP’s Own Analysis Of The Dynamics Of The Wharton State Forest Wildfire Illustrates Why Their “Forest Thinning” And “Firebreak” Logging Plan Won’t Work

• DEP Pinelands Forestry Plan Was Based On A Mountain Of Lies

3) National exposure and scathing criticism of NJ Audubon and YFI, see:

• Forests Are Being Destroyed and ‘Nature Lovers’ Are Helping.

4) Criticism of DEP’s forestry management programs, see:

• Murphy DEP “Natural And Working Lands Strategy” Targets Logging On 200,000 Acres Of Forests

• Latest Pinelands Wildfire Raises Serious Questions About DEP Forest Management

5) Failure to address climate emergency and incorporate climate science in DEP forest management:

• The Future of NJ’s Forests – At Risk From Climate, Logging, Development, & DEP Mismanagement

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

• Pinelands Commission Doing Nothing To Address Climate Risks and Impacts

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

• Forestry Task Force Ignores Proposal To Demand A DEP Logging Moratorium And To Put A Priority On The Climate Emergency And Forest Preservation

I urge you to watch the full PBS “documentary” – but first read the science exposing the “Young Forest Initiative” public relations campaign (link here and link and excerpt above).

Then see how many specific examples you can find.

The good folks at NJ Forest Watch summed things up pretty well with this note:

It is riddled with greenwashing through and through.  It’s horrible how looking at the credits it’s all the promoters of YFI in NJ!  You would think PBS would present both sides …what happened?  This is undoubtedly unfortunate and what about the push for local forestry and building with wood as “carbon neutral “… have these folks not read the latest climate science?

The clip about showing the reintroduction of Bobwhite quail …is crazy as what they don’t tell the public it’s so the hunters have something to kill in the next few hunting seasons.  (All of those Quail were released so hunters could kill them -It’s disgusting).

The comments about “public opinion” and how most trees are 80-100 years , and last “ecological forest management “ is just further SPIN.

Calling all forest ecologists and friends of forests: I challenge you to provide additional and more specific examples!

Send me a list and we can create a comprehensive debunking that will set the record straight.

DEP Pinelands Roadside Logging Would Look EXACTLY Like Glassboro WMA Clearcut

DEP Plan Would Clearcut 13 Miles Of Pinelands Roadsides & Log 1,400 Acres Of Forest

Source: NJ DEP roadside clearcut at Glassboro WMA

The above photo was taken by DEP enforcement staff at the illegal Glassboro Wildlife Management Are clearcut. That’s only a couple of hundred feet of roadside clearcut.

But take a good look at it, because – if it is allowed to go forward – the flawed DEP’s Pinelands “Forestry” plan will look very similar, but not for a few hundred feet  – but along 13 MILES of Pinelands Roads (100 foot wide clearcut, plus another 100 feet wide intensively “thinned” forest logging and “feathering treatments”.)

DEP calls this clearcutting a “firebreak”.

But abundant evidence and DEP’s own analysis and public statements about previous Pinelands wildfires demonstrate that it will not work. Intense canopy fire, high winds, and blowing embers easily will drive the fire to jump the firebreak.

The DEP Pinelands logging plan was scheduled to begin this March-April.

It must be stopped in light of the Glassboro disaster.

See my letter below to DEP Commissioner LaTourette urging his to stop this logging project – a project, like Glassboro WMA, that got virtually no public review either.

It would be nice if a lot of people and groups made this demand to DEP and asked that it be Statewide in scope. All it takes is a letter to DEP and a press release. I copied Carleton (PPA) and Emile (NJCF) and Sierra Club, but I doubt they will do anything unless you shame them into it (particularly because they all SUPPORTED this DEP plan).

———- Original Message ———-

From: Bill WOLFE <>

To: shawn.latourette@dep.nj.gov, john.cecil@dep.nj.gov, senbsmith <SenBSmith@njleg.org>, sengreenstein <sengreenstein@njleg.org>, sensarlo@njleg.org, asmmckeon <asmmckeon@njleg.org>, asmScharfenberger@njleg.org, carleton@pinelandsalliance.org, emile@njconservation.org, Jaclyn Rhoads <jaclyn@pinelandsalliance.org>, Anjuli Ramos <anjuli.ramos@sierraclub.org>

Date: 04/29/2023 12:44 PM MST

Subject: DEP Must Halt Pinelands Logging Project

Dear Commissioner LaTourette:

In light of significant DEP policy, process, and personnel problems exposed by the disastrous DEP clearcut of Glassboro Wildlife Management Area (WMA), I am writing to urge that you impose an administrative halt on implementing DEP’s proposed forestry plan approved by the Pinelands Commission on October 14, 2022.

This moratorium should be imposed until the Legislature enacts forestry reform legislation and DEP adopts implementing regulations.

The attached photo was taken by the Department at the Glassboro WMA clearcut.

The proposed DEP Pinelands forestry plan proposal to clearcut 13 miles of 100 foot wide roadside “firebreaks” will cause damage that will look very similar to this photo.

Additional forest damage will result from DEP logging of almost 1,400 additional acres.

My understanding was that the DEP Pinelands forestry (logging) work was to begin in March-April of this year.

Please make inquiry to your staff about the status of this plan and immediately take steps to stop it.

Recall that you previously wrote a letter to the Pinelands Commission urging the Commission to adopt that plan, and threatening a lawsuit if they didn’t.

But that was before the public, the Legislature, and the press could see what DEP forestry projects actually look like.

Bill Wolfe