Search Results

Keyword: ‘pinelands’

Pinelands Commission Staff Held A Private Meeting With Mining Industry Lobbyists – That Meeting Led To Rollback Of Water Regulations

March 28th, 2023 No comments

Staff Repeating Same Industry Capture Abuse As Under Christie Pipeline Fiasco

Wittenberg (R) Grogan (L)

Wittenberg (R) Grogan (L)

Former Pinelands Commission Executive Director Nancy Wittenberg and her staff got so close to lawyers and lobbyists for the South Jersey Gas Pipeline that she was called out publicly by Commissioner Lohbauer in the Philadelphia Inquirer:

“There was a degree of closeness between the applicant and staff that went beyond the neutrality appropriate to a review process,” said [Pinelands Commission Chairman] Lohbauer, a lawyer. ~~~ Philadelphia Inquirer (1/26/15) 

Wittenberg’s Assistant at the time and successor current Executive Director Susan Grogan is repeating those same corrupt practices. Here’s the story:

I recently learned that the Pinelands Commission proposed to exempt the mining industry from new water allocation regulations designed to protect sensitive Pines ecology, see:

The Commission made it appear that this decision to exempt the mining industry was based on written comments submitted by the mining industry during the legally prescribed “notice and comment” rulamaking procedure.

Here is how the decision was explained in the February Management Report:

  • Water Management (Kirkwood-Cohansey): The Commission adopted a resolution at its February 10, 2023 meeting authorizing re-proposal of the CMP rule amendments with substantial changes in response to public comment. The re-proposal notice will be submitted to the Office of Administrative Law in early March for publication in the New Jersey Register

Did you get that? The re-proposal with substantial changes was made in response to public comment”.

The Commission staff repeated this false claim that the decision to make substantial changes was made “during the public comment period”. They did it not only in the Monthly Management Report, but in a formal regulatory document.

Here’s how the Pinelands Commission staff explained this decision to exempt the mining industry in the proposed “substantial changes” document:

The Commission is proposing three substantial changes to the amendments in response to comments received. During the public comment period on the original notice of proposal, the Commission received comments expressing concern regarding the impact of the proposed amendments on the resource extraction industry in the Pinelands Area.

The claim that the substantial changes were proposed in response to comments received “during the public comment period” is a factually false statement. False. False. False.

The public comment period closed on November 5, 2022. But the staff met with the mining industry AFTER the public comment period was closed (see staff’s statement on when this meeting occurred below).

And now take a look at how they obscured what the “substantial changes in response to public comment” actually meant (i.e. bureaucratic terms for rollback) in the  Commission’s public Agenda for the February 10 meeting. Based on this language, the public would have no idea what was really going on:

CMP Amendments

To Authorize the Acting Executive Director to Propose Substantial Changes Upon Adoption to the Proposed Amendments to the Comprehensive Management Plan Related to Water Management in Accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act”

The  NJ Administrative Procedure Act requires government agencies to provide public notice, hold public hearings, and allow for public comment on proposed rules. The Act requires the government agency to respond in writing to every public comment submitted, and it guarantees that all written comments and government responses are open public records available to all.

That rulemaking procedure thereby assures “due process”, transparency, and government accountability. Everyone has equal access to the government agency and everyone has access to and works off the same information.

The government agency’s role in this public comment period on proposed rulemaking – after the rule is proposed – is passive: i.e. the agency provides public notice and holds an open public hearing and listens to and receives written public comments. Everyone has exactly the same access to the government agency and the same information.

Government agencies don’t actively select and go out and privately meet with groups or individuals that have economic interests in the proposed rule.

Private meetings obviously are not allowed or a part of this rulemaking procedure because secrecy is anathema to due process, transparency, and accountability. And private meetings can lead to corruption and industry capture.

But, upon more detailed investigation, I now learn that the Commission’s decision was not based on comments received during the legally mandated rulemaking procedure. Instead, the decision was actually based on a private meeting with mining industry representatives. That meeting occurred AFTER the close of the public comment period and there are no public records on this meeting.

I first learned of this improper meeting by digging in the weeds. Buried in the staff briefing “packet” provided to Pinelands Commissioners before each meeting, which is posted in an obscure link on an obscure Commission website, I found this explanation for the exemption of the mining industry, which was provided by staff to the Commissioners: (link to packet)

After discussion of the changes with the P&I Committee at its November 2022 meeting, staff met with New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) and the aggregate industry to gather further information on the water allocation permitting process and regulation of water quality.

It is not clear if there were one combined DEP/Mining industry meeting or two meetings. That fact alone is important. Also, notice that this explanation does not identify who was at these meetings, who said what, and what information was discussed. Therefore, the public has no way of knowing what the actual factual basis is for the staff’s decision to exempt the mining industry. The mining industry and the Commission staff are not held accountable to science, facts, and public review. There is no transparency and no accountability.  The mining representatives could have been handing out $100 bills at this meeting, for all we know (I am not alleging they did).

The meeting with the mining industry was held AFTER the public comment period closed.

Given this abuse, I wrote the following protest letter to the Pinelands Commission:

Dear Pinelands Commission:

Please accept these public comments on the Commission’s rulemaking procedures on the recent “Kirkwood-Cohansey water rule” to amend the CMP.

I request that these comments: 1) be provided to the full Commission, 2) be considered as public comments during and incorporated in the minutes of your next meeting; and 3) included in the administrative record of the subject rulemaking and contemplated substantive changes to the original proposal.

The Commission’s rules to amend the CMP (i.e. original proposal, or “Kirkwood-Cohansey water rule”) were proposed on September 6 and the public comment period closed on November 5

https://www.state.nj.us/pinelands/cmp/amend/PRN%202022-110%20(54%20N.J.R.%201668(a)).pdf

After the close of the public comment period, the Commission admits that it met with DEP and the mining industry regarding impacts of the proposal. This meeting generated information upon which the Commission somehow decided to substantively amend the original proposal. This meeting occurred after the close of the public comment period on the rule proposal.

The minutes of the Commission’s February 14 meeting state:

“After discussion of the changes with the P&I Committee at its November 2022 meeting, staff met with New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) and the aggregate industry to gather further information on the water allocation permitting process and regulation of water quality.”

https://www.nj.gov/pinelands/home/meetings/documents/031023%20Meeting%20Packet.pdf

I find this meeting highly improper

The Commission staff selectively met with just one specific interested party that was impacted by the rule. This existence and substance of this meeting were not conducted “on the record” and a formal part of the subject rulemaking. The public had no opportunity to participate in or to be made aware of and rebut the mining industry’s arguments.

It also appears that the Commission made a highly substantive legal and regulatory policy decision to defer to the DEP water allocation regulations to address overlapping issues implicit in the subject CMP original rule proposal. Additionally, this deference to DEP appears to be part of the basis for the substantive change change to exempt the mining from the subject original proposal. Yet that basis is not specifically stated in the Commission’s response to comments and as the basis for:

Notice of Proposed Substantial Changes Upon Adoption to Proposed Amendments

https://www.nj.gov/pinelands/cmp/amend/Notice%20of%20substantial%20changes%20FINAL.pdf

As such, this staff level decision is not transparent, lacks any articulated basis, was not preceded by policy guidance from the Commission, and there was no prior public notice and comment opportunity.

This is a violation of fundamental due process and transparency and may violate the rulemaking procedures under the NJ Administrative Procedure Act.

Please provide the legal basis in the NJ APA the Commission relies on for authorization of this kind of procedural maneuver.

Respectfully,

Bill Wolfe

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

The DEP Considers Virtually The Entire NJ Pinelands As A “Military Influence Area”

March 24th, 2023 No comments

DEP Logging Plan Only The Beginning – A Model For Fake Climate & Wildfire Solutions

Pinelands Commission Caves To Military Priorities Over Pinelands Forest Preservation

Military And DEP Funded So Called “Preservation” Groups Lack The Integrity To Fight

1 (81)

For anyone who cares about preserving the Pinelands, the map above should scare the hell out of you.

The DEP considers huge portions of the Pinelands – a designated World Biosphere Reserve due to its unique ecology – as a “Military Influence Area”.

The US military’s objectives – particularly in managing wildfires that impede its military training mission – appear to over-ride all other considerations, including the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) and its protections of forests and the plants and animals that live there.

The US military has unlimited funds and political power to advance that mission.

The recent experience with a military “REPI” Program funded DEP “Wildfire” and “Carbon Defense” and “Habitat” “Forestry” plan should absolutely terrify you. The negative implications are stunning in scope and severity in terms of the integrity of the Pinelands region.

That experience – as my 5 part series has demonstrated – reveals deeply troubling facts:

1) The Pinelands Commission can not stand up to the military and DEP to enforce the CMP and block extremely damaging military funded DEP “forestry” plans.

2) The so called “conservation” groups (i.e. NJCF, Sierra Club) and “preservation” (PPA) groups that are supposed to watch out for the Pinelands and rally the public to defend and preserve the Pinelands are corrupted by military and DEP funding and/or lack the spine to oppose the military and DEP.

In fact, they all SUPPORTED this REPI DEP “forestry” plan.

3) The DEP is totally captured and corrupted by their funding sources, in this case the military. They literally will do anything for money to fund their programs and well paid staff.

In fact, in the DoD REPI grant application documents, DEP defined the eligible military funded land area as 1.3 MILLION ACRES, a land area larger than the entire Pinelands.

4) This particular military REPI DEP “forestry” plan was sold to the Pinelands Commission and the public under obviously false pretexts and rationales, while it’s true purpose was hidden.

Yet the NJ media, like the cowards in the conservation groups, refused to tell the public the truth; refused to skeptically interrogate DEP spin and lies; and refused to print the facts, even when they were given those facts in writing in government documents and could see them in the forest with their own eyes (e.g. the DEP lies that all the cut trees were 2 inches or less in diameter and the DEP lies about maintaining the existing canopy cover).

5) The DEP manufactured a deeply cynical and false justification of this military REPI logging project as advancing climate goals via a “carbon defense” strategy. The essence of that strategy is the absurd contradiction that recalls the Vietnam War’s “we must burn the village to save the village”.

This DEP “carbon defense” lie says that we must log the forest to prevent wildfire from releasing even more carbon than the logging creates.

This lie must not become the model for forest management for climate carbon sequestration and storage.

It is even MORE dangerous and destructive than the “young forest” sham DEP uses to log forests under the pretext of forest health or the creation of habitat for endangered species.

6) DEP also used manufactured fear of wildfire to promote this scam. Again, no one will call that out.

No one even mentioned the fact that – by the military’s own statements – the military accidentally starts a wildfire “once every 10 – 14 days”!

7) The public was kept in the dark and completely shut out of this entire process. The public was blatantly lied to and misled by all institutions involved: the military, the DEP, the Pinelands Commission, the conservation groups and the media.

This means that the military and military objectives are shaping and even actually dictating the management of our public lands – not the Pinelands CMP, or DEP program plans and regulations, or public preferences – and the military is doing this with absolutely no resistance, transparency, or public participation. That alone is terrifying and totally unacceptable.

With all these destructive dynamics illustrated by the recent REPI DEP Pinelands logging fiasco – and the unlimited money, political power, and complete institutional failures (i.e. by the Pinelands Commission, the DEP, the conservation groups and the media) to stand up to the military – the Pinelands forests and ecology are highly at risk.

Word.

1 (55)

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

US Military Funding Kept The Real Purpose Of Controversial DEP Pinelands Logging Plan Secret

March 23rd, 2023 No comments

DEP Designed Forestry Plan To Protect The Warren Grove Bombing Range

Military Demanded Secrecy During Pinelands Commission Review

DEP Plan Had Nothing To Do With Pinelands Ecology, Habitat, Or “Carbon Defense”

1 (71)

This is part 5 of a series on the military influence on DEP’s Pinelands logging schemes. (See prior posts:

In this detailed followup post, we show how:

  • DEP lied to the Department of Defense by falsely claiming that their wildfire forestry project was “fully permitted”.
  • DEP lied to the Pinelands Commission by failing to disclose the military objective and funding of the wildfire forestry project.
  • DEP fabricated false justifications for the wildfire forestry project in their application for Pinelands Commission approval.
  • DEP lied to the public and the media by failing to disclose the military funding and military objective of the wildfire project and claiming fabricated objectives.

In order to explain the abuse that went on here, I need to provide recent chronology.

The DEP received $1.94 million in a 2020 “REPI” grant from the Department of Defense (DoD). That grant funded the “Greenwood Triangle Forest Fire Mitigation Project” designed to protect Joint Base McGuire and the Warren Grove Bombing Range.

According to a July 20, 2020 letter to DEP from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense:

These projects specifically focus on supporting key capabilities outlined in the Department of Defense’s (DoD) National Defense Strategy. The Strategy articulates DoD’s plan to improve military readiness by building a more lethal force, strengthening alliances and attracting new partners, and reforming DoD for greater performance and affordability.

That DoD letter specifically required DEP to keep this grant funding secret for at least a year:

Given the delay, there will be not be a formal announcement of 2020 REPI Challenge awards until next fiscal year. I ask that you please refrain from all outside communications regarding this decision, and delay any local announcements until we coordinate with you on a national announcement next fiscal year.

The DEP kept this information secret.

The DEP applied for a $5.07 million 2021 REPI grant on March 22, 2021. The application was denied by by DoD inMay 2021.

The DEP then sought additional DoD REPI grant funding in calendar year 2022. The DEP sought $5,993,000.

This application included the controversial Pinelands Forestry project.

The DoD deadline for submitting this application was September 12, 2022, so DEP submitted it BEFORE that deadline:

1 (72)

This DEP REPI grant application very clearly seeks funding for:

one new project: Warren Grove Wildfire Management Firebreak

The Warren Grove Wildfire Management Firebreak project was designed and justified by DEP as a plan to protect the Warren Grove Bombing Range.

The scope of work for the DEP 2022 REPI grant application (submitted to DoD prior to the September 12, 2022 deadline) falsely claimed that the forestry project was “fully permitted”:

REPI 2023   Forest Fire Service Projects Scope of Work FYs 2023/2024

Wildfire Mitigation –NJ Forest Fire Service Application project description 

The two (2)  NJ Forest Fire Service firebreak projects include  the Greenwood Triangle project which  is currently under construction utilizing  REPI 2020 funding (Greenwood Triangle) and the proposed  Warren Grove  Wildfire Management  Firebreak project. Both  projects  are fully permitted and ready to complete in 2023.

But the DEP Warren Grove  Wildfire Management  Firebreak project was NOT “fully permitted”.

During this timeframe, the DEP was seeking approval of the what the REPI application called the “Warren Grove  Wildfire Management  Firebreak”.

But the DEP application to the Pinelands Commission did not call the project the “Warren Grove  Wildfire Management  Firebreak” and it did not even mention military funding or the military objectives of protecting the Warren Grove Bombing Range.

In contrast to the DoD REPI grant application, the DEP application to the Pinelands Commission was titled (no mention of Warren Grove):

PROPOSAL FOR SILVICULTURAL ACTIVITY

ON STATE FOREST AND PARK LANDS

NEW JERSEY FOREST SERVICE

The DEP claimed the following activities, none of which mention military objectives:

The project has two main activities, (1) road maintenance/firebreak installation, and (2) silvicultural thinning, and forestry thinning and mowing for wildlife habitat restoration

Get that? The “forestry” was for “wildlife habitat restoration” (not Warren Grove Bombing Range protection).

Here is how DEP described the “intent” of the project:

V. Project Intent:

The range of forest density within both forest types of the proposed project presents significant wildfire fuel hazards, in addition to exceeding the threshold at which southern pine beetle (SPB) attack becomes a major risk. These issues have real potential consequences as major releases of carbon to the atmosphere through wildfire and mass mortality events. The proposed activities will address the dense volatile forest fuels and provide carbon defense for the future in an area plagued with historic wildfires, as well as create habitat more conducive for a variety of plant and wildlife species. In addition, these activities will provide significant protection of Atlantic white-cedar resources within the immediate (Bartlett’s Branch) and surrounding areas.

No mention of the Warren Grove bombing range.

The DEP application claimed the project was designed to promote a climate “carbon defense” policy:

The proposed project will significantly reduce the forest carbon pools throughout the site overall due to the removal of forest overstory. In particular, the flux in carbon before and after each of the treatments will change primarily from live aboveground carbon (removal of trees) to the dead wood pool (increase in slash, tops, etc.) due to harvesting activities. In addition, removed carbon may be utilized and stored by long-term forest products, stored within landfills, converted to energy, or may be left on site to be recycled back to the system depending on the implementation contractor and method of harvesting used to carry out the treatments. However, despite some carbon pool losses, this project will provide significant carbon defense to the surrounding forest through avoided emissions by reducing the risk of a rapid release of carbon to the atmosphere through catastrophic wildfire, including multiple Atlantic white-cedar stands and restored sites located along Bartlett’s Branch which contain significant carbon stores. This project will also allow for a break-up of the fuel ladder and will reduce the risk or likelihood of wildfire spread. Added benefits include making these stands more resilient under pressure from climate stressors such as drought or insect pest activity.

These project activities, intents, and objectives conflict with the DoD REPI grant application.

On February 4, 2022, DEP Commissioner LaTourette sent a highly unusual letter to the Pinelands Commission, demanding rapid approval and threatening a lawsuit if they failed to do so. LaTourette’s letter described the project, but made no mention of REPI application, military objectives, or military funding.

The public comment period on the DEP Pinelands application closed on September 9, 2022.

At this time, the DEP was still maintaining the secret demanded by DoD and had not publicly disclosed the REPI application for the same project they were seeking Pinelands approval for. Accordingly, the public could not comment on the real intents and objectives of the forestry project.

Despite not knowing anything about all this due to misconduct and obstruction by the Pinelands Commission staff, I tried to submit comments as soon as I learned of the project. But my comments were submitted too late: (Counselor Stacy Roth email, 10/11/22)

Consequently, we are unable to add your October 9, 2022 comments to the record for this matter. You are welcome to call into the Commission meeting on October 14th to discuss your concerns. Any such discussion will have to occur after the Commission has rendered a decision on the application. 

The Pinelands Commission voted to approved the DEP wildfire plan on October 14, 2022:

Dear Mr. Sacco:

Enclosed is a copy of the Resolution adopted by the Pinelands Commission at its meeting on October 14, 2022.

The Commission approved 1,304 acres of forestry and the creation of approximately 13 miles of forest fire fuel break within the above referenced road rights-of-way and on the above refenced (sic) parcel subject to the conditions recommended by the Acting Executive Director.

The DEP submitted the REPI grant application prior to the September 12, 2022 deadline and LONG before the Pinelands Commission and public review of and approval of the project on October 14, 2022.

The DoD again required that this project REPI funding be kept secret, until January 27, 2023:

1 (74)

Conclusions

Based on a detailed review of the documents and chronology, it is obvious that the DEP provided inconsistent and conflicting justifications for the project: one in the DoD REPI grant application and one in the Pinelands application.

The DEP falsely claimed to DoD that the project was “fully permitted”, but the REPI grant application submission deadline was Sept. 12 and the Pinelands Commission did not approve until Oct. 14. DEP also misled the Pinelands Commission, the public and the press about the objectives of the project.

The DEP kept this all secret and asked the DoD for permission to publicly announce the REPI grant on in a February 5, 2023 email – long AFTER Pinelands Commission approval:

1 (73)

 More to follow.

[End Note: On top of all the deception and bad forestry policy, this Pentagon DoD program is run by a private contractor, Booz Allen Hamilton.]

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Pinelands Commission Folds To Mining Industry Attack On Water Rules Designed To Protect Sensitive Ecology

March 20th, 2023 No comments

Mining Industry Sought Regulatory Relief – And The Commission Gave It To Them

A Bright Green Light To Expand Mining In The Pinelands

Murphy DEP Supported The Mining Industry’s Attack On Pinelands Regulatory Proposal

1 (64)

This might be hard to believe, but the NJ Pinelands Commission just explicitly sought, in their words:

to avoid unintended negative impacts on the resource extraction industry

Let me explain that.

Way back in 2001, in response to over-development threats and a growing water crisis on the Cape May County Penninsula (e.g. salt water intrusion, need for costly new desalination plants, pending major new development, etc), the Legislature enacted a law (named the “Gibson bill” for a local legislator) that essentially established a moratorium on additional DEP water withdrawal permits for new development until scientific studies were completed to determine how much water was available.

Those studies also included the Pinelands:

New Jersey Public Law 2001, Chapter 165 directed the Pinelands Commission to assess and prepare a report on the key hydrologic and ecological information needed to determine how the current and future water-supply needs within the Pinelands area may be met while protecting the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer system and avoiding any adverse ecological impact on the Pinelands area.

After more than 20 years, the studies were completed and the Pinelands Commission finally proposed new regulations to require consideration of the ecological impacts and limits on water allocation that would create unacceptable ecological impacts.

The rules were proposed on September 6, 2022:

The proposed amendments require applicants for diversions in the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer to conduct specific tests, analyses, and modelling to demonstrate whether the proposed diversion will have an adverse regional or local impact.

To protect the more ecologically sensitive areas of the Pinelands Area, the Commission is proposing to limit new or increased diversions from the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer to the Agricultural Production Area and the more growth-oriented Pinelands Management Areas. In addition, a diversion will only be permitted if an applicant can demonstrate that no alternative water supply source is available or viable.

Here’s visually what’s at stake (along with a good article –  photo from our friend Al Horner, YaleEnvironment360)

1 (68)

Almost before the ink was dry on the proposed new rules, the sand mining industry went ballistic and frontally attacked the proposal.

These mining guys were not subtle and made direct and over the top political threats:

It is our feeling, if adopted as currently written without clarification, the industry will have to cut production by 50%. This will lead to a huge shortage, only exacerbating the current shortage and will threaten the contractors in our state’s ability to complete vital DOT projects such as bridges, highways and local roads. In addition to a lack of materials, the shortage from these regulations could mean a doubling in material price. Given the current inflationary environment we live in today, these regulations, as currently written, will threaten the New Jersey Department of Transportation’s Capital Program. ~~~ Source:William Layton, New Jersey Concrete and Aggregate Association. 11/4/22 – You may contact him at  bill@clbnj.com

1 (65)

On November 3, 2022, the sand mining industry submitted ballistic comments – backed by written comments from the law firm Connell Foley and the notorious pay-to-play politically connected toxic polluter defense firm Langan Engineering – that claimed that the Pinelands Commission had no legal authority to regulate water withdrawals and that the proposal was fatally flawed technically.

I don’t want to go into the details here (will in a future post), but will provide their comments upon request.

The point is, the Pinelands Commission immediately folded. Immediately. This is an historic fold.

The previous time the Murphy DEP folded to the fossil Fuel Merchants Association, NJBIA, and Petroleum Council’s opposition to recent boiler replacement electrification requirements, at least they waited for bad press and an industry lobbying campaign that targeted Gov. Murphy to emerge. This fold was immediate. Gov. Murphy nixed it before the industry criticism could even be deployed!

You can read the Commission’s fold and response to the sand industry criticisms.

The Commission gave the sand mining industry virtually everything they demanded – and they literally “thanked” them for it –  including effectively grandfathering all existing mining operations from the new requirements (emphasis mine):

During the public comment period on the original notice of proposal, the Commission received comments expressing concern regarding the impact of the proposed amendments on the resource extraction industry in the Pinelands Area. Resource extraction in the Pinelands Area involves mining sand and gravel, typically by mechanical or hydraulic dredging, a process that uses water directly from water bodies created by excavations below the water table of the Kirkwood-Cohansey Aquifer.  …

The Commission thanks the resource extraction industry for its comments regarding the specific nonconsumptive uses of water for hydrologic dredging operations. Given that there are over 70 existing resource extraction operations in the Pinelands Area, approximately half of which are located in the Preservation Area District and Forest Area where the proposed rule would prohibit new diversion of over 50,000 gallons of water per day or more from the Kirkwood-Cohansey Aquifer, the industry has raised valid concerns about the impact of the proposed rule.

In order to avoid unintended negative impacts on the resource extraction industry, the Commission is proposing a new provision at N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.86(d)2iii, which states that the standards at N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.86(d)3 through 9 will not apply to proposed diversions for resource extraction operations that constitute a non consumptive use, provided that the water returned to the source is not discharged to a stream or waterbed or otherwise results  in offsite flow, and the diversion and return are located on the same parcel.

Did you get that? Let me repeat exactly what drove the Pinelands Commission’s decision to fold:

In order to avoid unintended negative impacts on the resource extraction industry,

So, the Commission just agreed to allow more landscapes like this one in the photo below for the Pinelands’ future.

Thanks to the extractive mining industry and the cowardice and neglect of the Pinelands Commission.

Send Gov. Murphy, who appointed the Commission “leadership” who did this irresponsible sellout your thoughts.

In my next post, I will explain how the Murphy DEP submitted comments that were critical of the Pinelands Commission’s proposal, legally and scientifically undermined that proposal, and agreed with the mining industry.

[End Note: I originally published this photos of Pinelands mining operations back in 2009 (with awesome shots of a timber rattlesnake!)

1 (66)

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

DEP Pinelands Forestry Plan Was Based On A Mountain Of Lies

March 18th, 2023 No comments

Part Two: Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave

Crocodile Tears For DEP Logging of 21 Acres – But Praise For DEP Cutting 1,400 Acres

Was DEP only “cutting unhealthy, suppressed, and poorly formed trees” ???

DEP Was Destroying anExemplary stand of globally imperiled natural community”

Source: NJ DEP Forestry application to the Pinelands Commission (8/22/22)

Source: NJ DEP Forestry application to the Pinelands Commission (8/18/22)

This is part two of the series to expose the lies used to justify the military funded NJ DEP’s Pinelands Forestry Plan.

Part One provided an introduction and overview of the troubling information revealed in government documents, with select DEP maps that illustrate some of the deceptions. Along those lines, it is interesting to compare the map above that DEP provided to the Pinelands Commission with the same map DEP previously provided to the military in the REPI grant. Entirely different titles, dates, mapped features, and project purposes and justifications – for the same project.

Today, we highlight the critical natural resources that are impacted by the DEP 1,400 acre logging plan and were conveniently ignored or lied about by DEP and the conservation groups NJCF and PPA, who both aggressively supported and promoted the DEP plan.

In a recent NJ Spotlight story “Anger grows after NJ cuts down swath of forest”, those same conservation groups blasted the DEP for logging just 21 acres of forest and destroying critical habitat:

“It is not forestry; it’s land clearing,’’ said Emil DeVito, manager of science and conservation at the New Jersey Conservation Foundation. “This is a pristine intact core forest. We are supposed to be protecting those places.’’ The upland forest provided habitat for barred owl and red-shouldered hawk.

NJCF and PPA objected to the lack of public awareness and ability to comment:

The Division of Fish and Wildlife in the Department of Environmental Protection took the action last month in the Glassboro Wildlife Management Area with virtually no public notice and input, conservationists said.

And PPA was angry about DEP’s failure to consider impacts of logging on plants:

The clearing demonstrates that plants do not matter when the fish and wildlife division is dealing with wildlife issues, according to Jaclyn Rhoads, assistant director of the Pinelands Preservation Alliance.

Well, again I call bullshit on that (see my initial prior post).

Why this over the top “angry” response, when both NJCF and PPA supported DEP logging in Pinelands forests that would destroy 1,400 acres of environmentally sensitive forests, with critical habitat values and rare plants and animals that far exceed the 21 acre parcel in Glassboro WMA they were allegedly so angry about.

And – just like DEP – both NJCF and PPA lied to the public about that Pinelands logging project. Here are just a few more examples of how.

1) Lack of Public Awareness and Involvement

Let’s begin with the lack of public awareness and opportunity to comment that NJCF and PPA object to in the DEP’s Glassboro WMA 21 acre logging project (which is located OUTSIDE the Pinelands and provided even LESS STRINGENT regulatory protections – none.)

For the DEP’s massive 1,400 acre logging project located INSIDE the Pinelands, the Pinelands Commission allowed DEP to provide JUST 10 days for public comment. The DEP public notice was an obscure legal notice in the Press Of Atlantic City. As a result, there was no public comment on the DEP’s 1,400 acre logging plan. I testified to the Pinelands Commission AFTER they had already approved it on October 14, 2022.

Both NJCF and PPA knew all about this DEP logging plan for many months but just like DEP – they both kept that information secret.

In fact, NJCF and NJ Audubon own property within 200 feet of the DEP logging project and were provided formal legal notice. That adjacent land ownership adds another level of conflict of interest in their ethical abuses.

2) Lies About Ecological Values

Here is how the DEP described those Pinelands forests in the August 18, 2022 legal public notice on their Pinelands Commission application: (on page 27):

“Operations will involve cutting unhealthy, suppressed, and poorly formed trees, while favoring the retention of healthy species of oak and pine, utilizing the appropriate mechanized equipment”.

Emile DeVito of NJCF virtually echoed those same DEP false comments: (NJ Spotlight, 12/13/22)

“Most of the thinning happens with a mower – its not a lawn mower its a forestry mower. But they’re not really removing any large trees. Most of them are only a few inches in diameter. They’re all short and bent over, those are the things being removed, for the most part. They’ll resprout anyway.”

But in sharp contrast to those lies, here is how the DEP’s Natural Heritage Program described the forests, habitat, and natural resources (attachments to August 18, 2022 letter to DEP Forest Fire Service), which documented numerous rare plant species and ecological communities; rare wildlife species and habitat; vernal pool habitat; and two Natural Heritage Priority Sites:

A large patch of pitch pine shrub oak barrens and pine plants in broad sandy uplands…

An extensive dwarf pitch pine/scrub oak forest. …

Exemplary stand of globally imperiled natural community. Also a number of globally rare plants and animals are present.

This microsite contains a globally imperiled natural community and a number of globally rare plants and animals.

So is this forest “unhealthy, suppressed, and poorly formed trees” (DEP) and “all short and bent over” (Emile DeVito, NJCF)?

Or is it an “Exemplary stand of globally imperiled natural community. Also a number of globally rare plants and animals are present.” (DEP Natural Heritage Program).

In the 21 acre DEP logging at the Glassboro WMA, Emile DeVito (NJCF) was particularly concerned about “barred owl and red-shouldered hawk.”

But the adversely impacted incredibly rich and diverse habitat and rare plant and animal species in the 1,400 acre Pinelands logging he supported identified by the DEP Natural Heritage program include:

1) carpenter frog; 2) pine barrens tree frog; 3) bald eagle; 4) barred owl; 5) black-billed cuckoo; 6) brown thrasher; 7) common nighthawk; 8) northern parula; 9) red shouldered hawk; 10) snowy egret; 11) whip-poor-will;  12) wood thrush; 13) bobcat; 14) eastern box turtle; 15) northern pine snake; 16) timber rattlesnake; 17) seven species of rare vascular plants; 18) one species rare non-vascular plant; 19) three rare terrestrial communities; 20) two Natural heritage Priority sites; and 21) many more adversely impacts rare species and habitat within the immediate vicinity.

Why didn’t NJCF or PPA raise any concerns about DEP destroying 1,400 acres of this rich forest habitat?

(Sorry, no links – but I am glad to provide the all the data tables from DEP NHS letter, none of which PPA or NJCF mention in defending and promoting the DEP logging plan).

Source: NJ DEP Natural Heritage program

Source: NJ DEP Natural Heritage program

Categories: Uncategorized Tags: