WolfeNotes.com

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 an “Exemplary stand of globally imperiled natural community”

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

Pentagon Ordered DEP To Maintain Secrecy 

DEP Lied To The Pinelands Commission, The Media, And The Public

Part One: The Maps Set The Stage

Source: NJDEP.
Note the date: April 2020

After weeks of delay, the DEP has finally responded to my Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request for government documents on military funding of DEP forestry projects in the Pinelands.

Today, I will begin the series describing the deeply troubling  information I obtained from these documents. Among other things:

• The documents tell a story of how the US military has a cozy relationship with and behind the scenes exerts a huge and hidden influence over DEP public lands management and conservation policies and practices, not only in the Pinelands but along the NJ coast as well;

• The documents show that the military funding drives DEP priorities and land management practices – including the location of projects – far more than any public preferences and/or the policies stated in official DEP plans and regulations;

• The documents show that the military ordered DEP to keep the military funding, military objectives, and project scope secret, and that DEP acceded to the military’s secrecy request;

• The documents show that, in order to comply with the military secrecy demand, that DEP misled the Pinelands Commission, and submitted intentionally misleading and materially false regulatory documents to the Pinelands Commission, including a highly unusual letter from DEP Commissioner LaTourette that threatened a lawsuit if the Commission failed to quickly approve the DEP plan;

• The documents show that DEP lied to the media and the public about the military objectives and funding of their Forest Management Plan and that DEP provided a false rationale to support the project to mask these military objectives;

• The documents show that DEP falsely claimed in the military REPI grant application that their Pinelands Forestry plan had received “all permits”, long BEFORE the Pinelands Commission approved the DEP plan on October 14, 2022;

• The documents show – similar to how inappropriate military equipment is provided to local police forces – that DEP used military money to buy industrial commercial logging equipment;

• The documents show that DEP defined the “project” to include 1.2 million acres, thereby setting the stage for dramatic future expansion and ongoing military funding; and

• The documents strongly suggest that conservation groups who actively supported and publicly promoted the DEP forestry plan – one of whom is identified as a “partner” by the military in the REPI program – were either duped by the military or also knowingly lied to the Pinelands Commission, media, and public about the military funding and objectives.

It’s all bad: for forestry, its log and burn to protect the military bases.

On “climate resilience” (flooding, shore protection, etc), the DEP protects military assets more than people and public infrastructure, in terms of where they conduct projects and the projects they pursue.

[Only after the military allowed them to, on February 22, 2023, DEP issued a highly spun press release, long after the fact, that obscures the actual project (which even had different names) and the timing on REPI funding and Pinelands Commission approval. This is more a a self disclosed coverup than an honest press statement. I sense that DEP did this to try to get out front of my disclosures, as I previously had written about the military angle in November. ]

We will break all this down in this series, as I disclose the contents of the military and DEP documents.

To begin Part One today, before I discuss the text of the documents, I will first post  just a few maps of the program, which are extremely revealing. These are all DEP maps submitted as part of the military REPI grant applications. The full DEP OPRA response is available upon request.

Readers should closely examine how land is described and classified (e.g. “military influence area”), the names of the projects, and the dates on the maps:

Note that this map has no date.

Note date: July 2022

Note date: November 2022 (conflicts with prior REPI grant application and other maps

Despite Staff Shortfall, Commission Has More Staff Assigned To “Business Services” Than To Science – And NONE With Climate Expertise

More Evidence That Gov. Murphy’s Climate Program Is All Spin, No Substance

I’ve long urged the Pinelands Commission to take serious actions to amend the Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) to address climate science and implement enforceable energy, climate, wildfire, and forestry policies.

The lack of climate policies and enforceable CMP requirements again was exposed recently during the Commission’s review and approval of a DEP Forestry Plan.

That DEP Forestry plan, among other things, purported to justify logging 1,400 acres of forest as part of a “carbon defense” climate policy.

During the Commission’s review of the DEP plan, regulatory staff manager Chuck Horner openly admitted on the public record that the Commission lacked staff expertise in critical areas (forestry, wildfire, climate) and therefore deferred to DEP’s expertise.

It is absurd for a regulatory agency to defer to the expertise of an applicant seeking their regulatory approval.

So, given these self acknowledged staff deficits, I was appalled to read the Commission’s most recent February Monthly Management Report, where they again openly admit crucial staff deficits on climate related issues:

• Interagency Council on Climate Change (IAC): Staff attended two meetings in February for IAC action, one on February 8, and the second on February 14, 2023. At the February 8 meeting, the Executive Director and a member of the Planning Office staff met with the NJ Deputy Climate Resilience Officer (DCRO). Staff confirmed the IAC’s receipt of the revised Pinelands Commission “Agency at a Glance” summary, advised the DCRO of upcoming staff shortages at the Commission that may inhibit the Commission’s ability to meet all IAC deliverable deadlines, and reviewed the timeline for completion of agency Extreme Heat Resilience Action Plans.

Governor Murphy’s Interagency Council on Climate Change (IAC) is not an aggressive policy initiative, so the Pinelands Commission can’t even clear a very low bar.

The IAC is really about consolidating, centralizing, and assuring top down policy and political control of climate policy by the Governor’s Office.

It is designed to keep all State agencies from getting out in front of the Governor or DEP on climate policy. The Governor wants unilateral control and a free hand to issue self serving and highly spun press releases and Executive Orders on climate.

As a result, the IAC is an unwieldy and unaccountable group of bureaucrats that are doing nothing more than slow walking climate policy and politically protecting Gov. Murphy.

The fact that an independent planning and regulatory agency like the Pinelands Commission can not act on climate without a Green Light from the Governor’s Office and his IAC should outrage all climate activists and advocates of good government.

Worse, after I had received and read the Commission’s Monthly Management Report, today I received a “Pinelands Job Opportunities!” announcement from the Commission. They are seeking 2 new professional staff, but not in any climate science or planning related field.

Despite just admitting that they lacked adequate staff to implement the Governor’s climate goals and policy initiatives, they are hiring a traditional civil engineer and another information specialist!

WTF!

The Commission’s Organization Chart exposes the fact that they have more staff in “Business Services” (5) and “Information Systems” (5) than in Science (4) – and none in climate science.

That does not reflect a serious response to the climate emergency, by both the Pinelands Commission and Governor Murphy’s office and IAC.

So, I fired off this note to the Pinelands Commission (and a similar note to the Highlands Council that I will write about in future). I don’t expect a reply:

Dear Pinelands Commission and Executive Director Grogan:

According to the Commission’s February Monthly Management Report: (emphasis mine)

“Staff confirmed the IAC’s receipt of the revised Pinelands Commission “Agency at a Glance” summary, advised the DCRO of upcoming staff shortages at the Commission that may inhibit the Commission’s ability to meet all IAC deliverable deadlines, and reviewed the timeline for completion of agency Extreme Heat Resilience Action Plans.”

https://www.nj.gov/pinelands/infor/online/Feb_2023_Mgt_Rpt_%20FINAL.pdf

According the the Commission’s Organizational chart, there are more staff (5 in each) in “Information Systems” and “Business Services” than in Science (4):

https://www.nj.gov/pinelands/images/pdf%20files/chart.pdf.

During the recent debate on DEP’s Wildfire Plan, Chuck Horner stated on the public record that the Commission lacked stafff expertise in forestry, wildfire, and climate science. Those deficits forced the Commission to defer to the DEP expertise (deference to the expertise on an applicant seeking regulatory approval is, at best, mismanagement.)

For years, I’ve been urging the Commission to beef up its climate science and planning staff and functions to respond to the climate crisis, yet the Commission still has NO STAFF with climate expertise and experience.

So, given these critical staff deficits, why is the Commission using scarce budget resources to hire another Information Systems staffer and a traditional civil engineer?

Executive Director Grogan, I request that you distribute this email to the full Commission.

I look forward to your timely response.

Bill Wolfe

Did A DEP “Prescribed Burn” Or US Air Force Training Mission Start Wildfire?

Wildfire Threats To People And Property Expose Reckless Liability Exemption 

DEP And Pinelands Commission Fail To Consider Climate Or More Strictly Regulate Development In Extreme Wildfire Risk Areas

The most recent Pinelands wildfire raises serious questions about how DEP is managing NJ forests, including failure to consider changing conditions due to climate change, failure to restrict new development in extreme wildfire hazard locations, “forest thinning” (logging), and the safety procedures and liability exemption for so called “prescribed burns”.

The Associated Press reported:

The fire service has been doing controlled burns in the Pinelands in recent weeks to consume dead leaves, twigs and other forest floor fuel that could accelerate a wildfire. There were no burns being done anywhere else in the state on Tuesday because of the high winds, officials said.

The DEP officials need to back that statement up in writing.

Today I filed an OPRA public records request for DEP prescribed burns in the vicinity of the wildfire, and DEP wildfire plans and safety protocols.

I filed an OPRA for the investigative report for last summer’s large Pinelands wildfire in Wharton State Forest – which DEP attributed in media to a campfire – but DEP refused to provide the documents or evidence supporting that claim and did not even conduct an investigation, see:

• 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

Once again, high winds and low humidity drove the wildfire, and logging, “forest thinning”, firebreaks, and prescribed burns did NOTHING to reduce the intensity or spread of the wildfire.

In the meantime, while I await the DEP reply to my OPRA, here are some questions the public, the media, and legislators should be asking DEP:

1) DEP fails to consider climate or restrict development in high wildfire hazard locations

• Murphy DEP Denies Climate Wildfire Risk Petition

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

2) The NJ “Prescribed Burn Act” provides a liability exemption for damages from prescribed burns:

• NJ Legislators Asked To Repeal Liability Immunity For Out Of Control Prescribed Burn Wildfire Damage

3) The US Air Force, according to their own statements, cause 1 fire every 10-14 days:

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

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

4) The US Forest Service imposed an administrative moratorium after the New Mexico Wildfire last year

That wildfire exposed the flawed science behind and need to revise USFS models and safety protocols, especially in light of the changes conditions in the models caused by wildfire (winds, dry soils and vegetation, low humidity, et al), see:

• Lessons For NJ Ignored: After Negligently Starting Disastrous New Mexico Wildfire, US Forest Service Suspends Prescribed Burn Program

DEP has not done so, although they very likely rely on similarly flawed models.

5) DEP flat out lied to the Pinelands Commission and the public about their wildfire plan:

The DEP “wildfire plan” was approved by the Commission on Oct. 14. It allows logging of 1400 acres and 13 miles of firebreak:

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

We are now engaged with DEP on OPRA documents regarding the US Military $2 million REPI grant to fund DEP for the sole reason of “protecting” the mission of the Warren Grove base. We’ll write about that after DEP provides all the documents.

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