WolfeNotes.com

NJCF Signed Off On Forestry Task Force Recommendations That Promote DEP Logging 

Given DEP’s flawed and arrogant policies, which have destroyed any trust in DEP, any legislation would need to be extremely prescriptive and include many specific numeric standards, mandates and prohibitions. Such a bill is unlikely to secure passage, thus killing Smith’s reforms. ~~~ Letter to Murphy DEP Commissioner LaTourette (12/15/22)

I must say, I was left scratching my head and got a belly laugh out of today’s NJ Spotlight story on another DEP logging project, see:

• Anger grows after NJ cuts down swath of forest

Those same photos, that same outrage, and those same criticisms of DEP have been displayed here for over a decade, most recently:

• Latest Pinelands Wildfire Raises Serious Questions About DEP Forest Management

This NJCF discovery and criticism of DEP comes at a time when NJCF has come under harsh criticism for their forestry practices and their close relationships with and support of DEP and antipathy towards DEP regulation.

Their credibility also took a huge hit with their manipulative role as Co-Chair and supporter of the seriously flawed Smith Forestry Task Force recommendations.

In direct contradiction of the NJCF criticisms reported today, in fact, the recently released recommendations of Senator Smith’s Forestry Task Force – Co-Chaired by NJCF – explicitly supports and grandfathers exactly this DEP logging project that NJCF now criticizes, see this post:

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.“

For years, DEP has conducted these kind of destructive logging projects across the State.

NJCF KNOWS that these flawed DEP logging practices are explicitly supported in Statewide DEP policies and plans, including the Forest Action Plan, the forestry sections of the DEP Climate 80X50 Report, and Natural Working Lands Initiative

NJCF has never criticized any of that.

NJCF even supported it. Emile DeVito praised the concept – no mention of soils and plants and habitat and core forests – of “mowing the forest” (at time 2:05):

“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.

So, let’s hit a few highlights of today’s Spotlight story to illustrate that:

1. DEP Asserts A False Ecological Justification

NJ Spotlight reports DEP’s cover for logging:

According to DEP, the Glassboro project is designed to create habitat needed by the American woodcock, a species of concern in New Jersey and other states because of declining numbers related largely to habitat loss and forest succession — the natural pattern of ecosystem change that takes place over time.

DEP has been logging under the false pretext of habitat creation – usually for game species to appease the hunting lobby – for decades. The Sparta Mountain logging to create habitat for golden winged warbler exposed this fraud. As I’ve written multiple times:

The DEP currently exploits flawed and scientifically false justifications – like wood products sequester carbon and “thinning” promotes ecological health – to justify logging. (2/21/23)

DEP claims that NJ’s forests lack age class diversity (solution: thinning to create “young forests”); that forests are unhealthy due to excessive tree density  (solution: reduce density via “thinning”); that forests are disease prone (solution: thinning to increase forest health); forests are wildfire hazards (solution: thinning to reduce fuel load and “ladder fuels); forests are vulnerable to drought and climate change (solution: thinning to reduce tree competition for water and consumption of water via evapotranspiration). (12/16/22)

The logging industry …. very cynically have teamed up with hunters and money hungry entrepreneurial conservation groups and underfunded State wildlife and forestry agencies. They obscure the logging by justifying the cuts to protect endangered birds, and spread money around to buy support for that. (6/5/16)

[look at DEP’s Map of the Glassboro WMA – this sure suggests a hunting biased “single use management” – as in managed by and for hunters:

But Emile DeVito is angry now, about just 21 acres of logging:

“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.

We’ve been saying that for years, Emile – where have you been?

• Christie DEP Proposes Vast Expansion of Logging On Sparta Mountain

Flawed Conservation Rationale

We are left scratching our head, because the DEP proposal is at odds with the fundamental conservation strategy that led to the passage of the Highlands Act.

The prime conservation imperative in passage on the Highlands Act was preservation of the existing large tracts of contiguous forest, maximization of forest canopy cover, and prevention of fragmentation.

2. Need to Stop Logging And Conduct a Review of DEP’s Forestry Policies

NJ Spotlight reported:

In a letter to DEP, four conservation groups urged an immediate halt to any further activity at the site, part of a 2,341-acre wildlife management area.

First of all, the “immediate halt” NJCF is seeking is limited to just this one DEP logging project.

But again, where the hell has NJCF been for years?

We’ve repeatedly called for a statewide moratorium on DEP logging, most recently at the outset of the Smith Forestry Task Force.

Those demands secured no support by NJCF, who Co-Chaired the Task Force.

Way back during the DEP Sparta Mountain logging controversy, we called for a review of DEP logging policies. That got no support or press coverage.

Again, we sought to stop DEP logging  – statewide – and urged DEP to withdraw the DEP Pinelands logging plan:

While former Murphy DEP Commissioner McCabe imposed a temporary “pause” to review DEP forestry policies and practices, the current Commissioner has ignored critics, abandoned that review, and expanded DEP’s misguided forestry approach.

Current DEP Commissioner LaTourette has expanded DEP’s controversial misguided and aggressive forestry practices geographically into the Pinelands. Programmatically, he has expanded the scope of DEP’s forestry program to include seriously flawed “carbon defense” and climate justifications.

With little public knowledge and legislative authorization, in defiance of critics, he has adopted a Statewide Forest Action Plan and developed a Working Public Lands program to further promote logging and misguided forestry practices.

DEP even recently floated an incredibly bad trial ballon to expand development, commercialization, and privatization of all Green Acres and State lands, including State Parks and Forests.

3. Lack of State and Local Regulation of Logging

NJCF knows that DEP forestry work is not regulated.

And the lack of regulation is not limited to wetlands. We exposed this over 7 years ago:

• Environmental Damage Of DEP Sparta Mountain Logging Plan Largely Unregulated

Forest management is granted an explicit exemption in DEP’s outdated 1995 Wetlands BMP Manual:

How to protect NJ’s wetlands while practicing forestry activities is an integral part of this manual. Under the 1987 NJ Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act, normal harvesting of forest products in accordance with a Forest Management Plan approved by the State Forester is exempt from the requirement of  wetland permit. The plan must meet the minimum standards necessary for protecting and maintaining NJ’s forested wetlands and as well as the quality of the surface waters within these wetlands.

The Smith Forestry Task Force – Co-Chaired by NJCF – failed to recommend that these regulatory loopholes be closed and that forestry be strictly regulated like any other destructive development activity.

So, Emile is being disingenuous here:

With the clearing of the land, the ability for the affected area to return to a forest is gone, said DeVito, who added the activities appear to be violations of state wetlands regulations. A portion of the tract contains vernal pools, essential breeding habitat for amphibians, he said. In this case, the pools supported native woodland frog populations.

4. DEP Deception and Bad Faith 

This quote absolutely just blew my mind – and it is obviously designed to divert from recent criticism regarding NJCF close relationships with and funding by DEP and the NJCF failures in Co-Chairing Smith’s Forestry Task Force:

For Gilbert, who served as a co-chair of the recent task force on forest management, the action taken by the division illustrates the deficiencies in how the state oversees its stewardship of woodlands. “You can’t trust the DEP to do the right thing,” he said.

The department must be required to follow stringent rules for any projects that alter public forestlands and to notify and consider input before moving forward on those projects, he said.

Again, as my 12/15/22 letter to DEP Commissioner LaTourette makes clear, we’ve been saying that forever, too.

And this one was rich, too, coming from PPA who has supported massive DEP logging and wildfire destruction of vegetation and habitat in the Pinelands.

NJ Spotlight reported:

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.

NJCF and PPA and NJ Spotlight obviously are using this DEP logging project to try to salvage and restore their damaged credibility and reputations.

It is unlikely to work.

[End Note: For anyone who thinks I’m being too harsh on Emile and NJCF – I can be nice, too. Ironically, our a decade ago, Emile helped defeat the DEP’s insane logging plan for Bulls Island:

• Prominent Scientist Calls DEP Bull’s Island Clearcut “A Travesty”

Emile also helped oppose DEP’s insane Sparta Mountain logging plan,

• NJ Highlands Coalition Joins Public Debate On DEP Sparta Mountain Logging Plan

 

They Still Don’t Have An App For That

No Biggie: It’s Only 1.6 BILLION Pounds Of Toxic Chemicals

BTW, what ever happened to that Senate bill (see S2739) that was supposed to close the major loopholes exposed by the Passaic City chemical fire?

The above list of corporate toxic polluters is from 2001 data from a DEP 2004 Report – you can find it in Rutgers archives or the State Library, see;

• Industrial Pollution Prevention In New Jersey – A Trend Analysis

Our friends Dupont and BASF, among many others, are exposed in that REPORT.

DEP doesn’t publish that Report – and many others – anymore, a huge problem I explained in detail in this post last year, see:

• They Don’t Have An App For That: Critical Environmental Information Buried In The Bowels Of the Bureaucracy

DEP claims that their website “DataMiner” software and the NJ Open Public Records Act (OPRA) law provide that same data to the public – but I challenge anyone to update the above 2001 data using DataMiner and OPRA – I guarantee that it will require expertise and take a very long time, and it is very unlikely that it can even be done, and certainly not by an average citizen. If you file an OPRA for this data, DEP will deny it and claim that they are not required by OPRA to “conduct research”. Similarly, in order to use DataMiner, you need to know what you’re looking for – a classic catch-22, because you can’t know what you’re looking for!

And even if it could be done, it is DEP’s job to do that. But, they now work for the polluters, not the public.

The Foundations stopped funding that work, so the environmental groups stopped doing it as well.

For decades before their current corporate and Foundation co-optation and absorption by the Green Mafia, Trenton based groups like NJ PIRG (now Environment NJ), NJ Environmental Federation (now Clean Water Action) and Sierra Club, would issue their own Annual Reports based on the DEP Report data and hold a State House press conference blasting the corporate polluters and demanding that DEP ratchet down on them.

The NJ Press Corps would all write stories, tailored to polluters in the region of their readership.

The obvious objectives of this exercise by DEP, environmental groups, and the media were to hold corporate polluters and DEP accountable and to educate the public about serious environmental problems and document DEP’s efforts to regulate polluters and protect public health and the environment.

But the corporate polluters strongly opposed all that – for obvious reasons – and they have used political power to stop DEP from issuing those Reports.

I recently wrote about the implications of these DEP Reports, in terms of how DEP actually uses the data in them, see:

• NJ Has Gone Backwards On Environmental Justice Over The Last 20 Years

Despite these Reports being mandated by NJ environmental laws, the NJ Legislature – beholden to the same corporate polluters that have captured DEP –  has not objected and forced DEP to issue those Reports.

As a result, the public is ill informed about serious threats to their health and environment. Hence, corporate polluters, captured DEP, and bought politicians all get a pass.

But we have not surrendered to the manipulation of Foundation money, to corporate pressure, to the co-optation and gaslighting by DEP, or to the phagocytosis of the Green Mafia, and we continue to do corporate accountability/DEP regulatory work and warn the public, e.g., see:

• 25 Years After Bhopal Chemical Disaster: NJ’s “Fatal Fifteen” Shows it Can Happen Here
• Murphy DEP Updates Air Pollution Cancer Risk Levels, Ignores Cumulative Impacts And Environmental Justice Considerations
• Murphy DEP Urged To Close Regulatory Loopholes On Climate Change, Risk Assessment and Hazardous Air Pollutants
• Murphy DEP Fails To Consider Climate Or Public Health Risks Of Multiple Toxic Air Emissions From Paulsboro Refinery
• As He Touts Climate & Environmental Justice Policies, NJ Gov. Murphy’s DEP Proposes Renewal of Newark Garbage Incinerator Air Permit
• 18 Years After Scathing Criticism By Federal Judge For Ignoring “Environmental InJustice”, NOTHING HAS CHANGED AT NJ DEP
• Murphy DEP Commissioner McCabe Uses Industry Dominated Clean Air Council To Divert From Major DEP Failures to Regulate Air Pollution
• DEP Guts Science on Cumulative Cancer Risks in Paterson NJ

Now, the only time environmental groups and the media even mention these DEP chemical regulatory programs is when they opportunistically get involved when a toxic train derails and forces evacuation of a City (Paulsboro), a chemical plant explodes (Knapp Technologies, Lodi), or there is a massive fire, like the recent near catastrophe in Passaic City.

BTW, what ever happened to that Senate bill (see S2739) that was supposed to fix the major loopholes exposed by the Passaic City chemical fire?

Just as we predicted, it went to Senator Sarlo’s Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee to die, see:

• Did Chemical Industry Lobbyists Kill The Passaic City Fire Loophole Legislation?

Someone should ask Senator Smith about that – and maybe shame NJ’s Green Mafia while they’re at it.

Happy New Year! 2023 should be a hoot.

DEP Forestry Practices Poison The Well For Any Climate & Ecological Reforms

For years, environmentalists and local activists have strongly opposed DEP logging of Highlands forests under various pretexts, slogans, flawed science, and narrow objectives, particularly “active management” “Stewardship”, “young forests”, “thinning” and all sorts of “treatments”.

While former Murphy DEP Commissioner McCabe imposed a temporary “pause” to review those forestry policies and practices, the current Commissioner has ignored critics, abandoned that review, and expanded DEP’s misguided forestry approach.

Current DEP Commissioner LaTourette has expanded DEP’s controversial misguided and aggressive forestry practices geographically into the Pinelands. Programmatically, he has expanded the scope of DEP’s forestry program to include seriously flawed “carbon defense” and climate justifications.

With little public knowledge and legislative authorization, in defiance of critics, he has adopted a Statewide Forest Action Plan and developed a Working Public Lands program to further promote logging and misguided forestry practices.

DEP even recently floated an incredibly bad trial ballon to expand development, commercialization, and privatization of all Green Acres and State lands, including State Parks and Forests.

Arrogantly sticking his finger in the eye of critics, in a revolving door move he appointed ethically challenged John Cecil, the champion of the Highlands logging program – who spun the press and misled the public about the extent of logging – as Assistant Commissioner overseeing logging in State Parks and Forests.

These unilateral, arrogant, scientifically flawed and poor public policy decisions have deeply polarized the forestry and climate related forestry issues.

DEP’s recent arm twisting at the Pinelands Commission to secure approval of the wildfire forestry plan has shed public light on the controversies. It is also the straw that broke the camels back.

If Commissioner LaTourette proceeds with that plan, he makes necessary climate and ecological reforms under Senator Smith’s Forestry Task Force impossible.

Given DEP’s flawed and arrogant policies, which have destroyed any trust in DEP, any legislation would need to be extremely prescriptive and include many specific numeric standards, mandates and prohibitions. Such a bill is unlikely to secure passage, thus killing Smith’s reforms.

One way to avoid this train wreck would be for Commissioner LaTourette to make a good faith gesture to try to begin to restore trust and reduce the polarization – that’s why I wrote him to urge that he withdraw the Pinelands plan:

Dear Commissioner LaTourette:

I am writing to request that you voluntarily withdrawn the NJ Forest Service’s Forestry Plan recently approved by the Pinelands Commission.

As you know, after the Pinelands Commission’s approval became known, the plan has generated significant public concerns, media attention, and valid scientific and policy criticism.

As you also know, the plan was not subject to meaningful public or scientific peer review before it was approved by the Pinelands Commission.

Of equal concern, Pinelands Commission lead staff Chuck Horner publicly acknowledged that the Commission staff lacked expertise in forestry, wildfire, and climate science and deferred to DEP’s expertise. That deference is reflected in the text of the Commission’s approval document, which repeatedly states that scientific and factual findings are based on the Department’s representations, not the Commission staff’s independent findings.

As you also know, Senator Smith’s Forestry Task Force is currently deliberating on legislative and regulatory policy matters specifically of direct and significant relevance to the Department’s plan, which was approved prior to the release of the Task Force’s recommendations.

Finally, the Department’s plan asserts positions on and implements fundamental and controversial scientific and policy matters, including reliance on the (draft) Forest Action Plan’s “carbon defense” policy of significance to the carbon storage and sequestration strategies required to meet the goals of the Global Warming Response Act, as discussed in the Department’s “80X50 Climate Report“.

[Note: Carbon storage and sequestration are funded under the RGGI program with millions of public dollars. There is huge federal funding for forestry and climate in the pipeline as well, under Biden’s Executive Order and the infrastructure and inflation laws, which appropriated billions to forestry programs. DEP bureaucrats and their corrupt conservation cheerleaders are obviously salivating over this money. ]

Given this context, it is deeply troubling that the Department’s Pinelands Forestry Plan received so little and clearly inadequate public and scientific review and integration with upcoming major policy changes anticipated to be the result of Senator Smith’s Forestry Task Force.

In fact, the Department’s plan has the potential to undermine the public reception of Senator Smith’s Task Force Report and followup reforms based on its recommendations.

In light of these significant procedure, scientific, and policy deficiencies and future implications, I strongly urge you to voluntarily withdrawn the plan. This can only bolster the public’s confidence in the Department’s efforts and lend public support for Senator Smith’s legislative agenda.

If you and the Department’s staff are confident in the quality and scientific basis for the plan, a “do over” should not delay or frustrate legitimate forest management initiatives.

I look forward to your timely and favorable response.

Bill Wolfe

Approximately 250 people participate in 4 hour Zoom call

Opening DEP Presentation Sparks Sharp Rebuttals 

Participants Call For DEP Moratorium Pending Reforms

Today, almost 3 months after Senator Smith announced his plans to create a forestry task force, the Task Force conducted its first meeting on an almost 4 hour zoom call.

The 4 Co-Chairs did a good job in setting the tone. It sounds like the process will be well managed, participatory, transparent, and science based.

The call was well attended by about 250 people. I wasn’t counting, but many spoke and most had very positive things to say.

Senator Smith began the call with his charge to the Task Force, which emphasized the climate emergency. Smith urged participants to be civil and respectful.

The goodwill almost was destroyed a moment later when DEP Assistant Commission John Cecil (controversial former pro-logging “active management” forester at NJ Audubon) proceeded to not just make brief introductory remarks, but launch into a 25 minute power point!

Very bad idea to put him up like that.

I’m a Luddite when it comes to Zoom (my first!) but I was able to use the chat box to call Cecil out on a few of his false and misleading statements.

Specifically, Cecil presented a data chart of the age-class diversity of NJ’s forests. He even noted that it illustrated a classic bell curve distribution, by age class. (unfortunately, I didn’t screen shoot that slide – update – here it is).

Yet, in his very next slide, the first conclusion was that “northern forests lack age class diversity” (see above). That so called lack of diversity is a major justification DEP uses to log to create “young forests” and improve “forest health”.

So, I took to the chat box and asked: how could that perfect bell curve distribution support a conclusion that forests lack age class diversity?

Cecil was dumfounded and unable to even try to answer the question! hahahha!

The next slide in Cecil’s spin box claimed that DEP Forest Management Plans followed various environmental laws and regulations. This is a flat out lie, because DEP forestry work is exempt.

Myself and other participants called Cecil out on that lie, which warmed my heart!

(thank you Co-Chair Eileen Murphy for posing 2 questions I asked, but you failed to ask several more questions I submitted on Cecil’s presentation!:

• What does “management of timber likely to remain low” mean, quantitatively?
• Do DEP’s forest planning and management programs have formal public participation, i.e. public notice, public hearings, public comment and response to comments?
• What methods does DEP use to quantify “carbon trade-offs”?
• What are the methods and metrics for “forest restoration”?
• National priorities do not include forest preservation. Where does preservation fit in?
• What are DEP’s density findings? Are NJ’s forests too dense? What is the natural background “density” assumed?
• Is storm blowdown quantified as “damage”? What do those data say?
• One climate objective should be maximization of carbon sequestration. To “enhance” sequestration is not an adequate goal.

A while later, I was called up for comments. I had forgotten I registered to provide comments and was not prepared. So, I just made 2 quick remarks:

1) Cecil’s slide claims on regulations were in error and must be corrected; and

2) the Task Force schedule is very long (Report by end of year) and reform legislation will take at least another year or 2. Given that DEP continues to engage in forestry projects (logging) and to adopt various new damaging forestry policies, plans, and programs, the Task Force should immediately call for an administrative moratorium by DEP until reforms can be enacted (laws passed and regulations adopted).

I was pleased when my friend Mark Lohbauer later supported me (I think he called me a colleague) and the moratorium proposal, as did several following commenters.

Lohbauer also criticized Cecil for promoting forest “harvest” and not mentioning the most important policy reform: proforestation!

Also joining the call was former DEP Commissioner and BPU Commissioner Jeanne Fox. I like Jeanne and have worked with her. Because she is a trusted and loyal Democrat, she can be an important political liaison to the Murphy Administration.

Perhaps Jeanne can be the ambassador to current DEP Commissioner LaTourette and ask him to make a good faith pledge to impose a “pause” during the reform process (and not use Cecil as the public face of the Department).

Even former DEP Commissioner McCabe imposed a “pause” during her incoming policy review of the Sparta Mt. WMA logging program.

Several other commenters were scientifically credentialed, passionate, and well informed advocates and lovers of forest ecosystems.

Tom Gilbert, a man who I have long criticized, made an important recommendation I agree with. Tom suggested that “consensus” might include a 2/3 majority vote, thereby eliminating a major flaw I wrote about in the consensus based approach, which provides veto power to a single selfish interest.

One criticism: the Co-Chairs did not do a good job summarizing the issue poll/survey they took. Basically, they claimed that everything was important, and, despite noting huge overlaps, then tried to ram them into 2 working groups: 1) climate and 2) ecological health. They also appeared to not understand conflicts of interest/ethics/dislcosure and scientific bias issues. And there is a built in flaw in their approach regarding representation, because the voice of one south jersey mill owner will have the same “power” as the leader of a group with 25,000 members. Perhaps a weighted voting scheme might help.

At the outset, I was skeptical and highly critical of this Task Force, but, by listening to the thoughtful and caring people on the call, I’ll admit that I see a possibility for improvements in how DEP “manages” our forests.

The keys will be to 1) accelerate the schedule, 2) nail down a DEP moratorium, 3) keep the discussion going in the public arena and media, and 4) not get co-opted by the inside game or false notions of “political feasibility”.

We’ll keep you posted.

Reliance On The Inside Game And Trenton Politics Are A Sure Losing Strategy

Former DEP Commissioner McCabe’s “Pause” And “Policy Review” Is Precedent

DEP Commissioner LaTourette Is On Thin Ice After Being Called Out For Wildfire Spin

In yesterday’s post, I challenged leading NJ conservation groups – NJ Conservation Foundation, Sierra Club, NJ Audubon, and the Highlands Coalition – to ramp up public pressure to stop DEP from conducting more logging on public forests:

I am also publicly calling on Senator Smith and all 4 Co-Chairs of the Smith Forestry Task Force to join in this demand.

I even provided a letter to DEP Commissioner LaTourette and Senator Smith as a model for the winning arguments they should make.

I backed that up with private emails.

I did not expect NJ Audubon and Senator Smith to respond favorably, as NJ Audubon has been the architect for the DEP logging program and they worked closely with Senator Smith on his disastrous package of “forest stewardship” (pro logging bills). John Cecil, formerly the head of NJ Audubon’s logging team, is now at DEP as Director of Parks and Forestry. Eileen Murphy, former DEP Director of Science and Research is now at NJ Audubon as head of Government Affairs.

So that incestuous set of relationships is obviously not going to publicly advocate for a U-Turn in their disastrous logging policy.

I also did not expect a favorable response from DEP Commissioner LaTourette, because bureaucracies rarely admit error, because John Cecil is not going to admit error and honestly brief the Commissioner on the science and policy choices, because DEP is moving aggressively forward unilaterally on forestry policy despite public opposition, and – as I illustrated on the wildfire exaggeration issue – the Commissioner and his DEP staff are obviously working closely with Senator Smith in support of the joint DEP and Smith logging program.

That DEP logging program does not require passage of new legislation, so Senator Smith and DEP and Forestry Task Force Co-Chairs NJ Audubon and Forestry Assc. have absolutely no incentive to do anything. They are all fine with the status quo.

They would be fine if the Forestry Task Force deliberated indefinitely or if it failed to reach consensus. It’s called a strategy of “co-optation”. In fact, Smith, DEP, and Company actually would prefer to keep conservation groups busy in the room and diverted on Task Force negotiations, instead of mounting controversial and aggressive public campaigns to protect NJ’s last remaining forests and farms, as I’ve recommended, see: 

• The Final Frontier In NJ’s Long Running Land Use War

So, strategically, it is going to take significant pressure to get anything done on forestry issues.

Unfortunately, NJ conservation groups apparently fail to understand all this and fail to acknowledge how little leverage they have in playing the inside game (with the Forestry Task Force) and in private negotiations with Senator Smith or DEP Commissioner LaTourette.

They fail to realize that Senator Smith actually strongly resents them for blocking his forestry legislation for over a decade and for what he feels were false attacks on him for promoting logging. Smith takes this personally. He is thin skinned and doesn’t take criticism well at all. And, like all politicians, he can be vindictive and bear a grudge. Smith has zero interest in satisfying the requests of these conservation groups (other than his friends at NJ Audubon).

Despite all this, signals are that the conservation groups are planning to work privately behind the scenes with Senator Smith on this. That is a guaranteed failing strategy.

Their only leverage is to make strong public demands and mount maximum public pressure on DEP Commissioner LaTourette.

Imposing a moratorium on DEP approvals of logging on public forests in a climate emergency is a very light political lift.

There would be virtually no negative economic impact and there would be no political opposition from the NJ business or corporate community, donor groups the Murphy administration caters to.

This is NOT some major policy decision that LaTourette would need the Gov. to sign off on.

Plus, there is a precedent for doing so.

One of the first moves by incoming former Murphy DEP Commissioner McCabe was to impose an administrative “pause” on DEP’s logging program, in response to strong public opposition. As I wrote:

• Murphy DEP Halts Proposed Logging Of Public Forests – Policy Review Pending

The local  Sparta Independent reported:

SPARTA — The state Department of Environmental Protection announced last week that the Sparta Mountain forest management plan has been halted pending a review from the new commissioner.

Forestry activities at two different sites on the Sparta Mountain Wildlife Management Area were set to begin in February and end in April, but new Acting Commissioner Catherine McCabe wants to review the project before it proceeds any further.

“We’re going through a change of administrations,” said NJDEP Spokesperson Larry Hajna. “We have a new acting commissioner and so she is getting up to speed on various issues across the state and this is one that she wants to review. So we’ve decided just to hit the pause button and allow her to review the plan and then we’ll take it from there.”

I’m fairly sure that John Cecil has not briefed DEP Commissioner LaTourette about this action by his predecessor (LaTourette was not with DEP at the time, he was serving as a corporate lawyer for the Fortress Energy LNG export project. So he may not be aware of McCabe’s prior pause).

In addition to all this, Commissioner LaTourette is on very thin ice and vulnerable to public pressure of forestry issues after he was humiliated and exposed in the media for grossly exaggerating wildfire risks. He is looking to put that behind him and garner public support, not more public opposition. So he is ripe to leverage on this issue.

If NJ conservation groups are unwilling to publicly fight for forests and can’t stop really bad stuff from happening – like DEP (a State agency, not a corporate pillager) logging public forests – how can they even hope to get anything positive done?

If they fail this test, they should all resign. The whole state is watching.