WolfeNotes.com

Corporate Foundation Money And Faux Green Spin Does Not Shape His Tough Reporting

I have been a harsh critic of NJ Spotlight’s Wm. Penn Foundation funded series on the Delaware watershed.

I rarely praise journalists, but today’s NJ Spotlight story on the Pinelands by NJ’s best investigative reporter Jeff Pillets was superb (with just four important omissions).  Read the whole thing:

• A Landmark of Preservation, Pinelands Sees New Threats

Pillets schooled his Spotlight colleagues on how to write an environmental story, integrate planning and regulation with political accountability, and not get spun by lame bullshit from compromised sources (but inclusion of Doug O’Malley – who does very little in the Pinelands – was disappointing. Too bad Spotlight editors didn’t give Pillets the Highlands story too, or even the entire series – but that should tell you something. No way Wm. Penn would have allowed that!).

The issues Pillets failed to get fully fleshed out, completely right or omitted were:

1) The Pinelands CMP lacks any standards or requirements or scientific monitoring to address the climate emergency.

The Commission pledged to amend the CMP to address climate almost 9 years ago, but has yet to act on that pledge. They are currently considering a very modest climate policy proposal under the leadership of Commissioner Lohbauer, but it is weak and seems to be going nowhere.

2) The Pinelands Commission recently approved DEP’s logging plan, to cut and remove 90-95% of trees (a virtual clearcut) over 1,400 acres (2.4 million trees) plus an additional 13 road miles of 100 foot wide clearcut for a “firebreak”.

The DEP’s plan was based on a sham “carbon defense” climate strategy (you must log the forest to save the forest) and had no justification in terms of reducing wildfire risks.

That DEP proposal exposed the fact that the Commission lacks adequately scientifically trained staff in forestry, wildfire, and climate and that the CMP lacks adequate standards to protect forests and maximize the sequestration and storage of carbon. Commission staff Chuck Horner openly admitted this on the public record.

Commissioner Lohbauer opposed and criticized the DEP plan and noted that it was rushed to avoid an upcoming CMP plan amendment to establish a new “no net loss” of trees policy. That needs media coverage, public awareness and support as well.

3) The Pinelands Commission (and the Murphy DEP) rejected a petition for rulemaking to amend the CMP to restrict new development in mapped extreme wildfire risks locations and require additional fireproofing for existing development.

It was extremely revealing that the so called “advocates” (i.e. the Pinelands Preservation Alliance, NJ Conservation Foundation, and NJ Chapter of Sierra Club) actively publicly SUPPORTED the DEP logging plan, which was purported to be justified by reducing wildfire risks, but did NOTHING to support the petition to amend the CMP to limit new development to reduce wildfire risks.

4) The story mentioned the risks from toxic waste sites, but failed to mention the recent Pinelands Commission scientific study of the ecological impacts of endocrine disruptors.

That research project was funded, in part, by the Wm. Penn Foundation and it downplayed the impacts of endocrine disruptors and actively masked that class of chemicals by using euphemisms and obscure terms.

I’ve written about all these issues in detail, so if you’re interested, use the word search box in the upper right to read those posts. I’ll backfill with links to this as soon as I can – I have a very slow internet connection right now.

I sent my friend Mr. Pillets this note of praise (which I rarely do):

Pillets – fine job! You got it exactly right. I appreciated stress on the role of regulation and the “Trenton threat”.

Almost bust a gut on reading that PPA “has been” an advocate! Hahahaha! Jason is the real deal, unlike his scumbag boss Carleton.

BTW, I lived in cabin where John McPhee lived and wrote for 17 years – his X, Pryde Brown still lives on the place, a gorgeous farm and forest on a ridge in West Amwell (Hunterdon) – 23 Gulick Road. When I was at DEP, I was sure to get the stream behind the place designated Category One (Alexauken Creek).

Wolfe

Corporate Wind Lobbyist McCurry – Touted As Providing “Diversity” – Quietly Resigns

Another Embarrassing Setback For Gov. Murphy’s Flaccid Environmental Agenda

[Update Below – McCurry Resignation Letter & Pinelands Commission comment]

Reliable NJ sources tell me that Gov. Murphy’s Pinelands Commissioner Davon McCurry recently quietly submitted his resignation.

McCurry was sworn in as a Pinelands Commissioner just last January 14, 2022:

McCurry is currently Deputy Head of Government Affairs And Market Strategy for Orsted, the off shore corporate wind developer and friend of the Murphy Administration.

Prior to his position with Orsted, McCurry served a similarly very brief tenure as head of Legislative Affairs at the Murphy DEP.

And prior to that, McCurry served as brief term at a low level in Murphy’s Governor’s Office of Constituent Relations.

I see a pattern of careerism and political opportunism, not commitment and resolve. [Note: amazingly, McCurry himself confirms this in his resignation letter – see below]

At the time of his nomination, based upon McCurry’s corporate and political ties, we raised ethical issues and requested that the State Ethics Commission conduct a review of potential:

b) corporate conflicts of interest of McCurry and Orsted, (he’ll be forced to recuse as well, including on matters related to PSE&G, who owns a 25% interest in Orsted)

The Ethics Commission apparently agreed to do so.

We are not aware of the outcome of that ethics review or the disposition of that case or whether it is related to McCurry’s resignation.

I did not follow and am unaware of McCurry’s record at the Pinelands Commission, with the exception of his bow to DEP Commissioner LaTourette’s pressure and YES vote in support of a terrible Murphy DEP logging plan to virtually clearcut 1,400 acres of Pinelands forest.

I don’t anticipate that the Pinelands Commission, Gov. Murphy’s Office, Orsted corporation or the conservation groups – all of whom applauded his nomination – to be issuing any kind of public statements or press releases explaining McCurry’s abrupt resignation.

We also don’t expect any news coverage by media cheerleaders like NJ Spotlight.

But we will ask for their comments (but don’t expect to get a response).

[Update: The Pinelands Commission replied to my request for comment by providing the McCurry resignation letter. In a  January 30, 2023 letter, McCurry wrote that his departure was “due to personal reasons and commitments.”

Very odd that, as a Commissioner, he wrote the letter to Acting Director Grogan (Commission Staff) instead of fellow Commissioner Chairperson Matos or the Governor who nominated him or the Senate who confirmed him. He also essentially admits his own careerism:

Dear Director Grogan:

Over the past year, I have had the opportunity to serve as a Member of the New Jersey Pinelands Commission. During this time, I have gotten to review some complex applications, meet and work with dedicated staff, and serve as a trustee to this incredible resource.

I am writing you today to submit my resignation with immediate effect due to personal reasons and commitments. Please know this opportunity has aided in both my personal and professional growth. Additionally, I am thankful for the small role I played in furthering the mission of the agency during my short time.

I wish you, my fellow Commissioners, and the staff the very best. If ever you wanted to connect further, you can reach me on my personal email at Redacted .

All the best,

Davon McCurry

The Commission replied as follows:

Hello Bill,

I have enclosed the resignation letter that the Pinelands Commission received from Davon McCurry. His personal e-mail address has been redacted from the letter.

Mr. McCurry’s term expired on June 28, 2022. He served an additional 7 months before electing to resign. His resignation was effective January 30, 2023.

We have no further information and will not be issuing any official statements or comments, Thanks,

This is part 2 – in Part one we documented how Pinelands Commissioner Wallner’s concerns and criticism were misrepresented in the minutes of the meeting.

Today, I will just post the Pinelands Commission’s summary of my comments and the verbatim testimony from the YouTube video. No explanation necessary. This does not matter at this point from a regulatory perspective, but it’s important for accountability.

(Note: I had to be very careful to nail down facts, because prior to the meeting, I was prevented from and unable to read any documents about the DEP plan. All I knew was based on a 1 paragraph summary from the July Monthly Management Report and the Pinelands staff presentation and Commission’s deliberations. I also was given misinformation by Emile DeVito, NJCF urging me not to oppose the plan.)

Pinelands Minutes

Bill Wolfe called in to provide comment on NJDEP’s forestry and fuelbreak application (Application Number 2007-0318.001) but before doing so he requested clarification on the following: acreage in which forestry activities will occur, staff’s wildfire expertise, the current regulations which do not address climate change or carbon sequestration and Commissioner Wallner’s earlier comments on the application. Mr. Wolfe said thinning does not mitigate a forest fire. He said the Commission’s action of approving the project was irresponsible, and the plan is destructive. He provided additional reasons as to why he objects to NJDEP’s forestry plan. He also said he submitted an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request for documents related to meetings held between the Commission staff and the NJDEP staff in August. He said there were no responsive documents. He said the Governor should veto the minutes to stop this project.

That summary left an awful lot out. See below.

Verbatim Testimony (YouTube video, starting @ time 2:09:50)

My name is Bill Wolfe. I’d like to make some comments on your approval of the DEP forestry wildfire plan.

But before I do, I want to make some points clear to be sure I have the facts right, because I got conflicting information from Emile DeVito about what the forestry practices entailed.

Just listening to Commissioners Lloyd and Lohbauer, I got the range of 1,100 – 1,300 acres with 90 – 95% tree removal, for 2.4 million trees.

Is that correct?

[Staff and Commissioners respond]

Horner – I did not do those calculations. The approval talks about a percentage reduction in the trees, but I don’t know the numbers.

Lohbauer – that is an accurate count.

Wolfe – Clearly, that would not constitute “thinning” that would constitute clearcut. And even thinning has been shown, the latest science shows that thinning does not mitigate or reduce wildfire risks, and it has enormous climate impacts that were not examined by the DEP and the Commission.

Admittedly, by Chuck who said that, if I can paraphrase, that staff lacked the expertise and deferred to the DEP, on both wildfire risks and climate and forestry management.

Is that correct?

Horner: I’ll say it a little differently. Yes, we recognized the expertise of DEP Forest Fire Service exceeds out staff’s and our regulations do not address the issue of climate change and carbon sequestration.

[Note: Horner just contradicted his prior remarks, where he explicitly stated that Pines staff lacked expertise and deferred to DEP expertise.]

Wolfe: OK. I understand that Commissioner Walter (sic), sorry if I didn’t get your last name, that there was no justification provided with respect to reducing wildfire risks or harm to people and property.

Is that correct?

That there was very little people and property in the areas to be logged or firebreak?

Is that correct?

Chair Matos – Commissioner Wallner, is  that an accurate representation?

Wolfe – I think he said that the “no alternative” was not explored as well.

Wallner – It didn’t seem like, in the amendment, and in looking at the parcels, that there was not any concentration of human occupation.But I guess the biggest underlying factor is that I didn’t see….

Matos interrupts – Sorry Commissioner, I didn’t want – I just wanted to be sure that this was an accurate representation of what you said. This is not a forum for debate on this … If its a misrepresentation of your statement , that all. I just want to make sure that the record correctly reflects what you stated, and Mr. Wolfe….

Wallner – That [Wolfe] is correct.

Wolfe – The final concern is that the initial area of herbicide treatment has been reduced, but that there still was a reservation of an area of about 1,000 acres of herbicide treatments.

Is that correct?

Horner – That [Wolfe] is correct.

Wolfe – Alright. Just in context, with all these deficiencies, I just find it the most extraordinarily irresponsible thing I can recall the Pinelands Commission ever making.

I just have to strenuously object as harshly as I possibly can on scientific grounds, on public policy grounds, on conflicts with the Governor’s Executive Orders on climate, on conflicts with DEP Commissioner’s  repeated public statements about taking seriously carbon sequestration and storage, about taking climate risks into consideration in decision making.

I just find this astonishing. Just for context, the amount of forest destruction in this plan is orders of magnitude greater than the forest destruction of the controversial south jersey gas pipeline. Enormous. Orders of magnitude greater.And there was enormous public outcry against that and months of public hearings.

How many people have testified to the Commission in public on this plan?

I tried.

I filed a petition for rulemaking on the topic, which the Commission didn’t even accept. So the Commission was not held accountable for its forestry and climate policies publicly, to have to at least explain that in response to my petition for rulemaking, which was the intent of the petition: to hold government accountable for their policies and explain why  in light of current science.

I then became aware of this project by reading the Commission’s July Monthly Management Report. I immediately filed an OPRA public records request for the documentation for the meeting held with the DEP, I think on July 16 or 23, I’m not sure, I don’t have that paper in front of me.

I filed an OPRA public records request the first week of August and the Commission staff denied it on the basis that there were “no responsive records”.  No responsive records.

How is it possible, for a meeting on a project of this magnitude with the DEP, to have no records? Not even attendance sheets. How is that possible?

I spent 13 years at DEP and I know how to document a meeting and summarize agreements, particularly if there was a modified plan in the works.

At the time, I don’t when the amended plan was submitted and you went back to de novo review, but there was an ongoing public review process and I was denied a public records request.

I find that – after both the petition and going out of my way, and I’m an expert involved in the field for almost 40 years. If I can’t figure this stuff out, how can the public possibly participate meaningfully under these conditions?

Really, I’m just appalled. I can’t even believe what I was hearing as I tuned it.

I drove 50 miles to get out of a National Forest to get an internet connection in order to participate today.

So, I’m just…. and Emile DeVito gave me bad information. He told me it was not a large project, it was not bad, there would be little tree removal, and I find exactly the opposite is the case.

So what the heck is going on here?

I’ll conclude my remarks by saying that –  and I hope this goes into the meeting notes and become somewhere available to the public – I assume that were are in a public setting now and this is live.

The only recourse at this point is to approach the Governor to veto the minutes to stop this insanity.

I urge the conservation community and the public to organize and mobilize a campaign to very quickly target the Governor to veto the minutes today to stop this project.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

2:18:30 end

Follow The Money

The Biggest Green Grift Ever

Mike Catania’s “Entrepreneurial Business Model” for the conservation community

Consider:

• 

  Carleton Montgomery, Director Pinelands Preservation Alliance (Source: PPA)

  Why would so called “preservation” and “conservation” groups PPA (and NJCF?) meet quietly behind closed doors to negotiate an unprecedented, un-necessary, and destructive DEP logging project in the ecologically precious Pinelands, a world recognized Biosphere Reserve? (The DEP’s plan was so bad, the Pinelands Commission refused to approve this plan for 15 years!)

• When the DEP plan was exposed publicly, why would they immediately close ranks, aggressively support and defend the plan, and attack critics? And why would they make such dubious arguments to do so?

• Why would the DEP launch an unprecedented public relations campaign in support of the plan, in coordination with PPA and NJCF  – which included “alarming” legislative testimony, field events, press releases, and press Zoom briefings – and even threats by the DEP Commissioner of an unprecedented lawsuit to get the plan approved by the Pinelands Commission?

A NJ political veteran once advised me that if a policy dispute didn’t make any sense, then there were two possible explanations: 1) incompetence; or 2) corruption.

He suggested that I always assume the latter.

Well, this headline pretty much sums up what the absurd “debate” in the Pinelands is really all about:

• Fight over strategy intensifies as wildfire funding grows

As the Biden administration doles out historic levels of wildfire mitigation funding, fights are breaking out on Capitol Hill about how to spend the money.

Lawmakers from both parties are backing measures that would speed up forest management projects that cut down on wildfire fuels, like brush and small trees, which they say leads to “megafires.” But environmentalists argue that the proposals would bypass environmental analysis and community input under the guise of wildfire mitigation and potentially open the door to excessive logging.

But NJ environmentalists are not OPPOSING these logging plans, they are SUPPORTING them.

They are Green Grifters. Mike Catania’s business model rules. (I try to explain how it devolved to this point  in this post).

This federal forestry funding – plus tens of millions of dollars of NJ State funding under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) for carbon sequestration and the prospect of hundreds of millions of dollars in additional funding from carbon credit trading schemes currently under development by DEP  – will be the largest green grift ever.

DEP bureaucrats and their corrupt conservation cheerleaders are obviously salivating over all this money.

Already, the Pinelands Preservation Alliance just received a huge grant from DEP. The money is for work outside the boundaries of the Pinelands – in the Highlands – and for a water quality restoration project that is way beyond the scope of PPA’s historical program focus and staff experience and capabilities. (NJ DEP Press release:

Pinelands Preservation Alliance: $581,500
The project calls for installing 80 green stormwater infrastructure projects surrounding 10 public lakes, five in the Highlands and five in the Pinelands. Converting 130,000 square feet of drainage area to green stormwater infrastructure will improve the functionality of the lakes, which suffer from pollutant overloading and limit recreational uses.

PPA is not going to bite the DEP hand that already feeds it and is dangling considerably more future funding.

Carleton is building his little Empire. He’s using Mike Catania’s entrepreneurial model. This is obvious.

Already, according to an 12/5/22 email from Emile DeVito that defended the DEP logging plan, the NJ Conservation Foundation “partners” with the DEP Forest Fire Service, who conduct controlled burns (we already knew that) and logging (we didn’t know that!) on NJCF lands:

Hi Bill. I have enclosed an aerial photo of the firebreak “thinning from the ground up” that NJFFS did for NJCF at the Franklin Parker Preserve.

Already, the NJCF “partners” with the Pentagon to manage wildfire risks in the Pinelands:

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

NJCF is not going to oppose logging practices they already engage in and get funded for.

The NJCF military partnership raises a whole other layer of corruption – recently confirmed by the Mayor of Bass River Township in a very detailed story written by veteran reporter Bill Bonvie in the Pine Barrens Tribune:

When Bass River Township Mayor Deborah Buzby-Cope was asked at a Dec. 5 township commission meeting about the tree-thinning plan, she responded there had been a lot of fires by the [US Air Force Warren Grove] bombing range and it was her understanding that “they want to have an area that is cleared out so they can stop it from coming this way.”

But when the mayor was then asked whether she was “OK with it,” she replied, “It’s not that we’re OK with it – they’re going to do it.”

So much for respecting local concerns.

I wrote about that possible military role recently, see:

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

Both PPA and NJCF have gross conflicts of interest and gross scientific bias in this debate and both organizations are corrupt. Their credibility is now shot. I hope it was worth it to them.

So, when things don’t make sense, as my friend said: assume graft and follow the money.

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