WolfeNotes.com

Minutes Of Meeting Misrepresented Commisioner Wallner’s Criticism Of DEP’s Plan

My Comments Were Sanitized Completely – Orwell’s Winston Smith At Work

Part One – Commisioner Wallner’s remarks

From the beginning, I have repeatedly stated that this debate is based on a highly unusual and systematic pattern of errors, poor judgment, flawed science, suppression of information, intimidation of critics, manipulation of the media, bad faith lies, half truths, spin, distortion, misrepresentation, and omission of material science and facts.

So today, we drill down on another example of highly misleading practices.

Today we will focus on the misrepresentaion of Pinelands Commisioner Wallner’s important remarks and criticisms. Tomorrow we focus on my own. For now, I’ll simply say that the whitewash of my criticisms are far worse than Wallner’s.

Ironically, I came across the minutes of the Pinelands Commission’s October 14 meeting today after reading my letter to the Editor of the South Jersey Times, which I wrote to correct their errors (read published version of LTE).

The editors at SJT revised my LTE. (here is my original).

The version they published included a link to the Pinelands Commission minutes in a sentence that mischaracterized Commisioner Wallner’s remarks.

Here is what I wrote to describe Wallner’s remarks:

He [Wallner] concluded that there was no justification for the DEP plan in terms of reducing wildfire risks.

But the SJT editors deleted my “no justification for the DEP plan” claim and replaced it with a statement that Wallner merely was:

questioning its justification.

[Note: Wallner and I were using the term lack of a “justification” as regulatory expert, in terms of document text, as in NEPA’s project “Purpose and Need” requirements.]

My original is a strong statement and it was based on the following facts:

1. On the verbatim remarks.

Wallner stated that DEP had not provided a wildfire risk reduction justification in the DEP plan and that the Pinelands Commission staff had not reviewed and approved any such justification.

Wallner then stated that he himself had reviewed the maps and found no risks to people or property.

He said DEP merely assumed that such risks existed (see his words below: i.e. “it’s a given” that “wildfire is of consequence”.)

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

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

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

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

2. On the fact that I reviewed the DEP plan and the Pinelands Commission’s approval and those documents did not provide a justification.

But here’s how SJT editors toned down what I wrote. They even inserted new material I never wrote about Wallner’s abstention. In making these revisions they softened my characterization of Wallner’s criticism and distorted what he said:

Pinelands Commission member Doug Wallner, a retired National Park Service wildfire expert and Burlington County appointee, reviewed the DEP maps, and found no people or property near the section to be logged and the proposed 13 miles of clearcut firebreak, questioning its justification. (Wallner abstained in the commission’s vote to approve the plan.)

Wallner did a lot more than “question the justification” for the DEP plan. He stated as a fact that DEP provided no justification and that his expert review found no justification.

Wallner went further and questioned not only the lack of the justification, but the scale, need for and impacts of DEP’s forestry, even if it were justified:

It’s the forestry over 1,400, well I guess it’s bout 1,000 to 1,400 acres that concerns me.

Why something quite that dramatic would have to take place to reduce a hazard.[…]

Like, What is the threat?

Here is how the Pinelands Commission minutes summarized and whitewashed Wallner’s remarks. They too soften the criticism and misrepresent his remarks:

Commissioner Wallner said he was supportive of the fuelbreak, and the conditions outlined in the report seemed reasonable. He said he would have liked to see a no-action alternative addressed and further clarity on why the 1,300 acres of forestry is necessary. He said it would have been helpful to know the consequences of extreme wildfire in this area, particularly whether there are communities at risk.

But that is NOT what Wallner said.

Wallner never said he “supported” the fuel break. He said it “seemed reasonable“.

He abstained from the vote so he did not support the DEP plan.

Wallner did not question “whether there are communities at risk”.

He didn’t ask a question. He stated that he reviewed the DEP maps and “didn’t see any communities nearby or things that are significantly threatened from extreme wildfire.”

The minutes completely misrepresented Wallner’s remarks, which are memorialized on YouTube video and not in question.

Similarly, the South Jersey Times, in correcting their fact error via my LTE also misrepresented Wallner’s remarks.

This is no accident or inadvertent error. Both misrepresentations serve the same purpose: to downplay Wallner’s concerns and criticism.

Here are his verbatim remarks: (watch and listen, beginning at time 40 minutes, 20 seconds)

I have some comments.

First of all, I wasn’t part of the earlier discussion of the original application. But in reviewing amendment, a map like we just saw would have been helpful.

I was able to check out some of the parcels on an interactive map tool so that helped at least get me in the ballpark of where the proposal was. Some of those maps would have been helpful in there review.

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

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

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

The full break seemed relatively reasonable. Actually, the conditions (imposed by the staff) seemed reasonable as well.

If it was more clear why this is necessary. I’d just like to see more of a fleshing out of the no action” alternative. Like, What is the threat?

I guess in summary, those are my comments.

[After response by Pinelands staff Chuck Horner]

The actual firebreak seems reasonable. Given the areas where there are T&E species [are] dealt with.

It’s the forestry over 1,400, well I guess it’s bout 1,000 to 1,400 acres that concerns me.

Why something quite that dramatic would have to take place to reduce a hazard.

So, it seems like 2 separate things. There’s a forestry and a fire break.

end

LaTourette Explicitly Threatened A Lawsuit

Overtly Appealed To The Loyalty Of Murphy’s New Political Appointees

Pinelands Commission Had Refused To Approve DEP Logging Plan For 15 Years

Back in February, at a time when Murphy DEP Commissioner LaTourette was testifying to the NJ Senate Environment Committee and grossly exaggerating wildfire risks (see: Murphy DEP Caught Blowing Smoke On Wildfires), he also was conducting a series of press events (stunts) in the Pinelands, again stoking public fear of wildfires (don’tcha just love than manly man monogrammed new shirt!)

At the same time he engaged this PR campaign blitz, behind the scenes, Commissioner LaTourette was twisting arms at the Pinelands Commission to pressure them to approve DEP’s logging plan, under the pretext of wildfire prevention.

Commissioner LaTourette wrote the Commission a letter on February 4, 2022, expressing his frustration with the Commission’s failure to approve DEP’s logging plan for the last 15 years, most recently last December.

In that February 4 letter (copy provided upon request), LaTourette began with an overt and transparently political appeal to Gov. Murphy’s new appointments. He urged them to break with the past and be loyal to the Murphy DEP team. He wrote:

Our senior leadership team at the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) looks forward to getting acquainted with those new to the Commission, and to meeting with your membership soon to discuss our shared priority of protecting the public’s natural resources and our opportunities to better collaborate in fulfilling this important mission

Get it? Those “new to the Commission” are Gov. Murphy’s political appointees (Matos, incredibly a newbie installed as Chair, and McCurry). This isn’t even a dog whistle – it’s right up there with Nixon like loyalty demands.

This is a totally inappropriate political tactic – which is exactly what the environmental groups and NJ media lambasted Gov. Christie for.

Commissioner LaTourette then explicitly threatened to sue the Pinelands Commission if they failed to approve DEP’s logging plan. He wrote:

This is a totally inappropriate legal threat. This kind of lawsuit threat might work well in the corporate sector LaTourette is familiar with, but that’s not how government to government cooperation is supposed to work (and the Pinelands is a statutorily independent Commission under NJ law that also implements federal law).

It is a strong armed intimidation mobster tactic – which is exactly what the environmental groups and NJ media lambasted Gov. Christie for. 

Christie’s politicization and strong armed tactics were denounced: (Star Ledger editorial)

And then there was his manipulation of the venerable Pinelands Commission, which he politicized in order to jam a 22-mile pipeline through the most pristine piece of real estate in New Jersey, and help with the conversion of a Cape May County power plant from coal to natural gas.

Yet we get crickets on Murphy’s manipulations.

I guess that’s just how former corporate lawyers roll and how they strong arm and secure government approvals for really bad projects like the Gibbstown LNG export project LaTourette served as lead legal Counsel for just days before joining DEP.

LaTourette then insidiously went on to literally threaten the Pinelands Commission with blame, in the event that they failed to approve the DEP plan and a wildfire later resulted in fatalities – it’s be all your fault! He wrote:

Latourette then goes on to demand immediate approval

Immediately! Can you fucking believe that?

That “immediate” demand would not even allow for the legally required public notice comment and public hearing process! Who the hell does he think he is?

This is incredible overt political coercion and destruction of public participation.

LaTourette thenadmits that DEP has failed to secure approval of this plan for 15 years:

How could he demand “immediate” approval is none were forthcoming for 15 years?

Equally disturbing, in a shameless attempt at emotional manipulation, LaTourette invoked legitimate sympathy for the deaths of several NJ forest fire fighters. He wrote:

How low can you go when you exploit a man’s death for political gain?

Finally, LaTourette falsely claims that significant people and property would be put at risk if the Commission failed to approved the DEP plan:

The management of this forest, through the creation of firebreaks and density reduction, is designed to establish a safer area for firefighting operations and an increased opportunity to prevent large wildfires from impacting neighboring towns, private businesses, residences, and the Garden State Parkway. A wildfire affecting any of these assets could significantly and adversely impact public safety, including potential impacts to evacuation activities.

This is a claim that was specifically refuted by Pinelands Commissioner Wallner – a retired *National Park Service wildfire expert – who stated on the public record that he reviewed the maps and saw little to no people and property anywhere near the forest break and logging.

So, it’s no wonder that when I discovered the existence of this letter, and immediately filed an OPRA public records request for it, DEP denied that request and redacted the letter, see:

• Smoking Gun DEP Emails Show That DEP Commissioner LaTourette Personally Intervened To Pressure Pinelands Commission To Approve DEP Logging Plan

Note: “This includes the letter the Commissioner sent as well”

I challenged that OPRA denial and recently received a copy of the letter.

After reading it, I can see why they wanted to keep this piece of garbage well swept under the rug.

I’ve written from day one that LaTourette was a dangerous and disgraceful hack.

This letter confirms and validates that, for sure.

So, now that the letter is out there, maybe someone will ask DEP and the Pinelands Commission a few tough questions, like:

• Why did the Pinelands Commission refuse to approved the DEP plan for 15 years?

• Why did they do so now?

• Was LaTourette’s threat of a lawsuit a factor?

• Were Gov. Murphy’s new political appointments, who both voted YES to approve the DEP plan, the deciding factor?

• Did The US Air Force have any role in the decision? See:

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

*corrected 12/13/22

Ex. Director Carleton Montgomery Directs Junior Staffer To Walk The Plank

PPA Puff Piece Provides Pitiful Platitudes

Let me first state right up front that Carleton Montgomery is a despicable and dishonorable coward. And a gaslighting liar. And possibly a plagiarist as well (see #8 below).

Instead of publicly defending the controversial DEP logging plan that he supported for two years in behind closed doors meetings consumed with making quiet compromises with DEP, he forced his most junior staffer to write a blog post defending the DEP plan.

And this blog post was written AFTER the Commission approved the plan and the critics, like myself, first became aware of the project and started to protest and seek a veto by Gov. Murphy.

Carleton directed a young woman, Heidi Yeh, Policy Director, who joined PPA just this year, who has no forestry science or land use or regulatory expertise or experience, and who is likely distracted by writing her PhD dissertation at Rutgers on unrelated Marine and Coastal Science issues, to post on PPA’s blog, this pitiful capitulation, which is riddled with fact errors, assumptions, unsubstantiated premises, lack of relevant information, and flawed science:

• Forest Management Plan in Bass River State Forest is Necessary

Here is my first round of questions and comments to the author of that piece – criticism I feel terrible in having to write to her, when Carleton bears responsibility and should be the target of this criticism. (I apologize for the screwed up font, which I can’t seem to fix):

(and I thought that candidates for the PhD degree in science had been taught to honor the scientific method, which includes, among other things, weighing all available credible evidence in reaching conclusions and striving to eliminate bias. The informal blog format and engagement in a “policy” domain does not alleviate a scientist of that burden of basic reasoning and thinking skills.)

Hi – I’ve been writing quite a bit on the DEP plan and a mutual friend just sent me your blog post, so I’d like to ask you a few questions, OK?

I’ll do this in 2 steps: first, a few questions about your awareness of relevant available information and then some questions on the substance (in a second email).

By way of introduction, I’m a retired DEP policy planner (13 years), policy Director of NJ Sierra Chapter (7 years) and Director of NJ Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) (10 years).

I see you’re in coastal science at Rutgers, so you can say hello and ask Professor Mike Kennish about me if necessary. I worked with him on some of his Barnegat Bay work. I also note your interest in [the role of the scientist in] policy, so you might want to check out a piece I wrote about that topic and the stance of certain scientists at Rutgers and Princeton, see:

Jim Hansen’s Talk at Princeton Provides A Sharp Contrast to Rutgers Climate Conference On Role Of Scientist

http://www.wolfenotes.com/2013/10/jim-hansens-talk-at-princeton-provide-sharp-contrast-to-rutgers-climate-science/

You wrote this, which is obviously targeted at my work, so I think I deserve the courtesy of a reply:

“Unfortunately, there has been some hyperbole in criticisms raised for the first time after the Commission approved the plan”

My criticisms are fact based and grounded in science and law and reflect 35 years of professional experience and graduate school level training (Cornell). They are not “hyperbole”. In terms of coming “after” the approval, as described below, I was affirmatively prevented from reviewing documents and timely submitting comments. Your comments are false and personally offensive. [That “after the fact” BS is amazing criticism, in light of the fact that PPA and NJCF kept this DEP plan quiet and off the public radar for 2 years.]

1. Your bio notes you joined PPA in 2022 – were you involved in PPA’s 2 year long review of the plan, which you note began in 2020? If not, who was? How did you review that process to gain sufficient knowledge to vouch for it in your own words?

Do you have training or experience in forestry, or DEP and CMP regulations?

2. You note that:

“Pinelands Preservation Alliance and the New Jersey Conservation Foundation were the only members of the public who provided substantive comments to DEP and the Pinelands Commission during the development and review of this plan.“

Were you aware that I filed a petition for rulemaking to the DEP and Pinelands Commission on these specific issues of forest management, wildfire and land use earlier this year, and that petition was denied and gathered no support from PPA and NJCF?

Were you aware that I learned of this project by reading the Commission’s July Monthly Management Report and immediately filed an OPRA public records request on August 9 for the DEP plan and related Commission review documents? Are you aware that the Pinelands Commission staff denied that request on the basis that they had “no responsive records”?

Were you aware that I then attempted to file public comments on the DEP plan, in the absence of any documents, which were rejected by staff because they were submitted after the close of the public comment period?

The fact that there was no public participation other than PPA and NJCF is because there was no public knowledge of the plan and DEP and the Commission actively suppressed information.

So, why were no other members of the public given a heads up and opportunity to participate in this informal review process by PPA and NJCF?

Are you aware that when a controversial project comes along, NJ environmental groups typically issue “action alerts” to the public and their members to allow participation (or they issue press releases, or blog posts).

Did PPA do ANY of that? For the 2 YEARS they negotiated with DEP?

3. Are you familiar with the DEP land use, water quality, and forestry regulations and Pinelands CMP provisions that apply to this project (or provide loopholes, exemptions, voluntary standards, etc)? Do you have regulatory training and experience?

Are you aware that Stacey Roth, Pinelands Counsel, has taken the legal position that the Pinelands CMP does not apply to greenhouse gas emissions or climate change impacts and therefore are not regulated under the CMP?

The same loopholes – and more – apply to DEP regulations (more on that in next post, especially ad your blog post praises specific regulatory aspects).

4. Did you personally review the DEP plan and the Pinelands Commission’s approval document (w/conditions)?

5. You write:

“Our fundamental criteria for evaluating any forest management proposal on public land are whether it has a legitimate justification,“

Are you aware of Pinelands Commissioner Wallner’s analysis and comments on the plan – he’s a retired *National Park Service wildfire expert?

Wallner stated on the public record that he reviewed the maps and found little to no people or property at risk and therefore found no justification for the project. He also said DEP provided no wildfire justification for the project in the Plan. He also said DEP conducted no alternatives analysis (like required under NEPA) or consideration of a “no action” alternative. (NJ does not have a State NEPA law, so there is no EIS required).

Wallner’s analysis directly contradicts the headline, assertions, and conclusions of your blog post. His analysis is not mentioned in your blog post. Are you comfortable with that as a scientist?

6. Are you aware of Pinelands Commissioner Lohbauer’s analysis – both orally on the public record and in writing after to explain his no vote?

Again, Lohbauer’s findings and conclusions directly contradict your analysis, yet are not even mentioned in it.

Again, are you comfortable with that as a scientist? 

You feel confident to directly contradict a retired USFS wildfire expert and a longstanding leading Pinelands Commissioner? And without even mentioning their criticism? That arrogant approach contradicts the conclusion of your blog post:

“PPA supports plans that take into account all aspects of Pinelands health and diversity, and welcomes comments based upon science and experience about how best to protect this unique ecosystem.”

7. You state (with no supporting citations)

“Modern forestry science advocates that this ladder be cut off to prevent more destructive forms of fire.”

Where did you get that? From DEP forestry people?

Have you reviewed Chad Hansen’s (PhD, forest ecology) work that was presented to the Pinelands Commission in March 2021 by Leslie Sauer (PhD forest ecologist)?

Are Chad and Leslie somehow ancient and scientifically misguided?

Again, no mention of that critically relevant and important scientific work.

8. You used two phrases that caught my eye:

“Critics that focus only on the number of trees, but not their size and type, are quite literally missing the forest for the trees. The resulting forest will be a healthy native Pine Barrens habitat.”

Curious, both those phrases were attributed to Carleton Montgomery in the Associated Press story.

Did you write those words? If so, did Carleton plagiarize them? Or did Carleton edit them into your piece.

Regardless, your claim are false. My criticism – and that of all others I am aware of – did not “focus only on the number of trees”.

[And what are your definitions, criteria, and standards that support this conclusion that the DEP logging will result in a “healthy native Pine Barrens habitat.”

My next inquiry will focus on fact errors in your post and other substance.

I appreciate a timely and thoughtful reply.

Bill Wolfe

*corrected 12/13/22

This Is The Fake, “Managed” and “Thinned” Forest And Landscape They Want To Create

(“This Pinelands forest is being managed under a Forest Stewardship Plan to increase ecosystem health, reduce fuel, and improve habitat for rare plants and animals (Kristen Meistrell, NJA)” – Source: US NRCS and NJ Audubon Fact Sheet

[Correction below]

The photo above illustrates exactly what the government loggers and their government funded “conservation” community friends – like NJ Audubon, Pinelands Preservation Alliance and NJ Conservation Foundation – want the NJ Pineland Forests to look like. (take a look at another Pinelands “Forest Stewardship” project, by many of the same organizations – and see NJA “valued for their timber” photo below).

This is the “thinned” “actively managed” forest and “savanna” landscape they want to create.

But they don’t want you to see that, know about that, or object to that.

And, as I’ve documented based on government records, they are doing everything, and I mean everything – including: 1) violating laws on release of public information; 2) violating State ethics laws that mandate recusal; 3) redacting and suppressing public information; 3) holding secret off the record meetings to negotiate; 4) using the DEP Commissioner to pressure Pinelands Commissioners; 5) ramming through regulatory approvals with no public participation; 6) excluding scientific experts from reviewing the plan; 7) intimidating and silencing critics; 8) spinning the press; and 9) flat out lying bout facts on the impact of the plan – all done in a systematic strategy to suppress information and prevent you from seeing what they want to do to our forests.

The Associated Press yesterday published a story about the DEP’s Pinelands logging plan, see:

• Fire plan would cut 2.4 million New Jersey Pinelands trees

Despite the holiday weekend, the AP story is generating widespread howls of outrage, as people learn about this project for the first time. The story has gone national, but unfortunately may come too late to build pressure on Gov. Murphy to veto the plan.(just what the “conservation” groups and their DEP friends sought).

There were damning and revealing quotes in that story, that expose exactly how NJ DEP and their funded “conservation” friends view the Pinelands forests.

Foresters used to view forest ecosystems as “timber”. Now they see “fuels”.

Here’s NJ Gov. Murphy DEP Chief Forester’s view of the World Heritage Site & Congressionally designated National Reserve, the unique Pinelands forest ecosystem:

“This is like liquid gasoline in the Pinelands”

And here’s your quote of the day – by Murphy DEP Assistant Commissioner for Parks and Forests John Cecil, who shows such ecological concern for logging Pinelands Forests and cutting 2.4 million trees:

“Maybe you could get a couple fence posts out of these trees.”

Imagine that: a “couple of fenceposts”. Talk about a mess of pottage!

And here’ your Daily ORWELL: remarks by Carleton Montgomery, “watchdog” of Pinelands forests. He describes the forest after logging 1300 acres, cutting 2.4 million trees, & 50 ft. wide clearcut along 13 MILES of roads:

“The resulting forest will be a healthy native Pine Barrens habitat.”

(Carleton previously wrote to defend the DEP plan by claiming that there would be no reduction in canopy cover – a flat out lie I called out that is now exposed by the AP story – and described a 13 MILE long, 50 foot wide clear-cut, bisected by a road, a “meadow”. He’s a fool and a liar and now everybody knows that.)

Words from their own mouths! Their own photos! You can’t make this stuff up.

The DEP logging project also exposed institutional conflicts of interest. Government funds groups and “forestry” projects and in return they get green cover from the “conservation” community (who are really acting like forestry consultants and land owners  -in this case, NJ Audubon). We show you just some of the money to follow (NRCS/NJA fact sheet):

The AP story reported that the DEP logging plan divided the environmental community.

That is misleading: the only groups that “support” this DEP plan financially benefit from federal government and DEP funding and have gross financial and organizational conflicts of interest and severe scientific bias (i.e. PPA, NJCF, NJ Audubon).

As NJ Audubon themselves openly admit: forests are “valued for their timber” (check out the caption)

Below is my letter to the Pinelands Commission, which addresses just the Pinelands Commission staff abuses:

[11/28//22 – Correction. I mistakenly cut and pasted a broken link. The link to the Cecil presentation was not killed. My apologies to Pinelands Staff who kindly corrected my error this morning. I wish they were that fast and responsive to my criticisms! I stand by the rest of the criticism.

Here’s the full and correct link:

https://www.nj.gov/pinelands/home/presentations/NJ%20Pinelands%20Forests%2017Mar2021.pdf

Dear Commissioner Lohbauer:

I am writing concerning disturbing recent practices by Pinelands Commission staff regarding the controversial DEP forestry plan. The effect of these practices has been to suppress public release of public information and deny the public an opportunity to participate in the Commission’s decisions, contrary to law and transparent and ethical government.

As you know, in August, staff denied my OPRA request for public documents on that proposed plan, claiming that there were “no responsive records”. (the exact same OPPRA request was later made to DEP, and they provided many documents). This denial came at a time the plan was undergoing staff review, negotiations with DEP were being conducted, and the public and the Commission had not been notified (prior to the formal public notice and public hearing and the Commission’s October 14 approval vote).

I attempted to submit written comments on the DEP plan, in the absence of the application, but those comments were correctly rejected by staff due to closure of the public comment period (but I was unaware that a public notice and comment procedure was even underway, as a result of the OPRA denial).

Today, I just learned of a third troubling staff practice on this same application.

According to the Pinelands Commission’s march 2021 Monthly Report:

• “The LUCIS Committee met on March 17, 2021 and received presentations on forest management from Leslie Sauer, author, founder of Andropogon Associates and founding board member of the Northeast Region of the Society for Ecological Restoration, and John Cecil, Vice President for Stewardship, NJ Audubon Society.”

https://www.nj.gov/pinelands/infor/online/March2021ManagementReportFINAL.pdf

The Cecil presentation was posted to the Commission’s website in the following link:

https://www.nj.gov/pinelands/home/presentations/NJ%20Pinelands%20Forests

I used that link in a complaint to the State Ethics Commission challenging Cecil’s failure to recuse as DEP Assistant Commissioner overseeing the exact forestry practices he advocated at NJ Audubon and presented to the Commission.

I also posted that link many times on Wolfenotes.com, as a visual example of the “forest thinning” practices Cecil supported, including photos he used in that March 2021 presentation. 

The link is now dead.

Who killed it and why? Where is the Cecil presentation now archived?

Take a look at the attached photo and its to hard to see why – this is a “thinned” Pinelands forest Cecil used as a positive example.

Respectfully,

Bill Wolfe

ps – the Cecil presentation is also mentioned as a highlight in the Commission’s Annual Report (2021):

“The Committee hosted presentations on forest management during its March meeting. The presentations were delivered by Leslie Sauer, author, founder of Andropogon Associates and founding board member of the Northeast Region of the Society for Ecological Restoration, and John Cecil, Vice President for Stewardship, NJ Audubon Society.”

https://www.nj.gov/pinelands/infor/online/annual/20-Annual%20Report%202021%20(Final%20Draft).pdf

DEP Rammed Plan Though Pinelands Commission With No Public Awareness Or Debate

Logging Conflicts With Gov. Murphy’s Climate Commitments

The Associated Press (AP) ran an important story today on DEP’s little known but insane Pinelands logging plan:

• Fire plan would cut 2.4 million New Jersey Pinelands trees

There is still time for Gov. Murphy to veto the minutes of the Pinelands Commission to block implementation of this plan. Call him and demand that he veto it: 609-292-6000.

Alternately, DEP Commissioner LaTourette could withdraw the plan voluntarily as a good faith move to allow public deliberation and expert scientific peer review of the deeply flawed DEP plan, which seriously conflicts with Gov. Murphy’s climate commitments, DEP climate science and the goals of the Global Warming Response Act.

See my letter below to legislators urging intervention with DEP and the Governor.

———- Original Message ———-

From: Bill WOLFE <>

To: senbsmith <SenBSmith@njleg.org>, sengreenstein <sengreenstein@njleg.org>, “kduhon@njleg.org” <kduhon@njleg.org>, Anjuli Ramos <anjuli.ramos@sierraclub.org>, “eileen.murphy@njaudubon.org” <eileen.murphy@njaudubon.org>

Cc: Mark Lohbauer <mlohbauer@jgscgroup.com>, “Grogan, Susan [PINELANDS]” <Susan.Grogan@pinelands.nj.gov>

Date: 11/25/2022 1:43 PM

Subject: AP story on DEP Pinelands logging plan

Dear Chairman Smith, Senator Greenstein, Commissioner LaTourette, and Forestry Task Force Co-Chairs:

The Associated Press (AP) ran an important story today on DEP’s plan to log over 1,300 acres and significantly reduce canopy cover by cutting and removing 2.4 million trees – including a 50 foot wide clearcut along 13 road miles as a “firebreak”. (see below for a link to the AP story)

• Fire plan would cut 2.4 million New Jersey Pinelands trees

https://apnews.com/article/wildfires-fires-forests-business-trees-a53a63f85ef664eb70df00af2d1c3bf8

Unfortunately, the DEP plan was approved by the Pinelands Commission, but with virtually no public awareness, debate, or testimony. The Pinelands Commission even denied my OPRA request for documents on the plan during their review and prior to their approval. This was an extraordinary bad faith violation of OPRA by the Commission staff.

The DEP plan can still be blocked by Gov. Murphy’s powers under the Pinelands Act to veto the minutes of the Commission.

The plan was strongly opposed by Pinelands Commissioner Lohbauer for multiple forestry, habitat, water quality and climate policy reasons, including the fact that the DEP rushed the plan in order to evade pending CMP amendments that would establish as “no net loss of trees” policy.

The plan drew criticism by Commissioner Wallner – a retired *National Park Service wildfire expert – because it lacked any justification based on wildfire risk reduction (Wallner specifically noted that there were little to no at risk people of property near the logging and “firebreak”).

I strongly opposed the plan, primarily on climate grounds: (AP story):

“It is unacceptable to be cutting down trees in a climate emergency, and cutting 2.4 million small trees will severely reduce the future ability to store carbon,” said Bill Wolfe, a former department official who runs an environmental blog.

Given: 1) the lack of public awareness or involvement, 2) the Pinelands Commission’s OPRA violations which suppressed public information, 3) the criticisms by Pinelands Commissioners, 4) the lack of justification, 5) adverse ecological and climate impacts and 6) direct conflicts with the goals of the Global Warming Response Act, DEP climate science and the Governor’s climate commitments, I strongly urge you to conduct oversight of DEP and deny appropriations for this work in DEP’s upcoming budget.

I also urge you to contact Gov. Murphy and urge him to veto the minutes of the Pinelands Commission to block implementation of the DEP plan. A 10 day statutory clock is running, which might toll on or about. Nov. 29.

This is particularly important given the DEP’s emerging climate carbon sequestration science, planning, and policy and regulatory development (including RGGI), as well as the deliberations of the Forestry Task Force.

Respectfully,

Bill Wolfe

*corrected 12/13/22