WolfeNotes.com

• REPOST IN LIGHT OF LA WILDFIRES

In light of all the misinformation and disinformation about the LA wildfires, today I repost this December 2022 post about the dynamics that drive the intensity and spread of wildfires.

I also need to mention the fact that the Murphy DEP denied a petition for rulemaking to force DEP to restrict new development in extreme fire hazard lands and retrofit existing development to reduce wildfire risk, see DEP denial document:

https://dep.nj.gov/wp-content/uploads/rules/petition/pet20220309noa.pdf

Repost:

• Extremely Dry Conditions, High Winds, And Wind Blown Embers Drove Wildfire
• Cutting Trees Will Make All Those Conditions Worse
• Mullica River Failed To Serve As Firebreak

The DEP held a video press briefing on June 21, 2022 on the Wharton State Forest wildfire this summer (watch the whole thing).

In that video, DEP Forest Fire Chief McLaughlin explained what drove the intensity and spread of the fire. (He starts at time 2:00):

Direct attack measures were not effective in containing the fire because of extremely intense fire behavior, which resulted from very low humidity, unprecedented dew points, sustained winds at 23 mph with wind gusts up to 30 mph. This fire was sending burning embers causing spot fires long distances and this causes our resources to have to scatter about and try to track down these spot fires so that the fire doesn’t continue to grow larger. […]

Later in the afternoon and evening on Sunday, the fire turned with the wind and came back west across the Mullica River and stated to travel in a southwest – south direction towards Batsto Village. … With variable winds predicted for Monday and Tuesday, and possible sea breeze and change of wind direction to the south, then we became concerned that fire, which would continue to burn for several days, that it could change directionand move even to the north.

Let’s repeat the factors that drove the intensity of fire:

extremely intense fire behavior, which resulted from very low humidity, unprecedented dew points, sustained winds at 23 mph with wind gusts up to 30 mph.

Let’s repeat what drove the spread of the fire:

This fire was sending burning embers causing spot fires long distances and this causes our resources to have to scatter about and try to track down these spot fires so that the fire doesn’t continue to grow larger.

Notice there is no mention of any ladder fuels as a factor in driving the fire.

Notice that there is no mention of excessive fuel loads or tree density as factors in the spread or direction or intensity of the fire.

The DEP’s Pinelands Forestry Plan is designed to cut and remove 2.4 million trees, which DEP claims are “ladder fuels” that allow the fire to spread and burn more intensely.

DEP claims that the forest is too dense (too high a fuel load) and that cutting these trees – which they call “forest thinning” – will result in fires that burn “low and slow”.

But by DEP’s own statements, it was extremely dry conditions, high winds, and blowing embers that drove the intensity, not “ladder fuels” or “fuel load”.

Therefore, according to DEP’s own analysis, DEP’s forest thinning plan will not be effective in reducing the intensity or spread of wildfire.

Just the opposite: thinning the forest opens the canopy to sunlight, which dries out the forest vegetation, duff, and soils, which makes them MORE combustable and prone to wildfire.

Thinning the forest also makes the wind penetrate into the forest, which also dries the forest out and increases the winds acceleration of the fire, and the spread of the fire via wind blown embers.

Instead of “low and slow” wildfires DEP is creating conditions for more “hot and fast” wildfires.

Finally, DEP’s briefing noted that the Mullica River bisected the fire, but that the fire unexpectedly crossed the river, based on wind speed and direction and blowing embers.

If the Mullica River failed to serve as a “firebreak”, the DEP’s plan to clearcut along 13 miles of Pinelands roads surely won’t work as a firebreak either, particularly under extreme conditions: dry, high winds, wind blown embers.

I filed an OPRA public records request for DEP’s fire investigation and reports to DEP Commissioner LaTourette, as well as the facts that supported all the claims DEP made in this press briefing.

The would include how many acres of “backfires” DEP created.

We’ll provide a followup as soon as DEP responds.

[End Note: DEP denied the OPRA request by claiming that the documents I requested were draft and/or deliberative and exempt from OPRA. So they cover up facts and science. Intolerable.]

Classic by Barry McGuire  version  (1965)

Murphy DEP Has Approved Millions Of Square Feet Of Warehouse Space During Tenure

The Murphy DEP recently issued another set of public notices for pending DEP approval of millions of square feet of poorly planned new warehouse space, located inappropriately on environmentally sensitive, rural, or farmland, see (hit the links for the public notice info, et al):

• January 6, 2025
  Proposed Amendment to the Lower Delaware Water Quality Management Plan
  … The proposed amendment, identified as Active ACQ. Warehousing Carneys Point/Catalano 1/AACHCP (Program Interest No. 435441, Activity No. AMD220003), would establish a new sewer service area (SSA) of 96.4 acres to serve proposed construction of two warehouses with associated office space, parking and stormwater infrastructure. Warehouse A is proposed to be 1.02 million square feet and is to be constructed on Block 268, Lots 5, 5.01, and 6, located to the south of Courses Landing Road in Carneys Point, Salem County. Warehouse B is proposed to be 276,138 square feet and is to be constructed on Block 255, Lots 13, 14, 14.01, 14.02 and 14.03 Carneys Point, Salem County. The proposed warehouses are to be served by a proposed onsite DGW wastewater treatment system to be located on Block 255, Lot 10.

 

• January 6, 2025
  Proposed Amendment to the Monmouth County Water Quality Management Plan
  … The proposed amendment, identified as Gaitway Farms (Program Interest No. 435462, Activity No. AMD220003), would expand the Western Monmouth Utilities Authority Pine Brook Sewage Treatment Plant (WMUA STP) sewer service area (SSA) by 35.53 acres to serve a proposed commercial development on Block 74, Lot 11.01 (portion) in Manalapan Township, Monmouth County. The proposed project consists of a 575,596 square foot (sf) warehouse building that includes 20,000 sf of office space.

 

• December 16, 2024
  Proposed Amendment to the Tri- County Water Quality Management Plan
  … The proposed amendment, identified as “2470 Route 206 Pemberton Warehouse” (Program Interest No. 435433, Activity No. AMD220010) would expand the sewer service area (SSA) of the Mount Holly Municipal Utilities Authority (MHMUA) Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) (NJPDES No. NJ0024015) by 57.75 acres to serve a proposed 812,500 square feet (SF) building consisting of 772,500 SF of warehouse space and 40,000 SF of office space located on a portion of Block 778, Lot 2.01, in Pemberton Township, Burlington County.

I’ve written many times to criticize the Murphy DEP’s failure to protect NJ’s landscape, communities, and natural resources from the explosion of warehouse growth by enforcing NJ’s environmental laws, yet the NJ press corps has give DEP a total pass.

NJ media instead have framed and focused stories almost exclusively on municipal “home rule” or various failed legislative efforts to strengthen the toothless State Plan. Most recently I wrote:

• Murphy DEP Rubber Stamps Approval of Another Huge Warehouse Development On Farmland.

In striking contrast, while the Murphy DEP diddles and rubber stamps regulatory approvals, the Fulop 2025 Gubernatorial campaign platform on the environment has proposed, among other things, a moratorium on warehouse approvals:

As Governor, Fulop would immediately issue an executive order to implement a statewide moratorium on warehouse approvals until a statewide study on best practices is completed. In addition, while respecting the rules of home rule that govern NJ municipalities, Fulop would push for statewide changes to land use laws, including supermajority requirements at zoning/planning boards for municipal approvals, additional environmental impact studies paid for by the applicant but selected by the municipality for neutrality, and require the applicant pay stormwater and impact fees.Until a process that is fair to residents is implemented and one that considers the long-term impact on NJ, the moratorium would exist under the Fulop Administration.

Back in June 2024, I wrote the Fulop campaign a memo, which recommended such a moratorium (I urge readers to read the whole thing), but Fulop did not go nearly as broad in scope as I recommended and he qualified the moratorium with “until” and limited reforms to merely a “study” of “best practices” (not enactment of laws and adoption of regulations) at the municipal level (not DEP and State Plan):

• Memo To The Fulop Campaign – Huge Opportunity To Lead On A Bold Progressive Agenda

1. I just checked your website for “policies”. You don’t have climate, energy, land use, environmental quality, parks, green cities, environment justice, or public health policies posted. Do NOT rely on the usual suspects to draft these policies. HUGE OPPORTUNITY HERE if done right (in policy substance, not just message and narrative).

[2.]

“3. Land use is back on the agenda. Don’t go for the single issue (e.g. warehouse) incremental crap. Adopt a moratorium on destruction of what’s left of NJ forests and farmlands. Go big on reforestation and urban forestry and urban parks. Put regulatory teeth in the State Plan. Time for bold leadership and big plans.”

Protect What’s Left!

That should be Fulop’s campaign slogan, because NJ’s is the nation’s most densely populated state and is already way past buildout and water and air quality are declining and fail to meet federal health based standards, statewide.

And the moratorium on new fossil infrastructure long sought by NJ climate activists is missing as well (as is any concept of the necessary phase out of existing fossil or mandates for electrification).

To his credit, Fulop also partially followed our recommendations and pledged to reinvest in State Parks and stop the privatization and corporate development of State Parks, including iconic Liberty State Park:

We plan to write more on these issues, but for today I just wanted to get the heads up on the proposed DEP WQMP approvals out there and show the striking contrast with the Fulop campaign.

DEP Privatizing Assessment Of Carbon Sequestration & Storage In NJ Forests

DEP is flying by the seat of their pants in an ad hoc and site specific fashion, totally reliant on private groups and contractors with scientific bias and economic interests in the outcome, and with zero transparency or accountability.

This is straight up privatization of NJ’s public forests and it’s being done in the dark.

Management of NJ’s forests to promote carbon sequestration and storage and adapt to climate impacts were the most important and controversial issues that were debated for months by Senate Environment Committee Chairman Bob Smith’s Forestry Legislative Task Force.

The Task Force issued its Report and recommendations – including a dissenting minority Report – almost 2 years ago. Their Legislative and regulatory reform recommendations have gone nowhere.

But none of that seems to have had any impact on the Murphy DEP’s climate and forest management policies and practices, which promote commercial logging in public forests as an acceptable form of “forest management”.

Given this backdrop, and the significant controversy over logging at Sparta Mountain Wildlife Management Area (WMA) – and other DEP logging fiasco’s at WMA’s – I was surprised to learn today that DEP has now expanded the justification for that logging to include carbon sequestration and storage and is implementing a carbon management program.

Today, via the NJ Open Public Record Act, I obtained a DEP approved “Carbon Assessment for Sparta Mountain WMA Stand 7/8 Activity”.

The “assessment” was submitted to the DEP by NJ Audubon. Audubon promotes forestry (logging), provides paid forest management consulting services, benefits from private and public grants to conduct forest management, and owns forested land. Thus they have gross scientific bias and economic conflicts of interest, particularly in light of emerging lucrative carbon credit markets and opportunities for carbon trading and carbon offsets in regulatory programs.

Despite these gross biases and conflicts, the Murphy DEP is relying on NJA to basically write their own ticket and define the policy objectives and scientific and technical methods for NJ’s forestry and climate related programs.

This is straight up privatization of NJ’s public forests and it’s being done in the dark.

See the letter I circulated below – this is unacceptable and must be stopped.

———- Original Message ———-

From: Bill WOLFE <b>

To: Silvia Solaun <ssolaun@gmail.com>, Dante DiPirro <dante.dipirro@gmail.com>, “dante@dantelawyer.com” <dante@dantelawyer.com>, “carleton@pinelandsalliance.org” <carleton@pinelandsalliance.org>, jason menegus <jwmenegus@hotmail.com>, Jaclyn Rhoads <jaclyn@pinelandsalliance.org>, Mark Lohbauer <mlohbauer@jgscgroup.com>, Julia Somers <julia@njhighlandscoalition.org>, “ben.spinelli@highlands.nj.gov” <ben.spinelli@highlands.nj.gov>, “Grogan, Susan [PINELANDS]” <Susan.Grogan@pinelands.nj.gov>, Anjuli Ramos <anjuli.ramos@sierraclub.org>, “Taylor McFarland, NJ Sierra Club” <taylor.mcfarland@sierraclub.org>, “dpringle1988@gmail.com” <dpringle1988@gmail.com>, domalley <domalley@environmentnewjersey.org>, “emile@njconservation.org” <emile@njconservation.org>, Matthew Smith <msmith@fwwatch.org>, Ken Dolsky <kdolsky@optonline.net>

Cc: senbsmith <SenBSmith@njleg.org>, sengreenstein <sengreenstein@njleg.org>, “senmckeon@njleg.org” <senmckeon@njleg.org>

Date: 01/08/2025 9:08 AM EST

Subject: DEP Forest Carbon Assessment Methods

Dear Climate and Forestry Leader – Attached is a Report submitted to DEP last year by NJ Audubon which provides an assessment of carbon and climate issues related to “management” (logging) at Sparta Mountain WMA:

Carbon Assessment for Sparta Mountain WMA Stand 7/8 Activity

The NJA analysis appears to be based on dated scientific literature and US Forest Service models – here are links to them:

ForGATE

https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/43540

NED – 3

https://research.fs.usda.gov/nrs/products/dataandtools/software/ned-3-ecosystem-management-decision-support

For comparison, here is a New York State analysis:

NEW YORK FOREST CARBON ASSESSMENT

https://www.esf.edu/cafri-ny/documents/cafri-report-2023.pdf

I lack the expertise to assess the NJA analysis or the USFS models. I do have sufficient expertise to know that models can be manipulated, vary in reliability, and are sensitive to and dependent on many subjective technical and value judgements about model design, assumptions, input parameters, and objectives.

I am very concerned because the NJA analysis, which was apparently accepted by the DEP, makes positive findings in terms of both carbon sequestration and storage resulting from NJA and DEP’s forms of “forest management” (logging).

I am also very concerned that DEP is implementing complex and controversial forest and climate management strategies and laying the groundwork for carbon credit generation and trading in the absence of:

• scientific peer review
• public involvement
• adopted standards, methods, models, Guidance, Technical Manuals, or protective regulations
• performance monitoring and assessment (and verification of carbon credits generated)
• staff and budget
• Legislative authorization and policy guidance

In other words, DEP is flying by the seat of their pants in an ad hoc and site specific fashion, totally reliant on private groups and contractors with scientific bias and economic interests in the outcome, and with zero transparency or accountability.

This is not acceptable.

Accordingly, I request that perhaps your organizations collectively retain expertise to review and critique the NJA assessment.

I also ask that you reach out to DEP to demand that they stop work on these various “forest management” projects pending adequate scientific and public oversight and adoption of a formal management program.

Bill Wolfe

Another News Management Job Brought To You By $100 Million From The Wm. Penn Foundation

All The News Money Can Buy

Today’s NJ Spotlight story that focuses on the Delaware River fisheries impacts of the drought is another illustration of news management, questionable journalistic ethics, and of sham science and spin from the NJ Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), see:

• Delaware River watershed drought: Good for the birds, the trout – not so much

I’ve long written about the water quality impacts from drought – a major issue that is again ignored by today NJ Spotlight story –  and I wrote specifically last month about concerns with trout impacts of low river flows and and NYC reservoir releases, see:

• The Murphy DEP Is Doing Nothing To Monitor Or Assess The Water Quality Impacts Of Drought On Drinking Water, Including Fisheries Or Ecological Impacts

[Note: DEP press spokespersons and NJ reporters should read NJ Geological Survey Reports, like this:

• History of Passing Flows In New Jersey, With Contemporary And Future Applications

The spin from DEP quotes in today’s NJ Spotlight story almost seems intended to rebut that criticism. So, I need to drill down on the falsehoods, omissions and misleading DEP claims.

First of all, the “journalistic source” for the NJ Spotlight story was created, funded by, and is a mouthpiece of the Wm. Penn Foundation ($50,000). They are the propaganda arm of Penn’s $100 million Delaware Watershed initiative. I’ve long been critical of Penn’s narrow, corporate friendly, and anti-regulatory issues focus and strategy. They often provide cover for regulatory failures and most always bring the safe “good news” that never offends the corporate and political powers that be. They always seem to manage to rely on “expert sources” from the groups and campaigns that they are funding.

In this case, Wm. Penn has pulled off a triple dip:

• Penn created and funds the news outlet that reported the story (Delaware Currents)
• Penn funds the “expert” source quoted by that news outlet (Friends of the Upper Delaware River). In turn, Friends of UD is part of a Penn funded coalition of groups and Penn funds an even larger interlocking set of “partners”. They are an incredibly inbred, transactional, and self serving group.
• Penn funds the secondary news outlet that picked up the story (NJ Spotlight)

The NJ Spotlight story begins on solid ground, with some accurate statements by the FUDR source about trout, the same points I made last month:

“It’s a perfect storm of conditions during a critical time for trout, particularly the brown trout that are spawning in the fall,” said Jeff Skelding, the executive director of Friends of the Upper Delaware River.

But then the story suddenly shifts to the DEP, who make a series of false, misleading and diversionary statements. So let’s drill down on each DEP quote to show how what they said is irresponsible, misleading or distorted – and what they left out is even worse.

[Note: DEP press spokespersons and NJ reporters should read NJ Geological Survey Reports, like this:

• History of Passing Flows In New Jersey, With Contemporary And Future Applications

After the FUDR highlight the negative impacts on trout, the DEP fisheries expert reveals that they don’t give a damn about any trout or wildlife issues up-river in New York:

“If we’re going to have a drought, we’re fortunate that it’s occurring from the fall into the winter,” said Shawn Crouse, chief of the Bureau of Freshwater Fisheries at the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s Fish & Wildlife division.

This DEP statement not only ignores up-river conditions in NY, it frames the issue as summer versus winter conditions, which narrows the focus to the water quality parameters of dissolved oxygen and temperature, conveniently ignoring concentrations of other pollutants that threaten drinking water, aquatic life, fisheries, and ecosystems. For example:

Oftentimes, in periods of low water in winter, chemicals or toxins will move more slowly through the stream system & exist in higher concentrations. This may cause chemical or physical characteristics to be worse during the winter months.

DEP even makes the lack of concern with up-river conditions explicit:

Unlike in the Upper Delaware, trout spawning seasons are less of a concern in the stretch of the Delaware River that passes through New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

“We don’t have year-round trout supporting conditions, so we actually don’t get any spawning,” Crouse said.

Gee, now what are “trout spawning conditions”? NJ waters are too polluted to support trout reproduction!

DEP then goes on to speculate about the “good news” on low drought flows:

Up the food chain, waterfowl may have an easier time finding food.

“If there’s less water, foraging for bald eagles and waterfowl should actually be a little bit easier, since the fish are a little bit more concentrated,” Crouse said.

That’s like the climate denial folks who make sham claims that the increasing CO2 levels driving global warming is actually GOOD, because it increases plant photosynthesis rates and agricultural productivity.

But here’s where DEP goes off the rails with misleading statements about science.

Brook trout, New Jersey’s only native trout species, do spawn in other parts of the state and some tributaries of the Delaware River.

“They are, for the most part, relegated to headwater streams,” Crouse said. “Fortunately, headwater streams have a lot of groundwater or springs feeding them, so they’re generally more consistent during summertime high temperatures or drought situations.”

This is false.

NJ headwater streams tend to run bone dry during the summer, even before actual drought conditions exist. Groundwater levels decline and don’t provide adequate recharge. In rural areas dependent on agricultural irrigation and wells, residential wells go dry (my well well dry in West Amwell). For example, take a look at Delaware tributaries Copper Creek and Alexauken Creek:

The DEP’s comments about the water quality impacts from wildfire again are misleading and a diversion.

In the spring, Justin Rozema, the NJDEP’s assistant fisheries biologist, will take a team to survey an area that may have been affected by wildfires.

“He is planning to do a fishery survey in proximity to one of the wildfires, in an attempt to determine its impact,” Crouse said. “The major threat there would be lost forest canopy, because that would allow additional solar impact on the stream, warming it up.”

First of all, the spring will be far too late to assess the water quality and ecological impacts of wildfire.

[Note: Back in the day (2002), DEP used to monitor water quality in real time during drought to assure no violations of water quality standards, see this NJGS Report:(@ p.34):

The major impacts on water quality are mostly immediate and short term, see: (California DFG)

Immediate Effects of Fire on Aquatic Systems

Forest fire often directly affects water quality in nearby streams and other bodies of water. These direct influences are also considered immediate effects, as they are manifest either during fire or very shortly thereafter. Here we describe the direct effects of forest fire on water temperature and chemistry that have been observed by scientists in the Northern Rockies. We then discuss expected and observed responses of aquatic invertebrates, amphibians, and fish to these fire-caused changes in water quality.

By waiting until spring to sample, DEP will miss most of the impacts. See no evil.

Second, DEP again tried to limit the scope of water quality issues to temperature.

Wildfires have dramatic impacts on water quality, and temperature is just one of many: (USGS)

• Water Quality After Wildfire

Wildfires pose a substantial risk to water supplies because they can lead to severe flooding, erosion, and delivery of sediment, nutrients, and metals to rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. The USGS works with federal and state land managers and local water providers to monitor and assess water quality after wildfires in order to help protect our Nation’s water resources.

After wildfire, loss of canopy vegetation and changes to soil properties can result in more water flowing over the land surface during storms, leading to flooding, erosion, and delivery of sediment, ash, pollutants, and debris to surface water. This can result in decreased water quality, loss of reservoir storage capacity, stream habitat degradation, and increased treatment costs for drinking water providers.

I’ve previously written about how logging in New York’s Catskill’s resulting in “100% trout mortality” in nearby streams due to toxic aluminum concentrations, see USGS:

• Effects of Forest Harvesting on Ecosystem Health in the Headwaters of the New York City Water Supply, Catskill Mountains, New York

“Clearcutting caused a large release of nitrate (NO3 -) from watershed soils and a concurrent release of inorganic monomeric aluminum (Alim), which is toxic to some aquatic biota. The increased soil NO3 – concentrations measured after the harvest could be completely accounted for by the decrease in nitrogen (N) uptake by watershed trees, rather than an increase in N mineralization and nitrification. The large increase in stream water NO3 – and Al concentrations caused 100-percent mortality of caged brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) during the first year after the clearcut and adversely affected macroinvertebrate communities for 2 years after the harvest.”

DEP ignored that science and denied my petition for rulemaking to set water quality standards for aluminum

So DEP wants to downplay any issues related to water quality – because if they knew, people might begin asking tough questions about their drinking water and how DEP manages public land and regulates development, water pollution, and drinking water.