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

DEP Abandoned Proposal To Impose Small Emission Reduction Requirements On Boilers

DEP Protects Large Fossil Polluters By Locking In Lax Emission Rates

The Murphy DEP just abandoned proposed rules that would require the gradual retrofit of boilers in certain buildings – veteran reporter Mike Symons wrote the story and he got it right, see:

• NJ abandons plan to require costly electric boiler upgrades

I will make just a few very brief observations:

1. Thank goodness for Jeff Tittel, because the rest of the NJ environmental and climate “activist” community is either in the tank and cheerleading for Murphy and his sham former corporate lawyer DEP Commissioner, or clueless and incapable of even analyzing a DEP regulatory proposal.

2. Thank goodness for veteran reporters like Mike Symons who know how to write a complex regulatory policy story. There are very few of his kind still around. What passes for journalism today is largely incompetent stenography of government press releases.

3. Sadly, the Ray Cantor (NJBIA) quote about emissions – not costs – and the PJM grid is correct:

“In addition to the millions of additional dollars this provision would have cost these establishments, the fact of the matter is converting a modern, fuel-efficient natural gas boiler to an electric one would actually increase carbon emissions due to the carbon footprint of the PJM grid,” Cantor said.

I made exactly the same criticism when the DEP rules were proposed last December.

Ray Cantor’s point about the PJM emissions rates holds for the rest of the proposal that DEP adopted as well (i.e. the power plant emissions rules that DEP adopted).

But the reality is actually worse than Cantor noted.

The DEP rules not only don’t reduce boiler emissions – or would result in small emission reductions – they would allow total emissions to INCREASE.

Based on DEP’s own data and statements in the proposal, I wrote this last December:

“The FREE MARKET PJM grid (unregulated) will produce LOWER EMISSIONS than the DEP rule!

CO2 emissions will INCREASE under the DEP rules.”

4. But what Symons and Tittle missed is that by adopting the proposed weak power plant emissions rates, the DEP protects big fossil power plant polluters. DEP did something very similar years ago in adopting a emissions “cap” under RGGI that was far higher than actual emissions. So I’ll repeat the sub-headline

DEP Protects Large Fossil Polluters By Locking In Lax Emission Rates

Here’s the complete post, where I go deep into the weeds and you confirm this conclusion:

• Murphy DEP’s Proposed New Greenhouse Gas (CO2) Emission Rule Is Far Weaker Than Obama EPA Clean Power Plan

Gov. Murphy is now as big a climate fraud as Joe Biden.

And that takes some doing.

DEP Emergency Rule To Authorize Bear Hunt Is A Radical Departure

DEP Enacting Unauthorized New Forestry, Wildfire, Climate & Green Acres Initiatives

Costly New Programs Raise Budget And Appropriations Issues

It is unacceptable for DEP to proceed in controversial policy fields – i.e. public lands, climate, and forestry – in the absence of legislative authorization and during the deliberations of a Legislative Task Force.

That kind of arrogant arrogation of power demands legislative oversight.

The Murphy DEP has generated public controversy in a series of recent significant changes in regulatory policy, which demand oversight and legislative review to check DEP’s power and block what clearly are departures from DEP’s longstanding regulatory policies and practices.

DEP is essentially usurping legislative authority, showing little deference to pending legislative policy development before acting, and trampling Constitutional rights via a radical emergency rulemaking procedure that triggered litigation and a deeply troubling NJ Supreme Court green light that could provide a blank check to DEP regulatory power.

These DEP initiatives involve: rarely used emergency rulemaking powers; threatening a lawsuit to secure approval for logging in the Pinelands under pretext of wildfire management; implementation of a Forest Action Plan on public lands in the absence of legislative authorization; and consideration of radical rule changes to promote development of Green Acres public lands.

Each policy development also raises new fiscal and legislative budget appropriations issues, as the costly programs DEP is attempting to implement do not identify a funding source and are not currently funded or appropriated any revenues. DEP has not provided public costs estimates for these programs as well.

Last, these controversial new regulatory policy initiatives have little or any public awareness or support and have not undergone adequate public review.

I wrote the following letter to Senate Environment Committee Chairman Bob Smith to urge him to hold oversight hearings:

Dear Chairman Smith:

I am writing to implore you to conduct oversight hearings and take public testimony regarding a recent series of deeply disturbing developments at DEP.

I) Emergency Rulemaking Raises Troubling Constitutional Issues

First, most recently, DEP invoked extremely rarely used emergency rulemaking power to authorize the bear hunt. Aside from the science and policy merits of bear hunt issues, the legal implications of DEP’s emergency rulemaking powers need to be explored, overseen, and legislatively checked.

Apparently, the NJ Supreme Court will not take a hard look, so that responsibility now falls on the legislature and oversight by your Committee of jurisdiction. See:

• NJ Supreme Court Chief Justice Rabner Denies Request To Stay Bear Hunt

Senator, you’ve known of my work since 1995 – 27 years – when I testified before your committee’s hearings on the Knapp Technologies disaster than killed 4 workers, see the New York Times story:

• Chemical Plant Explosion Kills 4 in New Jersey Town

As you will recall, I explained how Gov. Whitman’s DEP regulatory rollbacks to the NJ RTK regulations  – and pending rollbacks to the TCPA regulations pursuant to the federal consistency policy of Whitman’s Executive Order #27 – exacerbated that disaster and put the community and first responders at risk.

During these 27 years, no one in NJ has been a more expert and aggressive advocate of strong DEP regulatory power.

But I am appalled and deeply troubled with DEP’s abuse of those powers to authorize the bear hunt. Constitutional due process rights must never been ignored by an executive branch agency, and fabrication of an “imminent peril” finding to undermine a statutory standard is unacceptable. And that’s exactly what happened here.

Those issues must be ventilated – publicly – lest the Icarus over at DEP fly even higher. You must clip his wings and many are willing to provide the scissors.

II) DEP Is Strong Arming The Independent Pinelands Commission

Second, as you may not know, in a February 4, 2022 letter (attached), DEP Commissioner LaTourette threatened to file a lawsuit against the Pinelands Commission unless the Commission “immediately” (his word) approved the DEP’s forestry management plan, a flawed plan that had been pending before (and not approved by) the Commission for 15 years. See:

• Murphy DEP Commissioner LaTourette Twisted Arms At The Pinelands Commission To Gain Approval Of Deeply Flawed Logging Plan

Both the lawsuit threat and the demand for “immediate” approval (a demand that would ignore and violate procedural legal public participation requirements) are totally inappropriate tactics that have no place in NJ government.

Commissioner LaTourette apparently is unaware that his former corporate lawyer tactics are not to be deployed in public service.

III) DEP Is Adopting Major Policy Change With No Legislative Authorization Or Policy Direction

Third, in that DEP Pinelands Forest Management Plan, DEP asserted and implemented what they describe as a “carbon defense” policy, as outlined in the (presumably draft) DEP Forest Action Plan.

Both the DEP “carbon defense policy” and the “Forest Action Plan” are highly significant components of NJ’s public lands management policies, as well as climate policies and programs to implement and attain the legislative goals of the Global Warming Response Act.

Yet neither the DEP’s “carbon defense policy” nor the Forest Action Plan” are authorized by the legislature or provided an appropriation.

Even worse, they are being rushed to avoid the new policies and standards that are likely to be developed by the Legislature in response to your Forestry Task Force, whose legislative and regulatory policy recommendations are due this month.

In fact, Pinelands Commissioner Lohbauer publicly criticized the DEP’s forestry plan for being rushed through right now in order to evade compliance with an upcoming “no net loss of trees” policy currently under development by the Commission.See:

• Pinelands Commissioner Lohbauer Eviscerates Murphy DEP Logging Plan

The DEP is cynically doing a similar end run around your upcoming forest management legislative program.

IV) DEP Floated A Troubling Trial Balloon To Promote Development Of Green Acres Public Lands

Fourth, as very few people are aware, DEP recently floated a trial balloon to a small hand picked group of DEP funded Stakeholders regarding radical and highly controversial changes to NJ’s popular Green Acres program, see:

• Murphy DEP Considering Privatization, Commercialization, Development And Logging State Lands

These changes contemplate regulatory revisions to allow all sorts of totally inappropriate uses and development of Green Acres lands, including privatization and commercialization. These kinds of policies have been strongly opposed by the public for decades (witness the battles over Liberty State Park, which would be magnified statewide under DEP’s trial balloon.)

Again, I am aware of no legislative policy authorization for such a radical shift in Green Acres policy.

It is unacceptable for DEP to proceed in controversial policy fields – i.e. public lands, climate, and forestry – in the absence of legislative authorization and during the deliberations of a Legislative Task Force.

That kind of arrogant arrogation of power demands legislative oversight.

I urge your prompt attention to these matters and favorable reply.

Respectfully,

Bill Wolfe

South Jersey Times Editors Don’t Know the Difference Between Burning And Logging

People Who Seek To Protect Bears And Trees Are Mocked As “Purists”

So this is what the newspaper business has devolved to: editorial writers who don’t know the difference between a “prescribed burn” and a logging plan.

Actually, it is possible that they do know the difference and just intentionally lied to their readers to hide the fact that the Murphy DEP is logging precious Pinelands forests.

We always knew south Jersey was backwards, but not this bad.

I guess South Jersey Times’ (ignorant, cynical and cruel) editorial writers thought they were being cute with this December 7 editorial:

• N.J. purists, and fires, and bears, oh my | Editorial

A separate plan to burn as many as 2.3 million trees in the Pinelands to prevent uncontrolled fires in a thickly covered portion of Bass River State Forest within the preserve also has detractors, though not as many.

Environmental groups are split as to the wisdom of a controlled burn next year. […]

The Pinelands Commission — not always the best stewards of the pristine and protected property — voted overwhelmingly in favor of the burning plan in October,

“Controlled Burn” “Burn Plan”?

The editorial uses the word “burn” to describe the DEP logging plan 10 times!

The DEP is cutting the trees (logging) not burning them.

I fired off this letter, which I’m sure they’ll be too embarrassed to print (or to correct their fact errors):

Dear Editor:

Embarrassing fact error riddled editorial, Oh my!

Your Editorial of December 7 confused “prescribed burns” with logging.

The DEP Pinelands forest plan will LOG (i.e. CUT) 2.4 million trees, not burn them.

You also left out some key facts, too, like:

Pinelands Commissioner Wallner, a retired *National Park Service wildfire expert, reviewed the DEP maps and found no people or property near the logging & 13 miles of clearcut firebreak. He concluded that there was no justification for the DEP plan in terms of reducing wildfire risks.

Big wildfires in the Pinelands are caused by dry conditions and high winds. They are spread by wind blown embers. DEP’s logging and “firebreak” will do NOTHING to stop wind blown embers from spreading wildfire in dry and high wind conditions.

The DEP logging plan will make these conditions WORSE. Cutting trees will reduce the canopy cover, allowing more sunlight and wind into the forest. This dries them out and makes them more prone to fire.

Anyone who has blown on a campfire or tried starting one with wet wood knows this.

But not DEP  – Oh my!

Respectfully,

Bill Wolfe

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