WolfeNotes.com

Co-Chairs Issue Gag Order

Deliberations Are Deemed Confidential

No Press And No Blogging Allowed

“I’m not afraid to listen to Bill Wolfe when he has a good idea,” [Senate Environment  Committee Chairman] Smith said. Wolfe says he would like the Legislature to take a stronger stance with a bill to require action by the DEP. ~~~  Kirk Moore of the Asbury Park Press story on 9/27/10

“Kudos to Bill Wolfe. We heard all kinds of testimony over these three meetings. But the one that stuck in my mind is [Bill’s testimony] that there’s no guarantee that they’ll be no deterioration in the State’s water quality standards if there’s development in the first 150 feet of buffer of C1 streams. That’s the critical missing legislative intent item for me.   ~~~ Bob Smith, Senate Environmental Committee Chairman (6/16/16 – vote to pass SCR 66 

It didn’t go so well at Monday’s first working meeting of the climate workgroup of the Senator Smith Forestry Task Force. In fact, it was a disaster.

The Co-Chairs completely ignored my proposal:

Look, I’ve staffed several serious and successful legislative and regulatory policy reform efforts as a DEP professional. Specifically: Governor Florio did the Solid Waste Task Force in 120 days. Governor McGreevey did Highlands Task Force in a similar timeframe and Senator Smith did Highlands Act is less than that. Ditto DEP Highlands regulatory “stakeholder” meetings. Senator McNamara did Brownfields legislative Task Force in a few months. (Brownfields was a huge mistake, and I made that as a Sierra Club rep. But these examples alone – and there’s several more I could mention – are far more high level policy experience than all 4 Forestry Co-chairs, combined.)

In contrast, this Task Force has no written mandate, no real political power, and a vague extended deadline with no commitments – by Smith, Governor Murphy or DEP Commissioner LaTourette – to even consider, never mind implement the recommendations. Simply put: It’s not a serious initiative.

Not a single Task Force member openly supported the proposal, although a few privately emailed me indicating their support of it (including a former high level State official) and two members previously had supported a moratorium and proforestation policy during the prior Zoom meeting (including a current high level State official).

The proposal got no support, despite the fact some members were involved in strategy discussions in originating the whole idea for the proposal and asked that I draft it.

Profiles in courage, eh?

DEP then was provided another 30 minute platform to present DEP’s condescending, vague, equivocal, evasive, and at times flat out absurd perspectives on carbon sequestration. The only good thing was that they apparently followed my prior advice about not using John Cecil as the DEP representative. I will do a separate post on the DEP presentation in the near future.

Then the Co-Chairs spent an hour indirectly chastising me for even proposing it and instead created a bureaucratic scheme to format, authenticate, and review proposals from members. They adopted a very rigid approach.

One Co-Chair (Sierra Club, no less) even said that “opinions” were not allowed, that proposals had to be based on published peer reviewed science. Ironically, DEP “experts” had just spent 30 minutes spewing all kinds of flawed opinions without citing or relying on peer reviewed published science.

In response to a question about a requirement that meeting participation was required to qualify to vote on recommendations,  the other Co-Chair actually said that they wouldn’t be taking attendance! No attendance sheets! Woohoo!

Another Co-Chair (Tom Gilbert) casually “clarified” that the scope of the Task Force’s work was limited to public lands, thereby eliminating about half of NJ’s forests – and carbon sequestration capacity – from the reform effort (and thereby allowing private landowners to continue the status quo logging program). 

When I asked a question for the factual basis for this limitation – recall that DEP’s first presentation by John Cecil included public and private lands – Gilbert replied that the Co-Chairs had met with Senator Smith privately and that he limited the scope to public lands.

Not one work group member objected to any of this. I submitted several comments that were ignored.

During the Q&A, I asked 2 questions, with responses as follows:

1) Is the press allowed to attend and/or be briefed on Task Force meetings?

Answer: NO. The deliberations are confidential. Media coverage would chill the conversation.

2) May I blog about the meetings?

Answer: NO. Members deserve privacy and the conversation is essentially confidential.

My response to this was to resign immediately, unless Senator Smith revoked what amounts to a gag order on Task Force deliberations. We’re done. (timestamp PST)

A gag is just flat out wrong as a matter of principle.

Here are my two email notes to Smith:

Forestry Task Force – Are You OK With A Gag Order?

Dear Senator Smith – I write to bring troubling issues to your attention and hopefully resolution.

1.Prior to today’s initial Forest Task Force climate workgroup meeting, I distributed a motion for consideration and approval, in accordance with the rules in effect at the time. Instead of entertaining that motion, I was chastised for submitting it and then the Co-Chairs spent an hour erecting barriers to similar proposals from the members

As a former DEP regulator, I’m bound by the principle that a proposal is entertained pursuant to the rules in effect at time of submission – as a matter of principle, it’s just wrong to move the goalposts after the fact.

2. DEP was again provided over 30 minutes to brief the workgroup on DEP’s various forestry policies. I thought you sought a “new paradigm” (time: 17:39), which obviously means a shift away from the current paradigm, which is variously described by the slogans “forest stewardship” and “active management”. Instead, this is becoming a DEP show to retain the status quo or limit real “paradigm shifting” reforms in light of the climate emergency.

3. I asked if the press could attend or be briefed on the work of the Task Force.

The answer I got was “NO”.

I followed that up with a question about whether I could blog about the Task Force deliberations.

Again, I was told “NO”, that the workgroups’ deliberations are essentially confidential.

This is totally inappropriate for a legislatively established body that is deliberating on public policy for managing public lands.

Do you support a media gag and confidential deliberations?

I conditionally resigned on that basis, unless you reversed that gag order.

Please advise – or perhaps reach out to the co-chairs and they can reconsider.

Wolfe

I followed that up with this to Smith and Co-Chairs about ELEC lobbying issues:

Dear Senator Smith and Forest Taskforce Co-Chairs:

In response to 2 questions I posed today (i.e.: 1) is press allowed to attend or be briefed on Task Force deliberations; and 2) Am I allowed to blog about deliberations) Co-Chair Murphy replied that the answers were no, and that the deliberations were essentially confidential….

Please be advised that if the Co-Chairs and Senator stand by that policy (no press, no blogging, confidential deliberations), then the Taskforce is legally engaged in “lobbying” and the members are engaged in “attempts to influence government processes” that is regulated by ELEC and require registration as a lobbyist at ELEC.

According, should you stand by this policy, I will have to refer the matter to ELEC and the State Ethics Commission for review and enforcement.

I look forward to your reversal of that policy and timely and favorable reply.

Bill Wolfe

Corporate “Legacies”, “Bequests”, “Endowments” And “Partnerships” Are Pathways to Privatization And Commercialization

The Bill Is Actually Worse Than Gov. Christie’s Parks Privatization Policy

The Privatization Scandals At Liberty State Park Would Be Expanded Statewide 

weeds grow at restroom at Bulls Island SP – it has since been demolished.

[Update: 6/13/22 – Highly unusual last minute agenda change – this bill is up TODAY! Smith POSTED BILL ~~~ end update]

SMITH APPARENTLY HELD BILL. Amazing, because the groups involved brought us the “Stewardship” nightmare and stole parks funding. See this garbage:

S1311 (attached) is up for a Senate Environment Committee vote on Thursday.  … PPA, NJCF and NJLCV have various concerns about the Bill, including an obvious concern about raising funds for so-called stewardship that includes mechanized logging. Groups will be reaching out to Senator Smith asking that the bill be held until there can be further discussions. There are several unintended consequences (or perhaps, intended consequences) that may emerge throughout the Bill.  I will be requesting that Senator Smith hold the bill at least until the NJFTF has concluded its business.

NJ Senate Democrats are supporting legislation purported to generate funding for State Parks via creation of a New Jersey State Parks and Forests Foundation (hit the link to read the bill, S1311, Turner).

Before we get to what the bill would do, we need to remind readers of four important things about generating funds for State Parks and Forests:

1) hundreds of millions of dollars of previously Constitutionally dedicated funding for State Parks was stolen by the Green Mafia’s “Keep It Green” open space campaign. Remember this?

State Parks Director Texel’s devastating words – he wrote:

As the Director of the NJ State Park Service now coping with the reality that our entire Parks capital budget will be completely eliminated beginning July 1, 2015 as a result of the YES vote I can say this is the darkest day I have faced in my professional career. Worse than Superstorm Sandy.

2) Legislation enacted way back in 2008, seeking to generate parks funding, mandated that DEP collect market based lease and concession revenues – including for billion dollar generating energy infrastructure like pipelines and electric transmission lines – is not being implemented, see:

• Murphy DEP Continues Christie DEP State Parks Concessions Policy

3) DEP still is collecting only pennies on the dollar in public compensation for Natural Resource Damages, funds that could go to State Parks. As a result, NJ’s corporate polluters have evaded billions of dollars of NRD liability -and they even killed Senator Smith’s Legislative Taskforce on NRD standards. For that story, see:

• Big Corporate Polluters Quietly Veto Natural Resource Damage Compensation Standards

4) If Senator Turner seeks to serve her constituents, maybe she should consider creating a new Delaware Riverfront State Park at Duck Island. A land donation and unwinding PSE&G’s recent sale of the Duck Island power plant to a warehouse developer in order to support development of a new urban waterfront State Park on Duck Island would be a small gesture of reciprocity by PSE&G.

Now, let’s get to what the bill would do.

Under various guises and slogans – from “Stewardship” to “Partnerships” – the bill actually would lead to privatization, commercialization, and even industrial development of State Parks and Forests. Here’s how:

Broad Contract Powers With Little Oversight

The bill provides broad powers to the New Jersey State Parks and Forests Foundation to enter into contracts, with virtually unfettered discretion, no competitive bidding, and no public participation or oversight:

Among many other potential abuses, this contract power could be a stealth maneuver to authorize participation in various market based carbon credit and trading schemes, under the guise of “carbon sequestration” in NJ forests.

DEP staff to the Forest Task Force have already admitted that DEP is working on joining the failed California carbon credit scheme, expanding RGGI to allow carbon credit generation, and even participating in purely private carbon credit markets and trading schemes, like currently underway at billionaire Peter Kellogg’s Hudson Farm in the Highlands forests. As we recently wrote, current Murphy DEP Assistant Commissioner For Parks And Forests John Cecil was actually paid as a consultant to write Kellogg’s Forest Management Plan.

In addition to broad contract powers, Section 4 of the bill provides the following powers to the New Jersey State Parks and Forests Foundation:

Partnerships:

to enter into partnerships with qualifying tax exempt nonprofit organizations or local government units for the development, including stewardship, of lands preserved for recreation and conservation purposes.

I’m sure there are billionaire’s and large corporations willing to enter into a “Partnership” with a friendly NGO and DEP to fund things like golf courses in Liberty State Park (just look at NJ Audubon’s “Corporate Stewardship” program for examples. Sustainable NJ and NJ Future, NGO’s, also have corporate Stewardship programs).

It’s called “Pay-to-Play”.

I’m sure there are many billionaires and corporations who are willing to pony up millions of dollars for “legacy” naming rights (Walmart Long Beach Island State Park!), or make million dollar “bequests” for all sorts of commercialization and privatization proposals, from marina’s to canoe rentals. “Comcast State Park”. “PSE&G Plaza” – think of the endless commercial possibilities! Woohoo!

Industrialization

We’ve already seen a huge proliferation of industrial scale solar facilities sited in NJ’s vanishing farms and forests.

The bill would expand on that solar technology, to include wind, geothermal, or virtually any absurd “renewable energy” (including biomass from logging) in State Parks and Forests:

(4) in consultation with the Commissioner of Environmental Protection, to develop and oversee opportunities for the construction and operation of renewable energy generation systems at State parks and forests

Unlimited Outdoor Recreation

Can you imagine how this power could be abused? Off Road Vehicle Parks as “outdoor recreation”?

to advise the Department of Environmental Protection concerning the preparation of master plans and management plans prepared by the department for each State park and forest pursuant to section 5 of P.L.1983, c.324 (C.13:1L-5) in order to enhance outdoor recreational activities and programs within State parks and forests for the benefit of the State’s citizens;

Patronage Jobs

And the cherry on top is patronage: staff are exempt from Civil Service requirements:

“Paradigm Shift” Must Prioritize Climate Emergency In Forest Management Policy

Group Urged To Prioritize Forest Preservation Over “Active Management”

Almost 4 months after its creation, yesterday, the climate workgroup of NJ Senate Environment Committee Chairman Bob Smith’s legislative Forestry Task Force held its first working meeting.

The workgroup is huge, with more than 125 people. There is no official charge or structured issue agenda and no firm deadlines (Senator Smith requested consensus recommendations by the end of the year).

This is not an official Legislative Task Force that is subject to formal rules. Instead, it is an ad hoc creation of Senator Smith that is essentially making up rules of engagement as it goes along, including policies based on private off the record political consultations with Senator Smith.

Before yesterday’s kickoff working meeting, I introduced and distributed the below formal Motion for a consensus vote.

Basically, the Motion recommends 3 things:

1) a policy of “first, do not harm”  by calling upon DEP Commissioner  LaTourette to issue an Administrative Moratorium on further development or implementation of DEP forest management policy, including logging projects on public lands pending adoption of reforms;

2) adoption of a policy hierarchy to prioritize competing and conflicting goals, objectives, and management strategies; and

3) adoption of a policy of “proforestation“.

Here is the Motion – in a subsequent post, we’ll let you know how the workgroup responded:

Dear Climate Workgroup members and Co-Chairs: (apologies to those removed randomly, my email limited to 100)

I write to make a point of order and introduced a formal motion for your consideration and vote of approval prior to commencement of deliberations.

Approval of this motion is a precondition for continued participation in the work of the Workgroup.

The motion has 2 elements: 1) procedural; and 2) substantive, as follows:

1) Procedural

Whereas:

a) the climate emergency, which formed the primary scientific and policy basis of Senator Smith’s formation of and charge to the Task Force; and

b) Senator Smith set a deadline for the end of the calendar year for recommendations from the Task Force; and

c) any policy or legislative recommendations of the Task Force would take at least 18 months to be implemented via reform legislation and/or DEP regulation; and

d) DEP is developing and implementing a myriad of “forest stewardship” policies, plans, programs, and site specific projects which will create long term or irreversible impacts on forest values;

Therefore, DEP Commissioner LaTourette must issue an Administrative Order imposing a moratorium on any further DEP forest management initiatives and projects, pending passage of reform legislation and adoption of DEP implementing regulations.

2. Substantive

Whereas, given the climate emergency and as a result of the current lack of an enforceable priority framework or hierarchy for managing conflicting or competing forest values, goals, and objectives – as well as the unacceptable very real possibility that current laws, policies and DEP regulations could even be weakened as a result of this legislative process over which members have no control – there is a need for adoption of  minimum guardrails to provide a concrete assurance of good faith support for progressive reforms, as follows:

a) The Task Force shall be bound by a policy hierarchy that elevates the climate emergency over all other conflicting or competing goals and objectives.

For an example of the concept of an existing policy hierarch, I offer the solid waste policy hierarchy adopted by Governor Florio’s Executive Order #8

https://nj.gov/infobank/circular/eof8.htm

Gov. Florio’s EO #8 established a policy and planning hierarchy of source reduction, composing, recycling, landfilling and incineration as an “option of last resort”.

EO#8 also established a 120 day administrative moratorium, as proposed in element #1 above.

b) Recommendations of the Task Force shall be bound be a forest management policy known as “proforestation”.

Here is a link to and the abstract from a paper that provides the scientific and policy rationale for preserving existing forests, a strategy deemed “proforestation”:

“Climate change and loss of biodiversity are widely recognized as the foremost environmental challenges of our time. Forests annually sequester large quantities of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂), and store carbon above and below ground for long periods of time. Intact forests—largely free from human intervention except primarily for trails and hazard removals—are the most carbon-dense and biodiverse terrestrial ecosystems, with additional benefits to society and the economy. Internationally, focus has been on preventing loss of tropical forests, yet U.S. temperate and boreal forests remove sufficient atmospheric CO₂ to reduce national annual net emissions by 11%. U.S. forests have the potential for much more rapid atmospheric CO₂ removal rates and biological carbon sequestration by intact and/or older forests. The recent 1.5 Degree Warming Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change identifies reforestation and afforestation as important strategies to increase negative emissions, but they face significant challenges: afforestation requires an enormous amount of additional land, and neither strategy can remove sufficient carbon by growing young trees during the critical next decade(s). In contrast, growing existing forests intact to their ecological potential—termed proforestation—is a more effective, immediate, and low-cost approach that could be mobilized across suitable forests of all types. Proforestation serves the greatest public good by maximizing co-benefits such as nature-based biological carbon sequestration and unparalleled ecosystem services such as biodiversity enhancement, water and air quality, flood and erosion control, public health benefits, low impact recreation, and scenic beauty.”

I look forward to your endorsement, support, and adoption of this motion.

Respectfully,

[Update: After a strategy call about 2 weeks ago with several NJ environmental folks, it was agreed to propose the above and I was asked to draft it.

Curious, but I just now got an “Action Alert” from the Highlands Coalition requesting support of a petition to Gov. Murphy – not the Forestry Task Force – to support a moratorium on logging, sans the priority on climate and proforestation.

I’m done even trying to work with folks in NJ.

The HiCo petition mentions the need for DEP stewardship regulations for public lands.

You better be careful what you ask for – the Forestry Task Force, which is controlled by DEP, NJ Audubon, and NJ Foresters, will recommend that DEP adopt “forest stewardship” rules that are even worse than the current crap.

For example, DEP staff let the cat out of the bag yesterday that they were exploring: 1) expanding local forest products production (justified by a sham claim of  lower lifecycle carbon emissions and sequestration of carbon in wood products); 2) joining the California, RGGI, and private carbon markets in credits for forest sequestration; and 3) continuing to promote ecological justifications for logging.

They are now going to call this the climate forestry plan.

You think Elliott, Julia and the HiCo are going to do jack shit about any of that?

Did anyone actually listen to what the DEP “experts” actually said?

DEP Emergency Rule Violates Law

Gov. Did Not Declare An Emergency And There Is No “Imminent Peril”

DEP KNOWS That Proposal Is DOA Before A NJ Court Or Will Suffer Legislative Veto

We need to provide a brief background and context on the Murphy DEP flood rules (sorry, no link, because no rules have been publicly released, as far as I know).

On December 3, 2018, Murphy DEP proposed new flood rules that actually weakened the existing Christie DEP rules (which had previously been weakened by the Christie DEP).

We criticized that proposal, which was so bad it was even blasted by FEMA in a January 13, 2019 letter, for, among many other things, failure to consider climate change see:

• FEMA FLAYS MURPHY DEP STORMWATER PROPOSAL

In response, a year later – which was over 2 years ago – NJ Governor Murphy directed DEP to integrate climate change in certain DEP regulations.

On January 27, 2020, Gov. Murphy issued Executive Order #100:

Oregon Coast – Pistol River To Rogue River

Bouy wades in Rogue River

We managed to find 2 hours of sunshine amidst several days of rain and fog. Bouy took advantage of that.

Beyond this bridge (at about river mile 11) is Siskiyou National Forests – we went about 25 miles inland on a forest service road (almost to Agnes, Or.), but the rain, fog, dampness, and ugly clearcuts turned us back to the coast where at least we could get an internet connection and cold beer.

You can see a small patch of the massive clearcuts on steep slopes in the top background of this photo (I couldn’t bear to take photos of the huge cuts we saw). This was a great campsite and we would have spent a week or so here, but I was unsure of the river flows, flood elevations, the stability of the riparian gravel, and heavy rainfall was forecast.

Several miles south of there, we managed a walk on the beach at the Pistol River (and saw some expensive real estate):