DEP Paid Contractor $205,000 To Clearcut And Bulldoze Mature Forests
Contract Bid Requirements Completely Ignored Environmental Requirements
Yesterday, we wrote to expose the misleading claims by DEP Commissioner LaTourette that the Glassboro Wildlife Management Area illegal clearcut was a simple human mistake or innocent staff error.
Both the Commissioner and the press corps have created the utterly false impression that this project was somehow unique or an anomaly, instead of the intentional, planned outcome of DEP’s statewide wildlife management and forestry policies.
These policies were implemented via a site specific Glassboro WMA management plan that was reviewed and approved by the entire chain of command of the DEP Fish and Wildlife, Land Use Management, and Financial managers.
As we drill down on what really went on at the Glassboro Wildlife Management Area illegal clearcut, we’ve been submitting OPRA public records requests and receiving DEP documents in dribs and drabs.
Today, we received a package of the bidding and contracting documents, including DEP’s Request For Proposals (RFP) on the project. (I’m unable to provide a link, but all documents provided upon request)
We were absolutely appalled by what those documents reveal about DEP policies and procedures.
1. The RFP and contracts did not include ANY environmental review or substantive compliance requirements, not even rudimentary stormwater and soil erosion and sediment controls (e.g. not even a silt fence to protect adjacent wetlands).
Keep this in mind the next time DEP forestry managers try to assure you that although there are no permits issued for forestry work, that the DEP enforces environmental compliance as conditions of the contract.
2. The RFP explicitly required that trees be clearcut, stumps removed, and the land bulldozed (see above):
Trees To Be Machine Cut Using Industrial Forestry Tree Cutters
3. The RFP explicitly required that the cut trees be chipped and taken off site for recycling.
4. DEP relied on two different funding sources (un-named) that had different use restrictions to fund the $205,000 project. We will try to determine the specific sources of funds.
5. The RFP and contract documents required a series of DEP management sign-offs and approvals, but DEP has refused to provide those documents, thereby shielding upper level managers who approved the project from accountability.
This is all totally unacceptable policy and astounding mismanagement of public land that demands legislative oversight and legislative mandates that eliminate DEP management discretion.
Tomorrow, we will provide the DEP’s astonishing defense of the project, in a reply to a US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) inquiry AFTER the project was completed and facing increasing public criticism.
You really won’t believe it. Really. It is that appalling.