Pinelands Commission Whitewashed The Minutes Of Review And Public Comment On DEP Logging Plan

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