WolfeNotes.com

Contact Gov. Murphy And Demand That He Veto DEP’s Logging Plan

DEP Firemen Must Not Be Allowed To Determine The Fate Of NJ’s Public Forests

The photo above is of a “thinned” Pinelands forest deemed a “conservation” example in a presentation to the Pinelands Commission last spring by John Cecil, then chief forester at NJ Audubon, see:

•  Forest Conservation – NJ Pinelands

Mr. Cecil is now Assistant Commissioner for Parks and Forests at DEP – and this is what he wants Pinelands forests to look like – tame, un-wild, uniform, managed landscapes (a designated UN BioReserve treated with herbicides, no less).

I’ve seen more trees on a golf course.

And once this DEP “thinning” “forest management” model is allowed to happen in the Pinelands – and the DEP’s methodology for climate analysis of carbon storage and sequestration – it then becomes  the model for the rest of the State (and not just for forests, but also DEP’s “Climate PACT” and REAL land use permit regulations). The DEP’s sham rationale as a pretext for logging just shifts from preventing wildfires, to promoting diverse healthy young forests, or to providing wildlife habitat (similar threats are already underway in the NJ Highlands hardwood forests).

So, the current controversy over the Pinelands Commission’s approval of DEP’s “Forest Management Plan” is not some esoteric debate – the fate of our forests is in the balance.

At a time of climate emergency, when our forests must all be preserved and expanded to store carbon, it is literally insane to be logging trees.

But this forest massacre can be stopped – under the NJ Pinelands Act, the Gov. is given the power to block any action of the Pinelands Commission by vetoing the minutes of the Commission. But the clock is ticking: This veto must come before the end of November.

So, please, contact Gov. Murphy and demand that he veto the Minutes of the Pinelands Commission to block implementation of this DEP plan – or else be prepared to see more of THIS!.

Here’s a side by side photos of the “thinning” DEP supports (from Cecil’s presentation to the Pinelands Commission) – which forest do you prefer???

DEP Redacts And Denies Documents – Including Commissioner’s Letter

DEP Claims Secret Government Meetings Exempt From OPRA

Assistant Commissioner Cecil Directly Involved, Despite Gross Conflicts Of Interest

“This includes the letter the Commissioner sent as well”

On August 9, immediately after learning of the DEP’s proposed logging plan, I filed an OPRA public records request to the Pinelands Commission for the documents.

Incredibly, the Pinelands Commission denied that request on the basis that they had “no responsive records”.

So on October 13, I submitted exactly the same OPRA public records request to DEP for the documents regarding the DEP Pinelands logging plan.

Today, DEP responded. (complete DEP response provided via email upon request)

DEP’s response is revealing and deeply disturbing.

First of all, DEP emails reveal that DEP Commissioner LaTourette was personally involved in the DEP logging plan. LaTourette wrote a letter to the Pinelands Commission urging them to approve DEP’s plan.

It is highly unusual – and I believe improper – for a DEP Commissioner to get involved in an independent Commission’s regulatory review of a DEP application.

I guess Commissioner LaTourette honed those skills on securing regulatory approvals in his prior job as a corporate lawyer.

Clearly, the Commissioner was seeking to influence the Commission and was applying political pressure for their approval.

Given his prior exaggeration of wildfire risks, we can only imagine the spin he crafted to support the DEP logging plan. (the DEP as been spinning wildfire risks for a long time, yet DEP refuses to even consider restrictions on new development in designated extreme wildfire risk areas or to mandate retrofit fireproofing of existing development. Instead, they promote logging (“thinning”) to “manage” wildfire).

Worse, the DEP OPRA response did not provide Commissioner LaTourette’s letter and did not even specifically identify the letter as being denied (several years ago, DEP used to specifically identify all withheld documents in what is known as an OPRA “privilege log”).

I had to discover the existence of the Commissioner’s letter by reading staff emails and noting the letter as an attachment (see above photo). In a July 11, 2022 memo – just 2 days before the critically important meeting with Pinelands staff – a DEP staffer wrote of and attached the letter:

This includes the letter the Commissioner sent as well.

The DEP categorically indirectly denied the Commissioner’s letter on the basis that it was “deliberative” and exempt under OPRA.

It is impossible for the Commissioner’s letter to be “deliberative” because both DEP and the Pinelands Commission’s “deliberations” are over: the Pinelands Commission approved the DEP plan and DEP’s “deliberations” ended when they submitted the Plan to the Pinelands Commission and then modified it.

There were no “deliberations” underway when I filed my OPRA request.

DEP’s denial of Commissioner LaTourette’s letter is clearly an abuse of OPRA and intend to shield the Commissioner from public criticism and subvert transparency and undermine accountability.

It is designed to thwart and undermine arguments to the Gov. to veto the minutes of the Pinelands Commission and block the DEP plan.

Second, the DEP emails show that Assistant Commissioner Cecil was involved in the DEP plan and Pinelands Commission review of it, despite his gross conflicts of interest, i.e. see this heavily redacted July 14, 2022 memo to Cecil, briefing him on the Pinelands Commission July 13 staff meeting:

I previously filed a complaint to the State Ethics Commission, in which I included Cecil’s Pinelands presentation.

Last spring, just before he joined DEP, Cecil made a forestry presentation to the Pinelands Commission, see:

•  Forest Conservation – NJ Pinelands

In that Cecil presentation, he included this photo of a “thinned” forest he was advocating for:

Accordingly, Cecil has a conflict of interest under State ethics law, which provides:

a state official must recuse from an official matter if he or she had involvement in that matter, other than on behalf of the State, prior to commencement of State service.

Therefore, Cecil was required to recuse from any DEP involvement in forestry in the Pinelands that he was directly responsible for before he joined DEP.

The fact that he was involved in this DEP logging plan is outrageous.

Third, the DEP claims that meetings between the staffs of government agencies on pending public applications are exempt from OPRA. DEP wrote this (DEP original in red ink):

Redacted on the basis that OPRA exempts from disclosure information regarding non-public meetings conducted by public officials. See Gannett N.J. Partners, LP v. Cty. of Middlesex, 379 N.J. Super. 205, 217-18 (2005); N. Jersey Newspapers Co. v. Passaic Cty. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 127 N.J. 9, 17 (1992). O’Shea v. W. Milford Bd. of Educ., 391 N.J. Super. 534, 538-39 (App. Div. 2007).

This means that government can have secret meetings.

This is a gross abuse, and if legally valid – I have not read the case law cited – it is a huge loophole in OPRA that must be closed by the legislature. (more forthcoming on that)

Fourth, the response today provided the DEP forestry application to the Commission.

My first reading of that application today forces me to revise prior posts, which were made based on the Pinelands Commission’s public deliberations and the text of their approval document (which I excerpted at length), not review of the actual DEP application which I received today.

I will do that in a subsequent post, and will merely note here today that DEP did in fact attempt to address the carbon implications of the logging, but how they did so is superficial and seriously flawed and the fact that it was approved by the Commission is troubling.

[End Note: take another look at the logo on the bottom left of the above DEP Forest Service Memo.

The logo puts the Forest Service ABOVE the DEP – that pretty much visually reveals the hierarchy and who they think is in charge.

I let it go last week when NJ Spotlight falsely reported that DEP had proposed new flood hazard rules.

Here is DEP’s webpage for formal rule proposals, and there is no flood hazard rule proposed (or stormwater management, NJPDES, WQMP, and other related land use rules that all must be revised).

That serious error reporter Jon Hurdle made last week could have been poor writing, or he could have been confused by DEP’s own press release and public announcement, which very misleadingly confused and conflated the public release of a proposed rule outline for Stakeholder discussion with a formal regulatory proposal.

On October 18, Hurdle wrote this same falsehood:

The state Department of Environmental Protection scheduled two “engagement sessions” this week to hear comments on the proposed Inland Flood Protection Rule, released last week.

But today, Hurdle doubled down on his prior error by reporting that DEP had “formally proposed” a new rule. Today, Hurdle wrote this:

“In mid-October, the agency formally proposed its new Inland Flood Protection Rule, which would add 2 feet to anticipated flood heights in inland areas, so increasing the developable area that DEP regulates.”

That is an astonishing error for a veteran reporter to make and for NJ Spotlight editors to allow to be published.

The DEP did NOT formally propose a new flood rule – all DEP did was announce that they were holding additional Stakeholder meetings and that they had abandoned the emergency rulemaking procedure LaTourette initially planned.

I blame DEP for this as well, because DEP did not correct the first error or todays second error, and it is based on a very, very, very misleading DEP October 13 public announcement.

That DEP announcement is very clearly designed to create the false impression that DEP has proposed new rules, after years of delays.

I have never seen anything so dishonest by DEP before in my almost 40 year career working on DEP rules.

I wrote this note below to DEP Commissioner LaTourette and reporter Jon Hurdle (and his editor John McAlpin) demanding that they correct their errors – we’ll let you know of any response:

Jon – Today you wrote:

“In mid-October, the agency formally proposed its new Inland Flood Protection Rule, which would add 2 feet to anticipated flood heights in inland areas, so increasing the developable area that DEP regulates.”

https://www.njspotlightnews.org/2022/10/stormwater-utilities-lancaster-pennsylvania-wilmington-delaware-not-new-jersey-flooding-climate-change-dep-hoboken-newark-montclair-red-bank-princeton/

DEP didn’t formally propose new flood hazard rules, see DEP website:

https://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/notices.html

Here is DEP website that may have confused you, so I am copying Commissioner LaTourette to correct that misleading DEP material

https://www.nj.gov/dep/newsrel/2022/22_1013.htm

In mid-October, DEP announced that they were holding more stakeholder meetings and abandoned the emergency rule – you got that wrong in your prior Oct. 18 story as well:

“The state Department of Environmental Protection scheduled two “engagement sessions” this week to hear comments on the proposed Inland Flood Protection Rule, released last week.

https://www.njspotlightnews.org/2022/10/state-dep-inland-flood-protection-rule-public-sessions-backs-away-from-emergency-plan-imminent-peril-tropical-storm-ida/

Two serious errors can’t be an honest mistake or unclear writing.

I also blame DEP for creating the false appearance of rule proposal. I’ve never seen anything this misleading and essentially dishonest from DEP, ever.

Wolfe

“Forest Thinning” Is Wrong Chainsaw Medicine, Based On Flawed Science 

This thinning was intended as a wildfire protection measure, yet we learned at the Pinelands Climate Committee last year that thinning has not proven to be a useful wildfire control measure; if anything, it causes wildfires to burn hotter and more destructively. Leslie Sauer shared a paper by ecologist Chad Hanson on this subject ( https://grist.org/fix/opinion/forest-thinning-logging-makes-wildfires-worse/  ) and argued persuasively that pro forestation is a much better approach to wildfire management. I find it difficult to support thinning as a wildfire management practice generally, but particularly so in this case. ~~~ Pinelands Commissioner Lohbauer

DEP Forestry And Firebreak Plan (Source: NJ Pinelands Commission)

The Murphy DEP’s controversial Pinelands logging scheme purported to reduce wildfire risks is unnecessary, ecologically destructive, and will make wildfire risks worse.

There are 3 key points that are being ignored in the misleading spin and flawed science that DEP and their conservation group cheerleaders are using to defend their awful logging plan:

1) wildfire in the Pinelands is ecologically beneficial (read Emile DeVito of NJCF recent Op-Ed that he is now running away from:

“The Pine Barrens needs hot fires to persist, as do many of its rare species. The recent fire will ultimately benefit the ecosystem.”

2) there is little development (people and property) at risk in the forest that is targeted for 1,300 acres of “thinning” (cut & remove 2.4 million trees) and 13 miles of 50 foot wide clearcut “firebreaks”;

Both the firebreak and the thinning projects were proposed as wildfire control measures, yet—as Commissioner Doug Wallner pointed out on Friday—there is no population center, housing development, or commercial area near the sites of the project activity. Wallner, who spent his career at the National Park Service working with local agencies like the NJ Forest Service on wildfire control, argued that there was no reason to pursue these projects since there was no population at risk of wildfire harm that could be protected by this project. ~~~ Pinelands Commissioner Lohbauer

3) Scientific studies show that “forest thinning” is not effective in reducing wildfire risks and actually makes them worse (see also above Lohbauer comment).

• Logging in disguise: How forest thinning is making wildfires worse

Forest thinning is gaining more media attention and is heavily promoted by some land management agencies and logging interests, but science suggests the technique more often makes fires burn hotter and faster.

Hundreds of scientists and forest ecologists wrote a letter to President Biden warning about the flaws in traditional “thinning” approaches to wildfire management, see:

• Open Letter to President Biden and Members of Congress from Scientists: It is essential to Remove Climate-Harming Logging and Fossil Fuel Provisions from Reconciliation and Infrastructure Bills

See especially these studies in footnotes 10 and 11 in that letter:

Debate Turns Ugly – The Masks And The Gloves Are Off!

One Big Happy Family – NJ Audubon, Environment NJ, NJ Chapter of Sierra Club and DEP!

In the end, the injury to the carbon sequestering ability of this forest was my primary objection to this project. I don’t believe that the work that the Forest Service proposes to do is either warranted by the circumstances, nor healthy for the flora and fauna of this forest. I opposed it, and I hope that there still remains some opportunity to prevent the Forest Service from moving forward with this now permitted, yet ill-planned project.  ~~~ NJ Pinelands Commissioner Lohbauer (full comments below)

As the debate expands and pressure mounts on Gov. Murphy to intervene and block the DEP plan, behind the scenes – in emails, social media, reader comments, and conversations with reporters – NJ conservation group leaders are aggressively defending and seeking to silence and intimidate critics of the Murphy DEP’s wildfire logging plan.

As I stated in testimony to the Pinelands Commission, Emile DeVito of NJCF – a group with forestry interests in the Pinelands and multiple conflicting relationships with the Pinelands Commission and cozy relations with DEP – gave me bad information about the plan and downplayed the scope and magnitude of impacts. He even called a 50 foot wide clearcut for a 13 mile long firebreak the creation of a “meadow”!:

“Hi Bill. This is not a terrible as it sounds. The logging is nearly all “thinning from the ground up” to remove lower levels of fuel load, and leaving all the mulch in the forest to decompose, very little wood removal,  and the firebreak is 30 feet of clearing  for meadow on each side of the narrow sand road. Pinelands Commission got some improvements regarding herbicides and also vernal pond and rare snake considerations. Way bigger things to fight about In the Pines, for example the unresolved Wetlands violation at Whitesbog and the proposal by JJ White company to create more modernized cranberry bags (sic) in the historic district.”

That’ incredible, because Emile has been an expert leader on protecting rare snakes, he supported the campaign to stop DEP Highlands logging, and helped me block another DEP insane clearcut logging plan – tiny in comparison – of less than 100 trees on Bulls Island:

Interestingly, one of Emile’s strongest criticisms at Bulls Island was DEP’s failure to consult with relevant experts in forest ecology (see below for exactly the same DEP failure to consult experts on this DEP plan). (Equally revealing of how bad a compromise the “modified” DEP plan DeVito touts: 1) DEP reduced herbicide treatments on about 200 acres, but will still apply on over 1,000 acres; 2) wetlands, vernal ponds, and T&E are only provided 100 foot buffers [Update: DEP plan says 80], when regulatory buffers range from 300 – 1,000 feet, and 3) the proposed 60 foot wide firebreak clearcuts were slightly reduced to 50 feet, with another 75 feet of “feathering” logging DEP claims will “create a more visually appealing aesthetic”).

So, after DeVito’ spin seeking to dissuade my criticism, I was not surprised that a reader sent me the following email, from an un-named NJ conservationist, seeking to silence critics – which amazingly repeats DEP’s lies about “no change to the canopy” – claims proven false by the Pinelands Commission’s approval document I’ve cited previously . The “conservationist” wrote (emphases mine):

“Please do not oppose this. This is not a logging plan. This is thinning from the ground up and a firebreak that will help with ecological fire management. There is virtually no change to the canopy. The canopy won’t be opened, and there is virtually no removal of wood. It is basically a mowing of the tiny, scraggly ladder fuels of suppressed pitch pines. I have been working on small concerns about this for 2 years and the Pinelands Commission got the NJDEP to add conditions that improve habitats for snakes and rare wetlands, and drastically reduce the need for future herbicide treatments. Thereis no need to spend time on this. It is approved and there is no need to litigate. The Pinelands Commission staff worked hard to get some important modifications to this proposal – modifications that PPA and NJCF have been recommending. This is a perfect example of why we need forestry regulations in the rest of NJ on public land. Without the Pinelands Commission regulations, there would be no way for the public to learn of these proposals in time to point out shortcomings, and no agency “outside” of the inner workings of the NJDEP to effectuate revisions. We have had forestry regulations on both public and private land in the Pinelands for over 40 years, and they were improved significantly in about 2006. The Pinelands are the only place in NJ where there are significant forestry regulations, other than the token and rather useless requirements regarding archaic BMPs in the freshwater wetlands and flood hazard rules for the rest of NJ. That is why the Task Force must get significant improvements to public land forestry via actual regulations for the rest of NJ.”

The bullshit about the public given opportunity to point out shortcomings is truly galling, as this DEP scheme was kept under the radar by PPA and NJCF – and the Pinelands Commission even went so far as to deny my OPRA public records request, claiming they had “no responsive records” on the DEP plan!

Thankfully, Pinelands Commissioner Lohbauer, who opposed the DEP plan and voted NO, is playing a leadership role in the behind the scenes debate.

Similar to how Lohbauer explained his controversial vote in opposition to the South Jersey Gas Pinelands pipeline, below Lohbauer explains his NO vote on the DEP logging plan.

This excerpt was sent to me as Lohbauer’s damning remarks – I don’t have the original email. But it echoes many of the criticisms he made prior to his vote at the Pinelands Commission, so I have no reason to doubt its authenticity.

[Update – Lohbauer confirmed personally that these are his words. I posted his complete critique here.]

Here’s an excerpt (and Emile should be particularly ashamed of defending the DEP’s snake mitigation, given Lohbauer’s remarks on that):

In this case I don’t believe there was a good basis to approve the Forest Service’s application. This is the same one that I had opposed last December, and Emile is right—the Service did modify their proposed application of herbicides in the project. However, they did not agree to eliminate them, nor did they agree to avoid the use of glyphosate (“RoundUp”) which I consider unsafe at any application. Moreover, the restrained use of herbicides was conditioned upon“if practical,” meaning that were they to decide that the mechanical approach were not working, they could revert to the use of herbicides without further review by the Pinelands Commission. Yet this was not my primary objection.

The application contained two projects: 13 miles of firebreak along Allen and Oswego Roads, and a separate project of thinning over 1,300 acres of forest in Bass River State park. The firebreak was occurring in a broad swath that included the most productive snake dens in the State—possibly the northeast region—for T&E snake species. These snake dens have been the subject of continuous study by Rutgers herpetologists as well as our own science staff at PC for 30 years. Last December I asked for the Rutgers herpetologists to be consulted by the Forest Service on their firebreak plan, because they had not been. It is not apparent to me that Rutgers was given the opportunity to participate in the revised firebreak plan that was before us last Friday. Nor did the revised plan include a specific protection for the snake dens, other than the Service would consult with the PC Executive Director in the event of contact with the dens. That seemed inadequate to me. Yet this was not my primary objection to the application.

Both the firebreak and the thinning projects were proposed as wildfire control measures, yet—as Commissioner Doug Wallner pointed out on Friday—there is no population center, housing development, or commercial area near the sites of the project activity. Wallner, who spent his career at the National Park Service working with local agencies like the NJ Forest Service on wildfire control, argued that there was no reason to pursue these projects since there was no population at risk of wildfire harm that could be protected by this project. Rather than vote for it, he abstained. I certainly agreed with him on that point, yet this was not my primary objection.

The thinning project was proposed to be performed over more than 1,300 acres in Bass River State Forest. For 1,100 acres they proposed to remove 90% of the trees. For the remainder they proposed to remove 96% of them. Ed Lloyd calculated that this would be over 2.4 million trees. This thinning was intended as a wildfire protection measure, yet we learned at the Pinelands Climate Committee last year that thinning has not proven to be a useful wildfire control measure; if anything, it causes wildfires to burn hotter and more destructively. Leslie Sauer shared a paper by ecologist Chad Hanson on this subject ( https://grist.org/fix/opinion/forest-thinning-logging-makes-wildfires-worse/  ) and argued persuasively that pro forestation is a much better approach to wildfire management. I find it difficult to support thinning as a wildfire management practice generally, but particularly so in this case where: 

A number of T&E bird species including barred owl, would be impacted negatively by the tree cutting;

The plan called not only for cutting the trees, but for harvesting them as well, which is contrary to the good forestry practice of cutting and leaving trees in place;

At the Pinelands Commission, we are in the process of deliberating a “no net loss” policy for trees which, although not yet in place, would be completely contradicted by this project. 

In the end, the injury to the carbon sequestering ability of this forest was my primary objection to this project. I don’t believe that the work that the Forest Service proposes to do is either warranted by the circumstances, nor healthy for the flora and fauna of this forest. I opposed it, and I hope that there still remains some opportunity to prevent the Forest Service from moving forward with this now permitted, yet ill-planned project.

NJCF and PPA should be deeply ashamed on themselves.