Pinelands Commission Meeting Video

Teegate

Administrator
Site Administrator
Sep 17, 2002
21,697
3,664
1,093
I would suggest that anyone interested in knowing what the Pinelands Commission talks about concerning ATV damage should start watching this video at the 32 minute point and if possible continue to the end.

A few things I noticed about the commission. It appears to me that many of them are clueless. At least one of them knows nothing about aerial photos and I can't see how anyone can make a proper decision on anything without looking at them and knowing about them. Aerials are invaluable in decision making. The presenter from the DEP, who does a nice job, specifically says they started using the 2007 aerials for this project and decided to stick with them. He even used 2012 aerials to show damage at the spung on the east side of 206 near Paradise Lake. You can see that starting at 42:30 the presenter specifically shows a 2012 map and mentions 2012. And later, at the 1 hour 11 minute mark the commissioner in question asks if it is known when newer aerials than 2007 are coming out. Was he not listening and watching the presentation!


The commission appear to completely rely on the information given to them and not what they themselves have experienced. I believe that many, if not all of them, have never been in a spung or for that matter anywhere where damage has been done.This lack of knowledge of aerials and visitation experience opens the door for others with questionable intentions to get their ear. Very disturbing. In the public comment section the PPA, clearly wanting them to visit the sites, offers them a tour to get them on their side.

This video enforces the fact that blocking damaged sites does work, and works well. No need to close roads except those at the specific sites. See shortly after the 36 minute mark and the 42:30 mark.


 
Last edited:

c1nj

Explorer
Nov 19, 2008
112
28
28
I find it ironic that the Pineland Commission allows large scale strip mining within the Pinelands but then is concerned about off road vehicle damage within these "excavated ponds."
 

bobpbx

Piney
Staff member
Oct 25, 2002
11,247
1,959
1,093
Pines; Bamber area
I find it ironic that the Pineland Commission allows large scale strip mining within the Pinelands but then is concerned about off road vehicle damage within these "excavated ponds."
You mean sand mining, right? Sand mines are on land privately owned, and most of them were grandfathered into the Master Plan.

What do you mean by excavated ponds?
 

Teegate

Administrator
Site Administrator
Sep 17, 2002
21,697
3,664
1,093
I believe an excavated pond is a pond that was dug out to form a depression such as a borrow pit. Eventually, it fills in with vegetation and now everyone thinks it has always been a pond and needs to be protected.
 

bobpbx

Piney
Staff member
Oct 25, 2002
11,247
1,959
1,093
Pines; Bamber area
If you watch the video you will understand.
I'm sorry, I should have asked the question differently. I know what an excavated pond is. What I should have asked you is: where are these excavated ponds in Wharton that you feel the commission should not be overly concerned about?

Oji sent the above link, and within it makes it clear that some of the excavated ponds have morphed into something worth protection: "Our results showed that both natural and excavated ponds can exhibit high ecological integrity, display characteristic Pinelands water-quality conditions, and support native assemblages of plants and animals....". They go on to say they are different than storm-water ponds which are "degraded and these basins are a major source of non-native and introduced species."
 
Last edited:

c1nj

Explorer
Nov 19, 2008
112
28
28
In the southern portion of the Pinelands hundreds of acres of forest are still regularly cleared for mining. This is a permitted use regulated by the commission. I find it ironic that the commission is studying off road vehicle use and other illegal activities at these "excavated ponds" that they approved.
Having said that I am not opposed to this mining because I realize it is necessary.
 

bobpbx

Piney
Staff member
Oct 25, 2002
11,247
1,959
1,093
Pines; Bamber area
In the southern portion of the Pinelands hundreds of acres of forest are still regularly cleared for mining. This is a permitted use regulated by the commission. I find it ironic that the commission is studying off road vehicle use and other illegal activities at these "excavated ponds" that they approved. Having said that I am not opposed to this mining because I realize it is necessary.
I think then, that you mean activity outside of Wharton. My error. But still, I don't think it is land owned by NJ where the mining you speak of is taking place. I am opposed to mining in natural areas that support native plants and animals, but if it's not my property I have no reason to think I can stop it. But you know, what really rubs me the wrong way, is that these miners promise to leave a graded, vegetated lake behind for all citizens to enjoy. But that doesn't happen, for various reasons. All we are left with is an eyesore.
 

1Jerseydevil

Explorer
Feb 14, 2009
349
98
28
Bob
I'm not disputing you, can you show pictures of these abandoned eyesores and where?
The only ones I can think of are the "clay mines" and bog iron holes. These eyesores were of a time long ago prior to regulations requiring land restoration.
 

bobpbx

Piney
Staff member
Oct 25, 2002
11,247
1,959
1,093
Pines; Bamber area
Bob
I'm not disputing you, can you show pictures of these abandoned eyesores and where?
The only ones I can think of are the "clay mines" and bog iron holes. These eyesores were of a time long ago prior to regulations requiring land restoration.
JD, I've seen Lacey Township have to force owners to do what the owner put in their own plan. Look at these three abandoned ones just for instance. And even say they were no regulations at the time (which I would never say without reading their application), what should any owner have done properly?
 

Attachments

Last edited:

1Jerseydevil

Explorer
Feb 14, 2009
349
98
28
The one is Parkers pit, the other one ?. Are you sure their abandoned, who owns the property now?
Doing the "right" thing costs $$ that a business isn't going to spend. Were these pits in operation prior to land restoration legislation?
Isn't a performance bond required to be paid?
 

Boyd

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Jul 31, 2004
6,853
1,167
1,093
Ben's Branch, Stephen Creek
Here is ownership and PAMS_PIN number for those locations (as of 2014).

lacey1.JPG


lacey2.jpg


(file with third one made it too large to post).
Try using a .jpg file instead of a .png file. The last update to the forum software imposed new limits on the size of image files. I always used .png files in the past, but don't even bother with them anymore because I get the error message. A .jpg file at 80% quality has always worked fine however.
 

bobpbx

Piney
Staff member
Oct 25, 2002
11,247
1,959
1,093
Pines; Bamber area
I'm sorry Boyd, I forgot to save it as jpg. I usually do but have gotten lazy.

JD: Yes, he has not done mining there for many years. He is trying to sell them to the state. I clearly remember Mr. Parker at a township meeting saying (in response to a complaint): 'what are you people complaining about, you'll be left with a nice lake for swimming'.

Never mind the steep drop-offs and dangerous edges.

Your point about what the owners were legally obligated to do after ceasing operations is in their plans. They are in all plans as far as I know (and have seen many), but never looked at his. You can't get blood out of a stone though, you know?
 

Boyd

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Jul 31, 2004
6,853
1,167
1,093
Ben's Branch, Stephen Creek
Yes Bob - that is the topic of this thread: https://forums.njpinebarrens.com/threads/cooks-map-of-the-pines-hd.12902/

I took the PDF files of these maps from Rutgers and am doing a very precise job of georeferencing them "from scratch" - am pretty sure it is MUCH more precise than anyone would normally do. In the past few days, I found new technique to further enhance the accuracy of that project and am now georeferencing thousands more points! :)
 

bobpbx

Piney
Staff member
Oct 25, 2002
11,247
1,959
1,093
Pines; Bamber area
Yes Bob - that is the topic of this thread: https://forums.njpinebarrens.com/threads/cooks-map-of-the-pines-hd.12902/

I took the PDF files of these maps from Rutgers and am doing a very precise job of georeferencing them "from scratch" - am pretty sure it is MUCH more precise than anyone would normally do. In the past few days, I found new technique to further enhance the accuracy of that project and am now georeferencing thousands more points! :)
Thank you. I'll look at that thread.
 

1Jerseydevil

Explorer
Feb 14, 2009
349
98
28
I'm sorry Boyd, I forgot to save it as jpg. I usually do but have gotten lazy.

JD: Yes, he has not done mining there for many years. He is trying to sell them to the state. I clearly remember Mr. Parker at a township meeting saying (in response to a T
I'm sorry Boyd, I forgot to save it as jpg. I usually do but have gotten lazy.

JD: Yes, he has not done mining there for many years. He is trying to sell them to the state. I clearly remember Mr. Parker at a township meeting saying (in response to a complaint): 'what are you people complaining about, you'll be left with a nice lake for swimming'.

Never mind the steep drop-offs and dangerous edges.

Your point about what the owners were legally obligated to do after ceasing operations is in their plans. They are in all plans as far as I know (and have seen many), but never looked at his. You can't get blood out of a stone though, you know?
For the record I'm not defending anyone and yes I feel they should restore the land to a safe state. I think we all know the political pull of who Parker is, not that it should matter. Some folks and businesses lie like used car salesmen to get what they want then renege on the agreement, thus the requirement of a performance bond. Either there is no requirement or he somehow got around it. In the meantime it's still his property that he's paying taxes. Is there a timeframe where he has to restore the land? Maybe he intends to be active again? If he is selling to the State then the State should demand as terms of the sale that the land be in a safe state.

Maybe he should look into selling to an ORV park buyer?