WolfeNotes.com

The Gov.’s  So Called “Massive Plan” Had Massive Flaws

The Governor Was Not Prepared for Sandy – He Now Blames Local Officials

Christie’ DEP Actually Dismantled Climate Adaptation Planning and Downgraded Priority on Coastal Hazards

Christie remains in Denial – NJ the Only State in Northeast without a Climate Change Adaptation Plan

I spewed coffee on the keyboard after reading this blast of bullshit Gov. Christie just told the Bergen Record:

Christie told The Record in an interview last week that a state emergency plan had been in place since after Tropical Storm Irene in 2011. “There was a massive plan,” Christie said. “They’re confused because they’re confused,” he said of local officials. “But there was a plan — but a lot of the plan, the responsibility falls on them,” he said. 

“You know, when a disaster happens, it does not mean that the state is going to substitute ourselves in for every function that is supposed to be a municipal function,” Christie said. “We may help to pay for some of it through federal aid, we may help to supplement it, as we have with zoning officials and inspectors, to try to help make that process move along more quickly. But those things, which are municipal functions before the storm, are municipal functions after the storm and will just be supplemented by us on a case-by-case basis.”

The “Plan” the Governor is referring to is known as the State “Hazard Mitigation Plan”. The Governor himself must approve this Plan under federal and State law.

State government is the lead agency for developing, overseeing, and implementing the plan. The Plan is supposed to specify actions that local governments are required to take.

The State’s role is to not only develop the plan, but to monitor and enforce compliance with the plan.

The Governor is simply lying about all the warnings he ignored and the inadequacy of the State’s Plan. He is evading his responsibility under the law.

But you don’t have to take my word for it – here is the legislative testimony of CHristie’s own DEP Commisisoner, Bob Martin, who explained the State and Governor’s role quite clearly:

I’d like to start off by framing out how we operate in an emergency response point of view from the State. So, I’d like to take a few minutes to talk about that and then the scope of responsibilities DEP has, that fits into an overall comprehensive plan.

First off, the State operates during emergencies based on planning – significant planning that occurs at the state level.

Each department operates with its own plan and ties into an overall unified command which is operated and coordinated by  the State Police.

All the major decisions, critical decisions, are made by the Governor. […]

We do not operate in silos as an organization – we operate clearly together as a team.

The Cabinet members sit with the Governor, helping to inform him on those decisions.  ~~~ DEP Commissioner Bob Martin. Testimony to Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee. December 3, 2012 – watch it, begins at time 1 hour 47 minutes

Got that? “All the major, critical decisions, are made by the Governor”.

Not the Mayor, or local police and fire Departments – or even the Planning and Zoning Boards.

As we’ve noted numerous times, that Plan – updated in April 2012 AFTER  Hurricane Irene – did not consider the lessons learned from Irene and did not consider climate change, sea level rise, and storm surge that did all the damage by Sandy.

As I wrote, here is that caveat from the Plan itself:

Technical information on the four (4) most recent disasters and climate change issues are still being reviewed and are not included in this April 2012 NJ Hazard Plan update.  ~~~ NJ Hazard Mitigation Plan (April 2012)

That Plan did not require that critical infrastructure – like wastewater  and drinking water treatment plants – have basic protections, like a vulnerability assessment, a climate adaptation plan, and basic things like back up power and adequate fuel to power back up diesel pumps and generators.

Or ways to prevent disasters like the massive drinking water pipeline break in Monmouth County, which should have been a huge wakeup cal about the vulnerability of critical infrastructure

That Plan did not have maps of where the locations that are most vulnerable to storm surge and flooding are, or how high and wide the floodwaters and storm surge would go.

That Plan did not have plans for local officials to follow, like DEP had piloted in 3 shore towns in a pilot project known as the Coastal Community Vulnerability Assessment.

Just the opposite: Christie’s DEP dismantled climate adaptation planning and coastal hazard planning.

Those GAPING DEFECTS meant that local officials and the operators made huge preventable mistakes – critical errors that should not have happened – like loss of hundreds of drinking water and sewage treatment plants and over a hundred millions of dollars of NJ Transit trains.

In contrast, NY State and NY City had adequate plans in place and suffered far less damage.

How could the Bergen Record forget its own coverage and fail to hold the Governor accountable?:

Christie: No knowledge of NJ Transit’s hurricane plan before Sandy hit:

Governor Christie said Wednesday that he had no idea NJ Transit had a plan in place months before Superstorm Sandy hit last year that called for storing commuter trains in upland sites — which the transit agency didn’t do — resulting in more than $120 million in damage to locomotives and railcars that were left in low-lying yards in Kearny and Hoboken. […]

“I did not have a specific, personal knowledge of this plan before the storm and, as almost every department of government has a plan, I’m sure that the people of the state will not be shocked to know that I haven’t read every one of them,” Christie said. “So I didn’t know about it.”

So, let;’s recap:

• Christie said he had no knowledge of climate change and had not been briefed on climate change risks;
• Christie said he had no knowledge of NJ Transit’s so called “Plan” (actually a 3 page memo, not a plan)
• Christie’s DEP dismantled climate change adaptation planning and abandoned coastal hazard planning
• Christie and his DEP ignored multiple warnings from scientists about NJ’s high vulnerability to sea level rise, storm surge, and climate change drive extreme weather
• Christie’s DEP admitted that State flood hazard maps were decades old, dating to the Carter Administration, yet still refuses to update them and opposes legislation to require that they be updated
• Just as failures start to get reported in the press a year after the storm, Christie now claims that hazard planning is a local responsibility, despite directly contradictory testimony of his DEP Commissioner that the Gov. is the decider.

And the Bergen Record lets him get away with all this bullshit.

Un-fucking believable!

Worse, after all this evasion and lack of accountability on failures in Sandy preparation, to top it off, the Record repeats the misleading dune myths and gives the Gov. a pass on climate denial:

But he has treaded lightly on the subject of climate change and sea levels. He said the DEP’s one-foot elevation standard was “to try to make sure we account for any eventualities in the future — not necessarily sea rise or any of that stuff but, you know, more intense storms that could come later on.”

He added: “I hope they don’t come, but if they do come, we want to be ready. If you’re going to do this, better safe than sorry. I don’t want people to have to do it twice. So let’s do it once.”

No wonder the Gov. has favorable poll numbers – the press refuses to tell the public the truth about his record.

 

Dunes Offer No Protection – Back Bay Flooding NJ’s “Achilles Heel”

More Evidence That Gov. Christie’s Denial & Rebuild Approach Are Fatally Flawed

The Ocean County draft Hazard Mitigation Plan should be a huge wake-up call to the people of Ocean County (you can view and download the plan here).

The Plan is just more evidence that shows how extremely reckless and irresponsible Gov. Christie’s push to rebuild the shore is, without considering future risks due to climate change and sea level rise.

The State is spending billions of taxpayer dollars on infrastructure and allowing people to rebuild in areas that will be under water permanently, even without a storm.

The Plan is the first County plan I am aware of that considers the vulnerability, risks, and impacts of climate change, sea level rise, and extreme weather and coastal storm surge.

It is  not clear what other coastal county Hazard Mitigation Plans also consider climate change impacts – we hope to report on that soon.

The Ocean County Plan shows the major portions of the county will be permanently inundated – underwater – due to projected sea level rise. Sea level rise make storm surge far worse.

The plan is the subject of public hearings next week (see Ocean county’s press release here:

The meetings are scheduled for 6 p.m., Monday, Oct. 28 at the Ocean County Southern Service Center, 179 South Main St., Manahawkin and 6 p.m., Wednesday, Oct. 30 in Mancini Hall at the main branch of the Ocean County Library, 101 Washington St., Toms River

I testified during last week’s Legislative hearing in Tom’s River about that plan and urged legislators and the public to review it carefully.

Prior to that hearing, I visited the Ocean County Planning Department to ask to borrow maps from the Plan to use at the Legislative hearing. County planners were unaware of the Hazard Mitigation Plan, which was prepared by private consultants working for the Ocean County Sheriff’s Office.

A I’ve written numerous times, the Christie Administration has refused to consider these climate change issues in Sandy preparation or Sandy recovery. And FEMA flood elevation maps and the National Flood Insurance Program also do not consider these projected conditions and risks.

Back bays are particularly at risk – underwater – permanently inundated, with just 1 foot sea level rise. The range of sea level rise values is from 6 inches to over 6 feet.

Rutgers professor Michael Kennish has called back bay flooding NJ’s “Achilles heel”: (Kirk Moore, APP)

Back-bay areas will be New Jersey’s “Achilles’ heel,” said research professor Michael Kennish. “They have no really good way to protect against back-bay flooding.”

And Rutgers Professor Psuty has warned that dunes are not a panacea: (Sarah Watson, AC Press)

While New Jersey and other states have put a major focus on building extensive dune systems following Sandy, those dunes will only protect the immediate oceanfront area, Psuty said. Communities on the bay side of barrier islands will see no protection from the dunes, he said.

“I’m afraid when I hear our local politicians talk about the dunes, they think the dunes solve everything and that is just not the case.”

And Professor Miller warned:

It is estimated sea levels will rise between 2.5 and 6 feet by the end of the century. If those forecasts prove accurate, New Jersey’s effort to require those rebuilding to elevate at least one foot above the current base flood mark is not enough, said Ken Miller, a geologist and sea level rise expert.

“If New Jersey wants to be moving forward to incorporate sea level rise, there needs to be a minimum of two feet above base flood elevation in the current maps,” he said.

Sea level rise was responsible for an additional 38,000 homes to flood during Sandy, Miller said.

The draft plan is now out for public comment, so now is the time to consider how sea level rise will impact the shore and plan accordingly.

Kirk Moore has a related story today regarding lack of adequate storm preparation in Ocean County, see: Ocean County’s Sandy prep called inadequate

I would add that this is not exclusively a County issue – the State has lead role in Hazard Mitigation Planning, so much more accountability needs to be done on Christie Administration’s failures.

NJ Transit is just the tip of a large iceberg.

More to follow as this develops.

Drafting MOA, with No Policy Guidelines or Science Based Standards – Behind Closed Doors

Commission Remains in Denial and Dragging Its Feet on Addressing Climate Change Issues

Opposition Growing as Critical December “Go/No Go” Decision Looms

Dozens of opponents of the South Jersey Gas Co. Pipeline jammed a meeting of the Pinelands Commission’s Policy & Implementation Committee  yesterday to voice opposition to what one activist dubbed “The Christie-Norcross Pipeline”.

Signaling support for the project, Commission Chairman Lohbauer recently directed staff to prepare a “Memorandum of Agreement” (MOA) with the Board of Public Utilities (BPU) that would allow the pipeline project to proceed, despite the fact that it violates the forest protection standards of the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP).

The economic feasibility of the pipeline project is related to the re-powering of the BL England plant, which is under a critical “go/no go” decision by the end of December under a DEP enforcement Order. Similarly, the viability of the BL England plant re-powering is dependent upon approval of the pipeline. It is unlikely that the BL England plant or the pipeline would get financed under regulatory risk. (see this briefing by Ms. Roth on June 28, 2013 minutes)

 There are rapidly approaching deadlines including RC Cape May Holdings determination by May 1, 2014 that it will indeed repower the plant or face complete cessation of operations of the coal fired units. Unless repowered, the Amended Administrative Consent Order (AACO) with the DEP requires the complete shut down of the 2 coal fired units by September 30, 2013 and May 1, 2014, respectively. 

Both projects have received all other DEP and BPU approvals – so the Commission will decide the fate of this $500 million regional fossil infrastructure deal. And it looks like SJG and BL England are demanding the Commission’s approval before the end of December, so we are rapidly approaching a critical juncture.

Under Pinelands rules, a MOA is limited to a “public agency’s development plans”.

The growing opposition has denounced the MOA as an outrageous and illegal abuse, because the pipeline is a private corporate project and BPU is a regulatory agency, not a “development agency”. It was interesting to note that the growing coalition opposing the project now includes the Philadelphia chapter of Move On.Org.

First to testify was Sierra Club Director Jeff Tittel.

Tittel noted that as he spoke, Gov. Christie and South Jersey political boss Sen. President Sweeney were holding a groundbreaking ceremony for a new 700 megawatt natural gas plant in Woodbridge. Gov. Christie is supporting 3 new gas plants with a capacity of about 2,000 megawatts, not including the BL England plant that would be served by the SJG pipeline.

Tittel said that the BL England plant and pipeline were not needed, because  there is a glut of power in NJ. A major new Susquehanna Roseland power line through the Delaware Watergap will import even more dirty coal power.  All this new power supply is coming at a time when NJ’s electric energy demand is falling, demand management programs are underfunded,  1,100 megawatts of solar has come on line, 1,100  megawatts of offshore wind are planned, and there is a huge untapped potential for more energy efficiency, solar, and wind power.

Tittel then warned the Commission that a MOA with BPU to cover for a private pipeline project would open pandora’s box, and set a dangerous precedent. He ran through a list of possible abuses of the MOA mechanisms with other NJ government regulatory agencies – suggesting that the Casino Control Commission could partner with Trump and build a casino in the Pines, or the Sports and Expostion Authority could execute a MOA to build another Xandu in the Pines.

A MOA is an agreement that must show that the project can proceed and provide an “equivalent level of protection” through some kind of “offsets” that can mitigate negative impacts on the Pinelands.

As I’ve written, the Commission conceded that it lacks any technical standards, methods, or Guidelines about what constitutes an “equivalent” level of protection and what a scientifically defensible “off-set” would be. This can only lead to wholesale bargaining and a corrupt cash deal, like the Commission previously did in approving a power line along the GS Parkway.

A former Pinelands Commissioner  chastised the Commission for even considering a MOA to circumvent the CMP.

I testified again to suggest that a MOA was premature. I again urged the Commission to get independent expert support; to develop standards and methods for a “equivalent level of protection” “offset” under a MOA; and to include climate change impacts within the scope of its review.

I then noted that Mr. Tittel’s energy planning and infrastructure comments were well taken and should have been addressed by the Commission during the BPU review of the project. BPU issued its approval back on June 21, 2013.

Under NJ’s energy deregulation scheme, the BPU can no longer require a “demonstration of need”. Therefore, critical energy infrastructure capacity and planning issue are made solely by corporations based on profits, not need.

The Pinelands Commission is not bound by this deregulatory scheme and could address these critical infrastructure planning concerns under its CMP planning power.

However, instead of protecting the Pinelands and raising these critical issues when they were under BPU review, the Commission Director and lawyer were following orders from Gov. Christie’s Office and supporting the project.

In fact, with no Commission policy direction at the time – at least publicly expressed like Chairman Lohbauer recently did in directing staff to prepare a MOA – Director Wittenberg and Counselor Roth were quietly supporting and facilitating the project, in a way designed to keep critical BPU and DEP approvals below the radar before the kind of public awareness and opposition we now see could form and have an impact.

In fact, according to the Commission’s April 12, 2013 minutes:

Notice how Ms. Roth failed to note that BPU review was under way and that it was a critical time to put any Commission concerns on the table.

Note how there is no heads up to the public that BPU will be holding public hearings.

Instead, Roth quietly characterizes the project as a done deal to be the subject of a negotiated MOA.

Roth and Wittenberg were just following orders from the Gov.’s Office and negotiating with BPU, DEP, and SJG behind closed doors and under the public and media radar.

And they were doing that intentionally to avoid the public opposition that we now see.

Just look at the coordinated chronology of 3 state agencies: 1) after the Commission’s staff sent the green light MOA signal in April, 2) DEP issued a revised ACO that promoted re-powering BL England in may, and 3) BPU issued the pipeline approval in June.

All of this staff agency support was coordinated by the Governor’s Office – thus the apt new name for the project as “The Christie Norcross Pipeline”.

Like I said, it’s Chinatown.

The Star Ledger ran an absolutely infuriating editorial today that blames red tape and bureaucrats for the failed response to Sandy, see N.J. bureaucrats are stonewalling Hurricane Sandy victims

As I wrote yesterday, the current intolerable situation is way beyond stonewalling.

I predicted all this would happen way back last November when Christie named Furzan as Czar – and have written about the multiple flaws in that appointment numerous times since then (e.g. see this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this).

The arrogance, incompetence, patronage, cronyism, self promotion, lack of transparency, lack of public accountability, and lack of a science based plan to guide recovery and redevelopment were cemented in place by the Gov. when he chose to name a Czar and consolidate power and control through the federal block grant program funding, rather  than engage in an open and public planning process.

But, instead of drilling down on those issues and conducting real investigative journalism and reporting the facts, the media did nothing but cheerlead for Gov. Christie and stoke multiple misleading myths.

The media ignored the substance and continued cheerleading, even after obvious policy contrast stories were teed up by NY Gov. Cuomo’s response to Sandy and President Obama’s Executive Order.

And all that is what built his favorable poll ratings and enabled the policy failures and resulting  human suffering on the ground we are seeing now.

Since Ferzan’s appointment by the Gov.,  it has only gotten worse, and the Gov. has politicized and self promoted shamelessly, just as I predicted back in January: Gov. Christie Launches Re-Election Campaign in Belmar.

It continues today – most recently an amazing example occurred yesterday.

On Monday, during a Legislative hearing in Toms River, the Gov. got blasted for failure to distibute ONE DOLLAR from a  $600 million pot of federal money to help people rebuild damaged homes, know as the RREM program. Yet, the Ledger had a favorable headline about a planned future release of just $8 million of the $600 million.

Repeat: not one dollar distributed, at a time when thousands of people are homeless.

First of all, that story was broken by the Wall Street Journal, not a NJ media outlet. Second, it got very little coverage in NJ outlets and even less the stories on Monday’s Toms River hearing.

But far worse, the RREM failure was cited by Senator Buono in the last debate, and again ignored by media.

So, after virtually ignoring a massive EPIC RREM failure, what does the Star Ledger and the rest of the media do?

They trip over themselves to write a positive story – based exclusively on another Christie press stunt – about a new $57 million chunk of federal money to help homeowners!!!

So, I blame the media for the epic failure of democracy and the likely re-election of an incompetent fraud.

Next in line are the “bi-partisan” Machine Democrats who “worked with the Gov.”, instead of looking out for their own people and holding him accountable.

Last in line are the cowardly “environmentalists” hiding under their desks – and planning advocates and academics – all of whom knew how fucked up this all was and said nothing, either out of fear, career, or financial interests of their organizations.

Below we repost the original November 2012 prediction:

NJ Gov. Christie Slams Door Shut on Coastal and Climate Change Reforms In Wake of Sandy

November 28th, 2012Bill Wolfe

Pinelands Ecosystems Highly Sensitive to Water Levels – Climate Change Will Alter Hydrology

“American Die”

 

I can’t remember if I cried, when I read about his widowed bride.

But something touched me deep inside, the day, the music, died.  ~~~ American Pie  –(Don Mclean 1971)

Don McLean couldn’t remember, but I recall that I cried when I read about the NY Times story  Savoring Bogs and Moose, Fearing They’ll Vanish as the Adirondacks Warm .

That article reported on science conducted by NY DEC and Cornell University, which projected the decline and eventual loss of spruce-fir forests and alpine tundra in the Adirondacks as a result of climate change.

Mr. Jenkins, who is the author of the book “Climate Change in the Adirondacks: The Path to Sustainability,”spends much of his time on the water and in the woods, documenting the ecosystem with a notebook and a camera. He thus brings an unusual perspective to the scene. Where a casual observer might behold diversity and continuity, he projects decades into the future and finds absence and loss.

“Nothing we see here is found at temperatures 10 degrees warmer, and very little makes it to five degrees warmer,” Mr. Jenkins said matter-of-factly on a mild fall day. “We will be in a climate that this community has never known in its history. One has to go back to world climate levels we haven’t seen in 15 million years.” …

A major study of the impact of climate change on New York State drew similar conclusions. In a 600-page report published last month, scientists from Cornell and Columbia Universities, as well as the City University of New York, said that temperatures would rise as much as nine degrees by the 2080s. They also projected the decline and eventual loss of spruce-fir forests and alpine tundra in the Adirondacks.

Mr. Jenkins has yet to detect signs of stress in trees and plants, which respond slowly to alterations in temperature. Northern mammals like moose and pine martens are holding steady, though they, too, are sure to suffer. “They are both at their thermal limits here,” he said.

Yet there is ample evidence elsewhere that the region is already reacting to a warmer climate. “For the hunters, farmers, hikers and birders, the change in the climate, especially in the past 10 to 15 years, is just too great to write off,” he said

Repeat: loss of the spruce-fir forests. Gone. Forever.

Growing up, my family vacationed in the Adirondacks. The pristine lakes and streams and wild forests just rocked my young world.

The thought that those forests would be gone forever – that my grandchildren and all boys and girls might never again experience what I did – forever – is just too depressing for words. From awe to despair.

I don’t have that emotional attachment to the Pinelands – but I’m sure many do – and that they would share my feelings too.

So, what about the Pinelands? What will climate change do to the Pinelands?

Yesterday, I wrote about current impacts to forests from warming and insects (see: Climate change already impacting Pinelands forests).

But in addition to temperature driven insect threats, Pinelands scientists have done considerable research on how water levels impact Pinelands ecology.

While this research was originally intended to assess water withdrawals, much of this work is relevant to assessing the hydrological impacts of climate change, because fundamental science and climate models project that climate change will alter temperature, rainfall, and drought patterns that drive Pinelands water levels and ecosystem dynamics:

Physiological Indicators

In plants, stress due to marginal-growth conditions associated with altered hydrologic regimes may be reflected by physiological responses long before death or obvious growth reductions become apparent. Because many of the indicator-plant species to be studied are woody shrubs, their response to alterations in water regime may be slow. It can be expected that wetland-adapted plants will experience drought stress if subjected to hydrologic conditions that are optimal for upland plants. Moreover, differences in tolerance to both dry soils and wet soils may eventually drive changes in community composition. Physiological measurements can serve as an indicator of the stresses that may eventually lead to changes in community composition.

Landscape Models

The models developed as part of the species, community, and ecosystem-process field studies will be translated into GIS-based models that will be used to estimate the effects of hydrologic changes across the landscape of the study areas. The GIS-based species and community gradient models will be used to assess the landscape-scale distribution of community types and individual species and their response to changes in hydrologic regime. The ecosystem-process landscape models will be used to estimate water stress and photosynthesis under different hydrologic-regime scenarios. The goal is to develop models that can be applied throughout the Pinelands area.

Anuran-larval Development

Intermittent ponds are important breeding habitat for many native Pinelands frog and toad species, including Pine Barrens treefrogs, northern spring peepers, and southern leopard frogs.  The successful recruitment of these species depends on the maintenance of adequate water levels for larval development.  Altered hydrology may have a more pronounced effect on late-breeding species such as the Pine Barrens treefrog because their transformation from larvae to adults occurs closer to the period when ponds usually dry. The central question to be addressed by the anuran research conducted by Pinelands Commission scientists is how larval development is related to intermittent-pond hydrology.

Pinelands Commission scientists have done lots of research that shows that Pinelands ecosystems are very sensitive to water  –

Now they need to apply that science to climate change induced hydrological modification – not just water withdrawals.

[Note: tree frog:(Fla)

The impending global climate change may be a threat to the Pine Barrens treefrog due to predicted longer drought periods, more severe storms and floods, less available fresh water, increasing temperatures, and sea level rise (Field et al. 2007).

So when political hacks at the Commission and DEP say that they don’t have the tools to consider climate change in reviewing proposals to build massive fossil fuel infrastructure like the South Jersey Gas Co. pipeline, call them out on that.

Check it out:

Final Reports and Publications

Reports:
Bunnell, J. F. and J. L. Ciraolo. 2010. The potential impact of simulated groundwater withdrawals on the oviposition, larval development, and metamorphosis of pond-breeding frogs. Pinelands Commission, New Lisbon, New Jersey, USA. (click here)

Ehrenfeld, J. G., and S. Yu.  2010.  Nitrogen dynamics study final report.  Part II. Dynamics of nitrogen under field conditions.  Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA. (click here)

Laidig, K. J. 2010. The potential impact of simulated water-level reductions on intermittent-pond vegetation. Pinelands Commission, New Lisbon, New Jersey, USA.  (click here)

Laidig, K. J., R. A. Zampella, A. M. Brown, and N. A. Procopio. 2010. Development of vegetation models to predict the potential effect of groundwater withdrawals on forested wetlands. Pinelands Commission, New Lisbon, New Jersey, USA.  (click here)

Laidig, K. J., R. A. Zampella, and C. Popolizio. 2010. Hydrologic regimes associated with Helonias bullata L. (swamp pink) and the potential impact of simulated water-level reductions. Pinelands Commission, New Lisbon, New Jersey, USA.  (click here)

Lathrop, R. G., Y. Zhang, Z. Maio, and J. Bognar.  2010.  Landscape level modeling of the potential effect of groundwater-level declines on forested wetlands in the New Jersey Pinelands.  Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.  (click here)

Procopio, N. A. 2010. The effect of streamflow reductions on aquatic habitat availability and fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages in coastal plain streams. Pinelands Commission, New Lisbon, New Jersey, USA.  (click here)

Publications:
Bunnell, J. F. and J. L. Ciraolo.  2010.  The potential impact of simulated ground-water withdrawals on the oviposition, larval development, and metamorphosis of pond-breeding frogs.  Wetlands Ecology and Management 18:495-509. (click here)

Charles, E. G. and R. S. Nicholson. 2012. Simulation of groundwater flow and hydrologic effects of groundwater withdrawals from the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer system in the Pinelands of southern New Jersey. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012-5122, 219 p. (click here)

Ehrenfeld, J.G. and S. Yu. 2012. Patterns of nitrogen mineralization in wetlands of the New Jersey Pinelands along a shallow water table gradient. American Midland Naturalist 167:322-335. (click here)

Kennen, J. G. and M. L. Riskin.  2010.  Evaluating effects of potential changes in streamflow regime on fish and aquatic-invertebrate assemblages in the New Jersey Pinelands: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5079, 34 p. (click here)

Laidig, K. J.  2012. Simulating the effect of groundwater withdrawals on intermittent-pond vegetation communities.  Ecohydrology 5:841-852. (click here)

Laidig, K. J., R. A. Zampella, and C. Popolizio. 2009. Hydrologic regimes associated with Helonias bullata L. (swamp pink) and the potential impact of simulated water-level reductions. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 136:221-232. (click here)

Laidig, K. J., R. A. Zampella, A. M. Brown, and N. A. Procopio.  2010.  Development of vegetation models to predict the potential effect of groundwater withdrawals on forested wetlands.  Wetlands 30:489-500. (click here)

Procopio, N. A.  2012. The effect of streamflow reductions on aquatic habitat availability and fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages in coastal plain streams.  Ecohydrology 5:306-315.

Sumner, D. M., R. S. Nicholson, and K. L. Clark. 2012. Measurement and simulation of evapotranspiration at a wetland site in the New Jersey Pinelands. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012-5118, 30 p. (click here)

Walker, R. L., P. A. Reilly, and K. M. Watson.  2008.  Hydrogeologic framework in three drainage basins in the New Jersey Pinelands, 2004-06:  U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5061, 147 p. (click here)

Walker, Richard L.,  R. S. Nicholson, and D. A. Storck.  2011.  Hydrologic Assessment of Three Drainage Basins in the Pinelands of Southern New Jersey, 2004-06.  U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011-5056, 145 p.  (click here)

Yu, S. and J. G. Ehrenfeld.  2009.  The effects of changes in soil moisture on nitrogen cycling in acid wetland types of the New Jersey Pinelands (USA).  Soil Biology and Biochemistry 41:2394-2405. (click here)

Zhang, Y., Z. Miao, J. Bognar, and R. G. Lathrop Jr. 2011.  Landscape scale modeling of the potential effect of groundwater-level declines on forested wetlands in the New Jersey Pinelands.  Wetlands 31:1131-1142.