Cornell Ties It With Shorthand Goal With Less Than 2 Minutes Left

Cornell pulled out an amazing 3-2 win in overtime against #12 nationally ranked Quinnipiac in the ECAC semifinal in Lake Placid, NY.

The winning OT goal was scored by Tim Rego.

Cornell managed to tie the game with less than 2 minutes left on an unusual man down two man break, with a shot from a sharp angle.

I thought Cornell was the better team, but Quinnipiac benefited from a soft goal and literally the only mistake Cornell made in the defensive end.

Cornell plays the winner of the other semifinal Clarkson v. Dartmouth.

In that game, I’m rooting for the Clarkson Golden Knights, as I began my academic experienced there in 1975 as a freshman where I roomed and hung with varsity hockey players Bob Shaw and Marco Cardoni.

Federal & State Officials Have Known Of Sinkhole Risks For Decades

State DEP Ignored Geological Reports & Buried Its Head In The Sand

(caption: sinkhole collapse on River Road, Montague, NJ during gas pipeline construction (7/9/13 – photo by Bill Wolfe)

Let’s not wait for an apartment building to collapse into a sinkhole before conducting an analysis of sinkhole risks.

Two weeks ago, we wrote to warn that “shoes will continue to drop” in the latest sinkhole disaster.

Sure enough, as predicted, another huge sinkhole opened up, closing Interstate 80 in both directions.

NJ Spotlight’s coverage again focused on the nuisance impacts to drivers and economic impacts on local businesses, instead of investigating:

1) what is going on geologically to cause these sinkholes;

2) document the extent of the problem and the risks to not only roads, but inhabited buildings and critical infrastructure; and

3) holding accountable whoever is responsible for the geophysical and engineering analysis that should have known about and avoided these risks, see:

• New I-80 sinkhole aggravates traffic jams, fuels frustrations

But NJ Spotlight’s coverage was not only misfocused.

It created a dangerous false impression that the sinkhole problem is a “new threat”.

Worse, it created this false impression via an interview with a local resident, who speculated about the cause and claimed it was a “this new threat” (listen at time 2:30).

Amazingly, NJ Spotlight then casually reported that another huge sinkhole recently formed in this resident’s apartment complex!

Federal and State scientists and planners, including USGS, NJ DEP, and the State Planning Commission – have known about sinkhole risks from abandoned mines, limestone (karst) geology, and illegal disposal of construction and demolition waste for decades.

I wrote about that science in response to the Tennessee Gas Pipeline sinkhole collapse on River Road, Montague, NJ on 7/9/13. I questioned how such a disaster was allowed to happen and criticized lax DEP regulatory oversight of pipeline and other construction.

So I’ll repeat that science:

From the US Geological Survey:

Structural and lithologic control of karst features in northwestern New Jersey 

From the NJ State Geologist:

KARST IN THE DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

From DEP and State planners

Limestone Forests

And we used DEP data to warn about abandoned mines:

At that time, I reached out to DEP and State legislators to urge that they act to investigate the extent of the risks and adopt protective regulations to prevent future disasters.

State officials did nothing.

There needs to be an immediate science based investigation of the extent and location of sinkhole risks.

Let’s not wait for an apartment building to collapse into a sinkhole before conducting that analysis.

And NJ Spotlight and government officials must stop focusing on bagel shops and traffic jams.

Over A Decade Of Delay, While Environmental Groups Cheerlead

I got a belly laugh today in reading NJ Spotlight’s coverage of the “new Report” (their words!) by the Pinelands Preservation Alliance (PPA). The PPA Report provides mild criticism of failures by the Pinelands Commission and Gov. Murphy to walk the talk on the climate emergency, see:

• Pinelands facing more fires and floods as climate changes, report says

*check out the URL which provides the original headline. It reveals how NJ Spotlight editors really toned down criticism by leaving out “not enough state funding”.

There’s a lot more lacking from the Murphy Administration on climate in the Pinelands than State funding, like leadership, planning, science, monitoring, and regulation, problems that are compounded by DEP mismanagement of public lands and forests.

[Update: As I wrote over 2 years ago:

1) The Pinelands CMP lacks any standards or requirements or scientific monitoring to address the climate emergency. […]

3) The Pinelands Commission (and the Murphy DEP) rejected a petition for rulemaking to amend the CMP to restrict new development in mapped extreme wildfire risks locations and require additional fireproofing for existing development.

The Commission pledged to amend the CMP to address climate almost 9 years ago, but has yet to act on that pledge. They are currently considering a very modest climate policy proposal under the leadership of Commissioner Lohbauer, but it is weak and seems to be going nowhere. ~~~~ end update]

There is nothing “new” in the PPA Report. I wrote that story 2 YEARS ago, but I did so in a very different way that provided context and did not mislead readers.

Regarding inadequate Commission staffing levels, we blasted the Gov. and Commission 2 YEARS ago, but we tied that criticism to a destructive DEP logging project, which was justified by a sham pretext of wildfire prevention, that PPA supported, and thus the issue was buried (again), see:

• Pinelands Commission Admits That Staff Shortfalls “Inhibit” Implementation Of Gov. Murphy’s Climate Goals And Programs

We’ve been pounding the climate issues and lack of action for over a decade, see:

• Climate Change Already Impacting Pinelands Forests (2013)
• Will Climate Change Destroy The Pinelands?
• Pinelands Commission Lawyer Claims Agency Lacks Power To Consider Climate Change In Review of $500 Million Fossil Infrastructure Project
• Review of Pinelands Gas Pipeline And New Power Plant Fails to Consider Climate Change Impacts
• A Climate Agenda For The Pinelands

Given the pathetically lame nature of PPA and NJ Spotlight’s approach, instead of delving into the details (again), we’ll repost a “Yes Men” stunt we pulled 10 years ago and still fondly recall.

The Pinelands Commission Launches New Climate Initiative

Trenton Policymakers Have Done Nothing To Reduce The Impacts Of  EPA Dismantling

A Handful Of Lawsuits Will Not Protect NJ’s Environment And Public Health

Despite multiple warnings – including from a DEP scientist on the Drinking Water Quality Institute – the Murphy DEP has done nothing to protect NJ from the Trump EPA comprehensive dismantling.

We’ve provided not only clear and credible warnings, but proposed solutions as well, see:

• A Strategy To Respond To Trump EPA Rollbacks – An Open Letter

At this point, their failure to respond amounts to negligence and gross incompetence. Either that, or they quietly support the rollbacks and would rather point their fingers at Trump than accept responsibility for the deeply unpopular anti-environmental policies they apparently support.

Again validating those warnings, the NY Times reports today that just days after announcing a plan to dismantle EPA climate science and multiple environmental regulations, the Trump EPA plans to virtually eliminate critical EPA science programs and fire 75% of EPA scientists, see:

• Trump Administration Aims to Eliminate E.P.A.’s Scientific Research Arm

The Environmental Protection Agency plans to eliminate its scientific research arm, firing as many as 1,155 chemists, biologists, toxicologists and other scientists, according to documents reviewed by Democrats on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

The NYT story highlights the significance of, among other things, Project 2025 recommendations for Trump EPA dismantling of the science and data in EPA’s “Integrated Risk Information System” (IRIS):

It calls for eliminating programs within the science office, in particular the Integrated Risk Information System, which evaluates the human health effects of exposure to toxic chemicals and uses that information to form the basis for restrictions on their use. Industries regulated by the E.P.A. often push back against that research.

Months ago, we specifically wrote about IRIS and warned DEP Commissioner LaTourette and Senate Environment Committee members about the need to act to block elimination of IRIS.

In a December 11, 2024 email and substack post, I warned:

Dear Commissioner LaTourette – you should be aware of the below issues discussed at yesterday’s DWQI meeting. […]

During discussion, DWQI member Judy Klotz suggested that the DWQI consider some kind of recommendation to insulate and protect NJ’s drinking water program from anticipated attacks at the federal level under the incoming Trump administration. Trump has pledged to rollback environmental regulations even more severely than he did during his first term (over 120 regulations) under the Project 2025 strategy to “dismantle the administrative state”. Klotz’s suggestion was ignored by the Chair.

During public comment, I supported Klotz’s suggestion and emphasized that the entire regulatory framework was in jeopardy and that there was a LOT the DEP Commissioner, Governor, and Legislature could do to block Trump rollbacks, including working with the outgoing Biden EPA.

During Trump’s first term, he issued Executive Orders that directed federal agencies to repeal and not enforce not only regulations, but funding and even basic foundational elements (data, methods, databases, etc). One example was the repeal of the EPA’s Social Cost of Carbon – so suppose the new Trump EPA erased theEPA’s Integrated Risk Information System?

IRIS is the scientific foundation for DEP risk assessments, regulatory standards, and permit decisions. An Emergency Order by the Governor or new legislation could freeze current science and data from any abolition or rollback, And that’s just ONE example.

Repeat:

An Emergency Order by the Governor or new legislation could freeze current science and data from any abolition or rollback,

I followed that email and post up with several additional warnings.

All were ignored – including by NJ media.

What explains that? Incompetence? Negligence? Cowardice?

I began warnings about Project 2025 and Trump dismantling back in July of 2023, long before Project 2025 was even an issue in the campaign. I specifically warned about EPA dismantling and attacks on climate and science.

So, to close this last warning out, we repost that email – maybe someone will wake up now that the nightmare is too obvious to ignore:

———- Original Message ———-

From: Bill WOLFE <>

To: “shawn.latourette@dep.nj.gov” <shawn.latourette@dep.nj.gov>, “Sean.Moriarty@dep.nj.gov” <Sean.Moriarty@dep.nj.gov>, senbsmith <SenBSmith@njleg.org>, “tmoran@starledger.com” <tmoran@starledger.com>, “fkummer@inquirer.com” <fkummer@inquirer.com>, “wparry@ap.org” <wparry@ap.org>, “jonhurdle@gmail.com” <jonhurdle@gmail.com>, sengreenstein <sengreenstein@njleg.org>, “kduhon@njleg.org” <kduhon@njleg.org>, asmmckeon <asmmckeon@njleg.org>, Robert Hennelly <rhennelly55@gmail.com>, “jpillets@icloud.com” <jpillets@icloud.com>

Date: 07/28/2023 9:39 AM PDT

Subject: “Project 2025″

Dear Commissioner LaTourette:

I write to give you a heads up and urge you to read the Heritage Foundation’s recent initiative called “Project 2025″. It is explicitly designed to “dismantle the administrative State”. FULL REPORT HERE:

https://www.project2025.org/policy/

Chapter 13 provides a radical agenda to dismantle EPA and virtually all regulatory, science, and climate programs – read it here:

https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHAPTER-13.pdf

I strongly urge you to get out in front of and do everything within your power to derail this freight train. This includes a strong public defense and expansion of regulatory programs, which is something both you and Gov. Murphy consistently either fail to defend or overtly run away from (“we’re not mandating ….” et al).

The Heritage Report is the radical right’s second long game strategic plan.

The first was outlined in the 1971 Powell Memo. The Powell memo was not taken seriously at the time it was released and the radical ideological and policy threats it posed were ignored. That abdication by people and professionals who support effective government and environmental protection contributed to the dire straights were are now in.

You know what they say about those who fail to learn from history.

Bill Wolfe

More Mitigation Means More Development, More Loss Of Environmentally Sensitive Lands, More Flooding, Less Habitat, And More Water Pollution

DEP Proposal Makes A Mockery Of Commitment To Address Increasing Threats Due To Climate Driven Sea Level Rise, Storm Surge, Flooding, And Extreme Weather

Prior DEP Scientific Study Found That Mitigation Does Not Work

Today the Murphy DEP proposed new regulations to expand the use of “mitigation” options in DEP land use programs.

“Mitigation” allows developers to destroy environmentally sensitive regulated lands in exchange for “mitigation” of other lands to allegedly replace the ecological and other functions of the destroyed lands.

Here’s how DEP explains what “mitigation” is (p. 3, emphasis mine):

Mitigation is a tool used to replace environmental resources when the determination is made that a proposed activity meets the standards and conditions to be granted a permit that will result in the loss of coastal or freshwater wetlands, intertidal/subtidal shallows, or riparian zones.

Did you get that? Were you able to penetrate the DEP bureaucratic spin?

The key words are that instead of simply denying a permit for new development, the DEP will issue a permit that “will result in the loss” of critical natural resources.

The “mitigation” is supposed to offset those losses.

Allowable DEP “mitigation” also includes complex credit generation and mitigation banking and trading schemes that are mostly scams. Think of them as Trump’s ‘ART OF THE DEAL” (financial, engineered, and legalistic scams!).

The DEP proposal would expand mitigation as follows:

The proposal encompasses the three land use rules as follows:

1. Within the CZM rules, this proposal would allow applicants who need to mitigate for intertidal/subtidal shallows (ISS) impacts to use a mitigation bank.

2. The proposal adds the ability to preserve wetlands as a form of mitigation to both the CZM and FWPA rules.

3. The FWPA rules are being amended to change the mitigation hierarchy for a “larger” disturbance and make it the same as the hierarchy for a “smaller” disturbance.

4. The proposal would repeal the option to make a “single family contribution” to the Wetlands Mitigation Council for impacts resulting from general permits.

5. In the Flood Hazard Area rules, the proposal would allow applicants to use the full range of mitigation options, including a mitigation bank, if mitigation along the same water or upstream is not feasible for major developments proposed along C-1 waterways.

Incredibly, the DEP is proposing to allow expanded mitigation (i.e. use of a mitigation bank) for loss of “intertidal/subtidal shallows”. These lands and adjacent lands are likely to be inundated by sea level rise.

The DEP’s proposal to allow use of mitigation bank for ISS mitigation is revealing.

Although the DEP has been unable for over 20 years to adopt a science based methodology to calculate the value of natural resources damaged by pollution to support DEP’s pennies on the dollar NRD claims, the DEP has adopted a methodology to economically value land loss to promote mitigation deals (and allow new development to destroy environmentally sensitive lands).

DEP adopted a mitigation economic formula to promote new development. The DEP’s land valuation formula has nothing to do with ecological value, but only real estate market value (DEP proposal, p.5):

To address this issue when first identified in 2019, until such time that the rules could be amended, the Department requested, and the Council approved, a simplified process to determine the “amount of the value of the land filled and the cost of creation of intertidal and subtidal shallows of equal ecological value to those which are being lost.” The Division has been using the tax-assessed value of the land to calculate the “value of the land filled” by using a simple formula:

The DEP now proposes to revise this sham, but the proposed changes still rely on real estate market valuation. DEP simply shifts a site specific scheme to the mitigation bank. DEP does this to lower the cost to developers and streamline and accelerate the mitigation scheme, not to capture ecological land values:

Based on these factors, using a mitigation bank more quickly replaces lost resources, and may also be more cost-effective than the current rules for those mitigating for ISS. Therefore, the Department is proposing to allow the use of a mitigation bank for impacts to ISS.

So much for regulatory reform and addressing the climate emergency.

The proposal also will allow more new development and the destruction of critically important and environmentally sensitive lands, including vegetated buffers along high quality “Category One” (C1) streams (see #5 above).

This can only lead to more flooding, loss of habitat, and water pollution.

We remember when DEP relied on science and used regulations to protect natural resources from destruction by development. (We worked there then!)

Very few people recall or are aware that back in 2002, the McGreevey DEP issued a press release that released a DEP study that found that wetlands mitigation does not work:

TRENTON 04/11 — New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner Bradley M. Campbell today released the findings of a study designed to assess the success of the state’s efforts to mitigate the loss of wetlands by creating new freshwater wetlands. The report shows that the program has been much less than successful. In fact, results of the 90-site study indicate a 22 percent net loss of wetland acreage and that only 45 percent of the created wetland acreage required under the state’s program was achieved.

“New Jersey has long required that up to two acres of wetlands be created for every one acre lost,” said Commissioner Campbell. “However, setting goals for a net increase in wetlands is futile if, in the end, your results show an actual net loss. The most important lesson we must learn from these results is that mitigation is not a substitute for avoiding and minimizing wetlands fill wherever possible.”

Read the DEP study:

• Creating Indicators of Wetland Status (Quantity and Quality): Freshwater Wetland Mitigation in New Jersey

Over the 23 years since that DEP Report was issued, NJ has lost even more acres of critically important wetlands to failed mitigation projects and new development (we don’t know how many because DEP no longer issues those kinds of critical reports).

The Murphy DEP’s proposed huge expansion of the failed mitigation approach will only accelerate those wetlands losses and loss of other environmentally sensitive and flood prone lands, including new development of lands that likely will be inundated due to sea level rise.

The DEP’s proposal makes a mockery of their “commitment” to adapt to the climate emergency and make NJ more “resilient” (AKA DEP’s “REAL” rules).