DEP Says New Walmart Will Improve Threatened Species Habitat
DEP Does U-Turn and Approves A Twice Denied CAFRA Permit
[Update: 1/14/11 – good story by Kirk Moore: Walmart store on Route 37 West in Toms River nears settlement.
Dave Pringle, whose shame and sycophancy know no bounds (and doesn’t know a pine snake mitigation plan from a snake in the grass), it at it again:
“The devil is in the details,” said David Pringle of the New Jersey Environmental Federation. “We have to take a close look at these acres to see how they would have been preserved otherwise.”
But Carleton Montgomery [PPA] and conservation biology expert Emile Devito [NJCF] know better:
“They’re taking land that is not good pine snake habitat now . . . and hoping they can do things to make it attractive to pine snakes,” Carleton Montgomery of the Pinelands Preservation Alliance, said after he and Emile DeVito, the science manager for the New Jersey Conservation Foundation, took their first look at the DEP proposal.
At a broader level, Montgomery said, the settlement appears to go against the coastal rules’ imperative of saving habitat, and the Christie administration’s plans for reducing runoff pollution in the Barnegat Bay watershed.
“This is going to be another case of where Barnegat Bay will lose,” with the addition of a new impervious surface in the watershed, said Montgomery, whose group advocated redeveloping one of Toms River’s obsolete shopping centers. [end update]
Gotta say, I thought DEP’s claim (since retracted) that landfill leachate was “natural” was hitting rock bottom, but, guess I’m wrong again.
Today, in a press release with a whole series of over the top claims, DEP hits the Trifecta and says that a new Walmart is “conscientiously planned“, provides a “net environmental gain“, and”enhances the local habitat“of state threatened northern pine snake:
“This agreement represents a common sense approach that allows this forested land to remain without any development potential whatsoever, and enhances the local habitat of the northern pine snake while allowing reasonable, conscientiously planned development along a major transportation route to move forward and create economic growth,” Commissioner Bob Martin said. “This agreement will result in a net environmental gain by permanently preserving 10 acres for every acre that would be developed.”
The DEP encouraged Jaylin to search for a location for the development project on previously developed land, but the firm was unable to find a suitable alternative.
No alternative site? Anywhere? Really?
And how is it mathematically possible to provide a NET gain when land is developed (i.e. according to DEP, “21 acres of habitat that will be lost during construction of the store and parking areas“)?
New land is not being made – once it is developed it is gone.
I am not familiar with this project, so here is the full DEP press release.
Read it and decide for yourself if the approval is consistent with DEP’ recent decision to reject the NJ Builders Association delisting petition and protect northern pine snake
My guess is that since a majority of the 212 acres to be preserved will be “enhanced,” DEP is therefore claiming a net gain in habitat value or function (not acreage). Still fairly dubious. Like you say, 21 acres is being whacked, and walmart is not mitigating the loss by converting developed land to undeveloped land.
Thanks Zimmerman – of course you are correct on the mitigation issue. My point was that DEP didn’t call it mitigation or distinguish betweeen functional habitat values and so called land preservation. They bundled a whole bunch iof ssues together and called it a “net environmental gain”, creating the impression that Walmart development is a good thing. Hey, lets have some more!
When the term “mitigation” is used, it is obvious that some damage is being offset.
In terms of habitat, of course there are the functional value issues, which Emile DeVito seems to have big problems with (see Kirk Moore story).
But then there is the land preservation issue – snakes don’t know the legal status of their habitat, so legally “preserving” the land does nothing from a habitat standpoint.
And I suspect also that the land preserved had very limited development potential and little market demand.
Bad idea to try to do these kind of deals.
@zimmerman
Thanks Zimmerman – of course you are correct on the mitigation issue. My point was that DEP didn’t call it mitigation or distinguish betweeen functional habitat values and so called land preservation. They bundled a whole bunch iof ssues together and called it a “net environmental gainâ€, creating the impression that Walmart development is a good thing. Hey, lets have some more!
When the term “mitigation†is used, it is obvious that some damage is being offset.
In terms of habitat, of course there are the functional value issues, which Emile DeVito seems to have big problems with (see Kirk Moore story).
But then there is the land preservation issue – snakes don’t know the legal status of their habitat, so legally “preserving†the land does nothing from a habitat standpoint.
And I suspect also that the land preserved had very limited development potential and little market demand.
Bad idea to try to do these kind of deals.