Environmental Impact Report: Elm Street Park (ESP) & Florham Parks Open Space

"Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them". George Santayana

Section VI: 10 Environmental Impacts of Elm Street Park Direct & Post Development
Hopefully the above information has functioned as a primer to be able to better assimilate the information below. The following 10 points are presented as a counter to the non-science based rec-community information that was publicly circulated in mid-January 2012. The information provided herein was never considered during the development of the Recreation Master Plan, the Engineer Design Stage for the Park, nor was it requested by the Borough Administrators responsible for the decisions that led to Elm Street Woodland as the parks appointed location: 1. 20 +/- acres of tree removal resulting in a reduction of net carbon sequestered by the service nature provides free of charge. Keep in mind the Borough does not have to replace these trees under the same guidelines as specified in its own tree ordinance. Of course the new park will be planted back with nonnative ornamentals. From the engineered design plans I have seen the plantback will still leave the park with fewer trees than was removed. Hopefully the town will allow its local Environmental Commission to help in the design standards and replant the park with predominantly native materials, this would be a small concession, tree removal in town continues to march forward as land is cleared for subdivisions, the aftermath of Irene, the Jurris property (8 acres of 100+/- trees), recent commercial development - some are being planted back as part of the tree ordinance but for certain there is a net loss of trees in Florham Park. It should be noted that any plant back will take a long time 20+/- years before mature trees will beautify the Park it will take money and maintenance of these trees to keep them from the ravages of deer browse, salt infusions from winter ice and snow removal, etc.;

2. After 100% tree removal in this section of the Elm Street forest sediment will breach the silt fences during heavy rain events and impact the adjacent wetland fringe. Silt fences even at their best do not contain all of the soil from infringing on the surrounding environment. Runoff and the addition of open canopy cover will expedite the propagation of non-native grasses and forbs in the buffer not a good thing for the adjacent health of natal wetlands and for BR Environmental, LLC 54 Park Street Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 1

healthy forest succession to proceed The minimum 50 foot wetland buffer will be ecologically destroyed as native, grasses, rushes, sedges, and shrubs are recolonized by disturbed site invasive materials. Looking at images on the Concerned Citizen Web Site, http://www.fpcitizens.com , you will see that the silt fence is directly adjacent to the wetland buffer lines. In these images you can see debris, wood chips, and soils already disturbed. Apparent from this is that the natal wetlands will never function inherent to its normal ecology again;

3. Direct taking of forest cover will impact migrating wildlife, especially Neotropical and native songbirds from ever nesting in this forest patch again. Any local wildlife, hibernating mammals, herptafauna (snakes, turtles, frogs and salamanders) or winter roosting birds will be directly killed and/or displaced during the clearing activity (An eastern box turtle was found on the site in April 2011 by the independent consultant that was looking at the isolated wetlands). The direct taking of wildlife of course was never considered as no one can get into the site because of the fence around the property to perform a proper inventory. The soccer club, town administrators and the engineer just assumed nothing is living there. Further to this point is the fact that the FPEC was never invited on the property to give it a walk through in order to provide independent comment. I can tell you that my many walks around the fenced area over the past two years have produced an inventory of over 63 bird sightings, 8 species of herptafauna, and 7 mammal species including one black bear (May 2011) behind Allerton Court located and behind the office buildings along the marsh. All these sightings were casual as I was not doing a formal inventory I realize that these sightings occurred around the fenced area that is now cleared but certainly the site is suitable for some aspect of these species life history requirements. Question to Town Administrators and Recreation Committee: What would be the actual biodiversity index if a formal survey were conducted during all 3 growing seasons, performed by experts in biological fields with expertise in individual taxa? Certainly the answer would be greater than what I observed through casual observation. This is certainly counter to what the public has been fed by non-science minded, rec-centric individuals with an obvious agenda. They banked on, and were correct in banking on, the fact that no one is looking. In point of fact the area is a no-trespassing zone and has been for 30 years +/-, therefore no data regarding metrics of environmental sensitivity exist for the site proper and surrounding lands. Why? Simply because the area is off-limits BR Environmental, LLC 54 Park Street Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 2

to the general public (see 9 below if you think that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), ever performed or ever had to perform such an inventory);

4.

The Deer displacement from the 20 acres of land clearing will be immediate. These deer will be pushed into marginal habitat and backyards. When the park is eventually planted back the habitat for deer will be better and an uptick in the local population will occur as native and non-native trees and shrubs act as a dietary smorgasbord. White tailed deer always do better under park-like settings. This of course will exacerbate the obvious point made in the Kinsey report (Report by one landscape architect that rubber-stamped the Recreation Master Plan). It should be further noted that deer population balloons under fragmented conditions. The new field complex adds to the Boroughs seemingly endless thirst to fragment all remaining buildable tracts of open space even if target areas are on land of high environmental sensitivity. This will only continue to fuel the deer population throughout the Borough. This of course is great for the ad hoc hunting club in town that utilizes public and private land for their hobby while disregarding the root cause of white-tailed deer overpopulation.;

5. Filling three isolated wetlands is a crime against nature thats how I personally feel. NJ allows the filling of such ponds because of a loophole or weakness in our wetlands protection act, a loophole that has been kept open by legal challenges from the New Jersey Homebuilders Association. An environmentally responsible community would never fill such ponds, while hiding behind the terminology of lifeless. These vernal ponds (tech-speak for temporary wetland that dry up by summer) are highly recognized by state conservationists as potential sites for specific breeding populations of invertebrates and amphibians. Prior newspaper articles misinformed the public that no life was found in them. What it should have read is that no species that breed only in these special habitats called vernal ponds were found. For instance if wood frogs, a vernal pond breeder, were found present in any of these ponds the state would have implemented a fifty foot buffer around them and not allowed them to be filled. This quick, cursory survey did not conclude that other species are not found there it only concluded that those species currently regulated were not found there on the day the study was done huge distinction. Species like the common green frog use these temporary wetlands but these species dont currently have any regulatory implications - they do not kick in the extra 50 foot buffer. In point of fact the independent BR Environmental, LLC 54 Park Street Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 3

environmental consultant that examined these isolated wetlands that day, Scott Angus, a colleague of mine, and an environmental scientist with Amy Greene Consulting, LLC, told me the day he looked at the ponds he casually observed wildlife of all kinds during his brief 2 hour visit (within this brief period he identified the eastern box turtle I previously mentioned). Question to soccer board are eastern box turtles lifeless? I guess as of today they are as the site was cleared in winter while this species was likely hibernating within the complex. Mr. Angus determined that these areas were not technically vernal ponds under definition but isolated wetlands. If he had determined that obligate species (species that only breed in temporary water bodies) like wood frog or blue-spotted salamander were using the ponds than the state would not have authorized a permit to fill them. These isolated wetlands will now be covered in artificial turf without anyone ever giving them another thought. Conversely these ponds will never again have the potential to sustain obligate breeding populations in the future once cut and filled. If the town saved this land for strict use as passive recreation and preservation my first suggestion would have been to dig the isolated wetlands deeper to convert them into true vernal ponds. Weve lost thousands of vernal ponds over the past 30 years in NJ as it wasnt until recently the NJDEP started to value them for what they truly are ecological oasiss in our woodlands. Why the soccer committee felt the need to propagate false and misleading information to the public is obvious they want the citizens to believe that woodlands in the Borough are without intrinsic merit other than use as playing fields. Because specific species were not found in these 3-isolated vernal ponds the Borough is permitted to fill them under a general permit from the state which is what they are currently waiting on before they dismiss them as unserviceable natural features. My point is these are not insignificant depressions in the landscape, rather they are vital for species whose numbers are in severe decline.

Note: As it pertains to assertions that proper environmental study and additional environmental studies were performed: This presence/absence study for vernal pond species and the required wetland delineation were the only so-called environmental studies I understand were performed on the entire 110 acres. So lets do the math; the wetland case worker who went out to check the line spent 6 hours (he told me this in the field January 18th, 2012), in addition to Amy Greens consultant time of 2 hours of follow up evaluation, this equates to 8 hours of environmental work in evaluation of 26 acres. Furthermore, this wasnt some intense environmental inventory that assessed potential impacts to the site proper, local wildlife, rare species communities, or any of the affects to ESP mentioned herein. It was strictly a study that confirmed the limits of a 2006 wetland delineation performed by Rock GW, the BR Environmental, LLC 54 Park Street Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 4

former owners. In my professional experience 8 hours doesnt come close to the standard for a proper and appropriate environmental assessment of site like ESP that is associated with a known greenway corridor of importance like the BMEC. At the very least a presence/absence determination for threatened and endangered species should have been performed on and adjacent to the site proper, independent of any study required by NJDEP and the US Fish and Wildlife Service in order to thoroughly vet the issue. In point of fact Mr. Angus, a senior scientist with Amy Greene who walked the site told me that he thought the habitat around the park could be conducive to the state threatened barred owl and red shouldered hawk (didnt surprise me as I came to the same conclusion independently). He went a step further by telling the consultant that was contracted by the town that he even believed it was potential habitat for wood turtle, and blue spotted salamander both endangered and state threatened. I guess the consultant hired by the Borough didnt feel the necessity to share those little gems with the town engineer. Or if it was mentioned, the engineer came to the conclusion that further study, if not mandatory, was therefore unnecessary. Please if anyone who reads this doubts my authority of fact I can put you in direct correspondence with the consultant and the town engineer for corroboration. It should be further noted that the studies the Rec-community wants you to believe were voluntary were conditioned to Wetland Laws required in setting the limits of buffers upon existing wetlands. I have no knowledge that any independent study to account for real environmental impacts as delineated herein was ever initiated. I did volunteer information to an upper level official in the town a year and half ago. I told him that when I was much younger in my 20s I found my first bog turtle along the eastern edge of the BMEC within .3 miles of ESP this is a federally endangered species today. Of course I never got a response to this prodding to potentially do a Phase-One study for bog turtle. Why would the Borough value land for its intrinsic value anyway. It is likely that the population I found, like so many others around the state, succumbed to the overgrowth of the marsh by reed grass (Phragmites sp.). However, I would have liked to have had the opportunity to ensure due-diligence on behalf of a species that is endangered of going extinct in our lifetime. It is likely the turtles no longer exist there as a negative environmental consequence due to siltation from overdevelopment of the surrounding landscapes. I cant say I know of any studies that can confirm presence /absence of the species - the Black Meadows was much less compromised years ago than it is today. The problem has always been access, as the majority of the land is off-limits to the public.

BR Environmental, LLC

54 Park Street

Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 5

Summary: The direct taking of isolated wetland habitat by filling is the immediate impact while runoff and opening canopy around the park will exacerbate the decay of the surrounding isolated wetlands in the future;

6. Detention basins will supplant natural recharge of water on the site. The site sits on top of a Tier-1 aquifer and will never again recharge water back into the water you drink in the same way from this location. Non-point source pollution from the new complex that will come in many forms, i.e. impervious cover of crumb-rubber turf fields, roof tops, and parking lots will hopefully be filtered successfully by engineered designed detention studies have shown a mixed bag of efficacy as it pertains to basin cleansing. What is certain is man cannot do a better job than the environmentally free service that nature presently provides;

7. Sound and field lighting signatures will emanate from this complex at all hours of the day and evening. This will result in the sterilization of the surrounding woodlands. Current studies show native fauna likely to breed, nest, forage or otherwise fulfill any aspect of their natural history for at least 100 yards will be compromised in response to these inherent intrusions that arise from intense and continual outdoor recreation centers. So when people supporting this plan as a great marriage between passive and active recreation try and tell you that nature trails are slated for the site to appease the tree-huggers in town I would I ask, what is it they are trying to offset by putting in trails that exacerbate the problem of light and sound signatures. This would be the last thing I would recommend as a professional conservation biologist at this particular site under these specific conditions. The recommendation to put walking trails where people will ride bikes, throw garbage, walk barking dogs, create avenues for All-Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) to blaze further into the woodland is ill-advised. With the extent of environmental sterilization at the scale this park imparts into the forested edges people will not be observing anything nature that they cant already see in their own fragmented and impaired back yards. Certainly you will see robins and squirrels at the site or even an occasional red tail hawk but I doubt you will see a nesting black and white warbler common in buffered woodlands where disturbance is negligible (one of many examples). Local wildlife will remain in the wake of ESP this is certain. What is equally certain is that the species in most need of our aid will be displaced by the activities inherent to a recreational complex of this scale. Furthermore a dog park, of all things unnatural to sensitive woodland like this, is slated to be imbedded into the complex this will certainly be the nail in the ecological coffin of the BR Environmental, LLC 54 Park Street Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 6

surrounding forest fringe. Strictly my unsolicited Commentary: Now mankind has to clear woodland so that pet dogs have a rec-center of their own. Why the Borough Council didnt consult with the FPEC to get an opinion of this activity slated for ESP is anyones guess. The administration would have served the public well by directly asking for its ECs position as it relates to the surrounding sensitive open space lands from this potential future activity. The FPEC is supposed to be the highest level advisory board for the council on matters regarding potential impacts to land use. This is another metric of town administrators not using the tools in its shed for the stated purpose for which it was designed. The administration spent tax payer dollars to reach out to all dog owners in town to see what they thought of a dog park like asking all the red fox in the woods if they would like a chicken coop installed behind every home in the Borough. Point is, for better or worse, for transparency, practicality, and to assure due-diligence, seek all opinions and expert advice, especially in matters of land use;

8. A percentage of garbage, organic complex waste from the maintenance of the fields, and all other the common cultural effluvium associated with field use will end up in the complexs woodland fringe. If you doubt this, than I simply ask you to walk around Emmet field and see the brush debris, bottles, dog waste, and run-off silts currently choking the surrounding wetlands;

9.

No formal threatened or endangered (T&E), flora and fauna study has been done on or off this site (ESP). Now we will never know if the site was habitat for these species, or has the potential for sustaining any aspect of the life history requirements for these species. Was the question ever asked: Does the area buffer T&E habitat or any rare plant or diverse ecological community? Are we affecting T&E habitat off site once the complex is finished? It is hard to comprehend that in an ecologically sensitive area like this, no one posed these questions or even bothered to ask for professional opinion or feedback.

Yet the reason for this is not hard to believe when you:

a)

Realize that the 9 people that authored the Recreation Master Plan (RMP) sole mission was to find a way to build new fields come hell or high water once the land became available; 54 Park Street Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 7

BR Environmental, LLC

b)

Realize the Borough contracted a landscape architect only, not an environmental scientist, outside planner, or engineer to rubber stamp the plan. It was a sole person, a landscape architect that the Borough based the constant reminder to all its citizens that this was the final authority for proper public review. A review that in essence gave them the impetus to assert a major change in landuse within our Borough. To emphasize this point I offer up the fact that the landscape architect praised the RMP with only minor comment. No comment of the potential environmental impacts to the site proper and surrounding delicate landscape were ever mentioned in the Kinsey Report with the exception that deer will be displaced by the future ESP and the Borough should consider this as they move forward (less than 60 words devoted to this obvious condition, hardly an environmental assessment);

c) Realize the administration never asked its Environmental Commission to provide the town council with comments to the RMP even when the FPEC offered to review and comment on the RMP before it was rubberstamped by an outside consultant (Kinsey Associates). In essence and in point of fact, without FPEC comment the Borough relied on 9 Recreation committee members and 1 landscape architect to determine the fate of 26 acres in the Borough;

d) Realize that one of the biggest proponents of the plan is a councilman and liaison for the recreation committee. Great for core rec-centric folks, but not the remaining citizenry that might want to consider all aspects and potential impacts. This of course is fact as testified by the large outcry from the many people who learned about the projects scope and magnitude for the first time just prior to tree-cutting. Many of these people realized a sports complex was on the docket but didnt realize the scale ;

e) Realize that the engineered plan was only publicized to the least extent possible. I am not implying that anything nefarious went on only that all signs point to a mandate in order to get the job done with the least amount of input and investigation. In point of fact its curious to me that the administration directly notified dog owners with a letter from the Mayors office but didnt extend the same courtesy to provide a detailed notice of the scope and scale of ESP to ever house in the Borough via BR Environmental, LLC 54 Park Street Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 8

direct mailing. In light of the landscape, landuse, and significant impacts imposed to the environment and surrounding neighborhoods you would think that at least 3 independent direct mailings from the Borough council and engineering office would have gone out over the 2.5 year period ESP was on the books. One would think this would have been a top priority over this period. Each notice could have informed all of FPs citizens of the details including, but not limited to, the economics of, and impacts associated with ESP. Before such information pertaining to the project was promulgated a full environmental assessment report that vets all aspects of the project should have been included. In the context of the mailing the mayor could have solicited requests for input, suggestions, and positions similar to the wording in the dog park letter; this would have went a long way in assuring transparency and inclusiveness. Compare a dog park notification with the lack of request for comments as it pertains to the magnitude of ESP. I realize the Mayor mentions new fields in his yearly report of Borough issues, but if you go back and read this there is barely any detail within his statements beyond the fact that this is his plan;

f)

Realize that the area has been off limits to public access for at least half a century, including the nearly 2.5 years that have passed since it became borough property;

g) Consider that the previous land holders would never want to publicize or do an independent study that might kick up the existence of T&E species that could decrease their land value.

For the above reasons a-g you can see how something as important as protecting greenway corridors in order to support the potentiality for, or the actual habitation of, Threatened and Endangered wildlife was never considered until the final hours when a local citizen brought it to the attention of the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Barred owl (heard by local residents), red-shouldered hawk, wood turtle, and Indiana bat quickly come to mind when looking at the potential the BMEC has for habitability for these species. All the forementioned are T&E species. Indiana Bat is a federally threatened and critically imperiled species in New BR Environmental, LLC 54 Park Street Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 9

Jersey. Probability is moderate to low that these species exist directly on or off the site proper, but the fact is the habitat of the site proper could interface with a particular species life history requirements. Simple phase-I survey protocols for these species would confirm presence/absence. Further to this point is the fact that this forest type is not in a static state. The woodland habitat associated with the ESP is constantly changing over time, hence what is not habitat for rare fauna today, could be tomorrow. This is an important cautionary note often overlooked when one evaluates landuse. If the town valued the land with the same piss and vinegar it values recreation sports, allowing its EC to start a restoration project that would enhance the habitat with species specific initiatives at the forefront (exactly the kinds of things the OSMP suggest we do), then a legacy for conservation would be left in its wake for all its citizens tomorrow. The Federal biologists I talked with about this project and Dr. Emile Devito from NJCF who peer reviewed this piece couldnt have agreed with more! Will this point ever be considered if I bring it up at a future council meeting when some land use issue abuts a sensitive remaining landscape in town? Based on past history in this town, the odds makers in Vegas say dont take the bet! Does the Borough or the state have to do a survey for rare flora and fauna on any developable site? The short answer is no in most cases. Very important point for anyone who truly wants to understand environmental law in this state: NJDEP during wetland investigations is not responsible to perform Phase-I investigations for potential T&E species. If the wetland investigator responsible for checking the wetland line happened to trip over a species with regulatory implications, that person would be ethically bound to inform their superiors for consideration of regulation under the applicable land use law. It is funny that the NJ-DEP wetland investigator who did the work at ESP, when walking the site with myself, the town engineer and lawyer in mid-January, said he was sorry because he is not a biologist (Im a wetland guy), readily admitted he knew nothing about Indiana bats and apologized on behalf of the Department for missing the bat issue. Again this is the environmental study that the soccer club boasts was a thorough evaluation. I find fault with soccer club and would caution them in the future to initiate proper due-diligence before such misinformation is publicly circulated; the soccer club just knee-jerked the analysis to try and mislead the public to prove their point; dangerous stuff as New Jerseys continues to lose 50 acres each and every day (conservative number, 2003). As it turned out the day the caseworker was out in the field (2006 I believe) checking the accuracy of the wetland line (his only responsibility) he did not find a T&E species like wood turtle or a red-shouldered hawk during his investigation time. It should be noted that he wouldnt have known an Indiana BR Environmental, LLC 54 Park Street Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 10

bat from a brown bat by his own admission, not my words, his. It wouldnt have mattered anyway as studies for presence/absence of bats is routinely performed at night. T&E Species survey, which I perform regularly, requires strict protocol, multidays afield, complete knowledge of species life history, special equipment, etc. Bear in mind that Scott Angus, senior scientist with Amy Greene Consulting in 2 field hours on the site believed the area was conducive for T&E species. These points notwithstanding, the wetland study 5 years ago resulted in an intermediate value classification imposed on the wetlands with 50 foot buffers applied (a buffer size I completely feel is insufficient in an environmentally sensitive area such as the BMEC). If an Indiana Bat colony was found on or just off the property in 07 chances are the F&W service would have imposed 300 buffers on wetlands and we would not is having this conversation as the remaining space would not allow a footprint to accommodate the ESP site plan. Question: Would the Borough have gone through with the land swap had a Federally Endangered Species been found? Such a discovery would certainly have imposed restrictions; would we have taken it over and helped restore the site specifically for the bats and other species of special concern, or was the land swamp solely predicated on removing forest cover in order to build a large scale Recreation Facility? I still cant get anyone in the administration to tell me this without a lawyer present. If the town made the swap and deed restricted its use for everything but passive recreation and conservation management now that would be a legacy to hang your hat on - Im sure the good people of Florham Park would talk about this foresighted plan 100 years from now! I wonder how many people are going to talk about the Elm Street Recreation Park 100 years from now? I believe this a proper and fitting topic of discussion. Of course I am quite certain that we will somehow manage to find the need for still more recreation parks in the future as developers feed at the carcass of every bit of remaining land within the Boroughs confines. By then, maybe we can put the additional fields we need on rooftops of course some zoophilic turtle -licker will say that an endangered sparrow is nesting there as tool to Stop Progress. Ok, now I admit Im being bit sarcastic to prove a point. But I can tell you from experience that testifying in court and at planning board meetings throughout the state on behalf of endangered species often results in a plethora of chuckles from attorneys, engineers, and consultants working the development side of the coin. People just cant make the connection between T&E species and the roles they provide or the purpose they serve in intricate biological systems. All species when operating in ecologically whole systems are the reason why we breathe clean air and drink clean water (a very simplified BR Environmental, LLC 54 Park Street Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 11

version of their intricate ecological functions). If you want the long version take a class on environmental economics taught at most major universities today. NOTE: During the council meeting on Jan. 19th 2012 a citizen of the Borough argued that we need these fields because our fields are crowded and overused. He recommended that the council move forward immediately with the and clearing and not hear any more discussion of silly bats , referring to the presence /absence assessment for the Federally Endangered Indiana Bat that took place a day prior to the council meeting. This gave rise to claps and cheers from people in attendance that evening. This was a sad commentary in a Borough completely out of touch with the tenets of the State Master Plan, its own OSMP, and disregard to adherence to the ordinance that created the Boroughs Environmental Commission (see 32-3 A below); 10.Transparently obvious to any environmental scientist that is familiar with the BMEC is the fact this land type is part of a much larger exceptional resource value greenway, which includes Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, Great Piece Meadows, Par-troy Meadows, Hatfied Swamp, and the Fairfield Meadows. Three habitat types exist in the BMEC: (1) upland deciduous, (2) palustrial wetland, and (3) open meadow, all contingent and tethered to the Black Marsh which everyone sees from Elis Tropical Fish store from Columbia Turnpike. Keep in mind this complex is acting as a buffer for any remaining ecologicalfunctioning the Black Meadows Provides; these are EPA priority wetlands, a Whippany River Watershed Area of high regard. The Black Meadows Ecological Complex (BMEC) is in geological terms, part of a series of wetlands that include Great Swamp, Great Piece Meadows, Par-Troy Swamp, and Hatfield Swamp. These series of unique ecological complexes are all part of the drying up of Ancient Glacier Lake Passaic.

So to say that the 20 acres of woodlands was a lifeless area once farmed, and that the trees on them now are all invasive and immature, then concluding it is useless in terms of its environmental functionality is blatantly misleading to the point of absurdity. The only environmental work that the soccer club paints as an environmental study was a 6-hour verification of a wetland line and an additional 2 hours of follow-up to determine the status of isolated wetlands (this is fact - the Borough engineer is your source if information herein requires verification). The remaining greenway-connected land that ESP was once part of is for all practical purposes the Boroughs last remaining Natural Capital. The removal of 20 acres of this site represents a small percentage of the BMEC, but consider the fact that in the past 50 years, BR Environmental, LLC 54 Park Street Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 12

a nanosecond in time when juxtaposed with the time it took nature to create the complex, we have removed 600 acres (Murphy Circle, Quail, Pheasant, Emmet, Townsend on the eastern edge) and replaced it with impervious cover. During this same time period a staggering 1,500 acres have been removed and replaced with corporate centers and subdivions on the western edges of the complex. I guess when you annihilate that much land mass this quickly, 20 acres seems like a pin prick.

The problem is the cumulative impact this type of poor planning has had on the greater ecology proper is dramatic. Reviewing aerial maps from the 1930s the BMEC was a multitier complex dominated by native marsh and swamp. Since then the streams have been channelized and surrounding development has caused it to prematurely fill with sediments. In turn this change in land use has caused the complex to become dominated by non-native Reed Grass (Phragmites) that takes over under these non-natal conditions. Even under these pressures the system still exhibits higher levels of biodiversity (total biota, plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, etc.) than almost all other fragmented forested patches that remain in the Borough. Greenway connectivity within the Whippany River Watershed has allowed the BMEC to holdout, but be warned: its ecologically-functioning-candle is burning down each time the edges get nipped and tucked through poor planning.

BR Environmental, LLC

54 Park Street

Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 13