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 I: Provision
I am a lifelong citizen of the Borough (52 years) who has intimate knowledge of our towns open space inventory, ecological underpinnings, and environmental capital. My knowledge base is predicated on extensive in field hours in all open space areas of the borough and my recent work helping to draft the currently adopted Open Space Master Plan (OSMP). The OSMP was created under the auspices of the New Jersey Land Conservancy and the Florham Park Environmental Commission (FPEC or simply EC). Much of the information and facts herein are an extension of the OSMP. The 10 impact points below have been peer reviewed by Dr. Emile DeVito, Manager of Science and Stewardship, New Jersey Conservation Foundation. He has confirmed that the implications to forest ecology as it pertains to the future ESP presented herein are factual as stated. I have offered corroborating information from my experience as the former Environmental Commission chairman to the Borough. Any additional commentary is my own and no one else.

Section II: Personal Proviso

The 10 impact points in this report is derived from my professional assessment of environmental impacts that have a high likelihood of occurring post treeclearing of the Elm Street Park Woodland (Site Proper). My expertise as a professional conservation biologist and environmental consultant is the basis for this evaluation. The opinions and information herein are not those of the Florham Park Environmental Commission. I resigned my position as chairman to the Florham Park Environmental Commission because I was unable to fulfill my duties. I allowed political pressure to mute the commissions involvement during the development stage of the Recreation Master Plan. Had I not allowed such pressure to override my deep commitment to the environment this information may now be part of public record and considered before the
BR Environmental, LLC 54 Park Street Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 1

decision was made to discard the site proper, as a lifeless entity (a sentiment voiced by the soccer board). Even with such information placed into public record it is evident through Borough directive that the environmental economics of the plan were not of priority concern. The very moment the logistics of the land swap occurred resulting in the opportunity for a Recreation Complex to be realized this stated usage was ordained. This was the moment 20 more acres of land in the Borough was going to be cleared regardless of input from any environmental scientist outside the minimum required by law. To this end I can only try to right my wrong by providing the public with as much factual information as I can in regards potential impacts the complex will impose on the surrounding Black Meadows Ecological Complex (BMEC). I do this in the hopes that people will get more involved in local civics in order to vet all sides of an issue in the future. We need to hold our elected officials accountable to due-diligence, especially in areas of landuse - landuse whose condition in the Borough has already reached the practical limits of build-out. I chose my words cautiously when I write due-diligence, as Im not implying that due-process was not conformed to; there is a difference between the two. As far as I could determine the Borough observed all municipal, state, and federal landuse law when moving forward with their plans for ESP. However I am equally in the belief that this was done to the minimal extent possible in order to get the round peg into the square hole. The state still allows for home-rule as it pertains to its willingness to provide additional protections where land is deemed exceptional resource. In point of fact Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL) states in 40:55 D-2 g: Those municipalities should provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of agricultural, residential, recreational, commercial and industrial uses and open space, both public and private, according to their respective environmental requirements in order to meet the needs of all New Jersey citizens. The operative words here being appropriate locations in their respective environmental requirements. The language here seems abundantly clear and our Borough just simply chose to ignore it. Personal Note: I wish to make clear that this report is provided as a public service to all those who have a desire to understand an opposing viewpoint to all the misinformation, misrepresentations, and falsehoods disseminated by sport affiliations with ESP. I provide a level of detail necessary for people to have a
BR Environmental, LLC 54 Park Street Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 2

better understanding of local civics, environmental regulation as it relates to the project, and how it really works. Resignation of my post on the Environmental Commission was not an easy decision. I feel strongly when I state the commission was not being utilized for the purpose under the ordinance responsible for its existence (a portion of which is available at the bottom of this document for your review). This was especially true as it pertained to the evolution of the ESP project. It saddens me that people who I thought cared about real 21st century environmental issues as it relates to landuse planning ignored my many pleadings to take it slow and evaluate the project with some discussion about the environmental sensitivity of the site that was chosen for the new complex. This of course is now moot and any residual hope I have lies with the administrations ability to learn from this and actively seek and sanction protections that will benefit the ecological complex that remains. In my resignation letter I expressed a desire to the Mayor and council to continue the positive restoration work I started at Spring Garden Lake Conservation Management Area for use and benefit for all Borough residents. To the credit of the current administration this project has had their support. The current Environmental Commission (EC) has produced a master plan for its restoration and provided the physical labor and effort to propel it to its current state of ecological integrity. The EC is not a park commission however, and all future involvement should be done under the auspices of the Department of Public Works with advisement of the EC. In turn the EC can be freed to move onto other projects with similar restoration requirements, i.e. Fish Brook Park, Borough lands newly acquired along Elm Street and Murphy Circle and most importantly provide recommendations to the town council on future landuse issues.

Section III: Florham Park Open Suggestions, Commentary

Space

Facts,

Usage,

Without a sound understanding of the current state of the Boroughs Open Space Inventory the 10 impact points at the end of this summary would not be understood in context. If anyone would like a clear pictorial view of the Boroughs land holdings in the Recreation Opens Space Inventory (ROSI) the Concerned Citizens of Florham Park have put together a nice summary link at:
http://www.fpcitizens.com/undeveloped-open-space-in-pictures.html Open Space Inventory

Total land encompassed by the Borough of Florham Park 4,778 acres or 7 square miles;
54 Park Street Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 3

BR Environmental, LLC

Borough Owned Open Space = 226 acres (from 2011 OSMP) + recently acquired 82+/- acres off Elm Street (excludes 20 acre ESP site) = 302 total Borough owned acres; This equates to 6 % of the Boroughs Land Inventory designated strictly as Open Space. Bear in mind this modicum is not all forest, wetlands and quality land. Emmett Park, Stobeus Park (developed), Fish Brook Park, and Gun Club = 226 acres, 2/3 of Borough owned Open Space; The functionality of these Parks is moderate to low from an ecology standpoint (obviously high for its intended use as playing fields and active recreation). Impacts from those Parks construction and activities on the local ecology include but are not limited to:
1. Highly invasive non-native forest mosaics surround all these

sites. This has occurred in response to the change of landscape soils as a result of their development;
2. Sound

signatures from park usage sterilize peripheral woodlands of intricate fauna assemblages this is especially true on the gun club where constant firearm release acts as a barrier for all sensitive wildlife (local backyard wildlife excluded), i.e. you will never see a state threatened barred owl within a mile of this club even though the adjacent habitat could otherwise support its life history, Emmet Field can produce constant noise signatures during Spring Fall practice and game periods ;

3. Deer densities are very high in these parks as the sites act as

sod-eateries for the species their presence exacerbate ground cover exposure in adjacent forest interiors, in turn causing severe ecological degradation of what little habitat remains this is especially true of the interior forest patch within the residential areas that surround Stobeus Field;
4. Open grass fields act as prime forage areas for white tailed

deer which negatively feedback to the interior forest ecology as population increase; 6. Runoff from fields enters local ditches and streams and impacts negatively on water quality non-point source
54 Park Street Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 4

BR Environmental, LLC

pollution from herbicide and pesticide use to maintain playing fields and silt go directly into Hassock Brook, Fish Brook, from Emmet and Stobeus respectively.

The 87.7-acre Gun Club property on Brooklake Road has impacted surrounding Passaic River Floodplain with lead shot until it was banned around 1977, and now steel-shot rains down in surrounding Fresh Water Wetland Ponds behind the club. In response to this activity the mitigated wetland ponds can no longer sustain viable waterfowl and wildlife normally associated with their ecology. I am not certain of the affects years of lead shot has had on the ecology of the surrounding wetlands of the club but I cant imagine this signature is a positive one. Not sure why the town has continued such a sweet-heart deal with such a large area of open space in the town it seems to me that outside the impact areas a larger scale ecological restoration plan should be in place very few of the Boroughs citizens are firearm devotees (1/2 of 1 percent I would guess). One would think that the majority of FPs citizenry should have a greater stake in the passive recreation potential this club consumes. However, because there is an affiliation with the local police who use a portion of the club as a training facility, I dont think this dog will ever hunt. In this instance, environmentalism in town takes a distant back seat to the desires of a limited group of weekend warrior firearm aficionados; Wetlands between Emmet Field entrance road, Tot-Lot, and First Street (+/- 10-acre) used to be an area where a passive recreation trail was located. Today the site has in-filled with yard wastes, sediments from roads, and backyard run-off and flood debris from storm events. This area now is garbage strewn and overgrown with invasive plants. This site could be a nice passive walking trail area with very little money and aid from the FP DWP. Fish Brook Park is an ad hoc hunting club area used only by local law enforcement personnel and their friends deer stands remain up all year long, cans, bottles, barb wire, and other garbage of all sorts riddles the property. We are aware of the FPECs request for budget money and/ or town funding to address these issues, but since the Parks purchase more than 4 years ago, the response to start performing ecological restoration and passive recreation access is always the same NO MONEY. To the Boroughs credit, especially with direct involvement of Mayor Eveland and Councilman Mark Taylor, this land was purchased with Morris County Open Space & NJ Green Acres funding as well as FP Open Space Trust Fund money, representing a truly great addition to the Boroughs open space inventory. However, the current administration
54 Park Street Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 5

BR Environmental, LLC

via the council liaison has told the FPEC that the Department of Public Works (DPW) cannot perform even the initial cleanup (+/- 60 hours, +/$2,150.00 labor) because of monetary constraints with budget. The site is dominated by invasive vegetation this need to be removed and replanted with native understory species. Currently a monoculture of predominantly mid-seral stage red maples, red oak and white oak dominated the canopy. A deer exclosure fence would expedite the restoration of the site and post-restoration the site could be used for local environmental education programs. This site should be the crowning jewel of FPs passive recreation plan, but currently it just lies fallow. Compare this lack of initiative with that of the almost overnight development of a 20-acre recreation facility ESP; how is it the town can initiate a $5 million dollar project but cares not to find the pittance of money ($2,160.00) to make Fish Brook Park safe and free of garbage for passive recreation? I wish I didnt have to pen this criticism but anyone who knows me realizes I would be the first one out at the site helping the DPW remove garbage and start with trail creation if the Borough backed the initiative. It would simply take a directive from the council, a little bit of funding for initial trail creation and cleanup, and a public announcement for volunteers; the mayor and council could be out there on that day to help like they often did with the One Day, One School Project this could be called One Day /One Park This could have happened in short order if the modicum budget requested by FPEC for this was earmarked or if the Borough, at minimum, directed the DPW to do the initial cleanup of the site.. Question: Why didnt they; Answer: because simply it is not a priority; It is a good thing that open space money was used for the purchase of this modicum 11.5 acres in a very environmentally sensitive area in the Borough; unfortunately, it is an equally sad commentary that the Borough administrators have yet to recognize the pleadings of its EC to restore it and use it as a passive recreation/conservation management area. The FPEC could try and organize work days with local volunteers in order to clean the barbwire from the property but this is not a function of an Environmental Commission. The EC has been doing this on the other two pocket parks it manages, and I am sure with a little financial backing would be out at Fish Brook, but again this is not the sole stated purpose of any Environmental Commission. Suggestion - the ad hoc hunting club might want to do this since their stated purpose is to help the environment by culling deer. Cleaning the site of garbage could make the site safe for club members and may help invite people to the park for its stated purpose passive recreation;

BR Environmental, LLC

54 Park Street

Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 6

10.18 Acres of Floodplain with the Passaic River is owned by the Borough behind Indian Lane, just south of Columbia Turnpike where the River crosses under. This is exceptional resource value wetlands, EPA priority wetlands and fantastic wildlife habitat. To its credit, The Borough, especially Mayor Eveland, and Councilman Taylor, with logistical aid from the FPEC have made every attempt to annex privately owned land adjacent to Columbia Turnpike in order to extend this greenway. This was done in the hope that a future passive recreation trail might be easily accessed from these uplands and for the preservation of prime open space. The property owners to this point have denied fair market value offers. The FPEC has suggested that a Blueways trail entrance be developed at the access point along Columbia for future use as a portage point for canoes and kayaks; 66 acres of FP Borough is owned by the state as parkland no access to the public all overgrown wetlands, 33 acres of which is a monoculture of a non-native red grass called Phragmites Borough or private land holders would not be able to build on it, as it is wetland and floodplain confined. Benefit: this land performs a good ecological service as recharge, flood storage, and moderate wildlife habitat; The 65-acre Pinch Brook Golf Course Ecologically inert, highly invaded wetland fringes, eroded stream courses (Pinch Brook), open sod, constant human activity, non-point source pollution sink, little wildlife value with the exception of sighted backyard wildlife, i.e. skunks, raccoons, fox, turkey: examples of a compromised ecological nexus. Benefit: Great Blue and Little Green Herons utilize the detention ponds. Water quality on and off the site is extremely low; 36 acres owned by the Passaic River Coalition along the Passaic River adjacent to River Road in the southeastern corner of the Borough. This area is found within a highly sensitive slice of the Passaic River Floodplain (PRF). One of only a few remaining exceptional resource value pieces of Open Space left in the Borough to date no public access this should be a future initiative of the Borough; 7.85 acres of prime forested and open water wetlands exist along the north western border of Passaic Avenue tangent with the Sterling Townhomes. These are EPA priority wetlands and ones I would consider to be exceptional resource value they are part of a greater wetland system called the Central Valley Wetlands. This land is prime wildlife, water recharge, and floodplain. These wetlands associate directly with the Passaic River Floodplain (PRF). This property should be viewed as an
54 Park Street Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 7

BR Environmental, LLC

area where ecological restoration and passive recreation should be considered;

This site along with other areas mentioned within the PRF and 72 acres of floodplain in the Borough owned by the City of East Orange make up one of only two greenway corridors within the Borough areas where adjacent build-out should be placed off limits if the Borough values the tenets of its OSMP. The other area is the Black Meadows Ecological Complex (BMEC) on the Boroughs western edge , site of ESP 27 acres of this is owned by NJ Exposition Authority and the newly acquired 110 acres owned by the Borough (84 acres uncleared), the remainder of the BMEC is predominantly open marsh with channelized streams, reed grass dominates, these areas are owned by FD University, NJ Land Trust , and Southeast Water; 12-acres of marsh owned by the Morristown Airport within the Borough these contain freshwater wetlands moderate wildlife value; A significant portion of privately owned open space in the Borough is owned by the Brooklake Country Club (BLCC) 150 acres. As a golf course this site is impacted in a similar fashion as those already indicated referencing Pinch Brook above. However, the current operational and facilities manager is a highly competent land steward that has a solid grasp of environmental economics. A highly competent man that I am sure would not like me to use his name here. Let it be known however that he has involved himself at all levels of local government and has been a valuable resident of the Borough. Under his guidance the club uses best management practices for pest and nonpoint source pollution control. The site is also managed for wildlife enhancement to the best extent practicable. I feel that the Borough should be proud of BLCC for all these initiatives that, behind the scenes, sets a good example for proper land stewardship. It should also be noted that the joint owners of BLCC have supported many local initiatives in town including but not limited to the restoration of the Conservation Management Area on Brooklake Road and Spring Garden Lake; A significant area of the BMEC is owned by Farleigh Dickinson University 586 acres since most of this is open marsh along Rt. 24 I would consider its value as high for flood storage and other important ecological free services. Because of its wetland designation this land cannot be developed or altered without exceptional circumstance high wildlife value land;
54 Park Street Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 8

BR Environmental, LLC

29 acres - Spring Garden Lake Conservation Management Area and Conservation Management Area along East Madison Avenue together these two sites are currently managed by the FPEC for passive recreation only. Intensive environmental management on both sites have increased biodiversity, managed water quality, and provides habitat for species of special concern in the state of New Jersey people who wish to learn more about the management of these sites can go the FPECs website www.florhamparkenvironmental.org; Many small inclusions are part of the Rossi, i.e. Parker Court, Prudden Park, Patriot, Campfield Park all less than .35 acres nice little areas of town that are a combination of mowed and wooded - used for beautification points of interest in the Borough. The Florham Park Garden Club has helped keep some of them looking good over the years minimal function for local wildlife ; The two properties owned by the Borough behind Mann and Florham Avenue (3.62 acres) are compromised woodlands devoid of understory vegetation. They are garbage strewn, lawn waste sites, and heavily deer browsed. This would be an area that the FPEC should perform ecological restoration in the future. Potentially local residents could take some satisfaction in maintaining these woodlands that are in their own backyards. These woods are an access point for off road and all-terrain vehicle (ATV) activity. ATVs have been seen in the Pinch Brook destroying the stream bed and causing local erosion, hence sedimentation of the water way. Obviously sound signatures disturb local wildlife patterns during peak activities. Most residents would be appalled to see the state of these woodlands. These woodlands are buffer woodlands with the Black Meadows Ecological Complex and should be maintained with more consideration for their function within this sensitive ecological complex; The 3.6 acres of Borough owned property behind the northwestern corner of Murphy Circle consists of predominantly forested wetlands with inclusions of emergent wetlands function as prime wildlife habitat, recharge and flood storage, and fine buffer land tangent with the BMEC. This site is on the ROSI but has never been developed for passive recreation. With the annexation of the recently acquired 110 acres this site has the potential for ecological restoration, passive recreation, and nature study. Yard waste and garbage is prevalent behind many homes directly associated with these wetlands; 9.9 acres of Borough owned wetlands abuts Quail Run and Partridge Way along Columbia Turnpike. Heavily deer browsed this very young
54 Park Street Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 9

BR Environmental, LLC

stand of red maple (+/- < 50 year stand) is acting as recharge for the Buried Valley Aquifer. The site is hydrologically connected to the BMEC. Yard waste and garbage have choked the edges of these sites. Some basic ecological improvements could be applied in the future to this Borough owned property;

100 +/- Alferi/ Precision Rolled site: This site off Columbia Turnpike across from the entrance to the environmental center consists of open fields and two large detention ponds it is buffer land with the BMEC. It is slated for office buildings but continues to receive grandfathering from past administrations. I am told that the Borough is legally obligated to allow them to keep the land undeveloped until such time that the applicant decides the market condition is right to begin construction. The property owner back in 1987 cleared this substantial area of open space just before the 1988 freshwater wetland regulations were enacted. A total and abject disregard for the environment, but a smart business move at the time. Most of the site was wetland and they realized that their land value was about to be zeroed-out. They created two large detention ponds to hold the converted wetland hydrology. For the past many years these ponds have become prime wildlife habitat acting like grasslands I have seen years where state threatened savannah sparrows nested here. Unfortunately the land owner cuts the grass every year around June before the birds can complete their life cycle. If I listed the species of birds and wildlife I have seen here during the years youd find it staggering. Unfortunately the land holder cuts it twice a year, sprays herbicides, and generally treats the resource poorly. Sooner or later this open area you pass every day on Columbia Turnpike will be large Buildings another major aesthetic downturn in the headlights of the Borough.

Section IV: State of our Waterways

Black Cat Ditch - Approximately of a mile in reach using the NJDEP iMAP tool (all stream measurements below were calculated using this tool). It is a channelized ditch that moves water from surrounding ditches and channels within the BMEC Very Mucky deep channel. I have seen different species of water fowl use this stream channel over the years but suspect it is highly sedimentized. It is located in the Whippany River Watershed. As such all waters drain into this river through other tributaries. If you want a good education on the negative effects of over development look at the environmental engineering performed in the Borough over the last 60 years - take a gander at an aerial map of the Black Meadows between Route 24 and ESP you will
54 Park Street Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 10

BR Environmental, LLC

see a serious of straight channels and 90 degree channels laced throughout the complex all necessary to account for a cavalcade of development over this short nanosecond of time;

Hassock Brook Historically this natural stream was more sinuous but as Florham Park developed over the last 40 years this stream was channelized and made deeper. It is mostly a linear feature in the landscape. Channelization of course destroyed much of the aquatic ecology. If you walk it today you see it is clogged with sediments, debris and garbage. Approximately 1.5 miles in Florham Park. This stream receives non-point source pollution from subdivisions, Emmet Park, Roads and Highways this is a compromised stream for most of its course; Pinch Brook - Approximately 1.6 miles through the Borough. A tributary of the Whippany River. In its headwaters in the Black Meadows to the point behind Mann and Florham Avenue the stream shows good morphology and structure, in other words it appears to have a nice nonlinear course to it. Moderate sedimentation as it originates in a relatively undisturbed series of wetland forest and marsh. As it approached Mann Ave. the stream has been severely compromised by ATV activity that has destroyed the aquatic nature of the stream bottom and highly eroded banks are evident. In areas near human development and activity (behind Hearthwood Village, the shopping plaza and Florham Avenue much garbage and waste exist. For at least another of mile the stream is highly compromised as it winds through residential areas and the Pinch Brook Golf Course; Fish Brook Approximately mile in the Borough. This Stream starts out near Watson Street and runs throw the center of the woodlands behind Lakeview Avenue before it crosses over Brooklake Road onto the Fish Property where it outfalls into the Passaic River Floodplain. This is a highly compromised water course with many issues. It is deeply channelized and eroded, garbage is strewn in it everywhere you look, when it runs dry an unidentifiable white haze covers most of the bottom muds, deeply cut banks, highly sedimentized, and aquatically inert. The only positive attribute to this tributary is as a water conveyance feature that directs water off site into the floodplain; Spring Garden Brook The headwaters of this approximately 1.8 mile watercourse (1.3 miles in the Borough) is behind Whole Foods in Madison. I know and understand this stream very well as it is the stream that I grew up walking around as a child. It was an incredibly beautiful, natural tributary with the Passaic River in the 60s but was channelized
54 Park Street Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 11

BR Environmental, LLC

and cut deep and widened in the 70s to create capacity as Madison and Florham Park allowed build out to occur in the wetlands that make up Roseland Park, Beechcrest, Sheerbrook, Brandywine, etc. Flood storage land was built upon. This change in land use caused back yards to flood right up to and sometimes into homes. The solution was to go in with backhoes and channelize the brook. Once completed all of the aquatic ecology ceased to function this happened almost overnight. Channelization created additional capacity but by todays standards would be considered an archaic engineering quick fix. I never again saw lesser yellow leg sandpipers in the stream feeding on crayfish and mussels, muskrat, mink and otter numbers drastically declined, wood turtles (State threatened species) were never seen again. All native fish were decimated. Today this stream is garbage strewn, sedimentized, highly eroded, and polluted. When it rains heavy you can smell the cultural cocktail of chemicals emanate from the flows. People that live along Annabelle and Beechcrest pile yard waste right up to the sides of Spring Garden Brook. Trees continue to collapse into the channel from eroded banks. The only remaining quality riparian buffer areas seem to be along the course that runs through Brooklake Country Club. The facilities manager has activity created riparian buffers dominated by mainly native shrubs and grasses. Summary: As you can see from this analysis Florham Park water courses are highly compromised. They are in desperate need of attention. The FPEC took stream monitoring courses in 2010 and started the process of a baseline inventory. In situ water quality monitoring is necessary in order to complete a solid baseline. By looking at macroinvertabrates in the water I can tell you that the chemical data will not be good, (macroinvertabrates are biological barometers insect larvae, arthropods, clams, mussels, etc. that indicate water quality when analyzed for species tolerance for polluted water). If the town wanted to exceed the current water quality standards a huge initiative would have to be set forth 5 million dollars to start would be good (does the amount sound familiar). This action would of course benefit all citizens present and future. Rhetorical question to all citizens: What is more important immediately? (A) Build a new field complex so our kids can play tee-ball on artificial turf at age 5, and walk dogs, or (B) Repair our polluted, degraded and aquatically compromised waterways for all citizens of the Borough to enjoy and benefit from? Just trying to put things into perspective; what is the economic, quality of life, and responsible value we apply to clean water?

Section V: Evaluation of Open Space in the Borough:

BR Environmental, LLC 54 Park Street Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 12

As you see from my description of Open Space remaining in the Borough, the land in inventory has a wide range of pros and cons ranging from very poor quality to exceptional. Much of the land is fragmented and non-continuous; hence these lands are ecologically compromised to a large extent. Only a small fraction would I consider exceptional resource value land. However all of the above bullet point areas represent lands that still maintain a level of ecological functioning in concert with Natural Capital as defined in the NJ Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) assessment report on the subject, 2007, various naturally-occurring assets that provide economic value over an extended period, a period that for some assets is essentially perpetual on any meaningful human time scale. Of the above lands it is my professional judgment that roughly 1/2 of the open space is exceptional resource value land (+/- 1,000 acres) (1/5 of FPs total land area). I define these lands as having at least three of the following characteristics:
1. Lands that is within and connected to greenway corridors

that extend beyond the boundaries of Florham Park Borough

2. Lands that are essential for flood storage, riverine, storm

3. 4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

water, and aquifer recharge. Lands whose ability to support complete ecological assemblages of native biota Lands that remain ecologically intact or have not yet been compromised from future restoration Lands that presently support or have the potential to support native flora and fauna designated by the Endangered Nongame Species Program of New Jersey as threatened, endangered or species of special concern Lands that buffer residential areas from sound signatures mainly related to traffic, airports, and industrial hubs. Many of these exceptional resource lands are dominated by freshwater wetland land covers already valued as exceptional by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) Lands that are valuable for Quality of Life amenities, namely, present and future passive recreation, education, and most importantly the free ecological services they provide Lands that are located on a Tier One Aquifer recharge area. Lands that the Environmental Commission of Florham Park would only recommend for development under the most dire of circumstances Lands where no other alternative for public need can be met whose development can only be justified after careful non54 Park Street Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 13

BR Environmental, LLC

biased examination is applied to the circumstance adequately demonstrating that the benefit to the public outweighs the ecologic free services and value inherit to the open space provide. Pay close attention to # 8 as I strongly believe that this part of the equation was never considered as it pertains to the ESP.
In summary, our open space inventory holds very few remaining lands that assemble complete environmental order and ecological efficacy. The lands that still display attributes in concert with some semblance of ecological integrity exist as greenway connected corridors with other municipalities (Black Meadows and the Passaic River Floodplain). These lands are rare, these lands are endangered, and these lands are a commodity that we should not so easily discard as useless fodder our OSMP dictates it, the ordinance that created the FPEC demands it, the state Wildlife Action Plan endorses it, and NJDEP recommends it through the State Master Plan on Growth. It is incumbent upon responsible local governments to protect and maintain them for future generations. The problem is the current Administration and Recreation Committee blatantly ignored or never considered any of this when they decided Elm Street Park was the only place left in the Borough to fulfill a professed need for a large scale recreation facility. Let me make it perfectly clear that I am not implying the minimum required environmental standards were not enforced; only that if these laws were not on the books I am confident that the entire site would have been dealt with environmental indifference. Elm Street Park woodlands are, I mean were - located in buffer habitat to the highly sensitive Black Meadows, an EPA Priority Wetland. When Ive mentioned this fact to Recreation people and administrators in town they dont know what that is or what it implies. If Florham Park Borough Planners and Recreation Committee members continue to operate without forethought to environmental capital the future needs of recreation sports will always override the free ecological services provided from the resource. As stated I conclude that less than 1/5 of the total land in the Borough is Open Space of exceptional quality, approximately 1,000 acres. Of these 1,000 acres, approximately 85% can never be built as theyre dominated by wetland and floodplain (majority located in the Passaic River Floodplain and BMEC) NJDEP regulation prohibits their fill. That leaves a meager 150 acres in need of protection. If the Borough were not subject to wetland regulation associated with this 85% would these lands be built on today or slated for fill and development tomorrow? You bet they would! I can count on one hand the public officials in the Borough that would see this land as Natural Capital, but dont have enough fingers or toes to count all those that look at land merely as a commodity whose sole purpose and function it is to build upon and maximize profit from. In point of fact Emmet Field was, and still acts as, a wetland. This should have been the last place in town on which to build a complex of this scope. Back in the 1960s no one gave it a second thought it was just useless swampland, and the likely BR Environmental, LLC 54 Park Street Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 14

reason why better upland sites available at the time were not chosen. Back then, no one considered the environmental economics behind recharge, flood storage, wildlife habitat, aesthetics, carbon sinking, and greenways. Isnt it funny how in this enlightened day and age that history continues to repeat itself? Beyond the inventory of bullet points above, the remaining 80% of the Borough is in some form of sod or impervious cover (houses, buildings, parking lots, roads, etc.). From strictly a practical sense Florham Park is at Build-Out, a condition where any future human development deteriorates natural capital beyond the tipping point; a state where free services provided by natural systems ceases to function without capital expenditures necessary to offset the service provided. Does this mean we cant put up more townhomes along Columbia Turnpike or Passaic Avenue as could occur in the next 10 years? OF course we can; anything can be engineered away if we like. But we do so at the risk of greater costs in services and higher taxes as we increase the needs equation for more schools, parks, banks and Dunkin Donuts & the like; in other words quality of life is downsized in the process. Most importantly we chisel away, bit by bit, piece by piece, the natural capital that sustains us all through clean air and water. But dont take my word for it. Ask our town planner if we can sustain Florham Park at a higher density than the 12,800 people presently living in the Borough. He will probably say Yes ,we can; but then ask him if we should, and I think he would agree with me that ole- Florham Park has reached build-out.

Section VI 10 Environmental Impacts (With Commentary) Direct & Post Development Elm Street Park:
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:

BR Environmental, LLC

54 Park Street

Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 15

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 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 BR Environmental, LLC 54 Park Street Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 16

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 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 54 Park Street Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 17

BR Environmental, LLC

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 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 BR Environmental, LLC 54 Park Street Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 18

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 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 BR Environmental, LLC 54 Park Street Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 19

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.

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 BR Environmental, LLC 54 Park Street Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 20

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 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 BR Environmental, LLC 54 Park Street Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 21

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;

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 BR Environmental, LLC 54 Park Street Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 22

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 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;

BR Environmental, LLC

54 Park Street

Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 23

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 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 BR Environmental, LLC 54 Park Street Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 24

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 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. BR Environmental, LLC 54 Park Street Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 25

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 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 ecologicalBR Environmental, LLC 54 Park Street Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 26

functioning 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, 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 27

Section VII Final Point(s):

The Borough and Recreation Committee will tell you that they are saving the remaining 82% of this newly acquired Borough land. What they fail to tell you is that out of the land that remains the majority is wetland confined. And make no mistake: in the next 30 years when the town keeps the green light to development wide open, as they have to this point, the future mayor or recreation committee will tell you theyll need to develop this land in order to annex the complex for more fields, lacrosse pavilions, a new municipal pool and maybe even a cat park.

Recommendation:

The Borough still hasnt performed a complete environmental inventory of the BMEC which this recently cleared land was once part of. We wouldnt know what we were losing until it is gone or compromised to the point it ceases to function. At the minimum I would suggest that the Borough allow for such a study to commence this spring extending into the fall season in order to produce a diversity-baseline that future management of the park and surrounding woodlands can utilize as a base. I tried my best to have the town consider a Natural Resource Inventory (NRI) - 80% of all municipalities have one, this would be a major step forward for the production of a baseline of natural capital assets in the Borough. The cost of such a study would be in the area of $12,000.00, but the answer was the same one Ive gotten since I came on board as your EC chairman no money. The Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions (ANJEC) has a matching grant for such an endeavor so the town would have to pony-up about $6,000 of the total amount. (Consider that they found $250,000 to cut down the forest they did not want to study in the first place, phase-I).

Commentary: Im sure if the recreation committee wanted a new swing set at Stobeus field wed find the money somewhere. Sounds childish I know, but I maintain the premise that if its rec-centric it flies, if its forward thinking environmental economics it doesnt resonate. BR Environmental, LLC 54 Park Street Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 28

This report may sound to some as a one-sided, earth first rant; I hope you will not see it this way. Rather Id challenge you to do your own investigations on the issue(s) of Open Space in the Borough, keeping an open mind to how quickly build-out has occurred. I challenge you to get a feel for the environmental economics of the situation before voicing a counter opinion. Ive tried my best to promote awareness for real environmental change in the Borough, but I can tell you first hand this administration is not interested. For sure some small gains have been made; Id like to think that the Spring Garden Lake Restoration project has caused an uptick in conscious awareness of local environmental issues of the day.

The big environmental initiative that the Borough of Florham Park is going to sell you in 2012 is for passive trails into sensitive woodlands and wetlands. From my perspective, when contrasted with a true accounting of the real environmental issues the Borough now faces this initiative is a hollow subterfuge, a Band-Aid used to cover real scars. Trails are simply whitewash in order to avoid the paradigm shift necessary to change course in any meaningful way.

I can predict the immediate retort from the current administration is going include the following: (a) FP Borough set aside 11 acres at Fish Brook Park (currently an ad hoc hunting club property for use by local law enforcement to practice their hobby), (b) FP Borough extended a fractional part of its budget for Spring Garden Lake, (keep in mind the EC maintains the lake at no expense to the taxpayer). Currently the administration says no money for upkeep of the resource and no money for the project this year. And, (c) Florham Park has set aside a little bit of over-deer-browsed woodland adjacent to Stobeus Field surrounded by development on all four sides; I would agree that the purchase of this land was the best use of Open Space Grant Money during this cycle. Also it should be noted that all remaining block and lot owners have gained value and advantage from this land preservation - pay strict attention to the benefactors (for my money this would have been the best place to clear 10 acres and put a turf field).

The Mayor and Council deserve kudos for these first step enterprises. However, meaningful environmental protection in the Borough is hard to come BR Environmental, LLC 54 Park Street Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 29

by when juxtaposed with the scale of environmental and open space problems facing the Borough.

My fear is that weve reached the edge of the event horizon in our town and the challenge to reverse the trend is too daunting under current levels of understanding. The removal of 20 acres of the most environmentally sensitive land in the Borough, a town that has technically reached Build-out, is unambiguous testimony to this final point.

Blaine Rothauser (President BR Environmental, LLC)

Florham Park Environmental Commission

32-3. Powers and duties.

The Environmental Commission shall have the following duties to: A. Study and make recommendations to the Mayor and Council in areas of conservation and environmental protection, which shall include but not be limited to pollution control of all types; waste disposal, including sewage, garbage and solid waste; open space preservation, with emphasis on outdoor recreation needs, aesthetic flora and fauna preservation and beautification; and water resources. B. Plan local conservation programs and inform the public about those programs. C. Prepare, print and distribute informational materials, such as books, maps, charts, plans and pamphlets which in its judgment it deems necessary for its purposes, within the limits of funds appropriated to the Commission and with the approval of the Borough Council.

BR Environmental, LLC

54 Park Street

Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 30

D. Keep an index of all open areas, publicly and privately owned, in order to obtain information on the proper use of such areas. E. Recommend, from time to time, to the Planning Board, plans and programs for inclusion in the Master Plan of the Borough of Florham Park for development and use of such areas. F. Operate conservation programs on lands donated or purchased for conservation purposes by the Borough of Florham Park. G. Do such other acts and things as are reasonably related to and assigned to carry out the purposes and objectives of the commission.

BR Environmental, LLC

54 Park Street

Florham Park, NJ 07932 Page 31