For Immediate Release
Contact Jeff Tittel, 609-558-9100
The Superior Court has ruled against the Sierra Club and other environmental groups appeal against the Six Flags clear-cut of over 18,000 trees for solar. Our litigation contested approvals from the Jackson Twp. Committee and Planning Board. We believe Six Flags' plan is flawed given that there are plenty of alternatives they could take that do not harm the environment, sacrifice wildlife habitat, or add to stormwater runoff. These alternatives include putting solar on disturbed sites, the parking lot, and staging areas instead of clear-cutting over 66 acres. If their plan was to put these panels on developed land to begin with, there would not have been this lengthy process and they would already have solar.
“The Court made a clear-cut decision to destroy the forest. We are disappointed the Court sided with chainsaws instead of upholding the town’s Conservation and Tree Ordinances. We believe the Court was wrong in siding with Six Flags and KDC in the destruction of an environmentally sensitive forest for solar panels. We believe they could have put solar on top of distributed areas like parking lots to generate green energy without cutting down all of those trees. These alternatives would not harm the environment, sacrifice habitat, or add to stormwater runoff. While these alternatives should have been considered, they were not because Six Flags actually want to expand the foot print of the park. They want to build hotels and other commercial operations on disturbed sites, not solar,” said Jeff Tittel, Director, New Jersey Sierra Club. “We believe the Court was wrong in this decision because the Planning Board ignored their own Tree Ordinance and their own Conservation Zone that said this area is supposed to be protected. Now who will speak for the trees?"
Building a solar farm should be a positive for the environment and should not cause environmental damage in the process. The proposed location for the solar farm is east of the safari park and sits on more than 66 acres which is mostly forested. The area includes environmentally sensitive areas like extensive wetlands and headwaters for two Category 1 (C1) streams, and steep slopes. These streams are tributaries of the Toms River. We believe the Court’s decision violated the Tree Ordinance and the Municipal Land Use law.
“This project is a black eye for clean energy. We strongly believe in solar power and think it’s a great idea for Six Flags to get their power from solar, but not at the expense of forests and the environment. We believe that the Judge’s decision was wrong based on Municipal Land Use Law and we will look at grounds for appeal,” said Jeff Tittel. “Six Flags can't have green energy by destroying a forest. They can’t go green without being green. Had they put this in the right place to begin with, it would have been built by now. Instead we’ve had months of drawn-out hearings and a court case. After all this time and all this money spent, there’s still no solar. We will look into appealing this decision, which could delay this even longer. At the end of the day, after all this time is spent, Six Flags still might not have any solar.”
The site is also home to a nesting area of for bald eagle in addition to other endangered species who find the area a retreat from heavily developed Jackson Township. By approving this proposal, the Board is violated their Tree Ordinance. These trees are important to the ecosystem and preserving water quality. Removing them will damage the environment.
“The Sierra Club worked with Jackson implement a Tree Ordinance and went to the Supreme Court to see it upheld. We worked with them for years on a Conservation Zone. They’ve ignored both of these to allow this project to go forward and now the Court has looked the other way. By putting this solar array on important headwater areas, it would destroy high-quality Category 1 streams. Two of these streams are important headwater streams for the Barnegat Bay. Since this property acts as a buffer, the runoff from the safari park will carry nutrient polluting water in the streams. It’s not just the runoff from the safari park, runoff would also come from the solar farm and eventually deposit in the Barnegat Bay. We should not be sacrificing clean water for solar projects,” said Tittel. “Eliminating the forest will add more pollution, since the original trees had the ability to absorb carbon and clean our air. It will take at least 30-40 years if not more for the trees to grow back to their original state.”
We support solar panels but they should be reducing our carbon footprint, not adding to it. Clear-cutting this many trees will undo any of the good that could come from these panels. They should be placed instead on areas that are already developed, such as parking lots. After cutting thousands of trees, it could take more than 30-40 years to perform the same job. Another concern is the forest’s ability to combat air pollution and absorb climate change causing greenhouse gas emissions will be suspended until the new forest is returned.
“This solar clear-cut project doesn't see the forest for the trees. Jackson clearly violated their own rules to approve this project, but the Court has decided to protect Six Flags instead of the people and the environment. This decision is an outrageous sell out to the environment because based on Jackson’s own Tree Ordinance, Six Flags cannot clear cut thousands of trees. Clear-cutting this many trees will ruin the environmentally sensitive forest, weaken water quality, and increase downstream flooding.We want to thank our lawyer Michelle Donato for her work to challenge this project,” said Jeff Tittel, Director, New Jersey Sierra Club. “The Sierra Club supports solar and we believe in green energy but we should not sacrifice the environment for it.”