Brian T. Lynch, MSW
What follows is an AI generated Q&A (our questions posed to an AI chat) to organize basic information about the pros and cons of preserving the Randall Hill Forrest in Mine Hill for future generations versus building 305 luxury apartments on the property. We must realize that development of the land has been tied to New Jersey's Fair Housing law in a way that now severely limits the town's options for preserving the property.
The underlying gamble (I've been told ) in rezoning the property for high-density housing is that the costs associated with capping the 134 year old abandoned mineshafts on this property will make development financially unfeasible. Under this scenario, it is important that development proceeds by the book, without shortcuts that could undermine (no pun intended) safety in order to lower construction costs.
Having committed the town to developing this property to meet our fair housing obligations, town officials cannot pursue any alternate plan without the risk of a law suit. They can't even discuss other options. So, it is up to us to consider, discuss, or pursue possible alternatives. Are you interested? I will post Q&As on this blog and on the Mine Hill Environmental Facebook Page with a place for comments and discussions.
 |
| Spring Brook Headwaters at base if Randall Hill |
Evaluating the environmental value of preserving Randall Hill Forest in Mine Hill versus replacing it with a 300-unit luxury apartment complex highlights the common tension between suburban economic development and natural land preservation. Even when projects claim to practice "safe" or low-impact development, clear-cutting a continuous forest ecosystem causes irreversible local environmental changes. [1, 2]
A direct comparison of the environmental value of preservation versus the impacts of safe luxury development highlights several key differences:
🌿 Ecological Impact Matrix
Key Environmental Arguments for Preservation
Preserving the Watershed: Central northern New Jersey relies heavily on forested hillsides to filter and absorb rainwater. Removing acres of mature forest to build large structures increases local stormwater runoff, risking erosion and downstream flooding. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Biodiversity Protection: Fragmenting a intact forest isolates plant and animal populations. Even "green" development layouts create artificial edges, disrupting interior forest species and encouraging invasive species growth. [1]
Historical and Topographical Hazards: Given Mine Hill's rich iron mining history, undeveloped areas often conceal old mine shafts or historical workings. Extensive excavation for apartment foundations and large parking garages can disturb unstable subterranean terrain, alter natural water drainage pathways, or stir up legacy iron-ore runoff. [1, 2, 3, 4]
The Developer's Counter: Can Development Be "Safely" Managed?
Proponents of high-density housing note that modern luxury complexes can incorporate strict Low-Impact Development (LID) techniques. These include green roofs, permeable pavement, engineered detention basins, and localized tree replanting.
Additionally, environmental planners sometimes favor dense, multi-family construction over single-family sprawl. Concentrating 300 units into a single high-density footprint preserves more macro-regional acreage than spreading 300 single-family homes across a wider landscape, which would require extensive new road and utility networks.
The Trade-off
Ultimately, while engineered systems can partially mitigate urban runoff and resource strain, they cannot replicate a mature forest canopy. Preserving Randall Hill Forest maintains permanent, zero-cost ecosystem services—carbon storage, aquifer purification, and habitat stability—that artificial systems cannot fully replace.
The acres of Randall Hill forrest cover dozens of old mine shafts and many horizontal shafts as well. Add in the air shafts and other access areas and you have about 60 likely excavation sites seen on Lidar images. The mining activity ended 134 years ago before careful documentation was required, so the location and scope of most shafts are unknown. What seems clear is that once these locations are identified, the caps that must be built to make the land safe for construction will add acres of impervious surface. This will alter the hydrology of the entire hill. As it is now, there is virtually no surface runoff during rainstorms because the many mining depression act as a sink with relatively thin pervious bottoms. Rainwater quickly filters into the many shafts on site and directly to the groundwater below. This arrangement, I believe, is responsible for the numerous freshwater springs around the base of the hill, which is the primary source water for Spring Brook. Capping the mines and building the complex will divert most of that water to storm drains without natural filtering. The result may dry up the wetland habitat areas, scour the stream bottom with heavy storm water flow (turning it into a lifeless drainage ditch), and seriously degrade the water quality for this protected water source which contributes drinking water for 1.2 million people downstream. This property has a unique hydrology that isn't comparable other construction sites.
ReplyDelete