Would Rachel Carson Approve?

In a recent PU, we published a remarkably candid letter from a developer from Texas, Mr. Joseph S. Howell, III, to PADEP Secretary James Seif. Mr.Howell is trying to develop a mall in Harmar Township, Allegheny County. He was recounting to Secretary Seif all the meetings he had arranged with politicians and Federal agency poobahs in order to enlighten the "maverick technocrats." For large (and a lot of small ones) projects, we all know that developers don't hesitate to use political connections to grease the skids, but we rarely have the chance to read a detailed account of the behind-the- scenes machinations. Our heartfelt thanks to Mr. Howell for detailing his activities in a letter to a high- ranking state employee and thus, making the details accessible to the public.

Howell's Deer Creek Crossing development would bury 6.95 acres of wetlands and 2,700 feet of Deer Creek under 8.5 million cubic yards of fill. Deer Creek flows through the middle of the site; the wetlands are scattered around the property. Howell plans to move Deer Creek to the edge of the property and build new wetlands along the new channel of Deer Creek. The stream and wetlands will now be located in a 100 foot deep ravine, bounded by the mall, Pennsylvania Turnpike, and Route 28. Deer Creek is one of only 3 streams in Allegheny County that supports trout. Although is has suffered from poor water quality in the past, water quality has improved so substantially that it now supports trout.

According to the Corps of Engineers, the public's response to the public notice has been decidedly negative.

"We have a stack of public comments that are two inches thick and they're still coming in from state and federal agencies, local governments, groups and individuals," said Richard Dowling, Corps spokesman. (Pittsburgh Post Gazette 12/11/99)

The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Environmental Protection Agency have expressed concerns over the permit. The PFBC has characterized the project as "a ludicrous environmental disgrace the likes of which have never been permitted" in Pennsylvania. The Western Pennsylvania Conservancy identified the area as the "best examples of flood plain forest and healthy marsh in the county" in a 1994 Natural Heritage Inventory for Allegheny County.

So with all this opposition to the project, what makes Howell believe he can get permits? Can you say "past experience" boys and girls? The Corps of Engineers, Pittsburgh District, not that long ago, advertised a plan by Howell to move 3000 feet of another pesky stream that flowed diagonally through the middle of his rectangular shaped, planned shopping center called Cranberry Commons. The former stream channel is now buried under about 20 feet of fill, along with 3 1/2 acres of wetland that once bordered this small stream. But, thanks to the Corps, the stream still lives - it just lives somewhere else. It now flows across the top of the rectangle, makes a hard left, then flows down the short leg of the rectangle. We use the word "flow" loosely, because neither RPF, nor anyone else we spoke to, has a clue as to whether there will ever be fish or water in the new channel.

We wonder if this is what Howell has in mind for Deer Creek? Both the Corps and DEP gave Howell the necessary permits for the Cranberry project. Given his previous success (in securing the permits, not in maintaining environmental values), is it any wonder Howell thinks he can get a permit for just about anything he wants?

Back to Deer Creek (which is a larger stream than the one obliterated by Cranberry Commons) and the current controversy. In Howell's letter to Seif, he mentioned meeting with members of the staffs of Congressman Mike Doyle and Senator Rick Santorum (along with staff of "old friend," Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas). RPF learned from Congressional aides that Howell met in Washington DC on October 26, 1999. The meeting was attended by aides to Doyle and Santorum, as well as aides to Congressman Klink and Mascara . But this wasn't just for Congressional staff. The meeting was also attended by two Corps of Engineers staff from the Pittsburgh District, Mr. Ted Rugal from the Office of the Chief of Engineers, as well as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Northeast Regional Director, and the Supervisor of the USFWS Pennsylvania Field Office. When RPF asked Santorum's aide why such a big meeting , he said that the Senator provides that service to all his constituents. Really? If true, Santorum went above and beyond the call of duty, since Howell lives just slightly outside his district--he's from Texas.

Howell also mentioned in his letter that Chatham College is "truly excited" over his plan to move all the wetlands out of the way of the mall, and turn them into an "outdoor laboratory." Incidentally, the property owner, W.Duff McCrady, sits on Chatham College's Board of Trustees. Are not the wetlands and stream already outdoors? Could not they be a "laboratory" if anyone wanted to use them? It seems reasonable to assume that Mr. McCrady would give permission to Chatham College (or anyone else, for that matter) to study the stream and wetlands, mall or no mall. But if the stream is moved, any interested students will have to put up with the traffic on the Pennsylvania Turnpike whizzing by less than 100 feet from the 80 to 100 foot deep rock-lined channel. But all would not be lost--access to Deer Creek and the wetlands will be easier since students will be able to drive up to the edge and park in the parking lot overlooking the "outdoor laboratory."

Let's not forget that these "wetlands" are already named. They will be called the "Rachel Carson Wetlands." According to a Pittsburgh Post Gazette article of November 14, 1999, the suggestion for naming the mitigation wetlands came out of Howell's earlier meeting with Seif. Of all the aspects of this project, perhaps none is more offensive than the attempt to lend credibility to Howell's wetland mitigation site by invoking the name of one of our Nation's great conservationists, Rachel Carson. Isn't it enough that her name was bestowed on a building housing an agency that, in too many instances, has come to mean: "Don't Expect Protection." But the picture of Seif wasting time in a meeting with a high roller from Texas discussing the name of these "wetlands" (face it, replacement wetlands generally do not work) for a bad project is a bit more than we think Rachel Carson would have stood for.

Which finally brings us around to the real point of this article. We haven't seen Howell's business card, but we'd bet dollars to donuts that it does not say "Stream and Wetland Conservationist." He's a developer, pure and simple. Where we see public servants protecting natural resources, he sees "myopic" field biologists and "maverick technocrats." But again, he's a developer and he sees public servants as possible obstacles. He uses his pull to get politicians and supervisory staff of agencies to a meeting (and if the politicos are favorable, it sends a powerful unspoken message to the agency supervisors) and then sends a friendly update to Jim Seif. It's not unexpected. The only unusual thing about this is that the account is in writing and did not get shredded.

The real problem is the atmosphere that DEP has created. This is "open for business." This is taming the "job- crushing" bureaucracy. Tom Ridge sang this song during his first campaign and then he put Jim Seif in place to ensure DEP continues to carry the tune. The word on the street is that environmental protection is secondary, especially if you have connections and use them. How else could such a situation arise--where a permit applicant thinks that such a letter would benefit them? Take a look at a December 2, 1999 article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. DEP weakened their regulatory language protecting the water quality of National and State Parks, which is a Federal requirement. The article states that a DEP attorney said that "extractive industries" were concerned that the Federal language may limit oil and gas drilling in the Allegheny National Forest. Open for business? Doesn't get much clearer than that.

Secretary Seif, we here at PU think that the way the Deer Creek project is going, that it would be more appropriate for the "wetlands" to be named after you, or perhaps even your boss. They will function about as well as DEP has on your watch.

But if you insist on calling them the "Rachel Carson Wetlands," here's a couple of very appropriate quotes for the dedication or even inscribed on the plaque. They are from Ms. Carson's book Silent Spring, she was writing about pesticides, but they work for this as well:

"Only within the moment of time represented by the present century has one species - man - acquired significant power to alter the nature of his world."

"This is an era... dominated by industry in which the right to make a dollar at whatever cost is seldom challenged."

And here is one that ought to be carved into the top of your desk:

"We train ecologists in our universities and even employ them in our governmental agencies but we seldom take their advice."

<<<<END>>>>

return