[Vision2020] NFWF and Wal-Mart

Mon Feb 27 14:10:47 PST 2006

Phil,
 I agree with you on this one, especially when it concerns big box stores,
industrial facilities, or warehouses that a remediation plan should be in
place as part of the original development plan.  Heck driving around
Fairbanks there are three large empty big box stores, complete with acres of
parking, that need cleaning up and redeveloped.  The former stores, in all
three cases, were sold to a third party "developer" who swore up and down he
was going to get rich off of redeveloping the former K-Mart (or what have
you) and then found out that due to environmental liabilities the place
cannot be re-developed.  That leaves the local government (that assumes the
site after tax foreclosure) with the task of finding grant money from the
EPA to complete a site assessment, then demolition, and finally cleanup.
Corporate American is far too willing to shut down and move without facing
the true cost of their actions.   
Perhaps Moscow (or Fairbanks in my case) should require a redevelopment plan
and bond in place as part of the conditional use permit.  If Wal-Mart were
to agree to a redevelopment plan and bond then maybe a lot of concerns can
be addressed.  Heck, once Wal-Mart moves to either Pullman or the east side
of Moscow, suddenly there will be several acres of abandoned building and
parking lot sitting at the western edge of Moscow.  The current Moscow
Wal-Mart is only 12 years old, what a waste of really nice land that will
soon be. 

Chris    

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Solomon [mailto:msolomon at moscow.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 11:54 AM
To: Phil Nisbet; cstorhok at co.fairbanks.ak.us; vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] NFWF and Wal-Mart

Phil,

You radical! Developers required to mitigate the 
impacts of development!  Watch what you say.. the 
next thing you know you'll have a bill named 
after you in the Idaho Legislature making sure 
that the right of developers to develop shall not 
be controlled by local government outside the 
authorities granted under the Local Land Use 
Planning Act. I think I've got at least three of 
those to my dubious credit so far.

Mark

At 12:41 PM -0800 2/27/06, Phil Nisbet wrote:
>Mark
>
>I still call it Greenmailing, but I suppose that 
>Greenwashing makes it a little more acceptable 
>to some.  Its still part of the unlevel playing 
>field that Walmart seeks to create.
>
>When local businesses and resource business do 
>mitigation for acrages, we do so on the basis of 
>functionality, which is actually most often a 
>lot more than acre for acre.  Wetlands 
>mitigation is most often 2-3 to one for 
>distrubed lands.  Riparian mitigation on a 
>functionality basis is most often 2:1.  In my 
>career in mining, the ratio for lands which I 
>have disturbed in explortation or development to 
>lands reclaimed has averaged 2.2 acres reclaimed 
>for each one disturbed.
>
>One of the biggest deals in the environmental 
>mitigation process is selection of lands for 
>habitat mitigation and assigning functionality 
>parameters.  I think you can recall some of the 
>big meetings on the Beartrack Mine in trying to 
>establish functional values for riparian 
>restoration versus created wetlands.
>
>So Wally World making some sort of claim to fame 
>for a 1:1 is hardly generous and as you note is 
>underfunded.  Further, your figure should 
>reflect what other industry in the West does, so 
>perhaps coubling your fogure would more 
>accurately reflect ;what they should be doing in 
>terms of mitigatory measures.
>
>It has always bugged the heck out of me that 
>development projects from Moscow to Jackson Hole 
>never have reclaimation plans and never are 
>forced to do functional mitigation that mines 
>take as a matter of course in our business. 
>Once a shopping center or a housing development 
>is put in place, it will never be anything else, 
>but they are never required to mitigate that.  A 
>mine will end up reclaimed in this day and age 
>and will not simply reclaim, but will compensate 
>for lose of functionality during the mining 
>process and require interum reclamation during 
>mining as well.  It used to crack me up talking 
>to old Phil Hocker who as a developer had wiped 
>out 900 acres of wintrer elk habitat in Jackson 
>without ever doing an ounce of reclamation or 
>mitigation for his destruction and hear him 
>gross about mines.
>
>Maybe its time to require developers to do mitigation.
>
>Phil Nisbet
>
>>From: Mark Solomon <msolomon at moscow.com>
>>To: Chris Storhok <cstorhok at co.fairbanks.ak.us>,       
>>"'vision2020 at moscow.com'" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] NFWF and Wal-Mart
>>Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:01:26 -0800
>>
>>Hi Chris,
>>A great example of "green-washing" -- in this 
>>instance the devil is in the details. 
>>"Landscape level" conservation and 
>>"acre-by-acre" footprint of Walmart stores 
>>don't quite match up. Money is money and I'm 
>>certainly not saying that WM contributions are 
>>not potentially valuable, but I can see the ads 
>>now: slow camera pan over a 
>>forest/desert/canyon/lake/etc. Voice over: For 
>>every acre of Walmart stores built, we save an 
>>acre of America's natural heritage for you.
>>
>>Reality: Using a local example discussed on 
>>Vision 2020 recently, the cedar grove on Moscow 
>>Mountain, estimated value including stumpage is 
>>somewhere in the 1.3 million dollar range for 
>>just under 300 acres. Call it $4000/acre. By 
>>the requirements of the grant program, WM pays 
>>half or $2k/acre for $600k total. For the 
>>purposes of this argument, let's assume that 
>>$2k/acre is a good average for the "high 
>>conservation value" lands that are the focus of 
>>the program and it's $3.1 million annual 
>>budget. That would be 1,550 acres nationwide. 
>>Walmart plans on building 1500 stores this 
>>coming year according to news reports. Average 
>>footprint of stores and parking lots is @30 
>>acres or 45,000 acres of Walmart stores this 
>>year alone or a deficit of 43,450 acres 
>>unfunded in their program.
>>
>>If WM is serious about offsetting their 
>>landscape level impacts, they'll need to kick 
>>in another $86,900,000.
>>
>>Mark Solomon
>>
>>At 8:58 AM -0900 2/27/06, Chris Storhok wrote:
>>>Just in case Moscow loses its battle to Super Wal-Mart:
>>>
>>>
>>>National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and Wal-Mart
>>>              Invites Proposals for Acres for America Program
>>>
>>>  Deadline: April 1, 2006 (Pre-proposals)
>>>
>>>  A partnership between Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
>>>  ( 
>>><http://www.wal-mart.com/>http://www.wal-mart.com/ 
>>>) and the National Fish and  Wildlife 
>>>Foundation ( 
>>><http://www.nfwf.org/>http://www.nfwf.org/ ), 
>>>the Acres  for America program was established 
>>>to provide funding  for projects that conserve 
>>>important habitat for fish,  wildlife, and 
>>>plants through acquisition of interest in 
>>>real property. The goal of the Acres for 
>>>America program  is to offset the footprint of 
>>>Wal-Mart's domestic facilities on at least an 
>>>acre-by-acre basis through these acquisitions.
>>>
>>>  Through the program, approximately $3.1 
>>>million will be  made available annually, for 
>>>ten years, for conservation  investments.
>>>
>>>  To be considered for funding through the 
>>>Wal-Mart partner-  ship, acquisitions of 
>>>interest in real property should  have the 
>>>endorsement of appropriate federal, state, and 
>>>local government agencies as an acquisition 
>>>with high  conservation value; endorsements by 
>>>nonprofit conservation  organizations are also 
>>>a primary consideration. Acquisi-  tions that 
>>>contribute to "landscape level" conservation 
>>>efforts that help reduce fragmentation are 
>>>preferred over  isolated acquisitions. In 
>>>addition, important fish, wild-  life, and/or 
>>>plant resources such as endangered species or 
>>>areas of significant biological diversity, as 
>>>identified  by credible conservation agencies 
>>>or organizations, should  be conserved through 
>>>the acquisition. The fee transfer or 
>>>perpetual easement must qualify for 
>>>"conservation purposes"
>>>  as defined by Internal Revenue Code Section 
>>>170(h). Access  to the land by the public is 
>>>preferred but not required.
>>>
>>>  All grant awards require a minimum 1:1 match 
>>>of cash or contributed goods and services. 
>>>Federal funds may be  considered as match. 
>>>Higher ratios of matching funds will  at times 
>>>aid in making applications more competitive.
>>>
>>>  Visit the NFWF Web site for complete program 
>>>information  and application procedures.
>>>
>>>  RFP Link:
>>>
>>><http://fconline.fdncenter.org/pnd/10001072/nfwf>http://fconline.fdncente
r.org/pnd/10001072/nfwf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Chris Storhok
>>>North Pole, AK
>
>
>>_____________________________________________________
>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>                http://www.fsr.net
>>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! 
>Download today - it's FREE! 
>http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/