[Vision2020] NFWF and Wal-Mart
Phil Nisbet
pcnisbet1 at hotmail.com
Mon Feb 27 16:07:18 PST 2006
Mark
Does last sessions "lets lynch Phil Nisbet Bill" count? I will grant it
died in committee, but it does make the heart go pitty pat to think that
people care enough to hate the very best.
Phil
>From: Mark Solomon <msolomon at moscow.com>
>To: "Phil Nisbet" <pcnisbet1 at hotmail.com>, cstorhok at co.fairbanks.ak.us,
> vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] NFWF and Wal-Mart
>Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:53:31 -0800
>
>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.fdncenter.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/
>
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list