Jump to content

Dep Awards $1.2 Million In Federal Funds For New J


BMSquared

Recommended Posts

DEP AWARDS $1.2 MILLION IN FEDERAL FUNDS FOR NEW JERSEY TRAILS

 

(04/137) TRENTON - New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

(DEP) Commissioner Bradley M. Campbell today announced that the DEP will allocate up to $1.2 million in federal funds to improve and to develop trails statewide.

 

"Outdoor trails provide residents with many ways to enjoy New Jersey's outstanding natural resources," Acting Governor Richard J. Codey said.

"These grants will help us improve New Jersey's trail system and provide greater access for everyone."

 

"The Recreational Trails Program provides the public with recreational use of the state's premiere trail network," said Campbell. "The grants will improve access to open space, enhance environmental resources and provide additional hiking, biking and horseback riding opportunities."

 

DEP will award $528,000 for the development, construction and restoration of 32 trail sites recommended for funding by the New Jersey Trails Council and approved by the Federal Highway Administration. The trails are located in Atlantic, Bergen, Burlington, Cape May, Hudson, Hunterdon, Mercer, Monmouth, Morris, Passaic, Somerset, Sussex, Union and Warren counties.

 

DEP also has reserved almost $165,000 for the development of future motorized trail projects.

 

In addition to projects already funded, DEP expects to make available up to $700,000 in additional federal grants in 2005 contingent upon congressional reauthorization of the U.S. Department of Transportation's Surface Transportation Bill. These grants will be administered through a competitive process, with recipients required to provide 20 percent in matching funds.

 

Counties, municipalities and non-profit agencies have until December 15, 2004 to apply for the anticipated 2005 funding. Interested parties can contact the DEP Trails Program at (609) 984-1339. More information is available at http://www.nj.gov/dep/parksandforests/natural/njtrails.html.

Link to comment
DEP also has reserved almost $165,000 for the development of future motorized trail projects.

 

Hmmmm, I thought they were the Departement of Environmental PROTECTION, not destruction.

Politics. ;)

compromise (n)

a. A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.

b. The result of such a settlement.

c. Lose something to gain something.

Link to comment

As regards the inclusion of funding for off road motorized vehicle trails, I would view this as more of a trojan horse than a compromise. It doesn't matter how small the amount, what matters is that the principle has been established that off road vehicle users are entitled to have state funds used to construct ORV Trails, presumably on state land. This is an attempt to end run the environmental assessment of the impact of such trails, by providing funds to a revenue strapped agency, knowing the very existence of such funds will impell the agency to use them. This is a faustian bargain that the environmentally concerned citizens of New Jersey will come to regret. I guarantee you this misguided funding will be increased. You cannot be just a little pregnant, nor does it matter what a nice fur coat you have been given.

Edited by jonboy
Link to comment
his is a faustian bargain that the environmentally concerned citizens of New Jersey will come to regret. I guarantee you this misguided funding will be increased. You cannot be just a little pregnant, nor does it matter what a nice fur coat you have been given.

 

I'm of two minds on this. I hate the ATV's and the destruction they cause to our forest and trail network. But thousands of the things are sold in this state every year and the owners are gonna want to ride them and the only places to ride are illegal. If we give them their own trail network to rip apart, maybe they'll stay off the rest of our trails. I'd only be in favor of this if, in addition to an ATV trail network, they increased penalties for illegal riding (like forfeiture of vehicle...the current $50 fine is little more than a user fee to them) and got serious about enforcement.

Link to comment

I am certainly no fan of ATV's. The problem is not all citizens share the views of the Geocaching majority. If everyone agreed that ATV's were destructive and should be banned we would have no need for this discussion but the fact is ATV riders are a sizeable group and are entitled to governmental funding and provsions as much as any of us. Once this principle is accepted the focus should be to ensure this legislation is constructed in such a way as to severely restrict the land available for this activity and, as Brian stated, make the punishment for violations real and harsh. People are going to ride ATV's in the woods but if this is done right I believe it can keep them out of 'my woods' and on a designated patch of dirt. (Maybe we could designate a superfund site)

Link to comment

I don't own an ATV nor am I a New Jerseyite. But I've run into trails in NY that have been torn up by ATV's and mountain bikes. However, I think it's good they're using the money for different things.

 

Everyone should be allowed to use the environment. Just set aside an area for that particular activity. Why should hikers have the land to themselves? Or anyone else. I think that's the problem with most environmentalists. They think land must remain "pristine". FOR THEM.

 

Give a section for ATV, another for mountain biking. etc. After all, does anyone complain about a ski mountain that had the entire mountain practically denuded for ski trails. Well Ok, you can't hike there but now the skiiers can do their thing. Likewise when they build a dam for swimmers and boaters. That area is lost to hiking and caching but the swimmers and boaters get their share of the land to play on doing their thing.

 

To say that the land should remain available in its form for hikers and cachers only is not fair to the rest of the public who also pay taxes abd who wish to use the land for their pet activities. Like I said, you can create areas for each sport and as Brian said raise the fines for improper use.

Edited by Alan2
Link to comment
Everyone should be allowed to use the environment. Just set aside an area for that particular activity. Why should hikers have the land to themselves? Or anyone else. I think that's the problem with most environmentalists. They think land must remain "pristine". FOR THEM.

 

We have been "using the environment" for more than a century, that is what changed large parts of the Garden State into the Garbage Dump State. States that have experienced more than a century of unfettered despoilation of God's bounty realize that they have been defecating in their own beds. You don't have to be a tree hugger to want clean air and drinkable water or wish that your rivers did not flood every year because all natural barriers to flooding have been stripped away.

 

I'll admit that the topsoil stripped away by ATVs does not compare to the damage that has been done by bulldozers, but at least the bulldozers don't drive around doing donuts and tearing the ground up just for fun. But who knows, maybe a group of hard core off road enthusiasts will take up off road bulldozing because it is more macho than those whimpy little ATVs. And of course, they will be entitled to their share of the spoils. We can't let these selfish environmentalists stand in the way of progress.

Link to comment
States that have experienced more than a century of unfettered despoilation of God's bounty realize that they have been defecating in their own beds. You don't have to be a tree hugger to want clean air and drinkable water or wish that your rivers did not flood every year because all natural barriers to flooding have been stripped away.

 

Nowhere in my post did I suggest we should pollute the air and water nor did I suggest unfettered, unregulated abuse of the environment. Stop creating a straw man. I'm just as much as anone else want to drink clean water and breathe clean air.

 

My point is that there are many activities that everyone has a right to exercise if done in an appropriate way. To say that chewing up a specific, regulated area with ATV's is worse than strippiing half the trees of the side of Gore mountain is only in the eye of the beholder and what sport you're interested in. Fact is, the denuding of Gore is easier to see and more of an eyesore while driving though. But skiers have their rights as do hikers and cachers. And when a valley is flooded for fisherman, boaters and waterskiers, that can be considered "harmful", well to those who'd rather hike.

 

All I'm suggesting is with proper management, everyone's hobby could be accomodated. After all, isn't that what us cachers have been complaing about? That until just recently, DEP has not allowed our sport and we've been arguing that we should have a shot of the environment too?

Link to comment
(Maybe we could designate a superfund site)

Hey, just cuz you hear of the word, don't try to sound too smart. You don't catch me saying "Sponge bath sir?".

 

By the way, the beneficial reclamation of superfund sites and other abandoned contaminated sites is "Brownfields Redevelopment". This is different from the Superfund reclamation, but should definitely be further funded to avoid urban sprawl and save Brians rocky crevasses.

Link to comment
We have been "using the environment" for more than a century, that is what changed large parts of the Garden State into the Garbage Dump State. States that have experienced more than a century of unfettered despoilation of God's bounty realize that they have been defecating in their own beds. You don't have to be a tree hugger to want clean air and drinkable water or wish that your rivers did not flood every year because all natural barriers to flooding have been stripped away.

 

Couldn't agree more. :unsure: But the hypocrisy of any funding always has stings attached. Nothing is free in America, we pay for it in many ways.

 

I agree with Brian that agencies should get serious about the fines.

Edited by avroair
Link to comment

i'm so jaded, maybe i've lived in nj too long. my first thought is "who is going to actually get the money?". my second thought was "what's it actually going to cost?" finally i thought, "who gets screwed over?" (someone always does when nj politics happens)

 

ahhh who knows, maybe some nice trails will get built...probably with a mall or housing development at the end of them.

Link to comment

Pay to play is the rule everywhere, you can expect this kind of pork to get larded out to major campaign contributing contractors. I wouldn't expect any backcountry trail projects, rather roadside facilities that make for good photo-ops. Million dollar Interpretive centers, 1/4 million dollar toilets and parking lots, half million dollar pedestrian bridges ect. None of these will be funded for maintenance, so you can expect them to degrade rapidly. The Anthony Wayne Recreation Area is one of the most glaring examples of this kind of waste.

Edited by jonboy
Link to comment

Politics. :P

compromise (n)

a. A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.

b. The result of such a settlement.

c. Lose something to gain something.

I agree. if you give them a dedicated area where they can have their fun, then *hopefully* it will confine the activity to a specific area which can be managed, as opposed to folks doing it illegally wherever they want, and making it much ahrder to control. I believe NJ is one of the few states that doesn't have a place where 4x4s can legally go and have their fun. ergo, we get lots of places needlessly torn up.

 

attempts to open up the old Jungle Habitat for just such a use were shot down a year ago. Extreme Habitat I think they called it. Would've been perfect use for an unused parcel of property, and generated tax revenues for the town &/or the state as well. as unusual, NIMBY defeated it.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...