Six Flags Solar Sell-Out: Clear-Cut Approved

The Jackson Planning Board unanimously approved Six Flags Great Adventure’s proposal to build a solar farm and clear-cut more than 16,000 trees. We believe that clear-cutting the forest will undermine the positive effort to reducing energy consumption and have negative impacts to stormwater and endangered species. Additionally, there are many alternative sites owned by Six Flags that can be used instead of the clear cutting virgin forest. These include putting solar on disturbed sites, the parking lot, and staging areas. Many Jackson residents oppose the clear cut and wanted to see Six Flags build solar on alternative sites. We believe that this decision will do much more environmental harm than good.

“This is a black eye for green energy. The Planning Board sold out the people and environment of Jackson by approving this solar clear-cut plan. We should not be destroying a forest for solar panels. If Great Adventure really cared about the environment they would put the solar panels on already-cleared areas such as the parking lot, instead of this environmentally sensitive forest. This goes against the purpose of putting up solar array in the first place. The public and environmental groups are against this decision but instead of supporting them, the Planning sided with Six Flags and KDC over the hundreds of people who testified against the project,” said Jeff Tittel, Director, New Jersey Sierra Club.

Six Flags' plan is flawed given that there are plenty of alternatives they could take that do not harm the environment, sacrifice habitat, or add to stormwater runoff. If their plan was to put these panels on developed land to begin with, there would not have been this lengthy process and they would already have solar.

“Had they put this in the right place, it would have been built by now. Instead we’ve had months of drawn-out hearings. Six Flags should have built this solar array on their developed land to begin with. After all this time and all this money spent, there’s still no solar. Even though the Board has approved it, Six Flags should still move it. This plan can be challenged in court by many different people. At the end of the day, they still might not have any solar,” said Jeff Tittel. “We strongly believe in solar power and think it’s a great idea for Six Flags to get their power from solar, but not at the expense of forests and the environment. They’ve now voted to pave paradise instead of putting it on a parking lot.”

Building a solar farm should be a positive for the environment and should not cause environmental damage in the process. The proposed location for the solar farm is east of the safari park and sits on more than 66 acres which is mostly forested. The area includes environmentally sensitive areas like extensive wetlands and headwaters for two Category 1 (C1) streams, and steep slopes. These streams are tributaries of the Toms River.

“By voting to approve this solar array on important headwater areas, it would destroy high-quality Category 1 streams. Two of these streams are important headwater streams for the Barnegat Bay. Since this property acts as a buffer, the runoff from the safari park will carry nutrient polluting water in the streams. It’s not just the runoff from the safari park, runoff would also come from the solar farm and eventually deposit in the Barnegat Bay. We should not be sacrificing clean water for solar projects,” said Jeff Tittel. “Removing these trees will also increase downstream flooding.”

The site is also home to a nesting area of for bald eagle in addition to other endangered species who find the area a retreat from heavily developed Jackson Township.

“The engineer from Great Adventure was so bad, the Planning Board should have rejected the application based on him alone. He couldn’t find a pipe to show that this site was part of the C1 stream. What else couldn’t he find: endangered species, snakes, birds, bats, tree frogs? This alone should question anything that Great Adventure proposed. If you can’t trust their engineer, how can you trust their proposal?” said Jeff Tittel.

By approving this proposal, the Board is violating their Tree Ordinance. These trees are important to the ecosystem and preserving water quality. Removing them will damage the environment.

“The Planning Board ignored their own Tree Ordinance and their own Conservation Zone in making this decision. The Sierra Club worked with Jackson implement a Tree Ordinance and went to the Supreme Court to see it upheld. We worked with them for years on a Conservation Zone. They’ve now ignored both of these to allow this project to go forward,” said Jeff Tittel.

We support solar panels but they should be reducing our carbon footprint, not adding to it. Clear-cutting this many trees will undo any of the good that could come from these panels. They should be placed instead on areas that are already developed, such as parking lots.

“This is the right project in the wrong place; it should have been rejected and then moved. The Jackson Planning Board should have required an application that doesn’t clear cut so many trees. Solar arrays don’t belong on forests or other environmentally sensitive land because it will have negative impacts to stormwater and impact threatened and endangered species. The forest currently has many benefits to reduce carbon from sequestration. This clear-cut will immediately impact storm water, quality and flooding,” said Jeff Tittel.

After cutting thousands of trees, it could take more than 30-40 years to perform the same job. Another concern is the forest’s ability to combat air pollution and absorb climate change causing greenhouse gas emissions will be suspended until the new forest is returned.

“Cutting down 16,000 trees: talk about a log flume. This will undermine the entire purpose of installing a solar farm. Eliminating the forest will add more flooding and pollution, since the original trees had the ability to absorb carbon and clean our air. This pollution would directly affect the Barnegat Bay, especially since the site acts as a buffer from the safari park by absorbing animal waste and preventing runoff. It will take at least 30-40 years if not more for the trees to grow back to their original state,” said Tittel.

Six Flags should be placing solar on the hundreds of acres of parking lots and disturbed fields they own.

“Solar panels in parking lots help shade cars in the summer and will prevent clear cutting. They can also go on empty lots as well as on top of buildings. Six Flags needs to put solar on their parking lot, staging and ticket areas, existing buildings, or other disturbed areas. Instead of threatening environmentally sensitive land, Six Flags should have proposed this solar farm on disturbed sites,” said Jeff Tittel.

While we don’t support this project, we do support solar power and think that Six Flags should move their solar arrays to a less environmentally-sensitive location. It is important to support solar because without it we will increase our impact on climate change and be dependent on fossil fuels. The New Jersey Natural Gas pipeline proposed in neighboring towns would do far more damage than solar panels will ever do. The pipeline will even leak methane, arsenic, radium and other chemicals. Without clean renewable energy alternatives, we will have to keep open Oyster Creek, build new gas power plants and pipelines, while keeping dirty coal plants in Trenton open.

“Jackson’s Planning Board has compromised the community and environment by giving Six Flags this approval. Based on their own Tree Ordinance, this proposal should have been rejected. Instead they sold out the environment and communities of Jackson and violated their own rules to approve this project. Clear-cutting this many trees will ruin the environmentally sensitive forest, weaken water quality, and increase downstream flooding. Great Adventure will be adding a tree museum as an attraction with this plan,” said Jeff Tittel, Director, New Jersey Sierra Club. “The Sierra Club supports solar and we believe in green energy but we should not sacrifice the environment for it.