 
|
|||||||||
              
|
State denies Deer Creek Crossing development
Friday, October 13, 2000 By Don Hopey, Post-Gazette Staff Writer
The state Department of Environmental Protection has decided the proposed $169 million Deer Creek Crossing commercial development in Harmar won't be crossing the popular fishing creek or valuable wetlands.
The DEP late yesterday denied the stream encroachment and obstruction permit requested by the ORIX-Woodmont development consortium because it will cause "significant adverse impacts" on the creek and the developer didn't prove there is no practical alternative site.
Although the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has yet to rule on a requested wetlands development permit, the developer needs both the state and federal permits to proceed, and the Corps cannot approve if the state has denied.
"The primary reason we denied it was the proposed stream relocation," said Betsy Mallison, DEP spokeswoman. "We gave the developer an opportunity to redesign his proposal so as to do less damage to the environment, but the changes he proposed were not significant enough to reduce the impact on Deer Creek."
The development proposal would have buried 2,700 feet of the creek and more than six acres of wetlands under more than 8 million cubic yards of fill, buildings, roadways and parking lots on a 375-acre, pie slice-shaped piece of bottom land owned by Pittsburgh businessman W. Duff McCrady. The site is bounded by the Pennsylvania Turnpike, Route 28 and Route 910.
The developer's plan was to channel the stream around the edge of the property and mitigate the loss of natural wetlands by building 10 acres of new wetlands, but the state Fish and Boat Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lined up to strongly oppose the proposal.
A recently completed survey by the DEP and Fish Commission of the section of Deer Creek that was to be affected by the development found 19 species of fish, including trout, sauger and other game fish.
"Deer Creek provides a good habitat for fish and other wildlife," said Charles Duritsa, DEP regional director, who made the denial decision. "Relocating the stream in the way the applicant proposed would disrupt this habitat and could degrade the fishery."
Ed Perry, assistant supervisor of the Fish and Wildlife Service field office in State College, called the state decision "great news."
"In our view, this is the kind of project for which a permit should be denied and we appreciate the DEP taking this kind of action on an environmentally destructive project."
The developer can appeal the DEP decision to the state Environmental Hearing Board. William Green, the developer's local spokesman, declined to comment on either the decision or the possibility of an appeal.
The developer and property owner have disputed the dire environmental assessments made by state and federal agencies and contended that the project's economic and social benefits -- $4 million in annual tax revenues, 3,000 permanent jobs, and a highway interchange at Routes 910 and 28 -- far outweigh environmental concerns.
They have also lined up political support for the project, making campaign contributions and meeting with DEP Secretary James Seif, the heads of the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the staffs of Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Swissvale, and Republican Sens. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas.
John Hanger, president of Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future, said the DEP made the right decision. His group was one of several environmental groups that had threatened to sue the state if it approved the project.
"We were concerned that the political muscle would override the evidence," he said. "From the beginning this was a pretty outrageous proposal given the quality of the stream. There's plenty of places for such a development and no reason it should occur in the middle of a fishing stream."
Richard Dowling, a Corps spokesman, said the agency is evaluating its permitting options as a result of the state decision.
"I will confirm that denial is one option, but I decline to discuss what other options are on the table," he said. "But both agency approvals are necessary for the project to proceed, so one denial is sufficient to stop it."
|
||||||||
