December 5, 2003

Commissioner Erin M. Crotty
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
625 Broadway
Albany, New York 12233

Dear Commissioner Crotty,

I write about Mount Nimham in Kent, New York. I ask that you take action today on behalf of the people of the State of New York to halt plans to install a model forest on Mount Nimham, and to engage the local community in a positive effort to preserve our forests for water quality protection, recreation and education.

I have known Mount Nimham as a beautiful forest and inspiring lookout for forty years. I walk on Mount Nimham in every season every year, and I have done so all the years of my life. I live right near the base of Nimham. The DEC plan to install the fourth model forest on Nimham is simply a mistake, and one it is important to correct soon, before the reputation of the Department of Environmental Conservation is further tarnished and diminished.

The proponents of the model forest are focused on an important issue: the preservation of water quality in the New York City Watershed. I understand the intentions of the plans for the four model forests inspired by the goals of the Memorandum of Agreement. Those who object to the placement of another model forest on Mount Nimham are also focused on the need to preserve water quality in the New York City Watershed. Those in Kent who opposes the model forest on Nimham are informed on these issues and do not underestimate the havoc wrought by overdevelopment of watershed lands. And, no one in Kent who opposes the model forest disputes that logging, if done, should be conducted according to best management practices, or that DEC needs to show leadership in educating foresters about those practices.

The opponents of the model forest on Mount Nimham are motivated by a passionate belief, shaped by life long experience. Simply put, we believe that time spent by the public on Mount Nimham in walks, in contemplation, in viewing the magnificent countryside from old Coles Mills Trail and from the Fire Tower, in peaceful coexistence with the subtle intelligence of natural systems is the best method by which to advance the goal of land preservation for water quality protection. People value land as a result of their personal connection to it. Isn’t this exactly what motivates Governor Pataki to set aside lands for preservation? And observers of the natural world are highly attuned to the ecological benefits provided by swamps and forests. Isn’t this also true of our Governor, an avid bird watcher? Why do DEC representatives now deny these personal and ecological benefits in favor of promoting logging? Certainly this represents a loss of perspective by a few foresters and researchers who have become wedded to their designs on Nimham. Leadership is needed to see the larger benefit of present and future recreation on Nimham.

Few landowners are lucky enough to hold land exempt from taxation. Most of us are not so lucky. When we want to connect to the land, we go to Nimham, which the State holds in trust for us. When we strive to raise our children to respect the land and understand ecology, we go to Nimham. When we want people around us to understand why expensive storm-water regulations make sense, we talk about soil erosion on steep rocky slopes, as on Nimham. When I urge people to embrace regulation of their septics, I urge the value of the West Branch waters to all of us. I am not ignorant, and I am not resisting the model forest for petty reasons. I am extremely frustrated that DEC does not understand the intelligence of the opposition to the Model Forest on Nimham, and that the agency representatives have assumed we are not committed to clean water. Quite the contrary. We are defending the value of forests; they have dug in as the proponents of logging. How bizarre that DEC representatives should respond to a community rising up to protect forests with insults and failures to respond to repeated requests for meetings and information. This does real damage to our faith in government.

In Kent, the intentions of the MOA would be best served by some creativity in response to the community passion for Mount Nimham and for intact forests open to public recreation. Nimham should be allowed to remain as a teacher of the value of intact forests; in practical reality, this is achieved at little cost to the State through the promotion of healthy recreation. Logging in areas like Kent is unlikely to generate enough value to prevent land sales to developers. However, to the extent there are landowners willing to log their land as a preservation measure (and not simply as a first step towards development), there are the three model forests which can be presented through an effective computer presentation with photos, or by a two-hour trip upstate (where most foresters live). DEC and DEP should be working together in Kent to promote exactly what the defenders of Nimham so passionately espouse: the championing of land for its natural processes, and the enjoyment of those lands in healthy recreation.

I urge you to act quickly to harness the preservation passions and energies sparked by this debate in Kent. Kent is an important New York City Watershed community. Mount Nimham should become the high ground in this debate. Please help us all rise to the challenge of encouraging respect for forests by keeping the people out on the land.

Sincerely,

FB
Carmel

cc: Honorable Will Stephens
New York State Assembley
LOB 433
Albany, New York 12248

Honorable Vincent L. Leibell, III
New York State Senate
LOB 802
Albany, New York 12247