December 23, 2003

Jeff Wiegert, Supervising Forester
NYSDEC
Division of Lands and Forests
21 South Putt Corners Road
New Paltz, NY 12561

Re: Amendment to the Hudson Highlands Unit Management Plan

Dear Mr. Wiegert,

The Croton Watershed Clean Water Coalition, Inc. (CWCWC or the Coalition) is
a not-for-profit coalition of over 50 member groups from throughout the East
of Hudson (EOH) Watershed and New York City. The Coalition's main purpose is to
protect and improve the high quality water of the EOH reservoirs by strict
protection of their watersheds. If the reservoirs are not protected, a $1.5
billion chemical treatment/filtration plant will be needed to return the degraded
water to safe drinking water levels.

Despite the pressures of development, water quality has remained high and
continues to fulfill all state and federal health standards. The astonishing
resilience of the EOH watershed to the onslaughts of development is due, in large
part, to the replacement of farmland by steady and plentiful forest regrowth,
starting as far back as the early nineteen hundreds. EOH forests will be
reaching maturity by the end of this century.

The capacity of forests to absorb pollutants and protect water quality has
been well documented. CWCWC believes that the proposed DEC logging operation on
Nimham Mountain will mean a loss of those functions. This could result in a
serious threat to water quality of the nearby West Branch Reservoir, a critical
component of the system that supplies 9 million NYS residents with high
quality, still unfiltered drinking water. For this and other reasons that will be
explained in the text, CWCWC opposes the Nimham DEC logging project.

I. The Proposed Nimham Mountain DEC Project

The proposal is to use 415 acres out of the total 1,023-acre DEC Multiple Use
Area (MUA) on Nimham Mountain for forest research and management. This will
include studying the effects of a 40% to 60% reduction in tree density on an
85-acre sub area, and the clearcutting of 15 acres. "Prescribed fire or
herbicide application" will likely occur to clear unwanted understory. The main 3,160
feet long haul road will be "rehabilitated". From 10 feet, it will be widened
to 15 feet. Twenty two (22) best management practices will be scattered along
its length.

The DEC claims that "The primary objective of the Model Forest Program is to
conduct research on forest management treatments and their impacts on water
quality (emphasis added)." DEC's admission that they are conducting research
that could degrade water quality in the nearby West Branch Reservoir raises a
serious question as to the appropriateness of the site. "Like the Kensico
Reservoir, the West Branch serves a crucial function in providing water to nearly
half of the state's population….Water withdrawn from the Wesst Branch usually is
sent to the Kensico Reservoir before entering the city's water supply
distribution system…When the Kensico Reservoir must be taken off-linne, as has
happened on several occasions in recent years, the West Branch becomes the source
water reservoir for more than half a billion gallons a day of Delaware system
waters, and water leaving the West Branch for the city's distribution system must
then meet stringent federal standards for drinking water safety." The
proposed experiment cannot conceivably improve water quality in the West Branch
Reservoir. Is the DEC, therefore, willing to risk polluting the West Branch in
order to find out how many trees they can log before the water starts to degrade?
If DEC's response is that they are sure that degradation will not occur, then
what is the point of the experiment?

II. DEC's Project Does not Conform with the Objectives of Forest Water
Protection

In the early nineteen hundreds, most of Croton Watershed land in
Westchester and Putnam Counties was dedicated to farming. As a result, the land had
been denuded of trees. Runoff from farms into the local streams resulted in
water quality far inferior to present day standards. As development encroached on
farming, the trees gradually reestablished themselves. Today, much of the
watershed is thickly covered with second growth forests that should reach maturity
before the end of this century.

The watershed's forests, together with its abundant wetlands, are at the root
of the EOH's extraordinary robustness that enables it to withstand the
onslaughts of development. The role of forests in protecting water quality was
recognized as far back as 1929.
"The State Reforestation Law of 1929 and the Hewitt Amendment of 1931 set
forth the legislation which authorized the Conservation Department to acquire
land by gift or purchase for reforestation areas. These State Forests,
consisting of not less than 500 acres of contiguous land, were to be forever devoted
to reforestation and the establishment and maintenance thereon of watershed
protection (emphasis added), the production of timber, and for recreation and
kindred purposes." We note here that watershed protection takes first place.
However, the original intent of the forest program evolved over the years. The
Park and Recreation Land Acquisition Act of 1960, and the Environmental
Quality Bond Acts of 1972 and 1986 specified that State Forest Lands "would serve
multiple purposes involving the conservation and development of natural
resources, including the preservation of scenic areas, watershed protection, forestry
and recreation." Here, watershed protection has been relegated to third place.
Even worse, tax laws legislating the economic uses of forested lands put
watershed protection in last place. Under Section 480-a of the Real Property Tax
Law resulting from the 2002 Farm Bill, owners may qualify for a tax deduction
provided they agree, among other provisions, that "Eligible tracts must be
managed primarily for forest crop production. Although other compatible uses, such
as forest recreation and watershed management can be allowed." Here,
watershed protection becomes an afterthought.

This reflects the unfortunate fact that as the forests approach maturity,
so does their value as lumber. The recognition of the forests' irreplaceable
value in protecting our water is then in grave danger of being supplanted by
the urge to derive economic benefit by "harvesting" them.

How does this change in attitude affect the EOH Watershed and water quality?
The effects are already being felt as DEC prepares to "manage" 415 acres of
the 1,023 acres it owns on Mt. Nimham in Putnam County. These acres dominate the
crest of the mountain at whose foot lies the nearby West Branch Reservoir.
During those times when the Kensico Reservoir is unusable (for example, the
Kensico had to be bypassed in the early 1990s due to high levels of fecal
coliform), NYC has to rely on the West Branch to fulfill at least half of its 1.3 BGD
water needs.

Despite the critical importance of the West Branch Reservoir and the need to
protect it, the project proposal is to cut down up to 60% of the trees on an
initial 87-acre plot including the clearcutting of 15 acres. Fire and
herbicides will be used to control invasive shrubs. Jeff Wiegert, forester for DEC
states: "Forest management promotes the growth of the biggest and best trees, and
there is removal of wood which isn't as hardy. The focus here is on water
quality, and managing the forest properly improves the quality of the watershed."

This proposal defies both commonsense and logic. DEC has not provided the
public with any proof whatsoever that clearcutting 15 acres, thinning the forest
up to 60% and applying herbicides to clear underbrush will not harm water
quality in the nearby reservoir, let alone enhance it. DEC's emphasis is on the
"biggest and best trees", i.e., those that provide the biggest return as lumber;
it is not on providing protection for the reservoir or habitat for the
wildlife.

Not a single tree should be cut down in Nimham Forest until DEC can prove
that its proposal will improve water quality in the West Branch Reservoir, as
claimed.

III. How Forests Produce and Protect Water

A 1/8/03 article in the NY Times, by Mike Dombeck, chief of the US Forest
Service from 1997 to 2001, entitled The Forgotten Forest Product: Water, clearly
states the argument for forest protection. "…water is perhaps the moost
important forest product. Forests generate most of the water in the country,
providing two thirds of all the precipitation runoff ­ the water thaat comes from the
sky ­ in the 48 contiguous states….How do forests produce wa water? The complex
array of trees, shrubs, groundcover and roots slows runoff from rain and snow,
and water is purified as it percolates through the soil and into aquifers. By
slowing runoff, forests also reduce floods and erosion, minimizing the
sediment entering streams and rivers. Mature forests do their work best (emphasis
added). They have the best soil and their mixed canopy ­ a mosaic off open and
closed spots among the treetops - allows for snowfall accumulation and eventual
runoff. Old trees use less water for growth than young trees do. And as intact
forests (emphasis added) better regulate water chemistry and temperatures,
they enhance habitat for aquatic species (In many streams this means better
recreational opportunities such as trout fishing)….New York City hass some of the
best water in the world because it maintains healthy forests in its Catskill,
Delaware and Croton watershed system…"
In the more urbanized areas of the watershed, trees are vital in treating
stormwater and reducing runoff volume. . "Depending on the species and the soil
conditions (both the type of soil and its saturation level), trees can absorb a
considerable amount of water. Also, water-polluting nitrates, phosphorus, and
potassium, which in many areas are spurring the development of total maximum
daily loads (TMDLs) for receiving waters, are readily absorbed by trees, which
consider these substances food. Just how much can trees do to help? According
to the American Forests organization (www.americanforests.org), a healthy
tree canopy can tremendously reduce stormwater runoff, saving its host city
millions of dollars in infrastructure costs…The Windows-compatible CCITYgreen
software offers modeling capabilities that allow users to compare economic benefits
of various site plans by analyzing a site's ecosystem and producing data on a
number of factors: stormwater runoff, air quality, summer energy savings,
carbon storage/avoidance, and tree growth…The software compares landd cover, the
soil complex, and ratio of rainfall to determine projected runoff. In general,
the thicker the vegetation on a site, the more the water is inhibited (emphasis
added)."

As forests reach maturity in both the Westchester and Putnam watershed areas,
there will be a growing incentive for landowners to cut down their trees and
sell the wood for profit. DEC is promoting such practices and DEP is doing
nothing to oppose them. On the contrary, DEP recently awarded two contracts to
Delaware County mills for harvesting trees as part of a forest management plan
in the Cannonsville Reservoir watershed.

IV. DEC/DEP Policy Is Economically Untenable

The logging policy of both these agencies is environmentally destructive and
economically untenable in the EOH watershed. The 1994 Unit Management Plan for
this region states:

"…Nevertheless, only one hour from downtown Manhattan, and serviced by two
railroads, two interstate highways and the Taconic parkway, the Unit is easily
reachable by well over 100 million people on any given day. As the region's
population continues to grow and more and more open space is lost to development,
it is expected that demand for recreational opportunities provided by State
lands in the Hudson Highlands Management Unit will become acute."

Additionally, the same report states that in 1990 in Putnam County,
recreational fishing generated more than 1.6 MILLION dollars to the local economy. Move
those numbers up to today with a much increased local population and add in
mountain biking, horseback riding, hunting and the new sense of out-of-doors
respect for the land and that number must surely be a very important component
of its economy.

In fact, according to the NYS Open Space Plan, in 1999 DEC timber sales from
State Forests generated $5.8 million in revenue for the ENTIRE State, from
timber sales on 12,372 acres - which is nothing compared to the millions raised
through recreation in Putnam County on its 3000 acres!

Fishing, hiking, camping, hunting, cross-country skiing, and horseback riding
are recreational activities that already bring revenue to the watershed
counties. These sources will disappear if the forests are scarred with tree stumps
and the streams are choked with sediment from runoff. The recreational value
of preserving the watershed forests should be promoted by DEC as a source of
income that easily surpasses the income from logging. At the same time, DEC
should educate the public, the local municipalities and the county governments on
the irreplaceable value of forests in protecting water quality.

V. Conclusions

DEC claims that their experiment is to ascertain whether their logging
project will affect water quality. In that case, they should not be conducting
it so close to the West Branch, one of the most valuable reservoirs in the New
York City system. At the same time, DEC assures us that the West Branch will
be safe. This leads us to question why they are conducting this experiment.

The best outcome would be for DEC to withdraw its plan and allow the Mt.
Nimham forest to grow to full maturity and continue to protect water quality.

However, if DEC insists on carrying out its plan of thinning 85 acres of
its forest by 40% to 60%; clearcutting 15 acres; applying herbicides to
destroy the underbrush and widening the 3000+-foot logging road from its original 10
feet to 15 feet, then this plan should undergo a full SEQRA review. The
threshold for triggering a full SEQRA review is very low, far lower than the
proposed plan. DEC's issuance of a conditional negative declaration is in blatant
contradiction of the purposes of SEQRA.

Under 6 NYCRR Part 617.7(c) of SEQRA ­ Criteria for determining signnificance
­ any of the following are considered indicators of significant adveerse
impacts on the environment:
(1)(ii) the removal or destruction of large quantities of vegetation…;
substantial interference with the movement of any resident or migratory fish
or wildlife species; impacts on a significant habitat area…;
(1)(iv) the creation of a material conflict with a community's current
plans or goals as officially approved or adopted;
(1)(v) the impairment of the character or quality of important
historical, archeological, architectural, or aesthetic resources or of existing
community or neighborhood character;
(1)(viii) a substantial change in the use, or intensity of use, of land
including agricultural, open space or recreational resources, or in its
capacity to support existing uses.

Clearly, any one of these criteria is applicable to DEC's logging plan and,
therefore a full SEQRA should be conducted with a non-DEC entity such as the
Town of Kent's Planning Board acting as lead agency.

Thanking you for this opportunity to comment.

Respectfully submitted,

Marian H. Rose, Ph.D.
President, CWCWC