|
Friends,
This is a
little long but please read it through...
It's been
quite some time since I last wrote and if you remember back on
February 10th, Assemblywoman Sandra Galef and Senator Vincent
Leibell met with DEC Commissioner Erin Crotty in Albany about
the logging project on Mount Nimham.
At the time,
the Senator said his impression was that the project was no longer
a "must do" project and that Commissioner Crotty promised
to notify him if the DEC were to move forward with any plans.
But it's been way too quiet and a friend wrote to Region 3 asking
for an update several weeks ago and there's been no response as
of this note to you. This has me worried that the DEC is still
planning on logging our Highland forests.
I've been
thinking about this for quite some time and I believe the DEC
will come back to the community with a revised project and here's
what I think they'll propose:
Two of the
larger issues the community raised was the use of a large clearcut
(that would be visible from Route 52 in Carmel and clearly visible
from the firetower,) and the use of herbicides to remove the Japanese
barberry that has infiltrated the forest along the old Cole's
Mills Road. I believe the DEC will remove those two items from
their "must do" list and say then they've addressed
"community concerns"
I also think
they may scale back the amount of trees they'll ultimately take
from the "initial" research area, perhaps reducing basal
removal by half and they've already downplayed the use of tour
busses to bring bigwigs into the forest so they shouldn't get
their dress shoes dirty.
If I'm right
about all this, and this is what they come back to us with hoping
that we'll accept this proposal, it leaves the nagging thought
of what's left of the education program for large upstate landowners
the DEC claims was the purpose of the project in the first place?
Not a whole
heck of a lot.
The state
will still need to "improve" the historic Cole's Mills
trail to accommodate, if not tour busses, then logging trucks
and they'll still need to clear a large staging area and drag
logs through the forest and move trucks across a year-round stream
a few hundred yards from the West Branch reservoir - and the logging
equipment (euphamistcally known as "harvesters") will
create new trails which are *proven to be avenues for invasive
plants*. Even if the State sets up a public/private partnership
for the manual removal of invasives the state !planted! (See the
January 22 update at: http://www.planputnam.org/highlands/update_012204.htm)
we'll be working forever just to keep up!
Moreover,
if downscaled, the project will be of such a size that it should
be much easier to find a local landowner willing to contract (or
give a permenant easement) with the State for ongoing research,
further removing the need to use public open space lands for this
project.
So, what's
really driving this project? Could it be that SUNY ESF and the
NYCDEP still need an open air laboratory to prove a theory about
logging in watersheds? Wouldn't the obvious result of that be
that it's OK to run large commercial operations within yards of
a drinking water supply? Of course. The Watershed Agricultural
Council (wholly funded by the NYC DEP) is partially charged with
the economic revitalization of the Catskills watershed area -
which includes extensive logging operations - and they're behind
this project.
This isn't
new science folks, but a project that has been repeated time and
time again across the United States and around the world. Why
not use data from those studies? Is it possible we're being asked
to sacrifice a maturing natural forest smack in the middle of
suburbia so that a professor at a State University can get his
name on an important paper and wealthy, large landowners in the
Catskills can benefit financially?
Does a one-legged
duck swim in a circle?
It also seems
that the DEC has been busy wooing local environmental organizations,
possibly the Audubon, who believe we have a need to create habitat
for species of birds and animals that have become rare in our
area through loss of habitat. Logging would accomplish this.
However,
isn't this really just creating a zoo, a temporary 'hold' on the
natural evolution of the forests at the expense of less desirable
naturally occurring species that prefer older, more mature forests
like the pileated woodpecker that is returning in large numbers
again? If so, wouldn't it be better for the DEC to become more
aggressive in actual land preservation so that this habitat isn't
lost in the first place?
DEC just
completed a long process that ended in the acquiring of near 700
acres that will join the California Hill MUA with the Pudding
Street MUA making a 1000 acre hedge against Fhanestock State Park.
This acquisition has stopped the possible construction of many
homes and adds a needed buffer to the forests at Fhanestock. It
contains both upland and wetland provinces and offers habitat
that any natural organization would love to see allowed to recover
from the effects of 200 years of agriculture - just like we'd
like to see Mount Nimham preserved. I encourage the DEC to continue
purchasing these tracts of land and allow them to recover their
natural ecological balances. Who could be against that? If these
purchases stop development in our rapidly urbanizing area then
everyone's needs are met.
One writer
told me that it is important to "open the forests" so
that game bird species like the woodcock will have habitat once
again, habitat that is rapidly disappearing thanks to sprawl and
the natural maturing of forests. The writer claims that clearing
the forest will be good for these animals and while that's most
certainly true, it is only temporary. For, as the forest begins
to thicken again with new trees that will grow when the forest
is opened to sunlight, the animals that prefer open forest will
move on again. Does this mean constant "management"?
(see the question about the one-legged duck).
The solution
to the writer's concerns and that of an organization like the
Audubon is for them to stop development on abandoned farmland
in the Highlands for these lands *do* provide the open habitat
they claim they are looking for and keep those lands open.
(Note: Once
forests have reached "old age" the area is naturally
clear below the tree canopy which will create the habitat our
friends desire - if they're willing to wait a few years.)
If we agree
to what I think will be DEC's revised plans, what have we gained?
Nothing, for our forests will still be logged and their recovering
ecosystems destroyed by the hand of man so that we can "improve
nature".
I'm not buying
it.
I'm quite
curious to hear your opinions.
Most sincerely,
Jeff Green
PlanPutnam
|
