Update - November 12, 2003

"New York State will not be able to compete if it cannot retain its natural and cultural assets."
NY State Open Space Conservation Plan

Folks,

I first need to take a moment to thank the dozens and dozens of you who have written to the Governor, DEC Commissioner Erin Crotty, Region 3 Director Marc Moran and the State foresters who intend to prohibit upwards of 1680 acres of their forest lands in Putnam County from ever growing old.

I also want to thank the community groups and individuals who have asked to meet with me, for coming with me on hikes on the mountain and into the proposed "model forest" area and to the many hundreds of you who have come to the website www.planputnam.org/highlands to learn more about these proposals. My offer for assistance still stands for others who would like to learn what we have during this time and I encourage your communications.

Since beginning this project in the spring we have clearly opened the eyes of the community to the rare resources we have on State lands in Putnam's Highlands and the support has been overwhelming - even to the point of plagiarism and mimicry! In a way, I am quite pleased.

- What are Our Lands to be Used For?

On the 5th of November I met with DEC in New Paltz, a meeting that took months to set up and was well worth the wait if only to get a clearer indication of their mindset on this issue. At this point the DEC and our communities are still in diametric opposition to each other.

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 aspect of our 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 our 3000 acres!

Therefore, I was confused when I asked DEC Forester Bill Rudge how we could begin a process to shift management of these now mature state forest lands away from logging and towards recreation and old growth ecosystems, he was mute.

Apparently, within DEC Region 3 there is no method.

- So, What Are Our Lands to be Used For?

I, and others have been told directly that these lands were bought for timber management and therefore that was going to be a major management function. But the UMP reads:

"...More specifically, the Park and Recreational Land Acquisition Act of 1960, provided the authorization for the Conservation Department (before 1970) to acquire "lands for other than state park or municipal park purposes, to provide additional opportunities for outdoor recreation, including public camping, fishing, hunting, boating, winter sports; and, wherever possible, to also serve multiple purposes involving conservation and development of natural resources, including the preservation of scenic areas, watershed protection, forestry and reforestation."

Note that "forestry" comes almost last in this list and that the lands have reforested themselves quite nicely over the past 60-80 years. In fact, the semi-colon after 'winter sports' denotes a second clause, an afterthought, if you will. Clearly, "forestry" was not a primary use.

Then it goes on to say:

"The 1972 Environmental Quality Bond Act provided funds to "acquire lands of special natural beauty, wilderness character, geological, ecological or historical significance for the state nature and historical preserve..."

Based on this information taken directly from their own plans, why is DEC Region 3 so stuck on forcing recreational users off these lands? Surely, on properties this small timbering and passive recreation do not mix and the use of these lands for industrial purposes will only lessen the desire of tourists to visit here thus negatively impacting our economy and lessening our quality of life.

- The Value of Your Comments to DEC

You have written dozens of letters to the DEC but something they told me at the November 5th meeting unnerved and upset me. I was told that 'all comments will be treated equally.' At first this seems reasonable but looking at it again, I asked if a comment from someone negatively impacted by logging trucks would count the same as someone writing from Syracuse in favor of DEC's position and was told that "all comments will be treated equally."

So, if you live in Tonawanda or Messina your voice is equal to the voice of someone impacted by the diesel pollution, noise, chainsaws, and heavy traffic generated by DEC's proposed operations.

Some people think this is OK. I happen not to be one of them.

But it gets worse when I realized that what DEC will do is this (based on comments from the 1994 UMP):

If 30 gazillion of you write to DEC to say "let our forests grow old" the DEC will come up with a single response to ALL THOSE COMMENTS. If one person writes to say "Forests? Who needs forests?" they will also receive a singular response from DEC. And, when the UMP is updated it may not reflect the overwhelming support for preservation and treat it as EQUAL with the one person who stood in opposition to the local community.

<paraphrased conversation from real meeting!>

Bill Rudge: "There are people who agree with our position.

Me: "Do they live near the mountain?"

BR: "There are people who agree with our position."

Me: "Do they live in my town?"

BR: "There are people who agree with our position."

Me: "Do they live in my county?"

BR: "There are people who agree with our position."

Me: "OK. I guess not."

This is the plan, folks, and it strengthens my resolve to find a way to work within the DEC to begin to manage our lands for recreation and education and altruism and spirituality... all of the things that cannot be measured with "science" or carried away by truck.

- One Last Note. On Truth.

The DEC is spreading misinformation about their project to county employees and others now, down playing (segmenting?) the actual size of the "model forest" project and its impact (which is 415 acres - permanently in the model forest program according to the forester in charge).

A week ago I attended a meeting of a local environmental and land preservation group where I was sure I'd find allies. One of their board members however is intimately involved with the proposed "model forest" project and had told her board that I was intentionally misleading the community about the project.

She said that DEC did not intend such a large operation as I'd been saying but that they planned only to cut 'a little patch here and a little patch there'. People who previously were counted as friends now looked upon me as a liar. This was designed to hurt me personally and discredit the opposition.

But the truth is here: (From the proposed UMP Amendment - footnotes are mine)

"Understanding that both research and forest management(1) are long term endeavors, 415 acres of the 1023 Nimham Mountain MUA will be made available to the Model Forest Program... Initial(2) research will study the effects of a 40-60% basal area (a measure of forest stand density) reduction on an 85 acre watershed... Stands B-6 and B24 will be clearcut... Understory treatments consisting of prescribed fire or herbicide(3) application may occur in these stands also...

Notes:
(1) we've been told the project was only for research.
(2) "initial" research requires that there will be more.
(3) The West Branch reservoir is walking distance from here.

Note that the intent here is to inventory 415 acres and of that, the first phase ('initial') will be an 85 acre parcel on which they will remove 40-60% of the trees 'on average' leaving open the possibility of continuing onto the remaining 330 acres. This is quite clear. Is this the misinformation I'm spreading?

This sounds mysteriously like "segmentation" to me, something illegal under SEQR for you or me but apparently not for the State.

- Final Notes

In the end, at the November 5th meeting I stressed the need for recreation and tourism and how their forestry programs were not in synch with that, that the demographic here had changed over the years and how people place different values on forests than we have before. Their response was as it always was 'we had the chance to say all this when the UMP was open for discussion'. When was that? "In 1994". Oh. Well folks, it's open for review in 2004 and we've got work to do.

- Keep Your Eyes on the Prize

Here's the prize to keep your eye on: Bob Herberger steps up to the podium to thank all those in attendance and turns to shake the Governor's hand and then the County Executive's hand. Behind them all is a carved wooden sign in DEC yellow on brown that reads:

Keep those letters and emails and phone calls coming! And thanks again to those of you who have followed PlanPutnam's lead on this issue and have kept the focus true and sharp. We will win this and our collective future will be the beneficiary.

Many thanks to all!

Jeff Green

From the NY State Open Space Conservation Plan:

"Open land, scenic and historic sites and the availability of recreation are important to the state's quality of life and thus are a primary factor in attracting and retaining economic investment. The most rapidly growing states in the country use quality of life to attract growth. New York State will not be able to compete if it cannot retain its natural and cultural assets."