Good Saturday Morning,

A note of thanks to the organizers of the community meeting in Carmel the other night and the board of CRCM and the Open Space Coalition for allowing our participation on the panel. DEC was woefully unprepared and the 50 citizens of Carmel that came out
Previous Updates
November 12, 2003
November 3, 2003

had some hard hitting and important questions to ask.

A PowerPoint presentation I gave that evening is posted here: (will open in a new window)

Since Microsoft isn't that great about porting their stuff to browsers other than MSIE it may be a tad difficult to read, but if you'd like to see the full blown presentation just write and we'll happily work it out for you.

Interestingly, on Thursday the focus of the "model" forest had shifted away from landowners living in NYC and lower Westchester to "protecting" Putnam County, or so said the DEC, and their claim was that the project is important to stop development in our county. It was pointed out to them - without refute - that almost all the large lots available for sustainable logging in the county are already in some DEC logging program like the 480-A that PAYS LANDOWNERS TO LOG.

I called for a 480-A that pays landowners to place their lands in conservation, a call the audience overwhelmingly agreed with. Moreover, though DEC claims some of the logging projects were done badly, as far as I know DEC foresters or those licensed by them were involved. How can the removal of 400 acres of important recreation space improve this? Maybe DEC's foresters need to spend less time building whiz bang productions and more time actually helping local landowners?

Carmel resident John Butler said it best:

"What was also said by the DEC is that Nimham was chosen in part because its nearby to a large metropolitan area, which frankly made absolutely no sense to me.

However after putting it all together the bottom line is that Putnam due to its centralized location providing proximity to "decision/deal" makers from NYC, Westchester, up to the Capital District and western environs is the most convenient location to create what is the equivalent of the new car dealer showroom. Customers can come to look and see in fashion most convenient to them and the DEC.

The bottom line is that this project provides no benefit to Nimham or Putnam and what is occurring is yet another form of exploitation of our region resulting primarily from its highly sought after location.

The DEC is perpetrating the same offense as the predatory developers its seeks to control."

There were some interesting points made by DEC, some numbers that have been difficult to pin down: For example, their logging in the Highlands region is on 1620 acres and will continue indefinitely. Outside the "model forest" initial 85 acre cut which DEC says will take two months, there are 1205 other acres to "manage" a schedule of which is in the UMP.

From the model forest they *initially* will pull 5000 board feet of lumber and 400 cord of firewood. Can you imagine decimating a mature forest for that? On the other 1205 acres they will offer a variety of other "management" options but the one most worrisome is the "even aged" management where DEC will maintain the forest at 80 years of age, never allowing it to mature or go natural.

For the record: A small ranch style house with 3 bedrooms (approximately 1000 square feet) would require about 3000 board feet of lumber to build. And in 1988 12.6 BILLION board feet of lumber came from Federal lands - alone. Do we really need to timber 1620 acres of State Multiple Use recreation lands in Putnam County?

There is no question that some sort of rehabilitation is required for sections of state forestland as invasive species have become a problem such as barberry and bittersweet. DEC's solution is the use of clearcutting and herbicides but panel member Martin Brech suggested a return to the CCC days when teams of humans provided the labor. I spoke of the use of AmeriCorps volunteers but that program has been largely defunded by the Administration in Washington, DC.

We could also ask local nurseries to stop selling these plants!

At the October 2nd meeting in Carmel DEC promised to meet with residents in Kent, the community most affected by their plans (all 1620 'managed' acres are in Kent) in "early December". Kent's outgoing Supervisor Annmarie Baisley has been working hard on pinning them down to a date and time but thanks to some "helpful meddling" DEC appears to be backing away from their promise and that meeting now remains in limbo. I can assure you we are working to make sure DEC honors their commitment to our town and its residents and feel confident we will succeed.

I'm proud to say that incoming Kent Town Supervisor Bil Tulipane has taken up the cause and adds his name to the ever-growing list of people who have agreed to work with us on this issue.

In closing for this update (which I promised would be short) if you look at a map of Putnam County you'll see that where the "country begins" is rapidly being pushed back one and two acres at a time. And for most of eastern and southern Putnam the closest place for outdoor "wilderness" recreation is on and around Mount Nimham and the DEP and DEC lands in the Town of Kent. In fact, the majority of our population lives within a 15 - 20 minute drive of central Kent.

Many of our residents have come from downstate and moved here for the open spaces. Many of our residents live in crowded communities right here in the county. When they walk into a forest for recreation they don't want to hear chainsaws or see bulldozers or smell leaking hydraulic fluid. When they walk into a forest they want to walk on a trail not 3160 feet of "improved" ten foot wide roads. When they walk into a forest they want to see tall trees not stumps and debris.

Lastly, in Putnam County we spend $171,000 a year bringing tourists here and that results in more than 350,000 visits to our state parks alone(!) from out-of-area visitors - a huge direct contribution to our economy. We don't know how many fish or hike or recreate on DEP's lands nor how many hunt on DEC lands but the economic benefits to us of having these lands intact is enormous, a fact that cannot be denied.

We're encouraging DEC to add to our recreation lands not take them away.

DEC has extended their "public comment period" to December 31st so keep your letters coming. There are samples at the website and I cannot stress the importance of writing not just to the local forester but to DEC Commissioner Erin Crotty and Governor Pataki as well since change will take place only from the top down.

Also, please remember to forward us any letters you do send so that we can keep a database and add yours to the dozens and dozens we already have.

I thank you for your commitment on this project and I have no doubt that if we can come together we can win this. PlanPutnam has stepped out in front on this issue and we ask that you join us. Send the email that says "how can I help" and we're happy to put you to work.

Just one more thing: I especially want to thank my friend Mike Keropian for his dedication to this project. When things were looking bad for us we took a hike to Hawk Rock in the Horsepound basin and while we were sitting there commiserating a red tailed hawk flew in, dropped onto the top of a tall hemlock and stayed for a few minutes watching us. Desperate for anything looking "up" we took it for a sign. A few days later we were hiking in the area of the proposed "model forest" and again, a hawk flew in and then we knew for sure. Since then, virtually each time I walk into that forest I'm visited by a hawk, the other day by several. Friday morning, as the phone calls and emails were pouring in with offers of support and assistance there were no less than 4 hovering and swooping and visiting the field in which my cottage is in.

More than the hopes of people are resting on the outcome of this.

"...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."

Hmmm... forestry is an after thought and recreational uses come first.