|
By Marc Ferris
The New York Times, Nov 23, 2003
p3(L) col 02 (31 col in).
Electronic Collection: CJ110445113
RN: CJ110445113
Full Text COPYRIGHT 2003 The New York Times Company
A PROPOSAL to establish a forestry and logging project
on Mount Nimham in Putnam County has brought a small but
determined wave of opposition from local people.
The program, which would cover land that is primarily
used for recreation, is intended to inform visitors of a
variety of different forest uses and to serve as an outlet
for education about forest issues.
The model forest that the Department of Environmental
Conservation and its forestry partners want to establish
at Mount Nimham would cover 415 acres of land, though logging
activity would initially be conducted on 85 acres, said
Matt Burns, a spokesman for the department.
The project is one of a number of research efforts around
the 2,000 square miles of hills and valleys that drain into
the city's 19 reservoirs upstate. All of them are intended
to find ways to sustain use of land around the reservoirs
producing enough money to avoid conversion to subdivisions,
which is the worst possible outcome from the city's perspective.
The tension, thus, has three forces: supporters of sustainable
logging, antilogging environmentalists and pro-development
forces.
Opponents who want to keep the land intact fear that any
logging will cause erosion that taints the water quality
in the West Branch Reservoir, which is a short distance
down slope from the project.
The model forestry project, proposed by the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, is subject to
the agency's final approval. Last month, at a public meeting
attended by officials from the agencies involved, including
the state Department of Environmental Conservation and the
New York City Department of Environmental Protection, a
dozen local residents denounced the proposition, prompting
the state to extend the public comment period.
Originally scheduled to expire on Nov. 14, the comment
period has been extended through Dec. 31.
"'They blindsided us,'' said Annmarie Baisley, supervisor
of the town of Kent, where the mountain is situated. ''The
proper format is to come to the town first, but we found
out by accident that they were having this meeting.''
Mount Nimham, the county's second-tallest point, is named
after Chief Daniel Nimham, a leader of the Wappinger Indian
tribe, who died fighting for the Colonists against the British
in the Revolutionary War. Remnants of a 1700's Wappinger
village are believed to be buried in the mountainside and
old arsenic mines dot the mountainside. The state owns 1,023
acres on Mount Nimham, which is administered as a mixed-use
recreation area and hunters, hikers and mountain bikers
often traipse there.
The state has the final say over the proposal, which is
expected to cost $60,000. ''This is part of the New York
City Watershed Model Forest Program,'' Mr. Burns said, ''and
is designed to be a living classroom to demonstrate what
are deemed to be appropriate management practices for soil
and water quality protection.'' The Model Forest Program
runs three other sites in the Delaware/Catskill Watershed,
the source of drinking water for nine million people in
lower New York State.
The program at Mount Nimham, to be administered by the
Watershed Agricultural Council, a private group that administers
the model forests and based in Walton, N.Y., is designed
to be a demonstration project, its planners say. The plan
calls for the upgrading of a dirt road to accommodate logging
trucks, the creation of skid trails for dragging logs across
the forest floor, the clear-cutting of 16 acres of timber
and the use of herbicides to kill invasive Japanese barberry
vines.
Jeff Green, a founder of Plan Putnam, an environmental
group (whose Web site is planputnam.org), and his organization
are spearheading the fight against the project. ''It's not
a logging issue,'' he said, ''it's about how we use our
lands.''
The proposed forestry project would occupy a slope above
the West Branch Reservoir, a catch basin for the Delaware/Catskill
System, which sends unfiltered drinking water to Westchester
County and to New York City.
According to a draft amendment to the Hudson Highlands
Unit Management Plan, the main goal is to ''conduct research
on forest management treatments and their impacts on water
quality'' in addition to ''conducting education workshops
for forest landowners, professional foresters, timber harvesters,
researchers, and others.''
Of the watershed's 1,972 square miles, ''about 85 percent
is privately owned,'' said Kevin Brazill, the watershed
forestry program manager for the Watershed Agricultural
Council. ''No one can argue with maintaining water quality
and one of the preferred land uses to do that in the watershed
is forests, but taxation issues make it hard to maintain
private forests. If I'm a landowner who loves woodlands
and I want to send my kids to college, I can grant logging
leases to keep the woods relatively intact and have them
work for me.''
Critics counter that leaving forests untouched is the
best way to filter water. ''If they're going to log and
clear-cut areas, the water is going to run right over the
dirt,'' Ms. Baisley, the Kent supervisor, said, ''and if
they disturb any of the arsenic mines, they're really going
to create a problem.''
The D.E.C. will study the arsenic deposits and monitor
any runoff, Mr. Burns said.
Unless the city or the state can find the money to buy
the privately owned watershed lands, the property may be
sold to developers who will build subdivisions, which is
worse for the water than well-managed forests, said James
Tierney, New York City watershed inspector general.
''It is far better to have those acres remain as properly
managed forests than as malls and McMansions,'' he said.
''That said, this model forest is located in a sensitive
place. This is a steep slope and it's important to keep
sedimentation from running down the mountain, especially
if there's clear-cutting. The whole concept is to avoid
risk and stop pollutants from coming out of the tap in the
first place. You don't wait until the gun has gone off.
Do we need another model right here?''
Mr. Brazill counters that moving the proposed model forest
to another location would defeat its purpose.
''We want to create a living museum to help people learn
more about pressures on the ecosystem,'' he said. ''If we
put this 25 miles away from any water source, it wouldn't
be making its point. There are homes on the mountainside
with impervious surfaces and sewers. If nature is the ultimate
filter, then perhaps everyone living in the watershed should
move out for the benefit of the nine million people who
depend on the water.''
Rene Germain, chairman of the New York City Model Forest
Committee and associate professor of forestry at the State
University of New York College of Environmental Science
and Forestry in Syracuse, expressed surprise at the level
of opposition the proposal has generated.
''It's NIMBY-ism at its worst,'' he said. ''I respect
their opinion, but everything we're doing is based on science.
They're making us out to be the most evil people in the
world, but folks who live in urban and suburban areas use
wood products, including the people who want to tar and
feather us, except they want it to be harvested in British
Columbia. ''
Opponents of the program are unmoved. Gil Tarbox, an environmental
advocate and leader of the Nimham Mountain Singers, said:
''After a heavy rain, water runs off this mountain for days.
Are they going to be out there 24 hours, seven days a week
monitoring water quality?''
The D.E.C. plans to hold another public meeting about
the proposal next month in Kent.
Finding the middle ground has been difficult. Mr. Tierney
said.
''They may have a very carefully thought-out program,
where they haven't gone off in a haphazard way,'' he said.
''But it's easy to question the location, the terrain, and
the clear-cutting.''
|
