Legislation is pending in the State Legislature for “second passage” of a Constitutional Amendment to transfer 200 acres of Forest Preserve lands in the Jay Mountain Wilderness to NYCO Minerals, Inc. This legislation has strong support from North Country elected state representatives. The Governor supports it and the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is taking an active role stalking for the bill.

There are two big problems with this effort. First, this land swap sets a terrible precedent for the “Forever Wild” Forest Preserve. Second, the bill is riddled with inaccuracies, outright falsehoods, and misstatements.

Click here for the legislation. Click here for a copy of PROTECT’s Memo of Opposition to this land swap.

In New York, a Constitutional Amendment requires passage in two successive Legislatures and then approval by a majority of voters in a statewide ballot. “First passage” for the NYCO amendment was achieved in 2012. A new Legislature in 2013-14 provides the opportunity for “second passage.”

Here are the facts. NYCO Minerals, Inc., started mining in the Champlain Valley in the 1950s. In the early 1970s it opened a mine on Seventy Mountain in the Town of Lewis. NYCO called this “the Lewis mine” and it received one of the first permits from the Adirondack Park Agency (APA) for a 30-acre open mining pit on a 260-acre tract. This permit reported that a series of test bores throughout the tract had found wollastonite of a high grade. For 40 years, NYCO has mined the Lewis mine and through a series of new permits from the APA, it expanded the mine pit to over 80 acres. The west wall of the mine pit borders the Forest Preserve lands of the Jay Mountain Wilderness.

NYCO built and operates a processing plant in the neighboring Town of Willsboro. NYCO trucks tons of wollastonite embedded in rock to this plant where it is separated and processed. Wollastonite is used in various products. NYCO employs around 100 people; many have worked there for a long time.

NYCO started expanding the Lewis mine in the mid-1990s. That meant that it blasted more often and trucked more rock and ore to Willsboro. To get to the Lewis mine, big NYCO trucks operate on narrow, steep and twisting town and county roads. Expansion allowed over 60 truck trips daily, that’s over 120 truck trips up and down these hillside roads. For neighbors, the loud, screeching trucks and the blasting from the mine pit is a constant nuisance; sometimes windows shatter, there are close calls on the roads. The Residents for Responsible Mining formed in the late 1990s and at its peak had over 100 families that tried to intervene in the permit process to protect their homes and quality of life.

NYCO believes that it’s coming to the end of the Lewis mine and wants access to the Forest Preserve along the mine pit’s west wall to extend mining another 6-10 years. NYCO’s surrogates have said this is a do-or-die situation for the mining company.

Yet, NYCO is not banking solely on this amendment. It has invested millions of dollars in its processing plant in Willsboro. It controls a healthy share of the world’s wollastonite market. By all accounts the company has done well in the Champlain Valley.

In 1997-1998, NYCO went through a full-blown APA adjudicatory public hearing for a brand new mine, the Oakhill mine, two miles from the Lewis mine. At Oakhill, NYCO owns 455 acres and was permitted to begin with a 30-acre mining pit, which subsequent permits saw expanded to 50 acres. NYCO built its own private access road to Oak Hill that enters directly onto Route 9. There are many fewer nuisance issues with neighboring residents at Oakhill than at the Lewis mine.

At the time it secured the initial Oakhill permit, NYCO said it only had 3-5 years left at the Lewis mine. It pressured the APA to give it everything it wanted, with minor concessions to area residents. NYCO stated emphatically that it would not operate two mines more than a few years as it opened the Oakhill mine and phased out, closed, and then reclaimed the Lewis mine.

In 2002, NYCO received a new permit for the Oakhill mine from the APA which stated that it had signed a 10-year contract with Graymount, a major supplier of crushed stone for highway construction and other purposes. NYCO didn’t just take a page from Tom Sawyer, it took the whole book; NYCO got paid by Graymount to rip apart Oakhill and remove the overburden to expose the wollastonite deposits. Graymount has a processing plant a short distance away on Route 9. This deal remains in place today and apparently has worked well for both companies. The APA has given NYCO a series of new permits authorizing greater volumes of the “aggregate” overburden to be mined and removed by Graymount on Oakhill. Now, more than 180,000 tons annually are removed from Oakhill.

NYCO also continued to operate the Lewis mine well beyond the 3-5 years it claimed it had remaining when it pressured the APA to secure the new Oakhill permit. The Lewis mine reserves may now, 15 years after the original Oakhill permit was awarded, be running out.

In 2006, NYCO submitted a “25-Year Plan” to the APA. NYCO stated that it would wind down the Lewis mine by 2015 and have the Oakhill mine up to maximum capacity the following year in 2016. Moreover, the report stated that the wollastonite NYCO would extract from Oakhill was higher quality, making its mining activities more efficient.

Simply put, NYCO has been planning for how to sustain its operations for a long time. NYCO has been working for a long time to make sure it has all the wollastonite it needs and that there will be no interruption in supplying its customers.

Lets look the two big problems with the proposed NYCO Constitutional Amendment. Lets start with the bad precedent.

1. The proposal is totally contrary to “Forever Wild,” the only Article of the Constitution adopted unanimously by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1894, the first 54 words of which remain unchanged to this day.

2. The proposal is totally contrary to the consistent theme of the few amendments enacted since 1894: each was limited in scope; each was in furtherance of a public, not a private purpose; and, each resulted in a net benefit to the Forest Preserve.

Past amendments include the expansion of a town cemetery in Keene, expansion of a public airport in Arietta (which was done twice), needed improvements for a public water supply for the Raquette Lake community in the Town of Long Lake, minimization of public utility routes and impacts from the Stark Falls dam to the Village to Tupper Lake. The only other Constitutional Amendment that involved a private benefit was the Perkins Clearing land swap between the DEC and International Paper Company, where a checkerboard series of intertwined holdings were swapped so that each side had a large contiguous block to manage.

The proposed NYCO proposal breaks with historic precedent because it would be the first Forest Preserve Constitutional Amendment to be undertaken for private commercial gain rather than for a public municipal purpose.

Lets turn now to the many misstatements and inaccuracies in the legislation that supporters wrote to support their case.

The bill language and bill Justification include numerous misstatements, while omitting critical information. The Bill Justification simply does not accurately portray the situation.

The Bill Justification states:

“The Lewis mine produces 60,000 tons of wollastonite annually – a little more than 8% of the annual worldwide production. However, NYCO’s mine is approaching the end of its pit life because the wollastonite vein extends onto adjacent Forest Preserve land.”

This statement is misleading. It makes no mention of the fact that NYCO has secured numerous permits for another mine and has been working in that mine for more than a decade to prepare it for wollastonite mining. Why is the existence of the Oakhill mine omitted?

The Bill Justification also states:

“NYCO mines wollastonite on a 260-acre tract in the Town of Lewis, Essex County, with processing facilities in Willsboro, Essex County. It has 95 full time employees and has an annual payroll of $4,600,000. It has 63 vendors within a 100 mile radius and spends $2,300,000 locally per year. It pays $260,000 in local taxes.”

This statement is misleading too. First, as of January 2013 (Adirondack Park Agency permit 99-9II), NYCO’s Lewis mine was an 89.9-acre open pit mine area (54 acres developed) on a 260-acre tract. The Oakhill mine, less than 2 miles away, was originally permitted as a 31-acre open pit mine site on a 455-acre tract. The mine site has been expanded since 2002 and is now over 50 acres in size. NYCO owns and manages two mines with over 700 acres in the Town of Lewis. Again, why is the existence of the Oakhill mine omitted?

The Bill Justification also states:

“Indirect economic benefits to the area are considerable. Thus, the closure of the Lewis mine would have devastating effects on the local economy. Ninety- five full time jobs and significant tax revenue would be lost in one of the more economically depressed area of the State.”

This statement is also misleading. NYCO isn’t going anywhere. In 1998, NYCO received its first permit for a new mine. It has built that mine. NYCO’s own 25-Year plan submitted to the APA in 2006 called for a gradual transition to Oakhill where NYCO estimates there enough wollastonite for at least 16-21 years. NYCO also owns 455 acres around the Oak Hill mine, which contains wollastonite reserves, far beyond the current mine pit of 54 acres.

Any statement in this bill that NYCO will leave the state if this Constitutional Amendment is unsuccessful is simply false. NYCO’s future is not contingent on this proposed Constitutional Amendment. Its “25-Year Plan” submitted to the APA detailed its plans to transition from the Lewis mine to the Oakhill mine.

NYCO has received a string of permit amendments and new permits for the Oakhill mine to build a new access road, increase the amount of aggregate its subcontractor removes, conduct late season mining activities, build wetlands, and an assortment of other mine related activities. NYCO has made a major investment in building and readying the Oakhill mine for wollastonite extraction. The Oakhill mine is a fully functioning mine. NYCO has been planning for years to transition wollastonite mining activities to Oak Hill.

NYCO, and area political representatives, put enormous pressure on the APA in 1998 to approve the Oakhill mine permit. If it did not get Oakhill, they would close or stop investing in the area, went the song back then. Now the song has changed to NYCO will close or stop investing without the Constitutional Amendment. This is not a legitimate argument. Why does the bill threaten the closure of NYCO’s operations if the Constitutional Amendment fails when NYCO’s long-term plan and permits reveal this to be a fabrication?

These threats make it seem like NYCO doesn’t know what it’s doing. To the contrary, NYCO seems to have done a very good job of planning its future to make sure there is no interruption in the supply of materials to its customers. In fact, the overheated rhetoric of the bill justification stands in stark contrast to how deliberately and methodically NYCO has operated to secure its business.

The Bill Justification also states:

“NYCO’s main competition comes from China, India, Finland, and elsewhere in the United States. In order to remain competitive, NYCO must mine as efficiently as possible and ensure customers of long-term reserves. However, recovery from the Lewis mine is now low, as NYCO approaches the end of pit life.”

This statement is not accurate. NYCO’s 2006 “25-Year Plan” states that the percentage of wollastonite at the Oakhill mine is higher than the Lewis mine and that the supply will last at least 16 years, if not longer, at Oakhill. It is simply not an accurate statement that NYCO will suffer in efficiency or will not have reserves if it has to transition, as it has long planned to do, from the Lewis mine to the Oakhill mine. Why does the bill fail to mention NYCO’s data that wollastonite is of a higher quality on Oakhill? Why does the bill fail to mention that NYCO has plentiful reserves at Oakhill?

The Bill Justification is riddled with inaccurate and misleading statements that are contradicted by NYCO’s “25-Year Plan” and by the dozens of APA and DEC permits that NYCO has secured for both of its mines in the Town of Lewis.

There are two benefits to NYCO that I can see for wanting to continue its operations at the Lewis mine by gaining access to the Forest Preserve. First, it delays restoration and remediation costs of the Lewis mine site under the Mine Reclamation Act. That would likely cost a pretty penny and it’s understandable that the company would want to delay these expenses. Second, NYCO seems to like operating two mines simultaneously. There must be an economic benefit for them to do so.

But these benefits to NYCO’s bottom line don’t outweigh the ruinous precedent for the Forest Preserve.

If this Constitutional Amendment goes through and is approved by the voters in a public referendum it means that there is no place in New York beyond the reach of commerce. It means that there is no place beyond the grasp of various corporations and their political bidders.

It means that there is no place in New York that is truly forever wild.

The APA is set to take seven alternatives (an eighth is a “no action” alternative) to public hearing for formal Forest Preserve classifications of newly purchased lands around the Essex Chain Lakes and Upper Hudson River, OK Slip Falls and the Hudson Gorge, and lands at the confluence of the Indian and Hudson Rivers. These lands are the first batch to be fully purchased by the state from the 69,000 acres that Governor Cuomo committed to purchase from The Nature Conservancy in August 2012.

See pictures of these lands here and PROTECT’s overall vision for these lands here.

The seven major alternatives generated by the APA cover the range of possible Forest Preserve classifications, from Wilderness to Wild Forest, from Canoe to Primitive. The APA has issued a staff memo on the 8 Forest Preserve classification alternatives accompanied by a set of maps illustrating the alternatives. Also, see an APA staff memo on the public hearings for the classification process.

PROTECT Supports the Wilderness Classification Alternative 1A

Prior to the release by the APA of the seven classification alternatives, PROTECT had submitted a detailed letter calling on APA to include the new Hudson Headwaters Wilderness Area option. Here’s information about PROTECT’s proposal for the new Wilderness Area.

Here’s a map of that proposal:

The is a 39,000+ acre Hudson Headwaters Wilderness Area that PROTECT and many other groups are advocating for creation during the upcoming APA Forest Preserve classification public hearings. Alternative 1A most closely approximates this proposal.

Here are the two of the seven major alternatives that recommend the creation of a new Wilderness Area and propose to classify the overwhelming majority of the newly purchased lands as Wilderness. These are Alternatives 1A and 1B.

Alternative 1A: This most closely approximates the PROTECT proposal for a 40,000-acre Hudson Headwaters Wilderness Area. It places much of the new lands into a Wilderness classification; see three areas for the Essex Chain Lakes tract, Indian-Hudson Rivers tract, and Ok Slip Pond tract.It classifies the Essex Chain Lakes and the entire 22 miles of the Hudson River as Wilderness. Wild Forest lands in the Blue Mountain and Vanderwhacker Mountain Wild Forest areas are reclassified as Wilderness and all of the Hudson River Primitive Area is also reclassified as Wilderness. Road access, by using roads as boundaries, are kept open to provide public access to the Essex Chain Lakes and Hudson River, but these waters are motor-free. While the core new Wilderness Area is created, parts of the newly purchased lands are also classified as Wild Forest, principally to keep access roads open.

Alternative 1B: This is the main Wilderness option. It places all the new lands into a Wilderness classification; see three areas for the Essex Chain Lakes tract, Indian-Hudson Rivers tract, and Ok Slip Pond tract. It also reclassifies a large amount of Wild Forest lands in the Blue Mountain and Vanderwhacker Mountain Wild Forest areas as Wilderness and reclassifies all of the Hudson River Primitive Area as Wilderness. No roads are kept open for access to the Essex Chain Lakes or Hudson River.

During the upcoming public hearings, PROTECT will advocate for Alternative 1A, the Wilderness option that creates a new Wilderness Area and provides public access to the Essex Chain Lake and Hudson River.

Primitive, Canoe Area and Wild Forest Classification Alternatives

Here are the remaining five alternatives. PROTECT does not think that they are appropriate for the management of the newly purchased lands.

Alternative 2: This is the Primitive-Wilderness classification option. All of the Hudson River lands are classified as Wilderness, yet the Essex Chain Lakes are classified as Primitive. This allows for various roads to remain open.

Alternative 3A: This is the primarily Canoe Area classification proposal. This would classify the Essex Chain Lakes area as a Canoe Area, including a stretch of the Hudson River.

Alternative 3B: This is the Canoe option where everything from the Cedar River north along the Hudson River and all of the Essex Chain Lakes are classified as Canoe.

Alternative 4A: This is the Wild Forest option. It classifies the Essex Chain Lakes as Wild Forest, which allows motorized uses. It would also keep open a wide range of roads for vehicular traffic.

Alternative 4B: This is the Wild Forest Special Management Area option. This is the preferred option of the DEC. Under a Special Management Area, the DEC can write rules for public access. This includes making some uses, like floatplanes, seasonal or allowing motorized watercraft on some waterbodies but not others.

Protect the Adirondacks has filed a Memo of Opposition with the State Senate against second passage of a Constitutional Amendment to swap Forest Preserve lands with NYCO Minerals, Inc., a mining company. NYCO currently operates two mines in the Town of Lewis and a processing plant in the Town of Willsboro. NYCO mines wollastonate, an ore used for manufacturing many different products.

See a press release from PROTECT and see a copy of the state legislation.

See a much more detailed article posted on the Adirondack Almanack website about the NYCO amendment.

Since the early 1970s, NYCO has managed a mine on Seventy Mountain in the Town of Lewis that borders the Jay Mountain Wilderness Area. This mine is part of a 260-acre tract of land. The mine pit has expanded from 30 acres in the 1970s to 80 acres today. NYCO has received dozens of permits from the Adirondack Park Agency (APA) to operate and expand this mine.

NYCO is now seeking permission through a Constitutional Amendment to explore 200 acres along the west wall of the mine for use for mining.

In the late 1990s, NYCO sought and received an APA permit for a new mine, two miles from the existing mine. The new mine is called Oakhill mine and has been operational for more than 10 years. NYCO has been leasing the lands on the Oakhill mine for more than 10 years to Graymount, Inc., which removes “aggregate” bedrock from the site for manufacture to various crushed stone. At the time NYCO sought a permit to develop the Oakhill mine, its stated it would not operate two mines simultaneously, but needed the new mine because reserves were running out at the Lewis mine.

Mining operation has been a burden on nearby residents due to regular blasting and from truck traffic that hauls ore from Lewis to Willsboro. The Lewis mine is accessed via a steep hill and poor roads and the heavy trucking impacts local residences. This is not an issue with the Oakhill mine, which has a private road and accesses onto a state highway.

In 2006, NYCO submitted a 25-year plan to the APA that outlined plans to transition from the Lewis mine to the Oakhill mine. This reports showed NYCO’s projections that the Oakhill mine had better mining conditions because of a higher grade of wollastonite.

This proposal sets a poor precedent for making the Forest Preserve available for private commercial gain and should be rejected for the following reasons.

1. The proposal is totally contrary to “Forever Wild,” the only Article of the Constitution adopted unanimously by the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1894, the first 54 words of which remain unchanged to this day.

2. The proposal is totally contrary to the consistent theme of the few amendments enacted since: each was limited in scope; each was in furtherance of a public, not a private purpose (expansion of a town cemetery, expansion of a public airport, needed improvements for a public water supply, minimization of public utility routes and impacts, among others), and each resulted in a net benefit to the Forest Preserve.

3. NYCO has long planned to transition from its current Lewis mine, which borders the Forest Preserve. NYCO has better options other than utilizing the Forest Preserve. NYCO has $100 million worth of state-of-the-art processing equipment at its current plant in Willsboro. In the late 1990s, NYCO sought and received a permit for a new open pit mine at a location near its existing mine in the Town of Lewis from the Adirondack Park Agency and Department of Environmental Conservation. At the time of the hearing, NYCO believed it had less than five years of material left to mine and needed a new site to justify major plant upgrades. It received all necessary permits. NYCO has prepared the new site on Oakhill for mining wollastonite. NYCO has also entered into a long-term contract to supply aggregate from overburden bedrock on this site, which has helped to remove overburden. NYCO has a clear alternative other than using the Forest Preserve.

4. NYCO estimates that Oak Hill would yield ore for at least 16-21 years. NYCO also own 455 acres around the Oak Hill mine, which contains wollastonite reserves, far beyond the current mine pit of 54 acres.

5. NYCO seeks to keep the Lewis mine open so that it can delay closing and restoration costs.

6. NYCO is seeking to continue operating two mines simultaneously.

See aerial pictures below of the Lewis mine, Oakhill mine, and both mines.

The protection of water quality is of singular great importance for the Adirondack Park and Adirondack communities. In the coming decades, if we are able to maintain stable water quality trends, this will help Adirondack communities enormously, not only for protecting the area’s high quality of life, but economically too. Clean water will be our edge.

Clean water is going to be a commodity that becomes less plentiful in the future. Communities that provide good stewardship for their waters will be communities that have something special to offer in the coming years.

As a society we know how to protect water quality. Engineers, landscape architects, excavators, and regulators, among others, know what protects water quality and what does not. Stormwater management is the key here. All too often though stormwater management is deferred, ignored or short-changed. Local planning boards and zoning boards do not take stormwater management seriously.

Shoreline regulation is not about aesthetics. It’s about protecting water quality.

There are many excellent guides to water quality protection. The FUND for Lake George and Lake George Waterkeeper published Do-It-Yourself Water Quality: A Landowner’s Guide to Property Management that Protects Lake George, but it’s applicable to any freshwater lake, pond, river, stream or wetland. See other fine water quality protection guidebooks here and here. There are many on the web.

Shoreline buffers are not simply trees and bushes that block out the view of houses from passing boaters. They are very important for water quality because they provide critical ecological services to the lake or pond. Shoreline buffers absorb, infiltrate and block stormwater from reaching and polluting a waterbody.

When stormwater runs overland it picks up speed and volume. The greater the speed and greater the volume of stormwater the more it picks up sediments and other materials, such as chemicals, fertilizers, and pesticides, and carries them to the waterbody. Watersheds are like bowls with the lake at the bottom. Everything runs downhill to the lake.

Every time it rains pollutants are carried to lakes and ponds via stormwater. If every property were stormwater neutral this would not happen. Most properties, though, export stormwater because they do not have an adequate infrastructure to capture and infiltrate stormwater. Drywells and rain gardens and swales all work well. Shoreline buffers are very effective as are different types of pervious pavements. These are all tried and true technologies. Low Impact Development has created a whole school of engineering around stormwater management to protect water quality. But, unfortunately, the house-here, house-there type of development in most communities in the Adirondacks doesn’t see nearly enough done on preventing stormwater pollution.

These two illustrations show how a watershed functions and how stormwater moves across the land surface.

Maintenance of natural contours and forest cover is important too. Only about 1% of rain that hits a natural forest is carried off in streams. The rest is held by vegetation until it evaporates or slowly infiltrates into the groundwater. One mature tree can hold 20,000 gallons of water. A developed site sees 50% or more of the rain that hits it exported as stormwater runoff. The Center for Watershed Protection has terrific information.

The amount of impervious area on a lot shapes stormwater runoff too. Buildings, paved driveways and walkways and patios are all impervious structures that create runoff. A typical grass lawn produces significantly more stormwater than a forested site. Gravel driveways are heavily compacted and produce almost as much stormwater as paved driveways.

Stormwater pollution is causing a slow, yet inexorable decline in water quality in the Adirondacks. Our chief regulatory agency is frozen in time, politically unable to modernize its rules or statute. Written in the early 1970s, the Adirondack Park Agency (APA) Act does not even include the word stormwater. The Lake George Park Commission has a decent set of stormwater regulations, but it doesn’t apply to modifications of existing structures, which constitutes a lot of development and stormwater problems around the lake.

Stormwater management is all the more important in the era of climate change. One change that we’ve seen is that wet areas are getting wetter and dry areas drier. In the Adirondacks and the Northeast US we’re getting 30% more rain than we did 30 years ago. The way the rain arrives too is different as more rain comes in hard, severe storms than in the past decades. Both trends are predicted to intensify. So, the sooner we get serious about stormwater the better.

Unfortunately, on lake after lake across the Adirondacks new homeowners scrape lands clean. Large houses are built to replace forested lots, lawns flatten natural contours, and impervious materials replace permeable terrain. Lot after lot is transformed from a natural, forested lot that helped to mitigate negative impacts to lake water quality to a lot that will forever export stormwater to the lake and load pollution.

In many cases it’s simply a choice of individual landowners. They can manage their lands in a way that minimizes or supersizes stormwater pollution. It’s better to minimize. Below is a good illustration of the choices of a landowner.

One uniformed local commentator on Adirondack Park affairs does a real disservice to the public by dismissing calls to improve regulation of shoreline development as simply something about aesthetics. This opinion has it that it’s all about greenies being offended by houses as opposed to legitimate concerns about the protection of natural resources.

Thankfully, some local governments, like the Town of Queensbury, have acted boldly to protect water quality. Queensbury has what I consider a model zoning code for water quality protection.

Queensbury takes stormwater seriously. Any new or modified property in the shoreline zone must create a vegetated buffer. They tell you how many native plants, shrubs and trees are required per linear foot of buffer and how wide the buffer needs to be. They require a variety of stormwater control devices to be installed to capture and infiltrate stormwater so as to prevent it from reaching the lake.

No longer can a massive building be built on a small lot. Queensbury employs a floor-area ratio that sets a minimum percent of a lot that must be kept in pervious conditions. For years people built huge buildings on small lots with little consideration where stormwater would go.

As a society we know how to manage stormwater. We know how to prevent stormwater pollution. We know how to protect water quality and natural resources. We just choose not to.

It would be a great thing if the APA adopted the Queensbury code. That would go a long ways towards terrific stewardship for Adirondack waters.

Clean waters will help the Adirondack Park immeasurably in the decades ahead. It makes good sense for many reasons for Adirondack communities to do everything we can to protect water quality.

Illustrations courtesy the FUND for Lake George.

The Adirondack Park Agency continues to examine changing its review process to allow a General Permit for large clearcuts on commercial forestlands. Embarking on a new era of big clearcuts has ignited controversy in the Adirondack Park; see reports here and here. The APA’s new policy will pertain to forestlands that have received sustainable forestry certification under the FSC and SFI programs. The majority of these lands commercial forestlands are subject to state conservation easements. Overwhelmingly, the forest management rights on state conservation easement lands are held by various investment funds that manage these forests short-term in 10- and 15-year investment cycles.

PROTECT finds that many of these lands are already being heavily cut with strip clearcuts, checkerboard clearcuts, and small 24-acre clear cuts. These landowners use a lot of 24-acre clearcuts to avoid APA review.

One reason that the largescale industrial forestland owners have asked for a new streamlined process to undertake big clearcuts is that they claim they need big clearcuts to regenerate a better forest. They say they want to “start over.” They want to clear the existing forest and then try to control the trees to regrow. Many challenge this position and argue that existing small clearcuts have failed to regenerate a better forest and that big clearcutting is simply a cheaper way to cut more trees.

PROTECT is now urging the APA to get out into the field and look first-hand at these clearcut landscapes and assess regeneration success or failure. PROTECT suggests that the APA visit some of the commercial forestlands that have been heavily cut to evaluate forest regeneration. Here are PROTECT’s five recommendations for heavily cut forests to visit.

Here’s a new letter that PROTECT has submitted to the APA encouraging them to get out into the field.

The APA has also re-issued its Negative Declaration under SEQRA stating no impact to this review change. Many groups find this decision legal troubling because it will effect hundreds of thousands or acres. See a group letter opposing the APA’s action.

Protect the Adirondacks has called upon the Adirondack Park Agency to include a proposed 40,000-acre Hudson Headwaters Wilderness Area as an official alternative in its upcoming public hearings on Forest Preserve classification.

The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation supports a Wild Forest classification for the Essex Chain of Lakes to facilitate floatplane use and extensive road ways.

Protect the Adirondacks supports the creation of a new Hudson Headwaters Wilderness Area (see below). This new Wilderness area, roughly 40,000 acres in size, could be created during the upcoming Forest Preserve classification hearings that will be formally conducted this spring-fall by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). PROTECT believes that the Wilderness Area option is the best fit for these lands and urges the APA to include the Wilderness alternative during the public hearings.

This new Wilderness Area will be created from roughly 20,000 acres of new Forest Preserve lands and roughly 20,000 acres of existing Forest Preserve lands currently classified as Wild Forest and Primitive. The new lands consist of the first tracts purchased as part of the state’s acquisition of lands from The Nature Conservancy; the Essex Chain Lakes tract, OK Slip Falls tract, confluence of Hudson and Indian Rivers tract.

These lands include a total of 22 miles of the Hudson River, including the wild whitewaters of the Hudson Gorge, five miles of the Cedar River, three miles of the Indian River, and a dozen lakes and ponds in the Essex Chain Lakes. As part of this new Wilderness Area, PROTECT sees the opportunity to create a motorless waters recreation area on the Essex Chain Lakes similar to Lake Lila, Round Lake, Little Tupper Lake, and Lows Lake as well as preserve the Upper Hudson River, from just south of Route 28N in Newcomb to the Essex Chain Road, one of the great flatwater river stretches in the Adirondack Park.

Hudson Headwaters Wilderness Area: A Balanced Approach that Benefits Many User Groups

PROTECT carefully drew its line to propose the new Hudson Headwaters Wilderness area to facilitate a wide variety of public uses and meet the needs of various user groups. In this way PROTECT’s proposal is highly inclusive while at the same time provides protection of the area’s natural resources. The wide variety of uses that PROTECT envisions in this proposal include:

• Floatplane access continued on First and Pine Lakes: PROTECT drew its Wilderness boundary around First and Pine lakes to preserve the existing floatplane use that occurs on these lakes in Wild Forest areas.

• Road access for disabled use under DEC CP-3 Permits: PROTECT envisions maintenance of the access road to Deer Pond from the Cornell Road, west of the Goodnow Flow. This access road will not only provide an entrance for paddlers to the Essex Chain, beginning at Deer Pond, but could also to be continued to a specially designed disabled access campsite (under the DEC CP-3 policy) on the north side of either Third or Fourth lake, which ever location is more practical. Lands north of this road would be classified as Wild Forest and the road would form the Wilderness-Wild Forest boundary. This will create a great opportunity to disabled access in a Wilderness setting.

• Motorless waters access for the Essex Chain: There are relatively few motorless waters opportunities that are easily accessible for the general public on large lakes and ponds in the Adirondack Park. Outside of the St. Regis Canoe Area, there is Little Tupper Lake-Round Lake, Lows Lake and Lake Lila. The overwhelming majority of large lakes and ponds in the Adirondack Park are open for all manner of motorized watercraft and floatplanes. Most of the motorless lakes and ponds in the Forest Preserve involve carrying one’s boat a long distance. The general public deserves more easily accessible motorless waters opportunities in the Forest Preserve. Floatplane access on Third Lake will destroy this opportunity (as well as undermine the wilderness experience for CP-3 campers). A Wild Forest classification is wholly inappropriate for the Essex Chain Lakes.

• Road access: PROTECT’S proposal includes maintenance of Wild Forest or Primitive corridors to facilitate limited motor vehicle access to the eastern side of the Essex Chain Lakes tract, towards Cedar Mountain. We have been told that this would be useful during hunting season. PROTECT also supports corridors for the Chain Lakes Road to the area of the former Outer Gooley Club to facilitate canoe take-outs for flatwater paddlers before the whitewaters of the Hudson Gorge as well as a Primitive Corridor for the road leading the OK Slip Pond, where hopefully a public parking area will be created near where the road becomes private for the children’s camp. This parking area should serve as a staging area for hiking trails to OK Slip Falls and Blue Ledges as well as other ponds in this area. It would also be used during hunting season.

• Take-out for Hudson River flatwater trip: As mentioned above, PROTECT supports a take-out area on the Hudson River somewhere in vicinity of the Outer Gooley Club buildings. We support road access to this take out and a parking area.

These features in the Hudson Headwaters Wilderness proposal make it a balanced and reasonable approach to Forest Preserve management. Other wilderness proposals include municipal roads and private lands and cannot be accomplished during this classification review. Other proposals for Wild Forest involve special management areas that rely on unworkable management plans that create poor precedent and fail to protect the area’s natural resources.

100,000 Acres More Lands Classified as Wild Forest/Intensive Use than Wilderness/Primitive/Canoe

Today, in the Forest Preserve there are over 110,000 acres more of Wild Forest/Intensive Use areas, which allow all manner of motorized uses, than the more restrictive Wilderness/Primitive/Canoe Areas. Here are the most recent acreages provided on the APA website:

Wild Forest 1,293,721 acres
Intensive Use 22,705 acres

Wilderness 1,138,423 acres
Primitive 45,756
Canoe 17,646

There needs to be greater equality in the motorized and non-motorized areas of the Forest Preserve.

Scant Motorless Lakes Opportunities on 200 Biggest Lakes and Ponds in the Adirondack Park

Across the Adirondack Park there are few genuine opportunities for motorless boating on a big lake or pond. In the top 100 biggest lakes in the Adirondack Park, just five lakes stand out as lakes without motorboats, jetskis, and floatplanes; Lows Lake, Little Tupper Lake, Round Lake, Lake Lila and St. Regis Pond. These lakes are all managed as motorless waterbodies as parts of the Forest Preserve. Two other lakes, Cedar Lake in the West Canada Lakes Wilderness Area and Newcomb Lake in the High Peaks Wilderness are also motorless, but they are largely inaccessible for boating by the general public. They are great lakes to hike to, and beautiful places, but they are difficult to reach with a boat.

Of the 100 biggest lakes in the Adirondack Park, 77 are open for all manner of motorized boating and floatplanes. 14 lakes are privately owned and provide no public access, and just 7 are motorless. Two lakes in the top 100 are currently in process of being purchased by the State of New York (Third Lake, part of the Essex Chain Lakes, and Boreas Pond) for addition to the Forest Preserve, after which the type of allowable public use will be determined through the Forest Preserve classification process.

The reality though, is that more than 75% of the Park’s grandest lakes are opened for a variety of motorized opportunities, but just 7% offer the motorless option, and really just 5% are easily accessible for a motorless experience.

For those who desire greater motorless opportunities, the numbers improve slightly in an analysis of the 200 biggest lakes in the Adirondack Park. 115 of Park’s 200 biggest lakes are opened for motorized uses, whereas 55 are privately owned and 28 provide motorless opportunities. It’s important to note that of the 28 lakes that are motorless, just 15 are easily accessible; the other 13 are challenging to reach with a boat.

Of the 200 biggest lakes and ponds, 57% are open for motorboating of all kinds, 28% are privately owned and closed for public use of any kind, and a mere 14% provide motorless opportunities. It’s important to note that of the 200 biggest lakes and ponds in the Adirondacks, only 15, just 7.5%, provide easily accessible motorless boating opportunities that involve a short carry or less to launch one’s boat.

When one considers the acreage of waters open for motorless opportunities compared with motorized opportunities the differences are stark. Excluding Lake Champlain, because it’s partly in Vermont, and looking only at the 99 biggest waterbodies completely within the Blue Line, 90% of the water area is dedicated to motorized water uses. Just 5% is open for public motorless opportunities.

Clearly, the public deserves more motorless opportunities on the big lakes and ponds in the Adirondacks.

“No Material Increase” for Forest Preserve Roads Should be Taken Seriously

PROTECT submitted a comment letter on March 13, 2013 to the APA and Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) concerning the failure by the DEC to heed the requirement in the State Land Master Plan (SLMP) to conduct an assessment about the mileage of roads in the Forest Preserve. The state undertook such an effort for snowmobile trails. The APA must uphold the SLMP and complete this analysis as part of the classification process for the Essex Chain Lakes and Hudson River area.

Hudson Headwaters Wilderness is the Best Choice for the Essex Chain Lakes and the Hudson River

Protect the Adirondacks believes that the creation of a new Hudson Headwaters Wilderness Area is the best choice for natural resource protection and for providing a full array of outdoor recreational opportunities. We encourage the APA to include this proposal as an alternative during the upcoming Forest Preserve classification hearings for the Essex Chain Lakes and Hudson River lands.

It will be a tremendous accomplishment by the State of New York in the year 2013 to create a new Wilderness area centered on 22 miles of the country’s most historic river and well-known river.

See full letter to the APA here.

From the Governor’s press office with pictures by Protect the Adirondacks:

Governor Cuomo Announces State Closes on Second Phase of Former Finch Land Acquisition in The Adirondacks

The Nature Conservancy to Provide $500,000 to State for Adirondack Communities to Promote Economic Development and Tourism

Albany, NY (April 23, 2013)

Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today announced that New York State closed on 9,300 acres of the former Finch Pruyn lands in the Adirondacks. The acquisition of these properties, announced in August 2012 by the Governor, will ensure their continued protection and an expansion of tourism opportunities in the Park, benefitting local communities.

The land parcels purchased today from the Nature Conservancy include: the OK Slip Falls tract in Hamilton County; the Casey Brook tract in Essex County; the Spruce Point tract in Washington County; the Saddles tract in Washington County; the Hudson Riverside/Ice Meadow Tract in Warren County; and the Indian River tract in Essex and Hamilton counties.

“There is not a more fitting way to celebrate Earth Week than protecting spectacular property in the Adirondack Park that will create tourism opportunities and bring more visitors to this magnificent place,” Governor Cuomo said. “With these newest acquisitions, we are building upon past state investments in the Adirondacks as we enhance a world-class Park that contains a wealth of private and public lands in one of the most beautiful settings on earth.”

“The Adirondacks are a unique part of New York and lead the world in linking the conservation of natural resources with sustainable community and economic development. Adding these former Finch lands to the Forest Preserve will open a magnificent stretch of the Upper Hudson to the public and attract new visitors to the interior of the Adirondacks,” Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Joe Martens said.

Hudson River Gorge, photo by Melody Thomas

OK Slip Falls, photo by Melody Thomas

As part of this historic conservation effort, TNC also granted $500,000 to the State to support community connections and economic development linked to the former Finch lands in Newcomb, Minerva, North Hudson, Indian Lake, Long Lake and other towns.

Bill Ulfelder, Executive Director of The Nature Conservancy in New York, said, “Thanks to the leadership of Governor Andrew Cuomo and Commissioner Joe Martens, New York State is strengthening its remarkable conservation legacy with these additions to the Adirondack Park. Keeping the forests, rivers, streams and lakes of the region protected is not only good for tourism, recreation and wildlife, but also helps keep New York’s water clean and reduces the risk of floods during extreme weather events like Hurricanes Irene and Sandy.”

Michael Carr, Executive Director of The Nature Conservancy’s Adirondack Chapter, said, “The scale of this project is enabling us to collectively achieve significant ecological protections, while allowing for a variety of compatible uses, as well as creating some really exciting, world-class recreational opportunities. Getting to this point is the result of a lot of hard work by state officials, local community leaders, forestry professionals, and others willing to roll up their sleeves and find innovative solutions.”

In 2007, TNC purchased the entire 161,000-acre property from Finch Pruyn. TNC sold 90,000 acres to a private company for timber management. The State acquired conservation easements on these lands in 2010 to ensure the lands would be protected and maintained for sustainable, working forests in communities across the North Country.

TNC managed a 69,000-acre landholding with the intent to ensure its protection. Under an agreement announced last summer by Governor Cuomo, the 69,000-acre property will be sold to the state pursuant to a phased five-year contract which began in 2012. Once complete, the acquisition of the former Finch lands will be the largest addition to the State Forest Preserve in 118 years.

This acquisition complements the State’s purchase of the 18,318-acre Essex Chain of Lakes property in late 2012. The State will pay The Nature Conservancy $6.3 million for a total of approximately 9,300 acres and will pay full property taxes on the land.

DEC and APA are working together to plan for the future classification of the former Finch lands. DEC has completed a Proposal for Public Access and State Land Classification for the entire 69,000-acre property, based upon input from Adirondack local governments and other stakeholders, and submitted it to the Adirondack Park Agency and to Park stakeholder groups.

The APA will release a draft land classification plan for the parcel later this year. A public comment period will begin once the draft plan is released and public hearings will be held before the final recommendations are sent to the Governor for approval. Once land classifications are approved, DEC will develop Unit Management Plans that will guide long-term public and administrative use of the properties. An open and transparent process, including a public comment period, will be held for each Unit Management Plan.

Currently, the APA and DEC are working on an interim public access plan to provide early access to the Hudson and Cedar Rivers through the Essex Chain of Lakes and Indian River Tracts. This interim public access plan is expected to be released in the next few weeks with public motor vehicle access to begin in late May or early June depending on road conditions.

Town of Newcomb Supervisor George Cannon said, “The acquisition of these tracts will increase hiking opportunities and provide direct access to the Upper Hudson River from the Newcomb Town Beach. Attracting more visitors to the interior should increase economic opportunities for Adirondack communities.”

Town of Indian Lake Supervisor Brian E. Wells said, “The state’s acquisition of the OK Slip Falls and Indian River parcels represents a new mind set coming out of Albany. The Governor has proposed these land acquisitions as not only an environmental necessity but also an economic necessity for the state. DEC is charged with reaching a balanced approached in their recommendations of classification to the APA. DEC has reached out to the local communities to ask input to be put forward to the APA. If these classifications are done with local input from the communities who are going to be affected the most, it could lead to a resurrection in the park.”

The tracts to be acquired during the next several weeks include:

Indian River/Hudson River, Towns of Indian Lake and Minerva, Hamilton and Essex Counties: The most exciting and popular whitewater rafting experience in the Adirondacks starts on the Indian River and continues for nearly 15 miles down the Hudson River Gorge. Adding this 940-acre tract to the publicly owned forest preserve will keep the experience wild. (See also OK Slip Falls tract.) The parcel is critical to preserving the rafting experience that draws 25,000 people annually. It is also key to unlocking new recreational opportunities by providing long-awaited access and take-out points that will make the enticing stretch of the upper Hudson River to the north a viable option for paddlers wishing to experience calmer waters than the class III/ IV rapids of the Gorge.

This will be an incredible draw for visitors seeking this unique and limited wild rivers experience, bringing people to the communities of Indian Lake, Blue Mountain Lake, Long Lake, Newcomb and Minerva to seek accommodations and supplies. This aspect of the project will be open to public use this year as discussed above. Up-to-date details on public access will be provided on DEC’s website at: www.dec.ny.gov.

OK Slip Falls, Town of Indian Lake, Hamilton County: One of the most spectacular waterfalls in the Adirondack Park, OK Slip is part of a 2,800-acre property that will soon be made available to the public for hiking and other outdoor pursuits. The tract contains 2.1 miles of the Hudson River, the Blue Ledges, the Hudson River Gorge, as well as Carter, Blue Ledge and Pug Hole ponds. This property also contains one of the most exciting sections of a popular whitewater route that draws more than 25,000 adventurers who annually pass through this property.

This tract is believed to harbor more rare and significant plants, mosses and liverworts than any other site in the Adirondack Park. It is also the only place in New York State where purple mountain saxifrage, hair-like sedge, wild chives and other rarities are known to exist.

Adirondack soils are typically acidic due to the geological makeup of the predominate bedrock. In this area, the bedrock is streaked with mineral-rich Grenville marble. One-billion-year-old marble outcrops in places like the Blue Ledges and OK Slip Falls have created growing conditions favorable for unique assemblages of plants to thrive. Blue Ledges is all marble, and because it faces northwest and remains wet through the summer it has functioned as a refuge—a small, detached piece of arctic mountain—and allowed a relic community of northern plants to persist. More than one-third of the 96 mosses that grow at Blue Ledge are uncommon or rare. Likewise, about one-third of the 69 mosses and liverworts at OK Slip Falls are also uncommon or rare. At OK Slip ravine, Braun’s holly fern and Pennsylvania buttercup are among the uncommon or rare vascular plants found.

Casey Brook, Town of North Hudson, Essex County: The 1,587-acre Casey Brook tract is strategically situated south of the High Peaks area of the Adirondack Park to the west of the Elk Lake Preserve. It provides a direct hiking connection to Mount Marcy and other High Peaks, as well as public hunting and camping opportunities. It adjoins the Boreas Ponds Tract, part of the former Finch lands that will be acquired later by the State.

The Saddles, Town of Whitehall, Washington County: This 2,540 –acre property also is outside the Adirondack Blue Line, in Washington County. This property was not part of Finch Paper’s holdings, but was acquired by The Nature Conservancy with the intent that it be sold to the state. The tract features dramatic cliffs and more than 2,250 feet of undeveloped shoreline on Lake Champlain’s South Bay. There is a complex of streams, marshes, swamps, and floodplain forests that dominate the lowlands of the South Bay. Talus slopes, cliffs and northern hardwood forests characterize the surrounding uplands. The large, intact forest, exposed rocky ridges and slopes of the Saddles Mountain provide foraging grounds for Eastern timber rattlesnake (threatened) and habitat for peregrine falcon (endangered). There is a unique wild rice marsh at the base of the Saddles.

Spruce Point (AKA Dolph Pond), Town of Whitehall, Washington County: As this 726-acre piece is outside the Adirondack Park, it will become a new state forest to be used for sustainable timber harvesting, hiking, hunting, camping and other outdoor recreational opportunities, free of charge to the public. The parcel adjoins state conservation easement land to the west and is within an important wildlife pathway area between the Champlain and Lake George basins and Vermont’s Green Mountains. The property features interesting ridges, a variety of forest types, including Appalachian oak hickory and hemlock northern hardwood, and provides habitat for black bear, white tail deer and other wildlife.

Hudson Riverside/Ice Meadow Tract, Town of Chester, Warren County: This 727-acre parcel is an ecologically significant piece along 1.5 miles of the Hudson River, which links to a previously acquired Forest Preserve parcel. DEC will work with the Town of Chester to develop a trail system that avoids impacts to fragile plant life and private properties.

Last week, Protect the Adirondacks’s attorneys at Caffry and Flower filed the formal papers for the lawsuit challenging the state’s management of class II community connector snowmobile trails in the Forest Preserve. The case has been filed in Supreme Court, Albany County. At present, the state must serve its answer by May 20th, and the return date is June 28th. The schedule is subject to change. These papers include the:

Complaint and Petition
Notice of Petition
Summons

On March 28, 2013, the Appellate Division, Third Department, granted PROTECT’s motion for consent to maintain its suit pursuant to Article 14 of the State Constitution, which seeks to establish that community connector snowmobile trails administered by the NYS Adirondack Park Agency (APA) and Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) violate Article 14’s Forever Wild clause.

The second aspect of the case, which demonstrates that the use of large tracked motorized grooming machines, such as snowcats, violates the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan, did not require the consent of the Court to file.

The lawsuit challenges construction and grooming of class II community connector snowmobile trails in the Forest Preserve by the DEC and APA. The lawsuit contains two parts: 1) allegations that the construction by the DEC of new 9-12-foot-wide “community connector” snowmobile trails violates the “Forever Wild” clause of the NYS Constitution; and 2) allegations that the DEC and APA violated the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan and DEC regulations in authorizing the mechanical grooming of snowmobile trails with large tracked groomers.

See a detailed background report on this lawsuit here.

Myth: We are aging at a rate that will soon make us the 2nd oldest region is the US. That we are aging rapidly is the result of the out-migration of families resulting from a poor economy, which, in turn, results from excessive public ownership of land and a restrictive regulatory environment.

Reality: We are aging at rates that are typical for rural white populations in the US. Many sparsely settled Northern Forest populations from Maine to Minnesota and the Great Plains agricultural populations are older than we and are likely to remain so. Moreover, aging and population loss are not necessarily a sign of a weak economy. In fact research shows that for rural areas quality of life is the more important factor and that good scenery and access to public lands are major influences on population retention. The fundamental fact of Adirondack demography, however, is the out-migration of college aged young people and that old people die or leave the area for better services for advanced aging. In essence, we educate our children to leave and this out-migration is structural. Urban areas with high divisions of labor are where the jobs are for skilled young people. The Adirondacks have little economic push-out. But we do have a significant mismatch between the jobs sought by college educated people and the jobs to be found here.

The minor population losses in the Adirondack Park are not the result of economic conditions, but rather larger national demographic and social trends

Adirondack communities are old and aging. No doubt. And our median age is greater than that of any state although, as we noted in Myth and Reality Number 1, this has more to do with the fact that we are predominately white population than it does with any facts about our economy. That we are on track to become the 2nd oldest region in the US, as the APRAP Report claimed is, however, unverifiable hyperbole. APRAP does not even tell us how they define a region. However, when one looks at the US based on any sensible definition of a region, there are many areas of the country that are older and losing population more rapidly than the Adirondack Park.

Here’s a map produced by the USDA that shows the percent of county populations 65 years or older.

What can be easily seen in this map is that the counties with large populations of older people are concentrated in the Great Plains, Northern Forest areas, and places such a Florida and Arizona with large concentrations of retirees. Most rural counties are aging.

Most rural counties in the US are also losing population. As the map below shows, the main region that is suffering from population loss is the rural agricultural county region of the Midwest. In a book discussing population loss, Hollowing Out the Middle, Patrick Carr and Maria Kefalas, provide a USDA created map entitled Decimation of America’s Heartland showing the US counties with a net population out-migration of 10% or more from 1980 to 2000. This map (below) shows dozens of counties from North Dakota to Texas that have lost population at this rate. Note that for this period, all counties in the New York North Country and the Adirondacks gained population with the exception of Clinton County, which lost population due to the closing of the Air Force base there. This map itself shows the absurdity of the claim that we are on the way to becoming the 2nd oldest region of the country.

After the 2010 Census the New York Times published an interactive map color-coding counties that lost and gained population. Most of the same Midwestern counties that lost population in the 1980–2000 period lost population from 2000 to 2010. Overall the Adirondack counties gained population from 2000-2010, although Hamilton County lost around 10%. A town-by-town study by the Adirondack Park Agency found that overall the Adirondack Park experienced a 1.3% population loss. For reasons we discuss below about the impact of modern American demographic trends, mild population losses are likely to continue. We have begun to lose population and we will continue to age.

However, the Park’s recent, minor population losses are far less than the 3% losses in a dozen counties in Western New York. The 2010 Census found that over 25% of all New York counties experienced losses. Clearly, from a review of the Decimation of America’s Heartland map or the New York Times map, many areas in the US are aging and losing population. If we stand out among them it is not because our changes are extreme. It is because, as rural areas go, they are modest.

Basic national demographic trends that are driving changes in the Adirondack Park

Notwithstanding, we are old and aging. And the fact that we are aging is a harbinger of steady, minor population losses to come. Older people have fewer children. The real concern about the overdramatized hyperbole of APRAP is that it is unaccompanied by any serious analysis of the nature of population change in the Adirondacks and what it actually means for us.

Below we want to look at some details about this matter. First, some basic demographic concepts:

1. Changes in population are a result of two factors: births minus deaths, and in-migration minus out-migration.

2. Generally, affluence lowers birth rates. Affluent places with little or no in-migration will age and decline. (Japan) And because they are aging their birth rates will be even lower. In contrast, poor places (sub-Saharan Africa and many US Native America reservations) have very high birth rates and young populations. It is a serious mistake to uncritically link aging and population loss to a poor economy.

3. Historic national demographic trends are playing out here in the Adirondacks. Below are three examples of what’s known to demographers as the US Population Pyramid. One shows the results of the 2010 Census. The other two are projections for 2020 and 2050. After WWII the U.S. birth rate soared and then declined producing a large swell in the population (the Baby Boom) that moves through time. This demographic swell (the “pig in the python”) can be seen moving up the pyramid as Boomers age. The Boomer swell is followed by several progressively smaller age cohorts (the Baby Bust). However, because the Baby Boomers were numerous, despite their low birth rate, as they began to have children, they produced another uptick in population (the Baby Burp), which is also moving up the pyramid. As the Boom and the Burp move upward they change in relative size as Boomers die off. In 2010, the population of the US (when represented by population pyramid showing the numbers in 5 year age groups with the oldest at the top) shows bulges for 45-65 and their progeny 15-29.

New York’s population pyramid has the same overall shape with one exception. The US the population pyramid shows that age cohorts under 10 begin again to increase. In NYS the most numerous groups are to be found in the age ranges from 45–49 and 50–54 (the Baby Boomers). The next most numerous group (the Burp) is 20-24. Below this every 5-year age cohort has fewer people. The 20-24 age group in NYS has 1,410,935 and the 0-4 has 1,155,822.

What follows from these facts is that other things being equal populations that have little net in-migration and that have had a Baby Boom and Burp will age, and, as the largest age cohorts leave their child-bearing age, such populations will have fewer babies and more deaths. Thus even relatively stable communities, such as the Adirondacks, will tend to lose populations as they age.

4. And other things are not always equal. In the US some poor communities have unusually high birth rates. Even when they are near places that are aging and losing population, they grow and stay young. Rollette County in North Dakota, for example, continues to grow and has a median age of 30 despite being surrounded by rural counties that are losing population and aging. 70% of its citizens are Native Americans. It is much poorer and has much higher unemployment than the surrounding counties. And in-migration can affect different areas differently too. Places that attract senior citizens may grow and age even with high birth rates. Places that attract Hispanics may grow and stay young. Finally, death puts a ceiling on aging. Very old places will not see continued increases in median age simply because elderly people die at higher rates than younger people. Nature enforces an upper limit on median age.

5. Broadly speaking population migrations everywhere show migration from rural areas to urban areas. Is this because that’s where the opportunities are? This needs to be answered cautiously. Many urban areas have higher poverty rates and unemployment rates than rural areas. Typically urban areas have higher per person and household income than rural areas, especially for college graduates, but this is frequently offset by lower cost of living in rural areas. The real advantage that urban areas have over rural areas, especially in attracting college-educated people, is that they have a more diverse job market and more opportunities for people with specialized talents. This advantage of urban areas over rural areas is structural and has almost nothing to do with the overall availability of jobs in rural areas.

Other factors also affect migration. Cultural opportunities and physical attractiveness are important. Of course, very poor job markets will generate out-migration and booming economies will generate immigration, but absent booms and busts other things become more important. It does not follow from the fact that college graduates and others find more opportunity in urban areas that urban areas have more positive indicators on such measures as poverty or unemployment.

Thus the meaning of an aging population is not in the median. It’s in the details. And, minor population losses are less likely tied to economics than to larger demographic trends.

Impact of low birth rates and fertility rates from loss of college-bound young people

Let’s look at some of these details. Because many Census statistics are presented by county level data we will look at Essex County and Hamilton County since they are fully within the Blue Line.

We will start by looking at birth rates.

What Table 1 tells us is that these Adirondack Counties have dramatically fewer births than elsewhere in NYS. This is to be expected of an older population. There are fewer women of child bearing age (15-45). The fertility rate, however, tells us what the birth rate is for women of childbearing age. Here too Essex and Hamilton are low. So one reason why Hamilton County is aging and losing population and Essex County is aging and has begun to lose population is a low birth rate. But, as we will see below, birth rates are not the main story.

What do we know about the extent to which changes in population are a consequence of births and deaths or of more people leaving than arriving? And who is coming and who is going? Consider Table 2.

The top row shows the total population change between the 2000 and 2010 US Census. Included are figures for two additional counties other than Essex and Hamilton to provide some contrast. Lake of the Woods is a Northern Forest county in Minnesota. Pembina is an agricultural county in North Dakota. Both are small and rural. The figures for age cohorts are for females only. We use women because women are the ones who have children, and because using women tends to cancel out the effects of the prison population in Essex County.

Lake of the Woods and Pembina Counties seem like us in that they are small and sparsely populated. But we should also note that, like many rural agricultural counties in the Midwest, Pembina has been losing population for decades – often at double digit rates whereas Essex and Hamilton Counties have not. Pembina’s population peaked in 1900 at nearly 18,000. It is now just over 7,000. In contrast Hamilton gained population until 2000 and Essex until 2010.

What is most noteworthy about these numbers is that, in the four rural counties, but not in NYS or the US, there is a significant drop off in the percentage of women in the 20-24 age cohort which persists for a decade or more followed by a modest uptick.

This very likely shows two things. First, it means that the main story about population in these counties is that children finish high school, go off to college or the military, don’t return, and are not replaced by others in their age groups. We educate our children to leave. They do. We have a youth drain.

The loss of women in these age cohorts very likely also explains both the low birth rate and the low fertility rate of Essex and Hamilton. There are fewer women of childbearing age, hence a lower birth rate. Also among women of childbearing age it is women from 25-34 who are most fertile. But these women are under-represented among women of child bearing age. Hence there is also a lower fertility rate. We not only have a youth drain. We have a baby drain.

One more observation on Table 2: Unlike the Adirondack Counties, Pembina has been shedding population for decades. Shouldn’t it be older and have a higher percentage of seniors, especially in contrast to Hamilton County? A significant factor here may be that Adirondack communities tend to retain or recruit retirees and seniors to a greater extent than Lake of the Woods and Pembina. From 2000 to 2010, Hamilton added 54 people over the age of 65 and Essex added 920. Lake of the Woods lost 49 and Pembina 185. Thus it is likely that it is out-migration of seniors from Lake of the Woods and Pembina that keeps their percentage of seniors on a par with Essex and Hamilton and lowers their median age. Conversely, retention of older people is a factor in driving up the median age of Essex and Hamilton. Perhaps our aging is, in some measure, a virtue.

How much does out-migration versus a low birth rate contribute to aging and population loss? Recent census data suggests that Essex and Hamilton Counties are among the 1/3 of US counties (mostly rural) where deaths now exceed births. Cornell’s PAD program suggests that over 60% of the population loss of Hamilton County is attributable to more deaths than births. But this does not tell the full story. We need to look at migration and ask who is coming, going, staying, and why?

One way to address these questions is to compare selected age cohorts from the 2000 Census with age cohorts from the 2010 Census that are 10 years older. For example we can compare people who were in the 5-9 age group in 2000 to those who were in the 15-19 age group in 2010. Of course changes can be the result of either migration or death, but we can plausibly assume that death is a minor factor until we get to older age groups.

Here are the results for Essex County and Hamilton County that follow age cohorts from the 2000 Census to the 2010 Census, this time using both males and females. See Tables 3 and 4:

The important patterns here can be more clearly shown by combining counties and collapsing age groups. In the latter case we can use four groups: Precollege (0-9 in 2000), College (10-19 in 2000), Mid-Career (20-54 in 2000), and Elderly (55+ in 2000). See Table 5:

There are three things to notice about these tables.

1. The populations of both counties are relatively stable in the pre-college groups and the mid-career groups. In fact there is modest growth. (Whatever deaths occur in these groups are more than offset by modest in-migration.) The modest growth in the pre-college and the mid-career groups are obviously related since it is the mid-career people who will be the parents of these pre-college children.

We should also note that the stability of the pre-college group is probably underestimated by the fact the students are often 17 or 18 when the leave for college or the military. Because the Census groups people into 5-year cohorts some of those who leave for college are classified as pre-college here.

2. There is a dramatic loss of population in the college group. The cohort that became of college age between 2000 and 2010 declined by over 22%. And here the fact that many of those who go to college are under 20 means that this figure underestimates the out-migration.

3. There is also a significant drop in the elderly group. We assume that this results largely from deaths, but out-migration for health reasons may also be a factor. Recall that we are looking at loss of people within an age group as that group ages. We are not looking at changes in the number of people over 65 in 2000 to 2010. As noted both Hamilton and Essex saw an increase in the number of 65 and older residents.

How should we interpret these findings?

The following are important to note.

1. There is no evidence that there is significant out-migration driven by the lack of jobs in Essex and Hamilton County. Mid-career cohorts are stable over time. And, in fact, various social indicators suggest that we do not have a bad economy. Poverty rates and unemployment rates are generally in line with other rural NYS counties and with NYS itself. (Sometime they are better). We do not have economic push-out.*

2. There is evidence of a significant out-migration of young people who leave to attend college or join the military. Often these people do not return and are not replaced. Is this evidence of a poor economy? We think it is instead evidence of an economy that is mismatched to the aspirations and training of college educated people. Advanced technological societies are characterized by a high degree of division of labor and specialization. These jobs are located in urban areas where employers can find the specialized labor they need in adequate numbers. Colleges train people for these kinds of jobs and their graduates migrate to urban areas where these jobs are. Thus there are structural reasons in advanced economies that explain why sparsely populated small rural communities export young people to urban areas even if they are prosperous. In fact, their prosperity may very well exacerbate out-migration of college-aged people. One characteristic of poor rural communities is that there are more drop outs and a lower rate of college attendance. That is not the Adirondack experience.

3. It appears that we do better than many rural communities in retaining or attracting retirees. Nevertheless, very likely there is some force out related likely to health care for advanced aging.

Thoughts about the future

If we wish to stabilize the Adirondack population and increase employment, the crucial question is “Who can we attract?” We are not going to attract large firms that require significant pools of specialized labor. We might attract very small manufacturing firms that do not require specialized labor and whose products have high value-added. But most high value-added products require specialized labor and we don’t have the cheap electricity in most communities or provide easy transportation. If we want to attract the college-educated (and others of course) there are three groups to emphasize: retirees, telecommuters, and commuters. We might also seek to attract firms who need few unspecialized employees and who produce products or provide services that have high enough value-added to compensate for higher transportation cost. (Our track record here is not good.) And we might look to attract firms that rely on local materials. And, of course, we must nurture our tourist industry.

Finally, we need to keep who we have. Often the college educated work in government jobs – education for example. And governments are among the largest Adirondack employers. Austerity may be something government has forced upon it at this moment in history, but for Adirondack communities it is the enemy of population stability.

(We might also seek to use Hispanics instead of foreign students for summer labor and hope they stay, but that is a topic for another day.)

What is important to emphasize is that very many of the people (and their businesses) we can attract (or keep) will be people who can live where they want or who at least have considerable flexibility as to where they live. Thus what we need to think about and invest in is quality of life. A recent USDA study focused on out-migration in small rural counties. The authors found that in high poverty counties economic factors played a significant role in out-migration. But many reasonably prosperous places (Essex and Hamilton are reasonably prosperous by their definition) also had out-migration in excess of 10% per decade. What made the difference between relatively prosperous counties that lost significant population and those that did not was quality of life. The study concludes:

“Most high net outmigration counties, however, are relatively prosperous, with low unemployment rates, low high school dropout rates, and average household incomes. For these counties, low population density and less appealing landscapes distinguish them from other non-metro counties. Both types of outmigration counties stand out on two measures, indicating that quality of-life factors inhibit in-migration: a lack of retirees moving in and local manufacturers citing the area’s unattractiveness as a problem in recruiting managers and professionals.”

Among the factors that were counted as enhancing quality of life were scenery, access to outdoor recreation, and public land. That low population density is perceived as detracting from quality of life has to do with the ability of a community to support restaurants, cultural events, good schools, and the like.

We are becoming a society in which an increasing percentage of the population can live where they want. Retirees and telecommuters are obvious example. Some people are also able to move established small businesses where they want them. If we want to reclaim college-educated people we need to look to creating communities where people with this kind of flexibility want to live. This will be an older population. Retirees obviously will be old, but telecommuters are likely to be people who have established careers and earned the flexibility to work where they want to live. These are likely to be people who have already established families as well as successful careers and who want to live, work, and raise their families in an attractive setting.

The myth that the Adirondacks is losing population due to its economy has two costs. The first is that those who promote it seek to roll back one of the resources that research has shown is important to the long-term stabilization of the populations of rural areas – well protected, accessible public land. Second, this myth implicitly emphasizes reclaiming jobs in areas such as logging, mining and construction. But the decline in logging and mining jobs has far more to do with mechanization and foreign competition than with the Adirondack Park. In the case of mining, depletion of resources is also a factor. And a focus on the construction of vacation houses is unsustainable and will ultimately detract from the quality of life. To look to expand employment in these places is to address the wrong questions and to find implausible answers. It is also to suggest to most of our children that they should seek their futures in blue collar jobs.

The hard questions we need to ask do not concern population size and aging. They concern quality of life. How do we make our communities attractive places to live for people who can live wherever the please? How big or small these communities ought to be determined by the scale necessary to sustain restaurants, cultural events, good schools, arts centers and movie theatres. And they should not be so big as to generate the factors about urban life that people flee. They need to maintain a small-town feel surrounded by wild lands. Above all, they should not be inconsistent with maintaining well protected, accessible public land.

Perpetuation of this myth that environmental controls are creating a bad economy and are driving out Park residents, such as found in the overhyped APRAP report’s focus on aging or in the commentary of local newspaper editors, represents an attempt to turn back the clock and restore a world that is not coming back. We need a vision for the future.

This article was written and researched by Ken Strike. Ken lives in Thendara, is a Board member of Protect the Adirondacks, and is a professor emeritus from Cornell University.

* There are two anomalies about Essex County that may affect these results. There are 2000 male prisoners in Essex. And there is NCCC. We suspect that these do not significantly alter the overall patterns in Table 5. Prisoners are disproportionately young. While they add to the total population, and may explain some differences when we look at 5 year cohorts, we suspect they do not have much effect on the grouped cohorts. They in-migrate and out-migrate within the mid-career group. They are a wash. Most NCCC students are local and live at home. NCCC, which does not offer a bachelors degree, may defer out-migration for a couple of years thus decreasing out-migration for the 2000 15-19 year old group and increasing out-migration for the 20-24 year old group. The few out of county students may slightly increase in-migration of the 15-19 year old 2000 group. But we do not think these anomalies change the overall pattern, and we think this is conformed, at least in the case of prisoners, by Table 2 which looks only at women.)

This month the Center for Biological Diversity notified the US Fish & Wildlife Service of its intent to sue for protection for the Bicknell’s thrush (Catharus bicknelli) under the federal Endangered Species Act. The Bicknell’s thrush uses the high elevation forests of the northeast as its breeding habitat.

Photo by T.B. Ryder, USFWS.

This interview was also published in the Adirondack Almanack.

Bauer: What is the current state of Bicknell’s thrush in the northeast US?

Matteson: The Bicknell’s thrush is endemic to the Northeast and eastern Canada. It nests nowhere else in the world. It is considered to be one of the most vulnerable songbirds in North America, because of its limited and fragmented habitat, its relatively low numbers, and the numerous threats it faces, most prominent of which is climate change. Annual declines of 7-19 percent have been documented in recent years, in different parts of the thrush’s range. Shifting climatic regimes are probably already responsible for the disappearance of the species from more marginal parts of its range, such as the Berkshires, and some mountaintops in the Catskills.

What would protection under the endangered species act mean for the Bicknell’s thrush?

With endangered species listing, the thrush would gain powerful federal protections from harm, including not only direct killing or harassment, but also harm to its habitat. The government would develop a recovery plan for the species. Critical habitat would be designated and protected. Likely more money would be available for research and conservation measures for the species. Federal actions that might harm the species would be subject to review via a consultation process with the US Fish & Wildlife Service.

Why do you think that the US Fish & Wildlife Service is dragging its feet on the question of Bicknell’s thrush protection in the northeast?

I don’t know the answer for sure, but I’m aware that several forces are at work. First, from a big picture perspective, our society, and our government by extension, does not generally prioritize protecting other species and their habitats — if we truly did, there wouldn’t be so many species in trouble. As a reflection of our priorities and who holds power in our society, programs like endangered species protection are always underfunded. So, the US Fish & Wildlife Service will say, with regard to a late petition, that they don’t have the resources and staff to process it. They will often blame groups like the Center for filing listing petitions that they then claim they can’t keep up with.

However, what is actually happening is that we are compelling them to follow the law and protect species, which is their job, but all too often falls between the cracks unless there is outside intervention. We need to straighten out our priorities as a society and allocate more government resources to actions that protect a healthy environment for all, and not use our tax dollars for actions that are a direct threat to the well being of our environment, including climate.

The other possibility is that listing a species is usually controversial and federal agencies avoid controversy like the plague. The Bicknell’s thrush is threatened first and foremost by climate change, and what issue could be bigger and more contentious than that? In addition, the thrush is at risk from acid deposition, mercury accumulation, and industrial development of mountaintops. For the US Fish & Wildlife Service to genuinely take on those threats will mean confronting big economic and political interests. That’s not very appealing to most government employees and definitely not to political appointees.

Where else in the US has the Center for Biological Diversity been successful in getting species list under the Endangered Species Act?

We’ve gotten species listed in every state and territory. There has been a strong focus on the western states including Hawaii and Alaska, but quite a few in the East as well. We’re somewhere around 400 species total.

Where has the Center for Biological Diversity tried and failed to get a species listed?

There have been quite a few species that we have petitioned for, but have not yet been listed. Many have waited years in a kind of purgatory, with no action and no decision one way or the other from the federal government. We have filed Endangered Species Act lawsuits, like the one for the Bicknell’s thrush, to compel the government to follow legally required schedules for responses to petitions. Two years ago, we gained a major, historic settlement with the US Fish & Wildlife Service to start working through the backlog of hundreds of species that had been petitioned, but where no decision had yet been reached for them.

We have had species turned down for listing. A recent example is the dunes sagebrush lizard, which lives in New Mexico and is threatened by oil and gas drilling and livestock grazing. Why petitions are turned down, is complicated. Some of the reasons are valid, others not. The review process for a petition can spur additional private and federal research (that probably wouldn’t have happened otherwise) and sometimes the result is a taxonomic update that determines the taxon is not a valid species. Sometimes a review process results in new populations found and a determination that the species is less threatened than previously known. Sometimes the agency bows to political pressure and refuses to list even though the species is endangered. Sometimes landowner’s agree to protect the species, removing the threat of extinction.

Without Endangered Species Act protection, what do you see as the future viability of the Bicknell’s thrush?

Much depends on whether climate change is effectively addressed by our nation, and by the world. If climate change were not an issue, other threats would still be problematic (such as deforestation in the bird’s wintering ground), but they are relatively easier to deal with. It is important to note that right now, the Obama administration has a policy that blocks any action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions — the primary cause of climate change — under the Endangered Species Act. This was an illegal rule first put in place under the Bush administration for the polar bear. Unfortunately, the Obama administration chose to reinstate this destructive policy, which the Center continues to fight. Without the ability to address climate change as the leading threat to species like the polar bear, Bicknell’s thrush, and many others, the protective power of the Endangered Species Act for these species is greatly diminished. Of course, that was the intention behind the Bush rule, now Obama’s rule. Whether people care a whit about the thrush or not, however, one would hope they care about climate change, which threatens not just Arctic creatures, or high-elevation wildlife, but humanity as well. If the thrush disappears due to climate change, it will be very bad news for us.

If the Center for Biological Diversity is successful in gaining Endangered Species Act protections for the Bicknell’s thrush what do you foresee for the bird’s future in the Northeast?

The listing of the thrush under the Endangered Species Act will be an important first step. However, the full potential of listing will not be realized without getting back the ability to use the Endangered Species Act to address greenhouse gas emissions, or otherwise finding a way for our country to confront our collective addiction to growth and fossil fuel energy. Every significant step we can take toward that is going to increase the chances the thrush will be around, and thriving, a hundred years from now.

Mollie Matteson is a wildlife biologist and advocate. Since 2007, she has worked for the Center for Biological Diversity out of its Richmond, Vermont office, focusing on imperiled species and the habitats they need to survive and thrive in the Northeast. She was raised in southern Vermont, spent 20 years wandering wild western places and working on environmental issues in Montana and Oregon, before returning to the Northern Appalachian region. The Adirondack Park is one of her favorite places on Earth.