Jay Mountain in the NY Times

The Paper of Record goes after Cuomo. Any opinions on the land swap?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/08/opinion/an-adirondack-wilderness-imperiled.html

Been following this story.  Interested to hear what ScottyJack thinks.

Why is that article only states “are equal to or greater than the value” and not  the swap is 200 acres for 1500


The Adirondack Council provided the following descriptions of the parcels NYCO is expected to acquire for the state in exchange for passage of the amendment and proposed enabling legislation:

Hardwood Hill & Arnold Mountain

These include the 185-acre Hardwood Hill parcel and the 102-acre Arnold Mountain parcel. The 185 acre Hardwood Hill parcel lies on the north edge of the Jay Mountain Wilderness.  Hardwood Hill is quite visible from the hamlet of Jay.  It would become part of the Jay Mountain Wilderness. A stream flows out of the wilderness area through the pass to the East Branch of the AuSable River a few miles to the west. The East Branch of the AuSable River flows north from Jay to the hamlet of AuSable Forks where it meets the West Branch of the AuSable and flows into Lake Champlain.

Spruce Mill Brook

NYCO also has pledged acquire a 260-acre parcel that contains nearly two miles of the Spruce Mill Brook, which will become available for fishing. The property also links the Tom’s Hill and Derby Brook parcels.

Tom’s Hill

The 360-acre Toms Hill tract sits at the junction of the Jay Mountain and Hurricane Mountain wilderness areas. The parcel is bisected by a seasonal town road, the Jay Mountain Road, which separates the two wilderness areas and leads from the Town of Lewis to the Town of Jay.  This road is really rough and virtually useless for cars, but is good for cross country skiing, hiking, access for hunting, and has been used recently for mountain bike racing.  The property contains a mile of the Spruce Mill Brook, which flows into the Boquet River.  Brook trout appear to be self-sustaining.  Salmon are being stocked by DEC.  Moose have been seen in the neighborhood.

Derby Brook

The 360-acre Derby Brook parcel is bordered by Wells Hill road to the south, Derby Brook to the North and the Jay Wilderness Area to the west. Derby Brook runs from west to east for more than a mile through the property, dropping about 380 feet in elevation.  This brook runs into Spruce Mill Brook a few miles to the east and eventually into Lake Champlain.  This water also has brook trout, although this portion of the river is flat-water, so it might not be the best fishing.  The brook has gentler slopes where it flows through NYCO property. Running parallel and south of Derby Brook is an old log road that provides easy access to the Jay Mountain Wilderness on the east side of the range.

Deerhead

This is the only one not adjacent to the Jay Mountain or Hurricane Mountain wilderness areas.  It would instead be added to the Taylor Pond Wild Forest, which it abuts.  The Deerhead Parcel is about 300 acres made up of several parcels that would be consolidated into one.   It is bordered on the east by NYS Rte. 9 for about a mile, on the west by Trout Pond Road (.7 miles), and the south by a private land owner (less than half a mile).  On the north, it is bounded by the Burnt Pond Tract and the Taylor Pond Wild Forest.  The North Branch of the Boquet River flows along the western property line, parallel to the Trout Pond Road. Brook trout and wetlands are the most attractive conservation features.
- See more at: http://www.adirondackalmanack.com/2013/06/forest-preserve-advocates-differ-on-mine-land-exchange.html#sthash.X6aPcIxF.dpuf

skimore wrote

Why is that article only states “are equal to or greater than the value” and not  the swap is 200 acres for 1500

Because that would have muddied the point the author was trying to fabricate.

Very little to say about this other than I have the upmost respect for the Zahniser family but the people of the state have spoken through the rigorous process that is in place to amend our NYS Constitution.  Now it is time to implement the will of the people.

If you have new arguments that weren't already made in this thread than make them, otherwise we have been there, done that.

http://http://forum.nyskiblog.com/Gore-Mountain-Adirondack-Express-Replacement-td4025097i200.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/08/opinion/an-adirondack-wilderness-imperiled.html

Here's the DEC map with details of the swap.



Does anyone know how impacted the NYCO land adjacent to the 200 acres plot is?

ScottyJack wrote

Very little to say about this other than I have the upmost respect for the Zahniser family but the people of the state have spoken through the rigorous process that is in place to amend our NYS Constitution.  Now it is time to implement the will of the people.

Many many moons ago I met the Zahniser Family. My Grandparents would call them "Summer People", their summer house was at the end of Edwards Hill Rd. in Bakersmills, same road my Grandparents lived on. As kids we'd go up and have a real hoot. Nice people for sure SJ.

ScottyJack wrote

Very little to say about this other than I have the upmost respect for the Zahniser family

+1 on the Zahnisers.

On the surface the land swap seemed like a good deal, but IMO it sets a very bad precedent.

The jobs that the land swap allegedly "save" can still be lost at a moment's notice if NYCO closes its Adirondack mine because it's cheaper to extract Wollastonite in Mexico (or elsewhere in the world).  Further, NYCO didn't really "need" the 200 acres of Forest Preserve - they already have plenty of reserves at the sites they currently mine or are developing.  And the 1500 acres that will be added to the Forest Preserve was under no threat - there was no need to add it to the Forest Preserve, it wasn't even on NY's list of priority acquisitions.

The Adirondack Mountain Club and Adirondack Council both suffered a significant amount of backlash for their support of the land swap. I hope they come out on the right side of the next proposed land swap (and you know there will eventually be another).

Harvey wrote

Does anyone know how impacted the NYCO land adjacent to the 200 acres plot is?

Well, there's a strip mine there, so I'd say it's pretty heavily impacted.

We debated this 5 months ago and the facts haven't changed. The state did not loose 200 acres, they get it back. Jeff, your posts are reasoned and well thought out, I respect that - but you neglected to mention this fact. This is a big gain for the forest preserve and the ADK recognized it and I completely support their decision.

If, as you state, the economic viability of the mine is doubtful then they get the land back without it being mined. They may take the old growth timber but that will return in the long run. The time frame for these decisions is not decades, it's centuries.

Adk Jeff wrote

ScottyJack wrote

Very little to say about this other than I have the upmost respect for the Zahniser family

+1 on the Zahnisers.

On the surface the land swap seemed like a good deal, but IMO it sets a very bad precedent.

The jobs that the land swap allegedly "save" can still be lost at a moment's notice if NYCO closes its Adirondack mine because it's cheaper to extract Wollastonite in Mexico (or elsewhere in the world).  

there is very few places elsewhere in the world to mine wollastonite.  pretty significant for the Adirondacks.  

 

Voting results by county:

http://www.elections.ny.gov/NYSBOE/elections/2013/proposals/2013GeneralElection-Prop5.pdf

While the total vote was close very few counties went against the swap.

The most significant counties are Essex and Lewis where the impact is and they supported it.  Personally I'd rather not see a big open pit mine here but home rule should matter more than what residents of Staten Island think about what is going on in Jay.

PeeTex wrote

The state did not lose 200 acres, they get it back.

Yes, I know we get it back after it’s been remediated.  In fact Lot 8 was likely impacted by both logging and forest fires 100+ years ago.  It’s old growth, but not virgin.  A hundred years after NYCO’s done, it will be presumably be old growth again (assuming global warming, nuclear devastation and ebola don’t bring about a premature end to the world as we know it).

My objection is that the land swap undermines Article XIV, the “Forever Wild clause” of the State Constitution:

“The lands of the state, now owned or hereafter acquired, constituting the forest preserve as now fixed by law, shall be forever kept as wild forest lands. They shall not be leased, sold or exchanged, or be taken by any corporation, public or private, nor shall the timber thereon be sold, removed or destroyed.”

To me, Article XIV is pretty black and white when it comes to selling (or swapping) Forest Preserve lands for commercial interests.  While there have been a handful of legitimate amendments approved by voters over the years, the NYCO amendment pushes the envelope.  It’s a slippery slope.  Article XIV is such an important, fundamental part of what makes the Adirondacks the east’s greatest wilderness, it should only be amended under very careful consideration with high standards.  To me, the justifications for the NYCO swap (jobs, and 2-for-15 is a good deal) don’t meet those standards.

PeeTex wrote

We debated this 5 months ago and the facts haven't changed.

I honestly don’t remember that.  I see you posted the link above, but the link goes back to the AEII thread.  For some reason all I can remember right now about this forum is PowderAss.

ScottyJack wrote

there is very few places elsewhere in the world to mine wollastonite.  pretty significant for the Adirondacks.

Actually the wollastonite reserves in the Adirondacks are dwarfed by the reserves in Mexico, China and India.  NYCO already has a Mexican mine that it calls “the world’s largest.”  Pete Nelson addresses all this in a piece he wrote for Adirondack Almanack a few months ago:  NYCO Commentary: How Much Wollastonite Is There?

Jeff,
That thread deteriorated in MikeK ranting about the swap, you just have to read through it to find the arguments, basically same old same old.

Understand your concerns about the slippery slope, and we could see some other attempts at this, but it may also give the state some leeway to make some really good trades.

PeeTex wrote

Jeff,
That thread deteriorated in MikeK ranting about the swap, you just have to read through it to find the arguments, basically same old same old.

Now I see it.  Whew, that thread needed some moderating.

I see Mikey was at least barking up the right tree, though he certainly didn't argue the point as succinctly, eloquently or effectively as me

Adk Jeff wrote

Now I see it.  Whew, that thread needed some moderating.

Jeff, moderating! I'm surprised. This is the NEW YORK ski blog:
"Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

We take anybody...
 

Agree w Adk Jeff, bad precedent being set.

But its already done...the people have voted.   Isn't that fair?