Dave Channon — Sep 19 2007 09:57 AM

You sound reasonable, but saving 1200 acres of trees is simply not enough. The current proposal is just about as big as the original plan. It is crammed into a smaller footprint west of Belleayre mountain, but the impacts will be just as devastating on the people who live here, and the secondary growth will destroy the Catskills environment. The residents are being treated as expendable collateral damage in the huge development plan. People here are strongly opposed to anything so big, and strongly in favor of locally-owned mid-sized hotels, inns, motels, B&Bs and restaurants. Spitzer and the NRDC have sold us out and are using strong arm tactics to help the developer. Over $60 million in taxpayer funded perks, including buying back the 1200 acres at ten times the current value. The New York Chapter of Trout Unlimited is in the process of removing their president for signing on to this awful sell-out to development. To make matters worse, the developer's local Emerson Hotel is being sued by employees for sexual harassment, like being suggested to have sex with customers. Please visit www.catskillheritage.org to learn what's really going on at ground zero of the proposed Belleayre resort.

Dave Channon — Sep 19 2007 10:47 AM

Please remind your readers that all the local organizations, the Catskill Heritage Alliance, The Friends of Catskill Park, and The Pine Hill Water Coalition, Residents of the Highmount area, other local ski resorts,and the Sierra Club remain strongly opposed. Implying that all the involved organizations are in favor is a huge, disingenuous disservice to the people of the region and your readers. And Sullivan County is not the "center of the Catskills", Shandaken is. Sullivan county is known for large, bankrupt resorts. The same kind of "super-size" dinosaur that Governor Spitzer, your organization and Dean Gitter is thrusting on us.

Eric Goldstein, NRDC — Sep 21 2007 07:19 PM

Eric Goldstein here. I'm jumping in since I've been deeply involved with John and others on our Catskills work here at NRDC.

Thank you, Dave, for sharing your views and for your passion about the Belleayre project.

In the 37 years of NRDC's existence, we have filed thousands of cases and administrative proceedings on behalf of the environment. We have won many of these legal contests outright and have settled many others with generally favorable outcomes.

Determining when to accept a proposed settlement is never easy and requires a weighing of many factors.

As part of the NRDC team of lawyers and scientists involved in the Belleayre fight, I'm convinced that NRDC made the right move in signing onto the recent settlement agreement.

For one thing, this settlement advances our shared goal for conservation in the Catskills. The agreement provides for more than 1,200 acres of forested land now owned by the developer to be acquired by the Trust for Public Land and eventually incorporated into the State's Catskill Forest Preserve and protected as "forever wild." This land would connect to the Big Indian Wilderness and would add to the largest contiguous piece of wilderness land in the historic Catskill Park. (The agreement also provides that the City of New York would acquire a conservation easement on another 200 acres of land owned by the developer on the western side of the Belleayre Ski Center.)

Another great outcome from the settlement agreement is watershed protection. There would be no development whatsoever on the developers' lands that drain into the Esopus Creek and Ashokan Reservoir. As I'm sure you know, this reservoir system provides drinking water to 9 million downstate New Yorkers -- half the state's population. And the Esopus and Ashokan have been facing serious turbidity problems. So safeguarding this vulnerable reservoir system is a major plus.

In terms of the proposed development on the parcel to the west of Belleayre, there are quite a few provisions that would limit pollution run-off from entering world-class trout streams and the city's Pepacton reservoir. No individual lodging units would be built on slopes greater than 20%. The one golf course that remains in this project would be completely redesigned to avoid watercourses, preserve existing vegetation and operate as organic -- with the goal of using no pesticides or fertilizers. Sewage from this lower-build alternative project would not be treated or disposed of on site, but would instead go to New York City's under-utilized Pine Hill treatment plant -- a state-of-the-art facility that employs some of the most advanced micro-filtration treatment available anywhere in the country.

The settlement, although not perfect, also advances the concept of "smart growth." The smaller project would be located on the western portion of the development site, adjacent to the Belleayre Ski Center, which is designated as an "Intensive Use" area. To a much greater degree than the original project, the new resort would make use of existing roadways and existing resources. Most of the lodging units would be clustered together to minimize their environmental impact. Of the original 1,942 acres owned by the developer, 86% of this land would remain undisturbed. And the smaller project would set a new standard for energy efficiency -- all buildings would be designed to meet the U.S. Green Building Council's benchmarks.

I share your concern about secondary growth as a consequence of any new development in the Catskills. That's why I'm pleased that the Belleayre settlement has provisions designed to address this problem. The State is committing to funding a new Central Catskills Mountains Smart Growth Program. There would also be additional resources for improved public transportation in the area. And a new process would be initiated to get local communities and citizens working together to get the Route 28 corridor designated as a "Scenic By-Way" -- another tool that can help beautify the corridor and encourage sensible land use choices along the main roadway into Belleayre. NRDC would monitor these projects very closely and not hesitate to take additional action to combat haphazard development threats throughout the corridor.

Yes, Dave, there are some aspects of the new, smaller project that we too wish could be different.

But in considering any proposed settlement, we have to take a look at the alternative if we didn't reach a negotiated agreement. That means assessing whether we could do better if we continued to oppose the developer in the state adjudicatory process. Our legal and scientific team gave this very serious consideration. And we concluded that there were many advantages to the settlement that we could not secure through the adjudication process. There was also a real risk that continuing the adjudication could lead to an even larger project overall, and certainly one that would be less sensitive to ecological concerns than the current agreement.

As I said, deciding when to settle a case involves tough choices. But in this situation, I take heart in know that in addition having the support of Congressman Maurice Hinchey, the Belleayre settlement was also signed by six other groups with long histories of environmental protection in New York State and in the Catskills -- the Catskill Center for Conservation and Development, the New York Public Interest Research Group, Theodore Gordon Flyfishers, Trout Unlimited and the Zen Environmental Studies Institute.

Finally, the settlement agreement provides for the preparation of a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement and for public comment and hearing before the settlement can move forward. (The environmental groups that signed the agreement insisted upon that.) The agreement also requires that the developer comply with all other applicable provisions of state and federal environmental law. NRDC will be participating in this review process and we know you'll be there too -- representing your viewpoint. That is as it should be.

At the end of the day, you may still disagree with NRDC's decision to sign onto the Belleayre settlement. But I hope that we will find a way to continue to work together in the future both in the Belleayre area and throughout the Catskills -- protecting this magnificent region for future generations.

Mark Loete — Sep 25 2007 01:02 PM

Eric and John,
I happen to be a member of the executive board of our local Ashokan-Pepacton Watershed Chapter of Trout Unlimited. I was one of the TU people you spoke with in the meeting at the Boiceville Inn on Sept 4, Eric. But I am writing as a concerned citizen of Chichester, NY, one of the Shandaken hamlets near the proposed Belleayre Resort. Eric, Mark Gerstman, and Tom Alworth all deserve our thanks for doing some heavy lifting in fighting this project. Everything you say in the above post is true, Eric. But you conveniently forgot to mention the 948 lb. gorilla in the living room. 948 is the number of BEDROOMS allowed in this new agreement. That's a 948 bed instant suburban development plunked down in the middle of a little mountain town with a population of less than 2,900. Your negotiating team wasted no time in taking credit for forging a plan that "can be used as a model nationwide to ensure environmentally responsible and economically sustainable growth". Now that this "Agreement In Principle" has finally seen the light of day, people are asking the inevitable question: "How can a project that inundates, buries, and completely overwhelmes the host community it is located in be called environmentally responsible and economically sustainable?" Let's take traffic impact alone. The governor crowed about the 1800 construction jobs being created. OK, not every crew will work every day. Let's say conservatively the number of daily construction commuters will be 1,200. Does anyone reading this seriously think a windy two lane, mountain "scenic byway", funneling this traffic onto a country lane, can handle this volume?

Another point of contention that has us all scratching our heads is your incredibly rude, cavalier attitude toward the local groups you stood shoulder to shoulder with. This agreement was ratified by one TU person only, State Chairman Ron Urban, after he was strong-armed by the governor, Mayor Bloomberg, Judith Enck, etc, and, by Ron's own admission, was given 20 minutes to digest and understand this 23 page document, then render a decision about nothing less than the future of the Catskill Mountains. Not a single member of the local TU leadership was consulted, or even informed, of this important decision. Trout Unlimited is widely recognized as one of the most effective conservation groups in the history of the movement, and many of us have worked tirelessly for years to build our integrity withinin this historic community. Our local leadership is unanimously opposed to the new agreement as written. We are the ones cringing every time you mention TU as a signatory, because, in marginalizing the local membership the way you did, Eric, you blew all that hard work and credibility right out the window. Dave Channon was right. Your heavy-handed tactics and Governor Spitzer's bullying have indeed created a crisis of leadership in Trout Unlimited than is extending all the way to "National". Speaking plainly, you knee-capped your best friend. Thanks, pal.

Yes, there are provisions in this agreement that can be fairly touted as a "victory". Governor Spitzer was in trouble. He got his needed photo op and is moving on. Apparently, Eric, you are too. What you left on the table is an ugly, way oversized theme park that is in no way appropriate to the environment it is situated in - an environment the New York Times called the most environmentally sensitive land in the entire state. It will be left to us most affected by this mess to clean it up with the help of new negotiating partners. The world has enough theme parks. We don't have nearly enough wild places. We thought you guys understood that.

Mark Loete
Chichester, NY
September 25 2007

Matthew Frisch — Sep 27 2007 10:31 PM

With all due respect, the agreement signed by NRDC is a total sell-out of the environment. The developer did not significantly reduce the size of the planned developpment- he just concentrated into a smaller area where it is that much more overpowering and the damage to the environment that much more concentrated. You have helped give the go ahead to the developer to build 629 units including approx. 400 hotel rooms, condominiums and dozens of detached houses. It will be the largest population center between Woodstock and Delhi, built on the side of a mountain in the heart of the supposedly forever-wild Catskill Park. Instead of draining into the Esopus, it will drain into the East Branch of the Delaware and ultimately into the Pepacton Reservoir. The development calls for 19 houses at the top of the mountain above 3000'. Does that sound like something you should be proud of helping to negotiate? How will the thousands of people needed to sustain this massive development get to their energy star houses 130+ miles from NYC- by car, of course. How do you square that with your efforts to curb greenhouse gases? Did anyone ask the local community how they feel about having a resort city dropped on their heads? No- the negotiations were held in secret under a gag order. I wonder why. This development is a win-win- for the developer and his financial backers and a total loss for the environment and the local communities. We can only wonder what the Governor and the so called "environmental" organizations are getting out of this agreement. The developer had accumulated a lot of land but what was he going to do with it if the DEC, DEP and you had simply said, "no." He would have eventually sold it to the state. There was no gun to your heads to sign on to this shameful agreement. When my NRDC renewal comes in the mail, it's going right in the recycling bin.
Matt Frisch
Bayside, NY and Kelly Rd., Arkville, NY

Freddi Dunleavey — Sep 28 2007 08:24 AM

"Smart" development? What is your definition of "smart"?

The original development plan has been fought by the opposition for over seven years because it was too big and too damaging to the environment and many felt it was based on plain old greed.

The initial plan would have divided the destruction of our fragile mountain environment with one resort on the eastern Ashokan basin side of Belleayre Ski Center and the Wild Acres resort on the western side of BSC. This new "smart" plan simply shoves it all onto the western side of Highmount/Bellearye Mountains and puts two mega-resorts (which may or may not be viable) within 1.5 miles of each other on a narrow, winding mountain road, County Rt. 49A.

Keeping that 948 lb. gorilla company is a white elephant, just waiting for the day that the "hospitality market climate" (a strange term in the "Agreement in Principle") demands gambling! Why? Because who knows if the weather will continue to cooperate with the ski industry!

Hasn't anyone noticed that there is less and less snow at Belleayre Ski Center each year and that the temperatures last winter didn't get cold enough until late December when the ski season, for all intents and purposes, has passed it's peak ticket sales?

Now there's talk of a ski run down to Fleischmann's village...last time I looked, State Rt. 28 is between Bellayre Ski Center and that village. Will the developer be building a tunnel under 28 to ski below the road or a bridge to go over it. Now that would be really "smart".

Oh, and don't forget the eventual effect on the Delaware/Pepacton watershed area which now provides NYC with their unfiltered drinking water. The "smart" move in the future to clean up the polluction will have to be a multi-billion dollar filtration system, just like the Croton watershed.

John and Eric, all of us who love the Highmount/Belleayre area and appreciate the natural beauty of these mountains realize you sold us out. I hope you're young enough to be around in future years to explain to the upcoming generations how the ruination of our Catskill "Forever Wild" Park came about with your help.

Labe Richman — Sep 28 2007 12:45 PM

This development is way too big and there is no proven demand. It will denude a huge amount of forest in a rural area with almost no present development. Pinehill,an already established town, would have been a much better area. It will challenge the water supply and it will cause flooding. Belleayre is a low key family mountain. This resort does not fit the area at all. People are still going to go to Vermont which has much better skiing and much more snow. The new development should be scaled down dramatically or canned.

Labe Richman

Jennifer Benusis — Sep 28 2007 05:26 PM

I now realize that NRDC is just a tool in the political machine.
You cloak yourselves to have all the trappings of an environmentally-conscious group, but then allow non-environmental corporations to have their way so that they can say “we have the NRDC on our side”; the deal is struck, and the environment loses! When I think about all the NRDC petitions that I have signed in the past … for bears and wolves etc … I wonder if, in the end, I actually assisted big corporations (through NRDC) to triumph over local people like me, small groups who have been, and will continue to be, a grass roots movement to fight and to win for the disappearing environment. Those organizations that signed the Governor’s agreement gave up their right to seek judicial review of these issues in the future. You work for Gitter now.

I see that you admit that you “just ended a seven-year standoff”.
Why didn’t your group refuse to sign and let us be the judges of what is best for us?

I am saddened that I have found NRDC to be nothing but a sheep in wolves’ clothing. Please consider our request to take back your signature and stop peppering the media with propaganda that frame the debate that “we won”, when only Gitter won; the environment is definitely not a winner.

How can you want to add more trail heads and more recreation?
According to ADK in their Sept/Oct 2007 issue approximately 500,000 people visit the Forest Preserve a year; “that is over 5 times the use of the Adirondaks’ High Peaks Wilderness Area, which is two-thirds the size of the entire Catskill Forest Preserve and has almost the same mileage of marked foot trails as the Catskills Preserve.” And the ADK is thinking about limiting hiking, in certain areas, because it is so crowded! In the Catskills “there are approximately 300 miles of designating hiking trails” in 287,000 acres of “forever wild” forest preserve. Why do we need more?

People live here for the pristine beauty that has been maintained because of our being the holders of New York City’s water. I want to bring to your special attention the true facts, which may lead you to reconsider the position of NRDC. “Victory attitude” in the media, or retract the signing of the document.

Some of the obvious problems with the resort are:

Steep Slopes: The project still calls for construction on steep slopes—steeper than 20%. This poses the threat of extensive run-off and flooding.

High elevation buildings: The project includes construction of 19 units at elevations above 3000 feet. This building at high elevations was never discussed in the original environmental studies. This is typical of Gitter, who the NRDC has now agreed to work for. Such construction, requiring extensive rock-blasting and original growth tree-clearing will irrevocably and adversely alter the natural beauty of the mountain and would set a dangerous precedent for future development in the Catskill Park. At the same time, the blasting and clearing would endanger existing homes in the area. And it will be visible for miles around.

Organic Golf course; only 5 years: This agreement states that the golf course has to be organic but only for five years, after which time, it is at Gitter’s discretion whether it will remain organic, depending on whether it is financially viable. Of course, we all know what he will say in five years (even during negotiations earlier this year, he claimed the resort would be “financially catastrophic”….). And then the NYC water supply, unfiltered, will be full of chemicals right from the eighteen-hole golf course. Do New York City residents know this?!

We, the local people, are being asked to pay the price of this project twice. We are paying first in the incentives and sweeteners being offered to Gitter by the State, with our taxes. We will pay again in higher property taxes to support an expanded infrastructure. Moreover, developments of this scale—all-inclusive, self-contained resorts that are small cities unto themselves—never benefit the local economy as visitors buy all that they need on site.

Finally, we believe that our political leaders have missed an opportunity here to set an example of the kind of smart, sustainable development adjacent to public land that could be a model for the nation. We’re sorry they feel that this is a smart idea.

On behalf of the residents of the hamlets and villages most affected by the proposed development—and on behalf of all of us who cherish the unique natural treasures of our region—Please stop your rhetoric and PR of “winning” to make your organization sound victorious and successful. If you will not take back your signature, please just be quiet and stop ‘framing’ the fight and confusing matters.

WE did not win, the environment did not win.
Jennifer Benusis

LEE PARKER — Sep 28 2007 05:59 PM

I have owned a small parcel and a tiny vacation house off Todd Mt. Road for 50 years. I am terrified of the consequences of this totally out of scale proposal. Why do we need a mega development drilled into these beautiful woods and mountains? How can anyone agree with the destruction of the natural nabitats of not only wildlife, but the homeowners who treasure the serenity, the air quality, the unfettered, quiet environment which is so precious. It is something which needs to be protected, not invaded. Please do not let this thing happen.

Judith Wyman — Sep 29 2007 01:04 PM

The following is a partial list of why Friends of Catskill Park did not sign the Agreement in Principle supporting the reconfigured Belleayre Resort. We see this area within the Catskill Park and Forest Preserve as one of rare and unique natural beauty, a remarkable resource of statewide significance, and believe it should be preserved for future generations to appreciate, learn from, and enjoy. Right now the area is growing organically. As we all know, 911 marked the beginning of a mass migration from urban to rural areas, and the central Catskills area has become a popular destination. So far, the area has been able to integrate that growth, but the building of the Belleayre Resort would jump the growth meter into the red. It would bring with it all the detriments of rapid growth such as higher taxes, destabilized communities, heavily-trafficked roads, a population influx, an exacerbation of the existing affordable housing crisis, environmental degradation and more. We could have supported a significantly smaller project that would integrate with, rather than overwhelm, the area, but we cannot support what is on the table now.

The modified proposal is still way oversized. It includes 370 hotel rooms and suites, 259 two- and three-bedroom time shares, an 18-hole golf course, spas, conference centers, restaurants, bars, clubhouses and more. It would effectively be a town on the mountain much larger than any of the neighboring villages. In fact, most of the components of the eastern site known as Big Indian Plateau, were simply moved to the new Highmount site on the west.

Development is proposed for steep slopes with 19 buildings at an elevation of over 3000 feet. Because of the increased frequency of heavy rains in the area, the potential for flooding and erosion is a very real concern. Once hundreds of mountaintop and mountainside acres have been deforested, it is difficult to prevent flooding and erosion during severe storm events, especially during construction. And the construction stage would last for up to 8 years. Storm water controls have often failed in less extreme conditions, including a recent situation at another local golf course.

We feel that Governor Spitzer is being extremely generous with taxpayer dollars. The State has agreed to purchase the Big Indian Plateau (approximately 1200 acres) for a cost of 14 million dollars. That is almost $12,000 per acre, many times what it would be worth on the open market and many times what the developer paid for it. In addition to this, the Belleayre Ski Center plans to build several new trails and lifts (also at taxpayer expense) that would integrate directly with the resort at a cost of millions more. Rumor has it that the price tag for the whole ski center integration and expansion is in the range of 45 million dollars. And, the State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is the lead agency conducting the environmental review of the resort, the State runs the Belleayre Ski Center, and now the State is using taxpayer dollars to enhance this private development as well as the Ski Center. Taxpayer dollars are supposed to be used for the public good and this obvious conflict-of-interest does make us question who’s good is being publicly paid for here.

The local people would pay the most and in a variety of ways. Traffic on the already-busy and dangerous Route 28 would increase by many hundreds of vehicles per day. In addition to personal vehicles, there would be service trucks, supply trucks, delivery trucks, and trash trucks during operation. During construction, we would be sharing our one main roadway with a steady stream of construction vehicles.

The socio-economic impacts would be enormous. We don’t have the labor force to fill 600 jobs so a new population would have to be brought in and they would be entitled to services such as police and fire protection, education for their children, social services, etc -- all at taxpayer expense. And the developers plan to apply for tax breaks, so taxpayers would live with the cost impacts long before we get the tax revenue from the development. It can take up to 20 years for a development of this magnitude to pay full taxes when tax breaks are given. In actuality, taxpayers usually wind up subsidizing big development in a variety of ways, often to the detriment of their own quality of life.

For these reasons and many more, we will continue to make use of all of our options to downsize this development. We simply could not put our name on an agreement that would allow something that we believe is wrong for the area. Once it’s built, there is no turning back.

Julie McQuain — Sep 29 2007 01:50 PM

Mountain-sized hypocrisy?

The Catskill Mountainkeeper mission says: "to protect the ecological integrity of the Catskill Mountain range and the quality of life of all those who live there."

Well, you can hardly protect the integrity of the Range or the quality of our life if you stand by, or as John Adams did in this blog, even cheer the destruction of individual mountains! Especially mountains in already protected areas like THE PARK.

Eric Goldstein, Tom Alworth, Marc Gerstman and Lila Goldmark abandoned Belleayre Mountain, the PEOPLE who live here, and Route 28 in the Catskill PARK, to the traffic, noise, erosion, pollution and economic displacement of the rapacious mega development plans of Dean Gitter: now a mere 15% smaller-than-the-original, and even HIGHER up on the forested mountain. (Read the actual Belleayre Resort Agreement here: www.CatskillHeritage.org)

They preferred to curry the favor of a Governor who doesn't want to know the difference between the Sullivan County village of Monticello and the undeveloped open space and local economy of the area surrounding Belleayre and Highmount in Ulster County. Their very close association calls into question the integrity of Mountainkeeper's inaugural anti-Catskills traffic campaign!

How can you all can keep a straight face?

Why was Catskill Mountainkeeper silent at the demise of OUR peaceful part of the Catskills?

Should Mountainkeeper's grass roots allies, the "little people" who have carried the anti-casino fight all this time, look with suspicion upon its sudden interest in their cause? I advise them to keep at arms length, not to let you all run their show. Never to share their strategy with you.

By its personnel and partners I predict that Mountainkeeper, like NRDC, is not to be trusted without reservation. I now understand that all related organizations see these little "local development fights" as funding opportunities. Outcomes are not the point at all.

I'd like to think that Mountainkeeper could be an internally honest, independent actor here. I'm dubious.

Finally, you all will bow to the same political expediency: "the Governor WANTS" a casino there." And some deal -- likely benefiting some related organizations with grants to administer -- will be announced as an environmental victory to great political fanfare, as with the astounding Belleayre Resort press conference this month. You will "sadly" conclude it was the best you could get, then sell out your "no casino" local allies, work against their interests and probably even disparage them in the press, as our "allies" did us.

But at least they will have been warned, and with a very recent, nearby example.

Julie McQuain, Hardenburgh
Still fighting for Belleayre Mountain.

Eric Goldstein, NRDC — Oct 1 2007 05:55 PM

I am not surprised that the Belleayre agreement has generated lots of strong feelings on all sides.

And I appreciate all the heartfelt expressions of support we've received, as well as the criticisms that have been posted on this blog.

At NRDC, we are firmly committed to protecting and safeguarding the forests, streams and ecosystems of the Catskills -- a region of statewide and even national environmental importance. We believe it is possible to achieve these objectives while providing economic vitality to the region. But, as the Belleayre Resort dispute exemplifies, this is not an easy task.

As I noted earlier, figuring out when to agree to a proposed settlement is one of the most difficult strategic decisions to make. Still, I am proud that NRDC joined six other leading environmental organizations, as well as former Watershed Inspector General Jim Tierney and Congressman Maurice Hinchey, in concluding that, on balance, the Belleayre settlement agreement offers very significant environmental benefits that simply could not be achieved through further adjudication.

In this posting, I will focus primarily on Mark's comments from Trout Unlimited.

Trout Unlimited's mission is "to conserve, protect and restore North America's coldwater fisheries and their watersheds." In achieving that mission, TU is committed to applying "the very best information and thinking available" to its conservation work. I can assure you that TU's fisheries and watershed mission objectives were a central focus of our lengthy negotitions. And during these negotiations and the months of issues conference proceedings that came before, NRDC and the other environmental group signers relied on some of the very best and most experienced water quality experts in the nation to guide our thinking and decision-making.

How does the new settlement protect the fisheries and their streams? By keeping development completely out of the Ashokan basin and Esopus Creek for one thing. There would be absolutely no development in the 1,240-acre eastern parcel. And the Esopus Creek, which as you know has been facing a variety of threats from turbidity and pollution, would have a new protective envelope. On the west side of Belleayre, where the lower-build resort alternative would be developed, unprecendented measures to reduce and mitigate stormwater runoff have been committed to. The project's single golf course would be managed as organic and would be required to avoid the use of fertilizers and pesticides as an enforceable permit condition.

What about protecting watersheds? The inclusion of more than 1,200 acres of land on the east into the Catskill Forest Preserve is an unparalleled conservation step, the likes of which we haven't seen from the state in this region for years. This portion of land would, if the settlement is implemented, become part of the largest contiguous stretch of wilderness lands within the Catskill Park. And the project, despite some shortcomings, is truly an example of smart growth -- indeed, more than 86% of the total lands owned by the developer would remain undisturbed if the new, lower-build alternative were advanced. And, significantly, that development would take place immediately adjacent to the State's largest "Intensive Use" area.

The alternative of returning to adjudication would be unlikely to achieve the significant water quality and conservation benefits set forth in the settlement agreement. We had some of the best legal experts on New York environmental law advising us -- some officially and others behind the scenes. Their conclusion was unanimous -- we would be foolish to expect a better deal for the environment if we returned to adjudication.

You express an understandable concern for increased traffic in the vicinity of the project site. These and other concerns must all be addressed by the developer in a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. There will be a public hearing and public comment period. And all legitimate issues raised in those public forums must be responded to before the EIS can be finalized.

You raise objections to the number of units in the lower-build project and Belleayre Ski Center expansion. There is much to say about both of these issues. Of course, all of the environmental groups who participated in the negotiations would have preferred that the project contain fewer lodging units. But from NRDC's vantage point, we are supportive of adding hotel services to the central Catskills region. And we believe that immediately adjacent to the "Intensive Use" area of the Belleayre Ski center is a sensible place for such facilities.

As for the individual lodging units, fortunately, most of them would be in clustered 8-unit buildings on relatively flat land close to Route 28. Like you, we are not fans of the 19 units on Highmount and plan to carefully review the Supplemental EIS to insure that, if those units go forward, there is full mitigation and compliance with each and every requirement of environmental law.

The expansion of the Belleayre Ski Center, to allow a total of 25 miles of ski trails, which you also mention, has already been authorized by the legislature and by amendment to the State Constitution. The question is not whether, but how, such trail expansion occurs. The settlement agreement, among other things, limits the length of trails in the Ashokan basin, requires that 2.5 miles of trails from the old Highmount Ski Center be counted toward the 25 mile total, requires a phase-in of the new trail cutting and mandates that in selecting the new trail route on the east, the primary factor will be minimization of impacts to Ashokan ecosystem. NRDC, and indeed all of the environmental groups in our coalition, had previously stated our support for Belleayre Ski Center expansion as part of a sensible "smart growth" effort in the Catskills. While we do support Belleayre Ski Center expansion conceptually, we intend to review the forthcoming Unit Management Plan very carefully.

In closing, to restate my point about the issue of most direct concern to Trout Unlimited -- protection of coldwater fisheries -- I am confident that this agreement, if carefully implemented and vigorously monitored, will advance TU's mission objectives in a way that further adjudication could not have possibly achieved.

There are many challenges ahead for those of us who want to preserve the ecology, quality and character of the Catskills. NRDC expects to be intimately involved in many of these struggles, starting with a very serious review of the Belleayre SEIS. I hope that, despite our apparent differences on this recent phase of the Belleayre project, we will be able to work together in the future.

Dave Channon — Oct 2 2007 07:22 PM

This is a frightening example of how a couple of multi millionaires can destroy people's lives and the environment at the same time. It is happening in mountain communities across America. It illustrates how the SEQRA process is stacked, designed to funnel community resistance down a cattle chute of punishing legal expenses, and invariably lets the developers get away with murder. The only real solution is to pass local binding ordinances that strip corporations of their "rights" as individuals. That would allow communities protect themselves effectively, whether it's coal mines dug under their homes, water drained from their aquifer, SkiZilla or Golfzilla, or the "WalMart-ization" that is destroying small businesses everywhere. A great lawyer like Eric Goldstein could become a real American hero by advancing this cause. Help us out! SEQRA is useless.

Tom Alworth — Oct 3 2007 02:45 PM

Tom Alworth here from the Catskill Center for Conservation and Development, a non-profit organization working in the Catskills and a signatory to the Belleayre Resort at Catskill Park agreement. As Eric Goldstein said, one of the most difficult decisions we all must make is when to sign onto an agreement like this. We did so with great deliberation using as our primary yardstick both science and law. Eric did a good job at explaining some of the details of the agreement so I won’t go into them here. And that’s not my primary reason for writing. I’m writing to let the members of NRDC (of which I am one) know how proud we all are of the environmental work they do on behalf of the environment across the GLOBE. It is unprecedented and critically important to the planet’s well being. All of us in the Catskills were extremely fortunate to have NRDC bring their expertise and organizational commitment to our region in the first place. This project, which was very “dumb-growth” at the start, is now one which, although not perfect, is much, much smarter. It is not an overstatement to say that we could not have done it without NRDC’s commitment… period. At the end of the day, we may disagree, but we must never overlook or take for granted what NRDC brought to the table on our behalf. The Catskills will be a vastly better place for both wildlife and people because of NRDC’s efforts here. Let’s not overlook that.

Eric Goldstein, NRDC — Oct 3 2007 03:27 PM

Thanks for the support, Tom.

Thanks also to everyone who has participated so passionately in this thought-provoking conversation. Clearly we will have to agree to disagree on a number of points, though I know we share many common goals. We'll look forward to continuing the discussions with many of you in person.

- Eric

Ian Wilker — Oct 3 2007 05:04 PM

Ian here, Switchboard's community manager. We've kept comments open on this post well past the usual time limit -- it's great to get feedback, even (especially?) from those who sharply disagree with us, and we wanted to allow ample time for people to get their two cents in. It's time to move on -- I'm sure the Catskills will come up in Switchboard's blogs again, so stay tuned.

-- Ian