Published: January 19, 2008 07:48 pm         

Garrett County must be nasty at nighttime

Here is what seems to me to be a logical question.

Why would the State of Maryland, by way of its Department of Natural Resources, specifically its Forest Service, spend $12,209 plus annual payments for electricity to provide security for 6.5 hours every night for a private lodge on private land?

It seems to me that a second logical question would follow.

Why, once it was determined to pay for said security by constructing an automatic gate, would that gate be placed in such a position that it would also stop access to more than 600 acres of public land on the Savage River State Forest from 11 p.m. to 5:30 a.m. every night? Could not the gate have been placed where lodge land meets state forest land rather than a substantial distance away on the private land of a third party?

Sorry. That was a two-part question. Huh?-A and Huh?-B.

The lodge, of course, is the Savage River Lodge owned by Mike Dreisbach and Jan Russell. It lies on 40-or-so private acres surrounded by the 600-or-so-acre parcel of land the Forest Service calls Compartment 40. It is also referred to as the Mount Aetna Compartment.

I asked these very questions of Kristin Saunders Evans who is the new assistant secretary of natural resources across whose desk the decision-making process traveled.

What follows in italics is her e-mailed response.

The department is not paying for security for a private lodge on private land. The department is replacing an existing gate at the same access point where a gate previously existed across an access road that is shared between the State of Maryland, Cutter-Green (owners of the road) and the Savage River Lodge with a new gate that will allow us to expand hours the tract is open to the public.

The new gate will use modern technology to allow the department to ensure public access for recreational users who want to travel to Compartment 40 between the hours of 5:30 a.m. and 11 p.m. The department has previously had to rely on the Cutter-Green property owners or Savage River Lodge staff to open and close the gate as needed. We do not have staff readily available to open and close the gates on a regular basis, so we opted for this new technology to provide a guarantee of a very important service to our trail and other recreational users. This electronic gate can be programmed to ensure hunters access at the necessary times during the respective hunting seasons throughout the year, without having to rely on outside parties to open and close the gates.

To ensure that users who are within the compartment 40 tract after 11 p.m. do not get locked in, we have set up a trigger so they can exit the access road after the programmed gate closure. These efforts are being undertaken to give our recreational users the maximum access to Compartment 40 tract while operating in harmony with the Savage River Lodge and the owners of Cutter-Green. The gate also ensures that the private property owned by the Cutter-Greens will be protected from potential vandalism, illegal dumping and unauthorized use of their property after hours.

The gate was purchased and installed using $12,209 from the State Highway Administration's Recreational Trails Grant fund.

The automated gate replaces the existing gate so having a gate in this location is not new relative to where the controlled access point is for Compartment 40. The gate provides and ensures access for recreational users and is in no way intended to block access, except during the hours we do not intend to have recreational users enter Compartment 40 property. The gate was sited at this location due to it being the best point to control access for times when we needed recreational users to be guaranteed access and the presence of electricity to tie into.

The ownership of the entry road and right of way is complicated and we sought a solution that would be a good compromise between all three parties. DNR does not own fee simple access on the road. Rather, we rely on a right-of-entry agreement via Savage River Lodge across the Cutter-Green property and we have to be sensitive to all the neighbors' concerns here, not just the lodge owners.

Further, there was no public access to Compartment 40 for the general public until the lodge owners secured our right-of-entry agreement involving SRL and the Cutter Green's. Prior to that, the only way the "public" got into Compartment 40 was via permission of adjacent private property owners. We did not put in a "security gate" (any type of gate offers some form of "security" - what it does is control access at the discretion of the department - just like any other of the many gates we have on public land). We replaced a manual gate with an automated gate for the following reasons: improved reliability of the opening and closing times of the gate and since the gate schedule can be programmed to coincide with various hunting seasons or peak usage by other recreational trail users, this ensures that any reasonable opportunities for recreation by the public will be accommodated.

This type of gate is a new technology but not a new practice for the management of public lands. Given the high level of controversy and tensions that existed around the access point to Compartment 40 last year, the agency felt it was in the best interest of all the stakeholders to find a solution that provided the most reliable access to our recreational users with the least negative impact on the other parties concerned. To further enhance our service to stakeholders entering the Compartment 40 tract, we will be installing a small crushed stone turn-around just prior to the property line between Compartment 40 and the lodge. This will allow users to pull into the compartment and unload any heavy gear with ready access to the green trail, without having to park at the lodge if they so choose. The lower lot along the river will remain the free parking for trail and other recreational users.

Steve Koehn, the state's top tree guy, said the money to build and operate the gate is funding that has been reprogramed from a grant that was to be used for trails.

Koehn is a lifelong natural resources bureaucrat so I'm sure he knows the ins and outs of reprogramming grant money and wouldn't do it unless it was acceptable. That being the case, I'm wondering how many acres of forest land could be sprayed to kill gypsy moths if the $12,209 was reprogrammed for that purpose.

Herein lies the bigger question. How many other private businesses are lining up to seek state money to make their enterprises more secure?

Oh! One more logical question. What in the heck is the big danger from which lodge guests have to be protected each night?

Contact Michael A. Sawyers at msawyers@times-news.com.