"My personal experience and readings convince me that preservation
of wild places is the best of American traditions.
Wilderness is at the heart of the nation.
It tells one generation what is right and lasting about
all generations and about the land itself."
—Michael Frome

Facebook
FIELD NOTES: SAFEGUARDING THE WILD

Will DEC Rubberstamp a Steel Bridge over the Cedar River?

By Dave Gibson


Approximate location of proposed steel bridge over the Cedar River. Photo by Dave Gibson


Existing snowmobile bridge on the Cedar River. Photo by Dave Gibson

 

State agencies in the Adirondack Park are full of dedicated, hardworking employees who want to do their level best under their relevant laws and jurisdictions. However, in a situation where the same agency acts both as the applicant and the decider of an application the public has good reason to be skeptical that there will be sufficient independence to raise difficult questions, much less objections.

This situation is apparent in the August 22, 2018 edition of the Environmental Notice Bulletin (ENB) issued weekly by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, or DEC. This edition of the ENB gives the public notice that a “Cedar River Bridge and Recreational Trail” is the subject of a permit application by the DEC’s Division of Lands and Forests. The decider of that permit application is the Permits Division of the same DEC.

In addition to the rather obvious internal conflict of interest at DEC, the wording in the ENB more than suggests that the permit’s issuance is a foregone conclusion. Its purpose “is to provide year-round recreational access across the Cedar River which will complete the multiple use, community connector (snowmobile) trail between Indian Lake and Minerva across the Essex Chain Lakes Management Plan (UMP).” The ENB’s project description goes on in the same approving vein that the “proposed bridge, which has been designed and sited in accordance with criteria established… will be (my emphasis) a 139 foot, 4 inch long and 12 foot wide free span, steel truss structure with concrete and sheet piling abutments, to be located in the vicinity of the previous bridge which collapsed in 1978.”

How likely is it that one arm of the DEC would substantively question, much less disallow another DEC arm from completing this bridge project. Still, one can always hope that the permits division would at least question it - for the reasons that follow.

This 140 foot bridge designed for snowmobiling is proposed on the “forever wild” Forest Preserve across a tranquil stretch of the Cedar River designated as “scenic” under the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers Act, otherwise known as the “Rivers Act.” This truly scenic stretch of river is not improved by a steel truss bridge. But my viewpoint is not the issue here. We’re a nation of laws, and laws are in place (since 1972) to protect our Wild, Scenic and Recreational rivers.

The new bridge, it should be noted, was part of a unit management plan, or UMP authorizing a new snowmobile corridor to run between the newly classified Hudson Gorge Wilderness area on one side of the dirt Chain Lakes Road and the Essex Chain of Lakes Primitive area on the other side of that road. To make this connection, the snowmobile corridor requires a bridge across the Cedar River and a second motorized crossing on the existing Polaris Bridge over the Hudson River, also “scenic”, and then a new snowmobile trail to be cut north to Newcomb.

The connection between Newcomb and Minerva, the purported destination of the corridor according to the ENB notice, is nowhere near completion. This, too, will require another new and equally questionable motorized bridge crossing of the “scenic” Boreas River, as well as lots of permissions across numerous private land ownerships in order to finally reach Minerva hamlet. So, the ENB notice incorrectly states that the new Cedar River bridge “will complete” the connection to Minerva. It doesn’t and it won’t. That statement in the ENB notice should be changed.

Despite the connection to Minerva still being years away, DEC immediately wants to launch construction of the new steel bridge. Why does DEC need a permit or a variance from itself to build it? Because the DEC’s laws and regulations protective of “scenic” rivers like the Cedar (“The Rivers Act” of 1972 and its regulations) allow foot trail use only and disallow public motorized uses. The DEC’s Final Environmental Impact Statement for the regulations implementing the Rivers Act prohibits motorized open space recreational uses in “scenic” rivers areas. “Therefore, bridges for this use have been prohibited,” states the DEC EIS. Bridges are allowed, but for foot trails only. The regulations stipulate that bridges and trails in “scenic” river areas shall be no wider than four feet. The proposed steel bridge would have a 12-foot span.

Instead of lobbying members of the State Legislature in an effort to eventually amend the Rivers Act in order to allow a motorized bridge at this location, which is what DEC should be doing, DEC officials appear to want to sidestep the law and issue itself a permit or variance to allow the bridge’s construction right now. On September 12 the DEC intends to hold an administrative public hearing on the permit or variance in Indian Lake, and will allow public comment on its permit application by Sept. 21.

The DEC already went to the effort of constructing a large, wooden bridge across the Cedar River around 1995 at a location further upstream, at a crossing where the Cedar River is designated “recreational,” permissive of snowmobile crossings and uses. That bridge was constructed, as I recall, to create a snowmobile connection between Indian Lake and Blue Mountain Lake.  Around the year 2010, the Adirondack Nature Conservancy, the successor owner to Finch, Pruyn, extended the snowmobile trail north to Newcomb under a conservation easement that allows snowmobiling. To my knowledge, this route between Indian Lake-Blue Mountain Lake and Newcomb is regularly used in both directions by snowmobilers when snow cover permits. Some members of the public might point out, therefore, that a new motorized bridge across the Cedar is unnecessary (as well as legally questionable) because it duplicates the existing bridge and snowmobile corridor opened expressly for the purpose of connecting Indian Lake and Newcomb.

Snowmobilers would likely have different information and perspectives to offer on this matter. I’m grateful there is a public hearing for all to express themselves, and Adirondack Wild looks forward to commenting. However, there is a way that the DEC could avoid the strong perception of self-dealing, whereby one DEC division simply rubber stamps a permit or variance for the bridge’s construction sought by another DEC division. Instead, DEC could schedule an adjudicatory hearing on the Cedar River bridge heard by an administrative law judge. These ALJs, as they are known, are trained to take evidence from all sides, complete a hearing record and render an impartial, independent judgement.

Construction of a massive steel bridge on the Forest Preserve over a river as truly scenic, protected and special as the Cedar River in apparent contravention of the Rivers Act and regulations and in apparent duplication of another snowmobile route reaching the same destination deserves the utmost care, consideration, and impartiality. These important goals could be better reached if the DEC sponsored a meaningful, adjudicatory public hearing. 



Return to top of page

 

 
Archived Safeguarding Field Notes

2018

11/06/18 Award Presentations at the 2018 Annual Membership Meeting in Saranac Lake read more>


11/06/18 Latest Test for the Adirondack Park Agency read more>


10/12/18Time to Strengthen Budgets for the Forest Preserve read more>


09/12/18 Will DEC Rubberstamp Steel Bridge over the Cedar River? read more>


08/06/18 Partnering for Wilderness, 1946-2018
read more>


07/15/18 Adirondack Wild Speaks to the APA
read more>


06/11/18 Viewpoint: Time for permit system in the High Peaks Wilderness read more>


05/22/18 State Rushing Process For High Peaks, Boreas Plans read more>


04/20/18 Limit Motor Vehicles and Traffic on the way to Boreas Ponds. Keep it Wild! read more>


03/28/18 Adirondack Wild helps lead opposition to elimination of Forest Preserve taxation read more>


03/06/18 DEC Should End Uncertainty of Old Mountain Road read more>


02/26/18 Judge Upholds Wetlands Denial read more>


02/13/18 Forever Wild and Forever Taxable read more>


01/30/18 Proposal for Boreas Ponds Falls Short read more>


01/11/18 Protect Adirondack Boreal Habitat read more>


 2017 - Click Here for Archives
2016 - Click Here for Archives
2015 - Click Here for Archives
2014 - Click Here for Archives
2013 - Click Here for Archives

2012 - Click Here for Archives

2011 - Click Here for Archives

2010 - Click Here for Archives


More Archives

SAFEGUARDING THE WILD

EXTENDING THE WILD

EDUCATING FOR THE WILD

FEATURED WRITERS

ENGAGING STUDENTS

FROM THE SENIOR PARTNER/CHAIR

MEDIA

PRESS RELEASES

IN THE NEWS

COMMENT LETTERS

ADIRONDACK EXPLORER ADS

PUBLICATIONS

ADK ALMANACK - Writings by David Gibson

Wilderness 50th

The mission of Adirondack Wild: Friends of the Forest Preserve is to advance New York’s ‘Forever Wild’ legacy and Forest Preserve policies in the Adirondack and Catskill Parks, and promote public and private land stewardship that is consistent with wild land values through education, advocacy and research.

Top left, Moose River ©2010 Ken Rimany; Field Notes photographs ©2011 Ken Rimany. Wild Action Now photograph ©2011 David Gibson

ADIRONDACK PARK REGIONAL
Peter Brinkley, Honorary Chair
pbrinkley@frontiernet.net
Daniel R. Plumley, Partner
dplumley@adirondackwild.org
Home Office: 518.576.9277
David H. Gibson, Partner
dgibson@adirondackwild.org
Mobile: 518.469.4081
Kenneth J. Rimany, Partner
krimany@adirondackwild.org

Adirondack Wild: Friends of the Forest Preserve    Founded 1945   PO Box 9247 • Niskayuna New York 12309 | ©