September 23, 2024

Josh Clague
McCrea Burnham
Forest Preserve Bureau
YS Department of Environmental Conservation
625 Broadway
Albany, NY 12233

Interagency Guidance for Trail Networks in the Forest Preserve

Dear Josh, McCrea, and the DEC Trail Stewardship Working Group,

Article XIV:  Since the May 2024 draft of this document, all mention of the 2021 Court of Appeals ruling which declared community connector snowmobile trails, as designed and built by DEC, unconstitutional has disappeared from the introductory and background material. This is very odd and concerning because the very existence of the Trail Stewardship Working Group (TSWG) springs from the Department’s desire to address  the outcomes  and consequences of that ruling.

The TSWG was organized in late 2021 and 2022 to help the Department craft principles, methods and standards for trail development and stewardship which pass constitutional muster and address trail standards that meet desired conditions.  At least in the May 2024 draft the Court ruling was still mentioned, albeit briefly, as a starting point.

Now, with all mention of the ruling removed, will the Court’s specific language with respect to trail stewardship act as both red flags to avoid in the future and good guidance for DEC, APA and the TSWG in the present? That’s a serious question because the Court provides DEC and all of us with crucial direction about trail stewardship which DEC, APA, and the public can ill afford to ignore.

The Court of Appeals ruled, in part, that “the construction of the Class II (snowmobile) trails is, for constitutional purposes, no different than the construction of the bobsleigh run. Both would work a substantial change to the Forest Preserve;” “the Class II (snowmobile) trails require greater interference with the natural development of the Forest Preserve than is necessary to accommodate hikers.”  

In its trail stewardship work, the Court is telling DEC and APA to avoid a substantial changes to the Forest Preserve and not to interfere with the natural development of the Forest Preserve more than is necessary to accommodate hikers. That should be, indeed must be the starting point for this guidance document, yet it is not. The new opening Statement of Purpose sidesteps the bedrock lesson and ruling of Article XIV entirely: “The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the Adirondack Park Agency (APA) have a responsibility to plan and manage trail networks in a manner that is transparent, adaptive to local conditions, encompasses best practices, protects resources, proportional to capacity, and consistent with relevant laws and policies.”

All mention of the Court and Art. XIV is now relegated and reduced to this: “the constitutionally protected lands of the Adirondacks and Catskills are synonymous with outdoor recreation. The use of Forest Preserve trails and general outdoor recreation is increasing.” 

The constitutionally protected lands (and waters) of the Adirondack and Catskill Parks are not “synonymous with outdoor recreation.” They are synonymous with wildlands, as our highest court affirmed just three years ago. To quote the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan, the forest preserve is “a public resource for recreation in a wild setting that is unique in the eastern half of the United States and complements the more developed facilities…in the rest of the state.”

After several years of work, but still lacking a strong foundation rooted in Article XIV and the Court ruling, it is most unfortunate that the trail design parameters continue to run into a number of conflicts with the Constitution and the State Land Master Plans.

The Foot Trail Design parameter chart pertaining to Tread Surface: The chart authorizes limited, occasional, or routine grading and importing of materials for grading on just about any trail in Trail Class 2-5, irrespective of the State Land classification. Authorizing mechanical grading and importing of materials in Wilderness, Primitive, and Canoe would violate the State Land Master Plan and even in Wild Forest one of the activities on Class II snowmobile trails judged unconstitutional by the Court in 2021  was the extent of engineered trail grading. Furthermore, why a Foot Trail Corridor of 4-10 feet in width, depending on the Trail Class 1-5, is justified and legally compliant is not in the least bit explained or justified as compliant with the State Land Master Plans.

In brief, the Foot Trail Design parameter chart fails to apply the Court of Appeals ruling. If applied in the field as shown, the chart would continue to violate Article XIV and potentially land NYS back in court.

Cross-Country Ski Trail Design parameter chart:  The APSLMP defines a cross-country ski trail as “a path or way… which has the same dimensions and character and may also serve as a foot trail causing the least effect on the surrounding environment.”

That being the case, how is the ski trail design parameter chart showing x-country ski trails, regardless of state land classification, as double-laned, up to eight feet in cleared width, and graded compliant with the Master Plan? If applied in the field, this chart would not be compliant with either the SLMP or Article XIV and the related Court of Appeals ruling.

Bicycle Trail Design chart: The APSLMP defines a bicycle trail as “a marked trail designated for travel by bicycles located and designed to provide access in a manner causing the least effect on the local environment.” It is very difficult to conceive of five different classes of bicycle trail, as shown, going from natural surfaces, to graded surfaces, to hardened surfaces, all on the Forest Preserve, and all being in compliance with this definition. This guidance provides too many bike trail classes and too much variation in their design, dimensions, and management.

Snowmobile Trail Design parameters: It is abundantly clear from this chart that DEC is willfully ignoring the Court of Appeals decision. Twelve-foot-wide snowmobile trails on steep grades and slopes were expressly found to be unconstitutional by the Court, yet the guidance here tells DEC trail planners they are OK so long as the cleared width does not involve cutting trees of three-inch DBH or greater. The Court ruling involves trees of one-inch DBH or greater. Importation of material and mechanical grading of trails were clearly judged by the Court to form a large and significant part of the constitutional violation, yet according to this chart these practices are approved guidance. Bridge decking allowing two feet on either side beyond the snowmobile cleared tread width forms part of this trail guidance yet if carried out in the field could be blatantly unconstitutional. In brief, following this chart’s guidance would land NYS DEC back in court.

Unbridged Stream Crossings in Wilderness, Primitive, Canoe areas: Contrary to the chart, unbridged Wilderness stream crossing must not be managed with hardened stream banks,  and instream hardened bottoms. Hardening of Wilderness stream crossings is not only inappropriate management, but it would also be a violation of the Master Plan. The chart must be revised to reflect that fact.

Ladders in Wilderness, Primitive, Canoe: The chart must reflect that, as per the SLMP, foot trail ladders in wilderness are only where necessary, and constructed only of natural materials, irrespective of Trail Class.

Desired Conditions: the following desired conditions come directly from the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan and should be included in this list of Trail Network desired conditions in this guidance document:

  • achieving and perpetuating a natural plant and animal community where man’s influence is not apparent” (for all trail networks in Wilderness, Primitive, or Canoe).
  • blending all conforming structures and improvements with the surrounding environment and to require only minimal maintenance.
  •  ensuring that all interior facilities will be designed to emphasize the self-sufficiency of the user to assume a high degree of responsibility for environmentally-sound use of such areas and for his or her own health, safety, and welfare.
  • Foot trail and x-country ski trail bridges constructed of natural materials and, where absolutely necessary, ladders of natural materials.

Appropriate Visitor Activities, Services, Facilities: This paragraph is devoid of any mention of the State Land Master Plans, and that omission needs correction. All such activities, services, and facilities must comply with the relevant State Land Classification and its Guidelines for Management and Use in the Adirondack and Catskill State Land Master Plans.

Of the questions asked, the wrong priority is employed. The guidance questions, as listed, are: Who is the trail designed for? What is the character of the trail? When will the different users be on the trail? Where is the trail located? What is that land classification? How often will encounters between different recreational users occur on the trail? Why is Shared Use important at this location? To be in compliance, the very first foundational questions which must be asked are: what is the State Land classification, and what are that classification’s definitions and guidelines for management and use?  

Conclusion: The guidance’s concluding sentences lend further confirmation, if any more is necessary, to an overarching problem with this document – its compliance with Article XIV and the Master Plans. The sentences are that “the ‘unifying theme’ of both the Catskill Park and the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plans comes in two parts. First and foremost, the protection and preservation of natural resources is paramount.  Second, the provision of opportunities for human use and enjoyment of the land that are physically, biologically, and socially sustainable will be provided.”

There are not two parts to the “unifying theme” to the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan. There is only one unifying theme: that the “protection and preservation of the natural resources of the state lands within the Park must be paramount” (page 1, APSLMP). The Master Plan goes on to state in the next sentence that “human use and enjoyment of those lands should be permitted and encouraged so long as the resources…are not degraded.”  That conditioning statement is very different from the false claim that provision of recreational opportunities forms some non-existent, second part of a SLMP unifying theme. That “second part” is purely an invention. Why the APA allows that to remain in this final draft guidance is a mystery and a big concern.   

Thank you for inviting this second round of comments on the guidance document.

Sincerely,

David Gibson, Managing Partner
Adirondack Wild: Friends of the Forest Preserve
P.O. Box 9247, Niskayuna, NY 12309
www.adirondackwild.org
518-469-4081