Feb 25, 2026
Josh Clague NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Division of Lands and Forests 625 Broadway, 5th Floor Albany, NY 12233-4254
Re. NYS DEC Other Power-Driven Mobility Devices (OPDMD) Policy

NYS DEC Other Power-Driven Mobility Devices (OPDMD) Policy

Dear Josh and DEC:
In 2024, APA and DEC proposed weakening State Land Master Plan/ Forest Preserve Wilderness protections and prohibition on use of motor vehicles in order to authorize use of a rapidly growing number of Other Power-Driven Mobility Devices (OPDMD). This proposal caught Wilderness and Disability Access advocates by surprise and unnecessarily pitted each against the other. Neither were consulted. Neither pushed DEC to introduce motors for access into Wilderness since Wilderness character and access on its own terms are valued by persons of all abilities. Thankfully, APA and DEC retained the motor vehicle definition and prohibition of their use in Wilderness.

Alternatively, advocates recommended that DEC produce a statewide policy that would guide use of all classes of OPDMD on all State Lands, policy encouraged by federal ADA/OPDMD regulations. This DEC has now done and in a short time frame thanks to disciplined teamwork among different DEC divisions and bureaus. We appreciate the significant DEC efforts involved in producing this draft so rapidly and by involving a variety of stakeholders last summer. Irrespective of the critique that follows, we join many others in saying “thank you” for the hard work and many efforts that went into this draft Policy.

Case by Case Review of OPDMD since 2011: DEC has been issuing permits to OPDMD users on a case-by-case basis since the 2011 federal regulations were issued. The practice of years of permit issuance has probably resulted in lessons learned by the Department, statistical information as to locations permitted, preferences, obstacles, and other feedback from permittees. A short synopsis of this 15-year-old permit system, improvements, and recommendations to be addressed though this Policy should be incorporated. We are glad the Policy includes annual reporting of approved permits, routes, applications. The reporting should also involve assessment of Policy benefits, impacts, and recommended improvements.

Conservation Easements: As stated, “DEC manages public recreation rights on hundreds of thousands of acres of private land through conservation easements.” Yet, it is puzzling that the draft Policy says nothing about applying the assessment factors for expanded use of OPDMD on a wide variety of easement roads and trails where public access is a negotiated and acquired public right. There are a variety of Adirondack easement routes listed in Appendix B as open for truck/ATV access for persons with disabilities. Would those same easements access routes and perhaps others around the Park be suitable for other classes of OPDMD? It would seem sensible to explore all of the Park’s easements for opportunities to expand safe, environmentally compatible use of OPDMD.

The Forest Preserve: The benefits of having this Policy apply to all State Lands begins with accurate descriptions of the State Lands involved. The policy ought to characterize those lands sufficiently to guide where various classes of OPDMD may safely travel without, as federal regulations state, “fundamentally altering the nature of the program, service, and activity” ((28 CFR § 35.130(b)(7)(i))

The draft policy’s characterization of the Forest Preserve (page 4) as merely “providing a wild setting…while promoting a range of recreational opportunities” is a very inadequate description of the significance of the Forest Preserve to the Adirondack and Catskill Parks and how the Preserve relates to this draft Policy. The “forever kept as wild forest lands” constitutional mandate presents a distinctive legal and programmatic contrast with all other State Lands and hence presents a variety of reasons why use of any or all classes of OPDMD would potentially cause a substantial alteration of the Forest Preserve’s programs, services, and activities.

In describing the Forest Preserve, DEC’s draft ought to acknowledge its regional and national significance in that 80% of the designated Wilderness east of the Mississippi River lies within the Forest Preserve. Furthermore, the Forest Preserve (since 1964) has been a designated National Natural Landmark and (since 1989) a core area within the Champlain-Adirondack International Biosphere Reserve. The Forest Preserve directly influenced drafting and passage of the National Wilderness Preservation Act of 1964, according to the Act’s chief lobbyist and author, Howard Zahniser.

At minimum, the policy should quote the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan in that “the enormous tracts of forest preserve provide 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 of the excellent state park system in the rest of the state.”

The draft notes “that Forest Preserve lands are further classified by the Master Plans based on their characteristics and capacity to withstand different levels of public use,” from Wilderness to Intensive Use. However, it should also cite the Master Plan’s unifying theme for all Forest Preserve classifications, notably that “the protection and preservation of the natural resources…must be paramount. Human use and enjoyment of those lands should be permitted and encouraged so long as the resources in their physical and biological context as well as their social or psychological aspects are not degraded.”

This unifying theme and paramount responsibility is a significant factor in demonstrating a fundamental alteration to the program, service or activity necessary to accommodate classes of OPDMD (28 CFR § 35.130(b)(7)(i) whereby “a public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, unless the public entity can demonstrate that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity.”

Application of Federal Assessment Factors: On page 8, DEC’s list of questions to apply the assessment factors includes such questions as “what are the specific characteristics of the area; and what recreational program is the area intended/designed to provide?” This list of questions must be expanded to also ask “what are the State Land Master Plan guidelines for management and use which apply to the route, recreational program, and OPDMD?” Whether Wilderness, Wild Forest, or Intensive Use, DEC’s weighing of the federal assessment factors must be influenced by the Master Plan’s legal guidelines. We were happy to hear DEC staff verbally assert this to be the case at the Adirondack Park Agency meeting (January 22, 2026), but it must also be explicit within the Policy itself.

We also believe the draft Policy’s Question 9, “would the accommodation to use the device in the area fundamentally alter the nature of the program (citing 28 CFR § 35.130 (7)(i), should be renumbered in the final Policy as Question 1. In the hierarchy of applying Federal regulations, DEC must make a judgement, first and foremost, about whether the ADA’s OPDMD accommodations would fundamentally alter the nature of the program, service, or activity. This is the first regulatory, threshold decision to reach, followed by the five Federal Assessment Factors regulating use of OPDMD.

Table 2, Incompatibility: What is excluded from the incompatible list has real-world impacts. To be judged good public policy, the incompatible list must be consistent with law and evaluated carefully after applying federal regulations. Unfortunately, the draft Policy fails these tests.

For example, the draft does not currently deem a Class 1 battery-powered, off-road, wheeled device with a tread width of over three feet and weighing up to 400 pounds incompatible on narrow, Wilderness trails distant from a highway.

From both user safety and wilderness protection viewpoints, it cannot be good policy to introduce a 40-inch, 400-pound device onto Wilderness trails far from a public highway where most Wilderness trails average 36 inches or less. A fair reading of federal regulations and assessment factors ought to quickly establish that use of such a heavy device with allowed widths wider than most Wilderness trails would prove destructive of the trail system, unsafe for the user, for passing hikers, and for personnel involved in any emergency incident. Introducing such devices into the Wilderness would substantially alter DEC’s Wilderness management program and services where public use of motors or engines of any type are disallowed.

The Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan defines a Motor Vehicle as “a device incorporating an engine or motor of any type.” When the Master Plan is weighed in application of the federal regulations, the prohibition of motors and engines in Wilderness must be viewed as a legal cornerstone central to the Wilderness definition of “preserving and perpetuating a natural community where human influence is not apparent.” Advocates for Wilderness and for disability access regularly testify that Wilderness access should never be easy and that Wilderness should be accessed on its own terms without use of motors or engines. Those uses deprive persons of any and all abilities to experience Wilderness character and conditions.

Therefore, to be consistent with federal regulations and the assessment factors, OPDMD class 1-7 must be treated by this Policy as being incompatible on trails within remote Wilderness, most Primitive areas, and the sole Canoe area. Wilderness factors for incompatibility with OPDMDs are not only natural resource based, such as posing the heightened risk of soil compaction, soil erosion, and trail hardening cited in Appendix D. Introducing mechanized and motorized devices into Wilderness also trigger assessment factor 5 “whether the use of the OPDMD creates a substantial risk of serious harm to the immediate environment or natural or cultural resources.”

Wilderness characteristics are both environmental/natural resource based and culturally based. The values underpinning solitude and an unconfined, untrammeled condition in Wilderness have social, cultural, physical, ecological, and legal bases that can be sensed and measured. These values and bases for protected Wilderness disappear whenever an engine or motor of any type is introduced. Use of OPDMD Class 1 through Class 7 would cause a substantial alteration of DEC’s Wilderness programs and services and would also trigger federal assessment factors incompatible with Wilderness and visitor safety.

Wild Forest guidelines for management and use under the State Land Master Plan and DEC’s Part 196 regulations governing use of motor vehicles on the Forest Preserve are purposefully consistent with each other. The only motor vehicle legally authorized to operate on Wild Forest trails is a snowmobile on a marked, designated snowmobile trail. Motor vehicles, inclusive of all-terrain vehicles of all types and sizes, are restricted to existing public roads or on roads designated as open for public use.

Given this legal reality, why are Class 5 OPDMD, including golf carts, and a Class 6 OPDMD, including ATVs, heavier utility task vehicles (UTVs), and Side by Sides not deemed incompatible on Wild Forest trails? Most Wild Forest natural trail treads are not only just as rugged and narrow as many Wilderness trails but possess significant natural, topographical features and sensitive ecological resources preserved to support wild forest character.

For more than 30 years, illegal ATVs and UTVs on Wild Forest trails have resulted in emergency incidents managed with great difficulty by DEC Forest Rangers. For decades, the extensive damage ATVs and UTVs cause to Wild Forest trails and environments in DEC Regions 5 and 6 have been well documented by DEC, by APA, and by nonprofit organizations. A fair application of the Federal regulations and assessment factors gives DEC every reason to judge OPDMD classes 5, 6, and 7, i.e., Golf Carts, ATVs/UTVs of all types, and all motor vehicles incompatible on Wild Forest recreational trails. Otherwise, this Draft fails federal regulatory and good statewide policy tests.

Appendix D: The draft policy’s analysis of applying the Assessment Factors in Appendix D is incomplete and inadequate. It is incomplete because it fails to note how gas-powered OPDMDs, classes 5-7, present a substantial risk of harm to operators, visitors, and the Wild Forest environment due to their engines, dimensions, weight, driving range, and horsepower. These factors weighed significantly in the decision by the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation to deem gas-powered OPDMDs incompatible on State Park trail systems. If they are judged incompatible on more developed State Park trails, they are even more so on remote, “forever wild” trails in the Adirondack and Catskill Forest Preserve.

Appendix D fails to note even obvious negative impacts resulting from use of Class 5-7 OPDMD on such trails: that fuel tanks may leak, cause fire, or fuel may spill, damaging wild forest recreational trails; that engine noise produces a significant disturbance to wildlife and can negatively impact trail users’ experience; that noise presents a health risk to Forest Preserve recreational users when it exceeds 70dB. Gas-powered devices routinely exceed this threshold.

Appendix D also fails to reasonably describe and assess impacts of OPDMD use on Wilderness resources. Impacts are not limited to the Policy’s stated “ruggedness” of Wilderness trails “without hardened treads,” subject to “soil compaction and erosion.” The introduction of engines and motors inherent to OPDMDs immediately violates the Wilderness definition: “an area of undeveloped land retaining its primeval character and influence…which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable.” Introducing engines and motors of any type interfere with “the ability to perpetuate a natural plant and animal community affected by natural forces with human imprints substantially unnoticeable.”

Table 1, Approved OPDMD Uses: Approved Uses on Forest Preserve Campground trails must also be reconsidered. A category 1 powered off-road device is described as 40 inches in width. Category 2 devices are 30 inches, and Categories 3, 3-A, 4, and 4-A are 36 inches. In this draft, all are considered “Approved Uses” on DEC Campground trails of 36 inches or more in width. Why would a 36–40-inch OPDMD be safe and environmentally appropriate to operate on a Campground 36-inch trail tread, considering other users of that trail?

Clearly, automatic Approved Uses on Campground Trails require revision based on physical and resource considerations. Some campground trails quickly become wet, narrow, rough hiking trails, such as the East Mill Flow trail that departs from the Sharp Bridge Campground, citing just one of many examples across the Park. Each campground’s trail system needs evaluation to ensure they do not have wet areas, narrow treads, and built features which would render them inappropriate for OPDMD 1-4. We conclude that the minimum trail width that would authorize OPDMD Class 1-4 on Campground trails must either increase significantly above 36 inches, or Campground recreational trails should be deleted from Table 1 and evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

The Newcomb Lake route to Camp Santanoni is enjoyed by people of all abilities and according to this Policy is an Approved Use for OPDMD class 2, and E-bikes class 3 and 3-A. We appreciate that golf carts, class 5 OPDMD, were once considered for use here, but after consideration are now not listed as approved use. However, there may be future efforts to accommodate various golf carts to Newcomb Lake. As a reminder, the Santanoni Unit Management Plan states that “the Department cannot support the use of motor vehicles by the public on the Newcomb Lake Road. The road was built and is maintained as a one lane carriage road and simply could not sustain this use without major improvements and modifications that would completely change its character. Part of the visitor experience of the site is the sense of remoteness created by the time and effort required to access the site. Motor vehicle access would eliminate this valuable part of that experience.” This language in the UMP was adopted by DEC and APA when modified horse-drawn carriages were the approved, DEC-supported and contracted means of non-motorized access to Santanoni for persons with disabilities. DEC should increase efforts to restart this horse-drawn program, and also encourage and support other forms of non-motorized accessibility services here and elsewhere in the Forest Preserve.

OPDMD Electric Assist Bicycle Categories: It may not be reasonable to ask DEC personnel responsible for carrying out policy in the field to easily distinguish by structure (width) and function (speed) Class 1 (without throttle) and Class 2 (with throttle) Electric Assist Bicycles. We recommend simplifying the number of OPDMD bicycle categories.

Conclusions: For this to be good public policy and to comply with federal and state regulations, there must be more thought given, more analysis, and greater evaluation of where this draft Policy could cause substantial alteration of DEC programs, services, and activities in the Forest Preserve. We have also pointed out where this draft Policy fails to comply with the State Land Master Plan’s Wilderness and Wild Forest guidelines. Significant revisions are, therefore, needed including:

  1. Incorporate State Land Master Plan guidelines for management and use in the Policy’s analysis of compliance with federal regulations and the weighing of federal assessment factors;
  2. Treat OPDMD classes 1-7as incompatible on Wilderness trails;
  3. Treat OPDMD classes 5-7 as incompatible on Wild Forest trails;
  4. Revise DEC’s analysis of applying the federal assessment factors, Appendix D, accordingly.
  5. Revise Table 1, Approved Uses, on Forest Preserve Campground trails.
    Before redrafting DEC should discuss these and other needed revisions with NYS Adirondack Park Agency’s State Land Committee and with other stakeholders.

Also, to continue to open doors to better mutual understanding and shared information we encourage DEC to facilitate a field trip of the Accessibility Advisory and Forest Preserve Advisory Committees this summer.
Thank you for considering our comments and concerns with this draft Policy.

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

Cc: Amanda Lefton, Commissioner, DEC
Katie Petronis, Deputy Commissioner for Natural Resources, DEC
Fiona Watt, Division Director, Lands and Forests, DEC
Barbara Rice, Executive Director, APA
Megan Phillips, Deputy Director for Planning, APA
Mark Hall, APA Chair
Ken Lynch, Chair, APA State Land Committee
State Land Committee members
Ashley Dougherty, Executive Chamber