April 4, 2006
James Townsend, Chairman
State Lands Committee
NYS Adirondack Park Agency
P.O. Box 99
Ray Brook, NY 12977
Re. State Land Master Plan, No Material Increase Basic Guideline 4
Dear Jim:
We follow up the Agency’s March meeting and anticipate its April meeting by sharing perspective and concerns regarding the interpretation of the “No Material Increase” (Basic Wild Forest guideline 4) in the mileage of roads and snowmobile trails open to the public for the use of motorized vehicles from that mileage available in 1972 at the time the State Land Master Plan was adopted.
During the State Lands Committee March discussion, you appeared to suggest that, in essence, the mileage of roads and snowmobile trails open to the public can or should grow as new state lands are acquired, and that the SLMP guidance in basic Wild Forest Guideline 4 applied only to Forest Preserve existing as of 1972 and not to state lands acquired since the adoption of the Master Plan.
The Association disagrees. From our reading of the Master Plan and conversations with those who fought to restrain the use of motor vehicles in the Forest Preserve before and after its adoption, we believe the answer to the suggestion you raised is no. The Agency must adhere to the clear meaning of the No Material Increase guideline.
The language of Basic Guideline 4 on page 33 of the SLMP, referenced above, is clear enough but must not be read in isolation. It is referenced again on page 35 which gives the Agency much clearer guidance about the question of newly-acquired state lands classified as Wild Forest.
“Established roads or snowmobile trails in newly-acquired state lands classified as wild forest may be kept open to the public, subject to basic guideline 4 set forth above.”
This additional guidance demonstrates that the Agency and the Department were anticipating the additional acquisition of Forest Preserve post 1972 and that both agencies understood that the mileage open to public use of motor vehicles was constrained and tied
to the mileage of 1972 and would not and should not expand as the result of new state land acquisitions beyond the point of materiality.
If that guidance were not sufficient, the Agency and the Department agreed on additional language on page 37 under Recreational use and overuse:
“All types of recreational uses considered appropriate for wilderness areas are compatible with wild forest and, in addition, snowmobiling, motor boating and travel by jeep and other motor vehicles on a limited and regulated basis that will not materially increase motorized uses that confirmed to the Master Plan at the time of its adoption in 1972 and will not adversely affect the essentially wild character of the land are permitted.”
The Agency’s own interpretation of the “no material increase” guideline has been consistent since 1972, guided as it was by the recommendations of the Temporary Study Commission on the Future of the Adirondacks that called for, specifically:
“Existing mileage of snowmobile trails on wild forest land should not be expanded”…and “the state should encourage development of snowmobile trails on private lands. To the extent that such trails become available, the mileage of snowmobile trails should be proportionately reduced,” due to the fact that motorized uses are historically antithetical to the provisions of Article 14 of the State Constitution.
Putting together all of the SLMP guidance should give the reader and the Agency little doubt of what was intended by the authors of the SLMP – to tightly constrain the mileage open to public use of motor vehicles in the Adirondack Forest Preserve and not to expand that mileage as new state lands were acquired. The authors of the SLMP, the Agency and the Department understood in 1972 that such constraints were fundamental to a 20th century understanding of the meaning of the “Forever Wild” provisions of Article 14, Section 1 of the Constitution.
From a strategic perspective, now that the problematic Draft Comprehensive Snowmobile Plan may be resurrected for continued discussion, it would be unwise to introduce new concepts such as a changing the “denominator” of mileage open to public motorized uses in proportion to the change in total state land acreage. This concept, if pushed by the Agency or the Department, will not invite or encourage a receptive fresh look at the Draft Comprehensive Plan.
From a scientific perspective, the Agency and the Department understand much more than you did in 1972 about the impacts that motorized routes have on the ecological land units, if you will, of the Adirondack Park, motorized impacts which extend far beyond the actual mileage per square mile of land area. Furthermore, both agencies are now well versed in the understanding and application of human dimensions of wilderness recreation, carrying capacity and limits of acceptable change to Forest Preserve. Local and regional extirpations of sensitive wildlife and plant species, invasions of non-native species and sharp reductions in the opportunities for solitude are just some of the extreme results of an expanding road and motorized network in wild lands. Many more subtle impacts are also known. Such understandings, informed by research sponsored and funded, in part, by the state should reinforce the determination of the Agency’s State Lands Committee to adhere to the “no material increase” guidelines of the SLMP.
Thank you. The Association would welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue with you and the State Lands committee and Agency staff. We ask to be among those invited to any public discussions or meetings that the Agency might convene. We look forward to the Agency’s discussion of this and other topics on its April State Lands agenda.
Sincerely,
|
David H. Gibson Executive Director |
Daniel R. Plumley Director of Park Protection |
Cc:
R. Whaley
S. Buchanan
R. Lefebvre
J. Banta
R. Weber
W. Lick
J. Connolly
J. Ferreira
R. Davies
K. Hamm
K. Richards