Search Results for: photo agency buildings 4

Tuesday, Tuesday. Four weeks and it’s back to work for the New Year 2024.

I saw that the new legislative session calendar was released for next year. Heavy weighted for January and February but that’s to be expected with the early primaries.

Good morning! Partly cloudy and 33 degrees at the Delmar, NY. ⛅ There is a northwest breeze at 11 mph. 🍃. Temperatures will drop below freezing at around 6 pm. ☃️ Much cooler than yesterday.

Decided to do cream of wheat topped with shredded apples 🍏 and homemade this morning cranberry sauce. Coffee ☕ with lots of ginger and cinnamon. Plus some water with apple cider vinegar and ginger to smooth digestion, had a bit of an upset stomach 😲 after the pea soup last night. I really now understand why people add ham to pea soup – it’s for the fats which ease digestion by buffering the highly basic peas. 🍲 Not the taste per se, despite what folks claim. It would help too if I added more water to the soup to make it liquid before reheating for buffering plus adding more aciditic balsamic vinegar when serving and possibly adding a healthy fat like maybe mashed avocado 🥑 or some olive oil to the mix. Ham isn’t required especially if you are adding salt to the pea soup for taste. 🐷

I think it will be nice enough to ride to work. 🚲 Wear gloves 🧤 and embrace the cold it won’t be much longer for riding to work until spring or at least a February thaw. ☃ I figure with the new office 🏢 I’ll be able to ride in when there is enough daylight to ride back to the express bus in the evening. 🚍 Which isn’t the case in January.

Today will be mostly cloudy 🌥, with a high of 37 degrees at 11am. Five degrees below normal, which is similar to a typical day around December 18th. Northwest wind 5 to 11 mph becoming northeast in the afternoon. A year ago, we had cloudy skies in the morning with more sun in the afternoon. The high last year was 44 degrees. The record high of 65 was set in 2001. 9.0 inches of snow fell back in 1902.❄

Stayed in the office late last night to watch the fireworks 🎆. Honestly I would have gotten a better view from the Plaza as the agency buildings blocked the view of lower firing fireworks. I figured view the fireworks from my office before I move on. It wasn’t that late and I just caught the 6:45 bus home. 🚌 Already had dinner in the office, and I thought about going for a walk but my stomach was kind of upset after the pea soup.

Solar noon 🌞 is at 11:47 am with sun having an altitude of 25° from the due south horizon (-45.8° vs. 6/21). A six foot person will cast a 12.8 foot shadow today compared to 2.2 feet on the first day of summer. The golden hour 🏅 starts at 3:38 pm with the sun in the southwest (232°). 📸 The sunset is in the west-southwest (240°) with the sun dropping below the horizon at 4:23 pm after setting for 3 minutes and 21 seconds with dusk around 4:53 pm, which is 10 seconds earlier than yesterday. 🌇 The best time to look at the stars is after 5:30 pm. At sunset, look for mostly cloudy skies ☁ and temperatures around 36 degrees. There will be a north-northeast breeze at 5 mph. Tomorrow will have 9 hours and 14 minutes of daytime, a decrease of one minute and 7 seconds over today.

I got home 🏡 last night and with my upset stomach 🤰🏼 decided it best not to do an evening walk 🚶 plus I was tired 😴 and lazy being a Monday. Heated up a glass of milk 🥛 with lots of cinnamon and ginger and that was good, retired to bed 🛏 and watched some more of that class on machine learning 🤖. I think even more than a so called smoothie which adds natural sugars in the form of fruit and or yogurt I’m just as good with plain fat free milk loaded up with cinnamon and ginger nice and warm. Supposed to help with sleep 😴 besides warming you up.

Tonight will be cloudy ☁, with a low of 27 degrees at 5am. One degree above normal, which is similar to a typical night around December 2nd. North wind around 6 mph. In 2022, we had mostly clear skies in the evening, which became light rain by the early hours of the morning. It got down to 39 degrees. The record low of -5 occurred back in 1901.

Another rainy but mild weekend ahead. 🌧️ Saturday, mostly cloudy, with a high near 49. Sunday, showers likely. Mostly cloudy, with a high near 56. Breezy. Chance of precipitation is 70%. Typical average high for the weekend is 40 degrees. No snow in the immediate future 🔮 but definitely cloudy and gray. And rain for the weekends, which seems like we are stuck on the pattern of rainy weekends.

Looking ahead, there are 3 weeks until Boxing Day 🥊 when the sun will be setting at 4:29 pm with dusk at 4:59 pm. A good day for burning up all those boxes and wrapping paper from Christmas. 📦 🔥 On that day in 2022, we had partly sunny and temperatures between 30 and 16 degrees. Typically, the high temperature is 35 degrees. We hit a record high of 59 back in 1895.

Tonight

How Much Recreational Development is Allowed in the Forest Preserve?

Most people probably agree it’s not the intent of the original drafters of the state consitution to allow totally unbridled development in the forest preserve. Article XIV Section 1 of the State Constitution states:

The lands of the state, now owned or hereafter acquired, constituting the forest preserve as now fixed by law, shall be forever kept as wild forest lands. They shall not be leased, sold or exchanged, or be taken by any corporation, public or private, nor shall the timber thereon be sold, removed or destroyed. [… exceptions removed]

It’s pretty clear that on Forest Preserve lands that the following is totally inappropriate:

  • Commerical facilities, such as shopping or amusements.
  • Government facilities that are not primarily rustic in character (i.e. wooden administrative cabins and barns that lack plumbing and electricity)
  • Highly developed recreation facilities, such as large metal or concrete luge tracks, ski slopes
  • Asphalt roads, and those roads designed for movement of vehicles not exclusively for the forest preserve use, or for speeds greater then 25 MPH.

Goodnight Mr Sun

Controlling Principles Of Recreation in the Forest Preserve.

I think most people can agree forest Preserve must have an essentially wild character. Indeed, that is what the Court of Appeals upheld in Association for Protection of Adirondacks v MacDonald (253 N.Y. 234, affg 228 App Div 73, 1930), as I shared earlier this week. If you missed this earlier in the week, this case’s essence is cited in Balsam Anglers Club v. DEC (153 Misc. 2d 606, 1991).

Respondents adopted the UMP in furtherance of the Catskill Park State Land Master Plan, which was adopted in order to provide classifications and guidelines for the uniform protection and management of State-owned lands within the Catskill Forest Preserve. Under the UMP, respondents intend to construct a number of small parking areas providing access to trails and primitive campsites, to relocate certain trails to avoid private lands and to construct new trails within the Balsam Lake Mountain Wild Forest area. Since respondents must necessarily cut a certain number of seedlings, saplings and trees to complete such projects, petitioner contends that the UMP is in violation of article XIV, § 1 of the New York State Constitution. p>The Constitution provides, “[t]he lands of the state, now owned or hereafter acquired, constituting the forest preserve as now fixed by law, shall be forever kept as wild forest lands. They shall not be leased, sold or exchanged, or be taken by any corporation, public or private, nor shall the timber thereon be sold, removed, or destroyed.” Petitioner contends that the cutting of as many as 2,000 “trees”, most of which are less than three inches diameter at breast height, constitutes the removal or destruction of timber.

This specific constitutional issue has rarely been litigated. The Court of Appeals and the Appellate Division in Association for Protection of Adirondacks v MacDonald (253 N.Y. 234, affg 228 App Div 73) addressed legislation authorizing the construction of a bobsled run within the Adirondack Forest Preserve for the 1932 Winter Olympics.

The Appellate Division addressed the legislative history of the New York State Constitution and found an intent to prevent any actions “which might convert this preserve into anything but a wilderness” (228 App Div, at 79). However, the Appellate Division found that the framers of the New York State Constitution obviously distinguished between “timber” and any form of tree or wood. They quoted the framers as stating, “[a]ny campers that cannot pick up something on the shores, that will not be timber, to warm themselves with, would better either carry in their fuel or stay out” (supra, at 78). (emphasis added)

The Appellate Division also discussed the 1915 Constitutional Convention which sought to change the wording of the New York State Constitution to “trees and timber” (supra, at 79). Thereafter, the Appellate Division found that the project involved “the cutting of 2,600 trees which must unquestionably be regarded as of `timber’ size” (supra, at 82).

Based upon an 609*609 agreed statement of facts, all 2,600 trees were in excess of 3 inches diameter at breast height, 480 trees were in excess of 8 inches and 33 trees were in excess of 20 inches. The project involved total clearing of between 4 and 5 acres, some of which constituted first growth hardwoods and involved the removal of some 60,000 board feet of timber. The Appellate Division held the legislation unconstitutional based both upon the substantial destruction of timber and the nature of the proposed project.

Moose River Plains Road

The citation of Helms v. Reid, 90 Misc. 2d 583 gives further incite into the Assocation for the Protection of Adirondacks vs McDonald case:

The major case interpreting the “forever wild” clause is Association for Protection of Adirondacks v MacDonald (228 App Div 73, supra). The question before that court was whether a statute passed by the Legislature providing for the construction of a bobsled run on forest preserve land and the necessary cutting of some 2,600 trees was violative of section 7 of article VII of the Constitution (presently art XIV, § 1). The Appellate Division had carefully traced the adoption of the forest preserve language and then made a careful inspection of the record from the 1894 Constitutional Convention where the “forever wild” clause language was adopted as a proposed amendment to the Constitution. The Appellate Divison concluded that the constitutional mandate was clear and in declaring the statute unconstitutional stated at page 81: “Giving to the phrase `forever kept as wild forest lands’ the significance which the term `wild forest’ bears, we must conclude that the idea intended was a health resort and playground with the attributes of a wild forest park as distinguished from other parks so common to our civilization. We must preserve it in its wild nature, its trees, its rocks, its streams. It was to be a great resort for the free use of all the people, but it was made a wild resort in which nature is given free rein. Its uses for health and pleasure must not be inconsistent 595*595 with its preservation as forest lands in a wild state. It must always retain the character of a wilderness. Hunting, fishing, tramping, mountain climbing, snowshoeing, skiing or skating find ideal setting in nature’s wilderness. It is essentially a quiet and healthful retreat from the turmoils and artificialities of a busy urban life. Breathing its pure air is invigorating to the sick. No artificial setting is required for any of these purposes. Sports which require a setting that is man-made are unmistakeably inconsistent with the preservation of these forest lands in the wild and natural state in which Providence has developed them.”

Many Downed Trees

What About Developing More Modest Recreation Facilities in Forest Preserve?

Certainly building a bob sled run would have been a massive project with visible impacts on the mountain vistas where the timber was removed, the steel infrastructure of the bob sled run, and the general changes the wild forest character. But what about more minor projects, e.g.

  • Scenic Vista Cut Along Trails
  • Primative tent campsites, along lakes, streams, or in the woods.
  • Roadside campsites with vehicular access.
  • State Campgrounds with Flush Toilets and Showers.
  • Horse stalls and horse barns.
  • Construction of hiking trails that require the cutting of brush or a de minis amount of timber.
  • Construction of snowmobile trails that potentially could involve cutting a larger amount of timber.
  • Horse trails that require the cutting of brush or a de minis amount of timber.

Moose Pond Way

The Case Law on Recreational Facilities in the Forest Preserve.

We learn in Helms v. Reid, 90 Misc. 2d 583 some of debates surrounding adoption of Article XIV Section 1 of the State Consitution, and how the Consitutional Convention of 1894 intended not to prohibit “all things necessary” to provide public access and not damage the forst preserve.

The Court of Appeals decision in MacDonald is of great importance and must necessarily be the guiding light in the analysis of the “forever wild” clause which this court must follow in rendering its opinion. At page 238 Judge CRANE states: “The words of the Constitution, like those of any other law, must receive a reasonable interpretation, considering the purpose and the object in view. (State of Ohio ex rel Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379.) Words are but symbols indicating ideas and are subject to contraction and expansion to meet the idea sought to be expressed; they register frequently according to association, or like the thermometer, by the atmosphere surrounding them. The purpose of the constitutional provision, as indicated by the debates in the Convention of 1894, was to prevent the cutting or destruction of the timber or the sale thereof, as had theretofore been permitted by legislation, to the injury and ruin of the Forest Preserve. To accomplish the end in view, it was thought necessary to close all gaps and openings in the law, and to prohibit any cutting or any removal of the trees and timber to a substantial extent.”

This language sets forth that the purpose of the “forever wild” clause was to prevent the commercial exploitation of the forest preserve which had previously been sanctioned by the Legislature, and it appears to be the court’s feeling that some cutting is permissible as long as it is not a substantial amount. Continuing on page 238: “The Adirondack Park was to be preserved, not destroyed. Therefore, all things necessary were permitted, such as measures to prevent forest fires, the repairs to roads and proper inspection, or the erection and maintenance of proper facilities for the use by the public which did not call for the removal of the timber to any material degree.”

This language indicates the court’s recognition of the fact that even though the Constitution was intended to protect and preserve our natural forest lands, such protection does not prohibit use and enjoyment of the areas by the people of the State. Such a principle is based upon the theory that the forest preserve was for the use and benefit of the people and was not to be an isolated area in which no man would wander. (People v Adirondack Ry. Co., 160 N.Y. 225, affd 176 US 335). (emphasis added)

While the Court never ruled on these matters in Helms, plantiff Herbert R. Helms cited that the State Conservation Department, made major changes and “man-made improvements” to the Adirondack Forest Preserve, over the past 50 years, many of them of questionable consitutional virtue under McDonald, abit never challenged in court.

The first cause of action in the complaint sets forth the “forever wild” clause and then lists various uses undertaken within the forest preserve in the past and present by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (ENCON), which the plaintiffs contend destroy the wild forest nature of the preserve because they all entail cutting significant amounts of timber and over use of the forest preserve area. The purported misuses are as follows: construction of 42 or more public campsites; dirt access roads to these campsites, along with various outbuildings, facilities, boat launchings, sewage disposal systems and the maintenance thereof; construction of hundreds of lean-tos, trails, jeep trails, fire roads 587*587 and paved roads other than those specifically authorized by the Constitution; construction and maintenance of ranger stations, fire watch towers, telephone and electrical transmission lines, as well as other utility lines; construction of boat launchings, parking lots and tent platforms; overuse and misuse of backwoods causing unreasonable widening of trails, littering and defoliation of areas, and finally allowing private individuals to adversely possess forest preserve lands to the preclusion of other citizens.

Helms cites McDonald in saying limited development and recreation is allowed in the park, as long as it’s primarily primative in nature:

“What may be done in these forest lands to preserve them or to open them up for the use of the public, or what reasonable cutting or removal of timber may be necessitated in order to properly preserve the State Park, we are not at this time called upon to determine. What regulations may reasonably be made by the Commission for the use of the park by campers and those who seek recreation and health in the quiet and solitude of the north woods is not before us in this case. The Forest Preserve and the Adirondack Park within it are for the reasonable use and benefit of the public, as heretofore stated. A very considerable use may be made by campers and others without in any way interfering with this purpose of preserving them as wild forest lands. (See `The Problem of the Wilderness’ by Robert Marshall in `The Scientific Monthly’, Feb. 1930, p. 141.)”

Cheney Pond Lean-To

Helms goes further to state:

If we assume that a constitutional amendment is not necessary for every use in the preserve which requires a cutting of timber, then we must apply our reasonableness standard to proposed uses. The question then becomes, who is to apply this standard?

It would appear that although the Constitution has deprived the Legislature of any power to authorize a cutting of timber in the forest preserve for commercial purposes, it has not deprived that body of its power with respect to public purposes. The MacDonald decision has allowed the Legislature the power to make reasonable regulations as to this public use and preservation, and such use and preservation must necessarily include some cutting of timber.

Since the Legislature still retains at least this limited authority, it may properly delegate this authority to the administrative agency best adapted to applying the principles heretofore enumerated. This is precisely what our Legislature has done by the creation of the Adirondack Park Agency. (emphasis added)

While ultimately Helms went on to decline an attempt to overturn float plane restrictions in newly designated “Wilderness” areas, first implemented by Governor Rockefeller’s Environmental Conservation Commissioner, Henry Diamond, it did include this important note:

In the discussion of the “forever wild” clause it was pointed out that the preserve was not to be closed to the public, but was to be held open for all of the public to enjoy in its natural wild state. Therefore, plaintiffs’ main theory is correct, and any regulation which arbitrarily restricts public access to or a reasonable public use of the lands in the preserve is violative of section 1 of article XIV.

Wakley Fire Tower

The principle of limited development of the Adirondack and Catskill Forest Preserve, to enhance public access was upheld most recently in Balsam Lake Anglers Club v Department of Environmental Conservation (upheld on Appeal to 2nd Appelate Division). It states:

Respondents adopted the UMP in furtherance of the Catskill Park State Land Master Plan, which was adopted in order to provide classifications and guidelines for the uniform protection and management of State-owned lands within the Catskill Forest Preserve. Under the UMP, respondents intend to construct a number of small parking areas providing access to trails and primitive campsites, to relocate certain trails to avoid private lands and to construct new trails within the Balsam Lake Mountain Wild Forest area. Since respondents must necessarily cut a certain number of seedlings, saplings and trees to complete such projects, petitioner contends that the UMP is in violation of article XIV, § 1 of the New York State Constitution.

The Constitution provides, “[t]he lands of the state, now owned or hereafter acquired, constituting the forest preserve as now fixed by law, shall be forever kept as wild forest lands. They shall not be leased, sold or exchanged, or be taken by any corporation, public or private, nor shall the timber thereon be sold, removed, or destroyed.” Petitioner contends that the cutting of as many as 2,000 “trees”, most of which are less than three inches diameter at breast height, constitutes the removal or destruction of timber.

This specific constitutional issue has rarely been litigated. The Court of Appeals and the Appellate Division in Association for Protection of Adirondacks v MacDonald (253 N.Y. 234, affg 228 App Div 73) addressed legislation authorizing the construction of a bobsled run within the Adirondack Forest Preserve for the 1932 Winter Olympics. The Appellate Division addressed the legislative history of the New York State Constitution and found an intent to prevent any actions “which might convert this preserve into anything but a wilderness” (228 App Div, at 79). However, the Appellate Division found that the framers of the New York State Constitution obviously distinguished between “timber” and any form of tree or wood. They quoted the framers as stating, “[a]ny campers that cannot pick up something on the shores, that will not be timber, to warm themselves with, would better either carry in their fuel or stay out” (supra, at 78). The Appellate Division also discussed the 1915 Constitutional Convention which sought to change the wording of the New York State Constitution to “trees and timber” (supra, at 79). Thereafter, the Appellate Division found that the project involved “the cutting of 2,600 trees which must unquestionably be regarded as of `timber’ size” (supra, at 82). Based upon an 609*609 agreed statement of facts, all 2,600 trees were in excess of 3 inches diameter at breast height, 480 trees were in excess of 8 inches and 33 trees were in excess of 20 inches. The project involved total clearing of between 4 and 5 acres, some of which constituted first growth hardwoods and involved the removal of some 60,000 board feet of timber. The Appellate Division held the legislation unconstitutional based both upon the substantial destruction of timber and the nature of the proposed project.

The Court of Appeals in affirming the Appellate Division determination rejected the absolutist argument that not even a single tree or even fallen timber or deadwood could be removed and stated that the constitutional provision must be interpreted reasonably. “[A]ll things necessary were permitted, such as measures to prevent forest fires, the repairs to roads and proper inspection, or the erection and maintenance of proper facilities for the use by the public which did not call for the removal of the timber to any material degree. The Forest Preserve is preserved for the public; its benefits are for the people of the State as a whole. Whatever the advantages may be of having wild forest lands preserved in their natural state, the advantages are for every one within the State and for the use of the people of the State. Unless prohibited by the constitutional provision, this use and preservation are subject to the reasonable regulations of the Legislature” (supra, 253 NY, at 238-239). It is thus clear that the Court of Appeals determined that insubstantial and immaterial cutting of timber-sized trees was constitutionally authorized in order to facilitate public use of the forest preserve so long as such use is consistent with wild forest lands.

With respect to the relocation of the Hardenberg Neversink Trail challenged herein, petitioner contends that the amount of cutting is of constitutional dimension. The relocated trail is in excess of two miles long and is approximately six feet wide. With the trail approximately 80% completed, 73 trees of timber size, that is three inches or more, have been cut, including one nine-inch tree and one six-inch tree which was dead. The remaining trees are three, four or five inches in diameter. It is estimated by the court that the entire cutting, including trees not of timber size, that is, less than three inches, amounts to little more than one cord of firewood. The great majority of such cutting will be completely decomposed within a few years leaving no trace of their existence but 610*610 providing increased growth opportunity for the remaining trees in the forest.

It is therefore determined the amount of vegetation, seedlings, saplings and timber-sized trees destroyed so far in the construction of the relocated Hardenberg Neversink Trail is not constitutionally prohibited, nor is the number of trees planned to be removed to complete such relocation. While the actual route for the Millbrook Ridge Trail has not been chosen and it is not known how many trees, saplings, seedlings and other vegetation must be destroyed, it may be presumed that the Department of Environmental Conservation, pursuant to its regulations concerning the construction of trails and the destruction of trees and timber, will comply with the provisions of the New York State Constitution. In the event that the Department of Environmental Conservation does not comply, petitioner could certainly challenge the specific trail route or construction techniques at an appropriate time.

Petitioner also contends that the construction of new trails in the Balsam Lake Mountain Wild Forest area violates that portion of the New York State Constitution which requires that forest preserve lands “be forever kept as wild forest lands”, arguing that new trails will increase human activity, thereby necessarily making such areas less wild. Based upon the decisions of the Appellate Division and Court of Appeals in Association for Protection of Adirondacks v MacDonald (supra), it appears that the framers of the New York State Constitution intended not to prevent or hinder public use of the forest, but to allow forested areas to revert to their natural or wild state without human interference with the natural succession of different types of trees, selective cutting or thinning to “improve” the timber, or the harvesting of any mature timber. There is no indication of any intent to maintain the forest in an “absolutely” wild state with no organized human alteration or intervention at all.

The Court of Appeals specifically held that facilities consistent with the nature of the forest preserve could be constructed for the use by the public, including camping and hiking. Such use facilitated by the construction of new trails or increasing parking and camping areas will almost certainly degrade the pristine quality of certain areas of the forest preserve. While it may be desirable to initiate a policy to refrain from actions which will have the effect of increasing human activity, such issues are not of constitutional dimension unless significant cutting of timber is involved. Accordingly, it is declared that the Unit Management Plan adopted for the Balsam Lake Mountain Wild Forest area does not violate the provisions of article XIV of the New York State Constitution.

Towards Indian Lake

What is the Standard Held This Cases?

Over the years, the courts have created a certain principles on recreation facilities in Adirondacks. Distilled down, one can probably agree that courts in NY State hold:

  • Any project to be constructed in forest preserve must cut as few trees as possible, particularly of timber-grade trees, those larger then 3″ in diameter. Any project requiring significant timber cuts are unconstitutional.
  • There is a clear preference towards development of facilities in natural meadows and brushy areas, locating paths, trails, and roads on existing old woods road rather then cutting new roadways or trails through the woods.
  • Limited timber cutting is allowed for essentially wild forest purposes, such as campsites and trail location. It must be as limited as practical.
  • Any developed facilities must be rustic in nature (wood, painted brown), and must exist solely to complement forest preserve uses such as primative camping, hiking, hunting and fishing.
  • Intensive use areas are allowed, such as developed state campgrounds or firetowers, but they can not change the forest character or require the excessive removal of timber.

Tiny Roadside Campsite

… the courts have sought a balance between recreational demands and keeping the primarily wild nature of forests wild.

DEIS on 2013 Amendments to the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan

July 15, 2013

James E. Connolly, Deputy Director, Planning
Adirondack Park Agency
Post Office Box 99
1133 State Route 86
Ray Brook, NY 12977

Dear Mr. Connolly:

 RE:  DEIS on 2013 Amendments to the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan

 The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement fails to provide all ‘reasonable alternatives’ in its review of possibilities, by failing to include the option of classifying the lands of Essex Chain Tract, Indian River Tract, OK Slip Tract, and Open Space Conservancy (OSC) Tracts as ‘Wild Forest’ in their entirety.  A reasonable person could conclude that providing such a ‘Wild Forest’ classification, as part of the review, is required under the analysis mandated by ECL 8-0109 (“reasonable alternatives under SERQA”) and the Executive Law 816 (“state land plan for Adirondacks”).

While Alternative 4A (“New Land as Wild Forest with a Wilderness Corridor Along the Hudson River”) comes close to a pure ‘Wild Forest’ option, I would strongly recommend that the agency consider creating an Alternative 4C, with a ‘Wild Forest’ option, and ultimately adopt the Alternative 4C, pure ‘Wild Forest’ option, to preserve access to existing roadways, as felt necessary and proper by the Department of Environmental Conservation.

A pure ‘Wild Forest’ option would continue to allow use many of the existing roadways to provide access to the interior of these lands that exists today, under private ownership to existing camps and facilities. Nobody is proposing the construction of new roads or expanded motor vehicle access to this area, indeed such a provision would be violative of Article XIV of the state’s constitution, which states, “…nor shall the timber thereon be sold, removed or destroyed.”

East

The unique provisions of the state’s constitution will prevent excessive development and use of these lands. In Association for Protection of Adirondacks v MacDonald (253 N.Y. 234, affg 228 App Div 73, 1930), it was decided that most cutting of trees in the forest preserve by the DEC was prohibited. A state-owned bob sleigh run was prohibited from being built in state forest preserve.

 “The Adirondack Park was to be preserved, not destroyed. Therefore, all things necessary were permitted, such as measures to prevent forest fires, the repairs to roads and proper inspection, or the erection and maintenance of proper facilities for the use by the public which did not call for the removal of the timber to any material degree. The Forest Preserve is preserved for the public; its benefits are for the people of the State as a whole.” (emphasis added)

No new facilities on these lands may be constructed that require the cutting of timber, beyond a “material degree” as defined in MacDonald and subsequent decision in Balsam Anglers Club v. DEC (153 Misc. 2d 606, 1991), which continued to hold that DEC could not cut any material amount of timber, although a small amount of brush removed to conduct a hiking a trail would be permissive.

Further restrictions on public motor vehicle use in ‘Wild Forest’ lands under 1935 opinion of Attorney General John J. Bennett, Jr., who stated it would be unlawful to create new public roads within forest preserve, without amending the state constitution. Mr. Bennett’s opinion permitted the DEC to create new “truck trails” for administrative use and forest-fire prevention, however if such truck trails were to be built, the public would be banned from use of them.

Therefore, Adirondack Park Agency (APA) should not be concerned or fearful about an expansion of motorized transportation in this areas, but should continue to allow existing access roads where deemed necessary and proper by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC).

Sandy Plains

Moreover, the APA is not constrained, on their classification of these parcels. The controlling law is Executive Law 816, which simply requires the APA to create a plan, and for the DEC to follow it. The statue allows for the APA to amend their plan, at will, when acquiring new parcels or meet contemporary uses of land, as long as it is consistent with the state constitution’s prohibition on the removal of timber.

A ‘Wild Forest’ classification, with the protections provided under state constitution is what is needed for these lands. This would keep most of the existing interior roads open for low-speed, controlled motor vehicle travel, for access to the Hudson River, campsites, and the many ponds and trail heads up mountains. Let the DEC then decide which existing interior roads to convert to hiking trails, based on terrain and sensitive environmental areas.

Additionally, a ‘Wild Forest’ classification would keep existing interior roads open to snowmobiles in winter and ATV access in the summer and fall including hunting seasons. Again, exact routing of such corridors should be left to the DEC in their creation of the Unit Master Plan (UMP). Likewise, hiking trails should be designated in the UMP, and may be created either following existing routes, or new routes, under the authority granted by the court in Balsam Anglers Club.

To be clear, current precedence and practice allows roadside camping, with a small trailer or pickup truck with a camper top, is allowed in Wild Forest-area in designated areas. As such, I would call for an amendment to the APSLMP, as part of the plan to strike the road “tent” from the description of campsite, as designated under Wild Forest. All other provisions, including the ¼ mile separation should remain for campsites in Adirondack Park.

Units with existing, department-designed roadside campsites, and no prohibitions on small vehicular campers include the following Wild Forests: Aldrich Pond, Black River, Debar Mountain, Ferris Lake, Horsehoe Lake, Jessup River, Independence River, Moose River, Saranac Lake, Sargent Ponds, Taylor Pond, Vanderwhacker, and Wilcox Lake – all of largest wild forests. Roadside camping is popular activity on many back roads, and is not only allowed in many designated sites in New York State, but is common in National Forests in neighboring states, such as Pennsylvania and Vermont. The impact on existing ecosystems is minimal, as the land is already impacted by existing motor vehicle traffic traveling on these roads.

Finally, the Adirondack Park Agency should carefully review the resolution, “Resolution in Support of the Upper Hudson Recreational Hub Request for Maximum Access to Unclassified State Lands,” by the Adirondack Association of Village and Towns in making their classification decision for these lands. Setting out a dramatic vision for these lands, they would protect the existing wild forest character of these lands, while maximizing the public use of these lands, which were ultimately paid for with our taxpayer dollars.

Thank you for reviewing these comments. I look forward to reviewing the revised DEIS.

Sincerely,

Andy Arthur

Beaver Dam


 Resolution in Support of the Upper Hudson Recreational Hub

Request for Maximum Access to Unclassified State Lands

 

Resolution Date: 3 June 2013 at the Membership Meeting of the Adirondack Association of Towns and Villages

Moved By: Supervisor Farber, seconded by Supervisor Monroe  CARRIED

WHEREAS, Governor Cuomo has announced the State’s acquisition of 69,000 acres of the former Finch Pruyn and other Nature Conservancy Lands; and

WHEREAS, Governor Cuomo has stated that this agreement will make the Adirondack Park one of the most sought after destinations for paddlers, hikers, hunters, sportspeople, and snowmobilers, and that opening these lands to public use and enjoyment for the first time in 150 years will provide extraordinary new outdoor recreational opportunities, increase the number of visitors to the North Country and generate additional tourism revenue; and

WHEREAS, the five Towns in the Adirondack Park most affected by this acquisition wish to realize the maximum benefit of increased tourism revenue; and

WHEREAS, the five Towns consisting of Indian Lake, Long Lake, Minerva, Newcomb, and North Hudson wish to work together to achieve the maximum economic benefit to the region from the increased tourism and have now formed the Upper Hudson Recreation Hub; and

WHEREAS, these tracts of land have an extensive network of maintained roads formerly used as logging and access roads; and

WHEREAS, the Upper Hudson Recreation Hub is in agreement that the only path to realize the maximum economic benefit of this land acquisition is to provide the utmost access to the public to the ponds, lakes, rivers, streams, and trails and that access should be provided to all citizens including the elderly, handicapped, disabled and physically challenged; and

WHEREAS, the Upper Hudson Recreation Hub is also in agreement that all forms of recreational activities to include, but not be limited to, hiking, canoeing, camping, skiing, snowmobiling, mountain biking, horseback riding, dog sledding, and the use of ATV’s be permitted; and

WHEREAS, the Upper Hudson Recreation Hub is of the opinion that the “Gooley Historical Society” be permitted to preserve and maintain the Outer Gooley Farmhouse, a building of historical significance that would be a learning tool for current and future generations and the loss of this valuable asset would be truly disrespectful to our Adirondack Ancestors; and ..

WHEREAS, the Upper Hudson Recreation Hub agrees that the proposal to surplus the Boreas Pond Lodge and support buildings would be a complete waste of a valuable asset that could be used for many purposes such as training and education, as an information center, an outpost, or as lodging; and

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Adirondack Association of Towns and Villages wholeheartedly supports the position of the Upper Hudson Recreation Hub, in its honorable efforts to achieve the greatest economic benefit from this purchase by requesting that the State classify these lands in away that promotes the maximum access to the ponds, lakes, rivers, streams, and trails by all citizens, including the elderly, handicapped, disabled and physically challenged; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Adirondack Association of Towns and Villages strongly oppose any land use and classification that does not allow for all forms of recreational activities to include, but not be limited to, hiking, canoeing, camping, snowmobiling, skiing, mountain biking, horseback riding, dog sledding, and the use of ATV’s; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Adirondack Association of Towns and Villages fully supports the continued maintenance and preservation of the Outer Gooley Farm House, a place of historical significance where early settlers tried to farm and run a sporting camp; where there was a discovery of hand dugout canoes; where Heavyweight boxer Gene Tunney trained; and where Senator Bobby Kennedy launched his raft into the Hudson River, and, if not preserved, would be the loss of an invaluable asset that could be used as a learning center for present and future generations; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Adirondack Association of Towns and Villages fully supports the continued use of Boreas Pond Lodge and support buildings that could be used for many purposes such as training and education, as an information center, an outpost, or as lodging; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that copies of this resolution be sent to Governor Andrew Cuomo, Commissioner Joe Martens, Senator Elizabeth O’C Little, Senator Hugh T. Farley, Assemblyman Daniel G. Stec, Assemblyman Marc W. Butler, Adirondack Park Agency Chairwoman Leilani Ulrich, DEC Region 5 Regional Director Robert Steggeman and DEC Region 5 Regional Natural Resource Supervisor Thomas Martin.

Why is NYSERDA in the Pine Bush?

One of the things that bothers me is that NYSERDA, the New Yor State Energy Research and Development Corporation is located in the Albany Pine Bush in Corporate Circle, in a location primarily serviced by automobiles with minimal if any bus service through the CDTA ShuttleBee. Based on NYSERDA’s location, it is highly unlikely that any employees or visitors ever come to it using mass-transit. Most employees use gas guzzling private automobiles.

NYSERDA in the Pine Bush

Plenty of Real Estate Downtown,
Much Free to Use…

At the same time, there is a large amount of vacant office space downtown, that should be put into use. It’s quite possible that there would be sufficient room to move all of NYSERDA’s operations to a portion of 625 Broadway, home to the Department of Environmental Conservation and Environmental Facilities Corporation. With recent layoffs and the hiring freeze, there probably is ample space in there.

If not, as New York Times recently documented, the 12 floors of the Corning Tower that are currently sitting vacant would be an ideal place for NYSERDA. Quite a bit of scientific research and bureaucratic work gets done in the Corning Tower by the Health Department and Health Services Corporation, and it seems only natural for a public corporation like NYSERDA to consider locating to this location.

Alternatively, NYSERDA could consider renting a private building downtown like the Arcade Building. Many of these buildings have been vacant for a long time, and it’s possible that the rent they could get is far below what they paid for the sprawl rent in the Albany Pine Bush. While they wouldn’t get the parking spaces next to their offices downtown, what they would trade that in for would be less air pollution and lower energy consumption.

NYSERDA's Green Building

NYSERDA Should Be Setting an Example …

Rather then focusing on super-cars that only wealthy state bureaucracies can afford, they should be focusing on promoting compact communities serviced by mass-transit. While NYSERDA can’t force it’s employees to live in Albany, nor should it necessarily do as such, it can promote the benefit of having a workforce that works downtown in a highly energy efficient fashion.

The agency can promote the ease and convenience of working downtown, along with the energy and time savings. By not including significant parking in their relocation, they encourage employees and visitors to come using mass transit. NYSERDA could go farther and educate all existing and new employees about the many Park and Ride sites and bus service in the Capital Region, along with providing discount or free bus passes to all employees and visitors.

We need to think seriously about investing more into mass-transit . Transit is the future for our urban-areas, and all large employers of the future need to be located near transit lines that are regularly serviced, and reduce employee’s commuting distances.

… NYSERDA: It’s About Making Smart Energy Choices.

Gazing at Beautiful Columbia Circle

Open Pine Bush

Home Savings Bank Buildings