October 20, 2006

Mr. Keith Rivers
Senior Forester
NYSDEC
7327 State Route 812
Lowville, NY 13367

RE: Raquette Boreal Draft Unit Management Plan

Dear Mr. Rivers:

On behalf of the Adirondack Mountain Club (ADK), we would like to take this opportunity to express our deep concern about proposals contained in the draft UMP for the Raquette Boreal Area, a mix of Forest Preserve and conservation easement lands.

While ADK fully supports the creation of the Raquette-Jordan Boreal Primitive Area, we strongly opposed the separate classification of the Raquette River Wild Forest section of the Raquette Boreal UMP Area. We believe that all Forest Preserve in the UMP area should have been uniformly classified as Primitive rather than being split into two classifications. We have several concerns about the future management of the Raquette River Wild Forest and the Raquette-Jordan Boreal Primitive Area.

Motorized Access

Our foremost concern is the draft plan’s proposals to increase motorized use in the UMP Area. It is our understanding that there has been and continues to be strong local interest in providing greater snowmobile and motor vehicle access into the area.

The majority of DEC’s proposed alternatives for a community connector snowmobile route through the unit would involve the construction of a bridge across the Raquette River south of Carry Falls Reservoir. The bridge would be owned by the Town of Colton.

ADK strongly opposes the Town of Colton’s proposed bridge. If built, the bridge would provide a means for snowmobile and ATV riders to gain access to the Raquette River Wild Forest along the Lassiter Main Haul Road. In our view, DEC has been less than forthcoming in the draft UMP about the nature and extent of motorized uses planned for this bridge.

According to an April 2000 press release from the Governor’s office announcing a grant of $800,000 for this Carry Falls bridge project, the bridge:

“will provide year round access for snowmobile, all terrain vehicles (emphasis added), bicycles, horseback riders, hikers and hunters, as well as canoeing, fishing and emergency vehicles.”

Additionally, the Town of Colton has made no secret of its intention to allow ATV access over the bridge. In the draft UMP, DEC dodges the issue of the bridge’s likely role in providing ATV access to the Raquette Boreal Forest Preserve lands. The minutes of the “bridge” committee, a group that included DEC and APA staff members, make it crystal clear that the function of the bridge was to carry both snowmobiles and all terrain vehicles.

It is important to note that opening up the Forest Preserve to ATV use would include access for motorized trail bikes, which are included in the definition of an ATV under the Vehicle and Traffic Law.

Since the proposed east-west public motorized routes must cross Raquette Boreal Forest Preserve lands, DEC must address this issue. If DEC intends not to allow any transit of ATVs, trail motorcycles and other motor vehicles utilizing the proposed Town of Colton Raquette River Bridge, it should be expressly and unequivocally stated in the final UMP.

ATV access over the bridge and onto the Raquette Boreal Forest Preserve lands is plainly illegal. As stated on page 90 of the Draft UMP, 6 NYCRR Part 196 and the APSLMP limit the public use of ATV’s to existing public motor vehicle roads and DEC departmental roads that are designated as open to the general public. DEC states on page 91 of the Draft UMP that in addition to the existing Jamestown Falls Road, the only road which could potentially be opened for public motor vehicle use would be the Lassiter Main Haul road which is on lands classified as wild forest. ADK objects to said Haul Road being opened to motor vehicle access (see argument below about proposed alternatives for motor vehicle access in the unit).

Neither DEC or the APA can legally make any decision in the context of this UMP on the selection of an approved route for the creation of an east-west snowmobile trail linking the Towns of Colton and Hopkinton utilizing the proposed Carry Falls Bridge.

If either DEC or the APA approved the concept of said east-west snowmobile connection through the Raquette Boreal Forest Preserve lands, said approval would constitute an “action” triggering the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Under DEC’s own SEQRA regulations, 6 NYCRR Part 617 defines “action” to include:

“agency planning and policy making activities that may affect the environment and commit the agency to a definite course of future decisions.”

Accordingly, any decision to approve any motor vehicle and/or snowmobile route linking Colton and Hopkinton across Raquette Boreal Forest Preserve lands would trigger the requirement that DEC take a hard look under SEQRA at each and every foreseeable environmental impacts of ATV, trail motorcycle, motor vehicle groomer, and snowmobile use of said Raquette Boreal Forest Preserve lands.

A careful scrutiny of the Draft UMP reveals that DEC has not quantified, analyzed and set forth its conclusions about the impact of the various alternative routes’ introduction of ATVs, trail motorcycles and snowmobiles to the lands of this unit.

DEC has not done any analysis and assessment of the environmental impacts of providing motor vehicle access, especially, ATVs and trail motorcycles, to these portions of the Raquette Boreal Forest Preserve lands east of Carry Falls Reservoir.

DEC has not provided any analysis and conclusions regarding the impact of these 15 alternatives for snowmobile and motor vehicle access on the physical, ecological and biological resources of said Forest Preserve lands as required by 6 NYCRR Part 617.

DEC has not conducted any carrying capacity analysis or estimated the number of motor vehicle trips that is likely to occur for each of the 15 potential motorized access routes of the potential public use of said public motorized use routes.

DEC has not provided any analysis and assessment of the physical, ecological, biological and social carrying capacity impacts, especially the implication of said motorized access routes on current and potential opportunities for remoteness and solitude. This analysis is mandatory under the APSLMP (see pages 9-11).

It is axiomatic that the introduction of public motor vehicle uses into lands of the Forest Preserve where there is currently no motorized access will have profound impacts on the physical, ecological, biological and water quality resources as well as the sense of remoteness and social carrying capacity of the Raquette Boreal lands of the Forest Preserve.

SEQRA, at 6 NYCRR Part 617.6 (c) (1) (xii) requires that every EIS identify and discuss the cumulative impacts of the proposed action, including two or more individual effects on the environment which, when taken together, are significant or which compound or increase other environmental effects.

6 NYCRR Part 617.7 (c) (2) also requires agencies to:

Consider reasonable related long-term, short term, direct, indirect and cumulative impacts, including other simultaneous or subsequent actions which are:
(i) included in any long range plan of which the action under consideration is a part;
(ii) likely to be undertaken as a result thereof; or
(iii) dependent thereon.

Additionally, Environmental Conservation Law 8-0109(2) requires that all potential environmental impacts of a project subject to an environmental review be considered, including the long-term and short effects of the project. Specifically, 6 NYCRR 617.3 (k) (1) provides:

“Considering only part of a segment of an action is contrary to the intent of SEQR. If a lead agency believes that circumstances warrant a segmented review, it must clearly state in its determination of significance and any subsequent EIS the supporting reasons and must demonstrate that such review is clearly no less protective of the environment. Related actions should be identified and discussed to the fullest extent possible.”

Further, under NYCRR 617.2 (gg) segmentation is defined as:

“the division of the environmental review of an action such that various activities or stages are addressed under this Part as though they were independent, unrelated activities, needing an individual determinations of significance.”

Notwithstanding DEC’s observation on page 56 of the Draft UMP that DEC’s management focus must be on protecting the natural resources, the text of the UMP blithely discards the “no motorized access” alternative which best protects the Forest Preserve (see page 119 of the Draft UMP). DEC makes no record for SEQRA purposes in this UMP as to why DEC concludes that boat, canoe, and kayak public access to this unit is an insufficient degree of public access for this remote and unspoiled portion of Forest Preserve.

According to the Draft UMP (see page 108), DEC disregards the “no action” alternative for increasing public motorized access and concludes that there must be creation of a east-west public motorized access route between the Town of Colton and the Town of Hopkinton and other points in Franklin County that passes through the Forest Preserve lands of the Raquette Boreal unit.

DEC’s action, in disregarding the “no action” alternative and concluding that there must be creation of the above-mentioned east-west connection across the Raquette Boreal Forest Preserve, is clearly segmentation under 6 NYCRR Part 617. The statutory and regulatory provisions stated above require that reasonably related long-term, short-term, and cumulative effects, including other simultaneous or subsequent actions included in any long range plan that are likely to be undertaken as a result thereof, be considered (Sun Co., Inc. (R&M) v. City of Syracuse Indus. Development Agency, 209 A.D.2d 34, Matter of Long Is. Pine Barrens Socy. v. Planning Bd. of Town of Brookhaven, 80 N.Y.2d 500, 512-513, 591 N.Y.S.2d 982, 606 N.E.2d 1373; Matter of Village of Westbury v. Department of Transp. of State of N.Y., 75 N.Y.2d 62, 68-71, 550 N.Y.S.2d 604, 549 N.E.2d 1175; Matter of Save the Pine Bush v. City of Albany, 70 N.Y.2d 193, 205-207, 518 N.Y.S.2d 943, 512 N.E.2d 526; Onondaga Landfill Sys. v. Flacke, 81 A.D.2d 1022, 1023, 440 N.Y.S.2d 788).

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 would permit public motorized access across lands of the Forest Preserve classified as “Primitive.” Given the Primitive classification provisions and guidelines of the APSLMP and the unique habitat and the presence of endangered species (spruce grouse) on these lands, alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 should be rejected.

Alternatives 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 all require the acquisition of access easements across private lands. At this time, it is unknown if any of these landowners are willing to negotiate ATV, trail motorcycle and snowmobile access easements. Judging from testimony at a recent public meeting on this Draft UMP in Colton, New York, it would appear that many landowners will be unwilling to sell the state public access rights across their properties for ATVs, trail motorcycles, and snowmobiles.

Because each of these alternatives is dependent on the prospective purchase of public motor vehicle transit rights and the environmental review and permitting of the proposed Town of Colton’s bridge over the Raquette River, a designated Scenic river under the state’s Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers System (WSRRS) Act, it would be premature and unlawful under SEQRA for DEC to designate and approve a preferred alternative authorizing public motor vehicle and snowmobile routes and for the APA to approve the preferred alternative as compliant with the APSLMP.

The only alternative that could be legally approved at this time would be alternative 1, the “no action” alternative. It would be an unlawful and actionable segmentation under SEQRA for DEC and for APA to designate a preferred alternative at this time, especially in the absence of a complete and thorough “hard look” environmental analysis of the draft UMP’s various alternatives for promoting and increasing motor vehicle, ATV, and snowmobile traffic in this remote and fragile portion of the Forest Preserve.

Since the necessary conditions precedent of an acquisition of public motor vehicle access rights and the WSRRS permitting of the said Colton bridge have not yet occurred, and will not occur within a “date certain” under SEQRA, designation of any preferred alternative, of the 15 alternatives, except for the “no-action” alternative must abide by the fulfillment of the conditions precedent and a formal amendment of this UMP when and if the conditions precedent ever occur.

DEC concedes that not providing motor vehicle access to the Forest Preserve east of Carry Falls Reservoir would best protect the physical and biological resources of the area as well as maintaining opportunities for remoteness and solitude (Draft UMP page 119). Clearly, the “no action” alternative 1 would be the only choice that can be approved at this time “in the best interests of the Adirondack Park,” (See Executive Law Section 801)

DEC cannot ask the APA to approve a UMP and bind the state to a specific motorized access route without an extensive review of the potential environmental impacts of each of the alternatives. The Draft UMP expressly, and in our view, illegally defers SEQR analysis of most adverse potential impacts to a later time yet is asking APA to approve a preferred alternative route in the context of this UMP before such an analysis is even conducted let alone completed.

Article 14, section 1 of the state constitution, Article 9 of the Environmental Conservation Law, SEQRA, and the plain provisions of the APSLMP trump DEC’s apparent desire to promote motorized uses such as snowmobile, ATV, and motorized trail bike recreational opportunities in the unit. If any alternative is considered by DEC and APA at this point in time, it should be alternative 1, the no action alternative.

Further, approval of any of the alternatives for snowmobile and motor vehicle access that propose routes crossing the Forest Preserve would result in a material increase in the mileage of roads and snowmobile trails open to public motorized use. This would violate the APSLMP’s “no material increase” provision (APSLMP, page 33) and thus render this Raquette Boreal UMP out of compliance with the APSLMP.

DEC notes on page 79 of the Draft UMP that the Town of Colton may proceed with a process to re-open for ATV use an abandoned old road that allegedly crossed the Raquette River and extended east into the Raquette River Wild Forest and Raquette Jordan Primitive Area. We note that this Town plan would violate Vehicle and Traffic Law 2405. We recommend that the State utilize the provisions of Highway Law 212 to forestall such an illegal attempt to open an ATV route into the Forest Preserve by the Town (See Kelly v. Jorling, 196 A.D.2d 181).

Additionally, on privately owned conservation easement lands, no ATV trails should be designated in close proximity to Forest Preserve where trespass is likely to occur. Extensive barriers are needed throughout the unit to prevent illegal motor vehicle use. No ATV routes should be created on conservation easement lands that would require the traversing of Forest Preserve lands to connect non-contiguous conservation easement lands.

ADK is very concerned about the effect of motorized uses on the natural integrity of the Raquette Boreal UMP Area, which is home to several rare and endangered species including the spruce grouse, white-throated sparrow, and the ruby-crowned kinglet. According to a NYSDEC press release (May 17, 2000):

“This is a unique and beautiful part of the Adirondacks. What distinguishes this wild forest are the two rivers, the Raquette and the Jordan, and the low elevation boreal forest that occupies significant portions of the area and borders both rivers. The Jordan in particular is a remote river that has the character of a river in northern Canada, bounded on much of its length by boreal (spruce and fir) forest with significant flat water stretches in a meandering channel. These boreal forest habitats on this wild forest and neighboring private properties continue to have a population of the endangered spruce grouse.”

The Jordan River is known to have characteristics including primitive and boreal spruce-fir swamps and towering pine.

DEC has utterly failed to take a “hard look” under SEQRA at the full and foreseeable impacts of introducing public motorized recreation to the very heart of this Forest Preserve area, especially given the record of ATV trespass in this portion of the Adirondacks.

Motorboat Access

ADK supports DEC’s proposal to promulgate a new regulation under 6 NYCRR Part 196 to prohibit the use of motorboats on the Jordan River given its unique character and location within the Raquette Jordan Boreal Primitive Area.

General Public Access

ADK supports the Management Actions listed on the top of page 102 in the Draft UMP with respect to hiking trails and canoe carries with the stipulation that attention must be given to providing sufficient parking for both of these facilities.

ADK is concerned about the designation of the Carry Falls Trail as a multiuse trail without any analysis or evaluation of whether these activities are compatible with the resource and each other.

We thank you for this opportunity to express our concerns about the DEC’s Raquette Boreal planning process.

Sincerely,

 

Neil F. Woodworth                            Marisa Tedesco
Executive Director                            Conservation and Legislative Director