Discussion: Reopening Historic Adirondack Roads
by Editorial Staff
A week ago today, state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Commissioner Pete Grannis effectively reopened Old Mountain Road between North Elba (Route 73) and Keene (Shackett Road / Route 40) in Essex County. According to surveys made in 1893-1894 (here, and here), the road had been abandoned since the 19th century; it was believed to have been officially closed when the Sentinel Wilderness Area UMP was ratified in 1974. Beginning in 1986 part of the road has been maintained as the popular 35-mile long Jackrabbit Trail by the Adirondack Ski Touring Council.
The Grannis decision was forced by Lake Placid Snowmobile Club President James McCulley who drove his truck down the trail in May of 2005 and was ticketed (he previously beat a 2003 ticket for doing the same thing with his snowmobile). An agency administrative judge later found that the road had never been closed properly (it required public hearings).
Last week's ruling pits hikers and cross-country skiers against motorists and snowmobile enthusiasts. McCulley's goal, announced publicly in 2002, is to connect snowmobile trails around Lake Placid with Keene and Wilmington using old roadways that pass through the Sentinel Wilderness and the Wilmington Wild Forest.
More generally speaking, local environmental organizations are arguing that the Grannis decision will set a precedent that will re-open numerous roads through the Adirondack back-country. That's something apparently borne out by a comment by McCulley, who told the Albany Times Union that: "This gives people here the legal avenue to reopen roads throughout the Adirondacks that the state illegally closed." McCulley said, "Word is getting around already," and indicated that he was already getting calls from around the Adirondack Park by those interested in reopening old roads.
The whole matter may just be a legal bump in the road based on a technicality. According to local environmental organizations the DEC has the absolute authority to close roads through state lands using NYS Highway Law Section 212:§ 212. Changing location of highways over certain lands owned and occupied by the state. If a highway passes over or through lands wholly owned and occupied by the state, the location of such portion of such highway as passes through such lands may be altered and changed, or the same may be abandoned or the use thereof as a highway discontinued with the consent and approval of the state authority having jurisdiction or control over such lands by an order directing such change in location, abandonment or discontinuance. Such order shall contain a description of that portion of the highway the location of which has been changed, abandoned or discontinued, and a description of the new location thereof, if any, and shall be filed in the office of the state authority having control of such lands
What's more, is that the Grannis decision also has legal implications for the towns of North Elba and Keene. "Simply stated, this gravel and dirt road that runs through the forest preserve does not conform to current highway standards, Grannis wrote. "To the extent that automobiles or pickup trucks attempt to drive on it, the towns may be liable for any adverse consequences to drivers, to their vehicles, and of course to other users of the road." I'll be glad to send a pdf of the decision to those who are interested.
Frequent APA critics Sen. Betty Little and Assemblywoman Teresa Sayward introduced in January bills that would “remove the ability of the state to modify, abandon or close roads within the Adirondack Park,” and which say that road closure by the state “disrupts local transportation without compensation to the local community.”
For additional context, I'll be posting a short history of Old Mountain Road at noon today. But for now, what do you think? It the reopening of Old Mountain Road a real threat? McCulley also seeks to open a second road, the Old Wilmington Road, as well. Portions of Old Mountain Road have deteriorated to six or seven feet wide, certainly not big enough to safely accommodate cross-country skiers and snowmobiles without widening - should it be widened? Should DEC act immediately to close the road legally? If it does, will local opposition keep the road open? Another lawsuit recently opened 48 miles of roads in wilderness areas to use by disabled persons. Is this part of a important trend?
What now?
13 Comments:
Lot's of semantic issues.
"Wilderness": Is anything really wild around here? What's does that word mean anymore?
"Road": What is a "road"? When does a trail become a road? And vice versa.
"Historic": When does something become "historic". Is being old necessarily an intrinsically good thing?
I find the whole thing quite interesting. Have you seen the discussion at the ADE's poll?
Should the towns of North Elba and Keene allow motorized vehicles on Old Mountain Road?
I agree, lots of semantic issues, but no more then we face everyday with language.
I'd like to think we can generally agree what a road is (something you can drive on), and what historic means (having historical significance).
Wilderness is more problematic because it has more political power, but can't we agree that a wilderness is generally an area without the industrialized imprint of humans?
I can barely read the ADE poll, it's amazing how boneheaded people can be.
I love this comment "It's about class warfare, not the economy."
As in, people who cross-country ski are of a higher class then people who snowmobile and are lording it over them. Now that's funny. Do you think the writer is aware that it costs more to own and operate a snowmobile? Or just wants to make a political point and can't bother to actually use common logic?
It will be a sad day that motorized vehicles are allowed on Old Mountain Road. The North Face of Pitchoff Mountain is a magnificent place in the winter. The access couldn't be any easier with the trail usually in near perfect conditions due to the considerate use by both snowshoe and ski usergroups. It is easy to preserve the natural tranquility of the area when on foot. It only takes a single motorized user to negatively affect the experience of everyone else. The Jackrabbit ski trail, in its current form, is accessable to everyone.
For personal reasons, I prefer the road to stay closed. It's a quiet, pretty, easily accessed valley back there, and I love it as it is now.
That was a nice history you put up. This has been on ongoing issue for while, and it seems it needs some finalized resolution. As I see it, it's in state designated Wilderness. It's not a question of what wilderness means to one person or another, that's a better question when we decide to designate land Wilderness or not. In this case, we can call it state designated Macaroni, the designation has already been placed. The definition of Wilderness clearly means nothing motorized. Since the road falls right in the middle and doesn't act as a border between two parcels of Wilderness, I see it automatically closed to motorized traffic. Also, I think common sense should prevail here... anyone who has hiked the length of the "road" can clearly see that it's no longer a road.
I have not skied it, but is the trail maintained by snow machine in winter? Hopefully is has not, for consistency's sake.
On another note, that X-Country skiing is being compared as elitist is hilarious, but hordes of people would unfortunately see it as such. I love skiing because it cost me 150 bucks to get all the gear that has lasted me years and offered many hours of free enjoyment, and I know of many families across the spectrum that enjoy it for the same reasons.
I'm pretty confident motorized snow machines, or any motorized machine, are not used to maintain the trail.
Your assessment of the wilderness question is spot on - it doesn't matter - it's been designated wilderness and only the politically motivated would consider motorized vehicles compatible with wilderness.
That section of law seems dubious constitutionally. The state can't reroute a road through a park without alienating park land through two subsequent acts of the state legislature.
In the case of the Adirondack Park, to change boundaries to straighten or change a road running through the park, requires a constitutional amendment, as was needed in 1950s and 1960s to redo sections of Route 9 and later I-87.
Also, it's not clear if you can just add to parkland by executive regulations. The law says you can alienate roads to parkland, but can you do that consitutionally?
State lands are legislatively defined and not defined by regulation.
In response to an earlier comment regarding the maintenance of the trail:
There are no motorized vehicles used, or needed, to maintain the trail. The longstanding ethic has been for foot traffic to remain off the ski track unless snowshoes are worn. I have, on several occasions, broken a second track in my snowshoes to protect the skiing (which is dependent on thin snow bridges in certain areas where water crosses). There are areas where there is not room for a second track.
So the real question is "how do the people express their opinion?" Is there an avenue to share our concern? Who is appealing this decision? Who has the money?
If the area surrounding the road and the road itself were classified as "wilderness" (or forest preserve to use the correct terminology) under the assumption that the road was abandoned, then Grannis's decision reverses that stance, correct? The road is a TOWN ROAD, not wilderness. Judge McClymonds said so, and he urged DEC to take action to ban motorized vehicles under State Highway Law 212. Now, before I get attacked as a McCulley Apologist, let me make it clear that I too use the Old Mountain Road for skiing and would hate to have obnoxious snowmobiles on the trailway. I just see a lot of people commenting and writing about this topic that can't see through the "wilderness" of personal opinion and look at the "road" to the facts.
Hi, this is Dave from townsandtrails.com. I recently wrote an article about this situation as well (one that Mr. McCulley has commented on), and I really appreciated your 'short history' of the road. It helped clarify a lot of things.
One question I still have, and have been unable to find good information about it, is why the DEC did not "properly" close this road in the first place. Was it a simple oversight? And if so, what has stopped them from trying to close it "properly" after the fact? It seems like they've known a legal battle was in the works for awhile now.
I was wondering if you or any of your readers had insight into this.
Thanks for an awesome blog.
Chris,
Welcome to Adirondack Almanack. It's always nice to see local media folks tuning in to what's happening here. I've added your new blog to our blog roll.
I think the point being made by callsign222 is that we have reached a place that Old Mountain Road is now wilderness.
Legal wrangling and semantics aside, OMR was once a state road, once a town road, once an abandoned old track in the woods, and is now a wilderness area cross-country trail.
You can't drive your car down it and town taxes don't pay for its upkeep. If, as you suggest, it is a "town road" - and I assume you mean both towns - then the residents have a serious liability issue. Are you suggesting that they grade it, re-install the culverts, and maintain it? If not, then I can't see how you can consider it a town road, except as a technicality.
I for one, favor actual history and current use over legal technicalities. So in my mind, it's a cross country ski trail through a wilderness area.
The question is, how do we connect the snowmobile trails without crossing the Forest Preserve - I'd prefer a roadside trail on the shoulder of Route 73 - widened it ten feet, include a bike path, and lower the speed limit and guardrail it.
Doesn't that plan make more sense then one to wage a six year battle to declare it a town road?
John:
Agreed. That was my daily attempt at playing Devil's Advocate. In my conversations with Politi/Ferebee, I don't believe either town has any interest in upkeep or maintenance -- why would they? Ferebee would rather see DPW funds for his town used on Route 73, since the State DOT won't fix the highway. And as far as roadside trails are concerned, if McCulley truly wants a slice of Old Forge here in the Tri-Lakes, he would probably agree with you. The problem with the road's history still stands, though -- if a road is a road, then used over time as a trail (upkeep and maintenance aside), and the DEC Commish makes a decision that effectively returns the trail to road status... well, we've got a road (even if it looks like a trail). My head hurts...
Post a Comment