APA Staff Objections to Fire Towers' Proposal
by Phil Brown
The staff of the Adirondack Park Agency has raised several objections to the Local Government Review Board’s proposal to reclassify the tops of Hurricane Mountain and St. Regis Mountain as Historic Areas so that fire towers on the summits could remain.
APA spokesman Keith McKeever said the staff is not making a recommendation. However, the staff comments submitted to the APA commissioners are more negative than positive.
In a memo to the commissioners, the staff says reclassifying the summits as Historic would conflict with the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan in four ways:
1. “Because of the large scale and dominating character of the fire towers, they are not appropriately located within areas that are essentially wilderness.”
2. “Although fire towers could sit upon ‘postage stamp’ sized parcels of lands classified as Historic, they would conflict with users expectations of the surrounding wilderness have [sic] for a wilderness setting and natural landscape.”
3. “The maintenance of the fire towers could cause various natural resource impacts,” such as disturbing subalpine birds.
4. Maintenance of the towers—which might require flying in materials—would also “negatively impact the wilderness qualities of the surrounding lands.”
Furthermore, the staff contends that relocating the towers to summits in Wild Forest Areas would conflict with the State Land Master Plan. Although the plan allows towers to remain in Wild Forest Areas, it says the new construction of towers “will not be encouraged.” Of course, this would not preclude relocating the towers to private or municipal lands.
Both mountains lie in Forest Preserve tracts managed essentially as Wilderness, where towers are prohibited. Earlier this year, the state Department of Environmental Conservation recommended removing the towers. Despite widespread support for the towers expressed at public hearings, DEC is expected to stick with that recommendation.
McKeever said the APA probably will not decide the towers fate for a few months at the earliest.
Click here for an earlier discussion on fire towers and the nature of wilderness.
The Adirondack Explorer will run a debate and a story on the fire towers in its May/June issue.
Photo of Hurricane tower by Phil Brown.
19 Comments:
From the memo "Staff believe it is important to consider that while on the one hand, retention of the two towers at the existing summit locations could maximize the protection of cultural resources, it would do so to the detriment of wilderness resources that are directed to be protected and restored to the maximum extent possible under the State Land Master Plan." Herein lies the heart of the issue. Wilderness first, Adirondack culture second. Tear down the towers and get it over with. The APA and the DEC are doing the right thing and following the outdated laws. They really have no other reasonable option. Remember all these classifications were made after the towers were already there. So they should not pretend that the problem just surfaced.
Phil like you write: "Despite widespread support for the towers expressed at public hearings, DEC is expected to stick with that recommendation.". I don't know why they don't just repeal the portion of the laws that requires public comment. All it does is get people angry when they think that they have a voice, when they do not. It would save a bunch of time and money also.
Phil, here is the link for the assessment that I think you meant to post as well.
http://www.apa.state.ny.us/Mailing/2010/04/StateLand/fire_tower_cover_mailing_4.pdf
Paul, I fixed the link in the post. Thanks for the heads-up. I can't speak for DEC, but I assume the department feels it must follow the SLMP even in the face of public opposition. Whether you characterize that as upholding the law or thumbing one's nose at the public depends on your point of view.
For anyone who does not understand the ultimate goal of the “master plan” should look at this excerpt:
1. “The definition recognizes two basic types of primitive areas: (i) where the ultimate goal is clearly to upgrade the area to wilderness at some future time, however distant, when the non-conforming uses can be removed and/or acquisition of private tracts is accomplished, and, (ii) where eventual wilderness classification is impossible or extremely unlikely."
The purpose of these plans is to eventually make all areas of the Adirondacks “wilderness”. Some areas like primitive areas are closer to that goal. Some areas like Hamlets are more of a project. But don’t be fooled the ultimate goal is to get the cultural stuff and the people out of there. I don't think that some of the agency people even understand what they are trying to do, but all you have to do is read the statute.
Phil, I agree. Like I said in my comment they should follow the law. We shouldn't punish the "messenger". These departments are doing what they have to do. Until public opinion is shifted toward a change nothing will. Tearing down these towers will continue to shift opinion. I would like to see these agencies more aggressively enforce all these statutes. Why should a lean-to or privy be allowed on Wild Forest land? The eventual goal is wilderness why are we being so sluggish about it?
Paul,
Where in the law or SLMP does it say the goals wild forest area is to become wilderness?
Hamhawk, I did not state that the SLMP says that WF should be reclassified as Wilderness. I should have been more concise and left that opinion of mine as to where things are headed out. I do think that recent (and past) actions by the departments aim at a goal of classifying as much land as Wilderness as possible. Lets look at the APA statistics. Primitive land went from 45 thousand acres in 2000 to now over 66 thousand acres in 2009 (a substantial increase). So private land that is being acquired by the state is being mainly classified as primitive (even though most of it was working forest with large numbers of roads and trails). As I noted above the SLMP explicitly says “the ultimate goal is clearly to upgrade the area to wilderness at some future time, however distant”. Also, I would not that I see little evidence when land is “re-classified” that the classification would ever go from say Primitive to Wild Forest. The other change could easily happen over time. Finally I would add that in a recent letter from the DEC commissioner to a local environmental group regarding the re-classification of Lowes lake it was stated that the department would “manage” that Primitive lands as Wilderness lands despite the classification made by the APA. So the department has stated its position clearly, and it appears the classification may have little bearing on what they will do anyway. Quite a brazen stance in my opinion. If we can manage a whole lake that is classified as Primitive as wilderness than why can’t we “manage” a few hundred square feet of Wilderness as something else? But like I said above, I don’t think we should do that. I think the law should be followed and the towers should be torn down.
Paul,
I am not familiar with Adirondack land issues, but your lack understanding of public land classification schemes is apparent. Based on the definition of primitive area, it seems to be similar to recommended/proposed wilderness classifications in the federal system. You manage these as if they are wilderness because the goal IS to become wilderness. The classification is a management objective. They classify them as proposed wilderness/recommended wilderness, or in this case primitive, if they an feature or use that conflicts with wilderness but would otherwise be a wilderness. Its both a management direction and it let users know the type of experience they can expect.
"why can’t we “manage” a few hundred square feet of Wilderness as something else?" Then why classify it as wilderness?
Whitefish, I think I have a fair understanding of public land classification in NY. I no zip about the federal system. But if you look at the excerpt I quoted from the law and what I wrote I said (twice actually) that the goal IS for those lands (and perhaps even more land) to be eventually classified as wilderness. My whole point was that the state has this as a clear goal of the statutes. Where is my understanding lacking in this regard? As for the quote regarding "a few hundred square feet" that is simply indicating the frustration of the majority of the public that sounded off on the subject. Like I said (three times actually if you read what I wrote) I agree that the towers should be torn down. There is no room for them in the Wilderness given the way the law is written.
Paul,
This is where your understanding lacking:
"it was stated that the department would “manage” that Primitive lands as Wilderness lands despite the classification made by the APA. So the department has stated its position clearly, and it appears the classification may have little bearing on what they will do anyway."
No, the classification does not have little bearing on what they do. It actually determines exactly what they do. The who reason there is a primitive class. is to classify areas that will be essentially wilderness, but have something that conflicts with wilderness character. The goal IS to become Wilderness otherwise it would be classified as wild forest instead of primitive
I googled he DEC commisioner's statement and he was responding to a DEC official saying DEC personnel would use motor boats on the lake. That would contradict the primitive classification. The fact that he said they would manage it as wilderness, means they will manage it as primitive. Again, primitive areas are to be managed as wilderness, by definition.
BTW: Adirondack and federal wilderness policy are very similar. The definition of wilderness that NY uses is the federal definition.
Whitefish, Thanks, I understand that. But then why the big discussion and debate regarding whether the bed of this lake should have been designated a wilderness in 2009? Also. The letter I was referring to was not one to DEC officials and was not regarding motorboats on the lake. It was a letter written to the Residents Committee to Protect the Adirondacks who are now suing the state over this classification. Like me (albeit at a different angle) this environmental organization also believes that this classification was not legal. The letter appeared to be written in an effort to side step the lawsuit, it didn’t work. I guess we will see what the court has to say on the matter.
Since you have a good handle on this classification stuff weigh in here. Should the bed of a man-made lake that has motorboats, private camps, and a Boy Scout camp on its shore be classified as wilderness or primitive, or maybe something less restrictive like wild forest? Would it be classified as primitive in an effort to eventually remove all the non-conforming structures, including the dam? If that were the case couldn’t we classify Wild Forest land as Primitive at some time in the future in an effort to eventually move that closer to wilderness (seems to have the same sort of use or maybe even less non-conforming use). Seems to me this is a possibility under the statutes. If there are no non-conforming structures other than say roads, couldn’t we close the roads and then designate the land as primitive or even wilderness? These rules seems somewhat amorphous to me.
The APA meeting has just concluded with no decision regarding these towers. No matter how you want to see this turn out they really should just make a decision. Like they said dragging this out for almost 40 years is long enough. The comments made by Protect's guy at the end (I think it was a spokesman for Protect?) sure make it sound like they might have to consider another lawsuit if this one doesn't go their way. Funny, when these topics don't go their way then the legislature needs to "weigh in" (or there needs to be statewide meetings as he said). When the APA wants to change the rules as written by the legislature to make them more restrictive they don't have a problem with that not being a "statewide" decision. We are beginning to see hypocrisy at a degree never before seen in the Adirondacks. You can't have it both ways.
Paul,
The decision did not take 40 years. The decision was made 40 years ago to remove the towers. It has taken 40 years to follow their policy, that it was took too long. If they change the policy, fine, but its been 40 years; what is your hurry.
Anon 7:13. Yes, you are correct the decision was made 40 years ago. I am in no hurry. I was just saying what the staff comments were. They were commenting that they should make a decision. One commissioner had a good comment. He asked if the towers had stopped anyone coming to the St. Regis Canoe area. The answer is probably not. So their impact on the "wilderness" experience is probably almost nothing. It is too bad that the original statute did not have a "grandfather" clause. The towers were there first, problem solved.
Paul - what do you make of this report? I hate to harp on the same people in the media constantly, but jesh, she's a long way from your description that "no decision" was made.
http://www.pressrepublican.com/homepage/local_story_105150354.html?start:int=0
I have no problems with keeping these towers, but I am sick of people crying our the cultural significance of these two towers. There are probably thousands of fire towers around the world.
"The APA meeting has just concluded with no decision regarding these towers. No matter how you want to see this turn out they really should just make a decision."
These are YOUR works Paul. What is your hurry?
John, Yes, that PR story did make it look like a decision was made. I assume you are dissing this article. But if not Mr. Stiles made it clear in his final remarks that NO decision was being made yesterday. I think the law has to be changed to make it happen? These guys at PR keep dropping the ball in their coverage of some of these issues.
Just to clarify: Paul is right that the APA made no decision on Thursday. However, it expressed a willingness to preserve the towers if legal and financial questions can be answered. Toward that end, it directed APA staff to examine various options for retaining the towers. It could be done by reclassifying the summits or amending the State Land Master Plan.
Hi Paul,
You are right that "These guys at PR keep dropping the ball in their coverage of some of these issues." Mostly what you mean I think is Kim Smith Dedam's "reporting". I noticed that the story appears to have been changed to downplay the idea that the controversy was over.
I know I harp on this a lot, but I think this kind of "journalism" is what keeps local people constantly misinformed about the nature of the Forest Preserve, DEC, and the APA.
This is the second misleading story in a month from the PR that I'm aware of. Add the Doolittle story (which at the very least you have to admit was misleading if not factually inaccurate), and now the Domtar non-story, and one wonders how anyone can discover the real facts from the PR, the Post-Star, and Denton (which BTW, has run these stories in a way that is twice as misleading as the others).
Post a Comment