Thursday, September 14, 2023

Forest Preserve Work Plan Policy Codifies Important Reforms

Just after Labor Day, the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) finalized and released a new Forest Preserve Work Plan policy and template. This new policy,  Commissioner’s Policy 78, or “CP-78,” is the first significant change in Forest Preserve management resulting from Protect the Adirondacks’ legal victory in 2021. This lawsuit upheld and defended Article 14, Section 1, in the State constitution, the Forever Wild clause, which governs management of the Forest Preserve.

The Forest Preserve Work Plan policy establishes important management reforms for state agencies for when they plan and undertake projects on the Forest Preserve, from new trail construction to a bridge replacement, among many other activities. Before CP-78, State Land Work Plans at the DEC were generic and vague and shrouded from public review. Now they include specific instructions, a standardized format, and opportunity for ample public review. Protect the Adirondacks had urged changes to the Work Plans program to include improved processes and more detailed information, as well as for placing the state’s management focus squarely on the Forest Preserve and its unique constitutional protections.

CP-78 ensures that “Forest Preserve Work Plans” will be consistent between DEC regions (3 and 4 in the Catskills, 5 and 6 in the Adirondacks), in contrast to past practice where there was a great deal of variation between DEC regions. In addition, the Olympic Regional Development Authority (ORDA) is now also subject to CP-78, where in the past they used their own form of Work Plan.  In addition, work done by volunteers and others pursuant to stewardship agreements are also subject to CP-78. Click here to see the new Forest Preserve Work Plan template.

CP-78 should be a cornerstone reform for Forest Preserve management for years to come at the DEC and the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The new policy establishes criteria for evaluating the efficacy and impact of a project and is intended to ensure that all projects comply with the Forever Wild Clause. It also requires publication of these plans, detailing the purpose and design of a project on the Forest Preserve, so that the DEC and APA can be held accountable.

One important reform provided by CP-78 is improved transparency and public input. Under the new policy, all draft Work Plans must be posted on the DEC website and noticed in the Environmental Notice Bulletin (ENB) for a comment period of not less than 14 calendar days. All final plans must be posted on the DEC website on a Forest Preserve Work Plans page where they will be listed by year and archived. In the past, Work Plans had to be obtained through a Freedom of Information Law request and opportunity for public input was not always provided.

One of the biggest reforms is CP-78’s focus on Article 14, the Forever Wild clause in the State constitution. The new policy places Article 14 compliance at the center of Work Plan development and review. The new policy states:

The provisions of Article XIV §1 are paramount to DEC’s obligation to provide for the “care, custody, and control” of the Forest Preserve. In 2021 the Court of Appeals held that “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,” is constitutionally permissible. The Court further clarified that the Forever Wild Clause shall be viewed as a singular clause and requires a broad analysis that includes tree cutting to determine if a particular project would alter the wild forest character of the Forest Preserve such that it would violate the Forever Wild Clause. See Protect the Adirondacks!, Inc. v. NYSDEC and APA, 37 N.Y.3d 73 (2021); see also The Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks v. MacDonald, 253 N.Y. 234 (1930); Balsam Lake Anglers Club v. Department of Environmental Conservation, 199 A.D. 2d 852, 605 N.Y.S. 2d 795 (App. Div., Third Department, 1993).

Protect the Adirondacks had urged the DEC to fully incorporate the court decisions interpreting Article 14 in its Forest Preserve management planning. We reasoned that the criteria that Forest Preserve managers should use to assess Article 14 compliance are found in four Article 14 decisions: the 2021 “Protect Court of Appeals” decision; the 1930 “MacDonald” decision; the 1993 “Balsam Lake” decision; and the 2019 “Protect Appellate Division” decision. These cases laid out six legal criteria for assessing Article 14 compliance.

Unfortunately, CP-78 incorporates only three of the six Article 14 criteria set forth in the case law, which could lead to problems down the road. Omitted issues include prohibitions on overly wide trails, a directive to limit impacts of a project on the Forest Preserve to the lightest possible, as seen with hiking and camping, and the directive that the principal purpose of the Forest Preserve is the preservation of Wilderness.

Nevertheless, the new policy establishes for the first time a process by which state agencies will publicly state for the record that their projects comply with Article 14 and explain why. CP-78 requires that Forest Preserve Work Plans answer three critical constitutional questions:

1. Is the proposed cutting, removal, or destruction of timber “material or substantial”?

2. Is the degree of alteration of the existing Forest Preserve terrain permissible?

3. Are the impacts of the proposed project on the existing wild state of the Forest Preserve permissible?

Another important aspect of CP-78 requires that tree cutting be measured by counting all trees from 1” DBH (diameter at breast height) and greater. For some reason the DEC is separating these counts by trees that are 1-3” DBH and trees 3” DBH and greater. Counting all trees 1” DBH and greater complies with the law.

CP-78 also includes other important reforms for Forest Preserve planning and management. These include a new delineation of responsibility among DEC staff and signoffs between the regions and Albany. Previous iterations of Work Plans were handled in the regions. Additionally, new sections for planners include not only a “Description of Project” but also a “Description of the Desired Conditions”, which is an aspirational statement about how the project should turn out once it is completed. A “Project Specifications” section includes specific items for project planning and evaluation, including “specifications, drawings, maps, dimensions of the final structure or improvement, and the materials to be used. Work plans should also describe the construction techniques and anticipated area of disturbance outside the final footprint of the structure or improvement.”

Another section looks at measures to “avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to natural resources.” Specific issues to address include the level of tree cutting, terrain alterations, stream and wetland impacts, and planning for any rare, threatened, or endangered species. The new template also includes an assessment of alternatives and use of motor vehicles or equipment during the construction of the project. The Work Plan must evaluate compliance with the Americans with Disability Act (ADA).

A lengthy section is included that enumerates the internal review steps at the DEC and the APA during the development of a Work Plan. CP-78 also lays out a slightly different process between ordinary maintenance projects and those for new facilities.

APA involvement in the Work Plan process, especially in areas of the Forest Preserve with no Unit Management Plans (UMPs), remains opaque under CP-78. While APA has a limited role in developing and reviewing Work Plans in areas with approved UMPs, unless specified in the UMP, it has a bigger role in areas with no UMP. Given that there are hundreds of thousands of acres of Forest Preserve with no UMP, APA’s comments on draft Work Plans should be part of the public record. This would be fitting for an agency that professes that it wants to be more open and transparent.

CP-78 was initially reviewed and critiqued by the Forest Preserve Trails Stewardship Working Group, organized at the end of 2021 in the wake of the DEC’s violation of the Forever Wild clause. The purpose of the Working Group was to help the DEC to revise Forest Preserve trail standards in light of the Protect decision, which required the DEC and APA to update and revise their trail building and maintenance standards for factors like tree cutting, trail widths, trail corridor disturbance, and changes to the wild state or wild character of the Forest Preserve, among other things. The Working Group acts as a sounding board to critique draft proposals generated by DEC-APA staff and offer ways to improve them. To its credit, the DEC set out to undertake its Work Plan policy revision with input from a cross-section of the Forest Preserve stakeholder community in the Adirondacks and Catskills, including local government officials, trail building groups, and environmental groups. In the end, the new policy reflects important input from the stakeholder community and the public.

Time will tell how well CP-78 endures, how the DEC utilizes it, and how vigorously Forest Preserve managers and leaders in Albany comply with all provisions. Time will also reveal where there are loopholes that need to be closed. The Forest Preserve is the People’s Land. Management of the People’s Land should be an open and transparent process because we are dealing with state agency staff who are paid with public money to manage public use and environmental protection on public lands. Everything about the People’s Land should be public.

Related Stories


Peter Bauer is the Executive Director of Protect the Adirondacks. He has been working in various capacities on Adirondack Park environmental issues since the mid-1980s, including stints as the Executive Director of the Residents' Committee to Protect the Adirondacks and FUND for Lake George as well as on the staff of the Commission on the Adirondacks in the Twenty-First Century. He was the co-founder of the Adirondack Lake Assessment Program (ALAP) in 1998, which has collected long-term water quality data on more than 75 Adirondack lakes and ponds. He has testified before the State Legislature, successfully advocated to pass legislation and budget items, authored numerous articles, op-eds, and reports such as "20% in 2023: An Assessment of the New York State 30 by 30 Act" (2023), "The Adirondack Park and Rural America: Economic and Population Trends 1970-2010" (2019), "The Myth of Quiet, Motor-free Waters in the Adirondack Park" (2013), and "Rutted and Ruined: ATV Damage on the Adirondack Forest Preserve" (2003) and "Growth in the Adirondack Park: Analysis of Rates and Patterns of Development" (2001). He also worked at Adirondack Life Magazine. He served as Chair of the Town of Lake George Zoning Board of Appeals and has served on numerous advisory boards for management of the Adirondack Park and Forest Preserve. Peter lives in Blue Mountain Lake with his wife, has two grown children out in the world, and enjoys a wide variety of outdoor recreational activities throughout the Adirondacks, and is a member of the Blue Mountain Lake volunteer fire department.Follow Protect the Adirondacks on Facebook and Threads.




One Response

  1. ADKresident2 says:

    Thank you for your advocacy!

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Wait! Before you go:

Catch up on all your Adirondack
news, delivered weekly to your inbox