County faces negative comments to proposed off-road vehicle trail network, with safety and environmental concerns taking center stage
By Gwendolyn Craig
Franklin County’s director of tourism and economic development says the county is “making the necessary pivots” over a proposed 500-mile off-road vehicle trail network that residents have so far largely opposed.
Of more than 90 comments submitted in response to Franklin County’s State Environmental Quality Review Act draft scoping document, where officials acknowledged the plan would have an adverse impact on the environment, less than five people said they wanted off-road vehicle trails.
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
“The county values the feedback of the public,” said Phil Hans, who had called the trail network “the most significant outdoor recreation project the county has undertaken,” and one that would appeal “to many different user groups.”
Two towns passed resolutions against the network, citing constituents’ concerns for public safety, the environment, noise, dust and traffic. Some said off-road vehicle users are already a problem in their neighborhoods and law enforcement have been unable to address it. Commenters, including state officials, said the plan was prematurely released and lacked the detail needed for any meaningful review. Several pointed to inaccurate or missing information, especially a lack of detailed maps.
Hans told the Explorer detailed maps were not complete and will be released “once we revisit and identify different trail uses.”
The county has spent $81,408.60 of occupancy tax revenue, paid to engineering consultants Barton and Loguidice for the draft plan. The county’s 2024 “Strategic Destination Marketing Plan” allocates $395,250 for trail development and planning.
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
The county will update the draft plan prior to a formal public hearing, Hans said.
“It’s important to note that the county is very interested in developing a trail system and uses the public comments to create a network that is agreeable to residents,” he said.
Feedback
The public comment period, which ended on June 14, appeared to take a number of Franklin County town leaders and residents by surprise. The Explorer filed a Freedom of Information Law request for the comments and read through more than 200 pages.
The towns of Franklin and Brighton passed resolutions against the proposed network after listening to concerned residents.
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
The Adirondack Park Agency will be part of the environmental review, and the agency’s Executive Director Barbara Rice wrote the plan “lacks sufficient detail to enable a proper analysis of where and how private and/or state-owned land within the park will be affected.” The APA oversees public and private development.
Rice said without better maps, the APA could not provide more analysis on whether “Franklin County’s proposed project may interfere with, or run afoul of, the prescribed management and use of state-owned lands.” Rice also recommended the county “advise interested landowners to obtain legal representation and familiarize themselves with APA’s jurisdiction and permitting authority.”
Comments from the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe’s Environmental Division showed Franklin County had not consulted it either over proposed trails on Akwesasne lands. Two of the trails, the environmental division’s representative wrote, appear to pass through an area “which has not yet reached a final agreement in the land claim case and may raise some concerns among tribal leadership as well as members of the community.”
Proposed trails on Akwesasne lands, the tribe added, are subject to the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe’s own environmental regulations.
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
Hans said he would be reaching out to the tribe, and he thought preliminary discussions had taken place before the work began with Barton and Loguidice.
Residents are questioning other areas where the trail network appears to pass through, including Bloomingdale Bog, a popular birding spot, and around Loon Lake, which is private. Northern NY Audubon’s Board of Directors wrote with concerns about a number of bird habitats that “would be adversely affected by ORV traffic.”
Terry Martino, former executive director of the APA and a Franklin County resident, thought the trail network was “a wolf in sheep’s clothing.” While the county had pitched it as a multi-use trail, the county’s justification for such a network was in part due to the increase in off-road vehicle sales across the country. Many, including Martino, felt the justification was weak and not appropriate for the Adirondack Park.
Claudia Braymer, deputy director of Protect the Adirondacks called the trail proposal “misleading because we do not believe that people hiking, bird watching and horseback riding or engaging in other non motorized recreational activities” will want to do those alongside motor vehicles.
Both past and present APA executive directors, and other commenters, also criticized the county and Barton and Loguidice for writing that the APA owns lands, which it does not. Rice reminded county officials this was “previously communicated to the county’s consultant.”
More legal questions
Tracy Santagate, one of the Franklin County residents who sued the county in 1999 after it passed a local law allowing all-terrain vehicles on county roads, said looking at the latest proposal gave her “deja vu.”
The maps the county did provide in its draft assessment “were pretty much the same of what they were trying to do 25 years ago,” she said.
Santagate and her co-plaintiffs won the case after a Franklin County Supreme Court justice ruled the county’s “determination (actually lack of determination) with respect to ATV use of county highways was made in violation” of the state’s Vehicle and Traffic Law.
While it is possible to adopt local laws to pass over a road to a nearby trail, using public roads as off-road vehicle trails is illegal.
“How did the county officials, administrators and elected officials not know that this proposal had a major illegal component?” said Alison King, a Franklin County resident and specialist in science communications and public policy.
A few county residents, who own off-road vehicles, expressed shock that the county would promote ATV and ORV use on public roads, not just for legal reasons but for safety reasons. ORV manufacturers caution against riding on roads because they are not designed for paved terrain.
“A quick analogy would be like jogging in high heels on a paved road,” said one commenter from Vermontville.
Other proposed ORV routes, including some hills and curved parts of Route 26 had once commenter worrying about adding ATVs to an “already dangerous” mix of “logging trucks, cars, walkers and bikers.”
Environmental groups also pointed to the laws governing the Adirondack Park’s publicly owned lands, the forest preserve. The county did not appear to account for forest preserve lands where the public is prohibited from riding motorized vehicles.
Jackie Bowen, conservation director of the Adirondack Council, said the organization “will continue to monitor the development of this plan and will take appropriate action needed to uphold the NYS Constitution to protect forever wild lands.”
“They should not have started SEQR (the State Environmental Quality Review Act),” King said. “The proposed trail system would break New York State law and flout safety guidelines of ATV manufacturers. It lacks economic justification. It poses risks to human and wildlife lives and health, and it would wreak devastating damage to the wild, protected Adirondack Park.”
Other comments
A few commenters said they’d like a trail network, but they did not want ORVs on it. Some had specific areas they did not want to see ORVs.
About four people fully supported the proposal. One commenter wrote “it will provide much needed economic growth and spending from the many responsible people that pay licensing fees for the privilege to ride in New York State.”
Top photo: One of the proposed trail maps for the Franklin County Multi-Use Recreational Trail System. Screenshot from the county’s draft scoping document
Adirondack policy, in plain speak
Sign up for Gwen’s free weekly “Adirondack Report” newsletter
This article provides a good review of the poorly crafted work that should be more appropriately labeled a “Daft Scoping Document.”
‘Both past and present APA executive directors, and other commenters, also criticized the county and Barton and Loguidice for writing that the APA owns lands, which it does not. Rice reminded county officials this was “previously communicated to the county’s consultant.” ‘
Wow, that’s some serious consulting…
ATVs are illegal on all roads and trails. They have no license, no registration and no insurance. Why are they on the roads and trails? They are not even being ticketed. A lost revenue
ATV’s can and are registered in NYS. Look at the DMV site. They can also be insured. There are places that it is legal to ride them. This comment is false.
NYS requires ATVs to be registered. The operator is not required to have a drivers licensed. NYS requires liability insurance for ATV and UTVs. UTVs cannot be registered in NYS.
Noise pollution is Pollution. The fact is that there are just too many of these toys running around. They bring annoyance, noise, waiting lines to places people live purposely to avoid these very things. Throw in alcohol to amplify a ever-present lack of consideration and the fact that it really is only a plus to a very small minority of local people who are business owners and that tells the story. If they start dictating that people have to permit these motorized mountaineers on their private property there are going to be problems.
I wish people in the urban areas of NYS really understood what is being asked It’s not like these trails are riding thru pristine wild lands. Most of the property has had heavy machinery on it for years. Towns on and around the blue line are only buffer zones for the real Adirondacks ( High Peaks ). The narrative of forever wild has been hijacked and it’s about time local governments to say enough and start challenging some of regulations of the park
Clearly a cry for a new standard for the Park and surrounding lands…
… Forever Mild”…
You’re absolutely right. There are many roads and trails that were built for the specific purpose of passing trucks, jeeps, atvs and horses throughout New York State. They include old logging roads, truck trails etc. The remainder of these trails are nearly all grown in and the investment of tax dollars in the past is being wasted. All the while, New York State holds the land, won’t sell it, charges taxpayers ridiculous land tax, and gives no kickbacks after not paying tax on hundreds of thousands of acres of land.
It’s unfortunate that the document was poorly prepared and tossed out in such a haphazard manner, especially at such a staggering cost. It will be gutted and rendered useless. I feel that had it been thought out, many of the concerns could have been addressed and people on both sides could be satisfied. The county would have increased revenue to boot.
It’s time for rural townships to stand up to New York State and start reclaiming appropriate lands.
Actually:
“… The State of New York pays local property taxes on Forest Preserve lands it owns just like any other taxpayer. In 2011, it was estimated that combined town, county, school and special district taxes topped $75 million from the state for over 3.4 million acres of Forest Preserve and conservation easement lands in the Adirondack Park. Here is information from NYS Real Property Services organized by town-level data and county-level data. …” Peter Bauer 2013
https://www.adirondackalmanack.com/2013/07/debunking-the-enduring-myth-that-the-state-does-not-pay-taxes-on-state-lands.html
Rethink indeed!! This was a polished turd from day one.
Full time year round tax paying land owning resident of the Adirondack Park here. I’d suggest the folks who are under the belief that the “real” Adirondacks are the High Peaks and that the “real” local residents want fools destroying our natural environment and ecosystems of which it is composed, our peace and tranquility and our ability to enjoy our daily life without the hassle of drunken litterbugs from other areas running the roads become familiar with the New York State constitution. If local residents can’t find a way to capitalize on the attraction of a vast public park, one of the finest in the entire country if not the world, without wrecking the actual resource, that is not a problem with the state or the constitution. The problem is much closer to home.
However, with that said, I do believe that the primary issue with this plan are the maps. If the plan is to utilize the current corridors and then working out some kind of deal with private landowners for connectors, that makes sense and I wouldn’t be opposed as long something was included to deal with the drunken litterbug part. But if the plan is to unconstitutionally open up new corridors through public forest lands, the opposition will be fierce and uncompromising.
Oh, and as for the canard, “New York State holds the land,” that is a false narrative propagated by those who wish to transfer ownership from the GENERAL PUBLIC to private ownership. In other words, it’s an attempted land grab that does not benefit the general public in any way for the benefit of a very small, privileged minority. Believe it or not the majority of New York State residents enjoy owning a large natural preserve while the state maintains it on our behalf.
I am also a life time resident of the park. Matter of fact 5th generation owner of 500 acres just as you cross the blue line Believe me there is the haves and the have nots in the park. Where I live in Fine we desperately need something like that trail.
The title “drunken litterbugs” can also be applied to the high peaks wilderness revelers as well. But we all know how Albany works. Certain user groups get a pass.
Mr. Paine: I agree with you. Well, probably not the drunken part for hikers but yes, there is a significant amount of abuse going on there too. 100%. I support any and all measures that reduce the abuse and destruction of our natural resources on that front as well.
Pack it in, pack it out. A nice mantra that hikers cry but never do. ATV riders have room and ability to do that. If you have never been on an ATV or on ATV trails (not trails cars and trucks use as well) you would see little litter especially compared to hiking trails. Granted some hikers will willingly pick up after others but person per person hikers are more likely to litter. We even carry a litter bag on the back of our machine just for this purpose. These little stores and restaurants that you locals like to use would close without outside money. So you need to wait in line once in a while. It sure beats driving 50 miles for a loaf of bread or a gallon of gas. Yes there can be some alcohol used but in SXS especially 4-6 seaters you’ll find a sober driver and a few passengers who have had a cold beverage much, much more often than not. Overall the St, Lawrence trail system has been a success . There’s no reason it can’t be the same for Franklin. Oh, and by the way, how much is a hiking pass in Franklin????? Exactly.
Lester Crump:
If you are travelling to our communities from elsewhere to recreate, you should at least spend some getting to know of what you speak and to have some respect for the locals.
Firstly, you carry a bag to throw away trash you find left behind by hikers? Let’s pretend for a moment that’s true. You drive your ATV on trails frequented by hikers? Which ones? How do you discern a hiker’s trash as opposed to an ATV’s trash?
I do appreciate your transparency about the profligate drinking going on amongst the ATV crowd. I agree, ATVs do have room and ability to pack out what they have packed in. Why then is it necessary to throw your beer cans beside the road and trail? I’m sure it’s not because the solo operator of the ATV doesn’t want to be discovered packing out empties, so what could it be? The capacity to pack it out is overwhelmed by all the trash left behind by the hikers tossing granola wrappers all over your ATV trail?
Do ATV operators actually harbor a belief that they leave less litter than hikers? Or is that just you?
Hiking pass? No idea what you’re on about here, presumably more nonsense.
So, in closing, yeah, an ATV trail system using the existing road system and currently established ATV trails could work (which already exists so no one really knows what the target of this attempted land grab was to begin with) except, the visitors seem to carry an attitude that you’re doing us a favor so you are in some way entitled to litter our roadsides and trails, run noise through the solitude and leave exhaust in the otherwise pristine atmosphere. You’re asking us to sacrifice the values that brought us to be year-round residents, I think you could at least take your trash away and leave the both sides nonsense at home.
THE BLOOMINGDALE BOG IS A VERY TREASURED PLACE . ALLOWING ATV”S TO RUN THROUGH THERE WOULD BE A DISASTER. IT WOULD BE RUINED FOR PEOPLE WHO USE IT NOW. THIS INCLUDES HIKERS, BIRDERS . AND CYCLIST. TRIAL WOULD END UP UNUSABLE FOR THEM. NOT TO MENTION THE EFFECTS IT WOULD HAVE ON THE WILDLIFE THERE. KEEP ATV “S OUT.
Simple, No more roads for Atv’s, Utv’, cars or trucks or golf carts. We can get anywhere in this country by road now. Why more roads?
What a waste! This area would be a great location for solar fields, casino, chip fab plant and affordable housing. It’s time to stop the nonsense and get going!
It is nonsense that ATVs provide economic growth. They only fill up at gas pumps, nothing else. In Mountain View, we have had a terrible time with noise pollution, speeding and disruption to local residents, who are the ones paying the tax. Wolf Pond Road is a county road where there is racing all the time. Authorities do nothing. All in the blue line, the protected land. The damage it does to the environment and the wildlife. The poor loons live in the inlet right by the old track that is raced on. A twice yearly poker run happens. Not sure how that is legal within gambling laws.