Response to Public Comment 2018 Amendment to the 1999 High Peaks Wilderness Complex Unit Management Plan - Appendix D 2018 Amendment to the 2005 Vanderwhacker Mountain Wild Forest Unit Management Plan - Appendix F This page intentionally left blank Miscellaneous Comments Comment: Cascade Trailhead: 50-70% of the time the parking lots are not full. Leave them there! Many 1st time hikers choose cascade and are frankly not prepared for an additional 4 miles. My suggestion: when Rt.73 lots fill, direct traffic to Van Ho, where the hiker has an option to hike the extra 4 miles or pay for a shuttle bus (weekends only). It works for Keene Valley to The Garten. Response: The parking problem on Rt. 73 for Cascade Mountain is one aspect of why the choice was made to completely relocate the trail on Cascade Mountain Relocation to the Intensive Use Area provides many benefits, including safety and it is better equipped to handle human waste and trash associated with Trailhead parking. As many people have noted Cascade Mountain is a starter mountain for people who have never been hiking. With this relocation DEC has a direct way to provide education and outreach to those people at the start of their hike and with the Mt. Van Hoevenberg East Trail we have a built in shorter option that can help better set inexperienced hikers up for success. The actual trail up Cascade Mountain is another part of this equation. Most of the properly built rock waterbars on the trail have failed because of user impacts, which have then exasperated more erosion below them which feeds into the cycle of maintenance needs. The new trail up Cascade Mountain allows the DEC to start from scratch using the latest knowledge in trail building and user interactions to set up the trail for success. In the end we will have a trail that will require less maintenance than the existing trail, will be an entry point to the High Peaks Wilderness where users can be educated and provides safer access and protection of the natural resources. Comment: The option to “limit use if all else fails.” Keep in mind the licensed guides are legislated. We pay fees to conduct business on public lands and we have contracted customers. Find a way NOT to limit the licensed guides who are the safest people on the trails and waters. Response: If a system that limits usage or requires permits is proposed it will go through a series of discussion groups and public outreach, which would involve interested parties and stakeholders. During the development of any future plan, considerations would be given to all users of the areas targeted for the limits on use. Comment: We would encourage that the APA, in their consideration of amendments to the UMP for Vanderwhacker Mountain Wild Forest and Boreas Ponds Primitive Area State Administrative Areas, not mandate the removal of the Fire Tower on Vanderwhacker Mountain. Removal would not erase the footprint of man on the mountain, just as it has not removed that footprint from Ampersand Mountain. The fire tower has historic significance and provides a ‘destination’ with greater meaning for hikers. And, it greatly enhances views from the summit. 1 Response: At this time, there are no management proposals to remove the Vanderwhacker Mountain Fire Tower. Additionally, the tower is currently a conforming structure on wild forest lands pursuant to the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan, and as such is not required to be removed. Comment: I support the Mount Van Hoevenberg amendment. I hope that the new trails will enable World Cup competition at Van Hoevenberg. My understanding is the present trails do not meet those specifications. World Cup competition would be a boon to the Lake Placid area economically. Response: With the exception of trail reroutes to Cascade Mountain and Mt. Van Hoevenberg (the actual mountain), facilities within the Mt. Van Hoevenberg Intensive Use Area are not the subject of these UMP amendments. Comment: We’re pleased that the UMP does not propose construction, installation, and operation of “hut to hut” type lodging facilities. ADK believes that under Article XIV, Section 1, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) statutes and regulations and the provisions of the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan (ASLMP) preclude such lodging facilities on the Forest Preserve. The only camping structure permitted on the Forest Preserve is the lean-to. Response: Noted. Comment: The management of the High Peaks Wilderness and Vanderwhacker Wild Forest need to be managed with natural resource protection as the number one priority in order to keep our Forever Wild lands the special places they are. Recreational opportunities should not be the focus. Response: Recreational opportunities are only considered after resource protection. Comment: The Trump administration is stripping away protections for the American people, our public land, our wild places, and our environment. New York State has an opportunity to show that our leadership values the health of our earth and its people. This email is a plea to preserve the silence and remoteness of the new lands being added to the High Peaks Wilderness and Vanderwhacker Wild Forest. The overriding goal of the state’s day-to-day management of these new “forever wild” lands and waters should be that of keeping the protection of their natural resources as paramount. Response: Recreational opportunities are only considered after resource protection. Comment: The historic log cabin at the 4 Corners should be retained, and maintained, with historic interpretive signage, and also for possible use for DEC forest ranger administrative purposes. The area surrounding the cabin should also be managed with historic interpretive signage reflecting the other structures that were there, and the rich logging history of the area. 2 Response: The Amendments outline several alternatives for the historic cabin. The preferred alternatives are for administrative and interpretive use, which would allow for actions similar to your suggestion. Comment: We support relocating the Cascade Mountain trailhead to the Mt. Van Hoevenberg Complex Parking area. The test of this relocation last Columbus Day was successful. The change will eliminate the dangerous parking and traffic congestion at the current trailhead on Rt 73. Response: Thank you for the support in this matter. Comment: Include a map showing boundary for Adirondac Core Conservation Easement. Response: This conservation easement is still undergoing negotiation, and an exact boundary of the easement can’t be shown at this time. Comment: While the proposed updates to the Unit Management Plan suggest numerous changes to the infrastructure such as new trails and new parking areas, the plan offers no suggestion of funding for new manpower to appropriately care for current trails, or to provide education to the new users. Response: The UMP Amendments are not the correct mechanism for allocating funds and staff. Comment: What we need is an investment in the current Forest Ranger staff to educate our new users. Response: The UMP process is not the appropriate tool to direct staffing, but it is the tool to outline proposals for which funding and staff can be applied and distributed to. Comment: I am writing to you today to ask you to please use science and research to inform the decisions and management of our Forever Wild lands. Response: The management proposals outlined in the Amendments are based on science and research and rely on data derived from ongoing monitoring to advance these proposals through the phases of implementation. The science and research conducted when the lands were acquired and classified have informed decisions made about this property. APA classified these lands based on the APSLMP criteria and capacity to withstand use. If the lands are classified Wild Forest, APA determined through a very thorough process that uses allowed in Wild Forest are compatible. Comment: There is much credit to be given for all the work and thought reflected in these two UMP amendments and they should go forward through more analysis in public. Response: Noted. 3 Comment: DEC is approximately 5 years behind in trail maintenance projects. The hollowing out of the trail maintenance function has been going on for about 20 years. Each year, there are fewer State trail crews in the woods. Response: Noted. Comment: Bridges take years to replace; obvious problem areas on trails fester for years, while networks of paths develop around them. Volunteer groups can only do so much; and unfortunately, the good will of volunteer groups is used as a pretext for the State to shirk its responsibilities. Response: The Department continues to manage the resources allocated for trail construction and maintenance based on priorities established through a Department planning process. Every effort is made to address conditions for each area, but staff must prioritize their resources based on the level of need for each facility under its management. Comment: Why does the draft UMP Amendment fail to identify the fragile ecosystems and evaluate potential impacts of proposed mixed uses, trails and motorized access. Response: The UMP amendments document all the known wetlands as well as rare, threatened and endangered plants and ecological communities within the area. These resources were taken into consideration when developing management proposals, and no significant adverse impacts are expected to result from the implementation of these proposals. Comment: I agree with keeping the Boreas dam - at least for now. Without the dam, the cold-water trout fishery might be lost. Certainly, considerable additional study is required to determine whether the ponds would be better ecologically with or without the dam. Response: Noted. Comment: While I’m very sympathetic to the note of caution voiced by environmental groups who want the environmental impact of changes to the region to be thoroughly evaluated, I nonetheless support the DEC's plans wholeheartedly.