Plan updates should include new definition to allow for wider ski trails
By Phil Brown
The Adirondack Park Agency has a chance to do right by backcountry skiers when it updates the State Land Master Plan next year.
For years, backcountry enthusiasts (most especially, Ron Konowitz) have urged the agency to modify its regulations to allow wide trails suitable for skiing in the woods.
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
Konowtiz, president of the Adirondack Powder Skier Association, rightly takes issue with the definition of a cross-country ski trail. The master plan decrees that it must have “the same dimensions and character” as a foot trail.
The state Department of Environmental Conservation interprets this language to mean that cross-country trails can be 8 feet wide in Wild Forest Areas but only 4 feet wide in Wilderness Areas.
Simply put, 4 feet is not wide enough for a backcountry-ski trail with any steepness. In fact, it’s dangerous.
Anyway, why should a ski trail have the same dimensions and character as a foot trail? Backcountry skiing is not hiking. DEC recognizes that snowmobiling and horseback riding require wider trails. That’s just common sense. Likewise for backcountry skiing.
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
I see the restrictive definition as a historical accident. In the 1930s, the state Conservation Department built a number of down-mountain ski trails in the Adirondacks that could be 15 to 20 feet wide on turns. The state attorney general approved the trails, noting that “travel upon skis requires paths of greater width than ordinary footpaths or snowshoe trails.”
This type of steep backcountry skiing diminished in popularity as ski resorts with lifts proliferated. By the time the APA was created in 1971, most wilderness skiers were content to tour on gentle terrain. The cross-country definition was added to the master plan in the 1980s.
The definition perhaps made sense at the time, but since then we have seen an explosive growth in the popularity of down-mountain skiing in the wild. It’s not a new sport but a revival of an old one, albeit with better equipment.
My recommendations:
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
- Rename the type of trail being defined. “Cross-country” is an inapt term that doesn’t encompass the variety of skiing in the backcountry. “Backcountry skiing” would be better.
- Get rid of the language restricting ski trails to the dimensions and character of a foot trail.
- The APA and DEC should come up with a policy governing the parameters of ski trails, including their width. These regulations would exist outside the master plan.
Several years ago, the APA considered adopting new guidelines for different types of ski trail. Under these rules, “ski touring trails” on gentle terrain could be six feet wide for one-way traffic and eight feet wide for two-way traffic. In contrast, “backcountry ski trails” could be eight feet wide for one-way traffic and nine feet wide for two-way traffic. Both trails could be wider in steep sections. The guidelines also provided for four-foot-wide climbing trails.
Konowitz says environmental advocates did not oppose the guidelines, per se, but they argued that the master plan needed to be amended to define backcountry ski trails.
The guidelines have been on hold since 2018. Now is the time to revive or tweak them and amend the master plan to recognize backcountry skiing as a benign and traditional use of the Forest Preserve.
The APA is accepting public comments on State Land Master Plan amendments through Dec. 2. Click the link to submit a comment: https://shorturl.at/zMgJw
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
Hugely disruptive to wildlife. Cannot believe supporters of WILDerness would hide the ball. How many trees will be cut down? How many animals disrupted from winter routines potentially leading to starvation and death.
Let’s follow a robust process, have a transparent discussion, and plan this out. Where is the APA hearing…
All of our wilderness trails are disruptive to wildlife. Skiing is foot travel and appropriate in Wilderness Areas, and trails designated for skiers should be safe to ski on. This is consistent with historical park norms, as the author notes. The Master Plan also extends beyond Wilderness Areas. The park has an interstate highway running through, and a complex web of other roads, all disruptive to wildlife. Rules can be different for different areas, as they are in many other cases.
Where we agree is that there should be a robust process, and luckily there is. There is a form for public comment linked in the article. The public hearings were in October but they are taking comments through December 2.
As I’ve argued elsewhere, counting trees is a feckless exercise that tells you next to nothing about the environmental impact of a trail. That said, ski trails can be designed in a way that doesn’t require cutting a lot of trees.
The work would probably not be done in the winter but I think the gloom and doom implied here is over the top. Besides, it can’t be done because wilderness defenders sued the state and won so now any little twig or sapling is considered timber. Article 14 does not prohibit cutting trees, only timber, which used to be defined as trees over 3″ in diameter (even though at that diameter they are only potential timber.) The environmentalists won, blocked snowmobile trail construction and improvements, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
What wildlife are you referring to, as bears hibernate, less than two deer per square mile, very few snowshoe hare, woodpeckers will not be bothered, chickdees and blue jays will have no problem and very few predator species because of so few prey species. Will you Forever Wilderness people ever learn or will you let this failed experiment continue on forever?
How many trees per mile? Let’s remember it is 3″ diameter or less breast high is considered a countable tree.
It’s hard to say, but see my earlier comment.
Too late. Can’t be done now due to the lawsuit brought by the environmental lobby which changed he definition of “timber” and essentially prohibited any trail cutting/widening.
Wow skiers are really the most entitled user group… “screw wilderness, give us exactly what we want “. Make the trail to Marcy 12 feet wide for these people. Wow.
No one is advocating for a 12-foot-wide trail all the way to Marcy. Incidentally, the Marcy trail was once maintained as a ski trail.
Widening trails or creating ski trails in the HPW would create a hole in the Wilderness classification that a truck could drive through.
There have been more than enough slides in recent decades to entertain skiers that need room for their skiing. Skiers should adapt their skiing skills to match the terrain.
Perhaps Wild Forest and Primitive Areas should be considered for wider ski trails before subjecting the Wilderness areas to a huge policy revision.
The High Peaks UMP already authorizes an extension of the Wright Peak Ski Trail to avoid the eroded Algonquin hiking trail. But there are no guidelines for how wide it should be. Under DEC’s current interpretation of the SLMP, it can be no wider than four feet, which is too narrow. I doubt that allowing ski trails of a reasonable width will blow a hole in wilderness classification. Ski trails are less damaging to the environment than hiking trails: they are used only part of the year and retain low-lying vegetation.
Can we add snowmaking?
An interesting environmental quandry for the Forest Preserve. Which special-interest group(s) allow tree-cutting and which do not? Existing trails vs. new trails? What is the relative safety of “co-usage” with hiking, snowshoeing, traditional Nordic skiing and other user groups? Number of potential users? Environmental impacts of each activity type? Which activities are suitable for areas with a “Wilderness” classification?
I think it is going to be hard to justify any appreciable widening of the few dedicated “backcountry” ski trails currently in existence in view of recent court rulings on tree cutting in the FP. While brushing and removal of encroaching vegetation may be deemed allowable, is it enough? Indeed, widening the trails is likely safer, it still doesn’t make the activity safe. Is the alleged increased safety measureable, or does it simply allow for higher speeds and more serious injuries?
Another consideration is the availability of backcountry or “woods” trails at existing downhill ski centers. Are trails in “Wilderness” areas truly necessary to enjoy the sport if similar trails exist at ski centers? Isn’t safety less of an issue at a ski center vs. the slopes of our remote backountry that would require significantly more risk and expenditure for search/rescue/extraction? While I certainly understand the desire for a truly backcountry experience, is the activity popular enough to balance the environmental impacts?
Many, many questions need to be answered. Makes my head hurt…
Boreas, these are legitimate questions. What is the environmental impact of a ski trail versus a hiking trail? The ski trail is used only for the 3-4 months of winter. Because it’s used only when covered by snow, no erosion occurs. Ground vegetation such as moss and grass can grow the rest of the year. In contrast, hiking trails are used year-round and often become eroded right down to the bedrock. A ski trail can be laid out in such a way that minimal tree cutting is needed. The big complaint is that ski trails need to be wider than hiking trails. Yet the state already allows wider trails for snowmobiling. It’s crazy that the forever-wild Forest Preserve is more welcoming of gas-powered machines than it is of muscle-powered skiers.
Wider cut ski trails can make skiing in the wonderful mountains we call home significantly safer for everyone involved. Safe ski trails not only make skiing safer for skiers, but also for hikers out on the hiking trails. Narrow hiking trails designed for foot travel are not safe to ski on, and injuries risk stretching the DEC rangers’ resources thin when skiing is in.
Proposed trails will be built in the least intrusive ways by only cutting small trees and working with the terrain and wildlife in mature forests.
New ski trails can open new doors to backcountry skiing in the Adirondacks, one of the best ways to get outside in the winter and appreciate the world we live in.
How many people actually use these trails? Are the desires of a very few being considered more important than the impact widening the trails will cause? Protecting the wilderness of the park needs to be the first consideration when regarding the Master Plan.
Unreal how clueless the pro wilderness people are. Environmental impact? Wildlife impact? There is absolutely no impact with making a trail 8 foot wide or wider to be used in the winter months. There is almost no wildlife up at those elevations anyway and the trees grow back.