Adirondackers with disabilities push for accessibility, while environmental groups voice concerns about wilderness preservation
By Gwendolyn Craig
Stakeholders concerned about “unprecedented changes” proposed for policies governing forest preserve lands worry about an amendment intended to provide more access for people with disabilities.
Interpretations of the amendment advanced by the Adirondack Park Agency, they say, could open wilderness areas to motor vehicles and threaten the tenet of the document under review.
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
Some disagree and think there are safeguards in place. Others seek a compromise that would open more areas of the Adirondacks for people with mobility disabilities, while being more selective about what devices could be allowed.
Disagreements over the APA’s proposal filled much of the more than 2,000 pages of feedback on the edits under consideration for the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan. The concerns made up the bulk of the approximately 1,200 comments. For 52 years, the master plan laid out that “protection and preservation of the natural resources of state lands within the Park must be paramount.”
An APA spokesman said the proposal is intended to incorporate requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act “and aligning it with the state’s goal of ensuring appropriate access to people of all abilities.”
The master plan governs about 2.7 million acres of forest preserve lands and waters and dates to 1972. The APA, charged with long-range planning in the 6-million-acre park, revises this document about every five years.
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
But some say the proposals in this review are more impactful than any in memory, and deserved more public input. Some also questioned why APA staff did not bring the proposal before the APA board’s state land committee first.
Calling the changes “unprecedented,” Chris Amato, conservation director of Protect the Adirondacks, said the review process “falls far short of the open, transparent and measured consideration that is warranted when seeking to amend the master plan.”
The APA held two in-person hearings, one virtual hearing and a 60-day public comment period on the proposals. The comment period ended Dec. 2 and the agency said it is reviewing the public’s feedback.
It expects to bring final edits to the full board sometime in late winter. If the board adopts the changes, Gov. Kathy Hochul would have to sign them.
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
Accessibility proposal
While no one has said there shouldn’t be more accessible opportunities for people with disabilities, some lawyers and policy experts are concerned by APA’s phrasing.
It comes down to definitions and what’s missing from them.
This fall, the agency introduced the definition of other-power-driven mobility devices (OPDMDs) to the master plan. These devices are different from wheelchairs and can refer to a variety of machines, many of which assist people with mobility impairments. But the definition can include motorized vehicles like golf carts, Segways and all-terrain vehicles.
The park is made up of different zoning classifications which prescribe degrees of development and use. The most restrictive classifications, wilderness, primitive and canoe areas, are intended to be “untrammeled by man” and set aside for their natural resources. Motorized vehicles are not allowed.
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
Other land classifications allow for motorized use and were created, some retired APA staff noted in comment letters, for the very purpose of providing more accessibility in the park.
But because the APA proposed a separate definition for OPDMDs and excluded it from the definition of motor vehicles, some worry of “cascading effects throughout the document wherever the term ‘motor vehicle’ is used.” Brian Grisi, a retired resource and planning staffer at the APA, said the change “will allow unconditional use of power-driven mobility devices on all state lands.”
The Adirondack Council, Protect the Adirondacks, the Adirondack Mountain Club, Adirondack Wild: Friends of the Forest Preserve and Adirondack Wilderness Advocates wrote a joint letter expressing the same concern.
Jim Connolly, retired planning director at the APA, said the proposal also seems to conflict with Article 14 of the state Constitution, which maintains forest preserve lands be “forever wild.”
“The lack of thought put into such a far-ranging proposal is troubling at best,” Connolly said.
Accessibility Advisory Committee
The Accessibility Advisory Committee, which provides input to the APA and DEC, mostly endorsed the amendment.
The Spina Bifida Association of New York State, the Association of Aging in New York, the Northern Forest Center, the Adirondack Park Local Government Review Board and several people with disabilities wrote in favor of the amendment.
Members of the accessibility advisory committee sent their own opinions, showing a range in support levels. Some want the agency to proceed with caution and better define OPDMDs before accepting the change. Others champion the proposal as written.
“I, like many people with disabilities who choose every day to get out of bed and participate as fully as possible in a world not designed with my basic needs in mind, do so through grief — for what I miss out on — and longing for what more might be possible,” wrote Meg LeFevre Bobbin, a committee member. “These proposed amendments are a bare minimum yet critical step in ensuring that people with mobility disabilities have equal opportunities to explore and appreciate the natural beauty of the Adirondack Park.”
Jason Thurston, chair of the committee, wrote that he believes there’s a way to compromise by allowing OPDMDs, but limiting “the devices that are used and still protect the Adirondacks.”
The committee called on the APA and DEC to do more long-range planning and establish a policy for accessibility in the park.
Many groups called on the state to create a DEC commissioner’s policy on OPDMDs and pointed to one the state Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation already uses.
A new policy
The state does not believe the master plan proposal will change its review process and threaten wilderness areas.
The DEC uses a case-by-case permit application for OPDMDs on state lands, which a person with a disability must submit to the DEC’s disabilities act coordinator for review.
The DEC will evaluate the size, speed, design and safety of the device, pedestrian traffic in the area requested and whether the use could have “a substantial risk of serious harm to the immediate environment or natural or cultural resources.”
The proposed edited master plan’s definition of OPDMDs should change nothing for management and use for any of the land classifications, the department said. “The agency has been operating under the same definition of OPDMDs and the same process for evaluating requests for their use on state land since 2011,” the DEC said.
Thurston called the current process “cumbersome and far from equal.”
“I hope that the development of a policy is one that is well thought out and creates more opportunities for people with disabilities to access more of the beautiful Adirondack wilderness without altering protected land,” he wrote. “I truly hope that people with disabilities like myself and the Accessibility Advisory Committee will be called upon to help.”
Environmental groups also want the state to create an OPDMD policy and end the case-by-case review. They also want the APA to tackle long-range planning for accessibility in the park. They believe the proposed master plan amendment is an abdication of APA’s responsibility to the DEC.
Top photo: The Rig, by Not a Wheelchair, was purchased by the state for use in a pilot program at Camp Santanoni. The DEC considers this a wheelchair. Wheelchairs are allowed anywhere in forest preserve. Here, Meg LeFevre Bobbin tests out “The Rig” to ride into Camp Santanoni in August 2024 in Newcomb. Bobbin made the excursion with her husband Buck. Photo provided
Finish the Adirondack Rail Trail all the way to Old Forge! There is a lot of park to be seen and enjoyed
already classified as a Travel Corridor allowing for what ever WE want to allow and would have the most minimum impact on the surrounding environment.
In order to get the rails that have been removed, the section of rails from Tupper to the other end must (and are being renovated). It’s a done deal there is no chance for what you want. This was negotiated and it’s over. Some rails went and some stayed and won’t come out. End of story.
Definitely needs to be a very detailed definition of allowed OPDMD’s including power sources, size, etc. and a specific detail regarding allowed trail modifications to accommodate OPDMD’s. Otherwise, over time this could lead to degradation of the resources.
The Adirondack Park should be able to be enjoyed by all and not just the hiker or canoer.
An overly-broad statement that doesn’t make a lot of sense given the rugged terrain. There are many places in the world that can only be enjoyed outside of a motor vehicle.
Explain your post.
Thanks
Due to the very rocky nature of our Adirondack trails, 90% of specialized vehicular Handi capped traffic would be by nature restricted from such. So, what is all the fuss?
I couldn’t even comfortably pull a simple wheeled cart for my folding kayak on a simple mile and half trail back to Gull lake lean to, a couple of years ago! Without it tipping over every 30 steps due to the rocks and boulders!
Any trail that is smooth and level enough for a handicapped device, is certainly no wilderness trail! When was the last time you guys had hiked any true wilderness trails???
Once again, you’re screaming “the sky is falling, the sky is falling”! Lighten up and share this great wilderness!
To highlight and argue with your own argument; You just being there yourselves, momentarily erases the wilderness every time you hike in and camp!
You are a foreign object that nature wants to expel from its environs. The deer don’t want you, the moose don’t want you, the bears only want your food, and the loons benefit nothing from your presence.
The delict flora on the peaks are trampled by you, your continuous use of unmarked and unmaintained trails on “trailless peaks” cause’s extensive damage to soil at grade, therefore causing more siltation from extreme runoff events. Your very use of the wilderness is degrading to the same!
“Physician, heal thyself!”
Thank God for your health and the more than necessary Wilderness that we have! More than enough to perpetuate any hardy native species. And of those species that are in decline, they are not so because of humans passing momentarily through an area on a very narrow path!
The Spruce Grouse like all grouses is curious and amicable. They’ve not been scared into extirpation! They are scarce due to an already peripheral range and whatever is hurting all other species well beyond the ADK boundaries. The orchid and pitcher grow where you prefer not to go. The moose came on his own time and increased regardless of terrain, people, or traffic.
Stick to your own business, and instead, focus on doing a better job of that. And leave the unfortunate lesser able bodied outdoors people alone to travel in peace and enjoyment!
Hey Ray, I’m one of those crippled people that you are talking about and I don’t want any mechanized vehicles, including a trailer on wheels. Have you ever heard of mechanical advantage? Mechanical advantages are apart of a machine and machines, other than those parts directly by people, and not through the use of mechanical vantage, should not be in the wilderness. It is.
Hmm.
The biggest miss we had for accessibility and tourism, was in tearing out our beloved railroad infrastructure between Tupper Lake and Lake Placid. Rather than tearing it out, expansion to Whiteface, Wilmington, The North Pole, Ausables Chasm, and Port Kent (connecting to Vermont and Montréal/Québec) would have aided massively in accessibility and tourism.
Many in Québec love the Adirondacks, but do not drive. We shot ourselves in the foot with this one, at the behest of a private interest group run by a millionaire. America at it’s core.
Bike/multiuse infrastructure is of course something we need more of, but this infrastructure is a natural compliment to trains. It should never be a parasitic relationship between the two.
As well, upgrading service roads abreast the railroad to a multiuse trail, was always a possibility. As well as varied alternatives. I have biked many times in the ADK.
Overall, the Adirondacks must focus principally on preservation, all else comes second.
In the Berkshires, my friend and I visited a mountain, the trails were paved. It was an unfortunate experience, definitely not an hike. We hike the ADK because we know it’s hardy and rough.
In contrast, the nearby White Mountains, have many accesible areas, easily reachable along the highway.
I’m not sure if there’s a correct answer for improving accessibility in the Adirondacks in terms of the mountains themselves, but certainly we can do better in the villages and Hamlets.
Between Old Forge and inlet we have a wonderful multiuse trail. Walkability/bikeability/green space is a must. We’ve had enough of dangerous strodes, which are dangerous to children, students, the elderly, the disabled, the active, and everyone else.
We’re seeing more towns and cities adopting infrastructure putting people first, and seeing the economic and QoL benefits as a result.
Ideas which don’t spoil our nature and the natural state reserved for our great parks, are welcome.
I support the use of any vehicle that is powered by an electric motor only. No liquid-fuel powered vehicles, including ATVs. The limited range of EVs may allow the use of a small gas generator for those who are probably disabled, as long as recharging is done while stationary.
Yes, I just strap a gas generator on the back of my electric ATV. Works great.
I am an ampute with several other problems and would welcome the ability to use an electric trike, but would not ever be in favor of petroleum powered vehicles with their air polluting, noise polluting intrusion on anyone in the Adirondack preserve. Bike trails make sense for such access but not off trail use, Our feet are enough of an intrusion.
I vote for the above two comments.
Only electrically powered lightweight vehicles should be allowed in the Park. At 92 I am unable to hike or bike, but very glad for the many beautiful sights, and sites, visible from the regular roads.
Together with videos posted on YouTube they keep me aware of the awesome beauty of the wilderness around me without me contributing in any way to its deterioration or change from forever wild character.
This is a tough one. I’m 61 and survived breaking my neck in 1979. As I’ve gotten older it has become harder to access the park because I rely on a manual wheelchair. Insurance plans do not cover getting a manual and an electric chair. It’s one or the other and they both have positives and minuses depending on our situation.
Manual wheelchair users get the short end of the stick. Very limited. John Dillon Park and Jason Thurston are a Godsend. I wouldn’t be able to have as close to a real natural camping experience without that combo.
I can’t support ATVs but I would support wheelchairs with a gas generator and electric combo. Also I’d hate to see any more trees get cut down. “Forever Wild” has to come first in my opinion. Try to use old railways?
The thing has to be written to be in compliance with federal law. That is what they are trying to do. You have to go thorough a whole permitting process to use these in a safe and legal manner that won’t degrade the resource. I think opposition has a solution looking for a problem. But a lot of them get paid to be opposed.