DEC Ranger's reply on reopened Santanoni trail

[Peakbagr]

The following is a reply by Head Ranger Kris Alberba to a question posed on the 46r listserv about the new 'old' trail to Santanoni being opened.
Thought you'd find Kris's anwser interesting:


If you are referring to the "old" route to the Santanonni Range from the Bradley Pond trail, it is important to note that the State has no real property (fee or easement) interest in the former Finch Pruyn lands at this time. At this point, the public has no right of passage off of the Bradley Pond trail until the closing of the easement/fee purchase. While we have closed on those portions of the NL property that were to be purchased outright for inclusion in the Forest Preserve (generally north of the "Bradley Pond Road"), the private lands that the historic Santanonni trail crossed remain in private ownership at this time.

I understand that an individual, or individuals has/have taken it upon themselves to cut open this historic route. Lacking landowner permission, either private owner or the State of New York, this is criminal trespass. Where the trail was opened on Forest Preserve land, any tree cutting is a violation of both the State Constitution and Environmental Conservation Law. The present landowner has expressed their dissatisfaction to the Department regarding the re-opening of this trail and has indicated an interest in prosecution should the Department identify the individual(s) involved.

I would encourage anyone seeking to climb the Santanonni Range to continue to use the route from Bradley Pond. It remains the only legal access to the range from the east.

---
Kristofer A. Alberga, Supervising Forester
NYS, Dep't of Environmental Conservation
Division of Lands & Forests, Region 5
1115 NYS Route 86
PO Box 296
Ray Brook, NY 12977

 

[Rik]

I thought OSI was the newest owner and had said it was open for public foot travel. Am I remembering this wrong?

 

[dug]

I thought OSI was the newest owner and had said it was open for public foot travel. Am I remembering this wrong?

I believe the word is "misremembered" Ask Rogah!

 

[Neil]

The OSI seemed to be unaware of the hiking impact of the deal and the quicker access to Santanoni that it represented. However, they voiced pleasure that hikers would benefit from their acquisition. I received surveyor's maps of the purchase and drew up a map in Topo that delineated the purchase, which they then approved. Said map was taped to the register with a brief announcement 2 days after I drew it up. (What I am trying to remember was who signed the announcement, it may or may not have been the DEC).


Mavs will have more info.

 

[mavs00]

Last June 6th (2007), The OSI, who purchased the land, communicated directly to me, and issued -THIS- statement:

They have not contacted me, or recinded this (at least not to me). Kris should know best however. I will re-contact them and find out.

 

[Willie]

... and that the owner is not happy with the "tree cutting."

 

[Neil]

So Willie, do you think that means you could bushwhack right next to the trail but not hike on it?

(Btw, what is that hitting the fan in your avatar? )

The present landowner has expressed their dissatisfaction to the Department regarding the re-opening of this trail and has indicated an interest in prosecution should the Department identify the individual(s) involved.

Just to avoid blaming it on the internet has anyone pointed out to the present landowner that the "re-opened" trail was cut long before it became known on-line that it existed?

 

[Peakbagr]

An update from Kris in a reply to an email I sent for clarification:

Our understanding is that when OSI was approached, he was receptive to whom ever he was approached by bushwhacking across the intervening parcel. That notwithstanding, no permission was granted to the State to allow that activity, nor was any permission granted, based on our knowledge, to cut any trees on the private land. I do not believe that the landowner intended to allow members of the public to (re)establish facilities (trails, in this case) without consultation with the future landowner. Indeed, such activities would be in violation with the APA sub-division permit for this project. The Department and landowner have had to consult with APA, and on at least one occasion amend the APA permit, on seemingly minor issues such as 1) to allow for establishment of the Henderson Lake lean-to, and 2) replacement of the deteriorated foot bridge over Indian Pass Brook.

The State (Department) is also a landowner along this old path and was at no time approached by anyone regarding reopening the old trail. Indeed the Department could not establish any new facility (the old trail being long abandoned and closed would eb considered a new facility) on Forest Preserve lands outside an UMP. The 1999 HPWA UMP identified a formal process for addressing paths on trailless peaks in the HPWA. There was no attempt to comply with this process in reopening the old trail. While traveling old abandoned or closed trails on State lands is allowable unless signed otherwise, the acts of cutting vegetation, marking, and installation of trail hardening practices (waterbars and the like) by members of the public is not allowable under existing law and regulation.

Hope this helps clarify my earlier email.

--Kris

 

[mavs00]

I posted -THIS- over at ADKhighpeaks. It's kinda specific to that forum, but it helps frame this discussion as well.

 

[JoeCedar]

As a responsible hiker who has traveled the new/old trail without an axe or saw since the announcement, I do not recall seeing evidence of live tree cutting, or it was certainly minimal. It didn't need it. Maybe some cut-through or moved blowdown. For an "unused" trail it seemed to have been pretty well maintained for years...

 

[Neil]

Joe's post brings up the distinction between sawing through deadfall versus cutting down live trees. There is plenty of deadfall that has been sawed through on the trail. In June you could see that some of the cuts were very recent and that some were a lot older.

To me the issue is about creating, maintaining and using a trail on PP, especially since no live trees appear to have been cut.

 

[mavs00]

To me the issue is about creating, maintaining and using a trail on PP, especially since no live trees appear to have been cut.

Agreed........

 

[HH1]

I think there's a further complication.

Given what I could acquire off Google, it seems the path heads up from the Bradley Pond Trail very near Santanoni Brook onto a major east ridge of Santanoni. Based on the one I can find, and using the FP/Private Land boundaries the map provides, it means about half the path sits in the Forest Preserve.

Now, from the 1999 HPWA UMP to which Kris Alberga refers earlier in this thread, here's a quote under the paragraph 'Trailess Peaks':

"Management Policies and Actions:
Maintain the cooperative effort with the Adirondack 46'ers to designate the most environmentally durable route up each peak and close all others to public use."

Since the above statement would apply to the current durable route in the area, the tradtional one extending from Bradley Pond and anchored at Times Square used to access Santanoni, Panther and Couch, wouldn't the 46ers hands be tied in supporting this polcy and discouraging use of at least the FP part of the "new" private/public path?

Perhaps Pete Hickey or another 46er could chime in on this issue.

 

[Neil]

Perhaps Pete Hickey or another 46er could chime in on this issue.

I wonder if the 46ers' experiences with the re-route on Cliff are a fair example of how such things get done.

In the case of Santanoni, there are now 2 trails that are seeing regular use. I'm no expert but my feeling is that the one up Panther brook is less ecologically sound than the one up Santanoni. But, the latter trail would be better off with having a few sections re-routed.

 

[BlackSpruce]

"I wonder if the 46ers' experiences with the re-route on Cliff are a fair example of how such things get done"


Neil, what do you mean exactly? I think that Ranger Jim Giglinto made an excellent decision in improving but keeping the old route to Cliff. The decisions made regarding the herdpaths are a team work effort involving the Rangers, the DEC and the Forty-Sixers.

 

[Neil]

I had followed some of the forum threads whereupon it was mentioned how a new route was flagged on Cliff, how the 46ers took members of the DEC up and showed them what they were going to do and then how it took a long time (IIRC greater than one year) for any sort of decision to be made. I also recently read that the trail up a certain section of Cliff is now 30 feet wide.

From another thread on another forum, made a few days ago.

If you climb Cliff, note what used to be a narrow route up a steep section, is now a 30 foot wide bare section where soil and trees have been pulled/kicked down.

I was just using Cliff as an example of how long it can take for things to get done. I wasn't judging the final decision.

 

[HH1]

Good point Neil, re the Santanoni trail as an alternative to existing Panther Brook, as long as the new trail does not require having to ascend a lot of vertical up Santanoni returning from visits to Couch and/or Panther.

Do you know exactly where it pops out joining the current path to Santanoni's summit?

 

[BlackSpruce]

The only way to stop erosion on Cliff Mt. would be to stop climbing it. The proposed new route because of the configuration of the mountain would have been in the same kind of sad shape in no time.

Seward Mt. herdapth from the lean-tos side is a disaster and before long the Calkins Brook approach will deteriorate.

Etc.

 

[Neil]

The only way to stop erosion on Cliff Mt. would be to stop climbing it.

What about from Flowed Lands in February?

 

[BlackSpruce]

Wouldn't it be great to climb Cliff year around via the Flowed Land Livingston Pond bay approach?