High court hears potentially historic tree-cutting case

ALBANY | New York's highest court heard arguments March 23 over a lawsuit that could have a profound and historic effect on the Adirondack Mountains in the decades to come and could determine whether the forests remain primarily as nature created them, or are increasingly opened to motorized use and other recreational pursuits that their supporters hope would boost local economies. The case has split conservation groups, angered towns, and ignited a small furor when a lower court ruled that saplings and seedlings counted as "timber" under the law. At issue are 27 miles of planned snowmobile trails that would connect economically struggling towns in what has come to be known as the Adirondack Hub, of which Newcomb is more or less the central point. Towns say they were promised these trails — and the accompanying economic boost they would bring — as a condition for their support in incorporating broad new expanses of land into the Forest Preserve, where they cannot be developed. But the conservation group Protect the Adirondacks took the state to court, arguing that, regardless of what towns may have been promised, the snowmobile trails would require the destruction of a substantial number of trees, a violation of the state constitution. The group also argued that the motorized trails, which require bench cuts and boulder removal, violate a constitutional mandate that the forests remain in a wild state. After an initial loss at the Supreme Court level, Protect won on the tree-cutting part of the suit in the Third Department appeals court, which agreed with the group that saplings and seedlings were included in the early definitions of "timber." By that definition, the snowmobile trails would require cutting 25,000 trees; under a more modern definition of trees — three inches in diameter at chest height — the trails would require cutting 6,100 trees. On Tuesday, the state Department of Environmental Conservation argued that the constitution always intended for people to be able to access preserved forests, and the state is merely making that access possible to a broader group of people. "This is a case about building trails in the Forest Preserve," said DEC attorney Jennifer Clark, who said there was scant difference between a hiking trail — which both sides acknowledge is legal — and a snowmobile trail. "This is not a new kind of trail." Judges at Tuesday's hearing took some issue with that position, noting that snowmobile trails are up to 12 feet wide, and facilitate the introduction of mechanized vehicles — neither of which has anything in common with a hiking trail. They also seemed dismissive of state contentions that these are "multi-use" trails, noting they were designed specifically with snowmobiles in mind. If the state were to prevail, Judge Eugene Fahey wondered where it would end — that one tree-cutting project could lead to another, and the forest could suffer "death by a thousand cuts." Clark said the authors of the Forever Wild language that protects the forests were primarily concerned with the destruction caused by commercial logging and wanted to preserve wildlands for future generations to enjoy. "Access is perfectly in line" with that thinking," Clark said. But judges, citing the relatively small number of people who snowmobile, questioned how much access the new trails would actually grant to the average New Yorker. For such a large issue, case law is relatively scant and revolves primarily around a 1930 suit in which the court ruled that a proposed bobsled run was illegal because it would have required the cutting of 2,500 trees. In what is known as the MacDonald case, judges ruled that "substantial" and "material" cutting of trees was not permitted, although they did not exactly say how many trees it took to reach the "substantial" threshold. Either way, whether the snowmobile trails destroyed 6,200 or 25,000 trees, Protect argued that the number was undercut by MacDonald, which ruled that 2,500 was too many. Judges, however, pressed Protect attorney John Caffry as to whether public interest could supersede the substantial and material language, asking if the state wasn't within its rights to create fire lines in the forest if private homes were threatened. When it rules, the court could once and for all define what constitutes timber, but it doesn't have to. It could resurrect Protect's argument — dismissed by the Third Department — that bulldozing roads for motorized traffic is on its face a violation of Forever Wild. When the Third Department ruled in favor of Protect more than a year ago, the DEC said it was forced to cease all work of hiking trails as well, for fear of running afoul of the law. Caffrey indicated that was a melodramatic reaction, noting that "(The DEC) can create the hiking trails, and they can maintain the trails they have" regardless of the snowmobile case. A decision on the suit is expected within 60 days. Should the state lose, it could still seek a constitutional amendment that would allow the snowmobile trails, which would require facing legislative hurdles and a public vote.

Signup for our newsletter

High court hears potentially historic tree-cutting case

COMPANY

CUSTOMER SUPPORT

SUBMISSION FORMS

BEYOND THE NEWS