Gateways to the Bob Marshall Great Wilderness

On the Edge of the Wild

Gateways to the Proposed Bob Marshall Great Wilderness, Ad i ro n da ck S t a t e Pa r k , Ne w Yo r k

Prepared for The Adirondack Council

Erik Johnson, Sarah Mitchell, & Katharine Ochsner

conway school of landscape design

March 2009

On the Edge of the Wild

Gateways to the Proposed Bob Marshall Great W i l d e r n e s s , A diro n da c k St a t e Pa r k , New Yor k

Prepared for The Adirondack Council Erik Johnson, Sarah Mitchell, and Katharine Ochsner conway school of landscape design

March 2009

Acknowledgments Thanks to the residents of the gateway communities surrounding the proposed Bob Marshall Great Wilderness, for letting us explore their backyard; to Brian Houseal and John Davis of the Adirondack Council, for their input and assistance; to Stacy McNulty and Steve Signell at SUNY-ESF, for their advice and help with GIS; to Elizabeth Farnsworth, for sharing her expertise on sensitive habitats; and to the faculty at the Conway School of Landscape Design for their guidance and patience in helping us complete this project.

Conway School of Landscape Design 332 South Deerfield Road • Conway, MA 01341-0179 www.csld.edu The mission of the Conway School of Landscape Design is to explore, develop, practice, and teach design of the land that is ecologically and socially sustainable. To that end, students analyze and assess the natural systems in place and work to fit human needs within those systems.

contents iv

Executive Summary

1

1 introduction client • place • vision • stakeholders • project goals

9

2 Context the story of the adirondacks • recent history and present challenges

27

3 GUIDING PRINCIPLES ecotourism • conservation biology • landscape ecology

45

4 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS inventory • analysis • summary • conclusion

79

Afterword

80

Bibliography

82

Appendix: Additional Resources

executive s u mma r y

I

n recent years, the communities of the Adirondack Park have watched as a number of timber and mining companies have left the region—industries that were once the heart of the park’s economy. In the wake of their departure, many jobs have been lost, leaving the people of the park to seek fresh sources for a prosperous future.

Economic change has stirred innovative thinking. Many Adirondackers, who still remember the days when their independence and prosperity came from harvesting the park’s rich natural resources, have come to see their landscape in a new light—as valuable not for its extractive value, but as an economic engine for tourism and outdoor recreation. Now, the communities of Tupper Lake, Long Lake, Blue Mountain Lake, Raquette Lake, Inlet, Eagle Bay, Old Forge, Star Lake, and Cranberry Lake are uniquely positioned to be bellwethers for this change. Located in the western part of the Adirondack Park, these hamlets form a ring around the proposed Bob Marshall Great Wilderness

(BMGW), a 408,000-acre wild and remote area that could be the key to the area’s economic revitalization.

These nine hamlets are positioned to serve as gateways to the wilderness and prime destinations for outdoor enthusiasts, forming a circuit of economically vibrant, interdependent communities devoted to the protection and celebration of the wilderness, recognizing the animals, plants, rivers, and forests within the wilderness as central to the area’s economic vitality and way of life.

In fact, the gateway communities have all the natural and cultural resources for a thriving recreation- and tourism-based economy.

A well-planned, well-managed trail and lean-to network could link these resources in a way that is stable, resilient, and lasting.

executive summar y

v

Looking west from Mount Arab into the proposed Bob Marshall Great Wilderness

This report represents the culmination of the efforts of a student design team from the Conway School of Landscape Design. It endeavors to show that the economic revitalization of the gateway communities can arise out of the ecological protection of the landscape, suggesting ways in which these two objectives, so often conceived in opposition, can support each other over the long term.

The first half of the report puts the area of focus in its historical context, outlines current challenges, and describes a threepronged theoretical framework that can guide the process of community revitalization through environmental stewardship, consistent with the culture of the Adirondacks: first, ecotourism, which integrates economic needs with conservation imperatives;

vi

executive summar y

second, conservation biology; and third, landscape ecology.

These frameworks provide ways to understand the interactions between nature, the area’s recreational culture, and the economy, and they suggest ways to promote the health of each by linking them together as an interdependent whole.

The second half of this report maps current conditions in the landscape, analyzes these maps to determine the optimal areas for the placement of trails, trailheads, and lean-tos, and provides design recommendations, drawing throughout upon the guiding principles outlined in the first half of the report.

It is important to note that the area of the proposed BMGW is currently divided by the state into several different management

units. The resulting variations among management plans lead to potentially incompatible or conflicting directives within areas of continuous habitat that happen to span different units. In order to treat the proposed BMGW as an important, unified ecological region and manage it accordingly—and in order to manage the area as a discrete region of recreational use—this report recommends that the various management units be consolidated.

Without such consolidation, the methods and recommendations presented in this report are less likely to be implemented in an effective, unified way, and the project goals are less likely to be achieved.

The report is not intended to be the last word on trail-network planning in the area of study; instead, it is hoped that it will be a source of guidance and inspiration for what might be possible, both for the communities surrounding the proposed Bob Marshall Great Wilderness, and through their example, beyond.

executive summar y

vii

1 introduction

T

he proposed Bob Marshall Great Wilderness is 408,000 acres of wilderness, wild forest, and private lands in the western part of the Adirondack Park. The BMGW would honor Bob Marshall, a founding member of the Wilderness Society and an early conservationist who surveyed this roadless tract of land and advocated for its preservation in the 1930s.

The Bob Marshall Great Wilderness would be the largest wilderness area in the eastern United States, north of the Everglades (DiNunzio). As shown on the map below, the region is a mixture of private property—much of it under conservation easements—and state-owned land. The state-owned land is divided into several categories of land protection, including legally designated wilderness. Because the area is a mosaic of different land-protection types, not just legally designated wilderness, it can be seen as a wilderness complex.

The wilderness complex contains thousands of acres of pristine habitat and wild northwoods beauty. It is home to many species sensitive to disturbance and habitat fragmentation, including loon, moose, and black bear, and it sustains a rich and diverse biological community. In fact, it has been estimated that the region could support almost all of the flora and fauna native to the Adirondacks, due to its large protected core and diversity of habitats, from heathlands to old-growth forests. And with 441 lakes and ponds dotting the region’s vast forests and 71 miles of public waterways flowing through the wild interior, the proposed BMGW is also an outdoor recreationist’s dream (DiNunzio).

Vision Because of its unspoiled beauty, and because of the area’s existing culture of outdoor adventure and exploration, the proposed

introduction

3

wilderness presents excellent opportunities for recreation. A well-planned, well-managed trail and lean-to network has the potential to forge further links between nature, the economy, and local culture by drawing people into the wilderness and fostering a human connection with the landscape. In turn, people who feel such a connection may return to the area for its scenic and cultural values.

The growth of a healthy outdoor-recreation and tourism industry may help stimulate the economies of the towns that abut the wilderness. In addition, a well-developed trail network that connects the gateway communities could help to support a cohesive regional identity in this part of the Adirondack Park.

Public and private lands in the proposed Bob Marshall Great Wilderness

Stakeholders The stakeholders for this project include the people of the gateway communities, local municipal leaders, tourists and people seeking opportunities for outdoor recreation, and the taxpayers of New York State, who stand to benefit from the protection of the area’s ecosystem resources and scenic beauty and the economic revitalization of this part of the state.

The people of the gateway communities—in want of a stable, well-paying economic base—are the central focus of this report.

Unemployment rates in the Adirondack Park are highest in the park’s western half, where the proposed BMGW is located. In 2000, unemployment rates in this area hovered between 9 and 15 percent; in comparison, the national unemployment rate in

4

introduction

2000 was approximately 4.1 percent (Jenkins 130–31). New jobs are needed.

Finally, the biological community of the proposed BMGW can be considered a “silent” stakeholder. If this area is seen as a prime destination for outdoor recreation and enjoyment, people will care about its protection; however, increased human disturbance in the wilderness complex may compromise the very qualities that make it wild. This fact should guide any new design recommendations.

Gateway communities of the proposed Bob Marshall Great Wilderness

Project Goals In summary, this project seeks to establish positive economic, ecological, and cultural connections between the proposed BMGW and the surrounding communities.

The specific project goals are: • to identify optimal areas for the three components of a trail network—trails, trailheads, and lean-tos—in and around the proposed BMGW by mapping areas where such elements are legally permitted, provide scenic and other recreational enjoyment, and protect the region’s ecological health; • to suggest how the gateway communities can interact most effectively with a trail network.

These two goals can be understood best in the context of the area’s natural, economic, and cultural landscapes. The next chapter will briefly outline the history of the region, then consider the relationship between past events and current challenges.

6

introduction

Historic picture of a large hut used by backcountry travelers in the Adirondacks (Source: Library of Congress)

2 context

T

he landscape of the Adirondacks is characterized by dramatic topography, with high peaks in the east descending into rocky western foothills and lowlands. The mountains are young and still rising—about one foot per century—but the bedrock is a dome of ancient rock more than a billion years old, being pushed up by forces from deep within the earth’s crust (Jenkins 11). Geologically, this dome has created a place with a distinct landscape, where the bedrock is old almost beyond imagining, where the rivers flow through mountain valleys, and where rich coniferous forests meet deciduous woodlands.

People have long felt that there is something special about the Adirondack landscape. What stirs the imagination in the Adirondacks may be the sense of having entered a different zone, a place that has been shaped by a unique set of natural forces— where nature is dominant and people, less so.

The Story of the Adirondacks Pre-European The region encompassing the Adirondack dome was once a seasonal hunting and fishing ground for the Iroquois and Algonquin people, who spent summers in the cooling shade of the forests, taking advantage of the plentiful game and clean, clear rivers (Jenkins 69). However, with the coming of the first frosts, most people left the area, clearing out before winter storms arrived and transformed it into an icily elegant but inhospitable landscape.

Winters in this area have always been fierce, with deep snows and temperatures regularly plunging well below zero. Because of the harsh winters, the Adirondacks have never been a place easy

context

11

t

for people to live in. This, combined with the fact that the region has never been especially arable—the growing season is short, the soil is rocky, and much of the terrain is steep—represents a major reason why the Adirondack Park is sparsely populated to this day.

Colonial Period The first Europeans to penetrate this wilderness were fur trappers, starting in the early seventeenth century. For almost two hundred years, trappers and hunters were the only Europeans to hazard the difficult terrain, and even these were tentative forays; for more than a hundred years, starting around 1600, Europeans

12

context

left the actual trapping to Native Americans, and simply operated trading posts on the fringes of the forest (Jenkins 70). The fur trade did, in any case, open up early waterway trade routes that became important in later years to other industries.

The fur trade was enormously profitable. This led to both overexploitation of beavers, minks, and other fur-bearing mammals and armed struggles for control of trading routes. These conflicts escalated into the French and Indian War, which lasted from 1754 to 1763. As a result of the war, military settlements such as Fort Ticonderoga grew up along the western edge of Lake Champlain, the site of key points along trading routes (Trancik 13).

t

FAR LEFT: A diagram of the Adirondack dome, showing the Adirondack region being pushed upward by geologic forces. The mountains are rising about one foot per century.

LEFT: The Adirondack region receives abundant snow in the winter, resulting in spectacular nor thwoods scenes.

In 1783, after the end of the Revolutionary War, the government granted land in this region to many veterans, and the area’s settlements became farming communities. Many New Englanders joined these communities, expecting the land to be fertile and productive. Though they were planting in some of the most arable land in the Adirondack region, they had not anticipated the short growing season or the area’s rocky soil, and as a result of the difficult agricultural conditions, many farmers left to seek better fortunes elsewhere (Trancik 13).

Two related trends stand out from this era. First, from the very beginning of European colonization of this area, the economy of the Adirondacks has been based on resource extraction and the exportation of these resources to outside markets. Later examples

will show that this model has provided neither long-lasting economic stability nor economic resilience for the Adirondacks.

Second, the area’s lack of suitability for farming—an endeavor that tends to provide people with self-sufficiency—has no doubt contributed to the area’s reliance on extractive resources and an export-based economy.

Industrial Era The nineteenth century saw the rise of large-scale industry and big business in America, and with the explosion of manufacturing in the North, there came a sudden demand for raw materials.

context

13

t

The Adirondack region proved to be rich in many of these materials. For more than a hundred years, during the peak of America’s manufacturing period, two industries characterized the Adirondack region more than any others: mining and timber. Mining began in the region soon after the end of the Revolutionary War and remained a major industry until the 1960s (Jenkins 15).

Iron mines were the first to open, and iron remained the most important mineral sought after in the Adirondack region during the mining era; underlining its importance at the time is the fact that the Adirondack region was, during the mid nineteenth century, one of the country’s foremost producers of crude iron (Jenkins 15).

The wealth and jobs created by iron mining and iron making led

14

context

to the formation of Adirondack communities such as Old Forge and Lake Placid, places that are known today for tourism and winter sports, respectively. Most Adirondack mines themselves have long been abandoned; currently, only a sliver of the population of northern New York—less than 0.5 percent—is employed in mining (Jenkins 70). Mining operations in the American West and abroad have proved to have cheaper production costs, and companies have moved elsewhere (Trancik 17).

The timber industry in the Adirondacks shares a similar pattern of boom and bust, rising to prominence in the early nineteenth century and then slowly fading away during most of the twentieth century (Adams et al. 13, Trancik 17). Some timber operations survive, but every year fewer and fewer logging trucks

t

FAR LEFT: Adirondack miners before a work shift MIDDLE: Adirondack loggers pose in front of a truck loaded with the results of their work.

LEFT: The reckless extraction of timber resources led to widespread deforestation and associated problems such as erosion.

(Source: Library of Congress)

are seen on park roads. Towns such as Tupper Lake and Saranac Lake—which grew from logging camps in the wilderness—are today living reminders of the area’s logging heyday (Trancik 14).

In addition, many logging and mining roads remain today, but as multiuse trails (Jensen, personal interview).

The driving force behind the growth of the timber industry came from the factories and mills springing up across the Northeast throughout the middle part of the nineteenth century. They had a voracious appetite for timber, which was valuable as a building material, a source of fuel, and a raw material for paper and other products, with the result that within the span of a few decades— by the 1870s—much of the Adirondack forest had been clear-cut (Pasquarello 280).

This period of clear-cutting had major consequences for the Adirondack landscape and its people. Not only were the trees gone, but because of habitat loss, so were the fish and game that once flourished in the forests, lakes, and rivers. And because the riverbanks were no longer vegetated, stormwater flowed in uninterrupted sheets off the streambanks, rather than infiltrating into the soil. The excess water caused rivers to swell and created flooding problems throughout the region. It also resulted in massive erosion, which clogged waterways with soil and debris, worsening flood levels (Pasquarello 280).

Together, flooding and erosion disrupted the flow of water into the Erie Canal, one of the nation’s most economically important transportation routes at the time (Pasquarello 280). In addition,

context

15

t

wealthy families such as the Carnegies, who had built summer estates in the Adirondack woods in the late nineteenth century— estates now known as the Adirondack Great Camps—along with vacationers from the East Coast, found that the region’s natural beauty, excellent hunting and fishing grounds, and air of solitude had been compromised by timbering activities (Adams et al. 15). These problems affected people with political clout and economic power—and led to the creation of the Adirondack Park.

Creation of the Park The Adirondack region’s environmental and aesthetic problems, combined with the negative economic effects of the clear-cutting on industries that relied on the Erie Canal, gave rise to unlikely political alliances: industrial leaders of the era joined forces with artists, writers, foresters, early conservationists, and elected officials, and together they lobbied for new state legislation that would protect the Adirondack region from further destructive resource extraction (Adams et al. 17).

Their efforts succeeded, and in 1885, the New York state legislature signed into law a bill that authorized the state to buy up

16

context

t

The Adirondack Park today.

FAR LEFT: A tranquil mountain lake (Source: Wikimedia Commons) LEFT: Blue lakes stand out among the colored foliage of fall trees. (Photo by Gary Randorf ©2009 Adirondack Council)

land in the area. The state lands are collectively known as the New York State Forest Preserve. Further protection was given to this landscape in 1892, with the creation of the Adirondack Park. Legislators demarcated the boundary of the park in blue ink. This boundary, as a result of the blue ink used to define it, has since been colloquially known as “the blue line.”

corporation, public or private, nor shall the timber thereon be sold, removed or destroyed” (APA Master Plan). For more than a hundred years—up to the present day—this clause has had a powerful and determining influence on the Adirondack Park’s landscape, economy, and culture, and it has influenced the relationship between the park’s public and private lands in a lasting way.

Due to continued logging inside the park, the people of New York State voted in 1894 to amend the state’s constitution and add a clause declaring the Forest Preserve “forever wild.” The Forever Wild clause mandates that “the lands of the State, now owned or hereafter acquired, constituting the Forest Preserve as now fixed by law, shall be forever kept as wild forest lands.

They shall not be leased, sold or exchanged, or be taken by any

context

17

t

Recent History and Present Challenges

vision lives on today, but the story of the relationship between public and private land use has been long and contentious.

t h e p u b l i c - p r i vat e m i x

Landscape When the Adirondack Park was created, New York State had intended to buy all of the land within the boundary of the blue line; however, as the forests recovered and the threat of wholesale devastation receded, the state shifted its vision for the park to one in which private and public lands would intermingle in the landscape, coexisting for the benefit of all (Pasquarello 281). This

18

context

Since the middle to late nineteenth century—the nation’s Gilded Age and the era of the park’s Great Camps—people have been coming to the Adirondacks for recreation and outdoor adventure. Most of the grand lodges and hunting camps of this time gave way, in the early twentieth century, to campgrounds, motels, and hotels, the destinations of the rising middle class.

This shift corresponded with the invention and spread of the automobile, which permitted goods to be transported into the

t

FAR LEFT: The Adirondack Park has long been a favorite destination for outdoor recreation. (Source: Library of Congress)

LEFT: Hotels such as this cropped up across the park during the first half of the twentieth century. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

relatively remote interior of the Adirondack Park cheaply, and which enabled regular middle-class citizens to travel easily and efficiently (Trancik 17).

Following World War II, and with the boom in the American economy and the rise in disposable income among members of the middle class, private land inside the Adirondack Park became more and more subdivided. Many parcels were sold to people constructing second homes. The area also became increasingly popular as a vacation and recreation destination, and more and more tourist lodgings appeared along park roads (Pasquarello 281).

The expansion of private landholdings, combined with the

fragmentation of the landscape, caused alarm among those who cared about preserving the character and environmental integrity of the park, and who felt that the extent of fragmentation and development were incompatible with the “forever wild” ethos that is encapuslated in the New York State constitution. As a result, in the early 1970s, Nelson Rockefeller—governor of New York at the time—established the Temporary Study Commission on the Future of the Adirondacks to consider what measures should be taken to protect the park (Pasquarello 281).

The commission’s findings resulted in the creation of the Adirondack Park Agency, in 1972. The APA was given authority to regulate the uses of both public and private land, setting off a firestorm of resistance among permanent residents of the park,

context

19

t

who felt that environmental considerations were being placed ahead of economic needs and were infringing on property rights.

In fact, as a symbol of protest, one town even voted to secede from the park (Pasquarello 281).

It is important to remember that in the early seventies, the park’s residents were acutely aware that the timber and mining industries, the two pillars of the region’s economy for more than a hundred years, were on their way out, and that things would probably never be the same. Disputes between residents and environmental advocates have flared up repeatedly in the years since the creation of the APA, and perceptions of an opposition between environmental and economic goals continue to this day, including in the towns surrounding the proposed Bob Marshall

20

context

Great Wilderness.

The struggle for control of the region’s resources echoes similar conflicts in the region’s past, starting with the fur trade. This has been a common, ongoing tension in the park’s history. n at u r a l e n v i r o n m e n t

The Adirondack Park has been known for its vast, spreading forests, both coniferous and broadleaf. It is surprising, then, to realize that few of the trees in the Adirondack Park are more than 150 years old, due to the clear-cutting that took place in the nineteenth century—the peak period of timber harvesting

t

RIGHT: Moose have returned to the Adirondack Park in recent years. (Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) MIDDLE: Wolf tracks (Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) FAR RIGHT: A nest filled with the eggs of the spruce grouse. (Source: Environment Canada, M.K. Peck, Photographer)

in the region. In fact, in the 1950s, as much as two-thirds of the park’s forests was new growth (Jenkins 99, 52). The proposed Bob Marshall Great Wilderness, unlike much of the Adirondack Park, contains extensive, contiguous old-growth forest, a rare habitat today that supports plants and animals uniquely adapted to this environment (Jenkins 107).

The Adirondack Park is a mix of northern hardwoods and coniferous forests, interspersed with rivers, lakes, open wetlands, and fragile boreal bogs. The area of the proposed wilderness is particularly rich in wetlands (Jenkins 47). These special habitats are very sensitive to disturbance, including disturbance caused by human recreation.

This abundance of water in the Adirondack Park, combined with the fact that the area remains largely unpeopled and heavily forested, means that many species that would struggle to survive in a more fragmented and disturbed landscape, including moose, otter, black bear, and, potentially, gray wolf, can thrive here. Many birds that are sensitive to disturbance, such as the loon and the spruce grouse, also call these forests home.

These animals are emblems of the wild northwoods. Without the cry of the loon on summer nights, and without the spectacular sight of a herd of deer on an early fall morning, the Adirondack Park would undoubtedly be a different place.

While the wild character of the park is currently threatened in

context

21

t

some places by overdevelopment and overuse, the proposed Bob Marshall Great Wilderness is one area where the park’s natural heritage can remain secure for future generations—and readily accessible, if there is a well-planned recreational network (Jenkins 249).

Economy The present-day economy in the area surrounding the proposed Bob Marshall Great Wilderness is supported by jobs in government, the lumber and wood-products industries, education, and the service sector. Jobs in government are mainly concentrated in Tupper Lake. A limited number of jobs in the lumber and wood-

22

context

products industries are spread among the gateway communities.

Additionally, the State University of New York’s College of Environmental Science and Forestry employs a limited number of people at its stations in Wanakena and Cranberry Lake (Jenkins 181, 152).

Many current service-sector jobs are related to tourism, the economic focus of this report. Of all the gateway communities, Old Forge, Inlet, Eagle Bay, and Tupper Lake contain the highest concentration of tourist accommodations (Jenkins 178). Inlet and Eagle Bay have a large proportion of cottages, which are appropriate for visits of several days or more, while Old Forge has a significant number of motels, which shorter-stay guests are more likely to patronize. Tupper Lake offers a mix of inns,

t

FAR LEFT: Cross-country skiing been a popular recreational activity in the Adirondack Park for years.

LEFT: Snowmobiling has gained popularity in more recent times.

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

cottages, motels, and hotels (Jenkins 178). Overall, the variety of lodging options serves a broad audience, from families seeking a week of comfortable relaxation and gentle hiking to itinerant backpackers needing an economical, convenient place to stop for a night.

The income generated by these businesses is seasonally dependent and shifts with the health of the broader economy. Without tourism, these businesses cannot survive. Nor can the area’s myriad sporting outfitters. The towns of Cranberry Lake, Tupper Lake, Old Forge, Inlet, and Blue Mountain Lake all contain canoe- and kayak-rental establishments, and rafting companies are located around Old Forge. Hiking and camping outlets can be found near Inlet and Blue Mountain Lake. In addition, skiers

can gear up in the Old Forge–Inlet area (Jenkins 181). Finally, Old Forge is also known as a major center for snowmobiling.

Two major museums are located in the gateway communities.

Blue Mountain Lake is home to the Adirondack Museum, and in Tupper Lake, visitors can learn about the Adirondacks’ natural history at the Wild Center.

The lodging facilities, outfitters, museums, and other businesses that cater to tourists—such as resturants—are, for the most part, locally owned (Jenkins 175). Because of this, they keep money local and provide a basis for regional economic independence; in contrast, chain stores and franchises tend to drain wealth from communities, fostering dependence on outside corporations and

context

23

t

limiting people’s economic mobility (Jenkins 175). Thus, taken as a whole, these local businesses represent existing infrastructure for a more vigorous, more vital community economy. A well-managed environmentally appropriate outdoor recreational network could attract more visitors and boost local-business revenue in the gateway communities.

Culture The many tourist-oriented businesses in the gateway communities reflect the Adirondacks’ longstanding culture of outdoor adventure. From the hunters and anglers of the Great Camp era to the snowmobilers and kayakers of today, outdoor recreation-

24

context

ists have helped to define the spirit of the region.

The festival calendar of Old Forge gives an indication of how the area’s culture is built around outdoor activity. Events include the Mountain Bike Challenge, in May; the Inlet Fishing Derby, in June; the ninety-mile Adirondack Canoe Classic, a paddling race from Old Forge to Saranac Lake, in September; and the Snowdeo, in December (Jenkins 190). The fact that the Winter Olympics were held in the Adirondack Park, at Lake Placid, in 1932 and 1980 also speaks to the importance of sports and recreation to the park’s history and culture (Trancik 17).

The popularity of different outdoor activities has waxed and waned over the years. In the 1960s, hiking and rafting were the

t

Canoeing is a traditional Adirondack activity.

FAR LEFT: Contestants get ready for star t of the the Adirondack Canoe Classic, in Old Forge.

LEFT: Two anglers enjoy quieter canoeing experience on an Adirondack lake (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

most common forms of recreation; the focus shifted in the ’70s to jet-skiing and climbing and then, in the ’80s and ’90s, to snowmobiling and all-terrain-vehicle use. In the last decade, snowshoeing and kayaking have become popular, and today, the outdoor culture of the Adirondack Park remains vibrant (Jenkins 190).

The next chapter will describe three related paradigms that can help the gateway communities consider how nature, the economy, and human culture interact—and how these elements can be encouraged to interact in mutually beneficial ways.

context

25

3

guiding principles

T

his report outlines a process for planning an appropriate ecotourism-based recreational network in the region of the proposed Bob Marshall Great Wilderness. It is guided by principles that support the project vision, in which nature is protected, the economies of the gateway communities are strong, and the area’s distinct culture thrives.

Ecotourism is a “green” form of tourism based on the principle that sensitive natural and cultural features can be explored while protecting and preserving them, and supporting local economies. The science of conservation biology, which helps explain the effects of human activity on the natural world, with the goal of protecting biodiversity, provides other guiding principles. The field of landscape ecology further refines the concepts taken from conservation biology by illustrating how these concepts appear as spatial patterns in the landscape. It offers a way to visualize how modifying those patterns then changes ecological processes.

Taken together, ecotourism, conservation biology, and landscape ecology can meaningfully inform the process for an ecologically appropriate recreational network to support the region’s communities.

Ecotourism The Adirondack way of life has always been closely tied to the landscape. The close relationship between the Adirondacks’ natural resources and the economies of Adirondack towns has preserved much of the area’s rural character and created a unique local culture. Now, with the loss of the former underpinnings of the Adirondack economy, Adirondackers have the opportunity to reinvigorate their economies through a renewed relationship with the landscape.

guiding principles

29

t

One way that the ring of hamlets surrounding the proposed Bob Marshall Great Wilderness can do this is by investing in a future based on appropriate recreation and tourism, in particular by marketing themselves as prime destinations for outdoor recreation and nature-based ecotourism.

itly promotes the economic independence of local people and tries to prevent the loss of revenue to outside parties, as can happen when, for example, chain stores and franchises dominate an area’s economy, channeling profits to corporate headquarters outside the community.

Ecotourism has been defined as “travel to fragile, pristine, and usually protected areas that strives to be low impact and (often) small scale. It helps educate the traveler, provides funds for conservation, directly benefits the economic development and political empowerment of local communities, and fosters respect for different cultures” (Honey 33).

On the other hand, small local businesses tend to keep more money in communities, as is demonstrated by a study in Bolivia showing that the economic benefit of large, organized groups of tourists, who mainly patronize chains and other businesses run by large outside corporations, is outweighed by a factor of three to one by the economic benefit of backpackers—who tend to patronize local businesseses, even though they spend less money overall (Honey 108). By investing in local businesses and local

Ecotourism differs from conventional tourism in that it explic-

30

guiding principles

t

FAR LEFT: Bird-watching is an activity than everyone can enjoy and provides excellent oppor tunities for environmental education.

LEFT: Backpacking is an essential par t of the wilderness experience. Here, backpackers head off for the trail.

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

resources rather than depending on outside investment, the communities of the Adirondack Park have the opportunity to reaffirm their economic independence and cultural heritage.

The gateway communities surrounding the proposed Bob Marshall Great Wilderness are geographically well positioned to become the centers of a thriving ecotourism industry. In a 2002 poll of visitors to national parks conducted by the Travel Industry Association of America, 75 percent of respondents reported staying overnight within ten miles of the park they were visiting (Honey 399). A well-designed trail network positioned within walking distance of the inns, B&Bs, campgrounds, and motels of these gateway communities, and providing easy access to the wilderness, could help the hamlets market themselves as

the premier destination for ecotourism and wilderness recreation in the Adirondack Park.

What would more extensive ecotourism look like in the gateway communities? Many of the area’s current recreational activities might have a new education or stewardship component. For example, local tour businesses might take small groups of hikers and paddlers into the wilderness on guided tours. These tours would not only pass through areas of natural beauty and scenic interest, but they would also reveal the natural history of the wilderness and educate people about the important resources that the natural environment provides, such as clean water, clean air, and habitat for rare and endangered species.

guiding principles

31

t

In sum, the gateway communities of the proposed Bob Marshall Great Wilderness surround a vast natural resource, one that could provide the people of the area, and their children, with greater economic independence, sustain a vibrant local culture, and further a close relationship with the landscape. Ecotourism could help to unlock this source of economic and cultural wealth.

Trails, Trailheads, and Lean-tos There are many forms of infrastructure that support ecotourismbased economies, including signs, maintenance, and reservations systems. This report focuses on a trail network and its three major landscape components: trails, trailheads, and lean-tos. Each

32

guiding principles

component supports the project vision—of a healthy, stable, resilient society arising from a strong local economy, vibrant regional culture, and protected nature—in important ways.

strong local economy

A strengthened ecotourism network can help support a strong local economy by attracting tourists and outdoors enthusiasts to the proposed Bob Marshall Great Wilderness and the surrounding communities. With careful design, each element of the trail network can contribute to the health of the local economy.

Trails, for example, can draw a wide variety of recreationists to

t

FAR LEFT: A trail in the Adirondack Park MIDDLE: One of the park’s many trailheads LEFT: One type of lean-to in the Adirondack Park (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

the area if the region is known for having diverse kinds of trails, not just those meant for hiking. A trail network that also includes opportunities for skiing, for example, as well as well-planned waterway routes for canoeists and kayakers will allow for different types of outdoor enthusiasts who want to experience the region, and potentially more of them.

nies. Lean-tos, a third element of a trail network, can diversify the available overnight options, helping to support a strong local economy by attracting an additional set of outdoor-adventure seekers to the area.

Trailheads, a second element of a trail network, can directly help support a strong local economy when placed close to town centers. People within walking distance or a short drive to towns are encouraged to spend time and money in those communities.

Ideally, entry points to the wilderness can be located within the hamlets, especially in the case of waterway routes: boat launches can be placed along rivers in town, and near boat-rental compa-

An integrated ecotourism network based on trails and lean-tos can support and celebrate the culture of the gateway communities in several ways. Trails lead people to points of historical interest and places of unique natural beauty. Trailheads represent the boundary between civilization and the wilderness. It is at this boundary that the gateway communities have the opportunity to

v i b r a n t r e g i o n a l c u lt u r e

guiding principles

33

t

34

explain their historical relationship with the forest, to frame its cultural importance, and to educate visitors about the value of respecting and protecting the landscape they are about to enter.

They also welcome people back to the communities as they exit the wilderness. This is a valuable opportunity for the gateway communities to define their identity to visitors. Trailheads thus represent an important link between nature and culture.

p r ot e c t e d n at u r e

Lean-tos can support and celebrate the regional culture by reflecting the architecture and materials of the region. In addition, they can support camaraderie and interaction among visitors in their design, creating new or contemporary cultural experiences.

One of the primary ways that a lean-to network can help protect nature is by helping manage the flow of humans in the landscape. Trails, trailheads, and lean-tos can all be sited in ways that minimize disturbances to fragile and sensitive areas and that funnel use toward areas that are more appropriate for human activity. To understand how this may be done, we can turn to

guiding principles

If the backbone of ecotourism is the natural environment, then it makes sense to protect this resource. How can a trail and leanto network, which will bring more people into the proposed BMGW and thus increase disturbance in the landscape, be made compatible with the protection of natural resources?

t

FAR LEFT: Traditional snowshoes. Snowshoeing is a traditional and low-impact par t of the Adirondack recreational culture. (Source: Wikimedia Commons) LEFT: Hidden Adirondack scenes such as this forest waterfall in the draw hikers into the wilderness. (Photo

by Gary Randorf ©2009 Adirondack Council)

conservation biology and landscape ecology. From these, we can extract guidelines for the responsible design of a trail and lean-to system.

Conservation Biology Conservation biology is the branch of biology that studies the causes of species extinction, focusing in particular on human causes. By understanding the human-caused changes that lead to the loss of species, conservation biologists hope to provide ways to reduce further losses and protect biodiversity.

animals, and micro-organisms, the genes they contain, and the intricate ecosystems they help build into the living environment” (Worldwide Fund for Nature 1989, quoted in Primack, 9). It can be measured at three levels: genetic, species, and ecosystem. In order for life to flourish, diversity at all three levels is essential.

In the Adirondack Park, biodiversity has been threatened by a variety of human-induced changes, including pollution, habitat fragmentation, development, overuse, the invasion of exotic species, and the effects of climate change. Protecting core areas of habitat and sensitive ecosystems can help to preserve and restore biodiversity in the park.

Biodiversity is “the wealth of life on earth, the millions of plants,

guiding principles

35

t

LEFT: Rivers are one type of corridor in the landscape (Photo by Gary Randorf Š2009 Adirondack Council)

36

Landscape Ecology

surrounding it make up the matrix.

Landscape ecologists study patterns in the landscape in order to understand how different patterns result in different ecological functions. The three spatial components that landscape ecology is primarily concerned with are the patch, the matrix, and the corridor; the overall landscape pattern is called the landscape mosaic (Dramstad, Olson, and Forman 14).

Corridors are linear features that connect otherwise isolated patches with each other. Rivers and trails are examples of corridors in the proposed Bob Marshall Great Wilderness. Taken together, the matrix, patches, and corridors of a region make up the landscape mosaic.

Patches in a landscape are relatively homogeneous, isolated areas of habitat. They can be imagined as islands, while the surrounding landscape type can be imagined as the sea. This larger “sea� is called the matrix (Dramstad, Olson, and Forman 19). For instance, in a developed landscape, a small woodland remnant can be considered a patch, while the towns, roads, and buildings

In the following pages, the main concepts of conservation biology and landscape ecology are illustrated in greater depth through discussions of ecological concerns that currently exist inside the proposed BMGW. Each discussion ends with a set of guidelines, drawn from the main scientific concepts that have been reviewed, for the protection of ecological resources and the ecologically sensitive placement of a trail and lean-to network.

guiding principles

37

FOCUS

Species Diversity and Patches

Principle: Within an ecosystem, the loss of species diversity can compromise the health of that ecosystem.

The term ecosystem refers to all of the species that live in a par ticular area, the interactions among those species, and the physical environment in which those species live (Primack 15). Some examples of ecosystems in the proposed Bob Marshall Great Wilderness include beech-maple forests and blackspruce tamarack bogs.

Species diversity can be measured in several ways, but it is often defined as the number of species in a single ecosystem (Primack 21). When a species is lost from an ecosystem, the web of interdependent relationships between the remaining species may be disrupted. This is especially true for keystone species, or species that “affect the organization of the community [in which they live] to a far greater degree than one would predict based only on their numbers of individuals or biomass” (Primack 19).

TOP: Dividing a large patch increases the propor tion of the total area that has edge conditions. (Source: Forman 20) BOTTOM: Gray wolf, Canis lupus (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

38

The gray wolf, Canis lupus, is one such keystone species. The wolf once ranged over the entire Nor thern Forest, which stretches from New York to nor thern Maine; however, government-sponsored bounty hunting, in conjunction with habitat destruction, led to the disappearance of this impor tant predator from New York by the mid 1890s (Paquet, Strittholt, and Staus, 1). With the loss of this top predator, coyotes—much more tolerant of human disturbance—moved in to fill the void. By the 1950s, coyotes were common in the Adirondack Park and had replaced wolves as the top predator in the region (Paquet, Strittholt, and Staus, 10).

If coyotes are filling the ecological role once filled by wolves, why reintroduce the gray wolf? According to studies done in Yellowstone both before and after the reintroduction of the gray wolf, wolves may actually increase biodiversity in the areas where they live, whereas their removal and replacement by coyotes may decrease biodiversity and impoverish the overall ecosystem. According to Doug Smith, a biologist at the National Park Ser vice, “With the wolf back in place as the top carnivore, biodiversity is greater. The return of the wolf is the best thing to happen to Yellowstone in the past centur y” (Levy).

While the list of Adirondack species that may receive benefits from the reintroduction of wolves may differ somewhat from these in Yellowstone, the ecological principles behind the increases in biodiversity are the same. How can the habitat of the gray wolf, and of other species of concern, be protected in the proposed Bob Marshall Great Wilderness?

All species, especially ones with large home ranges, need enough quality habitat to survive and reproduce. Landscape ecology describes the way the size and shape of patches influences the quality of habitat.

Guidelines for a Trail and Lean-To Network • Identify keystone species and other species of concern.

• Identify existing patches of impor tant habitat for these species, especially large, rounded patches that will be likely to contain a sufficient amount of protected core habitat.

• Create buffer zones around core regions and place major trail routes, trailheads, and lean-tos outside the buffer zones.

In general, in a matrix of developed and disturbed land, patches with good-quality habitat for large-home-range and sensitive species have a large, protected core. In order to have a large core, the patch itself must be large, and it may be more effective if it is round rather than elongated—round patches have larger core regions than elongated patches with the same total area.

Patches with large core regions have more area that is protected from edge disturbance, which translates into better-quality habitat for large-home-range and sensitive species (Dramstad, Olson, and Forman 20–24).

39

FOCUS

Genetic Diversity and Corridors

Principle: The loss of genetic diversity in a species can lead to extinction.

The spruce grouse, Dendragapus canadensis, is a bird characteristic of the Canadian coniferous forest. A few small breeding populations are found in the coniferous forests of the Adirondack Park, including those of the proposed Bob Marshall Great Wilderness.

Because the grouse is easy to hunt, and because of its reliance on the foliage of coniferous trees for its diet—a need that can be met in only scattered and relatively small areas within the park—the grouse’s breeding population has plummeted over the last centur y to between 175 and 315 individuals (http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7078.html).

With so few individuals left, the spruce grouse is vulnerable to numerous genetic problems. One is inbreeding, which results from the depletion of genetic variability from generation to generation in small pop-

TOP: Corridors can be joined into networks to make it easier for species to disperse. (Source: Forman 42) BOTTOM: Spruce grouse, Dendragapus canadensis (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

40

ulations. Individuals born to closely related parents tend to be weak and often sterile. Inbreeding is worsened when small populations are disconnected from other populations of their kind, leading to a lack of gene flow, or exchange of genes between populations in an area.

Small gene pools also mean that each generation is less able to adapt to stressful environmental conditions (Primack 112–113).

For the spruce grouse, projected declines in the spruce-fir ecosystem as a result of a warming climate will likely contribute to the challenging conditions for sur vival (Jenkins 39).

It has been estimated that with any species, a population of 50 individuals is the smallest that can sustain genetic variability and survive. It has also been proposed that the loss of genetic variability from one generation to the next is balanced by mutation only in populations with at least 500 individuals (Primack 113). While populations of 500 or more individuals are more secure, the spruce grouse, with somewhere between 175 and 315 individuals, may have at least a chance for survival by this measure. What can be done to help the spruce grouse, and other species with reduced populations, increase their chances for sur vival?

Conser vation biologists have found that isolated populations can increase their genetic

diversity by breeding with nearby populations (Primack 111). These separate populations can be linked by habitat corridors in the landscape. Landscape ecologists have studied ways in which corridors can effectively link isolated patches, and they have produced theories as to what characteristics these corridors should have to permit the best flow between the patches.

In general, landscape ecologists have found that effective corridors are those of an adequate width for the target species; contain few gaps, and only narrow gaps; and contain mainly the same or similar habitat type. In addition, corridors become more effective when they are joined together in networks.

This increases the area through which species can disperse and improves connectivity between patches (Dramstad, Olson, and Forman, 36–37, 41).

Guidelines for a Trail and Lean-To Network • Identify existing corridors between areas of core habitat, and encourage the creation of new ones, to connect populations of threatened species. Reduce human disturbance in and around these corridors by placing trails, trailheads, and lean-tos in less sensitive areas. • Recognize that corridors can also allow the movement of undesirable and invasive species, especially in waterways but also along trails. (For example, Eurasian milfoil is an invasive plant that clings to boats and spreads when boats move from one water body to another.) Identify and monitor such movements, for example, through education and well-marked signs.

41

FOCUS

Ecosystem Diversity and the Landscape Mosaic

Principle: At a regional, continental, or global scale, the loss of ecosystem diversity can lead to a breakdown of natural processes at these respective scales.

Ecosystems provide many benefits; for example, forests capture and store carbon, the major contributor to global climate change, and also help regulate climate through the water that evaporates from them or transpires from their vegetation. The ser vices provided by the world’s diverse ecosystems are inextricably linked with the fate and conditions of human life on ear th, and many of them cannot adequately be replaced, practically or economically, by manmade infrastructure.

The proposed Bob Marshall Great Wilderness is rich in wetlands. Wetlands provide a good illustration of the impor tance of protecting ecosystem diversity in the landscape.

TOP: Each piece of the landscape mosaic is par t of an integrated, dynamic whole. (Source: Forman 45) BOTTOM: Black spruce bog in the Adirondack Park (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

42

According the New York Depar tment of Environmental Conser vation, wetlands “are transition areas between uplands and aquatic habitats. They are known by many names, such as marshes, swamps, bogs, and wet meadows. . . . Characteristic plants include wetland trees and shrubs, such as willows and alders; emergent plants such as cattails and sedges; aquatic plants, such as water-lily, and bog mat vegetation, such as sphagnum moss” (“Freshwater Wetlands Program”).

For years, people considered wetlands to be waste places, and across the countr y they were filled to make way for development. In fact, in the two-hundred-year period from the 1780s to the 1980s, approximately 60 percent of New York’s original wetland acreage was drained and filled or otherwise destroyed (“Threats to Wetlands”). In 1972, Congress passed the Clean Water Act, which legally mandates the protection of the nation’s water resources, including wetlands. It was around this time that people first began to understand the full ecological and economic impor tance of intact wetlands.

Wetlands have significant ecological value, ranking alongside tropical rainforests and coral reefs in terms of ecosystem productivity and, despite comprising only 5 percent of the landcover in the lower for ty-eight states,

providing habitat for more than 50 percent of rare and endangered species (“Economic Benefits of Wetlands”). From an economic perspective, wetlands, and the functions they perform, also have great value to humans. For instance, wetlands in the Adirondack Park remove pollutants such as heavy metals— which originate from industrial activity in the Ohio River Valley and are carried east in the atmosphere—by trapping these pollutants in sediments, as well as in the roots and tissues of wetland plants, thereby improving the quality of drinking water downstream (“Functions and Values of Wetlands”). In addition, by capturing stormwater, wetlands in the Adirondack Park prevent flooding and slow erosion throughout the region.

Guidelines for a Trail and Lean-To Network • Identify the ecosystems that make up the landscape mosaic in and around the proposed BMGW. Classify them according to the impor tance of their functions and their sensitivity to disturbance.

• Collaborate with managers of adjacent lands to understand and manage for regional wildlife corridors.

• Map core areas for each ecosystem, areas at highest risk for disturbance, and corridors that connect ecosystem types.

• Keep heavily used trails, trailheads, and lean-tos away from core areas, and avoid placing them in small patches that will be ver y sensitive to disturbance, or in other areas identified as especially sensitive.

In the proposed Bob Marshall Great Wilderness, what can be done to protect wetlands and other habitat types that contribute to the healthy functioning of the overall landscape? Landscape ecologists have found that fragmentation is one of the main threats to ecosystems (Dramstad, Olson, and Forman 41). Fragmentation can be reduced by identifying and protecting different ecosystem types and by connecting them through a network of corridors.

43

44

4

design recommendations 45

his chapter draws on the guidelines presented in the previous chapter to provide specific recommendations that support the project’s three-pronged mission: to protect nature, support strong local economies in the gateway communities, and foster a vibrant regional culture.

T

provide the reader with a set of tools for understanding these relationships, and for using this knowledge to successfully identify suitable locations for trails, trailheads, and lean-tos in the landscape. The analysis section both provides this methodology and suggests topics for further research.

The following pages provide an inventory of existing conditions in and around the proposed Bob Marshall Great Wilderness.

Inventory maps show existing trails, illustrate the division of the landscape into units with different levels of legal protection, suggest places that may have high scenic value, and indicate regions of sensitive habitat.

Throughout this chapter, the reader should note that the geographic information systems data used to create both inventory and analysis maps are suitable for a broad, conceptual study of this area. The recommendations that arise from a study of these maps are, likewise, broad and conceptual in scope. Neither the maps nor the recommendations are intended to be read at a fine, detailed scale. Additional planning at this finer scale will be required.

The inventory section leads into an analysis of how these conditions relate to each other. Mapping existing elements allows layers of information to be superimposed on one another in analysis maps. The primary goal of the analysis section is to

design recommendations

47

existing trails

Existing trails in and near the proposed BMGW are the foundation for a new trail and lean-to network.

The Adirondack Park has more than 2,000 miles of trails, 240 of which are in the proposed BMGW, representing approximately 12 percent of the park’s total trail mileage. Many of the trails in the proposed BMGW allow for multiple uses, but the majority of the trail mileage—78 percent—consists of hiking trails. Motorized vehicles, including snowmobiles, are permitted on 38 percent of the total trail mileage. Fur ther study should be under taken to determine whether this mix reflects the area’s environmental and recreational needs.

INVENTORY

Some gateway communities have better connections with existing trails than others. Trails and trailheads with easy access from

LEGEND Proposed BMGW border Adirondack Park border Hiking trail Snowmobile trail

N 48

a d i r o n dac k pa r k

0

21 miles

Skiing trail Equestrian trail Road

such trails may be desired, especially to create an integrated network that connects the gateway communities. Finally, areas where trails converge, especially heavily used trails, may be good locations for lean-tos, since here they will be accessible to many trail users.

town centers should be studied for communities such as Tupper Lake, which appears to have poor connectivity with the existing trail system. In addition, places such as Star Lake and Cranberr y Lake, which have a higher density of trails, may be excellent places to develop loop trails; trails entering the proposed BMGW from the south and east appear more likely to be dead-end trails. Currently, no trails traverse the entire proposed BMGW;

The locations of existing trails must be evaluated for ecological sensitivity. New trails, trailheads, and lean-tos should be placed in a way that conforms to the law, protects the environment, and creates enjoyable recreational conditions. The inventor y maps that follow provide the information needed for these analyses, star ting with legal restrictions on land uses.

GATEWAY COMMUNITIES C•

B• A

•

•D

E•

•F H• I

•

•G

A

Star Lake

B

Cranberr y Lake

C

Tupper Lake

D

Long Lake

E

Blue Mountain Lake

F

Raquette Lake

G

Inlet

H

Eagle Bay

I

Old Forge

N

t h e p r o p o s e d b o b m a r s h a l l g r e at w i l d e r n e s s

0

10 miles

49

la n d protection

The State of New York owns more than 230,000 acres, or 56 percent, of the land in the proposed BMGW. Of this, 60 percent is designated wilderness. Permanent structures and motorized vehicles—including snowmobiles—are not allowed in wilderness.

The other 40 percent of state land in the proposed BMGW is designated wild forest, in which the construction of some permanent structures is permitted, as is limited use of motorized vehicles.

The remaining 178,000 acres are privately held. Private lands under conser vation easements are legally protected from types of development or land use that would harm the ecological integrity of the area.

INVENTORY

These maps show the division of land in both the Adirondack Park and the proposed Bob Marshall Great Wilderness into four legal land status categories—wilderness, wild forest, private land under

LEGEND Proposed BMGW border Adirondack Park border Private land (no easement) Wilderness Wild forest

N 50

a d i r o n dac k pa r k

0

21 miles

Conser vation easement

conser vation easements, and private land not under easements.

to the fact that permanent structures and parking areas are not allowed in wilderness.

Though trails, trailheads, and lean-tos might be placed on private land with the agreement of landowners, this repor t is concerned primarily with public lands. Legally, trails may be placed in both wilderness and wild forest, but trailheads and lean-tos may be placed only in wild forest, due

The map below shows that public land is concentrated in the western par t of the proposed BMGW, while private land is concentrated in the eastern region. This pattern suggests that the best area for developing a comprehensive trail network is in the western region.

GATEWAY COMMUNITIES C•

B• A

•

•D

E•

•F H•

•G

I

•

t h e p r o p o s e d b o b m a r s h a l l g r e at w i l d e r n e s s

A

Star Lake

B

Cranberr y Lake

C

Tupper Lake

D

Long Lake

E

Blue Mountain Lake

F

Raquette Lake

G

Inlet

H

Eagle Bay

I

Old Forge

N 0

10 miles

51

t o p o g r aph y

The highest peaks in the eastern par t of the park top 4,000 feet above sea level; the highest points in the proposed BMGW reach just 2,000 feet. The gateway communities are all located in lowlands.

Because the slopes in and around the proposed BMGW are visibly gentler than those in the eastern par t of the park, activities such as hiking, snowshoeing, and cross-countr y skiing might be marketed to a more inclusive audience than would be possible to the east. Here, serious athletes may find extensive stretches of uninterrupted trails for long-distance training, yet families of all ages may find it a good place to take relaxed day hikes.

INVENTORY

Trails, trailheads, and lean-tos should be carefully placed to take advantage of the area’s topography. For instance, by working with variations in topography, trails can provide a range of aesthetic ex-

LEGEND Proposed BMGW border Adirondack Park border High Low

N 52

a d i r o n dac k pa r k

0

21 miles

Elevation (in feet)

periences in the landscape. A hiker may descend into a wooded valley, walk along a streambed, and then climb back out onto a sunny ridge with an expansive view of the hills. The map below shows two bands of varied topography in the proposed wilderness, both running southwest to nor theast.

These areas might have good potential for scenic and challenging trails.

Trailheads should also take advantage of topography. A trailhead that is placed on relatively level ground yet provides a view can simultaneously accommodate diverse users and draw visitors. Leantos, also, might be sited in areas with broad vistas.

GATEWAY COMMUNITIES C•

B• A

•

•D

A

Star Lake

B

Cranberr y Lake

C

Tupper Lake

D

Long Lake

E

Blue Mountain Lake

F

Raquette Lake

G

Inlet

H

Eagle Bay

I

Old Forge

E•

•F H• I

•

•G

Bands of varied topography

N

t h e p r o p o s e d b o b m a r s h a l l g r e at w i l d e r n e s s

0

10 miles

53

S t r e am s , r i v e r s , a n d la k e s

Within the proposed BMGW are 441 lakes and 71 miles of rivers. (“Gift of Wilderness”). As is shown on the map of the proposed BMGW, all of the gateway communities are located near or directly adjacent to large lakes.

INVENTORY

Waterways are considered critical and sensitive habitats. New York State requires a setback of a hundred feet from water bodies for built structures (APA Master Plan 2001). Thus, while trails, trailheads, and lean-tos should allow access to waterways—both for their scenic value and as ways to move through the landscape— they should not negatively affect the quality of the habitat that waterways provide and the species they suppor t. The volume of users and the impact of different recreational uses in and near waterways should be studied and managed.

LEGEND Proposed BMGW border Adirondack Park border Water body Road

N 54

a d i r o n dac k pa r k

0

21 miles

ings—should be placed in proximity to town centers. Since ever y gateway community is situated on a lake, this should be an achievable goal.

In addition, because waterways are natural corridors, invasive species can move quickly and easily through them. Human activity should be monitored and regulated to prevent the unintentional spread of invasives through waterways.

Finally, in order to attract people to the gateway communities and help suppor t local businesses, waterway trailheads—boat launches and land-

GATEWAY COMMUNITIES C•

B• A

•

•D

E•

•F H•

•G

I

•

t h e p r o p o s e d b o b m a r s h a l l g r e at w i l d e r n e s s

A

Star Lake

B

Cranberr y Lake

C

Tupper Lake

D

Long Lake

E

Blue Mountain Lake

F

Raquette Lake

G

Inlet

H

Eagle Bay

I

Old Forge

N 0

10 miles

55

P o p u la t i o n density

The proposed BMGW intersects with ten different townships. Most of the area covered by these townships has a human population density of fewer than ten residents per square mile.

INVENTORY

The proposed wilderness area is compact and fairly rounded in shape, and relatively large compared with the entire Adirondack Park, comprising roughly 7 percent of the park’s total area (“Gift of Wilderness”). According to the principles of landscape ecology, patches that are large and rounded may be more likely to contain sufficient interior, or core, habitat for large-home-range species and for sensitive species that require undisturbed, interior conditions for sur vival. Heavily used trails, trailheads, and lean-tos should be placed outside of this core area, preferably in a zone that already has disturbed edge conditions.

LEGEND Proposed BMGW border Adirondack Park border <10 residents / square mile 10–50 residents / square mile 51–100 residents / square mile

N

>100 residents / square mile No information available

56

a d i r o n dac k pa r k

0

21 miles

The area of the proposed BMGW has a lower population density than the areas to the west and east, and it can be looked at as par t of a patch of low human disturbance in a matrix of greater human disturbance. In order to place trails, trailheads, and lean-tos in areas that might already be somewhat disturbed, fur ther study should be unter taken to determine the extent to which disturbance from the west and east creates edge conditions inside the proposed wilderness.

A more fine-tuned gauge of protected interior habitat is shown in the maps on the following two pages, which look at roads rather than population density as an indicator of human disturbance. The maps indicate areas far thest from roads. These regions are most likely to contain the most highquality core habitat in the region.

Piercefield Colton

Diana

Fine

Webb

Clifton

Long Lake

Arietta

Watson

Inlet

t h e p r o p o s e d b o b m a r s h a l l g r e at w i l d e r n e s s

N 0

10 miles

57

P o t e n t i al c o r e hab i t a t

Potential core areas are those better suited for species sur vival as they are less likely to be impacted by human disturbance. These maps show areas of potential core habitat for large-home-range and sensitive species in and around the proposed Bob Marshall Great Wilderness, as well as buffer zones around the core areas.

The buffer zones were calculated using roads as this is a common variable in species disturbance. The first-ring buffer zone, in dark green, represents areas that are up to three miles from roads, a major source of disturbance. The second-ring buffer zone shows areas that are up to two miles from roads, and the surrounding area, in light green, shows areas one mile or less from roads.

Because the regions shown in light green are far thest from potential core habitat, they represent the most suitable areas for the placement of trails, trailheads, and huts, par ticularly those that receive the most use. The five patches of potential core habitat shown in the map of the proposed BMGW represent areas least suitable for the placement of these elements. A cluster of smaller core habitat regions seen in the lower right corner of the proposed BMGW shows an oppor tunity to create a larger patch by connecting the areas.

INVENTORY

Many species that are sensitive to disturbance need protected core habitat in order to thrive. They also benefit from corridors that connect these separated cores. As discussed in the previous chapter, the science of landscape ecology suggests that effective corridors are of an adequate width for the species that will be using them; contain areas of continuous habitat; are relatively uninterrupted;

LEGEND Proposed BMGW border Adirondack park border Inner buffer zone Middle buffer zone Outer buffer zone

N

Potential core habitat Road

58

a d i r o n dac k pa r k

0

21 miles

that may cause disturbance should not be sited on the land that is publicly owned; nor should they be placed in other potential corridors.

and are joined together with other corridors in a network.

Protected corridors between the core areas may be present within the inner buffer zones. One such potential corridor can be seen in the circled zone connecting the core areas south of Star Lake and Cranberr y Lake, some of which may intersect with private land. Trails, trailheads, and lean-tos

Through careful management, areas of potential core habitat can be expanded beyond what exists today.

GATEWAY COMMUNITIES C•

B• A

•

•D

E•

A

Star Lake

B

Cranberr y Lake

C

Tupper Lake

D

Long Lake

E

Blue Mountain Lake

F

Raquette Lake

G

Inlet

H

Eagle Bay

I

Old Forge

Area of potential corridor

•F H• I

•

•G

N

t h e p r o p o s e d b o b m a r s h a l l g r e at w i l d e r n e s s

0

10 miles

59

sensitive ecosystems

Twenty-two different ecosystems can be found in the proposed Bob Marshall Great Wilderness, in the char t below. Of these, four are considered to be sensitive â&#x20AC;&#x201D; acidic cliff and talus, alkaline cliff and talus, alpine barren, and cove forest (as determined by ecologist Elizabeth Farnswor th) and are shown in these two mapsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the first showing where the sensitive ecosystems are located throughout the Adirondack Park; the second, where they appear in the proposed BMGW. Sensitive ecosystems contain species that are par ticularly susceptible to human disturbance. Such species may have ver y small, specialized habitats that are easily destroyed, or they may not be able to tolerate the stress of human activity. These ecosystems should receive special protections.

Par k Ecosystems

INVENTORY

* Acidic Cliff and Talus Acidic Rocky Outcrop Acidic Swamp Alkaline Hardwood Forest Alkaline Hemlock-Hardwood Forest * Alkaline Cliff and Talus Alkaline Fen Alkaline Rocky Outcrop * Alpine Barren * Cove Forest Conifer Seepage Forest

* sensitive ecosystems

LEGEND Proposed BMGW border Adirondack Park border Sensitive ecosystem

N

60

Dr y Oak Forest Dr y Flats Lowland Alkaline Forest Lowland Spruce-Fir Forest Montane Alkaline Forest Montane Spruce-Fir Forest Nor thern Hardwood Forest Pine-Hemlock-Hardwood Forest Sandplain Sub-Alpine Woodland Wet Meadow /Shrubby Marsh

a d i r o n dac k pa r k

0

21 miles

Road

Because sensitive areas may contain features of special scenic value—remote old-growth forests or boreal bogs—some trails may provide access to these areas; however, in order to limit human use, such trails might be secondar y trails that require hikers to cover strenuous terrain or significant distance to reach them. Main trails should not be located in or near sensitive ecosystems.

Nor should huts and trailheads, which concentrate people in one area.

As shown in the map below, sensitive ecosystems are scattered throughout the proposed BMGW; however, they appear to be concentrated south of Star Lake and in the area between Cranberr y Lake and Tupper Lake. There is also a concentrated band running through the central area of the proposed BMGW. Human use should be monitored and regulated in these areas to prevent harmful disturbance.

The preceding inventories of existing trails, legal restrictions on land use, areas with scenic potential, and areas of sensitive habitat will be used in the following section to assess the most and least appropriate locations for trails, trailheads, and lean-tos in and around the proposed BMGW.

GATEWAY COMMUNITIES C•

B• A

•

•D

E•

•F H•

•G

I

•

t h e p r o p o s e d b o b m a r s h a l l g r e at w i l d e r n e s s

A

Star Lake

B

Cranberr y Lake

C

Tupper Lake

D

Long Lake

E

Blue Mountain Lake

F

Raquette Lake

G

Inlet

H

Eagle Bay

I

Old Forge

N 0

10 miles

61

trails: SCENIC P OTENTI A L

C•

B• A

•

To provide an enjoyable recreational experience, trails should pass through scenic areas. The process by which current trails may be evaluated for their scenic potential, and the process by which other areas may be evaluated for the placement of scenic trails, is illustrated in the Tupper Lake focus area below.

D

E

•F H•

ANALYSIS

N LEGEND Proposed BMGW border

•

the proposed bmgw

0

GATEWAY COMMUNITIES

Adirondack Park border A

Star Lake

F

Raquette Lake

Hiking trail

B

Cranberr y Lake

G

Inlet

Snowmobile trail

C

Tupper Lake

H

Eagle Bay

Skiing trail

D

Long Lake

I

Old Forge

Water body

Road

62

•G

I

E

Blue Mountain Lake

10 miles

focus tupper lake The maps to the left and below suggest some relationships between existing trails and both varied topography and water bodies, two landscape features identified as having scenic potential.

BMGW. These new trails, which would connect this gateway community with the trail network of the wilderness area, could be placed in such a way that they would both provide views of the areaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s water bodies and traverse varied terrain.

The close-up map shows that existing trails in the Tupper Lake region pass through varied topography but do not necessarily follow or approach water bodies. Such connections could be created by placing new trails in the area between Tupper Lake and the current trails inside the proposed

RIGHT: A zoomed-in map of the area in and around Tupper Lake shows the existing trails as they relate to roads and waterways.

Tupper Lake

N 0

5 miles

63

trails: e c o l o g i c al constraints

C•

B• A

•

Trails must not only provide scenic enjoyment, but must also be placed in an ecologically sensitive manner. The maps that follow illustrate a method for understanding how to identify ecological constraints on the placement of trails.

D

E

•F H•

ANALYSIS

LEGEND Proposed BMGW border

N

•

the proposed bmgw

0

Adirondack Park border Sensitive habitat

GATEWAY COMMUNITIES

Not sensitive habitat Potential core habitat

A

Star Lake

F

Raquette Lake

Water body

B

Cranberr y Lake

G

Inlet

Hiking trail

C

Tupper Lake

H

Eagle Bay

D

Long Lake

I

Old Forge

Snowmobile trail Skiing trail Road

64

•G

I

E

Blue Mountain Lake

10 miles

focus star lake The map of the proposed BMGW to the left suggests some relationships between existing trails and sensitive habitat, potential core habitat, and water bodies, three landscape features identified with ecological sensitivity.

The focus map below helps illustrate how the ecological appropriateness of trail locations may be assessed. One of the hiking trails shown to the south of Star Lake appears to penetrate an area of potential core habitat, where it also seems to in-

tersect with sensitive habitat and run close to water bodies. Realigning problematic sections would likely reduce disturbance.

more disturbance, especially in the form of noise and pollution, than hikers.

The remainder of the trails in this area lie outside the zone of potential core habitat. Many do, however, appear to run through sensitive habitat, and many also cross or run alongside water bodies.

The impact of trail use on these habitats should be evaluated fur ther, par ticularly in the case of snowmobile trails, since motorized vehicles cause

Star Lake

RIGHT: A zoomed-in map of the area in and around Star Lake shows the existing trails as they relate to sensitive ecosystems, core habitat, and waterways.

N 0

5 miles

65

t r a i lh e a d s : SCENIC & economic P OTENTI A L

B

C

•

•

A

•

D

Trails require trailheads. Trailheads welcome users to a trail and should be asthetically pleasing. Trailheads should also be located in or near gateway communities if they are to provide an economic benefit. The following maps explore some methods for evaluating the appropriate placement of trailheads.

E F

• H

ANALYSIS

N LEGEND

•

G

•

the proposed bmgw

0

Proposed BMGW border Adirondack Park border Water body

GATEWAY COMMUNITIES A

Star Lake

F

Raquette Lake

B

Cranberr y Lake

G

Inlet

C

Tupper Lake

H

Eagle Bay

Road

D

Long Lake

I

Old Forge

Potential trailheads

E

Blue Mountain Lake

Hiking trail Snowmobile trail Skiing trail

66

•

I

10 miles

focus blue mountain lake & raquette lake If trailheads are to bring economic benefits to gateway communities, they should be within easy driving and walking distance of town centers and the ser vices found there. In the maps to the left and below, the black dots mark the town centers and the shaded circles around them represent a one-mile radius around the communitiesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;a walkable distance. Trailheads may also be placed near scenic features such as water bodies, if such placement would not compromise the ecological health of those water bodies.

In the focus area below, the towns of Racquette Lake and Blue Mountain Lake are both located on water bodies that abut the proposed BMGW. Trailheads for trails into the BMGW could be placed within one mile of the town centers and in sight of the water bodies; in addition, boat launches located in these towns would link the communities to rivers and lakes within the BMGW.

Blue Mountain Lake RIGHT: A zoomed-in map of the area in and around Raquette Lake and Blue Mountain Lake shows the existing trails as they relate to gateway communities.

Raquette Lake

N 0

67

5 miles

t r a i lh e a d s : e c o l o g i c al constraints

C•

B• A

•

The preceding maps showed scenic and economic oppor tunities associated with trailheads; this section explores some of the ecological constraints on where trailheads should be placed.

D

E

•F H•

ANALYSIS

LEGEND Proposed BMGW border

•G

I

•

the proposed bmgw

0

Adirondack Park border Water body Hiking trail

GATEWAY COMMUNITIES A

Star Lake

F

Raquette Lake

B

Cranberr y Lake

G

Inlet

C

Tupper Lake

H

Eagle Bay

D

Long Lake

I

Old Forge

Snowmobile trail Skiing trail Road Potential core habitat (purple) with streams (blue) and sensitive habitats (gray)

68

N

E

Blue Mountain Lake

10 miles

focus cranberry lake The map of the proposed BMGW to the left shows the relationship between the gateway communities and landscape components indicating sensitive habitat: sensitive ecosysems, water bodies, and potential core habitat.

The focus map below shows the area around Cranberr y Lake, containing all three indicators of sensitive habitat. Trailheads should not be placed in sensitive ecosystems, and boat landings should not be sited along the area of potential core habi-

tat that is shown just inside the border of the proposed BMGW. Trailheads and boat launches should be placed in such a way that human use does not compromise the ecological integrity of water bodies. For instance, if a water body is sensitive to a high volume of use, the trailhead might be placed far ther from the center of town to reduce use.

Cranberry Lake RIGHT: A zoomed-in map of the area in and around Cranberry Lake shows the existing trails as they relate to ecologically sensitive areas.

N 0

5 miles

69

Lean-tos: SCENIC P OTENTI A L

C•

B• A

•

Lean-tos placed in scenic regions can attract trail users and help provide them with a memorable experience that encourages them to return to the region.

D

Guidelines for determining the appropriate placement of lean-tos are presented in this section.

E

•F H•

ANALYSIS

LEGEND Proposed BMGW border

•G

I

•

the proposed bmgw

0

Adirondack Park border Water body Hiking trail

GATEWAY COMMUNITIES A

Star Lake

F

Raquette Lake

B

Cranberr y Lake

G

Inlet

C

Tupper Lake

H

Eagle Bay

D

Long Lake

I

Old Forge

Snowmobile trail Skiing trail Road Potential core habitat (purple) with streams (blue) and sensitive habitats (gray)

70

N

E

Blue Mountain Lake

10 miles

focus long lake In the focus area below, the wilderness near Long Lake is examined for the placement of lean-tos to take advantage of scenic potential and maintain an appropriate distance between the structures.

in this area. The lean-tos represented here are placed at high points in the landscape, near water bodies, and within 5-10 miles of one another.

The maps to the left and below show the landscape features identified as having scenic potential: water bodies and varied topography. The green dots below indicate a possible lean-to placement

RIGHT: A zoomed-in map of the area in and around Long Lake shows the existing trails and potential lean-tos as they relate to topographic changes and water bodies.

Long Lake LEGEND Potenital lean-to sites

N 0

5 miles

71

lean-tos: e c o l o g i c al constraints

C•

B• A

•

The maps in this section, which show ecological constraints on the placement of lean-tos, complete the picture of how to place a trail and lean-to network in the landscape in a way that promotes appropriate recreation, benefits local economies, and suppor ts a healthy environment.

D

E

•F H•

ANALYSIS

N LEGEND Proposed BMGW border

•

the proposed bmgw

0

GATEWAY COMMUNITIES

Adirondack Park border A

Star Lake

F

Raquette Lake

Hiking trail

B

Cranberr y Lake

G

Inlet

Snowmobile trail

C

Tupper Lake

H

Eagle Bay

Skiing trail

D

Long Lake

I

Old Forge

Water body

Road

72

•G

I

E

Blue Mountain Lake

10 miles

focus inlet & eagle bay Lean-tos are built structures and thus must be placed at least one hundred feet from water bodies, according to New York State law, since water bodies are sensitive ecological features and are easily disturbed by human activity. Lean-tos should also not be placed in areas of sensitive habitat or within potential core habitat. The map to the left shows these three indicators of ecological sensitivity.

Bay, shown below, existing trails pass through sensitive ecosystems and through an area of potential core habitat. If lean-tos are needed in this area, it is possible that new trails will be required, ones that do not pass through sensitive areas but instead lead trail users to lean-tos that are placed in areas that will not be as susceptible to human disturbance. Without careful management, however, creating new trails to avoid sensitive habitats may simply increase overall use.

This concludes the demonstration of a method for evaluating the best places for the elements of a trail network in the landscape of the proposed BMGW. Conclusions and recommendations are summarized and integrated on the next page, providing a broad picture of how the pieces of a trail and lean-to network might fit together as a whole.

Lean-tos should also be placed near trails for easy access, but in the wilderness near Inlet and Eagle

RIGHT: A zoomed-in map of the area in and around Long Lake shows the existing trails as they relate to sensitive ecosystems and potential core habitat.

Eagle Bay

N

Inlet

0

5 miles

73

Rte 3

To Saranac

To Watertown

Private Private

Private

Private

Rt e

Private

Private

30

Wilderness

To Utica

To Tupper Lake

Private

Gateway Community Foot trail Lean-to Canoe route Roads

ABOVE: Concept diagram for an ecotourism-based recreational network in the region of the proposed Bob Marshall Great Wilderness, showing trailheads in gateway communities, and trails and lean-tos in the proposed area.

summary A trail and lean-to network for the proposed Bob Marshall Wilderness, designed—as discussed here—by following the principles of landscape ecology, conservation biology, and ecotourism, could be a mechanism for recognizing and conserving the region’s significant natural resources while also creating recreational oppor tunities, both of which could make meaningful contributions to the economic wellbeing of the region’s residents.

lean-tos, before they looped back to the village where their trip began.

Their hike would have been along trails carefully selected to provide dramatic and intimate views of the landscape, while avoiding areas of special ecological sensitivity. The carefully planned and managed trail system is a tool for helping people enjoy the outdoor experiences they seek, while still providing the landscape elements needed to help sustain sensitive plants and animals.

With such a network in place, visitors to the Bob Marshall Wilderness would be welcomed in one of the gateway communities, where they would buy camping supplies and stay at a B&B or motel for the first night. Leaving their car at the lodging there, the next day they would head out on a hiking trail that leaves right from that village. They would then be offered several days’ wor th of hiking through the wilderness area, staying at successive

Recommendations for planning and managing a trail system for the proposed Bob Marshall Great Wilderness: • Identify keystone species and other species of concern. Identify existing patches of impor tant habitat for these species, especially large, rounded patches that are likely to contain a sufficient amount of protected core habitat. Create buffer zones around core regions and place heavily used trails, trailheads, and lean-tos outside the buffer zones.

• Identify existing corridors between areas of core habitat, and encourage the creation of new ones, to connect populations of threatened species.

Ensure that corridors are of an adequate width for the species that will be using them; contain areas of continuous habitat; are relatively uninterrupted; and are joined together with other corridors in a network.

• Reduce human disturbance in and around these corridors by placing trails, trailheads, and lean-tos in less sensitive areas, preferably in zones that already have disturbed edge conditions.

• Monitor the volume of users and the impact of different recreational uses in and near waterways, and if necessary control through a permit or other management system and monitor the movement of undesirable and invasive species along waterways and trails. Monitor and regulate human activity to prevent the unintentional spread of invasives.

• Identify the ecosystems that make up the landscape mosaic in and around the proposed BMGW. Classify them according to the impor tance of their functions and their sensitivity to disturbance. Map core areas for each ecosystem, areas at highest risk for disturbance, and corridors that connect ecosystem types.

design recommendations

75

• Manage (as much as possible) the public lands of the proposed BMGW as core habitat and collaborate with owners of private lands within the area to manage their lands in a compatible fashion.

• Collaborate with managers of core habitat areas outside the proposed BMGW (especially to the west) to maintain wildlife corridor connections.

• Do not locate trailheads or lean-tos in land designated as wilderness.

They may, though, be legally placed in land designated as wild forest, and trails may legally be placed in both wilderness and wild forest.

• Determine the extent to which disturbance from the west and east creates edge conditions inside the proposed wilderness.

• Control human use of sensitive areas that have special scenic value by requiring hikers to use secondary trails covering strenuous terrain or significant distance to reach them.

• Locate lean-tos at high points in the landscape, near water bodies where appropriate, where heavily used trails converge, and within 5 to 10 miles of one another.

• Locate trailheads, boat launches, and landings within one mile of appropriate gateway communities, building on existing trail and water connections.

76

design recommendations

• Place and evaluate trails for varied topography and habitat types.

• Site trailheads and lean-tos at least 150 feet from water bodies. Trails may access water bodies but at strategic, limited points, to protect sensitive ecosystems.

next steps

Clearly there is much work to be accomplished before such a trail and lean-to system can be realized. This means there are oppor tunities for individuals, communities, and other interested stakeholders to par ticipate in the next steps.

Steps for designers and planners • Work with community and leaders to create a reasonable phasing and implementation process.

• Record trail use—numbers, uses, frequency.

Steps for individuals

• Solicit public opinion throughout the planning and design process.

• Attend public meetings and voice opinions about what areas should be used more by the community and what areas need improvement.

• Utilize exper t advice regarding all areas discussed in the repor t, cultural, ecological, and economic

• Encourage public officials to create policies for trails, trailheads, and lean-tos which take into account the issues raised in this repor t.

• Study global trends, such as deforestation, climate change, and peak oil, and make long-term plans for the proposed BMGW that anticipate potential impacts of these trends.

Steps for community leaders • Contact exper ts for advice—for example, on the ecological health of a key area, species of concern, trail placement.

• Set fundraising strategy and write grants to fund planning, implementation, and management.

• Communicate with neighboring communities and planning depar tments to better coordinate regional effor ts.

Steps for agencies • To enhance and extend core habitat within the BMGW, the New York Depar tment of Environmental Conservation should consider closing unneeded roads within the BMGW, buying out available inholdings, and limiting uses that conflict with effective core habitat management.

design recommendations

77

af t e r w o r d The Adirondack Park’s landscape and way of life have both seen changes in the last half century. Some of these changes have been a result of people’s effor ts to protect the landscape and this way of life. The park’s forests, once clear-cut, have grown up once again, and species that were once declining, such as the loon and the moose, are now thriving.

Other changes have been more difficult for the residents of the park.

Many industries that used to suppor t the communities within the Blue Line are now gone, leaving people with fewer employment options and making it difficult for them to stay in the area. In addition, the pressures of development are threatening to fragment the forests and natural beauty that make the park a special place.

An ecotourism-suppor ted way of life may provide the conditions for economic, cultural, and environmental renewal in the communities surrounding the proposed BMGW and show that economic renewal can go hand in hand with environmental protection. Above all, we hope that this repor t, as one set of guidelines and recommendations for a bright and prosperous future, will provide a springboard for fur ther thinking, and help to inspire a hopeful, creative vision for the future among the people of the gateway communities.

The gateway communities of the proposed Bob Marshall Great Wilderness have been looking for new ways to reclaim their economic independence, their traditional culture, and the landscape they call home—the pillars of a stable, healthy society. Ecotourism, a form of tourism that protects natural resources while celebrating culture and suppor ting local economies, is an innovative way to accomplish this vision. By focusing on the creation of a trail and lean-to network, building on principles drawn from conservation biology and landscape ecology, this repor t has described one way to create the infrastructure for an ecotourism-suppor ted economy.

79

b i bl i o g r aph y Adams, Kevin, Liz Kushner, Catherine Pedemonti, and Dillon Sussman.

“Toolkit.” Conway School of Landscape Design, 2008.

DiNunzio, Michael, G. “A Gift of Wilderness: The Bob Marshall Great Wilderness.” Adirondack Council, 1992.

Adirondack Park Agency Act. Adirondack Park Agency, 1998.

Dramstad, Wenche, James D. Olson, Richard T.T. Forman. Landscape Ecology Principles in Landscape Architecture and Land-Use Planning. Massachusetts: Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College, 1996.

Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan. Adirondack Park Agency, 2001.

“Adirondack Waters: Resource at Risk.” Adirondack Council, 2008.

Breunig, Kevin. “Losing Ground: Changes in Land Use and Their Impact on Habitat, Biodiversity, and Ecosystem Services in Massachusetts.” Lincoln, MA: Massachusetts Audubon Society, 2003.

Colorado State Parks and Hellmund Associates. On Natures’s Trail. For t Collins: Colorado State Parks, 2000.

Davis, John. Email to student team. 11 March 2009.

Davis, John. Interview by student team. Handwritten notes. Elizabethtown, NY. 11 January 2009.

Davis, John. Telephone Interview by student team. Handwritten notes.

Conway, MA. 24 February and 10 March 2009.

“Economic Benefits of Wetlands.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 2006.

Farnswor th, Elizabeth. Email to student team. 4 March 2009.

“Forever Wild.” Adirondack Council, 2006.

Forman, Richard T.T. Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions.

Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

“Freshwater Wetlands Program.” New York State Depar tment of Environmental Conservation. http://www.nygov/lands/4937 .html.

“Functions and Values of Wetlands.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 2001.

Honey, Mar tha. Ecotourism and Sustainable Development. Washington DC: Island Press, 2008.

80

Jenkins, Jerry and Andy Keal. The Adirondack Atlas. Bronx: Syracuse University Press and the Adirondack Museum, 2004.

Jensen, Peter. Interview by Sarah Mitchell. 4 February 2009.

LeGrasse, Peter. Comments on the DEC Draft Comprehensive Adirondack Snowmobile Plan. Guilderland: 2004.

Levy, Sharon. “A Top Dog Takes Over.” National Wildlife, August/September 2004.

Environmental Studies (2008): 15-19.

“Threats to Wetlands.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 2001.

Trails and Wildlife Task Force, Colorado State Parks, and Hellmund Associates. “Planning Trails with Wildlife in Mind: A Handbook for Trail Planners.” Denver : Colorado State Parks, 1998.

Trancik, Roger. “Hamlets of the Adirondacks.” August 1983.

McMar tin, Barbara. Perspectives on the Adirondacks: A Thirty-Year Struggle by People Protecting Their Treasure. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2002.

Walsh, Eddie. Telephone interview by Sarah Mitchell. Handwritten notes. 4 February 2009.

McMar tin, Barbara. The Privately Owned Adirondacks. Canada Lake: Lake View Press, 2004.

Wisconsin Depar tment of Natural Resources. “Critical Habitat Designations.” http://dnr.wi.gov/lakes/criticalhabitat. Accessed 13 February 2009.

McNulty, Stacy and Steve Signell. Interview by student team. Handwritten notes. Newcomb, NY. 18 February 2009.

Nature Conservancy. “Determining the Size of Eastern Forest Reserves.”

Boston: Nature Conservancy, 2004.

Oberbillig, Deborah Richie. “Providing Positive Wildlife Viewing Experiences.” Colorado: 2000.

Paquet, Paul C., James R. Strittholt, and Nancy L. Staus. “Wolf Reintroduction Feasibility in the Adirondack Park.” Conservation Biology Institute, October 1999.

Pasquarello, Thomas. “Wilderness and Working Landscapes: The Adirondack Park As a Model Bioregion,” in Stewardship Across Boundaries, edited by Richard L. Knight and Peter B. Landres. Washington DC: Island Press, 1998.

Prickett, Kevin. Telephone interview by Sarah Mitchell. Handwritten notes.

12 March 2009.

Primack, Richard B. A Primer of Conservation Biology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer, 1995.

Signell, Steve, Stacy McNulty, Benjamin Zuckerberg, and William Por ter.

“Development of an Adirondack Ecosystems Model and Its Implications for Public Forest Preserve Management” Adirondack Journal of

bibliography

81

app e n d i x

additional resources

Adirondack Council. “Adirondack Park Lands at Risk.” Albany: Adirondack Council, 2008.

Adirondack Council. “Our Five Year Strategic Objectives: 2004-2009.” Albany: Adirondack Council, 2003.

Adirondack Park Agency. Adirondack Park Land Use and Development Plan Map and State Land Map. New York, Adirondack Council, 2002.

Adirondack Park Agency. “Citizen’s Guide To Adirondack Park Agency Land Use Regulations.” http://www.apa.state.ny.us/documents/guidelines/citizensguide.pdf (Accessed January 2009).

“Adirondack Mountain Club and Open Space Institute. A Plan for the Future of the Future of the Adirondack Park.” New York: Adirondack Mountain Club, 2008.

Adirondack Regional Tourism Council. “Adirondack Fishing Guide to Adirondack Lakes, Ponds, Rivers and Streams.” New York: Adirondack Council, 2002.

Chilson, Gary, Carl George, and Richard Tucker. “An Adirondack Chronology. Paul Smiths: Paul Smith’s College of Arts and Sciences, 2006.” www. protectadks.org. Accessed 11 February 2009.

Dunning, Anne E. “Transit for National Parks and Gateway Communities: Impacts and Guidance.” Georgia Institute of Technology: 2005. http://trb. metapress.com/content/d3r85554205j6477/.Accessed 2 February 2009.

Flink, Charles A., Kristine Olka, and Robert M. Searns. Trails for the TwentyFirst Century. Second edition. Washington: Island Press, 2001.

Jenkins, Jerry. “Climate Change in the Adirondacks” (draft). New York: Wildlife Center and Wildlife Conservation Society. 2008.

McManus, Melissa. “Tupper Lake Municipal Revitalization Action Plan

82

2008-2009.” Tupper Lake: 2008.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. William C. Whitney Area Stewardship Management Plan. New York, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 1998.

North Country Gazette. “DEC Releases Snowmobile Plan For Adirondack Park.” Ray Brook: 2006. www.northcountrygazette.org/ articles/110106SnowmobilePlan.html. Accessed 31 January 2009.

Parker, Troy Scott. Natural Surface Trails by Design: Physical and Human Design Essentials of Sustainable, Enjoyable Trails. Boulder: Naturescape, 2004.

Ryan, Karen-Lee, ed. Trails for the Twenty-First Century: Planning, Design, and Management Manual for Multi-Use Trails. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1993.

Simon, Tom. The Adirondacks. PBS Home Video. DVD. Directed by Tom Simon. New York: Western New York Public Broadcasting Association, 2008.

Smith, Daniel S. and Paul Cawood Hellmund, eds. Ecology of Greenways.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993.

Watters, Ron. “Developing a Winter Hut System.” Idaho State University Outdoor Program, 1985.

appendix: additional resources

83

Wilderness is full of height and depth and glowing color.â&#x20AC;ŚIt is the feel of spruce needles under foot and sunshine in your face and wind blowing through your hair. â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Bob Marshall, Bob Marshall in the Adirondacks