The question in this case is whether the State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) rationally approved a plan to use land recently added to the Adirondack Park to construct a snowmobile corridor.
The Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers System Act states that rivers that “possess outstanding natural, scenic, historic, ecological and recreational values . . . shall be preserved in free-flowing condition and that they and their immediate environs shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations.” Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) 15-2701(1), (3). The Act classifies rivers as either wild, scenic, or recreational; in managing wild rivers, the act provides that “access by motor vehicles” is expressly prohibited and existing uses may continue but “may not be altered or expanded.” Id. 15-2709(2).
After acquiring tracts of land in 2012 and 2013 that became known as the Essex Chain Complex Area, DEC approved a management plan that, in relevant part, allows public snowmobile use in a portion of area where the Hudson River is designated as wild. Advocacy organizations challenged various aspects of DEC’s management plan in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, including the proposed public snowmobile access provision. On that point, petitioners claimed that the proposal violated the Rivers Act because it would alter or expand the existing snowmobile use.
Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and the Third Department unanimously affirmed on all but the public snowmobile access challenge. Splitting 3-2 on that point, the majority found a rational basis for DEC’s conclusion that prior use of the land included snowmobile access by the public. The dissenters took a different view of the record, which in their view established that access the land had previously been restricted to employees of the land’s owner or members of a private recreational club with rights to enter parts of the land.
Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals as a matter of right from the Third Department’s two-judge dissent.
Return to the case page for Matter of Adirondack Wild v. New York State Adirondack Park Agency.