by the CES Web Page Team

Works Cited


A Brief History of the Maine Island Trail Association.

Adirondack Mountain Club, http://www.adk.org, 14 December 2000.

Appalachian Mountain Club, http://www.outdoors.org, 14 December 2000.

Appalachian Trail Conference, http://www.atconf.org, 14 December 2000.

Barnes, Becky. Email Correspondence. 5 October 2000 and 31 October 2000.

Barnes, Becky. Phone Interview. 1 November 2000.

Breaks Interstate Park, http://www.lrc.state.ky.us and
http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/agencies/parks/breaks.htm, 12 November 2000.

Broderick, Warren. Phone Interviews. 6 November 2000, 7 November 2000, and 27
November 2000.

Desimone, Dave. Email Correspondence. 4 December 2000.

"Governor Pataki Announces Acquisition of Recreational Land: Petersburg property
added to Taconic Crest Trail," press release, 7 January 1997.

Gutermuth, Craig. Phone Interview. 5 December 2000.

Hardin, Garrett. "The Tragedy of the Commons," Science 162:3859, 13 December 1968,
1243-48.

Jones, Drew. Personal Interview. 4 October 2000.

Kelly, Michael. Phone Interview. 5 December 2000.

Land Trust Alliance, http://www.lta.org, 14 December 2000.

Maine Island Trail Association: Frequently Asked Questions.

Maps, http://www.topozone.com/, 5 December 2000.

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management, http://www.state.ma/dem, 11 November 2000.

Morgan, Willard S., ed. North Berkshire Outdoor Guide. Williamstown, MA: Williams Outing Club, 1999.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, http://www.dec.state.ny.us/,
11 November 2000.

NYSDEC, Division of Lands and Forests. Petersburg Pass Scenic Area Unit
Management Plan. 1992.

Palisades Interstate Park, http://www.njpalisades.org.html and
http://sssl.csg.org/compactlaws/palisades.html, 12 November 2000.

Reed-Evans, Leslie. Personal Interview. 6 October 2000.

Regan, Dennis. Key Recommendation of the Taconic Trails System Management and
Protection Plan. 1994.

Rensselaer-Taconic Land Conservancy, http://www.rtlc.org, 28 October 2000.

Schongar, Bill. Phone Interview. 14 November 2000.

Stevens, Lauren R. Hikes & Walks in the Berkshire Hills. Great, Barrington,
MA: Berkshire House, Publishers, 1990.

Taconic Trails Council Meeting, Rosenburg Center 16 October 2000.

The Trust for Public Land, http://www.tpl.org, 28 October 2000 and 14 December 2000.

United States Code Annotated. Title 16: Conservation §§460k to 470mm. St. Paul,
Minnesota: West Group, 2000.

United States Code Annotated. Title 16: Conservation §§1151 to 3100. St. Paul,
Minnesota: West Publishing, 1985.

Weatherby, Pam. Phone Interview. 12 November 2000.

Williams Naturalists. Farms to Forest: A Naturalist's Guide to the Ecology and Human
History of Hopkins Memorial Forest, Williamstown Massachusetts. Pittsfield,
MA: Eagle Press, Inc., 1995.

Williamstown Rural Lands Foundation. "Compact between The State of New York and The Commonwealth of
Massachusetts," Newsletter Volume 6, Number 1, Summer 1993.

Williamstown Rural Lands Foundation. "Cooperative Ventures Preserve Taconic Trail
Lands," Newsletter Volume 1, Number 1, Spring 1988.

Williamstown Rural Lands Foundation. "Sabot: Improved access to the Taconic Crest
Trail," 1996 Annual Report, February 1997.

Wolfe, Katherine. Phone Interviews. 15 October 2000 and 21 November 2000.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Hank Art, Roger Bolton, Leslie Reed-Evans, Becky Barnes, Bill Schongar, Warren Broderick,
Katherine Wolfe, Jennifer Howard, Drew Jones, Scott Lewis, Craig Gutermuth, Michael Kelly, and the ENVI 302 class for their invaluable information, assistance, feedback, and patience in the making of this project.

(1)Dennis Regan, Key Recommendations of the Taconic Trails System Management and Protection Plan, 1994, 5.(back)

(2)NYSDEC, Petersburg Pass Scenic Area Unit Management Plan, 1992, 16(back)

(3)Regan, 3(back)

(4)Williamstown Rural Lands Foundation, Spring 1998 newsletter(back)

(5)http://www.tpl.org, 12 December 2000(back)

(6)Williamstown Rural Lands Foundation, Summer 1993 newsletter(back)

(7)Williamstown Zoning Bylaw, §70-3.3.(back)

(8)Public Use Survey, Appendix 1(back)

(9)Garrett Hardin, "The Tragedy of the Commons," 1968(back)

(10)Ibid.(back)

(11)Hardin.(back)

(12)United States Code, Title 16 §475(back)

(13)United States Code, Title 16 §460k.(back)

(14)United States Code, Title 16 §§1501-1502(back)

(15)United States Code, Title 16 §1242(back)

(16)United States Code, Title 16 §1243(b)(back)

(17)United States Code, Title 16 §1246(j)(back)

(18)United States Code, Title 16 §1246(h)(back)

(19)United States Code, Title 16 §1250(a)(back)

(20)http://www.outdoors.org, 14 December 2000(back)

(21)http://www.adk.org, 14 December 2000(back)

(22)http://www.outdoors.org(back)

(23)http://www.adk.org(back)

(24)Maine Island Trail Association: Frequently Asked Questions(back)

(25)A Brief History of the Maine Island Trail Association(back)

(26)http://www.atconf.org, 14 December 2000(back)

(27)Ibid.(back)

(28)http://www.lta.org, 14 December 2000(back)

(29)Ibid.(back)

(30)Kentucky State Code(back)

(31)Ibid.(back)

(32)http://www.njpalisades.org(back)

(33)New Jersey State Code(back)

Option
Status Quo
Nonprofit Organization
Interstate Park
National Recreation Trail
Number of responses
0
4
6
0

Other: strong partnership between DEC and DEM w/ Taconic Trails Council Involvement

Appendix 3

Post-presentation Recommendations Survey
Distributed to audience and collected at ENVI 302 Presentation, 12/6/00
________________________________________________________________________

Given the information and options presented tonight, I would advocate:

___ Maintaining the status quo
___ Setting up a nonprofit organization
___ Designating an Interstate Park
___ Designating a National Recreation Trail
___ Other: ____________________________________________

Why do you think this option is best?


Is there anything you think we did not address tonight and should address in our final paper?



Thank you for coming and for providing your input!

Appendix 4

Results
Post-presentation Recommendations Survey, 12/6/00
________________________________________________________________________

Location
Uses prohibited?
Uses restricted?
Adequate access?
More Info & mainten- ance?
Unified manage- ment?
More land protection?
More Enforce- ment?
More public events?
Envi.Ed. Center?
?
None
No
N/O
Yes
N/O
No
No
N/O
N/O
?
ATV
Yes
N/O
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
?
ATV
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
?,NY
Motor
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/o
Berlin
ATV
Yes
No
No
N/O
N/O
Yes
No
N/O
Berlin
None
No
Yes
Yes
N/O
N/O
No
No
N/O
Berlin
None
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Berlin
None
No
Yes
Yes
N/O
N/O
N/O
Yes
Yes
Berlin
None
No
Yes
Yes
No
N/O
No
N/O
N/O
Berlin
None
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Berlin
None
No
Yes
Yes
N/O
Yes
No
No
N/O
Lanesboro
ATV
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/O
Yes
Yes
New Ashford
None
Yes
N/O
Yes
No
Yes
N/O
No
Yes
Petersburg
ATV
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/O
No
Petersburg
None
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/O
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Petersburg
Motor
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Petersburg
ATV
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
N/O
N/O
Petersburg
Motor
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/O
N/O
N/O
Yes
Yes
Petersburg
ATV
No
N/O
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Pittsfield
Motor
No
N/O
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Stephentown
Motor
Yes
N/O
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Williamstown
None
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
N/O
Williamstown
ATV
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/O
Williamstown
Motor
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/O
Williamstown
Motor
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/O
Williamstown
Other
No
Yes
Yes
N/O
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/O
Williamstown
Motor
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/O
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/O
Williamstown
Motor
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/O
N/O
Williamstown
ATV
Yes
N/O
N/O
N/O
Yes
N/O
Yes
N/O
Williamstown
Motor
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/O
Williamstown
Other
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Williamstown
None
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/O
N/O
Yes
Williamstown
Motor
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Williamstown
Motor
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/O
Yes
Yes
Yes
Williamstown
Motor
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
N/O
Williamstown
Other
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/O
Yes
Williamstown
None
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/O
N/O
No
No
No
Williamstown
Motor
No
N/O
Yes
N/O
Yes
No
Yes
No
Williamstown
None
Yes
N/O
Yes
Yes
N/O
N/O
N/O
N/O
Suggestion Code: Yes (approve of suggestion); No (don't approve of suggestion); N/O (no opinion)
Location
Day Hiking
Back-packing
Mtn. Biking
ATV/ORV
Skiing
Snow-mobiling
Naturalist
Hunting
Camping
?
O
O
N
O
N
O
O
R
O
?
O
O
?
O
?, NY
O
R
R
N
R
N
O
N
R
Berlin
F
O
F
F
F
F
Berlin
F
R
N
O
N
N
R
N
N
Berlin
N
N
N
F
N
F
N
F
F
Berlin
O
O
O
O
Berlin
O
O
O
O
Berlin
N
N
N
F
N
O
N
O
N
Berlin
F
O
N
N
N
N
F
N
N
Lanesboro
O
N
O
N
N
New Ashford
F
O
N
N
N
N
F
N
N
Petersburg
F
R
O
N
F
N
O
N
R
Petersburg
F
O
N
N
N
N
F
N
O
Petersburg
F
O
N
N
O
N
N
N
N
Petersburg
F
O
N
N
N
N
O
N
Petersburg
O
N
N
N
N
N
F
N
N
Petersburg
O
O
R
R
O
N
O
O
O
Pittsfield
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Stephentown
O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Williamstown
F
F
F
Williamstown
F
N
R
N
R
N
O
N
N
Williamstown
O
R
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Williamstown
O
N
N
N
O
N
F
N
N
Williamstown
O
N
N
N
N
N
O
N
N
Williamstown
F
R
R
N
O
N
F
N
R
Williamstown
R
N
R
N
N
N
N
N
N
Williamstown
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Williamstown
N
N
R
N
N
N
N
N
N
Williamstown
O
Williamstown
O
N
N
N
O
N
O
N
N
Williamstown
F
R
N
N
F
N
N
N
N
Williamstown
F
N
N
N
O
N
F
N
N
Williamstown
O
N
N
N
N
N
R
N
N
Williamstown
F
O
F
N
R
Williamstown
F
O
Williamstown
O
R
N
N
R
N
R
N
R
Williamstown
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Use code: F (frequent use); O (occasional use); R (rare use); N no use)

Do you feel that any of these uses should be prohibited from the trail?

_________________________________________________________

Do you feel that any of these uses should be restricted to certain sections of the trail?

__________________________________________________________

Do you feel that there are adequate accesses to the trail?
___ Yes ___ No

Which accesses do you use? ___________________________________

Would you like to see more trail information and better trail maintenance?
___ Yes___ No ___ No Opinion

Would you like to see one organization or agency managing the whole trail?
___ Yes ___ No___ No Opinion

Would you like to see more of the land along the trail protected?
___ Yes___ No___ No Opinion

Would you like to see stricter enforcement of the regulations on the trail?
___ Yes___ No___ No Opinion

Would you like to see more public events happen on the trail?
___ Yes ___ No___ No Opinion

Would you like to see an environmental education center along the trail?
___ Yes ___ No___ No Opinion

Any additional comments?


Appendix 2

Use Survey Results

never
rarely
occasionally
frequently
Day hiking
___
___
___
___
Backpacking
___
___
___
___
Mountain biking
___
___
___
___
ATV/ORV
___
___
___
___
Skiing
___
___
___
___
Snowmobiling
___
___
___
___
Naturalist activities
___
___
___
___
Hunting
___
___
___
___
Camping
___
___
___
___

Public Input

Even though we looked extensively at all of these options, we did not feel justified in making a final decision on our own because of our perspectives as college students and temporary residents of the region; we felt that we needed to gauge public opinion before making a final recommendation. For this reason, we invited the public to an open presentation in which we presented these options. Prior to the presentation, we mailed invitations and use surveys to 25 individuals involved with the Taconic Crest Trail and placed 100 copies in public locations throughout the surrounding towns.
Because we did not distribute these surveys randomly, they do not necessarily constitute a representative sample. Because we
did not survey a large number of people, we recognize that our results are not statistically significant. Nonetheless, we feel that
it is valuable to consider the opinions of those people concerned enough to fill out the surveys. This use survey is included in Appendix 1, and a spreadsheet with its results is included in Appendix 2.
Of the 39 people who responded to our use survey, we found that the majority used the Taconic Crest Trail for day hiking
(80%) and naturalist activities (54%). The least popular activities were snowmobiling (0.7%) and ATV/ORV use (18%). Respondents used the trail moderately for backpacking, camping, skiing, hunting, and mountain biking. Although respondents acknowledged a wide variety of uses, most did not use the trail frequently. A significant number also favored restricting uses on the trail. 62% favored restricting either ATV/ORV's or all motorized vehicles from the Taconic Crest Trail, but a large number
of users also did not want to see any restriction. Users were also divided on the issue of more unified management; the majority favored a unified management scheme, but a significant number opposed it or had no opinion.
Although uses varied significantly between respondents, most agreed on several issues regarding the trail. 87% of respondents wanted to see increased management and information about the trail. Likewise, 67% of respondents favored increased
protection of the trail and surrounding lands.
In addition to these use surveys, we received public input via a survey that we distributed to those in attendance at our presentation. This survey focused on considerations of the four final management schemes. This survey is included as
Appendix 3, and its results are included as Appendix 4. Of the eleven people who completed this survey, no one was in favor
of maintaining the status quo or gaining designation as a National Recreation Trail. Four supported the creation of a nonprofit organization, and six supported the establishment of an Interstate Park. The remaining person suggested that we "encourage
strong management partnership between the NYS DEC and MA DEM with Taconic Trails Council involvement." While we recognize that these opinions are not representative of the public at-large, we maintain that it is important to consider them. For this reason, we eliminated the status quo and National Recreation Trail from our final considerations. Our respondents felt that protection and management of the Taconic Crest region should be improved to some extent without reaching a federal level, and we chose to heed these opinions.


Future Directions

Both a nonprofit organization and an Interstate Park are appealing options because of their adaptability to the specific needs
of the Taconic Crest Trail and surrounding lands. This flexibility will be advantageous in the long run but makes initial steps more unclear. There are no set criteria for the establishment of either of these management bodies; for this reason, we have looked at existing nonprofits and Interstate Parks as precedents. We include descriptions of these bodies in order to outline the potential that exists for the protection and management of the Taconic Crest region.

Potential for a Nonprofit Organization

The larger mountain ranges to the east and west of the Taconic Crest are both managed and promoted by large and well-established nonprofits, the Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) and the Adirondack Mountain Club (ADK). Both of these clubs uphold mission statements with dual purposes: conservation and recreation.

The Appalachian Mountain Club promotes the protection, enjoyment, and wise use of the mountains, rivers and trails of the Northeast. We believe that the mountains and rivers have an intrinsic worth and also provide recreational opportunity, spiritual renewal, and ecological and economic health for the region. We encourage people to enjoy and appreciate the natural world because we believe that successful conservation depends on this experience.(20)

The Adirondack Mountain Club -- ADK -- is dedicated to the protection and responsible recreational use of the New York State Forest Preserve, parks and other wild lands and waters. The Club, founded in 1922, is a member-directed organization committed to public service and stewardship. ADK employs a balanced approach to outdoor recreation, advocacy, environmental education and natural resource conservation. (21)

Given the duality of these mission statements, these clubs fulfill a variety of functions. The Appalachian Mountain Club lists both recreation and conservation initiatives.
We teach skills, run backcountry lodges (open to all), fix trails, publish guides, help with land stewardship, work on conservation issues - and have a great time together enjoying the great outdoors. (22)

As mentioned above, such clubs have no direct bearing on governmental policies. Nonetheless, the Adirondack Mountain Club
is pursuing conservation efforts through advocacy.

ADK's conservation and advocacy program grew in response to the need for responsible policy development concerning the care of the Forest Preserve, the right of the public to use it for recreation, and the protection of natural resources. Our Public Affairs Office, located in Albany, New York operates our legislative advocacy program. (23)

This range of functions holds enormous potential. However, it should be noted that both the Appalachian and Adirondack mountain ranges are significantly larger than the Taconic Crest range. Consequently, their clubs are much larger and much more active than a nonprofit in this region would ever need to be. For example, the Appalachian Mountain Club currently has 87,000 members. Although it does not manage a mountain trail, the Maine Island Trail Association (MITA) deserves consideration as a precedent.

The Maine Island Trail is a 325 mile long waterway designed for small boats, extending from Casco Bay to Machias. It includes approximately 35 privately-owned and 48 state islands, mostly small and uninhabited, where one can visit or camp in a wilderness setting. (24)


The inclusion of both private and public properties is the crucial parallel between the Maine Island Trail and the Taconic Crest Trail. In 1985, the Maine Bureau of Public Lands determined that the recreational potential of the state-owned islands should be evaluated. This governmental agency contracted the Island Institute, a nonprofit organization, to do so. The Island Institute found that recreational potential could be managed most effectively outside of the government, so MITA was founded in 1987 to serve this purpose. MITA's mission statement quickly came to encompass the duality found in those of the AMC and the ADK.

The Maine Island Trail Association's goal is to establish a model of thoughtful use and volunteer stewardship for the Maine islands that will assure their conservation in a natural state while providing an exceptional recreational asset that is maintained and cared for by the people who use it.(25)

Indeed, MITA organizes a number of programs to engage local volunteers in the maintenance of the trail: the Adopt-an-Island Program, the Monitoring Progam, and fall and spring clean-ups. MITA publishes the Stewardship Handbook and Guidebook to provide information about the islands on the trail and Fragile Islands to educate users about low-impact ways of recreating. Annually, they compile the data collected through the Monitoring Program into The Monitoring Report of Recreational Use. It would be extremely helpful to collect such use information on the Taconic Crest Trail in order to determine how and to extent
the trail should be managed. Indeed, many of MITA's programs could be adapted effectively for a nonprofit organization to oversee maintenance of the Taconic Crest region.
Although it operates on a much larger scale, the Appalachian Trail Conference
also bears consideration as an exemplar nonprofit for a specific trail. "ATC is both a confederation of the 31 clubs with
delegated responsibility for managing sections of the trail and an individual-membership organization."(26) It is a relevant precedent in that its management efforts do not reside in just one body or on just one scale.
Since the beginning in the 1920s, the management of the Appalachian Trail has been a cooperative effort of:

· The conference.
· Independent local outdoors organizations in 14 states (what we call "Trail-maintaining organizations").
· The National Park Service and its local administrations in the six other national-park units along the trail.
· The USDA Forest Service at the Washington and regional (southeast and northeast) levels and the administrations of the eight national forests bisected by the trail, down to the district-ranger level.
· State and local administrators of state parks, state forests, and state gamelands.
· Counties and cities along the trail.

This is an active, daily partnership at the local level. Policies for overall trail management (beyond those set by federal and state laws and the regulations of the agencies involved) are developed through joint meetings of various kinds, usually at a regional level, with the ATC board of managers the hub of a wheel that turns by as close to consensus as the partners can achieve. Some view it as a three-legged stool: ATC, the clubs, the agencies.(27)

In the Taconic Crest region, it seems important to keep both the local clubs and organizations and the appropriate agencies involved. For this reason, the Appalachian Trail Conference serves as a viable model of an orchestrating body that does not take over entirely but rather facilitates communication and action.
While there is something to be gained from the precedents of the Appalachian Mountain Club, the Adirondack Mountain Club, the Maine Island Trail Association, and the Appalachian Trail Conference, none of these are on the same scale as a nonprofit for the Taconic Crest region would be. Therefore, it is worth looking at land trusts as a more localized subset of nonprofit organizations committed to conservation.

Nonprofit, voluntary organizations that work hand-in-in hand with landowners, land trusts use a variety of tools, such as conservation easements that permanently restrict the uses of the land, land donations and purchases and strategic estate planning, to protect America's open spaces and green places, increasingly threatened by sprawl and development. Local, regional and national lands trusts, often staffed by volunteers or just a few employees, are helping communities save America's land heritage without relying exclusively on the deep pockets of government.(28)

The Taconic Crest Trail and surrounding lands would certainly be an applicable region for a land trust, for land trusts are
intended to protect open spaces of all kinds. Indeed, the Williamstown Rural Lands Foundation and the Rensselaer-Taconic
Land Conservancy are both land trusts that have dealt with this region. We purport that there may be something to be gained in the creation of a land trust focused solely on the Taconic Crest region. If the objective of increased management would be to
keep the region undeveloped, a land trust would be an appropriate means. Furthermore, a national Land Trust Alliance exists
to aid local people in creating and running land trusts. In other words, there is a structure of sorts within which to start such a management scheme.

Founded in 1982, LTA is the national membership organization of land trusts, providing leadership, information skills and resources to the 1,227 local, regional and national land trusts across the nation. Its sole mission is to strengthen the land trust movement, helping to ensure that land trusts conserve land for the benefit of communities and natural systems.(29)

One example of the valuable services provided by the Land Trust Alliance is the publication of "Standard Regulations and Practices" as guidelines for legal and ethical functioning.
As can be seen, the creation of a nonprofit organization, or land trust more specifically, deserves extensive consideration for the Taconic Crest region. It represents a local and malleable management option.

Potential for an Interstate Park

As mentioned earlier, there are two prime examples of Interstate Parks in the United States. Along the Kentucky/Virginia
border, Breaks Interstate Park contains 4200 acres that border the Russell Fork River. The park features the largest canyon
east of the Mississippi and contains 12 miles of hiking trails. Its success demonstrates how two state governments can
coordinate sound management and preservation of an area across state boundaries.
Both the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures granted autonomy to the Breaks Interstate Park Commission. According to the Kentucky State Code, they created "a joint corporate instrumentality of both the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the Commonwealth of Virginia…[that] shall be deemed to be performing governmental functions of the two states."(30) This joint commission was given legal authority and the ability to "acquire by gift, purchase or otherwise real estate and other property," including the right of eminent domain.(31) These powers are echoed in the Virginia State Code. The commission that followed from these legislative designations has facilitated interstate communication and thus has instituted effective management. By considering the region as a whole and introducing a joint management body, the two states have been better able to protect and manage this resource.
The Palisades Interstate Park protects 2500 acres of the Hudson River Shoreline along the New York/New Jersey border. The park is 30 miles long and ½ mile wide. It was established in 1900 in response to concern over intensive quarrying of the Palisades for rock, an interest in the public welfare, and a desire for "the conservation of outstanding scenic features and the promotion of outdoor recreation."(32) Much as for the Breaks Park, the two states legislated the creation of the Palisades Interstate Park Commission:

…a joint corporate municipal instrumentality of both the state of New York and the state of New Jersey…which shall be deemed to be performing governmental functions of the two states in the performance of its duties…the commission shall have power to sue and be sued, to use a common seal and to make and adopt suitable by-laws.(33)

Like the Breaks Interstate Park Commission, the Palisades Interstate Park Commission has the power to acquire lands for the park and the power to manage these lands. When the park was founded, nearly all the land that comprises it today was in
private hands. However, the Palisades Interstate Park Commission, through the authority granted to it by the two states
involved, has been able to acquire the land needed for the effective establishment and management of the park. We would not recommend that a Taconic Crest Interstate Park Commission acquire lands by condemnation proceedings or eminent domain,
but it would be allowed.
One of the key advantages of an interstate management scheme is that it can be created for and tailored precisely to a specific area. Legislators, agencies, organizations, and landowners involved in the region today would meet to develop a set of rules, a governing body, and limitations on the power of a Taconic Crest Interstate Park Commission. Once granted authority by the constitutions of the states involved, the Commission would be able to function as an effective local entity.

Final Recommendation

In light of the history, current status, and future needs of the Taconic Crest Trail and region, we recommend one of three
options: creation of a nonprofit organization, establishment of an Interstate Park, or some combination of these two management schemes. While both could be effective on their own, it could be beneficial to combine the local, low-profile demeanor of a nonprofit organization with the legal authority and formality of an Interstate Park.
Regardless of whether it is possible to realize any of these three options in the near future, we believe that it is imperative to look immediately at the Taconic Crest Trail, surrounding lands, and surrounding communities as an entire region. Ecosystems do not adhere to state or ownership boundaries. If any and all parties involved with the Taconic Crest today come to think of it as an ecoregion, management steps will begin to reflect this holistic view regardless of whether these steps are being implemented by a larger body.
There are a number of small initiatives that could begin to address our goals for protection and management without any
significant changes in management structure. For example, more accesses could be established on the New York side of the
trail. Informative signs could be placed on roads leading to trailheads. A universal trail marker has already been created by the Williamstown Rural Lands Foundation, but it could be placed consistently along the trail. Trail registers could be placed at trailheads to monitor use. Uses could be streamlined along continuous segments of the trail.
These small steps could make a difference in both the conservation and recreation potential of the Taconic Crest region. If the involved parties do not see the creation of a nonprofit organization or the establishment of an Interstate Park as viable or necessary options for the next few years, we advise that they take small steps such as these. There are two levels on which improvements can take place; even if there is not a way to make large-scale changes at this time, there is no reason not to make small improvements. Such changes could benefit both the natural environment and the humans who inhabit and use it.


Appendix 1

Use Survey
100 stamped copies distributed with invitations at the following locations in towns along the trail: Post Office and Town Library in Petersburg, NY; Post Office and Stewart's Shop in Berlin, NY; Pizza Plus in Stephentown, NY; Post Office in Pittsfield, MA; Store at Five Corners, Cold Springs Coffee Roasters, Berkshire Hills Market in Williamstown, MA, 12/3/00
________________________________________________________________________

Where do you live? _______________________________________

How often do you use the Taconic Crest Trail for the following activities?

National Recreation Trail
PROS
CONS
· National recognition
· May not be unique enough to merit national status
· Federal overseeing coupled with involvement at other levels
· Landowners and the user public may be unreceptive to increased management structure
· Multiple ownership remains
· Surrounding lands are not protected along with trail
· Universal trail marker
· Unclear what funding is available
· Allows a number of uses
· Meant to be located near population density
Interstate Park
PROS
CONS
· Legal entity granted authority by state constitutions
·Requires legislation to be established
· Joint management under one governing body
· Requires consent and commitment of all states involved
· Facilitates interstate communication
· Landowners and the user public may be unreceptive to increased management structure
· Structures for management of recreation areas are precedented in the states
· Interstate management is unprecedented in Massachusetts
· Run by commission
· Area may be too small to merit this
· Multiple ownership remains
· Multiple ownership remains
· Universal signage
· Unclear where funding comes from
Nonprofit Organization
PROS
CONS
· Ability to apply for grants and to accept donations
· No legal authority or policy-making capacity
· Maintain local, low-profile management
· Preservation of all segments is not mandated
· Management across state lines
· Constantly need to find money and public support
· Not bound to particular management structure
· Run by people with vested interests and genuine care
Status Quo
PROS
CONS
· Flexible in terms of exact components of plan
· Continuing degradation and erosion
· Already in place
· Conflicting uses unresolved
· No need for additional funding
· Impermanence of protection on all sections of the trail
· Continued informal involvement of various parties
· Inadequate signage and other information for users
· Lesser adverse reactions from public
· Ambiguity and potential impermanence of accesses
· Continued use by a wide variety of groups
· Opportunity costs for recreation, research
National Trails System
X
X
X
X
Rural Envir. Conservation Program
X
?
X
National Conservation Recreational Area
X
X
National Wilderness Area
X
?
X
National Forest
X
X
X
Interstate Park
X
X
X
?
X
Nature Preserve
X
X
State Park
X
X
State Forest
X
X
Nonprofit Organization
X
X
X
X
X
Management Option

Local
Involvement
Unified
Across
States
Recreation
as
Primary Use
Resource Use
Allowed
Protection
of
Region
Status Quo
X
?
X
?

For this reason, we turned to the National Trails System. This system is composed of four types of trails: National Recreation Trails, National Scenic Trails, National Historic Trails, and connecting or side trails. The Taconic Crest Trail is most applicable
for this protection as a National Recreation Trail. It could also qualify as a National Scenic Trail if it were combined with other trails so as to exceed the 100-mile minimum length for that designation. Because the Taconic Crest Trail is not an extended trail which "follow(s) as closely as possible and practicable the original trails or routes of travel of national historical significance," it could not be conserved as a National Historic Trail.(15)
However, the criteria for designation as a National Recreation Trail are quite fitting for the Taconic Crest Trail.

(i) trails in or reasonably accessible to urban area may be designated as "National Recreation Trails" by the appropriate
Secretary with the consent of the States, their political subdivisions, or other appropriate administering agencies;
(ii) trails within park, forest, and other recreation areas owned or administered by States may be designated as "National Recreation Trails" by the appropriate Secretary with the consent of the State; and
(iii) trails on privately owned lands may be designated "National Recreation Trails" by the appropriate Secretary with the written consent of the owner of the property involved. (16)

Remarkably, this designation could potentially enable all segments of the Taconic Crest Trail to be given national protection
status without turning over ownership of any land to the federal government. Because of the trail's relatively close proximity to Albany, Boston, and New York City, it can be considered to be "reasonably accessible to urban area(s)." Therefore, all that would be needed to be eligible for this designation would be the agreement of the various state and private landowners.
Given the multiple ownership status of the trail, such a designation makes a lot of sense. Although federal agencies may acquire lands for the National Trails System by negotiation or condemnation proceedings, we would not advocate doing so in the
Taconic Crest region. Instead, we would advocate either the retention of current ownership or the conveyance of real property rights to organizations for management. Both of these scenarios are allowed in the creation of a National Recreation Trail.
This is but one of the benefits of establishing the trail in the National Trails System.
In its details, designation as a National Recreation Trail is advantageous in that it implements a universal marker and allows a number of uses:

Potential trail uses allowed on designated components of the national trails system may include, but are not limited to, the following: bicycling, cross-country skiing, day hiking, equestrian activities, jogging or similar fitness activities, trail biking, overnight and long-distance backpacking, snowmobiling, and surface water and underwater activities. Vehicles which may be permitted on certain trails may include, but need not be limited to, motorcycles, bicycles, four-wheel drive or all-terrain off-road vehicles.(17)

As can be seen, a variety of recreational uses can be allowed on the trail. Furthermore, because protection would be only for the trail itself and not for its abutting lands, logging and other uses could continue in the region. In addition, if the trail were extended so as to qualify for designation as a National Scenic Trail, the Secretary would establish an advisory council. Under either designation, the Secretary may "enter written cooperative agreements with the States or their political subdivisions, landowners, private organizations, or individuals to operate, develop, and maintain any portion of such a trail either within or outside a federally administered area."(18) In addition, the Secretary is "authorized to encourage volunteers and volunteer organizations toplan, develop, maintain, and manage, where appropriate."(19) This means that organizations such as the Taconic Hiking Club, the Williamstown Rural Lands Foundation, and the Taconic-Rensselaer Land Conservancy could continue to fulfill roles in the management of the trail.
These details yield advantages on a large scale. First of all, the Taconic Crest Trail would gain national recognition and attention. Recreation, the obvious use of any trail, would be recognized as the primary purpose for conservation. Most importantly, federal overseeing would be coupled with state, private organization, or individual ownership and/or management; local responsibility would not be ceded entirely.
While this arrangement sounds promising, there are some setbacks to it as well. Is there something unique enough about this trail to merit national protection status? Even if there is, would landowners and the user public be unreceptive to such increased management? If so, would the little protection afforded be worth the potentially negative stigma of federal involvement? After all, such a designation would only protect the trail itself, not the surrounding lands. Finally, is there any funding available for the creation of new National Recreation Trails? While the United States Code outlines criteria and implementation fairly extensively, it says little about funding. For these reasons, the feasibility of such a designation is questionable.


Recommendations

Final Options

Having compared the different options for increased management according to the criteria we outlined originally, we selected the four most appropriate options for the the Taconic Crest region: the status quo, a nonprofit organization, an Interstate Park, and a National Recreation Trail. The latter three meet at least four of the five criteria that we outlined; for this reason, we feel that they have significant potential for improving the current situation and receiving public support. Although the status quo option does not meet as many criteria, we continue to consider it because it would not require any changes and maintains the possibility for incremental improvements. To review, we outline the crucial pros and cons of these four options again.

Management Option

Local
Involvement
Unified
Across
States
Recreation
as
Primary Use
Resource Use
Allowed
Protection
of
Region
National Trails System
X
X
X
X

One of the stated purposes of the Rural Environmental Program is to "improv(e) the level of management of nonindustrial private forest lands" by protecting " forests or other land and surrounding areas, its wildlife, and nearby populace and communities from erosion, deterioration, pollution by natural and manmade causes…"(14) As can be seen, the purpose for this conservation extends beyond wildlife preservation and thus is inherently more applicable to the Taconic Crest region than is a National Conservation Recreational Area. Through the Rural Environmental Program, landowners and operators of land submit plans for conservation measures and enter into contracts of 3, 5, 10, or 25 years with the Secretary. In doing so, they receive federal funds to cover 50-75% of the costs of the outlined conservation measures.
There are several features that make this program especially appealing for this region. First of all, current landowners can retain ownership entirely. Lands are not being turned over to the national government but simply being given national funds.
Furthermore, conservation measures are not being implemented by national decree but as a result of landowner interest. This ensures that the management scheme will be established only if the landowners are invested in doing so. In addition, landowners may be more receptive to an impermanent contract than to a permanent one. They would not be bound to the program
indefinitely but instead would be receiving money for a trial conservation scheme.
Despite these advantages, there are downsides to the applicability of this program, one of which is embedded in one of the advantages. Is there enough landowner interest in increasing conservation measures for the trail, or is this something that needs
to come by decree from planners, state agencies, or private organizations? Perhaps a grassroots initiative from the landowners is unlikely in this situation. More importantly, does the Rural Environmental Program apply only to forests used for timber and agriculturally-related purposes? Recreation, not logging, should be the primary purpose for the conservation of the lands of the Taconic Crest region.

National Trails System

Management Option

Local
Involvement
Unified
Across
States
Recreation
as
Primary Use
Resource Use
Allowed
Protection
of
Region
Rural Envir. Conservation Program
X
?
X

With multiple use designation in mind, we looked into the potential for a National Conservation Recreational Area, thinking that this would allow more human use and impact. We imagined that the criteria for this designation would be similar to those for a National Park but that the area would have to be less monumental than those that are currently National Parks. This is not the case. It turns out that a title of National Conservation Recreational Area is an addendum to, or a further consideration for, a National Wildlife Refuge System. The title is a way in which public recreation can become a permitted "incidental or secondary use" on lands that are administered by the Secretary of the Interior for "fish and wildlife purposes."(13) In other words, wildlife preservation must be the primary purpose for conservation of the land. Although the Taconic Crest region undoubtedly
contains flora and fauna whose habitat should be protected, none of the species identified to date are endangered or threatened; there is no basis on which to make an argument for federal conservation strictly for wildlife purposes. Therefore, this region does not meet the basic criteria for a National Conservation Recreational Area.

Rural Environmental Conservation Program

Management Option

Local
Involvement
Unified
Across
States
Recreation
as
Primary Use
Resource Use
Allowed
Protection
of
Region
National Conservation Recreational Area
X
X

We considered protecting the Taconic Crest region under the National Wilderness Preservation System because the region is relatively undeveloped. However, we found that it is too developed to meet the stringent criteria for designation as a National Wilderness Area. The Taconic Crest region does not meet many of these criteria. The area as of now does not total more than 5000 acres, the minimum area requirement. Humans are present in the region not just as visitors but as residents. Furthermore, development, logging, and a well-established trail are all evidences of human impact on the landscape.
Therefore, despite the recreational, scenic, and educational potential of the region, these aspects cannot be maintained under the National Wilderness Preservation System. The area is neither pristine nor arguably to be improved by the elimination of human
impact. Humans have been and will continue to be a noticeable presence in the region. Thus, it makes sense to adopt a management scheme that will allow multiple uses of the land beyond strict preservation.

National Conservation Recreational Area

Management Option

Local
Involvement
Unified
Across
States
Recreation
as
Primary Use
Resource Use
Allowed
Protection
of
Region
National Wilderness Area
X
?
X

Much of the Taconic Crest region is forested, and much of it has been logged at one time or another. Today, W.J. Cowee Company, Inc., harvests a large tract in New York and a smaller tract in Massachusetts, and Kelly Hardwood Company
harvests a moderately-sized tract in Massachusetts. In light of this, it seems logical to consider making the region a National Forest, for this title allows, and in fact mandates, multiple uses in the plot.
There is definitely merit to a multiple-use model. As Craig Gutermuth, the Vice President of W.J. Cowee Company, Inc.,
pointed out to us, resource use is not maximized in delegating a tract to either recreation or logging. Rather, it is most effective to use tracts for multiple uses, bearing in mind that certain sections are more conducive to certain uses. For example, ridgelines are more conducive to recreation while slopes are perhaps more conducive to logging.
Recognizing that logging has been and will continue to be a prominent land use in the Taconic Crest region, we considered designation as a National Forest.
No national forest shall be established, except to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens
of the United States...

Given that logging occurs in the region and that the crest drains into two watersheds, there is potential for these criteria to apply. However, National Forest designation does not seem to be the most apt for the Taconic Crest Trail and region; ideally, we would like recreation, instead of logging, to be stated as the primary purpose for conservation.(12)


National Wilderness Area

Management Option

Local
Involvement
Unified
Across
States
Recreation
as
Primary Use
Resource Use
Allowed
Protection
of
Region
National Forest
X
X
X

The establishment of an Interstate Park is one way to circumvent the difficulty of managing an ecosystem divided by political boundaries. Without ceding control to a national agency, an Interstate Park arrangement provides a framework within which to manage natural areas as ecoregions. The legislatures of the states involved create a joint commission to protect and manage a shared resource. The specifics of the agreement and the management strategies are not pre-determined but can be written to reflect the needs of a given region. Because this model has succeeded in several places throughout the country, including Breaks Interstate Park on the Kentucky/Virginia border and Palisades Interstate Park on the New York/New Jersey border, it seems to have potential for the Taconic Crest region.
This model represents an appealing alternative to either continued individual state management or higher-level national management. While continuing management on a lower level would not alleviate the current problems outlined above, stepping
up to management by a national agency has its drawbacks as well, as will be discussed shortly. The establishment of an
interstate park would not actually be much of a departure from the current management scheme. While two state agencies
(along with a number of other organizations) are currently involved in the management of the Taconic Crest Trail, an interstate park framework would unite these concurrent efforts under the direction of an autonomous body.

National Options

Because the trail is in three states, we felt obliged to consider protection and management options at the federal level as a way
to disregard state boundaries and to look at the trail holistically. National conservation means are detailed in Title 16 of the
United States Code. Looking through Title 16 for the first time, five options seemed potentially viable: a National Forest, a National Wilderness Area, a National Conservation Recreational Area, a Rural Environmental Program, and a National Trails System. Upon further research, it became apparent that enlisting the Taconic Crest Trail in the National Trails System is the only truly viable option. Despite the inapplicability of the other national conservation means, we outline them here in a process of elimination.

National Forest

Management Option

Local
Involvement
Unified
Across
States
Recreation
as
Primary Use
Resource Use
Allowed
Protection
of
Region
Interstate Park
X
X
X
?
X

Most states have a number of other, smaller designations for protecting land, many of which would not apply to the Taconic
Crest Trail and surrounding lands. The Nature Preserve program is one operated in Massachusetts which could potentially be extended to the Taconic Crest, but there is no reciprocal program for the New York lands. Nature Preserves recognize and protect native, natural communities as representatives of state communities or ecosystems. Nature Preserve management
focuses on a multitude of low-impact uses, including research, recreation, preservation, and education.
While most communities on the Taconic Crest are not specifically worthy of such designation, the spruce-fir forest on the
northern end might be. Because the Taconic Crest region is primarily composed of northern hardwood communities, though, we feel that the area as a whole would not be ideal for nomination for this program. We have not considered this option for a final recommendation because it would not reach the goal of managing the area as a whole.


Interstate Options

As has been described above, the Taconic Crest Trail embodies a difficult management situation due to its location in more than one state. Generally, there are not structures set up to coordinate management of an ecosystem across political boundaries. In areas that are deemed special for their aesthetic, ecological, or historical features, concerned groups have sought out ways to provide protection and management despite the inherent difficulties due to split jurisdictions. One such scheme is interstate management.

Interstate Park

Management Option

Local
Involvement
Unified
Across
States
Recreation
as
Primary Use
Resource Use
Allowed
Protection
of
Region
Nature Preserve
X
X

State Parks are established by state codes and managed by individual state departments; the process of establishment and management is similar to that for State Forests. Parks, like State Forests, have already been established in New York and Massachusetts and already exist in places along the Taconic Crest. The Taconic State Park is just south of the Taconic Crest
Trail in New York, and lands owned by the DEM in Massachusetts are designated part of the undeveloped Taconic Trails
State Park. Logging is generally not allowed in State Parks, but a wide variety of recreational uses are; protection may be even stronger than in State Forests.
Management of the Taconics through a State Park system would be advantageous for many of the same reasons a State Forest would be. Funding and management responsibilities would be assigned to specific agencies, and an infrastructure would already be in place for working in this region. The added publicity of the designation might attract more users, and maintenance would be likely to improve.
Many of the same drawbacks exist also for this system, however. The Park would only exist as part of a larger system and
might not receive the attention it needs; responsibilities and regulations would still be divided at the state line. It is also likely that logging would not be allowed in a State Park, and the reduction of resource use in the area might not be a popular facet of this program. Based upon the failure of State Parks to meet the criteria of unifying management, we did not continue looking
further at this option.


Nature Preserve

Management Option

Local
Involvement
Unified
Across
States
Recreation
as
Primary Use
Resource Use
Allowed
Protection
of
Region
State Park
X
X

Most states have provisions in their codes for State Forest lands, which are owned and managed by individual states for timber production, conservation, and recreation. New York currently manages most of its lands along the crest as State Forest and logs the area sustainably in addition to allowing recreational use of the land. Massachusetts has a similar program that it employs in the Pittsfield State Forest and several other smaller parcels. These designations can be applied by the state agencies that acquire the land and can be used to protect a region permanently from development.
There are several benefits of using a State Forest designation for managing the Taconic Crest. Because it is already in place on a number of acres, a State Forest designation would not need a new infrastructure and would probably not be opposed by residents. Funding for management and resources would be incurred by the state agencies owning the land, and the property
might be able to help support these costs through continued logging. A state forest would maintain the multiple uses and resource harvesting that currently occur across much of the land and would also protect the land surrounding the trail as well as the trail itself.
Logging is, however, a primary purpose for State Forests, and we feel that it is not a primary goal of the Taconic Crest Trail. Furthermore, a State Forest system would leave management divided across state boundaries and thus would not serve to unify regulations and strategies. A further concern would be that, as a component of a larger State Forest system, each individual
forest would not necessarily get the attention and resources that it might need; a smaller non-governmental organization might be better suited to provide these services. Because of the failure of the system to meet these requirements, we did not consider it further as an overall strategy for management of the Taconic Crest Trail.

State Park

Management Option

Local
Involvement
Unified
Across
States
Recreation
as
Primary Use
Resource Use
Allowed
Protection
of
Region
State Forest
X
X

The least structured change in management scheme would be the creation of a nonprofit organization. Although there are certain guidelines that affect the workings of nonprofit organizations, there are no stringent criteria as outlined for governmental management bodies and designations. This means that there is potential for more flexibility and thus more specificity. A nonprofit organization could be specifically suited to the needs of this region. The Taconic Trails Council does already exist as an informal group attuned to the management of the Taconic Crest Trail. It may initially seem excessive to create a nonprofit organization to do the same thing.
As mentioned at the Taconic Trails Council meeting this fall, the most significant advantages of nonprofit status are the abilities to apply for grants and to accept donations; in other words, nonprofits can acquire funding for projects whereas the Taconic Trails Council cannot do so in its current state. Therefore, it is worth considering the benefits of designating the existing Taconic Trails Council as a nonprofit or establishing a new one. Management across state lines could be strengthened by the increased
formality of an organization while remaining local and low-profile. It is likely that the public would react more favorably to management at a local level than to management at a higher governmental level.
If the Taconic Trails Council were to gain designation, the people who have already expressed interest in the trail and who have already given much time to its protection could remain involved and could acquire funding with which to make larger improvements. It should be noted that lack of funding is not the only obstacle that the Taconic Trails Council faces. In addition,
the Council is comprised of people who have time-consuming commitments elsewhere. For this reason, the idea of a nonprofit organization staffed by new people bears consideration as well.
As with all options, there are some disadvantages to the nonprofit management scheme. The main difficulty is the constant need
to maintain public support and funding in order to stay running. Fundraising and public relations would be challenging and would take up staff time that could be used in other ways under another management scheme with established funding. Furthermore, a nonprofit organization would not have legal authority or policy-making capacity. While nonprofits can affect local decisions and can petition to impact larger ones, they have no direct connection to or bearing upon the government. As can be seen, this is
both an advantage and a disadvantage. Because there are no set criteria for such a nonprofit, preservation of all segments of the trail would not be mandated as it would be under some governmental management schemes. Rather, protection would have
to be set up on a case-by-case basis via conservation easements, much as it is now. The difference between this scheme and
the status quo lies largely in the existence of an orchestrating body.

State Options

Options for future management and protection of the Taconic Crest Trail should include a consideration of state programs since the majority of current management and protection is through the DEM in Massachusetts and the DEC in New York. These agencies already manage State Forests and State Parks in the region but the specific regulations and management procedures
vary between the states, as do other options for state protection.


State Forest

Management Option

Local
Involvement
Unified
Across
States
Recreation
as