Comment period opens on environmental review
After several years of work, the state parks department on Dec. 4 released a draft of its environmental review of the proposed Hudson Highlands Fjord Trail.
The 709-page Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement considers the effects the proposed trail could have on the Highlands in 14 areas, including land use, emergency services, traffic and transportation, biological resources and community character.
It also lists suggested mitigation efforts for HHFT to receive permits for the project, such as limiting construction in certain areas to specific times of year to avoid disturbing threatened and endangered wildlife, and replacing invasive species with native plants.
The Fjord Trail is a 7.5-mile trail for pedestrians and cyclists that would function as a linear park connecting Beacon to Cold Spring. It would also include 5 miles of narrower, pedestrian-only meanders, spurs and loops branching off from the main trail.
When the trail was conceived in 2006, it was imagined as a simple walking path. But after Breakneck Ridge became one of the most popular hiking trails in the country, the project underwent a significant expansion and redesign that was unveiled in 2020. The goal was to address the throngs of hikers and cars along Route 9D; the lack of safe access to the Hudson River; Main Street in Cold Spring becoming overrun with visitors on weekends; the need for public restrooms; a dearth of accessible recreational activities; and the threat to riverside attractions from projected sea-level rise because of climate change.
Last year, HHFT announced that it was pausing some of the “destination” amenities included in the 2020 plan, such as an outdoor classroom, a play area, a swimming area at Little Stony Point with a floating dock, and a meander that would have led to a secluded wooded area with hammocks. Those amenities do not appear in the environmental impact report. If HHFT adds them later, they would be subject to a new environmental review.
The report is online at dub.sh/hhft-report, along with information about how to register for two virtual public hearings scheduled for Jan. 14, and how to submit comments. Physical copies are also available at local libraries, the Cold Spring and Nelsonville village halls, Philipstown Town Hall, Beacon City Hall and the HHFT office at 14 Coris Lane in Beacon.
Comments will be accepted through Feb. 2, although some elected officials have called on the state to extend the deadline. Public comments will be addressed in the final environmental report, scheduled for release over the summer.
Amy Kacala, the HHFT executive director, said none of the mitigation measures were “a huge surprise” to the nonprofit. “We’ve been going back and forth with state parks for several years, so we’ve already had a chance to think through how we would avoid certain areas or shrink the footprint in other areas,” she said.
The report splits the trail into two sections: The 5.5-mile Fjord Trail North begins in Beacon’s Long Dock Park and heads south, and the 2-mile Fjord Trail South begins at the state-owned Dockside Park in Cold Spring and heads north. The Breakneck Connector and Bridge that connects the two, which is under construction, had a separate environmental review released in 2022.
The former Dutchess Manor on Route 9D, which the HHFT plans to convert into its headquarters by 2027, is also not part of the current environmental review because the site is under the jurisdiction of the Town of Fishkill rather than the state. The report does include a proposed 90-space lot across from Dutchess Manor, as well as an 80-space lot on Route 9D just north of Melzingah Reservoir Road and the expansion of the lot across from the entrance to Little Stony Point from 49 to 96 spaces.
The report discusses alternate routes for the trail, concluding that none balance the environmental impact as well as the chosen route, although the report says further study is needed on a proposal to have the trail begin at the Metro-North station in Cold Spring, avoiding Dockside.
The report also briefly considered another alternative — no trail — but concluded none of the problems it is designed to address can be resolved without it.
Here’s a look at some of the topics covered:
Traffic
The increase in visitors is not expected to have much traffic impact in Beacon, according to the report, but three intersections in or near Cold Spring will have “significant adverse impacts”: Route 9D and Main Street, Fair Street and Main Street, and where Fair Street and Route 9D meet the proposed expanded Washburn Parking Lot across from Little Stony Point.
On the northbound approach to the 9D/Main intersection, the report projects a delay of up to 34.9 seconds during peak hours on Saturdays and 54.7 seconds on Sundays. It suggests reducing the impact by removing parking spaces on Main Street near the intersection to create left-turn-only lanes and a shared through-right turn lane and changing the timing of the traffic light on weekends.
A roundabout could be constructed at the intersection of Fair Street and 9D in front of the expanded Washburn Lot, with yield signs at each approach, the report says. The section of Fair Street between Main and Northern Avenue could be designated one-way north on Saturdays, as it is on Sundays.
On days that visitation puts Cold Spring in danger of grinding to a halt, as often happens during leaf-peeping season, several strategies could be deployed, the report says. Dynamic pricing for parking spaces could be implemented, increasing prices when the village is crowded. Visitors who carpool could be rewarded with cheaper parking, discounts for food trucks and rental bikes or free bug spray and sunscreen.
Parking reservations could be required on weekends, and programmable roadside signs on Route 9D could warn visitors to avoid Main Street. Parking apps that show available spaces could reduce the time drivers search for spots, and the trail could enforce timed entry during peak periods, the report says.
If the trail begins at Dockside, it would encourage train passengers to bypass Main and Fair streets by taking the Fjord Trail, the report says. Once the Breakneck Connector opens, HHFT plans to launch a shuttle bus service between the Beacon and Cold Spring train stations, with stops at Dutchess Manor and Breakneck.
Land Ownership
Much of the trail land is owned by state parks, Metro-North, Scenic Hudson or municipalities. However, the northern section crosses 12 privately owned parcels. If negotiations falter, Kacala said alternate routes have been mapped to avoid them. HHFT has an easement for the only privately owned parcel in the southern section.
No matter whose land the trail crosses, HHFT is ultimately responsible for funding the construction and maintenance of the trail, and carrying out any maintenance activities associated with it.
HHFT would like to construct a maintenance facility at the Beacon Transfer Station and the state Department of Transportation would need to approve entrances to each of the proposed parking lots. The report notes that DOT has not determined if the lots need traffic signals, but a preliminary traffic study suggests they would not.
Construction Timeline
Phase 1 (2025-26)
Main trail from Breakneck Connector to Bannerman Island overlook
Meander to Bannerman overlook
Wade’s Hill parking lot
Connector from lot to Wilkinson Trail
Maintenance facilityPhase 2 (2026-29)
Main trail from Bannerman overlook to Notch entry
Connector to Dutchess Manor
Connector to Notch entry
Parking and restrooms at NotchPhase 3 (2027-29)
Main trail from Notch to Long Dock Park
Bridge over Fishkill Creek
Meanders at Denning’s Point and Madam Brett Park
Restrooms at Long Dock Park and Dennings PointPhase 4 (2026-31)
Main trail (elevated) from Breakneck to Little Stony Point
Main trail in Little Stony Point
Main trail (elevated) from Little Stony Point to Dockside
Lower overlook
Meanders in Little Stony Point
Restrooms at Little Stony Point
Washburn parking expansionSource: DGEIS
Wildlife
According to the report, at least 19 rare, threatened or endangered species live in the trail corridor, including the monarch butterfly, bald eagle, eastern fence lizard, New England cottontail rabbit, cerulean warbler and several species of bats.
Any construction in the river would be halted in the spring, when many fish enter from the Atlantic Ocean and migrate upriver to spawn. Trees would only be cleared between Nov. 1 and March 31, when bats are hibernating. Any construction near bald eagle nests — four have been identified near the northern section — would take place in the fall, when the nests are vacant. Underwater pilings would be installed by drilling rather than pounding, which makes less noise underwater.
Invasive plants would be replaced with native plantings. Native subaquatic vegetation would be mapped and cataloged and re-planted as necessary. The report notes that construction of the shoreline section between Dockside and Little Stony Point could include replacing invasive water chestnuts with native water celery.
Scenic Resources
The report concluded there would be no long-term impact on viewsheds, although some views would be diminished during construction to raise the Klara Sauer Trail in Long Dock Park onto a berm and there would be barges along the southern section between July 1 and Dec. 31 for about five years.
“Because much of Fjord Trail South would be in the Metro-North right-of-way, it would not be perceived as a distinct new element,” the report says. “There are some points where elevated parts of Fjord Trail South would introduce a new visual element, particularly at Route 218 and Mayor’s Park at Fair Street. In both cases, the viewshed is not expected to be detrimentally impacted. Fjord Trail South is among typical recreational uses in the corridor.”
Emergency Services
With the trail expected to bring an estimated 268,700 new visitors annually to the Highlands, it’s likely to result in additional calls for emergency responders, although calls for emergency services at Breakneck have fallen drastically because of increased safety measures and trail stewards.
The report says the Fjord Trail will have entrance gates that can be locked, limiting access at night or during inclement weather. All parking lots would have reserved spaces for emergency responders, and the report says injured people would be easier to reach than on Breakneck or in the woods because of multiple access points and flat surfaces.
Brian PJ Cronin has done everyone a huge favor. He has encapsulated 709 pages of complicated, technical issues and summarized most of the plans fairly. Parking lots galore, roundabouts that HHFT staff said would never happen, a timeline that would exhaust anyone, some details about the actual construction challenges, etc. What his article lacks — and had to for lack of space — are the structural, financial and contractual issues that underlie this gargantuan and slick project.
The sheer hubris of a richly compensated team to advance “improvements” is stunning. I hope everyone who reads Cronin’s piece also takes the time to read the many letters that will be submitted to state parks about the inconsistencies, inadequacies and omissions of the plan. But beyond any technical detail, take a moment to ask how is it possible that as parks all around the world are taking steps to reduce overtourism, this team is encouraging it. By their own admission, they will draw at a minimum 250,000 new visitors because of their impractical, albeit dramatic, concrete walkway 25 feet west of the tracks over the Hudson.
And they say there’s no impact on the viewshed — tell that to Mother Nature. And ask who the hell is going to pay to build this and manage it when Chris Davis has publicly announced he will not endow it? They raised a paltry $65,000 over two years. You, the taxpayer, are going to pay. Where are the elected officials whose fundamental job is to be stewards of our taxes? Where’s their outrage? Follow the money!
I join others in calling foul on the arrogance of releasing a 700-page plus document and starting a comment period shot clock right in the lead up to the December holidays. This is the equivalent of the old practice of announcing bad news on a Friday afternoon, since no one used to read the Saturday papers. Fans of The West Wing remember the reference to “take out the trash day.” Thank you, HHFT, for showing the community what you really think of us by “taking out the trash” while we’re all distracted by the holidays!
I support the calls from our elected representatives to extend the comment period and allow for thoughtful review and comment. What does HHFT have to lose by doing this if they are so confident in their convictions that this is such an outstanding project?
On a positive note, we finally have an official document in which HHFT is required to lay out all of the facts for comment and criticism. No more spin from paid employees, online shills or propaganda mailers. A very surprising read given all the rhetoric of the last few years. Just a few of the items previously sneered at and dismissed as “NIMBY fearmongering” are now confirmed as actual fact:
– Significant impacts to wildlife and aquatic vegetation, including impact to many endangered species.
– Significant impacts to the shoreline of the Hudson River. The next time any local environmental group lectures the rest of us on “viewsheds,” I direct them to the laughable notion that an elevated concrete and steel high line along the Hudson is nothing but a “new visual element.”
– A fundamental change / increase in vehicular traffic, parking and congestion. They are conceding to significant adverse impacts to traffic along the 9D corridor as a result of their attraction. Impacts that will reshape (and not for the good) traffic flow and related pollution in our area. Roundabouts, added parking lots, asking Cold Spring to *remove* Main Street parking spaces and a fleet of shuttle busses stressing Lunn Terrace bridge and traffic in the lower village.
– A fixation on “Dockside or bust” — lip service paid to a “no-build” option and whatever a “meander” is, but otherwise no substantive discussion on a compromise solution that might not have the significant adverse impacts laid out in this DGEIS.
I’ll leave the rest to others, but let’s please drop all the whimsical “I can’t wait to ride my bike at my new trail” and NIMBY deflection and have a substantive discussion on the irreversible impacts this current proposal will have on the scenic beauty, natural resources and quality of life in our community. We can do better than this misguided project. Extend the deadline!
Extend the deadline!
Now that they have laid out the size and scope of this new “Highline of the North” it falls to us to be the judge of their scheme. The bottom line? Attracting unimaginable amounts of new visitors. We are hard put to handle what we already have, and that includes Beacon; few people I know venture into Beacon on the weekends, due to mobs of tourists. This has caused more businesses to cater to them, instead of residents, but that is another story.
Besides the increased automobile traffic this will undoubtedly attract, we will see a flood of new hikers in the few areas left which were previously accessible only to wildlife. Do we not have a responsibility to keep these areas free of people and protect the many species of flora and fauna that inhabit them? Replacing the invasive species with native plants is a joke, without constant vigilance, something Scenic Hudson has been unable to do. The woodlands in Madam Brett Park are amok with Japanese knotweed, which has runners of up to 30 feet; it is an absolute bear to eliminate, and there are many others. Wildlife has adapted to these intruders, in spite of our dislike.
HHFT’s claim that there is “a dearth of outdoor activities” is flatly untrue. The Highlands are crisscrossed with trails and parks for anyone who wants to use them, handicapped included. A gigantic new park is not what our towns need; we need a modest solution to the traffic problems around Breakneck Ridge. It’s as simple as that.
While the timing of the release of this report is unfortunate, I hope it is a public awakening to the disaster that a project of this scope will do to this very special place we call home.
Please take the time to read the DGEIS to see what is planned regarding traffic.
Within a 1.1-mile stretch on Route 9D, a thoroughfare used by residents and businesses in three counties, HHFT plans on building 350 parking spots. It will have the state Department of Transportation determine “traffic signalization” as the design progresses.
On Page 56, the report states: “Fjord Trail North would be consistent in scale and character with existing land uses in the sur-rounding area. The trail would be designed to blend with the surrounding natural and built landscape and would not affect the historic or scenic character of the area. Increased visitation would increase traffic, but it would not have a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions in the City of Beacon or Town of Fishkill.”
Unlike the DGEIS, I believe this will severely impact the character and traffic of the area: Parking lots and traffic lights are not scenic or convenient. This is paving paradise.
I urge my neighbors in Philipstown to review the DGEIS amicably and without resorting to exaggeration, speculation, fearmongering and innuendo. Focus on facts and keep a sense of proportion. Remember that state parks must do what’s best for 19.5 million New Yorkers. Those of you demanding to see a budget for future maintenance: Do you also insist on reviewing the maintenance budgets for other state properties, like Bear Mountain Bridge?
I don’t believe suspicion and aggression are the best strategies for shaping this project to our best interests. They are more likely to have the opposite effect. Suspicion and aggression in debate and governance erode social trust, discourage initiative, alienate partners and dissuade talented people from entering public service.
The Cold Spring trustees are more than capable of evaluating the subsets of the DGEIS that pertain to the village by the state’s Feb. 2 deadline. When the village has so many other challenges that need funding and attention from the trustees, we should ask what will be gained by drawing out the review and lavishing a consultant’s fees on it.
Starbuck is a Cold Spring trustee.
Trustee Starbuck’s fiduciary responsibility and duty of loyalty to the taxpayers of Cold Spring require that she should also be demanding a maintenance budget for an attraction that is proposed to start on the village’s doorstep. The fact that she refuses to, and instead accuses those asking for one of “fearmongering,” makes it clear that she doesn’t understand the fundamental duties of her position.
Thankfully, three of her colleagues on the Village Board understand their duty and have asked to extend the review period. The fact that such a simple and rudimentary request for a project of this magnitude has become so divisive on the Village Board level speaks to the pressure being exerted by the developer. Chris Davis’ millions are a matter of fact, and he’s not an official of New York State.
Social trust has long been eroded by HHFT and its employees. Their business has been selling a lifestyle while offering next to nothing of substance, a typical marketing strategy. We’ve been told again and again that our efforts to analyze and inform, from what little we do learn, are wild exaggerations, speculation and fearmongering, and that we should stop. But it’s only then that we’ve been given a new dribble of information.
On May 8, 2023, we filled the Haldane auditorium to learn more. We were allowed a highly controlled forum for our questions and told that we needed to trust the process. Our former town supervisor was brought in to help us with our trust issues. In the time since, HHFT has held workshops with paid outside experts to instruct us on their methodology as they come to conclusions that tax common sense. Our questions were again mitigated to the point where even the moderator was concerned. Throughout it all, we’ve been cajoled that our queries would be addressed when the DGEIS came out, and that we would have the opportunity to understand and comment on substance.
On Dec. 4, we learned differently. With HHFT’s release of a 1500+ page document on top of the holidays, our trust was shattered. We are now finally seeing in black and white what we’ve been told were our inaccurate exaggerations. Not only that, we are being mitigated yet again in our ability to respond.
We elected Eliza Starbuck to the Village Board to have our backs. But here she is encouraging us to understand parks, a state agency, and the needs of 19.5 million others. What we’re asking for is time, long denied, to comment on the substantial issues that we are now seeing for the first time, including budget. This project looms larger than any other this village has seen and we need your help.
Starbuck doesn’t represent parks or 19.5 million others. Her job is to represent us, the 1,800 villagers who will all be directly impacted, especially as taxpayers and voters. We are long past mitigating. We are done with discussions about exaggeration, speculation, fearmongering and innuendo that prove to be real. Now is the time for the trustees to have our backs.
I am responding to the statement, “I don’t believe that suspicion and aggression are the best strategies for shaping this project to our best interests.”
In my opinion, this is an inappropriate viewpoint when it comes from an elected official. Indeed, the diametrical opposite is true. We have learned over time that to remain sanguine about projects of this scope, ones that will affect the village and its surroundings on every conceivable level, is to be dangerously passive. As citizens vested in this community, I would argue that the onus is on us to be proactive about suggested change, including educating ourselves and questioning aspects of any plan that we feel might negatively effect our home town. That includes the ability to be heard by those we have elected.
It is unfair to couch the widespread concern over this project as “suspicion and aggression.” Rather, I believe it should be viewed as the citizens doing their due diligence, and I am under the impression that as an elected official, Starbuck should not be discouraging the dissent but rather listening to it. No one is right about everything, and that includes me, and it includes her, as well. If we dismiss the concerns of others out of hand, we run the risk of becoming dangerously out of touch with the world. I do believe our concerns deserve careful consideration, not dismissal.
I learned a long time ago in the rough-and-tumble of New York City politics, if people trust the process, they’ll trust the outcome. Process matters not because it slows things down, although it can, but because it invariably makes a good idea better.
Robert Moses would be proud of this project, although he might suggest bulldozing the Village of Cold Spring to allow for more visitors.
“The increase in visitors is not expected to have much traffic impact in Beacon, according to the report.”
This is such a fantasy, and almost absurdly beyond the realm of reality, that I can’t believe it was put on paper. Have the authors of this report ever tried driving on Main Street in Beacon on a weekend after 10 a.m.? The Metro-North’s Hudson line only runs north and south. Anyone coming from any place other than those in close proximity to the stations is going to drive. People from New Jersey aren’t to drive into midtown to grab a train to Beacon or Cold Spring.
Extend the deadline for a sense of reasonableness and responsibility to all parties. The 19.5 million residents of New York can surely wait.
A poster bearing a strange and inscrutable message has recently appeared at some intersections and in a few yards around Cold Spring: “Fjord Trail is our Pjark.”
Another poster with “Fjord Trail” crossed out broadcasts a simpler and clearer message. Debate about the proposed trail in the letters section of The Current has gone on for many months. Full-page ads for and against the trail have been taken out by both sides. The lines are drawn.
In any campaign, the side with the better slogan has an advantage. As one who opposes the Fjord Trail and the ruin it would inevitably bring to Cold Spring, a place that I love, I propose the following slogans:
* We can’t affjord the Fjord Trail.
* Too many tourists spoil the view / It’s bad for them and worse for you.
* If you think traffic and parking are bad now, just wait for the Fjord Trail.
* Projected pjark makes us pjuke.
* Stick a fjork in it; the Fjord Trail is cooked.
* Let’s bail on the Fjord Trail.
* Keep Cold Spring Great — Ban the Fjord Trail!
* [Fj*ck the Fjord Trail!]
We need to oppose this unnecessary and ruinous project with words and music and smart advertising. Vote for your favorite slogan or propose your own!
I thank the neighbors who have told me they support my call for an objective review of the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) for the Hudson Highlands Fjord Trail. My advice to them: Submit your level-headed comments to the state and, above all, participate in local government. In a small community, every citizen should take a turn on a governing board. You will see firsthand how balancing competing values is at the core of democracy.
The relation between the DGEIS and Cold Spring’s Comprehensive Plan is an example of such balancing. The comp plan, adopted in 2012, compiles residents’ wishes for future development. State law requires the Fjord Trail planners to consider the goals in the comp plan. Here are some of those goals:
* “Develop a RiverWalk to improve access to the river for pedestrians and bicyclists.”
* Study the feasibility of a “RiverWalk Loop from Dockside with a causeway just west of and parallel to the railroad tracks to cross the tracks at Little Stony Point, or crossing at an alternate location.”
* The RiverWalk should be “contingent on funding from grants or non-village sources” and might connect “with the proposed Green-way Trail and [lead] to Breakneck trailheads.”
* Install restrooms at Dockside Park.
The Fjord Trail proposal fulfills all these recommendations. By contrast, ending the trail at Little Stony Point, so that none of the goals are achieved, would mean thwarting villagers’ formally adopted wishes.
Starbuck is a Cold Spring trustee.
“The Comp plan, adopted in 2012…” says it all. The Comprehensive Plan is out of date, based on statistics from before the immense flood of tourism. It’s no longer representative of reality in Cold Spring. We shouldn’t be approving any large developments until it is thoroughly updated.
I am a longtime (Cold Spring area since 1987) local resident, who as president emeritus of the Philipstown Garden Club is committed to civic engagement in conservation and the community (since 2017), and is further an employee (since 2021) of the state parks department, employed at Washington’s Headquarters in Newburgh as a historical interpreter.
Anyone who has studied the history of conservation understands that the way to engage folks to take a stake in preserving our magnificent Hudson Valley corridor is to engage them with the river itself. There is no substitute for helping folks to engage up close and personal, that is, by walking the river bank and getting to know this extraordinary river/estuary/fjord (I am old enough to have heard it confidently called all three by scientists).
My career took me to the U.K. for nine years, based in London. The most wonderful series of outings I undertook there was to walk, over many months, the entire 160+ miles of the Thames. Thanks to those outings I – an American to the core (born Louisville) and Hudson Valley resident since 1962, when my parents located the family in Croton-on-Hudson – know more about the Thames than I do about any other river.
Up close and personal, that’s how we need to experience this river. Connecting communities, that’s what our disparate river communities need. You cannot deprive our people of the possibility of having this experience of the Hudson. The conclusion is inescapable: What our river/estuary/fjord needs is the Fjord Trail.
I have tried to keep an open mind about the Hudson Highlands Fjord Trail as it is proposed. Although I don’t think much good will come from more visitors, I don’t think more visitors would be all that transformational or problematic. Although I don’t love the parking areas and would like to see more people on the train, getting cars off the shoulders of Route 9D is important to the well-being of hikers and first responders.
What makes me support the Fjord Trail is not the Fjord Trail at all. I keep circling back to what our town does not provide when it comes to recreational opportunities and how reliant residents are on the state park system, private entities and the generosity of neighbors for these aspects of our quality of life. Perhaps, if the town invested more in recreational opportunities (bike paths, pool, fitness center, lighted, well-maintained courts and fields for adults and children, etc.), I would be less supportive of these sorts of state park development.
If residents in this town are supportive of the Fjord Trail, it may not be due to an enthusiasm for the project, per se. Instead, it might say more about what they aren’t getting from their town. Master plans and comprehensive plans already exist and have now for years. And yet, despite the efforts of many hard-working individuals, very little movement has occurred toward enacting change. Support for the Fjord Trail can be seen as an indictment of what we haven’t established for ourselves.