These are the questions that the Cold Spring Village Board submitted to the Hudson Highlands Fjord Trail on Dec. 11 in anticipation of its Dec. 18 workshop. On Monday (Dec. 16), HHFT informed the village that it would not be attending the workshop or responding to questions until the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement comment period was complete. The Current has added subheads.
Construction/Phasing Clarification
The Fjord Trail South is identified as Phase 4 (2026-31), despite being concurrently scheduled with Phases 2 (2026-29) and 3 (2026-29). Is that correct? Why are these two massive portions of Phase 2 and Phase 4 being constructed at once? Can construction of the on-grade and elevated structures between Little Stony Point and Dockside not be constructed as their own phase after the completion of all other portions of the trail, and a pause for use and observation? If not, why not?
Infrastructure
In reference to what the Fjord Trail will provide to the village, conversations have ranged from wayfinding signs to mitigation of stormwater problems in the village. There is a range of views among the public about just how much HHFT and/or state parks will do for the village and lack of clarity among village trustees. This is a large point that needs clarification.
Define infrastructure
How does HHFT define infrastructure? Please be specific. How would HHFT fund infrastructure improvements in the Village? What is the budget you are considering, all told? Recent communications from HHFT, as well as the 2020 trail comp plan, indicate that “infrastructure” will only come to the village if the Dockside Connector is built. Is this accurate?
Are investments “gifts”?
Assuming HHFT and/or state parks invests in physical improvements in the village, will those be one-time “gifts” to the village or will HHFT pay for the care and maintenance of improvements over time? That perpetual funding has not existed for previous “gifts” to the village (i.e., the two toilets and building for the information booth). Village taxpayers pay for their maintenance and water usage only.
Who owns improvements?
What entity would own improvements made within the village? Who would manage and make determinations for them into the future? How will HHFT pay for water and wastewater impacts from trail visitation coming through the village? Is HHFT willing to establish a visitor management endowment that the village draws upon, at its own discretion, to offset visitation costs related to Fjord in perpetuity? How does the village retain control of decision-making over its own needs, generated by the trail development? If HHFT is making infrastructure developments in the village, it will surely be asked by other impacted municipalities in the project area.
Restrooms and litter
What are ways to increase the number of restroom facilities available to hikers within the village? Can HHFT help with maintenance of the existing restroom facilities, through labor or subsidies for required maintenance? Can HHFT help the village increase the number of days we pick up litter and empty bins on high-visitation days, though labor or subsidies for labor?
Stormwater management
What are some creative ways HHFT can help the village with our No. 1 challenge: stormwater management? For example, helping us with grant writing, aligning or influencing state and federal agencies, helping the village prioritize? There won’t be a trail or visitors if the village continues to wash away.
Emergency response
Can we better understand the current level of emergency response by the Cold Spring Fire Department and Philipstown Volunteer Ambulance Corp? I heard Ralph Falloon [a former Cold Spring mayor who is now the Putnam County emergency services] say it was “way down,” but it would be good to quantify the level and is this different from the past. What entities will be responsible for security and emergency services response along the Fjord Trail? How will the impact to village and town agencies (police, fire, EMS) be minimized, including related to mutual aid?
Visitation impacts
Please clarify whether addressing visitation impacts in the Village of Cold Spring is a Fjord Trail project goal. The Oct. 10, 2024 letter [from HHFT] provides two conflicting statements: “In the spirit of the project’s goal to help manage existing (i.e., pre-Fjord Trail) visitation impacts to the village…” and “We have offered to collaborate with the village to help mitigate existing impacts of visitation, which are completely unrelated to the Fjord Trail project itself. Thus, these would be voluntary measures.”
You’ve stated you wish to contribute toward mitigation efforts to help address current issues related to tourism, the most immediate of which, during peak season months, include overflowing trash cans, a shortage of public restrooms, foot and vehicular traffic congestion and an increase in mountain rescues by volunteer emergency services on weekends. Outside of the mitigation measures that are built into the Fjord Trail’s planning, what are you prepared to contribute to help address these issues in the village in the near future?
Foot of Main
The Visitors Info Booth at the foot of Main Street is the first point of contact for many trailbound hikers who take the Metro-North train to Cold Spring to get to the trails. People ask the volunteers there how to get to the trails, for potable water to refill water bottles and for restrooms. When the Cold Spring Chamber’s Info Booth volunteers are not on duty, there is no clear wayfinding signage anywhere near the train station. The volunteers have requested a water bottle refill station in that location, but the village does not have funding for such amenities and already covers the cost to provide water (which can be costly during drought season), soap, paper supplies, and sanitation and maintenance for public toilets at the Visitor Info Center.
It is obvious that the number of public restrooms at that location (which were provided to the village with funding from [then-Assembly Member] Sandy Galef, who worked in partnership with Metro-North) do not meet the increasing needs of the public. Whether the trail ends at Little Stony Point or Dockside Park, this location will continue to be the first place people coming off the Cold Spring Metro-North platform will see and one of the primary welcome center locations for people headed to Fjord Trail. In preparation for the southern shoreline buildout, would you partner with the village to upgrade the public amenities at that location?
Great questions! Thanks to the Village of Cold Spring for asking them. Thanks to The Current for publishing. It’s important that all villagers are aware of what issues are not being discussed during this process.
These questions seem pretty reasonable and their responses I’d assume have already been discussed and/or budgeted for in the HHFT planning process. The Village of Cold Spring bears the brunt of the trail’s proposed/existing impact on residents.
What most seem to simply overlook is the fabricated premise that the exploding visitation in the village(s) has always been an issue. That is simply untrue. The promotion and marketing of both a fictional Fjord and its multimedia assault on a quiet community is what is fueling this boondoggle.
We just have to take a look at the marsh walk on Indian Brook Road and then-Supervisor Richard Shea’s threat of litigation to get all under control only a few short years ago. We all saw what a short notation in a national publication can do to a small community. This makes me question how sitting village trustees can support a project before remedies to questions are yet to be presented.
Remember, this Fjord trail is the result of visions of our community by individuals who do not reside here or by those who feed at the feet of these people or so-called, incestuous nonprofits. Look at the salaries at these organizations, and at their past employment. Come to your own conclusions. When we have state government working hand-in-hand with groups that segment projects to avoid transparency, we have a problem.
This is an attempt to turn our tiny community into the gate of an economic engine for the state. Yet it’s built nefariously on the backs and at the peril our village(s) and broader community. Sad to want the destruction of one’s home. Veni vidi vici (“I came, I saw, I conquered”) and, in our case, they didn’t even ask. So much for New York State constitutional home rule. The fix is in and I blame our governor for not protecting our community and signing on just two weeks into her tenure. What was exchanged at that meeting? And why didn’t she sit with our community before selling us out?
My concern is for the wildlife which makes its home here; this is a unique area and ecosystem, with many endangered species who rely on us to, basically, be left alone. HHFT’s only interest is in flooding these wild areas with tourists in ever greater numbers; at what point do we realize that this entire project isn’t about “access”, let alone their claims of protecting the environment? It’s about money; plain and simple.
Our towns do not need more tourists; we need committees who can come up with ideas for how to manage the problems of over-tourism without resorting to building unsustainable attractions like trails, parks and parking.
The only real way to protect our quality of life is by managing tourism, not by developing and marketing a huge new park.
Excellent and fair questions that should have been asked and answered by HHFT staff and board as part of their planning. By refusing to answer now just raises yet again their tendency to hide and obfuscate. Remember if people trust the process, they are more likely to trust the process. Is there anyone left in Cold Spring who can defend their process?