UPDATE: Are green groups exaggerating the Big Tupper resort’s impacts?
UPDATE: You can now read the Adirondack Explorer version of this news story here. The print version provides some additional context and wrestles with other issues that the radio version couldn’t tackle.
Over the last year, NCPR has partnered with the Adirondack Explorer magazine to look in-depth at key aspects of the landmark Adirondack Club and Resort project in Tupper Lake.
In our review of the economic foundations of the project, we found that developers were making claims about sales and economic benefits to the community that were difficult to substantiate. You can find that story here, where some business leaders expressed deep skepticism about sales figures, marketing strategy and the potential for the resort’s success.
In our review of environmental concerns raised by green groups, meanwhile, we found that the scientific and regulatory basis for those claims was far less clear-cut than critics of the project asserted. You can find that story, which aired this morning, here.
This is complicated stuff, with a lot of grey zones. Here are some of the takeaways from our research:
-Environmental groups have generally declined to acknowledge that the project would be built in the context of a well protected Park landscape. Over the last decade or so, roughly a million acres of private timberland have been protected from all real estate development.
-If economically successful, the 6,200 acre tract of private land near Big Tupper will be significantly developed over the next fifteen years. But at least 1,200 acres of the property will remain substantially undisturbed and state officials say only about 18% of land zoned as “resource management” will be directly impacted.
-Once built, the resort will obviously leave the private land in question far less wild. But roughly 200,000 acres of permanently protected land sits right next door in Follensby Park and the High Peaks Wilderness. That’s a lot of nearly identical habitat in close proximity that will never be fragmented.
-Environmental groups have occasionally portrayed the private forests that would be impacted as pristine forest, but the area has been disturbed by roads, intensive logging, a ski resort, and hunting club activity for decades.
-Environmental groups are asking APA commissioners to judge this project based on specific concepts of clustered residential development developed in the last decade that aren’t clearly detailed in state regulations. Adopting those standards would require the Agency to set a significant policy precedent in the context of a permit review for one private project. (Some green groups dispute this and say the Agency has clear legal authority.)
-Most experts interviewed by NCPR — and most of the testimony in the hearing record — agreed that a more clustered design would, in fact, reduce the environmental impacts of the project substantively, potentially leaving more of the open space undeveloped and linked together in large swaths of forest.
-State officials and environmental groups agree that a comprehensive wildlife survey is still needed. However, no one has yet identified any endangered or rare or at-risk species that might be threatened by the development. (Some groups say the rusty blackbird, a species in decline statewide, may be adversely impacted.)
-Environmental groups also want the project to be judged in the context of potential Park-wide cumulative impacts that might follow if other future resorts were built with a similar design. But APA regulations as currently written don’t include standards for regional cumulative impacts. (They do allow for consideration of future cumulative impacts with a single Park community.) Again, it appears that a new substantial new precedent would have to be established.
-Environmental groups are asserting two additional standards that don’t appear to be clearly supported in current state regulation. First, they claim that residential development is largely inappropriate in areas zoned for “resource management.” But the APA has long stated unambiguously that home-building is a “compatible” use on those lands. Also, activists have argued repeatedly that the project is simply “too big.” But “bigness” isn’t a regulatory standard and the developers are proposing far fewer homes than APA zoning rules allow.
-Sprawl is a major concern for green groups and for most scientists. But if successful, this project would represents a small fraction of the new homes permitted in the Park every year. (Three hundred permits are granted on average annually. The resort developers hope to build between 40 and 50 homes yearly.) Most of the homes now being allowed inside the blue line receive very little review and aren’t required to follow even minimal clustering guidelines.
-Environmental groups have leveled serious accusations at state scientists and officials, claiming that their findings and sworn testimony during the adjudicatory hearing have been manipulated or changed due to political pressure. Those are serious allegations and if true would likely reflect criminal activity on the part of state officials. So far, NCPR has been unable to substantiate those claims.
Finally, let me acknowledge that reporting the results of NCPR’s research will obviously be controversial in some circles. So let me restate the purpose of these articles.
The role of NCPR and the Adirondack Explorer isn’t to reach conclusions about the ACR project or its merits. Our job is to look skeptically, impartially, and as factually as possible at the claims made by all sides.
We did that first with financial concerns about the project. We do the same here with environmental questions. As always, your comments and feedback are welcome.
Tags: adirondack club and resort, apa, environment, land use, politics
.jpg)
Green groups are liars.
That is a good point knuckle, consider the towns and villages outside the park and those 20 miles away inside the park, the ADA regulations although restrictive and annoying may in many cases provide some consistency and essentially save towns and villages from themselves.
From an economic perspective consistent rules and an even playing field even if they are imposed from outside such as with the APA; are better than inconsistent random zoning, which create an uncertainty about the future. If you want to invest in a community you want some assurance that the community is not going to end up looking like a “hell hole” as you described it above.
Although in this case I think it would be better for Green groups to just admit that they are against this size of development in the Park regardless of what it looks like or how it is structured and will continue to oppose it no matter what concessions the developers make or don’t make.
As always, when some big-shot comes out of nowhere, and proposes to save the day for us all….his real intention is to first, line his pockets, second, make a bundle on the local dreamers, third, rope in some out of town rubes, and finally, skip out before the s— hits the fan. Write to me in three years and let me know where I’m wrong.
Support humans! Develop the land! It’s only 6,700 acres! I admit the environmental impacts. Do it any way! Lets move on! If I get a job working on the project I promise to give 10% of my salary to the ADK council.
“In all, roughly 1,200 acres—more than a quarter of the Resource Management land—would remain totally undisturbed. ”
Mr. Mann, is this true? I think you are refering to the great camp lot acreage that would be outside the building envelopes. Wouldn’t the owners of these new lots still be allowed to have their own forest mgmt? I asked this of the developers like, years ago at a meeting and I was told if the owners wanted to continue logging on their property they Could. I was hoping this would open up some more work for me. That land is not really going to be preserved is it? Just not built on?
“Although in this case I think it would be better for Green groups to just admit that they are against this size of development in the Park regardless of what it looks like or how it is structured and will continue to oppose it no matter what concessions the developers make or don’t make.”
Mervel, I agree. These groups need to debate from a much more honest position. I seriously doubt that they are happy with any alternative. Why would they be? Their mission is to limit development as much as possible. It is a perfectly noble mission. Why do they feel the need to pretend that they support some level of development??
When the APA recently gave Brandeth Park a permit that is part of a plan to build almost 100 single family dwellings on Resource Management and Low Intensity Use land did they have to go through this process? Why not? They didn’t even have a public hearing. I don’t understand the difference.
Tom,
Thanks for the info. on the proposed PILOT. And thanks in advance, Brian, for the upcoming in depth story on the PILOT. I wonder how proposed buyers of these properties will feel about entering into a questionable “Sub-PILOT” arrangement given they’re unprecedented. That is to say, if I’m dropping a half million or more for a property in the resort, I’d certainly not want to deal with such a strange property tax instrument. It just seems the idea could potentially be a deal breaker for the proposed customers of the developers. An odd idea all around it seems to me.
Besides using a shill for the logging industry who compromised his scientific ethics in the infamous Buscuit fire controversy (Dr Salwasser), Mr Mann carefully selected a very small portion of Dan Spadas’ testimony that fit his inflammatory headline for this news piece. The vast majority of Mr Sapadas testimony was similar to Drs Glennon, Kretzer and Klemmons. excerpts as follows…In his pre-filed testimony, Mr. Spada wrote:
“While I agree that existing development and use of the project site already affects wildlife habitat, in my opinion the proposed project would increase the significance and duration of the impacts…the impacts from the changes to the existing roads in amount and seasonality included increased levels of habitat fragmentation and direct wildlife mortality.”
“The Great Camp Lots are arranged across the landscape in a relatively uniform configuration and the three-acre development envelopes are relatively widely separated from each other as in classic exurban development. To adequately protect the forest resources, the development should occur in a configuration that reduces impact zones from the development by overlapping them.”
This piece is a classic pounding of a square peg into a round hole to create controvery by this reporter. If you look at the credibilty of his sources, in particular Dr Salwasser, and the rest of Dan Spadas written testimony, this report has no merit in support of the by-line, “Are green groups exaggerating the Big Tupper resort’s impacts?”
Dale –
As I’ve said, I agree that Hal Salwasser’s past record is noteworthy.
But nothing in his past advocacy of logging activity or the timber industry suggests that his scientific opinion about fragmentation issues on this project are invalid.
More significantly, his views were echoed by other experts who I spoke to both on and off the record.
Dan Spada’s testimony, meanwhile, was complex and nuanced and throughout the process he made it clear that he thought there would be fragmentation and habitat impacts.
As he pointed out, that is true for all development on private land.
My story states explicitly that experts, including Salwasser, believe that other designs would reduce that impact.
The question is whether the impacts of the current design are so severe — or “undue” under the language of state law — as to make this project illegal.
I found a huge amount of disagreement on this point, both in terms of the law (which is the standard used by the APA) and in scientists’ views of the actual biological impact.
The environmental community’s public statements prior to my story didn’t reflect that nuance or complexity.
Which is why I asked the question: Does their public stance represent an exaggeration of the scientific and legal facts in this case?
–Brian, NCPR