{"id":5088,"date":"2011-11-17T09:13:39","date_gmt":"2011-11-17T14:13:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org\/inbox\/?p=5088"},"modified":"2011-11-22T09:42:10","modified_gmt":"2011-11-22T14:42:10","slug":"are-green-groups-exaggerating-the-big-tupper-resorts-impacts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org\/inbox\/2011\/11\/17\/are-green-groups-exaggerating-the-big-tupper-resorts-impacts\/","title":{"rendered":"UPDATE: Are green groups exaggerating the Big Tupper resort’s impacts?"},"content":{"rendered":"

UPDATE:\u00a0 You can now read the Adirondack Explorer version of this news story here<\/a>.\u00a0 The print version provides some additional context and wrestles with other issues that the radio version couldn’t tackle.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.\u00a0 You can find that story here<\/a>, where some business leaders expressed deep skepticism about sales figures, marketing strategy and the potential for the resort’s success.<\/p>\n

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.\u00a0 You can find that story, which aired this morning, here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

This is complicated stuff, with a lot of grey zones.\u00a0 Here are some of the takeaways from our research:<\/p>\n

-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.<\/p>\n

-If economically successful, the 6,200 acre tract of private land near Big Tupper will be significantly developed over the next fifteen years.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n

-Once built, the resort will obviously leave the private land in question far less wild.\u00a0 But roughly 200,000 acres of permanently protected land sits right next door in Follensby Park and the High Peaks Wilderness.\u00a0 That’s a lot of nearly identical habitat in close proximity that will never be fragmented.<\/p>\n

-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.<\/p>\n

-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.\u00a0 Adopting those standards would require the Agency to set a significant policy precedent in the context of a permit review for one private project.\u00a0 (Some green groups dispute this and say the Agency has clear legal authority.)<\/p>\n

-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.<\/p>\n

-State officials and environmental groups agree that a comprehensive wildlife survey is still needed.\u00a0 However, no one has yet identified any endangered or rare or at-risk species that might be threatened by the development.\u00a0 (Some groups say the rusty blackbird, a species in decline statewide, may be adversely impacted.)<\/p>\n

-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.\u00a0 But APA regulations as currently written don’t include standards for regional cumulative impacts.\u00a0 (They do allow for consideration of future cumulative impacts with a single Park community.<\/a>) Again, it appears that a new substantial new precedent would have to be established.<\/p>\n

-Environmental groups are asserting two additional standards that don’t appear to be clearly supported in current state regulation.\u00a0 First, they claim that residential development is largely inappropriate in areas zoned for “resource management.”\u00a0 But the APA has long stated unambiguously that home-building is a “compatible” use on those lands.\u00a0 Also, activists have argued repeatedly that the project is simply “too big.”\u00a0 But “bigness” isn’t a regulatory standard and the developers are proposing far fewer homes than APA zoning rules allow.<\/p>\n

-Sprawl is a major concern for green groups and for most scientists.\u00a0 But if successful, this project would represents a small fraction of the new homes permitted in the Park every year.\u00a0 (Three hundred permits are granted on average annually.\u00a0 The resort developers hope to build between 40 and 50 homes yearly.)\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n

-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.\u00a0 Those are serious allegations and if true would likely reflect criminal activity on the part of state officials.\u00a0 So far, NCPR has been unable to substantiate those claims.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Finally, let me acknowledge that reporting the results of NCPR’s research will obviously be controversial in some circles.\u00a0 So let me restate the purpose of these articles.<\/p>\n

The role of NCPR and the Adirondack Explorer isn’t to reach conclusions about the ACR project or its merits.\u00a0 Our job is to look skeptically, impartially, and as factually as possible at the claims made by all sides.<\/p>\n

We did that first with financial concerns about the project<\/a>.\u00a0 We do the same here with environmental questions.\u00a0 As always, your comments and feedback are welcome.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

UPDATE:\u00a0 You can now read the Adirondack Explorer version of this news story here.\u00a0 The […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[5693,5583,884,4817,20],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org\/inbox\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5088"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org\/inbox\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org\/inbox\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org\/inbox\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org\/inbox\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5088"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org\/inbox\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5088\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5090,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org\/inbox\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5088\/revisions\/5090"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org\/inbox\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5088"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org\/inbox\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5088"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org\/inbox\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5088"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}