Protect the Adirondacks mulls appeal as agencies defend process
By Zachary Matson
An Albany County judge earlier this month dismissed a lawsuit from Protect the Adirondacks seeking to force state agencies to study how much boating and other activities the Saranac chain of lakes can handle.
The ruling is the latest in a series of suits trying to make the Department of Environmental Conservation and the Adirondack Park Agency study how much use Adirondack lakes can have before harming the environment or the public’s enjoyment. These studies are called “carrying capacity studies.”
Advocacy groups such as Protect have pointed to language in the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan calling for a “comprehensive study of Adirondack lakes and ponds” aimed at determining “each water body’s capacity to withstand various uses, particularly motorized uses, and to maintain and enhance its biological, natural and aesthetic qualities.” Unit management plans for the Saranac Lakes Wild Forest and Second Pond Boat Launch Intensive Use Area have also called for capacity studies, and references to similar capacity studies are included in most management plans.
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
‘Should,’ not ‘must’
The state agencies, though, have argued in court that the language is more a suggestion than a requirement, highlighting that the master plan notes the state “should” carry out the study, not that it must.
That argument carried the day with Judge Anthony McGinty, an acting supreme court justice in Albany County, who rejected Protect’s request to mandate the state conduct the lake studies before issuing permits for projects that could impact the lakes.
“The master plan clearly states that a comprehensive study of the Adirondack lakes and ponds should be conducted, not that it must be conducted,” McGinty wrote in the April 4 ruling.
Protect, which filed notice following the ruling to preserve its ability to appeal the decision within six months, is weighing whether to press its case with the Appellate Division in Albany. When considering a different case, that court called the state’s failure to conduct the studies “wholly unexplained and, indeed, inexplicable,” but didn’t address whether the master plan obligated the agencies to conduct them.
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
Protect: State agencies are shirking responsibilities
Chris Amato, Protect’s conservation director and counsel, in a recent interview said he was troubled by the arguments the state has used to bolster its defense against the suit. The agencies, he said, appeared to claim they had no obligation to follow through on studies they committed to in the master plan and unit management plans. They were suggestions that the state could get to at some point in the future, or maybe never.
“What we have seen in these cases is a disturbing pattern by the agencies of disavowing things in the master plan and unit management plan,” Amato said.
Amato argued the state’s stance in court reflects a broader failure by APA and DEC to uphold their duty to protect the park’s natural resources and review how private projects might impact those resources.
“If the master plan and unit management plans are to have any meaning, they have to be enforceable,” Amato said. “If DEC is free to ignore the [plans] then what’s the point?”
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
State agencies respond to criticism
In a statement, a DEC spokesperson said the agency “is not pursuing or planning any waterbody carrying capacity studies at this time,” but that DEC “will address waterbody carrying capacity in unit management plans as appropriate.”
APA rejected the idea that it fails to meet its responsibilities.
“The agency upholds the highest standard of protection for the Adirondack Park’s natural resources in all of its work,” APA spokesperson Ben Brosseau said.
Past efforts, arguments around carrying capacity
Previous suits, including one brought by former DEC Commissioner Tom Jorling, argued APA could not permit a marina redevelopment project without first conducting the capacity study of the Saranac lakes. The courts did annul an APA marina permit but over failures in the agency’s wetlands review, before the applicant garnered approval after reapplying.
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
The courts in those earlier cases agreed with APA that it had acted rationally in determining the marina upgrades would not have a negative impact compared to the alternatives, since the developers retained the right to reconstruct structures that predated the APA Act.
State planners have waxed poetic about the importance of understanding the carrying capacity of natural resources in numerous documents over the years.
A 2013 unit management plan for Second Pond Boat Launch Intensive Use Area said carrying capacity “can be thought of as a threshold that, if exceeded, would lead to an undesirable set of conditions or problems.”
When state officials finalized the Saranac Lakes Wild Forest unit management plan in 2019, they again outlined the importance of understanding how much use the interconnected waters could withstand. They referred to such understanding as “a wildland manager’s most important and challenging responsibility.”
The state’s language, though, shifted in the six years between the two plans to more closely reflect its current position in court. In the Second Pond Boat Launch plan, officials wrote the state land master plan “requires” an assessment of the area’s carrying capacity and threats of overuse. By the time the wild forest plan was prepared, officials wrote that the same decades-old language in the state land master plan “recommends” the lakes and ponds study by the state.
Top photo: AWI’s Upper Saranac Lake Environmental Monitoring Platform collects data for long-term projects. Photo by Brendan Wiltse
An appeal makes sense. The Master Plan should use the term “shall” rather than “must’ and especially “should”!!!
Why not “WILL”? Even less ambiguous. I believe an appeal should be filed.
Because ” WILL.” Is what has lead the residences of this area being kept in the web of A P A nonsense, and D E C stupidity . You sound like someone that would enjoy counting paddleboats, kayaks and canoes. And oh and the” piece of resistance. ” something with a 5 hp motor.
Is this what this is really all about for a lot of people. People using motorized boats and jet skis??
Aww Chris Amato. You shoulder some of this responsibility. You worked at DEC and now you bite the hand that feeds you. Why didn’t you do this work when you worked at DEC?
The master plan is that, a plan, not a law. Just like a comprehensive plan is in a law and need zoning to give it any teeth.
Nice win APA!
I think a study would probably show the area is well below capacity. The problem I see here is that lots of the Saranac Chain is private lands these requests make it sound like it’s all state land? The state doesn’t have access to lots of what they would need to study.
“The agency upholds the highest standard of protection for the Adirondack Park’s natural resources in all of its work,” APA spokesperson Ben Brosseau said.
If this were true I would think they would want to conduct carrying capacity studies? It is a very useful tool for ecologists.
What an odd thing to waste time in court fighting about and for them to refuse to do!
Foothills, seriously. This is all B.S. What the problem is with this “eco system.” Is that the majority of this area is privately owned. Which makes it harder to blow smoke up your know what. But don’t disappear, they’ll do the best to confuse the public otherwise.
Oh yes, 19,000 acres of water, thousands of private land parcels, in addition to the saranac lakes wild forest lands. Upper saranac lake alone holds 40 billion gallons of water. And we are arguing over a couple hundred boats give or take at any one time. Give me a break. The lunacy has to stop. The courts ruled, and appropriately so. They see through the madness of trying to count boat trips from the thousands of private parcels. And all this despite any shred of evidence that lake quality is decreasing. Even if it were to be done, it’s not APA’s job to do a carrying capacity study, it’s NYSDEC’s.
The only thing Protect the Adirondacks cares about is militant obstructionism. They have lost 4 or 5 lawsuits in a row. They waste valuable tax payer resources baselessly suing the state and losing, all while the state pays people like Chris Amato a pension. Talk about double dipping.