By Tim Rowland
Some conservationists look at Lower Saranac Lake and they see the High Peaks. Not the High Peaks of today, but the peaks of the pre-selfie days, when it was still possible to get a parking spot at the Roaring Brook trailhead on the weekend, and not be confronted with sadly necessary signs instructing hikers on the finer points of human waste disposal.
Concerns of overuse on Lower Saranac are being raised following completion of a bigger state boat launch at Second Pond and the proposed expansion of the Saranac Lake Marina. By a circuitous route, motorboats can also access Lower Saranac from as far away as the marinas on Lake Flower in the Village of Saranac Lake, not to mention from a number of private camps.
Along with higher numbers, there is also a change in boater behavior. Boating used to be a Point A-to-Point B endeavor, but with the advent of the pontoon boat, aka party barge, boaters anchor offshore, playing music, picnicking, imbibing and using the lake for a restroom. Power boaters are supposed to respect kayakers and canoers, but not all of them do. The rules relating to boat speed and wake size are lightly enforced.
By Lake George standards, traffic on Lower Saranac is still reasonable. But if it’s going to stay that way, many believe hard questions need to be answered now.
“It’s a wonderful, wonderful lake, so we need to be asking what we can do to protect it,” said Jack Drury, a resident of the lake who has had a long career in conservation. “We need to know what kind of use is too much, and to figure that out we are in desperate need of more data.”
That data would come in the form of carrying capacity, a term that was originally used to calculate the number of cows that a pasture could support. In Adirondack parlance, it’s the number of boats of all sorts that can reasonably use the lake safely and enjoyably. Carrying capacity is currently being studied by the Adirondack Park Agency, but it’s a tricky business.
Not only is carrying capacity subjective, but Lower Saranac is difficult to classify. Part of the lake is wide, with a privately owned shoreline that is more conducive to motorboats. But much of the shore is publicly owned and dotted with campgrounds. Still other parts are reedy and shallow, where a propeller can churn up harmful sediment. The APA is closing in on carrying capacity reports, but the finished product is probably still a couple of years away. Conservationists hope the boat isn’t already out of the boathouse by then.
In 1924 Harry Duso built a marina on Crescent Bay, catering to tourists at the lake’s resorts. Ninety years later, the marina was insolvent and falling into the lake. Mike Damp, the marina’s managing partner, has a picture of what it looked like when his group bought it in 2014. In the photo, the old marina looks barely salvageable. But salvage it they did, and today it has a gleaming clubhouse, a stable of nice boats and ambitious plans for expansion.
When LS Marina LLC filed its application with the APA, it became apparent in the permitting process that, unbeknownst to just about everybody, the marina had no title to about 11 acres of lake bottom—which, under the law, can be bought and sold like any other property —lying beneath the waters in which it hoped to expand. Once the owner was identified, it became a race to see who could purchase the lake bottom first. The winners were four neighbors of the marina who oppose expansion. They formed a partnership called Acme of Saranac LLC, and paid $50,000 to one of the owner’s descendants for the property, effectively blocking the expansion. But in July, a court ruled that, under adverse possession, LS Marina was the true owner, because the Duso family had been using the property for boat moorings without anyone’s objection dating back to the early 1970s.
William Curran, one of the Acme partners, said the group is considering its options, but that its attorney had advised against further comment. If there are no more legal proceedings, the application goes back before the APA.
Damp doesn’t agree that Lower Saranac is facing a crisis. “I don’t see an overuse issue at all,” he said. “There’s a lot of room for more boats.”
The marina has strong support in the community and people were happy to see it saved. “It’s a local asset, a community asset,” he said. “I really haven’t seen a lot of opposition to this other than from a couple of neighbors.”
The marina, whose expansion would add room for more than 100 additional boats, has commissioned its own capacity study using multiple models and assumptions. With the expansion, LS Marina would have room for 186 boats at its main Crescent Bay marina and 114 at its Crescent Bay annex. At peak use as measured on a July fourth holiday, the study projects that 16 percent of these boats would be in the water, for a total of 48 boats originating from the marina. Including other boat launches and private properties on the lake, 173 boats are on the lake at peak use, which translates to the lake being at 67 percent of capacity—with the expansion.
Different scenarios come up with different percentages, but only one—assuming all boats launched on the lake at a time of high use stay on the lake—exceeds capacity.
Conservationists aren’t sold. They say that Lower Saranac is unique, and that data taken from other lakes isn’t applicable. But they do appreciate that it’s brought carrying capacity into the discussion. It also shows the effect of the state’s expanded Second Pond boat launch, which has room for 100 boats—most all of which, presumably, are out on the lake. When the launch was upgraded, the DEC said roadside parking would no longer be allowed. Once the lot was full, that was it. But observers say the rule isn’t enforced.
Lorraine Duvall, author of the 2016 book “In Praise of Quiet Waters,” said she had been paddling Lower Saranac for 15 years, but seldom does anymore, especially in the summer. “Every day of the week it was terrible,” said Duvall, whose book recounts several unhappy encounters with reckless power boaters.
Duvall said the lake has gotten more crowded as the years have gone by, and now the boating season seems to be getting longer. If the lake used to be all but deserted in September, it isn’t anymore.
Drury, who has lived on the lake since 1972, said opposition to expansion isn’t a NIMBY, or “not-in-my-backyard,” issue. “I don’t know anyone who was against renovation of the marina,” he said. “I don’t blame them at all for wanting to expand. But it’s going to almost double in size. What do we do when we look out there one day and realize it’s too crowded?”
It’s apparent that the author has never actually been on Lower Saranac. Since my retirement in 2002, I’ve been on the lake several times a day from May through October. I don’t recognize the lake described in his article. When I am fishing, I often see more paddlers than motor boats. But the author didn’t contact me despite being given my name, probably because that would have upset his chosen narrative. I type this in my boat on Saturday of Labor Day weekend, and there’s not a boat in sight on the lake. Go figure.
I have to agree Peter, a careful and thorough perusal of the Google satellite image which because the date taken is unknown must be considered as a random day and time (green trees indicate summer) does not show one single active boat on the water, not even a paddle vessel. I only paddle the lake anymore and don’t have any problems with the power squadron, not near as much as I have in Utah where I live now.
Peter , I agree! I was just there for 10 days paddled ALL the Saranac lakes , boat traffic was negligible. Someone always wants to take control of public places , etc.
In your own series of photo’s there are a total of 4 boats shown that are not in a Marina and the Marina is almost at capacity with Docked boats, boats technically on the lake, but not really on the lake.
You also must account the area of middle Saranac lake into the equation as there is access to it through the lock as well as access to Flower and Kiwassa and Oseetah.
I know Jack, studied under him, but his opinion is not scientifically founded. I can understand him not wanting expansion near his property, but it is state land and public land and motorboats are historically part of the lake and should be. I will be there next week and form my own opinion of the difference I see from my time on the lake 30 years ago when Skip Wilcox and I would leave Water Hole 3 at 1am and make the run to Weller pond lean-to.
This is an example of shoddy and disingenuous journalism by Mr. Rowland which begins with a false equivalence. There is no connection between the congestion produced by lack of parking at trailheads and situation out on the lake.
He then continues with what amounts to a hit piece by using the prejudicial term “party barge”. Most pontoon boat users, like myself, are not getting drunk, playing loud music or using the lake as a restroom. He claims a change in “boating behavior” based on what, the biased opinion of some of the wealthy landowners along the lake who would prefer the lake be for their private enjoyment.
It’s true, that we can find selfish people who place their own enjoyment above that of others in any population, power boat owners and wealthy landowners are not exceptions.
Mr. Rowland then uses another false equivalence and scare tactic by comparing “Lake George standards” to traffic on Lower Saranac. By any standards, by the author’s own admission traffic on Lower Saranac is reasonable.
It is a wonderful lake, as Mr. Drury says, one that should be available to all, not just those fortunate enough to own lakefront property. Are we to believe Mr. Drury is an unbiased observer because of his experience as a guide despite his being a lake landowner.
Mr. Drury calls for more data but really just wants more speculation by “experts” like himself. Let’s be honest here. This is all about delaying the marina project until the investors give up and sell the property thereby depriving locals and tourists of easy lake access. “The APA is closing in on carrying capacity reports, but the finished product is probably still a couple of years away.(Yes we all know how fast the APA moves.)” Conservationists hope the boat isn’t already out of the boathouse by then.” LOL, by the “Conservationists” you mean those who own land on the lake.
I’m not a math whiz but Mr. Rowland says the marina would have room for 300 boats after expansion with 16% boats out from the marina on a peak day. That is 32 not the 48 he claims. He then continues that during a peak day, like the 4th that 173 boats all told would be on the lake. I was out most of that week including the 4th and being retired am out there a majority of the nice days this summer and never saw even a third that many boats on the water even when including canoes and kayaks.
It also shows the effect of the state’s expanded Second Pond boat launch, which has room for 100 boats—most all of which, presumably, are out on the lake. You know what they say about assumptions. The author tries to exaggerate the effects of the 2nd pond boat launch as well. I drive by there and have never seen boat trailers parked on the roadside but then I’m not one of the observers the author chose to speak with, most likely because he was given my name by Mr. Damp as an someone who uses the lake frequently. Mr. Rowland wants only those voices who support his agenda.
I don’t know what Ms. Duvall is talking about but I see many paddlers out there even myself on occasion and have never had or seen any of them have difficulties because of a motorized boat. Maybe there are more people out there than 15 years ago but “terrible” is a gross exaggeration to the point of meaninglessness. There are a number of non-motorized lakes if Ms. Duvall wants that experience.
“Drury, who has lived on the lake since 1972, said opposition to expansion isn’t a NIMBY, or “not-in-my-backyard,” issue.” Of course that’s exactly what it is.
Sorry for the repeat. After I tried to post the first time it was rejected by the moderator. So I offered a another version and it was posted. Now, the next day the site has posted my first post as well. Go figure.
I’ll begin by disclosing my own bias up front. I have a pontoon boat (pejoratively called a “party barge”) by Mr. Rowland. I wish the author would also disclose his bias because it is apparent from the article that he has one. He begins with a false equivalence. There is no connection between the congestion produced by lack of parking at trailheads and situation out on the lake.
Most pontoon boat users, like myself, are not getting drunk, playing loud music or using the lake as a restroom. He claims a change in “boating behavior” based on what, the biased opinion of SOME of the landowners along the lake who would prefer the lake be for their private enjoyment.
Mr. Rowland then uses another false equivalence and scare tactic by referencing “Lake George standards” in regard to traffic on Lower Saranac. By any standards, and by the author’s own admission traffic on Lower Saranac is reasonable.
It is a wonderful lake, as Mr. Drury says, one that should be available to all, not just those fortunate enough to own lakefront property. Are we to believe Mr. Drury is an unbiased observer because of his experience as a guide despite his being a lake landowner.
Let’s be honest here. This is all about delaying the marina project until the investors give up and sell the property thereby depriving locals and tourists of easy lake access. “The APA is closing in on carrying capacity reports, but the finished product is probably still a couple of years away.(Yes we all know how fast the APA moves.)”
The author speculates that during a peak day, like July 4th that “173 boats all told would be on the lake”. I was out most of that week including the 4th and being retired was out there a majority of the nice days this summer and never saw even a third that many boats on the water even when including canoes and kayaks.
The author tries to exaggerate the effects of the 2nd pond boat launch as well. I drive by there and have never seen boat trailers parked on the roadside but then I’m not one of the observers the author chose to speak with, most likely because he was given my name by Mr. Damp as an someone who uses the lake frequently. Mr. Rowland wants only those voices who support his agenda.
I don’t know what Ms. Duvall is talking about but I see many paddlers out there even myself on occasion and have never had or seen any of them have difficulties because of a motorized boat. Maybe there are more people out there than 15 years ago but “terrible” is a gross exaggeration to the point of meaninglessness.
“Drury, who has lived on the lake since 1972, said opposition to expansion isn’t a NIMBY, or “not-in-my-backyard,” issue.” Of course not, it never is. Is it?
“Power boaters are supposed to respect kayakers and canoers, but not all of them do.”
And paddlers are supposed to follow the basic rules of navigation when they are in a navigable channel.
They almost never do. They just go wherever and however they want. But since they are not required to get any sort of training it’s not surprising.
Temperance in all things and in this case it becomes obvious. If you have to ask, especially in these time of excess and overcrowding coupled with environmental concerns, then the clear answer (no pun intended) is to allow expansion on a half scale with a reexamination of the issue 5-10 years later. As mentioned in the article though, Lake George is a cautionary tale.