Last week’s Adirondack Park Agency meeting generated several news stories. The highlights include:
- The board passed a resolution allowing for herbicide use on Lake Luzerne to combat invasive Eurasian watermilfoil. This is the same herbicide that the Lake George Association and others did not want applied in Lake George without more research.
- The board adopted a policy capping an increase of roads in wild forest areas at 11.6%. This gives the state Department of Environmental Conservation and APA about 13 miles of roads available for the future. While this interpretation wraps up a 50-year-old question, the APA gave itself an exit plan allowing for a “contrary interpretation.” Some speculate lawsuits could come of the interpretation, too.
- The APA also backed down on its proposals to limit public comment and shorten its review time for policies.
- And state Sen. Dan Stec made a surprise appearance at the end of the APA’s meeting and complained about cell tower regulations.
Did the APA Learn a Lesson?
Did the APA learn a lesson in May? Apparently so, though only one person around the APA’s table would say so in public. That admission came from the non-voting representative of the Adirondack Park Local Government Review Board, Jerry Delaney. “We’ve had a lesson in how important the people take their opportunities for public comment,” Mr. Delaney said. I am glad he said it because I suspect most were thinking it.
The senior APA staff, hit with hundreds of negative comments from diverse directions since March, including from some of its own members and from groups like mine (Adirondack Wild) and the Review Board, caved in May on their intention in March to ram through restrictions on public comment opportunities and subjecting future Agency policy and guidance documents to rapid decisions during a single meeting.
I was glad the staff caved. Act in haste, regret at leisure. It was certainly audacious of the senior staff to think over the winter that cutting down on public comment opportunities and on the time for consideration for changes to APA policy and guidance documents would not be noticed and needed no notice. The question is, why did they propose such changes to begin with?
» Continue Reading.