RAY BROOK — With the Adirondack Park Agency and the project applicant in agreement that more time is needed, the upcoming adjudicatory hearing for a proposed howitzer testing range in the town of Lewis has been delayed. The original start date of Dec. 22 has been moved to 10 a.m. on Feb. 4.

The move was made official on Monday, as the administrative law judge overseeing the hearing, David Greenwood, approved the joint letter from APA senior attorney Grace Sullivan and attorney Matthew D. Norfolk, who represents Michael C. Hopmeier, the project sponsor.

The hearing is still slated to take place at the APA’s Ray Brook headquarters, with the public invited to attend in person or remotely. Access information for those wishing to attend remotely will be provided at some time in January, according to the APA’s statement announcing the delay.

Though the public can watch the hearing, only official parties may actively participate in it. This includes presenting witnesses and evidence, cross-examining witnesses presented by other parties and advocating for the scope of issues the hearing will seek to address.

Despite the first public hearing being delayed, the deadline for people or organizations to apply to be intervenors — those without original party status — remains noon on Friday, Dec. 19. Those are to be sent to Norfolk, Sullivan and Greenwood, who, as the hearing officer, determines whether party status is granted. It’s unclear when prospective intervenors will be notified of the administrative law judge’s decision.

Qualifications for those seeking party status need to be demonstrated in the petitions. The criteria is listed in 9 CRR-NY 580.7, the section of state law that regulates how intervenors are chosen. That can be read at tinyurl.com/2zjchbbr.

To access the latest information about the hearing from the APA, visit tinyurl.com/mpdramry.

So far, the only named parties to the hearing are Greenwood, APA staff led by Sullivan and Norfolk, as the authorized representative for the project sponsor. Other parties of right — those who don’t need to petition to join, but also aren’t obligated to join — include:

¯ Landowners within 500 feet of any border of the property

¯ The Adirondack Park Local Government Review Board

¯ The Essex County planning board chair

¯ The Essex County clerk

¯ The chair of the appropriate regional planning board

¯ The Lewis town supervisor

¯ The clerk of any local government within 500 feet of the project site

¯ Any state agency

–

Green groups to seek party status

–

Protect The Adirondacks! (Protect!) and the Adirondack Council, two prominent conservation advocacy groups within the park, both say they plan to seek party status for the hearing. Another group, Adirondack Wild: Friends of the Forest Preserve, said it has not yet determined if it will seek party status, but was preparing a draft petition on Monday should it decide to.

Protect! Executive Director Claudia Braymer told the Enterprise on Monday that Protect!’s 21-member board of directors voted to do so at its Dec. 6 meeting. The group has not yet submitted its petition, but plans to do so ahead of Friday.

“We will be filing that soon, so we get it in under the deadline,” Braymer said.

Adirondack Council Communications Director John Sheehan said that the group was also in the midst of filing its petition.

“I think, essentially, we’ll cite our participation in prior hearings (and) our interest in this case specifically — the fact that we sent a letter calling for the hearing a couple of years ago,” he said. “We’ll work with counsel to get representation as the hearing goes on.”

Sheehan said the Adirondack Council wasn’t yet ready to detail the specifics of its testimony focus for the hearing, or the subject matter of the experts it would call.

The groups are opposed to the howitzer testing range, and have lobbied for the APA board to send the project to an adjudicatory hearing.

Braymer said Protect!’s decision to pursue party status boiled down to a belief that a howitzer testing range does not belong in the Adirondack Park, including on the type of private land classification the project would be on.

“I think the board is just very concerned about the incompatibility of this kind of project inside the Adirondack Park, anywhere,” she said. “And especially in Rural Use (zoned lands), where it seems like the agency is considering this a commercial use project. That’s one of the things we want to put on testimony.”

Braymer added that, in Protect!’s view, the project sponsor has not made a sufficient case in its application.

“We don’t think that the applicant has demonstrated that this could be compatible with the Rural Use land classification,” Braymer said. “Let alone the fact that, in our view, it’s not compatible with the overall structure of the Adirondack Park itself.”

There are currently three issues for adjudication with this project, though the list may be expanded or refined going into the hearing. These initial issues were what the APA board approved in the project order.

¯ Issue 1: Is the proposed howitzer testing range compatible with the Adirondack Park Land Use and Development Plan? This includes whether the howitzer testing range is compatible with the purpose of ensuring overall conservation, protection, preservation, development and use of the unique scenic, wildlife, recreational, open space, ecological and natural resources of the Adirondack Park, per the APA Act.

¯ Issue 2: Is the proposed howitzer testing range a compatible use within the Rural Use land area classification that the site would be on? This includes whether it is compatible with the character description and purposes, policies and objectives of the Rural Use land area classification, such as whether the proposed use should be considered a “commercial use,” and if not, whether the proposed howitzer testing range is a compatible use.

¯ Issue 3: Would the proposed howitzer testing range have an undue adverse impact upon the natural, scenic, ecological, wildlife, recreational or open space resources of the park? This is further detailed in eight separate sub-issues concerning such matters as noise, residue pollution, effects to animal habitat and migration and public safety related to the use, storage and transportation of the military equipment intended to be used at this hearing.

“The (Protect!) board is very concerned about the adverse impacts on the nearby wilderness areas, and how the noise from this excessively loud activity could have really detrimental impacts on wildlife,” Bryamer said. “In particular, birds like owls and animals like bats.”

She said that Protect! plans to introduce evidence and witnesses to showcase those concerns, but acknowledged that lining up experts with as niche a project as a 155 mm howitzer barrel artillery gun isn’t exactly straightforward, but the group has already started assembling a slate.

“We do have a few experts lined up already,” she said. “One is a noise expert who has worked in the park before. They’ll be doing some analysis for us of the applicant’s noise study, and providing a more detailed critique than we can provide.”

Braymer added that they’re also working to line up experts who would testify “on the protocol of using howitzers,” and the public safety concerns they feel would arise at this site, at least in how it’s been presented so far.

“Where they want to do the firing is not a secure site,” she said. “As far as I know, there’s no fencing around that whole thing — so you could have a hiker or a hunter wandering through the woods, and all a sudden they’re stumbling upon a howitzer firing range? I mean, it just seems really problematic.”

–

A rare move

–

The last time the APA board voted to hold an adjudicatory hearing was 2007, with the hearing ultimately getting underway in 2011. That was for the proposed Adirondack Club Resort around the Big Tupper Ski Area, a project that the APA ultimately approved following the hearing, but never came to fruition, largely due to financial constraints.

The APA board had voted to send that project to an adjudicatory hearing in 2007, with the ensuing process taking several years. Adjuicatory hearings are the only way in which the APA can deny or make substantial modifications to a permit that is deemed complete. That decision is made by the APA board following the hearing, and may be appealed to the state Supreme Court.

“We have been calling for the agency to use adjudicatory hearings again as a tool for reviewing projects,” Braymer said. “We’re very glad to see that they have decided to send a project to a hearing.”

Another reason Braymer said Protect! plans to file for party status is to show the APA board that environmental advocacy groups can play a meaningful role, through their testimony, in helping to more thoroughly answer the questions these sorts of hearings seek to tease out. Ultimately, she said the hope is that the agency uses them more frequently going forward.

Braymer added that Protect! supports Greenwood’s order to delay the hearing’s start.

“It makes a lot of sense in light of the holidays to adjourn for a few weeks the start of the hearing,” she said.