LEWIS, N.Y. (AP) — The scenic Adirondacks, renowned for their serene landscapes, are facing a controversial proposal that could disrupt their tranquil environment. A plan has been put forward to test large artillery in the rural town of Lewis, which has sparked outrage among residents and environmentalists alike. This unprecedented proposal has resulted in the Adirondack Park Agency scheduling a rare public hearing to discuss the implications.
Opponents of the plan express concerns that the blasts from artillery testing would not only shatter the peaceful atmosphere but also disturb local wildlife, including moose, deer, bears, and various bird species. Environmentalists highlight the site's proximity to state-owned forest land, fearing that such testing could threaten the delicate balance of the 6-million-acre (2.4-million-hectare) park, which consists of an intricate mix of private and public lands.
Dan Canavan, a local resident and hunter, underscored the severity of the issue, stating, "You can’t equate a 155 millimeter howitzer with a hunting rifle, but that’s how he’s been selling it." His wife, Lanita, who holds a position on the town council, shares similar apprehensions about preserving the quiet character of their community, which is home to approximately 1,300 people.
Michael Hopmeier, a private military contractor, is advocating for the establishment of the testing range on land near a country road, approximately 10 miles (16 kilometers) west of Lake Champlain. According to the proposal, steel projectiles would be fired from barrels measuring up to 155 millimeters (about 6 inches) as part of military research. The tests would occur up to 30 times a year, with a maximum of two tests conducted each weekday.
Hopmeier emphasizes that the projectiles used would lack explosive warheads, and testing is intended to collect data on barrel wear and recoil for the military. The tests are projected to be conducted farther away from popular tourist attractions in the Adirondacks, such as Lake Placid and Lake George, yet public reaction remains strong. More than 1,400 public comments have been submitted to state regulators, with a mere 19 expressing support for the proposal.
The proposal for the howitzer testing range would take place near a former Cold War nuclear missile silo purchased by Hopmeier’s business in 2015. While he insists that the testing will not create noise levels intolerable for residents, local residents are worried about potential disturbances, both auditory and environmental. The area is home to 44 residences located within 2 miles (3.22 kilometers) of the proposed range.
Concerns about noise are not unfounded; howitzer blasts can reach an astonishing 180 decibels at the source, levels significantly higher than most fireworks. Local resident April Guilder voiced her worries about possible impacts on the region's water supply, highlighting a deep sense of frustration over feeling unrepresented in the debate. "Who's sticking up for us?," she lamented during an informational meeting at the town fire hall.
Some residents are still reeling from previous military exercises conducted by Hopmeier last September, which involved low-flying helicopters and gunfire. Many complained that the experience was reminiscent of the film "Apocalypse Now," which raises further red flags regarding Hopmeier’s proposed artillery tests.
In contrast, Jim Pulsifer, the landowner of the proposed testing site, argues that if he believed the noise would be unmanageable, he would not permit it on his property. He rationalizes his support by emphasizing the economic benefits and job opportunities such a project might bring to the region.
After several delays, a public hearing is scheduled for April 22, where an administrative law judge will ultimately assess whether Hopmeier’s testing proposal aligns with the regulations and character of the Adirondack Park. Hopmeier has raised questions about the authority of the park agency to block his testing but acknowledges that regulatory approval will facilitate a smoother process. He has also filed a lawsuit contesting the board's vote to hold the hearing, claiming unfair treatment due to a member’s past affiliations with environmental groups.
