To the Town of Fort Edward Planning Board. Planning Board members and town officials:

Transcription

1 To the Town of Fort Edward Planning Board Planning Board members and town officials: On behalf of Audubon New York, I want to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the scope for the environmental impact statement for the residential development proposal known as Killian s View, as proposed by Golf Links of McGregor Corporation. We presented oral comments on the scope of the draft EIS at the public meeting on July 26, 2006 and would like to expand on those comments for the official town record. Overall, we recognize that the scope as presented in the June 30, 2006 document and the full environmental assessment form are only the beginning of a comprehensive public discussion about this project and the likely impact on the environment and the community as a whole. In my remarks on July 26 we asked that you, as planning board members, pay special attention to three major aspects of this project: 1. This is a precious grassland habitat that is important for the survival of a wide variety of grassland bird species and is unique in eastern New York State; 2. Please consider the cumulative impact of not only this, but other development proposals in and close to this Fort Edward grassland resource; 3. Finally, please pay attention to alternatives to this proposed action, including the no action alternative. Too often, a developer presents overwhelming information about the advantages of a proposed development, minimizes discussion of the adverse impacts and ignores a serious and thorough discussion of all the alternatives. I hope that the planning board review will strive to avoid such a substantive mistake. My comments will explain what an Important Bird Area is and how they were identified, why the Fort Edward grassland provides such a unique habitat in eastern New York, raise some questions we have on the draft scope and the full assessment form, and finally, I will address two questions raised by the planning board and the public at the public meeting. What is an Important Bird Area? New York s Important Bird Area (IBA) program identifies sites within the state that are most important to birds and works proactively for their protection and proper management. It is an effort to inventory key bird habitats, and to cooperatively plan for the conservation of selected sites, both on public and private lands. We emphasize the word identifies rather than designated as used in the scoping document; the IBA process is not a government program nor is it a regulatory program. Rather, it is an opportunity to establish common ground for conservation on a cooperative basis. A site is identified as an IBA if it supports significant populations of at-risk species, assemblages of species for which New York has long-term conservation responsibility, or large concentrations of birds. With the guidance of a committee of ornithologists and bird experts from around the state and site nominations provided by individuals, 136 IBAs have been identified in New York. The Fort Edward Grasslands, approximately 13,000 acres in Washington County, have been identified in this process.

2 Identifying IBAs is a recognition that not all habitats are of equal value for conservation. The IBA program is a bird conservation initiative with simple goals: to identify the most important places for birds, and to conserve them through habitat protection and proper stewardship. IBAs are identified according to standardized, scientific criteria through a collaborative effort among state, national and international non-governmental conservation organizations (NGOs), state and federal government agencies, local conservation groups, academics, grassroots environmentalists, birders and others. As a result, IBAs link global and continental bird conservation priorities to local sites that provide critical habitat for native bird populations. We must emphasize that this effort to identify important bird areas is part of a national and international conservation program. A similar effort is proceeding in most states in the United States and the provinces of Canada, and in many of the countries of Europe, Asia and Africa, as well as in Central and South America. The criteria used and summarized above are the result of considerable deliberation by conservation scientists worldwide. The significance of the Fort Edward Grasslands IBA The Fort Edward Grasslands were recognized as an IBA because of the exceptional diversity and numbers of grassland birds found there both during the breeding and winter seasons. Many state-listed species are supported there, including Northern Harrier (T 1 ), Short-eared Owl (E), Sedge Wren (T), Upland Sandpiper (T), Henslow s Sparrow (T), and Vesper Sparrow (SC). For the last four decades grassland bird species have suffered dramatic declines in New York and throughout their range. These species are now among the highest conservation priorities for New York and many other states (as evidenced by the fact that most grassland species are now state-listed). The main causes of these declines are likely declining/changing agriculture and development. An area like the Fort Edward Grasslands IBA that provides such a large, relatively intact tract of grassland habitat and supports priority grassland birds is truly unique. Indeed, the Fort Edward Grasslands have been identified as a focus area by the New York Grassland Bird Program (GBP), a cooperative effort to conserve grassland birds where they occur throughout the state. This effort is organized by Audubon New York and includes partners from the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, US Department of Agriculture/Natural Resource Conservation Service, Ducks Unlimited, NYS Office of Parks, Recreations, and Historical Preservation, The Nature Conservancy, US Fish and Wildlife Service, SUNY College at Brockport, and many more. A map of New York State s grassland bird habitat (attached), prepared by members of the GBP based on the latest data from the state s Breeding Bird Atlas, shows just how unique this area is: Fort Edward grasslands stands out almost as a lone island in the Hudson Valley and eastern New York, given the unique geographic circumstances and the patterns of land use and development that are moving across the landscapes of New York. Many of the same state-listed species that triggered identification of the Ft. Edward Grasslands as an IBA were also species identified by the GBP that depend on the Ft. Edward Grasslands as critical breeding or wintering habitat. Species identified by the GBP include Henslow's Sparrow (T), Northern Harrier (T), Short-eared Owl (E), and Grasshopper Sparrow (SC), in addition to Bobolink, Savannah Sparrow, and Eastern Meadowlark. In particular, populations of Bobolink 1 T, E, and SC refer to the species status as a NY State listed Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern species.

3 and Northern Harrier (T) were very abundant in the Fort Edwards Grasslands compared to other areas of New York. Other important species found on this site include Sedge Wren (T), Killdeer and Upland Sandpiper (T). These efforts are by no means fully comprehensive, and there are additional species that have not as of yet been detected and targeted by these conservation efforts. What impact will development have on Fort Edward Grasslands IBA? In New York, the species listed above rely on grassland habitat provided by agricultural fields that are managed as hayfields (such as alfalfa, clover, and timothy, for example), or from fields that were previously agricultural lands but are now abandoned (not mowed, hayed, or otherwise actively controlled). The preferred habitat for these grassland birds are fields that are hayed/harvested after the birds have completed breeding, or abandoned fields in which the nests and young are not threatened by mowers and balers or harvesters. A significant threat to grassland birds in certain regions of New York is high development pressure. The most obvious form in which this threat is manifested is the loss of habitat resulting from the footprint area (i.e. house and foundation, driveway, roads) of a proposed development and associated construction. Some developers mitigate this loss of habitat by minimizing housing/building density within the project; however, less obvious and more destructive to the habitat (and directly impacting grassland wildlife) are the associated changes to the landscape (i.e., fragmentation and edge effects of intrusive development). The distribution of houses, lawns, driveways, and roads throughout a grassland resulting from development pose the most serious threat to grassland birds. This habitat fragmentation (dividing a larger parcel into many smaller parcels) results in very small grassland patches. Grassland birds build their nests directly on the ground, and in order to breed, grassland birds require large, open spaces far from sources of predators (such as skunks, foxes, and raccoons from forests, or cats and dogs from houses) who easily prey on the vulnerable nests. Several species require fields of 100 acres in size (or more). When these large areas (or even the impression that a habitat patch is smaller than it really is) are lost by the construction of houses and planting of trees, grassland birds have lost another piece of a rapidly disappearing habitat type. Alternatives to large lot development In order to maintain the maximum size possible in a grassland slated for development, one method that may work for some larger parcels is to NOT spread the houses out to minimize the building density, but to cluster the houses in one small area with as high a density as possible. This minimizes habitat fragmentation, and hopefully minimizes the other deleterious effects that development has on wildlife (such as introduced species/predators, disturbance to nesting birds, noise, traffic, etc.), while allowing some development to occur. Ideally, this will maintain grasslands large enough to provide habitat attractive to these bird species. In addition, this protected habitat may prove to be a significant selling point to buyers hoping to live out in the country. Comments Specific to the Draft Scope for the Environmental Impact Statement Page 1, paragraph three: please refer to Audubon New York, rather than National Audubon Society of New York. Also, please use the word "identified" rather than "designated" in

4 discussing the Important Bird Area. Please refer to the discussion on page 1 above in these comments for an explanation of this. Page 2, Figure 1, the project location map: It would be very helpful in assessing the scope to include, either on this map or on a second map of the town and at the same scale, the location of other development projects proposed and undergoing planning board review so that the cumulative impact can be better visualized by the reader. Similarly, given that so much of the impact will be on the Fort Edward Grasslands IBA, a map showing the outline for this feature should be included, preferably on the same base and at the same scale as the location map, Figure 1. It would also help to include or superimpose a map showing the boundaries and properties for the Agricultural District impacted by these development proposals. (We have attached a map showing the Fort Edward Grasslands IBA boundaries; we can provide this to the town in a format suitable for inclusion in the EIS. A copy of the Agricultural District map should be available from the Agricultural Stewardship Association. The town itself should have a map of the proposed development projects presently undergoing planning board review.) Page 3, Authority: Please refer to Audubon New York rather than National Audubon Society of New York, as an interested organization. The scope should also refer to the Washington County Agricultural Stewardship Association in the first paragraph as an interested agency when discussing coordinating review. Page 3, Need for the Project: This section is fraught with self-serving and misleading statements that confuse growth with development, quantity with quality. The town should note the presentation by the Capital District Regional Planning Commission and its analysis of demographic trends and changes in land use patterns in the counties surrounding Albany and Saratoga. The area has seen shifts in the population and a spreading out of residential and commercial development, but not a significant increase in population or economic activity. Saratoga County is the exception, but growth here has been at the expense of the neighboring counties. Saratoga County is now trying to play catch-up in preserving its farmland and river corridors after being overwhelmed by suburban sprawl development. Residential development, as was stated eloquently at the public meeting, does not provide a sound financial basis for the town; in fact studies in neighboring towns in this region and in New York State have shown that it costs the towns and the school districts money. Further, to describe the local road network as good and allowing for rapid travel to Saratoga and Warren County is also misleading and simply recognizes that jobs and economic growth will not accompany residential development in Fort Edward or Washington County without a serious re-thinking of the planning strategy for the area. Further, to suggest that there is an opportunity to provide affordable housing for people who will be able to drive to jobs in adjoining counties where housing costs are much higher is another contradiction of smart growth or quality community principles recognized in the state by the Governor and the Executive Agencies. Providing affordable housing and then requiring the occupants to drive long distances to their jobs at a time when the cost of fuel is increasing almost daily is adding to discrimination, not resolving this social problem. Again, this is a poorly thought out justification for the project, showing a lack of strategic thinking about the future needs of the whole community in times of major social change, rapidly rising fuel costs and major shifts in employment opportunities. This project will stimulate sprawl into priority farmland, take away potential economic activity from the village centers, and contradict the

5 smart growth principles long advocated by the state s Office for Local Government and Community Services in the Department of State. Page 4, Project Description: The town must resolve the contradictions between the recently approved master plan, which proposes that the town s rural character and open landscape are the defining qualities of the community, and the much older zoning ordinance, which allows for quarter acre zoning across a farming landscape. The zoning ordinance must be brought up to date to be consistent with the master plan otherwise the town s planning and zoning boards will be in constant conflict over the future character of the town. With respect to wetlands functions, even though Table 2 shows no major decrease in wetland acreage, the very nature of the surrounding land use changes, from farmland to roads, houses, lawns and driveways, will change the functioning and nature of the wetlands which are found on this site. Often communities near wetlands spray for mosquitoes and the consequences of this need to be considered. These changes can also pose threats to amphibian species that rely on unfragmented, undisturbed wetlands for breeding, as well as increase the potential for mosquito breeding. This in turn can cause the need for spraying toxic chemicals to control mosquito lava, and this has impacts on non-target species (for example, birds, frogs, salamanders and beneficial insects), as documented in many studies. The consequences of the use of pesticide use on a broad scale in a subdivision should be explored in this draft EIS. Page 7, Environmental Impact Methodologies: This section must include a very thorough discussion of the cumulative impacts and all the alternatives including the no action alternative. It is here that a full discussion of community values must come into play the values that come in rural community values versus those values embodied in suburban housing development. Page 7, Land Use, Zoning and Neighborhood Character: Again, this section merits a full discussion of the two contrasting views of the future for this community rapid housing development or slow and incremental change to the farming community that respects current open space values and plans carefully for development that reflects smart growth principles. This discussion must be the connecting thread through the following sections dealing with visual character, community facilities, open space and socioeconomic factors on pages 7 through 10. Page 11, Noise and Air Quality: This section must make it clear that these impacts will extend over a ten-year construction period for this project. This is not a short one-time set of impacts. Page 13, Hazardous Materials: Disussion on the likely demand for spraying to control mosquitoes should also be included in this section. Page 14, Natural resources: Much of the discussion (above) about this area as an Important Bird Area is relevant in this section. Again, the development as proposed, on the scale and density proposed, is not consistent with maintaining this area as an Important Bird Area suitable for the continued survival of grassland bird species. It is here that the developer should be asked to discuss serious alternatives to this extensive housing project. In addition, full consideration should be given to the impact that this project will have on the Important Bird Area beyond the specific project site, as the proposed project will fragment a larger habitat patch. Species that previously used the entire patch for foraging, and that will be exposed to threats associated with

6 a housing development in close proximity will likely become extirpated. Since natural habitats and ecosystems do not follow arbitrarily designated parcel boundaries, the impact of this project throughout the area should be fully considered and assessed, including an assessment of the grassland birds found in the areas around the project site. Also on page 14, paragraph two: field survey protocols were discussed with Audubon New York but we have not reviewed the methods in a written and final form. The study protocol at a minimum should be included in the draft EIS. Pages 16-20, Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts: This is a comprehensive list of the likely impacts. Page 20, Table 3, List of permits and approvals: The Agricultural District is a significant feature and the NYSDEC and State Department of Agriculture and Markets could well have major input on this aspect of the landscape and economy. Comments Specific to the full Environmental Assessment Form The lead agency has answered no to a number or questions throughout this document when it should more accurately answer that they just do not know. For example, this is the case under site description, questions 9 and 10 is this a sole or principal aquifer and do hunting opportunities exist in the project area; question 14, does the site include scenic views known to be important to the community. In both instances it would be more accurate to answer "unknown" rather than "no". On page 14, in answer to the questions about impact on plants and animals, including threatened or endangered species, having agreed that there are potential large impacts on these resources, it is not accurate to say they can be mitigated by a project change unless the town will accept the no action alternative. The document is certainly right in concluding on page 20 that there is likely to be public controversy related to the potential adverse environmental impacts. At the public meeting two questions relating to the IBA and changes in land use were raised by a planning board member and Mr. Durller for the Do It Right citizens group. The questions and Michael Morgan s (Audubon New York s grassland bird specialist) responses are as follows: 1. "If the grassland were simply left alone and allowed to return to brush and early successional brush and shrub vegetation would we still have the grassland bird species we are concerned about?" Abandonment of grasslands (hayfields, pastures, and fallow fields, for example) and the gradual shift to later successional stages is one of the top three primary threats to populations of grassland birds. Although not all "grasslands" are the same, once shrubs and woody vegetation become established, it is only a matter of time (very short) before any grassland birds that previously used the site will be forced to look elsewhere. Unfortunately, "elsewhere" is getting smaller and smaller every day. Maintenance of the habitat is fairly straightforward, and only

7 requires light agricultural activity or occasional mowing (every 2 or 3 years). 2. "Does it matter if the dairy farms were replaced by horse farms? Would the grassland species we are concerned about still populate the area?" We cannot say whether dairy farms are better or worse than horse farms in terms the habitat they provide to grassland birds. Many horse farms do not appear to face the same pressures to overgraze pastures as dairy farms, and as a result, provide good grassland habitat. Many dairy farms are or have converted to CAFO status (Confined Animal Feeding Operation), and the conversion of pastures and traditional hayfields to corn and other silage crops displaces the vulnerable grassland bird populations, which is another of the three primary threats to grassland bird populations (the third primary threat is development). In summary: Although the scoping document for the environmental impact statement is an important start to the overall review, it contains some provocative and erroneous statements. The final environmental impact statement must certainly present the town s residents with a clear set of choices and allow them to express their values a future of gradual development in places suitable for construction, one that conserves critical open spaces resources, and at the same time revitalizes the village and town centers (as largely envisioned in the town master plan), or a town giving way to suburban sprawl, a town that in due course faces the high costs of residential development without the benefits of the quality of life factors that come from careful and thoughtful strategic planning. We realize that an EIS is not the place to do this strategic, comprehensive planning, but it is certainly a mechanism to allow the community to raise and discuss the questions before some fateful and costly decision is made that affects the town for generations to come. Again, we thank you for this opportunity to comment on the scope of the EIS and look forward to being a constructive voice in the choices you make, particularly with respect the future of the Fort Edwards Grasslands Important Bird Area. Sincerely Graham Cox, Ph.D. Coordinator, open space and forestry programs, On behalf of the Audubon New York Bird Conservation staff: Sean Mahar, associate director of conservation; Michael Burger, Ph.D., director of bird conservation; Jillian Liner, coordinator of the Important Bird Area program; Michael Morgan, wildlife ecologist and director of the grassland bird program.