SECTIONII COMMENTSAND RESPONSESTO THE DGEIS
A. ALBANY PINEBUSH PRESERVECOMMISSION
The following comments are taken from a letter dated April 26, 1996 from Willie Janewayofthe Albany Pine Bush PreserveCommission. A copy of the letter is provided in Appendix 1.
1. Comment;
Beforebeing acceptedby the Colonie Planning Board, the FGEIS should, with regardsto anyproposed developmentlocated South of Central Avenue in what remains of the reasonablycontiguous Pine Bush, include mitigotive measures commensuratereith potenlial impacts. Suggestedmitigative measures that should be added to the GEISfor projects located in the Commission'sdefined " Pine BushProtection Area" (seethe attachedImplementalion Guidelines, Map #8,page 22) should include thefollowing:
l) Early Applicant Conlacl with the Commission. At the earliestpossible time, recommendto applicants thdt it is advisable that they contact the Commissionfor conceptual discussions. A detailed project review procedure is included in the attachedImplementation Guidelines.
2) Detailed Sile Inventories and future SEQRA actions Jor projects in the Pine Bush, and Cumulative Impacts. Require the inventory of any proposed developmentsite for existing or restorable pine baftens vegetationand species,potential linkagebetween protected lands, buffer areasor other signif.cantenvironmental resources. Require preparation
Clough,Harbour & AssociatesLLP Page ll-1 LishaKill Kings Road Area Commentsand Responses FinalGeneric Environmental lmpact Statement to DGEIS
of a site map showing lhe same, and a "hard look" (per SEOM) at potential cumulath,eproject impactson theseresources. The inventory must be completedby a qualified individual during the oppropriate time of year (for example, during late May and late July for Karner blue butterflies).
3) 45% Green Space. Increase the green spacerequirement from 3 5%oto at least 45t%for commercial, industriol and residential zoning, and designand lay oul the green spaceto matimize protection ofresources found to bepresen! in the above detailedsite inventory, in balance with other proj ecl cons ide r atio ns.
4) Native Landscaping. To better integrate the natural and urban landscapeand to reduce the abundanceof nonndtive invasive species, natiw pine barrensplants should be requit'edfor landscapingdeteloped areas, exceptfor foundation plantings. The Commissioncan provide o list of recommendedspecies.
, Mitigation. Require miligation when a project causesthe iteversible loss ofendangeredspecies habitat, to include lands containing existing or restorablepitch pine-scrub oak, linkages betweenprotected lands, buffer areas or other signifcant environmenlal resources. If this mitigation takesthe form offees, thefees would be chargedfor eachaue lost to developmentand would be set b1,the Town of Colonie to be equivalentto lhe averagepurchase price of lands acquired aspart of the Pine Bush Preserve. By way of example, the City of Albany has establisheda mitigation fee that is currently at 315,500per acre. The funds would be placed in an account maintoined or designatedby the Town for the sole purpose of acquisition and protection of the Albany Pine Bush.
6) ConservalionZoning. RezonePine Bush lands recommendedfor "full protection" in lhe Pine Bush Commission's1996 FEIS to " Land ConservationDistricls" to emphasizethe need to protect the viebility of the Albany Pine Bush. Such zoning should require a 5095set asidefor conservationpurposes. To suppor! acquisition ofthese lands, the GEIS should suggestrealistic means to provide Town funds to complement resourcesfromthe New York StateEnvironmental Protection Fund, the Albany Pine Bush PreserveCommission, The Nature Conservancyand other potential sources to fund the proleclion of these lands in cooperation with willing sellers.
Clough,Harbour & AssociatesLLP Pagetl-2 Lisha Kill Kings Road Area Comments and Responses Final GenericEnvironmental lmoact Statement to DGEIS
Resoonse:
The mitigative measures identified in the Albany pine Bush preserve Commission'scomments are generally considered by the Town to be appropriate. Many of thesemitigation measureshave beenidentified in the DGEIS (Section II.D, p.ll-30). The Town recognizesthat an increasein the minimum oDensDace requirementfor areaswithin the Pine Bush ProtectionArea, possibly by creation of a conservationoverlay district. would be beneficial to this area. The Town also recognizesthat a mitigation cost for the loss of Pine Bush lands may be appropriateand that suchmitigation costsare being usedin other municipalities.
2. Comment:
Most of the study area included in the DGEIS was oncepart of the more than 25,000acre inlandpine barrensecosystem that mqkesup the Albany pine Bush (Rittner.1976, Dineen, 1975 and Dineen,1982). TheDGEIS statesthat "The Albany Pine Bush, Iocatedin the southernportion of the StudyArea, is part of a sandplain extendingbetween the cities of Albany and Schenectady...Figures II-C-l shov,sthat wind blown sand and lakesand (indicatedas QS) composethe majoriry'ofrhe StudyArea. " (PageII-15, italics added.) Thephrose in italics, should be deletedor modifed to read "restt'ictedb)) pre-existing development actiyities Io lhe southernportion of the studyarea "
Response:
Commentnoted and incorporatedherein.
3. Comment:
As way of backgroundon the Pine Bush, on page II-22 the DGEIS references several EISsprepared in the mid-l 980's "for developmenlsin the orea" and says "one of the studiesindicated that approximately2,000 acres offire-manageable Pine Bushmust be protected in order topreserue the ecosystem"(Albany Pine Bush Preserve Commission, 1993).
This appearsto be a seriousmisrepresentation of the degreeof acceptancethat lhe extensiye1)7 page "Givnish report" has received. Infact, numerous EISI were rejected in the Courts, and a GEISprepared by the City of Albany was rejected, essentiallybecause they didn't include a hard look at the impact of developmenton the needto protect an area suficient to ensurethe protection of lhe Karner blue butterfly and the Albany Pine Bush.
Clough.Harbour & AssociatesLLP Page ll-3 Lisha Kill Kings Road Area Comments and Responses Final Generic Environmental lmpact Statement to DGEIS
Re$ponse:
The signihcanceofthe Albany PineBush is recognizedin the DGEIS through the extensive discussionson the preserve ecology, the establishmentof the Albany Pine Bush Preserveand the PreserveCommission. as well as subsequent documentsprepared by the Commission (ManagementPlan and Protection and ProjectReview ImplementationGuidelines), presented in DGEIS Section II.D, pp.22-32. The Town of Colonierecognizes the significanceof the Preserve through its participation in the Albany Pine Bush PreserveCommission. As such, the Town recognizesthe Protection and Project Review Implementation Guidelinesas a valuabletool in the effort to preservethe Pine Bush ecosystem. The significance of habitat, such as pitch pine-scrub oak barrens,Kamer blue butterfly habitatand wetlands,as well as the significance ofpotential impact to thesehabitats, are identifiedin the DGEIS (SectionII.D, pp.ll-29 thru II-32). The concemsof the Albany Pine Bush Commission with regardto significant impact to the Preserve,Full Protection Areas, Partial Protection Aleas, open space,and Kamer blue butterfly habitat are sharedby the Town ofColonie.
Comment:
The Implementation Guidelines, and attached Findings Statemenl, were unanimouslyapproved March 28, I 996, with the support of the Town o.fColonie, Town of Guilderland, CiD, of Albany, NISDEC, NISORPHP, The Nature Consenancyand threecitizens dppointed by the Governor,after extensivepublic revieu, and comment. As a member of the Albany Pine Bush Preserve Commissictn,the Tou,nof Colonieplayed an integral role in thepreparation antl adoptionof the ImplementationGuidelines. The Commissionrecommends that the Town of Colonie again reilernte its support for the Implementation Guidelinesrecommendotions, and incorporatethat informalioninto the GEIS before it is adopted. The GEIS should recognize and incorporate this comprehensivestructure for this discrete geographic area. If the Town of Colonie isproposing to do somethingless, as the DGEISdoes, the FGEISshould conlain a thorough explanation of the basisfor this deviation. This should include the identifcation of the names and qualifications of the individuals responsiblefor this explanation,since as currently drafted theredoes not appear lo be any reJlectionof technicalPine Barrens or EndangeredSpecies expertise, as is incorporaled in the Commission'sImplementation Guidelines.
Response:
The Town of Colonie recognizesthe significance of the Preservethrough its participationin the Albany Pine Bush PreserveCommission. As such,the Town recognizesthe Proteclion and Project ReviewImplementation Guidelines as a valuabletool in the effort to preservethe PineBush ecosystem.The significance
Clough.Harbour & AssociatesLLP Page ll-4 Lisha Kill Kings Road Area Comments and Responses Final Generic Environmentallmpact Statement Io DGEIS
ofhabitat, suchas pitch pine-scruboak banens,Kamer blue butterfly habitat and wetlands, as u'ell as the significanceof potential impact to these habitats, are identifiedin the DGEIS(Section II.D, pp.ll-29rlru II-32). The concemsof the Albany Pine Bush Commissionwith regardto significant impact to the preserve, Full Protection Areas, Partial Protection Areas, open space,and Kamer blue butterfly habitat are sharedby the Town of Colonie.
5. Comment:
TheAlbany Pine BushPreseme Commission provided the Town of Colonie and Clough, Harbour & AssociatesLLP copies of the Findings Slatement and Implementation Guidelines. These Guidelines provide detailed protection recommendationsdesigned to create a Preservethat will meet the minimunt re(luiremenlsnecessary to ensurethe protection of the Albany Pine Bush. In addition, they detail recommendedproject review guidelines. Colonie's GEIS shoulderplicitly recognizethat additional lands within the Town of Colonie are neededfor protection to profide a preserye of the minimum size and coruecl confguration to ensurethe longlerm sunival of the Pine Bush ecosystem,and thefuture ofthe uniqueand endangeredspecies and communitiesin the Albany Pine Bush. Il'e herebyincorporate dnd dttachthe ImplementationGuidelines as part of thesecomments.
Resoonse:
The need to protect additional lands within the Town of Colonie as part ofthe Albany Pine Bush Preserveis recognizedthrough incorporation of the',Vision for the Albany Pine Bush Preserve"(Figure II-D-2) and the mitigation measures providedin DGEIS SectionIl.D (p.ll-30), including the statementon page II-30: AssistAlbany Pine Bush Commissionin their efort to preserve the remaining pieces of the existing and restorablepilch pine-scrub oak barrens to achieltea viable Pine Bush ecosystem.
6. Comment:
For projects in the "Pine Bush Protection Area," early and efective communicalion betweenproject applicants, the Town, and the Pine Bush Commission is critical to finding an appropriate balance between various environmental, social and economic considerations. The attached ImplementationGuidelines recommend a detailedproject review procedure to help the applicants and Colonie addresspotential issuesregarding the Pine Bush. The Commissionrecommends that at the earliestpossible time, applicants be encouragedto contact the Commissionfor conceptual discussions. In an
Clough,Harbour & AssociatesLLP Page ll-5 LishaKill Kings Road Area Comments and Responses FinalGeneric Environmental lmpact Statement tO DGEIS
advisorycdpacity, the Commissioncan then work u,ith the applicant to identify the most appropriate alternalivcs
Resoonse:
The Town of Colonieagrees with this recommendationand incorporatedit into DGEIS SectionII.D 0r.il-30).
7. Comment:
Although the DGEIS includeso brieffour page description of the Pine Bush (pagesII-22 to II-26), the discussionfails to recognizethe relationships among the various communilylypes and the needfor thorough site inventories before a lead agencycan conclusivelydetermine whether or not a rare speciesor habitat is presenl on the site.
Contrary to the DGEIS @ageII-2J and II-26), the inlandpine barrens ecosystem that makesup the Albany Pine Bush provides habitat for speciesprotected by .federallegislation and legalprecedent (Sne the Pine Bush v. 70 N.y.2d 193,518, N.I',5.2d 913, 918 (1987)),ECL Article 16, and the Stateand Federal EndangeredSpecies Acts which, as indicated in the recent US Supreme Court SweetHome v. Babbitt case,prolect both endangeredspecies and their habitat. Additionally, maintenanceof somecommunity types (i.e., wetlands and ravines) thatprovide importantspecies habitat dependson theprotection of the surrounding area to mainlain natural ecological processes (i.e., fre and hydrologic regimes).
Resoonse:
An evaluationof siteecology is recommendedin DGEIS SectionII.D (pp. 30, 32) for areasin or adjacentto the Pine Bush, aswell as for potential project sites in the Study Area in general. The court decisionsprovided in the comment are recognized as additional support for the protection of the Pine Bush and endangeredspecies habitat, a goal sharedby the Town of Colonie.
8. Comment:
With respectIo this discretegeogtaphic area, the DGEIS fails to consider the cumulativeimpact of theproposed expansion of municipal sen,icesand resulting developmenlon the speciesand communitiesthat depend on landscape level processesfor their survival, Per this discussion, the detailed Vegetative Communitiesinformation (figure No. II-D-I) is generally accurate, but should be modifed to include vegetation types on all sizeable, undevelopedareas.
Clough.Harbour & AssociatesLLP Page ll-6 Lisha Kill Kings Road Area Comments and Responses FinalGeneric Environmental lmpact Statement to DGEIS
Currently the map appearsto ignore disturbedvegetation communities such as the agriculturalfelds, large movedlawns (i.e..the Tou'n Golf Course). Although disturbed,these areas stillproyide usefulecological resources such as dispersal corridorsfor wildlife buffer minimizingdisturbance to hydrologic regimes,etc...
Developmentof theseareas will potentially significantly impact their currenl ability to Jitnction as part of the ecological landscape. Therelore, to fail to include both disturbedand natural communitiesseverely limits the ability of the DGEIS to plan for and assessthe impactsof developmentin the study area. The revisedJigure (attached),prepared by StephanieGebauer and Chrtrles Laing, is more consistent v'ith the iryformation we have available. To ignore this informationand the conclusionsin lhe prepardtion of this GEIS would frustrate thepurpose of SEQM.
Resoonse:
The additionalareas of distwbedvegetation communities have been included on the VegetativeCommunities map and providedfollou.ing this page. The DGEIS did not ignorethe presenceofthese lands. They were incorporatedinto the total areaof undevelopedland within the StudyArea. Undevelopedland alsoincluded properties of three acresor greater in size, on which a home currently exists. Therefore,the total areaof impact by potentialdevelopment under the Projected Growth DevelopmentScenario, as identifiedin DGEIS SectionII.D (II.II-29), includesmost of the areasidentified in the comment.
9. Comment:
Unless the DGEIS adequatelyassesses cumulative impacts and proposesfull mitigation of theseimpacts, all future developmentor subdivisionproposals will require a supplementto the GEIS (6NYCRR617.9 (a)(7) in advance of the dpproval ofthe project. Sucha supplementalprutcess would in essencerequire a wholenew SEQM process,including scopingsessions, public hearings,public commentperiod, etc... The SupplementalGEIS would need to be prepared for any project or projects in the Pine Bush south of Route 5 (in the "Pine Bush ProtectionArea") that might haw or contributetowards significant cumulative environmental impactst4,ith regards to the Pine Bush. The DGEIS would take the required hard look at impactson the Pine Bush,and suggestmeans to avoid, minimizeand/or mitigatethose impacts Io appropriately balance environmental considerations.
The Commission'ss ggeststhat now is the legally appropriate and most cost effective time to take this hard look, study alternalive options, and select the dppropriate actions and correspondingmitigation. Such action now could be
Clough,Harbour & AssociatesLLP Page ll-7
Lisha Kill Kings Road Area Commentsand Responses Final Generic Environmentallmpact Statement tO DGEIS
relatively simple (adopt the Commission'sstudy and conclusion) and avoid greater delays,costs and legal problems in thefuture.
Resoonse:
Section II.D of the DGEIS strongly reflects the goals, objectives, and recommendationsof the Albany Pine Bush PreserveCommission's Protection and Project Review Implementation Guidelines. The DGEIS defines the boundariesofthe Pine Bush Preservealong with the Full and Partial Protection Areas ttrough reproductionofthe "Vision for the Albany Pine Bush Preserve." The informationprovided hereinis intendedto clarifu the Town's supportfor the recommendationsin the ImplementationGuidelines.
FiguresII-A-1 and II-A-2 of this FGEIS showareas ofproposed and potential future development.As indicatedin DGEIS SectionII.B (p.II-8),developable land excludesthose areasthat are in public domain or owned by the Narure Conservancy.Furthermore, based on the currentregulatory framework, State and federal wetlands were also excluded. The remaining land may or may not be suitablefor developmentbased on environmentalconditions. This lvill require site specificanalysis when and if developmentis proposed. The purposeof including the Vision for the Albany Pine Bush Preserveis to indicatethose areas which are questionablerelative to potential developmentand will require ecological analysis and mitigation to prevent significant impact to the Albany PineBush ecosystem.
Projectsproposed in the Study Area are illustratedon FCEIS Figure II-A-1 and identifiedin FGEIS TablesII-A-l and II-A-2. Potentialdevelopable Iand is illustratedon FGEIS FigureII-A-2.
Comparisonof FGEIS FiguresII-A-I and II-A-2 with DGEIS FigureII-D-2 revealsa large portion of the developablearea located immediately north and west of the Pine Bush Preserveand alongApollo Drive is recommendedfor full protection. Basedon the conclusionsand recommendationsof the Albany Pine Bush PreserveCommission's Management Plan and ImplementationGuidelines. little or no developmentshould occur in theseareas since the Commission has determined that they contain existing and/or restorable pitch pine-scrub oak barrens,significant wetland, and Kamer blue butterfly habitat. As indicated in the ImplementationGuidelines, the land locatedsouth of Kings Roadand eastof Monis Roadand the land to the north,bounded by Kings Road,Morris Road and the rail road contains existing and restorablepitch pine-scruboak banens. The land north ofthe rail road, eastof Morris Road and south of Albany Streethas beendetermined by the Commissionto be an importantwetland and buffer area. Land in the Apollo Drive areais recognizedas Karner blue butterfly habitat.
Clough,Harbour & AssociatesLLP Pagell-8 z t! = t! ::1< =F = to -,'11,1':l' IJJ = oh 7 i1 q =-= YA {\ o tr= ltl inJ oUJ =a =,i'.H oft o -12 o. o =P tr o. friJo i{,,, tr zUJ oI!
..\
l
o o '') ,.'i., o *ft c\l
o rii ri.i, .J ] O .:'| z ln
PROPOSEDLANDS OF DEVELOPMENT .l i: (REFERTo TABLEII_A-1 AND II_A_2 FORDESCRIPTION OF I ,{ PR0JTCTS) ', E ..\11 I
E o (j' z t E l 'j',,"1a (-? z UJ = ut o ;t< z #F ao \./, 5 .r^,.::lr. 1 UJ oh @ *i o. Eg o o' UJ =s l,rJ =i 'iu)\.*t o rgJ .= S 1Z g =P )i.,: z lrl o o. J(Jf;t E zlrl IIJ 1' (t
,.1 'r. I rl
i\ E'\
-t: l TOwr{ oF Gult$L. L) o ,i'4 o o N
3 .J
(J tn 0EVFIOPAB(E (ANo (ACCORDTNGrO lri1,\ PROJECTEDGROWTH DEVELOPEMEN T t 8 SCENERIO
N t I - '.; \-'r^ tSra\ '\iCzl I ". \tr" G I .. l^c I 2 ..1 EITY SF o .,% z a ALBANY E 1f4,.) l , ,li,l , (, LishaKill Kings Road Area Commentsand Flesponses FinalGeneric Environmental lmoact Statement to DGEIS
FGEISTable II-A-I ProposedResidential Development Lisha Kill - Kings Road Area GEIS SfudyArea
Location Project Location Units Statusr ID
I Lishakill 172Lisha Kill Road 15 Townhouses ReceivedFinal Gardens Approval 2 Meadow 2'772-2792Curry Road I l7 SingleFamily Homes No Status Landing
J Bradt 75 New ShakerRoad 6 SingleFamily Homes Concept Subdivision Acceptarce
4 Cottonwood 267Consaul Road 23 SineleFamilv Homes No Status Estates
5 Heritage 330Consaul & Lisha l6 SingleFamily Homes Concept Manor Kill Road Acceptance
6 South Wind 301Consaul Road 101Single Family Homes No Status Subdivision
7 Oakridge PearseRoad 74 SingleFamily Homes Concept Estates Acceptance
8 Walter Albany Street 5 SingleFamily Homes Final Approval Subdivision
9 Rose Bomer Avenue 35 SingleFamily Homes Final Approval Gardens
10 Consaul \64 & 166Consaul 6 SingleFamily Homes Concept Park Road Acceptance Total Units 466
Additional developableland to the west of Monis Road is designatedas Partial ProtectionArea and is more suitablefor development,providing developmentis sensitive to preservationofopen spaceand Kamer blue butterfly corridors and Pine Bush buffers,as recommended by the Commission.An areaof Kamer blue butterfly habitat is known to exist within the areaofdeveiopable land near the landingstrip (FGEISFigure II-A-3).
CIough,Harbour & AssociatesLLP Pagell-9 c\a 2 trJ = o ul tn fi3 v ghao Oy oh { \ 5XE= tn- .,J il", =a =,i \\ r'.. llJ =d 1Z=P
EtJo E o UJ l| tl z ]U (9
t (..,,
\i
4.2. ').
= TOWSI0F GUILDHRLAf{D q
I tli tr
o 8 ll ] z z OCCUPIEDSITE q
. F-) ./ I = f l lirlrt ; o E z 6 z , (Y l 2 h (J U- Lisha Kill Kings Road Area Comments and Responses FinalGeneric Environmental lmpact Statement to DGEIS
FGEISTable II-A-2 ProposedCommercial/Industrial Development LishaKill - KingsRoad Area GEIS StudyArea
Locafion Project Location SquareFootage Status ID Proposed
11 United Tree Service 1017Kings Road 3.600 Final Approval
t2 Blal' Martial Arts 1053Kings Road 3,060 Final Approval Studio
13 RetailBuilding 2060Central 4.800 Concept Avenue Acceptance RetailShopping Center 2220Central 9,180 Concept Avenue Acceptance
15 Portland Concrete 145/140Cordell New cement silo Recently Cement Road constructed Plant (expansion)
16 WholesaleBusiness 4253Albany Concept Street Acceptance
17 NewHope Gospel 1224Kings Road 12,500 Concept Fellowship Acceptance Total 369,432 SiteDevelopmenr Approval for non-residentialdevelopment is valid for two years the date of issuanceand may be extendedfrom one additionalyear upon requestof the applicant
The Town recogrizesand supports the recommendationsof the Implementation Guidelines,the EndangeredSpecies Act, and recentcourt decisions,as identified in Comment A. Portions of properties that support endangeredspecies, specifically Karner blue butterflies, would be afforded protection under these rulings. It may be furtherdetermined that other areasadjacent to the habitat are necessaryfor the survival ofthe habitat and would also be afforded protection. However, the amount of Iand protectedby the EndangeredSpecies Act would haveto be determinedthrough site specific analysis.
Based on this rationale and the fact that the land in question is under private ownership, it was determined by the Town that the land be included as potentially developablefor the purposesofidentifying future potential impacts on the community ard on the physical environment. However, the Town recognizesthat it is unlikely that significant development will occur in areas
Clough,Harbour & AssociatesLLP Pagell-10 LishaKill Kings Road Area Commentsand Responses FinalGeneric Environmental lmDact Statement to DGETS
designatedfor Full Protection and the Town will strive to achieve the goals, objectives and recommendations of the Albany Pine Bush Preserve Commission'sManagement Plan and ImplementationGuidelines.
In recognition of private land ounership and the potential for development of thoselands, site specific and cumulative impactsto the Pine Bush will occur if no mitigation is employed. If all developable land occurring within Full ProtectionAreas are fully developed,approximately 300 acresofFull Protection Area would be lost. Potentially, if this scenariois realized,it could representa significant impact to the suwival of pitch pine-scrub oak barrens community and Kamer blue butterfly habitat. The cumulativeimpact would be severeand would significantly hinder the goal of achieving 2,000 fire manageableacres of pitch pine-scruboak barrens.
In addition to directly impacting existing and restorablepitch pine-scrub oak barrens,the location of some developmentin the Full Protection Areas could hinder fire management. Without this practice, other climax plant and tree species will overtake the Pine Bush and eliminate this community. The fragmentationofhabitat would also eliminatelinkage between butterfly colonies, which is recognizedto be critical to their survival.
Gimish et al (1988) indicatesthat the Karner blue butterfly needsat least 1,000 acresofhabitat to enswe long-term persistencedue to the ephemeralnature of wild lupine populationsunder natural conditions. The minimum of 1,000 acres would permit greaterfire frequency,which is necessaryto provide an adequate numberofearly successionalpatches within the Pine Bush that are conducive to wild lupine. Basedon currentknowledge ofdispersal ofthe butterfly, Givnish et al (1988) suggeststhat dispersalcan only occur though pitch pine-scrub oak barrens.along right-of-ways, and along sand roads. Therefore, the potential cumulativeimpact of developmentin Full ProtectionAreas could significantly reduce the chance of survival of the Kamer blue butterfly metapopulation. Developmentof landsto the west of Morris Roadand southof Kings Road could significantly impact the Kamer blue butterfly habitat in that areaif mitigation is not considered.
Mitigation guidelineshave beenestablished to prevent significant impact to the Albanl' Pine Bush and Kamer blue butterfly habitat. These guidelines were identified in DGEIS Section II.D (p.II-30) for projects in Full and Partial ProtectionAreas and include:
encouragingthe land owner in Full ProtectionA-reas to sell the property for inclusion in the Preserve, early consultationwith the Albaay Pine Bush Planning Commission to addresssite constraintsand desisn considerations.
Clough,Harbour & AssociatesLLP Pagell-11 Lisha Kill Kings Road Area Commentsand Responses FinalGeneric Environmental lmpact Statement tO DGEIS
evaluationof site designaltematives that will preservesignificant areas and avoid fragmentationof habitat, recognitionof fire managementareas to provide sufficient buffers. requiringecological studies to clearlydefine potential impact to the Pine Bush and Kamer blue butterfly habitatand mitigation to avoid/minin.rize impact, and potential establishmentof transferof developmentrights.
The Town recognizesthe use of mitigation costsfor impact to the Pine Bush as a potentialmeans ofassisting in the purchaseof Pine Bush land. The Town is alsoconsidering the establishmentofa ConservationDistrict overlayfor Preserve landsand Full ProtectionAreas.
10. Comment:
The Commissionrecommends that the DGEIS call for the adoption of a Tou,n policy and zoning overlayfor the ImplementalionGuideline's "Pine Bush ProtectionArea" that requiresa 1594(compared to lhe usual 35o/o) green space for landszoned commercial, industrial and residential. Somethought should be giyen lo the design and location of this green spoce, to minimize potential ncgut ire envi ronme nl al i mpact s.
Resoonse:
The Town recognizesthat an increasein the minimum open spacerequirement for areaswithin the Pine Bush ProlectionArea would be beneficialto this area. The DGEIS recognizesthat site layout shouldbe carefully considered,especially in the PineBush ProtectionArea. Mitisation measuresare discussedin DGEIS SectionII.D (p.II-30).
11 . Comment:
The Town of Colonie has been a advocatefor lhe use of native speciesfor landscaping developedarea By landscapingwilh native species,developed areas canprovide ecological refuges,enhance or provide dispersal corridors and reduce invasive speciesproblems on Presen,e lands by reducing the frequency of exotic and/or weedy species in the surrounding area. The Commissionrecommends that the Town of Colonie encouragethe useof native speciesby requiring they be usedto landscapefuture project siteslocated within the "AlbanyPine Bwh Project ReviewArea" (except.forfoundation plantings). The Commissioncan provide a list ofrecommendedpine barrens species.
Clough, Harbour& AssociatesLLP Page ll-1 2 LishaKill Kings Boad Area Commentsand Besponses FinalGeneric Environmental lmpact Statement to DGEIS
Resoonse:
DGEIS Section II.D (p.ll-30) promotes the development of a planting lisr of native species.The Town of Colonie welcomesany assistancethe Albany pine Bush PreserveCommission is willing to provide in this regard.
12. Comment:
The DGEIS indicatesproposed improvementsto utilities, water, seu,er, and transportationfacilities will facilitate future development. The DGEIS goes on to recognizethot future growth and developmentv)ithin the study will adversel! impact the plants, animals and natural communitiesof the Albany Pine Bush. The DGEIS ofers proposals and suggestssubstantial beneJicialmitigation in consideration of the impacts of the projected developmentscenario on trffic, parl As one example,several of the trafrc improvementsrecommended as part of the DGEIS (i.e.,New Karner Road,Albany Street,CordeLl Roqd to Lisha Kill Road conneclor and potentisl Cordell Road Extension)u,ill directly ffict the Pine Bush by further fragmenting the area, destroying ecological resources and eliminating thepossibility of completing a Preservethat protects a viable Pine Bush ecosystem(see scientifc reports cited in the Implemenlation Guidelines regarding fragmentation, attached 1995 leuer from Dr. Givnish and relevanl court decisions). Thereis no meaning;fuldiscussion of theseimpacts on the Pine Bush, or suggestionsofa meansto avoid, minimize or mitigate these impacts. (Seemore detailed commentsunder additional comments.) Response: With regard to general development, the provision of utilities and road improvementsare the result of the determinationof the projected growth within the Study Area over the next 20 years. The Town is by no means promoting these improvementsin an effort to increasedevelopment. Such improvements would occur as a result of development proposals within the Study Area. Therefore,the impactsof growth (i.e., vegetationlost due to development)have been accountedfor in the estimateof total development. Mitigation measures provided in DGEIS SectionII.D (p.II-30 thru II-32) recognize the significance Clough, Harbour & AssociatesLLP Pagell-13 LishaKill Kings Road Area Comments and Responses FinalGeneric Environmental lmpact Statement tO DGEIS ofthe Albany PineBush and the goalsand objectives ofthe Albany pine Bush PreserveCommission. The CordellRoad-Lisha Kill Roadconnector, discussed in DGEIS SectionII.H (p.II-74), was providedas an alternativeto extensiveimprovements to existing roads and intersectionsand to addressthe existing problem of truck traffrc throughresidential areas. Potentialenvironmenlal impacts relative to Stateand federal wetlands locatednorth of the Conrail tracks were identified @.II_77). Considerableenvironmental review and siting work would be necessan,before any suchconnector road is constructed. While potentialinrpacts associated with the fragmentationof an areadesignated by the Albany PineBush Preserve Commission as a Full ProtectionArea (DGEIS Figure II-D-2) werenot specificallymentioned, it is recognizedthat constmction of a new roadcould furtherfragmenl wildlife habitatin the area,and impede the dispersal and migration of u'ildlife. Furthermore, it should be nored that constructionof the CordellRoad - Lisha Kill CorurectorRoad combinedwith the constructionofthe potentialCordell Road extensioncould result in a cumulative impact on the Albany PineBush becauseit would fragmenthabitat within partial and Full ProtectionAreas. These improvementsshould then be carried out in compliance with the recommendedmitigation guidelines as outlined by the Commissionand identiiredon Page II-30 of the DGEIS. Short of these measures,construction ofthese roads may requirethe Town to acquireadditional Iandsfor inclusion in the Presen'eto adequatelymitigate potential irnpacts. The Town ofColonie agreeswith the concemsregarding protection of the Pine Bush and the goals and objectives of the Albany Pine Bush Preserve Commission. It is agreedthat the constructionof the Cordell Road-Lisha Kill CorurectorRoad and Cordell Road Extensionmay result in significant adverse impact to the Pine Bush and should be reviewed carefully pursuant to the recommendationsof the ImplementationGuidelines. Currently, the location of the road connectoris purely conceptual. It is the Town's intent to comply with the recommendationsof the lmplementationGuidelines, however, it is also the Town's obligation to weigh the potential impactsto the Pine Bush against the project benefitsand the health,safety and welfare ofthe community, as well as an evaluationof feasiblealtematives. 13. Comment: The Chapteron " UnavoidableAdverse Environmental Impacts" (VI-I and VI-2) fails to take the required hard look at potential impacts. The DGEIS describes that "large tracks of vacant open space, brush and forested land would be altered as a result of projected future development. Parcels undergoing developmentwill result in an unqvoidableincrease in land useintensity" Ul-l). Clough.Harbour & AssociatesLLP Page ll-14 Lisha Kill Kings Road Area Comments snd Responses Final Generic Environmentallmpact Statement to DGEIS The DGEIS goes on to recognizethat "future deuelopmentin the Study Area would require the removal of existing vegetation which in turn may displace wildlife... It is anticipdted that commonanimal specieswould be disrupted as a result offuture development...Mortality rates may increase..." (Page VI-I) Response: DGEIS SectionVI (pp. VI-l,2) clearlyindicates that therewill be an unavoidable lossofvegetation/habitat, among other resources, as a result ofnew development. The level of analysisis sufficientfor a land usestudy. Mitigation/guidelines for evaluatingsite specificprojects are provided in DGEIS SectionII. The amount of potentially developableland, as determinedin the DGEIS (Section II.B), excludedlands that are currently preservedas open spaceand wetlandsthat are State and federally regulated. The remaining lands have varying degreesof development potential. This is recognized in the DGEIS through mitigation/developmentguidelines, particularly for the Full and PartialProtection Areas associatedwith the Albany Pine Bush. The Town alsorecognizes, however, that with the exceptionofTown-owned and other publicly owned properties, the majority of land is privately owned. Proposalsfor developmentmay occur in envirorunentally sensitive areasand development may occur in these areas,however there are measures(DGEIS Section II) that can be taken to prevent or mitigate potential signihcant environmental impacts. Furthermore, the projected development under the Projected Growth Development Scenario is approximately half of the total potential developablearea within the Study Area. Development of previously undevelopedlands will impact the existing site conditions. This is an unavoidableimpact of development,wherever it occurs. The significance of this impact on a site level will have to be evaluated as proposalsare brought forth. Ifthe projectscannot meet the mitigation/guidelines providedin the DGEIS, firther SEQR actionmay be required,depending on the significanceof the impact(s). 14. Comment: Finally, the sectionon "Topography,Geolog,, and Soils" details at great length the "Soils with severelimitations for development" (Figure No. II-C-3) and " Potential ConsrructionConstraints" (lable n-C-l,from the SCS,1992). State regulated wetlands are mapped (II-D-3) as are potential federally regulated ytetlandsQI-D-4) Although the DGEIS recognizedthat "a standard condition of nearly all State and Federal wetlandpermits is that wetland lossesmust be mitigated with a comparableamounl of createdwetland" (pageII-8), the DGEIS goes on to say lhat this does not preclude, the disturbance and destruction of Clough,Harbour & AssociatesLLP Pagell-'15 LishaKill Kings Boad Area Commentsand Responses FinalGeneric Environmental lmpact Statement to DGEIS thesewetland and related Pine Bush resources. The GEISfails to take ahard lookat the impactsassociated u,ith developingon soils with "severelimitations for development." Besoonse: The DGEIS (SectionII.C) providesa thoroughanalysis of soil limitations, potentialimpacts and mitigation.as appropriatefor a community level planning analysis.The DGEIS providesa graphicillustration of potentialfederal and State regulated wetlands and the Visionfor the Albany Pine Bush Preserve. This information was provided to guide the development community to avoid significantimpacts to wetlandsand the Pine Bush and to avoid conflicts in land use. Mitigation/guidelinesare provided in DGEIS SectionII.D (pp.II-30-32)to guide the Town in their review of future projectsand to inform the development communityof the level of revieu'.coordination, analysis and mitigation that will be necessaryfor a given location. However, regardlessof the planning efforts undertakenby the Town and the Albany Pine Bush Preserve Commission, applications for site plan revieu', rezoning, special permit, etc., that include impac! to wetlandsand Pine Bush resourcesmay be brought forth to the Town. Potential impacts to wetlald and Pine Bush resourcesshould be significantly limited throughimplementation of mitigation/guidelinesprovided in the DGEIS, the implementationGuidelines, federal and Stateregulations, and recent court cases. 15. Gomment: Destruction of or "rearranging" wetlands lo achieve "no net loss" will adverselyimpact Pine Bushcommunities by altering hydrologicprocesses among Pine Bush communities. The DGEIS proposes no new action to protect or mitigate impacts to these v)ater resources,while proposing developmentand infrastructure changesthat y,ill negativelyimpact water resources. Response: As discussedin DGEIS SectionII.D (p. II-31), most of the wetland areawithin the Pine Bush is State regulatedand designatedClass I. Since Class I is the highest and best classificationin the Statesystem, projects occurring in these wetlands are expected to be reviewed thoroughly by the State. Wetland mitigation (creation) implied in the comment cannot be considereduntil it is proventhat altemativeswhich will not result in wetiand impact are not feasible. Furthermore,the State and federal govemmentsare required to comply with federalendangered species legislation. Therefore,the Ievel of review provided through State and federal regulations and supplemented by the mitigation/guidelines provided in the DGEIS and in the Implementation Clough,Harbour & AssociatesLLP Pagell-16 Lisha Kill Kings Road Area Commentsand Responses Final Generic Environmentallmpact Statement ro DGETS Guidelineswill result in the best oppoftunity to protect wetland and Pine Bush resources,short of acquisition. With regard to developmentand infrastructureimprovements. The DGEIS ,,to clearly indicates in Section I @. I-2) that the purpose of the DGEIS is evaluate development related impacts, ald ensurethat growth proceeds in a mannersensitive to environmentaland socioeconomicresources. " The Town is by no meanspromoting developmentor infrastructureimprovements. Future development and subsequentimprovements will result primarily from private developmentproposals. 16. Comment: Furthermore, the Commission is unable to understand why the DGEIS recommendsmitigalion in many area within the scopeof the DGEIS, but that no mitigation program is analyzed or proposedfor the Pine Bush area. If for example the DGEIS identiJiesas an alternalive transportdtion improvement mitigation costs (fable II-H-6) of8405 per residential dv,elling unit, S).09/sq. ft. for commercial and .33/sq.ft. for industrial, (which in some cases could be tensof thousandsofdollars in appropriate mitigation,per acre); u,hy are there no alternatives including mitigation fees for Pine Bush development? This random application of mitigation appears to be arbitrary and capricious. Resoonse: The Town recognizesthat a mitigation cost for the loss of Pine Bush lands may be appropriate and that such mitigation costs are being used in other municipalities. 17. Comment: Although the GEIS recognizesthat impacts will occur, it fails to recognize, analyze or addressin any \eay one or more signifcant environmental impacts associatedwith projects such as: L the destructionofexisting or restorablePine Bush habitat, 2. impact Io greater than I acre ofwetlands (evenifno net impact); 3. impoct to lhe polentiol contiguity betvveenprotected and potentially protected Pine Bush lands and populations of Pine Bush species; f. impacts to lands important as buffer to existing or potential Pine Bush Presen e Lands: and 5. impact to signifcant environmentalresources, including populations of the Karner blue bullerflv. Clough,Harbour & AssociatesLLP Pagell-17 Lisha Kill Kings Road Area Comments and Responses FinalGeneric Environmental lmpact Statement to DGEIS "future As a result, as mentionedunder SEQR4 actions" comments,{ony of thesefve criteria apply to a future project, ro(rdway or eflension of water or sewerservices, a DGEIS will be legally required. Resoonse: Each of the items listed in the comment are addressedin DGEIS Section II-D (pp.lI-29 thru II-32) either directly or tfuough referenceto the Implementation Guidelines. It is clearly indicated in the mitigation/development guidelines (pp.il-30 thru II-32) that proposeddevelopment in the Pine Bush should undergo thorough revieq'to preservePine Bush habitat, including wetland delineation. habitat evaluation.and consultationwith the Albany Pine Bush Commission. Mitigation/developmentguidelines for projectsoccurring within the Albanv pine Bush Review Area comedirectly from the ImplementationGuidelines. as clearly referencedon p. II-30. The Town recognizes that projects which are unable to comply with the mitigation/developmentguidelines provided in DGEIS SectionII.D, may require further review under SEQR. Hoq,ever,it should be noted that non-compliance with the DGEIS mitigation/developmentguidelines does not automatically requirethe preparation ofa sitespecific EIS. In fact,it is the legalobligation of the Town to categorizethe projectas Type I, Type II or Unlisted, establishLead Agency,and determinethe significanceof theproject (6 NYCRR 617.6). 18. Comment: Additionally, no mitigation is suggestedand no alternativesare presented that include a reasonablebalance or mitigation with regards to the unique and endangeredAlbany Pine Bush. It is not sufrcient Io state " Certain impacts,such as those affecting wildlife, historic or archaeological resourcesor the isual environment,fot' example,can be difficult to mitigate. Efective mitigation to lessenthis impact would likely be a challenging taskfor those involved in such projects" (pa4e IV-I) and abandon any attempt to offer suggestionsfor any meaningt'ulmitigation. Thisfrustrales the intent of SEQM. Resoonse: The portion of DGEIS SectionIV quotedin the commentis meantto suggestthat any development will have some impact on the landscape,which includes ecology, visual resources,and cultural resources. This is unavoidable, as discussedin DGEIS SectionVI. However,the significanceof the impact can be controlledthrough mitigation measwes.These measures are identified in Section II. of the DGEIS. Clough,Harbour & AssociatesLLP Page ll-18 Lisha Kill Kings Road Area Commentsand Responses FinalGeneric Environmentallmpact Statement to DGEIS 19. Comment: In summary,the DGEIS appearsto.fail to satisfycore requirementof SEQLA by neglecting to take a "hard look" at this area's grot'th and the impact of that growth on completion of the Albany Pine Bush Preserve. This includes a hard lookat potential impacts,and suggestionsof how to oroid, minimize or mitigate expectedimpacts on existing and restorable elementsof the Albany Pine Bush. This also includes,consistenl y,ith SEQR"4,impacts on thepotential ofcreating a viable Pine Bush Preserve. Because the Generic Environmental Impact Statementfor an area of the Pine Bush doesn'tpropose full mitigation for the impactsofprojected grou,th, it appearsto be legally Jlau'ed. Resoonse: Mitigation measues for potentialdevelopment in the Albany Pine Bush Review Area,taken directly from the implementationGuidelines. are provided in DGEIS SectionII.D (p.II-30). It is specificallyrecommended that futuredevelopment in this area coordinatewith the Albany Pine Bush Commissionand avoid significant impact to the Pine Bush, wetlands,and endangeredspecies habitat. These recommendationsare in full compliancewith the intent of SEQR. The mitigation recommendationsprovide generalguidance for developers,such as designconsiderations and requiredsite analysis. Specific mitigation will result from the specific impactsofeach developmentproposal. 20. Comment: In response to the Court's decision, the city adopted a variety of mitigative measuresin a revisedsite plan review law and zoning overlayfor the Pine Bush that requires a 45oi (comparedto the usual 35%o)green space set aside. In addition, the developersin the City pay afee set by the city (currently 515,500 per acre)for er)eryacre of existing or restorablePine Bush destroyed. Thefee is used Io purchase ofsetting acreage, resulting in "no-net-loss" and full miligation of the projects impacts, when combined with other measures. As 's currentlydrafied, the Colonie DGEIS is inconsistentwith Albany's mitigation progranl. Basedon legalprecedenl, Ihe Commissionrecommends that, whilepreparing the GEISfor this whole area, the Town oJColonieto take the opportunityto produce a legally sound and guiding documenlby: a) taking the requiredhard look at impactsofdevelopment on the Pine Bush and the eventualsize o{the Pine Bush Preser-ve,and Clough, Harbour & AssociatesLLP Pagell-19 Lisha Kill Kings Road Area Comments and Responses FinalGeneric Environmental lmpact Statement to DGETS b) pulting in place a meansof protecting additional pine Bush resources (or example,Ihe recommendationfor mitigation lo pay for development of additionalparlu, and improvementsto existingparks needsshould be extendedto thePine Bush Preserve.The Preserve provides an important passiverecreational, education and open space opportunity to Colonie. A.t the lown grows, so u,ill the demandfor use of the presene. To accommodatethis, in a manner that doesn't compromisethe ecological integrity of the Pine Bush, more lands need to be purchased and protected. The recommendationof mitigation per unit to support expansionof ParL; shouldbe doubledto include mitigdtion lo go rou)ards the acquisitionofadditional Pine Bushparcels, from willing sellers, and c) putting in ploce signifcant mitigationfor projects that destrol exi.rting or restorablePine Barrens resources,and impact the Albany Pine Bush and managementof rhe Albany Pine Bush Preserve. Resoonse: The Town recognizesthat an increasein the minimum open spacerequirement for areaswithin the Pine Bush ProtectionArea would be beneficial to this area. The Tou.nalso recognizes that a mitigation cost for the loss of Pine Bush lands may be appropriateand that such mitigation costs are being used in other municipalities. However. the recommendationprovided in the cornment to doublethe mitigationcost associated with providingrecreation facilities is not justifiable. The recreation mitigation costs were determined based on the recreationneeds of the future residential population as estimated under the ProjectedGroMh DevelopmentScenario. Any increasein the mitigation cost would haveto bejustified basedon establishedrecreation standards for a given DoDulation. Mitigationmeasures for the Albany PineBush ReviewArea are providedin DGEISSection II.D. 21 . Comment: TheCommission recommends that Colonierezone Pine Bushlands recommended for "full protection" in the Pine Bush Commission's 1996 FEIS to " Land ConservationDistricts" to emphasizethe need to protect the viability of the Albany Pine Bush. An example of this being successful in the Pine Bush is the 1988Village of Colonie GEIS which applied o "Conservation" zone to certain lands. In that case,lhe rezone served, in part, to mitigate the impact of the approeal and cumulative negative environmental impact of commercial developmentin anotherlocation. Suchzoning should require a 50ohset asidefor conservatnnDurDoses. Clough,Harbour & AssociatesLLP Pagell-2O LishaKill Kings Road Area Commentsand Responses FinalGeneric Environmental lmpact Statement to DGEIS Resoonse: The Town recognizesthat an increasein the minimum open spacerequirement for areaswithin the Pine Bush ProtectionArea would be beneficial to this area. 22. Comment: In addition, the GEIS should suggesta realistic means to provide Town funds to complementresources from the New YorkState Environmental Protection Fund, the Albany Pine BushPreseme Commission, The Nature Conservancyand other potential sourcesto fund theprotection oftheselands in cooperalion with willing sellers. Resoonse: Mitigationcosts for developmentthat results in the lossof PineBush lands may be appropriateand may be usedto assistin thepurchase ofadditional Pine Bush lands. TheTown recognizesthat suchmitigation costs are being used in other municipalities. 23. Comment: Conservation zoning can also alleviate potential adjacent land use conflicts regarding the Albany Pine Bush Preserve. On page II-13 it is stated that, with regards Io Adjacent Land Use Conflicts, that "The area along Curry Road, northwest of the Pine Bush Preserve would have the greatest potential :t'or conflicts. ThePine BushPreserve precludes development and is compatiblewith adjacentlanduse." Wile it appearsthat the DGEIS considersthe Preserveas not creating a conflict with adjacent land uses,it is not clear if the DGEIS recognizesthat the referencedadjacent land usemay not be compatible with the Pine BushPreserve. Some adjacent land usesare not compatibleteith protection of the Pine Bush andfre managementof the Pine Bush Presene. Consenationzoning could also be usedlogether with a transfer of development rightsplan. This idea is mentionedbut notfully explored or included in any of the alternatives. Such a planning mechanismhas been developedin the Long Island Pine Barrens ecosystemand in other municipalities in the State. It potentiallyprovides a planning tool that could assistv,ith mitigotion of impacts on lhe Pine Bush. Thereis eventhe potential that it could eventually be applied at an inter-municipal level. Becauseof thispotential, it deservesmnre serious considerationas a part ofan alternative. Clough,Harbour & AssociatesLLP Pagell-21 Lisha Kill Kings Road Area Comments and Responses Final GenericEnvironmental lmoact Statement tO DGEIS Resoonse: The statement on page Il-13 of the DGEIS refers to land use in adjacent municipalities. Lands adjacentto the Pine Bush Preservewithin the Town of Guilderlandare additional preserve lands and residentialdevelopment. Conllicts associatedwith fire managementare addressedin DGEIS SectionII-D tr.ll-30). The Town recognizestransfer of developmentrights as potential method of preservingPine Bush lands. 24. Comment: Additional concernsregarding lhe Karner blue butterflv; As indicated in the commentfrom the NYSDEC Region I Wildlfe Unit, the section on rare and endangeredspecies has a numberof inadequacieswhich shouldbe rectifed. The DGEIS does not address,for etample, the work of the New York State Karner blue butterfly recoveryleam. Key to the successof this protection effort is the protection ofpopulationsof the butterJlyin Colonie, and maintaining an ability for the protected populations to be linked to one another. To comply with SEQRA and the EndangeredSpecies Act, the DGEIS should acknowledgeand identify the occupiedor formerb) occupied Karner blue sites in and near the study area. Proposalsshould be made to ensureprotection of thesesites, and linkagesbetween the sites and the Albany Pine Bush Preserve, The GEISdoes state that lan* classifed as Pine Bush Habitat by the NYSDEC EndangeredSpecies Unit would be considered,as with State wetlands,as lands that will not be developedin the "Projected Development Scenario. " But given the various utility and infrastructure improvementsproposed, developmentwill be proposed in thesesensitive areas in the next tr4)entyyears. Therefore, the GEIS should look at potential impactsfrom that developmentand suggest alternativesand methodsto minimize and mitigatepotential impacts. Resoonse: The DGEIS recognizesthe significanceof Kamer blue butterfly habitat and its statusas an endangeredspecies (p.Ii-29). Furthermore,recommendations have been made to avoid destructionof this habitat throueh identification and site designmeasures (p.II-32). In general,NYSDEC provides information on rare, threatenedand endangered specieswith the understandingthat it will not be sharedwith the generalpublic. The location of these specieswas not specifically identified in the DGEIS becausethe NYSDEC requested that the information remain confidential. However, after discussionwith the NYSDEC, it is possibleto provide general Clough,Harbour & AssociatesLLP Pagell-22 LishaKill KingsRoad Area Comments and Responses FinalGeneric Environmental lmpact Statement tO DGEIS locationsof habitat,which can be usedto determines'here more detailedhabitat analysisand site designmitigation shouldbe considered.These general areas are not provided to representareas restricted from all development. FGEIS Figure II-A-3, illustratesthe occupiedand formerly occupiedKamer blue butterfly sites within and adjacentto the Study Area. As shownofFigure II-A-3, the majority ofsites are locatedadjacent to the Study Area in the Torw of Guilderlandand the City of Albany, A formerly occupied site is locatedwithin the Pine Bush Preservein the Study Area and, therefore,is protectedfrom future development.The two occupiedsites (existing habitat) are not currentlywithin the Preserve,however. The site along New Kamer Road is within an area designatedin the implementationGuidelines as full Protection Area. The occupied site in the easternportion of the Study Area is within the Partial ProtectionArea designation. As indicatedon pageII-32 of the DGEIS,mitigation for developmentthat may occur in the vicinity of Kamer Blue Butterfly Habitat within the Study Area would site ecology evaluation and habitat identification, consultation with NYSDEC and the Albany Pine Bush Commission,and site designconsiderations that preservehabitat and prevent fragmentationofhabitat, both on and adjacent to the site. With regard to general development,the provision of utilities and road improvementsare the resultof the determinationof the projected growth within the Study Area over the next 20 years. The Town is by no meanspromoting theseimprovements in an effort to increasedevelopment. Such improvements would occur as a result of development proposals within the Study Area. Therefore,the impactsof growh (i.e., vegetationlost due to development)have been accountedfor in the estimateof total development. Mitigation measures provided in DGEIS SectionII.D (p.Il-30 thru ll-32) recognizethe significance ofthe Albany Pine Bush and the goals and objectivesof the Albany Pine Bush PreserveCommission, 25. Comment: More specificconcerns regarding .gpecLfic transportation imorovements proposed as miligation measures: As mentioned above, some of the transportation improl)ementsproposed have thepotential to havesignificant negative impacts on the Pine Bush. Specifcally, as indicatedin the commentletler.from NYSDEC Region 4 lYildlife Unft: New Karner Road: The wideningof Route 155would hcwepr ential negative impacts on Karner blue butterfly populations which exist immediatelyalong the road. In addition, if this road is widened,it may Clough,Harbour & AssociatesLLP Pagell-23 Lisha Kill Kings Road Area Comments and Responses FinalGeneric Environmental lmpact Statement to DGEIS credte a substantial barrier to butterfly movement between preserve Lands on either side of the road. Albanv Street to Central AvenueService Road: This proposctl u,ould impactstate and potential.federal wetlands, and lands that the pine Bush Commissionhas recommendedforprotection as pine Bush becausetheir protection is critical Lisha Kill Road to Cordell Connector; As above, this proposal would agdin impoct rretlandsand the PineBush. As above,the impactsof such a road are subslantialand contraty to theprotection ofwetlands and the AlbanyPine Bush. CordellRoad Extension; This extensionwould also impact wetlands,and creote qn additional barrier to linkage and movementof Karner blue butlerflies betweenthe Curry Road site and the Pine Bush preserye Response: The ProiectedGrowth DevelopmentScenario, as defined in the DGEIS, is an estimateofthe amountand type ofdevelopmentthat lqay occur in the StudyArea over the next 20 years. This is equivalentto approximatelyone halfofthe total potentialbuildout in the SrudyArea basedon the availability ofdevelopableland (DGEIS SectionII.B, p.ll-8). Potentialimpacts and mitigationwere evaluared based on the potential growth. With this information, the Town is able to monitorgrowth and its cumulativeimpact. With regardto roadway impacts, the GEIS provides sufficient information to monitor traffic impactson a project by project basis. As traffic volume increases nearthe tluesholdfor road widening and other significant mitigation, the Town can then evaluate the potential impact of the roadway mitigation on other environmental resources.such as signihcant ecological communities. The mitigation and guidelines establishedin DGEIS Section II.D will appl-vto roadwayand other infrastructurework, including thorough considerationofthe Albany Pine Bush Preserve Commission's Protection and Project Review ImplementationGuidelines. Specific mitigation measuresin accord with the mitigation guidelinesprovided in the DGEIS wil.l be provided at a point in time when road improvementsare being considered,prior to the need adsing. The impactsprovided in the commentare noted and will be carefully considered. New Kamer RoadIt shouldbe notedthat widening of New Kamer Road was not proposed as a mitigation measurefor the Lisha Kill - Kings Road DGEIS. Widening of the Road was proposed in the Capital District Transportation Committee's TransportationImprovement Program. It was included in the DGEIS becauseit is assumedthat it will be completedin the next severalyears, and the analysisof future traffrc patternsshould recognize it. Clough,Harbour & AssociatesLLP Pagell24 LishaKill Kings Road Area Commentsand Responses FinalGeneric Environmental lmpact Statement tO DGEIS In regards to the potential environmental impacts widening ofthe road could have on the Preserve,it is recognized that the project has the potential to adversely impact the Preserve,if completedin a mamer inconsistentwith the goals ofthe Commission. If the project required substantialwidening ofthe road, resultingin a disruptionofthe linkage betweenthe Preserveon either side of the road, this could affect the viability ofthe Preserve. The impact could be further compoundedif the other road improvements,including the Lisha Kill- Cordell Road ConnectorRoad and the Cordell Road Extension, are completed. Cumulatively, theseroad improvementscould result in adverseimpact to the Preserveif not designedard constructedin accordancewith recommendations of the Commission. The specific impact the road could have on the Preserveis anticipated to be evaluatedin detail as part of the New Karner Road Environmental/Engineering Study,to be underiakenby CDTC. NYSDOT and the Commission- The purpose of the repo( will be to examinethe relationshipbetween the highway system in the Pine Bush and the ecosystemof the Pine Bush. The study is expectedto explore, in generalterms, feasible design altemativesthat would addressthe traffic issuesthat exist in the Pine Bush while enhancins the intesritv of the Preserve. As far aspotential altematives to preventadverse impact to the Pine Bush, it may be possible to complete the widening of New Kamer without the addition of significantpavement. The existingwidth of the road may make it possibleto add an additionaltravel lane by restripingthe existingpavement. New pavementmay then only be required in a few specific areas for tuming lanes and other improvements.Consequently, if widening was completedin this mamer, traffic concernscould be addressedwithout affecting the integrity ofthe Preserve. Albanv Streetto Central Avenue ServiceRoad - Developmentof this potential service road would not require the construction of a new but upgrade of an existing road. Therefore,it shouldnot adverselyimpact wetland or be in contrast to the goals of the Commission. The road improvementswould require only minimal if any selectiveclearing ofvegetation adjacent to the existing road. It would not result in the additional fragmentationof habitat becauseconstruction would be limited to a previously disturbedarea. Cordell Road- Lisha Kill Connector- As discussedin the DGEIS, construction of this road could impact a substantial amount of wetland. A conservative estimate, basedon the conceptualalignment of the road, is approximately 10 acresof wetland would be impactedby the constructionofthis road. The road would cross important wetland habitat within an area designated as Full Protection by the Commission. Design and construction of the road should proceedin a mannerconsistent with recommendedmitigation measuresset forth Clough,Harbour & AssociatesLLP Pagell-25 LishaKill Kings Boad Area Commentsand Responses FinalGeneric Environmental lmDact Statement tO DGEIS by the Commission. If necessary,mitigation in the form of acquisition of Iand for inclusionin the Preserveshould be pursued. PotentialCordell Road Extension- It is recognizedthat the Cordell Road extensionwould crosswetland and potential Pine Bush Habitatif constructed. Similarlyto the CordellRoad - LishaKill Connector.the roadwould fragment habitat and provide direct as well as cumulativeimpact on the preserveif conducted in conjunction u'ith other road improvements. Design and constructionof the road should proceed in a mamer consistenr with recommendedmitigation measures of the Commission_If necessary.mitigation in the form ofacquisition ofland for inclusionin the Preserveshould be pursued. 26. Comment: Correction to Figure II-B-2 This fgure shows land.sprotected by public ownershipand The Nature Conseryanqt. The attached map shows the correct confguration of theseIands. Response: The commentis noted. The conectionis providedon FGEIS FigureII-B-2. 27, Comment: Giventhe preparation of the recentmost up to date Implementation Guidelines, the FGEIS should limit its reliance on the Albany Pine Bush Preserve ManagementPlan (AlbanyPine Bush PreserveCommission, 1993; please note theproper citation). Resoonse: Both the ManagementPlan and the ImplementationGuidelines are cited in the DGEIS and were utilized in its preparation. Based on conversationswith the Albany Pine Bush Preserve Commission, the Implementation Guidelines supplement the Maragement Plan and, therefore, the two documents are integrally related. The Albany Pine Bush PreserveCommission indicated that the recommendationsof the ManagementPlan are valid. The Implementation Guidelineswere utilized in the DGEIS to developthe mitigation guidelines for development. Clough,Harbour & AssociatesLLP Pagell-26 a/ ti u, {l*sdfnn'.ry' o /)/'tii z z IJJ E ct lrJ . lrl ii:l: : :1< ',r z =ts o= ao 6h o :< = YO.rr= .;:-.- E anJ (ttu 2a z Y2 o o ,.H ut 1Z E =9 e = .\ 2 o Jofit z tr zUJ I IJJ \\ I (, 'a \li oJ (, f A. t' x; >,4 ), . I 't s. (.'' ) N'\ i1\\ o o o o N \i\.z \ E o ui J i (J f' ,,'1,:1\ z {] I i-!, TOW\ OF COLONIELAND i? ...,. 3 o LI x'. 2 a STATEOF NEWYORK LAND + c! I (D NATURECONSERVANCY LAND E I 8,c- CITY CIF E o i;f ALBANY "qff z :i; l E E .F \ l 2 ,;:i.!:"1.'."({ LishaKill Kings Road Area Commentsand Responses FinalGeneric Environmental lmoact Statement to DGEIS 2A. Comment: the purchase and conservationo! additional ooen space. The Alternatives identifed include "CDRPC Growth Scenario" which was reiected because growth is expectedto acceleraterelative to previously years, a "No Growth Scenario," a "No Action Alternative," and the " Projected Growth Development Scenario." The description of the "prefeted detelopment scenario" on page III-7 is inadequate. ll/hen amended,it should reflect the record from the last twentyyeors whenlands have periodically beenprotected for conservationand open spocePurposes. The " PreferredAhernative " should be a combination of the projected growth, Iocated oul ofsensitive Pine Bush lands, the ocquisition and protection of "Full ProlectionAreas" as identifiedby lhe Commission,and partial protection of the lands identifiedby the Commissionfor "partial protection." This would provide for protection of lands critical to the Pine Bush Preserve meeting recognized minimum criteria. (Per Givnish and the ImplementationGuidelines.) Response: The ProjectedGrowth DevelopmentScenario, as identified and evaluatedin the DGEIS, stronglyrecognizes the Pine Bush landsand other open spaceidentified and categorizedby the Albany Pine Bush PreserveCommission, the goal of preserving a viable Pine Bush ecosystem,and most of the recommendations providedin the ImplementationGuidelines. It is clearly recommendedin DGEIS Section II.D (p.II-30) that the Town assistthe Albany Pine Bush Preserve Commissionin their effortsto preservethe Pine Bush and to encourageproperty owners/projectsponsors to sell, donate,or set aside (conservationeasements) Pine Bush landsand otherlands considered by the Commission as crucial to the Drotectionof the ecosvstem. 29. Comment: Consideration should be given to the benefitsqf the designation qf o Critical Environmental Area; Considering the purposes of this designation option, availableto the Town of Colonie,and the recommendationfrom the Albany Pine Bush Preserve Commission that at a minimum the Town give serious consideralion to the benefts of such a designation, the GEIS should evaluate and make a recommendation reBarding this option. Clough,Harbour & AssociatesLLP Pagell27 Lisha Kill Kings Road Area Commentsand Responses Final Generic Environmentallmpact Statement to DGEIS Response: Basedon 6 NYCRR 617.14(h),the Albany Pine Bush Preserveappears to meet the requirements to be designated a Critical Environmental Area (CEA). Although the Town of Colonie could considersuch a designationin the future. the level ofprotection affordedthe Preserveby the CEA designationmay be less than that currently provided by acquisition, Stateand federal regulations, and mitigation guidelinesprovided in the DGEIS andthe ImplementationGuidelines. The primary advantageofthe CEA designationis to "...alert project sponsorsof the agency's concern for the resourcescontained in the CEA" (The SEQR Handbook, NYSDEC 1992). The other benefit was to automatically elevate Unlisted actionsto Type I actions.affording greaterproject review opportunity. However, the current SEQR regulations no longer include that provision, althougha questionwas addedto the Long EnvironmentalAssessment Form that recognizesthe importanceof CEAs. Furthermore,Type II Actions never require environmentalreview under SEQR, regardlessof the CEA designation. Lands within the Full and Partial Protection Areas. not currently pan of the Preserve,may benefit from the designation. I:lowever,the Town's recognition of the significanceof the Albany Pine Bush in the DGEIS through mapping ard provision of mitigation guidelines.which promotepreservation and cooperation with the Albany Pine Bush PreserveCommission, should provide a greaterlevel of protectionthan the CEA designation. 30. Comment: New York State recognized thefragile qualities o.fthe natural inland pine harrens community when it created and charged the Commission with lhe legal responsibilirl b protect the Pine Bush. The Town of Colonie is a member of the Pine Bush Commission.A signifcant amountof information has been collected and analyzedto provide a clear direction Jbr the protection and management needsof the Pine Bush. The Commission urges the Town of Colonie Planning Board to amend the DGEIS to includea hard look at impactson theAlbany Pine Bush,as is required by SEQM and the courts. The Commissionsuggests that the DGEIS be modified to reflect the changesdescribed above and amendedto include appropriate mitigation measuresfor projects in the Commission'sdesignated " Pine Bush Protec tion A r ea " including: l) Early Applicant Contact with lhe Commission 4 Detailed Site Inventoriesand future SEQM actionsfor projects in the Pine Bush Clough,Harbour & AssociatesLLP Page lt28 Lisha Kill Kings Road Area Comments and Responses Final Generic Environmental lmpact Statement to DGEIS 3) 45025Green Space 4) Native Landscaping 5) Mitigation 6) Conservation Zoning Response: PageII-30 of the DGEIS clearlyrecommends the mitigation measuresidentified in the comment. Furthermore,the Town recognizes that an increase in the minimum openspace requirement for areaswithin the Pine Bush ProtectionArea, possiblyby creationofa conservationoverlay district, would be beneficialto this area. Clough,Harbour & AssociatesLLP Pagell-29