J.G. BARBOUR * ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANT * 5 FISHCREEK RD., SAUGERTIES, NY 12477
To:
Basha Kill Area Association
Town of Mamakating Planning
Board
[other recipients]
February 20, 2010
COMMENTS
FOR SEVEN PEAKS SUBDIVISION REVIEW
Introduction
I
am a biological consultant with nearly 30 years of experience in the Hudson
Valley and adjacent New England and New Jersey. I was been engaged by the Basha
Kill Area Association in 2009 to consult on SEQR for the Seven Peaks
development project in the Town of Mamakating, Sullivan County, New York.
In
2009 I reviewed and commented on the Scoping Document. I have reviewed the recently
revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).for Seven Peaks, and here
present my comment on the DEIS and associated documents.
I was critical of the Scoping
Document and recommended changes to improve it. I found the Scoping Document to
be vague and lacking in detail, and likely to lead to inadequate analysis of
environmental impacts, and a poorly planned, poorly designed, possibly
environmentally damaging project. I urged the Planning Board to take a “hard
look” (as required by SEQRA) at the Scoping Document for Seven Peaks, and strengthen
it in order to assure a better DEIS.
I have also reviewed
comments on the DEIS from New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC or DEC) in a letter to John Piazza, Mamakating
Planning Board Chairman, from Alexander F. Ciesluk, Jr., Acting Regional Permit
Administrator, NYSDEC Region 3, dated 28 December 2009.
1. ALTERNATIVE PLANS
The DEIS presents 5
alternative plans for the development, which are described exclusive of phased
components (Hotel-Resort, additional housing). These are discussed below.
1. Environmental Constraints Alternative
This alternative is based on
the “Minimum Lot Size” method of density calculation in the town zoning law.
Land on the project site that is constrained by environmental conditions, such
as wetlands and steep slopes, is subtracted from the total land area allowable
for development. The DEIS concludes that this alternative will have greater
impacts to open space, wildlife and vegetation resources because it “would not
result in the permanent protection of community open space.”
The basis for this
conclusion is the 10-acre lot minimum density, spreading the dwelling units
over a larger area. Whether this would
have greater impacts is an open question since no further analysis is provided.
Why couldn’t it result in permanent protection of community open space? No
reason is given.
2. Soil Survey Alternative
The soil survey alternative calculates allowable
density by a formula for various soil classifications. This allows for 169
lots. The alternative presented has 152 lots clustered on soils of three
classes based on slope. Impacts of all types are assessed to be greater than
for other alternatives, and they certainly would be. However, there is no
analysis offered, nor are real world constraints and other legal constraints
considered or applied.
3. Conservation Alternative
The allowable development density for the
conservation alternative is calculated the same as for the soil survey
alternative, which yields 169 units at a minimum lot size of one acre. The plan
includes 120 lots clustered in the central and eastern portions of the site.
The conclusion that this alternative “would require centralized water and
wastewater systems, and result in greater impacts to soils, topography, streams
and wetlands, vegetation, and wildlife than the Project Sponsor’s preferred
alternative” is advanced without supporting data or analysis.
DEC commented that this
“Conservation Alternative” did not meet requirements of Scoping or an agreement
between DEC and the lead agency (Mamakating Planning Board). The clustering of 120 lots instead of 49 in
the sponsor’s “Conservation Alternative” alarmed DEC, which reasonably expected
“fewer, smaller lots.” The agreement between the lead agency and DEC required
the layout of the Conservation Alternative to be “informed by impacts on
wildlife and ecological corridors” and “to avoid or minimize negative impacts
to existing ecological and environmental resources.” But as the DEC comments
put it, “the proposed conservation alternative, thus, does not comport with
either the Scope or the agreement” between the lead agency and DEC, nor does it
“meet the requirements of SEQR.”
The nature and purpose of a
conservation alternative are clearly and precisely spelled out in the Scoping
Document, which calls for comparison and evaluation of a conservation
alternative “that takes into account fewer, smaller lots and/or rearranged lots
and/or trail locations as necessary to address and evaluate the continuity of
natural corridors, to avoid or minimize negative impacts to existing ecological
and environmental resources, as well as the potential concerns related to
wildfire activity.”
4. DEC Requested Conservation Alternative
In response to a request by the NYSDEC, the Project
Sponsor prepared an additional conservation alternative showing the proposed 49
residential lots, but with seven lots in the southwest portion of the property
moved to the southeast. The DEIS claims this plan would result in more wetland
impacts due to required crossings for roads, impacts to an archaeological site
that is avoided by the preferred alternative, and negative impacts on streams
from closer stormwater basins. Additionally it would eliminate scenic views
from several home sites, “which would affect the marketability of the proposed
project.”
As with the Conservation
Alternative, despite the requirements of the Scoping Document and the DEC-lead
agency agreement, there is no scientific basis offered for the claims of
greater impact, no reference to existing information or studies of natural
resources performed on the site. In fact the DEC Requested Alternative is an
improvement over the Preferred Alternative. A lot with a house and long
driveway projecting into an area of inland barrens buck moth habitat was
removed to a position outside the habitat of this rare insect. (See 3, Ecologically Significant Species and Habitats).
5. Preferred Alternative
The “Preferred Alternative” is the 49-lot residential
development proposed by the Project Sponsor (Section 2.0 of the DEIS), but with
the proposed resort relocated to the northeast side of the resort parcel. The
total area of disturbance is reduced, and total habitat impacts are said to be
reduced and a stream crossing eliminated. A change in the resort location
addresses concerns raised by the NYSDEC regarding impacts to ecological and
wetland resources “without compromising the likelihood of success of the
project.”
The “comparison” of alternatives in the DEIS are inadequate
for two reasons. 1) There is no fact-based qualitative environmental analysis
or interpretive assessment of any of the alternatives, only quantitative tables
of numbers and unsupported assertions as to relative degree of impact for each
alternative plan. 2) Ecological information, including that presented in and developed for the DEIS, was not
applied to the assessment and comparison of the alternative plans as required
by the Scoping Document, the DEC-lead agency agreement, and SEQRA itself.
In my comments on scoping I suggested that in addition to the No Action Alternative in
the four “Reasonable Alternatives” a 5th should be added:
“Reasonable Alternative 5: Conservation Acquisition or Covenant.” “No Action”
may in fact be preferable to any action. Conservation Acquisition or Covenant could
be a positive alternative for the environment and for the regional and local
community. The option of a buyout of development rights or purchase of the
property as a nature preserve or park might have greater benefits than those of
a residential development and/or resort.
DEC
makes specific recommendations for a revised Conservation Alternative that
would meet the requirements of scoping and those of an agreement between DEC
and the lead agency. Making reference to “factors which led the sponsor to
leave [some lands] as undeveloped” in the “Preferred Plan,” DEC recommends
relocating and eliminating some lots, and alternative locations for, or
elimination of, “the future hotel.” The DEIS does provide alternative locations
for the hotel/resort, but does not consider elimination of this component. (See
2. Failure to
Consider Impacts of Full Development)
Guidance in Conservation Planning and Construction
In my comments on the Draft
Scoping Document I criticized the planning and design methodology for the
Conservation Alternative for failing to follow the core principles of
Conservation Subdivision developed by the environmental planner Randall Arendt.
The Scoping Document required “Impact analysis and green planning and
mitigation per lot.” I responded that “Green planning and mitigation on a
lot-by-lot basis puts the cart before the horse.” By this I meant and explained that it was environmentally unsound (and
logically reversed) to determine lot location and layout, and then analyze the impacts.
In
Arendt’s conservation subdivision planning procedure, the first step is a
natural resource survey and assessment to identify and map the sensitive
natural resources and adequate protective buffers. This is the “conservation
area.” What remains is the “buildable area” of the site. Any and all considered
building plans are confined to this predetermined buildable area.
In
my scoping comments I recommended that adherence to Arendt’s principles and
procedures be required and followed. I find no evidence that this suggestion
was adopted. DEC, though not referring specifically to Arendt’s work, made
critical comments that reveal the applicant’s failure to follow these
principles. This is because the Scoping Document embraces Arendt’s principles
in requiring that the conservation alternative be grounded in a detailed and
thorough environmental assessment of the site.
Another useful source for a
sustainable project is The Shawangunk
Ridge Conservation and Design Guidebook (Church and Myers 1993) published
by The Catskill Center for Conservation and Development and available on line.
It contains recommendations for environment-friendly development on the ridge.
I recommend that this guidebook be referred to, and its recommendations be
adopted, in planning for the Seven Peaks project.
2. Failure to Consider Impacts of Full
Development
The Seven Peaks DEIS fails to address cumulative
impacts of the full project. Instead it treats each component of the project
separately. This method prevents a realistic assessment of the total impact of
the completed project, and makes impacts appear less severe than they will be.
The largest impacts will be those caused by project components in combination,
and these impacts are left out of the DEIS.
The main subdivision, the
resort complex, and the additional housing each has impacts in itself, and even
these ”isolated” impacts are poorly assessed in the DEIS. It is a mistake to
think of environmental impacts as isolated. It is the entire project that will
affect the unique habitats of the Shawangunk Ridge and the valley downstream,
including the Basha Kill.
The choice of 5 alternative plans presented in the
DEIS for the main subdivision. provides an opportunity to compare the impacts
of each alternative and pick the least damaging one. However, only the main
residential subdivision has been carried to the stage of a detailed plan. There
is no detailed plan for the resort complex or the secondary residential
development.
Environmental
impacts of the hotel/resort are poorly addressed in the revised DEIS, and still
fail to meet terms of scoping and the DEC-lead agency agreement. DEC’s comment
that the draft DEIS “lacks the level of
detail needed to allow full consideration and a comparative assessment of the
alternatives” still holds for the revised DEIS. There is simply not enough
information to assess cumulative and long-term impacts of the project on both
onsite and offsite natural resources.
DEC
suggested that parcels slated for future development be included in the
conservation plan to provide flexibility in locating large homes and for
leaving more land undisturbed. In addition, the DEC letter states “Alternative
locations or elimination of the future hotel should be considered to ensure
that the conservation alternative includes all parcels available for
development by the sponsor.”
The
hotel-resort and other areas reserved for future development are still treated
separately in the DEIS despite DEC’s recommendation that the entire project be
assessed comprehensively and cumulatively. Ecological impacts are assessed for
alternative locations of the hotel-resort, but separately from the alternative
plans for the initial residential subdivision. Impacts of the additional
housing area are not discussed at all. This separation amounts to segmentation,
and goes against scoping and SEQR.
In the DEIS, alternative plans for all project
components should have been presented, not just for the main subdivision. This
would have allowed a comparison of alternative plans for all pieces of the
project, and an assessment of cumulative impacts for the entire project. As it
stands the environmental impacts of Seven Peaks have not been sufficiently
addressed due the piecemeal way in which the project has been presented in the
DEIS.
Conservation
Planning Ignored in Subdivision Design
The
DEIS provides no useful guidance for assessing impacts of subdivision design. This
is the primary responsibility of the planning board now that the DEIS has been
accepted as complete.
For
example, the breakdown of acreage is in the DEIS is too general to support the
assessment of ecological impacts or to guide conservation planning. The
itemization of “hiking, horse barn and open space” for undeveloped lands does
not specify any conservation areas reserved for wild habitat. In the
development footprint (561.77 acres, 86% of the site) “open space” is not
broken down into wetlands, critical habitats, wildlife corridors, etc. The 200
acres of open space in individual lots is fragmented habitat and should not
count as conservation space. The one-acre clearing limitation may prove to be
unenforceable, and the clearings with houses could have serious impacts,
including the introduction of invasive species into surrounding natural
communities of the fragile Shawangunk Ridge ecosystem (See 4, INVASIVE SPECIES.)
In earlier comments on the
Draft Scoping Document I criticized the planning and design methodology for the
Conservation Alternative for failing to follow the core principles of
Conservation Subdivision developed by the environmental planner Randall Arendt.
The Scoping Document required “Impact analysis and green planning and
mitigation per lot.” I responded that “Green planning and mitigation on a
lot-by-lot basis puts the cart before the horse.” By this I meant and explained that it was environmentally unsound (and
logically reversed) to determine lot location and layout, and then analyze the impacts.
In
Arendt’s conservation subdivision planning procedure, the first step is a
natural resource survey and assessment to identify and map the sensitive
natural resources and adequate protective buffers. This is the “conservation
area.” What remains is the “buildable area” of the site. Any and all considered
building plans are confined to this predetermined buildable area.
In
my scoping comments I recommended that adherence to Arendt’s principles and
procedures be required and followed. I find no evidence that this suggestion
was adopted.
DEC,
though not referring specifically to Arendt’s work, made critical comments that
reveal the applicant’s failure to follow these principles. This is because the
Scoping Document embraces Arendt’s principles in requiring that the
conservation alternative be grounded in a detailed and thorough environmental
assessment of the site.
This
very serious failing of the DEIS might be redressed fairly easily had the
applicant done a better job of natural resources documentation and assessment,
and environmental impact analysis and mitigation. Unfortunately this is not the
case.
3. Ecologically Significant Species and Habitats
Scoping for Seven Peaks said the DEIS must evaluate
state-listed rare species and ecological communities reported from the area by
the New York Natural Heritage Program, with potential habitat on the site, or
that could potentially be directly or indirectly impacted by the proposed
project, and to mitigate impacts on these resources. Unfortunately, the
information in the DEIS is insufficient to support such an evaluation.
The
biological consultant, Terrestrial Environmental Services (TES), conducted
onsite surveys for the Seven Peaks environmental review. My recommendations to
do butterfly and moth surveys were not taken, but these studies were not
required in scoping. TES satisfied Scoping requirements for onsite surveys, and
made some significant discoveries, notably a population of inland barrens buck
moth, and also records of eastern box turtle and cerulean warbler.
On
plants TES did poorly in my estimation. Certainly in any portion of the
Shawangunk Ridge I would expect a few state-rare or regionally-rare plant
species to show up in any biological survey. TES did not find any, and I wonder
if their surveyors took a hard look or are well-versed in the regional flora.
TES’
attempt to follow Natural Heritage Program ecological community categories as
required by Scoping was less than adequate. Their category names were mixed and
muddled, or simply not in the NHP list of communities (cite EDINger ed. 2002). Instead, they were
generic, borrowed from other vegetation classification schemes, or possibly
invented.
The
typical habitat of buck moth, Pitch Pine oak-heath rocky summit, was not on TES’s
list of communities. Neither the DEIS nor the Flora and Fauna Report (Appendix
K) describe the habitat in which buck moth was found. “Small areas of chestnut oak forest community and barrens buckmoth habitat (my italics) will
be impacted by the project; however, this community is not rare, threatened or
endangered and is in fact common on the site and in the Shawangunks.” The
sentence refers to “this community,” but two communities are mentioned –
chestnut oak forest and “barrens buckmoth habitat.” The failure to identify
and describe the buck moth habitat is a serious one, especially in a globally
significant natural area such as the Shawangunk Ridge, and for a “critically
imperiled species” as the Heritage list describes the buck moth.
On
the communities map, the area of barrens buck moth habitat is labeled SSS for
“Successional Shrub Scrub.” “Successional” here is misleading, as it is used to
refer to disturbed (clear cut or soil-removed) areas with newly established
vegetation cover that is changing more or less rapidly over time. Familiar
examples include abandoned crop and pasture lands and logged areas. A high
percentage of the plant species in successional communities are non-native,
often invasive, species.
Barrens
and woodlands (a category of terrestrial vegetation in the Natural Heritage
Program communities scheme) are composed mostly of native plant species, and
are often highly susceptible to degradation from the invasive species typical
of successional communities. This miscategorization is a serious flaw of the
DEIS. It is bad science, plain and simple. As a result, what is apparently the
most ecologically significant community on the site was not acknowledged or
described in the DEIS. Any such deficiency undermines sound environmental
analysis and planning.
Inland
Barrens Buck Moth (Hemileuca maia maia)
NHP rank S1S2
The New York Natural Heritage
Program lists inlands barren buck moth as Critically Imperiled, with a
rank of SIS2, between the
NYSDEC ranks of Endangered (=S1) and Threatened (=S2) (Schlesinger 2007).
But here is how the Seven Peaks DEIS treats the
discovery of this “Critically Imperiled” insect:
“TES
performed a field assessment regarding barrens buckmoth (Hemileuca maia)
in June 2009. Although barrens buckmoth
is globally ranked as secure, it is listed as a special concern species in New
York (my italics). Barrens
buckmoth lives in dry, scrub oak habitats. Random searches were performed on
June 17, 2009 in areas of the Seven Peaks site that were considered appropriate
habitat for the species. TES found several groups of barrens buckmoth instars
on the site. The areas where instars were found is presented on Figure S-3 of
the Supplemental Report in Appendix K.” [An
“instar” is a stage of caterpillar growth, in between molts. It is not clear to
me how TES is using this word here.]
The
buck moth population found on the Seven Peaks site is to my knowledge the
third, and northernmost, occurrence recorded for the Shawangunk Ridge. The
first occurrence is one that Richard Mitchell, Anita Barbour and I found in
1999 along the Neversink section of the ridge near Otisville. This was a narrow
ridge of rough sandstone and shale exposures (south of the region of Shawangunk
conglomerate). It had a red cedar rocky summit community with abundant scrub
oak. In 2000 I found another population on a ridge parallel to, and east of the
ridge with the first occurrence. The habitat was a tree-cleared utility
right-of-way with abundant scrub oak in a mixed oak-birch woodland (not easily
relegated to a described NHP community type).
These ridgetop habitats
are entirely different from previously known buck moth habitats in New York.
The usual habitat is a dry barrens community at low elevation with deep, sandy
soils, typically from glacial lake sediments. Lowland buck moth populations are
known from Long Island and upstate New York near Albany, Glens Falls and
Saratoga. So the geography and the habitat of the two (or three) buck moth
metapopulations are significantly different. Ridgetop and lowland buck moth
populations in New York have little if any contact, and may differ
significantly in genetics, behavior, and ecology, including sensitivity to many
natural and human-caused impacts.
The DEIS has this to say about impacts on buck moth:
“The project would result in a minor reduction in
barrens buckmoth habitat on the site. The barrens buckmoth, a special concern
species, was found in the southwestern corner of the site, an approximately
32-acre area dominated by scrub oak. Approximately 2.5 acres of the 32-acre
scrub oak shrubland in which this species was found would be altered by the
project. This is unlikely to have any noticeable impact on the existence or
abundance of this invertebrate in the area. The proposed resort hotel would
have no impact on this species, due to the distance of the hotel site from the
buckmoth habitat.”
The DEIS does not provide a
detailed account of the “minor reduction in barrens buckmoth habitat” projected
as a result of the project. Even if
direct loss is minor (e.g. a very small percentage of the total habitat), the
disturbance is of greater concern. The barrens where this insect occurs are
special habitats with special conditions and sensitivities. What habitat, what
flora and fauna will replace the lost area of barrens? Will this adjacent
replacement habitat lead to degradation of the barrens habitat? How will
barrens buck moth and other potentially occurring rare barrens lepidoptera
(e.g. Edwards hairstreak, frosted elfin) be affected?
One
very significant factor in buck moth ecology is fire. Wildfires may kill some
trees and shrubs, but fire-adapted barrens species such as pitch pine, scrub
oak and blueberries quickly grow back. Buck moth caterpillars get a food boost
from the new leaves of scrub oak. Fire rarely occurs while the caterpillars are
feeding, and so is not usually a threat. But lack of fire allows trees such as
locust and ailanthus to invade, displacing the scrub oak.
Residential
development of barrens habitat creates a conflict between saving homes from
fire, and preserving rare barrens species and their habitat by leaving fires to
burn. Homes and property of course win out. Fire suppression allows invasive
plants and fast-growing trees to take over, eliminating native, fire-adapted plants.
The critically imperiled buck moth disappears along with its host plant and barrens
habitat.
The
DEIS failed to discuss the effects of fire suppression. The DEC letter reminds
the lead agency that the Final Scope must assess “potential concerns related to
wildfire activity.” This should be interpreted to refer to lack of fire where
lack of fire is a negative impact, as it is for the buck moth.
Other
Significant Species
Two other special concern species (eastern box turtle
and cerulean warbler) were identified
on the project site. Scoping required that “Species of special concern, such as
barrens buck moth and several bird species will be addressed based on habitat
potential.”
The three special concern
species are discussed briefly in the DEIS, which claims they are discussed
(presumably in greater detail) in the flora/fauna report. However, assessments
of negative impacts on cerulean warbler, box turtle and barrens buck moth were
not performed, and are not in the DEIS as required by scoping. Moreover, these
species are not even mentioned in the Flora/Fauna Analysis (Appendix K) TES
report, only listed as having been observed.
A Box turtle shell was found
at Wetland C. Box turtles are long-lived (40-100+ years), territorial and have
small home ranges, so a shell is reasonable evidence of a population. Box
turtles are vulnerable to traffic, and to nest predators, especially skunks and
raccoons, animals which increase in number with development. These impacts were
not discussed in the DEIS.
One individual of cerulean
warbler was observed in early June, the breeding season, and past the migration
season (early to mid May). Onsite habitat was assessed as poor quality for
cerulean warbler. However, offsite habitat below the development site includes
slope and valley forests with taller trees that may be likely breeding habitat
for cerulean warbler. Apparently no breeding bird surveys were done, or if they
were there is no report of results.
There is no assessment of project impacts to the
three special concern species in the DEIS except to say that one plan or
another will or will not impact the species because its habitat will or will
not be disturbed.
4. Invasive Species
Invasive
species have become an ever bigger threat to native ecosystems. Some invasives
such as the zebra mussel, the Asian longhorn beetle and the Kudzu vine have
become pests in human habitation or even economic threats to fisheries and
farms.
Insects
like the gypsy moth and plants like barberry and Japanese stilt grass have damaged
native forests by killing or driving out native species. Yet the serious
dangers of invasive species are largely ignored except by specialist groups
like the National Invasive Species Council, the Invasive Plants Task Force and
the Invasive Plants Council of New York.
The
most rare and fragile ecological communities and natural landscapes are often
those most vulnerable to invasion by exotic, introduced species. Development of
sensitive native ecosystems allows invasive species to enter disturbances of
vegetation and soil. Many things can bring these invaders in – vehicles
transporting construction materials, machinery brought in for site preparation,
workers’ shoes and clothing. Birds can carry seeds of invasive plants on their
feet. These seeds grow readily in disturbed ground or soil piles, and then
displace less competitive native species.
The
most serious and widespread damage follows these introductions as aggressive
invasives move into native ecological communities and degrade them much as they
did the disturbed areas where they first become established. Assemblages of
non-native plants then spread like a cancer through the wider complex of native
ecosystems.
The
impacts of invasive species, to the natural landscapes of the development site
and to those beyond the site in all directions, was not assessed in the DEIS –
in fact it was not even discussed. Impacts from invasive species are among the
most potentially devastating of all. They are not held by boundaries, and any
opening for invasives threatens irreparable damage far outside the point of
entry.
Moreover,
there are dozens of invasive animals and hundreds of invasive plants, and new
ones appear every year. Yet the DEIS contains not one word on this important
subject.
5. Open Space and Trails
The
DEIS for Seven Peaks declares that the project will preserve open space,
including habitats for wildlife, and environmentally sensitive recreation
including onsite trails connecting to the trail network of the Shawangunk
Ridge. But the DEIS does not connect the dots in a way that permits the
assessment of ecological impacts from the uses of open space. Nor does it say
exactly where this open space is, or what uses occur where.
The developed area leaves
3.6 acres for conservation plus whatever portion of the area of “hiking, horse
barn, and open space” remains in 561.77 acres, which amounts to 86% of the
site. This makes no sense. There cannot really be that much open space, or the
development itself would be much smaller.
But who can tell when there
is no precise calculation and designated location for the conservation
set-aside, or the wildlife corridors, trails and recreational land. Only 3.6
acres of conservation land is a very low percentage of the site, insufficient
for critical habitats and wildlife corridors along the ridge.
The DEIS claims that “the project will result in the
protection of 220 acres of community open space, 47 acres of open space
associated with the public trail, as well as more than 200 acres of open space
in individual lots protected by the one-acre clearing limitation. In total,
more than 500 acres of the site will be protected as open space.” But these 500
acres are not broken down into habitats, are not related to wildlife corridors,
and do not preserve habitat intact or avoid fragmentation. The 200 acres of
open space in individual lots is fragmented habitat, the one-acre clearing
limitation may prove to be unenforceable, and the clearings with houses could
have serious impacts, including introduction of invasive species into
surrounding natural communities previously unexposed to such impacts. These
impacts are hard to predict – and should have been addressed in the DEIS – but
they could be far reaching, and catastrophic to the fragile Shawangunk Ridge
ecosystem.
The
Mamakating Planning Board has a responsibility to make the developer show where
the different elements of open space are located. There should be an open space
plan in addition to the development plans described in the DEIS.
There
is no justification for the location of the proposed hiking trail or any
explanation of how it might connect to existing trails or planned trails on
adjacent parcels and to the existing network of trails on the Shawangunk Ridge.
A trail is only as good as its connection to a larger trail system. The project
plan should include a trail plan connected with the ridge trail system.
6. Recommendations to the
Lead Agency
The
Nature Conservancy calls the Shawangunk Ridge “one of the Earth's Last Great Places," and has noted that “Encroaching
development is the most significant threat [to the ridge], permanently damaging
habitat and ecological processes, particularly along the base of the ridge.”
The Shawangunk Ridge Biodiversity Partnership has
adopted a Protection and Management Plan for the northern Shawangunks. In the
southern Shawangunks TNC is working with the New York Natural Heritage Program
to conduct a biological inventory from Sam's Point Preserve to the New Jersey
line.
There is an opportunity for
Seven Peaks to be a model project for environmentally protective development
along the Shawangunk Ridge. The success of the project in this respect could
have great economic benefits for the developer, the Town of Mamakating, and the
region. Tourists drawn to protected lands such as Minnewaska State Park and
Mohonk Preserve have boosted the economies of communities such as the Town of
New Paltz. The attraction is the grandeur of the Shawangunk Ridge ecosystem.
Conventional development with its high environmental impact load will not do in
this region. It is not viable environmentally or economically, and undermines a
sustainable and prosperous future for the region.
In its subdivision review the
Mamakating Planning Board still has an opportunity to ensure a project worthy
of its magnificent and fragile natural setting. The lead agency should exercise
vigilance in assuring that the final plan for the Seven Peaks development meets
all standards of Scoping, SEQRA and DEC, as well as those of the sources I
refer to in these comments.
Before any subdivision is considered, the Planning
Board should require a unified plan for the entire project, with several
alternative unified plans, as presented for the main subdivision in the
DEIS. All impacts of each alternative
unified plan should be identified and assessed thoroughly and scientifically.
The Planning Board and the project sponsor should work with DEC to develop a
plan that demonstrably addresses and reduces impacts to a level that does not
threaten regional ecosystems and the local community.
I
recommend that the lead agency and the sponsor work closely with DEC on this
revised plan, and I strongly urge DEC to use its authority to assure that the
final plan adheres to the requirements of the Scoping Document, the DEC-lead
agency agreement, and SEQR. The analysis and impact assessment for the final
plan should consider natural resources in depth. These resources include (at
the very least) rare species and their critical habitats, sensitive ecological
communities, wildlife corridors, rock outcrops, streams and wetlands.
The
DEC Recommended Conservation Alternative in the DEIS improves upon the
developer’s Conservation Alternative in the DEIS, but still does not
incorporate all of DEC’s recommendations. This
is a good starting point for a real
conservation plan, and would be much improved by adopting all of DEC’s
recommendations. These recommendations are based on requirements of the Scoping
Document, the DEC-lead agency agreement, and SEQR itself. They should be
incorporated into the site plan, not ignored or dismissed.
In
addition to the conservation alternative for the main residential plan, the
sponsor should present a conservation plan for the hotel-resort. In the DEIS
the hotel-resort plan is shown as a separate plan on a separate map. The
sponsor should be instructed to show the full build-out – all residential units
and the hotel-resort – as a single, unified plan in a revised conservation
alternative.
Scaling
down the hotel to less than the approximately 125-rooms the developer is
contemplating might reduce environmental impacts of the hotel and associated
infrastructure and activity. Comparing plans of varied size and scale might
increase the number of feasible locations and reduce impacts to onsite and
offsite environments. As DEC recommended, the elimination of the hotel-resort
component should also be considered.
Invasive
plants are potentially a devastating, far reaching impact on the Shawangunk
Ridge ecosystem. I urge the planning board to work with DEC, the Invasive Plants
Council of New York and other knowledgeable advisors to create an invasive
species monitoring and control plan for the Seven Peaks Project. This is
terribly important to the fragile Shawangunks and Basha Kill ecosystems. These
precious resources must be protected. They are the heart of our region’s
natural heritage.
Fragile
habitats such as ridgetop barrens and wetlands should be protected. There
should be no development in these habitats, and adequate buffers should be determined
on approval of DEC to protect significant natural resources from development
impacts.
Respectfully submitted,
References cited:
Arendt, R. Cultivating
Natural and Cultural Landscapes through Conservation Subdivision Design.
Terrain.org: A Journal of the Built and Natural Environments. Issue # 18,
spring/summer 2006.
Church, D. and J. Myers.
1993. Shawangunk Ridge conservation and design guidebook. Catskill
Center for Conservation and Development, Arkville, NY. 65 p
Edinger G. J. 2002. Ecological Communities of New York State, Second Edition. New York Natural Heritage Program.
Albany, NY. 136 p.
Gordon, J. 2008. Shawangunk
Master Plan is Afoot: Ecotourism as “fabulous draw”. Hudson Valley Business.
July 21, 2008, p. 7.
Schlesinger, M. D. 2007. New York Natural Heritage Program
Rare Animal Status List. New York Natural Heritage Program. Albany, NY. 30 p.