DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for
Avila House Independent Senior Campus Lead Agency:

City of Albany Planning Board

21 Lodge Street, Albany, New York 12207 Contact: Nicholas Dilello (518) 434-2532 ext. 28

Project Sponsor:

First Colun1bia, LLC 26 Century Hill Drive Latham, New York 12110-2128, (518) 213-1000

Report Contributors:

Hershberg and Hershberg 40 Colvin Avenue Albany, New York 12206 Responsible for "Pine Bush" Contact: Daniel Hershherg (518) 459-3096

Transportation Concepts, LLP 152 Barrett Street Schencctady, New York 12305 Responsible for "Traffic" Contact: Mark Gregory (518) 347-2753

Collamer and Associates, Inc. 73 Dove Strect Albany, New York 12210 Contact: Jeanette Collamer Responsible for "Cultural Resource Investigation" (518) 426-9624

Ecological Solutions, LLC 1248 Southford Road Southbury, CT 06488 Responsible for "Wetland Delineation" and "Species Study" (203) 264-8691

Shanley, Sweeney, Reilly & Allen, P.C. 10 Thurlow Terrace Albany, New York 12203 Contact: Robert Sweeney, Esq. Responsible for Legal Counsel (518) 463-1415

Kormos and Company 12 Overlook Drive Voorheesville, New York 12186 Responsible for "Market Feasibility Analysis" (5 1 8) 439-8903

Datc of Notice of Completion of DEIS: June 21, 2001

Date of Public Hearing: July 12, 2001

DEIS Comment Deadline Date: July 23, 2001

Submittal Date: June, 2001

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Cover Sheet

Executive Summcary ES-1

Executive Summary

This is a Draft Environmental I~npact Statement ("DEIS") prepared for the City of Albany Planning Board ("Planning Board"). Tlle Pla~ming Board is the lead agency under A~tic]e 8 ofthe New York State Environmental Conservation Law ("ECL") and its implementing regulations (G N\4CRR Part 617), otherwise known as the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA").

On behalf of the Roman Catholic Diocese (the "Diocese"), First Columbia, LLC (the "Applicant" or "Project Sponsor") is seeking site plan approval to create an integrated senior residential ca~np~Ts ("Campus") to serve the elder population of the Capital Region. The proposed Campus will consist of a main campus of two four-story apartment buildings, 24 single-family cottage homes and an associated community building for dining, programming and administration, 50 garden apartments, a comprehensive senior day-care, geriatric health and administration center, together witl1 anci]]ary parking and site infrastructure improvements (the "Project").

The Project is proposed to be constructed on a 30.6 ~ acre parcel of land located adjacent to an existing senior housing facility, the Teresian House, on Washington Avenue Extension in the City of Albany (the "Site"). Access to the Site is proposed from Washington Avenue Extension.

To put the Project into proper historical perspective, it has been in the planning stages for over six (6) years. As originally proposed, the development consisted of ~t350 units for senior housing that

~-- utilized the entire Site. No formal application was filed for this proposal. Subsequently, the Diocese

revised its development plans and called for the reduction in the number of senior housing units to 3278 units (a 21% reduction), leaving the southern 8.6 acres (28%) of the Site undeveloped. However, no formal application was filed for this proposal. The Project being considered by the Planning Board, and the subject of this DEIS, represents yet another reduction in the number of dwelling units and concomitant reduction in the number of acres to be developed. The Project consists of ~t152 units of senior housing (a total 55% reduction), and retains the southern ~tl 0.36 acres (34% of the Site) as undeveloped land.

This DEIS has been prepared at the direction ofthe Planning Board as SEQRA lead agency to ensure that the Planning Board, together with the other involved agencies and the public, are able to carefully analyze and take a "hard look" at potential environmental impacts of the action and proposed measures to mitigate such impacts.

This DEIS will be subject to municipal and public review through a formal comment period and a public hearing. At the conclusion of the comment period a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) will be submitted which will address each of the substantive comments ~nade on the DEIS. The entire SEQRA process is structured to allow for the examination of identified relevant environmental issues by technical experts, agencies and the public in order that the Planning Board and other involved agencies may make reasoned and informed decisions.

The Project will create substantial construction-f-elated employment (approxin-!ately 50 jobs). New

ES-1

employment opportunities (approximately 100) will result in a significant addition to the local economy in wages and salaries. This increase in wages and salaries will in tun1, through direct and multiplier effects estimated at tlu-ee ti~nes the original salary, stimulate local business and industry.

The Traff~c Impact Study included in this DEIS examines existing conditions and levels of service and evaluates 2002 conditions with and without the Project. The Traffic Impact Study concludes that the highway improvements which will be completed in conjunction with the Project and other deve]opments will maintain existing traffic conditions. The improvements identified as necessary for the proposed Project include the following:

Ground mounted intersection warning sign at the southbound approach to site driveway R4 and R5.

· Construction of a southbound right-turn land and westbound left-turn land at

Columbia Circle Drive and the South Frontage Road intersection, subject to available right- of-way.

· Signal optimization, roadway/sign/stripe to alleviate traff c confusion at the

South Frontage Road and Columbia Circle Drive caused by existing geometric deficiencies.

With these improvements in place, the Traffic Impact Study concludes that the proposed Project will not impact future traffic operations or levels of service.

The Site is located within the City of Albany and in the Albany School District. No additional burden upon the School District is anticipated as a result of the Project.

Water will be provided to the Project by extending existing water lines which already service properties along Washington Avenue Extension. The City has an adequate water supply system with available excess supply capacity. The Project will require 65,000 gallons of water per day (gpd). There will be no adverse impacts on the existing municipal water system.

Sewage will be disposed of by a connection to the existing municipal sewage facilities along Washington Avenue Extension. The system has existing excess capacity to treat and dispose of the sewage volumes anticipated to be generated by the Project. There will be no adverse impacts on the existing municipal sewage disposal system.

Ston-~~water runoff from the Project Site will be controlled by the use of a central storm water management basin utilizing recharge methods. Stonmwater management will be designed to maintain pre-development conditions. No adverse impacts are anticipated.

Fire protection will be provided by the City of Albany Fire Department. The Fire Department has a fire station located on Washington Avenue Extension, in the immediate vicinity of the Site. The

ES-2

Fire Department has a number of trucks and related equipment available on first alann that may service the Project including the high rise apart~nents. No adverse impacts on the Fire Department are anticipated.

Police protection will be provided by the City of Albany Police Departme~lt. There are adequate police resources available to serve the Project without adverse impact on such resources.

Solid waste wil1 be disposed of at an approved landfill and the Applicant will pa~ticipate in recycling as required. No adverse impacts to these facilities are anticipated.

Electric, natural gas and telephone service will be provided by extension of existing utilities. A11 utilities have ample capacity to serve the Project.

The Project Site will be attractively landscaped with a variety of tree and plant species compatible with local soils and climate conditions. The landscaping plan will utilize native Pine Bush species. Specially selected trees and shrubs will be planted next to the Project buildings. The parking areas will be planted with materials which are able to withstand snow and heat. The overall effect will be to create an attractive visual environment. A +10-acre area in the rear of the property will be relandscaped with indigenous Pine Bush vegetation.

The DEIS also provides an analysis of the potential visual impact of the Project. There will be no adverse effect on the viewscape.

The Proj ect will utilize a professional on-site maintenance and security staff who will be responsible for interior and exterior housekeeping, cleaning, maintenance and security.

In order to take a thorough and hard look at all potential environmental concerns, the DEIS identifies and examines a complete range of issues potentially related to the Project. These include the impacts of both construction and operationphases oftheProject on slopes andtopography, bedrock, geology, hydrology, soils, surface water resources and drainage, atmospheric resources, vegetation, wetlands, wildlife, land use, transportation, municipal revenues and finances, energy, public health and safety, cultural resources, noise and vibration, visual character, recreational resources and Pine Bush issues.

The DEIS also identifies and examines possible altematives to the Project. Amo~~g the alternatives considered are alternative site layouts. The No-Action Alternative, which would result in the continuance of existing conditions, is also considered.

The DEIS analyzes the potential environmental impacts and where appropriate, identifies possible mitigating measures. The DEIS also examines potential secondary impacts on surrounding land uses which may result from the construction and operation of the Project. Finally, the DEIS discusses potential growth inducing aspects of the Project.

The DEIS concludes that, with appropriate mitigating measures in place, the Project will provide

ES-3 ~- .

significant benefits to the City of Albany and the surrounding region, and that any environmental impacts will be minimized to the maximun1 extent practicable.

~.

-

ES-4

.SECTION 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

The Project Sponsor seeks site plan approval from the Planning Board to allow the creation of an integrated senior residential campus to serve the elder population of the Capital Region. The proposed campus will consist of a main campus of two four-story aparhnent buildings, 24 singlefamily cottage homes, an associated community building for dining, programming and administration. In addition, the campus will contain 50 additional garden apartments and a comprehensive senior day-care, geriatric health and administration center, required parking, road improvements and associated infrastructure (the "Project") on a currently undeveloped parcel of 30.6 t acres located on Washington Avenue Extension in the City of Albany (the "Site").

The Proj ect Site is currently zoned R-4 Multi-story Residential which permits each of the proposed uses to occur with the exception ofthe community center, the senior day care and the geriatric health center which will require a special use permit from the City of Albany Zoning Board of Appeals ( ZBA")

The following subsections describe the Project location, Project elements and related features, construction activities, operational activities, the purpose and need for the Project and the required approvals/public actions involved.

1.1 Site Location

.

The Proj ect Site is located in the City of Albany, County of Albany, New York as shown on Figure 1, "Site Location Map". The Project Site is founded by Washington Avenue Extension on the north and consists of approximately 30.6+ acres of land.

1.2 Project Description

This section describes the physical components of the proposed Project, and the related ancillary features and infrastructure improvements needed to support the Project. The Project will be constructed within a 20.7+ acre envelope of the Site. The Site is owned by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany. It is on these parcels that the Diocese seeks to create an integrated senior residential campus to serve the elder population of the Capital Region. Specifically, the proposed campus will consist of a main campus of 2 four-story apartment buildings, 24 single-family cottage homes and an associated community building for dining, programming and administration. Across the street, the campus will continue with 50 additional garden apartments and a comprehensive senior day-care, geriatric health and administration center. A total of+152 units are contemplated. Figure 2, "Site Plan" illustrates the proposed campus, parking areas and ancillary features.

The proposed campus will comply in all respects with the City of Albany Zoning Ordinance, schedules of area and bulk regulations for the R-4 Multi-story Residential Zoning District.

_ . ~

The Applicant has incorporated roadway improve~~ents into the Project, including:

· optimization of the signalized intersection of Washington Avenue Extension and

Columbia Circle Drive.

· a separate southbound right-tun1 land and eastbound and westbound left-tunn lanes

at Columbia Circle Drive and the South Frontage Road, subject to available right-ofway.

· lane line-striping and associated turn arrows at Columbia Circle Drive/Washington

Avenue Extension and South Frontage Road.

· ground-mounted intersection warning sign for the southbound approach to site

driveways R4 and R5.

Appropriate landscaping including the use of native indigenous Pine Bush species will be utilized on the Site with intensive clearing of invasive Pine Bush species and re-vegetation with native species of the southerly +10 acres. Open parking spaces will be surfaced with all-weather dustless materials and all lighting will be designed, constructed and maintained so as to minin~ize glare and provide maximum security. Parking has been designed to accommodate the Project and in compliance with the City of Albany Zoning Ordinance requirements.

Stormwater will be collected and conveyed to a central stormwater management basin. Postdevelopment stormwater runoff will be controlled on-site to ensure that pre-development flows are maintained and no adverse impact occurs to the overall drainage area. The stormwater drainage system is intended to privately owned and maintained. The basin will not have a discharge outlet on it. The volume being stored will accumulate in the basin during the storm event and will recharge the existing ground water table.

The Proj ect will obtain water from the existing public water main located along Washington Avenue Extension. The sanitary sewer system will tie into the existing sewer line located along Columbia Circle Drive.

Electric service will be supplied by Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. Natural gas service will also be supplied by Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation by connection to existing underground lines presently serving the Proj ect vicinity. Telephone service will be provided by connecting to the existing telecommunication lines presently serving the area. Adequate capacity in the area exists to service the Project.

2

..,

~', 1.3 Construction Activities

This section of the DEIS describes the activities associated with the construction of the Project. Construction of the Proj ect will occur over a period of approximately three years, begi~ming in Fall, 2002.

During construction, equipment staging areas will be developed on the Site. All construction equipment will be kept in these areas when not in use. Construction materials will be delivered to these areas and temporarily stored until ready for use. No hazardous materials other than normal construction fuels and lubricating oils are anticipated to be used during construction. Fuel and lubricating oils may be stored at the staging areas; in such case, all applicable environmental regulations will be followed. A description of the construction sequence follows.

1.3.1 Clearing and Grubbing

Trees, shrubs, stumps and top soil on the Site will be removed to make way for scheduled improvements. Brush and wooded areas will be cleared for the Project. Appropriate erosion and sedimentation controls will be implemented during construction.

1.3.2 Grading and Earth Work

Grading and earth work operations are required to prepare the Site for the installation of the scheduled improvements (roads, parking lots, utilities, buildings, etc.). Finished grades will be established to minimize erosion and control for ease of maintenance. Potential off-site damage due to uncontrolled runoff will be prevented through the use of temporary erosion control facilities.

1.3.3 Footings and Foundations

Footings and foundations will be appropriately designed for Site soil conditions.

1.3.4 Trench and Install Utilities

Electric, telephone, natural gas, water and sewer lines serving the Project will be installed underground and will be connected to existing utility lines on and adjacent to the Site in accordance with all applicable standards and requirements.

1.3.5 Building Construction

Construction of the buildings will include erection of the structural systems, enclosure of the roof and exterior walls, installation of mechanical and electrical systems, insulation, dry wall, finish carpentry, painting and the installation of furnishing and equipment.

_

1.3.6 Site Improvements, Roads, Parking

The parking areas will be paved and will include concrete curbs, gutters, islands and sidewalks, identification signs and entrance and exit signs. The parking areas will direct stormwater to the proposed central stormwater management basin on the Site which will utilize recharge of the existing ground water. The stormwater system will be designed to adequately accommodate postconstruction runoff.

1.3.7 Landscape Development and Amenities

The Site will be attractively landscaped to provide a pleasing visual experience for both residents at the Site, passing motorists and nearby properties. Amenities such as parking lot lighting and signage will be attractive and constructed to the latest industry standards. The landscaping will be designed to create an attractive setting, taking into account the Site's relation to the Pine Bush Preserve and will compliment the surrounding environment.

1.3.8 Off-site Road Improvements

State road improvements on Washington Avenue Extension, the South Frontage Road and Columbia Circle Drive will be made pursuant to a highway work permit issued by NYSDOT and coordinated with the City of Albany Traffic Safety Division.

1.4 Operational Activities

This section describes the activities associated with the day-to-day operation of the Project. The Project will be operated as an integrated senior residential campus to serve the elder population of the Capital Region.

1.4.1 Access

Directional signage will be provided to the six driveways from Columbia Circle Drive and one from the South Frontage Road to direct visitors to the parking areas for the several buildings within the Campus. Similarly, outgoing vehicles will be directed by signs to the appropriate exit. Parking, as proposed, has been arranged for convenient access to the buildings.

A traffic impact study has been prepared for the Project by Transportation Concepts, LLP and is presented in Appendix A of this DEIS. A summary of the traffic report is presented in Sections 2.8 and 3.9.

1.4.2 Waste Disposal

The Proj ect is expected to generate approximately 44 tons of solid waste per month. The solid waste will be disposed of in a facility in the Port of Albany and the Applicant will participate in recycling

4 - .

~ as required.

1.4.3 Water and Sewer Service

The water usage for the Project is estimated to be 65,000 GPD. Recent improvements have been made to the Pine Bush Water Distribution system. These improvements maintain pressure for users in this area.

Sewage flows for the Project will be transported away from the Project through the existing municipal sewer line located along Columbia Circle Drive. Sewage is tributary to the Patroon Creek Interceptor Sewer. Sewage is treated in the North Wastewater Treatment Facility of the Albany County Sewer District.

1.4.4 Stormwater Management

The increase in runoff from the Project Site will be directed to the central stolmwater management basin located on the Project Site. The basin will not have a discharge outlet. The volume of water will accumulate in the basin during the storm event and recharge the existing ground water. See Appendix C "Stormwater Management Report".

1.5 Purpose and Need for Project

-

The Project Sponsor's purpose for this Project is as follows:

· To provide a high-quality, aesthetically pleasing, residential development to serve

the elder population and meet and existing growing need for such housing within the market area;

· To provide a residential development that is consistent with local zoning and

adjacent land use;

· To take advantage of the regional and local highway network that makes this area

accessible to all of the Capital Region; and

· To fulfill a need in the market area utilizing balanced planning practices aimed at

creating a pedestrian-friendly neo-traditional neighborhood that seeks to integrate the existing senior care facilities.

As detailed in the Retirement Housing and Personal Care Market Feasibility Study (see Appendix B), the Project should be designed to offer residents a comfortable residential living environ~nent, common facilities, support services and access to health related services. The goal and appeal of the community is to sustain and enhance the enjoyment of longer life for the residents.

1

- ~

1.6 Required Permits, Approvals and Zoning Requirements

Construction and operation of the Project will require the following approvals:

1. Site Plan Approval by the City of Albany Planning Board;

2. Special Use Permit from the City of Albany Zoning Board of Appeals;

3. Highway Work Permit from the New York State Department of Transportation;

4. A Building Pe~mit from the City of Albany Building Department p~ior to

commencement of construction.

The Application will be referred to the Albany County Planning Board for a recommendation pursuant to Section 239-m of the General Municipal Law in connection with the above permits or approvals.

ZONING SCHEDULE 1 - USE, AREA AND HEIGHT CONTROLS - CITY OF ALBANY

High Rise

Minimum Lot Area: 20,000 SF

Minimum Lot Width: 100 ft.

Minimum Lot Depth: 200 ft.

Minimum Front Yard: 20 ft.

Minimum Side Yard: 15 ft. from one side; 40 ft. total

6

-

Minimum Rear Yard: 40 fl.

Maximu~n Height: 85 ft.

Maximum Lot Coverage: 33%*

Garden Apartments

Minimum Lot Area: 8,000 SF

Land Area per dwelling unit: 2,000 SF

Minimum Lot Width: 80 ft.

Minimum Lot Depth: 100 ft.

Minimum Front Yard: 20 ft.

Minimum Side Yard: 15 ft. on one side; minimum total of 35 ft. on both sides

Minimum Rear Yard: 40 ft.

Maximum Building Height: 2.5 stories or 35 ft. which is less Maximum Lot Coverage including accessory buildings: 35%*

* See also Pine Bush Overlay Requirements

The following involved and interested agencies have been identif~ed:

INVOEVED AGENCIES The City of Albany Planning Board The City of Albany Zoning Board of Appeals New York State Department of Transportation INTERESTED AGENCIES Albany County Planning Board Albany Pine Bush Preserve Commission

In addition, while the US Army Corps of Engineers is not considered an involved "agency" under the SEQRA regulations [see N.Y.C.R.R. §617.2(c)], the Applicant will comply as may be required with the procedures applicable to Nationwide Pennit #39.

~~ SECTION 2.0 EXISTINGENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

This section ofthe DEIS describes the existing environmental setting on and around the Project Site. This baseline assessment of the environment is necessary in order to evaluate the potential irnpacts of the proposed Project. Section 1, above, describes the proposed Project. Section 3 will evaluate the potential impacts of the Project on the environment as described in this Section.

Natural Resources

2.1 Geology, Soils and Topography 2.1.1 Geology

The bedrock in the vicinity of the study area is the Normanskill Shale Fo~mation, which is one of several geologic formations within the Lorraine Group, a Middle Ordovican Age, (440-500 million years old). The bedrock formation consists mostly of shale, which was deposited as mud into a deep sea basin that once occupied this portion of North America.

The geologic landscape in the Albany area was greatly altered by the last continental glaciation period. The Wisconsinian Glaciation lasted about 100,000 years and ended about 12,500 years ago. Glacial ice sheets, thousands of feet thick, modified the existing land surface and laid down huge amounts of various glacial deposits upon the bedrock surface. As the glacial ice melted and retreated northward, a huge impounded area filled with melt water formed what is called Glacial Lake Albany.

Streams flowing from the ice into Glacial Lake Albany carried large amounts of material that was subsequently modified by stream (glaciofluvial) and lake (glaciolacustrine) processes. The Lake ultimately drained in the study area now occupies part of the old lake basin. The Project area is underlain by glacial and glaciolacustrine deposits which may range in thickness from sixty to eighty feet.

The geology in this area is dominated by unconsolidated deposits of glacial origin which were mapped by Dineen (1982). The Pine Bush encompasses a 40 square mile area that was located near the shores of Glacial Lake Albany. The general stratigraphy of the unconsolidated deposits above the bedrock is (from oldest to youngest) till, ice contact, sand, and gravel, lake clay and silt, lake sand and silt and windblown (aeolian) sand. These deposits by their nature and mode of deposition may vary in thickness and can be laterally discontinuous. The upper sand unit was deposited into Glacial Lake Albany as a delta by the Glaciomohawk River. As the lake level lowered, wind modified the lake and delta sands into dunes. The process of dune building continue into postglacial (Holocene) times and ended approximately 5,000 years ago. These sand dunes cover large areas of the Pine Bush and give the area its unique surface morphology.

r~ 8 ..

- ~ - ~ 2.1.2 Soils

The soils types on the site include Stafford loamy find sand (O to 3% slopes); Elnora loa~ny fine sand (O to 3% slopes); Colonie loamy fine sand (rolling and hilly) and Udipsamments (urban land complex). None of these soils are listed as being hydric or having potential hydric inclusions by the Soil Conservation Service (USDA SCS, 1989).

2.1.3 Topography

The topography of the Proj ect Site is characterized as undulating with two distinct sand dunes, which are oriented west to east across the central and southern portions of the Site. The Proj ect will have minimal impact on the southerly dune, but will result in the removal of the entire central dune.

2.2 Hydrology and Water Quality

2.2.1 Groundwater

a. Bedrock Aquifer

In general, wells drilled into Normanskill Shale aquifer are poor, typically yielding less than 10 gallons per minute (gpm). The groundwater yield from the aquifer is usually better when the wells intersect fractured rock. Fractured bedrock generally provides higher quantities of groundwater than the surrounding unfractured rock, however, the fractured portions of the bedrock occupy a very small percentage of the whole aqulfer.

b. Unconsolidated Aquifers - Buried Ice-Contract Sand and Gravel Aquifer

Buried beneath the lake clay and silt is a discontinuous ice-contact sand and gravel unit that locally forms a confined aquifer. Its thickness ranges from O to 50 feet (Dineen, et al.,1975) and well yields have been reported to be as high as 700 gpm (Arnow, 1949). This unit is described as the best aquifer in the area (Dineen, et al., 1975). Snavely (1983) states that the ice-contact deposits have a minimal hydraulic connection with the surface sand units. The aquifer is reported to receive recharge from discrete surface exposures, which outcrop near Guilderland Center, the Watervliet Reservoir, and Loudonville (Dineen, et al., 1975). If this aquifer exists beneath the Site, it is confined by a thick sequence of Lake Albany clay and silt, and does not receive significant recharge from the Site.

c. Unconsolidated Aquifers - Pine Bush Aquifer

Dune sand and lake sand cover the entire Pine Bush area except for areas where streams have eroded the sand away and exposed the lake clay. The sand units may range in thickness from 5 to over 100 feet and have an average saturated thickness of 40 feet. The average depth to the water table is 10

9

to l 5 feet. Silt and clay lenses exist throughout the aquifer, which may cause locally semi-conf~ned conditions.

The aquifer receives recharge entirely from precipitation, both rain and snow. Average annual precipitation in Albany is about 33.4 inches. Snavely calculated that 38 percent of the total precipitation, or about 12.7 inches, recharges the aquifer. The high percentage of recharge from precipitation reflects the high penneability of the sand. The water table is reported to respond quickly to precipitation. A groundwater divide exists near the intersection of Route 155 and Washington Avenue Extension. From this divide, groundwater in the aquifer flows northward into the Lishakill, westward into the Hungerkill, southward into the Kaikout Kill and eastward into the Patroon Creek. The base flow of streams in the southern part of the Pine Bush (including the Kaikout Kill) are sustained entirely by groundwater seepage from the aquifer during periods of no direct runoff from precipitation or snow melt. The recharge system will not impact this aquifer.

Using data from two pumping tests, a predictive computer model estimates a long-term safe yield of 150 to 600 gpm (depending on hydraulic conductivity) from a single 6-inch diameter well located in the center of the Pine Bush. This model also predicted that these yields may be available in most parts of the Pine Bush Aquifer given similar well construction and aquifer parameters. The estimated aquifer yields were deemed inadequate to qualify the Pine Bush Aquifer as a potential additional source of municipal water.

2.2.2 Surface Water

Surface water run-off and groundwater inifiltration from the elevated sand dunes and slopes, collect along the Site's nearly level southeast side where evidence of soil saturation and temporary ponding can be observed. A small vernal pond exists at this location.

2.3 Vegetation and Wetlands

A federal wetland delineation was completed for the Project. Two small areas that possess features indic.;tive of wetlands were located on the Project Site, totally approximately 0.52 acres (1.7% of the Site). These geographically isolated wetland areas are upland and are generally forested with deciduous trees and scrub/shrub. Based on several Site examinations during different seasons, one of these areas is man-made, approximately .22 acres, and is seasonally saturated. The other is approximately .30 acres with weak wetland characteristics and is seasonally saturated. It is anticipated that the Project will have no significant adverse impact on these areas as the Project has been designed to avoid such areas.

2.4 Wildlife

No endangered or threatened species were identif~ed on the Site. Development of the Project may result in relocation of typical area resident wildlife to adjacent undeveloped lands, some of which are part of the Pine Bush Preserve.

10

~ 2.5 Climate

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration publishes an a~mnal summary of climatological data in a thirty-year history of principle data. The mean precipitation in May through October is 3.44 inches per month, most of the summer time rainfall is in the for~n of thunder showers.

Wind is primarily from the north or northwest; although during summer months, winds from the south or southeast predominate. The monthly average temperature is above freezing from March through November, with the annual mean being approximately 48°F.

2.6 Air Quality

Fuel burning for space heating of both residential and commercial buildings is the primary source of both sulfur dioxide and particulates.

According to Title 6, New York State Environmental Conservation Law, Part 256 - Air Quality Classification Systems, the area lies within Level 1.

According to the New York State Air Quality Report, Ambient Air Monitoring System prepared by NYSDEC, the entire Region 4 sampling area show no excursion (value which exceeds the New York

-- and federal ambient air quality standard) for the following items during 1996:

Sulfur Dioxide - running 3-hour averages and 24-hour average. The number of days exceeding 0.14 PPM is 0.

Inhalable Particulates - 24-hour concentrations. The number of days exceeding 150 ug/m3 is 0.

Total Suspended Particulates - 24-hour concentrations. Tte number of days exceeding 250 ug/m3 is 0.

Carbon Monoxide - 1-hour average and running 8-hour average. The number of days exceeding 9 PPM is 0.

Ozone - 1 -hour averages. The number of days exceeding 0.12 PPM is 0.

Nitric Oxide - 1-hour averages and annual average. The annual average for 1996 was .007 PPM.

Nitrogen Dioxide - 1-hour averages and annual average. The annual average for 1996 was 0.15 PPM where the New York and federal ambient air quality standard is .050 PPM.

11

-- Lead - 24-hour concentrations and quarterly average. The quarterly averages for 1996 were

.03 ug/m3 where the New York and federal ambient air quality standard is 1.5 ug/m3.

There has been no, nor will there be, any degradation in the quality of air at this Site.

Windborn fugitive dust from roadways and/or construction sites accomplish significant portions of the high particulate count.

2.7 Pine Bush 2.7.1 Background

The Albany Pine Bush occupies a region of sandy soils and dunes derived from glacial Lake Albany, situated between the cities of Albany and Schenectady, within the City of Albany, Town of Colonie, Village of Colonie and Town of Guilderland. The Albany Pine Bush was one of the largest inland pine barrens vegetation in the Northeast. However, there has been a loss of such native vegetation. As a result lawsuits concerning the minimum acreage required to sustain the Albany Pine Bush ecosystem and the minimum acreage to sustain the endangered Karner Blue Butterfly, in 1988 the City of Albany caused a study to be prepared by Malcolm Pirnie entitled "Minimum Area Requirements for Long-Term Conservation ofthe Albany Pine Bush and Karner Blue Butterfly: An Assessment" (referred to as "Appendix T"), in an attempt to resolve these issues. See Appendix I. Appendix T was a scientific analysis which concluded that an ecologically viable Pine Bush ecosystem could be achieved through establishment of a +2,000 acre Preserve which generally corresponds to the primary and secondary Preserve boundaries established by the 1985 NYS Natural Heritage Program. Appropriate and active management of such area would be required. Appendix T was a result of a team of three experienced ecologists, assembled by Malcolm Pirnie, to address the ecological issued presented.

Appendix T stated that the 2,000 acre figure was not a hard and fast number. It states "[i]t must be emphasized that identifying roughly 2,000 acres as the minimum area required to sustain the Albany Pine Bush indefinitely does not imply that 1,800 acres (or 1,975 acres) would not suffice." Appendix T at p. 11.

Appendix T identified a five-lobed configuration for the Preserve. It appears that the roughly +2,000 acre Preserve envisioned in Appendix T focuses on establishment of pitch pine-scrub oak habitat together with all existing representative natural communities which make up the ecosystem such as water bodies, vernal ponds and ravines/forests. Appendix T recommended, among other things, use of land use practices to encourage use of native species in all landscaping and limiting proportion of lots that can be paved, built upon or covered in grass. "The aim of such action, of course, is to increase the ability of the Karner Blue Butterfly to disperse between appropriate sites for reproduction and to form new populations, thereby, enhancing its probability of long-term survival in the Albany Pine Bush." Appendix T at p. 59.

r~ 12

.

In 1992, the Appellate Division, Third Department faulted the environn1ental review for a project involving rezoning land within the Pine Bush area of the City. The Court stated "[i]t was essential for a proper analysis to assess whatever the minimum acreage could be acquired in the absence of the subject parcels or provide a reasonable elaboration as to why such an assessment was not required." _ave the Pine Bush v. Citv of Albany Common Council, 188 A.D.2d 969 (3rd Dept. 1 992).

At that time, "o~~1y 1,700 acres had been acquired for the preserve." Plans were in place by the City to increase this acreage, however, the court found:

"the City's reliance on the Nature Conservancy for future acquisitions was misguided and ... the subject parcels could potentially be incorporated into the Preserve. The probability, likelihood or expectation of acquiring the necessary acreage [was] not addressed in the environmental impact statements (which cover the reasons the properties are not necessarily suitable for acquisition into the Preserve), nor is the SEQRA findings statements (which restate the same findings)." Id.

The Court concluded that:

The [rezoning] deterrninations lack areasoned elaboration concerning the manner in which the necessary 2,000 acres would be acquired in the absence of the subject parcels, which was an environmental concern that had to be addressed as it was essential to perpetuate the Pine Bush ecology and the Karner Blue Butterfly. Id.

2.7.2 The Management Plan

The Management Plan and Final Environmental Impacts Statement for the Albany Pine Bush Preserve ("Management Plan") was adopted by the Commission in May, 1993. The Site was identified as being in the Secondary Protection Area. According to the Management Plan, the Secondary Protection Area consisted of approximately 2,500 acres of developed and undeveloped lands adjacent to the Pine Bush Preserve ("Preserve") or Primary Protection Area which have not been determined to contain ecologically significant Pine Bush habitat and/or which can provide open space/buffer functions to the main Preserve. The Management Plan recommended three (3) levels of protection in the Albany Pine Bush and listed several high-priority sites for acquisition. When the Management Plan was released in February, 1993, approximately 1,900 acres were considered to be in the Preserve. The Management Plan contains a plan for fire management of the Preserve.

The Management Plan recommends that lands be protected for a "potential migration/dispersal corridor between the southeast section and Crossgates Hill (a site separated from the Preserve, but included in the Primary Protection Area because it supports a significant population of Karner Blue

13

Butterflies)."

Although the Management Plan stated a minimum of approximately 2,000 acres was required for the Preserve, the research supporting the Management Plan stated:

[i]t must be emphasized that identifying roughly 2,000 acres as a minimum area required to sustain the Albany Pine Bush indefinitely does not imply that 1,800 acres (or 1,975 acres) would not suffice... The issues involved in determining minimum preserve area are not likely to involve a sharp threshold in which the difference in area of a few percent is important. The findings of this report cannot be used to argue for or against differences of a few (< 10) percent in initial preserve area.

In other words, a viable Pine Bush Preserve could be attained with 1,800 acres of land that can be aggressively managed. The Management Plan and the research supporting the Management Plan recommended acquisition and/or protection of Pine Bush lands for the long-term conservation ofthe Preserve. The Management Plan states that:

"approximately 1,900 acres have been acquired [as of 1993] by the various agencies, organizations and municipalities that make up the Albany Pine Bush Preserve Commission. These lands have been or will be dedicated to the [Commission] for management.

The [Commission] is now close to achieving its initial goal of a 2,000 acre preserve..."

(Management Plan, p. 27)

One of the purposes of the Management Plan was to identify goals and objectives that, if implemented, would result in the establishment of a viable Pine Bush Preserve. The Management Plan stated that a minimum area of approximately 2,000 acres was necessary to ensure the long-term viability of the Pine Bush Preserve. (Management Plan P. 27)

2.7.3 EDR Report

On April 1, 1994, Environmental Design and Research, P.C. issued a report entitled "Report on the Ecological Significance of the Pine East Office Park Site" ("EDR Report") (see Appendix G) examined the history, rationale and status ofthe Preserve at that time in connection with a different proposed project. Maps were compiled in the EDR Report showing each parcel of land in the Preserve at that time and listed its ownership, acreage and status.

Consistent with the decision of the Appellate Division, the EDR Report detennined that "..it appears 14

a preserve well in excess of 2,000 acres has been achieved" and that "edge effects" would not reduce the fire-manageable area of the existing preserve "below the ran~e of minimum area considered acceptable by Givnish~ et al (i.e. 1,800 acres!..." See EDR Report at pps. 13 and lG-19 respectively.

The EDR Report also found that as of 1994, there were approximately 2,146 acres available for protection in the Preserve. The total Preserve lands was dete~~nined based upon detailed mapping. The EDR Report relied on existing surveys and deed plots and Auto CAD computer software. According to the EDR Report, this methodology resulted in a "more accurate" calculation of Preserve lands than that contained in the Management Plan. According to the EDR Report, the Preserve calculation:

represents a realistic, if not conservative estimate of what can currently be considered preserve lands. This being the case, it appears that a preserve well in excess of 2,000 acres has been achieved."

(EDR Report, p. 13) (emphasis provided in original).

The EDR Report also calculated the fire-manageable Preserve lands to be approximately 1,900 acres. EDR's fire-manageable calculation was based, in part, on the fact that several landowners of property adjacentto thePreservewerewilling to allowprescribedburns within seventy-five (75) feet ofthe private property boundaries. (See, e~ Matter of Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v. Planning Board of the Town of Guilderland [RAO], 217 A.D.2d 767, 768 n. 4 (3d Dept. 1995).

The EDR Report also concluded that the "preserve/Pine Bush ecosystem is viable in its present configuration." (EDR Report, p. 21) (emphasis added).

2.7.4 Prior Precedent

On June 30, 1994, the Hon. John Connor rendered a decision which found that "the documents reviewed by the Planning Board were sufficient to determine that the 2,000 acre threshold for the Preserve has been achieved....". Save the Pine Bush v. City of Albany Planninc Board, Slip op. (Albany Co. Sup. Ct. 1994) Connor, J.

2.7.5 Implementation Guidelines

On February 12, 1996, the Commission adopted the Albany Pine Bush Preserve Protection and Project Review Implementation Guidelines and Final Environmental Impact Statement ("Implementation Guidelines") and on March 28,1996 a SEQRA Findings Statement was adopted. The Implementation Guidelines provided a ranking system to evaluate properties within the Pine Bush Study Area based on the presence of pitch-pine scrub oak, linkage, buffer and other environmental resources, including the presence of Karner Blue Butterflies, water resources and

15

historical and/or archeological resources.

The Implementation Guidelines stated that a minimum of 1,800 acres was necessary to maintain a viable long-term Pine Bush Preserve. (Attachment 1 to Appendix 1 of the Implementation Guidelines and the Implementation Guidelines Appendix 1, p. 1.) The Preserve Commission determined that as of February, 1996, "approximately 2~220 acres were pennanently protected and mana~ed as part of the preserve by [APBPC] members..." Implementation Guidelines, p. 4. However, the Implementation Guidelines developed the Commission's "vision" for the Pine Bush which includes the addition of 1,730 acres of land identified as "full protection."

2.7.6 Hershberg and Hershberg Study

In 1999, Hershberg and Hershberg, the engineering firm that provided the detailed mapping services in connection with the EDR Report, updated such maps by utilizing the same methodology previously employed ("Hershherg Report"). (See Appendix H) The Hershberg Report provided evidence that a total of 2,530.43 acres of land were either considered preserved or lands available for management by the Commission, of which 2,061.43 acres were capable of fire management.

Since the date of the Hershherg Report, many additional properties have been incorporated or otherwise protected as preserve lands within the Pine Bush. For example, on October 12, 1999, a deed to +115 acres of Pine Bush lands was conveyed to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("NYSDEC"). The parcel is known as the Feeney/Ford parcel, and was considered an important parcel by NYSDEC in terms of its utility as a link to other areas of the Pine Bush. A 48 acre parcel acquired by the Town of Guilderland in later 1999 was made available for management to the Commission. A +47 acre parcel, located at 400-495 Rapp Road, known as Drumlin Fields, was added in 2001. This parcel was considered critical for linkage of the northeasternportionofthePreserve. Approximately8.9 acres, consisting of 5.5 acres at 131 Morris Road, Colonie; 2.4 acres at 4073 Albany Street, Colonie and 18,000 SF at 71 Rapp Road, Albany, were transferred to The Nature Conservancy by the County of Albany. The Town of Colonie Town Board agreed to make 75 acres of Town property available for management by the Commission. The City of Albany is in the process of acquiring for the Preserve, 20 acres of land, known as Fox Run Estates, and an adj acent 40 acre parcel that will eventually become part of the Preserve. (See Appendix J). A +2.7 acre parcel was incorporated into the Preserve as part of a development at Washington Plaza (LaBerge site)

Based on these acquisitions, the Preserve has increased its area to ~t2,884.33 acres.

Therefore, it is clear that the Commission's goal of assembling an ecologically viable Preserve appears to have been attained, as it appears, a preserve well in excess of +2,000 fire-manageable acres and configuration has been achieved.

16

.. . _

2.7.7 The Commission's Prior Review

The Commission provided a letter dated November 1, 1995, of its preliminary comments on an earlier version of the Project. Although these comments did not fully endorse the plan, it stated "[b]ased on field visits, discussion with staff, and your presentation to the Teclmical Committee, it is felt that there are ways to provide mitigation of impacts associated with this proj ect." The Proj ect incorporates the Comn1ission's suggestion to leave the southerly lands adj acent to the Preserve lands on the west undeveloped. The development envelope southerly limits is proximate to the northern Preserve lands located west of the Site.

2.7.8 The Site

An ecological assessment of the Site was conducted by Ecological Solutions, LLC ("Ecological Solutions") to assess whether habitat on the Site is suitable and/or critical for the Karner Blue Butterfly and attempt to visually locate this species and the larvae's primary food source, Blue Lupine, on the Site.

The Project area was surveyed by Ecological Solutions four (4) times during April, May and July, 2000, for the presence of Karner Blue Butterflies and Blue Lupine. Ecological Solutions prepared a letter report of their findings. (See Appendix F) The letter report states, "[n]o individual Karner Blue Butterflies or Blue Lupine was observed in any area on the property." The majority ofthe Site is forested (Black Locust) with dense canopies.

In July, 1999, an assessment of the Site by Environmental Design and Research, P.C. ("EDR") was performed. The EDR site visit coincided with the second flight of Karner Blues and the weather conditions were conducive to butterfly activity. EDR observed Karner Blue Butterfly activity around the Crossgates Hill area. EDR confirmed that the Site contains no Blue Lupine and that no Karner Blue Butterflies were located on the Site.

The reports of Ecological Solutions and EDR each confirmed that the Site is not considered favorable for the Karner Blue Butterfly due to the dense shade/canopy created by Black Locusts that dominate the Site and no food source.

As noted in the Ecological Solutions Report, the Site contains three separate habitat types. Area 1 Forested Uplands, Area 2 - Scrub/Shrub Wetlands and Area 3 - Old Field. Areas 1 and 2 have a habitat of low suitability for the Karner Blue Butterfly. Area 1 is primarily steep slopes-dunes with white pine and black locusts and Area 2 is a small wetland with densely wooded edges.

Area 3 consists of Old Field vegetation with dominant sandy soils. The Old Field area does not contain potential adult Karner Blue Butterfly habitat (canopy coverage less than 10%) dominated by Old Field perennial species. It is located adjacent to dense forested uplands (canopy coverage 80 - 90%) and has no food source for the Karner Blue Butterfly. The Ecological Solutions report

17

..,

- 2.7.7 The Commission's Prior Review

The Commission provided a letter dated November 1, 1995, of its preliminary comments on an earlier version of the Project. Although these comments did not fully endorse the plan, it stated "[b]ased on field visits, discussion with staff, and your presentation to the Technical Committee, it is felt that there are ways to provide mitigation of impacts associated with this proj ect." The Proj ect incorporates the Commission's suggestion to leave the southerly lands adjacent to the Preserve lands on the west undeveloped. The development envelope southerly limits is proximate to the northern Preserve lands located west of the Site.

2.7.8 The Site

An ecological assessment of the Site was conducted by Ecological Solutions, LLC ("Ecological Solutions") to assess whether habitat on the Site is suitable and/or critical for the Karner Blue Butterfly and attempt to visually locate this species and the larvae's primary food source, Blue Lupine, on the Site.

The Project area was surveyed by Ecological Solutions four (4) times during April, May and July, 2000, for the presence of Karner Blue Butterflies and Blue Lupine. Ecological Solutions prepared a letter report of their findings. (See Appendix F) The letter report states, "[n]o individual Karner

r - Blue Butterflies or Blue Lupine was observed in any area on the property." The maj ority of the Site

is forested (Black Locust) with dense canopies.

In July, 1999, an assessment ofthe Site by Environmental Design and Research, P.C. ("EDR") was performed. The EDR site visit coincided with the second flight of Karner Blues and the weather conditions were conducive to butterfly activity. EDR observed Karner Blue Butterfly activity around the Crossgates Hill area. EDR confirmed that the Site contains no Blue Lupine and that no Karner Blue Butterflies were located on the Site.

The reports of Ecological Solutions and EDR each confirmed that the Site is not considered favorable for the Karner Blue Butterfly due to the dense shade/canopy created by Black Locusts that dominate the Site and no food source.

As noted in the Ecological Solutions Report, the Site contains three separate habitat types. Area 1 - Forested Uplands, Area 2 - Scrub/Shrub Wetlands and Area 3 - Old Field. Areas 1 and 2 have a habitat of low suitability for the Karner Blue Butterfly. Area 1 is primarily steep slopes-dunes with white pine and black locusts and Area 2 is a small wetland with densely wooded edges.

Area 3 consists of Old Field vegetation with dominant sandy soils. The Old Field area does not contain potential adult Karner Blue Butterfly habitat (canopy coverage less than 10%) dominated by Old Field perennial species. It is located adjacent to dense forested uplands (canopy coverage 80 - 90%) and has no food source for the Karner Blue Butterfly. The Ecological Solutions report

17

- 2.7.7 The Commission's Prior Review

The Commission provided a letter dated November 1, 1995, of its preliminary comments on an earlier version of the Project. Although these comments did not fully endorse the plan, it stated "[b]ased on field visits, discussion with staff, and your presentation to the Technical Committee, it is felt that there are ways to provide mitigation of impacts associated with this proj ect." The Proj ect incorporates the Commission's suggestion to leave the southerly lands adjacent to the Preserve lands on the west undeveloped. The development envelope southerly limits is proximate to the northern Preserve lands located west of the Site.

2.7.8 The Site

An ecological assessment of the Site was conducted by Ecological Solutions, LLC ("Ecological Solutions") to assess whether habitat on the Site is suitable and/or critical for the Karner Blue Butterfly and attempt to visually locate this species and the larvae's primary food source, Blue Lupine, on the Site.

The Project area was surveyed by Ecological Solutions four (4) times during April, May and July, 2000, for the presence of Karner Blue Butterflies and Blue Lupine. Ecological Solutions prepared a letter report of their findings. (See Appendix F) The letter report states, "[n]o individual Karner

r - Blue Butterflies or Blue Lupine was observed in any area on the property." The maj ority of the Site

is forested (Black Locust) with dense canopies.

In July, 1999, an assessment ofthe Site by Environmental Design and Research, P.C. ("EDR") was performed. The EDR site visit coincided with the second flight of Karner Blues and the weather conditions were conducive to butterfly activity. EDR observed Karner Blue Butterfly activity around the Crossgates Hill area. EDR confirmed that the Site contains no Blue Lupine and that no Karner Blue Butterflies were located on the Site.

The reports of Ecological Solutions and EDR each confirmed that the Site is not considered favorable for the Karner Blue Butterfly due to the dense shade/canopy created by Black Locusts that dominate the Site and no food source.

As noted in the Ecological Solutions Report, the Site contains three separate habitat types. Area 1 - Forested Uplands, Area 2 - Scrub/Shrub Wetlands and Area 3 - Old Field. Areas 1 and 2 have a habitat of low suitability for the Karner Blue Butterfly. Area 1 is primarily steep slopes-dunes with white pine and black locusts and Area 2 is a small wetland with densely wooded edges.

Area 3 consists of Old Field vegetation with dominant sandy soils. The Old Field area does not contain potential adult Karner Blue Butterfly habitat (canopy coverage less than 10%) dominated by Old Field perennial species. It is located adjacent to dense forested uplands (canopy coverage 80 - 90%) and has no food source for the Karner Blue Butterfly. The Ecological Solutions report

17

.- 2.7.7 The Commission's Prior Review

The Commission provided a letter dated November 1, 1995, of its preliminary comments on an earlier version of the Project. Although these comments did not fully endorse the plan, it stated "[b]ased on field visits, discussion with staff, and your presentation to the Technical Committee, it is felt that there are ways to provide mitigation of impacts associated with this proj ect." The Proj ect incorporates the Commission's suggestion to leave the southerly lands adjacent to the Preserve lands on the west undeveloped. The development envelope southerly limits is proximate to the northern Preserve lands located west of the Site.

2.7.8 The Site

An ecological assessment of the Site was conducted by Ecological Solutions, LLC ("Ecological Solutions") to assess whether habitat on the Site is suitable and/or critical for the Karner Blue Butterfly and attempt to visually locate this species and the larvae's primary food source, Blue Lupine, on the Site.

The Project area was surveyed by Ecological Solutions four (4) times during April, May and July, 2000, for the presence of Karner Blue Butterflies and Blue Lupine. Ecological Solutions prepared a letter report of their findings. (See Appendix F) The letter report states, "[n]o individual Karner

r - Blue Butterflies or Blue Lupine was observed in any area on the property." The maj ority of the Site

is forested (Black Locust) with dense canopies.

In July, 1999, an assessment ofthe Site by Environmental Design and Research, P.C. ("EDR") was performed. The EDR site visit coincided with the second flight of Karner Blues and the weather conditions were conducive to butterfly activity. EDR observed Karner Blue Butterfly activity around the Crossgates Hill area. EDR confirmed that the Site contains no Blue Lupine and that no Karner Blue Butterflies were located on the Site.

The reports of Ecological Solutions and EDR each confirmed that the Site is not considered favorable for the Karner Blue Butterfly due to the dense shade/canopy created by Black Locusts that dominate the Site and no food source.

As noted in the Ecological Solutions Report, the Site contains three separate habitat types. Area 1 - Forested Uplands, Area 2 - Scrub/Shrub Wetlands and Area 3 - Old Field. Areas 1 and 2 have a habitat of low suitability for the Karner Blue Butterfly. Area 1 is primarily steep slopes-dunes with white pine and black locusts and Area 2 is a small wetland with densely wooded edges.

Area 3 consists of Old Field vegetation with dominant sandy soils. The Old Field area does not contain potential adult Karner Blue Butterfly habitat (canopy coverage less than 10%) dominated by Old Field perennial species. It is located adjacent to dense forested uplands (canopy coverage 80 - 90%) and has no food source for the Karner Blue Butterfly. The Ecological Solutions report

17

..,

states:

"There are several attributes of Area 3 that detract from its ability to support Karner Blue Butterfly populations. Residential dwellings, commercial properties, and upland forest with a dense canopy layer surround the Site. The lack of Blue Lupine on and immediately adjacent to the properties indicates that sustained populations are not present."

2.7.9 Conclusion

Based on the prior studies, analysis and legal precedents, it appears that an ecologically viable Preserve may have been assembled. In any event, the Site does not contain habitat suitable for the Karner Blue Butterfly. The value of the Site, as identified in the Implementation Guidelines, is maintained by limiting the development envelope to the northern portion of the Site. The framework for the manner in which the necessary 2,000 acres would be acquired in the absence of the subject parcels is set forth in the Implementation Guidelines. Retaining ~t 10 acres of land as undeveloped lands meets the goals and objectives for the site as identified in the Implementation Guidelines.

Human Resources

2.8 Transportation and Traffic

A Traffic Impact Study was prepared for the Proj ect by Transportation Concepts, LLP. It provides a detailed analysis of highway capacity in this area. This study is presented as Appendix A, "Traffic Impact Study".

The study area for this Project includes the Washington Avenue Extension area at the Columbia Circle Drive intersection. The existing condition of this roadway is summarized in the following subsections.

2.8.1 Description of Roadway Network

The Traffic Impact Study analyzed the existing carrying capacity of the existing road network.

Roadways

Washington Avenue Extension is an east-west arterial roadway that extends west from Fuller Road to New Karner Road. It is a divided highway servicing developments along the northern and southern lands adjacent thereto. Two travel lanes (12' minimum width) and a paved shoulder (12' minimum width) are provided for travel in each direction. A curbed island with guide railings separates the east and west travel lanes. The posted speed limit is 55 mph.

18

Columbia Circle Drive is classified as a north-south local roadway extending northwest from Pitch Pine East to the intersection of Washington Avenue Extension. Columbia Circle Drive is generally a two-lane paved roadway with grass shoulders which serves office development in the area. The posted speed limit is 30 mph.

South Frontage Road is classified as an east-west collector roadway that extends west from Springsteen Road to nearly New Karner Road. The South Frontage Road provides for a two-lane paved roadway with grassed shoulder areas. The posted speed limit is 25 mph.

Intersections

Potential Project-related traffic was evaluated by studying Columbia Circle Drive/Rapp Road at Washington Avenue Extension and South Frontage Road intersections. The specific intersections evaluated include:

a. Columbia Circle Drive at South Frontage Road

This intersection operates as a four-legged, unsignalized intersection approximately 150 feet south of the Washington Avenue Extension/Rapp Road intersection.

b. Columbia Circle Drive at Washington Avenue Extension -

This intersection operates as a four-legged, actuated, three (3)-phase signal controlled intersection located just north of the South Frontage Road.

c. Columbia Circle Drive at Site Driveways R1 through R5 (refer to Figure 1-2 of the Traffic Impact Study)

Intersection R1 through R4 driveways with Columbia Circle Drive will serve the elderly tenement buildings each with full access to and from Columbia Circle Drive controlled by a stop sign at each egress location. R5 will serve the 50-unit independent senior living center and will be a full access driveway, located opposite R4, and controlled by a posted stop sign.

d. Columbia Circle Drive at Driveways R6 and C1 (refer to Figure 1-2 of the Traffic Impact Study)

R6 and C1 are each planned with full access to Columbia Circle Drive and South Frontage Road, respectively. Traffic will be controlled by a posted stop sign.

19

.,

- - 2.8.2 Existing Traff~c Operations

Tuming count movements were collected in February, 2001 and the appropriate AM and PM peak hours were determined. Traffic count data was then collected during the peak hour periods (7:458:45 AM and 4:30-5:30 PM) at:

Columbia Circle Drive at South Frontage Road; and

Columbia Circle Drive at Washington Avenue Extension

2.8.3 Capacity Analysis

A capacity analysis was performed for the above-mentioned intersections using the traffic volumes from the peak hours. The results of the analysis, shown in Appendix A, indicate that during the existing AM peak hour at Washington Avenue Extension/Columbia Circle Drive, most of the movements had a LOS C or better with the overall intersection operation of LOS B. The PM peak hour conditions at this intersection indicate less overall delay, however one movement, the southbound left turn, received a LOS F rating. The capacity analysis summaries are attached in Appendix A.

2.9 Noise

-

The major noise generator in the Project vicinity is vehicular traffic on Washington Avenue Extension which borders the Project Site to the north. There are existing developments surrounding the Project including residences along the southern property line. Development immediately west of the Site consists of many office building facilities, while development east of the Site is the Daughters of Sarah facility which is currently undergoing an expansion.

2.10 Land Use and Zoning

2.10.1 City of Albany Zoning Ordinance

The Site is located within a R-4 Multi-family High-rise Residential Zoning District which permits both multi-family dwellings/high-rise (elevator apartments) and garden apartments. Hospitals, day care centers and nursing homes are permitted upon issuance of a special use permit. The Applicants intend to seek and obtain a special use permit from the City of Albany Board of Zoning Appeals. Accordingly, the Project is in harmony with the City's land use plan.

20

..,

. . _ . . . . . .

- 2.10.2 Existing Land Use

Properties immediately south of the Site are residential in nature. Immediately west of the Site includes numerous offices facilities. In the vicinity of the Site is a regional mall, a super power shopping center, a banquet house, community centers and Fire and Police facilities, all along Washington Avenue Extension. The Daughters of Sarah residential facilities are located im~nediately east of the Site.

2.11 Cultural Resources

2.11.1 Historic and Archeological Resources

Collamer and Associates, Inc. was retained by the Applicant to conduct a Phase IA Cultural Resource Investigation for the Site.

The Phase IA study included a review of the environmental setting and background research, examining historic maps and local histories. In addition, the archeological site inventory files and the results of prior cultural resource investigations at OPRHP were examined to identify recorded sites within one mile of the Project area and aid in determining the archeological potential of the region.

Based, in part, upon the high archeological potential of the Project area, a Phase IB archeological field investigation was initiated. The Phase IB archeological field investigation was designed to provide areasonable determination ofthepresence or absence of significant cultural resourceswithin the Project area.

The Stage IB testing uncovered a limited number of historic artifacts suggesting these materials represent scattered secondary deposits related to the recent development of the area. The prehistoric artifacts appear to be stray material. The Stage IB report concluded that "the project area does not appear to meet the criteria to nomination to the State or National Register of Historic Places. No further archeological investigations are recommended at this time."

2.11.2 VisualResources

The Project Site was evaluated for visual resource characteristics and existing conditions. To identify potential effects on visual resources, the first step is to evaluate the existing Site in the context of the surrounding area and to identify the potential receptors. Visual receptors are those individuals or groups of individuals which will have direct views of the existing and proposed site.

A field survey was conducted to identify the potential receptors. Two groups of users were identified, the drivers using the roadway system and occupants of developed areas in the vicinity of the Site. The first group's views are significantly different from the second. The views for the users

21

. .

of Washington Avenue Extension are primarily fixed along the roadway corridor and much of the Project is shielded from this view by existing development along Washington Avenue Extension. The second group located along the Site property boundaries will, potentially, have a more direct view ofthe Project. The potential view of residents to the south will depend upon the amount ofthe forested vegetation that will be removed as part of the Applicant's proposal to remove invasive Pine Bush species and then re-landscape. In any event, the southern portion of the development envelope closest to the residences to the south will consist of residential style cottages. The residences to the south will be screened by retention of some existing vegetation and natural dune. Properties east and west of the Site will be buffered through retention of existing vegetation.

There will be no adverse impact on the viewscape.

2.12 Community Facilities and Services

This section discusses existing local services, including medical, educational, police, ambulance and fire protection services. Existing public utilities are also described including waste water, water supply, electric and telephone.

2.12.1 Police Protection

Police protection in the City of Albany is provided by the City of Albany Police Department. The nearest police station is the Pine Bush Police and Fire Station located at #223 Washington Avenue Extension at relocated Rapp Road in the immediate vicinity of the Site. The Albany Police Department provides protection from the Pine Bush substation. Police protection is considered adequate to serve the current needs of the City of Albany and to accommodate reasonable growth.

2.12.2 FireProtection

The Project area receives fire protection from the City of Albany Fire Department. The nearest fire station is the Pine Bush Police and Fire Station located at #223 Washington Avenue Extension, at relocated Rapp Road in the immediate vicinity of the Site. Fire protection is considered adequate to serve the current needs of the City of Albany and to accommodate reasonable growth.

2.12.3 Ambulance Service

2.12.4 Medical Services

Emergency health care facilities are located within 6 miles of the Site at St. Peters Hospital, New Scotland Avenue and a Regional Trauma Center is available within 8 miles at Albany Medical Center, New Scotland Avenue. Outpatient clinics are also available. Health care facilities in this area are more than adequate to serve the needs ofthe City of Albany and to accommodate reasonable growth.

-

22

2.12.5 Solid Waste Disposal

Solid waste will be disposed by private contractors and delivered to an approved landfill.

2.12.6 Water Service

The total expected water use of the Project is estimated at 65,000 gallons per day. This quantity of water is insignif~cant given the current operating level of the City of Albany's supply of 19 million gallons per day. The safe yield of the existing system is 26,600,000. The capacity of the City to supply and distribute water will not be affected by this Proj ect. The Pine Bush area is served by an elevated one million gallon storage tank which is in good condition and stores adequate water for service to the area. Recent improvements have been made to the Pine Bush Water Distribution system. These improvements maintain pressure for users in this area. The increase in usage will have no adverse impact on the City of Albany water system.

2.12.7 SewerService

The Project will be served by a local sewer located along Columbia Circle Drive, the Pine Bush Interceptor Sewer. Sewer facilities are considered adequate to serve the needs of the City of Albany and to accommodate additional growth in this area. The Pine Bush Interceptor Sewer was designed for the full build out of the Pine Bush area. Given the substantial amount of set asides and acquisitions for Preserve purposes, the Pine Bush Interceptor Sewer will have suff~cient capacity for any development in this area.

2.12.9 Electric, Natural Gas and Telephone Services

Natural gas and electric services are provided to the area by The Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. These services, as well as telecommunications service, are currently available by a hook-up to the existing lines along Washington Avenue Extension. There is suff~cient capacity to service the Project. ~

~, 23

-

SECTION 3 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND 1HITIGATING MEASURES

This section discusses the environmental impacts, both positive and negative, associated with constructing and operating the Proj ect. Where appropriate, mitigating measures for potential adverse impacts are also identified.

Construction activity at the Project Site will result in certain short-term, unavoidable impacts. Activities such as tree cutting, grubbing, filling, grading, excavation, construction of roads, parking areas, buildings and utilities, and transport of material to the Site will consume fuels, divert traffic to the Site and result in some noise, dust, odors and vibration. These activities will also create jobs, thus having a positive impact on local employment and private sector economic structure. This section of the DEIS will also discuss operational impacts, which include transportation related activities, changes in land use, noise levels, drainage and water quality. A description of each respective potential impact follows.

3.1. Geology, Soils and Topography

A. Potential Impacts

The development of the Proj ect will have an effect on Site topography. Clearing of vegetation and grading of the Site will be required prior to construction of the Project. The existing Site characteristics include two dunes, the dune on the northern portion of the Site will be graded to accommodate the Project. The second dune will be substantially maintained to provide a natural buffer area.

Use of proper construction techniques to minimize erosion will be used. A Site specific erosion and sediment control plan will be incorporated into the Project. The erosion control measures may include the use of straw bale barriers, siltation fencing and basins, erosion seeding and tire clean-off areas at access roads. After construction, new landscaping will be maintained in the developed area.

B. Mitigative Measures

The following measures will be employed to mitigate the construction phase impacts on the Site due to soil disturbance:

1. Erosion preventative measures, such as jute mesh or hay bale filters, will be

employed during construction.

2. Stockpiled top soil will be either seeded with an annual rye grass or covered with an

erosion control fabric. Soil slippage at the toe of the stocked area will be prevented by installing hay bales or filter fabric barriers at the perimeter.

24

_.

r:

3. During construction, dust will be controlled with a water tank truck equipped with spray nozzles.

4. Tire clean-off areas will be designated at access roads.

There are no operational impacts anticipated with the proposed Project, therefore no mitigation is needed.

3.2 Hydrology and Water Quality

A Potential Impacts

The Site will be permanently affected by the proposed construction and operation of the Project. Most notably, the proposed development will introduce impervious surfaces to the Site, which will in turn increase the quantity and rate of stormwater runoff. Stormwater pollutant loadings including, but not limited to sediment, oil and grease and metals will also increase. The stormwater runoff would contain these higher pollutant loadings due to the flushing of accumulated pollutants on the impervious surfaces between rain events.

B. Mitigative Measures

-

A stormwater management report has been prepared and is presented in Appendix C. This plan projects and proposes control of the amount of stormwater runoff resulting from the development of the Project.

All stormwater on the developed portion of the Site will be controlled and directed to the proposed central storm water management basin where it will recharge to the ground water table. The storm water system will be used to collect and convey water to the central storm water management basin.

3.3 Vegetation and Wetlands A. Potential Impacts

Construction of the Project will involve the removal of existing vegetation on the Project Site. A significant amount of natural vegetation will be left undisturbed by development on the southerly b 10 acres of the Site. In this area, the Applicant proposes to intensively re-vegetate with natural Pine Bush indigenous species after the removal of invasive species, including Black Locust.

No state jurisdictional wetlands are present on the Site. A total of +0.52 acres of federal wetlands have been identified on the Site. The Project has been designed to avoid any potential significant adverse impact on the designated federal wetlands.

25

..,

~: ~

B. Mitigative Measures

1. The southerly portion of the Site as identif~ed on the site plan, outside the

development envelope, will be cleared of species of vegetation considered invasive

to the Pine Bush and re-planted with native Pine Bush vegetation in cooperation with

the Commission.

2. The construction of a central stormwater management basin will function to maintain

post-development peak stormwater discharges to at or below their pre-development

levels.

3. During construction, implement appropriate soil and erosion control measures to

reduce any potential impacts.

3.4 Wildlife

A. Potential Impacts

During construction of the Project, existing vegetation will be removed from the Project Site, resulting in the unavoidable loss of potential wildlife habitat and potential displacement of resident populations to other areas. Natural vegetation, with the exception of invasive Pine Bush species, will be left undisturbed along the southern portion of the Site. For those wildlife species that are displaced and are capable of migrating to adj acent lands, adequate habitat of similar character exists in the area to support them. Reduction of habitat may result in the reduction of species which can be supported. However, no signif~cant adverse effect to wildlife is anticipated.

Based on a comprehensive Site investigation, no threatened, rare or endangered species of wildlife have been identified to occur on the Project Site.

B. Mitigative l\leasures

While habitat loss will be unavoidable, the impact is not considered to be signif~cant.

3.5 Climate

A. Potential Impacts

The construction and operation of the Project will have no notable impact on climate. As such, no mitigation is required.

f~ 26 ..

l

3.6 Air Quality

A. Potential Impacts

Construction activities required to prepare the Site for building as wel] as construction of roads and parking areas will cause a slight increase in airborne particulates from windborn dusts and soils.

In addition, emissions can be expected from construction machinery, construction worker and delivery truck traffic. Exhaust emissions will result in slight localized elevations of ambient concentrations of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and hydrocarbons. Because of the relatively short construction period, the impact of exhaust emissions will be minimal. These are short-term, temporary, local adverse impacts.

According to NYSDEC Bureau of Air Quality Surveillance, the City of Albany is considered "attainment area" under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

B. Mitigative Measures

The following measures are proposed to mitigate potential construction impacts on atmospheric resources at the Site:

1. Precautions will be taken during construction with respect to control of airborne

dusts through the use of conventional water spray trucks to maintain a moist ground

surface and thereby reduce dust dispersion. Water trucks will also be utilized, as

needed, to maintain optimum grading conditions, ensure proper control of

compaction, and minimize off-site migration of fugitive dust.

2. Rapid revegetation and landscaping will be used to help retard off-site migration of

fugitive dust.

3. All construction equipment will be required to have operable emission control and

anti-pollution equipment in compliance with applicable laws.

3.7 Pine Bush

3.7.1 Assumption - An Ecologically Viable Preserve has not been Assembled.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, contrary to the conclusions reached in Section 2.7, that an ecologically viable Preserve has not been assembled, the following provides an additional detailed analysis of Preserve based on the Commission's Implementation Guidelines.

-

27

3.7.2 Implementation Guidelines

The Implementation Guidelines were prepared by the Commission to supplement the Management Plan with respect to the project review guidelines and processes.

The Implementation Guidelines address the issue of configuration (and size) of a preserve required for the long-term conservation of the Albany Pine Bush ecosystem and the Karner Blue Butterfly.

The Implementation Guidelines are dated February 12, 1996 and the Findings Statement by the Commission, adopting the Guidelines, is dated March 28, 1996. It has been reported that the Commission is in the process of revising the Implementation Guidelines, however, no such plan has been adopted. The Implementation Guidelines on Map #9 shows the "Vision for the Albany Pine Bush Preserve", and presents the Commission's recommendation for the future size and configuration of the Preserve. Map #9 shows the Albany Pine Bush Preserve Lands as of February, 1996, and lands recommended for "full protection", "open space", and "partial protection".

The Findings Statement explains the rationale for these recommendations as follows:

Based on research by Thomas Givnish, Eric Menges and Dale Schweitzer, the Commission concludes that aminimum area of 2.000 fire mana~ed acres of pitch pine-scrub oak barren community~ that are contiguous to the maximum extent practicable, are required for the lon~-term conservation of the Albany Pine Bush ecosystem and the Karner blue butterfly. While approximately 2,220 gross acres are considered protected by the various agencies, organizations and municipalities that make up the Albany Pine Bush Preserve Commission, not all of this area can be restored to and maintained as pitch pine-scrub oak barrens. As detailed in the FEIS appendix I, there are approximately 1,630 currently protected areas towards the minimum 2,000 acre goal. ConsequentlY. a minimum of approximately 370 more acres of pitch pine-scrub oak barrens or potentially restorable pitch pine-scrub oak barrens are recommended for protection to reach the desire goal of obtaining 2,OOO acres of pitch pine-scrub oak barrens that can be maintained by fire. This is a conservative estimate since it assumes that the Commission will be able to burn within 75 feet of some adjacent properties and that areas supporting black locust can be completely restored to pitch pine-scrub oak barrens. Additional protection recommendations are based on the necessity of maintaining a reasonable degree of Preserve contiguity, buffer and protection of environmentally sensitive resources such as the Karner blue butterfly. Based on this, and as set forth in the FEIS and Guidelines, the Commission recommends full protection of an

28

additional 1,730 acres for a total of 3,980 acres fully protected.

Implementation Guidelines p.5 (emphasis added).

The most current configuration of the Preserve, showing land protected, land under negotiation for acquisition and lands classified "full protection" still available for inclusion in the Preserve is shown in Appendix H (the Hershberg Report).

The Project Site is identified in the Implementation Guidelines as a portion of Area 29 (full protection area) and Area 49 (partial protection area). Area 29 is a ~t48 acre parcel consisting of +20 acres under the control of the Daughters of Sarah Nursing Home company, Inc. and the re~nainder located south of the existing Teresian House facilities and is owned by the Diocese.

There are or were several projects before permit issuing boards for approval, which have, may have or may be perceived to have an impact on the future configuration of the Preserve, or on the ability to complete a Preserve of 2,000 fire manageable areas.

Such proj ects are listed below, together with their current status. These proj ects were identif~ed from files and information provided by the four municipalities in the study area.

These projects and their potential impact, if approved, on the configuration of the Preserve and the ability to complete the Preserve in relation to the Project are listed and discussed below.

The impact of each of these proj ects, if approved, on the configuration of the Preserve and the ability to complete it (assuming for the sake of argument, it has not been completed), is discussed below.

Projects which have not been formally submitted are also not part of this discussion. Any attempt to assess their impact on the future size of the Preserve or its configuration would be pure speculation.

3.7.3 Individual Analysis of Projects' Impacts on Completion and Configuration of the Preserve

400-495 Rapp Road, Albany

This project entailed development of office buildings on +47 acres of land bordering the landfill parcel on the east and Six Mile Water Works on the west. The property was classified as "full protection" - see Areas 13 and 14 on Map 9 in the Implementation Guidelines.

Although this property received rezoning approval, the property was later acquired by the State of New York and included in the Preserve. The acquisition ofthis property was identified as necessary

30

l

providing enhanced linkage and buffer for the northeast portion of the Preserve.

Siver Road (Feeney Property), Guilderland

This project involves the southern half of Area 56 (see Map 9 in the Implementation Guidelines) which is identified for full protection. +115 acres out of the i130 acres were dedicated to the Preserve. The remaining acres will be developed into a 3-lot residential subdivision. Therefore, this additional acreage assisted the Commission in realizing its goal and obj ective in providing additional linkage and buffer functions identified in the In1plementation Guidelines.

Acquisition of this property is considered signif~cant because the Commission also acquired lands immediately to the north (the Mrozek parcel) which completed the disposition of Area 56. In addition, mitigation fees were to be paid to be used for acquisition of other lands to compensate for the loss of 15 acres.

151 Lincoln Avenue, Village of Colonie and Rapp Road Landfill Expansion

The City of Albany proposed a 25-acre expansion of the landfill. The area identified for the expansion is within an unclassified category within the study area.

The Fox Run Estates Mobile Home Park expansion was proposed for an additional 85 lots and is identified in the Implementation Guidelines as Area 16. As part ofthe City's approval permit from NYSDEC, the City is obligated to purchase, or otherwise acquire, the mobile home park. In Spring, 2000, the City and residents of the Fox Run Estates Mobile Home Park agreed to a buyout of the 20acre park and the undeveloped 40-acre parcel in additional land, which eventually will be dedicated for Preserve purposes and serve linkage and buffer functions, their identified purpose, as identified in the Implementation Guidelines.

300 Washington Avenue Extension, Albany

This project entails the development of ~ 110,000 SF of of fice facilities on a 12-acre parcel that has been classified as `'partial protection" and known as Area 6 (see Map 9 in the Implementation Guidelines). As approved by the Common Council (rezoning) and the Planning Board (site plan approval), the benefits of the project include i2 acres being donated to the Preserve, increased fire management ability on the former Muncie property by permitting burning up to the site boundary, removal of invasive species and payment of mitigation fees for the development of a portion of the site.

161 Washington Avenue Extension, Albany

This project entails the expansion of Crossgates Cornmons by an additional 140,000 SF of retail space. This project is located on unclassified land (see Map 9 in the Implementation Guidelines);

31

therefore, development of this project will have no effect on configuration or completion of the Preserve.

Time Warner Expansion, Albany

This application entailed a rezoning, site plan approval and subdivision approval proposal to permit an expansion of the existing Time Warner facilities located on Washington Avenue Extension as well as development of a restaurant to be situated on an adjoining parcel to the east. In connection with this expansion, the existin