Located in northern Dutchess County , the Town of Milan is a rural community facing strong development pressure as the demand for new housing moves north up the Hudson Valley . Because a major goal of the town’s comprehensive plan is to keep Milan rural, conservation subdivisions are strongly encouraged by the Planning Board.

The Board found, however, that applicants were presenting site plans that did not give adequate consideration to environmental concerns, often because the applicant was simply unaware of the geological features, habitats, and plant and animal species on the site. The site plans then needed revision (and often re-revision or more), leading to delays, confusion, and additional expense.

To help make the approval process for conservation subdivisions move more efficiently, in mid-January 2005 the Planning Board asked the members of the Milan Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) to create a set of habitat assessment guidelines (HAG) that could be used by all applicants. By using the HAG early in the process to establish the environmental constraints and guide the plan, applicants could incorporate environmental protection into the siting and design of development projects, which would help minimize delays and expenses during the review process. The guidelines would also help streamline the planning process by facilitating New York State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR), site plan review, subdivision review, and other related environmental reviews.

The CAC members readily agreed, thinking that similar guidelines surely already were in use by other, larger communities. All that would be necessary, they thought, would be to adapt the existing guidelines to Milan ’s particular needs. To their great surprise, however, the CAC members found that no such guidelines were available - they would have to create them.

CAC members Sheila Buff and Frank Margiotta, along with Planning Board Chair Lauren Kingman and Karen Schneller-McDonald, a consultant to GreenPlan Inc. ( Milan ’s town planner), then set to work. Step one was to enlist the help of Gretchen Stevens, director of the Biodiversity Resources Center at Hudsonia, a not-for-profit institute for research, education, and technical assistance in the environmental sciences. Ms. Stevens provided invaluable assistance in helping to create a science-based document that presents the case for habitat assessment guidelines and provides a logical, thorough, and flexible methodology for conducting the assessment and presenting the results.

As the guidelines were drafted, specific areas of concern were:

• water resources (including aquifers, streams, wetlands, and vernal pools), regardless of regulatory status or  jurisdiction
• vegetation
• soil types
• elevation, aspect and slope (including rocky outcrops, steep slopes and ridgelines)
• plants and wildlife of conservation concern, including but not limited to breeding birds, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals
• presence of protected species of plants or animals

Guidelines for assessing each of the above aspects were created, based on current scientific thinking and backed up by widely accepted reference materials. A standard format for the habitat assessment report was also created. Required in the report is a discussion of methods used, including sources of information (existing studies, maps), agency inquiries, aerial photographs, and field visits. The results section of the report must include a site overview with descriptions of bedrock geology and soils, habitat descriptions, indicators of habitat quality, a habitat map of the site, including roads, existing structures, habitat labels, contours, topographic features, and soils. In the discussion section, the report must include species of conservation concern that would use the site, an overview of biodiversity, ecological impacts of the proposed development in the context of the larger landscape, and the relationship of existing or proposed conservation easements to habitats onsite.  The potential environmental impacts of the proposed project activity and recommended mitigation measures are also part of the report.

The Habitat Assessment Guidelines insist on quality control and follow-up, as well. Site visit(s) by representatives of the CAC, Planning Board, and Town Planner are conducted after the habitat assessment is submitted. The Town may require peer review of the Habitat Assessment Report at the expense of the applicant.

The CAC was first asked to create the guidelines in mid-January of 2005. Drafting the guidelines went quickly, thanks to professional input from Karen Schneller-McDonald. Frank Margiotta of the CAC contributed his professional knowledge of scientific reporting and Sheila Buff of the CAC contributed her writing skills. The final Habitat Assessment Guidelines were endorsed by the Milan Planning Board in March 2005, just two months after the process began.

Applicants who have used the guidelines have been generally positive. Although they must now go to the additional expense of having a biologist prepare the habitat assessment report, the overall savings in time and unanticipated expenses later in the planning process make up for the cost. The Milan guidelines have been so successful, in fact, that other communities in the Hudson Valley, including New Paltz and Shawangunk, have used them as the model for their own guidelines.