First Peoples’ Bio-Regional Animism

By ANITA FRITZ Recorder Staff

Published: Friday, May 02, 2008

GREENFIELD — State Sen. Stanley Rosenberg says a balance is needed between protecting wildlife and allowing economic development throughout western Massachusetts and the entire state, but he isn’t sure how that will happen.

The Amherst Democrat believes it might come in the form of a legislative bill, which could help developers and the state negotiate some of the limitations the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act puts upon developable land inhabited by rare species.

‘I’ve heard from a number of towns and developers about how development and the
environment sometimes interfere with each other,’ said Rosenberg.

Rosenberg said both the environment and development are important for the survival of the state. Many of his constituents, as well as developers and various town officials, have complained about the limitations
they’ve experienced when trying to build on land where a protected rare plant or animal is found.

The state regulations for endangered and threatened species and ’species of special concern’ are set by the Natural Heritage Endangered Species Program, which is part of the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. Rosenberg said many believe the act goes too far and will end up costing developers and land owners more than it’s worth. The Legislature and governor in 1990 approved the law and the detailed regulations were promulgated by Fisheries and Wildlife officials in 1992. The act puts restrictions on building lots where endangered, threatened or species of special concern live or have lived in the past.

The act establishes procedures for listing and protecting rare plants and animals and is meant to maintain biological diversity across the state, prevent extinction and contribute to rare species recovery.

According to reports of the Economic Development Council of Western Massachusetts, a private nonprofit corporation that helps businesses expand, relocate and succeed in the western part of the state, western Massachusetts has lost more than 46 percent of developable land over these environmental issues within the last five years. It claims the 46 percent equals the size of Agawam, Chicopee, Pittsfield, Springfield and Westfield combined and equates to 102,000 acres. It also claims the Interstate 91 corridor, which
includes three western Massachusetts counties, has seen ‘priority habitat’ double since 2003.

The entire state has lost 32 percent of its developable land due to endangered, threatened and species of
special concern, according to the EDC of Western Massachusetts.

Biggest complaints

The biggest complaints Rosenberg hears from developers and towns are the costs to modify or even review a project when it falls under the act. Little compensation on the state’s part and the inconvenience for developers and land owners to redesign, relocate or shrink a project are also major concerns.

‘Legislators are the ones that gave state agencies the directive to make policies to protect those species,’ said Rosenberg. ‘But sometimes, we have to step in and negotiate when (regulations) go too far.

‘I wouldn’t be surprised if someone brings a bill in December or January,’ he said. ‘But, it won’t happen this session.’

Rosenberg said he won’t bring a bill, because he doesn’t feel he has enough expertise on the subject.

‘Every case is so different,’ said Rosenberg. ‘I don’t even know how someone will draft something that would cover every possible scenario.’

What Rosenberg does know, he said, is that there needs to be a balance of reasonable, rational development, while the state continues to protect its natural heritage and species.

Natural Heritage’s review process

Lisa Capone, a spokeswoman for the Natural Heritage Endangered Species Program, said when endangered, threatened or species of special concern are thought to be living on developable land, an environmental review must be conducted by the agency.

That review can result in anything from a go-ahead without conditions to a blocking of the project.

According to Natural Heritage’s fee table, it can cost from $50 to file a request for a review to $7,500 to review a project proposed for a ‘priority habitat,’ land that has ideal conditions for a rare species.

As part of the review, a land owner or developer must hire a botanist or biologist and do numerous studies and reports. Those can cost thousands of dollars and projects can be delayed for months or even years.

A 2007 Natural Heritage listing of all of the 2,508 projects that were under review in Massachusetts due to either endangered, threatened or species of special concern, reported that 76 percent of those projects
moved forward without conditions, costing developers or land owners a minimal’ amount. Twenty percent had conditions placed on them before development could begin and 4 percent were unresolved or are still
pending.

‘The 76 percent still experienced a little aggravation through the process,’ said Rosenberg. ‘The rest went from experiencing minor to major inconveniences or complete blocking.

‘We have to preserve those species, but some developers come up against regulations that don’t allow them to move forward at all or limit tremendously what they can do, so they just walk away. We don’t want that to keep happening.’

Any solutions?

Rosenberg said all that legislators can do at the moment is talk with Natural Heritage and developers when the two hit an impasse.

‘Sometimes we have to push the agency to find reasonable alternatives and talk with developers about what they can do to help the situation,’ he said. “There needs to be more flexibility and there’s probably eventually going to have to be some sort of public policy or law to help the situation.’

State Rep. Christopher Donelan, D-Orange, agrees.

Donelan hasn’t heard as many complaints as Rosenberg, but has heard some. He said he believes there needs to be flexibility on both sides — environmental laws and economic development.

‘We want to protect endangered species, but legislators are interested in economic development for the state and this area,’ said Donelan. ‘Many times, we can accomplish that by working within areas, like industrial parks, that have been pre-permitted.

‘I think it’s important for state legislators, protection agencies and developers and land owners to have
more conversations about this,’ he said.

Problems can arise on pre-permitted land

One of the problems with working on pre-permitted land, as far as Natural Heritage’s rules are concerned, is that if an endangered, threatened or species of special concern shows up afterward, that land still has to go through the review process with Natural Heritage.

An example of that happened last year in the Interstate 91 Industrial Park. A plant called low bindweed, which is a trailing or twining weed that spreads rapidly through soil, was found on one of the lots — originally purchased by The Recorder for a printing facility — that will now have to go through the review process with Natural Heritage if anyone decides to build on the property. Low bindweed is listed by Natural Heritage as endangered, because of its rarity.

According to William Martin, chairman of the Greenfield Redevelopment Authority, which oversees the park, low bindweed was not listed on the park’s original environmental impact study done about 25 years ago. He said the GRA will be applying for an exemption for the entire park with Natural Heritage.

The agency does grant exemptions, but only under specific conditions and Martin isn’t sure the park will meet those conditions. Exemptions, on an individual basis, are granted for agricultural and aquacultural uses, maintenance, repair, replacement, vertical expansions and additions on land used for commercial,
industrial or residential, sheds constructed on existing lawns or paved areas and land surveying or management of state-listed species habitat.

Massachusetts and New Jersey are the only states where low bindweed is listed as an endangered species, because there is so little of it found throughout those states. It is listed as threatened in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont and as a species of special concern in Connecticut.

Capone said Natural Heritage received an anonymous report of the low bindweed, making it necessary for a review to be done before anything is built on the lot in the Greenfield industrial park.

‘It doesn’t look like the low bindweed is anywhere else in the park and it doesn’t seem that
the finding will affect any other properties in the park,’ she said.

There are currently three empty lots in the industrial park, which are owned by the Greenfield Redevelopment Authority, and two empty lots owned by someone else, one of which is the lot where the low bindweed was found.

Capone said there are times when a species is found on one property and not on any surrounding properties, but affects those surrounding properties because they may also be right for that species’ habitat. That doesn’t appear to be the case in the industrial park, she said.

Taking land from development

Natural Heritage produces an updated list of protected species and a habitat map every two years. The map identifies where numerous endangered, threatened and species of special concern live throughout the state. Some complain the map continues to grow each time, taking away developable land. The most recent update was in 2006.

On the 2006 map, three plants were added to the state list, including two endangered and one threatened. Eleven plants and animals were deleted from the list and two plants received status changes from endangered to species of special concern and threatened to species of special concern.

The state agency also updates its regulations when it sees fit. The most recent update was July 1, 2005, when filing requirements, review timelines and fees were revised.

The program currently protects 178 species of vertebrate and invertebrate animals and 264 species of
native plants officially listed in those categories. Rare species are determined by extinction risk, and according to Natural Heritage, the most pervasive threat to species in Massachusetts is habitat loss and
degradation.

Natural Heritage biologists and conservationists collect information on the abundance, distribution and conservation needs of rare species. Information is collected through field surveys, review of scientific data and research. Data includes population size, productivity and predation of different species.

There are also federal laws, the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, which protect numerous endangered species. The federal act lists only endangered species.

Another complaint from some Massachusetts towns, as well as land owners and developers, is that by the state adding threatened species and species of special concern to its list increases the chances of needing a review.

Rosenberg is sure the debate will continue over development versus environment.

‘We have to make room for both,’ he said. ‘We just have to find the best way to do that.’

This entry was posted on Friday, May 2nd, 2008 at 8:44 pm and is filed under Bioregional News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.