Hudson Valley plan to grow green jobs

7/30/2019 Hudson Valley plan to grow green jobs

1/234

Draft November 2012

Prepared For:

Mid-Hudson Planning Consortium

County of Orange, Co-ChairTown of Greenburgh, Co-Chair

Prepared By:

This Plan is funded through the Cleaner Greener Communities Program, New York StateEnergy Research and Development Authority


2/234

DISCLAIMER

This planning effort was funded as part of the New York State Energy Research and DevelopmentAuthoritys (NYSERDA) Cleaner Greener Cities program. This plan is in accordance with Orange

County Agreement No. 26206 with NYSERDA. NYSERDA has not reviewed the information

contained herein, and the opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of NYSERDA

or the State of New York.

The present document is a working draft. Content from this document should not be used nor cited

until the final version has been approved by NYSERDA and published.


3/234

Table of Contents `

i

Table of Contents

1INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 The Mid-Hudson Regional Sustainability Plan .................................................. 1-1

The Cleaner, Greener Communities Program ..................................... 1-21.1.1

1.2 The Mid-Hudson Region ....................................................................................... 1-3

Land Use and Development ................................................................... 1-31.2.1

Connectivity .............................................................................................. 1-61.2.2

Socio-Economics ....................................................................................... 1-71.2.3

Culture and History ............................................................................... 1-111.2.41.3 Navigating the Plan .............................................................................................. 1-12

Where Are We? ...................................................................................... 1-121.3.1

Where Do We Want to Go? .................................................................. 1-121.3.2

How Do We Get There? ........................................................................ 1-141.3.3

2GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND APPROACH .................................................................................... 2-1

Sustainable Development that builds on the Regions Strengths ..... 2-22.1.1

Climate Change A Cross-Cutting Challenge .................................... 2-22.1.2Building on the Regions Economic Development Strategy.............. 2-82.1.3

Regional Collaboration to Achieve Sustainable Development ....... 2-112.1.4

Environmental Justice as a Regional Concern ................................... 2-132.1.5

2.2 The Planning Process ............................................................................................ 2-13

3LAND USE,LIVABLE COMMUNITIES, AND TRANSPORTATION ................................................ 3-1

3.1 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................ 3-2

Land Use .................................................................................................... 3-23.1.1Livable Communities .............................................................................. 3-33.1.2

Transportation ........................................................................................ 3-123.1.3

3.2 Climate Change, Land Use, Livable Communities, and Transportation...... 3-18

GHG Emissions ...................................................................................... 3-183.2.1


4/234

Table of Contents `

ii

Climate Change Vulnerability ............................................................. 3-203.2.2

3.3 Objectives ............................................................................................................... 3-25

3.4 Indicators ................................................................................................................ 3-29Metrics and Targets ............................................................................... 3-303.4.1

Limitations and Tier 2 Indicators......................................................... 3-353.4.2

3.5 Priorities for Implementation .............................................................................. 3-35

Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)................................................ 3-363.5.1

Land Efficient Development (LED) ..................................................... 3-373.5.2

Livability Improvements ...................................................................... 3-383.5.3

Mass Transit Expansion and Upgrades .............................................. 3-383.5.4

Transportation Demand and Systems Management to Relieve Highway3.5.5Congestion ........................................................................................ 3-39

Street and Sidewalk Improvements .................................................... 3-403.5.6

Bicycle Improvements ........................................................................... 3-403.5.7

3.6 Enabling Strategies ............................................................................................... 3-41

Zoning, Planning & Legislation ........................................................... 3-413.6.1

Funding Tools & Strategies .................................................................. 3-413.6.2

Education & Demonstration ................................................................. 3-423.6.3Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Programs ........................................................ 3-423.6.4

Freight Efficiency ................................................................................... 3-433.6.5

Commuter Incentives ............................................................................ 3-433.6.6

4ENERGY 4-1


Net Energy Consumption ....................................................................... 4-34.1.1

Energy Prices and Expenditure in the Mid-Hudson Region ............. 4-64.1.2Energy Dollar Exports ............................................................................. 4-84.1.3

Household Fuel Use ................................................................................ 4-94.1.4

Electric Generation in the Mid-Hudson ............................................. 4-104.1.5

Energy Efficiency Participation Rates ................................................. 4-114.1.6

4.2 Climate Change and Energy ............................................................................... 4-13


5/234

Table of Contents `

iii

GHG Emissions ...................................................................................... 4-134.2.1


4.3 Objectives ............................................................................................................... 4-174.4 Indicators ................................................................................................................ 4-18

Metrics and Targets ............................................................................... 4-194.4.1

Metric Limitations and Tier 2 Indicators ............................................ 4-224.4.2


Energy Efficiency ................................................................................... 4-224.5.1

Community Energy Districts ............................................................... 4-254.5.2

Demand Response ................................................................................. 4-274.5.3

Distributed Generation ......................................................................... 4-284.5.4

Energy Storage ....................................................................................... 4-304.5.5


Energy Improvement Districts ............................................................. 4-314.6.1

Facilitating Demand Response for Small and Medium Consumers4-314.6.2

Community Choice Aggregation......................................................... 4-324.6.3

Energy Efficiency Certificates .............................................................. 4-324.6.4

5MATERIALS MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................... 5-1


Materials Management Roles and Responsibilities ............................ 5-25.1.1

Material Definitions and Flows .............................................................. 5-25.1.2

Common Sustainability Challenges in the Region .............................. 5-65.1.3

Regional and County Infrastructure ..................................................... 5-85.1.4

5.2 Climate Change and Materials Management ..................................................... 5-8

GHG Emissions ........................................................................................ 5-85.2.1Climate Vulnerability ............................................................................ 5-105.2.2

5.3 Objectives ............................................................................................................... 5-13

5.4 Indicators ................................................................................................................ 5-13



6/234

Table of Contents `

iv



Product Stewardship and Environmentally Preferable Procurement5-175.5.1Organics Recycling ................................................................................ 5-185.5.2

Material Reuse ........................................................................................ 5-205.5.3

Transportation Improvements ............................................................. 5-205.5.4


Inter-County Cooperation .................................................................... 5-215.6.1

Policy ........................................................................................................ 5-215.6.2

Funding ................................................................................................... 5-225.6.3

6AGRICULTURE AND OPEN SPACE............................................................................................. 6-1


Agriculture ................................................................................................ 6-26.1.1

Open Space.............................................................................................. 6-116.1.2

6.2 Climate Change, Agriculture, and Open Space ................................................ 6-14

GHG Emissions ...................................................................................... 6-146.2.1


6.3 Objectives ............................................................................................................... 6-19

6.4 Indicators ................................................................................................................ 6-22




Food Infrastructure Networks ............................................................. 6-266.5.1

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in Agriculture ............... 6-276.5.2

Priority Conservation Areas ................................................................. 6-286.5.36.6 Enabling Strategies ............................................................................................... 6-29

Sustainable Agriculture Education and Training.............................. 6-296.6.1

Branding Mid-Hudson Agricultural Products .................................. 6-306.6.2

7WATER 7-1


7/234

Table of Contents `

v


Water Use and Capacity.......................................................................... 7-47.1.1

Water Supply and Wastewater Infrastructure ..................................... 7-57.1.2Water Quality ........................................................................................... 7-87.1.3

Stormwater .............................................................................................. 7-127.1.4

7.2 Climate Change, Water ........................................................................................ 7-15

GHG Emissions ...................................................................................... 7-157.2.1

Climate Change Vulnerability Water ............................................... 7-167.2.2

7.3 Objectives ............................................................................................................... 7-19

7.4 Indicators ................................................................................................................ 7-21




Implement Low Impact Development (LID) and Green Infrastructure7-257.5.1

Infrastructure Upgrades to Achieve Water and Energy Efficiency and7.5.2Mitigate the Impacts of Climate Change ...................................... 7-27


Watershed Management Planning and Programs ............................ 7-287.6.1Education and Outreach ....................................................................... 7-297.6.2

Water Infrastructure Benchmarking ................................................... 7-307.6.3

8PRIORITIES FOR A GREENER MID-HUDSON ............................................................................. 8-1

8.1 Make All Growth Smart Growth .......................................................................... 8-1

Challenges to Smart Growth .................................................................. 8-28.1.1

Achieving Smart Growth Mechanisms for Success ......................... 8-38.1.2

Smart Growth Toolkit .............................................................................. 8-38.1.38.2 Invest in Infrastructure to Create Jobs and Prepare for the Future ................. 8-4

8.3 Benefit from and Preserve the Regions Unique Assets through Tourism..... 8-4

Develop a Mid-Hudson Region Sustainability Brand ........................ 8-88.3.1

8.4 Foster Innovation in Green Technologies and Services .................................. 8-10

8.5 Support Natural Resources Sector Industries ................................................... 8-11


8/234

Table of Contents `

vi

8.6 Strengthen and Support Green Leadership in Government .......................... 8-12

8.7 Invest in Education and Workforce Development........................................... 8-13

9IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK .............................................................................................. 9-19.1 Sustaining Regional Collaboration ....................................................................... 9-1

Governance Challenges ........................................................................... 9-19.1.1

Governance Objectives ............................................................................ 9-29.1.2

9.2 Governance Strategies ............................................................................................ 9-3

Create a Regional Governance Coordinating Body ............................ 9-39.2.1


9/234

Table of Contents `

vii

List of Attachments

A BASELINE ASSESSMENTB GHGINVENTORY

C CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

D PUBLIC ENGAGMENT SUMMARY

E PROJECT IDEA LIST

F SELECTION OF WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS IN THE REGION

G ATTACHMENT TITLE

H ATTACHMENT TITLE


10/234

Table of Contents `

viii

List of Tables

TABLE 1.1 POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS,2010 ................................ 1-7

TABLE 1.2 HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND POVERTY RATE,2010 .............................................. 1-8

TABLE 1.3 INDUSTRIES WITH THE MOST EMPLOYEES THROUGHOUT THE REGION ............ 1-9

TABLE 1.4 INDUSTRIES WITH THE MOST BUSINESSES THROUGHOUT THE REGION ........... 1-10

TABLE 1.5 LABOR FORCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT RATE,2010 ........................................... 1-11

TABLE 2.1 REGIONAL GHGEMISSIONS ............................................................................... 2-3

TABLE 2.2 PROJECTED CHANGE IN TEMPERATURE,PRECIPITATION, AND SEA LEVEL....... 2-5

TABLE 2.3 IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON EXTREME EVENTS ........................................ 2-7

TABLE 3.1 NON-ATTAINMENT BY POLLUTANT AND COUNTY 2010-2012.......................... 3-9

TABLE 3.2 LYME DISEASE PER 100,000POPULATION ........................................................ 3-11

TABLE 3.2 2005-2010NET CHANGE IN FOREST CARBON STOCKS .................................... 3-18

TABLE 3.3 TRANSPORTATION GHGEMISSIONS ................................................................ 3-19

TABLE 3.4 SUMMARY OF LAND USE AND LIVABLE COMMUNITIES-RELATED CLIMATE EFFECTS INTHE MID-HUDSON REGION............................................................................... 3-20

TABLE 3.5 VULNERABLE CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE MID-HUDSON REGION ................ 3-22

TABLE 3.6 SUMMARY OF TRANSPORTATION RELATED CLIMATE EFFECTS IN THE MID-HUDSONREGION .............................................................................................................. 3-24

TABLE 3.7 MILES OF RAIL WITHIN CLIMATE HAZARD AREAS .......................................... 3-25

TABLE 3.8 INDICATOR INVENTORY TIER 1INDICATORS ................................................. 3-30

TABLE 3.9 INDICATOR CALCULATIONS AND DATA........................................................... 3-32

TABLE 3.10 TIER 2INDICATORS .......................................................................................... 3-35

TABLE 4.1 NET ENERGY CONSUMPTION (MMBTU) BY COUNTY AND SECTOR (2010) ....... 4-3


11/234

Table of Contents `

ix

TABLE 4.2NET ENERGY USE BY SECTOR AND FUEL TYPE (MMBTU)2010 ................................... 4-4

TABLE 4.3ENERGY USE AND EXPENDITURE BY SECTOR AND FUEL TYPE (2010) ......................... 4-6

TABLE 4.4 ENERGY USE FOR MID-HUDSON REGION BY HOUSEHOLD,2011 ..................... 4-9

TABLE 4.5 MID-HUDSON PARTICIPATION IN NYSERDAS COMMERCIAL SECTOR ENERGY EFFICIENCYPROGRAMS ......................................................................................................... 4-12

TABLE 4.62010STATIONARY FUEL CONSUMPTION GHGEMISSIONS BY COUNTY (MTCO2E)4-13

TABLE 4.72010STATIONARY FUEL COMBUSTION GHGEMISSIONS BY FUEL (MTCO2E) ..... 4-14

TABLE 4.82010EMISSIONS FROM ENERGY SUPPLY ACTIVITIES (MTCO2E) ........................... 4-15

TABLE 4.9SUMMARY OF ENERGY RELATED CLIMATE EFFECTS IN THE MID-HUDSON REGION4-15

TABLE 4.10INDICATOR INVENTORY TIER 1INDICATORS ...................................................... 4-19

TABLE 4.11INDICATOR CALCULATIONS AND DATA ............................................................... 4-20

TABLE 4.12TIER 2INDICATORS................................................................................................. 4-22

TABLE 4.13MID-HUDSON UTILITY COSTS & SAVINGS PROJECTION (HOUSEHOLDS) ............... 4-23

TABLE 5.1 REGIONAL SOLID WASTE TYPES ......................................................................... 5-3

TABLE 5.2MATERIALS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT IN NYS,2008 ........................................... 5-4

TABLE 5.3REGIONAL STATISTICS................................................................................................ 5-5

TABLE 5.4REGIONAL CHALLENGES ........................................................................................... 5-7

TABLE 5.5GHGEMISSIONS BY COUNTY .................................................................................... 5-9

TABLE 5.6MATERIALS MANAGEMENT-RELATED CLIMATE EFFECTS IN THE MID-HUDSON REGION............................................................................................................................ 5-10

TABLE 5.7 SUMMARY OF DEBRIS TYPES AND CHALLENGES OF NATURAL DISASTERS ..... 5-11

TABLE 5.8INDICATOR INVENTORY TIER 1INDICATORS ........................................................ 5-14

TABLE 5.9INDICATOR CALCULATIONS AND DATA ................................................................. 5-14

TABLE 5.9TIER 2INDICATORS................................................................................................... 5-17


12/234

Table of Contents `

x

TABLE 6.1AGRICULTURAL LAND USE........................................................................................ 6-4

TABLE 6.2AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY CROPS AND DIARY,2007 ............................................ 6-7

TABLE 6.3AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY NET CASH INCOME,2007 .......................................... 6-7

TABLE 6.4MID-HUDSON AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY ALL FARM TYPES,2007 ....................... 6-8

TABLE 6.5MID-HUDSON REGION FORESTED AREA BY COUNTY,2005-2010 ......................... 6-11

TABLE 6.6AGRICULTURE GHGEMISSIONS BY SOURCE (MTCO2E),2010 .............................. 6-14

TABLE 6.7SUMMARY OF CLIMATE IMPACTS RELATED TO FOOD SYSTEMS AND AGRICULTURE6-15

TABLE 6.7SUMMARY OF OPEN SPACE RELATED CLIMATE EFFECTS ....................................... 6-18


TABLE 6.10INDICATOR CALCULATIONS AND DATA ............................................................... 6-24

TABLE 6.11TIER 2INDICATORS................................................................................................. 6-25

TABLE 7.2WATER WITHDRAWALS PER SECTOR (MGD)1 ......................................................... 7-4

TABLE 7.4 WASTEWATER TREATMENT EMISSIONS (MTCO2E)BY COUNTY,2010 ................... 7-15

TABLE 7.5SUMMARY OF WATER RELATED CLIMATE EFFECTS ................................................ 7-16

TABLE 7.6WASTEWATER FACILITIES WITHIN THE CLIMATE HAZARD ZONES........................ 7-19


TABLE 7.8DATA SOURCES ........................................................................................................ 7-23

TABLE 7.9TIER 2INDICATORS................................................................................................... 7-25

TABLE 8.1FARMERS MARKETS................................................................................................... 8-6

TABLE 8.2 RESTAURANT AND LODGING FACILITIES............................................................ 8-7

TABLE 8.3HISTORIC SITES........................................................................................................... 8-7

TABLE 8.4GREENJOBS,2010 ..................................................................................................... 8-11

TABLE 8.5 CLIMATE SMART COMMUNITIES (2012) ............................................................ 8-13


13/234

Table of Contents `

xi

List of Figures1-1

FIGURE 1.1THE MID-HUDSON REGION ................................................................................................. 1-1

FIGURE 1.2REGIONAL OVERVIEW,2010 ................................................................................................. 1-4

FIGURE 1.3POPULATION DENSITY,2010 ................................................................................................ 1-5

FIGURE 1.4OBJECTIVES INDICATORS.................................................................................................. 1-13

FIGURE 2.1REGIONAL EMISSIONS BY COUNTY....................................................................................... 2-4

FIGURE 2.2PER CAPITA EMISSIONS BY COUNTYAND SOURCE .................................................................................................................... 2-4

FIGURE 2.3CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ANDEFFECTS............................................................................................................................ 2-6

FIGURE 2.4REDCFOCAL STRATEGIES ................................................................................................... 2-9

FIGURE 2.5PLANNING PROCESSORGANIZATION CHART ................................................................................................ 2-14

FIGURE 3.1JOBS/HOUSING AND

INCOME/HOME VALUE MAP ......................................................................................... 3-5FIGURE 3.2JOBS/HOUSING AND

INCOME/HOME VALUESCATTER PLOT ................................................................................................................. 3-6

FIGURE 3.3HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATIONAFFORDABILITY INDEX .................................................................................................... 3-7

FIGURE 3.4PARKLAND,2010 .................................................................................................................. 3-8

FIGURE 3.5AVERAGE ASTHMA EDVISIT RATESIN THE MID-HUDSON REGIONBY COUNTY COMPARED TO NYS(2007-2009).................................................................................................................... 3-10

FIGURE 3.6WORK TRIPS BY MODE,2010 .............................................................................................. 3-15

FIGURE 3.7HUDSON RIVER BRIDGE TRAFFIC,1933 TO 2011.................................................................................................................. 3-16

FIGURE 3.8COASTAL CLIMATE IMPACTS.............................................................................................. 3-22

FIGURE 3.9CROTON RAIL/ROADWAY

FLOODING.........................................FIGURE 3.8:CENTERS................................................

FIGURE 4.1ENERGY USE BY COUNTY ANDSECTOR (MMBTU)2010 .....................

FIGURE 4.2ENERGY USE PER CAPITA BYCOUNTY AND SECTOR

(MMBTU/CAP)2010 .........................

FIGURE 4.3RECENT PRICE HISTORY FORGASOLINE AND HEATING OIL IN

THE HUDSON VALLEY:2010-2012...................................................

FIGURE 4.4NYSENERGY FLOW 2010(TBTU) .........

FIGURE 4.5ANNUAL PERCENT OF HOMEENERGY UPGRADES BY

GEOGRAPHY:2001-2012 ...................

FIGURE 4.6HEATING AND COOLING DEGREEDAYS IN THE REGION:HISTORICTRENDS .............................................

FIGURE 5.1NUMBER OF CREWS DEPLOYED INNEW YORK STATE FOLLOWINGHURRICANE IRENE ANDTROPICAL STORM LEE ......................

FIGURE 6.1AGRICULTURAL LAND COVER ..............

FIGURE 6.2PRIME AND STATEWIDEIMPORTANT FARMLAND SOILSBY LAND COVER ...............................

FIGURE 6.3MID-HUDSON REGIONFORESTLAND BY FOREST TYPE,2005...................................................

FIGURE 6.4FOREST FRAGMENTATION .....................

FIGURE 6.5FOOD PRICES (2001-2010) FROMINTERNATIONAL MONETARYFUND 2011 ........................................


14/234

Table of Contents

xii

FIGURE 7.1THE WATERSHEDS OF THE MID-HUDSON REGION:DELAWARE,UPPER HUDSON, AND LOWER

HUDSON-LONG ISLAND .................................................................................................. 7-3FIGURE 7.2WASTEWATER TREATMENT

UPGRADE NEEDS ............................................................................................................. 7-7

FIGURE 7.3IMPAIRED WATER BODIES IN THEMID-HUDSON REGION .................................................................................................... 7-9

FIGURE 7.4DAMAGE TO WINONA LAKESPILLWAY IN ORANGE COUNTYON QUASSAICK CREEK. ................................................................................................. 7-15


15/234

Table of Contents

xiii

Acronyms

B-MRF Building Material Reuse Facility

C & D Construction and Demolition

CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy

CSA Community Supported Agriculture

DCRRA Dutchess County ResourceRecovery Agency

DEF (Westchester County) Department ofEnvironmental Facilities

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

HHW Household Hazardous Waste

H-MRF Household Materials RecoveryFacility

HVRC Hudson Valley Regional Council

IWS - Interstate Waste Services

MMtCO2e Million Metric Tons of carbondioxide equivalent

MMWG Materials Management WorkingGroup

MPO Metropolitan PlanningOrganization

MRDC Municipal Recycling Drop-offCenter

MRF Materials Recovery Facility

MSW Municipal Solid Waste

MTA Metropolitan Transportation

Authority

MWC Municipal Waste Combustor

NJ TRANSIT New Jersey Transit

NYC New York City

NYS New York State

NYSDEC New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation

PAYT Pay As You Throw

rbST - Somatotropin

RCSWMA Rockland County Solid WasteManagement Authority

REDC (Mid-Hudson) Regional Economic

Development Council

RHRF Recyclables Handling andRecovery Facilities

RRF Resource Recovery Facility (Waste-to-Energy)

SSL Source Separation Law

SWMP Solid Waste Management PlanT & D Transport and Disposal

TLU/LC WG Transportation & Land Use/ Livable Communities Working Group


16/234

Table of Contents

xiv

UCRRA Ulster County ResourceRecovery Agency

VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled


17/234

Table of Contents

xv

Acknowledgements

Mid-Hudson Regional Consortium

Orange County, Co-Chair

Dave Church, Planning CommissionerKelly Dobbins, Senior PlannerKate Schmidt, PlannerMartha Boulanger, Account Clerk

Town of Greenburgh, Co-Chair

Thomas Madden, CommissionerKeith Eversly, Project Coordinator

Dutchess County

Kealy Salomon, Planning CommissionerMark Debald, Transportation Council

Putnam County

John Tully, Deputy County ExecutivePatricia Simone

Rockland County

Sullivan County

Luiz Aragon, Planning/EnvironmentalCommissionerDick Riseling, SASD

Ulster County

Dennis Doyle, Planning Director

Amanda Lavalle, Coordinator, Dept. ofEnvironment

Westchester County

Edward Buroughs, Planning Commissioner

CRREO - SUNY New Paltz

Gerald Benjamin, DirectorK.T. Tobin, Assistant Director

Pace University - Land Use Law Center

Mayors Redevelopment Roundtable

Mary Foster, Mayor, City of PeekskillJudy Kennedy, Mayor, City of NewburghJessica Bacher, Land Use Law CenterJohn Nolon, Land Use Law Center

New York Council of Nonprofits

Audrey Grifel, Capacity Building Advisor

Susan Weinrich, Vice President

Northern Westchester Energy Action

Consortium (NWEAC)

Herb OringelMichael Gordon

SouthernWestchester Energy Action

Consortium (SWEAC)

Nina OrvilleNicola Coddington

Mid-Hudson Regional Economic

Development Council

Aimee Vargas, Director

March Gallagher, Ulster County DeputyDirector for Economic Development

Project Liaison

Luiz Aragon, Sullivan County ProjectLiaison

Working Group Co-Chairs

Agriculture and Open Space


18/234

Table of Contents

xvi

Deborah Dewan, Rondout Valley GrowersMaryAnn Johnson, Hudson ValleyAgribusiness Development Corp

Dick Riseling, Sullivan County

Economic Development

Herb Oringel, NWEACJeff Rumpf, ClearwaterDave Church, Orange County

Energy

Michael Gordon, NWEAC

Richard Thomas, NY Affordable ReliableElectricity AllianceDick Riseling, SASDThomas Madden, Town of Greenburgh

Land Use, Livable Communities and

Transportation

Nadine Lemmon, Tri-State TransportationCampaignDaniel Richmond, Zarin & SteinmetzDennis Doyle & Amanda Lavalle, UlsterCounty

Materials Management

Gerald Benjamin, CRREO SUNY NewPaltzAnna Roppolo, Rockland County SolidWaste

WaterScott Cuppett, NYS DEC, Hudson RiverEstuary ProgramRussell Urban-Mead, the ChazenCompaniesDave Church, Orange County

Project Consultants

Ecology & Environment, inc. (E & E)

Michael Wironen, Lead Project ManagerDaniel HerreraJulie ChangBob SingerJames DumpertNermin AhmadNicole ParganosThomas HeinsDavid Weeks

Regional Plan Association (RPA)

Dan Schned, Project ManagerOsman DadiPetra TodorovichFiona ZhuRob LaneJeff ZupanCorey Piasecki

Vanessa Hangen and Brustlin, Inc. (VHB)

Owen Wells, Project ManagerJohn SaccardiEmmanuelle HumbletLauren Wang

Croton Energy Group

Leo Wiegman, Project ManagerEd Robin

Clearwater, Inc.

Victor Melendez, Project Coordinator


19/234

Table of Contents

xvii

Working Group

Members

Agriculture/Foodsheds

Michael BadenGail BeverlyJan BlaireSarah BrannenAva BynumBetsy CalhounCraig CashmanTara CollinsJose ColonCarrie Davis

Jim DelauneSamantha DilibertiKelly DobbinsMimi EdelmanPhil EhrensaftOlivia FarrStefan GiegerSteve GoldJohn GrazinskiDan GuentherLiz Higgins

Eileen HochbergLiana HoodesNoela HooperJan HowardVirginia KasinkiSharon KroegerJennifer MallMary MarsterGeorge MichaudKen MigarelliAllison Morrill

ChatrchyanAlthea MullarkeyBrian ObachCorey PiaseckiCheryl RogowskiPenny SteyerLauri Taylor

Ryan TrapaniDavid WeeksDaniel Young

Economic

Development

Kevin BaileyRon BartleyLea Cullen BoyerMark CastiglioneAnthony DavidowitzJim DelauneMelissa Everett

Gennaro FaiellaMarch GallagherDani GlaserSusan HabelRick HerbeckRalph HuddlestonShawn JoyceJudy KennedyErin LoosenVictor MelendezRyan Meres

Bernard MolloyMichael OatesLaurence OConnellJim PintoLinda PuoploJohn SaccardiKathy SchibanoffJeremy SchulmanAllan ScottChristopher SteersGregg Swanzey

Mary Kay VrbaLauren WangEric Zamft

Energy

Neil AlexanderRick Alfandre

Bob AlpernRobert BackusTino Baguio

Chris BernaboEdward BlundellKippy BoyleJohn BurkeBetsy CalhounGeorge CalviAnthony CampagiornJohn CartonAllison ChatrchyanAndy ChintzNicola Coddington

Hartley S. ConnettMark CourtnerPat Courtney-StrongBill CoxVince CozzlinoSue T. CraneMichael DArcyJoe Del SindicoDavid DellCharles P. DuffyRobin Ed

Colleen EmeryMelissa EverettCharles FeitStephen FillerDrew FixellGinny ForniRoss GouldManna Jo GreeneAlexander GromackJohn HallWilliam HanauerPaul HeustonDaniel HigginsLaurie HustedEric IlowskyCraig JacobsJeff JonesTom Kacandes

Ron KamenKerry-Jane KingPeggy Kurtz

Vincent LanderDaniel LearyRon LeonardRick LewandowskiJohn J. LynchWilliam MakofskeFrank MaricicJohn MaserjianKelly MeyersPaul MoskowitzCarol Murphy

Libby MurphyMary Beth MurphyPhillip MusegaasDeborah NewbornMeridith NierenbergBrian NievesTodd Olinsky-PaulNina OrvilleAllan PageJames M. PalmerPatricia Pomeroy

Linda PuglisiPete RobbinsAlexander RobertsLee V.A. RobertsDan RosenblumBaiyina SalahuddinWilliam SchlesingerRudy ScottCharles B. Strome, IIIPeter SwiderskiHarry TerbushMark ThielkingPamela TimminsBrad TitoCindi VastaBruce WalkerGary WarshauerWilliam Weaver


20/234

Table of Contents

xviii

Dan WelshLeo WiegmanSamantha Wilt

Zywia WojnarAbraham J.Zambrano

Transportation &

Land-Use

Jeff AnzenvinoJessica BacherKeith BetenskyJennie NolonBlanchard

Catherine BorgiaMarlene ConnorNeil CurriJustin DatinoMark DebaldJoseph D'OnofrioFran DunwellDoug FosterFred FrankDavid GilmourLaura Heady

CJ HossGerald JacobowitzJolanda JansenGuy KempeRobert LaCollaRob LaneMilagros LecuonaWilliam LongIan MacDougallJamie MartinezPeter McCartt

Robert McKeonJohn NolonJim Osborne

Mark PorterfieldLinda PuoploSteve RiegerLaura RossiAnthony RuggieroCandace SchaferDan SchnedWilliam SchusterEleanor SharpePeter SmithNortrud Spero

Padraic SteinschneiderAndy StewartKT TobinPetra TodorovichMeg WalkerNicholas Ward-WillisOwen WellsDan WelshJason WestLaura Woznitski

Waste

Michelle BergkampJames BestLindsay CarilleChristopher CraneNeil CutlerWilliam CutlerMatt De la HoussayeJames DumpertKeith Eversley

John GebhardsEvadne GianniniKenneth Greehan

Emilie HauserTom HeinsAnne Jaffe-HolmesTerry LaibachChristian PaggiMary RiceZoie RielGary M. RitchieTimothy RoseMary-Jane ShimskyMJ Wilson

Water

Aliesa AdelmanMatt AlexanderBob AlpernBridget BarclayHenry BartosikJay BeaumontAlison Boak

Tracy BrownBrian BrustmanMichael BudzinskiJanet BurnetJordan ChristensenKelly DobbinsFran DunwellPhil EhrensaftStuart FindlayMark GillilandSimon Gruber

Steven GruberPeter HarckhamEmilie Hauser

Paul HeisigManna Jo GreeneLorraine KeckeisenBarbara KendallCarolyn KlockerPeggy KurtzDiane LewisCesare ManfrediMary McNamaraArlene MillerDan Miller

Joseph NicolettiSteve NobleSteve OsbornChristian PaggiRyan PalmerNicole ParganosFran PerchickBrian RahmJessica RidgewayBill SchlesingerWilliam Shaw

Bob SingerSacha SpectorDon SteinmetzIra SternEmily Vail


21/234

Table of Contents

xix

Letter from the Consortium Chairs

November 15, 2012

We are proud to present the draft Mid-Hudson Regional Sustainability Plan. The Mid-HudsonRegion has a long tradition of stewardship of our natural environment. This nationally uniquedocument summarizes a wealth of research, discussion, debate and activity centered on definingwhat "sustainability" means for our Region. The Mid-Hudson Regional Sustainability Plan is animportant step and will help guide the Region towards a sustainable energy future that willdramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from current levels. This Plan promotesinnovative solutions to real world problems and challenges residents, businesses, municipalitiesand organizations to take action to improve our Region. We hope in these pages to help definewhat those of us that live and work in this Region can do to act - first and foremost as membersof the resident municipalities, organizations, and businesses that make the Mid-Hudson special.

Our Regional Sustainability Plan is published with the support of the Cleaner GreenerCommunities Program administered by the New York State Energy Research and DevelopmentAuthority (NYSERDA). Thanks also go to Governor Andrew Cuomo and NYSERDA leadershipfor their vision in providing us the guidance and support to pursue this effort. Most important,we want to thank the hundreds of volunteers and professionals who actively participated inbringing their diverse needs, concerns, ideas, and projects that so enrich this Plan.

On behalf of the Mid-Hudson Planning Consortium, including representatives from seven (7)counties and numerous governmental and non-governmental leaders, we hope when you read

this Plan that you consider something you can do to make our Region sustainable today and forfuture generations. By working together to take on this challenge our collective actions can andwill make a difference in solving a large global problem on a regional scale.

Mid-Hudson Planning Consortium Co-Chairs

David E. Church, AICP Thomas Madden, AICPCommissioner of Planning CommissionerOrange County Community Development & Conservation

Town of Greenburgh


22/234

Table of Contents

xx

Executive SummaryTo be inserted InDesign Layout


23/234

1-1

1IntroductionThis Chapter provides background and context needed to understand this planning effort andits outcomes. It includes a brief:1. Introduction to the Mid-Hudson Region Sustainability Plan and its content2. Description of New York States Cleaner, Greener Communities program3. A brief overview of the Mid-Hudson Regions land use patterns, geography,

demographics, socio-economic trends, culture and history,4. A guide to navigating the plan

1.1The Mid-Hudson Regional Sustainability PlanThe Mid-Hudson Region of New York State (NYS) consists of the seven counties locatedimmediately north of New York City (NYC): Westchester County, Rockland County, OrangeCounty, Putnam County, Dutchess County, Ulster County, and Sullivan County (see Figure1.1).

The Mid-Hudson Regional SustainabilityPlan (the Plan) was developed throughresearch and consensus building processesincluding a series of stakeholder meetingsheld throughout the Region. The eight-month process included the formation of aplanning Consortium consisting of seniorrepresentatives of each of the Regions seven

counties as well as local non-governmentalorganizations representing business,municipalities, and engaged citizens. Sixworking groups were formed, comprised ofover 300 volunteers. This unprecedentedcollaborative engagement was used to set

Figure 1.1 The Mid-Hudson Region


24/234

Introduction

1-2

realistic yet ambitious objectives for the long-term sustainable development of the Region,each of which is supported by initiatives and projects that can be implemented in the short,medium, and long term. The proposed actions reflect and build on the Regions unique social,

cultural, and natural history, with the goals of promoting economic development,environmental sustainability, and enhancing the quality of life for the Regions residents.

The Cleaner, Greener Communities Program1.1.1

The Plan was developed as part of the New York State Energy Research DevelopmentAuthoritys (NYSERDA) Cleaner Greener Communities program, announced by GovernorAndrew M. Cuomo in his 2011 State of the State address.This program is intended to empower the ten regions of

NYS to take charge of sustainable growth in theircommunities by identifying and funding smartdevelopment practices. It provides a vehicle forplanning teams throughout NYS to partner with public and private experts across a widerange of fields, along with community residents, to encourage discussion and lead thedevelopment of regional sustainability plans.

The participants in the Cleaner, Greener Communities program were asked to think throughcurrent conditions, consider various scenarios to optimize growth, and identify, shape and

collaborate on actual projects that, when implemented, wouldsignificantly improve the economic and environmental healthof their respective Region. The results of this effort will guideimplementation of integrated solutions from statewideinvestments to regional decision making on land use, housing,transportation, infrastructure, energy, and environmentalpractices that can maintain and improve local quality of life.

In adapting the over-arching goals of the Cleaner, GreenerCommunities program to the sustainability needs of the Mid-Hudson region, the Consortiumidentified five focus areas:

Land Use, Livable Communities, and Transportation Agriculture and Open Space Energy Materials Management

The Plan seeks to build on theRegions unique social,

cultural, and natural history,while promoting economicdevelopment, environmentalsustainability, and enhancingthe quality of life for theRegions residents.


25/234

Introduction

1-3

WaterIn addition to the five core focus areas, the Consortium identified four cross-cutting topics:

Climate Change Mitigation Climate Change Adaptation Economic Development Governance

A discussion of climate change mitigation and adaptation is woven into each core focus areachapter. Economic development is discussed with regard to the Regions recent EconomicDevelopment Strategy and the Plans implementation strategy. Governance is discussed aspart of the Plans implementation strategy. Ongoing initiatives at the regional, county andlocal level were considered and integrated to the extent information was made available.

1.2The Mid-Hudson RegionThe Mid-Hudson Region covers just over 4,500 square miles, contains 198 municipalities, andis situated immediately north of NYC, sharing a border with the Borough of Bronx. TheRegion is defined by water, ranging from the coastal areasand tidal flats of Westchester County, to the estuaries of thelower Hudson, through to the mountain streams originating

in the Catskills. The Region has a great diversity of humanand natural landscapes, including dense, urbanized cities,small towns and villages, rural farms and orchards, andextensive undeveloped forest lands.

Land Use and Development1.2.1

The Mid-Hudson Region includes 10 percent of NYS land area,1 containing approximately 11percent of its population and housing2. Over 900 square miles, or 20.6 percent of the Region, is

defined by the 2010 U.S. Census as urban area, with a minimum population density of atleast 500 persons per square mile (see Figure 1.2). This is more than twice the amount of urban

1 U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Urban-Rural Classification.2 Ibid

Due to the fact that NYC makesup 42% of the entire population ofNYS while occupying less than1% of the land, it significantlyskews state-wide statistics.Hence, many datasets presentNYS figures with and withoutNYC.


26/234

Introduction

1-4

area found in New York State (NYS) as a whole (8.7 percent urban area or 8.1 percentexcluding NYC).

Figure 1.2 Regional Overview, 2010

Although the Region contains a disproportionate density of urban area when compared toNYS averages, such region-wide statistics mask considerable localized diversity. For example,the population density of Westchester County is over 2,200 persons per square mile, more than

five times as densely populated as NYS as a whole (including NYC) and nearly 30 times asdensely populated as Sullivan County, with only 80 persons per square mile3. The density ofpopulation, housing, and employment within the Region is concentrated in urban andsuburban areas in the southeast and along the Hudson River (see Figure 1.3).

3 Ibid


27/234

Introduction

1-5

Figure 1.3 Population Density, 2010

While the Region has much developed land, it also has significant forest and open space.According to the Census, there are 531,200 acres of forestland, covering approximately 18percent of the total area4. These data underrepresent the actual amount of forest cover depending on the data set used, forests covers 60-90% of the Region, although a lot of this ishighly fragmented forest interspersed amongst existing areas of development.

Much of the Regions preserved land and large, natural open spaces5 are located in a greenbeltthrough the Hudson Highlands in southeast Orange and northwest Putnam counties, in theCatskill Forest Preserve of northwest Ulster and Sullivan counties, and along the Shawangunk

4 New York State Property Assessment Data. 2012.5 Scenic Hudson. 2012. Protected Land.


28/234

Introduction

1-6

Ridge in Ulster, Sullivan and Orange counties. According toScenic Hudson, there are 618,100 acres of land protected fromdevelopment either through public ownership of

development rights or land conservation easements (21% ofthe Regions land).

Additionally, the Region contains 463,300 acres of park andrecreational areas, making up 16 percent of the Regions totalland area6. Because of this abundance of park andrecreational land, more than 60 percent of the Regionspopulation can access parks and recreational areas withinone-half mile of their homes7. Note that there is considerable

overlap among park land, protected land, and forested land.

Finally, in 2010, 323,154 acres were active farmland,representing approximately 11% of the Regions land area8.

Connectivity1.2.2

The Hudson River has been a major corridor for trade, transportation, and cultural exchangesince before the United States founding. Many of the Regions communities are built along

the banks of the Hudson, connected by an extensive network of bridges, roads, and rail lines.

Multiple major highways traverse the Region, connecting it with the rest of the Northeast andCanada.

The presence of the United States largest city immediately to the Regions south hasinfluenced its development patterns for more than a century. The network of commuter trainsand local bus services provides many parts of the Region with a high degree of mass transitservice. This allows residents multiple choices of mobility, providing access to jobs andservices throughout the Region as well as in NYC. In 2010, 11.7 percent of commuters usedpublic transportation to get to work compared with less than 5 percent of the nations

workers9. An estimated 21 percent of the Regions population and 20 percent of their jobs are

6 Scenic Hudson. 2012. Parks and Recreation Data.7 U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2010. Census of Population and Housing.8 Census of Agriculture, 2010.9 U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2010. American Community Survey.

Historically, ferries andsteamships were thepredominant mode used to crossthe Hudson River and travelnorth-south throughout theRegion. However, their use hasdropped off dramatically overthe past few decades. For aperiod of time during the mid- tolate-20th century there was noferry service in the Region aspeople increasingly chose toutilize the Regions bridges and

drive across the river. Serviceresumed in 2000 with theopening of the Haverstraw-Ossining Ferry and increasedwith the opening of theNewburgh-Beacon Ferry in 2005.


29/234

Introduction

1-7

within one mile of a rail station, and approximately 39 percent of people and 38 percent of jobsare within a half mile of a bus stop10.

In 2010, the 12 bus operations in the Region carried 50.6 million passengers, who traveled over182 billion miles. That same year, nearly 30 million passengers boarded a Metro North train.The Regions transit ridership is concentrated in Westchester County, while direct service isalso offered in 5 of the Regions 7 counties on both sides of the Hudson River. In 2010,Westchester County had more than twice as many buses in operation as all other countiescombined, facilitating ridership. In 2010, there were over 34,000 bus rides taken per 1,000capita in Westchester compared with 4,100 per 1,000 capita in the rest of the Region. Over 20percent of Westchester County commuters take transit to work and roughly two-thirds ofthose commuters take the train11.

Socio-Economics1.2.3

The Mid-Hudson Region is home to approximately 2.3 million people, with tremendousdiversity from county-to-county. Putnam and Sullivan counties both have populations under100,000 whereas Westchester County has nearly one million residents, which underscores thesignificant differences in population density between counties. These demographic differencesare reflected in the unique income, housing and employment profiles of each county. Table 1.1presents the population and number of households in the Region by county. The average

household size is 2.71 persons.TAB L E 1.1 PO P UL AT I O N AN D HO US E H O L D CH AR AC T E R I S T I C S, 2010

Location PopulationPercentage of TotalPopulation

Number ofHouseholds

Population Densityper square mile

Dutchess 297,488 13% 106,952 373.90

Orange 372,813 16% 124,379 459.30

Putnam 99,710 4% 34,907 432.94

Rockland 311,687 14% 97,557 1,795.95Sullivan 77,547 3% 29,722 80.10

Ulster 182,493 8% 70,691 162.33

10 U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2010. Census of Population and Housing.11 Census, American Community Survey, 2010 5-year estimates


30/234

Introduction

1-8

TAB L E 1.1 PO P UL AT I O N AN D HO US E H O L D CH AR AC T E R I S T I C S, 2010

Location PopulationPercentage of TotalPopulation

Number ofHouseholds

Population Densityper square mile

Westchester 949,113 41% 345,795 2,204.68

Region 2,290,851 100% 810,003 498.12

Source: 2010 U.S. Census, American Community Survey 5-YearEstimates, 2010.

The Region has a fairly typical rental vacancy rate of 9.3 percent, and most county rentalvacancy rates lie within five points of the national average12. Vacant housing units in theRegion vary widely from county to county from a low of 5.5% in Rockland County to a high of

38.9% in Sullivan County13. The reasons for the discrepancy vary14. For example, secondhomes (vacation homes) are counted as vacant, skewing the numbers in places with asignificant stock of second homes. Additionally, the varying impacts of the subprimemortgage crisis as well as trends in unemployment have a concomitant impact on vacancyrates.

Median household income was $60,751 in 2010 (see Table 1.2), fifteen percent higher than thenational average and nearly ten (10) percent higher than the state average. Income differenceslikely reflect the Regions concentration of highly educated workers and the effects of labor

market spillover from NYC. In 2009, 8.2 percent of the Regions families lived below thepoverty line, roughly 6 percentage points lower than both the national and the NYS average.

TAB L E 1.2 HO US E H O L D IN C O M E AN D PO VE R T Y RA TE , 2010

LocationAverageHousehold Income

Median HouseholdIncome

Poverty Rate forFamilies (%)

Dutchess $85,739 $69,838 5.7

Orange $83,948 $69,523 7.5

Putnam $108,365 $89,218 2.5

12 http://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/qtr212/q212press.pdf13http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_11_3YR_DP04&pr

odType=table14 http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110417/NEWS/104170336


31/234

Introduction

1-9

TAB L E 1.2 HO US E H O L D IN C O M E AN D PO VE R T Y RA TE , 2010

Location

Average

Household Income

Median Household

Income

Poverty Rate for

Families (%)

Rockland $105,450 $82,534 7.2

Sullivan $60,596 $48,103 10.7

Ulster $73,407 $57,584 6.9

Westchester $128,127 $79,619 5.8

Region $92,233 $60,751 8.19Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2010.

Adults in the Mid-Hudson Region are more likely to have at least a Bachelors degree than theaverage American. Strikingly, adults in Westchester and Rockland Counties are more thantwice as likely to have a Bachelors degree as adults in Sullivan County.

Westchester and Rockland Counties also have the highest percentages of non-English speakingadults, with 12.3 and 15.5 percent of adults speaking English less than very well,

respectively. According to the Gini coefficient, a measure of inequality, these two counties alsohave the highest degree of income inequality. Nonetheless, the Region has lower incomeinequality than NYS or the United States as a whole.

The number of jobs in the Region has held steady at around 864,000 over the past decade.Wages have increased by almost 50 percent in the service and public sectors, but have notexperienced the same growth in goods-producing industries.

The service industry is the main employer, most notably in Westchester County. Serviceproducing industries in Westchester County account for 76 percent of county employment,compared to an average of 68 percent in the Regions six other counties. The top fiveemploying industries in the Region include healthcare, retail trade, hospitality and foodservices and professional services (see Table 1.3 and 1.4).

TAB L E 1.3 IN D US T R I E S W I T H T H E MO ST EM P L O Y E E STH R O UGH O UT T H E RE GI O N

Rank Industry Number of Employees

1 Health care and social 152,527


32/234

Introduction

1-10

TAB L E 1.3 IN D US T R I E S W I T H T H E MO ST EM P L O Y E E STH R O UGH O UT T H E RE GI O N

Rank Industry Number of Employees

assistance

2 Retail trade 109,907

3Accommodation and foodservices

57,619

4Professional, scientific, andtechnical services

41,607

5Other services (except publicadministration)

40,056

Source: County Business Patterns, 2010.

TAB L E 1.4 IN D US T R I E S W I T H T H E MO ST BUS I N E S S E ST H R O UGH O UT T H E RE GI O N

Rank Industry Number of Businesses

1 Retail trade 8,996

2 Professional, scientific, andtechnical services

8,126

3 Construction 7,807

4Health care and socialassistance

7,748

5Other services (except publicadministration)

6,718

Source: County Business Patterns, 2010.

Consistent with national trends, the Region has seen an increase in unemployment rates

during the recent economic downturn. According to the latest projections, the regionalunemployment rate is 6.4 percent, with Sullivan County the highest at 8.8 percent. Table 1.5presents regional labor force characteristics.


33/234

Introduction

1-11

TAB L E 1.5 LAB O R FO R C E AN D UN E M P L O Y M E N T RA TE , 2010

LocationPopulation Over 16

in Labor ForceUnemployment Rate (%)

Dutchess 153,872 7.4

Orange 189,079 7.8

Putnam 52,259 6.6

Rockland 149,048 6.5

Sullivan 37,623 9.1

Ulster 96,182 8.2

Westchester 483,490 6.8

Region 1,161,553 7.5

Source: NYS Department of Labor.

Culture and History1.2.4

The Mid-Hudson Region has a long and storied history with deep roots in the culture ofenvironmental conservation. First settled by the Dutch in 1610, the Region was the site offamed explorer Henry Hudsons attempt at finding the Northwest Passage. In the 18th

century, the Region was home to New York's first capital in Kingston in 1777 until the Britishburned it down after the Battle of Saratoga, and its second capital in Poughkeepsie from 1777shortly after the War of Independence until 1783..

The Hudson River has been a critical trade and transportation route since the Region was firstsettled. With the opening of the Erie Canal, the Hudson served as a major corridor connectingNYC and the rest of the eastern seaboard with the western US.

In more recent years, the Region has become a leader in the United States conservation

movement. In the 1960s, a 17 year legal battle over the building of a hydropower plant nearStorm King lead to the passage of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and thecreation of local organizations like Scenic Hudson, Clearwater, and Riverkeeper, which worktoday to conserve the Hudson River and its watershed.


34/234

Introduction

1-12

1.3Navigating the PlanThe Plan and each focus area chapter is organized to answer three basic questions withregard to the Regions sustainable development:

Where are we? Where do we want to go? How do we get there?

The Plan presents the Guiding Principles and Approach (Chapter 2) used in analyzing anddeveloping an approach for each of the five focus areas (Chapters 3 7). A Regional Synthesis(Chapter 8) looks at cross-cutting strategies to achieve the Plans objectives. An

Implementation Strategy (Chapter 9) outlines initiatives needed to sustain regionalcollaboration and facilitate implementation.

Where Are We?1.3.1

The first, important step was to develop a clear understanding of the state of the Regionseconomy, environment, and quality of life. The intent was to provide a foundation for eachWorking Group to build on, allowing the Region to compare itself to other regions and NYS asa whole. This understanding, based on the best available information, was essential to settingrealistic targets over time and planning for transformative change.

To achieve this, a baseline assessment was completed. The planning team collaborated withthe Working Groups established around each of the six focus areas to review existing reports,collect data and complete interviews and research in an attempt to map out and understandcurrent trends in each focus area. The results were used to inform the planning process andare documented in Appendix A: Baseline Assessment.

Some key trends and background information emerged that helped frame the discussion of theRegions future. Specific metrics were identified for each focus area to support a quantitative

assessment of the Regions sustainability.

Where Do We Want to Go?1.3.2

Sustainable development couples concern over resource limits and physical thresholds with aninterest in mapping out a desirable future. For this Plan, sustainable development is definedas the ongoing effort to enhance environmental, economic and social well-being without


35/234

Introduction

1-13

degrading current or future natural, economic and social resources. This is similar to thetriple bottom line concept often referenced in the context of business. Further discussion ofsustainable development is found in Chapter 2.

To help make this concept a little more concrete, general objectives were established for eachfocus area. These qualitative objectives have been matched with quantitative metrics. Targetswere then set for each metric, with discrete milestones in the years 2020, 2035, and 2050.Collectively, each metric and target constitutes an indicator of sustainable development (seeFigure 1.4). Progress in implementing in the Plan can be tracked using these indicators,helping provide quantitative evidence of the Regions success in meeting the Plans objectives.

Figure 1.4 Objectives Indicators

No series of indicators can perfectly capture the myriad trends and issues that compriseeconomic development, environmental sustainability, and quality of life. This is especiallytrue for a diverse Region, where data availability and quality limit the range of metrics thatcan be quantified at a regional scale. Recognizing this, two Tiers of metrics were proposedand used:

Tier 1 metrics are those for which good data are available in all seven counties of theMid-Hudson Region, and thus can be easily calculated

Tier 2 metrics are those that would be valuable to track, but for which readily-available,high quality data are unavailable region-wide

In the future, as Tier 2 data become more available throughout the Region, it will be possibleto track a more robust set of sustainability indicators, and further hone initiatives identifiedthrough the Planning process.


36/234

Introduction

1-14

How Do We Get There?1.3.3

The objectives and targets set in the Plan provide a set of performance goals that can guide

sustainable development activities in the Region for several decades. This Plan represents afirst step it will need to be updated regularly to ensure that the objectives and targetsidentified within it continue to reflect the Regions vision and needs, as well as availabletechnologies and best practices.

Many, many projects and programs will need to be planned, launched, and executed over timeto meet the targets established in the Plan. To help guide these efforts, a series of projectpriorities are presented for each focus area. Within each priority category, individual projectsare highlighted which exemplify the types of initiatives needed to make real change happen in

the Region. Additionally, a series of enabling strategies are presented. These consist ofprograms, policies, and other initiatives which have the potential to significantly facilitateproject implementation, helping achieve the Plans objectives.

In addition to focus-area specific project and enabling strategies, a series of regional synthesispriorities have been identified. These include efforts which will impact multiple focus areas orhave transformative potential at the regionals scale.

The Plans implementation strategy includes recommendations to sustain and strengthenregional-scale planning, coordination, and action into the future, while also ensuring

accountability and facilitating Plan implementation at the local level.


37/234

2-1

2GuidingPrinciples andApproachThis Chapter includes:

1. A review of the guiding principles underlying the Plan including:a. Sustainable development that builds on the Regions strengthsb. Climate change as a cross-cutting challenge faced by the Regionc. The alignment between the Plan and the Regional Economic Development

Strategyd. Regional collaboration to achieve sustainable developmente. Environmental justice as a regional concern

2. A description of the planning processThe Mid-Hudson Regional Sustainability Plan is intended to guide sustainable developmentactivities at the regional and local scale. Regional-scale planning, coordination, and action:

Facilitate sharing of resources and helps local governments achieve economies of scaleo Many local governments face challenges that can be more affordably addressed

at a larger scale

Position the Region for more funding opportunitieso Knowledge networking and collaboration allows the Region to better go after

state and federal sources of funding, many of which require grantees todemonstrate regional-scale impacts

Create consistent regional definitions and data setso Data consistency tracked across a wider area can help identify larger-scale trends

and target investments


38/234

Guiding Principles and Approach

2-2

Provide a platform for addressing inter-municipal issueso Water management, economic development, repurposing of historic building

stock, revitalization of aging infrastructure, brownfield reclamation, biodiversityconservation, and many more issues transcend individual municipal or county

borders

Sustainable Development that builds on the Regions Strengths2.1.1

Sustainable development is defined here as the ongoing effort to enhance environmental,economic and social well-being without degrading current or future natural, economic andsocial resources. For the Mid-Hudson Region, achieving sustainable development will requirethe Region to build on its historic strengths, including:

The diverse natural environment, with the Hudson River as a centerpiece The vibrant economy, home to global brands as well as thousands of small businesses

and start-ups Robust transportation accessibility and connectivity within and beyond the Region The exceptional quality of life, derived in part due to the Regions setting as well as its

long history of social and cultural innovation and its unique historical assets

INSERT GRAPHIC

These four aspects of sustainable development cannot be treated individually, or in isolation.As businesses seek to compete in an increasingly globalized marketplace, quality of lifebecomes an important factor in attracting and retaining the best employees. If theenvironment is allowed to degrade, quality of life may decline. By increasing energy efficiencyand switching to renewable sources of energy, the Region helps protect the environment whileretaining money in the local economy and providing a local test bed for new green enterprises.A strong economy relies on good connectivity both within the Region and with the outsideworld. A strategy for sustainable development that ignores the close relationship betweenthese elements risks failure.

Climate Change A Cross-Cutting Challenge2.1.2

Climate change is a major planning consideration in the Mid-Hudson Region, because theRegion is both vulnerable to the effects of climate change and contributes significantly toglobal greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Each focus area addressed contributes to and isaffected by climate change, demonstrating how truly it is a cross-cutting challenge.

The Plan has two major goals concerning climate change:


39/234


2-3

The first is to reduce the Regions overall contribution to climate change The second is to increase the Regions ability to adapt to a changing climate

GHG Emissions

In 2010, the Mid-Hudson Region emitted an estimated 27 million metric tons of GHGs(measured in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent [MTCO2e]) see Table 2.1 this isequivalent to the amount of emissions produced from burning 317,743 tanker trucks worth of

gasoline. While the Region only represents 0.5% of total U.S. GHG emissions, it still producesa globally significant amount equivalent to the annual emissions of the country of Ecuador, anation with more than six times as many people. For a breakdown of GHG emissions bycounty and per capita see Table 2.1.

TAB L E 2.1 RE GI O N AL GHG EM I S S I O N S

County Population Emissions (MTCO2e)Per CapitaEmissions

(MTCO2e/capita)

Dutchess 297,488 3,500,847 11.93

Putnam 99,710 1,644,863 16.57

Rockland 311,687 4,085,902 13.61

Westchester 949,113 9,663,889 10.11

Sullivan 77,547 927,223 12.23

Orange 372,813 4,879,733 12.72

Ulster 182,493 2,248,181 12.39

Totals 2,290,851 26,950,637 11.7615

Regional GHG emissions by source are presented in Figure 2.1. The single largest source ofGHG emissions across the region is transportation fuel consumption, which accounts for 41.9percent of regional emissions. More than 90% of transportation emissions result from on-roadtransportation (cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles). The second largest overall contributor is

residential energy consumption, which includes fuels used directly for space and waterheating as well as the indirect emissions resulting from the use of electricity. Emissions fromresidential energy consumption generate over 21 % of the Regions emissions.

15 Greenhouse Gas Inventory attached to this document


40/234


2-4

Figure 2.1 Regional Emissions by County

Per capita emissions by county and by source are presented in Figure 2.2. Approximately 36%of the Regions emissions were generated by Westchester County, the most populous countyin the Region. However, Putnam County had the greatest per capita emissions rate, due inpart to transportation emissions generated by traffic passing through the County. The GHGemissions inventory results, data, and methodologies are discussed in greater detail in eachfocus area chapter as well as in the complete GHG Inventory Report (see Appendix B).

Figure 2.2 Per Capita Emissions by County and Source

42%

21%

19%

7%

5%3%

2%

1%

Transportation Energy

Consumption

Residential Energy

Consumption

Commercial Energy

ConsumptionIndustrial Energy

Consumption

Waste Management

Industrial Processes

Energy Generation andSupply

Agriculture

012

3456789

10111213141516

GHGEmissions,perCapita,MTCO2e

Other

Waste Management

Transportation

Industrial Energy

Consumption

Commercial EnergyConsumption

Residential Energy

Consumption


41/234


2-5

Climate Change Vulnerability

The effects of climate change are already being felt in the Region, as evidenced in the steadydecrease in Heating Degree Days over the past three decades, among other indicators16. Dueto the lifecycle of GHGs in the atmosphere as well as ongoing emissions from both natural and

anthropogenic sources, climate change will continue to be felt for many years and, accordingto climate scientists models, likely will increase in their impact (see Table 2.2).

TAB L E 2.2 PR O J E C T E D CH AN GE I N TE M P E R AT UR E, PR E C I P I T AT I O N, AN D SE ALEVEL

1971-2000 2020s 2050s 2080s

Air temperature 48F + 1.5 to 3.0F +3.0 to 5.5F +4.0 to 8.0F

Precipitation 48 in 0 to +5% 0 to +10% +5 to 10%

Sea level rise Inches Inches Inches

Scenario 1 Moderate icemelt

n/a +1 to +4 +5 to +9 +8 to +18

Scenario 2 - Rapid ice-melt n/a ~4 to +9 ~17 to +26 ~37 to +50Source: NYSERDA. "Responding to Climate Change in New York State: The ClimAID Integrated Assessment forEffective Climate Change Adaptation in New York State." Technical Report, 2011.

In the Mid-Hudson Region, models show that climate change may have a number of differenteffects, including everything from increasing property damage to reducing water quality.Each of these effects stems from either a primary or secondary climate impact. Primaryclimate impacts are those directly associated with radiative forcing due to GHG emissions,such as sea level rise, changes in precipitation, and changes in temperature. Secondaryimpacts include flooding, drought, and heat waves. Figure 2.3 provides an example of the linkbetween changes to the climate (in blue), the resulting climate impacts (in yellow), and theeffects on human systems (in green). This is not an exhaustive list, but illustrates the change ofimpacts and effects.

16 ClimAID reports that between 1970 and 2007, the number of HDD has declined by 46.3 days per decade (NYSERDA 2011).


42/234


2-6

Figure 2.3 Climate Change Impacts and Effects

Critically, climate change can impact the frequency and severity of extreme weather events(see Table 2.3). The Mid-Hudson Region is already challenged by extreme weather events,particularly flooding. From 1997-2010, flooding cost the Region more than an estimated $262million dollars17. By planning for the effects of climate change, the Region can avoid costlydamage to infrastructure, life, and health. In each of the focus area chapters of the Plan, thespecific potential impacts of climate change are discussed, and with strategies proposed to

mitigate their effects. The complete results of the climate change vulnerability assessmentcompleted for the Mid-Hudson Region can be found in Appendix C.

17 SHELDUS, 2011.http://webra.cas.sc.edu/hvri/products/sheldus.aspx
http://webra.cas.sc.edu/hvri/products/sheldus.aspxhttp://webra.cas.sc.edu/hvri/products/sheldus.aspxhttp://webra.cas.sc.edu/hvri/products/sheldus.aspxhttp://webra.cas.sc.edu/hvri/products/sheldus.aspx


43/234


2-7

TABLE 2.3 IMPACT OF CL I M A TE CHANGE ON EXTREME EV E N TS

1971-2000 2020s 2050s 2080s

Full range of changes in extreme events: minimum, and maximum

Heat Waves& ColdEvents

Number of days per year with max. temperature exceeding:

90F 12 13 to 34 16 to 53 21 to 75

95F 2 2 to 10 3 to 20 4 to 39

# of heat waves peryear

2 2 to 5 2 to 7 3 to 10

Average duration 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 5 to 8

# of days per yearwith min. temp. 32F

138 101 to 128 70 to 115 57 to 112

IntensePrecipitation

Number of days per year with rainfall exceeding:

1 inch 12 10 to 14 10 to 14 10 to 15

2 inches 2 1 to 3 1 to 3 1 to 3Source: NYSERDA. "Responding to Climate Change in New York State: The ClimAID Integrated Assessment for

Effective Climate Change Adaptation in New York State." Technical Report, 2011.


44/234


2-8

Building on the Regions Economic Development Strategy2.1.3

The Mid-Hudson Regional Sustainability Plan seeks to complement and expand upon theeconomic development strategy crafted in 2011 by the Mid-Hudson Regional EconomicDevelopment Council (REDC). The REDC is a public-private partnership made up of localexperts and stakeholders from business, academia, local government, and non-governmentalorganizations. The REDC focuses on a community based, bottom up approach to job creationand economic growth through the distribution of funds provided by NYS. As noted earlier,this is being achieved through a focus on the relationship between environmentalsustainability, quality of life, and economic development, and is why the Plan has beendesigned to align with the following four Focal Strategies promoted by the REDC (see Figure2.4):

REDC1 - INVEST in Tech: Target job creation investments in identifiable industry clusters

such as biotech, biomedical and healthcare; advanced manufacturing; and informationtechnology.

REDC2 - ATTRACT & RETAIN Mature Industries: Undertake initiatives to retain andstimulate more mature industries such as distribution, financial and professional services, andcorporate food and beverage, as these sectors represent large, vital anchor industries in theMid-Hudson economy.

REDC3 - GROW Natural Resource-Related Sectors: Leverage the Regions outstandingnatural resources, including its unique location between the Hudson River, Delaware River,and Long Island Sound, to sustain and promote waterfront development and industriesincluding agriculture, tourism, artisanal food and beverage, and recreation. Additionally, it isvital that these industries preserve the Regions unique quality of life.

REDC4 - REVITALIZE: Support building projects that improve key regional infrastructure tomake the Region more business-ready; foster housing investment to create construction jobsand more housing supply; and support the revitalization of our urban centers as engines ofregional prosperity.


45/234


2-9

Figure 2.4 REDC Focal Strategies18

Table 2.4 captures specific synergies between the objectives of the Regional Sustainability Planand the four REDC Focal Strategies. Note that the Plans objectives are presented in muchgreater detail in subsequent chapters. In general, the Plans objectives align with many of thestrategies proposed by the REDC, with the goal of ensuring that the economic development ofthe Region also contributes to the Regions quality of life and environmental sustainability.

18 For more information on REDC strategies please visit http://regionalcouncils.ny.gov/content/mid-hudson


46/234


2-10


47/234


2-11

Regional Collaboration to Achieve Sustainable Development2.1.4

The broad-based discussion that has taken place within the Region to help shape the Plan is animportant initial step to gaining commitment from individuals, corporations, non-profits, localgovernments, and many other local actors to take action in a bold and sustained manner.Collaboration across groups can ensure that limited resources achieve maximum impact andthat the best ideas are shared widely this requires careful coordination. This is why a centralfocus of the Plans implementation strategy is to develop the governance infrastructure neededto facilitate collaboration and coordinate action.

Collaboration for regional planning and action is already on-going in the Mid-Hudson Region.For example, in 1991, the NYS legislature created the Hudson River Greenway Communitiescouncil, a voluntary planning process through which individual communities adopt a set ofsmart growth planning principles, and in return become eligible for capital grants that support

related projects as well as favored scoring in the competitive application process for other stateprograms. Of 179 eligible municipalities in the six eligible counties (Sullivan County isexcluded), 166 have signed on as Greenway Members in one of the Regions more successfulefforts in regionalism.

Similarly, Sullivan and Orange counties participate with their neighbors in Pennsylvania inseveral Upper Delaware Valley cooperative efforts including the inter-municipal UpperDelaware Council.

Although covering only a portion of the Mid-Hudson Region, the New York MetropolitanTransportation Council (NYMTC) provides another example of intergovernmentalcoordination at the regional level. NYMTC is a coalition of county and local governments thatserves as the metropolitan planning organization for transportation-related issues for NYC,Long Island, and the lower Hudson Valley. County executives from Putnam, Rockland andWestchester counties, along with government representatives from the rest of its serviceregion, serve as principal council members and vote on key planning, policy and fundingdecisions. The recent endorsement by NYMTC for the Tappan Zee Bridge replacementproposal is one significant regional transportation issue considered and acted upon through

this regional framework.

Orange, Dutchess and Ulster counties each have their own established Transportation Councilwith similar government and interagency cooperation at the county level. Yet these threecounties also work cooperatively under a unified Transportation Management Area process,coordinating transportation and transit planning, funding and capital project investmentsnorth of the NYMTC area.


48/234


2-12

A variety of civic, planning, and environmental organizations also provide a range ofleadership on regional planning and land use. Examples include the Hudson Valley RegionalCouncil, Pattern for Progress, Common Waters (in the Upper Delaware Valley), and the Centerfor Research, Regional Education, and Outreach (CRREO)

at SUNY New Paltz, Scenic Hudson, and the Land UseLaw Center at Pace University. Additionally, municipalPlanning Federations, staffed by county planningdepartments, exist in four of the seven counties. And allthe counties along with non-governmental organizationssponsor recurring educational programs for municipalofficials, staff and others.

Counties in the Region also provide leadership on cross-jurisdiction coordination. Forexample, recognizing that the housing market extends beyond political boundary lines andthat the counties faced similar pressures and housing affordability challenges, Ulster, Orange,and Dutchess counties joined together to prepare the Three-County Regional Housing NeedsAssessment 2006-2020. This represented a collective effort to analyze housing costs, supply,and future housing needs across the broader three-county area.

Environmental issues have also been a vehicle for regional cooperation. In 1989, the EPAissued new criteria governing filtration for public surface water supplies as a result ofamendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act. Facing potentially large capital costs to providefiltration for its water supply system and believing that the high quality water from the

Delaware/Catskill system could meet EPA criteria for obtaining a waiver (i.e., filtrationavoidance determination), the City of New York successfully negotiated the landmark NYCWatershed Memorandum of Agreement with other stakeholders in the watershed area. Thememorandum, which involved numerous local and county governments, environmentalgroups, and other federal, state, and city agencies, established a cooperative framework forprotecting NYCs water supply, enhancing the economic vitality of upstate watershedcommunities, and implementing a variety of watershed protection programs. It also created aWatershed Protection and Partnership Council, which consists of representatives from thevarious watershed stakeholders, to serve as a regional forum for the ongoing exchange of ideasand information related to watershed protection and economic development for the watershedcommunities.

Despite this long and rich history of collaboration, some challenges to regional partnershipsremain, such as the primacy of home rule in local government, the inconsistent geographic

In the early 1990s, changes to NYSland use law enabled inter-municipal compacts that allowcoordination of planning an

Hudson Valley plan to grow green jobs

Documents

Transcript of Hudson Valley plan to grow green jobs