Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-14-18 EMC Agenda PacketThe EMC is a citizen board that advises the County Legislature on matters relating to the environment and does not necessarily express the views of the Tompkins County Legislature. TOMPKINS COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COUNCIL 121 East Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Telephone (607) 274-5560 http://www.tompkinscountyny.gov/emc AGENDA June 14, 2018  Tompkins County Old Jail Conference Room (121 E.Court)  4:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 4:00 2. Privilege of the Floor 3. Changes to the Agenda/Approval of the Minutes (May 10, 2018) 4:05 4. Update: County Habitat Connectivity Strategy 4:10 – Scott Doyle, TC Planning and Sustainability Dept. 5. Committee Reports 4:30 a. Climate Adaptation b. Environmental Review c. Unique Natural Areas d. Waste Reduction e. Water Resources Council Liaison f. Executive 6. Staff Report – Scott Doyle 4:50 7. By-laws Revision Discussion 4:55 8. Freese Road Bridge Replacement Project – Brian Eden 5:10 9. Report: NYSDEC Annual Update Meeting – Maureen Bolton 5:15 10. Cayuga Lake HABs Plan Update 5:20 11. Municipal Reports and Member Announcements 5:25 12. Adjournment 5:30 Next Meeting Date: July 12, 2018 Reminder to Members: If you are unable to attend, please contact Kristin McCarthy, Administrative Assistant, via email at kmmccarthy@tompkins-co.org or phone at 607-274-5560. TOMPKINS COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COUNCIL 121 East Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Telephone (607) 274-5560 http://www.tompkinscountyny.gov/emc EMC Draft Minutes 1 May 10, 2018 4:00 p.m. 2 Tompkins County Old Jail Conference Room, 125 E. Court St, Ithaca, NY 3 4 Attendance 5 Member Seat Member Seat Steve Bissen E Town of Dryden Amanda Champion P Legislative Liaison Maureen Bolton P Town of Enfield Susan Allen-Gil P Associate Member Cait Darfler P Town of Ulysses Karen Edelstein A Associate Member John Dennis A Village of Lansing Bill Evans E Associate Member Brian Eden P Village of Cayuga Heights Anna Kelles A Associate Member Pegi Ficken E Town of Groton Dooley Kiefer E Associate Member Michelle Henry P Town of Newfield Dan Klein P Associate Member Anne Klingensmith P Town of Danby Jose Lozano P Associate Member James Knighton E At-Large Osamu Tsuda A Associate Member Vladimir Micic P Town of Ithaca David Weinstein A Associate Member Steve Nicholson E Town of Caroline Robert Wesley A Associate Member Susan Riley P At-Large Roger Yonkin A Associate Member Tom Shelley P City of Ithaca Scott Doyle P EMC Coordinator Genny Shipley P At-Large Kristin McCarthy P County Staff Don Smith P At-Large Ron Syzmanski E Village of Freeville Regi Teasley A At-Large Guests – Barbara Eckstrom Tompkins County Department of Recycling and Materials 6 Management; Diane Cohen, Finger Lakes ReUse; Mike Merchant 7 8 Call to Order – Chair Brian Eden called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. 9 10 Agenda Review/Changes – None 11 12 Approval of the Minutes – A motion was made by Tom Shelley, seconded by Anne 13 Klingensmith, to approve the April 12, 2018, minutes. Motion carried. 14 15 16 TC County Recycling and Materials Management – Barbara Eckstrom, director 17 18 • Barb Eckstrom, director of the County’s Recycling and Materials Management 19 Department, spoke about the Department’s history, current activities, and 20 forthcoming 10-year Solid Waste Management and Diversion Plan. The plan is being 21 developed completely in-house with no consultants, and a draft will probably be 22 issued this August for review by the community and the Legislature. 23 • Barb described her professional background, which once upon a time included serving 24 as EMC coordinator for the County. She also talked about the chaos/anarchy of the early 25 days of recycling in our area and legislators like Stu Stein and Barbara Mink, who 26 advocated for sustainable waste management when it was still extremely unpopular. 27 • Much effort was undertaken to keep recycling out of the domain of garbage haulers, and 28 the decision was made to create a County recycling and waste management building 29 instead. In Barb’s opinion, the best decision the County made was not to build a local 30 landfill. Instead, Stu and Barbara helped to draft policy to use a regional landfill. 31 32 Here are a few further details from her talk: 33 34 • Recycling compliance in Tompkins County averages about 85%. The Department makes 35 a concerted effort to hold public outreach events to educate people. A new section will 36 be added to their website this summer. Their ReBusiness Partners program helps 37 businesses, schools, and organizations to reduce, reuse, recycle, and rebuy. Cayuga 38 Medical Center is one such partner. 39 • The Waste Diversion program started about seven years ago to keep scrap metal and 40 special recyclables out of the waste stream. Tompkins County pays Finger Lakes ReUse 41 to pull out valuable materials. They also have an incentive program to encourage 42 universities and other haulers to come for high-value items. That recycling revenue helps 43 with other costs. 44 • There are 13 food scraps collection sites throughout the County. They tried a curbside 45 pilot but no organization wanted to pick up the cost for the service. 46 • With funds from a $400,000 Climate Smart Community Grant, Recycling and Materials 47 Management will be releasing a bid for construction of a food waste transfer station for 48 scraps from stores, universities, etc. 49 • The Department works extensively with Cooperative Extension’s Compost education 50 program. They offer a Borrow-a-Bin service for events and have a mobile food scraps 51 vehicle. One should be opening in Newfield this summer. In addition, the County offers 52 subsidies to companies like Wegmans to compost, making it a more affordable than 53 paying to haul away food waste. 54 55 Ithaca ReUse Center: Expansion Project Update – Diane Cohen, executive director 56 57 • Diane Cohen, who heads up Finger Lakes ReUse, spoke to the group about the 58 organization’s background and plans for the future, in particular the expansion of the 59 Ithaca ReUse Center on Elmira Road. Phase I of the expansion, which involves 60 construction of an unconditioned 7,500-square-foot storage space, is slated for the 61 summer of 2018. Phase II, which is more ambitious and includes a 4-story addition to 62 the current building, is scheduled for 2019. For the latter, Finger Lakes ReUse is 63 exploring possible collaborations with housing partners to defray costs and support 64 project feasibility. 65 • The organization’s stated mission is to enhance the community, economy, and 66 environment through reuse. Diane shared some of ReUse’s initiatives that work toward 67 fulfilling that mandate, including the ReSet Job Skills training program, deconstruction 68 and salvage services, eCenter Computer Refurbishing program, and the Ithaca Fixers 69 Collective. 70 • One of many standout statistics from Diane’s talk was that it costs $85 per ton to dispose 71 of waste in Tompkins County, yet it is possible to earn $2,000 per ton through reuse. 72 • There was time for a few questions from the members, but the Council hopes to invite 73 Diane back for a more in-depth discussion. Diane’s PowerPoint presentation is available 74 on the EMC website. 75 76 Committee Reports 77 78 Climate Adaptation: Brian Eden 79 80 The Committee is working on the Flooding Hazard and Risk Survey Report. They hope to share 81 a draft with everyone prior to the next meeting. 82 83 Environmental Review: Brian Eden 84 85 • Some residents of Nate’s Floral Estates have reported experiencing health problems. 86 The Committee would like to ask residents to fill out a health questionnaire to explore 87 whether a connection exists between the reported illnesses and Nate’s location. (It was 88 built on top of a former landfill.) However, members have been unable to get on the 89 privately owned property to inquire. Results from the NYSDEC’s soil and water testing at 90 Nates are not yet available for evaluation. 91 • The remediation plan for the Chain Works District was recently changed to “expedited.” 92 A public information meeting has been scheduled by the NYSDEC for June 7, 5:00- 93 7:00pm, at South Hill Elementary. 94 • The Court of Appeals in Albany ruled that the NYSDEC’s general permit for CAFO 95 pollution control does not fully comply with the federal Clean Water Act. 96 • The Article 78 hearing against Cargill will be heard by the Tompkins County Supreme 97 Court tomorrow morning (May 11th). 98 • The ERC is working with members of the Lansing Rod & Gun Club to find an amicable 99 way to get them to stop using lead shot on the property. 100 • At a recent TCCPI meeting, heating and cooling of the planned North Campus 101 dormitories came up as a topic of discussion. Brian asked Susan Riley if they could 102 confer about scheduling a conversation between Cornell and other community 103 stakeholders concerned with sustainable development. 104 • There is a bill in the NYS Legislature to further regulate solid waste incinerators in New 105 York State. 106 107 Unique Natural Areas: Steve Nicholson 108 109 • The Committee will meet Monday (May 14th). Members hope to plan the new boundary 110 revisions for Batch 5 in their multiple year review process. 111 • Contracts for the consultants have been finalized. 112 • Proposed construction of the Freese Road bridge in Varna could possibly affect a UNA in 113 the area. 114 115 Waste Minimization: Tom Shelley 116 117 • Members fine-tuned the Committee’s mission statement and discussed possible short- 118 and long-term goals. 119 • Long-term goals included reducing the use of plastic products in general, as well as food 120 and fabric waste, and promoting the reuse/recycling of fabrics. Emerging contaminants 121 of concern were discussed as well. 122 • The first short-term goal is to research existing bans on single-use shopping bags and 123 develop a resolution to go to the Legislature by the end of the year. 124 • EMC table at Earth Day celebration had quite a few visitors. Brian thanked Maureen 125 Bolton, Anne Klingensmith, and Cait Darfler for volunteering their time to staff it. 126 127 Water Resources Council Liaison: Michelle Henry 128 129 • Postdoctoral fellow Shannan Sweet gave a presentation on her work examining the 130 long-term effects on agriculture and water resources from the 2016 drought in New York 131 State. Shannan works in the NatureNet program under soil ecologist David Wolfe at 132 Cornell. 133 • The study took a three-pronged perspective: historical data, surveys and interviews with 134 farmers, and agricultural crop irrigation modeling. Low snowpack and low streamflow led 135 to drought. 136 Executive: Brian Eden 137 • Today (May 10th) marks the 47th birthday of the Tompkins County EMC. 138 • The Climate Solutions Summit takes place Saturday, May 19th, in Syracuse. 139 • Volunteers are needed to help carpool guests to the O.D. von Engeln Preserve for the 140 May 12th UNA field trip. 141 • Susan Riley reported that Cornell is hosting its public forum on the Earth Source Heat 142 geothermal program at The Space at GreenStar on May 17th at 5:30 pm. 143 Staff Report – Scott Doyle 144 145 • He and Kristin McCarthy will coordinate with Brian on revising and compiling the new 146 member packet. 147 • Scott distributed the EMC Communication Guidelines to everyone as a refresher on the 148 Council’s policy. 149 150 Authorization for Standing Committee Status: Waste Reduction 151 • Michelle Henry moved to authorize formation of the Waste Reduction Standing 152 Committee. Cait Darfler seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously by the 153 members present. 154 • On Susan Allen-Gil’s suggestion, Tom Shelley read aloud the Committee’s mission 155 statement. 156 157 Cayuga Lake HABs Plan Update 158 • The Cayuga Lake Watershed Network has new CSLAP sites; they will also be 159 monitoring for emerging contaminants, such as microplastics. 160 • They still need volunteers to take water samples on the north end of the lake. 161 • The hydrilla website is being updated. 162 163 Bylaws Revision Discussion 164 • No report. Dooley Kiefer wasn’t feeling well and couldn’t attend the meeting. 165 166 Municipal Reports and Member Announcements 167 • Michelle relayed that construction of the Millard Hill solar project in Newfield is 168 under way. 169 • The Dryden Solar Project was challenged by another Article 78 lawsuit against 170 the Town Planning Board last week; Brian attended. 171 • Vlad Micic said two new sidewalks, one along Danby Road from the Ithaca City 172 line to Ithaca College, and another on Trumansburg Road, will be paved 173 sometime in the next year. 174 • Don Smith is taking a class on mapping invasive species and wondered which 175 committee could benefit from that knowledge. Members suggested he check out 176 either the UNA or Environmental Review Committee. Scott recommended that he 177 attend a meeting of each to determine which is more to his liking. 178 179 Adjournment 180 Action: Chair Brian Eden adjourned the meeting at 6:00 p.m. 181 182 These draft minutes will be formally considered by the EMC at its next monthly meeting, and 183 corrections or notations will be incorporated at that time. 184 Prepared by Kristin McCarthy, Tompkins County Planning and Sustainability Department. 185 Approved by EMC: 186 187 TOMPKINS COUNTY HABITAT CONNECTIVITY STRATEGY May 2018 1 Tompkins County is known for its scenic natural features and beautiful rolling landscapes. Residents and visitors alike cherish the vast natural attractions and recreational opportunities the County and region has to offer, including waterfalls, trails, lakes, and diverse habitat. Tompkins County has long been recognized as a desirable place to live and access to its natural areas and its associated resources plays a substantial role. Sustaining these resources and the species that rely on them for habitat provides community and economic development opportunities that make Tompkins County a desirable place to live and visit. Losing these natural areas would not only impact plant and animal species but also potentially change community character. Tompkins County has developed this Habitat Connectivity Strategy to help combat habitat fragmentation, preserve habitat diversity, and promote ecosystem resilience. The framework provided here identifies (1) specific habitat corridors for native flora and fauna to have the ability to freely move in response to climate change; (2) key undeveloped areas that should be protected from fragmentation to retain habitat; and (3) broad strategies and policies that can be implemented to improve habitat connectivity. 2 Section One: Introduction and Framework Conservation research has defined habitat connectivity as the linking of key habitat patches via migration corridors as a way to facilitate the maintenance of critical population size, viable breeding, and climate-related range shifts. Habitat throughout the world faces a variety of threats; the combined threat to habitats from landscape fragmentation and climate change are of specific concern locally. Climate change will alter the biological and physical conditions of habitats. An example of this is that as the intensity and frequency of precipitation events increases, wetlands may change location and type meaning the flora and fauna that rely on them may change. The natural response from most species to such changes is to migrate over time to areas with the conditions needed to survive. Unfortunately, as the natural landscape is fragmented from a variety of causes, species are often unable overcome obstacles in their way to migrate successfully. Fragmentation of the landscape, even without the added threat from climate change, decreases habitat diversity and species mobility throughout the landscape. This Habitat Connectivity Strategy bridges conservation and habitat recommendations from previous plans and provides both broad and specific actions for promoting habitat connectivity in Tompkins County. It was prepared to address an action identified in the 2015 County Comprehensive Plan to "Build on the recommendations in the Finger Lakes Trail Corridor Protection Plan (FLT Plan) to identify specific areas and tools to improve connectivity between Natural Features Focus Areas." It also addresses a recommendation from the FLT Plan to “Implement a Systematic Effort to Secure the Protection of Ten Significant Open Space Resource Areas within the Emerald Necklace.” This strategy combines conservation approaches outlined in the County’s 2015 Comprehensive Plan, the 2007 Conservation Plan, and a 2016 analysis based on a Landscape Connectivity Model (Detailed in the report in Appendix A” “Conservation in a Changing Climate: Integrity-Based Landscape Connectivity and Resilience in Tompkins County, NY”) conducted by graduate students at Cornell University. The Conservation Plan highlighted the need for strengthening ecosystem resilience, outdoor recreation opportunities, and environmental goods and services throughout the Finger Lakes Region. The landscape connectivity analysis modeled local and regional species flows across south-central New York and identified community connectivity opportunities. Habitat Strengths Tompkins County is situated in south-central New York between the State’s Southern Tier and Finger Lakes regions. The northern portion of Tompkins County is dominated by agricultural land uses and a substantial portion of Cayuga Lake, the largest of the 11 New York Finger Lakes. Southern Tompkins County is characterized by large contiguous patches of upland forest split by developed lowlands and secondary highways. Regionally, Tompkins County lies at an important midway-point between habitat cores in the Allegheny Mountains to the southwest, the Catskills to the southeast, and Adirondack Mountains to the northeast. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and The Nature Conservancy have specifically noted portions of Tompkins County serve as an important habitat corridor that links these areas (green patches in Figure 1). 3 Figure 1: Study Area Context Map Tompkins County includes an abundance of healthy habitat located on land protected under conservation easement as preserves or as managed park land, State Forest or Wildlife Management Areas. Much of the protected land falls within the southern part of the County in a swath often referred to as the “Emerald Necklace”. Habitat Weaknesses In examining aerial imagery of Tompkins County, one gets the sense of a well-connected landscape in which plants and animals can move freely. The reality is that much of the land within and between protected areas is held under private ownership by timber companies and absentee landowners. Historically, ownership and type of land use has changed quite quickly and local governments rarely have adequate regulations in place to protect these quality habitats. One important purpose of this strategy is to identify lands that serve as the most important habitat connections, which in turn allows supportive landowners and municipalities to proactively approach habitat connectivity. Habitat Threats Climate Change Climate change is already affecting New York State and Tompkins County and its impacts are expected to increase in the future. Climate change models predict shifting patterns in plant and animal species as extreme weather, temperature, and drought are expected to increase. Mean temperatures are expected to increase 1.5°F to 3.0°F by the 2020s and up to 4.0°F to 9.0°F by the 2080s. While heavy precipitation events have increased in the past few decades, drought conditions may also increase in the summer months 1. Maintaining and creating diverse connected landscapes in Tompkins County should allow wildlife to better withstand these fluctuations in temperature and precipitation. Habitat Fragmentation Major habitat threats to natural resources in the county include: fragmentation of the landscape due to subdivisions and development, non-sustainable agricultural practices, degraded water quality as 1 Responding to Climate Change in New York State: The ClimAID Integrated Assessment for Effective Climate Change Adaptation, pg 2. 4 impervious surfaces increase, filling and degradation of wetlands from development, and threats to the biodiversity from specific invasive species. Habitat Opportunities Multiple conservation and natural resource planning approaches have been incorporated in this Strategy to provide a path for promoting habitat connectivity and preserving diverse ecosystems. One example includes how development and changes in infrastructure can present opportunities for improving habitat such as clustering subdivisions, green infrastructure improvements, and infrastructure design that can help address on-site stormwater management and facilitate water passage while allowing for the connection of aquatic and terrestrial habitat. These improvements can be implemented as roadside ditches, culverts, and bridges are scheduled for replacement. Other ancillary benefits may be achieved as habitat is improved throughout the County. As an example, formal stream buffer protections may be secured at a size large enough to provide water quality benefits, provide for wildlife habitat, and still have adequate space for a passive recreational trail. Funding for habitat improvement opportunities with added ancillary benefits may be easier to obtain. 5 Section Two: Building the Strategy This Habitat Connectivity Strategy has been developed within the context of the entire Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan (2015) and works in concert with the County’s many initiatives to promote natural resource protection. Adverse natural resource impacts can be attributed to many factors including specific types of housing development, economic decisions, transportation infrastructure, and climate change. Thus, maintaining and improving habitat connectivity requires a diverse, holistic approach. The County’s Comprehensive Plan (2015) and Conservation Plan (2007) are the foundation of the County’s natural resource planning priorities which provide the initial framework for identifying important areas for habitat conservation. The Comprehensive Plan’s Natural Resources principle states that Tompkins County should be a place where natural features and working rural landscapes are preserved and enhanced. This Strategy incorporates the following habitat connectivity objectives: Objective 1: Maintain large, intact patches of important native vegetation by preventing fragmentation of those patches by development. Objective 2: Establish priorities for species protection and protect habitats that promote the distribution and abundance of those species. Objective 3: Maintain connections among wildlife habitats by identifying and protecting key corridors for movements. Objective 4: Maintain significant ecological processes in protected areas. Natural Features Focus Areas A solid approach to habitat connectivity should be based on a regional analysis of the location of key natural features, such as wetlands, forests, and streams. The Tompkins County Conservation Plan (2007) provides such a foundation for identifying these key natural features. The Conservation Plan identified the primary benefits associated with each of the fourteen Natural Features Focus Areas (NFFAs) such as habitat, biodiversity, fishing, hunting, sustainable agriculture, water quality, and flood mitigation. The Plan also identified approximately 20,000 acres in Tompkins County as Priority Protection Areas (PPA) based on a detailed analysis of key resources in each Focus Area. These areas have distinct opportunities to foster multi- objective conservation opportunities as well as improve habitat connectivity. Figure 2 depicts Figure 2: Tompkins County Natural Features Focus Areas 6 the location of the fourteen Natural Features Focus Areas. Landscape Connectivity Model In 2016, Tompkins County identified the need to better understand the relationships between NFFAs and PPAs to see if opportunities existed for improving landscape connectivity. As detailed in Appendix A, at the regional level, corridors avoid more populated areas such as Ithaca, Cortland and Watkins Glen for two reasons: 1) habitat cores themselves tend to not be located near areas of intense development and 2) high resistance values cause corridors to flow around, not through, such areas. A substantial amount of protected lands currently exist in Tompkins County, particularly in its southern portion. In particular tracts of protected forested land anchored by the Connecticut Hill Wildlife Management Area and State Forests in Newfield, Danby, Hammond Hill, Yellow Barn, and Shindagin Hollow. The connections between these areas are often referred to as the “Emerald Necklace” and form a natural network for regional habitat connectivity opportunity. Protected lands within the Emerald Necklace are owned and managed by a mix of conservation partners including the County, the Finger Lakes Land Trust, and New York State. In the northern part of the County, natural lands along Fall Creek connecting up to the Owasco Inlet serve as important local habitat corridors. Conservation partners throughout the Finger Lakes actively seek opportunities to conserve areas around these protected areas. Several Natural Feature Focus Areas (NFFA), like the Six Mile Creek NFFA and other creek corridors, provide important local habitat connections in and through their distinct areas, however they do not across the region in the way that the noted areas do. Conservation of these areas are still very important due to their impact to water quality and flood mitigation and also potential risk of conversion by subdivision, though habitat connectivity may not be the leading reason for their protection. To better understand regional habitat patterns and connectivity, the County collaborated with a graduate student team from Cornell University to develop a local habitat connectivity analysis utilizing national, state, and local conservation agency resources 2. The study incorporated an approximately 50 by 60 mile regional area surrounding Tompkins County and identified key parcels that serve as important pathways for ecological processes and connections both within and between important natural areas. The Geographic Information System model connects habitat patches by identifying appropriately sized corridors to facilitate species migration. The model assumed that organisms will take the path of least resistance when moving between resource patches. The goal of the model was to place Tompkins County within the context of species flows across South-Central New York and to provide the County with a view of community connectivity opportunities. The model is based on the methodologies of The Nature Conservancy’s Resilient and Connected Project and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s Strategic Plan for State Forest Management. 2 The model is further described in the project report Conservation in a Changing Climate: Integrity-Based Landscape Connectivity and Resilience in Tompkins County, NY (2017). 7 Finger Lakes Land Trust Park Preserve – Dryden, NY (Photo by Bill Hecht) The model further reviewed Priority Protection Areas (PPA) from the County’s Conservation Plan in light of the model’s identified key regional patches and corridors. This comparison identified opportunity areas to advance regional connectivity while also advancing other locally important conservation goals. Based on their location, a range of different legislative, voluntary and technical recommendations have been suggested. Connecting existing resources could substantially improve habitat and species resilience to growth and development pressure, invasive species, and climate change. Section Three: Recommendations to Advance Habitat Connectivity This Strategy has identified two different approaches for achieving habitat connectivity. The first approach categorizes 18 Site Specific Actions that are associated with Priority Protection Areas. The second proposes a Broad Connectivity Approach to advance conservation habitat connectivity. SITE SPECIFIC ACTIONS Site specific actions promoting habitat connectivity were developed and paired with Priority Protection Area recommendations from the County’s Conservation Plan (2007) and recommendations from the Landscape Connectivity Model. Based on their location and type, actions are of varying levels of importance, though together they provide specific locations with the greatest opportunity for improving habitat connectivity while also advancing other conservation goals in Tompkins County. The following summarizes the 17 site specific actions. Figure 3 illustrates the general connectivity locations for each site specific action. 8 Figure 3: General location for Site Specific Actions Communities without site specific actions in their communities should still consider some of the following action to help improve connectivity in their local habitat networks. 9 FALL CREEK 1. ACTION: Protect sensitive portions of Fall Creek in areas susceptible to development such as the vacant or public utility parcels abutting the north and south sides of Route 13 to Route 366. Culverts in this location should be assessed according to the North Atlantic Connectivity Collaborative (NAACC) framework to ensure they are both conducive to wildlife movement and also reduce flood risk. 2. ACTION: Preserve key habitat around Dryden Lake and limit development in this area to maintain habitat and connection to Yellow Barn and Hammond Hill State Forests south west of Dryden Lake. 3. ACTION: Identify habitat corridors surrounding the Dryden aquifer recharge area and increase the riparian buffer along Virgil Creek. The Virgil Creek and Dryden Lake Multiple Use Area should be further protected and serve as a riparian corridor between the Kennedy and Hammond Hill State Forests. THE FOREST LANDS 4. ACTION: Protect lands adjacent to Yellow Barn and Hammond Hill State Forests and Mount Pleasant areas. Limit the subdivision of large parcels in this area to preserve remaining forest cover. 5. ACTION: Connect Mount Pleasant to Yellow Barn State Forest by securing vacant parcels directly south of the intersection of Mineah and Ringwood Roads. 6. ACTION: Pursue easement opportunities for large agricultural parcels between Yellow Barn and Hammond Hill State Forests. Two culverts within this area should be assessed to ensure free flow of water and associated species movement. 7. ACTION: Establish strong riparian buffer protections and promote the use of conservation subdivisions within the entire Forest Lands NFFA. NOTE: Promoting adequate riparian buffer protections is also a noted Broad Connectivity Strategy. All municipalities and agencies should seek to improve how and where riparian buffers are implemented. 8. ACTION: Preserve remaining private forestland between Shindagin Hollow and Potato Hill State Forests which would ensure a permanent route for the Finger Lakes Trail corridor in this area while also preserving habitat viability. 9. ACTION: Protect wetlands in the Wilseyville Creek Valley and formalize connections between Caroline Pinnacles and Shindagin Hollow State Forest. 10. ACTION: Connect the Danby State Forest to Shindagin Hollow. This area serves as an important connection for habitat viability and potential route for the Finger Lakes Trail. There are four bridges and culverts along Wilseyville Creek that should be assessed. 11. ACTION: Protect habitat and headwater wetlands that feed the Unique Natural Areas (UNAs), including the Danby Fir Tree Swamp (UNA -172). 12. ACTION: Develop additional regional connection between Newfield and Danby State Forests. The significant wetlands, riparian zones and bridges/culverts in the area between these State Forests present connectivity opportunities. This area is an important at-risk habitat corridor made up of a wide variety of landowners. Opportunities for added to protection in this corridor may vary based on landowner preferences and the paths for connectivity may be based on those opportunities and interests. 10 VAN BUSKIRK GULF 13. ACTION: Acquire and protect land to the southwest and northeast of Van Buskirk Gulf to connect Danby State Forest to Newfield State Forest. Several large riparian parcels are vacant in the upper section of Van Buskirk Gulf. Multiple culverts within the Gulf and its tributaries should be assessed for connectivity impediments. Five bridges/culverts along Route 96 may provide connectivity opportunities. 14. ACTION: Van Buskirk Gulf was identified as containing a corridor between Danby and Newfield State Forests. This corridor has the potential to connect existing protected lands near the West Danby Fire Station to the Lindsay Parsons Biodiversity Preserve. WILDLIFE AREA 15. ACTION: Preserve land adjacent to County-owned Forest land and maintain connectivity with the Newfield State Forest. This area could form the western boundary of connection along Van Buskirk Gulf that could extend to Danby State Forest. 16. ACTION: Protect and establish key habitat connections with inholdings in Connecticut Hill, the southeast end of Newfield State Forest, and Cornell’s Arnot Forest. 17. ACTION: Protect wetlands in Key Hill Swamp and Seven Springs Swamp Unique Natural Areas as well as pursue connectivity to Newfield State Forest and Connecticut Hill Wildlife Management Area. BROAD CONNECTIVITY APPROACH The broader action approach targets conservation, habitat connectivity, and community collaboration. NOTE: Communities without site specific actions in their communities should still consider some of the following action to help improve connectivity in their local habitat networks. The following 12 broad connectivity actions identify the five principles described in Section Two and fall into three categories: legislative, voluntary, and those that are technical and/or advisory in nature. 1. ACTION: Host meetings of planning and conservation partners to explore opportunities for advancing cross county actions (Potential lead conservation partner: Finger Lakes Land Trust (FLLT)). 2. ACTION: Coordinate a public education effort that highlights the ecological and economic benefits of having and utilizing a Forest Stewardship Plan on rural properties (Potential lead conservation partner: NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation). 3. ACTION: Gauge community support for real estate transfer tax or other funding initiatives that could help secure key pieces of land necessary for habitat connection and provide additional funding for the Tompkins County Capital Reserve Fund for Natural, Scenic and Recreational Resource Protection Program (Potential lead: FLLT). 4. ACTION: Provide information to landowners, local governments, and conservation agencies about how to support connectivity goals. This may include the promotion of Best Management Practices, education, and or technical assistance. This could also include a discussion of reducing “edge effects” of key agricultural, rural residential and suburban cleared properties and also raise public awareness on the benefits of increased biodiversity (Potential lead conservation partner: Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability (TCDPS). 11 5. ACTION: Collaborate with conservation partners, educational institutions, and research entities to gather on-the-ground verification of species movement data to validate and where appropriate, adjust connectivity model findings (Potential lead: Cornell University Department of Natural Resources). 6. ACTION: Engage with wildlife experts to identify connectivity needs for a range of individual species of concern and their protection needs. Examples could include a diverse group of species like bobcat, fisher or newts. Building off this information, local conservation partners can create a protection and management plan to ensure that habitat requirements are met. This effort should include species beyond those currently categorized as Threatened and Endangered (Potential lead: NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation). 7. ACTION: Identify priority culverts in need of replacement utilizing the North Atlantic Aquatic Connectivity Collaborative (NAACC) framework. Seek grant funding to replace improperly sized culverts with ones that are habitat friendly, and support both the free flow of water as well as improved aquatic and terrestrial species movement particularly in the areas of significant stream corridors like Cayuga Inlet, Six Mile and Fall Creek. (Potential lead: Tompkins County Soil and Water Conservation District). 8. ACTION: Advocate for habitat friendly conservation regulations and provide assistance and feedback to municipalities on zoning and other regulations. Address key areas to conserve habitat, improve water quality, and protect sensitive areas from development. Examples of areas where improvements should be made include: o Enhanced protection in the form of riparian buffer zones for all waterways to promote water quality and habitat connectivity. o Conservation zones and subdivisions in key areas to preserve sensitive habitat. o Opportunities for forest and habitat protection and agricultural zoning (Potential lead: TCDPS). 9. ACTION: Advance site specific actions in Priority Protection Areas as well as on specific unprotected parcels as identified through the connectivity model (Potential lead conservation partner: TCDPS). 10. ACTION: To combat habitat degradation, seek opportunities to support improve ecological functions within habitat areas. This includes work to reduce the impact of invasive plant and animal species and improve stream and riparian habitat by utilizing Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Potential lead: USDA NRCS). 11. ACTION: Advocate habitat connectivity friendly policies to be incorporated on State Forest Land through New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation Unit Management Plans in the region. This could include limiting recreational activities that disturb key habitat areas and incorporate biological principles at the site scale to: a. Facilitate wildlife movement across areas dominated by human activities; b. Minimize human contact with large native predators; and c. Mimic features of the natural local landscape in developed areas. (Potential lead: TCDPS). 12. ACTION: When applicable, and or appropriate, seek opportunities to advance the appropriate social benefits (recreation, education, and aesthetics) that corridors can provide near Tompkins County Priority Trails. Habitat improvements can provide significant benefits to passive recreation in locations where space allows. (Potential lead conservation partner: TCDPS and Tompkins County Strategic Tourism Board). 12 Appendix A: “Conservation in a Changing Climate: Integrity-Based Landscape Connectivity and Resilience in Tompkins County, NY Available upon request from the Tompkins County Department of Planning & Sustainability Tompkins County Environmental Management Council Flood Survey 1 | Page EMC Climate Adaptation Committee Flood Hazard and Risk Survey 5/30/2018 Tompkins County Environmental Management Council Flood Survey 2 | Page Abstract: We perform a case study of flood professionals actively engaged in flood risk mitigation within Tompkins County, NY US, a community dealing with moderate flooding, to gage how much variance exists among professional perceptions of local flooding risk. Results of this case study indicate disagreement among flooding professionals as to which socio-economic losses constitute a flood, disagreement on anticipated community needs, and some disagreement on community perceptions on climate adaptation. In aggregate, the knowledge base of the Tompkins County flood practitioners provides a well-defined picture of community vulnerability and perceptions. Encouraging interdisciplinary flood mitigation work could reduce risk, and potentially better support climate adaptation within flood risk mitigation. We conclude with several recommendations that would move Tompkins County towards establishing a method of collecting and archiving hydrologically important information on flooding events, as well as encouraging interdisciplinary work between flooding professionals. Tompkins County Environmental Management Council Flood Survey 3 | Page 1. Introduction and Background Tompkins County has documented cases of riverine flooding over the past 30 years from Fall Creek (M. Thorne, city engineer, personal communication, 2015). Anecdotal discussions and interviews by EMC members with community leaders suggests that flooding issues extend beyond our documented cases, with some locations within Tompkins County potentially affected by flooding every year. Hydrologic boundaries often cross socio-political boundaries. Negative flood risk is all too often translated to communities which do not directly benefit from urban development in upstream municipalities. Further, many low-lying areas of Tompkins County are facing elevated flooding risks with limited resources to study these problems directly. The overarching goal of the EMC Climate Adaptation Committee was to collect information necessary for beginning a riverine flood hazard and risk analysis at the County level. The first goal of our Committee in 2017 was to create a central database of historical flooding events to develop a more complete picture of flooding across Tompkins County. Knowledge of flooding hazards and risks in Tompkins County is currently spread across working groups in government, advocacy, education, research, and private industry as well as long-term residents. Ongoing flood mitigation efforts within Tompkins County have been focused on several well-known flooding problems. Realizing opportunities to design for multiple flooding problems at once first requires that all problem locations are well documented prior to hazard mitigation design. The second goal of our committee’s work was to document the flooding perceptions of community leaders in order to understand the degree of disparity in expectations. Mitigation efforts aim to reduce the current frequency or magnitude of flooding to some level deemed acceptable. Through 2017 the Committee conducted informal discussions with community leaders and flooding experts within Tompkins County. The first informal conclusion was that there was no strong universal definition of flooding, which could translate into poorly defined design goals. These preliminary discussions also suggested that there is a broad range of perceptions as to whether or not flooding is a problem, and a broad range of expectations with respect to what is an acceptable levels of flooding. Some individuals expressed a need for flooding to be halted completely, whereas others saw flooding as a natural occurrence with no required mitigation measures. Finally, the Northeast US is likely to experience some climate variability in the future, necessitating a discussion of how flood mitigation practices should incorporate climate adaptation practices. Recent research suggests that there is large uncertainty in future flooding due to intensifying rain, changes in snow- melt dynamics, and potentially increasing drought conditions during summer. Simplistic analysis and decisions can become difficult in the face of highly uncertain problems, sometimes leading to inaction. The third goal of our effort was to better understand the level of knowledge and prior beliefs of community leaders with respect to climate change and the need to incorporate climate adaptation into the design of flood mitigation practices. 2. Survey Design Informal interviews were conducted by the EMC subcommittee on climate adaptation with ten flooding professionals from January 2017 through August 2017 to understand what beliefs were commonly held by flood risk mitigation practitioners and which issues were of most concern. Common themes included: understanding where flooding occurred frequently within the county, understanding what socio-economic losses constituted a flood, concern about shifting flooding risk under climate change, potential disagreement Tompkins County Environmental Management Council Flood Survey 4 | Page around the design goals of a county-wide flood mitigation project, and community perceptions of climate- flood linkages. A questionnaire was distributed to community members who engage directly with flooding through development of policy and legislation, science and engineering, education, community outreach, and advocacy. Candidate participants were identified by the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council (EMC), the citizen advisory board to Tompkins County. A review of the final survey was performed by the Cornell University Institutional Review Board and found to have no ethical implications related to human participation. 3. Results 3.1 Survey Response Rate The survey was distributed to 89 professionals, of which 48 responded (response rate of 54%). Individuals were asked to self-sort into one of six possible disciplines: community planning (n=8), education and outreach (n=7), local government leadership (n=8), policy (n=7), advocacy (n=9), and Engineering, Science and Research (ESR, n = 11). We first asked flooding professionals whether they believed they had a good understanding of flood risk mitigation, to which 53% indicated they had a strong grasp of the subject, 42% knew of a professional who could inform them, and 5% were not knowledgeable on the subject. 3.2 Community Leader Definition of Flooding Exploratory interviews with community leaders suggested that there were 13 socioeconomic losses that individuals commonly used to define a past flooding event (Table 2). The survey presented these 13 possible flooding losses and asked flooding practitioners to define which types of loss constituted a flood. Professionals also had the option to write in their own preferred definition. Table 1 – Results of which socioeconomic losses were considered a flooding event Type Description of Flood Number of Responses 1 Loss of life 29 2 Damage to private structures 32 3 Displacement of people 34 4 Damage to vehicles 30 5 Damage to public property 34 6 Inundation of public roads 34 7 Flow over private property 21 8 Backed up culverts 25 9 Loss of streamside vegetation 29 10 Stream flow out of channel banks 31 11 Substantial erosion in the stream channel 24 12 Minor erosion in the stream channel 4 13 Any flow greater than baseflow 11 14 Write-in definition 4 Tompkins County Environmental Management Council Flood Survey 5 | Page No single type of reported flood was held common to all individuals surveyed (Table 1). The belief that negative flood consequences related to minor erosion in the stream channel and flow above baseflow constituted a flood was only held by a few respondents. Individuals in planning, government, and advocacy were more likely to hold a broad definition of flooding, whereas individuals in outreach, policy, and ESR tended to hold narrower definition of flooding (Figure 1). Approximately 50% of ESR responses opted to use a write in definition based on numeric description of flood frequency. For example “any flow exceeding a 100yr or greater storm recurrence interval.” Figure 1 – Socio-economic losses that defined flooding events by discipline (Table 2 subset by discipline). Values in parenthesis indicate the number of respondents who did not offer an answer. 3.2 Spatial Distribution of Socio-Economic Flood Losses Anecdotal reports of flooding were compiled to provide a spatial estimate of commonly flooded locations within Tompkins County (Figure 2). Anecdotal flood reports by community members demonstrate that flooding is a county-wide issue with the greatest flooding centered on the most densely populated areas. The reported locations of flooding cover substantially more locations in addition to the flooded areas established by the FEMA 100-yr floodplain map (FEMA 2018), particularly along smaller tributaries. Tompkins County Environmental Management Council Flood Survey 6 | Page Figure 2 – Spatial distribution of survey reported flooding within Tompkins County (filled circles) and FEMA 100-yr flood plain (dark blue) NWS flood stage on Fall Creek in Ithaca is estimated to be exceeded with a 9-year recurrence interval. Reported dates of flooding events (Table 2) suggest that for much of Tompkins County, professionals have collected information on negative socio-economic consequences from events that are hydrologically more frequently than the 9-year Fall Creek baseline. Tompkins County Environmental Management Council Flood Survey 7 | Page Table 2 – Reported historical flooding events. Rainfall totals are the maximum daily precipitation (NCDC, 2018). Return periods are determined from NOAA Atlas 14 (NOAA, 2018). Date Rainfall (cm/day) Return Period (yrs) Weather Type 4/18/1905 1.2 < 1 - 6/3/1905 4.3 < 1 - 6/17/1905 4.6 < 1 - 7/3/1905 4.8 < 1 - 7/8/1935 20.0 > 1000 Local convective rain 11/3/1954 4.0 < 1 Hurricane Hazel 6/23/1972 9.0 10 Hurricane Agnes 10/28/1981 12.9 25 Local convective rain 1/19/1996 4.7 < 1 Rain on snow 9/8/2011 11.3 25 Tropical Storm Lee 4/3/2005 5.7 2 Rain on snow 1/11/2014 0.0 < 1 Ice jam release 6/14/2015 10.4 10 Local convective rain 7/1/2017 0.9 < 1 Local convective rain 1/12/2018 2.4 < 1 Ice jam release Weather types assigned to each reported historical flooding event indicate that flooding has been induced by local extreme convective precipitation, tropical moisture derived precipitation, extratropical rain-on- snow / snowmelt, and release of ice-jams. Weather types for events prior to 1930 were not identified due to inconsistency among available sources. 3.4 Perceptions of Current and Desired Flood Frequency Estimates of current flood frequency for Tompkins County varied slightly by discipline, however, most estimates were below the baseline flood frequency established for Fall Creek of the 9-yr event. The desired reduction in flood frequency varied considerably by discipline. The median ESR, community planning, and outreach response suggests that the expected flood frequency after mitigation efforts should be slightly higher than current flooding hazard (Figure 3). The median responses from governmental employees working on legislation and policy desired flood frequency to be reduced to the 100-yr event, suggesting a high level of disagreement between disciplines on anticipated outcomes of flood hazard mitigation. Tompkins County Environmental Management Council Flood Survey 8 | Page Figure 3 – Estimated a) current flood loss frequency and b) expected flood frequency resulting from flood hazard mitigation efforts There was strong consistency in the perception of current flooding risks (Figure 1), though the spatial distribution of affected locations was highly individual (Figure 2). This result suggests that individuals within Tompkins County have a consistent understanding of the frequency of these socio-economic losses; however, there may not be a strong social network for communication of risks as knowledge was spatially constrained by discipline. 3.5 Perceptions of Climate-Flood Relationship Anticipation of the need to incorporate climate adaptation into flood risk planning, as well as anxiety around “community perceptions” and “public opposition to planning for climate change” were common themes that emerged during the 2017 informal interviews. Flooding practitioners were asked which direction they anticipated future flooding risk within Tompkins County would move. The majority of individuals, 30, believed that flooding risk would increase, and 13 responded that they were not sure. Table 3 – Perceptions of future riverine flooding risk within Tompkins County by flooding practitioners Not Sure Less Risk Same Risk More Risk Community planning 0 0 0 8 Education and outreach 1 0 1 5 Local government leadership 2 0 1 5 Policy development 3 0 0 2 Public advocacy 3 0 0 6 ESR 4 0 3 4 Total 13 0 5 30 Surveyed professionals were asked if they perceived a community desire to implement climate adaptation practices in flood mitigation planning. The result here was less clear, with 16 responding they were not sure, 7 probably not, 15 probably yes, and 6 definitely yes. There was some disagreement among disciplines on public preference for climate adaptation with ESR and public advocacy perceiving less interest, and outreach and government perceiving more interest (Table 4). Tompkins County Environmental Management Council Flood Survey 9 | Page Table 4 – Perceptions of community desire to implement climate adaptation planning in flood risk mitigation Note Sure Definitely Not Probably Not Probably Yes Definitely Yes Community planning 2 0 1 5 2 Education and outreach 1 0 0 4 0 Local government leadership 1 0 1 4 1 Policy development 5 0 0 0 1 Public advocacy 2 0 2 1 0 ESR 5 0 3 1 2 Total 16 0 7 15 6 We next asked practitioners to report their perceptions of the level of climate science knowledge of residents of Tompkins County. Results were divided with 14 responding that they were not sure, 16 believing that residents had basic knowledge, and 10 believe strong knowledge. Results were not substantially different among the disciplines (Table 5). Table 5 – Perceptions of general community knowledge level of climate science and adaptation Not Sure Little Knowledge Basic Knowledge Strong Understanding Community planning 1 0 3 5 Education and outreach 1 0 3 1 Local government leadership 1 2 2 2 Policy development 5 0 1 0 Public advocacy 1 1 2 1 ESR 5 0 5 1 Total 14 3 16 10 3.6 Optional Write-In Responses At the conclusion of the survey professionals were given the option to provide any additional information or thoughts on the topic beyond the survey responses provided. We summarize here the results of these submissions. Though we do not aim to interpret these results, they can offer important insights beyond what was captured in the survey questions. Five professionals supplied optional comments in which they said that they had little knowledge of community perceptions and expressed difficulty in answering these particular questions, with one professional suggesting that community perception was perhaps too broad to accurately define by one single answer. Three responses suggested that they had a good understanding of community perceptions through involvement with county government and expressed that there was a willingness among the Tompkins County public to involve climate adaptation practices in flood risk mitigation. Four responses attributed recent flooding events to improper control of existing flood mitigation infrastructure by local, state, and federal government. One response listed the ecological benefits of flooding, and suggested that rather than seek mitigation opportunities to control floods, we seek to adapt human behavior. Tompkins County Environmental Management Council Flood Survey 10 | Page 4. Recommendations 4.1 Develop a Central Repository for Flooding Records: This survey demonstrates that there is no central database of flooding records for Tompkins County. Rather records, and important data, are divided across many organizations and individuals. Tompkins County EMC can potentially serve as this central database. 4.2 Develop Collection System for Reports of Recent Floods: Tompkins County should develop a call-in program where local flooding may be reported via phone or web. Collection of data nearest to the even in question will help to reduce loss of information through memory, and to help demonstrate the broader impact of flooding within the county. 4.3 Update the Tompkins County Hazard Mitigation Plan: The current plan contains few records of historical floods. This survey collected additional pertinent information that should be considered in future hazard mitigation planning efforts. 4.4 Develop an Outreach Program: There is no universal definition of flooding, flooding hazards do vary by location, and individuals have different preferences for flood hazard mitigation. Prior to flood hazard and risk reduction plans, there should be a discussion of these inherent differences among stakeholders who are working on this problem. Often these differences go undiscussed or unnoticed in the planning process, leading to difficulties and unexpected outcomes throughout the planning and design process. This survey presents results that should be understood and discussed at the outset of flood hazard mitigation projects within Tompkins County. 4.5 Host a Conference on Local Flooding Perceptions: The results of this survey indicate that professionals working on flooding with Tompkins County believe that they have a strong grasp of the subject, yet the survey responses indicated high levels of disagreement with respect to how we define a flooding event, where flooding is occurring, how often it is occurring, and what minimum level of protection should be provided. A discourse among decision makers of Tompkins County would help flooding practitioners recognize these differences, and hopefully provide a path towards more interdisciplinary work moving forward. Note: there are choices to be made throughout. Is the generic name “society” or “organization” preferred? Is “Bylaws” or “Constitution” preferred? Or “Constitution and Bylaws”? Is “Object” or “Purpose” preferred? Note: References to NYS EnCon Law and NYS Constitution need to be checked CONSTITUTION and BYLAWS of the Environmental Management Council of Tompkins County Article I. NAME [and general guidance] The name of this Society/Organization shall be the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council. ”Environmental Management Council” may also be referred to as “EMC” [and in these Bylaws as “Council”]. This organization is established by the Tompkins County Legislature pursuant to Article I of the New York State Constitution [and Article 47 of the NYS Environmental Conservation Law]. The EMC shall adopt Bylaws and rules and procedures governing its operations, and shall file a copy thereof with the County Legislature [Clerk?]. It shall keep accurate record[s] of its meetings and activities and shall submit reports as provided hereinafter. All meetings of the EMC shall be open to the public [in accord with the NYS Open Meetings Law]. Article II. OBJECT The object of this Society shall be to preserve and improve the quality of the natural and human- made/human-modified environment within Tompkins County for the present and future inhabitants of Tompkins County [and] in the face of population growth, urbanization, and technological change with their accompanying demands and effects on natural resources. To this end the EMC shall identify problems, propose priorities, and coordinate activities in the development and management of our natural resources; provide a public forum for education, discussion, and resolution of relevant problems and issues; foster unified understanding and action on environmental problems among local governments and among public and private agencies and organizations. The EMC shall advise the County Legislature on matters affecting the preservation, development, and use of the natural resources and conditions of the County insofar as they have a bearing on environmental quality and, in the case of human activities and developments, with regard to any threats posed to environmental quality, so as to enhance the long-range [status and] value of the environment to/for the people of the County. It is recognized that the natural environment has intrinsic value; that humans are dependent on it for survival; and that the natural and functional beauty of our surroundings condition the quality of our life experience. The only way to preserve, protect, and improve this natural environment is with the full [and informed] cooperation and participation of all local governments in the County and State working in concert with each other. Article III. MEMBERS (number and term) The County Legislature shall appoint all voting members of the EMC. The total number of voting members on the EMC shall be at least twenty-one (21) but no more than twenty-eight (28). Each appointee shall serve a two-year term, with initial terms staggered so that roughly one-half of all seats shall expire on the last day of one year, and one-half shall expire on the last day of the following year. [Staggering of appointments shall begin with the appointment[s] of 2000.] Section 1. Classes of members A. Regular members. Regular members are those appointed by the County Legislature. Municipal members. Each city (1), town (6), and village (9) governing body in the County shall appoint one EMC member. If the municipality has established a Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) or Conservation Board (CB) that municipality shall recommend a member of its CAC/CB for appointment. If the municipality does not have a CAC or CB, the governing body may appoint a resident from its municipality. This municipal representative shall serve a two-year term, and is expected to attend the local municipality’s regular meetings, bring information of environmental activities or concern back to the EMC, and [must] provide the local municipality at least quarterly with a report of EMC activities. Each municipality will be given three months (September 1 – December 1) to recommend a person to be appointed to the EMC by the County Legislature. If the municipality does not give a formal recommendation (a resolution of the local government body) by December 1, then the municipality forfeits it seat on the EMC for the first year of that two-year term, and the County Legislature may appoint an at-large member to fill that seat for one calendar year. [should anything be said about the second year? Or does the next paragraph apply?] If a municipal seat is vacated during a municipal appointee’s term, than the municipality will again have three (3) months to make a re commendation to fill that vacancy, and, if no recommendation is made, the County Legislature may appoint an at-large member to fill that seat for the remainder of the term. At-large members. The County Legislature shall appoint at least five (5) at-large members to ensure a broad-based representation of environmental expertise and interests within the county. All at-large members shall be residents of the County who have expressed interest in the improvement and preservation of environmental quality in the County. The EMC may make recommendations for these appointments, and may maintain a list of persons interested in [or appropriate for] such appointments. Non-voting liaisons. A representative from the County’s Environmental Health Division, from the Soil and Water Conservation District, [from the Water Resources Council], and from the appropriate Committee of the County Legislature may serve as liaisons and non-voting members of the EMC. B. Associate members. Associate members are those appointed by either the EMC Chair or a Committee chairperson [Chair] to serve on a committee or to act as a liaison to other boards or organizations or to bring useful expertise or experience to the EMC. {Should these persons fill out the standard application for filing with the Legislature Clerk?} Section 2. Application procedure. The Application form to serve on a County advisory board such as the EMC is available from the County Legislature Clerk. The application will be reviewed by the appropriate committee of the County Legislature before being considered for action and acted on by the Legislature. Article IV. OFFICERS The officers of the society shall be a Chair and three Vice Chairs. [No member shall hold more than one office at a time.] [No member shall be eligible to serve three consecutive terms in the same office.] Section 1. Selection, powers, and duties. A Nominating Committee, chaired by a [voting] member of Council and consisting of not fewer than three (3) voting members, a majority of whom shall not be members of the Executive Committee, shall be appointed by the Chair [who may ask members to volunteer?]. The Nominating Committee shall report to Council on nominees for positions. Nominations may also be made from the floor. Vacancies occurring during the year in any of the elective positions shall be filled by action of the Executive Committee, subject to approval by Council, and in the case of the Chair subject to confirmation by the Legislature. Chair. The EMC members shall elect from among themselves a Chair subject to confirmation by the County Legislature. A vote to recommend a Chair to the Legislature will/{shall?] be held at the last Council meeting of the calendar year. The Chair serves as the official representative and chief administrator of the EMC. The Chair shall: preside at all general meetings of the EMC and at all meetings of the Executive Committee; call special meetings of the Council or Executive Committee, or cancel a scheduled meetings if deemed necessary; appoint members of committees, subject to majority approval of members of the Council; appoint members to represent Council to other public bodies, subject to majority approval of members of the Council; serve as Council’s primary liaison to the County Legislature. Three Vice Chairs. Vice Chairs shall be elected annually at the Organizational Meeting by the Council from among the voting members, each for a term of one year. The duties of the Vice Chairs shall be agreed among themselves and the Chair and shall be to: 1) Serve as Chair pro tem in the absence of the Chair of, in the event of a vacancy, until the Legislature confirms a new Chair; 2) Serve as Council Parliamentarian; 3) Coordinate the preparation of the Annual Work Program, the Annual Report, and the State of the Environment Report; 4) Monitor the Council’s finances and report semiannually; 5) Assist in the preparation and submission of the annual budget; and 6) Attend meetings of the County Legislature when necessary, present Resolutions to the Legislature when appropriate, and follow up on actions affecting the Legislature. Article V. COUNCIL MEETINGS Annual Organizational meeting. An Organizational meeting shall be held in January of each calendar year; the date for this meeting will have been set at the last meeting of the previous calendar year. Schedule of meetings. At the annual Organizational meeting a regular schedule of meetings for the year shall be agreed upon. Conduct of meetings. In the conduct of meetings and the transaction of Council business, the presiding officer shall follow Robert’s Rules of Order [and common sense]. In the event of a conflict between Robert’s Rules of Order and these Bylaws these Bylaws shall take precedence. {All meetings are to be in accord with the NYS Open Meetings Law. [this is already stated in Article 1]} Quorum. A quorum for the transaction of business shall consist of a majority of the seated voting members of the Council; similarly for Executive Committee meetings. Proxy voting shall not be permitted. Action. Action by the Council, except for Bylaws amendments, shall be by majority vote of the seated voting members of Council; proxy voting shall not be permitted. Agenda. A written agenda for each regular Council meeting shall be provided to members at least two days prior to each regular meeting. Resolutions. A Resolution detailing the reasoning behind and action following from that reasoning shall be a useful way for Council to take action Record of meeting. An assigned staff member from the County Department of Planning and Sustainability shall produce draft Minutes of each Council meeting, which Minutes must be acted on by Council to become official. Article VI. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETINGS