Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2011-11-21 Study Sessionof the Ithaca Town Board Monday, November 21, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Minutes Call to Order Mr. Engman called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. Board Members Present: Herb Engman, Pat Leary, Rich DePaolo, Bill Goodman and Eric Levine Absent: Tee-Ann Hunter and Nahmin Horwitz Staff Present: Paulette Terwilliger, Mike Solvig and Susan Ritter Bruce Bates 5:30 Review Draft Agenda for Regular Meeting No comments or questions Town Official’s Reports – None Reports from Committees Codes and Ordinances Committee – Mr. Goodman reported that they reviewed comments from Cornell and Jon Bosak regarding the stream setback requirements. The Planning Board had comments on the Conservation Zone changes and he asked the Town Board if they were comfortable with the Committee reviewing them without a referral from the Board. Ms. Ritter noted that the comments are in a resolution and she will send them to the Board. The Board was comfortable with COC continuing the review. Mr. Goodman went on to say they looked at next year’s topics and setting priorities and he asked the Board to forward any recommendations on they had to the Committee. Comprehensive Plan Committee – Mr. Engman reported that they made excellent progress, finishing the transportation section which leaves one more section to thoroughly review and then they are on to the draft land use and map. He felt that they were moving along well and driving to a finish. Operations Committee – Did not meet Planning Committee – Mr DePaolo reported that staff, based on development scenarios associated with the Comprehensive Plan, were able put together some estimates on the numbers of units and potential trips that would be generated. It was a lot of information and graphs and wiggle room was built in, but it is a base to start with and this will now being going to Tom Mank at MPO for his review and then he will be coming in December to let the Committee know what else he needs to provide the most TBS 11-21, 2011 Page 2 of 7 accurate model(s). Mr. DePaolo thought that it went well and we should be able to come out of the moratorium with a good idea on how we want to proceed. Mr. DePaolo also reported that there was another meeting with the City of Ithaca regarding West Hill planning issues. Their consultants agreed that the choke point is at the bottom of the hill and they suggested that the city and town coordinate on planning for development since both municipalities will impact the other. No surprises and the spirit is cooperative. Personnel Committee – Mr. Engman reported that changes to the employee benefits were discussed and reported at the Board’s regular meeting. He noted that there are two union negotiations going on. The Committee also reviewed the 2 exit interviews they received and he would follow-up with Ms. Drake to make sure they were forwarded to the full Board. Public Works Committee – Mr. Goodman reported that the meeting was rescheduled for 11-29-2011 and the agenda includes the Longview water main placement, the DEC Stormwater modifications and their impact on the Town, the South Hill Trail culvert erosion and the he was going to get an update from Guy Krogh regarding Danby’s efforts towards developing a road preservation law and report to the Committee. Ms. Leary commented on an article she sent around regarding climate change as it relates to the size of stormwater pipes. Mr. DePaolo thought there were two schools of thought because the water has to go somewhere and it is more crisis management to prevent local flooding, but you have to consider where it’s going to go. Mr. Engman added that the theory is that summers may be a lot dryer and winters a lot wetter and it is time to start thinking about the effects and the possibility of more flooding events in the future. Records Management Advisory Board (RMAB) -- Ms. Terwilliger reported that they finished the draft program and outline this year and the next step is to start the review of departmental procedures. Support staff have started their outlines and the Board will be reviewing the procedures for adherence to SARA MU1 guidelines as well as duplication of filing/documents and green/conservation efforts as well. She added that the December meeting is cancelled and the reviews will start in January. Ad Hoc Committees FireProtection – Mr. Levine reported that Tom Parsons came in and talked to the Committee, pretty much saying that in his estimation, if we change anything that we are doing with fire protection, it would equal a reduction in quality of service such as response times. He stated that the town should talk to him about any ideas they have and he is supposed to return with ideas for cost savings. Mr. Engman added that the Fire Department is thinking about not getting the heavy rescue but instead getting Approved 12-12-2011 TBS 11-21, 2011 Page 3 of 7 another pumper, which surprised him because the town was told it was definitely needed just months ago. Youth Services – Mr. DePaolo reported that they have me with the SUNY Cortland professor who will be doing the needs assessment. The next step is for the board should draft some survey questions and the class will be doing the same and the committee and class will meet to review them. He added that they discussed different sample methodology such as every house or a subset contacted multiple times and will decide on which to use and the cost of the mailing will be paid by the Town. Consider Adoption of a Response to the DEC SGEIS on Gas Drilling (Attachment #1) Mr. Engman went through the revisions. Mr. Goodman had questions on the extraction and ad valorem taxes and Mr. Engman explained that in talking with a consultant, the consultant emphasized that the ad volarium should not be bartered away but kept with the town who will be shouldering the costs. Mr. Engman added that TCCOG had templates and reference materials and this is a compilation of pieces and parts of those. Ms. Leary noted that they added a paragraph on the socio-economic affects also. Some minor typographical and clarifying words were added. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2011-196: TO SUBMIT COMMENTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ON THE REVISED DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (sGEIS) ON OIL, GAS AND SOLUTION MINING WHEREAS the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has issued a sGEIS on oil, gas and solution mining in New York State and WHEREAS once the sGEIS is codified into regulations municipalities will no longer have regulation a direct bearing on the of drilling for natural gas using high volume hydraulic fracturing, leaving municipalities with little recourse on the drilling process or the rate at which drilling occurs within their borders and WHEREAS municipalities will bear the burden of an inadequate sGEIS and regulations, which in Pennsylvania and other states has led to detrimental changes in the character of communities; huge increases in truck traffic; contamination of air and water resources; pressure on municipal services such as emergency response, police, hospitals, schools, jails, road maintenance, and municipal administration; and despoiling of scenic and natural resources and Approved 12-12-2011 TBS 11-21, 2011 Page 4 of 7 WHEREAS the Town of Ithaca is, by law, charged with protecting the health, safety and welfare of the people of the Town and WHEREAS the Town of Ithaca intends to abide by its Comprehensive Plan to provide a high quality of life for its residents and the current revised sGEIS makes that goal unachievable THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Ithaca submit the attached comments to the Department of Environmental Conservation on the revised draft supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (sGEIS) on Oil, Gas, and Solution Mining. MOVED: Bill Goodman SECONDED: Pat Leary VOTE: Ayes – Goodman, Leary, Engman, Levine and DePaolo Absent – Horwitz and Hunter Motion passed unanimously. Discussion Items Discuss the Agreement with the Town of Ulysses Regarding Water Loss Mr. Engman reported that he had not received the revised agreement and the item was moved this to the December meeting. Discuss Fire Contract with the Village of Cayuga Heights Mr. Engman reported that the Village is looking at assessed valuations, which is what our costs are based on. He did not expect any problems, but the new treasurer was out due to illness and the meeting was delayed. Discuss Tools for Addressing Potential Gas Drilling Impacts Mr. Engman discussed the handout provided by Ed Marx from Tompkins County. He felt it was a very useful document for highlighting what we still need to do such as Road Use Agreement and Regulations, Critical Environmental Areas inventory, Tree Preservation, Scenic View Protection, Surface Water Areas, Stormwater Runoff, Identifying wetland areas and gathering lines which as far as he could tell, only the Town has jurisdiction over so we can have some influence there. Some of these topics we have in various degrees of completion but he felt it was a good check-off list to have and also felt that the priority should be the road use law and regulations. Mr. Engman went on to relate a conversation he had with a former DEC official who insisted that drilling companies must get a road use permit. He said they do them in Pennsylvania each time and he was under the impression that they must Approved 12-12-2011 TBS 11-21, 2011 Page 5 of 7 everywhere. Mr. Engman stated that as he reads the DEC guidelines, it says they should, but not they must. Regardless though, that is something the Town should have as a priority. Discuss Town Hall Meeting Schedules/Calendar Mr. Engman explained that this was a concern of Ms. Hunter and after talking with the SAC committee, it was decided that all committee meetings would be put on the calendar along with the rooms where they are held so board members can see the public committees on the web. Hopefully, this will help. Discuss Town Board Pay Schedule Mr. Engman explained that there has been a request that board members be paid bi-weekly rather than quarterly. There would be no tax implications and he asked if anyone had any concerns with changing the pay schedule. Discussion followed. Board members agreed to change to the bi-weekly pay schedule. Association of Towns Annual Meeting – Mr. Engman noted that the Annual Conference is coming up and asked who was planning on going. Discussion followed. Ms. Terwilliger will register everyone and give a reminder before the th deadline for cancellations. Mr. DePaolo noted that the rooms above the 34 floor are best. Discuss and Consider Approval of Town Board Minutes TB Resolution No. 2011- 197: Approval of Minutes -- October 6, 2011 WHEREAS, the draft minutes of the October 6, 2011 of the Town Board have been submitted for review and approval; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the governing Town Board hereby approves the submitted minutes, with changes, as the final minutes of the October 6, 2011 of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca. MOVED: Eric Levine SECONDED: Rich DePaolo VOTE: Ayes: Engman, Goodman, Leary, Levine, and DePaolo Motion passed unanimously. TB Resolution No. 2011- 198: Approval of Minutes -- October 17, 2011 WHEREAS, the draft minutes of the October 17, 2011 of the Town Board have been submitted for review and approval; THEREFORE BE IT Approved 12-12-2011 TBS 11-21, 2011 Page 6 of 7 RESOLVED, that the governing Town Board hereby approves the submitted minutes, with changes, as the final minutes of the October 17, 2011 of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca. MOVED: Rich DePaolo SECONDED: Eric Levine VOTE: Ayes: Engman, Goodman, Leary, Levine, and DePaolo Motion passed unanimously. Town of Ithaca Abstract TB RESOLUTION NO. 2011-199: Town of Ithaca Abstract WHEREAS , the following numbered vouchers have been presented to the Ithaca Town Board for approval of payment; and WHEREAS , the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board; now therefore be it RESOLVED , that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers in total for the amounts indicated. VOUCHER NOS. 1326 - 1394 General Fund Town wide 33,187.65 General Fund Part Town 6,718.70 Highway Fund Part Town 101,563.79 Water Fund 12,518.14 Sewer Fund 85,220.33 East Shore Drive Water Main 154,858.17 Snyder Hill Road Reconstruction 2,729.23 Fire Protection Fund 264,792.00 Forest Home Lighting District 51.00 Glenside Lighting District 20.22 Renwick Heights Lighting District 26.97 Eastwood Commons Lighting District 36.87 Clover Lane Lighting District 4.69 Winner’s Circle Lighting District 6.98 Burleigh Drive Lighting District 16.30 West Haven Road Lighting District 64.78 Coddington Road Lighting District 37.63 TOTAL 661,853.45 MOVED: Rich DePaolo SECONDED: Pat Leary VOTE: Ayes: Engman, DePaolo, Leary, Levine and Goodman Absent: Horwitz and Hunter Motion passed unanimously. Approved 12-12-2011 f * TBS 11-21, 2011 Page 7 of 7 Executive Session to Discuss Potential Litigation ' Motion made by Pat Leary, seconded by Bill Goodman 5:39 p.m. Unanimous Motion made to reenter regular session by Bill Goodman, seconded by Rich DePaolo at 6:09 p.m. Unanimous Motion made to adjourn by Rich DePaolo, seconded by Pat Leary. Unanimous. Respeptfplly sut^itted, 'm/ PauletteTerwilliger Town Clerk Approved 12-12-2011 TOWN OF ITHACA COMMENTS ON THE REVISED DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (sGEIS) ON OIL, GAS AND SOLUTION MINING ADOPTED NOVEMBER 21,2011 Note: The comments submitted are only those feasible within the time period allowed for comments. Limited staff and elected officials* time was inadequate to Mly digest the 1000 plus pages of material. Thus, the comments submitted are not comprehensive and reflect those elements of the sGEIS that most directly affect the Town of I&aca. Numerical notes in parentheses refer to specific sections of the sGEIS. MUNICIPAL WATER Of overwhelming concern to the Town of Ithaca is the threat to municipal surface water supplies. Well water in this area is often difficult to obtain in sufficient quantity and is of spotty quality. The Town is home to the three biggest municipal water supplies in Tompkins County: the City of Ithaca (Six Mile Creek), Cornell University (Fall Creek) and the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission (aka Bolton Point), which serves the Town of Ithaca, the Town of Dryden, the Town of Lansing, the Village of Cayuga Heights and the Village of Lansing. Additional water is provided to the southern end of the Town of Ulysses. Any pollution of these water supplies would be a calamity of unparalleled proportions and no amount of remediation or compensation could replace the loss of these drinking water sources. Surface water - and the contaminants carried by it - flows downhill and therefore the entire watershed must be considered. Furthermore the rationale that the New York City and Syracuse water supplies are unfiltered and thus different is odd on its face: none of the municipal water plants are capable of filtering or otherwise removing potential contaminants resulting from gas drilling activity. Besides, the setbacks proposed for these two water supplies are not sufficiently protective. Therefore the setback provisions for drilling (7.1.12.1, Page 7-75 and 7.1.12.2 page 7- 76 and Page 7-78) are wholly inadequate. Any gas industry activity within the watersheds of any municipal water supply must be prohibited. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Given the clear dangers to the environment and public health of high volume hydraulic fracturing using the current technologies, the lack of significant financial gain for the overwhelming majority of the citizens of New York State and the assured decades-long damage to the way of life of those residing in the gas-drilling regions, the No Action alternative is the logical and proper finding resulting from this SEQRA study. (9.1) Should the evidence be ignored and drilling allowed, the following must be considered. REGULATIONS AND THE sGEIS New York State's SEQRA law provides for the gathering of environmental information to inform the creation of regulations and prior to the implementation of projects. DEC's proposal to write and perhaps promulgate regulations concurrently with the SEQRA review certainly violates the intent of the law and may invite legal challenge. EXTRACTION TAX All other states other than New York and Pennsylvania have an extraction tax of between 1% and 25%. Local municipalities (not to mention NYS) have already expended hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of dollars preparing for the expansion of the gas industry. An extraction tax of at least 12% must be imposed in order to pay for NYS's regulation, inspection and enforcement of the gas industry and local municipalities* costs as a result of the impact of gas drilling. The 12% tax should be evenly divided between the state and the local municipalities. HEALTH • The sGEIS does not require or refer to an analysis of public health impacts despite the fact that fracking-related air pollution and the potenti^ for water contamination may have serious effects on people-especially the elderly and children - and communities downwind and downstream of proposed ffacking operations. There is growing evidence of negative health impacts related to gas extraction in other states. The DEC in its sGEIS must undertake further review of bracking and the impacts of horizontal drilling to ensure that all environmental and public health impacts are mitigated or avoided. • The DEC must actively involve both the NYS Department of Health and local departments of health in the review process. Indeed, the problems associated with shale gas development near housing have only recently been catalogued as drilling has moved into suburban locations and farming communities. DEC STAFFING AND MANAGEMENT • The DEC has an inherent conflict of interest since it is charged to "conserve, improve and protect New York's natural resources and environment and to prevent, abate and control water, land and air pollution, in order to enhance the health, safety and welfare of the people of the state and their overall economic and social well-being," but it also issues gas drilling permits which has been shown in other areas to likely harm the environment. These functions must be separated. • New York State DEC has been subject to steep budget and staff cuts and does not have adequate staff or resources to properly oversee fracking, even if every possible protection were in place This reality raises the possibility that the DEC will be forced to cut comers with its reviews or fast-track permits despite ihe risks. Therefore permitting must not take place until the DEC is fiilly staffed with a clear funding stream to support that staff. • The thousands of miles of pipelines (and compressor stations required for drilling) to get the resulting gas to market will be reviewed by a different agency under a different process. Without an accounting of such impacts. New York's environmental assessment is incomplete and the full impact of ffacking is unknown. The Public Service Commission (PSC) has jurisdiction over gas inffastmcture. As such. Governor Cuomo should direct state agencies to coordinate their efforts in order to protect our air, water and communities. It should be stated explicitly in the regulations that any gathering lines not regulated by the PSC are under the jurisdiction of local municipalities (8.1.2.1, page 8-4). ' 1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS FOR WATER WITHDRAWALS The sGEIS addresses cumulative impacts for water withdrawals by using the pass-by flow determinations; however, the sGEIS needs to address cumulative impacts on water resources in all areas. Although the Water Resources Bill passed in 2011 would address cumulative impacts of groundwater and surface water withdrawals when and if regulations are developed, rules governing water withdrawal permits must be developed before permits are issued for drilling. Without the permitting framework for water withdrawals, it is not possible to determine if there are adequate safeguards for surface water and groundwater. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS FOR ALL INTERCONNECTED DRILLING ACTIVITIES A process needs to be established to address impacts from all interconnected activities, including drilling operations, that are regulated by DEC and pipelines and compressor stations that are regulated by the Public Service Commission (PSC). An Environmental Impact Statement for the gas lines and compressor stations must be performed by the PSC to assess the cumulative impacts on water resources, community infrastructure and quality of life issues such as noise, road damage and air quality from the additional pipelines and compressor stations that will be needed to transport the gas from the thousands of individual well pads to the regional pipelines. Compressor stations will be needed, with pipelines from each well to the compressor station, and additional pipelines from the compressor station to the main transmission line. However, the sGEIS does not address the impacts of the pipelines or compressor stations necessitated by well drilling operations. The impact of the vast network of access roads, pipelines and compressor stations must be addressed by the sGEIS. The sGEIS identities the PSC as the responsible agency to oversee construction and protection of the environment for pipeline construction. This segmentation of the environmental impact assessment makes it difficult for decision makers and the public to adequately assess the totd environmental impacts anticipated from gas drilling activities. PROGRAM TO MONITOR AND PROTECT DRINKING WATER RESOURCES Proper monitoring and assessment strategies must be in place to protect the State's water resources, and sufticient laboratory capabilities for analysis must be in place prior to drilling. The state currently does not have a strategy in place for data collection and analysis. Such a strategy is key to developing a comprehensive regulatory process that must be in place prior to drilling. All stakeholders (regulatory personnel, drilling companies, and the public) need to be ensured that valid data are being collected and disseminated in a cost effective manner. Considering the volume of environmental and public health data that will be generated by gas drilling, it is essential that NYS Department of Health develop and manage comprehensive databases in order to facilitate effective, comprehensive oversight and public protection during gas drilling. A program must be developed for electronic sharing of monitoring data and must be shared with local health departments as they will be the agency tirst contacted if any contamination is detected. PERMIT RE-EVALUATION The NYSDEC re-evaluation of specified permit condition in two or three years should involve public review and comment. OTHER LOW PERMEABILITY SHALE FORMATIONS The scope of the sGEIS includes all low permeability shale formations where high volume hydro-fracturing gas drilling will be employed. However, many sections of the document only reference the Marcellus Shale. Environmental impacts associated with other low permeability gas reservoirs where the hydrogeochemistry is different from the Marcellus shale are not addressed in the sGEIS. The sGEIS must be expanded to include potential impacts from other formations. LOCAL GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION Local Governments need to be involved and informed in all aspects of the drilling process and a procedure for this needs to be in place before drilling begins. Each municipality must receive copies of gas drilling permit applications, including parcel tax map numbers, before any permits are issued by NYSDEC. The NYSDEC should also be required to provide each local municipality and county government with 1) accurate Environmental Inspector contact information for permit coordination between agencies as well as emergency and spill response coordination, and 2) written notiHcation to each municipality of the location of each well- plugging permit application, including tax map parcel number and mapping coordinates. ACCIDENTS AND VIOLATION REPORTING Currently the DEC does not have an adequate electronic record-keeping system of violations, accidents, and spills which makes aggregating problems and notifying local governments and residents so difficult as to be nearly impossible. The DEC must bring their violations reporting system into the 21st century by making them easily available to the public electronically. PROPRIETARY CHEMICALS • The sGEIS allows any "proprietary" chemical constituents not to be subject to public disclosure. It appears that the companies can avoid disclosure if they simply claim the additive is a "trade secret." The DEC must require full disclosure of all chemicals and additives, including chemical composition of each, used in the hydro-fracturing process. (8.1.3.2,) • The sGEIS only weakly suggests operators "evaluate the use of altemative fracturing additive products that pose less risk." The DEC must require that the least toxic alternatives be used and then only if proven to not be a danger to the public and the environment. FLOWBACK WATER DISPOSAL o The state must not allow municipal sewage treatment plants to treat drilling wastes because such plants are not capable of handling the toxic elements in such wastes. (7.1.8.1) 4 o Some components of drilling waste would nonnally qualify as hazardous waste under state and federal law, but have been exempted from these laws. The DEC must not allow any waste that would qualify as hazardous waste in any other settings to be sent to municipal sewage treatment facilities unable to properly treat it or to disposal wells (here or in other states), putting the health and safety of our waters and communities at grave risk. (1.7.9) MANAGEMENT OF DRILL CUTTINGS The plan by the DEC to track the solid and liquid wastes generated in connection with fracking is positive; however tracking of these wastes is said to be the responsibility of the gas industry operators. The DEC must take a more active role in tracking waste that in other settings qualifies as hazardous. The gas industry must not be allowed to oversee itself in this area. (1.7.10) COMMUNITY AND SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS • The DEC needs to do a comprehensive, focused plan to review and analyze the consequences of a full build out of many wells on a community. (1.7.15) • A monetary value must be assigned to potential degradation of the environment in a comprehensive review of community and environmental impacts from drilling. • As proposed, the DEC staff will review the well applications one at a time, without considering the impact of many wells being permitted in close proximity. Impacts on communities must be considered from the standpoint of multiple wells being introduced to an area not one at a time since the industry profits from a high drilling density within an area. • In its considerations of the economics of drilling, the DEC and the State must acknowledge that: o Relatively few local jobs will be produced by the gas companies. Many of the higher paying jobs associated with HVHF go to employees who are residents of other states and will not be paying state income taxes. Likewise, most of the technical field jobs go to transient workers with no social or other connection to the local community. The experience in other communities has demonstrated an increase in crime, local housing costs, and a strain on health care resources (see Sayre Health report), o Small businesses will face higher labor costs as a result of competing with wages paid by the gas companies in order to keep their employees on the job • The sGEIS is incomplete because it does not yet contain the socio-economic analysis of whether there is a balance between risk/reward. PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS Primary and Principal Aquifers Prohibit HVHF near all primary aquifers. The DEC is proposing to prohibit fracking in primary aquifers that serve as public drinking water supplies, but this "prohibition" is only limited to a couple of years after which the state could "reconsider" the bans. In addition, the DEC does not lay out the conditions under which "reconsideration" would be reviewed. The DEC needs to prohibit HVHF near all primary aquifers. 2.4.4.1 Sunset date for buffers The preliminary draft proposes to place some areas of the state off limits to gas drilling, but upon closer examination, many of the restrictions have sunset dates and some of the protective buffers only call for site-specific individual environmental review, rather than clear restrictions. The DEC needs to strengthen and clarify restrictions and the requirements for buffers and site- specific environmental review. Mapping of aquifers is Inadequate. In order to determine a 500 foot buffer to a principal aquifer, the aquifer must be mapped at least to the scale of 1:24,000 feet but many aquifers are only mapped at the 1:250,000 foot scale. The DEC must increase buffer requirements overall but particularly when mapping of the aquifers is inadequate. Part of the fee structure for permitting should go to funding better maps of aquifers throughout the state. NATURALLY OCCURRING RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS (NORM) According to James W. Ring, Professor Emeritus of nuclear physics from Hamilton College, the draft sGEIS does not include adequate study of radon in its review of issues. This is a subject which deserves further study before this, or any other supplies of Marcellus gas, are delivered to households where it may endanger the health of citizens. (4.6) ROAD SPREADING The DEC has already failed to protect NY drinking water by allowing produced water from PA to be spread on roads in New York State, within Tompkins County, without SEQR review. Road spreading of produced water and brine must be expressly prohibited. (5.13.3.4) HOME RULE The DEC should expressly support the right of local municipalities under Home Rule to zone out hydrofracking. (8.1.1) The DEC should explicitly state that if the applicant for a gas drilling permit encounters local laws, regulations and policies that are inconsistent with their proposal, the DEC will respect the municipality's position and deny the permit. (8.1.1.5) IMPOUNDMENTS Given the recent history of "100 year rains" occurring every few years and the inherent long- term instability of impoundments, only closed-loop systems for all hydrofracking operations must be permitted. (8.2.2.2) ROAD PERMITS The DEC must require, not merely encourage, gas companies to make road use agreements with local municipalities. (8.1.1.4) END "44- Review your Comprehensive Plan What? A municipality's comprehensive plan documents the goals, objectives, and action items for managing future growth and development in the community. The municipality should examine whether the plan appropriately addresses gas drilling, associated industries, and ancillary uses. If your municipality does not have a comprehensive plan, now Is the time to develop one. The comprehensive plan is the legal foundation for zoning and many other regulatory tools Why? Gas drilling was not on the horizon when many comprehensive plans were last updated and therefore not accounted for in plan development. Plans should reflect the desired future land use of the community. How? Gather Input from the community on its vision for future land use development anticipating a variety of uses associated with energy development; draft new, or amend existing, sections and host public hearings on the amendments for adoption by the Municipality Board. Specifically address compatibility of industrial uses, extractive Industries, and impacts from intensive extraction methods such as high-volume hydraulic fracturing, with broader community goals and resources. NYSDEG Reference The 2011 draft SGEIS specifically states that applicants for drilling permits must indicate whether they are in compliance with local comprehensive plans and zoning and that local communities will have an opportunity to provide input to DEC on this issue. DEC would be required to consider this in the permitting process. Resources The Town of Danby recently revised their Comprehensive Plan by incorporated language referring to natural gas development. James A. Coon Local Government Technical Series: www.dos.nv.gov/LG/Dublications/Zonine and the Comprehensive Plan.odf Review Zoning Ordinance What? Zoning regulations specify types of uses, building lot size, and lot coverage in different zones of the municipality in order to be compatible with existing uses, natural features, and community goals. If a community does not have a zoning ordinance it is lacking the most effective tool for addressing potential ancillary impacts of gas drilling and potentially whether gas drilling is allowed in a community and, if so, where. Uses Associated with Energy Development Primarv uses: Natural eas exploration and extraction, storaee vards. eas processing facility, compressor station, pipelines, water storage facilities. Secondarv uses: Hotel/motels. RV parks, temporarv housing, professional offices, construction companies, trucking facilities, gravel and sand mining operations. Why? A municipality's zoning provisions prevent uses that are injurious to the adjacent parcels and the community as a whole. Natural gas extraction and ancillary uses may not have been considered when zoning was adopted. How? Review locations of existing residential, agricultural, and natural resources that could be negatively impacted by potential new uses. Amend zoning regulations by adding necessary definitions and specifying where these uses are allowed or prohibited. In zones where uses are allowed, site plan review or special permit can be required. Consider adding floodplain and stream buffer protection; protections for unique natural areas, such as conservation zones; protections against fragmenting agricultural lands and intact forests; industrial land use definitions; differentiation between heavy and light industry; districts where different types of industrial land uses are allowed or prohibited; prohibited land uses, including those prohibited in all districts; and buffers between industrial land uses and other uses. Resources Prohibiting gas drilling: see examples from municipalities of Dryden, Ulysses and Danby. f ^ Review Site Plan Regulations What? A plan showing the layout or design of a proposed use. The site plan must conform to standards specified by the municipality and is reviewed and approved by the planning board. Site Plan regulations may be part of a municipality's zoning ordinance or may be in a stand-alone ordinance. Why? New land development should be designed to avoid negative impacts on surrounding properties. Definitions of new types of uses may need to be added to site plan regulations. How? Review current site plan regulations to ensure that standards and elements are appropriate and procedures are in place and understood. For ancillary impacts of gas drilling, site plan elements should include site access, screening, signs, landscaping, location and dimensions of buildings, lighting, noise, and adjacent land uses. Resources Training presentation on Site Plan Review basics, procedure, and SEQR compliance: www.co.ontario.nv.us/Dlannine/acrobat/training/Site Plan Review%20.Ddf James A. Coon Local Government Technical Series: www.dos.state.nv.us/lH/Dublications/Site Development Plan Review.odf Apply Special Use Permits to Certain Uses What? Certain uses may be permitted but subject to conditions upon review and approval by a municipal board or its designee (planning board or zoning board of appeals). Special use permit requirements are usually part of a municipality's zoning ordinance. Why? Special use permits allow a community to establish standards and conditions for a diversity of uses that could have adverse impacts on adjacent land uses. Whereas Site Plan is generally a non-discretionary review if standards are met, special use permits usually allow for a wider range of discretion and judgment by the reviewing body regarding whether a use is appropriate at a given location. How? Review permitted uses and potential uses associated with energy development to determine if they should require special use permits and, if so, what special use permit criteria should be established for them. Roads Protection What? A municipality can protect its roads from damage by developing a road use regulation or road use agreement for high impact, high frequency truck traffic. A municipality can review and approve driveway permits for new road cuts on local roads. Why? High impact, high frequency truck traffic associated with HVHF will damage roads over time. The repair cost may impose a burden on municipal budgets, and agreements provide a means for compensation for damage. How? Work with the County and municipalities on efforts to coordinate draft Road Use Regulation and/or Road Use Agreement. NYS PEC Reference Revised Draft SGEIS 2011, Appendix 10 PROPOSED Supplementary Permit Conditions For High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing: The operator shall adhere to the Department-approved transportation plan which shall be incorporated by reference into this permit. In addition, issuance of this permit does not provide relief from any local requirements authorized by or enacted pursuant to the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law. Prior to site disturbance, the operator shall submit to the Department, for informational purposes only, a copy of any road use agreement between the operator and municipality. Designate Critical Environmental Areas (CEA) What? Designated CEAs have one or more of the following: a feature that is a benefit or threat to human health; an exceptional or unique natural setting; of exceptional or unique social, historic, archaeological, recreational, or educational value; or an inherent ecological, geological, or hydrological sensitivity to change that may be adversely affected by any physical disturbance. Why? Development in CEAs may require examination under SEQR of impacts related to the reason why the area was designated. This could be a reason for an additional supplemental environmental review. How? Municipal board may designate areas as described above after public notice and hearing. Resources NYS DEC Section 617.14 i \ Aquifer Protection Regulation What? Groundwater resources serve as private drinking water sources and as base flow for streams. Primarv aquifers are designated bv the NYS Department of Health as "highly productive aquifers presently utilized as sources of water supply by major municipal water supply systems." PrinciDal aquifers are "known to be highlv productive or whose geologv suggests abundant potential water supply, but which are not intensively used as sources of water supply by major municipal systems at the present time." Municipalities can adopt regulations to limit uses that might impact the quantity or quality of waters in an aquifer. Why? While no High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing operations will be permitted on primary aquifers, protection of principal aquifers is limited. DEC will require a site-specific determination for HVHF activities within 500 feet of a principal aquifer. In Tompklns County, there ^ principal aquifers but no primary aquifers. How? Determine aquifer locations and appropriate protection areas, and adopt protection regulations. Tompklns County has a cooperative cost-sharing agreement with the United States Geological Survey to study aquifers in Tompklns County. A municipality should contact the County Planning Department if interested in participating in this program. Resources See draft example from the Town of Danby NYS DEC Reference Revised Draft SGEIS 2011, Section 3.2.5: Site-Specific SEQRA determination of significance is required for any proposed well pad within the boundary of a principal aquifer, or outside but within 500 feet of the boundary of a principal aquifer. Wellhead Protection Regulation What? Regulation to limit activities within a certain distance of public water supply wellhead. Why? NYS DEC setbacks might not adequately protect drinking water supplies from potential impacts and are time-limited. How? Determine an appropriate zone of protection and adopt wellhead protection regulations. Resources Tioga Investigates Natural Gas, Resource Binder: Natural Gas Exploration and Deveiopment, revised 5/11. Chapter 6 Wellhead Protection Ordinance, example from Village of Newark Valley. NYS DEC Reference Revised Draft SGEIS 2011, Section 7.1.12.1: Prohibits operations of multi-well pads and HVHF within 2,000 ft of any public water supply well (subject to reconsideration after 3 years). Noise, Lighting and Air Standards What? Standards can be imposed that limit noise level and duration, lighting fixtures and locations, and assure that air quality is maintained. Why?Offensive noise, lighting, and air quality negatively impacts adjacent property owners and natural resources (such as birds and wildlife). How? Standards can be added to zoning, or site plan review, or adopted as a stand-alone local law. Each standard will need to include levels and limits that are enforceable. Resources Tioga Investigates Natural Gas, Resource Binder: Natural Gas Exploration and Development, revised 5/11. Chapter 4 Land Use includes Model Noise and Model Light Ordinances. www.nonoise.org/lawlib.htm PA DEP Fugitive Dust Model Ordinance www.deD.state.Da.us/deo/deDUtate/airwaste/aa/Dermits/misc/dustord.Ddf NY Air Quality Monitoring www.dec.nv.gov/chemical/8406.html NYC Air Pollution Control Code www.nvc.gov/html/deD/html/air/air code related forms.shtmi NYSDEC Reference Revised Draft SGEIS 2011: • Noise Mitigation addressed in Section 7.10; • Lighting Mitigation addressed in Section 7.9; • Air Quality Impacts addressed in Section 7.5. DEC Policy Guidance Document DEP-00-1, Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts www.dec.nv.gov/docs/Dermits ei ODerations Ddf/noise2000.Ddf Viewshed (or Scenic Resource) Overlay District What? An overlay district (within a zoning ordinance) to protect scenic views by imposing specific requirements that include landscaping and site design, the preservation of native vegetation, and the design of buildings and structures. Why?Scenic views are an important resource in Tompkins County and can be protected by limiting certain uses along ridgelines and in viewsheds. How? Determine where scenic views are located. Adopt an overlay district regulation that requires a visual assessment review. Resources See example from the Town of Blooming Grove. Tompkins County Scenic Resources Inventory and Guide at www.tomDkins-co.org/Dlanning/nri/Scenic Resources.htm NYSDEC Reference Visual Mitigation Measures addressed in Revised Draft SGEIS 2011, Section 7.9. i t I \ I \ Tree Preservation What? A tree preservation ordinance prevents excessive clear cutting of forest stands. Forest areas are important for wildlife, local ecology, water quality, and scenic views. Why? As a law of general applicability, a municipality can protect intact forest resources from being cleared for new land uses. Limiting the amount of land that is clear-cut protects land from fragmentation, reduces the spread of invasive species, and protects water and air quality. How? The municipal board can adopt an ordinance with thresholds for the amount of land cleared and what uses are exempt, such as single family homes or agriculture. Resources NYS DEC Tree Ordinance Guidance www.dec.nv.eov/lands/5276.html Urban Tree Conservation: a White Paper on Local Ordinance Approaches by Sandra Nichols www.urbanforestrvsouth.orH/resources/librarv/urban-tree-conservation- a-white-DaDer-on-local-ordinance-aDDroaches/file Guidelines for Developing and Evaluating Tree Ordinances by Swiecki and Bernhardt. www.DhvtosDhere.com/treeord/index.htm Adopt Pipeline Regulations What? Gathering lines are pipelines with smaller diameter and lower pressure that transport oil and gas from a well to a transmission line. Why? Gathering lines that fall below the thresholds for which the Public Service Commission regulates are not regulated by any agency (except where lines go through environmentally sensitive areas). How? Regulate gathering lines by adopting a local law that specifies the conditions and requirements for building and inspecting these gathering lines. Resources See draft example developed by Chenango County. NYS Ag & Markets, Pipeline Right-of-way Construction Projects www.aHmkt.state.nv.us/aD/aHservices/WEBAPConstrGuides.Ddf Manufactured Home Park (MHP) Regulations What? MHPs can be regulated through site plan review or subdivision review, or with zoning. Mobile Homes may NOT be purposely prohibited in a municipality. Why? With an increase in gas drilling in our region, temporary or transient workers will increase the pressure on the current housing stock. Landowners or developers may consider adding manufactured homes (individually or in parks) as a temporary housing measure for gas industry workers or current residents. How? Municipalities with Zoning: The Municipal Board should consider appropriate zoning districts for MHPs and the review and permitting process. MHPs may be subject to special use permit, subdivision review, and site plan review. Municipalities without Zoning: Subdivision review and/or site plan review may be used to review MHPs. A stand-alone MHP ordinance can also be adopted. Review guidelines should address road signs, street lighting, sidewalks, stormwater, street trees, parks, common areas, and amenities. Resources Municipal Regulation of Mobile Homes: www.dos.nv.gov/LG/Dublications/MuniciDal Regulation of Mobile Homes.odf I \ Subdivision Regulations What? Regulations on the division of a parcel into a number of lots to be developed or sold. Standards for subdivision review are to ensure the proposal is in concert with the neighborhood character and to protect adjacent properties from stormwater runoff, traffic congestion, unsightiy design, and noise pollution. The planning board reviews subdivisions based on Municipal Board's standards and requirements, which include public hearing and environmental review. Why? Land subdivision may be desirable for residential or other development. Municipalities may want to specify lot size, setbacks and other requirements, and review proposals based on set procedures. How? The Municipal Board has the authority to adopt regulations, standards, and what types of land subdivision are subject to review and approval. I \ Floodplain Regulations What? FEMA developed Flood Insurance Rates Maps showing floodplains, which are flood-prone areas adjacent to streams and other water bodies. Why? The Revised Draft SGEIS requires that operators review floodplain maps, and HVHF activities will not be permitted in the 100-year floodplain. However, other activities could be located in floodplain areas. How? To participate in the National Flood Insurance Program, municipalities must adopt a local Flood Damage Prevention Law and issue permits for floodplain development. Municipalities should review floodplain maps, local law, and permitting procedures and may want to prohibit most uses in the floodplain. Extractive Mining Regulations What? An extractive mining operation (such as gravel and sand) requires a permit from DEC. Under the Mined Land Reclamation Law, municipalities can take the following actions related to extractive mines: exclude from the entire municipality, limit to specific zoning districts, or issue Special Use Permits with limited conditions. Municipalities may not regulate the operation of a properly sited mine. Special Use Permit conditions are limited to local road access, transportation routes, setbacks, and land reclamation, as long as the conditions are consistent with the DEC's permit. Why? Gravel is needed for road building and well pad areas. Sand is used as a propping agent in the shale fracturing process. How? Municipal Boards should decide if or where extractive mining is appropriate within the municipal borders. If allowed, ensure that the appropriate special use permit procedures are in place - these procedures need to apply to all other uses that are subject to special use permits. Resources Municioal Control Over Minina in New York, bv John Caffrev & Inga Fricke landuse.law.Dace.edu/landuse/documents/PublishedArticle/ ReH2/MunConOverMiningNY.doc Mined Land Reclamation Law, Environmental Conservation Law Article 23, Title 27 Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Runoff Control What?Regulations to limit stormwater runoff associated with land disturbances. Why? While DEC will require a "Comprehensive Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan" for access roads and well pads, municipalities can adopt or review existing regulations to address stormwater runoff from other land disturbance activities. How? MS4s: Review existing stormwater regulations and amend if necessary, especially for linear disturbances such as pipelines. Non-MS4s: Municipalities can adopt stormwater regulations in order to review stormwater pollution prevention plans for land disturbances. Resources NYS DEC Stormwater website: www.dec.nv.eov/chemical/8468.html Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Regulations What? Pollutants that enter a municipality's storm sewer system during dry periods are considered "illicit discharges." Why?An increase in construction or industrial activity in a municipality will increase the risk for illicit discharges. How? Adopt or review an existing local law that defines the range of illicit discharges to be covered and specifies the enforcement mechanism. Establish a reporting and tracking system. Resources IDDE: A Guidance Manual for Proaram DeveloDment and Technical Assessments, bv the Center for Watershed Protection ftD://ftD.dec.state.nv.us/dow/stormdocuments/ms4 /illicit discharge detection and elimination /illicit discharge detection and elimination assistance /guidance/full final idde manual.odf 10 Wetlands What? Wetland areas in the landscape offer a range of benefits from reducing flooding and erosion, protecting water quality, and providing habitat for wildlife. Under the Freshwater Wetlands Act (Article 24 of Environmental Conservation Law), NYS regulates wetland areas that are 12.4 acres or certain smaller wetlands of unusual local importance. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act provides the authority to the federal government to issue permits for wetland impacts. Why? Wetlands that are not under the jurisdiction of NYS or the federal government are at risk from destruction from a variety of development activities. How? NYS Environmental Conservation Law (24-0501) provides the authority for a local government to adopt freshwater wetlands protection law, however, wetland mapping is a necessary step to implementing the law. Resources Tompkins County Water Resources Council Wetlands Committee, includes a report of Wetland Protections for Tompkins County and a draft wetlands local law: www.tomokins- co.ore/Dlannine/committees/WRC/WRCWetlandsCommittee.htm Fees What? Most regulations provide authority for the governing body to set application and review fees for permits or other types of reviews. Why? This would be a good time to review the authorizing language and fee levels to make sure they are adequate to allow your municipality to obtain professional technical assistance for these reviews at the applicant's expense. 11