No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 1999-03-22 OF xr, TOXIN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N . Y. 14850 TOWN ! CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 SPECIAL TOWN . BOARD MEETING Monday, March 22, 1999 5 : 30 O'clock P. M . AGENDA 1 . Call to Order. 2 . Pledge` of Allegiance . 3 . PERSONS TO BE HEARD . 4 . Set public hearing date to consider, "A LOCAL LAW PERMITTING ALL BUT SELECTED 'OFFICERS TO RESIDE OUTSIDE THE TOWN OF ITHACA" . t5 . Consider approval of modification of Town Hall contract with HOLT Architects . 6 . Consider entering into an EXECUTIVE SESSION as provided under Public Officers Law, Article 7 , Section 105 (d ) discussions relating to litigation . 7 . Other Business , 8 . Consider motion to ADJOURN . TOWN OF ITHACA SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING MARCH 22, 1999 5: 30 p.m . t a special meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County, New York held at he Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street, there were present: PRESENT: Cathy Valentino, Supervisor; Mary Russell , Councilwoman ; Carolyn Grigorov, Councilwoman ; Ellen Harrison , Councilwoman ; Ed Conley, Councilman ; EXCUSED: David Klein , Councilman ; John Wolff, Councilman , PRESENT: Joan Lent Noteboom , Town Clerk ; John Barney, Attorney for the Town ; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning , Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering . EXCUSED: Fred Noteboom , Highway Superintendent; Andy Frost, Director of Building/Zoning ; Al Carvill , Budget Officer; Judith Drake , Human Resource Specialist' , OTHERS: Doria Higgins , 2 Hillcrest Drive; George Kennedy, Maplewood Point Association ; Stacey Walbourn , Ithaca Journal ; Richard DePaolo, East Shore Drive; S. G . Wahl , 1426 Hanshaw Road ; David Colt, 112 Commons; William Wittlin , 121 North Sunset Drive; Charles & Phyllis Hurlbut, 175 -- Williams Glen Road ; Fay Gougakis, PO Box 6764; Richard Southworth , 603 Hudson Street; Hank Roberts , 253 Coddington Road ; Alex Hilchuck , 987 Taughannock Blvd. ; Leslie , Connors , 129 Park PL; Mike Bevans , 401 North Albany St. ; Alice Mary Fraley, 775 Snyder Hill Rd ; Frank & Blythe Baldwin , 149 Pine Tree Road ; Linda Holzbowr, 249 Coddington Road ; Ken Ritter, 249 Coddington Road ; Michele & Deana LeBlanc, 257 Pennsylvania Ave . ; Amanda Walts, Lockerby Hill Road ; Barbara & Jacqueline Colbert, 164 Oakwood Lane; Michele M . Colbert, 1243 Ellis Hollow Road ; Kristin S. Colbert, 1284 Ellis Hollow Road ; Bart Auble , 1284 Ellis Hollow Road ; Karen Westmont , 206 Forest Home Drive. Call to, Order: The Supervisor called the meeting to order at 5 : 34 p. m . , and led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3 - PERSONS TO BE HEARD. Supervisor Valentino - I believe that many of the people here tonight want to discuss the Cornell Lake Source Cooling Project. This meeting is not an open session to discuss that issue. Any discussion about the Cornell Lake Source Cooling project by the Town Board would be done after a motion was considered to enter an executive session to receive legal advice about the litigation the Town is currently involved with . _ There is nothing pending . We are not considering changing any decisions made up to this point . I am not going to allow discussion of the Cornell Lake Source Cooling Project at this meeting with the exception of Doria Higgins. I spoke to her earlier today and told her I would allow her to speak. TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 2 MARCH 22 , 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 12, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED It is inappropriate for the Town Board to have any discussion about Lake Source Cooling because of the present litigation . The Town Board will not be making any decisions or comments. Richard DePaolo, East Shore Drive - Is the Town Board looking for feedback at this point? upervisor Valentino - There is no feedback for us to consider. We are involved in litigation . Mr. DePaolo - It is my understanding we can discuss the Lake Source Cooling Project provided we don 't discuss the particular items under litigation . Attorney Barney - This meeting was called for a specific limited purpose . This is not a regular Town Board Meeting . Tonight is not the night the Town Board will hear comments on Lake Source Cooling Projects. Mr. DePaolo - Did the Town Board agree to go into Executive Session before the meeting? Attorney Barney - The Town Board said they would consider a motion to enter an Executive Session . If they enter an Executive Session it will be a vote through a normal course of events. Mr. DePaolo - I would ask for the same courtesy being given to Ms. Higgins . I have new, relevant information that has nothing to do with the litigation . Supervisor Valentino - I talked with Ms . Higgins earlier today. She said she had some information that she wanted to give the Town Board , and that she would be very brief. I told Ms. Higgins that this was a special meeting . Doria Higgins , 2 Hillcrest Drive - I would like to support the request for others to be heard also . I understand the Town Board going to meet in Executive Session about Lake Source Cooling . I hope your discussion about the litigation against you will be an opportunity to withdraw what support you have. I do not think you understood information that has been brought very clearly before the Town Board . When you approved Lake Source Cooling the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation had two documents stating the water supply, our drinking supply, was threatened . Shirley Egan stated the Environmental Impact Statement was not approved until April 1 , 1998 , but this ; draft in which the listing was final , came out December 30, 1997 and was distributed throughout the state. (See Attachment #1) There is no data in the Environmental Impact Statement about the water quality at the intake site. I have said this before , but no one has believed me . Ms Higgins presented a chart of the 16 monitoring testing stations. (See Attachments #2-4) The dotted line is a line that I added . The intake pipe is accurately drawn and will go up to testing Station S10 . This is an example of the camouflaging in the Environmental Impact Statement of relevant important material . TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 3 1 MARCH 22 , 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 12, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED .The next page gives the longitude and latitude of Station S10. The following page shows the proposed intake location , (see note 2) . It is almost exactly the same as the testing of Station S10. The next three pages show where data was collected from the various stations . The only time data was collected from the various stations and Station S10 was in 1994 . There,' are statements in the Environmental Impact Statement making assertions about the quality of water ! from the intake. It is deliberate camouflaging of the fact that they do not have data from the actual intake site. This is shameful . I spoke to Bob Bland about this . He said they originally wanted to use Station S11 because it was closest to the intake site. I gather the intake site has been changed and I think these two charts , (page 8 and 9) , show that the site of the reactive phosphorous from Station S11 was above what it is in the area in which it is being discharged . I think this data changed their minds. All statements in the Environmental Impact Statement state the water is clearer, purer. They do not know, and they have camouflaged that they do not know. The two New York State Department of Environmental Conservation documents List the water supplies threatened . This Town Board should use this information during your Executive Session to substantiate pulling back approval . Mr. DePaolo - One of the documents Ms. Higgins spoke about is mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . It is called the 303D Listing . It is designed to calculate how much 'pollution impaired waterways can handle. The two New York State Department of Environmental Conservation lists provided are two memos from the attorney at the National Resources Defense Counsel . In response to the information raised in December, the Town of Ithaca saw fit to host a news conference with Cornell University before the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation had rendered its determination on this issue, and before any legal questions had been answered . I spoke, in the parking lot , last June with Councilman Wolff. He reiterated what I think has been the Town Board's position. The Town Board has been reviewing this project for a considerable time, and there has not been anything new brought up at the public hearing . These documents clearly constitute new information . They did in December. There is no mention about the 1996 Priority Water Body Listing or of the mandated 303D Listing . I have included a letter from Peter Lehner, Senior Attorney of the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation refuting some of Cornell University's legal defenses to the permit . I have included a recommendation of the Federal Advisory Committee on the TMDL program . This is an EPA initiative where they call for full implementation of the moratorium . Peter Lehner is now the Bureau Chief at the Environmental Protection Bureau of the State Attorney General's Office . He is the senior environmental attorney for New York State . TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 4 MARCH 22 , 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 12, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED �I know that SEQR is set- up to allow you to defer to the lead agency in this matter. I know that in a lot of those issues the Town Board needs to do that, because you do not have the qualifications to render ,this type of scientific analysis. Through conversations with Andy Call , the Director of Division of Water at New York State epartrtment of Environmental Conservation , it has come to our attention that he was unaware that outhern Cayuga Lake exceeded the state guidance levels for phosphorous . I ask the Town Board to revisit this issue. Supervisor Valentino - If there are other people who have documents they would like the Town Board to see , please give them to the Town Clerk. Is there anyone who would like to speak on any issue other than the Cornell Lake Source Cooling Project? As no other persons came forward to speak, Supervisor Valentino closed PERSONS TO BE HEARD. Agenda Item No 4 - Set Public Hearing Date: "A LOCAL LAW PERMITTING ALL BUT SELECTED OFFICERS TO RESIDE OUTSIDE THE TOWN OF ITHACA". Attorney Barney = Setting this public hearing is based upon the discussion we had at the last Town Board Meeting . There are two ways of dealing with the requirement of residency regarding L public officers. One is through local legislation , and the other is through state legislation . A resolution is before the Town Board to set a public hearing to consider local legislation that would remove the residency requirement for any employee that is not an elected officer, the Town Clerk, the Receiver of Taxes , the Highway Superintendent , the Deputy Supervisor, a Town Constable , or a member of the Town Police . The same policy determination has been incorporated into proposed state legislation that has been forwarded to Assemblyman Martin Luster. I have received a call from Assemblyman Luster's office asking for a resolution from the Town Board requesting the legislation . Councilwoman Russell - Section 4 mentions all elected officers and the Deputy Supervisor. Isn 't the Deputy Supervisor included in elected officers? Attorney Barney = By law, the Deputy Supervisor is an appointment of the Town Supervisor. This person does not have to be an elected officer. Councilwoman Harrison - Why are Police Officers included? We may want to hire someone that is not a town resident. They are professionals , as are the other Town Officials. Supervisor Valentino - We can remove Police Officers. Councilwoman Russell = What is a Constable? Attorney Barney - It is a Town Police Officer. That can also be removed . TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 5 MARCH 22 , 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 12, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Supervisor Valentino as We have a resolution to set the public hearing on April 12 , at 6: 30 p . m . Resolution No. 60 - PUBLIC HEARING DATE: "A LOCAL LAW PERMITTING ALL BUT SELECTED OFFICERS TO RESIDE OUTSIDE THE TOWN OF ITHACA " Mm BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise for a public hearing to be held at the next regular meeting of the Town Board on April 12, 1999, at 6.30 o 'clock, p. m. ,! at the Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York in order that the governing Town Board may consider "A LOCAL LAW PERMITTING ALL BUT SELECTED OFFICERS TO RESIDE OUTSIDE THE TOWN OF ITHACA " MOVED Councilwoman Grigorov, SECONDED Councilwoman Harrison. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Russell, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilwoman Harrison, aye; Councilman Conley, aye. Carried unanimously. Resolution No 61 • Request for Special State Legislation Residency of All But Selected Town Officers: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca has been advised that it is necessary for Town Officers to be residents of the Town of Ithaca; and WHEREAS, the definition of `Town Officers" under state and local law is somewhat unclear' and T WHEREAS, a number of the persons working for the Town in positions that might be characterized as `Town Officers" are not residents of the Town; and WHEREAS, the Town Board does not believe that it is necessary for all Town Officers to be residents of the Town; and WHEREAS, the State of New York is authorizing individual deviations from residency requirements contained in Public Officers Law Section 3 has appeared to make it a requirement that deviations from the residency requirement of the Public Officers Law cannot be made by local law but rather require state legislation, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby requests the Governor and State Legislature to enact special legislation authorizing virtually all of the Town Officers, other than the elective officers and certain appointed officers, to be residents of areas other than the Town as set forth on the attached proposed legislation; and it is further RESOLVED, that the attorney for the Town is authorized and requested to convey this resolution to Assemblyman Martin Luster, State Senator James Seward, and if the legislation passes the Legislature, to the Governor of the State of New York. TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 6 MARCH 22 , 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED : APRIL 12, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED " APPROVED ,.MOVED Councilwoman Grigorov, SECONDED Councilwoman Harrison. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Russell, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilwoman Harrison, aye; Councilman Conley, aye. Carried unanimously. Agenda Item No. 7 = Other Business: Supervisor Valentino - I have set a meeting for March 26 , to meet with the first group of real estate agents who are interested in marketing the old Town Hall , Mr, Kanter, Mr. Walker and I will be present at the meeting . Are there other board members who would like to attend ? We need authorization from the Town Board to increase the purchase amount of the parcel in Inlet Valley that we are buying . The City of Ithaca has not been able to move forward on this issue. They have not given us the "Memorandum of Understanding" that we asked for. Tompkins ' County has set a deadline for the purchase of this property. It is my recommendation that the Town buy the parcel and then negotiate the arrangements with the City of Ithaca . The tax amount has increased on the parcel , and I would like to ask for approval to purchase the property at a cost not to exceed $ 16, 000. 1 hope the Town will be reimbursed by the city. Jon Kanter, Director of Planning - The Cornell North Campus Housing Initiative Project's Environmental Impact Statement is being prepared . The Environmental Impact Statement Draft is almost"I ready and will be submitted to the City. We have been asked how much input the Town Board and Planning Board would like to have in determining the completeness of the Environmental Impact Statement . Staff will be fully involved with reviewing the Environmental Impact Statement, and the Town Board is involved because Cornell University is requesting a zoning change. The zoning change is being requested primarily for athletic fields and recreational facilities . Most of the buildings will be in the City of Ithaca . It will be a lengthy Environmental Impact Statement. Is the Town Board interested in being involved and providing comments about the Environmental Impact Statement? Staff will also be reviewing the Environmental Impact Statement. Supervisor Valentino - Yes. The board is interested in being involved in the process and providing comments. Mr. Kanter - Would the Town Board be interested in having Cornell University make a presentation regarding the project? Supervisor Valentino - Yes . It would be a good idea. Karen Westmont, 206 Forest Home Drive - Residents of Forest Home would like to characterize other issues involved with this project such as a major entrance to a new parking lot from the Town side. It is a parking lot that will operate from 7: 00 a. m . to 11 : 00 p. m . , with at least 100 vehicles TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 7 MARCH 22 , 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED : APRIL 12, 1999 - APPROVED : APPROVED - APPROVED - moving within a three hour period . The City corrected Cornell University by indicating that externalizing traffic to City streets in not acceptable. Cornell originally planned to demolish the Moore, House , The Town Planning Board asked them not to demolish that building . Cornell University is now thinking about moving the house. Forest Home residents would prefer that the ouse stay on the site. ouncilwoman Harrison - Will the public be able to comment at the presentation ? Mr. Kanter - The City will be coordinating a number of information meetings . There will be other opportunities for public comment . Resolution No 62 - Agreement for the Purchase of Lands in Inlet Valley from Tompkins County: WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca has entered into a purchase agreement with Tompkins County for the purchase of lands located in Inlet Valley; and WHEREAS, the Town Board has been negotiating a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Ithaca regarding future uses of the park land, as well as reimbursement of the cost to purchase the said lands; and WHEREAS, Tompkins County has informed the Town Board that it is necessary that the Town of Ithacai finalize the purchase of the said properties by March 31, 1999; and WHEREAS, the Town Board had previously authorized purchase of the said properties for an amount not to exceed $ 12, 500 by enacting Resolution No. 86 on May 12, 1997; and WHEREAS, due to the unavoidable delay in the purchase of these properties additional property taxes have now accrued; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, that the governing Town Board does hereby authorize and direct the Town Supervisor to purchase from Tompkins County, Tax Parcel No. 31 . -2-5 and Tax Parcel No. 31 . -2-6 located in Inlet Valley at a price not to exceed $ 16, 000, plus the applicable closing costs. Said lands shall be considered General Purpose Lands; and, be it further RESOLVED, payment for the purchase of the said parcels shall be made from General Fund, Account A4940. 400 - Acquisition of Property. MOVED Councilwoman Grigorov, SECONDED Councilwoman Russell. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Russell, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilwoman Harrison, aye; Councilman Conley, aye. Carried unanimously. Agenda Item No 5 = Modification of Town Hall Contract with HOLT Architects: TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 8 MARCH 22 , 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 12, 1999 = APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED ,Supervisor Valentino - We have been concerned about the entrance to the Post Office not meeting historic requirements. George Welch , US Postal Service assured me today that they are moving forward to resolve those issues, and are aware of the problem . Councilwoman Grigorov - The Cayuga Lake Watershed Management Plan Intermunicipal Organiiation will meet on Wednesday. They asked us to bring to the meeting any concerns our municipality may have about the lake. Does anyone have any concerns other than those we have discussed before? Agenda Item No 6 - Consider entering an EXECUTIVE SESSION as provided ' under Public Officers Law, Article 7, Section 105 (d) Discussions Relating to Litigation : Motion made by Councilwoman Russell , seconded by Councilman Conley to enter into an Executive Session to receive confidential legal advice related to the Cornell University Lake Source Cooling Project litigation proceedings . Carried unanimously. The Town Board entered Executive Session at 6: 10 p. m . Motion 1made by Councilwoman Harrison , seconded by Councilwoman Grigorov to resume regular session . Carried unanimously. The Town Board resumed regular session at 7 : 45 p. m . No official action was taken as a result of the Executive Session. Agenda Item No. 8 =ADJOURNMENT: As there was no further business to come before the Town Board , a motion was made by Councilwoman Harrison , seconded by Councilwoman Grigorov to adjourn . Carried unanimously. Supervisor Valentino adjourned the meeting at 7 : 47 p . m . 7 aspec pe ull sub J an Lent Noteboom , Town Clerk *NEXT REGULAR MEETING - April 12 , 1999 at 5 : 30 p. m . ** Minutes Transcribed by Carrie L. Coates. .a71r�i.Ji . • State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Water 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York, 122334508 Whom John P. Cahill D A Commissioner DRAFT ' 3rdlDraft of Text ` er 30 1997 Dec�n t , M' ;hN N xN! Y Al Bromberg NEW YORK S - 1998 303 (d) LI P. SUAMARY N m� This 1998 submission under Section 3( {dj of fe� ° `" a . ater identifies waters that are . , targeted as priority for total maximum daily (TNII 1 , 't e: } . Z . over the next two (2) years. It also lists other waterbod segments thatri be evat ted ff� y gm L development. A schedule for o addressing these waters is included in. stiocume A.N+ . 0 • N NMIN:v. P Ate V riority waters are: ' s$ rg:p mew York. stoF< , .<l.:N .•i%r. �„• 'S QA City' t Supply Watershed :.< .. . rich Lake ;;:<:v»»;: . I.►�� ` n w ;`�ti y .` } �EXv Designation as a "prior ratee' does not necessarily mean that TMDLs will ,be completed durin0ji fi 2 year period tsttis`list is in effect, but that priority effort will be given to developing solutisris to water quality toblems. TNIDL develo ment has been targeted for these priority waters q tY ?.f P p ty and" 1 likely continue beyond the 2 year period of this list. QUII'Y ASSESSMENT f(!/. '}.m'l: }: 1iY.:r�lllrj:•f;/A.I'S%!' . "eee on 303 (d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires States to develop and submit a list of waters for which required technology based pollution controls are not stringent enough to attain or maintain compliance with applicable state water quality standards. The state list is to contain the following: 1 . ATTACHMENT # 1 1998 TMDL/303(d) List Waterbodies Requiring Verification of Water Quality Problems Table F Segment Segment Segment Segment TMDL Name ID Type County Size Class Use Affected Severity Pollutant Source Note DRAINAGE BASIN* Owseg"eneca-0nelda CAYUGA LAKE 0705-0040 Lake Tompkins 500090 A AA(T) Water Supply Threatened Silt, Nutrients Erosion, Urban Runoff, F Agriculture LAKE NEATAHWANTA 0701 -0018 Lake Oswego 750.0 A B Bathing Precluded Nutrients Storm Sewers F OWASCO LAKE 0706-0009 Lake Cayuga 6784.0 A AA(T) Bathing Impaired Pathogens On-site Systems F SENECA RIVER 0701 -0008 River Onondaga - 1 .5 Mi. B Bathing Precluded Pathogens On-site, Systems F � SKANEATELES L&TRI 0707-0004 Lake Onondaga 5803:0 A AA Water Supply Stressed Pathogens On-site Systems, F Agriculture DRAINAGE BASIN: Saint Lawrence River BLACK LAKE 0906-0001 Lake St.Lawrence 8500.0 A B Bathing Impaired Nutrients Municipal F DRAINAGE BASIN: Lake Champlain GREAT CRAZY RIVER 1002-0001 River Clinton 13.0 No A Water Supply Impaired Pathogens Agriculture F DRAINAGE BASIN: Lower Hudson River PEEKSKILL HOLLOW 1301 -0049 River Westchester 3.5 Mi. . A Water Supply Stressed Pathogens On-site Systems F TMDL/303(d) Notes: F - Waterbodies flagged as having water quality problems, but that require verification through the review of available data, the collection of additional data or the evaluation and identification of the management planning process appropriate to developing a solution . DRAFT 12/ 17/97 36 1998 TMDW303 d List Waterbedies kegairing Verification Segment Segment Segment Segment Name 11 ) -7ype county Size Clem Use Affected Severity Pdhdad Boerne Note DRAINAGE. BASIN: Susquehanna River (conft) TULLY LAKE. - 0602o00 I R Lake . Cortland 1 I S:0 A B Bathing Impaired Nutrients Municipal I UPPER, L1"T YORK LK 0602-0017 Lake Cortland 102.0 A © Bathing Impaired Nutrients Agriculture 1 WIRMiY PT. RIBS. 06024)0(4 Lake Broome 1200.0 A C Fish Propsge Impaired - Nutrients Agriculture S DRAINAGE BASIN: Oswego-Seneca-Oneida CAYUOA LAKE 07054 MO hake Tompkins 5000.0 A AAM Water Supply Threatened Sill, Nutrients &asiah, Urban Runoff 1 . Agriwlture CHQTIENAN( k ) CRFI:K 0703 ,OWS River Onondaga 3.0 Mi, C Fish Propags Precluded Nutrients Agriculture 1 DERUYTER RES. ( 11014)004 Lake Madison 6WA A B Fishing Impaired Nutrients Agriculture S I DUBLIN BRO( IK 07.04 -0004 River Seneca 3 .0 N, C Fish Survival Precluded Oxygen Demand Agriculture S LAKE NF.ATAI IWANTA 07014)OIR Lake Oswego 750.0 A - B Bathing Precluded Nutrients Storm Sewers MARBUiTOWN (%RI'.I :K 07(44)003 River Wayne 0.5 W C Fish Survival Precluded . Pea kkks Agriculture S ONEIDA LAK14 0703-0001 Lake Oswego 51090.0 A 13 Bathing Impaired Nutrients Agriculture 507 OWASCO LAKE 0706-0(X)9 Lake Cayuga ' 67.84.0 A AA(T) Bathing Impaired Pathogens On-site Systems SF.NECARIVIiR 07014)008 River Onondaga I: S Mi. B Bathing Precluded Pathogens Om-site Systems DRAINAGE BASIN: Black River KELSEY CREEK 0801 -0191 River lefawn 1 .0 me C Fish Survival Precluded Prior* Orpnia haustrial 6 DRAINAGE ,BASIN9 Saint Lawr*nce River BLACK LAKE, 09064)001 Lake St.Lawmnoe 8500.0 A B Bathing Impsirod Nhdrieats Municipal 1 DRAINAGE BASIN: Upper Hudson River V1/IIIPPIF BROOK . 1102-0004 River Washington I .S Mi. CM Fish Survival Impaired OxfBar Demand Aglic lhtie s . DRAINAGE BASIN: Mohawk River SCHEMERI TORN CREleX 12014x)40 River Schenectady 1 .0 He C Fish Survival Impaired Nutriads Urban Runoff . S STARCI I FACTORY CK 12014)067 River Oneida 5.0 Mi, B Fish Pmpsgs Impaired Oxygen Demand Urban Runoff S 4/ 1 /98 MEMORANDUM To : John H. Adams From: Peter Lehner, Senior Attorney Re: Cornell Lake Source Cooling Project Permit . !Date: December 8, 1998 Background Several NRDC members who live near Cayuga Lake have recently raised concerns regarding the environmental impacts of Cornell University' s proposed Lake Source Cooling Project ("Cooling Project"). We investigated because the issue involves implementation of the Clean Water Act (CWA) § 303 (d) total maximum daily load . (TMDL) program, which is a Water Program priority. In brief, Cornell proposes to supplement their current water chilling system by pumping 37.5 million cubic meters a year of cold water from the bottom of the middle of Cayuga Lake, over 250 feet deep, into a .heat exchange facility and returning the used water to the southern end of the Lake at a depth , of about . 10 feet. On January 1 , 19989 DEC issued State Pollutant ,Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit No . 7=50-99-00009 700001 for the Project. As explained below, it appears that the Project SPDES permit was issued contrary to EPA regulations and should be rescinded. TMDL Regulation New York has classified Cayuga Lake as a class AA(T) waterbody. Pursuant to section 3030) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U. S .C . § 1313(d), New York has listed the southern portion of Cayuga Lake as a threatened water quality limited segment for silt ,and nutrient pollution. See New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water, New York State 1998 TMDL/303 (d) List, Table F, April 1 , 1998, at 42 (excerpt attached) . This means, ini essence, that Cayuga Lake already is subject to concentrations of discharges of silt and nutrients in excess of amounts that would allow it to be clean enough for its designated use. DEC data shows r that total phosphorus loads in the ambient water of the southern portion of the Lake are 25 -30 micrograms per liter, which exceeds the 20 micrograms/liter guidance value. ' See Lake Source Cooling Project The Draft Environmental Impact Statement includes a table showing that the phosphorus values in the shallow Southern portion of the Lake are 30.8, 23 .7, and 25.7 micrograms/liter in 1994, 1995, and 1996 respectively. See LSC DEIS at Table 2.3 .3- 14 (attached). The text, however, asserts that on the basis of this data, the "southern Cayuga Lake . currently meets the ambient water quality guidance value for [total phosphorus] in ponded waters, since the summer average concentration is consistently below 20 [micrograms/liter] ." See LSC DEIS at 2.3 .3 .3 .2: 1 . The conclusion in the.text flatly contradicts the actual data provided: - 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("LSC DEIS") at 2.3 . 3 .3 .2. 1 & Table 23 . 3 - 14 . Apparently, the stressed nature of this portion of the Lake is also evident in the abundant weeds and algae .' EPA' s TMDL regulations implementing section 303 (d) prohibit the issuance of permits to "a new source or a new discharger, if the discharge from its construction or operation will cause or `contribute to the violation of water quality standards." 40 C:F.R. § 122.4(i);. see also 40 CFR § 123 .25 (applying the new source prohibition at 40 C.F. R. § 122.4(i) to state NPDES programs ) (see provisions attached). Violation of Water Quality Standard for Phosphorus New York narrative water quality standards provide that . phosphorus shall be limited to "[n]one in amounts that will result in algae, weeds and slimes that will impair the waters for their best usages." 6 N.Y.C .R.R. §703 .2. The Lake currently faces environmental stress from phosphorus loading from point sources and from fertilizer runoff from nearby farming operations and lawns. See Julianne Basinger, "Cornell U. Pursues a '$60-Million Plan to Cool its Campus with Cayuga' s Water," The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 24, 1998, at. A28 ; see also. LSC DEIS at 2.3 .3 . 1 (relevant excerpts attached). According to DEC estimates, the Cooling Project will measurably enhance current phosphorus loading into the Lake by 3 -7 percent. See LSC DEIS at 2.3 .3 .3 . 1 . 1 .4 (relevant excerpts attached). This increase will certainly "cause or contribute" to the abnormal algal growth that currently afflicts the lake in violation of state water quality standards . 40 C.F.R. § 122 .4(i). Violation of Water Quality Standard for Silt New York narrative water quality standards provide that suspended and settleable solids such as silt shall be limited to " [n]one . . . that will cause deposition or impair the waters for their best usages." 6 N.Y.C,R.R. § 703 .2. Turbidity also is a function of the silt load and New York regulations limit. turbidity to "no increase that will cause a substantial visible contrast to natural conditions." Id. Project construction is almost certain to deposit substantial amounts of silt to the Lake. Indeed; in light of increased silt discharges from construction, DEC ' s FEIS states that Cornell must obtain both a section 404 permit and a stormwater permit for deposits resulting from project construction activities. See LSC DEIS at 1 . 7 . 1 .3 & 13.2 (relevant excerpts attached) . TML Regulation Violation As increased discharges of phosphorus from Project operation and increased discharges of silt from Project construction willI `.`cause or contribute" to violations of New York' s water quality standards, it appears that DEC ' s SPDES permit for the Project violates EPA' s TMDL regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 122 .4(1). Although this regulatory provision has not been extensively litigated, its plain meaning is crystal clear. Moreover, the. recent report of EPA ' s Federal Advisory Committee on the Z Although one could argue that the Project is only redistributing phosphorus, in fact the Project is moving phosphorus from the less stressed portion .of the Lake' s more stressed and listed — Southern section . Thus, there appears to be a net increase in phosphorus in the water quality limited segment. 2 TMDL Program clearly recommends full implementation and enforcement of the provision. See U.S . EPA, Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on the TMDL Program, July 1998, at 17 (relevant excerpt attached). Furthermore, the recent ruling in NRDC v.. Fox suggests that New York courts are vigorously 'enforcing the letter of TMDL implementation process. See NRDC v. Fox, Opinion and Order No . 94 Civ. 8424 (PKL) (S .D.N. Y. Nov: 12, 1998). Thus, it is likely that courts would uphold the moratorium on new sources of pollutants into waterbodies listed or impaired for those pollutants. Additional Concerns Initial review reveals that the alternatives analysis in the EIS. is quite weak. Furthermore, rather than perform the detailed phosphorus modeling necessary to demonstrate acceptable levels of environmental impact, the EIS simply depends on an analysis of the relative magnitude of phosphorus loads from various sources. A more definitive analysis of phosphorus loading impacts is necessary. In addition to .water pollution impacts from phosphorus. loading, the Cooling Project will result in significant, largely unmitigated fish entrainment. The Project will place a six-foot, unscreened intake pipe at the bottom of the Lake to draw in water at a rate of 550_ gallons ,a second. In the final EIS, DEC admits that plans to use ultrasound to ward off fish from the extreme intake force will not be effective .in warding off lake trout and other fish species at the depth of the intake pipe. Finally, DEC ' s DEIS states that Cornell must obtain both a section 404 permit for dredge and fill activities and a stormwater permit for discharges from project construction activities . We . are 'still examining wetland and stormwater impacts. Recommendations In light of the Project' s significant water quality impacts. and the probable illegality of the SPDES permit, DEC should consider rescinding the permit. The regulatory moratorium remains in effect until the waterbody is not longer listed, as impaired. While we understand that the two sewage treatment plants discharging to the southern portion of the Lake are scheduled to be upgraded, their service areas are also expected to expand. Thus, it is unlikely that these upgrades will fully address the use impairment of the Lake. It is our understanding that watersheds of three of the four major tributaries to the southern portion of the Lake offer significant opportunities to_ reduce phosphorus and silt discharges. It may be that an aggressive program to reduce 'these discharges could result in sufficient improvement to justify de-listing the Lake in the future. Unless and until these actions are taken and the southern portion of the Lake is de-listed; the moratorium on new sources remains the legal mandate. 3 FEB-04-99 17 : 27 From : NRUC T-545 P . 05/07 Job-258 NATUPAL FL RMURC DEMSE C01INCM February 2, 1999 Shirley K. Egan Associate Counsel Cornell University . Office of the University Counsel and Secretary of the Corporation 500 Day Hall Ithaca, NY 14853 -2801 Dear Ms. Egan: This letter responds to your letter dated January 19, 1999 regarding our cpncerns about the SPDES permit for Cornell University' s Lake Source Cooling e LSC') Project. Although. we disagree with you on certain legal issues, our common concern for the health of Cayuga Lake is of greater importance, I' believe we all agree that the southern portion of the' ' L ke is stressed and in need of attention. I would hope that . we can use this issue as an oppottuniry, to expedite some of those needed improvements, Before 1 suggest positive resolutions to this issue, however, let me address some of your specific legal assertions. Your first point is that the Lake is not on the 1996 303 (d) list and thus was not officially impaired at the time of the issuance of the SPDES permit. Although we agree (and we never asserted that it was on the 19961ist), this fact does not limit the scope of the EPA TMDL regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 122.4(1) pertaining to new sources . Nothing in the rule limits its reach to waters listed pursuant to 303 (d), listing is only one form of evidence of impairment. More important, TMDL lists evolve and early lists are not always comprehensive. As the 1998 list makes clear, the 1996 list was incomplete, (Given no evidence that the southern portion of the Lake is more impaired now than it was in 1996, the fact of its current listing clearly reflects a more complete list rather than a change in status.) An insufficient 303(d) list should not prevent impaired waterbodies from receiving full protection. In addition, you discuss Cayuga Lake' s listing in Table F of the 1998 303 (d) list. You appear to suggest that this section of the list somehow does not• carry the same legal consequences as other parts of the list. The Clean Water Act and EPA regulations, however, draw no distinction among parts of the 303 (d) list. What matters is simply that the Lake now has been properly listed. 40 West 20thStreet I Ste\•envinStrat Gtlntilnl'i�enteRuuic� ar�f Net: lork, NY 10011 auuc ern • IIIIIr _,9fi 21 : 27•?700 1\,h;llnt:cn;, 1)1 , .11114'• ) ti.111 fr1,iC1�Cp. ( .A U.t t lh 1.,� Angelo, CA 'Nlf)48 Fou.31 _ 7.7. 1;73 'ci_ :F�:- (%bo,ls =1 „ ,. w►. .nrAc.urg ;:-L\ 'I!_ ,tin, I Fax ,) 13 443- 59wi FE8-04-99 17 : 28 From : NM T-545 P . 06/07 Job-256 Shirley .K. Egan January 29, 1999 ' Page 2 Second, you disagree with our reference to near-shore measurements. While we agree that mid-Lake water quality readings would most likely be appropriate for establishing data for the waterbody as a whole, such readings are not necessarily, helpful to establish the condition of a particular. area. You can certainly agree that a bay or area may be stressed while more open areas are not. Third, although DEC and other involved agencies may have addressed the application of narrative water quality standards for silt and phosphorus, we fear the issue was not resolved in accordance with TMDL regulations. , It is good that these issue were addressed, but you can understand that our agreeing they were addressed does not necessarily mean that we agree with the resolution of these issues. You ,also mention, curiously, that we failed to inform DEC that the statute of limitations has passed. Again, that is true, but we also did not threaten to sue DEC. We are of course aware of the time bar to suit, but our aim is -not legal• action. We sincerely hope to arrive at a mutually agreeable, positive solution for .Cayuga Lake. Finally, you cite AE ADSAA v. Qkldh o 503 U.S. 91, 108 ( 1992), for the proposition that EPA has the latitude to permit new point source discharges into impaired waters. That case, however, focused on the interpretation of Clean Water Act section 401 regarding .water quality limitations, and mentioned section,303 only in passing. Section 303 is addressed directly by the recent recommendations of the TMDL Federal Advisory Committee, see, U. S . EPA, Report of the Federal Advisory on the TMDL Program, July 1998 , at 17 (urging full compliance with TMDL regulations at 40 C.F.R. §122.40)), and recent cases limiting agency discretion in implementing the TMDL process, See NtDC v. Fox, - F.Supp:2d --, 1998 WL 838752 at * 1 , I 1 - 12 (S.D.N. Y. Nov. 12', 1998) (No: 94 CIV 8424 (PKL)) (quoting 33 U:S .C. § 1313(d)( 1 )(C)); s_ also American Canoe Ass' n v. U. S . EPA, -- F. Supp.2d --, Slip op. at 16- 17 (E.D. Va. Dec. 18, 1998) (C.A.-No. 98479-A) (holding thatZPA' s regulation unplementing CWA § 303(d) "cannot be read as anything other than mandatory"). Putting aside, for now our' legal disagreement, I suggest we focus on development of a environmentally advantageous resolution of the issue. We should ' certainly be able to agree that both legally and factually, the new discharge would not be problematic if the southern portion of the Lake were no longer. impaired. The question should then be whether there are opportunities to reduce nutrient and sediment discharges into the southern portion of the Lake, It is precisely about this, issue that I have had discussions with DEC officials. It is my understanding that DEC is examining ways to achieve this, such as through POTW upgrades, stormwater pollution prevention plans and permits, and agricultural pollution prevention enhancements. FEB-04-99 17 : 28 From : NROC T-545 P - 07/07 Job-258 Shirley K. Egan January 29, 1999 Page 3 Cornell University has earned a well-deserved reputation for its institutional integrity , commitment to academic excellence, and interest in the future of the environment. NRDC has often had the tremendous assistance of Cornell scientists who are of the highest caliber and for whom we have the greatest. respect., To the extent some Cornell scientists worked on the LSC, NRDC has ao doubt that they acted independently and with complete integrity. We hope that this dialogue csicouragcs you to address the fundamental issue and develop a response worthy of Cornell ' s- reputation and standing. ' Let me also take this opportunity to clarify that NRDC is not taking a position with respect to other aspects of the LSC Project. " We, are not opposing the LSC Project . itself. We have not investigated the otherissues sufficiently. Although we flagged several other issues for DEC, we did so only- to assure they were addressed. ' We now& have no reason to believe they were not. 3hus, as. to the other issues raised by .the local opponents of the project, NRDC has no comment. We have told the press that our interest in this matter is limited solely to the improved implementation of an unportant Clean Water Act provision that establishes a mechanism with full public participation to analyze entire watersheds, . rather than just individual discharges, and develop plans to ensure that waters are .clean enough 'for their desired uses. Thank you for your consideration and your time. Sincerely, Peter Lehner Senior Attorney cc : John H. Adams Hon, John P. Cahill 6041WO Y6941"" I� a 5 Agency ( 1001 Fl EPA Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on then Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program .`s. The National Adviso Council :_`= - ry For Environmental � • r . .�: �,r, onmental Po icy and ::: . y Technolo INACEPT)gY } r'�. contribute to an exceedance of water quality standards. To date, howeveti States have not always implemented these requirements, nor has EPA generally emphasized the restriction on new sources (as defined in 40 CFR 122.2) contained in 40 CFR 122.4(1) . Some Committee members are concerned that enforcing the discharge restriction may in fact encourage development to spread. to less-polluted areas with fewer restrictions on land or water use. . Others are concerned about the regulation 's likely impact on industry and local economies. Some ,are concerned that the failure to apply the restrictions leads to increased environmental' degradation. Our recommendations, below, attempt to provide some flexibility to address these concerns. The Committee strongly believes; howeveti that the existing restrictions on new or additional discharges -provide sources with a powerful incentive to clean up the water' even before a TMDL is completed and must be actively implemented by the States and enforced by EPA. In addition to implementing the current regulatory restriction; environmental management agencies should actively encourage and support stakeholders who want to stabilize and enhance water quality before a TMDL is in place. These efforts will be compatible with and should produce results or action' plans that could be incorporated into a TMDL for the waterbody. The most successful stakeholder efforts will lead to the full restoration of the water and attainment of water quality standards and ultimately the water's removal from the §303(d)(1 ) list before a TMDL is developed. Stakeholder leadership during this interim period should not be confused with stakeholder efforts to fund and assist actual TMDL development, however, although stakeholders may play active roles in both of these related efforts. (The second topic of stakeholder participation in TMDL developmentr is discussed in Section 7.2, below.) [E) Recommendations 1 . The Committee recommends that States fully implement and EPA enforce the current statutory i and regulatory restrictions on new or expanded discharges that will cause or contribute to a water quality standards violation. The provision at 40 CFR 122.4(). should continue to be applied to all waters not meeting water quality standards, subject only to the exceptions discussed below. 20 The Committee recommends that EPA issue regulations directing States todevelop watershed characterizations and stabilization plans for all § 303(d)(1 Misted waters. 30 The Committee recommends that the "watershed characterization" include, at a minimum, the (following information: the condition and/or perceived impairment of the watershed; significant point and nonpoint sources contributing to the impairment; and a listing of remaining data gaps and data sources needed for TMDL development. Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on the TMDL Program, July Me — 17 — i MARmINO 17 : 08 From : NRDC T-580 P . 02/03 Job-367 . Chapter 31 Identifying impaired Waters 4, The Committee recommends that the mandatory "stabilization plan" identify and implement applicable Statelfederal authorities that will prevent further water quality degradation. 59 The Committee recommends that EPA issue regulations also authorizing an additionaloptional stabilization plan to encourage States to work with interested stakeholders to prevent worsening water quality and possibly to begin to move toward standards attainment. The optional stabilization plan would identify mechanisms that might allow forexceptionsfrom the point source discharge restrictions (or other applicable Interim constraints) upon demonstration that j the optional stabilization plan results in parameter-specific net progress in water quality through means other than those restrictions. States land stakeholders) would also be encouraged to explore and implement additional measures that would lead to or help obtain restoration of water + quality. During the optional stabilization planning phase, States must ensure that the public, environmental groups, and resource users have an opportunityto participate in the process. Ultimately, if these measures restore water quality so that water quality standards are attained, the I water maybe removed from the § 303(d)( 1 ) list. t 60 The Committee recommends that unless a water meets water quality standards as a result of a stabilization effort or is delisted In accordance with the recommendations in Section 3.6 of this report, it will remain on the schedule for TMDL development. 396 DELISTINC Problem The Clean Water Act does not directly address the issue of removing waters from the Statement § 303(d) ( 1 ) list. According to EPA's guidance for the 1994 § 303(d) ( 1 ) list, States may . remove waters when : ( 1 ) new information shows that "the original basis for listing is determined to be inaccurate' or (2) EPA has approved a TMDL designed to attain water quality standards. Given the Interim constraints that apply to listed waters, sources' (likely) interest in not being located along listed waters, and State agency interest in demonstrating progress in TMDL program activities, when should waters be taken off the § 303 (d)( 1 ) list? Is the 6303 (d)( 1 ) list a TMDL to-do list, a list of waters not meeting water quality standards, or something else? Discussion Because States may now remove waters not meeting water quality standards from the § 303 (d ) ( 1 ) list when the water's TMDL has been approved , the 9303 (d)( 1 ) list has been historically viewed as a "TMDL to-do list, " a list to stimulate prompt TMDL development activities . In its review of this issue, the Committee considered how keeping a water on the list until attainment might - speed TMDL Implementation (as well as development) and thus further the major objective of am 303(d) ( 1 )6 restoring impaired waters. As well , maintaining the list until attainment allows the States and the public to better monitor implementation and to track progress toward water Oil quality goals . Report of the Federal Advisory Committee an the TMDL Program, !ulw 1998 — / 8 — (E ti ; MAR- 17=99 17 : 09 From : NROC T-680 P . 03/03 Job-367 Chapter I Identifying Impaired Waters IS Recommendations: 1 . The Committee recommends that EPA revise its §303(d)(1 ) regulations to provide thatStates may remove waters from the 4303(d)(1) list only when. the listed1water has attained water quality standards; or — new information indicates that `the original basis Ofor listing is determined so be inaccurate" (in other words, the new information indicates that the listed water meets applicable water quality standards). 2 . The Committee recommends that states develop a procedure for submitting listing/delisting petitions to EPA between listing cycles. The same basic criteria and procedureil must be used for listingldelisting watem is i { 1 . .t . S Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on the TMQL Program, July 1998 19 } a �. . Citizens to Save Cayuga Lake 2 Hillcrest Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 To: Town of Ithaca Town Board c � -t in Doria Higgins for Citizens to Save Cayuga Lake s ` Date : March 22 , . 1999 The attached pages from the Environmental Impact Statement ( EIS) for the Cornell Lake Source Cooling Project (LSC) document that the nearest monitoring station to the intake location for LSC is S10 . The latitude of S10 is 42-29-42 and longitude 76=31 -90: the longitude for the intake is 42=29=424 and longitude 76-31 -870. The difference of 3 seconds longitude between the two sites, I have been told, is about 300 feet. (See attached pages 2, 3, and 4.) No data was collected from station , S10 in 1995 or 1996, and ' only a small number of variables (excluding many important ones) were collected in 1994. (See attached pages 51 6, and 7 . ) There is no data (even for 1994) on the water quality at station S10 given in the EIS. Therefore, all statements about the effect of the water from the intake on the discharge area are misrepresentations of fact and most definitely reason to revoke the permit, The obscure presentation of the data on pages 2 and 4 of the attached suggests efforts to avoid identifying the closeness of the intake site and S10. We have been told by Robert Bland -that Station S11 was originally designated to represent the water quality of the intake region . Pages 8 and 9 of the attached pages show that concentrations of Soluble Reactive Phosphorus for the year 1995 was 93% higher at S11 , the former intake site, than at P2 at the discharge area and 74%. higher for 1996. Was this the reason Cornell decided to Abandon an intake site near S11 ? Throughout the EIS the depth of the intake site is referred to as 250 .or 260 feet deep. But monitoring station S10, according to Table C= 1 = 1 (see attached page 3) is only 224.7 feet deep and S11 is only 236.2 feet deep . Since the temperature of the discharge water is a function of the depth of the intake pipe , and the temperature of the discharge water is an important variable, such inaccuracies in the EIS are significant misrepresentations of fact about the harmlessness of LSC . ATTACHMENT # 2 . . 2 Page R1 • MYERS R2 POINT -N 0 Gulf Creek •• G� oa •c v` do-Ned ( A+ake nape pipeline is pp e II ne is 4d �led S12 + wo motes in 1e�y -{-o aCCUraioe ( Sill + h a Z= s0 ye � resc n'� • j e +h o4 'p I p ? % I P4 PROPOSED INTAKE D , �h ' A S K '% , • PIPELINE ow2 MI. C�ee % s9 1�bio � P • S8 3 • ` S7 SB O S5 • LEGEND • S2 S4 P ' = PRIMARY STATION PROPOSED OUTFALL • R , REEFEREN STATION PIPELINE N 500 FT. S 1 P2 Ren eick BrO°k • P1 0 1 /2 1 MILE CAYUGA 11 1 HEIGHTS ( WASTEWATER APPROXIMATE SCALE PLANT ENT Williams Creek ITHACA AREA WASTEWATER ' TREATMENT PLANT i ACORNELL UNWERSITY Stwtl &wbP.� U c RHACA, NEW YORK �GINEW g � TM LAKE SOURCE COOLING PROJECT cv CAZD*Mk NEW rase FIGURE C- 1 - 1 DATE 3/97 Joe No.: 43187ZA CAYUGA LAKE MONMRING STA11ONS DOS o , r A n pen c.l I x C- TABLE C- 1 - 1 STATIONS MONITORED PER YEAR AND THEIR GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS Pi 1994 12 1095 42 28 00 76 30 30 P2 1994- 1996 4. 1 13 .4 422820 763040 j S 1 1994 3 .6 j 11 . 8 i 4228 15 76 30 96 i - t a S2 1994 5 . 0 16.4 42 28 38 1 76 31 42 S3 1994 5 .2 17. 1 j 42 28 39 1 76 31 06 S4 1994 6. 2 20. 3 42 28 52 76 30 74 S5 1994 16. 7 54. 8 j 42 28 51 76 3155 S6 1994 15 .4 50. 5 42 28 67 ! 7631 15 S7 1994 12.4 403 42 28 78 76 30 77 i S8 1994 415 139 .4 42 28 79 76 31 63 P3 1994 , 43 .4 142 .4 42 28 93 76 31 30 S9 1994 46 .2 151 . 5 42 29 00 76 30 90 P4 1994- 1996 6593 214.2 42293 j 76 31 41 i S 10 1994 i 68 .5 224. 7 42 29 42 ; C76 31 90 �---_ S 11 j 19944996 72 .0 236.2 42 29 60 j 76 31 45 • S12 1 1994 ! 66 .4 217 . 8 42 29 76 7631 11 i Reference (R1 ) j 1994 100 328 .0 I 42 32 40 76 33 68 j Reference (R2) ; 1994 103 33708 42 32 18 76 32 70 �rol AppenJix & I 43187ZA DEIS � • 1 11■■■■ G. `, \� ■■►11■\■� 116 II ■ f ��\1■■��■■■■■ ■■■■■1«I►_ �; zc� i 1■■■■If■■: '�`\■■►1\�■■ %'llllll!'._ . . m■■■Bee■■■■11?��L'!lorial's■■�b. 9i Im■■IJ■■■ ►1■�,�\\ilk, ��■III IIIiI 7■■e���e■■ha . ' 111 1►/■■■■■■\ \`■►■gI\% ■111111111 S `"1'^1\\1■■ 11■ ®��i ■■■■e1�1�� �■� 1■■/■■■■■/■■19411 1XVIEVIS a\■, �. 1.■ 1■G■■ ■■■G■■ ■C►v■oNvol\111% ` f���`C ;�; 1�1■� 1!■■■■Ili E ;;; ol 1% �■■■■'■■ ■,l� , 5■i■1■1\I\\I ��li' �� �■ " �11■■� ■Bee■■191 ■�Q�! ; 'anI 1■■■■■■e■■■t!��■«IN sk �HUMN ■. � , 9■ ��,■■®■■■III e1 �; 4_i4 1R1119100UNIVISIO®■eWOFF10 9' 1■IGI■i�3�G■■■■IAfiApiffuT\ ■oWIN VEMs■■■k924 NF:I ■■ 9 9VJP4114 1IM001 0 Bosom■I►■\■■■■■� ��1■®■■l��If: � 1111/1111 1 1 �� : IS eeN■■■■Kok e■■■■■■■e1eeee�R � ,E:,� ih� , sss■■■■s1� �'s■■■■■mss■■■ ■■I�; v1�i e■■■■Bee%e;\>�\e■mBee■o■es■■' ; - - ■eereee■rme a■■■■■■■■e:Milk)" �1■e■ ■�� ■■►�t� ee ■■I�em►■■ a . '510 oh1 iv1 � � rs b0X Pa9e S no 4 es+ , n9s - c e Sit 95 TABLE C- 1 -2 SUMMARY OF 1994 MONITORING PROGRAM BY ANALYTE, STATION, DEPTH, AND FREQUENCY . . . . .. . : . . . . . :. : t > .. : .:;: : ;:::::::;::::. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . Temperature I P - P 2 - 5 meter intervals Weekly (June - Dissolved Oxygen S 1 - S12 ,) (shallow) September) pH - 10 meter intervals i Monthly (October - Total Dissolved Solids ! (deep) December) Specific Conductance Oxidation/Reduction Potential Secchi Disk Transparency j Ammonia-Nitrogen P1 - P4 P1 and P2 : surface, Biweekly (June Total Phosphorus bottom ; September) Soluble Reactive Phosphorus P3 and P4: 10 meter j Monthly (October - Silica intervals i December) Nitrate-Nitrogen Turbidity 5-Day BOD PI - P4 P 1 and P2 : surface, Monthly (June - ! Total Organic Carbon bottom December) j Total Suspended Solids P3 and P4: 10 meter ! Chloride intervals Chlorophyll a P1 - P4 P1 and P2 : surface, Biweekly (June - Phaeophytin R1 , R2 bottom i September) P39 P49 R1 , and R2 : Monthly (October - 10 meter intervals December) Phytoplankton P1 - P4 Epilimnetic composites P1 - P4 biweekly R1 , R2 (June - September) R1 , R2 monthly (July - September) Zooplankton P29 P4 Water column net haul P1 - P4 biweekly R1 , R2 I (June - September) R1 , R2 monthly (July - September) Benthic Invertebrates P1 - P4, Lake bottom sediments i Once (July 1994) I R1 , R2 Dioxin (2,3 , 7,&TCDD) P4 60m ' Once (November 1994) Trihalomethane Formation P4 60m ; Once (August 1994) Potential (THIMFP) and Haloacetic Acid 1 : �/a � tll Appepndix 43187ZA DEIS nGTe Jrhere ore no . Page +e c,+1 ngs a 4 I nf G k e S i -fie S l 4 D• (-h 9g .n s TABLE C- 1 -3 SUMMARY OF 995 ATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM BY ANAL , STATION, DEPTH , AND FREQUENCY :. . .: :. .. . .::.;:::.;:.;:..; : . . .:. . . . A .. f" :. : .. . .. ., . : :>::'>::::>:>:>:. .::: 5::»:::::: .; tiIYCif :::: .:: .: .. .... . :::... ::. :::. ::::. :::. ::::::::......::::::::::::. ::::: .::. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total P and SRP P4 S 11 1 10 m intervals (0, 10, Monthly: April and May 20, 302 402 509 602 70) ; Biweekly: June-Nov 1 P2 Mid-depth sample Monthly: April and May (2 m) ! Biweekly: June-Nov Field Hydrolab ; P4 S 11 10 m intervals Monthly: April and May Parameters (DO, pH, i Biweekly: June-Nov specific conductivity) P2 1 m intervals 1 Monthly: April and May Biweekly: June-Nov Zooplankton: P49 P2 Depth integrated 1 3 samples: April-June Species Composition (through water column) Phytoplankton: P4 Depth integrated ( 10 m) 13 samples : April-June Species Composition P2 Depth integrated (4 m) Chlorophyll a P49 S 11 I Depth integrated ( 10 m) Monthly: April and May Biweekly: June-Nov P2 Depth integrated (4 m) Total Suspended S 11 i Every 10 m (0, 109 209 Monthly: April and May Solids 309 40, 502 609 70) Biweekly: June-Nov P2 Mid-depth sample Monthly: April and May (2 m) Biweekly: June-Nov Turbidity CS , Every 10 m Monthly: April and May I i Biweekly: June-Nov P2 Mid-depth sample Monthly: April and May (2 m) Biweekly: June-Nov i Secchi disk P4 11 P2 I Surface ' Monthly: April and May Biweekly: June-Nov Silica i S 11 10 m intervals j Monthly: April and May 1 Biweekly: June-Nov P2 Mid-depth sample Monthly: April and May j (2 m) Biweekly: June-Nov Vol ► 1 � h �' eh �l � x — I 43187ZA DEIS P , L3 e na+e + sere are no + es - m3s a+ ln +ake S tie 510 DL t4m, 99ins TABLE C- 1 -4 SUMMARY OF 1996 WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM BY ANALYTE , STATION , DEPTH , AND FREQUENCY :. . . . . .. . :::. :: . :. :::::::::: .:::.;:.;>:.::.::::.::.::..<:: <:< ::: . . Total P and SRP P49 St I 10 m intervals (0, 10, Monthly: April, May, Oct 20, 309 409 509 60, 70) Biweekly: June-Sept i P2 Mid-depth sample Monthly: April,May, Oct i (2m) Biweekly: June-Sept Field Hydrolab P4, S1 I 10 m intervals Monthly: April, May, Oct Parameters (DO, pH, i ! Biweekly: June-Sept specific conductivity) P2 ; lm intervals Monthly: April, May, Oct Biweekly: June-Sept I � Phytoplankton. P2 Depth integrated 4 m) Biweekly: April 24-S ep t 18 Species Composition Chlorophyll a P4, S1 I Depth integrated Monthly: April, May, Oct ( 10 m) Biweekly: June-Sept j ! P2 Depth integrated (4 m) Total Suspended S11 Every 10 m (0, 10, 20, Monthly: April, May, Oct Solids ; 30, 409 50, 60, 70) Biweekly: June-Sept P2 Mid-depth sample Monthly: April, May, Oct (2 m) Biweekly: June-Sept Turbidity i S 11 Every 10 m Monthly: April, May, Oct Biweekly: June-Sept P2 IMid-depth sample Monthly: April, May, Oct (2 m) Biweekly: June Sept i Secchi disk P4, S1 1 , P2 Surface Monthly: April, May, Oct Biweekly: June-Sept 43187ZA DEIS \/ 0 ( A-iptgen d i x C ` Pz A s a 9 p �,yg1hS ' WATER CHEMISTRY DATA 1995 Soluble Reactive Phosphorus, SRP (µg/1) (Below data front Life Science Laboratory, Inc.) Y/ St Depth (m) 4/25 5/23 6/6 6/20 7/5 7/ 19 8/8 8/22 9 9/19 10/23 12/13 Avg. Med. Min. Max. Sid err. P2 2 * 3 .7 2.2 <2 14 4.5 Q. 2.2 3 3 .3 3 .9 * 4 . 5 3 .5 <2 14 1 .2 - P4 0 $ 3 .9 14 <2 18 2 .3 4 2.2 2.3 . 12 2 . 1 * 6 3 .9 <2 18 2 10 ¢,Z 33 2.8 <2 12 23 2 .3 5. 1 4.5 2 . 5 2 .4 * 4 2 .8 <2 12 I 20 ¢ 4 .4 5 .9 <2 13 23 <2 10 33 <2 2 * 4 . 5 3. 3 <2 13 11 .2 30 ¢ <2 6.8 <2 7 .8 2 . 8 2 <2 2. 5 2 . 8 3 .6 * 3 .4 2. 8 <2 7 . 8 0.73 40 <2 . 12 <2 4.6 4.3 5 2 3 5 5 .3 * 4 .4 4 .6 <2 .12 0 .91 50 ¢ 2.4 10 <2 11 3 .5 <2 2 2. 8 <2 6.7 * 4 .3 2.8 <2 11 1 . 1 60 4.5 9.7 3 8.9 8.4 7.9 23 33 12 9. 1 * 6. 8 7 .9 2 . 3 12 0.97 Duplicates * <2 306 2.8 7 .4 <2 <2 2.2 2.2 3 . 1 6.4 * no e . 1 Site • P4 20m P4 20m P4 60m P4 50m P4 40m P4 10m P4 30m P4 20m P4 Om P4 60m * Av 9 S ca 1 70 tn 1 5 Duplicates - 23 - - 8 .9 - q %3 61 h 6 h e r + h a n Site - S1120m - SIIIOm - - - - MS (%) 105 92 90 97 76 55 68 81 47 105 120 • Avg t P2 [,h 9 CJ 1 A-S MSD (%) 95 98 94 109 86 86 115 86 57 68 136 • Site P2 2m P2 2m P2 2m P2 2m P2 2m P2 2m P2 2m P2 2m P2 2m 112 2m 112 2m • MS (%) 119 - 88 - - - 101 - - - - MSD (%) 113 - 100 - - - 93 - - - Site SII 60m - Sit 60m - - S11 60m - Underlined font indicates data are from Ichthyological Associates (due to a change in sampling program). Soluble Reactive Phosphorus, SRP (µg/1) (Below data from Ichthyological Associates) S,tasiQq Depth (m) 4/25 5/23 6/6 6/20 7/5 7/19 8/8 8/22 9/5 . 9/19 10/23 12/13 Avg. Med. Mina Max. Std err. Sll 0 7 0.37 0 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 2 7 1 .9 0.69 0 7 0.75 10 * 0.03 0 0 3 2 0 0 3 0 3 5 1 . 5 0.030 0 5 0. 54 � 11 20 * 0.37 0 1 0 2 0 0 3 . 0 5 5 1 .5 0.37 0 5 0.60 30 * 0.37 0 0 2 0 1 1 5 0 6 5 1 .9 1 .0 0 6 0.70 40 * 0137 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 1 5 7 1 .8 1 .0 0 7 0.71 50 * 0.71 5 0 4 1 6 1 3 0 12 7 3 .6 3 .0 0 12 I . l 60 * OM 6 3 8 1 0 5 4 14 7 ' S 5.0 0 . 14 1 . 3 70 * 6.54 5 7 7 l4 6 7 15 9 8.7 7.0 5 15 0.99 Duplicates 0003 0 2 2 0 I. 1 2 0 12 7 Site • S1120m S1120m S1160m S1150m S1140m SII lOm S1130m S1120m SIIOm S1160m S1140m MS (µg11) 5 . 17 11 , 9 12 7. 15 5 11 11 18 10 Sitel S I 160m S I 1 60m S I 1 60m S 11 60m S 11 . 60m S I 160m S I 160m S 11 60m S 11 60m S 11 60m S 11 60m tS sa. s Ih "f" ctke 5 fe iS cif 2 T eef d �cP pPendl'x y Page 3 of 4 V 0 I M A Cr 0 1) 2s- o f eel ► s 76. 2 me +ers . OJ41991n .S WATER CHEMISTRY DATA, 1996 P2 s0. t+44L e �hs Turbidity (NTU) g 5 Stating Depth (m) 4/24 5/21 6/12 6/26 7/10 7/24 8/8 8/21 9/4 9/ 18 10/16 Avg. Med. Min. Max. Std err. 2 21 4. 1 1 . 1 53 2.4 23 0.73 3 .8 6.9 3 2.2 4.8 3 0.73 21 1 .70 ' S11 0 5 . 1 0.6 2 .4 2.4 2 2 .9 3 .2 5 .7 7.4 < 1 . .. . _ ._< 1 3 .0 2 .4 < 1 7 .4 . 0.68 10 4 .7 1 .2 0.91 1 .8 1 .2 1 .5 2.8 1 .6 4 . 1 < 1 < 1 1 .9 1 .5 < 1 4 .7 0.42 20 63 3 .2 1 . 1 53 < 1 13 3 . 1 1 .8 2.4 < 1 < 1 2 .4 1 . 8 < 1 6 . 3 0.59 30 6. l 1 .5 0.91 1 .9 < 1 < 1 1 . 1 2 .3 1 .2 < 1 < 1 1 . 5 1 . 1 < 1 6. 1 0.49 40 5 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 < 1 < 1 L5 1 .5 < 1 < 1 1 .2 1 .3 1 .2 < 1 5 0.39 50 6.6 6. 1 1 .5 1 .8 < 1 1 .4 0.95 1 1 . 1 < 1 2.2 2 .2 1 .4 < 1 6 .6 0.65 60 4.9 3 .2 13 2.4 1 .2 1 0.72 1 .5 < 1 < 1 1 .2 1 .7 1 .2 < 1 4 .9 0 .40 70 5 .9 3 .2 0 7.6 1 .6 1 .5 1 4 6. 1 1 .9 2.5 3 .4 2 .5 1 7 .6 0 .68 Duplicate 6.6 4.4 1 .2 4.5 4 2.9 0.91 Li 3 .5 3 1 .6 Site Sl 150m P2 2m P2 2m P2 2m P2 2m P2 2m P2 2m SI 140m S11 50m P2 2m S11 70m Soluble Reactive Phosphorus, SRP (µg/I) (Below data from Ichthyological Associates) St 'on Depth (m) 4/24 5/21 6h2 6/26 7/10 7/24 8/8 8/21 9/4 9/18 10/16 Avg. Med. Min. Max. Std err. P2 2 293 4.9 0.8 0.8 4 0.7 5 .9 0 4. 1 3 .6 0.23 4.9 3 .6 0 29.3 2.5 - - - - -- - - . ... . _ _ . - . . _. ._ . . . SI1 0 133 4.2 0.8 03 0.2 0.3 4 4 . 5 2 . 1 1 .8 0.23 2 .9 1 .8 0.2 13 .7 1 .2 10 14.4 7.4 0.8 003 0.2 1 0. 1 7 .2 6 0 0 3 .4 0.8 0 14 .4 1 .4 20 14.8 7.4 4 . 1 03 0.2 0.3 0.5 5.3 . 2. 1 0 0.89 3 .3 0.89 0 14 . 8 1 .4 30 14.6 7.1 4.8 0 0.2 1 0.2 3 0.2 0.4 1 .55 3 .0 1 0 14 .6 1 .3 40 15.4 7.8 7. 1 4.3 0.2 1 .3 1 . 8 2.2 0.2 0 1 .55 3 .8 1 . 8 0 15 .4 1 .4 50 15 .6 7. 1 7.4 7.2 1 .9 03 6.8 4. 1 7 .5 0.7 6.85 6.0 6.9 0. 3 15 .6 1 . 3 60 15 .4 8.5 7.4 6.9 53 5 8. 1 8.7 2 . 1 7.65 8.34 73 2 . 1 15 .4 - 1 .0 70 15 .6 8. 1 8 7.5 3 .3 8.7 143 11 6 7 . 1 3 .87 8.5 8 3 . 3 15 .6 1 .2 Duplicate 15.8 * 5. 1 7.9 0.2 4.3 8 . 1 10 2 . 1 6.4 0.89 -7 0 Site S1 I 70m 511 60m 511 30m 511 60m 511 30m 511 60m 511 60m S I L 61hn 511 60m 511 611m P2 2m A V G S l t at 70 M I s / !0 MS (µg/1) 20.8 14. 1 12.6 12. 1 9.5 14 .7 16.3 14 113 14.3 9. 16 ht her +kah A"9 PZ MSD (µg/1) 19.8 * . 12.9 12 . 1 9.9 17 10.9 14 . 3 9. 16 y p. l-hgs Ahs Site S1160m 51160m 51170m S1170m 51170m 51170m 51170m 51170m S1170m 51170m 51170m Notes: R: Data rejected as field or laboratory error. * : no data available. Underlined data are flagged as estimates due to poor matrix spike recoveries. All statistics were calculated using a replacement value of one half the laboratory limit of detection for a parameter if the observation was below that limit. TP duplicate sites not labeled on 5/21 /96. E ► 5 says Intake sife is of 25o deep 250 =feet i 5 "76 . 2 m efer5 A etncltx C - 1 Page 3 of 3 V O P (� FINAL Citizens to Save Cayuga Lake 2 Hillcrest Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 To: Town of Ithaca Town Board From : Doria Higgins for Citizens to Save Cayuga Lake , Date : March 26, 1999 Subject: Correction to March 22 ,' 1999. memo Because the data for longitudes and latitudes were improperly indicated in Table C- 1 - 1 * (decimal minutes were presented as minutes and seconds)' and ,because of my,.difficulty in reading the tiny type of the note in Drawing 5003-C- 101 * , the distance between monitoring station S10 and the intake location was incorrectly given as 300 feet in my March 22 memo. In fact, the distance is only 130 feet. The latitude of S10 correctly indicated is 42°29.42 ", longitude76°31 . 90 '. The latitude of intake is 42 029.4240, and longitude 76 031 . 870 ". The premise of my memo, . that monitoring station S10 was the nearest monitoring station to the intake location and that there are no data from S10 in the Environmental Impact Statement :for the Cornell Lake Source Cooling Project remains true. *Attached to March 22 memo and from the Environmental Impact Statement for the Cornell Lake Source Cooling Project. ATTACHMENT # 3 CITIZENS TO SAVE CAYUGA LAKE 2 Hillcrest Drive Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 (607) 273-6450 b A e. r! f r Z j j i The following faults , omissions, misstatements of fact and /or contradictions of fact in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Cornell Lake Source Cooling`Project (LSC) and in the Permit issued by NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to Cornell to construct and operate the project indicate that the permit should be revoked for the good of the community. 1 . The SPDES permit issued by NYS DEC to Cornell to construct and operate LSC was issued on January 21 , 1998. At that time DEC had in hand not just one but two DEC documents which identified the "water supply" of Cayuga Lake as "threatened." With ' that knowledge in hand, and both those documents distributed throughout the state, DEC should not have issued the permit. The first document "The 1996 Priority Waterbodies List for the Oswe o-Seneca-Oneida River Basin" 9 dated September, 1996, identified bathing , fish propagation and aesthetics of the southern basin of Cayuga Lake as "stressed" and the "water supply" as "threatened." It stated "Ithaca takes its water from the lake near Bolton' Point . . . which doesn't appear to be presently affected by the silt problem. However, water supply is threatened if the turbidity problem gets worse: Most of the problems are at the extreme southern end . . ." (page 159) The second document "The 3rd Draft of Text" of "New York State 1998 303 (d) List", dated December 30, ;, 1997, "flagged" the "water supply" of the Tompkins County .area of Cayuga Lake as being "threatened" because of "Silt, Nutrients." The footnote for items on that page (page 36) read "Waterbodies flagged as having water quality problems , but that require verification through the review of available data (or) the collection of additional data . . ." It should be noted the December 30 document was a draft of the text — the listings were final. 20 Throughout the bulky four volumes of the EIS there is no data whatsoever on the water quality at the actual LSC intake site. There is data from three testing stations in the southern basin. S11 and P4 are both about �2000 feet from the intake site and nearer than that to each other. On at least one variable, Total Phosphorus, the findings from S11 and P4 differed considerably. Thus, assumptions about water for LSC intake based on either one of those sites cannot be trusted to be accurate. The other testing site P2 is at the spot which will be the end of the discharge pipe: DEC should not have issued the permit for LSC until data from the actual intake site was available for evaluation and7review. 31 The EIS averaged total Phosphorus data from only S11 and P4 and ignored data from P2 (which showed Total Phosphorus way above NYS guidance value) and concluded "These data indicate that southern Cayuga Lake !i currently meets the . . 1 guidance value for TP . . .". If the data from P2 had been averaged in , as should have been done according to correct scientific methodology, the average guidance value of that area would have been above NYS guidance value for TP. The DEC permit states that obtaining the permit by misstatement of fact is grounds for revoking the permit. DEC should revoke the permit if only for the above described manipulation of the data, and thus misstatement of fact. 4. Data from the EIS table "Water Chemistry Data 1996"' (Vol III Appendix C- 10 page 3 showed that PP P 9 ) the amount of Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (the kind most quickly absorbed by algal bloom and thus a significant contributor to the aging of the lake) from S11 near the intake pipe was markedly above the amount of SRP at the testing station P2 near the discharge pipe. One can assume then that the waters deeper in the lake will contain more SRP, and thus transferring those waters to the warmer shallower southern end of the lake near Stewart Park will increase algal bloom and hasten eutrophication, the aging of the lake. 5. There is no specification in the permit that baseline data be obtained before start-up of LSC even though both the Tompkins County Environmental Management . Council and the County Planning Department recommended that such data be obtained. It is noteworthy that the draft permit did recommend collection of such data as "ideal", but that suggestion was deleted from the final permit. Why was such a prudent and rational suggestion deleted from the final permit? I 6. Why does the area of the lake specified by DEC for monitoring the effects of LSC after start-up not extendito the area of the Bolton Point intake site, drinking water source for many of us, which is about one half mile north of the LSC intake? This omission is particularly disturbing since all the EIS Figures 2.3.3-8A-8D show the estimated plume of, Soluble Reactive Phosphorus from the LSC discharge pipe to extend well up to past the Bolton Point intake site for our, drinking water supply. ATTACHMENT #4 over, please