Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
TB Minutes 2004-10-18
October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 Regular Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, October 18 , 2004 at 5 : 30 p . m . 215 North Tioga Street, . lthaca , NY THOSE PRESENT : Supervisor Valentino , Councilwoman Grigorov ; Councilman Lesser, Councilman Burbank , Councilwoman Gittelman , Councilman Stein EXCUSED : Councilman Engman STAFF PRESENT : Tee-Ann Hunter, Town Clerk ; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering ; Fred Noteboom , Highway Superintendent; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning ; Al Carvill , Budget Officer; Judy Drake , Human Resources Manager; Andy Frost , Director of Building and Zoning OTHERS PRESENT : John Barney , Attorney for the Town ; Joseph Wetmore , 128 Glenside Road ; David Klein , Ithaca Town Justice ; Ed Wilson , Cornell University ; Rich De Paolo , Ithaca resident ; Kate Hackett, Tompkins County Planning Department ; D . Kiefer, Tompkins County Legislature ; Bill Goodman , EcoVillage at Ithaca CALL TO ORDER : Supervisor Valentino called the meeting to order at 5 : 30 p . m . and led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance . Agenda Item No . 3 — Report of Tompkins County Legislature There was no one present from the County Legislature to address the Board . Agenda Item No . 4 — Report of City of Ithaca Common Council (Attachment #1 — 10/12/04 letter from Allen Green and Waterfront Parks and Recreation Facilities proposal for 2005) Robin Korherr appeared before the Board on behalf of Common Council . She requested the Town 's assistance in funding the G . I .A. C . adult program . Supervisor Valentino told her she had received a nice proposal , with good information , from G . I .A . C . The proposal will come before the Town 's Recreation and Human Service Committee for their evaluation and a recommendation for the Town Board . Ms . Korherr thanked Supervisor Valentino for the September 30 , 2004 Town Board Meeting devoted to discussion of the Recreation Partnership . Supervisor Valentino told her she had received a proposal from Alan Green . Supervisor Valentino reported she had asked Mr. Green for some additional information so that the Town could evaluate the proposal . Ms , Valentino stated her understanding that she and Ms . Korherr were left to putting together a committee to start looking at facilities , Cass Park and Stewart Park . Ms . Korherr requested that the Memorandum of Understanding before the Board regarding recreation facilities be discussed further before the Town Board votes on it. Supervisor Valentino told her she was willing to do that . 1 112 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 Agenda item No . 5 — Report of Fire Commissioners (Attachment #2 — written report and Board of Fire Commissioners Budget Proposal ) Bob Romanowski appeared before the Board and read his monthly Fire Commission report. Agenda Item No . 7 — Consider Setting a Public Hearing to Consider Approval of the j Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant Budget for 2005 I The Board received a copy of the proposed budget in their packets . i Supervisor Valentino told the Board that approval of the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant Budget was a new procedure for the Board . As part of the Intermunicipal Wastewater Agreement signed December 31 , 2003 , the Towns of Dryden and Ithaca have to approve the point budget . Supervisor Valentino briefly reviewed the budget with the Board . She drew their attention to the recovery rate calculation of $683 , 81 and stated it was is reduction from the preceding year. TB RESOLUTION NO . 2004-157 : Set Public Hearing to Consider Approval of the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant 2005 Budget I BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to advertise for a public hearing to be held at the next budget meeting of the Town Board at 6 : 15 p . m . , November 4 , 2004 , in order that they may consider the j adoption of the 2005 Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant Budget . I MOVED : Supervisor Valentino i SECONDED : Councilwoman Gittelman i VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Gittelman , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye . Carried unanimously. Agenda Item No . 6 — Persons to be Heard and Board Comments (Attachment #3 — Letter from Joe Wetmore Joe Wetmore appeared before the Board to read his letter commenting on the Town ' s sign ordinance . The clerk was given a copy for the record . Agenda Item No . 20 — Consent TB RESOLUTION NO . 2004- 158 : Consent Agenda Items . i BE IT RESOLVED , that the governing Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves and/or adopts the resolutions for Consent Agenda Items as presented . 2 1 � 3 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 MOVED : Councilman Lesser SECONDED : Councilwoman Gittelman VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Gittelman , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye . Carried unanimously . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2004-158a : Town Board Minutes of September 13 , 2004 WHEREAS , the Town Clerk has presented the minutes for the Regular Town Board Meeting held on September 13 , 2004 , to the governing Town Board for their review and approval of filing ; NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED , the governing Town Board does hereby approve for filing the minutes for the meeting held on September 13 , 2004 as presented at the October 18 , 2004 board meeting . MOVED : Councilman Lesser SECONDED : Councilwoman Gittelman VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Gittelman , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye . Carried unanimously . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2004-158b : Bolton Point Abstract. WHEREAS , the following numbered vouchers for the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission have been presented to the governing 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 . Voucher Numbers : 492-495 566-571 573-633 Check Numbers : 7577-7578 7580-7581 7653-7658 7661 -7721 3 114 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 I Operating Fund $ 150 , 679 . 59 1998 SCADA Capital Project $ 418 . 05 2002 Office Space Addition $ 382 , 213 . 10 2003 East Hill Tank Project $ 763 . 27 TOTAL $ 534 . 074 . 01 MOVED : Councilman Lesser SECONDED : Councilwoman Gittelman jVOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Gittelman , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye . Carried unanimously . I Agenda Item No . 19 - Discussion of City/Town Memorandum of Understanding on Contribution to Operation of Cass Park (Attachment #4 — Memorandum of Understanding ) The Board received , in their packets , copies of the proposed Memorandum of Understanding prepared by the City and the changes to that Memorandum of Understanding of recommended by Supervisor Valentino and Attorney Barney . Supervisor Valentino went over the recommended changes with the Board . The Board discussed the information about facility use the Town would need to determine proportionate use by Town residents . Councilman Stein commented that requiring certain information from the City prior to paying them doesn 't sound like a partnership . Supervisor Valentino told him the Town has a long history with the City of trying to get information . Regarding the names of the pool ' s season pass holders , Supervisor Valentino told him the Town has put in a considerable amount of money , partnering with the City , to survey pool use and to use that information they need total figures from the City . She asked if any Board members had a problem with that . No one stated that they did . Councilman Burbank stated he was uncomfortable striking StElwart Park from the agreement. He felt it was reasonable for the City to argue that Stewart Park is part of the mix in terms of Town usage . Supervisor Valentino told him that the Town and City had not yet reached an agreement on that and the Memorandum of Understanding relates to where the City and Town have been in the past , not where they are going in thin future . Councilman Burbank asked if Supervisor Valentino would be open to another agreement for Stewart Park . j Supervisor Valentino said , yes , and told Mr. Burbank that is part of the meeting that they are going to have , to talk about Stewart Park . Historically all the agreements the Town has had with the City have only been for the facilities that charge a fee to guarantee that Town residents pay the same amount . Stewart Park has never beEln a part of any agreement the Town has had with the City and Supervisor Valentino felt it would be totally inappropriate to have it in the Memorandum of Understanding . i Supervisor Valentino asked for Board approval to take the Memorandum of Understanding , with the changes proposed by John Barney , to the City for further discussion . Councilman 4 1 � October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 Stein asked for clarification that the Board would not be voting on the Memorandum of Understanding until there had been further discussion with the City . Supervisor Valentino told him that she was not asking for a vote . The City had sent over the agreement, Supervisor Valentino and John Barney were recommending changes , she was advising the Board of those changes and letting them know that she would be going back to the City to discuss the changes . The Board gave her authorization to present the recommended changes to the City . Agenda Item No . 6 — Persons to be Heard and Board Comments (continued ) David Klein , Town Justice , appeared before the Board to request funding for court security in the 2005 Town budget . Mr. Klein told the Board the Justice Court put in a $7 , 500 or $7 , 800 request in their budget worksheets to cover the two weekly court sessions . This was based upon calculations for 3 hours per week at an hourly rate of $25 . 00 . Mr. Klein felt it would be advisable , for the safety of the justices and court clerks , to have somebody from the Sheriff' s office or an off-duty trooper attending Town court . The court conducted an informal survey and the following courts have security personnel present during court session : Cayuga Heights Village Court , Dryden Town Court , Freeville Village Court, Ithaca City Court, Lansing Town Court (Justice Howell 's court but not Justice Burin ' s court) , Newfield Town Court, Ulysses town Court. Town of Ithaca Court , next to City of Ithaca Court, is the busiest court. There was discussion of the " panic button " system and a report to Judy that it was pushed in the courtroom and there was no response . Ms . Drake stated she had been told of the incident and notified the security system providers and would follow-up to make sure the system is working . Councilwoman Grigorov felt Justice Klein ' s request was reasonable . The Board discussed who could provide the service . Mr. Klein hoped the person would be from the Sheriff' s office or State Police Department . Councilwoman Gittelman stated her feeling that a panic button does not serve the same purpose as a person in the court. Mr. Klein told the Board that the Justice Court had applied to the State for funding to replace and network the court' s computers . The State has given him indication that we may be getting the funding , but no official word has been received . Agenda Item No . 7 — Public Hearing regarding the Construction of the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission East Hill Water Tank and Water Mains Attachment #5 — Engineer's drawings ) Supervisor Valentino opened the public hearing at 6 : 30 p . m . The hearing was published and posted as required . There was no one from the public present to address the Board and Supervisor Valentino closed the public hearing at 6 : 31 p . m . Paul Tunison , Bolton Point General Manager, appeared before the Board to describe the project and answer any questions . He told the Board that the project would extend the Commission ' s transmission main and increase the storage capacity by 3 million gallons . There was lengthy discussion of the benefits of the project versus its costs with Board members Stein , Burbank , and Lesser voicing the need for more information and a better understanding of the project before voting . 5 i October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 Supervisor Valentino interrupted the discussion to open a public hearing . Agenda Item No. 10 — Public Hearing regarding the Increase in the Costs of the Work Space Addition to the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission Water Treatment Plant Supervisor Valentino opened the public hearing at 6 : 45 p . m . The hearing was published and posted as required . Agenda Item No . 8 — SEQR regarding the Construction of the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission East Hill Water Tank and Water Mains (Attachment #6 — SEQR) The Board returned to discussion of the proposed water tank . I TB RESOLUTION NO . 2004-159 : SEQR : Public Interest Order And Resolution Authorizing The Construction Of The Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal i Commission East Hill Water Tank And Water Mains , Authorizing The Expenditure Of Funds For Such Purpose , Authorizing The Issuance And Sale Of Joint And Several Serial Bonds For A Portion Of The Costs Of Such Project And Authorizing Execution Of An Amendment To The Agreement Of Municipal Cooperation Governing Such Water Tank And Water Mains . RESOLVED , after review of the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Daniel Walker dated October 12 , 2004 and other materials , that the Town Board determines that the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission 2004 East Hill Water Tank and Water Main Project (the " Project') is an Unlisted Action pursuant to the provisions of the N . Y . State Department of Environmental Conservation adopted pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act ; and it is further RESOLVED , after review of such Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Daniel R . Walker, dated October 12 , 2004 , this Board determines that the Project as proposed will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts for the reasons stated on such Environmental Assessment Form and accordingly the Project may be approved without further proceedings under such environmental regulations . MOVED : Councilwoman Grigorov 1 i SECONDED : Councilman Lesser � VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Gittelman , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye . Carried i unanimously . Agenda Item No . 9 — Consider Adoption of Public Interest Order Authorizing the Construction of the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipali Water Commission East Hill Water Tank and Water Mains 6 117 . October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 Supervisor Valentino moved and Councilwoman Gittelman seconded adoption of the public interest order . Councilman Stein told the Board he was uncomfortable with approving the project at this point and asked for an opportunity to meet with staff and Supervisor Valentino to better inform himself. He stated his intention to vote against the project until he had a better understanding and asked if it was a serious problem if the Board voted against the project . Supervisor Valentino asked Mr. Walker and Mr. Tunison if it would be all right to defer a decision on the project until November. Mr. Walker told the Board they were not planning to construct the tank until next year and they were still negotiating with Cornell on the arrangements for the site . Attorney Barney suggested the Board adjourn a vote on the decision stating he was a little uncomfortable having the Board vote the project down because it involves four other municipalities that are presumably going to pass the proposal without too much question . He was not sure a no vote was the message the Board wanted to send to their colleagues on the commission . Mr. Walker told the Board that the proposed project has been reviewed over a long period of time by the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission . It is really a Commission Project and is being paid for by the water rate . Councilmen Stein and Lesser stated they appreciated that fact. Supervisor Valentino wanted to see the Board have a better comfort level and suggested a meeting with the engineers before the November meeting . Councilmen Stein , Lesser, and Burbank indicated agreed to find a time when Mr. Walker and Mr. Tunison could meet with them . Supervisor Valentino and Councilwoman Gittelman withdrew their motion to adopt the public interest order. Agenda Item No . 10 — Public Hearing regarding the Increase in the Costs of the Work Space Addition to the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission Water Treatment Plant Paul Tunison addressed the Board stating in the summer of 2003 the Ithaca Town Board and the other four municipalities approved the Water Commission ' s building addition and renovation project, which is currently underway . The amount approved for the project was 2 . 3 million dollars that included a 20 % contingency. The bids were opened in March and came in higher than the engineer' s estimate leaving only a 2 . 2 % contingency. The 2 . 2 % contingency is not sufficient and the Commission is requesting that the involved Town and Village Boards approve increasing the project budget from 2 . 31 million to 2 . 6 million and , as a result of the increase , approve an increase in the amount of bonding from 1 million up to 1 . 5 million dollars . Supervisor Valentino interrupted discussion to open a public hearing . Agenda item No . 13 — Public Hearing regarding a Proposed 2004 Kings Way Water Improvement 7 I October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 Supervisor Valentino opened the public hearing at 7 : 00 p . m . The hearing was posted and published as required . Agenda Item No . 10 — Public Hearing regarding the Increase in the Costs of the Work Space Addition to the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission Water Treatment Plant (continued ) There was no one from the public present regarding the proposal and Supervisor Valentino closed the public hearing at 7 : 02 p . m . and discussion returned to the Board . Councilwoman Gittelman asked whether an increase in costs was the reasons for the increase in the project' s cost or whether there were other reasons . Mr. Tunison told her the only price increase that could have had a major impact was the increased cost of steel . Or, the engineers could have made a mistake . Mr. Walker stated the architectural estimate was about 20 % lower than it should have been . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2004-160 : PUBLIC INTEREST ORDER AND RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INCREASE IN THE COSTS OF THE EXPANSION AND RENOVATION OF THE SOUTHERN CAYUGA LAKE INTERMUNICIPAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT, AUTHORIZING THE INCREASED EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR SUCH PURPOSE , AUTHORIZING THE INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF JOINT AND SEVERAL SERIAL BONDS TO BE ISSUED FOR A PORTION OF THE COSTS OF SUCH j PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT OF MUNICIPAL COOPERATION RELATING TO SUCH INCREASES . At a meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County, held at the Town Hall , 215 North Tioga Street , in the City of Ithaca , New York , on the 18th day of October, 2004 , at 5 : 30 o'clock p . m . prevailing time . I PRESENT : Supervisor Catherine Valentino Councilperson Carolyn Grigorov Councilperson William Lesser Councilperson Will Burbank Councilperson Sandra Gittelman Councilperson Peter Stein ABSENT : Councilperson Herbert Engman In the Matter of the Proposed Water Improvement in the Town of Ithaca , PUBLICINTEREST Tompkins County , New York , pursuant to Article 12-C of ORDER AND BOND the Town Law to be known as the SCLIWC 2003 RESOLUTION Plant Expansion Project 8 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 WHEREAS , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca , in conjunction with the Towns of Dryden and Lansing and the Villages of Cayuga Heights and Lansing , has determined and agreed to participate in the expansion and renovation of the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission (" SCLIWC ") water treatment plant and to contract indebtedness therefore in accordance with Section 15 of the Local Finance Law pursuant to a Supplement to Agreement of Municipal cooperation for Construction , Financing and Operation of an Intermunicipal Water Supply and' Transmission System Relating to 2003 Plant Expansion Project dated as of July 7 , 2003 (the " Intermunicipal Agreement Supplement") ; and WHEREAS , a plan , report and map has been duly prepared in such manner and in such detail as this Board determines to be . necessary , relating to the construction and equipping of a two-story office and work space addition to the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission ("SCLIWC ") water treatment plant , pursuant to Article 5-G of the General Municipal Law and relevant provisions of the Town Law and Village Law, such project to be known and identified as the SCLIWC 2003 Plant Expansion Improvement , and hereinafter also referred to as " Improvement" , to provide expanded space in the water treatment plant owned in common by the Towns of Dryden , Ithaca and Lansing and the Villages of Cayuga Heights and Lansing (collectively the " Municipalities" and sometimes individually the " Municipality") , such improvement to be constructed and owned by the Municipalities , and WHEREAS , based upon said plan and report SCLIWC and the Municipalities authorized the expenditure of $2 , 310 , 835 for the Improvement and authorized the issuance of joint and several serial bonds in the amount of $ 1 , 000 , 000 to pay for part of the costs of said Improvement; and WHEREAS , the bids for the Improvement received from the lowest responsible bidders for each segment of the project were considerably higher than the estimates for same from the Engineers ; and WHEREAS , as a result the Engineers for SCLIWC and SCLIWC itself have recommended that the amount to be authorized for expenditure for the Improvement be increased by $289 , 165 . 00 to cover the increased amounts of such bids and to provide a reasonable contingency for future unanticipated expenses ; and WHEREAS , SCLIWC has also recommended that because of the increased costs and the desire to possibly authorize other projects in the future that would utilize some of the surplus funds that had initially been proposed for the Improvement, the amount of the bonds to be issued in connection with the Improvement be increased by $ 500 , 000 ; and WHEREAS , the proposed SCLIWC 2003 Plant Expansion Improvement consists of construction of a 7616 square foot, two story office and work space addition on the east end of the SCLIWC water treatment facility at 1402 East Shore Drive in the Village of Lansing and renovation of 4332 square feet of existing office space to provide increased office space for SCLIWC ' s Administration and Distribution personnel , workshops for SCLIWC ' s electrical and mechanical technicians and production department personnel , handicapped accessibility, an 9 I 20 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 archive room for long term storage of SCLIWC ' s files and documents , an expansion of the facilities laboratory to meet increased water quality monitoring requirements , and additional fire suppression systems in the new and renovated areas of the facility ; upgrading the HVAC systems to bring them into compliance with current building codes ; upgrading the north entrance to the facility ; and adding four additional parking spaces to accommodate the • public , all as more particularly shown and described in said map , plan and report presently on file in the Office of the Municipality Clerk ; and WHEREAS , the maximum now proposed to be expended for the aforesaid Improvement is $2 , 600 , 000 . 00 ; and WHEREAS , the proposed method of financing to be employed for the aforesaid Improvement is issuance by the Municipalities of joint and several serial bonds not to exceed $ 1 , 500 , 000 and payment of the balance of the costs of said Improvement by the expenditure of current revenues and surplus funds held by SCLIWC ; and WHEREAS , a public hearing for the purpose of considering the increase in the maximum amount authorized to be expended for the Improvement , the authorization of an increase in the amount of serial bonds to be used for payment of part of the costs of the Improvement , and the amendment of the existing Agreement of Intermunicipal Cooperation between the Municipalities in relation to such increases related to the Improvement , and to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof, was held on the 18th day of October, 2004 , all in accordance with applicable provisions of General Municipal Law, Local Finance Law , and Town Law, at which time all persons interested in the subject thereof were given an opportunity to be heard ; and WHEREAS , the authorization of the increase of costs of the project and the increase in bonds as set forth herein is a Type II Action pursuant to the regulations of the New York State i Department of Environmental Conservation promulgated pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act , being routine or continuing agency administration and management and not including new programs or major reordering of priorities that may affect he environment ; and i WHEREAS , all other actions precedent to the financing of the capital project hereinafter described have been performed ; and WHEREAS , it is now desired to authorize the increase in the maximum amount to be expended for the SCLIWC 2003 Plant Expansion Project , the increase in the amount of bonds to be issued in connection with the Improvement , and the execution of the Intermunicipal Agreement Supplement authorizing such increases ; NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca , conditional on the within resolution in substantially the same form being adopted , approved and made effective by the other member municipalities of SCLIWC to the extent applicable to such municipalities , as follows : I I Section 1 . It is hereby determined that it is in the public interest to make the water improvement hereinafter described above at thE! increased maximum cost set 10 121 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 forth herein , and such water improvement is hereby authorized . The proposed area in the Town hereby determined to be benefitted by said revised SCLIWC 2003 Plant Expansion Project with respect to which the Town Board is authorized to act is all of the Town of Ithaca outside of the Village of Cayuga Heights . Section 2 . The Town of Ithaca hereby authorizes the expenditure of an additional $289 , 165 . 00 for the previously authorized SCLIWC 2003 Plant Expansion Project involving the construction of the improvements to the plant described above and the payment of all costs incident thereto , including architects fees , consulting fees , attorneys fees , bidding costs and any other related costs , all of said actions being hereinafter collectively referred to as the " Project" , and all of said actions being authorized pursuant to Articles 12 , 12-A, and/or 12-C of the Town Law and Article 5-G of the General Municipal Law. Section 3 . The Town of Ithaca hereby authorizes the Supervisor, on behalf of the Town , to execute the Intermunicipal Agreement Supplement pursuant to which the Town authorizes the increase in the costs of the SCLIWC 2003 Plant Expansion Project, the increase in bonding , and reaffirms the delegation to SCLIWC and its officers and Treasurer the authority to contract for and construct said Project , and to finance the same in the manner set forth herein . Section 4 . The Town of Ithaca , subject to the approval of the voters of the Town of Ithaca if a referendum is requested , hereby authorizes the expenditure of an additional $289 , 165 . 00 for such SCLIWC 2003 Plant Expansion Project. Section 5 . The Town of Ithaca , subject to the approval of the voters of the Town if a referendum is requested , hereby authorizes the issuance of an additional $ 500 , 000 of joint and several serial bonds to pay for a portion of the cost of such Project, pursuant to the Local Finance Law and Article 5-G of the General Municipal Law. Section 6 . $2 , 600 , 000 is now estimated as the maximum cost for Project. Section 7 . The plan for the financing of the Project is amended , and as so amended is hereby authorized , to consist of (a) The issuance of General Obligation Joint and Several Serial Bonds of the Municipalities in the principal sum of not more than $ 1 , 500 , 000 . 00 , to be issued pursuant to the Local Finance Law and the General Municipal Law for a portion of the costs of the Project; and ( b ) Payment from budgeted revenues and from surplus funds of SCLIWC of the balance of the remaining costs of such Improvement . Section 8 . For the purposes of Section 15 . 10 of the Local Finance Law relating to the allocation of joint indebted ness , the amount of joint indebtedness to be apportioned and allocated to each of said Towns and Villages shall be in the same proportion as the consumption of water from the SCLIWC facility in each of the Towns 11 1. 2 ' October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 of Dryden , Ithaca , and Lansing and the Villages of Cayuga Heights and Lansing shall bear to the total consumption of water from the SCLIWC water distribution facility , which is estimated to be , and for the purposes of determining gross indebtedness of each of said municipalities in their respective debt statements pursuant to Section 15 . 10 of the Local Finance Law and therefore the amount to be allocated for the purpose of ascertaining each of the municipalities debt contracting powers shall be , as follows : i MUNICIPALITY PERCENTAGE OF DEBT ALLOCATED PORTION OF DEBT Town of Dryden 4 . 577 $ 68 , 655 . 00 Town of Ithaca 44 . 031 $660 , 465 . 00 Town of Lansing 18 . 186 $272 , 790 . 00 Village of Lansing 21 . 941 $ 329 , 115 . 00 Village of Cayuga Heights 11 . 265 $ 168 , 975 . 00 Nothing in this section shall be deemed to be in conflict with or to supercede the provisions of this resolution hereinafter set forth relating to the annual apportionment of the amount of principal and interest on the bonds herein authorized to be issued as among said Towns and said Villages , nor the manner of collection and payment of the amounts of annual debt serviced provided to be apportioned annually by said provisions . The Supervisors of said Towns and the Treasurers of said Villages are hereby authorized and directed to act jointly to make application to the State Comptroller as appropriate for the allocation and apportionment of said joint indebtedness in accordance with the provisions of this section and to perform all acts and furnish all information required in connection with such application . Section 9 . It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific objects or purposes is 40 years , pursuant to Subdivision 1 of Paragraph a of Section 11 . 00 of the Local Finance Law. It is further determined that the maximum maturity of the serial bonds herein authorized will exceed five years . Section 10 . The full faith and credit of said Town of Dryden , said Town of j Ithaca , said Town of Lansing , said Village of Cayuga Heights , and said Village of Lansing , all of Tompkins County , New York , are hereby jointly pledged for the payment of the principal of and interest on said bonds as the same respectively become due and payable . The principal of and interest on said joint bonds shall be apportioned annually among said Towns and said Villages in accordance with the Intermunicipal Agreement Supplement hereinabove referred to , in the ratio which the consumption of water from the SCLIWC system in each of said municipalities bears to the full consumption from the entire SCLIWC water distribution system , such ratio to i 12 i 13 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 be annually determined in accordance with the aforesaid Intermunicipal Agreement Supplement, the share of said principal and interest to be borne by the aforesaid Towns , shall be annually assessed , levied and collected within said Towns as follows : (a) From the several lots and parcels of land in each of the water districts in the Town of Dryden and in the Town of Lansing , in the manner provided by law. (b) From the several lots and parcels in the Town of Ithaca Town-wide water improvement area , in the manner provided by law. The Village of Cayuga Heights shall annually levy and collect a tax sufficient to pay the share of said principal and interest to be borne by said Village , as the same may become due and payable , and the Village of Lansing shall annually levy and collect a tax sufficient to pay the share of said principal and interest to be borne by said Village , as the same may become due and payable . If not paid from the aforesaid sources , all the taxable real property in said Town of Dryden , and all the taxable real property in said Town of Ithaca , and all the taxable real property in said Town of Lansing and all the taxable real property in said Village of Cayuga Heights , and all the taxable real property in said Village of Lansing shall be jointly subject to the levy of an ad valorem tax, without limitation as to the rate or amount, sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on said bonds as the same become due and payable . Section 11 . Subject to the provisions of the Local Finance Law and this section , the power to authorize the issuance of and to sell joint bond anticipation notes in anticipation of the issuance and sale of the joint serial bonds herein authorized , including renewals of such notes , is hereby delegated to the Supervisor of the Town of Ithaca , the Chief Fiscal Officer of said Town , acting on behalf of the chief fiscal officers of the Towns of Dryden and Lansing and the Villages of Cayuga Heights and Lansing . Such joint bond anticipation notes shall be of such terms , form and contents , and shall be sold in such manner as may be prescribed by a bond anticipation note certificate , as authorized by Section 30 . 00 of the Local Finance Law; provided , however, that any bond anticipation notes so issued shall be the joint indebtedness of said Towns and said Villages and shall be executed in the names of Town of Dryden , the Town of Ithaca , the Town of Lansing , the Village of Cayuga Heights and the Village of Lansing , and shall be signed by the Supervisor of the Town of Dryden on behalf of said Town and shall have affixed thereto the seal of the Town of Dryden , attested by the Town Clerk of said Town , shall be signed by the Supervisor of the Town of Ithaca on behalf of said Town and shall have affixed thereto the seal of the Town of Ithaca attested by the Town Clerk of said Town said Supervisor, shall be signed by the Supervisor of the Town of Lansing on behalf of said Town and shall have affixed thereto the seal of the Town of Lansing , attested by the Town Clerk of said Town , shall be signed by the Treasurer of the Village of Cayuga Heights on behalf of said Village and shall have affixed thereto the seal of the Village of Cayuga Heights , attested by the Village Clerk of said Village , and shall be signed by the Treasurer of the Village of Lansing on behalf of said Village and shall have affixed thereto the seal of the Village of Lansing , attested by the Village Clerk of said Village . The chief fiscal officer of the Town of 13 124 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 Ithaca to whom is hereby delegated the power to authorize the issuance of and to sell such joint bond anticipation notes , shall file an executed copy of each such bond anticipation note certificate with the finance board of each of the aforesaid municipalities prior to the issuance of the bond anticipation note or notes authorized by i such certificate . Section 12 . The validity of such joint serial bonds and joint bond anticipation notes may be contested only if: 1 . Such joint bonds are authorized for an object or purchase for which said Towns or said Villages are not authorized to expend money , or I 2 . The provisions of law which should be complied with at the date of jpublication of this resolution are not substantially complied with , and an action , suit or proceeding contesting such vaalidity is commenced within 20 days after the date of publication , or 3 . Such joint bonds are authorized in violation of the provision of the Constitution . i Section 13 . Upon the adoption of this resolution by each of the aforesaid Towns and the aforesaid Villages , and the publication thereof with the notice provided for herein , the Clerks . of each such Town and each such Village shall file with the Clerk of each of the other Towns and of the Villages , a certified copy of this resolution and a ! printer' s affidavit or affidavits , as the case may be , of publication thereof with the required noticed or notices , as the case may be . i Section 14 . Pursuant to Section 15 . 00 ( m ) of the Local Finance Law , the powers and duties of advertising such joint bonds for sale , conducting the sale and awarding the bonds , are hereby delegated to the Supervisor of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York , who on her own behalf and on behalf of the chief fiscal officers of the Towns of Dryden and Lansing and the Villages of Cayuga Heights and Lansing , shall advertise such bonds for sale , conduct the sale , and award the bonds in such manner as she shall deem best for the interests of the aforesaid Towns and Villages , provided , however, that in the exercise of these delegated powers , she shall comply fully with the provisions of the Local Finance Law and any order or rule of the State Comptroller applicable to the sale of municipal bonds . The receipt of said Supervisor shall be a full acquittance to the purchaser of such bonds , who shall not be obliged to see to the application of the purchase money . Section 15 . All other matters , except as provided herein relating to such joint j bonds , including determining whether to issue such joint serial bonds having substantially level or declining debt service and all matters related thereto , prescribing the method for the recording of ownership of said bonds , appointing the fiscal agent or agents for said bonds , providing for the printing and delivery of said bonds , the date , denominations , maturities and interest payment dates , place or places of payment, shall be determined by said Supervisor on behalf of the chief fiscal officers of the 14 i 125 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 Towns of Dryden , Ithaca , and Lansing , and the Villages of Cayuga Heights and Lansing . It is hereby determined that it is to the financial advantage of the issuers not to impose and collect from registered owners of such serial bonds any charges for mailing , shipping and insuring bonds transferred or exchanged by the fiscal agent , and accordingly , pursuant to paragraph c of Section 70 . 00 of the Local Finance Law, no such charges shall be so collected by the fiscal agent . Such bonds shall contain substantially the recital of validity clause provided for in Section 52 . 00 of the Local Finance Law and shall otherwise be in such form and contain such recitals in addition to those required by Section 52 . 00 of the Local Finance Law, as the said Town Supervisor shall determine . Said bonds shall be signed in the name of each Town and Village by the manual signature of each respective chief fiscal officer and a facsimile or original of the corporate seal of each Town and Village shall be imprinted thereon and shall be attested by the manual signatures of each respective Town or Village Clerk . Section 16 . Pursuant to Local Finance Law Section 15 , the Supervisor of the Town of Ithaca is designated as the chief fiscal officer to maintain the records relating to the joint bonds , the paying agent on the bonds , and the registration agent if she does not appoint such an agent pursuant to the authority granted elsewhere in this resolution . Section 17 . Any obligation issued under authority of this resolution shall contain on it' s face a recital in substantially the following form : "This obligation evidences the joint indebtedness of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County, New York , the Town of Dryden , Tompkins County, New York , the Town of Lansing , Tompkins County, New York , the Village of Cayuga Heights , Tompkins County, New York , and the Village of Lansing , Tompkins County , New York . " Section 18 . This resolution shall constitute a statement of official intent for purposes of Treasury Regulations Section 1 . 150- 1 . Other than as specified in this resolution , no moneys are , or are reasonably expected to be , reserved , allocated on a long-term basis , or otherwise set aside with respect to the permanent funding of the object or purpose described herein . Section 19 . SCLIWC is hereby authorized to pay, out of unreserved surplus , the costs of the SCLIWC 2003 Plant Expansion Project in excess of the bond proceeds authorized by this resolution , provided , however, the maximum cost of said project does not exceed the maximum authorized in this resolution . Section 20 . It is hereby determined that the Town ' s share of the estimated expense of the aforesaid improvement does not exceed 1 / 10th of 1 % of the full valuation of the taxable real property in the area of said Town outside of Villages and , therefore , in accordance with the provisions of subdivision 13 of Section 209-q of the Town Law , the permission of the State Comptroller is not required for such improvement. Section 21 . Within 10 days after the adoption of this resolution by the Town Board , the Town Clerk shall , as set forth in Section 90 of the Town Law, post and 15 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 publish a notice which shall set forth the date of the adoption of this resolution and contain a copy of this resolution , or an abstract of this resolution concisely stating the purpose and effect thereof. Such notice shall specify that such resolution was adopted subject to a permissive referendum . Section 22 . If no referendum is requested , or if requested , a referendum is held and the referendum approves the resolution , this resolution , or a summary thereof, shall be published by the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , together with a notice in substantially the form prescribed , and containing the information required , by Section j 81 . 00 of said Local Finance Law, such publication to be in the Ithaca Journal , a newspaper published in the City of Ithaca and having Cot general circulation within such Town . Section 23 . This resolution shall take effect immediately , unless a referendum is requested , in which event it shall take effect , if approved at such referendum , upon such approval . i Section 24 . Pursuant to subdivision 6 (d ) of Section 209-q of the Town Law , the Town Clerk is hereby directed and ordered to cause a certified copy of this resolution to be duly recorded within 10 days of the date of adoption in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Tompkins , which when so recorded , shall be presumptive evidence of the regularity of the proceedings and action taken by the Town Board in relation to the aforesaid improvement . I Section 25 . This resolution is adopted subject to a permissive referendum pursuant to Town Law Article 12 , 12-A and/or Article 12-C , and Local Finance Law Section 35 . jThe question of adoption of the foregoing resolution was , upon motion made by Supervisor Valentino and seconded by Councilman Lesser , duly put to a vote on a roll call , i which resulted as follows : Supervisor Valentino Voting Afire ! Councilperson Grigorov Voting ANre Councilperson Lesser Voting Aye Councilperson Burbank Voting A e Councilperson Gittelman Voting 1\ye Councilperson Stein Voting Akre The resolution was thereupon duly adopted . Agenda item No . 13 — Public Hearing regarding a Proposed 2004 Kings Way Water Improvement (continued ) (Attachment #7 — Engineer' s dravvin i There was no one present to address the Board regarding the project and Supervisor Valentino closed the public hearing at 7 : 04 P . M . t 16 127 .October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 The Board received material on the project in their board packets . Mr. Walker told the Board that , for a long period of time , there have been a wide range pressure fluctuations on Danby Road . There is a control valve on King Road just above the Montessori School that reduces the pressure from the Ridge Crest tank so they do not over pressurize the pipes down the hill . By reducing the pressure there is adequate pressure for most domestic uses almost up to Schickel Road and then low pressure on Schickel Road . There are currently 4 customers on Schickel Road that all have booster pumps in their houses . There is Schickel Road subdivision that has received preliminary approval and partial final approval from the Planning Board . One of the subdivision ' s need is higher water pressure . The Town 's plan has been to improve the pressure when there were the resources . Because there is a developer that has a need for pressure to develop this land , which is zoned for residential development, the Town has negotiated an arrangement whereby if the Town provides the materials (the pipe and some gravel ) the developer will provide the labor and install the pipes . A project that was originally budgeted at $70 , 000 will cost the Town $20 , 000 . Mr. Walker felt there was significant benefit in partnering with the developer. Councilman Burbank asked if the project would benefit the proposed hotel across the street. Mr. Walker told him improving flow and pressure would benefit all the properties on the road . It' s not essential for the property of the proposed hotel because it has adequate pressure and flow. It may benefit the proposed hotel in terms of the sprinkler system so that it is simpler to design , but the hotel does not need this improvement to be built . Agenda Item No . 14 — Consider Adoption of SEAR regarding a Proposed 2004 Kings Way Water Improvement Project (Attachment #8 — SEQR) TB RESOLUTION NO . 2004-161 : SEQR : Town of Ithaca King 's Way Water Improvement. RESOLVED , after review of the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Daniel Walker dated October 12 , 2004 and other materials , that the Town Board determines that the Town of Ithaca 2004 King 's way Water Improvement (the " improvement") is an Unlisted Action pursuant to the regulations of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation promulgated pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the laws and regulations of the Town of Ithaca ; and it is further RESOLVED , after review of such Environmental Assessment Form and related materials , this Board determines that the Improvement as proposed will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts for the reason stated on such Environmental Assessment Form and accordingly the Project may be approved without further proceedings under such environmental regulations . MOVED : Councilman Lesser SECONDED : Councilwoman Gittelman VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Gittelman , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye . Carried unanimously . 17 i 128 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 I Agenda Item No . 15 — Consider Adoption of Public Interest Order Authorizing 2004 Kings Way Water Improvement Proiect TB RESOLUTION NO . 2004-162 : Public Interest Order Town of Ithaca King 's Way Water Improvement. I At a meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , held at the Town Hall , 215 North Tioga Street , in the City of Ithaca , New York , on the 18th day of October, 2004 , at 5 : 30 o'clock p . m . prevailing time . PRESENT : Supervisor Catherine Valentino Councilperson Carolyn Grigorov Councilperson William Lesser Councilperson Will Burbank Councilperson Sandra Gittelman Councilperson Peter Stein ABSENT : Councilperson Herbert Engman ---------------------------------------------------------- In the Matter of the Proposed Water Improvement in the Town of Ithaca , PUBLIC INTEREST Tompkins County , New York , pursuant to Article 12-C of ORDER the Town Law to be known as the Town of Ithaca i 2004 Kings Way Water Improvement WHEREAS , a plan , report and map has been duly prepared in such manner and in such detail as heretofore has been determined by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County, New York , relating to the creation and construction , pursuant to Article 12 - C of the Town Law of water system improvements to be known and identified as the Town of Ithaca 2004 Kings Way Water Improvement , and hereinafter also referred to as " Improvement" , to provide such water system improvement to the present Town water improvement, such Improvement to be constructed by Boris .3imkin with certain materials to be supplied by the Town of Ithaca , with the entire improvement to be owned by the Town of Ithaca upon completion , and owned by the Town of Ithaca , and i WHEREAS , said plan , report and map have been prepared by Daniel Walker, P . E . , the Town Engineer, a competent engineer duly licensed by the State of New York and have j been filed in the office of the Town Clerk where they are available for public inspection , and I 18 129 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 WHEREAS , the area of said Town determined to be benefitted by said Town of Ithaca 2004 Kings Way Water Improvement consists of the entire area of said Town excepting therefrom the area contained within the Village of Cayuga Heights , and WHEREAS , the proposed Town of Ithaca 2004 Kings Way Water Improvement consists of the water improvements set forth below, and in the areas of the Town as set forth below, and as more particularly shown and described in said map , plan and report presently on file in the Office of the Town Clerk : Construction of approximately 810 feet of 8-inch ductile iron pipe water main running from the Town 's existing main on Danby Road along Kings Way and East King Road to a point just east of the existing pressure reducing valve on East King Road , together with related controls and other structures ; and WHEREAS the area in which the improvement is to be located is an area that needs to be upgraded to provide more appropriate levels of water service for a number of the Town 's water customers ; and WHEREAS , the developer of the Westview Subdivision needs the improvement to be completed in order for there to be adequate water service and water pressure for a substantial portion of the proposed subdivision ; and WHEREAS , such developer has offered to construct the improvement if the Town agrees to supply the materials ; and WHEREAS , the maximum proposed to be expended by the Town of Ithaca for the aforesaid improvement is $20 , 000 , the maximum estimated cost of the materials for the improvement and the proposed method of financing to be employed by the Town of Ithaca for . the aforesaid improvement is payment for said materials out of surplus funds at a cost not to exceed $20 , 000 ; and WHEREAS , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca duly adopted an order on September 13 , 2004 , calling a public hearing upon said plan , report and map including an estimate of cost and the question of providing water improvements to be known as the Town of Ithaca 2004 Kings Way Water Improvement , such public hearing having been scheduled for the 18th day of October, 2004 , at 7 : 00 o'clock p . m . , Prevailing Time , at the Town Hall , 215 North Tioga Street , in the City of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York , at which time and place all persons interested in the subject thereof could be heard concerning the same ; and WHEREAS , notice of said public hearing was duly posted and published as required by law ; and WHEREAS , said public hearing was duly held at the place and at the time aforesaid and all persons interested in the subject thereof were heard concerning the same ; and WHEREAS , the construction of the proposed project has been determined to be an " Unlisted Action " pursuant to the regulations of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation promulgated pursuant to the State Environmental Quality 19 i October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 Review Act and the laws and regulations of the Town of Ithaca , the implementation of which as proposed , the Town Board has determined , will not result in any significant adverse environmental effects ; and WHEREAS , it is now desired to authorize the improvement to be known as the Town i of Ithaca 2004 Kings Way Water Improvement ; NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED , by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York , as follows : Section 1 . It is hereby determined that it is in the public interest to make the water improvement hereinafter described and such water improvement is hereby authorized . The proposed area hereby determined to be benefitted by said Town of Ithaca 2004 Kings Way Water Improvement is all of the Town of Ithaca outside of the Village of I Cayuga Heights . Section 2 . The proposed improvement shall consist of construction of approximately 810 feet of 8-inch ductile iron pipe water main running from the Town ' s existing main on Danby Road along Kings Way and East King Road to a point just east of the existing pressure reducing valve on East King Road , together with related controls and other structures . Section 3 . The Town of Ithaca , subject to the approval of the voters of the Town of Ithaca if a referendum is requested , hereby authorizes the expenditure of up to j $20 , 000 . 00 for the Town of Ithaca 2004 Kings Way Water Improvement and the payment of all costs incident thereto , including architects fees , consulting fees , attorneys fees , bidding costs and any other related costs , all of said actions being i hereinafter collectively referred to as the " Project . " i Section 4 . The plan for the financing of the Project consists of the payment of said costs from surplus funds or funds budgeted for such Project. i Section 5 . It is hereby determined that the estimated expense of the aforesaid improvement does not exceed 1 / 10th of 1 % of the full valuation of the taxable real j property in the area of said Town outside of Villages and , therefore , in accordance with the provisions of subdivision 13 of Section 209-q of the Town Law, the permission of the State Comptroller is not required for such improvement . Section 6 . Pursuant to subdivision 6 (d ) of Section 209-q of the Town Law , the Town j Clerk is hereby directed and ordered to cause a certified copy of this resolution to be duly recorded within 10 days of the date of adoption in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Tompkins , which when so recorded , shall be presumptive evidence of the regularity of the proceedings and action taken by the Town Board in relation to the aforesaid improvement . I I 20 I It 31 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 Section 7 . Within 10 days after the adoption of this resolution by the Town Board, the Town Clerk shall , as set forth in Section 90 of the Town Law, post and publish a notice which shall set forth the date of the adoption of this resolution and contain an abstract of this resolution , concisely stating the purpose and effect thereof. Such notice shall specify that such resolution was adopted subject to a permissive referendum . Section 8 . This resolution shall take effect immediately, unless a referendum is requested , in which event it shall take effect, if approved at such referendum , upon such approval . Section 9 . This resolution is adopted subject to a permissive referendum pursuant to Town Law Section 209-q . The question of adoption of the foregoing resolution was , upon motion made by Supervisor Valentino , and seconded by Councilwoman Gittelman , duly put to a vote on a roll call , which resulted as follows : Supervisor Valentino Voting Ave Councilperson Grigorov Voting Ave Councilperson Lesser Voting Ave Councilperson Burbank Voting Ave Councilperson Gittelman Voting Ave Councilperson Stein Voting Ave The order was thereupon declared duly adopted . Agenda item No . 16 — Presentation by Benchmark Environmental Engineering Regarding Observations on the Cornell University Lake Source Cooling 5-Year Summary Report and Statistical Analysis — (Attachment #9 — 1998 — 2002 Summary Report and copy of P . Wertman 's presentation ) Paul Wertman , president of Benchmark Environmental Engineering , appeared before the Board with his report . The Board received copies in the packets and copies were available for public review . I have been working as the Town 's consultant on the technical review of the Lake Source Cooling project by Cornell since about 2000 1 believe. I was here a year ago to brief the Board on the progress of our review of the monitoring being done by Cornell and the Upstate Freshwater Institute regarding the in lake monitoring. So a lot of this is going to be basically an update of my other stuff. 17190 through the old information relatively quickly and then 111 update you with the new information. The newer information basically the University has put out a five-year report that summarized two years prior to the lake source cooling project going into operation beginning in 1998 and three years of post operation monitoring and they're in their fourth year. Again, this is just an outline of my presentation. 1 'll go a little bit into the background of the lake source cooling project in case somebody's not informed about the background of the project, quickly through the purpose and the scope of what our technical review is. More importantly the update on the monitoring results and another new piece of 21 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 information is this before and after control impact analysis or a statistical evaluation of the data that's been provided by the University. And finally what our recommendations are. The lake source cooling project basically takes water from the deep part of Cayuga Lake and runs them through the lake source cooling project where it basically transfers the cool water through heat exchangers and then discharges the water back into the shallow portion of the lake. All of the detail slides I 'm going to show are basically along the southern shelf of the lake. All of this work, monitoring that has been done by the Freshwater Institute and Cornell has been in accordance with their State Pollution Discharge E=limination System, their State permit that allows them to operate this facility. The original permit was issued by the DEC to the University in March of 1998 and it's a five-year permit. Basically it was modified along the way in April of 2002 because of some modifications to their intake where they were putting a screen to replace their sonic deterrent so they didn 't basically have any uptake in the influent pipe and there were some administrative and reporting changes. The permit actually was renewed because the five-year ran its course in March of 2003 and the current permit is in effect until March 2008 and those last renewals really didn 't have any substantive changes. An important part of this permit and some unique elements of this permit requires the University to do in-lake temperature monitoring of, one thing they have to do is ambient temperature in the lake because the permit says the project cannot effect ambient temperature in the lake. They have to perform biological monitoring on fish and mycis entrainment, I mentioned the screen they use rather than the sonic deterrent to keep mycis out of the inlet and entrainment into the lake source cooling project. And most importantly from a perspective of what I'm going to talk about is the resource monitoring. And again the permit requires that they perform in-lake total phosphorus, chlorophyll A and secchi disk monitoring in the lake in a number of locations. They're required to do two, they actually do eight. 171 show where those are in a minute. They perform their monitoring in the lake from April through October. They collect samples twice per month. And most importantly the permit requires that there cannot be any statistical significant trend in increasing parameters and if there are they will require a re-evaluation of where the outfall is basically to return to cold water back into the deep part of the lake, and it is obviously very important from the University's perspective. Again, this figure just shows in more detail where the different monitoring points are. Over here on the eastern part of the lakeshore in the southern shelf, this is the actual lake source cooling discharge and it's bracketed by monitoring locations 1 and 7. Out in the middle is location 3. Location 2, 4, 5, and this is in deeper water 6 and this is where your actually deep water here, out where the lake source cooling intake is. So that's some background about the project. The purpose and scope of what we 're doing for the Town is to review the environmental impact statement background information, discharge monitoring reports that are produced by the University on a monthly basis, their annual reports. Every year they summarize the results of their monitoring that they've doing in the lake and it's sort of wrapped up, sort of the last and very important element of what they're doing is this statistical evaluation to determine are there any statistically significant trends in these parameters that would suggest that where thins outfall is on the southern shelf 22 133 a October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 is creating a problem. We 've been attending the data sharing group meetings which basically are brought together once a year after the annual reports are submitted. And basically we 're doing independent assessment of the data and the findings of those reports. The primary questions that we 've addressed in our evaluation are first of all are the findings and conclusions by the Upstate Freshwater Institute and Cornell supported by data and sound science. Secondly are the data and statistical methods, and again the statistical methods this is really the first time we are really addressing this trend analysis that the University performed. Are they adequate and appropriate to determine adverse water quality impacts in the lake that may be caused by the project. And then finally are permit monitoring requirements adequate and appropriate to determine adverse water quality impacts in the lake. I'm going to run through these quickly. Most of these are not new, these are repeats of findings and past Cornell annual reports that we 've talked about before, but this site two that I mentioned earlier is enriched in all nutrients compared to other sites. They attribute that primarily to the Ithaca Wastewater Treatment Plant. They also noted substantial spatial variations on the southern shelf for most parameters that they monitor. That the average chlorophyll A concentration was similar on the south shelf with substantial spatial variability from place to place at these monitoring locations on individual days. The temperatures were relatively uniform in the upper waters except in October where they sometimes get a bathtub effect and the cold water from the deeper parts of the lake sometimes are seen in some of the monitoring location. They also indicate, or conclude, that the secchi disks are not a valid measure of clarity in the lake which we agree with and that turbidity is a more viable surrogate parameter to measure clarity which we also agree with. That the turbidity and total phosphorus are systematically flawed trophic indicators on the southern shelf because of non-phytoplankton particles. In other words, there are other, primarily clay particles, that contribute substantially to the clarity or lack of clarity in the lake as opposed to plankton. Some other observations, the total phosphorus in the lake source cooling effluent is less than the total phosphorus on the southern shelf itself. And those are numbers I lifted out of the data. That's 12. 2 micrograms per liter of total phosphorus in the effluent from what's being discharged in the southern shelf from the lake source cooling project as opposed to what's in the shelf. So from that perspective on total phosphorus basis the water that is being discharged by the lake source cooling is actually better than what is in the southern shelf. The soluble reactive phosphorus, that is the more biologically available phosphorus that can be readily up taken and create phytoplankton in the lake and that is significantly higher in the effluent from the lake source cooling project than in the southern shelf. And then the average total phosphorus and turbidity on the southern shelf were similar in 1998, 2000, 2001 , 2002 and distinctly lower in 1999 and 2003. That's just, I guess, a statement of facts. It's difficult to really explain why that is. Natural variability in the lake. And this illustrates some of the points that I just mentioned for the, this is basically again the lake source cooling project came on line I July of 2000 and during that period of time if you look at the first column on the total phosphorus on the left is the lake source cooling effluent and compared to the shelf you can see the numbers aren 't really substantially different. The shelf phosphorus numbers are a little bit higher but not substantially, but it is notable that the soluble reactive phosphorus in the lake source effluent is considerably higher than what's on the shelf. And that's pretty much throughout the whole monitoring period when the project was operating. 23 3 '4 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 This might be difficult to see, but 1 think what's interesting and the reason I lifted this from the report, their annual report, this is actually from the 5-year summary report is if you look on the bottom figure here, the soluble reactive phosphorus and the open dots are what's in the lake source cooling effluent and then the solid dots are what's on the shelf itself. From my perspective this is important because if you look at this data you can see they are similar. To me that indicates that the lake source cooling project is a substantial of soluble reactive phosphorus to the shelf and what we see on the shelf is directly impacted by what's being discharged from the lake source cooling project as one of the contributors of that soluble reactive phosphorus. Not all of it. More data. These are all just to illustrate the points. This is for summer data. This is just June through September, it's not all, which is when really the greatest impact from the lake source cooling project is noted because when the typical summertime when you don 't have high rainfall and also the demand on the lake source cooling project for cooling is highest it can contribute as much as 60% in a given day of the flows to the southern part of the lake. And so when you look at this June through September data for the average phosphorus and you look at what's in the deep water versus what's on the shelf again not huge differences. Southern shelf is basically higher, but not significantly higher. I think the observation there is that what's going on the deep parts of the lake, from a total phosphorus perspective, is not hugely different from what's going on in the southern shelf. Some more noteworthy conclusions of the Cornell UP reports during that 2000 to 2003 operating period, again lake source cooling phosphorus input is much less than what's modeled in the DEIS. I think that's substantially true although I don 't necessarily agree with the numbers and I'II present some more information in a minute. I think that information is true when you look at things on an average over the April through October. When you look during that period of time that I mentioned when the lake source cooling influent is more that impact is more than that 3 to 4 %. Median values for chlorophyll on the shelf, and chlorophyll's important because I think we 're in agreement with the Upstate Freshwater Institute and Cornell that that's really the most reliable and most important parameter that measures the trophic state of the lake, or the ecological health of the lake, more so than phosphorus and turbidity. And it was highest, I 'm sorry the median values on the shelf were lowest in 1999, highest in 1998 and 2003. But again that's just some variability in the lake from year to year. And most importantly they're overreaching, or overall, comment is that there is no conspicuous changes in the water quality observed on the shelf since the lake source cooling start up. One of the issues, and I think one of the important reasons I 'm here tonight is Cornell has proposed to the DEC that they reduce, based on this result", and based on their five-year analysis, and based on their statistical evaluation that they feel it's appropriate to reduce the lake source monitoring in the lake itself from the eight stations that they do now to just two stations. And again, part of their rationale for this is that the effect size is based on their before and after control, impact analysis were small, less than 15%, and no significant impacts were detected. As I said they're proposing to reduce that ambient water quality monitoring from eight to two stations. They proposing that station 5 be used as the overall indication of water quality in the southern shelf and 8 be the deeper water quality. And also 24 1 *3 5 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 that they eliminate secchi disk analysis because I mentioned earlier they feel that turbidity is a better measurement of clarity of the water. These are our findings, they key independent findings in conclusion from our review of those same annual reports, the 5-year report, and this new before and after control impact analysis that's the statistical evaluation. By and large there 's no smoking gun. There 's no compelling data that says that the lake source cooling project is not performing pretty much as the University predicted it would. It is meeting all of its permit requirements in terms of discharge to the lake and so forth. The effluent is consistently conformant with those permit discharge limits. Their change in the design from the sonic deterrent to keep the mycis out of the project with this screen is a much better and more reliable way to reduce those impacts. And I basically concur with the University and Upstate Freshwater Institute that the secchi disk is a flawed measure of clarity and that turbidity is a more reliable alternative to perform that. I do agree with and support their proposal to change or eliminate the secchi disk and look at just turbidity. Another independent finding is that the average summer chlorophyll concentrations on the shelf and the deep water are approximately equal and I think that's a very important thing to keep in perspective. As I mentioned, chlorophyll is really the most reliable parameter to measure the trophic state of the lake and basically the data says what we see in terms of chlorophyll on the shelf and in the deep water, the main body of the lake, are approximately equal. So there 's not a lot of different things going on the shelf from a trophic state when you look at the whole shelf compared to rest of the lake. I think that's a very important point to keep in mind. I think one thing that is a little disturbing, and again this may just be the natural variation of things, but there is an increasing trend in the chlorophyll both in the main body of the lake and on the southern shelf over this five-year period. The big question is, is that significant and is that a trend that is going to continue or is this just a short term sort of thing. That's one of the questions that kind of gnaws at me at this point in time with the data we have. Is this trend going to continue and if does is it significant and will it effect the quality in the lake over the long run. Elevated concentrations of chlorophyll were observed on the shelf in July, August, and September of 2002 and 2003. I'm going to just ahead here for a second. This next tables shows what I was talking about. You can see the deep-water locations. Again this chlorophyll 1998 to 2003 deep-water chlorophyll concentrations 4. 8, 4. 7, 4. 5. A slight increase up to 5. 6 in the 2003 data and on the southern shelf we see a similar trend from 5. 2 up to 5. 9. It is something to keep an eye on. This is what l was talking about and again this is one of these things, is this just a short-term variation or is this something that we 're going to see more of I think what concerns me and again I 'm focusing on the chlorophyll A concentrations, it's figure 12 in your handouts, and the hollow points, the open points, are what's on the shelf. This is 2003 data and the other data points are earlier data, 98 through 2002. So this is the most recent data, 2003 data for chlorophyll. And we see a spike here in this data point. This was on one of the, basically the data that was collected at the end of July, beginning of August, of roughly 13 % micrograms per liter. That may not sound like a lot, but when we start talking about trophic states in the lake, this is something we get concerned about when we start seeing numbers around 12 because that's sort of the break point between mesatrophic state and a utrophic state, 25 3 i October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 something with a greater impact on it. And again, this might just be a minor perturbation, you know it's no big deal, we 're not going to see a lot of it, but the fact that it is that high and the fact that it happens when the lake source cooling project is running full tilt and we 've got other inputs to the lack are reduced. If we these kind of points reoccurring in the future, this is going to be a concern to us. Again, some more key findings. Peak monthly total phosphorus loads from the lake source cooling project, again (flip tape) . . . is that a big deal? We 're saying it's not just 3 to 4 % it's more like 5% when you really look at those peak summer months. And that's important too. Not just because that's when the lake source cooling project is running full tilt, but that's also peak chlorophyll production time. When the sunlight is high and the temperatures in the lake are such that it promotes basically algae growth. Councilman Stein — If the lake source cooling flows can exceed 60% of the total inflow to the shelf Mr. Wertman — On the very short term basis on a given day. That's not , necessarily day-in, day-out over the whole month of July or August. Councilman Stein — Well then how can it be that is only 5% of the total load? Wertman — What I said, this is the average for July, August, and September. On a given day that load could be, on a daily basis it could be much higher than that. It could be 10, 20% or more. Chlorophyll production or algae blooms aren 't created in a given day. You have to build up concentration. Councilman Stein — So that 60% number is not really relevant? Mr. Wertman — That's correct. It's not, but I put it out there just so you got a feel for how much contribution of flow the lake source cooling project has, not so much on an average basis, but on a short-term basis. And again that might get back to this spike concentrations. Again in the long-term is that a big deal? We don 't know. As phosphorus loadings from the wastewater treatment plants decrease, there are phosphorus reduction projects that are happening right now, and the wastewater treatment plants that are reducing. And in fact 2003 loads have been the lowest on record since the City has been keeping track of what the phosphorus is in their discharge from their wastewater plant and further reductions are expected. As you reduce those loads from those other point sources and the capacity of the lake source cooling project increases, because right now on average it is only running around 50% of its design capacity, as they bring on more cooling loads that flow will go up. There 's a questions about in the future, are those increased contributions from the lake source cooling project such and the reductions in the phosphorus loads from the wastewater project make that lake source contributions more significant. Mr. Stein — The removal project, do they effect both the soluble phosphorus and the total j phosphorus, or just one. i i Mr. Wertman — Yes, but I don 't think they monitor soluble reactive phosphorus in the effluent from the treatment plants. The only data I 've seen from the wastewater plants has been total 26 137 9 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 phosphorus, but they will substantially reduce both . Soluble is a component of total phosphorus. If you knock down the total phosphorus you 'll reduce the soluble reactive too. Ms. Gittelman — I 'm not a chemist so I don 't know whether phosphorus breaks down or whether it stays for a very long time. Mr. Wertman — It's fairly persistent. In fact, a lot of the total phosphorus ends up precipitating out and becoming sediment in the lakes and that can be released to the water over periods of time so it's like phosphorus storage. Ms. Gittelman — So then if it's 15% this year and 15% next year, then the release it could actually more than 15% total? Mr. Wertman — Yes, but I guess the good new is again as far as the lake source cooling goes the total phosphorus that the lake source cooling that's the concentration in the effluent is actually lower than the shelf so lake source cooling project actually dilutes the total phosphorus on the southern shelf. So it's not adding to it, but it does discharge soluable reactive phosphorus so it's not a long term build up phenomenon from the lake source cooling, but there is a question about is there enough soluble reactive phosphorus for long enough when the lake source cooling is really going and it's these hot summer months and there 's not a lot of other inflow to the southern shelf such that that's going to effect the chlorophyll production and algae production in the lake. We 've seen some spikes but we don 't really know, it's only been one or two of them. Are they really from the lake source cooling or just sort of a natural variation ? That's the most significant lingering question in my mind from a technical perspective. I think it's important to recognize too that this, I think Cornell's done a good job trying to come up with a rational scientific way of determining whether there 's quote / unquote statistical increases in these key parameters. But you have to recognize that there 's a lot of natural variability from year to year, temperature changes, the amount of sunlight, the wind direction, all sorts of things. How much rainfall you get. You have to expect some variability in these things. Just because you see a number go up two years, in 2002 and 2003, that doesn 't necessarily mean that trend that I showed you with the chlorophyll A is something that is going to keep going. Because if it was it would be a concern. You have to recognize this is a dynamic system and it changes. We agreed that the three parameters evaluated in the statistical evaluation by UP / Cornell over the 1998 to 2003 period that there 's no impacts on the water quality were detected, no significant impacts. At least for that period of time there 's no smoking gun. There 's no compelling evidence that there 's a significant, that the water quality's deteriorating in the southern part of the lake because of this project. Councilman Stein — There 's a smoking gun if you will, unless I 'm misunderstanding what you 're saying, the soluble reactive phosphorus has doubled on the shelf. Mr. Wertman — If there 's a smoking gun, that's it. And the questions really is, because that's not the only, I mean, that is the form of phosphorus that's most readily available for biological uptake and chlorophyll production. But it's not the only thing going on and the question is, 27 138 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 right now it hasn 't manifested itself in a big increase in chlorophyll A concentration, that's sort of the bottom line. Do we see algae and chlorophyll going up or don 't we. Councilman Stein — Is there modeling, any kind of modeling, that can tell you whether that doubling is significant? Mr. Wertman — No there isn 't. That's sort of the question that 's out there. One of the things I brought up in my presentation last year is that, from my perspective, the University is not demonstrated whether the lake source cooling project discharge exceeds this Part Ill 704 thermal criteria and or permit conditions regarding thermal impacts. Their model predicted, and just to summarize what that criteria is, Part 704 says you have to assure protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous, you know a local normal, fish population in the vicinity of your discharge. Avoid large daily temperature fluctuations. No routine shutdowns in December through March and that the lake surface temperature cannot be raised or lowered !, by more than 3 degree Fahrenheit. And the DEC is supposed to specify what this mixing zone, where they will let, over what length or distance you can mix the cold water or the i warmer water with the surrounding waters normalize it. And the reason they haven 't demonstrated that is the closest monitoring points that the University uses for thermal monitoring in the lake is 800 to 3, 000 feet away. From my perspective that data is worthless in terms of really looking at it. In the vicinity of the outfall diffuser whether or not we have temperature variations in the lake. It's useless. And they've collected no data to confirm lake surface temperatures were raised or lowered by that 3% Fahrenheit that I mentioned under summer or winter conditions in the vicinity of the outfall. So they're relying strictly on modeled conditions in the lake which models are models. They have lots of assumptions that are put into them. Quite frankly I don 't expect there are huge temperature impacts for the outfall if it's properly designed and it looks like it is. As your technical consultant, I 'm basically telling you they haven 't proven, they haven 't demonstrated that their models are valid, that they've met this criteria . And this is just to illustrate the point that I made. Here is from the pile cluster out here which is, this is where they have their thermostats that are collecting data almost on a continuous basis for the temperature, but here 's your outfall discharge point and the flow of the lake is in this direction. This is measuring temperature on the southern shelf, but it really isn 't doing anything to measure the temperature as it relates to the outfall. In the handout it just showed what the model predicted as far as the thermal plumes under worst- case conditions. One worst case being in the peak of the summertime when the cool water from the lake source cooling project is much cooler than what 's in the southern shelf and the j other one would be in the winter time when the lake source cooling is actually warmer than what's on the southern shelf. Rather than talk about it you can look at it in your, but it does predict that those temperature impacts are very close to the outfall, but they haven 't validated it. So what do we recommend? First of all we recommend that the outfall monitoring continue per the existing permit through 2005. They're already into the 2004 monitoring period right now, so that's sort of a given unless the DEC says okay, pull the plug, and immediately I'm sure Cornell would probably stop monitoring those other locations. And I 've talked to Jonathan about this, in fact I did talk to Tara Blum, the University did request this change of their monitoring program back in July, she assures me that they're not going make a hasty decision on that right away, but I suggested that we send a letter to the DEC saying that the Town is doing an independent evaluation and the Town will have recommendations, and 28 i I 139 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 asked them not to rule on that request until we 've made our submittal and in the letter I drafted 1 said that the Town would make its recommendations, we on behalf of the Town, would make a recommendation to them regarding the monitoring plan in early November. I guess what we were planning on doing is to basically draft up a position paper for the Town 's consideration and for the Board to pass and then forward that on to DEC. The key thing would be these other recommendations that I got. First of all, one more year of the same monitoring that they are doing in the lake right now and that we 're also recommending that they do this short term, basically a snap shot, go out to the outfall during these case scenarios in July or August, and collect some one-day data in the vicinity of the outfall to prove that we 're not getting more than a 3 degree drop in temperature near the outfall. V Very simple, wouldn 't be expensive, but it will answer that question. Attorney Barney — How would you determine where to put that thermostat if DEC hasn 't defined Mr. Wertman — Well I think we 'd have to agree with the DEC what's the permitted mixing zone. If it's 100 feet then we go 100 feet away from the outfall all the way around it and take temperature readings at the surface, in the middle, and at the bottom, and look at what the temperature is at that 100 foot and if there 's no more than 3 degrees temperature change then they've met the 704 requirements and we 're happy. Attorney Barney — But what does it take to get DEC to define it is what I 'm asking. Mr. Wertman — I think they can do it very, I mean their technical people have already looked at the, they never really specified, they're supposed but they never did, they never specified what is the appropriate mixing zone for that outfall but they've looked at it. But they've looked at it and I 'm sure they could probably make that determination very quickly. The model says that the temperature dissipates to within 1 degree Fahrenheit within just a few meters of the outfall so, you know, you get a mixing zone of say 50 or 100 feet there shouldn 't be problem if the model is even anywhere near accurate. Mr. Stein — Has Cornell heard this recommendation of yours and do they agree ? Mr. Wertman — It's one more thing that they have to do so I'm sure they're not jumping to go out there and do this. I think if DEC says you 've got to do it, I'm sure they will. They've heard this recommendation from me before, this is not new. Mr. Kanter — As Paul mentioned in his report of a year ago, that report based on preliminary observations was given to Cornell and DEC and we never really heard back from DEC on it at all. I think what Paul is saying at this point is once he puts together his, basically, conclusions and recommendations in a more technical report the Town Board would send that to DEC with a formal request. Mr. Wertman — That's one of things you have to decide. Do you agree with my recommendation, is that something you think the University should do or is it no big deal and forget about it. 29 140 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 I 've mentioned before, I would agree and support the University's request to basically eliminate their secchi disk measurements for clarity in the lake. They're already collecting turbidity so as long they keep collecting that data I 'm fine with that. Mr. Burbank — What is the turbidity test ? Is it comparable in cost? Mr. Wertman — It's very quick and it's very cheap. It's done in the field. You basically take a little sample of the water, stick it in a machine and it reads basically light scatter. It's a much more reliable, the problem is that there 's other stuff in the lake. Really the lake is so clear that in most cases you can put the disk on the bottom and you can still see it so it's not even really a good quantitative measure and there 's other reasons why you want to get rid of it. They've demonstrated that the turbidity is a much better, and it's also very cheap and very fast. I'm okay with reducing their monitoring a little bit. They really have not entered the data from data point 2 into their calculations. They determine and present all their data from the shelf, their average shelf concentrations is the mean concentration of monitoring stations 3, 4, 57 and an average of 1 and 7. What they calculate is their average shelf concentrations as the average of what they measure at 3, 4, 5 and the combined average of 1 and 7because that's on either side. So they take the average of these two data points, plus this plus this plus this and that's what they say is the average shelf. So 6, which is sort of on the slope here, doesn 't really enter into that calculation because it is not on the shelf. I 'm saying if they want to measure it that's fine, but in the grand scheme of things that's really not important and I 'm okay with that. And they also don 't like this data point because this is influenced by the Ithaca Wastewater Treatment Plant and also the Fall Creek and Cayuga Inlet and so they don 't even use that data point so why bother collecting that data. I 'm okay with them basically eliminating those two data points if they want to save a few bucks on the monitoring. I 'm also recommending that the statistical assessment was done on total phosphorus and chlorophyll A, but not on the soluble reactive phosphorus. Remember all my discussion about the soluble, reactive phosphorus. I think that's probably a better, again chlorophyll is the best parameter because that's really measuring how much algae, what the trophic state is in the lake, but I think a statistical evaluation of the soluble reactive phosphorus will really tell us how much the lake source cooling project may be contributing to that chlorophyll production. I could perform the calculations myself, but I think you pay somebody else to do it, I think that should be performed, they should perform that data on the soluble reactive phosphorus based on the data we have. And then finally, I think that the statistical assessment should be basically re-performed when we get two more year's worth of data. The data that's being collected this year for 2004 and 2005 again for the chlorophyll and the soluble reactive phosphorus and that's basically what my recommendations are for going forward. i (In response to a question from the audience) - We have the 2003 report but the five-year summary is just through 2002. i i Councilman Stein — Could you put a ball park price tag on your recommendations for how much it would cost Cornell to do all of these things ? Do you have any idea ? i 30 141 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 Mr. Wertman - They can answer that question better than I do because, and I don 't recall the number off hand, Jonathan maybe you remember what it cost them on an annual basis to perform the monitoring that they're doing now. Mr. Kanter - I really don 't recall, but I think the only changes to what they're doing, what Paul's recommending, are a new thermal monitoring point which as Paul mentioned would be fairly easy and probably pretty inexpensive. Mr. Wertman - I think we 're talking maybe $ 1 , 000. Mr. Kanter - And the statistical analysis of the soluble phosphorus, the data has already been collected so it's just a matter of collecting it for another year after this year and then doing another statistical analysis on it which is whatever it costs Upstate Freshwater Institute. Mr. Wertman - Those two recommendations that do the statistical evaluation for soluble reactive phosphorus and to do this thermal thing that I 'm talking about, couple thousand dollars, it's not a big ticket item. The cost of them continuing their monitoring is not inconsequential. I'm guessing, and this is just a guess, but it's probably $50, 000 plus, but they already have a permit condition that says they have to do that through 2008. What they're trying to do is reduce . . . Ms. Gittelman - Until when ? Mr. Wertman - 2008. That's when their permit expires. So they have to keep doing that unless the DEC says you can do less. They're basically petitioning the DEC to reduce the program that they have right now. 1 have no interest in just having the University expend more money for no good reason, but I think there 's enough questions about how much data we have over this period of time based on the observations I 've already made to say we really need a little more data before we can feel really comfortable that there is in fact no statistically significant impact on the water quality in the southern shelf from this project. I don 't thin it's unreasonable. I 'm trying to be sensitive to the University's costs, but basically, at the same time, be able to say to you and the public that there really is no impact from this project. Ms. Gittelman - You 're talking all about the phosphorus, but if I understood you correctly you feel the chlorophyll is a better, is there any plan to do more of an assessment on the chlorophyll issue ? Mr. Wertman - If the permit doesn 't change they will have to continue to monitor chlorophyll and total phosphorus and soluble reactive phosphorus in the lake for the next four years. If the DEC agrees with their request to reduce their monitoring they would still monitor chlorophyll, total phosphorus, and soluble reactive phosphorus, but only at two locations rather than the 8 that they do right now, and so it really would almost make invalid any future statistical evaluation going forward because you 're comparing apples and oranges. What, as I mentioned before, what they say average shelf right now is these five different data points. Now they'd be only looking at one. It would be very difficult to now say we 've done a 31 142 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 statistical evaluation over five full years of operation and now we 're comfortable that there 's no statistically significant impact. i Ms. Gittelman - Because it varies from place to place. i Mr. Wertman - That's correct. Based on my assessment, if the DEC goes along with their recommendation or this proposal from the University, thE?re isn 't going to be anymore statistical evaluation, it's done. They'll collect data, it'll get submitted, but it's not really very useful. Ms. Grigorov - What would be in the letter that you 're recommending be sent from the Town Board? Would it be those two points you just mentioned? Mr. Kanter - There 's a letter that Paul just handed me tonight which just simply asks DEC to put on hold their decision until Paul gets his final report together. Mr Wertman - It's a letter from me to Tara Bloom saying on behalf of the Town, we 're the consultant, we 're doing this evaluation, please don 't make this determination on the monitoring until we submit our report. Ms. Grigorov - And you feel those are probably the two things that are the most important? Mr. Wertman - Right. And then the other thing I was talking colbout doing is to draft a position paper for the Board to say this is what our position is relative to that monitoring going forward. This first letter just says don 't act on that. It doesn 't say what to do with it. The other one will say here 's what are recommendations I've just gone over and put that into writing and basically say this is what the Board's recommendations are for continued monitoring and so ' forth. It would say: 1) do this one day thermal evaluation, 2) do this statistical evaluation for soluble reactive phosphorus based on the data we have right now, 3) continue to do the monitoring with some reductions that I 've mentioned for another one more year into 2005, and then do the statistical evaluation one more time based on 5 years of data. Ms. Grigorov — Do I remember correctly the permit requires 4 rites ? Mr. Wertman — A minimum of two on the southern shelf. Ms. Grigorov - They put extra ones on. Mr. Wertman - They chose to do these multiple sites, but now I 'm saying now that they've chosen them you can throw a couple of them away because they don 't really factor into the evaluation, you can throw away location number 2, you can throw away location number 6 because it's not on the shelf. If they want to collect that data, fine, we don 't need it for our evaluation. If they want to save a few bucks, go ahead. Mr. Lesser - You mentioned the phosphorus removal project or equipment that's now being constructed at the Ithaca sewage treatment plant. Could you say a little further about what you anticipate the effect of that phosphorus removal is going to have on the overall health of the lake, the cooling system situation aside ? And secondly, what the operation of that plan or 32 I 143 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 that new phosphorus removal operation is going to have on the evaluation of these figures since you seem to be in part looking at a trend and this presumably will effect that trend to some extent. Mr. Wertman — Town things. First of all I 'm not an expert on what's going on, / just sort of catch tidbits at our data sharing sessions, they talk about these phosphorus reduction projects that are happening at the City plant. I think it's projected to have about a 20 pound per day reduction in phosphorus to the lake, which is very significant when you add up the total phosphorus loads to the lake. The wastewater treatment plants on the southern shelf represents, it varies from time of year because during rainfall events the Fall Creek and the other inlet to the lake is significant, but during those non-rainfall events, right now, for total phosphorus the wastewater treatment plants are a bigger load by a large margin than the lake source cooling project. I think that's a very positive impact and I expect positive results in terms of reduce that phosphorus load. You 're also going to reduce the chlorophyll production in the southern part of the lake. But I think at the same time it's going to make, the lake quality should improve on the southern shelf when you reduce those loads, but it's going to make what comes out of the lake source effluent more significant in terms of it's load to the southern part of the lake so it's not like, I guess when you add up those impacts you would expect a positive impact, a reduce of the chlorophyll in the southern part of the lake from the phosphorus reduction, but you may not see all of that benefit because it might be partially offset by the soluble reactive phosphorus that the lake source cooling is increasing as more load comes on board. And by collecting two more years worth of data we 'll be able to begin to see if that's really a positive or a negative and whether we 're gaining or losing on the water quality in the southern part of the lake. Mr. Stein — I 'm just still a little bit confused now. Cornell is required to have how many monitoring sites ? Mr. Wertman — The permit specifies a minimum of two points on the shelf and one in deep water as a minimum, but the University submitted a plan that the DEC approved, they had these 8 points on it. So once they've picked those 8 points and they're doing all their data evaluations year after year after year on these 8 points, or actually like I said they're using 5 one the shelf and one deep water, you really can 't change that or you mess up the statistical evaluation, or at least the trend from year to year. Mr. Stein - Then they do have the right, on their own initiative, to reduce it to two or not? Mr. Wertman - No because they submitted a work plan that the DEC approved so they can 't just arbitrarily say even though the permit only specifies two we want to go to two. Mr. Stein - Okay, that clears that up. Now / just wonder, Cornell says the reason that they say they want to reduce from whatever it is, five to two or five to one I'm not sure but, and they make an argument. They say because there 's a consistency between all of those sites, that's what they say, now do you disagree with that statement or what's the counter argument? You know, that argument sounds like a reasonable argument. Mr. Wertman — I think that the real substance of their argument is that they said, we did the statistical evaluation and there is no statistical significant impact from the lake source cooling 33 1i 1 /114 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 over those three years, 2000, 2001 , 2002 compared to background and therefore based on this statistical evaluation there 's no need for us to continue to collect this data . That's their argument. And what my argument is, I don 't disagree that there 's no statistically significant increase based on the analysis that they did and the data they did, but I want to see the soluble reactive phosphorus and the statistics on that. And because I 've seen some spikes, some short term spikes in the chlorophyll A on the southern shelf, I want to make sure that this is not a trend that continues. Mr. Stein - Right, right, but I don 't really quite understand how you can argue that two sites is not enough if in fact the 5 sites have already produced the same data that the Mr. Wertman - That's the problem, it isn 't the same data. I mentioned in one of my other slides, there 's special variability. When you go from monitoring point 2 to 3 on any given day, 3 is different than 2, 5 is different than 4, 1 and 7 are different and they take the average of those 3, 4, 5, 1 and 7 and they say, that's the shelf. Now if they throw away everything and they just say we 're only going to take one data point 5, 1 can 't compare what they did in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2003 Mr. Stein - Because you don 't have the previous data, they've thrown it away. I see. I understand. Supervisor Valentino invited members of the public to address; the Board . She told the Board that this was not a public hearing and asked that people limit themselves to questions rather than long statements pro or con . Joe Francis, Town of Ithaca Very good report. Some questions. Given the importance of the soluble reactive phosphorus and chlorophyll A and the heat, the thermal thing. The thermal I think we 're in agreement with. 1 still have questions about SRP and chlorophyll and a problem, of course, that I see is you don 't have a lot of sampling points, that is time periods, right? You 've got 4 or 5 years. So it seems to me to get a better reading, a more stable statistically would be to extend the I monitoring period, not for one year, but for the duration, that is to 2008. Do you agree with that? Mr. Wertman - More data is always better than less data. And there is not right answer in terms of how much more data, how many more years you need to, but every year my confidence level and the confidence level should go up with the data . Personally, I think two more years, I think I can get comfortable with the data. Whether everybody can. Certainly more data is better, . but I 'm trying to be sensitive to should we really be placing the burden on the University to monitor quality in the lake for forever. I don 't think so. You can argue whether 2008 is right, 2005, more data is better. j Mr. Francis - Second question is why you didn 't do statistical :significance testing on like table 6 and 10 and so forth ? Or, maybe you 're not a statistician, 1 don 't know what the answer is ? Mr. Wertman - I 'm not a statistician but I can follow the math on these. And really Cornell has done the statistics that they had to do for the permit. They ran this before and after control impact analysis per details that they worked out with New York State DEC for total 34 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 phosphorus and chlorophyll A . My point is I think soluble reactive phosphorus is more important because that's being contributed in significant compared to the southern shelf and the same statistical analysis should be performed on that. Mr. Francis - It might have been helpful in figure 12 if you could have had more trend lines. You just have trend line on the 2003 data, the rest of them are just open dots. If we knew whether the trend lines had varied over the years, at least prior to the installation of LSC. Mr. Wertman - There is some data that goes back prior to 1998, but I would say the good data, the reliable data from all of these monitoring points really began in 1998. There is data in the reports submitted by Upstate Freshwater Institute and Cornell that shows some data, chlorophyll, total phosphorus. Going back with all the studies that had been done. But you can 't do the same sort of statistical evaluation because they're at different point and you 're trying to compare good data, one data point in a year to 100 so that complicates the assessment. I think they did it correctly. Mr. Francis - Last question if 1 may. You indicate in here that you had a fex size of less than 15% . Was that a statement from you ? Mr. Wertman - That's their statement. Mr. Francis - That's what I figured. Fex size, that's not 60% but that's not 3 or 5% either and particularly the constituents we 're worried about here, SRP, that can be cumulative. So in a fex size, 15% in one year could accumulate up. Is this true could you accumulate up or do you think not? Mr. Wertman - First start from the perspective that the lake source cooling project isn 't substantially increasing the total phosphorus loads in the southern part of the lake. That's a thing that can accumulate in the sediments and may have a accumulative effect. Quite frankly, I don 't think if we do see chlorophyll impacts in the future I think they're going to more what we see with some of these scatter points. They're going to see shorter term impacts when we 're having more soluble reactive phosphorus and conditions that promote algae for short periods of time. I don 't really think we 're going to see this cumulative degeneration of lake quality in the southern part of the shelf based on what the lake source cooking is discharging, I don 't believe that. Karen Edelstein, Town of Lansing Paul, I want to thank you for your critical insights because I think it's very much needed. I had a couple of questions and it's hard to know which one is best to ask first. In looking through the correspondences between Upstate Freshwater Institute and their responses to DEC 's comments it was interesting to me that apparently going into this whole project DEC had a very different understanding of why the monitoring was taking place than Cornell. DEC seems to indicate that they want to find out from the study whether lake source cooling is going to result in a deterioration of the water quality and Cornell's response was, oh no we were just wanting to collect water quality data there. I think that may be part of what is going on in this, the tension between these different factions here and I'm wondering where your recommendations sort of fall in those interpretations. 35 I 146 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 Mr. Wertman - I guess I can take a broader interpretation and 1 guess from my perspective, I take the broader perspective of DEC. Is there deterioration in the water quality in the lake that might be contributed to the lake source-cooling project? I think the University's interpretation is much more narrow, more like a legal interpretation of what the SPEDES Permit says because the SPEDES Permit doesn 't say you have to determine whether there 's, there 's conflicting language in the SPEDES Permit and 1 think you can take the University's view of it that if there isn 't a statistically significant trend I think is one terminology that is used in the permit, then they're okay. 1 think you 've hit the nail on the head. I think the University doesn 't really think it's their job to address the broader question; they just have to come up with the statistical test. Their test basically says if we don 't have more that a 30% impact over this period of time based on this data, we don 't consider that significant. Ms. Edelstein — Because the feel that statistically they can 't determine causality based on the number of monitoring stations. Mr. Wertman — Yes, and quite frankly I don 't know what the right number is. I don 't think anybody does. Whether it's 30% or 20% . So from my perspective I don 't get hung up on the numbers. I look at the data and the trends and really what's going on in the southern shelf. And the bigger question is what's causing it. And the lake source cooling project is only one thing and that's what makes it really difficult to assess because there are many many things goings on that effect the dynamic environment in the lake. Ms. Edelstein — On that note, considering that the Ithaca Wa:)tewater Treatment Plant is one of those factors and the level of inputs of phosphorus have varied tremendously historically and now with the tertiary treatment that's going to chancre also. I'm not quite sure I understand why in the mix of things you 'd want to knock that i Mr. Wertman — The number 2 monitoring point off, which is kind of the worst location in terms of the sourthern shelf. Because they don 't use it for their average data and I think it always will be tainted. No matter what that data point is, it will be, that's not from the lake source cooling project, it's more likely from the Fall Creek Inlet or the wastewater treatment plants. It's too far removed from the lake source input. The flow direction on the shelf is basically counterclockwise along the eastern shore. Anything you observe at 2 is always going to be I suspect. They ignore it in their average calculations of what's going on on the shelf, so if you don 't want to monitor it, I'm okay with it. Ms. Edelstein — 1 really appreciate your pushing for longer extended monitoring and, like Joe, I would agree that going through the 2008 date sounds like a really wise, that continuing the monitoring as it currently is at least through the 2008 date would be a really great benefit. I Mr. Wertman — Like I said more data is better. I think 111 be comfortable with 2004 and 2005 data to say we 're concerned or we 're not. And quite frankly, as I said, I don 't see a smoking gun here, but I'm not ready to say there 's absolutely, positively, no deterioration of the southern part of the lake from lake source cooling and that's why I 'm making these recommendation. i Ms. Edelstein — Thank you. 36 I 147 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 Dooley Kiefer, Town of Ithaca . I appreciate the opportunity to interact a little bit with you. I wondered your view on the likely increase in use of lake source cooling as Cornell buildings come on line. It will be operating at a higher capacity. And whether you think it doesn 't make sense to extend monitoring until the major build out that's underway is completed for that very reason. Mr. Wertman - One of the reasons why I think we need some more data and maybe two years is enough, maybe it isn 't, but right now I think we need at least 2 more year's data . And that may not fully address your question. Ms. Kiefer - No, it doesn 't. Mr. Wertman - Right now the lake source cooling project, in the summertime, on some days it reaches near capacity, but until it's running almost at design capacity for the full month of July and August that's when you 'll see the greatest impact from the lake source cooling. And that's the question. Under those circumstances, under full capacity for extended period of time will we know at that point that that's not going to effect lake quality and I'd say, no. And the more data we have and the more we see that production going up and the wastewater treatment plant loads going down, we 'll be better able to answer that question. Maybe we 'll be there in 2 years, maybe we need 2008 to get to that answer. Ms. Kiefer - Maybe the Town could check with Cornell when most of their major construction will be online and using lake source cooling. Mr. Wertamn - If I could just answer that, what they've told us in the data sharing meetings is that they add about 3 or 4 % per year to the load so 1 don 't think they're really expecting they're going to be at design capacity, they're running around 50% right now. So I think it will be probably 10 years or more before they even approach design capacity in July and August. Ms. Kiefer - I had a question about figure 12. 1 wondered if those data wouldn 't be usefully shown on a graph that also includes precipitation. I that done in any of the analysis ? Mr. Wertman - They show precipitation contributions separately, but they don 't sort of put those two things together. It would be interesting. Ms. Kiefer - It needs doing. Mr. Wertman - The last thing I wanted to ask you about was the Bocci analysis. I don 't believe I 've ever read one where a particular site in a comparison in any pairs was both identified as a control site and an impact site. That really surprised me. I wondered if you had a reaction to that? Mr. Wertman - I thought it was a little strange myself that you can have one and that it could work either way, but they had enough other data, it wasn 't like they did the ,before and after control impact on just a couple of pairs. They did, I think, 4 or 5. 37 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 Mr. Stein - This question about the capacity of lake source cooling. If they're running at 100% capacity on a hot day, then they're at capacity. You can 't expect them to, I mean, your air conditioners are never running full out every single day you have to have enough capacity so that on the hottest day you can do the necessary cooling. I don 't see how you can imagine that they are going to be running at 100% capacity every day. Because then that means on the hot days they won 't be able to cool their buildings. I 'm sorry I 'm so long winded, but the point I'm making is it seems to me if you 're at 100% capacity for a significant number of days then you 're not going to be growing a lot. Mr. Wertman - Actually they're not at 1 -- % capacity. I might have said that. Normally what happens now, on a very hot summer day they may be approaching maybe not 100 but maybe 70, 80, 90% capacity during the daytime and at night it cools off and their capacity drops off. But as they add more buildings and more loads to things, they're use of water and their discharge will increase not just on a daily basis but on a consecutive day basis and that's really the question. That project on a single day is not going to impact the water quality on the southern shelf, but if they're running near capacity day after day after day for a couple of weeks, then you can start to see some potential impacts from the facility. And they're not there yet. The numbers 1 quoted relative, they're 50% capacity, that's the University's capacity. They look at the number of tons of cooling capacity that's basically on the system and they're basically, they've only got about half, more or less, on to that system as what they can have on the system at full design capacity. So the load's going to go up. Rich DePaolo, Town of Ithaca 1 do want to state for the record that I did walk out on a Yankees / Red Sox Game for this. Anyway, I 'm going to try to phrase everything in the form of cer question, just to address what Mr. Stein was asking about, once lake source cooling reaches full capacity, the University uses electrical chillers, uses back up air conditioners to service its additional load. The lake source cooling project cannot be expanded the way it is currently designed. i I think there is something fundamentally wrong with the premise of this analysis. How can we attempt to determine what a statistically significant impact is when we don 't know what determines a statistically significant impact? To my knowledge there 's no numberical threshold, there 's no value that's been established to ascertain whether or not the project is having an impact. So at the end of this what do we hope to achieve. Mr. Wertamn - That's why it's such a difficult question to answer because there is not standard. There is no universally accepted methodology. I think the before and after control impact analysis is probably as good a test as what's out there . Whether there 's a better one, j and then the big question is, like you say, what amount of total phosphorus or chlorophyll A concentration changes over time would constitute something that's statistically significant. There is no correct answer for that. And that's why I don 't subscribe to this 30% that they suggest as being correct or incorrect. Certainly if it was 30% 1 would say that's absolutely significant. If it's less than 30% it doesn 't mean it's insignificant. So I look at other things about just what do we see as trends in average concentrations and spikes particularly during July, August, September when the lake source cooling project is most significant in terms of 38 i 49 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 its impact on the lake. And I have more faith in those sort of empirical evaluations than I do on a statistical number. Mr. DePaolo — Are you aware of any effort, ongoing effort, at the DEC to adopt numerical thresholds for this project. Mr. Wertman — The work plan has been submitted by the University that says they're going to this before and after control impact. That they're going to use 30% . And I understand DEC has accepted that methodology. Mr. DePaul — As I understand it, EPA called for numerical thresholds in 1999 and it still hasn 't happened so I was just curious about that. Mr. Wertman — It isn 't exact science so I suspect it will be a long time before you get to the regulators agreeing on a number. Mr. DePaolo — How do you feel about the use of a deep-water control site 8 miles up the lake to measure the effects of a project in the southern basin of the lake ? Mr. Wertman — I think it's okay because, number one the deep water chlorophyll numbers and the shallow chlorophyll numbers are not hugely different and anything that you choose in the southern shelf is impacted by a lot of different things including maybe at some times a lake source cooling project. So when you really want to say t want to look at background, something that is not impacted by the impact that I'm trying to measure, I think something in the deep water makes sense to me. Mr. DePaolo — As opposed to say site 4 or something, which is perhaps far enough away from the outfall plume but still within the same area. Mr. Wertman — Probably most of time it's okay, but depending upon which was the wind is blowing and other things it may not be okay. So I think on a routine long-term basis I like at least one of the control impacts maybe the most important, or I 'm sorry the back ground locations to be location 8 or 6 or something that's away from the shelf. Mr. DePaolo — So you indicated there 's an effort underway to limit the number of sample sites. Why instead of ignoring those sites, instead of eliminating them from the analysis, why not attempt to run an analysis against the individual sites on a time line basis to determine whether or not the project is having an impact in a limited area. My impression is that there 's an effort underway to eliminate special variability when in essence that may be the impact of the project. Mr. Wertman — That's right and that's why I 'm against dropping those other monitoring locations because there is spatial variability particularly on the shelf with regard to the water quality and unless you look at multiple points you can 't really see the big picture. Mr. DePaolo — Have you seen a correlation, I mean I looked at the draft report, and just visually it looks as though there ' a on the scatter point graph there 's a correlation between chlorophyll A at site 7 and the onset of lake source cooling. Have you drawn any 39 i I 150 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 conclusions ? Has anyone run an analysis between say site 7 and a control site as opposed to just the average of site 1 and site 7. Mr. Wertman - No. 1 haven 't looked at that. I think it would be interesting to do, but 1 think i one reason why they haven 't selected it and why I haven 't pushed for it is because 7 is also impacted by some of the wastewater discharges. And then it's a question of what are we looking at? Is this an impact from the lake source cooking or something else ? And the prevailing flow direction is north, away from 7, not towards it. Mr. DePaolo - It's been suggested by some of the individuals I 've talked to that the outfall could pose a hydrological barrier of sorts to the natural flow iri the lake. Do you know if that's been investigated at all? Mr. Wertman - No. I couldn 't speak to that. Mr. DePaolo - Just to clarify what you were just saying, rather than say well this is within the influence of the Cayuga Heights plant so we 'll have to toss it out, it seem to me that we have the data from all the known sources why not quantify that data and then try to determine whether or not there 's a correlation between any spikes say from the wastewater treatment plant and the chlorophyll A, look at these sources independently as opposed to just say well this could be clouded by that influence so we 're not even going to look at it at all. Mr. Wertman - Well l guess I've always been puzzled why they didn 't have a data point right over the outfall as part of this monitoring, but they never have. But it's too late now to be saying, I wasn 't involved in the actual development of the monitoring program or 1 would have made a comment with regard to their selection of monitoring points. But they've made the monitoring points, I think they're valuable in terms of making the assessment and I'm not j trying to second guess how they came up with those things. We go five or six years ' worth of data so far and I think we can make the assessment going forward based on those data points although I don 't necessarily think they might have been the best locations. Mr. DePaolo - With respect to the data that actually exists, do you favor retaining the jindividual sites and analyzing the individual sites with the possible exception of site 2 and site 6. Mr. Wertman - I think you 've got to do both. 1 think you do the before and after and you look at individual sites also because you can glean different information from it. Mr. DePaolo - There are some, there 's sort of some bad math in this summary report in terms of on table seven, page 26, that sort of attempts to quantify the lake source cooling contribution of phosphorus against the other sources. It seems to me that where the total sources are combined, it looks as though there 's supposed to be a total of the means, these averages for these various places, and the math is basically just wrong. It doesn 't add up correctly so the percentages that are figure to determine the contribution of lake source cooling is just not accurate in this report. I Mr. Wetman - I didn 't check every calculation in the report, but 40 151 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 Mr. DePaolo - They actually overestimated so I'm not a bad guy. However, I did include the 2003 data in an analysis and projected at full capacity and it looks as (flip tape) Mr. Wertman - I think the bottom line is when you look at things over a short term period of time and consider the capacity of the plant, the load, is more significant than the average data that they project says. Mr. DePaolo - I 'm trying to move this along. I apologize because I do have a number of questions. 1 think they're relevant hopefully you 'll give me another hour and a half. In the summary report table 7 on page 26 it says that the contribution of the tributaries, phosphorus contribution of the tributaries assumes 26 micrograms per liter and then basically is multiplied by whatever the flow rate is. We don 't really know what the actual contributions are. Mr. Wertman - No, that's not very reliable data. Mr. DePaolo - And the 2003 report actually averages the previous 3 years, instead of listing it individually. Do you know why that is ? Mr. Wertman - I have no idea . Mr. DePaolo - When you said that the project is performing as predicted does that mean that it is more or less comporting with the assumption, the modeling assumption, that the project would contribute between 5 and 6% of the algae growth in the southern lake. Mr Wertman - 1 think I was making a broad statement that what the expected loadings and flows and concentrations of the various key parameters in the outfall are more or less what they predicted what they would be and so forth. Not that any one number matches a number they predicted in a model. Supervisor Valentino - Rich, I think I 'm going to give you one more question because there are people here for a couple of issues here tonight: Mr. DePaolo - Okay, 111 have to select it carefully then. Are you aware of any, I guess we 're looking at a report that's already over a year old and that's based on data that's now over 2 years old. We 're looking at 2 % years of post op data. What's the hold up ? Are you aware of any issues going up behind the scenes, anything that's getting hashed out between UP, Cornell, and the DEC with respect to the statistical analysis itself? How that's going to be performed ultimately for the final report? Mr. Wertman - I think they've already performed it. They already have their before and after control impact analysis that they've submitted that we have a copy of. So from their perspective they've already performed that evaluation and deemed it to be insignificant in terms of the impact from the lake source cooling. In the University's mind they've already made that assessment. 41 i 152 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 Mr. De Paulo — Are you aware of any issues relating to the number of sites that are being included in the statistical. . . Mr. Wertman — I've only seen the letters from the University that says they agreed on which locations would be control and impact, and that's it. Mr. DePaolo — My last and final question is why haven 't you returned my phone calls for the last year and a half? I called you four times. Mr. Wertman — You 're not my client, if you want to write me I would be . . . Supervisor Valentino — I think that's out of order. 1 there anyone else that wanted to ask another question of Paul? There was no one with further questions and Supervisor Valentino that those present and Mr. Wertman for their participation . Mr. Kanter told the Board that Mr. Wertman would be writing up his report . That report could be submitted to the Board for further discussion at the November meeting . The Board asked that Mr. Wertman come to the November 18 , 2004 Town Board meeting for review and ,I discussion of his recommendations prior to their submittal to DEC . Agenda Item No . 17 — Discussion regarding Proposed Donation of Park and Trail Relating to the Mountin Subdivision , West Haven Road and Elm Street Extension (Attachment #10 — Memo from S . Ritter) Supervisor Valentino reported that the issue had been discussed at the Public Works Committee and the Committee recommended proceeding with the proposal . Supervisor Valentino asked the people involved to address the Board and describe their proposal . Dave Mountin , 274 Grey Road ; Jeff Cowey , Elm Street; and William Goodman , resident of the second neighborhood at EcoVillage appeared before the board . i The group proposed donating a 2 . 6-acre parcel of parkland with restrictions . Mr. Mountin , project applicant , told the Board that he was proposing a subdivision in the area and got together with people from the neighborhood that were interest in having part of the parcel preserved for parkland and used as a natural way for the neighborhood . Mr. Cowey went on to say that the neighbors formed an informal group called Wall to the West Hill Area Land Trust and raised enough money to do the subdivision and keep the 2 . 6-acre parcel to hopefully donate to the Town . Using a site plan , Mr. Goodman showed the location of the proposed 2 . 6-acre parcel to the Board and described how portions of it serve as : an emergency access road to EcoVillage , a i driveway , and a walking path . Mr. Goodman as representative of EcoVillage told the Board that EcoVillage' s involvement would be to purchase a buffer strip and Lot F to be donated to the Town . i 42 153 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 Supervisor Valentino questioned the applicants regarding the competing uses of the trail as walkway and access road . She asked how safe the path was for pedestrians . Mr. Goodman told her the path was graded as a road , was 50 feet wide , the gravel roadway does not take up the entire strip and it is possible to walk without actually being on the gravel . Mr. Burbank stated that he had walked the path dozens of times and did not think he had ever run into a car. He acknowledged that there are occasional cars but could see it easily accommodating pedestrian traffic . Supervisor Valentino felt the Town having a trail that was also used by automobiles was kind of a stretch from anything the Town had done before . She wondered about Highway Department concerns and any liability issues regarding combined use by cars and pedestrians . Councilman Stein stated that the Town has roads that people walk along and he wondered what the liability was . Mr. Barney stated that once the Town owns the road then any accident that occurs on it there' s going to be a claim made that the Town has not done something in terms of maintaining that road or preventing the accident in some fashion . Whether the claim is successful or not remains to be seen . Mr. Barney reminded the Board that the Town is being sued where kids went off Sandbank Road at 75 miles per hour through a restraining fence , but somehow the problems is ours as a Town . Mr. Barney. felt the problem with the proposal before the Board was the mix . If it is going to be a trail , we shouldn 't have cars running up and down it. If it' s going to be a road then it shouldn 't be designated a trail . Mr. Barney stated it was not an insurmountable issue , but it is something the Town should think about . He noted the other possibility is not getting title to the roadway, just getting an easement to get access to the park . Mr. Goodman thought that was what was originally proposed . Ms . Ritter told the Board that initially the applicant was only going to give the Town an easement, ownership of one and an easement to the other. After staff went on a field trip that involved Engineering , Planning , and Highway staff recommended to the applicant that they give the town title to both pieces . This would give the Town the opportunity to do what needed to be done in terms of the access-ways for a pedestrian pathway. Mr. Kanter added that staff' s recommendation would create less of a land -locked parcel , which the park would become without the ownership . Mr. Walker reported his observation that there is a roadway that currently serves one residence plus serves as an emergency access to a major residential area plus you 've got a third lot that Mr. Walker believed has a variance for a building permit so you 've got three landowners using a piece of land that is currently owned by none of them . Mr. Walker thought it would make sense for the Town to have title to property stating normally in a subdivision of this type the Town would want to have title and create a road to serve the lots . He said a low-volume roadway could be built, either by the applicant, the Town , or the people using . A separate sidewalk or pathway could be provided . There is plenty of room to do this , to have separation with grass and have a gravel walkway and an 18 or 20-foot wide roadway. Mr. Burbank felt that paving the roadway would greatly change the character of the area and felt there must be a way to capture what is working well now and to preserve it for the future . Conceivably the trail could end and maybe get permission to route the official trail up through EcoVillage where there is potential for foot traffic . The access coming on the roadway wouldn 't be officially on the trail but in point of fact dozens of people walk up and down the real road , which is West Haven , everyday at much greater peril to their life . Mr. Goodman concurred stating this is exactly 43 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 one of the big problems , a lot of the foot traffic is already heading down West Have , which is an extremely dangerous road at night. With the development increasing on West Hill the idea is to provide an alternative . Councilman Lesser asked if there were any plans or thoughts about the use of the other land , and stated if it becomes a Town property the Town has an obligation to make it accessible to others . Mr. Lesser was not sure how people could safely get to the property, if walking on the road is dangerous , there doesn 't appear to be anyplace to drive nearby , and there is no bus service . Mr. Lesser asked if there was any thought given to how this could be resolved ? Mr. Kanter stated one way would be to put a walkway on West Haven Road and/or Elm Street Extension . He added that this proposal ties in with the long-term Open Space Plan . There' s an upper West Hill path network that is to the east of West Haven Road and the site is over on the west side of West Haven Road but there ' s a possibility that the two could link , then you would have a more unified system . Meanwhile Mr. Kanter thought the Board might want to think about some kind of safer walking conditions on West Haven Road and Elm Street Extension . Councilwoman Grigorov pointed out to the applicants that the pathway would not be the same if the Town takes it over; it will be more safety oriented and it will be open to the public . Councilman Burbank asked that the Board be aware of the effort to which the neighborhood has gone to raise the money to preserve land that is very special to them . He istated that there seems to be a way that the Town could do this and work with the people without feeling we have to recreate the East Hill Recreation Way , Mr. Burbank did not feel every trail needed to be up to that standard . With the cooperation of the neighbors , the area could remain a passive park that is relatively undeveloped and not formally designated as a class one trail . Councilwoman Grigorov asked if that could be done? Mr. Noteboom said it would be a Board decision and told the Board that most of the trail is pretty well built . In his opinion most of what they would need to do is clearing some brush back . Ms . Grigorov asked if the Town would have to surface it? Mr. Noteboom did not believe so . Mr. Kanter added that in some of the parks the trails are woodchip and there are no specified standard for a trail . i j Supervisor Valentino stated she liked the existing natural beauty of the trail . She thought the Town would have to clear some of the brush back and on the parts where there is going to be competition with cars the Town should figure out a way to sE%parate where people might be walking from the road . Mr. Barney stated his concern with the ownership was the accompanying liability . Even without the ownership there are questions of who has responsibility for maintenance . These would have to be worked out as part of the transaction . Mr. Cowley and the Terwilligers currently maintain their portion and EcoVillage plows the other portion . Mr. Cowley stated that most of the traffic on the path is very local , but there is space to park a couple of vehicles off of Elm Street . In response to comments by Councilwoman Gittelman regarding an increase in use by people other than neighbors , Mr. Cowley thought Mr. Burbank had had stated the spirit of what the applicants are after, but he would not have problems with such use . Mr . Goodman spoke on behalf of EcoVillage and told the Board his community would welcome use . One of 44 155 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 their missions is an educational mission and they have trails of their own that they welcome people to walk on . Supervisor Valentino asked Mr. Noteboom if the Town were to take ownership so that the Town has access to the passive park would it be a seasonal road . Mr. Noteboom felt it was a question the Town would need to talk about and decide what level of maintenance we would want to do . Mr. Kanter told the Board that the proposal is going before the Planning Board the following evening and wanted a pretty clear message from the Board . Supervisor Valentino stated she was not personally opposed to the proposal . She thought it was basically a good idea and thought the Planning Board should discuss the concerns raised by the Town Board and look closer at the level of maintenance the Town should perform . In answer to questions from Ms . Gittelman , Attorney Barney stated the Town would decide the level of development they want for the park . Mr. Burbank felt the Town might begin to see a trend in the establishment of discreet neighborhood parks that should reflect the interests of the neighborhood . He thought the Town could draw on the help of the neighbors conceivably in terms of maintenance . The Board concurred that they were willing to send the proposal on to the Planning Board saying it was an interesting idea , but there is some concern about making sure that the neighbors and Town have some kind of an agreement and understanding regarding maintenance , upkeep , and access . Ms . Ritter asked for clarification from the Board regarding ownership of the driveways . Attorney Barney stated the problem with ownership of a seasonal road is that once you have a year- round residence on a road , the Town would have to maintain it . The Board felt the issue of ownership versus easement need further discussion . Agenda Item No . 18 — Report of Freedom of Speech in Relation to the Town Sign Ordinance (Attachment #11 — Memos from J . Barney and M . Russell ) Attorney Barney and Mary Russell summarized their findings (attached ) for the Board . Ms . Russell researched the issue and concluded that a 30-day limitation for political signs is not an acceptable period of time . In looking at previous cases there doesn 't seem to be a bright line as to what is acceptable and what is not . There are some cases that support some time limitation and others that say a time limitation on a political position , one that is expressing an opinion as opposed to one that is an election ; any time limitation on it may be unconstitutional . Mr. Barney reported there seems to be fair unanimity that with signs related to election a time limit may be tied in some fashion, to the election , but somewhat longer than 30 days might be found to be acceptable . In looking at the Town ' s ordinance , Mr. Barney recommended getting rid of the 30-day temporary sign limitation on either political or election signs . He looked to the Board to determine whether they wanted to eliminate any time limitation . He recommended that the Board immediately authorize him to rewrite the law to eliminate the 30-day limitation and then do a little bit of studying about what other limitations the Board might consider. Councilman Stein had read the materials and felt making rules about political signs was dangerous . He asked himself what the real problem is . He felt the problem was the litter of 45 L . October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 the signs after an election . He wondered if the Town could have an ordinance that separated signs which are directed towards a particular timed event , a yard sale or an election , that would distinguish them from signs that are an on-going expression of belief, Jesus saves or save the whales . Councilwoman Grigorov , Councilman Lesser did not feel thE3kre would be a big impact if the simply eliminated the time limits entirely . Councilman Burbank felt the issue ultimately came down to cultivating a sense of community and respect for your neighbors rather than trying to legislate an arbitrary limit . Mr. Burbank was in favor of immediately eliminating the time limit and would encourage the Board not to impose any limit at all , recognizing that there is an irritating effect . The Board concurred on immediately eliminating the 30-day limitation on political signs , but making no changes regarding the size of signs . Other Business Board Policies and Procedures Supervisor Valentino told the Board she wanted to put together a committee to establish some procedures and policies for the Town ' s boards . She has asked staff members Judy Drake and Tee-Ann Hunter to serve . She has asked Councilwoman Gittelman and proposed asking Councilman Engman to serve . Board members would have access to the group to give written suggestion or talk . 2005 Health Insurance Options (Attachment #12 - Health Insurance Options ) Ms . Drake circulated information on the 2005 health insurance options to the Board and invited members to attend the upcoming Personnel CommitteE% meeting where the options will be under discussion . Agenda Item No . 21 — Report of Town Committees I There were no reports from Town Committees i Agenda Item No 22 — Report of Town Officials (Attachment #13 — monthly reports) I Board members received the monthly departmental reports in their packets . Manager of Human Resources Councilman Stein asked if there would be a final report on the Board / Staff retreat . Ms . Drake said the matter had been left hanging , particularly the mission / vision part . j Councilman Stein stated he would like to see the end of it . Ms . Drake will follow up . Agenda Item No . 23 — Review of Correspondence (Attached #14 — email from M . Russell The Board received a letter from Mary Russell regarding CowMac in their packets . Agenda Item No . 24 — Consider Executive Session 46 157 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Approved December 13, 2004 There was no executive session . Adiournment On motion by Councilwoman Gittelman , seconded by Councilman Burbank , the meeting was adjourned at 9 : 45 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Tee-Ann Hunter Town Clerk NEXT MEETING — NOVEMBER 4, 2004 47 155 1 II 1 III ' TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN BOARD SIGN - IN SHEET DATE : Monday , October 18 , 2004 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS / AFFILIATION kc, Get ,� � �� ► � / Y I G CX tAl Gi vl 1C , i i 1 1 i 1 i l i 1 I i i l' I I I TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I , Tee-Ann. Hunter, being duly sworn , say that I am the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County, New York that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper, Ithaca Journal: ADVERTISEMENT : ORDER FOR PUBLIC HEARING : IN THE MATTER OF THE PROVIDING OF A PROPOSED WATER IMPROVEMENT TO BE KNOWN AS THE TOWN OF ITHACA 2004 KINGS WAY WATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN THE TOWN OF ITHACA, TOMPKINS COUNTY, NEW YORK PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 12-C OF THE TOWN LAW Location of' Sign Board Used for Posting : Town Clerk's Office 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca , NY 14850 Date of Posting : WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29 , 2004 Date of Publication : THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30 , 2004 Tee-Ann Hunter, Town Clerk , Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 5th day of October 2004 . Notary Public CARRIE WHITMORE Notary PubI ;c; . State of New York No . Gt WH6052877 Tioga County Commission Expires December 28, CaCo .- I - no* dar 1 { 4 aR calf a Pube o4 Coll-t . k 1. neggdFO J the Pd rpp�on, report �eyalS \ ; NCFITNA , addrma °owne'o4ovWaar \I iz CA n ,. a HIII . tlth TO ORpER fOR to 5 South Prove g - 1 k pUB�1C+ p + fTHE` t Le{,dIS : iT�onrnand to h ar!alUblectl. , VomcdpeAcnEngman T E MprjECvROOf A ZCa\ ment,� steel In the ce , -r,,Aye Steln . s Intere ordan V°tm IN �NpIN, pTER 'been son all .m ac4 Sec arson "Kt ,- 11 PR ' 0 ENTTO.'6E map 'have ei sthere9the PrOVlswhownlow , C�at4kI' AYeasrthereupon 11 IMPR N p S SHE004 N sl'O� ored bY ,Dangweer - li Won 209 9�HE EFOR b'ITthe ! Th elaiededuly adoptN�nter; KN pF ITNNpY W TER �rE ahe Toe°9lneer dultylew Nag pRDERED io�,oF , d Tee Town Cler 4i p A KINGS pVEMENTr ' N compel b the State °4ded'int HER n. gOard o4 1he bar ,1 c q00 PR_ . , TOW eel Y een Tow kips County , fain 8 ELIN TQMPKIN54 °ens and h f the Town CI fo llthaca TOaPfotlov+s heor Se T York ork PR ITHAGAr YORK of Ice °. : available f4egw Y 1 . A Pu, Town : OVN ''N ARTICLE 1 tWhere they e tion'pOd 04 Sect on e held of tie T1o9°� > � , - :. .OUR SIIAN THE TOWN public S the ,are o be. iln9 N\11215" "Norl of IthaCtl k pF , VdHEREA,. mad t tall, the Cdy New4 74 C LAW F the*lTO\N , said Towel bYteS°d 1S , °y Tot Akins j6th delay pp 17 -0 At ° # o4:the9oWnoFlthNeN ibeacatte20Qa emegtk:FfroleoF llllll (ork oe'th2p04 a`sidefthe} gomPk1PS ' 0° 21.15ew.. 1Water ImrOV enhre`areaOc`tob 'M IV.con repo dndR held 1^ � N oF• hconslsts o"�eXCeptln9ita ned o does '1 Plan r�estion o, Sorka Street e 13th p °� 30' _ 'rsa- a Tow - area con , uga p .and the 9 ZoWn cF; Y a�er k2p04 : atv JIo6i JrOn 'theVllloge oF'C 3 V- 18 MG p4saK King ro Ect . SePYemb; P M _Pfe „ wdh+n ands rop°sad , 'Photo 29 vemen{r'P 1 ,r- , o clock, HegPubs,. S ca 2Qa K ner t', Water; hetlr all pars° �het I . EA 4 HER, 0 TImeSENT +wa '" ° r ` own aF Itha 1' pfovem, and t° ; the +ruble a same t ARE e(`11sor' , +t'o ' ° > Way WatS sis ,oF, , v+°be ested concerning is ac non`` S ttPenn Volen, r ecY`con 4orth • and e %1 > by GCoun n�persa ova ty *A\ P1 Wrovementel eare$s`oFula l and to as ds { rejoW c Gn9 a `r and it be thereut ° n Clerk' CGouncdpejSO ' 4 I . , Town Ass more pO�tbedti n�, 1oSection 10�e `oF IthN 4 willia odeerson" '. t ohown a a lan `and repo 'of' 1-thems Cog^authorized,:all [; 7 P W any, e son Ries ntly apf,FileG+,erke ' Y kkls tiled yto :uwee ubf � ' dl Burb ,b;cox solo. Coun P man t t mot.` p o4 the Town" 04 °PPrOX+- ondr duetarder,tO b Ithaca HCoun��person ° FweCon ce3 _ osl strgl0n Feeteow�ater ;°tiedFon1s wtalsohto P ownt. PpgSENT g5ondraPG!tYelman ,n°hlyda�tUjInin9 PF�alnz °n lOUrnath�eo { ant nned :,bY F: a °zsl"-'` ort m°'°I exstln9 m Km9s �OPnboard • rt les thaP to 5, ee,: S a P _ rep rat To s .Road along ': Ro slg Clerk, of ,°t Nlenty. daY lan, wn t ad WI IEREA been duly a^d DanbY East K'ngthe ex r lthe ore ?h°n r tlslgn°ted and mdpyhas m heretoF N a po�aless�est of",. d to- �l, be4 e .heo�aPy°a FVdh°the..;._tl such > ore t ust uan9 g VeI `p°rsd F in, ' 100 aslr e� by the '.to . . PEast ROadtrols . 'For the accord 5, ct. 6, 209 , , 1O een determ -Towel o4:., isnWe o^' I coo all s of 40 Town gpOrd °k ns M1 CpOnthe.. l9etber es Structures., pP n r " PrOVll 1 :,, ^ k°w order shall . dthacQ.%Yo�knfelacogtru non t ondath,.+ the oFS ctlon3 `mrl eddtelyadaP � Ne `" ' anAtcle 12 5 y eEmprovemeea ghat`°\ ttaT�e gvestl4i 9°m9rsr per atwn Pu�s`uon"" lave '.oworto e wh1\ocated�eti°p9oa`ded tte 1 hOn °F on maYio�. alennno, ,the To , rovements as the be r. to are .°ppropo N°s �uCathennGolncllperso°Ikof Item kn w oP ldtha oit26�ovement levels of Water;jo 5 titer v5eeondedG 9orov golly PU• x Town } Water; ,�mPaFter.'alsot dmberafthed T er CarolY°ate4OO 'OFollowsa111 . �W ay , d herein , , Love . n err an develop, to p d'as ulte P"-r,Pl 0a° eras. Imp .rwa customEREAS ..Ih65ubdrvlswn ,whichre�rValenhrlo 7' rMentea?ipaimPa°emeher Imt o4 h SwheNlmProv aet:L4or Su�otm� eAoniGr gorov . l lei system TOwntWat rove ,heed c m leted 4Qa ote I water T .Caunclg .A e 4 h e FhPelPementbes��hsti �eartoy bh ecepah aW°gar onion roF } Gout�alpe<SAYe e s nkY rO,4 c. l Con \n `d a ment , to kln w'th '�' ed by 'sery sta'nnal Pbdvl stun Sim supP For +a sub } of n r s s, z: 1 arson guy •, guns be the osed Duna p y ry r0 -, - .w1' t nr ':mater °oF Ithaca,, Nith be ? the p P P the TO ImPrOyemenfown of arWr1ERE'ASedulora°;st v+n x, 4 entire °theatr tlon„ s offer aIF'tle To vned abY, coin Ple . M1, er h0 Movement a rnaten I P i Ithaca �.r° on * 4 re the Imp to s�Pp1Y �h :a ( I:`,� � „ t3 F'and . : r $ SaksordW PlO^ o9sea^d' the too,)a a : r. i VdHEPEA c m a1 WHEREAS Ibe .,eXPende r r sad t0 a�6fIthacav 4o t� pry Phe Tor ac ImPr .I e um b afore r mawm �Se $20 d ost o4;thee�tand' v. i ate , c esti for the Im�( ethod ahe 'proP°a be_,emplo�oa the. ha�To n,1o4 'Ithacenleiif; : is� the= old ImPrOV n$YeriolS a4ores said q P al o Surplus Fun ;,iZV4 p00' S exceed ' "Cie 'an dH )$'tddy "tivi 14 t c_ I w�lIkOlk"P a" I TOWN OF ITHACA r AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I , Tee-Ann Hunter, being duly sworn , say that I am the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper, Ithaca Journal: ADVERTISEMENT: ORDER FOR PUBLIC HEARING : IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOUTHERN CAYUGA LAKE INTERMUNICIPAL WATER COMMISSION EAST HILL WATER TANK AND WATER MAINS , THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR SUCH PURPOSE , THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF JOINT AND SERVERAL SERIAL BONDS FOR A PORTION OF THE COSTS OS SUCH PROJECT, AND THE EXECUTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT OF MUNICIPAL COOPERATION GOVERNING SUCH WATER TANK AND WATER MAINS . Location of Sign Board Used for Posting : Town Clerk' s Office 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca , NY 14850 Date of Posting : WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29 , 2004 Date of Publication : THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30 , 2004 Tee-Ann Hunter, Town Clerk , Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 5th day of October 2004 . Notary Public CARRIE WHITMORE Notary Publi state of New York No . U1 WH6052877 Tioga County commission Expires Decembw28,07Uz1UJ i TOWN OF-,ITHACA " ' `-WHEREAS; based upon, Y - -- - - yy powers and authority, and ORDER 'FOR . said Ian and -report ito hear all persons interest- - f p Legals y PUBLIC HEARING SCLIWC and the Municipali- ed in the subject thereof and L ' �noa uwho ned the expend;- concerning the same and to 'IN'THE MATTER OF THE ttuie of ,$21310 835 for- the , - take such action` thereon as '-INCREASE IN THE Improvement" and author t is require by law.• iied the issuance 'bf omh; -ems to 'bririg +them into cam Section 2 . 'The Town Clerk III COSTS `OF. PROVIDING and several seridl bon s .1 P, h of the Town of 'Ith`aca, Nance with current buildm ' { W A;PROP I I codes u radio the'nort TWO-STORY OFFICE the amount' of $ 1 ,000,000 P9 9 Tompkins . `County,• ' New ,'ANDWORK SPACE' to' pay for .part of the, costs ( entrance to the facility, and York is hereby authorized , ADDITION, TO:THE iof sai I hpprovement, and - adding four; pddrtional park and directed to cause a ; 4 WHEREAS, the bids•for,the i ing spaces to accommodate co of thisbrder to be ub SOUTHERN ` PY p ' LAKEINTERMUNICIPALI Improvement16ceived fromI Thepublo • r lished once ' in the official WATER%COMMIS ION the lowest responsible bid: ' • ` " new once, Municipal WATER TREATMENT ders for each,segment of the , WHEREAS the maximum:. ity; and also, to post a copy , PLANT IN THE VILLAGE pr° ect ` were , considerably , now proposed to be ex thereof on tli'e' Town sign- higher than .tHe 'estimates' for ' pended for the aforesaid im bodrd maintained by the OF LANSING, ovement ' �d s same from the Engineers I $2,600,000 00 : and .r. + Clerk not less thanI IL nor _ h . ` more t an: twenty days be Legals S : : WHEREAS; 6s ajresult the WHEREAS the, •proposed = fore' the ddy designated for ';. Engineers'; for ,SCLIWC and.; 'method . of ' fmancin ' ;t•o. De the hearing as aforesaid. . j ) SCLIWC itself : have :recorrr employed -for the aforesaid Section 3 . This order shall — ' ;mended that'the amount toimproJemenf is issuance by „ ' take effect immediately; • + • - TOMPKIN ;,COUNTY, I ;be -authorized for:-ex`pendF the Mur icipahhes of iomt NEW YORK ture for the 'Impprovement be' ;and severabserial bonds not, The queshon . of the gdop- , • '" increased •by:$289 1 ~65.00 ito exceed $1 500,000 and lion of the Foregoing order 1 .At a Regular 'Meeting of`ihe 1 'to . cover the increased payment o_f4e balance of ;was upon motion ; of , Town Board of the Town of ! amounts ofisuch bids, dnd to, tthe costs, of said improve CouncilpersonWilliam,Less` Ithaca Tompkins County, , provide a reasonable,contiu Iment - by the expenditure of er seconded by- ''if North� T oga' iSfrl et at, ecJ 'eXpeonse fl,- 'd. unanticipat j funds ,Wd by SCLIWC `and r Court'PpersoaI I to Burbank . ut to a, .vote on'a roll j NeWt*ork ., on the 13th daY, WHEREAS :SCLIWC Nast t WHEREAS it is now de i call, which resulted as o6 -September, '• 2004 ,, 'at also recommended that be- ;sireed to call a public hear= follows 5 .30 o'clock P-. M r Prevai6 ,cause of the; nr+ea3ed cost siderm itthePn cease do rfhe Suppervsor Valentino ,I .ing +Time and the desire to possibly 9 Vohng Aye•, PRESENT y Y , . authorize other protects , in I maximum gmount author Councilperson Grigorov , ' ;.Supervisor tfSe future that' would utilize zed to be expended for the 'Votingg Aye'' - CathermeValentino r some of the: 'surplus 'funds lmprovemenf the aut{ionza Councilperson' Lesser ' Councilpe son_ that. had initially been :'pro- lion of an""`,'increase in the Vohn Aye; j Carolyn Gngor_ov posed tfor flee Improvement !amount of serial bonds'to be k ICounci person'$urbank Councilperson _ the=amouni -of1he boirds to used for payment of part of ;, Voting Aye TTI pm bpLeaser 's be issued in connectio'h with ,the costs . of the- Improve ' Councilperson Engman ' CouBci person ,:c creasedpb $500 000; and of the exitjnthe� ameapndmenl r . ° I Vohn Aye , Counal erson r the Im rovement be in g y g g entof 1 Counalpers'onStem - p WHEREAS;',the 'area of� Intermunoipal Coo er'ohon Voting Aye Y. oHerbert Engman e , sail Town determined to be. between the Municipahtties The: order was; thereupon 1Councilperi6r A + - lbenefitted by`said SCLIWCf ;n rel6ti6n to su& fii creases ' ;declared duly :adopted . , Peter Stein. ,2003 Plant Expansion "Im- belated to the Improvement Tee-Ann Hunter, ABSENT Couricilperson • provemenfconsists of the en- and to hear all persons inter jI Town. Clerk Sandra Gittelman l fire area of the Town except- Wed m the' sublect thereof, ' - • + ' Se tember 28,` 2004 WHEREAS a plan report ling t6ereh-66 the area con- dII m accordance with apple 9/30/04 r andmap was duly prepared , toined within the Village of :cable provisions of General. . I e ' tn 'such manner and in such I Cayuga Heights, and yMiIir . law Local Fi, detail as this '-Board deter WHEREAS the proposed? trance Law, 'Town Law, and ., .. inined.to be necessary; re ) =SCLIWC 2003 Plant Expan ,I (Village Law; t ' y luting to the construction- sion Improvement consists ofl NOW, -THEREFORt,IT IS IT �andk•-equipping", of, a two- ( the" improvements set Forth) „HEREBY •ORDERED by the ' story' a oe ,and work space I below and as` mare particu=- Town Board of the Town of ' addition to the IS tarty shown and described Ithaca Tompkins County , Cayuga Lake Inte'rmuno+pal m aid map;: plan ; arid re r New York;"as follows: : „E, ; Water Commission l port presentlyaon hle;in dhet Section ,1,: A public hear ("SCLIWC�Lwater tiedtment Office ofilthe Municipality; ' ing .will 'be held at the, Town 1 IIIIi plarit pursudnt 'to Article 5 Clerk` ' p y_; ' i.. " Hall 215 <North , 'Tioga ` ' G dF the General Municipal Construction of To;, 7616 Street m the Cdy of Ithaca A III tav+ and relevant provisions ISquare 'foot ' two story' , office Tompkmsr ' ,iCo rift' <New 11 oFthe Town Law and Villagge and works ace addition on, York on the 18thi day of #Law such .protect i-to be the east e d of the SCLIWC. �rOctober,' 2004 at '< 6-45 ` known and ;ldentifiedd as the xaoteq lir6atment Faci,I,ity at, t o clock'P:M. to consider the SCLIWC 2003 Plant Expaw ; 1402 East Shore .DFive in; -'aforesaid t, increase '. 1n` the lion Improvement -'and 'the". Village - of 'Lansing ion maximum amount to be ex 1. If here'i_iafter also referred,`to renovation of,4332 square , pended .on ,the costs of the11 4 + ' ' S't0 'r0 ' - as '':Improvement p • - feet oF ,existing office:-space ; SCLIWC '2Q03 Plant Ezpan VIII vide .expanded._space' in,the` to:^`pr`ovide :incredsed ' office ! Man Improvement the au ,.i. water tre ' tment•plant owned s ace for SCLIWC s A&hin-` thonzation of an increase m +. d•common b"t e' Towns'of srgt{on and °Distn-butionj the arfi6t ,of taint and sev 'IT I, Dryden Ithaca and Lansing personnels workshops for eral serol, bonds to .be k r, and the Villages of Cayuga SCLIWC s electrical and met sued for payment of part of IT Heigghts and Lansing (collet chdnoal technoians ands The costs ' of the Improve- !III f lively the` "Municipalities"' productiI I'd epartment •'per` ment the' expencllt6le of r and; sometimes mdividually) sonnet hanoicapped,;acces j such additional amounts to the "Munoipaljty"( such° imi sibillty an archive room fotr wards the-.costs ofsuch Im provementto :beconstructed long term stars e • 04 f provement; and the amend 'and owned 'by- the Mur .SCLIWC s` files an Adocu- ' merit of the existing Agree palihes, cand`+'* ,,me`nts an ;ezpansion of the ! want of ",Intermunopal Co-;, ! j fdcihties_laboratory: to` meet- Foperation 'between tl a Mu it . `. `- lincreased water, "quality mcipalrtiesto :authoriiesuch i monitoring zrequiremenis; increase in costs such 'm + ' 4ond additions{ Sire-suppres-, crease m" the amount oP , sionysystems i-n the new and. I. on , to be issue 4 and oth 1..renovated areas of tf e' facil er activities;, to reaffirm the ' qty;, upgrading the"HVAC sys- deleeggation, to the hTreasurer . A ° g lof SCLIWCzerami' authonty l dos issue such bonds t 'half of-the''Munoipalifes to areaffirm ', the grant - ISCLIWC of certain :• other - I ' � irs`tFi'�1�.'��:i i.l .. . . "•"l t't"i1�V TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I , Tee-Ann ' Hunter, being duly sworn , say that I am the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County, New York that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper, Ithaca Journal: ADVERTISEMENT: ORDER FOR PUBLIC HEARING : IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE INCREASE IN THE COSTS OF PROVIDING OF A PROPOSED TWO-STORY OFFICE AND WORK SPACE ADDITION TO THE SOUTHERN CAYUGA LAKE INTERMUNICIPAL WATER COMMISSION WATER TREATMENT PLANT IN THE VILLAG OF LANSING , TOMPKINS COUNTY, NEW YORK. Location of Sign Board Used for Posting : Town Clerk's Office 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca , NY 14850 Date of Posting : WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29 , 2004 Date of Publication : THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30 , 2004 Tee-Ann Hunter, Town Clerk, Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 5th day of October 2004 . Notary Public CARRIE WHITMORE Notary P;! uiir� State of New Yo* NO . 03 WH6052877 ( Tioga County Commission Expires December 2g, dG�' i TOWN-OF ITHACA ,. —Construction, of- a } ORDER FOR 31000,000 gallon NOW, THEfiEFORE, IT IS f PUBLIC HEARING prestressed concrete,. water HEREBY ORDERED, by the storage tank and appurten • Town Board of the Town of IN THE MATTER OF THE ; ant facilities on Hun brford Ithaca, Tompkins. 'Couniy,, �- g New York, as follows: CONSTRUCTION .OF THEI Hill in ,the: Town `�of ith'6ca, SOUTHERN CAYUGA constructiori'of' 3600 feet of Section 1°. A public hear; `LAKE INTERMUNICIPAL : fsixteen finch'diameter ductile ` Ha will be held at the Town WATER COMMISSION ;iron pipej and, appurtenan. Hall, 215 North Ithaca a; EAST' HILL WATER TANK' ces runnin from SCLIWC's Street, in the City of Ithaca, ; 9, Tompkins County, : New' AND WATER MAINS, . I existing 'transmission main THE EXPENDITURE OF 'on E11WHollow Road east of , York, on the 1 ,th . ddyy 0 FUNDS FOR SUCH 'its intersection 'with `Pine , October, 2004, si 6:30' PURPOSE, THE !Tree Road easterl � ,. alon O'clock P.M.; to consider the Y g aforesaid plan, 'report and ASSUANCE AND SALE t Ellis Hollow Road to=its inter- I ma and the uestions of OF JOINT AND SEVER- - section with Hungerford Hill the P 'Providing a' 'of said AL SERIALSONDS FOR t Road then, southerly 'along SCLIWC 2004 East Hill A PORTION OF THE Hunger ford Hill Road - and Tank and Water Main Proj- , COSTS OF SUCH then : southeasterly ,across~ ect, the- authorization of PROJECT, AND THE I lots 9 ' the proposedd new rands and several . seriaF EXECUTION OF AN stora a tank on Hun erford , bonds for `pa ment of part'costs AMENDMENT TO THE Hill and construction • of a AGREEMENT OF MU- , t twelve inch di'im6ter 'd6ctil, ;menfethe expenditure:ofocur NICIPALCOOPERATION iron waterdistribuiioA main I , rent revenues and ' surplus GOVERNING SUCH and appurtenances running (ands for the balance of the. WATER TANK AND northerly'; from the In' tersec- WATER MAINS, i lion of 'Ellis. Hollow 'Road 'costs of the Improvement, At. a Regular Meetirig ,of the 1 and Hungerford Hill - Road and the amendment of theF existing Agreement of Town,'Board of the"Town of across lot`s ' approximately + Intermumcipal Cooperation' Ithaca, . Tompkins County; 1500 feet to the vicinity of between ' the Municipalities Cooperation" New York held at 215 the Cornell University At let- , to authorize such im rove North ;Tioga - Streets Ithaca, j is Fields located ' ,off- ' of j ment, bondj g, ..and other) New ".York on the"l'3th dqy Game Farm Rood; and activities„ to delegate to 'thel of September 2004, at � i Treasurer of SCLIWC certain . 5 :36 .o'clock P M. Prevail WHEREAS, the,;maximum authority to issue , such rng Timer roposed to be expended . ' bonds on behalf. of the Mu-,,. PRESENT For the , aforesaid improve- nicipalities 'and to . grant Supervisor iment is $2,200,000.00; '11 SCLIWC certain, other' pow- Catherine Valentino, _a Councilperson ers and authority, •and , to ' Carol n :Gri orov ,, ; =hear 611 ersons interested Y 9 �egAls i in the subject thereof and Councilperson concerning the same dnd to (1 .William Lesser : , u `fake such action thereon as Council erson p = is required bylaw; Will Burbank 7 hand . t;. Section 2 . ' The Town Clerk' Councilpperson WHEREAS the• proposed, ,of, the Town of -I t'hai ca -. ounciP ers6n P method -of financ_in<g to be% 'Tompkins County New Councilperson Peter Stein . emp loy!d for�'ihe aforesaid. 'York, is -hereby authorized ABSENT Councilperson - ; + Sandra Gittelman. 'improvement is issuance by' and ` directed to ,cause a'• the ' Municpalities' . of joint lcopy of this order,'to;be ub` WHEREAS,(a liOT rt' ; and several serial bonds 'not . dished once, in the official,- and map ha4 'been duly p' i '-to..to newspaper of)the Municipa6 pared in such ; anner and payment of the .balance ' of: ty, and also to .post a copY� in such ?let ail' as ,this `Board the costs of said improve , thereoFnon the• Town sign. determines to be necessa ment by'the expenditure of, 4board mamtamed by the', relahng :,to 'the ,construction) ? currentre4ehuesandsurplus , _Clerk, not less than- ten norc of a i , w6ter rta ik , onj ;Funds held by SCLIWC; .and '• more than twenty days bea Hungerford Hill •iri,.`tl'e'Toww WHEREAS Jhe pared of; fore the day ,designated foci 8fltha6a'6rid construction of said'Town determinedrto be the heanng as aforesaid. additional' water 'tr'ansmis ' benefiBed _ by said SCLIWC Section 3 . This order shall 32004 East ` ast Hill. Tank and ' take effect immediately ' I ston . mams m art in con-; - nection with such ;new;water ' _Water Man Project cpnsists• , tank all to be a drt:(oF that of the `entire„area ,of the The question of ine adoption` p ' +'Town exce tin . ihe'Villa e !of the fore oin order was Southern Cayuga Lake I P . $ g ` g ., IntermunGI581 Water,, Com- ' of Cayuga Heights; and . upon motion of ':Su.ervisor3 mission ,')"SCLIWC' ) ; water' { ' WHEREAS It is :now de- ; Catherine '- Vdlentino, l system;' and;all ipu�suant to l ' sired to 1call a' 'public;hear-- ,' 'seconded by ; Councilperson Article ' 5-G pf the General ' ring for the purpose of con- , Herbert Engman,+'dulyiput to Municipal Law" :dnd `relevant ) 'sidering said ,. plan, l- report , a vote:on a ,ro11 call which and ma the rovidin of resulted as follows; provisions of, the Town Law P P 9 said SCLIWC 2004 East Hill " Su a visor Valentino and Village Law `such ppr`oj- _, ed to be ,known and identi- 'i fTank'andtWater Main Proj• '.f oting Aye tied as "the SCLIWC:, 2004 ect the authorzation of Seri Counci person Grigorov East Hill Tank an +61 bonds for payment of part ; Voting Aye Main Project, •; ; and of the ' costs ,of 'the Improve- , Councilperson Lesser Project, I inent, the expenditure of cur t,Votin Aye, . „ ) J hereinafter also' iefer're<d to g p ii '= rent revenue"s"rand (surplus Councilperson Burbank as Improvement, to- pro-' rands for the; balance of the ' Votin Aye - `* vide .-improved water stor-, gg age capacity •! a1 d1- ter costs o` f ,the Improvement, ` 'Couricilpersyei Engman transmission capabjhfies . forj and the amendment of the Voting Aye 4 k.SCLIWC+ and , tlie '9system' existing° # Aggreement of I Councilperson Stein ! , owned ':injiconimon 'by the�l IntecmuncrpaL . Cooperation Voting Aye = Towns of Drydeny tffiacaj between the 'Municipaalities ' The order ,:was thereupon 'and Lansing . and ' the Vil-'1 mentl�dl nd tto Shear I all roeer ' dedaredTeeYAnn Hunter, la es of= Ca u a' Hei tits jsons interested in the subject"� g ' Y g g P f Town Clerk` and Lan'smg (collectively the ,; tihereof;, all in accordance ° Se tember 28, 2004' "Municipalities" and ,some times indviduallyy. the "Mu- 4 with dpplicable provisions: 9/30 04 fmcipility ',) ' such Improve=� of General. Municipal Law„ ment-tobe constructed an tLocal Finance Law ' Town ; owned' by , the -lv` nicipal .. [Law, pnd Village Low , ties, 'anil WHEREAS the .proposed ;; ; ` SCLIWC 2004 1East HilI '� << `, Tank and Water Main Pro ect consists of lhe�improve� ments set forth below and as,Wl ore pp'g' rticularlyshown and:.%described msaid 'map, plan , and , rej5o t_ presently on file fin .the Office of the Munia- I October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT # 1 O� IT>Kq '�,� ..•• ' �.,� CITY OF ITHACA �® �0 f.e 1 James L. Gibbs Drive Ithaca, New York 14850 0 •rti ,,r`� YOUTH BUREAU _ Telephone : 607/273-8364 Fax: 607/273/2817 ,, - - � UT� OCT 13 2004 1 ! .� October 12; 2004 ATTEST Ms. Catherine Valentino ITHACA TOWN CLEgK Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY , 14850 Dear Cathy, I hope all is well . Enclosed is the Waterfront Parks and Recreation Facilities proposal for 2005 . I have also included the season pass list (Town of Ithaca) from the 2004 pool season at Cass Park. Please let me know if you have any questions and enjoy the fall foliage. Sincerely, ' Allen Green Director "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification ." �«� i i i i i i i i i i i i i i �9 CITY OF ITHACA 9 = �t 1 James L. Gibbs Drive Ithaca, New York 14850 see - YOUTH YOUTH BUREAU - 'O�RATEO Telephone: 607/273-8364 Fax: 607/273/2817 Waterfront Parks and Recreation Facilities Proposal October 12, 2004 We are very fortunate to have two spectacular waterfront parks that are open and accessible to the community . For a lot of folks, Cass and Stewart Parks are on the short list of best things about Ithaca. Some communities are not fortunate enough to have a beautiful waterfront, or the waterfront may not be accessible . In other communities, the waterfront may be privately owned or designated for industrial or commercial use. In some places only the wealthy have good access. Here in Ithaca the parks contribute in a major way to our quality of life and almost everyone that lives here or visits here uses one or the other from time to time. Cass Park is a 94 acre complex with an ice rink, Olympic-sized swimming pool , kiddie pool , tennis courts, 21 playing fields, playgrounds, a fitness trail , the Cayuga Waterfront Trail , Parking lots to accommodate 700 11 icles' boat rentals, a natural growth area, picnic pavilion, children ' s garden, storage, rest rooms and ntenance buildings. wart Park is a 60 ''acre park with picnic areas, a large enclosed pavilion, a smaller open pavilion, a carousel , a playground, lagoon areas, bird sanctuary , storage and maintenance buildings, rest rooms, tennis courts, playing fields, kiddie water spray area and playing fields. The park serves as the Sunday venue for the Ithaca Festival each year and as the venue for numerous other events: weddings, graduation parties, company picnics, Puds Run, and a wide variety of community gatherings . It is also the home of the historic Cascadilla Boat House, headquarters of the Cascadilla Boat Club. This is where Ithaca ' s own Caryn Davies, a 2004 Olympic medalist with the US Women ' s Rowing Team, first had an opportunity to learn the sport. David Whitmore ' s recent guest column did a good job of outlining some of the issues that we hope to address with respect to these parks. We have previously submitted some data about who uses these parks. This data provides a good general overview , but we have proposed that the city invest in a new recreation management software system that will enable us to be more precise about exactly who uses the parks and facilities . We have good solid data about who uses Recreation' Partnership programs. The data is less complete as far as general admission to the pool , rink, use of the fields and other park amenities. We will address those of the Request for Proposal (RFP) categories that seem relevant to the parks and facilities. 1 ) Session Dates and Times Rink: 10/24 - 3/ 13 ; Pool : 6/ 17 — 8/ 15 (2004) ; Fields, trail , picnic areas, etc — ear-round What age group will be served? All ages What equipment is needed? Varies, based on the activity. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." C�� I I ' 4) Are scholarships available? Yes. We offer scholarships for season passes and swim lessons. In 2003 the total was $ 1 ,396. 5) What are the goals of the program? We would like to see these parks continue to be open and accessible to residents and visitors and hope to be able to avoid implementing a resident/non resident fee structure by developing a shared base of financial support. 6) Is there a facilities trade agreement? Yes, we have an informal barter agreement with the Ithaca City School District that has existed for about 25 years. We trade the use of our facilities at no cost to the other party. The IYB (Ithaca Youth Bureau) provides ice time at the rink, Cass Pool , use of ball fields, pavilions, room usage at the IYB building, etc, The ICSD (Ithaca City School District) provides gymnasium space, use of the IHS pool , fields, track, tennis courts, etc. The estimated value of the trade was about $20,000 when last reviewed. i 7) Enrollment / Admissions Rink — 30,042 (2003 -2004) ; Pool - 15 , 856 (2004-preliminary) ; Waterfront Parks Overall — Over 500,000 visitors annually . 8) Budget Total Facilities Costs — Summary - 2005 Projected I Cass Park — Net Operating Costs 344,991 Stewart Park — Net Operating Costs 128 ,755 IYB Building O & M 769490 I Existing Annual Average Capital Costs IYB Building 709427 Cass Park 489188 jStewart Park 25 ,997 I Total 694, 848 We had Thomas Associates do a facilities appraisal in 2002. They provided a range of options re: future capital spending needs for Cass Park. The low estimate was about 74,000. i The Grand Total (including an estimate of future Capital Spending for Cass Park) would be about $770,000. We have provided additional detail regarding these costs to Town of Ithaca representatives to the RP and lould be glad to provide this to other Town Board members as well. 9) Funding request In previous meetings about these parks we did present some cost sharing scenarios for discussion purposes. One of these painted a picture that involved the City of Ithaca paying 50% of the total and the Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County each paying 25 % of the total . If we do not include future capital spending and deduct the RP' s facilities charge of $51 ,870, the total projected cost is $642,978. A 25 % share would total $ 160,744. While we await the decisions of the joint Town-City group exploring facility costs, we recognize the need for compromise. In this vein, we are requesting $ 100,000 for a 2005 contribution. Thank you. POOL PASSES TOWN OF ITHACA 2004 Catalog Start Date Instructor SF2004 5/31 /2004 Pool # Addr # Addr ''Name City Zip Pass Type 1 706 CAYUGA HEIGHTS RD ITHACA 14850 Adult 2 144 CAMPBELL AV ITHACA 14850 Adult 3 144 CAMPBELL AVE ITHACA 14850 Adult Sj 4 238 BUNDY RD ITHACA 14850 Adult c� 5 109 COY GLEN RD ITHACA 14850 Adult \ 6 1485 MECKLENBURG RD ITHACA 14850 Adult 7 112 THE PARWAY ITHACA 14850 Adult 8 105 VALLEY VIEW RD ITHACA 14850 Adult 9 105 VALLEY VIEW RD ITHACA 14850 Adult J 10 109 COY GLEN RD ITHACA 14850 Adult 11 107 HILLCREST DR ITHACA 14850 Adult 12 111 SALEM DR ITHACA 14850 Adult ` 13. 20 MARCY CT ITHACA 14850 Adult t 14 600 WARREN TD 1 -3C ITHACA 14850 Adult 15 313 ST CATHERINE Cl ITHACA 14850 Adult 6 136 PINE TREE RD ITHACA 14850 Adult 17 136 PINE TREE RD ITHACA 14850 Adult 18 143 CAMPBELL AV ITHACA 14850 Adult 19 112 THE PARKWAY ITHACA 14850 Adult 20 857 TAUGHANNOCK BL ITHACA 14850 Adult 21 2223 TRIPHAMMER RD ITHACA 14850 Adult 1 706 CAYUGA HEIGHTS RD ITHACA 14850 Child 2 375 STONE QUARRY RD ITHACA 14850 Child 3 144 CAMPBELL AV ITHACA 14850 Child 4 105 VALLEY VIEW RD ITHACA 14850 Child 5 839 TAUGHANNOCK BLVD. ITHACA 14850 Child 6 111 1 SALEM DR ITHACA 14850 Child 7 20 MARCY CT ITHACA 14850 Child 8 20 MARCY CT ITHACA 14850 Child 9 13 HILLCREST DR ITHACA 14850 Child 10 15 HILL CREST ITHACA 14850 Child 11 136 PINE TREE RD ITHACA 14850 Child 12 301 MAPLE AVE ITHACA 14850 Child 13 143 CAMPBELL AV ITHACA 14850 Child 14 112 THE PARKWAY ITHACA 14850 Child 15 857 TAUGHANNOCK BL ITHACA 14850 Child 16 857 TAUGHANNOCK BLVD. ITHACA 14850 Child w i POOL PASSES TOWN OF ITHACA 2004 I _ OAddr TAtddr rt Date _ Instructor 5/31 /2004 Pool # Name City Zip Pass Type 17 133 WESTHAVEN RD ITHACA 14850 Child 18 2223 NORTH TRIPHAMMER RD ITHACA 14850 Child i 1 321 BLACKSTONE AV ITHACA 14850 Family 2 404 WINSTON CT ITHACA 14850 Family i 3 105 CONIFER CIRCLE ITHACA 14850 Family 4 118 RACHEL CARSON WAY ITHACA 14850 Family j 5 108 CLOVER LN ITHACA 14850 Family 6 205 WESTVIEW LN ITHACA 14850 Family 7 107 CONIFER CIRCLE #5 ITHACA 14850 Family 8 425 CAYUGA HEIGHTS RD ITHACA 14850 Family 9 406 SALEM DR ITHACA 14850 Family 10 108 VALLEY VIEW RD. ITHACA 14850 Family 11 103 PARK LN ITHACA 14850 Family 1 706 CAYUGA HEIGHTS RD ITHACA 14850 Sr I 1 109 COY GLEN RD ITHACA 14850 Student 2 107 HILLCREST DR ITHACA 14850 Student 3 107 HILLCREST DR ITHACA 14850 Student 41105 CONIFER CIRCLE ITHACA 14850 Student 5 105 COMFORT RD ITHACA 14850 Student 1 I 1 i I i I I ; 1 I i i i 00/9 �.t� ®f� .�7�h9�s� / ATTACHMENT # 2 D Tir/G .94.1 %4T eA . 4AI p�oG.P� 7,r/� ,�'v��'-i°,eg®o���_ ,�; d AO)77ZP T 7W4C .1-1.4y®,�? . 777'e .yD5T c 0A) 721U7 o*W) 17o1 .1-_S_ Ate .COc 14e. oA Aok 15d4J)&'!L ,¢AW V A!»ITeoe . �v��o� TffAC ,�c4WO I5¢s APZ�91770JOV 4 ,�1�©C-�<�,P��oL�S/�,C T(� ./it1G �U� �tf7'Ef_ _�rJicl�Q � tJ,D J�o.tuclTG�.L `�'IitJd!/✓Gr 'Fi�� l��l7iTc tST/9. Ti G IG /�• 4AWII /_G 672DOy 76 /9'.'SZ45c IOVIP��/ T 4XoD /50044K 1V66aj>Sw 7#1.5 , d't?1�vA.�ia� ltd/LL _ ,t lc> � /S ,��. �it1� .�2s - _ kJ.!,� ot 7=1 s-.c/o j C© s Si V//V 440 h)Wd T aPj!54 !6¢� lrJ2. . _ f7/S S! cSlv.S . �-- L � _ / /. ©,� ! - y �aJG�/ �lT. fie. "Tf _ - -/��0044 - 7, '0o VT /%M ,c,�.y�� T Ta� �- % szVOL- X�oz_.8E� ��rZO 4t4._ �oT3c� zoo 44ewo CB Es.. _i • rSTi..tG S o. ,JAjzL an/S --- . t�!ria . _J�'.�V �! .X27 R . - - . Tom- - % s' - /ec vC , 3e) 2cb 4(o ,�cfio .D t1 c�G �,r/� . . � v2�Z �l�'� (rid C.4ivc Sc . /S .. L ,,00zoot/orr✓o d7az TO . .P4 ,T,'_6fJo ek. .AOA4-vs e �<AZ ,4, .T�� /J!�L, T=o�_�L _ -���T IA)PP-_may LioN 4C.Zr ✓ 73 CiT-�! . COP CQUtS� To DO nJo4 AecwpC &)1 447" /d !�� _wirrr yV� � T -01 1IC40 j ,aff . 1.d iT, lS E48rn/.� . -.4- nTr.�'eo ,ova.- �A-�� . V��►- .S'�j�eL �S < c i �I � . i �, ,, '� i I October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT # 2 TO : Common Council, the Mayor and the Town Board FROM: Board of Fire Commissioners Attached please find an additional budget proposal prepared by the Board of Fire Commissioners. After a careful review of the budgets proposed by the department and in keeping with the requirements set by the Mayor, we do not feel it adequately addresses the very dangerous issues that affect the Fire Department. As Homeland Defense issues become an ever increasing concern of our citizens, we respectfully urge the Common Council and the Mayor to adopt the optional budget included in Chief Wilbur' s budget submission along with our recommendation that 2 additional positions be added to his submission, namely a Department Training Officer and a Department Volunteer Coordinator.The unfortunate elimination of these positions have proven to have been an exercise in false economy, in our opinion. Our modern fire service has moved well beyond the sole purpose of the suppression of a "fire in progress". In addition we are requesting a strategic planning study to adequately assess the needs of the community and the fire department. The Fire Department is already stretched painfully thin due to increased call volume. The loss of the Training Officer position and the loss of the Volunteer Coordinator position are factors in the steady decline of the number of active volunteer fire fighters as well as keeping up with the increasing training requirements required of both career and Volunteer personnel. It is our opinion that the level of protection and services to the over 40,600 permanent residents in addition to our student population and commuters working and shopping in the 32 .4 square mile protection area will be compromised without an agressive volunteer acquisition, training and retention program and the funding necessary to keep the program viable and a Training Officer to handle the training needs of both career and volunteer fire fighters. Trained volunteers supplement our seriously strained career staff saving the taxpayers funds for other worthwhile community uses. The Ithaca Fire Department has four shifts of Fire Fighters and volunteers that provide 24 hours a day, 7 days a week protection to our 32 .4 square mile community. There are four firehouses in the Department requiring, at a minimum, 11 people to meet all their responsibilities. If a second call comes in while the firefighters are already engaged — there could be serious delays in reaching that alarm. This will increase risk to people in need of help and the time required to control the incident. In addition to fire fighting services the IFD also provides additional services to our community. Every single Fire Fighter is an Emergency Medical Technician. The IFD also provides the following services : ■ Motor vehicle extraction. ■ Water & ice rescue ■ Hazardous material response ■ Medical emergency services ■ Public education — educating school children i OCT 18 2004 ' ATTEST !THACA TOWN CLERK i 1 • Code enforcement ■ Inspection of public assemblies for fire prevention ■ Maintenance of the city alarm system Homeland defense assignments I We applaud the Mayor in her assessment of the Police budget — adding new positions and providing additional funds for overtime — we urge Common Council and the Mayor to adequately staff our Fire Department and provide them with the resources to protect our I community. i I I i I i i I i I I I i i I ,I I I N w O r LL O d LL cl t0 O w a3i a tri o z o c c U. w 0 LL m CL 2 Z w ` a + m E 3c U 0 y p - y ° o cE`a O E cc E 0) a g a) a� w c O v a) m o 3 c c > p m ° c4) c j c Q `o co w S ch c >, CO w E c w c c > O .. CO E V. O a c ° y coo ° ° c U) m •c ° U o o m � Q N Q U U a r� Or�w 400Q 0coONco M 0040t� 0 0 ta000 . . �p LO LO OON NORM N (D00040N 00000 LL d y O N OOH MOtOco cn � NN0CDN OP� OO CO 0) 0 to r 00 %= 00 M NoOO CO CO U') r e f LO 7 O Nc00qt tN "trm M � � 0 � N OO Co a M ta N N tO 0 \e \° \e \e \° \e \e \e \e \° \° \° y o 0 0 o e o e o 0 0 0 0 0 Da y � 40 OcOd; tO Lq OO M 40N7 40 � N 0 40 00 cr)0W) r r CC 0 000 CEm2 O a car. v0V� 00000 00000040 0 0400 LL c N � Joao O o 000 0 00 � N O) ON O O NNO O 00 m O M y qlT v 00 LO O m r N O Q N y y co OO � pp N o c to M NM N0) O co N o O M Cl c7 LO w CO � O ca N O 0 o LO ch 0) 0 M N to ^ to Co O L •0 CL LO qt LO � t0 co M O r� N r NUm0th NM `_ a` �o w 0 0 y U ° Oa 0 ° m > a E c N O N U) 2 U 7 y W U) 2 a) N c LU . c Cl) J T ( N (/� N cm E j W :a 7 y N Z LU 30 t O O = O 0 c rn > y y ° ° x v N > 0 c � 0N E Z > w cam :: ,o � y0 a NA. -C.- m O J f0 N > �p O c) 7 ° 7 40 d 0 O N wCOU) 00 c 2 E H Um > LL U is Z <n o o tO tO ° W 0 0 0 0 • U tO O tO O tO qoq LO LL 0 � NNNN c � qq RV v vv �Q 'MT 0 LC) a W z w � 9 d 10- w H V ° I i N p N I I I I I i I i N N N N m U C C C •C � w N � N Y C ' C > to to N N OOOOOONT WOOCOW 00 'gtN N . . c0000000Md' r- tom 0 M M (D (D r� U. t0 N tn N O to 0 0 (o h N (o 0 t� r co E M M m C) O O O N N O M O 0 N M O � to TM Go O U.) 'O M M r � N N co to (p M O W G m 0 (O �- M co N LL to y to 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0) (p0 N y CD CV) tY C') M (O M dN N O 00 r OOC Go C E V CL 0 00 O OOO t°o (� Go CL U. c 0 t 0 v (ovm VW m 2 O N to (o (O O N `O M r (D M Od Cl O Q N Q _� co 00Mggt 100000009 7 y N y o N O O (o N (o CO 1� N M th v7 O) o O L j a LO M N O� N N coo U O W) c o Q N V m a Ch IttAOAA O N C cm a C 0 O N C C w O O CL O N > d p .`+ w C m `' N d •' N N C Y (0 N d C w •(p C 'O t rn E > j I— m V M o m 0 m > Q d o a� m 0 +s o a p w D Z c 7 Co C C �7, w N N (w0 V 0) 0) p N d (O a Co CO (` C a d d' O to to O O to (o H O C C d tT O m v v v v v v v V m U W L m N to 0 O :°• O O CD LL 0 r- Cl) t- H (%4 m ° N it I Board of Fire Commissioners 2005 Operating Budget Summary Attached please find a Summary of Additions to the Fire Chief' s 3 .5 % Budget Proposal developed by The Board of Fire Commissioners to ensure the quality of service that this community needs to maintain its safety. Over the years drastic cuts have been made to the budget and it is essential the standards be raised before there is a disaster. • Addition of a Department Bunker and Volunteer Officer o Line item 110 Salaries Staff o The bunker and volunteer programs have recently not been provided with sufficient management to maintain a strong program. • Addition of a .Department Training Officer o Line item 110 Salaries Staff o Department training officer is needed to consolidate the training program among the 4 shifts, bunker and volunteers. The loss of the training officer has overburdened the department' s management team and makes it difficulty to maintain the level of expertise required. . • Maintain volunteer and bunker training programs for 2005 . o Line item 415 Bunker and Volunteer clothing issue o Line time 435 Volunteer and Bunker Recruitment o Line items 440 Staff Development o (Ithaca has had Volunteer fire fighters for over 180 years. The BFC would like to be given the opportunity to evaluate the benefits of maintaining the program without the pressures of the budget deadline. We would like to over the course of the next year evaluate the programs for the benefits verses resources consumed. The program will then be able to be addressed in the 2006 budget cycle based on facts and not on emotional reactions • Strategic Planning Study o Line item 125 o Line item 430 Strategic Planning Study Over the past 11 budget cycles many of the department programs have been reduced or eliminated, the call volume has increased and the department has been asked to take on more and more responsibility. The BFC would like to request Strategic Planning be funded to assess the existing department' s capacity and future: demands and project future demands (e.g. construction on Rt. 13 , downtown). i A previous strategic planning study conduced in the mid 1980 ' s was undertaken to address the needs of the Fire Department in preparation for the Town contracting with the City for fire protection. These needs have been drastically altered. A new study is essential due to the following conditions . • Reduction is support and management personnel. • Increased call volume • Changes in call distribution ! • Changes in the building distribution in the community; southwest development and increases in the number and distribution of residences. • Reduction in the number of Volunteers and Bunkers • Reduction in department funding i Study Goals: Give the Common Council, Town Board, and BFC a yardstick, and method of quantifying the impact on the level of protection provided as a result of program and funding changes to meet minimum standards of safety. . • Identify consequences of reductions . • Identify community needs i • Match department resources to community needs • Address consequences of eliminating bunker and volunteer programs • Determine economic justification for maintaining or eliminating bunker and volunteer programs. • Identify department programs that need to be developed or enhanced j • Identify changes need to deal with i I I it i i i i i I I October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT # 3 Thanks for this opportunity to speak. I'd like to comment on the Town's sign ordinance . " Signs that react to a local happening or express a view on a controversial issue both reflect and animate change in the life of a community. Often placed on lawns or in windows, residential signs play an important part in political campaigns, during which they are displayed to signal the resident's support for particular candidates, parties, or causes . They may not afford the same opportunities for conveying complex ideas as do other media, but residential signs have long been an important and distinct medium of expression . " "Although prohibitions foreclosing entire media may be completely free of content or viewpoint discrimination, the danger they pose to the freedom of speech is readily apparent--by eliminating a common means of speaking, such measures can suppress too much speech. " "Displaying a sign from one's own residence often carries a message quite distinct from placing the same sign someplace else, or conveying the same text or picture by other means . Precisely because of their location, such signs provide information about the identity of the " speaker . " As an early and eminent student of rhetoric observed, the identity of the speaker is an important component of many attempts to persuade . A sign advocating "Peace in the Gulf' in the front lawn of a retired general or decorated war veteran may provoke a different reaction than the same sign in a 10 year old child's bedroom window or the same message on a bumper sticker of a passing automobile. An espousal of socialism may carry different implications when displayed on the grounds of a stately mansion than when pasted on a factory wall or an ambulatory sandwich board. " "Residential signs are an unusually cheap and convenient form of communication. Especially for persons of modest means or limited mobility, a yard or window sign may have no practical substitute . Even for the affluent, the added costs in money or time of taking out a newspaper advertisement, handing out leaflets on the street, or standing in front of one's house with a hand held sign may make the difference between participating and not participating in some public debate . Furthermore, a person who puts up a sign at her residence often intends to reach neighbors, an audience that could not be reached nearly as well by other means . " Sound like I am repeating my letter of a few months ago . Actually these are all quotes from the Majority opinion by Justice Stevens in a case CITY OF LADUE, et al . , PETITIONERS v. MARGARET P . GILLEO where in 1994 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that citizens have a right to place yard signs on their property expressing their political opinions . Aatum" Lwsve s U"eb 8001M 115 East Stitt Street (tiY7) 273-8239 I �, I it I i I I, I i i i I I �I� i I i i i i I �I I i I qtr,- _ � . t,. - � � , 1` . . I;t.:,a . . .. . � . . I I SEP . 28 . 2004 90, 22AM BARNEY GROSSMAN DUBOW & MARCUS N0 . 804 P . 2/6 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT # 4 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This agreement, made the day of , 2004, between the City of Ithaca (hereinafter "the City '), a municipal corporation with offices at 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York, 14850, and the Town of Ithaca (hereinafter "the Town"), a municipal corporation with offices at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, 14850, WITNESSETH: WIiEREAS, the City and the Town have a long-standing relationship whereby Town of Ithaca residents have access to various recreational facilities owned and operated by the City, such as Cass Park, and WHEREAS, in recognition of the benefit to the Town as a result of the availability and accessibility of City recreational facilities to Town residents at the same cost as charged to City residents, the Town has over the years made financial contributions to the City towards the costs incurred by the City in operating certain recreational facilities that benefit Town residents, and WHEREAS, the City and the Town would like to formalize the existing arrangement, NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, conditions, covenants, and �! considerations set forth her the parties hereto agree as follows: 1 . For the calendar year 2004 the Town agrees to make a financial contribution to the City in the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) as its contribution to the City towards the costs of operating the Cass Park pool and the Cass Park skating rink. 2 . The town has made a provision in its 2004 budget for this payment to the City, which payment is to be disbursed to the City in accordance with the regular procedures by the respective parties with regard to disbursement and receipt of such financial contributions within 10 days after the later of (a) execution of this agreement, or (b) receipt by the Town of the daily attendance counts of Cass Park Pool and the names and addresses of all the season passholders that are Town residents, which information is needed by the Town to complete its analysis of the use of such facility by Town residents. 3 . The parties will not discriminate against any employee, applicant for employment, sub= contractor, supplier of materials or services, recreational facilities' patron or program participant because of actual or perceived; age, creed, color, disability, ethnicity, familial status, gender, height, immigration or citizenship status, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, or weight. 40 The fees charged by the City to Town residents for use of the Cass Park pool and Cass Park rink shall not exceed the fees charged by the City to City residents for such use, and Town SEP . 28 . 2004 9 : 22AM BARNEY GROSSMAN DUBOW & MARCUS N0 . 804 P . 3/6 1 residents shall be entitled to use such facilities on the same basiswiith the same privileges as City residents. i 5 . By signing this memorandum of understanding, the Town is not undertaking any responsibility for the maintenance or operation of either of such facilities and accordingly the City hereby indemnifies and agrees to save and hold harmless the Towr� its officers, agents, contractors, and employees (hereinafter in this paragraph collectively referred to as the 1 "Indemnified Parties") from and against any and all suits, claims, losses, liabilities or expenses (including costs and reasonable attorneys' fees) by reason of any claim made against, or any liability imposed upon, any of the Indemnified Parties for damages because of any injury to persons, including bodily injury and death, or because of any damage to property, including loss of use thereof, resulting from any activities, negligence, or wilful wrongful acts of the City, its agents, subcontractors, employees or invitees arising out of, or in any way related to, the operation, maintenance, use, and ownership of the Cass Park pool and Cass Park rink 6 . All correspondence or notices with regard to this agreement shall be deemed sufficient i and properly given if in writing and delivered in person or by United States Mail to the foUowmg: i (a) To the City: Mayor, City of Ithaca, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York, 14850; with a copy to City Clerk, City of Ithaca, 108 Last Green Street, Ithaca, New York, i 14850. (b) To the Town: Town Supervisor, Town of Ithaca, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New i York, 14850; with a copy to i Town Clerk, Town of Ithaca, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, 14850 i j CITY OF ITHACA: Date :_ By Carolyn Peterson, MAYOR Approved as To Form: City Attorney 1 TOWN OF ITHACA: Date:_ By Cathy Valentino, Town Supervisor ,I Approved as to Form: Town Attorney I I Aland@ 19 , MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This agreement, made the day of , 2004, between the City of Ithaca (hereinafter "the City"), a municipal corporation with offices at 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York, 14850, and the Town of Ithaca (hereinafter "the Town"), a municipal corporation with offices at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, 14850 . WITNESSETH : WHEREAS , the City and the Town have a long-standing relationship whereby Town of Ithaca residents have access to various recreational facilities owned and operated by the City, r such as Stewart mid Cass Pmi mp ark, and WHEREAS , in recognition of the benefit to the Town as a result of the availability and accessibility of City recreational facilities to Town residents.,.,at, thesame cost asxch`arged to Clty residents, the Town has over the years ' -made financial contributions to the City {mos4 towards the costs incurred by the City in operating fii=c&6M recreational facilitiespahat benefit Town residents, and WHEREAS , the City and the Town would like to formalize the existing arrangement, NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, conditions, covenants, and considerations set forth herein the parties hereto agree as follows : L ! h For the calendar. year 2004 t ie Town agrees to make a financial contribution to the City in the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($ 50,000) as its contribution to the City fartowards the cost costs of operating its recreational facilities that are ' , ` ,the Cass 'Park poal and ar titilized by Town residents such as Stewart mid eass 'aTk the Gass Parkhskating`rink.. � . . _ . . 2 . The town has made a provision in its 2004 budget for this payment to the City, which. payment is to be disbursed to the City upon execution of this agreement in accordance with the regular procedures by the respective parties with regard to disbursement and receipt of such d t F '.p v .4 financial contributions within 10 days5after the' latero'f (a) execution of tlizsYagreement or x receipt by the{ Town�offthe =da�ly attendance eountstof Cass Park Pool�and the names and addresses of all the season �passliolder5 that are�Town residents, wlueh_informatioz��is�needed ,b the Town to :`co�nplete itsalysis of thesuseFof such facility by Tdowri residents . 3 . The parties will not discriminate against any employee, applicant for employment, sub-contractor, supplier of materials or services, recreational facilities ' patron or program participant because of actual or perceived; age, creed, color, disability, ethnicity, familial status, gender, height, immigration or citizenship status, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, or weight. I �I I i I I I I i, I I I I i i i i 4 The fees charged �y the City to 4, ownrresidents ,f0 - use of me' Cass Park pool and Cass Park nnk shallxnotYexceed the fees, charged,5laythe .city =to !City residentsfor suchus�e, and Town residents sliallxbe erihtled`to ilse suchfacl�ties oFYthesatiebasswtlithe sarrie' prlvileges S ,It City Gf .nFn P:f.atln [ 6 nvn .4.YU , . residents. - Ct Y 43 Ys x f "'4M t 5 By signing thisFmemorandum of understanding,<theTown 1s riot iitderta�Cing any iA responsibi=lity for the man enance or operat onxof�eitherof such facihtles, and accord�ngly,the ! e > S y 5 wXP"{. :fei s t = m j ' 3x, . rT wm 3 City hereby nd% fi°es and agrees ,to save nand ho1&h'armless the 'Town, itss:officers, agents;^ PT 'v- � r ix _E ' z � a 1 ZY ,+ Ti n { '� Uu4 . a" ° n.., i t 4.r a > contractors,,and employees q(herEinafteran.tlus paragraph,collectively sreferred too as the "Indemnified Parties") from °and against any^ and all suits; claims lasses, liabilities or expenses ! 1fl 2. T °^ s,« F z?N Y .. (including costs arid4 reasonable attorneys' fees) byl ,reasYori 'of any claim made 'aainst, or any, habrlty iri�posedup'on; airy of the jlndemnifiedyParties for` 'damagespbecause £of airyrm� uryto ptersons;`in'cluding bodily . WraW1d eath;'orcbecaus'eofaany damage to property; including}loss 11 11 ofuseFthe'reofrresultirig `fromanyyactiErties neghgeiice, or wilful wrongful acts;of'theECity,= its agents, Hsubcontractors; employees ,or invitees ansing out of,�or; nany�wayrelated to, the operation,3rrriaintenance,<,use,Nand =ow4nerslupof,tleCass Psrk pool ;andCass Park rink 6 All correspondence or notices with regard to this agreement shall be deemed sufficient and properly given if in writing and delivered in person or by United States Mail to the following: (a) To the City: Mayor, City of Ithaca, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York, 14850; r , hi nth s copy to x.� tCity Clerk, City of Ithaca, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York, 14850 . (b) To the Town: Town Supervisor, Town of Ithaca, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, 14850 ; :w=ith sa copy.to; Ck F. E x Town Cl * er C; Town of lthaca; 2L El�iort Tioga Street,>,Ithaca; New > ; f Y ; s Y o � I , Yrk, 14850 CITY OF ITHACA: Date : By Carolyn Peterson, MAYOR Approved as To Form: City Attorney TOWN OF ITHACA: Date : By Cathy Valentino, Town Supervisor I i I II I I i i i �, I i I i i i i I i i i I II II Approved as to Form: Town Attorney �I I i, it I �I i I I I i i i i �' i I i i i �I �I i �i i I I I �� '�r I I T JJ Z V '-1 m r" v n C/) m 0 _ m n _ Z m � � Z p m x D o o o D G) o i I; m D U) O C� _ m n D Z southern O � • K z _ Cal � — � - � J i cn ° C/) _ O n m< 0 — r = � � ZS On - D i m a z 1 m o € �: Z ?I O DZ � 0 • • ���� � � uorssiuN� Z m< D z p r do D ' -� r m - 0 m Z m D m n (n � cnp (n � (7 � = C) D C . —I --� p � O - > � O � ODD � O z � zmo rnm � mrmrxm = �n C C13 ® � � � � � z � z °yz � mCn Ad � � mom � c (n0 > z m 8 z G) ncom .4Xm > -< mm � y > Z o � r -p � � FZ � � m nom r cznr (n OZ � Cl) Dmm cn z � < Z � X - Zm m � c� = ADD > m (D0 XZz i i I I i I i I i i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I i rti . I � I i I I i I [3 a • ♦ l y f a 1 r � ` • III r•�� T°� 1 • s ♦ e � ,� ♦ � �cl c ' I C7 • • 1 . ��• • , III 1 ` * r (`\ r � \ • . � ♦ 0 Qw. • �^ J , ypt) • ( I a • • ` w.•+,rwh III CD C3 r •• e s a • ' O� 734 d ♦ • z E3 0 � 00 • cl • o f I `�\ .,......., .,...,...,.. ...........,..-,•,M,..-.,.' �„„�.,.s' fit y -_ ^+ It It If goo 00 o • ♦ / / It a / / Cl • / oil It ♦ O • 1 D S. • • ! �f( it It It ~ n .N" • • r P • 1 us li s / ... :.: cw IIIIIIA d a w ; + / I r � _se fIIII, 9 . f rq ' l/ It / •r / // , � � a ' III / ��� ' / / `` / ♦ '�� , � _ / • . ill • /'- •� .Mr+wnrsrrv+ • �\ Irwi a •.,nr,.,rs.ns-, w,.vvw p • I � o 0 n � y "�� JJ . :f.t• f /�►p Cyr rn ro OD P ' T YYYY�Y✓YV # i � YY•yy.Y„ TOWN OF THQ cQ ro EAST HILL TRANSMISSION TANK g lit i N , i I i I I i I I I I I I i I i 41 II I ; n x oxn s r 2. i �� � rr it: tn` n noUl I I l� f V a I I � lfl / 0 / • / I I IP��O I I �- - If V Al r Aw n %n Al Zs -� 2m • ' ^� I tLn / • _ + 2 11 I `to I 1 I nti 1 n; �0d o ' f f 2 O i 00 r s 2 � roll Cm tA r u r p� 2 w °jan LAa �` T I jl • I a 00 so 0 O MATCH LINE SHEET GP-2 j I I TOW !I,, OF I T HA CA C) " EAST HILL TRANSMISSION TANK w � .r I�t00 i m e mill _ . ! , /_ . . _ . _ MATCH UNE SHEET CP-I ?� s ��+► ti l L4 ^ i :z s ^ i �< rl 00 �i \\ loo LA \ 2 i It s2 bb \ \ a / • / Ft Zvi tA I �l 11 a I , � l 100 ItA � ,� l • l l l n"2s 1 a o 00 � I I a; r I . n Il~ 2 ^ l rq mat • x r �� C rowN of rHA cQ g �� sit EAST LL TRANSMISSION TANK 94t M � � t , r 8 �nC1 Z 400 Q Y _ = Q s� At ch mu IbIn ti ro5it., �*< "�...* cl Q p rz v+ NO O-s� Q � w2ooQ ¢ ft'IIIIIIIIIIIt� co WI 0 el Q C n I s � • � I ¢ I 41 +o 0 H o , 1 cl — a ~�- Z j P2 � I N I • �28 0 I ; I s I � � Ir , cm z a 00 `r N3 � ' o , o Z-do . NHS .�011� s�„r,Z,v► BP2 00 RX It TO WN OF THA CA s , 4s E EAS T HILL TRANSMISSION TANK R� N t � �w r � I � \ d 1 \ \ \ rt 1 I \ r 1 \ \ ! I+I III / / 11 11 / 11 3-K �/\\ II I I 1 11 02 II i N � II I 11 11 II \ 11 111 , 1 , 1 / =mob CNA pawls LL - - - - - / C1! fn / I / � � �oj -" ' / / a s - - -tiw► AL 000 00 I �re - I 01'1 rp to s 4d ! n � s % to s y rs a bb fri rms' ?tn dint � 4P cl ti 1'I p� tlCac O" 2 T � % m 4a T O WN OF I T HA CA EAST HILL TRANSMISSION TANK � i � � �� I� it �� I�� �I I� PROJECT ID NUMBER APPENDIX C EN DA ,1# � SEAR STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM for UNLISTED ACTIONS Only 10 / 18 / 2004 RT 1 = PROJECT INFORMATION ( To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) ATTACHMENT # 6 PPLICANT / SPONSOR 2. PROJECT NAME wn of Ithaca Town Board East Hill Tank and Transmission Line Extension 3.PROJECT LOCATION: Town of Ithaca Tompkins Municipality County 4. PRECISE LOCATION: Street Addess and Road Intersections, Prominent landmarks etc - or provide map Tank: East of Hungerford Hill Road/South of Ellis Hollow Road on Cornell University Property, Line Extension : Allong Ellis Hollow Rd . from Summerhill Lane to Hungerford Hill Rd and then South on Hungerford Hill Rd to the Tank 5. IS PROPOSED ACTION : New ❑ Expansion F] Modification / alteration 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: Construction of a 3 Million gallon potable water storage tank to improve storage capacity of the SCLIWC water transmission system and construction of 3 , 100 feet of 16" ductile Iron pipe along Ellis Hollow Road and Hungerford Hill Road to connect the tank to the existing Transmission main . MUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: y 3, 5 acres Ultimately 1 .0 acres L PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS? Yes ❑ No I f no, describe briefly: 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? (Choose as many as apply.) Residential ❑ Industrial Commercial ZAgriculture ❑ Park / Forest / Open Space ❑ Other (describe) Educational 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING , NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (Federal , State or Local) FVYes ❑ No If yes, list agency name and permit / approval : Town of Ithaca Building Permit, TC Department of Health Water Supply Improvement Approval 11 . DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? ❑ Yes � No If yes, list agency name and permit / approval : 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT / APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? tnlature--Yes ❑✓ No I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE cant / Name Town f Ithaca Engineering Department, Daniel Walker Date: October 12, 2004 — ----- If the action is a Costal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment I PART II - IMPACT ASSESSMENT To be completed by Lead Agency) A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.4? If yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL E Yes Z No B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.6? If No, a negative l declaration may be superseded by another involved agency. Yes 21 No C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING : (Answers may be handwritten, if legible) C1 . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic pattern, solid waste production or disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: Minor and temporary impact of construction activity _ ._ __ . .. __ ._ .... ..... . C2. Aesthetic, agricultural , archaeological , historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly: j Minor Visual impact, Tank is Reinforced concrete and will be partially Buried i C3. Vegetation or fauna , fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: I None .. ....... _. . ... iC4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly: None I .. . . .... . . C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly: None C6. Long term , short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1 -05? Explain briefly: I None C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or t pe of energy? Explain briefly: None D. WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA CEA ?-If yes, ex lain briefly: ❑ Yes F6/1 No E . IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? If es ex lain: El Yes ❑� No ...... ...... j PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency) i INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial , large , important or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting ( i .e . urban or rural) ; (b) probability of occurring ; (c) duration ; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope ; and (f) magnitude . If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials . Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed . If question d of part ii was checked yes , the determination of significance must evaluate the potential impact of the proposed action on the environmental characteristics of the CEA. Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed actin WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide, on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting thi determination. Town of Ithaca Town Board October 18 , 2004 Name of Lead Agency Date i Catherine Valentino Town Su )ervisor Print or Type Name f Responsible fficer in ency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) I 0 m Co a o to o CIA) N I O O A � p i DANBY RD( STATE RT 968 ) A W O � O _ el O 2 i m n a V) N � N $ N ® F m m ' � k O m �^ ti �I ~ vi ti I C m � D fV Y r g t � - g C -1 o y a W D as m " a 3 o E IIII,1 . T C W _ � �1 r m =� z � a m ` y Ir W r1 l J ON1 = m Eji R � _ x O � � �i m � o r D mN o Z CIS Ron TO OF I THA _S CA To • ! m E KING RD HIGH PRESSURE WATER LINE ! on V7 I i �� � � � i �, � . i i i i i i i i 617.20 A G IER DA # 11 4 SEAR PROJECT ID NUMBER APPENDIX C STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW 10 / 18 / 2004 SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM for UNLISTED ACTIONS Only RT 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION ( To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) ATTACHMENT # 8 MAPPLICANT / SPONSOR 2. PROJECT NAME 'RWbwn of Ithaca Town Board Kings Way Water Improvement & PROJECT LOCATION: Town of Ithaca Tompkins Municipality County 4. PRECISE LOCATION: Street Addess and Road Intersections, Prominent landmarks etc - or provide map Kings way from the Intersection with East King Road to Danby Road 5. IS PROPOSED ACTION : El New Expansion F Modification / alteration 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: Construction of a approximately 800 feet of 8" ductile Iron pipe from the existing PRV Vault on East King Road west along Kings way to the Existing 8" watermain on the East side of Danby Road . The new water main will allow the Town to improve water pressure on the portion of Danby Roadsouth of Kings Way. MOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: ially 1 acres Ultimately 0 acres ILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS? ✓ Yes El No If no, describe briefly: 4 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? (Choose as many as apply.) a Residential I ndustrial Fv Commercial Agriculture Park / Forest / Open Space Other (describe) 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING , NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (Federal , - State or Local) P1 Yes El No If yes, list agency name and permit / approval: TC Department of Health Water Supply Improvement Approval 11 . DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? Yes R No If yes, list agency name and permit / approval: 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT / APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? QYes �✓ No I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Ilcan spo or Name T w of Ithaca Engi eering Department, Daniel Walker Date: October 12, 2004 '1 nature If the action is a Costal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment PART II - IMPACT ASSESSMENT To be completed by Lead Agency) A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.4? If yes , coordinate the review process and use the FULL EA Yes 21 No B . WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.6? If No, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency. Yes Z No C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwritten, if legible) C1 . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic pattern, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: Minor and temporary impact of construction activity C2. Aesthetic, agricultural , archaeological , historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly: None C3. Vegetation or fauna , fish , shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats , or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: None . . .._.. ....... . . . ._.. ._ ... C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly: None i C5. Growth , subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly: None C6. Longterm , short term , cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1 -05? Explain briefly: None C7. Other impacts including changes in use of either quantitX or type of energy? Explain briefly: None D. WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA CEA ? If yes, ex lain briefly. F1 Yes ❑� No E. IS THERE , OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE , CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? If Xes ex lain: Yes 5/1 No PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse effect identified above , determine whether it is substantial , large , important or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (i .e . urban or rural) ; (b) probability of occurring ; (c) duration ; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope ; and (f) magnitude . If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed . If question d of part ii was checked yes, the determination of significance must evaluate the potential impact of the proposed action on the environmental characteristics of the CEA. Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed actin WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide, on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting thi determination. Town of Ithaca Town Board October 18 , 2004 Name of Lead Agency Date Catherine Valentino Town Supervisor Print or Type Name of Responsibl Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer e Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) �o F � Q � Mj 1 REVIEW OF ITORING Related to the S x� . k1!,. • g 111 ( z• 4i Outline - : ( s $ av}" e _ 1 % x�ama d ;a_. :t_` �N s x�XL ,2�, ",3' )��€:?6^"`��•, e + "'s,�.��. �4°a??s �sa..;'� :' Purpose • scope ka +' ;'i Update of monitoring results Assessment of statistical evaluation ,tt rn , s tr • hu 4"rs'• : .,y Y Recommendations �2 ' J"r.°- s `y1 FR4C October 2004 Prepared for: � ,x r' Prepared by: r BENCHMARK ENVIKOHMENIAL ssx , 1 ay t a Q, la We IL� 8 L 4 44 f'. u. ILL . Lj V It"L' LSC Facility 1 p +&y • • • • t < w,s ., a'&'�Sr :�{, az .' - ��e '' a od ';.' i ttt 2:` 'n °sx,<2..rK� � ,. Via, . Source Cooling Facility is designed to cool buildings and equipment at the University 's Ithaca�' L ' Water is drawn from approximately 250 It deep in Cayuga Lake and circulated through a closed looped shoreline heat exchange 3 .< yL w returned Warm water is�. to Cayuga • • - Hti P g' • •• 1 south • • - I . 1 • • � shore. cz It av I I I I I i I i I ZPD €S-Permit-Mddifications & Renewals Special Permit Conditions 1 . Original 1 . In-lake temperature monitoring i. 3/1/98 through 3/1 /03 i. Ambient temperature unaffected 2 . Modified 2. Biological monitoring i. 5/1/02 through 3/1/03 i. Fish and mysis entrainment assessment ii. Intake screen replaced sonic deterrent (minimum 3 years) iii. Administrative & reporting changes 3 . Resource monitoring 3. Renewed (Current) i. Seasonal in -lake p-total, chlorophyll -a, i. 3/1 /03 through 3/1/08 Secchi disc -'any statistically significant ii. No substantive changes trend of increasing parameters will require (outfall] reevaluation " ii. At least twice/month in lake iii. At least two locations on shelf \1 �SRD€S-Monitoring Locations Purpose & Scope -8k14(8) ' souMshetl (5) e vMn . Review EIS , background information , ;gym" man DMRs , annual reports, and statistical lake LSC Intake analysis ?H 1 lee g lua I • Attend data sharing group meetings 70 m �Pr°�^��° _ ®'6' • Independent assessment of data and depin LSC ° � < ,,_ ll(5� discharge findings 'e m Cayuga (1),p Heights -' 4m___ __®m WWTP ®(<) •®(Z) (7b 1921 Ithaca Area WWTP Cayuga inlet �' Fall Creek FIGGRE I. LCS SAMPLE LOCATIONS CII`�m / II �Z6 €x .fit-�.,4 ss' Atp � }AS 3 ;ll ell IN We g as e ell • . S 0 0 ry Addressed tii ' �'rrj9^`4, §fin ,f k 4 Z n Z n i awl fa ' rtC `2 .k-x.RYe ell,Are findings & conclusions by UFI/ hY- n ay u� K • • • • by • . • • • v Cornell • • . • • • Jll � ♦ ra- EKfl} data & statistical methods a�Si2x"«r • • • • . 'MM adequate & appropriate to determine fray %kO x✓,y, 11 I've • quality impacts? • • • ' Y Are permit requirements � ' ' ' • . • • • • 1 . Yesa*ve adequate & appropriate to determine ikl 3 'adverse water quality impa • • • _ _ _ • Yew all 4 a & x ell 111 11,51 1 IM IlY k3+ s�5 4y o: Yi• `aZ �" . o:� Yr `..��r ,a r : a$sfla u v w+ z V� / - • • • Noteworthy • "n&;' s • �t • • pro 2000 =2003 Operating Period p k , t x 2` e`Mx " e .s m . sk c: on south • SRPon south shelf• ■ • • vs. • • I'M .rx • • • • • • n�uFi; on • flar%-, were simi for 1998 , and distinctly lower in 1999 & 2003 YY�NaS, kF ell ub' YiY j3 M by �� Lpta- NS s Table 6 Figure 12(2 ) TP (ug/L) SRP (ug/L) (a) l sxn r Year " I ° i.W MAuaa Effluent Shelf Effluent Shelf ii 2000 120 164 5.8 1.0 il .� Ij {� jl •� :yr 2001 125 19.2 5.0 1.9 ,g 4 Rik oq^ y s- 2002 126 20.9 4.0 2.1 t :e 2003 127 1 17.6 4.9 2.0 (� Table 6: Avenigc values of r? and SRP in the LSC eRluatt and on the ? A . {� �• r to � � shelf. w 1 4° ° Wit? 0- � ,C° T " 2000 .rout atms Figure 12 (2). 'Time series of p==ainter values hrc the south shelf and the f SC effluent: (a) '1'P, (b) SRP. Itvsults for the "shelf' we gvemlcs; the error bars repmst•nt ! 1 stmtdani deviation- C ,`. n.a Noteworthy Corndll/UFI Conclusions: --� Table 9 2000 =2003 Operating Period Total Phosphorous (ug/L) Year Deep-Water Southern • LSC Locations Shea phosphorous input << modeled 1998 14.7 24.7 in DEIS (3 -4% vs . 4 . 8%) 1999 9.8 15 • Median values for Chi on the shelf 20W 11.6 18.7 22001 14.2 20.4 were lowest in 1999 and highest in 2°02 14.1 1 22.2 1998 and 2003 2003 IQ4 14 • No conspicuous changes in water Table 9: SurffoCr Qune - Septeni=) average total phosphorous 0?) quality observed on the shelf since concentrations for the upper waters of cal up Lake. LSC startup.p. li^-.ivvcx I i i II it Ili II u- �$ Vk X # • z . Tyi, y�`•�K:� 5 9 ; Proposed • • • Changes' - 9 Conclusions Jf Po„i,f,•• low", F,4 � , p 3x �.R+ f :N 9' C - m' Ij Extensive monitoring by UFI/Cornell Before- After- Control - impact (BACI) assessment'ry E��� # fi`•i if • • professional • general �n s` i conformance 0 " Effect sizes were small (< 1 5%) and A conditions no significant impacts . . . were LSC cF.7 ^ki •s- effluent was consistently detected " 11A conformant w/ permit discharge limits N li • • • e • ' • • % 50 l `�*4 Intake screen greatly diminishes bw water quality • • • from i to s potent • and biota stations (Sites 5 & 8) and eliminate ",% o entrainment Secchi Disc analysis Concur w/ UFI/Cornell that Secchi g�}T outh shelf. Tn is a reasonable Nlq u} "- SVFj'�iyS � )• x A�H4�i�5it, ;�ryk• n lir-6,11MOI 1 • • EST Table 1 t'' k .I 1111 '2P, Chlorophyll a (U Year, Deep-Water Sotithern Shelf 43 5.2 • • • • • • • 3 # ®® 4 � lF ? ®® 5.0 V33 hWz, ( dia,`e�S ?� • • • 1 1 ga LA . r' xti �y �I VCl J? . x Mv a I 44W 1. / 3y ea • a ent i ndings • , & Conclusions :s Peak monthly ■ loads from a (July , Aug . , Sept.) are 1 of total Io load to south shelf w/ LSC operating at l r - � FJ 1 4a•. 1 capacity. IAM As P loadings from WWTPs decrease • from LSC is expected to contribute a ,' I greater percentage of P loading to the shelf, especially in July -Sept. mA to Question ■ ■ from a,�dr may • " contributing to Chi spikes ryt Nh IN s: i V1 z d s • . � ra • • €q � ' • y 4 e w+' t"gfi w NO LF t« _ e • • • • - 1 . • - 4 ' :- - • N Y �y , Berri;; • • ' • • • 1 �� I� �I III it i Deficiencies-in-� C In =Lake SPDE-S Monitoring Thermal Monitoring Locations • Closest monitoring sites too far from -8k,4(8)- _.•' Soul shelf 5) 1 e�r0 outfall (800 -3 , 000 ft. ) loom imam lake • Limits of mixing zone not defined by LSC (make DEC TN • No data to confirm lake surface . kin ' °m temperature raised/lowered by < 3 ° a,pnaamnaats ,. under summer & winter conditions cD,d ,gym --- LSC (5` " discharge .S m Cayuga (1)® Heights .m. .__-®(3) vvvvrp ®(4) �s'�-®(2) m T921 Ithaca Area WWTP Cayuga Irdet Fail Creek MOREL LCSSAMPLE LOCATIONS C C Modeled Thermal,, lume In Modeled Thermal) lume In august Winter Source: LSC EIS, Stearns& Wheler,LLC (1997) Source: LSC EIS, Stearns& Wheler,LLC (1997) III Waft , XCEL "KI:d, c A 2M Y r U (_err) c R -Na n.. r Aftant -taon MU ; Mat , ar e< m ir nv .eq ni ,p r = r.rl ane rv.n r crsa n ^ Lr'.Q1'L PUS_ r.W1411R .mn0rlf ,[/L[ ' f.dA M@ III Ili III I I Independent i Independent-- i Recommendations Recommendations ( Cont ' d . ) • LSC outfall monitoring continue per • Secchi disk measurements should permit through 2005 be deleted from permit and • Short-term thermal evaluation replaced by Tn . should be undertaken to • Monitoring of Sites 2 &6 could be demonstrate conformance w/ Part discontinued . 704 • The BACI assessment should • Recording thermister should be performed now for SRP based upon relocated to the edge of DEC - 1998 -2003 data . defined mixing zone • The BACI assessment should be re-performed for Chl and SRP only after the 2005 monitoring . i FOR OCTOBER 18 , 2004 TOWN BOARD MEETING Environmental Compliance Office Telephone: 607 255-8027 Planning Design, and Construction Fax: 607 255.5377 129 Humphreys Service Bldg. E-mail: llc29®cornell.edu Ithaca, NY 14853-3701 Web: eco.pdc.comell.edu Facilities Services ATTACHMENT # 9 July 30, 2004 TO : Lake Source Cooling Data Sharing Group Karen Edelstein, Tompkins Co . EMC Lent Nancy Schuler, Tompkins Co. Dept. of HealtAVG 2 n4 Kate Hackett, Water Resources Council Reprive Herbert Engman, Ithaca Town Board TOWN OF ITHACA Daniel Winch, Tompkins Co . Board of Repre dS . ZONING , ENGINEERING c FROM: Pat McNally RE: LSC Data Sharing Meeting We are in the process of scheduling the next Lake Source Cooling Data Sharing Group meeting for September. We want to get the documents to you early to give you sufficient time to review the information before we meet. Lorne Chase will be contacting you to set up a specific date for the meeting. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at 255 - 8027 . Attached are the following documents : • Draft LSC Five-Year Summary Report: o LSC Five-Year Summary Report dated Aug. 11 , 2003 and submitted to the NYSDEC on September 25 , 2003 o Comments on the LSC Five-Year Summary Report to Cornell from the NYSDEC, dated April 30, 2004 o Cornell ' s response to comments sent to the NYSDEC on June 10, 2004 • : Draft LSC Statistical Analysis : o Statistical Analysis Agreement letter sent by Cornell to the DEC, dated Jan. 16, 2004 o Email correspondence follow-up on the Agreement letter between Cornell and NYSDEC, dated Jan. 28 , Feb. 2, and Feb . 10, 2004 o Draft LSC Statistical Analysis and submittal letter to NYSDEC, dated April 16, 2004 E Environmental ' Compliance Office G:/ECO/Meetings/LSC Data Sharing/5.22 03.doc llc 5/5/03 r � a Lake Source Cooling Data Sharing Group . July 30, 2004 Page 2 n Letter sent by Cornell to the NYSDEC requesting modification to Cornell' s LSC In-Lake Monitoring Plan, dated July 29, 2004 For other historical documents, you may access the Lake Source Cooling website at www.utilities . comell.edu/LSC/LakeData/Default.htm. Thank you for your continued interest in the Lake Source Cooling Project. cc w/o enclosures: Jim Adams, CU, Utilities Robert R. Bland, CU, ECO Steven Nicholson, EMC John Dennis, EMC (alternate) Steve Effler, Upstate Freshwater Institute Lanny Joyce, CU, Utilities Dooley Kiefer, Tompkins Co . Board of Representatives Gary Stewart, CU, University Relations Ed Wilson, CU, Utilities cc w/ enclosures : Nelson Hairston, CU, Ecology & Evolution Biology Cliff Kraft, CU, Natural Resources i August 11 , 2003 AUG 2 2004 u TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING , ZONING , ENGINEERING Cayuga Lake Water Quality Monitoring, Related to the LSC Facility : Summary Report, 1998 - 2002 Prepared by Upstate Freshwater Institute Box 506 Syracuse, NY 13214 Sponsored by: Cornell University Department of Utilities and Energy Management 1 • 1 . Objective/Study Area An extensive water quality monitoring program has been conducted on southern Cayuga Lake for five years ( 1998 — 2002) . The primary objective of this study has been to conduct an ambient water quality monitoring program focusing on the southern portion of Cayuga Lake to support long-term records of trophic state indicators, including concentrations of phosphorus and chlorophyll, and Secchi disc transparency, and other measures of water quality. . Individual annual reports (available at www . utihties. comell. edu/LSCo have been prepared for each of the study years (UFI 1999 , 2000, 2001 , 2002, 2003) . This report summarizes data from this five-year study with a focus on three key indicators of water quality, phosphorus , chlorophyll and clarity. Cayuga Lake is the second largest of the Finger Lakes. A comprehensive limnological description of the lake has been presented by Oglesby ( 1979) . The lake is monomictic (stratifies in summer), mesotrophic (intermediate level of biological productivity) , and is a hardwater alkaline system Much of the tributary inflow received by the lake enters at the southern end; e . g. , 40% is contributed by the combination ofFall Creek and Cayuga Inlet (Figure 1 ) . Effluent from two domestic wastewater treatment (WWT) facilities also enters this portion of the lake (Figure la) . The discharge from Cornell' s Lake Source Cooling (LSC) facility enters the southern portion (e.g. , south of McKinney' s Point) of the lake along the east shore (Figure 1 a) . The LSC facility started operating in early July of 2000 . 2 . Design 2. 1. Description of Parameters 2. 1. 1. Phosphorus (P) Phosphorus (P) plays a critical role in supporting plant growth. Phosphorus has long been recognized as the most critical nutrient controlling phytoplankton (microscopic plants of the open waters) growth in most lakes in the north temperate zone. Degradation in water quality has been widely documented for lakes that have received excessively high inputs of P from man' s activities. Increases in P inputs often cause increased growth of phytoplankton in lakes . Occurrences of particularly high concentrations of phytoplankton are described as "blooms' The accelerated "aging" of lakes associated with inputs of P from man' s activities has been descri bed as cultural eutrophication. The three forms of P measured in this monitoring program, total P (TP) , total dissolved P (TDP), and soluble reactive P (SRP), are routinely measured in many limnological and water quality programs . TP is widely used as an indicator of tiophic state (level of .plant production) . TDP and SRP are measured on filtered (0 .45 µm) samples. Most TDP is . assumed to be ultimately available to support phytoplankton growth. SRP is a component of TDP that is usually assumed to be immediately available to support phytoplankton growth. Particulate P (PP ; incorporated in, or attached to , particles) is calculated as the difference between paired measurements of TP and TDP . The composition of PP can vary greatly in time for a particular 2 � 8 1 m%®( 8) - ' ' south shelf : 4" Wind 00 . 5 6 OP 00 ® S11 main 100 m lake LSC Intake tN P4 , - 0 km 1 70 m approximate (D( 6) . depth _ " LSC contours 40 m 00 (5 discharge '6 m � . Cayuga ( 1 � Heights ® P2( 3} WWTP 4m ® (4 ) �`pi• Muster" Site Key 9 (2 ) ® (7) ■ T921 Ithaca Area 8 - main lake reference WWTP LSC - intake location 113 , 41517 - south shelf 2 - Ithaca WWTP plume Cayuga Inlet Fall Creek Figure la. Sampling sites, setting, approximate bathymetry, for LSC monitoring program, southern end of Cayuga Lake. Sites sampled during 1994 — 1996 study (P2, P4 and S11 ; Stearns and Wheler 1997) are included for reference . 3 I 1 I I TN I - I i i 1 I II I � (8)® I N Taughannock p Point J L5C Intake 0 Ian 10 i I I i I Figure lb . Sampling sites for LSC monitoring program, within the context of the entire Cayuga Lake basin. i i I i I. I i i 4 I I lake, and between different lakes . Contributing components include phytoplankton and other P- bearing particles that may be resuspended from the bottom or received from stream/river inputs. 2. 1. Z. Clarity The extent of the penetration of light in water (e. g. , ability to see submerged objects), described as clarity, is closely coupled to the public' s perception of water quality. Light penetration is particularly sensitive to the concentration, composition and size of particles. In lakes where phytoplankton are the dominant component of the particle population, measures of clarity may be closely correlated to concentrations of TP and phytoplankton biomass (e.g. , as measured by chlorophyll) . Clarity is relatively insensitive to phytoplankton biomass when and where concentrations of other types of particles are high. In general, light penetration is low when concentrations of phytoplankton, or other particles, are high. Two measures of light penetration are made routinely in this program, Secchi disc transparency (in the field) and turbidity (laboratory) . The Secchi disc measurement has a particularly long history in limnological studies, and has proven to be a rather powerful piece of information, even within the context of modern optical measurements. It remains the most broadly used measure of light penetration. The higher the Secchi disc measurement the greater the extent of light penetration.. Turbidity, as measured with a nephelometric turbidimeter, measures the light captured from a standardized source after passage through .a water sample. Turbidity and Secchi disc depth are regulated by a heterogeneous population of suspended . particles that include not only phytoplankton, but also clay, silt, and other finely divided organic and inorganic matter. The higher the turbidity value the higher the concentration of particles that limit light penetration. Secchi disc is a systematically flawed measure of clarity for much of the southern portion of Cayuga Lake monitored in this program because of its shallowness . Secchi disc transparency (SD) was observed to extend beyond the lake depth at sites 1 , 2, 3 , 4 , 5 and 7 on several occasions during the .1998 - 2002 study interval (UFI 1999, 2000, 2001 , 20025 2003 ) . Use of the population of SD measurements available (i.e. , observations of SD < lake depth) results in systematic under-representation of clarity for each of these sites by eliminating the inclusion of deeper measurements. In addition, the SD measure is compromised as it approaches the bottom because reflection by the bottom rather than particles in the water can influence the measure. It may be prudent to consider an alternate representation of clarity that does not have these limitations. Turbidity (TJ represents a reasonable alternative, in systems where particles regulate clarity (Effler 1988) . The relationship between SD and T„ has been evaluated throughout the study (UFI 19995 2000, 20019 2002 , 2003) . A linear relationship is expected between 1 /SD and Tn (Effler 1988), and has been observed for the observations made during this study (Figure 2) . Based on these results, T„ has been adopted as an alternate, and apparently more robust, measure of light penetration in shallow portions of the monitored area. 5 I 8 R2 = 0. 84 n = 543 6 I E • Q 4 • • U) • • • R2 = 0.76 • n = 534 . . 2 . . • • M 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Tn (NTU) Figure 2 . Relationship between Secchi disc transparency (SD) and turbidity in the southern end of Cayuga Lake based on paired observations from the 1998 — 2002 study interval. I 2. 1. 3. Chlorophyll Chlorophyll a (Chl) is the principal photosynthetic pigment that is common to all phytoplankton. Chlorophyll (usually as chlorophyll a) is the most widely used surrogate measure of phytoplankton biomass, and is generally considered to be the most direct and reliable measure of trophic state . Increases in chlorophyll , concentrations indicate increased phytoplankton production. The major advantages of chlorophyll as a measure oi' phytoplankton biomass are: ( 1 ) the measurement is relatively simple and direct, (2) it integrates different types and ages of i phytoplankton, (3) it accounts to some extent for viability of the phytoplankton, and (4) it is quantitatively coupled to optical properties that may influence clarity. However, the chlorophyll measurement does not resolve phytoplankton type, and the chlorophyll content per unit biomass can vary according to species and ambient environmental conditions . Therefore, it is an imperfect measure of phytoplankton biomass . i Rather wide variations in chlorophyll concentrations can occur seasonally, particularly in productive lakes. The details of the timing of these variations, including the occurrence of blooms , often differ year-to-year. Seasonal changes in phytoplankton biomass reflect imbalance between growth and loss processes. Factors influencing growth include nutrient availability (concentrations) , temperature and light. Phytoplankton are removed from the lake either by settling, consumption by small animals (e.g. , zooplankton) , natural death, or exiting the basin. During intervals of increases in phytoplankton, the rate of growth exceeds the summed rates of the various loss processes . i 6 I I Z1. 4. Temperature Temperature is a primary regulator of important physical, chemical, and biochemical processes in lakes . It is -perhaps the most fundamental parameter in lake monitoring programs. Lakes in the northeast go through major temperature transformations linked primarily to changes in air temperature and incident light . Important cycles in aquatic life and biochemical processes are linked to the annual temperature cycle. Deep lakes stratify in summer in this region, with the warmer less dense water in the upper layers (epilimnion) and the colder more dense water in the lower layers (hypolimnion) . A rather strong temperature/density gradient in intermediate depths between the epilimnion and hypolimnion (metalimnion) limits cycling of materials from the hypolimmon to the epilimnion during summer. Gradients in temperature are largely absent over the late fall to spring interval, allowing active mixing throughout the watercolumn (e .g. , turnover) . . 2. 1. 5. Dissolved Oxygen The concentration of dissolved oxygen (DO) is perhaps the single most important feature of water quality. It is a critical parameter that dictates the resource potential of surface waters, and it is an important regulator of chemical processes and biological activity. Adequate DO is required for most forms of aquatic life. For example, the maintenance of a cold water sport fishery requires a combination of low temperature and high DO . Oxygen is produced through plant photosynthesis. within the photic zone and consumed mostly by microbial respiration and organic stabilization. 2.2 . Timing Lake sampling and field measurements were conducted by boat during the spring to fall interval of 1998-2002 , beginning in July 1998 and extending through October 2002 . The full suite of laboratory and field measurements was made for 75 bi-weekly monitoring trips . The bi-weekly monitoring program was augmented with an additional 8 sampling trips conducted during the May — August interval of 2000, a period bracketing start-up of the LSC facility. Laboratory measurements of phosphorus concentration, Tn, dissolved oxygen concentration (DO) , and pH were made on samples from the LSC influent and effluent collected weekly during operation of the LSC. facility. 2 .3 . Locations An array of sampling sites (e. g . , grid) has been adopted that provides a robust representation of the southern portion of the lake (Figure la and b) . This sampling grid may reasonably . be expected to resolve persistent water quality gradients that may be imparted by the various inputs/inflows that enter this portion of the lake. Further, inclusion of these sites is expected to contribute to fair representation of average conditions for this portion of the lake. Seven sites were monitored for the full suite of parameters in the southern end of the lake (sites 1 through 7) . The intake location for the LSC facility and site 8 , located further north as a reference for the main lake conditions, were also sampled. Positions (latitude, longitude) for the 7 i eight sites are specified in Table 1 . The configuration of sites includes two transect lines; one with 3 sites along an east-west line extending from an area near the discharge location, the other with 4 sites running approximately along the main axis of the lake; (Figure I a) . Additionally, two sites ( 1 and 7) bound the location of the LSC discharge, paralleling the east shore (Figure la) . The "Global Positioning System" (GPS) was used to locate the sampling/monitoring sites . A reference position located at the southern end of the lake (T921 ; Figure 1 a) was used to assess the accuracy of the GPS for each monitoring trip . Table 1 : Specification of site locations (GPS) and depths (sonar) for ambient water quality monitoring (refer to Figure la) . Sites sampled during 1994 — 1996 study (P2 , P4 and S11 ; Stearns and Wheler 1997) are included for reference. Site No. Latitude Lon itude Depth m 1 (discharge boundary) 42 028 . 3 ' 76 030 .5 ' 5 2 28 .0 ' 30 . 8 ' 3 3 28 .2 ' 30 . 9 ' 4 4 28 .2 ' 31 .4 ' 4 5 28 .5 ' 31 . 1 ' 6 6 28 . 8 ' 31 . 3 ' 40 7 (discharge boundary) 28 .0 ' 30 . 3 ' . 3 .5 8 (offTaughannock Pt.) 33 .0 ' 35 . 0 ' 110 thermistor "pile cluster" 28 . 1 ' 31 . 0 ' 4 LSC Intake 2904 ' 3108 ' 78 j P2 28920 ' 30 .40 ' 4 P4 29 . 31 ' 31041 ' 65 S11 29 . 60 ' 31 .45 ' 72 i 2.4. ]Field Methods Water samples were collected with a well-rinsed Van Doric sampler or submersible pump , with depths marked on the line/hose . Care was taken that the sampling device was deployed vertically within the water column at the time of sampling. Samples for laboratory analysis were composite-type, formed from equal volumes of sub-samples collected at depths of 0 , 2 and 4 meters for sites 5 , 6, LSC, and 8 . Composite samples for sites 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , and 7 were formed from equal volumes of sub-samples collected at depths of 0 and 2 meters. The composite-type samples avoid over-representation of the effects of temporary seconcLary stratification in monitored parameters . In addition, samples were collected at the LSC intake site at lm and 3m above the bottom (depth of ~ 77m) . Sample bottles were stored in ice and transported to the laboratory on the same day of sampling. Chain of custody procedures were observed for all samples collected for laboratory analysis. i I I 8 2.5. Laboratory Analyses, Protocols Laboratory analyses for the selected parameters were conducted . according to methods specified in Table 2 . Detection limits for these analyses are also included. Most of these laboratory analyses are "Standard Methods" . Results below the limit of detection are reported as '/2 the limit of detection. The chlorophyll method is one of the most commonly used in lake studies. Specifications adhered to for processing and preservation of samples, containers for samples, and maximum holding times before analyses, are summarized in Table 3 . Table 2 : Specification of laboratory methods for ambient water quality monitoring . Analyte Method No. Reference Limit of Detection total phosphorus 4500-P APHA ( 1992) 0 . 6 gg• L"' soluble reactive phosphorus 4500-P APHA ( 1992) 0 .3 ggeU' total dissolved phosphorus 4500-P APHA ( 1992) 006 gg• L"' turbidity 2130-B APHA ( 1992) - chlorophyll a Parsons et al. ( 1984) 0 .4 al;' Table 3 : Summary of processing, preservation, storage containers and holding times for laboratory measurements; see codes below. Parameter Processin Preservation Container Holding Time total phosphorus c a 1 1 soluble reactive phosphorus a b 1 2 total dissolved phosphorus a a 1 1 chlorophyll a b c 2 3 turbidity c b 2 2 codes for Table 3 , processing: a - filter with 0 .45 µm cellulose acetate filter b - filter with 0 .45 µm cellulose nitrate filter c - whole water sample preservation: a - H2SO4 to pH < 2 b - none c - store filter frozen until analysis container: 1 - 250 ml acid washed borosilicate boston round 2 - 4L polypropylene container holding time : 1 - 28 days 2 - 24 hours 31 . 200 days 9 I _ 2.6. Quality Assurance/Control Program A quality assurance/control (QA/QC) program was conducted to assure that ambient lake data collected met data quality objectives for precision'. accuracy, representativeness, comparability, and completeness . 2. 6. 1. Field Program iPrecision of sampling, sample handling and laboratory analyses was assessed by a program of field replicates. Samples for laboratory analyses were collected in triplicate at site 1 on each sampling day. Triplicate samples were collected at one of the other eight stations each monitoring trip : This station was rotated each sampling trip through the field season. Secchi disc measurements were made in triplicate at all sites through the field season. Precision was high for the triplicate sampling/measurement program, as represented by the average values of the coefficient of variation for three key water quality parameter:) (Table 4) . Variability in the replicate results was consistently low for the three parameters considered here (Table 4) . Table 4 : Precision for triplicate sampling/measurement program for key parameters for the 1998 -2002 interval, represented by the average coefficient of variation for the five study years . Parameter Site 1 Ro-tating Site * total phosphorus 0 . 10 0 . 08 I chlorophyll a 0 . 11 0 . 08 turbidity 0 . 10 0 . 08 * average of Sites 2, 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , LSC 2. 6.2. Laboratory Program The laboratory quality assurance/control program conducted was as specified by the Environmental Laboratory Approval Program (ELAP 1999) of the New York State Health Department. ELAP methods were used to assure precision and accuracy, completeness and comparability (ELAP 1999) . The program included analyses of reference samples , matrix spikes, j blind proficiency samples, and duplicate analyses. Calibration and performance evaluation of analytical methods was as specified in the ELAP program; this includes control charts of reference samples, matrix spikes, and duplicate analyses . I I' I I 10 - u ' i . 3 . Results, 1998 - 2002 Measurements made in the monitoring program are presented in two formats here: ( 1 ) in tabular form (Table 5) as selected summary statistics for each site, and (2) as time plots (Figures 242) for selected sites and site groupings. Detailed listings of data are presented in the appendices of the individual annual reports (www.utilities. comell.edu/LSC/) . The adopted summary statistics include the number of observations (n) , the mean, the 95 % confidence interval (CI) , the median, and the range of observations (Table 5 ) . Mean TP concentrations in the upper waters ranged widely, from 12 ggnU at site 8 to 41 µg• L- ' at site 2 . Both average TP concentrations and temporal variability (95 % Cl) decreased in a nearly systematic fashion with distance from the south end of the lake (Figure la, Table 5 ) . Similar spatial patterns were observed for TDP, SRP and Tn. The generally higher average values and variance estimates for P and Tn on the shelf (< 6 in depth: sites 1 , 2 , 3 , 4, 5 and 7) compared to the deepwater sites (sites 6 , LSCI and 8) have been attributed to the proximity of the shelf sites to wastewater outfalls and major tributaries, and the susceptibility of this shallow area to resuspension (Matthews et al. 2002) . It is noteworthy that sites located in the southeastern portion of the shelf (sites. 1 , 2 , 3 and 7) have generally higher levels of P and Tn than sites located to the north and west (sites 4 ' and 5) . This may be a manifestation of the predominate counterclockwise flow pattern that delivers water from the main lake to the west side of the shelf (Oglesby 1978) . Compared to P and Tn, mean Chl levels exhibited modest site-to-site variability (Table 5) . Average Chl concentrations and temporal variations were highest for sites 1 , 2 and 7, located in the southeastern portion of the shelf (Figure la, Table 5) . However, median Chl concentrations were highest for the deepwater sites (sites 6 , LSCI and 8) . With the exception of the occasional high values (> 15 gg•L" ' ) observed at sites 1 , 2 and 7 , Chl concentrations have been slightly higher in the deeper ' portions of the lake. Site 4 had the lowest mean and median Chl concentrations, 3 . 3 and 3 .0 pg•L'' , respectively. A pattern of decreasing P and Tn levels and reduced temporal variability with distance from the south end of the lake is apparent from time series of TP, TDP, SRP and T„ (Figures 3 , 4, 5 and 7) . Relatively high TP concentrations on the shelf have been observed sporadically throughout the study (Figure 3 ) . These high TP levels and simultaneous reductions in clarity (high Tn; Figure 7) have been attributed to allochthonous inputs received during runoff events (Effler et al. 2002) . In fact, all of the Tn values > 20 NTU (identified with arrows) are attributable to runoff events (Figure 7) . Concentrations of TDP and SRP have been markedly higher during April at most of the monitored sites (Figures 3 and 4) . This is likely related to seasonally higher loading and reduced phytoplankton uptake, as early spring Chl levels have been low in each of the study years (Figure 6) . Previous reports (UFI 1999, 2000, 2001 , 2002, 2003) have documented occurrences of extremely high concentrations of forms of phosphorus (TP, TDP, and SRP) and nitrogen (TDN and T44H3) at site 2 . These occurrences are likely associated with the proximity of site 2 to the Ithaca Area W v7P discharge (Figure la) enriched in these components . Particularly high 11 concentrations of TP, TDP and SRP were observed during the August — September intervals of 1998 and 2000 (Figures 3 , 4 and 5 ; note change in scale for site 2) . Site 2 is omitted in the formation of the average for the shelf because the effect is localized, temporally irregular, and is representative of only a relatively small volume of water. Time series of surface temperatures for each of the monitored sites are presented in Figure 8 . Surface temperatures exhibited little variation from sitt.4o -site or from year-to-year. Temperatures range from 5 to 10°C in the early spring, followed by a nearly progressive increase during May and June. After reaching a peak of 25 °C during July and August, temperatures . decreased to 10- 15 °C by the end of October. This general pattern is typical of lakes in the northeast. Substantial deviations from the ideal bell-shaped curve may be caused by runoff events; major changes in air temperature, or seiches (internal waves) . For example, the sharp drops in temperature that occurred in mid-June of 2000 and late September of 2001 were associated with major storms that contributed a large influx of relatively cold water to the lake (Figure 8) . In July of 2002 the water temperature near site 3 dropped from 24°C to 9°C in a 24 hour period and 8 ° C in a single hour, presumably due to a seiche (Figure 9) . Concentrations of DO followed the same general trend in each of the study years, with higher levels (10- 12 mg.1:1) in the spring and fall and lower levels (8 -9 11191 "1) during the summer months (Figure 10a) . This pattern is consistent with the lower solubility of oxygen in warmer water. Although most of the DO measurements were within 10% of saturation, there was a tendency for super-saturation during the summer months and under-saturation in the fall (Figure 10b) . The distinct DO peak in late July of 1999 coincided with a "whiting" event (described subsequently) . Paired measurements of TP, SRP and Tn in the LSC influent and effluent have been very similar, indicating the absence of substantial sources or sinks for these constituents within the LSC facility (Figure 11 ) . Statistical testing (paired t-test on log-ixansformed data) indicates no significant (p>0 . 12) difference between water entering and exiting the facility with respect to these three parameters . In Figure 12 and Table 6 levels of TP, SRP and T„ in the LSC effluent are compared to levels on the "shelf'. The "average" for the shelf is the -mean of observations for sites 3 , 4, 5 , and the average of sites 1 and 7 (together to represent conditions in the eastern portion of the study area; see Figure la) . The study average TP concentration for the LSC effluent ( 12 .2 gg•L'1 ) was significantly lower (p=0 .0000002 ; paired t-test on log-transformed data) than the receiving waters of the shelf ( 19 . 0 gg• L"' ) . Conversely, the average SRP concentration for the LSC effluent (4 . 6 gg•L" ) was significantly Irigher (p=0 . 0000000005 ; paired t-test on log-transformed data) compared to the shelf ( 1 . 8 gg•L" ' ) . Study average turbidity levels were significantly higher (p=0 .01 ; paired t-test on log-transformed data) on the shelf (2 : 9 NTU) than in the LSC effluent ( 1 .3 NTU) , despite the contradictory finding of 2000 (Table 6) . Levels of TP , SRP and Tn have varied widely over time and space on the. shelf (Figure 12) . In contrast, phosphorus concentrations and turbidity levels in the LSC eflluent have remained relatively j uniform. During the 2 . 5 years of operation TP concentrations in the LSC effluent have increased, while levels of SRP and Tn have decreased (Table 6). The lower average values for TP , SRP and Tn on the shelf in 2000 are probably largely attributable to the omission of pre start-up (April — June) data from this average (Table 6) . 12 Time series of daily average flows are compared in Figure 13 for the major inputs to the southern end of Cayuga Lake (note different scale for Fall Creek/Cayuga Inlet). Since it began operating in July of 2000, the average flow from the LSC facility has been 15 . 6 MGD, or about 8% of the total flow to the southern portion of the lake. During the growing season (June - September) the average flow increased to 24 . 8 MGD , about 30% of the total inflow . Table 5 : Summary of results of monitoring program according to site, 1998 - 2002 . TP (N-g'L"1) Site n Mean±95% CI Median Minimum Maximum 1 83 20 .9±23 18 .4 7 .9 70 . 8 2 83 41 .4±9 . 0 2969 802 289 . 2 3 83 1909±2 .4 17 . 1 506 7799 4 83 1541 ± 1 .9 123 6 .0 44 .5 5 83 15 . 8± 1 .5 14 . 6 698 45 .4 6 83 13 .5± 1 .2 13 . 0 5 .9 35 . 5 7 83 24 .5±2 .4 223 9 .0 62 . 8 8 81 11 . 8±0 .7 11 . 0 53 2000 LSC 83 1200±0 .9 1105 309 28 .4 TDP (µg•L"1 ) Site n Mean±95%CI Median Minimum Maximum 1 75 6 .0±0 . 9 4 . 5 0 .4 25 .5 2 74 2003 ±803 10 . 7 0 . 7 236 . 1 3 75 5 . 3±0 . 7 500 0 .2 1607 4 75 4 .5±0 . 6 4 . 4 093 18 .6 5 75 400±066 3 .3 03 13 .6 6 74 3 .4±0 .4 3 . 0 03 10 . 0 7 75 7 . 7±0 : 9 7 .2 13 18 .4 8 73 3 .5±0 .4 3 . 2 03 9 . 6 LSC 75 3 .7±0 .4 3 . 5 003 901 13 Table 5 (cont .) : Summary of results of monitoring program according to site, 1998 - 2002 . SRP (N-g'L"1) Site n Mean±95 %CI Median Minimum Maximum 1 76 2 .5 ±007 Li 0 .2 1849 2 76 1468±706 5 . 7 002 212 .5 3 76 2 . 1 ±0 .6 1 . 2 0 .2 12 . 2 4 76 1 . 5 ±0 .4 0 . 7 0 . 2 103 5 76 101 ±0 .4 0 . 5 0 . 2 10 . 4 6 76 009±03 0 .4 0 . 2 . 506 7 76 3 . 5 ±0 . 8 2 . 5 0 . 2 14 . 0 8 74 0 .7±0 .2 003 002 4 .9 LSC 76 0 . 8±03 003 0 . 2 641 Chl . (µg'Lw1) Site n Mean±95 %CI Median Minimum Maximum 1 83 4 .7±0 . 7 3 . 9 0 . 8 17 . 1 2 83 5 .0±0 . 9 17 0 . 6 29 . 6 3 83 3 . 9±0 . 5 33 0 . 7 12 . 0 4 82 3 .3 ±0 . 5 3 . 0 03 14 . 0 5 82 4 . 1 ±0 .4 3 . 9 0 . 7 11 . 7 6 83 4 . 5±0 .4 4 . 5 0 .6 93 7 82 5 .0± 1 . 0 17 0 . 7 32 . 9 8 81 4 .2±0 .4 4 . 2 0 . 7 9 .4 LSC 83 4 .4±Q , 5 4 . 3 004 11 . 5 Tn (NTU) Site n Mean±95%CI Median Minimum maximum , 1 83 3 .0±0 . 8 1 . 7 0 . 5 21 . 5 2 83 4 . 8±2 . 1 2 . 0 0 .4 75 . 0 3 83 3 .4± 1 . 5 1 .4 03 50 . 0 4 83 2 .5±1 . 1 Li 03 40 . 5 5 83 2 .9± 13 1 .4 03 46 . 8 6 83 1 . 8±044 1 . 2 0 .4 9.3 7 '83 3 .4± 1 . 1 1 . 8 003 30 . 2 8 81 1 .3±Q , 2 1 . 0 03 3 .7 LSC 83 1 .4±0 . 2 Li 0 :3 6 .2 14 I 80 60 (a) site 1 LSC —� • start-up 40 • 20 r to • • • • • •M • ~ f 0 60 (b) site 7 • 40 • • • • • �• 20 we• 4P %• t 4A 0 : ; w . • • • 0 (c) site 2 200 100 • . . • ; r 0 • •• ♦ • ~ • • • + ••• �i+ri 60 (d) site 3 40 • • • 0 • U • 20 r.if ob I � • so f•~ w� 0 60 (e) site 4 z 40 1 • • ` • • • d 20 wr � M4 � � • ••• r 0 60 (fl site 5 i 40 • • • 20 • ♦ is • A • 0 ~ � � GP now 60 (9) site 6 40 • 20 �!I f M�� "7.�"M y�~ •�Yr 0 60 (h) LSCI 40 20 • • % •- � 0 . 60 (i) site 8 40 20 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Figure 3 . Time series of total phosphorus (TP) concentrations for the 1998 — 2002 interval: (a) site 1 , (b) site 7 , (c) site 2, (d) site 3 , (e) site 4, (f) site 5 , (g) site 6, (h) LSC , and (i) site 8 . Start-up of the LSC facility is identified with dashed gray line. 15 i 30 (a) site 1 LSC ice '; • 20 • start-up 10 • •• • » • • ••• • � • • • • o 0 �• • ;••� • �• • •• • (b) site 7 10 0 - f� f %MWIF •f. so 0 RAP V99 0 (c) site 2 • I 200 • . 100 • 0 (d) site 3 20 • i• V•f 0 (e) site 4 b� 20 • d 10 ti • • 0 of �•i�Vr• • �f ' V i N' ••�� ~•'fib ~� (1] site 5 20 10 �•f ,f ���� M� �. 0 f ��. (g) site 6 20 10 • • � 0 20 (h) LSCI 0 nee (i) site 8 20 % i 0 j � �.• o .qpo • Sfr 1r �V1rMti ~ � I 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 I Figure 4 . Time series of total dissolved phosphorus (TDP) concentrations for the 1998 — 2002 interval: (a) site 1 , (b) site 7 , (c) site 2 , (d) site 3 , (e) site 4, (0 site 5 , (g) site 6 , (h) LSC, and (i) site 8 . Start-up of the LSC facility is identified with dashed gray line . 16 20 • 15 (a) site 1 LSC 10 • • start-up •• • • ti • 5 • • • • �•• •t • 0 • • • 15 (b) site 7 ! 10 • • • • • • 0 •. �/ • • �• RIM 200 (c) site 2 • • 150 100 • 50 • 0 ti • •� � • 15 (d) site 3 r 10 • ' • • o »• r % r ,. 15 (e) site 4 a� 10 • a • 5 •i• • •• S • 0 • y • • . • 15 site 5 10 • • 0 • • 15 (9) site 6 10 5 • • 0 15 (h) LSCI 10 5 • • » 15 (i) site 8 10 5 • • • 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Figure 5 . Time series of soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) concentrations for the 1998 — 2002 interval: (a) site 1 , (b) site 7 , (c) site 2 , (d) site 3 , (e) site 4, (fl site 5 , (g) site 6 , (h) LSC, and (i) site 8 . Start-up of the LSC facility is identified with dashed gray line. 17 i 36 (a) site 1 LSC 24 start-up 12 • • • •� 0 • 24 (b) site 7 . • 12 • so 0 N• • •i�•�. •M •�' g• • X40 (c) site 2 • 24 12 � t it • •�• �� 0 i �w •i �iM yy �OA • • M - le(d) site 3 24 12 • • . . . . . . $ROE ;! %Tar ; W . I r . . . . . . . . . . 0 (e) site 4 J 24 m 12- - • 0 (� site 5 24 12 ; • • • � iyr� � /� W�W • •�i 0 (g) site 6 24 12 i • • 0 �1 •�� ' . ;Mfr • I4r�► (h) LSCI 24 0 (i) site 8 24 12 0 owwww 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 I Figure 6 . Time series of chlorophyll a (Chl) concentrations for the 1998 — 2002 interval : (a) site 1 , (b) site 7, (c) site 2 , (d) site 3 , (e) site 4 , (fl site 5 , (I;) site 6, (h) LSC , and (i) site 8 . Start-up of the LSC facility is identified with dashed gray line. I . I 18 20 15 (a) site 1 LSC �•a • 22 • start-up •r 10 • 40 • 5 • • • • ♦• 15 (b) site 7 • ; • • 30 24 10 • i • • 0 ••• • • ~•• t* • � Ub 15 (c) site 2 3421tf32 • • • � • 10 75 • ; • 5 • • • • •• •• • • 0 0 %W • � • wo•�M •~ +• 15 (d) site 3 21T21 I ; • • • 10 50t • 5 • w 0 �I �►� •S D 15 (e) site 4 41 Z 10 • . F-` 5 • r • • o • tiiy y r 15 (� site 5 47T 24 • 10 • • 5 • ••' • 0 •ti 15 (g ) . site 6 10 • 15 (h ) LSCI 10 5 • 0 1 .5 (i) site , 8 10 5 0 � • wiA •• • • •1I� . 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Figure 7 . Time series of turbidity (TO values for the 1998 — 2002 interval: (a) site 1 , (b) site 7, (c) site 2 , (d) site 3 , (e) site 4, (f) site 5 , (g) site 6 , (h) LSC, and (i) site 8 . Start-up of the LSC facility is identified with dashed gray line. Arrows are used to identify values greater than 20 NTU . 19 i 30 25 LSC � I 20 start-up 15 % f 10 f 5 (a) site 1 0 " 25 ! 20 15 10 i } 5 (b) site 7 r 0 25 ! 20 15 } 10 I • 5 (c) site 2 f f 0 25 I 20 15 � 10 5 (d) site 3 I U 0 25 d 20 E2 15 { a 10 f E 5 (e) site 4 ! "- 0 25 I 20 1 15 1j► 10 5 - site 5 0 E 25 i 20 15 I 10 5 (g) site 6 ! • 0 25 20 15 i 10 e 5 (h) LSCI 0 25 �+ ! . 20 1 15 10 ! 5 (i) site 8 f 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 i Figure 8 . Time series of surface temperatures for the 1998 — 2002 interval: (a) site 1 , (b) site 7, (c) site 2 , (d) site 3 , (e) site 4, (f) site 5 , (g) site 6 , (h) :LSC, and (i) site 8 . Start-up of the LSC facility is identified. with dashed gray line. 20 i 30 25 20 U m 15 10 5 i 0 -5 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Figure 9 . Time series of temperature values recorded at the pile clusters near site 3 for the 1998 — 2002 interval. Start-up of the LSC facility is identified with dashed gray line . 14 J 12 (a) E 10 0 8 6 140 (b� 0 120 - - ...... ._.. ...._ ,...._... _......_.. __... . ...._... . ... .._......... ..___._.. - 0 100 _ .. ..... ._.._._.... .._..... .. _._.._.. ....... .. ..._....._.. ......_.._.. ...... _.. _...._.._. 80 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Figure 10 . Time series of dissolved oxygen (DO) values recorded at site 3 for the 1998 — 2002 interval: (a) DO concentration, and (b) DO % saturation. 21 40 35 (a) • LSC influent 0 LSC effluent 30 LSC J 25 start-up -- 20 la— 15 0 10 0 0ab Q - 5 e o s z CO G 0 O 2 8 0 (C) 0 *=woo 4 LSC o offline 3 . • t z 2 00! 1 • d° e • 0 0 14 Ow°0 0 2000 2001 2002 i Figure 11 . Time series of parameter values for the LSC influent and effluent for the 2000 — 2002 interval: (a) TP, (b) SRP , and (c) T,,. Error bars represent 95 % confidence intervals determined from analyses of field. triplicates . 22 . 55 (a) • Shelf 45 o LSC effluent , J 35 CD . T it IL 25 It ie 15 • O { 00b 0 CO . 5 10 (b) J 8 Q M �¢ C 6o l � o tY 4 Z O o o 0T C C/) T § . Q o 0 2 rr . � �IIj � • I � III o � � � • (C) 20 :D 15 - 1 LSC z start-up i C 10 1 J H 5 0 !0 0 0 • • • 'd 2000 2001 2002 Figure 12 . Time series of parameter values for the south shelf and the LSC effluent for the 2000 — 2002 interval: (a) TP, (b) SRP, and (c) T,,. Results for the "shelf' are averages; the error bars represent spatial variation with dimensions of ± 1 standard deviation. Error bars for the LSC effluent represent 95 % confidence intervals determined from analyses of field triplicates . Table 6 : Average values of TP , SRP, and T„ in the LSC effluent and on the shelf Avera e g s determined from observations made during the April — October interval of 2000, 2001 and 2002 . Location TP (µg• L"1) SRP (µg•L'1) T. (NTU) 2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002 LSC effluent 12 . 0, 115 116 5 . 8 5 .0 . 460 2 .2 13 161 Shelf 1644 1902 20 .9 1 . 0 1 .9 291 1 . 1 3 .2 3 .4 23 50 100 40 (a ) flow 80 0 --- % of inflow 30 60 20 40 10 1 , � x. E 20 0 40 (b) 30 20 p 10' C7 0 0 40 (C) 30 20 10 0 3000 (d) 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2000 2001 2002 Figure 13 . Time series of daily flow values for the 2000 — 2002 interval: (a) LSC and % contribution of LSC to total inflow to the southern shelf, (b) Ithaca Area WWTP , (c) Cayuga Heights WWTP , and (d) combined flow of Fall Creek and Cayuga Inlet. 24 4 . Selected Topics 4. 1. Inputs of Phosphorus to Southern End of Cayuga Lake Phosphorus loading is an important driver of primary production in phosphorus limited lakes . It is therefore valuable to consider the relative magnitudes of the various sources of phosphorus that enter. the southern end of Cayuga Lake. Monthly average loading estimates are presented for the Ithaca Area and Cayuga Heights wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) for the . 1998 - 2002 interval (Table 7), based on flow and concentration data made available by these facilities . Discharge flows are measured continuously at these facilities. Concentrations of total phosphorus (TP) in the effluents are measured twice per week at the Ithaca Area WWTP and once per week at the Cayuga Heights WWTP . The estimates of the monthly loads (Table 7) are the product of the monthly average flows and concentrations . Other estimation techniques may result in modest differences in these loads. Rather wide monthly and interannual differences in loading rates have been observed for both WWTPs (Table 7) over the 1998 — 2002 interval. Phosphorus loading from the Ithaca Area WWTP was lower in 2002 than in the previous four years (Table 7) . Phosphorus loads during 2002 were also relatively low for the Cayuga Heights WWTP, but slightly higher than 1999 loading estimates (Table 7) . The TP permit requirement is 40 pounds per day ( 18 . 1 kg per day) for the Ithaca Area WWTP and 1 mg•L"' for the Cayuga Heights WWTP . Estimates of monthly tributary phosphorus loading, for the combined inputs of Fall Creek and Cayuga Inlet, for the May — October interval are included for reference in Table 7 . These were developed based on daily average flows and historic phosphorus data for these two tributaries (Stearns and Wheler 1997) . Tributary loads can vary substantially year-to-year, based on natural variations in runoff. Further, the tributary phosphorus loads of Table 7 were not for TP , but rather total soluble phosphorus (see Bouldin ( 1975) for analytical protocols) to better represent the potential for these inputs to support plant growth. Estimates of monthly TP loading to the shelf from the LSC facility and the percent contribution of this source are presented in Table 7 . The percent contribution to TP loading from all sources is depicted in Figure 14 . Concentrations of TP are measured weekly at the LSC discharge. The estimates of the monthly loads for LSC (Table 7 , Figure 14) are the product of the monthly average flows and concentrations that are reported monthly as part of the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) . The average TP loading rate from LSC during the May — October period of 2000-2002 was 1 . 0 kg•d" , 3 .2% of the total TP load to the shelf. This is a smaller contribution than the 2 .9 kg• d"' , 4 . 8 % of the total TP load to the shelf, projected in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the LSC facility (Stearns and Wheler 1997) . During the growing season (June= September) the average TP loading rate from LSC was 1 .2 kg• &' , 3 . 9% of the total TP load to the shelf. 25 Table 7 : Estimates of monthly external loads of phosphorus to the southern portion of Cayuga Lake , 1998 - 2002 . Ithaca Area WWTP' Cayuga Heights WWTPb Month (k • d'1) (k • d-1 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 May 14. 1 193 24. 1 15. 8 - 12.4 83 3 .7 3. 5 5 . 5 4.4 June 5 . 8 9 . 1 16 .6 11 . 2 7. 9 7. 5 4.3 5 . 1 4. 0 3 .5 July 16.4 11 .4 133 15 .2 WA 4. 4 2 .6 3 .4 4. 2 3 .8 August 17.0 12. 5 19 . 1 15 .2 16 .2 4. 7 1 .5 4. 6 7 . 1 2 .0 September 32.8 20 .0 18 .5 22, 0 11 .4 7. 7 1 .8 4. 0 6.6 2 .8 October 16.2 9 .4 15 .4 16.4 13 . 6 9. 1 1 .7 4. 1 2. 8 3 . 1 Mean 17. 1 : 13. 7 16. 5 16. 0 12. 0 7. 0 2. 6 4. 1 . 5. 0 33 Tributary` LSCd Total Month • d-' • d-' • d'I % LSC 2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002 May 41 .0 8 . 9 45 . 6 - 0 .7 0 .6 68 .6 30 . 9 63 .0 - 23 1 .0 June 293 12. 5 40 .4 - 1 . 1 1 .0 51 .4 28 . 8 52. 8 - 3 . 8 1 .9 July 10 . 1 4.2 8. 1 1 .4 1 . 0 1 . 8 28 .6 24 . 6 24. 1 4. 9 4. 1 7.5 August 3.7 23 3 .9 1 . 0 1 . 4 1 .2 28 .4 26. 0 233 3 . 5 5 .4 5 .2 September 5. 1 5 . 7 8.5 0. 9 1 . 0 1 .0 28 .5 35 . 3 233 3 . 2 2. 8 4.2 October 8.4 4. 8 12. 1 0. 6 0. 7 0.7 28 .5 243 29. 5 2. 1 2. 8 2.4 Mean 16. 3 6. 4 19. 8 1 1. 0 1. 0 1. 1 1 , 39. 0 261. 4 36. 1 1 3. 4 3. 5 3. 7 a total phosphorus; personal communication with Jose Lozano , Director b total phosphorus ; personal communication with Brent Cross, Village Engineer summation of Fall Creek and Cayuga Inlet flows; assuming a total soluble phosphorus concentration of 26 µg•L-' (from Draft Environmental Impact Statement, LSC Cornell University, 1997) d total phosphorus; from facility permit reporting i i 26 • it , LSC 100 CHWWTP c 80 0 60 IAWWTP c 0 40 OR 20 (a} tributaries 0 May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 2000 L/ LSC 100 11111111 HII [1111111111111111111111 lit 111UHIIIIII 80 CHWWTP c 0 60 IAWWTP 0 40 20 (b) tributaries 0 May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 2001 L/ LSC 100 CHWWTP C 80 - Jill III 0 60 IAWWTP 0 40 U . 20 tributaries (C) 0 May Jun Jul Aug - Sep Oct 2002 Figure 14 . Percent contributions to phosphorus loading to the southern portion of Cayuga Lake: (a) 2000, (b) 2001 , and (c) 2002 . 27 4.2. Variations in Runoff and Wind Speed Meteorological conditions and coupled features of runoff have important effects on lake ecosystems. These conditions are not subject to management, but in fact demonstrate wide variations in many climates that can strongly modify measures of water quality (e. g. , Auer and Effler 1989, Lam et al. 1987) . Thus the effects of natural variations in these conditions can be mistaken for impacts of man' s activities (e. g. , pollution) . The setting of the southern end of the lake, including the localized entry of tributary flows and its shallowness , may promote interpretive interferences with the measurements of total phosphorus (TP), Secchi disc transparency (SD) , and turbidity (T„) . These interferences are associated with potential influxes of non-phytoplankton particles that would diminish SD and increase T„ and TP concentrations, features that could be misinterpreted as reflecting increases in phytoplankton concentrations. These influxes may be associated with external loads carried by the tributaries, particularly during, runoff events, and internal loads associated with sediment resuspension, driven by wind events (e.g. , Bloesch 1995) . Thus, it is prudent to consider natural variations in tributary flow and wind speed in evaluating seasonal and interannual differences in these parameters for the southern end of Cayuga Lake. Interannual variations in runoff and wind speed are discussed further in Section 4.5 — Interannual Comparisons and illustrated in Figures 22 and 23 . Runoff and wind conditions for the 1998-2002 interval are , represented here by daily average flows measured in Fall Creek by USGS , and daily average wind speed, out of the north to northwest, measured by Cornell University (Figure 15) . These conditions are placed in a historic perspective by comparison to available records . Fall Creek has been reported to be a good indicator of lake-wide runoff conditions (Effler et al. 1989) . The record for Fall Creek is quite long, about 77 years; the wind database reflects 19 years of measurements . Daily average measurements of flow in Fall Creek and wind speed for the 1998-2002 interval are compared to time-series, of daily median values for the available records (Figure 15a and c) . Additionally, monthly average flows. for the study period are presented as percentiles for the period of record (Figure 15b) . Due to the orientation of the southern end of Cayuga Lake, winds out of the north to northwest (315 ° - 360°) are expected to drive the greatest turbtaence, and thus resuspension, in this part of the lake . However, if seiche action is a major cause of sediment resuspension a south wind will also be important. Eighteen major runoff events (e. g . , > 1000 cfs) occurred during the five year study period (Figure 15a) . All of these .events took place during the months of January to June. Flows were relatively high during the sampling periods (April — October) of 2000 (median = 139 cfs) and 2002 (median = 106 cfs) . The May — July intervals of 2000 and 2002 had particularly high flows, with monthly averages exceeding the 80`h percentile (Figure 15b) . In fact, the months of May and June .of 2002 had the highest average flows for the period of record. Fall Creek flows were also very high during the fall of 2002 due to a series of storms that began in mid-September (Figure 15a) . The sampling periods of 1998 , 1999 and 2001 were much drier, with median flows of 62 , 32 and 45 cfs, respectively. Flows during the May — August interval of 1999 were among the lowest on record (Figure 15b) . 28 o �d ,b � o c • rn N 3 o � ca rn 0 N w aNi a cf, U ti • rn c� rn � • w v r' • o a LO CIq • o CF) ca Cd �e • an 3 U • U • a _ ': O cd bA • b • 3 '« Cd • ! cd >%� cd O � O p • O O • O N • �..• C%4, .�: mow. .. O N • ON d) • o W) o • • " �+ o -� rn c�) 40-1 .d • b to an • c • O cd Lod • 4mq cd O "1 U • Cfi " • • c r'7F'A'7' l "T' O O O O O O O O O O O O O U . O LO O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O w c0 Rit N r O LID O LO O um) r �-- CO N N q— T- Saa� 6 a � �� a ua��ad p 09E-5 LE 0 (S}O) mold (ydw) paadS puiM 5n Major wind events (e . g . , protracted intervals of high winds) from the north to northwest were not observed during the April - October interval of the five study years (Figure 15c) . However, occurrences of daily average wind speeds substantially higher than the long-term average were observed sporadically throughout the study (Figure 15c) . No clear linkage between wind speed and signatures of water quality (e . g. , turbidity) has been documented for this system. 4.3 . Limitations in Measures of Trophic State on the Shelf Recurring circumstantial scientific evidence, provided by the findings of five consecutive study years (Upstate Freshwater Institute 1999, 2000 , 2001 , 2002, 2003) has demonstrated that T„ and TP are systematically flawed indicators of the trophic state on the shelf because of the contributions of inanimate non-phytoplankton particles (tripton) . In particular, substantial variations and increases in both parameters on the south shelf appear to be uncoupled at times from patterns and magnitudes of phytoplankton biomass. These features appear to be associated with greater contributions of non-phytoplankton particles (e. g. clay and silt) to ' the measures of TP . and T„ on the south shelf. Five lines of circumstantial evidence supporting this position have been presented, based on observations from the 1998-2002 study years (Upstate Freshwater Institute 1999 , 2000, 2001 , 2002 , 2003) : 1 . the highest Tn (Figure 7) values on the shelf were observed after major runoff events (Figure 15a) . For example, the high T„ levels of July 1998 , April, May and June of 2000, April and June of 2001 , and April and May of 2002 all coincided with :major runoff' events. Turbidity values observed at the deep water sites (6, LSCI and 8) were also elevated following these storms. This suggests greater contributions of non-phytoplankton particles to the measurements of Tn following runoff events. 2 . elevated Tn values were reported at the deep water sites during late July and August of the 1999, 2000 and 2002 study years (Figure 16) . These increases in Tn, called "whiting" events, were driven largely by increases in T, (calcium carbonate turbidity; Figure 16) . "Whitings" occur as a result of supersaturation with respect to CaCO3 and subsequent precipitation of carbonate particles . "Whitings" are common during the summer in temperate hardwater lakes and have been observed in other Finger Lakes, including Otisco and Owasco (Effler and Johnson 1987, Efller et al. 1987) . 3 . the ratio of particulate P (PP) . to chlorophyll a was often substantially higher on the south shelf than at the deep stations (Figure 17) , suggesting greater contributions of non- phytoplankton particles to the PP pool at the southern end of the lake . Further, unlike the deep sites, the ratio for the shelf was often above the range of values commonly associated j with phytoplankton biomass (e .g . , Bowie et al. 1985) . The ratio decreases (more of the PP attributable to phytoplankton) systematically with distance from the south end of the lake and the major tributaries (Figure 17) . 4 . application of reasonable literature values of light scattering (e. g. , Tn) per unit chlorophyll (e.g. , Weidemann and Bannister 1986) to the chlorophyll a observations indicate that non- phytoplankton particles made greater contributions to Tn on the shelf than in deep waters 30 i (Figure 18) . Non-phytoplankton particles were responsible for high Tn on the shelf and in the main lake following major runoff events in July 1998 , May and June of 2000 , April and June of 2001 , and April and May of 2002 (Figure 18) . The distinct increase in non-phytoplankton turbidity observed at the deep water sites in late-July 1999 is attributable to a "whiting" event (Figure 18) . 5 . empirical relationships demonstrate that TP and Tn are fairly tightly coupled on the shelf (Figure 19a) , but that neither metric is correlated with Chl (Figure 19b and c) . These results suggest that in this system, TP and T„ are not appropriate indicators of trophic state, but are instead measures of inorganic particle concentrations . These results demonstrate that substantial seasonal variations occur for TP and Tn on the shelf that are uncoupled from the trophic state issue . Additional measurements were made in 1999 and 2000, beyond the scope of the LSC monitoring program, to more comprehensively resolve the constituents/processes regulating the TP and Tn measurements (Effler et al. 2002) . Effler et al. (2002) demonstrated that inorganic particles (primarily clay minerals, quartz and calcium carbonate) , rather than phytoplankton, are the primary regulators of clarity, represent most of the PP , and are responsible for the higher Tn, lower SD, and higher TP on the shelf compared to deeper portions of the lake . 31 10 8 (a) site 1 LSC �� f 6 - start-up i 4 2 0 8 (b) site 7 i 6 4 2 0 8 (c) site 2 ! f s i 4 2 0 8 (d) site 3 6 ! 4 2 i 0 -� a (e) site 4 D H 6 Z 4 C F- 2 8 - site 5 6 4 2 0 8 (9) site t f 6 4 2 0 s (h) LSC I 6 4 2 0 8 (i) site 8 a 6 i 4 IP 2 9 111 0 W1 ;, 111111 i ''Illiiiiiiio�'!Il 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 I Figure 16 . Distributions of total turbidity (T„) and calcium carbonate turbidity (TJ in the upper waters of Cayuga Lake during the 1998-2002 interval: (a) site 1 , (b) site 7 , (c) site 2 , (d) site 3 , (e) site 4 , (0 site 5 , (g) site 6, (h) LSC, and (i) site 8 . 32 60 40 (a) site 1 ' ' 20ti median = 3 .2 0 P (b) site 7 s 20 median = 3 .7 40 (c) site 2 20a x, median = 4 .4 40 (d ) site 3 parr : s 20 - median = 3 .5 Q _ (e) site 4 40 20 - median = 3 .4 0 0 40 (ti7 site 5 i ; 20 s , median = 2.8 BOA x RFOI 40 (g ) site 6 20 - = 2.2 4 � J x S F 40 (h ) LSCI � 20 median = 2 .0 >s w, 0 40 (i) site 8 4A � =Sig'^• 20 median = 2.0 0 � 0 2 4 , 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 PP :ChI Figure 17 . Distributions of the particulate . P (PP) to chlorophyll a ratio values in Cayuga Lake in 2002 : (a) site 1 , (b) site 7 , (c) site 2 , (d) site 3 , (e) site 4, site 5 , (g) site 6 , (h) LSC, and (i) site 81 33 a� 0 U N CO U N Q ,,0 O � O N O b Cd . ¢ O o , c� 0 Q , 0 N f/] N err O ¢ O v rn � � O ¢ V O cd C c m C/) p a H � 0 CL t� ¢ 00 a0 O c o ' G o cn 0 v N — � c V5 Cd C7 O d _ N t ¢ CL O LO O O Ui O m O LO O LO O Ln O N O in O N O 00 (niN) Ul w r4 a� a � N 4� N p cd P4 O • Cl) p a b N � p a 0 O � W A O O N M O U ¢ O • O v� r U � c 0 4 cd 0 � N � CL a �, 0) _ r H O In a n CO C0 w s a U) O cn n rn J 00 O b O LO O N O LO O LO O O O LO O �--i N • N (n1N) ul w 100 (a) rz = 0. 62 I .J y • m • • • 10 • 0. 1 1 10 100 Tn (NTU ) 100 (b) r2 = 0. 04 J Z 10 • a 01 1 10 100 Chi (Ng • L" ) 100 (C) rz = 0. 01 10 • H • . Z • ♦ j F- N 1 • 0. 1 0. 1 1 10 100 Chi (pg • L-1 ) Figure 19 . Relationships among total phosphorus (TP) , chlorophyll a (Chl) and turbidity (T,,) in the southern end of Cayuga Lake : (a) TP vs. T,,, (b) TP vs. Chl, and (c) T. vs. Chl. Based on paired observations for the southern shelf over the April — October interval of 1998-2002 . 36 4.4. Continuation of the Long-Term Record of Water Quality/Eutrophication Indicators Systematic changes in water quality can only be quantitatively documented if reliable measurements are available for historic conditions. Concentrations of TP and chlorophyll a have been measured irregularly in the open waters of Cayuga Lake over the last three decades. Measurements made over the late 1960s to mid 1970s were made mostly as part of research conducted by Cornell University staff. These data were collected mostly at deep water locations. No comprehensive data sets were found to represent conditions in the 1980s . Measurements were continued in the 1994 — 1996 interval as part of studies conducted to support preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the LSC facility. (Stearns and Wheler 1997) . These included observations for .both the shelf and deeper locations. These historic data have been presented in a consolidated format in annual reports (UFI 2003 ) . The record has been updated annually, for both a deep water location and the shelf, based on monitoring sponsored by Cornell University related to operation of the LSC facility ( 1998 — 2002 documented here) . Average concentrations of TP and Chl for the growing season (June — September) are presented in Tables 8 and 9 for the lake's upper waters. . The 1998 averages do not include June observations: Higher TP concentrations were observed on the shelf compared to deeper portions of the lake in each of the monitored years (Table 8) . Average concentrations of TP were lower in 1999 and 2000 for both site 8 and the shelf. Average chlorophyll a concentrations varied little between the shelf and site 8 or between study years (Table 9) . Summer average concentrations of TP and Chl for deep water sites are consistent with a mesotrophic trophic state classification (i. e . , intermediate level of primary productivity, e.g. , Chapra and Dobson 1981 , Dobson et al. 1974 , Vollenweider 1975 ) . Table 8 : Growing season (June — September) average total phosphorus (TP) concentrations and 95 % confidence intervals for the upper waters of Cayuga Lake. Year Total Phosphorus (µg• L"1) Site 8 Southern Shelf 19988 1407± 1 . 2 24 . 7±9 . 5 1999 9 . 8± 1 . 0 14 . 5±3 . 0 2000 11 . 6±2. 0 18 .7±3 . 1 2001 14 .2±3 . 1 20 . 4±4. 9 2002 1401 ±2 . 5 2202±4. 1 a sampling began in July 37 Table 9 : Growing season (June — September) average chlorophyll a concentrations and 95 % confidence intervals for the upper waters of Cayuga Lake . Year Chlorophyll a (µg•I,"1) Site 8 Southern Shelf 1998a 408±0. 7 4 . 9±1 . 6 1999 4 . 6±0 . 5 402±0 . 7 2000 407±1 . 1 5 .4±103 2001 4 . 5±1 . 6 404±1 . 0 2002 502±1 . 2 5 . 6±2 .4 a sampling began in July 4.5. Interannual Comparisons Interannual differences in water quality can occur as a result of both human interventions and natural variations in climate . Because of its location and shallowness, water quality on the south shelf can vary substantially from year-to -year as a result of changes in forcing conditions. Conditions for TP , Chl, and Tn on the shelf are plotted with the potential causal factors of runoff, LSC discharge flow, and TP loading from the Ithaca Area WWTP, Cayuga Heights WWTP and the LSC facility (Figure 20) . The major spikes in TP (Figure :20a) and Tn (Figure 2Oc) were clearly associated with periods of high runoff (Figure 20d) . Turbidity levels have been particularly sensitive to changes in runoff conditions. Note the low Tn levels during the summer to early fall interval of all five study years and the extremely low Tn values during the low runoff year of 1999 (Figure 2Oc) . Chlorophyll a concentrations were similar during the five study years with the exception of the higher values observed during the late July — early August interval of 2000 and the spike observed on September 5 , 2002 (Figure 20b) . The September 2002 spike was influenced heavily by an unusually high Chl concentration at site 7 (32 .9 µg-U) . If rite 7 is not included in the shelf averaging, the plotted concentration decreases from 11 . 8 µg•L" ' to 8 . 8 gg•L" ' (Figure 20b) . In general, Chl concentrations have been highest during mid-summer (Figure 2Ob) . A tendency for increases in TP and Chl concentrations during summer low flow intervals has been observed for each of the study years . No unambiguous linkage is apparent between these temporal patterns and the forcing conditions considered here. 38 The temporally detailed data presented in Figure 20 are summarized in Figures 21 and 22 as box plots for the five study years. Figure 21 depicts conditions for the April — October study interval, while Figure 22 presents conditions for the June — September growing season. The dimensions of the boxes are identified according to the keys located to the right of the figures. Only minor differences were observed between the two averaging periods (Figures 21 and 22) . Runoff, as represented by daily average flows for Fall Creek, was highest in 2000 and lowest in 1999 (Figures 21a and 22a) . Average wind speeds were essentially equal for the five study years (Figures 21b and 22b) . Total phosphorus loading from point sources was relatively low in 1999 and 2002 , and higher in 1998 , 2000 and 2001 (Figures 21 c and 22c) . . Greater month-to-month variability in TP loading was observed in 1998 than in the other study years (Figures 21 cand 22c) . Study period medians for TP , Chl and Tn on the shelf were similar for 1998 , 2000, 2001 , and 2002, and generally lower for the low runoff year of 1999 (Figures 2ld-f and 22d-f). Temporal variability for these three metrics was also lower during the 1999 study interval (Figure 12d-f) . 39 0 N C N �' w O C0 U N � " a O > o 64 0 � 3 � o r O 0 3 64 U O '-+ N O > pp I � � C,13 O c � � b t° b a N cd cd Gp v u U wx a� U d 0 vi cd «► I Cd U O U � � N O v a O rn o � 3 pi p cc .0 U O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lf) 0 0 LO O LO O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 tnqclnMNr r Nrr O 0 qq4nCMNr "tMN r O O N r I � ( n.iN) (Clow) (Clew) dl NO A}I pinj nnold mold 6ulpe01 dl 600 90 500 (a) " percentile 444 75" percentile v300 median v 240 100 25" percentile 0 10^ percentile 10 (b) a ; 8 cc 6 L 4 co 2 ^ 30 o CM . 20 IL 10 ^ 40 (d) J 30 ~ � 20 10 0 R 6 (e) s � o rnJ 4 03 Lj s 2 . U 0 D 14 Z 5 E=j E: Q 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Figure 21 . Comparison of study interval averages for runoff, wind, total phosphorus loading, total phosphorus concentration, chlorophyll a concentration and turbidity: (a) Fall Creek flow, (b) wind speed, (c) summed loads of total phosphorus (TP) from the Ithaca Area WWTP, Cayuga Heights WWTP and the LSC facility, (d) total phosphorus concentration on the south shelf, (e) chlorophyll a concentration on the south shelf, and (f) turbidity on the south shelf. 1998 averages for total phosphorus concentration, chlorophyll a concentration and turbidity are for the July — October intervals all other averages are for the April — October interval. 41 600 W percentile 500 (a) W percentile o 46 median U 200 � 25n percentile 100 10° percentile 0 10 ( b) 8 o ; o c°o 6 c CO L6 4 M 2 (C) IS. c �. 30 a m Y 20 � 0 � 10 40 (d) � '.J 30 ~ � 20 10 0 (e) 8 aJ o 6) 4 sv U 0 (fl D 10 Z 5 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Figure 22 . Comparison of study interval averages for runoff, wind, total phosphorus loading, total phosphorus concentration, chlorophyll a concentration and turbidity. (a) Fall Creek flow, (b) wind speed, (c) summed loads of total phosphorus (TP) from the Ithaca Area WWTP , Cayuga Heights WWTP and the LSC facility, (d) total phosphorus concentration on the south shelf, (e) chlorophyll a concentration on the south shelf, and (f) turbidity on the south shelf. 1998 averages for total phosphorus concentration, chlorophyll a concentration and turbidity are for the July — September interval; all other averages are for the June — September interval. I I 42 I 4.6. Noteworthy Observations from the 1998-2002 Data 1 . Secchi disc transparency (SD) was observed to extend beyond the lake depth at multiple sites on several occasions during the 1998-2002 study interval. 21 the 1998-2002 results support turbidity (Tn) as an alternate measure of light penetration in shallow portions of the shelf (Figure 2) . 3 . average levels of TP, TDP, SRP and Tn decreased in a nearly systematic fashion with distance from the south end of the lake (Table 5 ) . 4 . sites located in the southeastern portion of the shelf (sites 1 , 2 , 3 and 7) . had generall y . higher levels of P and Tn than sites located to the north and west (sites 4 and 5 ; Table 5), 5 . average Chl concentrations were highest for sites 1 , 2 and 7 , located in the southeastern portion of the shelf (Table 5 ) . However, median Chl concentrations were highest for the deepwater sites (sites 6 , LSCI and 8) . With the exception of the occasional high values (> 15 pg•L") observed at sites 1 , 2 and 7 , Chl concentrations have been slightly higher in the deeper portions of the lake . 6 . in general, CM concentrations have been highest during mid-summer (Figure 20b) . 7 . relatively high Ievels of TP and Tn have been observed sporadically on the shelf throughout the study (Figure 3 ) . All of the Tn measurements > 20 NTU are attributable to runoff events (Figure 7) . 8 . site 2 was enriched in all three forms of phosphorus (TP , TDP, and SRP) and had higher Tn levels compared to the other monitored sites (Table 5 , Figures 3 , 4 and 5) . 9 . surface temperatures exhibited little variation from site-to-site or from year-to-year and followed a pattern typical of lakes in the northeast (Figure 8) . 10 . in July of 2002 the water temperature near site 3 dropped from 24°C to 9°C in a 24 hour period and 8 °C in a single hour, presumably due to a seiche (Figure 9) . 11 . most DO measurements were within 10% of saturation; however, there was a tendency for super-saturation during the summer months and under-saturation in the fall (Figure 1Ob) . 12 . paired measurements of TP, SRP and Tn in the LSC influent and effluent have been very similar, suggesting the absence of substantial sources or sinks for these constituents within the LSC facility (Figure 11 ) . 13 . the study average TP concentration for the LSC effluent ( 12 .2 pg•L'' ) was significantly lower (p=0 .0000002) than the receiving waters of the shelf ( 19 . 0 pg•L" '). 43 14 . the study average SRP concentration for the LSC effluent (4 .6 µg•L" ) was significantly higher (p=0 .0000000005) than the receiving waters of the shelf ( 108 pg•L-' ). 15 . study average turbidity was significantly higher (p=0 .01 ) on the shelf (2 . 9 NTU) than in the LSC effluent ( 1 . 3 NTtl) . 16 . levels of TP , SRP and T„ have varied widely over time and space on the shelf (Figure 12) . In contrast, phosphorus concentrations and turbidity levels in the LSC effluent have remained relatively uniform. 17 . since it began operating in July of 2000, the average flow from the LSC facility has been 15 . 6 MGD, or about 8% of the total flow to the southern portion of the lake (Figure 13 ) . During the growing season (June - September) the average flow increased to 24 . 8 MGD , about 30% of the total inflow ( Figure 13 ) . 18 . the average TP loading rate from LSC during the May -- October period of 2000-2002 was 1 .0 kg•d- 1 , 3 .2% of the total TP load to the shelf (Figure 14) . This is a smaller contribution than the 2 .9 kg•cfi' , 4 . 8 % of the total TP lo*ad to the shelf, projected in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the LSC facility (Stearns and Wheler 1997) . During the growing season (June- September) the average TP loading rate from LSC was 1 .2 kg• d-' , 3 . 9% of the total TP load to the shelf (Figure 14). 19 . eighteen major runoff events (e .g. , > 1000 cfs) occurred in Fall Creek during the five year study period (Figure 15a) . All of these events took place during the months . of January to June . 20. Fall Creek flows were relatively high during the sampling periods (April - October) of 2000 (median = 139 cfs) and 2002 (median = 106 cfs) ." The sampling periods of 1998 , 1999 and 2001 were much drier, with median flows of 62 , 32 and 45 cfs, respectively. Flows during the May - August interval of 1999 were among the lowest on record (Figure 15b) . 21 . major wind events (e . g. , protracted intervals of high winds) from the north to northwest were not observed during the April - October interval of the five study years (Figure 15c) . No clear linkage between wind speed and signatures of water quality (e. g . , turbidity) has been documented for this system. 22 . the highest T„ (Figure 7) values on the shelf were observed after major runoff events (Figure 15a) . This suggests greater contributions of non-phytoplankton particles to the measurements of T„ following runoff events. 23 . elevated Tn values were reported at the deep water sites during late July and August of I the 1999, 2000 and 2002 study years (Figure 16) . These increases in Tn, called "whiting" events, were driven largely by increases in T, (calcium carbonate turbidity, Figure 16) . I 44 f 24 . the ratio of particulate P (PP) to chlorophyll a was often substantially higher on the south shelf than at the deep stations (Figure 17) , suggesting greater contributions of non-phytoplankton particles to the PP pool at the southern end of the lake. 25 . application of reasonable literature values of light scattering (e.g. , Tn) per unit chlorophyll (e. g . , Weidemann and Bannister 1986) to the chlorophyll a observations indicate that non-phytoplankton particles made greater contributions to Tn on the shelf than in deep waters (Figure 18) . 26 . TP and Tn are fairly tightly coupled on the shelf (Figure 19a), but neither metric is correlated with Chl (Figure l9b and c) . These results suggest that in this system, TP and Tn are not appropriate indicators of trophic state, but are instead measures of inorganic particle concentrations. 27 . Tn and TP are systematically flawed indicators of the trophic state on the shelf because of the contributions of inanimate non-phytoplankton particles (tripton) 28 . inorganic particles, rather than phytoplankton, are the primary regulator of Tn and SD on the shelf. 29 . summer average concentrations of TP and Chl for deep water sites continue to be consistent with mesotrophy, an intermediate level of primary productivity (Tables 8 and 9) . 30 . study period medians for TP, Chl and Tn on the shelf were similar for 1998, 2000, 2001 , and 2002 , and generally lower for the low runoff year of 1999 (Figures 2ld-f and 22d-fj . 31 . no conspicuous changes in water quality have been observed on the shelf since start-up of the LSC facility in July 2000 , 5 . Summary This summary report presents the design and salient findings of an extensive water quality monitoring study conducted for the southern portion of Cayuga Lake over the 1998-2002 interval, with a focus on three key indicators of water quality, phosphorus, chlorophyll and clarity. This study, sponsored by Cornell University, has produced a number of noteworthy findings that have value for lake management. Water quality on the south shelf can vary substantially from year to year. Potential sources of variation include interannual differences in runoff, loading from WWTPs , and wind. For example, in 1999 , a very dry year, low flows in Fall Creek and low phosphorus loads from WWTPs were associated with the lowest levels of phosphorus, chlorophyll and turbidity (high clarity) measured on the south shelf during the 1998 — 2002 interval. Results presented here continue to support the position (Effler et al. 2002), that inorganic particles, rather than phytoplankton, are the primary regulator of clarity on the shelf. In fact, the most striking water quality signatures observed during the study have been high 45 y phosphorus concentrations and extremely low clarity on the shelf during runoff events . Summer average concentrations of total phosphorus and chlorophyll a for deep water sites continue to be consistent with mesotrophy, a classification shared by seven of the eleven Finger Lakes . Total phosphorus concentrations and turbidity values were generally .lower, and SRP (soluble reactive phosphorus) concentrations were generally higher, in the LSC effluent than on the shelf. In three years of operation the LSC facility has contributed on average � 3 .2% of the TP load to the shelf over the May = October interval, a smaller contribution than projected in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. No conspicuous changes in water quality have been observed on the shelf since start-up of the LSC facility in July 2000 . i I 46 T References American Public Health Association (APHA) . 1992 . Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th edition. Washington, DC, American Public Health Association, Auer, M. T . and S .W. Effler 1989 . Variability in photosynthesis : impact on DO models . J. Environ. Engng. Div. ASCE 115 : 944-963 , Bloesch, J. 1995 . Mechanisms, measurement, and importance of sediment resuspension in lakes. Mar. Freshwat. Res. 46 :295 -304 . Bouldin, D. R. 1975 : Transport in Streams . In Nitrogen and Phosphorus; Food Production, Waste, in the Environment, edited by K. S . Porter, Arm. Arbor Science Publishers, Inc. Ann Arbor, MI . Bowie, G. L. , W.B . Mills , D .B . Porcella, C . L. Campbell, J. R. Pagenkopf, G .L. Rupp, K.M. Johnson, P .W. H. Chan, S .A. Gherini and C . Chamberlain. 1985 . Rates, constants, and kinetic formulations in surface water quality modeling, 2' d edition, EPA/600/3 - 85/040 . . U . S . Environmental Protection Agency. Athens, GA. 544p . Chapra, S . C . , and H .F. H. Dobson. 1981 . Quantification of the Lake Typologies of Naumann (Surface Growth) and Thienemann (Oxygen) with Special Reference to the Great Lakes. J. Great Lakes Res . 7 : 182 493 . Dobson, H .F. H. , Gilbertson, M. and P . G. Sly, 1974 . A Summary and Comparison of Nutrients and Related Water Quality in Lakes Erie, Ontario and Superior. J. of the Fisheries Res. Board of Canada . 31 : 731 -7380 Effler, S .W . 1988 . Secchi disc transparency and turbidity. Jounal of Environmental Engineering Division , ASCE 114 : 1436 44471 Effler, S .W. and D .L. Johnson. 1987 . Calcium carbonate precipitation and turbidity measurements in Otisco Lake, N.Y . Water Resources Bulletin 23 : 73 -77 , Effler, S .W. , M . G. Perkins, H . Greer and D .L. Johnson. 1987 . Effect of whiting on turbidity and optical properties in Owasco Lake, N. Y. Water Resources Bulletin 23 : 189- 196 . Effler, S . W. , D . A. Matthews, M . G. Perkins, D . L. Johnson, F. Peng, M. R. Penn and M . T. Auer. 2002 . Patterns and impacts of inorganic tripton in Cayuga Lake. Hydrohiologia 482 : 137- 150 . ELAP (Environmental Laboratory Approval Program) . 1999 . Certification Manual. Issued by NYS Department of Health, Wadsworth Center for Laboratories and Research. 47 i Matthews, D . A. , S . V. Stehman and S . W. Efller . 2002 . Limnological and statistical issues for monitoring the impact of a lake source cooling facility: Cayuga Lake, NY . Lake and Reservoir Management. 18 (3) : 239-256 , Oglesby, R. T . 1979 . The limnology of Cayuga Lake. In: J.A. Bloomfield (ed.), Lakes of New York State, Vol. I . , Ecology of the Finger Lakes, Academic Press, Inc. , New York, pp . 2- 121 . Parsons, T . R. , Y. Maita and C . M . Lalli. 1984 . A Manual of Chemical and Biological Methods for Seawater Analysis. Pergamon Press, New York, NY . Stearns and Wheler 1997 . Environmental Impact Statement — Lake Source Cooling Project: Cornell University, Upstate Freshwater Institute (UFI) . 1999 . Cayuga Lake Water Quality Monitoring, Related to the LSC Facility: 1998 . Upstate Freshwater Institute (UFI) . 2000 . Cayuga Lake Water. Quality Monitoring, Related to the LSC Facility: 1999 . Upstate Freshwater Institute (UFI) . 2001 . Cayuga Lake Water Quality Monitoring, Related to the LSC Facility: 2000 . Upstate Freshwater Institute (UFI) . 2002 . Cayuga Lake Water Quality Monitoring, Related to the LSC Facility: 2001 . Upstate Freshwater Institute (UFI) . 2003 . Cayuga Lake Water Quality Monitoring, Related to the LSC Facility. 2002 . Vollenweider, R.A. ,1975 . Input-output models with special reference to the phosphorus loading concept in limnology. Schweiz. J. Hydrol. 33 : 53 - 83 . Weidemann A. D . and T .T . Bannister. 1986 . Absorption and scattering coefficients in Irondequoit Bay. Limnol. Oceanogr. 31 : 567-583 . I 49 York State Department of Environmental Conservation ion of Water, Region 7 rie Boulevard West, Syracuse, New York 13204-2400 P e : (315) 426-7500 • FAX: (315) 426-7459 Erin M. Crotty site: www.dec.state .ny. us Commissioner I lApril 30, 2004 ; C, ,a' 2 2004 2004 Ms . Cheryl A. Homey � AUG Environmental Complian e Co rdinator Cornell University F ;; vIRWI P I� ;.,TA; TOWN OF ITHAC129 Humphreys Service NNING , ZONING , ENGI _; i' I. la3t. (; rriCE Ithaca, NY 14853 -3701 Re: Cornell University Lake Source Cooling Facility, SPDES No. NY-0244741 Comments re. draft report entitled "Lake Source Cooling Five-Year Report" Dear Ms. Homey: The Department has the following comments in response to the Cornell University/Upstate Freshwater Institute draft report entitled "Lake Source Cooling Five- Year Report. " 1 . General Comment: While the study does provide valuable information concerning trophic conditions within the southern portion of Cayuga Lake, the primary objective of the study is to determine if the Cornell Lake Source Cooling. (LSC) discharge has resulted in a deterioration of water quality conditions in the south lake. 2 . General Comment: While there is some value in looking at aggregate measures for the south shelf (e.g, , to determine the ambient TP level of the south shelf overall). the primary reason for monitoring so many sites is to provide a degree of spatial resolution for the purpose of assessing potential impacts. Obviously, aggregate measures (e.g., south shelf averages) negate attempts to assess spatial impacts. Thus, the document should include tables and figures indicative of findings throughout the study period at individual monitoring stations (e.g., Figures 12, 19 , 20, & 22 and Tables 6, 8, & 9). 3 , General Comment: Please provide the rationale to represent central tendency of the data with "median" as opposed to "mean." 4. Pg. 5-6 (& Figure 2) : The discussion of Figure 2 should indicate that the relationship presented includes only those paired measurements where a valid Secchi Disk depth (i.e., SD Z < Site Z) could be recorded. While this may be implicit in the discussion, it would be worthwhile to state it explicitly. 5 . Pg. 13 - 14 (Table 5): Provide pre-operational •and post-operational values for median and ranges . Also, per comment #3 .above, provide rationale for using median as opposed to mean. Comments re. draft report entitled "Lake Source Cooling Five-Year Report" Page 2 of 3 6. Pg. 15 , etc . (Figure 3 , etc.) : Given that the primary purpose of this investigation is to determine whether, or not, the LSC discharge is having a discernible impact on water quality conditions within the south lake, it is important to include some context for the figures presented. While the "LSC start-up" marker included on many of the figures (though not all, for instance Figure 10) provides some temporal context it would also be helpful to provide some quantitative context as well. Thus, it is suggested that LSC daily flows be included on these figures as well to provide some indication of quantitative changes occurring in the plant discharge. This should be incorporated into the following figures : 3 — 8, and 12 . It would be best to format this line in "gray" font behind the main plot. 7. Pg. 21 (Figure 9) : There is a rather large gapin the plot for the last several months of 1998 — this should..be explained. - 80 Pg. 22 (Figure 11 ) : This figure indicates that the LSC facility was offline for two months. This should also be indicated on other pertinent figures (e.g., 12 & 1. 3) 2 9, Pg. 25 : The discussion concerning the relative contribution of the LSC TP load should be couched within a discussion of the fraction of plant capacity utilized. Furthermore, the i comparison to the DEIS should include a discussion of the assumptions inherent in those projections and how they compare to actual operating conditions. 10. Pg. 28 : The final paragraph states " . . . the months of May and June of 2002 had the highest average flows for the period of record." The "period of record" should be defined -- it is presumed, in this instance, this refers to the period of record of this study as opposed to the period of record for available gages in the area. Similarly, the final sentence in this paragraph states "Flows during the May — August interval of 1999 were among the lowest on record." It is presumed, in this instance, the author is referring to the record :for the available gages. � . 11 . Pg. 29. (Figure 15) : It would be helpful to include amore complete picture of meteorological conditions during the study period. This should include daily air temperatures and wind speeds. These factors can play an important role in phytoplankton dynamics . 12 . Pg. 36 (Figure 19) : The "southern shelf" needs needs to be defined for this and other figures that use this term. It would also be helpful to the reader if this definition were included on page 8 (Table 1 ) . Finally, it would be helpful to see these relationships for the deeper sites as well. 13 . Pg. 37-38 (Tables 8 & 9) : Once again, the term "southern shelf' should be clearly defined. Also, provide station specific information for each year — see comment #2 above. 14. Page 40 (Figure 20) : There appear to be two problems in this figure. First, the caption indicates that plot (f) is the daily average flow from the LSC. facility — it ;actually appears as if this is plot (e) . Second, the actual plot (f) appears to present TP loading from the various discharges to the south lake, whereas the caption indicates something other. 15 . Pg. 43 : Under item #5 - the discussion of chlorophyll-a concentrations — provide station specific comparisons. I 169 Pg. 44: Under item #18 — the discussion of percent TP load — show period of record ranges and provide context with respect to percent of permitted discharge. Comments re. draft report entitled "Lake Source Cooling Five-Year Report" Page 3 of 3 17 , Pg. 45 : Item #31 — the statement indicating that "no conspicuous changes in water quality have been observed on the shelf since start-up of the LSC facility. . . " should be qualified with respect to statistical rigor and station specificity. 18 . Pg. 46: Concluding remarks — see previous comments above. We request that a written response be submitted to the Department. Please contact us if there are any questions or if additional discussion is needed. Sincerely, Tara M. Blum, P .E. Environmental Engineer 1 cc : Clifford W. Callinan, P .E. , BWM Steven P. Eidt, P .E., RWE 1 1 lipCheryl Horney Telephone: 607254-8687 Environmental Compliance Coordinator Fax: 607 2555377 Environmental Compliance Office E-mail: cah65®cornell.edu Planning, Design, and Construction Web: eco.pdc cornell.edu Cornell University Facilities Services 129 Humphreys Service Building Ithaca, NY 1-4853-3701 June 10, 2004 Ms . Tara Blum, PE `� '� AUG 2 2004 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Water, Region 7 OWN, OF I 615 Erie Boulevard West . +NNING F THACA, WN, O G ENGINEERING Syracuse, NY 13204-2400 RE: Cornell University Lake Source Cooling SPDES Permit # NY-0244741 Response to NYSDEC Comments on LSC Five-Year Summary Report Dear Ms. Blum, Enclosed is our response to the NYSDEC ' s comments, dated April 30, 2004, on the Draft Lake Source Cooling (LSC) Five-Year Summary Report, structured per NYSDEC guidance in your memo dated April 3 , 2003 . Cornell University has reviewed the comments submitted by the NYSDEC and appreciates the opportunity to respond to these comments. Corrections to the draft report will be made as we deem appropriate and explanations will be provided for other comments. With regard to comment #17 , statistical analysis was beyond the scope of the Fiv&Year Summary Report. A Before- After-Control-Impact Analysis for Cornell University 's Lake Source Cooling Facility is intended to address the statistical analysis . Please find enclosed our response to the comments . Please forward any final comments to me by June 21 , 20046 If we do not hear from the NYSDEC by this time, we will finalize the draft LSC Five-Year Summary Report based on the enclosed response. Sincerely, Cheryl A. Homey Environmental Compliance Coordinator Enclosure xc:. Steven Eidt, NYSDEC Cliff Callinan, NYSDEC James R. Adams (w/o attachments) Edward R. Wilson (w/o attachments) Patrick O. McNally (w/o attachments) UFI' s response to NYSDEC' s comments on the Draft LSC Five-Year Summary Report: 1 . General Comment: While the study does provide valuable information concerning trophic conditions within the southern portion of Cayuga Lake, the primary objective of the study is to determine if the Cornell Lake Source Cooling (LSC) discharge has resulted in a deterioration . of water quality conditions in the south lake. Responses The primary objective of this study. has been clearly stated at the beginning of five consecutive annual reports ( 1998 — 2002), as follows : "The primary objective of this study has been to conduct. an ambient water-quality monitoring program focusing on the southern portion of Cayuga Lake to support long-term records of trophic state indicators, including concentrations of phosphorus and chlorophyll, and Secchi disc transparency, and other measures of water quality." As this report is a summary of five annual reports that have been accepted by NYSDEC, the primary objective remains the same . We hope that the information in this report aids decision makers in their assessment of water-quality impacts associated with the LSC facility. However, the primary objective of this report, and the five annual reports that is summarizes, is not to determine if the LSC discharge has resulted in a deterioration of water quality conditions in the south lake. 2. General Comment: While there is some value in looking at aggregate measures for the south shelf (e. g. , to determine the ambient TP level of the south shelf overall) the primary reason for monitoring so many sites is to provide a degree of spatial resolution for the purpose of assessing potential impacts . Obviously, aggregate measures (e. g. , south shelf averages) negate attempts to assess spatial impacts. Thus , the document should include tables and figures indicative of findings throughout the study period at individual monitoring stations (e.g. , Figures 12, 19 , 20 , & 22 and Tables 6, 8 , & 9) . Response : Results for the 9 individual sites were presented as statistical summaries (Table 5) and as graphical time series (Figures 3 , 4, 5 , 6, 7 and 8) . In addition, observed spatial 'variations were discussed on pages 11 and 12 , and highlighted 8 times as noteworthy obst;rvations on pages 43 - 45 (No . 3 , 4, 5 , 8 , 9, 16, 24 and 25) . We believe the treatment of spatial variability in this report is extensive if not exhaustive. Execution of the I NYSDEC recommendations would require the addition of 32 figures . The recommended tabular additions could be accommodated by expanding the existing tables (6, 8 and 9) . Such additions would require additional discussion and interpretation. Clearly, these additions would lengthen substantially a report that is currently 48 pages long. The authors have attempted to present this large data set in a clear and concise format. Tables and figure have been limited to those, that we consider meaningful . UFI_5yrsummary_response to DEC comments.doc 6/10/04 Page 1 of 5 I� a 3 . General Comment: Please provide the rationale to represent central tendency of the data with "median" as opposed to "mean." Response: The mean and median have the same value for symmetric distributions. But because the mean is sensitive to extreme observations, it will move away from the median toward the long tail in skewed distributions. Highly skewed (particularly to the right) distributions are common in environmental data. In such cases, the median is a more robust and often better representation of the central tendency of the data. 49 Pg. 5 -6 (& Figure 2) : The discussion of Figure 2 should indicate that the relationship presented includes only those paired measurements where a valid Secchi Disk depth (i. e. , SD Z < Site Z) could be recorded. While this , may be implicit in the discussion, it would be worthwhile to state it explicitly. Response: If the NYSDEC would find such an explanation helpful, it can be included. 45 . Pg. 13- 14 (Table 5) : Provide pre-operational and post-operational values for median and ranges. Also, per comment #3 above, provide rationale for using median as opposed to mean. Response: Providing pre- and post-operational statistics begs for statistical tests comparing pre- vs . post- at the individual sites . Such tests are inappropriate because changes in water=quality parameters are likely to occur over time with or without the LSC facility. That is why we chose the BACI framework for the statistical analysis . The control sites in the BACI analysis should account for temporal variations not associated with LSC. See response to No . 3 for discussion of mean and median. 6. Pg. 15 , etc. (Figure 3 , etc .) : Given that the primary purpose of this investigation is to determine whether, or not, the LSC discharge is having a discernible impact on water quality conditions within the south lake, it is important to include some context for the figures presented. While the "LSC start-up" marker included on many of the figures (though not all, for instance Figure 10) provides some temporal context it would also be helpful to provide some quantitative context as well. Thus, it is suggested that LSC daily flows be included on these figures as well to provide some indication of quantitative changes occurring in the plant discharge. This should be incorporated into the following figures : 3 — 8 , and 12. It would be best to format this line in "gray" font behind the main plot. Response : We do not agree with the stated purpose of this study (see response to No. 1 ) . Further, even if a change in water-quality were UFI_5yrsummary_response to DEC comments.doc 6/10/04 Page 2 of 5 detected it is extremely unlikely that a definitive cause for the change could be established [see Matthews et al. 2002 , p . 252, in Lake and Reservoir Management 18(3) :239-256] . Daily flows for LSC could be added to these figures. However, we are not convinced that attempting to correlate LSC flows with in-lake water-quality observations is a worthwhile endeavor. We are also concerned that doing so may lead to misinterpretation of the data. For example, both LSC flow and chlorophyll levels tend to be higher during the summer months, but this should not be interpreted as a cause-effect relationship . 7 . Pg. 21 (Figure 9) : There is a rather large gap in the plot for the last several months of 1998 — this should be explained. Response: Thermistors were not deployed during the 10/22/98 — 12/28/98 interval; therefore, temperature data are unavailable for this period. 88 Pg. 22 (Figure 1. 1 ) : This figure indicates that the LISC facility was offline for � two months . This should also be indicated on other pertinent figures (e. g., 12 & 13) 6 Response: An indication that LSC was offline during this period will be added to Figures 12 and 13 . 9 , Pg. 25 : The discussion concerning the relative contribution of the LSC TP load should be couched within a discussion of the fraction of plant capacity utilized. Furthermore, the comparison to the DEIS should include a discussion of the assumptions inherent- in those projections and how they compare to actual operating conditions . Response: A discussion of the fraction of plant capacity utilized will be i added. Assumptions used in the DEIS projections will be discussed. 10. Pg. 28 : The final paragraph states " . . . the months .of' May and June of 2002 had the highest average flows for. the period of record. " The `Period of record" should be defined -- it is presumed, in this instance, this refers to the period of record of this study as opposed to the :period of record for available gages. in the area. Similarly, the final sentence in this paragraph states "Flows during the May — August interval of ]. 999 were among the lowest on record." It is presumed, in this instance, the author is referring to the record for the available gages. I j Response: The authors did not anticipate, and do not understand, this interpretation. However, we will attempt clarify these statements in order to avoid confusing the reader. LJFI_5ynummary_response to DEC comments.doc 6/10/04 Page 3 of 5 r 11 . Pg. 29 (Figure 15) : It would be helpful to include a more complete picture of meteorological conditions during- the study period. This should include daily air temperatures and wind speeds. These factors can play an important role in phytoplankton dynamics. Response : Wind speed from the N-NW is presented in Figure 5c . Phytoplankton probably respond more directly to water temperature than air temperature. Water temperature data are presented in Figures 8 and 9. 12 . Pg. 36 (Figure 19) : The "southern shelf' needs to be defined for this and other figures that use this term. It would also . be helpful to the reader if this definition were included on page 8 (Table 1 ). Finally, it. would be helpful to 'see these relationships for the . deeper sites as well. Response: The southern shelf was defined graphically in Figure 1 a and in text in the last paragraph on page 12 . The authors are accustomed to defining a terra once, and using it freely after that. If it will help the reader, we can define the term at each use. 13 . Pg. 37-38 (Tables 8 & 9) : Once again, the term "southern shelf' should be clearly defined. Also, provide station specific information for each year - see comment #2 above. Response : See responses to comments No. 12 and 2 . 14 . Page 40 (Figure 20) : There appear to be two problems in this figure. First, the caption indicates that plot (f) is the daily average flow from the LSC facility — it actually appears as if this is plot (e) . Second, the actual plot (f) appears to present TP loading from the various discharges to the south lake, whereas the caption indicates something other. Response: This caption will be corrected. 15 . Pg. 43 : Under item #5 - the discussion of chlorophyll-a concentrations — provide station specific comparisons. Response: Item #5 is an attempt to summarize the site-specific chlorophyll information presented in Table 5 . It is unclear what is meant _. by "provide station specific comparisons. " 16 . Pg. 44 : Under item # 18 — the discussion of percent TP load — show period of record ranges and provide context with respect to percent of permitted discharge. Response: Item #18 — Ranges for TP load and percent of permitted discharge will be added. UFI 5ynummary response to DEC comments.doc 6/10/04 Page 4 of 5 C 1 17 . Pg. 45 : Item #31 — the statement indicating that "no conspicuous changes in water quality have been observed on the shelf since start-up of the LSC facility. . . " should be qualified with respect to statistical rigor and station specificity. Response: Item #31 — we find these qualifications unnecessary. 18 . Pg. 46 : Concluding remarks — see previous comments above. ' Response: No response necessary. UFI_Syrsummary response to DEC comments.doc 6/10/04 Page 5 of 5 r ,L ® Cheryl Horney Telephone: 607 254-8687 Environmental Compliance Coordinator Fax: 607 255-5377 Environmental Compliance Office E-mail: cah65OcomelLedu Flaming, Design, and Construction Web: eco.pdc.comell.edu Cornell University Facilities Services 129 Humphreys Service Building Ithaca, NY 14853-3701 January 16, 2004 I �- i = f Ms . Tara Blum, PE l l AUG 2 2004 Division of Water, Region 7 New York State Department of Environmental Conser ation TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING , ZONING , ENGINEERING 615 Erie Boulevard West Syracuse, NY 13204-2400 RE : Cornell University Lake Source Cooling — Statistical Analysis Plan Dear Tara: This letter serves to document the details of our meeting with you on Jan. 9, 2004 where the NYSDEC and Cornell University agreed on an approach to analyze the Cornell University Lake Source Cooling water quality data for statistical significance. In the Jan. 9, 2004 meeting, we covered the following topics : • Methodology for conducting the analysis . • Control and impact site selection • Confidence interval • Normality of the data • Additional review of the analysis . First, we agreed that the Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI) Analysis was the appropriate methodology to use in conducting a comparison of water quality data from before and after startup of the. Lake Source Cooling (LSC) 'Facility. We will use the Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI) design for the analysis using data from July 1998 - June 2000 for before LSC startup and data from July 2000 - Oct 2002 for after LSC startup, which is inclusive of the Apr. — Oct. sampling season. ccn Environmental Compliance Office Tara Blum, NYSDEC Jan. 16, 2004 Page 2 Second, we had a lengthy discussion about which site would be appropriate to use as a control site . . From this discussion, we agreed to use Sites 8 and 4 in separate analyses as our control sites . Then, we - selected which impact sites to compare to the control sites . We agreed that the amount of comparisons should be limited to no more than four comparisons to limit the statistical effects of multiple comparisons . Therefore, we selected four comparisons, and agreed to analyze an additional comparison if the original comparison of Site 1 vs . Site 4 showed an impact. The following comparisons were selected for the statistical analysis : Site 1 (impact) vs. Site 4 (control) • Site 1 (impact) vs . Site 8 (control) • Site 4 (impact) vs . Site 8 (control) • Site 5 (impact) vs . Site 4 (control) If the comparison of Site 1 vs. Site 4 shows an impact, the following comparison will also be analyzed : • Site 3 (impact) vs . Site 8 (control) Third, Cornell will conduct the analyses using a 95% confidence interval as is typical for this type of evaluation'. Cornell will also provide the uncorrected p-value for each comparison for added perspective . Fourth, we discussed data normality and whether there would be a difference in completing a parametric vs . non-parametric evaluation. We decided that this distinction would not be likely to influence the results of the analyses, and, if needed, we could address this issue when conducting the statistical evaluation. Finally, regarding additional review of the statistical report, our discussions concluded that the NYSDEC would inform. the EPA as they deem appropriate. We will be conducting the statistical analysis using the above approach and will send you a report of the analysis by March 12, 2004. Please contact me immediately if you are not in agreement with all of the details of this letter. I NYSDEC_Stadstical_Report Plan 011604;.Rnal.doc cah 1 /16/04 h Tara Blum, NYSDEC Jan. 16, 2004 Page 3 can be reached at .(607) 254-8687 or at the address or email listed at the top of this letter. Sincerely, Cheryl A. Homey Environmental Compliance Coordinator xc: Steve Eidt, NYSDEC Region 7 James R. Adams Patrick O . McNally Edward R. Wilson Steve Effler, Upstate Freshwater Institute c0 NYSDEC StatisticaLReport PIazL011604;�finaLdoc 1/16/04 i I ' I ` DEC Comments_LSC Statistical Plan . txt - Mai 1 er : Novell G.roupwi se Internet Agent 6 . 5 . 0 L _ Fi 1r te : Tue , 10 Feb 2004 11 : 07 : 58 - 0500 �'.- PH : v4 . 1 @hermes3 From : " Tara Blum " <tmblum @gw . dec . state . ny . us> I U1 To : <cah65 @cornell . edu> 2 2004 �Cc : <erw24 @cornell . edu> , <), ra4 @cornell . edu> , <poml @cornell . ed" Clifford Callinan ' < cwcallin @gw . dec . state . ny . us> ," Steve Ei.dt "< speidt @gw . dec . state . nY . us> JN OFITHACA Subject : Re : comments on the LSC . Stati sti cal Plan Mime -versi o QNING ENGINEERING X - PMX -version : 4 . 1.. 1 . 86173 Cheryl , As we discussed by telepphone this morning , the Department agrees to an April 16 deadline for the statistical analysis report in order to include the 2003 data . Let me know if you have any further questions . Thanks , Tara Tara M . Blum , P . E . Environmental Engineer 1 NYS DEC Region 7 Division of water Phone : 315 - 426 - 7416 Fax : 315 - 426 - 7459 >>> Cheryl Horney < cah65 @cornell . edu> 02 /02 /04 03 : 57PM >>> Hi Tara , spoke with UFI regarding the items in your email regarding the tatistical analysis . Here are their basic responses .a nclusion of 2003 data in statistical analysis . UFI has no objection to ncluding the . 2003 monitoring data in the statistical analysis , though his will affect their ability to meet the submission date we agreed to in our meeting for the statistical report . The 2003 data have not been QAd , graphed , or thoroughly reviewed yet . This process will be completed as part of their preparation of the 2003 Annual Report , which has a regulatory deadline of April 1 . Presently , the statistical report has a regulatory deadline of March 12 . A revised deadline of April 16 will permit inclusion of the 2003 data in the statistical report . Please let us know your preference . option 1 : Keep 2003 data excluded , or option 2 : Include 2003 and agree to an extension deadline of Apr .. 16 for the statistical report . Discussion of circulation patterns. UFI has no data and limited expertise regarding circulation patterns in southern Cayuga Lake . There is some limited anecdotal evidence that tributary inflows. run along the lakes eastern shore , particularly after major runoff events ( see Oglesby 1978 , pp . 36 - 37 in Lakes of New York State , vol . 1 : Ecology of the Finger Lakes , 1978 , edited by Bloomfield ) . other than this , there is very little else that UFI is comfortable including in the report , since they do not consider themselves experts in this field . Discussion of statistical power as related to multiple tests . This will be included in the report . Discussion of the relative merits of the chosen control sites . UFI will . attempt this but expects that Cornell and the DEC will also want to have nput into this discussion in the report . ara - The only time I will be in the office for the next three weeks will Page 1 DEC Comments_LSC Statistical Plan . txt be next Mon . ( 2 / 9 ) and Tues . ( 2 /10) , if you have any comments or would like to discuss . You can also contact Pat McNally in my absence . we need to know your decision as soon as possible on whether to include 2003 data . zlwill be back in the office on 2 / 23 . c4eryl I At 08 : 38 AM 1/ 28/ 2004 - 0500 , Tara Blum wrote . >Cheryl , we reviewed your letter dated Jan . 16 , 2004 on the Cornell LSC > statistical Analysis Plan and have the following comments . In an effort > to save time , I am sending via email instead of a letter . > in the last sentence of the first page , you wrote that data from July > 2000 - Oct . 2002 will be used for the post = LSC startup . we believe . that �>the 2003 sampling season data should be included in the analyses as >we ll . on a minor point , the letter indicates that the meeting took > place on January 9 , 2004 , actually it was January 8 , 2004s. > >we also discussed the following issues during the discussion of control > sites : ( a) circulation patterns within the south shelf of the lake , and > ( b) notion of including the incremental loss in statistical power with > additional analyses - we think these issues should be discussed in the > statistical analysis report . The report should also provide a synopsis >of the relative merits of the two selected control sites . > Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the above > comments . > >Thanks , Tara >Tara M . Blum , P . E . > Environmental Engineer 1 > NYS DEC Region 7 >Division of water > Phones 315 - 426 - 7416 > Fax : 315 - 426 - 7459 I Page 2 Cheryl Homey Telephone: 607254-8687 Environmental Compliance Coordinator Fax 607 2553377 Environmental Compliance Office E-mail: cah65®comell.edu Planning, Design, and Construction Web: eco.pdc.comell.edu Facilities Services cornea university 129 Humphreys Service Building Ithaca, NY 14853 3701 April 16, 2004 Ms . Tara Blum PE ` AUG 2 I Division of Water, Region 7 New York State Department of Environmental Conservati .. NNIN °ZONOF TEN��rvEENirvu 615 Erie Boulevard West Syracuse, NY 13204-2400 RE : Cornell University Lake Source Cooling — Statistical Analysis Draft Report Dear Tara: This letter submits the draft statistical analysis report using the approach that Cornell and NYSDEC agreed to in our Jan. 8, 2004 meeting. The Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI) design was used to conduct the comparison of water quality data from before and after startup of the Lake Source Cooling (LSC) Facility. The analysis uses data fro' rom July 1998 June 2000 for before LSC startup and data from July 2000 - Oct 2003 for after LSC startup, which is inclusive of the Apr. — Oct. sampling season. We agreed to use Sites 8 and 4 in separate analyses as our control sites, and we selected the following comparisons for the statistical analysis : • Site 1. (impact) vs. Site .4 (control) • Site 1 (impact) vs. Site 8 (control) • Site 4 (impact) vs. Site 8 (control) • Site 5 (impact) vs. Site 4 (control) Additionally, we agreed to analyze the comparison of Site 3 (impact) vs. Site 8 (control), if the Site 1 vs . Site 4 comparison showed an impact. E- c'. 1. Compliance OfF2A Tara Blum, NYSDEC Apr._ 16, 2004 Page 2 The analyses were conducted using a 95% confidence interval as is typical for this type of evaluation. The report also provides thE! uncorrected p-value for each comparison for added perspective. Please review the attached draft report and provide us with your comments by May 14. Because the faculty committee has not yet had the opportunity to review the draft, significant revisions to the draft may be required before finalizing the document, depending upon their comments . I can be reached at (607) 254-8687 or at the address or email listed at the top of this letter. Sincerely, ✓ Cheryl A. Homey Environmental Compliance Coordinator Enclosure xc: Steve Eidt, NYSDEC Region 7 James R. Adams Patrick O . McNally Edward R. Wilson Steve Effler, Upstate Freshwater Institute NYSDEC_Statistical_Report_draft submittalltr�_041604.doc cah. 4/16/04 DRAFT 4/16/04 .y Li U G AUG 2 ZG04 'fz TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING , ZONING ENGINEERING A Before- After- Control-lmpact Analysis for Cornell University' s Lake Source. Cooling Facility Prepared by: Upstate Freshwater Institute P . O . Box 506 Syracuse, NY 13214 Sponsored by: Cornell University __ Department of Utilities and Energy Management DRAFT 4/16/04 L Objective The primary objective of this report is to , determine if levels of three water quality parameters (chlorophyll a; total phosphorus, turbidity) have shown statistically significant changes in the southern portion of Cayuga Lake coincident in time with start-up of Comell' s Lake Source Cooling (LSC) facility. Statistical determinations are made based on a Before- After-Control-Impact (BACI) design applied to in-lake monitoring data collected over the 1998 — 2003 interval . 2. Cayuga Lake and the Lake Source Cooling Facility Cayuga Lake is the fourth easternmost of the New York Finger Lakes (Figure 1 ); it has the largest surface area ( 172 km2) and the second largest volume (9 . 38 x 109 m) of this system of lakes (Schaffner and Oglesby 1978) . The lake is long (61 .4 km along its major axis). and narrow, extending along a north/south axis (Figure 1 ) . Its stratification regime is warm monomictic, stratifying strongly in summer, but complete ice cover has only rarely occurred (Oglesby 1978) . The lake' s large hypolimnion remains cold (e. g. , < 5 °C) through the summer. The watershed area of this alkaline hardwater lake is 1150 krr.? (Oglesby 1978) . Water exits the basin through a single outlet at the northern end of the lake. The long-term average flushing rate of the lake is slow, about 0 . 08 y" (Oglesby 1978 , Effler et al.. 1989) . The City of Ithaca and Cornell University are located at the southeastern end of Cayuga Lake. Cayuga Lake is generally considered to be mesotrophic (e. g . , Oglesby 1978) . This position is supported by available long-term measurements of the trophic state indicators of total phosphorus (TP) and chlorophyll a (Chl) for the epilimmon in deep-water locations (UFI 2003 ) . Phytoplankton growth in the lake is phosphorus-limited (Oglesby 1978) . Conditions in the southern end of Cayuga Lake, particularly the southernmost 2 km with depths < 6 m (Figure 1 ; designated : the "shelf'), have generally been considered degraded I relative to the deep-water portions of the lake (Oglesby 1978) . The occurrence of higher turbidity levels is a prominent feature of this perceived degradation (e. g. , Oglesby 1978) . Total phosphorus concentrations have . routinely . exceeded 20 P&L " on the shelf (UFI 2003) , the "guidance" value (i. e. , open to some regulatory discretion) 1br New York [New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) 1993 ] to protect recreational uses of lakes. Recently, NYSDEC added this portion of the lake to the state ' s list of water quality limited systems (as per section. 303d of the Federal Clean Water Act) , which may be followed by a "total maximum daily load" (TMDL) analysis. The shelf receives a number of external inputs, including effluents from two domestic waste treatment facilities (Ithaca WWTP and Cayuga Heights WWTP) and inflows from the two largest tributaries of the lake (Cayuga Inlet and Fall Creek; Figure 1 ) . Average effluent flows for I the two treatment facilities are 0. 3 and 0 . 07 m3 • s ' ; the TP limit for these discharges is 1 mg-L' ' (Great Lakes basin standard) . The two tributaries represent ~ 35 % of the total inflow to the lake (Oglesby 1978) . Thus, the shelf is flushed rapidly; on average 0 .4 wk-' during the April - October interval, based on external hydrologic loading only (i.e . , conservative estimate because turbulence-based exchange with the deep-water portions of the lake is not considered) . 2 I DRAFT 4/16/04 .8 km% loom I I . Ian (T WPM 70m approximate depth - - - - - LSC discharge contours 40m - • () Cayuga do�61n Heights (1) vMIP 4m thaca Area N vA rP �. Cayuga Inlet �`-' Fall Creek �6co Conesus owasco Hoove Skaneateles Canandaigua Cayuga Canadice Hemlock Seneca /Keuka New York The Finger Lakes Figure 1 . Sampling sites, setting, approximate bathymetry, for LSC monitoring program, southern end of Cayuga Lake; Cayuga Lake' s position within the Finger Lakes of New York. Locations of sampling sites and point source discharges are approximate . 3 DRAFT 4/16/04 Cornell University began operating a lake source cooling (LSC) facility in July 2000 that utilizes the cold waters of the hypolimnion of Cayuga Lake to meet its campus cooling needs: Water is . drawn from a depth of 77 . m 3 m above the bottom) and conveyed to a heat- exchange facility through a 3 . 2 km intake pipe, and returned through a 154 m outfall pipe (with a multi-port diffuser) to Cayuga Lake ' s southern shelf (Figure 1 ) . The project is intended to . reduce the consumption of fossil -fuel, eliminate the related emissions of chlorofluorocarbons, and over the long-term reduce cooling costs . The volume of lake; water circulated through the LSC system is variable, depending; on the campus demand for cooling; the permitted flow rate is 2 rr * s'.. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the LSC facility estimated a 3 to 7% increase in the existing TP load to the shelf associated with its operation (Stearns and Wheler 1997) . The impact of this added phosphorus load on algal growth was estimated to be low and no discernable impact on clarity was projected (Stearns and Wheler 1997) . During its four years of operation (2000 — 2003) , the LSC facility has contributed an estimated 3 to 4% of the total external load of TP to the southern portion of Cayuga Lake during the May — October interval (UFI 2004) . The discharge permit for the LSC facility requires ambient lake monitoring, with a focus on the potential for impact on trophic state indicators. The surrogate measures of trophic state specified are those that are widely applied, TP, Secchi disc transparency (SD) , and Chl. The LSC discharge permit offers the following guidance with respect to in-lake monitoring and impact detection (SPDES No . NY 024 4741 , Part I, Section II): A. Resource Monitoring In-lake monitoring will be required to show that the levels of total phosphorus and chlorophyll-a in the lake segment, as described, have not increased. Additionally Secchi Disc transparencies shall also be monitored. If trending shows a statistically significant increasing concentration for total phosphorus over time, the outfall will have to be reevaluated. Reevaluation is discussed in Section C. I For chlorophyll-a, results must be presented in a summary report showing comparisons to pre-discharge years. Statistically significant changes will trigger outfall reevaluation. Secchi disc data must also be reported. Should clarity show a statistically significant trending decline, the outfall will have to be reevaluated. Cornell will submit to this Department, within six months of EDP, an approvable monitoring plan for these parameters listed. Monitoring shall cover the entire growing season, from April l to October 31 . Additionally, temperature shall also be trended with the data collected. Temperature monitoring shall be year round. All reports of data collected shall be submitted in a coherent and understandable manner, with cumulative trending of all data points over the permit life. Monitoring shall be done at least twice a month, in-lake, in the discharge segment of the lake, as defined above. Additionally, data must be collected from at least two separate locations I in the lake, in portion described above. It is encouraged that more are collected and analyzed. An annual report of in-lake monitoring must be submitted to the Department for review and approval by April 1 of the following year. 4 DRAFT 4/16/04 C. Outfall Reevaluation Should the'water quality of the discharge area of Cayuga Lake be proven to have deteriorated because of the addition of the Cornell LSC outfall, the outfall location and discharge parameters must be reevaluated. Any statistically significant trend. of increasing parameters will require reevaluation. If reevaluation of the outfall is required, Cornell has six months to. determine causes and present the methods for ceasing further lake detriment and for restoring problems created by the LSC outfall. Possible alternatives would include, but not be limited to, moving the outfall to a location `over the shelf of the southern end of the lake, or treatment for phosphorus . Application of TP and SD as trophic state indicators implicitly assumes that particulate forms of phosphorus exist predominantly as phytoplankton, and that concentrations of phytoplankton regulate SD, respectively (Carlson 1977) . Effler et al. (2002) demonstrated that clay minerals and quartz, received from the watershed, and CaCO3i that is produced internally, are the primary regulators of turbidity (Tn) and SD in the southern portion of Cayuga Lake. These inorganic particles also represent most of the particulate phosphorus and are primarily responsible for the higher Tn, lower SD, and higher TP on the southern shelf compared to the deep water region (Effler et al. 2002) . Matthews et al. (2002) found Chl to be the preferred indicator of trophic state for this system. Secchi disc transparency is a systematically flawed measure of clarity on the southern shelf of Cayuga Lake because of the shallowness of this area. The disc is often visible laying on the lake bottom. Matthews et al. (2002) recommended Tn instead of SD as a measure of clarity on the shelf.. 3. Methods 3. 1 . Monitoring Program Design and Measurements Data from four lake sites are used in this analysis . Three sites are located in the southern end (sites 1 , 4 and 5) and one (site 8) located further north (Figure 1 ) . Site 8 is included as. a reference location representative of main lake conditions. Sites 1 , 4 and 5 are considered to be located on the shelf (i. e. , depths < 6 m) . - Site 1 is located just northwest of the LSC discharge along the east shore. Sites 4 and 5 represent conditions in the western and northern portions of the shelf, respectively. Only TP , Chl, and . T,, are considered in detail here. Total phosphorus was measured according to. standard methods (APHA 1996) . Chlorophyll a was measured according to Parsons et al. ( 1984) . Turbidity was measured with a calibrated HACH 2100AN turbidimeter (APHA 1992) . Lake sampling was conducted billweekly, over the July-October interval of 1998 , and for the April=October period of 1999, 2000 , 1200L 2002 and 2003 . Additional weekly sampling was conducted from May to August of 2000, bracketing start-up of the LSC facility in early July. A total of 99 sampling surveys were conducted over these six years. Composite samples, formed from equal volumes of sub-samples collected at depths of 0, 2 , and 4 m, were collected at sites 5 and 8 . Composite samples for sites 1 and 4 were formed from equal volumes of sub-samples collected at depths of 0 and 2 m 5 DRAFT 4/16/04 Precision of sampling, sample handling and laboratory analyses was assessed by a program of field replicates . Samples for laboratory analyses were collected in triplicate at site 1 on each sampling day. Triplicate samples were collected at one other station each monitoring trip . This station was rotated each sampling trip through the field season. Precision was high for the triplicate sampling/measurement program, as represented by the average values of the coefficient of variation for the six study years (Table 1 ) . Variability was similar for the three parameters considered here (Table 1 ) . The magnitude of uncertainty associated with these measurements should be recognized when interpreting the analyses that follow. Table 1 . Precision for triplicate sampling/measurement program for key parameters for 1998 - 2003 ; represented by the average coefficient of variation for the six study years. .Parameter Site 1 Rotating Site total phosphorus 0 . 10 0008 chlorophyll a 0 . 11 0 . 08 turbidity 0 . 10 0 .08 3.2. Statistical Design and Analysis 3.2. 1. The Before-After- Control-Impact Design The BACI design is used here to evaluate changes in trophic indicators following LSC start-up. In this design, paired samples are collected at control and impact locations on multiple dates before and after LSC start-up. The analysis is based on differences between the control site and the impact site paired by sampling date, and a two-sample 't-test is conducted comparing the before and after differences (Stewart-Oaten et al. 1986) . This is equivalent to a test fora time by site interaction using a two-factor analysis of variance (Smith et al. 1993) . The objective is to determine if the mean difference between impact and control locations has changed coincident with the intervention. Simple statistical comparisons (e.g. , t-test) of before versus after start-up data for individual impact sites are inappropriate for this evaluation. This is because changes in YP Y water quality parameters are likely to occur over time with or without operation of the LSC � q facility. Thus, data from control sites are used to account for natural temporal variations not associated with LSC operation. The efficacy of the BACI . design for assessing impacts to the southern portion of Cayuga Lake associated with operation of the LSC facility was discussed by Matthews et al. (2002) . A statistically significant change in the difference between control and impact sites is evidence of a change coincident with LSC start-up, but not necessarily evidence that LSC operation is the cause of the change. Even if the control and impact sites are similar prior to the impact, there is no guarantee that this similarity would persist over time absent of LSC operation. I The difficulty of assigning a cause to an observed change is common to observational studies. Discovering the cause of any observed changes in trophic indicators in the southern end of Cayuga Lake is particularly complicated because of the potential for simultaneous changes in multiple drivers not associated with LSC start-up and operation. Matthews et al . (2002) discussed a number of these potentially confounding factors including: ( 1 ) natural variation in meteorological conditions, (2) changes in treatment at wastewater treatriient plants, and (3) the uncertain effects of zebra mussel populations. 6 DRAFT 4116/04 It is also important to note that statistical significance is not equivalent . to biological significance (Scheiner and Gurevitch 2001 ) . Large studies conducted on populations that vary little may detect very small, biologically unimportant effects as significant. . Conversely, biologically meaningful effects can go undetected if sample sizes are small or natural spatial or temporal variability is high. Sample sizes for this study are large, 38 and 61 for the pre and post. start-up intervals, respectively. The three variables of interest (Chl, TP and Tn) have exhibited substantial variability on the southern shelf of Cayuga Lake, both among sites and over time at individual sites (Matthews et al. 2001 ) . Power analyses conducted by Matthews et al. (2001 ) on pre start-up data established that the BACI analysis would detect a 30% change in Chl with a probability of 0 .7 at a = 0 . 05 . The probability of detecting a 30% change in Chl increases to about 0. 8 if evaluated at a = 0. 10. Similar results were obtained for TP and Tn (UFI , unpublished results) . Thus, the statistical design adopted here is appropriate for the detection of increases on the order of about 30% or greater, though substantially smaller effects will likely be judged statistically insignificant. 3.2. 2. Selection of Impact and Control Sites and Significance Levels Application of the BACI design begins with a priori selection of suitable impact and control sites. Impact sites should be located within the area potentially ' affected by LSC operation. Not surprisingly, potential impacts are most likely in the immediate vicinity (e. g. ,. diffuser "mixing zone") of the LSC discharge (Stearns and Wheler 1997) . Further, there is some limited information that suggests a predominant counterclockwise flow pattern in the southern end of Cayuga Lake, particularly following major runoff events (Oglesby 1978) . This flow pattern is expected to cause the LSC discharge to move to the north, in the direction of site 1 (Figure 1 ) . Further, model projections included in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Stearns and Wheler 1997) predicted that the LSC discharge would usually move in a northerly direction, making site 1 the more likely location for detection of impacts associated with LSC . Control sites should be located in areas subject to the same temporal and spatial variability found at the impact sites, but outside the area of potential impact (Stewart-Oaten et al. 1986, Underwood 1994) . If impacts are limited to a small area near the LSC discharge, another site located on the shelf could serve as a control (e .g. , site 4 ; Figure 1 ) . If, however, the estimated scale of impact is different than indicated by Stearns and Wheler ( 1997) , and changes occur over the entire shelf, a significant change could go undetected because the control site would also be affected (Underwood 1994) . Ideally, another shallow area adjacent .to wastewater treatment plants and major tributaries '(i.e . , similar to the south shelf of Cayuga Lake) would be designated as a control. Because such an area is not available, a deep-water site in .Cayuga Lake (e. g., site 8 ; Figure 1 ) is also considered here as a control location. Running the BACI analysis on multiple impact-control pairs constitutes a series of multiple comparisons. Without adjustment, the experimentwise (or overall) Type-I error rate (the probability of a false positive) increases as the number of comparisons increases ( Kuehl 1994) . The experimentwise Type4 error rate is typically controlled at some desired level (e.g. , a = 0 . 05) using the Bonferroni adjustment or some other accepted method. In the Bonferrom adjustment, the desired experimentwise error rate a is divided by the number of individual tests. Thus, if four comparisons are made and an overall a = 0 .05 is desired, the a-level for individual comparisons becomes 0 . 0125 (0 .05/4 = 0 . 0125) . The Bonferroni adjustment is considered to be 7 DRAFT 4/ 16/04 conservative, and other more powerful methods exist for controlling the false discovery rate (e.g. , Rice 1989, Benjamini and Hochberg 1995) . However, any method that controls for Type I errors necessarily increases the probability of Type II errors, or fiilures in the detection of real effects. Because we don't want to compromise the ability of this analysis to identify real effects, the number of comparisons has been limited to four and no additional control has been exercised over Type I errors . Thus, the analyses presented here may be viewed as conservative, with the ability to detect real . effects being protected even though the probability of false positives is increased. A significance level of 0 .05 (a = 0 . 05 ) has been chosen for the purpose of evaluating permit compliance. Thus, individual t-tests with unadjusted p--values .< 0 .05 are considered "statistically significant" and constitute evidence of a change in water quality coincident in time with start-up of the LSC facility. Based on careful consideration of the issues outlined above, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and Cornell Univen,ity have 'selected four impact- control pairs for the BACI analysis : ( 1 ) impact—site 1 , control—site 4, (2) impact—site 1 , control—site 8 , (3) impact—site 4, control—site 8 , and (4) impact—site 5 , control—site 44 These four pairings allow for the testing of a number of hypotheses related to potential changes in trophic indicators in southern Cayuga Lake following LSC start-up: Pairing No . 1 (impact— site 1 , control—site 4) provides a test of whether or not levels of TP, Chl and T. increased disproportionately at site 1 compared to site 4 following LSC start-up . If, however, both sites 1 and 4 are impacted, this test. could fail to detect a substantial change in water quality. The second pairing (impact—site 1 , control—site 8) overcomes this problem by using site 8 , which is located well beyond the zone of influence of the LSC discharge, as the control. If either pairing No . 1 or No . 2 produce a significant result, the third and fourth pairings become important as checks for consistency and for defining the spatial extent of the irapact. 3.2. 3. Assumptions of Statistical Tests Values for TP (gg,U' ) , Chl (gg• L" ) and Tn (NTU) were determined from samples collected on the same day for replicate surveys conducted before and after start-up of the LSC facility. The data were log-transformed to achieve additivity and reduce autocorrelation (Stewart-Oaten et al. 1986) and differences (A) were calculated between the values at impact and control locations for each sampling date . Statistical significance is determined from Welch t- tests comparing the before and after differences for the various control-impact pairs. STATISTICA version 6 (data analysis software system; StatSoft, Inc. 2003) was used for statistical analyses . The two-sample t-test conducted on the before and after differences is subject to the usual assumptions for such a test: the observations (differences) are. assumed independent, and the sample sizes are assumed large enough so that the distribution of the mean differences (before and after periods) is approximately normally distributed. Variances of the differences in the two time periods need not be assumed equal if the Welch t-test (Snedecor and Cochran 1980) is used. The normality assumption is likely satisfied by the data typically encountered in a BACI study unless numerous zeros are present (as may occur for abundance data) . Applying a logarithmic transformation, which is a common practice with environmental data (Eberhardt and Thomas 1991 , Stewart-Oaten et al. 1992 , Osenberg et al. 1994), reduces skewness of the data prior to calculating differences, and taking differences still further diminishes skewness (Stewart-Oaten 8 DRAFT 4/16/04 - et al. 1992) . Sample sizes for both the . before and after periods exceed 30 in this study; consequently, the Central Limit Theorem further contributes to approximate normality of the distrbution of the mean differences. If the normality assumption is problematic, the Mann- Whitney (also called Wilcoxon) non-parametric two-sample test . or a randomization test . (Carpenter et al. 1989) can be used in place of the Welch t-test: Although these alternatives do not invoke a normality assumption, they do require the other assumptions of the Welch - t-test (Stewart-Oaten et al. 1992) : Because the normality assumption was not satisfied for all of the impact-control distributions (Appendix 1 ) , Mann-Whitney tests were conducted for all imp act" control pairs . The Mann-Whitney tests yielded results consistent with the Welch t-tests, and no significant (p < 0 .05) pre-post differences were observed. The independence assumption is likely more of a concern than the normality assumption because of possible. serial correlation of the differences over the sampling times. The effect of positive serial correlation is to inflate the Type I error rate of the test. In other words, positive serial correlation will make it more likely to detect a LSC effect that does not exist. Stewart- Oaten et al. ( 1986) emphasize that it is the differences that must be uncorrela.ted, not the observations over time at each individual sampling station. Serial correlation of-the differences is not expected to be nearly as strong as serial correlation in the observations obtained at each individual site. Even if serial correlation is found to be statistically significant, conclusions of the BACI test remain valid if the serial correlation is small; e. g. , lag4 r < 0.3 (Stewart-Oaten et. al. 1986) . Another assumption of the BACI analysis is 'additivity' of time and location effects. Violation of this assumption may cause the BACI test to lose power because the differences are highly variable or inflate the actual Type I error of the test (Stewart-Oaten et al. 1986, Smith et al. 1993) . Stewart-Oaten et al. ( 1986) suggest employing Tukey's ( 1949) test for non-additivity, although Smith et al. ( 1993 ) note that the test for additivity is sensitive to serial correlation. If non-additivity exists, a log-transformation often diminishes or eliminates the problem. Stewart- Oaten et al. ( 1992) discuss more details of the additivity assumption. After log transformation and differencing (impact-control) the data were checked against the assumptions for a Welch t- test: normality, temporal independence, and additivity. Evaluations of the normality, independence, and additivity assumptions are presented in the Appendix. 3. 2:4. Calculation and Interpretation of Effect Size For the BACI design, the test for an impact associated with LSC start-up is an interaction test: does the mean difference between the control and impact site before LSC start-up differ from the mean difference after start-up? Because the key test is one of interaction, defining a readily interpretable effect size is more difficult than when the test is a comparison of means (rather than mean differences) . The rationale for choosing and interpreting effect size is as follows. In the Before period, suppose the mean of the control site is x, and that the mean of the impact site is a% higher, (1 +a)x. Both the control and impact site means increase b% in the After period, so the control site has mean ( 1 +b)x, and the impact site has mean (1 +a)( 1 +b)x. This b% increase for both control and impact sites is consistent with additivity on a log= transformed scale. If an impact is present, suppose it further increases the mean of the impact site in the After period by an additional c%, so the impact site mean is ( l +a)( 1 +b)( l +c)x. On the log-transformed scale, the difference in means in the Before period is then log(x)log[( 1 +a)x] _ 9 . DRAFT 4/ 16/04 log[x/( 1 +a)c] = log[ 1 /( 1 +a)] , and the difference in means in the After period is log[( l +b)x] — log[( 1 +a)(1 +b)( 1 +c)xl = log[ 1 1( 1 +a)(1 +c)] . Finally, the interaction test would evaluate the difference of the differences in the Before and After period, resulting in log[ 1 1(1 +a)( l +c)] - log [(11( 1 +a)] = log[ l /( l +c)] . Thus, the effect size c is the percent increase in a variable associated with the impact. This formulation of the effect size is consistentwith a multiplicative effects model that motivates analysis on the logarithmic scale. 10 DRAFT 4/16/04 4. BACI Results 4. 1. Chlorophyll Time series of log-transformed Chl and differences calculated for the impact-control pairs are presented in Figure 2 . Chlorophyll a concentrations in southern Cayuga Lake exhibited a recurring seasonal pattern, with low values in spring followed by increases through the summer months and decreases during the fall (Figure 2a- d) . Peak Chl concentrations usually occurred during July and August . This general pattern has been observed for all monitored sites :over ,the six study years . Temporal variations were correlated (0. 50 < r < 0 . 83) among the four, sites. No long-term trends of increasing or decreasing Chl are readily apparent from these time . series (Figure 2a 7d) . The distinct seasonality apparent for the individual sites was reduced for the impact- control differences (Figure 2e-h) . Again; no obvious long-term trends are apparent from the time . series . The normality assumption was met for all of the impact-control distributions, with the exception of site 1 — site 4 (see Appendix 1 ) . Differences calculated from the site 1 = site 8 pairing showed significant positive serial correlation for both the pre-LSC (lag 1 r = 0 ,42) and post-LSC (lag 1 r = 0 .38) periods (Appendix 2) . Serial correlation was low (r < 0 .3) for the other . impact-control pairs. No serious violations of the additivity assumption were detected based on the weak (? < 0 .2) relationships . observed between the, differences and averages for log Chl (Appendix 3) . Summary statistics and p-values are presented in Table 2 for .the four selected impact- control pairs . Differences between the pre and post start-up . intervals were not significant (p > . 0 . 1 ) for any of the impact-control pairs at the nominal significance level of 0 . 05 or at the Bonferroni adjusted level of 0 .0125 . The strongest evidence for a post-start-up increase in Chl comes from the site 5 — site 4 pairing (p = 0 . 106) . The magnitude of this effect ( 15%) is only slightly larger than the uncertainty associated with the Chl measurement (8 - 11 %; Table 1 ) . . Table 2 . Results from Welch t-tests comparing log-transformed chlorophyll a for the pre starI up (7/9/98 — 6/29/00) and ''post start-up (7/6/00. — 10/29/03 ) intervals for the i selected impact-control pairs . Standard deviation is abbreviated Sd. Effect size represents the percent change in chlorophyll a at the impact site relative to the control site. Impact-Control Pre start-up Post start-up p-value Effect size mean Sd mean Sd site 1 -site , 4 0 . 139 00247 00156 00292 0 . 772 +4 site 1 -site 8 -6" 3 '13O4rOao ++26+04$8 $66$"MOI -646r' O1IA18 52 + 005 .I �4'$' '"� � site 4-site 8 -00127 00219 4154 00256 0 .596 -6 site 5 -site 4 00078 0 . 184 0150 _ 0 .227 04106 +15 afglo`( 11 DRAFT 4/-16/04 2 .0 � . 1 . 5 (a) site 1 0.5 • • • 1 � • 0.0 • � : 1 • -0: 5 . 1 . 5 (b) site 4 0. 5 t0% • f • � .• •l� •p�• A0 • 0.0 • • ��• : -0.5 1 .5 . (c) Site 5 i 1 • . 1 .0 g 0. 5 � M � • • iB • -0. 5 1 . 5 (d) site 8 1 .0 • 0. 5 • z 0. 0 • • i U 1 , 0 (e) site 1 - site 4 • • -0. 5 - 1 . 0 1 . 0 - site 1 - site 8 •f • • too 0 -0. 5 • • 1 . 0 (g) site 4 - site 8 3 0. 5 u • • • -0. 5 • • I 1 . 0 (h ) site 5 - site 4 0. 0 � i • • • -0. 5 - 1 . 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Figure 2 . Time series of log Chl concentrations and impact-control differences for the 1998 — 2003 interval: (a) site 1 , (b) site 4, (c) site 5 , (d) site 8 , (e) site 1 site 4, (f) site 1 - site 8 , (g) site 4 - site 8 , and (h) site 5 - site 4 . Start-up of the LSC facility is identified by the dashed gray line 12 DRAFT 4/16/04 4.2 Total Phosphorus Time series of log-transformed TP and differences calculated for the impact-control pairs are presented . in Figure . 3 . The highest TP concentrations on the shelf have generally been observed during periods of high runoff (UFI 1999 , 2000, 2001 , 2002, 2003) when terrigenous inputs of inorganic tripton are greatest. Effler et al. (2002) found that ~ 50% of the TP on the shelf over the June — October interval' of 1999 was tripton. This was a particularly dry period and it is likely that contributions from tripton to the TP pool are even higher during high flow intervals (Effler et. a1. 2002) . ' Total phosphorus concentrations have been relatively, high during spring (Figure 3a-d), indicative of contributions from terrigenous inputs . Summertime peaks in TP (Figure 3a-d) that coincide . with peaks in .Chl (Figure 2a-d) have been observed at various sites over the six-year study period. . However, correlations between paired measurements of log TP and log Chl for the four sites were weak (r < 0 . 3) . Temporal variations in log TP were correlated (0 .36 < r < 0 . 68) among the four sites. The strongest correlation (r ' = 0 .68) was between sites 4 and 5 and the weakest (0 . 36) between sites 1 and 4 . No long-term trends of increasing or decreasing TP are readily apparent from these time series (Figure 3a-d) . No obvious long-term trends are apparent from the time series of impact-control differences (Figure 3e-h) . Although four of the eight impact-control distributions violated the . normality assumption (Appendix 1 ), this is not expected to invalidate the results of t-tests . The t- test is generally robust to deviations from normality and sample sizes are large enough to invoke the Central Limit Theorem. Impact-.control differences for log TP were not significantly serially correlated (Appendix 2) . The additivity assumption was violated for the site 1 — site 8 .and site 4 — site 8 pairings (Appendix 3) 1. This is a result of the disproportionate impact of runoff events on TP concentrations on the shelf compared to site 8 . Summary statistics and p-values are presented in Table 3 for the four selected impact- control pairs . : The impact-control differences were smaller for the post start-up period than the pre start-up period, making violations of the additivity assumption inconsequential for the purposes of detecting increases in TP concentrations . Differences between the pre- and post- start-up intervals were not significant (p > 0 .3) for any of the impact-control pairs. Table 3 . Results from Welch t-tests comparing log-transformed total phosphorus for the pre . start-up (7/9/98 — 6/29/00) and post start-up (7/6/00 — 10/29/03 ) intervals for the selected impact-control pairs. Standard deviation is abbreviated Sd. Effect size represents the percent change in total phosphorus at the impact site relative to the control site. Impact-Control Pre start-up Post start-up p-value Effect size mean Sd mean Sd (%) site 1 -site 4 00151 0 .219 0 . 135 04236 00734 -4 site 1 -site 8 04216 04161 0 .214 0 . 169 0 .960 - 005 site 4-site, 8 00129 00293 00079 00202 00326 - 11 site 5 -site 4 00043 06162 0 . 027 00152 06626 -3 13 IN DRAFT 4/16/04 . 2. 0 • t 15 �♦ • • 10 • • • • • ++ c� ° • • • W � • r •. • • Ab (a) site 1 ; 0. 5 • eft AM c�•j �� r 1 . 0 • NO (b) site 4 • 3 0. 5 1 . 5` • • SO 6411 NSA _ : . 1 . 0 • r 6%,16 + (c) site 5 • 0. 5 i 1 . 5 , . 0 s A Akw ti (d) site 8 0. 5 EL , 1 . 0 I 0 015 •� ' �• • • • • •• ' 0. 0 • • �� -0.5 (e) site 1 - site 4 • • -1 . 0 I 1 . 0 i 0. 0 • -0. 5 (fl site 1 - site 8 ' " 1 . 0 1 . 0 • • 0.o i d s • •�• � • � -0. 5 (9) site 4 - site 8 - 1 . 0 . 1 . 0 AWLS 0 i 0. 0 �'d � V -0 . 5 (h) site 5 - site 4 • ° - 1 . 0 1998 1999 2000 . 2001 2002 2003 Figure 3 . Time series of log TP concentrations and impact-control differences. for the 1998 — 2003 interval: (a) site 1 , (b) site 4 , (c) site 5 , (d) site 8 , (e) site 1 - site 4, (f) site 1 - site 8 , (g) site 4 - site 8 , and (h) site 5 - site 4 . Shirt-up of .the LSC facility is IP identified by the dashed gray line t 14 DRAFT 4/16/04 4.1 Turbidity Time series of log-transformed T„ and differences calculated for the impact-control pairs are presented in Figure 40 Turbidity values have varied widely, both among sites and over time 'at individual sites (Figure 4a-d). Effler et al. (2002) found that inorganic tripton, rather than phytoplanktonbiomass, is the primary regulator of Tn (clarity) in southern Cayuga .Lake, and that the higher levels of these constituents (particularly clay minerals) on the shelf are responsible for the generahy higher Tn (lower clarity) values observed in this portion of the lake. Elevated .turbidity on the shelf is not surprising considering its location with respect to major tributaries and the susceptibility of this shallow area to wind driven resuspension (Figure 1 ) . The extremely high Tn values that accompany major runoff events (Figure 4a-d; see also UFI 1999, 20009 2001 , 2002 and 2003) .serve .to inflate temporal variability and cause mean values to be highly uncertain. Compared to the shelf sites , the deep water sampling location (sites 8) exhibits much dower variability and,' in general, substantially lower Tn values (Figure 4d) . Paired measurements of log TII and log TP were positively correlated for the four sites (r > 0 .45) . The coupling between these two variables was, particularly strong (r > 0 . 7) for the shelf sites. Temporal variations in log Tn were correlated (0 .62 < r < 0. 78) among the four sites . No long-term trends of increasing or decreasing Tn levels are readily apparent from these time series (Figure 4a-d) . No obvious long-term trends are apparent from the time series of impact-control differences (Figure 4e-h) : The normality assumption was not met for seven of the eight impact- control pairs (Appendix 1 ) . For the reasons stated above, this is not considered. a serious issue for the t-tests that follow. Impact-control differences for log Tn were not significantly serially correlated (Appendix 2) . The additivity assumption was violated for the site 1 — site 8 and site 4 — site 8 pairings (Appendix 3) : As with TP , this is a result of the disproportionate impact of runoff events on the shelf compared to site 8 . Summary statistics and p-values are presented in Table 4 for the four selected impact. control pairs: Differences between the pre and post start-up intervals were small and not significant (p > 0 .5) for any of the impact-control pairs. Table 4 . Results from Welch t-tests comparing log-transformed turbidity for the pre start-up (7/9/98 — 6/29/00) and post start-up (7/6/00 10/29/03) intervals for the selected impact-control pairs . Standard deviation is abbreviated Sa. Effect size represents the . percent change _in turbidity at the impact site relative to the control site. Impact-Control Pre start-up Post start-up p-value Effect size mean Sa mean Sa %) site 1 -site 4 09187 0 .317 „ 0 . 189 0.324 0 .969 +005 site 1 -site 8 0 .278 00376 0 . 320 0 .325 0 .560 +9 site 4-site 8 04107 0 .323 00083 0 .305 04711 -5 site 5 -site 4 00086 0 .307 00079 0 .228 0 .897 -2 15 - DRAFT 4/16/04 2 (a) site 1 • .1 f 1 (b) sit& 4 • i Z • • • - 1 1 (c) site 5 • • o �'� � I� ••r► (d) site 8 i of 00 00 1 i Z 4. f C -1 ~ 1 .0 (e) site 1 - site 4 • i • • o:o 00 r, s :� .*fir • ' °�' Moog -0.5 - 1 .0 1 .0. site 1 - site 8 • • • 0.5 • • • • �• ( • • • •• • • 0.0 -0. 5 - 1 .0 1 .0 (g) sitj 4 - site 8 • • 0. 5 • • �� �� • • • • 0.0 � • �� -0.5 f -1 .0 1 .0 (h) site 5 - site 4 -0.5 • • - 1 .0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Figure 4. Time series of log Tr, concentrations and impact-control differences for the 1998 — 2003 interval: (a) site 1 , (b) site 4 , (c) site 5 , (d) site 8 , (e) site 1 — site 4, (f) site 1 - site 8 , (g) site 4 - site 8 , and (h) site 5 - site 4. Start-up of the LSC facility is identified by the dashed gray line 16 DRAFT 4/ 16/04 5. , Summary A Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI) design was applied to in-lake monitoring data collected over the 1998 — 2003 interval for three water quality parameters (chlorophyll a , total phosphorus, 'turbidity) to determine whether statistically significant changes occurred in the southern portion of Cayuga Lake coincident in time with start-up of Cornell' s Lake Source Cooling (LSC) facility. Effect sizes were small (<_ 15%) and no significant impacts on the three water quality parameters were detected for any of the impact-control pairs. 17 DRAFT 4/16/04 References APHA (American Public Health Association) . 1992 . Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th edition. American Public Health Assoc ., Washington, DC. APHA (American Public Health Association) . 1996 . Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th edition. American Public Health Assoc., Washington, DC. Benjamin, Y. and Y . Hochberg . 1995 . Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J . R. Statist. Soc . B 57 : 289-300: Callihan; C. W. 2001 . Water quality study of the Finger Lakes. New York State. Department of Environmental Conservation. Division of Water. Carlson, R. F . 1977. A trophic status index for lakes. Limnol. Oceanogr. 22 : 361 -368 . Carpenter, S . R. , T. M . Frost, D. Heisey and T . K. Kratz. 1989. Randomized intervention analysis and the interpretation of whole-ecosystem experiments . Ecol. 70: 1142- 1152, Eberhardt, L. L. and J. M. Thomas . 1991 . Designing environmental field studies . Ecol. Monogr. . 61 :53 -73 . Effler, S . We , Me T. Auer and N. A. Johnson. 1989 . Modeling Cl concentration in Cayuga Lake, USA. Water Air Soil Pollute 44 :347-362 . Effler , S . W. , D . A. Matthews, M. G. Perkins, D . L. Johnson, F. Peng, M. R. Penn and M. T . Auer. 2002 . Patterns and impacts of inorganic tripton in Cayuga Lake . Hydrobiologia 482: 137 4501 Effler, S . W. and C . A. Siegfried. 1998 . Tributary water quality feedback from the spread of zebra mussels: Oswego River, New York. J . Great Lakes Res , 24 :453 -463 , Kuehl, R. O . 1994. Statistical principles of research design and analysis. Duxbury Press . Belmont, CA. Matthews , D. A. , S. V. Stehman and S . W. Effler . 2002 . Limnological and statistical issues for monitoring the impact of a lake source cooling facility: Cayuga Lake, NY . Lake and Reserve Manage. 18(3) : 239-256. NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation) . 1993 . New York State Fact Sheet for Phosphorus :Ambient Water Quality Value for Protection of Recreational Uses . Bureau of Technological Services and Research, Albany, NY . 1 Oglesby, R T . 1978 . The limnology of Cayuga Lake. P . 2421 . In J. A. Bloomfield (ed) . Lakes of New York State, Volume I, Ecology of Finger Lakes . Academic Press, New York. Osenberg, C. W. , R. J. Schmitt, S . J. Holbrook, K. E . Abu-Saba and A. R. Flegal. 1994 . Detection of environmental impacts: Natural variability, effect size, and power analysis. Ecological Applications 4: 16-30 , 18 I DRAFT 4/16/04 Parsons; T. R., Y . Maita and C. M. Lalli. 1984 . A Manual of Chemical and Biological Methods for Seawater Analysis. Pergamon Press, New York, NY . . Rice, W. R. 1989 . Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43 : 223-225 . Schaffner, W. R. and R. T . Oglesby. 1978 . Limnology of eight Finger Lakes: Hemlock, Canadice, Honeoye, Keuka, Seneca, Owasco, Skaneateles, and Otisco . P. 313 -470. In J. A. Bloomfield (ed) . Lakes of New York State, Volume , I, Ecology of Finger Lakes . Academic Press, New York. Scheiner, S . M . and J . Gurevitch. 2001 . Design and analysis of ecological experiments. Oxford University Press, Inc. New York, NY . Schroder, S . C. , J. D. Dixon, J. Kastendiek, R O . Smith and J. R. Bence: 1993 . Detecting thr ecological effects of environmental impacts: a case study of kelp forest invertebrates . Ecological Applications 3 (2) :331 -350 , Smith, E. P. , D . R. Orvos and J. Cairns , Jr. 1993 . Impact assessment using the before-after- control- impact (BACI) model: Concerns and Comments. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 50 : 627-637 . Snedecor, G. W. and 'W . G. Cochran. 1980: Statistical Methods (7th ed.) Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA, USA, StatSoft, Inc . (2003). STATISTICA (data analysis software system) , version 6. www. statsoft.com Stearns and Wheler. 1997 :. Environmental Impact Statement - Lake Source Cooling Project: Cornell University.. Stewart-Oaten, A. 1996 . Problems in the analysis of environmental monitoring, in Detecting Ecological Impacts : Concepts and Applications in Coastal Habitats, R. J . Schmitt and C. W. Osenberg (eds.), Academic Press, San Diego, pp . 109- 131 . Stewart-Oaten, A., J. R. Bence and C . W. Osenberg . 1992 . Assessing effects of unreplicated perturbations: no simple solutions . Ecol. 73: 1396- 1404 . Stewart-Oaten, A. , W. W. Murdoch and K. R. Parker. 1986. Environmental impact assessment: "Pseudoreplication" in time? Ecol. 67 : 929-940. Tukey, J. W. 1949 . One degree of freedom for non-additivity. Biometrics 5 : 232-242 . Underwood, A. J. 199.4. On beyond BACI : Sampling designs that might reliably detect environmental disturbances. Ecological Applications 4 : 345 . Upstate Freshwater Institute. 1999. Cayuga Lake water quality monitoring related to the LSC Facility: 1998 . prepared for Cornell University. Upstate Freshwater Institute, Syracuse, NY . 19 DRAFT 4/ 16/04 Upstate Freshwater Institute. 2000. Cayuga Lake water qualityrnonitoring related to the LSC . Facility: 1999 . prepared for Cornell University. Upstate :Freshwater Institute , Syracuse , NY . Upstate Freshwater Institute. 2001 . Cayuga Lake water quality monitoring related to the LSC Facility: 2000 . prepared for Cornell University. Upstate Freshwater Institute, Syracuse, NY . Upstate Freshwater Institute. 2002 . Cayuga Lake water quality monitoring related to the LSC Facility: 2001 . prepared for Cornell University. Upstate Freshwater Institute, Syracuse, NY. Upstate Freshwater Institute. 2003 . Cayuga Lake water quality monitoring related to the LSC Facility: 2002 . prepared for Cornell University. Upstate Freshwater Institute, Syracuse , NY , Upstate Freshwater Institute. 2004 . Cayuga Lake water quality monitoring related to the LSC Facility: 2003 . prepared for Cornell University. Upstate Freshwater Institute, Syracuse, NY , I I 20 DRAFT 4/ 16/04 Appendix 1 - Normality 21 DRAFT 4/ 16/04 Histo::grarh. s174 pre: - Chi Shapiro :W ilk W .88146 p.=:00029 expected: N4mal, 20 . . . . . .... .... . . .. . . ... . . ... . _ . . ... . .... ... _. .. .. . .. . . ... .. _ . . .. . ..... . . .. .. . . . . _.. . .__. . .... . . _ . . .._ . _;. . ... ... .... . .... . . ..: . . ._. . . . ._. .. . ... . .... . .. . . . . .. _. . ... . --- .. . .. r . .... . . .. .. ._ . . .. . . . . .. . .... . ... . .. _ . ._... .._ . . . . . .. . .... .. ..... ._ . . _ Vl. . . _.. . . . . .... _ . . ._ . .. . . _ . . ... . ... .. ... . .._ . _... . ... .. .. . . .. . . .... . . ._. C 6_ . .. . . ....... . . .. . .... ..... . . .._. . _. . .. . . .. .. 4 ... . . .. . . . . ... . ._ . _. ._.. . .. _.. . .... _. . ... . . .. . . ... . ._. .. . . ._. . ._. . . ._. .. .. . _. . _ .. .. . . _ . . ._. . . ._. . . _ . . .. .__. ._ .... .. . -0:4 =0:2 0,0 0.:2 0.4 0;6 0 :8 1 ;0 1 :2 X �c= Category Bounelary H istogram: s 1=s4. post _ Chl, Sh@oiro-Wilk W=.:951991 P :0.1795 -- a ected Notrnal 30 25 ,{ ... .. .. . . .. . . .... . . .... . . . . ... . __. . ... .. .. .. ... . .... . V1 15 ..... . ..... . . ... .... . . ..... .... . ._ . ...... . _. . . _. . . _ f . . _. . ... .._ . . .. ... . . .. . .. .... . . .... : ._.. .... . . ._ . . .. . . .. . . .... . . ._.. . . . .. . . .... . . .. . . .. o o Z J 5 •, r 0 0:6 =0. 4 -0.2 0':0 0;2 0.4 0.6 0'.8 1 :0 1 .2 X 4= Category Boundar 22 DRAFT 4/16/04 Histogram; s1-s8 0te - Cht Shapiro-VVilk Val=:96:783; 0=.36935 EzPected' Noin a} 14 12 70 . a 8 } III eel q f o z 6 New _ . . .. . . ... . . . . ... .__....... .. .. . . .... . .... . . 0 U.:O 0.-2 0 4 0. 6 048 1 '.0 112 1 :4 X' <_: Gatogory Boundary Histogram: sfYsB post Chl Shapiro-Wilk W=:97490; p.=14238 Expected Novi nal 22 20' . . .. . . . ...... . . .. .. ... . . _. . .. . . ._. . .... . _.. .... . .... . ._.. . .. . ._. . . .... . . ... . . . . .. . .._._ . . _ . ._. . . rf�- } . .. . ._ . .- . . . . .._. . _. .. ._.. . . . ... . . . .._. ..... . _. . . ._.. . .. . .. 16 14: N 0 12 : 1r 0 .. . . .. . .... . ... .. .. . . ... . ..... . Z 8 r�r 2 r� 0 -0::4 -0:;2' 0..4 0 .2 0:4 0;6 0:8 t:0 1 :2 X <= Category. Boundary 23 DRAFT 4/16/04 Histograme: s4-s8. pre. - Chi Sh oiro*jlk; W'=::98747; p=:9438:7 expected N'orrr al lfi . . . . . . .. . . . . _ r_t . 14. 12 a f• 0 w .. . . , .. .. . .... . . .... . ... . ... . .... . ... . ... . .._:. . ._ . .. . . ._. . ._. . ._. . . .. . . . . . _.:. .... . ...:. . . . _. ........ . _. . . _ . . .... . _. . 0 8: � z f f, was : 6 IF 4 _ , . . ..... . . .. . .... . ... . .. . . .. . . ... .. _ _ _ _. . ._ . . .. .. . . .. . . .. . we =0:2 0.0: 0.:2 .0:4: <_ Category Bqundery Histogram: s4s8 post - Chi Shapiro4Wiik; W =.:99.214; p=:9:6456 —= Ekb6b a N,o&ial 22 20 . . _.. . . . . .... . .. .. .. _. ...._. .. .. _.. . . .... .. . . . .:. .... . _. . . .. . . _ . :._. . . ._ . .... . . .. . ._. . .. . . .. . . .. . ... . . ._. . . . . . . . . .... . . .. . .... . . ._.. ..... . .. . . ... . . _ . . _.. . 18 16 r 14 N $' 12 . . .... . .. . . .. . . . _. . .... . . .. . _. . . _. . . .. . ._..__. . . _. . . . .. .. ... . .. . Z :10 .. . .. . . __ ... . . . _ . . .. . . .. . .... .. . . ... . ._. .. .. . . .. . . . .. . _.; . .. . . . . .... . .... . . .. . . .... . .... . . _. . . .. . _.. . ..... . . .. . . .. . . ... s _. . . ._. ._.. .f one _ ... . . ... . .. . . . _. . .. . . ... . . _ . ... . .... . ... . . .. . . .... mpe moll r .r =10 ,0:8 -0:2 0:0 0:2 0,4 0:6 X <= Category Boundary 24 DRAFT 4/16/04 Histogram:; S5-s4 Pre - Chi Sl apirdWilk W.`i,96570;' p..30423. — Expected Normal 18 .. . . . .. . . .. . . .. ... . . .. . _. . ..... .. . . .. . . -- - - _ . _ .._.. .__ ._. . . _ . . _ . . __.. _ . ._. . ._ . . _ . . ... . . . .. . ... . . . . ._ . .. . . ... .._. _. . . _ . . ..... . . .. . . .... .. . . ... . ... . .. . . .. ... . ... . . , 1'6 14:. . ... . .... .. .. . ... . . .. . ... . . _. ._..._. . ._. . . .. .._... _. . _ . ... . .r -. ..._.. . _. . ... ._ ._ . . _ . ._. . _. ._ _ ._ .. _... _. .. _. ._: __. . __ . ._ .. .. . . .... . . .. a o. 0 10 .. . . .. .. .. . . ... . . ... . . .. . .._ . .... . . - : . .. . . _.. . : _.. . _ . _ . _.... . ... . . ... . . z8. .. . . .. . . .. . . _. . . .... .. .. . ... . . _. . ... . . .. . . ._. _. . . j 4. .. . . . . . .. . . ... .. . . . . . . . r ... . . ..... .. . ... . ..... ... . . .. ._._ . .... . ... .. _ .. ... . . .. .. . _. .. .. rj -0.4 10.2, 0. 0; 0;2 0:4 0:6. 0.:8 X <= e6fiqoory l Boundary y Histogram ; s5 sd post - Chi; Shapiro-Wilk W=:96548, P;=:.08743 Expected Normal 35. 36 _. . ._ . _. . . .. . . _ . . _. ..,_. . .. . . ._ . .._. . ... . . .. .. .......__. . .. . ._. . . ._ . .__. . .... r f.. ._. . . .. . . ._.. ... . .._ . . _ . . _. . ._.... . . . _. . . ... . . .. . ... . .... . . ... ... . ... ..... . . _. . 25 � c w 0 z 1''5' 10 X 5: . . .. . . .. . . . . . .. . . ... . ... . . .. . __ . .. . . .. . . . . .... . . 4*6 -0.4 -0.2 0 :0 0;2 0:4 0.6 0':8 X :<= Category Boundary 25 DRAFT 4/16/04 Hiistogeam : s1-s4 pre - TP Shap :Wilk V1L=:9 7 ro 89.1 , p:=:67538 — Expected Normal. 16' 14 f , 12 .r fr 10 $. 8 .. . . .. . .:. . . ._. . . .. ... ... .... . . ... . . .. . ... . . .... . . III. . .. . . ... . ..... . ... . . .. . ... . . _ .. _ . . . .. _ . _, _ . _ . . ..:. __. Or Z 6. .. .... . 2 r r 0 -0.6 -0.4 =0:2 0.01 0;:2 0.4 0.6 )( .<= categoy' B.0updary Histogram: s1 s4 post: - TP Shapiro+Wilk W =, 94217, 0=.00622 Expected: Normal 30 1 . T 25 O' `o 1:5 . _. : . .... .... . .... . . .. . . ... . .._. ... . . ... . . ._ . . .. .. .. .. ._ . .... . . . . . . . ..:. . ... . ... . ..... ._. . _. . ._ . .... . . . .. ... . .. . . . .... .. . . ... . . ..: . ... . . ... . .. . .... . .. . ..._. . .. . . ... .. o 'r Z; 10 1 fj r f f f 0 _ . . _ . _ . Ir -1:.0 0;8 0 6 014' 4.2 0: 0 0: 2 0.4 0.6 0;8 ki r Category Bounda. ry 26 DRAFT 4/16/04 Histogpni. s1 =s&. pie. - 1P Shapiro-Wilk W=_92780, p=:02148 expected; Normal. 11: . ._. . . _. . ._ . . .. . .__ . ._. . _ . . ... _ . . .. .... . ..... . ._ . . ... . .. . . _. . ..... ... . .._. . _._.: ... . . _ . . _.. . _. .. . . . _.. _ .. ... . . . . .... . _. . . .... _ . . ... ._ . . _ . . ... 8, 7 8 : .... .... . . .. . . _. . . .... . . _ . .... . ._. . ._ . . .:. . ._:. . a. . ... . . .. . . . ... .. _ . . . . . ... . ... .. ... . . . 5 _ ..._._ .. . _ . . .. . __. .._. . . .. . .... . .... ...._ . ._ . ... 0 Z 4 3 r 2 1 r r r r -0'<2 -0. 1 0,10 0.1 062 Os 3 0A 0 .5 0':6 0.7 X r Category. Boundary M stogr2M s1 �8 posf - TF Shafto* ilk W* 94808., p=:0'1169' —�- Exp.:ected. Noff'M 35 30, 25 . . ... . . .. . . .. . . ... ...... . . .. _. . _. . .._ . . .. ._... ._.. . ._. . . .. .. ._. . . .. . . .. . ... . 0 z 15 .. ... f 0. 0:2 00 02 0;4 0 .6 0:8 X <= 'Category BoUm ry 27 DRAFT 4/16%04 ' H.ttograro s4-s8: .pre, 7T!' Shapiro-Walk VN=. .':78932, 011 0000.1' Expected Normal 16 ... ... _ .. . .. . . . _ . ... . .. . .. . . . I . A . 14 ' . ._. ... ._ . ... . . _ . ._. ._ _. . _ . . ._ .:. .._ . ._ . _.. . .�'� _. . ._. . .... ..... . _.. _ . ..._ . _ . _. ._ .._. . _ . . . ._ ._ . . _ _. . .. . __ ._.. ._ _. . . ....._. . . _ 1p 12 . .. . . .. . . _ . .. . ._. .. ..: _ . , r - - - . . .... . . .. . . .. .. . __ .. _ .... ... . . .. . . . _ . ._ . . _. . __._ . . .._. . ._ .. _. _ 0 0 8 : . ._ . ._. . . .._ ... . . .. .. . Z 6 4 2. 0 A-OA o:z 010 o :z 0: 4. 0 6 0. .8 1::0 1 2 ' X <. Category: Boundary `= 1p Histogram: s4:-iB. Post -: TP Shapiro=Wilk W'-:96428; p.= 07208. -- Expected Normal: 30 25 sop r . . . .. ... .... . . ... . . .. . _. . . .... . . .. . . .. .. .... . . .... . . . . _ . _. . ... . ... . . .... . .... . .. r' x r ,{ vi 0 0 1.5 . ._.. .. . ... .. . ... . . .._ ..._ . ..... . ... . ... ..: . .. . _.... _..._ .. . ._ . . .... . . _. . ._. . ... 0 . .... . ... . .. . . .. ... .. . . .. . . ... . .... . .... . .... ._.. .__ . ._. 10 5 j • Jr SOP I r r 0 0:4 0'.2 0.0. 0:2 0 04. 0;6 0 8 X- <= Category Boundary 28 DRAFT 4/16/04 Histogram:: s5=s4 pre' -: TP . Sheioiiro4hk W..96483, p=:13848 Expedteif N.06r ei 14 12, . .__ ._.... ._ . . _. . _.. .__. _ .. ..... . ._ _... . . .. . . . .. .. .... ... . .. . _ . . . .. .. . ..- _ ,_. . . . . -. . ... . ... . ... . ...... . . _ . _ . ._.. _. ....._ . ... .. _ . . _ ._ _ ._. . _. . ._ .. _. . ... _ . _. .. - 10 0; . . 0 � r•.,r 0 -0.5 -0:a =0:3 -0;2 -0a 0:0 0:1' 0.2. U; 3 .- 0.4 X <= Gategory Boundary. Histo&bin 95-s4 post - TP Shapiro-Wilk W=;96715, p=: 1.0041 --� Expected Normal 20 18 1fi r 1:4. f 12. . . ....... . _.. . .. . . _.. . _.. . ._.. . . .. . ._. . ...... . . .. . . . . . _.. . .__ . ._ .. ... . .._ .__.. . _ . .._ . . f . . . .... ... . .... _ .. . ._ . .._. ..__. ... .. .. . . .. . ..... . . .. _. . .... . ._. M Z 8 6. rf 4 f r 0' . .. . . .. . . . . . -0::1 0.- 0 . 0. 1 0.2 0. 3 0:4 X<= Category B'ouridary 29 DRAFT 4/16/04 Histograim s1s4 Ore: - Tn Shapiro: Wilk W=:98455; p --: 86802 Ezpedtedi Norma] 1:4 12: 1D' . 8 0 z 4 r rr .. . . ._ . . . . .... . .... ... . . .. .. __ . _.. f 2 1r f r � _ _ . _ _ . .. . . 0 r -0 :6 4:4 4.:2 0.0 6.2 0 .4 0.6. 0:8 1.:0. Xz= 'category Boundary Histogram; s1:-s4. post: - 7n: Shapiro-Wilk W=.91833, p=;00059 Expected Nomiaf 50 45. . _. . .._. . . ... . .. . . ... . ... . . . . .._. . _.. .. ._. . .... _. . . _. . ._ .... .. _. . .._. . . . ._ . .__. . ... :.._ . .__. . _.. . . _. ._ ._.. .._. .._. .. .. . . .. . ._._. . ... . .... - _- - - -- - - - . _ . . _. . .._. . .... . . . . ... . . .... . . r - . ......_ _. . ... . _.. . ._. _ _.. .. .. . __.. _. . . . . . _ . . ._ . .__. . ... . . . . . . ... . . .. . ... . . _ . . .. . . . . . ._. . . ._. . . . . .... . ._... . _.. . .. . . ... . ._. . . 30' �r N .... . . .. . . . . 0 0 z 20 10: r fir ' r f f - . . _. ._... . _ .. .. . . .. . . .... . . ... .. . . .. . . .... . . ._.... . . .. 5 . ._. . . .... . ... . . .. . . .... . ... . . .. . . ......_. . . .. . ... . _. . .._. .... . . .... _. o: -1 :5 -1 :D: M. 0: 0 0.5: 1 :0 1',5 <= Category Boundary 30 DRAFT 4/16/04. His€ogram s=.1-s8 pre - Tn Shapiro Wilk W. :92623, p=:01716 11 10 . . ... . .. .... . ... . .. . . _ . .. . . .. ._ .. _ . ... ..._ . .... .. ... ... _ . . .. .. .. . . .. . . ... . .... . . . . ... . .._. . _. .. .. .... . ... . . g . _. . __: . ... .. . . _ . . . . . . _ . . ... . . _. _ . . _. ._ .. .}}' _.. __.._ _ . ._ . .... ._._. . .... _ . ... . _ ..... . ... . . ._.... . .. . . ... . _ . . ... . . ... ...... ._ . . o . 5 . ... ..... .. .. . ... . .. ...._ . ._ - . _ . _. . . _. . . _ . __. ._. . . . ._ .. ._ . . ._. .. .. .. .. z° 4 rf 2 r 0' r r -0,6 -0.4 . -0;2 0-.0. 0;2 Q;4 Q:6 0.8 1 :0 1 :2 1 .4 X <= Category Boundary Hi4ogram: s1 =s.8' post Tn Shapiro-Walk W=:91560; P:0100.51 -- Expected NOrmal 18 16. : . . .. . . .. .. . _ . . . ... . ... . .. . . . .... . . .. . . .. . _..... . .. ... . .. . . ... . . . . . . . . ... . ... . . .... . . .. . .. . . ... . . .. . . .. rrf 14 .. . . .. . . .. . . ... . . _ . . _ . _. . ._. ... . . .. . . . .. . .. - J a 10. .. . . . . . . .._. : . _.. ... . _.. + { o 8 .. . . . .. - z 6 , r 4 r 2: _. 'r .. . . .. . ... . . _ . . . . _ ._... . _ . . . _. . ._. . _.. . . -0.4 4.o2 0,0 0,2' 0.4 D;. 6 0;8 to 1 :2 1 :4 X <= Category Boundary 31 DRAFT 4/16/04 H istogratm s4=s8: pte - Tn. Shapiro-Wilk W;=:78835; P.=. 000:01 —. Fpected; No rm al' 30 25. .. .. .. . . .. . . ._ . . ._ . ._ :. _ . _.. ._. . . . . . . . . _.. . . .. . . . . ... . ._. .. .. . . .. .. ._. ._ ._. . _ . . .... . ..... .... . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . ... . ...... _ .. _ . . - -- . ._ . . _. . _. .. _.. . . _ . ... . .. . . 20 N O 0 15 _ . . ._ . _ . . _ . . ... . . _ .. . . .. . . .. . -. . . ._ . . . _. . . ._ o Z 10 ._. ... .... . ... . .. . ... . . _. ... ._. . . . . ._.. .._ ._ rr _ . ._ . ._..... . . .... . . ._ . . .. . . _ . . .... .. ._ . .. . .__. _. ... _. . 5: . ... . . . . . .. . . .... . _ . ._. . . _ . ..._. .__ . .... .. _. . .. . ... . . .. . ..... . .. . . ... . _. . _.. . . . . _... . ... . . .. . . .. ... . .. . . .. . . .. . . ... . 0 Joe r we me a -1 .0 -0:5 0 0 O' s 1::0 1 :5 X < C'ategory Boundary Histogram: s446 post - Ti Shapirn:W lk. W=_ 93677, p=:00389' --= Ezpeeted: Normal, 25 20 low I 15 N L. Q' O' Sol 1 Ilk 0 06 -014: 0. 2 0:0 0.2. 0.4 0:6 0.8 1 .0: 1 .2 X dli=i Category. : Bouniia:ry 32 DRAFT 4/16/04 .1" . H istogr#mv s5.. S4 P.m; - Tn shapirb 1 llk W=.90434, 6=.00339 30 Exp ected Normal 25 20 0 1S ... . .. ..... . ... .. .. . . _ . ._. . ._.. _ . . _.. __. .._ .. .. . ... . _ ... .. .. . . . . . _ . ...... . ... . . .. .... _. . _. . . _ . . .. . __ . z 10 o _ . _ _ 0,5 to X .<= Category Boundary H istogta. .mc s5=s4 post: - TO StiapiroMiilk W`:94553; p=:00W Expected. Normal 30. 25: 1 20 ... . ... . .... . .... . . . _ . .._ . .._. ... . ... . . _ . . . ... . ... . .... ..... . . . . ... . . . ... . _ .. ... . . .. .. .. . . _ . . .. . .. N • 0 15 o � o • z r 10 rf �� 5 . .. . . .. . . ... . ..... . .. . . _. . .... . . _ . ... . .._ . ._. . ... ..... . .. . . .. .. .. . _. . . • r 0 -0.8 -0 6 =0:4 -0U 0 0 0;2 04:4 0:6: 0. 8: X. <=: Category Boundary 33 DRAFT 4/16/04 Appendix Z - Independence 34 DRAFT 4/16/04 Autoco[relatiort Function: s1_s4 pie _ Gj11 (Standard errors are WN-e-noise: estimates) Lag Corr . S . E . Q p 1 - : 1. 05 . 1560, . .. . . .. . . . . ..... . .. .. .. . ._.. . r.. . ... . . .. . .. . . .. . . _.. __ . ... . . . . ... . . .. . . .... .... . .... . 46 . 4997 2 - . L16 . 1539 . . .. . . . . . _ . ... . . . . . .. . __ . . ... . . . .. .. .. .. _ .I_. . . .. .. . . _. . . _. . - . . .. . ._ 1 . 03 . 5984 . 3 -:,071 ..1517 :_ . . .. . . .... . . .... . .. . . .. . .... . . _. . . _ . .. . .. .. _.. . ..... . . .. . .;. . . ._. . . .. . . .. . . ._ . .... : 1 .24 . 7424. 4 +304.2 1496 r 1 . 32 8576 5 Q.69: -. 1:471 ...._. . ._.. . ... .... . . . ... .. . . .... . ..... . .. . .... ... .. . .. . ._. . .._ ,. ._ ..._. . ._. . . _. . 1 .:54 9095 6 024 3951 - _. ._ . - . . .-.. . _ . i._. ._.. . .. _.. __.. ._ . .� . .__. _- ! ._ ._. . _. _ _. ._... . . 1657 95513 1: 7 = 1009 . 1429. a 1 ::57 19799 , 8 0.49 .14'05 !-- . . .. . . ... . .... .... .. . ... ..a . ... . . .. . . . .. . . _. .. . . .. .. . ..... ... . . . .. ... . ... : 1 : 69 5891 9 . , 1:87 138;1. . . _ .... . .... ..... . . . ... . ..... . . ... . � _. . ... . . . . ._. . . ... . .. . . ._. . ._ 3 , 52 9403 10 - . 145 135:73 i 4 . 65 .. 9132 11 + ::202 _ . _ . _._. _; .... . . _ . _._ _. _ . _. _. '_ _. _. 1333.. . !.. . . . . . . . ._. . . ._. ._-. . . 6 . 94 .8038 1:2 -::074 1308 ... . _. :. _. . . ..... . . . . .. .... . . a.. . . .... ... . . . . . . .... . . . 9. ..26 . 83:97 i - 13 + , 101 1282 �{ 7 :88 8511 14 -'0:015 . 1257 . ... . . .. . . .... . ..... . _ . ... . __.. _. . .. . : _ . .- ;. . . . . . . _{. . _. .. .. . .a. ..... .. ... . . . . - 7 . 90 ..8946 15 + :1.02 . 1230 . . . .. .. .. . .._ . .... . .. . ..I . ...... _. . ... . ... . .... . .. .. ..!.. . .. . . . ..r . . .. . . ... . . .. ... . .... 8 .59 1 .8985 0 0 - - - Conf . Limit -1 : 0 -0!5 0: 0 6. 5: 1 :0 Aufocorrelation Function 1:- post - Ch ss4 l: (Standard e.iTOts are. :M.tei noise: estimates) Lag Corr . S : E . Q p 1 + , 2:58 . 1250. - ._. .. _ . . _ . _. . ._. . ._ . . _ . . _i.... ... . ... . r�{�'_ . _.... .._ _ _. . _ . _. . ._. . . .. 4 . 27 0.388 2 + : 034: . 1239 w.. . ... . . ... . ... . _. ._ .. .. . ... . . . ...... . ... . . _... ._ .. i _ . . ._. . _. .. ... . . . . ... . 4 . 35 . 1137 3 - : 039 :1229, , r 4 . 45 . 2171 a. 4 - :054 1219 9. . 64 . 3262 r 5 +..,067 .:1:207 . . :.. _. . . ._ .. .... . ..... . .___.. .� .. . ._ . _.� . . .. . . .- . . ._ . . .. . .� . ._... . . .. . . .. . . .... . ._. 4. 6: 95. . 4.225 ' r ' 6 -,:. 107 . 1196: 5 :.75. . .45:21 � r 7 + , 029 . 1185 5 ::81 . 5622 8 - . 109 : 1.174: -.. _. . . . . _. .. .. ... . _.. . _. . ._.. . . .. . . 6 .:59 . 5811 • 9 + : 000 . 1 153 i 6 . 59 . 6794 10 - . 024 . 1152 6 . 69 75,91 11 +.. 030 . 114. 1. . . :. . . .. . ._. .. __ . .. . .._ . _. . _. . '.. . . .. . .._r. .. . . .. . . .. . . ... . . .. . . ;. . . .... . ._. . . .. . . .... . _.. . 8222 � , 6 ..71 i 12 +;0.5:1 . 1129. 6 . 91 . 8632 13 -.:041. . 1.1:13' ; 7 : 05 . 8996. 14 + ; 012 1106 ... .-_. . . _ . . .. . ... . ._; .. _. . _ . . _.. .. .... ... . . . . __. . .- . . .. . . ... . ... .. ... . .. .... . . ._. . ... . . 7 :06 . 9323 15 -.:097 . 1094 7 . 84 9300 0 0 - - - Ganf . Limit: -0: 5 0,0 0. 5 1 .0 35 DRAFT 4/ 16/04 I Aukoeorr(ilation kbotiob. s t =si3 pre =. .CNf P. (Standartl errors are. wtiite-noise estimates): Lag Corr :. S_ E : p 1: +::923 . 1560 .. ..... r. . ... . ... . ._:. + . . . _ . . .... ..... .. .. .. ... . .- 7 . 34 :;x057 2 + :36:4 . 1539 .. . . . f.. . ._. . . _ . ._.. rid' . .. . .;. . . .._ .. .. . . _ . . _. ... . 12 .95 . 0015 3 + :114 . 1517 . .. . . ... . ..... .... ... . . _ . _._. . I. . ... . . . . ... ... _. . ._ . . . . . . . . .... . . .. . . . . . .- 13:.:51 . 0037 4 - :.039 61-496 r 13 :58 :00.88 5 -:. 391 .:14.73 ... .._. . . _. . ._ . ._ . - -- .. _ . . .. . _. .� ... . .... . .... . ._ . _. . . ._. . . .. 154.26 . 0093 6' - . 165 _.. ... _. _. . 1'451. -.. .... . ..... . .... . _. . ..._ . � � _ . _. . ._ . ' _. ._ .. .. 1f� . 63. . 0108 .7. . - ..285 . 1928 21:. 60 . 0044 8 - . 2'88 1.905.. . . . . . .. . ..... . . . f} . .. . . _ . . _.. j ._. . . .. . . :. . . .... .. ... . _ . . _. . .... 24 ,:79 . 00'17 . .. . . . . . .... .. ._. . ... . . :. . ..... .. .. . . _ . . ._. . _. 9 - ::319 1381 . . .. . . .. . . ... . . _.. . _. ;_. . .._.. � 30 ;: x;3 : 0009: 10 . 246 .1357 33 . 4:1 .0002 11 - . 170 :1333 ... __. . . ._. . ._. . _ . . .. .. .. . . .. . . !. ... _. . ... . _.... ... .. . 3!i . 04 0002 } . _.. 12 - :.154 . 1308. .. . .... . .._. . ... . ... . .._ . ... . .. 4.. . . _ . ._.._- !__. . _. . _. ... _. .._. . . 3.6 .:43 . 0003 13 - . 033 . 1282 3 '0 : 49 ., 0005 14 + : 008 . 1257 . .... . . .. . .... . . .... . . . . .. . ._. . _. ;. .. . . .. . .._. . . .. . . _ . . .4 . . _.. . . .. . . . . . ._. . . .. . . _ .. _.. . . 36050 .0009 15 + ..099 . 1230 . . .. . . _ . . ._. . . _.. . ._ .. . .._ . .... !.... . ... . . _..' .. . . .. . . . . . .... . . _ . _.. . .... . _. 37 . 14 0012 0 0. - - - Conf . Limit Autocorrelation runction .s1 =s8 post G4 1 (Standard errors: are .wt ite-noise:.estirriates) fag Corr . S : E, .. 4 p 1 + . 37:6 . 1250 .... .... . . _. . ... . .. . .... . ... . . .. . . . ..... . . ... . .r, , .. . ._ . ._. . .... . ... . .._. . . .. . . 9 :07 . 0026 2 t .2:79 A239, : ... _,. . . ... . ._. . _. . .. ... ... . .. . . .i. ....._ . ... . r .r�i�j .�.... . .... .... . 14 . 15 . 0008 3 + : 179 1229 sr i 1:6 ;28 00.10 4 + . 034. ..1218 16 : 36 .0026 r . . .. . ._. . . .. . . 5 - .042 .1207 .. . . .... . . .... . .... .. ..... . _.. . .... . .. . . .. . . .} . .. . . _ . . _. . . .... . ._. . . ;. . . .._ 16 :98 ..0056 6 -.. 217 . 1196 r ` 19 . 77 . 0031 7 -. ..380 . 1185 rr 30 . 09 0001 . � � . .. . . ._. . ._. .. ._. . ._. . _. ... ._. ... ... .8 - . 292 1179 36 . 23 . .0000 9 - :288 J163 r a 42 .37 . 0000 r . 10 - .300 . i,152 ` 99 . 17 :.0000. 11 _:.;236 . . .. . ....... . .... . .. . ,_ . _... _. 53 :.4:3 .:OA00. i 1;41. -- i i 12 - . 036 ; 1329 53 , 54 0000 13. +...079 . 1118 ; 54 : 04 0000 r 1.4 + . 17: 1 : 1106 .. .._ . .._. . ... . .... . . .. . ... . ... . . .... i.. .... . ... . . . .{. . .. . . .... . .... .;. .._ . ... . _.. . . _. . . .. . . 56 . 43 . 0000 15 + . 203 . 1099. �'� 5.9 . 88 . 0000 0 . . . .. . . . 0 - - - Conf . Limit 36 DRAFT 4/16/04 Autocorrelation Function 9448. pre -: Cl 1. (Standard errors are wl o Q6noise. estbotes): • Lag, Corr : S , E,; _. .. .. Q . P . . ... 1 + :0'73 . 1:560 . ._ . i... i._.. _ . .;. _. . . .. , . .. ... .... 22 5407 I . f . .. . _ . 2 + 4099 41539 . .. .. . .... .. . . __ .., . . . .. . .. .-_:' .. . . .. . ... .a... . . .. .. . .... . ... 30 . 8 r 609 • 1 t . . _ 3 - . 113 1517 . . _. ._. . _. . . _.. _. .� . _._. r . . _.. _ _. . �.._. ._ . . _.. ._ . . -;. -: . _. . _.. 8:5 . 8374 i 4 -: 013 11996 .:86 9308 i �r } 5 - ..4:19 . 1.973 .. . _..._ . . .. . _. . .__: .::... .r� . . _... . .... .i . . - .._ _ _ ,. :._ . ._ . . ! 8 . 74 . 1200 6 = :. 125 . 1-45:1 . ._. ..__ . . _ . _ . . _;. . .. . ... . ,.. ..... , . _... ._. <_.... . . _.. ._. .. ' 9 . 98 1486 1 +,.133 ;1428 . i r i 10 :.34 : 1700 . .r.. 8 + .:008 . 3405: . . .. . .. . ._.. . ._ ._ ..; -- � . . ... _ . ._ . . _ .. .. .. - . . .; . . . .._ . .;. . . _ . .._.. _.. :10 . 35 1241.6 9 +..:0:0:7 . 138.1 . . _ . . .. . . ._ . . .. . ... . _. . .. I ._I. . .. . . _ . ._- --- - -_ .. __ ._ .- _ - - . . ... . ..; .... . ... . ... : 10435 . 3230 10 + . 019 1357 i 10 . 37 . 4087 , 11 + . 104 . 1333 .. ... . . _..:._ . __ . . .. . . . . . . . . . ...... . ..' _. . .... . _. :_.... . __ :_: .. ._ . _. . . . 51 1 0 . 98 44 12 - :114 . 1308 --- ---- - - _-. ._ . ._. . . _; . . .. . . .. . . . . -_ ._. r. . _._ . ._. '- . .... ._. ? :.. . .. . . . . ._. . ... . . 11 :79 ..9659 13 - x150 . 1282 f 13a10 . 4:401 14 079 . 1257. . ._.. .. ..... .. .... . .. . .:_ . ..._. . _. {. . . . .. . - . .. . . _ . . ..{ . . ._. . ... . . .. _. . ._. . . _ ..;.. ..... 13 : 55 4915 -. . . . .._. _I . . ..... ._. .... 15 + . I06 . 1230 . . _ . . .. . . ._ . . .... ._ .. . . .__ . _.. !. .. . . .. . . .._' J. . ... - :: . . 34 . 19 .5110 . . _.. 0 . . 0 1 - - - Conf . Limit. - 0 = : 5 0:0 0:5. 1 .0 t: . Aut000rrelation. Function s4:48 post - Chi: (standard errors. are. Mitdxnoise estimates) Lag Corr . S . E . .. Q P 1 + 1.195. . 1250 .... .... . . _ - ._:. _ . . _ . . .. . ._. . . .. . ._. . . . . }. . _ . ._... ..._. _.... . ._. . _. _ ._. . ... . . 2 . 43 . 1189 2 +.. 091 . 1239 ... . ... . .. . . . . ... ... .. .. . . . . . .. . . ..... - . e. _. . ... . ._. ._. . ... . ._- .. . .... . ... . . . 2 . 54 . 2803 3 + . 017 . 1229. 2 . 56 . 4639 4 - 4.038 . 1218 2 :66 . 6160 5 + . 039 . 3207 . . .. . . .. . .._ . . ._. . - . .:.. . ...... . ... .. . ... .. .... . . . . . . ... . . ... . . .. . . . . ... . . .. . . . . ..... I .... : 2 . 77 7361 6 - . 021 ,1:19:6 a 2 ..80 . 83;41 7 - . 119 118. 5 r j 3 . 81 .8013 r 8 - .. 180 _. _. . ..._ . .. .. . ; . .. . ... .. ..... _. ..__. . _. . 6295 317.9 �_ . _. _.. 6 : 16 9. - :218 . 1L.63 '` ; 9: ..67 .3796 1.0 =...022 . 1152 ' 1 9 . 71 : 4665 11 - . 017 1141 . . .. . ... . . .... . _. . _. .. .. . . . . . ... . ... . . ; . . ._.._ .. . . _ . . __. _. 9 . 73 . 559.7 12 - ..062 1129 �` 10 . 03 . 6133 13 +11. 8 .5 ::1116. ; ; 12 : 78 .: 4659. 19 + .009 .11.0.6 . . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .__ . . .. .. .. . . . ..... .... . . .. . .. .__. ..._�. . .. .. _. ...... ... . .... _. ... ... . ..... . : •i2 78 5438 i i 15 - :052 :1094; 13 :.01 6015 0 0 - - - Coif. . Limit -100 0 5: 0:0 0'45. 1 .0 37 DRAFT 4/16/04 . Aptocorrelation Fu.ndtlon, s54s4 pce =: Ght (Standard errors are white-noise estimafes) Lag Corr : S... E... _: ... . .. . .. . .. . . . . . 2 P 1 + . 121 . 15:60. . . ... . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . .._ . __. . r. . . .. . .,. . ._.�{ . . ..._ . _.. .. .. . . .. . ... . . .. . ._ . . _ ..- .;66 . 41;63 J 1 1 2 + : 155. : 153`9. . .... . . . .__ . :... .. . . -._... i:. . :_ . . . . . ._. ' . . _. . ._. . ._ . . .. . .... . . .. . ... . ._.. ..... 1 . 67 4338 3 ::152' .:1517 _ . ..._ .__ . . __.. L . . .. . �. . _ . . .. . . _. _... . . .. .. ,.. . _. . . _ . . .. . . . .... 2 .: 67 ::4:458 4 + . OLO ,:14196 2: . 67 6142 5 + ::03'4 . 1473 . . _.. . ..... . ..: . _.. . . ._: ..:_ . . - .a_. . . _. ._. . . .r. _._.._. � . .__ . _. :. ._. ._. ._.. ..__..7, - 2 ::73. ..7:421 6 - . 041 . 14'5- - _-. . .-... .._ . _.. .__ . _ . ._ . ,_. . . ... ... . .. . . .. .. . 2 ::81 . 8328 r: , 7 . ' + : 083 14;28 i i. 3 . 14 .8715 : 8 + . 04'0 :. 14:45 --- - - - - . .- - --- - - . . .. . _. . .. . .._.j.. . ._ . ._.. i... . . .. . . :. . .... . ... . . _ . . .. . ... :1 , 22 . 9.195 9 + . 034 . 1381 . . .. . . .. . . ... . . .._ . .:. _. . .__. : . . _ . _ . . ._� .. . . _ . .__ .... . . .. . . :. . . ._. . . _ .. _ . . _. . ... : :3 .28 . 9519 10 - . 058 . 1357 �!; i 3 . 47 . 9682 11: +.. 048 . 1333 .. . _ . ._.. . . _ ._.. . . ...; . ._ . _.. . _. . .__._ . . . _... . . ... .. . . .. . _ ., ._. ._....... . . ... . ... . . 3 : 59 A1803 12 - . 125. . . 1308 -. ._ .-.. . .. . .... . .. . ... .. . .;. ._... ,{ . . .... . .__. . _.. _ . _.. . . .... . . .. . . 4 . 51 . 9724 X '. .... . .. _... . . 13. - : 153. . 1282 i �. 5 . 94 . 9983 14 - - 195 ..125 ] . ._. . . _ . . ._. . . _.. . _ . ._.. .__. ... . ... . . _, . _... . . ... . . . I ._ . ... . . .. . . _.. ._.. 8 ,35 ...8704 � - 15 -.. 095 . 1230 ...... . _ . . ._ . ._.. . _ . .. . ._ . . __ :. .. . . ..' !. . . .... . . .. . . . . . ... . .:. .. . . .... . - 8195 . 8803 0 - - - Conf . Limit -T. 0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1 .0' Autoeorrelatibh Function s967s4 post: Ctii (Standard errors ' are, whiteznoise: estimates.) Lag Corr . S . 4 P 1 +.. 243 .1250 ... . _. . . _. . ... . _.. ._ .. .. . . . . : . . . ... ... . . !� ��.. . ..._. . _. .._. . . .. . ... .. ..... . 3 . 77 0523 x � 2 + . 095 . 1239 -. . _. . . _.. . . ... _.. . .... . . _ . . . . . .... . . ..r. ._.. . . .. ,.._ . . ... . .... ........... . ... .. ..... .... . . 3 : 90 : 1423. 3 + . 04.4 . 1229. 4. . 0.3 . 2582 4 - : 041 1218 r: 4: ..14 . 3868 5 +.. 086 . 1207 .. .. . . .. . . ... ...... . . . . _ ._.- . .._ .. . . .. . . _r 4 . 65 . 4598 6. + .;OBD 1196 r 5 : 10 . 5316 7 0,55 1185 . i t 5 . 31 . 6219 8 - - 226 . 1194 -. ._.. . . _. . ... . ... . . .. . . .. . ._ . . _ .� . . . __. ..... ..... ._.. .._. . . _. . . . 9 ..03 . 3401 .__ . ... ._ 9 - . 231 . 1163 i 12 . 97 . 1691 10 - . 150 . 1152 :f 14. ..67 . 1448 11 + :.028 . 3141 r .. . ... . .i,. . . ._ . . .. . . . . . .. 4 . 7 . 1 5 i 12 + . 088 1 .1; 2 9 15 . 33 .2239 13 + . 7 :65 . 1:118 r r 17 :.53 . 1771 � ' i 14 + .:008 . 1106 .. . .. . ... . .. . .... . . ... . ... . .. . . _., . ... .... . !.. . _._ . ..{. . . ... .. . _. ...... .... . .... . ...... . ... . . 1:7 . 52 .2298 i 15 - . 119 1099 ' r 18 . 160. . 2323 0: - - = Conf . Limit -4.0 -0:5 0:0: 0: 5 1;;Q 38 DRAFT 4/16/04 . A[ tocorrelat{on Function SO?§4. pre =. TR ' and id: errors are white-nofsa estimates): . .. Lag Corr . S . E:. Q. p 2 " - .. 132 . 1560 . I ' '71 . 399:3 2 + • 178 . 15:39: '{ 2x06 . 3578 3 - : 004 . 1* 517 _ .. .. . . .. . . :.. . . ., . _ :. a. _ . . _. . . . .,... . ::... . _ . :y'' . . ._:. :ct:_`. . __ : __. . _ . . .. . ; 2 . 06 15608 4 = .035 •. 149:6: i 2. , 31 .. 7156 5 -. . 12:3 . 14 `73: ., _. . ._..__. -.:. ._ . _. . . _.. . . . ._. . .� . . .:.. _.:.. ._ . _. . ... . ._. . :_ . . .. ..- 2 . 81 .. 7296 6 +, 08 : 1451. . . . _. . ._ . __.. _ . ._. . ._.. . ;:. . _ . ._:. _ ir. . ._. .. . .. ._..;_: ._ ._. . ._ . ._._. 3: : 10 . 7962 7 = . 404 1428 . . .... .. . 11 ::D9 . .:I3*4 8 +4104 . 1405: f 11. ::64. .1679 9 - :052 ..... . i 11; . 78 . 22:59. 10: - .01:5 : 13.57. . . ... . ._. .__ . . _ . _... ._. . . }, . .. .. .... . .,. ._ . ... . . . _. . . _ . : . _. . . _ . ._., _ ._ . 1-1 ;:8:43 .2990 11 - - 206 : 1333 � r 3.4 ..18 ..2232 : 12 + . 003 . 1308 _ . . _. . . ....... . ... .. . . . ... . .... . �. .. _._ . .� . .. .a . ._ .�_. . . . ': . . : . _ :. ..- 14 :'18 . 2.693 i 13 - •122 . 1282 .. . ...... .. ... ._ . . . . _ : . ... . a . . .. f -. . . _. . ... a--- - - -- - - - ..: . . _:. . __. . _. . .. . 15 ; 09 . 3019 14 + . 1.42 . 1257 'r i 16 . 36 ..2920 15 + . 147 . 1230 . . _ . .__ ._ . _ . . .. :_. . . ._. . . .. ...... ._ . . a{ ... .. _. . _ . :_ . .;.. ._. . .... . ._ .. _... . . 17 . 80 .2736 0 o - - - Gonf . Limit -1 .6 -6. 5 0:0 0:5 . 1.:0 Autocorrefation Function s1 .s4 post - Tt? (Stondard errors. are Wjita-noise estimates) Lag Corr . S.. E . . . . Q p 1 +: 0:95. . 1250 . ._ . __. ._ ... . . .... .> .... ... .. . . .. .. ... ...._. . .. .. . ._. . . ._ . . .. . ;. . . . .. . . .. .... . . .._.: 58 . 494.8 ? - : 169. . 1239: . ._. . _.. . .. . . . ... . _ L ...r{ . . ._.. ._ .�.. . _. ._ . _. . ._. .__ . _... . 2 . 44 . 2953 3 < . 259: .: 1229: -. . . .. . .. ... . .... . . .... . . .... . { _!. . .... . . ._. . . . . . .. . . ... . . .. . ... . ._ 6 . 72 . 0814 . . 4: + : 07:8 :1218 f 7 :: 12 . 12.95 5 + : 308 . 1207 i 13 .. 62 : 0182 6 =. 100 11196: • -- ._._ .._.. . ..... .; _ . . . . . .. ., _. . .. ; . .._.. ._ ,.... . .. . . .. . _.. .. ... ..... _.. . .._ .. 14: .. 32 . 0263 7 • 043 .. 1185 14 : 4:5 : 0938 - i 8 - . 303 . 1174: .. . . .. .. . . . . . ... . ; . ... . . .. f! .. .. . . .. . .... . . ... . . . . . .. . . _. . . _ . ._. . ... 21 : 09 . 0069 9 + ; 034 . 1163. ... .. . . .... . .. . . ... . ..... . .... . ... . . .. . . _. j_ . . .. . . . 2117 . 01,1:9 T:0 +:. 055 . 1152 2.1 . 90 : 0185 11 +: 057 . 1111 . ._ . __ ._. ._ . . _.. .:_. ..._ . .._. :_. .__. .... _. . . _.,._. . -_. .__ ;_. . .-- - - .- . ._. . 21 : 64 02:73 12 + .: 012 . 1129. _ .._... - _ .. . _ . . _ . ._. ..... . .. . . .... .. ....I. ._ . . _. . .. . _. . ..._ . .... . ,_ . . .. .. 21 : 66 : 041.6 13' = . 201 : 1118 i, i 24 ::69 10239 14 - : 017 :, 1106 ... . ._. ._ .. ._ ... _. . . . ... . . .... ._i . . .. . ..._�_ . ._ .. i . . .... ..._. . . . . . .. . . .... . ... . ... . :_. 24 . 92 . 0,355 15 - . 042 : 1094: ; 2'5: 07 .0991 0 _ 0 - - - Conf . Limit 1 :0 -0:5 . 0. 0 0:.5 1 . 0 39 I DRAFT 4/16/04 I' AutoaWe i0h .Onc..tiOn; s _s8 ore + TP (standard errois are white-n0ise: estimates:) Lag Corr. : . s4E. . . . . .. O p 1 - . .053 . 3560 ..... . . T... . . .. . . .. . . . . . .. . . _. . _ 12 .7337 2 038 1539 . . _ . . .... . ._ . . _ 18 . 9349 f i i ... . . . . . :. . . .. 3. ; ::089 . 1517 - ,.. . _. .. ' . . _. . i. . . .. :. . . .. . . . . . . . _. . . 52 9137 . �: 9 - : 112 . 1996 1 . 09 : 8963 5 - ..079 1473 - . ._ . . : _. . . _. . ._. ,.. .. ._. ._ . . . .. . . _. . . 1 . 36 . 9270. . 6 +-:0.27 _:1451 .. . _:.:_.. . .. :_ .;' :. .. .`_ a-. _ ._. . . . . _ . . .. . ., . . __ .._ i.... ._. . ..... . ... .... 1 .:91 . 96'52 7 - . 161. 2 : 68 _ 9133 8! + . 171 . . 1:4'05 _ 9. . 15 . 84-33 9 + 1,236, . __. . .. . a . ._ . _ . ._ . .._. . - l .. 6308 Ofi. 16, +;012. . 1357 7 . 07 . 7190 i 11 = :139. . . 13.33 ..: . _. : _. . .. .... '_;._ _.; ,,a __ . .__.:_ :..... . .... . . ... .... . 8 . 1 . 6999 5 12 + . 0:15 13.08 _ ..._. ._... .... .. _. ... .. . . ! 13 . 16 ..7723 13 -..185, .1:282 . . ; ' 10 . 23 . 46749 14, 073 1257 ._ . . �.. _. . . .. . ,. . . ._ . ._ . . - i!1:, 57 7193: _ � r 15 - : 032. .:1.2.30 . :_.. . . . ._ . . ._ . _ : .,. --.....!. .. .. .. . . .. . .. . . . . ._.. . . _. . . .. . . . . . ._ . . .. . . . .. _. . _.. 10 . 64 . 7775 0 0 - - - Conf . Limit: Autoeorreldtion Function s1 =0 post: : TP. (Standard le F(or8 are, White�. ioise estimates) Lag Corr . S . E . . . . P 1 - : Q02 1250 : . ._. . ._.. . . .. . _. . .._ . ._ . . _ . .�. . . ._ . . _+... .:-. . . .. . .. . .__. ._. ._.. .._.. .._. . _. . ._. . . . 00 . 9862 2 + ..060; . L239 . __ . ._.. . .. . .... . . _i . ._. .: J .:_. . .. . . r _... �.... . ..._. ...... . .......... . .... . . .... . ... . . 2 9 . 88 80 3 , . 195, . 122.9 r 2. . 79 . 4328 , } 4 -.: 079 1218 r 3 . 16 . 53:13 .�. 5 + . 035 : 12077 . . .. .. 3 . 25 . 6623 6 +..A.15 1196 3 :.26 . 7754 7 + .,115 ..1185 4 : 20 . :7569 8 1I74. .. . ._ . ._. . . .. . _. . . _; ..._. . ._ . ..,._ ._r :.. . ._. .. .., ._. . ..._. . _. :. ._. ..._.. .... ....... .. .. . . 5 . 62 . 6902 -, 140 9 +::019 ..11;63 i 5 ::69' 7752 r - 10 - ..1:75 1152 X.' 7 ..9.9 . 6.351 1i + . 053 . 1141 . . .. . . .. . . ... . . _.. . .. . :._.. ._... . _ . ,.. . . r . . . .. .. . . . ... . . .. . . ;. . . _.. . . _ . . .. . . .... . .... 8 . 1.6 . . 6993 12 =:. 018 112'9' 8 . 18 . 7708 13 + .0.29 . 1. 118 r 8 ;.25: . 8269 1:4 + . 043 110.6. .. ... . .... . . . . ... . . _; . ... . ._ . . ...,_... . . . . . . . ._. .. .,. ._ . . .... . _.. . ... ...... . ... . ... . .... . .. 8 .::4:0 . 8673 r 8 .38 . 8889 is - : 067 . 1094 0 ... _ . . On - - - Corif: . L-init =9 .0: -0::5 0:0 0;5 1.0' 40 . DRAFT 4/ 16/04 Auf'oearrelation Fuhd 6n s*sQ pi-2 TP (Standard error are Wilte-noise estimates) Lag Corr : S. E Q p 1 - . 1.36 , 3560 . . .. . . .. . ._ .. _. ._ . .,_ .._.. r. _..X ._ . ._ . . _.. .- . . _ . . .._.c. _ .. _ . . ._. .- 76 :. 38;$3 i 2 - :.229 153:9 .._. . . .. . . ._. . . ._ . _ . . ._. i. . . ... . _. .i._.. ._ . :i. . . ._.:_. .. .. . . _ . ..- 2 . 68 . 2365 . . . . 3 +:: 06Q .1.517 . . .. . . .. . . _.. . . ... . . . . . . . . . .... . . .. . . _. . . .. . . ... . . ..... .... . . . . . ....: 3. ..04 3857 9 + .-039 1496 ! i 3 . 11 .5399 • i 5 - :152 . 1973 _ .._ . . _. �_ . .. 4 .. 17 5298 6 - . 1:4.6 :1452 .. ._ . . ._. . . .. .._. . ._ . ._ . . _. i_. ._. __.. ._. . � . _.. .... . . .... . ... . 5 .19 5202 ex { 7 + : 371 . 14.28 ! 11 . 95 . 1023 S. - :089 . 140 . ._. . . .. . . .... . . .... . _ . .,... . :._. ! _ I . . . _. , . .. . . _ . . ...:. ... ` 12 : 39 . . 1365 9 - : 151 . 1382 . . .. . . . . ... . . .. . _ . .-. . ... . _ . . . . . 1400 }�. . . . . .. . . ... ... 13 .:53 10 - . 038 . 1357 r i 13 . 61 . 1915 11 * . 094 . 1333 _. . . ._ . ._ . _ . . _, . ... . ._ . . i. .. ._. ... . . _. . . _ . � .._. ..._.. _. ,_. .. . . _. . _ . . 14 .. 11 . . 2273 12 + . 04:6 . 1308 ..... . . . ... . . - .. L. ._ _. . . . . . ...... .. .. . ._ . . _. . _.. .. _. . _.. . _. . . ._. . _ . . 14 . 23 . 2863 T3 - : 077 . 1282 = 1f'' " i4 ..5'9 3331 14 + :04:6 . 1257 .. . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . ... . . ... . ' . . ._ . . . . . . . . ._. . . .. . . . .. ... 14 . 73 .3972 15 +.. 115 . 123.0 . . ... . . . . ._ . . ... . .:. . . _.-._!..... . . ..�{_. ...! .. ... . . .. . .. . . ... . .. . . _ . . ._ . _.. 15 . 60 . . 9090 0. 1 0 - - -. Cont . Limit -1:;0: 45't 0:0 0: 5 110 Autocdrrelat. n Fu666-6 s4.- a p©st - T.P. (Standard errors afte. WiiteL�hoise estimates) Lag Corr , S : E. Q p 1 + ..045 . 1250 . ... . . .. . .. . _ . .. . .... ..... . ._ .:_. . ... . . .... ... ... .. .13 . 7170 2 =.'104 . 1239. -. ._... . ._ . .... . .... . . . ... . ._ . . i .. . . .... .. .. ,. .. . . ._. . _.. . ._. . .._ . ... . . ._. ... .. . . 84. . 6583 3 = . 208 . 1229` 3 . 70 . 2956 9 +:: 130 . 1218. ! } 4.: :83 .. 3048 5 + :291 . 1-20i _ . _. . . ._ .. .. . . .. . ... 8 . 83 . 1359 6 +.: 072 . 119.6 i 9 ..20 . 1.627 7 - . 069 . 1185 9.:53 . 2166 8 - :074 . 1179 _. . . .. . .-. : . - . . . _ . . ..... ..... . r .. ...... 9, :94 2696 9 + . 105 , 1163 ; i : 10 :75 .2933 10 + ,1,10 . 1.152 1:1 . 66 . 3084 11 + . 060 . 1141. ..... . . .. . .... . . .... . .. . .._. . _._. . ._. ... . � . ... . ..-.� � .. . . . . 11 : 93 . 3687 r 12 - : 114 112:9 12 ;:95 .3729 13. + : 75 1.118 13 . 39 .,4180 ! 19 ± 0.69 1106 . . ._.. ._. . ._. _. . . _ .._ .._ . _.�. _. .. . _. .. .. .... ...... ... }.-... ..... . ... . . ... . . .. . . 13 :78 : 46.62 15 ±.;081: : 1099: not 1.4 : 33 . 5006 Q . . . . . . . . . 0 - - - C.Ohf : Limit. -1 ;0 4. 5 0.0 0':5: 1 .0 41 I DRAFT 4/ 16/04 . Autocorrelation Function s57-.s4 .Oro _ `TP (Standard errors are wlife-noise estirnafes) Lag Corr. S . E . Q A 1 - :0'10 ' 1560. 00 94 67 2 j .25 . 68.96 3 :018 : 151.7: ... ..... . .. . ... . .... . . .. .. .:. . _ ... _ . . . 1- . . ... . . _ . . i . . ._. . . _i .... . . _.. . _.. . ._. .. .. . 216 4.9676 4 + ..098 . 1996' 69 : 9527 5 . 42i5 . 14;75: .... . ... . . }. . _ . . .... . . .... . ._. . . .. .: _ . . _. . . .. . . _. . _. . . 7266 6 - . 09.9 • . 1451 . ._ . .__. ._._. .. . . _ . ;._ . .:.... .;. . ._ . .-f _ .._ . . _. . . ... . ... .... . ;.. . . .... . . .. . . .. . . _. . . . 3 628 7735 7' - : 101 . 1428. ... . . ._ . ... . . .. . .... ..L . . . .. _. .. . _. f� _ . ..... .. .. . . .. . . . .. . .... . . .. . . 3 . 77 ...8058 i _ . -. . _ . . .... . 8 + . 103 . 1403 ; ,r• 4 . 31 ..8278 9 - , 223 _ 1381 . . _ . .._. .._.... ... . _ . _. :. .... . . : . r +f. . . . . __ .. .!. . _.. . ._ . _. . . .... ._ .. . . .. . . _ . . E;. : 91, . 6965 . ._. 10 . - .003 : 1357: . ._ .. .... . .._. . .. . . .. .,_. . .._. . ._ . ._ . ......__,. . _ . . _. .. . ..._. ... .. . .. .. _. . .. ' t; . 91 . 7339 11 +_: 030' . 5333 d 6, 9:6 ..8022 - - ' 8403 12 + .071 . 1306 .. . . ... . .... ... . . ... .. ... . ... . � . . ... ... . .. � � .. . ..._ . . .. .. . . _. . .__. . ._ '1 . 25 i 13. - . 1$ 4 . 1282: ._. . _.. . ... . . .. . . ..... . :. .. ...._.. . a_ . . _,r1�,:. . . _. .. .. . _ .. ._._ . _ . . _. . .._. ._.... .. . 13.19 . 8313 14 + . 077 : 1257 _ ; ; 3. : 56 . 8582 15 + . 209 . 1230 . ._ . . ............ .. . . _. i.._ . ..:.. .... ... ...--_ . . . _. . . .. . . . . _... . .. . . _ . . _... . . 11 . 724:9 3.9 0 0. - Conf . Limit -1 :0 t3'.:5 0 :0 0: 5 to Autocorrelation. Function s5-s4 post TP (Standard errors; are Mite-noise estimates) Lag. Corr : S . E . Q P 1 +.. 015 . 1250, . . .. . . .... .... .. . . . . _ .. ... . ... . .. . ..... . . . ._ . . _. . . _. ._. . ... . . .. . .... . . .. . . ... . .. . .. 01. . 9079 2 - . 009 , 1239 . 02 49908 'r 3. - . 145 _ 1229 , r ,� � 1 . 42 .7015 4' + . 022 . 12, 18 ... . . .... . . .. . ... . . ..... . . : .. . :.... . ., . . _. . . . . . . . _.. . . ..i . .. . . .._ . .. . .. . . _. . __ . .... . ... 1 . 45 8355 5 + : 18:6 . 1207 ... . . ... . . .. . ... . . .... . :'. . . .. . . ._. :i . . ._. . . . .yd'r ... . .. . 3 . 82 : 5751 6 + . 027 . 1196 1 i 3 ,88 6935 7 = : 028 . 1185. 1 i 3 . 93 . 7877 8 - . 116 . . 1174 rr 9 : 91 . 7692 9 - . OP9 1163' ... . . ._. . ... . . . . . .... . . . ... . . .... . ...i . . ... . . . _. . . .... ._ . . . .. . . ... . . .m . .. . ..... . _._.. ._. . . .. . 9 :97 . 8369 . 10 + : 198 , . 1152 7 .31 . 6376 1.1 + . 2L8 . 1391 . . ._. . . ._. . ._. .._ . . _. _. ...._ .... .i .. . . .... . . . '}'i.... ..... . . .. . .. . . ... . . .. . . .. . . .... . .. 11 . 55 . 3980 i 9581 12 + . 0:61 : 1129. .._ . ..._ . .__. . _ . ._. ._. ..... ... ; .. . . ._. . . : .. . . _. . . .. . . _. ... .. . . _. . _. . . . i 11 :85 13 - . 05.3 . 1118: i r 12 . 07 5,219 J. . . .... . . ! . . ... . .... . . .., . .. . .... . _,... .._.. . .. . 12 . 36 . 5775 19 - . OS'9 . 1106 .... . .... .. f. . 15. -F . 052 . 1099' - . ..... . . .. . . .. . . .... . . :. . . ... . .. . . .... . .... . . . . . . .... . . . . . .. . . _.. . . . . .. . . .... ._... ._. . . .. . 12 .58 ., 6344 0' 0 - - - Conf .. Limit -.1 . 0 -0'.5 0.0 0:.5' to 42 DRAFT 4/16/04 Autocorrelation Function s 1 =s4, pre = Tn (Standard errois ate wnite ?oise estimates:) Lag Corr .. S: E : 4 p 1 - . 108 156x . ._ . . _ . .__. . ..... . .. . . .. . .... . �... . ... . . .. . . . ... .. ... . : 98 4874 2 + . 1:23' . 15.39. . . _ .. .. . . ._ . .._ . _ . . . . .__.. . . ... . _ . . ._' ._. .. .. . . . .. ... .... . . . . . .... ... 1 7 - 12 5 04 3 - . 193 . 1517 . ._ . . _ . .__. .._._ ..� . ._. . .. . . . ... . . _...�... . .... . .. ... . . .. .. . . . _.._.. 2 . 74 :9:3:39 4 + . 113 :1496 � 1 3 : 31 5078 5 - : 1.04 . 147:3 ... ._. .. ._ . . _ . _. . .._ . .... . .... �_. . . ._ . . . . .._. . ._.:. ... . .... . _. . . .... . .... . 3 . 8.0 . 5182 . . .. � 4: . 59 . . 5977 416. + :12 I64 1:4,28 5 . 91 5507 8 +.. 13:6 :.k4:05 . . _.. 6 :85 .5533 9 114:1. .138:1 •--. . .. . .._ . ..._ . .. . !. . ._..... . . .. . . T . . ._. ._.. .... . . ._. .- 7 ;8:9 54148 r 10 + : 066 . 1381 1:3 66160 i 11 - .179 . 1333 ... ._.. . . _. . ... . _. . . _.; . . _ . . _ . . . . .. . __ . . .. . .. . ._.. . _. ., _.. . .... . ._. . ..... ._... . . 9 , 84 5446 12 + . 033 . 1308 ._ ._. . . _. . . _ . _ . .... .. .. . . .. . . a.. ._ .... . . . . . . _.. ... .. . ,_. . ._ ._... ..._. ._. . _.. . ._. . ._. . . 9 .;91 6240 JX r 13 - . 233 1282 ' 12 : 67 .4:790 i 14 + . 066 ..125.7 . . . ... . . . .. _. . ._.... .... 11. . ._ . .1-1 . . . .. .. .... . . . _... ... . 12 .:94 . 5313 15 + 11 16 1123.0 .__ . . .. .._.. .. .... . .. . ... . _._. . ._ !._ . . _ .. _ ... . . . . ... . ._ . . . .. . . ... . . 13 , 83 . 5385 p 0. = - Cont.. Limit _ -1 ::0' -05 0:0 0: 5 1 :0 Autocon-elation Function s .-s4: post' -. Tn (Stand M errors ar.'e v ite-noise: :esttmates), Lag Corr . S . E. Q p 1 + . 139 1250 ...._.. . . _. : . . . _ .. . . . .. . ... . . � . ._ i .. . . .... ... _. . _ . _. .__. .. .. . . 1 . 24 2662 2 +:. 033 G . .._. . .. . . ? .._ . .__ .. .:1239 . ... .__ . . _. ..._ . _ .. _;. . .. . . _ . . .. � _ . .._. ..._. ..... . _. ._ .... .... . . 1 ..30 . 522$ 3 - . 029 . 1229 1 . 35 .. 7165 ' r ' 4 + .:028 . 1218 i 1 .:41 ;8429. 5 =:029 .. . .. . .._. _. _. 9173 i .1207: . . .. . .... .. .... . ... . ... . ._ .� .. . ... . . _�.. ... . .. . . .�. . . ._. . . ... . ..._ .. _ . ._ . 1 ..96 6 - : 27T . 119.6 6 .:84 . 3358 7 - . 1:53 . 1185. i ' 8 : 50 . 2906 8 = __. ._ . _. _. .. .. .. . 260 . 1174 11, 9. 1 . 1797 9 - : 022 . 1163 ; i 11 . 45. . 2464 10 - :07-1 . 1152 i 11: .;83 . 2969 . 1141 . . .. . . .. . . ..... .... . .. . .. . . ..... . ... . .... .... . ..._r .. . ._ . . -. . .__. . . .. .. . .. .._ . . ... . _ . . __ . .... 11.. 93 . 3692 11 + . 03.6 , � , r 12 +.;07.q 1129. �1 112 : 42 412:6 13 - :050 . 1118 12 . 62 . 4773 14 +.:079 . 11.06 .. . .. . . ... . . .. . . . .. . . . .. .... I.._. . . . . . .. ._.... . . . . ... .. - ; . . . . . . 12 , 6+4 . 5551 15 - :004 109'4. 12 : 64 . : 6300 0 0 - - - Conf. Limit -1 ;0. -0:5 060 0 1:5 1.0 43 DRAFT 4/16/04 AutocoO06tion Function s 1. =g,8: pre; : Tn (Standard errors are white-noise estimates) I;ag Corr .. S ' E : . . .. .. . . . . . ... . 4 P 1. + ,. 196 .,156. . ... . ... . . .. . . . . ._.. �. .. _ . . _ . . .... � _.. . .. .. .. . ._ . . _. . . _ . :_ . . _ . .... 1 . 58 2094 2: +. 032 1539 ..._ . . ... . ... . . .... . . . . . _.. . :.. .. .. . . .. _.. . .. . . .. . . .... . ,.... . . .. . . .. .... .. .. . _ . . ._. . - 1 : 62 ':4'4' 51 r 3 +.:085 ...1517 ' . ... . . .. . . .... .. .... . _ . .,... . ._... . .r. . . .. . . .. . ..... . . .. . . _. . i_ . ... . . . . . _.. . . .. . . _ . .._. . -. 1:: 9.3 . 58.73 4 + . 215 . 14:9.6 ? i 4 , 00' . 4055 . . 5 ..05 . 4095 5 + . 151 . 1973 -. ._.. ._. . . .. . __ . _: ._ ... . _ . �_ . . __ ._.. . .��- .. . . , . _. - . - . - 6. - :039 1.4:51 _. ..._ . .. . . ... ... . _. . _.... .. . . . . .... _. . ._ . ._ . ___ ._. . . ... . 5. 12. ..5281 r.. 7 - : 1.0.7 1928. 5 ::69' . 5767 8 + . 011 .1405 .. .. .. .. .. ... . . .. . . . . . .... . ... . . : 5 :;69 6815 9 + , 265. .:1381. 9 , 36 . 9:097 10 - : 033 .1353 l: 9 . 4.2 . 9.928 13 - :219 1333 r -. . -. _. _. ... _....... . . 3 . 3543 _.. . . .. . _. . . _ . . ... . _. . _.f .. _.... . . .. . .. .. 12 :. 1 12 - . 136 . 130$ . . . .. .. 13 . 2:0 . 3546 13 - . 109 1282 13 :92 . 3793 14 + . 003 . 1257: . _. . . .. . . ..... . __ . .. . . . . ._... .._ ,._ . . .. . . _. . . .. . . _ . . . ...... . .. .. . . ... . . . . ._ . . _ . _. . .11A2 .4.554 15 =. 088' . 1230 .. .. . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . .. . .i... . .. . . . .. . . ... .. .. . ... . ._!. .. ..... . . . . 14. , 43 . 4932 0 Conf . Limit -0.5 0'. 0 0 . 5 1':0 Aut000rre'lation. Functiori s1=s8. p6st 'Th (Standard errors are wiite :noise. estimates) T_ . . : : .. . .. . Q lag Corr : S . E . p 1 + . 080, . 1250 ... . ... . ..... .. .. . .... . . ... . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. .... ... . . r .. . ... . .... . . .... . .. . . Al . 5223 2 - . 102 1239 _ ._ . . _: . ..._. t.. . ...... . . .. .: _ . ._.. . _.. ..._. . .... . .... . . ._. . . .. . . 1 ..09 . 5805 3 - ..059 . 122'9 r. 1 . 32 ..7253 4 - . 19'7 . 3218 r 2 . 76 . 5979 5 +:.008 . 1207 .._ . . .. . . ._ . . ._. . .. . .>... . __.. _.. . .. . . _. . _ . ._ . . .. . . _. . . .... . . _. . . . . ._. . ... . ._ . . ._. . .... 2 : 77 ..7355 6 + . 115 1.19:61 3 . 70: . 71.70 7 = . 017 1185 3 : 72 .:8112 8 + : 02b: . 1179 .. . .... . ... ... . ..... . . .. . ._. . ....; . . .. . . _ . .. . . . . . . i. . ._. . ._. ; .._ . . .. . . _. ;. .._ . _.. . ,_. . ._.. . .. . . 3...77 . 8773 r 4 . 16 . 9005 9. + :073' J163 � � i i 10 = :020 . 1153 1 4 :: 19 . 9383 11 100 . 11.91 ..- - --.. . ._. . ._.. . _ . _. . ...... . ..... .. . . _r ... . . .. . .. .. .. .... . 4 . 96: 9329 1.2 - . 1,74 .,11:291: 7 . 33 8353 13 +:181 111'8e� ; 9`.:96 . 6975 19 = : 097 110.6 .. .._. . ._ . . . .. . ... . .. : . .... . . .. . ........ ._. r .. . ._.. . ..�. . . . . _. ..... :, ... .._. ._... .._. ... .. . . 0 .72 . 7080 r, 10:. 81 76.58 15 - =,033 . 1054 0 : . 0 - - - Conf. Limit 44 DRAFT 4/16/04 Aufoc6treietiorr Function s4s8i pre: - T€ (Stan lortl errors are mb te-ngme '6.4 lm as 1;. Corr :; S : E: Q P 1 +.:2. 59 156'0.' .__ . . .. .. _. . ._. . _. . .. . .... . .._ . _. . ._ . . ._. .- 2 : 76' , 0968 i 2. + : i(l 1539. . . . .. . . . _.. . __ . . . . . . ..._ . � .. ._. .. ... . ._. i.... . . .. . .:. .. ._ . ._ . ._ . . ._. . ; 3.. 1'. 9 : 2031 !' 3 +.:.132. .:151.7: .... . . ... ... . ... . . . .. .. .. . . . . ._ . I..- . . ... . .. . _ . . . . . . . . ... . .. 3 :.9'5 . . 2672 4; f: 044 -+10.6 ! rJt A .:03 A017 i 5 = :002 . 1473 .. . _ . ._.. . _ ._... __, ... .. . ._ . ._ . ._.. .. . .. . . _... . . .. . . _. ._. , ... . _. . _ . . _ . . _ . . 4 ..03 ..5448 6 + :088 . 1451 ._ . .... . ._.. .. .. . _. . . _; . . . . . . . i.. . .... .. . . . .... . . _ . . . . .... . _. ;..... ... . .... . .... . ... . . 4. :40 . 6229. 7 + :04:3 . . 1428 r ! 4 . 49 . 7.2`16 8 + . 066 . 1405 . . . .. .. . . . ._. . . . . . . . .:_ . ...._ ..., . . .. . . .. . . ._. :. . .... . . .. . . _ . . .... . .... 4 . 71 . 7879 4 80 - 13 9 - ..041 .:1381 . . .. . . .. . . _. . . _. . .. . .:_. . _.. _._. . _ .... . . . . ._ . . .. . ._ .. ._. . _ . . . . .._ . ._ . . .. . . . 85 r 10 - . 128 . 1357 ! f 5 . 70 ..8401 i 11 - . 053 .1333 -. . _:. .... . . .. . ._ . . _ . . .. . . _ . . i. . ..._ ... .. _ . . . 5 :.85 : 8830 i 12 - :026 . 1308 _. . _..... ... _ .. � . .... ._ . . � .__. _ . . _ ._. . _.. . _.. . _ ..._. .... . .. 5 . 89 . 9214 13 -.. 173 .1282 ; } 7 ..72 . 8653 i . 14 - . 13.6 . 1257 .. .. . . . . . ... . ._. .. . ..I.. . ..__ . ._. ,. _ . . . ._ . . .. . ... . ... . .. . . .... ... 8 . 90 . .8377 15 - :044 . 1230 . ... . . . . ... . . ... ... . ... . . .. . .... . . . . . . . . .... . ... .. _ . . ._. . .... 9 . 02 8762 0' - - - Conf . Limit 4:0' -0.5 0:0 0.5 U ' Autodorrelklon fuodub. } s4=s8: p6% - Til (Standard errors. are Wolfe-noise esfimates) Lag Coir . S . E. . . . . . . . : . ., : 4 P 1 + . 295 1250 _. . . _... .... . ._.. . : ._. . . _ . . ,. .. ... . . .. ? . . . 3 :84' . 0501 2' + . 125 . 12.39 ... ._.. . . ... . . .. . ._ . . _ . ... . .._ . . .' . . .... .. . . ?' . .. .. :. _ . .__ ..._ .._. . ... . ._. . . :.. . . .. 4 . 86 . 0881 3 - . 045. . 1229 }� 4 .99 .. 1725 4 - . 035 . 1218 i ; ! 5 . 07 . . 2800 5 + . 024 . 1207 . . .. . . ... .... . .... . .. . .._.. _._. .. . . .. . . .. . . _. ... . . _ . . .;. . . ._ . . .. . . ,. . . _. .. .. .. .. . . ._. . .... 5 . 1.1 . 4.023 � r 6 - . 199 . 1196: 6 67 .3521. 7 - ..346 . . 1185f?� 15 , 17 . 0339 8 - : 323 . 1174 .. . .. .... . . .. _ . . _; . ._. . . _r 22 . 71 .0038 9 - . 270 .1163 i 28 . 09 . 0009 � r 10 - . 179 . 1152 r 30 . 50 . 0007 15. - 022 1191 ._.. . . . . . .... . ._. . _ . .;... . ._. . ... . .. . . .. . . .J. . .. . . .. . . 7.. . . .__ . . _ . . . . ... . . .. .. .. . . ... .._. . 90. . 53 . 0013 12 - . ,025 . 1129 �' 30458 .:0023 13 + . 129 1111.8 3:1 : 92 .002.5 , . , . .. . . ._. . _.. _ .. _. . ... ... .. ..6 . . .. . . .. . . - . ._. .. 31;4 181 . 1:10 4 : 60 . 00.1.7 1.5 +.:091 . 1094 Jim, 35 . 30 . 0022 0 0 - - - Gonf. Limit 45 DRAFT 4/16/04 Autocorreiation Function: s5>S'4, pre - Tr.' (Standard, errors are white noise estimates;). Lag Corr, S:. E. " Q p 1 - . 0713 > 5s0 . .... .. .. . .... .. ... . .. . . . . .. .. . 25 6173: 2 +:::097 153.9 . ... .... . .._ .. ..... .. .. . .._ . . . . . ... . ._.f. . . ... . .. . .. . . .. . . ... . . .. . . . . . . _.. _.. 39 .8233` • : 3 =::037 1:51:7: . ... .... . .__ . .__. ._. . . .. . ._.. . . . ... . ... __t ... . ._. . . _. .. ._ . . . . .:. . . .... . . .. . . . . .... . .... 95: .. 93.01 4 ± .227 : '14:9'6 f�1r . i 2 75c .: 59.99 5 - : 237 1473 _. ._. .. . _ . ._. . ... . ._. i _. { i . . _...... _. _. . _ . _. .. _. .._ . . ! 5 . 34 . 3755 6 =A31 . 1451 .... ..... . _.. ._ . _.... ...; .... . . .. . ;_. ... ._ . . . . . _.. . . .. . . . . ..... ...... _. . _ . _. ..._... .... . .I 5. : 39: . 4:950 i l i 7 -:078 ..1;428 5 : 69 . 5768 8 +::093' . 1,9,05 . . . .. . . .. . .... . . .... .... .;_. . __. . . .. . ... . .... 6 . 13 6330: 9 - . 366 .:138!1 . ._ . . .. . . .... ... _. .s_. . . 1� . _ . ... .. _. _._ . ... . . . . . _. .. .. . . _ . :._ . .... .13 , 14 1-562 � r 10. =.. 016 . 1357 13 .16 . 2150 11 - . 079 .,1.333 _ . ... . . . . ... ... ... . .' . . _ . . ._....... ..... . _. . .... ._ ._. ._. .. 61.6 . 13 . 5.1 2 12 + .. 1.66 . 1308. ...... . . .. . . .. . .... . . _i . ... . . .. . . ,.. ...._ _ . . . .. . .... . ... . . 15 . 1:1 . 2353 13 - . 0,55 . 1282. f 15 . 30 . 2892 14 + . 023 1257 ... .. . ... . . ._. . . .... ... . .. . ._.. . __ {._ .._ . .-_. : - . . -- - -, . . .-. . . . . . . . . ._. .. .. . . . . . . _ . 151:33 .3561 + . 049 ..123.0 .. . . .... . .... . . _ . . ._. _.. 15 ;49 . 4168 0 0 - = Conf. . Limit A. .0 U: 0 :5 1 .0 Aufoc.orrelatan Function s5-.0 post -.Th (Stwdeirderrors are Whfb=noise. estimates) Lag Corn.: S . E: . . .:_ . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . Q p 1 ' . 032 :1250' r 06 ..7994 2 + , 673 :123'9: r 1 Al :.8152 r . . 3 - . 305 .1229 ------ ...... I........___._.._--._____. 1 :19 . 1580 4 - :077 .:1218' --- - - - - -f --- ._.-__...- ---._._... S ; 54. . 81:99. � 1 � 5 +. 043 ..1207 .. .. .... .. .. . .... .... ... .. .. .. _ . : _ .. _ .. .. f. _ _ . .. G .... .. _ .. .:_.. _. .. . 1, 66 .6933 6 - :061 r _ .. .. ..i. .. _ .. _ .. .:_-. _. . ..1196: .. .. .. .. _ .. _ .. .. .. - -- - - - .. _ .. .. _ . � I .. .. _ . .. .. . 1..:91' . 9268 7 - :036 .1185 ---- - --_ _.._..._......_.1._.._...1..__...._._ _.--------_--.--._-__._...- . 2 . 03. :9592 8 -;256 ..1119 °- -___.._.___..._.......t }._.___.__L...._..-.......-..--_----..___.. 6:. 7 7 . 5621 9 - .144 . 1163 'r 8 ::29 . 5648 10 - . 114 . 11:52` 9.. 27 . 5070 11 +, 135: . 314l. . r i 10:;:67' . 471E 12 + : 027 . 1129 10..: 73 . 5526 i 13 +, 10.7 „11.18 r� 11.. 64. . 5577 14' + : 012 . 1106 .-.__.-...- ...._......_...t....__...!...._..-...;... ... . ......,_....._.........._..__.._.. 11 : 65 . 6345 i 19 - . 072 .:1094 --- --___..___....._..__i_..._ ...._ ...... _........._._._....._._ 12 . 0.3. : 6727 0 ' 0. - -- Conf . Limit -1 :0 -0:5 0:0 0:5 1 .0 46 _ D RAFT 4/16/04 Appendix 3 - Additivity 47 t DRAFT 4/16/04 1 .2 0.8 -, (a) s1 -s8, pre . (b) s1 -s8 , post 0. 8 r = 0. 01 3 0.4 p = 0. 36 . 0.4 • 0 0 , 0 • •• • w ' o _ • • • 0. 0 m cm • • -0. 4 rz = 0. 16 r �•� • . m � • � P = 0. 01 -0. 8 Ll -0 .4 ° 0. 0 0.4 0 . 8 1 . 2 -0 .4 0. 0 0.4 0. 8 . Average Log Chi ( pg• L"') Average Log Chi ( Ng- U ) 1 . 2 1 . 6 ,. (c) s1 -s4, pr8 (d) s1 -s4 , post o> 0. 8 rz = 0. 01 1 . 2 3 p = 0 . 67 3 0. 8 ' co rn ''`• o ! ;- 0 0. 0 •K•t me • 2 0. 0 ' " m o • �•• o -0. 4 r2 = 0.03. • P = 0. 15 -0. 4 -0. 8 0 . 0 0.4 0 , 8 1 .2 -0 .4 0. 0 0.4 0. 8 1 .2 Average Log Chi (pg• L"' ) Average Log Chi (pg• Lw) 0.4 0. 8 (e) s4-s8, pre • (t] s4-s8, post J J 0 • . . .4 s • • • • • s 0. 0 • 9 U •1 • U • • • rn r rn -0.4 '� . Its'" 0 -0. 4 � • , o . • cu m r2 = 0 . 16 . -0. 8 •• rZ = 0 . 09 o p = 0. 02 o p = 0. 02 -0. 8 -1 .2 0. 0 0.4 0 . 8 1 .2 -0 .4 0. 0 0. 4 0. 8 1 . 2 Average Log . Chl ( pg• LO ) Average Log Chi ( pg- U) 0. 8 0. 8 r2 = 0. 08 ^ • ' r2 = 0. 10 •• ' p = 0. 01 p = 0. 12 0.4 . • j � 3 0.4 _ cLj `• ; • L) 0.0 $1 ' • 0) • b ° • -° 0. 0 • •' . • •. • ' 0 ° • m -0.4 m _ (D a� o -0 ,4 (g ) s5-s4 , pre ° -0 8 L(h ) s5-s4, post 0. 0 0.4 0. 8 1 , 2 -0 :4 0. 0 0.4 0 . 8 1 . 2 1 . 6 i Average Log Chi ( pg- U ) Average Log Chi ( pg- Ul) 48 DRAFT 4/16/04 0. 8 0. 8 (a) s1 -s8, pre (b) s1 -s8, post • . . 3 0.4 ti 3 0.4 CL m rZ = 0 .32 d r2 = 0 .31 p < 0. 001 p < 0.001 -0.4 -0.4 0. 8 1 .2 1 .6 0. 8 1 . 2 1 . 6 Average Log TP (pg• LO ) Average Log TP (pg- Ul) 0. 8 1 . 2 ,. . (c) s1 -s4, pre (d) s1 -s4 , post ti • • -� . 0. 8 • • a t� a 0. 4 • � „ f- 0. 0 • 0 0 •ca -0. 4 rz = 0. 01 a -0. 4 • rz = 0 .01 p = 0 .53 0 p = 0.45 -0. 8 -0. 8 0. 8 1 .2 1 . 6 240 0. 8 1 .2 1 . 6 2. 0 Average Log TP (pg• L" ) Average Log TP ( pg• L" ) 0. 8 0.8 (e) s4 $8, pre . (f s4-s8, post P • 0.4 o� o� • 3 0.4 • 3 goes * • • ►a- a 0.0 •• • •• Im •• r 0. 0 ' • •_ -0.4 • M 9 p < 0. 001 p < 0. 001 -0.4 -0. 8 0. 8 1 . 2 1 . 6 0. 8 1 . 2 1 . 6 Average Log TP ( pg- U ) Average Log TP ( pg- U) 0. 8 0. 8 -- (g) s5-s4, pre ( h) s5-s4 , post m 0. 4 m 0.4 �• •• • • i L • �• • CL F- 0 . 0 - 0. 0 �• ~ • • 0 • ' ' a� -0'4 rZ = 0. 13 m -0.4 r2 = 0. 11 •• -0. 8 p - 0.03 -0. 8 p = 0. 01 0.4 0.8 1 . 2 1 . 6 0. 8 1 .2 1 . 6 2. 0 Average Log TP ( pg• LO) Average Log TP (pg• L") 49 DRAFT 4/16/04 1 . 2 1 . 2 ( a) s1 -s8, pre (b) s1 -s8, post 0. 8 0. 8 Z , . . . • Z . : • • 0 ' • .. 0. 4 • " • 0 0. 4 • • o Ny • L' • • cc . � • R �U • 0. 0 �' � ' r2 = 0. 15 0 0. 0 ?r ' •6 rz = 0:23 p = 0. 02 p < 0.001 -0. 4 -0.4 -0 .4 0.0 0A 0.8 1 .2 -0.4 0 . 0 0 .4 0. 8 1 .2 Average Log T° (NTU). Average Log T„ ( NTU) 1 . 2 1 : 6 _ (c) s1 -s4, pre (d ) s1 -s4, post 0. 8 1 .2 • z z 0 .8 F- rn or 0 .0 • -0. 4 - = 0. 12 . o -0. 8 rz = 0. 04 ' p = 0. 03 -1 .2 p = 0 . 14 • -0. 8 -0 .8 -0.4 0. 0 0.4 0. 8 1 . 2 1 .6 -0.4 0. 0 0 .4 0. 8 1 . 2 1 . 6 Average Log Tn (NTU) Average Log T° (NTU) 1 . 6 1 . 2 (e) s4-s8, pre (fl :,4-s8, post • 1 . 2 Z) 0. 8 z .. z 0 . 8 0.4 • $' 0 0. 0 . -0.4 ' '. r2 = 0.35 p . -0. 4 r2 = 0. 47 o p < 0 , 001 p < 0. 001 -0. 8 j -0. 8 -0 . 8 -0.4 0. 0 0.4 0. 8 1 .2 -0. 8 -0.4 0.0 0.4 0. 8 1 .2 Average Log Tn (NTU ) Average Log Tn (NTU) 1 . 2 (g) s5-s4, pre ° 0. 8 r2 = 0.02 0. 8 0. 4 1' = 0. 30 ° z v 0. 4 z • 0. 0 •t ' vi 11 sot o 0 ca -0. 4 coo • -0. 8 = 0 .09 . o -0. 4 p = 0.07 (h) s5-s4, post . -1 . 2 I 1 -0. 8 0 . 8-0.4 0 . 0 0 .4 0. 8 1 .2 1 .6 4A 0. 0 0.4 0. 8 1 . 2 1 . 6 Average Log T° ( NTU) Average Log T„ (NTU) 50 Cheryl Horney Telephone: 607 254-8687 Environmental Compliance Coordinator Fax: 607 255-5377 Environmental Compliance Office E-mail: cah65®comell.edu Planning, Design, and Construction Web: eco.pdccomell.edu Facilities Services Cornell University 129 Humphreys Service Building Ithaca, NY 14853-3701 I July 29, 2004 i : . Ms . Tara Blum, PE Division of Water., Region 7 , TaavN of iTNac PLANNING , ZONING ENG1:14. iNG New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 615 Erie Boulevard West Syracuse, NY 13204-2400 RE : Cornell University Lake Source Cooling — Modified In-Lake Water Monitoring Proposal for 2004 Dear Ms. Blum: The purpose of : this letter is to request modification of the in4ake water quality monitoring plan used to comply with the bake Source Cooling SPDES permit VNY 024 4741 ) 9 In this letter, we propose to reduce the amount of stations we will collect samples from. For the past six years, Cornell has collected samples from eight in-lake monitoring stations at a great expense per the originally approved In-Lake Water Quality Monitoring Plan. After collecting six years of data and conducting the statistical analysis, we asked Upstate Freshwater Institute (UFI) to evaluate which in-lake monitoring site(s) could adequately represent ambient conditions at the southern shelf of Cayuga Lake . UFI conducted a statistical analysis of data from 1998-2002 to evaluate how representative the, southern shelf sites are when compared to the DMR average we report to NYSDEC each month. The DMR average consists of Sites 1, 3, 4, and 5 . UFI' s analysis concluded that either Site 3 or Site 5 could represent the DMR average because both sites have not been significantly different from the DMR average for the three variables of Total Phosphorus, Chlorophyll-a, and turbidity. rcn invironmental Compliance Office Tara Blum, NYSDEC July 29, 2004 Page 2 Based on this conclusion, Cornell would like to use Site 5 as the site that. would best represent ambient conditions at the southern shelf of Cayuga Lake. Site 3 sometimes experiences spikes along with Site 2 due to their proximity to the IAWWTP outfall plume . Cornell will also continue to sample at Site 8 because it has been and continues to be considered the Cayuga Lake reference site . Cornell will collect samples from Sites 5 and 8 every :two weeks, which is the same frequency as in the past. Cornell will continue to monitor for the same parameters. as in the past, with one excepti on. . Past parameters include Total Phosphorus, Total Dissolved Phosphorus, Soluble Reactive Phosphorus, turbidity, secchi disc, Chlorophyll-a, and temperature. Cornell would like to eliminate the secchi disc analysis because turbidity (Tn) is already being measured as part of Cornell ' s monitoring . Cornell requests that the NYSDEC review this proposal and notify Cornell as soon as possible if there are any comments or if the :NYBDEC objects to some. part of the proposal described herein. Cornell will continue to sample the eight sites as done in the past until we receive a verbal or written approval from the NYSDEC to proceed with the new monitoring plan described above . You can contact me by phone at (607) 254-8687 oil at the address or email listed at the. top of this letter. Your prompt response is appreciated in this matter. Sincerely, Cheryl A. Homey Environmental Compliance Coordinator . xc: Steve Eidt, NYSDEC Region 7 James R. Adams Patrick O . McNally Edward R. Wilson Steve Effler, UFI NYSDEC Monitoring.Plan Proposal_072904.doc oa 7/29/04 October 18 , 2004 Town Board MeetAn Ar I, , n T ' ATTACHMENT # 10 PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO : TOWN BOARD MEMBERS FROM : SUSAN RITTER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING 5 DATE: OCTOBER 13 , 2004 RE: PROPOSED DONATION OF LAND FOR TOWN PARK A group of Town residents who reside along West Haven Road, Elm Street Extension, Valley View Road, and Eco Village have donated money towards the purchase of a 12 .6 acre parcel which they hope to donate to the Town of Ithaca for use as a Town park. This parcel is located off of Elm Street Extension and West Haven Roads , and is adjacent to land owned by Eco Village. The parcel includes a walking trail, set in a natural environment of early succession forest and brush, which has been used for many years by the area residents . Approximately 30 neighbors who represent the West Hill Area Land Trust (WHALT) have pooled money to purchase the property in hopes of preserving the trail and the adjoining lands . These residents do not wish to retain ownership of the land themselves , but are instead asking the Town to take over ownership for establishment of a passive park. Members of the Town Board are being provided this information for discussion purposes for the October 1 $`h meeting. The Town Board will need to act on this request at a future date, but at this point the Board is only asked to discuss and provide initial feedback on the parkland idea. The proposal is part of a subdivision request (Mountin Subdivision) that will be considered by the Planning Board at their October 19`h meeting. Enclosed for your information are materials that were submitted to the Planning Board, including a subdivision map and project description submitted by the applicant, and an aerial photo provided by Planning staff. As shown on the enclosed subdivision map, the overall subdivision request includes subdividing a 33 . 3 +/- acre parcel into six lots . These proposed parcels are indicated on the subdivision map as Lots A through F. Lot F is the 12. 6 +/- acre parcel that is proposed to be donated to the Town of Ithaca for a park. Lots A through D are proposed to be developed for single family residences , and Lot E, is a 1 . 7 acre parcel that will be acquired by Eco Village and consolidated with their property. The Planning Board was presented with a sketch plan of the subdivision and parkland proposal at their September 7`h meeting, and members generally indicated an overall support for the proposal . According to the Town' s 1997 Park Recreation and Open Space Plan (map enclosed), a trail corridor is proposed for the West Hill area, all along the west side of the Town/City municipal boundary. This trail continues north to Woolf Lane, and ideally will eventually link up with the Black Diamond Trail . This conceptual plan for a trail system, while envisioned for the east side of West Haven Road, could be modified to include this .proposed trail as either a linkage, or as a spur. In addition to its use as a trail , portions of the property provide significant views of South and East Hill, thus providing opportunities for public enjoyment of scenic resources as well . 1 Access to the proposed park land, Lot F, would be provided by two existing access drives , one off West Haven Road and the other off Elm Street Extension. The gravel driveway off W. _ Haven Road serves as an alternative emergency access drive for :Eco Village, and includes access easements with two land locked residences identified on the subdivision plat as Henry and Villafane. Eco Village is responsible for year-round maintenance of this driveway/emergency access . The driveway off Elm Street Extension is mostly gravel, with a short paved segment at the south end. Landowners with access easements to this driveway are identified on the subdivision plat as Cowie & White, Terwilliger, and Luft. Town staff from Highway, Planning, and Engineering conducted a site visit to the proposed park/trail on September 14th. The trail was found to be in relatively good condition. It actually consists of an old roadbed that was constructed over 40 years ago. The foundation and drainage ditches are still intact, but except for the narrow footpath, most of the old roadbed is covered over in vegetation. Clearing of vegetation to widen the trail would be a relatively easy undertaking. Some concerns that were discussed by staff included the fact that the trail currently terminates on Town roads that have no pedestrian facilities or linkages . According to the residents , the trail is currently used either alone, or as part of a loop walk that includes the roads of West Haven, Coy Glen, and Elm Street Extension, as well as an informal trail located on the adjacent Eco Village property. Acceptance of the park/trail would likely lead to the need to develop additional walkways and linkages off from the Town roads in the future . Another concern is the issue of providing safe pedestrian facilities along the existing driveways , as well as the issue of taking over ownership of these driveways . The Town would only be acquiring these access drives for their use as pedestrian paths and to access the park, and would not want to take over any maintenance responsibility for their use as private driveways . If' the Town Board accepts the donation of the town park, then the maintenance agreements for these driveways will need to be revised or developed (if none exists) . The Public Works Committee discussed the proposed park donation at its September meeting, and committee members can report their thoughts concerning the proposal at the meeting on Monday. Enc. 2 SEP 2 0 2004 September 18 , 2004 i Development Review Application — Town of Ithaca PLAr� NfnG ,TOWN NGTENG VEERING Buyer' s narrative for the subdivision of a 33 .267 acre parcel (Tax # 280- 1 -28 .22). Project Name : Mountin Subdivision Parties involved: David Mountin, Barbara Guttridge, Bert Gildersleeve, Regis Carver, Eco Village (EVI, Inc .), and West Hill Area Land Trust (WHALT) This proposal is for a 6 lot subdivision including a portion of the land to be donated to the Town of Ithaca as a parkland and/or recreation way. The property under consideration in this proposal for subdivision is currently owned by the Helen DeGraff Family with the above named parties as purchasers of the property conditional upon town's acceptance of donated land, The 33 .27 acre parcel to subdivided to the parties as follows: Lot A - 4.00 acres to Regis Carver Lot B - 4.06 acres to David Mountie Lot C - 5 . 643 acres to Bert Gildersleeve Lot D - 5 .259 acres to Barbara Guttridge Lot E - 1 . 70 acres to EVI, Inc, Lot F - 12 .60 acres to WHALT Description of donated 12.60 acre parcel Lot F is being purchased for the West Hill Area Land Trust(WHALT); a group of approximately 30 West Hill residents including neighborhood residents along West Haven, Elm Street Ext. ,Valley View, and Eco Village who have donated money for the purpose of purchasing and donating this 12 . 6 acre parcel to the Town of Ithaca as to continue its use as a trail/recreation way and for future possible use as a community park, This parcel includes on the north end an existing gravel road that is maintained by Eco Village as an emergency fire road access that leads from West Haven Road to EcoVillage housing. Eco village has been deeded a right of way easement as an emergency access fire lane from the owner Helen DeGraff. Eco village would like to like to see this road/trail remain for passive recreation use. The road through Lot F has also served as an existing walking trail to the community that has been used since the 1970's . The trail begins from the west side edge on West Haven Road turning left behind the Henry property and running parallel with West Haven Road down to Elm Street Extension. The southern end of the parcel is currently used as a driveway/recreation way. Currently, 3 adjacent neighbors to the road have right-of--way easement as a driveway. Currently two of the property owners are maintaining and snowplowing this private road. Pages seven and eight of the 1997 Town of Ithaca Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan proposes a trail and community park that runs parallel to West Haven. We believe Lot F for public use as passive recreation fits in nicely with the Town of Ithaca' s future planning for West Hill parks and recreation ways . The residents of West Hill including those on West Haven, Elm Street Extension, at Eco Village, and Coy Glen road have been enjoying walking this path for many years. In recent years it has been realized how nice it is to have an off public road trail to walk on as the road activity on West Haven increases and pedestrian safety more a concern. It is our understanding from discussions with the town of Ithaca Planning office that the donated land if accepted by the town of Ithaca would keep the current driveway/egress easements and maintenance and snowplowing of the driveways as is currently used until such time as the town would develop the parcel as parkland with trails, benches, and tables . It is the desire of WHALT that the Town of Ithaca would accept this donation and that Lot F is being donated with the following restrictions : no limit of public pedestrian access to the trails, the town to consider this parcel designated as "parkland" , and that the character of the trail and land remains in a natural state to be used for passive recreation. Description of Subdivision improvements Lots A, B , C , And D Lots A, B , C, and D are being purchased by individuals for future single family home sites of approximately 1200- 1800 square feet and 600 square foot garages on each lot. Individual lots will be developed by owners at various times over the next four years . Lots A & B owners plan to build by spring 2005 . The Town of Ithaca sewer and water does not go up to these lots . Individual plans call for digging wells and installing septic systems as per required specifications from Tompkins County Health Department. As you can see in the Hydrologic Analysis report these lots have favorable soil and drainage. The parcel of land that includes proposed lots A-D has a developed 25 foot wide gravel road bed that has not had any maintenance since its. construction of 40 plus years ago . The road bed begins off of upper Elm St. extension and makes a loop. The road consists of proper drainage swale and existing drain culverts . The four buyers of these lots will to do the maintenance work consisting of shrub and branch clearing/chipping, rework gravel and if needed adding top dressing. Our plans call for this road to be a private drive with termination points 3-400 feet beyond the "Y" junction. We met with Town of Ithaca Fire Chief, Dan Tier, and he described the specifications for the fire road necessary to meet the needs of fire truck access . The centerline of this road is shown on the plat. It is our commitment to build the road to the size specifications as per Mr. Tier. Individual lot owners will create driveway access to the 4 individual lots A-D for homes off this drive . We have included in our deeds the granting of easements for a shared right of way driveway access /egress from Elm St. Extension and that the costs of improvement and maintenance upkeep and snowplowing be shared equally among the present and future owners of Parcels A-D . In doing maintenance on the road and I lot development we will adhere to the erosion and sediment control plan included in this application. Description of Lot E Lot E is being subdivided for EcoVillage as a visual buffer to their land from houses on Lots A - D . They have no intention to build on this land. I r L i •�ti t h� J ° . 6 -2 r t '6. . r f '_ 'fJ . r - J p "i✓'�D .t ! Y ,t '' '! .0 w I.J. 1 f d f'j Y. ' D I>, Z+••i. Nov `!h._ �.ei Yl . (Z�` 4r J,'Y < Y,,, w � ' ; tb f •'' � . . 1 +A .. . .e. •} f . 8 • e b,y... "' 4 a� fr=+4 - r 21 i. K ' —r—+---n-"-ro^�--*T o 'er C • - -."''—�_. -'. _ f , -� .;;,y, c.__ -`^.�="Z ;. r S � • �D . .r 1 f l r� t c ' ' `• Ft + ' IkIL � i � '✓ �` 1 � J�> �-', lnl . . .�+ —R 4 . � gti, �r�_�.1 f. • ' R• f �", r�-� r � � � {7 . a f J �y J ("_ d� arr" , �t 'rp' v {tJ� ✓ " 1 1 rr y ', l X nn r ue �qe r _ v � ) 1l, i / �. ; 'p` 1.J I .. ( J'_, ' `t �C 0 r. � � w7Y �� �,`'i rr ct•,"e r^ ,� 1 ���'+ `.-� 'k ♦ r i b r - �� , �� ! fir . nk Ire w �•'� f ' 1r.. �.Y 1 ' p /(/ c :, f�7 - / r� , {/-0 F r 01 N-,4 r Y oJFI o� •% "M ` j rr » ' !CY r- ^.. �. 1 •F�.! � E ' �t . ;� r �> e•/ / r ( . • p yr n 1,'. 1 4 lye V 1� r +, ✓`}.pl,.,, 5 rs f r i. ,•� l°, , S v )) 1 r , i �� t r- ? ,.,.r �� ;' � � � 4 •. � . l J f .° fy' r-r 'Y ) r r t ? ♦ u 4 {', , 4.•G' i/1 J Ir r p 1 Jn a �- > ,.JC.r , Z " 'r 1 i ` .eQ r t` f 4 ry/ fit' p ® - ♦ c - YI1 l r; � �' • kZ 1 r"t IN, 1 ,krk.- •Ikk, Y 'n..y IIIII , C tt �r v' I f W tIN Y .r _ r �r c . _ • Il� � It It t 4 . rY � <{ . � !ter a d� Ys ♦ .. f 51 C l?' ;r kka k � P - _ 14 ' Ai. - JI J, jkkkkk � l ` Cum r � , ..dhy�r'S, C _ 0�: r• 'ry l ?Hm-r•`4. 'f`'t`.—'v-^.— _ . _ l >�I I < i!!' ra f .. M. � G . < i h}-r f/ • ,S a 7 JF LI • o fir! 2 < _ �i ( �!1 _r f• r. . .. `� t Ilk I oI o a•%lJs'r1, . - __ - _ _ r • � _ ,�Ck � �� � ,r�F ( < 4lr q,ef ps� •1 _ V � r . a t T r I z I kI S z a 3 ^{ R el kr , LLL It, w � ��:. ` / .+'�c l -\ `F`• �� �F ,nY .f'3/ , . ad p f IN.fr, G r[Y'�!•. NIL F r'y. r 1 Al f I fl-4 `. . D 1 p e 1 l-%A n n rn��� +F.< (�lL [ �• � /' ��C tly v ,. 1 . ell ab a = ' , ;,rr ty,,. , y —Y r f' •F ,. 4 f N r Y~ 4J d I^ f ..l Y t f �' r 41J n Y f -•4 i • 1 Ilk Irk Lq 41 1 It Ok � v s r ✓ � "l+ � 1 ' i• R����yy It ` .Fl . � � 9 �... . 1 •r ' a r � �} r`i,. 1.-j' r 6 t''.7 - ¢�„ ., :. \. s r. . r D S'. o l . . i, . r £ A f.. ' 5` CO _ $ r F x� .tom KkkI i I II � �� I i ,I I r Z Y z Q a > z z ' _ � r —� \ V1 o d y � a Yy Y o YU M _ ma_ (L cy.� W r w W OW a ~ W W ZW t` ~' � 2 2 W JVrI Dk WC3 �z YOU m � u a o °q oz w mzzuq.1 m u � � _' Q V DMZ z u a m OPIII, q > O — Q aC3 .1 IM Li Li u LLI D W 7 =IIIII d .J-. � � N W o � aZ " 0. Yw z CL zmuw a ova } • o a oNui LLJ ao I I p� I O vl VIII J I J OC •. I 2D I:I)� r �W I id I oacD Ira � : � �� zJ cz Za F,a W I Ilk J' , Z i C T, I W d W r J U g ^ jL ®W NN tA ot IL \ \ r • i •� I � 1 � �W •• / � I I r = • / / jr Y ••• lz Of � J d > iI W(L I � _ I - 52 •II l Q AX • •i'� 414 � J' 7 / . a t nr � 0 `� � � ARC r&l � k �SS• a � `� �: �� : �8 �: a- g} " emu a14 \\ ` It Off to fir s Op I w 74, 11L If hr I Ab 1 if? , & 11 1 11 1 11 1k k a ° jo fit # � d at fit AO o °>, PAR X10 N �_1 .D� X61• OD Vi' \\ • Y4,Irfee,�Q\ j \ W rlby.IB' k, Of Av \_ �l •\ +y� \ \ ,\[ITS 'f +` / „� _ x07.$1. _�.� �.�• it s or It Of IF 047 taw, R I 1. I _ y 1 y , q %\V V y. 0(1\`l I ♦ Y r% 1� '7 > "0pI °.° do •3Me, 4 G • T x��'�'N ROq� �� �~ 11 I �ef r•• a , y l leg I s � a ' � [loll qA C m Oz 2.0 ` z � 0 _{ z2 � D T m i M - z i i i i i I October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting Ageak 0 8 BARNEY , GROSSMAN , DUBOW & MARCUS ATTACHMENT # 11 ATTORNEYS AT LAW SENECA BUILDING WEST I C . BARNEY SUITE 400 FACSIMILE PETER G . GROSSMAN 119 EAST SENECA STREET ( 607 ) 272 - 8806 DAVID A . DUBOW ITHACA , NEW YORK 14850 ( NOT FOR SERVICE OF PAPERS) RANDALL B . MARCUS JONATHAN A . ORKIN ( 607 ) 273 - 6841 KEVIN A . JONES MEMORANDUM TO : Honorable Catherine Valentino and Members of the Town Board FROM : John C . Barney, Esq , DATE : October 13 , 2004 Ladies & Gentlemen : Some time ago you asked for input regarding the interplay between the United States Constitu- tion and the Town of Ithaca ' s current sign ordinance, in response to a letter from a constituent raising questions regarding our ordinance . Mary Russell has done some legal research on the matter, and prepared a memorandum discuss- ing the results of her research. A copy of that memorandum is attached . The Town ' s Sign Law (Town of Ithaca Code Sections 221 - 1 et. sue. ) defines a temporary sign as "A sign limited for use to a period not exceeding 30-days or to such other limited period as permitted by provision of this chapter. " The Sign Law also exempts certain signs from the provisions of the sign ordinance included "the following temporary signs . . . : (e) Political Posters, not-for-profit promotional, private sales, or similar signs not exceeding six square feet in size. In business and industrial zones such signs may be up to 24 square feet in size . " Attached for your review is Section 221 -5 of the Town of Ithaca Code which sets forth all of the exempt signs . As can be seen from Mary' s research, limiting political signs to a 30 day existence is probably too short a time to be constitutional . Accordingly, we would recommend that the Sign Law be amended in one of the following ways : i i I BARNEY, GROSSMAN , DUBOW & MARCUS October 13 , 2004 Page 2 (a) Move political signs from the temporary classification of Exempt Signs to the permanent classification of Exempt Signs . In other words eliminate any time period for which political posters and political signs may be erected . (b) Create a new classification of temporary signs related solely to political signs , but provide that they can be erected for a period much longer than 30 days , e . g. , six months . Option (b) above will probably pass constitutional mustard but there is no certainty. Option (a) above clearly would remove any constitutional impediment resulting from a limited duration for the erection of political signs . There are a number of other amendments that might be considered. For example, the Sign Law does not limit the number of exempt signs . Accordingly, at present a person could put up 15 six square foot political signs and not be in violation of our law unless the signs were kept up for a period in excess of 30 days . Limiting the number of signs, however, does itself raise constitu- tional questions . Another area for possible discussion, which doesn ' t apply only to political signs, is whether any time limit can be defeated by simply taking the sign down for a day and then putting it up again. Currently the Sign Law does not address that possibility. We need your guidance as to how you wish for us to proceed. At a minimum, we would recommend making a speedy amendment to either lengthen or eliminate altogether the time limits on political signs . JCB : sls Attachments i i, § 221 -4 SIGNS § 221 -5 (8) Except as otherwise provided herein, no banners, pennants, ribbons, streamers, spinners, or similar moving, fluttering, or revolving devices shall be part of an exterior or window sign, or used for advertising or attracting attention when not part of a sign. (9) Phosphorescent, fluorescent, or similar reflective paint or material shall not be used on exterior signs, except those listed in § 219-5A( 1 )(a), (b), and (c) . ( 10) Prohibited sign illumination sources shall be as listed in § 219-8A. B . Residential and/or agricultural districts. The following signs are prohibited in residential districts and/or agricultural districts : ( 1 ) Signs as listed in § 219 4A. (2) Projecting signs, except as allowed in § 219-5B 1 )(b) , (3) Window signs , except temporary signs such as pickup and delivery notices , . political posters, or similar signs . (4) Signs on awnings or canopies . § 221 -5. Exempt signs. A. All districts . ( 1 ) The following permanent signs , not self-illuminated except as otherwise provided herein, may be placed in any district without a permit : (a) Street identification, traffic and other governmental signs and control devices required by law, ordinance, or regulation. (b) Official public information signs. (c) Entrance-exit and directional signs. i (d) House and building numbers. (e) Memorial signs, building names , erection dates , or similar information cut into masonry or other permanent surface, or constructed of bronze or other incombustible material, not to exceed 36 square feet in size . (f) Signs and markers in cemeteries designating graves and memorials . (g) 'Posted" or "No Trespassing" signs not to exceed four square feet in size. (h) Historical markers not to exceed six square feet in size. (i) Hospital identification signs , which may be self-illuminated, not to exceed 24 square feet in size. (j) Governmental agency and public building identification. 221 : 3 06 - 01 - 2004 § 221 -5 ITHACA CODE § 221 -5 (k) Signs or notices erected by a public utility necessary for the direction, I information, or safety of the public. (2) The following temporary signs, not illuminated unless otherwise specified, may be placed in any district without a permit: (a) Emergency or safety signs, illuminated as required. (b) Directional signs for meetings , conventions, and other assemblies, not to exceed six square feet in size and to be removed within 15 days after the event. (c) One sign, not to exceed six square feet, advertising the sale or rental of the land or building on which it is located, to be removed within 15 days after sale or rental and no more than one such sign for each lot or building being sold. In business and industrial districts, such signs may be up to 24 square feet in size. (d) One sign, not to exceed six square feet, listing . the architect, engineer, contractor and/or owner, on premises where construction, renovation, or repair is in progress. (e) Political posters, not-for-profit promotional, private sales , or similar signs not exceeding six square feet in size. In business and industrial zones, such signs may be up to 24 square feet in size. (f) Holiday decorations, including lighting. ! (g) No more than two banners aggregating not in excess of 15 square feet containing graphics that are purely decorative and that do not identify, advertise or convey information. (3 ) Flags , emblems , or insignia of a nation, government, or school, may be displayed in any district without a permit. B . Residential and/or agricultural districts . ( 1 ) The following signs, on premises , not self-illuminated, may be placed in residential districts and/or agricultural districts without a permit: (a) Signs listed as exempt in § 219-5A. (b) One wall, projecting or freestanding sign on each building frontage identifying the name and/or address of the occupants of a residence not to exceed six square feet in size. Signs as needed to identify the building or activities of colleges and universities, not to exceed 24 square feet. (c) One wall sign as needed to identify the buildings or activities of houses of worship, libraries , museums, nursing homes, or similar institutions ; and one freestanding sign neither of which is to exceed 24 square feet in size, and combined shall not exceed 24 square feet in size . The height of any freestanding sign shall not exceed six feet. 1 221 :4 06 - 01 - 2004 § 221 -5 SIGNS § 221 -6 (d) Neighborhood identification signs, not to exceed six square feet in size. (e) In agricultural districts, signs for the sale of farm and garden produced products, total area of signs not to exceed six square feet and total number of signs not to exceed two. (f) In agricultural -*districts, breed identification signs, not to exceed six square feet in size. (2) Freestanding signs in residential districts and/or agricultural districts shall be located as specified in § 219-6A(2). C. Business and industrial districts. ( 1 ) The following signs may be placed in business and industrial districts without a permit: (a) Signs listed as exempt in § § 219-5A and B . (b) At each entrance to an office, public, or institutional building, a sign denoting only the name and/or business or profession of the occupants , not to exceed six square feet in size. (c) Window graphics , signs and displays as specified in § 219-7E. (d) Temporary window signs announcing the opening or closing of a business, r sales, and price listings, not to exceed 50% of the total display window area. (e) At gasoline stations integral graphics or attached price signs on gasoline pumps . (2) Any signs erected pursuant to § 219-5C( 1 ) shall be counted in determining the maximum number of signs permitted pursuant to § 219-6B . § 221-6. Regulated signs. A. Residential and/or agricultural districts . ( 1 ) The following wall or freestanding signs, on premises, not self-illuminated, may be placed in residential districts and/or agricultural districts on issuance of a permit: (a) One wall or freestanding sign, not exceeding four square feet in area, identifying a principal permitted enterprise or use other than residential . (b) One wall or freestanding sign, not exceeding 24 square feet in area, identifying a multiple residence. (2) Freestanding signs in residential districts and/or agricultural districts shall in no case be located between the sidewalk and the street, nor closer than two feet from the sidewalk, nor closer than three feet from a building or structure, nor closer than 15 feet from a side lot line ; the maximum height of sign and support shall be six feet. 221 : 5 06 - 01 - 2004 October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT X11 Memo To: John Barney From: Mary Russell Subject: Constitutional limitations on municipal regulation of political signs Date: October 6, 2004 The Town Sign Law prohibits all signs not allowed by its provisions. Certain types of signs are allowed by permit. Section 221 -5 A.(2)(e) allows political signs only as exempt temporary signs (not as permanent signs) . To qualify as an exempt sign "political posters . . . or similar signs" may be no larger than 24 sq.ft. in size and "for use for a period not exceeding 30 days. . .". Political signs that do not comply with these requirements are not allowed. The term "political posters" is not defined. Interest in this provision of the sign ordinance has arisen because of the posting of "Bush Must Go" and other political message signs in the Town for periods of time far in excess of 30 days. Other classes of signs are allowed as exempt permanent signs such as traffic signs, public information signs, memorial signs and historical markers. The Preliminaries-Content Based/Content Neutral . As you know, if a sign regulation is found to be content neutral , a court's inquiry mainly focuses on whether the regulation is no greater than necessary to further a significant or substantial governmental interest and whether the regulation allows for ample alternative avenues of communication. If on the other hand, a sign regulation is determined to be content based strict scrutiny is applied and the regulation must be necessary to further a compelling state interest and must be the least restrictive alternative available to further that interest. In Metromedia. Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U. S . 490 ( 1981 ),the first case to apply First Amendment principles to sign regulations, the Supreme Court announced a test for determining whether ordinances were content neutral or content based. That test includes "whether the provisions distinguish. . . between permissible and impermissible signs . . .by reference to their content". Christensen v. City of Wheaton , 2000 U. S . Dist. LEXIS 1737 (N.D.111 . 2000). This line of analysis has generated many cases which have overturned local political sign regulations as content based (I will list them below). Local concerns of traffic safety and aesthetics are never enough to hold up to strict scrutiny. A convincing argument can be made that the Supreme Court has changed and converted that analysis to a viewpoint neutral analysis. See Evolving_Voices in Land Use Law: A Festschrift in Honor of Daniel R Mandelker• Part III• Zoning Aesthetics• Chanter 5: The Takings Clause and Signs: Election Signs and Time Limits 3 Wash. U.J.L.& Pol ' y 379 (2000) for an in-depth discussion. Since the Town Sign Law categorizes political signs with other time-limited signs, we have already taken some steps in order not to end up on the content based side of a content neutral/content based analysis. However, even a content neutral regulation must leave open ample alternative avenues of communication. If those alternative avenues don ' t exist or are not ample enough then a regulation may be restricting too much protected speech. The case law research I have done suggests these issues regarding the sign law provisions. 1 . The ordinance regulates political opinion signs (ex. "Save the Whales" , "Against the War") with the same restriction on display period as election campaign signs. Although I didn 't find many cases (since I was trying to work within the Town ' s time constraints) some cases suggest political opinion signs should be regulated separately from election campaign signs. 2. The ordinance should be clarified as to whether political signs (and other temporary signs) can be reposted after their 30 day posting period has expired. Some ordinances only allow one posting period per calendar year and other ordinances with permits required for signs specify that they are nonrenewable. (2) 3 . The 30 day restriction may be too short for election campaign signs. Many ordinances reference a period before and after the election when these signs are allowed. 4. The 30 day restriction is questionable when applied to political opinion signs. 5. Whether further steps can or should be taken to make the sign law more content neutral should be evaluated. Here are the current case law parameters. Some of the cases discuss both the political opinion sign and the election campaign sign issues, so separating them is a bit artificial . Facial Challenge Possible. It is clear that a court would hear a challenge brought against the Sign Law provision on political posters even though it is not being enforced by the Town, because of its "chilling effect" on speech. Knoeffler v. Town of Mamakating et al . , 87 F. Supp, 2d 322 (2000) . Political Opinion Signs. The Town Sign Law does not distinguish between political opinion signs and their subset, election or campaign signs supporting candidates. While the rationale of restricting the posting period for election signs is justifiable according to some courts since elections are a time bound event, the same rationale does not necessarily apply to political opinion signs . The amount of time political opinion signs should be allowed to be posted to meet constitutional standards is unclear. However, some cases indicate that a 30 day period may be too restrictive for this important avenue for speech. The Town Sign Law allows political opinion signs only for 30 days, but leaves unclear whether they can be reposted for successive 30 day periods or whether the signs are restricted to one posting period within a calendar year. If they can be reposted this may satisfy the constitutional standards, but then what is the point of the 30 day restriction? Ordinances prohibiting political opinion signs have been struck down by the Supreme Court as infringing upon legitimate protected forms of political expression. The leading case is City of Ladue vs. Gilleo, 512 U. S . 43 ( 1994) . The ordinance in Gilleo was a near total ban on residential signs, with a few exemptions. Ms. Gilleo posted an "For Peace in the Gulf" sign and when the city council denied her petition for a variance, a lawsuit ensued. In an opinion that assumed arguendo that the regulation was content neutral , the Supreme Court held it to be unconstitutional . In an opinion that has been described as exhibiting a "reverence" for residential signs, the court found that "Ladue has almost completely foreclosed a venerable means of communication that is both unique and important. It has totally foreclosed that medium to political , religious, or personal messages. Signs that react to a local happening or express a view on a controversial issue both reflect and animate change in the life of a community . . .residential signs have long been an important and distinct medium of expression. . . ` the first amendment prohibits not only content-based restrictions that censor particular points of view , but also content-neutral restrictions that unduly constrict the opportunities for free expression ' . . .In this case, we are not persuaded that adequate substitutes exist for the important medium of speech that Ladue has closed off. Residential signs are an unusually cheap and convenient form of communication. Especially for persons of modest means or limited mobility, a yard or window sign may have no practicable substitute. A special respect for individual liberty in the home has long been part of our culture and our law . " Id. at 5458. The court did not foreclose all regulation, however. "We are confident that more temperate measures could in large part satisfy Ladue ' s stated regulatory needs without harm to the First Amendment rights of its citizens. Id. at 59. (3 ) So the issue is: what more temperate measures would be allowed? There is a split of opinion in the case law on this issue. Here are the current case law parameters. Starting close to home, a 30 day, nonrenewable permit with fee regulatory restriction on all temporary signs was upheld in a recent New York Appellate Division, 2nd Dept. case, People v. Weinkselbaum, 194 Misc . 2D 19, 753 N.Y . S .2d 284 (2002) (not reviewed by the N.Y . Court of Appeals). Facing a challenge from a citizen who had posted a sign critical of local law enforcement practices, the court found that "the temporary permits, available on demand for use in ` all districts ' for a nominal fee, provide an ` ample ' alternative ` channel for communication ' . Id. At 249 The U.S . District Court for the Northern District of New York struck down a sign law in Savago v. Village of New Paltz, 214 F. Supp. 2D 252 (N.D.N.Y . 2002) as content based. The plaintiff wanted the ability to post his 4'x 25' antiterrorist sign if the U. S . was attacked again and challenged the village law as discriminatory. The village sign law exempted some classes of outsized signs (traffic signs, legal notices, historical plaques, memorial signs and accessory signs) from permitting requirements depending on their message and exempted 4 week temporary signs for political and sporting events, entertainments and elections while a permit with a 3 week durational limit was required for other types of event signs. The court did not squarely face the question of the constitutionality of the 4 week or 3 week durational limits. In Knoeffler v. Town of Mamakatina, et al. , 87 F. Supp 2d 322 (S .D. N.Y . 2000) the court struck down the Town ' s sign ordinance as content based. The plaintiff had posted 6 political opinion signs and been denied permits for all of them. The court noted that commercial signs (onsite advertising, address signs, identification signs for hotels and for sale or rental signs) were allowed to be posted without a permit and noncommercial (including political) signs required a permit and that commercial signs were allowed to be permanent but political posters were never allowed to be permanent. Small political signs were allowed as window signs without a permit. However, lawn signs and larger political signs required a permit with a durational limit of 2 weeks before an election for campaign signs and for a period to be designated by the ZBA for political opinion signs. The court found that there was no evidence that political posters create greater traffic hazards or more visual clutter than other types of signs allowed without a permit. Citing Ladue the court stated "Although size and shape regulations have been repeatedly upheld by the courts, Mamakating ' s ordinance goes much farther by only allowing window signs, requiring permits for larger signs, and imposing durational limits on larger signs. . .Further, durational limits on signs have been repeatedly declared unconstitutional. " Id. at 333 . Proceeding out-of-state, the Colorado Supreme Court has squarely faced the issue of durational limits on political opinion signs. City of Lakewood. et al . v. Colfax Inc. et al . , 634 P.2d 52 ( 1981 ). The court noted that the section of the law at issue did not separately regulate political opinion signs and election signs, but seemed to subject both categories to the same provision limiting duration to 45 days. "Here, although we do not question the significance of Lakewood ' s interests in traffic safety and community appearance, the durational limitations imposed on all ideological signs and the blanket exclusion of such signs from residential, agricultural and conservation districts sweep too broadly. Ample alternative channels of communication are not available to convey ideological beliefs generally and, more specifically, political messages about upcoming electoral contests. . .we find nothing objectionable in the provisions which merely purport to limit the size, type and setback of signs conveying ideological messages. These neutral restrictions which are narrowly drawn to promote the City ' s traffic safety and aesthetic interests impose only an incidental burden on First Amendment freedoms . 05 We express no opinion on the constitutionality of a regulation which simply requires that signs which pertain to an upcoming election may be posted no more than 45 (4) days in advance of and must be removed no later than 15 days after the contest. However, we can conceive of no permissible regulation limiting the time during which other ideological messa t may be displayed. " Id. at 63 (emphasis added). In Brayton v. City of New Brighton, 519 N.W.2d 243 ( 1994) the Minnesota Court of Appeals, finding content neutrality, affirmed a judgment in favor of the city in a challenge to the city ' s sign ordinance. The ordinance originally allowed one campaign sign per candidate and issue to be posted during election season. The plaintiff had posted two signs with opinions on two different subjects and was cited for violation of the ordinance. After she asserted to the City Council that the ordinance was unconstitutional , the ordinance was amended to allow a resident to post one "noncommercial opinion sign" at any time. The court stated " . . .New Brighton has done as well as can be expected in balancing the rights of noncommercial opinion speech, political speech, for sale and for rent signs, casual and for business sale signs. ..Because the ordinance allows appellant to post at least one opinion sign, which can contain multiple messages, on one or multiple issues, at any time of the year, it is reasonably and narrowly tailored.. .Alternative channels of communication must exist and must be adequate. . .Here, appellant can present one or more opinion messages on one sign on her property at any time, and multiple signs with multiple messages during the election season. This satisfies the alternative channels of communication. Id. at 247. The Illinois Appellate Court upheld a sign ordinance as content neutral in City of Waterloo v. Markham. 234 III.App.3d 744 ( 1992) . The Markhams were cited for maintaining an opinion sign in excess of the 90 days allowed for temporary signs in the ordinance. Time extensions could be granted by the SBA , but the Markhams had not applied. Finding that other categories of signs were included in the durational limit in addition to political signs and using a viewpoint test, the court found content neutrality. The court also found that the ordinance was narrowly tailored and no broader than necessary to achieve the government' s interest in discouraging and preventing unsightly clutter. . .(the ordinance) does this with clear specificity, workable efficiency and complete content tolerance." However, the court went on to examine whether ample alternative channels for communication were available. ". .what is most important is section. . . ' s liberal provision for temporary signs themselves . Nothing, in the ordinance prohibits the defendants from erecting a different temporary_sign one day after dismantling their first temporary sign. . . .Since the defendants, and others, can abide by the requirements. . .and still communicate their ideas by simply erecting a new temporary sign after the 90 days expire, there is little, if any, interference with the marketplace of ideas. " Id. at 747-748 (emphasis added) . Last, but not least in this section, the First Circuit Court of Appeals in John Donnelly & Sons, et al . v. Campbell , 639 F.2d 6 ( 1980), held Maine ' s sign law unconstitutional. The opinion was affirmed by the Supreme Court without opinion on the same day the court ruled in the Metromedia case. The law restricted billboards and other signs visible from public ways. The law contained an exemption for "Signs erected for an election, primary or referendum. These signs shall be erected no sooner than 3 weeks before the date of the election, primary or referendum and shall be removed no later than one week after that date. .." The court was very concerned that the law contained no provision allowing for political opinion signs. "We take strong exception to the state ' s characterization of the statute ' s impact on noncommercial speech as "incidental " and "of no constitutional significance. " The district court found that some 24% of the messages carried on Donnelly ' s billboards and 5% on those of National Advertising Company signs are noncommercial in nature. Manifestly the statute affects much ideological communication not accounted for in these figures ; signs of all sorts ; a candidate ' s (5) poster on a telephone pole ; "Jesus Saves" painted on the side of a barn are within the statute ' s reach. A great deal of communication on topics of political , social, cultural , and religious import speech long afforded maximum protection under the First Amendment, . .is regulated or prohibited by the law before us. I True, the Maine scheme makes accommodation for some signs of this type. Signs showing the place and time of church services and meetings of civic organizations; signs announcing events of public, civic, philanthropic or religious organizations up to three weeks in advance; signs erected for an election, primary or referendum, again within three weeks of the event; and signs outside the right of way for historical or cultural organizations are all exempted. These exceptions, however, do not go far enough. Initially, we doubt that three weeks is enough time to publicize a campaign. particularly for the little-known or unpopular candidate, or cause, with the greatest need for exposure. Moreover, no exception is available for signs on important public issues as to which no referendum is pending . Messages such as "Abortion is Murder, " "Save the Whales," "No Nukes , " and "Contribute to your Community Fund" are altogether banned. . .The law thus impacts more heavily on ideological than on commercial speech, a peculiar inversion of First Amendment values. . . . Signs which can be cheaply erected particularly permit advancing ` poorly financed causes of little people, ' . . .a prime First Amendment objective. In short, the statute ' s impositions are both legally and practically the most burdensome on ideological speech, where they should be the least." Id. at 15- 16 (emphasis added) . Election Campaign Signs. Thirty days seems like a questionable time period because the following cases struck down ordinances with durational limits. John Donnelly , cited above. (3 weeks not enough). Curry v . Prince George ' s County, 33 F. Supp. 2D 447 (S .D. Maryland 1999) In this case the U.S . District Court interpreted Ladue as allowing only size, shape and location restrictions on campaign or opinion signs and held the 45 day pre-election restriction to be unconstitutional . The court stated "City of Ladue ' s ordinance, to be sure, established a nearly total ban on residential signs. But the language of the Court 's opinion leaves little room to argue that an extended durational ban on such signs, whether the message supports a cause or a political candidate, is any more acceptable. In the first place, there is no natural terminal date for a ` cause ' sign; a cause and a private resident ' s passion for it exists as long as the cause exists. Yet the Court in Ladue speaks interchangeably of ` cause ' and ` political ' signs. . .Moreover, a number of problems arise in attempting to make any distinction between the two. . . .When does a ` cause ' sign cease being a ` cause ' sign and become a political one? If a `cause ' sign is linked to a political candidate or a ballot question fails, what happens if the private resident wishes to continue promoting the cause after the election? Ultimately, why is the expression of personal support for a viable reform candidate capable of bringing immediate changes to government any less deserving of support than the expression of an opinion in support of a cause that is fringe in nature and which has little or no hope of ever becoming a reality?" Id. at 453 -454. Christensen v. City of Wheaton, 2000 U.S . Dist. LEXIS 1737 (N. D. Ill. 2000) (30 days not enough. Held ordinance to be content base even though it included it included some commercial signs in the temporary 30 day category. The structure of this ordinance closely resembles the Town Sign Law) . Orazio v. Town of North Hempstead, 426 F. Supp. 1144 (E.D.N.Y . 1977) (45 day restriction violates equal protection.) City of Antioch v. Candidates ' Outdoor Graphic Service et al . , 557 F. Supp. 52 (N.D.Cal . � 1 '1 � . . � � r (6) 1982)(60 days not enough. ) Whitton v . City of Gladstone, 54 F.3d 1400 (8th Cir. 1994) (30 days-content based). Dimas, et al . v. City of Warren, 939 F. Supp. 554 (E.D.Mich. 1996) (45 days-content based). Van, et al . v. Travel Information Council, 52 Ore. App. 399 ( 1980) (60 days not enough). Collier, et al. v. City of Tacoma, 121 Wn.2d737 ( 1993 ) (60 days not enough). The following cases upheld a time limit for election campaign signs. People v . Weinkselbaum, cited above. (30 days) Town of Huntington v. Estate of Samuel Schwartz, 63 Misc. 2D 836 (3rd Dist. Suffolk County 1970) (45 days with permits) . Sugarman v. Village of Chester, et al . , 192 F. Supp. 2D 282 (S .D. N.Y. 2002) (Village of Greenwood Lake ordinance upheld--30 days. The several other Town and Village ordinances considered were struck down as content based.) The following case struck down a two sign limit on election campaign signs. Arlington County Republican Committee et al . v. Arlington Coun , et al 983 F. 2D 587 (4th Cir. 1993 ). i i if, LO m o October 18 , 2004 ^ LO Town Board Mtg ao ai LL c N C) N ° � ATTACHMENT # 12 N 61!� 61� N (O 00 G) (0 W N M 0) LO ` L � N O N O r' O Q � 6 69 rfl N o O r 3 N O N ti co a N d (O (O Z N M N O C � EA O r o0 O r- Q dam' O O to C N C E 0 E Erfl � N o N n oo ` Z Z .� a) 0 O O O O >, >% a_. C C C O U N N C cn N J U) a -C ui II Lm 0 2 N N O . m ami E O v m C m V C 3 a + �— CSI CM U 3 C lz Q > 0 U D C W m 'm m ° 11" O 1- 4P pU W 00Y _O o O O In m LnO � LO t� V CL O 69 Ef? � a, Efl N 6e O N Efl 6H >-® d _� Z N Cu Lm U)� m C Q m 0 O O O `mil+ � r � m O O 0) LL U) &:� 611- 0 N W .♦Z ti O C6 r ♦� 7 N r O O C Q O LO N Q O 644 61� 60- 60. IT(O O � CU m 1�o M O 6 O a ' N N 61 � y 3 J9 .1d _ W 69 69 U Ln Co U M m W O o W eR N U m C m O iii Cu a m Cu O o 0 Z Z O U N Q C N >, O U c C C o Cu 2 az rn 0 W o ` N V C :3 :_ r N M_ Q N 3 Q m 0 O N sZ E N O N C LL V) 0 0 > 0 0 0 uJ m F- H F- N q v U O L p o 0 M 'a U� O Ln c N N _W z Mimi i E ao 3 N � a v m CL o CD 0 a °°Cn o cn a ci, o C) O n o (D -i --� m :3 p 0 p .o << Co N CD 11) C 7 (D j 01 cn IQ � �<< an. � ;0 m n (D !u O lt0'/1 N N p O `` o (fin (D (3D co n 0 N 0 0 CD � n 69 69 69 69 0 er M � � N N L• � (�' W Co 00 O Q + � O O W I 69 69 69 v Zh _ � O 00 00 W ~ (o W a N rn rn CD 699 69 69 4A m CO OD rn A O N N Co 3 v O O Co A o w v E W 3 '0 °1 CD (a CD CL 69(D O W N ffl W EA 69 O O 03 7 Cn O Cn C. Cn CJ O c Cn O n a1 cn 00 M n O c _-� -_� _� m -3 p n Q v p < .�+ u) TI _ FD (D (D 3 T3 (D OL CD A W N co C. 7 (D (D � Im � n CD `�' (o O "• c 3 v co co ,n �� C7• Ml V O :3< n CD ;a T3 (D 0_ O CD Z Z n t3 n CA N O W 0 69 69 6A C. W N < 0 O W A C3) A M Z Cn N N \ p OD N d N 69 69 v _ _ G O 00 N A Cn O C 00 C) O C ) Q N (4 00 00 C33 O (D o P o) N I 69 T N 2) N O N � 1 -� A OD K Cn c N O O Cn LO (0 Lf) (p o Un) >% _� O W r� LO E O (O N W N m 00 N O ,T LL Ir: N 6 N O O O o O d (O 00 W) 00 r� O r r 00 7 � v N LD O ea 6 LO o M m N O (D � f� 0) \ Z O (OO N N O ' N M r O > C. C CL V �' O C4 ce) O CL to +. 00 O O _L U c LO CF) v qt co v a E cu g _ G1 O O � Z Z U CD CD ( � > �J 0 CD L" c N m �. c N w Q 11 O 0 2 O > =3 c m C7 m m L O O U �- C1 c V) U C U 0) m C i O j a N 0) . N i. ix U.0 O > o U O W I— HF- p 0W ZVp � o O o L a OLn0 `� U V O (A ( � CY) N» ( O v CL >-_ m z L mo C rn o o N N N P R (fl ` " 0000 LL V , 64 Efl Ef} co (O O d N CD _O C5 `- }O O r" aD N O69- 6ek C (0 O 'O Ci 00 6 O a N CO If) ^ N W 64% e9- (A V)- U i eh C: 3 q Co V ti co L RV � M m U) p o cn CV m E o E E m CL 0 (o m En U n � ZZ ai U > cc p � tQ m U (0 m d2 O > +, C 0) U' mm E E o C1 to N Cl) U N p) . . N O a) U T 3 N 0) O O > O U o w °' '°' °' 0 L" I— HH a) p V V0Yp o O o Lo ;o ao LO ` ` . O nou a m °' N 4) o U) m Lu m i co CD CD C i C w m0 ffl ffl ffl fig (D O W N 69 w fH 69 O -� O O Cn o Cn M cn C) O o o n Xm cn no (D � --� =i m -- < 0 �°, -n Comm ii o O � � ' W N Q � m N CL (/p n� N m (7 (D CD `OG Q Q �. X T7 (D n i O CD O N N "' 3 � cn � O � V n OD W m ` V�` VV ffl b9 ffl ffl rr"L Q A N N < C) W P co Q l I o A A W C fA {fl ffl ffl O N cn A o 800 CO CO CO I? W O W O (D A N 0) 0 y9 d9 ffl fig i _ d A CO N N � 3 N (� ✓ CO O (0 I 0 w v U) = Z CD C: N O W N E6 W U Efl O N 7 Ul O Cn Q Cn C� O c O O n CD 00 m N OOv (� N N CD n � CD O d W N .. (Q (1) n (n CD U c C N CD CO. Co G7 CD ;:p C O 2 ID 0 O (� II Q a <� , �Cl� ) (D 0 CD O r. .0 0 (D CD 0 Ef, fA O C: °' °' O m (D CD (� N U) O '� O y ° t p A .4 ffl fA ffl ffl a n O Cn W N CL z o al CIJ w o ffl ffl ffl fA v p O W (D cn co W A �4 Cb -4 CA cn o O W co N ffl ffl Efl 1 � � ? O N_ W U7 O Cn v W FJ CA rn �4 Cn cn cn I " _^ o (D r (0 0D M O E CO CO O O N O N um N C{} EA 64 CN NOR (0 _d CO 000 O Q � O O M v _ . O O ti N 0 r- O O N O O O O CEO N M (D Z, ® $ N M r U) C 0 o 69 CA �3 EA CL co O CV) LO O CL co M N LO 0 cc O X m O C2 E E N iii ~ � a E � cu Ana o m o � Z Z m p C c cn N c O U m m co m � E Q 0 02 ° > C (D N cn U N O O U II c G1 ° O N Q cu N i i M E _N N N W !n o o > O U O W r. F ~ F- o C) W V O L. p o0 o O o O a uooO c m v O A d ° ��� Z Lo m H rn o rn rn r` R 0� � u C/) c En O m N coo .o of M o v 0) co w C N o O 613� 64 GR 69 7 Cfl O � _M an >N COON CV) Ld ^ ' C CA fA Lm CW) W U R CU V :3 O CL p o cn w En N m E oEE CL 0 m m cn U m a a a) >, } c a� U �. C: c c 0 .0 E N m U O N m m Q p d = O > 7 C N (D m m E E tm c U N U N rn O O a) 0 d ° O N m N L. N M n E _N N _N V0 > O U D W L F- F- F- N OU Q O o d L O CL O a O O C{} 6 > CY) N 64 Cf? a O N �a � O � a) � a) — N z O � L � gym = 0 H m �02 -4 v vCD o � CD Q � Q I wo o n T ci (n Q C) o O n D 49 ° � 0 <Oo c -� � � m Ov - CD c w N -' O (Q ( _ co ID Q ° N N N (D (A) m N (n O 7 7 �� n •< (DD OL Q �. ;o cl (D C7 cop ZZn o 0 O (n N N — o 3 cn (7 p rfl c o O v � o 0 C w n CD /09 S9 s9 �. M A N N L• ^^ ,, LIAl w 00 � O an (Lo W &9 ffl 49 {A O 0 -� o0 ao w o w 0 nD rn 0) = ^ / S9 b9 � A09 v+ l 0 a o co N � 3 lu io (0 O co I -I co 0 W 3 ° (ten C Z = (D (D co (D m M. (D o w nom) Ea te(n 69 69 0 O -0 cnocn Q, O o 0 0 o � On m () o o -� -i m =s o c� O a U) 0 m m m 0 m o) c o CD "AAl 0 w � y CD ° � � A to -+ c o co 3 CO CO G)m O_ 11 (n 0 7 7 (D o Q Q � o is m o 3 O Z Z 0. �� CD CD O AAAAl cn (D (D (D n U) 0 O co O (� v N 0 ' ma -69 69 .69 69 -� CL O Z W O Ut A O N C � o A OD 01 Efl ffl ffl fA v N 00 O N UAl V1 O c Q O O -• O O O c n Ul OD (O (D OO c O d1 00 N , 4fl EH ffl N ' O 4) A O N_ O A O O OD w W UT N A 'G N d) O Cn c .� I lf) ^ o _� [C �t 000 ao t` r 00 r N O M w O 00 N O N rqq*. LL V-: N i 66- EA d co � 0) c00 O 00 SEEMS O - CO to _ co � _ CL O I 0 r ® 61? Ef3 allow tJ N r 00 r LO ° O LO N V 00 r so � N O r! M L6 Z G1 > N `" '" M N Lo small O h. O Mat LO c N � o C w0) N r. cm (D a) aa) iii a E E ++ cu O p c6 O U N �y ( — CL (p O UZZ w a) O m = 0 > ° c m C� m m E i l0 C a) O C =3 21 r N (M (j N C C > o > 0 U W i F- F- F= o C) W O LO V 0 O o O O O so LO O S c O r O f!> O a) M CL Cl) CN 6a 6q rM small 7t3 >o, M 00 (D COMMON d 7 C L M O gym _ 0 mF- r O a O r C) � E � LO O � R CO 00 r 0 LL r � d4 d9 co O N NT O d N r r fA crj r /�/� O r LO L N L 0 r Mamma C: C v o ° N 00 O O °' ao (3i i co L6 EMISSIONS Z CN LO 00 N W U L M Co U M CL O ° C N cm oEE E ns M M Ua Lnoa >,a ) 7E in"= c a) U v cco cco fA am O .Q c n — d2 > i ac) a) E E (D m m o M c a) O c r N Cfi ?i (D Law o � o ate) Q. E L 0 . H op > O U o S w I= HH o 0 O d O % V) N M a O N d9 _ 0 Islas a) (� -p �- 'a a) Z C1 CV „ = o E FO a � M f°- Mommommaj i o c ° =3 N in W /1 O III Z m C_. .V^ T� lei / �.. /0 CV O a) = V Vl O Vl Q Cn C ) O � O 00 0 o ° fD _-I _-I -_� m -� o n 0 m mmm 3 z) m CL L Q c m � m j of 0 m '� CIS _0 _ - C co co r _� O N 7 7 ( `G �� m =3 rt T# i `G Cl C2 m (np CD n d Z Z n o �e) cn O a) 3 `G 1 v) m m co 0 p (f1 01 o C n Vmph 0 co W _ (D ` V ffl ffl w EH O r* T 1 A � N N <' 0 c'� CO coo O C. O A w d Efl ffl ( Efl O i o t A = r•+ CO 00 Q w co w 0 CD I V (� EA Q) Efl _ >y A O N N O N _a CO �. O O O s I I —I sw W m mm °: sy CL gmm cs� .69 r3 n CD O A N N 7 � ,O C O p O U Opi 469 C) O c Cn CD O O 0 O o —I —I Ill =i O C) O -p t r� � N CD CD 3 �l a Q � c O a CD 7 0 w r%' -' m a� 0 c m cn CD su CD = 3 O Mh �. cr O C w W G) _ ] 09 II Q O (n N 0) m n �) m 07 O_ C1 a m �� CD C7 �7 zr m a N C) Z Z n 00 `� O N N N to H9 3 3 3 ( m m m � C7 N 7 r w � to QTY OD N mC O OD mL(fi 69 Efl E9 O i M n O v, w N < `< Z Cil bD W v Cn A O N N C 90 CO W OD CO 66 O O) N Ul ODD I ffl Efl 4fl .69 (� Ui v _ _ O 0 OD N w Cr Cfl = O d7 w W A CD 4a O C Oo Cn O W OD CA N cD 6 ) OJ V7 T A C) OD O W Cn O) OD Cn v OD 1 A o Ctil Cn (3) 0 Cn In r O CD l) CD o 00 0 00 O 00 Lo CD OD 0 O OD v MO N 0) ma Co LL r N tv Co N (D 000 Lo co O Oj O_ tt O .- �- CILj CV M CY) CD o 0 Lo Im � 61) E ? N 0 co L j �t o f� O Co m` O N W 'p 6 N O � 0 (V (V O Z �+ •' N `. �. 0 N co 0 co IIIIIIIII to O � C a 6 CL O c a y cc 00 O O C1 00 O U + a) a) aa)i iii v E SEE N � � CL O U Z Z U a) U ° � aa 4-- c 0 >, c c c a) O c cn c`u c a) T. cLu En Q 11 O ai = O > > +, c m Umm E : L � p � 0 � o 4))Q E a`) a`) CD L � U 00 > O U C W r. H F- F- o C3 W mn L V 0 Lr) o O O O 'O 0 0 0 L O O Efl 0 0 NRqT O a) Q va4 � 646q a } ca aD m c Z cu a m O 1- Cn o rn of E � 0) � M o 00 t) u bq 64 m o O d N 00 cri rn 00 C Q Q r N p 6 64 IM_ ( 0 C7 CU m _ CA O Cp O O a N In Op f1 N LL 4 + C ^ , 6% 611 U L eh Cc U to CL '^ O m 69 V, N E o E E m o c v, co c ( ) cum fn a ai = O > c m C? mm` E � C) cn N � U a) mT O O O � U T N a) N M EZ O > W o o p 0 Lo O U O " C O 0 64 � M D a o 0 � o a�i a 6 (.49- (u a N d =3z � W m � gy = o m0 i 0w CD rm+h Z CD CL to CD 0 W N 69 ( Efl 69 O O cn O U1 Q, C l (D O c O 00 no (D � � � 0D m < Oo cn m CD CD m 3 MU CD o Ogg ' CD W N -� (D (D 0 cn o cn U2 _ c 3 co co G) � < 0 _ � o :3 = � cr ° Q �. iu m o co n , zi a) 00 3 cn m rn (a (7 p Cl) cn 0 0 lob n CD T .A N N CL cn C) W COO PO O C. C O A l W d � 69 69 69 69 O v N cn 00 O W (D W O . rn rn � co O N N (O J CD �G i (O O CD I j O� cc D (n 'c Z m Q t ) Q 49 (D D n CD O W N 69 X n 69 O p N Ui UI O O C O CJ O c cn 0 0 = mC� O � � —I -1 09 m =; o c� O < < cn 0 m m m CD of C• c o 09 ((DD W N CD (D C) N CD (n 3 CC fu Mh c 3 nos W G) P� � < p 2 �D O CD N p Q o is (DD O CD C N N O p "� f1 69 40 3 3 3 `n � (1) o cn c7 < O A v, 0 N O 00 M cn 4b O �4 o 'G 469 69 49 49 5 CD 0 C. Ut W N < rip z Cn(O W AOOo O P C N = QO O O .J p1 m O 3 469 469 69 CD o Ul _ m 00 00 P cn O O (D a 00 (D 0 � O o O 0) OOD A N . . 4A 69 N C1 A O Ul N_ O OD O A O (3) Cr A P N Op O O ILO m I I _ LO O �i< 00 M A O I` LO W C0 'qt 0 CO M 00 O CO cyi L6 00 O E O N O N q O M O CM L N N � N TMW LL 64 64 69 64 Vy Efl 64 fA 6'4 64 N w 00 o O 0 (O 00 d ti N LO 00 ® � O 0) t1� N O CV ti M N ® � O ' ' 0 � O I` 0 N ti � r r r 61� 6 ( 64 6z) 6H 6c� 69 64 64 O CI O N O TOM N O N M M O I` O N E TOM N CO C4 00 P� N O O LO N co N `- t M0 � M � 0 E c � � 69 64 6z} 64 63 64 69 63 64 a •E x- 0_0 0 r00 r00 to N co 0 M 00 LO c co 0 >' co 0) Nti LO 00 O ® O O c cn N U coo E E E �' m 64 6�4 64 E 6L? 64 CL >. o cm m :3 cn U CL ` a 70 o >, ® E a) rn ai (/� O to N U a) m m N Q II d p II D a II ® y = o f N O m m aa) o 0 r a) o 0 ate) o L) c a) C.) c L iii cf) U 3 c min c d > � o a°) C- E a� a`) 4� c LL � u g ro N 0 -0 o u� tL > O U D w L 1— 1— 1— o 00 LO to Uw Q w Ne 4)� V O o 0O O o C) M MO LO N M c N d d U _v d G 64 64 O a) O O O a) a) ° a a g a a) Z O O E m E L O LLd O O I0 O O CD E to� � L O �CN m 00 O) LL ♦N 64:31 EA Ef} ER O O O CD ry 0o � TIM .Q M O Ch m LO co N Q O O69r 619� 69 61� m M C C 3 co � o 0) o 06 ai O a 2: N N ^I..L. 6 69 63 64 W d U CU U o M � 00 o N C: N LE E m U a) a w ` Z Z ai o a) � � oc � U cmm vi av ail 0 > c a) Comm E E :3 cn in U a) rn (D O a) U C 3 N CO Lm 0 :3 a) +J 0 CL > °- > O U lE a) (D a) w o L H- f- F— q U O mO O 604 � 69OCn c m V d � Vy 69. O a) O Moa) Z f � m N m L 0 cn co I i I i I I I i I I I I i I i i i i i I i i i i i TOWN CLERK' S MONTHLY REPORT A9 @09M # 2 2 ATTACHMENT # 13 TOWN OF ITHACA, NEW YORK SEPTEMBER, 2004 t1ppayment HE SUPERVISOR: PAGE 1 ant to Section 27, Subd 1 of the Town Law, I hereby make the following statement of all fees and moneys received in connection with my office during the month stated above, excepting only such fees and moneys the application - of which are otherwise provided for by Law: October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting A1255 20 MARRIAGE LICENSES NO. 04109 TO 04128 350.00 5 MISC. COPIES 10.25 2 ZONING ORDINANCE 17.00 4 TAX SEARCH 20 .00 1 USE OF PARKS & BLDG 25 .00 3 MARRIAGE TRANSCRIPT 30 . 00 TOTAL TOWN CLERK FEES 452.25 A1557 1 SPCA IMPOUND FEES 10 .00 TOTAL A1557 10000 A2544 DOG LICENSES 584. 60 TOTAL A2544 584.60 0 1'3 BUILDING PERMIT 95575 .00 3 BUILDING PERMIT EXTENSIN 175 .00 2 TEMP. CERT, OF OCCUPANCY 245 .00 1 OPERATING PERMITS 400.00 1 FIRE SAFETY INSPECTIONS 50 .00 3 ZBA AREA & USE VARIANCES 300 .00 TOTAL B2110 109745900 B2115 1 SUBDV, REV. INITIAL APL, 396.00 2 SUBDV. REV, PRELIM. PLAT 360.00 2 SITE PLAN PRELIM. PLAN 2,500 . 00 1 SPECIAL PERMITS 100.00 TOTAL B2115 39356.00 Ir'r 6 i I i TOWN CLERK' S MONTHLY REPORT SEPTEMBER, 2004 page 2 H - I . i DISBURSEMENTS PAID TO SUPERVISOR FOR GENERAL FUND 11046 . 85 PAID TO SUPERVISOR FOR PART TOWN FUND 14, 101 . 00 PAID TO COUNTY TREASURER FOR DOG LICENSES 104.90 / PAID TO AG & MARKETS FOR DOG LICENSES 15 .00 PAID TO NYS HEALTH DEPT FOR MARRIAGE LICENSES 450.00 / TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS 159717975 I i I I S OCTOBER 1 , 2004 SUPERVISOR I I STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF TOMPKINS, TOWN OF ITHACA I I, TEE-ANN HUNTER, being duly sworn, says that I am the Clerk of the TOWN OF ITHACA that the foregoing is a full and true statement of all Fees and moneys received by me during the month above stated, excepting only such Fees the application and payment of which are otherwise provideqd!2.r4 law. ' Subscribed and sworn to before me this 11V Town Clerk day of Ck �� �i�.Z°/i 20Y Notary Public CARRIE WHITMORE Notary Public, State of New York No . 01 WH6052877 Tioga County Commission Expires December 26,_! U I TOWN OF ITHACA Highway Department's Monthly Board . Report September 2004 Road Work We installed new road crossing pipes on Calkins Road, improved the road base, and re-ditched the road prior to surface treating it. We cleared trees and excavated the area to build a turn-around at the end of Chase Lane. This will be surface treated before winter. A new leaf/ chipping box was fabricated for truck # 1 to be ready for brush and leaf collection this fall . Surplus equipment was taken to the municipal auction. Roadside and T-Main (water) mowing was completed, along with mowing of sewer easements. Voting machines and polling place signs were put out for the primary elections . merous hot patch repairs were completed, including paving of the new turn around at the end of Hey View Road. xcess gravel was cleaned out and removed from several culverts that are prone to flooding. Sign installations were caught up, ditching on Pennsylvania Avenue was completed and jet rodding to clean out culverts was done in conjunction with ditching. Parks Work Regular grounds maintenance at all sites continued this month. Shrub trimming was completed . Several play structures and the. pavilion at Iacovelli Park were sealed with wood preservative. The future parking lot for the William and Hannah Pew section of the East Ithaca Recreation Way entrance at Snyder Hill Road was excavated, stone base installed, and a berm created to eventually be planted with trees and shrubs to help screen the parking lot. Silt fencing was installed, and ditching along Snyder Hill Road was done to help drain the area . Grading at the . future park and trail at E. King Road / Saunders Road was done with hydro-seeding applied and silt fencing installed , to work proceeded at Tutelo Park. Topsoil was hauled in and spread on the ball field portion of the e . We seeded, fertilized, and mulched the field at the end of September. Boring under Bostwick ad was contracted out to in sewer to the future comfort station. Also, the water services to the restrooms and to the pavilion were installed, along with electric service to the pavilion. Trees were . planted to help screen an adjacent property. i The Game Farm section of the East Ithaca Recreation Way was surface treated . i Approximately 500 flower bulbs were planted at Lisa Lane Walkway and East Shore Park. d Water and Sewer Work Final plantings of evergreen trees were completed at Eco-Village water tank, Woolf Lane pump 'station, and Coy Glen Road pump station. i We repaired two water breaks, one at Penny Lane and the other on Route 366. i i We assisted Bolton Point with installing radio telemetry for the new water tanks and pump stations. I Daily inspections of water installations at Southwoods subdivision, Schickle Road subdivision, the Hospital, and the South Hill Water Transmission Main were performed . A new valve was installed on the old water main along Trumansburg Road for the Hospital project . Access roads to the Northview Road Tank, Eco-village Tank, and Bostwick Road Tank were surface treated . I i October Projects i 1 . Semi-annual brush collection—week of October 12, 2004 . 2 . Continue inspection of utility installation at Southwoods . 3. Continue working at Tutelo Park site . 4 . Continue working on William and Hannah Pew Trail . 5 . Fall lawn repairs . 61 Inspections for South Hill Water Transmission Main. 7. Surface treat Chase Lane turn-around . 8 . Plantings at welcome sign on Trumansburg Road . i 9 . Fertilize all ball fields and several park lawns . 10 . Remove generator and patch road at decommissioned Woolf Lane pump station. ghk I I I I i i I I Town Engineer's Report for 10/18/2004 Town Board Meeting GENERAL Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Plan The State Emergency Management Office (SEMO) has completed the review of our Plan and has forwarded the plan to FEMA for final comments . From the time of submission, FEMA technically has 90 working days to review the final draft of our Plan, so it is possible that we may not receive FEMA' s comments on our Plan until the beginning of December. Based on this information, it is likely that we will have to make changes and resubmit our Plan to FEMA at the beginning of 2005 . Given these developments , our anticipated Plan adoption date of November 1 , 2004 is likely to be unrealistic. Although the federal deadline for plan adoption remains November 1 , 2004, FEMA has implied they will allow local governments without formally adopted plans to apply for hazard mitigation grants that become available after November 1 , 2004, as long as there is a reasonable chance the Plan will be formally adopted before the grant funding is actually awarded. EARTH FILL PERMITS No fill permits were issued in October. WATER PROJECTS SCLIWC Office Addition Construction is moving ahead on the office addition at the Bolton Point Water Plant. The exterior shell and bick work is complete and the roof is in place. Interior framing has progressed and mechanical systems are all roughed in. Water SCADA System The Town Engineering staff has been working with Bolton Point staff to complete the first phase of the wireless Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) system to improve operation of the SCLIWC water system, which includes the Town of Ithaca water system. The Town has installed equipment at the Hungerford Hill Tank, the Bostwick Road Tank, The new West Hill Tank, the Oakwood Lane control building and the Stone Quarry Road Control valve building as part of the wireless control system. The radio system has been installed and tested and the Bolton Point staff is working on are programming the system. East Hill Transmission Main and Storage Tank The Town Engineering staff has completed the Final Design for a proposed transmission main on Ellis Hollow Road from Summerhill Lane to the proposed SCLIWC 3 million-gallon tank on Cornell University Hungerford Hill Road property. The Town Engineer is continuing to work with the Bolton Point General Manager to acquire a permanent easement for the tank site. The project will be constructed under two contracts , one for the water main construction, and one for the Tank construction. The Commission has approved the capital project, which will be presented to the Town Board for approval . South Hill Transmission Main Construction of the Transmission main has started at Pearsall Place on the Therm property and work is proceeding across Ithaca College Property. The schedule shows substantial completion of the project in November. TOWN ENGINEERS REPORT 10/ 18/2004 I i West Hill Water Tank and Water Main The Control system has been installed and the construction contract has been closed out. I i Coy Glen Pump Station and Water Main The Pump station is operational . Full utilization of the pump station will not be possible until the remainder i of the South Hill Transmission main is completed. Emergency Power Supply The staff is in the process of installing the appropriate transfer switchgear and generator connections at the Pearsall Place, Coddington Road, Troy Road, Coy Glen Road, Oakwood Lane and Christopher Lane pump stations . Kings Way Water Improvement i Plans and specifications have been completed and an agreement has been reached with the developer of the I Westview Subdivision to install the water main with the Town providing the materials . This project is on the Town Board Agenda for approval . SEWER PROTECTS South woods Subdivision Force Main The Developer has completed the installation of the sewer system for phase I of the development and th I pump station and force main are operational . Final transfer of the property to the Town is pending . IAWWTF Phosphorus Removal Project t The contract for construction has been awarded and foundation construction has started with pile installation. Problems with bearing capacity of the designed Piling system have resulted in redesign of the piles and an expected cost increase of approximately $250,000. I Joint Interceptor Sewer Projects i The Town Engineering staff is continuing to work on a capital improvement plan with the City Water and I Sewer Division for improving the interceptor sewers that are jointly used by the Town and City. No major construction is planned before 2005 . I Town Engineers Report October 18, 2004 Daniel R. Walker Page 2 10/ 12/2004 TOWN ENGINEERS REPORT 10/ 18/2004 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Northeast The engineering staff and engineering interns have been surveying drainage systems in the northeast area of the Town to prepare a watershed evaluation and Stormwater management plan for the area. Development of the drainage plan is scheduled for this winter. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW LINDERMAN CREEK PHASE THREE Linderman Creek Phase Three is nearing completion. The Town Engineering staff is inspecting the site periodically to ensure compliance with the approved site plan. CAYUGA MEDICAL CENTER Site work for the Emergency Room addition has begun with construction of storm water management facilities, utility relocation and new parking lot construction. Engineering staff is inspecting the water and sewer relocation work and are monitoring the sediment and erosion control practices. WEIDERMEIR SUBDIVISION Construction of the driveway improvements and water and sewer facilities in continuing on this five-lot subdivision at the intersection of Slaterville Road and Burns Road. Sediment and erosion controls are being monitored. SOUTHWOODS Construction of phase II improvements is underway with Town staff inspecting water main, sewer main and road construction and also monitoring storm water management practices . Town Engineer's Report October 18, 2004 Daniel R. Walker Page 3 10/12/2004 I °� �� i i i i I I I i I i I i i i I I i i I i i olyOFlT�q TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING DEPARTMENT M 21 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N .Y . 14850 Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P. (607) 273-1747 Director of Planning FAX (607) 273-1704 Planning Director' s Report for October 18 , 2004 Town Board Meeting DEVELOPMENT REVIEW September 7 , 2004 Meeting: Deer Run Homeowners Association 2-Lot Subdivision, Saranac Way: The Planning Board granted Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two-lot subdivision located on Saranac Way (immediately north of 308 and 309 Saranac Way) , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 44- 1 - 168 , Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes subdividing the 0.764 +/- acre parcel into two lots of areas 0. 309 +/- acres and 0.455 +/- acres which would be divided by Saranac Way. Deer Run Homeowners Association, Owner/Applicant; Janet Gillespie, President, Agent. Ithaca Estates Phase III Subdivision, East King Road : The Planning Board considered an application for Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed 13 -lot subdivision (Ithaca Estates Phase III) located off East King Road (between 132 and134 East King Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. ' s 43 - 1 -3 . 2 and 43 - 1 -3 . 32 , Low Density Residential Zone and Conservation Zone (easternmost portion). The proposal involves creating 11 residential lots on new roads , with the remaining lands to the north and west of the subdivision reserved for potential , future development. A park and recreation set aside will also have to be determined. Evan N. Monkemeyer, Owner/Applicant; George R. Williams, Agent. The Planning Board determined that the application contained insufficient information to make an environmental determination pursuant to SEQR. Mountin Subdivision Sketch Plan, Elm Street Extension and West Haven Road : The Planning Board considered a sketch plan for the proposed 8-lot subdivision located on Elm Street Extension and West Haven Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28- 1 -28 . 22, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes subdividing the 33 . 5 +/- acre parcel into four residential building lots (between 3 . 5 +/- and 5 .7 +/- acre lots) along Elm Street Extension and three narrow parcel strips which would be consolidated with existing neighboring lots . The proposal also includes a 10 . 3 +/- acre parcel to be donated to the Town of Ithaca for open space. Helen DeGraff, Owner; David Mountin, Applicant. September 23 , 2004 Meeting : Farrell 4-Lot Subdivision, 665-669 Coddington Road : The Planning Board granted Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 4-lot subdivision located at 665 -669 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 48- 1 -5 . 2, Low Density Residential and Conservation Zones. The proposal includes subdividing the 11 . 8 +/- acre parcel into two lots for the existing residences i I I ' a VIM 6 at 667 and 669 Coddington Road, one 2. 1 +/- acre parcel to be consolidated with the adjacent apartment building at 665 Coddington Road (Tax Parcel No. 48. 1 -5 . 1 ) , and one 6 .7 +/- acre parcel on the east side of the property to be conveyed to the City of Ithaca. William F. Farrell, Owner/Applicant. I Cornell University Mason . Shop Parking Lot, Palm Road : The Planning Board granted Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Approval for the proposed Cornell University Mason Shop Parking Lot project located off Palm Road behind the existing Mason Shop and j Planning, Design, & Construction Warehouse, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 64- 1 -2, Planned Development Zone No. 9 . The project involves construction of a stone parking area for approximately 90 vehicles , a 25 ' by 35 ' asphalt service pad and entry adjacent to the Mason Shop, and a stone driveway extension to Palm Road. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Jim Gibbs, Agent. Cornell University Raptor Barn, Game Farm Road : The Planning Board granted Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Approval for the proposed Cornell University Raptor Barn located off Game Farm Road at the Poultry Complex, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 64- 1 -2 , Planned Development Zone No . 9 . The project involves construction of a 4, 180 +/- square foot pole barn containing an office, procedures room, and space to house lip to 80 birds of prey. The project j also includes a new gravel access drive and parking. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Maggie Markes, Agent. October 5 , 2004 Meeting : i Remington Inn & Restaurant, 1000 East Shore Drive : The Planning Board considered an environmental determination for the proposed Remington Inn & Restaurant located at 1000 East Shore Drive between East Shore Drive and Cayuga Lake, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 19-2-29, Lakefront Commercial Zone. The proposal includes demolishing the existing two buildings to construct a 258-seat restaurant, a two-story 25 -guest unit upscale lodge, and a new 4,690 square foot boathouse for the Cornell University' s sailing program. The proposal also includes 127 parking spaces , stormwater facilities , and retention of the existing private marina (boat launch and i docking facilities) . Actions include site plan approval, special approval, and a setback variance. Cornell Real Property Services Inc. , Owner; The Remington LLC , Applicant; David A. Schlosser, Schopfer Architects LLP, Agent. The Planning Board issued a positive declaration of environmental significance and is requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. Ithaca Estates Master Plan, East King Road : The Planning Board discussed a proposed Master Plan for the long range development of approximately 115 acres located at the northeast corner of East King Road and Danby Road (NYS Route 96B ) , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . ' s 43 - 1 -3 .2 , 43 - 1 -3 . 32, and 43 - 1 -3 .4, Neighborhood Commercial Zone, Low Density Residential Zone, and Conservation Zone. The "Ithaca Estates Proposed Park & Land Use Map" ( 8 September 2004) shows a proposed new road system with areas designated for commercial and residential ! development along with a proposed park site. The proposed 11 -lot Ithaca Estates Phase III subdivision is included on the Master Plan. Evan N. Monkerneyer, Owner/Applicant; George R. Williams , Agent. The Planning Board deferred further action on the Ithaca Estates proposal until further information is available and site visits are made to the proposed park site. 2 i CURRENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROJECTS/FUNCTIONS The following are accomplishments or issues that have been dealt with over the past month. SEAR Reviews for Zoning Board :oard : Three SEQR reviews for the Zoning Board were done since the September report: ( 1 ) request for height variance to construct a residential building with a height of 40 +/- feet (36 foot height limit), located at 206 Eldridge Circle, Low Density Residential Zone, Richard Putnam, Appellant; (2) request for height variances to construct two residential buildings with a height of 43 +/- feet (36 foot height limit) , located at 318 and 320 Old Gorge Road, Low Density Residential Zone, Heritage Park Town Homes, Owner/Appellant, George Frantz, Agent; and (3 ) request for a variance to construct a residence on an existing parcel of land that does not front on a public road, located off West Haven Road, Medium Density Residential Zone, Robert Champion, Appellant. Codes and Ordinances Committee (COQ : The Committee met on September _ 15 , 2004, and continued discussion regarding a proposed draft stream buffer ordinance, and considered suggested Zoning Ordinance amendments regarding agricultural uses in certain zones to address concerns raised by the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets . The Committee agreed to refer the draft zoning amendments to the Agriculture Committee for their review and recommendations . The Agriculture Committee received the draft at their meeting of September 20, 2004, and will review the draft at their October meeting. The next COC meeting is scheduled for October 20, 2004, which will include continuation of discussions regarding the proposed stream buffer ordinance and draft amendments to the telecommunications regulations in the Zoning Code. Transportation Committee: The Committee met on September 16, 2004 , John Lampman, Interim County Highway Manager attended the meeting to discuss the status of two major road improvement projects in the Town: Coddington Road and Hanshaw Road, both scheduled in the TIP (Transportation Improvement Program) for 2006 . According to Mr. Lampman, the County plans to involve the Town and residents in the planning and design process at the early stages . The agenda also included an update on Sheriff patrols in the Town and the draft Inventory chapter of the Transportation Plan, which was prepared during the summer. The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, October 26, 2004 at 2 : 00 p.m. and will include discussions regarding next steps for the Transportation Plan, ITCTC Planning Committee: The ITCTC (Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council) Planning Committee met on September 21 , 2004. There was also a public meeting on September 9, 2004 to present the draft ITCTC Long Range Plan. The Planning Committee will meet again on November 16 , 2004 to formally consider a recommendation to the Policy Committee regarding adoption of the Long Range Plan Update. The Planning Committee also recommended a major TIP amendment to the Policy Committee regarding the revised Thurston Avenue Bridge project in the City of Ithaca, which is now estimated to cost a total of $ 8 .2 million. The TIP Update will be initiated later this fall, and the Park-and-Ride Subcommittee reported its continuing work on possible park-and-ride lots . Conservation Board: The Board met on September 2 , 2004. Discussion items included reports of the various committees, continuation of discussion of the draft revised Environmental Review Law, and discussions regarding a proposed project by Richard Fischer regarding the Chimney Swift and 3 Weerin I discussion by the Scenic Resources Committee regarding next steps in their inventory project. The next meeting is scheduled for October 7 , 2004 . I MOA Planning Coalition: The Coalition met on September 29 , 2004 to discuss the County j Comprehensive Plan draft chapter regarding Analysis of Land Use Scenarios . County Planning representatives indicated that they will be holding a public meeting on October 27 , 2004 to present the remaining elements of the Comprehensive Plan (the meeting will be at 7 : 00 p . m. at a location to be announced) . The next meeting of the Coalition is scheduled for October 27 , 2004 at 4: 30 p.m. . Inter-municipal Trail Committee : The Committee met on September 20, 2004 to discuss the status of discussions with Emerson regarding the trail route, the status of the grant funding for the project, a possible trail connection at the Home Depot site, and the status of discussions with state officials regarding the Black Diamond Trail . The next meeting is scheduled for October 25 , 2004 at 3 : 30 p.m. . i { Lake Source Cooling Monitoring: Benchmark Environmental Engineering & Science is scheduled to give a presentation at the October 18 , 2004 Town Board meeting regarding their observations on the Lake Source Cooling 5-Year Summary Report and Statistical Analysis . Meeting with City and Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County Planners Regarding West Hill i Development and Inter-municipal Planning Issues :ssues : As a follow-up to the meeting of City, Town and County elected officials, planners from the City, Town and County met on September 23 , 2004 to continue discussions regarding the inter-municipal impacts of development and how to better coordinate planning and development activities . Some of the issues discussed included how to better address the inter-municipal impacts of traffic generated by development projects in the City, Town and surrounding areas , whether new road(s) on West Hill would help to solve the traffic problems, how nodal development might help to mitigate some of the impacts of new development, how enhanced public transit could help, etc. A follow-up meeting is scheduled for Thursday, October 21 , 2004 at 10 : 00 a.m. Fall Newsletter: The Fall issue of the Newsletter has been printed and was mailed to residents in the first week of October. This issue includes the residents ' survey regarding recreation and youth services, and includes feature articles on the Town' s new recreation and youth programs , a report on the results of the transportation survey, availability of the new Town of Ithaca Code, hints on how to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff, announcements regarding new employees, and other interesting information. Thanks to all of the authors of the Newsletter articles , Chris Balestra for I coordinating its preparation and distribution, and everyone who helped contribute to its success . PDR Grant Application: Planning staff prepared grant applications for funding under the NYS Farmland Protection Program for two farm properties on West Hill . The application was submitted to the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets by the October 1 , 2004 deadline. The two properties total approximately 167 acres, and acquisition costs for agricultural conservation easements on the two properties is estimated to total $ 293 ,000 . The total State funding requested is $219 ,750 , which would . be matched by $73 ,250 in local funds and in-kind services (75 % State, i 25 % local match) . 4 TOWN OF ITHACA REPORT OF BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 2004 MONTH YEAR TO DATE T' 0F PERMIT YEAR # OF PERMITS AMOUNT # AMOUNT S = FAMILY 2004 0 0 30 5,724,536 R "NCES 2003 0 0 20 31613,818 2004 0 0 1 149,700 TWO FAMILY RESIDENCES 2003 0 0 4 820,000 2004 1 100,000 14 339,900 RENOVATIONS 2003 3 59,213 17 3753799 2004 0 0 6 2075300 CONVERSIONS OF USE 2003 1 5,000 4 119,500 2004 3 1875558 17 1 ,351 ,750 ADDITIONS TO FOOTPRINT 2003 4 2355000 12 4145457 2004 0 0 0 0 MULTIPLE RESIDENCES 2003 2 223 ,960 2 2231960 2004 0 0 8 350735700 BUSINESS 2003 3 2, 104,000 9 5,850,000 2004 0 0 2 397000 AGRICULTURAL 2003 0 0 1 2,500 2004 0 0 0 0 INDUSTRIAL 2003 0 0 0 0 1 CU Maplewood Apts "C" complex roof repairs 1072660 1 CU Human Resources renovate office space 375,000 2004 2 48200 20 42326,462 JEIFIONAL 2003 2 71 ,500 14 878,000 1 Add pitched roof above flat 102000 1 Rear deck extension 1 ,000 I Garage 15.000 MISCELLANEOUS 2004 3 26,000 25 2273586 CONSTRUCTION 2003 5 77,890 36 332,386 TOTAL NUMBER OF 2004 9 796,218 123 1534397934 PERMITS ISSUED 2003 20 23776,563 119 12,6301420 ITOTAL FEES 2004 9 2,070 1123 27,280 RECEIVED 2003 20 2,870 119 19,065 Date Prepared: October 1 , 2004 Dani L. Holford i 1 September 2004, Page 2 i TONAL CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY ISSUED THIS MONTH - 1 1 . Danby Road (IC) - renovations to Egbert Union Dining. 2. 133 King Road East - new two-family residence - temporary. 3 . 140 Ridgecrest Road - new 4 bedroom modular. 14. 341 Pine Tree Road (CU) - change swing direction of door. i 5 . 122 Judd Falls Road - completed re-roof 1 /2 house. 16. 175 Seven Mile Drive - new 3 bedroom modular home. 7. 918 East Shore Drive - building renovations and second floor addition - temporary. ' 8. 117 King Road East - (Montessori School) - locker room addition. 9. 677 Coddington Road - detached garage. 10. 126 King Road East - gas fireplace installation and remodel kitchen. I 11 . 309 Sunnyview Lane - convert garage to living area. 12. 331 -333 Pine Tree Road (CU) - renovations to Ling Ling Restaurant. 13 . 332 Forest Home Drive - 5' x 10' bathroom addition. 14. 652 Dryden Road (CU) - parking lot and site work. 115 . 209 Eldridge Circle - new single-family home with attached garage - temporary. TOTAL CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY YEAR TO DA'Z'E, 2004 - 156 TOTAL. CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY YEAR TO DATE, 2003 - 177 � INQ11 IRIES/COMPL.AINTS INVESTIGATED THIS MONTH - 4 1 . 105 Kings Way - property maintenance - abated. 2. 104 Compton Road - property maintenance - pending. 1 112 Compton Road - property maintenance - pending. 4. 2 Perry Lane - building code - no violation found. From August 2004 : 1 . 203 Muriel Street- property maintenance - pending. 1 891 Taughannock Boulevard - building code - pending. 13 . 115 Christopher Circle - zoning - no violation found. 4. 312 Salem Drive - building code - pending I From June 2004: ;1 . 1519 Slaterville Road - property maintenance - pending. I I 2 . Rachel Carson Way - E-911 addresses - pending. From January 2004 : 11 . 107 Maplewood Drive- building code - abated. From May ly 995 : 1 . 1152 Danby Road - zoning and building code - Building Permit applied for corrections - issuance of anew permit pending plan revisions. tl'OTAt, COMPLAINTS INVESTIGATED YEAR TO DATE, 200.1 - 31 TOTAL COMPLAINTS INVESTIGATED YEAR TO DATE, 2003 - 37 I I 4 September 2004, Page 3 TAL FIELD VISITS THIS (MONTH - 86 i )form Building Code -62 2 al Law and Zoning Inspections - 19 Fire Safety - 1 (senior citizen) Fire Safety Reinspections - 4 (3 businesses, 1 senior citizen) Fire/Emergency Occurrences - 0 Fire Occurrence Reinspections - 0 TOTAL FIELD VISITS YEAR TO DATE, 2004 - 767 TOTAL FIELD VISITS YEAR TO DATE, 2003 - 748 TOTAL SIGN PERMITS THIS MONTH - 0 TOTAL SIGN PERMITS YEAR TO DATE, 2004 - 4 TOTAL SIGN PERMITS YEAR TO DATE, 2003 - 4 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IMEETING, 3 CASES, AGENDA ATTACHED ti i TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 7 . 00 P.M. By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Monday, September 20, 2004, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Tioga Street Entrance, Ithaca, NY, COMMENCING AT 7 :00 P.M. , on the following matters : APPEAL of Richard Putnam, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VIII, Section 270-59 Granted of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a residential building with a height of 40 ± feet (36 foot height limit) at 206 Eldridge Circle, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46- 1 - 15 .46, Low Density Residential Zone. APPEAL of Heritage Park Town Homes, Owner, George Frantz, Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements of Article VIII, Section 270-59 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct Granted residential buildings with building heights of 43 + feet (36 foot height limit) at 318 and 320 Old Gorge Road, Town o Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 46- 1 - 15 .27 and 46- 1 - 15 .28 , Low Density Residential Zone . A request for variances from Article VIII, Sections 270-60 and 270-62 , and Section 280A of New York State Town Law, may also be requested, as construction may commence prior to the completion of Town approved roadways. APPEAL of Robert Champion, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IX, Sections 270-71 Granted and 270-73 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280-A ol' New York State Town Law, to be able to construct a residence on a parcel of land that does not front on a Town, County, or State roadway, located on West Haven Road (near 140), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28- 1 -28 . 1 , Medium Density Residential Zone . Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time, 7 : 00 p.m. , and said place, hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto . Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual or hearing impairments or other special needs, as appropriate, will be provided with assistance, as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 howl prior to the time of the public hearing. Andrew S. Frost Director of Building and Zoning 273 - 1783 Dated : September 9, 2004 Published : September 13 , 2004 i r t O O� p O 700 z D D W z -C r CA J N U N :- C° .fir N O T N O w O U 00 J Q� w U 6 C)Z O O O U O O U U O U Z G� O O O O O 0 O O O O C� N N � _ �, z o, o n m n 0 R7 p N r' O 00 O O O oo A T A Q� O O O O O O O O O r v O O O O O O O O O O �uu w O00 O O N A O N O O O Z O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o ° � 0U � � to � i A � � N r 0 000000000 0 p � p Y r r y y `" z o 0 z z _ o J N z 77 �q o v. ° ° ° in ° o o O rn 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 I 0 1 0 00 n � C7 J l J U O O O O N O O O "C U O O O O O U O O O O fJ O rm O 3 z z c y _ _ a c V U .. O O U O O O O O O O O tJPn rA O z °o °O °o °o °O °O° o°O o° °O z U O O 3 � 3 ° n. O 0 O O O O O '°O o •°O z � n °w° A � O c O w w w � �. v w o N w v A .w-. O A w w Oo 00 O O O O O N A O A O N U J O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O m I 1 i 1 ' II f' I I I u File Edit View Favofks Tools Help ' �r qm, I Y Network/Record Specialist Report October 18 , 2004 Aug & Sept Web Site Visits Aug ■ Sept 14/� 00 1200 1000 ,,,, u Mimi .i 800 . _ t 1 "111 11W\M c 600 400 � ^w � � A �Y � ay 200 n 0 Home Gov't Services I nformation Community Pages Website • New pages : ■ Recreation Survey ■ Forms ■ "Did You Know" . . . section on Homepage that highlights a different page each month. This month : Monthly Financial Statements Future pages : ■ 2005 Town Budget Ne k $23, 599 was cut from the originally submitted 2005 Information Technology Budget. fMIMM - -- - - Start Cacheman gInboK MiciosoftOudook , Town of Ithaca Mrcr `� o �� 8:54 y .- � ...,. .:. _ _ .._.....s_.... ...-.. _ __ .� i I i P Regular Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board , October 18 , 2004 Human Resources Report for September, 2004 Personnel Committee : Committee did not meet in September. Safetv Committee : The committee met in September after a long summer break. The minutes are attached . Training and Development : The Fall session of the Friday Brainteasers Series began . Two sessions were offered in September with each session having good enrollment. Employees from the Town of Ithaca , Groton and Dryden attended each of the two sessions . Payroll : We did the final conversion of data from the DOS based payroll program and did the initial work to start up the Windows based payroll program . We have crossed off many of the program issues on our list. The first payroll that will be run on the new system will be for pay date October 8 , 20040 Personnel — Civil Service : We have filled the two vacated crossing guard positions with Jeanette Murray and Valerie Sykes . Both ladies do the crossings on Warren Road in the morning and afternoon . Jeanette does the crossing for Northeast Elementary and Valerie for Dewitt Middle School . Through the youth employment program of Joint Youth Commission we have Kate Komaromi working in the Town Clerks Office 3 afternoons a week . We currently have one seasonal laborer, Glenn Miller, working for the Highway Department. Glenn is scheduled to stay on through brush collection . A great deal of time was spent in September on the budget. Commercial Insurance ( Ithaca Agencv — Selective Insurance Company) : There was one new claim filed with the Town regarding flooding of a basement on Muriel Street in the end of August . Submitted By: Judith C . Drake , PHR Human Resources Manager y Y TOWN OF ITHACA T Safety Committee Minutes Public Works Facility, September 3, 2004, 8 : 00 a .m. Present: Fred Noteboom, Tim Eighmey, Dave Boyes, Kristie Rice, and Creig Hebdon Meeting started at 8 : 15 a .m. The minutes were approved as written. Inspection of Buildings Fred Noteboom said that the Town should have a building inspection program whereby we check for safety hazards, including fire extinguishers, etc . Kristie Rice said that she would put together a list of items that should be checked . After we get the list, we will decide who will do the inspections and when. The Committee felt that someone from Town Hall should do the inspections at the Public Works Facility, and someone from the Public Works Facility should do the inspections at Town Hall. These duties should be rotated between people and the people should be knowledgeable of . what to look for. Creig Hebdon asked if the new comfort station would be included in this. Fred said that Rich Schoch, Parks Maintenance Manager, would take care of this as he has a very good inspection ,program of all the parks and trails . Orientation Outline Fred said that he received a draft of a manual to be given to temporary employees. Each member was given a copy to review . We still need to work on a checklist for new hire employees (including temps . ) Tim Eighmey asked how long before a temporary employee can drive Town vehicles. Sometimes the Town can't get the information for a day or two, depending on when we get the permission to review records and get a copy of the person's drivers license . Fred said that the smoking policy needs to be reviewed—there seems to be some inconsistency. Safety Videos • The Committee reviewed the safety videos that we have . There are very few and most of them are outdated . Instead of buying videos, we feel that the current way we use videos for training—going through PERMA—works good . I Kristie asked if we could make copies of the videos we get from PERMA. We are not sure . Fred said that he feels that we need to do more training. He suggested Dave and Tim alternate months and organize " tailgate" tramings for that month. Back injuries should be discussed often. Kristie asked if there was anyone who would come in to the Town and review the employees' work to assess potentials for back I njuries—possible the Dept. of Labor or we could ask Cargill, Inc. PERMA Grant There is a grant that the Town can apply for and get PERMA to cover 50 percent of the costs of certain items, such as safety videos—maybe even the defense driving course . We will discuss this more at the next meeting when Judy Drake is here . Dangerous Intersections Creig Hebdon said that the intersection of Elm Street Ext., West Haven Road, and Coy 4 Glen Road has been surveyed . He is waiting for the GPS unit to be fixed so that he can get a profile map . He should have this ready for the next meeting. Miscellaneous PERMA will be conducting training, in Syracuse and Fred wondered if any one would like to attend. He will get more information from Judy . The meeting was adjourned at 9 :00 a.m. i i m `!' I i i j i I I I i I i I i i i i i I i i i I I I October 18 , .2004 Town Board Meeting s, ro athan Kanter Mary Russell [MLRussell@twcny. rr.com] ATTACHMENT # 14 Tuesday, September 28, 200411 :30 AM Jonathan Kanter Subject: CCWMAC (cowmac) update and report to the Town Board On Wednesday , September 22 I met with former CCWMAC members and • Cornell representatives at the Vet School . We were updated on the status of the project for replacing the incinerator with the alternative technologies recommended by CCWMAC . A findings statement has been issued by SUCF on the supplemental EIS . Full construction funding for the project has finally been approved . An addition to the Vet School to house both alternative technologies - - the tissue digester and the steam sterilization unit , is now through the design development stage . Final comments are now being solicited . Cornell reps had checked with the fire department regarding emergency access at an early phase and plan to have the fire department reassess the project as part of its final review . The design will be finalized and go out to bid November- December . They do not believe they need a building permit ( it is a SUCF project ) . Start - up is planned at the beginning of 2006 . The Part 360 ( solid waste ) permitting process is still to take place . They are hoping not to have to renew their ' Title V air emissions permit which expires in February 2006 . I would be happy to answer any questions . ry Russell of Ithaca representative to CCWMAC 1 i . � . r I j I I i I i I I i i i l i I i i i i i I i I I i I i I I i i I i I i I I I I I I