The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2009-03-31Meeting Notes - DRAFT March 31, 2009 CDNSERVATION BOARD 93 EA9T MAIN S'rREt_TT DRYDEN, NY 1 3053 Nancy Munkenbetk, Chair Craig Schutt Bob Beck Charlie Smith Steve Bissen Milo Richmond Stan Marcus Bard Prentiss Town Board Liaison - Dave Makor Environmental Planner - Dan Kwasnowski CB Members Present: Nancy M., Craig S., Bob B., Charlie S.,Steve B., Mike R., Stan M., Excused: Bard P. Town Board Liasion: Dave Makar Staff: Dan Kwasnowski, Josh Bogdan Other Town Official: Supervisor Mary Ann Sumner, Town Clerk Bambi Hollenbeck General Public: Dan Karig, Debbie Marcus Old Business • Jan, 2009 - The CB passed a resolution endorsing a letter to be sent to the Governor requesting that the real estate tax continue to fund the Environmen- tal Protection Fund, and that the state maintain the current funding level. • Open Seat - The open seat should be announced in the newspaper, again. Decision Summary The CB voted unanimously to extend the search for a agriculture related person to fill the vacant seat. 1. Google Map Demonstration Josh Bogdan briefly demonstrated some applications he has developed for Google map accessible from the Town of Dryden website. 2. Swearing In Town Clerk Bambi Hollenbeck performed a group swearing in of the Conser- vation Board. Oath: "I, , do solemnly swear that I will support the Consti- tution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of Town of Dryden Conservation Board member according to the best of my ability." 3. FOIL Town Clerk Bambi Hollenbeck reminded the group that they need to make sure that their email correspondence as a group is either copied to Joy, or routed through Joy if going to the group, for record keeping reasons. The Town Clerk is responsible for keeping the records of the town and a recent FOIL request the Clerk's office reminded her that in the past the Town hasn't been overly diligent about keeping track of such records. 4. New Member Application We received an application from Peter J. Davies for membership on the Con- servation Board. After a short discussion, it was determined that before recommending the ap- pointment, the CB would like to make sure that someone from the farming community would not like to be appointed. 5. EMC Update At the last meeting of the EMC Paul Gannet a biosafety engineer at Cornell presented the plan for disposing of the final waste product from the proposed chemical digester at the Vet school at the Waste water treatment plant. A report was presented at the last meeting of the EMC of activities in Dryden, including the Open Space Plan, Riparian Buffer LL, and the Verizon Tower project. Mary Ann Sumner added to this discussion a list of open seats on advisory boards to the Tompkins County Legislature, including the EMC. 6. Town Board Update Dave Makar reported that in light of improving responses to FOIL requests, the Technology Comittee has been discussing a plan to provide an email ad- dress ( Qdryden.ny.us) to every boardmember and making them use that for town business. Pago 2 Mary Ann Sumner reported that she received an interesting summary of pos- sible impacts from Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling activities (attached) at a re- cent meeting. Thomas Road Amphibians - The Town will be working to establish a LL ena- bling the Highway Superintendent to temporarily close a road for environ- mental impact mitigation reasons. 7. Open Space Plan Internship The Planning Department will be hiring an intern from Cornell's Master's of Regional Planning Department, to work on the creation of a Open Space Plan based upon the Open Space Inventory. If all goes well, she will begin in May and work full time through the summer. Obviously this project will require close work with the Conservation Board, 8. Riparian Buffer LL - Applicability Environmental Planner Dan Kwasnowski presented some background infor- • mation on stream curves and existing GIS data to attempt to provide a back- drop for deciding upon the width of buffers required in a Local Law. This in- volves knowing the relative width of streams, which can be predicted, as well as the available resources that are found along streams in different levels of the watershed and the potential for impact to the stream, and receiving wa- ters. Relative to codifying these buffers, the common approach is to consider static or fixed width buffers to a more dynamic buffer that increases depend- ing upon the desire or necessity of protecting important resources along the waterbody. The result of the discussion and presentation were that there are essentially a few options. 1. A fixed width buffer throughout the watersheds regardless of waterbody, or watershed size. 2. A dynamic buffer based upon the size of the drainage area at the point of development, and involving a primary buffer along the waterbody, and a sec- ondary buffer along the primary. 3. The creation of three or more distinct zones (Headwater, Recharge, and Corridor was presented) that have regulations designed to provide the appro- priate protection relative to where the waterbody is in the watershed, and 01 what its function is. M 4. A focus on the larger streams (Fall Creek, Six Mile, Cascadilla, and Owasco Inlet) and their floodplains with an eye toward expanding protection further up the watershed later on. 5. For larger project and properties, an optional management plan approach that includes permanent easements on larger buffers that do more to protect than any other approach might be more beneficial to everyone. After discussion of these general alternatives, it seemed a consensus emerged that there should be a distinct focus on the larger waterbodies, that breaking the town and watersheds up into zones seemed to make sense and that possibly having a different level of protection for each zone would be appropriate as a starting point. For example, each of the major waterbodies would have their own distinct regula- tions for their Corridors, the Recharge Area would have more of a dynamic buffer to provide better recharge, and the Headwater Area would possible have a basic fixed width buffer to protect the smaller streams. The Environmental Planner will present a coherent version of this approach at the next meeting. • The meeting adjourned. What Towns in New York Can Anticipate Aside from the foregoing industrial accidents briefly noted above, Towns that are in the location of (or are nearby) Marcellus Shale wells can expect the potential for: 1.) Substantially .increased truck traffic and associated road and bridge stress; 2.) Road and bridge damage, washouts, increase in traffic accidents due to increased truck traffic; 3.) Spills, injuries and an increased need for emergency responses; 4.) Potential aquifer depletion and /or contamination; 5.) Potential impairment to tourism and recreation; G.) Adverse impacts on wildlife and habitat, including siltation of trout streams and wetlands; 7.) Potential waste disposal problems, for all Towns (and Towns with POTW plants MUST insist on disclosure of feack water constituents and must have protective agreements in place in order to comply with their SPDES permits); 8.) Noise, light and dust pollution; 9.) The need to responds to residents caught up in "compulsory integration" of their lands in their neighbors' leaseholds; io.)The need for increased municipal services and adequate training to effectively manage all of the above. Towns in the Marcellus Shale formation should ...embark upon it prompt review of the condition of their roads and road infrastructures, and a companion review of their local i codes. This review should include consideration of providing in its code: A. Establishment of weight limit laws for local roads; B. TfalTic pules and regulations tailored to the anticipated truck traffic and routes; C. Temporary (or permanent) exclusion of certain heavy vehicles from Town roads during periods of wet weather and ground subsidence;" D. Seismic drilling ordinances; E. Requiring permits from natural gas operators whose operations will result in increased road use, including: 1. Mandatory road maintenance agreements, with adequate insurance and performance bonds, etc.; 2. Traffic studies for safe ingress and egress; If the existing local laws and codes are not protective enough, amcndrnents should be considered that do not specifically target gas exploration and production, but rather encompass all industrial and commercial uses, in a mamier that would be more protective of health, safety and public welfare as they relate to: A. Noise B. Light pollution C. Dust pollution and odors; D. Stormwatcr management and aquifer protection; E. Wetlands protection; erosion control, siltation control; F. Enforcement of the zoning code on accessory structures, set backs and other controls on industrial1comrncrcial uses, G. Potential for recording sensitive areas as Critical Environmental Areas; 11. Tree cutting ordinances; i