Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-04-25Conservation Board April 25, 2017 Page 1 of 9 Conservation Board April 25, 2017 Members Present: Peter Davies, Bob Beck, Craig Schutt, Milo Richmond, Joe Osmeloski, Charlie Smith, and Steve Bissen Liaisons Present: David Weinstein, Planning Board and Linda Lavine, Town Board Town Hall Staff: Ray Burger, Director of Planning Guests: Bruno Schickle, Brad and Kathleen Perkins, Bob Watros, Robert Kuehn, and Janice Graham Review and approval of minutes from March 28, 2017: D. Weinstein requested some minor editorial changes and asked that clarification be added: - On page 7 of the minutes, when addressing the question of what the Conservation Board should/can do in relation to the proposed solar farms, Mr. Weinstein indicated that “the best thing this Board can do is to consider ways to mitigate the issues…..”. He expressed concern that his comments have been taken to mean that the solar project is a done deal and that the Board should only make suggestions to accommodate the project. That was in no way what he meant; it is not a done deal. C. Schutt moved to approve the minutes, J. Osmeloski seconded the motion. The Board unanimously approved the minutes with the suggested changes and clarification. Citizens Privilege: Bruno Schickel shared a letter written by Rachel Dickenson. The letter has been sent to the Town Board and the Planning Board. J. Osmeloski asked where R. Dickinson got her information regarding the number of trees (8.8 acres) that are going to be removed from the Dryden site. He said he has seen several different estimates regarding the number of trees that will be removed. Mr. Schickel indicated that Ms. Dickinson got her information from the material submitted by the developer. Ms. Dickinson’s letter is attached. Mr. Schickel then shared a letter from Nina Versaggi, Director, Public Archaeology Facility which indicated that the area is one of historical significance. Her letter is attached. D. Weinstein asked B. Perkins whether the cemetery had to have a permit when burying people. Mr. Perkins responded that the cemetery doesn’t need state or federal permits and thus different rules apply. He stated that the long house post holes are only a few feet below the surface. The excavation done by Binghamton University was shallow but once they found fragments of pottery they dug more and found a fire pit. On top of that site being eligible for National Historical status, the Cemetery is also eligible for the National Historical Registry. He was told by the Registry that part of the cemetery is the associated view scape. P. Davies reminded the Board that they are a conservation board and thus can go round and round about things that are in the planning board or town board purview. He asked more senior members of the Board for their opinion on what role the Conservation Board can/ should take on this project. Conservation Board April 25, 2017 Page 2 of 9 R. Burger stated that although he cannot comment on the role of the Conservation Board, he can say that the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was contacted and they asked for a phase one assessment. 450 shovel test pits were dug but nothing of significance was discovered. SHPO requirements have been satisfied. B. Schickel added that the “infinity view” is part of the appeal of the cemetery. Distributed Sun has proposed planting 300 trees along the property line to hide the view of the solar panels but (as Mr. Schickel demonstrated using a 16 foot long 2x4 and a photo taken from the cemetery) with the potential height of the trees, the view of the horizon will be eliminated. C. Smith pointed out that the Environmental Assessment Survey does not acknowledge the archaeological site. He also commented on the trees Distributed Sun proposed planting: Eastern Red Cedar, which is great deer food, Pyramid Pine and another species on which Mr. Smith was unable to find information. The screening proposed will boil down to non-native species. Janice Graham lives at 1150 Ellis Hollow Road. She wanted to address the facts that are flying around via email. According to the Ellis Tract LEAF (Long Environmental Assessment Form) 49 acres of prime farm land, 37 acres of forest, and 8 acres of wetland. The plan indicates that there will be solar arrays on the wetlands but according to the Army Corp of Engineers, due to the use of earth drills, those installations are acceptable. Tetra Tech indicated that the records regarding wildlife are not up-to-date so they are requesting more information and that those requests were added as attachments; they were not actually attached. A study of the wildlife was conducted for two days at the Ellis Tract. They found 4 species: The Northern Long Eared Bat (the hickory trees that they use for nesting will be cut down after the summer season – after the bats have moved on), a grouse, spring peepers and a toad. Board and Committee reports: EMC: Steve Bissen This month's EMC meeting dealt mostly with the EMC's Strategic Planning Retreat that we had on March 30. When consensus is reached, there will be different sub- committees for the EMC. Planning Board: D. Weinstein The Board has not met since the last Conservation Board meeting. Ag Committee: C Schutt The Committee has not met since the last Conservation Board meeting. Rail to Trail Committee: Bob Beck, Bruno Schickel They are making great progress. The project is going very well and Mr. Schickel indicated that they have about 50% of the property owners on board (He is including the William George Agency as a property owner that is on board). He has created a map of every trail section that he has color coded to show those that have signed easements and those that have not. New and continuing business: Alternative Member amendment: C. Smith - The Conservation Board has sent a note to the Town Board with the amendment the Conservation Board has agreed upon. P. Davies and C. Smith stated that their Conservation Board April 25, 2017 Page 3 of 9 communications with the Town Board have been ignored so far and P. Davies said he will send another email to the Town Board regarding the amendment. - In January, the Conservation Board agreed upon the amendment that was presented by C. Smith with a couple of minor changes. The changes were incorporated and added as an attachment to the minutes. Solar Installation review: C. Schutt indicated that he, C. Smith, and a member of the Ag Committee visited the 2150 Dryden Road site. The SEQR is publicly available but C. Schutt feels that a lot of important information was left out. C. Smith was able to identify 14 (fourteen) different bird species in one hour. The SEQR only has two types of birds identified. The season to identify bird life is the spring/summer, not late winter. C. Schutt continued that almost all of the wetlands are connected – the SEQR simply shows 6 (six) different wetlands. He doesn’t feel the applicant has done a thorough review of the natural environment. C. Schutt also pointed out that the plans presented continually change so it is hard to keep up with what is actually being proposed. J. Osmeloski indicated that there are black willows along the stream. The installers of the cell tower want the trees to stay to block the view of the tower but the solar installers want to take them down so they don’t block the sun. Robert Kuehn said that he talked to the gentlemen from Tetra Tec while they were conducting a wildlife survey on Dodge Road. He told them that solar panels were proposed for the site and the gentlemen laughed. He asked for a list of the aquatic plants (which according to Jean Folley at DEC cannot be identified in March because they have not started to grow yet). P. Davies asked what the effect of the solar installations will be on the wildlife. C. Smith answered that you cannot determine the impact without knowing what is there. He is not against solar; he is against the process that is established for assessing the environmental affects, positive or negative, that is not being followed. The town law is not being followed. It is ludicrous to go to a site in April and determine what birds will be there in June. Perhaps the Planning Board and this Board will find that all the wildlife at the sites are common which would not necessarily be a negative effect. The site off Route 13 has wetland habitats that may be usable to the red shouldered hawk; if other places are not available, they might use this site. His major issue is that the laws of the town and those expressed in the full EAF aren’t being followed and no one is asking them questions about that. C. Smith doesn’t expect the Town Board to be naturalists but he does expect that they ask those that have the knowledge and experience. D. Weinstein asked C. Smith how many times during the year would he need to visit the site to get an adequate evaluation of what is there. Is June sufficient? C. Smith responded that 3 (three) separate visits in June at optimal times of day (half hour before sunrise to 9-10 in the morning) by a qualified person who knows birds by sight and sound could be sufficient. It depends on what is found and whether further investigation is required to verify its presence. The information on the website does not provide the qualification or certifications of those that did the work though it appears they were only there on the 5th and 10th of April. The observations of wildlife may be incidental. In defense of the observers, they may be working with an archaic definition of wildlife. In modern terms, wildlife includes all animals with backbones that live on the land some or all of the time. Right now, the vocal amphibians can be identified Conservation Board April 25, 2017 Page 4 of 9 now. Wood frogs are probably past, hippo frog is calling now, the gray tree frog will come on later. D. Weinstein verified with C. Smith that the population sizes are not as important as simply determining they are there. C. Smith pointed out that you can’t determine absence only presence and they should identify common as well as rare species. Brad Perkins asked if this process was necessary for the cell tower. R. Burger indicated that there wasn’t anything nearly as extensive for the cell tower. The footprint is much smaller. C. Smith pointed out that amphibians and plants should be surveyed as well. In the SEQR on page 13 E.3.h (middle of the page) – The Etna Natural Preserve is less than 3 miles away. In the SEQR for Dodge Road, there are 4 (four) preserves 3+ miles east of the property. In terms of GIS data, every measurement taken has a measurement error (Root Mean Square) and they need to take into consideration the vertical changes as well. Without those citations, it is impossible to determine the accuracy of the data. P. Davies stated that last month the Board passed a mild resolution requesting consideration of the natural environment. His suggestion is that a stronger resolution be passed and presented. C. Smith asked L. Lavine if the Town Board was aware that there were two applications for the same address? L. Lavine indicated that she had not made the intersection of the two proposals. C. Schutt said it appeared as though the representatives for the cell tower project seemed surprised about the solar proposal. R. Burger said both proposals were aware of the other. J. Osmeloski said he asked the cell tower representative who responded that he was unaware of the solar project. R. Burger reiterated that both groups were/are aware of each other. P. Davies called for a resolution that can be sent to the Town Board and the Planning Board. B. Schickel suggested adding that the Conservation Board state that they do feel there is a significant impact which needs to be studied in full. P. Davies disagreed stating that we don’t know that there is a significant impact. The Conservation Board feels there needs to be more study and more information because what we have is inadequate to determine the significance of the impact on the natural environment. L. Lavine asked what the reaction would be if the field were going to be used for farming. The Board responded that the property is being used for farming. L. Lavine then asked if the farming wasn’t already causing some of the problems that the Conservation Board is concerned about. She was trying to determine if the Board would have the same reaction if it were a different type of project. Many of the options would not have been considered – subdivisions such as this would not be approved in other situations and industrial sites are discouraged along Dryden Road. M. Richmond believes solar can thrive in Dryden but something this size with too many unknowns and with an incomplete Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not the place to start. He easily named 9 (nine) mammals that are not listed on the EIS. There was a short discussion regarding the qualifications of those doing the wildlife surveys. D. Weinstein stated that he went to the website for Tetra Tech and feels that the qualifications of their employees are more than sufficient. Other members Conservation Board April 25, 2017 Page 5 of 9 expressed concern that Tetra Tech has been employed by Distributed Sun and may therefore be biased. R. Burger reminded the Board that TG Miller (Town Engineer) is reviewing all of the information. M. Richmond stated that he is not opposed to solar but he is opposed to people coming in and making money off of folks that don’t pay attention. Solar is a good idea. B. Beck stated that even if we know all of the wildlife and other nature there, that might not be enough to create a positive declaration to the SEQR. And even though many people think that solar farms are ugly, he doesn’t. He keeps in mind what the panels are doing – harvesting the sun. P. Davies added “Request that the CB review the solar installation proposals” to the agenda late last week but he could not remember who sent the request. He recommended that the Conservation Board appoint a smaller committee to review the proposals and report back to the Board. B. Beck believes that the request probably came from Jason Leifer, Town Supervisor. C. Smith stated that historically the Conservation Board has been an advisory board to the Town Board especially when they provide a charge. He said he is willing to review the biological information which he is qualified to do. The habitat assessment for both projects is focused on the Northern Long-eared Bat and if they have a habitat for that bat, then they most likely have a habitat for an endangered species, the Indiana Bat. C. Smith will have a written statement for the Town Board regarding the wildlife survey. P. Davies feels that reviewing the entire projects will be very time consuming and outside of the Conservation Board’s purview. P. Davies offered the following resolution: By unanimous resolution the Conservation Board of the Town of Dryden strongly recommends to the Planning Board of the Town of Dryden and the Town of Dryden Town Board that they ensure that a thorough investigation of wildlife and the natural environment is carried out for all proposed large scale solar installations in order to satisfy “the 617.7 SEQR resolution [that] says [that] proposed actions that may be considered to have a significant adverse impact on the environment include:(ii) the removal or destruction of large quantities of vegetation or fauna; substantial interference with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species; impacts on a significant habitat area; substantial adverse impacts on a threatened or endangered species of animal or plant, or the habitat of such a species; or other significant adverse impact to natural resources" The Conservation Board stands ready to review any biological aspects of the proposals. N. Munkenbeck seconded the resolution which was unanimously approved. B. Beck proposed the Conservation Board comprise an energy report after the NRCP is finished. The idea is that instead of adding a section to the NRCP, creating a separate plan will be better. NRCP - P. Davies has asked for a list of what the Board members wanted changed or a note that says the plan is ok but he didn’t receive any response. - He has received a couple of contributions for the executive summary. Conservation Board April 25, 2017 Page 6 of 9 - He strongly encouraged the Board to stay in contact with him – is it acceptable as it is? If not, what do you want changed. - The Board is currently on Version 7 which was distributed on March 22, 2017. - He also asked for help with the executive summary; just 2-3 bullet points for each section. - Other documents that should be included or referred to and are available via the Conservation Board page on the Dryden website: - The Methods and Criteria for Land Protection and Acquisition - Parks and Trail Maintenance Guidelines - Twin Sheds Unit Management Plan D. Weinstein asked if, at a future discussion, the Board was willing to create some thresholds or limits regarding the amount of biological information needed for the Conservation Board to be comfortable making a decision. He is worried about setting precedents and feels a threshold would level the playing field when we have other projects. M. Richmond agreed that would be a good idea – he would be happy if the people who fill out the SEQR sheet and stated what they expected to find there and having been there for two days, these are the ones that we have seen. D. Weinstein suggested a guide about how a proposer will generate the biological information for the SEQR. C. Smith said that with other Town Board a completed SEQR was sent to the Conservation Board for review and comment. This Board has had no formal communication with the Conservation Board regarding the solar projects. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:05pm. Respectfully Submitted, Erin A. Bieber Deputy Town Clerk Letter to the Board from Rachel Dickinson: April 25, 2017 Dryden Town Board Town of Dryden Planning Conservation Board Dear Supervisor Leifer and Board members; In reading through all of the available documents concerning SUN8 (Distributed Sun) proposed Community Solar Project at 2150 Dryden Road, I believe you must reach the conclusion that this project has potentially significant adverse environmental and cultural impacts, and thus you should make a positive declaration on the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR). Conservation Board April 25, 2017 Page 7 of 9 “Determining Significance” of the 617.7 State Environmental Quality Review (c) (1) (ii) The removal or destruction of large quantities of vegetation or fauna; substantial interference with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species; impacts on a significant habitat area; substantial adverse impacts on a threatened or endangered species of animal or plant, or the habitat of such a species; or other significant adverse impacts to natural resources;” AND (v) the impairment of the character or quality of important historical, archeological, architectural, or aesthetic resources of existing community or neighborhood character.” - The proposed plan requires 8.8 acres of mature trees to be cut down This will impact the summer habitat of the northern long-eared bat (NLEB), a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Although Tetra Tech submitted a report concluding that the NLEB take would be “incidental” they surveyed the area at 2150 Dryden Road in early April when none of the migratory wildlife and birds were in the area. Tetra Tech notes in its report that the New York State Natural Heritage Program (NYSNHP) records are not always up-to-date, and that it has requested additional data from this agency as well as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). There is no updated data from these agencies in the online application. - The proposed plan will have a significant impact on the character of the aesthetic resources (Willow Glen Cemetery), and an unknown impact on sensitive archeological Native American sites. In the LEAF submitted for the proposed plan, SUN8 acknowledges that this project is adjacent to a potential historic district or building (Willow Glen Cemetery), and that there is a sensitive archeological site on Dryden Road listed on the State Historic Preservation (SHPO) site inventory. They requested an evaluation from SHPO, which is not included in the online application. Until that evaluation is included, this application is not complete. Moreover, there has been intense community opposition to the placement of this solar farm at 2150 Dryden Road. Thousands of people who have relatives and friends buried in Willow Glen Cemetery will be directly impacted as the solar fields surround the cemetery. The visual screening proposed by SUN8, based on their own photos of the projected views with a tree hedgerow, does little to mitigate the impact of 1,130 eight- foot high, 60-feet long, solar panels covering scores of acres. - Additionally, The Stormwater Pollution Protection Plan (SPPP) is faulty because it is based on the assumption that the design engineers utilize an earth- screw-supported foundation solution. “However,” the report continues, “as a full geotechnical investigation has not been completed, the Project may require a series of foundations solutions based on actual ground conditions.” According to the soil study, 2150 Dryden Road consists mostly of poorly drained alluvial soil. Where is the full geotechnical report? Conservation Board April 25, 2017 Page 8 of 9 There was a curious statement in the SPPP: “The Site Plan document displays the existing NYSEG utility lines along with a Point of Common Coupling (PCC), the location where the electricity generating project will connect with NYSEG. The PCC may be subject to change, pending NYSEG comments on the Coordinated System Interconnection Review (CESIR).” If this is not the location of a PCC, does that mean this project will not move forward? Several FOIL requests are also outstanding dismissed with the comment in the Environmental Site Assessment, “Due to the limited timeframe available to conduct this assessment, not all responses have been received from Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests.” This project is being rammed through the system and it’s causing such distress because it’s hitting at the core of what many members of the Dryden community believe in – sustainable energy and a desire to limit reliance on coal. But SUN8 has proposed these industrial solar farms that are way out of proportion to what’s happening in the surrounding neighborhoods. A cemetery is one of the most personal and sacred spaces in a community. It’s where people grieve and gather to think about lost family and friends. As a life-long voting Democrat and a supporter of solar energy, this massive proposed solar project adjacent to Willow Glen Cemetery pulls on all these emotions. I do think that well-thought out solar projects will thrive in Dryden but something on this scale with too many unknowns and an incomplete Environmental Impact Statement is not the place to start. Sincerely, ______________________ Rachel Dickinson Freelance Writer 31 Main Street Freeville, New York 13068 From: Nina M Versaggi <nversagg@binghamton.edu> Date: Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 5:01 PM Subject: Re: Request for Information Please To: Bonnie Scutt <bonniescutt@gmail.com Hello Bonnie, > I apologize for the delay in responding. I hope this information will be what you were looking for. In 1997, the Public Archaeology Facility completed an archaeological survey for a NYS DOT project along NY 13 in preparation for widening the road. During that survey, a prehistoric site (the Plus Site) was identified to the north of NY 13, east of Johnson Road and west of Willow Glen Cemetery. We did additional excavations to see if the site was significant. Our 15 1 x 1 m units, and five 2 x 5 m trenches found artifacts and stains in the ground that we refer to as cultural features. There were 6 prehistoric features, 5 post molds, 13 possible post molds, and several other soil stains. The artifacts recovered included lithics, pottery, animal bone, botanical remains, a polished stone adze, a chipped shale/sandstone tool blank and fire-cracked rock. In 1997, the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation determined that the Plus Site was eligible for the National Register and a final excavation took place. The Public Archaeology Facility completed the field Conservation Board April 25, 2017 Page 9 of 9 excavations in 1998, analyzed the material, and submitted the report to the New York State Museum and DOT in January of 2000. The final excavations found five possible storage/refuse pit features and 23 possible postmold stains. Postmolds are the decomposed stains left by posts that either formed a wall of a structure, such as a longhouse, or were poles used for other purposes. One Feature appeared to represent a storage pit within which a roasting platform was prepared at the top of the pit, perhaps to dry and smoke the meat before transportation back to a village. The remains of two deer were found within the feature, as well as pottery and an assemblage of flake tools used to process both hard and soft materials. The feature has been dated to the time period (A.D. 1350-1400). The other possible features included several small hearths. Archaeologists interpreted the site as a remote temporary camp. Remote camps were likely an integral part of the Iroquois economy, as villages (where resources had been depleted) would not have survived without these camps. Because most of archaeology work has centered on Iroquois villages, this site was very important to our understanding of Iroquois settlement-subsistence patterns. I believe this link will take you to an article that was published on the site: Following the completion of the fieldwork and data recovery report, we expected that NYS DOT completed their project. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2190/TN64-BW24-YJY6-UY9X I hope this information is of interest to you. Nina _______________________________ Nina M. Versaggi, PhD RPA Director Public Archaeology Facility Binghamton University 4400 Vestal Parkway East Science 1, Room 146 Binghamton, NY 13902-6000 (607) 777-4786 Voice (607) 777-2288 Fax