Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Areas Commission Comments on New Water Plant Rebuild TO: Mayor & Common Council Board of Public Works Superintendent William Gray Ass't Superintendent Larry Fabroni FROM: City of Ithaca Natural Areas Commission DATE: April 27, 2004 The following statement was approved by the Natural Areas Commission (NAC), at its meeting in February, 2004. We ask that you consider it as discussion and investigation of replacement of the City's water treatment plant proceeds. Questions or responses should be directed to the new NAC chairperson, Linda Buttel, at 106 Valley Road, Ithaca(277-5303) or lab60,cornell.edu. PRELIMINARY COMMENTS ON PROPOSED NEW WATER TREATMENT PLANT SITE The Natural Areas Commission would like to thank the Department of Public Works, and Larry Fabroni and Bill Gray in particular, for their quick and open response to the NAC's questions about the siting of a new City water treatment facility. Our preliminary comments, below, are informed by a presentation to an NAC meeting last Fall by Larry and Bill, as well as a"field trip"to the recommended new site and to the vicinity of a possible new water pipeline through the Six Mile Creek Natural Area. Pursuant to our responsibility under the City Code, to advise the Board of Public Works, Common Council and others on any proposed construction in the Natural Area, we will continue to need to work with DPW and receive all relevant information about this project (per Code Section 114-4.A). At this time, based on the information currently available to us, the Natural Areas Commission does not support the siting of a new water plant or pipeline, as currently proposed, within the Six Mile Creek Natural Area. The Six Mile Creek Natural Area is a unique asset, representing by far the largest single expanse of undeveloped land inside or in such close proximity to the City. In addition to buffering the City's water supply from contamination, this resource provides a broad corridor for wildlife to thrive and an unparalleled opportunity for City residents and others to experience a large and diverse natural environment(significantly different from a managed park) adjacent to the urban area. It includes old growth woods and (according to NYS criteria) numerous examples of rare and endangered species. The NAC is willing to provide further information to document these resources (eg., maps, species lists), if that would be useful. Consistent with the City's stated commitment to protecting and maintaining the natural area in a generally natural, undisturbed state (Code Section 114-2), the NAC takes the position that substantial new development should not occur within the natural area, even for water supply purposes, unless there is no other reasonable alternative. At this point, we are not convinced that rebuilding at the existing site or at a location on Burns Road are unreasonable alternatives. We understand that the site recommended by DPW would increase the volume of water that could be distributed by gravity, thus saving energy use and costs, but we believe this environmental attribute will be more than offset by the permanent impacts to the Natural Area. Specifically, the NAC has the following concerns about the siting of a new water treatment plant and new water pipeline deep inside the natural area: A. New water treatment facility 1. Construction of a large, multi-story building on the shore of the upper reservoir will have a significant,jarring visual impact on what is otherwise a beautiful naturalistic vista,predominantly of water and woods. (While views in this area do include the 60-foot dam and a small structure extending above it, the intrusion they represent is relatively mild.) We have received exciting reports in recent years of a bald eagle sighting in the area of the upper reservoir and we are concerned that altering the environment in this way, with the accompanying increase in human activity, will make it less likely that this spectacular and rare species will return. 2. Locating the water treatment facility next to the reservoir will also require construction of a road to the plant, one or more parking areas,possibly settling basins and other related infrastructure. Each of these will bring more impacts, changing the naturalistic appearance and character of the area. 3. A facility such as this (and the vehicles associated with it) will necessarily have noise impacts, in an area that now features serenity and natural sounds. 4. Any artificial lighting in an area where there is none will be a significant aesthetic change (and could have a deleterious impact on birds and mammals). 5. Creating paved and roofed surfaces will result in runoff, including deicing chemicals, herbicides, etc, in a steep area directly adjacent to the water supply. 6. The NAC is concerned about the possibility of chemical spills, in close proximity to the reservoir/drinking water supply, as well as the question of security in such a remote area. B. New Water Pipeline 1. The proposed new pipeline will need to cross a broad, wooded swath of the natural area on the south side of the reservoir/creek. This "side" of the natural area(below the South Hill Recreation Way) is generally less disturbed that the north side (except for a powerline right of way closer to Burns Road). Clearing a long corridor for installing and maintaining a pipeline will represent a significant intrusion into this relatively"wild"area. 2. We note that this side of the Natural Area is also much less supervised. The City ranger rarely has time to patrol this area. We are concerned that the pipeline corridor would provide an easy and inviting route (directly to the shore of the upper reservoir) for trailbikers, partiers and others whose use of the area may not be appropriate. The NAC does not consider the increased"traffic" in or accessibility of this portion of the natural area to be a plus. The NAC can provide copies of past reports from the ranger, regarding the number of rules violations recorded in the parts of the natural area that are relatively well supervised (just in the June-August period). 3. The proposed pipeline would need to cross the Six Mile Creek gorge. The DPW recommendation presented to us is to carry the pipe high above the creek on a bridge (that could also used by pedestrians?), landing on the gorge rim on the south side. We believe such a bridge in itself would represent a significant visual intrusion in the natural area. It would be visible not only from the reservoir area, but from the trail along the north side of the gorge, and from inside the gorge itself. We note that this section of the gorge is one of the most beautiful parts, with dramatic pools and falls and steep rock walls. Also, the soils in this area are shallow and erosive. 4. NAC member Robert Wesley, a botanist, has identified the proposed "landing area" for the pipeline bridge as a spot with a diversity of plant species and exceptional ecological value, which could be harmed by the construction necessary to locate and bury the pipeline. 5. Although the exact route of the proposed pipeline has not been defined to the NAC, it appears that the pipe would need to run along the South Hill Recreation Way for a relatively long distance. Assuming that the path itself would not be dug up for the pipe, an area outside the path would need to be cleared. We are concerned that this would cause a significant widening of the open corridor, thus altering the present experience of traveling along a relatively narrow corridor enclosed by nearby woods. To avoid diminishing the quality of this natural resource, the NAC strongly urges the City to pursue alternatives to building new facilities inside the Six Mile Creek Natural Area, including construction of a new water treatment plant at the current site on Water Street(which site we do not consider to be part of the Natural Area). The NAC requests to be kept fully informed of further developments regarding this issue and decision. In particular, we would like to know what the City's timeframe is for making a decision on the location of the facility. The NAC is willing to engage in additional dialogue with DPW staff(and/or other City officials) about this issue and our concerns. This could happen with the entire NAC or with a subcommittee, depending on which works better for DPW staff or other City officials. Approved(7-0) by NAC, on 219104 Cc: H. Matthys Van Cort, Planning Director TO: Mayor& Common Council Board of Public Works Superintendent of Public Works Assistant Superintendent for Water& Sewer Water Treatment Plant Chief Operator FROM: City of Ithaca Natural Areas Commission (Zev Ross, Chairperson) DATE: October 17, 2005 Statement of City of Ithaca Natural Areas Commission on Decisions` Regarding City Water Supply & the Six Mile Creek Natural Area (Approved 8-0 by the NAC on 10/17105) The Natural Areas Commission (NAC) is aware that the City is considering what to do about the need to replace the existing water filtration and treatment plant on Water Street. In February 2004, the NAC submitted its "preliminary comments" on the potential siting of a new water filtration and treatment plant at the 60-foot dam, within the Six Mile Creek Natural Area. The NAC did not and does not support the siting of a new plant at or near the 60-foot dam (or elsewhere within the Natural Area). It is our understanding that at this point the City is considering two options: (1) build a new plant at the current, Water*Street site (together with other related changes or upgrades to the water supply system), or (2) purchase water from the Bolton Point system, rather than continuing to operate a separate City system. The NAC has not received any additional information or reports from other City agencies, on this topic, since submitting our comments in early 2004 (although some information has become available to us through other channels). Based on the information currently available to us, the NAC makes the following comments: 1. In light of serious potential impacts to the Six Mile Creek Natural Area that appear to be associated with a "rebuild" at the Water Street site and in particular with the related changes or upgrades to the system that have already been suggested, the NAC believes a switch to the Bolton Point system would be less disruptive and damaging to the Natural Area than a rebuild. We understand that such changes or upgrades could include the following: a. dredging of the upper reservoir(and disposition of the dredge spoils), b. resurfacing of the dams, c. development of a year-round access road to the 60-foot dam (including electrical power and possibly lighting), d. modification of the intake mechanism, e. creation of a pre-filtering impoundment within the upper reservoir, f. security upgrades including possible fencing of the upper reservoir and installation of security cameras in that area, g. "upgraded" access to the raw water line and possible addition of blow-off and isolation valves and signage, h. possible creation of a"back-up" raw water line through the Natural Area, i. possible rehabilitation and use of the old power plant building and site at Van Natta's Dam (for cold storage and/or waste handling), j. modification of the settling lagoons (including paving and possibly the addition of decanting tanks and equipment for further processing of waste product —such as a filter press) 2. In any case, the NAC strongly supports conducting a full environmental review of this proposed action, including a comparative analysis of both the rebuild and connecting to the Bolton Point system. The NAC believes that an environmental impact statement (EIS)—not simply an "expanded" Environmental Assessment Form - should be completed as early as possible in the decision-making process (ie., before the City makes an irrevocable commitment in a particular direction), and that Common Council is the appropriate lead agency. The EIS should enumerate and analyze all of the components of a rebuild, including any new features that staff or consultants have said should accompany such a rebuild (eg., see items listed above). In any event, the EIS should evaluate alternatives to a rebuild scenario, such as connecting to Bolton Point. 3. The NAC would like to be fully included in future discussions regarding this decision (consistent with Section 114-4 of the City Code), and to be considered an "interested agency" during the environmental review (including any scopiiig component). We regret that we have been provided with so little information during the past year and a half. We believe this has hampered our ability to carry out our advisory and educational functions. Could you please confirm that in the future we will receive all appropriate notification and have "interested agency" status. 4. In the event that the City decides to join the Bolton Point system rather than continue to use Six Mile Creek as a water source, the NAC is very concerned about the future treatment of the Six Mile Creek Natural Area and watershed. We assume that the Common Council's commitment to preserve the natural character of the area would in that case result in the City's taking effective steps to prevent the conveyance of these lands to private interests or inappropriate development of any kind. The NAC hereby offers to assist the City in investigating such mechanisms (such as conservation easements, "forever wild" type designation, etc), beginning immediately. If the City stops relying on Six Mile Creek as a water source, ensuring permanent legal protection of and reasonable public access to this unique natural resource is critical. The NAC will continue to refine its position on this important issue as more information and analysis become available. Thank you for your consideration. CITY OF ITHACA ' 510 First Street, Ithaca,New York 14850-3506 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS • WATER AND SEWER DIVISION Telephone:607/272-1717 Fax: 607/277-5028 July 14,2009 Natural Areas Commission Re: DPW Responses to NAC Review Comments Questions&Concerns Plan of Work for the Restoration of the 30 Foot Dam Access Drive Dear Natural Areas Commission Members, Thank you for providing us the benefit of your review for this project. We earnestly considered all your comments, concerns, and questions, and our work plan is better for it. Below we provided you our responses to each item noted in your letter of July 13,2009. For ease of reference I have copied the text from your original correspondence and filled in our responses directly underneath each item, in italicized text. Please share with us the benefit of any additional input you may have at anytime before, during, or after the project. We plan to start this work on Monday July 20,2009. The City's Forestry Crew will start with the removal of the trees previously indicated. The Water& Sewer Crew will follow after with the grading and surfacing of the access road. We estimate that this work will take us two to three days barring stormy,rainy weather.Do not hesitate to visit the site during the course of our work and introduce yourselves to Dave Hunt and his Water& Sewer Crew, and Dave Hoaglin and his Forestry Crew. You will be received warmly and professionally. Feel free to discuss any questions or concerns you may have with the Working Supervisors on site. I am sure that they will be able to answer most any questions and address most any concerns posed. I know that we have a better plan of work and will have a better final product as a result of this review process.After we have completed the work I would again like the benefit of your assessment of the completed work. We are looking forward to working with you now, and in the future. We intend to conduct ourselves in accord with the principles of good environmental stewardship in our roles within the Natural Area and the watershed. To accomplish this we will need both the guidance of the NAC, and the diligent review of our work plans by the NAC. Original comments,concerns and questions with responses: 1. We agree that the narrow footpath currently in use from the existing access road to the dam should be blocked. Reply-1)As we discussed at the NAC meeting of Monday July 13, 2009 we will leave the footpath as it is for now. We will observe the foot traffic patterns resulting from the second means of access we are creating before making a decision whether or not to block the existing footpath. It may be that the majority of visitors will find the new route preferable just because of the ease of access. DPW Responses to NAC Review Comments, Questions, &Concerns, July 14,2009 Plan of Work for the Restoration of the 30 Foot Dam Access Drive Page 2 of 4 2. Under item 4c of the Plan of Work, it states that temporary silt fence will be placed,where necessary, when rainy weather forecast indicates. We feel it is necessary to use a silt fence as a precaution in any event. We are reminded that a silt fence was installed after excavation had begun in 2006 when the Town of Ithaca contracted to have the Bolton Point water main replaced at the edge of the Natural Area. The result was that the silt fence apparently could not be installed properly and the run-off from rainstorms caused considerable erosion. Reply-2) We agree that this would be the appropriate way to proceed. Having silt fence in place at all times will assure compliance with NYSDEC stormwater guidance, and regulations. 1 was originally thinking that since this is apt to be only a two or three day project, we would place silt fence only if the weather forecast indicated the possibility of substantial rainfall. However, the way this cool rainy summer has been going so far, I admit it would be most prudent to have it in place right from the start. 3. Under item 7 of the Plan of Work, "Plans for restoration of areas disturbed by work", it states: "Not applicable, the project itself is a restoration of the access drive..." The NAC expects that soil will be disturbed on the periphery of the project, including alongside the new road and at the top where it meets the existing access road. In order to prevent erosion and keep invasive species of plants from taking hold in these disturbed areas, best practices for restoration should be followed, such as those provided at the NYSDOT website: littps://NvwNv.iivsdot.gov/portal/page/portal/divisions/eilg ineerin /environmental analvsisfinanLials-and-�7uidance/eDn/repository/4-8atta4 pdf - Reply-3)I read the above referenced guidance material and gleaned at least what 1 think to be one good idea from it for incorporation in this project. We intend to contain our operations as close as possible to the exact width of the access we are reestablishing. In reality there will be a narrow strip on both sides of our work area where the ground surface will be disturbed to a shallow depth. For these areas we could certainly use some of the bark and wood chip mulch that the City Forester has available in his stockpiles from the chipping of trees, branches, and brush. We could spread this material over the disturbed margins along both sides of the access road. I believe this will help by acting as an additional filter strip for sediment carried from the new road surface by rain water runoff, and it will also serve to keep seed from germinating and growing quickly on the newly disturbed earth. We would first fine grade (rake smooth)any disturbed earth before placing the mulch. Please let me know if this sounds like an acceptable practice to the NAC members who are familiar with these measures. I think native tree bark and wood chip mulch would be less likely to carry invasive species seeds than say hay or straw mulch, but I don't know. 4. We believe that the restored access road will be an invitation to motorbikes and motorcycles to drive down to the dam. There is ample space,especially on the west side of the metal gate at Giles Street, for motorcycles to get through. We therefore request reinforcement of the existing gate at Giles Street to prevent access by motorbikes and motorcycles. Reply-4)As we discussed there are concerns as to whether this would also limit access to adventurous people with children in strollers, or adventurous people in wheelchairs. It could be that the only solution we have to discourage motorbikes is an enforcement solution. DPW Responses to NA Review Comments, Questions, &Concerns, July 14, 2009 Plan of Work for the Restoration of the 30 Foot Dam Access Drive Page 3 of 4 5. Currently,there is a large pad where the "new" access road would meet the maintenance road. This pad was created(as a turn-around and/or staging area)through filling when the maintenance road was reconstructed. It would appear that the only way the new access route can be connected to the maintenance road, with an appropriate grade, is to remove much of this pad. That aspect doesn't seem to be mentioned in the Plan of Work. Where will the excavated soil go? Moving it to another location in the woods would cause more impacts (including the likelihood of its being colonized by invasive species). Unless this material is needed to create the new road, we request that it be taken out of the area. See Reply under#6) 6. Currently,there is a fairly well-used trail that runs between the footpath to the reservoir (located a couple hundred feet below the maintenance road)and the maintenance road. This trail connects to the maintenance road just where that afore-mentioned pad is. Removing or regrading the pad would affect(and could cut off)this trail. If that happens,the restoration phase should ensure that an appropriate new connection is made between the trail and the maintenance road. Reply-5&6)Material removed from the area of the top approach for the proposed access road down to the dam will be trucked out of the Natural Area. We intend to minimize our grading operations to effect smooth gentle transitions for the proposed 30 foot Dam access road, the existing access road, and the "George Rim Trail", all three of which intersect in the area of the 'pad". 7. The Plan of Work calls for a D3 metal-tracked bulldozer for grading. One of our experts on machinery recommended instead that the City use a rubber-tracked skidsteer,which would do less damage. Would a skidsteer be adequate for this job? Reply-7)A tracked machine with its weight distributed over the entire large surface area of the tracks exerts far less ground pressure than a rubber tired vehicle with all its weight concentrated at four relatively small points of contact with the ground. Note, a landscape/grading dozer has the same neutral steer capability that a skidsteer has, and can turn in place, and maintain a compact, concise area of operation. For this work the performance of either machine is far more reliant on the skill, and experience of the person operating it rather than on the machines specifications and capabilities. We will have a seasoned, skilled, and conscientious operator at the controls. We believe we have selected the smallest feasible equipment for the work. Since we do not have this equipment in our fleet we will be borrowing it from the Town of Ithaca, or renting it. Gravel weighs on the order of 3,0004 per cubic yard(C19, and we will be placing and compacting roughly 50CY(150,000#) of gravel.A skid steer on that slope will only be able to handle a couple of hundred pounds of material at a time, thus would need to make approximately 10 passes/trips for each 1 pass/trip made by the landscape/grading dozer. In the end an undersized machine here would use more fuel, make more ruts, and extend the duration of the job by at least five fold,probably more. DPW Responses to NAC Review Comments, Questions, &Concerns, July 14,2009 Plan of Work for the Restoration of the 30 Foot Dam Access Drive Page 4 of 4 8. We applaud your intention to use rock that is already at the city's disposal,but want to make sure that it is flat and sharp enough to lock in, so it won't roll and cause erosion. We are comfortable with your statement, in your July 9 email to me, that you"...will need to make sure we don't put more down than we can initially compact into the gravel surface since it does tend to roll. If this proves not possible we will used a crushed version of the same, since the angular nature of the crushed stone product lends itself to staying in place better on steeper slopes." Reply-8) We will use a well graded gravel base material with an angular crushed stone surface. A well graded gravel has angular particles, and a particle distribution such that each successive smaller size particle fills the voids between the next bigger size particles bearing on each other. This is what enables compaction of the material, and results in the material staying in place when it is compacted.A well graded material is the opposite of a uniformly graded material such as marbles or beach sand which are displaced under pressure if not contained on all sides, ie. marbles placed in ajar. Thank you, Erik Whitney,PE Assistant Superintendent City of Ithaca DPW Water& Sewer Division Office Phone: 272-1717, City Cell Phone: 327-1419 XC: Bill Gray,PE, Superintendent City of Ithaca DPW Board of Public Works Commissioners Matt Sledjeski,PE,Assistant Civil Engineer Scott Gibson,Environmental Engineer George Seely, W&S Operations Supervisor Dave Hunt, Working Supervisor W&S Division CITY OF ITHACA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT CITY ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ORDINANCE(CEQRO) (CHAPTER 176 OF CITY CODE) STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT(SEQRA) (6 NYCRR PART 617) STATEMENT OF FINDINGS BY THE CITY OF ITHACA BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS Lead Agency: City of Ithaca Board of Public Works(BPW) Address: Attn: Ms.JoAnn Cornish,Director City of Ithaca Department of Planning&Development 108 East Green Street Ithaca,New York 14850 Date: July 8, 2009 Pursuant to Article 8(SEQRA)of the Environmental Conservation Law(ECL)and its implementing regulations(6 New York Code,Rules and Regulations,[NYCRR]Part 617),and CEQRO(Chapter 176 of the City Code),the BPW as SEQRA/CEQRO Lead Agency makes the following findings. Name of Action: City of Ithaca Water Supply Project Description of Action:The existing water supply system for the City of Ithaca(City)consists of • Six-Mile Creek(water source) • the Sixty-Foot Dam, which impounds a portion of Six-Mile Creek creating the Sixty-Foot Reservoir(also known as Potters Falls Reservoir)' • water intake system within the Sixty-Foot Reservoir • silt dam/silt pond(located upstream of the Sixty-Foot Reservoir) 'Three dams exist along sic-me,creek within the Sic-Mile Creek Natural Area the Van Natta Darn,located west of the Gies Street Bridge;the Thirty-Foot Dam,located further upstream,appro xknately south of the Common lands condornirxun development;and the Sixty-Foot Dam,located further upstream from Potter's Falls. Each of these dame creates its awn impoundment,with the impoundment behind the van Natta Dam the smallest,and the impoundmerrts behind the Thirty-Foot and Sidy-Foot Dams(the lower and upper reservoirs,respect My)comprising the City's raw water supply. The impoundment behind the Thirty-Foot Dam is an emergency water supply source only and is not currently utilized. The land awned and maintained by the City for its water supply is located in two Iurisdictlons:the City and Town d Ithaca,with a maiority d the kind located in the Town. Final: July 8,2009 1 of 22 O'Brien&Gere Engineers,Inc. , Ithaca Watar Supply Prvjea • silt dam dredged material dewatering area 24-inch diameter cast iron,raw water transmission main,which conveys water by gravity to the City's water treatment(fihration)plant(WTP) • 7 million gallon per day(MGD)capacity WTP located at 202 Water Street • residual handling site(two uncovered drying beds)on Giles Street • a distribution system of pumping stations,holding tanks, and conveyance pipes. The system serves approximately 30,000 customers in the City of Ithaca,as well as customers in the Town of Ithaca along East Shore Drive and Taughannock Boulevard. The City's WTP produced approximately 1,019 million gallons in 2006,having an average daily withdrawal of 3.9-MGD and an average daily delivery of 2.79-MGD. The City's WTP was originally constructed in 1903 and the last major upgrade completed in 1951. Since its construction,City workers have maintained the functionality of the plant to meet changing water quality regulations. Now beyond 100 years,the facility is operating past its useful life.Based on a comparison of the cost of repairs relative to the value of the structure,as well as the need to plan for impending changes in water quality regulations2,either replacement of the plan?to facilitate compliance with current building codes,or access to an alternative water supply is recommended (O'Brien&Gere 1999 and 20064). In accordance with the CEQRO and SEQRA, the City is evaluating potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with two options under consideration by the City to address its future water supply needs. These two options are: Rebuild option. As illustrated on Figure 1,this option consists of upgrading certain elements of the City's existing water supply system including: rebuilding the filtration plant; dredging the upper (Sixty-Foot) reservoir; modifying the intake system, drying beds (residual handling), and existing access route to the Sixty-Foot Dam;establishment of maintenance accesses to the raw water pipeline; and implementation of a maintenance plan for the dam and Sixty-Foot Reservoir. Purchase option. As illustrated on Figure 2,this option involves the purchase of finished(treated) water from the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission(SCLIWC).5 The SCLIWC was formed in 1974 by an agreement of municipal cooperation between the Towns of Dryden,Ithaca and Lansing, and the Villages of Cayuga Heights and Lansing. The SCLIWC operates a 9-MGD capacity WTP on the southern shore of Cayuga Lake at Bolton Point(Bolton Point WTP),which serves approximately 30,000 customers. The WTP was constructed in 1976 and has a New York State Department of Health(NYSDOH)approved maximum capacity of 6.75-MGD. According to the SCLIWC,the current practical maximum capacity is approximately 5-MGD. The source of water for the Bolton Point WTP is Cayuga Lake. The Bolton Point WTP produced approximately 999 2 Stage II Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule and tong-term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. 3 The condition of portions of the eodsting facility(La,dearwells,pumping stations,and lagoons)was identified as acceptsife.These components could be utilized in a new facility carutrcxted on the witting site(O'Brien&Gere 1999). 4 A copy of the 2M O'Brien&Gere report was provided in the DEIS as Appendix B. 5 The City would be a"wholesaW purdwer of finWW(treated)water from the SCUW C similar to other SCUM customers. Final:July 8,2009 2 of 22 O'Brien&Gere Engineers,Inc. \\Svroes03\a1t\Svracuse\1diaca-C 1598138081 Water-Suodv-Ev15 Reports\SEORA\Fmdin L\\Findin&a Statementhm Ithaca water SUPP$►F�rqiect million gallons in 2006,with an average daily withdrawal of 2.83-MGD and an average daily delivery of 2.74-MGD. This alternative includes: expansion of the current WTP located at 1402 East Shore Drive (NYS Route 34)in the Town of Lansing,construction of a new water transmission main(pipeline)between the Bolton Point WTP and the City's existing water distribution system, as well as the selected demolition and/or decommissioning of the City's existing WTP and raw water pTelme. This alternative also includes work in the Six-Mile Creek watershed to ensure dam safety as required by existing state regulations (i.e., implementation of a maintenance plan for the dam and Sixty-Foot Reservoir). Location: Project elements associated with the Rebuild Option are located in the City of Ithaca and Town of Ithaca(see Figure 1). Project elements associated with the Purchase Option are located in the Town of Lansing,Village of Lansing,Village of Cayuga Heights,Town of Ithaca,and City of Ithaca(see Figure 2). Final Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS)filed: May 27,2009 Facts and Conclusions in the FEIS Relied Upon to Support the Decision: The following facts and conclusions are derived from the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS dated May 2009), including the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS dated September 2008),and the public and agency comment record. They are set forth herein as the basis of the Lead Agency's findings and document the environmental,socio-economic and other factors and standards used by the Lead Agency in making its decision. I. Scone of Review 1. In accordance with the requirements of SEQRA/CEQRO,the FEIS contains: a concise description of the proposed action,its purpose,public need and benefits, including social and economic considerations; • a concise description of the environmental setting of the areas to be affected, sufficient to understand the impacts of the proposed action and alternatives; • a statement and evaluation of the potential significant adverse environmental impacts and the reasonable likelihood of their occurrence including: a) reasonably related short-term and long-term impacts,cumulative impacts and other associated environmental impacts; b) those adverse environmental impacts that cannot be avoided or adequately Final:duly 8,2009 3 of 22 O'Brien&Gen Engineers,Inc. )\SvroesO3ralt\Svracuse\ithaca-C 1598138081 Water Suunly Ev15 &eRgg§ RA\Findin¢s\Findi=StatemerCdoc maca water Supply Project mitigated if the proposed action is implemented; c) irreversible and irretrievable commitments of environmental resources that would be associated with the proposed action should it be implemented; d) growth inducing aspects of the proposed action; e) impacts of the proposed action on the use and conservation of energy;and f) impacts of the proposed action on solid waste management. • a description of mitigation measures; • a description and evaluation of the range of reasonable alternatives(including the no action alternative)to the action that are feasible,considering the objectives and capabilities of the applicant;and • comments received during the public and agency review period and the Lead Agency's responses to substantive comments. II. Protect Impacts&Mitigation The FEIS (including the DEIS incorporated by reference)identifies both short-term,construction- related activities and long-term impacts associated with the selection and implementation of either water supply option. Table 1 summarizes potential impacts associated with implementation of each option. Implementation of either option will avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Adverse environmental impacts will be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable by incorporating, as conditions to these findings, those mitigative measures that were identified as practicable in the FEIS. Compliance with relevant regulations, incorporation of design features, and the anticipated acquisition of permits from involved agencies have also been considered.The identified practicable mitigation measures for each option are also summarized in Table 16 °Table 1 is organized as follows: Column 1(Impact Topic)identifies the environmental or socio-economic resource evaluated,with resources sequenced in the same order as Section 3 of the DEIS;Column 2(Potential impacts)identifies the potential impact on the resource,as iderifed in the FEIS(including the DEIS);Column 3(Options)identifies the option(Rebuild,Purchase,or troth),within which the impart would occur(.(means yea);and Column 4(Mfiigadon/AecormrrwM nt M identifies mitigation or reoarmtendetlans presented In the FEIS(including the DEIS and City of Ithaca Board of Public Works responses to agency and public comments). Final!:July 8,2009 4 422 O'Brien&Gere EngMeerx,Inc. \\Svroes03\ait\Svracuse\lftca-C 1598\38081 Water Supply-Ev\5 Reports\SFARAWwxbnzs\Findinzs Statemem doc S EEg$ sill .11 , .R I - , " �s � a g ° �E � j 14 bill UE fill 16 11? - E $ IE A AA S a3 � IRIEsiffil a fit ill E VI ¢ Y � a la I I l lu � T W � a� o gffi ° IL �15 4 se s ir �A o ja B s - � Z � eL 8 ar Eg LU p- o m 0 > > > g � gTIE EE iff ME s _ d $°° F Ell! kill a as o � S EZS It's E trill b $ E -E �C A s m EZIZ $ 8 a8 E § t $ a W g W i p El $PS E ull zil - 8 5i 3E EU Y cr tu $$ lit o � t Ev of El •sue O s gill nNI'l - W � a a 8 m a 0 all it E a 3 E y $ . _ l all rk ' :116 S'Na $ il a -;I IBM; Np .pve� fi a� s EE � Jill 1 so�asA xrw if s� E 2 } 2 E a� a E elm a 3 fia al g SE $ El $ ,6 OF E 1E EIJ E;y b _ ii aZi3 @ ir fly 13g� �� �a o U c � E 3 a - E • a m all B ail 1. jail all 3 . P6 0 N g� fill e g all I = Q d $ g Hi N it $ �p Tb3� g�E 5�2' �ia4 �� yjae 'gC3 f y�� s allJul Bill • E ME . v F Ea �' 3 5F$ 333s C w 3 a gg �s o I ut EU 111,51AZ ��a aso 2 ail a e _ D all E8 a 'j 35 o E It a IL ISMS 8 a a]a a E E E to III- a ° t. • • W1�1-£ U� of• • • • • � • • s a .Fs C s a fill 11 �ii, If I Ili 1111111 S JI t of E jai o f E E - H o if T,E o� � Q g $ E � � > > aS i aa - _U Ela 98 F;IL $ 4 8 U •S 73 0 E 8El $ EW a a c ilk Ig ,fill gall if I I lip HIM II-a E3 E e a r r a m IL EWE . vs u o s � o ►- rt5 '' a E� ¢� �� � $A A A AAA � � ep ' E i • a. . ..2 Ei Ef fL ^ E lax s ales Mat g ® n b €$x IE z �= ic Y vi 11 ills i > > > > > > > a E �o m �O E F3 _ o R soil as 8 lip 15 "All 1.gg WR U a E El 3 aas S pM 3 n C qq E mss 0 Ulf E L a 32.9 ° 3 E � � C E o 1321 3 32 RE_ T N r Ithaca Water Suppl►ale IM Unavoidable Adverse Impacts In addition to potential short-term impacts,unavoidable adverse impacts which are expected as a result of project implementation were identified and evaluated. These consist primarily of localized impacts which will affect the project area and its vicinity. Mitigation to reduce the magnitude of unavoidable impacts was described above. The following impacts are described in the FEIS: Rebuild Oution Short-term effects. The project will result in the following short-term adverse effects that cannot be avoided: • short-term disruption to and exposure of soils • short-term increase in turbidity levels, within acceptable permit levels, during periodic maintenance events and dredging activities within the Sixty--Foot Reservoir • disturbance of existing vegetated littoral zone habitat within the Sixty-Foot Reservoir as a result of dredging activities(equipment access) • short-term and localized increases in dust and vehicle/equipment emissions due to construction and dredging activities within the Six-Mile Creek Natural Area • temporary disruption in access to public access trails within the Six-Mile Creek Natural Area while maintenance work is completed • short-term nuisance odors from dredging operation and from staged dredged sediments (observations of sediment during sample collection activities did not identify odors associated with the sediment;see DEIS Appendix O,Supplement 1) • temporary construction-related noise • increased energy expenditures associated with construction and dredging operations • temporary,short-term GHG emissions from construction equipment and activities. Long-term effects. The project will result in the following long-term adverse effects that cannot be avoided: • modification of existing habitat/vegetative cover as a result of construction activities and improvements within the Six-Mile Creek Natural Area (i.e., drying beds, access road improvements,intake system improvements,access trail maintenance,installation of blow- off and air release valves) • displacement of existing non-threatened/non-endangered wildlife associated with existing habitats • increased energy use and GHG emissions associated with new and modified facilities at the Sixty-Foot Reservoir/Dam,WTP • changes in viewsheds from publicly-accessible areas. Final:July 8,2009 20 of 22 O'Brien&Gere Engineers,Inc. Mvrces03\alt\Svracuse\Ithaca-C.1598\38081.Water Suvdv-Ev\5 R gs\Fwdin¢s Statemert.doc Ithaca water Supply Prgject Purchase Option Short-term effects.The project will result in the following short-term adverse effects that cannot be avoided: • short-term disruption to and exposure of soils • short-term impact to streams characterized by intermittent or low flow as a result of finished water transmission main activities • the diversion of natural stream flow necessary during pipeline installation activities,which can result in embankment erosion and subsequent increases in turbidity and siltation and have the potential to interrupt fish movements • short-term and localized increases in dust and vehicle/equipment emissions due to construction activities • temporary construction-related noise • increased energy usage from queued,delayed and/or detoured vehicles along NYS Route 34 during installation of the finished water transmission main • temporary, short-term GHG emissions from construction equipment and activities. Long-term effects. The project will result in the following long-term adverse effects that cannot be avoided: • modification of existing habitat/vegetative cover as a result of construction of the finished water transmission main and improvements to the Bolton Point WTP, including work within and adjacent to UNAs • displacement of existing non-threatened/non-endangered wildlife associated with existing habitats • modification of existing community character along the finished water pipeline alignment due to construction activities within the highway right-of-way and/or adjacent temporary and permanent easements on private property • changes in viewsheds from publicly-accessible areas • increased energy use and GHG emissions associated with new and expanded facilities. Final:July 8,2009 21 of 22 O'Brien&Gere Engineers,Ine. VSvroes03\alt\Svracuse\ithaca-C 1598\38081 Water-Supply Ev\5 Reooru\SEORA\Fmdines\FindinQs Statemeit doc Ithaca Water Supply Pro ed CerMation of Findings: Having considered the DEIS and FEIS, and having considered the Preceding written facts and conclusions relied upon to meet the requiremats of 6 NYCRR Part 617 and Chapter 176 of the City Code, this Statement of Findings certifies that: 1. The requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617 and Chapter 176 of the City Code have been met; 2. Consistent with socio-economic, and other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives thereto,implementation of either option and associated mitigation,as determined by the City Board of Public Works,is one which minimizes or avoids adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent practicable;including the effects disclosed in the DEIS and FEIS;and 3. Consistent with socio-economic,and other essential considerations,to the maximum extent practicable, adverse environmental effects revealed in the DEIS and FEIS process will be minimized or avoided by incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigative measures which were identified as practicable. City of Ithaca Board of Public Works(BPW) Signature of Responsible Official Name of Responsible Official Title of Responsible Official Date 108 East Green Street Ithaca,New York 14850 Final:July 8,2009 22 of 22 O'Brien&Gere Engineers,Inc. \\Svroes03\alt\Svracuse\lftca-C 1598\38081 Water-SuMly-Ev\5 Reoor!ASWRA7uxhw\Fmdines Statemert.doc City of Ithaca XaturaC.xreas Commission TO: Common Council Members CC: William Gray,Superintendent of Public Works Board of Public Works Members FROM: City of Ithaca Natural Areas Commission DATE: 9/28/09 Re:Water Supply Project-mitigation measures Attch: 1) CITY OF ITHACA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT-CITY ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ORDINANCE(CEQRO) (CHAPTER 176 OF CITY CODE) STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT(SEQRA) (6 NYCRR PART 617) STATEMENT OF FINDINGS BY THE CITY OF ITHACA BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS 2) Expected Major Impacts on Six Mile Creek Natural Area Dear Common Council Members, As you prepare to determine the City's future water supply,the Natural Areas Commission would like to emphasize the importance of protecting the long-term health of Six Mile Creek Natural Area and providing the necessary funding to do so. Both water supply options considered will involve work in the Six Mile Creek Natural Area.The Rebuild option will require dredging,building access roads to the Upper Reservoir and 60-foot dam,constructing new facilities at the Upper Reservoir,upgrading the raw water main,expanding drying beds,and ongoing dam safety inspections. The Purchase option will require dam safety inspections and related maintenance work. The Statement of Findings by the Board of Public Works,dated July 8,2009 (and attached here) includes a lengthy list of mitigations and recommendations to minimize the impact of work on the Six Mile Creek Natural Area. We would like to express our support for all of the mitigations and recommendations,and urge the Common Council to plan for the funding needed to implement them. At this time, our major concerns are listed in the attached document,and we expect to have more specific recommendations in the future. Additionally,the newly adopted Guidelines for Work in the Natural Areas were developed in cooperation with the Department of Public Works to minimize impacts 1 on the Natural Areas. We would like to request that the Guidelines be considered binding for this project. The Natural Areas Commission's responsibility under the City Code is to advise the City on"public concerns...threats to the ecosystem...and opportunities to improve the protection"of the City's designated Natural Areas,including Six Mile Creek. Please note that our responsibility does not extend to regions outside the boundaries of the designated Natural Areas that may be affected by the Purchase option. Finally,as we have stated before,the Natural Areas Commission is not formally supporting a particular water supply option,but is mandated to monitor impacts on Natural Areas. We therefore urge Common Council to fund mitigations and recommendations for environmental preservation,in order to maintain the character and ecological integrity of Ithaca's first and pre-eminent Natural Area. Thank you for considering the health of this 700-acre Natural Area as you move forward with this issue. Sincerely, 4fi_4� Alison Fromme,Member-at-large On behalf of the Natural Areas Commission Expected Major Impacts on Six Mile Creek and Related Concerns 1. Maintenance of Upper Reservoir(rebuild and purchase) a. The extent and frequency of dredging? b. Type of fuel for dredging barges?Safeguards? c. Location of dredging spoils site? d. Minimizing noise from pumping? 2. Permanent Access Road to Upper Reservoir(rebuild) 3. New Access Road to 60-foot dam(rebuild and purchase) a. Materials used for surface? b. Planning for appropriate drainage? 4. New Facilities at Upper Reservoir(rebuild) a. Low visibility of pre-sedimentation area at intake? b. Storage building: incorporate into dam structure,ensure safe chemical storage? c. Minimize lighting impacts? S. Dam Safety Measures at 30-foot dam(rebuild and purchase) a. Alternative options for maintaining safety,other than dredging? b. Type of fuel for dredging barges?Safeguards? c. Location of dredging spoils site? 6. Upgrade of Raw Water Main Features(rebuild) a. Can new roadways be avoided? 7. Expansion of Drying Beds(rebuild) a. Is expansion necessary? b. Restoration of disturbed areas? c. Improvement of nearby trails? d. Adequate drainage plan? e. Details of drainage process? f. Preservation of existing fox dens? v SL Finger Lakes Land Trust r1 202 East Court Street W Ithaca,New York 14850 00 Tel:(607)275-9487 / Fax:(607)275-0037 � y `° 9 working to protect the natural integrity of the Finger Lakes Region. May 13, 2010 Mayor Carolyn Peterson Ithaca City Hall 108 East Green Street Ithaca,NY 14850 Dear Mayor Peterson: I am pleased to submit the attached request for$25,000 in support of the Finger Lakes Land Trust's acquisition of the Berntsson/Millier property in the Town of Dryden. Permanent protection of this 170-acre parcel will secure 6,000 feet of frontage on Six Mile Creek as well as 20 acres of wetlands and numerous springs that feed the creek. These lands play an important role in helping to maintain water quality within the creek. Acquisition by the Land Trust will ensure that they will not be developed. In addition,the Land Trust intends to provide for low-impact public access to this property,as well as adjacent conservation lands. Please give me a call if you have any questions about this project. I would be happy to provide you,or other representatives of the city,with a tour of the site or a thorough briefing at your convenience. Thanks very much for your consideration of this request. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Andrew E. p Executive Director cc: Dan Hoffman enclosures ®Rerycled Paper Email:info@fllt.org Website:www.fllt.org SIX MILE CREEK WATERSHED PROTECTION PROJECT BERNTSSON/MILLIER TRACT ACQUISITION The quality of Ithaca's drinking water supply is inextricably linked to the quality of its watershed —those lands that serve as the catchment area for that water. With increasing development pressure, it is vital to secure those lands that are most important for watershed protection. Failure to do so could lead to increased water treatment costs and degraded water quality over the long run. Fortunately,watershed protection efforts are already underway. In addition to city-owned watershed lands,the Finger Lakes Land Trust has secured 740 acres through the use of conservation easements (permanent legal agreements that limit future development) and 138 acres that is owned and managed as the Roy H. Park Preserve. These holdings together encompass more than two miles of frontage on Six Mile Creek. Elsewhere in the region,the Land Trust has worked cooperatively with landowners and local communities to permanently protect more than 11,000 acres of the region's most cherished open spaces. The organization today enlists the support of 1,900 members and is supported by seven full-time and two part-time staff, as well as an extensive network of dedicated volunteers. Two months ago,the Land Trust moved quickly to negotiate a contract to purchase approximately 170 acres from Rex Berntsson and Mary Kay Millier. The parcel features 6,000 feet of pristine frontage on the creek and encompasses 20 acres of wetlands. These wetlands play an important role in filtering nutrients and other runoff while maintaining steady stream flows downstream. In addition, steep slopes on the property feature numerous springs that contribute water to Six Mile Creek. The property has long been identified as a priority for conservation due to its significance for watershed protection as well as the fact that it serves as the link between 8,000 acres of protected open space. The tract is situated between the Finger Lakes Land Trust's Roy H. Park Preserve, Cornell Plantations' Old 600 Natural Area Preserve,Hammond Hill State Forest and Yellow Barn State Forest. The property hosts a variety of wildlife including wetland birds such as Wood Ducks,the Virginia Rail, and Great Blue Herons. Wide ranging mammals such as the Black Bear have also been documented on the land. Mature forests on the site include hemlock-dominated lowlands as well as northern hardwood forests dominated by beech and maple. The Berntsson/Millier property is bisected by Irish Settlement Road. The Land Trust intends to retain and manage approximately 80 acres located on the east side of the road as an addition to its Roy H. Park Preserve. Representatives of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation(NYSDEC)have expressed interest in adding the westernmost 90 acres to Yellow Barn State Forest. Given the state's fiscal situation,a possible sale to NYSDEC is a speculative long-term possibility and no funding is currently available for acquisition. In the event that this was to occur, any proceeds from the sale would be re-invested in one or more land protection projects. Six Mile Creek Watershed Protection Project Berntsson/Miller Tract Acquisition Page Two Once acquired,the Land Trust will develop a management plan for the property in conjunction with its neighbors as well as other stakeholders such as the City of Ithaca. It is expected that public access will be provided for low-impact uses such as hiking and bird watching. The Land Trust intends to explore the possibility of utilizing the property as a trail link between Hammond Hill and Yellow Barn State Forest. The Land Trust holds a contract to purchase the Berntsson/Millier property for its appraised fair market value(including timber) at$2,450 per acre,with the exact acreage to be determined by survey prior to an anticipated June closing. The organization has set a campaign goal of $500,000 to cover acquisition costs as well as a'contribution to the Land Trust's stewardship fund. An allocation of$200,000 from a gift from Dorothy Park has launched the campaign and fundraising efforts are now underway. A grant of$25,000 or more from the City of Ithaca will help ensure that this key watershed property remains in an undeveloped condition. The Land Trust intends to seek financial support from a variety of sources, including Tompkins County, the NYS Conservation Partnership Program,and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It is expected that support from the City of Ithaca would be needed to leverage these resources. SIX MILE CREEK WATERSHED PROTECTION PROJECT BERNTSSON/MMLIER TRACT ACQUISITION PROJECT BUDGET Expense Estimated purchase price(approximately 170 acres @$2,450/acre) 416,500 Estimated acquisition expenses(closing costs/taxes/env. assessment) 12,500 Site improvements(entry sign,parking area,kiosk,foot bridge) 16,000 Stewardship fund contribution for long term management 55,000 Total Expense $500,000 i Revenue This request 25,000 Allocation from Park Legacy Fund(in hand) 200,000 JM McDonald Foundation(portion of larger grant request-pending) 50,000 Legacy Foundation(request pending) 20,000 Tompkins County(request to be submitted in June) 25,000 US Fish and Wildlife Service(to be submitted in June) 75,000 NYS Conservation Partnership Program(to be submitted) 10,000 Addl. funds to be raised from individuals&corporations 95,000 Total Revenue $500,000 F 1 is f INV4 Mama 1111 INC t co CD (n a a 4 # Z w cma r N a sxW K 2 d -0. a 4a `I rt A CD CD y,. i OD 8P �� CL m _,, N CL ?k. fQ t 4 r a _ ..- . - - .- . • . - �I MO reTans 1 . . . .. .. It �µ� ' .Q�e � a.$t "t '✓ $jai v`V. y.6� tto -t iig. L _ J f�I ��� _ i �' FF �r'' �G� �t 9 • s3 3>X Ai a x a err °# OE, 4� _ 1 11 111 111 1 1 f �b ✓' d r w x - 3� A i4 t'f4 C ,y.� i "'P{` �4 St ��t t• �e-v � �S.s� t - F c ",'gn•*°.`""""".�y. r f : r yr } r f Re: Water Supply Project—rebuild option mitigation measures Attch: CITY OF ITHACA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT - CITY ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ORDINANCE(CEQRO) (CHAPTER 176 OF CITY CODE) STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) (6 NYCRR PART 617) STATEMENT OF FINDINGS BY THE CITY OF ITHACA BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS Dear Common Council Members, As you prepare to determine the City's future water supply,the Natural Areas Commission would like to emphasize the importance of protecting the long-term health of Six Mile Creek Natural Area and providing the necessary funding to do so. Both water supply options considered will involve work in the Six Mile Creek Natural Area. According to the Statement of Findings by the Board of Public Works, dated July 8, 2009 (and attached here), the Rebuild Option"consists of upgrading certain elements of the City's existing water supply system including: rebuilding the filtration plant; dredging the upper(Sixty-Foot)reservoir; modifying the intake system, drying beds (residual handling), and existing access route to the Sixty-Foot Dam; establishment of maintenance accesses to the raw water pipeline; and implementation of a maintenance plan for the dam and Sixty-Foot Reservoir." The Purchase option"includes work in the Six-Mile Creek watershed to ensure dam safety as required by existing state regulations (i.e., implementation of a maintenance plan for the dam and Sixty-Foot Reservoir)." The July 8, 2009 Statement of Findings includes a lengthy list of mitigations and recommendations, and we would like to express our support of those measures and urge the Common Council to plan for the funding needed to implement them. Additionally, the newly adopted Guidelines for work in the natural areas provide a framework for minimizing impacts as work is completed. The Natural Areas Commission's responsibility under the City Code is to advise the City on"public concerns...threats to the ecosystem... and opportunities to improve the protection"of the City's designated Natural Areas, including Six Mile Creek. Thank you for considering the health of this 700-acre natural area as you move forward with this issue. MAINTENANCE OF SOUTH HILL RECREATION WAY Recommendation Because the South Hill Recreation Way has been situated within the Sig Mile Creek Wildflower Preserve, a fragile ecosystem, and because residents of the area and other citizens who may visit it prize and appreciate the quiet to be found in this rare area of natural beauty, with its abundant wildlife and diverse succession of flowers throughout the growing season, The Sig Mile Creek Advisory Committee recommends that the South Hill Recreation Way be considered as a Natural Area, and that in keeping with this recognition of the unique and valued natural character of the area, motorized ma,.;intenance by: the Town of Ithaca to the South Hill Recreation Way be eliminated with the exception of 1) Upkeep of the Water and Sewer system 2) Emergency situations arising from natural events; specifically, either from tree fall across the Recreation Way in such a way that safe passage by pedestrians and bicyclists is blocked, or from severe erosion caused by sudden flooding , and that measures be taken to counteract the latter be not remedial or in appearance only, but rather that the underlying cause of the problem, such as changes wrought by human beings in water flow and outlet uphill of the Recreation Way be investigated and addressed. The Sig Mile Creek Advisory Committee appreciates the interest and conscientiousness of Town of Ithaca Planning and Parks officials in regard to the South Hill Recreation Way and offers these recommendations in a spirit of goodwill for continuing cooperation with the Town for the preservation of the natural quiet and beauty of the area and consequent appreciation of the South Hill Recreation Way and the surrounding Six Mile Creek Wildflower Preserve by its neighbors and caring citizens. In this spirit of cooperation, the Six Mile Creek Advisory Committee offers to address the Town Planning Board, should that be reccessary, with regard to this recommendation or related matters. Adopted by SIX MILE CREEK ADVISORY COMMITTEE -- 4/15/96