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