The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCAC Minutes - November 28, 201611-28-2016 Minutes - Danby Conservation Advisory Council Meeting - FINAL Submitted By Matt Ulinski Page 1of 5 Danby Conservation Advisory Council  Minutes of Regular Meeting November 28, 2016 Present: Joel Gagnon (Chair) Matt Ulinski Don Schaufler Jenny Caldwell (Absent) Mary Woodsen Dan Klein (Absent) Bill Evans (Absent) Others Present: Ronda Roaring Jack Miller CJ Randall The Meeting was opened at 7:09 PM Public Comments/Privilege of the Floor Ronda sent an email to Joel. Ronda said she gave CAC a list of people interested in easements and the CAC did not follow up. She also talked about a number of people who are interested in easements. Ronda gave Mary a list of the people and Mary will follow up on it. Ronda also said the local land trusts have been having a banner year. Minutes Matt moved that the minutes from the October 24, 2016 be accepted. Don seconded. All approved. Agenda Water District Property Bill and Dan sent in comments about the Water District Property Draft (attached below). Matt read these to the CAC. Mary said that even old growth could be wiped out and start over due to weather or other event. Don said we can determine the potential revenue generated of a cut. Joel responded to Ronda’s forwarding of remarks made by Ric about logging be a non-issue on the property. Joel said that was a different context when it was sent and was not addressing the current discussion. CJ requested that the tree cutting question be provided to her for tomorrow’s joint Town and Planning Board meeting. Joel said we should modify the existing plan to reflect changes to the document as agreed tonight: eliminate teaching forest, leaving carbon sequestration, property needs to be management if we cut or not (management for erosion control), add data on value of the cutting (Don will try and provide some of this). Monitoring of Easements Matt and Bill both did not get to this. Both will try and do this before the end of the year. Other The joint meeting with Town and Planning Boards. Focus should be on easements. Executive Session 11-28-2016 Minutes - Danby Conservation Advisory Council Meeting - FINAL Submitted By Matt Ulinski Page 2of 5 Went into executive session at 8:28. Motion by Joel. Seconded by Don. All approved. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 PM. The next meeting is December 26, 2016 at 7:00PM. Submitted by Matt Ulinski Resource Management of West Danby Water District Land – Two Possible Approaches Submitted by the Danby Conservation Advisory Council, October 2016 DRAFT 3 DRAFT 3 DRAFT 3 The Town of Danby owns land in West Danby to operate a water supply to area residents. As part of the water system infrastructure, there is an access road to a tank and an opening for a waterline (this should be described a little better), both of which must be maintained at all times. Maintenance of the road and waterline must take into account minimizing soil erosion. Maintenance of the access road and waterline in an efficient manner requires installing water diversion structures (water bars) on both as necessary. The access road should be topped off with gravel which can be compacted and remain stable. Crushed material is better than rounded stone for this application. Vegetative cover should be maintained on the waterline to minimize soil erosion. Trees and bushes on the waterline itself should be removed. Also, trees and bushes along the edges of the waterline should be maintained in a way that allows light to penetrate so that the vegetation on the waterline stays healthy. We are suggesting two approaches the Town could take in terms of managing this property. The Town could choose either one, or possibly a hybrid. One is a passive approach, involving a minimum of human intervention. The other is a more active/hands on approach. Both scenarios could potentially result in  Healthy forest cover  Trail establishment for bird watching, cross-country skiing, dog walking, hiking, picnicking, and nature study  Minimum of soil erosion  Variety of habitats for wildlife – cavity trees, seed production for bird/wildlife food, etc  Maintenance of open forest space  Maintenance of native plant ecosystem Both approaches should include deer reduction and invasive species minimization. These are both necessary to encourage the establishment of a new forest of native plant species and multiple layers of vegetation to promote biodiversity of plants and animals. The most practical deer-reduction strategy is to allow hunting on this land, as has been customarily done. If hunting is allowed, the land must be posted and possibly physically closed to the public seasonally. This would require someone from the Town to be involved in those actions. The question of liability for the Town if it allows hunting on public land has not been answered yet. Invasive species management requires a more detailed plan and could be put into effect regardless of which type of management is chosen for the overall parcel. 11-28-2016 Minutes - Danby Conservation Advisory Council Meeting - FINAL Submitted By Matt Ulinski Page 3of 5 Another factor to consider when thinking about this parcel is that a) it is a designated UNA (Unique Natural Area), and b) it is adjacent to land owned by the Finger Lakes Land Trust. Passive Approach The passive approach would involve minimal removal of trees. Over time, this would result in fewer tree species – forests tend to mature into a few dominant species. In this area it would be sugar maple and beech. Hemlock might normally be part of this mature forest too, but we expect that an insect called hemlock wooly adelgid might kill these trees. As trees in an unmanaged forest age, their growth slows. Eventually some will die and provide openings in the forest for seedling regeneration of current tree species and invasive species if a seed source is present. An advantage of passive management is that we would essentially be managing the land to become an old- growth forest. Old growth forests are very rare in this area, and very few people manage for old-growth. The Town would be in a unique position to do so since this land might never change hands. There are certain species of birds that prefer old-growth forests. These birds are also extremely rare or totally absent from this region, and could possibly use the type of forest we would be managing for as habitat. There may be other locally rare or absent animals and plants that would benefit from old-growth forests. A benefit of forests in general is that they sequester carbon. Carbon is locked up in the wood of the tree itself, rather than being released into the atmosphere where it contributes to the greenhouse effect. It is not clear if the sequestration of carbon would be greater in one approach versus the other. Passive Management pros  Minimal effort from Town  Results in what many people would view as esthetically pleasing forest  Results in old-growth forest, a rarity, and perhaps could be thought of as a gift to future residents of Danby  Creates potential habitat for rare species  Minimizes erosion potential that can result from cutting trees  Tall trees tend to decrease the amount of invasive plants  Increases biodiversity when looked at from a town-wide scale Passive Management cons  Fewer tree species – if climate change or a new insect or disease causes the decline of one species, there are fewer alternatives already present in the forest species composition to take the place of the affected species  Bigger, older trees are more susceptible to catastrophic loss due to wind, ice, and snow events  Less understory growth – with less light hitting the forest floor, many understory (small) plants will not be able to grow (However, this would not be the case if big trees are lost due to wind, ice, etc.)  Less understory growth could result in increased soil erosion during heavy rainfall  No income from the land from logging Active Approach Active Management of the land would involve selective cutting of trees with specific goals in mind. These 11-28-2016 Minutes - Danby Conservation Advisory Council Meeting - FINAL Submitted By Matt Ulinski Page 4of 5 goals might include periodic cutting of trees for timber or for firewood, encouraging certain species and discouraging others, and maintaining a variety of tree species in the event that certain tree species are attacked by insects, disease, or cannot adapt to climate change. The Town would want to develop a long-term plan for the details of what the active management would entail. This would probably be done with the assistance of a professional forester. The Town would need to periodically review the status of the management plan to assess if changes to the plan were necessary. White ash could be logged. White ash is likely to be totally wiped out by an insect called the Emerald Ash Borer. The trees have more value as timber if they logged before the insect kills them. Logging the land and selling the timber is a SEQR action and would require some amount of work on the part of the Town in terms of being compliant with the SEQR process. Active Management pros  Changing environmental, legal, or cultural conditions over time may require flexibility in management plan  Small amount of income from logging. This income would go to the Town but could be directed to the West Danby Water District budget.  Opportunity to increase number of tree species (when looked at from a parcel-specific point of view, not from a town-wide point of view)  Can manage to retain trees for seed source, cavity development for nesting animals, or for uncommon tree species  Selectively removing trees can increase the growth and vigor of adjacent trees  Less potential for catastrophic loss due to wind, ice, and snow events  This land could be used as a demonstration plot for sustainable forestry Active Management cons  Eliminates the possibility of creating rare old-growth forest  More effort from the Town in terms of working with a forester and complying with the SEQR process. Comments from Bill Evans “The tree document you sent around this morning looks good to me, though I think the property could be used as a “teaching forest” in any case, so just including that angle in the cut section is perhaps misleading. One other possibility regarding the property is to allow a selected logging in the near future to raise funds for the Water District before putting the property in a long‐term old growthish easement, perhaps after restock with asian or GMO chestnut. This might depolarize the situation for existing stakeholders (or start a whole new debate!). So, in this regard, the questions posed to the Town Board might include a “cut and then save” option.” Comments from Dan Klein “I have some comments about Joel’s proposed message to the Town Board concerning the West Danby 11-28-2016 Minutes - Danby Conservation Advisory Council Meeting - FINAL Submitted By Matt Ulinski Page 5of 5 Water District land. I think the bullet point about carbon sequestration should be eliminated. First of all, the amount of carbon we are talking about is minuscule. And the difference between the amount of carbon that might be sequestered under an old‐growth scenario versus a managed forest scenario is even more miniscule. I’m also not even sure the idea in the bullet point is completely accurate. I notice you did not use the term “old‐growth”. I think we should use that term. It is a well‐known term and accurately describes what we have in mind. You did not include a bullet‐point about management. I think this is an important point for a Town Board considering what to do with a town‐owned property. If the land is actively managed, it will need to be actively managed with oversight by the Town Board and staff. They should consider if the Town has the capacity to do that.. In the point about revenue, there is no indication how much revenue we might be talking about. I believe the revenue potential is relatively small. Someone on the Town Board may see the word “revenue” and mistakenly think that this could have a big impact on Town taxes. If we are going to mention revenue, I think we should try to get a rough estimate of how much we are talking about. Less than $1,000? Less than $5,000?