The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCAC Minutes - September 26, 2016Danby Conservation Advisory Council Meeting Minutes for September 26, 2016 Members Present: Joel Gagnon, Bill Evans, Mary Woodsen, Don Schaufler, Jenny Caldwell, Dan Klein Non Members Present: Ronda Roaring, Chris Muka, CJ Randall minutes by Dan Klein Privelage of the floor: Ronda – it appears that a piece of farmland on route 96B has been sold and has a well being dug on it Minutes – Dan moved and Mary seconded June meeting minutes – passed unanimously Management Plan for West Danby Water District land Don presented a draft document concerning active management or passive management for the West Danby Water District’s land. See document below Mary thinks the Land Trust has introduced biological control for wooly hemlock adelgid on their adjacent property. CJ pointed out that a resource management plan is a SEQR Type 1 action and that selling town property (timber) might require a permissive referendum. CJ says the plan also needs characterization (soil types, water resources, etc.) and inventory. Mary and Jenny will look for that inventory. Also there is an estimate for the value of trees that were marked there several years ago, and this information should also be included in the plan. Bill says the document is biased towards a more active approach by imbalance of pros and cons and some terms such as ‘biodiversity’ that can be interpreted in various ways. Bill and Dan will try to add a few items to the plan. This fleshed out plan will be circulated among CAC members and CJ, eventually be voted on by the CAC, and then sent to the Town Board for their approval. Don is going to check with CJ to see 1. what should go into a resource management plan and 2. what help she needs in doing a resource management plan for the Town. Prospective easements Joel mentioned the Moores’ land on Durfee Hill Rd. as a potential easement property. He has invited Dan Moore to come to a meeting. Mary will check with CJ about a resident who had questions for her about a possible easement. Mary and Jenny spoke with a resident on Steam Mill Rd. – he says he has some large plantings of native grasses that he has planted for deer. Wants tax incentive – maybe a better one than the one available for easement. He is reluctant to “legislate from the grave”. Also thinking about his kids and their possible future relationship to the land. Jenny and Mary will keep in touch with him. Monitoring should be on next month’s agenda. Management plan as proposed by Don Schaufler: Justification for the Town of Danby to own the land in West Danby West Danby water system establishment and continuing water supply to area residents To achieve this goal the access road to tank and waterline opening must be maintained at all times with attention given to minimizing road and soil erosion due to slope of access road and waterline. Maintenance of the access road and waterline in an efficient manner requires installing water diversion structures (water bars)*on both as necessary. Top off access road with gravel able to be compacted and remain stable – crushed material is better than rounded stone for this application. Maintain vegetative cover on waterline to minimize soil erosion – remove trees and bushes on waterline itself plus maintain adequate open width for light to maintain vegetative cover on waterline. If the powers that be can then agree upon the overall objective for the balance of the property of maintaining/encouraging a healthy land cover for the property there are two basic approaches for achieving this: 1) One is a passive approach involving a minimum of human intervention to achieve one main goal 2) Two is a more active/hands on approach capable of achieving multiple goals Under both scenarios these goals could be achieved Healthy forest cover Trail establishment for bird watching, x 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 tree et al 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 If we follow the results of 1 through time the likely results would be Lessened biodiversity as only shade tolerant tree species dominate Primarily sugar maple and beech as hemlock will probably succumb to HWA All trees will continue to age. As the trees become larger their growth will slow until crowding results in no annual growth. Growth will equal mortality of mature trees. At this point eventually some trees will die providing openings for seedling regeneration of current tree species or invasive species if seed source is present. Carbon sequestration is limited to trees standing. Down trees will release carbon back to the atmosphere as they decompose. If we add some more goals to an active management approach (number 2) goals could include Removal of select trees to encourage biodiversity of all tree species Implementation of openings in the forest canopy to encourage establishment of a variety of tree species including those of shade intolerant species such as red oak Recovery of timber value of presently threatened species such as White Ash Infrequent removal of select trees to maintain a high rate of carbon sequestration in rapidly growing individuals Harvest of trees used to produce wood products such as housing, furniture, and other long lasting wooden items which leads to locking up of the carbon in the wood used. Production of firewood for local use – this combustion releases stored carbon in the wood into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide which is then recaptured by trees and stored again – part of the carbon cycle. Advantages and disadvantages of passive vs active approach Passive management pros Minimal input effort – just deer reduction and invasive species monitoring and reduction Untouched appearance Sanctuary feeling when in the woods Very slim chance of damage or erosion from cutting of trees Passive management cons Very little leeway in available actions Reduced carbon sequestration and growth Reduced species diversity in the face of climate change Less vigor of the forest overall due to fewer species and older slower growing individual trees Potential for catastrophic loss of forest timber value due to wind, ice, snow events Little or no regeneration on the ground to replace overstory canopy if loss occurs Less vegetation on the ground to mitigate heavy rain events More erosion due to less vegetation on the ground Lack of any possibility to produce wood products income Active management pros Flexibility in available actions as conditions change over time Flexibility in available actions as town requirements change over time Possibility for occasional timber harvest income exists Opportunity for regeneration of diverse tree species exists Greater vigor of residual tree growth if any tree removal is accomplished Ability to choose trees to retain for seed source, cavity development, uncommon species Ability to release crowns of chosen trees for increased vigor and growth Less potential for catastrophic loss of forest timber value due to wind, ice, snow events Potential harvest income could help Town offset other carrying costs of water district Active management cons More effort to achieve goals by volunteers Appearance of temporary disturbance may annoy some people