State
Environmental Quality Review Act
STATEMENT OF
FINDINGS
ADOPTED
Date
1.
Introduction
This is the
A Findings Statement sets forth the basis for an Agency’s decision on an action, in this case the funding and construction of sewer lines and pump stations in the Town of Lansing; the funding and construction of transmission mains in the Town of Lansing and Villages of Lansing and Cayuga Heights; the funding and construction of two flow diversions in the Village of Cayuga Heights and Town of Ithaca; and approval of an Intermunicipal Wastewater Agreement, which includes new coterminous service areas for the Village of Cayuga Heights Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant and expands existing service areas in the Towns of Lansing, Dryden and Ithaca.
The State Environmental Quality Review
Act (SEQRA) requires that the Lead Agency and each Involved Agency make
Findings with respect to an Action. The New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) is the Lead Agency for this Action. Involved
Agencies include the Project Sponsors, which are the City of
This Findings Statement contains a
brief description of the Action, a description of the SEQRA process, a
discussion of significant impacts and mitigation measures, and a certification
required by the SEQRA regulations.
The discussion of impacts and
mitigation measures makes up the bulk of these Findings. The discussion is
organized by topic or area of the environment, as were the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) documents. In making Findings it is important to note that an
Agency need not Find that the Action will result in no
environmental impacts. Rather, SEQRA requires that agencies engage in a
balancing process whereby environmental concerns are weighed against social,
economic and other essential considerations. These Findings set forth the basis
of the Agency’s decision, and set forth conditions where appropriate.
The Project involves the construction
of approximately 26 linear miles of public collector sewers (both gravity and
vacuum sewers) in the Town of Lansing, as well as the construction of three
pump stations to convey sewage from topographic low points and 21 and 24-inch
gravity transmission pipes to convey the sewage to the Village of Cayuga
Heights Wastewater Treatment Plant (VCHWTP). The Project further involves
interconnection of the VCHWTP service area and the Ithaca Area Wastewater
Treatment Plant (IAWWTP) service area to allow for the diversion of up to 1.3
million gallons per day (MGD) (over the 20-year planning period) of sewage from
the VCHWTP to the IAWWTP to utilize the existing permitted capacity at the
IAWWTP. Much of this diversion will be from the northeast portion of the Town
of
The EIS further analyzes the potential environmental impacts of
a conceptual future plan involving the construction of approximately 38 miles
of collector sewers and seven pump stations in the Town of
On
4.
Project
Need and Benefits
· The DEIS and FEIS documents contain an extensive discussion of Project need. The Project is needed in order to eliminate ground and surface water pollution currently caused by inadequate on-site sewage disposal systems and to protect public health. The proposed Project will eliminate a number of sewage discharges and provide a higher level of sewage treatment than presently occurs within the area proposed to be serviced. More specifically, the proposed benefits are as follows.
·
Currently, inadequate on-site septic systems are
in use within the proposed Town of
·
Currently, individual SPDES discharge permits
are held by residential, commercial, industrial and institutional facilities
that fall within the proposed Town of
·
The Project will meet the need for additional
public sewage capacity in the Town of
· The Project will occur in an area that is already partially developed, thus promoting infill rather than conversion of open space and agricultural lands.
·
The sizing of mains, pump stations and other
facilities will provide the opportunity for future expansion of public sewer
service within the Town of
·
The provision of sewers within the Town of
· The Project will eliminate SPDES permit flow exceedances at the VCHWTP.
·
The Project will provide for more public sewer
capacity in the
·
By incorporating the Town of
5.
Alternatives
Alternatives to the Project were
thoroughly analyzed during the planning phases of the Project. This analysis
was summarized and supplemented in the DEIS and FEIS documents. Other
alternatives were also analyzed in the DEIS and FEIS. The analyses found that:
·
The
use of vacuum sewers (commonly used in areas of relatively flat topography
where slopes are not suitable for the use of gravity sewers) for the entire
Town of Lansing Service Area was not practical because of higher costs and
because the majority of the Service Area has slopes suitable for conventional
gravity sewers.
·
The
use of small diameter variable slope sewers with full-size septic tanks to
capture solids in the Town of
·
The
construction of several small package wastewater treatment plants or
neighborhood subsurface areas in the Town of Lansing as alternatives to use of
existing municipal plants were rejected because of the higher likelihood of
failure from multiple facilities and because of the lower level of wastewater
treatment that would likely be achieved.
·
Alternative
wastewater discharge locations such as sub-surface discharge or land
application were rejected because of the amount of land required, operational
difficulties, cost considerations and the significant transport infrastructure
that would be required.
·
Discharge
into a nearby receiving water body instead of Cayuga Lake is not feasible,
given the low summer base flows in tributaries to the Lake such as Salmon Creek
and Gulf Creek.
·
Composting
toilets are not considered by the Lead Agency to be a practical regional
alternative because of scale considerations, although they are viable for
individual use.
·
The
construction of a new municipal wastewater treatment plant was rejected because
it would not meet the goal of providing a regional alternative using existing
facilities; it would result in an additional wastewater treatment facility
requiring proper operation, with a resultant higher risk of malfunction and
environmental pollution; small municipal plants often have more operational and
compliance problems than regional plants; and small municipal plants seldom are
“state-of-the-art” due to an inability to spread higher costs over a small tax
base. While issues related to VCHWTP and
IAWWTP discharges were outside the EIS’s scope, the Lead Agency noted that the
regional solution is acceptable because phosphorus loadings discharged into the
southern end of Cayuga Lake attributable to Town of Lansing flows would be very
small (less than ¼ pound per day initially and less than ¾ pound per day in 20
years with tertiary phosphorus treatment).
The Lead Agency further noted that overall phosphorus loadings to
southern Cayuga Lake will decrease in the range of 20 to 31 pounds per day on
an average annual basis with the planned phosphorus treatment upgrades at the
VCHWTP and IAWWTP, even with the added Town of
·
Treatment
at an expanded VCHWTP is technically feasible, but would be more expensive and
has no particular environmental benefits over the preferred alternative.
·
Decommissioning
of the VCHWTP and treatment of all wastewater at the IAWWTP would have the
benefit of reducing the number of operating facilities with associated risk of
malfunction. However, it is more costly than the preferred alternative and so
was rejected.
·
Use
of the VCHWTP for primary treatment, followed by transmission of wastewater to
the IAWWTP for final treatment was rejected because it would be more costly without
having any particular environmental benefits.
·
Larger
and smaller sewer service areas were considered in the Town of
·
Alternative
transmission main pipe sizes were considered.
However, the proposed transmission main pipe size is the minimum
necessary to meet recognized design standards.
In addition, a smaller main could not be efficiently upgraded or
supplemented in the future without significant cost and duplicated construction
impacts.
·
The
DEIS contains an assessment of the use of an alternative transmission main
route that would avoid the Esty’s Glen and
·
The
FEIS contained an analysis of the use of the
No comments were received that would
alter the
The following discussion sets forth
the Findings, basis and rationale for the
6.1 Topography
Topography in the EIS Study Area (“the
Study Area”) ranges from approximately 400 feet above mean sea level to 1100
feet above mean sea level. Topography generally slopes from east to west
towards
a. Adherence to the requirements of a general
stormwater permit, and preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
prior to construction. The plan will include erosion control measures designed
in accordance with the following documents:
·
·
b. Work will progress in a systematic fashion
with the following phases: land
clearing, excavation, installation or construction, backfill and restoration. All
ground surfaces that will be disturbed during construction will be stabilized
and restored.
c. Earthwork
will be performed with the objective of completing pipe trench excavation and
backfilling sequentially. After clearing
of vegetation from the earthwork areas, topsoil will be removed and stockpiled
for reuse. Topsoil stockpiles will also be subject to erosion control measures.
6.2
Geology
The Study Area is underlain by
sedimentary rocks. Bedrock depths are relatively shallow. Blasting may be
required to install sewer lines in some locations. The Village of
a. Ripping
shall be the preferred method of removing shallow bedrock except where the
Project Engineer determines it is not feasible.
b. When blasting is found necessary, all
blasting operations will adhere to
c. All pertinent safety regulations and
standards shall be applied as required for safety, security and other related
details for any blasting deemed necessary.
Applicable safety regulations are:
· US Army Corps of Engineers Safety Manual EM 385-1-1;
· Code of Federal Regulations A.T.F. Title 27;
·
·
d. Storage of all explosive
materials shall be located on the site at a location approved by the blasting engineer. Caps or other detonating devices will not be
stored with Class A explosives. Design of the powder magazine shall be in
accordance with the references above.
The security for explosives and blasting materials stored on-site will
be in accordance with safety requirements of the blasting engineer.
e. Delivery
and transportation of explosives from the powder magazines to the blast area
will be by vehicles specifically designed for this use by the criteria outlined
in the safety requirements. Only
authorized persons will transport and handle the explosives as designated by
the authority of those licensed for this purpose. At all times federal, state, and local
ordinances will be followed concerning the transportation and storage of
explosives.
f. The designated storage
site, explosive transporting vehicles, and areas where explosives are being
used shall be clearly marked and will display the required warning signs. A daily tally of all explosives delivered,
used and stored will be maintained.
g. Prior to blasting,
necessary precautions for the protection of persons and adjoining property will
be established. Such precautions shall include the following.
·
Appropriate signs will be erected in the
area of blasting activities.
·
All adjoining property owners will be
mailed notification of the anticipated blasting schedule.
·
Notification of blasting at the site will
be published in newspapers prior to the blasting schedule.
·
A storm alert monitoring device will be
used by the blasting contractor to detect any electrical build-up in the
atmosphere at the blast area while using electrical caps.
·
Special care will be taken with detonating
cords and connectors to protect from the impact of falling rocks or other
impeding objects.
·
Vehicles equipped with radio transmitters
and portable 2-way radios will not be permitted within 250 feet of blasting
operations.
6.3 Soils
Impacts
to soils include the potential for erosion, the generation of dust during
construction and the likelihood that high groundwater will be encountered
during construction. The Village of
a. The
mitigation measures specified in Section 6.1 of these Findings will mitigate
erosion impacts.
b. To
mitigate the effects of dust during construction, the following measures are
required.
· All paved areas must be swept clean on a daily basis.
· During periods of drought or little rainfall, areas devoid of topsoil will be watered regularly to minimize the amount of dust entering the air.
· In periods of extreme rainfall or muddiness, truck washing stations will be established to avoid tracking significant quantities of soil onto area roadways.
c. To minimize the effects of high groundwater in areas where trench excavation is required, typical dewatering measures should be utilized to prevent surface water and/ or ground water from entering excavations. Typical measures shall include, but are not limited to:
· Installation of dewatering systems utilizing wells, well points, or similar methods complete with associated pump equipment, standby power and pumps, valves and associated appurtenances.
· Maintain the system to control groundwater and maintain relatively dry conditions to excavate and place fill on dry subgrades.
· Dispose of water removed through the dewatering process in a manner that avoids endangering public health, property, wetlands, UNAs and portions of work already completed. This will generally involve the use of detention ponds in which sediments may settle prior to discharge.
6.4 Water
Resources
a. The
Project will result in the decommissioning of numerous in-ground sewage
disposal systems, including individual and institutional systems. As mentioned
above, septic systems in
The TCHD has stated that the soils in much of the Town of
The Project will also result in the decommissioning of package treatment plants that have individual SPDES permits. These package plants do not generally provide as high a level of treatment as the VCHWTP and IAWWTP will provide once their planned phosphorus upgrades are in place, because only one of the package plants provides phosphorus treatment.
The Village of Lansing Finds the Project will have the significant positive impact of eliminating wastewater discharges to Cayuga Lake, its tributary streams, and groundwater resources, and of reducing the threat to public health. The elimination of these discharges will improve ground and surface water quality, reduce the risk to drinking water supplies, and benefit public health.
Issues related to IAWWTP and VCHWTP discharges were outside the
scope of the EIS because those plants will be operating within their previously
established SPDES permit limits.
However, the
b. There are numerous streams located throughout the Project Area. Sewer lines are proposed to cross streams in 43 locations. None of the streams are classified as protected by the DEC in the crossing locations.
It is anticipated that the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers would authorize this Project under Nationwide Permit 12 for
utility crossings of wetlands and waters.
Under this Nationwide Permit, notification (i.e., a Pre-Construction
Notification or
· There was mechanized land clearing in a forested wetland.
· A Section 10 permit is required (i.e., the project crosses a navigable water).
· The utility crossing(s) [cumulatively] impact more than 500 linear feet of waters.
·
There are permanent above-grade fills for roads
that are more than 500 linear feet in length in waters of the
· Any permanent above-grade fills for roads are constructed with impervious surfaces.
A DEC Protection of Waters permit under 6 NYCRR Section 608 is required. A Stream Disturbance permit is not required because the Project does not impact any streams with classifications of C(t) or higher. However, the Project will need a Section 401 Water Quality Certificate, which is also authorized under 6 NYCRR Part 608, specifically Section 608.9. Any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that would result in a discharge into a navigable water must obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certificate. Therefore, Section 401 Water Quality Certificates are required in association with US Army Corps of Engineers permits, including Nationwide Permits.
The DEC has issued blanket, or automatic Section 401 Water Quality Certificates for Nationwide Permit 12 when:
·
The Project does not involve an Article
·
Materials are not sidecast into waters of the
· Materials are not sidecast into any waterbody or stream with measurable flow.
· When the project involves less than 1/10th an acre of permanent discharges and less than 200 linear feet of stream disturbance [cumulative].
Therefore, the need to obtain a blanket versus an individual Section 401 Water Quality Certificate will be dependent upon the length of stream disturbance associated with the utility crossings.
The Village of Lansing Finds that, in addition to compliance with all necessary federal and state permits and requirements, the following mitigation measures will be implemented to protect streams from adverse impacts.
Whenever possible, stream crossings will be constructed during the dry season in order to avoid the potential for significant flows. Trenched stream crossings will be constructed in the “dry” where the water flow is either flumed or pumped across the work area. This will eliminate the great majority of downstream siltation during the pipeline installation. Hay bales and silt fences will be used as specified in the erosion control plan to prevent siltation from upslope areas. Whenever possible, excavation will be done from the banks, keeping equipment out of the streambed. In larger streams, the installation may be a two-step procedure. The water flow may be diverted away from the working side by the use of a cofferdam, then reversed to install the remainder of the pipeline across the stream. Trenching may also be done with a rock saw. This method would also be done as a dry crossing. In addition, the following specific mitigation measures are required.
·
All
staging areas for stream crossings will be kept at least 100 feet away from the
stream.
·
No
refueling, equipment repair or lubricating will be allowed within 100 feet of a
stream unless said stream is located immediately adjacent to a road crossing,
with limited access, and therefore requires such activity.
·
Proper
spill containment will be used to isolate these activities and minimize the
potential for spills in such instances.
·
Whenever
possible, stream crossings will be avoided at a stream bend, in areas of
undercut banks, or in areas where the bank is unstable.
·
In
areas where long slopes lead to streams, water bars will be installed. Otherwise, silt fences and/or hay bales will
be installed.
·
The
necessary grading and brush clearing of stream banks will take place
immediately prior to trenching in order to minimize the exposure of bare soil.
·
Stream
bank and flood plain stabilization measures will be immediately implemented
upon completion of construction.
·
In-stream
disturbances will be minimized.
·
All
trenching will be performed in such a way so as to prevent the introduction of
sediments into streams.
·
No
flow obstructions will be left in the streambed or channel.
·
The
streambed and banks will be restored as close to the original contours as
possible.
·
If
a stream crossing is located within a wetland, the crossing will be designed to
minimize the length of any right-of-way constructed parallel to a stream course
within the wetland. Silt fencing and/or
haybales will be used to insure that siltation is minimized and retained within
the work area. The bank and trench spoil
piles will be isolated from the wetland by silt fences. Separation of topsoil and subsoil will be
necessary during the bank excavation within the wetlands. Care will be taken to reestablish the stream
channel in the original location and condition.
·
Any
stream banks will be restored to the original contour and stabilized.
·
The
conditions at some stream crossings may make trenching difficult and
unacceptable from a construction standpoint.
In these areas, a directional bore crossing method may be used. The
potential impact from directional boring is the potential of leakage of the
cutting and lubricating fluid. The
starting and ending points for the directional bore will be in uplands. The directional bore work areas will be
protected with silt fences in order to contain any surface outflows of the
liquid. Fluid flow controls will be
available to quickly seal any leakage.
Any leakage will be removed from the boring location, and the area
restored prior to removal of silt fences.
Sewer lines will be located within mapped 100-year floodplains in several locations. However, since the lines will be underground, no adverse impacts are anticipated.
Sewer lines will come in close proximity to a private water
supply cistern at
The conceptual future sewer plan in the Town of
6.5 Flora and
Fauna
Correspondence was sent to the State and Federal governments regarding the presence of rare, threatened or endangered species in the DEIS Study Area.
The United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), indicated that there are no Federally listed or proposed to be listed rare, threatened or endangered species under the jurisdiction of this agency within the EIS Study Area.
According to the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation Natural Heritage Program, there are
several State listed rare, threatened or endangered species within the EIS
Study Area. Areas potentially impacted by the Project are the Esty’s Glen and
Impacts to rare, threatened and
endangered species relate to the disruption of their habitat or the direct
destruction of the species themselves. A biological survey of the proposed
sewer transmission routes will be performed in the locations listed by the DEC
prior to construction to ensure no such species will be disturbed. The
6.6
Wetlands
The proposed Project will not affect any known or
mapped State or Federally regulated wetlands. Because
small, unmapped wetlands are sometimes found to exist in the field, the
The conceptual future sewer plan in
the Lansing Planning Area involves the crossing of the Head Corners Wetland,
which is Federally regulated and which is also a
designated Tompkins County Unique Natural Area. The Village of
The conceptual future plan also
locates a sewer line along
6.7
Unique Natural Areas
UNAs are sites with outstanding environmental
qualities, as defined by the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council.
There are 42 UNAs in the Project Area. Sewer lines will pass through UNAs in
several locations. The
a. Impacts to
b. Impacts to
c. Impacts to UNAs 64 and 89, the
d. Impacts to
e. Impacts to
f. Impacts to
g. With respect to UNAs 53 and 54, no significant impacts are anticipated and therefore no mitigation measures are proposed.
h. With respect to general construction, the following mitigation measures have been identified.
· The construction route will be marked in the field and temporary barriers erected to protect adjoining trees and vegetation.
· All trees over 12” diameter at breast height will be marked; if possible, the route will be adjusted in the field to avoid the destruction of such trees.
· Construction equipment and materials may not be staged within the boundaries of UNAs except where no alternative location exists.
i. The EIS contained a discussion of the
possible use of the former railroad right-of-way, which is on private property,
as a recreation trail. Discussions with the impacted landowners show they do
not favor creation of a public pedestrian right-of-way. Such a trail would not directly mitigate the
environmental effects of the proposed transmission main, although it would
increase recreational opportunities. The
j. Sewer
line routes proposed in the conceptual plans for the Lansing Planning Area will
undergo additional environmental review should these plans advance beyond the
conceptual stage. In the conceptual
plans, sewer line construction is proposed to occur within several UNAs.
Construction would occur along the roadside edges of the
As
previously discussed,
6.8
Climate and Air Resources
The Project will have no direct
impact on air resources other than the generation of dust during construction.
The
6.9
Visual Resources
The Project is not anticipated to have any adverse direct impacts on visual resources because the sewer lines will be underground and because the proposed pump station buildings will be small and unobtrusive. The Village of Lansing Finds therefore Finds that no mitigation measures are required.
6.10
Odors
Adverse impacts related to odors are limited to those from improperly operated wastewater pumping stations. Mitigation measures are related to proper operation and venting. If problems persist, the Village of Lansing Finds additional mitigation measures such as biofilters, carbon filtration and chemical addition are required.
6.11
Noise
The only noise-related impact identified from operations relates to that from emergency generators when in use at the pump stations. These generators will be enclosed and they will be used infrequently (only when electric supply is disrupted or during infrequent testing periods). The Village of Lansing therefore Finds that this impact is not considered significant and no mitigation measures are required.
Construction equipment and blasting will generate noise during construction. This noise will be generated on a short-term basis and represents a short-term, adverse impact. The Village of Lansing Finds that construction equipment shall be properly maintained in order to minimize this impact to the maximum extent practicable.
6.12
Cultural Resources
A Stage 1A Cultural Resources Survey was conducted for areas proposed for construction. The survey identified the possibility of encountering cultural resources in areas that have not been previously disturbed. The Village of Lansing finds that the Project Sponsors will consult with the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) as to the extent and nature of any required 1B Field Investigation and will undertake such a survey in accordance with the direction of SHPO. The Village of Lansing further Finds the results of any required 1B testing and any mitigation plan must be considered by the Town of Lansing once a preliminary design is completed for the exact sewer routes.
6.13
Land Use and Zoning
The Project will have no direct impacts to land use or zoning. The Village of Lansing therefore Finds that no mitigation measures are required.
6.14
Transportation
The Project will have no direct impacts on transportation resources. During construction there will be short-term disruptions of traffic patterns. The Village of Lansing Finds that a Maintenance and Protection of Traffic Plan shall be developed to mitigate adverse transportation impacts during construction.
6.15
Demographics
The Project will have no direct impacts on demographics. The Village of Lansing therefore Finds that no mitigation measures are required.
6.16
Fiscal Impacts
The Project will be paid for out of a combination of State Bond Act grants, low interest loans and local matches (which may include bonds). The Village of Lansing Finds that no adverse impacts have been identified with respect to Fiscal impacts, and therefore no mitigation measures are required.
6.17
School Districts
The Project will have no direct adverse impacts on school districts. The Project will have the positive impact of eliminating on-site wastewater discharges at Lansing Central School District schools. The Village of Lansing Finds that no mitigation measures are required as no adverse impacts have been identified.
6.18
Community Services
The Project will have no direct impacts on community services. The Village of Lansing therefore Finds that no mitigation measures are required.
6.19
Growth Inducing Impacts
The EIS contained an extensive analysis of growth that could be induced in the Towns of Lansing and Dryden and the Village of Lansing as a result of the Project. The assessment covered three scenarios: Scenario 1 (growth at existing rates); Scenario 2 (moderately increased growth); and Scenario 3 (a highly increased rate of growth).
The analysis assessed the amount of residential and commercial growth that could occur over a 20-year period under each scenario and calculated impacts to transportation systems, school districts, community services, employment, municipal budgets and the region from each scenario. The analysis further analyzed impacts to land uses and calculated the amount of vacant and agricultural land that could be converted to developed land under each scenario.
Specific findings from the analysis include:
· With one exception, the future residential and commercial growth projections for all Scenarios are significantly less than the maximum amount of development that could theoretically occur under current zoning. The one exception is for commercial development in the Village of Lansing, where all remaining commercial square footage will be developed before the end of the 20-year period under even the lowest growth scenario, Scenario 1 (historic growth rates).
· Under Scenarios 2 and 3, the Lansing Central School District would experience enrollment increases in line with historic trends in this school district. Projected increases for the Ithaca City School District and Dryden Central School District under Scenarios 2 and 3 would reverse a trend of declining enrollment, but the number of students added each year is not significant when compared to existing enrollments and the fact the students would be spread out over all grades.
· Impacts on school budgets are relatively small. Growth under Scenario 3 results in annual budget deficits ranging from 0.10% to 1.06%. The impact would be even smaller under the other scenarios.
· Impacts to municipal budgets under Scenario 3 result in deficits of 0.7% in the Village of Lansing, 5.2% in the Town of Dryden, and 7.2% in the Town of Lansing. Deficits are much smaller under Scenario 2.
· Under accepted planning standards, adequate numbers of personnel and vehicles exist for firefighting and emergency medical services under all Scenarios. The number of police officers who serve the entire County currently falls short of planning standards, but if the officers in police agencies serving specific municipalities and organizations are factored in, there are more than the recommended numbers of officers. To the extent the number of officers serving the entire County falls below planning standards, this is an existing County-wide issue that is not attributable to the Project. The Project will not make this situation worse to the extent public sewers induce growth that simply displaces growth from one location within the County to another.
· Under accepted planning standards, more than adequate amounts of park acreage are available to residents within the EIS Study Area under all Scenarios.
· Traffic impacts changed very little when Scenario 1 (existing growth rates) is compared to Scenarios 2 and 3. There is very little change in traffic volumes at critical intersections throughout the area examined by the traffic model under all Scenarios. Two intersections are projected to experience significant declines in Level of Service, but such declines are expected even under Scenario 1 and thus are not attributable to the Project. In addition, one stop sign-controlled intersection saw a change in Level of Service as a result of the Project. This intersection changed from an A to a B Level of Service. There is very little change in the overall link volumes in all Scenarios.
· Public transportation services are not expected to be significantly impacted because the volume of growth attributable to the Project is relatively small. When considering proposed land use patterns, the relevant municipalities should nonetheless consider, where appropriate, mixed use development patterns that take advantage of or enhance transit connections.
· Significant employment is projected under all Scenarios because of projected commercial development. This increased employment is a positive impact. However, the difference in employment numbers between Scenario 1 (the historical rate of growth) and Scenario 3 is relatively small.
· Land projected to be converted to developed status under Scenarios 2 and 3 would result in significantly more land conversion over the 20-year planning period than has occurred over the past 10 years. This is not a significant impact, given that the planning period is twice as long as the 10-year benchmark.
· If development in the EIS Study Area were to favor agricultural lands, as opposed to other vacant lands, significant conversion of agricultural lands could result. However, it is extremely unlikely that all development would occur on just agricultural lands. In addition, the Study Area contains relatively little of the total active agricultural lands within the Towns of Lansing and Dryden. Only 7.4% of the Town of Lansing’s 12,073 acres of agricultural lands are in the Study Area; 11.2% of the Town of Dryden’s 9,004 acres of agricultural lands are in the Study Area. To the extent public sewers will promote infill and development within the Study Area, the significant amount of agricultural land located outside the Study Area may feel less development pressure. For all of these reasons, the overall impact to agricultural lands in the Study Area municipalities could be adverse but is not expected to be significant. To the extent the affected municipalities wish to conserve agricultural and open space lands, they can explore mitigation measures through their local planning and zoning processes. Mitigation measures could include limiting the scope of uses and densities allowed on agricultural and open space lands, providing for the transfer of development rights, and providing for clustered subdivisions.
· Population and commercial growth patterns in the region could be altered, but such impacts are difficult to quantify because they depend on a myriad of personal and individual business judgments. The levels of population growth under Scenarios 2 and 3 are not of the scale likely to result in significant new commercial development in the region. The overall regional impact on agricultural land and open space is small because relatively small amounts of such lands are located in the EIS Study Area when compared to that available in the entire region. The Project will have a positive regional impact to the extent it will promote infill development in areas that are already partially developed, thus decreasing development pressures on undeveloped lands outside the Study Area.
The Village of Lansing Finds, based on the above information, that no significant growth-induced impacts will occur under any Scenario. The analysis will nonetheless be useful to the affected communities as a planning tool. The affected communities will be able to use the results of the analysis as they assess future growth in order to determine whether their zoning and planning policies are adequate or require revision.
6.20 Alternatives
The Village of Lansing Finds, based on the discussion and conclusions in Section 5 above and in this Section 6, that the proposed Project best meets the Sponsor’s objectives while minimizing adverse environmental impacts.
6.21 Intermunicipal Wastewater Agreement
The Intermunicipal Wastewater Agreement sets out a framework for flow diversions and for coordination of operations between the VCHWTP and IAWWTP. It also contains proposed new service area boundaries for these two plants. Sufficient permitted capacity exists at the IAWWTP to accommodate the flow diversions described in the EIS. The Village of Lansing Finds, based on the discussion and conclusions in Sections 4 and 5 above and in this Section 6, that implementation of the Intermunicipal Wastewater Agreement and of the new service area boundaries are appropriate. With the mitigation identified in these Findings, any remaining environmental impacts will be acceptable and will be outweighed by the Project’s benefits.
7. Certification
Based on the foregoing, the Village of Lansing certifies:
That it has considered the relevant
environmental impacts, facts and conclusions disclosed in the EIS.
That it has
weighed and balanced the relevant environmental impacts with social, economic
and other considerations.
That it has provided a rationale for
its actions; specifically,
it has weighed and
balanced the relevant environmental impacts with social, economic and other
considerations; and made a determination that the significant benefits that
will result from Proposed Actions outweigh the identified adverse environmental
impacts given the measures that have been imposed by the Village of Lansing in
order to ensure the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts have
been mitigated to the maximum extent practicable.
That the requirements of 6
NYCRR Part 617 have been met.
That consistent with
social, economic and other essential considerations from among the reasonable
alternatives available, the Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection
Improvement Project is the alternative that avoids or minimizes adverse
environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable, and that adverse
environmental impacts will be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent
practicable by incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigative
measures that were identified as practicable.