The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-17-17 WRC Agenda Packet_0Tompkins County DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & SUSTAINABILITY 121 East Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850 TOMPKINS COUNTY WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL Monday, April 17, 2017 4:15 PM Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit (TCAT, Inc.), 737 Willow Avenue, Ithaca AGENDA 1.Call to Order – Darby Kiley, Chair 4:15 2.Privilege of the Floor 1 - Darby Kiley Chair 4:15 3.Agenda Review/Changes – Darby Kiley, Chair 4:20 4.Approval of Minutes – Darby Kiley, Chair 4:20 •March 20, 2017 5.Soil Health trailer demonstration, Fay Benson, Cornell CCE 4:25 6.Committee Reports –5:00 Monitoring Partnership – Roxy Johnston Education and Outreach – Lynn Leopold Watershed Rules and Regs – Chris Bordlemay Workshop to Protect Water Resources – Joan Jurkowich Updated Water and Sewer Study – John Andersson Potential Pollutants – Jose Lozano Soil Health – Fay Benson High Hazard Pipeline 7.Chair & Staff Reports 5:25 Letters: Support for microplastics grant proposal to Park Foundation Concern for review of Cargill permit to DEC 8.Announcements – Members 5:40 9.Adjournment 5:45 Agenda Packet: a)Draft March 20th minutes b)Cargill Mine Timeline c)SEQR Segmentation Gen. Rules d)Cargill 150-acre Mod. Segmentation Letter e)Draft WRC Letter of Concern to DEC re: Cargill Mine Shaft #4 f)Letter of Support for Microplastics Proposal for Ithaca Upcoming Meeting Dates: May 15 and June 19 Members: If you cannot attend a meeting, please contact Kristin McCarthy at 607-274-5560. 1 Limit of 3 minutes per person for members of the public to address the board Page 1 of 22, 4/17 WRC Agenda Packet TOMPKINS COUNTY WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL 1 Monday, March 20, 2017 2 TCAT Main Office Conference Room 3 Draft Minutes 4 Attendance 5 Member Seat Member Seat Sharon Anderson P Cooperative Extension Frank Proto P At-Large John Andersson P At-Large Elaine Quaroni P At-Large Fay Benson P Agriculture Marjory Rinaldo-Lee P Environment Chris Bordlemay E Water Purveyor Michael Thorne P At-Large Cynthia Brock P Recreation Ed Bugliosi E USGS (non-voting) Brad DeFrees P Associate Member Liz Cameron E Co. Environmental Health Kristen Hychka P Associate Member Brian Eden P Interim EMC Liaison Roxy Johnston E Associate Member George Fowler E At-Large Emelia “Mia” Jumbo A Associate Member Bill George P Municipal Government Jose Lozano P Associate Member Barry Goodrich P Watershed Organization Darren MacDougall P Associate Member Michelle Henry P At-Large John Mawdsley P Associate Member Joan Jurkowich P Co. Planning Department Todd Miller E Associate Member Dooley Kiefer P County Government Steve Penningroth A Associate Member Darby Kiley P Municipal Government Joanne Trutko P Associate Member Lynn Leopold P Municipal Government Tom Vawter E Associate Member Kristin McCarthy P Co. Planning Department Linda Wagenet P Associate Member Jon Negley E Soil & Water Cons. District 6 A quorum was present. 7 8 Guest Speakers: John Dennis, EMC member; Scott Doyle, County Planning & Sustainability Department 9 10 Others: Hilary Lambert, Dale Baker, Maureen Cowen, Nicole Henry, Rob Mackenzie, Carri Koplinka-Loehr 11 12 Call to Order – Chair Darby Kiley called the meeting to order at approximately 4:17 pm. 13 14 Privilege of the Floor – None 15 16 Agenda Review/Changes – None 17 18 Approval of Minutes – 19 20 Motion by Michelle Henry, seconded by Lynn Leopold, to approve the minutes of February 22, 2017. Motion 21 passed unanimously. 22 23 Presentation: Natural Infrastructure Program – Scott Doyle, TC Planning & Sustainability Department 24 25 Scott Doyle updated the Council on the County’s Natural Infrastructure Capital Project, which has been funded in 26 this year’s budget. In the agenda packet, the members were given a brief overview of the project’s progress. 27 28 The program focuses on investing in a few different areas of Tompkins County: the upper watershed forest and 29 wetlands, stream corridors and floodplains, and aquifer recharge areas. The chief motivations behind it involve 30 protecting and enhancing those natural systems, chiefly for mitigating intense storm events, decrease sediment 31 loads to the lake, and to safeguard the overall quality of water. Ancillary to those goals is preserving wildlife and 32 Page 2 of 22, 4/17 WRC Agenda Packet recreation activities. In addition other initiatives could include greening the infrastructure of County buildings and 33 road ditch work. 34 35 In terms of specifics, County is investing $600,000 in federal funds for flood mitigation in Lansing. Smaller 36 demonstration projects stemming from the program could encompass easements on private forests and 37 reconnection of stream bodies. A subcommittee of the Planning Advisory Board, which chair Darby Kiley is 38 serving on, will evaluate the projects and forward the ones they recommend on to PDEQ and the Legislature. 39 40 Rock Salt Mining in NYS: What Are the Risks for Cayuga Lake?–John Dennis & Brian Eden 41 42 Brian Eden and John Dennis, of the Environmental Management Council (EMC), spoke to the group about the 43 Council’s concern regarding Cargill Inc.’s Mine Shaft #4 project, which is currently under review by the 44 Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC) regional office in Cortland. Brian emphasized that their aim 45 was to take a constructive approach and was not intended to be adversarial to Cargill. Given the potential 46 environmental risks to Cayuga Lake associated with deep water drilling, the EMC would like the DEC to have a 47 Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted before granting permission for the project to move forward. 48 49 For more background on the Cargill mine, please see the attached timeline from Brian Eden. 50 51 Committee Reports 52 53 Education and Outreach – Lynn Leopold 54 55 Lynn hoped to get copies of the new paddling brochure out to the different groups participating in Ithaca56 Fishing Day on March 25th. Joan Jurkowich agreed to print a small batch for the event on Saturday, and57 further along, Lynn said they will print a larger amount to distribute to the various interested groups in the58 community.59 60 She has yet to hear back from the New York State Canal Corporation. Later in the meeting, Frank Proto61 said to keep in mind that 2017 marks the 200th anniversary of the Erie Canal so staff at the Canal62 Corporation might be swept up in preparing for that celebration. Cynthia Brock said she would follow up63 with their contacts there.64 65 In closing, Lynn asked members to forward ideas for new initiatives or projects they have that might be of66 interest to the Education and Outreach Committee.67 68 Others As Needed 69 70 Joan: The Workshop to Protect Water Resources Committee will meet the second Tuesday of the month71 at 8:30 a.m.72 73 Jose Lozano: The Potential Pollutants Committee will hold its first meeting the following day, Tuesday,74 March 21st.75 76 Fay Benson: He will connect with other Soil Health Committee members to find a good date for their77 first meeting. A bit later in the meeting, Dooley Kiefer remarked that the theme for Coltivare’s Science78 Cabaret Night on Tuesday, March 21st, was going to be “Soil Health and Dirty Art.”79 80 Dooley: She will try to organize a meeting of the High Hazard Pipeline Committee.81 Page 3 of 22, 4/17 WRC Agenda Packet 82 Frank Proto: Nothing concrete to report on the Grants Committee. However, he wanted to remind WRC 83 members of the matrix of available funding sources that the Committee compiled and distributed for84 everyone’s reference.85 86 Marjory Rinaldo-Lee: The Nominating Committee needs a chair as Jon Negley announced he would not87 be serving again. However, they have until the fall to find someone. The Business and Industry seat88 remains unfilled. However, Linda Wagenet will reach out to the owner of the Ithaca Beer Company about89 the position.90 91 Chair Report – Darby Kiley 92 93 Darby attended the Tompkins County Ag Summit on March 8th at the Ramada Inn, as did several members of the 94 WRC. Staff from the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) spoke about the proposed Cayuga 95 Lake TMDL, but their presentation yielded no new information. The DEC expects to release a draft in May and 96 asked attendees to let the department know of any upcoming public meetings where DEC staff could speak. 97 Darby recommended a 90-day public comment period but thinks the DEC will hold at least a 60-day public 98 comment period. Linda said there was consternation among attendees familiar with the project because the DEC 99 gave 2013 data when they have much more recent data available. Jose commented on the lack of a stakeholder 100 group and Darby concurred. 101 102 Staff Report – 103 104 Nothing to report. 105 106 Announcements 107 108 Frank remarked he was happy to hear Darby would be representing the WRC on the County’s Natural 109 Infrastructure Program subcommittee. Brian brought in a book he thought might interest members called 110 “Romances and Notes on the Salt Industry.” It was published in 1951 and covers the history of salt in Syracuse. 111 112 Adjournment – MOTION by Frank Proto, seconded by Darby Kiley, to adjourn. Chair Darby Kiley declared the 113 meeting adjourned at approximately 5:30 pm. 114 115 Prepared by Kristin McCarthy, Tompkins County Planning and Sustainability Department 116 Approved by Water Resources Council: DRAFT 117 Page 4 of 22, 4/17 WRC Agenda Packet Cayuga Mine Time Line Rock Salt Corp. (John Clute, principal) was formed in 1915 to mine at Portland Point. In 1916 a shaft was constructed to 1500’ into salt bed #1. Mine was producing poor quality salt; ceased operations in 1918. Mine sold in 1921; new company formed; Cayuga Rock Salt Company (Frank Bolton, principal). 1924 - shaft deepened to 2000+ feet- began mining in the salt #4 bed. 1968- shaft deepened to 2300’; salt bed #6. Mining rights sold to Cargill in 1970; 9000 shares at $300; $2.7M Shaft #2 (ventilation) constructed in 1931. Shaft #3 (production) in 1975-76. Permit History June 20, 1938 Board of Commissioners of the NYS Land Office (now the Office of General Services) consented to the Cayuga Rock Salt Company to enter upon the lands of NYS (beneath Cayuga Lake) to extract salt. April 5, 1974 OGS transfers CRS’s rights to Cargill and consents to adding 1600 acres to the Life-Of-Mine. 1970 the NYSDEC is formed from the Conservation Department (Legislature assigned it new responsibilities). April 1, 1975 First NYSDEC Permit issued. April 1, 1984 Rights extended to 1385 acres. January 12, 1994 Rights extended to 3485 acres. Page 5 of 22, 4/17 WRC Agenda Packet June 2, 2009 Modified 2005 consent order to add 5996 acres. Extended order to December 31, 2018. Cargill has consistently maintained that the NYSDEC lacks the statutory or regulatory authority over subsurface mining. Cargill would not voluntarily comply with the SEQR regulations. On January 14, 2000, the NYSDEC and Cargill enter an agreement that stipulates that Cargill will provide some information on mine operations and some funding for NYSDEC to employ an independent consultant to support its annual review of the facility. American Rock Salt, Hamptons Corners, Livingston County, is the only other underground salt mine in NYS. By contrast, they do not contest the NYSDEC’s jurisdiction over their subsurface mining operations. On March 21, 2017 a public meeting was held in Mt. Morris to obtain public input on the scoping for an Environmental Impact Statement being prepared by ARS for a planned Life-of- Mine expansion. More Recent Events During NYSDEC’S permit renewal process in 2008, Cargill indicated that they would need to ultimately construct a new access shaft. April 2012 Cargill purchased a parcel on Ridge Rd. for the proposed shaft. October 12 and November 5, 2012 Cargill met with neighbors to discuss the proposed shaft and share drawings. March 24, 2013 Cargill did a presentation to the Town of Lansing Planning Board. September 2013 A pilot test hole was completed on the Ridge Rd. property. Page 6 of 22, 4/17 WRC Agenda Packet April 8, 2015 NYSDEC’s Environmental Notice Bulletin publishes Cargill’s permit request to add 150 acres to the Life of Mine area. The Notice stated that “there will be no additional surface development associated with this proposal”. Cargill was seeking a permit to construct the tunnel from Cayuga Lake to near Ridge Road. June 2, 2015 Modification of L-0-M permit approved. 2016- Cargill files a permit application for the construction of the shaft. June 30, 2016 The NYSEDC provides Cargill with a “Neg Dec” for the project. August 31, 2016 The NYSEC publishes in the ENB the announcement of the “Neg Dec” and provides for a 30 day comment period. Publishing only in the ENB and a legal notice in the areas paper of record is considered legally sufficient to notify the community. December 9, 2016 Following complaints from the EMC that the announcement had been insufficient to alert neighbors and other interested parties to existence of an environmental review process, the comment period was extended to this date but no additional means of outreach to the community were required. July 13, 2016 Annual underground inspection performed by NYSDEC staff Steve Army, Simone Rodriguez, Chris Lucidi and Jennifer Maglienti, accompanied by NYSDEC consultant Dr. Vincent Scovazzo of the John T. Boyd Company. November 1, 2017 Mined Land Reclamation Permit expires. LIFE-OF-MINE PERMITTED ACRES 13,567 ACRES MINED 9,410 FINANCIAL SECURITY FOR SURFACE RECLAMATION $3.5M Page 7 of 22, 4/17 WRC Agenda Packet SEGMENTATION PART 617. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW 617.3 General Rules (g) Actions commonly consist of a set of activities or steps. The entire set of activities or steps must be considered the action, whether the agency decision-making relates to the action as a whole or to only a part of it. (1) Considering only a part or segment of an action is contrary to the intent of SEQR. What is the basic test for segmentation? When trying to determine if segmentation is occurring agencies should consider the following factors. If the answer to one or more of these questions is yes, an agency should be concerned that segmentation is taking place. • Purpose: Is there a common purpose or goal for each segment? • Time: Is there a common reason for each segment being completed at or about the same time? • Location: Is there a common geographic location involved? • Impacts: Do any of the activities being considered for segmentation share a common impact that may, if the activities are reviewed as one project, result in a potentially significant adverse impact, even if the impacts of single activities are not necessarily significant by themselves. • Ownership: Are the different segments under the same or common ownership or control? Page 8 of 22, 4/17 WRC Agenda Packet • Common Plan: Is a given segment a component of an identifiable overall plan? Will the initial phase direct the development of subsequent phases or will it preclude or limit the consideration of alternatives in subsequent phases? • Utility: Can any of the interrelated phases of various projects be considered functionally dependent on each other? • Inducement: Does the approval of one phase or segment commit the agency to approve other phases? Page 9 of 22, 4/17 WRC Agenda Packet GILBERTI STINZIANO HEINTZ & SMITH, P.C. 555 East Genesee Slreet Syracuse, New York 13202 --------------------------------+-T(315)442·0100 ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW F (315) 442·0106 Not forseiV!ce otprocass www.gllbertllaw,com Writer's Direct E~mail: jklucsik@gilbcrtilaw.com Mr. David L. Bimber Regional Permit Adminish·ator NYSDEC Region 7 Division of Environmental Permits 615 Erie Boulevard West Syracuse, New York 13204-2400 January 7, 2014 Re: Notice of Incomplete Application DEC 0-9999-00075/00001 MLR Cargill, Incorporated, Cayuga Salt Mine Expansion Lansing (T), Tomkins County Segmentation of Environmental Review Dear Mr. Bimber: ' .·;·';. JAN 1 G Z01S Enclosed as Attachment "A" is the response of Cargill, Incorporated to your July 14, 2014 request that Cargill provide a justification for not considering together for purposes of environmental review, a potential future mine air shaft in the vicinity of the Life of Mine expansion area. The Life of Mine expansion is the subject of Cargill's pending Mine Permit Modification Application of June 30, 2014. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, GILBERTI STINZIANO HEINTZ & SMITH, P.C. JFK/djs cc: Mr. William Gracon Mr. Chris Gill Mr. Shawn Wilczynski Mr. David Plumeau Mr. Robert C. LaFleur Page 10 of 22, 4/17 WRC Agenda Packet Attachment "A" ,I/ ~~. ~ JAN 1 G 2015 Cargill, Incorporated, Cayuga Salt Mine I , . Justification for Permissible Segmentation ofEnvironmentaiE.iivi~'I'V ' :.•: c,: · · -/ for Underground Life of Mine Expansion and Potential Future Air Shaft and Associated Surface Facilities Cargill, Incorporated (hereinafter "Cargill") has applied to the Department of Environmental Conservation (hereinafter "DEC" or "the Department") for an 150 ±acre expansion of the 13,417 ±acre "Life of Mine" area that defines Cargill's plan to mine salt from deposits 1200 to 2000+ feet underground. See, Cargill, Incorporated-Cayuga Salt Mine, Modification Application, MLF #7093-29-0052, Mine ID #70052, June 30, 2014. In its online website, Cargill has identified the potential for future installation of a new air shaft to increase ventilation and improve emergency evacuation capabilities at the mine, as salt extraction continues in the mine's northern reserves. In September 2013, Cargill completed a test hole south ofSweazey Road, off Highway 34-B (Ridge Road), in the Town of Lansing, in the general area which is a possible location for a new air shaft. Current projected demand for deicing salt suggests that a new air shaft could be needed sometime between 2017 and 2020. See, www.cargill.com/products/saltlwinter/cavuga-salt-mine/index.jsp. In its July 14, 2014 Notice of Incomplete Application regarding the Life of Mine Permit Modification Application, the Department asked Cargill to provide a justification for not considering the potential future air shaft as part of DEC's environmental review of the now pending Life of Mine Permit Modification Application. In this regard, the Notice of Incomplete Application malces reference to the Department's regulations that implement the State 1 Page 11 of 22, 4/17 WRC Agenda Packet Environmental Quality Review Act (hereinafter the "SEQRA Regulations"). Section 617.3(g) of the SEQRA Regulations note that actions subject to environmental review commonly consist of a set of activities or steps. The entire set of activities or steps must be considered the action. Considering only a part or segment of an action is contrary to the intent of SEQR. If a lead agency (for environmental review) believes that circumstances warrant a segmented review, the agency must clearly state the supporting reasons and must demonstrate that such review is clearly no less protective of the environment. 6 NYCRR 617.3(g). Concerned Citizens for the Envt. v. Zagata, 243 A.D. 2d 20, 22 (3rd Dept. 1998). One type of segmentation arises from a situation when the agency fails to include in its review another project or a separate component of the same project which is sufficiently related to the project under review that it warrants a single comprehensive environmental review. Id. See also Scott v. City of Buffalo, 20 Misc. 2d, 1135A, 872 N.Y.S. 2d 593 (2008 Slip Op. 51738(U)). The Department has published a set of factors to help evaluate whether separate projects or project components are sufficiently related to warrant a single comprehensive environmental review. DEC SEQR Handbook, 3d Edition (2010) at 55, available at www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits ej operations pdf/segrhandbook.pdf. To evaluate segmentation claims, courts generally rely on the relevant factors identified by the Department in the SEQR Handbook. Scott, supra. These factors are presented below, as applied to the Cargill Life of Mine Permit Modification Application and the potential air shaft: 2 Page 12 of 22, 4/17 WRC Agenda Packet 1. Purpose: Is there a common purpose or goal for each segment? No. The purpose of the Life of Mine expansion is to increase the area of underground salt reserves approved for mining. The purpose of any future air shaft would be to provide additional ventilation and an emergency evacuation route as mining progresses northward and to the east. 2. Time: Is there a common reason for each segment being completed at or about the same time? No. Mining will progress into the already approved Life of Mine area and the 150 ±acre Life of Mine expansion area at a pace determined by the demand for the mined material regardless of whether a new air shaft is ever constructed. Completion of any new air shaft would not be sensible, nor required, until after mining of the underground progresses to the area where any new air shaft would be located. Stated another way, there is no reason to construct a new air shaft until the progression of mining allows for its connection to the underground mine workings. 3 Page 13 of 22, 4/17 WRC Agenda Packet 3. Location: Is there a common geographic location involved? Ultimately, yes. Ultimately any new air shaft would be located so as to intersect and connect with the underground Life of Mine area, including the 150 ±acres of Life of Mine expansion which is the subject of the pending Permit Modification Application. In the Life of Mine expansion area, that would require the progression of the underground workings approximately 5,000 feet east from the current underground workings. Until the underground workings have progressed to traverse this distance (approximately 0.95 miles), the mining authorized in the Life of Mine expansion and any new air shaft would be in different locations. In addition, the location of the Life of Mine expansion area is at depth, 2,000+ feet below ground surface. Consequently, when considered in three dimensional space, the Life of Mine expansion area, even at its most extensive development, is more than a third of a mile away (underground) from any possible location of a new air shaft's associated surface facilities. More importantly, the location of the underground Life of Mine area, including the 150 ±acre expansion, has no observable expression at the surface, except at the existing air shafts over 5 miles away. 4. Impacts: Do any of the activities being considered for segmentation share a common impact that may, if the activities are reviewed as one project, result in a 4 Page 14 of 22, 4/17 WRC Agenda Packet No. potentially significant adverse impact, even if the impacts of single activities are not necessarily significant by themselves? The only potential enviromnental impact associated with the Life of Mine expansion is some extraordinarily small increase in subsidence resulting from mining additional area underground. See, Cargill, Incorporated, Modification Application for Permit to Mine, June 2014. The additional, incremental subsidence associated with the Life ofMine expansion is predicted to be "hardly noticeable" over a 500 year period, or longer. Modification Application at 15. See also, RESPEC, Expected Subsidence Over the Cayuga Mine Amended Area, Topical Report RSI-2361, July 2013. Depending on the ultimate location and design for any future air shaft, and the location and design of ancillary surface construction, minor impacts to enviromnental resources on the surface could reasonably be expected. Such surface impacts as result from any construction project involving land clearing, building and roadway construction, may be reasonably anticipated in connection with construction of any air shaft and ancillary facilities. These would likely include some impact to vegetation, habitat, surface water quality, noise and visual impacts. None of these potential, minor impacts are anticipated in connection with the Life of Mine expansion. 5 Page 15 of 22, 4/17 WRC Agenda Packet 5. Ownership: Are the different segments under the same or common ownership or control? Yes. 6. Common Plan: Is a given segment a component of an identifiable overall plan? Yes. The Life of Mine expansion is part of a plan to continue the extraction of salt at the Cayuga mine. To the extent that mining continues north or through the already approved Life of Mine area, construction of a new air shaft at some location east of the lake would ultimately be necessary as a part of the plan to continue operations at the Cayuga Mine. Common Plan: Will the initial phase direct the development of subsequent phases or will it preclude or limit the consideration of alternatives in subsequent phases? ·No. Until mining progresses sufficiently northward and reaches the easternmost limit of the Life of Mine expansion area or beyond, that expansion will not direct development of a new air shaft. Only when mining progresses sufficiently northward and reaches the 6 Page 16 of 22, 4/17 WRC Agenda Packet requested Life of Mine expansion limit will a new air shaft be required. The Life of Mine expansion will not direct, preclude or limit the consideration of alternatives in any subsequent phase of mine operations. 7. Utility: Can any of the interrelated phases of various projects be considered functionally dependent on each other? No. The Life of Mine expansion is not functionally dependent on the construction of a new air shaft. Mining will progress northward in the already approved Life of Mine area and in the Life of Mine expansion area based on demand for the mineral, regardless of whether a new air shaft is ever constructed. At some point in the future, the progression of mining from the current workings northward or southward in the previously approved Life of Mine area will require construction of a new air shaft somewhere. Construction of such an air shaft anywhere other than above the Life of Mine expansion area will be completely independent of the Life of Mine expansion. A new air shaft in the Life of Mine expansion area would be functionally dependent on the Life of Mine expansion. Without a progression of mining to the easternmost reaches of the Life of Mine expansion area or beyond, there is no need for nor point in construction of a new air shaft in that area. 7 Page 17 of 22, 4/17 WRC Agenda Packet 8. Inducement: Does the approval of one phase or segment commit the agency to approve other phases? No. The approval of the Life of Mine expansion area does not commit the Department to approve any new air shaft or anciiiary facilities. Based on a consideration of these factors, the Life of Mine expansion and any future air shaft are not sufficiently related to require their consideration in a single environmental review. Segmentation of environmental review is warranted for the foiiowing additional reasons. A. Prematurity The need for any new air shaft wiii be based on the rate of mining progression through the already approved Life of Mine area and the Life of Mine expansion area. At its most rapid pace, that progression is expected to take at least two years and may take five years or longer. It would be premature and speculative to attempt to evaluate the environmental conditions in any potential air shaft location as they might exist two to five years from now. So too would be any current attempt to predict environmental impacts that may or may not occur (or the degree to which they might occur) two to five years in the future. 8 Page 18 of 22, 4/17 WRC Agenda Packet B. Speculation Although Cargill has identified the potential for construction of a new air shaft, and has done some exploratory drilling at a potential location, a number of alternatives to an air shaft project are still under evaluation. Cargill has not authorized nor funded any new air shaft or ancillary facilities. As a result, their description would be purely speculative and any current attempt to evaluate their environmental impact during construction or operation would be pure conjecture. C. Uniqueness of Reasonably Anticipated Impacts As noted above, the Life of Mine expansion has to do exclusively with the underground mine regime. Its environmental impacts are minor and singular- barely perceptible subsidence occurring over hundreds of years. By way of contrast, a new air shaft will have expression and environmental impacts at the surface. Those impacts will likely be of a different kind, including those typically encountered with any construction project-potential for erosion and impacts to surface water quality, creation of dust and exhaust, noise, and visual change to the landscape. There is no relationship between the environmental impacts reasonably anticipated with the Life of Mine expansion and those reasonably anticipated with a new air shaft. 9 Page 19 of 22, 4/17 WRC Agenda Packet D. No Less Protective of the Environment Finally, segmented environmental review would be no less protective of the environment. This is largely because the reasonably anticipated environmental impacts of the Life of Mine expansion (barely perceptible subsidence over hundreds of years) are distinctly different in kind from those associated with construction of any new air shaft. Reasonably anticipated air shaft impacts would likely be similar to those of any surface construction project-potential impacts to vegetation, habitat, surface water quality, localized impacts to air quality, noise and visual change to the landscape-many of which would be temporary and all of which could reasonably be anticipated to be minor. Moreover, environmental impacts reasonably anticipated with respect to each project would be subject to environmental review prior to their approval and undertaking. Environmental review of the Life of Mine expansion will occur now. A full and appropriate environmental review for any potential air shaft will occur once it is determined whether it will be built, when it will be built, where it will be built and what will be built. Since Department approval is necessary for the surface construction of mine facilities ancillary to any new air shaft, there is no question that there will be opportunity for an appropriate environmental review of air shaft impacts prior to any new air shaft construction. 10 Page 20 of 22, 4/17 WRC Agenda Packet Tompkins County Water Resources Council 121 East Court Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 Telephone (607) 274-5560 www.tompkinscountyny.gov/planning/committees-wrc April 18, 2017 Basil Seggos, Commissioner New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233-1010 Re: DEC Application ID#0-9999-00075/00001 (Cargill Mine Shaft #4) Dear Commissioner Seggos, The Water Resources Council of Tompkins County writes to express its concern regarding Cargill, Inc.’s proposed Mine Shaft #4 project, under review by Region 7 Cortland Sub-Office. We understand from a presentation at our meeting held March 20, 2017 that serious environmental concerns have been raised about the project. We recommend that you withhold permission for this project until there has been submission of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and a full, open, public discussion of the project’s risks and benefits. Given the complexity of the on-site stratigraphy and hydrological regimes when constructing a shaft to 2500’ below the surface, the preparation of a DEIS is warranted. Questions and concerns that arose during the WRC discussion: • whether reaming the hole for Mine Shaft #4 from below could establish a flow connection between the aquifer beneath Cayuga Lake and the mine itself, causing flooding of the mine, possible collapse, or salinization of the aquifer and/or lake. • the mine’s capacity for water storage, • increased humidity impacts on long-term mine stability, • the potential for harmful greenhouse gas emissions, • adverse view-shed impacts for Cayuga Lake area residents, boaters, and Taughannock Falls State Park visitors, and • further industrialization of an agricultural district. We believe the public deserves a DEIS with full and open discussion of the data bearing on these questions, to assure the safety and integrity of one of the largest freshwater bodies in New York State. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Darby Kiley Chair, Tompkins County Water Resources Council Page 21 of 22, 4/17 WRC Agenda PacketDRAFT Page 22 of 22, 4/17 WRC Agenda Packet