Lenox
Conservation Commission
September 20, 2010
Minutes
Lee Town Hall
This was a joint meeting with the Lee and Lenox Conservation Commissions.
Lenox Members present: Chair Neal Carpenter, NC; Joe Strauch, JS; Vince Ammendola, VA; David Lane, DL; Tim Flanagan, TF; Dick Ferren, DF; Rose Fitzgerald Casey, RFC
Lee Members present: Chair Kathy Arment, KA; Stu Dalheim, SD; John Philpott, JP; John Coty, JC; Ann Langlais, AL; Keith O’Neil, KO
Laurel Lake Preservation Association, Inc., Amended NOI, Laurel Lake, Amended Notice of Intent filed August 12, 2010 by Laurel Lake Preservation Association, Inc. for property located at Laurel Lake in Lee and Lenox. The applicant is requesting a three foot draw down for the purpose of controlling invasive species. This is a change from the first Amended NOI of November 25, 2009 which requested a five foot draw down to control Zebra Mussels. The original NOI was filed late in 2008 for an integrated management program to control aquatic vegetation. This latest Amended NOI served as notification that the October meeting would not be held, and the new hearing date was moved up to September 20, 2010.
History of this NOI: Originally an NOI had been filed for an integrated management program to control aquatic vegetation and the first hearing was January 15, 2009 and continued March 2, 2009, April 2, 2009, June 1, 2009. (Prior to June 1, the applicants requested that this hearing be continued to November 16, 2009 to permit time to comply with the request of the Lenox Conservation Commission.) At the Nov. 16, 2009 hearing, LLPA, Inc. stated that Zebra Mussels were found in Laurel Lake in June 2009, therefore they would be amending their NOI to request a five foot draw down to control the Zebra Mussels. The Amended NOI was received on November 25, 2009 and the first hearing was on December 3, 2009. That hearing was continued to May 17, 2010. On April 21, 2010 LLPA, Inc., requested a postponement until October 18th, 2010. This was formally requested on May 17, 2010 and continued to October 18, 2010 as requested. Upon receipt of the second amended NOI on August 12, 2010, the new
hearing date was scheduled for September 20, 2010.
Mark Alimansky, President of LLPA, introduced their new consultant, Ken Wagner, an independent water resource management consultant who specializes in lake and reservoir management.
Mr. Wagner acknowledged appreciation for the efforts of both Commissions to hold joint meetings and to continue the hearings with the major shifts in what LLPA is requesting. Mr. Wagner disclosed that he is not selling chemicals, does not own a weed harvester, but is imparting good management.
Mr. Wagner presented the details of the second amended NOI. He said that milfoil, the most problematic invasive plant species in Laurel Lake for those who use the lake or live there, covers about 20 acres of the 173 acre lake. He claims that lowering the lake will impact almost identically the zebra mussels and milfoil as anything exposed will die. He noted that a 3 ft drawdown is not considered a “big deal” by the GEIR, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife or Natural Heritage. Such a drawdown will expose about 12 acres with approximately 6 of those acres being milfoil acres and would affect about ¼ of the milfoil in the Lake. The applicants’ object is to do the minimum and do a monitoring program to observe the effect. Mr. Wagner stated that in the majority of the
cases he is aware of, the milfoil recovers in 2-4 years from the effect of the drawdown incurred. “You will always get 2 years of benefit, but not more than four years.”
Mr. Wagner claims that there is a 100 percent kill of the Zebra Mussels in area exposed in a drawdown. He cautioned that weather can be a factor in the success of a drawdown.
Mr. Wagner reviewed a list of impacts, but stated that he feels that the benefits of a draw down outweigh any negative impacts to the shallow water species in and around the lake.
Lenox Commissioners
JS of Lenox asked Mr. Wagner how much of native shallow water vegetation would be killed and what would become of the emerging vegetation to the west that would be de-watered as the result of the draw down. Mr. Wagner responded that the shallow water vegetation and emerging vegetation would not be significantly impacted. JS added that the Conservation Commissions still do not have information on the species and population densities of the pre draw down conditions in the lake. Mr. Wagner suggested that the Commissions put in the Order of Conditions a condition that there will be a survey about vegetation and that the applicants will set up plots that show how conditions change.
NC asked the following questions:
1) What makes this a limited project?
Mr. Wagner responded: It is done for the control of invasive vegetation.
2) NC queried “control” versus “removal”.
Mr. Wagner said that any means of eradication whether pulling, raking or use of herbicides would be “control”.
3) Referring to the very shallow part of the lake that is in Lenox, NC asked what would happen if during the draw down period, heavy rains expose sub strait which is the habitat for the Zebra Mussels. Mr. Wagner said that in a one year draw down this would not be a problem, but would take 20 to 30 years to be significant. Studies have been done at both Otis Reservoir for 30 years and Richmond Pond for 40 years and the studies show that there has not been significant exposure with draw downs. Nothing will wash out if there is not a 4 to 5 percent slope.
4) NC asked about the control of the flow rate. Roger Sheurer, the owner of the dam, stated that the flow rate would be 5400 gallons a minute to achieve a 3” draw down each day. This is monitored daily and it is in accordance with the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife.
TF stated that the data Mr. Wagner provided to the Commissioners in his presentation was marvelous, but asked why this necessary information was not in NOI. Mr. Wagner said that he was hired after the submittal of the second revised NOI therefore he could not explain why. He will be willing to provide information.
TF also noted that the Commissioners did not have the data, species composition survivorship info, etc., and that this is the first hearing in which they have been told of the species composition. He asked Mr. Wagner if he could include in this revised NOI, all of this discussion, to which Mr. Wagner agreed.
RFC asked if there was a back up for Mr. Sheurer if he could not perform the drawdown. Mr. Sheurer said that his son would be able to comply with all of the conditions.
RFC asked what preventative measures were being taken to keep Zebra Mussels from being released into the Housatonic River from the draw down. Mr. Wagner responded that there are already Zebra Mussels in the Housatonic and that this would not make it any worse than it already is and at this time of the year there are no veligers.
Lee Commissioners
JP asked the following questions:
1) Have the fees been paid and the abutters notified? PA (Lenox) advised that the bill for the legal notice and charge for Lenox abutters had been emailed to Mr. Grogan and that he would be taking care of. Mr. Grogan produced proof of certified mailing and he will provide copies of the proof of mailing to both Lee and Lenox.
2) Was LLPA asking for a one year draw down or a draw down for 3 years? The revised NOI does not specify foot drawdown in the amended NOI. The applicants responded that they would like it for three years with a review at the end of the first year.
3) Requested that the information that was being supplied tonight, and references to other lakes and ponds be current, i.e. more specific to the applicant’s request, and provided as an amended appendix to this amended NOI. Mr. Wagner agreed.
3) Requested specific dates to start drawdown and refill.
Mr. Wagner said that the draw down would be starting the first of November and completed by the end of November. The refill would start anytime after the first of the year, but no later than the end of February. He states that it would take approximately 30 days for refill, 42 days under dry conditions.
JP reviewed conditions suggested by the Lenox Commission for the Orders of Conditions. Mr. Wagner’s comments are in italics.
1) Drawdown limited to 3 ft lower than the spillway
2) Commence drawdown Nov 1st
3) Achieve target drawdown depth by Dec 1st
4) Achieve full lake level by Apr 1st
5) Keep out flow during draw down below a discharge equivalent of four cubic feet per second per sq mile.
Note: Mr. Wagner said that that this is not a relevant parameter and has no scientific validity and gave a detailed explanation. NC stated that this is what Natural Heritage and DEP has asked for in their letter which addresses this amended NOI. Mr. Wagner argued that this is incorrect that it is guidance only, not a regulation.
6) Keep out flows during the refill above a discharge equivalent of half a cubic foot per square mile.
7) Rates should be 3-4 inches daily not to exceed 6” daily.
Mr. Wagner said that the rates should be less than 3.
8) Any issues for getting reports during summer or fall on the outcome of the drawdown on the invasive plants and native plants? Mr. Alimansky responded that they will.
9) Drawdown only for 3 years with a review in one year.
JP added that the Commissions are dependent on Roger Sheurer to organize and manage the drawdown and that he wanted to have a written summary of the action plan that would be part of the conditions.
JP asked how the three foot was determined. Mr. Sheurer said that it is measured from the spillway.
KA said that the lake is down 18 inches now and asked if the applicants were requesting 18 “ more, or an additional 3 feet. Mr. Sheurer said that an additional 18” of draw down was being requested.
KO asked about the Boreal Marstonia and its’ range of habitat and how they would be affected? Mr. Wagner said that the Marstonia preferred a plant known as Chara. He was puzzled because this plant species is not listed in the 2009 ESS report for Laurel Lake. He did say that this plant species will return in June and not in danger with a draw down.
AL asked for clarification on the limit of percentage on the flow during the draw down. Mr. Sheurer described the three out flow pipes and where they discharge and the combination equals 5400 gallons a minute. Mr. Wagner said that it is not a percentage but about 1.4 CFS.
KO asked if Mr. Wagner had any more recommendations for accomplishing more success in controlling milfoil. Mr. Wagner would like to use chemicals in addition to the draw down for control of the milfoil, but feeling that there was so much contention regarding this NOI he wanted to start with something simple.
Correspondence received:
KA read a letter received by the Lee Conservation Commission from Deidre Consolati and Linda Cysz who oppose a draw down.
Lenox did not receive correspondence.
Public comment:
No members of the public chose to speak.
Lee Conservation Commission closed their public hearing: KA, Chair of Lee Conservation, after no response for public comment, asked to close the public hearing and JP of Lee CC seconded the motion. The Lee CC voted 6-0 to agree. KA clearly stated that if information requested is not available in two weeks so that they can consider the Order of Conditions, Lee would be back to “square one”. The applicants confirmed that this information would be available to Lee by October 8, 2010.
TF, speaking for the Lenox CC said that the following information is required:
1) The information that had been requested at the last meeting that still has not been presented
2) The information discussed by Mr. Wagner at tonight’s meeting.
3) The 2009 ESS document referred to tonight. Mr. Grogan said that he emailed that to the Commissions today, however, that which was received by the Land Use Office in Lenox did not have that document attached. Mr. Grogan brought four copies to this meeting, two of which were given to Lee, and the other two placed in Lenox file. Copies were distributed to all Lenox Commissioners on September 23, 2010 for their review.
Lenox Conservation Commission continued their public hearing: TF made a motion to continue their public hearing to October 21, 2010 at 7:30 pm when the latest information requested is available to Lenox. DF seconded the motion and the Commission voted to agree 7-0.
TF made a motion to adjourn and JS seconded the motion. The Commission voted to adjourn
7-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Ammendola
| 
