Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council presses city staff on watershed tree harvest, environmental review and monitoring
Summary
Councilors raised questions June 9 about a recent timber harvest on city watershed property — asking about erosion controls, water testing, inventories for protected species and long-term monitoring — and city staff and contracted forestry representatives said engineered erosion controls and invasive‑species plans are in place and that a maintenance/monitoring contract is planned.
Councilors at the June 9 Glens Falls City Common Council meeting pressed city staff for documentation and follow‑up on a recent tree harvest on city watershed property, citing concerns about erosion, species inventories and whether environmental quality review steps were completed.
Councilman Rice and other members asked whether the city had conducted water testing or taken steps to prevent harvest runoff into reservoirs. Bill Norton, the city’s water and sewer superintendent, said staff had required mats and engineering measures to control erosion, that the harvest work was roughly 80–85% complete, and that the contractor had provided memos and expert input about regrowth and management. Norton said the city had publicly noticed the work through social media and local papers and that the water and sewer commission had taken briefings on the project.
Tom Gilman of FMW Forestry (a contractor who reports to the water and sewer commission) told councilors the harvest plan included invasive-species removal and that the undergrowth is regenerating in harvested areas. He and Norton said the city is considering a separate maintenance contract to provide ongoing monitoring of the watershed property and invasive-species control.
Council members pressed staff about compliance with state environmental‑quality review procedures (negative or positive declaration and the responsible registering party). Multiple members said they could not recall an environmental‑quality inventory that identified protected species; one councilor specifically mentioned concern for a butterfly species described in the meeting as a 'blue' obligate feeder. City staff acknowledged the concern and said they would follow up, including coordinating with the water & sewer attorney and producing documentation for council review.
The city agreed to return with additional records, including any formal environmental‑quality review documentation, monitoring plans, and the proposed maintenance contract that would govern invasive‑species monitoring and longer‑term erosion controls. No formal vote or new contract award took place at the meeting; the item remained a matter for follow‑up and committee review.
