12, 2000 Minutes
meeting was called to order
11:15 AM by Craig Schutt, Chair.
of Cayuga Lake Management Draft Characterization:
Committee’s first order of business was to review the areas of the
characterization that were in question or unclear. Elaine Dalrymple noted page
2-18, 2nd paragraph; she asked how the percentages were figured.
will look into this question further. Jim Young asked if Craig would find out
the source of these figures.
He feels the figures should be verified by more than one source. Mark Ochs
commented that in Southern Seneca County there has been an increase in Amish
dairy farming from cash crops. There was a discussion on the number of parcels
listed on page 2.12.2. Each dot represents 1 parcel.
Land Use –
Craig explained how this was categorized, page 2-20, section 2.12.4. Jim Young
feels a better definition of vacant agricultural land is needed in the
characterization. Craig agrees that the Committee needs to know how data was
gathered and that the Characterization should be more user-friendly. It was
noted that the symbols used on page 3.12.1 ,Cayuga Lake Watershed Agriculture
Sources Map, are questionable.
should be changed.
Jim Young questioned the Livestock & Products Map on page 3.12.2, with
respect to the information that this map is meant to convey. He suggested
using dots to represent animal units.
- This topic was also discussed at the previous meeting. Jim Young noted page
28, 1st paragraph in the
Phosphorus and Eutrophication
booklet from USDA (July 1999). He stated that possibly using soil
‘P’ to balance (Nutrient Management), would be better than using
‘P’ or ‘N’. He feels the public is more concerned with
‘N’ in groundwater and not ‘P’. He questions if there
is a better measure to enhance water quality. There was a short discussion on
research that the Agricultural Research Service was doing on Phosphorus. pH
has a greater impact and ties up soluable ‘P’. There was a short
discussion on the variables shown when a water test is done.
suggested inviting Carl Czymmek to the next Committee meeting as he is doing
work on the ‘P’ index.
John George asked if using the ‘P’ index would identify what
elements are contributing to unacceptable water quality.
Dalrymple questioned what the final Cayuga Lake Management plan would be used
for. Craig explained that as much agricultural data as possible be included in
the plan to provide agencies and districts a better opportunity to obtain
funding for BMP implementation. Mark Ochs asked if it was the responsibility
of this Committee to identify where problems exist. He noted from a source he
had, that “10% of the watershed contributes to 90% of identifiable
problems.” He wanted to know where the data was obtained to support this
statement. He feels it is a local role to identify problem areas. Shawn
Bossard asked how ‘permanent’ the data contained in the final
management plan would be and how would this data be used. He also asked if
this final plan would be used for regulation, citing the regulation of CAFOs as
Dalrymple noted that on page 3.15 of the characterization, the Simms reference
seemed to be outdated.
Bossard noted that in the characterization, the numbers used depend on which
standard they were based on, a background standard or a utilization standard.
Elaine D. feels the paragraph describing animal waste on page 3-16 could be
noted that the highest amount of sedimentation is located at the southern end
of Cayuga Lake. Numerous streambank erosion problems and not necessarily
agricultural practices, have been identified as contributing to this
sedimentation. (It was mentioned at this point that Larry Goehring, Cornell
U., has done research on nitrogen amounts from waterfowl.) Gerold Power noted
that the amount of pesticides used in agriculture has actually decreased over
the years and feels this data should be included in the final lake
plan (see page 3-17). Elaine Dalrymple also feels that the plan should explain
the use of newer pesticides and that the amounts used are lower than in years
past (see page 3-18, 6th paragraph). Some
of the Committee feel that only limited studies have been conducted to arrive
at the pesticide information presently contained in the Characterization. It
was also mentioned whether or not to include the information compiled by USGS
in the final lake management plan. (According to the USGS study, the level of
atrazine was below the critical level.) Jim Young stated that the charts used
in the characterization entitled ‘Documented Pesticide Runoff’
should include the source and date. Other sections of the characterization
that were reviewed at the meeting were table 4.2.8 – sub-watershed
description and section 4-24 – major nutrients.
mentioned that funding will be available this summer to conduct a
streambank/roadbank inventory. Jim Young noted how most people view runoff
from agriculture as the problem and are unaware of the other contributing
sources. Jim also questioned the source of the numbers for nitrogen levels
noted on the chart on page 4-25. He also asked if there was a desirable amount
for algae growth. Jim Malyj described the ‘P’ levels at the
northern end of Cayuga Lake. Gerold Power asked how much ‘P’
remains in the bottom sediments and how deep are the core samples that are
other sections of the characterization in question are:
4-3, table 4.3.14, ‘Summary of Phytoplankton’; what data is this
4.3.24 – ‘Regulatory Table’
6.1, Table 6.1
6.5- ‘Areas of Concern’, source of data.
the next meeting, the Committee will address what components they would like to
see included in the lake management plan.
next meeting of the Cayuga Lake Watershed Agricultural Committee will be on
July 19, 2000 at 10:00 AM at Cornell Cooperative Extension, Willow Ave.,
Ithaca, New York.
meeting adjourned at 1:00 PM.
County Soil & Water
Return to index
To contact the
Cayuga Lake Watershed
CLW IO 2002