25, 2001 Minutes
meeting was called to order:
9:45 AM by Craig Schutt.
to the Ag. Recommendations section of the RPP
Zorn, Genesse Finger Lakes Regional Planning Council, distributed the draft RPP
(Restoration & Protection Plan) and the May IO newsletter. Sections of the
agricultural recommendations section of the draft RPP were reviewed and
corrections/additions were made after discussion of each part. (These
corrections can be found at
on the corrections/additions to the agricultural recommendations sections of
the RPP are as follows:
The Technical Committee will include a section on stormwater.
Dan Dostie was unable to attend today’s meeting, but provided Craig
Schutt with his comments.
The correct NRCS standards must be included in the Ag. section of the RPP.
cost portion of item “A1a” should be clarified; nutritional
management should also be added. There are educational/outreach meetings held
on nutritional management. If more funding were available, a part-time person
might be hired to teach nutritional management.
on the cost of CNMP development. The cost includes soil samples. Janice
mentioned that a soil sample should not exceed 20 acres.
mentioned the cost of manure application since this is part of a Nutrient
explained tillage as it relates to cover crops. He asked if any Nitrogen
loading has been seen. He explained how cover crops can pose another problem,
in that the existing crop must be eradicated before planting a cover crop.
on buffers, Conservation Reserve Program and benefits.
discussion on the recommendations was mainly concerned with the cost per acre
for each farm. This varies with soil type, slope, farm type, etc. Some costs
will be carried by the farmer and other will be cost-shared with programs, such
can change the cost-share rates in EQIP, but they can not go beyond the rates
set by the Federal Government. Our cap for EQIP is $150,000 per year.
on the cost of 2 strand, high tensile fencing, approximately $1 per foot
on the cost of restoration of eroding streambanks.
cost of Ag. Waste Management Plan = $25 per acre.
of IPM scouting was discussed.
County will do a “Clean Sweep” program this year. The Water
Resources Council received a $15,000 grant for this project.
on the marketing of agricultural by-products.
on including an “Emergency Action Plan”. There is a section on
this in the CAFO plans.
on how data can be obtained for effectively implementing IPM techniques.
Janice suggested working with the DEC and use their data to form our own
asked how it might be shown that the RPP was instrumental in tracking pesticide
Seneca Lake Watershed brochure was mentioned. Craig found out that the
development of such a brochure for the Cayuga Lake Watershed could cost $5,000.
on mixed-use zoning.
corrections/additions to the Agricultural Recommendations Section of the draft
RPP will be written and added to such and posted on the website for review by
Dave Zorn and Liz Moran.
Schutt distributed a hand-out titled, “Concern and Suggestions by the
Cayuga Lake Agricultural Advisory Committee on the Adopted By-Laws of the
IO”. There is a conflict since the Ag. Advisory Committee spent
considerable time adopting By-Laws during the formation of this committee. All
members were in agreement.
Degni to adopt the original By-Laws as written by this Agricultural Advisory
Committee as “the” by-laws, seconded by Lyn Odell, carried.
meeting adjourned at 12:00 PM. The next meeting will be decided at a later date.
2 of today’s meeting:
Johnson, Cornell agricultural engineering graduate student, met with members of
the Cayuga Lake Watershed Agricultural Advisory Committee to explain his
watershed model as part of his graduate degree work.
meeting began at 12:10 PM.
Craig, Lyn and Sherry introduced themselves and explained their positions and
began his discussion by explaining the purpose of a watershed model and how
implementation of this model might benefit the Cayuga Lake Watershed Ag.
Advisory Committee. A watershed model is a tool to assist in watershed
planning. Mark showed a sample map using the watershed model which depicted
geology. Other areas that can be depicted are topography, soils, rainfall
amount, etc. Many different types of data can be inputted into the model. For
example, with rainfall data, the level of a stream over time can be shown.
(Hydrograph). Scenarios can also be inputted into the model; for examples,
scenarios can predict TMDLs. Craig asked if the following scenario could be
predicted with Mark’s model:
no one spread manure in the winter, and all was spread during the same weeks in
the spring, what would the runoff be like should there be a heavy rainfall event.
thinks that this type of model might provide him with water storage data such
as the amount of water stored on the farm. Lyn also asked if P-loading could
be identified. Also, if the model were to show that “X” amount of
pollution was coming from a specific farm, would that landowner have confidence
in the data generated by the model. The data could be used to show where the
pollution is coming from. The model could also be used in others areas beside
explained the structure of the IO and the relationships among all the
committees such as the technical, agricultural and educational committees.
said that traditional soil and water BMPs have been shown to be effective in
reducing erosion but have varied impacts on water quality both positive and
negative. Lyn feels that conservation practices have had a significant
positive impact in reducing soil erosion, runoff and therefore a reduction in
short discussion followed about the pollution controlling effectiveness of
BMPs. Mark asked if farmers would be willing to contribute their data for use
in the model. A discussion about what the resulting model data would be used