29, 2000, 5:00 p.m.
Jim Skaley, Jerry Codner, Tee-Ann Hunter, Sharon Anderson
committee wants to recognize Sylvia’s dedicated efforts with the whole
management planning project. We commend her commitment to keep the project
moving forward and to build a strong, sustainable IO. Kudos to Sylvia!
Characterization Public Meetings
presented a summary report, which was also given to the IO and to the Tompkins
County Board of Reps. The committee requested that the summary be updated,
adding appreciation to communities that posted information in newsletters. Then
send to all towns for possible inclusion in their newsletters. Tee-Ann will
make arrangements with the towns. Sharon will update and get a master copy to
Tee-Ann who has letterhead for the IO.
printing and postage for the mailing cost approx. $2000 (not including staff
time or mailing to “dignitaries”) and was perceived as being
worthwhile. It would not have been enough without the significant media
coverage however, it was one more thing to alert people and was a good size to
be hung on a refrigerator. Tee-Ann suggested a promotional piece folded to the
size of a post card with the vital information on the outside and additional
was discussion about continued concern that the Characterization is more of an
inventory than a Characterization. The writers of the document may feel that
the Characterization meets the stated goals however, public comments indicate
that the document does not state the parameters clearly enough.
and Jerry will finish up the write-ups for the meeting very soon.
the cost of reprinting the Watershed Characterization, the group questioned the
value of a full reprinting, unless the changes where substantial. They
suggested instead a printing of just the changes that were made, with the full
reprint of the document just going to key places such as libraries. The full
document would still go on the web.
available one per county of the hard copy versions of the compiled public
comments, with annotations of what is being done with each comment, was not
viewed as sufficient. The committee would like to see the annotated comments
put on the web. Jerry is willing to help with this. Sharon will take care of
the few comments that are not yet electronic (an electronic form procured from
the person that submitted the comments, or they will be typed, or scanned).
a Web site is a significant asset, though admittedly the majority of people may
not have Web access. EPPOC would like to see the Web site more closely linked
to the committee since it is a significant delivery method for those people who
do have Web access.
(both committee and non-committee members) continue to express concerns about
the Web site. Most commonly people express 1) a difficulty in finding
information, 2) redundancy which fosters confusion, e.g. there is overlap of
information on the “Summary of the Cayuga Lake Watershed” and
“Cayuga Lake Watershed Management Update,” and 3) a need for
committee is also concerned about delayed responsiveness to some of its
previous Web site change requests. Jerry has strong Web skills and has
volunteered to oversee the Web page. Since funding for public participation may
be limited (see below), the committee has requested that funds that would have
been used to pay for staff support of the Web page be allocated instead for
Participation for the Management Plan
reported that given the amount of work that needs to completed and the short
time frame, the focus will be on completing the tasks required by the DOS
grant. DOS requires a public meeting after the draft management plan is created
and again once revisions have been made but before the Plan is considered
final. Sylvia, in addition, would like to see public meetings after the plan is
done to get input on implementation.
committee cautioned that if the product needed to fulfill the DOS grant is not
truly a management plan, that should be clearly stated. Prioritization and
synthesis must happen before/as the first step in moving to creating a
suggestion was to follow examples set in other watersheds that looked for a key
issue that all the stakeholders could agree to such as Keuka Lake’s focus
on improving septic systems.
of what was needed to have successful buy-in for the next phase included
reaching people with why the management plan is necessary and for the common
good. Specific suggestions included: a presentation that could be done for each
Town/Village/County Board, more publicity, more time for the public to voice
their concerns, a minimum of 3 public meetings spaced geographically around the
watershed for each DOS requirement (though ideally there would be 2 mailings in
advance of the meetings and more than three meetings for each DOS requirement).
A watershed wide mailing would be needed to cover each set of meetings.
of the next round of meetings might better be a fully facilitated process with
set ground rules, limits to speaking times and topical guidelines on what would
there be a special, by-invitation, meeting for agency staff and citizen groups?
to Boards would be a good task to request from the Network’s Watershed
Steward. It could help that person get to know the communities plus let
Board’s now that there is citizen support. Municipalities are more likely
to support the Plan and implementation if their citizenry is behind for them.
Presentations ideally would also be done to associations of highway
superintendents, supervisors, etc.
Network could also be asked to sponsor an essay contest on a vision of Cayuga
Lake in 2025 or 2050. Could be open to school youth as well as adults. Prizes
might include free subscriptions to local newspapers, Network T-shirts.
reported on Sylvia’s fund raising efforts. Tee-Ann is assisting and
accompanying Sylvia as she approached elected officials and businesses, such as
reported that $10,000 cash, with additional in-kind match, was currently
budgeted. The committee did not feel this was nearly enough to cover 2 sets of
public meetings, which are essentially twice the work of the public
participation for the Characterization. The committee is requesting $20,000 to
carry out a similar level of activity for 2 sets of public meetings. Should
funding efforts be successful, budget requests should be revisited.
meeting will be set as soon as there is a timeline for the management planning
process or once the budget is finalized.People want to know how others in the
community feel. Let people know what was heard in a somewhat detailed matter.
People appreciate the sharing of information. Tee-Ann will look through and
try to summarize.
Return to index
To contact the
Cayuga Lake Watershed
CLW IO 2002