Cayuga Lake Watershed Management Plan
Intermunicipal Organization (IO) Meeting
4/28/99, 7:00 9:00 P.M.
Ledyard Town Hall
|Ken Zabriskie (Village of Aurora)-R*
John Sipos (Towns of Varick and Covert)-R*
Pat Morrell (Town of Fayette)-R*
Bruce Johnson (Village of Freeville)-R*
Dan Winch (Tompkins County)-R
Carolyn Grigorov (Town of Ithaca)-R
Craig Schutt (Tompkins Co. SWCD)
Diana Rodford (Village of Freeville)
Jeff Soule (City of Ithaca)
Teresa Robinson (Town of Groton)
Dave Daggert (Town of Fleming)
Susan Pratt (Assemblyman Lusters Office)
Steve Landesman (Ithaca Journal)
Jerry Codner (Town of Lansing)
John Ferrante (Atlantic States Legal Foundation)
Robert Bland (Cornell University)
Kevin Millington (NYS DOS)
Pam OMalley (Central NY Regional Planning)
|Larry Fabbroni (City of Ithaca)-R*
David Morehouse (Town of Ledyard)-R*
Bob Smith (Village of Union Springs)-R*
Chuck Howell (Town of Scipio)-R*
Jim Young (Town of Fleming)-R
Sharon Anderson (Tompkins Co.)-RA
Don Potter (Town of Genoa)
John Fessenden (Cay. Lk. Watershed Ntwk.)
Sylvia Hurlbut (Town of Ledyard)
Lyle Raymond (Town of Groton)
Peter Shuster (Seneca Co. Farm Bureau)
Jim Malyj (Seneca Co. SWCD)
Tee-Ann Hunter (Town of Ledyard)
Paul Butler (Town of Lansing)
Jim Malyj (Seneca Co. SWCD)
David Zorn (Genesee/Finger Lakes RPC)
Charles McCaffrey (NYS DOS)
John Roebig (EcoLogic)
|R = designated representative for municipality
RA = designated alternate representative for municipality
*Municipality has signed and submitted the "Call For Cooperation" (intermunicipal agreement)
I. Welcome, Meeting Purpose and Outcome: Meeting began at 7:00. Sylvia Hurlbut welcomed everyone and stated the meeting purpose and desired outcome as: Review and comment on draft summary of 3/24 IO meeting; finalize criteria for evaluating interim recommendations; define process for IO to review, rank and select interim recommendations.
II. Introductions: Introductions were made of all attendees.
III. Approval of Minutes: Acceptance of minutes moved by Dave Morehouse. Seconded by Carolyn Grigorov. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
IV. Draft Summary of 3/24 Visions and Water Quality Issues Session: Dave Zorn and John Roebig reported on the draft summary of water quality issues and visions collected at the 3/24 IO meeting and mailed to everyone prior to the 4/28 meeting. Comments and discussion are being sought before finalizing it. However, it will be a living document that can be updated on an ongoing basis as additional issues arise that people feel should be included. There are also a number of other sources of information about issues which must be reviewed and considered. The 3/24 summary is one way to ensure that the watershed characterization includes all of the issues of the people in the watershed within its framework it will help guide the watershed characterization work being done. Also, the issues and visions expressed should be factored into the interim recommendations for the 1st year. It sets the groundwork for the future step of watershed management planning and what the people in the watershed want to see addressed in a plan.
D. Morehouse, as a resident of the north end of the watershed, was surprised at the number of times swimming at Stewart Park came up in the issues discussion.
Discussion occurred about who polices sediment barricades on construction sites as they are always falling down. D. Zorn stated that theyre put up due to the (Stormwater) SPDES permitting process, though all that is required is to file a Notice of Intent (NOI). There is little enforcement of it by DEC. Its really up to the citizens to report.
C. Grigorov stated that even though she was one of the vocal ones on 3/24 calling for swimming in Stewart Park, she has since learned that the area is meant to be a swamp. It would be artificial to make it a swimming area.
S. Zabriskie pointed out a duplicate entry on page 3 under the natural resources subcategory "ecosystem in lake is healthy". This will be corrected.
J. Codner stated that industrial use of the lake and the lakes capacity to support that use is missing even though it came up on 3/24 (e.g., Milliken Station and Cornell Lake Source Cooling). This will be added under the south-lake or lakewide sections.
There was no further discussion, and D. Zorn reiterated that if anything more needs to be changed or added it can be done at any time.
V. 1st-Year Interim List of Implementation Recommendations: D. Zorn introduced the DOS contract requirement to develop interim recommendations. The preparatory materials sent in advance of the meeting explain this requirement and its purpose, along with the IOs role in developing interim lists in the 1st and 2nd years of the project. The interim list is to be developed to enable the watershed to tap funding sources, particularly the Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act, which are available during the project. Bond Act funds will likely be largely depleted by the time the full watershed plan is completed so its important to try to obtain some now for projects that will benefit the watershed. It is recognized that it would make more sense to wait at least until the watershed characterization is completed, but the DOS contract and the timeline of the Bond Act and its annual funding cycle direct it to be developed now. The next call for applications for the Bond Act will be released in May and applications will be due in August. During this process of developing interim recommendations, the IO should also develop recommendations for projects that would fit under other funding programs beyond the Bond Act.
In the past couple of months, potential project recommendations have been solicited from county water quality coordinating committees (WQCCs) (and through them, from municipalities). So far WQCCs have provided concepts for types of projects (e.g., agricultural best management practices, stormwater management). The WQCCs have now been asked to provide, by 5/14/99, specific project descriptions (1-2 paragraphs) with cost estimates to be evaluated as interim recommendations. Municipalities and anyone else interested are also encouraged to submit proposed project recommendations. These submittals will go to Pam OMalley (by 5/14/99) who will distribute them as appropriate to be ranked and selected. Ranking should be done between 5/14/99 and 5/20/99 so that on 5/21/99 the rankings can be distributed to all IO members for their review prior to the 5/26/99 IO meeting when the IO will make its selections. This doesnt mean that projects cannot be submitted for funding outside of the watershed planning process, just that they wont have opportunity to receive endorsement by the IO and Watershed Planning effort such endorsement would make them more competitive.
Charlie McCaffrey added that next years interim list could reflect types of projects rather than specific projects because the plan will be far enough along but that since the plans just beginning this year, and its desirable to ensure that recommendations are in line with a comprehensive approach, specific projects need to be identified.
To help this process along, the Technical Committee has developed draft criteria for the IO to finalize at todays meeting. These will be used to objectively evaluate recommendations that come in. Ranking projects according to these criteria will help the IO select which ones to include on the interim list. These criteria may be used to develop the 2nd year interim list if the IO deems them still valid, or they can be revamped at that point.
After finalizing the criteria, the IO must agree on the process for using the criteria to review and rank projects so that at the May IO meeting the IO can select interim recommendations.
Finalizing Criteria: D. Zorn walked the IO through the draft criteria. There was much discussion. Changes proposed are summarized as follows:
S. Hurlbut asked for a consensus vote on acceptability of changes to draft criteria. J. Sipos moved. K. Zabriskie seconded. All voted in favor.
IO Process for Applying Criteria and Selecting Recommendations: The IO was asked to decide how it wants to deal with ranking and selecting proposed recommendations so that the timeline is adhered to. S. Hurlbut proposed three options:
Jim Young proposed a fourth option: 4) Have a group consisting of the Technical Committee plus a subcommittee of people present at tonights meeting review and rank the submittals.
Ken Zabriskie moved that the full Technical Committee and IO go through this first interim ranking process. Susan Pratt seconded. She added that all should be involved this first time to give impetus for more municipalities to join because theyll see the IO making decisions.
J. Sipos stated that it would be more appropriate to have the Technical Committee do the review and ranking and supply recommendations to the IO, as was done with the criteria. The ranking needs to have people with expertise doing it. The Technical Committee could report to the IO and be able to answer questions. D. Morehouse agreed that the Technical Committee should do the ranking and then also whittle the list down. Dan Winch supported the motion of K. Zabriskie. J. Young stated it would be to unwieldy with that many people.
J. Sipos requested a roll call vote. Only those municipalities who have signed the Call For Cooperation and whose designated representative is present are eligible to vote. S. Hurlbut called for a vote on the motion to have the full Technical Committee and IO go through this first interim ranking process. Results: Zabriskie yes; Morehouse no; Howell no; Smith no; Sipos no; Morrell yes; Johnson yes; Fabbroni no. 3-yes/5-no. Motion not carried.
J. Sipos made a motion that all proposals be reviewed by the Technical Committee and brought for review to the IO. D. Morehouse seconded. Vote taken: reverse of above vote. 5-yes/3-no. K. Zabriskie stated that a quorum of nine voting members wasnt present.
S. Hurlbut stated that more municipalities need to sign and submit the Call for Cooperation so this doesnt happen again. Some designated representatives and alternates are present tonight but cant vote. They need to get their signed Call for Cooperation in before the 5/26/99 IO meeting so they can vote.
To solve the need to identify a process for ranking and selecting recommendations, S. Hurlbut said that the next IO meeting is part of the Technical Committee meeting to apply criteria, and then the next regular IO meeting on 5/26/99 will be to select recommendations. Proposed recommendations, due to P. OMalley on 5/14/99, will be faxed on 5/14/99 to any interested IO members who sign a sheet that will be sent around the room and give their fax number. S. Pratt, D. Zorn, S. Hurlbut and P. OMalley will help with the faxing.
VI. IO Committee Status, Reports and Related Discussion: The meeting ended prior to this agenda item. However, because it was relevant to the interim list discussion, D. Zorn handed out his summary of Technical Committee participants, accomplishments and meetings to date.
VII. Project and Financial Status: The meeting ended prior to this agenda item.
VIII. Set Date and Agenda for Next and Future IO Meetings: The next regular IO meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 26, 1999 at 7:00 P.M. at Cornell Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County. Refreshments will start at 6:30 P.M. Agenda items will include selection of projects for the interim list of recommendations.
There will also be a joint meeting of the Technical Committee and the IO (any interested members) on May 17, 1999 at 10:00 A.M. (likely at the Montezuma Wildlife Refuge) to rank the interim recommendations proposed for the 1st year list according to the evaluation criteria.
The meeting adjourned at 9:15 P.M.
To contact the
Cayuga Lake Watershed
or email email@example.com
CLW IO 2002