LAKE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN
ORGANIZATION (IO) MEETING
7:00 – 9:00 P.M.
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION OF TOMPKINS COUNTY
Morehouse (Town of Ledyard)-R*
Howell (Town of Scipio)-R*
Hurlbut (Town of Ledyard)-RA*
Bertuch (CNY RPDB)
Kiefer (Vill. of Cayuga Heights)*
Grigorov (Town of Ithaca)*
Wagenet (Cornell Center for the Envir.)
Lozano (City of Ithaca)*
Hackett (Tompkins County Planning)
Kennedy (Town of Ulysses)*
Sipos (Towns of Varick and Covert)*
Morrell (Town of Fayette)*
Stewart (Village of Interlaken)*
Anderson (Tompkins County)*
Cail (Town of Ulysses)*
Cassavito (Town of Caroline)
= designated representative for municipality
= designated alternate rep. for municipality
has signed and submitted the “Call For Cooperation” (intermunicipal
Introductions, Approval of Minutes:
Meeting began at 7:00 P.M. S. Hurlbut welcomed everyone. Introductions were
made of all attendees. Acceptance of minutes from 4/26/00 meeting moved by D.
Morehouse. G. Kennedy seconded with corrections. All voted in favor. Motion
K. Bertuch discussed the delay in distributing the Interim project
applications to the Technical Committee and IO Representatives participating in
the ranking process. IO members not present at the May IO meeting were invited
to participate in the ranking process. The complete ranking packet will be
distributed pending receipt of final applications. D. Zorn advised IO members
to use the ranking matrix to review and rank all project applications prior to
attending the Technical Committee’s ranking meeting on June 2.
S. Hurlbut distributed a tally sheet of municipal contributions received to
date ($10,906). There is still a $10,000 gap that needs to be filled in order
to meet the second year cash match required by DOS. Municipalities that have
not yet contributed were asked to contact S. Hurlbut to finalize their
commitments and request payment vouchers.
Hurlbut has been actively soliciting funds to meet the project’s 3rd-year
cash match requirement. Assemblyman Finch has pledged $5,000. Senator
Nozzolio failed to come through on a $15,000 member item. He referred the
project to the Finger Lakes-Lake Ontario Watershed Alliance (FL-LOWPA) for
possible grant funding. It was noted that FL-LOWPA grant money, if awarded,
would likely be far less than what was expected from Nozzolio and would not be
available until March 2001.
Oaks and Luster both indicated that they had already donated funds to the
Cayuga Lake Watershed Network (the Network) for the Cayuga Lake Management
Plan. A source at Cornell University also claims cash contributions have been
made to the Network for the management plan. S. Hurlbut stated that the
Network has not made any cash available for the management plan. She stated
that there is a $90,000 gap in matching funds needed for the 3rd-year of the
project that will not be filled unless the Network contributes.
was opened to the IO. D. Kiefer is puzzled by people who claim to have
contributed money to the Network that is earmarked for the plan, yet the plan
has not had access to any funds through the Network. B. Shaw stated that he
was shocked by the suggestion that the Network withheld funds. He stated that
the Network has always been willing to help with the development of the
management plan. He recounted the Network’s 3/9/00 Board meeting at when
the IO asked for the Network’s future participation and the Network
readily agreed to participate but did not receive any follow up communication
regarding methods of participation. He also referred to meeting held on
5/10/00 between himself, S. Hurlbut, P. O’Malley, S. Anderson and K.
Bertuch at which time the IO again requested Network participation during the
3rd year of the project. Prior to that meeting B. Shaw requested and received
a list of items appropriately suited for Network participation. The items
called for in-kind and cash contributions. The Network agreed to log related
time and expenses as local match to the management plan. It was noted that the
match from the Watershed Steward search alone would amount to a significant
local match contribution.
regarding allowable billing rates for professional services used as match was
aired. Specific requests for Network participation similar to the public
participation role filled by Network staff under the first year DOS contract
were included on the list of items/areas identified for Network participation.
B. Shaw believed that some funds would be available to cover the associated
costs of these tasks under the 3rd-year DOS grant. He asked that the public
participation budget for contracting specific services to the Network be
determined for 3rd-year activities as it was for 1st-year activities. The
Network offered to review the available budget relative to the request and
determine if they could accommodate the work. Several areas were identified
for Network participation related to the services of the Watershed Steward.
Based on the Steward’s position description much of what the Steward will
be doing will be directly related to the management plan. The Network could
not comply with the request that 1-day per week of the Steward’s time be
devoted to working on management plan development.
Hurlbut stated that the 5/10 meeting ran smoothly until the issue of money
available to the Network for participation in developing the plan was raised.
B. Shaw re-stated that he was under the impression a contract for Network
services would be executed as it was under the first year of the project. The
Network is willing to provide significant local match in terms of volunteer
time. S. Hurlbut asked if the Network was on board with the management plan.
B. Shaw stated that it is, was and has been. S. Hurlbut stated that the
Network has not contributed any cash to the 3rd-year of the project. B. Shaw
replied that the Network has no new budget dollars this year. The
Network’s budget is funded largely through grants. Their only source of
discretionary funds is membership fees, which are down.
Wagenet asked about last year’s budget. B. Shaw provided information. He
stated the Network’s budget this year is a range as it was developed
prior to receiving confirmation of a large grant. He stated it is not true
that Cornell contributed $5,000 for the management plan. Any contribution made
by Cornell would have been for the services of the Network. L. Wagenet
suggested that perhaps Cornell is confused as J. Gutenberger (Cornell) claims
to have knowledge of a contribution made for the management plan. K. Edelstein
stated that contributors are often confused regarding the terms of
contributions because more than one person is usually involved in the process.
Zorn suggested that because the Network is using the management plan and the
Watershed Characterization in its funding applications/requests, it contributes
to the confusion by making it appear that the Network is part of the management
planning process. He stated that the IO has discussed this issue with the
Network before and believes that the Network has received money for the plan
during years 1 and 2 of the project but has not disbursed any cash to the plan.
B. Shaw replied that he has been part of the Network from the start. Prior to
the first Network meeting in 8/98 the Network had no bylaws or budget and did
not exist. He could not comment on what might have happened prior to 8/98.
Since that time the Network has not written any grant applications claiming
that they are involved in planning. The Network has specifically referenced
the IO as creating the management plan and clearly laid out the Network’s
role as a facilitator. He offered to correct anything that suggested
otherwise, if it could be found. He re-stated his belief that J. Gutenberger
is confused regarding Cornell’s contribution and suggested a phone call
to clarify the situation.
Zorn stated that the Network and the IO have many things in common but miss
opportunities to cooperate which results in the mis-use of money. The two
organizations need to work together. B. Shaw will provide a letter setting
forth all that the Network has provided to the management plan to date. He
disagrees that tremendous opportunities for coordination have been lost over
the past two years. He cited the Network’s attempt to involve the IO in
the Watershed Steward search and Network attendance at IO meetings as examples
of effort to coordinate.
Lozano stated that the IO and the Network should develop a common strategy for
meeting a common goal. The watershed approach to resource management requires
citizen participation and will open doors to significant federal funding
sources. S. Hurlbut suggested that a joint approach to funding requests would
produce greater dollar amounts. By working as a single unit and including
other agencies, the number of funding requests made will be reduced thereby
increasing the chances of receiving funding. B. Shaw agreed.
Wagenet asked if the IO and the Network are open to informing each other of all
future funding requests and possibly inviting the other to making joint funding
applications, when appropriate. D. Kiefer noted that the Network provides
services similar to those of the Education/Outreach/Public Participation
Committee but was not sure what other services they provide to the IO. J.
Lozano replied that the watershed approach is key to funding and citizen
participation is key to the watershed approach. The Network’s role is to
provide citizen participation.
Morehouse stated that both organizations are young and are experiencing growing
pains, and while each is worthy of a few criticisms, finger pointing is not
positive. He stated that the IO is the watershed entity for political funding
and the Network is the public arm of the watershed. A common group (not a
committee) should work out problems and misunderstandings between the two
Kiefer stated that only good can come from formalizing the Network’s
public participation role and agrees with L. Wagenet’s suggested policy
of open funding requests. S. Hurlbut agreed. B. Shaw agreed. S. Hurlbut
thanked B. Shaw for clarifying the Network’s commitment to the management
of Watershed Issues:
D. Zorn presented a revised list of watershed issues
representatives to present to their municipal boards. This collapsed list
should replace the longer list distributed at the April IO meeting. A
four-page issue description was also provided. Users should refer to the issue
description sheets for clarification and additional references to support
material found in the Watershed Characterization. Representatives who have
already presented the original issue list to their municipal boards were asked
to consider making a second presentation using the new list. The new list
provides a better understanding of what is happening in the watershed and is
easier to work with. Representatives who are unable to re-present to their
boards are asked to use prior municipal feedback to complete the new ranking
list. Each municipality is allowed 15 points that can be assigned to various
issues in any combination. Point distribution will indicate the issue’s
relative importance. The issue scoring lists will be collected at the June
28th IO meeting. The Technical Committee will tally the lists. No discussion
or review of the lists is planned for the June meeting.
development of the collapsed issue list, the Technical Committee identified
shortcomings in the suggested issue prioritization process. A more credible
method of identifying priority watershed issues would require additional time
and the hiring of a statistician to conduct a relative risk assessment. The
DOS does not provide the funds or the time frame for such analysis. Thus, the
Technical Committee will meet contractual obligations by tallying the issue
ranking lists provided by municipal representatives to identify “priority
issues” in the watershed, but will also continue to work towards the
development of a more credible analysis of watershed issues over time.
Septic Testing Resolution:
The proposed resolution to support residential
testing was discussed. Questions regarding the level of inspections,
compliance and enforcement, the timing of testing relative to location,
affordability, and the type of tests to be conducted were raised. S. Anderson
noted that the subject literature suggests dye testing produces unreliable
results. She would like more discussion and a better understanding of the
issue by the IO before voting. S. Hurlbut will provide more information at the
June IO meeting. L. Wagenet stated that in order to accurately test a septic
system it should be pumped first. She urged the IO to consider amending the
proposal to include pumping in addition to testing.
Draft bylaws were made available for review. IO members were asked to
prior to the June meeting when a final vote to accept will be made. The bylaws
are also available on the IO website
D. Morehouse reported that the Watershed Steward position has been
by Steve Lewindowsky. D. Zorn stated that Mr. Lewindowsky has a long history of
involvement in local water resource issues. He previously worked in the
Canandaigua watershed in a capacity similar to the role defined as Cayuga Lake
Watershed Stewart and was involved in the Seneca Lake Watershed Management
Plan. Mr. Lewindowski brings a wealth of experience in the education and
public participation aspects of the management planning process.
E/O/PP – S. Anderson reported that the IO website is up and functional
and the minutes from Agriculture Committee meetings are now being posted.
Date and Agenda for Next IO Meeting
The next IO meeting will be held at 7:00 P.M. on Wednesday 6/28/00 at the
Seneca Falls Town Hall. Refreshments will start at 6:30. J. Sipos will reserve
the meeting room. At the June meeting the IO will vote on bylaws; S. Hurlbut
will provide additional information on the proposed residential septic testing
resolution; Interim Project Recommendations will be submitted to the IO for
approval; and representatives will provide municipal issue sheets for tallying.
P. Morrell requested that IO meetings be permanently moved from the fourth Wed.
to the fourth Tues. of each month. S. Hurlbut noted that the IO will meet in
June but not July or August. She suggested that the issue of changing the
regular meeting day be taken up in the fall at which time the IO should
consider alternating meetings between Wed. and Tues. for the remainder of the
meeting adjourned at 9:04 PM.
to accept the 4/26/00 IO meeting minutes with corrections.
Return to index
Cayuga Lake Watershed
CLW IO 2000