7:00 – 9:00 P.M.
FALLS TOWN HALL
FALLS, NEW YORK
Ide (Town of Aurelius)-R *
Howell (Town of Scipio)-R*
Shockey (Vill. Of Union Springs)-R*
Sipos (Towns of Covert and Varick)-R*
Stewart (Vill. Of Interlaken)-R*
Warrick (Town of Seneca Falls)-R*
Anderson (Tompkins County)-R*
Hackett (Tompkins County Planning)
Cassiniti (Town of Caroline)-R
Kiefer (Village of Cayuga Heights)-R*
Johnson (Village of Freeville)-R*
Greeley (Town of Lansing)-R*
Shadduck (Town of Lansing) –RA*
Moore (Village of Lansing)-RA
Mangan, Lansing Community News
Lozano, (City of Ithaca)-R*
Cail (Town of Ulysses)-R*
Wagenet, Cornell Center for the Environment
Bertuch, CNY RPDB
Hurlbut (Town of Ledyard)RA*
representative for municipality
alternate representative for municipality
has signed and submitted the “Call for Cooperation” (intermunicipal
Welcome, Introductions, Approval of Minutes:
began at 7:05 P.M. S. Hurlbut welcomed everyone. Introductions were made of
all attendees. Acceptance of minutes from 5/23/00 meeting moved by J. Sipos.
J. Lozano seconded. D. Keifer suggested corrections. All in favor. Motion
S. Hurlbut introduced Stephen Lewandowski. He briefly outlined his past
experiences in watershed management and local government and noted that the
Cayuga Lake and Seneca Lake watersheds share a complexity of issues. He
referred to the Canandaigua Lake Plan notinig that some of the actions taken in
the development of that plan might be undertaken in the Cayuga Lake watershed.
Specifically, he cited the development of a formula for sharing the cost of
watershed management equitably between watershed municipalities. Formula
development was difficult and took three years.
reviewing his stated job duties, S. Lewandowski observed that Cayuga Lake is
the most studied of the Finger Lakes. He sees a need for comprehensive
education in all areas of the watershed and hopes to see more cooperation and
openness throughout. He has been spending time in remote areas of the
watershed in an attempt to bring them more into the process. He has also been
looking for a permanent office location.
S. Hurlbut stated that a septic testing resolution must be enacted at the
county level as County Health Departments have complete administrative
responsibility. Cayuga County has enacted a septic testing regulation. D.
Bowen has expressed a willingness to meet with other watershed County Health
Department representatives by September 1, 2000 to exchange ideas and talk
about the benefits and negatives associated with countywide septic testing
Keifer expected additional information on the testing procedure. She sees this
as an issue the IO should be involved in. She noted that counties must have a
reason for not enacting septic testing regulations. S. Hurlbut stated that
septic testing is a “hot” issue. She asked that any IO members
interested in offering direction to D. Bowen regarding his upcoming meeting
with Health Department representatives come forward. She noted one of the main
problems associated with septic testing is not the test, but the lack of a
standardized fee schedule for the test. Fees can range from $35 to $95. L.
Wagenet stated that if the high-end fee does not include pumping, it is steep.
She added that from a water protection point of view, pumping is a needed
component of the regulation.
Anderson stated that D. Allee has researched the actions various communities
have taken regarding septic testing and offered to contact him or L. Raymond
for additional information. E. Shockey asked about enforcement actions and the
degree of “grandfathering” in the case of a failed septic. S.
Hurlbut explained what actions Cayuga County would take in the case of a failed
septic. S. Lewandowski offered to work with S. Anderson to identify standards
for septic testing.
Sipos stated he prefers increased education to increased regulation and would
like to see the IO explore educational opportunities in addition to regulatory
requirements. S. Hurlbut agreed.
Representatives were asked to return their Priority Issue Ranking sheets if
they had not already done so. B. Johnson asked why “Indian land
claims” was listed as an issue on the priority issue list. D. Zorn
replied that as an issue, it ranked high at the public participation meetings.
Additional discussion was had regarding the weight of watershed regulations on
Indian land. D. Keifer stated that there are no Indian nations in the
watershed. D. Zorn stated that the Technical Committee had earlier requested
the Cayuga Nation appoint a representative to the Technical Committee. They
have not done so. The offer remains open.
Joint Strategy Meeting:
J. Lozano stated that the “watershed approach” is a new way to fund
environmental projects through federal agencies. It requires a
multi-jurisdictional, public/private effort. He feels the key element missing
under the Cayuga Lake watershed project is a common goal to implement the
management plan. He asked that the IO endorse the development of a unified
strategy, including the development of common goals, objectives and priorities,
between academia, the Network and the IO which will allow the three groups to
work together to increase funding. He suggested that the IO Finance Committee
be empowered to work in this capacity on behalf of the IO.
Johnson stated that the interim project rankings was an obvious way to increase
funding opportunities. J. Lozano replied that an independent, scientifically
defensible method for ranking and endorsing specific projects is required to
access large, federal funding opportunities. B. Johnson questioned why the
rankings were completed. S. Hurlbut explained the DOS requirement for
preparing interim project recommendations. S. Lewandowski suggested that while
it is important to prioritize issues locally, there are funds available from
established sources that should be applied for now.
Keifer questioned the appropriateness of the Finance Committee to accomplish
joint goal setting activities. E. Ide replied that if common goals will
ultimately be used to get funding, the Finance Committee is an appropriate
choice. E. Shockey suggested forming an ad hoc committee to fill the suggested
negotiating group role. K. Cail stated setting goals and strategy will require
a multi-year commitment and should not be taken lightly.
Sipos does not feel that the Finance Committee is the proper group to fill the
role. He wants to know about the ramifications and DOS input relative to what
the original DOS grant directs the IO to do. He asked if the IO would continue
to pursue original goals. S. Hurlbut replied that the original DOS grant would
continue to be used as specified and agreed to. Any additional federal funding
resulting from the cooperative actions of the IO, Network and academia would be
used for the implementation phase which is not funded by DOS. J. Sipos feels
the priority of this union is funding, not the Lake. S. Hurlbut stated that
funding is needed to protect the Lake.
Grantham stated that the IO was formed as a matter of convenience because DOS
does not fund projects through groups like the Network. Many opportunities for
citizen involvement will be lost if If the IO is the only focus. The three
group coalition will benefit watershed resources and provide more funding
Greeley supports the coalition. E. Ide stated that the management plan is a
good idea, but left unfunded, will not accomplish anything. He stated that a
coalition will maximize everyone’s strengths and increase funding
opportunities. D. Keifer stated that the need to formalize a relationship
between the IO and the Network was recognized at the May IO meeting. She feels
that the Network is suitable to act as the public participation arm of the IO
and that a contractual arrangement might be worthy of consideration. K.
Bertuch stated that a contractual agreement for third-year public participation
activities has been developed. DOS has approved the workscope and budget and
it is not possible to contract with the Network for public participation
point was raised that the IO and the Network are formal groups, but scientists
are not. This makes it impossible for the three “groups” to sign
onto anything. J. Lozano replied that individuals from many different
scientific disciplines within Cornell have organized themselves and worked with
government to form a partnership. L. Wagenet stated that while there is no
single named group, there is a group of scientists from several academic
institutions willing to work with municipalities and citizens who will
endorse, or sign on to work with various projects.
Lewandowski stated Cayuga Lake is the most studied of all the Finger Lakes and
that there are many practical, specific actions that can be taken without
further studies. He suggested that in terms of funding, the IO should ask what
group does the funding come to and does that group know how to put practices on
the ground? He suggested that the IO not become bogged down in the theory of
watershed management, but focus on getting protection practices in place.
Johnson stated that more than broad, general studies for the purpose of
identifying problems are being conducted. Actual research is being conducted.
J. Lozano agreed stating that implementation and follow up activities, not
theory based studies, are currently being carried out in the watershed. S.
Lewandowski countered that agencies such as SWCD, County DOH, and CCE are in
place and ready to deliver existing programs. J. Lozano replied that these
agencies have been employed and are currently being employed, however, there is
a need to increase communication and develop expanded relationships with other
groups in order to expand watershed protection.
Thorndike stated that the IO and the Network developed simultaneously and are
dependent upon each other. The IO is needed to develop the Management Plan.
The Network is needed for citizen support. Both need scientific input. The
three groups should move together to get funding and work cooperatively. The
point was raised that unbiased, unregulated scientific studies are very
important to the lake/watershed. S. Hurlbut stated that the Characterization
showed major areas where scientific data are missing.
Ide made a motion to forge a joint relationship with the Network for the
purpose of pursuing common goals and to officially make the Network the citizen
outreach leg of the IO. S. Anderson suggested that the motion be separated.
She supports forging a relationship with the Network to pursue common goals.
It was suggested that the word “relationship” is too soft as an
agreement between the two groups that includes ground rules is needed. S.
Lewandowski stated it would be a financial relationship as education is costly.
While labor can replace some cost, dollars will be spent.
Ide amended his motion to form an IO Committee that will work jointly with the
Network to establish and pursue joint goals. J. Lozano seconded J. White
suggested it be a joint committee between the IO and the Network.
Ide amended his motion. He moved that the IO support the formation of a joint
committee made up of IO members and Network members for the purpose of working
to develop common goals. J. Lozano seconded. All in favor. Motion carried.
Zorn stated that the DOS requires the development of water quality project
lists at the end of contractual years. He outlined the process and criteria
used during this round of project rankings. Eleven projects were submitted to
the Technical Committee. IO members had an opportunity to ask questions
regarding the listed projects. K. Cail stated that IO members already had
ample time to learn about the individual projects and moved to accept the
ranked list as it. C. Howell seconded. D. Keifer requested that the record
show that while it is acceptable to state a project’s general rank (i.e.
ranked in the top 3), providing the project’s actual rank can be
misleading. She supports not including specific project ranks in endorsement
letters, or else providing the rank with qualifications. D. Grantham moved to
accept the Technical Committee’s project rankings, and to provide as part
of each endorsement letter, the project’s actual rank out of 11, the
entire list of rankings with quantitative sum, average deviations and funding
source the project was ranked for. C. Howell seconded. All in favor. Motion
S. Hurlbut moved to accept the draft bylaws presented at the May IO meeting
with the following amendment: the timeframe for Village and Town budgets be
changed to reflect a more realistic date as budget cycles are different for the
two entities. D. Keifer stated the bylaws should read “dues due two
months after individual municipality adopts its budget.” D. Grantham
seconded. All in favor. Motion carried.
D. Zorn reported that DOS has funded a streambank/roadbank inventory. The
project, being conducted in cooperation with county SWCDs, began in April. A
slide show of watershed inventory activity was presented. A summary of the
methodology being used is posted on the web page. Information being generated
will have many positive uses.
S. Anderson provided copies of a grant funded, erosion book targeted toward
homeowners and landowners. No-cost copies are available for distribution
through Tompkins County CCE. She also solicited IO members to staff a booth at
the Network’s Lakefest (8/27/00). Interested members should contact S.
Anderson or S. Hurlbut. Feedback on the web page was solicited on behalf of J.
Codner, the Cayugawaterhsed.org web master. The next round of public
participation meetings will begin in October with a dinner sponsored by Wells
College. The second set of meetings will take place in March 2001. S. Hurlbut
announced that the October Wells College dinner would be by invitation on
10/26. The guest list is currently being developed but will include board
members form all municipalities that have signed the call for cooperation, and
supervisors from non-signatory towns. Sandy Treadwell, Secretary of State, NYS
has agreed to speak. In addition, a keynote speaker will also be solicited.
S. Hurlbut stated that she expects an additional $2,200 in municipal cash
contributions this month. She will send out letters asking municipalities that
have not yet contributed to indicate when their contribution will be made.
Members of the Finance Committee were asked to meet briefly at the close of the
for Next IO:
The IO will next meet on September 20 at the Ledyard Town Hall.
S. Hurlbut directed those having concerns specifically related to the watershed
to contact S. Lewandowski. R. Johnson
how the joint IO/Network Committee would be manned. S. Hurlbut stated that no
action to man the Committee will be taken until the Network passes a resolution
to support a joint committee. Those IO members who are interested in serving
on the committee were instructed to contact S. Hurlbut or K. Bertuch. D.
Kiefer asked when the final Watershed Characterization would be completed. D.
Zorn stated that some of the sections are complete now and that the final
report will be out before October.
Minutes of 5/23/00 with corrections.
form a joint committee with the Network for the purpose of developing common
accept ranked Interim Recommendations List and endorsement letter requirements
accept IO Bylaws as amended
Return to index
To contact the
Cayuga Lake Watershed
CLW IO 2002