7:00 – 9:00 P.M.
Ide (Town of Aurelius)-R*
Morehouse (Town of Ledyard)-R*
Hurlbut (Town of Ledyard)-R*
Howell (Town of Scipio)-R*
Sipos (Towns of Varick and Covert)-R*
Winch (Tompkins County)-R*
Anderson (Tompkins County)-R*
Cassaniti (Town of Caroline)-R*
Grantham (Town of Dryden)-R*
Johnson (Vil. of Freeville)-R*
Lozano (City of Ithaca)-R*
Leopold (Vil. of Lansing)-R*
Kennedy (Town of Ulysses)-R*
Lewandowski (Cayuga L. Watershed Steward)
Bertuch (CNY RPDB)
Wagenet (Cornell Center for the Environment)
The meeting began at 7:00 P.M. S. Hurlbut welcomed everyone. Introduction
sere made of all attendees. Invitations to a dinner meeting being sponsored by
Wells College on the evening of October 26 at Wells College will be mailed to
all individual board members and town supervisors of IO member municipalities.
Supervisors/Mayors of non-member municipalities will also be invited. IO
representatives were asked to e-mail to the Ledyard Town Hall the names of
people that would benefit from attending, but may have been left off of the
initial invitation list. It was noted that the invitation list for Seneca
County is in the development stages. J. Sipos was asked to look into the
availability of any existing Seneca County mailing lists. RSVPs should be
called to K. Bertuch at CNY RPDB
Bertuch stated that 21 of the 50 municipalities in the watershed have returned
issue prioritization ranking forms and distributed a list of municipalities
whose rankings are outstanding. Because local identification of priority
issues will drive development of implementation strategies recommended in the
final management plan, it is critical that all municipalities contribute to the
issue identification process. She thanked IO representatives who have already
completed work with their municipal boards and asked that representatives
bordering non-participating municipalities (no designated representative to the
IO) consider taking on the added responsibility of contacting those
municipalities for the purpose of working through the issue prioritization
ranking. J. Sipos will try to contact those outstanding in Seneca County and
S. Anderson offered to do the same in Tompkins County. L. Leopold noted that
she was able to reproduce the Village of Lansing’s original issue
rankings, thereby replacing the missing form.
representatives were asked for suggestions on how they would like the Technical
Committee to proceed with the issue identification/strategy development process
if additional municipal input is not forthcoming. There were no suggestions.
S. Hurlbut made a final call for volunteers to participate on the IO/Network
Joint Committee. Current members are: G. Kennedy, C. Howell, D. Morehouse, J.
Lozano, S. Hurlbut. L Wagenet will serve as an ad hoc member to the Joint
Committee. S. Anderson noted that it can be difficult for members who are
affiliated with both individual organizations to represent the interests of
either group on a joint committee. A letter containing the names of IO Joint
Committee members will be drafted and sent to J. Hawkes and arrangements will
be made for the group to begin work on developing a joint strategy as suggested
during the August IO/Network meeting.
asked members for comments on the IO/Network joint meeting summary that was
sent out with the IO meeting announcement and agenda. S. Lewandowski did not
receive the summary. K. Bertuch stated that it was sent to all names on the IO
mailing list and to J. Hawkes for distribution to Cayuga Lake Network members.
Bertuch read comments on the joint meeting summary submitted by D. Keifer who
was absent from the meeting. Following the reading of D. Keifer’s
comments, IO members discussed the best method for incorporating D.
Keifer’s comments as part of the public record. D. Winch made a motion
to attach the comments on the joint meeting summary to the September IO
meeting minutes but not changing the text of the joint meeting summary as
published. D. Grantham seconded. Motion carried.
of IO Member Contribution Funds:
S. Hurlbut reported that IO member contributions now total just over $18,000.
These funds are dedicated to helping to meet the third year local cash match
requirement. Following discussion, the IO voted to approve spending $200 for
12 months of web hosting services for the period May 2001 through may 2001
and $1,600 for producing the final watershed Characterization report on CD ROM
for distribution at the Wells College dinner meeting (500 CD ROMs). Prior to
approving the CD ROM production, a lengthy discussion of issues related to the
cost per hard copy of the Characterization ($110/copy due to color graphics)
and anticipated printing cost of the final management plan was had.
Lozano estimated that a hard copy, full edition printing of the final
management plan (IO reps., Technical committee members, all municipal buildings
and libraries in the watershed, all watershed Legislators, DEC and DOS) would
total approximately $30,000. He stated that distribution on CD ROM makes
better economic sense. D. Winch stated that each watershed municipality and
library should have at least one hard copy. D. Grantham agreed. S.
Lewandowski suggested that most people do not desire to see the full report and
suggested printing a summary document for hard copy distribution to municipal
buildings and libraries in addition to a full copy on CD ROM. D. Winch did not
support this suggestion. He will obtain a preliminary cost estimate for
printing an unspecified number of documents based on the assumption that the
final management plan will be 100 pages in length and contain 30 color
graphics. He suggests that the IO budget ahead for printing hard copies of the
final management plan in order to insure that all municipal buildings and
libraries have a hard copy of the full management plan.
IO agreed to reserve $5,000 to be used as needed for IO support and
administrative costs associated with additional IO meetings required to
complete the third year of the project, and a $2,000 reserve to be used at the
discretion of the IO for activities such as last year’s bus tour.
of the IO:
S. Hurlbut stated that IO bylaws set out eight additional committees to be
staffed. She requested that IO Representatives review the bylaws and be
prepared to sign up for committee service, and to indicate their willingness to
chair any committee during the November IO meeting. Chairs of the eight
committees will make up the Executive Committee. She wants to have full slate
of Executive Committee members ready for approval by vote at the January IO
meeting. It is important that the full structure of the IO be in place and
institutionalized by the completion of the final plan to insure the plan will
Winch asked if a resolution for the joining of forces between the IO and the
Network has been passed. S. Hurlbut stated that it has. J. Lozano stated that
the Network has nominated members to the Joint Committee. S. Hurlbut
suggested that the IO bylaws may have to be amended to include the IO/Network
Hurlbut suggested keeping the membership fee at the current $900 level until
the plan is implemented. G. Kennedy stated that it might take decades to fully
execute the plan and questioned whether municipalities would be willing to make
that type of commitment. S. Hurlbut replied that if municipalities want to
have input, they have to pay. She also stated that the IO needs to be a self
sufficient organization, one that is not always looking for a handout. L.
Leopold suggested that it will be easier to get municipal support when
municipalities have a better understanding of what their role in implementation
Sipos stated that some municipalities in Seneca County have questioned the
benefits of belonging to the IO. These municipalities can not attest to the
importance of IO’s role as grant endorser as they have received grants
without the endorsement of the IO. He would like to have something in writing
that clearly states that municipalities must seek endorsement of the IO before
receiving state or federal funding. D. Morehouse agreed. He would like to see
a flowchart from some upper authority that shows how grant applications should
flow. This would give credence to the IO. He noted that if NYS makes its
intent clear to municipalities and not just the IO, municipalities will put
more stock in the IO and have a reason to budget for it.
Lewandowski suggested the IO consider developing a method to pro-rate the
membership fee. He suggested it might be based on the benefits each
municipality receives from the lake (i.e., water source, tax base, etc.)
Municipalities that benefit from the lake more than others should pay more. He
acknowledged that development of such a model is a difficult thing to do.
Grantham suggested providing copies of RFPs listing multi-jurisdictional
support as a criteria for consideration. S. Lewandowski suggested that members
of the Network who favor protection of Cayuga Lake be contacted and asked to
request municipal support of the IO from their elected officials.
Grantham suggested that S. Eidt of NYS DEC be asked to address this issue at
municipal board meetings. She then moved that the IO should contact the
Network with a request that they identify members from Covert and Varick and
ask them to approach their municipal officials and urge them to participate in
the IO. C. Howell seconded. All in favor. Motion carried.
S. Anderson suggested that S. Treadwell be asked to touch on this subject
during his speech at Wells college. S. Hurlbut tabled further discussion of
the $900 membership fee until the Oct. meeting.
Meeting Dates and Times:
Following a brief discussion, it was agreed that the IO would meet on the
fourth Wednesday of the month beginning in November. This is a change from the
traditional third Wednesday of the month. The October meeting will be held on
Wed. October 18th as the Wells college meeting will be held the following week
on Thursday 10/26. It was noted that the fourth Wed. in November is the day
before Thanksgiving and that the 4th Wed. in December is 2 days after
Christmas. The issue of re-scheduling these two meetings will be taken up at
the October meeting.
Bertuch distributed a revised timeline for completion of the final management
plan. The revised schedule runs through June of 2001 and calls for continued
monthly meetings of the IO. It was noted that the Technical Committee will
continue to prioritize issues and develop strategies through December 2000. IO
members are asked to participate in the development process and to offer
comments as strategies are released. These tasks are very important and will
require additional time commitments. IO members were asked if they would be
willing to attend additional meetings or extend the length of regular meetings
during the strategy development phase of the project. S. Hurlbut noted that
IO Representatives and other key players will be required to provide their
input and comments on recommended strategies prior to the public comment
periods in January and March. This change has been implemented in response to
lessons learned during the development of the Characterization when
significant, last minute comments were received from key stakeholders.
Responding to these comments delayed the publication of the Characterization.
The DOS contract does not allow for such delays with regards to the release of
the final plan. Only comments from the general public will be accepted
after the draft plan is released. IO Representatives and other key
stakeholders will have the three-month period from October through December to
comment and provide input. IO members are urged to attend Technical Committee
meetings where the bulk of the strategy development work will take place.
Technical Committee meetings provide the greatest opportunity for contributing
to the process. A schedule of Technical Committee meetings will be distributed
to IO members when it becomes available.
Lewandowski questioned how realistic the DOS timeline for completion is. S.
Hurlbut stated that it is not debatable. She acknowledged that the resulting
management plan will be more of a baseline of strategies and that it will
continue to grow and evolve. J. Lozano concurred stating that at the end of
the DOS contract the management plan will be imperfect, but it will be a fair
approximation of what will ultimately develop.
Wagenet asked S. Lewandowski to suggest an alternative approach to developing
the management plan given the non-negotiable contract with DOS. He replied
that given the limited time and resources available, a group of municipalities
should be asked to prioritize local issues that they have the ability to
regulate (erosion control, septic systems and roads). The management plan
should not be required to focus on all types and all sources of pollution. L.
Wagenet stated that simply because a pollution source is listed in the
Characterization, it does not mean that municipalities will be asked to address
it. S. Anderson stated that the Wells meeting will focus on getting municipal
input on the 3 core items mentioned above as there is recognition that these
are the areas best addressed at the local level.
S. Anderson described the contents of the planned handout packet for Wells
College. She noted a request made by the Network to distribute their
“Issue Statement” at the meeting and relayed concerns from D. Zorn
that this might cause confusion if the issues are different from those the IO
Zorn will be make a 10 minute presentation at the Wells meeting. It is
possible that this presentation will be taped and used to spawn the development
of a slide presentation that S. Hurlbut, S. Anderson, as well as any
interested IO representatives, might use to help educate municipal boards.
first set of Public Participation meetings will be held in mid-January, 2001.
These will be designed to solicit public comment on the issues and reactions to
the suggested strategies. The second set of 3 meetings will be held in April.
These meetings will solicit public input on the draft plan.
next E/O/PP meeting will be held in early October.
Lozano requested that D. Zorn present the full presentation planned for Wells
College to the IO at the October IO meeting. This should include any power
point presentation that will accompany his speech. This will allow the IO to
review the issues, critique the visuals and approve presentation prior to
making it public. S. Hurlbut approved the request. D. Winch suggested that if
there are any concerns regarding the planned presentation they should be
brought to D. Zorn’s attention now and not left until the Oct. 18th IO
and Finance Committee:
J. Lozano stated that there is a need to change funding strategies. He asked
the IO to endorse an initiative involving a Finger Lakes-Lake Ontario Watershed
Protection Alliance (FL-LOWPA) request to county board of representatives for
funding to implement county water quality strategies. S. Hurlbut requested
that the initiative be put in writing and distributed for discussion at the
Oct. IO meeting.
Lozano stated that the Bond Act application deadline is October 31. Because
monitoring projects will not be funded, an original Bond Act proposal has been
broken into 2 separate proposals: 1). Education Program (Watershed Assistance
Grant proposal) and 2). Stream Restoration. The stream restoration proposal
will be based on data generated through the roadbank/strembank inventory. J.
Lozano has requested meta data and GIS data files from G/FLRPC, but has not
yet received them. Analysis of this data must be completed in order to meet
the November 15 grant deadline.
A report from the Technical Committee was sent, however, due to the lateness
of the hour, S. Hurlbut instructed that it not be read at the meeting, but be
included in a separate mailing.
Grantham noted that she would like to attend upcoming Technical Committee
meetings, but it is difficult for her to attend meetings held during normal
work hours and would find it easier to attend week end meetings or late day
Winch stated that he would like to volunteer to serve on the Agriculture
Committee but needs more information. S. Hurlbut will ask C. Schutt to contact
him and to add his name to the Ag. Committee’s mailing list.
Lozano stated that in order to produce the CD ROM for distribution at Wells, he
will need access to all the linked files contained in the final
Characterization. K. Bertuch will contact D. Zorn with the request.
Sipos requested a list of municipalities who have paid $900 to the IO along
with the date they made their payment prior to the next IO. S. Hurlbut can
provide the list of paying members and will try to identify when payment was
Lewandowski volunteered new meeting space for future IO meetings. The new
space is located in the Village of Interlaken/Town of Covert. S. Hurlbut
thanked him for the offer and stated the new location will be included in the
normal IO meeting rotation schedule.
Winch moved that the minutes from the June 28 IO meeting be accepted. J.
Lozano seconded. All in favor. Motion Carried
adjourned at 9:45 P.M.
JOINT MEETING SUMMARY
BY D. KEIFER
1. Sixth line from the top - insert new sentence:
AGREED TO GROUND RULES FOR THE MEETING SUGGESTED BY THE FACILITATOR.”
1. Third bullet, first sentence – insert the word “TO”
between the words “related” and “credit.”
1. Fourth bullet, second sentence – insert “AND ORGANIZATIONAL
MEMBERS” at the end of the sentence
1. First bullet, first sentence – replace “THE OPERATIONAL PROCESS
REQUIRED BY DOS CAN NOT ALWAYS BE MET BY A VOLUNTEER ORGANIZATION” with
“THE IO IS A FORMAL GROUP BASED ON MOUs AND RESOLUTIONS, AND THE NETWORK
IS A FLEDGLING, NONPROFIT CITIZEN GROUP. THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES ARE
2. First bullet, sixth sentence – insert “AND DECISION MAKING
PROCEDURES” after “MEETING STRUCTURES”
2. Second bullet, last sentence – remove the word “AND”
after timeframes and insert “AND LEVELS OF RESPONSIBILITY COMMITMENT AND
EXPERIENCE at the end of the sentence.
2. Fourth bullet – insert new last sentence “THE NETWORK CANNOT BE
EXPECTED TO ACT AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS THE IO ON ALL MATTERS.”
2. Sixth paragraph – insert “IF THE NON-PUBLISHING ORGANIZATION OR
ITS WORK IS MENTIONED.” at the end of the last sentence.
2. Insert new paragraph before last existing paragraph “IT WAS SUGGESTED
THAT A CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE IO AND THE NETWORK WOULD BE
APPROPRIATE IF, E.G., THE IO WANTS TO USE THE NETWORK TO ACCOMPLISH SOME
NECESSARY EDUCATIONAL OUTREACH. IT WAS NOTED THAT WRITTEN PROTOCOLS RATHER
THAN ORAL UNDERSTANDINGS BE DEVELOPED. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE ROLE OF THE
NETWORK’S NEW 5-YEAR, GRANT FUNDED WATERSHED STEWARD POSITION, VIS-A-VIS
THE IO, MUST BE CLARIFIED.”
BY D. ZORN
is finalized. hardcopies are limited (unless there is a funding source). It
will be available in .pdf format on the web. Black and white copies do not
Executive Summary will be updated based on the revised characterization.
Copies of the Executive Summary will be available and a .pdf version will be
put on the web site.
received during the REGULAR comment period will be published with the
responses. That will be put into .pdf format for the web as well.
INVENTORY: Field work was completed in the beginning of August. Data entry is
complete. GIS data development is complete. A digital photo of each site has
been developed. A summary of the project including methodology, analysis, and
maps are available in the final Characterizations.
counties have been sent the data to include in proposals and upcoming design
and implementation work.
ALL roads in the watershed were inventoried
1,950 sites were identified. Approximately 1,225 were identified as having
moderate, severe or very severe erosion ( in some cases destabilized, in most
cases adding to the sedimentation rates in the tributaries and ultimately the
1,100 sites were inventoried, which is an average of 8 streams per tributary
(there are 140 tributaries [streams] in the watershed). Based on the
methodology which has a relative ranking system, 10 of the 46 minor
subwatersheds have appreciable streambank erosion, 11 (mostly larger) of the 46
minor subwatersheds are in the low end of the severe range, and 1 (the Cayuga
Inlet subwatershed) is in the very severe range. Keeping in mind that one of
the major water quality issues in Cayuga Lake is sediment load this accounts
for a good portion of it, some of which is natural, much of which is not.
Additionally, many other severe problems exist along these streams including
loss of land, unpermitted discharging into streams, exposure of septic systems
and leach fields, mowing and devegetating up to streams, and dumping in streams
Return to index
To contact the
Cayuga Lake Watershed
CLW IO 2002