INTERMUNICIPAL ORGANIZATION MEETING

9/20/00, 7:00 – 9:00 P.M.

Ledyard Town Hall

Aurora, New York

1. Welcome and Introductions: 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 .

2. Issue Prioritization: K. 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.

IO 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.

3. IO/Network Joint Committee: 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.

S. Hurlbut 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.

K. 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.

4. Use 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.

J. 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.

The 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.

5. Future 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 be implemented.

D. 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 Joint committee.

S. 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 will be.

J. 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.

S. 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.

D. 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.

D. 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.

6. IO 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.

K. 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.

S. 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.

L. 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.

Education/Outreach/Public Participation: 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 identifies.

D. 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.

The 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.

The next E/O/PP meeting will be held in early October.

J. 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 meeting.

Grant 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.

J. 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.

Technical Committee: 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.

D. 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 meetings.

D. 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.

J. 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.

J. 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 received.

S. 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.

D. Winch moved that the minutes from the June 28 IO meeting be accepted. J. Lozano seconded. All in favor. Motion Carried

Meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M.

COMMENTS ON THE

CAYUGA LAKE WATERSHED

IO/NETWORK JOINT MEETING SUMMARY

SUBMITTED BY D. KEIFER

Page 1. Sixth line from the top - insert new sentence:

“ATTENDEES AGREED TO GROUND RULES FOR THE MEETING SUGGESTED BY THE FACILITATOR.”

Page 1. Third bullet, first sentence – insert the word “TO” between the words “related” and “credit.”

Page 1. Fourth bullet, second sentence – insert “AND ORGANIZATIONAL MEMBERS” at the end of the sentence

Page 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 DIFFERENT.

Page 2. First bullet, sixth sentence – insert “AND DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES” after “MEETING STRUCTURES”

Page 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.

Page 2. Fourth bullet – insert new last sentence “THE NETWORK CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO ACT AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS THE IO ON ALL MATTERS.”

Page 2. Sixth paragraph – insert “IF THE NON-PUBLISHING ORGANIZATION OR ITS WORK IS MENTIONED.” at the end of the last sentence.

Page 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.”

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE REPORT

SUBMITTED BY D. ZORN

Characterization 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 work.

The 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.

Comments received during the REGULAR comment period will be published with the responses. That will be put into .pdf format for the web as well.

ROADBANK/STREAMBANK 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.

Three counties have been sent the data to include in proposals and upcoming design and implementation work.

Final Numbers:

Roadbank: ALL roads in the watershed were inventoried

Approximately 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 lake).

Streambank: 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