– IO/Network Joint Committee
June 5, 2001 by Linda Wagenet)
David Zorn, Jose Lozano, Linda Wagenet, Sylvia Hurlbut, Deb Grantham, Sharon
of sedimentation being the main issue in the watershed but what is the project
that goes along with that? We need to have it and the process transparent.
EPF and EBA the projects really need to be scattered around the watershed; can
include education and regulation. If each municipality had stormwater regs it
would solve a lot of the problem; just buying equipment doesn’t work.
Regulations stating implementation BMPs solves a lot of it –
stormwater/erosion control BMPs
need buy-in from the parts of the watershed that have not bought in as yet.
Should we be targeting such groups as highway superintendents? One idea: buy
a hydroseeder or a vacuum sweeper – if the superintendents attend a
workshop, they get to use the equipment. However, how do we choose the
roadbanks? What area needs the most work? Sixmile, Inleet, King Ferry are the
highest in terms of very severe status (sediment loss). In terms of roadbanks
– King Ferry and Fall (Cortland County) – the East side of the lake
is not as flat as the West side therefore less sediment and erosion.
what to do in other parts of the watershed?
– King and Fall (Cayuga and Cortland counties)
– Inlet and Sixmile
do 4 demonstration sites and 3 different mechanisms
is a good year to ask for money. Estimate $7-9/linear foot of streambank for
restoration; for roadbanks – education, training, hydroseeding
is about $9000
is about $100,000
get heavy equipment from the EBA; demonstration of bank stabilization;
terms of workshops – if we cannot get Don Lake, Dan Campbell is another
possibility; Should we think about just doing a hydroseeder and workshops?
Municipal decision-makers need to hear what the problems are.
frame: grant cycle for state/fed pass through – due in August (DEC and
DOH know deadlines for sure) The rationale is in the Characterization and the
title: “Stormwater Management and Erosion Control in the Cayuga Lake
well with ag priorities; no need to use nonag money for ag stuff because there
is enough money set aside for ag; CAFO has made nutrients a point source
discharge therefore has become a SPDES or on a federal level NPDES...this
allows us to set real measures. For example, if it looks like Sheldrake can be
funded by Ag 319 then whey not? BUT, we would have to work with SWCD and NRCS
since they have somewhat of a claim on Ag 319. Nothing is funded 100% and no
farmer would go into it with less than 80% funding.
at projects throughout the watershed; we’ve identified major areas that
need to be addressed; there are thresholds that don’t make it feasible,
however. For example, if there is no farm in Sheldrake with more than 500
cows, then it’s not worth it.
future endorsements – focus is stormwater management and erosion control;
send out notices; must be based on RPP and comes from the IO. Question needs
to be asked – “Is it in the RPP?” That should be the main
Return to index
To contact the
Cayuga Lake Watershed
CLW IO 2002