Minutes – IO/Network Joint Committee
April 23, 2001
(submitted June 5, 2001 by Linda Wagenet)

Present: David Zorn, Jose Lozano, Linda Wagenet, Sylvia Hurlbut, Deb Grantham, Sharon Anderson

Discussion 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.

Under 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

We 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.

So, what to do in other parts of the watershed?
Agriculture – Sheldrake
Sedimentation – King and Fall (Cayuga and Cortland counties)
Streams – Inlet and Sixmile
Could do 4 demonstration sites and 3 different mechanisms

This is a good year to ask for money. Estimate $7-9/linear foot of streambank for restoration; for roadbanks – education, training, hydroseeding
Hydroseeder is about $9000
Sweeper is about $100,000

Can get heavy equipment from the EBA; demonstration of bank stabilization; regarding, riprap

In 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.

Time 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 RPP.

Possible title: “Stormwater Management and Erosion Control in the Cayuga Lake Watershed”
Fits 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.

Look 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.

For 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 criterion.

Return to index

To contact the Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal Organization.

or email info@cayugawatershed.org

CLW IO 2002