Present: Carl Stuendel, Bruce Dolph, Cathy Magarelli, Mike McCrary, Linda Burkhardt, Bill Layton, Ric Coombe and counsel Jeff Baker.
 

Others attending: Marge Miller, Aaron Bennett, Karen Rauter, Rick Weidenback, Frazier

1. Call to order: 6:20 PM

2. Minutes – Nov 17, 2014 – Moved to accept Bruce Dolph; second by Linda Burkhardt; passed unanimously.

3. Privilege of the Floor – none taken.

4. Presentation by Karen Rauter (Sullivan County SWCD) on the Rondout Neversink Stream Program gave a presentation on the LFA in the Towns of Denning, Claryville and Neversink. Sent RFP to 15 to 20 engineering firms. Received 4 bids. Originally came in at $62,000, but in the interim the study area was expanded; total now is at $82,000. They are proceeding similarly to Delaware County SWCD. They developed committees in each town to help drive the program. In a side note Karen announced the DEP is hiring a LFA coordinator to assist the stream programs. Buyouts in Sullivan County are not yet settled. She does not see a high probability of buyouts and relocations as most terrain is in the headwaters. Study areas are from bridge to bridge; they are trying to identify those areas that can reconnect floodplains. Area was a tanning area with a large number of sawmills. The stream management program is integrated into the program. They have about 40 sites from the stream program that will be reviewed in the process to see if that program can help offset some costs of the flood mitigation effort.   Funding should be in place by February, but do not expect that any of the projects to be completed in 2015, unless some identified in an LFA become eligible through the stream program administered by the Sullivan County SWCD.

5. Bottling Plant Issue: Request for CWT Support – Cathy reported that Niagara was denied the $10.8 million they were seeking for the project and it is not clear if the project is moving forward, so at this time there is no point in discussing this further by the CWT. Additionally the Town of Ulster has assumed lead agency under SEQRA and has issued a positive declaration so the Town of Woodstock’s concerns may be addressed in the EIS. There was considerable discussion about what the role of CWT should or should not have been regarding this issue. Ric Coombe and Jeff Baker were of the mindset that based upon the information available at this point this project really did not fit the mission of the CWT. Jeff Baker reiterated that the mission of the CWT is to help communities regarding regulatory issues involving the State, Feds and DEP. Cathy informed the group that Woodstock’s issue was not that of a plus or minus of Niagara, but one of protecting the water supplies of residents in Woodstock.

6. Carl raised the potential for a conflict of interest by the Town of Woodstock to hire Jeff Baker to represent them related to the Niagara project.  A little context may help here.  Jeff was approached and hired by the Town of Woodstock after the last CWT meeting to advise them on the Niagara project. At the time of consideration by the Woodstock Town Board, Jeff advised them that he did not think that the Niagara proposal fit within the CWT’s jurisdiction.  Jeff apologized for not informing Carl about being hired before Carl learned about it in a phone conversation with David Warne.  After substantive discussion the main concern is to be sure that a conflict of interest does not arise and the best way to avoid it is make sure that everyone is aware of circumstances like this that arise.  Members felt concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest are best served by a policy of complete openness.  “Good disclosure is paramount” (Ric).  Jeff agreed, so going forward every effort will be made to make communications clear to all parties.

7. Updates:
a. Status of Flood Mitigation Program:
i. Water Supply Permit Change – Nothing new to report. It appears the language issue is not fully resolved at the State.

ii. Reg. Relief position paper – Carl reported that Kevin is making progress and is working with Jeff to finish the paper. One component of regulatory relief includes a long term strategy of legislative reform, but the main focus of the paper is on speeding up the permitting process so as to enable a quicker and smoother transition for applicants. Establishing sets of shovel ready projects would be one way this could be achieved. Carl indicated that Kevin agreed to attend the January meeting to discuss the paper. He said that Kevin is trying to develop a toolbox for communities to use that will provide the steps and sequence a community would follow for potential relocation efforts.

iii. Inundation and DEP’s new FBO Selection Criteria document — Jeff summarized and pointed out that it all hinges on local involvement. Generally, there did not appear to be any serious concerns. There is not a deadline for comments to be submitted. Michelle voiced her concerns regarding the amount of time it is taking to get this settled. Apparently, she has a 90 year old resident whose home is about to fall into a stream and the COE has had to recommend it be condemned. How does she deal with that? The general sense of the discussion related to that issue, was that she should move forward with the project because it wouldn’t need a full blown LFA, if any significant analysis.
  
Another point discussed was from page 3, Erosion Hazard. It was felt more clarity may be needed that the inquiry would be taken to the affected municipality by the Outreach Lead or other parties. The City or any other entity who is contacted would direct people to the Outreach Lead who in turn would bring the inquiry to the respective municipality.

Discussion from the above comments evolved to the subject of clarity on how the program would work with regard to where towns would turn to for resources. Tim Cox gave a presentation explaining the CWC’s programs in the Flood Mitigation efforts at the Project Advisory Committee held at the Walton SWCD offices on December 11^th.   Frazier asked Tim for his opinion regarding where the boundaries begin and end between the programs managed by the Districts/CCE Ulster and CWC in terms of services provided and funding. Tim’s response, in Frazier’s opinion, when considering education and outreach efforts by all involved flood mitigation projects would not be consistent. Frazier expressed during the CWT meeting that it doesn’t appear that the CWT, Stream Corridor Management Programs and CWC are all on the same wavelength. Frazier feels that while this program is new and iterative, communities need consistent explanations from the City, Stream Programs and CWC programs to minimize confusion. The September 20, 2012 Agreement in Principle adequately outlines some of those boundaries, but a couple of portions are still unclear. This is to be expected for a variety of reasons.

Rick Weidenbach, offered that the LFA process will help sort it out. Rick suggested that everyone should be at the table when projects are discussed so that communities can better understand which source of money or monies best suit the needs of their projects. Ric Coombe expressed concern that all watershed parties should be on the same wavelength and that the boards of the CWC and CWT need to discuss any confusions. All agreed with Ric and Rick. While Frazier agrees with both Ric and Rick, Frazier’s point is simply that during education and outreach early on, every effort should be made to make sure the message is consistent regardless of the source. Bruce felt that Tim’s response on 12/11 left him with the opinion that a community could go to either the Stream Programs or the CWC to get the same services and products. That is not how he understands it. He felt that Tim’s opinion made it sound like it was competitive, which was not the intent of the Sept 20, 2012 document nor does that document lead one to conclude that. The funding sources and products should be complementary.

Jeff Baker indicated that if what Tim was trying to express is the CWC’s understanding, then he would argue that his view is incorrect. The Sept 20, 2012 document tried to delineate these, but unfortunately left some of the points a bit unclear.

Aaron reported that the CWC is putting together a position paper expressing their interpretation of how the flood program is intended to work.

In the meantime a discussion about this should take place between CWT and CWC boards to assure both are moving in the same direction. Apparently, Frazier was asked to develop a draft position for consideration by the CWT based on the discussion above.

b. Kurt Ossenfort Proposal – Jeff Baker – no comment back from Ossenfort on the contract.

c. Below Dams Activities
i. Delaware – The UDRTC is formalizing. Going to PA DEP tomorrow to discuss to engage them in the projects and processes. Laura Bomyea is meeting with the UDRTC very soon to formalize the inter-municipal agreement.

ii. Esopus – Aaron- One item is to do a stream management plan for the Lower Esopus.   Hogill Farm in the Town of Hurley is doing a major riparian restoration. Very large organic farm. Also interested in developing a nursery.

iii. Schoharie – no comment.

d. Dues – Carl reported that Kelly provided two sheets. Carl stated the 2014 gap has been closed quite a bit. Essentially all current. Sheets for who owes dues for 2015 is there for information as well.

e. Hydro-electric on the Cannonsville – it was reported that some initial discussions have begun between NYCDEP and the DCEC. The initial discussion was very positive.   No details yet.

f. Clarification of Mike Brandow and Dixie Baldrey CWT Executive Committee membership status.   Mike McCrary indicated that Dixie believes she is still an alternate. Dixie’s email is supervisor@lexington.ny.com. Mike Brandow’s standing is in question. Jeff Baker indicated he would check in to it.

7. Warrants:
Ric Coombe presented the treasures report and warrants.
Checking account balance – $1,204.89.
Saving account balance – $98,280.31.
One warrant to pay to Young/Sommer.   $1,837.50.
Motion to accept the treasurers report and pay the warrant made by Bruce Dolph, seconded by Bill Layton. Passed unanimously.

8. Correspondence – none reported.

9. Other – Carl reported that on Dec 8 Kelly has sent out a doodle poll to set up a meeting between CWC and CWT board members. He indicated that Mike Triolo thinks they should meet quarterly. The only ones who have responded so far are Carl and Bruce. Carl will contact Mike to encourage the officers of CWC to respond. Jeff recommended the meeting just stay centrally located to keep it easier as these discussions are between the CWT and CWC on policy and inter-organizational relationships and roles, not a public meeting looking for input.

10. Adjourn: Move to adjourn Linda Burkhardt, seconded by Cathy Magarelli. No discussion. Passed unanimously.

Present: Anthony Van Glad, Peter Bracci, Bill Layton, Carl Stuendel, Michael McCrary, Linda Burkhardt, Catherine Magarelli, Bruce Dolph and Counsel – Jeff Baker
 
Others Present: Marge Miller, Aaron Bennett, Michelle Yost, Frazier.
 

1. Call to order: 6:15pm
 
2. Minutes – October 20, 2014 – Linda Burkhardt motioned to accept the minutes; Second Michael McCrary. Passed with Bruce Dolph abstaining (absent at last meeting).
 
3. Privilege of the Floor – Carl offered it to Cathy. Cathy deferred at that time and the discussion took place under Quarterly Partnership Meeting with Paul Rush.
 
4. Quarterly Partnership Meeting/Paul Rush – This was an initiative by Paul Rush to reengage this group on a quarterly basis. Present were Carl Stuendel, Mike Triolo, Jim Eisel, Fred Huneke, Alan Rosa, Paul Rush and Dave Warne.
Economic development was a common theme. Alan Rosa suggested that DEP move their headquarters into the watershed from Kingston.   One of the issues was related to the town of Ulster and a proposed Niagara Bottling project using water from Cooper Lake, the water supply for the City of Kingston. Cooper Lake is outside the watershed but its water supply comes from a diversion out of Mink Hollow that originates in the watershed and also flows to the Ashokan.

[At the CWT meeting] Cathy was bringing the issue forward on behalf of the Town of Woodstock. Woodstock would like to have the status of an interested party under SEQRA. The project site is in the Town of Ulster and therefore may be lead agency under SEQRA. NYC sent a letter to town of Ulster. Cathy raised a request on behalf of Jeremy Wilber, Town of Woodstock Supervisor. It is seeking a letter from the CWT in support of the DEP’s position. DEP is not seeking lead agency in lieu of Ulster being lead agency but had the following questions/ concerns: 1. They want to know what the City of Kingston is going to do in the case of an emergency, such as a drought? 2. How will they analyze and disclose how they would handle that situation? Cathy indicated that lead agency may not be clear yet as DEC may be lead agency.
Jeff Baker clarified that the project is at a vacant IBM location in the town of Ulster outside the watershed. There is a bit of confusion regarding how much water Niagara Bottling would withdraw. People from the Lake Hill area came to the Town of Woodstock with 500 signatures opposing the project indicating they thought the amount of water being sought was too much which in turn would lower Cooper Lake and potentially dry up the aquifer that supplies them. Cathy was confident that the total water withdrawal they are looking for is 1.75 MGD.
If they don’t have enough water (the bottler) it is being said that they may want to get it from the Ashokan. Jeff reiterated they he believes they will need a Water Supply Permit and that will answer many of the questions people have. Cathy indicated that Kingston is now becoming a bit more aggressive on the issue now that they realize it could reduce their water supply from Cooper Lake.
Carl indicated that DEP doesn’t have a particular position as 1 MGD is a very small volume. That was on 11/6. The letter from DEP was written 11/12. Pete Bracci inquired, does role of the CWT conflict with the request from the Town of Ulster? Jeff Baker stated that the CWT needs a request from Woodstock and a copy of the DEP letter before CWT can make a decision. Carl asked Cathy to get the information the CWT needs and he will put in it on the agenda for December. She said that she would consult with Jeremy Wilber and get more information.

Carl, went back to the Partnership Program meeting discussion. Carl raised the Yankee Town Pond and 845 acres. The CWT supports NYC lands to be open for recreation.
[At the CWT meeting] Cathy [reported that she had] met with Paul Lenz et al, and they arrived at a verbal agreement and are waiting for it to be confirmed in writing. The Town of Woodstock would allow deer hunting during the regular hunting season. The last week of hunting season is for muzzle loaders and will be allowed. They would allow hunting in bow season as well. DEP website indicates that Woodstock asked that they not list the terms of hunting on the DEP website. Cathy said there was some confusion about that, but that she expects to see it on the DEP website. Cathy will get specifics to the CWT in the end. Jeff informed the group that in the MOA and WSP that there is a presumption that city land is open to hunting.

Also discussed [at the Quarterly Partnership Meeting] was flood hazard mitigation, contract registration status, the Argyle Farm, rail trail, Cannonsville Hydro, Lower Esopus, FFMP, Flood Buyout, modification to the WSP. All the latter, because time was short, had no substantive discussion. Carl’s term ends in June so he suggested that Bruce, as Vice-Chairman, come to those meetings for continuity’s sake.
 

5. CWT/CWC Meeting – Officers of CWT and CWC will be present. Mike Triolo suggested they have quarterly meetings. Rotating meeting locations in the watershed. Expects Mike will be back in touch or he’ll reach out to Mike if it doesn’t hear from him soon after CWC’s Board meeting on Dec 2, 2014.

6. Updates:
a. Status of Flood Mitigation Program:
i. Water Supply Permit Change: Bruce had a concern. The language he was concerned about was the original language of concern raised by the State. Carl clarified that that issue has supposedly been resolved; however, it needs to be in writing. DEP wants to convene a meeting of all the Watershed stakeholders to discuss concerns and arrive at wording acceptable to all parties. Carl told Michelle that Graydon suggested that he tell Michelle that she should move ahead on the erosion hazard home. Shouldn’t need a full LFA, perhaps a mini analysis. Michelle will pursue DEP for a response. Michelle referenced some power points related to this that the DEP put together. Frazier said he would forward them to her and Aaron. The overall fear is that a decision on the WSP language change will get dragged out. The timeline is the big question. Bruce said that Walton is moving ahead based on a discussion with DEP at a relocation meeting. Walton is moving on buyouts, etc., in the Village of Walton and using the Breaky Motors project as a pilot.

Carl inserted a discussion on the WIG at this point. [At the Quarterly Partnership Meeting] DEP inquired if the watershed in general is having some challenges regarding Phil Bein? There are varying opinions on what the role of the WIG is.
[At the CWT meeting] Jeff indicated that the WIG is supposed to assure that everyone complies with the WR&R. What the WIG is not supposed to be doing, is acting as an additional independent regulator on projects. The position does not give him regulatory authority.

Jeff continued on a related issue. The CWT, Delaware County and others agreed with DEC’s position that an additional 30 days for comment. Interestingly enough Crossroads Venture has agreed voluntarily provide the WIG with their plans. WIG has hired Don Lake as a consultant to help him review the stormwater projects. He continues to act as an advocate for the environment as though he has authority to regulate. Crossroads feels that voluntarily arrangement with the WIG will yield fewer problems.

ii. Reg. Relief – TAG – With so many components in need of coordination regarding the implementation of the updated FAD, the CWT asked if the timing would be good to try and reinvigorate the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) which had not formally met in several years, to discuss issues related to the FAD.   Delaware County Department of Watershed Affairs helped arrange a meeting for October 31 in Middletown Town Hall. Most of the meeting time was given to the issue of “regulatory relief”. Kevin Young was seeking input on options for regulatory relief. Kevin cited the model of Tax Free Zones established to encourage economic development in NYS. Based on that precedent, he suggested the establishment of zones that might be called “Sustainable Affordable Development Zones”. The second part of the meeting had to do with a possible economic impact analysis of the Watershed Rules and Regulations (WR&R).
Continuing the discussion from the TAG meeting Carl described the dialogue from the meeting. Kevin reported that most of the required regulations for buyout and relocation are duplicated by SEQRA.  The idea being to streamline, [to eliminate the duplication] and not need to both.  Kevin is working on it and collaborating with Jeff on the white paper.  Carl thought that the strategy Kevin was proposing was more long term and legislative.  Jeff indicated that this was not Kevin’s intent as that would be an enormous lift.  Jeff stated that changing the SEQRA process could be terrifying if it were opened up from any perspective. Kevin suggested using  the Recovery NY program as a precedent that might be used  to keep us whole.  Establish Sustainable and Affordable Zones using the Economic Zones as a precedent to establish them, giving relief from regulations.  It would be similar to pushing economic zones, with regulatory relief.   Shovel ready areas to provide for relocation.

At the CWT meeting Jeff clarified that in the December 2010 WSP, all the money for the Watershed Protection and Partnership Programs had been negotiated during the WSP permit renewal process.  At that point there was agreement that the CWT would not come back with more requests for funding in the revised 2007 FAD.   Marge suggested that there are parcels being bought by the City that have been subdivided that should be considered for protection from purchase.   Outside hamlet designated areas the City can purchase these but the number of acres that can be purchased like that is limited by the WSP in the West of Hudson.  No action was taken.
Aaron brought up industrial parks.  These types of areas should be established by communities.  Is there a way to use City money to purchase land or do a swap.  Jeff indicated swaps are possible. Bruce offered that if the governor could provide money for communities to buy up key parcels for development or relocation before being sold to the City.

At the Nov 6 Partnership Meeting Carl called for studies to demonstrate the positive net impact resulting from City involvement in the Watershed, a positive impact that off-setting by far the negative impact of WR&R on economic development.  He said we now have seventeen years of data to sort through.  At that same meeting Alan Rosa pointed out that the CWC had commissioned an Economic Study, referred to as the “HRA Report” (Hamilton, Rabinovitz and Alschuler, Inc.), which was done shortly after the MOA was signed, that addressed this.  Paul Rush and Dave Warne said that study was conducted with respect to establishing guidelines for the Catskill Fund for the Future and that it did not address any of the City monies that went to Watershed Ag Council (WAC).  Carl felt the City might have left the door open for further consideration of the possibility.  Carl said that TAG group may want to address this.

Carl emphasized the need for newer members to understand the history and was pleased with the discussion.

iii. Inundation- was covered earlier in the meeting, but Inundation thresholds have not been established TAG – Dave Warne had told Carl they didn’t have the language ready yet.

iv. Aaron reported on his new position. Ulster County created and Environmental Planner position. Ulster County Dept. of the Environment contracted with CCE of Ulster County to fund this position with City money. In essence his tasks will be essentially the same. He will be coordinating and collaborating on activities in the municipalities that are working on flood mitigation issues, e.g., All Hazards Mitigation Plan and LFA efforts. DEP will pay for portions of the LFA in the watershed. Aaron has gotten one grant to pay the other half of the Towns LFA. Aaron’s position will be filled. Aaron will be 3 days in the watershed and 2 days in the County. He will be working with municipalities. Michelle indicated the City has advertised a position for the stream program. Position will assist in coordination of stream LFAs. Another position is also in the works to assist Beth Reichheld.

b. Kurt Ossenfort Proposal – Jeff Baker in contract process.

c. Septage Hauling – This is ongoing. On Nov 6, Carl told David Warne that he would like to roll this item into our Enforcement Issues meeting and that we would like to have another such meeting soon. David agreed.

d. Below Dams Activities
i. Delaware – UDRTC formally organizing. Meeting with DEC to discuss a number of items the UDRTC is handling to see what help they can offer and seek their partnership with us in their initiatives such as the SCMP. Town of Tompkins has joined the party. Three important streams are also a part of the basin.

ii. Esopus – Aaron will not be directly involved with these issues in his new position, but will do his best to keep the CWT informed.

iii. Schoharie – no report.

e. Dues – At least five municipalities have paid up their dues. Town of Delhi paid 2014 and 2015 dues. Where CWT sends the bill and where the muni should send the check needs clearing up as some are still sending the check to Michelle. In particular Ulster County.

7. Warrants: Tony had stepped out so Bruce did the treasurer’s report.      
Young/ Sommer – $2,450.00
Delaware County postage $ 24.00. Total $2,074.00.     

Checking balance – $704.81
Savings balance – $ 86,720.39

Linda Burkhardt motioned; Bill Layton second. Passed.

8. Correspondence – In reference to dues a letter from Town of Deposit questioning the value of Deposit remaining a member of the CWT. In short, they have decided to relinquish their membership. Jeff indicated that Deposit is eligible for funding from the CWC/ Catskill Fund for the Future and that CWT’s strong push for the Tax Litigation Avoidance Program (TLAP) during the WSP negotiations directly benefits the Town of Deposit, site of the Cannonsville Dam. At this point in time the only funding available is loans. Clarity on what is available to Deposit should be researched regarding CWC funds and what the CWT has done for the town members.

9. Other:
a. Michelle announced the 9^th annual watershed conference is being held on Saturday January 24^th at the Hunter Elementary School. Keynote speaker will talk about national and international flood mitigation with experience on relocation.

b. Carl informed Pete that he brought up the Hydro with Paul Rush at the quarterly meeting. Carl stated that he asked Dave Warne about sending a DEP rep to discuss this with the CWT Exec Board. Dave was open to that. Carl will make arrangements.   Frazier informed the CWT that Paul Rush and Mark Schneider, Executive Director of DCEC, will meet to discuss what the possibilities may exist to provide electricity generated by the Hydro power to DCEC. So, all will wait for the news of that meeting.

10. Adjourn: Bill Layton moved for adjournment; Linda second.  Passed  8:10 PM.

Present: Ric Coombe, Bill Layton, Carl Stuendel, Pete Bracci, Mike McCrary, Linda Burkhardt, Catherine Magarelli, Stephen Walker, Anthony Van Glad, Toni Coiro and Counsel Jeff Baker.
 
Others present: Marge Miller, Michelle Yost, Frazier
 

1.Call to order: 6:18pm.
 

2.Minutes: – Sept 15, 2014 – Motion to accept Peter Bracci; second Bill Layton.  Accepted.
 

3.Privilege of the floor: – none.
 

4.CWT Membership Dues letter: – Carl a.k.a., Chairman Stuendel, informed the board about a change in the letter that will go out to members regarding dues.  He felt that in light of the status of difficult budget development in the towns and counties these days he thought a shorter more concise letter at this time would be more effective as they are probably very busy doing their budgets and the CWT may be a bit late to make the pitch to get a line item in their budgets for 2015.  He proposed that early in 2015 to send out a more comprehensive letter explaining to all the members about what the CWT has accomplished on their behalf, the CWT’s role, what the CWT is currently working on and is anticipating over the next year or two.  After consulting with Exec. Committee Members that expressed the most concern about informing all members, at the September meeting, he went with the shorter letter which was mailed out this afternoon.  Carl read the letter to the Exec. Committee.  He pointed out that he had taken the advice of using bullet points to make it more succinct.
 

5. Updates:
a. Status of Flood Mitigation Program:
i. Water Supply Permit Change –
The Final Revised 2007 FAD issued May 2014 stipulated a NYC funded Flood Buyout program.  All Watershed stakeholders realized that the implementation of this program would require a modification to the language of the December 2010 Water Supply Permit (WSP) which at present does not allow the city to purchase any developed properties.  The new language would have to make an exception allowing the City, with community approval, to purchase 1) developed properties in hamlet areas contributing to flood hazard situations and 2) developed properties outside hamlet areas that in another severe weather event are at high risk for sustaining damages that would significantly impact water quality.  At the July 21, 2014 CWT meeting, the executive board discussed language proposed by David Warne.  Fearing his language might be construed to mean that willing home or business owners could deal directly with the City thereby bypassing the stipulation for local government approval of any such transaction, participants urged counsel Jeff Baker (in conjunction with City attorney Hilary Meltzer) to develop language making it clear that no sale could occur without local board approval.

At the September 15 CWT meeting the Executive Committee was informed that NYS DEC had proposed its own change to the language of the WSP.   Jeff and Carl had not seen DEC’s language, but, as a result of conversations with DEC’s Tom Snow, they were concerned that DEC might deemphasize community approval as a necessary and critical component of any City buyout program.  On September 29^th, Jeff was able to get a copy of DEC’s proposal from Hilary.  The language was shared with Carl and Dean.  It reads as follows:

b. Parcels of land participating in a federal, [or] state, or City flood buy-out program need neither be vacant, as defined in Special Condition 8, nor meet the size and natural features criteria, as set forth in Special Condition 9 nor are such parcels subject to the acquisition exclusions (hamlet or designations) in Special Condition 10. Fair Market Value for parcels of land participating in a federal, [or] state, or City flood buy-out program may be determined in accordance with either the process established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or as set forth in Special Condition 13. Any parcels of land acquired under a federal, [or] state, or City flood buy-out program which will be held in fee by a local government rather than the City which are protected from development in perpetuity by deed in accordance with the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 5170c, are not subject to Special Condition 21(a). The provisions of this Special Condition 7(b) referring to a City flood buy-out program will be subject to the same local approval requirement contained in the federal and state buy-out programs. This provision will allow each municipality the opportunity to review each potential acquisition and determine if it should be purchased by the City prior to acquisition. Municipalities also have the option to conditionally approve such acquisitions, if necessary.

Shortly thereafter, it was circulated to Delaware Planning, and they responded with their concern regarding the language that reads, the “City flood buy-out program will be subject to the same local approval requirement contained in the federal and state buy-out programs.”  In short a conversation between the Chairman, Delaware County Planning, and Tom Snow, Tom was able to see that under a federal or state buyout program Delaware County becomes a sub-applicant and is not required to get local community approval, and therefore the local municipality could be circumvented. He was willing to remove that language. Under a City Buyout program in Delaware County the Planning Department or another consultant will assist those municipalities that decide to participate in the Flood Buyout Program funded by NYC.
 

ii. Relocation Meeting Follow-up – Michelle Yost raised concern about the fact the language regarding how inundated properties would be handled is not yet complete. She expressed grave concern for some properties that are at very high risk that cannot be addressed until that language is resolved. Carl informed the board that it was his understanding that language is now in the City’s hands and we are waiting for that.  Carl said he would inquire about the status of this.  Municipalities have the right to decide to participate in the FBO program, only if there is a relocation program.  Counsel recommended that communities not make decisions on a case by case basis about individual properties, because he believes they would be more at risk for lawsuits based on arbitrary and capricious grounds, than if they did a blanket statement for the community as a whole.
 

iii. Kevin Young’s Regulation Position Paper (buyout and relocation regs).  Kevin is still working on it and will run it by the TAG group on October 31^st for input.
 

b. Kurt Ossenfort Proposal – Jeff has a copy of the contract on his desk. Ric Coombe proposed that the CWT consider paying extra to have him develop a five minute introductory film covering what the CWT was about in the early years of its formation. There was full support for the idea, but no motions were made at this time. There was no decision made as to when to bring this subject up with Kurt Ossenfort.
 

c. Watershed Inspector General – Windham- The Windham project has received its FEIS. Jeff explained, for the benefit of those unfamiliar with the role of the WIG, where the position came from on and how the WIG interfered with this project.  The position is jointly appointed as an Assistant Attorney General by the Governor and the Attorney General to assure the City enforces their regulations.  There had been a history of the City not enforcing their regulations in the late 80’s, especially related to their WWTPs and so Environmental Groups pressed for this position in the MOA.  His role is not that of a regulator, which the current WIG seems determined to play, which is causing problems on projects in the watershed.  There is concern that the WIG may throw his [its?] weight around in the 60 day comment period on the Belleyare project. Note the DEC granted the 60 day request for comments.   The WIG doesn’t have the authority to regulate.  It is an independent position with no term.
A letter to the AG was discussed.  Counsel recommended that the CWT focus on what is in the executive order in terms of the WIGs authority and inform them that he is acting outside the parameters of the Executive Order.  His purpose is to intercede in circumstances where regulatory agencies fail to regulate, to solve their lack of enforcement. Mike proposed that any letter cite the history of his actions that are outside the scope of the Executive order.  Jeff will draft a letter to send to the AG.
 

d. Septage Hauling- The critical changes were made in mid-2013 which caused substantial problems. Tony C. pointed out the water quality ramifications this has caused for smaller operators versus larger operators with more flexibility of storing the waste in trucks. Mike pointed out that this is also a water quality issue.  Frazier reported haulers in Delaware County are having the same problems.  Walton and Delhi WWTPs have been able to take the two operators deliver, but charge a tipping fee.  Cost is being passed on to the homeowner and hence to the CWC program funded by the City.  It is not clear if Hunter and Windham WWTPS are taking waste.
 

e. Below Dams Activities
i. Delaware – Frazier reported that the Friends of the Upper Delaware River annual Water Waters Everywhere conference went well, it was well attended, and there is strong interest from other communities on the tailwaters and upper mainstem. Great program. Congressman Gibson reported at the conference that he will be pursuing the use of a flood control dam in NJ to use as a source to mitigate salt movement upstream with the goal to minimize the use of NYC reservoirs for that purpose.  The idea is that it could help provide more flexibility in terms of releases from the NYC dams. Mark Klotz (Director DEC Division of Water) and Paul Rush participated as presenters.  Frazier reported that the UDRTC, will be meeting with Mark Klotz, his key staff, the Director of NYSDECs Division of Natural Resources, DOH and DOS, to discuss their goals, especially the development of a SCMP.  Kevin Young and Laura Bomyea attended the UDRTC meeting on October 16^th and are working on organizational options to create legal standing for the UDRTC.

ii. Esopus – N/R

iii. Schoharie – On October 31 there will be a ribbon cutting from 10AM to Noon to celebrate the completion of Category 212 B of the dam rehabilitation. All the Brass will be there, including a well-known spiritual icon and leader. Tony reported that bids for the lower level outlet will be let out early in 2015. He also reported that the Mohawk Valley Regional Flood Commission is ongoing and pursuing funds for stream studies. Congressman Gibson, Senator Seward, Pete Lopez, Supervisors and agencies to develop stream studies sit on this Coalition. There are some DOS grants available for the study.  It’s a long process. After a long delay, due to changes on the Schoharie Board of Supervisors, it appears that the financing of the EWP work from the 2011 flood is settled and work has begun in two different streams.
 

6. Warrants and Treasures Report:
Balances ‑‑
Checkbook – $1,000.11
Savings –   $85,209.84
Tony moved to approve the treasurer’s report.  Ric Coombe 2^nd.  Passed

Warrants ‑‑
$295.38 to Young/Sommer.  Tony moved to approve, 2^nd by Bill Layton.  Passed.
$0.96 to Delaware County Watershed Affairs.  Tony moved to approve, 2^nd by Linda Burkhardt.  Passed.
 

7. Correspondence:
Carl discussed with the board that a meeting will soon be scheduled between the Officers of the CWT and CWC to address communication issues and will keep the remainder of the board informed.  Carl expressed his concern that it is just the officers, because of the new faces on the CWT board are not necessarily familiar with the history and issues of concern.  After discussion non officer CWT executive committee members reassured Carl that they understood it was just for the officers of both and that they support him moving forward to improve the relationships.
 

8. Other:
a. Pete Bracci proposed that he believes the CWT has more influence than it sometimes thinks citing past experiences with the City, in moving things forward such as boating on the reservoirs. Given this historical experience he encouraged the CWT to try to find a way to capture the electricity from the Cannonsville Hydro-electric project, indicating it would give a large benefit to local residents. Ric Coombe offered that a large benefit would be the contribution to the tax base.  It was stated that, Tom Axtell of Deposit believes that will likely be Deposit’s largest benefit.  Counsel suggested that making large inroads at this time may be difficult as his understanding was that the FERC has approved building the facility.  (Side bar – DEP has already established the construction schedule).  Nevertheless, whether or not the hydro-electric project can be modified or not, Pete firmly believes that the CWT has more influence than perhaps it thinks. Pete suggested that the CWT should look ahead more in terms of what projects or ideas can be capitalized on.  Pete proposed in discussions with watershed parties to refer to the reservoirs as lakes and how they can be used more similarly to Skaneateles Lake that feeds the City of Syracuse.  Lots of agreement, no action taken.

b. Carl reported that there is an effort underway to reinvigorate the TAG. There is a meeting scheduled for 10/31, 10 to Noon at the Middletown Town Hall. Kevin Young will present some ideas for the TAG to comment on related to the Flood Buyout and Relocation programs.
 

9. Adjourn: 8:30pm: Motion by Linda to adjourn, 2^nd by Tony. Passed. No nays!

Present: Stephen Walker, Michael McCrary, Carl Stuendel, Bruce Dolph, Peter Bracci, Linda Burkhardt, Tony VanGlad and Counsel Jeff Baker.
Others present: Marge Miller: Middletown Supervisor, Aaron Bennett, Jeff Flack, Dean Frazier.
 

1. Call to order: 6:15 PM
 

2. Minutes: July 21, 2014 – Moved to approve, Linda Burkhardt, second by Pete Bracci. Approved.
 

3. Privilege of the floor:
a. Marge Miller inquired about maintenance on city properties in villages and towns. Margaretville maintains City parcels in the village. Her board wanted to know about City owned property outside the village of Margaretville, for example, in Clovesville or along main thoroughfares. She inquired, has this been an issue that CWT has addressed or other individual towns have brought forward? The contract between the Town and DEP does not require an MOU between the town and DEP, but DEP would be more comfortable if one existed. Apparently, they sent a sample MOU for the town’s consideration for the purpose of clarity that Middletown would be doing the maintenance. In the absence of an MOU, the contract would go forward regardless. The City will not maintain those properties, but if the Town wants to they can. In response to Marge’s question Bruce indicated that in Walton there are a small number of parcels in the town, that are vacant fields, so the Town doesn’t maintain them. She indicated that although it would not be a lot of money for the Town to maintain them, her board wanted to inquire if they could get some compensation for maintaining them. Counsel stated that in this round of buyouts the towns agreed to maintain these properties. If they do not, then it falls upon the City to maintain them if they choose to do so. If the City doesn’t, the town may have cause to take action under certain circumstances. Middletown may pursue a discussion with the DEP on these properties with the idea they are recreational access points and should be kept maintained. Issue of liability arose. Counsel noted there really are no liabilities associated with these properties by local municipalities or the City.
 
b. Carl noted that the Lower Esopus Group has formed a coalition. Town of Olive is not interested. Carl noted he attended one of their meetings. They did inquire about hiring Jeff Baker to assist them. Carl wanted to bring this to the attention of the board indicating the board should think about the implication of that should they request Jeff’s services. Jeff has not had any more inquiries from the group.
 

4. CWT Membership Dues Reminder – Carl noted the status of dues paid by various members. He encouraged members to reach out to the municipalities that have not paid to inform them of what the CWT does do and has been successful at as the negotiating arm of the Towns west of Hudson and ask them to pay their dues. Sink or swim together. Tony inquired about whether there would be any changes in next year’s dues amount. Carl indicated there are none for 2015. Mike McCrary noted this report was the same as months ago. Correct: CWT has not received any more dues payments. Mike inquired why Ulster County has not paid? Aaron responded that the question has been asked, what are we (Ulster) getting? Counsel indicated that none of the Counties have a seat at the table. Mike also suggested a generic letter be sent out explaining what CWT does do. Mike suggested sending out to all CWT members a document that outlines what the CWT does, such as negotiating on behalf of the watershed for the WSP, FAD and pressing for the flood mitigation program. Carl may draft a letter for circulation. The difference in the roles of the CWT and CWC should be clarified in the letter. Mike said that without the advocacy of the CWT, the CWC would not have become a reality and remained as such. Aaron: do all the Counties pay the same? Yes, $1,500 per year. Aaron will investigate to see if he can determine the reservations of Ulster County.
 

5. Updates:
a. Status of Flood Mitigation Program:
i. Contracts – CWC, Stream Programs – All signed and in the pipeline, per Mr. Baker.
 
ii. Water Supply Permit Change – DEC wants municipalities to have to “Opt-Out” not “Opt-In”, as the City and municipalities approve of. Coming late to the game. Last week learned of state’s reluctance to endorse the wording change put forward by the City’s Hilary Meltzer and CWT’s Jeff Baker. CWT will not support the “In unless you opt out”.   Opt-out makes a travesty of the notions of home rule and local control, as it takes voluntary buy-in out of the hands of municipalities. CWT directed Jeff to keep pushing on the CWT position. State concerned the muni’s won’t opt -in. The state also doesn’t like that there is someone (muni’s) in between the landowner and the sale. Jeff will also try to ferret-out whether the State is being influenced by outside pressure, and if so, to discover the identity of these NGOs and agencies.
 
iii. Relocation Working Group Meeting 3 (and related CWC Program Rules). It was reported that the City is willing to pursue a relocation purchase prior to the contract between the City and CWC being completed if the necessary elements of an LFA are complete. This was in reference to the idea of doing some pilots to learn from. The question of issues regarding inundation during the meeting did not get resolved. There was urgency on the part of some counties regarding houses that are hanging off a ledge where the home is about to fall into a stream. They would like to move on that. The money for the relocation process is not going to cover the total cost of the process. For example, money for a new building is not covered under the program. The City would purchase improvements and the land and provide for the items like flood plain recovery and perhaps some infrastructure. Jeff Flack also supports the idea of pilots so we can learn what parts of the process will need adjustments.
 
iv. Keven Young’s Regulation Position Paper (buyout and relocation) – still in the works.
 

b. Kurt Ossenfort Proposal Jeff has a draft contract prepared that should go out soon.
 

c. Watershed Inspector General – Windham – Stephen reported nothing new at this time. Jeff Baker reported that Dan Ruzzo had informed him that things appear to be smoothing out and to hold back. Jeff will check with Dan again.
 

d. Septage Hauling: Carl reported on his discussion with Dave Warne. Dave indicated that nothing has changed over the past year. Dave will call Grahamsville to get more information and report back to Carl. Grand Gorge does accept septage. Mike McCrary spoke regarding the issue/concerns that deter the plants in Windham and Tannersville from accepting septage. From Mike’s discussion with a DEP employee he believes the individual plants are being de-incentivized to not take too much as it might affect their permits. DEP is paying over $1,000 a pump out to send this elsewhere. Mike reported he did not understand this. Frazier suggested perhaps City is paying for sludge transportation like they do in Delaware County, for the cost of sludge produced resulting from tertiary treatment. He has been told that the DEP is restricting acceptance to one load per day at Grand Gorge. Hudson is making money on septage. Perhaps they have a holding tank. Carl will continue to investigate and report to Mike anything he learns.
 

e. Below Dams Activities:
i. Delaware – Conference UDRTC on Sept 12. Three panels covering the impact of the fishery and recreation on the local economy, local government concerns and stream corridor management. Focus was on fishery, flooding, sediment transport, tributaries, releases, infrastructure and stream nexus, and the need for a stream corridor plan and partnerships. Congressman Gibson gave a good presentation.
Mark Klotz from DEC has offered to meet with the UDRTC. Bruce felt everyone was going in the same direction. Marge felt the partnering was the key issue and recognizing that the City has an asset and locally we have assets that should work together.
 
ii. Esopus – Nothing to report as new. Ulster County submitted substantial technical comments on the ongoing consent order.
 
iii. Schoharie – construction is pretty much wrapped up. Next step is for bids for the lower level output. Have to build a machine to do the work. $200 to 300 million to build it. Gilboa Dam construction is two years ahead of schedule. DEC is planning a conservation release for the fishery from Schoharie but Tony indicated that use of that water by the power authority warms up the water before it goes very far down stream. Questions remain about why the water from the Schoharie remains muddy with no rain. Aaron said they believe the water is remaining turbid because of a seiche (an ongoing wave effect in a body of water) that causes sediment to be in suspension.
 

6. Warrants:
Moved to pay vouchers Tony
$5,460.00 (Young Sommer)
$3,316.10 to Delaware County WSA
second by Linda Burkhardt. Passed.
Savings balance $ 93,973.63
Checking balance $1,000.18
 

7. Correspondence: None reported.
 

8. Other:
a. Pete wanted to know the status of hydro-electric projects on the Watershed dams. Would like more information and believes the CWT should monitor this to see what kind of benefits we may be able to get. Carl suggested that Pete get more information.
 

b. Land Acquisition – Frazier provided data showing how Watershed Affairs tracks land acquisition through a monthly update. Maintaining a data base back to 1997. In Greene County it just goes to the towns. Counsel would like to see this on an annual basis. Aaron reported that Ulster County reviews what the City provides to them. It is user friendly.
 

c. Carl suggested that the CWT and CWC should have regular communication. He will continue to work on that and, in addition, again reach-out to Environmental Groups.

9. Adjourn: 7:50 PM. Tony moved to adjourn; second Linda Burkhardt- passed.

Attending: Pete Bracci, Carl Stuendel, Linda Burkhardt, Bruce Dolph, Bill Layton, Mike McCrary, John Van Benschoten, Catherine Magarelli, Anthony Coiro, Tony Van Glad and Counsel Jeff Baker.
 
Also in attendance: Jay Braman Jr., Aaron Bennett, Diana Cope, Dave Budin, Dean Frazier
 

1. Call to order: 6:25 PM
 
2. Minutes for June 16, 2014- Moved by Linda Burkhardt to approve, seconded by Bill Layton: approved.
 
3. Privilege of the floor
a. Regulation Position Paper – buyout and relocation – still in process. Kevin will draft that.
 
4. Volunteer Flood Buyout Program – minutes regarding this matter are incorporated with 5., a., iii. Water Supply Permit Change below.
 
5. Updates:
a. Status of:
i. Contracts – CWC, Stream Programs – nothing to report.
 
ii. CWC Relocation. Program Rules – Residential rules segment will be considered for adoption at the next CWC board meeting, August 4^th.
 
iii. Water Supply Permit Change
The CWT distributed concerns that Village of Margaretville submitted to William J. Clark  of  NYS DEC regarding the proposed language changes to the WSP.   The purpose of the changes were to enable New York City to purchase land with improvements within the designated areas outlined in the WSP.  Jeff was asked whether the proposed language change allows for the outlier acquisitions (the house on the edge of a cliff outside any hamlet area) as proposed in the Flood Buyout Program.  In response Jeff felt it would accommodate all aspects of the FBP. In the Revised 2007 FAD the City is required to establish a buyout program and is also required to provide $15 million in funding specifically for acquisitions in Designated Hamlet and Village areas that would otherwise be ineligible for acquisition by NYC as part of their existing land acquisition program strictly related to flood mitigation efforts.  Jeff Baker was aware of the concerns raised by the Village of Margaretville and earlier in the day had been in communication with Hilary Meltzer of NYC Corporate Council.  He reported that he agreed with concerns noted by Margaretville and discussed those with Ms. Meltzer and that she was open to the concerns that have been raised.
 
After extensive discussion by the board with input from Mayor Cope and others in attendance, Pete Bracci motioned and Bill Layton seconded the motion directing Jeff Baker to submit language to Martha Bellinger at NYSDEC to amend  language in the WSP to clearly reflect that the Flood Buyout Program is a voluntary program and that is only implemented when a municipality indicates it is “opting in” to the Voluntary Flood Mitigation Program by resolution.  Motion passed unanimously.  He will seek agreement with the DEP and submit comments by August 1, 2014.
 
b. Relocation Meeting – Carl indicated this meeting will be scheduled for a date beyond August.
 
c. Kurt Ossenfort proposal – Jeff Baker reported that he had talked to him and will be sending him a contract.
 
d. Watershed Inspector General (WIG) – Windham – Jeff reported he had discussions with Dan Ruzzo, on the project in Windham.  The Company doing the project just submitted their FEIS to the town.  There have been discussions with the City regarding the steep slopes and Dan is fairly comfortable with where they are.  In light of that, Jeff and Dan decided it would be prudent to not pursue the WIG issues at this time; if they arise later, address them at that point.
 
e. Outreach – Carl informed the board he has not had an opportunity to discuss this with Dave Warne yet the possibility of more scenic vistas along the reservoirs.
 
f. Below Dams Activities
i. Delaware – Frazier reported that the conference under development is ongoing for Sept 12 with the next meeting scheduled for July 24. He also reported that there is a meeting scheduled for August 7^th at the DEP offices in Grahamsville to learn more about directed releases.
 
ii. Esopus – The comment period for the Draft Scope for the Modification of the CatAlum SPDES Permit EIS has been extended to 8/22. Currently, NYCDEP is conducting ‘community releases’ (clear and cold water of up to 140 MGD) for the benefit of the Lower Esopus communities and ecosystems as per the Ashokan Release Protocol. A recent news article stated that the Town of Marbletown Supervisor is displeased with the current releases as it is impacting the summer recreation program at the Town Beach. The Supervisor claims that the water is too fast and deep (not safe) and is too inviting because of how clean it is. DEP claims that they had come to a previous agreement with Supervisor Warren that around 140 MGD was ideal. The other down-dam municipalities are very happy with the release it benefits their environment and economy. It is unfortunate that not all Lower Esopus communities welcome the current community releases, and goes to show how you cannot please everyone. The water resource management issues in the entire Esopus Creek watershed are very complex and inter-related. Currently, NYCDEP is able to release water (from the Ashokan) while still meeting their Conditional Seasonal Storage Objective for the reservoir in part due to the recently-held Shandaken Tunnel release weekend (7/19-20) to support the whitewater community and economy on the Esopus Creek. This scheduled water release event diverts water from the Schoharie Reservoir to the upper Esopus Creek (and ultimately the Ashokan) where the void created by the Lower Esopus community releases will be filled by the addition of Schoharie Reservoir waters.
 
iii. Carl posed to Tony Van Glad that the below reservoir issues on the Delaware and Esopus have been a regular report, would he be interested in reporting the same? Tony, not surprisingly, was happy to report on the Schoharie basin below the Gilboa Dam. Through discussion it became very clear that the sharing of information between the three river basins could be useful to all three. Progress or positive outcomes that have occurred below one reservoir basin could be informative and useful to the other two. Many issues are the same, but as Jeff pointed out the governance structure below the dams are different. Nevertheless there is good reason to collaborate.
 
6. Warrants and Treasurer’s report.
Tony read the treasurers report. Checking account balance $1011.00: Saving account balance of $95,280.20 then stated the warrant amount and motioned to pay the warrant of $1,330.00 to Young Sommer,.Linda Burkhardt seconded.  Passed unanimously.
 
7. Correspondence – none to report.
 
8. Other
a. Septic Hauling. The board discussed the concerns and questions associated with limited access to NYC WWTPs by septic haulers. Tony and Mike reported NYC has reduced the number of locations and days that it will accept septic causing haulers to have to go outside the watershed.   Mike reported that businesses are having to keep half their fleet off the road because they are limited on where they can take the    waste. Others reported they are having to haul to Albany and other places at a very high cost. Counsel stated that there are four City owned plants in question; Tannersville, Margaretville, Grand Gorge, Pine Hill. All have substantial excess capacity.   Tannersville is not accepting any due to an equipment issue that the City says they cannot justify the cost of repairing. There are technical and operational differences between septic hauled in versus that coming directly from the community. It’s critical that the bacteria digesting community waste can handle the septic being delivered. At this time, it is the general understanding that Margaretville and Grand Gorge are taking septic waste 1 time per week.
 
Jeff reported that the decision to accept septic is up to the individual WWTP manager.  They cannot violate their SPEDS permit so they have to control their intake. The MOA limited             acceptance at no cost to septic systems under the umbrella of the CWC Remediation program.
 
DEP is developing or has developed a new operating procedure.  Changing rules to restrict residential septic waste.  No septic waste is allowed from camps or businesses.  Each hauler can go one time per week.
 
He indicated the CWT has limited capability to push the issues due to conditions agreed to in the MOA.
 
More holding capacity for residential waste at the WWTPs would help alleviate some problems as the WWTPS have a large amount of excess capacity.
 
Jeff recommended that the City should be contacted to discuss this and consider what could be done.  The CWT needs a clearer picture.   Jeff suggested that constituents get the information to   Jeff.   Mike proposed the CWT needs to know how much they are taking, when and what is the capacity of each plant to take the waste and when can  they take it why not other times?  Mike felt     that the CWT does have leverage in that if the systems fail, then the City is going to have to spend money to fix the individual systems that fail.
 
b. Cathy addressed the board about section 828 acres around Yankee Town Pond bordering a on a hunting club property and contiguous to 43 properties.   Several properties owners contiguous to the hunting club are opposed to hunting on this land. The question came up as to who owns the land?   New York City purchased the land. Residents are concerned about the proximity of these homes to the area allowing hunting. Some want a larger setback. City allows hunting of both small and large game.   To administer their properties with the idea that each parcel as different criteria would be a nightmare. Cathy said if there is hiking and hunting with little parking access. It is not clear if comments were provided during the local consultation about activities on the land. The City’s regulations now reflect those of the State as a result of the change in direction the City took in the early 2000s opening up more of their lands to hunting. Woodstock prohibits trapping. At the meeting no one could recollect if the City does. Woodstock’s Environmental Commission wants 1,000 foot setback vs state 500 foot. Rifle season is essentially four weeks long. Aaron suggested to Cathy that there are DEP properties that are bow hunting only and possibly she could pursue that.
 
9. Adjourned 8:20.  Moved by Linda Burkhardt, seconded by Bill Layton.  Passed.

Present:  Carl Stuendel, Stephen Walker, Linda Burkhardt, Bruce Dolph, Ric Coombe, Bill Layton, Mike McCrary, John Van Benschoten, Counsel Jeff Baker.

Others Attending: Rick Weidenbach, Aaron Bennett, Marjorie Miller, Jeff Flack and Frazier.

1. Call to order: 6:15.

2. Minutes for May 19, 2014. Move to approve Linda Burkhardt.  Second by Ric Coombe.  Passed.

3. Privilege of the floor: Prompted by Jeff Baker, Carl explained the following incident. During a meeting with DEP officials on June 10, Carl wanted to convey the frustration residents and business owners in the WOH Watershed sometimes feel regarding NYC’s impact on local affairs, especially through the Watershed Rules and Regulations, particularly, the enforcement procedures that at times seem arbitrary and high-handed.  As an example, he said that just the night before this meeting he had been contacted by the Town of Tompkins Supervisor who told him that even after a protracted Article 7 tax-assessment proceeding with the City had finally been settled, the Town had received a letter from the Law Department of NYC saying, “Enclosed please find Complaints concerning the 2014 tentative assessment on the above-referenced properties.”  Even though there was probably an explanation for this (either miscommunication or some legal technicality), Carl wanted to convey to them the initial emotional response to the letter through the use of an analogy that, to put it [in] milder terms, characterized the City’s tax attorneys as rabid.  A day or so after the meeting the lead DEP official conveyed to Carl that he took exception to the analogy.  Carl apologized for being “over the top” with the language he had chosen.  As mentioned, the report of his initial emotional reaction was for illustrative purposes; the force of the emotion itself was never meant to be taken as the tone qualifying that meeting or that should mark any future meetings with the City, let alone an outline for some future course of action.  He said he would convey his apology to other attendees when they met again.

(City representatives at the meeting were surprised and apologetic, stating that they should have been notified of any such letter before it was sent.
Ric Coombe commented that this was a standard letter sent annually by the City to protect themselves, termed a Protective Writ.)

4. Reports:
a. May 31 meeting with Emily Lloyd and Paul Rush. Carl and Bruce described their meeting with Commissioner Lloyd and Paul Rush. It was a very encouraging and productive meeting.   They discussed swapping properties which was something Paul Rush felt could be accomplished for the relocation program where feasible. The WSP contains language to allow that.   They also discussed entrepreneurial opportunities in the vast research park that is the Catskill and Delaware watersheds. Carl and Bruce offered to help report progress in the partnership, getting positive things the City has done out to watershed residents through the CWT website and local papers.

b. CWT letter to DEP [Regulation Enforcement related to Non-Complying Regulated Activities (NCRAs)]  June 10, 2014 meeting with DEP in Grahamsville, NY:  Attending from the City included Hilary Meltzer, Brenda Drake, Robin Levine, Devon Goodrich, Dave Warne, Joya Cohen, Linda Geary (by phone).  Carl, Jeff Baker and Kevin Young attended from the CWT.  They clarified the City’s position.  The DEP is not going around seeking changes in use, disqualifying NCRA status of some projects.  CWT suggested the letters could be more sensitively written as they are interpreted as threatening by the recipients.  That was not DEP’s intent.  It was suggested that the DEP partner with watershed stakeholders to develop a guidance document that would help ease tensions and garner better understanding of the relevant WR&Rs.  Jeff suggested that many of the municipalities had developed zoning that will address the very concerns the City has and at least [be] as protective as the City regulations.

It was suggested that a hold and haul program could be developed for septic waste with  regular pump outs.

Carl and the attorneys emphasized that water quality is the issue and that some of these  situations pose little or no risk so there should be some relief related to this issue.

At the end of the meeting Carl expressed his gratefulness for the willingness the City had demonstrated at this meeting to revisit the legal documents bearing on enforcement, but he also wanted to remind those present of the emotional impact these enforcement letters had on Watershed residents and business owners.  A major reason CWT had asked for this meeting was because the owner of the Full Moon had passionately appealed to the CWT board saying he would be out of business if these regulatory enforcement issues continued much longer without resolution. (This is where Carl had brought up the letter to the Town of Tompkins.)

c. Re starting Quarterly partnership meetings DEP. Paul Rush is seeking to reestablish partnership meetings between the chairs of the CWC, CWT, WAC, Delaware County and the DEP.  Carl indicated he felt this was a good idea and would foster improved communications.

d. Regulation Position Paper – needs development regarding buyout and relocation program to assure that the regulatory process is relieved to enable a rapid transition from one location to the next.  Based on discussions between Carl and Counsel they concluded Kevin Young’s expertise on this subject would be most appropriate to address it.  It has been suggested that perhaps a general permit be adopted for the flood communities.

5. Volunteer Flood Buyout Program – the board discussed concerns regarding the inaccuracies in the Catskill Mountain News about the program.  No action taken.

6. TAG Meeting – postponed until fall.

7. Updates:
a. Status of:
i. Contracts – CWC, Stream Programs-  SWCD’s have received reassurance that things will be in place to avoid gaps in programs.

ii. CWC Program Rules: Section 17 Flood Hazard Mitigation Implementation Program – Carl thanked Michelle Yost and Jeff Flack (GCSWCD) and Dean (DCWSA) for the comments they submitted to CWC.   Still awaiting language on Residential Relocation (17:02:03.4.c).

iii. Water Supply Permit Change – Yet to be scheduled by NYC DEP.

b. Proposed Relocation Working Group Meeting – To be scheduled soon.

c. Kurt Ossenfort proposal – Jeff Baker – meeting with him tomorrow.

d. Watershed Inspector General – Windham – no report.

e. Outreach – Carl attended a tour in the Schoharie Reservoir basin indicating it was very well done. He reported that Nancy Burnett was on the tour and would like to have a follow-up discussion on the entire program with regard to whether or not it has been successful as we approach nearly 20 years.
Carl indicated that in a discussion with Dave Warne[, Dave] suggested that the CWT could help spread the word on some of the positive things coming out of the City.  Carl said the CWT would be willing to help.   Carl responded by saying that the CWT would like to see proof of economic benefit from the City’s efforts as part of working with them. The Executive Committee discussion affirmed his position.

f. Below Dams Activities
i. Delaware – Carl, Rick and Dean are participating in a two day reconnaissance tour with the Army Corps of Engineers [] focused solely on the East and West Branches of the Delaware below the Pepacton and Cannonsville dams.  An Upper Delaware River Tailwaters Coalition Conference is scheduled for September 12^th at West Branch Anglers Resort in Hancock.

ii. Esopus – An extension of time for comments on the Cat/Alum scope of work is being pursued to go beyond July 8^th.

8.  Warrants – Ric Coombe moved to pay the warrants totaling $2,077.50.  Seconded by Bruce Dolph. Passed.

9. Correspondence – no report.

10. Other
a. The Town of Woodstock (see attached resolution) passed a resolution unanimously to appoint Catherine Magarelli to the Coalition of Watershed Towns, Executive Committee. Bruce Dolph moved to appoint her to the CWT Executive Committee.  Stephen Walker seconded the motion.  Passed unanimously.

b. Carl also brought to the attention of the board Art Merrill’s (Supervisor, Town of Colchester) suggestion of clearing some trees out in some key places around the reservoirs to make scenic stops.   Such an idea in the town of Olive would not be warmly received.  They don’t like to cut down trees in Olive.  Perhaps they provide privacy the residents don’t want to lose.  Committee view was that it may be a town by town effort, but the CWT would support it where communities sought it.  Frazier informed the group the new Commissioner is pro tourism so the timing may be right to pursue this.  Aaron suggested that for security-of-the-water-supply reasons the City might like the idea of casual visitors stopping at these specially prepared pull-off areas.

c. Delaware County also met with the DEP Commissioner Emily Lloyd.  It was a productive meeting.

11. Adjourn:  8:00PM .  Motion to adjourn.  Linda Burkhardt, second by Bill Layton.

Present: Stephen Walker, Ric Coombe, Bruce Dolph, Toni Coiro, Carl Stuendel, Michael McCrary, Linda Burkhardt, Catherine Magarelli, (Town of Woodstock candidate for CWT Executive Committee), Jeff Baker, Counsel.
 
Others Present: Michelle Yost, Aaron Bennett, Dean Frazier.
 
1. Call to order: 6:15 PM
 
2. April 21, 2014 meeting minutes. Motion to approve Dolph, second by Walker. Passed.
 
3. Privilege of the floor:
a. Michelle Yost announced there were still seats available for the May 30 bus tour and that on Saturday May 24^th there will be a memorial for Pat Meehan on Windham Days.
 
b. Linda Burkhardt inquired how to nominate Cathy from the Town of Woodstock to become a member of the Executive Committee. Jeff Baker described the process to accomplish that. She would need a nomination from the Town Board before the CWT Executive Committee could act.
 
c. Carl Stuendel circulated copies of the handout for the Watershed Agricultural Council’s April 23, 2014 Ag Farm Tour and rack-cards detailing how WAC sets priorities for Agriculture Conservation Easements. Carl declared the tour was excellent.
 
4. Reports:
a. Meeting with DEP: CWT letter – regulation enforcement. Dave Warne of NYCDEP responded quickly to the letter. He indicated that he would be assembling a group of DEP staff to meet with the CWT on this topic. DEP is still discussing internally and expects to get back to the CWT in a week to ten days.
 
5. Volunteer Flood Buyout Program
a. DEP – Final Draft of the Flood Buyout Program has been released. CWT did comment on the document. Some comments were adopted, notably the less controversial ones.
 
b. Degree of Planning Services. There is agreement among existing stakeholders that at this time NYC funding does not provide for normal comprehensive planning in communities.   Funding for planning and consultant services is available by project. The delineation between the needs for the projects derived from the LFA and how those fit into a more comprehensive community plan is not necessarily clear, in practice. Stakeholders agreed to seek additional funding in this process, however given the nature of the process and difficulty in separating the impact of a given project or projects from the LFA in the context of a more comprehensive plan, that in the future the CWT should pursue with DEP a discussion with the justification for additional funding regarding this planning matter, from the City of New York. It was suggested that perhaps the rules for CWC Catskill Fund for the Future could be modified to cover the more comprehensive planning/ consultant costs. The respective stream corridor management programs have money to cover costs except for comprehensive planning and the CWC program language, consistent with the Stakeholders agreement, does not allow for funding comprehensive planning costs.
 
6. Updates:
a.  Status of:
i. Contracts – CWC, Stream Programs – Jeff will check into the concern about a 14 month wait before seeing any money.  Some DEP staff have stated that there will not be an interruption in services between contracts so that work will continue. Aaron Bennett said communities in Ulster are ready to go with buy-outs as soon as funding is available and/or the program rules are finalized implying that a delay in contracting would be very discouraging to people already under duress.
 
ii. CWC Relocation Program Rules –  Approved May 6.  CWT Executive Committee opened the floor to discussion of these program rules. Dean presented some of the concerns arising at the Friday May 16, 2014 Core Group Meeting hosted by Delaware County Department of Watershed Affairs and stated that these comments would be submitted to the CWC.   Carl said that the program rules approved May 6 were still awaiting the language from the city for project costs and terms for residential  relocations (Section 17:02:03-4.c) and that these would be taken up at the June 3^rd  CWC Board meeting.  He, therefore, recommended any comments on the current rules be submitted before the June 3^rd CWC meeting. Aaron Bennett expressed concern regarding the 20 year threshold, in that the standard may not be able to be met should the program start be delayed beyond 2016 and not include the 2006 1996 floods.

Carl asked how many of the CWT Executive Committee members had regular conversations with their counterparts on the CWC Board of Directors?  Responses indicated that contact was minimal at best.  He recalled for the Executive Committee that Georgianna Lepke of Neversink, former President of the CWC Board, had recommended to CWT that her board meet with the Executive Committee on a quarterly basis at the regularly scheduled CWT meetings to simply stay in touch and to discuss topics of mutual concern.  Carl said he thought this was a good idea, but one that was never pursued.  He said with the board’s permission he’d like to reach out to Mike Triolo to explore this further. Ric Coombe supported this and reminded everybody that once upon a time there was a closer relationship between the two organizations.  He wondered why we even had to submit formal comments to CWC about the program rules.  He would like to see us get back to the place where we could share our concerns in an informal setting.  Jeff Baker concurred, saying that was the original intent when the CWC was formed as a result of the Coalition’s negotiations with the City that led to the MOA in 1997.
 
iii. WSP Changes.  In discussions between Carl and Jeff Graf, Jeff indicated that the DEP will be convening a meeting of the large stakeholder group to discuss the language changes needed to the WSP that will enable the Flood Mitigation-Voluntary buyout program to be compliant with the WSP and meet the needs of the buyout program.  Jeff has been in touch with Corporate Counsel discussing what the needed changes may be need.
 
iv. FAD – Final released May 7, 2014 No one has yet read it all the way through thoroughly, though with a cursory review it appears to reflect all that has been agreed to plus a couple of new additions such as an evaluation by a Blue Ribbon Panel as to its effectiveness in protecting the water supply.  Also, Phoenicia WWTP is still possible.
 
b. Proposing Relocation Meeting – Carl announced that given the deadline for CFA grant applications in all counties, this meeting would not take place until after June 16^th.
 
c. Kurt Ossenfort proposal –  still no response.
 
d. Watershed Inspector General –  Watershed Inspector General (WIG) issue regarding a Windham development project.  Stephen reported the developer is in abeyance at this time.  Indicated the delays and lack of resolution has caused him to stop.  Jeff has been and will continue to discuss the matter with Kevin Young and Dan Ruzzo.
 
e. Outreach – see privilege of the floor.
 
f. Below Dams Activities
i. Delaware River Below Dams Initiatives – Frazier reported the UDRTC is moving forward.  Has meetings scheduled with the DEP Deputy Commissioner to discuss opportunities for more uniform releases.  The UDRTC will hold a meeting to introduce their, concerns, mission and objectives.
 
ii. Consent Order – Esopus – Aaron reported that environmental groups seem more receptive to going back to the use of ALUM to precipitate turbidity.  Apparently, the environmental concerns of ALUM are less than existing alternatives.
 
7. Warrants and Treasurer’s report:
a. Treasurer’s report.   Saving Balance $88,590.27; Checking balance $1,000.15.
Motion to accept Michael. Second Linda. Passed.
 
b. Warrants. Two warrants totaling $2,772.91.
Motion to approve Stephen; Second Linda.  Passed.
 
8. Correspondence – None reported.
 
9. Other:
a. Steve Walker and Carl informed the committee about being contacted by AP Reporter Michael Hill. Steve said he told them that the new FAD programs could be seen as another set of tools available to coalition towns.
 
b. 8PM – Motion to go into Executive Session by Ric Coombe for the purpose of discussing the medical, financial, credit or employment history of a particular person or corporation, or matters  leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person or corporation;
second by Bruce Dolph.  Passed.
Motion to come out of Executive Session; Time 8:10PM by Ric Coombe;
second Bruce Dolph. Passed.
 
10. Motion to adjourn 8:12 PM: Steve Walker; Second Bruce Dolph. Passed.   Time 8:12PM. Passed.