Present: Carl Stuendel, Bruce LaMonda, Bruce Dolph, Linda Burkhardt, Tony Coiro, Mike McCrary, Stephen Walker, Ric Coombe, Tony Van Glad, Bill Layton, Pete Bracci, and counsel Jeff Baker

Dean Frazier, Tim Cox, Aaron Bennett, Michelle Yost, Dennis Doyle, Amanda LaValle, Bob Basil and Jay Braman.

1.            Call to order 6:17 PM

2.            Minutes – Motion to accept Linda Burkhardt; seconded by Ric Coombe.  Passed Unanimously.

3.            Privilege of the Floor – Dennis Doyle, Director of the Ulster County Planning Department and Amanda LaValle Coordinator of Ulster County Department of the Environment were given the floor.  Dennis and Amanda made an oral presentation regarding concerns associated with turbid releases and flooding concerns from the Ashokan  Reservoir.   They were seeking the development of a dialogue with the CWT on a number items.  How might the CWT and the below Dam towns work together on issues related to the FAD and MOA on the premise that reservoir operations are related to the management of turbidity which is a major concern of the FAD?  They are seeking a seat at the table with regard to negotiations between the City and the NYS DOH, NYS DEC and EPA on the FAD and ongoing regulatory matters.  They posed that it may well be worth the effort and time to revisit the FAD and MOA to attempt  to get improvements as it has been in place since 1997 and things have changed.  For instance there is no simple appeals process pertaining to regulatory problems.  They also stated that since the form of government in Ulster County has changed to that of a County Executive that should be taken into consideration in all these matters as that is a significant change in that the Executive speaks with one voice from Ulster County. They voiced concerns regarding the inability to get access to documents sent between these entities when they are negotiating on critical issues directly affecting the watershed and below dam towns.  A thoughtful discussion ensued.  Counsel, Jeffery Baker reflected on how and when the CWT has historically been able to make serious headway with the City on issues of concern.

He also reviewed the purposes and jurisdictional limitations involved, pertaining to the MOA, FAD and WSP.  For instance, the jurisdiction of FAD only includes above dam matters related to protecting water quality.  The framework for opportunities to make changes reside more under the water supply permit renewals related to DEC’s function in that process, rather than the MOA.  While the CWT might agree that changes would be helpful it would be a monumental and costly lift to get changes in the MOA as there are no leverage points to make those changes, hence it is not in the CWT’s interest, at this time, to take that on.

CWT agrees that they would like more access during the FAD renewal process, the “seat at the table”.  However, the Courts ruled that the CWT does not have standing in the FAD review. Having said that, the CWT has been able to influence what is currently in the FAD and is relatively pleased with the revised 2007 FAD overall.  To reinforce Counsel’s opinion he reminded all, that it was through the legal avenue provided via the Water Supply Permit renewal process, that the CWT was able to make gains regarding changes to the permit that benefited the watershed area and equally important the avenue to secure programmatic commitments in the WSP.  These assured their incorporation into the Final Draft of the 2007 Revised FAD.  Mr. Baker suggested that the DEC Consent Order is where Ulster County should focus as he believes that is a place where Ulster County should have standing in the process.  The question of commonality of interests is important.  The challenge of the CWT is that it has multiple interests based on a different jurisdictional framework than what is being sought by below dam municipalities.   It was felt that would be a real challenge to organize around and be effective all around.

Speaking to Dennis and Amanda, Mr. Baker referenced a statement attributed to Mike Hein from an article in the Times Herald Record – 9/16/13; by James Nani.  “Hein said it’s no surprise current watershed communities are now comfortable with the DEP; they’ve become reliant on the DEP’s good graces — money and programs — and are therefore not inclined to criticize the department. ”  Mr. Baker suggested that if Mr. Hein is seeking assistance from the CWT, such statements will not engender their support.  To suggest the CWT has not taken strong stands on issues and negotiations and continues to do so with the City, or any other watershed partner, he is at best, poorly informed.

The Board concluded that the scope of the discussion was very broad and that they needed a proposal from Dennis and Amanda that more clearly delineates what it is they want.  Dennis thanked the Board for their time and indicated that they would be back with a written document.

4.            Revised FAD – Counsel indicated there were four areas of interest to the CWT.  He said it was very consistent with the elements outlined in the WSP.

a.  Land Acquisition:
i) He recommended that the CWT seek to reduce the City’s solicitation requirements by 50%.
ii) There needs to be language in the FAD relative to a cap on the number of acres that can be purchased through 2025 as agreed to in the WSP.  This process in now a state one, not federal and that given that, the cap should be included.
iii) Language needs to be included that states where they are at in terms of acres acquired and money expended.

b.  The new $15 million dollar program to purchase land for properties.  Language needs to be inserted that describes how this program integrates with the overall flood mitigation program. This program will likely require a change to the WSP.

5.            WAG update.  It was announced that Robert Illjes is no longer with the WAG.   WAG has indicated they will be meeting with city officials to discuss some issues.

6.            Article 7 Lawsuits  and TLAP – The Towns of Roxbury and Tompkins are holding out on signing the Article 7 agreements.  They are seeking to have the Article 7 settlement language that enables the settlements to evolve into the TLAP program when they mature.   A meeting is set for Tuesday September 17^th to discuss this.

7.            Flood Mitigation Program Status – nothing new to report.

8.            EWP Projects.  Greene County reported that things are being done.  Delaware County will be seeking an extension on project that has been delayed due to technical difference.  This is a major and costly project.   Delaware County SWCD is closing in on the finish line.  A few of the 30 plus projects, are going to be nip and tuck regarding the 9/30 timeline

9.            Warrants and Financial Report.
Pete Bracci moved to pay the warrants and accept the treasurer’s report.  Ric Coombe Seconded.  Unanimous vote to pay.

10.          Correspondence – announced.

11.          Adjourned.  Motion by Stephen; seconded by Bruce LaMonda.  Passed.

Adjourned 8:48 PM

Present: Carl Stuendel, Bruce LaMonda, Bruce Dolph, Linda Burkhardt, Tony Coiro, Mike McCrary, Stephen Walker, Ric Coombe, Tony Van Glad, Bill Layton, and counsel  Jeff Baker

Dean Frazier, Al Rosa, Tim Cox, Aaron Bennett, Clayton and Charlotte Brooks.

1. Call to order 6:17 PM
2. Minutes – Motion to accept with minor changes, Tony Van Glad; seconded by Bill Layton.  Passed Unanimously.
3. Privilege of the Floor- Clayton and Charlotte Brooks were recognized.  Clayton served as one of the original CWT Members.  It was a pleasure to see Clayton again.
4. Congressman Gibson – WAG Update
   Chairman Carl Stuendel and Counsel, Jeff Baker, briefed the CWT board regarding the Congressman’s Watershed Advisory Group –“attorney subgroup” meeting in Kingston earlier in the day.   Also present at the early meeting were, Congressman Gibson, Dan Ruzzo, Mike Sterthous, Alan Rosa, Clayton Brooks, Tim Cox, Peter Lopez, WAG Co-chairs Steve Bulger  and Robert Illjes.  About WAG Carl said the following: for the first time in recent history there exists a US congressional district (the redrawn 19^th) that is co-extensive with all the watershed communities east of the Hudson.  Chris Gibson currently represents this district and is attempting to familiarize himself with the efforts that have been made over the last two decades to address the issues vital to the communities in the watershed, especially to their often times difficult relations with NYC.  He recognizes the leadership role CWT and CWC have taken and is well aware of the importance of the unified voice with which the coalition has spoken and advocated.  He is not looking to reinvent the wheel, but does feel the opportunity exists to expand the scope of issues to be addressed (e.g., the effect of water releases on below the dam communities) and to use the his office in the newly drawn 19^th district to engender that positive spirit regarding the future that existed among the communities when the coalition was first formed.

   Though not discussed explicitly as separate and distinct issue at this WAG subgroup meeting (and certainly not the focus of the meeting), Jeff reported on the merits/opportunities of inclusion of below the dam communities, in some manner, with the Coalition of Watershed Towns.  There was also some dialogue about the possibilities of a relationship with the CWC.  Possibilities of inclusion in some manner with the CWC is much more complicated and challenging, both politically and legally and hence not given much weight during their discussion.  This would raise large questions and challenges with the MOA. The idea of inclusion with the CWT is that it may give the CWT a broader voice and influence, to have in watershed municipalities and below dam municipalities speaking as one voice.

   The primary concerns of below dam communities are reservoir releases and flooding events.  Warwarsing has large concerns regarding the leaking NYC tunnel in that town, but the largest issue overall is flooding and turbid releases.

   All who attended from the watershed expressed a strong conviction that the Congressman will be making the final decisions on what comes from the WAG and will focus on issues that provide a positive outcome for all, not one singular interest of a small number of parties.

   CWT board members agreed speaking with one voice would be the ideal, but posed a number of concerns with regard to developing some form of a relationship.  All CWT board members are empathetic with the concerns of below dam communities.  Some board members reminded the full CWT executive committee, that these towns below the dams that were partially in the watershed along with some of the counties supported the CWT from the beginning.  The fact that they did so, should not be forgotten, since portions of their municipalities were not directly or indirectly influenced by the proposed watershed rules and regulations, and the land acquisition program.  Not all below dam, interested municipalities, are within a municipality that is partially in the watershed.

   It was suggested a number of times that the CWT should review its mission to determine if a merger of sorts was consistent with the CWT mission.  The question of commonality of interest, (the common ground) was raised a number of times and resonated with the board in general.  Is it, just the City is the bad guy?  What do the releases have to do with the FAD?

   Regarding the pending FAD — Jeff Baker strongly suggested at the early meeting and reiterated it at the CWT meeting that trying to make a difference at this stage in this review is not realistic and that this is a longer term initiative.  He further stated that the Congressman suggested that this be the starting point of below dam issues for the next FAD revision in 2017.

   Would the CWT be overwhelmed by the singular interest of flood releases?  Most board members voiced that below dam municipalities are not subject to the watershed rules and regulations and direct town impacts of the land acquisition program.  The funding at CWC was put in place to offset those impacts.  In light of that, board members were wary of below dam communities having access to CWC funds, etc.

   The CWT has a multitude of issues it addresses and not the single issue that the below dam municipalities are focused on.  The board felt that for a relationship to work, that below dam municipalities would have to accept and recognize the breadth of issues the current CWT has or else a merger would not work.

   Counsel commented that he would have to evaluate the legal considerations a formal relationship with the other group.  He said that the CWT has no authority to enter into binding agreements.

   A number of members pointed out that the flood mitigation efforts in the watershed would have a positive impact on flooding and turbidity below the dams, in the long run.

   Also raised, a number of times, were the time, energy and resources it would take to not only figure out a way to partner, but how to operate if combined and what would happen if a lawsuit evolved?   What would the new municipalities bring to the coalition?  Would this initiative detract from the core mission and ongoing issues given limited resources?

   There was discussion at the CWT meeting regarding the closing of the tunnel for repair and how that might affect the releases from the Delaware System.  No conclusions were drawn, but points to the fact more education is needed.

   There was general consensus that the below dam municipalities need to come to the CWT to explain what they are looking for and what are their expectations from the CWT were the two to merge?

   A great deal of discussion ensued regarding how the CWT might be organized, who would be on the CWT and how would this group vote or influence any CWT actions?  Who would report to whom and how?   Suggestions were made that a secondary coalition be formed of below the dam communities, that these communities would be represented at the CWT by a liaison position, etc.  This discussion pointed to the need for a great deal more discussion.

   Chairman Stuendel requested feedback on supporting a press release the WAG wants to put out that would potentially have language such as “Watershed Interests Converge”.   No decision was made, but several board members suggested that it was premature to make such a statement as it would misrepresent the reality of the current status of where things are.

   The board granted Carl and Jeff permission to continue a dialogue regarding this issue.

5. FAD status – Still anticipating imminent release.
6. Flood Mitigation Program Status – It was suggested that some SWCD’s/ Ulster CCE , may be near to or have completed negotiations for flood mitigation contracts.
7. EWP projects – Tony Van Glad reported 6 Schoharie projects are pending construction.(??). Delaware County reported that, as of August 9^th  the SWCD had completed 13 projects, 7 projects were under construction, 9 are under contract with construction pending and 3 projects were left to go to bid.  Two of which are larger and complex.  The total includes 9 projects outside the watershed.   Ulster, Greene and Sullivan no reports, at this time.
8. Warrants and financials –
   Bruce LaMonda moved;  Ric Coombe seconded that warrants from Young and Sommer for $1,907.50 and Greene Count Soil and Water Conservation District for $385.48 for a total of $2292.98 be paid.  Passed Unanimously.
   Treasurer Tony Van Glad reported the checking account balance is $1,000.11 and the savings account balance is $94,003.22.
9. Correspondence –
   Notice of Preliminary decisions of the CWC was provided.
10. Adjourned 7:57 PM.  Motion to adjourn Bill Layton; Seconded Bruce Dolph.  Unanimous.

Began: 6:17 PM

Present: Mike Mullen, Stephen Walker, Bruce Dolph, Bill Layton, Bruce LaMonda,  Michael McCrary, Linda Burkhardt , Cindy Donofrio and counsel  Jeff Baker.

1. Minutes for the June 17, 2013 meeting were moved by Cindy Donofrio and seconded by Bruce Dolph. Passed unanimously.
2. No privilege of the floor was requested.
3. Transition to new board and administrative support is near complete.   Finance matter should be reportable the next meeting.
4. Linda Burkhardt:  Linda was elected as an alternative. Counsel advised that absent any other representatives  from Ulster County Linda could and should be moved to a primary representative for Ulster County.  Stephan Walker moved and Bill Layton seconded a motion to make Linda a primary member of the executive committee.  Passed unanimously.
5. Congressman Gibson’s Watershed Advisory Group.  Jeff reported that he and Carl met with Congressman Gibson and WAG co-chairs Steve Bulger and Bob Illjes.  The discussion revolved around the role of CWT on this group.  Carl will be a member and Jeff will attend as counsel to the CWT.  Jeff indicated that he explained the history of the watershed negotiations, the parties involved and how the dynamics of watershed parties involved in negotiations affected this complicated agreement and the accomplishment of the CWT over the past 20 years.  The Congressman was very attentive with many questions for Jeff and Carl.  Four subcommittee Chairs have been established.  Jim Thomson  – Economy; Alan Rosa – History, Bob Stanley – Municipalities and Robert Bishop of Hamden, NY – agriculture.  A meeting is planned for July 29^th.  Location and times TBD.  On behalf of the CWT Carl and Jeff filled out the questionnaire circulated by the WAG.
6. FAD Status – Anticipated to be released at any moment.  Money still being discussed.
7. Flood Mitigation Program Status.  Contract discussions etc  are still underway with Districts, CCE’s, Counties and CWC.  Scope of CWC activities is being discussed.  Jeff recommended that opportunities be retained in their suite of programs to assist homes in critical areas.
8. Emergency Watershed Program EWP – This was briefly explained to raise awareness of the  Executive committee members to they are informed as possible about this flood mitigation effort in response to Irene and Lee.  Bruce advocated for the CWT to become more aware of all the efforts underway so if it is discovered there are any common problems across the watershed relative to the various mitigation programs, even beyond EWPs that the CWT can take action to support  actions to resolve the problems.  Jeff briefly discussed CRZ and other funding headed to this area for flood mitigation.  IT was also discussed that there are some more bumps in the road with regard to funding for second homes under the FEMA buyout.
9. Belleayre Resort at Catskill Park – Comments are due July 24^th.
10. Correspondence:  Carl’s informative letter to CWT all members, the CWC and East of Hudson Reports.
11. No financials to report.
12. Adjourned 7:15.   Motion by Bill Layton.  Second Bruce Dolph.  Unanimous.

Present:  Carl Stuendel, Peter Bracci, Bill Layton, and Bruce Dolph (Delaware County); Dennis Lucas and Stephen Walker (Greene County); Tony VanGlad (Schoharie County); Bruce LaMonda (Ulster County), Mike Mullens (Sullivan Co. Alt.).

Newly elected members: Tony Coiro and Mike McCrary (Greene County); Cindy Donofrio and Keitha Capouya (Delaware Co. Alternates/Copouya tied with Stuendel).  Jeff Baker – Counsel.
 

6:20 PM start

1. April meeting minutes – motion to accept April minutes made by Carl Stuendel, seconded by Bruce LaMonda, all present in favor.

• Jeff Baker reviewed election results for the 2013 – 2015 term with the following results:
  • Ulster County – Bruce LaMonda, Linda Burkhardt (Alt).  Linda will assume the second voting position.
  • Sullivan County – Ric Coombe, primary; Mike Mullens (Alt.)
  • Greene County – Stephen Walker and Mike McCrary (primary); Tony Coiro and Dixie Baldrey (Alternates)
  • Delaware County – Bruce Dolph, Bill Layton, and Pete Bracci (primary); Cindy Donofrio and John VanBenschoten (Alternates).  The tie for the third Alternate is between Carl Stuendel and Keitha C.  Delaware County primary and alternate members decided the tie.
    • Before the members caucused, Carl and Keitha spoke about their interests serving on the executive committee:
      • Carl – important CWT have a voice in watershed matters, that the historical context not be lost and continuity remain as the CWT moves on, would like be proactive in matters
      • Keitha’s family is from Pepacton, her mom was born there, she has strong family ties to the watershed, remembers when the dam was built and how returning veterans at the time were affected by the changes.
  • Keitha and Carl endorsed each other noting they would be happy with whoever was chosen
  • Roll call – Pete Bracci, Bruce Dolph, Bill Layton, and Cindy D. all voted for Carl S.  All agreed Carl’s experience is an asset and was the main reason for choosing him.
  • Before turning over the reins, Chairman Lucas was recognized for his steadfast leadership, vision, tenacity and sense of humor while leading the Coalition for the last six years.  He will be missed and the committee thanked him for his service.

• Motion to nominate Carl S. as chairman (Stephen W. motion, seconded by Bruce L.) and Bruce Dolph (Bill Layton motion, seconded by Pete B.).  Bruce Dolph received three votes (Bill Layton, Pete Bracci, and Bruce D) and Carl S. received five – Tony V., Mike Mullen, Stephen Walker, Mike McCrary, and Bruce LaMonda.
  • Vice Chair – Bruce Dolph was nominated as Vice Chair, motion by Stephen Walker carried unanimously
  • Treasurer – Tony VanGlad was nominated on a motion by Bruce LaMonda, carried unanimously
  • Administrative Assistance will transfer to Delaware County Watershed Affairs on a motion by Tony VanGlad, seconded by Stephen Walker carried unanimously.

• Mid-term FAD review – Jeff B. – the state should come out with this soon and impressed that the CWT review first before the document goes out to the public.  Initial indications of funding amounts for the Flood Hazard Mitigation program are encouraging.
• Governor’s Community Redevelopment Zone (CRZ) program and Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs are generating a lot of interest and confusion regarding who’s doing what.
• Hazard Mitigation Grant Program call for projects emailed today, focus on rebuilding communities, Letter of Intent due July 5, 2013 (post note: deadline extended to 8/1/13)
• Stephen W. questioned whether a town board could serve as flood advisory committee under the CRZ.  Baker responded state is too rigid, they determine who serves

6. Riparian Buffer Acquisition Program

The CCCD report is done, it will be open for public comment.  Implementing the program will be staff intensive and correlate to the Stream Management Program.

7. Correspondence

• East of Hudson Notice of Preliminary Decisions Right of Objection – CWT doesn’t have right to object to East of Hudson proposals; MOA specifies parties that are notified.

• Delaware Co. resolution to support increased water releases – Tony V. questioned the resolution to increase water releases from Delaware Co. Board of Supervisors.  Dean Frazer responded communities in Delaware County below the dams want more releases for fisheries and recreation.  DEP has right to remove 850 million gallons/day, according to a 1954 decree.

◦    The resolution is in support of these communities, for which DEP’s Paul Rush and Commissioner Strickland have shown interest.  The city’s Operation Support Tool (OST) is expected to project 1 – 2 months in advance when and how to produce more voids when water capacity allows

◦    There are no similar mandates in Schoharie County below Schoharie Reservoir.  VanGlad reported when dam restoration is complete, greater flexibility in creating voids will allow more flood control capacity.

◦    Bruce Dolph made a motion that CWT support Delaware County’s resolution, seconded by Peter B., carried unanimously.

8. Hydroelectric – Pete B. inquired if there’s any update on the city’s permit for hydroelectric power on their properties.  Jeff Baker will look into it.  The CWT is on the mailing list for FERC update.  The CWT decided to monitor the development but not get actively involved.

7:40 PM meeting adjourned on motion by Bruce Lamonda seconded by Carl Stuendel with all present in favor.