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.

Present: Tony Coiro, StephenWalker, Bill Layton, Bruce Dolph, Linda Burkhardt, Pete Bracci, Ric Coombe, MikeMcCrary, Counsel Jeff Baker.   Catherine Magarelli, a potential member from Town of Woodstock..
 
Others present: Rick Weidenbach, Aaron Bennett, Michelle Yost, Tim Cox, Dean Frazier, Jeff Skelding – Director of Friends of the Upper Delaware River.
 

1.  Call to order:  6:15 PM
 

2.  Minutes – Feb 17, 2014 minutes: Motion to accept as amended Linda Burkhardt; second by Bill Layton.  Passed unanimously.
March 17, 2014 minutes: Motion to accept Ric Coombe; second by Linda Burkhardt.  Passed unanimously.
 

3.  Privilege of the floor – Friends of the Upper Delaware River (FUDR)
Jeff Skelding spoke on behalf of the FUDR.  Members of FUDR are avid fly fishermen that flock to the Upper Delaware and its tailwaters to enjoy fishing the world class cold water fishery.  These reaches of the river system are naturally restocked.  They are particularly interested in releases of greater volume and greater uniformity from both the Cannonsville and Pepacton dams to enhance the fishery.  They have partnered with the Villages and Towns of Hancock and Deposit and the Town of Colchester in developing a unified statement for improvements to the forthcoming Flexible Flow Management Program, as well as, the City’s Operation Support Tool (OST).  It is a nonprofit organization funded by its membership.  They are partnering with the same municipalities to seek funding for the development of stream management programs in the area.  They are a party to the recently released Upper Delaware River Cold Water Fishing and Boating: Economic Impact Study.  Adding to Jeff’s comments Dean talked about the economic significance of these fisheries.  It was also mentioned that over the last 3 years, 44 weekends have been lost due to inadequate or non-uniform releases.
FUDR is a community minded organization doing fundraising, such as their “One Bug” competition April 25 – 27 in Hancock.  They look forward to any collaboration with the CWT wherever and whenever possible.
 

4.  Reports:
Relocation subcommittee – April 15, 2014 report and discussion of comments related to the NYC voluntary FBO program.
Carl summarized the discussion from the 4/15 meeting.  A slide show was presented by Margaret Irwin a consultant who has worked with Prattsville, the Town of Union, and the Town of Sidney under the State’s New York Rising program to illustrate what the potential may be for communities to address flood buyouts and relocations.  There was clear discussion that the voluntary NYC Flood Buyout program is not designed to do what NY Rising does as the NY Rising program has broader objectives and programs looking at a community wide systematic approach beyond flood mitigation.
 
In terms of funding, the NYC FBO program is not as broad in scope.   NYC supports the principles of New York Rising, but its FBO program is not designed to finance comprehensive planning that could be useful in all steps, especially Phase II, of the LFA.  Both programs require an LFA.
 
One leading participant in the overall discussion expressed a preference to have an overarching, community-makeover design in place and all funding sources for such a plan orchestrated (at least to have identified all the funding gaps) to ensure that issues identified in a preliminary LFA will not be set up as priorities to be acted upon immediately before the community has had time to consider undesirable and unintended consequences that may result from hasty implementation.  One such concern is that parcels identified in an LFA as causing a choke point on the waterway under investigation might be deemed a good candidate for the buy-out program, but if purchased, could create a financial risk for the owner(s) and/or community if there is no funding available to resolve the risk.
 
Subsequently, another participant in the discussion raised a concern about waiting for such an overarching plan to be in place before any community action could be taken.  At the CWT meeting Carl read a statement from William Harding of NYSDOS.  Paraphrasing that statement (for the purpose of these minutes) it was Mr. Harding’s opinion that if the relocation group were to press for funding for comprehensive planning efforts funded under the NYC FBO, particularly without an LFA, that the City’s funding  could easily sit untapped with the result that very little would be accomplished.  He recommended that communities use the NYC FBO funds as intended so as not to lose the opportunities provided for under the City program and work toward finding additional funding for comprehensive planning efforts if a community wishes to pursue Phase II of the LFA in that frame of reference.
 
The discussion of the CWT Exec Committee overwhelmingly supported the need for using the science of the LFA first, regardless of using the City’s FBO approach or the NY Rising program approach.  The science would inform critical decisions by communities relative to both non-buyout and buyout mitigation efforts.  It was also recognized that it could be used to assist in decision making relative to buyout and relocation efforts.  The general conclusion of the Executive Committee was that the LFA would identify where, if voluntary buyouts were to occur, the best return for money invested to reduce flood elevation levels.  Additionally, given the priorities of the program, non-buyout mitigation efforts (low hanging fruit) that reduce flood elevations significantly should be the first priority with buyouts and/or relocations coming later and communities would need that information regardless of buyouts occurring or not.  In response to unintended consequences, the negative risk potential discussed above, many noted that there is risk in anything a community does involving a major project and that is an accepted factor in any decision making.  Additionally, it was noted that there is risk involved when specific properties and circumstances are identified a community’s All Hazards Mitigation Annex and when the town board approves FEMA’s new flood plain maps.
 
Carl reported that the CWC relocation funding provides no funding for planning needs.  Jeff Baker suggested that the CWC board could be lobbied to amend the CWC’s Catskill Fund for the Future program, indicating there is not a legal barrier to do so.
 
Michelle Yost recommended that if communities choose to go through Phase II that they document the planning gaps in the process for future use in pursuing funds either from NYC, State or other funding sources.  Acknowledging there will be some communities that do not have planning assistance to move them from Phase I, the LFA study, to Phase II, implementing projects, especially for large projects involving relocations, Michelle commented those communities will likely lag behind others with support (e.g., those in NY Rising Community Reconstruction) in getting projects off the ground and seeing results from the LFA.
 
Regarding program rules for the Relocation Program, Alan reported at the 4/15 meeting that the CWC would only share the program rules once they are approved by the CWC board.
 
Carl offered to post any additional comments, pertaining to the Flood Buyout Program from CWT members or agencies on the website.
 

5.  Updates:
a.  WIG issue – nothing to report.
 
b.  Status of:
i.  Contracts – CWC, Stream Programs – No contracts signed at this time.  Still within NYC process.
ii.  FAD – N/R
iii. WSP – Modifications are dependent upon completion of buyout program is finalized.

c.  Kurt Ossenfort proposal – still out there.  Has not responded to Counsel.  Needs to follow-up.
 
d.  Outreach –
i. Michelle informed those present that there are rack cards available announcing the Month of May activities and workshops.  Need RSVP to participate in some programs being held by the Greene County SWCD.
 
ii. Carl reported that there is no online option with WordPress to register a domain name for three years.  He registered the domain name for one year only, to be renewed annually.  The current cost for one year is $18.
 
e.  Below Dams –
i. Delaware River Below Dams Initiatives – covered under Jeff Skelding’s presentation, with the exception of noting that FUDR is collaborating with Delaware County on behalf of the municipalities to apply for project and program grants in the tailwaters.
 
ii. Consent Order – Esopus – Aaron noted that the issues raised by FUDR are very similar to the same ones noted on the Lower Esopus in recent years.  Aaron reported that on May 12 at 3 and 6 PM there will be a public scoping session at SUNY Ulster (491 Cottekill Road, Stone Ridge, NY) regarding the Draft Scope for the Modification of the CATALUM SPDES Permit Environmental Impact Statement.
 
f.  Dues – Tony Coiro suggested it was misleading to say some towns were in arrears when, in fact, the date due for that town is not until mid-year.  There was also some discussion regarding the methodology used to determine amount of dues paid by muni’s to the CWT.  It was noted that John Meredith developed the criteria.  It was suggested that the executive committee be updated on those criteria.
 
g.  Meeting with NRDC – March 21^st – CWT members that attended (Carl S., Bruce Dolph, Pete B., Jeff B.) the March 21, 2014 with representatives of the NRDC (Eric Goldstein, John Adams, Mark Izeman, Ramsay Adams) had mixed comments about the meeting.  Some felt positive toward the discussion others, not so much.  There was a general sense that some collaboration could lead to mutually beneficial results, but also a sense of caution as the differences between the two parties could be problematic.  Most believed developing an ongoing dialogue was worth the effort, if for no other reason than there could be points in time where the parties could team up together for a common cause.
 
h. Riparian Buffer Program – DEP has released RFPs for the RBP.
 
i.  Warrants and Financial report.
Bill Layton reported read the treasurer’s report: $1,015 in checking; $88,580.27 in savings.  Ric moved to accept the report.  Stephen seconded the motion.  Passed unanimously.
 
Bill read the warrants.  Linda moved to pay the warrants.  Ric seconded the motion.  Motion passed unanimously.
 

6.  Correspondence – Email from William Harding.  Draft letter from Kevin Young.
 

7.  Other – Carl discussed the letter drafted by Kevin Young on behalf of the CWT pertaining to what seems to be an increasing tendency on the part of the City to challenge the grandfathered Non-Complying Regulated Activities (NCRAs) status of businesses (on the basis of a supposed increase in usage intensity) and of residences (on the basis of supposed vacancies of unacceptable time durations).  Carl continued his discussion on the premise of his understanding of the motion at the last meeting, that once Kevin Young provided exhibits indicative of the City’s tendency toward over-zealous enforcement choices, CWT had moved to enable Carl to sign it and give Jeff Baker permission to further investigate the issues.  Ric commented that his understanding of the motion was not the same as Carl’s.  His recollection of the resolution was to have Kevin draft a letter (with accompanying examples of where these putative violations had occurred) for the Executive Committee to review and approve and subsequently consider a motion for Jeff Baker to take action if satisfied with the letter before Carl signed it.  The board considered the need to move an additional resolution to give approval for Carl to sign the letter, but with further discussion and input from Carl on his understanding of the prior meeting’s motion, the board decided another motion would not be necessary and agreed that Carl could sign the letter.
 

8.  Adjourn.  Motion to adjourn Stephen, seconded by Linda.  Passed.   8:25 PM.

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

Others Present: Rick Weidenbach, Jeff Flack, Aaron Bennett, Tim Cox, Kevin Young, Darrin Elsom, Henry Stout, Dean Frazier.

1. Call to order :  6:15 PM

2. Minutes: Linda Burkhardt moved to approve the February minutes.  Pete Bracci seconded.  Motion Passed.

3. Privilege of the floor – The Friends of the Upper Delaware River had to postpone.  In lieu of that, privilege of the floor was granted to Kevin Young and his guests to discuss concerns pertaining to some NYC’s enforcement activities.  The primary concern was with regard to Non-Complying Regulated Activities (NCRAs) [Click HERE for additional information.] that the City is now declaring have had a change in the intensity since 1997 and that the properties in question are no longer being designated as NCRAs. The basis for making that decision appears to be arbitrary on their part.  Further there may be a question as to the extent of their jurisdiction.  It was suggested that the intent of the regulations are being interpreted differently by the City than it is locally. Guests described their situations.  The manner in which they are enforcing the regulations is counter-productive to the economic side of the MOA.

Tony Van Glad moved to have Jeff Baker investigate, once specific situations are provided to the CWT by Kevin Young.  Bruce Dolph seconded the motion.  Motion carried.

Pending further investigation and discussion the CWT may seek a meeting with the DEP to attempt to resolve what appear to be unnecessary or unwarranted actions on DEP’s part.

4. Report – February 19^th Voluntary Flood Buyout/Relocation meeting. Carl and Counsel informed the board members of the 2/19 meeting in Kingston. NYC DEP went through an outline that portrayed how they see the Flood Buyout program being administrated.  Emphasis at the meeting was that the City will only be involved if a community wants them involved.  It’s voluntary.  It was proposed that CWC act as the administrator of some of the funds to cover costs of local agencies and consultants. They reported that the State is interested in providing some kind of incentive for landowners that could not otherwise take part in a needed buyout sanctioned by a community.

a. Relocation subcommittee meeting: A relocation subcommittee, borne out of the February 19^th meeting, was held March 14^th to begin addressing what needs to be done to have a successful relocation program.  Bruce Dolph indicated that the issue is complicated with many variables that must be addressed. The LFA will be a major determining factor for the buyout and relocation programs, but science alone can’t address all the issues involved.  A serious question requiring careful consideration is this: how should communities that have suffered (or are at risk for suffering) devastating flood damage be approached to encourage them to create a vision for what they want their community to be 20 years from now.  Everything from finance, to code compliance and individual needs are involved.  Sidney was used as an example of how it could be done.  A lot of moving parts.  On April 1, NYC will circulate for discussion a draft of the buyout program.

b. WSP amendments:  no comments made.

5. Updates:
a. WIG issue.  Counsel has discussed the issue with City and State staff.  He stated he needs to get a letter out.

b. FAD
(i.) Contracts: Status and Progress – CWC stated that the contracts appear to be imminent in a month or two.  Awaiting City signoff.  Jeff stated that Dave Warne of DEP said that there will be no break in funding for Stream Programs this fall.  Jeff Flack said that Schoharie and Greene County believe they are in good position.  Rick Weidenbach stated that the DCSWD has not signed their contract yet.  It is currently in the City machinery.  The City has 30 to 60 days to review the contract and that the timeline should be nearing an end.   Rick reported that they will be out of money November 1^st of this year.  Ulster County not settled yet.  Sullivan County – unknown status.

c. Right of Objection – CWC has agreed to an arrangement with DEP on the issue.

d. Kurt Ossenfort proposal – ongoing.

e. Outreach   N/R

f. Below Dams
(i.) Delaware River Below Dams Initiatives – Municipalities and Friends of the Upper Delaware have reached agreement and are passing resolutions in support for the Upper Delaware River Tailwaters Coalition position on the FFMP and OST.

(ii.) Consent Order – Esopus – Aaron repeated what he reported at the February meeting that Ulster County has agreed to be the fiduciary entity to handle/disseminate the funds for the fish stocking, technical consultant, and stream management plan – a total of $290,000.  Additionally, he reported that UC recently distributed an RFP for the Technical Review Consultant to assist in the environmental impact statement review process. “We hope to have the consultant hired by the end of May.”

g. Dues: Little discussion.  Need to keep tracking.

h. CWT Website – Carl will register for three years. Linda Burkhardt moved to pay for three years of registration.  Tony seconded the motion.  Motion passed.

i. Meeting with NRDC – March 21^st 3-5.  At CWC offices.

j. Riparian Buffer Program – request to DEP – Jeff has had a strong discussion with the DEP about getting the RFP out.  DEP indicated they will be moving on it.

6. Warrants and treasurers report.   Ric Coombe moved to pay the warrant of $5,801.92  and approve the treasurer’s report.  Linda Burkhardt seconded.  Motion carried.
Saving balance            $107,301.45
Checking Balance       $    2,314.27

7. Correspondence: N/R

8. Other N/R

9. Adjourn: 8:15 PM.  Tony Van Glad moved to adjourn.  Bill Layton seconded. Carried.

Present: Carl Stuendel, Bruce Dolph, John Van Benschoten, Stephen Walker, Michael McCrary, Tony Coiro, Linda Burkhardt, Counsel: Jeff Baker.
Others in Attendance: Todd Pascarella, Tim Cox, Graydon Dutcher, Aaron Bennett, Rick Weidenbach, Michelle Yost, Dean Frazier. DEP guests: Jeffrey D. Graf -Chief, Watershed Lands and Community Planning and Beth Reichheld – Program Manager of DEP’s Stream Management Program (SMP).

1. Call to order: 6:18 PM

2. Minutes: Moved to approve Bruce Dolph, Seconded by Michael McCrary. Approved as amended. Eliminating the word the prior to the word that in the second line of the 4^th paragraph under #5. Right of Objection.

3. Privilege of the floor – DEP – Stream Implementation Spending
Carl introduced Jeff Graf and Beth Reichheld from the DEP to discuss expenditures to date by the DEP on the Stream Program.   They explained the rationale behind the spending for Phase I of the Stream Program from 1995 through 2007 of $28 million; spending plus the committed funds to complete obligations not yet implemented for Phase II from 2007 through 2013 of $30 million. Phase III funding commitment of $46.4 million excluding flood buyout funds plus $2.7 million for continued professional development. All funds include administrative costs. Administrative costs as a percentage of dollars committed is rapidly changing toward more implementation now that the programs are established. These funds do not include the millions of outside sources of funding that added to this total for example, the 3.1 million implemented in Delaware County and those projects in the other stream program projects.

A history was provided of how the program began in 1996 and evolved to date.
Phase I involved training of staff for in house expertise at the local level, organizing local committees to drive local decisions, pilot projects for implementation and inventory of all streams and conditions. This Phase was very labor intensive. In excess of 1,000 stream miles were walked. The primary goal was to identify problem areas, establish data to use as baselines for the development of the program and establish local expertise that address water quality and simultaneously address local needs. Streams were measured and analyzed to determine what problems existed and where changes to stream systems would be beneficial. Four programs were set up in each stream program effort including highways, recreation, stream corridor decisions and education and outreach that reported to the local Project Advisory Committees. The PAC would vote on proposed projects and members include elected officials. For example, in Delaware County the PAC voting members are elected town supervisors or their designee.

Phase II, Implementation, included:
19 flood mitigation projects
46 stream bank projects
23 stormwater related projects
8 other projects ‑‑ post flood emergency response Massive amount involving millions of work federal share 75% and city share 25%.
133 Riparian buffer projects

Floods related to Lee and Irene influenced a large shift toward flood mitigation issues and is reflected in the funding for Phase III. Phase III funding includes money for the LFAs, SMIPs, the CWC relocation fund, and voluntary buyout program option for municipalities. Reports are required by the FAD from the stream programs.   The Phase III program flood buyout program is a community based decision. No one is forcing a municipality to utilize any of the programs in Phase III.

The DEP’s website is being developed to include a click point that anyone on the internet can go to for each project. It will show it on a map with pictures and any available costs associated with the design and the final construction cost.   The board was reminded that it’s not just the flow of water but the ability to assure the best sediment transport possible and is the stream capable of that in its current state. Phase II involved implementation in earnest and putting projects on the ground.

4. Report – January 23rd   FAD $15 million (voluntary) flood buyout meeting. Counsel summarized the discussion and output from that meeting. The DEP laid out an outline to begin discussions. Very similar to the position put forth by the CWT. The next meeting will involve more detailed discussion. Discussion ensued regarding the flood buyout program and relocation program. Anchor business is exempt from host community approval. Buyout will require a change to the WSP. CWC jurisdiction does not currently include funding for relocations outside the designate hamlet areas. It was suggested that the Flood Mitigation Program needs to be able to address orphan properties outside hamlet designation areas, including the SCWDs. A discussion about the ability to move a school independent of community approval was tabled. Should go to negotiations. A discussion needs pursuing at the next meeting set aside up to $8 million for orphan projects and the need to get information on the universe of such properties and criteria for eligibility.

5. Right of Objection – A brief comment that it is necessary in order for the CWC to transfer the money’s into the future stormwater fund. Without it they could not front load the stream programs in light of a shortfall prior to completion of contract registrations.

6. Windham Mountain Sporting Club Project – Report on the project. Role of the Watershed Inspector General. – The Coalition discussed the challenges being posed by Phil Bein, Watershed Inspector General (WIG), at a project in Windham. Issues at hand include stormwater regulations.   Counsel stated the WIG’s role is not that of a regulator, but he is inserting himself into the process. It is a watchdog position created by the MOA with the purpose of monitoring the City and State for violations of their own regulations. Michael McCrary moved the following:
Whereas it would appear the WIG has interjected himself into the Windham Development project that exceeding his jurisdiction. The Coalition of Watershed Towns therefore resolves that Counsel write a letter to the Attorney General and copy the Governor’s office to express the concerns of this interjection and to attach the Executive order outlining the WIGs jurisdiction.
Bruce Dolph seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.

7. Updates:
a. Final FAD- Goal is to have to EPA by April 30.
i. Contracts – Phase III contracts with the stream program and the CWC program are getting closer to finalization. Counsel reported that he will be seeking information relative to the scope of work in each contract, the timeline of existing contracts and at which point existing contracts will run short of funds. The 12-18 month time frame for registration is far too long and will create funding gaps if not addressed. His most urgent concern is to assure that these financial commitments are part of the 2014-2015budget. He wants to assure that funding for the CWC appropriately compliments the SWCD and CCE stream contracts. The CWT is not interested in micromanaging anything, they wish to assure that these component relationships work well.
ii. Questions regarding FAD status and progress: Town of Middletown and Villages of Margaretville and Fleischmanns.   Fleischmmans’ Mayor Pascarella expressed concerns about a lack of information and understanding about the voluntary Flood Buyout Program. The primary concern is to not depopulate the community and lose the tax base. The City responded that they will only participate as a resource and cooperator in this voluntary effort where a community chooses to consider the buyout option that is available to them. The decision to participate is the communities. It was stated that the relocation program at the CWC was established in part to help keep communities whole where communities choose to participate in that the CWC and other funding sources could help relocate a qualified business or home in the same municipality. Linda Burkhardt reinforced Mayor Pascarella’s concern.

b. Kurt Ossenfort proposal – nothing to report.

c. Outreach – Report on Watershed Summit: Michelle Yost – great attendance, great presentations. Kudos to Michelle for another great job.

d. Below Dams –
i. Delaware River Below Dams Initiatives – things are moving forward with regard to the collaborative effort between the Villages of Hancock and Deposit and the Towns of Hancock, Deposit and Colchester and the Friends of the Upper Delaware River pertaining to the near term concerns with the FFMP and the longer term perspective for the Upper Delaware River Tailwaters.
ii. [Approved April 21, 2014 to read:] Consent Order – Esopus – Aaron Bennett reported that the $2.74 million fine has been allocated as follows: $2.64M of that is for Environmental Benefit Projects including $2M for stream restoration projects, $10,000 for fish stocking, $200,000 for the development of a stream management plan, $350,000 for stream gauges (including a new one at Lomontville, Town of Marbletown, that went “live” in November), and $80,000 to hire a technical consultant for communities to hire a technical consultant for communities to hire to help in the environmental impact statement review process. (Ulster County has agreed to be the fiduciary entity to handle/disseminate the funds for the fish stocking, technical consultant, and stream management plan – a total of $290,000.)

e. Dues – Status of accounts: Carl reported that he had met with the Town of Stamford and that he asked them to stand in solidarity with the rest of the Towns. They questioned the formula for calculating the dues and why the Town of Stamford, the Villages of Hobart and Stamford also pay dues when the Town is paying $1,000.

f. CWT Website – Carl reported that he will enable the CWT to post meeting minutes on line for better transparency for the public at large. He also informed the CWT could post a news letter on this site, but that he would need help from members to make this work.

g. Meeting with NRDC – still pending.

h. Riparian Buffer Program – City RFPs for the Program. None have been released. Counsel will look in to this. Stephen moved to have Council write a letter to the DEP requesting information from them as to what the status of the RFPS are. Seconded by Linda Burkhardt.

8. Warrants and Treasurers Report.   Bruce moved to pay the warrants and accept the treasurer’s report. Seconded by Linda Burkhardt. Passed Unanimously. Checkbook balance $1000.16; Savings balance $103,289.47.

9. Correspondence – noted.

10. Other – none.

11. Adjourn: 8:45PM. Moved by Bruce Dolph, no discussion, seconded by Mike McCrary. Passed.

Present: Peter Bracci, Tony Van Glad, Bill Layton, Bruce Dolph, Linda Burkhardt, Ric Coombe, Michael McCrary, Tony Coiro, John Van Benschoten, Carl Stuendel, Counsel-Jeff Baker

Others Present: Alan Rosa, Tim Cox, Dan Ruzzo, Rick Weidenbach, Michelle Yost, Jeff Flack, Dean Frazier, Aaron Bennett, Watershed Post – Lissa Harris.

1. Call to order: 6:17 PM
2. Minutes: Motion to approve minutes; Tony Van Glad – Second Bruce Dolph. Motion carried.
3. Privilege of the floor ‑‑ Carl Stuendel reported that Robert Beebe had informed him, Bill Layton, and Nancy Roberts (Town of Tompkins bookkeeper who challenged Mr. Beebe regarding values listed in what was assumed by the towns of Andes, Middletown, Roxbury and Tompkins to be completed templates) that the Article 7 proceedings had been dropped by the City when they realized that even using rough estimates to fill-in values for line items in the template form that had been agreed upon, the city saw immediately that the Town had for taxation purposes not overvalued the City’s underwater land holdings.  Mr. Beebe indicated that he had accomplished his goal when the city agreed to drop its proceedings.  He and the City left it at that and never proceeded to  determine actual values for all the line items in the template, especially the ones where he and the City had not come to an agreement on the methodology to be used to arrive at a value.  In the future if the towns choose to modify the valuation of the lands underwater, they could then opt into the TLAP program negotiated in the Dec 2010 Water Supply Permit.
4. Outcomes – FAD $15 million (voluntary) flood buyout meeting.  Carl asked Counsel to summarize the Friday January 17^th meeting regarding the proposal the CWT would like to put forward to the larger group.  He suggested the goal is to finalize things and try to get into the FAD by mid-April.  This fund is an extender to the CWC and SCMP funds.  Seeking up to $8 million for the homes and outlying parcels that weren’t or could not be covered under FEMA.    The Balance to be used to compliment the LFHMA and Stream efforts on improved properties strictly for flood purposes.  The existing Land Acquisition Money can be used in a willing seller willing buyer scenario subject to the new criteria in the 2010 Water Supply Permit, for purchases of non-improved parcels.  Questions remain as to eligibility of second homeowners.
   There was some sentiment that if addressing a second home would relieve flood issues it should be included.  If they involve water quality then they need to be included.  Administration of the program is complex.  CWT wants the City to cover administrative costs.  There are questions about who will own the land.  There are plusses and minuses for communities.  It was suggested that homes outside the hamlet areas be given a time limit with regard to ownership to avoid undesirable outcomes such as the possibility of flipping properties. The goal is to have a program with more flexibility than FEMA.  Unlike FEMA this program must address water quality as well.  Currently, CWC rules do not include relocation for outlying properties.  There needs to be a discussion on Jan. 23^rd as to how to handle these properties.  There is a need to identify the size of the universe, regarding all types of properties that may be eligible.  No action taken, but the Board was supportive of the issues presented by Counsel.
5. Right of Objection ‑‑ Extensive discussion regarding Right of Objection (RO) on projects being funded by DEP took place.  There is concern, that it is not clear how much money and where it is being spent by the City on stream programs.  It was suggested that the City should be required to do RO’s on stream projects under the auspices of SWCDs and Cornell Cooperative Extension of Ulster County (CCE/DC).  Options to the RO process were discussed. Following thorough discussion the CWT board concluded that transparency is what is really at the center of the debate.  The CWT board sought the easiest, least costly and most efficient process.  Feedback from the SWCD groups and those representing CCE/UC indicated that the easiest way to address the transparency question was by providing to the CWT and CWC and other watershed parties (electronically) the same periodic reports that are required under their respective contracts or by the FAD.
   Bruce Dolph moved to rescind the resolution pertaining to the Right of Objection requiring the City to provide them at the January CWT Board meeting.  Motion seconded by Bill Layton.  Motion carried.
   Linda Burkhardt moved to request that the SWCDs and CCE/UC provide reports for Counties West of the Hudson quarterly and annual reports of all stream management programs to the CWT board and any other interested party, such as the CWC.   Peter Bracci seconded the motion.  Motion carried unanimously.
   Mike McCrary suggested that if after three months if this seems to be working well that the CWT request that the DEP voluntarily make available all their expenditures in the watershed and in support of watershed activities.
6. Updates:
   a) Kurt Ossenfort proposal- nothing to report
   b) Outreach Reminder – Annual Watershed Summit, January 25, 2014
   c) Final FAD – Counsel reported that the goal is to incorporate contractual obligations into the FAD. (See #4 above.)
   d) Below Dams –
   **Delaware River Below Dams Initiatives – Dean reported progress with towns and villages below the dams is moving forward.
   **Permit / Esopus – All quiet at this time.
   e) Dues Follow-up – Carl reported there have been discussions with Stamford/Mike Triolo, no decisions;  he will be in touch with Deposit/Tom.   Ric Coombe reported that Fallsburg is not interested, as so little of the Town is in the watershed.
   f) Still pending – a meeting with NRDC.
7. Website: Carl restated his offer from the November meeting to create a website for CWT, but others need to volunteer to create the content.
8. Warrants – Bruce Dolph moved to pay warrants.  Second by Bill Layton.
   Checkbook Balance:    $1,015.00
   Savings Account:        $88,590.27
9. Correspondence pertaining to the Margaretville Resolution and Windham Mountain Sporting Club Project was acknowledged.
10. Other – none
11. Adjourn: Move to adjourn – Tony Van Glad.  Second Linda Burkhardt.  Passed. 8:45 PM.