In attendance: Carl Stuendel, Linda Burkhardt, Cathy Magarelli, Pete Bracci, Mike McCrary, Ric Coombe, Bruce Dolph, Tony Coiro, Tony Van Glad, Bill Layton.

Others: Guest Kevin Young, Rick Weidenbach, Aaron Bennett, Jeff Flack, Frazier

1. Call to order: 6:17 PM.

2. Minutes – April 20, 2015 – moved by Linda Burkhardt, second by Bruce Dolph. Approved.

3. Privilege of the Floor – none

4. Relocation Regulatory Relief –
Carl began the discussion talking about the various tools and the need to evaluate the potential of each and the outcome of the survey. Results are attached. [Overview and Results]  Discussion ensued.
Kevin then explained what he had in mind about each tool. Each tool may be useful to many, none or a few. It likely would be situational by town. Towns in the WOH do vary. Some towns have more restrictive zoning than others and some have much more potential for development than others.

Tools:
#1. Downsize the Project and Carefully Select Site. Simply by keeping housing projects smaller could in many cases reduce the regulatory hurdles. For example, in villages where vacant parcels are scarce in villages, utilizing structures not in a flood plain that are up for taxes or foreclosure could pose opportunities for those needing housing. (Tool #2 could come in to play here after running an LFA.) Perhaps the plan would be to do 1 or 2 homes per year. Bruce Dolph said that in Walton it may be the slow process of one new house at a time because many of the parcels that could be incorporated into the village with easy access to infrastructure are held by landowners who at this time don’t want to sell their land. In addition, housing has to be considered in a broader context than flooding alone. This tool would help avoid the delays.

#2. Generic Environmental Impact Statement; Infrastructure Planning Document. The need here would be for communities to conduct a housing study to determine potential housing location by developing a long-term plan. This would then be useful to a private investor. The idea is to have a location or locations to develop to avoid losing the tax base. Identify those structures resulting from the LFA that could be helpful. Windham has done this to anticipate housing needs for 2010 through 2040. This tool came in first in the survey results. Focus is on community sustainability. The first step is a housing study. Example, what will happen to these structures if flood insurance when actuarial rates come in to play? Will they be saleable? What will that do to the overall tax base? This would likely be more useful in communities where there are lower income housing needs.
It is unclear whether the CWC money could be used for this planning effort. Not for profits usually do these studies.

#3. Adopt an Expanded Type Two List. This tool was too involved and was discussed only briefly after the other tools had been discussed. In actively developed areas this may be an acceptable idea. In rural, less prosperous communities, this is not a viable alternative. The concept behind this tool was to maximize the benefit to a community already working within the SEQR process.

#4. Create Residential Development Areas. (This could be an outgrowth of the LFA and Tool #2.) The sense of many was that this would be too costly for municipalities to have a shovel ready area funded by the tax payers.   It was suggested that this would be done by a housing trust. The biggest challenge is having a location that has close proximity to infrastructure, because otherwise the cost would likely be prohibitive.

#5. State Legislation Allowing One-Stop Permitting in Locally Designated Areas in Stressed Communities. The idea behind this tool had been misinterpreted to this point. The intent of this initially in the MOA was to help inform people, interested in a project, of the regulatory requirements.

Kevin’s intent was to identify a person that can expedite projects through the regulatory processes. For example, DOS could dedicate someone to monitor the permits to be sure that there are no delays. DOS would set the time frames. DOS would hold permit authorities accountable. The sense was that this option would be politically palatable at many levels especially at the Governors level. This individual would need standing among all permitting entities. This person would be available for coordinated site visits and reviews. This person would be an advocate to assure the permitting process is as fluid as possible. If permitting agencies don’t have the staff or time to do it that would be on them and they would have to approve it.

This is an alternative to the original intent in the MOA. The state in essence funded the opposition to permits via the WIG. Instead, they should fund a position for the purpose of oversight on the permit processes to ensure regulating agencies meet their timeline obligations. It is unnecessary to have a person who simply tells applicants what permits they need as was proposed in the original MOA. This tool was viewed as positive by most if not all members worthy of pursuing. It would be funded as per MOA funds. It was suggested that examples be gathered. Perhaps examples aren’t needed. This governor wants to get things done.

#6. For both siting a septic system and allowing new development for a flood mitigation project it was proposed that a generic variance be granted by the City. As it stands now there are far too many restrictions for both.   Flexibility is needed as siting a septic system is very difficult. Kevin proposed for flood mitigation programs that they be considered “redevelopment projects” under the WR&R. There needs to be flexibility in these programs.   For instance siting a septic system is very difficult with our soils and finding sites that have good soils and meet all the other criteria can be at times impossible. The construction oversight is critical, because not everything is going to be perfect. Professional judgment is needed to get the best outcome possible. Trying to meet all the setbacks associated with stormwater and areas for treatment need flexibility. Variances can take years thereby not very practical or useful.

#7. Small Business Septic Repair Program. This idea stems from the white paper submitted to NYS DOH on March 31, 2015 by both Delaware County and CWT regarding the scope-of-work of the Expert Panel mandated in the 2007 Revised FAD (A New Vision for the New York City Watershed: Using Successful Partnership Programs To Protect Water Quality While Facilitating Business Retention and Development) focused more on community sustainability. There are no septic funds for small businesses. The ability to avoid a change in use by DEP is nearly insurmountable. The costs to comply can easily become cost prohibitive. The WWTPs that were built or upgraded required City funding, for without it they would be unaffordable for the communities.   Many commercial and residential septic systems in the WOH Watershed are Non-Compliant Regulated Activities. [For additional information on NCRAs click HERE.] Money is available for residents through the CWC septic program. For businesses, there is no program for septics and with the determination of change in use cases, of which any change is considered a change in use, is subject to the new regulations. The septic system itself should be the focus of the change in use determination, not a change in the enterprise’s business strategy, especially if the waste is going to be of the same nature and volume. DEP is enforcing these situations even when the flow of waste is less than it was before the change. Money is needed for small businesses because they cannot afford to fight this issue or comply with it. Funding for this would help keep the local economies more solvent and viable.

#8. Future Stormwater Fund.  (As with tool #7 these thoughts evolved from the white paper cited above.)  Prior to 1993 regulations required that an applicant send in a form to DEC under a general permit. The stormwater permit was for construction.  Now stormwater includes post construction stormwater management. State regulations became both broader in scope and more restrictive.  However, those permits are granted under a general permit where a licensed PE submits a plan.  DEC approves or proposes modifications in a timely manner and the applicant is on his/her way.

City permits are issued as individual permits which are much more difficult to obtain and costlier as the City dictates the pace of approval and reviews each and every application at a micro level.  The City is supposed to pay for the incremental costs of their Stormwater requirements.  As the state’s regulations have gotten more restrictive they have created interpretation challenges because the City essentially says that the State’s regulations are the same as the City’s. Some of the confusion is created by the fact that the City interprets State stormwater guidelines as regulations and enforces them as such. If you don’t meet the demands of the City’s interpretation you won’t get an individual permit.  Their argument then is, if they are essentially the same there are no incremental costs.   In light of that, the City has taken the position that they are not accountable for some or all of the related costs for stormwater projects.  The process of getting agreement on what is considered the City’s incremental costs has created uncertainty in interpreting where the incremental costs associated with the City’s regulations begin.  It becomes a costly endeavor for the applicant to differentiate between the two. Additionally, if the position of the City is that they are the same as the States, Kevin posed the question of the need for an individual permit?  Kevin proposes that the City pay 50% of all stormwater projects automatically to eliminate the confusion and costly negotiations for the applicant.  He suggested that the CWC also hire an expert because they will want to shepherd their funds in a prudent manner.

Additional comments were made with respect to the 8 tools and some of their underlying assumptions:
Out of frustration, rebellion and humor Tony Van Glad suggested a tool #9 – Do it yourself.  Go forward with your program disregarding all WR&R and permitting processes.  Let the chips fall where they may.

Ric senses that abandoned homes outside the floodplain being utilized as a source of housing for those who undergo the buyout process is not the answer to bigger problems. The individual project ideas Kevin proposed he agrees with.  He believes the larger problems overall, come down to jobs and the economy some of which have nothing to do with flood mitigation.  He supports efforts to moving homes out of floodplains where economically feasible.

Tony Coiro suggested that the CWT needs to continue to review the information presented tonight.  He summarized what he sees as some possibilities that are reasonable and small enough for the CWT to pursue –
The number of permits DEP gives the community.
Have an IDA approach to development where communities can make it work.
Funding to develop a plan with time.
Need to be time standards to mitigate issues and accountability standards for applications.
Oversight and flexibility with sound engineering are needed.
A program to help small businesses to upgrade septic for a small percentage of costs so they can be DEP compliant.

In closing the discussion, while no resolution was passed, the CWT as a group seemed to agree they need a bit more discussion to set its course.  Carl supported the notion of Tony Coiro’s summary list, particularly for providing a context of concerns within which the tools could be understood as a natural development to achieve relief from the identified issues. Carl liked the link between Tool #5 and the fixer group idea.

Pete suggested that CWT needs to reassess the issues that it considers.  It should consider some bold new initiative like partnering with environmental groups (EGs) to develop a long term economic revival in the watershed.  He mentioned meeting with some EGs to see what they think of the tools.  (Kevin suggested that the CWT come up with an agenda and schedule a meeting with select environmental groups.)  Inspired by Pete’s suggestion, Cathy also suggested doing something bolder: in addition to the tools, let’s state more clearly what communities need from DEP that will enhance the probability of them becoming more prosperous.  Ric added that at times our discussions seem to have us stuck in the weeds when we should be looking further into the forest.

Many agreed that the issues discussed will be done in small steps incrementally.  Kevin opined that DEP needs to update their regulations for variances, stormwater etc.  That process would require discussions with watershed stakeholders.  One stop shopping is something to take to the governor.  The discussion will continue.

5. Reports:
a. The 2^nd quarterly CWT/CWC meeting held April 23 at the Windham Town Hall in Hensonville was constructive. [Due to a lack of time, a full description was not given.]

b. Regulation Enforcement related to Non-Complying Regulated Activities (NCRAs) – A meeting between Full Moon Resort, Kevin Young, and DEP enforcement officials is scheduled for May 27^th 11 AM at the Full Moon in Big Indian. Our CWT chairman was invited to attend; for him, this is a follow up to his meeting with these same parties in Kingston held Dec22^nd, 2014.

6. Preparing for the 2017 FAD –information such as that generated in discussion of agenda item 4 (Regulatory Relief) the CWT will continue to formulate and formalize issues to be addressed in the upcoming 2017 FAD.

7. Updates:
a. Flood Mitigation Program
i. Water Supply Permit Change – Carl reported that there is movement with the language and hopefully will be resolved.

ii. Inundation and DEP’s new FBO Selection Criteria – Same as above.

iii. Meeting with Stream Program Planners – Jeff Baker – This is in process to set a meeting date for discussions.

b. Kurt Ossenfort Proposal – Jeff Baker – communications are in process.

8. Below Dams Activities – due to the time no reports were given.
i. Delaware
ii. Esopus
iii. Schoharie

9. SUNY-Delhi – DACUM – Carl reported that the plan to do this is underway and that the appropriate people will be contacted by SUNY Delhi to participate so that a productive curriculum can be developed to meet local needs in the watershed.

10. Election – nominations, etc. – nomination forms have gone out.

11. Treasurer’s report and warrant(s):
Tony Van Glad moved to pay the vouchers. Linda Burkhardt seconded. Motion passed to pay
Young/Sommers $5,821.53
Delaware County Watershed Affairs $1,457.62
for a total of $7,279.19.

Bruce moved to accept the treasurer’s report. Tony Van Glad seconded.
Checking account balance is $1,000.22.
Savings account balance is $104,559.78.
Passed.

12. Correspondence – none reported

13. Other –
a. Linda B. referenced a letter dated March 23, 2015 that DEP had sent to a local businessman who is operating a farm stand in a building that once held a bank. The letter stated that New York State Dept. of Agricultural Markets (NYSAM) requires this business to have a 3 bay sink. The DEP states that, in essence, because this 3 bay sink is required the stand is now a minor food service and they are out of compliance and will be shut down. Linda said that this issue has been resolved, costing the business owner extra money and a delay of time, but she questions the method DEP uses and the effect these methods have on future businesses in watershed communities.

b. Related to all the issues raised at this meeting, Carl said that since the start of his administration as CWT Chair (roughly coinciding with NYS DOH inviting comments to the proposed 2007 FAD Midterm Review and with the redistricting that led to the current boundaries of the19th Congressional District, a district that for the first time included the WOH Watershed in its entirety and Congressman Chris Gibson’s follow-up formation of the Watershed Advisory Group), he has invited the executive board to address not only the immediate issues at hand, but to stay alert to changes taking place in the Watershed and the need for CWT to remain responsive to those changes, to reflect on the adequacy and effectiveness of our processes, and to not shrink from the task of helping to formulate a unifying vision for the Delaware-Catskill Watershed as a whole, especially with respect to the economic wellbeing of our communities living as we do under a regime of restraints imposed by the NYC’s WR&R.

14. Adjourn: Motion to adjourn Tony Coiro, second by Tony Van Glad. Carried.

Attending: Carl Stuendel, Bill Layton, Linda Burkhardt, Toni Coiro, Peter Bracci, Mike McCrary, Bruce Dolph and Counsel, Jeff Baker.
 
Others attending: Guests: Gail Schaffer and Joanne Noone from “Dam Concerned Citizens”.  Michelle Yost, Aaron Bennett, Rick Weidenbach, Frazier.
 

1. Call to order: 6:18 PM

2. Minutes – April 20, 2015 Moved by Linda, second by Bruce. Passed unanimously.

3. Carl informed the group that Cathy Magarelli’s mother recently passed away. It was suggested that the CWT board send a sympathy card to Cathy. All agreed.

4. Privilege of the Floor:
Carl introduced Gail Shaffer and Joanne Noone offering them privilege of the floor.   Gail is a past assemblywoman representing the Middletown area and past Secretary of State under Governor Mario Cuomo.   Her concern has been the safety of the dam, flood mitigation and environmental issues.  The building of the reservoir changed dramatically the nature of recreation, fishing and agriculture as there were no requirements for minimal releases.  A lower level outlet is being built into the new Schoharie dam, from which, for the first time since its construction, releases will now be required as a condition moving forward.   Joanne said she was glad to be learning about the CWT and the issues they address, and expressed her concern regarding the representation of Conesville (which along with Gilboa are the two communities in Schoharie County that are in the WOH Watershed) on CWT.    She wanted to know how CWT board members were nominated and elected.  Carl explained that nominees had to be elected officials and that they could not already be serving on CWC’s board.      The acronym SWAC was used in this discussion. It stands for Schoharie Watershed Advisory Committee.
 

5. Continuing discussion re regulatory relief options: Tool 5: State Legislation Allowing One Stop Permitting in Locally Designated Areas in Stressed Communities. (See Jan 19, 2015 meeting minutes.) Jeff Bakers comment: This is nothing more than a list and that very little assistance would be given to applicants. This concept is in the MOA. The funding for this possibility promulgated in the MOA has ended. Doesn’t break the bureaucracy. Many of the Eco Dev offices can help applicants through the regulatory processes.

Jeff again suggests taking advantage of the provisions in the MOA and WRR that enables a municipality to create and enforce its own Stormwater regulations. A response to Jeff: There is a presumption that City will delegate regulatory authority over stormwater, etc. The difficulty is convincing the City to actually do so.

Rick pointed out that under the current arrangement (with DEP in charge of stormwater regulations) it is difficult to influence Stormwater Regulators about design decisions even if you have a PE on staff.   Coordinated reviews would be most helpful so that stormwater input would be part of the design process of a project early on.

Rick pointed out the challenges.   Every design goes through just one individual at DEP, Doug DeKoskie, on any stream project at review periods of 30, 60 and 90% complete. DEP does not want its stormwater staff to get involved until the stream project is well along in the design approval process before going to DEP for stormwater review which adds another 45 days.

Rick continued: Going out to bid takes 2-3 weeks. If you have a project with a successful bid, the contractor must respond to DEP within 10 days to be reviewed by DEP. On July 7^th a new process begins that will take up to three to four weeks to review the contractor. A new set of regulations now requires that each subcontractor will have to be approved by DEP, which could take an additional 3-4 weeks for any subcontractor. The fear being that projects will be delayed more and more slowing implementation down to unnecessarily slow rates.

Bruce invoked the boat launch mess in Walton that has taken 3 years already and is still not resolved. Rick again suggested that a small interagency committee of high level decision makers may be the most viable option to get past this logger head. This project is not just about NYC regulations, but also other regulations involving state and federal partners.

In summary, the two issues Rick sees are the bottleneck of design review being caused by a lack of staff and the late arrival of stormwater regulators to the design process. If indeed the bureaucratic maze that creates these problems is not overcome, implementation is going to be extremely slow due to conflicts between agency requirements and individual administrative processes within each agency.

Aaron stated that, although he is not directly involved in projects, he has heard similar concerns from the Ulster County Stream Program.

Before meeting with DEP about the issue, Jeff Baker said he would convene a meeting with design folks from each stream program to see if others are having similar issues.   Rick said the depth of the issue could then be gauged.   Jeff will send invitations by email to the relevant planners. He added that the City is going through its budget process now. He suggested that if staffing shortage is a major issue, the CWT should move fast to see if they would include it in this round of budget discussions.

Rick wanted to make it very clear that the person commenting on the designs at DEP, Doug DeKoskie, provides excellent input. It is not about him or his comments. It is that one individual cannot efficiently handle the review of designs generated by five stream programs. It is a lack of staffing at DEP not the quality of input or the individual at DEP.

He used the Herman More project in Hamden to illustrate the frustrations he trying to illustrate.   It is now two years old and the project is still at the 30% design review stage. In this case, the problem does not rest solely on the shoulders of DEP. Philosophical differences on the design of project between DEP and UDSA have been part of the problem even though USDA would pay for 75% of the project. It appears now that the DEP wishes to fund the entire project.

Mike offered that the process is causing a problem, in that the MOA and the FAD have the intent of cost effectively protecting water quality. The longer the projects are delayed is contrary to the intent of the MOA and FAD. He feels it is a legal issue if the CWT chose to pursue it.
 

6. Quarterly meeting – Report – Carl reported that the meeting was postponed. Carl indicated that the next meeting is set for June. The board expressed their disappointment. They are adamant that the meetings are extremely important to the partnership and should be a high priority for DEP and all the other involved stakeholders. Once a date is set it should remain so except for emergencies. Several suggested that this is a topic that should be on the agenda for the June meeting.
 

7. Updates:
a. Outcome of Flood Mitigation Program: Meeting 3/18.
i. Water Supply Permit Change – At this point in time it is still in the hands of the DEC. Counsel recommended that municipalities that have already committed to participating in the FBO, contact Tom Snow to communicate they are on board and are ready to explore the possibilities. Invite him to come to the Towns to see and hear where they are at. All continue to feel strongly that it must be an opt in.

ii. Inundation and DEP’s new FBO Selection Criteria

b. CWT submittal Expert Panel – Comments were sent in with Carl’s letter and white paper.

c. Aaron Bennett – report on the Ashokan Watershed Conf. – Aaron reported on the Conference of April 11th. It went well. At least 92 present. Robert Steuding spoke. He is author of The Last of the Handmade Dams. George Fowler of White Engineering spoke about the LFA in Ashokan.   Aaron was also pleased that Dave Warne attended.

d. Kurt Ossenfort Proposal – Jeff Baker – still in process. Jeff and Kurt have been in communication.

e. Below Dams Activities
i. Delaware – Frazier reported that Marge is working on a grant to the Community Foundation of Central New York. FUDR has three or four grants apps out seeking funding for the SCMP. At the DRBC Regulated Flow Advisory Committee, Frazier made comments to Decree Party members, appealing to them that there is a gap in understanding about the tailwaters, their value to the local economies, the fact there is no designated funding for this area, sediment transport is a big problem at the confluence of the tributaries and main stems affecting local infrastructure and the fishery that is being overlooked. More uniform releases would be beneficial to for all stakeholders. Informed them they the UDRTC is seeking help in the development of a SCMP, a commitment made by the Communities and NGO’s to develop this. Meeting with Paul Rush on May 8^th seeking partnership opportunities. Trout Unlimited has now joined the UDRTC. Portions of the towns of Walton, Andes, Hamden, Tompkins, and Masonville have tributaries that drain into the tailwaters below the dams, and the UDRTC will appeal to them about becoming a member of the UDRTC. The Inter-municipal Agreement is final. By-laws for UDRTC are essentially done. Next meeting Town of Sanford and Broome County are invited.

ii. Esopus – Nothing new to report. The working group has met, but no news on the consent order. A memo to the DEP inquiring about the design in the feasibility study as to why they did not consider a higher level releases for warmer water as opposed to just having the low level release portal has been drafted. Paul Rush is meeting with the Esopus Group that is seeking more water. Why not consider the recreational releases, such as white water? DCC is urging the City to incorporate into the designs consideration for releases for the Esopus as the DCC group doesn’t need the cold water releases. Part 2 of the issue is related the trends in turbidity levels and to elevated NTU readings, such as on April 10^th at which time it reached 227 NTUs at the portal on the Esopus. There are questions related to the seiche phenomena where the wind blows on the surface causing waves below surface resulting in a layer of suspended sediment that moves with the waves. When conditions are right the suspended sediment flows out the portal to the Esopus. On April 10^th the NTU reading was 227 NTU at the portal on the Esopus. This high reading may have been the result of the seiche phenomenon.

iii. Schoharie – DCC Delaware River Releases Task Force. Seeking to force DEP and the NYPA to coordinate and develop joint protocols. Hurricane Irene impacts were terribly exacerbated by the management of the two dams. Every system failed, backup systems included, at the NYPA dam during the Irene event forcing them to manually control the gates.

A discussion ensued about releases from all the reservoirs. Frazier suggested that the tailwater communities seek more information regarding the OST. He suggested that the DEP may be willing to provide some education regarding that. The OST is used for the entire system. A better understanding of it could help us better understand the assumptions behind it and the rationale for decision outputs from it.

f. SUNY-Delhi – The DACUM process is ongoing.

8. Election – nominations, etc. Jeff has prepared a draft letter to seek nomination. Essentially the same letter from two years ago. Jeff explained that Carl must step down. Jeff explained the process to all.   Jeff will develop a letter.   Pete made the motion to send a letter indicating that if a municipality is more than a year behind they will not be considered a member. Linda seconded. Unanimous.

9. Treasurer’s report and warrant(s).
Warrants – No warrants.

Checking $1,000.14
Savings $104,564.89. 
Bruce moved to accept the treasurer’s report. Linda seconded.  Passed unanimously.

Carl raised the request of Counsel to raise rates by $10 per hour from $175 to $185.   Bruce moved to accept the increase request, Bill 2nd.  Passed unanimously.

10. Correspondence – None.

11. Other:
a. CWT and CWC had one meeting and it was very productive. Tony Van Glad, Bruce Dolph, Carl Stuendel, Mike Triolo and Berndt Leifeld were in attendance. This coming Thursday, April 23, they will hold their second meeting at the Windham Town Hall.   In addition to Carl, Bruce, and Tony VanGlad, as will Mike McCrary, Tony Coiro, and Steve Walker will be attending from CWT. Members would like to know if the CWC is anticipating the same problem with the 30-60-90% design review process and subcontractor vetting that DCSWCD is currently experiencing.

b. DEP has submitted to regulators a position paper calling for relief from some requirements imposed on them. With regard to the Watershed Ag Program (WAP) administered by the Watershed Ag Council (WAC), the City has asked for a reduction of thresholds, for instance a reduction of the current 90 percent required participation rate of eligible farms in the program to some lesser number.   WAC is very concerned about this.   Rick indicated there is a $20 million back log of BMPs. The delay in implementation is causing problems on farms. The WAP is not able to help them make changes or provide technical support. Rick will forward DEP’s paper (Evaluation of the Watershed Agricultural Program’s BMP Prioritization Methodology, Summary of BMP Implementation Status, Review of Current Metrics, and Justification for Developing Fewer Than 50 New Whole Farm Plans). Gail Shaffer pointed out that they city needs to maintain their investments. The Schoharie dam project came in $300 million under budget. In light of those saving they should not be backing off on the commitments they have made to the watershed.

12. Adjourn. Moved by Bruce. Second Linda. Unanimous.

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

Others present: Marge Miller, Adam Wisnieski (City Limits/WNYC), Michelle Yost, Aaron Bennett, Mary MacNamara and Frazier.  

Guest Speakers: Paul Rush (Deputy Commissioner NYC DEP) and Eric P. Robert (Deputy Chief, Hydroelectric Project Manager NYC DEP).

1. Call to order: 6:15 PM

2. Minutes – February 16, 2015. Linda motioned to accept; Bruce Dolph second. No discussion. Passed unanimously.

3. Privilege of the Floor: Paul Rush and Eric Robert were introduced by Carl and given privilege of the floor to discuss NYC’s hydroelectric program and pending Cannonsville Project. Their Hydroelectric Operations Presentation was provided as a handout, (see attached).   Paul explained that a priority of this administration is to reduce its carbon footprint and that the Cannonsville project is an effort that would contribute to that. He indicated that the project must show a positive return long-term. In light of current energy market situation and cost of the project and projected megawatts generated, they estimate that at minimum it would be 35 years for the project to pay for itself. The City is also looking at the possibilities at their waste water treatment plants in the City to develop digesters to reduce greenhouse gases and reduce their energy costs long-term.

Responding to a question, Paul explained the reasons for the City’s application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) which involved protecting their interests in the property for various reasons. Because under law FERC gives preference to municipal applications, the City was granted approval over Delaware County Electric Cooperative (DCEC). Additionally, the City had reservations about the DCEC’s designs regarding safety of the infrastructure feeling the City’s design would pose less threat to the infrastructure. He also indicated that the DCEC in their preliminary design assumed that all water not diverted to NYC for consumption was available for flow. This could be in conflict with release requirements in the 1954 Decree.

Responding to a question from Pete Bracci, Paul indicated that subsequent to the decision by FERC to give DEP the permit to build, the DEP and DCEC met to explore ways in which the DCEC would be able to purchase the electricity at the City’s cost to produce it and then in turn sell to their rural customers or through some other arrangement, manage the electricity generated in a manner beneficial to DCEC customers. Paul informed the group that by law they can’t sell electricity at below market prices. Also, due to City law the City can’t legally build something that doesn’t pay for itself indicating that even the City’s plan may take 50 years to turn financially positive. He additionally commented that all electricity generated must benefit the City. Because of these issues along with other complications, the DCEC and DEP have discontinued further discussions. The DEP anticipates the local benefit will occur in the form of higher assessments on the improvements and local job creation during the construction phase of the project. Perhaps as many as 5 new permanent jobs may be created. Pete Bracci was pleased to hear that the DEP and DCEC were able to communicate and consider alternatives, but obviously disappointed that a longer term local benefit could not be arrived at.   Carl thanked them for their time and interesting presentation.

4. Discussion ‑‑ Regulatory relief options from January 19^th meeting. Due to time constraints the three tools listed below were not discussed.
a. Tool 5: State Legislation Allowing One Stop Permitting in Locally Designated Areas in Stressed Communities.
b. Tool 3: Adopt and Expanded Type II List under SEQRA for New Residential Projects, Redevelopment of Existing Parcels, and Moderate Commercial Development.
c. Tool 6: Generic Variances for Flood Mitigation Related Projects ‑‑ Sewage.

5. Quarterly meeting – DEP, CWT, CWC, Delaware, WAC. The meeting has been rescheduled for April 16^th. Michelle Yost had asked about the selection criteria for participation in these meetings. Chairman Stuendel indicated that he had only attended one of these meetings, and said he believes that Paul Rush, or some long-standing custom, had determined the list of attendees. Michelle said she (or a rep from Greene County) would like to attend.

6. Updates:
a. Status of Flood Mitigation Program: Meeting 3/18.
i. Water Supply Permit Change
ii. Inundation and DEP’s new FBO Selection Criteria document.

Carl asked Jeff to explain what is planned for the March 18 in Kingston. Proposed language for WSP is fine. However, Jeff reported on the conference call including Carl, Stream Program Staff, Planning, Kevin Young and Frazier to discuss the eligibility criteria for individual properties not part of the LFA that may fall within Soil Erosion and or Inundation lower level criteria. The concern being that it might pose liability issues for communities, how to make the determination of what criteria are used for determining where a property may fall, arguments between landowners as to why their property is not eligible now. All these confounding factors could cause a use of limited resources on non-imminent properties at risk. Jeff recommended that the CWT move toward eliminating the multiple tiers of threats in each category into one category under Inundation and Soil Erosion. Jeff explained the fear of potentially leaving the three tiers might lead to an opening for the City, perceived or otherwise, to purchase improved properties in and outside of LFA areas. Frazier reported that Kevin and he had added language for outreach to be passive, not aggressive, directed by the community with the contract between the community based on their decision of what tools they want to use in a FBO program and the Outreach Leader to avoid any incentives to solicit aggressively. Jeff will provide a final version of the changes to the FBO Selection Criteria and other components on Tuesday in advance of the Wednesday meeting.

Peter Bracci motioned to remove the lower levels of risk under Soil Erosion and Inundation. Second by Bill Layton. Motion passed unanimously.

Frazier reported that Alan Rosa and Tim Cox are also in favor of the concept and language in the White Paper.

Toni Van Glad inquired about new wider setbacks from water courses for activity. Jeff responded that if such a proposal was on the table for the watershed that would be a serious issue that we should have known about and it would have raised objections. Jeff believes that is taking place down in the City for flood protection.

b. Stream Programs/CWC meeting: Meshing programs. Michelle reported that it went very well. CWC coming out with their first grant round on June 1. CWC is looking hard at two grant cycles.   The CWC is apparently going to pursue changing the 20 year limitation for calculating flood damage so as to not to limit eligible candidates as we are coming up on the anniversary of the flood of 1996. Aaron reported that in an earlier, private discussion with Alan Rosa, he had raised this very concern about the 20-year time constraint, and that Alan had agreed. Aaron also mentioned that if an Anchor Business can be moved without an LFA, why not a Critical Community Facility. He recommended talking to CWC members about changing program rules to include Critical Community Facilities.

c. Pam Young’s (NYS DOH) request for comment ‑ FAD & Expert Panel – and CWT’s proposed submittal. Carl read a draft letter and asked the board to support it. It emphasized that in addition to outstanding water quality issues, community economic needs must be addressed as well, as required in both the MOA and WSP. Toni Van Glad moved to send Carl’s letter to Pamela Young after review with Counsel. Stephen seconded the motion. Passed unanimously.

d. Kurt Ossenfort Proposal – Jeff Baker – still working on it.

e. Below Dams Activities:
i. Delaware – No report given due to time constraints.
ii. Esopus ‑ Aaron introduced Mary MacNamara, a member of the Shokan Release Working Group. She is an advocate for the Lower Esopus. Their first quarterly meeting will be held this Friday. They are waiting to hear back from the DEC on the Scope of Work related for the EIS. She is looking forward to the Stream Corridor Management Plan for the Lower Esopus.
iii. Schoharie – No report given due to time constraints.

f. SUNY-Delhi ‑‑ Carl mentioned that the idea of developing a curriculum is still moving forward.

g. Treasurer’s report and warrant(s).
Tony Van Glad moved to pay $4,909.00. Second Linda. Passed.
Checking $1000.17
Savings $106,441.48
In response to a question regarding the status of membership dues: no cause for alarm, payments continue to be made.

7. Correspondence – N/R

8. Other:
CWC holding Annual Meeting on April 7 at 1 PM. Meet and Greet at noon.
The next scheduled meeting between CWT and CWC officers is tentatively scheduled for April 23.

Jeff reminded all that the term of office for CWT Executive Board members ends this coming June, and that his office will be sending out nomination forms with a cover letter very soon to get that election ball rolling.

Aaron announced the Ashokan Watershed Conference at the Ashokan Center is April 11^th, 9AM – 3PM.

9. Adjourn:  Stephen moved to adjourn.  Second Bruce Dolph.

Present: Carl Stuendel, Bruce Dolph, Linda Burkhardt, Catherine Magarelli, Anthony Van Glad, Mike McCrary, and Counsel – Jeff Baker

Others in attendance:  Rick Weidenbach, Frazier, Aaron Bennett

1. Call to order: 6:20 PM

2. Minutes – January 19, 2015 – Move to accept, Mr. Dolph; second, Mr. McCrary. Passed unanimously.

3. Privilege of the Floor: Given to Mr. Weidenbach.
a. Extensive discussion ensued regarding the ability to get past bureaucratic differences among agencies with conflicting jurisdictions that cause problems with design and getting approvals and permits needed in a timely manner. Mr. Weidenbach expressed that the agency people he deals with at his level can’t make the decisions needed to overcome duplicative or conflicting interagency or interagency requirements that unnecessarily cause delays that can undermine funding and implementing projects.

To overcome this, Mr. Weidenbach suggested that an Umbrella Group or Task Force of high level agency decision makers be identified that could on an ad hoc basis be summoned to meet in person or by phone conference if possible to address or eliminate roadblocks as they may occur. Mr. Weidenbach explained the situation in Fleishmanns with SEMO and FEMA. Although a vote was not taken there was general agreement to pursue this. Jeff will work with Rick on developing this idea.

b. The second item involved some forthcoming meetings.
i. Mr. Weidenbach announced that the CWC and the stream corridor management program staff will meet the first week in March to have further discussions to clarify how they will integrate their programs. This meeting will be helpful in preparation for the meeting on March 18 noted below. The stream programs are advocating that communities request all relevant funding sources be present at a meeting when discussing the preliminary engineering LFAs and Final LFAs.

ii. There is also a meeting of the Flood Mitigation Group at NYC DEP on March 18. This includes the CWT, DEP, County Departments and Agencies, CWC, State and Federal Agencies and NGOs that began the process. The goal is to finalize changes to the WSP to enable the voluntary flood buyout program to proceed.

iii. Resolution: Bruce Dolph moved to authorize Jeff Baker to attend meetings, at the request of a community undergoing an LFA. Specifically to attend when communities begin to discuss funding from various programs at the LFA Engineering analysis level and the final LFA’s. The intent being to assure clearly which sources of funds and mitigation tasks were to be performed as agreed to in the September 20, 2012 Agreement in Principle. Motion seconded by Tony Van Glad. A qualifier was added to the motion: the offer to attend community meetings would not be indefinitely extended into the future, but available only until such time as clarity had been achieved regarding the jurisdiction and roles of the various funding sources. The qualifier was accepted. Motion passed unanimously. Bruce suggested that the Walton LFA would be a good place to bring all the parties together.

4. Discussion:
a. Regulatory relief options from January 19^th meeting.
i. Tool 5: State Legislation Allowing One Stop Permitting in Locally Designated Areas in Stressed Communities. The Board discussed this as one alternative to mitigating duplicative or conflicting regulations. Counsel felt this particular program was not successful and did not provide the type of services the Board was interested in. It did not assist in getting applicants through the process, it merely identified for them the steps they needed to take. Counsel recommended that a county pursue stormwater permitting as allowed for under the WR&Rs. While that is an option it is not without challenges. DEP made it very clear that it would be extremely difficult to achieve that authority. Probably the biggest challenge is who would do it and where would the funding come from. We can investigate.

ii. Tool 3: Adopt and Expanded Type II List under SEQRA for New Residential Projects, Redevelopment of Existing Parcels, and Moderate Commercial Development. Due to time this was not discussed.

b. At this juncture Carl asked Bruce if he wanted to discuss the letter to the editor from Margaretville. Bruce declined suggesting he may write a letter to the editor in response. That peaked interest and discussion about the letter. Although no resolution was brought forth both Bruce independently and the board concluded they would not respond to the letter. A number of people have reached out to Dianna to express their concerns already. The DEP wrote a letter to the Village of Margaretville, reminding them that this is a voluntary program and that it was voluntary program that the watershed representatives from the Counties sought this program and were very clear that relocation would have to be part of the volunteer flood buyout program.

c. Pam Young’s (NYS DOH) request for comment – FAD & Expert Panel – Carl reminded the board that comments are due at the end of March.

5. Updates:
a. Status of Flood Mitigation Program:
i. Water Supply Permit Change

ii. Inundation and DEP’s new FBO Selection Criteria document.

b. Kurt Ossenfort Proposal – Jeff Baker

c. Below Dams Activities
i. Delaware – got a grant working on a work plan in the context of a larger effort. The UDRTC will be meeting Thursday night to finalize an IMA. There is a meeting being pursued with Paul Rush to discuss some issues.

ii. Esopus – Aaron – no new developments.

iii. Schoharie – Tony – Gilboa interested in the tailings to use on local roads in the future.

d. Mike Brandow’s membership on the Executive Board of the CWT. CWT bylaws don’t allow him to have membership both on the CWC board and the CWT board. Jeff recommended to just ignore the issue since elections will be held shortly and a new member will be selected at that time.

6. Treasurer’s report and warrant(s).
Warrants:
Young Sommer – $5,496.68

Balances:
Checking $1,000.16
Savings $110,399.38
Bruce moved to pay the bills and balances; seconded by Linda. Passed.

7. Correspondence – Mayor Cope’s letter to DEP, DEP’s letter of response to Mayor Cope. Covered above.

8. Other:
a. SUNY-Delhi- Carl reported that there is progress with them to develop a curriculum to provide graduates needed related to watershed issues.

b. Frazer reported that the Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE) is reaching out to DEP to do work up in the watershed. The UDRTC had a visit with the ACOE below the dams.   Because they would have funds, that could be very attractive, but Frazier is concerned how their philosophy of addressing flooding issues and funding might affect the overall flood mitigation program above the dams should they become involved.

9. Adjourn: Tony Van Glad moved to adjourn; seconded by Linda Burkhardt.  Passed.

Present: Carl Stuendel, Bruce Dolph, Mike McCrary, Toni Coiro, Ric Coombe, Pete Bracci, Bill Layton, Stephen Walker and counsel Jeff Baker

Others Present: Michelle Yost, Aaron Bennett, Guest speaker Kevin Young, Frazier.
 

1. Call to order: 6:20 PM

2. Minutes – Dec 15, 2014.   Moved by Bruce Dolph; second by Bill Layton, passed unanimously.

3. Privilege of the Floor

4. Kevin Young- Young/Sommer Attorney –
a. FBO and Relocation Regulatory Relief Position Paper At the request of the CWT Kevin Young developed potential ideas for streamlining the regulatory process of the DEP. This concern is driven by the maze of regulatory thresholds that are required to put a capital project through the regulatory and permitting processes of local municipalities, State and City. This is especially concerning as we look ahead regarding the potential (VOLUNTEER PROGRAM) purchase of flood damaged property, potential moving and relocating of a business or homes to move them outside local residents outside areas of high flood risk, as proposed in the overall NYC Flood Mitigation Program negotiated by watershed stakeholders.

Kevin outlined as many as 24 regulatory hurdles that may have to be overcome. Follow that with SEQR. With a SEQR Negative Declaration and no subsequent lawsuits the process approaches 3 years. A positive declaration could mean the end of a project as it opens it up for any involved party to delay a project for years. The costs to develop an Environmental Impact Statement under a Pos Dec could easily exceed $200,000 even for a small project.

Six different tools were discussed. A seventh was mentioned by Jeff Baker reminding all, that the WR&Rs enables a community to take assume regulation stormwater permitting and management in their community. It would be a challenge to do, but counties may want to consider it.

Carl asked the board what they wanted to do regarding the material Kevin has developed. The CWT did decide that they need to discuss those options further and wait to see. It was proposed that the CWT could discuss one or two options at each meeting going forward. The CWT felt that they should examine each and prioritize where they want to expend their efforts.

b. Following-up on the June 10, 2014 regulation enforcement meeting in Grahamsville [See June 16, 2014 CWT meeting minutes, item 4b.], on Dec 22, 2014 Carl attended a meeting in Kingston between DEP officials and Full Moon Resort (FMR) owners Henry Stout and Michael Densmore, their engineer Rex Sanford and attorney Kevin Young. Kevin, consistent with his June 10 position, expressed his concern that this enforcement proceeding, though based on a suspected “change of use” at Full Moon, seemed to be overkill as there never was any evidence of a failed septic system and though Henry and Mike’s business strategy continues to evolve, there is no agreed upon usage baseline to justify raising the “change of use” flag, an early-alert to a possible impact on water quality. The only impact of these aggressive enforcement actions will be to put good businesses out of business.

After the meeting had concluded, Carl spoke with DEP attorney Joya Cohen who acknowledged FMR’s frustration, but said DEP felt frustrated by Kevin’s objections to what seemed a rather straightforward application of the WR&Rs ‑‑ an exploratory investigation related to Non-Complying Regulated Activities (NCRAs) that was well within DEP’s jurisdiction. In addition, Joya indicated that since the June 10, 2014 meeting, DEP had been working internally to incorporate many of the suggestions from that meeting into a revised set of enforcement guidelines. (Carl said that in a subsequent conversation he had with David Warne, Dave had confirmed that progress had been made on a set of revised guidelines that would be issued in draft form to CWT in the near future.)
 

5. Updates:
a. Status of Flood Mitigation Program:
i. Water Supply Permit Change – nothing to report – Carl indicated he will investigate status.

ii. Inundation and DEP’s new FBO Selection Criteria document – Nothing new to report. There is no date to send comments by, but one can still comment. The CWT at the last meeting concluded there did not appear to be anything that was problematic.

b. Kurt Ossenfort Proposal – Jeff Baker – ongoing

c. Below Dams Activities – No new news to report on any of the three listed.
i. Delaware
ii. Esopus
iii. Schoharie

d. Dues – Carl reported that he had a very good conversation with Tom Axtell regarding what real benefits arise for his Town as a result of membership in the Coalition. Tom said he would, once again, bring the matter up to his board. Carl wanted Tom to know he was not being singled out for scrutiny and affirmed that this was a decision for Tom and his board.

e. Hydro-electric on the Cannonsville – there have been some positive constructive discussions between the DCEC and NYCDEP. It is too early to conclude anything. Carl Reported that Paul Rush has agreed to speak about the issue at a future CWT meeting.

f. Clarification of Mike Brandow and Dixie Baldrey CWT executive committee membership status. Dixie is an alternate. Because Mike is currently serving on the CWC Board of Directors, CWT by-laws don’t allow him to serve on the CWT Executive Board.
 

6. Treasurer’s report and warrant(s).
Bruce Dolph moved to approve the warrants and treasurer’s report. Bill Seconded passed.  
Checkbook balance – $ 1,000.11
Savings account balance – $100,660.38      
Warrants:
Young/ Sommer – $3,045.00
Delaware County Watershed Affairs – $2,579.92
 

7. Correspondence: none to report.
 

8. Other:
a. Bruce and Carl reported that their meeting (which included our very own Tony Van Glad) with CWC board members Mike Triolo and Berndt Leifeld. They said the meeting was positive. They renewed their commitment to work together and set up the next quarterly meeting for April of 2015.

b. Carl informed the Board of a meeting with SUNY Delhi to discuss how they, the only college in the NYC watershed, may be able to assist the Watershed through their environmental science/ natural resources curriculum, continuing education programs, and training opportunities. Dean and Carl met with the Provost and two professors.

A next meeting is scheduled for January 30 to discuss the types of jobs that exist or are needed in the Watershed and the degrees and course work that are needed to meet them. Organizations such as the SWCDs, Planning, DPW, NYCDEP, CWC, WAC, Eco Dev, CCE would be invited to what Delhi calls a DACUM, the purpose of which would be to get a good sense of the positions and skills required by these employers and then to decide what curricula or training programs SUNY could develop to meet those needs. If possible this could lead to many positives regarding jobs and a larger program at SUNY Delhi, which could lead to growth there, benefit the local economy and produce graduates who could learn directly from the largest recognized watershed protection program in the world.
 

9. Adjourn: Moved to adjourn Bruce Dolph; Second Steve Walker. Passed. 9:15 PM.

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

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

1. Call to order: 6:20 PM

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

3. Privilege of the Floor – none taken.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

iii. Schoharie – no comment.

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

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

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

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

8. Correspondence – none reported.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

iii. Schoharie – no report.

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

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

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

Linda Burkhardt motioned; Bill Layton second. Passed.

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

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

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

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

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

1.Call to order: 6:18pm.
 

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

3.Privilege of the floor: – none.
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ii. Esopus – N/R

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

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

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

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

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

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

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