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

1. Call to order: 6:15 PM
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Correspondence: None reported.
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Call to order: 6:15.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. TAG Meeting – postponed until fall.

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

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

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

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

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

d. Watershed Inspector General – Windham – no report.

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

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

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

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

9. Correspondence – no report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.  Call to order:  6:15 PM
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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