| Doc. # 2007-75
Issue/Agenda Committee
Cayuga Lake Watershed Network
October 25, 2007 Minutes
Shaw Law Offices, Ithaca NY
Present: Brian Boerman, Doug Haith, John Mawdsley,
Ruth Richardson, Sharon Anderson, Chuck Kroll
1. Watershed Modeling – D. Haith
· Doug presented findings which represents sediment and nutrient
contributions in the 46 sub watersheds (as identified in the RFP).
The model identifies Farmsteads and corn production as the largest
contributor of Nitrogen, Phosphorus and soil loss into the watershed.
Farmsteads were identified as a weakness in the model as any building
near a farm or barn were considered which could over estimate total
surface area. No credit was given to clean water diversions or segregation
of sediment and waste streams currently in practice throughout the
watershed. The model did not include the impact of bunker silo feed
storages as a contribution to the watershed. The model used a weighed
formula based on residential, commercial and agricultural loads
and could be weighted heavier toward commercial if better analysis
of farmstead locations were done. Corn production acres lead contribution
of Phosphorus to the watershed. No credit was given to reduced tillage,
cover crop or fall planted grains, managing fields for soil loss
values less than or equal to Tolerable soil loss as identified by
the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE), erosion control
practices in place to reduce soil loss or manure application methods.
Manure spreading will be factored in the next runs of the model.
The model creates a “worst case” scenario and better
information about how extensive erosion control is and effectiveness
of current systems would improve the model. There isn’t sufficient
modeling data to validate the model at this time.
· Weather data is based on a 100 year average and the watershed
is broken into 4 quadrants so the weather patterns can be adjusted
for different weather.
· Chuck Kroll comments that his work shows wetland buffers
are significant in reducing phosphorus and sediment in tributaries.
· Does the model take into account sediment contributions
from road side ditches?
· Suggestion made to improve the model and run as a best
and worst case scenario. All agree that before the information publicly
there must be more confident in the data and the way the model is
weighted.
2. Watershed Report Card: Potential exists for
grad students working on developing a report card for the lake
3. What is the Watershed Network About? The organization
continues to have a need to identify who we are, what we are about
and the value to our members and community.
Next meeting: to be determined .Suggested agenda items:
-Watershed Network identity?
Submitted by, Brian Boerman, Chair
|
