Doc. # 2009-
Issues Committee Meeting
Cayuga Lake Watershed Network
April 14, 2009
Wells College, CLWN Office, Aurora NY

Present:Ruth Richardson (chair), John Mawdsley, Keith Tidball, Brian Boerman, Hilary Lambert, Doug Haith (guest).

Absent: Roxy Johnston, Eric Reigel, and Chuck Kroll

Minutes:

Minutes are arranged by agenda item.
1. The report for Doug's model: how do we want to present/disseminate this good information?
Doug came to discuss the GWLF watershed model. This version of the model has been updated from the summer version. Two major updates were 1. reclassification of farmsteads in land use classification. In original they were treated as barnyards (which drastically overpredicted the contribution to nutrient loading); now they are treated as loading at the same per hectare level as urban/commercial land use. 2. Took out the Seneca/Cayuga Canal drainage as an input; two reasons: first it comes in to the lake only w/in hundreds of feet of the outlet of lake & therefore have only small effect on overall lake water quality; secondly, since it contains outflow from all of Seneca & Keuka Lakes and we simply don’t know what those levels are.

Doug was asked by John Mawdsley to write an article on the model results for the CLWN newsletter. Doug imagined that once that happens (article put out) the cat will be out of the bag and folks will start asking. We agreed that he should write an article that generally summarizes the results and the value of such models. The report will then be posted to the website.

Other discussed outlets for parts of the model results: fall phosphorus conference and possible article via the WRC on TMDLs and how the model informs TMDLs.

Much (but not complete) discussion on limitations/flags was had. These are important to keep in mind as we present (also maybe we could rerun a few key watersheds with updated/modified parameters). Some specific flags: Brian thought sediment from soybeans seemed really high; no inclusion of bank erosion or instream resuspension; The fact that the GW contribution might actually also be tied to Ag (b/c Doug used estimates from another source that had GW levels dependent upon land use);tiling effects?

Possibility of an intern to learn to run the model and could explore “what ifs” for a few key subwatersheds.

As for the GIS product, john suggested that the Institute of Geospatial Science might be good partners.

2. The hemlock wooly adelgid infestation: information, why it's a watershed threat & do we want to make any moves toward advocacy here.
The issues committee was informally polled on this issue in lat May by email (from Ruth). General concensus is that we should work with other involved orgs (Cornell Plantations; Finger Lakes Land Trust) to continue surveys then discussions of what can be done to slow the infestation down/prepare for the devestation.
3.Gas drilling advocacy position: can we agree on a statement for the website/other CLWN materials.
While we don’t want to come down as pro or con, there was general support for a broad advocacy statement such as that suggested by Hilary (essentially saying that the CLWN advocates for landowner education on the issues related to water quality). How to proceed?

4. Any pre-board discussion of LFF program
Was not discussed due to lack of time.