Stony Clove Creek

Stream Management Project

Project Advisory Committee

2004 Meeting Notes

In attendance: Jerry Fraine (NYSDEC R4), Robert Cross (Shandaken Supervisor), John Horn (Shandaken Planning Board Chair), Dennis Lucas (Hunter Supervisor), Paul Dibble (Hunter Town Councilman), Mark Loete (Trout Unlimited), Amy DeGaetano (GCSWCD), Mark Vian (NYCDEP).

1. Introductions

2. Review of Stony Clove Creek SMP (Section 6) General Recommendations

There are 48 general recommendations. Each recommendation listed below was discussed by PAC members until consensus was reached on a high, medium, or low priority rating. It was explained that these priorities should be considered from a time perspective (i.e., “High” means implement before “Medium,” etc.) as well as importance. If a recommendation was deemed highly sensitive, it was flagged as S for further discussion later.

The remaining recommendations will be discussed at the next PAC meeting. As this review continues, PAC members were encouraged to think about possible additions to these recommendations.

6.1.3 - Both Hunter and Shandaken have very old Flood Ordinances, which need to be updated. Collect samples of more current town flood ordinances to use as templates for this process, and check with Mike Malloy’s for materials from trainings. Check into finding Town of Woodstock’s Wetlands and Watercourses ordinance and how Gilboa may have rewritten their ordinance to reference the digital FIRMs.

6.1.6 - This recommendation cannot move forward until digital flood maps have been completed (2005). Consider changing the task leader on this recommendation as municipalities may not have adequate staffing numbers to take on this task. Town planning board could create a committee to initiate discussion of this in the future.

6.1.8 - FEMA has recently offered to share past data on residential flood damage costs.

6.1.9 - Are these hazard mitigation plans county-wide or town-wide? Are there examples of completed plans available? Distribute FEMA Mitigation Planning Guidance Documents (Available from http://www.fema.gov/fima/planning.shtm)

6.2.1 - NYS DEC has a program that buys public fishing access from willing private landowners. This process usually takes about one-year to complete. There is a general preference of DEC over DEP public access purchases, because of DEP’s permit requirements.

6.2.1 & 6.2.2 - These could be good projects for the watershed association to consider taking the lead on. Discuss with SCWA. We will discuss these with the Watershed Association.

6.3.6 - Clarify that this recommendation is referring to the NYC DEP Watershed Forestry Program.

We discussed the benefits of having the watershed association help present the Plan to the Town Boards in the Fall for resolutions adopting the plan, after review this summer and edits have been completed. Tentative date for Watershed Association meeting June 26^th.

The next PAC meeting was scheduled for Wednesday June 23^rd, 4 pm, at Shandaken Town Hall. Continuation of review and prioritization of SMP recommendations will be the main focus of this meeting.

In attendance: Sarah Kron (NRCS Greene/Columbia), Jerry Fraine (NYSDEC R4), Robert Cross (Shandaken Supervisor), Mike Malloy (Shandaken Floodplain Enforcement Officer), Dennis Lucas (Hunter Supervisor), Paul Dibble (Hunter Town Councilman), Amy DeGaetano (GCSWCD), Mark Vian (NYCDEP).

A brief history detailing the development The Stony Clove Creek Stream Management Plan (SMP) was presented.

The proposed review process for the SMP, detailed on the attached outline, was discussed and agreed to. A hardcopy of general recommendations from SMP Section 6 was distributed to PAC members, who agreed to prioritize the recommendation for review at the next meeting. Members were also given a hardcopy of the summary recommendations for all 21 management units and asked to familiarize themselves with the range of issues and the recommendations proposed in SMP.

The PAC was supportive of this process, but also requested the opportunity to review and revise individual management unit recommendations, especially where it impacted town responsibilities. The major concerns came from Shandaken officials, who wanted to be able to address the flooding at the Main Street bridge in Phoenicia. They believe that aggradation at the site has raised the streambed, making flooding of downtown Phoenicia more frequent. Possible solutions were briefly discussed and will continue during the site visit (See #7).

The attached proposed community review process was discussed. This review process will involve working with the Stony Clove Watershed Association to host a series of “neighborhood” gatherings through the summer at which landowners can review and ask questions about their individual management unit recommendations. Feedback collected at these meetings may be incorporated into the final SMP.

A history and current status of the Watershed Association, and its principals was also given. Association bylaws have been drafted and officer elections will take place at the next their meeting (Date TBA).

5. Proposal for “adoption” by resolution and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

The attached proposal regarding town resolutions of support for the SMP was discussed and agreed to, contingent upon approval of final document by PAC members.

Outreach and distribution of the SMP was discussed. This topic will be discussed further as the SMP review is completed.

To introduce new PAC members to our stream restoration projects, a presentation on natural channel design approaches, including a field trip to restoration sites, was scheduled for May 12^th at 1pm at Shandaken Town Hall. All PAC members are welcome to attend.

The next PAC meeting was scheduled for Wednesday May 26^th, 4 pm, at Shandaken Town Hall. Review and prioritization of SMP recommendations will be the main focus of this meeting.