Responses to UC Legislature on MOA

Responses to Questions Submitted by

Chairman John Parete and Members of

The Ulster County Legislature

Regarding the Agreement with the City of New York to Accept

Grant Funding for and Facilitate Creation of a Public Recreational

Trail Along the Ashokan Reservoir

Respectfully Submitted

May 14, 2015

Table of Contents

I. Responses to Questions from Hon. John Parete Pages 1-2

II. Responses to Questions from Hon. Tracey Bartels Pages 3-8

III. Responses to Questions from Hon. David Donaldson Pages 9-17

IV. Responses to Questions from Hon. Manna Jo Greene Pages 18-25

V. Appendix A: Trail Maintenance Estimates Page 26 Source: Rails-to-Trails Conservancy

VI. Appendix B: Letter for Maintenance Support Page 27 Source: NY-NJ Trail Conference

VII. Appendix C: Memo on Type of SEQR Action Page 28 Source: Dennis Doyle, Planning Director

Responses to MOA Questions Submitted by

Chairman of the Ulster County Legislature John Parete

May 14, 2015

NOTE: Questions and requests from the Chairman are numbered.

Responses are italicized and in red.

1) He (the Chairman) would like a copy of the agreement referenced in the third WHEREAS

dated June 15, 1911.

This document has been provided to the Legislative staff.

2) In the fifth WHEREAS, would anything besides a resolution of the Legislature deem freight

rail use as infeasible?

This WHEREAS clause is related to the Countys option to pursue federal Railbanking if it chooses. The determination that freight rail use is infeasible would be approved by the Surface

Transportation Board (STB).

3) Explain the relevance of the National Trails System Act to this project, as referenced in the

sixth WHEREAS.

The County has the option under the MOA to undertake federal Railbanking of the corridor for

interim use as a trail. This would be done under the National Trails System Act, which provides

for interim trail use of railroad corridors until such time that freight operations are reactivated

on the right-of-way.

4) Eighth WHEREAS, "The County will design the Ashokan Rail Trail, subject to DEP

approval.." What is the process?

The County will issue a competitive RFQ to procure engineering and design services for trail

design. The planning process will involve meetings with stakeholder groups and local

communities and include multiple opportunities for public input. DEP will have input into the

design and will have to approve the final plans prior to construction of the trail, which will be

put out to competitive bidding.

5) The tenth WHEREAS, says IF the County obtains a certificate, OR upon written request from

the City or County. Why would the County need a certificate if we can make a written request?

The County does not need a certificate to modify its easement for trail use or to preserve its

perpetual railroad easement. The MOA provides the option to the County of Railbanking and

the certificate is one route for obtaining STB approval.

Page 1 of 25


Chairman of the Ulster County Legislature John Parete

May 14, 2015

6) Section 1. (A) 2.5 million goes to the County for planning, design and construction of the

trail. Do we know the estimated cost of planning, design and construction of the Trail.

The County estimates design and future construction of the trail along the Ashokan will be

covered by the $4.5 million in available funding from DEP and through the 2013 NYS EPF

award ($2 million). The only costs not covered by this funding are for the reconstruction of the

Butternut Creek Culvert, for which the County has received a NYS DEC Water Quality grant and

has additional grant requests pending.

7) Section 1.(C) references sanitary facilities. Will these facilities be provided/available/ maintained year round?

The location, design and operation of sanitary facilities will be determined during the planning

process for trailheads.

8) Will the proposed trail follow the existing bed with no deviation for any reason whatsoever?

The trail will follow the existing bed to the maximum extent possible. There has been no reason

identified to date for deviations of the trail from the existing railroad bed, but this will be

confirmed through the planning and design process.

9) Throughout the document, it is stated that DEP approval is required on many items. It appears

however, they have no responsibility in reference to the items they approve. Please confirm.

The DEP is funding the planning and a large percentage of the construction of the trail and is

also responsible for constructing and maintaining the public trailheads. That is the primary

DEP responsibility on the trail design. The DEP and County will also share security

responsibilities, which will be negotiated and included in the Joint Security Agreement.

10) Exhibit B. 4. c. The City can temporarily shut the trail down for water supply purposes.

What exactly are said purposes?

The DEP is able to close the trail temporarily in the event to protect its water supply. This could

include security issues that threaten the water supply and related infrastructure.

Page 2 of 25


U&D Corridor Advisory Committee Chair Tracey Bartels

May 14, 2015

NOTE: Questions are in black. Responses are italicized and in red.

1. Page 2, first Whereas

Please explain why the MOA refers to freight rail use. Resolution 275 does not address the

feasibility of rail use in any way and never refers to freight rail use. This paragraph states that

resolution 275 is evidence of the infeasibility of freight rail use.

The Whereas clauses simply frame the intent of the Agreement; the subsequent terms and condition constitute the actual Agreement. The MOA reference to freight rail use pertains to

federal Railbanking. This clause states that if freight rail is infeasible (which is the conditional

language the Railbanking attorney asked us to include), the Countyseeks to develop, in an environmentally sensitive manner, the existing railroad corridor along the Ashokan Railroad

Easement into a recreation trail as evidenced by Legislative Resolution 275, which called for this U&D corridor segment to be converted to trail only. Resolution 275 did not evidence that

freight rail is infeasible but rather that the County seeks to develop trail along the Ashokan

Reservoir easement (where there has been no freight, passenger, or tourism railroad service

since 1976).

2. Page 2, third Whereas

Same question. The whereas states preserve the corridor for freight rail use. Please explain why all references to preservation of rail rights refer to freight rail use. It was explained that this

was one means to pursuing abandonment or Railbanking rights with the STB. Is it the only

means? Does the term freight have a legal meaning that is distinct from passenger or tourist as it

applies to rail operation? By signing this agreement are we in any way limiting our ability to

pursue abandonment or Railbanking for future passenger rail use or tourist rail use? If not, why

does it specify freight only? Why not use the broadest language and simply say rail use?

The MOA references to freight rail preserve one option for the County-- if it chooses-- to seek

federal Railbanking through the Surface Transportation Board (STB). The County, whether it

chooses federal Railbanking or not, has preserved the perpetual easement for railroad purposes, which includes freight, passenger and tourism rail operations. However, for STB jurisdictional purposes, the MOA language cites freight rail operations to allow an avenue for

Railbanking. It doesnt limit the County to freight rail. The MOA in no way limits the Countys ability to resume, at some future date, railroad operations, including freight, passenger and/or

tourism trains.

3. Page 2, sixth Whereas

the parties shall modify the existing Ashokan Rail Easement or establish an alternative property interest Please explain the difference between the two and the benefit of one over the other.

The MOA allows several options for a permanent easement for trail use. This could be a

modification to the existing railroad easement or a separate additional easement for trail use.

Both would protect the Countys perpetual railroad easement and allow for interim trail use (until such time that the County re-established railroad operations.) This option was added to

add flexibility in protecting the Countys right with respect to the easement.

Page 3 of 25



May 14, 2015

4. Page 4, Section 1 City Obligations B.

Please explain the how the interaction between the DEP and CWC works. How was the

monetary figure arrived at?

The City of New York, through the DEP, provides funding to the CWC, and DEP has a position

and vote on the Board of Directors of the CWC (there are also two representatives from Ulster

County. The figure represented a reasonable amount that would allow enhancements to be

added to the trail along the Ashokan Reservoir.

5. Page 4, Section 1 City Obligations C

The City requires that DEP have final approval of the final design of the trail. This paragraph

talks about mutual agreement and input from the County as to the portions of the project to be

constructed by the City. It reads that we are mutually agreeing upon the location of the

additional trail support amenities not the trailheads themselves. I want to confirm that this is

acceptable to the County.

The trailhead amenities-- and the locations-- will be mutually agreed upon by the County and

City. The MOA clause reads, at locations, mutually agreed upon by the Parties. This is acceptable to the County as it includes the locations and support facilities.

6. Page 5, Section 1 City Obligations G

This paragraph refers to a Land Use Permit or a Modified Ashokan Railroad Easement. What is

the benefit of one over the other? Do we know what the terms of the Permit would be? Has this

yet been discussed?

The Land Use Permit is an interim step towards the Modified Easement (or alternative property

interest), which will outlive the Permit. The Permit simply establishes the foundation or

framework for the City to provide funding to the County, authorize trail use on the railroad

easement, and begin the public planning and design process. As the County begins planning, it

will work with DEP on developing the Modified Easement. The terms of the Permit are

contained in Exhibit B and would be included in the Modified Easement. The Land Use Permit

essentially allows the project planning to begin while the County and City work out the Modified

Easement. The Permit is a shorter-term first step, and the Modified Easement is the longer-term, permanent instrument for trail use.

7. Page 5, Section 2 County Obligations C

Who will determine where the fencing and guardrails go? Do we have an estimate of the

quantity and cost?

The detailed design of the trail, including fencing, amenities (such as benches, signage, kiosks),

and trail surface will all be determined through the public planning process. The planning

process will include input from the County Legislature, DEP, the local communities, area

businesses, and residents of the County. The current estimates for trail construction along the

Ashokan Reservoir include allowances for fencing at expected locations, such as the narrow

causeway in the western part of the corridor and along steep embankments.

Page 4 of 25



May 14, 2015

8. Page 6, Section 2 County Obligations D

Would the DEP be afforded all the rights of an involved agency during an environmental review

of additional areas of the U&D Corridor in the NYC Watershed by right or is this something that

the MOA is granting?

DEP has permitting authority over components of the trail within its Watershed and therefore

would by right be an involved agency, with or without the MOA.

Please define all the areas of the U&D corridor that are in the watershed.

The entire U&D corridor from milepost 10.05 at Basin Road in West Hurley to milepost 38.6 in

Highmount is located in the New York City Watershed. The U&D corridor east of Basin Road is

not in the Watershed.

9. Page 6, Section 2 County Obligations E

Is the County responsible for obtaining all the permits for the trailhead work? Section C of the

Citys responsibilities fails to address obtaining all required federal, State and local permits and approvals for design, construction, operation and maintenance of the trailheads as addressed in

this section for the Rail Trail.

The DEP is responsible for any permits that might be needed for trailhead work, while the

County is responsible for including the trailhead work in its SEQR review.

(There is a typo on Page 6, Section 2 County Obligations F reopening or of other actions)

This is not a typo. The clause is written as intended.

10. Page 7, Section 3 Railbanking or Abandonment of the U&D Railroad B

The City reserves its right to comment on such submission to ensure that any action by the STB is consistent with the purposes of this Agreement and, in (sic?) Ashokan Rail Trail and, in

particular the development and operation of the Ashokan Rail Trail in an environmentally

sensitive manner.

Clearly, the City has right to comment on any action of the STB. How might an action of the

STB be inconsistent with the purposes of this agreement?

This was included as a protection to DEP to ensure that the County did not apply for federal

Railbanking to authorize trail use without a commitment to the protection of DEPs drinking water supply. For instance, if the County decided to withdraw from the MOA and pursue

Railbanking with the intent to construct an impervious trail or trail that allowed motorized

vehicles, the DEP has retained its right to comment on the Railbanking application to express

concerns about possible impacts to its water quality from such activities.

Page 5 of 25



May 14, 2015

10. Page 7, Section 3 Railbanking or Abandonment of the U&D Railroad D

Same issue with specifying freight. Why not call it the feasibility of establishing rail operations

on the line?

Please see answer to Question 2.

11. Page 8, Effective Date and Term B

Why five years? Can there be an automatic extension?

Five years was negotiated as a reasonable term for this short-term agreement as a bridge to the future Modified Easement. It is not anticipated that the extension will be needed, but the

mutually agreed upon extension was added in case additional time was needed.

12. Page 8, Effective Date and Term C

This section is of great concern to me. The County has a perpetual easement over City land for

rail use. The City has recognized the fact (2005 letter to Bill Tobin from Jeffrey Graf, DEP)

Why would we not have a perpetual easement for trail activities?

The County would have a perpetual easement for trail activities through the Modified Easement.

The 120 day escape clause pertains only to the MOA and Land Use Permit and is consistent with

other such clauses in Ulster County contracts. It is also important to note that the Countys perpetual rail easement is protected. Section 3, Paragraph E states, Except as partieis consensually agree to undertake in the future as set forth herein, this agreement does not modify

or extinguish in any manner whatsoever, the Ashokan Railroad Easement

Exhibit B

13. Exhibit B, page 1, Process/Approvals 1a

this Land Use Permit Is Exhibit B the land use permit referenced earlier? This is confusing. Exhibit B is described as special conditions to be included in the permit for construction and

maintenance of the Ashokan Rail Trail. Earlier in the document there are many references to a

Land Use permit. This does not appear to be a Land Use permit. Could be a typo the Land Use Permit.

Exhibit B is not the actual Land Use Permit, which will be issued following execution of the

MOA. However, the language and conditions in Exhibit B will be included the future Land Use

Permit.

14. Exhibit B, page 1, Process/Approvals 1b and c

Are there examples of Operations and Maintenance Plans and Security Cooperative Agreements

with DEP for watershed land use? Maybe for fishing or hunting use? It would be nice to see

what they have already approved.

The City does have other approved maintenance agreements with local organizations and

municipalities for use of other recreational facilities on its properties, such as trails and ball

Page 6 of 25



May 14, 2015

fields. The County has requested copies of these agreements. Hunting and fishing activities

require individuals to obtain access permits from DEP, and the MOA recognizes and allows

continued use of Watershed lands along the trail for hunting and fishing.

15. Exhibit B, page 1, Process/Approvals 1e

This paragraph states that the County is responsible for monitoring the trail and the trailheads.

Earlier it was stated that it was a City responsibility to maintain the trailheads. What exactly

does monitor mean? Considering that a failure to monitor could result in termination of the

permit, we need a very clear definition.

Monitor has a common meeting, which according to Websters Dictionary is to watch or keep track of. Monitoring of the trailheads is a shared responsibility between the DEP and County. Failure to monitor would require DEP notice to the County, and termination would

only result if the County failed to cure the issue for a prolonged period of time.

16. Exhibit B, Page 2, Trail Construction 2c

The language is confusing. Does this mean that we can open the trail as we complete certain

portions?

Yes. This allows the construction of the trail to be completed in phases that can be opened as

long as the County has constructed them based on an approved design and consistent with the

provisions of the Land Use Permit. It is anticipated that the County would do the project along

the Ashokan Reservoir in two phases, but this would be fleshed out during the public planning

process.

17. Exhibit B, Page 2 Trail Operation and Maintenance 3c

Will the trailheads be open and maintained from dusk to dawn year round including sanitary

facilities and plowed parking?

The trail and trailheads will be open from dawn to dusk year round, and the mutually agreed

upon support facilities at these sites, including sanitary facilities and parking areas, will be

maintained by DEP year round. Parking areas will be plowed to allow year round access.

18. Exhibit B, Page 3 Trail Operation and Maintenance 3f

How does the County get approval for special events? What is the criteria? What is the lead

time? Can we include the language that will not be unreasonably withheld?

The details, including time frames and threshold criteria, for special event approvals will be

negotiated between DEP and the County and included in the Operation and Maintenance Plan.

That language can certainly be considered and added as we develop the O&M Plan.

Page 7 of 25



May 14, 2015

19 Exhibit B, Page 3 Trail Operation and Maintenance 3g

Is the City responsible for trash and litter removal at trailheads, public parking facilities, sanitary

facilities, additional entrance points and other mutually agreed upon trail support amenities?

As per Section 1, Paragraph C, the City is responsible for constructing, funding, and operating

the trailheads, including sanitary facilities. This would include litter and debris removal at

trailheads. The County would be responsible for litter at additional entry points.

20. Exhibit B, Page 3 Trail Security 4c

How will the City notice the County of a temporary shutdown?

As per Section 6 (Notices) of the MOA, the City would notify the County Executive with copy to

the County Attorney.

21. Exhibit B, Page 4 Insurance and Indemnification 5ai

What is the estimate on the cost of insurance policy like this?

The County currently maintains sufficient insurance coverage to comply with this requirement.

This was confirmed by the Insurance Department and the Countys insurance carrier.

22. Exhibit B, Page 4 Insurance and Indemnification 5aii

Does this insurance policy include the trailheads, parking etc? Does the County need to be

named on the Citys insurance for those areas?

No. As per Section 8, Paragraph D, the City retains all liability for the trailheads.

23. Exhibit B, page 4 Additional Conditions 6a

What might this include? Do we have the right to agree? We should have the right to see the

conditions before they are imposed.

DEP cannot add conditions that unreasonably interfere with the publics use of the Ashokan Rail Trail. DEP would notify the County of concerns related to water quality or public safety that if left uncured could result in additional conditions. For instance, there might be safety

concerns identified after the opening of the trail, such as an area where safety fencing might be

needed. The County could challenge proposed additional conditions if it feels such conditions

would impose unreasonable restrictions on the publics ability to use the trail.

Page 8 of 25


Railroad Advisory Committee Chairman David Donaldson

May 14, 2015

NOTE: The Q&A in black is from a prior FAQ provided to the Legislature.

Comments submitted by Chairman Donaldson are italicized and copied below in blue.

Responses to the comments that follow are italicized and in red.

Q: Why did Ulster County and the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP)

develop a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)?

A: The MOA enables Ulster County to convert the 11.5-mile Ulster & Delaware (U&D) railroad corridor along

the Ashokan Reservoir into a public recreational trail available for use year-round without fee or permit.

The trail, which will extend from West Hurley to Boiceville, will open the northern shore of the Ashokan

to the public for the first time since the Reservoir was put into service in 1915 as well as provide significant

funding and other support from NYCDEP. The County and NYCDEP agreed that trail development along

this section of the U&D corridor would enhance recreational opportunities, provide an economic

development boost to area businesses, bolster tourism in the Catskills, and improve the quality of life and

public health. The trail development will also ensure protection of the City of New Yorks drinking water supply.

*Comment: Agreement can be cancelled on 120 day notice and the trails can at any time be closed by DEP.

A. The termination terms are consistent with other agreements the County has entered into. This provision obligates the City to reimburse the County as to costs incurred or obligated prior to the cancellation. This

clause protects the County as well as the City. It should be noted that the funding for this Agreement is

being provide by the City prior to expenditure by the County, and it provides for the County to drawdown

certain amounts, spend the available funds, and then provide documentation as to the expenditures or

obligations of the County. The trail can only be closed on a temporary basis for public safety emergencies.

*Comment: The MOA limits the trail surface to dirt, gravel or crushed stone- asphalt is not allowed. This

means no high speed bicycles.

A. In order to protect Ashokan Reservoir water quality, the MOA requires that trail surface materials not be impermeable, as defined in the NYC Watershed Rules & Regulations. Allowable trail surface materials include dirt, gravel, and crushed stone, as well as permeable asphalt surfaces. Professionally constructed

non-asphalt surfaces will accommodate most bicycles, including many road bicycles, as well as comply with

ADA specifications.

Q: What does the MOA provide to the County?

A: The MOA provides the following benefits to the County:

$2.5 Million in NYCDEP grant funding for planning and construction with $1 million payable upon contract signing and registration of the contract with the City of New York

$1 Million in additional grant support through the Catskill Watershed Corporation

NYCDEP funding, construction and maintenance of multiple public trailheads with parking, signage and sanitary facilities

Joint marketing of Ashokan Trail to New York City residents

Bicycle and pedestrian improvements to NYCDEPs Ashokan Dividing Weir Bridge and Five Arch Bridge (Route 28A in Boiceville)

Page 9 of 25



May 14, 2015

Preservation of Countys perpetual U&D railroad easement

*Comment: $2.5 million will be mostly for design and most construction funding will need to come from

other sources. Full cost unknown.

A. Planning and design for the trail are estimated to utilize less than one-quarter of the committed DEP funding. The remainder of DEP funds and the $2 million in NYS EPF funding awarded in 2013 should be

sufficient to fully design and construct the trail- excluding Butternut Creek Culvert and the Boiceville

Trestle, for which other funding has been awarded or is pending for design and construction.

*Comment: There is no guarantee in the MOA that the CWC grant will be funded.

A. This MOA provision provides for DEP support of future CWC grant requests. The CWC funding is only one of the possible additional funding sources for the trail project and is not integral to completing the Ashokan

Reservoir trail segment. As stated in the prior response, the available funds are estimated to be sufficient

for trail design and future construction, with the exception of the Butternut Creek Culvert and Boiceville

Trestle, for which other funding sources are available or pending.

*Comment: Trailhead locations are undetermined and controlled by the DEP which will determine parking

spaces and number of users.

A. The trailhead locations, design and parking capacity will be determined through a community planning process with input from the local municipalities, area residents, and nearby businesses. The MOA

purposely left the trailhead locations and other trailhead details to be determined during the planning

process so that public input could be obtained on preferred locations, number of parking spaces, needed

support facilities (such as sanitary facilities),and signage/ information kiosks.

*Comment: No funds are committed to joint marketing.

A. The DEP will market the trail directly to its water customers through regular water bills, which would reach millions of households with little or no additional cost.

*Comment: Bicycle and pedestrian improvements are only referred to as consideration of a possible shared-

use lane.

A. Section 1 (D) states, The City.shall accommodate bicycle and pedestrian traffic (on the Dividing Weir and Five Arch bridges) including consideration of a dedicated shared-use lane. This allows the flexibility to construct a separate dedicated lane or alternatively, widened shoulders on both sides of the bridge,

depending on which is better for connectivity for bicyclists and pedestrians.

*Comment: Once the rails are removed, this easement will be vulnerable to cancellation.

A. The removal of the rails in no way extinguishes or modifies the Countys perpetual railroad easement. In Section 3, Paragraph E, the MOA states, This agreement does not modify or extinguish in any manner whatsoever the Ashokan Railroad Easement as described in the Book of Deeds at Liber 443, Page 58 as

filed in the Office of the Ulster County Clerk.

Page 10 of 25



May 14, 2015

*Comment: Once the easement is cancelled, the trail is 100% subject to closure by DEP.

A. The railroad easement cannot be cancelled or modified unilaterally by DEP. The modified easement that is called for in the MOA will add interim trail use until such time as the County chooses to restore rail use and

will only allow temporary closure of the trail by DEP for public safety and water supply emergencies. If

railroad operations were ever restored, the DEP would also likely have the ability to stop tourism trains in

the event of a public safety emergency since tourism trains have no federal protections or pre-emptions.

Q: What does the MOA require from the County?

A: The MOA requires the County to do the following:

Design and construct the trail and related facilities and seek all necessary environmental permits

Maintain and operate the trail in a manner that does not harm the Citys drinking water supply

Submit to NYCDEP for approval the design of the trail, an operation and maintenance plan, and a joint security agreement

Advise NYCDEP of any actions related to federal Railbanking

*Comment: The cost of design, construction and permitting is unknown.

A. As per the 2015-2020 Capital Improvement Program, the County Planning Department has provided preliminary estimates of costs for the 11.5 mile trail from Basin Road to Boiceville, including the Butternut

Creek Culvert and Boiceville Trestle. The available DEP and NYS EPF funding- totaling $4.5 million- is

estimated to cover design, permitting and trail construction costs of the trail, except for the Butternut Creek

Culvert and Boiceville Trestle, for which other State and federal funding has been awarded or is pending.

*Comment: Maintenance costs are unknown.

A. If the County does 100% of the trail maintenance, the average annual maintenance cost for the 11.5 mile trail along the Ashokan is estimated to be approximately $11,500 to $23,000 (approximately $1000-2000

per mile per year, depending on whether the trail surface is asphalt or non-asphalt.) These figures are

based on trail maintenance cost information from the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (please see Attachment

A) based on surveys of 200 existing rail trails in the Northern US. These estimates are consistent with

actual costs incurred to maintain the local Marbletown O&W Trail in Ulster County, which are

approximately $1,380 per mile per year (including some minor capital expenses).

It is also likely that Ulster County will partner with private, non-profit organizations to reduce the Countys costs and share of maintenance further. The NY-NJ Trail Conference, whose volunteers maintain more than

1000 miles of trails in two states, has sent a letter of interest stating that their organization will recruit and

organize volunteers to do maintenance work (please see Attachment B). Once the trail is constructed to

professional standards, maintenance will mostly be comprised of mowing and trimming trail edges,

cleaning ditches and culverts, fixing potholes, removing debris and litter, and making minor repairs to

fencing and kiosks, all of which can be done by volunteer organizations (as is done by the Trail Conference

on other trails.) According to the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, it is common for trails owned by a

government entity to be maintained by volunteers, including Scouts and community service groups.

Page 11 of 25



May 14, 2015

*Comment: The design of the trail, an operation and maintenance (O&M) plan, and a joint security

agreement have not been negotiated.

A. Correct. The design of the trail has not yet begun and will be commenced once DEP funding is approved, at which time a community planning process will begin. The O&M plan and Joint Security Agreement will be

negotiated and developed prior to the construction and opening of the trail but cannot be finalized until the

trail design is determined with public input and approved by the County and DEP (so that the specifics of

the trail, such as fencing, trail surface, drainage improvements, etc. are fully detailed.)

Q: How does the MOA impact the Countys rail easement?

A: The MOA establishes a framework for the County to add a conditional trail easement to its perpetual

railroad easement for the U&D along the Ashokan Reservoir. The Countys railroad easement is fully preserved for the future, and the MOA allows for trail use on the U&D corridor until such time as the

County chooses to re-establish railroad operations, which it has the right to do. However, the MOA does

not allow concurrent railroad operations and trail use along the Ashokan Reservoir.

*Comment: The MOA does not actually say that concurrent rail and trail operations are prohibited.

A. The MOA repeatedly references federal Railbanking and a modified railroad easement to allow interim trail use with an option to return rail service in the future. The MOA allows for trail use to be added to the Countys perpetual rail easement until such time as the County restores rail use. Implicit in the interim trail use is the suspension of rail operations, although no freight, passenger, or tourism railroad operations currently take place on the Ashokan Reservoir section of the U&D corridor and have not taken

place since 1976. While the County has the right in the future to restore rail service, it does not have the

right under the current easement or the MOA to operate both rail and trail concurrently.

Q: How does the MOA work?

A: The MOA initially provides the County a land-use permit allowing the County to start planning, design and

permitting of the new trail and committing significant NYCDEP funding support for trail development.

Prior to any trail construction, the County and City will negotiate a modified railroad easement, subject to

Legislative approval, that adds trail use to the railroad easement, as long as conditions in the MOA are met

and the County does not restore rail operations, which the County retains the right to do. The modified

easement will replace the land-use permit and contain the land-use permit conditions, including provisions

that protect the Reservoirs water quality. The County has the choice to pursue federal Railbanking as well, but it is not required for the MOA or the modified easement.

*Comment: Construction cannot start until modified rail easement is negotiation. This agreement is highly

dependent on Railbanking the line via the STB. This has never been accomplished for a line that has been

out Federal Jurisdiction for nearly 40 years. The Catskill Mountain Railroad could easily obtain such due

to their position as a railroad. This is where working with CMRR would greatly benefit the County.

A. Under the MOA, the County is not required to undertake federal Railbanking in order to modify its perpetual rail easement to allow for interim trail use. However, the MOA allows the County the option for

Railbanking if it chooses to do so. Since DEP is the only landowner on this segment of the U&D right-of-

way, the negotiated modified easement can and will fully protect the Countys permanent rail easement

Page 12 of 25



May 14, 2015

while allowing for interim trail use (until rail operations are restored), which is essentially what federal

Railbanking does. As the County is the owner of the U&D, CMRR assistance is not required for either

Railbanking or modification of the easement, and CMRRs lease ends in May 2016.

Q: What uses does the MOA allow and prohibit?

A: The MOA allows walking, bicycling, running, cross country skiing, snowshoeing, and other non-motorized

uses, including walking dogs on leashes, without permit or fee year-round. Special events, such as

fundraising walks and marathon races, are allowed if mutually-approved by the County and NYCDEP.

Horses and motorized vehicles, other than motorized wheelchairs and security and maintenance vehicles,

are prohibited. The MOA prohibits the use of impervious trail surfaces, such as pavement, unless mutually-

agreed upon by the County and the NYCDEP.

*Comment: No asphalt means no long-distance bicycles, so no reasons for bicyclers (sic) to come here from

Walkway Over the Hudson.

A. The MOA does not prohibit pervious asphalt so if the County chooses to pave the trail using pervious asphalt, it may do so. In addition, the use of other non-asphalt materials, such as compacted crushed stone

or stone dust, will accommodate the overwhelming majority of bicyclists, including those who would use the

Countys rail trail network to travel from the Walkway to the Ashokan. Since the Wallkill Valley Rail Trail is on that route and is also not paved, most of the cyclists who would come from the Walkway would likely

use mountain bikes, hybrids, cross trail bikes and road bikes with wider tires, which can easily ride a non-

paved trail. In fact, many people who tour use hybrids and cross trail bicycles, and non-asphalt surfaces

when professionally installed will accommodate tires on strollers and wheel chairs.

Q: Why is this MOA being brought to the Legislature now?

A: The County and NYCDEP negotiated the detailed terms of this MOA between December 2013 and January

2014, at which time the MOA was submitted by NYCDEP for legal review to the City of New York Law

Department. On April 20, 2015 the County was notified the legal reviews were completed, and NYCDEP

provided a notice of contract award for signature. The MOA is consistent with standing Ulster County

policy under Resolution No. 275 (Passed August 2014), and both parties negotiated in good faith towards

this final MOA with the understanding of this Legislative policy. The MOA contains all the major

provisions in announced in December 2013 as part of an Agreement in Principle.

*Comment: If the Agreement has been around so long, why does the Legislature have less than 2 weeks to

review and comment on it?

A. The MOA was finalized on April 20, 2015, and the Legislature received a copy the following week. Prior to April 20, the MOA required approval by the City Law Department and could have been amended or

withdrawn. The terms of the MOA are consistent with the Agreement in Principle publicly discussed since

December 2013 and comply with the existing Ulster County policy under Resolution No. 275 passed in

August 2014. It is also important to note that the Legislature regularly approves contracts for revenues and

services that are submitted by the prior months resolution deadline, as this contract was.

Page 13 of 25



May 14, 2015

Q: What are the risks of delaying signing of the MOA?

A: The financial and other benefits afforded by the MOA and the ability to develop a public recreational trail

along the Ashokan Reservoir are not secured until the MOU is signed. The risks of delaying execution of

the MOU include the following:

The $2.5 Million in direct NYCDEP grant funding is in the Citys operational budget and could be withdrawn at any time without a signed MOA. As the County has seen with other public project

funding, these funds could be reprogrammed for other needs that arise at the NYCDEP or in the City

budget absent a signed agreement.

The County was awarded $2 million in New York State Environmental Protection Fund (EFP) grants for the rail trail in 2013 and has not been able to draw down these funds. The MOA will allow the County

to move forward in utilizing these funds for the rail trail so that they are not reprogrammed or reduced in

future State budgets.

The County was awarded $330,000 in 2014 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Water Quality grants for restoration of Butternut Creek Culvert on the U&D in this section. This

funding is likely to expire if the County cannot advance the MOA and begin planning and design on the

culvert replacement.

Without a signed MOA, the County cannot secure additional funding commitments from major private donors, some of which have already committed funding to the project.

NYCDEP is currently planning bridge improvements and replacements for the Ashokan Dividing Weir and the Five Arch Bridge, and the executed MOA will guarantee improved pedestrian and bicycle

accommodations on these new structures that enhance community connectivity.

Delays in approving MOA undermine the Countys ability to negotiate future agreements with the City of New York and NYCDEP.

Planning needs to begin this summer if the trail is to be constructed in a reasonable time frame following the May 31, 2016 expiration of the Catskill Mountain Railroad lease.

*Comment: The $2.5 million was promised in December 2013. There is no reason another few months need

prevent this money from being funded.

A. There is no guarantee that the funding remains available without a signed agreement. As with other public infrastructure funding, final funding is not guaranteed without execution of the revenue contract. The DEP

funding is available in the current City of New York fiscal year, which ends June 30, 2015. The only way to

guarantee the funding is to execute the agreement so the funds are obligated in this years DEP budget.

*Comment: The $2 million in State funding has not been provided because the County Executive has never

consented to the public planning process required for the use of the funds.

A. Incorrect. The execution of the MOA with DEP is the first of a number of steps in moving forward with the public planning process and design for the rail trail, and the $2 million that was awarded to the County in

2013 will be utilized for the rail trail following execution of the MOA and creation of the capital project for

the rail trail along the Ashokan Reservoir. At the Countys request, the MOA with DEP intentionally did not detail the trail design, including trailhead locations, so that the public and local communities could be

part of the planning process for the trail.

Page 14 of 25



May 14, 2015

*Comment: The Butternut Creek Culvert project can commence at any time and does not require the MOA.

A. The Butternut Creek Culvert project requires the complete replacement of a major concrete arch culvert that supports the railroad embankment along the Ashokan Reservoir, which is badly damaged and causing

ongoing erosion of the Countys right-of-way. It will save the County hundreds of thousands of dollars in site access costs to rebuild this Culvert during trail construction, which does require the MOA. Without the

MOA and trail construction, the County would be forced to build a temporary access road for heavy

machinery which would add significant costs to the project.

*Comment: If it was true that the County cannot secure additional funding commitments from major private

donors, some of which have already committed funding to the project, why have they already committed

money to the project?

A. Private organizations contributed funding for survey and mapping of the Ashokan Reservoir segment of the U&D and an analysis of existing conditions, such as locations of culverts. The organizations, which include

the Open Space Institute, The Dyson Foundation, and the Woodstock Land Conservancy, are committed to

the rail trail project but cannot raise additional funds from their donors without a commitment from the

County to move forward with the trail project. Without the MOA, there is no ability for the County to move

forward with trail development along the Ashokan and therefore, no project for which to raise private funds.

*Comment: Without consensus with the Legislature, no future agreements should be negotiated with DEP.

A. Agreements between the County and other municipal entities require Legislative approval by a majority of the members. All future agreements with DEP, including the Joint Security Agreement and Modified

Easement, will require approval of a majority of the Legislature.

Q: What about the Catskill Mountain Railroads plan to extend its rail operations to the Glenford Dike on the Ashokan Reservoir?

A: Firstly, under the County Legislatures Resolution No. 275, the segment of the U&D corridor along the Ashokan Reservoir is slated for redevelopment as trail only. Secondly, the NYCDEP has clearly stated its

long-term position that rail with trail along its Reservoir property will not be allowed, and it now supports development of trail only as the best course for protecting its drinking water supply and

expanding recreational opportunities. Thirdly, the Catskill Mountain Railroad has not operated passenger,

freight or tourism trains on the Ashokan Reservoir section since the beginning of its 25-year lease in 1991

or during the shorter term leases which started in 1983. The last trains, other than work vehicles, that

operated on this segment were in 1976. Finally, this 11.5 mile section of rail corridor does not meet even

minimum federal railroad standards (Class 1) for freight, passenger or tourism train operations, which is

documented in the 2014 HDR Track Inspection Report.

*Comment: There is no reason that rail operations cannot be extended to this section of the easement, which

was formerly a railroad station with multiple tracks, and only constitutes 10% of the easement. The DEP

has never said that it will not permit any rail use- it has only stated that that (sic) is the Countys policy through resolution 275. At present, they cannot deny rail use.

A. The MOA is predicated on the conversion of the existing rail corridor, which is overwhelmingly single track only along the Ashokan Reservoir, into trail only, which is the Ulster County policy codified in Resolution

Page 15 of 25



May 14, 2015

No. 275. The DEP has been clear that based on water quality concerns, it will not allow the construction of

trail alongside rail along its reservoir, and DEP financial and other support is based on trail use only. It is

also important to note that no passenger, freight or tourism trains have run on this section of track, or in the

section approaching the track between Hurley Mountain Road and Basin Road, in nearly 40 years. It would

take many years for CMRR to rehabilitate the track to the Ashokan Reservoir based on its rate of

rehabilitation over the past years.

Q: Some have said that the County Legislatures recent passage of Resolution No. 155 rescinded the prior policy under Resolution No. 275. Is that assessment correct?

A: No. Resolution No. 155 (April 2015) created a new Ulster & Delaware Corridor Advisory Committee

to examine information on the U&D and assess whether changes to established County policy might be

warranted. Resolution No. 155 did not rescind or modify the existing policy, and according to one of

the sponsors, it was not intended to reopen the issue of the U&D corridor along the Reservoir. Rather, it

was to focus on a possible compromise for modifying Resolution 275 to allow railroad operations in the

U&D section in and near the City of Kingston where theme trains operated in the past year.

*Comment: Resolution 155 was not limited in any way to exclude the Ashokan easement area or any other

part of the Corridor.

A. Resolution 155 did not rescind or amend Resolution 275, which is consistent with the MOA and remains Ulster County policy.

Q: Could NYCDEP unilaterally close the trail so that there is neither railroad nor trail use?

A: NYCDEP is allowed to close the trail temporarily in the event of serious threats to its drinking water

supply or public safety. However, such closures are temporary and only for the time necessary to protect public health and safety. The County has the right to re-establish railroad uses if it chooses.

*Comment: The agreement can be cancelled by the DEP on 120 days notice. Re-establishing the railroad will be highly difficult if the rails have been removed and will likely be fought by the DEP.

A. The agreement can be terminated by either party with 120 days notice. Re-establishing the railroad in this section now would currently be highly difficult and require significant investment to improve the

deteriorated ties and railbed from Hurley Mountain Road to the Reservoir and to the Glenford Dike to FRA

Class I standards, which is the minimum standard for any train operations.

Q: Who is going to maintain the trail and how much will it cost?

A: The County is responsible for maintenance, but it is allowed to contract with third parties for maintenance

of the trail with the consent of NYCDEP. Private trail organizations have expressed interest maintaining

the trail, and a recent letter from the New York- New Jersey Trail Conference, which maintains nearly

1000 miles of trail in the two states it operates, has offered to recruit volunteers to help with trail

maintenance. The maintenance costs could be fully covered or significantly reduced by private trail

organizations as additional organizations step forward.

Page 16 of 25



May 14, 2015

*Comment: The costs of maintaining the trail should be estimated in hard numbers, not counting on

volunteers who have not even been recruited or organized.

A. Based on the Rails-to-Trails survey attached as Appendix A, the estimate for maintenance without volunteer labor and donations would be in the range of $11,500 to $23,000 per year for this 11.5 mile

section of track. Based on the probable use of non-asphalt materials and the actual costs of similar trails

in Ulster County, the estimate would likely be at the lower end of this range.

Q: Is the approval of the MOA with NYCDEP the last step before building a trail?

A: No. The resolution to execute the MOA with NYCDEP is only the first step in a longer process. There

will be multiple future resolutions that require approval by the Ulster County Legislature, including

resolutions establishing a capital project for planning, accepting NYCDEP grant funding once the contract

is processed and registered with the City of New York Comptroller, approving receipt of other pending

rail trail grants, adopting additional intergovernmental agreements with NYCDEP (such as the Joint

Security Agreement), and authorizing the removal of rails prior to construction (as required in Resolution

No. 275.)

Approving the MOA simply allows the City of New York to award funding to Ulster County and allows

the County to begin a public trail planning and design process, with repeated opportunities for community

and Legislative input on the project, including, but not limited to, the design of the trail, locations of

trailheads and selection of amenities related to the trail, such as signage and benches.

*Comment: The report from the committee created in Resolution 155 is necessary to be incorporated into

this agreement so that it is in the best long term interest of the citizens of Ulster County, not any particularly

politicians short-term interests. This vote should be delayed until the committees work is complete. The easement has been here for 100 years. Another 6 months will only improve the final outcome.

A. Resolution 155 did not suspend or amend current Ulster County policy for trail only along the Ashokan Reservoir. It did not specifically include the Ashokan Reservoir section or instruct County departments to

suspend implementation of Resolution 275 until the report is completed. There is no requirement to delay

project implementation until the Committees work is complete, and there is no guarantee that a six-month delay would not jeopardize available funding through DEP and other sources.

*Comment: The resolution also states that changes can be made to the agreement by the County Executive

without Legislative approval. Regardless of who the County Executive is, how dangerous is that?

A. Resolution 187 uses standard language that is contained in numerous contracts approved by the Ulster County Legislature. In addition, the Chairman of the Legislature has been added as a signatory to the MOA

so any amendments would require his signature as well. This resolution passed the Legislature unanimously

without any questions about amendments/modifications that would be approved by the County Attorney,

which is regularly included in contract resolutions.

Page 17 of 25


Legislator Manna Jo Greene

May 14, 2015

NOTE: Questions/ comments are in black.

Responses are italicized and in red.

1) SEQRA: Resolution 187 state in its final Whereas: WHEREAS, based upon the examination of the Ulster County Legislature, and pursuant to the County of Ulsters State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) Type II List that was adopted by the County in Resolution No.

118 on April 20, 2010, and as per Section 4.2.5 of that list, it has been determined the proposed

agreement provides that an approved design, including necessary permits and environmental

findings be in place prior to construction and as such it does not pose a significant

environmental impact and therefore has been determined to be a Type II Action pursuant

to 6NYCRR, Part 617, of SEQRA, and does not require any determination or procedure

under SEQRA; Resolution 187 states that the proposed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), which will essentially convert the last remaining passenger and tourism railroad in

Ulster County to recreation trail for the Ashokan section of the Ulster & Delaware Rail Corridor,

is exempt under SEQRA as a Type II Action. The MOA itself indicates that SEQRA will be

undertaken by the County, in coordination with the City of New York to design and construct the

Ashokan Rail Trail. It seems to me that SEQRA should be done on the MOA itself, since this is a

major decision for Ulster County elected officials to consider. At the very least a full and open

public process, with a formal public hearing, should be afforded to this important decision. The

MOA cites Resolution 275 as the justification for proceeding with this agreement, however,

following a very successful year of special railroad events offered by the Catskill Mountain

Railroad, the County Executive and staff in the Executive branch have acknowledged that

Resolution 275 will need to be modified to keep the section from Kingston Plaza to Hurley

Mountain Road operating as a railroad, and have asked the Legislature to consider this

modification. The best way to do this is in the context of well-conceived overall plan for the

Ulster County stretch of this rail corridor, not piecemeal. The recently formed Ulster & Delaware

Corridor Advisory Committee was created to gather all available information, process it, seek

consultants assistance as needed, and make recommendations to the Legislature in this regard. Asking the Legislature to authorize the MOA between the County and NYC DEP prior to

allowing the U&D Corridor Advisory Committee to do the work it was created to engage in is

premature and preemptive, and would severely limit the options the Committee can consider for

this valuable and historic resource.

As I understand it, 6NYCRR 617.4, indicates that the proposed MOA is a TYPE I (Non-Exempt)

action because the proposed action includes land that exceeds 10 acres in area: See

www.dec.ny.gov/regs/4490.html#18106 (b) The following actions are Type I if they are to be

directly undertaken, funded or approved by an agency:

(6) activities, other than the construction of residential facilities, that meet or exceed any of the

following thresholds: (i) a project or action that involves the physical alteration of 10 acres;

The proposed trail will be at least 14 feet wide (not counting trailheads, parking, etc.) for 11.5

miles, which covers 850,080 square feet or 19.51 acres. This project is clearly more than 10 acres

and would therefore subject to SEQRA. In addition there are historic designations and other

reason to consider this action Type 1 and to perform an environmental review on the

Memorandum itself.

Page 18 of 25



May 14, 2015

Question: Please clarify:

Can the County act on Resolution 187 or sign the MOA without first going through a

Type I SEQRA review?

Yes. The action is Type II under SEQR. Please see the memo from Planning Director Dennis

Doyle in Appendix C.

Will the action or contract be subject to reversal in an Article 78 proceeding?

The County Attorney sees no basis for reversal in an Article 78 proceeding.

Will this incur more litigation, instead of cooperation?

The County Attorney sees no basis for litigation.

2) Trailheads (Section 1C): If, as proposed, trailheads are entirely designed, built and

maintained by the NYC DEP, the DEP will be able to control and limit access. For example, if

there are only a few parking spaces at the trailhead, trail use will be limited to a small group of

people. The County should have a say in the design of trailheads and should share access

management with the DEP, including ensuring access to people with disabilities to the most

scenic areas, such as the Glenford Dike.

As per Section 1, Paragraph C, the trailhead locations, design and parking capacity will be

determined through a community planning process with input from the local municipalities, area

residents, and nearby businesses. The MOA purposely left the trailhead locations and other

trailhead details to be determined during the planning process so that public input could be

obtained on preferred locations, number of parking spaces, needed support facilities (such as

sanitary facilities),and signage/ information kiosks.

3) Shared Use Lane (Section 1D): The City of New York does not commit to building a shared-

use bicycle/pedestrian lane on the dividing weir. The MOA only says that they will consider it.

Section 1 (D) states, The City.shall accommodate bicycle and pedestrian traffic (on the Dividing Weir and Five Arch bridges) including consideration of a dedicated shared-use lane. This allows the flexibility to construct a separate dedicated lane or alternatively, widened

shoulders on both sides of the bridge, depending on which is better for connectivity for bicyclists

and pedestrians.

4) Railbanking (Section 3): Railbanking is preserving railroad rights-of-way for possible future use. Railbanking leaves the tracks, bridges, and other infrastructure intact, relieving the railroad

operating company from responsibility of maintenance and taxation. Often the tracks are put in

custody of a state transportation agency, who then seeks a new operator for possible rehab or

reactivation. This helps ensure the possibility of future restored rail service when new economic

conditions may warrant resuming operation.1 As I understand it, railbanking instead of total abandonment of a railroad requires federal jurisdiction, and this only applies to freight, should

Page 19 of 25



May 14, 2015

the County decide to utilize the railroad for this purpose in the future. In this case, the MOA

should allow Ulster County to expand to passenger use for the Ashokan section of the rail

corridor, should future interest and resources become available for a full rail with trail. NYC

DEP should agree to this combined use and with widespread County support, might be convinced to. Far better than railbanking is not to abandon this section of rail in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_trail When the U & D Railroad was moved to allow the

construction of the Ashokan Reservoir in 1911, it was imbued with a wide range of powers,

rights and privileges, including a clearly defined right-of-way. [Note: The U&D Corridor

Advisory Committee should get a copy of the original contract between NYC DEP and U &D as

part of the library of documents we are compiling.] Do we want to give up the rights established

in the Ashokan Railroad Easement in favor of the less secure, more tenuous and less certain,

modified version that is proposed by Resolution 187.

I would like to hear an explanation of Railbanking from the Catskill Mountain Railroad

(CMRR), since I believe they have extensive knowledge and understanding about this process.

Here is what www.railstotrails.org/build-trails/trail-building-toolbox/railbanking/ says.

Railbanking, as defined by the National Trails System Act, 16 USC 1247 (d), is a voluntary agreement between a railroad company and a trail agency to use an out-of-service rail corridor as

a trail until a railroad might need the corridor again for rail service. Because a railbanked

corridor is not considered abandoned, it can be sold, leased or donated to a trail manager without

reverting to adjacent landowners.

Railbanking takes place during the rail corridor abandonment process. Official negotiations with the railroad begin after the railroad submits an initial notification to abandon the line to the

Surface Transportation Board (STB). Negotiations end with either railbanking or line

abandonment. Are we really ready to abandon/railbank, rather than repair, our last remaining passenger/tourism

railroad? CMRR estimates that they can repair the railroad ties for about $10,000 per mile, with

volunteer labor, using used tracks that are still in good condition, or $60,000 using new ones.

There is no eminent domain for trails that I know of. It seems to me, therefore, that, if the

existing rail corridor agreement is to be modified, it is critical that the rails are kept in place

throughout the reservoir easement. Without them, the County could lose full access to the

easement, if the MOA were to be cancelled by the NYC DEP at some time in the future.

Question: If the proposed trail is built and puts an end to the Railroad, do we know that

property owners who have land outside of DEP-controlled portions of the Corridor will

willingly allow the trail to be built and used?

The Countys perpetual railroad easement is protected in the MOA. Property owners who have land outside the DEP-owned segments of the corridor will be included in the public planning

process but have no legal standing with regard to the trail across DEP Watershed lands, which

is the subject of the MOA.

Also the term environmentally sensitive needs to be defined.

The trail will be developed in compliance with the New York City Watershed Rules and

Regulations, which set high environmental standards for many types of development and which

Page 20 of 25



May 14, 2015

preclude use of impervious materials. The County will also undertake environmental reviews to

ensure that the trail is protective of endangered species, wetland areas, and water quality.

6) Termination (Section 4C): The Memorandum of Agreement can be cancelled by either party

with 120 days written notice. If the rails have been removed, the County could lose complete

access, either by rail or trail. Because of this possibility, the rails should remain in place, even if

the Ashokan Rail Trail proposal is adopted. The trail can be constructed in-between or on top of

the rails in constrained areas.

The removal of the rails in no way extinguishes or modifies the Countys perpetual railroad easement. In Section 3, Paragraph E, the MOA states, This agreement does not modify or extinguish in any manner whatsoever the Ashokan Railroad Easement as described in the Book

of Deeds at Liber 443, Page 58 as filed in the Office of the Ulster County Clerk. A trail constructed in between the rails would not meet modern multi-use trail standards and

constructing a trail on top of the rails is not practical or advisable based on consultations with

trail designers and engineers.

7) Costs: The Legislature is being asked to authorize an MOA for the construction of the

Ashokan Rail Trail, while the costs of maintaining, insuring and providing security for the trail,

as well as its ultimate construction cost, are still unknown. These costs would mostly be paid for

by the County, not the DEP. Understanding the costs and benefits of all alternatives is the main

purpose of the U&D Corridor Advisory Committee.

Question: What percent of total design, build and maintenance costs do the grants totaling

$2.5 million represent? Where will the rest come from?

The County estimates design and future construction of the trail along the Ashokan will be

covered by the $4.5 million in available funding from DEP and through the 2013 NYS EPF

award ($2 million). The only costs not covered by this funding are for the reconstruction of the

Butternut Creek Culvert, for which the County has received a NYS DEC Water Quality grant and

has additional grant requests pending.

8) Amendments: Resolution 187 allows for all future amendments to be made by the County

Executive without the consent of the Legislature. The words and any amendments thereto should be deleted from the last paragraph. It is very important to be sure the Legislature approves

any and all future changes to this agreement, if indeed an acceptable agreement can be crafted.

This version has a long way to go.

Resolution 187 and the MOA have been revised to include the signature of the Chairman of the

Ulster County Legislature.

General Concern: I believe that bringing forward the MOA at this time preempts the work of Ulster & Delaware

Corridor Advisory Committee, who have agreed to take a fair, open and comprehensive look at

Page 21 of 25



May 14, 2015

the Corridor and all information related to its future use, and to make recommendations that will

most benefit the County, its residents, businesses and visitors.

Resolution 155 did not suspend or amend current Ulster County policy for trail only along the

Ashokan Reservoir. It did not specifically include the Ashokan Reservoir section or instruct

County departments to suspend implementation of Resolution 275 until the report is completed.

There is no requirement to delay project implementation until the Committees work is complete, and there is no guarantee that a six-month delay would not jeopardize available funding through

DEP and other sources.

Page 22 of 25

APPENDIX A

Page 23 of 25

APPENDIX B

Page 24 of 25

APPENDIX C

Page 25 of 25

Responses to UC Legislature on MOA

Documents

trail design

county of railbanking

moa questions

ashokan rail trail

public recreational

chairman john parete

planning director responses

john parete pages