Monday, December 13, 2004

West Canda Creek

December 13, 2004


Ms. Sandra L. LeBarron, Director Region 6
New York State DEC
Dulles State Office Bldg
Watertown, NY 13601

RE: Hinckley Reservoir and West Canada Creek -
Mediation By DEC on Water Withdrawal
FERC Projects2701 & 3211

Dear Ms. LeBarron;

New York Rivers United (NYRU) requests two specific actions from your department. They are related but distinct.

1) Local media have published accounts that your Department has required the New State Canal Corporation and the Mohawk Valley Water Authority to enter into Mediation/ Dispute resolution to resolve issues stemming from a permit application to withdraw water for public drinking from Hinckley Reservoir.
We request that NYRU be included in this mediation/dispute resolution process.

BACKGROUND

NYRU is a 501C(3) organization with mission to “conserve protect and restore New York’s rivers.” Rivers are a public resource, and the public must be involved in decision-making process that will affect those resources.
NYRU has been actively monitoring West Canada Creek, a portion of which is Hinckley, for the last 12 years. On several instances, we have been active in issues surrounding the use or misuse of these waters. The latest was the permit application for additional water withdrawals by Mohawk Valley Water Authority. Our concerns were for downstream flows and habitat and the fact that this was proposed as an out-of-basin transfer: going from Mohawk drainage to Oswego. We filed comments on our concerns raising the issue that the Canal Corporation has control over the reservoir and that the data that was being used to support the application was outdated.
We conducted extensive research and had meetings with most parties involved in the process. We also raised our concerns with Senator Meier who represents this area.
The Department has done much work on the issue, but several parties are now being asked to meet and attempt to resolve differences. What is missing is a voice from the public for the management of this resource. The New York State Canal Corporation continues to operate this (and other river systems) for decades- old reasons. The data being used to support and or negotiate have been compiled without public input. It is essential that these discussions be more comprehensive than what is now proposed.

NYRU strongly urges you to invite us to participate in this process.


2) Current conditions have changed and/or are being modified on the management of West Canada Creek River resource. Currently, in addition to the use by the New York State Canal and Mohawk Valley Water Authority, there are three operating hydros, FERC 3211 Jarvis & FERC 2701 West Canada Creek (includes Prospect and Trenton Falls) currently under Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licenses that have state-issued “401 Water Quality” certificates.

NYRU requests that DEC notify FERC and request to open up your Water Quality Certifications; should FERC deny your request, we believe DEC has an obligation under the Clean Water Act to act to modify this 401.

BACKGROUND

All three of the current hydro plants (Jarvis-New York Power Authority, Trenton Falls-Erie Blvd, and Prospect-Erie Blvd) were licensed prior to 1986. This is an important fact, because amendments to the Federal Power Act in 1986 gave clearer directions that hydro production must be balanced with other river issues. While a required minimum flow was put in (160 cfs), little else was done on the operation or to clearly establish requirements for downstream issues.
This is a “Class A” trout stream and a favorite recreation area. A falls and by-pass reach remain dry, both resulting in non-compliance with water quality standards.
The current license for the most up-stream project allows for peaking on a limited basis. The operation can go from 160 cfs to 1500 cfs with no ramping and for limited times causing stranding. This operation is under the sole discretion of the hydro operator as long as they are attempting to stay within the decades old rule curve established by the Canal Corporation. Science now tells us that minimum flows alone do not protect fishery habitats and species. Flow magnitude, duration and frequency must also be analyzed to develop operating protocols. This has not been done on their system, and so we have flows at up to six times the minimum flow, which are turned off and on at different times of the day throughout the year.
These flows have resulted in fish stranding and adverse conditions for users and stream residents of the river downstream. They have affected the rivers viability (natural reproduction) and health. If we were relicensing this facility, we would look closely at this issue, but we cannot wait for the licenses to expire: we must act to protect the river now.



SUMMARY
These two issues are related. The operation of the hydro plants affects the amount of water in the reservoir. It is clear that at time of high flows, the hydro operators take advantage of the water, but at what level are they releasing? Peaking operations are timed for the market, as opposed to the protection of the resource. By requiring ramping and limiting drawdowns, we can continue to produce power and protect the resource and better utilize the water. New operations might also provide more water to be utilized for future growth in the Mohawk Valley.
The public needs to have a voice in determining the use of the waters of West Canada Creek. A closed negotiation between just two parties does not address the public’s concerns and may not even meet legal requirements for permitting.
The data for current permits that is being used is old and does not reflect current science. A comprehensive look involving all stakeholders and addressing all issues should be done.
An additional source of water identified in all the licenses and in documentation for the Water Authority has been removed (Grey Dam).
We no longer have barge traffic traveling up and down the canal; the need to better utilize this resource for new users is critical.
The public has weighed in on this issue. The New York State Council of Trout Unlimited, expressing concern as to what is occurring on the river, has contacted your department and has relayed TU’s concerns to me. I would argue that the current management system would not under all circumstances meet water quality criteria.

Action is required by your Agency to protect the river resources.

NYRU urges you to act quickly on these two requests. We thank you for your actions of the past and look forward to resolving these issues. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me (315) 339-2097.

Sincerely,

Bruce Carpenter
Executive Director

Cc: American Rivers
USFWS-Cortland
NYS-DEC, Albany, legal
TU-
NYSCC
MVWA
FERC-NY
FERC-Wash
NHI - ESQ

Poughkeepsie Journal The Demand for Hydro Power

I thought some of you might be intersed in this. The article that i wrote is last.

Dear Mr. Carpenter,

Thank you very much for agreeing to help with the 1904 project. I'm sure our readers will be very happy to know what the state of hydropower is today. Below is the article from the Poughkeepsie Daily Eagle, a predecessor of the Poughkeepsie Journal:

THE DEMAND FOR WATER POWER.

How Waterfalls Enable the World, While Increasing Its Machinery to Spare Its Coal Supplies.
(Garrett P. Serviss in Success Magazine)

Every day sees more and more of the wasted power of waterfalls, which lies at man's disposal
in every hilly or mountainous country, turned to use in furnishing electric energy. The power
of waterfalls is driving the greatest of all tunnells, the double Simplon bore through the
Alps; it is sending another tunnel, by devious ways, behind precipices and under glaciers to
the summit of the snowy lungfrau and a plan is now being perfected for constructing once more
with the aid of watrfalls and to be run by them, when finished, a rival to the Simplon road,
which shall cross the Alps between Turin and Martigny.

Everybody knows what Niagara is doing, and how the waterfalls of California, and of other
mountainous states, are being harnessed.

A. A. Campbell Swinton, at the recent meeting of the British Association for the
Advancement of Science, presented accurate statistics which he had personally taken less than
one million, five-hundred thousand horse-power derived from waterfalls is now being utilized
in various parts of the world for the development of electric energy. Of this great total,
which he believed did not represent the full truth, for he thought it probable that the real
aggregate is two million horsepower, nearly one third must be credited to the United States.

There is one feature for this utilization of water power in place of steam power, which Mr.
Swinton brought out and which is seldom thought of and that is the saving of coal which it
effects. On the basis of two million horsepower derived from waterfalls, this saving amounts
to nearly twelve million tons of coal per year.

But the maximum amount of waterpower that is available has not yet begun to be approached
in actual utilization, so that the annual saving of coal must become larger and larger every
year. This, in vew of the increasing difficulty of working many coal mines owing to the great
depths to which they have penetrated, and in view of the approaching exahustion of some of the
most famous fields becomes a highly important consideration. Every little while the world is
reminded, more or less sensationaly, of a coming coal famine. The fact is that coal, of the
betters grades, possesses so many advantages and convenience as a fuel that the earth's
supplies of it should be conserved for human use as long as possible. Men of science have more
than once sounded a warning against the waste of coal, for coal is the gift of a geological
age which can not be renewed. Thus waterfalls, by enabling us to spare coal, are performing an
indirect service only less important their direct service supplying electric power. But for
them the growing use of electricity would soon make a drain upon the coal mines of the most
serious character.

The era of waterfalls seems certainly to have dawned. Every great cataract will become a
focus of industry just as every great river valley has always been a center of population, and
Professor Brigham's prediction that Niagara is to be the industrial center of American may be
fulfilled within a generation.

If you could write something between 300-400 words and send it by Dec. 13, I'd really appreciate it.

Best regards,
Kathleen Dijamco

------------------------------
Kathleen Dijamco
Assistant news editor
Poughkeepsie Journal
85 Civic Center Plaza
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601


Kathleen, Here is what I have written. I hope that it proves useful to you. Thank you for the opportunity.
Bruce Carpenter


Our Energy Needs

The New Effort to Balance Hydro Energy With Environmental and Social Needs of Rivers and Communities


(Bruce R. Carpenter, Executive Director New York Rivers United)

A hundred years ago we rushed to fill our energy needs from every available source, and hydropower, the power of our rivers, seemed to be a godsend. Falling water was clean, renewable and abundant everywhere. We rushed to harness this source and fuel our ever-growing industrial world. The potential seemed limitless.

Now, a hundred years later, lessons have been learned. Just as fossil fuels have caused major environmental issues and nuclear was not the answer, hydropower also had its downside. In order to obtain hydropower, rivers had to be controlled, dams built. In order to maximize the potential, the water had to drop as far as possible. Penstocks to transport our rivers and streams were built to transport our once free-flowing waters to generation plants.

The effects were not quickly understood but are now evident. We had segmented our rivers, turning them into ponds. Fish had been blocked from natural habitats for reproduction. Once beautiful waterfalls were now dry much of the time. Life-giving nutrients were trapped behind dams. Peaking flows for energy played havoc on the biology and those people who would enjoy the waters. Temperatures were changed as water was stopped and then released, changing its very fabric. Recreational opportunities were gone, scenic vistas destroyed.

Again, though, we moved forward. A new framework of environmental law was established; new science and technology were created. We began to examine what we had done and sought ways to correct it. The Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Federal Power Act laid the groundwork for new efforts to balance our river resource needs with those of energy production.

Now, most hydro plants operate in a “run-of-river” mode, maintaining the flow of the river in its natural state. By-pass reaches - those dry river reaches where the water flowed through penstocks or canals instead of its natural channel - once again have water flowing in them. Fish ladders for upstream passage, screening from turbines and downstream fish passage have been installed on many facilities. Scenic flows once again flow, creating the beauty of our natural waterfalls. Recreational access to points on the river plus flows for white water recreation have been established. Watershed lands have been protected, conserving buffers that protect water quality. And, finally, guidelines for building new facilities and a process to truly evaluates the project’s overall impacts are now the standard.

We are not rushing to remove dams, yet we are making them more environmentally friendly. Most sites that can and should produce hydropower are developed. There are sites where this balancing shows clearly that environmental needs outweigh our needs for the power. They are some existing dams that, due to their impacts on our rivers, are being removed and the natural river restored.

We have come a long way, some of it in a circle: from seeing rivers in the greatest beauty to destroying the very things that made us see their greatness. And now, once again, working with our natural resources, our framework of law and seeing that the next generation will have the same opportunity to use and enjoy the river resources that our grandparents once did.

We live and learn.

Thursday, December 09, 2004

School St. -- Mohawk River

This morning a public meeting was conducted by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on relicensing cases that have taken 3 years (after expiration of license) or longer. The School St. Project (FERC # 2539) owned and operated by Erie Blvd Hydro, a division of Brescan was discussed. Its license expired in 1993, and it has been operating on annual licenses since that time.
Commissioner Wood made it clear that the meeting was to discuss solutions for "log jams" on procedural issues, not to discuss substance of issues. Since beginning this process of reviewing old cases, this Commission has reduced the number of old cases substantially. Commissioner Kelher responded that the settlement discussions were not necessarily a bad thing in terms of delays if they ultimately led to new licenses, which has been the result in many cases he has seen.

Congressman McNaulty then spoke. He said he was there to ensure a complete review of all project alternatives and brought up Green Island Power Authorities preliminary application. He talked about ensuring the public good through the process and providing benefits to local communities. He admitted that he was the least informed on procedural issues but thought this was a common sense issue. He brought up "secret" negotiations and issues concerning fishways and Section 106 consultation (Native American). He said FERC should consider all alternatives.

The substance of the meeting then started. School Street was first because the Congressman was present. FERC staff gave a review of the case history to the Commissioners.

A progress report filed last week by Erie indicated that a tentative settlement had been reached and that they hoped to file it with DEC by year's end and then to FERC once the 401 process was complete.

Staff did not address any issues raised by the Congressman. The Commissioners did ask questions of Erie: 1) When were you first made aware of GIPA's proposal? Who was involved in settlement discussions? Was there any change from their last report? Erie answered all questions with short answers.
They were made aware of the GIPA proposal only through mail and within the last six months. They named all parties involved in settlement discussions.
FERC staff then prepared to move on to the next case. The Congressman asked to be heard and basically said that it appeared FERC was moving forward without a complete record. He said if FERC did that he would take the issue to committee and to the House floor.
Not responding directly to the Congressman but asking to voice comments, DEC explained in a little more detail its process. The fact that a 401 Certificate will be issued in draft form and be open to public comment after negotiations and that this was common in the state. DEC also addressed several other minor issues.
End of discussion on Project.

FERC still has pending the Motion by Erie and the preliminary application by GIPA. We still have the settlement in front of us. Richard's lanauage has been forwarded to Erie. Should the Commission act in GIPA's favor, we would then have another decsion to make concerning the settlement. One thing to keep in mind is that in the end, one outcome could be the takeover of School Street by GIPA. Any settlement passes on to new owners if it is signed and submitted.

After todays call DEC, USFWS, NPS and American Rivers were all talked to seperately. I may go to Washington next week to meet with staff of Clinton's office.

NYRU has begun its review of the GIPA proposal. I will begin submitting comments and study requests in about three weeks.

Wednesday, December 08, 2004

A New Wave

Well, this is it. NYRU now has its own blog! I am not sure how this will work but I'm going to try.
Having come back from the Great Lakes Collaboration meeting in Chicago this weekend, a lot of work has been generated. The main focus of this group will be to get Congress to fund the Great Lakes Basin Plans that we are all now working on. I have been on the phone with agencies all week (EPA, DEC and USF&WS). EPA is pushing for specifics and DEC wants things as general as possible. Much of the future funding will depend on the outcome of these discussions.
Thursday will be the public meeting (phone conference) on School St., conducted by FERC. This is an annual event to go over progress on the remaining "class of '93 " projects. School St. is one of many projects that will be dealt with.
We will be preparing a filing on West Canada Creek shortly, (should have been done already) on a water withdrawal and its association with the three hydro projects. We may try to open the licenses up if there is support from the agencies.
Sent a letter to EPA asking about our current funding (request of program administrator) threatining to call our congressman if they don't get moving. Will wait for a response.