New York Rivers United

NYRU ANNUAL BOARD CALL

2008-06-04T06:43:00.000-07:00

NEW YORK RIVERS UNITED will hold its annual meeting via conference call on Monday, July 7th at 5:00PM EST. Anyone wishing to participate can due so by contacting tim_burns@newyorkriversunited.org and asking for call-in information.

ANNUAL MEETING: CONFERENCE CALL

TIME: 5:00 PM

DATE: JULY 7TH, 2008

Press Release -- West Canada

2007-09-27T08:32:00.000-07:00

NEWS RELEASE

DATE: September 19, 2007

FOR RELEASE: Immediately

CONTACT: Bruce Carpenter, Executive Director
(315) 339-2097

State River Advocate Asks Spitzer To Lead
West Canada Creek Watershed Efforts
New York Rivers United Says Bad Situation Getting Worse;
Now Is Time For Top Leader’s Involvement

Rome,NY – Rome-based New York Rivers United has asked Governor Eliot Spitzer to become personally involved in the on-going dispute over allocation of the water resources of the West Canada Creek watershed.

“The West Canada Creek Watershed is one of our state’s finest. Much of the system’s allocation of water resources is not based on sound science or current law,” said NYRU executive director Bruce Carpenter. “Instead, it is based on outdated and conflicting laws and rules enacted in the past century. While often-competing demands for water increase daily, there continues to be lack of sound and current information.”

Water levels at Hinckley are now at an all-time low. Sporting groups are alarmed over negative impacts to this world-class fishery resulting from peaking hydropower plant operations, and local residents along the Creek are also concerned about dwindling water flows. The New York State Canal Corporation continues to draw water from the West Canada/Hinckley system even after the primary recreation season has ended.

“Local governments, citizens, sporting groups and others are calling attention to an issue the has been lingering for years, because no one has been willing to assume a leadership role and address the problem in a comprehensive way,” said NYRU’s Carpenter. “The current debate has not rectified the problem. We believe that without leadership from the Governor’s office, this bad situation will only worsen.”

- more -

Carpenter points out that State Assemblymember RoAnn Destito has recently introduced legislation in Albany that would drastically increase the amount of water the Mohawk Valley Water Authority can withdraw from the West Canada/Hinckley system to provide drinking water for MVWA customers.

NYRU wants to develop a program for identifying and addressing direct and cumulative impacts of the various uses of the creek to ensure an appropriate balance between the competing uses of these waters that is protective of all uses and that will restore and protect these important water resources.
Carpenter said, “Leadership is needed to bring all parties to a negotiating table. Someone at the highest level must call for a complete and comprehensive evaluation of all issues. Parties must then use relevant information to draft a new operational plan that brings the system up-to-date, making it compatible with science and law as it now is written. Science and law are the building blocks that must be used.”

In its letter to Gov. Spitzer, New York Rivers United said, “As New York’s leading river conservation advocate, we call upon you, as the elected governor, to assume this responsibility and to bring all the parties together. We urge you to support completion of the necessary studies, so that negotiations can begin and can be productive. We must not continue in the direction we are currently headed.”

NYRU is an award-winning not-for-profit 501(c)(3) membership organization working throughout New York State to improve water quality, river access, recreational opportunities, ecological diversity, scenic attributes and riparian land use.

#

Attachments:
(1) Copy of September 13, 2007, letter from NYRU to Gov. Spitzer
(2) Copy of September 12, 2007, Resolution adopted by Trenton Town Board

West Canada Creek--Gov Letter

2007-09-27T08:30:00.000-07:00

September 13, 2007

Governor Eliot Spitzer
State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224

RE: West Canada Creek Watershed—Water Wars

Dear Governor Spitzer:

Attached to this letter is a Resolution adopted by the Town of Trenton Town Board on Tuesday, Sept. 12, 2007. This resolution is a result of new legislation and court actions that are currently in process. New York Rivers United believes that this will be the first of many similar actions taken by local governments, citizens, sporting groups and others to call attention to an issue the has been lingering for years, because no one has been willing to assume a leadership role and address the problem in a comprehensive way.

The West Canada Creek Watershed is one of our state’s finest. Yet, much of the demand on the system is NOT based on sound science or current law. Instead, it is based on outdated and conflicting laws and rules enacted in the past century. While the competition for this resource grows, there continues to be lack of sound and current information.

New York Rivers United is not against development; we understand the need for drinking water. NYRU believes that good, clean, safe drinking water is essential. The need for energy is also a given. While hydropower is not completely benign, it can be made “green,” mitigating its adverse impacts. NYRU has been involved statewide in actions to accomplish this. The New York State Canal system is no longer primarily a transportation lane. It is a recreation way, which is certainly important.

On the other side of the equation, the West Canada Creek is a world-class trout fishery, widely enjoyed for boating and fishing. Property values continue to increase along its shores, and Hinckley Reservoir has a State Park. Growth in the watershed is dependent on well water, which is tied to levels in the reservoir. Water now being wasted because of the current old transport system is not being addressed, and the fluctuating flows from power plants are adversely affecting the lower creek. West Canada System is not the only source for drinking water and out–of-basin transfers can lead to larger problems.

The issues are not new, nor are they unique to West Canada. The fight for water is ongoing across this country, and because of increasing, often-competing demands for water, there will be more contention over the issue in New York. The resolution of the battle is not new either. Science and law are the building blocks that must be used.

Leadership is needed to bring all parties to a negotiating table! Someone at the highest level must call for a complete and comprehensive evaluation of all issues. Parties must then use relevant information to draft a new operational plan that brings the system up-to-date, making it compatible with science and law as it now is written.

New York Rivers United calls upon you, as the elected governor, to assume this responsibility and to bring all the parties together. We urge you to support completion of the necessary studies, so that negotiations can begin and can be productive. We must not continue in the direction we are currently headed.

NYRU has asked for such action at other levels of government (see attached letter), but it is clear that new direction must come from the top. The West Canada Creek Watershed is at risk!

We thank you for your interest and look forward to your response. Should you have any questions, I can be reached at (315) 339-2097?

Bruce R. Carpenter
Executive Director
New York Rivers United

West Canada Creek--People

2007-08-23T07:00:00.000-07:00

Elected state officials to contact:

Governor Eliot Spitzer
State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
phone: (518) 474-8390

State Assemblymember RoAnn M. Destito
~ 116th Assembly District –

e-mail: destitr@assembly.state.ny.us

~ Albany Office ~
Room 621
Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12248
phone: (518) 455-5454

~ District Office ~
Room 401
State Office Building
207 Genesee Street
Utica, NY 13501
phone: (315) 732-1055

State Senator Joseph A. Griffo
~ 47th Senate District ~

~ Albany Office ~
Room 944 Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12248
phone: (518) 455-3334
fax: (518) 426-6921

~ District Office ~
207 Genesee Street
Utica, NY 13501
phone: (315) 793-9072
fax: (315) 793-0298

State Assemblymember David R. Townsend
~ 115th Assembly District – see map attached

e-mail: townsed@assembly.state.ny.us

~ Albany Office ~
Room 458 Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12248
phone: (518) 455-5334

~ District Office ~
4767 State Route 233
P.O. Box 597
Westmoreland, NY 13490
phone: (315) 853-7260

West Canada Creek--Letter

2007-08-23T06:48:00.000-07:00

August xx, 2007

Assemblymember RoAnn M. Destito - 116th AD
Room 621 Room 401
Legislative Office Building State Office Building
Albany, NY 12248 207 Genesee Street
Utica, NY 13501

Opposition to A 03381-A West Canada Creek Riparian Rights Act

Dear Assemblymember Destito:

I live in XXXXX, and I depend on West Canada Creek’s water for day-to-day living needs and also for recreation. I’m very concerned about the water quality and quantity in the West Canada Creek/Hinckley system, especially in light of all the current debate going on presently. I think the legislation you are proposing will make a bad situation worse.

I oppose the “West Canada Creek Riparian Rights Act” and urge you to reconsider your support for the measure. If this bill is passed, it will be harmful to the ecology now and in the long-term.

What is needed is to conduct a thorough scientific study of this entire system. Before any major changes that could adversely affect the entire system are implemented, we must clearly understand all the problems, identify all the system’s users, and evaluate the different scenarios for environmental impacts.

We also need to enforce the regulations already on the books. Those existing regulations mandate that scientific information be collected and reviewed before any action can be taken for increased water withdrawals. This has not been done yet.

Thank you very much for your interst in this issue.

XXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxx

West Canada Creek --Action

2007-08-23T06:29:00.000-07:00

Talking Points

Opposition to

Assembly Bill: A 03381-A West Canada Creek Riparian Rights Act
(Destito is sponsor)

Senate Bill: S 4176-A West Canada Creek Riparian Rights Act
(Griffo is sponsor)

O I strongly oppose the so-called “West Canada Creek Riparian Rights Act” and urge you to reconsider your support for the measure. It is premature and ill-advised. Rather, what is needed at this critical juncture is:
(1) a comprehensive, scientific watershed analysis on the West Canada Creek, and
(2) enforcement of current regulations.
O I do support the legislative initiative presently being developed by Assemblymember Marc Butler to fund a comprehensive, scientific watershed analysis of the West Canada Creek system.
O Beneficial uses for Hinckley Reservoir and the West Canada Creek include trout waters, recreation, including boating and fishing, water supply, and energy supply. The system faces increased pressures. Hydro plants are peaking; there is a demand for more water for development, and all of this has led to increased involvement by affected citizens.
O I think we need to develop a program for identifying and addressing direct and cumulative impacts of the various uses of the creek to ensure an appropriate balance between the competing uses of these waters that is protective of all uses and that will restore and protect these important water resources.
O I have a growing worry regarding adverse impacts to fish and wildlife and recreational uses of West Canada Creek. I am concerned that the uses of water supply and energy supply are degrading the more sensitive uses of fish and wildlife and recreation.

(1) Need for watershed analysis
One major problem is a lack of scientific information. A comprehensive scientific study of West Canada Creek is what is needed. This is essential if all stakeholders are to understand the complex issues involved in flow management. Such a study can only help resolve the impasses that are facing us now.
Before any major changes that could adversely affect the entire system are implemented, we must clearly understand all the problems, identify all the system’s users, and evaluate the different scenarios for environmental impacts.

(2) Need for enforcement of current regulations
Additionally, such a study is required under current law. New York State’s Environmental Quality Review Act mandates that scientific information be collected and reviewed before any action can be taken for increased water withdrawals. This has not been done yet.
Energy and water supply uses are already adversely affecting fish and wildlife and recreational uses on the West Canada Creek system. The state Department of Environmental Conservation has the duty to address the adverse impacts on fish and wildlife and recreational uses. DEC’s legal authorities/responsibilities come from the Clean Water Act, the state’s Environmental Conservation Law, and the state’s Environmental Quality Review Act.

Notice Of Annual Meeting

2007-04-13T12:05:00.000-07:00

NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING

To: Members of New York Rivers United
From: Bruce Carpenter, Executive Director
Date: March 29, 2007
Re: 2007 Annual Meeting

The 2007 annual meeting of New York Rivers United will be held on Saturday, May 19, 2007, at 1:00 p.m. It will be held at the law offices of NYRU Board Chair Ray Bragar:

Bragar Wexler
885 3rd Ave. Suite 3040
New York, NY 10022

The meeting agenda is as follows:

* review of 2006 financial reports
* review of annual report
* election of officers

For information and proxies, send an e-mail to tim_burns@newyorkriversunited.org

Annual Meeting--Conference Call

2006-09-05T08:03:00.000-07:00

NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING—CONFERENCE CALL

NYRU WILL HOLD ITS ANNUAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 12TH, 2006 AT 4:00PM EST
via Conference CALL

ALL MEMBERS ARE INVITED!

DETAILS OF HOW TO CALL IN:

NUMBER: 1800-610-4500

ACCESS CODE: 13442

TIME 4:00PM EST

Navigation --NYRU Joins For Support

2006-06-16T06:57:00.000-07:00

Adirondack Council • Adirondack Mountain Club • American Canoe Association • American Rivers, Mid-Atlantic Region • American Whitewater •The Catskill Center for Conservation and Development • EPL/Environmental Advocates • New York State Conservation Council • New York State League of Conservation Voters • New York Rivers United Parks and Trails New York • Residents’ Committee to Protect the Adirondacks Scenic Hudson • Sierra Club – Atlantic Chapter

By Hand

June 14, 2006

Hon. Alexander B. Grannis
Member, NYS Assembly
712 Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12248

Re: In support of A. 10048, Public Navigation Rights

Dear Assemblyman Grannis:

We, the undersigned, are writing in support of A. 10048, titled “Public Passage in Navigable Waterways,” whose primary purpose is codification in a single State statute of the longstanding existing common law public right of navigation. Enactment of A. 10048 will make the law concerning this right much more accessible, understandable and transparent. At present the law concerning this public right is scattered in numerous case law decisions and, without passage of this bill, the right will continue to be difficult to find and difficult to interpret, causing continued confusion and conflict between riparian landowners and waterway users.

We recognize that you were a prime sponsor of this legislation when the bill was active in the 1989 – 1991 period, when it passed the Assembly in 1990, and we appreciate the key role that you have played in re-introducing it at this time. The continuity that you have provided, after action on the earlier legislation was placed on hold in June 1991 at the beginning of the 9-year court case concerning the South Branch of the Moose River, has been critical in moving ahead again towards enactment.

The successful conclusion of the Moose River case in the Court of Appeals, important as it is, did not lessen the need for this legislation.

The same problems of inaccessibility to the law and difficulty in interpreting numerous applicable cases still exists. Also, this is a statewide issue, not limited to the Adirondacks despite the focus there. The fact that conservation easements have been acquired by the State on thousands of acres of timber lands in the Adirondacks providing much new access on navigable rivers in that region, doesn’t mean that a comprehensive statewide solution isn’t needed to the problems already described.

A.10048 June 14, 2006 Pg 2

A. 10048 is written in plain English; it is easy to understand. The bill assures riparian landowners that the public has no right to be on private property other than to make necessary portages incidental to the public right of navigation and then only to the minimum extent required to accomplish those purposes. It also authorizes riparian landowners to establish portage routes on their land along the shores of navigable waterways. It references existing provisions of the General Obligations Law, reassuring landowners that they have no extra responsibility or duty of care, beyond normal, to keep their premises safe for those who are exercising the public right of navigation.

It has been nearly four decades since Paul Jamieson, the dean of Adirondack canoeing, began to call attention to the longstanding existence of these public rights. Later he advocated strongly for the legislation, now numbered A. 10048. It has been 16 years since this legislation was first introduced in 1989. After all of this time and considering the positive findings of the Court of Appeals in the Moose River case, settling the key issue that caused the hiatus in the legislation in those earlier times, it is more than time for this bill to be enacted. It is time for the State of New York to definitively describe, in a single statue and in plain English, and give visibility to this public right, a right that has had a shadowy existence in the labyrinth of the common law for 228 years. Thank you for all that you are doing to ensure passage of this legislation.

Sincerely,

Brian Houseal, Executive Director
Adirondack Council

Neil Woodworth, Executive Director
Adirondack Mountain Club

Pamela S. Dillon, Executive Director
American Canoe Association

Stephanie D. Lindloff, Associate Director, Dam Programs
American Rivers, Mid-Atlantic Region

Mark Singleton, Executive Director
American Whitewater

Tom Alworth, Executive Director
The Catskill Center for Conservation and Development

Robert J. Moore, Executive Director
EPL/Environmental Advocates

Wally John, Legislative Vice-President
New York State Conservation Council
A.10048 June 14, 2006 Pg. 3

Marcia Bystryn, Executive Director
New York State League of Conservation Voters

Bruce Carpenter, Executive Director
New York Rivers United

Robin Dropkin, Executive Director
Parks and Trails New York

Peter Bauer, Executive Director
Residents’ Committee to Protect the Adirondacks

Ned Sullivan, Executive Director
Scenic Hudson

Roger T. Gray and John Nemjo, Co-chairs, Adirondack Committee
Sierra Club – Atlantic Chapter

Action Alert: Clean Water Rule Making

2006-06-14T07:57:00.000-07:00

New York Rivers United
P.O. Box 1460, Rome, NY 13442
www,newyorkriversunited.org
Tel. (315) 339-2097 Fax (315)339-6028
Email:newyorkriversunited.org

ACTION ALERT

Please HELP To Protect Our Wetlands and Streams From Damaging"“Mitigation" Rule – Send Comments to the EPA and Corps Today

There is simply no comparison: natural wetlands and streams are more ecologically sound and are better for purifying drinking water, protecting against flooding, maintaining water quality, and providing habitat than streams and wetlands constructed to "replace" destroyed natural water resources.

Despite the poor track record of the mitigation program to date, in March of this year the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) jointly proposed a rule revising the standards governing compensatory mitigation for aquatic resources that allows for vastly greater flexibility in meeting mitigation requirements. By making it easier to compensate for destroying ecologically crucial streams and wetlands, this proposal will effectively promote, not discourage continued destruction.

The public can comment on this rule until June 30. Please weigh in yourself by sending a letter to the EPA by email to: ow-docket@epamail.epa.gov, or by US mail to: USEPA Docket Center, Attention Docket Number EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0020, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.

Below is a sample letter that can be used:

SAMPLE LETTER:

To the EPA and Army Corps Water Docket:

I am writing in opposition to the recently proposed compensatory mitigation rule (Docket No. EPA-HW-OW-2006-0020). Our nation’s wetlands and streams provide habitat for a variety of species, improve water quality, and protect communities by reducing flooding. The proposed rule would weaken protections for these waters by sanctioning uncertain mitigation practices, effectively encouraging the increased destruction of these important water resources.

Your agencies have a long-standing and accepted sequence to deal with impacts to streams and wetlands: adverse impacts should be avoided whenever possible, unavoidable impacts should be minimized as much as possible, and only then should mitigation be considered. The proposed rule undermines this critical sequence with its overwhelming focus on mitigation.

This rule promotes an “anything goes” approach with no scientific backing. Under this proposal completely filling in streams could be “mitigated” by creating a wetland twenty miles away, or destroying wetlands could be “mitigated” by preserving upland buffer areas that are not even wet—this approach does nothing to protect our nation’s waters

The proposal puts too much discretion in the hands of each Corps’ district engineer to approve almost anything as mitigation, fails to address the fact that many aquatic systems cannot be recreated at all, and blatantly promotes the mitigation banking industry, taking into account the economic needs of this industry over the needs of the watershed in certain circumstances.

This rule fails entirely to further the national goal of “no net loss” of wetlands in any way and also fails to promote the health of our essential wetlands and streams. This rule needs to be significantly rewritten to treat mitigation as a last resort and to ensure that the best science is used to protect and enhance our nation’s streams and wetlands. If those principles cannot be fully integrated into the proposal, then this rule should be withdrawn.

Sincerely,
Your Name
Address
City, State Zip Code

MORE BACKGROUND:

MAIN PROBLEMS WITH THE PROPOSED RULEMAKING

• The proposal ignores the fact that compensatory mitigation should be the last resort. While the rule does include some brief language requiring avoidance and minimization of impacts before mitigation is considered, the language is not as comprehensive as current guidelines. Further, the proposed rule undermines the bedrock principle of “avoid and minimize first” by encouraging reliance on unproven and inadequate compensatory mitigation practices.

• The proposal authorizes an “anything goes” approach to mitigation. The new rule purports to embrace a “watershed approach” – aligning wetland and stream mitigation with the needs of the watershed. But the rule actually punts on any real watershed approach to guiding mitigation. It does not require creation of watershed plans to guide mitigation, and doesn’t even require existing plans to be used. Instead, the Corps will simply take the word of the project applicant as to how their project benefits the watershed, even if a rarer type of wetland is replaced with a more common and easily restored type, or even if mitigation occurs far from the impact site.

• The proposal leaves far too much to the discretion of the district engineer. The rule language suggests much, but requires little. In setting requirements for mitigation, the word “may” is used 18 times and “should” is used 38 times instead of non-discretionary words such as “must” or “shall,” allowing enormous discretion to the District Engineers to waive requirements. Here are just three examples:
- ... overall compensatory mitigation project should be provided long-term protection...
- The real estate instrument for the long-term protection of the compensatory mitigation site should restrict or prohibit incompatible uses (e.g., clear cutting)...
- ... the district engineer should apply a higher mitigation ratio if the requirements are to be met through the use of preservation credits.
- The district engineer could even allow destruction of a stream to be “mitigated” by creating or preserving a wetland and/or its upland buffer many miles away.

• The rule fails to address the fact that many aquatic systems cannot be recreated. There is no scientific data showing that the functions of headwater streams, and wetlands such as bogs and fens, can be reproduced. The rule purports to provide for replacement of the services of these systems, when it would really offer only poor substitutes that do not replace the functions of these streams and wetlands.

• The rule’s blatant promotion of the mitigation banking industry is inappropriate. The rule sets up a strong preference for the use of mitigation banks over other forms of mitigation. The rule goes so far as to eliminate the main competition of mitigation banks – “in-lieu-fee mitigation” entirely (instead of simply developing equivalent standards) and takes into account the economic needs of this industry over the needs of the watershed in certain circumstances. This is despite the fact that the only study to look at the success of mitigation banks compared to other forms of mitigation found it to be no better at replacing wetlands lost to development.

• The rule fails to provide essential improvements in monitoring and enforcement. The proposed rule leaves to the discretion of the district engineer whether monitoring should measure success in achieving functions and for how long. Effective measurement of success over a minimum of 5 years, and longer when necessary, should be mandatory. Also, required enforcement measures should be articulated in the rule.

• The rule allows for preservation of existing wetlands and streams -- and even the preservation of dry uplands -- as "mitigation" for the destruction of other wetlands or streams.
The rule allows for nearly unlimited use of preservation of existing wetlands, buffers and even uplands as mitigation. While all can enhance mitigation sites, preservation of existing water resources does not replace the functions or acreage of those that are destroyed. Why would a developer even bother with risky restoration projects when they could simply buy up existing wetlands and put an easement on them? There isn’t even any hard requirement that higher mitigation ratios be required for such “mitigation.” The rule should limit the use of preservation practices to augmenting restoration and replacement projects that achieve, on their own, at least an acre replacement for ever

NEW YORK RIVERS UNITED PROVIDES THIS INFORMATION IN CONJUCTION WITH THE CLEAN WATER NETWORK, WHICH NYRU IS A MEMBER OF. WE THANK THEM FOR THEIR ASSIISTANCE.

New York Rivers United
DEDICATED TO CONSERVE, PROTECT AND RESTORE NEW YORK'S RIVERS

NYRU Celebrates Court Decision

2006-05-16T13:22:00.000-07:00

PRESS RELEASE

Date: May 16, 2006
For release: Immediately
Contact: Bruce Carpenter, Executive Director
(315)339-2097

New York Rivers United Celebrates
Unanimous U. S. Supreme Court Decision

NYRU Says Decisive Ruling Directly Affects New York’s Rivers

Rome,NY – A Rome-based statewide river conservation organization is celebrating
a unanimous May 15, 2006, U.S. Supreme Court ruling that affirms states’ rights to protect their rivers from water quality problems caused by hydropower dams.

In January 2006, New York Rivers United (NYRU) filed an amicus brief in the nationally-significant case supporting the state of Maine’s right to protect the water quality of its rivers. In yesterday’s decisive ruling, the Court rejected a foreign company’s bid to exempt five hydroelectric dams it owns in Maine from a 35-year-old provision in the federal Clean Water Act.

“If the hydropower industry’s court challenge had been successful, rivers across the nation would lose this vital protection and would return to being used primarily to generate profits for a few energy companies at the expense of lost benefits to local communities,” NYRU executive director Bruce Carpenter said. “The hydro industry’s challenge would have turned the clock backward on river restoration. It could have rendered our state incapable of setting even basic conditions for the operation of hydropower dams within the state.”

There are more than 150 federally-licensed hydropower dams in New York State. “Since the majority of the rivers in New York (e.g., Mohawk, Oswego, Beaver, Black, Salmon, West Canada Creek) have multiple dams, most of them producing hydropower, this Supreme Court case directly affects New York’s rivers,” Carpenter said.

Carpenter said, “This decisive ruling is a major victory for who love rivers and those who have worked diligently to protect our free-flowing rivers resources. It is especially rewarding here in New York where the Clean Water Act has been used extensively to restore rivers through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) process.”

- more -

Carpenter said this vital court decision recognizes well-established science that dams can have a huge impact on water quality. He said, “Many of New York’s dams provide benefits, yet they have also caused considerable harm to rivers, as well as to local communities. Hydro dams have dried up entire river sections, depleted fisheries, degraded river ecosystems, and diminished recreational and economic opportunities on rivers across New York State.”

Since 1992, NYRU has worked closely with the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), encouraging the agency used to use its authority under the Clean Water Act to require hydroelectric dams to mitigate their adverse impacts on rivers. The result of this was hundreds of river miles restored, improved fish protection and passage, and greater use by local communities.

As an amicus party to the case, NYRU strongly supported the state of Maine’s right to establish requirements for dams on its rivers. Carpenter said, “We strongly encouraged New York State to join this effort and help organize efforts across the country to fight this issue. The effort was joined by the Bush administration, a bipartisan group of 36 state attorneys general, a coalition of more than four dozen conservation and fishing groups, American Indian tribes, leading river scientists and engineers, and others that filed ‘friend of the Court’ briefs. The issue was clear: dams can hurt water quality, so water quality protection laws have to apply.”

Carpenter said, “We hope that the Court will now will apply this same common sense approach to the remaining Clean Water Act cases before it and affirm that all waters of the United States are deserving of federal protection.”

Carpenter has participated in virtually all hydropower licensing and relicensing proceedings in New York since 1992, more than 50 in all. He is an active member of the national Hydropower Reform Coalition's steering committee and is recognized as a state and national leader in this specialized field.

#

Action ALERT: Clean Water

2006-05-16T11:44:00.000-07:00

ACTION ALERT :YOUR HELP NEEDED NOW

What we are asking you to do:

Ask New York’s House Members to VOTE YES on the Oberstar/Dingell/Leach Clean Water Amendment to the Interior Appropriations Bill!
Next week, Representatives Jim Oberstar (D-MN), Jim Leach (R-IA) and John Dingell (D-MI) will offer an amendment to the EPA/Interior Appropriations Bill when it is on the floor of the House that will prevent the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from continuing to implement the destructive 2003 "No Protection" policy guidance that leaves thousands of waters and wetlands unprotected under the Clean Water Act (CWA). This Amendment will restrict EPA from spending money to implement this policy and begin to restore federal anti-pollution safeguards to our Nation’s waters.

Many Congressional leaders recognized the danger of this policy guidance and signed letters seeking repeal of the 2003 policy guidance (Senate letters: Oct. 16, 2003, Aug. 4, 2004, Aug. 5 2004; House letter: Nov. 24, 2003). But now – for the first time since the destructive policy was issued – there will actually be an up-or-down vote in Congress on this most important CWA issue! The vote is anticipated for May 17th. Please help us WIN this critical vote!

History of the 2003 “No Protection” Policy Guidance
· In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States (SWANCC) limited federal authority under the CWA to regulate certain “isolated” wetlands.
· In 2003, the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) issued a joint policy guidance that further limited federal application of the CWA to waters across the country. Ostensibly, this guidance was offered to clarify issues of jurisdiction in light of the SWANCC decision and subsequent case law, but it is unnecessary and harmful.
· EPA has estimated that more than 20 million acres of wetlands (20% of the wetlands in the U.S., excluding Alaska) and countless miles of small streams are at risk under this policy.
· A Congressional investigation was requested to assess ACOE wetland permitting after the 2003 policy guidance was issued. Two reports by the U.S. General Accounting Office document ACOE’s lack of uniform or publicly available criteria for determining wetland jurisdiction, and further criticize ACOE’s lack of documentation of rationales when non-jurisdictional determinations are made.
For more information on the SWANCC decision and 2003 Policy Guidance: http://riverkeeper.org/campaign.php/watershed/you_can_do/442

The Clean Water Authority Restoration Act
Although passage of the Clean Water Authority Restoration Act (CWARA) is the ultimate solution to reaffirm protections for all waters under the CWA, Congress has a unique opportunity with the Oberstar/Dingell/Leach Clean Water Amendment to the Interior Appropriations Bill to take a first step towards stopping this destructive 2003 policy that targets so called “isolated” waters.
For more information on CWARA: http://riverkeeper.org/campaign.php/watershed/you_can_do/579
To write to NY Congressional Representatives and ask them to cosponsor CWARA: http://ga1.org/campaign/CWARA_carabell_rapanos_clone

TAKE ACTION: Call you Representative and ask for the staffer handling the Interior-EPA Appropriations Bill. Contact information and Talking Points are provided below.

Contact Information:
Rep. Timothy H. Bishop (D-1) (202) 225-3826 Rep. Steve Israel (D-2) (202) 225-3335
Rep. Peter T. King (R-3) (202) 225-7896 Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-4) (202) 225-5516
Rep. Gary L. Ackerman (D-5) (202) 225-2601 Rep. Gregory W. Meeks (D-6) (202) 225-3461
Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-7) (202) 225-3965 Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-8) (202) 225-5635
Rep. Anthony D. Weiner (D-9) (202) 225-6616 Rep. Edolphus Town (D-10) (202) 225-5936
Rep. Major R. Owens (D-11) (202) 225-6231 Rep. Nydia M. Velázquez (D-12) (202) 225-2361
Rep. Vito Fossella (R-13) (202) 225-3371 Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-14) (202) 225-7944
Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-15) (202) 225-4365 Rep. José E. Serrano (D-16) (202) 225-4361
Rep. Eliot L. Engel (D-17) (202) 225-2464 Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-18) (202) 225-6506
Rep. Sue W. Kelly (R-19) (202) 225-5441 Rep. John E. Sweeney (R-20) (202) 225-5614
Rep. Michael R. McNulty (D-21) (202) 225-5076 Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (D-22) (202) 225-6335
Rep. John M. McHugh (R-23) (202) 225-4611 Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-24) (202) 225-3665
Rep. James T. Walsh (R-25) (202) 225-3701 Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (R-26) (202) 225-5265
Rep. Brian Higgins (D-27) (202) 225-3306 Rep. Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D-28) (202) 225-3615
Rep. John R. “Randy” Kuhl (R-29) (202) 225-3161
If you prefer to send e-mail, find your Representative’s contact information here: http://www.congress.org

Talking Points:
· For three years the EPA/ACOE 2003 policy guidance has led to decisions stripping Clean Water Act protections from thousands of acres of wetlands and miles of streams, ponds and other vital waters all across the country and in New York.

· Although passage of the Clean Water Authority Restoration Act is the ultimate solution to reaffirm protections for all waters, Congress has a unique opportunity to put a stop to this destructive policy by voting FOR the Oberstar/Leach/Dingell Clean Water Amendment to the Interior/EPA Appropriations Bill.

· The Oberstar/Dingell/Leach Amendment will restrict EPA from spending money to implement this destructive policy and will begin to restore federal anti-pollution safeguards to our Nation’s waters.

· EPA has estimated that more than 20 million acres of wetlands (20% of the wetlands in the U.S., excluding Alaska) and countless miles of small streams are at risk under this policy. No comprehensive study has assessed the full measure of wetlands and waters that have lost protection in New York. Nonetheless, the Attorney General’s Office found that approximately 66-67% of wetlands at study areas near Lake Ontario and Millbrook lost protection under the policy guidance. New York City Department of Environmental Conservation estimates that 22% of wetlands and 30-34% of streams in the City’s 2,000 square mile drinking water supply watershed have lost federal protection.

· These threatened waters are the lifeblood of our Nation, and protecting them is essential to maintain diverse water systems, filter pollutants and safeguard our drinking water supplies, replenish groundwater aquifers, alleviate flooding, provide recreational opportunities, promote a healthy economy, and provide habitat for fish, birds and other wildlife.

· Please encourage [Congressperson X] to support the Oberstar/Dingell/Leach Clean Water Amendment to the Interior Appropriations Bill.

New York Rivers United: Action Alert -Write NY's commsioners

2006-04-10T12:40:00.000-07:00

NYRU
P.O. Box 1460, Rome, NY 13442 Tel. (315) 339-2097 Fax (315) 339-6028 Email:newyorkriversunited.org

ACTION ALERT

ACTION PROPOSED BY ORSANCO A STEP IN THE WRONG DIRECTION
FOR WATER QUALITY

CWA – GOING BACKWARDS AGAIN?

RE: ANOTHER WET WEATHER PROPOSAL

Currently the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) is considering a proposed plan to lower water quality standards for the Ohio River Basin. Under this proposal, substantial amounts of raw sewage will be dumped into the Ohio River following a wet weather event. Approval of the proposed revision would sacrifice the region’s potential for local economic development, and would have many negative health and environmental implications for local communities.

NOTE: NEW YORK’S ALLEGHENY RIVER IS A PART OF HEADWATERS OF
THE OHIO SYSTEM AND COULD COME UNDER THIS NEW RULE-MAKING;
NY’s COMMSSSIONERS WILL VOTE!

We believe that ORSANCO should serve to protect and preserve the Ohio River Basin. Tolerance of sewage and other pollutants should not be increased. We need strict policies to lessen the environmental impacts and risks to human health associated with sewage pollution. Since the enactment of the Clean Water Act more than thirty years ago, conditions of the Ohio River have improved dramatically, yet there are still many steps we need to take in the name of clean water. The approval of weakened water quality standards would be a giant step in the wrong direction.

THIS IS YET ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE THE CWA

We understand that the financial issue at hand (fixing failing sewer systems) is a multi-billion dollar task. Furthermore, many communities located along the Ohio River Basin are currently under Consent Decree. However, the long-term economic, environmental, and social risks involved with failing to correct the problem now will cause many adverse effects for local communities in the future. We need to invest in improving infrastructure now, or the problem will continue to build.

ORSANCO should enforce existing water quality standards under the Clean Water Act instead of changing them to allow more sewage to pollute the environment in which we live, work and recreate. We believe that ORSANCO has the ability to be a positive force in our nation’s fight for improved water quality. However, we find it disappointing that the Commission would consider approval of lowered water quality standards for the Ohio River. Improvements in infrastructure must be made. If they are not, we will continue to pass this growing problem to future generations. Sacrificing residents’ public health, recreational opportunities and quality of life is not a solution.

DEDICATED TO CONSERVE, PROTECT AND RESTORE NEW YORK'S RIVERS

UNDERMINING RECREATIONAL VALUES

After attending both the Technical Committee and Commissioners Meetings in February, NGO’s felt that a move forward with this proposal would be a serious mistake. To date, there is insufficient data to address the various environmental and economic issues at hand. We believe that a decision to lower recreational status for the Ohio River based on incomplete “observations” is dangerous. We urge the Commissioners to consider the consequences that such a decision would have on the surrounding communities.

Furthermore, NGO’s are concerned by the Commission’s decision to exclude some of the major communities in this “participatory” decision-making process. Louisville, Kentucky; Evansville, Indiana; and Wheeling and Huntington, West Virginia, have not been included in the public hearing process. These communities were engaged in the initial public review process but have been inexplicably overlooked for the final stages of review. These communities are plagued by the same dilemma facing many municipalities located along the Ohio River. These areas are already negatively affected by sewage pollution. These effects would worsen if lowered water quality standards were to be adopted by the Commission. We urge you to include these important locations in the discussions this coming spring.

ACTION YOU CAN TAKE!
WRITE TO THE COMMISSIONERS AND
EXPRESS YOUR DISSATISFACTION ON THIS PROPOSED RULE! (See Attachements)

State your opposition to the proposed water quality standard revisions
and strenuously urge the Commission to reject the proposal to lower
water quality standards.

MAKE IT CLEAR: WE BELIEVE THIS PROPOSAL SETS A DANGEROUS
PRECEDENT FOR OUR NATION WATERS.

For more information contact:

Bruce Carpenter, Executive Director Becky McClatchey
New York Rivers United Sierra Club
Bruce_carpenter@newyorkriversunited.org 515 Wyoming Ave
Cincinnati, Oh 45215
mailto:becky.mcclatchey@sierraclub.org

NY INFO: The Allegheny River Basin in New York State comprises a portion of the headwaters of the larger Ohio River Basin. A total of approximately 1,900 square miles of the basin lie within New York State, populated by about 170,000 people. It consists of most of Cattaraugus and Chautauqua Counties and a small portion of Allegheny County. The geology of the area is mainly a highly dissected plateau of deep, flat-bottomed valleys. The nature of the area varies from the rugged, heavily wooded Allegheny Hills along the Pennsylvania border to the flatter lands in the north and west. The basin is primarily rural-agricultural with several population centers and industries located along the major waterways. Other primary activities include silviculture, oil and gas production, and recreation. Steady progress has been made toward cleaning up the waters of the Allegheny River Basin. Most notable have been some of the industrial and municipal sewage treatment plant abatement efforts.

NYRU Concerned With Black River Dams --Watertown Times

2006-03-29T08:17:00.000-08:00

Note: The Following Story was published in the Watertown Times

Plan to Build Hydro Dams in Black River Hits a Snag

By Cory Nealon
Times Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP's plan to fast track the construction of two dams on the Black River appears to have hit a brick wall.

The state Department of Environmental Conservation asked the company to conduct a more thorough study of the breached dams in Great Bend and Felts Mills.

Erie Boulevard wants to amend its license with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to include the two sites. In doing so, it would skip a three-part study that typically takes two years to complete.

The company's proposal irked DEC and at least one environmental group.

"The department will likely require studies over a season or more," DEC spokeswoman Maureen Wren said. "Based on the information presented by Erie Boulevard, we weren't sure they were ready to do that."

Erie Boulevard, which is a subsidiary of Brookfield Power Corp., Toronto -- the former Brascan Corp. -- announced its plans after Black River Felts Mills LLC filed applications with FERC in November for exclusive rights to study the dams.

Bruce R. Carpenter, executive director of New York Rivers United, Rome, said Erie Boulevard is trying to skirt the application process.

"When Black River filed their applications, these people realized they could lose those sites," he said. "They talked with their lawyers and came up with this plan to move further along in the process."

Jon D. Elmer, general manager of the company's Lake Ontario division, did not return a phone call Tuesday.

However, last month he said the company hopes to start building within a year and wrap up the projects in the summer of 2008 at the latest.

Mrs. Wren said DEC wants Erie Boulevard to study a number of environmental issues, including what effect the dams would have on recreation, fish spawning areas and water quality.

Mr. Carpenter said the company's most recent study of the Black River was done eight years ago, which is too old considering the scope of the project.

"They're asking us to let them do the studies post filing, and I'm not willing to do that," he said.

Meanwhile, Black River Felts Mills, which is a subsidiary of Black River Energy LLC, Charlotte, N.C., said it would study the project for about two years before starting building in 2009. The parent company operates a 55-megawatt steam plant on Fort Drum.

While FERC issues hydroelectric licenses, DEC holds a trump card. Ms. Wren said to receive a license, DEC must first issue a water quality certificate.

If FERC and DEC agree to open Erie Boulevard's license and include the two sites, local municipalities will have a chance to renegotiate land settlements they signed about 10 years ago.

The company operates six hydroelectric dams on the Black River from Herrings to the city of Watertown. Five of those dams -- Sewalls Island, two in the village of Black River and one each in Deferiet and Herrings -- are part of the license it wants to open.

That would bode well for the city, which has been trying to make Sewalls Island and the Black River more accessible for recreational activities.

Downtown Development Specialist Christine E. Hoffman said the existing license doesn't allow the city to negotiate a new deal for 15 more years.

Copyright Notice | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact Us | Help & Tech Support

New York Rivers United: Dam Safety Hearing

2006-02-08T13:35:00.000-08:00

New York State Assembly Hearing:
Dam Safety In New York State
February 9, 2006
Testimony by Bruce R. Carpenter
Executive Director
New York Rivers United

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this critically important issue facing our state.

First, some back ground. My name is Bruce Carpenter, Executive Director of New York Rivers United (NYRU). NYRU is 501© 3, statewide environmental conservation organization based in Rome, NY. Our members boat, hunt, fish and are generally river enthusiasts from across New York State. Our mission is “to conserve, protect and restore New York’s rivers.”

NYRU was founded because of a dam issue, FERC dams, those dams licensed and under the jurisdiction of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. In 1992, NYRU was created to take on the relicensing issues of hydro dams through the FERC process, to represent the public views, to ensure there is a balance between hydro production and the environment. Since 1993, more than 50 hydro facilities have come up for relicensing. NYRU has played a major role in restoring instream flows, creating whitewater flows, bank stabilization, increased spawning grounds for migratory fish, and base flows for biodiversity and recreation on hundreds of river miles.

Our interest in dams and in watersheds in general led us to begin to look at dams across the state: their use and condition and how they are currently affecting our waterways. Our major problem was that dam removal was often not even being considered as a solution on some waterways. NYRU knows that removal may often be a very viable option.

All of New York State’s 17 major watersheds are fragmented and their health degraded by dams. There are 6,701 dams that impede our state’s streams and rivers. These dams exact a heavy toll on rivers and river life. Even small dams can have big impacts on the aquatic environment of a stream. Foremost among the casualties are fish passage, water quality and the downstream movement of sediments.

While our focus was on environmental issues, we soon released that many of these dams posed even greater threats in the communities where they were located. Many communities throughout the New York State face serious public safety and economic threats as a result of abandoned and deteriorating dams. These once-productive dams no longer serve in any beneficial way. The costs of maintenance, the costs to the environment and the liability associated with them make them a burden on the communities where they are located. The vast majority of these structures are municipally owned dams, not by choice but as the result of owner abandonment.

Our review led us to the state’s Dam Safety program, to ask questions of its practices and policies. To determine if, in fact, there was an adequate program to deal with the more than 6.000 dams. We found that there was a major problems. lack of staff, Second, that all or most of the program consumed by dams that had already failed, as opposed to a proactive campaign to eliminate, or at least reduce the overall burden and risk that communities faced. And, lastly, transparency, a lack of information, and a reluctance to publicly identify dams that had potential problems, a position we still fail to understand.

NYRU has been active on this problem, not by attacking those who do the work but working on policy efforts to reduce this risk. We are active members of the Barrier Task Force, organized by DEC, comprised of agencies and NGO’s working to address this situation. We have helped in developing criteria to assess some of these older structures and are in the process of groundtruthing that data.

We are currently working under an EPA grant to do evaluation of first barrier dams on Great Lakes tributaries. The goal is to identify projects that impede the restoration of native fish species. Some will be removed. We have been active in Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, which has identified stream and river restoration as a major goal. We are now working on the effort to secure funding for this type of activity.

But the bottom line is, this is a policy decision that must come from you and other leaders in Albany. If dam removal is to be part of the solution -- and we feel it should be -- you in the legislature must provide that direction.

We have entered the 21st century. Dam removal is a tool to repair damages that were not fully understood in times before. We know now that not all dams should be left in place. You must provide the laws; you must provide the funding to protect New York’s communities and enable the state’s agencies to expedite the process for protecting our waterways.

The possibility of dam removal is an option that should be considered on its merits. Dam removal for safety and for the express purpose of river and ecosystem restoration may be a worthwhile option. This removes the hazard, eliminates the liability and costs, and restores the river's natural values.

Thank you for this opportunity to address you today. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter more fully with any of you at any time.

Ten Reasons Why Dams Damage Rivers

(1) Dams reduce river levels
By diverting water for power, dams remove water needed for healthy in-stream ecosystems. Stretches below dams are often completely de-watered.

(2) Dams block rivers
Dams prevent the flow of plants and nutrients, impede the migration of fish and other wildlife, and block recreational use. Fish passage structures can enable a percentage of fish to pass around a dam, but multiple dams along a river make safe travel unlikely.

(3) Dams slow rivers
Many fish species, such as salmon, depend on steady flows to flush them downriver early in their life and guide them upstream years later to spawn. Stagnant reservoir pools disorient migrating fish and significantly increase the duration of their migration.

(4) Dams alter water temperatures
By slowing water flow, most dams increase water temperatures. Other dams decrease temperatures by releasing cooled water from the reservoir bottom. Fish and other species are sensitive to these temperature irregularities, which often destroy native populations.

(5) Dams alter timing of flows
By withholding and then releasing water to generate power for peak demand periods, dams cause downstream stretches to alternate between no water and powerful surges that erode soil and vegetation, and flood or strand wildlife. These irregular releases destroy natural seasonal flow variations that trigger natural growth and reproduction cycles in many species.

(6) Dams fluctuate reservoir levels
Peaking power operations can cause dramatic changes in reservoir water levels -- often up to 40 feet -- which degrade shorelines and disturb fisheries, waterfowl, and bottom-dwelling organisms.

(7) Dams decrease oxygen levels in reservoir waters
When oxygen-deprived water is released from behind the dam, it kills fish downstream.

(8) Dams hold back silt, debris, and nutrients
By slowing flows, dams allow silt to collect on river bottoms and bury fish spawning habitat. Silt trapped above dams accumulates heavy metals and other pollutants. Gravel, logs and other debris are also trapped by dams, eliminating their use downstream as food and habitat.

(9) Dam turbines cut up fish
Following currents downstream, fish are drawn into and cut up by power turbines. When fish are trucked or barged around the dams, they experience increased stress and disease and decreased homing instincts.

(10) Dams increase predator risk
Warm, murky reservoirs often favor predators of naturally occurring species. In addition, passage through fish ladders or turbines injure or stun fish, making them easy prey for flying predators like gulls and herons.

Environmental Reasons for Removal

The process of blocking a moving river inherently changes the ecosystem, destroying the natural processes dependent on that system and hindering recreational activities. The impacts can include:

• Inundating wildlife habitat
• Reducing river levels
• Blocking or slowing river flows
• Altering timing of flows
• Fluctuating reservoir levels
• Altering water temperatures
• Decreasing water oxygen levels
• Obstructing the movement of gravel, woody debris, and nutrients
• Blocking or inhibiting upstream and downstream fish passage
• Altering public river access
• Impacting negatively the aesthetics and character of a natural setting

Benefits of Dam Removal

Removal is often the most environmentally-sound, cost-effective way to address the various safety, economic, and ecological issues surrounding an aging and/or obsolete dam. Dam removal has been shown to provide significant benefits to a river, river system, and riverside communities, including:

• Restoring river habitat
• Improving water quality
• Reestablishing fish passage upstream and downstream
• Restoring threatened and endangered species
• Removing dam safety risks and associated liability costs
• Saving taxpayer dollars
• Improving aesthetics of the river
• Improving fishing opportunities
• Improving recreational boating opportunities
• Improving public access to the river, both up and downstream
• Recreating “new” land for parks or landowners
• Improving riverside recreation
• Increasing tourism

"

NYRU Press Releases: NYRU Files Amicus Brief In U. S. Supreme Court Case

2006-01-31T08:35:00.000-08:00

Rome,NY – A Rome-based statewide river advocacy group last week filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a nationally-significant Clean Water Act case to be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court next month. New York Rivers United (NYRU) is fighting to retain a 35-year old provision in the federal CWA that gives states the right to protect their rivers from water quality problems caused by hydropower dams, according to NYRU executive director Bruce Carpenter.
“Hydro dams can devastate fisheries and river ecosystems, limit recreational and economic opportunities, and even dry up entire stretches of river,” said Carpenter. “States have been using the Clean Water Act for more than 30 years to require dam owners to implement modest changes that offset most of these problems.”

On February 21, 2006, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case attempting to overturn this protection. “If the hydropower industry wins, rivers everywhere will lose,” Carpenter said.
There are more than 150 federally-licensed hydropower dams in New York State. “Since the majority of the rivers in New York (e.g., Mohawk, Oswego, Beaver, Black, Salmon, West Canada Creek) have multiple dams, most of them producing hydropower, this Supreme Court case will directly affect New York’s rivers,” Carpenter said.

The issue before the Supreme Court is the S.D. Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection case brought by a South African-owned paper company that owns several dams on Maine’s Presumpscot River. Last week, NYRU joined a broad coalition filing a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Maine’s right to protect its rivers from hydropower-related harm.
“Hydropower dams have a profound impact on New York’s aquatic systems, affecting water quality, fisheries, wildlife, river-based recreation, and tourism,” said Carpenter. “Under authority of the Clean Water Act, New York and other states have required dam owners to protect these assets. If the hydropower industry’s court challenge is successful, rivers across the nation will lose this vital protection and will return to being used primarily to generate profits for a few energy companies at the expense of lost benefits to local communities.”

Carpenter has participated in virtually all hydropower licensing and relicensing proceedings in New York since 1992, more than 50 in all. He is an active member of the national Hydropower Reform Coalition's steering committee and is recognized as a state and national leader in this specialized field.
In addition to NYRU and other environmental and recreation groups, other parties filing briefs in support of Maine include the Bush Administration, the Attorneys General of 35 states and territories, several American Indian Tribes, sportfishing groups, leading rivers scientists and engineers, Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT), and others. “The hydropower industry’s position in this case is totally self-serving,” said John Seebach, National Coordinator of the Hydropower Reform Coalition in Washington, DC.

Carpenter leads the Hydro Reform’s New York State Coalition. He said, “When you look at the diversity of the groups that filed in opposition – everyone from environmentalists to the Bush administration - you can really see how the industry has isolated itself from the mainstream.”

New York Rivers United was created in 1992 principally to address the environmental and recreational consequences of the relicensing of hydropower projects on various rivers across the state. New York State had 43 separate hydro dams up for relicensing as part of the nation’s “Class of ’93,” the most of any state in the country.

These hydro dams are regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which grants 30-50 year operating licenses that balance energy production with other equally important public values.
NYRU is an active intervener in all of the New York State hydro relicensing cases — as well as applications for new licenses — currently under review by FERC and takes the lead in coordinating the efforts of state hydro coalition interveners in these cases. NYRU is also a party in all of the proceedings before the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to certify the projects’ future compliance with state water quality standards. (It is this opportunity to protect water quality that is being threatened by next month’s court proceeding.) In proceedings before FERC and DEC, NYRU submits technical data and analysis and legal briefs regarding project impacts and alternative operating regimes which would allow economical energy generation while also complying fully with modern environmental law.

By virtue of its involvement in FERC and DEC proceedings, expert knowledge relating to river resource protection, recreation and hydropower development, and ability to represent the public's interest in the non-developmental values of the hydroelectric projects, NYRU has demonstrated the potential of restoring rivers through the hydropower licensing process.
Because of NYRU efforts, stretches of New York rivers dammed for more than 50 years are free-flowing again on the Beaver River, the Salmon River, the Sacandaga/Hudson River, the Black River and − most recently − the Raquette River, where NYRU's advocacy led to the successful relicensing affecting 14 dams on 90 miles of this stunning natural resource.
#

Factory Farms

2005-12-19T10:47:00.000-08:00

Press Releases > Water
August 17, 2005
CITIZENS’ ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES OF NEW YORK
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
NEW YORK RIVERS UNITED
ONONDAGA NATION
SIERRA CLUB – ATLANTIC CHAPTER

Black River Poisoning and Fishkill Preventable, Groups Say: Weak State Regulations Must be Strengthened

Albany NY– In the wake of a 3 million gallon manure spill into the Black River that killed up to 100.000 fish, Environmental groups came together today to call for stronger measures to protect New York’s streams, lakes and rivers from factory farm pollution. A report, “The Wasting of Rural New York State: Factory Farms and Public Health”, released by Citizens’ Environmental Coalition and Sierra Club, documents a number of serious environmental and public health problems caused by factory farms, also called concentrated animal feeding operations or CAFO’s, as well as significant weaknesses in the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s program to address factory farm pollution.

“The tragedy of last week’s manure spill is that we lack a strong state program that supports sustainable agriculture. Such a program could have prevented the gigantic release of manure and its devastating impact on New York’s beautiful Black River,” said Bobbi Chase Wilding, associate director of Citizens' Environmental Coalition, “New York needs to place a moratorium on permitting expansion or new construction of factory ‘farms’. The DEC must strengthen its oversight and regulations to prevent the release of manure from these facilities. In addition, we call on the DEC to immediately inspect the manure lagoons on all of New York’s factory farms and to require the construction of dikes and other measures to prevent manure releases from entering the water we drink, swim, or fish in.”

While water pollution, fish kills and other damage to lakes and rivers are one of the most significant impacts caused by factory farm pollution, there are other serious problems caused by these facilities.

Because they concentrate large numbers of cattle, or other animals, factory farms have enormous amounts of animal manure to manage. A little animal manure can help fertilize and condition soil and aid in the growing of crops. However, when manure is applied to fields at rates that exceed the amount that can be taken up in the corn, hay or other crops grown there, the manure then sits in the field and rots, seeps into groundwater polluting wells and/or gets washed by rain into neighboring lakes and streams. Rotting manure releases harmful gasses like hydrogen sulfide that have been implicated in a variety of illnesses.

The Citizen’s Environmental Coalition and Sierra Club report documents that the Marks Farm disaster is not an isolated incident. The report shows that the failure of the Marks Farm manure lagoon was proceeded by a series of manure releases and management problems around the state. Connie Mather who until recently lived adjacent to a CAFO in Cayuga County had this to say about the Marks Farm release, “as serious as the Black River spill is, we have experienced a smaller spill in our area and we see this as just a harbinger of problems to come.”

In New York factory farms do not get the same level of regulatory oversight from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) as other large industrial facilities that pollute the environment. While the largest facilities require DEC CAFO permits, the nutrient management plans that detail how manure will be stored and disposed of do not get regular review from DEC staff, and are never available for public review. It is not clear that the DEC ever inspected the manure lagoon at the Marks farm in Lewis County prior to its failure that released the manure and decimated fish populations in the Black River.

The report includes a list of recommendations to reform New York State’s regulation of factory farms including:

A moratorium on permitting new CAFOs;
Allowing municipalities to regulate these facilities;
Providing for public participation and review of CAFO permits;
Expanding funding and staffing for DEC’s CAFO program;
Strengthening the CAFO general permit;
Setting air standards for CAFOs;
Promotion of sustainable agriculture.
“Imagine six Olympic sized swimming pools full of manure poised to pour into your drinking water supply or your favorite fishing hole. The people living in the Black River Valley faced that threat daily, without knowledge, or opportunity to do anything about it until disaster struck thanks to New York’s inadequate CAFO regulations.” Said Yvonne Tasker-Rothenberg, Chair of the Sierra Club – Atlantic Chapter CAFO Committee.

“It is unconscionable that state regulations do not require DEC to oversee manure management practices such as the engineering and construction of manure lagoons and that the nature of the threats posed by factory farms are kept secret from the public,” said Rothenberg

Citizens’ Environmental Coalition and Sierra Club were joined by other organizations in calling for stronger regulation of factory farms.

Bruce Carpenter, Executive Director of New York Rivers United said, “(T)his report clearly identifies the potential risks involved in these expanding factory farms. The recent failure of a containment lagoon occurred at such a facility in the Black River valley. This is evidence of significant problems including lack of public knowledge of the risks and insufficient agency oversight. The degree of public risk involved underscores the need increased public awareness. The communication, or more accurately, the lack of communication from the DEC, concerning the specifics of the problem, the history of the facility, the question of site inspections by the agency, make it likely that New York Rivers United will pursue further action on this destructive spill,” said Carpenter.

“The Onondaga Nation is deeply saddened by the tremendous harm done to the Black River because of last week's manure spill at Marks Farm. The Onondaga people have lived in this area for thousands of years and they understand the importance of protecting the rivers, fish, and people who depend on them," said Joseph Heath, general counsel for the Onondaga Nation. "The DEC must take action to prevent incidents like this from occurring again. Factory farming endangers our health, and drives out responsible, respectful family farms."

"It's no news that bacteria, viruses, and other pathogens in animal waste threaten public health," said Brad Sewell, Senior Attorney with NRDC. "The federal government and New York State needs to wake up and set technology standards for large-scale dairies that will directly reduce pathogens in animal wastes."

"Factory farms pose an increasing risk to New York's lakes, streams, and drinking water supplies" said Robert Moore, Executive Director of Environmental Advocates of New York. "Despite the obvious risk these facilities pose -- as evidenced by the millions of gallons of manure spilled by Marks Farm earlier this week -- New York State has not only failed to regulate factory farms, but has starved DEC of the resources it needs to oversee the 600+ factory farms currently in New York."

New York Rivers United: Comments On NYS Open Space Plan

2005-12-06T13:29:00.000-08:00

Comments to Draft Open Space Conservation Plan - 2005

First as a member of the Region 6 Open Space Committee, I would like to congratulate all involved in this long-term effort to protect and restore New York's /open space. It is most certainly one of the most successful efforts undertaken in this country and effort we can all share pride in.

As it has moved forward over the last decade results can be seen and measured for its success. The relationships between interst groups have developed that have fostered out of the box thinking on ways to achieve our goals that are win-wins for all involved. The continuation of this effort must be a priority for all involved.

But there have been some segments that have been lacking and we must focus more attention to them.

First of course is the increased cost of stewardship this. This coupled with budget cuts from the agencies responsible for these activities has had negative results on our program. I believe that increased stewardship funding has come up in almost every committee across the State. The need to address this issue with long-term solutions must be a priority.
Staffing within the agencies responsible for implementing the long-term success cannot continue to decline. We are wasting the public's money and trust if these issues are not addressed.

A second point is overall river, stream, water conservation and protection. The original plan called for the creation of a River Committee, a task force. It was realized that issues such as watershed conservation, flood plain management, flow in rivers themselves, the water quantity issue would have to be addressed. New recreational opportunities can and are being pursed yet our state agencies fall behind in understanding this public interest. Whitewater boating is a good example. DEC often goes out of its way to exclude this use. Their thinking is that it is detrimental to biology, yet there are ways that we can accommodate both. This is a statewide issue that needs to be addressed.
In the same category (river access) we continue to seek out Fishing access as opposed to general public access. The man point is where the money comes from. Again our agencies are not in a position to understand the wants and needs of other users another than those that purchase licenses. This is backward thinking and it needs to change.
Every year I have asked for the creation of a group of individuals that might work toward some solutions, such a group shoud be crated now.

The final point I would make is that our efforts have yet to engulf all of the tools we originally envisioned using. We continue to focus our efforts all most entirely on state acquisition. Communities that have valuable resources are reluctant to get involved for fear of losing tax base. Yet with help in planning at a more local level, putting the local government up front in the process, letting them do more for open space in their communities, I feel we could be achieving so much more.
It is time to utilize more of this planning, watershed, and community approach. To involve more of our state's local resources and its willing people; so as to encourage open space protection and conservation at a more local level.

Again this has been a great effort these points are to move it forward for what I see is as more success and more public approval and involvement.

Bruce R. Carpenter, Ex, Dir.
NYRU

New York Rivers United: Action Alert -- Great Lakes Action Needed

2005-10-25T10:55:00.000-07:00

Our Great Lakes Basin Needs Your Help NOW – Please Act

New York Rivers United urges you to contact your U.S. Representative and Senators. Tell them to restore and protect the Great Lakes by:
(1) fully implementing and funding the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration’s Strategy to Restore and Protect the Great Lakes and
(2) contact the President to tell him to keep the promise he made to restore this national treasure.

Background

Last year, the Bush Administration issued an Executive Order to bring federal agencies, the Great Lakes states, Tribes, cities, and others together to design a restoration and protection strategy for the Great Lakes. On July 7, 2005, this group released a draft plan. The final plan is due December 12.

The draft action plan includes strong recommendations that will help restore the Great Lakes by cleaning up toxic pollution, ending sewage dumping into the lakes, and restoring wetlands and other vital wildlife habitat. This plan is a good first step and, if fully funded, will create a cleaner, safer, and healthier Great Lakes environment for generations to come.

Now is not the time to back away from all the work that has gone into creating this blueprint for restoring the Great Lakes. News reports suggest that federal agencies could be softening their commitment to this process. We need a strong plan to help build momentum for an increased investment in our region’s waterways. We need a strong plan so we can leave the Great Lakes in better shape than the way we found them. It’s not right to pass our problems to our children and grandchildren.

Contact Your Member of Congress and Senators Now. Tell Them to Protect the Great Lakes!

Step One: Please locate your Representative and Senators by typing your state and zip code at http://www.house.gov and http://www.senate.gov. It’ll direct you to your congressional official’s website, including their address for letters.

Step Two: Please send a hand-written note (it doesn’t have to be longer than a paragraph) to your Representative and Senators. Tell them in your own words:

1) That you love the Great Lakes (tell a personal story to support why you love the Great Lakes)

2) That they must implement and fund the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration’s Strategy to Restore and Protect the Great Lakes

3) That they must contact the President and tell him to keep the promise he made to restore this national treasure

4) Ask that they write back explaining what steps they will take to increase funding and implement the GLRC strategy. Send us your response.

Great Lakes restoration must start today. The Great Lakes are a gift of nature, whose beauty and bounty enrich our lives and identify our region. We have a responsibility to protect and restore the Lakes, not for a single interest, but for our families, wildlife, and the future. You can make a difference if you take action now.

NYRU Press Releases: Black River Spill Action

2005-08-25T07:58:00.000-07:00

NEWS RELEASE

DATE: August 19, 2005

FOR RELEASE: Immediately

CONTACT: Bruce Carpenter, Executive Director
(315) 339-2097

River Advocate Wants Accountability For Devastating Spill
New York Rivers United Calls Current Oversight “Inadequate”
Wants Action By State DEC and Attorney General

Rome,NY – New York Rivers United today called on the state Department of Environmental Conservation to take immediate steps to prevent another manure release like the one that devastated a 20-mile stretch of the Black River last week.
“The state DEC should immediately inspect the manure lagoons on all of New York’s factory farms and require the construction of dikes and other measures to prevent manure releases from entering the water we drink, swim and fish in,” said Bruce Carpenter, NYRU executive director. “These rivers are natural resources that belong to the public, yet the public’s health, safety and well-being are not being adequately safeguarded.” He said NYRU will be contacting the DEC as well as the New York State Attorney General’s office.
Last week the Black River was contaminated when three million gallons of liquid manure spilled from a lagoon at one of Lewis County’s largest farms about 5 miles south of Lowville.
Flowing from the western Adirondacks into Lake Ontario, Black River is known for its perch, bass, catfish, shiners, and walleye fishing. State officials estimate hundreds of thousands of fish were killed.
“New York’s factory farm industry operates with inadequate oversight,” said Carpenter. “The release of more than three million gallons of untreated waste material into the Black River exemplifies what can go wrong. It also clearly points to the failures in the current permitting and monitoring rules and regulations. The state needs to immediately inspect all manure-storage facilities on farms to guard against a repeat of this catastrophe.”
NYRU is a Rome-based statewide organization that advocates for New York’s natural river resources and has recently been honored for its successes by the Adirondack Council and the Northern Forest Alliance.
- more -

Carpenter cited a report released this week by the Sierra Club and the Citizens’ Environmental Coalition that identifies the potential risks involved in these expanding factory farms. “NYRU wishes to extend our support and thanks to the Coalition and the Sierra Club for their fine work in this area. It is unfortunate that we currently have an example of, not the worst, but certainly a major failure in the program.”
“The recent failure of a containment lagoon at a factory farm in the Black River valley is evidence of significant problems including lack of public knowledge of the risks and insufficient agency oversight. The degree of public risk involved underscores the need for increased public awareness,” Carpenter said. “The communication, or more accurately, the lack of communication, concerning the specifics of the problem, the history of the facility, the question of site inspections by the agency, make it likely that NYRU will pursue further action on this destructive spill.”
Carpenter said NYRU wants the following questions answered:
1) Who approved the general permit when it was issued for this site?
2) Was there any on-site review of the permit conditions?
3) Was any monitoring required?
4) Was the state Department of Environmental Conservation aware of any on-site changes that were made since the original permit was issued?
A second set of questions will be asked to ascertain whether NYRU will file legal actions regarding the spill.
1) What was the total impact currently?
2) Is the investigation continuing?
3) What actions were taken immediately after the spill occurred?
4) What is currently being done to ensure that no further impacts will occur?

#

For more information, please contact:
Bruce Carpenter
Executive Director
New York Rivers United
Work phone: (315) 339-2097
Cell phone: (315) 273-9073

Action Alert -- CWA --Bill Would Exempt Ballast Water

2005-07-20T12:38:00.000-07:00

ACTION ALERT

from

NEW YORK RIVERS UNITED
July 21, 2005

Bill Would Exempt Ballast Water Pollution From The Clean Water Act

HELP!!!
A bill is quickly gaining momentum on Capitol Hill that exempts ballast
water pollution from the Clean Water Act (CWA) and would preempt current and
future efforts by states to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species
and limit other pollution from ballast water from ships. This bill, S. 363,
is scheduled for action this Thursday (July 21, 2005) in the Senate Commerce
Committee.

Please contact your Senators today, especially if they are on the Commerce
Committee (or the Environment and Public Works Committee) and ask them to
oppose S. 363, The Ballast Water Management Act of 2005, in its present
form. A list of the members on the Commerce and EPW committees is below.

TELL ME MORE!!

The Ballast Water Management Act of 2005 (S. 363) would exempt ballast water
discharges from the CWA and preempt state authority in favor of a weak
federal program run by the U.S. Coast Guard to address the spread of
invasive species by ships‚ ballast water.

Section (3)(r) of S. 363 of the July 1, 2005 draft of the bill would exempt
the discharge of pollutants (including invasive species) from ballast water
from regulation under the Clean Water Act. Exemption of any pollutants or
activities from the Clean Water Act is a direct assault on the Act itself
and must be stricken from the bill. The exemption of any pollutant or
activity from the Act is a dangerous precedent.

In March 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an order agreeing with several environmental groups and
several Great Lakes States Attorneys General that ballast water discharges
are subject to the Clean Water Act. The court ordered EPA to repeal an
illegal rule it had adopted that said EPA did not have to regulate these
discharges. .

The swift pace of S. 363 answers industry‚s desire to overturn this ruling
by Congressional action to supercede Clean Water Act authority and avoid
compliance with the impending court order outlining the timeline for
expected EPA action due this Fall. See, Northwest Environmental Advocates
et. al. vs. U.S. EPA, No. C. 03-05760 SI (March 20,2005).

Thus, S. 363 appeases the shipping industry at the expense of our nation‚s
waters and the states, people, and economies that rely upon them.

TAKE ACTION
Call and email your Senators urging them to oppose S. 363. Our waters and
communities deserve better! All Senators‚ offices can be reached by
contacting the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121.

Top priority: contact Senators on the Commerce Committee, which will be
marking up S. 363 this Thursday (July 21st), and the Environment and Public
Works Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act.

TALKING POINTS

THE CLEAN WATER ACT EXEMPTION MUST BE STRICKEN FROM THE BILL.

S. 363 would undermine the core of the Clean Water Act by exempting an
entire class of discharges with no equivalent backstop of protection,
creating a real and grave threat to the health of coastal waters, the Great
Lakes, and other waters across the country.

Exempting ballast water pollution from the Clean Water Act would also be a
clear blow in favor of gravely weakening the Clean Water Act itself ,
allowing an industry to create its own exceptions to the law in favor of
weaker, voluntary programs.

Ships‚ ballast water discharges are currently the major vectors of invasive
aquatic species into the Great Lakes and other aquatic ecosystems throughout
the country.

S. 363 ignores the essential backstop protections that the Clean Water Act
provides to ensure our waters stay healthy and usable. For example, the
Clean Water Act contains provisions specifically protecting waters from
degradation. If waters do become significantly degraded, including the
presence of or impacts caused by invasive species, the Act provides a
process for cleaning those waters up.

THE STATE PREEMPTION PROVISION MUST BE STRICKEN FROM THE BILL.

S. 363 also contains a vague proposal to exempt sound state programs to
manage ballast water. The proposed exemption language will ensure that
states will be effectively prevented from mounting a serious defense to the
onslaught of economic and environmental damage caused by invasive species in
their communities.

Frustrated with the lack of federal action, many states are currently moving
forward to implement and enforce requirements that ships treat their ballast
for invasive species. S. 363 would undercut these efforts by preempting the
ability of states to take action and would delay ballast water treatment
until S. 363 standards are implemented, which will take over a decade or
more.

DEMOCRATS

Frank Lautenberg - New Jersey**
202-224-3224

** Also on EPW Committee

SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE (EPW) -- Tell these Senators you oppose S. 363 in its present form AND that it is the Environment
Committee NOT the Commerce Committee that has jurisdiction over the Clean
Water Act and should stop the Commerce Committee from carving loopholes in
to the nation’s most important water law.
.

DEMOCRATS/INDEPENDENT

Clinton, Hillary (NY)
202-224-4451
Lautenberg, Frank (NJ)
202-224-3224

Great Lakes Regional Collaboration- Regional Public Meeting

2005-07-20T11:13:00.000-07:00

NYRU is hosting a "GLRC Informational Meeting" to be held on Wednesday August 17th at SUNY Oswego. The meeting will explain the GLRC process, the stage the plan is in, and how the public can get involved by commenting on it. We encourage everyone who cares about New York's Great Lakes basin and its future to attend this meeting. Contact Mark Burgreen at mark@newyorkriversunited.org with questions or to recieve additional information.

Action Alert --Call Gov

2005-07-19T07:26:00.000-07:00

ACTION ALERT

from

NEW YORK RIVERS UNITED
July 19, 2005

Call Governor George Pataki.
Urge him to voice his support for
increased federal water infrastructure funding.

Take action today! Governor Pataki needs to let Congress know that federal funds provided through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund for improvement and maintenance of New York’s water infrastructure systems is essential to keeping sewage and stormwater pollution out of New York’s waterways.

Appropriations Committee staff has informed Clean Water Network Steering Committee members that in order to definitely secure the $1.1 billion the Senate appropriated for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, the Chairmen (Rep. Charles Taylor and Sen. Conrad Burns) of the US Congress Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies of the Appropriations Committee need to hear from Governors.

New York State’s aging wastewater infrastructure needs repairs in order to prevent dangerous wastewater disasters like sewage spills and basement backups. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund can help make those repairs happen by providing low-interest loans to state and local governments to rehabilitate aging sewer plants, minimize raw sewer overflows and reduce stormwater runoff. Gov. Pataki will be New York’s most effective advocate for securing these funds to improve New York’s water infrastructure system. He needs to call the conference committee chairmen and state his case for why more SRF funds are important to New York.

Take Action

Call Gov. Pataki today and urge him to call the committee chairmen, Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) and Rep. Charlie Taylor (R-NC), to discuss the need to adequately fund the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the importance of this funding to the completion of clean water projects in New York. Ideally, a personal call from the Governor to the Chairmen will send the most powerful message. Gov. Pataki signed a letter in support of restoring funding levels for the SRF to its traditional level last year and would be a good candidate to send a strong message to the chairmen supporting the Senate-approved level of funding.

What to say

Ask to speak with either the governor directly or the governor’s federal environmental policy advisor.

The main points to make on the phone are:
(1) Express your support to the congressional committee chairs, Rep. Charlie Taylor of North Carolina and Senator Conrad Burns of Montana, for increasing the available funds for the Clean Water Revolving Fund to the level already approved by the Senate: $1.1 billion.
(2) Request the committee chairmen protect human health and the environment by supporting funding for the State Revolving Fund at $1.1 billion level approved by the Senate.
(3) New York desperately needs these additional funds to repair old sewer pipes, maintain our treatment facilities and keep raw sewage out of our waters and communities.
(4) Relate a personal story on how dilapidated sewer systems in New York are threatening the quality of life or property values in your community.

Additional information

The 1970s and 1980s saw a huge investment in wastewater treatment, but this investment has declined over the years even though there was an increase in population and development. Despite the investment of the 1970s and 1980s, the average age of sewage pipes is 33 years with many pipes being 50-100 years old. Additionally, development and sprawl are growing without the additional infrastructure necessary to accommodate the growing population. Many of these new areas of growth also depend on Combined Sewer Systems that reduce the number of pipes needed but making overflows more frequent by funneling both sewage and stormwater into the same pipes.

The effects of outdated infrastructure, growing population, sprawling development and combined sewer systems are all occurring simultaneously, creating a “perfect storm.” In a report to Congress, the EPA estimated that 1.3 trillion gallons of raw sewage escape from combined sewer overflows every year. The agency also reports that in 2001 there were approximately 40,000 sanitary sewer overflows and 400,000 sewage backups into basements. Cracks and breakdowns in aging infrastructure contribute additional undocumented sewage leaks.

The public health and environmental implications of these sewage overflows are tremendous. Sewage overflows dump bacteria, heavy metals and other toxins into our waters. Sewage carries with it numerous diseases that can end up in our drinking water supplies. Experts estimate that there are 7.1 million mild-to-moderate cases and 560,000 moderate-to-severe cases of infectious waterborne disease in the United States annually. Sewage overflows also kill aquatic life and create red tides, closing beaches and other recreational areas.

Despite all of these dangers, sewage treatment problems go largely ignored. Federal, state, and local wastewater treatment facilities are critically underfunded, keeping them from making crucial improvements and reducing their normal operation and maintenance abilities. According to the Water Infrastructure Network, there is a gap of $23 billion annually to meet water infrastructure repair and replacement needs.

Please let us know how your calls go and
what you are hearing from your governor’s office.

THANK YOU.

Bruce Carpenter
Executive Director
New York Rivers United

If you need more information on how the SRF is being used in your state, please contact Josh Klein at the Clean Water Network (202-289-2421 & jklein@nrdc.org) and Peter Raabe at American Rivers (202-347-7550 & praabe@americanrivers.org). Thank you for your support!

###

The Great Lakes Regional Collaboraion

2005-07-08T11:24:00.000-07:00

The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration (GLRC)

What is it?

The Collaboration is a fast-track government effort to federally fund the Great Lakes Basin restoration, much like the plan to save the Everglades passed by the U.S. Congress in 2000. The Collaboration process was inspired by years of citizen organizing and a handful of the region’s senior members of Congress who have not been content with the government's current approach to protecting our environment.

Why do the Great Lakes matter?

The Great Lakes are a bi-national treasure, providing economic, biological, recreational and cultural benefits to North America. The Great Lakes Basin provides over 40 million Basin residents with fresh water and in 2002 alone had a GDP only exceeded by the United States as a whole and Japan. They support a diversity of wildlife and sustain a sports fishing industry valued at $7 billion annually. Unfortunately the Great Lakes themselves, our most valued asset, are under attack. Pressure from contaminated sediments and areas of concern (AOC’s), non-native species, habitat destruction, altered hydrology, persistent bioaccumulative toxins (PBT’s), and other pollutants are threatening the vitality and productivity of the Great Lakes. A successful effort to protect and restore the Great Lakes must be undertaken now to close the door on these serious problems that threaten the health of our most important resource.

Our Involvement

Contrary to common knowledge, the majority of New York State is considered part of the Great Lakes basin. In order to bring in government funding to help restore New York's scenic beauty, NYRU plans to:

- Formulate and coordinate a statewide strategy to protect the vitality and productivity of New York's Great Lakes basin.

- Open communication to create a more coherent network between state agencies so that we can realize our common goal in the Great Lakes Initiative: Restoration.

-Maintain an organized network of agencies throughout the Great Lakes Collaboration to be certain that New York uses its tax payers dollars efficiently.

NYRU is an organized state-wide river organization that has always utilized multiple networks to achieve success. We realize that the Great Lakes Basin is a priority and, as always, our experience in restoring rivers and active involvement in policy planning in environmental issues make us well positioned to assume a vital role in this initiative. NYRU's close working relationships with local, regional, and national groups also make or participation crucial for the success of this effort.

Taking Action

On July 7th, 2005 a draft plan for the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration (GLRC) was released, and is currently enduring a 60 day comment period for public input (You can make your voice heard on this issue at www.glc.org/glrc/comment.html). NYRU was a major voice in this consensus based plan that was constructed from comprehensive recommendations by over 1,500 people representing NGO's, government and state agencies, tribal leaders, businesses, and other stakeholders. Currently, NYRU is taking the initiative to unite New York environmental groups in support of this plan by calling a meeting to educate and prepare state agencies. In addition, we are helping other organizations, like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with their own meetings. NYRU is determined not to allow this opportunity to restore a national treasure slip away due to poor preparation.

Any questions concerning the GLRC can be directed to mark@newyorkriversunited@org, and additional information on the plan can be found at www.glc.org/glrc or www.epa.gov/greatlakes/collaboration.

Hudson River Action

2005-07-08T10:59:00.000-07:00

NYRU JOINS EFFORT

* Friends of a Clean Hudson *

RE: Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Advisory Committee Appointees List

Dear Secretary Norton:

We are writing today to express our concerns about the current membership of the U.S. Department of Interior’s Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Advisory (NRDAR) Committee created under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The environmental community is not adequately represented on this committee and we strongly urge you to add environmental expertise to the panel.
There are many national, state and regional groups that that have been involved in NRDA cases across the country that can ably represent the concerns and interests of the environmental community.
This panel is charged with providing advice and recommendations to DOI on the natural resources damages provision of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Oil Pollution Control Act (OPA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA). Based on the existing membership of the committee, with business and industry the most heavily represented interest, we are very concerned that a significant disparity exists which will compromise the integrity of the recommendations put forth by this panel.

As organizations concerned about the future of the NRDA program in general, and specifically about the
Hudson River Natural Resources Damages Assessment, we strongly urge you to consider adding at least two environmental representatives to this panel. We endorse the suggestions made by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club in their letter dated June 29, 2005.
Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to your response.

Sincerely
Ned Sullivan, President Director,
Scenic Hudson, Poughkeepsie

Chris Ballantyne, Hudson River Campaign
Sierra Club, Saratoga Springs

Alex Matthiessen, Executive Director
Riverkeeper, Garrison

Bruce Carpenter, Executive Director
New York Rivers United, Rome

Manna Jo Greene, Environmental Director
Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Poughkeepsie

Robert J. Moore, Executive Director
Environmental Advocates of New York, Albany

Katherine Kennedy, Senior Attorney
Natural Resources Defense Council, New York

School Street Hydro --NYRU At Work

2005-06-10T11:44:00.000-07:00

An article has appered in the Albany area's "other" paper. We believe it is a well written and covers boths sides of a very hard to understan relicensing case. The link to the article is here. It concerns the relicensing of the School Street Project on the Mohawk River.

http://www.metroland.net/back_issues/vol28_no23/index.html

Paddlers Wanted for Whitewater Study

2005-04-28T06:57:00.000-07:00

The following is provided by New York State Electric & Gas:

2005 AUSABLE RIVER OPEN FLOW STUDY (NY)

Paddlers wishing to paddle the Class IV/V Ausable Chasm section of New York’s Ausable River will be allowed to do so on 5 days this year. The dates planned for 2005 are

∑ Saturday, June 25
∑ Sunday, July 10
∑ Sunday, July 24
∑ Saturday, September 24, and
∑ Saturday, October 22.

Access to the Upper Ausable Chasm has not been possible due to the high gorge walls, and private and secured property owned by the New York State Electric and Gas Corporation and the Ausable Chasm Company.

As part of its relicensing effort, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has recently required NYSEG to allow access to the Ausable River near its Rainbow Falls hydroelectric facility and to work in collaboration with the Adirondack Mountain Club, American Whitewater, Ausable Chasm Company, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and Trout Unlimited to develop a whitewater study plan.

This study is a follow-up to a limited study that was conducted in 2001. Together these groups will work with boaters, anglers and other river users during the study periods. At the conclusion of the test runs, the study will be submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, who will evaluate the results to determine the feasibility of allowing whitewater access at the Rainbow Falls project.

The primary objectives of the study are to gage kayaker flow preferences, access needs, potential user conflicts, demand for whitewater boating, and the feasibility of whitewater boating in regards to safety and coordination. To accomplish these study goals, paddlers will be allowed to paddle the Ausable Chasm on 5 days throughout 2005, which were chosen to provide a range of flows. All paddlers wishing to paddle the river will be required to

∑ sign up in advance via email or phone,
∑ sign a waiver/release of liability prior to paddling,
∑ fill out pre and post run surveys,
∑ attend a mandatory safety briefing at 11:00 am prior to each run, followed by coordinated scouting of the river,
∑ comply with study protocols and specific ground rules of NYSEG and the Ausable Chasm Company (attach or include at the end of the invitation),
∑ respect private lands,
∑ show respect and provide common courtesies to other users of the river and on adjacent property, and
∑ arrive at the put-in location fully equipped with standard safety gear, as described in the “Safety Code of American Whitewater.” Reference http://www.americanwhitewater.org/archive/safety/safety.html

Basic Information on the Ausable Chasm Whitewater Run

Section: Ausable Chasm from the NYSEG powerhouse to NY Route 9 Bridge.

Class: Rated as Class IV-V at 745 cfs (classification rating by AW)

Length: Approximately 3.4 miles

Targeted Flow Range: 300 – 1000 cfs, with decreasing flows likely throughout season. A previous study was run at 745 cfs.

Gage: USGS gage at Ausable River near Ausable Forks, approx 13 miles upstream of the put-in. Gage data can be accessed at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ny/nwis/uv?04275500

Character: Drop/Pool, vertical cliffs

Rapid (class at 745 cfs): Horseshoe Falls (IV), Devil’s Oven (IV+), Mike’s Hole aka Clydes Cave (IV/V), Table Rock (II+), Concrete Wall (II/III), Whirlpool (II). Rapid classifications by AW.

Portaging: Difficult, potentially impossible at some locations.

Scouting: Scouting will be allowed at river level (where possible), as well as from the Ausable Chasm Company’s private lands along the gorge rim. Paddlers scouting from the gorge rim and walkways are guests of the ACC and must follow all ACC rules. Note: All Visitors must pay to enter the ACC complex, therefore Scouters may also be required to pay a nominal entry fee to access the ACC.

Proximity: Burlington, VT: 14 miles; Plattsburgh, NY: 13 miles; Lake Placid, NY: 36 miles; Montreal, QC: 81 miles; Albany, NY: 147 miles;

Safety: Paddlers are responsible for providing their own safety measures, and are encouraged to take all possible precautions. As a minimum, all paddlers must adhere to all AW safety requirements.

Paddlers are responsible for their own decisions regarding whether or not to participate in this study. The Upper Ausable Chasm is only appropriate for experienced groups of Class IV/V paddlers using appropriate whitewater equipment. Those lacking appropriate skills and equipment are STRONGLY discouraged from participating in the study. Curious paddlers are encouraged to visit the Ausable Chasm Company (and pay for a tour) prior to or during the study dates. Qualified paddlers are encouraged to participate in as many study days as possible to assure that the study has ample data.

We look forward to a fun and safe whitewater boating study this year. To sign up for a study date, simply email or call Yvonne Rockwell at Northern Ecological Associates, Inc. at least 7 days prior to the study date indicating the date(s) you wish to participate, and your contact information (Name, Address, Phone Number, Email Address).

Thank you for considering participating in the 2005 Ausable Chasm Whitewater Boating Study. For more information or to sign up for the study contact:

Yvonne Rockwell
Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.
yrockwell@neapa.com
Phone: (570) 476-1644, Ext. 7
Fax: (570) 476-1649

NYRU Seeks Protection for Adirondack Stream

2005-02-07T12:31:00.000-08:00

TO: REGION 6 OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE

FROM: Bruce Carpenter, NYRU

DATE: February 7, 2005

RE: BLACK CREEK WATERSHED

Several years ago, working under the aegis of NYRU’s Dam Removal Program, we reviewed and then supported the removal of Grey Dam on Black Creek. The dam was originally owned and operated by Mohawk Valley Water Authority for flow augmentation to Hinckley Reservoir. The dam was in bad shape, and it was determined that removal was a better alternative than repair.

With the dam removed, the creek has returned to its normal flow patterns winding through forested areas. It is a truly scenic canoe trip. The watershed itself is mostly forested and within the Adirondack Park. Black Creek is a beautiful and mostly undisturbed resource, a true Adirondack stream.

It is not often that we have the opportunity to correct damages that were done decades earlier. We believe now is the time to act to ensure that this truly great resource is protected for future generations.

NYRU proposes that this watershed be included for a top priority project in Region 6.

There are several alternatives for protection, and all or some of each might be appropriate. Status in the state’s “Wild and Scenic Rivers” program would be one. Watershed protection through land acquisition of fee and/or easement would be another. We realize that local government must be made aware of this project before it can move forward. The support of the committee is what we seek on this now.

Enclosed are some of the descriptions from the engineering report prepared on the basin for the dam removal project.

Thank you.

Bruce Carpenter, Ex. Dir.
NYRU

Citizen's Agenda for Rivers

2005-01-28T08:38:00.000-08:00

January 19, 2005

Dear Great Lakes Collaborative Colleague,

New York Rivers United (NYRU) is an active member in the Great Lakes Collaborative, a critical effort to restore the Great Lakes Basin. Working together with our friends and colleagues at American Rivers, we believe there is another joint effort that will help in achieving our mutual goals and objectives: The Citizens’ Agenda for Rivers. Many of you are aware of the Agenda and have already given your support; for others this is an introduction and a request for your support.

The Citizens’ Agenda is a proactive policy plan for rivers developed by a steering committee of river and watershed leaders over the last year. It delivers a simple message to all decision-makers: Americans demand clean water and healthy rivers, and we will hold our leaders accountable for doing their part. We believe this message is applicable to the Great Lakes Basin now more than ever.

More than 300 organizations, representing more than 3.6 million Americans, have already endorsed the Citizens’ Agenda for Rivers (view the list of endorsers at www.healthyrivers.org/Endorsements.html). But we are still short of our goal of 1,000 organizational endorsements. We hope to reach this goal in time to deliver the Citizens’ Agenda to the new Congress in late January or early February.

The Citizens’ Agenda identifies three issues representing the most acute threats to the largest number of rivers: eroding water quality, insufficient water flows for river health, and the impacts of sprawl and development. It then calls on decision makers at the local, state and federal levels to take specific policy actions to address each of these threats, such as calling on Congress to pass the Clean Water Authority Restoration Act and states to adopt ecologically based instream flow standards. (Read the full set of policy prescriptions at www.healthyrivers.org/read.html). The Citizens’ Agenda will be updated periodically to reflect changing threats and priorities.

The goals of the Citizens’ Agenda for Rivers, and the solutions it proscribes, are particularly appropriate for those of us concerned about the health of water resources in the Great Lakes Basin. The Citizens’ Agenda also sends a message to Great Lakes decision makers that we are part of larger, nationwide movement that will not rest until we have secured clean water and healthy rivers in all of our communities.

Please go to www.healthyrivers.org today and endorse the Citizens’ Agenda for Rivers. For more detailed information, and to learn about other opportunities to participate in this effort, please contact me (contact info below) or Matt Sicchio at American Rivers (msicchio@americanrivers.org, 202-347-7550).

Sincerely,

Bruce Carpenter
Executive Director
New York Rivers United
T: 315-339-2097
bruce_carpenter@newyorkriversunited.org

Action Alert -- Sewage Blending

2005-01-18T12:05:00.000-08:00

RIVERS AT RISK
ACTION ALERT!!!!!!!

Dear New York River Conservation Colleague:

New York Rivers United, a leader in river conservation in New York State, needs your help. We need to alert you to an imminent threat to rivers, streams and public health. We ask for your help in mobilizing the river activists across the State to ACTION.

The Issue: Sewage Dumping
Last fall, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a "sewage blending" policy. This is not a Congressional action. Instead, it is a change in regulation. But this change could more accurately be called a "sewage dumping" policy. This change would allow sewage treatment plants to bypass an important treatment phase when it rains and mix partially treated waste with fully treated waste and dump that mixture into our rivers and streams. This policy poses a serious threat to human health and the environment. For more information on the policy including fact sheets, visit
http://www.americanrivers.org/sewagedumping.html

WHAT YOU CAN DO TO STOP SEWAGE DUMPING

1. Email or fax a letter to EPA Administrator urging him NOT to finalize EPA's sewage dumping policy. (See sample letter below.) Spread the word to your colleagues, volunteers, and members and ask them to send a letter to Administrator. Fax copies of your letters to your Senators and Congressmen. Or call your Congressional offices asking them to tell EPA to stop this policy. Please email us a copy of your letters. We will use them on our visits to Congressional staff in Washington and help educate them.

2. Contact your local reporters. Writing letters to the editor and contacting local media is a way to inform others of this issue. If you request we can provide sample materials. (bruce_carpenter@newyorkriversunited.org; (315 339-2097).

Citizens' Agenda for Rivers
New York Rivers United is a steering committee member in this effort. The effort to organize Stopping sewage dumping is a key plank in the Citizens' Agenda for Rivers. If you haven't yet endorsed the Citizens' Agenda, please sign-on at www.healthyrivers.org

We will be in touch with updates about this policy in the coming weeks. With your help, the river movement will be heard. Our health our rivers will continue to be protected Thank you.

Bruce Carpenter, Executive director
New York Rivers United
PO box 1460, Market St.
Rome NY 13442-1460

Sample letter to Leavitt
Administrator Leavitt
Environmental Protection Agency
101A
Ariel Rios Building
Mail Zone 101A
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Email: leavitt.michael@epa.gov
Fax: 202-501-1450

Dear Administrator Leavitt,

Please protect human health and the environment by withdrawing the proposed sewage blending policy and take steps to ensure that wastewater treatment plants are adequately treating all sewage.

The proposed blending policy would allow wastewater treatment facilities to bypass biological treatment methods during periods of heavy rain and snowmelt and pour the partially treated water back into America’s rivers and streams. This policy will not solve the current problems caused by sewer overflows. Instead, it will just give treatment plants the permission to continue environmentally detrimental practices.

Blending treated and untreated water dilutes the pollution but fails to remove deadly disease producing pathogens from the water. Bypassing the biological treatment phase allows bacteria, viruses and parasites to slip back into our waterways and cause illnesses such as respiratory infections, hepatitis, and dysentery. The EPA has found that a discharge of inadequately treated sewage spreads disease in U.S. waterways. Experts estimate that there are 7.1 million mild-to-moderate cases and 560,000 moderate-to-severe cases of infectious waterborne disease in the United States annually.

Blending also poses a huge threat to the environment, particularly to the health of rivers and streams. Allowing inadequately treated sewage to flow into our nation’s waters would cause long-term environmental damage; kill fish, close beaches, and destroy shellfish beds.

I urge you to protect human health and the environment by withdrawing the proposed blending policy and take steps to ensure full treatment of wastewater at all times.

Thank you for your consideration.

Hudson Action Opposed

2005-01-07T11:19:00.000-08:00

January 06, 2005

Richard J. Polo, Jr.
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
New York District, CEN AN-PLE
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278-0090

RE: Draft Hudson River at Athens DEIS

Dear Ms. Hulkower:

New York Rivers United (NYRU) is a statewide river conservation organization. Our Mission is is to “conserve, protect and restore the rivers of New York State”. We have had great success on this endeavor and have expertise in identifying potential problems. The Hudson River is one of our State’s, our Nations greatest river resources.

We are writing to urge the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to withdraw the proposal to remove 935,000 cubic yards of sediment to create a 300-foot wide, 6,000- foot long navigational channel to a depth of -24 feet Mean Low Water (MLW), in the vicinity of the Hudson City Light to the north dock at Union Street, Athens, New York.

It is clear based on the Draft Design Report & Draft Environmental Impact Statement that this project is neither economically nor environmentally justified.

Adequacy of Public Comment Period
Rivers are a public resource and have great importance to all. Every effort must be made to ensure the fullest public input. NYRU objects to the timing and adequacy of the Public Comment period for this project. It has been eight years since the Congressional action that precipitated this Study. It has been nearly three years since the Corps initiated a public outreach process for this project. Between then and now there has been no public information disseminated until the release of the DEIS and related documents in December 2004. And yet, the Public and interested Government Agencies are given a mere thirty days, spanning the year end holiday season, to review and comment on this significant, costly and complex proposal.

We specifically ask that:
∑ The Corps schedule a Public Hearing, and
∑ The Corps extend the Public Comment period for at least sixty days to allow all interested parties to properly review and comment.

The lack of sufficient time for Public Comment on this project is especially significant in view of the many serious economic, environmental and public policy questions raised by this proposal, as discussed below. NYRU is especially concerned with the environmental impacts of this project

Environmental Impacts
This project will result in a great number of significant environmental impacts. Significant and valuable fish and wildlife habitat exist in the waters adjacent to the Middle Ground Flats.

The most noteworthy project impact is to fish spawning habitat. As is stated in the Draft Design Report the project area is a “spawning area for several anadromous fish species including American shad (Alosa sapidissima), stripped bass (Morone saxatilis), herring (Alosa aestivalis), and the endangered shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), as well as a variety of resident species.” (p. 5)

The DEIS points out that “Maintenance dredging of the Hudson navigation channel has also been considered a problem for the Hudson River shortnose sturgeon stock. In particular, hydraulic dredges can lethally harm sturgeon by entraining sturgeon in the dredge dragarms and impeller pumps.” (p. 21)

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in its assessment of this proposal indicated, “The dredging has the potential to impact important spawning and nursery areas for the American shad, blueback herring, and alewife,” and that “There are also likely to be cumulative effects
associated with other proposed dredging projects in the vicinity of the project area considered.”
The USFWS also stated, “Dredging would change the substrate profile from a relatively flat bottom to a sloped condition with corresponding changes in current speed and pattern, which may keep eggs and fry suspended in the water column a for a longer period of time, thus increasing their vulnerability to predators.” (p. 12)

Economically Unjustified
The Corps states in the Draft Design Report that: “The net effect of these changes has produced a finding that the project is not economically justified at either the -24 ft MLW or the -26 ft. MLW depths.” (p. 12). There are several other references in the Draft Design Report and the DEIS indicating that this $30 million project does not make economic sense. The expenditure of $20 million of federal monies is unacceptable particularly in light of the fact that one company “Peckham Industries, Inc., would be the primary beneficiary of the deepening.” (p. 5) In addition, there is currently no local sponsor willing to pick up the $10 million balance neither for the project nor for operation and maintenance costs.

The Corps is given Congressional authorization that allows the deepening of the channel to –24 feet MLW. The barges that use this channel need “draw up to -26 feet when fully loaded.” The fact that the proposed project does not meet shipping needs is additional reason to withdraw this project.

The Corps Colonel Richard J. Polo, Jr., District Engineer states in the Design Report that
“I have determined that there is no feasible project that meets the Principles and Guidelines of the Water Resources Council. However, based upon authorizing legislation that has directed Federal interest in water resources improvements, the design phase will proceed for the navigation improvements at the Hudson River, Athens project, with such modification thereof as in the discretion of the Commander, HOUSACE, as may be advisable.”

Dredge Spoil Disposal
The Corps proposal to dispose of 935,000 CY of material on Houghtaling Island (an existing USACE-owned dredged material placement site) raises serious environmental concerns as well.

Historically, channel maintenance dredging has resulted in the filling of wetlands along the Hudson River. “The loss of wetlands has resulted in a reduction in the quantity of habitat available for emergent wetland – and/or mudflat-dependent wildlife such as waterfowl, shorebirds, and semiaquatic mammals such as muskrats (Ondatra zibethica) and mink (Mustela vison). Nursery and forage habitat for fish has also been lost.” (p. 6)

The USFWS assessment clearly indicated that the there will be detrimental impacts to species of concern such as the cerulean warbler. The cerulean warbler is considered a species of concern by the USFWS and a species of special concern by the NYSDEC. The USFWS indicated, “The proposed expansion of the active disposal site will result in the loss of mature forested upland and possibly isolated wetland habitat as the area is cleared and graded. Numerous forest bird and wildlife species, including the cerulean warbler, will lose habitat.” (p. 14) They also state “clearing and continued use of the proposed dredge disposal area will result in the direct loss of cerulean warbler habitat…” (p.10)

Cultural Resources
This project also has the potential to significantly impact cultural resources. Of the “31 vessels” discovered, “nine are eligible” to be placed on the National Register of Historic Places and “all are recommend for additional work…” (p. 6)

In addition “historic ice houses” have been discovered on Houghtaling Island and all three are eligible for placement on the National Register of Historic Places.

Contaminated sediment
Based on the DEIS “nine sediment samples were collected along the proposed channel alignment” (p. 8) to determine if the sediment are contaminated. The DEIS reports that “No hazardous, toxic, or radioactive waste (HRTW) levels were found.” (p. 16) and that the contamination ranged from “marginally impacted” to “suitable” for construction of wetlands and upland disposal. The DEIS does not, however include any of the data, or the methodology used to gather and analyze the data. The data collected should be provided as part of the DEIS.

The USFWS report indicated “sediments at the Athens Ferry Slip (outside the project alignment) were found to have higher concentrations of PCBs (3,230ppb) than the area proposed for dredging.

We would support the USFWS recommendation, “that the Corps accurately delineate the contaminated areas prior to construction, make these area known to project contractors, and isolate these areas form the work area. …”the Corps model the potential lateral movement of contaminants as well as the movement of sediments that may become exposed during side-slope sloughing and make appropriate modification…to avoid resuspension of contaminants.”

Material should be analyzed prior to use for “capping purposes in advance of creating wetlands.”

Current impacts on water quality
Part of the justification for this project is that current barge scouring is negatively impacting water quality in the area. The significance of the current barge scour problem and its impact on water quality should be clearly understood and ameliorated regardless of whether or not this dredging project goes forward.

Controlling resuspension
The DEIS is lacking in its discussion on how resuspension would be controlled during the dredging operation. Suspended solids may reduce photosynthesis and reduce dissolved oxygen “and result in fish and benthic mortality.”

If the project proceeds, engineering measures such as silt curtains should be used to minimize the movement of suspended solids.

Turbidity monitoring should be conducted during the dredging operation and if water quality problems arise the operation should cease and the problem corrected. In addition the long-term cumulative impacts of operation and maintenance dredging have not been fully explored and are in need of further assessment.

Thank you very mush for the opportunity to comment and we look forward to a response from our action. Should you wish to contact me, I can be reached at (315) 339-20097 or via e-mail mailto:bruce_carpenter@newyorkriversunited.org:

Sincerely,

Bruce Carpenter, Executive Director

Copy: Congressman John Sweeney
NYSDEC Commissioner Erin Crotty
Ms. Bonnie Hulkower, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Andrew Fahlund, American Rivers
Richard Roos-Collins, ESQ

West Canda Creek

2004-12-13T13:00:00.000-08:00

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

2004-12-13T11:50:00.000-08:00

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.

School St. -- Mohawk River

2004-12-09T08:32:00.000-08:00

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.

A New Wave

2004-12-08T13:54:00.000-08:00

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.