July 2021 Update and Action

All of the documents related to the EIS are at this link https://www.canals.ny.gov/Earthen_Embankment/Guidebook.html

It's a little confusing, but the guidebook itself is the file named "2021-03-09 Draft Final Embankment Management Guidebook." and the full EIS document is "NYSCC EIP draft GEIS 03-12-2021 Combined"

The Canal Corporation is accepting public comments on the Canal Clearcutting Program.

There are lots of details available on this website, but if your primary concern is simply saving and restoring the natural landscape of the Erie Canal trail, we made it easy to communicate with the Canal Corporation at the link at the top of this page. The comments you make go to the Canal Corporation, legislators along the Canal, and Gov. Hochul's office.

(Older text) please mail NYSCC-Embankments@bergmannpc.com Tell them that you believe that trees belong on the embankments of the Erie canal because the embankments were not built as a dam and should not be managed as a dam. Tell them that the cost of removing the trees to your enjoyment of the canal, to the natural qualities of the canal trail, and to the attractiveness of the canal as a local amenity and tourist site is very high relative to the minor and unproven safety and operational benefits. We don't have to give up all of the trees to meet the maintenance requirements and to have a Canal trail that is safe, beautiful, and enjoyable. A better plan could be designed with the input of biologists and the public.

Further Actions:

1) Send the same comments to the governor by following this link: https://www.governor.ny.gov/content/governor-contact-form

2) Contact the NY Power Authority Trustees: email at secretarysoffice@nypa.gov

3) Contact your own state legislators to ask THEM to communicate with the NYPA (and Governor) on your behalf. (Assembly members) (Senate members)

4) If you belong to a local or statewide environmental group, please encourage them to contact the Governor and the NYPA.

Background: Approximately 125 miles of the 524-mile long Erie Canal runs through built earthen embankments. Most of these embankments are located between Lockport in Niagara County and Lyons in Wayne County. Local communities stopped the Canal Corporation (NYSCC) as it was clearcutting these embankments in 2017, successfully arguing in court that they had illegally skipped the environmental review process required by the State Environmental Quality Review Act, SEQR (“seeker”).

In response to this successful challenge, the NYSCC created the Earthen Embankment Integrity Program (EEIP). The major focus of the EEIP is an embankment inspection and maintenance guidebook that sets forth "protocols for safety, inspection, maintenance, community outreach and related environmental concerns, including a procedural approach as to where trees will be removed.”

To avoid running afoul of SEQR again, NYSCC is subjecting this manual to environmental review – a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS). This is not an unusual approach – often when a community produces a new comprehensive plan for instance, they produce a GEIS to help identify environmental issues and allow for public comment. You can follow this link for all of the Environmental Impact Statement documentation. But, be warned, it is several hundred pages!

Previous Update from June 2020

What we are being allowed to comment on right now is the “Scoping Document” for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Earthen Embankment Integrity Program. What does all that mean?

Approximately 125 miles of the 524-mile long Erie Canal runs through built earthen embankments. Most of these embankments are located between Lockport in Niagara County and Lyons in Wayne County. Local communities stopped the Canal Corporation (NYSCC) as it was clearcutting these embankments in 2017, successfully arguing in court that they had illegally skipped the environmental review process required by the State Environmental Quality Review Act, SEQR (“seeker”).

In response to this successful challenge, the NYSCC created the Earthen Embankment Integrity Program (EEIP). The major focus of the EEIP is producing an embankment inspection and maintenance guidebook that will “set forth protocols for safety, inspection, maintenance, community outreach and related environmental concerns, including a procedural approach as to where trees will be removed.”

To avoid running afoul of SEQR again, NYSCC is subjecting this manual to environmental review – a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS). This is not an unusual approach – often when a community produces a new comprehensive plan for instance, they produce a GEIS to help identify environmental issues and allow for public comment.

The first step of the GEIS process is to establish the “scope” of the environmental review. This document is not the GEIS, which will likely be 100s of pages long, so we shouldn’t expect it to address specifics. Here’s how the SEQR Handbook describes the objectives of a scoping document (p 100, link here https://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6188.html)

• Identify the significant environmental conditions and resources that may be affected by the project;

• Describe the extent and quality of information needed;

• Specify possible measures for mitigating potential impacts that must be discussed in the EIS, to the extent that they can be identified at the time of scoping.

• Define reasonable alternatives for avoiding specific impacts which must be included in the EIS, either as individual scenarios or a range of alternatives.

The process of scoping requires public input. According to the SEQR Handbook (p 106):

Early public review and input can ultimately shorten the SEQR review process by raising potentially contentious issues early on, allowing the lead agency and project sponsor to address them in a timely manner. Even if the lead agency later determines that some issues raised by the public do not constitute “potentially significant impacts” and does not include them in the final scope for the EIS, the record will show that they were raised as well as explain why they are not being considered further.

It is very important that we contribute comments in this scoping process in order to potentially shape what will be considered, and at least to “have them on the record.”

And because the NYSCC can simply ignore our input with little consequence, it is also very important to share these comments with our elected officials, especially Governor Cuomo and Town Supervisors along the canal. Use this form for contacting the governor.

If you have the time and interest, we encourage you to read the scoping document (link to PDF) and make specific comments. Pages 4 – 12 are especially relevant. If you see a topic raised that you have an interest in (for instance, pesticide pollution), look at the sources of information they will be using to identify both impacts and possible mitigation measures. If you think they are missing an impact or have omitted an information source, please let them know. I’ve put my comments here for reference. Feel free to use any part of them. Comments should be directed to Jamie.Verrigni@canals.ny.gov AND NYSCC-Embankments@bergmannpc.com

Virginia Maier, comments on Draft Scoping Document for the Earthen Embankment Integrity Program Generic Environmental Impact Statement

June 2020

First, while it is heartening that this scoping document describes NYSCC’s commitment to mitigation measures (p. 12), the underlying premise of the EEIP is fundamentally wrong. The NYSCC states the following on its website: “there will be a presumption that all trees and other unsuitable vegetation will be cleared to protect people and property.” This presumption is not supported by science or experience. While it is true that FEMA guidelines for earthen dams make a blanket statement that trees and woody vegetation endanger the stability of these structures, the raised embankments of the Erie Canal are not dams, and there is no science and remarkably little anecdote to support the position that they are endangered by trees, regardless. The NYSCC’s own experience with raised, forested embankments tells us that in the 100 year history of the Erie Barge Canal, no breaches or emergencies have been caused by trees. In fact, the only breaches that have occurred are due to the failure of human built structures like culverts, or by people digging around and under the canal. Rather, given the web-like nature of woody roots in a forest and the well-established role of trees in stabilizing hillsides, it is much more likely that woody plants reinforce these raised embankments and protect nearby properties. Citizens have been making a positive case for trees on the raised canal embankments since the start of the NYSCC’s tree removal project in 2017. While we were successful in stopping the canal clearcut by suing to force environmental review, the NYSCC continues to insist that tree removal is the preferred condition. That the proposed EEIP manual is developed around the assumption that trees are a risk elevates unproven safety concerns over the known and measurable benefits of an intact environment and forested canalway. The NYSCC’s default position will undoubtably result in the needless environmental degradation of this incredible historic and ecological resource.

The scoping document in several places defines a strikingly narrow view of the possible environmental impact of the EEIP. The most important issue missing in this scope is any study of the effect of proposed management activities on climate. Removal of woody vegetation and its replacement with maintained grass lawn will significantly increase the carbon footprint of the canal. Carbon dioxide now captured in wood will be released into the atmosphere when trees are cut, and grass and field vegetation provide a much smaller carbon sink than forested embankments. Additionally, the machines that remove trees and maintain lawn consume fuel and release carbon dioxide. The EIS should be required to calculate the carbon cost of tree removal compared to other management strategies and describe the mitigation measures that will be employed to protect the climate should trees be removed.

A second issue missing from the scoping document is analysis of the effects of tree removal on human health as impacted by environmental conditions. Removing the shade produced by embankment trees will increase trail users’ exposure to harmful UV radiation and increase the risk of heat-related illness. Additionally, the presence of forested vegetation has documented benefits for human mental health, and thus its removal from well-used recreational areas will carry a psychological cost. The EIS should include information about how to measure these and other human health costs and address how these losses may be mitigated should trees be removed.

Among the issues that are in the scoping document, several are too narrowly defined. The scope of study about plant and animal impacts, covered on page 7 – 8, limits the EIS to considering only rare, threatened, or endangered species (RTEs) and “other...species of concern,” and “sensitive habitats.” This scope is not broad enough to capture the environmental concerns related to flora and fauna in the canal corridor. Many of the trees removed during the clearcut in 2017 were common species, but they were old. Replacing old trees with young trees, or no trees at all, affects the number and type of animals that live on the embankments and in the adjacent canal, including common birds that provide both environmental and aesthetic benefits. The EIS should be required to quantify the benefits of a forested embankments as habitat for even common species of plants and animals, and describe how the loss of these benefits will be mitigated if mature trees are removed. The sources of information for this could include current estimates of forest cover in the area of the project, and studies by forest ecologists, ornithologists, ichthyologists, herpetologists, and entomologists. These scientists have the expertise to examine the entire landscape context of a forested embankment and quantify its value to even relatively common species, rather than simply survey for the presence/absence of rare species. Regions where the forested embankment is among the largest continuous forested corridors should be protected to ensure ecological integrity, even if these areas contain few or no rare and endangered species.

Discussion of the impact on aesthetic resources, on page 8, is also too narrowly scoped, and fails to address the Erie Canal’s status as a National Heritage Area. As defined by the National Park Service, a National Heritage Area is a landscape that has “nationally distinctive natural, cultural, and historic resources that, when linked together, tell a unique story about our country.” This definition requires that even distinct embankment management areas must be considered as part of a whole. The current scoping document appears to limit its assessment of aesthetic impact to only those areas defined by local and state governments as “aesthetically sensitive areas.” Much like the narrow focus in the plant and animal impact section will degrade the overall wildlife value of the canal, this narrow scoping will permit the piecemeal erosion of the aesthetic integrity of the continuous forested embankments of the Canal. The scoping document should be revised to address how embankment management plans will be evaluated in light of the intent of the Canal’s National Heritage Area designation along its length, and how the technical expertise of the National Parks Service will be integrated into these evaluations.

Relatedly, on page 9, discussion of the impact of the EEIP on historic resources includes this phrase: “removal of woody vegetation is consistent with the earthen embankment’s historic character and with the cultural landscape created by the canal.” This statement should be removed from the document. While it is likely true that the embankments were treeless after earth was moved to create these structures, it is unreasonable to assume that the canal’s appearance immediately after construction is the most “historically accurate” condition. This is akin to saying that because the Statue of Liberty was originally shiny copper, its current green patina is ahistorical and its original shiny condition should be restored and maintained. Additionally, there appears to be no indication that the Canal embankments were meant to remain treeless -- historical paintings of the original Erie Canal and photos from not long after its rebuilding into the Barge canal indicate the presence of mature trees on embankments. Aerial photos from the 1930’s, less than 2 decades after the Barge canal reconstruction, indicate that large trees had established on many sections of rebuilt raised embankments, even by then. The inclusion of this “consistent with the historic character” phrase in the scoping document indicates that the Canal Corporation is already planning to make affirmative historical arguments to justify tree removal. To avoid the likely codification of this bias, even if this statement is removed, the scoping document should require that the information listed as needed for historical evaluation will be made available, reviewed, and analyzed by a panel of independent historians as part of the final EIS.

Point 12 on page 10 addresses noise and light impacts to neighbors of the Canal of permanent loss of vegetation. The information gathered for the EIS again is too narrow, as it does not include the significant effect of loss of vegetation in reducing individual and neighborhood property value, and on the economic value of the Canal trail as an aesthetically desirable recreational resource. As these losses would be expected as a direct result of the environmental changes wrought by the NYSCC’s preferred embankment management modality, methods of their calculation and proposed mitigation measures should be included in the EIS.

Finally, in its discussion of alternatives, the scoping document describes the “Ad Hoc Alternative” – that is, current practice – as in contrast to this proposed cohesive EEIP planning process. The ad hoc planning process has been largely successful in maintaining the integrity of the embankments, the safety of the public, and has led to a decades-long increase in the environmental, aesthetic, and tourism value of the Erie Canal. If the focus of the EEIP manual maintains the presumption that “trees do not belong on raised embankments,” the analysis of the status quo ad hoc approach should be exceptionally robust given its long history of success. In particular, the actual documented risk of maintaining a flexible, ad hoc process that prioritizes maintaining the forested embankments should be well-defined and articulated. This is crucial, so that readers of the EIS will know what the projected change in safety is of implementing this new management plan, relative to the large environmental tradeoffs that result from tree removal. Such an analysis will require experts from many areas of science, not just dam engineers, but also ecologists, environmental engineers, plant biologists, and landscape architects, among others.