Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 60 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Message icon:

Verification: Search engine are not allowed to complete captchas

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Topic Summary

Posted by: Doug K
« on: August 12, 2020, 04:18:40 pm »

I stand corrected... the Stop the Canal Clear-cut Group on Facebook has been posting... and it is about falling trees along the Erie Canal.

This LARGE tree  came right across the Canal Path where someone could have been seriously hurt. That fact doesn't seem to register with this group.

Remember what their Founder Elizabeth Agte says: "There are NO issues with Trees on the Canal, Shade is Cool" And remember what Co-Founder Ginny Borden-Maier says: " There's NO ISSUE with Trees along the Erie Canal, Trees give us Oxygen"

Also see what a Group Leader Janice Goudethorpe stated..."Lovely day for a ride on the shady side of the canal. #shadeiscool". And just like a good soldier Donna White added how nice the "Canopies of Shade were"

And then it all came crashing down on their heads, and the Empire Trail... LITERALLY!

Thank you Ms White for a sharing and subtly trying to make the leaders of this Facebook group reconsider their statements

Posted by: Doug K
« on: August 12, 2020, 03:28:44 pm »

Does anyone remember what the NYS Canal Corporation said about Unsafe Trees & Unsafe Dams at the start of their Embankment Work?

I believe it was that Trees are causing issues for boaters and have made the raised Embankment Dams unsafe.. if I recall. But a Fairport, NY based group of naysayers, disagreed with those statements, and called the Canal Corporation liars that were over-hyping safety.That Facebook group has ALSO been SILENT as of late, wonder if it's because they see these Notice to Mariners as well.

Because in the NYS Canal Corporation it's just another day that a near miss happened and trees fell again along or into the canal

Now I'm sure that this Facebook group is already hatching their next explanation. Most likely the STCC Leaders will claim that the Canal Corporation is placing these trees in the water and pushing them over to block the main  Erie Canal waterway. Just so they can issue these Notices to Mariners afterwards. Like the New York State Canal Corporation has nothing better to do with a 500 mile Canal System that's crumbing before their eyes, and a group that's been standing in their way to fix it.

How long before we hear on a story line like this on our local news stations?

New at 6pm: Large Tree Falls along the Erie Canal today killing a biker & hiker in Monroe County

Remember when that happens the first people who will be up in arms will be this same group that has been trying to stop the Canal Corporation from fixing their falling tree issues.. the Stop the Canal Clear Cut Group on Facebook.

Posted by: Doug K
« on: August 11, 2020, 06:02:56 pm »

Thank you EC... couldn't help but notice the Header of that Article

And now look at what the NYS Canal Corporation has stated needs to be done with their Earthen Embankment Integrity Program... my highlights in red.

You would think it might be best for public safety's sake if some Facebook people stopped trying to get in the way of doing what's necessary to fix unsafe dams.

Use some "common sense" to let the owners of a property & problem repair whats wrong and finally get on the right side of Common Law.

Posted by: Erie Canaller
« on: August 11, 2020, 02:46:07 pm »

Found this on the Canal Corporation website, seems dam safety isn't just about stopping floods.

It's also about the owners risk management and compliance with laws that say stored water is a danger.
Posted by: Doug K
« on: August 10, 2020, 11:12:42 am »

The other missing word from the STCC Leaders is safety, namely PUBLIC safety

The only time this Facebook group mentions that word, is to casually dismiss it as not an issue.

To them the data, science and FACT around Unsafe Erie Canal Embankments is "hearsay and conjecture". despite the fact it is mentio0ned by the OWNERS of the property in question EVERY time there is a conversation.

Can't begin to tell you how "lucky" many people are that these LEADERS of the Stop the Canal Clear-cut Facebook group aren't living in their Town or Village.

This group has the biggest issue and leadership can, "they don't know what they don't know".

And that means danger for all those who do know...

Just because a Facebook group says "Trees are Good" doesn't make it true, quite the contrary according to the last 10 days on the Erie Canal and the Owners who have been warning about danger trees for 3 years now.

Anyone using the Empire Trail or the NYS Canal System these days, should be looking upward, just to make sure a tree doesn't ruin their day, and their boat, or the rest of their life. Tall Trees on Dams are not good, and neither are tall trees next to the waterway

Posted by: Michael Caswell
« on: June 26, 2020, 01:13:02 pm »


Why on earth would you catalog dead trees?
Why would NYPA get a soil sample from an earthen dam when they will be adding tons of embankment soil to the outboard slope?
What's the purpose of cataloging all this?
It will be GRASS from now on!
Posted by: Michael Caswell
« on: June 26, 2020, 06:13:08 am »

Ms Agte's latest rant!

Elizabeth R. Agte
9 hrs
My comment written yesterday..deadline for comments is July 3, 2020.

June 24, 2020
To whom it concerns:
I am submitting my comment about the NYSCC scoping document, specifically the Null Alternative and the Ad Hoc Alternative.
First, due to their brevity and some of the language used, I don’t think that the Canal Corporation expects either of these alternatives to be taken seriously. This goes back to the Canal Corporation/NYPA saying there is only ONE way to treat earthen embankments that provides 100% safety. (Which in itself is not fact-based and is false, there is no such thing at a 100% sure solution.)
The null alternative is obviously untenable, because NYPA cannot do nothing or it would face lawsuits. So even entering it into the scoping document is sarcastic at best.
The ad hoc alternative isn’t much better. It uses words that suggest it is also as stupid an idea as doing nothing with phrases like “without the benefit of a formalized plan” or “undefined range of actions” or “lacks clearly defined cohesive planning processes”.
The dictionary definition of “ad hoc” is: created or done for a particular purpose as necessary. A synonym is expedient.
We at STOP the CANAL CLEAR CUT have been asking NYPA since day one if they have been documenting their actions in order to create a paper trail going forward. Collecting data is absolutely necessary for any venture or they have no historical perspective, and no idea if they are constantly reinventing the wheel. At the very first meeting in Perinton January, 2018 we asked if soil samples had been collected. If the number of trees cut had been cataloged as far as number, age, condition. When they started to remove stumps we asked again, was similar data collected about the root balls when they were removed? Were there any signs of seepage? How deep did the root balls extend? In summary, was any science done to determine if any of those old trees were of danger? Has any documentation been done to determine if the new embankments are more or less stable? We continue to be told that the information is not available or collected.
To me that would suggest that NYPA is already operating “without the benefit of a formalized program” with “an undefined range of actions”.
I think the ad hoc alternative is dismissive and lacks in positive substance. One can have an ad hoc solution that is absolutely formalized. An ad hoc solution can absolutely have a defined range of actions. An ad hoc solution can absolutely “ensure long range integrity of earthen embankments.”
This document intentionally makes the ad hoc alternative sound unstable, unsafe and guided by randomness and chaos. The “tailored approach” that NYPA promised us two and a half years ago, is anything but random or chaotic, as long as professionals and scientists and arborists, and ecologists are consulted in a plan that is wise, tampers as little as possible, and is expeditious . Do what needs to be done and not more.
I know that the people who work at NYPA are smart, intelligent people, so I don’t need to continue to reiterate the absolute necessity of formulating an ad hoc portion of the document that is worthy. What is in the scoping document now is showing their arrogance.
We must remember that we are talking about a maintenance program for trees on embankments. Trees that have never caused a canal breach. Having a twelve page plan for tree removal and one half page that suggests there might be a way to keep trees says, “but not really…”
Do what needs to be done and no more.

Sounds like a desperate last minute attempt to change the inevitable.

Here's the main point.  -- Ms Agte says - "We must remember that we are talking about a maintenance program for trees on embankments. "
Did you notice a big word is missing? (actually it's quite small)  DAM!  I mean Embankment DAM! They just can't bring themselves to use the word DAM. Because DAM is completely different to 'Embankment'. It brings in a completely different set of rules, which don't bode well for trees on a DAM. All the experts agree, no trees on a dam! It's dangerous, and by Agte et al continuing with this line, they are putting people's lives at risk. Shame on them.

And lest we forget, The STCC called in an expert witness in their lawsuit, and he testified in court on their behalf.  He later recanted this statement, as he had no idea the STCC were discussing a DAM, and not an embankment or levee, until we told him.

" I don’t know of any earth dams where woody vegetation was purposely planted or allowed to grow on a face of the dam"

The STCC has, it seems, conveniently forgotten this comment from Professor Gray.