This post is all part of that reoccurring theme on Canal Safety - Re: Facebook Group Founder does not like the new Canal Integrity Website

Just to be clear, the biggest change with the NYS Canal Corporation's Canal Integrity website, is that it finally is addressing the misinformation being spread by a certain Facebook group in Perinton. Not only has the new Canal Integrity website come out with a renewed emphasis on Safety, it is also answering many of the "fake facts" being spread around by this Facebook Group on their Google Website for Stop the Canal Clearcut.

NYS Canal Integrity vs. Stop the Canal Clear-cut

Let's take a look side by side at the Canal Embankment Integrity website and the Google site hosted by Ms. Agte and her Facebook group. In that comparison you will start to understand why this new webpage from the NYS canal folks has Ms. Agte and her group so quiet these days. It's about something that eludes this Facebook opposition group, as seen in their Safety Statements. It's called the truth.

First, let's start here with the statements from the NYSCC regarding Canal Embankment Safety, directly from their new Website:

https://www.nyscanalintegrity.org/

"As responsible stewards of the Canal system, we must ensure its integrity." "To protect the New York State Canal system and preserve it for generations to come—from problems only exacerbated by climate change—we’re laying the groundwork today."

Program Mission - To restore, maintain and manage approximately 125 miles of earthen embankments along the 524-mile Canal system to ensure the Canal continues to operate safely for generations to come.

Program Vision - A future state where Canal embankments are safe, secure and well maintained for the benefit of adjacent communities, boaters and trail users, and where our approach balances public safety and the habitat, carbon sequestration, and recreational benefits of the ecosystems along the Canal.

Proposed Earthen Embankment Integrity Program - The Canal system reaches 524 miles across the state. Of those, about 125 miles run through earthen embankments. To maintain and preserve these embankments and the experiences of all who use our system, we are developing an Earthen Embankment Integrity Program (EEIP).

Earthen Embankment Integrity Program Overview

For a total of approximately 125 miles of its 524-mile length, the Canal runs through built earthen embankments. These embankment structures exist at many non-continuous points along the Canal, but the concentration of high hazard large embankments is located between Lockport in Niagara County and Lyons in Wayne County (shorter stretches of high hazard embankments are found elsewhere). “High hazard” means that failure would likely result in, among other things, loss of life or widespread economic impact.

The New York State Canal Corporation is developing 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. While there will be a presumption that all trees and other unsuitable vegetation will be cleared to protect people and property, the guidebook will also recognize opportunities to consider alternatives to tree clearing in areas used for recreation, parks, municipal, residential and commercial areas.


Here is what the OWNERS of the Canal system have said about the consequences of taking "No Action" on their high-hazard, earthen embankments that are now unsafe, in the SEQR Environmental Review:

2.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED - Null or No-Action Alternative
The null or no-action alternative is to ignore earthen embankment conditions. This alternative is unacceptable. NYSCC is required by law to perform annual inspections of the Canal System and maintain the Canal System in good condition, which includes the earthen embankments. Under this alternative, trees and vegetation would be allowed to grow on embankment slopes, weakening them and creating seepage paths.

The complete absence of a program means there is no active monitoring and inspections of earthen embankment conditions, and there are no policies or guidelines for evaluating and prioritizing embankment maintenance and repairs. With no monitoring and maintenance activities, NYSCC will fail to meet its statutory duty and the earthen embankments would be left to fail.

The Earthen Embankments would be left to fail... sounds quite ominous.

Well that's because right after making the statement about failing embankments the Canal Corporation document goes on to describe what that would look like, what would happen exactly when an embankment were to fail.

Under the Null or No-Action Alternative, any earthen embankments would be left to fail. Prior to any such failure, there would be little or no measurable impact to floodplains inside or outside of the earthen embankments.

At such time that the embankments would fail, water contained within the canal prism would be rapidly released. The risks associated with such an event are described in Appendix B. Depending on the location of the breach the surrounding area would be inundated to various depths depending on topography. A breach in a canal or feeder embankment having a water depth of 12 feet is estimated to occur over 1½ hours, enlarge to 150 feet wide and discharge a peak flow of between 5,000 and 10,000 cfs.

This water would be released as a flood wave that would have the potential to cause serious damage or destroy downstream homes and businesses. The most significant impact would be loss of life from occupied structures in the flood wave path. Other damage would include buildings, highways and utility infrastructure within the inundation zone. Additional damage would be caused to public parkland, agricultural lands, historic resources or aesthetic resources of local or statewide importance.

The water quality of the canal itself and downstream waterways would be impacted by the flood wave. After the breach flood wave, the floodplain of adjacent or downstream waterways would be impacted by the deposition of sediment from the flood. The resulting flood wave would seriously impact existing land uses for the inundated terrain outside the canal limits.

In addition to potential loss of life and damage to infrastructure, most of the flooded lands would be rendered unusable until restoration projects were completed. Impacts of odors could be particularly noticeable as a result of indirect impacts of flooding such as the growth of mold and from backed up storm and sanitary sewers.


For those who can't picture how much water this is... here's the math.



That is somewhere between 4 to 8 Olympic-sized swimming pools being drained...EVERY MINUTE!

Canal Neighbors, communities, and those using the canal system, should consider how devastating a canal embankment flood would be


So what does the Stop the Canal Clear-cut Facebook group say about Canal Embankment Safety?

That is safety for the NY Canal System itself, so it can be here for another 100 years.

And it's also for the safety of the communities and neighbors who live below these aging earthen dams.

It's all on their Google Website: https://sites.google.com/view/eriecanalclearcutting/what-about-safety?authuser=0



If you read through the Safety webpage on Google, for this group, you will see an initial statement from the group about their thoughts on Safety.. they are all for it.

From Ms. Agte and her STCC Group: "First, we want to be clear that those of us involved in Stop the Canal ClearCut live in the communities that are around the raised embankments of the Canal. We absolutely do NOT want to put our friends, neighbors, and community at risk.

The first two sentences sound like the group is sincere about the safety of their fellow man... But then they go on to use their entire Safety page to say they do NOT believe the OWNERS of the canal understand their own safety issues. They spend time trying to refute the experts on Earthen Dam Safety with their own "facts", and at the end even state that they do not even believe Canal Embankments are actually "earthen dams".

We also want to protect the value of the Canal to our communities, and for many Canal trail users and Canal-reliant businesses, that means preserving the natural values of the canal -- natural scenery, the presence of birds and other animals that use the wooded corridors as habitat, the cool, quiet sanctuary that the path provides in highly human-impacted environments. 

So why do we think the natural vegetation can and should be preserved when the Canal Corporation is adamant that it should be removed?


It seems that the STCC group, and it's founders, have no other answer than "pure denial", to what the Canal Corporation has stated about it's Embankment Safety issues, and 100s of miles of high-hazard earthen dams, that leave canal communities at risk of flood & destruction. Just deny it all and say it's all "fear-mongering".

Their last statement -"why do we think the natural vegetation can and should be preserved?"says it all... they deny what the Canal Corporation is saying about safety, and trees on dams.

And still more...this time the topic is Tree Roots, do they really "stabilize" soil?

The Canal Corporation has been very clear on this subject, and have stated it several times... No Trees on Dams. The main reason is because tree roots negatively affect the stability of earthen dams.

Here's the TRUTH from a FEMA Technical Manual on Plants near Dams that is being used to guide embankment maintenance:

https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-08/fema-534.pdf

Chapter 3- Tree Growth and Tree Root Development Requirements
The purpose of this chapter is to provide the reader and user of this Manual with a basic understanding of plant physiology related to fundamental processes of tree growth and tree root development. It is not the intent of this chapter to delve into a detailed biological
study of trees and woody vegetation, but to provide the reader with a fundamental understanding of the requirements for tree growth and tree root development while attempting to dispel some of the misconceptions and myths associated with tree and woody vegetation growth, particularly as related to tree root development.

Common Myths and Misconceptions: There are many misconceptions and common myths relating to trees and woody vegetation that have been accepted by many people without a scientific basis. Many of these common myths and misconceptions relative to plant physiology have originated from uneducated interpretations of observations associated with tree growth and tree root development. Some of these myths and misconceptions associated with trees and woody vegetation affect correct interpretation and understanding of the impact of such growth on the safety of earthen dams.

Tree Root Soil Stabilization is likely the most common misconception associated with tree growth and tree root development. How many times has the reader heard, or perhaps mistakenly said, “If it were not for those trees and tree roots this slope would really be eroded or unstable – those tree roots are really ‘holding’ that soil slope”.

Many otherwise knowledgeable and educated individuals believe the myth that tree roots actually stabilize soil masses by ‘holding’ the soil together. This misconception leads many people to believe that heavy tree and woody vegetation growth is actually beneficial for steep embankment slopes.

Tree root development that is necessary to provide nutrients for tree growth and stabilize the tree actually loosens the soil mass.
 

And what does a Facebook Group say about this soil stabilization topic?

Well the group's founder says it all...they want to believe the "myth", even though it's actually untrue.

From the STCC Google Website:

...it is clear from the the structure of the embankments that they are not made of compacted earth the way a dam that creates a reservoir is.  They are piles of dirt, whose stability may, in fact, depend on the roots that form a dense network within them.

The first clue that this document lacked input from plant biologists and ecologists is this eye-popping statement, that the well-established fact that tree roots do in fact stabilize soil, is a "myth", and that roots in fact "destabilize soil". 

Where did this statement come from?

The STCC asked who wrote this statement that is OPPOSITE of what they want to believe?

It's from the people who cleanup AFTER floods happen, and the group responsible to insure Dam Safety is maintained in our country FEMA...and FEMA is stating that this STCC Facebook Group believes a MYTH!!!