Couldn't help it folks.. I feel bad for smart folks who are being guided by some that aren't so inclined.
Kerri Neale has asked a question for days now on the STCC website without answer... so we can help. Mr. Neale, if you are out there you can find all what you need to know here:
http://www.canals.ny.gov/Earthen_Embankment/overview.html
So the OLD project for Embankment Restoration is OVER, final touches on Barrier Screening Planting is the last step slated for Aug-Sept 2019
This is the REPLACEMENT...with the SEQR that your group requested. The three towns on the EAST side were moved into this PROGRAM

And the NEW program...the Earthen Embankment Integrity Program or EEIP, well it covers ALL original project areas that EERP did as well as all of the state EAST of where that last project left off...including Spencerport, Pittsford, Brighton & Perinton. The NY Canal Corporation has stated plainly that these areas have the HIGHEST concentration of unsafe Embankment Dams in the entire canal system
WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN?Well it's quite simple actually...the topic has landed back on safety...and that is a painful topic for the STCC, one they work to avoid. Here's a few suggestions from a group who's working to help Erie Canal neighbors... take em or leave em... no matter to us. just trying to help.
1) The Canal Embankments are called Dams... get used to that word and start using it. They are also Unsafe Dams if they have TREES on them. So when you say you want these unsafe dams left in our communities..please state that plainly. We like Unsafe Dams.If you try to call them anything else the conversation will be over with the folks trying to FIX those unsafe dam conditions.
2) If you want to say SHADE is more important than Safety of Unsafe Dams...go right ahead with that one... it won't even be heard by the NYCC. Same goes if you say TREES are more important that people's lives living below those Unsafe Dams... but go ahead, it won't be heard. That goes for Oxygen loss, critters, and Amur Honeysuckle...per your neighbor.. Mike Caswell.
Defending an idea to keep unsafe dams will be an uphill battle, no pun intended.
3) Any argument for the "environment" has to start where SEQR starts, with
Possible Loss of Human Life if a breach occurs. Losing a bit of oxygen from a few trees taken off dams pales in comparison to the NYPA argument that loss of human life from a flood would be far worse...and they have supportive data.
4) Your experts to support your position should be better than what you used for the last Embankment Restoration Project. These are not levees, and your hydrology expert from Colorado sided with the Canal Corporation. Finding somepone who will say trees BELONG on earthen embankment dams will be near impossible...but have at it if you think you will be more successful in Round 2
5) Try to remember that others in Rochester may have more at stake than you and your leaders. Many along the canal are talking about safety & floods while you STCC Trail Users are discussing scenic wonders... seems a bit callous doesn't it? Try to remember that just because you refuse to believe there is a SAFETY issue that doesn't make the issues around safety go away.
None of this is said in malice Mr. Neale... it's just facts. If the STCC wants to continue its fight against a Public Safety PROGRAM, one that will be supported by the very SEQR review it requested, they better be prepared better than last time.
For the rest of you out there reading this POST, the ECNA will be closing it's Stop the Canal ClearCut Forum Board very shortly... They are "old news" and not worth our time anymore, we have bigger issues to solve in the Erie Canal Neighborhood