DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Erie Canal Neighbors Association
HTML https://ecna.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Erie Canal & Embankment Dam Integrity
*****************************************************
#Post#: 1132--------------------------------------------------
EEIP Draft Now Published
DIR By: Michael Caswell
Date: June 4, 2020, 6:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://canals.ny.gov/Earthen_Embankment/Draft_Scoping_Document.pdf
It looks like the SEQR Draft Scoping Document is now complete,
and open for public comment.
It would appear that all is ready for the next stage, removal of
vegetation from the embankments.
#Post#: 1134--------------------------------------------------
EEIP Draft Environmental Statement Review and Comment
DIR By: Doug K
Date: June 5, 2020, 7:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Mike, It's been a long time coming, and only 13 pages for the
entire statement with half dedicated to discussing how the Canal
Corporation will handle the 15 identified areas of Environmental
Impact. That part of the statement took nearly half the pages
to address. The Erathen Embankment Integrity Program is here to
stay and will be the work that most see happening along the
Canal Corridor for the foreseeable future.
The rest of the Draft GEIS (General Environmental Impact
Statement) is a rehash of their earlier work on their Embankment
Restoration Project (EERP). The statements of impact are
similar, there is a section on Vegetative Barriers, but the word
FENCES has now been removed. And the scope of the work is well
defined and spelled out... The Embankments are unsafe, they need
repair and it's the TREES that are causing the problems and
trees are what has to go.
[attachimg=1]
[attachimg=2]
[attachimg=3]
This new Draft GEIS document isn't sitting well with your
Facebook neighbors in Fairport & Perinton. It appears they are
now realizing they have stopped "nothing", they only made the
process of clearing embankments more "formalized". The group
should start to collapse soon, once the members realize they
followed the wrong leaders, and maybe should have been working
WITH the New York State Canal Corporation instead of against
them to get their concerns as neighbors addressed.
[attachimg=4]
Hopefully seeing that the FB group (and it's leadership) have
accomplished nothing "positive" for canal neighbors & users,
this STCC thing will slowly fade into memory and be a reminder
to it's members how good people with good intentions can be led
so far down the wrong path by "poor leadership" with "bad
intentions".
Sadly, many now see that everything stated about NYS Erie/Barge
Canal Safety, Canal Embankments and what the NYS Canal
Corporation was doing along the canal to make REPAIRS was
grossly misrepresented and maligned, by a few individuals, who
had no business at all weighing in on a matter that they
couldn't understand and didn't care to learn the truth about.
That topic was Public Safety around Embankment Dams, and the
STCC had it ALL WRONG!.
#Post#: 1137--------------------------------------------------
EEIP Draft Now Published - What took so long?
DIR By: Doug K
Date: June 5, 2020, 9:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Better late than never some folks say... but an Engineer won't
say that because late is "never better", it's just LATE!
Late to an Engineer means only one thing... The project
deliverable was MORE EXPENSIVE!
So here's some math from an Engineer on this Draft General
Environmental Impact Statement, and asking the question: What
did is cost?
[attachimg=1]
So at 100 hrs per page, for a 13 page report, the time (and
cost) seem a bit high.
Especially in light of the fact that most of this document was a
"cut & paste" from the Canal Corp's first Embankment Project
that ran from Brockport to Lockport. You remember that Canal
Embankment Project? It's still not complete as the R portion of
that Earthen Embankment RESTORATION Project still has not been
completed, much to the dismay of canal neighbors, who have had
their lives turned upside down with the hasty manner that
project was implemented.
Salary for an Engineer in the NYS Canal Corporation seems to
average about $60-80K annually. This took more than half a year
to complete, taking a portion of that Engineer's time. Anyone
care to venture a guess on the cost for this piece of work?
Maybe 10% of someone's time, perhaps 25%?
I'll go light at $20K for 13 pages of a draft GEIS, but it will
likely cost the NY State Canal Corporation much more as we move
forward.
Certainly this will result in more negatives than positives:
adverse public reaction, bad PR for the NYSCC, and the sheer
fact that so much TIME was lost due to the "extra" hoops that
were placed on this Canal Embankment Public Safety work.
Those hoops came as a result of ill-conceived plans from one
active Facebook group, opposing these dam safety changes to the
Canal System. They asked for and now have received this draft
GEIS, and have ZERO reason to complain. This is what a FULL SEQR
review looks like... and they still do not like what they see.
There was nothing unexpected with this Draft SEQR Environmental
Review & Plan, unless you count the fact that we ALL knew it
would be late...
Late, like everything else on this Embankment Safety Work, which
is about 75 year late from when it SHOULD have been started,
back in the 20th century when these Barge Canal Embankment Dams
were new, and CLEAN.
Better Late Than Never? Maybe, but only if they follow through
and clean ALL the unsafe Embankments and keep them clean and
danger-free
#Post#: 1553--------------------------------------------------
Excerpts from the EEIP Embankment Integrity Guidebook
DIR By: Michael Caswell
Date: June 25, 2021, 4:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The Corps’ guidance makes it clear that vegetation may remain on
and around embankment and related infrastructure, provided that
“the safety of the structure is not compromised, and effective
surveillance, monitoring, inspection, maintenance, and
flood-fighting of the facility are not adversely impacted.”
A key aspect of the Corps’ guidance is the establishment of a
vegetation-free zone which is a “three- dimensional corridor
surrounding all levees, flood walls, embankment dams, and
critical appurtenant structures in all flood damage reduction
systems.” No vegetation, other than approved grasses may
penetrate the vegetation-free zone.
The primary purpose of the vegetation-free zone is to “provide a
reliable corridor of access to, and along, levees, flood walls,
embankment dams, and appurtenant structures.”
[attachimg=1]
#Post#: 1554--------------------------------------------------
Re: Excerpts from the EEIP Guide book
DIR By: Michael Caswell
Date: June 25, 2021, 5:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
1.4.1.2 EMBANKMENT DAMS
The Corps’ policy as it relates to embankment dams is clear. The
guidelines require the following five areas to be
vegetation-free zones:
1. The dam and the dam-toe area.
2. Areas in or around seepage monitoring systems, or critical
downstream areas where seepage
observation must be vigilant and continuous.
3. Groin abutments and areas immediately adjacent to groin
abutments.
4. Spillways and spillway channels, including spillway slopes
and approaches to spillways where
vegetation could, in any way, impede the operation of the
spillway.
5. The outlet works discharge channel.
The Corps further clarifies that for embankment dams, the entire
embankment surface from the upstream toe of the dam to a minimum
distance of 50 ft from the downstream toe shall be a
vegetation-free zone.
#Post#: 1555--------------------------------------------------
Re: Excerpts from the EEIP Guide book
DIR By: Michael Caswell
Date: June 25, 2021, 5:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The Fairport/Pittsford dam(s) have been classified by Rizzo
Engineering as
Class "C" or "High Hazard" Earthen Dam
An embankment failure may result in widespread or serious damage
to home(s); damage to main highways, industrial or commercial
buildings, railroads, and/or important utilities, including
water supply, sewage treatment, fuel, power, cable or telephone
infrastructure; or substantial environmental damage; such that
the loss of human life or widespread substantial economic loss
is likely.
#Post#: 1556--------------------------------------------------
Re: Excerpts from the EEIP Guide book
DIR By: Michael Caswell
Date: June 25, 2021, 6:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
From the Guidebook, explains why GRASS is the best compatible
vegetation for Earthen Dams
March 2021
NYSCC Embankment Inspection & Maintenance Guide Book
7.3 VEGETATIVE MAINTENANCE
Of particular importance for safety is the proper maintenance of
vegetation on embankments. For embankment maintenance,
vegetative cover is divided into two general categories:
• Compatible vegetation – this includes grasses and other
similar plant cover. This vegetation is low growing, is easy to
mow, and develops shallow root systems.
• Non-compatible vegetation – this category includes most brush,
bushes and trees. This vegetation can develop deeper root
systems and is typically prevented by regular mowing, after
initial removal by clearing and grubbing.
While there are some positive benefits of woody vegetation and
tree cover, these benefits do not outweigh the substantial risks
associated with embankment failure that could be initiated by
the presence of the vegetation such as flooding, property
damage, environmental damage and loss of life.
In contrast, grass or “soft” vegetation is beneficial to the
embankment. The grass and its root system prevent erosion damage
from rain events, foot traffic, and even from minor overtopping
events that are small and of short duration.
7.3.1 WHY IT’S NECESSARY
Proper maintenance of embankments and their ancillary features
is of utmost importance in protecting lives and reducing the
flood risk of adjacent communities. This includes the proper
maintenance of vegetation on embankments and ancillary
structures.
Non-compatible vegetation can harm the structural integrity of
these impoundment structures, obscure visibility of the ground
surface (necessary for inspections for other types of failures),
impede access for maintenance and inspection, and encourage
burrowing by rodents by providing habitat.
Woody vegetation with robust root systems can disturb the soil
structure in the embankment. Roots that penetrate the phreatic
surface in the embankment increase the risk of internal erosion
known as piping, the early stages of which can go undetected for
decades resulting in a sudden failure of an earthen embankment.
Animal burrows pose a similar piping potential – the animal
burrow shortens the seepage path potentially leading to piping
at the burrow location.
Additionally, shade caused by woody vegetation can impede growth
of more compatible grassy vegetation.
Furthermore, large trees can be uprooted by winds/erosion and
leave large holes in the embankment, root systems can decay and
rot creating passageways for water through the embankment.
Once a significant seepage pathway is initiated, catastrophic
embankment failure could be expected to occur within one to two
hours. The presence of brush and trees can also hinder critical
emergency responses to flooding or repair operations.
The proper maintenance of vegetation for water impounding
structures is well understood and accepted by the dam safety
community and the various regulatory and advisory agencies
tasked with dam safety including the USACE, FERC, USBR and FEMA.
In addition, all federal flood protection projects including
embankment dams and levees in New York State must maintain a
woody vegetative free zone on the embankment.
#Post#: 1557--------------------------------------------------
Re: Excerpts from the EEIP Guide book
DIR By: Doug K
Date: June 25, 2021, 12:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
And most importantly, How to Repair Canal Embankments SAFELY...
to make them "safe again"
7.3.2 HOW IT’S DONE SAFELY
The NYSDEC Owners Guidance Manual for the Inspection and
Maintenance of Dams in New York State [NYSDEC, 1987], originally
published in June 1987 is still referred to by dam safety
experts and dam owners.
It states that:
• The entire dam should be kept clear of unwanted vegetation
such as brush or trees.
• When brush is cut down, it should be removed from a dam to
permit a clear view of the embankment.
• Stumps from trees or woody brush with a diameter less than 4”
diameter may be left in place.
• Following removal of large brush or trees (with a diameter
greater than 4”), the left-over root systems should also be
removed to a root diameter of 1” or less and the resulting holes
filled.
The NYSDEC guidance is specific to dams.
More recent guidance for vegetation maintenance that has been
developed for longitudinal embankments such as levees, canals
and feeders, is found in:
• FEMA 534, Technical Manual for Dam Owners Impacts of Plants on
Earthen Dams [FEMA, 2005]; and
• USACE EP 1110-2-18, Guidelines for Landscape Planting and
Vegetation Management at Levees, Floodwalls, Embankment Dams,
and Appurtenant Structures, [USACE, 2019].
The FEMA document, in addition to espousing that woody growth
should be prevented on dams and embankments in the first place,
provides good information on the considerations and general
processes to follow in order to remove woody vegetation once
established.
The location of the woody vegetation on the embankment (see
Figure 6.2-1) dictates different methods of removal. Due to the
general characteristics of seepage through the embankment, each
zone of the embankment has somewhat different characteristics.
Therefore, the criticality of the removal procedures and the
extent of removal required varies by zone (e.g. requiring
removal of the entire root system or just the portion above
ground).
One of the major concerns with tree and brush cover is the
potential for a piping failure.
Those zones that intersect the phreatic surface of the water
within the embankment are the most critical with respect to
maintenance and removal techniques. It is recommended that any
excavation work on Canal embankments occur once the embankment
segment is dewatered and no longer retaining water.
Since the majority of the Canal embankments are (or can be)
dewatered in the non-navigation season, it is possible in most
cases to do earthwork (such as stump removal and regrading) when
the embankment is not retaining water.
ANY EMBANKMENT EARTHWORK SHOULD BE PERFORMED ONLY UNDER THE
GUIDANCE OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AND WITH THE
APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR OF WATERWAYS MAINTENANCE, REGIONAL
CANAL ENGINEER, OR TRANSPORTATION MAINTENANCE ENGINEER.
#Post#: 1575--------------------------------------------------
EEIP Embankment Integrity Program has NEW Contact Information
DIR By: Doug K
Date: July 6, 2021, 2:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Couldn't help but notice that the new release of Earthen
Embankment Integrity Program (EEIP) documents also brought a few
significant other updates to the EEIP webpages. Seems the Canal
Corporation has finally handled all the emergency work it had,
with an EMBANKMENT BREACH between Macedon & Palmyra, and a
couple emergency repairs made in the western section. Now they
can get back to the business of fixing UNSAFE earthen
embankments that are keeping the rest of Upstate NY living below
medium to high hazard canal embankments.
The Program Milestone Schedule webpage was updated to reflect
the new "on-time delivery" of the EEIP Embankment Guidebook, and
also add the Virtual Public meeting information, to discuss the
Guide and the draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
(dGEIS). That second item is related to the SEQR hurdle that was
placed in front of the EEIP work that was "missed" in the
original Embankment Restoration project.
HTML https://www.canals.ny.gov/Earthen_Embankment/Project_Timeline.html
More interesting is the newly updated EEIP webpage for
CONTACTING the Canal Corporation about EEIP work. All questions,
concerns, comments, & emails are now being fielded by Bergmann
Engineering, whos done the Lion's Share of work mapping EEIP
from end to end already.
It seems the old Embankment work contacts are out, like Jackie
Schillinger, Brian Stratton, John Callaghan, Dave Mellen, and a
host of Engineers.
Now it's an email to Bergmann, or a phone call. Most likely the
best people to handle the public input, hearing it first hand.
And there is also a paragraph about EEIP Guidebook &
Environmental Impact comments, that everyone should read BEFORE
July 13th.
[attachimg=1]
Now go look up Bergmann, they are a VERY reputable firm, with
plenty of background doing work like this along canals.
Understanding where earthen dams are is key to keeping NY safe.
Bergmann has done quite a bit of work already, using the keyword
"canals". Besides the EEIP Package of work that also have been
doing some Flood Inundation mapping for the NYS Canal
Corporation, which is also part of the new EEIP Guide package.
[attachimg=2]
I guess it's starting to become clear that EEIP work along the
NYS Canal System, will be managed VERY differently than the
previous earthen embankment work along the "Erie".
And it starts by putting PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS in charge of
collecting public input. That is the biggest change that
happened with the new EEIP package. This EEIP work was managed
properly, just like everyone had asked for on the earlier
Restoration Project, and by a capable group, Bergmann. No one
should complain, but some will.
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS will be sure that the people suggesting
the ideas also understand the limits and needs to insure PUBLIC
SAFETY. And Public Safety WILL remain a MAJOR risk by doing
nothing, which is what some folks around Rochester have
suggested already. Bergmann will remind people of this fact.
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS will make sure that suggested ideas have
MERIT, and HELP improve safety, and the sustainability of the
NYS Canal System, now and 100 years from now. There are NEEDS
that will have to be met FIRST, before the "wants" of the public
can be dealt with. Public Safety being the #1 need.. always.
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS will also challenge people by asking
EXACTLY what they want to change in the Guidebook, and why, and
also ask if the change can be qualified with DATA. Have Page
Number & Paragraph ready to REFERENCE and why it needs to be
changed, and possibly, what would be BETTER.
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS will roll their eyes if you start talking
about "trees having feelings too".. just a heads up.
Just a few suggestion, especially to anyone looking to refute
the EEIP Guidebook...in the upcoming NYSCC Virtual Meeting:
Have your DATA ready for the Virtual Meeting, cite KNOWN facts
that are TRUE, not something you made up to make your own case.
Bergmann, and others will surely not let these inaccuracies
persist, especially the one that states inaccurately that
"nothing is wrong with the NYS Canal System or it's embankments"
Be clear, concise, and most importantly, CONSTRUCTIVE, if all
you are there for is to "tear down" the work done by Bergmann
and the NYS Canal Corporation, please don't waste valuable Zoom
time for the rest of us. Say your peace and let those who want
to be constructive, move on with the meeting.
Work to find solutions that enable a remedy that works for ALL
stakeholders, including Canal Neighbors, Canal Property Users,
and the OWNERS of the Canal System, who are RESPONSIBLE to
insure their property is SAFE for PUBLIC USE. Nothing worse than
a group of people that just want to whine about "problems" while
ignoring the simple, easy solutions.
Have your FACTS ready, not your "feelings", be ready to offer
solutions that will work, not "opinions" on why the suggested
path forward is all "wrong"
Most importantly, think BEFORE you speak, to possibly limit the
amount of people who look stupid, whining about a NY State
entity that is trying to improve public safety, and repair a
Canal System that is slowly crumbling away.
That is a job they can't wish away, or deny is causing unsafe
conditions for many New Yorkers
#Post#: 1605--------------------------------------------------
Re: EEIP Draft Now Published, the ECNA has submitted Questions
& Comments
DIR By: Doug K
Date: July 14, 2021, 9:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sitting in the EEIP Zoom Meeting, and it's not a big hit with
the public it seems. Few talkers, and it was all over in 41
short minutes.
The ECNA did NOT get a chance to offer questions...this was a
"comment" only meeting.
But, as a backup, just in case the NYS Canal Corporation feels
that the Questions the PUBLIC has on Embankment Dam Safety don't
warrant answers, we have placed those Guidebook & SEQR
Environmental Impact Statement here for all of you to read, and
maybe spur more questions or comments.
YES, we DID do an exhaustive review of both the EEIP Guidebook
and dGEIS as well as all other documents from the recent EEIP
release.
[attach=1]
[attach=2]
If we receive answers to any of what we submitted, we will
certainly pass it along to all of you.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page