The Salmon River

The fight to restore the Salmon River began in the 1980's. At that time, Niagara Mohawk, the owner of two dams on the river, was unregulated. In order to make the most of the water for the production of electricity, the river went up and down: the reservoir fluctuated daily and the entire system suffered.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) would normally have had control and could require a license to ensure a balancing of all interests, but at that time the river was not under FERC's jurisdiction.

A legal battle was initiated to force the company into licensing the project. This battle was fought by a coalition of government agencies, conservation groups and recreationists. At stake was the ability to restore one of our state's most productive rivers, a battle for people to fish without having to drag their boats in mid-trip, the re-establishment of a natural fishery and ecosystem, the opportunity for paddlers to enjoy their days on the river, to ensure watershed protection, wetlands and spawning habitat and to create a place that would continue to build upon the success achieved by local businesses.

We won! The Salmon River was ruled a navigable river, and the company was forced into applying for a FERC license. FERC licensing in itself is a difficult process. Now the process of gathering information and data, along with aligning different parties had to begin. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and US Fish and Wildlife Service led a team of professionals reviewing environmental documents. Meetings were held in the communities both to gain insight into possible changes and to educate people on restoring a river system.

Not everyone is amenable to change. There a w the last dam. This was needed to support an aquatic system that did not at the time exist. Extensive studies to determine how much water was needed were done and reviewed by professionals.

2. A lake level that supported the natural ecosystem above the project, spawning and rearing habitat, wetlands associated with the reservoir, migratory habitat for ducks, geese and shore birds. This lake level also had to accommodate recreation in the summer on the lake.

3. White water recreation. A large whitewater community was now using the river and did not want its interest eliminated. Scenic flows over the upper fallsand a flow in the by-pass section of the river were another water use. This water flows into the lower reservoir and is reused for enhancement of the lower river.

4. Finally and most importantly to the company (NIMO), the production of electricity and the ability to make justifiable economic decisions.

I will not go into details over the legal and technical battles that occurred over the next several years. But the final result was positive. A negotiation team was established to try to reach settlement on all the issues and interests. The major tools that were used by the team were the comprehensive studies done over the previous five years, the professional opinion of top biologists, the experience of people who had an interest in the river and probably the most useful tool: a water model budget. This water budget, a computer model, used the data from years of recorded information on the system's high and low water years. Into the model we put the various outflows that the team was negotiating. Hence we were able to predict the effects on the overall system.

You cannot manufacture water. Once it is used it is not replaceable. Nor can you magically block it and save it when it comes too fast. Inflow into the system is our only source. While the reservoirs store water, it is not an inexhaustible supply. When they are full, water must be released. Those are just facts.

Each interest wanted water, each interest wanted water at either the same or at different times. The challenge for us was to accommodate, to the best of our ability, all interests and still achieve our major goal of river restoration, a viable ecosystem. What was developed was a guide curve.

I am very proud to say that the settlement and license that followed achieved that goal. Natural spawning now occurs in the river; aquatic life is there for these fish to grow on; water-related recreation occurs and is on the increase; the reservoir is also a productive system; both are working together. We accomplished this while still maintaining one of the best salmon fisheries in the Northeast and not putting the hydroelectric company out of business. But one other thing was established.

We wanted people to be aware of what was accomplished. We wanted to continue the dialog established during the licensing effort. We wanted various interests to be involved in promoting the river. Most of all, in those years the model told us there was too little or too much water, we wanted all of the interests involved in a process to allocate the resource. So within the settlement we created a flow management team. Its main duty was to work together, as the negotiating team did, for the benefit of the resource. In times of trouble they would advise the decision-makers on allocations. The guide curve would be the tool for forecasting in any given year.

I feel that all the parties involved were proud of what we had accomplished. The agencies had certainly worked hard on achieving balances within their own jurisdiction. The company had given considerably of its revenues. No one was received 100% of what they had asked for, which normally means you have done a good job.

With two of the driest years in decades occurring back to back, the test of the system has come immediately, And while certain people say it proves how wrong the license and settlement are, I can now point clearly to a process that works for the river even under the most severe conditions. It does not work for each individual party (no one can change the license for his own benefit), but if you care about rivers and river systems, you can see a real success.

Maybe someday we can go even further. Maybe someday we can educate enough people to understand how rivers work, why native species are so vital to a system. Maybe someday we can end the petty bickering that hinders long-term changes and maybe someday everyone will see the system for what it is - a river reborn. F

Bruce R. Carpenter,
Executive Director

New York Rivers United
PO Box 1460
Rome, NY 13442-1460

(315) 339-2097--phone
(315) 339-6028 fax
nyrubc@aol.com