Save The River’s annual membership meeting will be held Saturday, August 14 at 9 a.m. at the Save The River office in Clayton.

Current members of Save The River will have the opportunity to vote for the Directors of Save The River, receive a report on the organization’s finances, and consider any additional matter that may come before the meeting. Seven Directors have been nominated to serve another three-year term. All are current Directors of Save The River. They are:

Dan Churchill Dan has been a summer resident of Grindstone Island since the age of 2 and has been a Board Member for 6 years. He is part-owner of a printing company and has worked for several telecommunication companies. Dan was an Administrative Assistant and Press Secretary to Mayor Neil Goldschmidt of Portland, Oregon for a number of years and was on the staff of Allard Lowenstein’s campaigns for U.S. Congress on Long Island and Brooklyn, NY.

John Farrell John has been a long-time Save The River Board Member. He is a graduate professor at the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry in Syracuse and Director of the Thousand Islands Biological Station on Governor’s Island. John has devoted his professional career to studying St. Lawrence River aquatic ecology.

Bill Grater Bill, a long-time Save The River board member, has family ties to the Morristown and Chippewa Bay areas of the St. Lawrence River that date to the early to mid-nineteenth century. In 1992 Bill and his wife, Diana, moved their young family and architecture business from Washington, DC to Clayton. For the past eighteen years, Bill has been occupied with the design of houses and other structures on the River focusing his efforts on careful planning and site design so as to preserve natural attributes and protect water resources.

Rick Gregware Rick has been involved with Save The River since it’s infancy becoming a board member in 1981. He began a career in marine repair in 1969 working at H. Chalk & Sons where he was involved in keeping oil spill equipment running during the 1976 oil spill. He currently owns and runs Northern Marine and is a summer resident of Grindstone Island with his wife Janet and three children.

Teddy McNally Teddy is a long-time Board member and River resident on Wellesley Island. Teddy was previously Secretary of the Board of Directors and Vice President of Corporate Relations for Rand McNally. He is currently active in many local organizations including The Antique Boat Museum and Thousand Islands Safe Boating Association.

Tricia Tague Tricia served on the Board for many years, stepped off for several years and returned as an active Board member three years ago. She is very active in many community organizations and recently served as interim director of the Samaritan Foundation and is currently the President of the Alexandria Bay Historical Society. She lives on Wellesley Island with her husband, Rick, and two children.

Clif Schneider Clif is a resident of Cape Vincent, NY, and has been on the Save The River Board for three years. He is retired from the NY Department of Environmental Conservation with 34 years of experience working on Great Lakes issues at the Cape Vincent Fisheries Station. After retiring, Clif remained active in local, county and Great Lakes projects working with groups such as the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Samaritan Medical Center, Points North Housing Coalition and Town of Cape Vincent.

The abundant natural resources and the beauty of the Thousand Islands are among the region’s greatest assets. They are the foundation for a vibrant ecology, clean drinking water, and an economy dependent on tourism and recreation. Save The River’s purpose is to protect the quality of the Upper St. Lawrence River through advocacy, education and research, so the waterway continues to sustain a healthy ecology for future generations. Given this purpose, Save The River is keenly aware of the need for effective solutions to climate change, and supports efforts to shift to renewable energy sources in general. However, we are also gravely concerned about the scale and potential impacts of commercial wind development along the St. Lawrence River.

The Upper St. Lawrence River valley has one of the most unique and substantial grassland habitats in eastern North America; a habitat that is home to specialized grassland bird populations, as well as a home and critical seasonal foraging habitat for a variety of winter raptors. The grassland habitat includes Amherst and Wolfe Islands in Canada, Stony and Galloo Islands in the U.S., as well as major portions of the US and Canadian mainland towns bordering the Upper St. Lawrence River. The importance of this habitat is accentuated by the scarcity of such grasslands in this geographical region. In addition, the northeastern portion of Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River is an important migratory flyway for a large number of waterfowl and songbird species that pass through our area en route to and from northern breeding grounds.

It also should not be overlooked that the federally listed endangered species, the Indiana Bat, has been identified as a resident of this same grassland community. This species must be protected from impacts associated with wind turbines.

Given the many issues listed above, it becomes extremely important for our communities to learn from the only operational wind farm currently in the flyway – Wolfe Island – before moving forward with wind farm development on the scale currently proposed. While the Wolfe Island wind farm has only 86 turbines, more than 400 turbines in as many as six different projects are currently proposed in every direction around Wolfe Island. Cumulatively, these projects could radically alter these habitats that our communities have long endeavored to protect.

Initial reports of bird and bat fatalities associated with the July – December 2009 operation of the Wolfe Island Wind Project have just recently been released, and several experts have voiced concerns that the bird mortality is on target to be among the highest in North America. During the same 6-month period, 1,270 bat mortalities were estimated from the wind farm operation. In light of these documented high fatality rates, a major concern is the apparent lack of coordination between the US and Canadian governments (Federal, Provincial, and State) in addressing the cumulative impacts on wildlife resources from the numerous industrial-scale wind projects proposed in the upper St. Lawrence valley.

The initial high avian and bat mortality documented at the Wolfe Island Wind Project along with the lack of any cumulative impact assessment for wind projects proposed within the St. Lawrence valley, demand a “wait and see” response from decision makers in the communities that are now involved with examining environmental impact studies from wind developers. With less than a year of avian fatality study completed at Wolfe Island, it will require several more years of data collection to better understand the extent of fatalities associated with the island’s wind turbine operation. Given the grassland habitat and coastal area similarities across the region, the next two years of post-operational studies at Wolfe Island will provide important data for assessing potential cumulative wind turbine impacts on wildlife resources in the upper St. Lawrence River valley.

To address these concerns, Save The River supports the following:

1. A three-year moratorium on wind project development in municipalities bordering the Upper St. Lawrence River, in the US and Canada.

2. A cumulative assessment of bird and bat mortality as well as other environmental impacts, for the upper St. Lawrence River valley, coordinated by agencies in the US and Canada, considering two regional scenarios, one for 500 wind turbines and the other for 1,000 wind turbines.

In summary, the special nature of the place that we inhabit, including the importance of the habitat and flyway, when taken with the scale of the wind energy projects proposed, the lack of a process to assess cumulative review, and the initial indications of substantial impacts to birds and bats, all lead us to conclude that wind projects proposed for our area should not proceed further until the Wolfe Island Wind post-construction wildlife impact study is completed and a cumulative wildlife impact assessment involving the US and Canadian governments has occurred.

(Download a PDF of this statement here.)

We recently received many reports about gelatinous blobs on the River from many of our Riverkeeper Volunteers, which can be seen below.

From initial observations these blobs are known as Bryozoans, which are actually a glob of microorganisms that band together. They are a naturally occuring phenomenon that bloom occasionally on the River. Samples of the blobs have also been sent to SUNY ESF to confirm their identification.

To read more about Bryozoans check out this website.

Special thanks to Roger Peinkofer for sending this photo and the many Riverkeeper Volunteers who reported this issue.

Join Save The River members and friends for a fun evening cruise along the Potomac River! Each year, Save The River members from the Washington, D.C. area organize a fundraiser that’s a great way to support our River protection and education programs while meeting fellow ‘river rats’.

Save The River D.C. Cruise

Monday, May 17, 2010
6:45 p.m. – 8:45 p.m.
(Boat departs at 7:00 p.m.)

Climb Aboard with Capitol River Cruises
Washington Harbor, Georgetown – 31st & K Street, NW across from the Riverside Grille on the dock

$100 per person and $150 per couple; proceeds support Save The River’s advocacy, education and research programs
Cash Bar

Silent auction on board, so bring your checkbook and be prepared for fun!

Interested in attending or need more information? Contact Bridget at Save The River at (315) 686-2010 or bridget@savetheriver.org

Join Save The River at the Syracuse Film Festival on Earth Day (Thursday, April 22) for a provocative look at the looming fresh water crises with a special screening event of the international award winning documentary, Blue Gold: World Water Wars. The evening features a dinner and reception with Mark Achbar, Executive Producer of Blue Gold: World Water Wars,  followed by a screening the film. A portion of event proceeds will support Save The River.

Pre-Film Reception with Mark Achbar, Executive Producer of Blue Gold
5-7 p.m. at Phoebe’s Garden Cafe Tickets: $55/person; $100 per couple
To reserve tickets, contact Syracuse Film Festival at 315.443.8826.

Screening of Blue Gold: World Water Wars followed by a discussion with Executive Producer Mark Achbar and Director Sam Bozzo.
7:30 p.m.  @ Palace Theater Admission: $10
Tickets Available at the door

About Blue Gold: World Water Wars

The international award winning documentary, Blue Gold: World Water Wars, sheds light on the world’s rapidly approaching water crisis and suggests that wars of the future will be fought over water, as they today over oil, as the source of all life enters the global marketplace and political arena. The film is based on the ground-breaking book by Maude Barlow and Tony Clarke, Executive Produced by Mark Achbar and Si Litvinoff, and narrated by Malcolm McDowell.

The world’s fresh water is disappearing.  As we pollute and waste away our very limited supply, corporate giants are working to make the building block of our globe a commodity, privatizing developing countries’ fresh water. In the midst of this, military control of water is rising, setting the stage for world water wars. The film follows various examples of people fighting back against the powers that be – from grade school protests to court cases to revolutions. As the specters of drought and death loom, the film finds people willing to risk everything for their right to water, their right to survive. Past civilizations have collapsed from poor water management. Can the human race survive?

More Information

Visit the Syracuse International Film Festival website for more information. Or, contact the Festival staff at 315.443.8826.

Visit the Blue Gold: World Water Wars website for more information about the film.

Area residents have read some dire news in the paper lately about the state of Clayton’s sewer and water infrastructure. (For background, read Clayton’s water systems ‘alarming’, from the January 8 edition of the Watertown Daily Times.)

The Watertown Daily Times today ran Save The River’s letter to the editor supporting the Village of Clayton’s efforts to update their sewer and water systems. As we note in our letter below, these are difficult, but critical, issues to address and investing in our sewer and water infrastructure today will ensure that future generations of Clayton residents will have safe drinking water and a river free of sewer overflows.

Watertown Daily Times Letter to the Editor
Clayton mayor, board deserve praise for facing water issue

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2010

Regarding the article “Clayton’s water systems ‘alarming,’” Save The River would like to express appreciation to the Clayton Village Board and Mayor Norma Zimmer for biting the bullet and taking on the difficult, but essential issue of water infrastructure. Those present at the meeting on Jan. 7 got the message loud and clear — over the last 30 years, not enough has been done to maintain the village’s sewer and water system, and unless that changes, costs will continue to skyrocket, opportunities for government assistance will be lost and pollution entering the St. Lawrence River will continue.

This is a difficult situation to be sure, as no one looks forward to higher bills, but the facts are plain. Lack of action by prior boards has resulted in significant deterioration of the water and sewer system. Unfortunately, funding from various government programs is limited, which requires that local communities show they are contributing their fair share. This means that grants are not available without higher rates, and the costs are too high to accomplish without grants. The village is moving in the right direction by abandoning the piecemeal approach of the past and developing comprehensive solutions. Putting off this effort will only lead to more problems and a bigger cost down the road, whereas sewer and water infrastructure improvements today will ensure that current and future generations of Clayton residents will have safe drinking water and a river free of sewerage overflows.

Save The River applauds Clayton’s leaders for tackling this tough but essential job of investing in a sewer and water system that can function effectively into the future while protecting the St. Lawrence River as well. We stand ready to help the village board in this important effort.

Jennifer J. Caddick

Clayton

The writer is executive director and upper St. Lawrence riverkeeper for Save The River.

To Save The River Supporters and our North Country Neighbors -

Over the past few weeks, you may have seen a flurry of media coverage surrounding a visit to the North Country by the St. Lawrence Seaway’s Administrator Collister ‘Terry’ Johnson (see below for a sampling of coverage).

Save The River staff and several members of our Board of Directors met with Mr. Johnson and his staff at our offices in Clayton for nearly two hours in late November. The meeting was frank and productive.

However, in the media surrounding the meeting, Mr. Johnson accused Save The River of ‘manufacturing issues’ – referring to Seaway expansion and winter navigation.  We strongly disagree with this characterization, and felt it was necessary to respond with the letter copied below or download a ‘PDF’ of the letter here.

As always, thank you for your interest in River issues, and for your support of Save The River.

Sincerely,

Jennifer J. Caddick
Save The River Executive Director & Upper St. Lawrence Riverkeeper

Media Coverage of Seaway Administrator’s North Country Visit

Seaway official dispels ‘myths’, Watertown Daily Times, 11/14/09

River advocates stay vigilant against Seaway expansion, North Country Public Radio, 11/18/09

Seaway Chief: No expansion, no winter navigation, North Country Public Radio 11/17/09

Seaway, river group agree to disagree, Watertown Daily Times, 11/17/09

Seaway chief hopes for traffic turnaround, North Country Public Radio, 11/19/09

Letter from Save The River to Seaway Administrator Johnson

December 17, 2009

VIA FACSIMILE

Mr. Collister Johnson, Administrator
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, Suite W32-300
Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Johnson,

Thank you for taking the time to meet with Save The River in Clayton last month to discuss matters related to the St. Lawrence Seaway. We appreciated the frank and open discussion. While we felt that our discussion was a productive one, some of the related media surrounding your visit did not reflect the dialogue that took place during our meeting and did not accurately reflect Save The River’s position on key River issues. As a result, we felt that it would be helpful to record our views of the conversation and identify areas of potential cooperation in the future.

Seaway Expansion

A key point of discussion at the meeting and in related media coverage was your objection to Save The River’s advocacy campaign to fight an amendment (the much discussed Kaptur Amendment) on the climate change bill that could provide funding for physical expansion of the St. Lawrence Seaway.

Two key statements stand out. First, you have said publicly that expansion is ‘never going to happen’. We heartily applaud this statement and we relayed that sentiment to you and your staff during our meeting. We appreciate your honest and frank approach to the issue and the acknowledgement that the economic and environmental barriers are too great for this ill-advised project to move forward.

However, as we made very clear in our meeting, despite your statement, Save The River is not going to stop advocacy on this issue because, frankly, the final decision on Seaway expansion is not up to you. As we have seen time and again, Congress wields a tremendous amount of power and can continue to pursue this project by appropriating annual funding or creating funding sources for the project. Additionally, Seaway administrators have finite terms, and the next administrator may or may not share your same views on this issue.

Second, in news coverage in the Watertown Daily Times, you stated that Save The River was ‘manufacturing issues’ and that the Kaptur Amendment had ‘nothing whatsoever to do with seaway expansion’. We strongly disagree and during our meeting showed you the paper trail that clearly shows that Congresswoman Kaptur’s amendment was a vehicle for funding Seaway expansion. We reviewed the contents of an editorial that ran in Ms. Kaptur’s home paper last summer – aptly named “Expand the Seaway” (see enclosed copy). It heartily praises the Congresswoman for proposing the amendment and “backing an idea that is essential for our nation’s economic future: Spend what it takes to modernize the Seaway, including widening and deepening its locks not just for today’s vessels but with an eye to whatever future transportation needs may come.”

These words clearly indicate that Congresswoman Kaptur was, as of last July, actively pursuing Seaway expansion, and that this is in no way a ‘manufactured’ issue. During our meeting, you responded that you and your staff have a close relationship with Congresswoman Kaptur’s staff and that you would go back to her to get some answers about any connection between her amendment and efforts to expand the Seaway. We look forward to hearing the results of this exchange, but until then, Save The River will continue to pursue the issue and oppose this amendment.

So on the issue of Seaway expansion – we appreciate your stated opinion that it should never happen, yet emphasize that it is by no means entirely a matter for you to decide. We are not convinced that the Kaptur amendment has nothing to do with expansion, and we look forward to hearing the results of your discussions with Congresswoman Kaptur on this subject.

Winter Navigation

The other key focus of our meeting and related media coverage was the issue of winter navigation. During the meeting and in the media, you made the assertion that “winter navigation is never going to happen”. During our conversation, we clarified that the statement seemed to be interchangeable with the statement that “year-round navigation is never going to happen”. To continue discussion on this issue, we must be very clear how Save The River and the Seaway are using the term ‘winter navigation’.

Back in the late 1970’s, when winter navigation was proposed and debated by the region’s policy makers, the definition of winter navigation was a 12-month season on the Upper Great Lakes, but only a ten-month season on the St. Lawrence River. Year-round navigation was never considered an option here on the River, even by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Because of this, we agree with your assertion that year-round navigation is never going to happen, but unfortunately cannot say the same about winter shipping.

When Save The River communicates on this issue, we always refer to it not as winter navigation, but as winter shipping, because our concerns are not only focused on a longer shipping season, but on any shipping in winter conditions (i.e., ice). Regardless of whether or not year round navigation is ever going to happen, Save The River has significant concerns about the impacts of the nine and a half month season that the Seaway has implemented over the last thirty years, and the attendant impacts of that activity on the St. Lawrence River. These concerns have been repeatedly and thoroughly expressed by Save The River and residents of the North Country, and need not be repeated here in detail, but center around impacts to near shore areas, habitat and spawning areas, and the inability to respond to shipping accidents and spills in ice conditions.

During our meeting, you were dismissive of Save The River’s concerns about shipping in winter conditions yet could not provide data or information to clearly rebut our concerns about the damages that winter shipping can cause. We pointed out that the Seaway has never conducted adequate environmental studies to determine whether shipping in ice conditions is safe for the environment of the St. Lawrence River, and that even the studies currently being conducted with the Mohawks of Akwesasne only look at the impacts of icebreaking on physical components of the shoreline, and do nothing to address biological implications. Additionally, you provided no information or evidence of the Seaway’s capacity to clean up spills in ice conditions or respond to shipping accidents in ice conditions.

We were informed at the meeting that the Seaway is in a position to receive funding to conduct or fund environmental research, and we requested that some of those funds be directed to study early shipping impacts on the St. Lawrence River. We look forward to hearing back about this possibility.

However, until adequate environmental studies are conducted and the tools exist to clean up spills or respond to accidents in ice conditions, we will continue to find avenues to oppose winter shipping.

Conclusion

Finally, there emerged in our discussions an important distinction about the roles of our organizations. During the meeting, you generously stated that much of the recent progress toward environmental goals should be attributed to the vigorous and persistent efforts of groups like Save The River, who have fought for the protection of the resource. You also acknowledged that the Seaway’s role is to represent the views and interests of the shipping industry, and only supply environmental benefits and protections where they are ‘practical’ or ‘reasonable.’ With such different missions, it is no surprise that there will be differences and disagreements between Save The River and the Seaway, but we must operate from a place of mutual respect for these missions, and therefore cannot agree with your characterization of the issues above as ‘manufactured’. Save The River’s job is to push for practices that are as protective as possible for the St. Lawrence River, and we look forward to open and productive dialogues going forward that will serve this goal.

Sincerely,

Jennifer J. Caddick
Save The River Executive Director and Upper St. Lawrence Riverkeeper

cc: Save The River Members
John Johnson, Editor, Watertown Daily Times

encl: Expand the Seaway, Toledo Blade Editorial, published 7/9/09

Action Alert! Tell the Coast Guard to Implement Strict Ballast Clean-Up Rules!
Comment deadline Friday, December 4

After years of inaction, the U.S. Coast Guard is poised to fix one of the most troublesome problems facing the St. Lawrence River’s fish and wildlife: aquatic invasive species. Citizen groups and individuals are invited to submit comments on this important process until Friday, December 4.

Aquatic invasive species, such as zebra mussels and round gobies, are one of the most significant threats to the St. Lawrence River environment. More than 65% of the aquatic invasive species found in the St. Lawrence River and Great Lakes have been brought in via ballast tanks of ships transiting the St. Lawrence Seaway. These invaders threaten the River ecosystem, our regional economy and our way of life. Once here, they cannot be eradicated. The only option for protecting the St. Lawrence River from further invasive species damage is to end new introductions.

Earlier this fall, the United States Coast Guard proposed a new rule that would that would require ships transiting any waters of the United States, including the St. Lawrence Seaway, to clean-up their ballast tanks. This rule could be a groundbreaking regulation and could be the strongest effort yet in the fight to stop aquatic invasive species introductions!

But the proposed rule allows polluters too much time to fix the problem. Ships could avoid compliance for another ten years unless timelines are shortened. We need to tell the Coast Guard in no uncertain terms that it needs to stop introductions of aquatic invasive species into the St. Lawrence River and Great Lakes – now!

A few facts about the rule:

• The final standard for ballast water discharges is excellent, and as good as the strongest state standard on the books, such as New York and California.

• The timeline for implementing the final standard is weak. Ships could avoid complying until after 2020.

• The rules apply to ‘lakers’, vessels that operate exclusively in the Great Lakes. Although Lakers do not introduce new species, they do contribute to the problem by spreading species within the region.

• There is a clause included in the rule, (called the “feasibility review” of technology) that could endlessly delay implementation of the final standard.

It’s critical for the administration to get this right the first time so there are no further delays to getting technology installed on board ships.

Take Action!

The U.S. Coast Guard will be facing opposition from industry about this proposed rule, and therefore it’s essential that they hear from citizens who want the River protected!

Write the U.S. Coast Guard to let them know that you support the proposed discharge standard but that the timeline should be shortened.

Points to include in your letter:

• Support the proposed final standard that is equivalent to the most stringent state standards, currently 1000 times greater than the International Maritime Organization standard.

• Support the application of the rules to Lakers.

• Urge a shorter timeline, including adoption of the first phase of clean-up technologies no later than 2012 with a final deadline for the strictest standards no later than 2016.

• Urge a firm deadline for ‘feasiblity reviews’, endless delay is not acceptable.

• And, let the U.S. Coast Guard know how aquatic invasive species have impacted you and why you feel that strong standards should be in place as quickly as possible.

How to Submit Comments:

Submit comments online by Friday, December 4th.

For More Information

For more information about the impact of aquatic invasive species on the River, visit Save The River’s Clean Up the Ballast Campaign page.

And, the U.S. Coast Guard has plenty of information about the proposed rule including:

• the proposed rule and instructions for submitting written comments,

• a summary fact sheet on the rulemaking, and

• an overview of the implementation timeline.

Thank you for taking action to protect the St. Lawrence River!

The North Country continues to be the focus of intense national political interest as the race for the NY-23rd congressional seat, vacated by Congressman McHugh when he was tapped to become Secretary of the Army, heads to the finish line. The three way race, amongst Republican Dede Scozzafava, Democrat Bill Owens, and Conservative Doug Hoffman, will be decided on Election Day, next Tuesday, November 3. (You can watch the only debate among all three candidates again this Sunday at 7 p.m. on Syracuse’s Newschannel 9 and Watertown’s WWTI.)

Today, North Country Public Radio profiled the lack of discussion during this campaign about regional environmental issues. As Save The River’ s Executive Director notes in the story, the next person elected to fill this seat will have a direct say in issue critical to the St. Lawrence River – from invasive species to funding for restoration programs. To help our members wade through the tons of news coverage on the race, we’ve pulled together statements we’ve seen from the three candidates on River-specific issues. If we’ve missed something, let us know and we’ll add it to the list.

Watertown Daily Times

The Watertown Daily Times got the discussion going  a few weeks ago with an editorial highlighting questions they felt the candidates should answer, which included issues such as Seaway expansion, winter navigation and invasive species. The Times profiled Mr. Hoffman’s responses here, and Mr. Owens and Mrs. Scozzafava’s responses here . The Times also posted full, written responses from Mr. Owens and Mrs. Scozzafava. We haven’t found detailed responses from Mr. Hoffman on the Times website, but if its posted and we missed it, let us know. (Thanks to Jude Seymour for posting!)

The questions posed by the Times are wide ranging and touch on everything from Seaway issues to acid rain to wind power. We’ve listed just the River related questions below. Please note that these questions were asked by the Times, not by Save The River.

■ How do you feel about federal attempts to widen and deepen the St. Lawrence Seaway to accommodate larger oceangoing ships?

Dede Scozzafava: I will oppose efforts to widen and deepen the Saint Lawrence Seaway to accommodate oceangoing ships. As demonstrated by past events, this type of project will bring unavoidable environmental consequences to our North Country communities, while others will reap the long-term economic benefits further down the Great Lakes system. Our fishers and boaters will be the long-term losers from such a project. That being said, we must continue to conduct much needed maintenance and ensure that all maintenance efforts be carried out in an environmentally sound way.

Bill Owens: The St. Lawrence Seaway is critical to our local economy and has a significant impact on our day to day lives here in the North Country. Federal officials need to work closely with local officials when it comes to the Seaway so that we’re not infringing on property rights or environmental protections when it comes to the Seaway. Whether we’re addressing winter navigation proposals, considering widening and deepening the Seaway, or dealing with invasive species that are hurting local industry as well as the environment, I will address these and other issues by gathering input from local officials so that whatever federal action is taken has the best interests of Upstate New York in mind at all times.

■ Do you support winter navigation in the Seaway?

DS: I do not support operating the Seaway for 12 months a year.

BO: See above.

■ How would you help protect the waterway from encroachment of invasive species?

DS: The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation has taken an important first step by requiring all ocean-going vessels to flush their ballast water before entering the Seaway System. However, more needs to be done. I will support new requirements, coupled with tax incentives that spur innovation, to advance new technology to reach no ballast on-board standards from large ocean going ships. In the state assembly, I’ve been supportive of efforts addressing various invasive species and their impact on our waterways.

BO: See above.

■ Would you approve of plans to transform the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corp. into a federal power-marketing entity, as proposed by Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio?

DS: No, I do not approve of plans to transform the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC), as proposed by Rep. Marcy Kaptur. First, this proposal will drastically change and redefine the mandate of the SLSDC. The hardworking employees of the SLSDC are valued residents of Massena. This plan will shift their core mission away from the North Country. Now is not the time to enact policies that will likely shift jobs outside of our region. Secondly, Rep. Kaptur has made comments indicating that this new entity could be used as a mechanism to expand the physical footprint of the Seaway, which I do not support.

BO: No answer given.

■ Water Levels:

DS: If elected, I will be the only Member of Congress representing the American portion of the St. Lawrence River, as well as a majority of Lake Ontario’s shoreline. Therefore, I will strongly urge the International Joint Commission to select Plan B+ as the appropriate water level management plan for Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. For nearly 50 years, the Moses-Saunders hydro-dam has greatly changed the region’s natural ecosystem, and Plan B+ would allow the Lake and River to return to a state experienced before the dam was constructed while also extending our summer boating season.

BO: No answer given.

North Country Public Radio

Two of the candidates, Mrs. Scozzafava and Mr. Owens, participated in a debate hosted by North Country Public Radio earlier this week, which included a specific question about Seaway expansion. The question is included in a ‘highlights’ reel pulled together by NCPR staff. The full debate is also available.

WSYR Channel 9 Debate

We haven’t had a chance to watch the WSYR debate, which was the only debate that included all three candidates. (And we can’t find it on the WSYR website.) But, the Associated Press report on the debate notes that the candidates did answer questions about the St. Lawrence River water levels issue:

“Scozzafava advocated for the U.S.-Canadian International Joint Commission to adopt Plan B+, a regulation plan that promised a greater range of water levels along Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River throughout the year.

Owens said he heard people talking about B+, but reserved support on the plan until after he talked to local officials.

Hoffman said of the water levels: “That issue I’m not familiar with,” but said voters were more concerned with other issues, such as taxes.” (Associated Press, 10/30/09)

According to the article, the debate will be re-aired  at 7 p.m. Sunday on both Newschannel 9 and WWTI.

As North Country residents know, our region is the focus of intense national political interest as the race for the NY-23rd congressional seat, vacated by Congressman McHugh when he was tapped to become Secretary of the Army, heats up. Today, the Watertown Daily Times ran an article reporting on the candidate’s positions on Seaway issues, among other North Country concerns.

Visit the Watertown Daily Times website to read the article: Candidates answer questions about north country issues

Update: It looks as though the Watertown Daily Times has published the candidates’ detailed responses on the paper’s All Politics is Local blog.