2005 Wrap-Up
After 25 years
BOCES closed it's doors to ELOSTA on
March 16th
After almost a year of procrastinating we were advised on February 14th 2005 that the Oswego County BOCES Cooperative Board under the direction of Dr. Joseph Camerino, District Superintendent, voted to implement a fee of $100 per session to use their meeting facilities. The Board's decision essentially closes it's doors to most regional sportsmen's groups and other not-for-profit organizations with limited assets. 
The acquisition of funding for BOCES operations is Dr. Camerino's  foremost concern. Perhaps he saw an opportunity here - we don't know? To date no public notice has been issued and no BOCES official has come forward with an explanation for the assessment or a policy for it's application. ELOSTA was informed of the decision by  Assemblyman Barclay's office after we appealed to that office for a definitive answer. They also advised us that BOCES would provide space for our March 16th "State of The Lake" meeting free of charge.
We expect the County has legitimate  reasons for requiring the fee? Unfortunately,  the public was not invited to provide input or participate in any part of the decision making process. Rumor has it that the fee is necessary to compensate for setup and cleanup  expenses incurred as a result of our meetings. As a matter of record - the facilities were always left in the same condition we found them.    "What can we say?"
In late spring of 2005 the ANFH suffered another major setback. The local electric utility curtailed power to the hatchery for an agreed upon period of time to correct problems within its transmission infrastructure. Power was restored to the hatchery within the prescribed time period. However, an unanticipated transmission fault, which prolonged the outage, immediately followed. Unfortunately, the hatcheries recently tested backup generators failed to respond.  Nearly half of the 600,000 seven inch yearlings to be stocked in Lakes Erie and Ontario in 2005 were lost. On the upside hatchery officials were optimistic. The brood stock had survived and very few fingerlings were lost. In other words the full compliment of 620,000 yearling stocks would still be available in 2006 – a year late. (What can we say?)

A lake wide consensus was reached to barge stock 200,000 of the surviving fish off-shore at Stony Point in the Eastern Basin of Lake Ontario. But first, another unforeseen glitch. Due to a paper work oversight the State’s contract with Federal administrators to obtain Wallop/Breaux funding necessary to secure the privately operated landing craft was delayed. The proposal for an on-shore release in the immediate vicinity of a large colony of cormorants was not an acceptable alternative to any of the involved factions. This position was enforced by a timely response of “out of pocket” donations from lake wide interests to supplement the State’s acquisition of the barge.   (What can we say?)

It seems that  the 200,000  Lakers had hardly hit bottom when notice was issued in mid-June that DEC had 15,000 surplus yearling  brown trout available at the State’s Caledonia Hatchery. The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) proposed to stock these fish in Oswego Harbor to off-set earlier losses due to predation from cormorants etc. The call went out to the fishing community for $4,000 in pledges and donations to re-acquire the barge to carry these fish to safer waters off-shore. After all, the cormorants are still in the harbor. Once again, anglers and the industry generously responded. More than half of the fee had been informally offered when it was learned that the State’s contract with the Feds had been finalized to cover the next five years and the donations could be  returned (What can we say?)

What about ANFH brood stock and the lake trout eggs still on tap to produce New York’s 2006 Lakes Erie and Ontario contributions?  Call it Murphy’s Law or a quirk of Mother Nature.  Take your pick – both apply. We learned in September 2005 that Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis (IPN) had wiped out nearly one million trout, eggs, and the surviving brood stock. IPN is a highly contagious disease that is probably transmitted by visiting gulls and wild ducks. Whatever the cause the hatchery has to be fully disinfected and the raceways covered to ward off birds before it can be repopulated to include our 2007 distributions. (What can we say?)

In summary, more than 500,000 lake trout yearlings of the Federal contribution to Lake Ontario’s 2005 - 2006 supplements were lost. In an effort to avoid the total loss of the 2006 year class in Lake Ontario the DEC is proposing to reallocate 110,000 Finger Lake fish reared at NYS’s Bath hatchery. These fish will be stocked by barge off -shore in the vicinity of Oak Orchard Creek in the Western Basin to ensure a higher survival rate. Since Lake Ontario's total lake trout population has dropped over 50% in the last two years the term “ensure”  doesn't elicit a great deal of confidence.(What can we say?)
Early in 2004 the fishing community was made aware that proposed Federal budget constraints concerning the Allegheny National Fish Hatchery (ANFH) would result in a significant reduction in the number of yearling lake trout that would be available for NY State’s Great Lakes stocking quota in 2005. These proposed cuts were met with a great deal of concern and resistance from numerous individuals and organized groups. They emphasized the need for strict adherence to the long term efforts to restore this indigenous species to Lake Ontario. We note that this objective is an idealistic goal that is not always consistent with the “put and take” rationale of a recreationally oriented thrust.  However, regardless of personal objectives, the non-available funds reappeared during 2004 and, ANFH went on to produce the 600,000 yearlings originally promised to New York State in April 2005. (What can we say?)
Spring of 2005
Early in 2004 the fishing community was made aware that proposed Federal budget constraints concerning the Allegheny National Fish Hatchery (ANFH) would result in a significant reduction in the number of yearling lake trout that would be available for NY State’s Great Lakes stocking quota in 2005. These proposed cuts were met with a great deal of concern and resistance from numerous individuals and organized groups. They emphasized the need for strict adherence to the long term efforts to restore this indigenous species to Lake Ontario. We note that this objective is an idealistic goal that is not always consistent with the “put and take” rationale of a recreationally oriented thrust.  However, regardless of personal objectives, the non-available funds reappeared during 2004 and, ANFH went on to produce the 600,000 yearlings originally promised to New York State in April 2005. (What can we say?)
...What Can We Say?...
2005 - 08 Wrap-up

12/18/2006 - Coast Guard withdraws its proposal to establish 34 "Live Fire" practice zones on the Great Lakes.  However, the CG Commander is persistent in this matter and has since proposed  the use of lazers and lead free bullets for this purpose. (What can we say???)
You don't shoot  high velocity ammunition or any flat trajectory weapon over water at water level! That is one of the fundamental firearm handling rules we teach young hunters.  Aircraft shoot into the water.  In addition the CG simply dismisses the overall noise factor and its potential influence on aquatic and avian wildlife and lakeside residents etc.. Are these exercises going to be conducted at night with tracer ammo. and, will helicopters be added to the list?
Most Elosta members have been fishing the Eastern Basin in the vicinity of the Nine Mile exclusion area since it was established. What has been missing in that area to date is a CG presence? So, what is the need for this knee jerk HS decision? CG personnel, regardless of how highly trained they are, can't intercept or shoot at a high speed intruder from their boat's berth in Oswego?  Apparently these threats?? subside during the winter months because their boats aren't even in the water. Ontario generally remains ice free.
What is obvious here is the need for a full Environmental Impact Statement to respond to these and  many more unanswered "between the lines" questions. A public hearing will be held in the Old Ferry Bldg. in Rochester on October 31, 2006. For additional information go to the CG's website at: www.uscgd9safetyzones.com/go/site/1295/   (What can we say?)
Governor Pataki’s office has announced that $3 million of a $5 million DEC request is forthcoming from the Executive Budget (if approved) to facilitate renovations at the Rome, Randolph, and Salmon River fish hatcheries. The good news is, about $500,000 will be allocated for the development of cold water wells to augment supplies at the Altmar facility. The bad news is, the Salmon River improvements are number three in the priority list. Essentially, this means that any enhancements at the other hatcheries will be designed and completed sometime in 2008-09. well before the Salmon River effort is started. In the interim ongoing public fund raising campaigns continue to provide and/or replace badly needed recirculation pumps. Is this show of concern, generosity, and tolerance helping the situation; or, is it merely abetting a lack of commitment by elected and appointed officials? (What can we say?)
February 2006
March / April 2006.
Here one minute - gone the next. Members of the New York State Conservation Council have learned that Legislative leaders have cut the aforementioned Governor's  $3 million dollar fish hatchery renovation request from the State's 2006/07 budget. Outstanding veto's and supplemental funding issues will be addressed when the Senate and Assembly members return from Easter break on April 24. Perhaps they will have seen the light and these essential funds will, rightfully, be restored (What can we say?)
May 2006.

First it was alewife and now it's gobies

Elosta members have reported that 1000's of  invasive round gobies are littering the beach at the Town of Mexico Park adjacent to the mouth of the Little Salmon River. DEC reports that large numbers of dead fish have also been observed north to Cape Vincent. DEC officials and others are currently investigating the PROBLEM??? Perhaps the gobies moving back to shallower seasonal haunts have an aversion to persistent south east winds and 39 degree water this time of year? Let's hope the cuase, if determined, is good news and goby specific.
(What can we say?)
The hatchery saga continues

This is what we have learned to date regarding the hatchery renovation funds ($5 million) announced by Governor Pataki earlier this year. The enacted budget includes $1 million for the DEC Capital Projects Fund, a new appropriation of $3 million will be allocated to DEC from Urban Development Funds (UDC), and $1 million from the Environmental Protection Fund (EPF). However, hatchery uses are not eligible for EPF allocations until the funding policy language, currently under debate, is changed. Bottom line --- it appears that $4 million will be available in the 06-07 NYS budget for hatchery purposes. (What can we say?)
06/09/06 - Reports of a preliminary analysis done at Cornell University indicate that the gobie die-off in mid-May was caused by a virus. The die-off was wide spread around the Eastern Basin. There have also been recent reports of a "moderate smallmouth bass die off in the Oswego area". Localized SMB die-offs are annual events that are usually attributed to rapid changes in water temperature combined with spawning stress. The fish's immune system is compromised which, in turn, allows the ever present pathogens an opportunity to "get the upper hand". DEC has also received reports of some  sea gull deaths that appear to be botulism related.

Elosta follow-up - The stiff NW winds on June 9-10 left another wave of countless dead gobies along the southern shoreline.  In general these fish appeared? to be somewhat smaller (1-2 inches in size) than those in the May die-off. True to form the gulls took full advantage of the situation.
(What can we say?)
June 2006
06/13/06 - DEC confirms finding a virus in Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River Fish.  DEC working closely with Cornell University has determined that the recent fish kill involving round gobies and several muskellunge is due to Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (VHS). Tests are continuing to determine if other fish species are susceptible to this strain of the virus and which species might be carriers. Infected fish seem to be most vulnerable when there are rapid fluctuations in cold water temperatures at the time of spawning. This is a  disease that is usually identified with trout, salmonid's, and pike. However, to date there is no indication that this  outbreak will have an impact on L. Ontario's trout and salmon fisheries. This is a  highly contagious disease among fish, but it is not transmissible to humans.
(What can we say?)
"Study Shows Natural Chinook in the Millions in NY’s Salmon River

Fisheries managers are excited but cautious about the finding that five to ten million Chinook salmon were naturally reproduced in the Salmon River in 2005. The five million fish find comes from a New York Sea Grant-funded project carried out by State University of New York College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry (SUNY ESF) graduate student Dustin Everitt. In fact, SUNY ESF Dean of Research Dr. Neil H. Ringler says, “The calculations are actually quite conservative, and the number of juvenile Chinook for 2005 could easily have been close to ten million fish.”  Bottom line - numerous time consuming and relatively expensive studies are still required to assess the impact of these additional fish on the lake's carrying capacity and adult populations. (What can we say?)
August 2006
It seems that a new invasive species has set its sites  on Lake Ontario. This time it is none other than the US Coast Guard. It proposes to establish "Live Fire"  "Safety Zones"  about five miles offshore between Wilson and Youngstown, Poultneyville and Rochester,  and off Sandy Pond between Nine Mile Point and Galloo Island. The areas in question will be utilized to train small craft personell in the use of 7.62 mm machine guns on high speed floating targets.
Lake Ontario
Proposed Saftey Zones
September 2006
The plan as outlined in the September 12, 2006 Federal Register does not go into detail on the potential dangers to recreational boaters and fishermen; and, there is no reference to anticipated targets. The CG has implied  that their limited live fire exercises  will be conducted in a safe manner with sufficient warning? How will these warnings be diseminated - will VHF radios be mandatory - does this mean we all have to get off the lake? Will VHF radios be mandatory? What punishment will be forthcoming to the wayward boater in this case?
US Coast Guard proposes off-shore live fire "Safety Zones in Great Lakes
October 2006
November 2006
Pending further study the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation has attributed  the death of hundreds of loons and other aquatic birds littering the shores of eastern Lake Ontario to non-indigenous Type E Botulism. Tests conducted for various strains of avian influenza have been negative.
Avian influenza identified
Tests conducted by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) indicate that a virus found in wild mallard ducks in Niagara County is a low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI). This virus has been detected previously in wild birds of North America and poses no threat to human health.
The Coast Guard "live Fire Issue" continues.
Over 80 Great Lakes cities have asked the CG to abandon their plan to conduct live fire exercises in 34 designated areas on the five lakes. Citing recreational and environmental concerns, they say the plan doesn't make sense. Critics in Canada point out that the proposal is not consistent with the long standing history of cooperation and peaceful relations along the border. In addition the CG has yet to address the effectiveness of the plan or warrant it's cost. New York State continues to be noticeably non-committal on this issue. (What can we say?)
CG 'live fire" comment period ends
The public comment period concerning the estabishment of US  Coast Guard "Live Firing Zones" on the Great Lakes expired on November 13, 2006. Over 800 written and oral comments are currently under review ... no timeline has been set for the announcement of a final decision on the matter.
December 2006

November 2007

On Thursday November 1, 2007 Nestlé Waters of North America, bottlers of “Poland Spring etc.” conducted a public meeting  at the Halfshire Historical Society building in Richland to further elaborate on Nestlé’s’ intentions regarding proposed withdrawals of spring water from the Tug Hill aquifer. As anticipated, Nestle is not pursuing the purchase of the Blu Spring Farm site at this time. However, they are continuing their hydro geologic and flow studies to determine a more suitable site for their proposed bottling plant.

To be considered feasible the area selected must provide an on-site minimum of 400,000 gallons of spring water per day (GPD). Essentially, this means the spring(s) selected must be within a feasible direct pipeline connection with the plant. Over a period of seven years this initial four line bottling plant will be expanded to a  29 acre 10 line facility with a 1.4 to 1.6 million gallon per day (MGD) capacity. Other more remote springs within the aquifer might also be incorporated at this time as viable sources. This water could be stored in standpipes in the vicinity of these outback springs and trucked to the bottling plant as needed.

Nestle currently bottles water from various spring and non-spring water sources under 12 different logos. However, only water that is obtained from a naturally flowing contact spring can be legally labeled as spring water. This spring water can be pumped from a nearby man made shallow collection sump to reduce exposure and protect its purity. However, the amount taken cannot exceed the seasonal free flowing capacity of the spring(s).

Herein lurks the ever present environmental glitch. Nestlé’s study team is identifying all free flowing spring water above the essential flow requirements for habitat maintenance and current competing uses within this vast aquifer as available “Excess Water”. Obviously, this spring water is a premium commodity. Therefore, we expect that additional supplies from wells will also be required during the bottling process and for plant maintenance.

Company hydro geologic engineers are continuing in their efforts to monitor seasonal sub-surface water levels which determine the available long term supply. It is these levels that promote flow through the porous soil to provide wetlands, ponds, and sufficient gravitational head to create and sustain a spring. In-stream flow experts will attempt to determine how much of the free flowing water emanating from these springs is needed to maintain minimal seasonal flows in the trout stream network that originates in this aquifer. It's open season on everything over that amount.

Nestlé concluded that their development in the area would initially hire 60 people and ultimately 200 at the ten line facility.  They insisted that the proposed "Poland Spring" operations would not adversely impact withdrawals for existing recreational, industrial, domestic, and municipal uses. It did not appear that the potential for long term impacts upon the evolvement of these same uses or other forms of social and economic growth within the area was considered. A first come first served scenario.

The application of Local, State, and Federal permits and approvals to this proposal seem to be somewhat nebulous at this point. At least no agency, with permitting or licensing approvals that would enable an in depth public scrutiny pursuant to Uniform Procedures and the State Environmental Quality Review Act is stepping forward at this time. (What can we say?)
December 2007  Oswego Harbor Dredging Proposal

Senator Charles Schumer, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the City of Oswego met in early December to discuss the immediate need to remove approximately 55,000 cubic yards (CY) of a guestimated 160,000 CY of silt that is impeding navigation in Oswego Harbor. About 250 acres situated between the break walls and pier will be involved. It is our understanding that there is no Federal money currently available for the project and it has been put on hold until 2009 – 10.

The purpose for the dredging proposal is to increase the depth of Oswego Harbor to permit the unimpeded entry of larger lake and sea going vessels. The site specific economic reasoning in this instance is obvious. However, we question any program that would further the use of increased shipping until the over whelming economic and environmental concerns regarding ongoing threats from invasive species and fluctuating water levels have been adequately addressed.

Many of ELOSTA’s members are owners of waterfront properties. Our experience has shown that DEC currently requires about 4-6 months to issue a Water Quality Certification and Combined Permit to address benign erosion control and visual improvements for a private residence.  Relatively speaking, we anticipate that it would take DEC or the COE at least two years to compete the less flexible and intensely more complicated documentation needed to respond to the many unanswered questions regarding numerous major impacts of the Oswego project.

The Oswego River has long been an agricultural corridor supporting various commercial, industrial, and municipal purposes. The sediments in question could contain unknown quantities of pesticides, herbicides, PCB’s, and heavy metals etc.? Where is the disposal area for this huge amount of material? Will it be hauled out by hundreds of trucks through the city or will it simply be dispersed back into the lake? How will the in-harbor spread of siltation be controlled during the dredging process and what will its effect be on current fish populations and movements. Not to mention recreational fishing opportunities.

It will be interesting to see if the DEC, which appears to have become and environmental agency in names and resumes only, intends address this situation in a timely manner?   What can we say?

? If the drought is so serious in this matter why is Nestle continuing with it's plans to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars to complete 18 months of testing in a dry hole.
?The continued  interest in Blu Springs Farm as a possible satellite source suggests more than a passing interest in another related but more productive location for the bottling plant. Nestle's future? demands could be met by mobile collections from numerous springs within the area as long as the proposed bottling plant has a dedicated piped source that fulfills initial needs.
?Ground water pumped by a productive well field has the same qualities as  naturally discharged spring water from that same source. Nestle's could not label it "Springwater". However, this water could be bottled under another Nestle's label as being from natural sources.
?Developing a 100 million dollar piped in bottling facility to accommodate 1.5 mgd of water a day sounds more like - Lets get our foot in the door and we can go from there.
October 2007
"Nestle’s is the verrry best" – well, not always!!!

Within the last month we all heard about a not so friendly verbal exchange between one of our many presidential hopefuls and a Great lakes State Governor concerning the redirection of upper great lakes water to supply the needs of the dry southwest. Essentially, all of the lake bordering States and Canada contend that this immense fresh water supply cannot and should not be considered for use outside the GL watershed. But, under current laws, is that position a supportable reality?

Here in Oswego County, NY there is a constantly developing rumor that Nestle International is considering the development of a 100 million dollar bottling facility to withdraw, as a starter, 1.5 million gallons (mpg) of water a day to supply a bottled water industry that encompasses a market that far exceeds the confinements of the GL watershed. The contemplated site for the plant and wells is Lawrence Smith’s 450 acre Blu Springs farm on Potter Rd. between Richland and Orwell.

This acreage is situated directly over a massive aquifer that extends along the base of the TugHill roughly between Rome and Watertown.  It is currently provides an abundant relatively shallow source of water for a number of small communities and DEC’s fish hatchery at Altmar. Also of major environmental concern is the availability of a perennial supply of cold water to, among others, Trout and Orwell Brooks which supplement hydroelectric releases in the Salmon River. Both of these streams and related wetlands are significant with regard to annual spawning runs and recruitment of stream run steelhead.

Nestlé’s claims that numerous long term tests for quality and quantity of the water will have to be undertaken before they will be in a position to make their decision regarding the selection of a suitable site known. ELOSTA understands that. However, a developing reluctance and “waffling” on the bottler's part to acknowledge environmental and permitting obligations that go beyond the usual generic marketing hype has also become quite clear.

With that in mind ELOSTA will continue to investigate this potentially adverse precedent setting impact to ensure that our representatives are fully informed on an ongoing basis and, all agencies with permitting and approval  responsibilities are involved to the fullest extent permitted by State and Federal Environmental Laws. (What can we say?).
October 24, 2007

Spokesman, Kent Koptiuch, Natural Resources Manager, has announced Nestlés concern over the drought conditions that have existed in northern NY State this summer. He stated that the area presently under consideration for the proposed bottling plant “... is too susceptible to drought". We are not sure at this point in time if he was speaking about the Blu Springs Farm site or the entire Tug hill aquifer? There have been many "HOORAHS" and hats thrown in the air over the announcement. But, we won't know the exact meaning of his words is until after the 6:30 PM public meeting on November 1 at the Halfshire Historical Society in Richland. Hopefully, Mr. Koptiuch's update for the "Local Folks" will respond to the various inconsistencies in their position.  So far, he has said nothing that indicates Nestlé’s is heading back to Maine.

His main contention is based on the premise that the farm site in question is too susceptible to drought? Admittedly the rainfall which has been below normal for the last three months or so could be evident in seasonal surface runoff. But this is an aquifer involving many square miles.  The ground water, which is recharged from heavy snows and high flow events annually, releases its water slowly over a long period of time. It can withstand short drought periods if the subsurface flow is not tapped and withdrawn at a rate that exceeds contributions to local water supplies, wetlands, cold water streams, contact springs, and ponds etc.

It should be kept in mind at all times that most of the water that is utilized from Lake Ontario’s surface and subsurface watershed for local or regional purposes is ultimately returned (with some loss) to that watershed. Even the heavy annual lake effect snowfalls that fail to reach the Mohawk drainage system are returned to the lake that generated them. As a comparison Nestle's calls attention to the processing and shipping of competitive bottled beer and soda (pop) etc. We note that the water utilized in these industries is generally obtained from an existing and approved municipal source; and, that the process water not used in the product itself is returned to the same watershed. (What can we say?).

Green Vs. Green
The choice is yours not theirs
This archive is provided as a simple  reminder of the progress that is made concerning various issues that continually confront most Lake Ontario Stake Holders. In most instances the prevalent answer seems to be "We need more complicated mind boggling studies". Better yet!!!! wait it out for a new administration and hit em again.
  2008 wrap-up

The 2008 season on the "Big Lake" started off with a bang late last March.  Eastern Basin anglers were greeted with hungry schools of eager shallow runningr browns .The only drawback was the prohibitive cost of fuel which kept many boats off the lake. As the season progressed the fish, especially KIngs,  became increasingly more difficult to locate and, conservative anglers were reluctant to use their fuel to find them.
Once again we look forward to the coming season. However, we cannot forget the impact of the low water situation on the 2007 fall spawning run and its impact on DEC's egg collection process at the Altmar Hatchery.  Egg quotas were not met and the incubation results were less than optomistic. Those fish that did survive were placed in the netpens on schedule. However, warm rains and fair weather necessitated their immediate release to the wild. Only time will provide us with the long range impact upon the fishery.
Contrary to the claims of most expert prognosticators Lake Ontario's water level recovered dramatically. It remained approximately 8 inches to a foot above the long range "Rule Curve" throughout the summer.  This recovery was also timely. It provided those with erosion related interests a hands on opportunity to experience lake levels that DEC is proposing as a permanent fix to some wildlife concerns.  (What Can We Say?)