DOCSLIB.ORG

Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P. V. FERC

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P. V. FERC ORAL ARGUMENT HAS NOT BEEN SCHEDULED In the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit No. 16-1015 __________ ERIE BOULEVARD HYDROPOWER, L.P., Petitioner, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent. __________ ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ORDERS OF THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION __________ BRIEF OF RESPONDENT FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION __________ Max Minzner General Counsel Robert H. Solomon Solicitor Elizabeth E. Rylander Scott Ray Ediger Attorneys For Respondent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20426 FINAL BRIEF: September 27, 2016 CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES A. Parties All parties and intervenors appearing before this Court are identified in the Brief of Petitioner Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P. B. Rulings Under Review 1. Hudson River-Black River Regulating District, 152 FERC ¶ 62,124 (2015) (2015 Initial Order), R.2085, JA 211; and 2. Hudson River-Black River Regulating District, 153 FERC ¶ 61,218 (2015) (2015 Rehearing Order), R.2168, JA 1. C. Related Cases This case has not previously been before this Court or any other court, and to counsel’s knowledge there are no related cases pending before this Court or elsewhere. Counsel concurs with Petitioner’s statements concerning the relationship of this case to Albany Eng’g Corp. v. FERC, 548 F.3d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 2008), and the dismissal of a previously consolidated case in D.C. Cir. No. 16- 1020. /s/ Elizabeth E. Rylander Elizabeth E. Rylander FINAL BRIEF: September 27, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE ........................................................................... 1 STATUTES AND REGULATIONS.. ................................................................. 2 STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................. 3 I. Statutory and Regulatory Background ...................................................... 3 II. History of Dispute ...................................................................................... 5 A. Events Leading Up To Albany Engineering Decision .................... 5 1. 2002 Licensing Proceeding ..................................................... 5 2. Erie Boulevard’s 2006 Settlement With the District .............. 8 3. 2006 Complaint Proceeding and Albany Engineering ............ 9 B. Orders on Remand of Albany Engineering ................................... 12 C. Orders Determining Headwater Benefits ...................................... 14 D. Federal District Court Proceeding ................................................. 17 III. The Proceeding Under Review ................................................................ 18 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ......................................................................... 20 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ARGUMENT…… ............................................................................................. 21 I. Standard of Review .................................................................................. 21 II. FERC Reasonably Honored the 2006 Settlement ................................... 23 A. Erie Boulevard’s Remedy For Overcharges Lies In State Court, Not Before the Commission ...................................... 24 B. Erie Boulevard Settled Away Its State-Law Claims ..................... 31 C. The Commission Did Not Improperly “Change Course” From Its Earlier Orders ................................................................. 37 III. Erie Boulevard’s Remaining Arguments Do Not Justify Reversal ......... 39 A. Nothing Required the Parties To File the 2006 Settlement .......... 40 B. The Commission Correctly Interpreted the 2006 Settlement........ 41 C. Erie Boulevard Is Not Entitled To Interest ................................... 43 CONCLUSION….. ............................................................................................ 45 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES COURT CASES: PAGE * Albany Eng’g Corp. v. FERC, 548 F.3d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ........................................... 9, 11-12, 25-26 Burlington Res., Inc. v. FERC, 396 F.3d 405 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ................................................................. 39 * Burlington Res., Inc. v. FERC, 513 F.3d 242 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ...................................................... 34-35, 39 Cal. Trout v. FERC, 572 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2009) ................................................................... 3 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984)................................................................................. 22 City of Arlington, Tex. v. FCC, 133 S. Ct. 1863 (2013) ............................................................................. 22 City of Tacoma v. FERC, 460 F.3d 53 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ................................................................... 22 Conn. Valley Elec. Co., Inc. v. FERC, 208 F.3d 1037 (D.C. Cir. 2000) ............................................................... 45 Farmington River Power Co. v. FERC, 103 F.3d 1002 (D.C. Cir. 1997) ........................................................... 4, 26 FERC v. Elec. Power Supply Ass’n, 136 S. Ct. 760 (2016) ............................................................................... 22 First Iowa Hydro-Elec. Coop. v. FPC, 328 U.S. 152 (1946)................................................................................... 3 _______________________ * Cases chiefly relied upon are marked with an asterisk. iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES COURT CASES: PAGE Hudson River-Black River Regulating Dist. v. Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P., 2014 WL 5502375 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2014) .............................. 17-18, 36 Kan. Cities v. FERC, 723 F.2d 82 (D.C. Cir. 1983) ................................................................... 23 Lomak Petroleum, Inc. v. FERC, 206 F.3d 1193, 1198 (D.C. Cir. 2000) ..................................................... 22 Monongahela Power Co. v. Marsh, 809 F.2d 41 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ..................................................................... 3 Morgan Stanley Capital Gp. Inc. v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 554 U.S. 527 (2008)................................................................................. 35 Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) ................................................................................... 22 Nat’l Fuel Gas Supply Corp. v. FERC, 811 F.2d 1563, 1570 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ..................................................... 22 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. FPC, 379 F.2d 153 (D.C. Cir. 1967) ................................................................. 27 Panhandle E. Pipe Line Co. v. FERC, 95 F.3d 62 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ............................................................... 23, 35 Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 U.S. 747 (1968)........................................................................... 24, 37 Pub. Utils. Comm’n of Calif. v. FERC, 367 F.3d 925 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ................................................................. 44 NRG Power Mktg., LLC v. FERC, 718 F.3d 947 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ................................................................. 37 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES COURT CASES: PAGE Sithe/Independence Power Partners, L.P. v. FERC, 165 F.3d 944 (D.C. Cir. 1999) ................................................................. 21 Tejas Power Corp. v. FERC, 908 F.2d 998 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ................................................................. 33 Tex. E. Transmission Corp. v. FERC, 306 F.2d 345 (5th Cir. 1962) ................................................................... 23 Union Elec. Co. v. FERC, 890 F.2d 1193 (D.C. Cir. 1989) .......................................................... 33-34 ADMINISTRATIVE CASES: * Albany Eng’g Corp. v. Hudson River-Black River Regulating Dist., 127 FERC ¶ 61,174 (2009) (2009 Remand Order), on reh’g, 129 FERC ¶ 61,134 (2009) (2009 Remand Rehearing Order) ......... 12-13, 25-31, 38-39 Avista Corp., 93 FERC ¶ 61,116 (2000) ............................................................. 27-28, 37 Burlington Res. Oil & Gas Co., 112 FERC ¶ 61,053 (2005) ...................................................................... 34 * Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P., 88 FERC ¶ 61,176 (1999) ............................................................. 27-28, 37 Fourth Branch Assoc. (Mechanicville) v. Hudson River-Black River Regulating Dist., 117 FERC ¶ 61,321 (2006) (2006 Complaint Order), reh’g denied, 119 FERC ¶ 61,141 (2007) (2007 Complaint Rehearing Order) ........ 9-11, 30, 38, 41 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ADMINISTRATIVE CASES: PAGE Hudson River-Black River Regulating Dist., 100 FERC ¶ 61,319 (2002) (2002 License Order), on reh’g sub nom. Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P. (2003 License Rehearing Order), 102 FERC ¶ 61,133 (2003) ..................................................... 5, 7-9, 26, 37 Hudson River-Black River Regulating Dist., 140 FERC ¶ 62,089 (2012) (2012 Headwater Benefits Order), on reh’g, 141 FERC ¶ 61,277 (2012) ................................................ 15-16, 30-32, 42 Hudson River-Black River Regulating Dist., 152 FERC ¶ 62,124 (2015) (2015 Initial Order), on reh’g, 153 FERC ¶ 61,218 (2015) (2015 Rehearing Order) ........... 8-9, 17-20, 24, 28-30, 33-36, 38-44 * Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 97 FERC ¶ 61,084 (2001) ............................................................. 27-28, 37 STATUTES: Administrative Procedure Act 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) ....................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1Hudson River-Black River Regulating District, 101 FERC ¶ ______(Great Sacandaga Lake Project No
    100 FERC ¶ 61, 321 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Commissioners: Pat Wood, III, Chairman; William L. Massey, Linda Breathitt, And Nora Mead Brownell. Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P. Project Nos. 2047-004, 2047-011, 2318-002, 2318-011, 2482-014, 2482-029, 2554-003, and 2554-012 Hudson River-Black River Project No. 12252-000 Regulating District ORDER APPROVING OFFER OF SETTLEMENT (Issued September 25, 2002) 1. In this order, the Commission approves an Offer of Settlement on the relicensing of several hydroelectric projects in New York's upper Hudson River Basin. We are simultaneously issuing: (1) an original license to the Hudson River-Black River Regulating District (District) for the previously unlicensed dam and reservoir components (Conklingville Dam and Great Sacandaga Lake) of a unit of hydropower development;1 (2) a new license to Erie Boulevard Hydropower, LP (Erie) for the powerhouse and generating facilities at that same unit of development;2 and (3) three new licenses to Erie for other projects located downstream of that unit of development on the Sacandaga River or Hudson River.3 1Hudson River-Black River Regulating District, 101 FERC ¶ ______ (Great Sacandaga Lake Project No. 12252). Conklingville Dam and Great Sacandaga Lake, which it impounds, are owned by the State of New York and managed by the District. The District is a state agency which was organized in 1922 pursuant to Article VII-A of the Conservation Law of the New York State Code (N.Y. Envtl. Conser. Law § 15-2101 et seq.). It is authorized to plan, finance, build, operate and maintain various storage reservoirs in the State, including Great Sacandaga Lake.
    [Show full text]
  • 52 Hudson River Basin 01325000 Sacandaga River At
    52 HUDSON RIVER BASIN 01325000 SACANDAGA RIVER AT STEWARTS BRIDGE, NEAR HADLEY, NY LOCATION.--Lat 43°18'41", long 73°52'04", Saratoga County, Hydrologic Unit 02020002, on left bank 1.0 mi downstream from Stewarts Bridge, 1.1 mi west of Hadley, 1.4 mi upstream from mouth, and 1.5 mi downstream from Stewarts Bridge hydroelectric plant. DRAINAGE AREA.--1,055 mi2. PERIOD OF RECORD.--September 1907 to current year. Published as "near Hadley" 1907-l910, "at Hadley" 1911-32 and "at Conklingville" 1932-52. Records published for both sites October 1951 to September 1952. REVISED RECORDS.--WSP 1302: 1908. WSP 1432: 1910-12, 1916-21, WDR NY-83-1: 1968(M), 1971-72(M), 1976-77(M), 1979(M). GAGE.--Water-stage recorder and crest-stage gage. Datum of gage is 582.00 ft above NGVD of 1929. Prior to Jan. 1, 1911, nonrecording gage at site about 1 mi upstream at different datum. Jan. 1, 1911 to Sept. 30, 1932, water-stage recorder at site 0.8 mi downstream at datum 8.82 ft lower than present datum. Oct. 1, 1932 to Sept. 30, 1952, water-stage recorder at site 3.6 mi upstream at datum 85.47 ft higher than present datum. REMARKS.--No estimated daily discharges. Records good except those below about 50 ft3/s, which are fair. Flow regulated by Great Sacandaga Lake since Mar. 27, 1930 (see station 01323500); discharge over spillway, part or all or several days in 1983, 1990, 1993, 2000, 2003-04 (only spillage since completion of Conklingville Dam in 1930).
    [Show full text]
  • Norman A. Mordue, Chief U.S. District Judge: MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Case 5:09-cv-00471-NAM-ATB Document 29 Filed 09/16/09 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ____________________________________________ NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION, d/b/a NATIONAL GRID, Plaintiff, vs. 5:09-CV-00471 HUDSON RIVER-BLACK RIVER REGULATING DISTRICT and NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, Defendants. NAM ____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: Hiscock & Barclay, L.L.P. Mark D. Lansing, Esq. 50 Beaver Street Albany, New York 12207-2830 Attorney for Plaintiff Crane, Parente & Cherubin David M. Cherubin, Esq. Regulating District 90 State Street, Suite 1515 Albany, New York 12207 Attorney for Defendant Hudson River-Black River Andrew M. Cuomo Charles J. Quackenbush, Esq. Attorney General of the State of New York Assistant Attorney General The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 Attorney for Defendant NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Norman A. Mordue, Chief U.S. District Judge: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation d/b/a National Grid, is a former hydroelectric power generating company which now merely transmits and distributes energy resources, but still owns various real estate parcels along the Hudson River, Sacandaga River and Black River Basins. This case involves primarily plaintiff’s claims against the Hudson Case 5:09-cv-00471-NAM-ATB Document 29 Filed 09/16/09 Page 2 of 13 River-Black River Regulating District, (“the District”) a New York state agency that regulates water flow in the basins of the Hudson, Sacandaga, Black and Beaver Rivers and operates, inter alia, the Conklingville Dam and its related body of water, Great Sacandaga Lake.
    [Show full text]
  • Supplemental Response to FERC's
    KLAMATH RIVER RENEWAL CORPORATION March 22, 2018 DELIVERY VIA ELECTRONIC FILING David E. Capka, P .E. Office of Energy Projects Director, Division of Dam Safety and Inspections (D2SI) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, N.E., Routing Code: PJ-13 Washington, D.C. 20426 RE: FERC No. P-14803, NATDAM-OR00559, CA00323, CA00234, CA00325; Response to October 5, 2017 Directive to Convene an Independent Board of Consultants Dear Director Capka: The Klamath River Renewal Corporation ("KRRC") responds to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's ("Commission") October 5, 2017 directive ("Directive") to convene an Independent Board of Consultants ("BOC") to review and assess aspects of the proposed dam removal process for the Lower Klamath Project (FERC No. P-14803). Resumes for each proposed BOC member are provided as attachments for your review and approval. This response also addresses the March 15, 2018 "Order Amending License and Deferring Consideration of Transfer Application," and specifically, Item no. 4 in the Appendix, "Additional Information Required for License Transfer Application." This response to the Directive is solely and exclusively attributable to KRRC. PacifiCorp will coordinate with KRRC and BOC to allow the BOC's work to be performed and completed consistent with the Directive. Except as may otherwise be expressly provided by PacifiCorp, all responses, statements of fact, views, opinions, interpretations, and other communications as may be provided in response to this Directive are solely and exclusively attributable to the KRRC, are based on facts and information that are known to the KRRC, and are not attributable to PacifiCorp or any other party. The Directive requires that the BOC be fully independent and consist of at least three members with the following experience: • Civil engineering (with specialized experience in dam construction and removal of both concrete and embankment dams) • Civil engineering (with specialized experience in hydrology, hydraulics, and stream diversion) • Geotechnical engineering 423 Washington St.
    [Show full text]
  • Pcbs in the Upper Hudson River Historical
    iVs * PCBs in the Upper Hudson River Volume 1 Historical Perspective and Model Overview Prepared for: General Electric Albany, New York Job Number: GENhud:131 May 1999 313460 Volume 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES.......................................................................... 1-1 1.2 REPORT ORGANIZATION......................................................................................... 1-2 SECTION 2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS.................................................................. 2-1 2.1 GEOGRAPHIC FEATURES......................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 River Location......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 River Dimensions and Characteristics.....................................................................2-1 2.1.3 Drainage Basin Characteristics................................................................................2-3 2.2 CULTURAL FEATURES..............................................................................................2-6 2.2.1 Hydroelectric Power Generation..............................................................................2-7 2.2.2 Champ!ainCanal......................................................................................................2-8 2.2.3 Hydropower Sites Affecting PCBs in the Hudson River........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Stewarts Bridge 2011 FERC Environmental Assessment
    20110727-0019 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/26/2011 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Frie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P. Project No. 2047-049 NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (July 26, 2011) In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC) regulations, 18 CFR Part 380, Commission staff has reviewed the application for amendment of license for the Stewarts Bridge Project (FERC No. 2047) and has prepared an environmental assessment (EA). The project is located on the Sacandaga River in Saratoga County, New York. The EA contains the Commission staff s analysis of the potential environmental effects of the proposed addition of new generating capacity and concludes that authorizing the amendment, with appropriate environmental protective measures would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment. A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be tawed on the Commission's website at bop //~www fere. o using the "eLibrarym link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSu ort fere. ov or toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY contact (202) 502-8695. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary 20110727-0019 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/26/2011 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR A NON-CAPACITY RELATED AMENDMENT TO LICENSE Stewarts Bridge Hydroelectric Project —FERC Project No. 2047-049 New York Federal Energy Regulatory Commission OIIice of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 July 2011 20110727-0019 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/26/2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES .
    [Show full text]
  • Board Member Information Packet for October 8, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Page No
    Board Member Information Packet for October 8, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Page No. Regular Board Meeting: Motion to Adopt or Revise Meeting Agenda ....................................................................................... 1 Approval of the September 13, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Minutes ............................................... 2 - 6 Executive Director’s Report ................................................................................................................. 7 Contracts/Actions Resolution Authorizing Appointment of Secretary Treasurer .............................................................. 8 Staff Reports: General Counsel .................................................................................................................................... 9 Compliance Officer .............................................................................................................................. 10 - 12 Chief Fiscal Officer .............................................................................................................................. 13 - 36 Chief Engineer ...................................................................................................................................... 37 - 66 Administrator ........................................................................................................................................ 67 - 69 Resolution for next Board Meeting .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 20120125-0017 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/19/2012
    20120125-0017 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/19/2012 Conklingville Dam and Great Sacandaga Lake Investment Cost $12,104,830 Interest Rate on 40 Year Bonds 4.50% Economic Service Life (Yrs) 100 Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 Joint-Use Capital Cost 0 0 0 0 Depreciation $121,048 $121,048 $121,048 $121,048 Depreciation of Dam Bulkheads etc. Maintenance Cost $1,550,843 $1,332,204 $1,261,540 $982,232 Total Annual Costs Annual 10(f) Cost $1,671,891 $1,453,252 $1,382,588 $1,103,280 Cost Allocated to power 10(f) Cost Allocate to Power $779,937 $677,942 $644,977 $514,680 Bulk Head Cost $I68,000 in 2007 and in $520,643 in 2008 Dow Valve Pin Replacement Depreciated in 40 Years (Straightline) Alternate Energy Cost ($/MWh) Owner Replacement Values of Energy E J West (P-2318) Erie Boulevard 37.65 52.20 51.95 76.10 Stewarts Bridge (P-2047) Erie Boulevard 37.65 52.20 51.95 76.10 Curtis (P-2609) Curtis Electric Co. 37.65 52.20 51.95 76.10 Palmer (P-2609) Curtis Electric Co. 37.65 52.20 51.95 76.10 Spier Falls (P-2482) Erie Boulevard 37.65 52.20 51.95 76.10 Shernan Island (P-2482) Erie Boulevard 37.65 52.20 51.95 76.10 Feeder (P-2554) Erie Boulevard 37.65 52.20 51.95 76.10 South Glens Falls (P-5461) So.Glens Falls Ptnsp 37.65 52.20 51.95 76.10 Glens Falls (P-2385) Erie Boulevard 37.65 52.20 51.95 76.10 Hudson Falls (P-5276) Northern Elec.PWR Co.
    [Show full text]
  • Albany Pool CSO Long Term Control Plan
    City of Albany City of Cohoes City of Rensselaer City of Troy City of Watervliet Village of Green Island June 30, 2011 Albany Pool CSO Long Term Control Plan Submitted to and NYSDEC Table of Contents Executive Summary 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Project Background ............................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Organization of this Report ...............................................................................................................1-2 1.2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................1-2 1.2.2 Receiving Water Conditions and Assessment ......................................................................1-2 1.2.3 Combined Sewer System Mapping, Database & Digitizing ................................................1-2 1.2.4 Combined Sewer System Monitoring....................................................................................1-2 1.2.5 Combined Sewer System Modeling ......................................................................................1-2 1.2.6 WWTP Wet Weather Capacity Study ....................................................................................1-3 1.2.7 Development and Evaluation of CSO Control Alternatives ................................................1-3 1.2.8 Financial Capability Assessment ...........................................................................................1-3 1.2.9 Implementation Schedule.......................................................................................................1-3
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Annual Report of the HUDSON RIVER – BLACK RIVER REGULATING DISTRICT
    2018 Annual Report of the HUDSON RIVER – BLACK RIVER REGULATING DISTRICT The mission of the Hudson River-Black River Regulating District is to regulate the flows of the Hudson River and Black River for the purposes of flood protection and flow augmentation. 1 MESSAGE FROM THE BOARD On behalf of the Board of the Hudson River – Black River Regulating District, thank you for your interest in our 2018 Annual Report. As you will note, 2018 was a busy yet productive year for the Regulating District. In 1959, the New York State Legislature combined the Hudson River Regulating District (established in 1922) with the Black River Regulating District (established in 1919) forming the Hudson River – Black River Regulating District. In 2019 we will celebrate sixty years of effective river regulation. The mission of the Hudson River-Black River Regulating District is to regulate the flows of the Hudson River and Black River for the purposes of flood protection and flow augmentation and the Board takes this mission very seriously. Our success is due to the excellent working relationship the Regulating District maintains with Federal, State and local legislators, agencies, organizations and leaders. In addition, we commend our diligent staff. The Regulating District is a New York State public benefit corporation that is operated with predictability, transparency and accountability in mind. For more information about the operation and governance of the Hudson River – Black River Regulating District please view our website at www.hrbrrd.com or contact
    [Show full text]
  • 02 Project Summary Intro History.Pdf
    Project Summary Cultural resource survey type: Phase 1 archaeological background and architectural reconnaissance survey Location: Town of Northampton, Fulton County, New York Survey area: 34.7 square miles Quadrangle: Broadalbin Sensitivity assessment: Prehistoric: Low sensitivity Historic: High sensitivity Archaeological background methodology: No testing was provided; literature and site file search information is provided. Results of archaeological background research: 8 known (recorded) archaeological sites 3 recommended archaeological sites (pending archaeological review/ testing to identify if eligible) 21 mapped documented (commercial) structures in the Village of Northville Results of architectural survey: 3,000 properties in the project area 885 properties more than 50 years old 2 properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRL) 93 properties recommended eligible for the Northampton Designated Landmark Register 154 properties recommended potentially eligible for the Northampton Designated Landmark Register 3 Historic Districts recommended Author: Andrea J. Becker, 1946 West Glenville Rd., Amsterdam, NY 12010 Date: November 13, 2009 Sponsor: This project was partially funded by Preserve New York, a grant program of the Preservation League of New York and the New York State Council on the Arts. ~ 1 ~ Introduction The purpose of this report is to identify the cultural resources of the Town of Northampton, including the Village of Northville. This report will be used to understand the historical significance of the town and the importance of its resources. The Town of Northampton resides on the eastern edge of Fulton County, New York, entirely within the Adirondack Park, 3.7 miles north of the southern park boundary. The northern town line borders the Town of Hope, Hamilton County, and the eastern town line borders the Town of Day, Saratoga County.
    [Show full text]
  • 01323500 GREAT SACANDAGA LAKE at CONKLINGVILLE, NY Upper Hudson Basin Sacandaga Subbasin
    Water-Data Report 2012 01323500 GREAT SACANDAGA LAKE AT CONKLINGVILLE, NY Upper Hudson Basin Sacandaga Subbasin LOCATION.--Lat 43°18′57″, long 73°55′39″ referenced to North American Datum of 1927, Saratoga County, NY, Hydrologic Unit 02020002, 800 ft upstream from right end of Conklingville Dam on Sacandaga River at Conklingville. DRAINAGE AREA.--1,044 mi². SURFACE-WATER RECORDS PERIOD OF RECORD.--January 1930 to current year. Prior to October 1969, published as "Sacandaga Reservoir at Conklingville". GAGE.--Water-stage recorder. Datum of gage is NGVD of 1929, adjustment of 1912. Prior to Apr. 23, 1930, nonrecording gage at same datum in outlet channel 800 ft downstream. COOPERATION.--Supplemental records provided by Board of Hudson River-Black River Regulating District. REMARKS.--Reservoir is formed by earth and concrete dam; storage began in March 1930; dam completed in 1930. Usable capacity for stream regulation, 29.920 bil ft³ between elevations 740.0 ft and 771.0 ft (spillway crest). Elevation of inverts of three Dow valves is 699.0 ft. Capacity of 7.800 bil ft³ below elevation 740.0 ft is considered dead storage, except for extraordinary emergencies or for necessary inspection of structures. Purpose of reservoir is to provide flood control and low-water stream regulation for sanitary improvement, navigation, and power, as required by the public welfare, including public health and safety. Area of water surface of reservoir filled to capacity, elevation 771.0 ft, is 41.7 mi². Satellite and telephone gage-height telemeter at station. EXTREMES FOR PERIOD OF RECORD.--Maximum elevation, 774.47 ft, May 1, 2011, contents, 41.824 bil ft³; minimum since first filling, 729.55 ft, Mar.
    [Show full text]