John Gangemi, of the consulting firm ERM, is the lead recreation consultant for Edison in its KR3 relicensing proceeding.
Gangemi used to work for American Whitewater. In fact, he signed the 2002 Settlement Agreement with Edison regarding whitewater flows on the Upper Kern on AW’s behalf — i.e., he is responsible for the awful whitewater release schedule we have now.
Gangemi misled our boating community about that settlement, saying the agreement “increase[d] the number of days for whitewater releases to 39.” In fact, as Edison conceded in 2014, the number of days when water would potentially be released from diversion was only 14. As an added impediment to flows on the Upper Kern, Gangemi agreed to a brand new “tunnel maintenance flow” that guarantees the first incoming 300 cfs to the project before any rec flows are released. Gangemi admitted he never saw the “study” that purported to justify that flow. (09DEC2020 TWG meeting. The study has since been “lost,” according to Edison.)
In the present KR3 proceeding, Edison has taken stances diametrically opposed to those Gangemi took while working at AW. As the lead recreation consultant who has defended Edison’s study proposals in public proceedings, one can reasonably surmise that Gangemi contributed to if not wrote Edison’s proposals in their entirety. Consider these instances:
Edison’s REC-1 whitewater boating study plan contains the following objective: “Document potential conflicts of boating flows with other recreation users and identify strategies to mitigate those conflicts.” (Edison PSP REC-1 at 1.) But in 2002, Gangemi wrote, “Scheduled whitewater releases . . . are compatible with other recreational uses of the river as has been demonstrated in countless other relicense proceedings across the country. Angling use and whitewater recreation are compatible uses despite vociferous arguments to the contrary. No study in any relicense proceeding has demonstrated that flow fluctuations from whitewater releases decrease the catch rate on the same day of the release.” (FERC eLibrary No. 20021009-5038 at 10.) He also wrote that the “Flow needs of other recreational users should . . . not pollute the results of this [boating] study. Those different needs if they exist will need to be balanced in the license application. Adding them here would taint the results of this study . . . .” (FERC eLibrary No. 20021107-0115 at 54.)
In opposition to KRB’s request for an on-water boating study, Edison wrote, “A controlled flow study below Fairview Dam would be limited to collecting data for a narrow range of flows, thus failing to meet the study objectives as described in Whittaker et al. (2005).” (Edison’s PSP at 23.) However, Gangemi co-authored the Whittaker guide, which flatly contradicts this “narrow range of flows” objection: Whittaker notes that only “[t]hree to four flows are commonly assessed in these [on-water] studies,” and then makes clear that these studies “work best when they are focused on discrete flow ranges where more precision is needed.” (Whittaker (2005) at 26-27), which is precisely what KRB has argued for: an on-water investigation into the most controversial levels of flow: 300 to 700 cfs.
Edison also objected to an on-water study because of “the unpredictable snowpack and associated flows during the ILP study period. (Edison’s PSP at 24.) However, the Whittaker guide plainly states that “In some cases, the study may capitalize on natural flows instead of controlled flows.” (Whittaker at 26.) That guide also states that “Some rivers have extensive recreation use that is clearly flow-dependent and affected by project operations; here more intensive and detailed efforts are necessary.” (Whittaker at 8.)
In response to KRB’s contention that a vast number of boating days is lost due to project operations, Edison maintained: “the made statement above that, “..whitewater recreation is lost to project operations” is not factual, as the current Project flow regime represents the baseline condition considered for analysis in this relicensing not conditions that pre-date the Project before it was built.” But in 2003, Gangemi wrote: “Clearly, [Edison’s] network of diversions, canals and powerhouses has a cumulative effect on water quantity and flow dependent recreation.” (FERC eLibrary No. 20030829-5013 at 2.) Also: “The Borel Hydroelectric Project’s combination of diversion structure, canal and powerhouse significantly alters the instream flow in the eight-mile natural river channel below Isabella Reservoir. Accordingly, this flow alteration limits downstream river recreational opportunities and in particular whitewater boating.” (FERC eLibrary No. 20040218-5036 at 4.)
Edison has attempted to marginalize the 1994 on-water study for KR3 as “opportunistic” requiring “mobiliz[ation] on short notice” and lacking the “substantial improvement in whitewater study design and planning as evidenced in the Whittaker et al. (2005) publication.” (SCE RSP at 2.3.2.7.) But in the Borel proceeding, Gangemi specifically characterized the 1994 study as a “Controlled Flow Whitewater Stud[y like others that] have been undertaken in the relicensing of numerous FERC projects.” (FERC eLibrary No. 20030423-5019 at 11.) He further described it as “the preferred method for evaluating instream flows for whitewater recreation.” (FERC eLibrary No. 20030423-5019 at 10-11.)
Regarding its preference for surveys over an on-water controlled flow boating study, Edison wrote: “The online flow comparison survey is not limited to the unpredictable snowpack and associated flows during the ILP study period. . . . The goal of the survey is to improve the precision for developing flow preference curves for a variety of watercraft types for the respective whitewater segments in the 16-mile Fairview Dam Bypass Reach.” (Edison’s PSP REC-1 at 6.) But during the Borel relicensing proceeding, Gangemi scoffed at the notion that surveys were sufficient: “the Licensee failed to conduct the appropriate [on-water] instream flow studies capable of identifying the minimum acceptable and optimum flows for flow dependent recreation including wading, swimming, tubing and whitewater boating. The Licensee elected instead to devote energy to surveying existing users in the Kern River on their preferred flows. Surveys were conducted over the 2001 and 2002 summer seasons. The Licensees’ consultants provided summaries to the stakeholder group of survey results in 2001 and again in 2002. On both occasions, the stakeholder group pointed out significant errors in the data. In recognition of these errors, and the inability to correct them, the stakeholder group recommended at an October 2, 2002 meeting in Kernville that SCE undertake a controlled flow study as originally requested in comments on the FSCD by American Whitewater to identify minimum acceptable and optimum flows for flow dependent recreation.” (FERC eLibrary No. 20030829-5013 at 3.) He also wrote, “recreation surveys and SNF manifest data were not sufficient for analysis and developing whitewater PM&E’s for the Borel project. The conclusions contained in the Final License Application are based almost entirely on the flawed survey data and SNF manifest data. Furthermore, it became apparent that stakeholders were unable to evaluate the adequacy of SCE’s proposed augmentation plan until a Whitewater Controlled Flow Study identifying the minimum acceptable and optimum flows was conducted.” (FERC eLibrary No. 20040218-5036 at 6.) And again: “The license application is deficient as a result of SCE’s insistence to apply survey methods rather than conduct the appropriate Whitewater Controlled Flow Study. SCE’s license application fails to present a defensible range of boatable flows supported by scientific study.” (FERC eLibrary No. 20040218-5036 at 7.) Gangemi said he “repeatedly directed SCE to conduct a Controlled Flow Whitewater Study as the recommended method for identifying minimum acceptable and optimum flows for whitewater recreation in the bypass.” (FERC eLibrary No. 20030423-5019 at 5.) Finally, Gangemi stated: “The controlled flow method enables the researcher to identify with significant accuracy the minimum acceptable and optimum flows for whitewater recreation. Although alternate methodologies have been used in other FERC proceedings none have proved as reliable and accurate as the controlled flow methodology.” (FERC eLibrary No. 20030423-5019 at 8.) An on-water study is “the most definitive method” for identifying minimal and optimal flows. (FERC eLibrary No. 20021107-0115 at 48.)
Finally, Gangemi wrote during the Borel proceeding, “In the context of a relicense proceeding the stakeholders utilize [study] results for the respective forms of recreation to advocate their interest in flows. SCE’s proposal would fold this negotiation phase into the actual study thus compromising the integrity of the study. . . . I’d rather know that the study results represent objective data as opposed to negotiated results.” (FERC eLibrary No. 20021107-0115 at 47.) In the KR3 proceeding, Gangemi tried to turn the Level 2 focus group into a negotiation.
We could go on, but you get the picture: Gangemi is not some type of independent analyst or pro-boater social scientist, no matter how he tries to represent himself locally. Rather, he has been hired by Edison, is being paid with money earned from the KR3 diversion, and his carreer will fourish if he holds the line against substantially increased whitewater flows.