DEC Commissioner Denied Appeal – BCEQ_DECCom_reject_appeal (8-3-10)

Appeal to the DEC Commissioner  BCEQ_Appeal_Sensitive_Area_04192010

DEC response  - DEC_reply_to_BCEQ__Requesting_Sensitive_Area_(3-5-10)

BCEQ request to designated Bronx and Harlem Rivers as Sensitive Areas -  BCEQ__Requesting_Sensitive_Area_02172010

Check out what other EPA regions do:  MO_WQS_decision_letter102909

Help us by signing a petition and/or a letter and emailing it to us at water@bceq.org or fax to (888)763-8399

Stormwater Management for Federal Facilities under
Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lid/section438/

You HAVE to download this fact sheet:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/NPS/lid/section438/pdf/final_sec438_factsht.pdf

Garage A project inconsistencies 082309

We hear that the waterfront parks (many miles from where the people live, but across from the shopping mall) will open on Thurs,  October 22, 2009.

Commissioner Adrian Benepe and Bronx Borough Commissioner Hector M. Aponte cordially invite you to attend a Ribbon Cutting Ceremony for Mill Pond Park, Located at One Bronx Terminal Market, Thursday, October 22nd, 2009 at 11:00 A.M.

Mill Pond Flyer

Although the flyer did not mention it, there is a scheduled tennis clinic that day for anyone who wants to play on the new courts.

Sue McCormick, P.E.

NYS DEC

625 Broadway

Albany, NY  12233-3506

sdmccorm@gw.dec.state.ny.us

Here are my notes:

There seems to be very little substantial change in the finished Bronx River Watershed Water Facility Plan (Bronx River WWFP, July 2009). There is mention of the Low Impact Development (LID), but only as a model in need of study, and besides which, there is no land to do this work!. There is mention of Westchester County Improvements, but like the LID, it is also anticipated in the later years of the Long Term Control Plan. There is mention of the shift from the Water Quality Standard of boat and fishable to the LTCP Clean Water Act goal of fishable-swimable. While the upgrade of the Hunts Point WWTP made the biggest difference, it is not new. What is new is the Floatables project for some $26 to 39 million. They could do much better with half going to street cleaning in the watershed!

It is simply incredible that the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) stated that they did not have enough time or money to pilot study, and could not find enough land to absorb stormwater runoff and build LIDs or Green Infrastructure! While it is true that the DEP does not own that much land in this watershed, there are other agencies. Moreover, we have asked them over and over again to expand the responsibility for this consent decree to other agencies, but that has not happened.

In the first two decades of the last century, New York City paid for 75% of the construction costs for the Westchester part of the Bronx River Parkway and Road, and 100% of the city land and roadway. A review of the history of the Bronx River Parkway and Roadway clearly shows that the purpose of the Parkway Project was to clean up the noxious health hazard of the Bronx River, both in the Bronx and Westchester.

This report is deficient. It is no wonder it was denied as a legitimate project for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act! Just as the Bronx River Parkway was the first organized parkway commission, with a little leadership and responsibility, it could have been a great national example once again!

What we need is
1. LID and the Westchester Plan to be written into the Long Term Control Plan for the long term.
2. Another baseline method to assess the health of the River, which takes into consideration the pollutants absorbed by the actions in the LID and Westchester part of the plan. You could call this a TMDL.
3. Some editorial corrections on the existing document – most of which involve stakeholder involvement. Real page numbers should be on the report, not just section and page. Public Meeting Time and Place was inappropriate for summer. Clearly the DEP does not know, nor is it interested in promoting stakeholder involvement as groups are mis-identified on page 6-5.  BCEQ is not a governmental agency!

Although that would be fun ……………….

——————————————————————————————————————————

——————————————————————————————————————————

Now onto the Park in the Sky, or the Park on top of the Garage!

——————————————————————————————————————————

Tall set of stairs and a different handicapped entrance.  Are they supposed to do that?  No, you say?  But they are building a monument to ……… someone?  Who cares about the people?

——————————————————————————————————————————

Wait till you see what is up those stairs, stairs, stairs.  By the way, it was supposed to be a berm.  Hmmmm…… almost looks like a mountain.  Would be really fun in the snow.  But watch out, you could end up in the traffic!

——————————————————————————————————————————

Now up to the top, and I forgot to take the photo of the handicapped entrance, because I was so surprised that anyone would even think they could pass this off as a park.  And don’t they know that you can not have a separate entrance for handicapped persons?

——————————————————————————————————————————

There is one part that is nice.  It is ………can you guess?  It is the part closest to the new Yankee Stadium.  Did I tell you that I was a Met Fan?  Have been since the beginning.

——————————————————————————————————————————

It was a nice relief to be under an umbrella in the heat.  It was about 80 degrees, but was much hotter up on the roof.

——————————————————————————————————————————

So, that about does it.  Oh yeah, we went looking for the berm.

——————————————————————————————————————————

Can not figure out what they are doing, but the berm will be going the other way. So we went to see the new Metro North Station.  That is really nice.

——————————————————————————————————————————

The site is unbelievable.  Maybe this is why the parking lots are not utilized!  There are too many of them ……….and people are coming by the Metro North.  Great idea.  And they did it so fast.  Wonder why the parks are taking so long?  Here is the big bat and the big crane.  Second one shows the GWB.

——————————————————————————————————————————

Then finally ……

——————————————————————————————————————————

Was going to check out the waterfront parks, but it was too far.  Next time.  Let me know what you think, thanks, Karen

http://www.waterblogged.org/dinowitz-and-community-warns-no-emergency-plan-for-bronx-sci-and-surrounding-areas-of-jerome-park-reservoir/

So, even though it is not related, the demolition of Yankee Stadium has been privately bid.  Who knows who got the contract, if they are vendex approved, if they will use certified asbestos removal contractors, and how the bid was awarded.  We thought that the old stadium was in a park; why is the EDC outsourcing this contract?

Karen

Staying Warm:  Grass pellets may be one solution

The potential of grass pellets and woody biomass as sources of home-grown heat is being explored in separate research projects sponsored by the CWC and the Watershed Agricultural Council (WAC).

The Franklin Town Highway Garage is the first of several Watershed buildings selected as a test site for a CWC-funded study by Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE) to explore the feasibility of utilizing grass pellets as a bio-energy source for heating. Indoor and outdoor pellet-fired units will be installed at each site so that people can see both types of heating units in action. Their operation will be monitored for effectiveness, efficiency and ease of use, their air quality impacts will be gauged, and operation and maintenance issues examined.

The study will also determine the cost savings of using grass pellets instead of other forms of fuel. The Town of Franklin, for example, burned 3,000 gallons of fuel oil last year. The boiler that currently warms the highway garage uses about two and a quarter gallons per hour, and runs on average 12 hours a day in the  winter.  Thus the pellet stove project “is a pretty hot topic of conversation here, especially with the price of fuel,” remarked Highway Superintendent Mark Laing. Stoves that use wood pellets, made of sawdust and byproducts from sawmills and woodworking facilities, corn and even cherry pits have become very popular in light of high oil prices.

The CWC project seeks to find a reliable and profitable way to produce grass pellets to use in these stoves, thus turning vacant grasslands in the Watershed “into one more weapon in the arsenal of alternative fuels,” according to CWC Economic Development Director Mike Triolo.

At its meeting September 25, the CWC Board of Directorsauthorized the expenditure of up to $195,500 from the Catskill Fund for the Future for the three-year pilot project. Paul Cerosaletti and Marianne Kiraly of CCE have been consulting with Cornell agriculture professor Jerry Cherney, an avid promoter of the development of grass pellets as a low-tech, small-scale, environmentally-friendly, renewable energy system that can be locally produced, processed and consumed.  Prof. Cherney spoke on this topic at the 2006 Catskills Local Government Day, when he noted that New York State has about 1.5 million acres of unused or underutilized agricultural land, most of which is already growing grass. Farmers no longer raising dairy cows, landowners who have their fields mowed to retain open vistas, even New York City which is acquiring Watershed lands to prevent development and preserve water quality could turn unused grass into cash, and fuel.

READ MORE at http://www.cwconline.org/pubs/adv2009_01.pdf

Hello,

I’m sending a note to let you know the outcome of today’s IDA vote regarding additional financing for the new Yankees and Mets’ stadiums.

While most board members voted in favor of additional financing for the Yankees, John Graham, the alternate for Comptroller Thompson, voted against the proposal. In explaining his vote, he cited numerous concerns regarding previously unknown cost increases and questions about the project left unanswered by the IDA.

In addition, Bernard Haber, the Queens Borough President’s appointee to the board, abstained from the Yankees vote. Mr. Haber questioned the hundreds of millions in cost increases for the Yankees project since the IDA board initially approved it in 2006. The total vote was 11 in favor, one in opposition, and one abstention.

All members voted in favor of the additional financing for the Mets.

A few brief comments on the board meeting:

- Representatives for the Yankees and Mets each made presentations during the hearing, which goes against standard IDA practice. By the IDA’s own rules, comments in favor or opposition to projects are limited to public hearings (one took place yesterday). At all the IDA board meetings Good Jobs New York has attended over the years, never before have we seen project applicants speak in favor of their projects during these meetings.

- Only seven members of the board were present during yesterday’s public hearing, while 13 were present to vote today.

- IDA staff presented a summary of public comments on the projects and responded to these. However, a number of concerns and questions remain unanswered, Among the many:

What will be the average wage of the part-time and contract workers, as these will be the majority of additional new employees at Yankee Stadium?

What accounts for the threefold increase of estimated tax benefits from the construction and operation of Yankee stadium since the project was initially approved in 2006? And what accounts for the large increase for the Mets’ Stadium? These figures are key in the city’s claim that fiscal benefits from these projects outweigh public costs, yet they remain a mystery.

What are the costs and benefits of these additional financings?

Some of the testimony from yesterday’s public hearing is available on our website: http://www.goodjobsny.org/Baseball_2009_IDA__PublicHearing.htm

Please let me know if you have questions or would like to discuss.

Best,

Allison

Allison A. Lack

Research Analyst

Good Jobs New York

11 Park Place, #701

New York, NY 10007

tel: 212-721-4865

fax: 212-721-5415

www.goodjobsny.org

October 3, 2008

Honorable members of the City Council, Scott Stringer, Borough President of Manhattan and Board Member of Randall’s Island Sports Foundation (RISF) and Aimee Boden, the Executive Director of the RISF:

I appreciate your attendance or that of your representatives at the City Council Parks and Recreation Committee meeting on Monday, September 22nd, 2008 entitled Oversight of the Randall’s Island Sports Foundation and the NYC Parks
Department.

Dr. Crain – a psychologist, who has studied the impacts of lead ingestion by children on their development – provided testimony that requires your immediate attention as he addressed the real dangers of exposure to lead in synthetic turf fields
in our city. It is therefore worthy of recapping to you.

In his public statements to you on the record (attached for your reference), Dr. Crain announced that the toxicity of synthetic turf being used by both the Parks Department of Parks and Recreation and the RISF is significant having reached dangerous levels of lead in both the polyethelene ‘blades’ and the pellets forming the base or cushion of the turf. A peer-reviewed study to be published in the Journal of Exposure Science in November (also attached) provides more details of these findings.

As Dr. Crain noted, esteemed heath scientists such as Philip J. Landrigan, Bruce Lanphear, and R.L. Canfield say there may be no safe level of lead exposure. Even low levels can damage the child’s developing nervous system. Dr. Crain called for
a moratorium on new installations until much more research has been conducted.

Public officials responsible for approving, monitoring or halting the use of synthetic turf also have the responsibility to take actions to warn the public about this danger and should ensure at the very least that children under the age of 6 years are
kept from the fields until more is known.

Please take note that notice to you of such serious findings require immediate action for both legal and moral reasons and that your positions as public officials do not insulate you from reckless actions you take in response to this new peer-reviewed scientific data.

Would you please let me know what steps you are taking to inform the relevant city engineers and commissioners of this matter and what steps they in turn are taking to remove this environmental threat to the health of those exposed to synthetic
turf?

Thank you for your good work.

Robert Jereski
Co-founder
New York Climate Action Group
Labels: artificial turf, randall’s island

posted by friendsofbrookpark @ 2:02 PM

Tuff play destroys Field Turf
Non-permitted sports activity destroys Pel Bay Park’s football field

by Andrew Ulrich
Wednesday, October 8, 2008 6:41 PM EDT

http://yournabe.com/articles/2008/10/10/bronx/doc48ed18642f6e6945615071.txt