The study is being carried out by the Bronx Council on Environmental Quality in collaboration with the Borough President’s office, the Gaia Institute, and Manhattan College. A steering committee has been formed, which includes representatives of the Borough President; Community Boards 4, 5, 7 and 8; and agencies and community organizations with interests in the waterfront. Hilary Kitasei is the project manager. The Borough President’s office is preparing maps and the Gaia Institute is doing the environmental analysis.

Scope. The Harlem River BOA includes 162 acres of the Bronx shore of the Harlem River, which contains many vacant or underutilized properties whose development is complicated by the presumption of contamination. It includes two sub-areas: 156 acres from the Macombs Dam Bridge to the Bronx border with Marble Hill, and the 6-acre triangle in Spuyten Duyvil at the confluence of the Hudson River. A broader community participation area includes the populated upland areas whose residents have the most direct stake in the future in the waterfront: Concourse, HighBridge, Morris Heights, University Heights, Kingsbridge Heights, Marble Hill, and Spuyten Duyvil.

Background. The Harlem River and its neighboring communities are poised for a long-overdue revival. For centuries, the Harlem provided a bountiful harvest of seafood and a source of transportation for indigenous tribes, followed by colonists and the first generations of the new republic. At the turn of the last century, the river was host to a proliferation of boathouses and regattas, attracting rowers and spectators from around the world. Early 20th century industrialization and planning policies all but eradicated public access to the River and replaced the festive boathouses and sustenance fishermen with factories and power plants, sewage outfalls, miles of bulkheads, roads and railways that turned New Yorkers away from their waterfronts. In the case of the Harlem River, highways and railroads cut the inland communities off from their seven-mile waterfront almost completely.

The Harlem River BOA is presumed to be one large brownfield, with significant contamination throughout all environmental media. Its redevelopment and restoration require thorough planning and analysis of hazardous substance sites, which includes participation at all levels. It is anticipated that targeted brownfields redevelopment efforts will contribute to the expansion of public access opportunities, open space protection, protection of fish habitat and intertidal areas, tourism and recreation promotion, and improving linkages between the waterfront and historic communities.

The Bronx Council for Environmental Quality (BCEQ) is a 501c.3 grass roots community group founded in 1970. BCEQ seeks to establish - as an inherent Human Right - a sound, forward-looking policy regarding ”an aesthetic, unpolluted environment with a natural and historic heritage.” We believe grassroots citizen involvement to be essential in building and maintaining a sustainable present and future environment. We think globally, and act locally — in The Bronx.

Dear Ivy,

I’ve heard that there are plans for blasting at Jerome Park Reservoir, even though the DEP originally promised that there wouldn’t be. Is this true? What is being done to stop this?

~A Concerned Resident from Scott Tower

Dear Concerned Resident from Scott Tower:

BCEQ has been at the forefront advocating for Jerome Park Reservoir, Van Cortlandt Park and the surrounding communities. We recently decided to take DEP to court to stop the blasting at the Reservoir. Below is information about the court case.

FACT: The 2004 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) stated on page 184 of Section 8.2, submitted as one of the Exhibits: “There would be no surface drilling or blasting in relation to work at the Reservoir.”

FACT: June and July 2008, the DEP announced that they would like to blast at the Jerome Park Reservoir (JPR), and may start as early as August 1, 2008. They compared blasting with drilling even though neither of these alternatives were approved in the FSEIS.

Complaintants: BCEQ is a borough wide environmental organization formed in 1971, and the Fort Independence Park Neighborhood Association (FIPNA) is a local neighborhood organization whose members primarily live in or around the JPR; both organizations have been engaged in the effort to protect and preserve community life and minimize disruption around JPR for several years. BCEQ President Ira Charles Levenberg and FIPNA President Philip McDonnell signed, as did local Assembly Member Jeffrey Dinowitz and Council Member G. Oliver Koppell. Damian McShane and Father Richard Gorman are the Chairpersons of Community Boards 8 and 12 respectively –each of whom passed resolutions requesting the submission of an EIS by the DEP before blasting at Jerome Park Reservoir begins. Anthony Perez Cassino is the former Chairperson of Community Board 8 and Saul Scheinbach is the Environmental Committee Chairperson of CB8. Frances Al Chapman heads up the Kingsbridge Heights Neighborhood Improvement Association; and Lynn Schwarz is VP of FIPNA. Mario Benitez, Michael Gary, and Morris Palevsky live in Amalgamated Houses. Sonia Lappin from Scott Tower and Carolyn Smith from Tracey Towers live just one small block away from the potential site where the DEP plans to blast.

THE BRONX COUNCIL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (BCEQ), et. al v. THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (DEP), et. al, (Index # 260287 of 2008) will be heard on September 3, 2008.

Check for updates at www.bceq.org.

~ Ivy

BCEQ Doctrine of Low Impact Development

Every development project should make at least one environmental condition in its vicinity better and make none worse. In addition, new or re-development in the Bronx should prove:

1. Required and/or allowable parking incorporates the least number of off-street spaces.

2. No parking should be free, except for deliveries.

3. For redevelopment projects, no new parking spaces allowed, unless developer meets the “BCEQ Mitigation Trading Criteria.”

4. Parking should be in a structure that is multi-level, enclosed with a natural green growth cover to capture rainfall, with scrubbers inside that will clean the air from the car exhaust.

5. Parking should not be sprawled over blacktop, or in an area that allows fumes to concentrate and impact the public.

6. Mass transit should be encouraged and, as an incentive, should be provided FREE to any and all who purchase tickets and/or use the facility.

7. The city should provide tax incentives to those who provide FREE mass transit as part of the ticket cost (including express buses).

8. Brownfields should not be capped, but cleaned to the highest, not just best use. Exception to this includes proposals with natural attenuation and scientifically documented biogeochemical processes with a proven record for cleaning and/or neutralizing the pollutant of concern.

9. Projects promoted by the City should adopt the model professed by the City of New York to the world in its Olympic 2012 proposals, proving the City’s ability to deliver, and thereby promote its ability to attain future Olympic Games. That Model included:
a. Sports activities should encourage mass transit use within the city and the metropolitan area by arranging for EXPRESS service on rail, ferry, subway and bus to the stadium (Yankee, Shea or Giant).
b. Choose Stormwater Management practices at the highest level, not just determining adequate capacity in the sewers. The city’s policy must be to capture and treat all rainfall prior to discharge into a waterbody, and meet all Phase II Stormwater Regulations. Anything less will never diminish the CSO problem and all of its health implications.

10. Stormwater Criteria should include methods to attenuate, convey, pre-treat, treat & polish stormwater runoff, paid for by the developer, (as adopted from the NYS DOT Route 120 project):
a. No untreated discharges to the waterbody within the limits of the project.
b. Multi-barrier watershed approach reduces pollutant loads from existing conditions.
c. Practices are arranged in “series” providing a “treatment train” prior to discharge from the project site.
d. Design provides oil spill/containment treatment.
e. Design includes both structural and nonstructural components compatible with the natural and constructed features of project site.
f. No net increase of impervious surfaces from project within the watershed basin.
g. Natural water capture vegetated landscape and street cleaning are on the treatment train.
h. The Soil Erosion & Sediment Control Plan (SESCP) is limiting and confining the extent of disturbance to protect natural vegetation.
i. Annual stormwater facilities maintenance contract will be used to maintain the stormwater facilities.
j. Mitigated wetlands must be in the same watershed basin. Mitigated wetland impacts will be monitored for 10 years.

11. BCEQ Mitigation Trading Criteria includes:
a. Replacement should be by Tree Diameter – inch for inch. It does not matter if the tree is currently not alive, as long as the diameter is measured and included in the analysis.
b. It is not equivalent to replace older and larger trees with multiples of smaller one’s. So if the exact size is not available then the exchange should be “wood for wood” – that is the area of the new tree would be equal to the area of the old tree, or πR2 times the height.
c. Exception to the inch for inch tree replacement scenario would be an upgrade to a higher level of tree, that is, one that cleans the air, is drought and pollutant resistant, is long living, or a multiple of five to one, using trees ¾ of the replacement diameter.
d. New housing development projects are required to include street tree plantings as part of the builder’s paving plan. This should be strictly enforced and notice should be provided to the local community board.
e. If turf must be used on green areas (and particularly in sports areas), it should be replaced by credits toward green open space or roof top gardens within a 500 foot radius.

This shall be posted on our web site.
Approved, Board of Directors on May 10, 2006.

Revised parts were added on June 10, 2006 after comments from members.

EPA Memo on Green Infrastructure March 2007 (PDF) - This is a great memo that explains the benefits of Green Infrastructure. A must read.

• bceqnewsletter1987

• bxgreenway1996

• davidsisland1989

• davidsisland1990

• tombird1993

• theresalato1992

• policerange1991

• henrysternltr1996

• pbkacreage1997

Educator: Bethany Spence of Millennium Art Academy (top left corner, with Stephen Ritz, co-chair Education Comm.), this first year teacher inherited a program mid-year and has transformed a school and science program often generating attendance of 60+ kids for Saturday voluntary science class.

Student Recipients: The Green Institute in Soundview at Stevenson High School Campus (top right corner, with Stephen Ritz, co-chair Education Comm.), this consortium of students - elementary, middle, and high school has inventoried flora and fauna in the Soundview area and features four academic components. They also build gardens at local elementary schools.

Informal Educator: Mike Zamm of the NYC Council on the Environment (bottom right corner, with Mark Stern, co-chair Education Comm.). Mike has worked for over 20 years on the Training Student Organizer program at DeWitt Clinton High School and other schools, educating students about environmental issues and taking them on field trips. On a recent field trip students removed invasive species from the Bronx River.

To reduce their carbon footprint, the $800 million stadium is built with 95 percent recycled steel, 2 million pounds of recycled coal combustion products (saving 800 tons of carbon dioxide), and using low-sulfur and ultra low sulfur diesel construction vehicles to reduce air emissions such as CO2 and particulates.

To reduce water consumption, the new stadium will save 4 million gallons per year using low-flow plumbing features such as hands-free faucets, toilet flush o-meters, and waterless urinals. More water will be saved by installing an on-site well for irrigation, as well as capturing stormwater in a 3,700-square-foot drainage bed, swales and permeable porous pavement to control the flow in the bus parking lot. Finally, a 15,000-square-foot “green roof” will adorn the team’s administration building (absorbing 80% stormwater runoff).

To reduce both energy use and the waste stream, the Mets joined the EPA Energy Star program, which encourages energy efficiency, as well as a food and beverage recycling program with Mets’ partner, ARAMARK.

To encourage the use of mass transit, the Mets are continuing to work with the MTA and Long Island Rail Road, including adding additional train and bus service added for home games.

At Citi Field, 850 talented construction workers are union, local, minority and/or woman owned business enterprises (LBE/MBE/WBE). Working with an advisory committee of community leaders chaired by Borough President Helen Marshall and co-chaired by Councilman Leroy Comrie, the Mets have ensured the involvement of minority- and women-owned businesses in Queens and the immediate area.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said. “They’ve taken the initiative to be bold, innovative and environmentally responsible. Citi Field will be one of the most environmentally friendly stadiums ever built any place.”

Thank you to the Mets for saving our earth and setting an example!

Links of interest:
Citi - the world’s leading financial services company - is a proud partner of the Mets at Citi Field, opening in 2009.
http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/nym/ballpark/citifield_update.jsp

For more information about the construction of Citi Field, visit www.huntbovisnyballpark.com.

Major League Baseball comment on the Green Design, visit: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080313&content_id=2424288&vkey=spt2008news&fext=.jsp&c_id=nym

EPA Memoradum, visit: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d10ed0d99d826b068525735900400c2a/d87469e9e29de0238525740b004fc02c!OpenDocument

For information about the new Yankee Stadium please visit, http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com/nyy/ballpark/new_stadium.jsp

This change was not a minor deviation from a prior approved plan but rather a literal bombshell dropped by DEP when it proposed to blast a shaft through soil and rock along “Education Mile” adjacent to the Jerome Park Reservoir. Had DEP stayed this ill-advised course, this substantial change would have resulted in numerous significant adverse environmental impacts as outlined in Plaintiff’s brief.

The subject matter of this dispute involves an important project to ensure that NYC continues to enjoy plentiful and safe drinking water and the impacts of this project were reviewed for many years culminating in a then and now (even more so) seemingly wrong-headed decision to locate the plant on parkland in Van Cortlandt Park at the Mosholu Golf Course and not in Mount Pleasant at the Eastview site where we now know it would have been much less expensive to build.

Be that as it may, the many years of environmental review under CEQR, SEQRA & ULURP also resulted in a decision not to undertake major construction of the plant at the Jerome Park Reservoir or to blast there in large part because of the significant potential for adverse impacts. Final agency action and exhaustion of the then available administrative remedies occurred on July 16, 2004 with DEP’s issuance of a Statement of Findings.

Yet, knowing the concerns of the Bronx community for this site and its sensitive nature with many residential and institutional receptors of adverse impacts, DEP nonetheless proposed this past June to undertake blasting – an ultra hazardous activity – without a supplemental environmental impact statement. It proposed to do this even after the FSEIS stated that there would be “no blasting or surface drilling” at the Jerome Park Reservoir. Nothing could have been clearer – no blasting meant no blasting. This agency action motivated the Bronx Borough President to write DEP Commissioner Emily Lloyd on July 11th to express his dismay that DEP did not bring this decision to blast to the public sooner. Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz echoed the Borough President’s dismay in a late July letter.

We are delighted that this litigation caused DEP to re-think this arbitrary and capricious decision and now concurs with DEP – if indeed blasting at the JPR as it pertains to work related to the CWTP project is off the table and is no longer being considered as an available alternative - that this issue is now moot.

We reminded the Court that DEP has flip-flopped on the issue of blasting. In the 2004 FSEIS, it said “no blasting,” yet on June 19, 2008 DEP was extolling the “Benefits of Controlled Blasting” in its PowerPoint presentation “Upcoming Construction at the Jerome Park Reservoir.” In the late August 2008 just released Technical Memorandum (prepared solely in response to this litigation) DEP announced “updated design and construction changes” and mentions “mechanical excavation” but does not mention either blasting (or hoe-ramming or surface drilling for that matter). It is only by looking at litigation documents for this case – the August 28th affidavit of Gary Heath of the DEP that the community learned that DEP decided to proceed with mechanical excavation (i.e. hoe ramming) instead of blasting.

Because of DEP’s flip-flopping and its continuing attempts at purposeful vagueness and, while we believe Mr. Heath, we were prepared to ask the Court to conform the pleadings to this new evidence available only for the last 2 business days by amending our request for relief to now become either: a) an extension of the preliminary injunction and TRO issued by this Court on July 29th up to the date and time that DEP reviews this proposed “updated design and construction change” not to blast with the Croton Facilities Monitoring Committee (FMC) as required by City Council Resolution # 933 or b) to ensure the sincerity of DEP and to ensure that DEP ratifies its Director’s assertion that no blasting will take place, the Court issue a permanent injunction barring DEP and its contractors from any and all blasting at the Jerome Park Reservoir site as it relates to the CWTP.

The community won a big fight as there will be no blasting at the reservoir.

While the Court denied our request for a permanent injunction, it was because the Judge believed DEP when it stated that the “blasting” issue was Moot.

Justice Betty Owen Stinson will make her final decision on remaining issues concerning the FMC and surface drilling by the end of the month.

The DEP intends on beginning “hoe ramming” by the end of the month.

On July 29, 2008, the Bronx Council for Environmental Quality joined by other community organizations and leaders brought an Order to Show Cause to stop the City from blasting at the Jerome Park Reservoir. This first successful temporary restraining order (TRO) brought against the City on the Croton Water Treatment Plant (CWTP) project, was prepared by a group of community pro-bono attorneys. Aimed with the premise of we are not going to be pushed around, this grass root effort demonstrated how Bronx community people working together could assure that promises made in environmental impact statements by agencies and developers are kept. We hope this message is clear and has been heard!

For more information and/or to see the actual court documents, visit www.waterblogged.org

/Karen and Walter

1.  GOVERNMENT - The City of New York’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) formed a Facilities Monitoring Committee as required by the City Council Approval of the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) in 1999.  (Facilities Monitoring Committees are formed as a result of the Fair Share doctrine of the New York City Charter.)

• The Croton Facilities Monitoring Committee (CFMC) Meetings will be noted on the BCEQ calendar for meeting notices as we find out about it.
• CFMC Minutes, go to this link: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/news/croton.shtml
  
• The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) of 2004, including the Commissioner’s Statement of Findings, and the Executive Summary.  See all these links at:  http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/environmental_reviews/crotoneis.shtml
• Promised Parks Projects and their status are listed on the Department of Parks and Recreation site, at:  http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_your_park/croton/html/main_page.html

2.  ELECTED OFFICIAL’S RESPOND - Assembly Member Jeffrey Dinowitz questioned the project’s high cost rising to $3 Billion.

3.  MEDIA COVERAGE

4.  LEGAL ACTIONS - On Wednesday, July 30, 2008, BCEQ’s pro-bono attorney and Bronx resident Ezra B. Glaser appeared before Justice Betty Owen Stinson seeking an Order to Show Cause (OSC) for a temporary restraining order against the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)’s proposal to blast in and around the Jerome Park Reservoir. The DEP and the City showed up to argue against the OSC. The Judge granted the TRO on the blasting issue.  The next court appearance was on September 3, where the DEP withdrew its proposal to blast.  The community won this one.  For more information, go to this link: http://www.waterblogged.org/city-responds-agree-to-no-blasting/

Documents and attachments to the press releases

<!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>

• Updated List of Parks as promised to the NYC Council on 09/13/04 - updatedlistfor10m091304

• Handouts from the FMC meeting of May 17, 2007 (selected) - handouts FMC 051707.pdf

• Department of Investigation Letter to Assemblyman Dinowitz on May 29, 2007 - Investigation LTR 052907.pdf
• Assemblyman Dinowitz Letter to the Department of Investigation - Dinowitz Letter DOI 092707.pdf and Attachments to DOI letter 092707.pdf
• DOI response to Assemblyman Dinowitz on October 4, 2007 - DOI response to Dinowitz 100407.pdf
• Press Release and report by Assembly Member Dinowitz on the High Costs of the CWTP - pr-dinowitz-cwtp-high-cost-111107 and a-critical-analysis-of-the-dep-explanation-for-high-costs-e280a6
• Revised Chart of Expenses based on DEP information provided at the FMC meetings as prepared by Karen Argenti.  See the chart here:chart-031008

Late Friday afternoon, August 29, 2008, the City served papers on the pro bono attorney for BCEQ et. al, stating that the issue of blasting at the Jerome Park Reservoir, across the street from the Bronx High School of Science, is moot.

• The DEP decided to proceed with Hoe Ramming at that Site.
• The DEP stated that they do not have to do a supplemental EIS because they demonstrated that no new significant adverse impacts are predicted for the excavation work.
• The DEP stated that they have not given the contract on the site and so some extra work at Harris Park Annex is not ripe.

• Finally, the DEP stated that they do not need a building permit to work on either the Treatment Plant and Tunnels, and even so, that the issue is time barred.

It remains to be seen whether or not their argument will hold water, so to speak.

All of the papers are up on www.waterblogged.org, and will be updated.

Thanks, Karen