___

Stormwater is that part of the rain or snow that falls on the landscape and is not absorbed into the soil. Many years ago landscapes captured all precipitation; but today, the built urbanized environment takes water falling speedily after a storm, and funnels it into pipes and basins leading to sewer treatment plants, or in the case of a big storm, into the closest body of water.

New construction must take care of its own storm water “in situ,” that is on its own place (read: property). The simple truth is that there is less and less land to capture the falling rain. Even the storm drains have limits. Note the recent NYC metropolitan area weather maps, where the more urban areas of the five boroughs and Long Island are more and more “Flash Flood Watch and Warning” alerts because there is no place for the water to go.

The people in charge of limiting the frequency and occurrence of flood watches and warnings should be the New York City Department of Environmental Protection. Unfortunately they do not understand the urgency or need for these protections. Actually it is the Mayor who is really in charge and should be the one held accountable; but for years Mayor’s have not listened to reason. I hear from a reliable source that as early as 1950-60 Robert Moses was advocating for some kind of stormwater treatment to protect all the beaches that he was creating, but even the then DEP equivalent would not listen.

In is a striking example of a project that could hold promise of creating a sustainable design – perhaps a platinum LEEDS credential — the DEP’s Croton Filtration Plant, a major industrial complex to clean water, will instead discharge millions of gallons of groundwater and stormwater pollutants onto parkland, violating an inalienable right of the Public Trust Doctrine to forever preserve parkland for the people. That the City continues to act without boundaries, by first going to the Legislature to alienate 24 acres of land to build a 9 acre facility, and then taking more than they first stated, is arbitrary and capricious.

It is akin to building your house on the full lot size and then using your neighbor’s land to go to the back door, or park your car. While some golf courses consider greens and water features as amenities, a “roof-turned-into-a-putting-range” and a “stormwater-moat-turned-into-a-settling-basin” by any other name is not an amenity but a necessity. The current design is not sustainable, violates stormwater regulations, and crosses the alienation lines taking land away from the Golf Tees, causing them to reclaim land given to the people many years before.

Go back to the drawing board and stay within your boundaries!

Karen Argenti

Posted by karen | Leave a Comment

(Editor’s note:  We are going to start a new category of Guest Pens.  Just send the info in on any one of our comment section (it is always monitored), and I will post.  Some people do not want to use their name, but I will verify that they are credible. )

As we prepared for CPC testimony on the Lower Concourse Rezoning, we read the fine print. Well, Con Ed chimed in, but not at the public hearings.  Apparently they are the fee holder for 287 Exterior Street. A modification allowed by the NYC Department of City Planning, BUT NOT YET APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, would give them a special allowance.

First they block the Bronx Kill, now they are trying to block access to the Harlem River.  It is disappointing to say the least.

Defend the Harlem River Greenway. No Special Treatment for Con Ed! Testify. Tell your Council member to vote no, or remove this special treatment from the language.

Details at:
N 090302 ZRX        Lower Concourse Rezoning*      BX 1 at:
http://a030-cpc.nyc.gov/html/cpc/index.aspx?searchfor=lower+concourse
p.29

and
See Con Ed’s letter asking for this special treatment at page 44-48 of:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/env_review/lower_concourse/apendix_n.pdf

Is this fair, or right?

http://www.friendsofbrookpark.org
Activists are a threatened species, but there’s safety in numbers. If you can’t be active, please $upport your local environmental activist.
646.648.4362
PO Box 801
The South Bronx, NY 10454

Editor’s Comment:  Today, June 25, we spoke with Con Edison’s representative and have been assured that they are in accord with the Harlem River Working Group’s goals of a greenway and increased waterfront access.    Under the current zoning, Con Edison does not have to provide access.  With the new zoning, they wanted to discuss how big the pedestrian walkway would be, as well as how much of a ribbon of land around the inlet would lead to the water.  Check out the parcel of land and see where the inlet is — 287 Exterior Street.

Now we can see how important it is to keep talking to each other.  Thank you all for you interest.  ~Karen

Posted by karen | 1 Comment

(Editor’s note:  We are going to start a new category of Guest Pens.  Just send the info in on any one of our comment section (it is always monitored), and I will post.  Some people do not want to use their name, but I will verify that they are credible. )

E-mail : friends@ferrypointpark.org
URL    : http://ferrypointpark.org

First we want to congratulate Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. on the completion of their huge facility on Brush Avenue. We again thank them for their tour of the facility on May 2nd. We then want to thank Pepsi for the contributions of water to the “Friends of Ferry Point Park” who are responsible for gathering hundreds of volunteers each year to clean the waterfront of the East River and Westchester Creek.

“Friends” also works to for fill the tree stewardships of the 3000 sapling trees donated by the Prince of Monaco to create a living 9/11 Memorial Forest at Ferry Point Park. Our volunteers also nurtured Street Trees on Brush Avenue and planted hundreds of daffodils in the 9/11 Hilltop Memorial Grove and the 9/11 Throggs Neck Triangle Grove. We appreciate your water donation. We have a special thank you for Eddie Prost of Holt Construction for being there for each problem on Senger Place during the construction phase. Now the problems we face at the site of the new Pepsi Facility, Flooding , constant noise.

Flooding: Our previous Borough President was proud to announce this Pepsi development yet there were no modifications made to enhance the “Unimproved” streets surrounding the future Pepsi Plant. Millions were given in tax abatements and incentives to get Pepsi to stay in the Bronx, and yet no attempt has been made to improve the main Street that their 95 plus vehicles will parade down each day and night 7 days a week. It is embarrassing to see 21 million spent on the construction of this building and the trucks can’t get out of the neighborhood due to flooding by the neglect of foresight by the NYC EDC/DEP/DOT.

The horrendous Flooding on Brush Avenue was covered in detail by News 12 NY on June 18 and 19th. It is obviously a problem to the entire area of the NE Bronx if there is a 300ft by 40 foot/ 3ft deep pond forming at 650 Brush Avenue each time it rains hard and heavy. We understand that Brush Avenue is an “unimproved Street” and therefore some sidewalks and many catch basins were never installed. BUT how does NYC get away with allowing huge warehouses filled with delivery vehicles and a 6 acre Pepsi Distribution Facility to be built on an “Unimproved Street”? When and how do we get it upgraded to handle the water and traffic in this portion of the “Zerega Avenue Industrial Zone”?

Before the construction of this building, over 200 UPS Trucks and 200 Cable Vision Vans used this area each day. In heavy rains there was a large puddle. We cannot remember a time where trucks could not pass. We commented at one of the first Pepsi meetings that they would not be able to use the basement parking that they planned due to underground fresh water springs that historically ran through this area. Pepsi had to redesign the plans and use the roof top to park. We kept a close eye on the construction of the Pepsi Facility and witnessed the large retention tanks put below ground. We also made note of the swales that were included around the building. We asked at the dinner meeting where the water from the building would go. We asked Ken Kerns to ask the same question (there were different answers, I was told that Pepsi had a special permit to put the water directly into Westchester Creek and Ken was told it would go into the sewer system). One portion of our double lined sewer goes directly into the creek so I just thought that’s what they meant. At the meeting on May 2nd, I asked if the rain water would be directly fed into Westchester Creek, the answer was eventually.

We have one of the most advanced sewer systems in NYC. Brush Avenue has 2 separate lines to remove water from the Ferry Point Area. One is the sanitary line and one is the rain/runoff line. According to Catherine Poggi (our Historian and yes, my Mom) she witnessed the risers being put in place to have catch basins connected to the rain run off line. But DEP has neglected to install these catch basins. We have asked Com.Bd.10 to include us in the budget this year for a drainage study and we were told that this budget item was accepted. Even if the study was to start tomorrow who will protect the deliveries and stalled vehicles that have been submerged in 3 ft of water? How do the customers and workers walk through this dangerous water to get to UPS?

We want something done now!!! The new houses nearby have had flooding in their basements since Pepsi leveled the land, How many vehicles will be damaged? How many tow truck fees will be paid? How many UPS deliveries and Cablevision repair/installation schedules will be missed? How many lawsuits will be filed? A sidewalk with 3 catch basins would solve this problem.

My group has warned about this situation and now it is here. We are willing to offer our past correspondences and 311 complaint numbers to the persons with damaged vehicles to support any claims against the City of NY for their neglect.

The area of Brush Avenue in Bronx 10465 is in dire need of catch basins and sidewalks
The development of this area into a portion of the Zerega Ave. Industrial zone can only
“hold its head above water” if extreme ASAP measures are taken by our elected officials.
This week alone hundreds of vehicles from UPS/Cablevision and Pepsi have been stalled,
immersed and damaged by 3 ft of water that is 300 feet in length.

In May a stalled vehicle in this flooded area ended up in a 3 way collision at this location (650 Brush Ave.) I am requesting a representative from the offices of our Elected Officials to accompany me on a short tour of these problems. I will update the entire community which is affected by delayed UPS deliveries, Cablevision installation/repair delays as a result of this ongoing flooding.

Noise complaints: I have had 23 noise complaints from our members about two separate noises from the Pepsi Building. There is the constant 24 hour loud motor noise humming and the intermittent load chattering motor noise that occurs 24 hours but at various intervals. We are asking for help to address these noises ASAP. Neighbors are suffering from interrupted sleep, headaches and irritability.

Posted by karen | Leave a Comment

22 Questions to the FMC and the DEP by Karen Argenti, June 18, 2009

1. Why is the Demonstration Building surrounded by a chain link, not an opaque fence as required by law? Why is this temporary building standing, if the Buildings Department permit approved demolition in January 2009?[1]
2. Why are there depressions in the roadway on Goulden Avenue at various work sites extending from Sedgwick to 205^th Street where the DEP contractor dug up and filled in?
3. Can you specify the new “information not previously available” as mentioned in the Minor Modification (MM) on page 2 that you received to make changes to the work at the Jerome Park Reservoir (JPR)?[2] Why has work stopped on the sound barrier?
4. Can you provide access to review all geologist reports for JPR?
5. Can you reference the page in Table 1 for the project element discussion “As Discussed in the Final SEIS” as well as the “As Currently Proposed (Minor Modification)?
6. Can you reference the page in the old FSEIS[3] referenced on page 9 of the MM[4] when you compare the work proposed in the FSEIS to the new work for the south basin ramp?
7. What other alternatives did you review in the site and the method of excavation for the Shaft and Meter Chamber?
8. What other alternatives did you review for the site and construction of the ramp for the south basin, such as attached to the dividing wall?
9. Where in the FSEIS did you study the impact of the construction of the south basin ramp, as well as the traffic impact for its use?
10. Where are the plans for the Outdoor Urban Ecology Lab (OUEL)?
11. Where are DEP’s plans for the restoration of the Harris Park Annex after the work is completed?
12. Where is the geologist report mentioned on page 15 of the MM?
13. Why did the city claim[5] the community’s court case was not ripe in August 2008, when it already had a complete statement of the process in an addendum to the original Cultural Resources Assessments related to CRO-313 and CRO-312OS with a state agency (no more an interested party than the public or the court) and made an agreement concerning impacts?[6]
14. What is the basis for holding executive sessions of the FMC? All public bodies must hold meetings open to the public unless certain reasons for executive sessions apply.[7]
15. Where is the public participation for the evacuation plan as stated in the document you provided to the EPA?[8]
16. What is the timeline and status of the work on the pipeline from the plant to the Hunts Point Dewatering Plant?
17. When is the DEP’s hearing for the MM?
18. When will the FMC meet during the summer?
19. Can the community have input in the plans for the vacated Jerome Avenue Pumping Station, and when will it be offline?
20. Where are the permits posted for the work ongoing at JPR?
21. Will the DEP discuss these projects at the DSC of the affected community boards and/or borough board?
22. What is the status of the park work at JPR?

Posted by karen | Leave a Comment

Rumors abound as to whether or not the DEP is going beyond, (yes you heard right, beyond) the LINES OF ALIENATION that they so wisely drew many many (it seems like centuries) ago.

As a reminder, here is what they proposed last November (check the category - Van Cortlandt Park):

http://www.waterblogged.org/design-commission-meets-today-on-golf-course-plan-to-take-the-peoples-park/

http://www.waterblogged.org/the-dep-is-at-it-again-taking-more-land-than-is-alienated/

Here is what the architect put in a professional newspaper:

http://archpaper.com/e-board_rev.asp?News_ID=3231

Posted by karen | Leave a Comment

Editorial comment:

A shareholder’s report on NYC, Inc.

As he campaigns for a third term as mayor, Michael Bloomberg portrays himself as a man above politics and as a savvy businessman who can get us through tough times by his careful management of our dollars.

Residents of the Northwest Bronx know better - or should. They have had years of bad news about the huge project that Mr. Bloomberg personally arranged to have dumped in their backyard - the water filtration plant under construction in Van Cortlandt Park.

When he made the deal in the back room of Bronx Democratic Party headquarters that brought the plant to the park, Mr. Bloomberg notoriously enticed legislators to vote for the project with a promise of $220 million in city funds to be spent on parks in their districts. But that was just a down payment.

Mr. Bloomberg may be able to finance his own campaigns, but for the others who sat around the table that day the real windfall was campaign cash from the contractors and construction unions that would build the plant. Our mayor waded waist-deep in the pay-to-play culture of city politics.

Let’s turn to the other side of the ledger, to Mike Bloomberg, the CEO of NYC, Inc. Let’s observe his Department of Environmental Protection in action. Seldom has there been more comprehensively- documented proof that a city agency is managed by a gang that can’t add straight or that its projections and promises are as evanescent as a spring shower that no sooner sprinkles the ground than it evaporates into thin air.

The DEP’s most recent broken promise is its pledge to excavate in the vicinity of the Jerome Park Reservoir without resorting to blasting. Its decision to dynamite after all needs to be viewed in the context of its sorry record of miscalculation and misstatement. Here’s some of that record:

• The DEP’s inability to comply with the schedule it set itself has cost taxpayers thousands of dollars in fines.
• When the agency’s own draft environmental impact statement showed that our water bills would be lower if the plant were built in an industrial park in Westchester, the price tag underwent an unexplained $200 million increase. The new estimate in the final environmental impact statement was just enough to wipe out the potential savings and blunt an argument against building in Van Cortlandt.
• With years of construction still to go, the project has already exceeded its budget by more than $2 billion.

The only question that remains to be answered about the filtration plant is whether the decision-makers were knaves or fools: did they deliberately lie about the cost and consequences of building the plant in the park, or were they too dumb to figure out where to put the decimal points when they estimated the price?

The evidence is mixed.

The DEP did lie to cover its tracks when it upped the estimate for building in Westchester. A spokesman said town officials had negotiated a monetary trade-off for the inconvenience of hosting the plant. Not true, the town supervisors told The Press.

What about what the DEP characterizes as the “minor modification” of using dynamite? It’s tempting to conclude that it kept plans to blast in its back pocket, but there’s no way to know.

As to the DEP’s inability to contain costs, its track record argues for incompetence rather than dishonesty. It has been almost as wrong about the ultraviolet water treatment plant it is building in the Westchester industrial park as about the filtration plant. The cost of building the UV plant has ballooned from $597,000 to $1.6 billion.

Duplicity or ineptitude: either way, this sorry history has had real consequences. It has cost the residents of Norwood their tranquility, and now threatens the tranquility of Van Cortlandt Village and the schools along Education Mile.

And it has contributed to a rise in water rates that threatens the ability of non-profit organizations to maintain thousands of affordable apartments in the Bronx and elsewhere.

Is the mayor who boasts of his businesslike approach accountable for the performance of his agencies? Or is the CEO of NYC, Inc. like those other CEOs, of banks and insurance companies and automobile manufacturers, we have come to know recently, reaping the bonus of re-election for presiding over a failed enterprise?

http://riverdalepress.com/full.php?sid=8617&current_edition=2009-05-14

Posted by karen | 1 Comment

SIDEBAR

Dropping the Ball

How the New Yankee Stadium Turned Parks into Parking Lots

By Matt Johanson

When the Yankees opened their new stadium and pinstriped stars like Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera ran onto the field for the first time, the cheers of delirious New York fans echoed for miles. But to environmentalists and residents in surrounding neighborhoods, a Bronx cheer seems a more appropriate response to the new Yankee Stadium project, which they say isn’t nearly green enough, grass notwithstanding.

MATT JOHANSON’s book Game of My Life: San Francisco Giants can be found at www.giantsgamesbook.com.

http://www.emagazine.com/view/?4666

Posted by karen | Leave a Comment

DEP backtracks on excavation explosives vow

Less than nine months after telling a judge it would not use blasting on a Bronx water tunnel project, the city has gone back on its word - possibly lighting the fuse on a new lawsuit.

Posted by karen | Leave a Comment

Below are the two files we got from the State via Assemblyman Dinowitz’s office.

Posted by karen | Leave a Comment

http://www.fipna.org/2009/05/03/dep-admits-they-did-not-do-a-good-job-on-the-eis-for-jerome-park-reservoir/

Go to the site and vote, and express your feelings.

Posted by karen | Leave a Comment