The following PDF were comments to the FMC in response to several presentations
cwtp_above_ground_facilities_mgc_jpr-112008
The full power point will be flashed and uploaded over the weekend.
cwtp_above_ground_facilities_mgc_jpr-112008
Let me know what you think.
On September 3, we returned to court to argue that 76 days ago on June 19, 2008 - the DEP announced for the first time, that it was going to make a substantial change to the 2004 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) for the work proposed at the Jerome Park Reservoir related to the now almost $3 Billion Croton Water Treatment Plant (CWTP).
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!
/Karen and Walter
Today, we received papers from the city responding to the Order to Show Cause and the Temporary Restraining Order of July 29, 2008. All of the papers are not included but most of them are here. Please download each pdf and read it.
Memorandum of Law
citypapersmol082908
Verified Answer and Objection
cityverifanswer082908
Technical Memorandum
citytechmemo082908
Affidavit of Heath from the DEP (corrected missing pages)
cityheathaff082908full
Affidavit of Kaminer from the DOB
citykaminer082908
Our papers:
bceqvdep20080828final1
For a complete listing of all entries explaining the case see
WaterBlogged catergory: Court Related
http://www.waterblogged.org/category/court-related/
Also see comments of July 30 for the Order to Show Cause,
the Affidavit and the City’s respsonse at that time:
http://www.waterblogged.org/court-documents-from-july-30-2008/
For grass roots organization information, check out the
Bronx Council for Environmental Quality (www.bceq.org) and the
Fort Independence Park Neighborhood Association (www.fipna.org)
Listing of DEP Environmental Impact Statement Documents online:
http://www.waterblogged.org/jerome-park-related-cwtp-fseis-files/
Reservoir is now a health issue…
Last week, the NYC Health Department issued a press release that stated Two New Yorkers have been infected with the West Nile Virus. You can read it here:
Two New Yorkers Test Positive for West Nile
What does this have to do with the Reservoir you ask?
Simple, for the last several months the DEP has kept the reservoir empty on both sides of the wall. The north side is empty and pretty much dry, however the south side is empty but with large standing pools of water that have now turned green and mossy.
So why is this a health issue? Again, simple, standing water attracts mosquitoes and with them come disease. The Health Departments own statement says:
“Take Simple Steps to Avoid Mosquitoes
* Eliminate any standing water from your property, and dispose of containers that can collect water.
Make sure roof gutters are clean and draining properly. Standing water is a violation of the health code. ”
So is DEP getting a violation? This is a serious situation that needs immediate addressing. Millions of mosquitoes could be breeding as I am typing this, do you want to be the next infected person?
I am asking everyone to call 311 and report the standing water in the south side of the reservoir. Please ask for a complaint number and if you can send it to us via our Contact us.
Philip McDonnell
FIPNA
THESE ARE PDF FILES AND ARE VERY BIG, SO BE PATIENT.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DSEIS
The Fort Independence Park Neighborhood Association already has the story, so check it out.
http://www.fipna.org/2008/08/12/blasting-causes-rats/
It is truly amazing that the City has no idea what they are doing. See the note from the City’s attorney:
. . . . “DEP is currently in the process of finalizing its environmental review of proposed project changes, including the possibility of shifting from hoe ramming to blasting for rock excavation at the Jerome Park Reservoir site, and will not make any final decision regarding the use of blasting until that review is completed,” said Susan Amron, deputy chief of the environmental law division of the city’s law department, in a statement. (Riverdale Press, July 31, 2008 online)
Where in the world did hoe raming come from? They forgot to mention the originally approved section of the FSEIS. See below:
. . . . . From Section 8.2.1.7.
“The construction of the New Shaft at this location would be done using
the raised bored construction method. This method involves drilling of a
pilot hole from the surface. A boring drill rig would be assembled at
the bottom of the shaft where the tunnel would terminate, and turned by
a machine at the top. The boring spoils would fall into the tunnel, and
would be removed as the drill is raised from the bottom of the shaft.
Using the new tunnel for access, all the debris would collapse into the
new tunnel and would be removed at the water treatment plant site for
either the Mosholu or the Harlem River Site alternatives. For the
Eastview Site, the material would be removed through the NCA from shafts
upstream of the Reservoir. This method would reduce the impact caused
by construction in the area.The drilling of the New Shaft via raised bore construction would take
place in the first summer of the scheduled construction period. The new
tunnel lining would be installed before the New Shaft Chamber
construction commences. In response to public comment, construction of
the New Shaft Chamber would occur during the school year with the
concrete pours taking place during the summer months, Saturdays, or
holidays to avoid disturbance of the nearby schools while they are in
session. The construction of the New Shaft Chamber would be
simultaneous with setting the piping in the New Tunnel from either the
water treatment plant or the NCA, depending on the site selection, to
the New Shaft Chamber.
Finally, remember the singlemost important line:
“There would be no surface drilling or blasting in relation to work at the Reservoir.”
See above the Section 8.2 page 184 which shows the promise made to the people in the EIS. Now they don’t want to keep the promise, so they are making up stories. It may not seem difficult to understand, but the DEP is having a hard time trying to figure out what to do.
On Wednesday, July 30, 2008, 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.
“Our arguments were compelling,” stated Mr. Glaser, “The community groups would be harmed greater in the balance of equity then the DEP”. When the City claimed that “we’re not starting blasting August 1st” Justice Stinson replied, “Guess then you would not be harmed.” The 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.”
Various borough wide and local groups and persons joined in: the bronx council for environmental quality (BCEQ) and IRA charles levenberg, both individually and in his official capacity as BCEQ President, the FORT INDEPENDENCE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION and PHILIP MCDONNELL, both individually and in his official capacity as President of the FORT INDEPENDENCE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, ASSEMBLY Member jeffrey dinowitz, both individually and in his official capacity, council member G. oliver koppell, both individually and in his official capacity, MARIO BENITEZ, ANTHONY PEREZ CASSINO, FRANCIS A. CHAPMAN, MICHAEL GARY, FATHER RICHARD GORMAN, SONIA LAPPIN, DAMIAN MCSHANE, MORRIS PALEVSKY, SAUL SCHEINBACH, LYNN SCHWARZ, and CAROLYN SMITH.
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.
This is a hoe ram, which is noisy but it is NOT allowed:
Watch eight trucks meander through a few streets in just eight minutes.
Click below to view in flash. Use the mouse to click to the animated photo’s; the pages will advance but you need to use the mouse click to go through the presentation. FULL SCREEN IS THE LAST RIGHT BUTTON.
(Please click the image to advance the slides)
If you do not have flash, you can download the Acrobat (pdf) version by clicking here.