Some neighbor took photo’s of these numbered fences. Let us know if you find out what they mean.
JPR Numbers on the Fence – July 2009
Thank you.
Well folks, I have been involved with the Jerome Park Reservoir since we moved uptown to Giles Place in 1971. First it started with my mother, Theresa Argenti, and her efforts at getting the fence secured as many of our youth would go swimming and some would get caught in the reservoir utilities and drown. It was the first time that Jerome surfaced to ask for help. Later articles from Jerome involved work at the Fort independence Park. By the time we got to the 1980’s, it was full blown articles about the Jerome Park Reservoir.
Today we have the work we have all been awaiting for at least 25-30 years — clean the inside fence around the Jerome Park Reservoir of all the vines and weeds. Whether the reason is that they finally woke up (doubtful), or if it has something to do with the permission to blast around the reservoir (possible), or if it is because of someone’s campaigning, one thing is certain.
It is a beautiful thing.
Thank you to my friend who took the photo’s to memorialize this time and effort.
So now, anyone have any ideas of what’s up?
22 Questions to the FMC and the DEP by Karen Argenti, June 18, 2009
- 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]
- Why are there depressions in the roadway on Goulden Avenue at various work sites extending from Sedgwick to 205th Street where the DEP contractor dug up and filled in?
- 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?
- Can you provide access to review all geologist reports for JPR?
- 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)?
- 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?
- What other alternatives did you review in the site and the method of excavation for the Shaft and Meter Chamber?
- 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?
- 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?
- Where are the plans for the Outdoor Urban Ecology Lab (OUEL)?
- Where are DEP’s plans for the restoration of the Harris Park Annex after the work is completed?
- Where is the geologist report mentioned on page 15 of the MM?
- 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]
- 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]
- Where is the public participation for the evacuation plan as stated in the document you provided to the EPA?[8]
- What is the timeline and status of the work on the pipeline from the plant to the Hunts Point Dewatering Plant?
- When is the DEP’s hearing for the MM?
- When will the FMC meet during the summer?
- Can the community have input in the plans for the vacated Jerome Avenue Pumping Station, and when will it be offline?
- Where are the permits posted for the work ongoing at JPR?
- Will the DEP discuss these projects at the DSC of the affected community boards and/or borough board?
- What is the status of the park work at JPR?
[1] See the following link for the permit to demolish January 15, 2009, with no asbestos abatement and pre-demolition inspection of February 27, 2009 http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobsQueryByNumberServlet?requestid=2&passjobnumber=210107819&passdocnumber=01
[2] Minor Modification of April 2009, page 2: “Since completion of the Final SEIS, design has progressed to the final design and, as is typical for large scale and complex engineering projects, some changes to the preliminary design and proposed construction methods were made based on information that was previously not available.” (emphasis added)
[3] There was no work proposed for the South Basin Ramp in the Final SEIS JPR. It stated in section 8.2.1.4 that: “The Microstrainer Building would be demolished, and the area would be landscaped and kept open for a potential access ramp to the bottom of the Reservoir’s south basin.
[4] MM, page 9: “The Final SEIS proposed that an access ramp to the South Basin be constructed in the vicinity of Gate House No. 6. …………… Construction of the South Basin Ramp, adjacent to Gate House No. 6 along the western wall of the Reservoir, is proposed for inclusion under Contract CRO-312OS.”
[5] Affidavit of Heath from the DEP http://www.waterblogged.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/cityheathaff082908full.pdf
[6] MM, page 15: “In response to a July 28, 2008 addendum to the roginal Cultural Resouces Assessments, related to Contract CRO-313 and CRO-312OS work on the SMC, the OPRHP accepted the finding that a controlled blasting program can be developed that would minimize impacts to historic resources, and also agreed that there would be no adverse impact so archelogical or architectural resources (OPRHP, September 5, 2008 included in Attachment A).
[7] http://www.dos.state.ny.us/lgss/pdfs/public.pdf See page 2 for info on the Executive Sessions.
[8] RMP Database: rtknet.org The Right to Know Network, the DEP stated: “If there is an accidental release, we will immediately call for emergency response to minimize the effect of the release and notify the public of any actions necessary to ensure public protection, through the City emergency management agencies.” Emphasis added
May
4th
Below are the two files we got from the State via Assemblyman Dinowitz’s office.
JPR is on the State and National Register, not just eligible as it states in the attached memos. The Conservancy may have more comments on this at a later date.
As you can tell from the letter, the Sept 2008 memo is in response to the DEP’s July 2008 scope of work for the contract and discusses blasting. The January 2009 memo expands on another request from the DEP, which begs the question — why didn’t they come to the community and/or started an EIS sooner. If you look at old notices for EIS, they usually mention other agency approvals that are pending BEFORE they do the EIS, not wait until after.
Meanwhile the DEP told the court in an August 2008 affidavit and memo of law, that they were not ready to use blasting so it would be a moot question. The Court agreed. They also told the court that the hoe ramming on phase I would take 6 weeks. They started March 23 and are still hoe ramming. H mmmmmmmmmmmmmm
May
4th
Go to the site and vote, and express your feelings.
Filed under Friends of Jerome Park Reservoir, Jerome Park Reservoir, NYC Water, Reservoir
- Affidavit of Angela Licata, January 2005 – see in particular page 24 on JPR
- Court of Appeals Decision, February 2001
- Prior notice of DEIS, December 2003 – see page 3 for impacts at JPR
- DEIS Exec Summary, December 2003 – see Table 4 on page 40
- Letter from the Friends of Jerome Park Reservoir asking same questions in 2004 as we did in 2009.
Well, folks, another promise made by the DEP just last Thursday night was that they would put the so called, Minor Modification up online.
All EISs are supposed to be online and available for the public to see. See the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) web page.
Here is the New York City Department of Environmental Protection
- Minor Modification dated April 2009
- Minor Modification Notice Dated May 1, 2009
Critique to follow
Filed under Drinking Water, Jerome Park Reservoir, Notices/Alerts, Reservoir
You remember our past notes on what the DEP flip flop at the Jerome Park Reservoir. If not check out this link: Grass Roots Insure that Environmental Promises are Kept
Meanwhile, at the April 30, 2009 Meeting of the Facilities Monitoring Committee, NYC DEP Deputy Commissioner Angela Licata said, “we did not do a good job on the EIS for Jerome Park.”
This was her response after she commented that they had a choice between using a hoe ram or blasting as a method for removing rock across the street from the Bronx High School of Science. And when someone from the audience (could have been me) yelled where is it in the EIS, she replied, we have a list of methods so the word “hoe ram” is on the list. Excuse me? List? GMAB!
Deputy Commissioner Licata, you are in over your head.
Meanwhile, on this same day, the Mayor published an unbelievable press release and public survey. In the same way the Mayor Koch used to say, how am I doing, Mayor Mike is asking how he is doing with his environmental reviews. Check it out, it is a hoot. Comment if you like, but I am sure he has it rigged already.
Be sure to search waterblogged for the “court related” articles and/or something on “Jerome Park Reservoir.” Or check it out here
Check back for the next blog on: Why the DEP keeps refusing to do a supplemental EIS? If they had done it in June 2008, when first asked by the community, it would be over by now. So, what’s up with that? These changes are not minor modifications, but major changes to the FSEIS.
/Karen
Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz:
For Immediate Release: March 29, 2009 download here
• CITY IS NEGLIGENT ON BRONX HS of SCIENCE EMERGENCY PLANNING
• NOT PREPARED IN CASE OF CHLORINE ACCIDENT
Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz warned that poor city agency response to the March 20 bomb scare at the Bronx High School of Science underscores the city’s negligence in emergency planning for its most prestigious school.
“With the irresponsible DEP handling deadly chlorine across the street, it’s alarming that first responders and other emergency teams have no clear evacuation plan.” the Assemblyman said, “Looking at the response from a risk management perspective, I give them a ‘D’.“
Two times between June, 2007 and October, 2008 the DEP spilled chlorine at the Jerome Park Reservoir — directly across the street from Bronx Science.
“Thankfully those accidents weren’t large enough to directly affect the school,” Assemblyman Dinowitz said. “But incredibly, there is nothing in place for any of the schools in the area in case something more serious does happen” he said. “One would think emergency planning would be the City’s first priority, but judging from their non-existent plan in case of a chlorine leak and how last week’s bomb scare was handled, clearly it’s the farthest thing from their minds.”
In the most recent incident at Bronx Science, after an emailed bomb threat was received, a fire drill was called, followed by an announcement to evacuate the building. But without effective communication systems to help coordinate and no support from the NYPD to direct traffic, the process to get students to a safe haven was severely hampered. As a result, hundreds of students were limited to walking on the sidewalk and when they got to nearby Clinton High School, the metal detection process meant they would have to stand in the street and wait.
“During this sort of emergency, you want to close the streets to traffic and have everyone move into shelter as soon as possible,” said Assemblyman Dinowitz, who graduated from Bronx Science in 1971. “School officials reacted to the bomb scare as best they could, but without proper guidance from the NYPD, FDNY, OEM, and DEP, there’s no question that student safety was compromised,” said Assemblyman Dinowitz. “Does something have to go terribly wrong before the city reacts?”
“The school did a good job but there’s need for more support from the City and NYPD,” said Bob Lang, head of the school’s UFT chapter. “It’s also troublesome that they are handling chlorine gas right across the street. If there is a chlorine spill are we supposed to be in the building or out of the building? We need professional advice in terms of planning.”
“Bronx Science’s parents are very concerned about potential threats to the health and safety of our children in the Jerome Park Reservoir area, whether due to noise, dirt, dust, and truck traffic related to the DEP’s drilling, possible deadly chlorine gas leaks, or emergency evacuations,” said Jennifer Nelson, Co-President of the Bronx H.S. of Science Parents Association. “The responsible city agencies have not demonstrated to us that they have well-thought out and developed procedures in place.”
”Also, communication with Bronx Science and the other schools in the area has not been very effective. We call upon the City to lay the necessary groundwork and increase our confidence that emergency situations, should they occur, would be effectively dealt with,” Ms. Nelson said.
Emergency planning in the area has other problems, too. “Just as the DEP did not notify us about the chlorine leaks, no one notified the residents in Scott Tower to remain inside during the evacuation and investigation,” stated Sonia Lappin, a long time resident of nearby Scott Tower Housing Cooperative.
Ironically, two hours after the ‘all-clear ‘in the bomb scare, the DEP sent out an email notifying local community groups and schools that they would begin hoe-ram digging across the street near the Jerome Park Reservoir. “With all this going on, we can only hope the contractor’s employees are prepared to take positive steps in case of an emergency,” stated Karen Argenti of the Bronx Council for Environmental Quality (BCEQ), “because the city is not ready to.”
Jerome Park Reservoir Parks Schematics:
Documents on the Valve and Meter Chamber at JPR – NOISE from the Off-Site Noise Analysis Sections in the 2004 FSEI
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/environmental_reviews/crotoneis.shtml
Methods for the noise analysis:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/croton/4-10noise.pdf
The actual noise impact analysis conducted for JPR and the surrounding area can be found on page 87 to 95, 176, 181-190 within this section:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/croton/8-02jeromepark.pdf
Lists of birds found at JPR is in the above section 8-02 on page 153-4
The mitigation plan including Maps suggests portable noise attenuating barriers — page 15-19 of this Mitigation section 9-04:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/croton/9-04offsite.pdf
Judge’s Decision
http://www.waterblogged.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/decisionbceqvdep090908.pdf
DEP’s Technical Memorandum for change in CRO 313
http://www.waterblogged.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/citytechmemo082908.pdf
Affidavit of Heath explaining the work
http://www.waterblogged.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/cityheathaff082908full.pdf
Meter can be gotten at Radio Shack – $49.99 Digital Display Sound Level Meter Model 33-2055
Outdoor Urban Ecology Lab – old documents:
http://www.waterblogged.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/outdoorurbanecologylab-jpc-2008.pdf
Filed under Friends of Jerome Park Reservoir, Jerome Park Reservoir, OUEL, Parkland, Reservoir