East Side leaders protest East River garbage station
New York, NY – Today, U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, State Senator Liz Krueger, Assembly Member Micah Kellner, Council Member Jessica Lappin, and members of the East Side community gathered near the East River waterfront to speak out against plans to build a garbage transfer station on the East River at 91st Street.
The Army Corps of Engineers is currently considering a permit request and mitigation plan by the City Department of Sanitation to build the proposed garbage station. The public comment period for this application ends on Wednesday, August 24th – and the lawmakers urged the public to state their opposition to the plan now, before it’s too late.
Yesterday, Maloney submitted her comments on the permit request to the Army Corps; a full copy of Maloney’s comments follows. The East Side elected officials also wrote to the Army Corps today urging the agency to extend the comment period through the end of September to allow the entire community to express their views on this important matter.
A copy of that letter also follows.
Members of the public must send comments to the Army Corps by fax at (212) 264-4260, or by mail to:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
New York District
26 Federal Plaza, Room 1937
New York, New York 10278-0090
Attn: Naomi Handell
The proposed facility, which will have a large footprint on the East River, would process as much as 4,290 tons of garbage per day, causing an endless line of garbage trucks to rumble through a densely-populated residential area to converge on the proposed site. The East River ecosystem has been re-emerging as water quality has improved in recent years and this facility will have a significant impact on the marine life in the East River, as detailed in Maloney’s comments to the Army Corps. The proposed site is adjacent to two large public housing developments, many residential towers, several parks, and Asphalt Green, a sports complex that serves thousands of New York City kids. The proposed site is also in a hurricane flood zone.
“For the health of this neighborhood, for the health our children, and for the health of the East River -- plans for this garbage dump need to sleep with the fishes,” Maloney said. “A Marine Transfer Station does not belong in a residential neighborhood. It does not belong near three parks, two schools, and two public housing developments. And it does not belong in a hurricane flood zone.”
“In addition, I have reviewed the Sanitation Department’s Mitigation Plan and it is clearly inadequate. It woefully underestimates and overlooks much of the fish population at the site and its proposals for mitigation are insufficient. This site is simply inappropriate for a marine transfer station and the Army Corps should reject the Sanitation Department’s permit application entirely,” Maloney added.
“My long-standing opposition to a Marine Transfer Station at East 91st Street is based on many factors. Individually, some of the problems with this location provide enough reason to shut this plan down, but collectively they make this decision a no-brainer. Putting a Marine Transfer Station on East 91st Street would not only do considerable damage to the health and safety of those living and playing on the land around it, but it would also do irreparable harm to the East River’s already delicate ecosystem. I urge every community member to voice his or her opinion so the Army Corps of Engineers has no doubt as to where the community stands on this matter,” said Senator Krueger.
“Neither our families nor our wildlife should be subjected to garbage trucks and barges spewing noxious fumes and leaking trash,” said Assembly Member Kellner. “The proposed Marine Transfer Station is located in a residential neighborhood, and comes at a time when the East River’s ecosystem is improving by leaps and bounds every day. The Army Corps needs to extend the comment period and hold public forums until every voice can be heard.”
“This is a democracy, and we have a right to speak up and speak out. We want a hearing to explain how this garbage dump will destroy our community and to plead with the Army Corps to protect our environment,” said Council Member Lappin.
"Any way you look at it, the case against this garbage station is compelling," said Council Member Garodnick. "Its location in a flood zone, the outdated environmental information provided by the City, and the damage this facility could cause to the marine habitat -- not to mention its impact in the heart of a residential community -- are all reasons the City should have to go back to the drawing board."
###
August 19, 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
New York District
26 Federal Plaza, Room 1937
New York, New York 10278-0090
Attn: Naomi Handell
Re: Supplemental Public Notice File Number:
NAN-2008-00927-EHA
Comments on the Proposed Wetland Mitigation Plan, dated May 2011, submitted by the
New York City Department of Sanitation
Dear Ms. Handell,
As the member of Congress for the 14th Congressional District of New York, I represent the site where the proposed East 91st Street Marine Transfer Station (MTS) would be located if the New York City Department of Sanitation (DOS) is permitted to move forward with its proposal. I am pleased that the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) has reopened the comment period to allow the community to comment on DOS’s Proposed Wetland Mitigation Plan, dated May 2011 (the “Mitigation Plan”). In addition to my comments on the Mitigation Plan set forth herein, I am attaching a copy of my letter to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), dated August 12, 2011.
I have reviewed the Mitigation Plan and it is clearly inadequate. It woefully underestimates and overlooks much of the fish population at the site, its proposals for mitigation are insufficient and it ignores the impact of likely flooding on the fish given the presence of the facility in a Hurricane Flood Plain.
DOS’s Sampling Is Old and Outdated
The Mitigation Plan is based on sampling done in 2003, more than eight years ago. Virtually every study of the water quality of the East River concludes that the amount of contamination has been steadily declining over time, that the water is increasingly clean, and that the number of species living in the water has vastly increased. Further, the old marine transfer station ceased to operate in 1999, only four years before DOS’s sampling. Fish populations that were adversely impacted by the old MTS had not had much time to recover in 2003. Today, the old marine transfer station has been out of business for roughly 12 years, and the area around the MTS appears to have become a haven for marine life. Fishermen fish off Bobby Wagner Walk, near the MTS. Classes on minnow-catching for children are given just above the MTS.
Samples taken in 2003 are outdated and irrelevant. DOS should be required to provide samples that reflect the current fish populations, not populations from nearly a decade ago. The newly resurgent fish and other acquatic populations deserve protection based on their current presence in the East River. The DOS should not be permitted to overlook nearly a decade of water improvements by mitigating the impact of the MTS to 2003 standards.
DOS’s 2003 Sampling Was Inadequate
DOS’s sampling in 2003 overlooked significant populations of fish. According to the Mitigation Plan (p. 15):
“Fish sampling was also conducted at the MTS site in 2003. Fish species that were collected during sampling included eggs of cunner (Tautogolabrus adspersus), bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) and Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus); and larvae of winter flounder (Pleuronectes americanus), anchovy (Anchoa sp.) and goby (Gobiosoma sp.). Existing bottom topography at the MTS site only enabled sampling for eggs and larvae. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) designated species found at the site included eggs and larvae of windowpane and winter flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus) and larvae of one summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus). This sampling concluded that the site had a medium species diversity for fish, on a scale of low, medium or high.”
This list of fish omits certain species that ought to have been identified. The Mitigation Plan does not mention the presence of Fluke, Bass or Bluefish despite the fact that these species are commonly caught near the site of the MTS in the East River. I am told that by 2003, fishermen were already finding populations of Striped Bass, Fluke and Bluefish near the MTS.
What is more, DOS states that it was only able to sample eggs and larvae at the site, but no fish. Other people have been far more fortunate. The website nycfishing.com has pictures and video of fishermen catching Fluke, Bass and Bluefish in the East River, often within a few feet of the site for the MTS. http://www.nycfishing.com/eastriver.html World Fishing Network.com reports that “The East River is arguably one of the best spots to fish along the entire east coast. It is teeming with bluefish, striped bass, and even the occasional fluke.” http://www.worldfishingnetwork.com/users/wfn/blog/top-10-places-to-catch-a-fish-in-new-york-city-15937.aspx Because no fish were caught, DOS was not able to analyze their stomachs to determine the diet of the fish that are living around the MTS. New sampling should be required to give us a current picture of the fauna that are present in the water near the MTS.
Improved Water Quality in the East River is Leading to Restoration of Species
The EPA reports the devastation of marine life in the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary as a result of heavy industrial use and the discharge of raw sewage into the water: “Combined landings of important estuarine and anadromous species such as shad, alewife, striped bass, sturgeon, American oyster, hard clam, and bay scallop have declined 90 percent over the past century” (See USEPA Region 2, NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program, Narrative Description of Historical Dissolved Oxygen Improvements in Ny/nj Harbor Related to Previous Nutrient Reduction Activities, September 2010, p. 6) Nonetheless, after decades of being considered among the most polluted bodies of water anywhere in the U.S., water quality in the East River has been steadily improving over time. Improvements in water quality accelerated as a result of the implementation of the Clean Water Act and the cessation of significant manufacturing and refinery work along the East River. I am told that sampling of water in the East River has found decreasing levels of fecal coliform and enterococci, increasing levels of dissolved oxygen, and relatively stable levels of chlorophyll ‘a,’ which is used to gauge phytoplankton abundance, and secchi transparency, which is used to estimate clarity. As a result of improved water quality, many native species have returned to the river, including the Eastern Oyster, Striped Bass, Crabs and other species.
Other surveys of the East River have documented the growing presence of an increasingly diverse population of fish.
Striped Bass
The return of Striped Bass to the East River has been one of the success stories of water quality improvement. The web encyclopedia GoFishn reports that if you wanted to fish for Striped Bass in the late 19th century, one of the two best places to find them was the East River. http://www.gofishn.com/content/new-york-new-york-harbor--east-river-and-hudson-river .
Pollution caused populations of Striped Bass to plummet not just in the East River, but all across America. In fact, by 1984, Congress was so worried about the Atlantic Striped Bass, that it implemented the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act (16 USC 5151 et. seq., the “Striped Bass Act”) and imposed stringent guidelines for managing Striped Bass populations. The Act successfully helped populations of Striped Bass to stabilize, but they remain subject to oversight pursuant to the Striped Bass Act. The Mitigation Plan is silent on the impact of the MTS on the Striped Bass living in the East River. In fact, while the Mitigation Plan mentions some fish populations, it makes absolutely no mention of the Striped Bass, notwithstanding the fact that fishermen commonly pull Striped Bass from the East River a few steps from the site of the MTS.
Black-Crowned Night Heron
On June 2, 2006, the New York Times reported that food sources are so plentiful in the waters of the East River, the birds are beginning to return. “More than a dozen species of water birds have returned to the area since the 1970's. There are about eight species of heron and egret alone.” ( http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/02/nyregion/02islands.html ) The article specifically mentions that Mill Rock, an island located in the East River adjacent to the MTS site about 1,000 feet off the eastern edge of 96th street , is home to 50 pairs of Black-Crowned Night Heron. These bird are feeding on fish near the site of the MTS. According to the Audobon Society’s website, the Black-crowned Night-Heron is a "species of greatest conservation need" in Maryland and New York. ( http://birds.audubon.org/species/blanig2 ) According to the Harbor Herons Conservation Plan
New York/New Jersey Harbor Region written by The Harbor Herons Subcommittee Habitat Workgroup New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program (May 24, 2010), “Black-crowned
Night-Heron populations across the northeast U. S. region have declined by 45% since
the 1970s.” http://www.harborestuary.org/reports/harborheron/ConservationPlan_for_HarborHerons0610.pdf
Since this fragile species is living on Mill Rock adjacent to the MTS, the fish in the East River near the MTS must be the primary food source for these birds. If the MTS causes the birds to lose their food source, many could die, or they could be forced to relocate to a less protected, less auspicious nesting place. The Mitigation Plan does not even mention the Black-Crowned Night Heron or the impact of the MTS on its food sources.
The Mitigation Proposed by DOS is Inadequate
The DOS proposes to mitigate the impact of the enlarged MTS by uncovering 1.13 acres, representing what they claim is the amount of water covered by the expanded MTS footprint. Instead of doing its mitigation in the actual vicinity of the MTS along the East River, DOS proposes to remove structures in Brooklyn and the Bronx. Neither site is remotely near the site of the MTS, and therefore should be considered inadequate mitigation for the MTS. The sites appear to be chosen because they are inexpensive and the facilities would be demolished anyway, rather than because they provide any actual ecological benefit. DOS makes no mention whatsoever of what ecological benefit is expected to result from the demolition of the Bronx and Brooklyn structures. I note that one project cited in the Mitigation Plan, and rejected without explanation, is Queensbridge Park in the Astoria section of Queens on the East River, indicating that there are available projects that are actually located on the East River not far from the MTS. DOS simply chose a more remote location t for reasons that have nothing to do with merit or proximity to the burdened area or benefit to the ecosystems of the East River.
The Brooklyn Mitigation Site is Not Located in the East River
The Brooklyn site is not even located on the East River; it is outside the tidal strait in Upper New York Bay. Just because the site is somewhere in the NY/NJ Harbor does not mean that it is appropriate mitigation for the MTS. The waters of Upper New York Bay are not nearly as fast-moving or rocky as they are in the Hell’s Gate area of the East River where the MTS will be located. Since conditions in the water are so different, it would be wrong to suggest that DOS can mitigate the impacts of a project in the East River by making improvements in Upper New York Bay.
The Bronx Mitigation Site is Not A Littoral Zone
DOS acknowledges that while the site of the MTS is considered a littoral zone, meaning that it is located close to the shore, the proposed site for mitigation in the Bronx does not qualify as a littoral zone. DOS states this fact without any explanation of why a site located outside a littoral zone would be acceptable.
Further, since the MTS is located in a littoral zone, in-water construction activities (pile driving, dredging, etc) have the potential to impact spawning and rearing habitats of certain fish species. Mitigation of that disruption should occur in a littoral zone.
The ecology of a body of water in a littoral zone is quite different from the ecology of water outside that zone. In a littoral zone, the water in shallow enough for sunlight to reach the bottom. Accordingly, a littoral zone is likely to have more plant life and, therefore, more species that feed on the plant life. It tends to be warmer than the deeper areas of water. Accordingly, while the burden of the MTS will fall on flora and fauna that lives in a littoral zone, the mitigation proposed will have no benefits whatsoever to flora and fauna that thrive in littoral zones. The Bronx mitigation site should be rejected as inadequate since it is not in a littoral zone.
DOS Fails to Take Height Into Account
DOS treats the MTS as if it is a two dimensional object, and the only shadows that will be cast on the water will be based on the footprint of the building, that is to say, the length and width. While the Mitigation Plan is silent about the height of the facility, according to the Application for Department of the Army Permit submitted by DOS in July 2008, “The height of the Converted MTS would be 98 feet from the pier level to the highest point on the roof.” http://www.nyc.gov/html/dsny/downloads/pdf/swmp_implement/mts/NYSDECNS/E91/E91stconvUSACE.pdf . That is roughly equivalent to placing a ten story building in the East River. The facility would undoubtedly cast considerable shadows. DOS should be required to include shadow studies as part of its calculation of the impact of its facility on the East River, and its mitigation should relate to the impact of the MTS, including shadows, on the East River.
MTS is Located in a Hurricane Evacuation Zone
While shadows are undoubtedly a significant impact of the enlarged MTS, the most pressing danger to aquatic life is the toxins in leachate, contaminated material or other waste from the MTS and the risk of these substances being accidentally swept into the East River. The risk is very real, particularly in light of the fact that this facility is located in an area most at risk of flooding because of heavy rains or storm surge. The FDR Drive has been closed for flooding at least six times over the last five years. The MTS is located in an area classified as Zone A by the New York City Office of Emergency Management, meaning that it has the highest risk of flooding during a major storm (copy of Hurricane Evacuation zone map enclosed). That rating indicates that it is likely to flood from ANY hurricane making landfall near New York City. With sea levels in our area rising and greater quantities of rainfall expected, the risk of flooding is significantly increased. The Mitigation Plan is silent on that risk.
For all of the foregoing reasons, I urge you to reject the DOS’s Mitigation Plan as inadequate. DOS should be required to do new sampling and analysis. It should be required to select mitigation that actually benefits the tidal strait known as the East River, in the area between Manhattan and Queens. It should be required to mitigate a littoral zone. DOS should be required to hold a public hearing to allow the community to be heard. This is far too important a matter to simply accept written comments.
DOS claims that it will take all necessary precautions to prevent leachate from reaching the East River. The most effective precaution it could take would be not to site a marine transfer station in a Hurricane Evacuation Zone A. This site is simply inappropriate for a marine transfer station and the Army Corps should reject DOS’s permit application entirely.
Thank you for your kind attention to my concerns.
Very truly yours,
CAROLYN B. MALONEY
Member of Congress
###
COALITION OF ELECTED OFFICIALS
c/o Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney
1651 Third Avenue, Suite 311
New York, NY 10128
August 20, 2011
Colonel John R. Boulé II
District Commander
New York District
Army Corps of Engineers
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278-0090
Re: Proposed Wetland Mitigation Plan
Permit Application: NAN-2008-00927-EJE
Dear Colonel Boulé,
We appreciate your July 13, 2011 response to our June 14, 2011 letter urging you to hold a public hearing and to reopen the comment period regarding the East 91st Street Marine Transfer Station. While we are pleased that the Army Corps of Engineers is accepting written comments on the Department of Sanitation’s mitigation plan, we were displeased that the Army Corps did not address our request for a public hearing on the mitigation plan. As you know, the mitigation plan was not available to the public on September 16, 2008 when the first public hearing was held. Neither we nor our constituents could have commented on a document that did not then exist. We believe that the 2008 public hearing was incomplete since the public could not have expressed their concerns regarding the mitigation plan. Accordingly, we urge you to schedule an additional public hearing to allow the public to voice its concerns about this crucial aspect of the DOS’s permit application.
Additionally, we are concerned that many of our constituents who live in the affected area are out of town during August and will not be aware of their opportunity to submit comments during the one month extension of the comment period. Accordingly, we urge you to extend the comment period through the end of September to allow the entire community to express their views on this important matter.
The MTS will have a significant impact on the marine life in the East River and on the residents of our community. The fact that the Department of Sanitation failed to collect samples of some of the most common fish found in the East River suggests that their sampling was flawed and their mitigation plan is woefully inadequate. The Army Corps should hear from the people who live in this community and fish in the East River to get a complete picture of what this facility will do to a fragile ecosystem that is only now beginning to come back to life.
We look forward to your prompt response to our concerns. Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, Member of Congress
LIZ KRUEGER, State Senator
MICAH KELLNER, Member of Assembly
DAN GARODNICK, City Councilmember
JESSICA LAPPIN, City Councilmember