The 11 Year Fight is Over

With the Ridgewood Reservoir finally being designated as a historic landmark and the majority of it's 50 acres now protected as wetlands, it is time to wrap things up here.

My first posting was on March 7, 2007. Unless things change, this will be my last. The blog, however, will remain online as an archive of the community struggle to protect this special place. Thank you for your support.

Send us an email

The Fix is In

When the parks department announced that they were going to spend millions of taxpayer's dollars to unnecessarily breach the basin walls and build a road within, the public was, predictably, outraged. Eventually, the outcry from the community, opposition from politicians and thousands of signatures on a petition motivated the NYCDEC to commit to lowering the dam classification of the Ridgewood Reservoir, making the destruction of the berms and interior ecosystems unwarranted. The voice of reason seemed to have won out...until I stumbled on the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation "Highland Park Ridgewood Reservoir Dam Decommissioning" webpage. The page, which was updated as recently as 8/31/16, includes the following "revised" decommissioning plan:

If, in fact, the breaching, tree removal and road building will no longer be necessary, why is the page still active? Why is the parks department updating it without removing that plan? In case they delete it, here is a screengrab of that webpage:

Here's a link to all the postings on this blog about the proposed breaching plan. Why, after nearly two years since the parks department announced that they are abandoning their plans to breach the reservoir basins, does this still exists on their official website with updates to the project timeline and the webpage?

Send us an email

End of the Road?

After over 7 years of Brooklyn and Queens residents fighting to prevent the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation from needlessly spending millions of taxpayer's dollars to destroy an environmentally significant 50 acre site, it appears that we are nearing the end of the road.

On Monday, June 30, 2014, the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, along with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, held a public meeting at St. Pancras School in Glendale, Queens. The purpose of the meeting was to answer questions about the imminent decommissioning process of the Ridgewood Reservoir, which, according to the parks department application to the NYSDEC, would involve creating three very large breaches in the reservoir's surrounding berms. In fact, one would be large enough to allow trucks to enter the basins and drive along a roadway that will be constructed. You can read some of the media coverage of the meeting here. I was not completely happy with the coverage as most of the reporters seemed to have overlooked some of the most significant revelations during the question and answer period.

The meeting represented the climax of the parks department's campaign of misleading the community about their intentions and being completely disingenuous over the past 7 years when it came to responding to the community's desires and concerns. In 2007 the parks department began a series of public meetings entitled "Community Listening Sessions Regarding Future Plans for the Ridgewood Reservoirs". What, on the surface, appeared to be a genuine interest in the public's aspirations for their future use of this unintentional nature sanctuary, soon became clear was merely lip service as they had already decided on the area's long term development. When the community unequivocally declared that they did not want the reservoir basins developed, the parks department responded by having a second set of surveys filled out by a group who was shilling for their plan. It should come as no surprise to anyone that, despite past assurances, the parks department will be breaching the basins, creating roads and ramps to allow truck access and giving permission to the contractors to "dewater" (drain) the work basins as needed. All this will happen despite the fact that the parks department's own contractors determined that not only is the site ecologically significant, but certainly wetlands and that the basins contain at least 3 endangered species of plants.

Here is a summary of the June 30th meeting:

Agency participants:

Joelle Byrer, NYC Department of Parks and Recreation, Queens Capital Team Leader
Jonna Carmona-Graf, NYC Department of Parks and Recreation, Chief of Capital Management
Thomas Panzone, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Regional Citizen Participation Specialist
Alon Dominitz, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Chief of Dam Safety
Venetia Lannon, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Region 2 Director
Steven Zahn, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Regional Natural Resources Supervisor

Also present but did not participate in the meeting was NYC Department of Parks and Recreation park administrator Debbie Kuha.

Moderator: Thomas Panzone

The meeting began with an introduction by Venetia Lannon. Two years ago Ms. Lannon visited the reservoir with members of Queens Community Board 5. I was present for the tour and while speaking positively about the site's habitat, she made no commitment to her agency responding to our wetlands mapping application.

Ms. Lannon gave a brief intro pertaining to the purpose of the meeting, which was mainly to hear the community's concerns about the decommissioning process. This was motivated, primarily, by all the letters they received from community groups and political leaders questioning the reservoir's designation. She started by describing the physical properties of a dam as being any structure that can impound water. According to her, the reason why the Ridgewood Reservoir's basins were classified as "Class C, High Hazard" was that in 2009 the standards were upgraded following Hurricane Irene. However, after the meeting I was informed by a lawyer from the New York Environmental Law and Justice Project that, in fact, standards were actually raised after the September 11th attacks out of fears of terrorists targeting dams. Ms. Lannon continued that the plan by engineers hired by the parks department is to prevent the dam from holding any water. She tried to assure us that the plan would not change the hydrology of the area. That assurance was contradicted later in the meeting when Alon Dominitz of the NYSDEC claimed that the basins held water because of the design's clay liner, which would be punctured during the construction (or deconstruction). I'm not an expert, but I'm guessing puncturing the clay liners would significantly alter the site's hydrology.

Venetia Lannon's brief presentation was followed by a 4 slide slideshow from Joelle Byrer, the parks department's Queens Capital Team Leader. She began with a description and overview of the three basins. One of the main points of contention would be the creation of an access road through the basin. This road would run directly through the wet meadow and wetland habitat at the south end of the basin. When the breaches are completed the road will continue to be used to remove invasive trees and other plant species and to allow their replacement with native plants. Ms. Byrer also presented three slides of the elevations and plans for each breach. I would have requested copies of those slides for this posting, but given past experience, was concerned it would take too long:

At the conclusion of this segment Thomas Panzone moderated a question and answer period. Here is a summary of the more important questions.

Steve Fiedler, the chair of the parks and conservation committee of Queens Community Board 5 wanted to know why they needed such a heavy handed approach, referencing the 11' x 15' tunnel into basin 3 and construction roadway within it. The response only reiterated that they needed to decommission the "dams" and that they planned to use the roadway afterwards to remove invasion plants.

Tom Dowd of the Earth Society Foundation expressed the frustration that many in the community have been feeling when he demanded of the NYSDEC why after 3 years they have still not responded to the application for wetlands protection. He followed with, "How much rain do they expect it would take to destabilize the reservoir?" Steven Zahn, NYSDEC Regional Natural Resources Supervisor, said he never acted on the wetlands protection application because they were understaffed and that Hurricane Sandy issues had made Ridgewood Reservoir a low priority. Regarding the second question, NYSDEC's Chief of Dam Safety, Alon Dominitz responded that he didn't know.

A second question by Steve Fiedler inquired exactly how many trees will be removed from basin 3. Parks representatives estimated 262 "invasive and non-viable trees". He later asked, "You plan on removing over 208 mature trees, how old will the replacement trees be?" Jonna Carmona-Graf of parks Capital Projects replied that they will be an average of 2 - 3 inches in diameter.

Annie Wilson, a lawyer with the New York Environmental Law and Justice Project, asked the NYSDEC representatives, "Where does our application stand in the cue and how long will it take to follow up?" NYSDEC Regional Natural Resources Supervisor Steve Zahn replied that there are currently no other applications ahead of us, but that he didn't know how long it would take. Following up, Ms. Wilson asked if they can hold off on the breaching for the wetland mapping to be addressed. Jonna Carmona-Graf of the Department of Parks and Recreation replied, "No", although this question was asked to NYSDEC. Mr. Zahn did not respond to this question.

When asked if there were any future projects planned for the basin's interiors, Ms. Bryer responded that there is currently no funding for any development.

Representing the Highland Park/Ridgewood Reservoir Alliance, I pointed out that Round Mt. Ecological, LLC., contractors hired by parks, identified the south end of basin 3 as wetland habitat. My question was, "Did you not refer to that report before designing the roadway through the south end of the basin?" Jonna Carmona-Graf replied that they looked at the basin again and it's not really a wetland anymore. I should also point out that during a meeting at Oak Ridge in 2007 I asked Ms. Carmona-Graf when we could receive a copy of the report from Round Mt. Ecological, LLC. She replied that they needed to read through it first then decide what they'd be releasing to the public. Thankfully we were able to acquire a copy through another source.

Charles Monaco of the HPRRA asked, "Will the decommissioning design take into consideration the historic architectural features and artifacts of the basin?" Responses from both Ms. Byrer and Ms. Carmona-Graf were vague and seemed to indicate that they would not take them into account. What their answers did reveal, however, was that the construction process would also include building an earthen ramp into basin 1 to allow truck access. According to both the Round Mt. report and a report by NYS certified wetlands delineator Mickey Cohen, basin 1 contains the most sensitive habitat of the entire site.

Steve Zahn of the NYSDEC was asked why hasn't this decommissioning application caused his agency to push the wetlands protection application further along. His answer was appallingly unprofessional, as well as, non committal. He said, "Nothing led them to believe that the environment was in danger of imminent development." Followed by, "We will take a hard look at basin 3."

As an admitted virtual outsider attending his first meeting, Brooklyn Bird Club President Rob Bate tried to understand the dynamics of mistrust between the various factions. He explained that, what he inferred from all the published material, was the community didn't want active recreational facilities within any of the basins and that they didn't trust the parks department's commitment to that desire. His question to the parks department was, "Do we have your assurance that no active recreation facilities will ever be built within basin 3?" Ms. Carmona-Graf's response was very significant. She replied, "At this time we don't have any plans." With further questioning she would only say that they don't have any capital projects planned short term, but wouldn't commit to anything regarding protecting the basins in the future.

The whole issue of the Ridgewood Reservoir being designated by the NYSDEC as a Class C, High Hazard dam revolves around the agency's duty to protect the public from, in this case, torrents of uncontrolled water spilling through populated areas, destroying lives and property. To anybody familiar with the Ridgewood Reservoir, this concern seems utterly preposterous and the millions of dollars necessary to prevent that situation an incredible waste of taxpayer's money. The following question, which was likely on most people's minds was asked to Alon Dominitz, Chief of Dam Safety, NYSDEC. What scenario do you anticipate would create the catastrophic conditions that would cause the dams to fail and what is the probability of it occurring? Mr. Dominitz proceeded to describe the two most common types of failure mechanisms of earthen dams. One is "overtopping". Overtopping is self explanatory and involves more water ending up in a reservoir than it can contain. The second mechanism is called "piping". According to the website damsafety.org, piping is "internal erosion caused by seepage. Seepage often occurs around hydraulic structures, such as pipes and spillways; through animal burrows; around roots of woody vegetation; and through cracks in dams, dam appurtenances, and dam foundations." There is no permanent standing water in basins 1 and 3, and only 2 feet to 5 feet of water in basin 2 (nobody has actually done any water depth tests in basin 2), so concern for a catastrophe from piping action is absurd. He could not answer the question about the conditions that would cause either situations in the Ridgewood Reservoir basins nor the probability.

In an attempt to establish a historical context for the breaching of the Ridgewood Reservoir it was asked if there are there any Class D, Low Hazard dams within 25 miles of NYC and can they be visited. In addition, of these, how many were breached to become Class D? Alon Dominitz replied that he didn't know, but could probably provide that information. A follow-up question concerned who actually made the decision to classify the Ridgewood Reservoir as a Class C High Hazard dam? Was it the Commissioner of the NYSDEC? Mr. Dominitz replied that it was "a staff decision".

Based on information gleaned from the "FINAL Ridgewood Reservoir Permit" application, I asked, "What is the actual mechanism and purpose of the breaches? Is it to allow any built up water to flow from one basin to the other then into the storm drain on Vermont Place?" Nobody from the NYSDEC would volunteer an answer, but Ms. Carmona-Graf replied that "it is to create a breach". I tried to reword the question but she would only say that the purpose of the "breaches was to create breaches".

Annie Wilson from the New York Environmental Law and Justice Project continued her questioning about the wetland protection application that was submitted several years ago. She asked if we could revisit the classification process. Also, "What is the August deadline about?" According to the NYSDEC, not decommissioning the dam is a violation of the Environmental Conservation Statutes. When asked if we could we get a waiver, Mr. Zahn replied that there are extensions, but that the NYSDEC has never given one. He added, though, that he will take it into consideration.

Finally, Vincent Arcuri, Chair of Queens Community Board 5, asked if representatives of the NYSDEC and NYC Department of Park and Recreation would consider meeting with the community board to discuss an extension for the decommissioning process in order to allow for the application for wetlands protection and mapping to be completed. They responded that they would agree to meet with the community board.

It is unclear to everyone involved with trying to protect this natural gem on the Brooklyn/Queens border why the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation is so set on destroying habitat rather than saving and enhancing it. At a press conference in 2004 when the NYC Department of Environmental Protection turned over the deed to parks, Mayor Bloomberg referred to it as an "untended wetland". The former mayor's PlaNYC 2030 called for a new wetlands initiative to expand and enhance existing state and federal wetlands protection. It seems as though that forward thinking concept has fallen by the wayside, at least with regard to the Ridgewood Reservoir's habitats.

This issue has attracted the attention of and assistance from a wide range of individuals, political leaders, community organizations and conservation groups. Throughout the past 7 years one question kept arising - Why would a city agency charged with protecting green spaces be trying so hard, and against the wishes of the people they are supposed to be serving, to devastate a nature habitat the likes of which New York City haven't seen in centuries? Many people think that, perhaps, a favor is owed to someone that will be repaid in the form of a lucrative contract. Others feel that it is merely the result of governmental mismanagement. There is even the theory that without this project some people in Capital Projects would be out of a job. Conjecture abounds, but I don't think we will ever know the truth behind this major screw up if it in fact does proceed as the parks department plans. The Ridgewood Reservoir would forever represent poor planning, mismanagement and lost opportunities in the annals of New York City government. This evolving urban hardwood forest, wetlands, wildlife magnet and the extraordinary educational opportunities it would have afforded New Yorkers will never happen again.

Send us an email

More Parks Department Atrocities

It was just brought to our attention by one of our supporters that the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation has no problem destroying wetlands. In their "FINAL Ridgewood Reservoir Permit" application is a section labeled Item No. XX, "TEMPORARY WATER CONTROL AND DEWATERING". In essence, it states that the contractor will have the discretionary power to DRAIN THE BASIN if the water is felt to be in the way of the intended work. Keep in mind that the parks department's own environmental contractor (Round Mt. Ecologic LLC) had deemed most of the area to be wetlands. We also hired an independent, certified wetlands delineator who arrived at the same conclusions.

I'll be posting a summary of Monday's public meeting with the NYCDPR and NYSDEC shortly. In the meantime, here is Section XX from the permit application:

**********

CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

ITEM NO. XX TEMPORARY WATER CONTROL LUMP SUM AND DEWATERING

WORK: This section specifies the removal and control of all water in the work area in order to permit all excavation, construction, installation, and related decommissioning activity to be performed “in the dry.” The work under this section includes the furnishing of all labor, equipment, supplies, materials and utilities required for the operation, maintenance and supervision of the control of all water, including surface water and groundwater, such that all construction within this Contract can proceed unhindered by water and flow into or through the work areas. All work shall be performed in accordance with the Contract Documents and to the satisfaction of the City of New York Department of Parks and Recreation (NYCDPR) and its Resident Engineer.

Ridgewood Reservoir was formerly utilized as a water supply distribution reservoir by the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP), but is no longer in service. The reservoir basins have been disconnected from the water distribution system and drained. The Contractor should be aware Basin 2 (Middle Basin) continues to impound an area of standing water. The Contractor is hereby made aware that the NYCDPR has no control over inflows into the work area. Major rainfall events may cause the water level in the basins to rise and lead to potential inundation of the work site.

The Contractor shall be responsible for determining the need for and the means and methods of implementing water control, including dewatering, during the work of the Contract, except as specifically stated herein and in other Sections. The Resident Engineer will monitor conditions at the site and the effects of water levels and flows on the Work. If, in the Resident Engineer’s opinion, the presence of water has the potential to create a deleterious effect on the Work, then the Contractor shall take measures to control such water to the satisfaction of the Resident Engineer at no additional cost to the NYCDPR.

The Contractor shall remove all pumped water away from the work area, and provide sedimentation controls in accordance with all applicable local codes and law as well as the Sedimentation and Erosion Control and Surface Water Control Sections of the Contract Documents. Effluent shall be discharged back into the basins. The Contractor shall take all necessary precautions to prevent flow or seepage back into excavations. All handling and disposal of surface water shall be in accordance with regulations set forth by federal, state, and local agencies. Discharge into storm drains is specifically precluded.

ADHERENCE TO REGULATORY CONDITIONS: All work shall comply with all codes, rules, regulations, laws and ordinances and executed in conformance with any permits, licenses etc., as issued by the State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), the City of New York Department of Parks and Recreation (NYCDPR), the City of New York, and all other authorities having jurisdiction within the project areas. All work necessary to make the work site comply with such requirements shall be provided without additional cost to the NYCDPR.

The Contractor shall procure all other required permits and licenses, (except for those to be obtained by the NYCDPR as stated herein), pay all charges, fees and taxes and shall give all notices necessary and incidental to the due and lawful prosecution of the work under this Contract. The cost thereof shall be included in the prices bid for the various items specified herein for the work of this Contract. Copies of all required permits and licenses shall be filed with the NYCDPR prior to the beginning of the work.

The Contractor shall be responsible for submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) General Permit for the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (Construction Stormwater General Permit) – NY SPDES. As part of this process, the Contractor shall be responsible for developing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the Project Site, which shall be submitted to the NYCDPR for review and comment. In any event, the Contractor shall be required to develop and submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan in accordance with the Contract Drawings. The Plan will encompass the implementation of sediment, erosion, and water control performance specifications. All temporary dewatering and water control measures must be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved sediment and erosion control plan (or SWPPP).

SUBMITTALS:

1. Not less than ten (10) days prior to the scheduled start of work, the Contractor shall submit his proposed method of controlling surface water, groundwater, and maintaining dry conditions, to the Engineer for review. The submittal shall include as a minimum the following items:

• The Contractor's proposed design, sequence of operation, maintenance and supervision of the surface water and groundwater control systems, as needed for each phase of the work, and coordination with temporary groundwater control and temporary cofferdams.

• Design of temporary cofferdams, if necessary.

• The Contractor's proposed contingency plan for additional water control and dewatering

measures for all systems in the event of cofferdam or pumping system failure.

• Scheduling requirements with regard to Sedimentation Control and temporary cofferdam installation.

• The Contractor's proposed contingency plan for potential flooding of the work area. The contingency plan should address, but not to be limited to: handling flooding of the work area, emergency signaling procedures, health and safety plan, and removing equipment and materials from the work area.

2. New York State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity) – NY SPDES. The NY SPDES Construction General Permit is available at the NYSDEC website: (http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/43133.html#Permit).

PUMPS, HOSES, SIPHONS, CONDUITS: Conduit, pipes, or siphons used at the site shall be sized accordingly and shall be maintained in good working order by the Contractor. Other pumps or hoses, if any, used by the Contractor shall be sized appropriately and also maintained in good working order by the Contractor.

Pumps shall be operated in a manner which does not create a nuisance to abutters (i.e. quietly and without significant exhaust).

Fuel for pumps and generators must be located such that fuel cannot be released. Secondary containment shall be provided for gasoline or diesel-powered electrical generators and pumping equipment.

Pipes used for water control and/or diversions shall be sized appropriately and shall be in good condition without leaks or cracks. Pipe pressure ratings shall be adequate for static head loading when pressure flow is expected. Pipe joints shall be watertight and installed as per the manufacturer’s recommendations.

EXECUTION: This section defines the intent of water control work, but the Contractor shall ultimately be responsible for means and methods and compliance with the specification will be judged on a performance criteria. The Contractor shall submit a water control plan to the NYCDPR for review and may, at that time, propose alternative water control strategies. The Contractor’s water control plan must however satisfy the terms and conditions of all permits issued to the project.

The Contractor shall maintain ready access to back-up electrical generators, fuel, pumps, hoses and related equipment and supplies with output capacity sufficient to maintain continuous operation of the primary water control system and backup system in the event the original dewatering or water control equipment or power source(s) which is in use becomes inoperable. The back-up generator, pumps and necessary equipment and supplies shall be capable of rapid deployment for replacement of the inoperable equipment.

The Contractor shall take all reasonable and prudent precautions during construction to provide and maintain proper equipment and facilities to control and divert water. Extra vigilance in monitoring any cofferdam structure is vital since dislodgement of such a structure could cause injury to workers within.

If necessary, water control systems shall be operated continuously during all construction specified herein. The operation time may include breaks, nights, weekends, holidays and other times when work is not otherwise being performed on the site. The Contractor shall be responsible for protecting his equipment from damage due to vandalism.

Where the Contractor proposes to remove water from the bottom of the work area by sumping as approved by the Resident Engineer, the intake must be placed within a perforated pipe and the annular space between the pipe and the sump pit (as well as the bottom of the pit) must be filled with Crushed Stone as submitted by the Contractor. Filter fabric may also be used if necessary. Pumping from sumps which remove fines from the soil shall be immediately terminated and the dewatering method revised accordingly.

Pumps, siphons, pipes, channels, etc. shall be sized appropriately. Any cofferdam / barrier shall be constructed of such materials and to such extents that it will withstand the forces and pressures exerted by flows and depths of a reasonable expected magnitude. The cofferdams / barriers shall be compatible with other dewatering, water control, and sedimentation control procedures. Dewatering equipment shall be provided as needed to remove water from subgrades as well as the interior areas of any cofferdams / barriers.

All cofferdams / barriers constructed by the Contractor shall be completely removed upon the completion of the Project. All material shall be legally disposed of off-site at the Contractor’s expense. No material shall be left within the Work area.

The Contractor shall make provisions to prevent flow through excavations or work areas exiting the basins expeditiously in the event of a flood which threatens to overwhelm the water control system or cause increased water levels which might lead to damage at the embankments, or other property outside of the basins.

Pumps must be operated in such a way as to not disturb abutters (e.g. noise). Adequate noise suppression shall be provided. Generators, pumps, or other equipment shall adhere to the limits of New York City regulations governing noise. Pump intakes shall be placed so as to reduce the potential for sediment entrainment and pump discharge points shall make provisions for reducing erosion potential through energy dissipation, riprap protection, etc.

Dewatering systems shall be operated continuously and groundwater levels monitored and maintained at specified levels during all construction specified herein. The operation time is to include breaks, nights, weekends, holidays and other times when work is not otherwise being performed on the site. The Contractor shall be responsible for protecting his equipment from damage due to vandalism.

The Contractor may stage his dewatering plan such that dewatering and groundwater control is limited to areas where work is or soon will be occurring. Groundwater control may cease when the Contractor and NYCDPR and its Resident Engineer are satisfied that groundwater will no longer affect the Work of the Contract or the integrity of the structure in the area.

Groundwater levels in excavations shall be maintained at least two feet (2’) below subgrade.

Discharge water shall be passed through sedimentation chambers, basins, “Silt socks,” “Dirt Bags,” or other proprietary devices which mitigate turbidity delivered to receiving waters. These devices should have a supplemental perimeter line of turbidity curtains or siltation barrier.

MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT: No measurement will be made for temporary surface water control and dewatering. The bid item under this section is a single LUMP SUM quantity.

The price bid shall be a LUMP SUM and shall include the cost of all labor, materials, equipment, testing, and incidental expenses necessary to complete the work in accordance with the Contract Documents, to the satisfaction of the Engineer.

**********

Send us an email

The Fate of the Ridgewood Reservoir

The next few months will determine the ultimate fate of the Ridgewood Reservoir. After 8 years of dedicated hard work by dozens of concerned individuals, community groups, community boards, politicians and conservationists, the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation may finally get their way and destroy the unique historic and environmental habitat of the three reservoir basins. If they succeed, it will not be through the use of transparent, honest governance and regulation, but rather a "three card monte" game of obfuscation and subterfuge of which the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation is now complicit.

Below is an open letter from Steve Nanz, one of the people who has been active in the effort to protect the Ridgewood Reservoir since 2007. Steve does a great job of encapsulating this long struggle and the current "legal" issue that the parks department is using to trump all arguments for protection. I can't stress enough the importance of attending Monday's meeting and making your voice heard. You can also share this page by copying and pasting the following link into a webpage, an email or text message - http://tinyurl.com/kce3zhu

**********

By now you may be aware of the upcoming Ridgewood Reservoir community meeting which will be held by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (NYCDPR) to explain the proposed plan to decommission the reservoir. It  will be held this  Monday June 30, 2014, from 7:00 pm – 9:00pm at:

St. Pancras School
6820 Myrtle Avenue
Ridgewood, NY

I will unfortunately be out of town but I encourage as many people as possible to attend that meeting.

About eight years ago the Ridgewood Reservoir, located on the Brooklyn/Queens border, became a battle ground between the NYC Parks Department and a group of environmentalists and concerned citizens in the local community. The Parks Department had initiated a plan to develop parts of the Ridgewood Reservoir as an active sports facility. I first became involved with the issue in 2007 when Jennifer Monson, Artistic Director iLAND, contacted my wife, Heidi Steiner, through the Brooklyn Bird Club, to see if there was interest in conducting a breeding bird survey of the Reservoir. The hope was to dissuade the city from developing the basins as ball fields by demonstrating its environmental significance. Heidi and our friend, Rob Jett, with the help of many other volunteers did in fact conduct the survey and identified 38 potential breeding species of which 20 were confirmed (see Breeding Birds RR 07.doc).  The list includes as confirmed American Woodcock. Those concerned citizens formed the Highland Park/Ridgewood Reservoir Alliance with Heidi as its first president. The current president is Gary Comorau. The Alliance has a website, maintained by Rob Jett, which contains just about everything one would want to know about the Reservoir and its history at:

http://ridgewoodreservoir.blogspot.com/

Additional information can be found at:

http://www.nycgovparks.org/parks/highlandpark/highlights/19651

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridgewood_Reservoir

I have uploaded many additional documents to my FTP server and they can be accessed at:

ftp://stevenanz.com
user: snguest
p/w: guest

The Parks' development plan was ultimately rejected in 2008 by then New York City Comptroller William C. Thompson, Jr. on the grounds that it might adversely affect both the environment and the surrounding community. Instead, the plan was altered to simply conduct renovations and to fully decommission the reservoir. The renovation phase has happened and the result is in my opinion very good. In fact they are beautiful. However, the Parks Department has now embarked on the decommissioning phase.

According to the Parks Department website (see above link),  the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP, not to be confused with DEC) decommissioned the site in 1990. However, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), which oversees the state's system of dams, continued to list the Reservoir as a Class "C" or "High Hazard" dam. The Parks Department and DEC claim that for safety compliance reasons, work is required to reclassify the reservoir as a Class "D" or "Negligible or No Hazard" dam.

There are two central issue which I believe need to be addressed. The first is that I and others believe that the current Class "C" designation is in error. We believe that it already qualifies as a Class "D" dam. The second issue is that the construction plan, as it currently stands, will adversely impact a wetland habitat. To be clear, this second point is not a personal belief as may be the first. It is a fact which was determined by multiple experts including those from the Parks Department.

With respect to the first issue, I agree with  Mike Miller, Assemblyman for Distract 38, who in his letter of March 28, 2014, requested Commissioner Martens reconsider DEC's position noting that Parks will as he puts it "...destroy the unique ecology of the site as well as waste $11-million dollars in funding..." Since the basins were drained, no significant amount of water has been impounded. This should be no surprise. The three basins which make up the reservoir were constructed using puddle clay and rocks from the surrounding area. When the reservoir was decommissioned, the pumps were removed and the pipes sealed. The basins were drained and no water can get in except for rain fall directly onto the reservoir as is noted in the Parks' Permit Application (see Ridgewood_Permit.pdf in the Permit Aplication folder). From Wikipedia: "The puddle is laid about 10 inches (25 cm) thick at the sides and nearly 3 ft (0.91 m) thick at the bottom of a canal, built up in layers. Puddle has to be kept wet in order to remain waterproof so it is important for canals to be kept filled with water." An exhaustive description of the process implemented at the Reservoir as well as an OP-ED piece to the NY Times, authored by William C. Thompsan Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., can be found at:

http://ridgewoodreservoir.blogspot.com/2008_05_01_archive.html

The basin floors and walls are now covered with trees, their roots penetrating severeal feet. They have been through 24 dry seasons since the basins were drained. I suspect that nature has already decommissioned the dam. It would seem likely that the reservoir is a failed dam which no longer materially impounds water and does in fact qualify as a Class "D" dam per DOW TOGS 3.1.5 – GUIDANCE FOR DAM HAZARD CLASSIFICATION (see DAM HAZARD CLASSIFICATION_togs315.pdf) which states:

(4) Class "D" or "Negligible or No Hazard" dam: A dam that has been breached or removed, or has failed or otherwise no longer materially impounds waters, or a dam that was planned but never constructed. Class "D" dams are considered to be defunct dams posing negligible or no hazard. The department may retain pertinent records regarding such dams.

The plans call for placing culverts between basins 1 and 2 (east and central) and between basins 2 and 3 (central and west). Basin 3 will be breached at the south west corner and a road will be constructed from there to the north east end where the converts will be located. According to the Environmental Assessment, water is unlikely to ever flow through the basin 3 breach. The Permit Application concludes that a storm dropping 39.1 inches in 72 hours  would not cause this to happen. That amount of rain exceeds the annual rainfall. The Reservoir is designated Class "C" due to it's potential to impound water. It does not seem to have that ability anymore even if it could be demonstrated that enough rain could fall in order raise the water to hazardous levels were the basins sealed. The Environmental Assessment speculates that water from municipal source could raise the water level but gives no evidence. The reservoir is the highest point in Long Island and the pipes going in are filled with cement.

• With respect to the second issue, I have been told by DEC that at some point in the future it will designate wetlands in the east and central basins but the west basin will never gain that status. When asked why wetland designation does not happen prior to construction, I was told that DEC resources are required for Sandy projects. I pointed out that both a certified wetland delineator (see Mickey Cohen Wetland Report.pdf) and the Parks' own Preliminary Assessment (see Ridgewood Reservoir Draft Assessment.pdf), prepared by Round Mountain Ecological LLC, indicted the existence of a wetland in the west basin as well as the environmental significance of that wetland but was told that it was the opinion of DEC that no wetland of environmental significance existed. After my my conversations with DEC, I received a copy of the recently released Environmental Assessment Statement (see Environmental Assessment.pdf). It confirms the existence of a wetland in the west basin sighting the work of Round Mountain. It should be noted here that the Round Mountain survey identified endangered and threatened plant species in that basin. The EAS also sited the results of its own wetland delineation survey conducted in 2011 by GZA GeoEnvironmental and field visits by ecologists from NRG in 2014 both of which confirmed "characteristics and native wetland species" in portions of basin 3.

Although the EAS admits that wetland habitat will be adversely impacted by the road construction, it makes the claim that it does not matter because the wetland is under 12.4 acres per ECL Article 24 (see ECL ARTICLE 24.pdf) and even if it were over 12.4 acres, DEC may not need to give it protected status. Since the reservoir has not yet been decommissioned according to the DEC, it remains a reservoir and "...Reservoirs are not considered to be jurisdictional wetlands according to the NYSDEC." No reference is given for this and I was unable to find its origin and again, NYCDEP considers the reservoir to be decommissioned. However, the statement seems to conflict with 24-0103. Declaration of policy of the ECL which states:

"It is declared to be the public policy of the state to preserve, protect and conserve freshwater wetlands and the benefits derived therefrom, to prevent the despoliation and destruction of
freshwater wetlands, and to regulate use and development of such wetlands to secure the natural benefits of freshwater wetlands, consistent with the general welfare and beneficial economic, social and agricultural development of the state."

To be clear, DEC is calling this a reservoir because it has not been decommissioned in the sense that it believes that it has the potential to impound water at potentially hazardous levels even though it has not impounded water since it was decommissioned 25 years ago. It therefore is not obligated to protect the wetlands despite the ECL Article 24 Statement of Policy.

Furthermore per ECL Article 2:

Section 24-0301. Commissioner's study.

The commissioner shall, as soon as practicable, conduct a study to identify and map those individual freshwater wetlands in the state of New York which shall have an area of at least twelve and four-tenths acres or more, or if less than twelve and four-tenths, (a) have, in the discretion of the commissioner, and subject to review of his action by the board created pursuant to title eleven of this article, unusual local importance for one or more of the specific benefits set forth in subdivision seven of section 24-0105 or...

Subdivision seven of section 24-0105:

7. Any loss of freshwater wetlands deprives the people of the state of some or all of the many and multiple benefits to be derived from wetlands, to wit:

(a) flood and storm control by the hydrologic absorption and storage capacity of freshwater wetlands;
(b) wildlife habitat by providing breeding, nesting and feeding grounds and cover for many forms of wildlife, wildfowl and shorebirds, including migratory wildfowl and rare species such as the bald eagle and osprey;
(c) protection of subsurface water resources and provision for valuable watersheds and recharging ground water supplies;
(d) recreation by providing areas for hunting, fishing, boating, hiking, bird watching, photography, camping and other uses;
(e) pollution treatment by serving as biologicO and chemical oxidation basins;
(f) erosion control by serving as sedimentation areas and filtering basins, absorbing silt and organic matter and protecting channels and harbors;
(g) education and scientific research by providing readily accessible outdoor bio-physicallaboratories, living classrooms and vast training and education resources; and
(h) open space and aesthetic appreciation by providing often the only remaining open areas along crowded river fronts and coastal Great Lakes regions; and
(i) sources of nutrients in freshwater food cycles and nursery grounds and sanctuaries for freshwater fish.

I see at least three points which apply: b, d, and g. Although under 12.4 acres, this wetland should be protected

In conclusion, whereas I lack the expertise to determine with 100% confidence the dam classification, loss of important wetland, I believe, is inarguable. DEC and Parks seem to be on the path of shoot first and ask questions later. But perhaps all the points I have raised will be addressed in Monday's meeting to the satisfaction of reasonable people. I do not see how that is possible without mapping the actual wetland by an unbiased neutral party, something which I do not believe has been done to date. I would like to be wrong, because the plan calls for the long term environmental rehabilitation of the Reservoir.

Thank for your interested in this matter.

Best Regards,

Steve Nanz

**********


Send us an email

Reservoir Destruction Plan Highlights

Below are are couple of key drawings from the department of parks plans for "decommissioning" the Ridgewood Reservoir. Note that what they refer to as "culverts" are in reality 11' X 14' tunnels designed to allow large trucks access to the reservoir basins. This would permit parks to drive their large maintenance vehicles into the wetland and forested habitats to clear them for eventual development, something they've been trying to cram down the throats of the surrounding communities for the past 7 years.

Here is a detail of the planned "culvert":

Here's another view of one of the $11,000,000.00 "culverts" that the New York City Department of Parks & Recreation plans of building by blasting holes into the walls of historic Ridgewood Reservoir:

I don't know how well the parks department has been maintaining your neighborhood parks, but if they spent anywhere near $11 million on mine, they'd certainly look and operate a lot better than they have for many years.

If you are sick and tired of the parks department wasting money while your local park falls into disrepair, please send us a note. I'll post the best of them.

Send us an email

Final Blow Delivered to the Ridgewood Reservoir

NYC Department of Parks and Recreation Will Destroy Reservoirs

Beginning in August of this year the parks department will start a process that will, in short order, spell the end of the unique habitats within the Ridgewood Reservoir's three basins. Through a freedom of information request we have acquired their plans submitted to the department of environmental conservation for breaching all three basin walls. You can download them at the links below.

Download •FINAL_Ridgewood_Permit.pdf
Download Appendix F - IO.pdf
Download Appendix A - Permit Drawings.pdf

Send us an email

Another Park For Sale

The Daily News just published the following story:

Councilwoman Julissa Ferreras proposes public-private alliance for Flushing Meadows

Send us an email

Selling and Giving Away NYC Parks

The Leonard Lopate Show on National Public Radio just broadcast the following show about New York City's unfortunate trend of selling or giving away public parklands to private developers:

Send us an email

Parks Department Killing Trees

The following article was just published in the Queens Chronicle. It may seem unbelievable to people outside of New York City, but our Department of Parks and Recreation has a history of ineptitude. Whether it is because the department's administrators are unqualified for their jobs or just don't care is unclear, either way NYC taxpayers suffer in the long run:

Construction is killing the trees
Ridgewood Reservoir work will result in dozens dying if nothing is done

by Tess McRae, Reporter | Posted: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:30 am

Construction at the Ridgewood Reservoir in Highland Park is harming 150-year-old trees there.

Along Vermont Place, construction for the “Ridgewood Reservoir Project,” which will provide new pathways, more handicap accessibility and lighting, as part of Mayor Bloomberg’s PlaNYC is underway, but with tools, machines and debris weighing on the ground, civic leaders and tree experts are worried what the arboreal effect will be.

“When soil gets compacted by machinery or heavy piles of material or even extreme foot traffic, it loses its structure,” said Morgan Potter, a horticulturalist with the Queens Botanical Garden. “Not only are the roots being squished, but they are losing the environment necessary for regrowth.”

As the work goes on, dozens of London plane trees are surrounded by a chain-link fence which sits directly on top of many of their root systems. Compacted soil prevents a tree’s roots from accessing nutrients from water and soil. But trees can take years to show signs of stress because they are such large organisms. That causes a major problem with construction projects because once building is finished the trees may appear normal.

“I can say with certainty that these trees will be negatively affected by this project,” Potter said. “Whether they succumb to the damage depends on their vigor and any measures taken to remedy the problems after the project is over.”

“The consequences may not be seen for years down the line,” local tree expert Carsten Glaeser said. “Trees are the largest organisms on the planet and I’ve seen this happen time after time. Whether it’s because of building developers constructing a building or a situation like this, it’s always the same and the tree eventually dies.”

The Parks Department responded by saying it is working on the issue and hopes it will be resolved soon.

“NYC Parks is currently working on a course of action at the Ridgewood Reservoir site involving tree protection, adding additional wood chips, pruning to the existing trees along the roadway, and decompaction within the construction area,” Phil Abrasmson, a Parks Department spokesman, said. “In order to build a required ramp, the contractor piled fill near trees along Vermont Place due to the tightness of the space, and we are processing a change order to decompact around those trees.”

The Parks Department could not say when those changes will go into effect.

Glaeser said that though the Parks Department is not always right, all city agencies get it wrong when it comes to tree care.

He also says that the solution does not involve programs such as MillionTreesNYC, the city initiative to plant and care for one million trees across the five boroughs over the next decade.

“We need to protect the trees we have have rather than planting new trees,” he said.

Bob Holden, president of the Juniper Park Civic Association, agrees.

“Trees in the reservoir are a natural resource,” Holden said. “You can’t replace a 60- or 70-year-old tree. With pollution and air quality in recent years, the trees won’t even get that large.”

Send us an email

Colossal Waste of Taxpayers Dollars

The NYC Department of Parks and Recreation have revealed their plans to breach the walls of the Ridgewood Reservoir. In what can only be viewed as a colossal waste of taxpayers dollars, they plan on spending $11M to, essentially, destroy an amazing feat of historic civil engineering. Given the parks department's terrible track record, one can only assume that if allowed to proceed, the project will cost much more, take much longer and cause many "unforeseen" problems. The Times Newsweekly just published the following story:

R’WOOD RESERVOIR DAM PLAN SLAMMED
Panel: Too Invasive To Reforested Basins
by Robert Pozarycki

The Parks Department’s proposal to create a runoff system at the Ridgewood Reservoir was panned by members of Community Board 5’s Parks Committee at its meeting last Monday, Feb. 25, in Glendale, who charged that it opened the door for trespassers to gain access to ecologically-sensitive areas of the greenspace.

Joelle Byrer and Katie Raschdorf of the Parks Department explained the details of the plan, which is being done to satisfy a request by the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to formally decommission the long-inactive greenspace as a “high-class hazard C dam.”

Ridgewood Reservoir was taken completely out of the city’s water system nearly 25 years ago, and over time has evolved into a natural habitat. However, the reservoir—in which only one of its three basins has water—is nonetheless considered by the state DEC as a dam. The state had mandated that by 2014, all structures recognized as dams be fortified to modern standards for retaining water or breached if no longer used for such purposes.

Since Ridgewood Reservoir is in the process of being transformed into a public park, Byrer stated, the Parks Department is working to create a series of outlets within the three basins. Electing to maintain the reservoir as a dam would have required the Parks Department to make repairs and remove plantlife in the basins.

In order to decommission the dam, Raschdorf explained, the Parks Department will need to “poke holes in the walls so that under no circumstances— no catastrophic weather events—that this structure will not impound more than six feet of water at any time.” The center basin— which has water no greater than five feet deep, Raschdorf noted—will remain in tact.

“What our goal has been all along is to maintain that water level in the center basin,” Raschdorf added. “We’re working with our design consultants in order to do that, and the DEC is okay with that, because we understand the importance of it.”

To accomplish this task, the Parks Department will install culverts (openings) in the walls separating the three basins which comprise the reservoir, as well as the outer wall of the westernmost basin adjacent to Vermont Place. The aim is to have runoff flow through the culverts along the topography of the site, from its highest point located near the Jackie Robinson Parkway and Salem Field Cemetery to the low point at the corner of Vermont Place and Highland Boulevard.

The breaches in between all three basins would be located on the northern end nearest the Jackie Robinson Parkway. Raschdorf explained the location of the breaches are important in order to maintain the sensitive ecology in the easternmost basin.

Once runoff exits through the culvert adjacent to the corner of Vermont Place and Highland Boulevard, Raschdorf noted, the water will flow into nearby catch basins and through the city’s sewer system. But she pointed out the only scenario under which water would flow through the Vermont Place culvert would be a weather event of apocalyptic proportions.

“There will be way more global catastrophic before you would see any water draining onto Vermont Place,” she said, adding that there was no heavy flooding reported in the reservoir during recent weather events such as Hurricane Sandy.

Installing these culverts, however, will require crews to enter into the reservoirs themselves. To accomplish this task with minimal effects on the natural habitats of all three basins, Raschdorf explained, crews will make a path running along the northern and western perimeters of each basin wall.

Heavy machinery will not be required to enter the basin to install the pre-cast concrete culverts, she noted. The path also gives the Parks Department the opportunity to enter each basin and remove invasive plant species and replace it with new plantlife native to the area.

Committee members took issue with the size of the culvert planned between the exterior wall of the Ridgewood Reservoir’s western basin and Vermont Place, which is planned to be 11’-high, 14’-wide and 46’ deep. All of the culverts will be gated and locked.

“We’re spending millions of dollars to do this,” said Parks Committee Co-chair Steve Fiedler. “After a while, with a lack of maintenance, it’s gone. I don’t want to see something like this built and then all of that soil and grass washed away, and it looks like crap. There’s no reason for that if they install a drainage system.”

Fiedler also expressed concern about the size of the culverts, which he claimed would allow trespassers to gain access to the location.

“I don’t want 11 feet. I don’t think vehicles should ever get in any of these basins,” he said, suggesting that the Parks Department instead make its entrance from the nearby Jackie Robinson Parkway.

“There’s no security patrol up there. It’s a free for all at night time. Those gates are going to be broken and walked into,” Fiedler added.

It was noted that this project will be done separate from the current improvements being made to the perimeter of the Ridgewood Reservoir. That project, Raschdorf noted, is expected to be completed this spring.

In all, the work is expected to cost $11 million, which will be funded through the Mayor’s office, according to Byrer. The committee was asked to offer a letter of recommendation for the Parks Department’s plans, which will likely be brought before the full board for a vote at the board’s Mar. 13 meeting.

The Parks Department reps also outlined renovation plans for the area of the reservoir adjacent to Salem Field Cemetery. As explained by Raschdorf, this includes improving very steep slopes which were created through illegal dumping by the cemetery over the years.

The plans include cutting into the illegal slopes—which reportedly encroach beyond the cemetery’s property line and onto Parks Department territory—and installing an 8’-tall retaining wall. A 4’-high stone wall would be erected in front of the retaining wall, and the area between the two will be filled in with soil and planters.

Salem Field is reportedly funding the entire cost of the project, as per a requirement issued by the state DEC, Byrer added.

Above is an artist rendering of the proposed culvert to be constructed on the outer wall of the Ridgewood Reservoir near Vermont Place. Above is the map showing where breaches will be made to officially decommission the reservoir as a state-recognized dam. (courtesy of NYC Parks)

Send us an email

Highland Park Problems

As it has been pointed out numerous times in the past, the NYC Department of Parks & Recreation's ability to maintain existing recreational facilities at Highland Park is dubious, at best. I can't imagine the mess they would make if they razed the forests and wetlands in the reservoir basins to build their proposed facilities. From the New York Daily News:

Cypress Hills softball players say city needs to replace lights and cut grass on field
Burnt-out lights lights at Highland Park are ruining games, players say
By Mark Morales / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Wednesday, June 6, 2012, 5:52 PM

This field of dreams in Cypress Hills Dozens has become an endless nightmare for a group of softball players.

Members of the Hermanos Unidos softball league say burnt -out spotlights are ruining games at Highland Park on Jamaica Ave. - just like it did two years ago.

After the city fixed electrical issues that caused the field to be poorly-lit in June 2010, players are once again running the bases in the dark because the burnt-out bulbs haven’t been replaced.

“It’s frustrating,” said league organizer Yordi Olivo. “There are players who miss balls. They can’t see it because it gets dark after 8pm.”

Players counted as many as 14 bulbs that have been out since last August. The unkempt outfield has also been a problem for players who said they finally broke down and started paying a local contractor $100 a week out of their own pockets to mow the grass.

After the News inquired about the situation, city Parks Department officials said it would cost too much to replace each individual bulb on the light towers right away but said both issues would be fixed next week.

“The recent unseasonably warm weather and heavy rains have caused the grass to grow at an unusually rapid rate, and we are unable to mow the grass after rainstorms without damaging the field,” said Park Dept. spokesman Zachary Feder.

“These ballfields are scheduled to be mowed again by the end of the week and the burnt-out lights replaced by early next week.”

Players and organizers said the Parks Department can’t fix the field soon enough.

League president Jose Claudio said he’s left several messages to members of the Parks Department asking them to replace the lights but never heard back.

“Whenever the sky is cloudy, no one can see the ball,” said Claudio. “When we get to the playoffs this is going to be a big problem.”

Gabby Borges, 45, was playing catcher on Tuesday when he lost a routine pop fly in the dark sky because of the poor lighting. The ball bounced between him and the pitcher and three runs scored.

“If there was enough light I would have seen it,” said Borges. “You feel bad but there’s nothing we can do. It’s not like we can climb up the pole and fix the lights ourselves.”

Salvador Valera, who owns the permit to play on the field six days a week, wants results for the $6,000 he paid for the permit.

“They are killing us. We can’t afford to pay all that money but we do it,” said Valera. “We have no other choice but to come up with the money but we don’t get the service that we pay for.”

mmorales@nydailynews.com

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/cypress-hills-softball-players-city-replace-lights-cut-grass-field-article-1.1091101#ixzz1x6w9Z999

Send us an email

Four Sparrow Marsh Project

Looks like this travesty has been cancelled ... for now:

Forest City Ratner project in Mill Basin, touched by corruption indictment, "has been withdrawn;" indicted developer had role in City Point, whose lead developer didn't pay bribes but made gifts to Markowitz charities

Send us an email

Inept Parks Department Begins Work

Despite the local community board's outrage over a poorly thought-out fencing and lighting design for the Ridgewood Reservoir's perimeter, the Department of Parks and Recreation is proceeding with their plans.

Crime is up in parks citywide, yet NYC Park Commissioner Benepe and Queens Commissioner Dorothy Lewandowski think that leaving the 50 acre basins essentially wide open to anyone who wants to jump the fence and disappear into the forests below is a really good idea. Anyone with half a brain can figure out what is going to occur once all the 8 foot fences are removed. This blog has been documenting the travesties involved with the "community input" process and the parks department has been summarily ignoring the people from the surrounding neighborhoods. The removal of the protective fences marks the beginning of the end of the most unique habitat in all of New York City and a historically important landmark. When the first dead bodies are found in the basin and the city decides it would be best to raze the evolving forests and bogs, remember the name Dorothy Lewandowski as she is the city official who should be held responsible.

The following was just published in the Astoria Times:

Construction begins at Ridgewood Reservoir

By Joe Anuta
Thursday, July 7, 2011 10:57 AM EDT

A worker grinds down a stump along the path surrounding the Ridgewood Reservoir.
Photo by Joe Anuta

Construction on the Ridgewood Reservoir is in full swing, which pleased some park-goers but continued to enrage community activists.

Nearly half of the path that winds around the parcel of wilderness is closed to the public as construction crews tear out sections of fence and cut down trees along the edge.

“It’s going to be beautiful, we’re very happy to be working on it,” said one of the construction workers from a Maspeth construction company, who won the contract bid to revamp the green space.

The company will be replacing some of the stone slabs on the edge of the reservoir, installing new lights around the inner circumference of the path and placing benches near especially scenic views. A path that cuts down the middle of the reservoir between two of the large basins was previously off limits, but will also be open to the public under the new plan.

The company will also be installing a ramp to allow disabled residents access to the reservoir.

But one contentious change will be the new fence that is set to replace the chain link barrier that currently surrounds the reservoir.

The new fence will be about 4 feet tall instead of the nearly 8-foot version and has generated friction between the city Parks Department and Community Board 5. Representatives from the board believe the fence is too short and would allow curious explorers unencumbered access to the nature preserve.

“I can step over a 4-foot fence,” said Steve Fiedler, chairman of the board’s Parks Committee. “We want a deterrent.”

People already slip into the reservoir through the dilapidated, porous fence to sleep, consume alcohol, do drugs or even stage paintball matches, he said.

“There is no security there, no cops,” Fiedler said. “It’s a free-for-all.”

But Parks said the shorter fence will allow visitors to actually see the foliage.

Residents were split on whether the shorter fence would be an improvement.

“I think a smaller one is better,” said resident Jose Estebec. “You can actually see everything.”

Kamesha Scott disagreed, saying a taller fence is needed to keep out adventurous kids.

“If you have the kids who want to explore, they’re better off keeping it higher,” she said.

The construction is set to be complete in next spring.

Reach reporter Joe Anuta by e-mail at januta@cnglocal.com or by phone at 718-260-4566.

Send us an email

More Four Sparrow Marsh Documentation

Two justifications that the parks department has been using for possibly destroying part of an important wetland that is owned by the city are:

- Four Sparrow Marsh is not parkland
- The acreage that they want to give to developers is not part of Four Sparrow Marsh

Fortunately there is plenty of public documentation that contradicts their public statements. Below is a list of links to New York City Department of Parks and Recreation webpages and downloads with information relevant to Four Sparrow Marsh. The list also includes a few links from other city agencies. If the any of those links mysteriously disappear, let us know as we've saved all the downloads and created PDF files of the webpages:

List of Parks by Total Acreage

Explore Your Park, Find A Park, List of Parks

Explore Your Park - Four Sparrow Marsh

Explore Your Park - Four Sparrow Marsh Highlights

Explore Your Park - Four Sparrow Marsh Highlights 2

Explore Your Park - Four Sparrow Marsh Trip Planner

Natural Resource Group, Forever Wild, Four Sparrow Marsh Preserve

Explore Your Park - Four Sparrow Marsh Highlights, Invasive Phragmites

Explore Your Park - Four Sparrow Marsh Highlights, Salt Marshes in New York City Parks

Four Sparrow Marsh Forever Wild Map

About Parks - Divisions > Natural Resources Group, Forever Wild & Nature Preserve Sites

Natural Area Mapping and Inventory of Four Sparrow Marsh

Explore Your Park - Four Sparrow Marsh, Capital Projects

About Parks Divisions - Natural Resources Group & Natural Resources Group Publications

About Parks Divisions - Natural Resources Group & Restoration Sites, Brooklyn Restoration Sites

Explore Your Park - Four Sparrow Marsh & News, NRG Restoration and Avian Monitoring

Explore Your Park - Marine Park & News, NRG Restoration and Avian Monitoring

Natural Resources Group Forest Restoration Team 2000 Annual Report

Natural Resources Group Forest Restoration Team Spring 2002 Summary

2002 Annual Report City of New York Parks & Recreation Natural Resources Group Forest Restoration Team

2003 Annual Report Natural Resources Group Forest Restoration Team

Natural Resources Group Forest Restoration Team Spring 2003 Summary

Natural Resources Group Forest Restoration Team Spring 2004 Summary

Natural Resources Group Forest Restoration Team Fall 2007 Summary

Natural Resources Group Forest Restoration Team Planting Report Spring 2009

Overview Map NYC Parklands Open Spaces NWI Wetlands

Parks  & Recreation 2002-2003 Biennial Report Eight Seasons of Progress

Recommendations for the Transfer of City-Owned Properties Containing Wetlands

MillionsTreesNYC

Jamaica Bay Watershed Protection Plan

New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan

Send us an email

Four Sparrow Marsh tour

NYC Wildflower Week
Botanical Tour of Four Sparrow Marsh
Sunday, June 26, 2011, 10 – 11:30 am
Location: Meet at the parking lot of the Toys R Us, 2875 Flatbush Avenue, Brooklyn
Guide: Matthew Wills, Naturalist and Blogger
Register for this event
Description: Four Sparrow Marsh in Mill Basin, Brooklyn is one of the last remaining salt marshes on the north shore of Jamaica Bay. The marsh provides critical filtration services for the bay and is habitat for numerous nesting and migratory bird species. Consisting of mudflat, salt marsh, upland meadow, and a sprinkling of deciduous trees, the Four Sparrow landscape hosts a mixture of native and invasive plant species. The marsh’s meadow is currently the site of a proposed retail center which threatens to degrade if not destroy this nearly unique corner of the city.

**********

Here is a short video that clearly illustrates how the parks department would be complicate in the theft of public lands for the use of a private developer. Note how the parks departments own documentation shows the ecological significance of Four Sparrow Marsh.

Four Sparrow Marsh Preserve Key

Send us an email

Commissioner Lewandowski's Response

Below is Queens Parks Commissioner Lewandowski's response to City Councilwoman Elizabeth Crowley:

A 4' fence for unobstructed views? Why doesn't the parks department have a problem with the 8' around the Hallett Nature Sanctuary in Central Park? For reasons yet to be uncovered, Ms. Lewandowski (and the entire parks department, for that matter) is deceiving the public. Also, Ms. Lewandowski is incorrect - The historic fences exist not only between basins 2 & 3, but also basins 1 & 2. Notice her carefully worded "replicated fences will be used at the overlook areas". You can be certain that their plan is to remove the remainder of the 1/4 mile of historic fences and ONLY install a few yards of replicas at the overlooks.

It doesn't take much thought to understand that placing a 4' fence around ANYTHING does nothing to protect it. When the parks department took over ownership of the reservoir from the Department of Environmental Protection in 2004, there were homeless encampments throughout two of the three basins. Parks employees eventually removed these people, cleaned up their mess of garbage and built an 8' fence around the three basins. More recently, the parks department also spent considerable man hours clearing out truckloads of garbage from illegal paintball courses which had been set up in the basins. Currently, maintenance crews repair holes in the surrounding fence on a weekly basis. Last year, representatives of the organization "World Science Festival" requested permission to enter the basins to carry out a scientific bioblitz. Park Administrator Debbie Kuha denied them permission on the grounds that it would be too dangerous for people to enter the basins.

For 6 years the NYC Department of Parks and Recreation have been restricting access to the Ridgewood Reservoir basins because of various safety concerns, but now think that it would be perfectly acceptable to remove an 8' protective fence and replace it with a 4' fence. Once that happens, if anyone decides to step over the fence and enter the wooded basins, there will be no patrols by either the Parks Enforcement Patrols or NYPD to monitor potential illegal activities. It would become the only 50 acre park in New York City without a law enforcement presence! What is now a unique, nearly pristine grouping of natural habitats will quickly devolve into an unenforced, hidden, no-mans land where anything goes. How long will it take before bodies begin to turn up in the basins? When crimes within the basins do become rampant, will Ms. Kuha and Ms. Lewandowski merely suggest that the forests be cut down and wetlands drained to eliminate illegal activities? Maybe that has been the plan all along.

Send us an email

Another Parks Dept. Screw-up

This is from the New York Post:

Bronx field now city's $14M blunder land
By RICH CALDER
Last Updated: 3:51 PM, January 19, 2010
Posted: 2:31 AM, January 19, 2010

A city plan to rebuild one of The Bronx's biggest sports fields has morphed into a money pit for taxpayers.

Workers renovating Harris Field in Bedford Park recently uncovered contaminated soil under the playing surfaces, helping push the anticipated cost to nearly $14 million, city officials told The Post.

The price tag for the renovation had already gone from the $6.6 million announced in 2007 to $8.7 million, records show.

Now the Parks Department is confirming that it has to add another $5.2 million for cleanup because of the high levels of lead unearthed while workers were preparing to install drainage-system tanks needed to restore the popular park's six playing fields.

Harris Field used to be part of a reservoir before the city acquired the 15-acre site in 1917.

Department spokeswoman Vickie Karp said it is believed that the park was created with "the use of incinerator ash as fill, which would explain the presence of lead."

The original playing fields at the park were grass, but the city plans to cover two with synthetic turf.

A Parks Department official wishing to remain anonymous said that contamination wouldn't be an issue if all the fields were going to be grass but that replacing two with turf requires digging deeper to install the drainage tanks. Karp says this is untrue.

A fiscal 2008 mayoral report showed the Parks Department topped city agencies in cost overruns with projects costing an average of 50 percent more than the original contract price. The city average was 17 percent.

Harris Field is in line to rise by more than 110 percent.

"The project shows just how poorly the city does its due diligence on parks projects," said Geoffrey Croft, of the nonprofit group New York City Park Advocates, when told of the costs.

The project's long delays are crippling a popular Little League that plays there.

"The Parks Department only cares about construction, not children," said Don Bluestone, executive director of the Mosholu Montefiore Community Center.

Bluestone said the nonprofit group's youth baseball league has gone from 1,000 players to 500 since construction began. He ripped the department for closing the entire park and relocating the league miles away to parks filled with drug dealers and plagued by flooding.

The city's Web site says construction will be complete by the spring, but Bluestone was preparing to have his league play elsewhere this season.

rich.calder@nypost.com

Send us an email

More Parks Department Dissatisfaction

The following article was just published in the Times Ledger:

CB 5, city clash over reservoir plans
Board to see proposals for revamp of Ridgewood site this month, Parks Dept. says
By Jeremy Walsh, Times Ledger

Thursday, January 7, 2010 11:13 AM EST

The city Parks Department is planning to unveil three potential plans to revamp Ridgewood Reservoir at a meeting this month. After a two-month delay, plans for the future of Ridgewood Reservoir will finally be unveiled to Community Board 5 probably later this month, officials told a Borough Board meeting Monday night.

But the selection or implementation of any of these plans could still be years away as CB 5 and the city Parks Department continue to spar over details of the first phase of the plan, which will repair crumbling concrete stairs, widen turns in the perimeter path and build an observation path on a causeway between two of the three reservoir basins.

CB 5 wanted several concessions from the Parks Department, including a pedestrian bridge over Vermont Place between the parking lot and the park, eliminating a ramp for the physically disabled because it would be redundant with the proposed bridge and raising the height of fences from 4 to 6 feet.

“I could step over a 4-foot fence,” CB 5 Parks Committee Chairman Steve Fiedler said. “At least a 6-foot fence is going to deter somebody.”

But Queens Parks Commissioner Dorothy Lewandowski has turned down most of the board’s requests. Kevin Quinn, director of Queens capital projects for the Parks Department, defended the agency’s firm stance at Monday’s meeting.

A pedestrian bridge would cost between $2 million and $3 million, eating up a substantial chunk of the $7.6 million allocated for the first phase of construction, he said.

“We’re really tight on funds here and we want to get this going as soon as possible,” he said.

CB 9 Chairwoman Andrea Crawford also slammed the current state of the crossing.

“If I’m in a wheelchair and I drive my wheelchair-accessible van [to the parking lot] ... then I have to play ‘Frogger’ to get across Vermont,” she said, referring to the classic video game depicting a frog attempting to cross a traffic-choked highway.

The fences will remain 4 feet tall in most locations because the Parks Department does not want to restrict parkgoers’ views of the reservoir basins, Quinn said. Quinn also said the Parks Department had petitioned the city Department of Transportation for a traffic signal and pedestrian crossing at the parking lot, but the DOT turned them down.

Planners have put forward three possible directions for developing the reservoir as a city park: making it a nature preserve with minimal facilities, turning it into an active recreation site with numerous ballfields and a combination of the first two plans. CB 5 favors the nature preserve course.

The community boards in both Brooklyn and Queens have faced pressure to support the active recreation model because Highland Park’s existing ballfields are overused and in poor condition.

CB 5 Chairman Vincent Arcuri said little money had been spent to maintain the Upper Highland Park athletic fields.

“That’s partly our fault,” he said. We haven’t been paying much attention to it over the years.”

But he and Fiedler also warned that the reservoir project essentially doubles the size of parkland that Forest Park is responsible for maintaining and both questioned where the funds would come from.

Quinn also pointed out that the city Public Design Committee had approved the Phase 1 plan, which made it complicated and time-consuming to alter.

“This is only the beginning of our process trying to get the Parks Department to listen to the community,” Fiedler said.

Reach reporter Jeremy Walsh by e-mail at jewalsh@cnglocal.com or by phone at 718-229-0300, Ext. 154.

*********

Note the link to the posting on ACTUAL ballfield usage. I guess the parks department is hoping that residents forgot that we exposed their lies about how many permits are given out for field usage.

Send us an email