Defending North Bay
Yesterday, the Register-Star published a "My View" written by Timothy O'Connor, tireless advocate for Hudson's underappreciated bays and wetlands: "Causing more pollution." In it, he questions both the process and the goal of Hudson's latest Community Development Block Grant and argues that the City's plan to separate storm water runoff from the sanitary sewer will result in more and unacceptable pollution in North Bay. O'Connor provides photographic documentation of the pollution now evident in North Bay on his blog Hudson Meets Hudson. The photo accompanying this post is from O'Connor's blog.
COPYRIGHT 2015 CAROLE OSTERINK
As always a well constructed read.
ReplyDeleteQuestion... rumor... is money changing hands on the dl for treatment at Hudsons Sewer Plant from sources
outside this city?
When we got a $600K block grant in 2008, something like $36,000 went to "administrative costs" with no further explanation.
DeleteBut Hudson has so much extra space in its 17-million gallon treatment plant that the city is able to accept outside waste for a fee.
This includes private companies, but also plus leachate from landfills in the Town of Hunter and, I believe, Claverack. (This leachate hasn't been tested in many years, but the last time it was tested there were permissible levels of nasty things like cadmium and aluminum.)
It's the size of the plant that makes an absurdity of this supposed need to split the combined sewers AT ALL COSTS.
There's no emergency, it's not required, and Hudson has very few combined sewer spills to warrant the solution it's about to impose.
So what is this really about, and why does this gigantic water-polluting project get to circumvent a SEQR review?
thank you Mr. O'Connor, sometimes that oil slick just oozes out of the muck, up from the bottom but not a problem if the real estate management company/CONservancy owns it which begs the question, what, if any, land has been "transferred", given, sold, stolen to this group by the city? last time i heard that was another "plan" but i see nothing in local media about this. we hear the brag about receiving 131k grant money awarded for "study" but silence as to who actually owns what down there.
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome Michael. It's the least I could do after seeing all problems pointed out to me in North Bay by Furgarians.
DeleteAround here, the public is always the last to figure out what's going on.
Personally, I'm more interested in who owns the land across Dock Street from the treatment plant. That land was identified in past engineering reports as the last possible property in the city on which to place structures for "CSO control alternatives."
The land was given to the city by Mr. Meeker, and the next thing you know the HDC is selling it to an innocent buyer.
Now the state says that the People of New York own the land, but the people will still be the last to find out.
Since the South Bay has already been compromised
ReplyDeleteby trucks rolling down the 'causeway' road it seems that the North Bay is about to receive some of the same treatment from the proposed new sewer/water line project enabled by the new Hud Grant of $600,000. As I understand it the City is not required to do anything by the State as the storm water overflow has occurred only intermittently in the last few years. However now that it has the grant the least they could do is make sure a proper environmental study is undertaken as pouring water and effluent into the sensitive North Bay waters, not directly into the Hudson River as they state, will have a
deleterious effect on the ecology of the Bay, which should be protected for future generations.
The fact that the application for the grant was not available to the public during the public comment period and the inference that they are required to do this work is reprehensible and the City should be taken to task for once again trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes.
Riverkeeper, where are you?
During the LWRP's environmental impact statement, we were so fixated on defending the South Bay from the city that we never considered the North Bay warranted a similar level of defense.
DeleteNaturally it followed that anyone else who weighed in looked no further than we did.
It's for that reason that the DEC's Deputy Permit Administrator for Region 4 in his own Public Comments warned only of the thoughtless diversion of runoff into the South Bay:
GEIS 3.7.7: "Redirecting storm water flows into South Bay would likely have a negative impact on the wetland and would be in direct conflict with other priorities within the LWRP that include protecting [and] restoring South Bay" (Michael T. Higgins, NYS DEC / Research Reserve Staff, March 26, 2010).
But there's no reason not to apply the Lead Agency's official response to Higgins to any sensitive receiving water body:
"Hydrological and ecological studies, among others, would be required as part of the approvals process for any future plan to redirect storm water flows into the South Bay from the City’s CSO system."
Obvious to everyone even then, the words of Cheryl Roberts were utterly disingenuous.
Were we to apply Roberts' same standards to the North Bay, where the city has planned an identical action Higgins warned against, it has not availed itself of either an ecological or a hydrological study.
Much worst though, apparently none of the state-required water sampling analyses were ever completed. I can't find a record anywhere.
(Unfortunately no one at the state level will address the question, not yet. The top permitting administrator for the DEC told me the other day that he wouldn't discuss anything without a specific proposal in front of him.)
So here's some of the history which is pretty telling about the attitude of our DPW.
In November 2007, Hudson's DPW blamed Furgary for its own failure to conduct the required water quality tests. "How does one secure defensible water quality data for this area that is susceptible to ... potential water quality impacts from nearby dwellings?"
The DPW next announced that in consequence, Hudson would await the state's determination on who owned the shacks before proceeding with the water tests.
The state would have none if it, and replied on April 14, 2008:
"A plan to monitor water quality in the North Bay is required. The plan shall include wet and dry weather monitoring. The Bay reacts differently than the Hudson River channel. The December 2003 LTCP report provides an assessment of water quality impacts on the river using various assumptions. We do not have this information for the North Bay. Since there are major overflow points to the North Bay from Outfalls 002 and 003, we need an assessment of the water quality within the bay."
The city replied to the state on June 3, 2008:
"In anticipation of NYS DEC's response, a sampling location representative of the Bay's water quality was selected."
But as far as I can tell, no testing was ever conducted. To know for sure may take months, considering how many unhelpful people are involved.
But the very idea that the city believes this next project is exempt from SEQR review may be our best clue as to whether the required water testing of the North Bay was ever accomplished.
Well just what can one say about all that grant money, from sewer lines, Hudson's Promenade and 7th St. parks, etc.
ReplyDeleteBut the Bays of Hudson really do need to be tested for levels of toxic waste for whatever reasons but isn't just basic common sense? Just maybe there's unacceptable levels of pollution from runoff, decades of dumping, landfill, or opening of the waste plant's gates.
I just can't understand why people would not want the land and waters tested?
And is Mr. O' Connor the only person raising a ruckus?
Where are all those river and valley saving organizations and keepers of the Earth?
Thanks Mr. O'Connor for taking up the challenge and I hope awakening us all.
You're welcome tmdonofrio.
DeleteLast year, we required the help of the state Division of Water and the DOS Committee on Open Government to get the city to release the federally-required "Long Term Control Plan for Combined Sewer Overflows."
It's required that the plan be accessible, not least because the EPA requires the public become an active partner in its creation. Ha, not in Hudson!
So the city finally agrees to show us the plan that residents had zero part in creating, and it's an 839-page PDF of every document they were willing to show us thrown in a heap. (Some documents were improperly withheld, the details of which I've submitted to the state in an affidavit).
Despite the federal requirement which is administered by the state that the North Bay's water quality be thoroughly studied, the only water test records in the entire 839-pages were from 1979.
You and Jennifer have shown us the direction, which I couldn't see clearly until now.
From the state, we must make noise to demand that the federally-required water testing be conducted.
We demand from the city what it committed to for an identical scenario in South Bay. In its official Response to the DEC permitting administrator, the Common Council stated that "hydrological and ecological studies, among others, would be required as part of the approvals process for any future plan to redirect storm water flows into the South Bay from the City’s CSO system" (the citation is in my previous, very long comment).
But none of the above can happen if the North Bay project is exempt from SEQRA, and a full exemption is what the city has stated it "anticipates."
Unfortunately, the State Environmental Quality Review Act is only enforceable by citizens. Think about that ...
Riverkeeper is a "citizen," and is even now studying our case. Recall that Riverkeeper already submitted a Public Comment on the black grant application itself.
Today I plan to write to Scenic Hudson which time and again has proven itself a dependable defender of the city's wetlands. But I'm alerting people carefully, in the event of potential toe-stepping. It's probably not a concern at all, but I can't take any chances.
This is all too amazing. I just attended a meeting of a partnership of environmental organizations (http://thehudsonweshare.org/) whose goal is to restore the historic Hudson River estuary, which includes, of course, North Bay. This plan by the city of Hudson sounds like something from the 60s (remember Storm King)! We have made so much progress cleaning up this amazing river. Why does Hudson want to turn back the clock and restart the blighting process? If you care, please contact the folks at The Hudson We Share -- pronto!
ReplyDeleteI'm just off the phone with Hudson's SPDES permit administrator, the same individual deciding our case since the 1990s. (SPDES is the State Pollution Discharge Elimination System.)
ReplyDeleteAmong the criteria for the Division of Water's listing of "sensitive areas" is the presence of state-listed flora or fauna.
I pointed out that the North Bay hosts a breeding colony of Least Bitterns, which are listed as Threatened in New York and in many other states.
I was told that the Division of Water has its own criteria which may not agree with the rest of the DEC or with the Department of State (I'd mentioned the North Bay SCFWH).
But I did get this person to admit that state-listed species probably would not be taken into account when the Division of Water looks at the "receiving water body" that is currently listed on Hudson's permit.
I asked when we could expect our 2002 permit to be modified to reflect the 2011 upgrades to the treatment plant and pump station.
Incredibly, it's not even on the state's radar. That means it's years away.
I was next informed that a permit modification, whenever it will happen, will depend on water testing data.
I pointed out that the city DPW has shirked its decade-old requirement to test North Bay's waters, and asked how the permit will be modified without the crucial data.
The answer was textbook circumlocution: the data will be required once the modified permit is issued.
"Isn't that kind of circular," I asked? The administrator shared a guarded agreement, but would say no more.
This is why the State of New York is following California straight into the ditch.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFollowing is tomorrow's Freedom of Information Law submission to City Hall.
ReplyDeleteTo the Records Access Officer:
In an April 14, 2008 letter to the City of Hudson, the NYS DEC Division of Water requested the City's submission of:
• "[A] plan to monitor the water quality in the North Bay .... both dry and wet weather monitoring is required for fecal coliform."
• "A proposal for monitoring at various locations within the North Bay must also be submitted."
• "We would like to see sampling conducted within the [North] Bay during at least three wet weather events when overflows are occurring and at least during two dry weather periods for fecal coliform to determine background levels."
• "[D]ye testing to confirm the discharge patterns and proposed monitoring of [SPDES] Outfalls 002, 003, 009, and 010 during rainfall events. Fecal coliform was proposed as the indicator parameter. Has this work been completed?"
• "An overall assessment of the impact of these discharges on water quality will need to be provided once the monitoring results are obtained."
I hereby request all records since April 2008 produced as a result of the above requirements of the NYS Division of Water. These documents should include (as per the above):
1. The plan(s) to monitor the water quality in the North Bay in both dry and wet weather.
2. Proposal(s) to monitor at various locations within the North Bay.
3. All subsequent field test results from the various locations monitored in the North Bay.
4. All dye-test results from the study of discharge patterns during Combined Sewer Overflow events.
5. The City's overall assessment report on the impact of these discharges on water quality as based on the monitoring data collected.
[Not to be deterred, a FOIL request submitted January 27th in the public interest:]
ReplyDeleteDear Records Access Officer:
In relation to a federally-required public participation program for the City of Hudson Long Term Control Plan, on June 3, 2008 the City of Hudson informed the NYS Division of Water about two documents in different stages of development.
1. "A power point presentation is being developed to:
"a) Depict key wastewater facilities (WWTP, pump stations, and CSOs)
"b) Identify the history of CSOs
"c) Review regulatory requirements
"d) Summarize on-goin progress"
2. "A second power point presentation is anticipated to identify alternatives and present the project recommendation" [signed "James Folz, Acting Commissioner"].
I would like to acquire both of these "power point presentations" for personal viewing and general public use.
I would like the files burned to a disk, if that is convenient.
If for any reason any portion of my request is denied, please inform me of the reasons for the denial in writing.
Thank you [etc.]
[Not to be deterred, the following FOIL request was submitted in the public interest on January 28th:]
ReplyDeleteDear City of Hudson Records Access Officer:
I request all documents connected to a proposed "website" discussed between the City's Department of Public Works (DPW) and the New York State Division of Water (DOW).
In a 2007-2008 understanding between the DPW and the DOW, the City's public notification program for combined sewer overflows events (CSOs) was to include a "website." The website proposal was in response to the DOW's letter of April 21, 2005, which specified the requirement of "a mechanism to alert potential users of [any] receiving waters affected by CSOs" (see Best Management Practices, no. 13).
Because I cannot find a link to such a page at the City website, nor to any resources which might substitute for such contents, I request all documents in the City's possession directly related to the development of the aforementioned website.
For a more detailed description of the requested materials and clues how to find them, the following suggests the 2007-08 timeframe:
1. A "public participation website" is identified in the compliance timetable of a March 2, 2007 document titled "City of Hudson Wastewater Program Schedule of Compliance";
2. An August 30, 2007 letter from Commissioner of Public Works James Folz to the DOW adumbrates a "customer website for the CSO project," which would involve the services of Clough Harbor and Associates.
In his letter, Mr. Folz specified that the website would present "information including, but not limited to: project description; project updates; newsletters; project photos, including outfall location and other photography; SCO maps, diagrams or additional system characterization data; public meeting agendas, minutes and schedules; project contact information."
The documents I seek will be preserved in electronic form as identified components of the website.
The work was to be developed by the Public Participation Committee, later called the "CSO Committee." The Committee members were Mayor Richard Scalera, DPW Superintendent Rob Perry, DPW employee Melissa Finn, DPW Commissioner James Folz, and Vern Ingraham of Clough Harbor and Associates.
At the time, the public was not kept informed about these developments. Now seven years later, I seek any information which might enlighten me on the development and whereabouts of the missing "public participation website."
If for any reason any portion of my request is denied, please inform me of the reasons for the denial in writing.
Thank you [etc.]