Gowanus Canal Community Advisory Group Meeting
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
41 1st Street, Brooklyn NY 11231, Mary Star of the Sea, Community Room
EPA UPDATE
Report from Christos Tsiamis, EPA Project Manager for the Gowanus Canal Cleanup
A meeting was held between the EPA, Congresswoman Velazquez, and concerned community members on Tuesday, September 15th to address the location of the retention tanks in the northern section of the canal. The ROD suggests that the Thomas Greene Park and Douglas and Degraw Pool site are potential locations for the storm water retention tanks.
The meeting was attended by Congresswoman Velazquez, Dan Wiley, other elected officials including Council Members Lander and Levin and staff, Assemblywoman Simon, State Senator Montgomery, Sabine Aronowsky from the Friends of Thomas Greene Park, Michelle De La Uz from FAC, John Brown from Warren Street Houses, Theresa Davis from FUREE, Ed Tyree from Gowanus Houses, Craig Hammerman from Community Board 6, attorneys from the New York Lawyers in the Public Interest, Friends of NY Parks, Maria Pagano from the Carroll Gardens Neighborhood Association, and Andrea Parker from the Gowanus Canal Conservancy. EPA administrators and the Gowanus EPA team were also present.
Representatives of Gowanus property owners also attended this meeting, distributing a letter communicating that if there was a discussion about their properties being involved in retention tank discussions, that they should have been included.
EPA reiterated its commitment to keeping all members of the community in mind when it comes to getting things done in the Gowanus neighborhood. The EPA has also made a commitment with regard to an accelerated timeline in getting the cleanup process done, and they intend to keep this promise and will make the decisions necessary. Balancing these considerations is an ongoing process.
At that meeting several issues were raised including:
- Delays in the project?
- Technical issues discussed:
- Division director said that the decision will be made in a matter of weeks to a couple of months.
- The timeline for decision-making with regard to the location of retention tanks:
- EPA’s commitment and role in providing temporary services for the pool and locating them
- The process of the cleanup: who is responsible and how things will be done
- The length of time of disruption of the pool and public space
- Concern that construction at Thomas Greene Park will disrupt the pool, and if there will be replacement services for the duration of work, and restoration after work is completed
EPA has asked the City for reports regarding 20%-30% design data for both locations, and the report they received only included one location
EPA has asked for more data regarding storm events and rainwater, and are still waiting for that data
EPA has concerns with regard to locating the canal-head retention tank alongside the canal:
- Constructing an underground tank, and putting a large retention wall along the Canal and Nevins Street are highly complex, and they have concerns for the long-term effectiveness of this site:
- Concerns about this site and a concrete block contributing to significant increases in local flooding
- EPA is aware that there are engineering and other measures to mitigate this effect, but also that there is no guarantee that these can withstand major storm events as expected in the future
- Constructability of the tank in this location:
- The tank is a wall, the body of water exerts force on this wall
- A cutoff wall must be built to protect the cleaned water from upland contamination existing in the adjacent soil
- In accordance with the ROD, the EPA has to control sources of contamination to the Canal, and this includes the parcel where TGP and the Pool Location.
- Contamination here is moving towards the canal.
- EPA has said that this source MUST be cleaned up.
- EPA must issue an order for the cleanup of that location to National Grid.
- Therefore, if the tank goes alongside the canal:
- Construction of tank, construction of retention wall, and cleanup of TGP may happen simultaneously and represent a significant burden on the community
- Construction of the tank alongside the canal involves a lot of legal complexities in addition to the engineering complexities
- Eminent Domain to take land from unwilling partners is a lengthy process
- Can affect the schedule for cleanup of the canal: currently, the project is on schedule, but if the EPA selects this site and use of eminent domain is required, the canal cleanup could be delayed for 5-10 years.
- Community is very concerned about continued pool services while work proceeds, and eventual restoration of services:
- EPA will have a say in the provision of temporary services, and final restoration; the EPA will issue an order for cleanup requiring that the site be restored with community input in both public processes
- EPA has been conducting research to determine suitable locations for temporary services within the neighborhood.
- Eminent Domain to take land from unwilling partners is a lengthy process
Questions
Many of the questions following the update from the EPA focused on significant concern about what was perceived to be the closed nature of the September 15th meeting. Several CAG members expressed reservations about a portion of the group requesting special meetings with elected officials and involved agencies, and were suspicious of these CAG members seeking to elevate their own self-interests above that of the CAG as a whole. In response, members of the CAG who requested the meeting stated that members of individual organizations, and members of the community who might be significantly affected by the closure of Thomas Greene Park, had requested a meeting regarding this matter some time ago, and that the September 15th meeting was a follow-up with members of the NYCHA community specifically who, at the time of the original request, were substantially underrepresented on the CAG.
These members also suggested that constituents should still be able to have meetings with officials outside of the work of the CAG, specifically if the CAG does not fully endorse the position of each of its individual members. Elected officials and agencies reported their willingness to honor meeting requests whenever they arise, and emphasized that nothing discussed in the September meeting was not already a matter of public information.
Further discussion between members-at-large and organizational representatives followed, with several members giving voice to concerns about individual motivations to further the position of one or more groups, as opposed to strengthening the position of the CAG. A lively debate about the role of the CAG as a public forum, but not the exclusive public forum, ensued. Members raised concerns about the CAG appearing to be a fractured body, about a perceived lack of inclusivity, about the effect of allegations regarding the sabotaging of the cleanup timeline for the benefit of protecting public space, and about the need for greater coalition-building between members as well as with the larger public.
CAG Facilitator Doug Sarno pointed out that a lack of trust among members is an underlying issue that has limited the CAG’s effectiveness for some time. Doug noted that the body lacks the organization to solve the trust problem, and that it is evident in the way the group sits, holds meetings, and interacts.
The CAG grants Doug permission to work with the Facilitation Team in order to explore ways to address these issues with the goal of bringing balance and cohesion to the way the CAG functions.
DEP UPDATE
Deputy NYC DEP Commissioner Eric Landau also made remarks, specifically highlighting the fact that the DEP strongly disagrees with some of the technical issues and objections raised by the EPA regarding the feasibility of where and how to clean up, mitigate seepage, and site the storm water retention tanks. The agency remains open to more meetings and continuing the conversation, including the concern about eminent domain posing the potential for serious delay.
COMMITTEE UPDATES
Administrative Committee
No meetings scheduled, no new membership applications or activities.
Probably more updates at the December meeting.
Outreach Committee
Planning to meet October 8 or 9th. No September meetings.
Major issues with the CAG website. The CAG does not have administrative control of its own website. The person who was in control of the website is no longer a member of the CAG, and Eric cannot maintain a website if there is nothing to maintain. We need to get access to the website and then move it somewhere that we have control over.
Comment from Natalie Loney, EPA Region 2 Community Involvement Coordinator: TASC services may be used for something like creating a website. She will talk to the TASC coordinator to see if that resource can be used to create the website and provide hosting services.
The absence of a functioning website underscores a need for other resources like a Facebook page, and a Twitter handle, etc.
The Outreach Committee wants to increase and make more effective our outreach efforts with the community, in particular with the northern end of the canal.
Announcement from Natalie Loney: She did a primer on Gowanus. Wants to do it here in the community and for CAG members and new folks, etc. We are going to be seeing more community members who don’t know the CAG exists and what it is about, and where it is and who can get involved. It behooves the CAG to get its act together because there is going to be an influx of people who are interested in what is going on with increasing residential growth.
Archaeology Committee
Next Archaeology Meeting is scheduled for October 13 at 7 p.m. at Proteus Gowanus.
Water Quality/Technical Committee
No scheduled meeting.
Summary of Actions/Motions
None taken.
Topics for Future CAG Meetings
Trust building retreat.
Retention-tank decision.
Use of TASC funds for webpage building and support.
A list of attendees was not provided.