Jamaica Bay's marshes are shrinking. According to the Eco-Watchers, a Queens citizens' organization, the Bay's saltwater marshes have shrunk by over 1200 acres (one and one-half times the area of Central Park) over the past seventy-five years. In the last five years, the rate of loss is said to be five times the rate from 1924-1974. Their statistics suggest that by 2024, the salt water marshes of the central bay will cease to exist.
Though the rate of loss is not universally agreed to and the causes for the shrinkage are incompletely understood, there is agreement that such a loss would be catastrophic for the ecology of Jamaica Bay. Dr. John Tanacredi, Natural Resources Chief for the Gateway Unit of the National Park Service states, "salt water marshes are the most productive areas for biomass production, feeding, and breeding for birds and fish". Tanacredi adds "one-fifth of all bird species in North America" migrate via Jamaica Bay each year. The Bay with an area roughly equal to all of Manhattan, though unknown to many New Yorkers, is a critical, probably irreplaceable, stop on the Atlantic flyway.
For the Eco-Watchers and for their chairman Dan Mundy, who calls himself "an environmentalist with sanity", Jamaica Bay is well known. For decades, these citizen naturalists have explored the bay. Over time, they began to share their separate observations of marsh loss. Eventually, they banded to measure the marsh extent and chronicle their loss. With maps in hand, they contacted government agencies and politicians. Their research was corroborated when the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation released maps of the Bay's marshes that echoed the Eco-Watchers' estimates.
Fearing annual losses exceeding fifty acres, Mundy and his group asked the United States Department of the Interior to intervene. Though it is not exactly what they wanted, a "blue-ribbon panel" of marsh, weather and coastal scientists will convene in March to assess causation.
Tanacredi notes that sea level rise may be the culprit. He cautions that "marsh accretion and erosion are natural processes and getting in the way of natural phenomenon may not be desirable." He wants to establish a five-year research agenda to establish cause and effect scientifically. He also notes that the National Park Service lacks funding for significant interventions.
Mundy is wary of the study approach. He is also concerned that the Park Service might allow a "Yellowstone" by letting natural causes destroy the marshes he has fished and explored for half a century. Mundy wants immediate action. The Eco-Watchers and their allies believe that sediment deprivation is a likely cause of the marsh erosion. To redress that condition, he advocates experimental sediment restoration efforts (dumping sandy soil onto de-vegetated marsh areas) in selected locations. Mundy urges that "pilot projects should begin now."
For a decade, the Army Corps of Engineers (the federal government's official and best-funded muck-moving entity) has been planning a Jamaica Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project. The Corps recently selected twelve Bay sites for study. Two sites, suggested by the Eco-Watchers were added, but the central bay marshes remain off the list. According to the Corps' Robert Will, "we hope to have funding from Congress in 2002, if they like our sites". He notes that the Army Corps' official position is "we can do nothing immediately to stop the (marsh) erosion problem."
Sounding Off
So will the muck stop here? It is hard to say. Government agencies, no matter how well meaning, move slowly, though perhaps with wise deliberation. The passion of focused citizens can move elected officials to take necessary, though perhaps hasty, positions. Science is often non-conclusive. Nature moves in mysterious ways. Man's action cause problems. Man's reactions cause problems. What is certain is that habitat destruction for animals has been a hallmark of human "progress".
The wildlife refuge in Jamaica Bay centers on the large contiguous marshes of the central bay. This is the place striped bass, turtles, ducks, geese and hundreds of species of birds call home even if just for a day. Their bed and breakfast in the bay is a matter of life or death. For them, why not try a few pilot projects now? If nothing else, such experiments will provide an expanded array of observations for the scientists to consider.
Peter B. Fleischer, currently writing a book on the New York City waterfront, was formerly a transportation and environment policy advisor to New York City Mayors David Dinkins and Rudy Giuliani.
When the Port Authority of New York was created some seventy-five years ago, it had among its primary purposes the construction of a rail tunnel under the harbor. Such a tunnel would have linked the now scattered parts of the New York area waterfront. Goods and perhaps people would have avoided congestion by moving beneath the surface. The port itself might have benefited from the interconnectedness. Area road tunnels, bridges and roadways would have been spared much wear and tear. All sectors of the local economy, consumers, producers and shippers would have benefited from price competition between rail and truck. Nationwide, today, 30 percent of goods for urban areas move by rail. In the New York metropolitan area, the figure is three percent.
When Mayor Giuliani formally proposed a new version of this idea, it had a mixed reception. Detractors talked about how nothing big can be built anymore in New York. Proponents noted the importance of his vision. Today, three years into the planning process, it remains to be seen if there will be light at the end of this tunnel.
According to Seth Kaye, Executive Vice President at New York City's Economic Development Corporation, the tunnel makes sense and may well happen. The Draft Final Report, for the Cross Harbor Freight Movement Study, states that there is a market that would amount to forty trains a day (over three thousand railcars). That volume of rail traffic would lead to a reduction of one million trucks a year at crowded Hudson River Bridge crossings. To best develop that market, the city has asked the financial community for an expression of interest regarding innovative mechanisms through which the tunnel could be operated and financed. The report suggests that federal funds be sought for infrastructure improvements to existing rail facilities east and west of the tunnel.
The proposed two-track tunnel is estimated to cost $2.3 billion including a half billion dollars for infrastructural improvements. A one-track tunnel would cost $1.5 billion with improvements. In addition to the federal sources, the proposal assumes some amount of state and local revenue including a toll surcharge on trucks, charges to the rail users and revenues from right-of-way sales.
Jim Tripp, General Counsel at the Environmental Defense Fund sees "significant advantages to a tunnel that operates efficiently". He cites likely reductions in air pollutants such as the particulate matter generated by diesel trucks. Al Appleton, Senior Fellow, at the Regional Plan Association adds, " the rail tunnel is the key to any major shift in travel mode." Rail under the harbor " would offer congestion benefits to New Jersey and it would enhance the value of the port as a whole." Appleton noted that Alameda, California addressed a rail corridor improvement project as a congestion reduction and economic development opportunity.
Chris Ward of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey remains unconvinced. He noted that the Port Authority questions the capacity of local roads near proposed Brooklyn and Queens rail depots to handle the volume of truck traffic. He suggested "that there would be significant land-use issues" to be faced. Ward also noted that the study's support for expanded rail float barge operations was worthy of further review. In particular, he mentioned the expansion of interport barge operations to Baltimore, Albany and New Haven.
Bringing light to this task will ultimately depend on cooperation between the governors of New York and New Jersey. According to Kaye, "the congestion reductions in New Jersey and the overall port improvements speak for themselves". He believes New Jersey will see the light. Of course, the cast of characters will change. Governor Whitman will be out of office in fifteen months. In New York City, Mayor Giuliani will be also be replaced in November 2001. Governor Pataki's fate is uncertain. Seeing the light may well depend on whose eyes are focused on freight down the road.
Peter B. Fleischer, currently writing a book on the New York City waterfront, was formerly a transportation and environment policy advisor to New York City Mayors David Dinkins and Rudy Giuliani.Â
Election 2000 finds the waterfront a more heavily used and more important resource than it has been for generations. In New York, more citizens use the water's edge than vote. But many do both.
The major-party candidates for the U.S. Senate have both shown interest in the Long Island Sound. Rick Lazio has a record of support for issues affecting shoreline preservation in the Great South Bay and relief efforts for the beleaguered Long Island Sound lobstermen. Hillary Clinton indicates her support for clean-up efforts in the Sound.
But there are a half dozen important waterfront issues that are directly connected to New York City:
Dredging. If the New York port is to expand, or even operate efficiently at current activity levels, muck from the harbor bottom must be dredged and dumped somewhere. Shipping the muck by train out of state is expensive. Placing it in pits within the harbor or even in "dumps" outside is fraught with environmental issues, affecting fishermen, ecologists, local communities and relations with neighboring New Jersey. The Clinton administration has attempted to balance New Jersey and New York concerns. Would a President Gore lean toward Senator Clinton on this matter?
Water Quality. The water is markedly cleaner due to regulations on industrial pollution and municipal waste release. The Clean Water Act is given much of the credit. Hillary Clinton supports marine research of water quality issues. Rick Lazio is considered a moderate on many environmental issues. His Republican Party is much less so. Can a junior Republican resist calls from his party's leadership to weaken these laws? Few did when the GOP challenged many environmental laws in 1995.
Governor's Island. For years, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan's idea that the federal government should sell Governor's Island to New York for use as a public resource has languished in studies, delayed by Pataki-Giuliani rivalry. The promised one-dollar purchase price may expire in ninety days as President Clinton and the senior senator fade from the scene. At any higher price, the island may have to be sold to those, like Donald Trump, who can afford it. Universities, park uses, historical preservation would all suffer. Senate Republicans have tried to price the Island at $500 million. Would Senator Lazio resist? Presumably Hillary would seek to keep the promised price, but would a President Bush give her such a plum?
Access. Who can get to the water and where? The proposed new Hudson River Park and the Brooklyn Bridge Park are getting many millions of dollars. What about other waterfront communities? The South Bronx, hemmed in by highways, seeks funds for waterfront renewal. But swimming, sailing, kayaking, and sitting by calming waters have statewide appeal; Erie Canal towns from Tonawanda to Waterford are also seeking funds. Neither candidate has focused directly on water as "quality-of-life," though Clinton has expressed support for waterfront revitalization and restoration through legislation that promotes public-private partnerships.
Remediation. Harbor muck ranges from muddy and brown to horribly toxic. The toxic material can be left alone, capped or cleaned up. Costs are high. Private companies such as General Electric have resisted full clean-ups. PCB's released by GE decades ago sit in muck on the Hudson River bottom. RFK, Jr. supports Clinton. Governor Pataki has moved slowly on GE. Would Lazio break ranks?
Industrial. The building of a tunnel beneath the harbor is perhaps the most important single step New York is taking for its economic development and infrastructure. Neither candidate has had much to say about it. Whoever is elected will get many, many chances to do so.
Peter B. Fleischer, currently writing a book on the New York City waterfront, was formerly a transportation and environment policy advisor to New York City Mayors David Dinkins and Rudy Giuliani.