Att: New York State DEC

From: 
Lee van Laer 
47 Ferdon Ave.
Sparkill, NY 10976

Sept. 5, 2013

Dear Sirs and Madams:

I'm writing you in regard to the DEC's proposal to spray herbicide on the Piermont marsh in order to eradicate Phragmites. As you I'm sure already know, local citizens, including the Piermont Marsh Alliance—of which I am a member—, are opposed to this effort. 

A detailed analysis of all the flaws in this plan would run into a number of pages, but IMO the critical issues that challenge this idea are as follows:

1. Destruction of redwing blackbird habitat. The marsh has become the preferred roosting grounds for a substantial (+/- 3,000-5,000) population of redwing blackbirds who roost there year-round. I see them nearly every morning as they leave en masse, and they fly over my home by the thousands in the Sparkill gap as they return. 

Disturbing the marsh will definitely have a major negative impact on them, as well as downy woodpeckers, who forage actively in the dead phrag stems for larvae during the winter months. These birds have no other credible place to go if this habitat is destroyed, and the DEC can't make one for them. Die-offs in the first year after the spraying will likely be massive. There are a wide range of other desirable birds that stop in the marsh and its margins during the migratory season including—to name just a few— northern harriers, red tailed hawks, bald eagles, yellowthroats and golden and ruby crowned kinglets. These populations will also definitely suffer.

No one I know of has presented a plan for amelioration of the negative impact on these birds. Have you conducted studies on this issue, and do you have one? I would like to see both the studies on the extant bird populations in the marsh and the impact study indicating what the project would do to them, as well as the game plan to eliminate negative impact on local bird life. This needs to be thoroughly evaluated before any action whatsoever takes place.

2. Destruction of flooding buffer for Piermont. It's impossible for any project of this nature to immediately replace that buffer with anything comparable, or —and this is even more critical—succeed in ultimately creating a replacement. The potential added storm damage to local real estate runs in the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars—far more than any amount the DEC is currently devoting to the project.

Has the DEC conducted studies to evaluate this situation and determine the potential legal liabilities to the county and state, should the Town of Piermont suffer catastrophic flooding subsequent to the removal of the phragmities buffer zone? Please indicate yes or no and direct me to the relevant studies, thanks. In my opinion, as the legal exposure here represents a svastly greater cost to the State than the amount currently devoted to the project, it will have to be evaluated in depth before any further action can take place.

3. As others have mentioned, and as other studies have shown, the level of the ground in the marsh would probably need to be reduced substantially in order to encourage the regrowth of native species. This involves earthmoving and habitat destruction on a massive scale, once again, without any guarantee that the project will succeed. There's no way the state will ultimately devote the resources of time and money needed to see this through properly. How does the DEC intend to address this issue?

4. The project is basically experimental in nature. The best estimates are that repeated herbicidal treatments over a period of years will be necessary, with no definite end in sight. This becomes a boondoggle in which more and more tax dollars are sunk into an open-ended project. If the DEC has concrete evidence of successful long term projects conducted in like environments I would appreciate you citing them and forwarding said evidence to me. Or, if the project is an admittedly experimental one, please so indicate.

5. The environment in the area has clearly undergone significant changes since 1991 when phrag began to invade. It is no simple thing to turn back that clock now, as the forces which brought that change about are almost certainly multiple, difficult to quantify, and even more difficult—perhaps impossible— to control. In fact, the most likely result of this project will be millions of dollars spent to fight a rearguard action which, when it is finally abandoned, will quickly revert to the original conditions—that is, the phrag will take over again. 

Has the DEC conducted evaluations on the likely long-term success of the project and the concurrent civil engineering projects that will be needed in order to prevent a return to the status quo, in the unlikely event that the initial program succeeds? Please direct me to those studies, if possible.

6. Invasive species are everywhere; in fact, the biological history of the world is a history of invasions, not preservation of an imaginary status quo. Increasingly, biologists agree that we need to make our peace with them and find a way to compromise. The idea of re-engineering this ecosystem is really just a large-scale landscaping project for the DEC. It's out of step with the most current thinking on these matters. How does the DEC square their thinking with this matter?

7. Spraying "safe" herbicides wholesale is an oxymoron. Due to concerns over insufficient studies of medium and long term toxicity, undesirable and unpredictable interaction with other existing environmental chemical pollutants, the concern over breakdown of these chemicals into untested second and third generation contaminants, and other factors, herbicides and pesticides should only ever be applied in extreme cases where no other options exist. 

While the marsh may not represent the "optimal" marsh one would want in this particular location from an aesthetic point of view, it is the marsh we have, and no credible emergencies that would compel the use of toxic bio-agents to destroy the current status quo in favor of some imaginary preferred one can be demonstrated. 

The general impact of the most dominant invasive species in the area—that is, homo sapiens— is so pervasive and ubiquitous that a return to the perceived norms of a past age are almost certainly impossible. 

In summary, the money the DEC has allocated for this project would without any doubt be better spent in its entirety if devoted exclusively to the cleanup of the sewage and other effluent current being discharged into the Sparkill creek and the river. 

I'd appreciate a point-by-point response as to how the DEC intends to address these issues.