Thank you for opening up the proposed project at Pier 55 for public comment. This project would have massive implications for the environment as well as the surrounding community. The proposal currently under review would construct a new pier, Pier 55, in undeveloped water which is home to sensitive fish and wildlife habitats. The Army Corps of Engineers is tasked with reviewing the potential impact of the creation of a new Pier and ultimately, to decide if it will grant permits for this construction. The Hudson River Park Trust relied on an Environmental Assessment from 1998 as the justification that there would be no impact from this construction. That is unacceptable. I urge you to conduct a full Federal Environmental Impact Statement prior to consideration of any new permits.

Prior to reviewing permits, it is imperative that the Army Corps considers the Federal Water Pollution Act, aka the Clean Water Act, and the relevant statutes which apply to this project. One of the intents of this legislation was to “maintain oceans, watersheds, and their aquatic ecosystems to protect human health, support economic and recreational activities, and provide healthy habitat for fish, plants, and wildlife.” Clearly, the proposal of a massive new construction in untouched waters at Pier 55 is a major threat to the healthy habitat for fish, plants and wildlife, especially the endangered sturgeon species. Violation of the Clean Water Act is grounds for immediate dismissal of this application and I urge you to fully consider this prior to reviewing the permits requested of the Army Corps.

In addition to the violations of the Clean Water Act, the proposal from Hudson River Park Trust (HRPT) grossly misrepresents the project and in reality, this project does not fall under the jurisdiction of the existing Army Corps permits for the Hudson River Park. While HRPT markets Pier 55 as a “replacement pier” this is misleading and inaccurate. The proposed Pier 55 is a completely new development project, not a simple replacement of what was Pier 54. While State Legislation allows for a change in the footprint of Pier 54, this legislation was never intended to create a whole new pier. Furthermore, the existing permit from the Army Corps for Pier 54 is not applicable to the construction of anything that is outside of the current footprint of Pier 54. Pier 55 would be larger than what was Pier 54 and the negative impacts of new construction would be significant.

The environmental impacts for this project range from its construction to its use. As proposed, the majority of the piles from Pier 54 will remain, while close to 1,000 new piles will be driven into the water just north of Pier 54 in order to create a new pier. Additionally, Pier 55 would rise about 7-stories high and will cast major shadows into the water, further compromising the pristine marine and estuarine habitat. The piles alone would not just destroy habitats during the construction, but these permanent structures then impede the fish migration while also decreasing the mobility of sediment and trash. There are also impacts from the use, including, but not limited to, a new landscaped pier over the river with the potential for non-point source pollution from fertilizer to debris, as well as new solid waste and sewage.

In addition to the detrimental impacts from the construction and use of the pier itself, a “floating actor’s barge” is proposed to be located off the shore of Pier 55. According to the lease documents, the barge would be a structure to support the activities of theater productions taking place on the pier. Yet no details about this vessel have been revealed, so it is unknown how large it would be or how long it would be docked. If granted permits from the Army Corps, this proposed vessel could become a large, recurring structure which would further jeopardize the natural habitats. Such a vessel is not in keeping with the intended goals of the Hudson River Park to be an open recreation space that is fully accessible by the public.

During the creation of the park, a General Project Plan (GPP) and State EIS were conducted. During this review in the early 1990s, the commercial and recreational uses for the park were proposed to be “water-dependent uses.” These are seen as symbiotic with the waterfront nature of the HRP. Since then, HRP has continued to develop, and while doing so, is increasing the amount of commercial development that does not fall within the scope of the previous review, and is increasingly focused on non-water-dependent uses for new developments.

The Hudson River Park Trust has already signed a lease with an organization which would use Pier 55 as a music and theater venue. This is far from a water-dependent use which was the mandate for HRP when it was created. There is no reason why this development has to take place on the water- a music venue is equally, if not more, appropriate for construction on the uplands. The actors barge is a staging area for a theater production and had no relation to water-dependent uses. This proposed project is also sandwiched by a full redevelopment of Pier 57 for retail, food and office space to the North and City plans for a recycling center on Gansavoort to the South. Pier 57 was never included in the original General Project Plan for commercial development. The recycling center alone will bring a parade of barges which will be removing the material to be recycled from the facility. So while the State EIS is already out of date, it is also increasingly out of line the realities of the park which is actually being dramatically developed. I have advocated for a full Federal EIS to be conducted since this project was announced, and I urge you to conduct a full Federal EIS for the entirety of the Hudson River Park as it clearly deserves.

Finally, I appreciate that you are conducting a public comment period. Unfortunately, I still think that many people are not going to be able to submit comments within the timeframe. Due to the delay in mailing your public notice announcements, you agreed to extend the public comment period after I made the request. Yet the deadline was never extended on the website so many people still effectively had only two weeks to write and submit comments. So while you might receive some public comments during this period, a public hearing would more appropriately allow for a more comprehensive understanding of the public concerns as they relate to this project. I would once again request that you call a public hearing for this project.

Thank you for your attention to this application. As mentioned, this project would be detrimental to the environment and the surrounding community and I urge you to thoroughly review all of these implications prior to considering issuing permits.