Dear CB8 I was present at the parks and recreation committee meeting last week where the new

design was presented.

I am an engineer and in my view, the current plan is no better for the environment than
the old one - and neither does it solve the problem of erosion and proper drainage in a
fragmented critical wetland habitat.
The current plan will cause a great deal of disturbance on the site, leaving an area of 4 or
so acres clear-cut for a year (or more, if the construction goes over the schedule - which,
if I follow the patterns of NYC-funded construction correctly, it will). Much erosion will
happen during this time. The pollution and erosion plan presented is not nearly sufficient.
In addition, during this time, the area will have become barren, unable to fill the habitat
needs of the smallest creatures - the insects and amphibians on whose backs the wetland
and woodland exists, so to speak. Same as the Robert Moses projects did irreparable
damage to the park in the 20th century and caused a loss of wildlife from which the area
can never recover, this project will similarly cause a severe dwindling of population
counts and diversity.
For an area like the Tibbetts wetland, I am convinced that a more sustainable construction
plan is needed than an asphalt design can afford. There are ways of building both on-theground trail beds and raised-platform boardwalks using lightweight machinery (under
400lbs) that go section by section, not needing a massive side staging area. There are
companies in the NYC area that specialize in this sort of work. I have inquired with
several. The time line would be much less than a year from start to finish.
A trail surface I support is compacted mineral soil, stone dust and raised platform
boardwalks. All of these are ADA accessible. These surfaces are the ADA surfaces of
choice in the majority of national parks in the US. If the trail bed is properly designed,
taking advantage of slight elevation variations to enhance drainage structures, these trails
lend themselves easily to repair and maintenance and have a long life span.
One of the most flawed arguments against natural surfaces that I have heard from the
DPR presenters is that they cause abnormal amounts of erosion and somehow harm the
wetland.
Erosion does happen everywhere, "stuff" from nature washes into water bodies. River
sediment builds up that way. In an untouched natural setting, the cycle is kept in balance
by moving water, which washes sediment along into larger water bodies. In the process,
some of the particles are dissolved and are turned into the the molecular and atomic
"stuff" that feeds living things of all sizes, some of the particles get deposited back onto
river and stream banks, and some get carried as far as the nearest ocean (the 'ultimate'
watershed for any system). The problem with OUR setting here is we have a stream that

was once freely moving, but has been forced into pipes for the most part and the part that
drains out drains into a MAN-MADE lake. It's artificial, it doesn't have a proper natural
spillway course (its spillway is the SEWER with an artificial weir). Also, it gets more
sediment from the Deegan filtration basins and more pesticides and erosion from the golf
courses than a natural lake can possibly process in a natural cycle. Therefore, it needs to
be dredged and maintained like ALL man-made lakes that do not imitate nature
effectively - which this lake does not.
So - the trail, no matter what surface it is, will NEVER be the main source of sediment
build up in VCP - it's the highways and the golf course that present the greatest threat to
the lake and the marshes. A natural trail (mineral soil, crushed stone, etc) simply plays its
natural part in the erosion, absorption cycle - it produces no more and no less loose
sediment than a patch of dirt or rocky soil produces into the surroundings in any natural
area.
Aside from the lake, which is diseased with highway and pesticide pollution, the Tibbett
wetland upstream from the lake is comprised of rich seasonal and permanent wetlands of
various kinds which are well worth saving from further fragmentation. Not the least
important are the seasonal (vernal) pools which form on the Putnam trail itself and within
the wetland buffer area. I was incredibly disappointed to hear one of the presenters state
that there is nothing there of value. I have personally observed frogs, salamanders, and
dragonflies utilize seasonal wetlands in that area - on field trips when I was in school (I
grew up in the area), and more recently as an adult.
Lastly, I would like to say that the 2015 wetland analysis on which this new design is
supposed to be based was flawed by all standards. It was conducted in one season (in one
or two site visits, perhaps) and failed to recognize that the wetland is an interconnected
system. A standard wetland analysis is conducted over the course of two years, with
multiple site visits and analysis of terrain upstream from the target area.
Respectfully yours,
Margarita Eremeyev