Piermont Marsh: Fact-finding

Meeting 1: What do we know about Piermont Marsh habitats and biodiversity?

September 30, 2014, Piermont Village Hall, 6:00-8:30pm
This was the first of a series of public fact-finding meetings to inform the development of a long-term
management plan for Piermont Marsh by NYS DEC and Parks. The goals of these meetings are to
address a range of questions and concerns, build a foundation of scientific information to inform the
plan, and provide an opportunity to ask clarifying questions of the presenters. There were at least 70
people in attendance at this first meeting, likely more.
The following summary aims to outline the key information presented by the speakers, capture the
question and answer component of the meeting, and compile a record of all of the questions and
feedback submitted at this meeting. The list of questions and the feedback will be used to inform
future meetings.
Betsy Blair, NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Ed McGowan, NYS Parks
Stuart Findlay, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies
Dorothy Peteet, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

Erik Kiviat, Hudsonia

Rob Naczi, New York Botanical Garden
David Werier, Botanical and Ecological Consultant
David Yozzo, Great Ecology

Content:
1. Summary of Presentations
a. Introduction: Betsy Blair and Ed McGowan
b. Overview of the Science: Stuart Findlay
c. New Yorks Piermont Marsh: A 7,000 Year Record: Dorothy Peteet
d. Vegetation of Piermont Marsh: Erik Kiviat *Waiting for approval from speaker to post
e. Conservation Status of Intertidal Plants of Piermont Marsh: Rob Naczi and David
Werier
f. Fish and Invertebrate Communities of Piermont Marsh: David Yozzo
g. Birds of Piermont Marsh: Ed McGowan
2. Clarifying Questions and Answers (asked at 9/30 meeting)
3. All Questions and Comments Written on Cards
4. Feedback Forms

Summary of Presentations:
Introduction: Betsy Blair and Ed McGowan

DEC and Parks will develop an overall plan for the marsh. We have decided to take this approach
because of feedback from you all. This is the first in a series of fact-finding meetings. The goal is learn
together about what is known about the marsh.

Tentative timeline:

Goals for marsh management:

o Sustain presence of native marsh communities and the biological diversity they support
o Promote marsh resiliency to sea level rise
o Maintain or enhance marshs ability to provide storm protection for Village of Piermont
o Increase both scientific knowledge and public understanding of the marsh
Fact-finding: gathering scientific information to inform the management plan, identifying what is
known and what isnt
o Topics:
Habitats and biological diversity of the marsh (tonights meeting)
Water quality and the marsh
Role of the marsh in providing storm protection for the Village
Marsh vegetation management
o Commit to this process lets learn together. This first meeting is the foundation.
Comment: Include education in the goals

Overview of the Science: Stuart Findlay

Thank you for your interest, for caring about this wetland
Good news: we know a lot about this marsh and others like it in the Hudson
Will give you a sense of what is known and what you need to know for marsh management
o You need a lot of information to set appropriate goals, assess approaches, determine success
o Criteria for information: confidence, continuity, context
Wetland benefits include: habitat, water quality, productivity, storm protection, recreation, education
2007 map of Piermont Marsh vegetation communities (based on aerial photos)
o Brown = common reed (Phragmites australis) = 82% of the vegetation in the marsh
This makes up 24% of the total reeds in all Hudson River tidal wetlands
o This information meets the 3C criteria
Fact-finding, no judgment
2

What information is available for this marsh (in my opinion) adequate, needs work, or lacking
o Storm protection needs work
o Habitat adequate
o Recreation (e.g., economic benefit)
o Water quality adequate
needs work
o Productivity adequate
o Education adequate

New Yorks Piermont Marsh: A 7,000-year Record: Dorothy Peteet

Sediments accumulate information use sediment cores to learn about marshs history
o Metals (titanium, cesium, lead,
o Local and regional vegetation
copper, etc.)
o Age
o Salinity
o Fire record (charcoal)
o Carbon storage (blue carbon
o Erosion (inorganic matter)
sequestration)
o Sedimentation rate (accumulation
o Pollution (nitrogen)
over time)
We have sediment cores for Piermont Marsh from 1998, 2000, and 2007

1. Study of pollen and spores reconstruct the vegetational history

o Ragweed = indicator of disturbance; Cattail = nutrient indicator (increases with nitrogen)
o 1963 see the rise in grasses (Phragmites) here
2. Importance of plant macrofossils (seeds): Species specific, establishes presence of species at site,
complementary to pollen (pollen may travel from other locations, seeds are more reliable for
indicating local presence)
3. Age of marsh sediment (Pederseon, Peteet, et al. 2005)
o Rate of sediment accumulation varies over time (0.07 cm/yr to 0.33 cm/yr)
1700 AD: 0.30 cm/yr
1900 AD: 0.29 cm/yr
1800 AD: 0.20 cm/yr
1963 AD: 0.32 cm/yr
o Need to look into effect of bridge construction on sediment accumulation rates
4. Elemental analysis: Heavy metals increased since the 1700s but are now declining in the uppermost
sediments (except zinc)
5. Blue carbon (carbon stored in marsh): We are working on adding up carbon in the marsh to calculate
its value in carbon storage (with the Young Womens Leadership School of East Harlem, NYC)
6. Drought and implications (fires, erosion, water supply, agriculture and food supply)
7. Native species: Saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina patens), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), crimson-eyed rose
mallow (Hibischus moscheutus); 2014: dwarf spikerush (Eleocharis parvula) is recovering
Mysteries remaining need investigation:
o Why is Piermont Marsh sinking?
o What caused the large percent of hemlock in the basal sediments of Piermont?
o How much carbon is sequestered in the Hudson estuary? How does it vary with time?
o What do carbon and nitrogen stable isotopes tell us?
o Can we save marshes as sea level rises?
Conclusions:
o Medieval Warming Period (MWP) was present in Hudson Valley, NY (800-1350 AD)
o Eastern seaboard US suffered drought for about 550 years (see Tree Ring Atlas)
o Little Ice Age is present in the pollen record
o Previous Holocene droughts were longer, more severe (about 5000 years ago)
3

Human impact: arrival of Europeans and continued development initiated biggest impact to
forest and wetland ecosystems in the Hudson Valley deforestation, increased inorganic
content, increased nutrients, increase in heavy metals (lead, copper arsenic)
Replacement of native species by invasives (Phragmites invasion in 20th century)
Areas important for biodiversity: mudflats, salt meadows, pools, river edge
Piermont Marsh is unique: great depth, also provides important record of drought
Needs:
o Water cleanup, conservation, watershed protection
o Monitor sediment accumulation and placement (i.e., Tappan Zee Bridge construction impact)
o Re-vegetate with native plants, literature review of Phragmites remediation methods
o Extreme event monitoring (water, deposition, fauna, flora)
o Modern ecological inventories
o Investigation of site-specific sedimentation histories (marshes, dams)
o Effects of old dam removal?
o

Vegetation of Piermont Marsh: Erik Kiviat *Waiting for approval from speaker to post
Conservation Status of Intertidal Plants of Piermont Marsh: Rob Naczi and David Werier

Intertidal plants = plants that live in the area from the low tide mark to high tide mark
o For biodiversity conservation, these intertidal plants are important
Why should we study intertidal plants?
o Poorly known plants it benefits us to conserve what we dont yet understand
o Several of these species are restricted to the intertidal habitat they have special adaptations
Example: New England Bulrush globally rare, ecologically restricted (only in brackish),
fruits are good for migratory waterfowl (duck hunting)
o Intertidal habitat is rare (Hudson shoreline does not have much room for marsh) and faces
multiple threats (railroad, development, pollution, erosion)
o Given their restrictiveness and the environmental threats they face, intertidal habitats are
sensitive indicators of environmental health and should be conservation priorities
Our project: conduct conservation assessments of vascular plant species that are restricted or nearly
restricted to intertidal habitats; objective is to bring attention to these intertidal plants
o Funding: private trust (81%), Hudson River Foundation (19%) independent, can be critical
Its encouraging that DEC is here, wanting to learn from scientists
o Methods:
1. Reviewed museum specimens, historical records to assemble baseline on historic
occurrences 850 specimens from 8 museums; Covered 92 sites, 1825-2003
2. Fieldwork explored historic sites and many previously unexplored sites
Kayak, walk habitats intensively; Covered 118 sites, 2011-2014 thorough
3. Analyze data comparing historic to current occurrences
Piermont was studied both historically and currently
Why it matters:
o This is the first comprehensive study of Hudsons intertidal plants

Intertidal plants are worth conserving: they are unique elements of our shared natural
heritage; they inhabit very few places; and they provide essential ecosystem services (stabilize
shorelines, buffer storm effects, prevent erosion, provide food and shelter for animals)
o Intertidal plants are indicators of environmental health
o Results of this project will inform future restoration projects
Results:
o 12 intertidal plants historically recorded at Piermont: water hemp, sweet-scented fleabane,
annual salt-marsh aster, big cord grass, salt meadow cord grass, smooth cord grass, seacoast
bulrush, chair-makers bulrush, marsh elder, salt grass, New England bulrush, eastern grasswort
o Current status at Piermont:
Some good news: of the 12, found 10 still present (did not find marsh elder; possibly
found New England bulrush but not confirmed)
Bad news: many of the 10 that remain require high quality marsh habitat
One of the threats to that habitat is Phragmites much of the habitat has
gotten taken over, intertidal plants are just hanging in there
Other possible issues include nutrient loading and erosion
Marsh elder is probably extirpated from Piermont Marsh
New England bulrush is having a hard time in Hudson River; at Piermont, have found
possible individual but its not flowering or fruiting. This is typical when growing in
Phragmites. It tends to disappear.
Prognoses:
o No management:
New England bulrush becomes extirpated
Continued loss of high-quality marsh habitat
Perhaps eventual loss of other intertidal species dependent on intact marsh habitat
o Management (well thought-out, planned)
Perhaps New England bulrush remains extant
High quality marsh habitat remains, degraded habitat restored
No further loss of intertidal species
o

Fish and Invertebrate Communities of Piermont Marsh: David Yozzo

Fish habitat at Piermont Marsh: many species use marsh as nursery, refuge, area to reproduce
Diversity of habitats within marshes: different sized creeks, complexity in marsh surface
o Spartina patens meadows complex, spatially diverse, tidal pools and hummocks
o Phragmites forms detrital mats, less complex topography
Fish ecology studies at Piermont Marsh: lots of existing data (Hanson, Osgood, and Yozzo 2002; Yozzo
and Ottman 2003; Osgood, Yozzo, Chambers, Pianka, LePage, and Lewis 2006; Yozzo and Osgood 2013)
Marsh surface fish community (1999-2000): mummichog, grass shrimp, blue crab, spotfin killifish,
Atlantic silverside, white perch
Tidal creek fish community (1999-2000): fairly diverse, more species than marsh surface its a less
harsh environment, larger species forage here, transient species, schooling species
o Includes surface list + Atlantic menhaden, bay anchovy, striped bass, blueback herring, alewife,
bluefish, American eel, Atlantic croaker, gizzard shad, northern pipefish, Atlantic needlefish
Spotfin killifish: Piermont study produced first documented occurrence of this species in the Hudson
River; its almost exclusively on marsh surface, interesting to find in creeks; new distribution record
5

o Importance of hummocky pool habitat

Role of Phragmites in structuring fish and invertebrate assemblages
o Questions looked at in studies: detrital quality, biodiversity impacts, changes in
elevation/topography/drainage, refuge/nursery habitat, invertebrate prey resources
Possible future studies:
o Re-survey for spotfin killifish in remnant Spartina patens marsh
o Periodic monitoring of tidal creek fish assemblages
o Periodic monitoring of resident fish/invertebrates in Phragmites-dominated marsh

Birds of Piermont Marsh: Ed McGowan

Different habitats and biodiversity contribute to bird diversity year-round, and on migration route
o Meadows (Spartina patens) most likely not enough of this habitat left in Piermont Marsh to
support the bird species that depend on it
o Phragmites red-winged blackbirds roost
Bird records for Piermont Marsh
o Not many systematic surveys covering marsh interior
o Publications dating to the late 19th century (Deeds 1977, Linnean Society of New York, J. Bull)
o Bird counts and surveys (Rockland Audubon Society, NYS Breeding Bird Atlas, NY Natural
Heritage Program Park Surveys, 1999-2000); other individuals and researchers (LamontDoherty, Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve, Hudsonia)
o Piermont: the most interior sites the saltmarsh sparrow and seaside sparrow have been found,
(Chapman 1889) unique. Saltmarsh sparrow colony disappeared from Piermont in 1930s?
o Robert F. Deed 1977 Birds of Rockland County and the Hudson Highlands
Records for Piermont area: on the NY State list of threatened species least bittern,
pied-billed grebe; other species of note Virginia rail, marsh wren
o DEC Breeding Bird Atlas Survey (Piermont is ID 5854D); 1980-85, 2000-05
Volunteers, not standardized, lots of variation, not exhaustive
Marsh wren, least bittern, Virginia rail were still present
Map of possible sites for future survey NY Marsh Breeding Bird Survey protocol
o Using this protocol at Iona in the spring, looking to extend the work to Piermont Marsh

Clarifying Questions and Answers (asked at 9/30 meeting):

For Dorothy Can you tell us more about the sinking marsh concept?

Piermont marsh is at least 16 m deep in some places (other marshes along the river are much
shallower ~ 8-9 m) maybe it has higher sedimentation? Some at Lamont think theres a fault, or that
clay could be de-watering and sinking down. Its a mystery.
Ed: we are installing surface elevation tables (SETs) to measure marsh elevation over time
o Betsy: it takes a number of years to find out
o Ed: were Also using SETs at Iona help understand/monitor possible impacts of management

For Rob and David Regardless of Phragmites, what is the fate of the remaining intertidal plants in the face
of rising water levels and storm surges? Are these intertidal plants a bad choice for restoration in polluted
water? Do you believe that intertidal habitats flourish in Piermont Marsh without steady and consistent
eradication of the Phragmites? If these plants are the canaries in the coal mine, hasnt the canary already
died, and shouldnt we be focusing on what in the environment is causing the Phragmites to flourish?

Intertidal plants are not flourishing now, Phragmites has reduced the habitat
Agree that there are larger issues here topics of other meetings, and not the focus of our study
Need to know whats going to happen to those habitats sea level rise and storm surge could be
significant threats
Decisions depend on whether you prioritize biodiversity
Pollution, nutrient loading are issues, could be connection with Phragmites and erosion (not what we
focused on)

For Erik How do you feel about option of no action?

This question is getting ahead of us. I have thought about it a lot, studied outcomes of restoration
projects. Im not calling the shots; some might disagree with me.
What I would like to see: attempt to see if we can develop technique to restore some of the salt marsh
meadows that support biodiversity without doing damage to other components of marsh and
ecosystem services (small scale ~ 10m x 10m, nonchemical techniques)
Issues with trying to restore what was there historically some are not there now, some are new
some of these new species are hard to deal with (Phragmites, knotweed)
Cost and maintenance, technical issues to consider
Look forward to opportunity to discuss this at future meeting

For Dorothy You described the period following the Medieval Warm Period as one characterized by
European impact that resulted in changes to marsh flora. However, wasnt climate change also a factor?
The rapid cooling of the so-called Little Ice Age of the 1700s and 1800s surely had an effect on the type of
flora that survived and thrived in the marsh. Can we infer that climate change is therefore playing a
significant role in the proliferation of Phragmites now?

I am trying to get funding to core deeper and study seeds. Challenge invasive species swamp the
signal.

For all Speakers have again and again mentioned that additional study is needed the process calls for
plan development spring of 2015. Ask each presenter if they feel all needed research will be done by then?

Stuart: Youll never know everything you want to know; need to think about by not taking action in
either direction, what are you gaining and losing? I think were in pretty good shape, not starting from
scratch; whats the menu of possible actions start with small pilots youre confident about; the
perfect is the enemy of the complete
Dave Y.: Adaptive management is part of management learning by doing; opportunities to learn new
data and adapt; (decades timescale for monitoring)
Erik: Learning more about marsh before large-scale management
o NJ Meadowlands example wetland mitigation, 2010; acted before they knew what was there
(230 acres) rare plants and birds were lost globally rare intertidal species were lost
o Not rush into it
o Marsh is changing, but not disappearing rapidly
Dorothy: We know sea level is going to rise, salinity increase is in our favor in terms of managing
Phragmites
David W.: make sure DEC keeps monitoring, researching the marsh
o Planning is important how long term is the plan looking?
Ed: go through this process, involve the public and other experts
o We can develop plan for positive change in marsh, without jeopardizing
o But avoid becoming paralyzed with inaction what are the small steps we can take to protect
important areas?
o Things that can be done to satisfy all parties
Rob: time for action and consensus
o There are things that everyone can agree on
o Move forward take action but with consensus
Betsy: management plan includes a range of components, such as research and monitoring

Comment: We should be allowed to raise our hands, ask our questions, dont trust anything youre saying

Betsy: I ask you to tolerate the process; some questions will be better addressed at later fact-finding
meetings; were trying to be efficient with speakers time and citizens time.

Question: Has the decision already been made?

Betsy: No decisions have been made.

All Questions and Comments Written on Cards:

Questions asked at 9/30 meeting:

Rare intertidal plants so sensitive to their environment arent these a bad choice to promote for
restoration in one of the Hudson Rivers most polluted tidal waters (Piermont Marsh/Sparkill Creek)?
Re: intertidal plants regardless of Phragmites, what is the fate of intertidal plants (the 10 that are still
present) in the face of rising water levels and storm surges? Thank you most informative!
For Rob Naczi do you believe that intertidal habitats flourish in Piermont Marsh without steady and
consistent eradication of the Phragmites? If these plants are the canaries in the coal mine, hasnt
the canary already died, and shouldnt we be focusing on what in the environment is causing the
Phragmites to flourish?
Re: Dorothy Peteets presentation you described the period following the Medieval Warm Period as
one characterized by European impact that resulted in changes to marsh flora. However, wasnt
climate change also a factor? The rapid cooling of the so-called Little Ice Age of the 1700s and 1800s
surely had an effect on the type of flora that survived and thrived in the marsh. Can we infer that
climate change is therefore playing a significant role in the proliferation of Phragmites now?
Speakers have again and again mentioned that additional study is needed the process calls for
plan development spring of 2015. Ask each presenter if they feel all needed research will be done by
early spring 2015? Yes or no.
For Erik Kiviat how do you feel about the option of no action in Piermont Marsh since the
Phragmites have filled in almost all the space and cannot expand further?
For Dorothy Peteet could you discuss more about sinking marsh?

Questions for future meeting topics:

Re: water quality

What was the impact of the Paper Mill in the pollution of the Sparkill Creek and the spread of
Phragmites?
Can the money for the remediation of the marsh be used to fix the nitrogen rich sewage outflow from
the water treatment plant! And cleaning up the Sparkill Creek?
Earlier it was said that a lot is known about water quality in the marsh. Months ago I called the DEC as
a member of the Sparkill Creek Watershed Alliance to ask about marsh water quality as we are
interested in the aspect of this that questions the correlation between Phragmites and impacted
water. I was told that not much is known about water quality. Please can you tell us what is known
about marsh water quality over time and where can the collected data be seen? Thank you.
I understand the importance of biodiversity in the marsh but Im wondering if there is any benefit to
addressing whats been called the nutrient loading from the sewage first, before removal of any
Phragmites to see if this can increase biodiversity? I can appreciate the why of this project, my
concerns are with the how. Thank you.
Clean up the Sparkill! It is deteriorating rapidly, polluted by runoff, pesticides, and full of Phragmites
(too).

Re: Phragmites control methods and impacts

How is Iona Marsh doing? How do you selectively eradicate Phragmites?

For Erik Kiviat In your Phragmites management sourcebook you mention your concerns of the use of
glyphosate in eradicating Phragmites
Iona Marsh is having success with diverse plant restoration using decreasing amounts of Rodeo. Why
cant this be done here?
Wont the use of even small amounts of herbicides threaten the very rare plants you are trying to
save?
For Dorothy Peteet What would be your greatest concerns if extensive Phragmites removal were to
occur in Piermont Marsh?
If spraying does occur, how will it affect the so very important intertidal plants, terrapins, reptiles, and
amphibians?
Did the DEC intend to kill the area that they did kill?
What were some effects on avian biodiversity as a result of the Iona restoration?

Re: storm protection

Is there any credible scientific evidence that the height of Phragmites affords better wind driven wave
action damage protection than native grass species?

Re: other

Where is the funding coming from for this marsh study? Who made this project a priority over other
concerns? (i.e. Sandy recovery, storm preparedness, public transit on the new bridge) Will there be a
task force formed of LOCAL RESIDENTS to decide what future decisions will be? Why has none of the
local input regarding the Tappan Zee Bridge project been considered; and why isnt the DEC concerned
about that?
The TZB funding for marsh restoration is limited to 7 years. We just heard adaptive management
takes decades. How do we reconcile this conflict?
Can the next topic (#2) be switched to talk about water quality as a natural follow up to habitats and
diversity?
Several questions have posited a need to pass over very narrowly focused projects and focus on big
problems like causes (climate change, nutrient overload, etc.). Does it make sense to say we must
choose one or the other? Are they not linked?
Constructive not destructive aid to our area? Wind carries seeds throughout area, Phragmites natures
way throughout county. Has the decision already been made and is this only window dressing?
Legally who has ownership and jurisdiction over Piermont Marsh? What do intertidal plants do that
Phragmites dont do? If intertidal plants are disappearing isnt this a warning, something should be
done about environment, not replanting same plants?
Use the marsh as a classroom

10

Feedback Forms (15 total):

How much has this meeting increased your
knowledge and understanding of the topics
discussed today?

A great deal: 4
A lot: 6
Some: 2
A little: 1
Not at all: 0
No response: 2

This meeting was a good use of my time:

Strongly agree: 5
Agree: 5
Unsure: 1
Disagree: 2
Strongly disagree: 0
No response: 1
Other: Yes, once the scientists began

What was the most valuable information you heard here today?

The detail that Dorothy Peteet and others related on the historical aspects of the Marsh
What Erik Kiviat said. He's the real expert! Ok to restore marsh without destroying it!!
Scientific info from panel, need more in future
Intertidal and coring
It seemed to me that the presentations confirmed the Phrag. has been in play for over 100 years, so
why are we only focused on Phragmites.
It was all interesting.
That Piermont is paying attention
That a lot is not yet known and caution is called for.
The complexity of the effects of the environment on habitat and diversity
The Piermont Marsh and any management/restoration plan is far more complex than simple
eradication of common reed.
Facilitation is important

What worked well and what didnt?

The timing and depth of content from each scientist was very helpful in transmitting necessary
information on biodiversity
Would have liked more time more info from some on panel there is a lot to learn
Increased data rather than general info. Increased time per speaker and less speakers. Increased
number of meetings to compensate this change.
The intertidal plants speakers were biased against Phragmites, given that a lot of other issues could be
compromising the ecosystem
Questions didn't; presentations mostly did
Cards are crowd control. They remind me of the meaningless Tappan Zee Bridge meetings. Let it be
messy. This is a democracy and we pay taxes.
Question cards worked well great presentations. Pandemonium at the end when people tried
putting their own verbal comments did not.
General well run. Perhaps questions could be solicited online in advance and available to see by all as
well as at the meeting.
Intro way too long. The rest pretty good. If audience speaks it would help to pass them the mike.
The format was fine. This was clearly an educational meeting.
Give credit to the authority for developing a multi-perspective management (long term) plan.
11

How could the format of the meeting be improved for future fact-finding meetings?

Studies on Glyphosate (Rodeo) on invertebrates and other organisms in the marsh that fish eat
Keep on time. Eliminate the intro in the beginning and refer to the outline, the outline
Lay-person needs to edit/condense scientists
Open questions. Longer period for questions
Better time management.
Format: open with questions, related to talking points, then speakers and add more time for
questions.
Is there a way to take questions from the floor?
Full disclosure of paid people vs. scientists donating their time. Short intro, go straight to actual
information.

Do you think you might attend the next fact-finding meetings?

Yes: 10
Maybe: 3
No: 0
No response: 2

Other comments:

Irrelevant to me, I did not want a 2 hour lecture, I could have spent my time more productively. I am
trying to be respectful, it is not the fault of the speakers, I feel that the whole point of the meeting for
me, personally, is being co-opted by an agenda that is in the works and that there is NO interest in
hearing peoples outcries of "don't poison our marsh." I have run out of patience for the nonparticipatory format. This is a hugely emotional issue, as you know. Standing room only at dinner time
is an indication of how much the citizens of Piermont deeply care about this issue. Most are wearing
"no herbicides" stickers and once again this is the elephant in the room. Many of us do not care what
you do but it is crystal clear that whatever you do we do not want you to pollute our water with
herbicide poison. We are not scientists and we are busy. I have been to every one of these meetings
and am totally frustrated because as much as I respect the very nice and smart scientists you have
called to your panel, there is nothing that will change my mind about the poison issue. This is your
project but it is my backyard. No one has the right to pollute this river, no one "owns" this river and I
do not like the format of being lectured to. You have not listened to OR addressed the impassioned
pleas of the residents. You are completely glossing over the issue that concerns people the most here.
Way too much time used up at front end telling us about format etc. 6:25 before you actually
started! Let a non-DEC person perhaps one of the experts choose and distribute the question cards.
This will avoid the problem of perceived censorship by Betsy.
I am most interested in the health of the marsh and river, as a feeding ground for fish, birds, etc. The
question is does the Phrags have a negative or a positive effect. Should they eradicated? Or not? With
the exception of Mr. Naczi and Mr. Werier all other avoided the issue. I have the impression that
saying anything against the Phrags. will not happen because of the crowd reaction. The issue of storm
surge has nothing to do with the health of the marsh/river.

12