Technical Memorandum: Current Status of Cherry Farm Development
Introduction
Cherry Farm is an approximately 56 acre rectangular parcel of land bordering the Niagara
River, just southwest of the south Grand Island Bridge in the Town of Tonawanda. The parcel is
in many ways emblematic of the entire Buffalo-Niagara region; from settlement by immigrants,
massive industrialization, followed by abandonment and environmental clean-up. Following
highly successful remediation of the already low risk1 site, the parcel is now primed for redevelopment.
History of Cherry Farm
The site was first settled in 1832 by Hamilton Cherry, an Irish immigrant. 2 Mr. Cherry’s
farm encompassed approximately 330 acres, including Rattlesnake Island and Strawberry
Island.3 His grandson, Town Justice Carlisle Cherry, lived to see the parcel become part of the
Erie Canal, and eventually an industrial complex.4
The Wickwire Steel Company, once one of the largest processing plants on the Niagara
River, was constructed and opened during 1907-8 by brothers Chet and Theodore Wickwire.5 At
its peak, the plant “was capable of churning out annually 366,000 tons of steel through two blast
furnaces and 295,000 tons of steel through three hearth furnaces.”6 However, due to a failure to
modernize in the face of an ever more competitive marketplace, the company closed its doors in
1963, and about 1,400 people were laid-off.7 During this period from 1908-1963, “[t]he Site was
used for the disposal of waste from steel manufacturing processes.”8 The parcel was purchased
by Colorado Fuel & Iron in 1963, who subsequently sold it to Niagara Mohawk, for the price of
$1.00, in 1970.9 During the period from 1963-1970, the parcel “was operated as a landfill for the
disposal of industrial wastes from facilities in the area. The industrial wastes included flyash,
1
Record of Decision. February 1991. NYSDEC, p.6
Percy, John W. Tonawanda, The Way It Was: A History of the Town of Tonawanda from 1805-1903, p. 14
3
Id. Map
4
Id. p.61
5
Silsby, Robert W. Settlement to Suburb: A History of the Town of Tonawanda - 1607-1986, p. 43
66
http://tonawanda-news.com/feature/x85614997/Talking-Steel
7
Id.
8
Construction Certification Report. 1999. NYSDEC by Pearsons Engineering Science on behalf of the PRP Group, 1-1
9
Deed
2
bottom ash, slag, sludge, liquid boiler cleaning waste, concrete rubble, and miscellaneous
wastefill.”10 In addition to Niagara Mohawk, General Motors and Honeywell (formerly Allied
Signal), were responsible for this waste material.11
In spite of this, as early as 1979, the Erie County Waterfront Advisory Committee and
Friends of the Waterfront expressed “interest in developing a public park out of the old Cherry
farm.”12 Accordingly, the planning and execution of an effective environmental remediation of
the site would occupy much of the 1990’s. Monitoring will continue for an indefinite period of
time (at least until 2029-30, pursuant to 6 N.Y.C.R.R. 373-2.7(g)).13 In addition to the obvious
remedial goals of limiting negative environmental impact to human health and safety, the
remediation was always aimed at one day turning the site into a waterfront park.
Constraints to Development
The institutional and environmental control elements of the site, in the form of deed
restrictions, were made with the goal of developing the Cherry Farm into a waterfront park.
Accordingly, “these deed restrictions would not preclude future use of the site provided
appropriate measures are taken during the design and construction of the remedial action.
Rather, they would provide additional protection against potential exposure to low level
contaminates at the site.”14 The Record of Decision includes the following “Supplemental
Consideration”:
The Town of Tonawanda is presently considering developing the Waterfront
Region along the Niagara River. Representatives of the Town of Tonawanda foresee the
development of the Cherry Farm Site as a public park which would include the following
items: 8-10 boat launching ramps, a public marina (150-200 slips), fishing piers, picnic
area, band shell, concession stands, restrooms, boat supplies and services.
No design details for the development of such a public park are available at this
time. Should the Town decide to undertake such a venture it must be made clear that
construction activities related to the buildings, marina, and park facilities would require
careful planning and would only be acceptable if the integrity of the cap is maintained.
10
Construction Certification Report. 1999, 1-2
Order of Consent, 1994. NYSDEC
12
Settlement to Suburb: A History of the Town of Tonawanda - 1607-1986, p. 236
13
Amended Record of Decsision. October 1993. Table 1
14
Record of Decision. February 1991. NYSDEC, p.16.
11
Design details which would impact final topography, such as road locations, buildings
and utility locations, drainage pathways, river access and other factors would have to be
incorporated into the cap design. During and subsequent to construction, inspections of
the cap and repair of any damage caused during construction would be required.
Development of marina facilities would require excavation of landfill materials
excavated for marina construction could be utilized as fill materia1 without
compromising park or landfill cover topographic requirements.
Regardless of the land use at the site, to ensure the integrity of the cap a deeper
vegetative support layer would be required. Construction of foundations and underground
utilities would not be allowed unless sufficient embankment materials were provided to
prevent the structures from impacting the integrity of the cap.
Any future development of the site by the Town of Tonawanda following the
proposed remediation by Alternative #3 would require a deeper vegetative support layer
in the cap and reduced slopes. This would result in an increase in the height of the
landfill, however this would not preclude development of the site.
The Town should be made aware that the above provisions have not been
provided for in the conceptual design. Niagara Mohawk is constrained by conflicting
regulatory policy, in addition to financial consideration, to limit its response activity to
measures contemplated to meet the requirements of the National Contingency Plan.
Niagara Mohawk is willing to provide the Town of Tonawanda whatever reasonable
assistance it can, short of incurring additional financial liability.”15
As noted above, remedy alternative #3 was chosen. However, an amended Record of
Decision was issued in October of 1993, whereby alternative #3A was chosen.16 The key
amendments were the substitution for a permeable cap instead of a clay one, the collection of
groundwater to be sent to a water treatment plant instead of being discharged into the Niagara
River, and the lack of permanent fencing around the entire site.17 Instead, “a locked gate [was
placed] at the site entrance until the park is fully developed.”18
The following is a summary of the institutional and engineering controls that were put in
place at the site:19
15
Id. p. 16-7
p. 10
17
Id.
18
Id. p. 14
19
2011 Periodic Review Report. NYSDEC
16
These controls effectively implemented the goals of the remediation, to protect the
environment, as well as human health and safety. Importantly, the remediation effort went even
further in preparing the site for future development than was originally anticipated in the Record
of Decision. The “Construction Certification Report” of October of 1999, which confirmed that
the remedial action on the site was complete, states:
“To the extent practicable, the remdial design accomodated the proposed post
remedial development of a waterfront park and recreation area by the Town of
Tonawanda. Major elements of the Draft Master Plan for the park included the future
construction of various buildings, and the installation of utilities. To reduce the potential
for excavation into underlying waste during park construction, utility trenches and
building pads consisting of clean soil were incorporated into the capping system to
accommodate excavations related to future park development.
The area designated for future park development are noted in several drawings in
Appendix B. These areas were surveyed and excavated to the appropriate depth. The
depth of excavation below grade varied from four feet at building pads, to a maximum of
12 feet at the down-slope end of the utility trench. The excavations were lined with
geotextile fabric and backfilled with clean cover soil. The cover soil was placed in 18
inch lifts, and compacted in accoradance with the specifications.”20
The goal of developing Cherry Farm into a waterfront park was eventually even labeled
as the “Goal of the Remedial Action” in the September of 2006 “Post Remedial Construction
Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Manual for Cherry Farm Site.”21 Accordingly,
“certain features were incorporated into the subgrade plan to minimize disturbance of the cap
system during future developments. These included grading of site soils to accommodate
pathways, creation of a “hill” overlooking a proposed amphitheater, and installation of park
utility corridors.”22
Despite the fact that the site has been talked about as the site of a waterfront park since
1979, was intended for that use since at least 1992, was remediated at substantial cost with this
goal in mind, and is not constrained by any institutional or engineering controls from being
developed to this end, the Cherry Farm still sits undeveloped.
20
2.6.3
1.4
22
Id.
21
Development Funding
Lack of funding is the most logical, and therefore most likely, reason why the Cherry
Farm has not yet been developed into the waterfront park first envisioned over three decades ago.
Niagara Mohawk currently pays approximately $100,000/year to maintain the Cherry
farm site.23 The exact figure for 2011 was $101,924, but this included several items of nonroutine maintenance.24 Of this amount, approximately $10,000 is paid to the Town of
Tonawanda is sewer use, pre-treatment, and water fees. Presumably this amount would be
discounted if public ownership of the site was to occur. This amount does not include the
$11,881.54 in County Corporation Taxes paid in 2013, as well as the approximately $11,600 in
county property taxes which have presumably been waived.25 This amount would be discounted
if public ownership was achieved, and Niagara Mohawk would, accordingly, save money in the
process.
Importantly, Niagara Mohawk is “on the hook” for operations and maintenance costs
until at least 2029-30 if no other arrangement is made, pursuant to the language in the 1994
Order on Consent.26 This order allows the NYSDEC to enforce the terms of the order against
Niagara Mohawk even in the event that they assign the land to another party if that party fails to
satisfy the terms of the Order. However, an amendment to the Order is always possible, and
Niagara Mohawk may want this to occur.
Greenway legislation does not include any limits on funding being used for operations
and maintenance, and the only restrictions are found in the re-licensing agreements. For
example, the Buffalo and Erie County agreement, Section 3.2.4 states that Greenway funds
cannot "[p]ay for operation and maintenance of any projects existing as of August 31, 2007."
Accordingly, because the re-licensing agreements clearly contemplated that Greenway funds
could be used for operations and maintenance of new sites, and the legislation does not restrict
this possibility, Greenway funding is an important way to realize the development of Cherry
Farm into a waterfront park.
23
December 2011 Cherry Farm Fact Sheet
Id.
25
Erie Co. Tax Info, based on an assessed value of $153,710
26
P.17
24
Other sources of funding include the National Park Service “Land & Water Conservation
Fund,” pursuant to 36 C.F.R. 59.1-4, as well as Environmental protection Fund, Title Nine of
which provides funds for local governments and not-for-profit organizations to purchase park
lands or historic resources as well to develop and preserve these resources.27
Other Considerations to Development
The Cherry Farm site is conveniently located near the functional center of the Greenway
Trail, and would, therefore, provide a perfect “hub.” The south Grand Island Bridges carry
80,000 cars per day between March and October.28 This means that, not only would a large
number of people pass very near the site during prime season, but that the site is fully visible
from this vantage point, a large “hub” structure would go a long way in attracting visitors.
Finally, capturing the international, and even interstate, traffic over the bridge has always been a
goal of redevelopment since at least 1991, when the Horizon’s Waterfront Commission proposed
a “Regional Gateway Park.”
Permitting is obviously a concern with any project of this nature. Wetlands and shoreline
excavation permits may need to be obtained form the NYSDEC or Army Corp of Engineers.
River Rd, Rt. 266, is a state highway, and a “curb-cut” permit would need to be obtained from
the NYSDOT. Sewer permitting is currently done through the Town of Tonawanda, and copies
of these permits have been obtained to ensure compliance with the remedial action.29
Conclusion
The Cherry Farm is primed for development into the waterfront park that has been
planned to be built on the site since remediation was first considered. The Greenway vision and
funding now provides the final pieces in what will likely be a half century long puzzle.
27
http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/5071.html
Buffalo News 3/16/2013 p. D3
29
2008 Annual and Five Year review of Cherry Farm site, Appendix D
28