DOCSLIB.ORG

Suffern Nyrcr

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Suffern Nyrcr SUFFERN NYRCR NY RISING COMMUNITY RECONSTRUCTION PLAN December 2014 NY Rising Community Reconstruction Program Members of the Suffern NYRCR Planning Committee Beth Barone, Chair Trish Abato* Jo Corrigan* James Lyons Bruce McClintlock Daniel McInerney Charles Sawicki Dina Schmidt Bruce Simon *(non-voting member) Prepared By This document was developed by the Suffern NYRCR Planning Committee as part of the NY Rising Community Reconstruction (NYRCR) Program within the Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery. The NYRCR Program is supported by NYS Homes and Community Renewal and NYS Department of State. The document was prepared by the following consulting firms: AKRF, Inc.; MJ Engineering and Land Surveying, P.C.; Nagle, Tatich, Cranston LLC d/b/a Elan.3.Consulting (E.3); Sasaki Associates; Arch Street Communications, Inc.; and CDM Smith. i Foreword Introduction expertise. This powerful combination recognizes not only that community members are best positioned to In the span of approximately one year, beginning in assess the needs and opportunities of the places August 2011, the State of New York experienced three where they live and work, but also that decisions are extreme weather events. Hurricane Irene, Tropical best made when they are grounded in rigorous analy- Storm Lee, and Superstorm Sandy wreaked havoc on sis and informed by the latest innovative solutions. the lives of New Yorkers and their communities. These tragic disasters signaled that New Yorkers are living in Launched in the summer of 2013 and completed in a new reality defined by rising sea levels and extreme March 2014, Round I of the NYRCR planning process weather events that will occur with increased fre- included 50 NYRCR Planning Areas, comprising 102 quency and power. They also signaled that we need to storm-impacted localities. In January 2014, Governor rebuild our communities in a way that will mitigate Cuomo announced a second round of the planning against future risks and build increased resilience. process, serving an additional 22 storm-impacted localities. Four of these localities were absorbed into To meet these pressing needs, Governor Andrew M. existing Round I NYRCR Planning Areas, bringing the Cuomo led the charge to develop an innovative, number of localities participating in Round I up to 106; community-driven planning program on a scale the other 18 localities formed 16 new Round II NYRCR unprecedented and with resources unparalleled. The Planning Areas. Between Rounds I and II, there are 66 NY Rising Community Reconstruction (NYRCR) NYRCR Planning Areas, comprising 124 localities. Program, within the Governor’s Office of Storm The program serves over 2.7 million New Yorkers and Recovery (GOSR), empowers the State’s most covers nearly 6,500 square miles, which is equivalent impacted communities with the technical expertise to 14% of the overall State population and 12% of the and funding resources needed to develop thorough State’s overall geography. and implementable reconstruction plans to build physically, socially, and economically resilient and In Rounds I and II, the State allotted between $3 sustainable communities. million and $25 million to each participating locality for the implementation of eligible projects identified in the NYRCR Plan. The funding for these projects is pro- Program Overview vided through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development The NYRCR Program, announced by Governor Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) Cuomo in April of 2013, is a more than $700 million program.1 planning and implementation program established to provide rebuilding and resiliency assistance to com- Each NYRCR Planning Area is represented by a munities severely damaged by Hurricane Irene, Tropi- NYRCR Planning Committee composed of local resi- cal Storm Lee, and Superstorm Sandy. Drawing on dents, business owners, and civic leaders. Members lessons learned from past recovery efforts, the NYRCR Program is a unique combination of bottom-up com- 1. Five of the Round I Planning Areas—Niagara, Herkimer, Oneida, munity participation and State-provided technical Madison, and Montgomery Counties—are not funded through the CDBG-DR program. Foreword iii SUFFERN NY RISING Community Reconstruction Plan of the Planning Committees were identified in consul- allotted a share of the competition’s $3.5 million to tation with established local leaders, community orga- fund additional eligible projects. nizations and, in some cases, municipalities. The NYRCR Program sets a new standard for community In April 2014, Governor Cuomo announced that proj- participation in recovery and resiliency planning, with ects identified in NYRCR Plans would receive priority community members leading the planning process. consideration through the State’s Consolidated Across the State, more than 650 New Yorkers have Funding Application (CFA) process and charged the represented their communities by serving on Planning Regional Economic Development Councils (REDCs), Committees. Nearly 650 Planning Committee Meet- which play an advisory role in the CFA process, to ings have been held, during which Planning Commit- support NYRCR projects. In December 2014, Gover- tee members worked with the State’s team to develop nor Cuomo announced that 24 NYRCR projects community reconstruction plans, which identify received nearly $12 million in CFA funding. This opportunities to make their communities more resil- announcement is an example of the Governor honor- ient. All meetings were open to the public. An addi- ing his commitment to leverage the work of the tional 250+ Public Engagement Events attracted NYRCR Planning Committees to incorporate resil- thousands of community members, who provided ience into other State programs and to find additional feedback on the planning process and resulting pro- sources of funding for NYRCR projects. The NYRCR posals. The NYRCR Program’s outreach has included Program is also working with both private and public communities that are traditionally underrepresented, institutions to identify existing funding sources and to such as immigrant populations and students. All plan- create funding opportunities where none existed ning materials are posted on the program’s website before. (www.stormrecovery.ny.gov/nyrcr), providing several ways for community members and the public to The NYRCR Program has successfully coordinated submit feedback on the program and materials in with State and Federal agencies to help guide the progress. development of feasible projects. The program has leveraged the REDC State Agency Review Teams Throughout the planning process, Planning Commit- (SARTs), composed of representatives from dozens of tees were supported by staff from GOSR, planners State agencies and authorities, for feedback on proj- from New York State (NYS) Department of State and ects proposed by NYRCR Planning Committees. The NYS Department of Transportation, and consultants SARTs review projects with an eye toward regulatory from world-class planning firms that specialize in and permitting needs, policy objectives, and preexist- engineering, flood mitigation solutions, green infra- ing agency funding sources. The NYRCR Program is structure, and more. continuing to work with the SARTs to streamline the permitting process and ensure shovels are in the The NYRCR Program does not end with this NYRCR ground as quickly as possible. Plan. Governor Cuomo has allotted over $700 million for planning as well as implementing eligible projects On the pages that follow, you will see the results of identified in NYRCR Plans. NYRCR Planning Areas months of thoughtful, diligent work by the Suffern are also eligible for additional funds through the NY NYRCR Planning Committee, which is passionately Rising to the Top Competition, which evaluates appli- committed to realizing a brighter, more resilient future cations from Round II NYRCR Planning Committees for its community. across three categories—Regional Approach, Inclu- sion of Vulnerable Populations, and Use of Green Infrastructure. The winner of each category will be iv Foreword SUFFERN NY RISING Community Reconstruction Plan The NYRCR Plan While developing projects for inclusion in NYRCR Plans, Planning Committees took into account cost This NYRCR Plan is an important step toward rebuild- estimates, cost-benefit analyses, the effectiveness of ing a more resilient community. Each NYRCR Planning each project in reducing risk to populations and criti- Committee began the planning process by defining cal assets, feasibility, and community support. Plan- the scope of its planning area, assessing storm ning Committees also considered the potential likeli- damage, and identifying critical issues. Next, the hood that a project or action would be eligible for Planning Committee inventoried critical assets in the CDBG-DR funding. Projects and actions implemented community and assessed the assets’ exposure to risk. with this source of Federal funding must satisfy a On the basis of this work, the Planning Committee Federally-designated eligible activity category, fulfill a described recovery and resiliency needs and identi- national objective (i.e., meeting an urgent need, fied opportunities. The Planning Committee then removing slums and blight, or benefiting low- to developed a series of comprehensive reconstruction moderate-income individuals), and have a tie to the and resiliency strategies, and identified projects and natural disaster to which the funding is linked. These implementation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Catskill Trails, 9Th Edition, 2010
    Harriman-Bear Mountain Trails, 13th Edition, 2010 New York-New Jersey Trail Conference Index Feature Map (119BM = Bear Mtn Inset) 1777 E Trail 119, 119BM 1777 W Trail 119, 119BM 1779 Trail 119, 119BM Abrams Road 119 ADK Camp Nawakwa 118 Agony Grind 119 Almost Perpendicular 118 American Canoe Association Camp 118 Anchor Monument 119 Anthony Wayne Recreation Area 119 Anthony Wayne Trail 119 Anthonys Nose 119 Appalachian Trail 119, 119BM Arden 119 Arden Brook 119 Arden House 119 Arden Road 119 Arden Valley Road 119 Arden-Surebridge Trail 118, 119 Augusta Mine 118 Baileytown Cemetery 119 Baileytown Road 119 Baker Camp 118 Bald Mountain 118, 119 Bald Rocks Shelter 118, 119 Barnes Lake 119 Barnes Mine 118 Bear Mountain 119, 119BM Bear Mountain Administration Building 119BM Bear Mountain Bridge 119, 119BM Bear Mountain Bridge Road 119 Bear Mountain Dock 119BM Bear Mountain Historical Museum 119BM Bear Mountain Inn 119BM Bear Mountain Merry-Go-Round 119BM Bear Mountain Picnic Area 119BM Bear Mountain Skating Rink 119BM Bear Mountain State Park 119, 119BM Bear Mountain Swimming Pool 119BM Bear Mountain Trailside Museums and Zoo 119BM Beaver Pond Brook 118 Beaver Pond Campground 118, 119 p1 Beech Trail 118, 119 Beech Trail Cemetery 118, 119 Beechy Bottom Road 119 Bensons Point 119 Big Bog Mountain 119 Big Hill 118 Big Hill Shelter 118 Black Ash Mine 118 Black Ash Mountain 118 Black Ash Swamp 118 Black Mountain 119 Black Rock 118, 119 Black Rock Mountain 118, 119 Blauvelt Mountain 118 Blendale Lake 119 Blue Disc Trail 118 Blythea Lake 119 Bockberg
    [Show full text]
  • Passaic County, New Jersey (All Jurisdictions)
    VOLUME 1 OF 5 PASSAIC COUNTY, NEW JERSEY (ALL JURISDICTIONS) COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER BLOOMINGDALE, BOROUGH OF 345284 CLIFTON, CITY OF 340398 HALEDON, BOROUGH OF 340399 HAWTHORNE, BOROUGH OF 340400 LITTLE FALLS, TOWNSHIP OF 340401 NORTH HALEDON, BOROUGH OF 340402 PASSAIC, CITY OF 340403 PATERSON, CITY OF 340404 POMPTON LAKES, BOROUGH OF 345528 PROSPECT PARK, BOROUGH OF 340406 RINGWOOD, BOROUGH OF 340407 TOTOWA, BOROUGH OF 340408 WANAQUE, BOROUGH OF 340409 WAYNE, TOWNSHIP OF 345327 WEST MILFORD, TOWNSHIP OF 340411 WOODLAND PARK, BOROUGH OF 340412 Preliminary: January 9, 2015 FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 34031CV001B Version Number 2.1.1.1 The Borough of Woodland Park was formerly known as the Borough of West Paterson. NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) may not contain all data available within the repository. It is advisable to contact the community repository for any additional data. Part or all of this FIS may be revised and republished at any time. In addition, part of this FIS may be revised by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the user to consult with community officials and to check the community repository to obtain the most current FIS components. Initial Countywide FIS Effective Date: September 28, 2007 Revised Countywide FIS Date: This preliminary FIS report does not include unrevised Floodway Data Tables or unrevised Flood Profiles.
    [Show full text]
  • Army Corps of Engineers Response Document Draft
    3.0 ORANGE COUNTY Orange County has experienced numerous water resource problems along the main stem and the associated tributaries of the Moodna Creek and the Ramapo River that are typically affected by flooding during heavy rain events over the past several years including streambank erosion, agradation, sedimentation, deposition, blockages, environmental degradation, water quality and especially flooding. However, since October 2005, the flooding issues have severely increased and flooding continues during storm events that may or may not be considered significant. Areas affected as a result of creek flows are documented in the attached trip reports (Appendix D). Throughout the Orange County watershed, site visits confirmed opportunities to stabilize the eroding or threatened banks restore the riparian habitat while controlling sediment transport and improving water quality, and balance the flow regime. If the local municipalities choose to request Federal involvement, there are several options, depending on their budget, desired timeframe and intended results. The most viable options include a specifically authorized watershed study or program, or an emergency streambank protection project (Section 14 of the Continuing Authorities Program), or pursing a Continuing Authorities Program study for Flood Risk Management or Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration (Section 205 and Section 206 of the Continuing Authorities Program, respectively). Limited Federal involvement could also be provided in the form of the Planning Assistance to States or Support for Others programs provide assistance and limited funds outside of traditional Corps authorities. A watershed study focusing on restoration of the Moodna Creek, Otter Creek, Ramapo River and their associated tributaries could address various problems using a systematic approach.
    [Show full text]
  • Ramapough/Ford the Impact and Survival of an Indigenous
    Antioch University AURA - Antioch University Repository and Archive Student & Alumni Scholarship, including Dissertations & Theses Dissertations & Theses 2015 Ramapough/Ford The mpI act and Survival of an Indigenous Community in the Shadow of Ford Motor Company’s Toxic Legacy Chuck Stead Antioch University - New England Follow this and additional works at: http://aura.antioch.edu/etds Part of the American Studies Commons, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons, Environmental Health Commons, Environmental Studies Commons, Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons, Indigenous Studies Commons, Toxicology Commons, United States History Commons, and the Zoology Commons Recommended Citation Stead, Chuck, "Ramapough/Ford The mpI act and Survival of an Indigenous Community in the Shadow of Ford Motor Company’s Toxic Legacy" (2015). Dissertations & Theses. 200. http://aura.antioch.edu/etds/200 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Student & Alumni Scholarship, including Dissertations & Theses at AURA - Antioch University Repository and Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations & Theses by an authorized administrator of AURA - Antioch University Repository and Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Department of Environmental Studies DISSERTATION COMMITTEE PAGE The undersigned have examined the dissertation entitled: Ramapough/Ford: The Impact and Survival of an Indigenous Community in the Shadow of Ford Motor Company’s Toxic Legacy presented by Chuck
    [Show full text]
  • Water Resources of the New Jersey Part of the Ramapo River Basin
    Water Resources of the New Jersey Part of the Ramapo River Basin GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1974 Prepared in cooperation with the New Jersey Department of Conservation and Economic Development, Division of Water Policy and Supply Water Resources of the New Jersey Part of the Ramapo River Basin By JOHN VECCHIOLI and E. G. MILLER GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1974 Prepared in cooperation with the New Jersey Department of Conservation and Economic Development, Division of Water Policy and Supply UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1973 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY V. E. McKelvey, Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. 72-600358 For sale bv the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $2.20 Stock Number 2401-02417 CONTENTS Page Abstract.................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction............................................................................................ ............ 2 Purpose and scope of report.............................................................. 2 Acknowledgments.......................................................................................... 3 Previous studies............................................................................................. 3 Geography...................................................................................................... 4 Geology
    [Show full text]
  • Project Report: Development of a TMDL for the Wanaque Reservoir
    Project Report Development of a TMDL for the Wanaque Reservoir and Cumulative WLAs/LAs for the Passaic River Watershed Submitted To Division of Watershed Management NJ Department of Environmental Protection Trenton, New Jersey June 2005 Project Report Development of a TMDL for the Wanaque Reservoir and Cumulative WLAs/LAs for the Passaic River Watershed Submitted To Division of Watershed Management NJ Department of Environmental Protection Trenton, New Jersey June 2005 NAJARIAN ASSOCIATES Eatontown, New Jersey TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction............................................................................. 1-1 1.1 TMDL Basis.....................................................................................1-1 1.2 Objectives .......................................................................................1-2 1.3 Approach.........................................................................................1-2 2. Reservoir Characteristics...................................................... 2-1 2.1 Reservoir’s Tributary Watershed ..................................................2-2 2.2 Diversion Intake Sites ....................................................................2-4 2.3 Previous Studies of Reservoir Water Quality ..............................2-8 3. River Simulation..................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Model Development .......................................................................3-1 3.2 Data Preparation.............................................................................3-3
    [Show full text]
  • Inventory of Published and Unpublished Sediment-Load Data, United States and Puerto Rico, 1950 60
    Inventory of Published and Unpublished Sediment-Load Data, United States and Puerto Rico, 1950 60 Compiled by K. F. HARRIS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1547 Prepared in cooperation with the Sub- committee on Sedimentation, Inter- Agency Committee on Heater R sources UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1962 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D.C. PREFACE This report supplements Bulletin No. I, "Inventory of published and Unpublished Sediment Load Data in the United States," published in April 1949 and Bulletin No. 4, "Inventory of Published and Un­ published Sediment Load Data in the United States, Supplement- 1946 to 1950," published in April 1952. These bulletins were pub­ lished under the sponsorship of the Subcommittee on Sedimenta­ tion, Federal Inter-Agency River Basin Committee (predecessor to the Inter-Agency Committee on Water Resources). The following agencies participating on the Subcommittee on Sedimentation, Inter-Agency Committee on Water Resources, fur­ nished records of published and unpublished data obtained by their various offices for this inventory: Department of Agriculture Department of the Interior Agricultural Research Bureau of Mines Service Bureau of Reclamation Forest Service Geological Survey Soil Conservation Service Department of Health, Education, Department of the Army and Welfare Corps of Engineers Public Health
    [Show full text]
  • Pompton Lake and Ramapo River TMDL Support Study (NE-PASSAIC-1)
    Pompton Lake and Ramapo River TMDL Support Study (NE-PASSAIC-1): For Work Supporting the Department of Environmental Protection in the Development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) or Other Management Responses to Restore Impaired Waterbodies in the Non- Tidal Passaic River Basin FINAL Prepared for: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Watershed Management Division Trenton, NJ Prepared by: Quantitative Environmental Analysis, LLC Montvale, NJ Job Number: DEPpom:132 July 5, 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... ES-1 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT............................................................................... 1-2 SECTION 2 POMPTON LAKE AND WATERSHED.......................................................... 2-1 2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND.............................................................. 2-1 2.2 WATER QUALITY....................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.1 November 18, 2003 Sampling Event....................................................................... 2-3 2.2.2 Historical Water Quality Data ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record—House H7878
    H7878 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 17, 2007 center even exists. We don’t know if it The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to modifications committed to conference: even exists, if it’s created by this ear- clause 6 of rule XVIII, further pro- Messrs. Reyes, Cramer, and Hoekstra. mark. ceedings on the amendment offered by From the Committee on Science and Tech- Concurrent Technology has been the the gentleman from Arizona will be nology, for consideration of secs. 703, 1301, recipient of millions upon millions of 1464, 1467, and 1507 of the Senate amendment, postponed. and modifications committed to conference: dollars over the years. The executives Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I Messrs. Gordon of Tennessee, Wu, and in Concurrent Technology contribute move that the Committee do now rise. Gingrey. handsomely to Members of Congress. The motion was agreed to. From the Committee on Transportation So it receives a lot of earmarks. It Accordingly, the Committee rose; and Infrastructure, for consideration of Ti- seems to be an earmark incubator of and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. tles I–III, sec. 1002, and Title XI of the House some type, an earmark that begets DAVIS of Illinois) having assumed the bill, and secs. 202, 301, Title IV, secs. 801–803, 807, 901, 1001, 1002, 1101–1103, 1422–1424, 1426, more earmarks. chair, Mr. TIERNEY, Chairman of the And yet we have the report that 1427, 1429, 1430, 1433, 1436–1438, 1441, 1443, 1444, Committee of the Whole House on the 1446, 1449, 1464, 1473, 1503, and 1605 of the Sen- comes with the bill that doesn’t even state of the Union, reported that that mention Concurrent Technology.
    [Show full text]
  • Sloatsburg, New York
    Coordinates: 41°9′43″N 74°11′16″W Sloatsburg, New York Sloatsburg is a village in the town of Ramapo in Rockland County, New York, United States. Located Sloatsburg east of Orange County, it is at the southern entrance to Village Harriman State Park. The population was 3,152 at the 2010 census.[2] The village is named after Stephen Sloat, an early European landowner. Contents History Geography Demographics Route 17 in Sloatsburg Education Transportation Notable people Historic landmarks Sources References External links History Location in Rockland County and the state of New York. The land that would become the village of Sloatsburg Coordinates: 41°9′43″N 74°11′16″W was part of the hunting grounds of the Minsi band of Country United States the Leni Lenape Indians, whose people occupied much State New York of the mid-Atlantic area at the time of European County Rockland encounter. The area was the site of a major Indian path Incorporated October 7, 1929 through the Ramapo Mountains. The path was later Government improved as the New York to Albany road and, in 1800, • Mayor Carl S. Wright (D) the Orange Turnpike. It remains an important • Board of Members' List thoroughfare today as the New York State Thruway, Trustees New York State Route 17 and the Norfolk Southern Area Railway line run along its route. • Total 2.5 sq mi (6.5 km2) Wynant Van Gelder, an ethnic Dutch colonist, • Land 2.5 sq mi (6.4 km2) purchased the area from the Minsi in 1738. In 1747, he • Water 0.04 sq mi (0.1 km2) gave it to his father-in-law, Isaac Van Deusen.
    [Show full text]
  • Declaration for the Record of Decision, Ramapo Landfill
    x SDMS Document 99361 * DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION Site Name and Location Ramapo Landfill, Town of Ramapo, Rockland County, New York Statement of Basis and Purpose This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the Ramapo Landfill site (the "Site"), located in the Town of Ramapo, Rockland County, New York, which was chosen in accordance with the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675, as amended, and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part 300. This decision document explains the factual and legal basis for selecting the remedy for the Site. The information supporting this remedial action decision is contained in the administrative record for the Site. The administrative record index is attached (Appendix III). The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) concurs with the selected remedy. (See Appendix IV.) NYSDEC will also concur with the contingent remedy, should the confirmatory studies determine that the contingent remedy is appropriate. Assessment of the Site Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected in this Record of Decision (ROD), may present a significant and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment. Description of the Selected Remedy - This operable unit represents the entire remedial action for the Site. It addresses the principal threats to human health and the environment at the Site by controlling the source of contamination and the generation of contaminated leachate, as well as by treating contaminated groundwater.
    [Show full text]
  • Culture of Salmonids
    COLDWATER FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLAN NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Culture of Salmonids Overview The stocking of New Jersey waters with trout spans well across an entire century. The stocking program, fish culture technology and attitudes have changed considerably during this time frame. Initially viewed as only serving the wealthy, the stocking of trout was not supported by the New Jersey Fish and Game Commission. The first stocking of brook trout by the Commission in 1879 was only in response to a severe drought and was intended to replenish native populations which were believed to be decimated. The idea caught on however and more focused efforts were made for expanding recreational opportunities across the state. The first stocking records date back to 1879. The mode of transport was by train, using milk cans. Upon arrival trout were transferred to wagons which transported the fish to streams. Fish were initially purchased under contract from private hatcheries. In 1912, the State began construction of its own hatchery in Hackettstown and began producing fingerlings. Production of catchable size brook, brown and rainbow trout began in 1914. By 1932, the Hackettstown hatchery was raising over 500,000 trout for distribution across the state. The transport of fish was now done by truck but milk cans still served as holding areas. In the years that followed disease outbreaks among the hatchery stock due to the intensive culture increased, as did the demand for other warmwater species. In 1980, the construction of the Pequest Trout Hatchery began and the production of all trout, with the exception of lake trout, was transferred there when the facility opened in 1983.
    [Show full text]