DOCSLIB.ORG

Feasibility Study Report Addendum Gowanus Canal Brooklyn, New York

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Feasibility Study Report Addendum Gowanus Canal Brooklyn, New York Feasibility Study Report Addendum Gowanus Canal Brooklyn, New York Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 2 December 2012 Prepared under contract AES10 Task Order 072-RI-FS-02ZP Prepared by Architect and Engineering Services Contract Contract No. 68-S7-04-01 Feasibility Study Report Addendum Contents Forward Impact of Combined Sewer Overflows on Gowanus Canal Sediments Supplemental Evaluation of Remediation Goals Preliminary Estimate of Solids Reductions Needed to Achieve Remediation Goals Technologies for Combined Sewer Overflows Controls CSO Storage Tanks Draft Cost Estimate Excavation of Filled First Street Turning Basin Supplemental Evaluation of Upland Sites Revised cost estimate for Preferred Remedial Alternatives December 2011 Feasibility Study Report Errata i Forward This document provides several additional evaluations in support of the Feasibility Study (FS) Report for the Gowanus Canal site prepared in December 2011. These evaluations were prepared to clarify the analyses presented in the FS report. Eight evaluations were completed focusing on refining the remedial goals and upland controls needed to prevent recontamination of the canal. 1 Impact of Combined Sewer Overflows on Gowanus Canal Sediments Gowanus Canal, Brooklyn, New York Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 2 Prepared under contract Prepared by AES10 Task Order 072-RI-FS-02ZP Architect and Engineering Services Contract Contract No. 68-S7-04-01 Impact of Combined Sewer Overflows on Gowanus Canal Sediments Contents 1. Introduction 2. Background 3. Combined Sewer Overflow Impacts 4. Summary 5. References Attachments Figures i SECTION 1 Introduction Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) to the Gowanus Canal adversely affect sediment quality and are contributing to unacceptable risks that must be addressed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). The New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) is currently making sewer infrastructure and flushing tunnel repairs and upgrades which will partially reduce CSOs and will improve canal water circulation to address Clean Water Act requirements. However, additional CSO control measures will be necessary pursuant to CERCLA to prevent hazardous substance recontamination of the canal after the canal sediments are remediated. This memorandum presents multiple lines of evidence related to CSO impacts on surface sediments in the canal. The Remedial Investigation (RI) and Feasibility Study (FS) for the Gowanus Canal were completed in 2011 (USEPA, 2011a and 2011b). This memorandum is an addendum to the FS report. 1 SECTION 2 Background CSO and stormwater discharges are the only fresh surface water inflows to the Gowanus Canal. Combined sewers (i.e., sewers that receive both sewage and stormwater flows) serve 92 percent of the Gowanus Canal watershed, storm sewers serve 2 percent, and direct runoff drains 6 percent of the watershed (NYCDEP, 2008). In a modeling analysis performed to support the City-wide Long Term CSO Control Planning Project, NYCDEP concluded that direct overland runoff was insignificant in terms of magnitude and impact when compared to combined sewer and stormwater discharges, and nonpoint source loads were not included in their receiving water model (NYCDEP, 2007). Ten CSO and three stormwater outfalls discharge approximately 355 million gallons of sewage and stormwater annually to the Gowanus Canal project area (Figure 1). Four outfalls contribute 95 percent of the annual discharge volume to the canal: RH-034 (upper reach), RH-035 and OH-007 (middle reach), and RH-031 (lower reach)1. The single largest contribution comes from RH-034 at the head of the canal. Collection system modeling performed by NYCDEP for the development of the Waterbody/Watershed (WB/WS) Facility Plan estimates that the current annual loading of total suspended solids (TSS) to the canal is approximately 259,000 lbs (222,000 lbs from CSOs and 37,000 lbs from stormwater discharges) (NYCDEP, 2007). NYCDEP describes the deposition and accumulation of CSO solids in the canal as follows (NYCDEP, 2008): “Gowanus Canal’s limited capacity for exchange produces a stilling effect that allows suspended solid materials to settle to the bottom of the waterbody. Heavier solids and organic material discharged during wet weather from CSOs and stormwater have created a sediment mound near the head of the Canal. This mound becomes exposed at some points during low tide, when noxious odors are released from the anaerobic decay of the highly organic material. Similarly, lighter materials discharged during wet- weather or imported from the waters beyond the canal have settled throughout the Canal. These settled materials build up over time and need to be removed via periodic dredging to maintain navigable depths throughout the Canal.” and “Historical discharges by CSOs and stormwater have impacted almost the entire Canal bottom, which can be described as ‘black mayonnaise’ – a dark, black material containing large amounts of organic matter and a low percentage of solids. This is most predominately observed upstream of Hamilton Avenue.” 1 The upper reach of the canal extends from the head to 3rd Street, the middle reach extends from 3rd Street to the Gowanus Expressway, and the lower reach extends from the Gowanus Expressway to 22nd Street, the south end of the study area. 2 Figure 2 shows a CSO discharge from RH-034 at the head of the canal and a portion of the exposed sediment mound. Solids from CSO discharges appear to be transported down the canal and deposited as the energy from the CSOs dissipates with increasing distance from the head of the canal. Currents from the flushing tunnel, when operating, may also facilitate transport. Figure 3 shows the major sources of surface water and solids to the canal. In addition to CSOs, the other major source of solids to the Gowanus Canal is suspended sediment from Upper New York Bay transported into the canal through the flushing tunnel (when operating), and tidal advection-dispersion through Gowanus Bay at the south end of the project area. A portion of the suspended sediment in these inflows settles in the canal as the current velocities decrease to slack tide. The mass of solids delivered to the canal by each source was not quantified in the RI/FS. As discussed below in additional detail, multiple lines of evidence confirm that CSO solids contributions dominate the canal’s upper reach. The water quality model developed by NYCDEP for the WB/WS Plan included modeling of TSS, which was separated into outfall and background (i.e., Upper New York Bay) components to distinguish between the heavier, more-settleable solids discharged from sewers and the lighter, less-settleable solids suspended in receiving waters (NYCDEP, 2007). The results were used to quantify sedimentation in the canal under baseline and anticipated future conditions2, although the relative contributions of outfall and background sources were not reported. 2 Baseline conditions approximately represent current conditions with no flushing tunnel operations, and anticipated future conditions represent conditions after the Waterbody/Watershed Facility Plan is implemented. The baseline condition assumes estimated future sanitary flow for the year 2045, past wastewater treatment and pumping capacities, and sedimentation levels in sewers associated with reasonable maintenance. 3 SECTION 3 Combined Sewer Overflow Impacts CSO impacts are most apparent in the upper reach of the canal because most of the outfalls are located within or near this reach. CSO solids discharged to the canal are subjected to a variety of physical, chemical and biological processes (e.g. advection, dispersion, chemical partitioning) before being incorporated into the sediment bed, resulting in some attenuation. However, physical and chemical characteristics of the newly deposited sediments indicate that CSO solids have a greater influence on the quality of shallow sediments in the upper reach of the canal than incoming suspended sediments from Upper New York Bay, and the results of the baseline ecological risk assessment performed for the RI showed adverse impacts to the benthic community in the canal relative to reference area locations in Gowanus Bay and Upper New York Bay. The lines of evidence presented below describe the impacts of CSOs on shallow sediments in the upper reach of the canal. 3.1 Sediment Accumulation Patterns Figure 3 shows bathymetric differences (changes in the sediment surface elevation) in the Gowanus Canal between 2003 and 2010, as reported in the RI (USEPA, 2011a). The uncertainty associated with the comparison was determined to be +/-0.6 ft. The confidence in the estimates is greatest in the upper reach of the canal because of greater data density. Figure 4 shows the difference in the upper reach of the canal in more detail. Over this 7-year period, elevation differences were minor upstream of Sackett Street (approximately 500 feet downstream of the head of the canal), except for a small area of sediment accumulation near the flushing tunnel outlet. Additional accumulation in this area is limited by the shallow depth (i.e., sediment mound) and presumed equilibrium between deposition and scour by CSOs and possibly flushing tunnel currents. The accumulation near the flushing tunnel outlet may be due to infilling after the 1999 dredging event. Between 2003 and 2010, approximately 2 to 3 feet of sediment accumulated between Sackett Street and Carroll Street (approximately 1,400 feet downstream of the head of the canal), and 1 to 2 feet accumulated between Carroll Street and 3rd Street (approximately 2,200 feet from the head of the canal). These results are consistent with bathymetric differences in different surveys performed by National Grid in 2005 and 2010.3 The bathymetric differences between Sackett Street and 3rd Street translate to net sediment accumulation rates on the order of 1.5 to 5 in/year between 2003 and 2010. 3 Bathymetric differences from 2003‐2010 (USEPA) and 2005‐2010 (National Grid) surveys were also consistent in the middle and lower reaches of the canal. The USEPA and National Grid surveys were performed by different surveyors.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NYC Park Crime Stats
    1st QTRPARK CRIME REPORT SEVEN MAJOR COMPLAINTS Report covering the period Between Jan 1, 2018 and Mar 31, 2018 GRAND LARCENY OF PARK BOROUGH SIZE (ACRES) CATEGORY Murder RAPE ROBBERY FELONY ASSAULT BURGLARY GRAND LARCENY TOTAL MOTOR VEHICLE PELHAM BAY PARK BRONX 2771.75 ONE ACRE OR LARGER 0 00000 00 VAN CORTLANDT PARK BRONX 1146.43 ONE ACRE OR LARGER 0 01000 01 ROCKAWAY BEACH AND BOARDWALK QUEENS 1072.56 ONE ACRE OR LARGER 0 00001 01 FRESHKILLS PARK STATEN ISLAND 913.32 ONE ACRE OR LARGER 0 00000 00 FLUSHING MEADOWS CORONA PARK QUEENS 897.69 ONE ACRE OR LARGER 0 01002 03 LATOURETTE PARK & GOLF COURSE STATEN ISLAND 843.97 ONE ACRE OR LARGER 0 00000 00 MARINE PARK BROOKLYN 798.00 ONE ACRE OR LARGER 0 00000 00 BELT PARKWAY/SHORE PARKWAY BROOKLYN/QUEENS 760.43 ONE ACRE OR LARGER 0 00000 00 BRONX PARK BRONX 718.37 ONE ACRE OR LARGER 0 01000 01 FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT BOARDWALK AND BEACH STATEN ISLAND 644.35 ONE ACRE OR LARGER 0 00001 01 ALLEY POND PARK QUEENS 635.51 ONE ACRE OR LARGER 0 00000 00 PROSPECT PARK BROOKLYN 526.25 ONE ACRE OR LARGER 0 04000 04 FOREST PARK QUEENS 506.86 ONE ACRE OR LARGER 0 00000 00 GRAND CENTRAL PARKWAY QUEENS 460.16 ONE ACRE OR LARGER 0 00000 00 FERRY POINT PARK BRONX 413.80 ONE ACRE OR LARGER 0 00000 00 CONEY ISLAND BEACH & BOARDWALK BROOKLYN 399.20 ONE ACRE OR LARGER 0 00001 01 CUNNINGHAM PARK QUEENS 358.00 ONE ACRE OR LARGER 0 00001 01 RICHMOND PARKWAY STATEN ISLAND 350.98 ONE ACRE OR LARGER 0 00000 00 CROSS ISLAND PARKWAY QUEENS 326.90 ONE ACRE OR LARGER 0 00000 00 GREAT KILLS PARK STATEN ISLAND 315.09 ONE ACRE
    [Show full text]
  • Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program, 2018
    REPORTS OF THE TIBOR T. POLGAR FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM, 2018 Sarah H. Fernald, David J. Yozzo, and Helena Andreyko Editors A Joint Program of The Hudson River Foundation and The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation December 2020 i ii ABSTRACT Eight studies completed within the Hudson River Estuary under the auspices of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program during 2018 have been included in the current volume. Major objectives of these studies included: (1) determining the effects of light, nutrients, and temperature on cyanobacterial blooms, (2) quantifying the differences in microplastic concentrations among marsh, tributary, and open water locations in the Hudson River watershed, (3) determining the effect of microplastic size and shape on the uptake ability of the Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginia), (4) evaluating the effect of salinity on gametogenesis in Eastern Oysters in the Hudson River, (5) determining the effect of the redox environment on anaerobic biodegradability of personal care products by native microorganisms in anoxic estuarine sediments, (6) comparing Vallisneria americana reproduction modes between sites in the Hudson River and Chesapeake Bay, (7) characterizing habitat use of tidal wetlands by the painted turtle (Chrysemys picta), and (8) using core sample analysis to determine the environmental history of Ramshorn- Livingston Marsh. iii iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ............................................................................................................... iii Preface ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • What Is the Natural Areas Initiative?
    NaturalNatural AAreasreas InitiativeInitiative What are Natural Areas? With over 8 million people and 1.8 million cars in monarch butterflies. They reside in New York City’s residence, New York City is the ultimate urban environ- 12,000 acres of natural areas that include estuaries, ment. But the city is alive with life of all kinds, including forests, ponds, and other habitats. hundreds of species of flora and fauna, and not just in Despite human-made alterations, natural areas are spaces window boxes and pet stores. The city’s five boroughs pro- that retain some degree of wild nature, native ecosystems vide habitat to over 350 species of birds and 170 species and ecosystem processes.1 While providing habitat for native of fish, not to mention countless other plants and animals, plants and animals, natural areas afford a glimpse into the including seabeach amaranth, persimmons, horseshoe city’s past, some providing us with a window to what the crabs, red-tailed hawks, painted turtles, and land looked like before the built environment existed. What is the Natural Areas Initiative? The Natural Areas Initiative (NAI) works towards the (NY4P), the NAI promotes cooperation among non- protection and effective management of New York City’s profit groups, communities, and government agencies natural areas. A joint program of New York City to protect natural areas and raise public awareness about Audubon (NYC Audubon) and New Yorkers for Parks the values of these open spaces. Why are Natural Areas important? In the five boroughs, natural areas serve as important Additionally, according to the City Department of ecosystems, supporting a rich variety of plants and Health, NYC children are almost three times as likely to wildlife.
    [Show full text]
  • SPDES Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) Facilities
    SPDES Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) Facilities Status DEC Region NPDES ID Terminated 8 NYR00B679 Terminated 4 NYR00E979 Terminated 4 NYR00E094 Terminated 3 NYR00F907 Terminated 4 NYR00F128 Terminated 3 NYR00F294 Active 4 NYR00F440 Terminated 5 NYR00E193 Active 8 NYR00F759 No Exposure 1 NYR00G254 No Exposure 2 NYR00F729 Active 4 NYR00B055 Active 4 NYR00B054 No Exposure 8 NYR00G118 Active 3 NYR00B923 No Exposure 3 NYR00E656 Terminated 2 NYR00D894 No Exposure 1 NYR00F797 Active 3 NYR00B036 Page 1 of 1078 09/28/2021 SPDES Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) Facilities Name of Facility Location of Facility J A YANSICK LUMBER CO STATE RTE 70 LOCHVUE SPRING AVE EXT MAIN BROTHERS OIL CO INC - ROXBURY TERMINAL 25 LOCUST ST MONDELEZ GLOBAL LLC - NEWBURGH 800 CORPORATE BLVD TRAVIS 8412 STATE HWY 7 WASSAIC PIT BOX 221A P&M BRICK LLC MARINE TERMINAL 2170 RIVER RD CLINTON QUARRY LOST NATION RD ELMIRA ROAD MATERIALSLLC 1 COUNTY ROUTE 77A AEROFLEX PLAINVIEW 35 S. SERVICE RD. PRATT INSTITUTE MANHATTAN CAMPUS OPERATIONS 142-144 W 14TH ST WEST SAND LAKE PIT 3600 STATE RTE 43 HEMSTREET PARK BANK 3040 RIVER ROAD LOVE BEETS 1150 LEE RDSECT A FIRST STUDENT INC #12370 32 FITCHETT WAY UNITED STATES MINT NYS RTE 218 SWING STAGING INCORPORATED 55-51 43RD ST L-3 NARDA-ATM 49 RIDER AVE JOSEPH Y. RESNICK AIRPORT 199 AIRPORT ROAD Page 2 of 1078 09/28/2021 SPDES Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) Facilities City of Facility Zip of Facility County Name Sector Code HUNT 14846 Livingston POESTENKILL 12140 Rensselaer ROXBURY 12474 Delaware NEWBURGH 12550 Orange MARYLAND
    [Show full text]
  • New York City Department of Transportation
    INNOVATIONS & ACCOMPLISHMENTS East River Bridges A $3.14 billion reconstruction program is underway to rehabilitate all four East River crossings. In 2005, these bridges carried some 498,213 vehicles per day. In 2002, working in coordination with the NYPD and other law enforcement agencies, the Division implemented enhanced security measures on these bridges. This work is ongoing. BROOKLYN BRIDGE The Brooklyn Bridge carried some 132,210 vehicles per day in 2005. The $547 million reconstruction commenced in 1980 with Contract #1, and will continue with Contract #6, currently in the design phase and scheduled for completion in 2013. This contract will include the rehabilitation of both approaches and ramps, the painting of the entire suspension bridge, as well as the seismic retrofitting of the structural elements that are within the Contract #6 project limits. Engineering Landmark Plaque. (Credit: Russell Holcomb) 1899 Plaque Near the Franklin Truss of the Bridge, Marking the Site of George Washington’s First Presidential Mansion, Franklin House. (Credit: Hany Soliman) Historic Landmark, 1954 Reconstruction, and Two Cities Plaques. (1954 & Cities Credit: Michele N. Vulcan) 44 2006 BRIDGES AND TUNNELS ANNUAL CONDITION REPORT INNOVATIONS & ACCOMPLISHMENTS The fitting of the remaining bridge elements requiring seismic retrofitting will be carried out under a separate contract by the end of 2013. Work completed on the bridge to date includes reconditioning of the main cables, replacement of the suspenders and cable stays, rehabilitation of the stiffening trusses, and the replacement of the suspended spans deck. The next work scheduled for the bridge is a project to replace the existing travelers with a state of the art technology system.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoration of Natural Resources Through the Jamaica Bay Damages Account
    New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources Restoration of Natural Resources through the Jamaica Bay Damages Account 2007 Update January 2007 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Eliot Spitzer, Governor Denise M. Sheehan, Commissioner Executive Summary The purpose of the 2007 Update is to provide a current review of the 82 tidal wetland acquisition and restoration project proposals presented in the ‘Reconnaissance Phase Report’ (1994) and ‘Response to Public Comment from the Reconnaisance Phase Report and Decisions on Project Prioritization for the Planning Phase’ (1997); the 2007 Update also presents several new projects of growing importance in the region that are deemed eligible for Jamaica Bay Damages Account (JBDA) funding. Of the 82 original proposals, three were accomplished using JBDA as the sole funding source; six were fully or partly completed using JBDA money and funds from cost-sharing partners; 14 have been fully or partly completed using other (non-JBDA) funding sources; six proposed projects are no longer available and 53 proposals have not changed in status. In addition, five new projects have been added to the list. The 2007 Update contains the following sections: Section 1: Discussion of completed, on-going, and future projects that have received JBDA funding. The means for selecting and funding projects are also discussed. Section 2: Table 1 ‘Summary of Project Proposals - Updated 2007’ is an updated version of the table issued in the original documents cited above. Section 3: Maps showing project locations: Figure 1. JBDA proposal sites in eastern Jamaica Bay Figure 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Brooklyn Bus Map
    Brooklyn Bus Map To E 5757 StSt 7 7 Q M R C E BM Queensboro N W Northern Blvd Q Q 100 Plaza 23 St 23 St R W 5 5 AV 1 28 St 6 E 34 ST 103 69 Q WEST ST 66 33 St Court Sq 7 7 Q 37 AV Q18 to 444 DR 9 M CHELSEA F M 4 D 3 E E M Queens Astoria R Plaza Q104 to BROADWAY 23 St QUEENS MIDTOWN7 Court Sq - Q 65 St HIGH LINE W 14 S 23 ST 23 St R 7 46 AV 39 AV Astoria 18 M R 37 AV 1 X 6 Q FEDERAL 36 ELEVATED T 32 62 Q Jackson Hts Downtown Brooklyn LIC / Queens Plaza AV 47 AV D Q Downtown Brooklyn BUILDING 67 LIC / Queens Plaza 27 1 T Q PARK 18 St MADISON28 AVSt 32 ST Roosevelt Av 14 St A C E TUNNEL G Court Sq 58 ST 70 R W 67 212 ST 102 E ST 44 Q70 SBS L 8 Av X 28 S Q 6 S E F 38 T 4 TILLARY ST E 34 St / HUNTERSHUNTER BLV21 StSt G SKILLMAN AV SBS 103 AV 28 23 St VERNON to LaGuardia BACABAC F 14 St LEXINGTON AV T THOMSO 0 48 T O 6 Q Q M R ED KOCH Midtown 9 ST Q CADMAN PLAZA F M VernonVe Blvdlvd - 5 ST T 37 S WOODSIDE 1 2 3 14 St 3 LIRRRR 53 70 POINT JaJ cksonckson AvAv SUNNYSIDE S 104 ROTUNDA Q East River Ferry N AV 40 ST Q 2 ST EIGHTH AV 6 JACKSONAV QUEENS BLVD 43 AV NRY S 40 AV Q 3 23 St 4 WOODSIDEOD E TILLARY ST L 7 7 LIRR YARD SBS SBS 32 GALLERY 26 H N 66 23 Hunters Point South / 46 St T AV HE 52 41 QUEENSBORO 9 UNION E 23 ST M 7 L R 6 BROADWAY BRIDGEB U 6 Av HUNTERSPOINT AV 7 33 St- Bliss St E 7 Q32 E Long Island City A 7 7 69 St to 7 PIERREPONT ST W Q SQUARE Rawson St WOOD 69 ST 62 57 D WATERSIDE 49 AV T ROOSEV 61 St - Jackson G Q Q T 74 St- LONG East River Ferry T LIRR 100 PARK S ST 7 T Woodside Bway PARK AV S S 7 40 St S Heights 103 1 38 26 PLAZA
    [Show full text]
  • Atlantic Ocean Jamaica
    5 95 BRONX 87 9A QUEENS La Guardia 280 Airport 678 295 495 HUDSON RIVER C ro s s Is la MANHATTAN QUEENS n d P a r New Jersey k 495 w WATER POLLUTION Parkway a y 278 78 NEWARK CONTROL PLANT JERSEY son 78 bin CITY Ro ie ck New York Ja ay Newark Brookville w International 678 rk a Airport P Park e Spring t a t S S Cross 27 Creek n ELIZABETH UPPER 27 Bay h e H d r Park BAY Blvd e a a G l Goethals Bridge Preserve l Flatbush You Are Here w BROOKLYN b Ave B a t Verrazano- e Narrows r e ik JAMAICA n p Bridge WATER POLLUTION e 278 r n r BAY k u e g T CONTROL PLANT STATEN ISLAND UNIT e y B e R Parkwa B s i elt y c B n r LOWER BAY a e h J a m d Beach Channel O s o r Rockaway w s n a Drive i e v d e l i N l n B u d n P o Gateway Howard a B a r STATEN k M w Idlewild 95 Greenway s a ISLAND y Beach i Breezy i l n UNIT Point Tip Park l Outerbridge Hamilton Crossing n C yla PERTH H Fountain r Beach AMBOY e Frank M. Fresh Creek Avenue e Charles Park Enlarged area k Spring Park Restoration Park RARITAN BAY Creek Preserve H Area GATEWAY NATIONAL RECREATION AREA BOUNDARY ATLANTIC OCEAN e JFK International Airport Fr n (former landfill) SANDY e d s r HOOK h i Congressman UNIT x 36 Gateway National Joseph P.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategies for Managing NYC's Streams
    Strategies for Managing NYC’s Streams City of New York Parks & Recreation Forestry, Horticulture, and Natural Resources Bill de Blasio, Mayor Mitchell J. Silver, Commissioner Rattlesnake Creek, Seton Falls Park, Bronx EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND regulations beginning in the 1970s resulted in significant improvements in water quality, and NYC’s Historically, nearly 250 miles of streams flowed through remaining streams, together with the City’s forests, New York City (NYC)’s wetlands and forests to the provide critical ecosystem services to both communities estuary that had been stewarded by the Lenape, surrounding them and the fish and wildlife they support. Rockaway, and Canarsie tribes for centuries. These Streams transport sediment and nutrients throughout streams supported diverse cold-water fisheries and the landscape, providing habitat and food for birds, fish, provided habitat, food, and clean water for fish, wildlife, eel, salamanders, dragonflies, and other wildlife. and people. Manhattan, The Bronx, and Staten Island Streams also regulate air temperatures, absorb and contained most of NYC’s freshwater streams. Fewer convey floodwaters, and provide spaces for respite, were evident in Queens and Brooklyn, likely due to education, and recreation for the communities that porous sandy soils generated from the retreat of the surround them. last glaciers and the far inland reach of tidal streams through coastal marshes of Jamaica Bay and the Long OBJECTIVES Island Sound. This project inventories and characterizes the stream Beginning in the 1600s, European colonists began resources across NYC for the first time and assesses damming streams in NYC for mills, irrigation, and the condition of those streams on NYC Parks’ property.
    [Show full text]
  • Health Advice on Eating the Fish You Catch
    Long Island MAPS INSIDE Health Advice on Eating Fish You Catch New York City 1 Why We Have Advisories Fishing is fun and fish are an important part of a healthy diet. Fish contain high quality protein, essential nutrients, healthy fish oils, and are low in saturated fat. However, some fish contain chemicals at levels that may be harmful to health. To help people make healthier choices about which fish they eat, the New York State Department of Health issues advice about eating sportfish (fish you catch). The health advice about which fish to eat depends on: Where You Fish Health Risks Fish from waters that are close to human activities and contamination sources are more likely to be The primary chemicals of concern in New York City waters and Long Island marine waters contaminated than fish from remote marine waters. are PCBs, PFAS, dioxin, and cadmium. In Long Island freshwaters the primary chemical is In the New York City/Long Island (NYC/LI) area, chlordane and PFAS. These chemicals build up in your body over time. Health problems that fish from the Long Island Sound or the ocean are less may result from chemicals in fish range from small changes in health that are hard to detect contaminated. to birth defects and cancer. Visit www.health.ny.gov/fish/additional_information.htm for more information. Who You Are Women of childbearing age (under 50) and children under 15 are advised to limit the kinds of fish they eat Tips for Healthier Eating • Bacteria, viruses, or parasites can and how often they eat them.
    [Show full text]
  • Contact Your Outreach Coordinator
    CONTACT YOUR OUTREACH COORDINATOR WANT TO START CARING FOR YOUR LOCAL PARK? OUR TEAM OF OUTREACH COORDINATORS CAN HELP CONNECT YOU WITH THE APPROPRIATE PEOPLE AND RESOURCES TO TRANSFORM THESE SPACES. LOOK UP YOUR OUTREACH COORDINATOR AND LEARN HOW TO GET STARTED. BRONX LINDA (LEENDA) BONILLA COMMUNITY BOARDS 2, 7, 8, 9 718.430.1861 | [email protected] DISTRICT 2: HUNT’S POINT, LONGWOOD, HUNTS POINT DISTRICT 7: NORWOOD, UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS, JEROME PARK, BEDFORD PARK, FORDHAM, KINGSBRIDGE HEIGHTS DISTRICT 8: RIVERDALE, SPUYTEN DUYVIL, VAN CORTLANDT VILLAGE, KINGSBRIDGE, KINGSBRIDGE HEIGHTS, FIELDSTON, MARBLE HILL DISTRICT 9: BRONX RIVER, SOUNDVIEW, HARDING PARK, CASTLE HILL, PARKCHESTER, CLASSON POINT ISMAEL GUZMAN COMMUNITY BOARDS 3, 10, 11, 12 718.430.4667| [email protected] DISTRICT 3: CROTONA PARK, CLAREMONT VILLAGE, CON- COURSE VILLAGE, WOODSTOCK, MORRISANIA DISTRICT 10: CO-OP CITY, CITY ISLAND, SPENCER ESTATES, THROGS NECK, COUNTRY CLUB, ZEREGA, WESTCHESTER SQUARE, PELHAM BAY, SCHUYLERVILLE, EDGEWATER, LOCUST POINT, SILVER BEACH DISTRICT 11: MORRIS PARK, PELHAM PARKWAY, PELHAM GAR- DENS, ALLERTON, BRONXDALE, LACONIA,VAN NEST DISTRICT 12: EDENWALD, WAKEFIELD, WOODLAWN, FISH BAY, EASTCHESTER, OLINVILLE, BAYCHESTER VACANT COMMUNITY BOARDS1, 4, 5, 6 718.430.4667 | @PARKS.NYC.GOV DISTRICT 1: PORT MORRIS, MOTT HAVEN, THE HUB, MELROSE DISTRICT 4: CONCOURSE, HIGHBRIDGE, CONCOURSE VILLAGE, MOUNT EDEN DISTRICT 5: UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS, MOUNT HOPE, TREMONT, MORRIS HEIGHTS DISTRICT 6: BELMONT, EAST TREMONT, BRONX PARK SOUTH, WEST
    [Show full text]
  • Jamaica Bay Watershed Protection Plan Volume I – Regional Profile New York City Department of Environmental Protection Emily Lloyd, Commissioner October 1, 2007
    Jamaica Bay Watershed Protection Plan Volume I – Regional Profile New York City Department of Environmental Protection Emily Lloyd, Commissioner October 1, 2007 Volume 1: Jamaica Bay Watershed Protection Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEGEMENTS ...................................................................................................................iii Chapter 1 - Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 THE VALUE OF JAMAICA BAY .............................................................................................. 1 1.2 IS JAMAICA BAY LIKE CENTRAL PARK?........................................................................... 3 1.3 LOCAL LAW 71 AND INTRODUCTION 376 .......................................................................... 4 1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THIS PLAN ............................................................................................ 5 Chapter 2 - Jamaica Bay and Its Watershed: Landscape and Setting............................................. 7 2.1 JAMAICA BAY ............................................................................................................................. 7 2.2 HISTORICAL SETTING ............................................................................................................. 8 2.3 GEOGRAPHICAL SETTING.................................................................................................... 15 2.4 CLIMATOLOGICAL SETTING .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]