DOCSLIB.ORG

There Are No Long-Term Local Or Regional Economic Impacts Anticipated Due to These Relocations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
There Are No Long-Term Local Or Regional Economic Impacts Anticipated Due to These Relocations Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B There are no long-term local or regional economic impacts anticipated due to these relocations. NYSDOT Real Estate staff conducted a Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan to determine the availability of adequate replacement sites. The complete relocation plan can be found in Appendix H. Based on this analysis, sufficient available residential and commercial properties exist on the market to accommodate these relocations. There are no highway construction or other projects by any public or private agency scheduled that would affect the availability of replacement property. It is estimated that the relocations on this project can be accomplished within one year from the date of vesting. B.3. Environmental Consequences This section describes the impacts of each of the Build Alternatives on the natural environment, including water resources, wildlife habitat, parks, air quality, noise levels, cultural resources, and contaminated materials. B.3.a. Surface Waters/Wetlands This section discusses the inter-related topics of surface waters, wetlands, coastal zone resources, navigable waters, and floodplains. The descriptions of the No Build and Build Alternatives presented below are relevant to several of the environmental discussions that follow. No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative would make no physical or operational improvements to the Kosciuszko Bridge, but would continue NYSDOT’s existing maintenance program. There would be little change to existing conditions in the study area, and no fill or excavation would take place in Newtown Creek. Alternatives RA-5 and RA-6 During construction, up to six temporary pile-supported staging platforms would be constructed in Newtown Creek and remain in place until the end of the construction period. Newtown Creek would be dredged to provide adequate depth for barges serving the platforms. Based on the existing bathymetry, dredging is expected be to be required only on the Queens side of the Creek. The dredging would provide a minimum of 5.2 m (17 ft) below mean low water (MLW). This would require removal of approximately 2,750 cubic meters (3,597 cubic yards) of creek- bed sediments, over an area of 2,598 square meters (3,107 square yards). Deteriorated concrete bulkheads along the creek banks would be converted to riprap sideslopes in the area immediately below the proposed new structures. A new stormwater handling system would be installed. Stormwater from the south end of the project (from approximately Sutton Street to Van Dam Street in Brooklyn) would be conveyed to an existing storm sewer system. The remainder of the stormwater runoff would be conveyed to Newtown Creek after passing through stormwater management measures such as specially designed settling tanks designed to remove suspended solids and pollutants from the stormwater run off. New storm-sewer outfalls would be installed on each side of the creek. Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-35 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B Alternatives BR-2, BR-3, and BR-5 Similar to Alternatives RA-5 and RA-6, up to six temporary pile-supported staging platforms would be constructed in Newtown Creek and remain in place until the end of the construction period, and dredging in Newtown Creek would be required. Deteriorated concrete bulkheads along the creek banks would be converted to riprap sideslopes below the entire width of the proposed structures. The stormwater handling strategy would be similar to alternatives RA-5 and RA-6. In contrast to Alternatives RA-5 and RA-6, the existing concrete pier foundations would be demolished and removed. Figures IV-15, “Dredging and Temporary Platform Plan,” and IV-16, “Dredging and Temporary Platform Sections,” show the proposed temporary platforms and dredging, and Figure IV-17, “Proposed Riprap – Plan View,” shows the proposed riprap protection. SURFACE WATERS Surface waters are water bodies located aboveground such as a stream, river, lake, sea or ocean. Surface waters in the New York City region are not utilized for drinking water and are protected primarily for their habitat function. Figure IV-18, “Surface Waters,” identifies surface waters in the vicinity of the Kosciuszko Bridge. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344), also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, pertains to dredging or filling "waters of the United States." By authority of 33 CFR 320-330, USACE has jurisdiction over all "waters of the United States" and a Section 404 permit from the USACE is required to dredge or fill in those waters. State regulation of surface waters is enabled by Title 6 of the New York State Code of Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) Part 703, which sets quality standards for New York State surface waters. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between NYSDOT and NYSDEC regarding Articles 15 and 24 of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) was signed February 12, 1997. That MOU authorized NYSDOT to conduct certain activities affecting waterways (e.g., removing streambank vegetation, placing stone scour protection, channelization, excavating or filling navigable waterways) without an individual permit from NYSDEC, provided that NYSDOT coordinates with NYSDEC as prescribed in the MOU. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1341) pertains to protecting the quality of surface waters. Section 401 requires that an applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge into waters of the United States must obtain certification from the state agency charged with water pollution control. In New York, it is implemented at the state level by NYSDEC through the issuance of a Water Quality Certificate. METHODOLOGY Information regarding surface waters was obtained from a literature search and from city, state, and federal agencies and non-governmental organizations. Early coordination meetings were held with the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) on August 24, 2004, NYSDEC on April 20, 2005 and May 6, 2005, USACE and USCG on May 12, 2005 and USEPA on June 21, 2005. Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-36 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B Direct observations were made during site inspections on June 29, 2004 and April 20, 2005. EXISTING CONDITIONS The Kosciuszko Bridge crosses Newtown Creek approximately two miles east of where the creek enters the East River and New York Harbor as shown in Figure IV-18, “Surface Waters.” Newtown Creek is approximately 90 m (300 ft) wide at the bridge crossing. An estuarine tributary, Newtown Creek has been substantially modified over the years, with bulkheads along the entire length. Several ‘dead end’ tributaries flow into Newtown Creek: Dutch Kills and Whale Creek, approximately one mile to the west of the Kosciuszko Bridge, and Maspeth Creek and English Kills, to the east of the bridge. Newtown Creek has no freshwater sources. Land uses along Newtown Creek are predominately industrial, manufacturing, warehouse, transportation, and utility uses. Several large, vacant, former industrial parcels are located adjacent to the creek. The land uses in the project area are more fully described in Section II.C.1.c. SURFACE WATER IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Construction Period The No Build Alternative would not result in any short-term changes to the existing surface waters. Construction of the proposed project would disturb Newtown Creek sediment, since all of the Build Alternatives would require dredging of Newtown Creek for construction of temporary barge docking areas. Construction would also include conversion of deteriorated concrete bulkheads along the creek banks to riprap-lined sideslopes in the immediate vicinity of the bridge. Alternatives BR-2, BR-3 and BR-5 would all require demolition and removal of the existing pier foundations along the creek sides. Any ground disturbing activity adjacent to Newtown Creek, such as construction of new pier footings or regrading, has the potential to result in construction- phase erosion and consequently sedimentation in Newtown Creek resulting from stormwater runoff. Any in-water work (such as dredging, placement of riprap, and construction of the temporary platforms) has the potential to cause turbidity in the creek. Potential impacts to water quality and wildlife due to these activities are discussed in Sections IV.B.3.b and IV.B.3.c, respectively. Temporary impacts to Newtown Creek would include narrowing the navigable width of the creek due to the placement of the temporary platforms (refer to section III.C.2.q for navigational impacts). The relative potential impact of each alternative is summarized in Table IV-10. Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-37 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B TABLE IV-10: POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS TO SURFACE WATERS Relative Impact of Each Alternative No Build RA-5 RA-6 BR-2 BR-3 BR-5 Newtown Creek Sediments No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (Dredging Required) Replace Bulkheads with Riprap No Limited Limited Moderate Moderate Moderate [meters (feet)] 34 (112) 34 (112) 131(430) 131 (430) 131 (430) Removal of Existing Pier Footings No No No Yes Yes Yes from Creek -- -- -- 407 407 407 Area of Disturbance [m2 (ft2)] (4,379) (4,379) (4,379) Operation Period The No Build Alternative would not result in any long-term changes to the existing surface waters. For the Build Alternatives, permanent impacts to the surface waters would include changed creek-bed bathymetry (underwater topography), a modified creek bank configuration, and changed creekbed and creek bank surface materials. The creekbed bathymetry would be altered in three ways: dredging, reconfiguration, and placement of riprap. As shown in Figure IV-15, “Dredging and Temporary Platform Plan,” and Figure IV-16, “Dredging and Temporary Platform Sections,” each of the Build Alternatives alters the creekbed bathymetry on the Queens side of Newtown Creek by dredging approximately 2,750 cubic meters (3,597 cubic yards) of creek-bed material to accommodate construction barges.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Draft Scope for the Modification of the Catalum Spdes Permit
    DRAFT SCOPE FOR THE MODIFICATION OF THE CATALUM SPDES PERMIT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lead Agency: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Applicant: New York City Department of Environmental Protection April 2014 Draft Scope DRAFT SCOPE FOR THE MODIFICATION OF THE CATALUM SPDES PERMIT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................. 3 1.1 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION ................................................................................................ 4 1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 6 1.3 WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM OPERATION .............................................................................. 7 1.4 REGULATORY BACKGROUND ......................................................................................... 10 1.5 CATALUM SPDES PERMIT ............................................................................................. 13 1.6 THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................................................. 14 1.7 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION .......................................................... 29 1.8 LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL PERMITS AND APPROVALS .............................................. 30 1.9 PRIOR STUDIES .............................................................................................................. 30 2.0
    [Show full text]
  • Croton Water Treatment Plant Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary 1. Introduction, Background
    CROTON WATER TREATMENT PLANT DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND AND SITING ALTERNATIVES ............................. 1 1.1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 1.2. DESCRIPTION OF THE CROTON WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM .............................. 4 1.2.1. Existing Croton Water Supply Users...................................................................... 4 1.2.1.1. Upstate Users .................................................................................................. 4 1.2.1.2. New York City Users...................................................................................... 4 1.3. NEED FOR THE PROJECT .......................................................................................... 6 1.4. BACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT ......................................................................... 10 1.4.1. Consent Decree ..................................................................................................... 11 1.4.2. 1999 Croton Water Treatment Plant..................................................................... 12 1.4.3. Supplement to the Consent Decree....................................................................... 13 1.4.4. 2003 Croton WTP EIS.......................................................................................... 13 1.4.5. State Legislature’s Approval of Park Alienation.................................................. 13 1.5.
    [Show full text]
  • NYS OSP Appendix F
    e-Appendix F – ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC COMMENT e-Appendix F ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE 2014 DRAFT PLAN In 2013, DEC and OPRHP began the process of updating the 2009 Plan, asking the Regional Advisory Committees for recommendations. These suggestions and other public comments received since the publication of the 2009 Plan were evaluated, along with changes in the law, regulations and the Agencies' programs, to prepare a revised Plan. The Draft Plan was made available for public comment beginning on September 17, 2014 and ending on December 17, 2014. A statewide set of public hearings and workshops on the documents served to answer questions and receive comments. Public comments were received via the public hearings, mail, E-mail and through DEC's website established for the Open Space Conservation Plan (www.dec.ny.gov/lands/98720.html). A total of 462 people and organizations commented on the Draft Plan. A list of the commenters is included in e-Appendix G. The State open space conservation plan outlines a series of policy and program recommendations to enhance efforts that are on-going in New York State to advance Open space conservation at the state and local level with the many partners that are involved in this effort. Open space conservation provides multiple benefits: it helps sustain economically important sectors including agriculture, forestry, outdoor recreation and tourism; provides habitat for wildlife; protects water and air quality, ecosystems and endangered species; provides the basis for outdoor recreational activities, improves surrounding property values and community attractiveness, and in this era of rapid climate change, helps improve resilience to communities and private land owners.
    [Show full text]
  • Design Commission Meeting Agenda Monday, July 13, 2015
    Design Commission Meeting Agenda Monday, July 13, 2015 Public Meeting 12:20 p.m. Consent Items 25424: Installation of a prototypical newsstand, 1280 York Avenue, northeast corner of York Avenue and East 68th Street, Manhattan. (Preliminary and Final) (CC 5, CB 8) DCA/DOT 25425: Installation of a prototypical newsstand, 1441 Second Avenue, northwest corner of East 75th Street and Second Avenue, Manhattan. (Preliminary and Final) (CC 4, CB 8) DCA/DOT 25426: Installation of a prototypical newsstand, 58 Tenth Avenue, southeast corner of Tenth Avenue and West 15th Street, Manhattan. (Preliminary and Final) (CC 3, CB 4) DCA/DOT 25427: Installation of photovoltaic panels, Engine Company 331, 158-57 Cross Bay Boulevard, Queens. (Preliminary and Final) (CC 32, CB 10) DDC 25428: Installation of rooftop antennae, Public Safety Answering Center II (PSAC II), 1200 Waters Place, Bronx. (Preliminary and Final) (CC 13, CB 11) DDC/DoITT 25429: Installation of windows and mechanical equipment, 77th Precinct Annex, 653 Grand Avenue, Brooklyn. (Final) (CC 35, CB 8) DDC 25430: Installation of a garage door, Q7 Garage, 133-25 32nd Avenue, Queens. (Preliminary and Final) (CC 20, CB 7) DEP 25431: Reconstruction of the Borden Avenue Pump Station, including the construction of an aeration building addition, Dutch Kills and Newtown Creek, 28-45 Borden Avenue under the Long Island Expressway, Queens. (Preliminary and Final) (CC 26, CB 2) DEP 25432: Construction of a water quality monitoring station, 903 East 233rd Street, Bronx. (Final) (CC 12, CB 12) DEP 25433: Reconstruction of Gate Houses No. 2 and 3 and restoration of Gate House No.
    [Show full text]
  • Engineering Paradise the History of the Jerome Park Reservoir
    ENGINEERING PARADISE – THE HISTORY OF THE JEROME PARK RESERVOIR COMMUNITY The community that developed on the ridge around the Jerome Park Reservoir and Van Cortlandt Park should be thankful for the early pioneers who found a grand vision on the land we call home. Looking at an old map, one could only imagine what it looked like, how the landscaped developed, and other things for the interested mind. In what could only be describe as the growth of the conservationist environmentalist era, two men, John B. Jervis (1775-1885) and Frederick L. Olmstead (1822-1903), had a great influence on development in the country, state, and city. For our area, their foresight and talent had no bounds. But it took fifty years of planning and building. Surveying streets cut out of the same topography with curves instead of straight lines (1876). Building railroads to go north by the “country” (1880). Connecting parks for the enjoyment of the new settlers (1884), and by discovering that the land at Van Cortlandt Estate was much more beautiful and natural than Central Park (1888). When there was not enough water for the thirsty city, by adding the New Croton Aqueduct to the Old Croton Aqueduct system to enable growth (1890). By opening the first municipal golf course for recreation in Van Cortlandt Park (1895). Importantly, knowing to choose the site of the old Jerome Park Race Track as the site for a reservoir because it was on the high ridge, on an area with soft ground for ease in digging, and topographically configured to enable gravity to continue to bring water to a thirsty city (1906).
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix D New York City 2018 Drinking Water Supply and Quality Report
    AECOM NRG Astoria Replacement Project SPDES Permit Modification Appendix D New York City 2018 Drinking Water Supply and Quality Report 60609400 April 2020 New York City 2018 Drinking Water Supply and Quality Report Bill de Blasio Mayor Vincent Sapienza, P.E. Commissioner Tunneling through at Schoharie Reservoir OTSEGO RENSSELAER CHENANGO COUNTY SCHOHARIE COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY ALBANY Oneonta COUNTY Gilboa C D a Catskill/Delaware e t s la k w il a l r e Schoharie S Delhi h Watersheds a Reservoir n d a COLUMBIA k GREENE e COUNTY DELAWARE n COUNTY COUNTY Tu Hunter EW YORK n N s n le e i l M 5 Pepacton MASSACHUSETTS 12 iver Cannonsville Walton Reservoir R Reservoir Downsville Phoenicia Ashokan Esopus Reservoir Deposit Creek West Branch East Delaware T Delaware Kingston We st Delaware East Branch Delaware Tunnel unnel DUTCHESS COUNTY Hudson Neversink CUT Reservoir Rondout ULSTER Reservoir COUNTY Delaware Aqueduct Liberty Poughkeepsie Neversink CONNECTI Tunnel Delaware SULLIVAN s Ellenville e il COUNTY M 0 0 1 Croton C Croton a t PENNSYLVANIA s k Watershed i l l A q r u e v e River i R d Lake Boyds Corner k u Reservoir Gleneida s n le i c Middle i s t M r Branch e 5 v Reservoir 7 e PUTNAM lead Bog Brook N Lake i COUNTY G Reservoir ORANGE East Branch COUNTY Kirk Reservoir West Branch Lake g on Falls Divertin Reservoir Crot rvoir Reservoir Rese s ile Titicus M 0 Amawalk Reservoir 5 New Croton Reservoir Cross River Reservoir Reservoir Croton Water N H Muscoot NEW YORK CITY e Filtration Plant Hillview u w dson Reservoir Reservoir C WATER TUNNELS AND ro WESTCHESTER NY t City o Li NEW YORK COUNTY ne ROCKLAND n Jerome Park DISTRIBUTION AREAS Sound A Reservoir COUNTY NEW JER q R Island u CONNECTICUT i e g v n d e Hudson River Lo uc r SEY Cat/Del t Kensico New Croton Aqueduct BRONX UV Facility Reservoir all) y H Cit m fro White City Tunnel No.
    [Show full text]
  • Croton Watershed Catskill Watershed Delaware Watershed
    New York City’s Water Story: From Mountain Top to Tap SCHOHARIE COUNTY Schoharie Reservoir 1,130 FEET Delaware Watershed Gilboa Catskill Watershed Stamford The water we use today is the same water that fell as C rain when dinosaurs roamed a D t Prattsville Siuslaw s DELAWARE COUNTY West Branch Delaware e k l i the earth. In its endless a l Windham l w a W r cycle, water is the only e a t W e GREENE COUNTY rs Schoharie Creek substance that naturally a h te e r d Grand Gorge sh exists as a solid, e d liquid or gas. Delhi Lenox Roxbury East Branch Delaware Hunter Tannersville Andes Walton HUNTER MOUNTAIN Water’s journey from 4,040 FEET mountain top to tap begins Margaretville Shandaken Tunnel when rain and snow fall on COLUMBIA COUNTY watersheds, the areas Massachusetts of land that catch, absorb, Downsville Phoenicia and carry water downhill to gently and swiftly Deposit Pepacton Woodstock flowing streams. Cannonsville Reservoir Reservoir 1,150 FEET 1,280 FEET Esopus Creek SLIDE MOUNTAIN Boiceville West Delaware Tunnel East Delaware Tunnel 4,180 FEET Streams provide life-cycle Neversink Frost Valley needs for fish and other RIver aquatic organisms. Oxygen is Ashokan Rondout trapped in the fresh water as Creek Reservoir Claryville Olivebridge 590 FEET Kingston it tumbles over rocks into deep pools. Overhanging tree branches keep water r C e A v cool as fresh water T i Grahamsville S K R DUTCHESS COUNTY continues its journey. IL L n Neversink A Neversink Reservoir Tunnel Q o s 1,440 FEET U s E d Liberty Rondout Reservoir d Water is naturally filtered D u u U 840 FEET U C C H H T by the soil and tree roots in T dense forests as it travels toward reservoirs.
    [Show full text]
  • BOROUGH Bronx MAP ID# BX8 COUNCIL
    BOROUGH Bronx MAP ID# BX8 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 11, 14 COMMUNITY BOARD: 7, 8 NAME OF PLAN: Jerome Park Reservoir Plan Community Organization: Jerome Park Conservancy Address c/o Office of the President, Lehman College 250 Bedford Park Blvd. Bronx, NY 10468 Contact Name: Anne Marie Garti Phone Number: 718 884-7864 Fax Number 718 884-7864 Website www.lehman.cuny.edu/preservationreport/ TYPE OF PLAN Environmental Restoration Plan GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF PLAN The Jerome Park Reservoir is bounded on the north and west by Sedgwick Avenue, on the southwest by Reservoir Avenue, and on the east by Goulden Avenue. NEIGHBORHOOD/PLAN BACKGROUND The Jerome Park neighborhood is a thriving residential with a large, diverse population, and many culturally and historically significant landmarks. It is located in the Northwest corner of the Bronx. There are several major schools in the area including DeWitt Clinton High School, Bronx High School of Science, and Hunter College (now Lehman College), with 25,000 students attending school around the reservoir. The Kingsbridge Armory, another historic building, is also located near the reservoir. The Jerome Park area was originally designed by renowned landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted. A proposal in the mid-1990s by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to construct the Croton Water Treatment Plant on the Jerome Park Reservoir fueled renewed interest in revitalizing the area. Residents believed that the plant would have destroyed the environment, scenic value, and historical significance of the area, as well as jeopardized the health and quality of life of residents and students. GOALS OF PLAN The Jerome Park Conservancy was formed to preserve the beauty and heritage of Jerome Park Reservoir and its surrounding communities by the creation of a 125-acre park comprised of the water and the land around it.
    [Show full text]
  • Visiting Student Resource Guide
    Lehman College Visiting Student Guide PREPARED BY THE OFFICE FOR SPECIAL ACADEMIC SESSIONS ( 3 4 7 ) 5 7 7 - 4 0 2 2 Lehman College Fast Facts A senior liberal arts college in The City University of New York, founded in 1968 and offering 69 undergraduate majors and programs and 39 graduate degree programs. Located on a 37-acre campus in the northwest Bronx across from the Jerome Park Reservoir and centered along a major educational corridor with four neighboring public schools Average class size of 19 students Lehman College’s faculty includes seven Distinguished Professors, including Billy Collins, Poet Laureate of the United States (2001-2003) and New York State Poet Laureate (2004-2006), and composer John Corigliano, winner of both the Academy Award (2000) and the Pulitzer Prize for Music (2001) For FY 2008, Lehman was awarded $18.77 million from Federal and State agencies as well as private sources to support scholarly research and to provide special services to local K-12 schools, community organizations, and residents of the Bronx and the metropolitan area. As a result, Lehman ranked fourth in this area among the 14 CUNY senior colleges Campus Map Getting to Lehman –Via Public Transportation By Train IRT No. 4 or the IND "D" line to Bedford Park Boulevard. The campus is a three-minute walk to the west. For more Information about subway service to the Lehman campus, call the New York City Transit Authority at (718) 330-1234. Metro North's Harlem line has a local stop at the Botanical Gardens station. The campus is about 12 blocks due west on Bedford Park Boulevard.
    [Show full text]
  • Rent Levels Across
    MANHATTAN BRONX LABEL NAME The LABEL NAME 1 Bater y Park 13 Central Park West 1 North New York 2 Greenwich Village 14 Fifh Av enue Bronx 2 St Marys Park 3 Lower East Side 15 Yorkville 3 Highbridge 4 Hells Kitchen 16 Columbia University 4 Morrisania 5 Chelsea 17 Manhatanvi lle 5 Fordham Heights 6 Madison Square 18 Mount Morris Park Rent Levels Across NYC 6 Bronx Park 7 Stuyvesant Square 19 Jeffer son Park 7 Jerome Park Reservoir 8 De Wit Cl int on 20 Harlem Bridge based on the 1940 Census 8 Riverdale 9 Columbus Circle 21 City College 9 Hunts Point 10 Times Square 22 Harlem 10 Clason Point 1940 rents 11 Plaza 23 Washington Heights 11 Throgs Neck 12 Queensboro Bridge 24 Inwood adjusted for inflation: n a 12 Park Versailles t t 13 Union Port a h 14 Pelham Bay Park $150 in 1940 n 15 Westchester Heights a = $2,458 in 2012 M 16 Williamsbridge 17 Gun Hill Road 18 Baychester 19 Woodlawn 20 Edenwald $30 in 1940 = $492 in 2012 Queens BROOKLYN LABEL NAME QUEENS 1 Greenpoint 8 South Brooklyn 15 Kensington 22 Flatlands LABEL NAME 2 WIlliamsburg 9 Park Slope 16 Flatbush 23 Mill Basin 1 Astoria 3 English Kills 10 Eastern Parkway 17 Holy Cross 24 Canarsie 2 Long Island CIty 4 Brooklyn Heights 11 Brownsville 18 Bay Ridge 25 Spring Creek Basin 3 Sunnyside 4 Woodside Winfiel d 5 Fort Greene Park 12 Highland Park 19 Bensonhurst 26 Sea Gate 5 Jackson Heights 6 Stuyvesant 13 Sunset Park 20 Gravesend 27 Neck Road 6 Corona 7 Bushwick 14 Borough Park 21 South Greenfiel d 28 Coney Island 7 Maspeth Brooklyn 8 Elmhurst S Elmhurst 9 Ridgewood Glendale 10 Nassau Heights STATEN ISLAND 11 Forest Hills 12 Flushing South LABEL NAME 13 Flushing 1 Brighton 14 College Point 15 Whitestone 2 Stapleton 16 Bayside 3 Dongan Hills 17 Douglaston Litle Ne ck 4 Port Richmond 18 Woodhaven 19 Ozone Park 5 Mariner's Harbor 20 Richmond Hill 6 Travis 21 Jamaica 7 Great Kills Staten 22 South Jamaica Island 23 Hollis 8 Prince's Bay 24 Queens Village 9 Totenvi lle 25 Howard Beach 26 Springfiel d 27 St Albans 28 Laurelton Rosedale 29 South Laurelton 30 Neponsit 31 Hammels Visit www.1940snewyork.com for more information.
    [Show full text]
  • The Urban Audubon
    THEA QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER PUBLICATION OF NEW YORK OF NEWCITY YORKAUDUBON CITY AUDUBON SUMMER WINTER 20142020 // VOLUMEVOLUME XXXVXLI NO. NO. 2 4 THE URBAN AUDUBON Birding during the Pandemic: Member Reports Building a Bird-Friendly New York City Photo Essay: TK Birding The Battery Breeding Bird Atlas III Takes Off Chimney Swift Summer 2020 1 NYC AUDUBON MISSION & VISION NYC Audubon is a grassroots community that works for the protection of wild birds and habitat in the five boroughs, improving BIRD’S-EYE VIEW Kathryn Heintz the quality of life for all New Yorkers. NYC Audubon envisions a day when birds and people in the five boroughs enjoy a riends: In this summer Urban Audubon, our custom is to expound upon the joys of healthy, livable habitat. birding in New York City, just as spring draws to a close. And though this spring’s THE URBAN AUDUBON migration has provided some magical birding, sadly, many of us have had to forgo it in Editors Lauren Klingsberg, Marcia T. Fowle F person. Even those of us able to get outdoors are missing the joys of birding together. Managing Editor Tod Winston Publications Committee Seth Ausubel; The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted our world. It has altered the way we live and work. Lucienne Bloch; Ned Boyajian; Suzanne There is tragedy in our community. And yet, there is also hope. Many of our neighbors are discov- Charlé; Diane Darrow; Ivy Jo Gilbert; Catherine Schragis Heller; Mary Jane Kaplan; ering nature in our city’s parks and green spaces for the first time—and they are noticing birds.
    [Show full text]
  • A NEW LEAF Revitalizing New York City’S Aging Parks Infrastructure
    nycfuture.org JUNE 2018 A NEW LEAF Revitalizing New York City’s Aging Parks Infrastructure A New Leaf 1 A NEW LEAF is a publication of the Center for an Urban Future. Researched and written by John Surico. Edited by Eli Dvorkin and Jonathan Bowles. Additional research by Sheila TABLE OF CONTENTS Binesh, Myles Bonadie, Gail Hankin, Julia Hotz, Nicholas Hoynes, Leah Jacobson, Elsa Van Latum, Alexa Schatzmann, Naomi Sharp, Rania Siddique, Katherine Surko, Shiming INTRODUCTION 3 Xiong, and Luke Zangerle. Designed by Rob Chabebe. KEY FINDINGS This study was made possible by the Stavros Niarchos Foundation. INVISIBLE INFRASTRUCTURE 14 DRAINAGE SYSTEMS The Stavros Niarchos Foundation is one of the world’s leading private, international philanthropic organizations, making grants in the areas RETAINING WALLS of arts and culture, education, health and sports, and social welfare. Since 1996, the Foundation has committed more than $2.5 billion, WATERFRONT FACILITIES through more than 4,000 grants to nonprofit organizations in 124 nations around the world. PATHWAYS 18 The SNF funds organizations and projects, worldwide, that aim to BRIDGES achieve a broad, lasting and positive impact, for society at large, and STAIRS exhibit strong leadership and sound management. The Foundation also supports projects that facilitate the formation of public-private STREETS, SIDEWALKS, AND PATHS partnerships as an effective means for serving public welfare. BUILT FACILITIES 22 COMFORT STATIONS PLAYGROUNDS Center for an Urban Future (CUF) is a leading New York City– based think tank that generates smart and sustainable public LANDSCAPE 25 policies to reduce inequality, increase economic mobility, and HORTICULTURE grow the economy.
    [Show full text]