DOCSLIB.ORG

Response to Comments on the DEIS1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Response to Comments on the DEIS1 Chapter 24: Response to Comments on the DEIS1 24-1 INTRODUCTION This chapter summarizes and responds to comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project. The Federal Highway Administration, acting as federal lead agency, and the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) and New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA), acting as joint lead agencies signed the cover sheet of the DEIS on January 18, 2012, and the document was made publicly available. A notice of its availability was published in the Federal Register on January 27, 2012, which established the public comment period on the document. The public comment period was initially scheduled to conclude on March 15, 2012, but in response to public comments, FHWA, NYSDOT, and NYSTA extended the public comment period to March 30, 2012. Two public hearings were held during the public comment period. The first was on February 28, 2012 at the Palisades Mall in West Nyack, New York, and the second was on March 1, 2012 at the Westchester Marriott in Tarrytown, New York. A court reporter was on hand to accept oral comments on the DEIS at the hearings. Written comments (email and letters) were accepted throughout the public comment period. Written comments received after March 30, 2012 were also accepted. All substantive comments on the DEIS have been responded to in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Section 2 contains a summary of these relevant comments and a response to each. These summaries convey the substance of the comments made, but do not necessarily quote the comments verbatim. Comments are organized by subject matter and generally parallel the chapter structure of the DEIS. Where more than one commenter expressed similar views, those comments have been grouped and addressed together. Some commenters did not make specific comments related to the proposed approach or methodology for the impact assessments. Others suggested editorial changes. Where relevant and appropriate these edits, as well as other substantive changes to the DEIS, have been incorporated into this FEIS. Section 3 lists the public agencies, elected officials, organizations, and individuals that provided relevant comments on the DEIS. Volume III of this FEIS contains the written comments received on the DEIS, including transcripts of the public hearings. 1 This chapter is new to the FEIS. 24-1 Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project Environmental Impact Statement 24-2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS 24-2-1 CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED C 1-1: Several commenters stated that the project should consider mobility, congestion, and safety improvements along the 30-mile corridor of Interstate 87/287. The original project considered regional transportation needs within the I- 287 corridor to alleviate traffic congestion and improve safety between Port Chester and Suffern. If the original purpose of the project was to improve regional infrastructure, then it would follow that a plan that does not include mass transit, or alternatives to low-occupancy vehicles, would fall short of recognizing the future needs of the region. On October 12, 2011, both the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) rescinded the Notice of Intent for the Tappan Zee Bridge/I-287 Corridor Project and issued instead a Notice of Intent for the Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project. If the proposed action is now limited to maintaining the “link in the regional and national transportation network,” then it fails to consider the project’s original purposes–improved infrastructure, reduced congestion, and safety. While maintaining the Tappan Zee Bridge link across the Hudson River is surely of critical importance for regional transportation, the project must contemplate the need for smart growth and the environmental review must thoroughly analyze the project’s impacts on the entire I-287 Corridor and the region. R 1-1: Many planning studies have identified the replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge as a critical need for the Lower Hudson Valley. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project addresses this need based on the structural, operational and safety, security, and mobility deficiencies of the existing Tappan Zee Bridge. The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge is considered a high-priority project by the federal and state government and is being advanced at this time. The proposed replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge would not preclude other initiatives to enhance mobility along the Interstate 87/287 corridor should these projects be advanced independently at some point in the future. C 1-2: Several commenters expressed concern as to whether a new bridge is actually needed. R 1-2: As identified in the DEIS, the existing bridge does not meet current standards for its design or traffic operations. The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project would address the structural, operational, mobility, safety, and security limitations and deficiencies of the existing Tappan Zee Bridge. C 1-3: The health and beauty of the Hudson River are more important to me than cars. Leave it the way it is. We must enter a new era where growth is replaced with sustainability. 24-2 Chapter 24: Response to Comments on the DEIS R 1-3: The Tappan Zee Hudson River crossing is an important route for both passenger vehicles and freight. It is the only interstate highway crossing of the Hudson River for the 48-mile stretch between the George Washington Bridge (Interstate 95) and the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge (Interstate 84). It is a vital link between the population and employment centers of Rockland and Westchester Counties, is a major route for freight movement, and is an emergency evacuation route. The absence of a highway crossing at this location would extensive impacts on local, regional, and national mobility, economy, and security. C 1-4: The DEIS does not actually say how or why increased lane size will decrease accident rates. R 1-4: The American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) identifies 12 feet as its standard lane width for urban, interstate highways. At 12 feet or greater, drivers can best achieve interstate highway speed with safe buffer for passing vehicles and a comfortable distance for minor fluctuations in vehicle control. Standard lane widths are one of many considerations to improve safety of the Tappan Zee Hudson River crossing. C 1-5: The document should also reference recent and projected growth in Orange County. R 1-5: Future traffic volumes on the bridge are projected using the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) regional forecasts, which include the entire commuter shed of the Tappan Zee Bridge, including Orange County. The growth rates cited in Chapter 1, “Purpose and Need,” are illustrative of trends in the immediate vicinity of the Tappan Zee Bridge and are not intended to discount growth in other parts of the New York Metropolitan region. C 1-6: In section 1-5, one of the clearly defined "Deficiencies" of the existing bridge is "Mobility Deficiency." However, not one of the Goals or Objectives addresses mobility deficiencies. R 1-6: The mobility deficiencies of the existing bridge relate to its non-standard features with respect to traffic operations, and its difficulties in terms of safety and timely emergency response. The goals and objectives for the project address these deficiencies. Furthermore, the Replacement Bridge Alternative would include a shared-use path, which would improve trans- Hudson mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians. C 1-7: Population data used in the DEIS should be corrected to reflect that Rockland County has grown from 89,000 in 1950 to 311,000 in 2010 (not 299,000) and that the 2010 Westchester County population was 949,113 (not 962,000). It should also be noted that the 2010-2047 population and employment projections for Rockland County obtained from NYMTC are not consistent with projections commissioned by the County. Further, NYMTC has provided updated population and employment projections for 2040 based on the 2010 census. The EIS should reflect these updates. 24-3 Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project Environmental Impact Statement R 1-7: Project development for federally-sponsored transportation planning projects requires consistency with population and employment using forecasts by the local Metropolitan Planning Organization, NYMTC in this case. Therefore, NYMTC data are cited in the DEIS. The DEIS cites projections used for the modeling of traffic, which were based on socioeconomic data published prior to September 2011. The revised socioeconomic data released by NYMTC in September 2011 included projected 2040 population and employment figures that for Rockland and Westchester were roughly 1 to 5 percent higher than prior NYMTC estimates. From a transportation perspective, the full impact of these types of changes on travel patterns and volumes in the future analysis years would likely be very small given the size of these changes and the various factors that drive trip making. There are myriad factors that affect trip making beyond the number of residents or jobs. However, when considered cumulatively, a small change in these projections would have a limited effect on the 2017 and 2047 travel volumes and patterns predicted in the DEIS. C 1-8: Several commenters stated that the study area should be expanded, citing the following reasons: The bridge would be able to accommodate transit and therefore must consider the more widespread effects from future transit; Haverstraw Bay and the Piermont Marsh are identified as a “Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat,” which is in proximity to the study area. Impacts on local and migrating species must be assessed; There are roadway improvements that are needed in proximity to the study area to better address traffic conditions and safety. R 1-8: The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is examining alternatives to address the deficiencies of the existing Tappan Zee Bridge and is not a corridor study.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • S T a T E O F N E W Y O R K 3695--A 2009-2010
    S T A T E O F N E W Y O R K ________________________________________________________________________ 3695--A 2009-2010 Regular Sessions I N A S S E M B L Y January 28, 2009 ___________ Introduced by M. of A. ENGLEBRIGHT -- Multi-Sponsored by -- M. of A. KOON, McENENY -- read once and referred to the Committee on Tourism, Arts and Sports Development -- recommitted to the Committee on Tour- ism, Arts and Sports Development in accordance with Assembly Rule 3, sec. 2 -- committee discharged, bill amended, ordered reprinted as amended and recommitted to said committee AN ACT to amend the parks, recreation and historic preservation law, in relation to the protection and management of the state park system THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM- BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: 1 Section 1. Legislative findings and purpose. The legislature finds the 2 New York state parks, and natural and cultural lands under state manage- 3 ment which began with the Niagara Reservation in 1885 embrace unique, 4 superlative and significant resources. They constitute a major source of 5 pride, inspiration and enjoyment of the people of the state, and have 6 gained international recognition and acclaim. 7 Establishment of the State Council of Parks by the legislature in 1924 8 was an act that created the first unified state parks system in the 9 country. By this act and other means the legislature and the people of 10 the state have repeatedly expressed their desire that the natural and 11 cultural state park resources of the state be accorded the highest 12 degree of protection.
    [Show full text]
  • NY Rising Infrastructure Program POLICY and PROCEDURE MANUAL
    NY Rising Infrastructure Program POLICY AND PROCEDURE MANUAL Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor of New York State Jamie Rubin, Commissioner/CEO, New York State Homes and Community Renewal Lisa Bova-Hiatt, Executive Director, Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery November 2016 Version 2.1 Prepared by: Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery New York State Homes and Community Renewal Housing Trust Fund Corporation Office of Community Renewal The procedures stated in this manual are current as of November 2016. This manual represents the current version of the Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery’s (GOSR) procedure which shall provide general guidance for the operation of the GOSR Program. All policy and procedure manuals will be reviewed periodically and will be updated to reflect the current needs and operation of the GOSR Program. GOSR will use its best efforts to keep all of its Policy and Procedure Manuals, as well as its Human Resources Policy Manual current. There may be times, however, when a policy or procedure will change before the manual can be revised. Therefore, you are strongly urged to contact the GOSR COO and our office of Human Resources to ensure that you have the latest version of GOSR’s policies and procedures. This page is intentionally left blank November 2016 NY Rising Infrastructure Program Page 2 of 126 Policy and Procedure Manual Version 2.1 POLICY AND PROCEDURE MANUAL NY Rising Infrastructure Program Version Control Version Date Number Revised Description of Revisions Working Draft 2/17/2014 PA Match Program Initial Draft 1.0
    [Show full text]
  • Bacterial and Viral Source Tracking in the Pocantico and Sparkill Creek Watersheds
    NEW YORK STATE WATER RESOURCES INSTITUTE Department of Biological and Environmental Engineering 230 Riley-Robb Hall, Cornell University Tel: (607) 254-7163 Ithaca, NY 14853-5701 Fax: (607) 255-4449 http://wri.cals.cornell.edu Email: [email protected] Bacterial and Viral Source Tracking in the Pocantico and Sparkill Creek Watersheds Bernadette J. Connors, PhD Dominican College Science Department [email protected] Abstract In New York State, 792 waterbodies are on the “Impaired/TMDL” list, which identifies bodies of water that might require remediation. The Sparkill Creek, placed on the list first in 2010, empties into the Hudson River. It faces issues with stormwater runoff, causing elevated levels of pathogens in the creek and decreased oxygen availability. According to published data, the levels of the indicator bacteria are 24 times higher than EPA standards. The Pocantico River, located in Westchester County, faces many of these same issues. Both were tested for microbial and coliphage loads and diversity as related to weather events. Coliform and E. coli levels were measured, with a significant increase found with a rainfall event for both sampling locations. The coliphage numbers and diversity were also significantly different with a rain event. Microbial community analyses were also completed. Of note was increased prevalence of Enterobacter and Escherichia three miles from the mouth of the creek. Future studies include a more thorough analysis of the microbial community data in both time and space, along with further testing of the fungal, bacterial, and algal populations. Bacterial and Viral Source Tracking in the Pocantico and Sparkill Creek Watersheds Three Summary Points of Interest • Microbial community profiling yields a more comprehensive view of challenges faced by aquatic ecosystems.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendices Section
    APPENDIX 1. A Selection of Biodiversity Conservation Agencies & Programs A variety of state agencies and programs, in addition to the NY Natural Heritage Program, partner with OPRHP on biodiversity conservation and planning. This appendix also describes a variety of statewide and regional biodiversity conservation efforts that complement OPRHP’s work. NYS BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH INSTITUTE The New York State Biodiversity Research Institute is a state-chartered organization based in the New York State Museum who promotes the understanding and conservation of New York’s biological diversity. They administer a broad range of research, education, and information transfer programs, and oversee a competitive grants program for projects that further biodiversity stewardship and research. In 1996, the Biodiversity Research Institute approved funding for the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation to undertake an ambitious inventory of its lands for rare species, rare natural communities, and the state’s best examples of common communities. The majority of inventory in state parks occurred over a five-year period, beginning in 1998 and concluding in the spring of 2003. Funding was also approved for a sixth year, which included all newly acquired state parks and several state parks that required additional attention beyond the initial inventory. Telephone: (518) 486-4845 Website: www.nysm.nysed.gov/bri/ NYS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION The Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC) biodiversity conservation efforts are handled by a variety of offices with the department. Of particular note for this project are the NY Natural Heritage Program, Endangered Species Unit, and Nongame Unit (all of which are in the Division of Fish, Wildlife, & Marine Resources), and the Division of Lands & Forests.
    [Show full text]
  • Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan OCTOBER 1, 2019–OCTOBER 1, 2024
    Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan OCTOBER 1, 2019–OCTOBER 1, 2024 Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor | Basil Seggos, Commissioner Acknowledgments This plan was prepared by staff of the Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve, including Betsy Blair, Chris Bowser, Ann-Marie Caprioli, Brian DeGasperis, Sarah Fernald, Heather Gierloff, Emilie Hauser, Dan Miller, and Sarah Mount, with the assistance of Andy Burgher, Cathy Kittle, and Bill Rudge in the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; Ed McGowan of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation; and Nina Garfield and Ann Weaver of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office for Coastal Management. We appreciate input that has informed development of this plan provided by other colleagues, local leaders, county officials, environmental organizations, researchers, educators, and marsh managers. Suggested citation: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2019. Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan. Albany, NY. Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... iv Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 The Reserve .........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • How's the Water in the Catskill, Esopus and Rondout Creeks?
    How’s the Water in the Catskill, Esopus and Rondout Creeks? Cizen Science Fecal Contaminaon Study How’s the Water in the Catskill, Esopus and Rondout Creeks? Background & Problem Methods Results: 2012-2013 Potenal Polluon Sources © Riverkeeper 2014 © Riverkeeper 2014 Photo: Rob Friedman “SWIMMABILITY” FECAL PATHOGEN CONTAMINATION LOAD © Riverkeeper 2014 Government Pathogen Tesng © Riverkeeper 2014 Riverkeeper’s Fecal Contaminaon Study 2006 - Present Enterococcus (“Entero”) EPA-recommended fecal indicator Monthly sampling: May – Oct EPA Guideline for Primary Contact: Acceptable: 0-60 Entero per 100 mL Beach Advisory: >60 Entero per 100 mL © Riverkeeper 2014 Science Partners & Supporters Funders Science Partners • HSBC • Dr. Gregory O’Mullan Queens • Clinton Global Iniave College, City University of New • The Eppley Foundaon for York Research • Dr. Andrew Juhl, Lamont- • The Dextra Baldwin Doherty Earth Observatory, McGonagle Foundaon, Inc. Columbia University • The Hudson River Foundaon for Science and Environmental Research, Inc. • Hudson River Estuary Program, NYS DEC • New England Interstate Water Polluon Control Commission (2008-2013) © Riverkeeper 2014 Riverkeeper’s Cizen Science Program Goals 1. Fill a data gap 2. Raise awareness about fecal contaminaon in tributaries 3. Involve local residents in finding and eliminang Photo: John Gephards sources of contaminaon © Riverkeeper 2014 Riverkeeper’s Cizen Science Studies Tributaries sampled: • Catskill Creek • 45 river miles • 19 sites (many added in 2014) • Esopus Creek • 25 river miles
    [Show full text]
  • Eastern NY Excluding Long Island 2014
    DISCONTINUED SURFACE-WATER DISCHARGE OR STAGE-ONLY STATIONS The following continuous-record surface-water discharge or stage-only stations (gaging stations) in eastern New York excluding Long Island have been discontinued. Daily streamflow or stage records were collected and published for the period of record, expressed in water years, shown for each station. Those stations with an asterisk (*) before the station number are currently operated as crest-stage partial-record station and those with a double asterisk (**) after the station name had revisions published after the site was discontinued. [Letters after station name designate type of data collected: (d) discharge, (e) elevation, (g) gage height] Period of Station Drainage record Station name number area (mi2) (water years) HOUSATONIC RIVER BASIN Tenmile River near Wassaic, NY (d) 01199420 120 1959-61 Swamp River near Dover Plains, NY (d) 01199490 46.6 1961-68 Tenmile River at Dover Plains, NY (d) 01199500 189 1901-04 BLIND BROOK BASIN Blind Brook at Rye, NY (d) 01300000 8.86 1944-89 BEAVER SWAMP BROOK BASIN Beaver Swamp Brook at Mamaroneck, NY (d) 01300500 4.42 1944-89 MAMARONECK RIVER BASIN Mamaroneck River at Mamaroneck, NY (d) 01301000 23.1 1944-89 HUTCHINSON RIVER BASIN Hutchinson River at Pelham, NY (d) 01301500 6.04 1944-89 BRONX RIVER BASIN Bronx River at Bronxville, NY (d) 01302000 26.5 1944-89 HUDSON RIVER BASIN Opalescent River near Tahawus, NY (d) 01311900 9.02 1921-23 Arbutus Pond Outlet near Newcomb, NY (d) *01311992 1.22 1991-92 Cedar River near Indian Lake, NY (d)
    [Show full text]
  • Village of Piermont Flood Guide
    Know Your Risk and Stay Informed! Village of Piermont Know Your Zone: If you live close to the Sparkill Creek or the Flood Preparedness Guide for Residents and Businesses Hudson River, you may live in the flood zone and you should be pre- pared to secure your home and/or business and evacuate quickly. If One of the wonderful things about living in the Village of Piermont you’re not sure if you are at risk, check the map in this guide. Flood is being near the water. The Hudson River and Sparkill Creek are part of maps are also available through the Piermont Building Department what makes the Village such a special place. But, the river and the creek www.piermont-ny.gov/building-department or at the Piermont Vil- put some areas of the Village at risk of flooding. lage Hall at 478 Piermont Ave. Flooding is not just a problem for people who live near the water. Sign Up for CodeRed: Rockland County residents can sign up for All residents should be aware of risks and know how to find information CodeRed to receive notifications for emergency situations. and help when flooding occurs. Whether you live in the flood zone or not, Register at public.coderedweb.com or contact the Rockland County being prepared for an emergency is important. Keep this guide handy so Department of Fire & Emergency Services at (845) 638-5070. you know where to find help if you need it. New York Alert: You can sign up for the New York State notifica- tion system to receive phone calls or emails that will alert you to seri- Produced with ous or emergency situations.
    [Show full text]
  • Hudson River Studies with Guest Scientist Dr. Robin E. Bell
    Reconstructing the Storm and Industrial History of the Hudson River with Dr. Dallas Abbott 11 Feb 2017 The Hudson at the base of the Palisades on which LDEO is located is one of America’s most interesting waterways Few rivers match its beauty and history Autumn foliage, Alpine Kearney House, Alpine In the 19th Century, the “Hudson River School” was among America’s earliest art movements. “Hastings-on-Hudson” by Jasper Cropsey (1897.) http://www.byu.edu/moa/exhibits/Current%20Exhibits/150years/830025900.html “View from the Artist’s Home, Sunset” by Jasper Cropsey (1887). http://www.newingtoncropsey.com/index1.htm The river is named for Henry Hudson Hudson, an English explorer working for the Dutch East India Company, sailed up the river in the “Half Moon” in 1609 He was seeking the “Northwest Passage” around North America http://www.ulster.net/~hrmm/halfmoon/1609moon.htm Replica “Half Moon” In honor of the 400th anniversary of Hudson’s voyage, a full size replica of the “Half Moon” has returned to the river http://www.halfmoon. mus.ny.us/ August 2011 Up until development of modern highways in the 20th century, the Hudson was a major north-south transportation corridor. Dutch fur traders and settlers used the river between Ft. Orange (Albany) and New Amsterdam (NYC) Hundreds of thousands of people and tons of freight floated on the river to and from the Erie Canal’s eastern end, then on to the West. http://www.ulster.net/~hrmm/sail/age.html Even today, there is much barge traffic for cement, petroleum, and other goods.
    [Show full text]
  • July/August 2006
    RAILWALKER TNEW YORK/NEW JERSEY TRAIL CONFERENCE — MAINTAINING 1,669 MILES OF FOOT TRAILS JULY/AUGUST 2006 In this issue: Hikers + ATVers = Progress...pg 5 • Trail Gardeners Wanted...pg 5 • How to Lead a Hike...pg 9 • Cool Spot for a Hot Day...pg 10 LONG PATH REACHES 75YEARS&347MILES Seventy-five years ago, Vincent J. Schaefer, a 25-year-old cofounder and hike leader of the Mohawk Valley Hiking Club in upstate New York, had a big idea: an unblazed north-south walking route in ness paths, woods roads, and paved walks. New York linking downstate urban areas to It included urban, suburban, rural, and the Adirondack High Peaks. “In 1931, my wild areas. It crossed public lands and pri- Dad drew the route on topo maps,” recalls vate property. And it wasn’t long before it his son Jim. “His original idea was to start at was vulnerable to the forces that threaten it Bear Mountain and include high lands that today: development, traffic, and loss of more or less paralleled the Hudson River. He rights-of-way. included the Shawangunks, the Catskills, the The economic boom that followed the Helderbergs, and the eastern Adirondacks to end of World War II began to transform the top of Whiteface Mountain.” the New York landscape. Forests and farms Schaefer brought his idea to other hike became residential subdivisions; once quiet leaders, including Raymond Torrey, a country lanes whizzed with traffic. Though cofounder of the New York/New Jersey the uncertainty of an unmarked trail Trail Conference. Torrey wrote a hiking appealed to Schaefer’s explorer sensibility, G N O H C N A B R M E B I H E Y R B H C S S O T D O D H O P T LP views include (left to right): cityscapes (George Washington Bridge), column in the New York Post (“The Long the biggest uncertainty in the years since farmland (Vroman’s Nose near Albany), and mountain streams (Kaaterskill Falls).
    [Show full text]
  • Community Water Quality Monitoring Results Sparkill Creek 2011‐2016 Overview
    COMMUNITY WATER QUALITY MONITORING RESULTS SPARKILL CREEK 2011‐2016 OVERVIEW Riverkeeper and the Sparkill Creek Watershed Alliance have been testing the water for the fecal- indicator bacteria Enterococcus (“Entero”) since 2011. Sources of fecal contamination may include sewage infrastructure failures, sewer overflows, inadequate sewage treatment, septic system failures, agricultural runoff, urban runoff, and wildlife. Samples were collected monthly (approx. May to October) at 18 watershed locations by SCWA members and processed by Riverkeeper (2011-2015) and the Sarah Lawrence Center for the Urban River at Beczak (2016). A total of 572 samples have been analyzed since 2011. This water quality monitoring study is designed to learn about broad trends. The data can help inform choices about recreation in the creek, but cannot predict future water quality at any particular time and place. To see all the results visit www.riverkeeper.org/water-quality/citizen-data/sparkill-creek. WATERSHED SNAPSHOT These results are for non‐tidal sites only. As measured against the EPA’s recommended geometric mean (a weighted average) criterion for As measured against the Environmental Protection safe swimming: Agency’s recommended Beach Action Value for safe swimming: EPA GM threshold Sparkill Creek GM 30 746.3 93% cells/100 mL cells/100 mL of Sparkill Creek samples failed. After rainy weather: 3 Best Sites 3 Worst Sites Blauvelt‐ Tackamack Tappan‐ Moturis at Greenbush Br (#4) (#13) 98% Orangeburg‐ Piermont‐ Skating of Sparkill Creek samples failed.
    [Show full text]
  • How's the Water? Hudson River Water Quality and Water Infrastructure
    HOW’S THE WATER? Hudson River Water Quality and Water Infrastructure The Hudson River Estuary is an engine of life for the coastal ecosystem, the source of drinking water for more than 100,000 people, home to the longest open water swim event in the world, and the central feature supporting the quality of life and $4.4 billion tourism economy for the region. This report focuses on one important aspect of protecting and improving Hudson River Estuary water quality – sewage-related contamination and water infrastructure. Untreated sewage puts drinking water and recreational users at risk. Water quality data presented here are based on analysis of more than 8,200 samples taken since 2008 from the Hudson River Estuary by Riverkeeper, CUNY Queens College, Columbia University’s Lamont- Doherty Earth Observatory; and from its tributaries by dozens of partner organizations and individual 21% community scientists. Water infrastructure information Hudson River Estuary samples presented here is based on data from the Department that failed to meet federal safe of Environmental Conservation and Environmental swimming guidelines Facilities Corporation, which administers State Revolving Funds. 44 Municipally owned wastewater While the Hudson River is safe for swimming at most treatment plants that locations on most days sampled, raw sewage overflows discharge to the Estuary and leaks from aging and failing infrastructure too often make waters unsafe. The Hudson’s tributaries $4.8 Billion – the smaller creeks and rivers that feed it – are often Investment needed in sources of contamination. wastewater infrastructure in the Hudson River Watershed To improve water quality, action is needed at the federal, state and local levels to increase and prioritize infrastructure investments.
    [Show full text]