Gowanus Canal CAG Meeting
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
Mary Star of the Sea Senior Apartments, 41 1st Street
Introductions and CAG Updates
- May minutes are approved
EPA Updates
Preliminary Design for the First Street Basin
- The 475 foot long 1st Street Basin is currently filled (used to be next to the Power House, across from the Lightstone development)
- One condition in the EPA Record of Decision (ROD) is the restoration and excavation of the 1st Street Basin and connecting it to the main canal
- The work is being done by the City under EPA’s oversight (currently at the design stage)
- The Basin is surrounded on all sides by private property – public access will be via the Canal
- Restoration will roughly follow the footprint of existing property lines
- Will do surveys and look at site conditions so as not to interfere with foundations
- Water depth will match main channel depth after remediation (approximately 40 feet)
- In past discussions, the community expressed a desire for a soft bank; EPA will construct a 10-foot wide bank alongside the Power House because that location is open land – on the other side there will be a bulkhead (there is no room due to new construction on the site)
- With a single shelf, it may be feasible to create a terrace (EPA will look into it)
- A cap will be installed, similar to the main Canal
- A wetland shelf will be constructed
- Probable Work Sequence:
- Construction will be land-based with access from neighboring properties (EPA will have to gain access from all the neighbors)
- A temporary sheet-pile barrier will be used at the Canal end
- The barrier will be removed after Canal remediation to create a connection between the water bodies
- Current Status:
- The City has developed a revised work plan for the project; EPA is reviewing the plan and expects to approve it
- Basin restoration will be coordinated with Canal restoration, and soil cleanup and development at the Power House
- EPA has been working with owners to clean up the New York State Brownfields site but there are additional requirements for the manager and contractors; coordination is necessary because plans include erecting a new building next to the Power House
- Archaeological Monitoring Plan
- There is a significant amount of buried resources, covered by contamination, going back to the Revolutionary War and the industrial period. How do we reconstruct the series of events at the Gowanus Canal?
- There is a proposal under consideration by the City; the parties involved include the CAG, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Landmarks Preservation Commission
- The fill dates back to the 1950s (subway construction)
- Monitoring Goals:
- Determine presence or absence of archaeological resources during the Pre-Design Investigation (PDI) and Remedial Design (RD) phases
- Determine the integrity of encountered resources
- Develop suitable goals and methods for the Remedial Action (RA) phase
- Monitoring Methods:
- A Qualified Archaeologist (RPA) will test pits monitored in field, conduct a desktop review of soil boring logs and do a geophysical survey
- The work will comply with OSHA Safety Standards with temporary work stoppage as necessary
- In-trench examination 0-4 feet below ground surface (BGS); for depths greater than 4 feet BGS, monitoring will be conducted from ground surface
- Documentation will be done through photography, field notes and drawings
- Analytical methods will involve artifacts and sample processing and analysis
- There will be a Technical Report.
- Potentially Affected Resources
- The 1st Street Basin has been determined sensitive for archaeological resources
- Prehistoric Archaeological Sites – Low Potential
- Historical Tidal Mill Complex – Low Potential
- Revolutionary War-era burial sites – Low Potential
- Former Canal Basin Bulkheads and associated cribbing and fill – High Potential
- Wrecked (Buried) Vessels – High Potential
- Additional sites of low potential: more than 15-20 feet below the surface and outside former bulkhead walls
- Monitoring Plan includes an Unanticipated Discoveries Plan (UDP)
- Establishes procedures in the event that unexpected human remains or other archaeological resources are observed
- Outlines chain of communication to ensure all involved parties are notified and City, State and Federal laws are followed
- At all times, human remains will be treated with the utmost dignity and respect
- This document will go to the CAG – EPA wants CAG comments and can arrange a special meeting, if necessary
- Next Steps
- The City will develop the 30% Remedial Design for the project, including engineering and environmental aspects for EPA review
- Data from the Remedial Design will be shared to prevent duplication of work between the Basin and the Canal.
- Schedule (Tentative)
- The City’s project schedule is currently under review by EPA (EPA doesn’t agree with the current timeline and wants the City to move faster)
- EPA anticipates design completion in Summer 2017
- Basin’s restoration will be completed in 2018, at which time EPA also hopes to be doing dredging work at the top of the Canal.
- The 1st Street Basin has been determined sensitive for archaeological resources
Questions and Answers
CAG Member: Will the City and AKRF have archaeologists onsite as well?
EPA: They do have archaeologists – we want to make sure that the City’s archaeologists work with our archaeologists from the beginning to come up with a common approach. There will be three archaeologists total.
CAG Member: Have you figured out a way to save the movie studio (Eastern Effects)?
EPA: Yes, we do have an idea.
CAG Member: Will you share that with us, please?
EPA: Yes, in due time.
CAG Member: What is the intended function for the greenery shelf? Will it absorb storm water from the land or just act as a salt marsh? Newtown Creek has some salt marshes on a floating bio dock – can you have a sub-meeting for your plans to discuss the implications for Newtown Creek?
EPA: The idea was to have more green surfaces and to create some kind of wetland for wildlife – that’s how EPA interpreted the community’s desires. We had a discussion with the City because somebody from the team suggested a floating marsh – we’re considering some ideas and we’re open to comments – we will get back to you.
CAG Member: Do you have a ballpark estimate for how much fill will be removed from the Basin?
EPA: We discussed it with AKRF – the number is 1,000 truckloads (50 days, 20 trucks per day)
CAG Member: These wetlands will not be very big. Will they be used in wetland banking? Will the person who restores them be able to go and destroy a wetland somewhere else?
EPA: No. This is the wetland bank for this project – it is self-contained and intended to offset encroachment from bulkheads and other effects.
CAG Member: I want to reiterate our desire for terracing. Is there going to be some sort of access from the public esplanade around the Power House to the Canal?
EPA: My information today is that there will be no public esplanade (Department of City Planning has confirmed but not officially). From discussions with the Power House, the esplanade around the Basin is not required so the esplanade will be around the Canal. Access will be only by water, which includes the shelf. If there’s a different determination about whether the esplanade runs along the restored Basin, we’ll work with that. Our understanding at the moment is that that the waterfront zoning requirement is just for the Canal strip; the Power House will have an esplanade just like Lightstone.
CAG Member: It seems like there’s a real opportunity to do an earthwork that voluntarily encroaches on the property as a creative solution to extending the soft edge further into their (private) property. Is there room for this conversation?
EPA: The conversation would have to happen with the private properties. There will be an approval process with DCP for the new development – EPA doesn’t deal with zoning – that will be the appropriate place for input. EPA suggested this in discussion with DCP but it would require agreement among the property owners. The Power House appears receptive to this idea.
CAG Member: Will the excavated material be barged or trucked out? Is there any concern about accidents or public health?
EPA: The material will be trucked out in sealed trucks – these are known contaminants (semi-volatiles or volatiles). We will have a monitoring plan.
CAG Member: For the next conversation on trucks and bridges – it’s not just the contaminated sediment – constituents are also concerned about traffic and diesel emissions.
EPA: It’s to everyone’s advantage for the work to be done in a short amount of time. We’re confident that this is the right way to do it. Where we have huge amounts of sediment, it will be moved by barge.
CAG Member: Who’s going to be responsible for the plantings on the shelf, and what will they be? What will the material on the side of soft bank be constructed of? What will the shelf drain to?
EPA: We’re working on the preliminary design. We’ll bring in the experts and then take your input.
CAG Member: The side basins tend to have more bacteria and higher turbidity than the main channel. Will the storm sewer be diverted from the Carroll Street Bridge and diverted to 3rd Street? Has that been discussed with the City?
EPA: The City is proceeding with the storm sewer project. We’re working with them to ensure that the chemicals in the stormwater are captured before they discharge into the Canal. The city is now conducting pilots of oil/water separators at areas along the Canal to ensure that the Canal isn’t contaminated.
CAG Member: Will you check private property owners’ discharge permits to ensure that untreated stormwater isn’t going into the 1st Street Basin?
EPA: There are no outfalls now and we don’t expect that anyone will create illegal outfalls after the excavation.
CAG Member: That 10-foot wetland shelf will also be outside limits of the 1st Street Turning Basin. Will this also require cooperation with the property owners?
EPA: No, that will be within the 50 feet allotted.
CAG Member: How long do you think construction will take (starting 2018)?
EPA: On the order of a year.
Water Quality and Technical Committee Proposed Resolutions
The idea behind these resolutions is that there’s value in the edge and restoration of habitat. Numerous actions are currently in the design phase and we want to make sure we don’t end up with a canal that is a sterile box of water.
Water Quality and Technical Committee Resolution #1
Questions and Answers
CAG Member: I object to the word “guarantee” – (take out “which” and replace with “that/where/so there is no loss”)
CAG Member: How would the construction of the engineered shore line or bulkhead result in the loss of marine habitat?
CAG Member: Can someone provide clarification from the meeting where this came up? The understanding was that putting the sewage tank at the head of Canal site would require building further into it.
EPA: Preserving habitat is very difficult for many reasons. There are private property concerns and technical and government difficulties. New York State is designing a cut-off wall for the Fulton MGP site (National Grid). The design EPA saw has an encroachment on the order of 1.5 to 2 feet (bulkhead with stability). EPA is pushing not to encroach because we believe there are other solutions.
CAG Member: Would you say that this resolution is still relevant to the cutoff wall? It was put together when we were talking about the sewage tanks.
EPA: Yes, of course.
CAG Member: Amendment was called to reword to “design solution at head of Canal that prevents loss of the vital resource”
VOTE: Proposed amendment. Amendment passes.
VOTE: Resolution as amended. Motion passes.
Water Quality and Technical Committee Resolution #2
Questions and Answers
CAG Member: Grammatical change – “The CAG urges the EPA to develop a design solution that includes treatment of Canal edge surfaces that are supportive of marine life.”
VOTE: Vote on revised resolution. Motion passes.
Doug Sarno: Both resolutions will be posted on the website. There are no formal procedures for sending out resolutions. They usually go back to the committees but the Facilitation Committee is working on a more consistent approach. The Water Quality Committee will post the resolutions on the website. Who should be cc’d? EPA, National Grid…the standard cc list?
CAG Committee Updates
- Archaeology Committee
- Future meetings will be held at Gowanus Souvenir Shop (545 Union Street, between Nevins Street & 3rd Avenue)
- Land Use Committee
- Decided to hold the next meeting on July 11 with the Water Quality/Technical Committee at the Gowanus Canal Conservancy (Water Quality reserved a room at Mary Star of the Sea expecting separate meetings). We hope that DOT will attend to discuss the Union Street Bridge – they will also visit the full CAG at some point.
Questions and Answers
EPA: We’ve met with DOT. They are fully aware of EPA’s schedule. We will meet again with them in September. The latest is that DOT is expecting to start work in 2019. There is no conflict between EPA and DOT on the work schedule.
CAG Member: Are you also talking to them about long-term stormwater controls on the bridges?
EPA: From our perspective, as regards future maintenance of EPA’s planned work, a draw bridge may be more desirable. EPA will comment when DOT submits the navigational plan to the Coast Guard.
- Outreach Committee
- Nothing to report.
- Water Quality and Technical Committee
- Did not meet in June
- Administration Committee
- New member application: Peter Reich – lives in the neighborhood, wants to represent 280 Nevins Street tenants’ organization. The Committee recommends him for approval.
Discussion, Q & A with Peter Reich
CAG Member: Is he applying to join as a new organization or is he representing himself?
Committee: He is representing the new organization and we are voting on this as a new organizational seat.
Doug Sarno: There is a distinction between new organizations and charter organizations. A new organization does not have a permanent seat – if it’s not filled, then it goes away.
CAG Member: Can you tell us a little about 280 Nevins Street? How many people are in the building?
Peter: We are next in line after Eastern Effects, between Sackett Street and the alleyway on Union Street on the Canal side. There are 18 people in the building, 12 adults and 6 children. Most of us are artists or creative types and many of us have been there since the early 80s.
CAG Member: How many units of housing?
Peter: There are 7 – the building is capable of holding many more but there’s a strange landlord situation. It’s a large loft building (formerly 4 floors of commercial use) and could be better utilized. It’s a designated AIR (artists-in-residence) building.
CAG Member: Would you be on the Water Quality Committee?
Peter: I would like to work with the Land Use Committee.
CAG Member: In the application it says you have a good idea of legalized M-1/M-2 lofts and why they are necessary. Why is this important?
Peter: This is a rare holdover that hasn’t been changed into condominiums – I want to make sure that I represent the tenants in the building who want to maintain live/work space.
CAG Member: Peter was actively engaged in the conversation around Eastern Effects.
CAG Member: You’re having problems with the landlord – is he trying to prevent artists from moving in?
Peter: No, it’s just inaction. The building should have been legalized already and have a real Certificate of Occupancy for dwellings.
The CAG conducted a Private Ballot resulting in unanimous invitation for Peter to join the CAG.
The next CAG meeting is July 26.
Meeting Participants
CAG Members Present
David Briggs
Diane Buxbaum
Michelle de La Uz
Eymund Diegel
Sean Dixon
Marlene Donnelly
Rafael Gomez de Luna
Ben Jones
Louis Kleinman
Linda Mariano
Eric McClure
David Meade (alternate Justin Collins)
Rita Miller
Andrea Parker
Buddy Scotto
Mark Shames
EPA, Staff, and Presenters
Brian Carr, EPA
Natalie Loney, EPA
Doug Sarno, Facilitator
Christos Tsiamis, EPA
John Vetter, EPA Consultant (Archaeology)
NYC Department of Environmental Protection
NYC Department of Design & Construction