Attendees, CAG Members: Joan Salome-Rodriguez (Moderator), Erica Eliason, Corinne Jenner, Katia Kelly, Emily Mitchell, Jason Schwartzman
Guests: Irene Baker, National Grid; Aaron Kaufman, Gowanus Remediation Trust.
You can view a video recording of the meeting here. Please enter code 7+AkN60k when prompted for access.
Joan shared the outfall map provided by Victoria at EPA at our request. Follow up question – how many of the outfalls are from new construction? Joan replied to ask Victoria, “How many of those outfalls, if any, are from new construction?”
We also wanted to know what Brian Carr meant by “first flush,” “second flush” when he used those terms at the General CAG meeting when discussing CSO events. Joan wrote him an email to ask.
What is the objective for the level of clean water once the canal is cleaned?
Implementation of the remedy will improve the surface water quality of the Canal by controlling and substantially eliminating sheens and preventing contact of the surface water with the contaminated sediment.
Joan sent emails to Victoria and Natalie covering a few questions – can CSO be measured at the outfalls with real-time data? Also sent email to DEC and DOH re: flood kits for basement flood testing.
Follow-ups on Action Items
1. Any acknowledgement from Fagel, Waldron or Smith to our resolution re: dissolved oxygen levels? – Erica reported – no response.
2. What is EPA’s demand for responsible parties to maintain an operation and maintenance plan (OMP) for the Gowanus Canal clean-up strategy? Who will ensure that the OMP is done going forward? Will EPA continue to check that the water quality remains good and that the cap is intact? Does EPA have an OMP Plan? Where is it? Katia followed up on these two questions – any answer? Not yet.
3. To the best of the Committee’s knowledge, neither the DEC nor NYSDOH has ever performed a comprehensive hydrology and hydrographic study for this neighborhood as the Gowanus is in a FEMA flood zone A. According to EPA, DEC is currently completing a Gowanus Canal areawide groundwater study to evaluate the current hydraulic conditions, including groundwater elevations and flow direction. This study was scheduled for completion in late 2024. Joan & Steve & then the entire CAG with an inquiry by Emily Mitchell followed up with Aaron Fischer. Aaron answered. Joan drafted a follow-up for committee review as to whether contaminant sources would be included in the report. So did Jason. I include Jason’s here because it is better.
Aaron, thank you for getting back to us–we appreciate the update. Assembling a neighborhood-wide picture of groundwater seems to be an important shift from the parcel-by-parcel investigations and reports, and we imagine will help to understand what’s happening with the different contaminants across the area.
In fact, we’re wondering if you or a member of your team would be interested in joining an upcoming Water Quality committee meeting. Even though the study is still underway and the results aren’t available, we would welcome the opportunity to better understand the objectives of the study, the questions DEC hopes to answer, and how the data may inform future decisions. The committee format is more informal and discussion-based, without the pressures that often accompany a full public meeting. It might also give your team an opportunity to hear early questions from the community that may help inform how the findings are ultimately communicated.
Let us know if this is possible, and we’d be happy to coordinate on timing. Thanks again for your update and the work your team is doing.
This was mine (not as good):
Hi, Aaron:
Thank you for getting back to us.
When does DEC expect its report to be completed? Since NYSDEC has collected groundwater elevations in 2024 and 2025 as well as installed additional monitoring wells in sidewalks and other right of ways in the area to establish long term control points as the monitoring wells on properties are decommissioned and is evaluating the data collected and collecting additional data from monitoring wells during changing seasons and tides to establish trends, will contaminant sources be included in the report?
Thanks,
Joan Salome-Rodriguez
Gowanus Canal CAG – Water Quality Committee
4. How much water are we losing?
Encroachment into the Canal along the newly installed bulkhead support system along the Whole Foods properties varies from one foot to 10 feet. This encroachment was unavoidable due to the condition of the existing sheet pile bulkhead that was installed at a significant incline. EPA is still considering potential approaches with respect to this encroachment. Right now it seems we are going to lose .81 acres in RTA2, .12 in RTA 1. We will recover .51 acres in TB 1 and under the 3rd Avenue Bridge.
As calculated using some estimation – as not all of the bulkhead designs have been completed – the bulkhead encroachment totals roughly 0.81 acres in RTA2 and 0.12 acres in RTA1. The area that will be recovered in turning basin 1 and under the 3rd Avenue bridge is about 0.51 acres. At TB11, encroachment from the bulkhead construction is anticipated due to structural limitations from the former Pathmark building.
What does EPA anticipate will be lost at turning Basin 11? What will we get in return? *It should be noted that the First and Fourth Street Basin were illegally landfilled with EPA / NYSDEC failing in their protective duties… so technically up to 3.5 acres of habitat restoration would need, legally, to be compensated for. EPA is still reviewing this and we will bring it to the CAG when we have a further response. We have no further response at this point. Erica drafted and Joan sent an email to GRT Aaron Kaufman to follow up.
Sewershed
We are going to seek information about the CSO tanks – are they big enough, can there possibly be a third tank (maybe at Public Place if it were to be part of the state Superfund Program and not otherwise developed).
The rest of the focus of the meeting was the Sewershed in Gowanus and issues likely to arise based on the Governor’s Island, Atlantic Yards, and the BMT project. Can our infrastructure take all that? At the General CAG meeting we were told by EPA that the Atlantic Yards project was taken into account but NOT the Governor’s Island project. We did not ask about BMT. We looked over follow-up questions for various entities, whether EPA, DEC or DEP. Next meeting we will start to craft these inquiries.
We spent a good deal of the meeting going over a 2019 report prepared for resilientredhook@gmail.com, in November 2019. Jason followed up to summarize the report.
ChatGPT summary:
Overview
This document (link below)
Hydrological Ties that Bind Gowanus and Red Hook (1).pdf –
outlines a public roundtable hosted by Pioneer Works focused on the interconnected hydrological challenges facing Gowanus and Red Hook in Brooklyn. It frames the discussion around how land use, stormwater infrastructure, and sea level rise link the two neighborhoods — and how they must plan together for climate resilience.
The program is structured around three main themes:
- Land Use & Zoning
- Stormwater & Sewage
- Flood Protection / Sea Level Rise
Core Framing Questions
The roundtable centers on several key issues:
- What are the current hydrological challenges in Gowanus and Red Hook?
- How can the neighborhoods plan together for climate resilience?
- How can land use policy support stormwater management and flood protection?
- How can communities jointly advocate for policy and infrastructure improvements?
The emphasis is on cross-neighborhood coordination rather than isolated planning.
1. Land Use & Zoning
Presented by representatives from Resilient Red Hook and Columbia University’s Center for Resilient Cities and Landscape.
Key Points
- The legacy of 1961 zoning shaped today’s industrial and residential mix.
- The Gowanus rezoning will significantly increase development and density.
- Increased development directly impacts:
- Stormwater runoff
- Sewer system capacity
- Flood vulnerability
Policy Tension
The document asks whether the goals of NYC’s Comprehensive Waterfront Plan still align with the realities of:
- Rapid development
- Climate change
- Sea level rise
It suggests zoning and land use policy must integrate water management and flood protection — not treat them as separate issues.
2. Stormwater & Sewage
Presented by the Gowanus Canal Conservancy.
This section explains how the combined sewer system (CSO system) works and why it is overwhelmed.
Critical Facts
- The area experiences 41 sewer overflows per year.
- NYC receives about 44 inches of rain annually.
- The combined sewer system only has capacity for 17% of annual rainfall volume.
This means most heavy rain events cause sewage and stormwater to overflow into the canal.
Major Infrastructure Issues
- Limited system capacity
- Additional sewage loads from new development
- Constraints at key sewer infrastructure (e.g., Bond-Lorraine sewer)
Rezoning Impacts
The Gowanus rezoning introduces:
- New development
- Increased wastewater flows
- City capital investments
- Developer requirements
A key proposal is a “Net Zero CSO” requirement — meaning new development would have to offset its additional sewage impact.
Policy Pathways Proposed
- Citywide waterfront zoning requirements
- Creation of an Environmental Special District
- Local legislation modeled on:
- Staten Island’s Special Natural Areas District
- Local Law 56 (Southeast Queens flood mitigation)
The underlying argument: development must include integrated water management, not just density increases.
3. Flood Protection & Sea Level Rise
This section addresses coastal flooding risk in both neighborhoods.
Red Hook
The city’s proposed flood barriers are designed for a 10-year storm (a storm with a 10% annual chance of occurring).
Importantly:
- Hurricane Sandy exceeded a 100-year storm level.
- Officials acknowledged that the proposed barriers would not protect against a Sandy-level event.
This highlights a significant resilience gap.
Gowanus
Materials referenced include studies on storm surge barriers and waterfront greenway resilience projects.
The discussion connects:
- Coastal surge
- Canal flooding
- Sewer backflow
- Development pressure
Central Insight
The document argues that:
Gowanus and Red Hook share hydrological systems and risks.
Water does not respect neighborhood boundaries.
Therefore:
- Sewer systems
- Flood protection
- Land use planning
- Climate adaptation
must be approached at the watershed scale, not just parcel-by-parcel or neighborhood-by-neighborhood.
Overall Themes
1. Infrastructure is undersized
The combined sewer system cannot handle current rainfall, let alone future climate-driven increases.
2. Development increases risk unless mitigated
Rezoning without strong environmental requirements worsens:
- CSOs
- Flooding
- Water pollution
3. Existing flood protection is inadequate
The current plans protect against moderate storms, not major events like Sandy.
4. Policy reform is necessary
The document encourages:
- Integrated water management
- Stronger zoning requirements
- Local legislative action
- Cross-neighborhood collaboration
Bottom Line
This roundtable frames Gowanus and Red Hook as hydrologically intertwined lowlands facing compounded risks from:
- Climate change
- Sea level rise
- Aging sewer infrastructure
- Rapid redevelopment
The central argument is that land use policy, infrastructure investment, and climate resilience must be planned together at the watershed level, with coordinated community advocacy to ensure long-term protection.
On Page 22 of the report a diagram on the far right shows the link between Bond-Lorraine and RedHook sewers.
For me, the key questions that arise are: what, if any, of this did we get? What, if any, of this is Red Hook getting? Was any agency thinking about Governor’s Island at the time this was put together? Did they really calculate in the long stalled Atlantic Yards project? How do we get to this information? How can we trust the answers we get?
Questions we have formulated over the course of a few of our meetings may answer some of these questions. Attached are questions we have formulated so far but not sent. They need work.
This inquiry is for either DEC or DEP or both.
NYSDEC has primary enforcement and under 6 NYCRR Part 750-2.9(c) would receive reporting from DEP re: capacity at the Owls Head and Red Hook wastewater treatment plants. DEC will continue to assess NYCDEP flow management efforts and reporting for compliance with these provisions, other applicable provisions, and their State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permits.” With regard to the statement that an “[EPA] official confirmed at a 2022 town hall meeting that the 12-million-gallon tanks (8&4) were… not designed to address additive CSO effluents from tens of thousands of new residents added to the sewershed by the 2021 Upzoning,” we now have to look at BMT (since Bond-Lorraine connects to the Red Hook sewer line), Atlantic Yards and Governor’s Island.
Has there been a re-evaluation taking into consideration the Atlantic Yards, BMT and Governor’s Island developments both as to the sewershed and as to that which will drain into the Canal? By which entity? Can we get that report if there is one? What is the status of the Owl’s Head and Red Hook Pollution Control Plants? Do they have capacity for all this development?
This inquiry is for DEP
Under CSO remedial action August 31, 2016 Unilateral Administrative Order the City will have to clean up any CSO sediment buildup while the tanks are built. Per EPA the City is working on its sewers but had not yet turned to Gowanus as of 2022. We should check the City’s “State of the Sewers” annual report to see if the City has turned to Gowanus yet in general and as to Bond-Lorraine sewer under the Citizen’s site in particular.
EPA-DEP Questions
The ROD specifically states:
Current and future high density residential redevelopment along the banks of the canal and within the sewershed shall adhere to New York City rules for sewer connections (Chapter 31 of Title 15 of the Rules of the City of New York) and shall be consistent with current New York city Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) criteria and guidelines to ensure that hazardous substances and solids from additional sewage loads do not compromise the effectiveness of the permanent [combined sewage overflow (CSO)] control measures by exceeding their design capacity. For example, redevelopment projects will need to take mitigation measures to prevent or offset additional sewer loadings. Separated stormwater outfalls will also require engineering controls to ensure that hazardous substances and solids are not discharged to the canal.
Though the CSO tanks are being built, DEP is, per EPA, monitoring CSOs, by sampling of CSO outfalls during storm events, to measure any long-term changes in CSO discharges and assess whether changes in the watershed are consistent with EPA’s requirements, as stated above. Where are these reports and what do they show? HAS THE CITY STARTED MEASURING EFFLUENT?