Hudson River Fishes and their Environment

Hudson River Fishes and their Environment ◽

10.47886/9781888569827.ch12 ◽

2006 ◽

Keyword(s):

New York ◽

Mortality Rate ◽

Power Plants ◽

Long Island ◽

Hudson River ◽

Long Island Sound ◽

East River ◽

Bay Anchovy ◽

Eggs And Larvae ◽

Island Sound

<em>Abstract.</em>—Our objectives were to examine the distribution and abundance of bay anchovy <em>Anchoa mitchilli </em>eggs and larvae in the Hudson River and nearby waterways and to determine if past conditional mortality rate (CMR) estimates for bay anchovy entrained at Hudson River power plants may be substantially biased because they were based solely on sampling in the Hudson River. We addressed these objectives by comparing ichthyoplankton samples collected in the Hudson River with those collected in New York Harbor, the East River, and Long Island Sound using the same gear during 2002. Bay anchovy eggs were collected from late April through the end of sampling in the Hudson River (early October) and through the end of sampling in nearby waterways (late July). Bay anchovy larvae were collected from early June through end of sampling in both the Hudson River and nearby waterways. The highest densities of bay anchovy eggs and larvae in nearby waterways were about 13 and 14 times greater, respectively, than the highest densities in the lower Hudson River. The peak standing crops of bay anchovy eggs and larvae in nearby waterways were about eight times larger than those in the Hudson River. Therefore, past CMR estimates for bay anchovy entrained at Hudson River power plants may be substantially biased if the bay anchovy eggs and larvae collected in the Hudson River and nearby waterways during 2002 belonged to one population, as it appears they did, and 2002 was representative of other years.

Download Full-text

The Impact of Tidal Phase on Hurricane Sandy's Flooding Around New York City and Long Island Sound

Journal of Extreme Events ◽

10.1142/s2345737614500067 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 01 (01) ◽

pp. 1450006 ◽

Cited By ~ 25

Author(s):

Nickitas Georgas ◽

Philip Orton ◽

Alan Blumberg ◽

Leah Cohen ◽

Daniel Zarrilli ◽

...

Keyword(s):

New York ◽

New York City ◽

Storm Surge ◽

York City ◽

Long Island ◽

High Tide ◽

Long Island Sound ◽

Astronomical Tide ◽

East River ◽

Island Sound

How do the local impacts of Hurricane Sandy's devastating storm surge differ because of the phase of the normal astronomical tide, given the spatiotemporal variability of tides around New York? In the weeks and months after Hurricane Sandy's peak surge came ashore at the time of local high tide at the southern tip of Manhattan and caused record-setting flooding along the New York and New Jersey coastline, this was one question that government officials and critical infrastructure managers were asking. For example, a simple superposition of the observed peak storm surge during Sandy on top of high tide in Western Long Island Sound comes within 29 cm (less than a foot) of the top elevation of the Stamford Hurricane barrier system which would have been overtopped by 60 cm surface waves riding over that storm tide. Here, a hydrodynamic model study of how shifts in storm surge timing could have influenced flood heights is presented. Multiple flood scenarios were evaluated with Stevens Institute of Technology's New York Harbor Observing and Prediction System model (NYHOPS) having Hurricane Sandy arriving any hour within the previous or next tidal cycle (any hour within a 26-hour period around Sandy's actual landfall). The simulated scenarios of Sandy coming between 7 and 10 hours earlier than it did were found to produce the worst coastal flooding in the Upper East River, Western and Central Long Island Sound among the evaluated cases. Flooding would have generally been worse compared to the real Sandy in Connecticut and the areas of New York City around the Upper East River between the boroughs of Queens and the Bronx, exceeding record flood heights. However, the New York Harbor region would still have seen its record flood elevation exceeded, so the storm's impact could have been more widespread. The hydrodynamic model results suggest that the still-water levels would have risen to within 75 cm of the top elevation of the Stamford storm surge barrier, 46 cm lower than the naïve superposition of astronomical tide and storm surge.

Download Full-text