DOCSLIB.ORG

(TMDL) for Nitrogen

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

A Total Maximum December 2000 Daily Load Analysis to Achieve Water Quality Standards for Dissolved Oxygen in Long Island Sound Prepared in Conformance with Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act and the Long Island Sound Study Prepared by: Connecticut Department of New York State Department Environmental Protection of Environmental 79 Elm Street Conservation Hartford, CT 06106-5127 50 Wolf Road (860) 424-3020 Albany, NY 12233-0001 (518) 457-5400 Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................. -iii- List of Figures ............................................................ -iii- I. Introduction ...........................................................1 A. Long Island Sound Study ..........................................1 B. Hypoxia .......................................................1 C. Requirements of Section 303(d) .....................................2 D. Fulfillment of Section 303(d) .......................................2 II. Waterbody Location and Description ....................................4 III. Applicable Water Quality Standards ....................................5 A. Nutrient Enrichment ..............................................5 B. New York .....................................................5 C. Connecticut ....................................................6 D. EPA Marine Dissolved Oxygen Criteria ...............................8 IV. CWA Section 303(d) Listing ..........................................9 A. Use Impairment .................................................9 B. Pollutants of Concern .............................................9 C. Pollutant Sources ...............................................10 V. TMDL Development ..................................................11 A. Available Ambient Data ..........................................11 B. Nutrient Loading Data ...........................................11 1. In-Basin Point Sources ........................................13 2. In-Basin Nonpoint Sources .....................................14 3. Tributary Import .............................................16 4. CSO and Stormwater Loads ....................................17 5. Boundary Loads .............................................18 6. Summary of Nutrient Loads and Uncertainties .......................18 C. Water Quality Model ............................................19 1. Water Quality Model Projections .................................20 2. Development of Nitrogen Reduction Plans ..........................22 VI. TMDL/WLA/LA for Nitrogen .........................................25 A. In-Basin Sources ...............................................26 1. Allocation of the In-Basin TMDL .................................26 2. Reasonable Assurance for Load Allocation ..........................30 B. Out-of-basin Sources ............................................33 1. Allocation of the Out-of-Basin TMDL .............................33 2. Reasonable Assurance for Load Allocation ..........................33 -i- C. Non-treatment Alternatives ........................................34 1. Background .................................................34 2. Preliminary Assessment of Alternatives .............................35 3. Evaluation Steps and Schedule ...................................37 D. Margin of Safety ................................................38 E. Seasonal Variations .............................................38 F. Total Maximum Annual versus Daily Loads ...........................39 G. Summary .....................................................39 VII. Implementation ....................................................41 A. Phase I .......................................................41 B. Phase II ......................................................42 C. Phase III ......................................................42 D. Phase IV ......................................................43 E. Phase V ......................................................46 F. Reassessment ..................................................46 VIII. Public Participation .................................................49 A. Phase III Implementation .........................................49 B. Draft TMDL Review ............................................50 C. Review of the Marine Waters DO Criteria ............................51 D. 2004 Revised TMDL Analysis .....................................51 IX. References ..........................................................52 X. Glossary .............................................................55 Appendix A. Estimation of In-Basin Nonpoint Nitrogen Load and Load Allocation ........A-1 Appendix B. Analysis of WLA and TMDL reduction effects through reallocation using equivalency factors. ..................................................B-1 Appendix C. Wasteload Allocation for Point Source Dischargers in Connecticut and New York by Management Zone .................................................C-1 -ii- List of Tables Table 1. Summary of in-basin total nitrogen loading (tons/yr), as delivered to Long Island Sound (attenuation considered) from all source types ....................14 Table 2. Summary of in-basin total organic carbon loading (tons/yr), as delivered to Long Island Sound (attenuation considered) from all source types ...............15 Table 3. Summary of total nitrogen loading (tons/yr), as delivered to Long Island Sound (attenuation considered) from tributary sources ........................16 Table 4. Summary of total organic carbon loading (tons/yr), as delivered to Long Island Sound (attenuation considered) from tributary sources ...................17 Table 5. Comparison of model scenarios for minimum hourly DO concentrations in Connecticut and New York, relative improvement in DO, and maximum area (mi2) with DO below 3.5 mg/l ..........................................22 Table 6. In-basin Phase III nitrogen TMDL/WLA/LA by management zone ..........27 Table 7. River delivery factors, Long Island Sound transport factors, and calculated equivalency factors that combine river and Long Island Sound effects for in-basin management zones and tiers .......................................29 Table 8. Comparison minimum hourly DO concentrations (in mg/l) in Connecticut and New York, relative improvement in DO, and maximum area (mi2)with DO below 3.5 mg/l for baseline, Phase III, Phase IV, and Phase V .....................30 Table 9. Alternative strategies for hypoxia management .........................36 Table 10. Changes in in-basin nitrogen loads to Long Island Sound with Phases of implementation .................................................41 Table 11. Implementation schedule for the Phase III actions .......................43 Table 12. Phase IV actions and schedule .....................................45 Table 13. Phase V actions and schedule ......................................47 Table 14. Reassessment tasks and schedule for the Long Island Sound TMDL .........48 List of Figures Figure 1. Timing and duration of hypoxia in Long Island Sound, 1987-1999. ...........1 Figure 2. Maps of (a) major drainage basins and tributaries of Long Island Sound; (b) the Long Island Sound Study area; (c) basins within Long Island Sound ..........4 Figure 3. Geographic segments (zones and tiers) and response regions for Long Island Sound. .......................................................13 Figure 4. Sources of nitrogen to Long Island Sound ............................18 Figure 5. Sources of carbon to Long Island Sound .............................19 -iii- I. Introduction A. Long Island Sound Study The Long Island Sound Study (LISS) began in 1985 when Congress appropriated funds for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to carry out a program to research, monitor, and assess the water quality of Long Island Sound in concert with the states of Connecticut and New York through the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP) and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), respectively. Pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA) Amendments in 1987, Section 320 of the Act established the National Estuary Program. At the request of the states of Connecticut and New York, Long Island Sound was officially designated an “Estuary of National Significance” under this program1. A Management Conference, consisting of federal, state, interstate and local agencies, universities, environmental groups, industry, and the public, was convened in March 1988 and charged with developing a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) to protect and improve the environmental quality of Long Island Sound while ensuring compatible human uses. The CCMP2, approved in 1994, focused on seven topics: (1) low dissolved oxygen (hypoxia), (2) toxic contamination, (3) pathogen contamination, (4) floatable debris, (5) the impact of these water quality problems, and habitat degradation and loss, on the health of living resources, (6) land use and development resulting in habitat loss and degradation of water quality, and (7) public involvement and education. The Management Conference has focused its efforts and resources on the most pressing problem among these, hypoxia (generally defined as levels of dissolved oxygen (DO) of 3 mg/l or less), which affects a substantial portion of Long Island Sound in late summer. B. Hypoxia Hypoxia is a common occurrence in Long Island Sound bottom waters during the late summer-usually from July through September3
Recommended publications
  • Newtown Creek Project Packet

    Newtown Creek Project Packet

    NEWTOWN CREEK PROJECT PACKET Name: ________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTORY READING: Encyclopedia. “Newtown Creek.” The Encyclopedia of New York City. 2nd ed. 2010. Print. Adaptation Newtown Creek is a tributary of the East River. It extends inland for a distance of 3.5 miles, including a number of canals into Brooklyn, and it is the boundary between Brooklyn and Queens. The creek was the route by which European colonists first reached Maspeth in 1642. During the American Revolution the British spent the winter near the creek. Commercial vessels and small boats sailed the creek in the early nineteenth century. About 1860 the first oil and coal oil refineries opened along the banks and began dumping sludge and acids into the water; sewers were built to accommodate the growing neighborhoods of Williamsburg and Greenpoint and discharged their wastes directly into the creek, which by 1900 was known for pollution and foul odors. The water corroded the paint on the undersides of ships, and noxious deposits were left on the banks by the tides. High-level bridges were built from 1903 (some remain). State and city commissions sought unsuccessfully to improve the creek as it became of the busiest commercial waterways in the country, second only to the Mississippi River. The creek was dredged constantly and widened by the federal government to accommodate marine traffic; the creek’s natural depth was between 4 and 12 feet. After World War II the creek’s importance as a shipping route decreased, but it continued to be the site of many industrial plants. During the 1940s and 1950s, leaks at oil refineries including ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco precipitated one of the largest underground oil spills in history.
  • July 8 Grants Press Release

    July 8 Grants Press Release

    CITY PARKS FOUNDATION ANNOUNCES 109 GRANTS THROUGH NYC GREEN RELIEF & RECOVERY FUND AND GREEN / ARTS LIVE NYC GRANT APPLICATION NOW OPEN FOR PARK VOLUNTEER GROUPS Funding Awarded For Maintenance and Stewardship of Parks by Nonprofit Organizations and For Free Live Performances in Parks, Plazas, and Gardens Across NYC July 8, 2021 - NEW YORK, NY - City Parks Foundation announced today the selection of 109 grants through two competitive funding opportunities - the NYC Green Relief & Recovery Fund and GREEN / ARTS LIVE NYC. More than ever before, New Yorkers have come to rely on parks and open spaces, the most fundamentally democratic and accessible of public resources. Parks are critical to our city’s recovery and reopening – offering fresh air, recreation, and creativity - and a crucial part of New York’s equitable economic recovery and environmental resilience. These grant programs will help to support artists in hosting free, public performances and programs in parks, plazas, and gardens across NYC, along with the nonprofit organizations that help maintain many of our city’s open spaces. Both grant programs are administered by City Parks Foundation. The NYC Green Relief & Recovery Fund will award nearly $2M via 64 grants to NYC-based small and medium-sized nonprofit organizations. Grants will help to support basic maintenance and operations within heavily-used parks and open spaces during a busy summer and fall with the city’s reopening. Notable projects supported by this fund include the Harlem Youth Gardener Program founded during summer 2020 through a collaboration between Friends of Morningside Park Inc., Friends of St. Nicholas Park, Marcus Garvey Park Alliance, & Jackie Robinson Park Conservancy to engage neighborhood youth ages 14-19 in paid horticulture along with the Bronx River Alliance’s EELS Youth Internship Program and Volunteer Program to invite thousands of Bronxites to participate in stewardship of the parks lining the river banks.
  • Gowanus Canal & Newtown Creek Superfund Sites: a Proposal

    Gowanus Canal & Newtown Creek Superfund Sites: a Proposal

    Gowanus Canal & Newtown Creek Superfund Sites: A Proposal by Larry Schnapf he federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2010 designated as fed­ eral superfund sites the entire length of T the Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn and 3.8 miles of Newtown Creek on the border of Queens and Brooklyn. Property owners near these water bodies fear that EPA's action will lower property values and make it even more difficult to obtain loans and other­ wise develop their land. Many small businesses also fear that they may become responsible for paying a portion of the cleanup costs. The superfund process could take five to ten years to complete, during which time property owners will be faced with significant economic uncertainty. There is, however, a way tore­ lieve many of the smaller property owners by giving them an early release. Gowanus Canal Superfund Site The Gowanus Canal (Canal) runs for 1.8 miles through the Brooklyn residential neighborhoods of Gowanus, Park Slope, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens, TABLE CJF' CONTENTS and Red Hook. The adjacent waterfront is primarily commercial and industrial, currently consisting of Legislative Update ....................... 75 concrete plants, warehouses, and parking lots. At one CityRegs Update......................... 75 time Brooklyn Union Gas, the predecessor of National Decisions of Interest Grid, operated a large manufactured gas facility on Housing ............................ 76 the shores of the Canal. Affirmative Litigation ................. 77 EPA's initial investigation identified a variety of Human Rights ....................... 77 contaminants in the Canal's sediments including poly­ Health .............................. 79 cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile organ­ Audits & Reports ..................... 79 ic contaminants (VOCs), polychlorinated biphenyls Land Use ...........................
  • Reel-It-In-Brooklyn

    Reel-It-In-Brooklyn

    REEL IT IN! BROOKLYN Fish Consumption Education Project in Brooklyn ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: This research and outreach project was developed by Going Coastal, Inc. Team members included Gabriel Rand, Zhennya Slootskin and Barbara La Rocco. Volunteers were vital to the execution of the project at every stage, including volunteers from Pace University’s Center for Community Action and Research, volunteer translators Inessa Slootskin, Annie Hongjuan and Bella Moharreri, and video producer Dave Roberts. We acknowledge support from Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz and funding from an Environmental Justice Research Impact Grant of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Photos by Zhennya Slootskin, Project Coordinator. Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2. Study Area 3. Background 4. Methods 5. Results & Discussion 6. Conclusions 7. Outreach Appendix A: Survey List of Acronyms: CSO Combined Sewer Overflow DEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation DEP New York City Department of Environmental Protection DOH New York State Department of Health DPR New York City Department of Parks & Recreation EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency GNRA Gateway National Recreation Area NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency OPRHP New York State Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls WIC Women, Infant and Children program Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 2 of 68 Abstract Brooklyn is one of America’s largest and fastest growing multi‐ethnic coastal counties. All fish caught in the waters of New York Harbor are on mercury advisory. Brooklyn caught fish also contain PCBs, pesticides, heavy metals, many more contaminants. The waters surrounding Brooklyn serve as a source of recreation, transportation and, for some, food.
  • HUDSON RIVER RISING Riverkeeper Leads a Growing Movement to Protect the Hudson

    HUDSON RIVER RISING Riverkeeper Leads a Growing Movement to Protect the Hudson

    Confronting climate | Restoring nature | Building resilience annual journal HUDSON RIVER RISING Riverkeeper leads a growing movement to protect the Hudson. Its power is unstoppable. RIVERKEEPER JOURNAL 01 Time and again, the public rises to speak for a voiceless Hudson. While challenges mount, our voices grow stronger. 02 RIVERKEEPER JOURNAL PRESIDENT'S LETTER Faith and action It’s all too easy to feel hopeless these days, lish over forty new tanker and barge anchorages allowing storage of crude when you think about the threat posed by climate oil right on the Hudson, Riverkeeper is working with local partners to stop disruption and the federal government’s all-out another potentially disastrous plan to build enormous storm surge barriers war on basic clean water and habitat protection at the entrance to the Hudson Estuary. Instead, we and our partners are laws. Yet, Riverkeeper believes that a better fighting for real-world, comprehensive and community-driven solutions future remains ours for the taking. to coastal flooding risks. We think it makes perfect sense to feel hope- History was made, here on the Hudson. Groundbreaking legal pro- ful, given New York’s new best-in-the-nation tections were born here, over half a century ago, when earlier waves of climate legislation and its record levels of spend- activists rose to protect the Adirondacks, the Palisades and Storm King ing on clean water (which increased by another Mountain and restore our imperiled fish and wildlife. These founders had $500 million in April). This year, The Empire State also banned river-foul- no playbook and certainly no guarantee of success.
  • New York City Area: Health Advice on Eating Fish You Catch

    New York City Area: Health Advice on Eating Fish You Catch

    MAPS INSIDE NEW YORK CITY AREA Health Advice on Eating Fish You Catch 1 Why We Have Advisories Fishing is fun and fish are an important part of a healthy diet. Fish contain high quality protein, essential nutrients, healthy fish oils and are low in saturated fat. However, some fish contain chemicals at levels that may be harmful to health. To help people make healthier choices about which fish they eat, the New York State Department of Health issues advice about eating sportfish (fish you catch). The health advice about which fish to eat depends on: Where You Fish Fish from waters that are close to human activities and contamination sources are more likely to be contaminated than fish from remote marine waters. In the New York City area, fish from the Long Island Sound or the ocean are less contaminated. Who You Are Women of childbearing age (under 50) and children under 15 are advised to limit the kinds of fish they eat and how often they eat them. Women who eat highly contaminated fish and become pregnant may have an increased risk of having children who are slower to develop and learn. Chemicals may have a greater effect on the development of young children or unborn babies. Also, some chemicals may be passed on in mother’s milk. Women beyond their childbearing years and men may face fewer health risks from some chemicals. For that reason, the advice for women over age 50 and men over age 15 allows them to eat more kinds of sportfish and more often (see tables, pages 4 and 6).
  • Newtown Creek SAMPLES Water Quality Results from Community-Led Research, 2017

    Newtown Creek SAMPLES Water Quality Results from Community-Led Research, 2017

    Newtown Creek SAMPLES Water Quality Results from Community-Led Research, 2017 Newtown Creek SAMPLES Water Quality Results from Community-Led Research, 2017 In 2017 the Newtown Creek Alliance, Table of Contents in partnership with LaGuardia Community College and the North Introduction 4 Brooklyn Boat Club, ran an extensive Combined Sewer Overflow 5 water quality program, collecting over Sampling Locations 7 2,000 points of data from seven Rainfall 9 different locations on Newtown Creek. Dissolved Oxygen 11 This report provides details on the Enterococcus 15 parameters that we tested for, trends Phosphorus 17 that were observed as well as specific Algal Blooms 18 issues we targeted through our Marine Debris 21 research. Bird Survey 22 Next Steps 23 Additional Resources 24 Funding for this report was provided by the Hudson River Foundation. 1 In 2017 the Newtown Creek Alliance, Table of Contents in partnership with LaGuardia Community College and the North Introduction 4 Brooklyn Boat Club, ran an extensive Combined Sewer Overflow 5 water quality program, collecting over Sampling Locations 7 2,000 points of data from seven Rainfall 9 different locations on Newtown Creek. Dissolved Oxygen 11 This report provides details on the Enterococcus 15 parameters that we tested for, trends Phosphorus 17 that were observed as well as specific Algal Blooms 18 issues we targeted through our Marine Debris 21 research. Bird Survey 22 Next Steps 23 Additional Resources 24 Funding for this report was provided by the Hudson River Foundation. 2 3 Introduction Newtown Creek is a 3.8 miles waterway forming the western border between the boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens in New York City.
  • Riverkeeper: Empowering Gowanus Canal and Newtown Creek

    Riverkeeper: Empowering Gowanus Canal and Newtown Creek

    CASE STUDY CHALLENGE Riverkeeper: Empowering Gowanus Canal • Raise awareness of the environmental issues related to the and Newtown Creek Communities to Prevent New York Harbor, call attention to the freshwater resources in the Stormwater Pollution region and educate the public Founded 50 years ago by a group of fishermen determined to reclaim the declining Hudson River from polluters, Riverkeeper has grown into the SOLUTION • Riverkeeper conducted a river’s most effective advocate. Riverkeeper’s vision is for clean, swimmable community-wide education effort waters, a Hudson River teeming with life, and safe and abundant drinking through a storm drain a stenciling water supplies. To reach their goals, Riverkeeper performs scientific research, initiative in the neighborhoods enforces environmental laws, advocates for legal protections, and organizes surrounding Gowanus Canal and and educates grassroots activists. Newtown Creek, working with four partners: the Gowanus Canal Challenge Conservancy (GCC), the Newtown As the most densely populated urban waterfront in the nation, New York Creek Alliance (NCA), the SWIM City’s waterways are plagued by toxics, sewage, garbage and debris. Each Coalition, and the and the New York City Soil and Water Conservation year, billions of gallons of polluted stormwater empty into waterways when it District rains – carrying the oils, contaminants, and garbage from our streets, parking lots, and industrial sites. Communities have an important role to play “street RESULTS level” in keeping their waterways clean by learning about wastewater systems • Partners NCA and GCC assessed and where their storm drains empty. Environmental justice communities are their neighborhoods and identified disproportionately impacted as they struggle for open space opportunities and lists of locations to map and stencil.
  • A (Five-Minute) Case Study: Brooklyn Union Gas Wetland Mitigation Bill Young, Young Environmental, LLC

    A (Five-Minute) Case Study: Brooklyn Union Gas Wetland Mitigation Bill Young, Young Environmental, LLC

    A (Five-Minute) Case Study: Brooklyn Union Gas Wetland Mitigation Bill Young, Young Environmental, LLC 1/24/2011 Upenn School of Design 1 Army Corps of Engineers and Port Authority of NY and NJ East River Meadowlands Marsh Resources Intl Alley Creek Passaic River Hudson River NY-NJ Harbor Estuary ProjectFLUSHING Sites RIVER Newark Bay NEWTOWN CREEK Upper Harbor MITIGATION BUG PAERDEGAT * ELDER’S * * POINT BASIN Jamaica* Bay Arthur Kill Lower Harbor FK TRANSFER STATION Raritan Bay Keyspan, Brooklyn Union Gas, National Grid 2006-7, 10 acres, $6.6 million Monitoring ongoing High marsh Preserve Low marsh Proposed Grading Spartina alterniflora: Tolerates flooding Tolerates salinity Phragmites australis: Tolerates flooding Does not tolerate salinity Stevens Institute Construction Sequence: 1. Spray Phragmites 2x (ok 1) 2. Protect outer marsh along Old Place Creek 3. Excavate root mat/Phrag to 1 foot below tidal elevations 4. Place one foot of sand to match tidal elevations (use lasers on machines to grade accurately) 5. Seed all zones 6. Install matting on Maritime, high marsh and interplanting marsh 7. Write memo begging no matting in low marsh (granted) 8. Plant grass plugs in maritime zone 9. Plant Spartina, Distichlis and Iva in high, low and Interplanting marshes 10. Plant shrubs in Maritime zone 11. Replant bare spots, place sand in low spots, pull and spray weeds, repeat. BUG (Keyspan) Site, Staten Island NY Planting low and high marsh, and Maritime scrub shrub Creating Maritime Scrub zone: Place clean sand, rake, seed, install coir matting, and then plant through the matting one and two-gallon shrubs.
  • Bookletchart™ East River – Newtown Creek NOAA Chart 12338

    Bookletchart™ East River – Newtown Creek NOAA Chart 12338

    BookletChart™ East River – Newtown Creek NOAA Chart 12338 A reduced-scale NOAA nautical chart for small boaters When possible, use the full-size NOAA chart for navigation. Published by the westward and southward from the East Branch entrance and forms the last 0.8 mile of Newtown Creek. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Channels.–A Federal project provides for a 23-foot channel in Newtown National Ocean Service Creek from the East River to and in a turning basin about 240 yards Office of Coast Survey above the Kosciusko Memorial Bridge, thence 20 feet in East Branch and in English Kills to the Metropolitan Avenue bridge, and thence 12 feet in www.NauticalCharts.NOAA.gov English Kills to the head of the project at Montrose Avenue. (See Notice 888-990-NOAA to Mariners and latest edition of chart for controlling depths.) The tidal current is weak and variable. What are Nautical Charts? Pulaski Bridge, which crosses Newtown Creek 0.5 mile above the mouth, has a bascule span with a clearance of 39 feet at the fenders and 46 feet Nautical charts are a fundamental tool of marine navigation. They show at the center. The bridgetender monitors VHF-FM channel 13; call sign water depths, obstructions, buoys, other aids to navigation, and much KX–8178. more. The information is shown in a way that promotes safe and Dutch Kills, which is about 0.5 mile long, is crossed by the following efficient navigation. Chart carriage is mandatory on the commercial drawbridges: railroad bridge, Borden Avenue bridge, and Hunters Point ships that carry America’s commerce.
  • National Grid – Newtown Creek Renewable Gas Demonstration

    National Grid – Newtown Creek Renewable Gas Demonstration

    EPA Renewable Natural Gas Technology Transfer Workshop September 26th 2017 Donald Chahbazpour National Grid’s Journey NEWTOWN CREEK DEMONSTRATION PROJECT Partnership with NYC-DEP to convert New York City’s RFS – RECOGNITION OF waste water ENVIRONMENTAL ATTRIBUTES 2010 into a source Educating stakeholders on EPA’s of clean energy Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) program and helping customers by facilitating transactions to CURRENT STAKEHOLDER monetize the ENGAGEMENT environmental Facilitating Customer Projects attributes - Working with customers, project developers, technology providers and consultants RNG RESEARCH & WHITEPAPER Outlined the value of RNG as an Education & Advocacy alternative energy source. Analyzed the - Associations, policy makers and potential for RNG by regulators feedstock and technology in NY, MA, NATIONWIDE RNG REPORT RI & NH. Paper also Partnership with AGA provides a vision for a & AGF to determine the sustainable gas network national potential for NEW YORK STANDARD and a roadmap on how RNG INTERCONNECTION GUIDELINE to get there Collaborative effort to develop a revolutionary interconnection guideline. The purpose of this effort is to specify gas quality standards and streamline the process of connecting RNG projects to the gas distribution network 2017 2 Newtown Creek Demonstration Project Public-private partnership with NYC Department of Environmental Protection Largest wastewater treatment plant in NYC The project will inject enough RNG into the distribution network to heat ~2,500 homes Reduce CO2 emission by about 16,000 tons annually Equals ~3,000 car reduction for Newtown Creek wastewater treatment plant in Brooklyn, NY one year Source: New York City Department of Environmental Protection NYC is introducing an additional feedstock, food waste, which will boost biogas production 3 Recovery System Layout L EQUIPll'IENT .' .............
  • How's the Water? Hudson River Water Quality and Water Infrastructure

    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.