DOCSLIB.ORG

8. Proposed Action in the Kensico Reservoir Study Area

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
8. Proposed Action in the Kensico Reservoir Study Area Kensico Reservoir Project Description 8. PROPOSED ACTION IN THE KENSICO RESERVOIR STUDY AREA 8.1 KENSICO RESERVOIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION 8.1.1 BACKGROUND As discussed in Section 1.2.3, “Emergency Authorizations for Alum Application,” NYSDEC, in coordination with NYSDOH issued several emergency authorizations to DEP, which allowed for the 1 application of alum to water in the Catskill Aqueduct upstream of Kensico Reservoir to address episodic turbidity. Specifically, alum was applied to coagulate the suspended solids to improve settling and reduce 2 turbidity in flows of water from Ashokan Reservoir. Following the expiration of these emergency authorizations, DEP applied for a permit and NYSDEC issued the Catalum SPDES Permit. This permit authorizes DEP to apply alum and sodium hydroxide to reduce turbidity in the Catskill Aqueduct upon NYSDEC receipt of a copy of a notice from the NYSDOH that there is a potential imminent development of a public health hazard related to the discharge of turbid water from Kensico Reservoir. The Catalum SPDES Permit issued by NYSDEC to authorize alum application included a condition that DEP dredge accumulated alum floc from the Reservoir in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts to the environment within Kensico Reservoir. In 2011, the Catalum SPDES Permit was administratively extended. In June 2012, DEP requested a modification to the NYSDEC Catalum SPDES Permit to incorporate measures to address episodic turbidity in water diverted from Ashokan Reservoir, and delay of dredging of alum floc from Kensico Reservoir until completion of RWBT repairs. Repairs to the RWBT are underway and are part of a broader program to ensure the continued reliability of the drinking water system: DEP’s Water for the Future (WFF) Program. When the RWBT will be shut down (RWBT shutdown) to facilitate these repairs, DEP will be more heavily reliant upon the water in the Catskill System to meet its customers’ daily demand as water from the Delaware System will be unavailable. More reliance on the Catskill System increases the likelihood that the City would need to apply alum and sodium hydroxide to address turbidity to water in the Catskill Aqueduct upstream of Kensico Reservoir during the RWBT shutdown. As discussed in Section 1, “Introduction,” NYSDEC issued a Consent Order delaying the commencement of dredging design until the RWBT repairs are complete. In addition, and also as part of the WFF Program, DEP has commenced a project to repair and rehabilitate the Catskill Aqueduct (CAT-RR) to restore its historic capacity. As such, DEP expects that it may also be necessary to apply alum to water in the Catskill Aqueduct upstream of Kensico Reservoir during brief periods of aqueduct start-up after shutdowns associated with the CAT-RR project. DEP evaluated the potential for the application of alum during the RWBT shutdown and the CAT-RR project in the Water for the Future: Upstate Water Supply Resiliency Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (CEQR No. 5DEP006U) issued on December 15, 2017. Pursuant to the 2018 Modification to the Catalum Administrative Order on Consent, DEP is authorized to add alum in accordance with the WFF Alum 3 Treatment Plan (ATP) and requires that the associated alum floc be included in the Total Dredging Mass. 1 Aluminum sulfate (alum) and sodium hydroxide are added at the Pleasantville Alum Plant to water in the Catskill Aqueduct upstream of Kensico Reservoir (alum application). 2 Alum attaches to particles suspended in the water column that cause turbidity and causes them to sink and settle on the floor of the water body. These coagulated/flocculated particles are referred to as “alum floc.” 3 The 2018 Modification defines the Total Dredging Mass as the mass of alum floc deposited in Kensico Reservoir under two Emergency Orders in 2005, under authority of the Catalum SPDES Permit, and in accordance with the WFF ATP. Modification of the Catalum SPDES Permit EIS 8-1 Kensico Reservoir Project Description Therefore, any dredging in the future would be focused on the dredging of alum floc deposited since 2005, as well as any alum floc deposited in accordance with the WFF Alum Treatment Plan. Alum applied to water in the Catskill Aqueduct upstream of Kensico Reservoir forms alum floc, which is deposited and accumulates in the vicinity of the Catskill Influent Chamber (CATIC) Cove where water from the Catskill Aqueduct discharges into Kensico Reservoir. DEP conducted extensive bathymetric and sediment sampling studies in 2006 and 2014 to determine the depth, areal distribution, and chemical make-up (total and dissolved aluminum content) of the alum floc deposition within the area of CATIC Cove and the adjacent area of the Reservoir. Analysis of the physical characteristics of collected samples included grain size, percent moisture, percent solids, and percent organic matter. In addition, DEP sampled the Kensico Reservoir benthic community in proximity to the areas of alum deposition in April and July 2007. The 2007 surveys followed a period of alum application in 2005 and 2006. In July 2014, a representative subset of the stations sampled in 2007 were selected and resampled. The 2014 sampling also followed a period of alum application in 2011 and 2012. 8.1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW This EIS includes an analysis of the potential effects of delay of dredging, as well as an assessment of environmental considerations associated with this dredging by comparing the future without the Proposed 4 Action (no dredging) to the future with the Proposed Action (delay of dredging). As described in Section 8.2, “Kensico Reservoir Dredging Analysis,” dredging in the future would involve removal of approximately 91,000 to 98,400 cubic yards (cy) of accumulated alum floc from the bottom of Kensico Reservoir. As shown on Figure 8.1-1, dredging would occur within the approximate limits of historical and anticipated future floc deposition in the vicinity of the CATIC Cove. Dredging would be performed using a barge-based hydraulic dredge, with the pumping of dredged materials via temporary piping to an upland site. A separate dewatering operation to remove excess water from the dredged material would be established approximately 2.3 miles south of the CATIC site on property owned by the City and operated by DEP. The dewatering site would be located on the west side of the Reservoir off of Westlake Drive. Two adjacent temporary above-ground pipelines would be installed between the CATIC and dewatering sites. One pipeline would transport dredged material pumped from the CATIC site to the dewatering site for dewatering and off-site disposal of processed dredge materials, and the other would transport filtrate water generated from the dewatering process to the CATIC site for discharge back into the Reservoir. Descriptions of these activities are provided below. Dredging activities within Kensico Reservoir would be further refined in the future based on the detailed plans for dredging, and supplemental environmental analysis would be conducted, as applicable. 4 As described, the Proposed Action would modify the Catalum SPDES Permit to incorporate: (1) Turbidity control measures, including operation of Ashokan Reservoir in accordance with the IRP; and (2) Delay of dredging accumulated material (alum floc) from Kensico Reservoir until the completion of certain infrastructure projects. The Kensico Reservoir Study Area assessment focuses on delay of dredging. Modification of the Catalum SPDES Permit EIS 8-2 Kensico Reservoir Project Description Figure 8.1-1 Kensico Reservoir Project Location Modification of the Catalum SPDES Permit EIS 8-3 Kensico Reservoir Dredging Analysis 8.2 KENSICO RESERVOIR DREDGING ANALYSIS As set forth in the Final Scope of Work, the EIS assesses the potential impacts associated with a delay of dredging until certain DEP infrastructure projects, such as the RWBT repairs, have been completed, while also evaluating potential environmental considerations for the dredging of alum floc from Kensico Reservoir. This section analyzes the potential for significant environmental impacts associated with the delay of dredging and identifies environmental considerations associated with dredging activities. As the dredging design would be further refined in the future, DEP would review the need for additional environmental review of the potential effects of dredging that would be completed in the future, if required. 8.2.1 DELAY OF DREDGING In the future with the Proposed Action (delay of dredging), existing alum floc would continue to remain in place and the deposition of new alum floc in Kensico would increase as a result of alum application in accordance with the WFF ATP. In the future with the Proposed Action, general compliance with water quality standards would remain unchanged. NYSDEC-designated best uses for Kensico Reservoir, including use as a drinking water supply, would continue to be achieved as has been the case for many years. New deposition is anticipated to occur within the same lateral extent of the Kensico Reservoir CATIC Cove associated with alum floc deposition since 2005 and not beyond, as shown on Figure 8.2-1. The diversity and presence of existing benthic communities within previously deposited alum floc are anticipated to continue to persist, as documented from a comparison of 2007 and 2014 benthic sampling events that were completed after several larger previous alum applications. Likewise, impacts to other aquatic species, specifically fish, would also not be expected due to existing or newly deposited alum floc. No impacts to water quality or wetlands are expected to occur, as these would remain comparable to current conditions. Similarly, adverse impacts from existing floc have not been observed and potential impacts associated with aluminum within alum floc would not be expected, as the long-term water quality characteristics of Kensico Reservoir (i.e., neutral pH levels) do not support the conditions necessary for the bioavailability of aluminum that would potentially result in adverse impacts to benthos or fish.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Research Report110
    ~ ~ WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES A Survey of Rare and Endangered Mayflies of Selected RESEARCH Rivers of Wisconsin by Richard A. Lillie REPORT110 Bureau of Research, Monona December 1995 ~ Abstract The mayfly fauna of 25 rivers and streams in Wisconsin were surveyed during 1991-93 to document the temporal and spatial occurrence patterns of two state endangered mayflies, Acantha­ metropus pecatonica and Anepeorus simplex. Both species are candidates under review for addition to the federal List of Endang­ ered and Threatened Wildlife. Based on previous records of occur­ rence in Wisconsin, sampling was conducted during the period May-July using a combination of sampling methods, including dredges, air-lift pumps, kick-nets, and hand-picking of substrates. No specimens of Anepeorus simplex were collected. Three specimens (nymphs or larvae) of Acanthametropus pecatonica were found in the Black River, one nymph was collected from the lower Wisconsin River, and a partial exuviae was collected from the Chippewa River. Homoeoneuria ammophila was recorded from Wisconsin waters for the first time from the Black River and Sugar River. New site distribution records for the following Wiscon­ sin special concern species include: Macdunnoa persimplex, Metretopus borealis, Paracloeodes minutus, Parameletus chelifer, Pentagenia vittigera, Cercobrachys sp., and Pseudiron centra/is. Collection of many of the aforementioned species from large rivers appears to be dependent upon sampling sand-bottomed substrates at frequent intervals, as several species were relatively abundant during only very short time spans. Most species were associated with sand substrates in water < 2 m deep. Acantha­ metropus pecatonica and Anepeorus simplex should continue to be listed as endangered for state purposes and receive a biological rarity ranking of critically imperiled (S1 ranking), and both species should be considered as candidates proposed for listing as endangered or threatened as defined by the Endangered Species Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Annelida: Clitellata: Naididae): a New Non-Indigenous Species for Europe, and Other Non-Native Annelids in the Schelde Estuary
    Aquatic Invasions (2013) Volume 8, Issue 1: 37–44 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3391/ai.2013.8.1.04 Open Access © 2013 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2013 REABIC Research Article Bratislavia dadayi (Michaelsen, 1905) (Annelida: Clitellata: Naididae): a new non-indigenous species for Europe, and other non-native annelids in the Schelde estuary Jan Soors1*, Ton van Haaren2, Tarmo Timm3 and Jeroen Speybroeck1 1 Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Kliniekstraat 25, 1070 Brussel, Belgium 2 Grontmij, Sciencepark 406, 1090 HC Amsterdam, The Netherlands 3 Centre for Limnology, Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, 61117 Rannu, Tartumaa, Estonia E-mail: [email protected] (JS), [email protected] (TvH), [email protected] (JS), [email protected] (TT) *Corresponding author Received: 18 November 2011 / Accepted: 24 January 2013 / Published online: 21 February 2013 Handling editor: Vadim Panov Abstract For the first time, the freshwater oligochaete species Bratislavia dadayi (Michaelsen, 1905) is recorded in Europe. The species was found at three subtidal stations in the Schelde estuary in Belgium, where it was probably introduced from the Americas. We provide an overview of the species’ nomenclature, diagnostics, distribution, and ecology. Bratislavia dadayi is one of 11 non-indigenous annelids currently known to occur in the Schelde estuary. Key words: alien species; Annelida; Clitellata; Oligochaeta; Polychaeta; Belgium Introduction Annelids, and oligochaetes in particular, are a less-studied group, often overlooked when Over the last 150 years, the number of non- considering alien species. Yet the best studied native species turning up in areas far from their Annelid species, Lumbricus terrestris (L., 1758), original range has increased significantly (Bax et is now considered a widespread invasive species al.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Local Law # 1 of 2020
    SCOZ Incorporation in the Town of Ancram Zoning Law of November 2014 LOCAL LAW NO. 1 OF THE'YEAR 2020 A Local Law amending Article V of the Town of Ancram Zoning Law to incorporate the supplementary regulations for the Town’s Scenic Corridor Overlay Zoning District from Local Law No. 1 of 2003 and repealing Local Law No. 1 of 2003. Be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Ancram, Columbia County, New York, as follows: SECTION I - TITLE OF LOCAL LAW This law shall be entitled “A Local Law proposing an amendment to Article V of the Town of Ancram Zoning Law to incorporate the supplementary regulations for the Town’s Scenic Corridor Overlay Zoning District from Local Law No. 1 of 2003, and then repeal Local Law No. 1 of 2003.” SECTION II - LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE Subsequent to the adoption of the 2010 Town of Ancram Comprehensive Plan, the Town Board of the Town of Ancram updated and adopted a new Zoning Law on November 20, 2014. The 2014 Zoning Law included establishment and definition of a zoning district called the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone, which was previously established by Town of Ancram Local Law 1 of 2003. The purpose of the amendment proposed in this resolution is to incorporate into the Town’s Zoning Law adopted on November 20, 2014 the provisions of Local Law No. 1 of 2003 which Local Law established supplementary regulations for a zoning district called the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. Those supplementary regulations were not incorporated into the Town’s Zoning Law when it was adopted in 2014.
    [Show full text]
  • City's Filtration Avoidance Determination (FAD)
    2017 FAD New York City Filtration Avoidance Determination Prepared By New York State Department of Health in consultation with United States Environmental Protection Agency December 2017 2017 Surface Water Treatment Rule Determination for New York City’s Catskill/Delaware Water Supply System 2017 FAD Table of Contents Acronyms ................................................................................................................................ ii Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... iv Background and Basis for Determination ............................................................................... 1 SWTR Filtration Avoidance Criteria Requirements ............................................................. 17 Environmental Infrastructure Programs ................................................................................ 21 3.1 Septic and Sewer Programs ................................................................................................ 21 3.2 New Sewage Treatment Infrastructure Program ................................................................. 26 3.3 Community Wastewater Management Program ................................................................. 27 3.4 Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade Program ................................................................. 30 3.5 Stormwater Programs.......................................................................................................... 31 Protection
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Scope for the Modification of the Catalum Spdes Permit
    DRAFT SCOPE FOR THE MODIFICATION OF THE CATALUM SPDES PERMIT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lead Agency: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Applicant: New York City Department of Environmental Protection April 2014 Draft Scope DRAFT SCOPE FOR THE MODIFICATION OF THE CATALUM SPDES PERMIT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................. 3 1.1 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION ................................................................................................ 4 1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 6 1.3 WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM OPERATION .............................................................................. 7 1.4 REGULATORY BACKGROUND ......................................................................................... 10 1.5 CATALUM SPDES PERMIT ............................................................................................. 13 1.6 THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................................................. 14 1.7 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION .......................................................... 29 1.8 LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL PERMITS AND APPROVALS .............................................. 30 1.9 PRIOR STUDIES .............................................................................................................. 30 2.0
    [Show full text]
  • New York City's Water Story
    New York City’s Water Story: From Mountain Top to Tap SCHOHARIE COUNTY Schoharie Reservoir 1,130 FEET Delaware Watershed Gilboa Catskill Watershed Stamford The water we use today is the same water that fell as C rain when dinosaurs roamed a D t Prattsville Siuslaw s DELAWARE COUNTY West Branch Delaware e k l i the earth. In its endless a l Windham l w a W r cycle, water is the only e a t W e GREENE COUNTY rs Schoharie Creek substance that naturally a h te e r d Grand Gorge sh exists as a solid, e d liquid or gas. Delhi Lenox Roxbury East Branch Delaware Hunter Tannersville Andes Walton HUNTER MOUNTAIN Water’s journey from 4,040 FEET mountain top to tap begins Margaretville Shandaken Tunnel when rain and snow fall on COLUMBIA COUNTY watersheds, the areas Massachusetts of land that catch, absorb, Downsville Phoenicia and carry water downhill to gently and swiftly Deposit Pepacton Woodstock flowing streams. Cannonsville Reservoir Reservoir 1,150 FEET 1,280 FEET Esopus Creek SLIDE MOUNTAIN Boiceville West Delaware Tunnel East Delaware Tunnel 4,180 FEET Streams provide life-cycle Neversink Frost Valley needs for fish and other RIver aquatic organisms. Oxygen is Ashokan Rondout trapped in the fresh water as Creek Reservoir Claryville Olivebridge 590 FEET Kingston it tumbles over rocks into deep pools. Overhanging tree branches keep water r C e A v cool as fresh water T i Grahamsville S K R DUTCHESS COUNTY continues its journey. IL L n Neversink A Neversink Reservoir Tunnel Q o s 1,440 FEET U s E d Liberty Rondout Reservoir d Water is naturally filtered D u u U 840 FEET U C C H H T by the soil and tree roots in T dense forests as it travels toward reservoirs.
    [Show full text]
  • TB142: Mayflies of Maine: an Annotated Faunal List
    The University of Maine DigitalCommons@UMaine Technical Bulletins Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station 4-1-1991 TB142: Mayflies of aine:M An Annotated Faunal List Steven K. Burian K. Elizabeth Gibbs Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/aes_techbulletin Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Burian, S.K., and K.E. Gibbs. 1991. Mayflies of Maine: An annotated faunal list. Maine Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 142. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Technical Bulletins by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UMaine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ISSN 0734-9556 Mayflies of Maine: An Annotated Faunal List Steven K. Burian and K. Elizabeth Gibbs Technical Bulletin 142 April 1991 MAINE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Mayflies of Maine: An Annotated Faunal List Steven K. Burian Assistant Professor Department of Biology, Southern Connecticut State University New Haven, CT 06515 and K. Elizabeth Gibbs Associate Professor Department of Entomology University of Maine Orono, Maine 04469 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Financial support for this project was provided by the State of Maine Departments of Environmental Protection, and Inland Fisheries and Wildlife; a University of Maine New England, Atlantic Provinces, and Quebec Fellow­ ship to S. K. Burian; and the Maine Agricultural Experiment Station. Dr. William L. Peters and Jan Peters, Florida A & M University, pro­ vided support and advice throughout the project and we especially appreci­ ated the opportunity for S.K. Burian to work in their laboratory and stay in their home in Tallahassee, Florida.
    [Show full text]
  • 2007 Traffic Data Report for New York State
    2007 TRAFFIC DATA REPORT FOR NEW YORK STATE New York State Department of Transportation Table of Contents Page Chapter 1: Introduction.........................................................................................................1 Chapter 2: Traffic Data Collecting Program Overview........................................................2 Chapter 3: Accuracy of Traffic Data Section 3.1 Data Collection Equipment Requirements.............................................3 Section 3.2 Data Quality Control Checks.................................................................4 Chapter 4: Continuous Count Program Section 4.1 Introduction............................................................................................7 Section 4.2 Maps of Continuous Count Sites by Region..........................................8 Section 4.3 Map of High Speed Weigh-In-Motion Sites, Statewide .......................19 Section 4.4 Traffic Monitoring Site Details and Specifications ..............................20 Chapter 5: Coverage Count Program Section 5.1 Volume, Speed and Classification Counts............................................21 Section 5.2 Highway Performance Monitoring System ..........................................24 Section 5.3 Annual Traffic Monitoring Workshop..................................................24 Section 5.4 Mobile Traffic Monitoring Platforms ...................................................25 Section 5.5 County Counter Initiative .....................................................................26
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Assessment of the Patapsco River Tributary Watersheds, Howard County, Maryland
    Biological Assessment of the Patapsco River Tributary Watersheds, Howard County, Maryland Spring 2003 Index Period and Summary of Round One County- Wide Assessment Patuxtent River April, 2005 Final Report UT to Patuxtent River Biological Assessment of the Patapsco River Tributary Watersheds, Howard County, Maryland Spring 2003 Index Period and Summary of Round One County-wide Assessment Prepared for: Howard County, Maryland Department of Public Works Stormwater Management Division 6751 Columbia Gateway Dr., Ste. 514 Columbia, MD 21046-3143 Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. 400 Red Brook Blvd., Ste. 200 Owings Mills, MD 21117 Acknowledgement The principal authors of this report are Kristen L. Pavlik and James B. Stribling, both of Tetra Tech. They were also assisted by Erik W. Leppo. This document reports results from three of the six subwatersheds sampled during the Spring Index Period of the third year of biomonitoring by the Howard County Stormwater Management Division. Fieldwork was conducted by Tetra Tech staff including Kristen Pavlik, Colin Hill, David Bressler, Jennifer Pitt, and Amanda Richardson. All laboratory sample processing was conducted by Carolina Gallardo, Shabaan Fundi, Curt Kleinsorg, Chad Bogues, Joey Rizzo, Elizabeth Yarborough, Jessica Garrish, Chris Hines, and Sara Waddell. Taxonomic identification was completed by Dr. R. Deedee Kathman and Todd Askegaard; Aquatic Resources Center (ARC). Hunt Loftin, Linda Shook, and Brenda Decker (Tetra Tech) assisted with budget tracking and clerical support. This work was completed under the Howard County Purchase Order L 5305 to Tetra Tech, Inc. The enthusiasm and interest of the staff in the Stormwater Management Division, including Howard Saltzman and Angela Morales is acknowledged and appreciated.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1: Background and Planning Context
    Chapter 1: Background and Planning Context 1.1 INTRODUCTION Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company (“Metro-North” or the “Project Sponsor”) is proposing the construction of a new, expanded parking garage at 50 Haarlem Avenue (formerly referred to as 525 North Broadway) in White Plains, Westchester County, New York. The Project Sponsor is seeking a Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant from the Federal Transit Administration for the design and construction of the proposed garage (the “Proposed Action”). The purpose of the Proposed Action is to accommodate the projected future demand for parking at the North White Plains railroad station, allowing Metro-North to better serve its existing customers and to accommodate future railroad customers. The provision of adequate parking at this location would encourage the use of mass transit at a station that has frequent service. 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION The Proposed Action is located on the site of the existing customer parking garage at 50 Haarlem Avenue between Glenn and Bond Streets in the City of White Plains. It would be sited to the east and across Haarlem Avenue from the existing North White Plains station (see Figure 1-1). 1.2.1 EXISTING STATION The North White Plains railroad station is located along Metro-North’s Harlem Line on Haarlem Avenue west of New York State Route 22 (Route 22) and east of the Bronx River Parkway, about ¼ mile north of Interstate 287 (I-287), in the northern section of the City of White Plains, Westchester County, New York (see Figure 1-2). The station is located near the municipal boundaries of the City of White Plains and the Towns of North Castle and Greenburgh.
    [Show full text]
  • May 25, 2013 Karen Thornton, American Viticultural Area
    May 25, 2013 Karen Thornton, American Viticultural Area Designations Regulations and Rulings Division Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 1310 G Street NW Washington DC, 20220 [email protected] Dear Ms. Thornton, Please find included here a revised petition for the declaration of a new American Viticultural Area, entitled the Champlain Valley AVA. This petition was created on behalf of the Lake Champlain Grape Growers Association. I previously included an endorsement from our local congressional representative, Bill Owens, whose interest is in the economic development of this region and through his participation as a member of the House Agricultural Committee. Finally, I include a set of USGS maps that define the trail. I believe I have addressed the items you have requested in this revise and resubmit. Most importantly, I provided extensive climatological data to show how this region is differentiated from the Adirondack and western foothills region to the west, the Hudson Valley to the south, and Vermont to the east. Each of these regions has a growing season averaging two weeks longer than we do, and hence can grow the Vitis vinifera grapes that cannot be grown in this proposed region. Hence, the characteristic of grapes in the proposed region is almost exclusively North American hybrid. It is this factor that most profoundly defines and differentiates our proposed region. Should you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Colin Read North Star Vineyard 1383 North Star Road, Mooers, NY, 12958 Telephone 518-561-3828 Email [email protected] Regulations and Rulings Division Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 1310 G Street NW Washington DC, 20220 A Petition to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau of the Department of the Treasury to Establish the: Champlain Valley AVA (American Viticultural Area) Submitted by: An Association of Wineries in the Champlain Valley of New York State (1)Name Evidence [i] Name Usage The name of the viticultural area described is the Champlain Valley of New York.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Notice of Lodging
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, -against - Civil Action No. CV-19- ( ) CITY OF NEW YORK and NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Defendants. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x NOTICE OF LODGING OF CONSENT DECREE The United States of America respectfully gives notice of lodging with the Court a proposed Consent Decree and Judgment (“Consent Decree”) in the above-captioned action. No action is required by the Court at this time. Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 50.7, the United States will publish a notice in the Federal Register that the proposed Consent Decree has been lodged with the Court. The notice will solicit public comment for a period of 30 days. Section XX of the Consent Decree reflects the parties’ agreement that final approval and entry of the Consent Decree is subject to this public comment period. After the close of the comment period, the United States will evaluate any comments received and determine whether any comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that the proposed Consent Decree is inappropriate, improper or inadequate, and will advise the Court whether the United States requests that the Consent Decree be entered. 1 Accordingly, the United States respectfully requests that the Court not sign the proposed Consent Decree unless and until the United States moves for entry of the Consent Decree. Dated: March 18, 2019 Respectfully submitted, RICHARD P. DONOGHUE United States Attorney Eastern District of New York 271 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, New York 11201 By: s/Deborah B. Zwany______________ DEBORAH B. ZWANY (DBZ 7987) Assistant U.S.
    [Show full text]