 |
|
|
|
Long Term Control Plan
Meeting No. 3
August 1st, 2006
The third Flushing Bay and Creek Stakeholder Team meeting for the Long Term Control Plan (LTCP) of the NYC Department of Environmental Projection was held on August 1 2006 at 6:30 p.m. at the Olmsted Center in Flushing Meadows Corona Park. The purpose of the meeting was to review alternatives for CSO abatement in Flushing Bay and Creek before they are evaluated. Mark Klein, of DEP, opened the meeting. Stephen Whitehouse of Starr Whitehouse reviewed the background of the Long Term Control Plan.
After discussing baseline conditions, Philip Hwang, of O’Brien and Gere, went over the comprehensive list of alternatives. The first set of alternatives fall under the category of source control and include: preventing pollutants from entering sewers, street sweeping, catch basin cleaning, industrial pre-treatment, and public education. Philip said that many of these were already implemented. A stakeholder asked whether public education programs were underway; he views litter in storm sewers as a continuing problem. Mark replied that educational programs are ongoing. Another stakeholder suggested stenciling storm sewers, which he has observed in other cities, to deter residents from disposing of waste in storm sewers. Mark said that an interagency group is considering this measure.
The second group of alternatives falls under the category of inflow control, or reducing storm water, including Best Management Practices (BMP) such as green roofs, plantings, rain barrels, and permeable pavements. Philip said that in order to achieve a large scale of CSO abatement, wide-scale application is necessary. Mark added that many of these alternatives are outside of DEP’s jurisdiction as they fall into the portfolio of other Agencies, such as City Planning and the Department of Buildings. Also, they would be implemented on private property, outside the purview of DEP. One stakeholder expressed frustration that these alternatives are not being considered for Flushing Bay and Creek.
Stephen said that DEP is hoping to learn more about the quantifiable effects of BMP.
Until then, an enforceable plan, such as the LTCP, cannot be based on alternatives of uncertain results. A stakeholder suggested that BMP implementation in other cities, such as Seattle, could be used as precedents. Stephen stressed that DEP is exploring BMP through other projects, such as the Jamaica Bay Watershed Protection Plan.
Philip reviewed other categories of alternatives: sewer system optimization; sewer separation both partial and complete, which would both require massive refitting; storage, including tanks, large pipelines, and storage tunnel; treatment; receiving water improvements; and solids and floatable control.
Philip spoke about the alternatives under consideration for Flushing Bay.
>Construction of an 8 foot relief sewer to relieve capacity issues along 17,000 foot stretch of the High Level Interceptor (HLI). A stakeholder asked whether that would alleviate the problem of back flow in residential basements. Mark said that backup more likely stems from local collection issues and that residents should contact the local Community Board’s District Service Cabinet.
> Diversion of the HLI to the East River, which is less polluted than Flushing Bay.
> Implementation of bendable weirs, which retain flow in the sewers and limits outflows. Philip located the proposed sites for the weirs.
> Implementation of treatment at the largest outfalls, using coagulates to settle solids and facilitate retention.
> Installation of inflatable dams which are used to keep sewage in pipes
> Construction of outfall storage at the largest outfalls
Philip went over the impact that each of these would have on the baseline conditions of the waterbody. He said that the improvements conveyed by the existing facility plan, the 28MG Flushing Creek CSO retention tank, are already included. The construction of the relief pipes, the bending weirs, and inflatable dams at the two largest outfalls provide the greatest benefit.
Philip also described the alternatives being considered for Flushing Creek:
> Construction of the Flushing Creek CSO Retention Facility, currently underway, with a total of 43 MG of storage. Philip noted that approximately a third of the tank influent originated as stormwater. A stakeholder asked why the separate sewer systems in the drainage area were not treated separately. Philip said that it has been examined and discarded.
> Enhancement of the Tallman Island Conveyance System.
> Separation of Storm Sewers in the Kissena Corridor to reduce CSO volume at the Flushing Creek Tank
> Rerouting of overflow at TI-022 which is a high frequency, though low volume, outfall to the Flushing Creek CSO tank
> Installation of bendable weirs and inflatable dams
Philip went over the impact of each of these improvements on the baseline, both in terms of number of events per year and percent of CSO reduction from the baseline.
Philip said that the team looked at alternatives that would remove increments of up to 100% of CSOs, as prescribed by the LTCP process. In Flushing, the 100% abatement project consists of an underground tunnel. One stakeholder was concerned with the tunnel, describing prior experience with a similar tunnel in Milwaukee which resulted in ground contamination. Philip said that other U.S. cities have avoided that problem by lining the tunnels. Philip explained that the waste would be diverted to a treatment plant within two dry weather days. When asked about capacity in the treatment plants, John Leonforte, of DEP, said that there is currently excess capacity and that the policy is to design a new facility when a plant reaches 50% capacity. A stakeholder urged the team to consider the impact of rising groundwater and suggested that the team looked at the USGS projections for groundwater, which slates it to double over the next 10 years, a result of discontinuation of pumping. Chris Villari, of DEP, said that he would follow up.
Then Philip went over the cost-benefit analysis that the team will be using to select the best alternatives. The team will examine each alternative to weigh the level of improvement in CSO volume and water quality against the project cost. This analysis will be presented at the next meeting.
The stakeholders asked that water quality analysis be carried out with and without the submerged breakwater near Laguardia Airport. Chris suggested that he present the most recent Army Corps of Engineer study of the breakwater at the next meeting. He added that removing the breakwater is not beneficial. One stakeholder asked if there were dissenting studies. Chris responded that all of the studies since the 1990s suggest that the breakwater has no effect on water quality.
A stakeholder asked about the construction schedule for the Flushing Tank. The team responded that the target completion date was November, 2006 but that they would confirm.
The team chose a tentative next meeting date of September 28 th.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flushing Bay and Creek Stakeholder Team
Meeting No. 2
June 6th, 2006
The second Flushing Bay and Creek Stakeholder Team meeting of the Long Term Control Plan (LTCP) of the NYC Department of Environmental Projection was held on June 6, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. at the Olmsted Center in Flushing Meadows Park. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the baseline conditions of the waterbody.
John Leonforte, of DEP, opened the meeting by welcoming everybody. Stephen Whitehouse of Starr Whitehouse, a subconsultant facilitating the project’s public participation, directed everyone’s attention to the meeting minutes and asked if there were any changes. There were none.
Philip Hwang, a project consultant at O’Brian and Gere, began reviewing the 14 EPA best management practices which inform the LTCP project. One stakeholder asked for a clarification on the EPA guidelines for combined sewer system replacement which stipulates a preference for separate sanitary and storm sewers when combined sewers are replaced. He expressed concern that the first flush of stormwater, if untreated, would have a significant, negative impact on water quality.
Another participant spoke about DEP’s system for reporting CSOs and other water system incidents. He wondered if the department had case-by-case records and suggested that open records would promote public involvement.
Philip Hwang gave a review of Flushing water quality projects. He spoke about the operation and capacity of the Flushing Creek CSO tank, which will be completed in November 2006. The tank will hold 43 million gallons of combined sewage during rain events and afterwards will pump the volume to the Tallman Island plant for treatment. It will allow for 100% capture for 90% of rainstorms in NYC for average year. The facility will be housed beneath the new DPR facility and restored athletic fields.
One stakeholder asked about the periodic CSO events, which will occur when the tank’s capacity is exceeded. Philip specified that the CSO materials will be screened and there will be a series of baffles before discharge. The participant wondered why previous plans for disinfection by chlorination were not carried forward. Philip answered that DEP felt that the risks involved with the present technology for chlorination of storm flows were too great; the facility retains space for future disinfection equipment.
Philip went on to discuss the Corona Avenue Vortex facility, a pilot facility with vortex technology. After 10 years of performance testing, the technology appears to have limited effectiveness. He also discussed the Interim Floatable Containment Program currently in effect, which, on the Flushing Bay Watershed, consists of 3 booms and 1 net. An stakeholder asked for clarification on the difference between booms and nets. Philip explained that a net is an actual structure while a boom is a three foot skirt, otherwise open. Stephane Gibbons of DEP confirmed that booms effectively collect floatables and that there are regularly scheduled collections as well as special collections after rainfalls.
Philip then described the watershed model, which requires baseline conditions for the overflow volumes into Flushing Bay and Creek. The model is based on 1988 precipitation data, chosen as a representative year, and calibrated to 1989, 2002, and 2004 events. With this model, the project managers will be able to evaluate the effectiveness of various CSO controls. The drainage area of Flushing Bay and Creek is served by two sewer systems, Bowery Bay and Tallman Island. There are two distinct watershed models for these two sewer systems, and they include only major sewers and structures such as regulators, pumping stations, and treatment plants.
A participant asked for clarification on the use of 1988 climate data in the models. It was explained that 1988 was a year where the data was representative of a larger period of time. While some of the input data is from 1988, the model reflects up-to-date conditions and was created recently.
Philip also explained the water quality models under development, which will predict the water quality in Flushing Bay and Creek for compliance with dissolved oxygen and pathogen standards. The waterbody model combines two models, the East River Tributary Model (ERTM), which is a fine resolution model of smaller CSO-impacted waterbodies of New York City’s East River, and the System Wide Eutrophication Model, (SWEM), which is a coarse resolution model that encompasses a larger area that ERTM, and that simulates the boundary conditions for ERTM. The models also make use of data stations, which are sampled periodically. When asked, Philip noted that they are not sampled in real time.
Data was displayed along linear transects, for June through August, the months when the DO levels are lowest. Simulations for June exhibited relatively high levels of DO, above 4mg/L at least 90% of the time, with the exception of the mouth of Flushing Creek. Simulations in July are worse than June, particularly in Flushing Bay. Conditions in August resemble those in June. The simulations showed no fecal and coliform violations during bathing season. Stephen specified that these are EPA standards for primary contact recreation, and not Health Department standards for public bathing.
Philip also addressed the issue of odors in the Inner Bay, the result of CSO discharges. He showed a map of the concentrations of Clostridium perfringens, a bacterium associated with sewage pollution. A member of the public asked whether concentration of bacteria alone accounted for odor. Philip specified that low and high tide conditions as well as air and water temperature levels contributed to odor.
A stakeholder asked whether tidal water flows would help to move unwanted sediment away from the shoreline if they moved at higher velocity. If the sediment was in deeper water, he speculated, the concentration would be lower. He suggested that removing the submerged breakwater near to LaGuardia or contouring the bottom would ease the flow of sediment. DEP representatives responded that a more cost effective approach to improving the water is by decreasing CSO events. Philip added that it is unlikely that contouring would help the problem.
Philip discussed the purpose of LTCP planning: to abate odors, reduce floatables, and comply with DO standards. He briefly went over types of alternatives for accomplishing these goals. A member of the public inquired as to whether any alternatives had been considered and ruled out in Flushing. Philip said that the list was comprehensive. Stephen mentioned methods of detention of storm water that can be carried out by property owners, which are incremental and operates on a different scale of implementation, was not included .
One stakeholder asked another question about how the displacement of water functioned in Gowanus Canal and if that was a model that the Flushing Bay project could emulate. Stephen explained that water is actually pumped into the near end of the Gowanus Canal, which has large benefits for DO levels and marginal ability to reduce sediment.
Lastly, the group discussed how to increase attendance at the meetings. Several members of the public volunteered to contact members of their community who may be interested in participating in the LTCP project.
Administration:
The next meeting will be in six to seven weeks, on July 27th or August 1st. The model results will be available then and the meeting will focus on the evaluation of different alternatives and their effects. After this meeting, and perhaps a fourth, the waterbody/watershed plan will be completed for submission to NYC DEC, as a part of the State review process towards the creation of the LTCP. The State will conduct a public hearing on the plan.
Meeting notes will be drafted and circulated via email. They will also be posted on the study area website.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flushing Bay and Creek Stakeholder Team
Meeting No. 1
April 5, 2006
The first Flushing Bay and Creek Stakeholder team meeting of the Long Term Control Plan (LTCP) of the NYC Department of Environmental Protection was held on April 5, 2006, at 6:30 p.m. at the Olmsted Center in Queens. The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the Long-Term Control Plan project and discuss the implications for Flushing Bay and Creek.
Stephen Whitehouse, a subconsultant facilitating the project’s public participation, opened the meeting. He described the consultant team performing the project—a joint venture of Greeley and Hansen, O’Brien and Gere, and Hazen & Sawyer with supporting subconsultants—and then introductions were made around the room. Stakeholders ranged from longtime residents of the area to engineers to community and environmental advocates.
Stephen explained that the purpose of the LTCP project is to improve the quality of the city’s open waters and tributaries by developing a long-term plan to invest in infrastructure that will reduce the number and volume of combined sewer overflow (CSO) events. He reviewed the definition and location of CSOs in New York City and noted that the City’s sewer and wastewater infrastructure is funded by city ratepayers. Stephen gave an overview of water quality legislation and the City’s regulatory history leading to the 2004 Consent Order with NY State Department of
Conservation that, among other requirements, defined the scope of the LTCP. He explained that, through the LTCP project, waterbodies would be monitored and modeled; the public would be consulted through this stakeholder team process; and alternative facility, maintenance, and operations plans would be developed and evaluated in terms of costs and performance. He noted that both the 1992 and 2004 consent orders required tank construction and floatables controls; the 2004 consent order also includes specific wet weather capacity upgrades, sewer system improvements, and ongoing monitoring of compliance.
Philip Hwang, of O’Brien and Gere, introduced the water quality issues of Flushing Bay and Creek, which is classified by New York State as a Class 1 waterbody, which means that its waters should support fishing and secondary contact. The primary water quality issues in the study area include nuisance odor generation, floatables, coliform, and low dissolved oxygen. The project area is served by two treatment facilities, at Tallman’s Island and Bowery Bay. Philip discussed the recent and current water quality improvement projects including: Corona Ave Vortex Facility, Flushing Bay Storage Tank, College Point sewer separation, participation in COE “Flushing Bay Restoration Project”, and Floatables Containment, including catch basin hooding affecting all outfalls.
An extensive water quality survey was performed in the summer of 2000; it assessed Flushing Bay and Creek’s hydrodynamics, dissolved oxygen levels, temperature, nitrogen, photosynthesis/respiration, and hydrogen sulfide, among other data. Philip pointed out that waterbodies are classified and planned for holistically, by the quality of the water body as a whole rather than by the water quality at any one point (including at any particular CSO discharge point). Philip noted that the Flushing Bay and Creek Waterbody/Watershed plan has a June 2007 target date for submission to NYSDEC.
Flushing Bay and Creek Stakeholders’ Concerns :
> Odors are a problem in Flushing Bay and Creek. Is this unique to this study area? Steve replied that odor problems exist throughout the city in places with sediments exposed at low tide, such as areas in Newtown Creek and the Gowanus Canal.
> Many were concerned about dredging and the area between the World’s Fair Marina and LaGuardia Airport. The depth of the waterbody is reduced due to siltation, which limits barge activity in the Creek. Many noted the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) has been studying dredging the Bay for environmental enhancement. Christopher Villari of NYCDEP noted that by the terms of their current authorization the ACOE cannot dredge while there are CSO events continuing to deposit sediments. Discussion of this complex issue dominated the meeting.
> Is modeling taking into account different dredging alternatives? For instance, how would dredging affect the flow of the waterbody? Phil said this will be modeled. He noted that although alternatives suggested by public input will be modeled, they would be evaluated in terms of costs as well as public input.
> A stakeholder requested a list of the alternatives being modeled. Steve explained that alternatives have not yet been developed, but are expected by the third stakeholder team meeting.
> A stakeholder suggested that the water quality modeling be a community effort, both in terms of generating alternatives and the actual running of the model, to help eliminate any scheduling bottlenecks. Philip explained that this bottleneck is due to the number of model operators rather than the number of computers available.
Administration
The next meeting will occur in approximately eight weeks, with a tentative date of Tuesday, June 6. The Flushing Bay and Creek stakeholder team will meet approximately four times over the next six months. The next meeting will include a physical description of how the sewers infrastructure works in terms of flows and water quality. The third meeting will include a discussion of emerging alternatives. Meetings will be scheduled as far in advance as possible.
Meeting notes will be made available through the study area web site. Stakeholders are encouraged to visit the password-protected site to download background material on the LTCP in the meantime.
The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m
|
|
|
|
|
|
