nonpoint source management program 2000 - new york state
TRANSCRIPT
NONPOINT SOURCE
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
October 2000
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
DIVISION OF WATER
BUREAU OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
Governor George E. Pataki John P. CahillGovernor, New York State Commissioner
i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This Nonpoint Source Management Program was prepared by the New YorkState Department of Environmental Conservation in cooperation with the New YorkNonpoint Source Coordinating Committee. Staff and Committee members whocontributed to the writing of the report include:
Division of Water
Bernadette AndersonSusan BalmuthElaine Bloom
Tom BoekelooGerry Chartier
Philip DeGaetanoRichard DraperMarna Gadoua
Jim GarryShohreh Karimipour
N.G. KaulPatricia Longabucco
William MortonJeff MyersLois New
Michael RaffertyKevin RobertsLibby Smith
Jim SutherlandRobert TownsendRobin Warrender
We especially wish to thank Barbara J. Crier, Vivian Cramer and Carolyn Stone
for their work in typing, formatting, and copying the document and its draft versions.
ii
CONTRIBUTORS AND REVIEWERS
Walt Kretser Adirondack Lake Survey CorporationDave Fleury Adirondack Park AgencyDeb Grantham Cornell University - Water Resources/GeophysicsDavid Gross Cornell University - CCEKeith Porter Cornell University - WRISteve Pacenka Cornell University - WRIPeter Wright Cornell UniversityDavid Geisinger Environmental Facilities CorporationGary Hayes Federation of Regional Planning BoardsPam O’Malley Federation of Regional Planning BoardsRobert Alpern NYCDEP - Bureau of Water Supply, Quality & ProtectionJim Benson NYCDEP - Bureau of Water Supply, Quality & ProtectionTed Simroe NYCDEP - Bureau of Water Supply, Quality & ProtectionMark Vian NYCDEP - Stream Protection ProgramEdward Bennett NYSDEC - Air ResourcesEric Obrecht NYSDEC - Environmental RemediationRuss Brauksieck NYSDEC - Environmental RemediationDiane Goetke NYSDEC - Fish, Wildlife & Marine ResourcesDoug Sheppard NYSDEC - Fish, Wildlife & Marine ResourcesHoward Simonin NYSDEC - Fish, Wildlife & Marine ResourcesKaren Chytalo NYSDEC - Fish, Wildlife & Marine ResourcesBruce Williamson NYSDEC - Lands and ForestsKathleen Sanford NYSDEC - Mineral ResourcesLarry Rosenmann NYSDEC - Solid and Hazardous MaterialsTom Lynch NYSDEC - Solid and Hazardous MaterialsNathan Rudgers NYS Dept. of Agriculture and MarketsJohn Wildeman NYS Dept. of Agriculture and MarketsRon Entringer NYS Dept. of HealthJane Thapa NYS Dept. of HealthFitzroy Collins NYS Dept. of State - Coastal ManagementJohn Herring NYS Dept. of State - Coastal ManagementKen Smith NYS Dept. of State - Coastal ManagementMark Sengenberger NYS Dept. of TransportationKurt Weiskotten NYS Dept. of TransportationAssemblyman Thomas P. DiNapoli NYS Legislative Comm. on Water Res. Needs of LIErica Heintz NYS Legislative Comm. on Water Res. Needs of NY and LIJim McCardell NYS Soil & Water Conservation CommitteeDon Lake NYS Soil & Water Conservation CommitteeKaren Williamson NYS Soil & Water Conservation CommitteeNordica Holochuck NY Sea Grant ExtensionTom Della Rocco USDA Farm Service AgencyJoseph Del Vecchio USDA - NRCSRich Lewis USDA - NRCSDonna Samboonlakana USEPA - Region IIGrady Moore USGS - Water Division
iii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AEM - Agricultural Environmental ManagementALSC - Adirondack Lakes Survey Corporation
CAAA - Clean Air Act AmendmentsCBEP - Community Based Environmental ProtectionCCMP - Comprehensive Conservation and Management ProgramCEM - Continuous Emissions Monitoring
CEM - Community-based Environmental ManagementCNPCP - Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control ProgramCRP - USDA Conservation Reserve ProgramCSGWPP - Comprehensive State Groundwater Protection ProgramCSO - Combined Sewer Overflow
CVAP - Clean Vessel Act ProgramCWA - Clean Water ActCWSRF - Clean Water State Revolving FundCZARA - Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendment
DA&M - NYS Department of Agriculture and MarketsDO - Dissolved OxygenDOH - NYS Department of HealthDOS - NYS Department of State
DOW - NYS DEC Division of WaterDWSRF - Drinking Water State Revolving FundEC - Environment CanadaECL - Environmental Conservation Law
EPF - Environmental Protection FundEQIP - USDA Environmental Quality Incentive ProgramFSA - Farm Service AgencyGIS - Geographic Information System
Home*A*Syst - Home Assessment SystemsLaMP - Lake Management PlanMCL - Maximum Contaminant LevelsMOU - Memorandum of Understanding
NEPPS - National Environmental Performance Partnership AgreementNOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNPS - Nonpoint SourceNPSCC - Nonpoint Source Coordinating CommitteeNRCS - Natural Resources Conservation Service
iv
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED)
NURP - Nationwide Urban Runoff ProgramNYCDEP - New York City Department of Environmental Protection NYCWAP - New York City Watershed Agricultural ProgramNYSDEC - NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
NYSEFC - NYS Environmental Facilities CorporationNYSSWCC - New York State Soil and Water Conservation CommitteeOME - Ontario Ministry of EnvironmentOWTS - Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems
PAL - Priority Aquifer ListPHL - Public Health LawPPA - Performance Partnership AgreementPPG - Performance Partnership Grant
PWL - Priority Waterbodies ListPWS - Public Water SupplyRACT - Reasonably Available Control TechnologyRFP - Request for ProposalsRIBS - Rotating Intensive Basin Studies
SDWA - Safe Drinking Water ActSLWAP - Skaneateles Lake Watershed Agriculutral ProgramSPDES - State Pollutant Discharge Elimination SystemSWAP - Source Water Assessment Program
SWCD - Soil & Water Conservation DistrictTMDL - Total Maximum Daily LoadTOGS - Technical Operational Guidance SeriesTU - Trout Unlimited
USDA - United States Department of AgricultureUSEPA - United States Environmental Protection AgencyUSGS - U.S. Geological SurveyWET - Water Education for Teachers
WHIP - USDA Wildlife Habitat Incentive ProgramWICSS - Water Integrated Compliance Strategies SystemWMAC - Water Management Advisory CommitteeWQCC - Water Quality Coordinating Committee
WRP - USDA Wetland Reserve Program
v
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage No.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iCONTRIBUTORS AND REVIEWERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iiACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
CHAPTER I: OVERVIEW
A. Basic Concepts: Nonpoint Sources and Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3B. Activity Associated with Nonpoint Source Planning in New York Since 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4C. Performance Partnership Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8D. Five Year Update of the NPS Management Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9
CHAPTER II: PARTNERSHIPS
A. New York Nonpoint Source Coordinating Committee (NPSCC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1B. Steering Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1C. County Water Quality Coordinating Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-2D. Water Management Advisory Committee (WMAC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-2E. Watershed Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-3F. Other Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-4G. Implementation Steps for Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-5
CHAPTER III: IDENTIFYING AND EVALUATING NONPOINT SOURCE PROBLEMS
SURFACE WATER QUALITY
A. Introduction/Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1B. Surface Water Quality and the PWL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-4C. Implementation Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-10
GROUNDWATER QUALITY
A. Introduction/Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-10B. Groundwater Management and Protection in NYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-13C. Priority Aquifer List (PAL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-15D. Problem Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-15E. Measuring and Reporting Progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-16F Problem Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-16G. Environmental Indicators for Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-16H. Implementation Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-17
CHAPTER IV: OUTREACH
A. Rationale and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1B. History of Outreach and Education Since the 1990 Management Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-2C. Implementation Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3
CHAPTER V: PROGRAMS TO CONTROL NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION
A. Source Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1B. Pollutants and Their Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3C. Types of Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-5D. Existing and Needed Nonpoint Source Control Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-7
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS(Continued)
Page No.
1. General Management Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-72. Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-153. Atmospheric Deposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-294. Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-355. Contaminated Sediment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-406. Hydrologic/Habitat Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-457. Land Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-528. Leaks, Spills and Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-559. Marinas and Recreational Boating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-6010. Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-6311. Resource Extraction/Exploration/Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-6812. Roadway and Right-of-Way Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-7313. Silviculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-7714. Urban Runoff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-82
CHAPTER VI: WATERSHED PLANNING FOR THE CONTROL OF NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION
A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1B. BMP Implementation in Lieu of Watershed Prioritization and Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1C. What is a Watershed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1D. River Basin Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-2E. Risk-Based Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-3F. The Planning Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-3G. Prioritizing Watersheds for Nonpoint Source Control of Nonpoint Source Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-4H. Watershed Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-6I. Funding Watershed Planning Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-8J. Implementation Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-8
CHAPTER VII: IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR NONPOINTSOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-1B. Five-year Implementation Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-1
CHAPTER VIII: SOURCES OF FUNDING AVAILABLE TO IMPLEMENTNONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS
A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-1B. Funding for Capital Projects by Federal and State Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-2C. Funding for Planning, Research, and Educational Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-6D. Potential Future Funding Directions - Clean Water SRF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-6E. Private Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-7
Table VIII-1 (Sources of Funding Available to Plan and/orConstruct Nonpoint Source Projects) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-8
APPENDIX A: Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1APPENDIX B: Nonpoint Source Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1APPENDIX C: Public Participation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1APPENDIX D: Strategies Submitted to EPA/NOAA for Full Approval of the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1
New York Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control ProgramAPPENDIX E: The Key Elements of New York’s Nonpoint Source Management Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1
I-1
NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM - UPDATE
CHAPTER I OVERVIEW
New York conducts its Nonpoint Source Management Program under the following vision and missionstatements:
Vision Statement
Nonpoint source pollution caused by natural and human activities no longer impairs New YorkState’s waters.
Mission Statement
The mission of New York’s Nonpoint Source Program is to control, reduce or treat pollutedrunoff through the implementation of structural, operational or vegetative managementpractices; to administratively coordinate various state agencies and other interested partnershaving regulatory, outreach, incentive-based, or funding programs that foster installation ofmanagement practices for any of the identified sources of nonpoint pollution threatening orimpairing the waters of New York; and to conduct local implementation and statewidecoordination and evaluation on a watershed basis.
The seven long-term goals of the Nonpoint Source Management Program are listed here, followed by thechapters where their implementing programs and activities are presented:
1. Establish a five year planning cycle for updating the New York State Nonpoint Source ManagementPlan. (Chapter I)
2. Coordinate statewide federal, state and industry programs that address aspects of NPS pollution.(Chapter I)
3. Establish and foster partnerships to coordinate county and local activities to address NPS pollution.(Chapters II and IV)
4. Identify and evaluate NPS water quality problems. (Chapter III)
5. Encourage and assist all landowners with guidance documents, incentives and funding to implementmanagement practices to control NPS pollution. (Chapters IV, V and VIII)
6. Where regulatory programs exist, identify management practices approved for use in New York, andtrack progress of their implementation/installation for the control of NPS pollution. (Chapter V)
7. Address NPS pollution from all categories geographically by watershed. (Chapter VI)
The above are general goals for the Nonpoint Source Management Program. In addition, DEC and partneragencies have developed statewide Long- and Short-Term Goals for reduction of nonpoint source pollution.Priority source category goals have also been developed. Both can be found in Appendix E.
I-2
The 1990 Nonpoint Source Management Programsignified the transition in New York, and the nation, toa water quality improvement program that includednonpoint source pollution control. There have beenmany changes in the field of nonpoint source pollutioncontrol since then. This Management ProgramUpdate incorporates the federal, state and localchanges since 1990 and makes recommendations forfurther activities needed to address nonpoint sourcepollution in New York.
At the federal level, the Nonpoint Source programunder Section 319 of the Clean Water Act remainedsubstantially unchanged since proposed amendmentsto the CWA were not passed. However, increases infunding through 1998 provided for the implementationof many nonpoint source management practices andprojects. The 1996 Farm Bill and the 1996Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act(SDWA) have both highlighted the need for better, orat least more strategically located, nonpoint sourcemanagement practices. New York's Coastal NonpointPollution Control Program was developed in responseto the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments(Section 6217). The program received final conditionalapproval from the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA) and Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) on November 18, 1997. The approvalacknowledges that, with a few exceptions, New Yorkhas the enforceable policies and mechanismsnecessary to effectively address nonpoint sourcepollution in the watersheds of the coastal waters.
At the state level, the New York Nonpoint SourceCoordinating Committee (NPSCC) was created andcontinues as New York’s forum for collaboration onNPS issues. The New York State Soil and WaterConservation Committee (NYSSWCC) and the NewYork State Department of Environmental Con-servation (NYSDEC) brought County Water QualityCoordinating Committees (WQCCs) from an idea toreality. By 1992, each county had a WQCC. TheClean Water / Clean Air Bond Act was a new statefunding source passed by voters in November 1996.The Environmental Protection Fund (EPF) hassupplemented 319 funding since 1995. Numerousagricultural and non-agricultural projects have beenfunded.
At the local level, County WQCCs have developedwater quality strategies for every county. The countystrategies serve to focus locally based implementationefforts. As of 1998, over 250 local projects usingfederal, state or local dollars were under way acrossthe state. New York City Department ofEnvironmental Protection (NYCDEP) and the City ofSyracuse, as part of SDWA filtration avoidance, haveestablished programs to address all sources of nonpointpollution in the watersheds that supply drinking waterfor their cities. (See Watershed Partnerships, pg. II-3.)
This updated Nonpoint Source Management Programis intended to provide direction for the work of theNPSCC into the future. New York shares EPA'slong-term vision to implement a dynamic, effectivenonpoint source program to achieve and maintainbeneficial uses of water.
The objectives of this document are:
1. To outline the extent of water quality problemsin New York caused by nonpoint sources andto explain how future assess-ment informationwill be used to report progress.
2. To provide guidelines for setting prioritiesamong watersheds;
3. To outline an education/information strategy tomake more people aware of nonpoint sourcepollution;
4. To recommend control measures needed toaddress each category of nonpoint sourcepollution causing water quality problems inNew York;
5. To list management practices for the controlof nonpoint source pollution compiled since1990; and
6. To identify potential sources of fundingavailable to implement nonpoint source controlprograms.
I-3
Short term goals or implementation steps were written(1996-1998) by NYSDEC staff and New York'sNonpoint Source Coordinating Committee memberswith input from County WQCC members, DECregional staff, New York's Water ManagementAdvisory Committee and others. The implementationsteps are given for each source category in ChapterV.
A. Basic Concepts: Nonpoint Sources andControls
The concept of "nonpoint source pollution" can best beconveyed by contrasting it with "point sourcepollution." A point source of water pollution is definedin Section17-0105 of the Environmental ConservationLaw as:
any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance,including but not limited to, any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel,
conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock,concentrated animal feeding operation, landfill leachatecollection system, vessel or other floating craft from whichpollutants are or may be discharged. This term does notinclude return flows from irrigated agriculture or agriculturalstorm water runoff.
In contrast, nonpoint source may be an areawidesource or many sources distributed diffusely whichcumulatively contribute to water quality degradation.The characteristics that generally distinguish point andnonpoint sources are shown below in Table I-1.
Some sources may contribute pollutants both by pointand nonpoint pathways. For example, individually-owned septic tanks could be collectively regarded asnonpoint sources of groundwater pollution. However,an individual septic tank which discharges directly to awaterbody would be considered a point source.
TABLE I-1
POINT SOURCE POLLUTION NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION
- Pollutants discharged from a single source at adiscrete point.
- Pollutants entering water at many locations frommany sources, distributed diffusely over an area.
- Pollution can feasibly be abated and/orcontrolled through regulatory permits,inspections, monitoring and complianceprocesses.
- Usually best prevented or remediated bymodifying activities, practices or operations on theland, or by changing land use activities eitherthrough the use of financial incentives, voluntarycompliance, or regulation.
- Usually controlled through use of wastewatertreatment technologies to remove pollutantsbefore discharge.
- Usually controlled by reducing or preventingavailability, release or transport of pollutants thatadversely affect water quality.
- Usually associated with the use and disposal ofwater for industrial, commercial or municipalpurposes.
- Usually associated with runoff from precipitationevents or with movement of groundwater.
Pollution from most nonpoint sources occurs inresponse to hydrologic events. Because there is noway to eliminate runoff from the natural hydrologiccycle, there will always be nonpoint pollution in humaninhabited areas. Contaminants transported inoverland runoff during and following a storm eventusually are characterized as nonpoint if they enter awaterbody diffusely, or as point if they enter at a
discrete stormwater discharge point. For example,pesticides and fertilizers applied on large areas of landare considered nonpoint pollutants if they migrate tosurface or groundwater.
Airborne pollutants, including contaminantsresponsible for acid rain and particulates transportedby wind, also are characterized as nonpoint. Although
I-4
these pollutants are best controlled at their emissionpoints by air quality programs, their adverse impact onwater quality demonstrates the need to include airquality programs as part of New York's nonpointsource management program.
Table I-2 lists by source category various nonpointsources of pollution affecting surface andgroundwater in New York State. These categoriesare a slight variation on the list the EPA provided inits 1987 nonpoint source program guidance.
The control and prevention of nonpoint sourceimpacts on the state's waters requires a differentapproach from that used with point sources ofpollution. Those involved with control of a pointsource include only a few entities: the source owner(private or public) and the regulating institutions.Managing nonpoint sources, on the other hand, callsfor the participation of a variety of players. ChapterII describes the partnerships between the governmentagencies and nongovernment organizations involvedwith the control of nonpoint source pollution in NewYork. The great variety of sources, the range ofexpertise needed to deal with them, and the distribu-tion of legal authority and accountability all contributeto the need to share the task.
Nonpoint source pollution usually is best prevented orremediated by employing one or more managementpractices. A management practice is a means ofpreventing or reducing the availability, release ortransport of substances which adversely affectsurface and groundwaters. It is a practice used toprevent or reduce the impact of nonpoint pollutantsusually from a specific source category.
New York has developed a series of tenManagement Practices Catalogues each containingmanagement practices for a particular sourcecategory. From this list of tested and approvedpractices, the best practice should be selected andused by individuals or groups wherever needed todiminish the impact of nonpoint source pollution.They can be used without a formal planning processor without an identification of a specific problem.They make good environmental sense. Use of
appropriate management practices helps buildenvironmental responsibility.
B. Activity Associated with NonpointSource Implementation in New YorkSince 1990
1. Implementation of the 1990 NPSManagement Program
The 1990 Management Program described theprogram’s foundation in the federal 208 program ofthe 1970s and the Continuing Planning Process of the1980s and early 1990s. As part of the ContinuingPlanning Process, the Nonpoint Source AssessmentReport and Nonpoint Source Management Programwere developed in a public process involving 100representatives of agencies, industries andorganizations. The NYSDEC by virtue of itsstatutory authority for the management of waterresources and control of water pollution in the State,has assumed the lead responsibility for control ofnonpoint source pollution. Since 1990, the Division ofWater has continued to maintain the nonpoint sourceproblem inventory (now the Priority WaterbodiesList), develop guidance documents on topics such asmanagement practices and watershed planning, andcoordinate activities with other involved agencies,primarily through quarterly meetings of the NPSCC.The following review of past years’ work, startingwith the implementation of the 1990 NPSManagement Program, serves as a point of departurefor this NPS Management Program Update.
The 1990 Management Program contained animplementation schedule that listed recommendationsfor the next four years. The implementation scheduleconsisted of recom-mendations for each of thirteencategories of nonpoint source pollution. They arelisted in Chapter V of the 1990 NPS MP. Of the 72recommendations, 23 were fully achieved, 31 werepartially achieved, 5 were revised, and 13 were notachieved. In some cases, DEC had the primaryresponsibility for implementing recommendations butin others, other agencies took the lead.
I-5
TABLE I-2Nonpoint Sources
• Atmospheric Deposition
- Acid rain- Dry particulates
• Agriculture
- Row crops/Grain crops- Orchards/vineyards- Pasture land/overgrazing- Barnyards- Manure spreading- Fertilizer application- Pesticide application- Livestock access to streams- Improper manure storage- Milking center waste- Feed storage areas
• Construction
- Highway/road/bridge- Land clearing/development
• Contaminated Sediment
- Dredging- Resuspension of toxic or hazardous substances
• Hydrologic Habitat Modification
- Stream channelization- Dredging- Flow regulation/modification- Removal of riparian vegetation- Streambank modification/
destabilization- Surface impoundments
• Land Disposal
- Sludge (disposal of septage/sludge from astewater treatment)
- Landfills (solid waste disposal)
• Leaks, Spills & Accidents
- Petroleum handling and storage- Hazardous chemical handling and storage
• On-site Wastewater Systems
- Nutrient loading- Pathogen release
• Roadways and Right-of-Way
- Storage and handling of deicing agents and abrasives- Storage and handling of Pesticides/herbicides
• Resource Extraction/Exploration/ Development
- Surface mining- Dredge mining/spoil disposal- Petroleum exploration activities (brine
solutions and sediment associated with gas and oil drilling operations)
• Silviculture
- Logging adjacent to streams- Skidding- Logging road construction/treatment/
maintenance- Improper landing location
• Urban Runoff
- Impervious surface (contaminantsfrom streets, sidewalks, parking
• Other
- Saltwater intrusion resulting from overpumping / inter-basin transfers
- Natural (ambient conditions)- Marinas
I-6
One of the most significant recommendations thatwas achieved, was the development of the SPDESGeneral Permit for stormwater runoff fromconstruction activities. The January 9, 1998, draftEPA Phase II Stormwater Regulations has resultedin DEC having to revise much of its stormwaterprogram including the SPDES General Permits forstormwater, both construction and industrial. This isdiscussed further in the Construction and UrbanRunoff sections of Chapter V.
Highlights of other recommendations that were fullyachieved include developing a procedure forcounties to use in preparing water quality strategies,producing a handbook that describes a watershedplanning process for control of nonpoint sourcepollution and developing a series of 10 managementpractice catalogues (summarized in Appendix B) foreach significant category of nonpoint sourcepollution in New York.
Cooperation of local agencies such as Soil andWater Conservation Districts or county healthdepartments has been required to implement manyof these programs. Organizations such as the NewYork State Association of Conservation Districtsand the Soil and Water Conservation Society havealso been called on to assist in implementation.
The Division of Water published status reports in1991 and 1995 to briefly describe progress inimplementing the 1990 NPS Management Program.These documents included descriptions of theNPSCC, the guidance materials developed toaddress stormwater runoff and erosion/sedimentcontrol, the management practices catalogues andother activities, including training sessions anddistribution of targeted outreach materials. Thereports also gave updated assessment informationand described funded implementation projects.
2. NPS Implementation Projects
New York’s nonpoint source implementation grantprojects are both federally and state funded. TableI-3 shows information about the first four rounds of
NPS implementation grant projects funded throughDEC.
In addition to the non-agricultural projects in TableI-3, 33 nonpoint source projects were selected forfunding in the first three rounds of the agriculturalnonpoint source program, totaling nearly $1.5million. This program is administered under theNYSSWCC (a.k.a. the State Committee, it existswithin the Department of Agriculture and Markets).
TABLE I-3NONPOINT SOURCE
IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTSFUNDED THROUGH DEC
CalendarYear of
ContractAwards
No. ofProjects
Cost
‘92 7 $300,000
‘94 28 $950,000
‘95 28 $1,500,000
‘97 51 $2,575,000
The NYSSWCC funded (1997-1998) an additional65 agricultural projects selected from among theresponses to their Round 4 request-for-proposals.Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)funded Environmental Quality Incentive Program(EQIP) projects totaling $3,495,000 in 24 PriorityAreas with 1997 funds; and $4,560,000 in 16 PriorityAreas with 1998 funds.
The 1996 Bond Act selected 90 projects in SFY‘97-98 in five categories for funding. $5,647,853went to 38 nonpoint source projects (both agri-cultural and non-agricultural categories) .
3. Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program
The Coastal Zone Act ReauthorizationAmendments of 1990 (CZARA) included a sectiondevoted to coastal nonpoint pollution control, now
I-7
known as Section 6217. This federal legislationrequires New York and about 30 other states andterritories with approved coastal managementprograms to develop and implement programs tocontrol nonpoint pollution to restore and protectcoastal waters.
The central purpose of Section 6217 is to strengthenthe links between federal and state coastal zonemanagement and water quality programs. Anotherpurpose is to enhance state and local efforts tomanage land use activities that degrade coastalwaters and coastal habitats.
At the federal level, the program is administeredjointly by EPA and the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA), respectively,the federal water quality and coastal managementagencies. This approach is echoed at the statelevel, where NYSDEC and the Department ofState's (DOS) Division of Coastal Resources arejointly responsible for program development andimplementation. The two agencies entered into apartnership (through a Memorandum ofUnderstanding) to develop New York State'sCoastal Nonpoint Pollution Control ProgramDocument.
The most significant change which 6217 representsis that the program must be "enforceable," movingbeyond the traditional voluntary approach toaddressing nonpoint pollution.
Congress required EPA and NOAA to developguidelines addressing the various types of nonpointpollution. EPA and NOAA divided nonpointpollution into six categories: agriculture; forestry;marinas; hydromodifications (dredging, dams, etc.);urban (including many types of development such asroads, bridges, buildings, and onsite waste disposalsystems), and wetlands. Within each of thesesource categories, the federal agencies defined"management measures," which are the goalsspecific to each source of pollution. For example, amanagement measure for the section dealing withmarinas requires that fueling stations be designed toallow for ease in spill cleanup.
The 6217 program accommodates differentconditions by requiring that management measuresbe enforceable, but allowing flexibility in whichspecific practices are used. For example, for themarina fueling station management measurementioned above, several specific practices wouldallow achievement of the measure, such as requiringthe preparation of a spill contingency plan and initialsiting so that spills will be confined to a limited area.In essence, the management measures are goalsthat are to be achieved, while the practices arespecific possible ways to achieve the goal. Thissplit between enforceable measures and a range ofpossible practices allows the states flexibility inachieving the goals.
The EPA and NOAA guidance lists 57management measures in the six source categories.DEC and DOS have determined, after a review ofexisting programs, that about two thirds of thesemanagement measures are already in place in NewYork State. Such programs as waste oil recyclingand wetland protection programs already achievemany of the goals of the 6217 program.
Given the wide range of programs and agenciesinvolved in nonpoint pollution management in NewYork, DEC and DOS have purposely decided tobuild on existing programs wherever possible. Asan example, both the marina and hydromodificationcategories require the evaluation of possible impactsbefore new actions are begun. In both of theseinstances, state permit programs already exist, so itseems logical to incorporate nonpoint pollutioncontrol into these programs rather than develop newpermit systems.
Issuance of final conditional approval to New YorkState (November 18, 1997) indicates that NOAAand EPA agree with this approach and recognizethat, New York's existing programs (primarily thosesame programs described in Chapter V of thisdocument) will adequately address coastal nonpointpollution, with exceptions explained below.
The conditions of the approval focus on what NewYork needs to do to achieve the remaining Section
I-8
6217 management measures. At the end of thedescription of each NPS category in Chapter Vseveral paragraphs are included to summarizeNOAA/EPA's conditions to achieve managementmeasures for related Section 6217 SourceCategories. Some of the conditions require the stateto develop a strategy to meet certain aspects of amanagement measure. Other conditions requirethat mechanisms and authorities are set in place toprovide broad coverage by a specific date. NewYork’s strategies for four of the federal conditionsare in Appendix D.
Upon final approval, the New York State CoastalNonpoint Pollution Control Program (CNPCP)(including strategies for meeting conditions) will beincorporated into the State's overall NonpointSource Management Program.
4. Source Water Assessment
The NYSDOH is responsible for maintaining apotable supply of drinking water for the citizens ofNew York State. Drinking water can be threatenedby point and nonpoint source contamination. Onedevelopment in the DOH program since 1990 is theSource Water Assessment Program. NYSDOHresponsibilities under the Safe Drinking Water Act(SDWA) are also included in the PPA.
As required in the 1996 Amendments of theSDWA, source water assessments are beingconducted at all public water supply sources. Thegoal of these assessments is to provide meaningfulinformation to direct ongoing source waterprotection efforts and the overall drinking waterprogram in New York State. The assessmentsconsist of: source delineation; identification ofsignificant contaminant sources in the source area;and presentation of the assessments to the public.Efforts to identify potential sources of contaminantsand assess a system’s associated vulnerability willstrive at assembling useful information, both existingand new, that will address the greatest threats todrinking water, future source protection efforts, andrelated regulatory decisions. Source waterdelineation will be an iterative process of focusing
on an area, looking for problems, analyzing how realthe risk is, and refining the above.
C. Performance Partnership Agreement
State Fiscal Year 1996-1997 was the start of thePerformance Partnership Agreements (PPAs)under the National Environmental PerformancePartnership System (NEPPS). The parties to the1996-97 agreement are DEC and EPA.
One of the goals of a PPA is to strike a balancebetween maintaining statewide base programs andsolving geographic and pollutant-specific problemsas needed. These geographic and pollutant-specificproblems would be addressed by all majorstakeholders using Community Based EnvironmentalProtection (CBEP). The lead agency would beEPA for international and interstate waters orwhere EPA has a statutory or programmaticmandate; DEC for intrastate waters, except wherenongovernmental entities or sub-state governmentalagencies express an interest in taking the lead. Ofparticular interest to EPA/DEC are CBEP projectsaddressing problems placing disproportionateburdens on low income or minority communities.
Funding to implement the Agreement is from acombination of a Performance Partnership Grant(PPG), multiple geographic and project grants aswell as state funding to DEC for water qualityprograms.
The majority of the PPA describes how DEC willfulfill its part. The partnership program calls for theState to:
! undertake an environmental and pro-grammatic self-assessment, identifyingprogram strengths, weaknesses, andopportunities for improvement.
! identify the action plan for maintaining andimproving the State’s surface and groundwater resources, detailing specific actionsand approaches the State proposes to takein the coming year.
I-9
! identify and select appropriate envir-onmental and program performanceindicators.
! assess its basic fiscal accountability.
! identify other stakeholders and potentialpartners willing to join forces to protect andenhance New York’s water resources.
! share with the public, information aboutenvironmental conditions, goals, prior-ities,and prior year’s achievements.
Each year, as part of the PPA, a determination willbe made regarding what portion of the total fundsavailable to New York State for water qualityprograms will be allocated for NPS activities.
D. Five Year Update of the NPSManagement Program
1. Watershed-based Program
Since the development of the 1990 NPSManagement Program, a variety of programs, laws,regulations and committees have addressed theimpact of nonpoint source pollution on New York'swaters. These have included planning efforts,demonstration projects and implementationprograms. The most fundamental change in NewYork’s NPS Management Program, as well asnationally, is the move to address nonpoint sourcepollution and related resource issues on a watershedbasis. The major initiatives of the Nonpoint SourceProgram will continue to make the shift from themore segregated water quality initiatives of the pastto an integrated watershed approach.
2. Partnerships
To achieve the goals set in the 1990recommendations and in the 2000 Long- and Short-Term Goals contained in Appendix E, the actualimplementation activities must be carried out byDEC and a variety of other governmental agencies
and programs working together. (See Partnerships,Chapter II).
3. Limitations on Control of ImplementationActivities
The commitment of DEC staff or funding resourcesto water quality programs is an annual managementprocess. With the year-to-year uncertainty infunding from both state and federal sources, DEC isnot in a position to commit to performanceobjectives which depend on future budgets. Annualadjustments to the program may continue to berequired based on changing priorities set during theDivision of Water's management planning processand in future Performance Partnership Agreements. DEC has no direct control over priority setting orthe budget process for other agencies and thereforecannot make commitments for them. However,DEC has and will use its role as the lead agency forwater quality activities in the state to require otheragencies that take actions under the auspices of thenonpoint source program to be consistent withprogram objectives. This coordination has and willbe done through memoranda of understanding withappropriate agencies, consistency reviews of federalactions and contracts with regional planningagencies (and/or Soil and Water ConservationDistricts) who receive pass-through funding underthe Clean Water Act.
II-1
CHAPTER II
PARTNERSHIPS
Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution comes from anumber of small sources rather than from a singlepipe. Because of this fact the types of actions thatneed to be taken to address the resulting water qualityproblems will be actions taken by a number ofindividuals, often on a voluntary basis. The NYSDECrecognized early in the process of preparing the NPSManagement Program that control programs willnecessarily involve coordinated actions by a number ofdifferent agencies and groups. The preface to theJanuary, 1990, NPS Management Program says that:
"In many cases, the solution to nonpoint source problemswill involve coordination and cooperation of agencies fromall levels of government as well as the public."
NYSDEC has continued to use a variety of methodsto build and strengthen partnerships, both at the stateand local levels. Examples of the committees, taskforces, coalitions and programs that support andencourage these partnerships will be described in thischapter.
A. New York Nonpoint Source CoordinatingCommittee (NPSCC)
Building on the cooperative effort that developed in thepreparation of the NPS Management Program, NewYork created a NPS Coordinating Committee. Thiscommittee consists of 18 federal, state and localagencies that have a key role in the control of NPSpollution in the state. Quarterly meetings of theCoordinating Committee are open to any agency orgroup that would like to participate. To further boostthe concept of a cooperative effort, the chairmanshipof the committee rotates among the member agencies.
The NPSCC was created to:
1. Facilitate communications among federal andstate agencies and organizations involved inNPS programs;
2. Identify cooperative activities that can assisteach in achieving its goals, while promoting anoverall New York NPS program;
3. Coordinate programs of state and federalagencies and organizations to better utilizeexisting resources;
4. Serve as a model for local decision makersinvolved in implementing the NPS program.
The NPSCC meets quarterly. Information exchangeis a key component of each meeting. Agencies usethe committee to introduce new initiatives, to explainnew or amended laws that affect NPS pollution and toseek input from others on projects that are underconsideration.
The NPSCC serves as an arena to keep participatingagencies communicating and sharing ideas with oneanother. It is seen as a major component to the overallstrategy to address NPS pollution in New York.
B. NPSCC Steering Committee
In January, 1996, the NPSCC Steering Committee wasformed. A subset of the NPSCC, the group’s primaryfunctions are to:
1. Serve as a guidance group for the NPSCC;
2. Provide direction to each agency involvedwith NPS implementation (i.e. offer guidanceon the best use of cooperative agreements);and
3. Provide a general opportunity to raiseinteragency issues.
This Steering Committee consists of the state andfederal agencies which have statutory statewide
II-2
responsibilities in implementing NPS pollution controlsin New York. The following agencies are members ofthe Steering Committee:
! NYS Dept. of Agriculture and Markets! NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation! NYS Dept. of Health! NYS Dept. of State! USDA Natural Resources Conservation
Service! Cornell Cooperative Extension! US Environmental Protection Agency! NYS Soil and Water Conservation Committee
A primary role of the committee has been to discussfunding requests submitted by each of the involvedagencies and to make recommendations on howsection 319 funds should be suballocated to eachagency. In the future this group will be called upon toagain make recommendations on the direction of theNPS program, as they did with the 2000 Long- andShort-Term Goals.
C. County Water Quality CoordinatingCommittees (WQCCs)
Based in part on the success at the statewide level ofthe NPSCC, DEC in conjunction with the New YorkState Soil and Water Conservation Committee(NYSSWCC or State Committee) fostered thecreation of committees to coordinate activities at alocal level. Counties were selected as the organizingunit for these committees to provide well-defined areasof jurisdiction for the agencies likely to be involved.Each county group was asked to develop a strategythat would guide water quality activities in the county.DEC and the State Committee provided writtenguidance to the county WQCCs on developing andimplementing these water quality strategies. While thisguidance offers suggestions on which agencies shouldbe invited to participate in the committee, no attemptwas made to require a particular make up of thecommittee. The intent was to provide flexibility toeach county to determine the exact make up of theircommittee.
The strategies were to form a blueprint for action ineach county. To ensure some level of consistency forthe county strategies, the State Committee and DECcame up with a set of minimum requirements. At aminimum, county strategies needed to include:
C a mission/purpose statementC a list of prioritized water quality problems or
concernsC a description of the committee's role in
implementing the strategy.
Small grants encouraged county Water QualityCoordinating Committees to develop their strategy andthen to implement some elements of it. Initial grants of$4,750 were made available to every county. Fifty-fiveof the fifty-seven eligible counties completed theirstrategy in time to qualify for this initial payment.
In subsequent years, smaller sums have been madeavailable to counties, $2,500 in FY94 and, in FY95,grants of $4,000 in two tiers. Using FY96 funds,grants of $1,000 were available for every county.Additional grants of up to $5,000 per county weremade available on a competitive basis. For FY97,NYSDOH added money to the pot available to countycommittees. In return, the county WQCCs are toassist with the Drinking Water Source WaterAssessment Program. Once again each county canreceive a grant of $1,000. Additional grants of up to$5,000 per county will be available on a competitivebasis.
D. Water Management Advisory Committee(WMAC)
Many Division of Water (DOW) programs needsustained involvement from informed individualsoutside the Division so that the Division canunderstand how its programs affect various groupsacross the State. The WMAC helps fulfill this needfor the Nonpoint Source Program.
The WMAC has been a partner with the DOW sinceApril, 1980. The committee consults with the Divisionon a broad spectrum of water program issues,including nonpoint source pollution. It consists of 26
II-3
members and their alternates representing academic,economic, environmental and government interests. Inaddition, there are six liaisons representing EPA andkey state agencies. Beyond this core group,individuals interested in being involved with DOWprograms have become corresponding members.Corresponding members are kept up to date on waterissues and WMAC activities and can send theirwritten comments to the Division. Over the years, WMAC members have discussednonpoint source pollution as it relates to various waterprograms, including groundwater, community-basedenvironmental protection programs and a watershedapproach to water management. Recently theWMAC has discussed this update to the NonpointSource Management Program. WMAC memberswere reviewers of the draft document. In the future,the DOW will continue to consult with WMACmembers on nonpoint source pollution issues. E. Watershed Partnerships
Ultimately, control of most nonpoint source pollutionwill occur locally, rather than at the state and countylevels. Actions will frequently be at a watershed level(see Chapter VI for a discussion of watershedplanning). There are many examples of groups andindividuals in New York with diverse interests comingtogether to develop and implement a plan of action fortheir particular waterbody. Some examples of themany watershed groups that exist in New York arethe Boquet River Association in Essex County, theCanandaigua Lake Watershed Task Force in Ontarioand Yates Counties, the Keuka Lake FoundationWatershed Project in Yates and Steuben Counties, andthe Upper Susquehanna Coalition (also see AppendixE, Key Element II).
There have been a variety of materials produced aboutwatershed planning. Both NYSDEC and the NaturalResource Conservation Service (NRCS) have outlinedwatershed planning processes, discussed in ChapterVI (also see Appendix E, Key Element V).
In addition, some materials focus on building thepartnerships needed to develop a watershed plan.Cornell University’s booklet entitled “WatershedConflict Resolution: Some Guiding Principles” exploresthe fact that conflicts often occur in watershed
planning and suggests ways to resolve them. Cornellalso produced a video tape that serves as a companionto the brochure. Another document entitled “BuildingLocal Partnerships” was produced as part of theKnow Your Watershed Campaign coordinated by theConservation Technology Information Center inIndiana. This document explains why localpartnerships are important, explores how partnershipsdevelop, and provides suggestions on how to buildconsensus. The theme of DEC’s 1997 Water Weekwas “Building Watershed Partnerships.” The WaterWeek packet included a selection of partnershipbuilding materials targeting local government officialsand educators among others.
Certain watershed partnerships cover a largegeographic area, and involve multiple states or nations.These often address concerns related to a waterbodythat has been identified on a federal or state level asbeing important. These waterbodies may be identifiedthrough special designation acts (such as the federallaw designating Lake Champlain as a priority) or byacceptance into a special planning program (such asLong Island Sound as part of the National EstuaryProgram). Partnerships have been established todirect these programs, in the form of ManagementConferences for Lake Champlain and Long IslandSound. Participants in the Management Conferenceswere specified by the laws establishing each of theprograms. In each case, the Management Conferenceprovided direction for the development of amanagement plan for the waterbody of concern.
The Management Plans developed for each of thesewaterbodies of statewide significance identify prioritiesfor implementation (either in terms of pollutants orsources). These priorities are being used to guidefunding decisions both by individual managementconferences and for statewide programs (such as theClean Water/Clean Air Bond Act).
NYC Watershed Protection and Partnership Program:
The New York City water supply provides drinkingwater to some nine million people, about half thepopulation of New York State. The Rules andRegulations for the Protection from Contamination,Degradation and Pollution of the New York CityWater Supply and Its Sources (NYC Watershed
II-4
Regulations) were developed to protect and improvewater quality by providing protection to reservoirs,reservoir stems, controlled lakes, watercourses(including intermittent streams) and wetlands withinthe boundary of the NYC water supply watershed inthe eight counties of Delaware, Dutchess, Greene,Putnam, Ulster, Schoharie, Sullivan, and Westchester.Nonpoint pollution sources are being controlled throughthe application of strict performance standards,through the review and approval process, and by theprohibition of certain land use activities established inthe NYC Watershed Regulations. The NYCWatershed Regulations require NYCDEP review andapproval for subsurface sewage treatment systemsand storm water pollution prevention plans and prohibitimpervious surfaces within limiting distances to certainwater bodies. Non-regulatory elements of theNYCDEP’s nonpoint source pollution control strategyinclude New York City’s Watershed Protection andPartnership Programs. Through the funding ofpartnership programs, including storm water retrofits,sand and salt storage facilities, forestry managementprogram, stream management program, and publiceducation, the City reduces existing and future sourcesof nonpoint pollution in its water supply watershed.
Great Lakes Partnerships:
Within the Great Lakes watershed, 43 Areas-of-Concern (AOC) have been identified; 6 in New York.AOCs are located where major tributaries entering theGreat Lakes are impaired, restricting beneficial usesof the waterbodies. Under the US/Canadian GreatLakes Water Quality Agreement, sources of waterquality problems within these Areas-of-Concern arebeing identified and addressed by Remedial ActionPlans (RAPs).
RAPs identify water use impairments, their causes andsources, and determine what remedial activities areneeded to restore and protect beneficial uses of thewaterbody. A number of formal and informalpartnership agreements and memorandums of under-standing are needed to implement these remedialactivities such that all stakeholders’ concerns areaddressed. RAPs use an ecosystem approach, andpublic participation to assure a comprehensive solution.
Lake Ontario Partnerships:
Efforts began in 1996 to establish Basin Teams in theLake Ontario basin. By creating this network ofpartners at the regional and local levels, DEC aims tofoster cooperation and collaboration among existinggroups (for example: Remedial Action PlanCommittees, Water Quality Coordinating Committees,Regional Planning Councils, SWCD, NRCS, citizen-based watershed groups, such as the Finger Lakes-Lake Ontario Watershed Protection Alliance (FL-LOWPA), and municipalities) working to conserve andprotect local water bodies in the Lake Ontario basin.Through enhanced communication and collaborationBasin Teams would: promote local and regionalcoordination when solving local watershed problems;provide useful information about water qualityimprovements in local watersheds; promoteconnections between local actions and Lake Ontario(“Act Locally...Think Lake Ontario”) and increaseinvolvement in and support of the Lake OntarioLakewide Management Plan (LaMP) and otherprograms that manage and conserve New York’swater resources.
F. Other Partnerships
In some cases partnerships have been formed toaddress a particular source category rather than awatershed. The best example of this is the coalition ofagencies and groups headed by the NYSSWCC andthe NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets(DA&M), which have come together to establish aplan for addressing agricultural sources. Through theAgricultural Environmental Management (AEM)initiative, a plan is underway to identify problemscoming from agricultural sources and address them ina coordinated fashion. This effort has led to theformation of a steering committee to direct activities,an outreach subcommittee to make recommendationsassociated with education/outreach activities and thehiring of an Outreach Coordinator to carry outeducation/outreach activities.
The AEM initiative has used lessons learned from theNew York City watershed agricultural program andfrom the Skaneateles Lake watershed program toguide the development of a statewide program. Inaddition, much has been learned from pilot efforts inthe Keuka Lake watershed and Wappingers Creekwatersheds. Overall, AEM seeks to establish a
II-5
coordinated framework for protecting and improvingthe environment off and on the farm, while maintainingthe viability of farming as a commercial enterprise.More information is given in Chapter V and AppendixE, Key Element I, under Agriculture.
G. Implementation Steps for Partnerships
1. Continue the operation of the New YorkNonpoint Source Coordinating Committee.
2. Where appropriate, develop Memoranda ofUnderstanding between DEC and otheragencies to coordinate water qualityimprovement efforts. The MOUs will help setdirection for targeting of cost-sharing funds aswell as technical assistance, technical trainingand outreach efforts to solve documentedwater quality problems.
3. Continue to support the county water qualitycoordinating committees to encourage theiroperation in every county.
4. Encourage watershed partnerships; providesupport to help watershed groups preparewatershed plans (e.g. directly assisting in plandevelopment, publicizing and providing trainingin the use of existing planning materials, ordeveloping new materials).
5. Use Management Plans developed forparticular waterbodies of concern to guideimplementation efforts in those watersheds;provide financial support for implementingthose plans.
6. Initiate actions to bring more environmentaland producer groups into the process ofdetermining methods to address nonpointsource pollution.
II-6
N P S C CS t e e r i n g
C o m m i t t e e
W o r k i n g G r o u p s
S u b c o m m i t t e e s
I & E C E M A E M O W T SH H MU R
Nonpoint Source Coordinating Committee Structure
III-1
CHAPTER III
IDENTIFYING AND EVALUATING NONPOINT SOURCE PROBLEMS
Surface Water Quality
A. Introduction and Background
As the water pollution control efforts of the 1970ssignificantly reduced water quality problems causedby point source discharges, more recentenvironmental programs, including those of theNYSDEC Division of Water, shifted focus to addressnonpoint sources of water pollution. The most recentevaluation of water quality problems in New YorkState shows that nonpoint sources currently affectconsiderably more waters than point sources.Specifically, various nonpoint sources are cited as theprimary cause of 94% of the water qualityimpairments for rivers in the state, 87% of lake andreservoir impairments, 95% of Great Lake shorelineproblems and 67% of restricted bays and estuaries.Clearly, the management of nonpoint sources iscritical to the success of NYSDEC water pollutioncontrol.
After documenting the presence of water qualityproblems, the next steps are identification of thespecific contaminant(s) or disturbance(s) that causesthese problems, and determination of their sources.The most current information addressing primarysources of water quality problems is outlined in FigureIII-1 (This is also Figure 2 from the 1996 PriorityWaterbodies List (PWL)), where it appears in color.)The first five categories shown are point sources.Nonpoint sources follow starting with acid rain. In terms of total waterbody size (i.e., acres ormiles of shoreline) affected, agricultural activities,toxic
sediments, urban runoff and failing on-site septicsystems are the most significant nonpoint sources inthe state. (About 85% of the total lake acreageaffected by unknown source refers to the unknownsource of contamination resulting in the fishconsumption advisory in Lake Champlain.)Additionally, and in terms of the severity of theproblem, acid rain and deicing agent (salt/sand)storage and application are also major sourcesassociated with precluded water uses. Precludedsegment percentages are shown by the darkestportion of the bars in Figure III-1.
Clearly, key components of the Division of WaterNonpoint Source Management Program include theaccurate identification of water quality problems,including groundwater issues, throughout the state andthe evaluation of the causes and sources of theseproblems. These components require interdivisional,regional, and local collaboration and are furtherdiscussed in this section of the plan.
Mandate
The 1989 amendments to the New York StateEnvironmental Conservation Law (Article 17)creating a New York State Nonpoint Source WaterPollution Control Cost-share Program also requiredthe NYSDEC to produce an inventory of waterbodiesaffected by nonpoint source pollution. According toSection 17-1405, DEC (in cooperation with the StateSoil and Water Conservation Committee) wasrequired to prepare an initial report by January, 1991that:
III-2
Figure 3-1Primary Sources of Water Quality Impairment (by severity)The series of bar charts on this page illustrate what sources are most frequently cited as the primary source of water quality impairments in New York State (as a percentageof the total waterbody area on the PWL). For each source, the frequency data is further segregated by the severity of water quality problem (precluded, impaired, stressed,threatened). Separate charts are presented for three of the five waterbody types. Not shown are Great Lakes shoreline segments, dominated by the Lake Ontario shorelinesegment (impaired by contaminated/toxic sediments resulting in a fish consumption advisory); and ocean coastline segments, not presented since there is only one segmentof this waterbody type. KEY: Precluded - black ; Impaired - dark shade; Stressed - light shade; Threatened - white.
Percent of TotalWaterbody Areaon the PWL
III-3
“a. identifies those waterbodies within thestate which, without additional action tocontrol nonpoint sources of pollution,cannot reasonably be expected to attainand maintain applicable water qualitystandards; and
b. identifies categories or subcategories ofnonpoint sources or particular nonpointsources which add significant amounts ofpollution to each waterbody identifiedabove.”
The law further states that this assessment was tobe updated at least every five years. The PWLserves as this assessment.
To a large extent, the regularly updated nonpointsource assessment drives the implementation ofnonpoint source pollution control programs.Priorities for program development and forwatershed planning are established usinginformation contained in the assessment.Therefore, the assessment must enlist manypartners both inside and outside NYSDEC in orderto provide an accurate and complete description ofnonpoint problems and their sources.
Nonpoint Source Assessment History and thePWL
Every waterbody in the state has been classifiedaccording to its best use. For the purposes of thePWL, this list of uses has been expandedsomewhat. Specific standards and conditionscorrespond to some of the listed uses. Other uses(e.g., aesthetics) are more subjective and do notlend themselves to precise criteria. Nonetheless,for a waterbody to be included on the PWL, aspecific use of the waterbody must be restrictedor threatened.
The extent, or seriousness, of water qualityproblems in a waterbody can vary as well. Forany waterbody segment, the effects on its usesare determined and assigned, in order of
increasing severity, as threatened, stressed,impaired and precluded.
When first compiled, the surface waterinformation for the Nonpoint Source AssessmentReport was based primarily on the Division ofWater's Priority Water Problem (PWP) List, aninventory of those surface waters in New YorkState that either cannot adequately fulfill theirclassified best use (as defined by regulation) orhave some lesser problem that damages theirenvironmental integrity. The former are theprecluded and impaired segments, and the latterare the stressed and threatened segments. ThePWP List, first published in 1983, was compiled byNYSDEC Division of Water and Fish and Wildlifestaff. Early editions of the PWP List focusedprimarily on those waters where point sourcedischarges caused an impairment of a specificdesignated use (drinking water supply, swimming,fishing).
Because the Nonpoint Source Assessment Reportand the PWP List both focused on tracking waterquality problems in the state, the two efforts wereeventually merged. In 1991 the breadth ofinformation reported in the PWP List wasexpanded to accommodate information concerningnonpoint source pollution problems. County Soiland Water Conservation Districts, with DECsupport, conducted a public outreach program forthe identification of waterbody problems. Thenumber of segments on the 1991 PWP List nearlydoubled from the 1988 edition to more than 1400segments, most of which were the newly addedcategories of severity: stressed and threatened.
The 1993 PWP List showed only a small increasein the number of segments. As with other editionsof the list, the segment information was evaluatedby Division of Water and Division of Fish andWildlife staff. However, county Water QualityCoordinating Committees (WQCCs) were nowsolicited for input regarding the information on the1991 list and/or for nomination of new segments tobe considered for addition to the list in 1993.
III-4
The 1996 version of the list features a number ofchanges from previous editions of the PWP List.The first, and most obvious, is a change in name tothe Priority Waterbodies List (PWL). Thischange was made in order to indicate that somewaterbodies in the state are priority waters,although they may not currently exhibit any waterquality problem (e.g., drinking water suppliesthreatened by proposed development). Otherchanges reflected in the 1996 PWL include agreater focus on drainage basins/watersheds asopposed to political boundaries, an attempt toevaluate the resolution potential of segments’problems, and the incorporation of fishconsumption as a designated use.
Since the beginning of the Nonpoint SourceManagement Program, the Priority WaterbodiesList (or, prior to 1996, the PWP) has been anintegral tool of the program. In the future thePWL and the PWL update process will continueto play a significant role in the identification,evaluation and addressing of nonpoint waterquality problems.
Over the years, attempts to incorporategroundwater into the PWL proved unworkabledue to the inherent difference between surfacewater segments and groundwater. Consequently,in early 1998 a document entitled the “PriorityAquifer List (PAL) Objectives, Worksheet, andInstructions” was developed to initiate a listseparate from the PWL. This document identifiesgroundwater resources that will comprise a list ofpriority aquifers, and also identifies specificgroundwater problems to be addressed by theDivision of Water. Development of the PAL isdescribed further in section D under GroundwaterQuality later in this chapter.
B. Surface Water Quality and the PWL
In 1997 the NYSDEC Division of Water beganrevising procedures for updating and maintainingthe Priority Waterbodies List (PWL). Both the
structure of the PWL database and thereview/update process were revised to bringgreater consistency to the information on the PWLand make the list a more effective managementtool. By the end of 1997, the Division solicited andevaluated comments regarding proposed changes toPWL database structure and PWL Worksheet,modified the database, and distributed revisedworksheets. Existing PWL information wasmoved into the enhanced database structure inOctober 1997.
The following sections describe the PWL processas it will be implemented after completion ofrevisions begun in 1997.
Public Involvement and InputThe PWL is a largely grassroots system of waterquality problem identification. The NYSDEC role inthis effort is one of balancing top-downmanagement, oversight and support withresponsiveness to public input. A thorough andcontinuing assessment of water quality, as well aseventual improvements to the water quality of thelakes and rivers of the state, depends upon thecooperation and contributions of the County WaterQuality Coordinating Committees, the Soil andWater Conservation Districts, county and localgovernments and citizen volunteers. These groupsare more locally focused and can provide the initialscreening of waterbodies for actual or potentialwater quality problems. Many county and regionalorganizations have recently developed or arecurrently developing monitoring programs to furtheraddress this need. These local groups are alsoinstrumental in the implementation of nonpointsource strategies to correct problems.
The successful management of nonpoint sourcesdepends upon the accurate identification andassessment of water quality impairments due tononpoint sources. This is accomplished throughperiodic updating of the PWL. The PWL updateprocess uses all available sources of data and waterquality information and is open to a wide audience.In addition to all NYSDEC units and other federal
III-5
Priority Waterbodies ListWater Uses
Drinking Water SupplyShellfishingBathing (swimming)Fishing
ConsumptionPropagationSurvival
BoatingAesthetics
and state agencies, the process includes the solici-tation of information and data from localgovernments and regional organizations as well ascitizen volunteer groups. For the most part, thisrequest for information is handled by the networkof County Water Quality Coordinating Committees(WQCCs) through the use of PWL Worksheets.
Such a grassroots approach to the identificationand assessment components of the NonpointSource Management Program reflects localperspectives and knowledge. Additionally thisstrategy is likely to expand the base of support forthe implementation of nonpoint source controlswhere necessary. However, with many differentparties participating and contributing, issues ofconsistency, objectivity and consensus have to beaddressed. This is the primary role of NYSDECDivision of Water staff.
Water quality problems on the PWL arecategorized by the degree of effect on thedesignated use of a waterbody. Detaileddescriptions of these severity categories areoutlined on page III-9.
Problem Identification: The Update Process
A multi-phase process is used for identifying anddocumenting problem waterbodies for inclusion onthe PWL. The first phase of the PWL updatefocuses on the review of existing PWL segmentinformation and the nomination of any additionalnew segments for the list. NYSDEC initiates thePWL update process for a specific drainage basinby providing the appropriate WQCCs with a PWLreview package, including segment nominationworksheets and the most recent PWL data sheets.This initial review and nomination phase of theprocess is coordinated by the WQCCs. Eachcommittee invites local agencies, groups andindividuals from its county to participate inreviewing existing segments on the PWL andidentifying additional water quality problems.Information collected during this phase isforwarded to NYSDEC. Source Water
Assessments will be conducted separately by NYSDOH; this information is also to be incorporatedinto the PWL process.
The second phase of the process involves thecollection of additional monitoring data anddocumentation. The PWL review anddocumentation process has been developed toincorporate and take advantage of various routineNYSDEC monitoring programs, particularly theRotating Intensive Basin Studies (RIBS). Theinformation collected from the WQCCs during thefirst phase of the review is used to help focus RIBSand other NYSDEC monitoring efforts on theinvestigation and additional documentation of waterquality problems in the target basin(s). (See TableIII-1 on page III-8 for the six-year RIBSschedule.) In addition to NYSDEC monitoring,local/regional agencies and citizen volunteer groupsare likely to be involved in the collection of waterquality data for the documentation of problems.This approach may also lend itself to coordinatedefforts between various other local and NYSDECmonitoring programs.
At the conclusion of the monitoring cycle, DECDivision of Water staff compile and assess waterquality data from DEC programs and various othersources (USGS, NYS DOH, SWCDs, localagencies, colleges and universities, volunteergroups). This documentation is added to the
III-6
existing information and reviewed. The primarygoal of this review is to achieve a consensusamong diverse department units regarding theseverity of specific water quality problems to beincluded on the PWL and to assure a level ofstatewide consistency for the information on thelist. This consistency will require carefulconsideration: does a waterbody segment actuallysuffer a water quality impairment and does itbelong on the list? Segments to be included on thePWL must exhibit a documented restriction of oneor more of the waterbody's designated uses. Thedetermination of the severity of water qualityproblems also requires careful consideration.Where possible, DEC develops guidelines outliningspecific thresholds identifying waters that do notsupport various uses, and the degree to which theiruses are restricted.
Following this review, DEC provides a draft copyof the PWL for the drainage basin(s) beingupdated to the appropriate WQCCs. The WQCCsdistribute the draft list to others in their county andcoordinate comments to DEC. If furtherdiscussion is appropriate, DEC staff meet withWQCCs and other respondents to consider theinformation on the draft PWL in greater detail,prior to publications of the final PWL documentfor the target drainage basin(s).
Documentation
The level of information available regarding awater use impairment will vary. Documentationmay include the chemical analysis of multiplewater samples, a rigorous biological assessment,or modeling studies. However, in some cases, therecognition of the problem is based entirely onperception and professional judgement. The levelof available supporting documentation is recordedalong with other information about the segment.NYSDEC evaluates whether the documentationis sufficient to definitively establish a water useimpairment, and warrant the expenditure of thelimited resources. If the documentation of aproblem is not sufficient, the segment information
is maintained in the PWL database, but is notincluded on the published Priority Waterbodies List.A separate list of Suspected Problem Segments isissued in conjunction with the PWL. This list helpsto highlight waterbodies where additional monitoring(by DEC or other groups) is needed.
Identification of Sources
Once a water use impairment has been sufficientlydocumented to place it on the PWL, efforts shift todetermining the pollutants causing, and sources of,the impairment. In some cases, this requiresadditional monitoring beyond what was necessaryto document the existence of the problem. Thismonitoring might be part of a watershed study, andmay be conducted by NYSDEC or by otherparties with NYSDEC guidance.
The variety of tools available to study thewaterbody segments include chemical monit-oring of the water column, macroinvertebrate orfishery surveys, toxicity tests, lake assessments andhabitat evaluations. Investigation may also involveanalysis of land use data, use of screening models,trackdown studies, etc. Such efforts may beconducted by NYSDEC central office or regionaloffice staff. However, due to limited staff andresources, other local parties such as the WQCCs,colleges and universities, and lake associations mayconduct these studies. If parties outside the DECconduct monitoring for assessment, their workmust be approved by NYSDEC so as to insureconsistency and adherence to appropriate qualityassurance procedures.
Once the most likely source(s) of a problem hasbeen established, the segment is assigned to theappropriate group to develop a corrective actionplan. Within NYSDEC various programs may beassigned responsibility for a segment (regional staff,lake management programs, fisheries, etc.). Theprogress of these programs toward the eliminationof water quality problems is tracked by the Divisionof Water through the Water Integrated ComplianceStrategies System (WICSS), a computer database.
III-7
However, the WICSS approach focuses on thoseproblems where there is a likelihood or reasonablepotential that the particular problem can beresolved given limited available resources. Whilelocal parties are welcome to tackle any problemsthey feel are priorities, NYSDEC will direct itswork and resources toward nonpoint sourceproblems with the greatest potential for resolution,and toward issues where the greatest benefit canbe achieved.
Environmental Indicators and Measuring Progress
Managing and, eventually, remedying waterquality problems caused by nonpoint sourcesinvolves, in most cases, a number of steps. Thetime from the identification of a problem to thedevelopment and implementation of a strategy toaddress the situation can be lengthy. Furthermore,measurable improvements in water quality relatedto corrective action can take longer still. Whilethe ultimate goal is water quality improvement, itis useful to measure and report progress related tothe identification of problems, causes and sourcesas well. Progress along this spectrum is trackedfor each waterbody segment on the PWL as aperformance indicator. This allows for therecording of incremental progress toward theeventual removal of the segment from the list.
To improve documentation of water quality inthose streams where there is presently little, if any,monitoring data, the biological component of thedivision’s RIBS Program/ambient surface watermonitoring program has been expanded to includecomprehensive screening of a much larger numberof waterbodies. The expanded biological screeningeffort relies on rapid on-site macroinvertebrateassessments and serves as an environmentalindicator, to determine the ability of the stream tosupport a healthy aquatic community. Thedocumentation of water quality in previouslyunassessed waters represents a significantmeasure of progress, and presents a morecomplete picture of New York’s success inimproving water quality.
Reporting
Updated PWL Reports with the assessment ofnonpoint source problems are published for two orthree of the major watersheds of the state everyyear; all basins in the state are evaluated within afive-year period. The individual basin reportsprovide summaries identifying the most significant(i.e., most frequently cited) use impairments, causesand sources for the basin. The basin reports alsoevaluate progress toward resolution of problems,and comment on the percentage of waterbodies inthe basin with documented water quality thatsupports designated uses.
Regular updating of other NYSDEC publicationsalso contributes to reporting on progress toward thewater quality improvement in the state. Theperiodic NYSDEC Section 305(b) Water QualityReport to Congress provides a summary ofinformation across a variety of programs. Themost recent 305(b) report was completed in 1998.At more frequent intervals, the NYSDEC RotatingIntensive Basin Studies (RIBS) Ambient SurfaceWater Quality Monitoring Program generates andcompiles available water quality information forsome selected drainage basins in the state eachyear.
Assessment
For some waterbodies not meeting water qualitystandards, a water quality assessment is conductedusing the total maximum daily load (TMDL)process. The TMDL process takes a waterquality-based approach toward achieving waterquality standards by establishing allowable loadingsof pollutants that can be allocated among pollutantsources. The TMDL method for assessingproblems and developing integrated water quality protection strategies focuses on individualpollutants and can be applied to single waterbodiesor entire basins/watersheds. It allows for theconsideration of all sources of a
III-8
Table III-1Priority Waterbodies List (PWL)
Basin Update ScheduleYear* Basins
1998 Black River** (Chemung, St. Lawrence)
1999 Susquehanna River (Lower Hudson River***)
2000 Lake Champlain, Atlantic Ocean-Long Island Sound
2001 Genesee**, Delaware Rivers
2002 Niagara River-Lake Erie**, Mohawk River
2003 Allegheny, Oswego-Seneca-Oneida**, Upper Hudson Rivers
* Final Priority Waterbodies List to be published in May of the listed year.** The Lake Ontario Minor Tributaries Watershed has been divided among the Niagara River-Lake
Erie, Genesee River, Oswego-Seneca-Oneida Rivers, and Black River Basins. *** The Ramapo River and Housatonic River Basins are included in the Lower Hudson River Report.
III-9
Severity of Water Quality Problem
PrecludedWater quality and/or associated habitat degradation precludes, eliminates, or otherwisedoes not support a classified use. Natural ecosystem functions may be significantlydisrupted. (e.g., fishing ban due to PCB contamination)
ImpairedWater quality and/or habitat characteristics frequently impair a classified use. Also ap-plied when the designated use is supported, but at a level significantly less than wouldotherwise be expected. Natural ecosystem functions may be disrupted. (e.g., CSOsresult in occasional beach closures)
StressedReduced water quality is occasionally evident and designated uses may be intermittently ormarginally restricted. Natural ecosystems may exhibit adverse changes. (e.g., occasionalconcentrations above standards, but no apparent use impairment)
ThreatenedWater quality presently supporting designated use and ecosystems exhibit no obvioussigns of stress. However, existing or proposed land use patterns have the potential torestrict use or affect the ecosystem. (e.g., residential development proposals in watersupply reservoir watershed)
pollutant, regardless of whether it originates frompoint sources, nonpoint sources, or naturalbackground contributions. Each state is requiredto develop a list (the 303(d) list) of waterbodies,for which a TMDL analysis can be done. Thislist is updated every other year.
Problem Prevention
Regular updates of the PWL and thecorresponding assessment of waterbodysegments affected by nonpoint sources alsoinclude provisions to deal with segments thatexhibit no current impairment, but may be either(1) showing evidence of a downward trend inwater quality, or (2) may be threatened by aspecific change in the pattern of land use in thewatershed or the intensity of current land use.Such waterbodies are recorded as threatened in
the Priority Waterbody List. Further, there isconsideration to designate a subset of thethreatened waters as special protection waters.Special protection waterbodies are highly valuedresources where extraordinary efforts areunderway to protect water quality (e.g., NYCWatershed). The actions associated withthreatened segments emphasize increasedmonitoring and the implementation of knownmanagement practices to limit the impact ofnonpoint source activities.
In addition, NYSDEC also incorporates into thePWL update/nonpoint source assessment processthe tracking and documentation of thosewaterbodies determined to have good waterquality. With most monitoring focusing on waterquality problems, the more frequently foundhealthy waterbodies are often ignored. Efforts to
III-10
document water quality of the state such as thePWL should present a more balanced picture ofwaterbody health.
Information and Education
One final, important component of the nonpointsource management program is education andpublic awareness. Due to the nature of nonpointsources, local grassroots approaches to theseproblems are often the most effective.Therefore, public support for nonpoint sourceprograms and activities are critical for success.Throughout the nonpoint assessment/PriorityWaterbodies List update process, the WQCCsand many other public groups are intricatelyinvolved. By working closely with the public,primarily through the WQCCs, NYSDECnonpoint source management efforts can have amuch greater impact. Public involvement isdiscussed further in Chapter IV, Outreach.
C. Implementation Steps
The NYSDEC Division of Water recentlyrevised both the structure and updating processfor the Priority Waterbodies List (PWL). Theobjective is to bring greater consistency to theinformation on the PWL and make the list a moreeffective management tool. Some of the moreimportant milestones in the review, revision andimplementation of an enhanced PriorityWaterbodies List, as well as the objectives ofother associated water quality identification andevaluation efforts, are outlined below.
1. Finalize and implement the PWL Reviewand Updating Process and Procedures.
With appropriate Division of Water staff(regional and central office) and WQCCrepresentatives, develop a specific process forthe routine review and updating of the PWL;process should incorporate input from widevariety of NYSDEC units (within and outsideDivision of Water), WQCCs, SWCD staff, otherfederal, state and local agencies,
college/university community, and privategroups/citizens.
2. Establish a procedure for measuringprogress by tracking movement alongspectrum of identification of problems,causes, and sources.
3. Consider designation of “SpecialProtection Waters” within the PWL.
4. Expand PWL to include documentation ofgood water quality waterbodies.
5. Establish volunteer monitoring network:
Establish a citizen/volunteer monitoring componentto the RIBS ambient monitoring effort, developvolunteer monitoring handbook to provideappropriate guidance.
6. Create and improve GIS coverages forDOW programs including RIBS, SPDES,TMDL, stream classification, PublicWater Supplies (PWS), dams, and streamgages.
7. Implement Basin Review and updatePWL according to accepted schedule.
Using procedures to be established, conductreview and update of PWL information for 2 or 3major drainage basins each year, with the entirestate to be updated every five years.
8. Issuing of comprehensive RIBS BasinStudy Reports.
9. Review and compilation of TMDL 303(d)List.
Groundwater Quality
A. Introduction and Background
Approximately six million people in New YorkState use groundwater as a source of drinking
III-11
water. About half of these people are on LongIsland (including Kings and Queens Counties)and the remainder are in upstate New York.About half of the population on Long Island usesgroundwater compared to one-third of the upstatepopulation. Using the more common publicperception that Long Island consists only ofNassau and Suffolk Counties, its population isentirely dependent on groundwater.
The Department of Health has reported 312wells or springs statewide have beencontaminated to some degree by organicpollutants1. These water supply sources have atotal capacity of 417 million gallons per day(MGD) and serve 93 public water systems. Ofthese, 121 wells on Long Island with a totalcapacity of 166 MGD and 39 upstate wells witha total capacity of 34 MGD remain closed orabandoned. These represent about three percentof the State's 5262 community water supplysystem wells (i.e. those serving cities, towns,apartments, and trailer parks). Other categoriesof wells regulated by NYSDOH arenon-transient non-community, e.g., schools,offices, etc. (1,009 wells), and transientnon-community, e.g., restaurants, motels, camps,etc. (7,307 wells). The total number of publicwater supply wells in New York (community,non-transient non-community, and transientnon-community) total 13,578 (all well data as ofApril 1998). Contaminants from nonpoint sources threatensome groundwater. These contaminants,including microbial, synthetic chemical, andnaturally occurring contaminants, are describedbelow.
1. Microbial contamination including viruses,bacteria including e. Coli, protozoans suchas Giardia and Cryptosporidium canenter groundwater aquifers from nonpointsources. Discharge of human waste fromseptic tank/leachfield systems, leaks inwastewater collection (storm, sanitaryand combined) sewers, and agriculturalsources may introduce microbialcontamination into drinking water.Another entry route may be via a poorlyconstructed well, whether from point ornonpoint sources. Other microbialcontamination can enter water suppliesfrom groundwater sources after the waterleaves a treatment plant via infiltration intotransmission mains and distributionpipelines.
Microbial contaminants may pose themost immediate health risk, whilesynthetic organic chemicals may presenta chronic health risk.
2. The Department of Health has reportedsynthetic organic chemical pollutants inless than five percent of wells and springsstatewide. The three categories ofsynthetic organic contaminants which aredetected most frequently in groundwaterare listed below, followed by inorganicchemical contaminants.
a. Industrial/commercial - Synthetic organicsolvents (primarily 1,1,1- trichloroethane,trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene)have accounted for the majority of publicwater supply well closures that have beenattributed to organic chemicalcontamination. These materials arewidely used in industry and commercethroughout the state. They are heavierthan water and sink to the bottom ofaquifers, contaminating the soils of theaquifer as they travel. This makessubsequent removal difficult andexpensive. Spills, leaks, and improper
1 New York State Department of Health,Bureau of Public Water SupplyProtection, “Community Water SystemSources Affected by OrganicContamination.” Interoffice Memoran-dum. November, 1991.
III-12
handling at industrial and commercial facilities arethe primary sources of organic chemicalcontamination in groundwater. Other sourcesmay include SPDES effluent discharge permitviolations, discharge of products used for cleaningand unclogging sewer lines and cesspools,disposal of consumer products (paint thinners,degreasing agents, etc.) via on-lot subsurfacedisposal systems, certain types of undergroundinjection, and underground petroleum storagetanks.
b. Gasoline and other petroleum productswhich may also contain methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether (MTBE), benzene, tolueneand xylene - Many private wells havebeen impacted by inland petroleumproduct spills or leaking undergroundstorage tanks. Many old tanks had noleak detection capability and leaksoccurred at many locations. With theimplementation of the bulk storageprogram, leak detection is required soleaking tanks should be less of a problemin the future. However, many of theabandoned tank sites may becontaminated and, to date, have not yetbeen remediated.
Sixty-five percent of the reported privatewell contamination caused by organicchemicals in upstate New York ispetroleum related. The large majority ofcontamination cases are microbial orinorganic chemical(s). Statewide, thereare approximately 110,000 active,registered petroleum storage tanks atfacilities with a total capacity greaterthan 1,100 gallons. Over half of thesetanks are buried in the ground whereleaks may go undetected for longperiods, unless tanks are protected fromcorrosion and a leak detection device orsystem is implemented. About 20,000were installed after the 1985 PetroleumBulk Storage (PBS) regulations tookeffect. Groundwater clean-up
operations are often marginally effectiveand are particularly difficult andexpensive in the sandy soils such as thoseencountered on Long Island, and in thevalley fill materials in the Upstate area.
Additional groundwater quality problemsarise when MTBE is released into theenvironment. MTBE is a fuel additive thathas been used in gasoline since 1979 asan octane enhancer. MTBE travelsthrough soil rapidly and is much moresoluble in water than most otherpetroleum constituents. As a result, it cantravel further than other gasolineconstituents and impact more domesticwater supplies with relatively highconcentrations of MTBE. It is also verydifficult and costly to remediate MTBEcontamination due to its high watersolubility and resistance to biodegradation.
c. Agricultural pesticides and herbicides -Pesticide contamination (primarilyAldicarb and carbofuran) was observedin private wells in New York State, butpesticide contamination above MaximumContaminant Levels (MCL’s) in publicwater supply wells is still very rare.Aldicarb, a pesticide, was observed ingroundwater on Long Island in 1979 andresulted in well closure or treatmentsystem installation at 2,900 private wells.A well sampling survey of 330 wellsadjacent to farms detected Aldicarb atconcentrations exceeding the Departmentof Health’s recommended guidelines in 23percent of the wells. Residents whosewells exceeded the guideline wereadvised not to use the water and weresubsequently provided with activatedcarbon filtration systems at the expense ofthe Aldicarb manufacturer. It should benoted that Aldicarb is no longer registeredfor use on agricultural crops in New YorkState.
III-13
3. Nitrate and chloride contaminationthreatens some groundwater sources.Nitrates can originate from agriculturaland domestic use of fertilizer,subsurface disposal of sewage, or otheragricultural practices. Chloridecontamination has been found upstate insome private wells. Uncovered piles ofsalt are the primary cause, althoughapplication to roads is also a source.
4. Naturally occurring groundwater qualityproblems will not be discussed in detail inthis report. In some locations, however,such natural occurrences can be theprincipal cause of drinking water qualityproblems. The full extent of the problemis not seen in the number of public watersupply wells closed due to this type ofcontamination, since many well siteswould be abandoned in the exploration ordevelopment phase without everbecoming a public water supply source.
B. Groundwater Management andProtection in NYS
In New York State, the management andprotection of groundwater resources is aresponsibility shared by state agencies and localgovernments, as well as federal agencies. TheNYSDEC in accordance with the EnvironmentalConservation Law, has the lead responsibility forgroundwater resource management andprotection. The Department of Health, whichhas lead responsibility for public water supplymanagement and protection, retains legalauthority to adopt watershed rules andregulations where site-specific controls arewarranted. The roles and responsibilities of otherstate agencies are generally indirect. Forexample, the Departments of State andAgriculture and Markets have key roles inmanagement of nonpoint sources of pollution, andother agencies (e.g., Transportation) haveresponsibility for their facilities and operations asthey may impact groundwater.
Local governments, including county healthdepartments, towns, villages and cities, share someresponsibilities through state delegation ofprograms, but have the lead responsibility forzoning, land use planning and the management ofsome key potential sources of groundwaterpollution (e.g., septic tanks). Local governmentsalso have initiated many wellhead protectionprograms for their water supplies.
The DEC Division of Water provides forcoordination of state programs to managegroundwater resources, and establishment of thebasic groundwater protection goals and prioritiesfor all relevant programs (e.g., solid and hazardouswastes, remediation, minerals, pesticides, etc.).To support the development and implementation ofspecific management program elements, theDivision of Water adopted the UpstateGroundwater Management Program (1987) andLong Island Groundwater Management Program(1986). These programs established fivefundamental policies as the basis for New York’sgroundwater management program:
1. Protect and conserve groundwater forbest usage as a drinking water supply,
2. Address quantity as well as qualityconcerns,
3. Emphasize problem prevention,
4. Target the groundwater program to mosteffectively use available resources byfocusing special emphasis on critical, highyielding aquifer systems, and
5. Foster a state/local partnership.
The policies and specific program actions thathave resulted from the Upstate and Long IslandGroundwater Management Programs areconsistent with the criteria outlined by the UnitedStates Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)for Comprehensive State Groundwater ProtectionPrograms (CSGWPP). The six strategic activities
III-14
outlined by EPA, and a very brief synopsis ofNew York’s program elements pertaining to theEPA criteria, are as follows:
! Established Groundwater Protection GoalGuides Relevant State Programs
The groundwater protection goal in New YorkState is to preserve all fresh groundwaters (ClassGA) for their designated best use - as a potentialsource of potable water supply. Standards andguidance values have been adopted for this goal.
! Established Priorities Support Efficientand Effective Means of Achieving theProtection Goal
Most state-level programs (e.g.,petroleum andchemical bulk storage) are uniform across thestate. The aquifer priority system (Primary andPrincipal) guides specific state program decision-making (e.g., solid waste). Wellhead protectionareas (where adopted) guide local governmentactions.
! Authorities, Roles, Responsibilities andCoordinating Mechanisms areEstablished
The Environmental Conservation Law (ECL)designates the Department of EnvironmentalConservation as the lead state agency responsiblefor the “coordinated management of waterresources” (ECL Section 3-0301), and the controlof water pollution and maintenance of reasonablestandards of purity for both ground and surfacewaters (ECL Article 17). The ECL and PublicHealth Law specify the specific authorities forregulation of sources of pollution and forprotection of public water supplies. The Divisionof Water has the lead responsibility for programcoordination.
! Information Collection and ManagementSupports Groundwater-RelatedPrograms
A key need in New York’s groundwatermanagement program is the further developmentof a comprehensive information base on thegeographic distribution, potential productivity, use,and quality of New York’s groundwater resourcesalong with geographic information system (GIS)coverage of the distribution of potential sources ofgroundwater contamination. Information systemsinclude groundwater resource mapping, well-logdata, water quality data, and information on thedistribution of regulated facilities and otherpotential contamination sources. This informationbase will serve many program applications,including the State’s Source Water AssessmentProgram, local government wellhead protectionprograms, and support for priority decisions formany state prevention and remediation programs.
The Division of Water has an operating GIS andis developing it to serve as the basis for thiscomprehensive, integrated information system.
! Groundwater Protection and RemediationProgram Implementation
The groundwater protection program in New Yorkis implemented through a combination of state-level actions (e.g., discharge permits, bulk storagecontrols, emergency spill response, solid andhazardous waste controls, pesticide management,etc.) and local government actions (e.g., wellheadprotection, septic tank controls, nonpoint sourcemanagement, etc.) along with supplementaryfederal program actions (e.g., undergroundinjection control). Remediation programs addressboth hazardous substances and petroleum and areimplemented under the Department ofEnvironmental Conservation’s oversight, withsome sites addressed by the EnvironmentalProtection Agency.
! Public Participation
Public participation, outreach and educationprograms related to groundwater are activitiesshared by both state and local agencies. The NewYork State Water Management Advisory
III-15
Committee provides for public input into thepolicies and program actions of the Division ofWater. Other public participation is provided forthrough the State’s Administrative ProceduresAct. Other outreach partners include regionaland county agencies, Cornell CooperativeExtension, Soil and Water Conservation Districts,and municipal governments.
The 1986 Amendments to the federal SafeDrinking Water Act directed the development ofa Wellhead Protection Program for the purposeof protecting groundwater sources of drinkingwater. In order to direct New York State’simplementation of this, the Wellhead ProtectionCoordinating Committee was formed. Publichearings and committee input were used to directthe development of New York’s WellheadProtection Plan which was submitted to the EPAand approved in 1990. The Plan provides generalguidelines for the protection of groundwaterdrinking water sources.
Additional Amendments to the Safe DrinkingWater Act were passed by Congress in 1996.These call for new investment in public watersupply systems and for Source WaterAssessment as the first step in Source WaterProtection of both surface and ground water. Allsteps of the process of planning the program anddistributing benefits include public participants.
Public input will continue to shape much of theimplementation of the Amendments to the SafeDrinking Water Act.
C. Priority Aquifer List (PAL)
The process to create a PAL began in early 1998after efforts to incorporate groundwater on thePWL proved unworkable due to the inherentdifference between surface water segments andgroundwater. The PAL will be a groundwater-only listing and serves a dual purpose:
1) To identify productive aquifers in orderto accurately delineate their boundaries,
compile hydrogeologic information, andassist municipalities in the creation ofaquifer management plans to aid inefficient use and protection ofgroundwater resources.
2) To identify groundwater problemsthroughout the state that are theresponsibility of the Division of Water inorder to aid in determining necessaryresources for the mitigation/elimination ofgroundwater problems. Sites falling underthe responsibility of other NYSDEC divisions (Division of EnvironmentalRemediation, Division of MineralResources, Division of Solid andHazardous Materials) are excluded fromthis list in order to avoid unnecessaryduplication of efforts within the DEC.Examples of problems to be included onthe PAL include salt storage/applicationproblems, nitrate contamination,contaminated sites not falling within thelegal definition of hazardous waste, andgroundwater depletion. Priorities will bebased on population dependent ongroundwater resources (Primary aquifers)or impacted by resource problems notedabove.
D. Problem Identification
Problems in public water supply wells can bedetected during routine sampling. Once problemsare observed, they are addressed and evaluated tosee whether the problem may be a symptom of abroader contamination issue or just of limitedscope.
Drinking water sources are being evaluated as oneof the first steps of the Source Water AssessmentProgram, for which planning began in mid-1997.Groundwater and surface sources are beingevaluated using available GIS and otherinformation sources to determine whether they areor will be vulnerable to contamination.
III-16
Groundwater problems identified by Division ofWater staff or nominated by WQCCs, interestgroups or the public will be considered by DOWstaff for inclusion on the PAL. Nominatedgroundwater problem areas or sites will be geo-referenced and the problem will be documentedeither with existing reference material or throughfield investigation. Evaluation of the problem,including identification of possible remedialmeasures, will be carried out by DOW staff tothe extent possible and appropriate. Remedialmeasures will be implemented to the extentpossible given available resources. If no action isappropriate, justification will be supplied.
E. Measuring and Reporting Progress
Activities undertaken under the Amendments tothe Safe Drinking Water Act must be reported tothe EPA. Additionally, results of Source WaterAssessments will be available in map format.NYS DOH will continue their program of waterquality monitoring at all public water supply wells.Results are available through the HealthDepartment.
Productive aquifers will be identified in order toaccurately delineate their boundaries, compilehydrogeologic information, and assistmunicipalities in the creation of aquifermanagement plans to aid in efficient use andprotection of groundwater resources. Divisionstaff will add Primary and Principal aquifers tothe list as well as other aquifers that have beenidentified and documented as productivegroundwater resources. Water QualityCoordinating Committees, interest groups and thepublic may nominate aquifers for inclusion on thePAL, however it should be noted that thenomination process does not ensure that an areawill be placed on the list. Division staff mustreview all nominations for groundwater resourcepotential. Further, it must be noted that it is notan objective of the PAL to create another layerof regulation through PAL designation.
Those aquifers identified as potential high yieldareas that are not adequately mapped will beplaced on a list of aquifers to be mapped.Mapping of these areas could be done under theDEC/ U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) coopera-tive program given adequate funding resources.
The Division of Water’s geotechnical staff isworking to more fully evaluate groundwaterquality as outlined in the Clean Water Act, Part305(b) reporting guidelines and will be respondingto the data requests within those guidelines.
F. Problem Prevention
The Source Water Assessments will be used aspart of an effort to protect Source Water Areas.The DOH in coordination with the USGS issampling for pesticide contamination in drinkingwater. Information from assessments will be usedin implementing new and evolving water supplyquality issues.
G. Environmental Indicators forGroundwater
The environmental indicators for groundwater are:
1. Groundwater supply systems that areclosed or are violating health-basedrequirements.
The Department of Health maintains reports ofcontamination observed in public water systems.
2. Source water protection plans.
Source water assessments will delineateboundaries of source water areas, inventorysignificant potential contamination sources, andassess the susceptibility of drinking water sourcesto contamination. The information will besummarized and maps of source areas will bemade available to the public. Assessments willnote those source water areas for which SourceWater Protection Plans are pending or in place.
III-17
In other areas, assessments may serve as a firststep toward protection.
3. Selected parameters for the 305b GWmonitoring program.
With appropriate funding levels, groundwaterquality information will continue to be gatheredand entered into a data base (STORET).Parameters currently sampled as part of thegroundwater 305b program are: purgeablehalocarbons (EPA method 601), purgeablearomatics (EPA method 602), chloride, nitrogenseries (ammonia, tkn, nitrite, nitrate), metals (iron,manganese, copper, lead, nickel, zinc), andhardness. Current sources of groundwater datacollected for the 305b program includeNYSDOH public water supply data and samplingconducted by the Division of Water at privatelyowned wells.
4. Point source loading permit violationsof UIC class V well injection limits.
In New York, the Underground Injection Control(UIC) program is administered by USEPA.Class V wells are identified through the Divisionof Water’s normal SPDES inspection program.The Division of Water will continue to track andidentify occurrences of discharges togroundwater above permitted levels.
5. Groundwater depletion.
Groundwater levels are collected from astatewide observation well network and trackedfor trends to determine drought severity or overpumping. The current observation well networkis being maintained through the USGS/DECCooperative Program. DOW will continue tochair the New York State Drought ManagementTask Force.
H. Implementation Steps
The NYSDEC Division of Water is currentlyreviewing and revising its groundwater
management policies. One objective of this effortis to better manage and protect New York’sgroundwater resources from nonpoint sources ofcontamination. Outlined below are possibleinitiatives that should be undertaken to accomplishthis objective.
1. Improve the information base currentlyavailable. This is necessary in order tosupport an effective groundwatermanagement program and involvesupdating and improving our currentgeographical information system (GIS) inorder to serve as the basis for acomprehensive, integrated informationsystem. One aspect of achieving this goalis requiring that programs which obtainpermit and other information incorporatelocation data (latit-ude/longitude).
2. Seek funding to re-establish a cooperativemapping effort with the USGS. In thepast, this effort led to high quality mappingof groundwater aquifers. The mapping ofaquifers will be prioritized through thePAL.
3. Monitor the state’s groundwater throughthe assessment activities undertaken aspart of the 305(b) program. As per EPAguidance, sources of data in theassessment of ground water quality willinclude untreated or finished water qualitydata from groundwater-based-publicwater supply wells, and untreated orfinished water quality data from private orunregulated wells. Additional sources ofgroundwater quality data may be derivedfrom the new well drillers registrationprogram (1999). Such a program isintended to include notification of wells tobe drilled which would allow DOW tosample wells in key areas prior to theinstallation of any pumping equipment.
4. Improvements in integration of the variousinformation systems among DEC
III-18
programs must be carried out, locationaldata must be collected and/or verified,and information systems for unregulatedor locally regulated facilities must beenhanced. All of this information mustbe made readily available via computerlink to staff and the public.
5a. Propose legislation to enhance the waterwithdrawal regulatory program to includeindustrial, commercial, and agriculturalwater supply uses, as is already done forLong Island, in order to develop anadequate information base and to allowfor assessments of impacts on otherwater supplies and on the total waterresources, both surface andgroundwater.
5b. Continue efforts to secure passage ofproposed legislation which would createa statewide well-driller registrationprogram. The purpose of this programwould be to collect information detailingsubsurface geology and well con-struction at new groundwater well sites.This will provide for better managementand protection of groundwater resourcesin New York State. (Achieved:legislation passed in 1999; DEC beganimplementing and enforcing well-drillerregistration, preliminary notification ofwell drilling and well log completionreports; water well constructionregulations are to be promulgated byDOH in 2001.)
6a. Create list of ‘priority aquifers’ (PAL)based on existing Primary and Principalaquifers, aquifers identified by USGSand DEC-DOW as likely Principalaquifers, and other aquifers nominatedthrough the PAL process. The list willbe prioritized for potential detail mappingefforts.
6b. Groundwater problems to be addressed bythe DOW will be listed on the PAL.[Note: Contaminated groundwater siteswhich are the responsibility of other DECprograms (e.g., spill sites, hazardouswaste sites, solid waste sites) will not beincluded. Information regarding contam-inated groundwater sites which are beingmanaged under other DEC programs areavailable through those programs.]
7. The Department of Health will maintain alist of public supply wells that have beenclosed due to contamination.
8a. Department of Health SWAP work is tobe completed by November, 2001.
8b. Encourage communities to develop localmanagement and protection programs asa follow-up to the PAL and Source WaterAssessments.
8c. Provide technical assistance to com-munities to delineate areas for protectionprogram implementation.
IV-1
CHAPTER IV
OUTREACH
A. Rationale and Definitions
Rationale
Experience has shown that outreach (a term usedhere to include information, education andtechnical training) is an essential element of asuccessful nonpoint source management program.Partnerships, the combined efforts of groups,companies, organizations, communities, andindividuals, will be needed to achieve the goals ofthis Management Program. Since much of thestate’s program is based on voluntary compliance,success depends on persuasion rather thanregulation. People are more inclined to act whenthey know what to do, how to do it, and whethertheir actions make a difference.
This chapter presents outreach activities tosupport the goals of the Nonpoint SourceManagement Program. Information gatheredduring the development of this document hassuggested directions for statewide nonpointsource outreach and education as well as specificsource categories of pollutants. Increasingly,outreach activities are designed to target particularcommunities or regions, with the goal ofstrengthening watershed partnerships. Manystatewide outreach activities actually focus onspecific local audiences, such as countygovernments or watershed alliances.
Proposed below is a comprehensive list ofstatewide outreach and education activities. Thelist is intended to serve as a guide for outreachstaff at DEC and other agencies with nonpointsource responsibilities as they develop workplansfor statewide and watershed outreach andeducation.
While some background information regardingoutreach for source categories is presented in this
chapter, source-specific outreach and educationprograms are generally discussed in Chapter Five(V) under the appropriate source category.
Definitions
Information is the general dissemination ofknowledge, facts and concepts, using all media. Itcan be targeted to specific audiences for aspecific purpose. However, information is usuallydelivered passively to an unseen audience whoseresponse cannot be predicted. Those who supplyinformation assume that the recipients, if informed,will make the “right” decision and act accordingly.Information is essential, but it seldom acts as amotivator by itself.
Education consists of interpretive activitiesintended to raise the level of understanding for themeaning of facts and concepts (information).Education involves active, structured learning,measurable results and personal contact, using allmedia. Education strives to equip targetedaudiences to make informed decisions byincreasing their skills in critical thinking andproblem solving.
In this document, Education encompasses bothgeneral education and technical training.General education consists of activities thatconvey basic concepts about nonpoint sourcepollution, its causes and solutions. Technicaltraining refers to structured instructional activitiesdesigned to teach specific audiences specializedinformation about what they can do to reducenonpoint source pollution.
Public participation means an exchange ofinformation, ideas, concerns or preferences relatedto decisions that are going to be made, usually bya government at some level. Its purpose is toachieve better decisions, more lasting commitment
IV-2
to implementation, greater support for the finaldecision, and independent action by individuals andgroups to accomplish program purposes.
Public participation, too, is an important componentof the nonpoint source management program. Involving people affected by theprogram in its development helps to create a finalproduct that those people can better support orimplement. This Nonpoint Source ManagementProgram Update has been developed with thepartic ipation of the various agencies and groupswho play a role in controlling nonpoint sourcepollution. Appendix C includes a workplan thatdetails the public participation activities conductedduring the development of this document.
B. History of Outreach and EducationSince the 1990 Management Program
In May 1991, an Information and Education (I&E)Subcommittee of the Nonpoint SourceCoordinating Committee (NPSCC) was formed. Itincluded several agencies with an active role inthese efforts. Its goal was to provide information,education and participation materials andopportunities to increase stewardship by thevarious groups and individuals who play a role inprotecting New York’s waters from nonpointsource pollutants. The subcommittee provided away to avoid duplication and share information sothat improved information and education materialscould be made available.
The subcommittee developed an audience modelto help target outreach materials effectively. Usingthe audience model as a guide, it oversawdevelopment of the following materials:
C Annual Outreach Plan 1994,1995, 1996
C Clean Water... A CommunityCommitment to Protecting NewYork’s Watersheds
C Communication, Outreach andInvolvement: A Strategy forImplement ing New York’sNonpoint Source ManagementProgram
C Where to Find Information onNonpoint Source Pollution in NewYork State
Other activities implemented at state levelincluded:
C Training for County Water QualityCoordinating Committees in de-veloping a public outreach plan(Water Quality Symposium, LakeGeorge, 1994).
C A five-year cooperative agreementbetween DEC and CornellCooperative Extension under whichCornell developed educationalmaterials and programs such as:“Water Courses,” a newsletter onnonpoint source issues; the“Nonpoint Source Pollution ControlDistance Learning Program,” avideo conference series; the“HOME*A*SYST EducationalProgram; as well as programstargeting specific nonpoint sources.
C Materials and activities developedfor Water Week targeting nonpointsources. In 1994, Water Week’stheme was stormwater. Since 1995,Water Week has focused onwatersheds.
C Reprinting and distributing twoeffective nonpoint source pamphletsoriginally produced by the state ofWisconsin: Clean Water Starts withYou: Nutrients and Sediments; andStorm Sewers -- the Rivers BeneathOur Feet.
IV-3
C Pilot workshops held in Oswego andthe Capital District in 1993 bringingtogether County Water QualityCoordinating Committee members,educators and other communicatorsto build connections and fosterstewardship.
Due to staff reassignment, DEC did not convenethe Information and Education (I&E)Subcommittee after 1996, although informalconsultations among outreach partners continuedfor specific projects, such as reviewing materialsfor the Watershed Education campaign (WaterWeek), which was completed in 1998.
C. Implementation Steps
As development of the Management ProgramUpdate began, intensive discussions withrepresentatives of County Water QualityCoordinating Committees (CWQCCs) andmembers of the Nonpoint Source CoordinatingCommittee (NPSCC) identified several prioritiesfor needed outreach and education programs.Many of the activities listed below are proposedbased on comments gathered during thesediscussions. The list is intended to serve as aguide for outreach staff at DEC and otheragencies with nonpoint source responsibilities asthey develop workplans for statewide outreachand education.
The NPSCC will convene its I&E Subcommitteeperiodically during implementation of theManagement Program to guide and assist withselecting and implementing activities below. DECshould provide overall coordination for thesubcommittee to ensure that efforts are consistentwith the management program. Entities withexpertise in community outreach activities such asthe Cornell Cooperative Extension Service, SeaGrant, Cornell University, Syracuse University andNew York State Water Resources Institute will berequested to help handle the development andimplementation of these efforts. Considerations
common to the design of all of the followingactivities are: continuing communication among thevarious agencies; clear definition of the purpose,audience and messages of the activity; plans foreffective distribution of materials; and evaluationand follow-up steps. Proposed activities include:
1. Reconvene the I&E Subcommittee of theNPSCC. (Achieved: January 1999)
2. Increase targeted regional and watershedoutreach activities. Coordinate withongoing regional and watershedpartnership activities (e.g. basin teams,regional workshops, watershedmanagement committees) to: promoteCWQCC participation in regionalpartnerships; track regional andwatershed activities concerning nonpointsource pollution and assess the need fortargeted outreach.
3. Provide better outreach training andsupport to CWQCCs
C Develop a training course or video fornew CWQCC members.
C Develop an orientation/training packet fornew CWQCC members that could becustomized locally.
C Offer training to CWQCCs in:
a. Planning, implementing andevaluating outreach and educationprograms
b. Resources and materials availableat the state level
c. Working with consultants toimplement outreach and educationprograms
d. Integrating outreach and educationinto NPS source-specific programs
e. Working effectively with themedia.
IV-4
4. Assist with administrative support of outreachactivities by CWQCCs:
C Update mailing list of CWQCC contactsannually.
C Investigate ways to provide State staff tosupport local outreach efforts both forspecific source areas and overall NPSprogram. This could include cultivatingand coordinating local volunteers to workin partnership with the CWQCC.
5. Improve usability of existing resources (fromall NPS partner agencies and groups) so theycan be easily used by local-levelorganizations, especially CWQCCs. Developa distribution plan to ensure materials reachtheir intended audiences.
C Update existing publication “Where to GetInformation about NPS Pollution” ordesign and produce easy-to-usecatalogues of NPS audiovisual resources,publications, etc.
C Update and redesign the outreachstrategy to make it more usable.
6. Assist CWQCCs in developing their ownoutreach program to increase awareness ofNPS pollution and create partnerships withspecific audiences. Key audiences identifiedby the CWQCCs include: town, county andother local government officials; planningboards; homebuilders; non-profit and citizengroups. The I&E Subcommittee shouldassess the need for, and, if appropriate,develop:
C new nonpoint source general informationmaterials for targeted audiences at thestate and local levels. Comments fromCWQCCs indicate that a video andaccompanying brochure would be thepreferred outreach tool.
C a targeted education initiative aimed atlocal officials to make them aware of therole of local government in protecting andpreserving water resources and thecontrol options available to them. Amanual that outlines the control optionsand explains how they can beincorporated in local planning efforts isneeded.
7. Provide guidance and assistance for generalnonpoint source information and educationactivities such as: Project WET (WaterEducation for Teachers) in New York State,Water Week, and the DEC Earth DayEnvironmental Fair.
8. Investigate the need for and feasibility ofcreating a nonpoint source informationclearinghouse and/or web site. Theclearinghouse would have reports on nonpointsource research, and demonstration andimplementation projects around the state.The information needs to be more readilyavailable to people in a position to use it.
9. Survey CWQCCs to assess training needs sothat appropriate training sessions can bedeveloped for the annual Water QualitySymposium.
10. Assist the NPSCC in implementing thepriorities identified by the Source CategoryWorking Groups by identifying cross-cuttinginformation, education and technical trainingissues so that the appropriate agencies andinstitutions can work together to targetcommon audiences, produce materials anddeliver them efficiently, without duplicativeeffort.
V-1
CHAPTER V
PROGRAMS TO CONTROL NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION
New York addresses sources of nonpoint sourcepollution (source categories) associated with bothlong-term fixed land uses and more sporadic andtransitory activities. Programs for the control ofsources were developed recognizing this diversity.
Pollution from most nonpoint sources is bestcontrolled through the use of proper managementpractices that can alleviate any existing waterquality impacts and prevent new ones fromoccurring. After briefly describing the sourcecategories, pollutants, and types of source controloptions available, this document presents sourcecontrol programs at the federal, state, and countylevels of government. Volume I of the CoastalNonpoint Pollution Control Program (a separatedocument) describes source categories andcontrol programs in greater detail; the program islisted below in Table V-1. Management practicesfrom the Nonpoint Source Management PracticesCatalogues are listed in Appendix B.
A. Source Categories
Land uses and activities that are considerednonpoint sources are listed in Chapter I as TableI-1. The table identifies the major sourcecategories and the subcategories included in each.A brief description of each of the sourcecategories follows. The source categories arelisted in alphabetical order both here and in thedetailed discussion of sources in section D.Section D presents more detailed descriptions ofthe sources, a table of the existing programs thataddress them, and a set of implementation stepsdescribing planned or recommended activities toachieve short-term and long-term goals.
1. Agriculture
Agriculture is a leading industry in New YorkState and one of the largest users of New York
land. Livestock operations continue to dominate.Since agricultural land is often managedintensively, runoff can cause water qualityproblems. Poor land management and intensiveproduction activities on agricultural land can resultin pollution of waters by sediment, nutrients andagricultural chemicals. Agricultural nonpointsources of pollution can be classified into twogroups: land use and management operations.The first group relates to the actual use of aparcel of land (e.g., row crops, pasture land, andtruck farms). The second group relates to theintensity of agricultural operations (e.g., culturaltechniques, pesticide and fertilizer applications,grazing techniques and manure utilization).Agricultural nonpoint sources of pollution are nota result of the land use or the operationsthemselves, but the inappropriate use of the land(e.g., growing row crops on land not suited forintensive cultivation), and improper managementof the agricultural operation (e.g., over-fertilizationor misapplication of pesticides), which increasesthe opportunity for contaminants from agriculturalactivities to reach either ground or surfacewaters.
2. Atmospheric Deposition
Atmospheric deposition and the subcategory ofacid rain have been identified as the mostfrequently occurring cause of water qualityimpairment in the state. While lakes and ponds inthe Adirondack Mountains are the predominantreceptors identified, atmospheric deposition ingeneral is affecting water bodies in other parts ofthe state as well. Atmospheric pollution maycontribute as much as 14.3% of the nitrogenenrichment to Long Island Sound. Nitrogenenrichment is the cause of severe summertimehypoxia problems in the Sound. Airbornepollutants cause water quality problems whenthey fall on impervious urban areas adding to thepollution of storm water runoff.
V-2
3. Construction
Each day nearly 50,000 acres of land in NewYork is under development through public andprivate construction activities. Although thisrepresents a small portion of the state's land area,sedimentation due to both water and wind erosionat construction sites can be locally severe.Studies have shown that rates of erosion fromconstruction sites are the highest of any sourcecategory. A State Pollutant DischargeElimination (SPDES) general permit is requiredfor sites where the area of disturbance is five ormore acres. Smaller sites are subject to setbacksor erosion and sediment control requirements ofvarious state and local programs and regulations.
4. Contaminated Sediment
Sediments act as both a sink and a source forcontaminants in the aquatic environment.
Chemicals that are environmentally persistent canaccumulate in sediments at concentrations severalorders of magnitude greater than in the watercolumn. Sediment contaminants can be absorbedor ingested by benthic organisms or they may bereleased back into the water column whensediments are disturbed. Not only can adverseeffects occur in benthic or pelagic organismsdirectly exposed to the contaminants, but suchsubstances can bioaccumulate in fish that feedupon these organisms. Contaminants thatbioconcentrate as they move through the foodchain may eventually reach levels that can causehealth risks to wildlife and humans.
5. Hydrologic and Habitat Modification
The hydrologic and habitat modification categoryincludes a variety of changes to rivers andstreams. Some of the items included here involvechanging the flow characteristics by constructionor operation of a dam, and channel modification orrelocation. Removal of riparian vegetation canresult in the destabilization of stream banks andsubsequent erosion and sediment problems, as
well as increase the water temperature regime instreams which may have an effect on fishsurvival. Changing land use patterns within the watershed can also affect the runoff and flowregimes leading to erosion and sediment problems.
6. Land Disposal
Land disposal of solid wastes and wastewater canresult in the contamination of groundwater andmay eventually affect surface waters. The mostcommon sources within this category, regulatedby DEC, are landfills and abandonedhazardous waste sites. On-site wastewaterdisposal systems, regulated by NYS Departmentof Health, are discussed as a separate sourcecategory.
7. Leaks, Spills and Accidents
This category is primarily a groundwater concernalthough some surface waterbodies have alsobeen affected. Petroleum products wereoriginally the focus of concern in this category.The Environmental Conservation Law (ECL), asof 1986, has regulated hazardous substances.The first regulations were promulgated in 1988and the final technical set of regulations in 1994.
8. Marinas and Recreational Boating
This category is not a major contributor of NPSpollution, however, pollutants that are generatedcould be released directly to surface waters.Petroleum products, wastewater from both boatsand marinas, fish-cleaning wastes, floatable debrisand other pollutants will vary in their severity orsignificance from marina to marina.
9. Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems
Individual onsite wastewater treatment systemsthat are inadequately designed, improperlyconstructed or are not maintained can affect bothsurface and groundwater quality. The mostcommon pollutants associated with this categoryare pathogens and nutrients. Onsite wastewater
V-3
treatment systems are identified as one of themost evenly distributed problem sources among allcategories found across the state.
10. Resource Extraction, Exploration, andDevelopment
Sand and gravel mining as well as oil and gas wellfields are the most significant sources in thiscategory. Sand and gravel operations account for85% of the mining in the state. Most of the oiland gas well fields are located in the western andcentral parts of the state.
11. Roadbank Erosion and Storage andApplication of Deicing Agents
Erosion from unvegetated ditches along state,county and local roads is believed to be asignificant source of sediment during spring runoffeach year. Many highway departments cleanditches in the fall, leaving no time to reestablishvegetation before winter. Spring runoff thenresults in significant erosion.
Road salt storage piles have been responsible forcontamination of groundwater in many locationsacross the state. Application of salt is regardedas a potential problem in many areas. Roadsanding has been identified as a problem on anumber of streams in the Adirondack Mountainarea.
12. Silviculture
Forest harvesting activities affect a smallpercentage of the total acreage of woodland inNew York each year. However, water qualityproblems due to sediment and thermal stress canresult if proper techniques are not followed.Improper landing locations, poor logging roadconstruction techniques and logging adjacent tostreams can result in water quality problems.
13. Urban Runoff
Stormwater runoff from urban areas can becontaminated with sediment, oxygen demandingsubstances, pathogens, petroleum products and anumber of toxic substances. The large amount ofimpervious surfaces in an urban area increasesthe quantity of runoff and decreases the time ittakes for peak runoff to occur. These factors canlead to increased flooding in addition to the waterquality problems resulting from the pollutant load.
B. Pollutants and Their Effects
Nonpoint source pollutants are usually transportedduring hydrologic events, although some sources,such as failing on-site wastewater treatmentsystems or contaminated sediments, can deliverpollutants at any time. Pollutants dissolved inrunoff are generally more biologically available inwaterbodies than sediment-based fractions andthus are potentially more damaging. Thefollowing is a grouping of pollutants and adescription of some of their effects. Thepollutants are also listed within the Tables ofExisting Programs in section D below.
1. Toxic Substances and Hazardous Substances
Toxic chemicals may enter surface waters eitherdissolved in runoff or attached to sediment ororganic materials, and may enter groundwaterthrough soil infiltration. The principal concerns insurface waters are: their entry into the food chainand bioaccumulation (a subset of this pollutanttype is Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern, orBCCs), toxic effects on fish, shellfish, wildlife,macroinvertebrates and micro-organisms, habitatdegradation, and potential degradation of publicwater supply sources. The groundwater impactsare primarily related to water supply sources.Pollutants in this category include: pesticides,synthetic organic chemicals, and inorganics suchas metals, ammonia, and chlorine.
2. Nutrients or Fertilizers
Nutrient (phosphorus and nitrogen) enrichment ofsurface waters may cause excessive algae and
V-4
aquatic plant growth, choking open waters andconsuming oxygen (mainly through plant die-off).Fish and aquatic organisms, recreational values,and the use of the resource for water supply arethereby affected. Nitrogen contamination ofdrinking water significantly above the drinkingwater standard may cause methemoglobinemia (ablood disease) in infants and cattle, and hasforced closure of several water supplies (primarilywells). Problems may include excess turbidity,changes in fish species composition, habitatalteration, and hypoxia (see oxygen demandbelow).
3. Acid/Base (pH)/ Atmospheric Deposition/Acid Rain
The deposition of sulfur and nitrous oxides in theform of acid rain can lower the pH of someponds, lakes and streams to such a degree thatthey cannot support fish communities. Waters ofthe Adirondack and Catskill Mountains are mostsusceptible due to their low pH buffer capacity.In addition to acidity, other pollutants (lead,mercury) can be transported by atmosphericdeposition.
4. Sediment
Sediment may destroy fish habitat throughblanketing of fish spawning and feeding areas andelimination of certain food organisms; directlyimpact fish through gill abrasion and fin rot, andreduce sunlight penetration, thereby impairingphotosynthesis of aquatic plants. Suspendedsediment (turbidity) decreases recreational values,reduces fishery habitat, adds to the mechanicalwear of water supply pumps and distributionsystems, and adds to treatment costs for watersupplies. Nutrients and toxic substances attachedto sediment particles are transported towaterbodies and may enter aquatic food chains,cause fish toxicity problems, impair recreationaluses, or degrade the water as a drinking watersource.
5. Oxygen-Demanding Substances andHypoxia
Organic materials may enter surface watersdissolved or suspended in runoff. Naturaldecomposition of these materials may depletedissolved oxygen supplies in the surface waters.Dissolved oxygen (DO) may be reduced to belowthe threshold necessary to maintain aquatic life(hypoxia), or to near zero (anoxia) impairing orkilling fish and other aquatic biota. Low DO canalso result in degraded water supplies (surfacewater) and changes in fish species composition.BOD5 is the parameter most commonly used tomeasure oxygen demand in ambient waters.
6. Salts: Deicing and Brine
Effects of runoff from deicing material storageand application and, in the western and centralareas of the state, non-routine runoff of brinesassociated with oil, gas and solution mining mayinclude increased salinity, fish survival/pro-pagation impacts, loss of aquatic organisms, lakestratification, and groundwater contamination.
7. Thermal Stress or Changes
Elevated stream temperatures can exceed fishtolerance limits, reducing survival and loweringdisease resistance. Cold water fish (such astrout) may be eliminated or the habitat maybecome marginally supportive of the fishery.There could also be habitat alteration or loss ofother aquatic organisms.
8. Water Level or Flow Changes
Changes in the water level of lakes and pondsalter the shoreline and can have a negative impacton various recreational activities (swimming,boating, fishing). Shifting shorelines can alsoaffect aquatic plant life that provides cover andhabitat for fish communities. Fluctuating streamflows may also cause stress to the fishcommunities, as well as limit recreationalactivities. These habitat alterations may in turn
V-5
change fish species composition or cause the lossof other aquatic organisms. A reduced ordegraded water supply could also result.
9. Pathogens and Pathogen Indicators
Bacteria and viruses include infectious agents anddisease-producing organisms normally associatedwith human and animal wastes. The principalconcerns are the survival and transmission ofsuch organisms and their impacts on drinkingwater supplies, shellfish, contact recreationalwaters, and fish and wildlife or domestic animals.Indicator organisms are sampled and counts areused to approximate the presence and quantity ofpathogenic organisms.
10. Aesthetics, Floatables, and Debris
Areas of debris, either in a waterbody or on theland surrounding it, can deter use of thewaterbody for a variety of recreational activitiesincluding swimming, boating, and aestheticenjoyment.
11. Oil and Grease/ Petroleum Spills
Oil, grease and petroleum can interfere with therespiration of fish in the stream, limiting the sizeand/or diversity of the fish population. In addition,visible sheen on the water reduces the aestheticappeal of a water body, and may discouragevarious recreational activities. Fish kills, degradedwater supply, limited bathing/swimming, restrictedshellfishing are all possible effects.
C. Types of Programs
Programs that can be used to control nonpointsource pollution use one or more of the followingmethods to accomplish program goals. Suchprograms, while frequently led or conducted bygovernment agencies, may also be implementedby other entities such as business and industry,educational institutions, or not-for-profitorganizations.
The types of programs listed below arereferenced in tables found in Sections V.D.1 -14. Those sections, which describe existingprograms for controlling various categories ofnonpoint source pollution, include a column,“Type of Program” that will refer to one of thenine program types below.
1. Planning
Programs that address nonpoint source pollutionthrough planning can focus on statewide or local(watershed) issues. Activities included underplanning are:
• inventory, e.g. of water quality data, landuses, etc.
C assessment, e.g. of problem or man-agement options;
Also included are comprehensive planningprocesses such as: management plans for locallakes or watersheds, plans developed under thefederal National Estuary Program (e.g., LongIsland Sound Study, NY/NJ Harbor EstuaryProgram) and activities to develop the institu-tional mechanisms to facilitate and ensure deliveryof these programs.
2. Monitoring
Local or statewide water or air quality monitoringis often undertaken to provide input to nonpointsource planning programs. Monitoring data canprovide information about long-term water qualitytrends or impacts. Such data often serve as inputto planning activities, but may also be used togauge the effectiveness of existing pollutioncontrol programs, or to track compliance.
3. Implementation
A federal, state or local government, or otherentity can decide to act directly to implementmanagement practices to prevent or remedy a
V-6
nonpoint source problem. Examples of suchactions include:
C removing contamination, e.g. dredgingcontaminated sediments; design orconstruction, e.g. building controlstructures or diversions to change waterflows;
4. Regulatory Programs
Regulatory programs are programs based on lawsor regulations that require (or ban) certainactivities or that control the activity through somemechanism such as a permit process. They canbe either statewide or watershed-based. Anexample of the latter would be watershed rulesand regulations developed and enforced locally.Regulations could apply to the use of land oractivities upon the land. They can also apply tothe handling, use and storage of specificsubstances, such as petroleum products orpesticides. Regulations can also be used tocontrol discharges or waste disposal onto land orinto ground or surface waters. Governments canuse regulatory authority to control or ban anactivity. Federal, state or local governments oftenrequire permits or registrations to certifycompliance with regulations.
5. Financial Incentives
Financial incentives include direct grants, low orno-interest loans, tax breaks and cost-sharing.Some of the programs in the tables that followprovide full or partial funding for specificactivities.
Chapter VIII presents an overview of nonpointsource funding programs in New York.
6. Research and Demonstration Projects
Some of the programs listed promote researchand demonstration projects. These projects
typically will show how a certain land use practiceor series of practices can reduce pollutantloadings from nonpoint sources. Demonstrationprojects can be designed to test the effectivenessof promising practices in real-world applications,to gain experience with design parameters of newpractices and/or to attract attention to newpractices. Such projects may focus on a specificsource category, such as manure spreading orlandfill leachate. They may measure theeffectiveness of certain control measures, such asplanting vegetative buffer strips or using a newimpermeable material to line landfills. Projectsmay also be tailored to specific watersheds.
7. Technical Assistance
Both technical assistance and training provideinformation to a narrowly-targeted audience thatwill use or directly apply the technology.Technical assistance is work done directly with alandowner, a planning board, or a land user toimplement management practices that willresolve an identified problem. Technicalassistance is site-specific and accounts for siteconditions.
8. Technical Training
Technical training refers to structuredinstructional activities designed to teach specificaudiences (generally NPS professionals)specialized information. Technical training isusually more general than technical assistance,focusing on the advantages and disadvantages ofpractices, but not on particular problems orspecific sites. This category includes continuingeducation courses in management practices suchas those provided by Cornell CooperativeExtension, and courses aimed at particularaudiences such as contractor workshops forerosion and sediment control.
9. Outreach
V-7
Outreach, as used here, includes programs toincrease awareness and provide more generalinformation and education about nonpoint sourcepollution. Education programs to address nonpointsource pollution include any material provided asschool (K-12) curriculum, or targeted for childrenof school age through organizations such asScouts or 4-H. It includes any general pre-professional training offered in colleges anduniversities. Also in this category are continuingeducation courses offered to adults throughinstitutions such as high schools, BOCES orCornell Cooperative Extension Service and formaltraining at the graduate level.
Outreach activities to provide general informationand increase awareness of pollution include:publications, radio or television public serviceannouncements, slide/video shows and eventssuch as DEC’s Water Week and Earth DayEnvironmental Fair.
D. Existing and Needed NonpointSource Control Programs
The 1989 Nonpoint Source Assessment Reportlisted 58 programs that have a role in the controlof nonpoint source pollution in New York. ThisUpdate lists the programs in table format later inthis Chapter. Some of these programs havewater quality as their primary focus while forothers, water quality improvement is a secondarybenefit. Programs that are new since 1990 areitalicized in the tables.
The Implementation Steps (for each categorybelow) generally use existing legal authority andcan be implemented in the short term. Reportsand accomplishments of existing programs, whileintegral to the success of New York’s NonpointSource Program, are not included asImplementation Steps. The existing programslisted in the tables are assumed to continuethrough the next five years. A few
Implementation Steps will require legislativeaction and are considered long-term goals.
The remainder of this chapter presents programsand recommendations for controlling nonpointsource pollution. The first section lists programsthat do not apply to any specific source category.These are general activities related to resourceinventories and assessments, national and regionalmanagement programs, and state and regionalplanning or outreach activities. Remainingsections will each address a specific sourcecategory. Source categories are listed inalphabetical order. For each category, there willbe an assessment of the source and its effects onwater quality in New York, a table of existingprograms that address the source, and a list ofimplementation steps to achieve short term andlong term goals toward the program’s long termobjectives.
l. General Management Activities
a. Source Description
A fundamental activity within the overallmanagement approach for nonpoint sources isassessing the sources or origins of their waterquality effects. The 1996 Priority WaterbodiesList (PWL) provides listings which demonstratethe extent of nonpoint source pollution across thestate. More than 90% of the impaired water-bodies in New York are impacted by nonpointsources. More specific discussions of the effectsof particular source categories will be containedin the sections which deal with those sources.
b. Existing Programs
Table V-1 provides brief descriptions of existingprograms that address general managementactivities. Programs with names in italics arenew since 1990.
V-8
c. Implementation Steps
The programs and activities related to programplanning and oversight include: providing overallprogram direction and oversight, implementingprograms for the general protection of theresource, developing interagency collaboration toaddress nonpoint source problems (Chapter II),assessing the condition of the water resource andproblems affecting the resource (Chapter III),developing and delivering educational materialsand public participation events (Chapter IV), andencouraging watershed planning (Chapter VI). Chapters II through VI have their ownImplementation Steps. The following imple-mentation steps pertain only to overall programdirection and programs for the general protectionof water resources from nonpoint sourcepollution.
1. Develop pollution prevention guidancematerials specific to NPS activities.Pollution prevention means reducing oreliminating pollution at the source. Byeliminating the use of toxic substances orreplacing them with less toxic chemicals,pollution prevention can contribute toreduced pollution from both point andnonpoint sources. Natural resources arec o n s e r v e d a n d c r o s s - m e d i acontamination is prevented through manypollution prevention practices. (Also seePollution Prevention Outreach Programin Table V-1.)
2. Continue to develop the concept ofcritical area protection which groupsseveral resource management “tools” toprovide special protection for criticalgroundwater resources in specific localareas. Critical area protection programsrequire strong local involvement anddepend primarily on statutory authoritywhich is exclusively in the domain oflocal government. The New York StateWellhead Protection Program is a keyexample of critical area protection (orgeographic targeting).
Wellhead protection efforts can include a mix ofboth regulatory and non-regulatory elements andboth state regulatory programs and county or
local ordinances. Wellhead protection mayinclude land use controls such as zoning anddesignation of Critical Environmental Areasunder provisions of the State EnvironmentalQuality Review Act. The use of WatershedRules and Regulations under the NYS PublicHealth Law may also be an approach forwellhead protection. The development of theState’s Source Water Assessment Program(DOH) offers a valuable opportunity for DEC toestablish a partnership with DOH and localities todevelop inventories that will serve as the basis forthe protection of groundwater sources.
V-9
TABLE V-1Programs/Activities to Implement Nonpoint Source Management
(Programs with Names in Italics Are New since 1990)
Program NameLead Agency
(Others Involved)Pollutant
CategoriesType of Program;
Geographic CoverageAudience;
GoalStatus
Biological StreamAssessments
DEC All Monitoring;
Statewide
Users of water quality data; Assess water qualityby using benthic macroinvertebrates.
Ongoing assessments; works with RIBSgenerally, program staff also conductabout 10 separate full stream surveys peryear; they have developed methods thatcan be used to identify the source ofproblems.
Citizens Lake AssessmentProgram
DEC/FOLA All Monitoring;
Statewide
Lake associations; Collect water qualityinformation about selected lakes throughvolunteers trained by DEC, identify lakeproblems and educate the public.
Ongoing; 95 lakes active in program.
Clean Lakes Program DEC All Planning & Implementation;
Statewide
Residents of program lakes; Conduct studyand/or implementation projects for selected lakes.
No new federal funding being providedfor program. Existing projects beingcompleted. Management plans forFinger Lakes and some other lakes beingdone using Clean Lakes methodology.
Clean Water/Clean Air BondAct:
Non-Ag. NPSDEC All Financial Incentives;
Statewide
Municipalities; To provide financial assistancefor implementing BMPs to reduce NPS pollutionfrom non-ag. sources.
‘97-’98: 45 non-ag projects funded.‘98-‘99: 47 non-ag projects funded.
Ag. NPS State SWCC All, primarilysediment andnutrients
Financial Incentives;
Statewide
Agricultural community, SWCDs; To helpfarmers implement BMPs to reduce NPS waterpollution.
‘96-’97: 22 ag projects funded.‘97-’98: 13 ag projects funded.‘98-’99: 9 ag projects funded.
Clean Water State RevolvingFund
EFC/DEC All Financial Incentives;
Statewide
Municipalities; To provide financial assistancefor planning, design and construction of publicly-owned projects that prevent, reduce or remediateNPS pollution.
Ongoing; funds are available forsubsidized low-interest loans for 100percent of project cost.
Coastal ManagementProgram
DOS All Regulatory;
Coastal Area
Residents in coastal watersheds; Promote thebeneficial use of certain coastal resources andprovide for the management of activities whichmay impact coastal resources.
Ongoing through consistency review,development of LWRPs and specialprojects.
Coastal NPS Program (6217Program)
DOS/DEC All Planning;
Coastal Watersheds
Residents of Coastal Watersheds; For states todevelop and implement programs to control NPSpollution to restore and protect coastal waters.
Program submitted to NOAA & EPAin July, 1995; Conditional approvalgiven November 18, 1997.(Also see Appendix D)
Program NameLead Agency
(Others Involved)Pollutant
CategoriesType of Program;
Geographic CoverageAudience;
GoalStatus
V-10
Delaware River BasinCommission Activities
DRBC(NJDEP)
All Planning & Regulatory;
Delaware River Basin
Residents of Delaware River Basin; Promoteinterstate cooperation, remove controversies,provide coordinated and cooperative planning andwater resource management.
Ongoing.
Dredge and Fill PermitProgram (CWA Section 404;Federal Reg. 33 CFR 320-330)
U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers
All Regulatory;
National
Those involved in dredge and fill discharges towaters of the U.S.;
Ensure discharges to U.S. waters comply withenvironmental requirements.
Applies to the disposal of dredged orfill material into lakes, rivers andwetlands, and any “return water” fromthe upland disposal of dredged material.
Drinking Water StateRevolving Fund
DOH/EFC All Financial Incentives;
Statewide
Community water systems, both publicly andprivately owned, and non-profit, non-communitywater systems. To provide financial assistancefor planning, design and construction of eligiblewater system projects. Includes funding of landpurchase or conservation easements for sourcewater protection for wellheads or watersheds.
Ongoing; funds are available forsubsidized low-interest loans for up to100 percent of project costs. Grantsmay be available for qualifiedapplicants with demonstrated financialhardship.
Environmental InitiativeProgram
NYS DOT All Planning, Implementation andTechnical Assistance;
Statewide
Environmental Agencies, Environmental Groupsand Local Municipalities;
Provide an environmental ethic throughout DOT,advance state and environmental programs andobjectives and strengthen relationships withtarget audiences.
Completed dedicated environmentalprojects in 1998 construction season;Con t inu ing mee t ings be tweenmanagement and staff to promoteawareness and support of theEnvironmental Initiative; Developingand implementing action plans toadvance the Initiative within and outsideDOT.
Great Lakes (GL)GL Toxic Reduction Effort
USEPA ToxicPollutants(Bioaccumulative Chemicalsof Concern;BCCs)
Planning;
GL Basin
Residents of GL Basin;
Reduce pathways and eliminate selected toxics.
Program being developed; developmentdelayed due to focus on point sourceGLI implementation.
RAPs (Remedial Action Plans)
USEPA/DEC All Planning and Implementation;
GL Basin
Residents of areas of concern;
Restore/protect beneficial uses.
Development completed December1997; implementation ongoing.
LAMPS (Lakeside Management Plans)
USEPA / DEC / EC / OME
All Planning;
Lk. Erie & Lk. Ontario Basins
Residents of Basins; Restore/protect beneficialuses; Address loadings of pollutants.
Developing Stage 1 problem definition.
Phosphorus Reduction Strategy
USEPA / EC Phosphorus Planning;
GL Basin
Residents of GL Basin;Reduce phosphorus loads.
Reduction targets met and someexceeded.
Program NameLead Agency
(Others Involved)Pollutant
CategoriesType of Program;
Geographic CoverageAudience;
GoalStatus
V-11
Hazardous Air Pollutants USEPA Hazardous AirPollutants(HAP)
Planning;
Statewide
All state residents;Air monitoring/research to reduce loads.
Clean Air Act implementation of“Great Waters” Program; mercury ispollutant of concern in GL Basin.
Niagara River Toxics Mgt.Plan
DEC / USEPA /EC / OMEE
ToxicPollutants
Planning;
Niagara River Watershed
All residents of watershed; Reduce toxic loads toriver and Lake Ontario.
Implementation o n g o i n g ; u p -stream/down-stream monitoring studiesand track downs.
Lake ClassificationInventory
DEC All Monitoring;
Selected areas across the state
Users of water quality data;Collect water quality data on lakes in a definedgeographic area.
Reinitiated in 1996; 15 lakes monitoredin 1996; 10 different ones in 1997.
Local WaterfrontRevitalization Program(LWRP)
DOS & LocalEntity
All Regulatory;
Coastal Area
Residents in areas with LWRPs; Develop a fullpartnership between local governments and DOSto refine and supplement Coastal ManagementProgram by incorporating local needs andobjectives.
Ongoing; DOS is working with morethan 100 municipalities, 52 of whichhave approved LWRPs.
Management Conferences
Lake Champlain USEPA All, primarilyPhosphorus(Nutrient)
Planning;
Lake Champlain Watershed
Watershed residents, users of resource andregulatory/funding agencies;To identify areas of concern and providerecommendations for addressing those concerns.
M anagement Plan approved inOctober, 1996.
Onondaga Lake USEPA,USACOE, DEC,AG, City ofSyracuse,Onondaga Co.
All, emphasison Mercury(Toxic) andPhosphorus(Nutrient)
Planning;
Onondaga Lake Watershed
Watershed residents, users of resource, andregulatory/funding agencies;Reduce loadings of pollutants to meet standardsand attain best use.
Amended Consent JudgementApproved in Aug 1997; CERCLARemedial Investigation and FeasibilityStudy in progress.
National Estuary Programs
Hudson River EstuaryDEC, HudsonRiver EstuaryManagementAdvisoryCommittee andHRE Work Group
All, emphasisonContaminatedSediments(Toxics)
Planning;
Hudson River EstuaryWatershed
Watershed residents, users of resource andregulatory/funding agencies; Protect, restore and enhance the productivity anddiversity of natural resources of the HudsonRiver estuary to sustain a wide array of presentand future human benefits.
Management Plan approved andreleased July, 1996.
LIS (Long Island Sound)
USEPA, DEC, CT DEP
All Planning;
LIS Watershed
Watershed residents, users of resource andregulatory/fundin g agencies; Protect and improvethe health of LIS while ensuring compatiblehuman uses in the Sound ecosystem.
CCMP approved in 1994 andreaffirmed in 1996.
Program NameLead Agency
(Others Involved)Pollutant
CategoriesType of Program;
Geographic CoverageAudience;
GoalStatus
2 Parties to the New York City Watershed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) include the State of New York, City of New York, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Coalition of Watershed Towns, Catskill Watershed Corporation, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, NYS Department of Health, NYSDepartment of State, NYS Environmental Facilities Corporation, New York City Department of Environmental Protection, Catskill Center for Conservation andDevelopment, Hudson Riverkeeper Fund, Inc., New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc., Open Space Institute, Inc., Trust for Public Land, and everytown, village and county in the NYC water supply watershed.
V-12
NY-NJ Harbor USEPA, DEC,NJ DEP
All Planning;
NY-NJ Harbor Watershed
Watershed residents, users of resource andregulatory/funding agencies; To establish andmaintain a healthy and productive Harbor/Bightecosystem will full beneficial uses.
CCMP completed in 1996; recievedconcurrence by Governors of NewYork and New Jersey and EPAapproval in 1997.
Peconic Estuary Suffolk Co. DOH(EPA)
All Planning;
Peconic Estuary Watershed
Watershed residents, users of resource andregulatory/funding agencies; Protect the health of the Peconic Estuary, whileensuring compatible human uses in the estuaryecosystem..
Draft Action Plan completed Dec.1994. Comprehensive Conservation andManagement Plan for program draftedSummer, 1999; final plan expected inWinter 1999.
South Shore Estuary Program
DOS All Planning;
South Shore of Long Island
Local residents, local governments, interest groups;Develop management recommendations toalleviate and prevent water pollution, improveshellfishing; Protect appropriate investments andmaintain a balance between preserving the estuary’snatural integrity and promoting recreation,tourismand water dependent business.
An Interim Report has been prepared.A draft comprehensive managementplan expected by Fall 1999.
NYC Watershed Protection Program
NYCDEP (Partiesto the New YorkCity Memorandumof Agreement) 2
All Regulatoru and Non-Regulatory;
NYC’s Water SupplyWatershed (200 sq. mi.)
Watershed residents, state, county and municipalgovernments, and commercial, industrial andinstitutional entities;To protect water supply by meeting filtrationavoidance criteria.
January 21, 1997: WatershedMemorandum of Agreement signed.
May 1997: Revised NYC WatershedRegulations became effective.
Nonpoint Source Cost-ShareProgram (Env. ProtectionFund, 319, 604(b)):
Ag. Sources State SWCC All, primarilySediment andNutrients
Financial Incentives;
Statewide
Ag. community, SWCDs;To help farmers implement BMPs to reduce NPSwater pollution.
98 projects funded between 1992 and1998. Funded thru EnvironmentalProtection Fund (EPF) 319 and 604(b).
Non-Ag. Sources DEC All Financial Incentives;
Statewide
Municipalities;To provide financial assistance for implementingBMPs to reduce NPS pollution from non-ag.sources.
114 projects funded between 1992 and1998. Funded primarily thru EPF 319and 604(b).
Program NameLead Agency
(Others Involved)Pollutant
CategoriesType of Program;
Geographic CoverageAudience;
GoalStatus
V-13
Plant Materials Program USDA - NRCS(SWCDs)
Sediment andNutrients
Implementation and TechnicalAssistance;
Statewide
Municipalities and farmers with gravel pits;Provide native plants to revegetate mined landsites, restore wetlands, protect stream bank andriparian areas, stabilize coastal dunes, reduceerosion, and improve water quality.
1997: Three new plants released tocommercial growers for use in CRP,EQIP, WRP, and WHIP. Studycompleted on the attenuation of nitratesin soil water by grasses. Assisted TheNature Conservancy.
Pollution PreventionOutreach Program
DEC All Outreach;
Statewide
Regulated community;To educate the regulated community thatpollution can often be prevented by reducing oreliminating the use of toxic substances.
Ongoing; numerous documents (includingfact sheets, brochures, manuals)published; annual pollution preventionconference held; staff conductsworkshops for local governments andsmall businesses.
Public Water SupplyProgram
DOH All Planning;
Statewide
Public water supply users. Assure that watersupply is safe to drink.
Ongoing oversight of over 3,000community and 2,000 non-communitywater systems.
Resource Conservation &Development Program
USDA NRCS &RC&D Councils(SWCDs)
Sediment,Thermal stress
Planning; implementation,financial incentive (assist withsecuring loans or grants),technical assistance, andoutreach;7 RC&D Councils serve 48counties in NYS.
Local landowners, units of government, and waterbased associations;RC&D priorities vary from Council to Council.Watershed inventory and stream bankstabilization projects are accomplished.
Annual and long-range plans aredeveloped statewide by USDA - NRCSand on a Council basis by each RC&DCouncil. Progress reports of RC&Dactivities are normally preparedannually.
Rotating Intensive BasinStudies (RIBS)
DEC All Monitoring;
Statewide
Users of water quality (wq) data; Evaluate overallwq (including sediment analysis) and provide adatabase for recommended site-specificassessments.
RIBS is an ongoing assessment process;process is being revised; work has startedin several basins; revised process will beimplemented over the next 5 years.
Shellfish Land Certification DEC All Planning;
Marine Waters
Shellfish consumers; Protect public health byaccurately classifying shellfish growing areas.
Ongoing.
Soil and Water ConservationDistrict Program
SWCDs All, primarilySediment andNutrients
Planning, outreach & technicalassistance;
Various programs exist in eachcounty
All state residents; Special purpose districtcreated to develop and carry out a program ofsoil, water and related natural resourcemanagement by providing technical assistanceand other programs to residents.
Ongoing.
State Environmental QualityReview (SEQR)
DEC (or can be alocal entity)
All Regulatory & Planning;
Statewide
All state residents; To ensure that potentialenvironmental impacts of any proposed actionregarding land use and development are identified.
Ongoing program; vast majority ofdevelopment since SEQRA wase n a c t e d h a s u n d e r g o n e a nenvironmental review.
Program NameLead Agency
(Others Involved)Pollutant
CategoriesType of Program;
Geographic CoverageAudience;
GoalStatus
V-14
Stream ClassificationProgram
DEC All Planning;
Statewide
Water users; Classify every waterbody in the stateaccording to its best usage taking into accountstream flow, water quality, past , present anddesired uses of water in the best interest of thepublic.
Every waterbody in state that supportsfishing has been classified; process ofupdating classifications is nearlycomplete.
Susquehanna River BasinCommission Activities
SRBC All Planning, Monitoring &Regulatory;
Susquehanna River Basin
Residents of Susquehanna River Basin; Toimprove lives of the citizens and economies ofNY, PA & MD thru comprehensive planning andmanagement of water resources in the basin.(Commission’s Comprehensive Plan currentlyunder revision.)
1998: Using a geomorphological streamrestoration method in demonstrationproject. Providing Chesapeake BayProgram pass-thru funds to UpperSusquehanna Coalition for ag survey.Conducting habitat, water quality, andmacroinvertebrate surveys in theChemung and Upper Susquehanna sub-basins.
Water Quality CertificationProgram (CWA Section 401;Federal Reg. 40 CFR 121)
NYS DEC’sDivision ofEnvironmentalPermits (US ArmyCorp of Engineers)
All Regulatory (pre-requisite for a404 permit);
National
Those involved in dredged and fill discharges towaters of the U.S.;Require state to evaluate water quality impactsprior to federal approval.
August, 1993—program delegated toNYS.
Water Resources InstitutePrograms
WRI All Planning, outreach & technical assistance;
Statewide
All state residents; To sponsor and pursue waterrelated act ivi t ies through invest ig-ations/experiments, education, outreach activitiesand providing technical assistance.
Ongoing.
Water Resources ResearchGrants Program
NYS WaterResourcesInstitute
All (NPS apriority areabut notexclusive)
Research, Outreach;
13 states and DC
Colleges and university faculty and students,general public, businesses;To improve knowledge base for decisions, trainfuture water professionals, disseminate infor-mation to public.
1996-98: $2.4 M ($800,000+ annually)awarded competitively. $300,000 wentto 4 2-year projects in New York.Research results from projects in otherstates are often applicable to NY NPSissues.
Water Week DEC(partners)
All Outreach;
Statewide
All state residents; Provide information, stimulate action and knittogether activities so that watershed partnershipsare formed and work to restore, preserve andprotect New York’s waters.
1998: Completion of a four yearcampaign focusing on watersheds andwatershed partnerships.
Wild, Scenic andRecreational Rivers
DEC All Planning;
Statewide
River users; Protect, preserve and enhancesignificant rivers and river areas throughout thestate.
125 river segments (1202.3 miles) areprotected by this program.
V-15
2. Agriculture
Since the Statewide 208 Report, an extensiveprogram to assess and manage water qualityinfluences of farms has evolved and involves anumber of federal and state agencies. Theprogram is built around voluntary participation offarmers, provision of technical and financialassistance, and farm-specific tailoring from a listof standard BMPs. Integrated, watershed-basedfarm planning programs recently have beendeveloped to cope with water supply sourceprotection issues.
a. Source Description
Agriculture continues to be one of the largestusers of New York land. Despite a long-termdecline in acreage and a steeper decline in thenumber of individual farms, 36,000 farms still usedabout 7.7 million of New York State’s 30.3 millionland acres in 1996. Livestock operationscontinued to dominate, accounting for about twothirds of New York’s $3.25 billion agriculturalgross revenues in 1995. (Data from USDAannual estimates.)
There are three shifts underway that are relevantto water quality management. First, the averagesize of farms (in land area, production, andrevenue terms) is increasing. While the familyfarm is still the most common, the professionalfarm with more hired personnel is becoming morefrequent. Second, since livestock farming is stableto declining in aggregate and crop farming(including greenhouses and nurseries) isincreasing, the latter’s share is increasing at theexpense of livestock’s share. Third, in a trend lessevident from Census statistics, the intensiveness ofuse of agricultural land is increasing as smaller andless intensively managed farms are closed forfinancial and family reasons, more intensive farmsremain in operation, and entrepreneurial farmsincrease their intensity to maintain or improveprofitability in the face of increasing productioncosts and property taxes.
The extent and intensity of this major land useleads to concern about agriculture's contribution tononpoint source pollution. Agricultural activitiesoften include soil disturbance in preparation forplanting, periodic fertilizer and pesticideapplications, concentrated animal populations, andanimal waste storage and spreading. Agriculturalwater quality problems generally arise whenimproper management, excessive intensity, orinappropriate land uses are part of the agriculturaloperation. In these instances agricultural nonpointsource pollutants have included eroded sediment,dissolved nutrient and pesticide residues,pathogens, and oxygen demanding substances.Areas of animal concentrations includingovergrazed areas can contribute nutrients, organicmatter, ammonia and pathogens. Removal ofriparian vegetation and unrestricted livestockaccess to streams can result in increasedstreambank erosion as well as increases in streamwater temperature which adversely affects fish.
It is difficult to estimate the extent to which NewYork agriculture or other nonpoint sources causeimpairment of the State's waters because aconsistent statewide evaluation has never beenconsidered feasible. The qualitative assessmentsand local evaluations in DEC’s 1988-89 NonpointSource Assessment Report and subsequentCounty Water Quality Coordinating Committeework indicate that, in New York, lakes andimpoundments are more likely to be affected byagricultural nonpoint sources than streams orrivers. This is logical since these water bodies areoften the depositories for the sediment, nutrients,organic matter, and chemicals lost fromagricultural land. Furthermore, lakes andimpoundments more readily manifest theconsequences of these contaminants, regardless ofthe source.
The 1998 Priority Waterbody List (PWL) includesnearly 200 segments across the state whereagriculture is the perceived primary source ofimpairment and another 200 segments whereagriculture is a perceived secondary source.
V-16
Together these account for nearly 30% of the totalnumber of segments on the PWL.
b. Existing Programs
There have been many developments inagricultural water quality management in NewYork since the prior edition of the NonpointSource Management Program in 1990. Programsreach a larger number of farms, they betterintegrate activities by different agencies, they havemany more resources, and they can draw from astronger scientific foundation.
Agricultural Environmental Management
Agricultural Environmental Management (AEM)is the umbrella initiative which is being used toimplement the agricultural nonpoint sourcemanagement programs in New York. AEMcoordinates programs from the federal, state andlocal level with private sector efforts. It alsocoordinates various program aspects, includingeducation, planning, implementation, prioritysetting, incentives, certification and evaluation.The New York State Soil and Water ConservationCommittee, with guidance from its AEM SteeringCommittee, provides the leadership for planning,coordinating and policy setting for the AEMinitiative. Locally, county teams consisting ofrepresentatives from the soil and waterconservation district, Natural ResourcesConservation Service-Farm Services Agency(NRCS-FSA), and Cornell Cooperative Extensionprovide leadership for coordination, policy setting,planning and implementation. Cornell CooperativeExtension assists the State Committee withoutreach, education and public participation.
Agricultural Environmental Management is basedon the “tiered” planning and implementationapproach on individual farms, and is most effectivewhen done on a more comprehensive basis with anumber of farms in a prioritized watershed or“priority area” setting. Watersheds, or other
“priority area” designations, are identified andprioritized for submittal of AEM implementationprojects through the efforts of County WaterQuality Coordinating Committees or County LocalWorking Groups. Individual farms, especiallythose identified as Concentrated Animal FeedingOperations (CAFOs), may be considered highpriority candidates for planning andimplementation.
Throughout the various AEM processes, there areopportunities or needs for communicating with avariety of audiences. These audiences includefarmers, agri-business, community leaders,watershed associations, environmentalists andothers. Each AEM watershed initiative wouldbenefit from a coordinated communicationcomponent consisting of outreach, education andpublic participation activities.
AEM collects information, assesses farmmanagement practices for potential environmentalconcerns and recommends individual practices orsystems of Best Management Practices (BMPs)to address those concerns.
The NRCS nine step planning process is used to:
- collect information- determine farmer objectives- analyze information- identify and select alternative
management practices or systems- formulate a plan- implement the plan- evaluate the results and future directions
Tools developed in the planning efforts beingconducted in the Skaneateles Lake WatershedAgricultural Program (SLWAP), the New YorkCity Watershed Agricultural Program(NYCWAP) and various ongoing AEM projectsare used in the beginning steps of the NRCSplanning process. The “tiered approach” is aphrase coined in the SLWAP which addresses thelogical sequence of developing, implementing and
V-17
evaluating the plan. Tiers I-III are used todevelop the plan. Tier I consists of aquestionnaire designed to collect information aboutthe farm operation. Tier II consists of a group ofworksheets which are used to evaluate thepotential environmental concerns of variousphases of the farm operation. Tier III is theselection by the farmer of appropriate BMPs toaddress environmental concerns that are identifiedin concert with the AEM County Project Team.All implementation and participation decisions aremade by the farmer, based on his or her businessobjectives, information gathered from Tier I and II,and knowledge of issues in the watershed,community or society.
Implementation of BMPs is done under Tier IV ofthe AEM “tiered approach.” The BMPs willoften be completed using cost-share incentivepayments from the State Agricultural NonpointSource Abatement and Control Program or one ofseveral USDA Farm Bill programs. The stateprogram is funded through the EnvironmentalProtection Fund (EPF) and the Clean Water/CleanAir Bond Act. Projects consisting of assessment,planning and implementation (Tiers I-IV) can befunded through the EPF statewide. The Bond Actemphasizes implementation of BMPs (Tier IV) inseveral management plan areas, although planningand assessment directly related to implementationof BMPs can be funded also. The federal effortconsists of funding programs for natural resourceprotection to include water quality and quantity,soil erosion, wildlife habitat improvement andwetland protection. BMPs used in the stateprogram are identified in DEC’s AgriculturalManagement Practices Catalogue, while those inthe federal program are identified in NRCS’sNational Handbook of Conservation Practices.
The evaluation of AEM efforts at the watershedand farm level is considered Tier V. The AEMSteering Committee appointed a working group todevelop evaluation approaches to determineeffectiveness at the following four levels:individual management practices, the whole farm,
the watershed, and the AEM program. The AEMSteering Committee has developed specificrecommendations for the approaches consideredhigh priority, and will incorporate these in theannual AEM strategy.
General SPDES Permit for ConcentratedAnimal Feeding Operations (CAFO)
The New York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation published a draftGeneral SPDES Permit for Concentrated AnimalFeeding Operations on March 3,1999. Theeffective date of the CAFO discharge permit isJuly 1, 1999, and the expiration date is June 30,2004. A CAFO is: 1) an animal feeding operationof 1000 animal units or more; or, 2) an animalfeeding operation with greater than 300 animalunits and less than 1000 animal units thatdischarges to surface waters of the State eitherthrough a man-made ditch, flushing system, orother similar man made device, or directly into thesurface waters of the State. (Generically, oneanimal unit is equal to that of 1000 pounds oflive animal weight. The equivalent animal unitsfor common livestock species are listed in thedraft permit.) An animal feeding operation isdefined as a facility where animals are confinedfor a total of 45 days in any twelve consecutivemonth period.
The General Permit focuses on two principalareas of water quality protection. First, there maybe no discharge of process wastewater (asdefined in the permit) from the animal feedingoperation to surface waters of the State for stormflows less than the 25 year - 24 hour storm asdefined by the National Weather Service. Second,the permittee must develop and implement anAgricultural Waste Management Plan (AWMP)in accordance with the Natural ResourcesConservation Service (NRCS) - ConservationPractice Standard - Waste Management SystemNo. 312 - NY. In addition, the permittee and aqualified Agricultural Environmental Management
V-18
Planner must submit a certification to theDepartment that the AWMP was prepared inaccordance with the NRCS CPS - 312.
Pemittees that are eligible for coverage under thispermit will be able to obtain coverage by filing aNotice of Intent with DEC. Existing CAFOsmust file an NOI with the Department within 180days of the issuance of the General Permit andnew CAFOs must file an NOI with DEC 30 daysprior to commencing operation in order todischarge. DEC retains the authority anddiscretion to determine that a CAFO may not beeligible for coverage under this permit and, assuch, may require the CAFO to submit anapplication for coverage under an individualSPDES permit.
In addition to issuing the final draft permit, DECconducted four information meetings during theSpring 1999 public notice period. The purpose ofthese meetings was to answer questions about thedraft CAFO General Permit and to help prepareparticipants who plan to submit comments on thedraft permit.
Table V-2 (Implementation Steps) cataloguesother current programs that include agriculturalnonpoint source management as a primary orsecondary goal. Some of these programs may becomponents for existing or future comprehensiveprograms at a county or watershed level under theAEM program.
c. Implementation Steps
The Agricultural Implementation Steps areorganized as follows. The Agricultural Envir-onmental Management (AEM) program ispresented first, followed by implementation stepsfor the General Permit for CAFOs, and then otherprograms.
AEM Program
1. Formalize the Agricultural EnvironmentalManagement (AEM) Initiative:
! NYS Department of Agriculture andMarkets completes AEM Guide andpresents to AEM Steering Committee(completed)
! NYS Soil and Water ConservationCommittee adopt guide as policy foragricultural environmental planning inNew York (completed)
! AEM Steering Committee develop andimplement a coordinated and com-prehensive statewide public informationcampaign aimed at key audiences tointroduce the AEM initiative
! Appropriate agencies recognize AEM,through policy, as the process foraddressing:- Clean Water Act requirements (EPA,
DEC)- Safe Drinking Water requirements
(DOH)- Coastal Zone Management Act
requirements (DEC, DOS)- Farm Bill program requirements
(USDA-NRCS, USDA-FSA)
(Partially Achieved: On August 24, 2000Governor George E. Pataki signed into lawlegislation creating the AgriculturalEnvironmental Management Program(AEM). The Agricultural EnvironmentalManagement Act amends the Agriculture &Markets Law, the EnvironmentalConservation Law, the Executive Law, andthe Soil & Water Conservation District Law.The primary goal of AEM is to protect andenhance the environment while maintainingthe viability of agriculture in New York State.)
V-19
! NYS Soil and Water ConservationCommittee will update the AEM guide, asnecessary, based on recommendationsfrom the AEM Steering Committee, anddistribute to the current database of AEMguide holders as well as new prospects.
2. Provide Direction to the Agricultural Envir-onmental Management (AEM) Initiative:
! AEM Steering Committee develops along-range plan for AEM, to be approvedby the NYS Soil and Water ConservationCommittee
! AEM Steering Committee develops,based on the AEM long-range work plan,an annual work plan including an outreachplan, to be approved by the NYS Soil andWater Conservation Committee.
3. Develop Staffing Capability to ImplementAgricultural Environmental Management(AEM) Statewide:
! AEM Steering Committee and involvedagencies (CCE, FSA, NRCS and SWCC)evaluate capabilities of County ProjectTeams regarding:
- Staffing vs. workload- Training needed- Degree of teamwork established
! AEM Steering Committee and involvedagencies (CCE, FSA, NRCS and SWCC)conduct Regional Training for CountyProject Teams to:
- Introduce AEM Guide- Help define roles and an
implementation strategy- Update team on current AEM
developments- Inform teams of incentives to
farmers for participating in AEM.
- Select, design and implement bestmanagement practices forindividual farms
! AEM Steering Committee andCertification Subcommittee work withNYS Department of Agriculture andMarkets and NRCS to establish andmaintain a program for certification ofAEM planners.
4. Develop and Provide Materials Necessaryfor a Comprehensive AgriculturalEnvironmental Management Initiative:
! AEM Outreach Subcommittee developeducational supplements for AEMworksheets
! AEM Steering Committee and TechnicalSubcommittee develop additional AEMtechnical materials and worksheets asneeded to provide capability to assess allresources on the farm
! AEM Outreach Subcommittee developAEM outreach and education materialsand worksheets to meet communicationneeds identified in AEM annual work plan
! AEM Outreach Subcommittee provide toCounty Project Teams a list of AEMoutreach and education materials.
5. Maintain an Updated Prioritized Listing ofWatersheds and Wellhead Areas forAgricultural Environmental ManagementImplementation:
! AEM Steering Committee obtain mostrecent priority lists for:
- Wellhead protection/source waterprotection under the SDWA
- Priority Waterbodies List under theCWA
V-20
- Local Priority Areas under theFarm Bill.
6. Incorporate Agricultural EnvironmentalManagement Initiative into Watershed andWellhead Protection Efforts:
! AEM Steering Committee and leadprogram agencies use AEM processes toaddress agricultural issues in:
- Wellhead Protection/Source WaterProtection (SDWA)
- Nonpoint Source WatershedProtection (CWA, CZMA)
- Natural Resource Protection (FarmBill)
! New York State Soil and WaterConservation Committee selects andfunds highest priority AEM planningefforts under the Agricultural NonpointSource Abatement and Control Program
! AEM Steering Committee recommendsthat appropriate lead agencies establishpolicy to complete AEM Tiers I-III asrequirement for funding implementationbased on program policy decisions in:
- Agricultural Nonpoint SourceAbatement and Control Projects(NYSSWCC)
- Environmental Quality IncentiveProgram (EQIP) projects (USDANRCS and USDA FSA)
- Other USDA Farm Bill IncentiveProgram projects (USDA NRCSand USDA FSA)
- Wellhead Protection/Source WaterProtection projects (NYSDOH).
7. Implement Agricultural EnvironmentalManagement Tiered Plans through BestManagement Practices (BMPs):
! County Project Teams prioritize AEMplans for inclusion in funding applicationsto:
- Agricultural Nonpoint SourceAbatement and Control Program(funded through the 1996 CleanWater/Clean Air Bond Act and theEnvironmental Protection Fund)
- Environmental Quality IncentivesProgram (EQIP)
- Other Farm Bill programs such asCRP, CREP, WRP, WHIP, SIP,etc.
! County Project Teams work with farmersto implement Best Management Practices(BMPs) selected for funding throughexisting grant programs
! County Project Teams and AEM SteeringCommittee recommend new BMPs toNRCS and DEC as appropriate.
8. Implement Agricultural EnvironmentalManagement Tiered Planning Approach onLarge Animal Livestock Operations:
! County Project Teams addressConcentrated Animal Feeding Operations(CAFOs) through permit process incooperation with DEC
!! County Project Teams address otherlivestock operations below the CAFOthreshold using procedures outlined inAEM tiered planning process and BestManagement Practices (BMPs).
!! DEC and County Project Teamsinvestigate sources of agricultural waterpollution from other livestock operationsbelow the CAFO threshold usingprocedures outlined in DEC’s Technical
V-21
Operation and Guidance Series (TOGS)memo.
9. Enhance State and Local Capability toImplement Agricultural EnvironmentalManagement:
! AEM Steering Committee works withappropriate entities to increase ability tofund projects, including personnel, to planand implement priority AEM initiatives
! AEM Steering Committee works withappropriate entities to develop newincentives to facilitate farmer participation
! AEM Steering Committee works withUSDA State Technical Committee tocoordinate State/Federal incentiveprograms
10. Involve Private Sector as Key Participant inAgricultural Environmental ManagementInitiatives:
! AEM Steering Committee, CertificationSubcommittee and appropriateagencies/organizations establish thefollowing:
- Criteria for certification- Training needs for certification
(initial and annual updates)- Evaluation of certified planners,
including spot check requirements
! AEM Steering Committee maintains theregistry for certified planners for the NYSSWCC and NYS DAM
! AEM Steering Committee andCertification Subcommittee providetraining updates for AEM certifiedplanners.
11. Evaluate Level of Participation andEnvironmental Effectiveness in AgriculturalEnvironmental Management Initiative:
! NYS Soil and Water ConservationCommittee works with the farmcommunity and regulatory agencies toestablish criteria for successfulachievement of AEM participation andeffectiveness
! AEM Steering Committee will seek inputfrom various sources as part of evaluationprocess and develop recommendations forthe NYSSWCC to evaluate program andfarm-level effectiveness
! New York State Soil and WaterConservation Committee revises initiativeto reflect needs identified during programevaluation.
12. AEM Steering Committee developsmechanisms to formally recognize bothfarmers’ and local staff successes inimplementing practices.
13. The coordinated statewide programsdelivered at local levels could benefit frommore efficient communication mechanisms(such as greater use of the Internet),resource materials in more depth, andmechanisms for priority setting for State andFederal funding allocation.
14. While the knowledge bases for nitrogen,sediment, and pesticides are generallyadequate to guide BMP selection andimplementation, the bases for pathogen andphosphorus management are not as good.New York should continue to conductresearch, in conjunction with other States andnations, related to environmental transportand management practices related to thesepollutants:
V-22
! AEM Steering Committee should provideresearch results to AEM staff
! AEM Steering Committee and staffshould provide training to farmers on theimplementation of BMP modificationsbased on research results.
CAFO General Permit
15. NYS DEC’s Bureau of Water Permits willimplement the CAFO General Permitprogram.
Other Programs
16. NYS DEC’s Bureau of WatershedAssessment and Research should investigatehow information from the Pesticide ReportingLaw can be incorporated into New York’sPWL process. (July, 1998, after first annualreport is due).
17. Based on the November 18, 1997 finalconditional approval of New York’s CoastalNonpoint Pollution Control Program by EPAand NOAA, DEC, DOS and DA&M willhave two years to modify New York’sprogram to address storage of manure,facility wastewater, and facility runoff forlarge and small confined animal facilities.For remainder of agriculture program, NewYork will have one year to develop a strategyto implement the management measures andidentify measurable results to demonstrateimplementation.
V-23
TABLE V-2
Programs/Activities to Implement Agricultural Nonpoint Source Management(Programs with Names in Italics Are New since 1990)
Program NameLead Agency
(Others Involved)Pollutant
CategoriesType of Program;
Geographic CoverageAudience;
GoalStatus
County Lead ProgramsConservation Plans SWCDs, (USDA-NRCS, CCE,
Private Sector)PrimarilySediment,Nutrients, andPathogens
Technical assistance;
National with county lead
Individual farmers;To develop farm-specific plansfor resource conservation;
Long term program that is diversifying fromformer emphasis on erosion control;hundreds of plans developed per year.
USDA local workinggroups (EQIP)
Soil and Water ConservationDistricts, (USDA-NRCS,USDA-Farm Service Agency,CCE)
PrimarilySediment,Nutrients, andPathogens
Planning, Outreach;
National with county lead
Governmental and representativeprivate stakeholders;T o involve local stakeholders inconservation planning
Work groups formed in NY during 1997.
Federal Lead ProgramsUSDA ConservationReserve Program(CRP)
Annual sign-up
USDA Farm Service Agency PrimarilySediment,Pesticides(Toxics) andNutrients
Financial Incentive;
National
Farmers;To protect highly erodible andenvironmentally sensitive landwith grass, trees, and other long-term cover.
Up to 36.4 million acres enrollablenationally though 10- 15-year contracts.FY’98 (16th sign-up): 419 bids covering13,000 acres in NY.FY’97: $2.9 M for 905 bids; 29,775 acres.
Continuous CRP Farmers;T o enhance water quality andwildlife habitat by using acontinuous sign-up provision andemphasizing filter strips andriparian buffers.
Funded from CRP budget.
Enhanced CRP Farmers;T o address national water qualityand wildlife habitat concerns withan emphasis on endangeredspecies. 80% federally fundedwith 20% combined state andlocal match.
States allowed up to 100,000 acres per yearon a competitive basis (2 M acresnationwide) according to an approved planfor a high-priority watershed.FY’98: NY has prepared a 5-year proposalfor $30 M and 20,000 acres.
USDA WetlandReserve Program(WRP)
USDA-NRCS Primarilysediment andnutrients
Financial Incentive;
National
Farmers;“No net loss” of wetlands,implemented though easementcontracts and restorationagreements.Grants pay 75% to 100% ofconservation easements;Cont rac t s pay 75% ofrestoration costs.
Up to 975 thousand acres enrollablenationally for 30-year or permanenteasement contracts, or restorationagreements.
FY’98: NY spent $6.2 M for thirty 30-yearcontracts and 75 perpetual easements forrestoration of 7800 acres.
Program NameLead Agency
(Others Involved)Pollutant
CategoriesType of Program;
Geographic CoverageAudience;
GoalStatus
V-24
USDA EnvironmentalQuality IncentivesProgram (EQIP)
USDA NRCS, (USDA-FSA,Soil and Water ConservationDistricts, local work groups)
PrimarilySediment,Nutrients,Pesticides(Toxics), andPathogens
Outreach (education),Technical Assistance,Financial Incentives;
National
Farmers;To provide technical assistanceand cost-sharing, and to plan andimplemen t conse rva t ionpractices using 5-10 yearcontracts. Farmers must addressnatural resource concernsidentified within local priorityareas.
$200 M authorized annually for the nation.$6.2 M allocated for NY for FY’98.$3.7 M received in FY’97.
Program replaces Agricultural ConservationProgram and Water Quality IncentivesProgram.
USDA FarmlandProtection Program
USDA NRCS All Financial Incentive;
National
Farmers, Sta te or localgovernment staff;
To maintain land in farming byState or local governmentpurchase of conservationeasements on farmland.
Authorizes $35M nationally over six yearsto purchase 30 year and permanentconservation easements on 170,000 to340,000 acres.
FY’97: NY purchases totaled $400,000.
USDA Flood RiskReduction Program
USDA-NRCS Sediment,Nutrients
Financial Incentive;
National
Farmers who farm land withhigh flood potential;To restrict uses of land withhigh flood potential viavoluntary contracts.
FY ‘98: No budget; program not yetoperational.
USDA Wildlife HabitatIncentives Program(WHIP)
USDA-NRCS Any affectinghabitat ofconcern.
Financial Incentive;
National
Landowners who wish toimprove wildlife habitat onprivate land;To improve wildlife habitatincluding wetlands. Emphasis inNY on grasslands and songbirdhabitat.
$50M authorized nationally. 75% cost-sharing provided through State based on aWHIP plan.
FY ‘98: NY is eligible to receive $612,000 .
Program NameLead Agency
(Others Involved)Pollutant
CategoriesType of Program;
Geographic CoverageAudience;
GoalStatus
V-25
State Lead ProgramsAgriculturalEnvironmentalManagement program
NYS Soil and WaterConservation Committee,(USDA-NRCS, NYS College ofAgriculture and Life Sciences,SWCDs, CCE, DA&M, others)
All, primarilySediment,Nutrients, andPathogens .
Outreach, Technicaltraining, Technicalassistance;
Statewide
Farmers and non-farm public;
To reduce risk of environmentalproblems on farms whilemaintaining profitability.
(1997) AEM Resource Guide development;initial training begun in 46 counties;conference held May 1997; nearingimplementation phase. Regional trainingheld for county project teams statewide.
Agricultural NonpointSource Abatement andControl Program
NYS Soil and WaterConservation Committee, (Soiland Water ConservationDistricts)
All, primarilySediment,Nutrients andPathogens.
Financial Incentive;
Statewide
Agricultural land owners;
To reduce, abate, control, orprevent nonpoint sourcepollution from agriculturalactivities through watershed-based and individual farma s s e s s m e n t s , a n dimplementation of BMPs.
FY94 and FY95: Environmental ProtectionFund (EPF) provided $1.5M for 33projects.FY96: Environmental Bond Act allocated$1.6M for 22 projects; EPF provided$1.9M for 43 projects.FY 97: Bond Act - $2M for 13 projects;EPF - $2.8M for 34 projects.
Cornell AgriculturalCommodity Programs
NYS College of Agriculture andLife Sciences
Nutrients,Toxics(Pesticides)
Tech. training,Tech. assistance, Research;
Statewide
Farmers;To develop and recommendtactics for efficient use offertilizers, pesticides, and othercrop production factors.
Mature programs that are slowly integratingwater quality concerns into agriculturalproduction recommendations.
Cornell animalpathogen researchprojects (includingepidemiological riskassessment and basicmicrobiology)
NYS College of VeterinaryMedicine and NYS College ofAgriculture and Life Sciences
Pathogens(parasites -Giardia sp. andCryptosporid-ium sp.)
Research;
Statewide with emphasison New York Citywatersheds
Livestock farmers;
To develop knowledge aboutoccurrence, fate, transport, andmanagement options for Cryptosporidium and Giardia.
1996-97: Funded at roughly $400k/yearprimarily within NYC watershed agprogram.
1998: $100k/year federal research funds.
Cornell CooperativeExtension PesticideManagementEducation Program
Cornell Pesticide ManagementEducation Program, (NYS DEC)
Toxics(Pesticides)
Technical training;
Statewide
Certified pesticide applicatorsand applicants. (Applicantsmust have 3 yrs. experienceprior to exams.);
To improve technical and legalliteracy of pesticide users.
1996: 8,552 persons trained;and 1,250 courses held.
Currently there are 35,917 active certifiedapplicants who recertify every 6 yrs., bytesting or training.
Program NameLead Agency
(Others Involved)Pollutant
CategoriesType of Program;
Geographic CoverageAudience;
GoalStatus
V-26
Dairy FarmProfitability andProductivity Project(Pro-Dairy) Program
Pro-Dairy Program at CornellUniversity
PrimarilyNutrients,Sediments andPathogens.
Technical training;
Statewide
Dairy farmers and dairyindustry service/supportprofessionals;
To improve farmer stewardshipand farm profitability throughadoption of best managementpractices.
1988-98: Over 50% of NYS Dairy Farmshave participated in the programscurriculum.
1998: 45 workshops included 735participants.
Environmental BondAct – Agricultural andFarmland ProtectionProgram
NYS Department of Agricultureand Markets
All Financial Incentive;
Statewide
County ag and farmlandprotection boards, towns,villages, or cities;
To maintain land in agriculture.
Environmental Bond Act authorizes $150M statewide for Open Space Preservation.Ag. and Farmland Protection projects willreceive an allocation from that amount. InFY97 $1.0 M funded 2 projects. Also, EPFfunded 10 farmland protection projects($3.5M) in FY 97 and 8 projects ($3.7M) inFY 96.
Integrated PestManagement (IPM)program
Cornell University IPMProgram and NYS Dept. ofAgriculture and Markets (co-leads), (Cornell CooperativeExtension associations, NYSDEC)
Toxics(Pesticides)
Tech. training,Tech. assist,Research;
Statewide
Farmers, community leaders,and superintendents of buildingsand grounds ;
To reduce pesticide usage whilemaintaining profitability.
1995-96: 90 percent of New York’s 36,000growers use at least one IPM method, andhundreds of growers use the complete set ofIPM practices. New outreach programsdemonstrating IPM methods to schools,golf courses, parks and other communityfacilities.
Nonpoint SourceImplementation GrantProgram
NYS DEC’s Division of Water -Bureau of WatershedManagement
All, primarilySediment,Nutrients andPathogens.
Financial Incentive;
Statewide
Municipalities;
To reduce, abate, control, orprevent nonpoint sourcepollution from agriculturalactivities through watershed-based assessments, education,and implementation of BMPs.
The Nonpoint Source ImplementationGrants Program provided funding for a totalof 4 agriculture pollution control projects in1994-95 and 1995-96. One additionalagriculture pollution control project wasfunded with the 1996-97 grants announcedin May of 1997.
Program NameLead Agency
(Others Involved)Pollutant
CategoriesType of Program;
Geographic CoverageAudience;
GoalStatus
V-27
Pesticide ReportingProgram
NYSDEC, Division of Soild &Hazardous Materials, PesticideReporting Section, (CornellUniversity; NYSDOH)
Toxics(Pesticides)
Regulatory, Monitoring;
Statewide
Pesticide applicators, sellers,b u s i n e s s e s , i m p o r t e r s ,manufacturers and compound-ers;
To investigate correlationbetween pesticide use and illnessby requiring reporting of the“location of intended appli-cation” of pesticides used inagricultural crop production.
New law as of 1996. Annual reports beginJuly 1998.
Pesticide RegistrationProgram
NYS DEC’s, Division of Soild &Hazardous Materials, PesticideRegistration Sections, (CornellUniversity)
Toxics(Pesticides)
Regulatory;
Statewide
All users of restricted pesticides;
To protect environment,workers, and consumers viaregistration of pesticideproducts and businesses.
Ongoing
Soil Testing Service Cornell Nutrient AnalysisLaboratory
Nutrients Technical assistance;
Statewide
Farmers;
Provide advice for agro-nomically efficient use ofnutrients, reducing excessiveapplications.
Thousands of samples tested annually, eachresult returned with fertilizer and manureapplication recommendations.
Watershed Lead ProgramsNew York CityWatershedAgricultural Program
Watershed Agricultural Council,Inc., (USDA-NRCS, CCE, NYSWRI, NYS DEC, NYC DEP,SWCDs, NYS DOH, AmericanFarmland Trust, NYS SWCC,NYS DA&M, EPA)
Pathogens,Nutrients,Sediment,Oil and Grease(Petroleumspills),Pesticides(Toxics)
Technical assistance,Financial incentives,Implementation,Technical training,Outreach, Research;
New York City watersupply watersheds
All farmers in NYC watersupply watershed;
To reduce risk of pollutantescape and improve economicviability, and to involve 85% ofwatershed farmers.
July, 1998: 311 farmers participating; 171farm plans developed, with 795 BMPsimplemented and over 55,000 acresmanaged.
$35M budget from NYC for Phase II.
Farmer participation status reportedmonthly.
Program NameLead Agency
(Others Involved)Pollutant
CategoriesType of Program;
Geographic CoverageAudience;
GoalStatus
V-28
WallkillDemonstration Project
CCEs of Orange, Ulster, andSullivan Counties (CCE andCornell University, USDA-NRCS, USDA-Farm ServiceAgency, Soil and WaterConservation Districts)
Nutrients,Pesticides,Sediment
Tech. training;
Wallkill-RoundoutWatershed in Orange,Ulster and SullivanCounties
Horticultural and dairy farmers;
Demonstrate delivery of waterquality protection programs tofarms through teams drawn fromseveral USDA agencies.
Active since 1991.
WatershedAgricultural Program(Skaneateles Lake)
Skaneateles Lake WatershedAgricultural Committee, (City ofSyracuse, CCE, SWCDs,USDA- NRC)
Sediment,Nutrients(nitrogen andphosphorus),and Pathogens.
Technical assistance,Outreach, Tech. training;
Skaneateles Lake watershed
All farmers in the watershed;
Voluntary implementation ofwhole farm plans that maintainwater quality while sustainingthe economic viability of thefarm.
1995: Program startedAs of 7/31/98: 47 farms have completed Tier I. 44 farms have completed Tier II. 20 Tier III plans and 3 Tier II have beencompleted. 3 more plans in progress.
Annual Reports available.
V-29
3. Atmospheric Deposition
a. Source Description
Atmospheric deposition is recognized as a majornonpoint source of pollution. Acid rain is the mostwell known form of atmospheric deposition, but thereare other aspects of the problem that are equallydamaging. Deposition occurs during all forms ofprecipitation and even occurs as dustfall on sunnydays. Pollutants released to the air will eventually fallback to earth. The airborne pollutants are depositedon the landscape and then carried to waterbodiesduring runoff events. The problem of acid rain largely originates frompollutants emitted into the air when fossil fuel isburned. The primary pollutants are sulfur oxideswhich combine with water to form sulfuric acid, andnitrogen oxides which combine with water to formnitric acid. The oxidation reaction is aided by metalliccatalysts such as iron and manganese oxides whichare commonly present in the fly ash emitted duringthe burning process. Acid rain results in lower pHand higher levels of aluminum in surface waterbodies.The aluminum is leached from soil and sediments bylow pH water. The higher aluminum levels cause fishto produce excess mucus which clogs their gills andcauses their death.
The entire ecosystem can be affected by acid rain.The sensitivity to acidic conditions varies amongdifferent animals and plants. In the most severecases mortality and reproductive failure amongcertain fish are experienced. Impacts may be in theform of reduced food supply or death of newlyhatched fry, the stage most sensitive for fish species.
Acid rain has been listed as the primary source ofimpairment on 397 waterbodies within the Black, St.Lawrence, Lake Champlain, Upper Hudson andMohawk basins. In southeastern New York,atmospheric pollution, falling directly onto Long IslandSound's surface and entering indirectly from theSound's watershed, may contribute as much as 14.3%of the nitrogen enrichment to Long Island Sound(nitrogen enrichment is the cause of severesummertime hypoxia problems in the Sound). Many
other waterbodies are affected by acid rain as asecondary source although the PWL lists only 22.For example, waterbodies within the Catskill Park andin higher elevations in southeastern New York areaffected by acid rain.
Atmospheric deposition has been shown to be asignificant source of pollutants in urban areas as wellas Adirondack lakes. It is likely that it contributes to,or compounds, pollution problems in some of thenearly 400 segments on the 1998 Priority WaterbodyList (PWL) that are impaired, primarily or in part, dueto urban runoff. Nationwide Urban Runoff Program(NURP) projects (mostly in the northeastern states)attributed heavy metals concentrations in urban runoffto rainfall pH effects. However, further study wasrecommended to verify this possibility.
Atmospheric deposition of airborne pollutants hasbecome a national and regional environmental issue aswell as a localized watershed issue. Long rangetransport of persistant toxic substances whichbioaccumulate in the food-chain, such as mercury,have been receiving special attention. During thesummer of 1997, USEPA’s 2nd report to Congress onairborne toxic substances and their deposition wasmade available to the public. The report contains themost recent toxic substance deposition informationgathered from an international atmospheric depositionmonitoring network. USEPA released to the public,in December 1997, a national study of the sources,deposition, human health effects, and ecologicaleffects of mercury in the atmosphere whicheventually enters the surface waters andcontaminates fish tissue. In the northeast region, NewYork State, New Jersey, and the New England Statesdeveloped and released, in February 1998, a detailedreport of refined mercury emissions inventory anddeposition, current mercury fish advisories and multi-media pollution prevention activities related toremoving mercury from the solid waste stream. Precipitation causes gases, aerosols and largeparticles to be removed from the atmosphere anddeposited on the surface. Pollutants contained inprecipitation may include acidity, toxic materials,organic chemicals, phosphates and nitrogencompounds. Dry fallout is of significance during
V-30
times between precipitation events, but in some casesthe overall loadings have been found to be on thesame order of magnitude as wet fallout.3
In 1990, the federal Clean Air Act Amendments(CAAA) were passed. Title IV established a nationalcap on SO2 utility emissions of 8.95 millions tons peryear, and 5.6 million tons per year for non-utilityindustrial sources by the year 2010. SO2 utilityemissions will be reduced by 10 million tons per yearfrom 1985 levels in two phases. The CAAA alsocalls for a 2 million tons per year reduction in utilityNOx emissions by the year 2000. However, unlikeSO2, there is no national cap.
Sulfur dioxide sources affected by the cap in Phase Iare large, high-emitting, primarily coal-fired utilityplants. Phase II begins in 2000 and affects virtuallyall existing utility units greater than 25 megawatts andmost new utility units. In 1995, 85.5% of the nationalsulphur dioxide emissions were associated with fuelconsumption. Industrial processes were second at11.2% and transportation third at 3.3%.
Again at the national level, USEPA estimated in 1990that 45% of NOx are emitted by mobile sources, 50%from fuel combustion, and 4% from industrialemissions. In New York, a significant portion of the2 million tons per year utility reduction will beachieved by the installation of low NOx burnertechnologies on coal-fired utility boilers that mustmeet new emission standards.
In October of 1998, through the leadership of NewYork State, the concerns of northeastern states werereflected in the final federal regulations under Section110 of the Clean Air Act that were announcedSeptember 24, 1998. The regulations will reduceemissions of nitrogen oxides from utility and otherlarge sources in 22 states in the eastern UnitedStates. This action will reduce the amount of ozonethat is transported into New York during the summermonths. Most of the atmospheric deposition affecting
New York State’s waters originates outside of theState.
The Acid Deposition Standard Feasibility Study, aReport to Congress mandated by the Clean Air ActAmendments of 19904 and completed in October,1995, recognized that just to maintain the “status quo”or maintaining the proportion of chronically acidictarget surface waters in the Adirondacks nearproportions observed in 1984 may require reducinganthropogenic sulfur and nitrogen deposition by 40 to50 percent or more below levels achieved by the 1990Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA). Currently theemissions of SO2 and NOx have been reduced on astate/national basis by various control programs. Toestablish programs enabling further reductions, it isnecessary to know where you have been, where youare, and where you may be going. It is alsonecessary to have a sense of the current and futuredistribution of emissions by source category.Additionally, an holistic approach to pollution controlprograms is necessary since the primary precursorcontaminants associated with acidic deposition (SO2
and NOx) are also controlled to achieve Ambient AirQuality Standards for SO2, NOx, O3.
Allowances
Compliance with the SO2 limitations is enforcedthrough a system of “allowances,” or allowed levelsof pollution, which are allocated to affected sources,limiting the amount of SO2 which they may emit. Oneallowance authorizes the emission of up to one ton ofSO2. The allowance system is described in 40 CFRPart 73 of the federal regulations.
Permits
Federal regulations also specify enforceablerequirements and timeframes for permitting Title IVaffected facilities. They allow for flexible emissionlimits and contain compliance plans for programrequirements. For NY, Phase I applies to 10 units at5 plants, and Phase II applies to 92 units at 29 plants.
3 Novotny, V. and G. Chesters, Handbook ofNonpoint Pollution, 1981, p. 137. 4 Section 404 in Title IV (Appendix B of the
Act).
V-31
For oxides of nitrogen, New York regulationsprescribing Reasonably Available ControlTechnology (RACT) under Title I are already morestringent than the new federal regulations prescribedunder Title IV.
Continuous Emissions Monitoring (CEM)
The acid rain CEM program requires owners andoperators to continuously measure, record and reportSO2, NOx, volumetric flow data, and CO2 emissions.Two distinctive features of this program are the useof economic incentives for compliance control andnational consistency in program implementation. NewYork is currently not participating in this program dueto insufficient resources.
b. Existing Programs
Deposition Study
The Division of Air has been conducting depositionmonitoring since 1986. Completion of this monitoringinitiative has been proposed, but remains unfunded,and would include the following components:
! installation of 15 NOx Low Level monitors
! development and installation of dry depositionmonitoring
! installation of 4 automated pH andconditioning equipment
! installation of 3 monitoring enclosures
! maintenance of existing equipmentthroughout the period
! replacement of the ion chromatograph
! continued data system acquisitiondevelopment
! computer equipment
The Division of Air has planned to further expand itsprogram in support of Title IV of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990. The objectives of thisexpanded monitoring network are:
! Provide consistent, quality assured, long termacid deposition data.
! Measure at sensitive locations, as well asupwind and downwind locations.
! Provide a special and temporal analysis ofacidic deposition, its precursors and itseffects.
! Track the changes occurring as a result ofstate and national control programs.
Again, this work has yet to be funded.
New York’s network consists of 21 sites located attraditional remote and rural sites along with urban andsuburban monitoring locations. Additional depositionmonitoring results are available from two nationalmonitoring networks and one Canadian network.
Adirondack Lake Monitoring Study
This program, first started by Syracuse University in1982 to study 17 lakes, was taken over by theAdirondack Lakes Survey Corporation (ALSC) in1992 and expanded to include 52 lakes monitored ona monthly basis. Administered by the Division ofFish, Wildlife & Marine Resources, results haveshown that over half of the monitored lakes are verysensitive to acid deposition. Other activities notcovered in Table V-3 include weekly monitoring ofthree Adirondack streams, and more intensivemonitoring during the critical spring snowmelt period.The proposed continuation of the project includes fishsampling and analysis for mercury. Table V-3 lists the programs presently operating inNew York which address atmospheric deposition. Alloperate at the state level, continue to monitor anddocument the problem, and explore control options.It will not be possible to control atmosphericdeposition by New York State efforts alone. Toachieve long-term success, sulfur and nitrogenemissions, as well as other forms of atmospheric
V-32
deposition, which originate out of state must bereduced.
c. Implementation Steps
As the scientific and regulatory community clarify theneed for further reductions and the most costeffective mechanisms, it will be an absolute necessityto take an holistic viewpoint of all the controlprograms dealing with these contaminants.
l. The Division of Air and the Division of Fish,Wildlife, and Marine Resources should seekfunding for the continuation of long-termmonitoring for acid deposition and lake waterchemistry, respectively. Maintaining funding forthese programs continues to be difficult, eventhough the data gathered by the programs iscritical to our understanding of nonpoint sourcepollution. Numerous models have beendeveloped to demonstrate the impacts of thissource but monitoring data is needed todetermine the validity of the models. AlthoughNew York has limited control of sources outsidethe state, documentation of the effects ofatmospheric deposition on waterbodies is neededto help track progress of regulatory programs onboth sides of the state boundary.
2. Research and demonstration projects should beconducted to explore possible mitigationmeasures for waterbodies affected by acid rain.Projects should include documentation of theeffectiveness of the measures employed.
3. A pilot integrated airshed/watershed/waterquality model should be developed to assess fateand impact of atmospheric nitrogen on awaterbody. Water quality impacts of imple-mentation of the Clean Air Act should be furtherevaluated and incorporated into a phased TMDLfor Long Island Sound.
4. The Division of Air will track NOx, SO2, andemissions reductions via Title IV implementation.
5. Currently the Department lacks acomprehensive overview and interpretation ofvarious Acid Rain monitoring efforts. This isessential to provide the public meaningful insightinto the benefits that may or may not be realizedas a result of the Title IV program. The Divisionof Air Resources, in cooperation with theDivision of Fish and Wildlife and the ALSCshould seek to further expand its data analysisand fill this void.
6. USEPA and NYSDEC will continue to enforceexisting air regulations limiting the emission oftoxic pollutants and nitrogen. However, Federallegislation which provides additional regulatorycontrols over precursors is required to controlout-of-state sources. New York State and 22other eastern states worked with EPA infinalizing the 1998 federal regulations underSection 110 of the Clean Air Act to reduceemissions of nitrogen oxides from utilities andother large sources in the midwest that havebeen impacting New York’s waters.
7. Under CAA amendments, USEPA will developemission standards, based on maximumachievable control technology, for all the sourcecatagories by the year 2000.
8. USEPA will develop regulations for area orsmall sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)by the year 2000.
9. Through implementation of the CAArequirements, USEPA projects an 85%reduction in atmospheric deposition of metals,nationwide, over the next 10-15 years. Thisreduction will contribute to the attainment ofambient water quality standards for mercury inthe NY/NJ Harbor/Bight.
V-33
TABLE V-3Programs/Activities to Implement Nonpoint Source Management of Atmospheric Deposition
(Programs with Names in Italics Are New since 1990)
Program Name Lead Agency(Others Involved)
PollutantCategories
Type of Program;Geographic Coverage
Audience;Goal
Status
Adirondack EffectsAssessment Program
Rennselaer PolytechnicInstitute,NYS DEC’s Division ofWater,NYS Museum, and U.S.Geological Survey
Acidic deposition(pH)
Research (USEPA-funded), Planning,Outreach (education);
30 lakes and ponds in theSouthwest Adirondacks
EPA, DEC; To evaluate the extent andpermanence of effects from aciddeposition on aquatic biotacommunity structure and function,the potential for ecosystems torecover under different scenarios ofregional atmospheric deposition ofnitrogen and sulfur during the future,and, thereby, to measure the successof the 1990 Clean Air ActAmendments.
1998: starting fifth year ofprogram; conducting anitrogen cycling study in twosubwatersheds.
Adirondack Lake Monitoring Study
Adirondack LakesSurvey Corporation(ALSC), NYS DEC’sDivision of Fish, Wildlifeand Marine Resources,Empire State ElectricEnergy ResearchCorporation (ESEERCO)
Acidic deposition(pH)
Research, Planning,Monitoring, Outreach(education) funded by USEPA and ESEERCO;
Western Adirondacks(Oswegatchie-Black andUpper Hudsonwatersheds)
Public, scientists, modelers, EPA andDEC;To reduce deposition so that lakewater will become less acidic andonce again suitable for most aquaticlife; and to determine the effects ofatmospheric pollution (acid rain) onlakes in the Adirondack region inresponse to implementation of theCAAA of 1990.
1998 (14th year of program):moni tor ing the waterchemistry of 52 Adirondacklakes since June 1992. A newproposal for five years hasbeen approved by EPA andE S E E R C O . F u n d i n gcommitments are in placethrough 2001.
Atmospheric DepositionMonitoring Network
NYS DEC, Bureau of AirQuality Surveillance(BAQS)
Low pH rainfall,NH4, NO3, SO4
Monitoring;
Statewide
Public , scientific and regulatorycommunities;To document deposition levels andchanges effected by regulatorycontrol programs.
Ongoing s ince 1987,necessary improvements onhold due to lack of funding.
Program Name Lead Agency(Others Involved)
PollutantCategories
Type of Program;Geographic Coverage
Audience;Goal
Status
V-34
Continuous EmissionsMonitoring Program
NYS DEC’s Division ofAir Resources
Acidic depositionfrom stackemissions:SO2, Nox
Monitoring, Regulatory(Title IV Clean Air Act);
About [25 sites] 102 unitsacross the state.
Public, scientific and regulatorycommunities; to provide QualityControlled / Quality AssuredEmissions Data.
Monitoring in progress,however, without DECoversight due to lack offunding.
Long Island Sound Study NYS DEC’s Division ofFish, Wildlife and MarineResources
Nitrogen (from NOx
in atmosphericdeposition).
Research, planning fundedby CT DEP;
Long Island SoundWatershed
Public, scientists, modelers, EPA, CTDEP and DEC;To analyze Connecticut atmosphericdeposition data for 1994-1995; tomodel the deposition of air pollutantsto Long Island Sound and itsassociated watersheds; and nitrogendeposition monitoring at eightmonitoring stations in Connecticut toinclude NOX in TMDL calculations.
1997-1999 (three studies tobe completed); since 1989atmospheric deposition hasb e e n m o n i t o r e d i nConnecticut (both dry andwet deposition).
Title IV/Title V Permitting NYS DEC, USEPA Acidic deposition Regulatory;
Statewide
Public;To reduce the state's contribution ofacidic deposition.
Phase I permits issued byEPA and a re be ingincorporated into Title Vpermits being issued by DEC.
V-35
4. Construction
a. Source Description
Construction, like other nonpoint sources,generates pollutants during runoff and windevents. However, it is also a transitional land use,disturbing the land surface and creating avulnerability to erosion and the production ofsediment for a period of time and then occurringagain as another site is disturbed. This discussionwill be limited to the immediate impacts ofconstruction activities. The long-term effects onstormwater runoff by the construction of buildings,roads, parking lots, etc., will be addressed insection 14. Urban Runoff. Roadway and right-of-way maintenance, including deicing materialapplication and storage, is covered in section 12 ofthis chapter.
Soil erosion from sites disturbed by constructionactivities can have a serious impact on waterquality. Studies have shown that rates of erosionfrom construction sites can be the highest of anysource category. During transport, sediment canincrease turbidity in waterbodies, affecting aquaticlife through abrasion and reduced light penetration.Water supply uses can also be affected throughincreased treatment costs. As a result of sedimentdeposition, aquatic habitats can be blanketed,capacities of hydraulic structures decreased, andnavigational uses affected.
The pollutants associated with the constructioncategory include the soil particles and thesubstances attached to the individual particles.Nutrients and toxic substances attached tosediments can become dissolved in the watercolumn and enter the aquatic food chain, leading toproblems other than those caused by the sediment.A source of excess nutrients associated withconstruction may be over-fertilization in an attemptto establish grass on disturbed areas. Poorhousekeeping and spills around construction sitescan lead to toxics entering the water.
The 1998 Priority Waterbodies List showsconstruction as the primary source for 40segments (an entire waterbody or a designatedreach or portion of a waterbody) and a secondarysource of water use impairment for about 160more. The worst conditions occur wheredevelopment is on steep slopes or where allvegetation is removed from large tracts of landand left exposed to wind and rain. Associatedproblems come from road construction anddisposal of demolition and construction debris.
b. Existing Programs
(See Table V-4 below.)
There are a number of existing programs whichassist in the control of nonpoint source pollutionfrom construction. They exist at all levels ofgovernment but the primary activities are at thestate and local levels. While state level programsprovide requirements for permits in certaininstances, their focus is primarily on responses tocomplaints of water quality violations. Typically,control of local stormwater runoff (includingprotection and enforcement) is left to localmunicipalities and citizen involvement to affect.
Construction activities involving the disturbance offive acres or more are subject to permitting byDEC. (EPA Phase II Stormwater Regulationswould lower this threshold to one acre.)Presently, smaller sites are subject only to theState Environmental Quality Review proceduresand existing regulatory programs (wetlands andstream protection programs). These programs useeither the regulatory approach, technical training,or technical assistance.
Due to the nature of the current statewideconstruction permitting program, and the fact thatsmaller sites are not required to get permitcoverage, often enforcement does not occur untilpollution complaints draw the attention of pollutioncontrol officials. In addition, review of stormwaterpollution prevention plans is at the option of local
V-36
government. These are problems that both DECand EPA have recognized and hope to address inthe implementation of Phase II of the EPAStormwater Program. In the near future, a greaterlevel of local involvement will be required in thereview of construction proposals as well as themonitoring of construction activities. These andother aspects of the Phase II Program are morefully outlined in the Urban Runoff section of thisdocument.
The effectiveness or degree of success of currentprograms is difficult to measure in terms of waterquality improvement or protection becauseconstruction is a short-lived land use. Data oncomparisons between construction sites"with-control" and "without-control" are notavailable for sites in New York.
In terms of program coverage, the variousprograms intended to protect specific criticalresource areas can generally deal with erosionoriginating within the area of concern. However,protection from sediment impacts from upstreamareas are only partially covered in most criticalresource programs since the area covered usuallyincludes only a limited buffer or transitional area,not the entire upstream tributary area. Themunicipal and county programs that regulate landusage and require building permits or otherapprovals prior to land development offer the bestopportunity for comprehensive control ofconstruction impacts.
Statewide erosion and sediment control guidelineswere first prepared by a committee headed by theSoil Conservation Service, now the NaturalResources Conservation Service (NRCS). April1997 marked the fourth printing of "New YorkGuidelines for Urban Erosion and SedimentControl". It included extensive revisions. Theguidelines contains standards and specificationsfor 38 vegetative and structural managementpractices to control off-site sediment damage fromconstruction activities. A “Contractor’s FieldNotebook” that provides design and installation
information for 19 key practices was developed in1995 by a similar group of state agencies andprivate organization under NRCS leadership foruse in the field.
Local land use regulation, through site plan review,or through local erosion and sediment controlordinances, are other means to address thenonpoint source effects of construction. Informalinteractions during the 180 seminars andworkshops held in the 1990's, throughout the state,indicate that a very small percentage ofmunicipalities have erosion and sediment controlordinances.
Monroe County and NYC DEP are two examplesof municipalities that are addressing erosion andsediment control from construction sites. TheNYCDEP’s programs are significant as they areeffective throughout the NYC water supplywatershed, an area covering 2,000 square miles.
c. Implementation Steps
The primary control options used for constructionactivities are a combination of regulation, technicalassistance and technical training. Continuing thisapproach with appropriate modification of existingprograms and new initiatives is recommended.Additional educational efforts to increase publicawareness of water quality issues relating toconstruction are also needed.
1. EPA is expected to promulgate Phase IIStorm Water Regulations. (Achieved: EPApublished the final regulations in theDecember 8, 1999 Federal Register.)
2. Investigate alternatives (amending ECL,revising permit, adding staff, promulgatingregulations, etc.) to strengthen theimplementation of the SPDES general permitfor construction.
3. Take steps to involve local government in theenforcement and administration of the
V-37
SPDES general permit for construction aspart of Phase II stormwater controls.
4. DEC and EPA should work together toencourage passage of local laws forstormwater and erosion and sediment control.
5. EPA should work with Congress to amendClean Water Act to allow use of 319 fundsfor stormwater control implementation.
6. Programs to disseminate the informationcontained in the New York Urban Erosionand Sediment Control Guidelines should beexpanded. Soil and Water ConservationDistricts should be encouraged to sponsortraining sessions on the guidelines. Groupssuch as local building inspectors should beencouraged to participate in the trainingsessions.
7. NYSDEC should seek to continue fundingthe following courses for the next five years:
- Train the trainer program: to increase thenumber of available trainers.
- Erosion and sediment control training forcontractors
- Short courses on water quality withinstruction by the State SWCC’sEngineering Specialist.
8. Based on the November 18, 1997 finalconditional approval of New York’s CoastalNonpoint Pollution Control Program by EPAand NOAA, DEC and DOS will have threeyears to revise the State Uniform FirePrevention and Building Code to incorporatepollution management in new constructionand reconstruction, or provide other means todo the same.
V-38
Table V-4Programs/Activities to Implement Nonpoint Source Management on Construction Sites
(Programs with Names in Italics Are New since 1990)
Program Name Lead Agencies(Others Involved)
PollutantCategories
Type of Program;GeographicCoverage
Audience;Goal
Status
Adirondack Park Land Useand Development Program
Adirondack Park Agency Primarilysedimentcontrol
Regulatory andPlanning;
Within theAdirondack Park.
Builders, developers and residentsundertaking new land use anddevelopment projects which requireAgency permits; To avoid undueadverse impacts on the resources of thePark through proper siting, bestmanagement practices, stormwaterpollution prevention plans, etc.
Regulatory program in effect since 1973.
Construction StormwaterPermit Program (SPDESGeneral Permit GP-93-06)
NYSDEC’s Division of Water,(USEPA developed regulations)
All Regulatory;
Statewide
Those operating on construction sitesover 5 acres;
To control erosion and protect waterquality.
August 1993: general construction permitissued. As of April 1998, 1348 completeNotices-of-Intent on file at DEC.Provisions from TOGS 5.1.10 are in thepermit.
EnvironmentalSpecifications for StandardContracts
NYS DOT All, withemphasis onsedimentcontrol
Planning,Regulatory;
Statewide
Contractors with State Contracts forroadwork;To incorporate environmentalprotection into road and bridgeconstruction using DEC GeneralPermit conditions.
DEC/DOT Memorandum of Understanding(MOU) signed 1993.
Erosion and SedimentControl Training Programs:Train the Trainer; Water Quality MitigationDesign;Contractors Training
NYS SWCC,SWCDs
Sediment andassociatedpollutants
Technicalassistance,Technical training,Outreach;
Statewide
Contractors, engineers, local planningboard members, state agency staff andmany environmental groups; To teach the principles from the NewYork Guidelines for Urban Erosion andSediment Control.
As of March 1997, over 180 seminars andworkshops have been held throughout NYby all involved agencies.
Freshwater WetlandsProtection Program
NYSDEC’s Division of Fish,Wildlife & Marine Resources,and Adirondack Park Agency
All Regulatory;
Statewide
Planners, Developers, Excavators andSingle Family Home Builders; Topreserve, protect and conserve wetlandsand their benefits. Prescribes setbacksfor construction and other land uses.
Effective since September 1, 1975. Lastamended July 30, 1987.
Nonpoint SourceImplementation GrantProgram
NYS DEC’s Division of Water -Bureau of WatershedManagement
All FinancialIncentive;
Statewide
Municipalities;To reduce, abate, control, or preventnonpoint source pollution fromconstruction activities throughwatershed-based assessments ,education, and implementation ofBMPs.
Program funded one nonpoint sourcepollution control project addressingconstruction sites with the 1996-97 grantsannounced in May of 1997.
Program Name Lead Agencies(Others Involved)
PollutantCategories
Type of Program;GeographicCoverage
Audience;Goal
Status
V-39
NYC Water SupplyWatershed ProtectionProgram
NYC DEP,(Parties to the NYC MOA, e.g., NYS DEC and WatershedTowns)
All, withemphasis onpathogens andnutrients
Regulatory,FinancialIncentive;
Within the NYCWater SupplyWatersheds (2,000sq. miles)
Watershed residents; state, county andmunic ipal governments ; andcommercial, industrial and institutionalentities;
To protect water supply by meetingfiltration avoidance criteria.
January 21, 1997: Watershed Memorandumof Agreement signed.
May 1997: Revised NYC WatershedRegulations became effective.
State Environmental QualityReview Process
NYS DEC, Division ofEnvironmental Permits, ormunicipalities
All Regulatory andPlanning;
Statewide
Planners, developers, contractors andany public or private entity doingconstruction;T o review project proposals in theplanning stage to mitigate any significantenvironmental impacts.
Ongoing program; vast majority ofdevelopment since SEQRA was enacted hasundergone an environmental review.
Stream Protection Program NYSDEC’s Division of Fish,Wildlife, and Marine Resources,and Adirondack Park Agency
All Regulatory;
Statewide
Public conducting activities on Class A, B& C(t) streams; Promote soundenvironmental construction of dams andimpoundments, and docks and moorings.
Law effective as of December 18, 1994.Regulated activities include any alteration(includes adding fill) or excavation of thebed or banks of a protected waterway.
Technical Operations andGuidance Series (Document5.1.10)
NYSDEC’s Division of Water All TechnicalAssistance;
Statewide
Regional DEC staff;To provide guidance on Erosion andSediment Control procedures.
Issued April 1991. For use in conjunctionwith TOGS 5.1.8 Stormwater ManagementGuidelines.
Tidal Wetlands ProtectionProgram
NYSDEC’s Division of Fish,Wildlife & Marine Resources
All Regulatory; Suffolk, Nassau,Rockland andWestchesterCounties, allboroughs of NYC.
Planners, Developers, Excavators andSingle Family Home Builders; Topreserve, protect and enhance value oftidal wetlands. Prescribes setbacks forconstruction and other land uses.
February 1992 Regulations reprinted.
Wild, Scenic andRecreational Rivers Program
NYSDEC’s Division of Fish,Wildlife and Marine Resources,and Adirondack Park Agency
All Regulatory;
Statewide
River users; To protect, preserve and enhancesignificant rivers and river areasthroughout the state. Prescribessetbacks for construction and other landuses.
125 river segments (1202.3 miles) areprotected by this program.
V-40
5. Contaminated Sediment
a. Source Description
Contaminants in sediments are a continuingproblem because they bioaccumulate in fish andother aquatic animals at levels that can causeharmful effects to the animals themselves andthose that consume them. Fish consumptionadvisories and fishing bans frequently result frompollutants found in contaminated sediment. Fishflesh data collected by DEC's Division of Fish andWildlife have led the NYS Department of Healthto issue consumption advisories for more than 60waterbodies. The advisories range from acomplete ban on fishing to guidelines forfrequency of consumption. PCBs are the mostcommon contaminants causing fishing advisories;others include dioxin, chlordane, DDT, mirex,cadmium and mercury.
The 1998 New York State Water Quality Report(submitted pursuant to Section 305(b) of the CleanWater Act) states that, “Contaminated/toxicsediment, urban runoff and combined seweroverflows are the most frequently noted sourcesof major or primary impairment [of sourcescausing use impairments for bays and estuaries]”(p.55). The Priority Waterbodies List (PWL) citescontaminated sediment as the primary source ofpollutants causing use impairments in about 30waterbodies on the list. About 60 waterbodysegments attribute secondary water useimpairments to this source. Many majorwaterbodies are affected by this source includingthe Hudson River, the Buffalo River, the NiagaraRiver, Lake Champlain and Lake Ontario.
According to the 305(b) report, in the GreatLakes, toxic pollutants from contaminatedsediments are the dominant cause of water qualityimpairments. ( p. 55) The Great Lakes SedimentInventory report (NYSDEC 1995, updated 1996)contains chemical of concern data for 550sampling stations (encompassing approximately120 waterbodies in the Great Lakes basin). Four
hundred fifty-seven (457) sites contain sedimentchemistry concentrations exceeding levels ofconcern for one or more chemicals. The RIBSmonitoring program (see Table V-1) conductsanalysis of sediment for heavy metals,organochlorine pesticides and PCBs, and providea database for recommended site-specificassessments.
In addition to impairments to biota, contaminatedsediments threaten the viability of somecommercial ports due to restrictions on dredging ofnavigational channels and disposal of dredgedsediments.
b. Existing Programs
(See Table V-5 below.)
c. Implementation Steps
DEC should begin to inventory, assess andremediate waterbodies affected by sedimentcontamination.
In 1998, DEC initiated the ContaminantsAssessment and Remediation Program (CARP),an extensive monitoring program and databasethat will form the basis for evaluating all futureremediation programs. The program will alsodetermine existing conditions to guide thedredging program in the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary.The program conducts three types of monitoring:
1. Ambient and source monitoring to identifymajor contributors of toxic contaminants tothe harbor. Summary report to be completedby end of 2000.
2. Sediment sampling to identify the historicaldepositional areas of contaminants. Also, theprogram will assist in evaluating the optionsfor disposing of dredged material. This workwill continue for the next several years.
V-41
3. Biological sampling to provide informationabout the bioaccumulation of toxic chemicalsthrough the food chain. Most of this workwill be completed by the end of Fiscal Year2000-2001.
In 1993, funding was made available to DEC toundertake this work in the Great Lakes basin. Theprogram::
1. Expands the current electronic database forNYS Great Lakes contaminated sedimentinformation, and creates a similar databasefor NY Harbor.
2. Evaluates, edits and formats sediment datafor parts of the state not covered under #1.
3. Adds biological effects data to Great Lakesbasins site prioritization scheme (by April1999).
V-42
TABLE V-5Resources to Implement Contaminated Sediment Nonpoint Source Management
(Programs with Names in Italics Are New since 1990)
Program NameLead Agency
(OthersInvolved)
PollutantCategories
Type of Program;Geographic Coverage
Audience;Goal
Status
Assessment andRemediation ofContaminatedSediments (ARCS)
EPA's GreatLakes NationalProgram Office.
Toxic andhazardoussubstances
Research andDemonstration;
The Buffalo River wasone of five demonstrationprojects included in thisGreat Lakes basin-wideprogram.
Entities responsible for water quality protection;
To assess best ways to remove toxic pollutantsfrom bottom sediments and to develop guidanceon assessing and dealing with contaminatedsediment problems. The projects included anassessment of the waterbody and sediments, astudy of potential remedial technologies, and anevaluation of the environmental and economicaleffectiveness of the project.
Demonstration projects com-pleted between 1986 and 1993.EPA also published reports anddeveloped guidance on assess-ment and remediation.
Clean Water StateRevolving Fund
EFC/DEC All Financial Incentives;
Statewide
Municipalities; To provide financial assistance forplanning, design and construction of publicly-owned projects that prevent, reduce or remediateNPS pollution.
Ongoing; funds are available forsubsidized low-interest loans for100 percent of project cost.
ContaminantsAssessment &RemediationProgram (CARP))
DEC’s Divisionof Water
(NNY/NJ HarborEstuaryMonitoringProgram)
Toxic andhazardoussubstances
Monitoring andTrackdown Program;
Establish baseline waterquality, sediment andbiological status of theharbor area (both NY andNJ)
State and Federal Agencies responsible for waterquality management; other interested parties.
Perform a synoptic study to document the totalenvironmental conditions within the harbor andassess contaminant levels in sediments, watercolumn and biological species (zooplankton tofish to cormorants). Sample tributaries todetermine quantities of toxic substances cominginto the harbor from both point and nonpointsources.
Initiated in fall of 1998 and con-tinues through spring of 2000,with sediment samplingcontinuing into FY 2002-2003.
Coastal Manage-ment Program(Coastal Zone Mgt.Act; 15 CFR 923)
NYS DOS All Regulatory;
Coastal Area (includingGreat Lakes)
Those involved in dredging, disposal in water, orconstruction in the coastal zone;
Promote beneficial use of certain coastal resourcesand provide for management of activities whichmay impact coastal resources.
Ongoing through consistencyreview, development of LWRPsand special projects.
Program NameLead Agency
(OthersInvolved)
PollutantCategories
Type of Program;Geographic Coverage
Audience;Goal
Status
V-43
ContaminantsAssessment andRemediationProgram (CARP)- part of the NY/NJHarbor EstuaryMonitoring Program
DEC Division ofWater and DEC Division of Fish,Wildlife andMarineResources
Toxic andhazardoussubstances
Planning and Monitoring;
NY/NJ Harbor andHarbor Estuary
Entities responsible for water quality protection;
Identify major contributors of toxic contaminantsto the harbor; identify the historical depositionalareas of contaminants in order to assist inevaluating the disposal options of dredgedmaterial; and assess contaminant levels insediments, water column and biological species(e.g.: zooplankton, fish, cormorants)
Initiated in Fall of 1998 andcontinueing through Spring of2000, with sediment samplingcontinuing into FY 2002-2003.
Drinking WaterState RevolvingFund
DOH/EFC All Financial Incentives;
Statewide
Community water systems, both publicly andprivately owned, and non-profit, non-communitywater systems. To provide financial assistance forplanning, design and construction of eligible watersystem projects. Includes funding of landpurchase or conservation easements for sourcewater protection for wellheads or watersheds.
Ongoing; funds are available forsubsidized low-interest loans forup to 100 percent of projectcosts. Grants may be availablefor qualified applicants withdemonstrated financial hardship.
Remedial ActionPlans (RAPs)
NYSDEC’sDivision of Water(Monroe Co.Dept. of Healthfor the RochesterEmbaymentRAP)
Toxic andhazardoussubstances, andothers.
Planning andImplementation;
Six “Areas of Concern”(AOCs) in the NYS. (43AOCs throughout GreatLakes basin)
Residents and stakeholders of AOCs;
To further develop and implement a remedialstrategy to restore/ protect beneficial uses.
Development and certification toEPA of the six NYS RAPscompleted by 12 / 97; focus isnow on implementation of stra-tegies and activities.
SedimentAssessment andManagementProgram
NYS Dept. ofEnvironmentalConservation
Toxic andhazardoussubstances
Planning, Monitoring,Tech Assistance;
Statewide with focus onGreat Lakes drainagebasins
DEC and other entities responsible for water qualityprotection;T o provide technical assessment and managementoptions: maintain, validate and report on inventoryof sediment quality data; maintain, update andemploy protocols for the biological and chemicalevaluation of sediments; develop a current workingknowledge of dredging issues and techniques.
NYSDEC established the Sedi-ment Assessment and Manage-ment Section in 1994. Theactivities of this section arefunded by EPA Region II andEPA’s Great Lakes NationalProgram Office (GLNPO).
SedimentAssessment andRemediation in theGreat Lakes Basin
EPA's GreatLakes NationalProgram Office(GLNPO).
Toxic andhazardoussubstances, andothers
Financial Incentives,Technical Assistance;
Six AOCs in the NYSportion of the GreatLakes basin.
Entities responsible for water quality protection;
To foster remediation of contaminated sedimentsat Great Lakes AOCs. Grants program developedto continue the efforts of the ARCS program.
Initiated in 1993. GLNPO hasfunded 40 projects performed bystate, tribal, and federal agenciesand educational institutions. Anumber of guidance documentsare available.
Program NameLead Agency
(OthersInvolved)
PollutantCategories
Type of Program;Geographic Coverage
Audience;Goal
Status
V-44
State PollutantDischargeElimination System(SPDES)
DEC’s Divisionof Water
Toxic andhazardoussubstances, andothers
Regulatory;
Statewide
Owners of facilities that discharge to surfacewater;
To regulate which pollutants the permit holdermay discharge, and set limits, as needed, to meeteffluent and receiving water standards and anyother state or federal requirements. This systemshould greatly reduce the chance of furthercontamination of sediment from point sources.
Approximately 3000 permitholders statewide. Over 500 ofthese discharges include toxics.Also, under this program, 56publicly owned treatment workshave DEC-approved industrialpretreatment programs to limitthe discharge of toxics to thePOTWs and the receivingwaters.
Toxic SubstancesMonitoringProgram
DEC’s Divisionof Fish, Wildlife& MarineResources
Toxic andhazardoussubstances
Monitoring, Research;Statewide and specificgeographic locations
Users of toxic substance data, e.g state and federalagencies, academics, environmental groups;
To monitor extent of toxic and bioaccumulativecontamination in biota associated withwaterbodies, sediments and adjacent lands.
Ongoing. Reports summarizingdata printed in periodic technicalletters, published reports anddata provided upon request.
Upland Mgt. ofNavigationalDredge Material (6NYCRR Part 360)
DEC Division ofSolid andHazardousMaterials
All Regulatory;
Statewide
Those involved in dredged material disposal orbeneficial use that is to take place on land (i.e.,any excavation of disposal not regulated bySection 401 permits);
Regulate upland management of navigationaldredge material.
Sediment processing, de-watering, placement, or disposal,activities typically carried undera Part 360 permit, are exemptedfrom Part 360, if they arecovered by other permits (i.e.:401 W.Q. Cert.; Articles 15, 24,25, and 34 of the ECL) .
V-45
6. Hydrologic and Habitat Modification
a. Source Description
This category includes a variety of activities whichchange the nature of a stream corridor or awetland area. Changes to the bed and banks of astream, modification to flow patterns of streamsand dredging/filling of wetlands are consideredhere. Sometimes the problems experienced in thestream or wetland can be the result of changingland use patterns within the watershed. However,this section
focuses on the changes to the water resourceitself. Land uses and other activities associatedwith hydrologic and habitat modification includegravel mining (in-stream), dam and flood controloperations, dredging, channelization, grading,removal of riparian vegetation, drinking waterwithdrawals and loss of groundwater rechargethrough sewers. Stream-bank erosion can becaused by increased runoff from urbanizing areas,construction sites, or agricultural lands. Livestockcan also be a direct cause of stream bank erosion.
Nonpoint source water quality problems in streamsdeal primarily with impacts to fishery habitat. Fishsurvival can be affected through changes to thehabitat and through actions which damage fishspawning and incubation areas as well as theirfood sources. There can also be an impact ondrinking water supplies. Increased treatmentcosts and reduced volume of reservoirs are amongthe problems experienced due to increasedsediment loads.
Modifications to wetland areas can affect theentire ecosystem. Dredging or filling a wetlandcan result in habitat loss and the loss of its variousbuffering capacities. These problems have beenobserved in numerous locations in the coastaldistrict where the loss of wetlands has impacted
shellfish through bed closures and potentialdeclines in production.
Sediment and increased water temperatureregimes are the primary impacts resulting fromhydrologic modification. Sediment can increaseturbidity reducing light penetration which mayimpact fish as well as the aquatic habitat whichaffects fishery reproduction. Increasedtemperatures may cause the elimination ofcoldwater fish and their ecosystem, from thestream. Fluctuating water levels in reservoirs andreduced flow in segments downstream of damscan also contribute to this source. 28 of 53Priority Waterbodies List (PWL) segmentsaffected by hydrologic or habitat modification arerelated to dam release or operation problems.
There are detrimental effects both upstream anddownstream of the dam. The water levelfluctuations within the impoundment can disturbfish habitat and expose spawning areas used bywarm water fish. The change in downstreamflow conditions can also affect fish survival.Limited releases can cause the streamtemperature to rise. In some cases, streamsegments may be completely dewatered during theoperation of a hydroelectric power plant.Problems are best addressed during relicensing forfederal dams; however, some licensingagreements are good for 30 years.
Increases in impervious surfaces associated withdevelopment of the landscape may result inincreases in the magnitude and frequency ofdownstream flooding. These increased flows cancause incision, over widening and destabilization ofstream channels, threatening public infrastructureand private property. This flooding is sometimesaddressed through channelization projects. Thisoften results in channels with an inappropriatelyhigh width/depth ratio, reducing sediment transporteffectiveness at channel-forming bankfulldischarges (1.5 - 2 year return flows) and causing
V-46
bed aggradation and channel instability.Channelization also generally homogenizesinstream slope (gradient); thereby eliminatingpool/riffle structure that is critical to fish habitat.
Hydrologic and habitat modification is the primarysource of nonpoint source pollution for 53 PWLsegments listed in the 1998 PWL including 40stream segments and 13 lakes or reservoirs.When considering both primary and secondarysources, a total of 159 segments, primarilystreams, are affected. Improperly designed andimplemented dredging projects may causesediment problems. Thirteen of the 53 segmentshave problems due to dredging, channelization,grading, etc.
Streambank or shoreline erosion is considered aseparate source category in the PWL, but for thisdocument is included with hydrologic and habitatmodification. Streambank or shoreline erosionaffects about 60 segments as a primary source(90% are streams 10% are lakes/reservoirs). Asa secondary source, about 200 segments areaffected; 80% are streambanks, the rest areshorelines. Thermal changes and water level orflow changes are both listed as “pollutants” in thePWL. Thermal changes are a primary pollutantfor over 30 segments; all streams. Water level orflow fluctuations affect over 20 streams and about10 lakes or reservoirs. As primary and secondarypollutants, both jump to just over 120 segmentseach.
Mining of sand and gravel from streambeds andbars can also contribute to channel and bankinstability by not respecting proper channeldimensions, excavating point bars and changingthe local slope of the streambed. These types ofproblems are covered in Section 12, on resourceextraction.
b. Existing Programs
Several state and federal programs haveregulatory jurisdiction over activities that wouldmodify waters of the state or their habitats. ANYSDEC Joint Application for Permit(s) isavailable at all regional DEC Offices. The permitprograms applicable to this and other nonpointsource categories are in Table V-1 (CoastalManagement Program, Dredge and Fill-Section404, Water Quality Certification-Section 401).Table V-6 shows programs applicable primarily tothis source category.
The most likely minimum permit requirement willbe an Article 15, Title 5 Protection of WatersPermit. Activities regulated by this programinclude disturbance of bed or banks of protectedwaters; construction and maintenance of dams;and excavation or filling in navigable waters.Further details can be found in the "Protection ofWaters Program Applicants' Guide".
Activities conducted in freshwater wetlands thatare regulated generally include any that mayadversely affect the wetland. More specific to thesource category of hydrologic and habitatmodification, regulated activities includeconstruction of dikes and dams; placement of fill,excavation or grading; modification, expansion orextensive restoration of existing structures;drainage; and application of pesticides in wetlands.For more details, see the "Freshwater WetlandsProgram Applicants' Guide".
Regulated activities in tidal wetlands are generallysimilar to those regulated under the FreshwaterWetlands Program with some added activitiesspecific to coastal areas (e.g. construction andreconstruction of structures such as weirs, groins,jetties, breakwaters, bulkheads, sea walls, retainingwalls, rip-rap, gabions and drainage structures).Earth-moving activities regulated include dredgespoil placement, dune building, beach nourishment,clear-cutting and those listed 4under freshwater
V-47
wetlands. Other details should be sought in the"Tidal Wetlands Program Applicants' Guide".
Regulated activities under the Wild, Scenic andRecreational River Systems Program are specificto the type of river system under construction (i.e.wild, scenic or recreational). Some addedactivities not previously mentioned are waterwithdrawals, stream improvement structures forfishing management purposes, fencing, publicutility uses involving stream crossing or projectswithin 500 feet of stream bank, and vegetativecutting, thinning or other disturbance of vegetation.Further program details are in a separatelypublished document on Part 666 of Title 6 of theNew York Code of Rules and Regulations(NYCRR).
Besides the Department of EnvironmentalConservation permits and project review, otheragencies may have jurisdiction over hydrologic orhabitat modifying activities. The U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers oversees federal permits.NYS Department of State reviews coastalprojects, and provides consistency review forfederal projects. NYS Office of General Servicesmust be notified of projects involving underwaterlands of New York State. Projects in theAdirondack Park may require permits from theAdirondack Park Agency, PO Box 99, Raybrook,NY, 12977. And finally, local governments mayhave building permits, floodplain permits or otherlocal requirements that must be met before amanagement practice from this Catalogue may beimplemented or installed.
The NYC DEP has a number of new or revisedprograms which address the water quality issuesincluding nonpoint sources within the boundaries ofthe New York City Water Supply Watershed.
The Engineering Design and Review Section isthe arm of the NYCDEP charged with theimplementation of the permit program and covers
the entire Watershed from offices located botheast and west of the Hudson River. According tothe “NYC Watershed Regulations” promulgatedMay 1, 1997, a permit will be required from theNYCDEP for all piping, crossing and diversions ofstreams not regulated by the other governmentalagencies. This would include actions involving allDEC designated class “C” and “D” streams. Apermit will also be required from the NYCDEPfor certain construction activities. NYCDEP willreview and approve of Stormwater PollutionPrevention Plans in accordance with therequirements of Part III of the NYSDEC GeneralPermit No. GP-93-06 “SPDES General Permit forStormwater Discharges from ConstructionActivities.” The “NYC Watershed Regulations”also require setback distances from watercoursesand NYSDEC wetlands for certain activitiesincluding septic systems and impervious surfaces.The Office of Engineering Design Review alsoreviews projects through SEQRA that apply forpermits from the Army Corps of Engineers underSection 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and permitsfrom the NYSDEC under Article 15 and Article24. Comment letters are provided to theappropriate regulatory authority for considerationand technical expertise is offered to the applicantfor the particular project.
The private sector has also been active in projectsto control this source problem. Many localchapters of Trout Unlimited (TU) have programsrevegetating streambanks and installing habitatimprovement structures. TU has also beenactively advocating stricter enforcement of streamdisturbance permit conditions, and supportsresearch and demonstration projects implementinghabitat restoration. Land conservancy groups alsohave focused efforts on acquiring riparian andwetland parcels, toward the goal of habitatprotection.
(See Table V-6 below.)
V-48
c. Implementation Steps
1. To better provide integrated technical andfinancial assistance to local efforts atstream corridor management planning, anongoing forum should be developed forcoordination between federal, state andlocal agencies dealing with streamcorridor management issues (such asstormwater management, flood hazardmitigation, habitat and drinking watersupply protection). The principlesadvocated in DEC’s Stream CorridorManagement manual need to be morewidely disseminated across the state.
Training sessions should be held for soiland water conservation districts as well asResource Conservation and DevelopmentCouncils (which presently include 48upstate counties) to encourage theapplication of these principles.
Included in this effort should beeducational activities to increase publicawareness of the benefits of streamcorridor management. Streamconservation can have numerous benefitsto a community. The programs shouldencourage the creation of communitystream protection programs to implementmanagement practices.
2. The benefits of wetlands as nonpointsource filters should also be highlighted inoutreach and educational programs. Development of local wetland protectionregulations, and establishing new, orimproving existing enforcement capa-bilities or incentives are needed.
3. Promotion of the existing cost-sharingprograms (such as the Conservation
Reserve Program under FSA, or StreamCorridor Protection and StormwaterMitigation Programs under NYC DEP)for treatments such as vegetative bufferstrips, or the establishment of conser-vation easements is needed.
4a. The Memoranda of Understanding whichare required for local governments underthe provisions of the Stream ProtectionPermit program should includerequirements for utilizing bestmanagement practices to minimize streamdisturbance. Granting of MOUs shouldbe conditioned on satisfactory completionby town highway department personnel ofa certification program, to be developedby the DEC.
4b. DEC should develop a certificationprogram consisting of workshops on thestream disturbance permitting process,how to effectively install BMPs tominimize disturbance, and basic principlesof stream hydrology, including therelationship between channel form andsediment transport. (This recommendationalso applies to the resource extractioncategory.)
5. Regulatory programs which control runoffto prevent damage to streams should bedeveloped by DEC in conjunction with thestormwater management program. Thereshould be requirements for the attenuationof peak runoff from newly developedareas. Riparian restoration should bepursued to reduce sedimentation anderosion problems, and to control floodingproblems in the upper, less impactedportions of the watershed.
6. A program should be developed to assessand classify the morphology of NYS
V-49
streams and rivers, prioritized by DEC’s useclassification (i.e., beginning with highest usestreams). An essential element of this programshould be to develop regional curves relatingstream geometry and discharge to drainage area.This would then allow stream disturbance permitsunder Article 15 to include conditions specifyingthe cross-sectional dimension, plan and profileappropriate to a stream’s morphology type andbankfull discharge.
7. Based on the November 18, 1997, finalconditional approval of New York’sCoastal Nonpoint Pollution ControlProgram by EPA and NOAA, DEC andDOS will have three years to:
a.) address problems (i.e., waterquality and habitat) in existingchannels, [where channelmodification has altered or hasthe potential to alter instream andriparian habitat such thathistorically present fish andwildlife are adversely affected].
b.) Address problem of erodingstreambanks or shorelinescausing pollution where notreviewed under existing permitauthorities.
V-50
Table V-6
Programs/Activities to Implement Nonpoint Source Management for Hydrologic & Habitat Modification
(Programs with Names in Italics Are New since 1990)
Program NameLead Agency
(Others Involved)
Pollutant
Categories
Type of Program;
Geographic Coverage
Audience;
Goal
Status
Clean Water StateRevolving Fund
EFC/DEC All Financial Incentives;
Statewide
Munic ipalities; To providefinancial ass i s tance forpl a n n i n g , d e s i g n a n dconstruction of publicly-ownedprojects that prevent, reduce orremediate NPS pollution.
Ongoing; funds are available for subsidizedlow-interest loans for 100 percent ofproject cost.
Drinking WaterState RevolvingFund
DOH/EFC All Financial Incentives;
Statewide
Community water systems,both publicly and privatelyowned, and non-profit, non-community water systems. Toprovide financial assistance forp l a n n i n g , d e s i g n a n dconstruction of eligible watersys tem projects. Includesfunding of land purchase orconservation easements forsource water protection forwellheads or watersheds.
Ongoing; funds are available for subsidizedlow-interest loans for up to 100 percent ofproject costs. Grants may be available forqualified applicants with demonstratedfinancial hardship.
FreshwaterWetlands Program
DEC’s Division of Fish,Wildlife and MarineResources, Adirondack ParkAgency
Sediment,
Toxics (includingPesticides),
Nutrients
Planning, Regulatory, Outreach,Technical Assistance, Researchand Financial Incentive;
Statewide
Wetland landowners, localgovernments; To protect andregulate use and developmentof freshwater wetlands.
1996: reviewed and issued 933 permits(DEC)
Land AcquisitionProgram
NYC DEP Division ofWatershed Planning andCommunity Affairs
Sediment,
Nutrients,
Pathogens,
Toxics (Pesticides)
Planning, Financial Incentive;
NYC Water Supply Watershed
Property owners, localgovernments and state agencies;
Limitation of development ofwater supply lands.
Owners of a total of 355,050 acres mustbe contacted over a 10 year period. 1997:contact and solicit sale of 50,000 acres ofland from watershed landowners.
Natural Resourcesand EnvironmentalMonitoring Network
NYC DEP Division of WaterQuality Control
Sediment,
Nutrients,
Pathogens,
Toxics (Pesticides)
Research, Monitoring;
NYC Water Supply Watershed
Landowners and loca lgovernments;
To monitor the effects ofreservoir management on fishpopulations, air and waterquality.
1997: Integrated meteorological and waterquality discharge monitoring networks.
Program NameLead Agency
(Others Involved)
Pollutant
Categories
Type of Program;
Geographic Coverage
Audience;
Goal
Status
V-51
Nonpoint SourceImplementationGrant Program
NYS DEC’s Division ofWater - Bureau of WatershedManagement
All Financial Incentive;
Statewide
Municipalities;
To reduce, abate, control, orprevent nonpoint sourcepollution from agriculturalactivities through watershed-based assessments, education,and implementation of BMPs.
The Nonpoint Source ImplementationGrants Program provided funding for atotal of 13 projects in this category,primarily stream bank erosion projects, in1994-95 and 1995-96. An additional 8projects, again primarily stream bankerosion projects, will be funded with the1996-97 grants announced in May of1997.
NYC WatershedRegulations(revised)
NYC DEP Office ofEngineering Design andReview
Sediment,
Nutrients,
Pathogens,
Toxics (Pesticides)
Regulatory;
NYC Water Supply Watershed(2,000 sq. miles)
NYC Water Supply Watershedresidents;
Increased regulatory review andcontrol of development.
New regulations promulgated May 1,1997.
NYC WatershedProtection andPartnershipPrograms
NYC DEP Division ofWatershed Planning andCommunity Affairs
Sediment,
Nutrients,
Pathogens,
Toxics (Pesticides)
Financial Incentive;
NYC Water Supply Watershed
NYC Water Supply (W.S.)Watershed residents;
Funding for diverse pollutionprevention programs.
Programs commenced in 1997, withvarious terms of completion. Streamprotection is one of many new programsfor the NYC W.S. Watershed.
Stream ManagementProgram
NYC DEP Division ofWatershed Planning andCommunity Affairs
Sediment,
Nutrients,
Pathogens
Outreach, Technical Assistance,and Financial Incentive;
NYC Water Supply Watershed
Landowners and loca lgovernments;
To develop and implement andmonitor stream corridormanagement plans.
1997: Completed three workshop serieson Stream Management; initiateddevelopment of local Stream CorridorManagement plans on several sub-basinwatersheds.
Stream ProtectionProgram
DEC’s Division of Fish,Wildlife and MarineResources, Adirondack ParkAgency
Sediment, Thermalstress
Planning, Regulatory, andImplementation;
Statewide
Property owners , localgovernments and state agencies;
To protect water resources byregulating activities that couldadversely affect water quality,quantity, or assoc ia tedecosystems. To preserve fishhabitat within the stream.
Dec. 1994: implementing regulationsrevised;
1996: DEC reviewed and issued 5112permits.
Wild, Scenic andRecreational RiversProgram
DEC’s Division of Fish,Wildlife and MarineResources, Adirondack ParkAgency
Sediment,
Thermal stress
Planning, Regulatory, andImplementation;
Statewide
Property owners, localgovernments and state agencies;
To preserve and protectdesignated river segments andtheir immediate corridors byregulating use and developmentwithin them.
1994: implementing regulations revised;
1996: DEC reviewed and issued 91permits.
V-52
7. Land Disposal
a. Source Description
The primary sources which are included in thiscategory are landfills and inactive hazardous wastesites. Junkyards are a lesser problem beingaddressed by management practices through apollution prevention initiative. Related sourcecategories are Leaks, Spills and Accidents andOnsite Wastewater Treatment Systems. Each arecovered in following sections.
When properly designed, constructed and operated,land disposal facilities should not cause waterquality problems. In the past, however, numeroussolid waste management disposal facilities did notmeet currently accepted standards and pollutantsleached from these facilities resulting in impairedwaters. Absent the construction techniques used intoday’s landfills, the contents of these older landfillsites had, and have, the potential to leach out intosurrounding waters, potentially contaminatinggroundwater.
Pollutants from land disposal activities can alsoreach surface water bodies. When this occurs, thepollutants can affect fish propagation and survival.The pollutants can also result in restrictions onconsumption of fish taken from fresh waters and onshell fishing in marine waters as well as on contactand non-contact recreation in both marine and freshwaters. The pollutants associated with land disposalvary among the different sources included in thiscategory. The leachate from landfills and inactivehazardous waste sites may contain a number oftoxic substances which can affect surface waterand groundwater. The Division of EnvironmentalRemediation maintains a Registry of InactiveHazardous Waste Disposal Sites.
The PWL addresses surface water and showsrelatively few land disposal problems compared to
the whole and to other source categories. The1996 Priority Waterbodies List of 1426 assessedsegments contains 31 segments where landdisposal is the primary source of impact on aclassified water use. There are 84 more segmentswhere land disposal is a secondary source. Waterquality problems caused by landfills and hazardouswastes continue to exist but they are beingaddressed by current programs.
b. Existing Programs
(See Table V-7 below.)
During 1996, the Division of EnvironmentalRemediation, which oversees the inactivehazardous waste disposal site cleanup program,was formed by the merger of the Division ofHazardous Waste Remediation with the Divisionof Spills Management. The combined programshave created an organization responsible for thecleanup of sites contaminated by petroleum andhazardous wastes.
In addition, the cleanup program has beenexpanded by the passage of the EnvironmentalBond Act of 1996 which will provide funds tomunicipalities to investigate and remediateabandoned, idled, or under used properties (a.k.a.“brownfield sites”) contaminated by past industrialuse. The Bond Act allotted $200 million for theprogram. The cleanup program has also institutedthe Voluntary Cleanup Program. This Programencourages volunteers willing to remediatecontaminated sites and return them to productiveuses.
Regarding prevention, state legislation passed onJune 21, 1983, required the elimination, byDecember 18, 1990, of landfilling of all solid wastein the deep flow recharge zones of Long Islandand the elimination of landfilling of untreated solidwaste outside the deep flow recharge areas
V-53
through the implementation of solid waste treatmentsystems that reduce the volume and toxicity of thewaste. By October 9, 1993, the goals of the LongIsland Landfill Law had been accomplished. TheDEC’s solid waste management regulations alsocontain a prohibition on siting new landfills andvertical and lateral expansions of existing landfillsover upstate principal and primary aquifer areas.
In 1994, Governor Pataki signed into lawamendments to the ECL and Public Health Lawwhich commissioned NYSDEC and NYSDOH toa study which estimated the number and cost toremediate the hazardous substance sites which arenot being remediated under the State’s currentinactive hazardous waste disposal site remedialprogram’s statutory authority. Some of these sites,which are possible contributors of contamination togroundwater and surface waters, are currentlybeing addressed by the new programs mentionedabove as well as the enforcement actions under,among other authorities, the Department’s generalstatutory authority. The inventory found that of anadditional 375 hazardous substance sites, 26 wouldpose a threat and up to 192 more may pose asignificant threat.
Approximately $103.5 million in State funds havebeen provided to communities for municipal solid
waste landfill closure projects under the DEC'sLandfill Closure State Assistance Program. Inaddition, the 1996 Clean Water/ Clean Air BondAct provided $50 million in State assistance formunicipal solid waste landfill closure projects andAdirondack landfill projects.
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)also has assisted communities close their municipalsolid waste and inactive hazardous waste landfills.Financing from the CWSRF has provided short-term loans with terms of less than three years,totaling $94.3 million, providing the money neededto pay contractors in advance of receipt of Stategrants. The local share of project costs, which is25 percent for inactive hazardous waste projects,and up to 50 percent of municipal solid wastelandfill closure projects, totalling $304.3 million, hasbeen funded through long-term loans of up to 20years through the program.There are several non-regulatory efforts that havebeen taking place in the process of regulatinglandfills. These can generally be categorized aseducation and technical assistance and arediscussed in the Division of Solid & HazardousMaterials’ Annual Technical Assistance Report.
V-54
Table V-7Programs/Activities to Implement Nonpoint Source Management for Land Disposal
(Programs with Names in Italics Are New since 1990)
Program NameLead Agency
(Others Involved)Pollutant
CategoriesType of Program;
Geographic CoverageAudience; Goal Status
Brownfields Program (Clean Water/Clean AirAct of 1996 Environmental Restoration Projects)
NYSDEC’s Division ofEnvironmental Remediation,(NYSDOH)
Toxics, HazardousSubstances (includingpetroleum)
Financial Incentive;
Statewide
Municipalities;
To provide grants to fund voluntary remediation ofabandoned, idled or under-used properties whereredevelopment is complicated by contamination.
77 Investigation and 4 Remediation Grants havebeen awarded with 40 more in the process. Finalprogram guidance was issued in Dec., 1997 andregulations in Jan., 1998.
Clean Water State Revolving Fund EFC/DEC All Financial Incentives;
Statewide
Municipalities; To provide financial assistance forplanning, design and construction of publicly-owned projects that prevent, reduce or remediateNPS pollution.
Ongoing; funds are available for subsidizedlow-interest loans for 100 percent of projectcost.
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund DOH/EFC All Financial Incentives;
Statewide
Community water systems, both publicly andprivately owned, and non-profit, non-communitywater systems. To provide financial assistance forplanning, design and construction of eligible watersystem projects. Includes funding of land purchaseor conservation easements for source waterprotection for wellheads or watersheds.
Ongoing; funds are available for subsidizedlow-interest loans for up to 100 percent ofproject costs. Grants may be available for
qualified applicants with demonstrated financialhardship.
Hazardous Waste Management Program NYSDEC’s Division of Solidand Hazardous Materials,(USEPA)
Toxics/ HazardousSubstances
Regulatory;
National
Owners/operators of hazardous waste treatment,storage and disposal facilities (TSDFs);
To ensure that hazardous wastes are properly stored,transported, treated and disposed, includingcorrective action programs.
As of 3/31/98, there were 65 active TSDF’s; 55of these had permits and 10 were under interimstatus.
Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Site RemedialProgram
NYSDEC’s Division ofEnvironmental Remediation,
(NYSDOH, and USEPA)
Toxics, Hazardous Wastes(subset of HazardousSubstances)
Regulatory;
Statewide
Responsible parties;
To require owner, operator, or chemical contributorto remediate site, or state hires contractor if viableresponsible party unknown or uncooperative.
As of 1997 there are 327 sites which have beenremediated; 878 sites are currently on the State’sRegistry, ei ther being investigated orremediated. There is a quarterly update on thestatus of active projects and an annual update ofthe entire Registry.
Solid Waste Landfill Closure Program NYSDEC’s Division of Solidand Hazardous Materials
Toxics/ HazardousSubstances
Regulatory;
Statewide
Owners/operators of inactive solid waste landfills;
To ensure that these landfills are closed properly tominimize impacts on the environment.
Most landfills not currently permitted foroperation or properly closed are under consentorder by the DEC to be closed, capped with an
impervious material and monitored.
Solid Waste Landfill Permitting Program NYSDEC’s Division of Solidand Hazardous Materials,(USEPA)
Toxics/ HazardousSubstances
Regulatory;
National
Owners/operators of solid waste landfills; To ensurethat landfills are properly sited, designed,constructed and operated to protect public healthand safety and the environment. The programincludes facility inspections and operator training.
As of 12/31/97, there were 57 active municipal,incinerator ash, and non-hazardous industrialwaste landfills, 46 had permits.
Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) NYSDEC’s Division ofEnvironmental Remediation,(NYSDOH)
Toxics, HazardousSubstances (including petroleum)
Financial Incentive;
Statewide
Primarily private parties; To promote voluntaryinvestigation and remediation of contaminatedproperties in ex-change for certain releases fromliability from DEC such that these properties can beredeveloped.
Over 80 agreements have been signed addressingover 120 sites. More detailed program guidanceis expected in fall of 1998.
V-55
c. Implementation Steps Older land disposal facilities have caused water qualityproblems in New York. However, programs to effectivelyregulate these sources do exist and the water qualityproblems caused by this category are being minimized.Continuous work needs to be done to investigate, monitor,and, where necessary, remediate areas which pose athreat to the waters of the State. New sites brought to theDepartment’s attention are routinely investigated andincorporated into closure programs. No recommendationsfor modifying these programs are included in this report.
1. In support of the Lake Ontario LakewideManagement Plan and the Niagara River ToxicsManagement Plan (NRTMP), NYSDEC isconducting special sampling of potential sources ofpriority toxics. These samples utilize low detectionlevel sampling and analytical methods for thepurpose of "tracking down" ongoing sources ofpriority pollutants such as inactive hazardouswaste sites and landfills. The sampling will bedone by the regional offices during State FiscalYear ‘98-’99 per the Great Lakes Projectworkplan schedule and project scope. The resultsof the track down efforts will be passed on to theappropriate program for follow-up, andincorporated into the LaMP and NRTMP.
2. Reassess and clarify inter-divisional groundwatercontamination site responsibility at DEC. Severalprograms at DEC are involved with theinvestigation and remediation of groundwatercontamination. Specifically included aregroundwater contamination response, oil andhazardous materials spill response, inactivehazardous site remediation and water supplyemergency and contingency planning. The DOW,under current Memoranda of Understanding withthe Division of Solid and Hazardous Materials, isresponsible for the evaluation of unknown sourcesof contamination, recurring point sources, spills
and leaks of material other than hazardousmaterials and petroleum and waste material spillsand leaks. As sources of contamination areidentified, they become the responsibility of theappropriate Division (e.g. EnvironmentalRemediation or Solid and Hazardous Materials).Resource and staff limitations have limited theDOW’s and DS&HM’s abilities to respond togroundwater contamination problems.
8. Leaks, Spills and Accidents
a. Source Description
Leaks and spills of petroleum products and other hazardousmaterials are a significant problem in New York.Subsurface leaks have the greatest potential tocontaminate groundwater while surface spills can causeeither groundwater or surface water problems.
Most leaks and spills are to land surfaces or the soil; feware directly to waterbodies. Most of the water qualityproblems that have been identified involve contaminatedgroundwater. All fresh groundwater in the state isclassified to protect its use as a potential source of drinkingwater. The toxic materials that are leaked and spilled canaffect this use. Spills to surface water can impairdesignated uses of these waterbodies as well.
Many of the pollutants in this category are hydrocarbons(synthetic organic chemicals). In the case of petroleumcontamination, the dissolved constituents such as benzene,ethyl benzene, toluene and xylene (BETX) and MTBE arethe primary pollutants from gasoline, and petroleumaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from other petroleumproducts. Chlorinated solvents, such as TCE, are the mostimportant of the hazardous materials due to their mobility.
Spills and leaks of petroleum products and of chlorinatedsolvents are significant sources of groundwatercontamination. The Bureau of Spill Prevention and
V-56
Response (BSPR) maintains a data management systemon all reported petroleum and hazardous material spills. Anindication of the magnitude of the problem is the number ofspills that occur each year. The Priority Waterbodies List(PWL) contains information from the Spill Response database pertaining to spills and leaks affecting water quality. Over 12,000 petroleum spills and more than 600hazardous material spills are reported each year. Themajority of the spills have been either underground or tothe land surface. Only 10% of the spills drained directly tosurface water. The 1998 PWL does not containgroundwater segments. NYS DOH maintains a list ofclosed municipal wells. The Division of Water willincorporate groundwater information into a Priority AquiferList (PAL), as described in Chapter III.
The effect that a particular spill or leak has depends on itsproximity to wells or to a surface waterbody, the type ofpollutant, and the geology of an area. Petroleum productsmost often cause contamination of shallower wells whilethe more mobile chlorinated solvents can cause problemsin deeper municipal water supply wells. The mostimportant problem areas are in aquifer recharge areaswhere high storage tank density and high dependency onshallower groundwater coincide.
b. Existing Programs
(See Table V-8 below).
There are several different efforts that have been takingplace and will continue to take place in the process ofimplementing the bulk storage regulations. These generallycan be categorized as education and enforcement.
Education
1. Tank Bulletin
The Bureau of Spill Prevention and Response (BSPR)publishes the “Tank Bulletin”, a newsletter that is mailed toowners/operators of facilities that are registered under thePBS, CBS and MOSF program. This newsletter providesinformation needed to be in compliance with the regulationsincluding deadlines, updates on requirements and evensome information on what we find acceptable to meet therequirements of the regulations.
2. Seminars
Staff from BSPR serve as speakers at numerousworkshops and seminars throughout the year. In addition,as the need dictates, they also schedule and sponsortheir own workshops to provide the necessary informationto the regulated public.
3. Compliance Initiative
BSPR completed a special project in 1997 to send a sitespecific letter to each of the facilities that are regulated bythe federal UST program detailing exactly what is neededto be in compliance with the 1998 upgrading deadline. Inaddition, a seminar was also offered at which all of therequirements were detailed as well as the various optionsthat can be used to be in compliance. There wereapproximately 12,500 facilities that received letters.
V-57
Enforcement
4. Inspections
Each year regional spill prevention staff inspect numerousfacilities for compliance with the regulations. The goal isto inspect every petroleum facility at least once every 5years, and every MOSF annually. The inspection normallybegins as an educational effort and, if necessary to achievecompliance, moves to a legal enforcement case.
c. Implementation Steps
Spills, leaks and accidents continue to cause water qualityproblems in New York. However, programs to effectivelyregulate these sources do exist and the water qualityproblems caused by this category are being minimized.One area where further control efforts were consideredwas the protection of critical watersheds from hazardousmaterials. Rather than having two sets of standards,stricter uniform statewide requirements were establishedto protect the environment regardless of location.
1. BSPR should continue working with other stateand local agencies (DOH, Regional PlanningBoards, and counties) to inventory and mappetroleum and chemical storage facilities withinimportant aquifer areas. This will help identifypotential problem areas for local government. GISalso helps coordinate with other utility andtransportation activities.
2. Communities should be encouraged to holdcleanup/disposal days for pesticides and otherhazardous chemicals. These cleanup days shouldbe held in conjunction with an educational programto make homeowners aware of the damage whichcan be caused by improper disposal of hazardouschemicals.
3. In setting DEC’s bulk storage inspection andenforcement priorities, BSPR in conjunction withother DEC staff will recognize the importance ofprimary water supply aquifers.
V-58
Table V-8
Programs/Activities to Implement Nonpoint Source Management for Leaks, Spills and Accidents
(Programs with Names in Italics Are New since 1990)
Program NameLead Agency
(Others Involved)
Pollutant
Categories
Type of Program;
Geographic Coverage
Audience;
GoalStatus
1996 Amendments toFederal Safe DrinkingWater Act
NYS DOH,
(NYSDEC’s Division ofWater and other Divisions, federal and local gov’t.representatives)
Toxics/HazardousSubstances,Pathogens,(regulateddrinking watercontaminants)
Planning;
Statewide
State, local governments, water suppliers,public, other states where source waterscross state lines;
To develop a basis for management andprotection of source areas for publicwater systems.
Source Water AssessmentProgram planning has begun.Work Plan due to EPA in Feb.1999; Assessments completedby 2001.
Clean Water StateRevolving Fund
EFC/DEC All Financial Incentives;
Statewide
Municipalities; To provide financialassistance for planning, design andconstruction of publicly-owned projectsthat prevent, reduce or remediate NPSpollution.
Ongoing; funds are availablefor subsidized low-interestloans for 100 percent ofproject cost.
Chemical Bulk Storage NYSDEC’s Division ofEnvironmentalRemediation,
(May eventually bedelegated to counties)
Toxics/HazardousSubstances
Regulatory;
Statewide
Owners and operators of USTs andASTs that store chemicals listed in Part597 of CBS regulations;
Prevention by leak detection, tankinspection, facility upgrading and newconstruction standards.
As of 1998, there are almost2,000 facilities with over 6,400t a n k s r e g i s t e r e d .Approximately 53% of USTsare corrosion resistant.
Continuing EducationCourses
SUNY College ofEnvironmental Science andForestry
Toxics/HazardousSubstances(Petroleum)
Outreach and TechnicalTraining;
Statewide
Owners/operators of USTs and ASTs,and other handlers of hazardoussubstances;
To prevent pollution by improvingmanagement of oil and gas brines,hazardous waste handling and emergencyresponse.
Classes arranged with SUNY-ESF on a need/demand andavailability basis.
Drinking Water StateRevolving Fund
DOH/EFC All Financial Incentives;
Statewide
Community water systems, bothpublicly and privately owned, and non-profit, non-community water systems.To provide financial assistance forplanning, design and construction ofeligible water system projects. Includesfunding of land purchase or conservationeasements for source water protection forwellheads or watersheds.
Ongoing; funds are availablefor subsidized low-interestloans for up to 100 percent ofproject costs. Grants may beavailable for qualif iedapplicants with demonstratedfinancial hardship.
Program NameLead Agency
(Others Involved)
Pollutant
Categories
Type of Program;
Geographic Coverage
Audience;
GoalStatus
V-59
Health & Safety Training NYSDEC’s Division ofEnvironmentalRemediation
Toxics/HazardousSubstances(Petroleum)
Outreach and TechnicalTraining;
Statewide
300 DEC field staff;
To ensure employee safety and fullOSHA compliance through education.
Active program with over 20components.
Major Oil StorageFacilities
NYSDEC’s Division ofEnvironmentalRemediation
Toxics/HazardousSubstances(Petroleum)
Regulatory;
Statewide
Owners and operators of USTs andASTs that store petroleum, and vesselsstoring and transporting oil;
Prevention by requiring leak detection,tank inspection, and setting standards fornew construction.
As of 1998, there were 244facilities licensed withapproximately 5000 tanks.Approximately 61% of theUSTs are corrosion resistant.
221 vessels were also licensed.
Petroleum Bulk Storage NYSDEC’s Division ofEnvironmentalRemediation, (4 delegatedcounties Cortland, Nassau,Rockland and Suffolk, fifthcounty expected in 1998)
Toxics/HazardousSubstances(Petroleum)
Regulatory;
Statewide
Owners/operators of USTs & ASTs thatstore petroleum products;
Prevention by requiring leak detection,tank inspection, and setting standards fornew construction.
As of 1998, there are nearly40,000 facilities registered with88,000 tanks. Approximately59% of USTs are corrosionresistant.
Spill Prevention,Containment and CounterMeasures (SPCC)
US EPA
(NYSDEC’s Division ofEnvironmentalRemediation)
Toxics/HazardousSubstances(Petroleum)
Regulatory;
National
Owners and operators of above groundstorage tanks (ASTs);
To prevent leaks and spills from reachingnavigable waters by requiring SPCC plandevelopment.
Regulations in effect since1973.
Spill Response Program NYSDEC’s Division ofEnvironmentalRemediation
Toxics/HazardousSubstances(Petroleum)
Regulatory,Implementation (directgovernment action);
Statewide
Responsible parties;
To require spiller to clean up spill, orstate hires contractor if spiller unknownor uncooperative, or unable (Stateinitiates legal action against spiller torecoup costs.)
8,630 responses in 1997.
Underground StorageTank (UST)
USEPA
(NYSDEC’s Division ofEnvironmentalRemediation)
Toxics/HazardousSubstances(Petroleum)
Regulatory;
National
Owners/operators of USTs;
To prevent leaks and spills by requiringleak detection, facility upgrading, andsetting standards for new construction.
As of 1997 there are 33,000tanks registered with DEC.Approximately 59% of USTsare corrosion resistant.
UST & AST Education NYSDEC’s Division ofEnvironmentalRemediation
Toxics/HazardousSubstances(Petroleum)
Technical Training;
Statewide
Owners/operators of USTs & ASTs;
To teach about UST and ASTregulations.
Continuous training classes -25 to 35 per year.
V-60
9. Marinas and Recreational Boating
a. Source Description
The NYS Department of Environmental Conservationdoes not consider marinas to be significant sources ofnonpoint source pollutants. However, this sourcecategory has been added to this update of theManagement Program because of the proximity tocoastal waters of any and all nonpoint pollutantsgenerated by boats or marina operations. Numerousstudies in coastal waters (Nationwide Urban RunoffProgram [NURP], Long Island Sound Study, PeconicNational Estuary Program, 208 Areawide WasteTreatment Management study, etc.) have shownmarinas and boating have minimal environmentalimpacts compared to other nonpoint sources.
The Priority Waterbodies List (PWL) does not listmarinas as a source, however, it does appear severaltimes in the “other” source category. Marinas arelisted as the primary cause of less than ten seasonalshellfishing closures, and as a secondary cause of lessthan ten more, all in the Long Island Sound basin.Another marina is listed as the possible source ofpetroleum leaks or spills to a tributary of ChautauquaLake listed as threatened. There are three segmentswhere marina waters are stressed by problemsresulting from other source categories.
Boating has increased in popularity as New York’scoastal areas and locations near inland water bodieshave become more developed. Because marina andboating activities take place on the shoreline ordirectly on the water they have the potential foradversely impacting water quality.
Water quality problems in this category can resultfrom a variety of sources:
C Lack of storm water runoff controls
C Improper boat maintenance and repairpractices
C Fueling vessels can pose a risk of releasingpetroleum products directly into the water
C Untreated or poorly treated sewage;improperly handled liquid and solid wastes
C Inadequate shoreline stabilization
C Stagnant water
b. Existing Programs
(See Table V-9 below.)
Many of the activities and potential pollution sourcesassociated with marinas and recreational boatingactivity are presently covered under various laws andregulatory programs. For example, the former StateOffice of Business Permits and RegulatoryAssistance found that, depending on the location andservices provided, a marina facility in New York mayhave to obtain over 60 permits and licenses tooperate. Over 20 of these permits are administered bythe DEC and are related to environmental programs.DEC’s Division of Environmental Permits conductsmeetings of the Ad Hoc Marina Advisory Committeeto address current issues with several state agencies,marina associations, and marina owners andoperators. The following table (V-9) contains apartial listing of several existing programs that addressmarina NPS pollution.
c. Implementation Steps
1. NYSDEC and partner agencies should use theManagement Practice Catalogue for Marinas toencourage impementation or installation ofrecommended practices.
2. Based on the November 18, 1997, finalconditional approval of New York’s CoastalNonpoint Pollution Control Program by EPA andNOAA, DEC and DOS will have two years toachieve stormwater runoff management at newand expanding marinas, and at existing marinasfor at least the hull maintenance areas.
V-61
Table V-9
Programs/Activities to Implement Nonpoint Source Management for Marinas and Recreational Boating
(Programs with Names in Italics Are New since 1990)
Program NameLead Agency,
(Others Involved)
Pollutant
Categories
Type of Program;
Geographic Coverage
Audience;
GoalStatus
Ad Hoc MarinaAdvisory Committee
DEC’s Division ofEnvironmental Permits,
(NYSG, ESMTA, DECDivisions of F,W & MR, andWater, DOS and others)
Sediment, Waterlevel or flowvariation, Toxics,Nutrients, Pathogens
Outreach;
Statewide
Marina owners and operators, and boaters;
To exchange information and discusschanges to regulatory programs andpermits, and other boating or marina issuesin the planning stage.
NYSDEC convenes the committee two tothree times per year, or as needed. It ischaired by the Division of EnvironmentalPermits’ Chief Permit Administator.
Clean Water StateRevolving Fund
EFC/DEC All Financial Incentives;
Statewide
Municipalities; To provide financialassistance for planning, design andconstruction of publicly-owned projects thatprevent, reduce or remediate NPS pollution.
Ongoing; funds are available for subsidizedlow-interest loans for 100 percent of projectcost.
Commercial PesticideApplicatorsCertification
DEC’s Division of Solid andHazardous Materials,
(Cornell CooperativeExtension, ESMTA)
Toxics (Pesticides) Outreach (Education),Technical Training,Regulatory;
Statewide
Marina operators, certified pesticideapplicators and applicants.
(Applicants must have 3 yrs. experienceprior to exams.);
Improve technical and legal literacy ofpesticide users.
1997: 6,815 persons trained and 1,306courses held statewide.
35,917 active certified applicants mustrecertifiy every 6 yrs., by testing or training.Of these, 661 certify under section 7h, anti-fouling paints.
Drinking Water StateRevolving Fund
DOH/EFC All Financial Incentives;
Statewide
Community water systems, both publiclyand privately owned, and non-profit, non-community water systems. To providefinancial assistance for planning, design andconstruction of eligible water systemprojects. Includes funding of land purchaseor conservation easements for source waterprotection for wellheads or watersheds.
Ongoing; funds are available for subsidizedlow-interest loans for up to 100 percent ofproject costs. Grants may be available forqualified applicants with demonstratedfinancial hardship.
Empire State MarineTrade Association Self-Education
Empire State Marine TradeAssociation (ESMTA)
Sediment, Waterlevel or flowvariation, Toxics,Nutrients, Pathogens
Outreach;
NY’s marine districtand Great Lakes
Marina owners and operators;
To encourage environmental responsibilityand safety, and provide regulatory andbusiness information through education.
The Empire State Marine Trade Associationis a member of the NYSDEC Ad Hoc MarinaAdvisory Committee.
Freshwater Wetlands DEC’s Division of Fish,Wildlife, and MarineResources, (APA, U.S. ArmyCorp of Engineers)
Sediment, Waterlevel or flowvariation, Toxics,Pathogens
Regulatory;
Statewide withdelegation ofAdirondack Park toAPA
Boaters, and marina owners and operators;
To preserve/protect freshwater wetlandsgreater than 12.4 acres, any of unusuallocal importance, and adjacent areas within100 feet.
Regulations effective since September 1,1975.
(1996) DEC reviewed and issued 933permits.
Program NameLead Agency,
(Others Involved)
Pollutant
Categories
Type of Program;
Geographic Coverage
Audience;
GoalStatus
V-62
Marine SanitationDevice (MSD)Discharge Enforcement
US Coast Guard,
(USEPA)
Pathogens,
Oil and Grease(Petroleum), Toxics/HazardousSubstances
Outreach, Regulatory;
Federal NavigableWaters
Boaters;
To eliminate untreated overboarddischarges.
Since 1980.
New York Sea GrantOutreach Programs
New York Sea Grant Extension(NYSG), (CCE)
Sediment, Waterlevel or flowvariation, Toxics,Nutrients, Pathogens
Outreach;
Statewide
Boaters, and marina owners and operators;
To encourage environmental responsibilitythrough education
NYSG is a member of the NYSDEC Ad HocMarina Advisory Committee.
No Discharge ZoneEnforcement
NYS DEC
(Local law enforcementagencies)
Pathogens,
Oil and Grease(Petroleum), Toxics/HazardousSubstances
Outreach, Regulatory;
Waters of New YorkState
Boaters and marina owners and operators;
To eliminate treated overboard dischargeswithin the NDZ and provide adequatetransfer and pump-out facilities.Untreated discharges are alreadyprohibited within three miles from shore.
1998: 2 NDZs in the coastal zone - Lloyd-Huntington, and Mamaroneck Harbors;several inland on L. Champlain, L. George,Skaneateles and Owasco Lakes; and 60 milesof the Hudson R. is an EPA-designatedDrinking Water Intake Zone.
NY Clean Vessel ActProgram
NYSDEC’s Division of Fish,Wildlife, and MarineResources, with grantsadministered by EnvironmentalFacilities Corp.,
(USFWS, NYSeaGrant)
Pathogens, Nutrients Financial Incentive,Technical Assistance,Outreach;
NY coastal areas
Boaters, municipal officials, marinaowners and operators;
To fund sanitary pump-out facilities forvessels and dump stations for portabletoilets at marinas. Marinas on inlandwaters are not eligible for the grantprogram.
As of 1998 funds have been distributed tomore than 200 marinas;
Approximately $200,000 is remaining untildepleted or end of program (9/30/99).
SPDES Stormwater Program
DEC’s Division of Water, (USEPA)
Sediment, Waterlevel or flowvariation, Toxics,Nutrients, Pathogens
Regulatory;
Statewide
Marina owners and operators;
To control the discharge of pollutants tostate waters from stormwater (GP-93-05)and industrial stormwater. There are nomarinas with industrial permits.
There are 72 facilities listed under StandardIndustrial Classification (SIC) Code 4493(marinas) that have coverage under the generalpermit.
Tidal Wetlands DEC’s Division of Fish,Wildlife, and MarineResources, (U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers, Dept. of State)
Sediment, Waterlevel or flowvariation, Toxics,Pathogens
Regulatory;
Long Island, NYC,Westchester andRockland Counties.
Boaters, and marina owners and operators;
To preserve/protect wetlands now orformerly connected to tidal waters, andadjacent areas within 300 feet.
Regulations effective since January 16, 1991.
V-63
10. Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems
a. Source Description
Individual onsite wastewater treatment systems(OWTS) are an essential component of approximately1.5 million residential homes throughout New YorkState. In addition to serving much of New York’sresidential population, OWTS are also the method ofwastewater treatment for numerous commercial andinstitutional facilities wherever public sewers are notavailable. When properly designed, installed andmaintained OWTS have little impact on water quality.However, failing systems or older systems notconstructed in conformance with current designstandards are likely to result in impaired surface andground waters.
In general, properly functioning OWTS are capable ofnear complete renovation of individual systemwastewater before the effluent enters the groundwater at the zone of soil saturation. Wastewatertreatment by OWTS is limited by their capacity toeffectively remove nitrogen and, in very porous soils,pathogens.
The 1998 Priority Waterbodies List (PWL) identifiesnearly 150 segments (entire waterbodies ordesignated reaches or portions of a waterbody) in thestate impacted primarily by on-site wastewatertreatment systems (OWTS). More than 220 listOWTS as a secondary source. OWTS rank fourth intotal PWL segments affected. The majority arestressed and threatened segments, but there are about40 precluded and impaired segments where OWTSare the primary source.
Domestic and commercial wastewater contains amyriad of pollutants. These pollutants may includebiodegradable organics (resulting in a biochemicaloxygen demand, BOD), pathogens, nutrients (i.e.,ammonia and phosphorus), inorganic compounds,metals and surfactants to varying degrees. OWTStreat and ultimately dispose of renovated wastewaterthrough a combination of biological, chemical andphysical processes.
OWTS are documented as problems for surfacewater bodies, but are also considered to be a threatfor groundwater. For streams, the problems involvethe lack of systems or failing systems within streamside hamlets. For lakes, dwellings along the shorelinecan contribute excess nutrients which cause weedand algal problems. Excess nutrients can also causedrinking water supplies to exceed federal waterquality standards for parameters such as color anddissolved oxygen. The most common threat togroundwater from on-site systems is degradation ofindividual water supplies by bacteria and/or nitrates.There is also a concern that new high densitydevelopment or development with inadequate systemswill result in contamination of surface or groundwater.
The authority for control of OWTS is based on NewYork’s Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) andthe Public Health Law (PHL). A Memorandum ofUnderstanding (MOU) established in 1984 betweenthe DEC and DOH defines the responsibilities forregulating OWTS in New York State. The DOHpromulgates the minimum statewide standards for thedesign and construction of new individual householdOWTS. New individual household OWTS mustconform with 10NYCRR Appendix 75-A, titledWastewater Treatment Standards - IndividualHousehold Systems. The New York State UniformFire Prevention and Building Code (Section 1250.4 of9NYCRR Part 1250) also lists Appendix 75-A as thegenerally accepted standard for individual sewagetreatment systems. The minimum statewidestandards for the design and construction ofcommercial, institutional and large residential OWTSis the DEC, Design Standards for WastewaterTreatment Works Intermediate Sized SewerageFacilities, 1988 edition. Some county healthdepartments, watershed protection agencies, NYCDEP, and the Adirondack Park Agency have adoptedmore stringent standards that apply to OWTSconstructed and operated in their jurisdictions.
In 1996, DEC began issuing SPDES General Permitsfor sanitary wastewater discharges to groundwater of1,000 to 10,000 gallons per day. Discharges tosurface water still require an individual SPDES permit
V-64
from DEC. NYSDOH continues to regulate sanitarywastewater discharges to groundwater from systemswith a design volume of less than 1,000 gallons perday.
In May 1997, the NYCDEP promulgated regulationsfor the City’s Catskill-Delaware and Croton WaterSupply Watersheds that include standards forindividual and commercial septic systems, and theauthority to enforce those standards. The designstandards are consistent with state requirements,however the NYCDEP’s siting standards are in somecases more stringent than the state’s. Except incounties which have signed delegation agreements,NYCDEP review and approval is required for newsystems. In all counties, NYCDEP review andapproval is required for modifications to orreplacements of existing systems, excluding routinerepairs. The regulations also require that failingsystems be upgraded to meet the standards to thefullest extent possible. The regulatory requirementand design standards will be strictly enforced.Further, the New York City Watershed Agreement,of which the regulations are a part, provide fundingfor a pump-out program for failing systems,infrastructure improvements (including construction ofcommunity septic systems and extensions of sanitarysewers), and septic system rehabilitations andreplacements.
Appendix 75-A classifies OWTS as conventional oralternative treatment systems. Conventional systemsmay be used at sites with adequate in-situ soil depthand percolation. Sites that are not suitable forconventional treatment systems because ofinsufficient soil or percolation may be candidates foran alternative treatment system. Alternative systemsrequire more elaborate designs and constructiontechniques to assure proper treatment of sewage. Inorder to disseminate information on both types ofsystems, NYS DOH hosted six two-day workshops in1994 for environmental health employees, designprofessionals and code enforcement officials on thedesign and construction of OWTS. The workshopswere attended by more than 400 individuals.
In addition to regulating the design and installation ofnew OWTS, the ECL and the PHL provide for thereview of proposed wastewater treatment systemsfor realty subdivisions. As defined in the PHL, arealty subdivision is any tract of land divided into fiveor more lots of five acres or less and offered for sale,lease or rent in any consecutive three year period.Plans for realty subdivisions with lots served byOWTS must be reviewed and approved by the localhealth department having jurisdiction prior to the sale,rent or lease of any subdivision lots. The PHLrequires community sewerage for realty subdivisionscomprising 50 or more lots, or where in-situ soilconditions are not amenable to conventional onsitewastewater treatment.
OWTS have an average useful lifespan of 25 yearswhen used continuously and regularly maintained.OWTS that have reached the end of their useful lifemay begin to exhibit symptoms of failure. Thesesymptoms may include household plumbing backups,sluggish drains, sewage on the surface of the ground,or excessive algal growth in nearby watercourses.The PHL also empowers local boards of health toenforce state and local sanitary codes. Local boardsof health are responsible for investigating nuisancecomplaints concerning failed OWTS. Local boards ofhealth can issue orders for the abatement andcorrection of failed OWTS under Part 8 of the StateSanitary Code.
b. Existing Programs
(See Table V-10 below.)
Programs to control pollution from this source operateprimarily at the state level. More stringent regional,county and local programs exist to address uniquelocal concerns. The existing programs employregulatory and educational approaches as theirprimary tools.
V-65
c. Implementation Steps
1. Model sanitary code requirements forindividual OWTS should continue to beimplemented on a local level. Countieswhose codes do not meet or exceed therequirements of the provisions should beencouraged to adopt such.
2. Programs should be developed to provide formore frequent inspection of septic systemsand septic tank pumping. Alternatives suchas creation of wastewater managementdistricts, local watershed authorities andimplementation of self-help programs shouldbe considered.
3. Existing enforcement authority should beused to require corrective actions by personscausing water quality problems due toinadequate on-site wastewater systems.Priorities should be established based on thePriority Waterbodies List (PWL), andappropriate inventories of groundwaterproblems.
4. Propose legislation so that financial incentiveprograms, such as the New York State CleanWater Revolving Fund (CWSRF), can beexpanded to assist property owners infinancing the construction of new orrehabilitated OWTS.
5. Foster interagency and financial institutionefforts to identify potential methods forfinancing replacements of failing OWTSwhere such replacements would result infinancial hardship to system owners. Thisinformation could then be made available tosystem owners.
6. Demonstration projects should be used toillustrate new methods for solving theproblems caused by failing on-site systems.Alternatives to conventional collection
systems and treatment plants should bestudied. Projects using methods such ascluster systems that collect sewage fromsmall-lot residences and distribute it to nearbysites with suitable soil should be encouraged.
7. Further develop educational programs tomake the public aware of water qualityimpacts resulting from improperly functioningor maintained OWTS.
8. Re-examine the DEC/DOH MOU regardingOWTS regulatory responsibility in order toincrease the role of local health departmentsfor regulating commercial and institutionalOWTS.
9. Funding options for local health departmentadministration of a commercial andinstitutional OWTS program should bedeveloped.
10.The 1988 DEC Design Standards forWastewater Treatment Works IntermediateSized Sewerage Facilities should be updatedto include recent technology advances and toprovide consistency with DOH standards.
11.Based on the November 18, 1997, finalconditional approval of New York’s CoastalNonpoint Pollution Control Program by EPAand NOAA, DEC and DOS will have threeyears to address:
a) OWTS issues impacting nitrogenlimited waters.
b) Inspection of operating systems.
V-66
Table V-10
Programs/Activities to Implement Nonpoint Source Management for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems
(Programs with Names in Italics Are New since 1990)
Program NameLead Agency
(Others Involved)
Pollutant
Categories
Type of Program;
Geographic CoverageAudience; Goal Status
Adirondack Park LocalGovernment Assistance
Adirondack ParkAgency,participatingmunicipalities
Pathogens andNutrients.
Technical Assistance,Outreach;
Adirondack Park
Municipalities within the Park;T o delegate OWTS standards protectiveof pristine waterbodies.
1996 new model ordinance developed foradoption by municipalities.
Adirondack Park PermitProgram
Adirondack ParkAgency
Pathogens andNutrients.
Regulatory;
Adirondack Park
Individuals and some subdivisions;Protection of pristine waters withregulations more stringent than Part 75-A.
Since 1970. Vertical separation to groundwateror bedrock 2' more than 75A. Horizontalseparation (setbacks) for highly permeable soils100' more than 75A.
Clean Water StateRevolving Fund
EFC/DEC All Financial Incentives;
Statewide
Municipalities; To provide financialassistance for planning, design andconstruction of publicly-owned projectsthat prevent, reduce or remediate NPSpollution.
Ongoing; funds are available for subsidized low-interest loans for 100 percent of project cost.
Drinking Water StateRevolving Fund
DOH/EFC All Financial Incentives;
Statewide
Community water systems, both publiclyand privately owned, and non-profit,non-community water systems. Toprovide financial assistance for planning,design and construction of eligible watersystem projects. Includes funding of landpurchase or conservation easements forsource water protection for wellheads orwatersheds.
Ongoing; funds are available for subsidized low-interest loans for up to 100 percent of projectcosts. Grants may be available for qualifiedapplicants with demonstrated financial hardship.
Individual Septic SystemProgram
NYC DEP(Delegated Counties)
Pathogens,Nutrients,Oxygen demand(BOD5),Metals, andSurfactants,with an emphasison nutrients andpathogens.
Regulatory, FinancialIncentive, Implemen-tation, TechnicalAssistance;
~ 2,000 sq. miles in 8counties. IncludesCatskills, Lower Hudsonand Delaware Watersheds.
Watershed residents and municipalities;T o design, operate and replace OWTSaccording to new regulations - morestringent than 75A.
May 1, 1997 - DEP issued final Watershed Rulesand Regulations for NYC’s drinking water supplywatershed. DEP programs include inspection ofexisting systems, upgrading or replacement offailing systems, and funding for a pump-outprogram and for various infrastructureimprovements.
Keuka Lake WatershedOWTS Permit Program
Keuka WatershedImprovementCooperative(KWIC)
Pathogens,Nutrients,Oxygen demand(BOD5),Metals, andSurfactants.
Regulatory;
Keuka LakeWatershed Towns
All OWTS owners;T o require inspection and permittingevery two years and replace or repairfailing or non-conforming systems.
1993 - KWIC formed by intermunicipalagreement.
Program NameLead Agency
(Others Involved)
Pollutant
Categories
Type of Program;
Geographic CoverageAudience; Goal Status
V-67
Local Plan Review andConstruction Inspection
County HealthDepartments, DOHDistrict Offices,SWCDs, NYCDepartment ofBuildings.
Pathogens,Nutrients,Oxygen demand(BOD5),Metals, andSurfactants.
Outreach, Regulatory,Technical Assistance;
County or multi-countyregion.
Residential homes, commercial andinstitutional systems, subdivisions of 5-49lots;T o fulfill MOAs with NYS DEC, and toassure the design, construction andmaintenance of OWTS meet statestandards through design approval and siteinspections.
Program operates under same laws and regulationsas the Residential Sanitation program (see below)and uses the same design references plus thefollowing: -NYSDEC:Design Standards for WastewaterTreatment Works-1988-Intermediate SizedSewerage Facilities-Individual County Sanitary Codes
Nonpoint SourceImplementation GrantProgram
NYS DEC’s Divisionof Water - Bureau ofWatershedManagement
Pathogens,Nutrients,Oxygen demand(BOD5),Metals, andSurfactants.
Financial Incentive;
Statewide
Municipalities;T o reduce, abate, control, or preventnonpoint source pollution from OWTSeffluent through watershed-baseda s s e s s m e n t s , e d u c a t i o n , a n dimplementation of BMPs.
The Nonpoint Source Implementation GrantsProgram providing funding for a total of 7 onsitewastewater pollution control projects in 1994-95and 1995-96. An additional 4 onsite wastewaterpollution control projects were funded with the1996-97 grants announced in May of 1997.
Residential Sanitation NYS DOH, Bureauof CommunitySanitation and FoodProtection
Pathogens,Nutrients,Oxygen demand(BOD5),Metals, andSurfactants.
Regulatory,Implementation, Outreach,Technical Assistance;
Statewide
Individual household OWTS and facilitiespermitted through DOH regulations up to10,000 gpd; T o assure design, construc-tion andmaintainance of OWTS meet statestandards through design approval, sitei n s p e c t i o n s , a n d e d u c a t i o n a lpresentations.
Ongoing. 10NYCRR Part 75: “Standards forIndividual Water Supply and Individual SewageTreatment Systems” December 1990: NYS DOH promulgated arevised Appendix 75-A: Wastewater TreatmentStandards - Individual Household Systems. June 1996: DOH published companion guidanceto regulations:Individual Residential Wastewater TreatmentSystems Design Handbook.
Sanitary CodeEnforcement Program
Cayuga CountyDepartment ofHealth, (SWCDs)
Pathogens,Nutrients,Oxygen demand(BOD5),Metals, andSurfactants
Regulatory, Technical Assistance;
Countywide.
All septic system owners;T o require inspection, permitting,pumping, repair, or replacement everyfive years.
1994 - New county sanitary code enacted. Morestringent than Part 75-A.
State Pollutant DischargeElimination System(SPDES)
NYS DEC;Bureau of WaterPermits
Pathogens,Nutrients,Oxygen demand(BOD5),Metals, andSurfactants.
Regulatory;
Statewide
All commercial/ institutional OWTS, andresidential OWTS with daily design flow>1,000 gallons/day;T o issue permits to OWTS designed tostate standards.
1995. DEC began use of General SPDES permitsfor OWTS with design flows >1,000 - 10,000 gpdto groundwater. Certification of constructionaccording to 1988 DEC standards is required.New OWTS requiring SPDES permits must beconstructed under the supervision of the designprofessional of record.
Statewide OWTS Outreach Cornell CooperativeExtension, CornellUniversity
Pathogens,Nutrients,Oxygen demand(BOD5),Metals, andSurfactants.
Outreach,Technical Assistance;
Statewide
County CCE agents, general public,service and design professionals;T o provide instruction and researchresults to assist in improving OWTSdesign, construction, maintenance andoperation.
1995 - 1 day OWTS Teleconference forProfessionals.1996 - On-Site Sewage Treatment System video.1997 - Statewide OWTS education program usingvideos and materials developed by CornellUniversity for CCE county agents and interestedpublics.
V-68
11. Resource Extraction/Exploration/ Development
a. Source Description
The category of resource extraction includes bothmining and the production of oil, natural gas andsolution-mined salt. Sand and gravel productionaccounts for 85% of the mining activity in New YorkState. Oil production occurs only in the southwesternportion of the state, whereas natural gas productionand solution salt mining occur in both western andcentral New York.
Sand and gravel mining is the most extensive form ofresource extraction performed across New YorkState. Operations conducted in and near streams havethe greatest potential to affect water quality. Themajor pollutant associated with sand and gravel miningis escaping sediment. Mined Land Use Plans formining and reclamation include extensive designs forerosion control and revegetation of the site. These arerequired by permit for the extraction of minerals fromthe ground and for the removal of sand and gravelfrom protected streams classified "C(T)" or higher(trout streams). At all permitted mining operations,erosion and sedimentation control options areimplemented to ensure that excessive runoff does notoccur. Recommended manage-ment practices (suchas settling ponds and stabilizing active faces) should beimplemented as soon as practical. Wherever possible,removal of sand and gravel from navigable waters issubject to the same constraints.
Removal of sand and gravel deposits from the bed andbanks of a stream can cause significant problems if notdone in accordance with an approved Mined Land UsePlan and stream disturbance permit. However, thereare some exemptions to the stream permit programincluding Department of Transportation activities andactions by any local governments having amemorandum of understanding with DEC. Theseexemptions remain a problem area regarding theDepartment’s authority over mining practices. Thepresent system of MOUs between DEC and the local
agencies that remove the gravel needs to bestrengthened.
The NYSDEC Priority Waterbodies List (PWL)includes only six waterbodies that cite sedimentdischarges related to gravel mining operations orinstream sand and gravel removal as contributing towater use impairment. These segments list the fisheryas being affected or threatened by excessive sedimentin the stream. However, in each of these cases thegravel removal operations are listed as “possible”sources, indicating that further confirmation of thesource of the impairment is necessary. Other streamdisturbances and natural streambank erosion are alsocited as possible sources of excessive sediment.
Only one segment on the PWL lists metals mining asa source. Mine drainage from a local zinc mine wasidentified as the source of zinc in Turnpike Creek.Water quality studies, although a decade old, foundhigh levels of zinc in the water, sediment andmacroinvertebrate tissue and some ambient toxicity.However, recent fish surveys show the fishery to benonimpacted. As a result of the conflictingassessments, the creek is listed as a “threatened”waterbody and additional monitoring is recommended.
When impairments from oil and gas production orsolution mining occur they are usually the result ofoperational problems such as leaking fluid flow lines,wellhead connections, or tanks. Other operationalproblems that can be minor sources of nonpoint sourcepollution include accidental seepage loss of drilling andcompletion fluids and spillage of oil or brine.Management practices to prevent water qualitydegradation are required by regulations and permitconditions. These management practices include sitingrestrictions, casing and cementing of wells, lining ofdrill pits, diking of production tanks, timely sitereclamation and drilling pit closure, and timely pluggingof wells. Compliance with regulations and permitconditions pertaining to resource extraction wells isenforced at new and existing sites where responsibleowners are known to the DEC and held accountable
V-69
for monitoring and maintaining the condition of wellsand other equipment on-site and for final plugging andreclamation. Furthermore, since 1974, most wellowners have been required by statute to maintainfinancial security against the cost of plugging theirwells. Unfortunate;y, over 4,000 pre-1974 grand-fathered, marginally protected wells remain whichhave not been plugged and for which no financialsecurity is held. In addition, the statutory financialsecurity amounts established in 1984 throughnegotiation s between the legislature and the regulatedcommunity are often insufficient to cover actual wellplugging liabilities because of the maximum dollarlimitations.
Old abandoned and improperly plugged wells are alsoa potential source of pollution, particularly in thecentury-old oilfields of southwestern New York. TheDivision of Mineral Resources estimates that as manyas 40,000 wells drilled since the mid-1800's were eithernever plugged or were plugged using methods thatwould not be considered adequate by today’sstandards. No management practices are in use atthese old, abandoned wells. Leaks from long-abandoned, unmonitored wells could impair local watersupplies. Investigating and plugging wells found to beleaking is the only effective management practice forpreventing fluid migration and protecting groundwaterat these wells where the integrity of pipe and cementbelow ground is no longer being monitored ormaintained. State funds are insufficient to implementa comprehensive program to routinely locate and plugold, abandoned wells; therefore, only a small numberof “emergency” wells have been plugged, and no wellshave been plugged since 1994.
The Division of Mineral Resources has focused onpreventing additional well abandonments throughimplementation of programs to enhance operators’compliance with requirements to report well statusannually, to maintain financial security against wellplugging costs, and to demonstrate good cause formaintaining unplugged wells in shut-in (or inactive)status. Vigilance in enforcing these requirements isbecoming increasingly important as over 1500 gas
wells drilled between 1975 and 1980 are expected toreach their economic limit within the next 10 years.When the wells are no longer economically viable toproduce, they must all be properly plugged to avoidpotential surface or subsurface fluid leakage.Ownership of these wells is distributed among manysmall operators, and the state does not hold sufficientsecurity to cover well plugging costs even for thoseoperators in compliance with the financial securitystatute.
Three stream segments are on the 1996 PWL becauseof problems related to oil and gas well fields in theAllegheny and Genesee River Basins. Fishing, fishsurvival and water supply are the impaired, stressed orthreatened uses.
b. Existing Programs
(See Table V-11 below.)
Existing programs which address this source operateat the state level. Federal and state laws regulatethese sources. Most of the programs identified inTable V-11 are operated by DEC.
c. Implementation Steps
Existing programs appear to have adequate authorityto control this source from an operational standpoint.However, the effectiveness of existing programs isdependent upon allocation of adequate resources toaggressively enforce statutory and regulatoryrequirements. Furthermore, the existing statute for oil,gas and solution mining does not allow the Division ofMineral Resources to require financial security forhigher risk pre-1974 wells. For post-1974 wells,financial security is required but in amounts that maynot be commensurate with actual well plugging costs.Changes are recommended to ensure continuedeffectiveness based on projected future needs.
V-70
1. The Division of Mineral Resources shouldwork with industry and local governments todevelop and implement a comprehensiveprogram that ensures timely plugging by theresponsible owner of every well that is nolonger economically viable or is creating anenvironmental hazard.
2. The Stream Protection Permit Program shouldinclude provisions requiring local governmentsto obtain permits for the mining of sand andgravel from stream beds and banks of streamsclassified C or higher through modification ofArticle 15, Title 5, of the EnvironmentalConservation Law.
3. The statutory requirement for well owners tomaintain financial security should be updatedto reflect actual plugging costs, and togradually un-grandfather pre-1974 wells.
V-71
Table V-11
Programs/Activities to Implement Nonpoint Source Management for Resource Extraction
(Programs with Names in Italics Are New since 1990)
Program NameLead Agency
(Others Involved)
Pollutant
Categories
Type of Program;
Geographic CoverageAudience; Goal Status
Clean Water StateRevolving Fund
EFC/DEC All Financial Incentives;
Statewide
Municipalities; To provide financial assistancefor planning, design and construction ofpublicly-owned projects that prevent, reduce orremediate NPS pollution.
Ongoing; funds are availablefor subsidized low-interestloans for 100 percent ofproject cost.
Drinking Water StateRevolving Fund
DOH/EFC All Financial Incentives;
Statewide
Community water systems, both publicly andprivately owned, and non-profit, non-communitywater systems. To provide financial assistance forplanning, design and construction of eligible watersystem projects. Includes funding of land purchaseor conservation easements for source waterprotection for wellheads or watersheds.
Ongoing; funds are available forsubsidized low-interest loans forup to 100 percent of projectcosts. Grants may be availablefor qualified applicants withdemonstrated financial hardship.
Brine TankInspection Program
NYS DEC’s Divisionof Mineral Resources
Salt (brine) Regulatory(inspection);
DEC Region 9
Owners of brine tanks at oil and gas well sites;
Remediation of tanks to prevent potential leaksand spills.
As of June 1998, over 900tanks inspected and problemsidentified at 16%. Ownersnotified and remediation inprogress.
Mined LandReclamation PlanningAssistance
USDA - NRCS,
Soil & WaterConservation Districts
Sediment Technical Assistance;
Statewide
Municipalities and farmers with gravel pits;
To provide assistance in preparing plans forreclaiming former sand and gravel operation sites.
Five SWCDs providedassistance in 1997.
Mined LandReclamationRegulatory Program
NYS DEC’s Divisionof Mineral Resources
Sediment Regulatory (permits);
Statewide
Any operator mining more than 1000 tons ofmaterials during 12 consecutive months;
Reclamation of affected lands and return toproductive use via mined land use plans: erosioncontrol, revegetation, settling ponds andstabilization of active faces.
Over 45,000 acres affected bymining at 2,470 active mines asof June 15, 1998.
Program NameLead Agency
(Others Involved)
Pollutant
Categories
Type of Program;
Geographic CoverageAudience; Goal Status
V-72
Oil and Gas Account NYS DEC’s Divisionof Mineral Resources
Hydrocarbonsand Salt (brine)
Implementation (directgovernment action);
Statewide
Abandoned, leaking wells with no identifiableresponsible owner;
To prevent surface fluid leakage and subsurfacefluid migration into groundwater aquifers.
$141,000 in Account as ofMay 1998. No wells pluggedsince 1994.
Oil, Gas & SolutionMining RegulatoryProgram
NYS DEC’s Divisionof Mineral Resources
Hydrocarbonsand Salt (brine)
Regulatory (permits);
Statewide
Any operator who owns or drills wells of any depthfor oil, gas, gas storage or solution salt mining, orwells deeper than 500 feet for brine disposal,production of geothermal resources, orstratigraphic evaluation;T o prevent waste, provide for greater ultimaterecovery, protect the environment and correlativerights.
Over 11,500 unplugged wellsreported in 1997.
State PollutantDischargeElimination System(SPDES)
NYS DEC’s Divisionof Water, Bureau ofWater Permits
Hydrocarbonsand Salt (brine)
Regulatory (permits);
Statewide
Surface dischargers;
To minimize discharge of pollutants based onassimilative capacity of the receiving waterbody.
Groundwater discharges;
Groundwater effluent limits/standards must bemet; only brine discharges to deep wellspermitted.
One central office permit for agas storage facility. Severalregional permits for brinedischarges to surface waters.
As of mid-1998, groundwaterdischarge permits issued or underreview for six of seven EPA-permitted facilities. Oneexpired.
Stream ProtectionPermit Program
NYSDEC’s Division ofFish, Wildlife, &Marine Resources,Adirondack ParkAgency
Sediment Regulatory (permits);
Statewide
Any person modifying or disturbing the channelor bed of a stream (classified C(T) or higher)through the removal of sand and gravel (exceptDOT and local governments with MOUs withDEC);
To preserve fish habitat within the stream.
Regulations revised in 1994;reviewed and issued 5112permits in 1996 (DEC).
US EPAUndergroundInjection Control(UIC) Program
US EPA Region II Hydrocarbonsand Salt (brine)
Regulatory (permits);
National
All operators of injection wells used for brinedisposal, waterflooding and solution mining;
To protect Underground Sources of drinkingwater.
Seven brine disposal wellpermits, 554 waterfloodinjection wells, and fivesolution mining facilities with135 active and stand-by wellsreported in 1997.
V-73
12. Roadway and Right-of-Way (ROW)Maintenance
a. Source Description
Maintenance of highways, local roads, bridges,roadsides, and rights-of-way contributes pollutantsto the waters of the State throughout all seasons.The most commonly contributing sources of NPSpollution from roadway and ROW maintenanceactivities are identified in PWL as storage andapplication of deicing materials (sand and salt) andsediment from roadbank erosion. A working grouprepresenting different agencies, formed fordeveloping the Roadway and ROW MaintenanceManagement Practices Catalogue, identified othersources of problems associated with roadwaysand rights-of-way such as ditch maintenance,bridge painting and washing, control of vegetativegrowth, dust and debris.
Unvegetated roadsides, roadbanks and stripped orreshaped ditches along state, county and localroads can contribute significant sediment duringspring runoff. This problem is frequently notidentified in inventories such as the PWL due tothe intermittent nature of this source. Ditchmaintenance is very important in the drainage ofroads. All road ditches should provide adequatedrainage of runoff, but to protect water quality,practices should be employed to assure minimalerosion. Establishing vegetative cover immediatelyafter clearing and reshaping of road ditches in thefall can reduce erosion during spring runoff.
Road salt if improperly stored can causecontamination of groundwater. The primary effectof improper salt storage is to make groundwaterunsuitable for drinking. While the chloride whichenters wells is not considered a major public healthrisk, it can result in an objectionable taste in the
water. High levels of sodium, however, can posehealth risks. Shallow individual wells are morefrequently affected by salt contamination thandeeper municipal wells. Application of salt isregarded as a potential problem in many areas.
The threat to groundwater quality from the use ofdeicing compounds is considered far lesssignificant than the threat from improper saltstorage. However, the use of deicing agents aswell as sand spreading on highways during thewinter can cause water quality problems in surfacewaters. Storage or application of deicing agentsare listed in 1998 PWL as primary source ofimpairment on over 50 segments and as secondarysource of problems on about 70 more. Roadsanding has caused sediment deposition along anumber of streams in the Adirondack Mountainsarea as well as in other areas of the state. Thesediment which enters streams as a result of thissource adversely impacts fish propagation andsurvival.
For the management of the utility corridors, it isimportant to the utility companies to keep thegrowth of the vegetation under the high-voltagewires below a certain height. Herbicides are veryoften applied for control of vegetation in utilityROW. Excessive or improper use of herbicidescan result in the transport of contaminants byrunoff to the surface water. Where a right-of-waycrosses the surface water, every attempt should bemade to avoid contamination of the water orwetland by drifting herbicide.
During bridge maintenance, such as bridgewashing or bridge painting, there is a risk oftransport of toxic metals and other substancescontained in the paint residuals to surface waterand wetlands. Bridge painting includes surfacepreparation, grinding and sanding which createpaint chips and dust. Bridge washing can also
V-74
generate loose paint and flakes. To minimize thedelivery of residuals these operations need to beconducted under circumstances that all theresidues are contained on the site.Among other issues concerning NPS pollutionloading from roadway and ROW are theapplication of dust suppressants and littering.Some of the material used for dust control onunpaved roads have adverse impact on waterquality.
b. Existing Programs
(See Table V-12 below.)
c. Implementation Steps
1. Encourage research projects that explorethe impacts of salt and sand applicationalong highways.
2. Encourage the implementation of BMPsthat reduce the erosion due tomaintenance of roadbanks and roadditches.
3. Develop a technology transfer program toeducate localities and highwaysuperintendents on the maintenance ofroadway/ROW (i.e. Statewide or regionalseminars on roadway maintenanceincluding discussion of roadwaymaintenance issues, BMPs, newtechniques, and studies.)
4. Based on the November 18, 1997, finalconditional approval of New York’sCoastal Nonpoint Pollution ControlProgram by EPA and NOAA, DEC andDOS will have one year to develop astrategy to address nonpoint source issuesfor local roads, including a program toevaluate backup authorities.
V-75
Table V-12
Programs/Activities to Implement Nonpoint Source Management for Roadway and R-O-W Maintenance
(Programs with names in italics are new since 1990)
Program NameLead Agency
(Others Involved)
Pollutant
Categories
Type of Program;
Geographic Coverage Audience; Goal
Status
Clean Water StateRevolving Fund
EFC/DEC All Financial Incentives;
Statewide
Municipalities; To provide financial assistancefor planning, design and construction ofpublicly-owned projects that prevent, reduceor remediate NPS pollution.
Ongoing; funds areavailable for subsidizedlow-interest loans for100 percent of projectcost.
Cornell Local RoadsProgram
Cornell University,NYS SWCC, SWCDs
Salt, Sediment,Nutrients
Outreach, TechnicalAssistance;
Statewide
Local highway agencies, contractors;To educate local officials and contractors onroadway issues including impacts on waterquality.
Training sessions heldperiodically.
Critical area protection NYS DEC, SWCD,DPW, localmunicipalities
Sediment, Nutrients Technical Assistance, Implementation;Selected sites
Town / County Highway Superintendents;T o pursue & implement stabilization ofcritical areas.
As needs are identified.
DOT Adopt a HighwayProgram
NYS DOT Any (primarilyFloatables)
Outreach, Implementation;
Statewide
All citizens of the state;
To educate and encourage citizens to keepthe roads clean of debris.
Ongoing
Drinking Water StateRevolving Fund
DOH/EFC All Financial Incentives;
Statewide
Community water systems, both publicly andprivately owned, and non-profit, non-community water systems. To providefinancial assistance for planning, design andconstruction of eligible water system projects.Includes funding of land purchase orconservation easements for source waterprotection for wellheads or watersheds.
Ongoing; funds areavailable for subsidizedlow-interest loans for upto 100 percent ofproject costs. Grantsmay be available forqualified applicants withdemonstrated financialhardship.
Nonpoint SourceImplementation GrantProgram
NYS DEC’s Division ofWater - Bureau ofWatershed Management
(SWCDs)
Salt, Sediment Financial Incentive,
(Technical Assistance bySWCDs);
Statewide
Municipalities;
To reduce, abate, control, or preventnonpoint source pollution from roadwayand R-O-W maintenance activities throughwatershed-based assessments, education,and implementation of BMPs.
Provided funding for atotal of 8 projects inthis category in 1994-95and 1995-96. Anadditional 22 projects(including 19 salt storageprojects) were fundedwith the 1996-97 grants.
Program NameLead Agency
(Others Involved)
Pollutant
Categories
Type of Program;
Geographic Coverage Audience; Goal
Status
V-76
Snow Disposal andStorage and Use ofWinter HighwayMaintenance Materials
NYCDEP Chloride Compounds Regulatory, FinancialIncentive;
Within the NYC WaterSupply Watersheds (2,000sq. miles)
Watershed residents; state, county andmunicipal governments; and commercial,industrial and institutional entities;
To protect water supply by meetingfiltration avoidance criteria.
January 21, 1997:Watershed Memor-andum of Agreementsigned.
May 1997: RevisedN Y C W a t e r s h e dRegulations becameeffective.
SystemwideManagement Plans
Public ServiceCommission
Toxics (Pesticide),Sediment
Regulatory;
Statewide
Franchised electric utilities;
To control activities in environmentallysensitive areas.
Ongoing, 7 plans (anannual update isrequired).
Various Seminars SWCD, Cornell Co.Ext., WQCC
Salt, Sediment,Nutrients
Outreach;
Region, County, State
Local highway agencies, contractors;
To educate local officials and contractors onNPS issues.
As needs are iden-tified.
V-77
13. Silviculture
a. Source Description
Forests cover 18.6 million acres of New YorkState, roughly 62 percent of the entire land area,and are the dominant land use. Of the state’s 18.6million acres of forestland, the US Forest Servicecategorizes 15.4 million acres as “timberland”.Timberland is defined as “forest land producingcrops of industrial wood (more than 20 cubic feetper acre per year) and not withdrawn from timberutilization”. Most of the difference lies in theAdirondack and Catskill Forest Preserves wheretimber harvesting is prohibited by the StateConstitution.
New York’s forests are diverse, but predominantlyhardwood with northern hardwoods (sugar maple,red maple, black cherry, white ash, yellow birchand beech) along with oaks the major species andforest types. Some softwood plantations (spruce,pine, larch) are found especially in Central NewYork with natural stands of spruce-fir and whitepine in the north.
These forests are primarily second-growth. Theyarose following decades of land clearing foragriculture and extensive harvesting for pulp,charcoal, wood chemicals and lumber productionwhich left New York only 25% forested at the turnof the century. Since then, the forests haveregenerated and reinhabited abandoned farmlands,showing steady increases in acreage and volume.Forest management practices throughout thiscentury have generally favored uneven-agedmanagement regimes using selective harvesting oftrees to maintain continuous forest cover whileremoving mature trees and creating small openingsto initiate or release regeneration. Northernhardwood ecology, and New York’s climate andsoils favor natural regeneration, which is usuallyabundant.
Silviculture is the application of scientific principlesand knowledge to the management andmanipulation of forest stands for the purposes ofharvesting crops, regenerating the forest, improvingforest health and quality and maintaining desiredspecies of trees in stands of suitable structure.Timber harvesting is the primary silviculturalpractice which can lead to site disturbance and thepotential risk of water quality impacts. It isestimated that commercial timber harvestingoccurs on approximately 1% of the timberland inNew York each year primarily for pulpwood,sawtimber, veneer and firewood. Harvestingsurveys in New York have indicated thatapproximately half of all harvested sites havestreams, ponds or lakes on site. Other silviculturalactivities such as prescribed burning, timber standimprovement and the application of fertilizers,herbicides or pesticides are minor and are notconsidered to be water quality threats in NewYork.
Sediment is the principal potential water qualitypollutant associated with harvesting and is causedmost frequently by erosion from improperlydesigned or located log roads, skid trails orlandings. Surveys have indicated that skid trails,roads and landings on conventional timberharvesting sites generally cover about 10-15% ofthe total logged area. Sediment can move to waterbodies where it can reduce the penetration ofsunlight and may settle to adversely affect fishspawning areas. Sediment can shorten the life ofwater impoundments and add to drinking watertreatment costs. (Soil erosion is also a potentialsite productivity concern as it affects the ability tosupport future stands of trees or other vegetation.)In addition, removal of significant numbers of treesalong streams (the riparian zone) can raise ambientstream water temperatures adversely affectingsome species of fish and other aquatic life. Finally,poorly designed or installed stream crossings mayincrease streambank erosion and occasionallydisrupt stream ecology.
V-78
Timber harvesting is an infrequent and dispersedactivity on most forest ownerships. Even extensivelymanaged lands are only harvested once every 10-15years, frequently using existing, well stabilized roadsfor access. More typically, sites are harvested onlonger rotations of once every 15-20 years to allowfor greater volume growth. Active harvesting andmovement of cut trees out of a timber sale may lastas little as a week or two to many months or more,depending on the size of the tract and the volume oftimber being removed. In any event, the disturbancescaused by skidding logs are relatively temporary andminor with roads, trails and landings frequentlynaturally re-colonized by native vegetation quitequickly. This natural regeneration helps stabilize siteand prevent continuing erosion and sedimentationproblems.
The 1998 PWL of over 1400 assessed segmentscontains five segments where silviculture is theprimary source of impact on a classified water use.There are about 40 segments where silviculture is asecondary source.
In July of 1995, the NY State Departments of Stateand Environmental Conservation jointly submitted aCoastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program to EPAand NOAA, pursuant to the Coastal Zone ActReauthorization Amendments of 1990. EPA andNOAA granted an exclusion for forestry activitiesbased on demonstration of no significant impact offorestry on coastal water quality due to existingprograms and nature and extent of forestry activities.
b. Existing Programs
(See Table V-13 below.)
c. Implementation Steps
The existing efforts to control this source, whichuse technology transfer, education and promotionas the primary control options, appear to beadequate. Additional funding to allow forexpansion of these programs to reach additionallandowners and harvesters is a primary need.
1. A research project is being initiated overthe coming years to evaluate silviculturalBMP application and effectiveness invarious regions of NY. Additional fundingis needed to expand this study statewideand provide current data concerningprogram effectiveness and identify anyareas for potential improvement.
2. Cost-sharing for installation of certainBMP’s has proven an effective means toensure their use but funding for theseprograms waned. Additional fundstargeted to sensitive sites and costlypractices, such as bridges, wouldencourage greater application ofsilvicultural BMP’s.
3. A field guide version of the DECNonpoint Source Catalogue on Silvicultureis being done by DEC’s Division of Landsand Forests in cooperation with partneragencies in New York and in severalother States.
V-79
Table V-13
Programs/Activities to Implement Nonpoint Source Management for Silviculture
(Programs with Names in Italics Are New since 1990)
Program NameLead Agency
(Others Involved)
Pollutant
Categories
Type of Program;
Geographic CoverageAudience; Goal Status
ConservationPlanning
Soil & Water ConservationDistricts, USDA NRCS, StateSoil & Water ConservationCommittee
Sediment,Toxics(herbicides/pesticides)Nutrients(fertilizers)Oil (petroleum)
Technical Assistance,Outreach, FinancialIncentives;
Statewide
Farmers;
Increase use of BMP’s to protect waterquality during silvicultural operations onfarms
MOU between DEC and State S&WCCommittee and adopted by all SWCD’s calls forDistrict to recommend use of professionalforestry assistance and BMP’s to farmersinvolved in timber harvesting
ContinuingEducation Programs
various including SUNY-CESF,Cornell CE, PSC, NYSAF
Sediment,Toxics(herbicides/pesticides)Nutrients(fertilizers)Oil (petroleum)
Technical Training,Outreach;
Statewide
Professional foresters, timber harvesters, forestindustries(secondary: forest landowners, localgovernments);Reduce water quality impacts from timberharvesting, use of professional forestmanagement expertise, encourage sustainableforest management
Regular training sessions provided
CooperatingConsulting ForesterProgram
NYS DEC’s Division of Landsand Forests
(NY Institute of ConsultingForesters is a cooperator)
Sediment,Toxics(herbicides/pesticides)Nutrients(fertilizers)Oil (petroleum)
Technical Assistance,Outreach;
Statewide
Consulting foresters (secondary: all forestlandowners, timber harvesters, forestindustries);Reduce water quality impacts from timberharvesting, use of professional forestmanagement expertise, encourage sustainableforest management
Over 90 consulting firms participate
Regular training sessions and meetings held betweenDEC and cooperators
Cooperators promoted to landowners and directoryof cooperators maintained and distributed
Cooperating TimberHarvester Program
NYS DEC’s Division of Landsand Forests
(NYS Timber ProducersAssociation is co-sponsor)
Sediment,Toxics(herbicides/
pesticides)
Nutrients(fertilizers)
Oil (petroleum)
Technical Assistance,Technical Training, Outreach;
Statewide
Timber harvesters (secondary: forestlandowners, local governments, foresters,forest industries)
Reduce water quality impacts from timberharvesting by increasing use of BMP’s
Over 300 harvesting firms are enrolled in Program
Cooperators are randomly inspected forcompliance with program guidelines
Annual training meetings held in each Region forCTH cooperators
Cooperators promoted and directory ofCooperators maintained and distributed tolandowners
Program NameLead Agency
(Others Involved)
Pollutant
Categories
Type of Program;
Geographic CoverageAudience; Goal Status
V-80
DEC ForestProducts Utilization& Marketing(FPU&M) Program
NYS DEC’s Division of Landsand Forests
Sediment,Toxics(herbicides/
pesticides)
Nutrients(fertilizers)
Oil (petroleum)
Technical Assistance,Technical Training,Outreach;
Statewide
Timber harvesters (secondary: forestlandowners, foresters, forest industries);
Protect forest and water quality during forestmanagement operations, increase use oftimber harvesting Best Management Practices
DEC FPU&M serves as ex-officio on NY LoggerTraining Board of Directors, providing technicalresources, administrative assistance and programdevelopment input
DEC FPU&M provides direct, technicalassistance and information to timber harvestersregarding harvesting practices, stream crossings,water quality protection etc.
DEC FPU&M cooperates with Empire StateForest Products Association to identify forestindustry training and resource needs regardingimproved timber harvesting practices
DEC PrivateForestry AssistanceProgram
NYS DEC’s Division of Landsand Forests
Sediment,Toxics(herbicides/
pesticides)
Nutrients(fertilizers)
Oil (petroleum)
Technical Assistance,Technical Training, Outreach;
Statewide
Forest Landowners (secondary: timberharvesters, local governments, foresters,forest industries);
Promote forest stewardship and use ofprofessional foresters in management ofprivate forestlands; protect forest quality,health and productivity; increase use oftimber harvesting Best ManagementPractices; promote forestland retention
35 work years directed to Private ForestryAssistance this year.
75,000 acres of new private forest landmanagement plans targeted.
Information and education about timberharvesting BMP’s distributed to thousands ofcustomers.
NYC WatershedForestry Program
Watershed Ag Council, Inc.,
(NYCDEP, NYSDEC, NRCS,SWCDs, ESFPA, CFA, CCE)
Sediment,Toxics(herbicides/
pesticides)
Nutrients(fertilizers)
Oil (petroleum)
Technical Assistance,Outreach, Research,Financial Incentive;
NYC Water SupplyWatersheds
All forest landowners;
To reduce impacts from timber harvesting,promote retention of forest cover andsustainable forest management
Forestry Ad Hoc Task Force developedrecommendation (1994-6)
Watershed Agreement signed (1997)
Forestry Program Manager hired (1997)
Forestry Program and project funding of$500,000 allocated in Watershed Agreement
Program NameLead Agency
(Others Involved)
Pollutant
Categories
Type of Program;
Geographic CoverageAudience; Goal Status
V-81
NY Logger Training -Certified LoggerProgram
NY Logger Training, Inc.
(NYSTPA, NYSDEC, CCE,NELA, NYLTF, NYSFI,SUNY-CESF)
Sediment,Toxics(herbicides/
pesticides)
Nutrients(fertilizers)
Oil (petroleum)
Technical Training,Outreach;
Statewide
Timber harvesters (secondary: forestlandowners, foresters, forest industries);
Protect forest and water quality during forestmanagement operations, increase use oftimber harvesting Best Management Practices
NY Logger Training Inc. formed
Board of Directors selected (comprised primarilyof active timber harvesters)
Core curriculum and training certificationprogram developed
Courses presented across the State with totalparticipation approaching 2,000
Over 200 individuals have received TrainedLogger Certification to date
Curriculum review and modifications underway
Continuing ed courses and expanded BMPworkshops being developed
NY SustainableForestry Initiative
Empire State Forest ProductsAssociation
(AF&PA is National sponsor)
Sediment,Toxics(herbicides/
pesticides)
Nutrients(fertilizers)
Oil (petroleum)
Outreach, TechnicalTraining;
Statewide
NY forest products industries (secondary:forest landowners, state & localgovernments, general public);
Promote sustainable forestry, sustain allforest values, promote production of forestproducts, protect forest and water qualitythrough promotion and use of silviculturalbest management practices
NYSFI Implementation Committee formed
Regional forums held to provide non-AF&PAmember companies with information on SFI
Baseline industry performance data gathered viaindustry survey
SFI support directed to NY Logger Trainingprogram
Protection of WatersProgram; Article 15,Title 5, ECL,6NYCRR Part 608
NYSDEC’s Division ofEnvironmental Permits
Sediment,Toxics(herbicides/pesticides)Nutrients(fertilizers)Oil (petroleum)
Regulatory;
Statewide
Landowners and industries;
Protect water quality and prevent undesirableactivities on water bodies
Permit and project review program in place
Streams and water bodies classified forregulatory purposes
Enforcement pursued by law enforcement andjudiciary
V-82
14. Urban Runoff
a. Source Description
Storm water runoff from urban and suburbanareas poses a serious threat to the waterresources of New York State. In fact, there isevidence to indicate that developed-area runoffmay be as harmful to water quality as municipal orindustrial waste discharges in certain cases. Thedeveloped-area runoff problem is not entirelylimited to water quality. Urbanization also has aprofound influence upon the hydrologiccharacteristics of watersheds which may lead toproblems ranging from flooding to reduction instream base flow during periods of dry weather. Urban runoff is a combination of point sources andnonpoint sources. (A comparison of point andnonpoint sources is given in Chapter I.A.) Thepoint sources such as storm sewers or combinedsewer overflows (CSOs discussed below) can beaddressed through end-of-pipe controls. Nonpointsources are those from which storm runoff flowsdirectly into a waterbody. Point sources are oftenregulated by permits, whereas nonpoint sourcesare usually controlled through the application ofbest management practices (BMPs). BMPs forurban runoff are classified in two groups: thosethat address pervious surfaces and those thataddress impervious surfaces. The general typesof practices in each group are shown in Table I-2.Appendix B lists all management practices forurban and storm water runoff.
In practice, it is not feasible to entirely distinguishpoint from nonpoint sources of urban runoff. Evenwhen stormwater runoff eventually reaches acollection system, and so could be considered apoint source, the best treatment method willfrequently be the application of BMPs whichabate the runoff and the pollutants it containsbefore it reaches a collection system.
Based on the 1998 Priority Waterbodies List(PWL), New York’s estuaries and coastal bays,and to a lesser degree, rivers, streams, and lakes,are all affected by pollutants from urban runoff.Pollutants vary in size, solubility and toxicity.Among the significant pollutants found in urbansettings are sediment from construction activities,combustion products (such as oxides of nitrogenand sulfur), nutrients from fertilizer, pesticides, de-icing compounds, heavy metals, pathogens,roadway construction asphalts and vehicularhydrocarbons and hydraulic fluids. Thesepollutants accumulate rapidly on impervioussurfaces and are easily washed off during runoffevents. Atmospheric deposition is a major sourceof pollutants in urban areas. The Long IslandSound Study research found that atmosphericpollution may contribute as much as 14.3% of thenonpoint nitrogen enrichment to Long Island Sound(nitrogen enrichment is the cause of severesummertime hypoxia problems in the Sound).
While no single factor is responsible for theprogressive degradation of urban streamecosystems, increasing impervious area is thelargest factor. Degradation results from thecumulative effect of this and other factors such assedimentation, scouring, increased flooding, lowersummer flows, higher water temperatures,rechannelization and point source pollution.
Urbanization often will increase the peak flows instreams and reduce the time it takes for the peakto occur. This will tend to increase flooding andresult in scouring and sedimentation. Urban runoffcan also alter the natural stream temperatureregime. Factors which contribute to this increasein temperature include runoff passing over theheated urban landscape, fewer trees present toshade streams, and runoff stored in shallow pondsbeing heated between storms then released in arapid pulse. The large percentage of imperviousarea associated with urbanization
V-83
reduces infiltration, which can affect groundwaterrecharge and base flows. When sewers replaceseptic systems, the wastewater that previouslyrecharged the groundwater and maintained baseflows of local streams is redirected to thewastewater treatment plant.
Storm water runoff from urban areas canadversely impact the fisheries, aesthetics andrecreational use of lakes, streams and estuaries.Lakes and reservoirs that serve as a water supplyfor municipal and domestic consumption can alsobe affected by urban storm water runoff resultingin increased treatment costs. Of particularconcern are nutrients, toxic materials and organicsubstances such as pesticides, heavy metals,pathogenic organisms, oxygen demandingsubstances and sediment which are picked up inurban storm water. Marine waters are affectedby toxic pollutants and pathogenic organisms,resulting in the closure of both shellfish harvestareas and beaches.
While the majority of the segments impaired byurban runoff identified in the 1989 assessmentwere in the Atlantic-Long Island Sound Basin, thethree Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP)studies done in New York State (1983) suggestthat urban runoff problems are more widespreadthan the 1988 Priority Water Problems (PWP)List indicated, and would occur in most of theheavily developed areas of the state. This wasconfirmed by the number of problems presented atthe county meetings held prior to the 1990Nonpoint Source Management Programdevelopment, and the increased number ofsegments on the 1993 PWP List and 1998 PWL.The NURP studies demonstrated that storm waterrunoff from urban areas is responsible forsignificant pollutant loading from developing (anddeveloped) areas in the state. Vast expanses ofimpervious surfaces in urbanizing areas haveresulted in increased runoff, increased watertemperatures and lower base flows. Thesefactors have combined to degrade fisheries habitatin many of the state's urban waterbodies.
The 1998 Priority Waterbodies List (PWL)identifies about 200 segments in the state impactedprimarily by urban storm water runoff. Another200 list urban runoff as a secondary source. Ofthe 200 segments identified on the PWL as beingprimarily impaired by urban runoff, half are in theAtlantic Ocean-Long Island Sound Basin. Manyof the segments are bays in the heavily developedL.I. Sound watershed. Runoff carrying coliformbacteria is reported as the primary cause forclosures of numerous shellfish beds in SuffolkCounty.
In addition to urban runoff, 36 segments list CSOsas their primary source of impairment and 24 liststorm sewers. CSOs are a secondary source ofimpairment for 48 segments, and 69 segments liststorm sewers as a secondary source. CSOs andstorm sewers are point sources, but convey thesame pollutants from some of the same sources,and cause the same water quality problems, asnonpoint urban runoff.
Combined Sewer Overflows
Most of the larger cities in New York and some ofthe smaller cities have combined sewer systemsthat collect sanitary sewage and storm water inthe same system of pipes. The treatment facilitiesand pumping stations that are part of thesesystems are usually designed to accommodate acertain maximum flow, which is normally two tothree times the average dry weather flow.Therefore, during rainstorms and snow meltswhen that flow is exceeded in the system, therewill be untreated discharges (overflows) of amixture of sanitary sewage and storm water. Thiscombined sewage which is not treated, containsbacteria, suspended solids, etc., and may alsocontain some untreated or pretreated industrialwastes. These discharges can and do have asevere impact on water quality, particularly nearlarge urbanized areas such as New York City.
CSOs are permitted through the State PollutantDischarge Elimination System (SPDES) in
V-84
conjunction with municipal permits. As of early1997, there are 90 SPDES permits with CSOdischarges in New York. Of these, 75 arepublicly owned treatment works. The total numberof CSO discharge points is about 1300. From anational perspective, New York has ten percent ofthe total CSO problems and needs. At the statelevel, there are permitted CSOs statewide excepton Long Island. The abatement needs aredominated by NYC (nearly $6 billion) by a factorof 10,000 over Buffalo and the Niagara Frontier($581 thousand). The Syracuse and Rochesterareas follow with needs in the hundreds ofthousands; and there are lesser needs in the otherareas of the state.
Control of Stormwater Discharges
NPDES (SPDES) Permit Program
The 1972 amendments to the Federal WaterPollution Control Act (referred to as the CleanWater Act), prohibit the discharge of any pollutantto navigable waters from a point source unless thedischarge is authorized by a National PollutantDischarge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.NYSDEC administers the NPDES program withinNew York State. Efforts to improve water qualityunder the NPDES program have traditionallyfocused on reducing pollutants in discharges ofindustrial process wastewater and municipalsewage.
Since enactment of the 1972 amendments to theClean Water Act, significant progress has beenmade in cleaning up industrial process wastewaterand municipal sewage. Continuing improvementsare expected for these discharges as the NPDESprogram continues to shift to toxic and waterquality-based pollution control. With the vastimprovements in pollution control of point sourcedischarges it became evident that more diffusesources (occurring over a wide area) of waterpollution, such as urban runoff, were also a majorcause of water quality problems.
In 1973, EPA promulgated its first stormwaterregulations which exempted urban runoff if it wasnot contaminated by industrial or commercialactivity. Because of the intermittent, variable andunpredictable nature of stormwater discharges,EPA reasoned that the problems caused by stormwater discharges were better managed at the locallevel through nonpoint source controls such as theimposition of specific management practices toprevent the pollutants from entering the runoff.
As a result of legal challenges and comments fromvarious municipalities around the country, theNPDES regulations evolved until the EPApromulgated the final Phase I storm waterregulations on November 16, 1990. Thisregulation established requirements for the stormwater permit application process. In 1993,NYSDEC adopted two General Permits for thecontrol of Stormwater Discharges. As of April1998, 1348 applications or Notices of Intent havebeen filed under the Construction Permit, and 1674under the Industrial General Permit.
On January 9, 1998, the US EPA proposed newregulations for storm water permits which willincrease the scope of the permitting program.Facility coverage under the proposal includesconstruction sites greater than one acre. Theproposed regulations also would include expandedconditions for protecting endangered species andhistoric properties, and requirements for publicnotification and pollution prevention planperformance objectives.
While the proposed requirements will not imposea performance standard, EPA said it believesrequired storm water management measures willremove at least 80 percent of total suspendedsolids from construction site runoff. The agencysaid that by controlling total suspended solids themeasures, or practices, will also control otherpollutants, including heavy metals, oxygendemanding pollutants, and nutrients commonlyfound in stormwater discharges.
V-85
Like the existing permits, the proposed permits callfor sediment and erosion controls, storm watermanagement measures, and construction sitehousekeeping best management plans. In addition,EPA said permittees must develop and implementfour classes of controls in the pollution preventionplan. The first three include:
* Erosion and Sediment Controls * Stabilization Practices
* Structural Practices
to divert flows from exposed soils, store flows, orotherwise limit runoff and the discharge ofpollutants from exposed areas of the site. Siteswith more than 10 acres disturbed at one time andserved by a common drainage location will requirea temporary or permanent sediment basin.
EPA said it will require all permit applicants tofollow procedures to ensure protection of listedspecies and critical habitat. That requirement willextend to off-site area located in the path throughwhich contaminated point source stormwaterflows to the point of discharge into the receivingwater. EPA is soliciting comment on whether thescope of protection should be broadened toencompass listed species found on the entireconstruction site and not just those species found"in proximity" as currently defined.
There are basically three groups of activities thatwill be affected by the proposal:
(1) Phase I activities; (2) Construction activities disturbing be-
tween 1 and 5 acres; and(3) Small municipalities.
These are discussed in greater detail below.
The scope of activities covered by the NPDESregulations under Phase I will be unchanged.
There are, however, several impacts that theproposal will have on these existing eleven groupsof activities.
The permit exemption for industrial-type activitiesthat are operated by small municipalities willexpire. For example, storm water runoff fromPOTWs and construction activities for smallmunicipalities will need to obtain permitauthorization by August 7, 2001.
"Light industry" facility owners that previouslydidn't have to do anything if materials weren'texposed to storm water will have to providecertifications of "non-exposure" to NYS under theproposal. Non-exposure certifications will need tobe submitted for each permit term.
The proposal establishes a new section whichdeals with construction activities disturbing morethan 1 but less than 5 acres. Storm water runofffrom these activities will need a permit by May31, 2002 unless waived by the permitting authority(i.e. DEC).
There are potential waivers based uponcertifications to DEC where: (1) the "R" factor(soil erosivity factor) is less than 2; or (2) the soilloss will be less than 2 tons per year; or (3) wherestorm water controls are not needed based uponTMDLs and watershed plans. EPA estimates thatthere are 110,000 of these construction activitiesnationwide.
Small municipalities include roughly 225incorporated municipalities located within"urbanized areas" in NYS which are identified inthe proposal as "automatically" having to obtainpermits by May 31, 2002. In addition, all of theunlisted communities within the urbanized areamust be brought under a minimum program(described below). EPA also lists another 25municipalities (cities and villages) which, althoughlocated outside of an urbanized area, arepotentially subject to permitting under the
V-86
stormwater program by being designated by NewYork State because of their size (> 10,000) andpopulation density (> 1,000/square mile).
New York State will have to develop andimplement criteria and a process for designatingadditional municipalities for inclusion into thestormwater program. Candidates for designationinclude municipalities described in the previousparagraph, DOT, the NYS Thruway, correctionalfacilities, universities and military bases. NYS willalso need to consider inter-connected systems aswell as the possibility of public petitions fordesignating additional municipal candidates. Thedeadline for designation is May 31, 2002 or May31, 2004 where comprehensive watershed plansexist. Permits applications would be required 180days afterwards.
Some waivers would be possible provided that thesmall municipality is <1,000 people and there arewatershed plans where TMDLs address thepollutants of concern.
Permits for small municipalities would need to beissued by NYS by March 1, 2002 and wouldrequire programs which focus on six (6) minimumareas:
- public education and outreach
- public involvement/participation instormwater program development
- illicit discharge detection and elimination - construction site runoff control- post-construction stormwater manage-
ment control including redevelopment- pollution prevention for municipal
operations
The resulting local programs would becomprehensive and address a wide range ofactivities under the control of the municipality suchas industrial-type activities, construction, post-
construction needs, flood control, salt storage andsnow removal, fleet maintenance, parks and golfcourse management and sewer systemmaintenance to name just a few.
New York State will need to establish a list ofacceptable BMPs and small municipalities wouldhave to report annually to DEC on theirimplementation. Notices of Intent (NOIs) wouldbe submitted by May 31, 2002.
Currently, there is some stormwater work beingdone at the municipal level. The New York CityDepartment of Environmental Protection’sWatershed Protection and Partnership Programsinclude regulatory and funding components suchas sand/salt storage facility improvements, totalmaximum daily load (TMDL) assessments,nonpoint source controls, a phosphorus offset pilotproject, and stormwater mitigation all prescribed inregulations and the Watershed Agreement withwatershed towns.
Towns in Monroe County, including Pittsford andGreece, are requiring that stormwater quantity andquality be controlled. Also in Monroe County, theIrondequoit Watershed Collaborative (a coalitionof municipalities) is working to develop commonstormwater management design standards for usein the towns of the Irondequoit Creek watershed.
Municipalities within the Lake George drainagebasin have made significant progress withstormwater management. During the past 3-4years, a coalition of local governments, Stateagencies and special interest groups have useddonated time and in-kind services to implementseveral stormwater management projects thatotherwise would not be affordable.
b. Existing Programs
(See Table V-14 below.)
V-87
c. Implementation Steps
1. EPA should promulgate Phase II StormWater regulations. (Achieved: EPApublished final regulations in theDecember 8, 1999 Federal Register.)
2. Control of urban runoff in the State islargely a local prerogative at the presenttime. There are only a few counties in theState with programs that are effective inaddressing this pollution source. Thesecounty programs primarily deal with newdevelopment. Plans are reviewed toinsure that adequate controls areincorporated into designs to addressflooding and water pollution concerns.Also, many municipalities in the state haveadopted subdivision and site planregulations that have provisions whichrequire the review of drainage plans.However, there is a lack of consistencyamong municipalities in these efforts.Some require flooding concerns to beaddressed but do little or nothing towardwater quality concerns. In light of theseinadequacies and EPA’s Phase IIrequirements, New York needs to developa clearly defined statewide stormwatermanagement program to provide for theconsistent review of development plans.This program should include a review ofsubdivision and site plans to insure thatadequate stormwater runoff controls areto be installed.
3. The Phase II requirements should beincorporated and integrated into presentprograms administered by localgovernments which deal with land useissues. This would include the review ofdevelopment projects and the inspectionof stormwater control facilities both duringand after construction. Also, before anyrequired State permits are issued, anassessment of the long-term and
cumulative effects of urban runoff on thewatershed resulting from the developmentproject should be performed. Selection ofappropriate BMPs to prevent downstreamstormwater problems should beincorporated into the design.
4. EPA should pursue an amendment to theClean Water Act to allow Section 319 tofund the implementation of the Phase IIStorm Water Regulations.
5. Another problem is that most existingprograms consider only the effects of newdevelopment. There are presently fewinitiatives which address problems causedby runoff from existing development.Again, Phase II requirements will requirethat existing stormwater facilities beexamined periodically for illicit connections.DEC will develop a general permit requiringinspections of existing storm water facilitiesby each permitted municipality. Correction,through the use of appropriate BMPs, ofany problems that are discovered shouldhelp reduce pollution from existing sources.
6. Educational efforts are needed to makelocal officials and the public aware ofproblems associated with stormwater runoffand the need for its control. Phase IIrequires that communities which have stormsewers adopt an educational program tomake the public aware of the storm sewersand drains in their area and the importanceof the need to protect the collection systemfrom pollutants from oils, pesticides andother sources. Communities should beencouraged to adopt zoning control whichreduce the amount of impervious area. TheSEQRA process should be used to examinethe impacts of development on receivingwaters.
7. Research and demonstration projects tostudy treatment techniques, such as the use
V-88
of artificial wetlands to remove pollutantsfrom urban runoff, should be encouragedand funded.
8. Technical training efforts are needed tomake local officials aware of theimportance of maintaining storm watercontrol facilities. Actions such ascleaning catch basins and periodicremoval of sediment from recharge basinscould be included in a stormwatermanagement manual written to help themkeep facilities functioning properly.
9. DEC will research and proposetechnologies for CSO abatement. Publicsupport for cost-effective measures tocontrol CSOs is necessary for theirimplementation. New York City has aCitizens Advisory Committee and holdspublic meetings specifically on CSOs.
10. DEC will research and determine theneed for management practices for NPSpollution from large-scale recreationalfacilities such as golf courses and skiresorts.
11. Based on the November 18, 1997, finalconditional approval of New York’s CoastalNonpoint Pollution Control Program byEPA and NOAA, DEC and DOS will have:
a) two years to develop a strategy toassure watershed based managementto reduce generation of nonpointsource pollutants and mitigate impactsof urban runoff throughout the entire6217 management area.
b) two years to develop a strategy toassure reduction of surface waterrunoff pollutant loadings from all urbanareas and existing development areas.
c) three years to revise State UniformFire Prevention and Building Code toincorporate pollution management innew construction and recon-struction.
V-89
Table V-14Programs/Activities to Implement Nonpoint Source Management for Urban and Stormwater Runoff
(Programs with Names in Italics Are New since 1990)
Program NameLead Agencies
(Others Involved)Pollutant
CategoriesType of Program;
Geographic CoverageAudience; Goal Status
Clean Water State Revolving Fund EFC/DEC All Financial Incentives;
Statewide
Municipalities; To provide financialassistance for planning, design andconstruction of publicly-owned projectsthat prevent, reduce or remediate NPSpollution.
Ongoing; funds are available for subsidized low-interest loans for 100 percent of project cost.
County and/or Local LevelSubdivision and Development PlanReview
County and LocalPlanning Boards
All, primarilywater level orflow changes.
Technical Assistance;
Various Counties
Municipal officials and residents; T o incorporate stormwater managementobjectives into existing and new regulationswhich are consistent with Federal and Statestatutes and local laws.
Reviews being done in about half of NYS counties.
DOT’s Routine MaintenanceProgram
NYS Department ofTransportation
All, primarilysediment.
Implementation;
Statewide
NYS residents;To conduct street sweeping and catch basincleaning to reduce available pollutants.
Ongoing.
Drinking Water State RevolvingFund
DOH/EFC All Financial Incentives;
Statewide
Community water systems, both publiclyand privately owned, and non-profit, non-community water systems. To providefinancial assistance for planning, design andconstruction of eligible water systemprojects. Includes funding of land purchaseor conservation easements for source waterprotection for wellheads or watersheds.
Ongoing; funds are available for subsidized low-interest loans for up to 100 percent of projectcosts. Grants may be available for qualifiedapplicants with demonstrated financial hardship.
Flood Plain Management PermitsProgram
Local Communities(except where acceptableregulations not adopted)
All, primarilywater level orflow changes.
Regulatory;
Statewide
Builders, developers, landowners and localmunicipal officials; T o minimize flood losses by regulatingconstruction in flood prone areas.
1997: 1456 communities (cities, towns andvillages) in the state which regulate floodplaindevelopment via local laws which are compliantwith FEMA regulations. DOW monitors andassists those communities.
Lake George StormwaterManagement Program
Lake George ParkCommission
All, primarilywater level orflow changes.
Regulatory, Researchand Demonstration;
Lake George Watershed
Watershed residents; To limit runoff from new development topre-development quantity and controlquantity and quality of runoff from existingdevelopment.
1986: received authority to implement program;rules and regulations adopted; BMP cost-effectiveness study completed.1998: LGPC is assisting local governments withthe adoption of revised Stormwater Rules andRegulations.
Nonpoint Source ImplementationGrant Program
NYS DEC’s Division ofWater - Bureau ofWatershed Management
All Financial Incentive;
Statewide
Municipalities;T o reduce, abate, control, or preventnonpoint source pollution from urbanr u n o f f t h r o u g h w a t e r s h e d - b a s e dassessments, education, and implementationof BMPs.
Program provided funding for a total of 22 urbanrunoff pollution control projects in 1994-95 and1995-96. An additional 12 urban runoff pollutioncontrol projects will be funded with the 1996-97grants announced in May of 1997.
NYC Water Supply WatershedStormwater Control Program
NYC Department ofEnvironmentalProtection
All Regulatory, FinancialIncentive;
NYC’s Water SupplyWatersheds
Watershed residents; state, county andmunicipal governments; and commercial,industrial and institutional entities;
T o protect water supply by meetingfiltration avoidance criteria.
May 1997: NYC Watershed Regulations becameeffective.March 11, 1999: MOU on stormwater policiesand practices with DOT signed.Spring, 1999: Construction of stormwater BMPsplaced at Kensico Reservoir begun.
CHAPTER VI
WATERSHED PLANNING FOR THE CONTROL OF
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION
A. INTRODUCTION
There has been a gradual trend among countywater quality coordinating committees involvedwith BMP implementation towards prioritizingwatersheds for BMP implementation and thenassessing problems, needs and BMPimplementation priorities within the selected,priority watershed. Although there has been atendency in this direction, much remains to be donebefore it can be concluded that adequatewatershed planning for nonpoint sourceprogramming and BMP implementation are thenorm for the State.
The purpose of this chapter is to lay thegroundwork for ensuring that watershedassessment and planning is done in advance ofBMP implementation, i.e., the nonpoint sourceprogram is working toward a goal of funding onlythose implementation projects that have beenidentified as part of a watershed planning process.Furthermore, this chapter provides the context forestablishing planning teams for river basin planning,prioritizing watersheds for planning, and prioritizingnonpoint source implementation needs within apriority watershed. Finally, this chapter identifiesgroundwater planning and protection needs withinthe context of watershed planning and assessment.
B. THE PREFERRED APPROACH:WATERSHED PRIORITIZATION ANDP L A N N I N G B E F O R E B M PIMPLEMENTATION
Until recently, an approach that has commonlybeen adopted in terms of BMP implementation innumerous parts of the country is to simply identify
nonpoint source problems and obtain funds tocorrect the problems by installing or implementingBMPs. Frequently, this approach to BMPimplementation has been undertaken with littleregard to the watershed as a whole, to prioritiesamong point source and other nonpoint sourceproblems within the watershed, and with littleregard to priorities among watersheds. Under thisapproach, BMP implementation is usually done ona random basis. This is likely to result in fewmeasurable water quality improvements.
The preferred approach is to first prioritize andselect a watershed for nonpoint source planningand programming, then identify water qualityproblems, identify pollutant sources (i.e., point andnonpoint), establish water quality managementgoals and objectives, evaluate alternative waterquality management strategies, and establish pointand nonpoint source implementation prioritieswithin the watershed. After these steps havebeen taken, BMP implementation and evaluation ofeffectiveness can be undertaken. The preferredapproach requires that a watershed planningprocess be initiated prior to BMP implementation.
C. WHAT IS A WATERSHED?
A watershed is all the land area that contributeswater to a specific lake, river, ground water supplyor coastal estuary. For surface water, the highestground around a watershed forms its boundariesthat divide it from adjacent watersheds. Waterfalling within the watershed as precipitation flowsalong the surface of the ground, through the soil assubsurface drainage or as groundwater flow, andgathers at the lowest elevation in the watershed toform a stream, lake or wetland.
VI-2
Groundwater is all the water that has reached thezone of saturation below the ground’s surface.Because it is not readily visible, the movement ofgroundwater is difficult to understand. Although ittypically flows in the direction of surface water ina watershed, groundwater can move in directionsopposite to the flow in the watershed receivingprecipitation, into or under adjacent watersheds.
Pollution of surface or ground water within awatershed either comes from a discrete ‘pointsource’ such as a pipe, or a nonpoint source. Anonpoint source is an areawide source or manysources distributed diffusely which cumulativelycontribute to water quality degradation.
D. RIVER BASIN PLANNING
A river basin is a large watershed usually namedfor the river that drains it; for example, the HudsonRiver Basin or the Susquehanna River Basin.There are seventeen major river basins in NewYork State (see Table VI-1).
The DOW has historically implemented its waterquality programs at the river basin scale andbroader. Examples of this include: the Great Lakesas a group, which is the subject of the federal/stateGreat Lakes Initiative; the Lake Champlain BasinProgram which is a federal/state initiative; thedownstate Harbor/Estuary System, including NewYork - New Jersey Harbor, Long Island Sound,Peconic Estuary, South Shore Estuary, HudsonRiver Estuary, and the New York Bight, which arethe subject of the Comprehensive Conservation andManagement Plans adopted under the NationalEstuary Program; and the aquifer systems on LongIsland and upstate which are the subject of DEC’sadopted Groundwater Management Plans.
The river basin approach to water qualitymanagement notwithstanding, the DOW hasrecently reorganized its program orientation andstructure to more effectively provide for thedelivery of its services which include both waterquality and quantity management services, on a
watershed basis. This watershed planning andmanagement orientation and focus has placed theDivision in a well-grounded position to moreeffectively integrate and facilitate coordinationamong its programs to protect and enhancesurface and groundwater resources throughout theseventeen river basins. It is within a river basinplanning and management framework, that theDivision’s water quality programs should beorchestrated to:
C Identify surface and ground water qualityproblems in river basins (Bureau ofWatershed Assessment and Research).
C Determine existing and potential pollutantsin the river basins (Bureau of WatershedAssessment and Research, Bureau ofWatershed Management).
C Assess contributing sources within riverbasins (Bureau of Watershed Assessmentand Research, Bureau of WatershedManagement, Bureau of Flood Protection-GIS).
C Establish water quality management goalsand objectives for river basins (Bureau ofWatershed Research and Assessment,Bureau of Watershed Management).
C Determine needed pollutant reductions andprioritize critical delivery areas fortreatment in river basins (Bureau ofWatershed Assessment and Research,Bureau of Watershed Management).
C Identify and select appropriate managementstrategies to achieve needed pollutantreductions (Bureau of WatershedCompliance Programs, Bureau ofWatershed Management, Bureau of WaterPermits)
VI-3
C Prepare and implement, with availabletechnical and financial assistance,integrated river basin/groundwater qualitymanagement plans and monitor theresults (All bureaus have a role.).
Where the planning and management frameworkincludes an area of multiple basins (i.e., GreatLakes, NYC Watershed) or of special interest (L.I.Groundwater, NY Harbor Estuary), these sevencomponents of the watershed planning processshould still be followed and integrated into thebroader management plan.
E. RISK-BASED PLANNING
The Pollution Prevention Office has undertaken aComparative Risk Program for the Department toassist in strategic planning for its multi-mediapollution prevention program. This projectcombines scientific and technical input with publicvalues to identify stressors and evaluate andcharacterize the risks posed by them to humanhealth, ecosystems, and quality of life. Someexamples of the stressor categories that have beenselected include pesticides, VOCs, particulates,settleable solids, nutrients and metals. Although theoriginal focus of the project was industrial andother point sources, many of the identified stressorsare released to the environment from nonpointsources. The project will seek to prioritize the risksand evaluate their sources in order to developstrategies for risk reduction through pollutionprevention. The opportunity exists to develop NPSPollution Prevention strategies that would berecommended for implementation by NYSDEC.
F. THE PLANNING TEAM
It is within the river basin planning andmanagement framework described above that theDivision will initiate an ongoing planning process toprotect and enhance surface and groundwaterquality for each river basin in the State. For sucha planning process to be effective, there must beclose coordination and integration of applicable
federal, state and local programs. Accordingly, theDOW will initiate the river basin planning processby establishing a planning team initially consisting ofcentral office and regional staff. Planning teamswill undertake river basin planning by coordinatingamong various program units within the central andregional offices, and with other federal, state andlocal agencies, and with the public. Planningteams will be responsible for preparing river basinplans and facilitating plan implementation within theriver basin planning framework. The primary focusof river basin planning will be an ongoing, long-termcommitment to prevent pollution through multi-media pollution prevention programs, and toremediate existing pollution problems in river basinsby implementing the wide variety of BMPs andother treatment practices that are available tocontrol both point and nonpoint sources of pollution.
River basin planning teams will address the fullarray of point and nonpoint source problemsaffecting surface and ground water resources ineach river basin. Furthermore, the planningprocess will be undertaken in a manner whichensures that implementation of variousmanagement measures and BMPs throughout ariver basin considers the impacts to air, soil, water,plant and animal resources according to proceduresdeveloped by the Natural Resources ConservationService as outlined in the National PlanningProcedures Handbook . This requires that theplanning process be undertaken in a manner whichensures close coordination between all waterquality planning programs and other State and localplanning initiatives such as air quality planning, fishand wildlife management and planning,transportation planning, open space planning,agricultural planning, land-use planning, etc.(Insofar as this document is specifically intended toresult in an update of the New York’s NonpointSource Management Program, the remainder ofthis chapter shall be devoted to a discussion ofwatershed planning for the control of nonpointsources. There is a need for the point sourceaspects of river basin planning to be detailed in acompanion document).
VI-4
G. PRIORITIZING WATERSHEDS FORCONTROL OF NONPOINT SOURCEPOLLUTION
Regardless of the river basin, there is widespreadrecognition at the State level that the most effectiveway of improving and enhancing water quality withrespect to certain nonpoint source contaminants,such as nutrients and sediment, is to facilitatewatershed planning and plan implementation insub-watersheds within river basins. Examples ofwhere this is occurring include the Little AusableWatershed Project which is part of the LakeChamplain Basin Program; the Otsego LakeProject which is within the Susquehanna RiverBasin; several Clean Lakes Projects which are invarious river basins in the State; and the NYCDEPWatershed Planning Program.
The net effect of protecting and improving waterquality in sub-watersheds within a specific river
basin will be a positive cumulative impact on waterquality in the entire river basin.
Major river basins are too large to showmeasurable effects after implementing controls, butare useful in setting priorities beyond those locallyacknowledged by County Water QualityCoordinating Committees. Accordingly, in order toensure that public funds are used most efficientlyand effectively, the DOW needs to develop oradopt screening methods for prioritizingwatersheds and sub-watersheds in river basins fornonpoint source planning and plan implementation.
The Unified Watershed Assessments approach asoutlined under the federal Clean Water Action Planwill provide the first order of assessing andscreening water quality problems within riverbasins, identifying pollutant sources, establishingrestoration priorities, and developing restorationstrategies. The USGS 8-digit hydrologic catalogingunit will serve as the common scale for reportingthe results of unified watershed assessments tohelp target resources.
Within the Unified Watershed Assessmentsframework a second level of prioritization andplanning is needed. This will be at the sub-watershed level. The scale at which sub-watershed prioritization is most likely to result inmanageable and effective watershed plans is theUSDA Hydrologic Watershed Unit level (11-digithydrologic unit code, hereinafter referred to aswatershed) and at the Sub-watershed Unit level(14-digit hydrologic unit code).
As part of the planning process, the DOW willwork with County Water Quality CoordinatingCommittees to facilitate prioritization ofwatersheds and sub-watersheds on a county-by-county basis. Prioritization of watersheds and sub-watersheds at the county level is intended toidentify local needs and interests.
As a next step, the DOW will undertake awatershed computer modeling initiative for astatewide assessment of nonpoint source pollutantloading. The result of this initiative will be used toevaluate the priority watersheds based on loadingin comparison to existing county priorities. Theresults of this initiative will be utilized for evaluatingwatersheds for nonpoint source programimplementation at the river basin and county levels.Priority should be placed on allocating funds forwatershed and sub-watershed planning and planimplementation in those watersheds ranked as highpriority by both the DOW and County WaterQuality Coordinating Committees.
VI-5
The Priority Waterbodies List
The 1996 Priority Waterbodies List (PWL) is theDOW’s official list of surface water bodies whichhave a designated use affected to some degreewithin the river basins of the State. The 1996PWL list has identified 1,426 segments with waterquality problems ranging from a precluded
designated use to water bodies which exhibit noimpairments, but which are neverthelessthreatened. The PWL pertains to surface waterbodies. However, modifications to future updatesof the PWL will attempt to incorporate data andinformation regarding groundwater resources aswell.
Table VI-1.
Major River Basins in New York State
1. Lake Erie-Niagara River Basin
2. Allegheny River Basin3. Lake Ontario & Minor Tribs4. Genesee River Basin5. Chemung River Basin6. Susquehanna River Basin7. Seneca-Oneida-Oswego River Basin
8. Black River Basin9. St. Lawrence River Basin10. Lake Champlain11. Upper Hudson River Basin12. Mohawk River Basin13. Lower Hudson Basin14. Delaware River Basin
15. Passaic-Newark River Basin16. Housatonic River Basin17. Atlantic Ocean-Long Island
The PWL is the underlying document from whichto initially identify candidate water bodies andwatersheds for selection. Surface water bodies andtheir respective watersheds not on the PWL arenot eligible for federal or State planning and/orimplementation funds. The PWL is a keycomponent of the Section 305(b) Water QualityReport to Congress. This report is discussedbriefly in Chapter 3.
The Obstacle Analysis
While there are no set criteria for establishingwatershed priorities and both the DOW and CountyWater Quality Coordinating Committees shouldhave a great deal of flexibility in adopting their owncriteria, consideration should be given to using andtailoring the approach and criteria afforded by the“Obstacle Analysis” in the prioritization process.
VI-6
The Obstacle Analysis is a system developed bythe DOW for identifying various obstacles tocontrolling nonpoint sources on impaired segments.This system was developed to provide decision-makers with a framework within which to weighselected factors that should be considered inestablishing nonpoint source planning and planimplementation priorities. Those watershedshaving fewest obstacles to protection orenhancement, in general, would receive higherpriority for planning than those for which more orgreater obstacles are anticipated. Does this meanthat once the Obstacle Analysis is used the results,i.e., priorities, are cast in concrete? The answer isno. The Obstacle Analysis simply serves as aguide to the prioritization process. Clearly, localneeds, wishes and desires will have an importantinfluence in the prioritization process. Table VI-2lists the factors in the Obstacle Analysis that maybe used to weigh and evaluate the potential forsuccessful nonpoint source program in awatershed. The Obstacle Analysis can be used asa prioritization tool for both surface andgroundwater resources.
An additional factor to consider that is not in theObstacle Analysis is that a priority may emerge ininstances where a federal/state order or mandatehas been issued which prescribes a specific level ofreduction for certain contaminants in a watershed,for example, to protect a drinking water supply.
H. WATERSHED PLANNING
The DOW will seek to ensure that watershedassessment and planning are undertaken prior toBMP implementation. This is intended to ensurethat implementation funds are utilized mostefficiently and effectively. In this regard, theDOW will facilitate watershed and sub-watershedplanning among local agencies for nonpoint sourcecontrol at the 11 digit and/or 14 digit hydrologicunit level. The Watershed Planning Handbookfor the Control of Nonpoint Source Pollution
will serve as the basic reference document forplan preparation. Occasionally, the DOW mayassume the lead role in a watershed planninginitiative.
The Watershed Planning Handbook for theControl of Nonpoint Source Pollution, preparedin 1994, is the principal guidance document in theState for watershed planning for nonpoint sourcepollution control. The handbook provides a step-by-step approach for establishing water qualitygoals and objectives, for determining pollutantreduction needs, for evaluating alternative nonpointsource control strategies, and for preparing andimplementing a watershed management plan forcontrolling nonpoint sources. While the primaryfocus of the manual is on the control of nonpointsource pollution to surface water bodies, itprovides limited but useful guidance on steps thatcan be taken to evaluate the relative importance ofpoint source discharges in relation to nonpointsources.
Table VI-3, which has been excerpted from theWatershed Planning Handbook , identifies thebasic components of a watershed plan for thecontrol of nonpoint source pollution. These basicelements can be completed by following the stepsoutlined in the handbook. The TMDL process,which was briefly discussed in Chapter III, is aUSEPA planning and management tool whichplanning teams can utilize, not only for waste loadallocations for point sources, but for strategydevelopment relative to controlling nonpoint sourcepollutants as well river basin and watershedplanning.
The Watershed Planning Handbook providesguidance for protecting and enhancing surfacewater resources. Local officials may find guidancefor protecting ground water resources in suchdocuments as:
VI-7
Table VI-2.
Factors in the Obstacle Analysis
C There is (adequate/little) understanding of nonpoint source cause and effect relationships;
C The technology and methods for controlling nonpoint sources is (available/unavailable);
C Implementing nonpoint source control practices (will be cost-effective/will not be cost-effective);
C (Numerous/few) water resource benefits will be derived from implementing nonpoint sourcecontrol practices;
C There is widespread public (support/opposition) to implementing nonpoint source controlpractices;
C The availability of programs to directly or indirectly assist in implementing nonpoint sourcecontrols are (adequate/limited);
C There are (no/major) institutional constraints to implementing nonpoint source control practices;and
C Solving the nonpoint source problem (will not be complex/will be complex).
* Wellhead Protection -- Tips for Commun-ities in New York, Division of Water.October 1996.
* Wellhead Protection -- Technical Consid-erations for Delineation of WellheadProtection Areas, Division of Water.October 1996.
* A Guide To Wellhead Protection,American Planning Association. 1995.
* Seminar Publication, Wellhead Protection:A Guide for Small Communities. USEPA.February 1993.
* New York State Wellhead ProtectionProgram, Division of Water, submitted toUSEPA September 1990.
* Upstate New York Groundwater Manage-ment Program. Division of Water. May1987.
* Local Groundwater Protection. AmericanPlanning Association. 1987.
* Long Island Groundwater ManagementProgram. Division of Water. June 1986.
VI-8
* Seminar Publication, Protection of PublicWater Supplies from Groundwater Con-tamination. USEPA. September 1985.
* Groundwater Supply Source Protection; AGuide For Localities in Upstate New York.Schenectady County Planning Department.1985.
Many similar publications are available from avariety of sources that can be used to provideguidance for wellhead protection efforts (includingthe identification and assessment of ground waterproblems) and in the selection and implementationof best management practices.
In preparing a watershed plan for the control ofnonpoint source pollution, the planning processshould be no more complex than it has to be. Forexample, there will be watersheds for whichproblems are well known and solutions can bedeveloped by professional resource managers atsingle a meeting. Such might be the case where allthat is needed to solve a watershed problem is tofence livestock out of a stream followed by plantingof riparian vegetation. On the other hand, formore complex situations, water quality samplingand watershed modeling might be required to morefully understand watershed dynamics.
To reiterate, emphasis should be placed on keepingthe planning process as simple and as inexpensiveas possible. It makes little sense to embarkupon a program of watershed modeling when allthat may be required to understand and resolve awater quality problem is sound professionaljudgement or the use of field indicators.
I. FUNDING WATERSHED PLANNINGINITIATIVES
It is the goal of the DOW to ensure that BMPimplementation is preceded by sound watershed
planning. The Nonpoint Source ImplementationGrants Program provided funding for one planningproject in 1994-95. An additional four planningprojects were funded with the 1996-97 grantsannounced in May 1997. Fifteen projects are beingfunded in 1998-99. The DOW intends to graduallyexpand its commitment of technical resources andfunding to watershed projects for controllingnonpoint source pollution.
Periodically, the DOW will send out an RFP forfunding watershed planning on priority watersheds.Watershed planning grants will be followed byRFP’s for nonpoint source implementationproposals.
J. IMPLEMENTATION STEPS
C The DOW will integrate and facilitatecoordination among its programs within the riverbasin planning and management frameworkoutlined in pages VI-2 and VI-3 of this chapterto protect and enhance surface and groundwaterresources throughout the seventeen river basinswithin the State.
C The DOW will establish Planning Teamsconsisting of central office and regional staff foreach river basin in the State. It will be theplanning team’s responsibility to prepare andfacilitate implementation of river basin planswithin the river basin planning framework.
C Within the river basin context, planning for theremediation and prevention of pollutants fromnonpoint sources will be undertaken in prioritywatersheds at the USDA watershed or sub-watershed unit level.
C The DOW will develop or adopt a screening toolor model for prioritizing watersheds in riverbasins for nonpoint source planning and planimplementation.
VI-9
• The DOW will facilitate an ongoing process atthe State and local level to periodically reviewand update priorities at the watershed and/orsub-watershed scale by providing copies ofthe Obstacle Analysis to all County Water QualityCoordinating Committees in the State.
• The DOW will rely on the WatershedPlanning Handbook for the Control ofNonpoint Source Pollution as its basicreference document for plan preparation atboth the river basin and 11 and/or 14 digitHydrologic Unit scale. At the same time, theDOW recognizes that water quality planningand management at the river basin andwatershed or sub-watershed scale mustconsider the impacts to air, soil, plant andanimal resources of plan implementation; itwill, therefore, ensure that proceduresrecommended by NRCS for considering andminimizing impacts to these natural resourcesare adopted.
C The DOW intends to adopt a goal whichseeks to ensure that BMP implementation ispreceded by sound watershed planning. TheDOW will gradually increase technicalresource and funding assistance to facilitatewatershed planning.
• County WQCCs should be encouraged, educatedand funded to initiate or continue watershedplanning including prioritizing watersheds withintheir counties, or in multi-county regions, andimplementing management practices.
• The DOW will ensure that nonpoint sourceinformation on environmental releases of theidentified stressors is provided to theComparative Risk Project, and the PollutionPrevention Unit will review riskcharacterizations and pollution preventionstrategies, and include nonpoint sourceconsiderations.
VI-10
TABLE VI-3
ELEMENTS OF A WATERSHED-WIDE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
! Introduction
- Purpose of plan
- Problem(s) statement
- Water quality goals and objectives
! Watershed Information
- Description of physical, biological characteristics and existing land use trends/patterns in watershed
- Map(s) delineating the planning area (watershed/groundwater recharge area)
- Map(s) showing water bodies, land use, or other relevant features
! Water Quality Status
- Water body classification
- Level of impairment and verification (of impairment)
- Identification of pollutants impacting the waterbody, fisheries habitats, etc.
- Discussion of pollutants and their effects
! Sources of Pollution
- Description and location of point sources (provide map of point sources) - Description and location of nonpoint sources (provide map of nonpoint source critical delivery areas)
- Point and nonpoint source loading estimates
- Relative importance of point and nonpoint sources of pollution in watershed
! Needed Pollutant Reductions
- Point source reduction needs (relative to objectives)
- Nonpoint source reduction needs (relative to objectives)
! Management Strategies for Achieving Water Quality Goals and Objectives
- Management practices evaluated for addressing point source discharges and nonpoint sources by category andcritical delivery areas
- Recommended practices
! Recommendations for Amending or Adopting Land Use Plan/Zoning Provisions
- Recommendations for coordinating land use and development plans with water quality management goals andobjectives
- Recommendations for amending or adopting local laws, including site plan review provisions and zoning provisions,to achieve water quality goals and objectives.
! Funding Sources and Implementing Agencies
- Cost estimates of plan implementation
- Funding sources by point and nonpoint source category
- Agency and interagency arrangements for plan implementation
! Implementing Strategy
- Description of institutional/administrative arrangements required for plan implementation
! Plan Implementation Schedule
- Plan implementation schedule for point source controls
- Plan implementation schedule by nonpoint source category
- Plan implementation schedule for critical delivery areas
! Plan Implementation, Monitoring and Follow-Up
- Monitoring and follow-up strategy
VII--1
CHAPTER VII
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR NONPOINT
SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
A. Introduction
The following implementation schedule is a compilation of the Implementation Step sections of Chapters II through VI.The full text of the longer implementation steps was used as often as possible. Where the full text was not used, someeasily identified exerpt was used instead.
B. Five-year Implementation Schedule
Chapter Action Agency(ies) 1998 1999 2000 2001
2002
II Partnerships
1 Continue the operation of the New YorkNonpoint Source Coordinating Committee.
DEC’s DOW,NPSCCmemberagencies
X X X X X
2. Where appropriate, develop Memoranda ofUnderstanding between DEC and otheragencies to coordinate water qualityimprovement efforts. The MOUs will helpaddress cost-sharing funds, technicalassistance, technical training and outreachefforts to solve documented water qualityproblems.
DEC’s DOW,NPSCCmemberagencies
X X X X X
3. Continue to support the county water qualitycoordinating committees to encourage theiroperation in every county.
DEC’s DOW,SSWCC andother NPSCCmemberagencies
X X X X X
4. Encourage watershed partnerships; providesupport to help watershed groups preparewatershed plans.
DEC’s DOW,NPSCCmemberagencies
X X X X X
Chapter Action Agency(ies) 1998 1999 2000 2001
2002
VII--2
II 5. Use Management Plans developed forparticular waterbodies of concern to guideimplementation efforts in those watersheds;provide financial support for implementingthose plans.
DEC’s DOW,SSWCC, andother NPSCCmemberagencies
X X X X X
6. Initiate actions to bring more environmentaland producer groups into the process ofdetermining methods to address nonpointsource pollution.
DEC’s DOW,Dept. ofA&M, andother NPSCCmemberagencies
X X X X
III Surface Water and PWL
1. Finalize the PWL Review and Update Processand Procedures. With appropriate Division ofWater staff (regional and central office) andWQCC representatives, develop specificprocess for the routine review and updating ofthe PWL.
DEC’s DOW -Bureau ofWatershedAssessmentand Research(BWAR)
X
2. Establish a procedure for measuring progressby tracking movement along spectrum ofidentification of problems, causes and sources.
DEC’s DOW -Bureau ofWatershedAssessmentand Research(BWAR)
X
3. Consider expanding the PWL to include“Special Protection Waters.”
DEC’s DOW -BWAR
X
4. Expand PWL to include documentation ofgood Water Quality Waterbodies.
DEC’s DOW -BWAR
X
5. Establish Volunteer Monitoring Network:Establish a citizen/volunteer monitoringcomponent to the RIBS ambient monitoringeffort, develop volunteer monitoring handbookto provide appropriate guidance.
DEC’s DOW -Bureau ofWatershedAssessmentand Research
X
6. Create and improve GIS coverages for DOWprograms including RIBS, SPDES, TMDL,stream classification, PWS, dams, and streamgages.
DEC’s DOW -BWAR
X
7. Conduct review and update of PWLinformation for 2 or 3 major drainage basinseach year, with the entire state to be updatedevery five years.
DEC’s DOW -BWAR
X X X X X
8. Issuing of Comprehensive RIBS Basin StudyReports
DEC’s DOW -BWAR
X X X X X
Chapter Action Agency(ies) 1998 1999 2000 2001
2002
VII--3
III 9. Review and Compilation of TMDL (303d) List DEC’s DOW - Bureau ofWatershedManagement
X X
III Groundwater Management and Protection
1. Improve the information base currentlyavailable by requiring that programs whichobtain permit and other information incorporatelocation data (lati-tude/longitude).
DEC’s DOW -Bureau ofWatershedAssessmentand Research
X X X X X
2. Seek funding to reestablish a cooperativemapping effort with the USGS. In the past, thiseffort led to high quality mapping ofgroundwater aquifers.
DEC’s DOW -BWAR
X
3. Monitor the state’s groundwater through theassessment activities undertaken as part of305(b) program.
DEC’s DOW -BWAR
X X X X X
4. Improvements in integration of the variousinformation systems among DEC programsmust be carried out, location data must becollected and/or verified, and informationsystems for unregulated or locally regulatedfacilities must be enhanced. All of thisinformation must be made readily available viacomputer link to staff and the public.
DEC’s DOW -Bureau ofWatershedAssessmentand Research,other DECDivisions
X X X
5a. Propose legislation to enhance the waterwithdrawal regulatory program to includeindustrial, commercial, and agricultural watersupply uses, as is already done for LongIsland, in order to develop an adequateinformation base and to allow for assessmentsof impacts on other water supplies and on thetotal water resources, both surface andgroundwater.
DEC’s DOW,DOH
X X X X X
5b. Continue efforts to secure passage ofproposed legislation which would create astatewide well-driller registration program. Thepurpose of this program would be to collectinformation detailing subsurface geology andwell construction at new groundwater wellsites. This will provide for better managementand protection of groundwater resources inNew York State.
DEC’s DOW X X X X X
Chapter Action Agency(ies) 1998 1999 2000 2001
2002
VII--4
III 6a. Create list of ‘priority aquifers’ (PAL) based onexisting primary and principal aquifers, aquifersidentified by USGS and DEC-DOW as likelyprincipal aquifers, and other aquifersnominated through the PAL process. The listwill be prioritized for potential detail mappingefforts.
DEC’s DOW -BWAR, DOH
X X X X X
III 6b. Groundwater problems to be addressed by theDOW will also be listed on the PAL. [Note:Contaminated groundwater sites which are theresponsibility of other DEC programs (e.g.,spill sites, hazardous wastes sites, solid wastesites) will not be included. Informationregarding contaminated groundwater siteswhich are being managed under other DECprograms are available through thoseprograms.]
DEC’s DOW -BWAR,NDSCC, DOH
X X X X X
7. The Department of Health will maintain a list ofpublic supply wells that have been closed dueto contamination.
DOH X X X X X
8a. Department of Health SWAP work is to becompleted November, 2001.
DOH X X X X
8b. Encourage communities to develop localmanagement and protection programs as afollowup to the Source Water Assessments.
DEC’s DOW -BWAR, DOH
X X X X X
8c. Provide technical assistance to communitiesfor delineation of areas for protection programimplementation.
DEC’s DOW -BWAR, DOH
X
IV Outreach
1. Reconvene the Information / EducationSubcommittee of the Nonpoint SourceCoordinating Committee.
DEC’s DOW,CCE, andother NPSCCmemberagencies
X X
2. Increase targeted regional and watershedoutreach activities. Coordinate with ongoingregional and watershed partnership activities(e.g. ,basin teams, regional workshops,watershed management committees) to:promote CWQCC participation in regionalpartnerships; track regional and watershedactivities concerning nonpoint sourcepollution and assess the need for targetedoutreach.
DEC’s DOW,SWCC, CCE
X X X X X
Chapter Action Agency(ies) 1998 1999 2000 2001
2002
VII--5
IV 3. Provide better outreach training and support toCWQCCs
C Develop a training course or video for new CWQCCmembers.
C Develop orientation/training packet for newCWQCC members that could be customized locally.
C Offer training to CWQCCs in:
a. Planning, implementing and evaluatingoutreach and education programs
b. Resources and materials available at thestate level
c. Working with consultants to implementoutreach and education programs
d. Integrating outreach and education intoNPS source-specific programs
e. Working effectively with the media.
DEC’s DOW -Bureau ofWatershedManagement,SWCC, CCE,NYS DistrictEmployeesAssociation
X X X X X
4. Assist with administrative support of outreachactivities by CWQCCs:
C Update CWQCC mailing lists annually
C Investigate ways to provide State staff tosupport local outreach efforts both forspecific source areas and overall NPSprogram. This could include cultivatingand coordinating local volunteers to workin partnership with the CWQCC.
DEC’s DOW -Bureau ofWatershedManagement,SWCC, CCE,NYS DistrictEmployeesAssociation
X X X X X
5. Improve usability of existing resources (from allNPS partner agencies and groups) so they canbe easily used by local-level organiz-ations,especially CWQCCs. Develop a distributionplan to ensure materials reach their intendedaudiences.
C Update existing publication “Where to GetInformation about NPS Pollution” ordesign and produce easy-to-usecatalogues of NPS audiovisual re-sources,publication, etc.
C Update and redesign the outreachStrategy to make it more usable.
NPSCC’s I&ESubcommittee
X X X X X
Chapter Action Agency(ies) 1998 1999 2000 2001
2002
VII--6
IV 6. Assist CWQCCs to develop an outreachprogram to increase awareness of NPSpollution and create partnerships with specificaudiences. Assess the need for, and, ifappropriate, develop:
C new nonpoint source general infor-mationmaterials for targeted audiences at theState and local levels; a video andaccompanying brochure would be thepreferred outreach tool.
C a targeted education initiative aimed atlocal officials to make them aware of therole of local government in protecting andpreserving water resources and thecontrol options available to them; and amanual that outlines the control optionsand explains how they can beincorporated in local planning efforts.
NPSCC’s I&ESubcommittee
X X X X X
7. Provide guidance and assistance for generalnonpoint source information and educationactivities such as: Project WET (WaterEducation for Teachers) in New York State,Water Week, DEC Earth Day EnvironmentalFair.
NPSCC’s I&ESubcommittee
X X X X X
8. Investigate the need for and feasibility ofcreating a nonpoint source informationclearinghouse and/or web site.
NPSCC’s I&ESubcommittee
X X X X X
9. Survey County WQCCs to assess trainingneeds so that appropriate training sessions canbe developed for the biennial Water QualitySymposium..
NPSCC’s I&ESubcommittee
X X X
10. Assist the NPSCC in implementing thepriorities identified by the Source CategoryWorking Groups so that the appropriateagencies and institutions can work together totarget common audiences, produce materialsand deliver them efficiently, withoutduplicative effort.
NPSCC’s I&ESubcommittee
X X
V Programs to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution
V.D.1 General
1. Develop pollution prevention guidancematerials specific to NPS activities.
DEC’sPollutionPreventionUnit
X X
Chapter Action Agency(ies) 1998 1999 2000 2001
2002
VII--7
V.D.1 2. Continue to develop the concept of critical areaprotection using several tools, both regulatoryand non-regulatory, at the state, county andlocal levels.
DEC’s DOW,DOH, DOS,counties,municipalities
X X X X X
V.D.2 Agriculture
1. Formalize the Agricultural EnvironmentalManagement (AEM) Initiative by completingthe AEM Guide and gaining multi-agencyadoption of the AEM Guide.
Department ofAgricultureand Markets
X X
2. Provide direction to the Agricultural Envir-onmental Management (AEM) Initiative bydeveloping a long-range plan for AEM, andannual work plans including an outreach plan.
AEM SteeringCommittee,NYS SWCC
X X X X X
3. Evaluate current staffing capability and trainstaff to implement Agricultural EnvironmentalManagement (AEM) Statewide.
AEM SteeringCommitteeand involvedagencies(CCE, FSA,NRCS andSWCC)
X X
4. Develop and provide outreach and technicalmaterials necessary for a comprehensiveAgricultural Environmental Management(AEM) Initiative.
AEMOutreachSubcommittee, AEMSteeringCommittee
X X
5. Maintain an updated prioritized listing ofwatersheds and wellhead areas for Agr-icultural Environmental Management (AEM)Implementation.
AEM SteeringCommittee
X X X X X
6. a. Incorporate Agricultural EnvironmentalManagement (AEM) initiative intowatershed and wellhead protection efforts,such as:
- Wellhead Protection/Source WaterProtection (SDWA)
- Nonpoint Source WatershedProtection (CWA, CZMA)
- Natural Resource Protection (FarmBill) ; and
- Agricultural Nonpoint SourceAbatement and Control Program
AEM SteeringCommittee
with:
DOH
DEC’s DOWand DOS
USDA FSA
NYS SWCC
X
X
X
X
Chapter Action Agency(ies) 1998 1999 2000 2001
2002
VII--8
V.D.2 6. b. Incorporate completion of AEM Tiers I-IIIas requirement for funding imple-mentation based on program policydecisions in:
- Agricultural Nonpoint SourceAbatement and Control Projects
- Environmental Quality IncentiveProgram (EQIP) projects
- Other USDA Farm Bill IncentiveProgram projects
- Wellhead Protection/Source WaterProtection projects
NYS SWCC
USDA NRCSand USDAFSA
NYSDOH
X
X
X
X
7. Implement Agricultural EnvironmentalManagement (AEM) Tiered Plans using BestManagement Practices (BMPs).
CountyProject Teams
X X X X X
8. Implement Agricultural EnvironmentalManagement (AEM) tiered planning approachon large animal livestock operations(Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations).
CountyProject Teams
X X X X X
9. Enhance State and Local Capability toImplement Agricultural EnvironmentalManagement (AEM).
AEM SteeringCommittee
X X X X X
10. Involve private sector as key participant inAgricultural Environmental Management(AEM) initiative.
AEM SteeringCommittee
X X X X X
11. Evaluate level of participation andenvironmental effectiveness in AgriculturalEnvironmental Management (AEM) Initiative.
NYS Soil andWaterConservationCommittee,AEM SteeringCommittee
X X X X X
12. Develop mechanisms to formally recognizeboth farmers’ and local staff successes inimplementing practices.
AEM SteeringCommittee
X X
13. The coordinated statewide programs deliveredat local levels could benefit from more efficientcommunication mechanisms (such as greateruse of the Internet), resource materials in moredepth, and mechanisms for priority setting forState and Federal funding allocation.
NY NPS CC,AEM SteeringCommittee
X X X X X
Chapter Action Agency(ies) 1998 1999 2000 2001
2002
VII--9
V.D.2 14. New York should continue to conductresearch, in conjunction with other States andnations, related to environmental transport andmanagement practices related to pathogensand phosphorus, should provide researchresults to AEM staff, and provide training tofarmers on the implementation of BMPmodifications based on research results.
CornellUniversity,NYC DEP,AEM SteeringCommittee
X X X X X
15. Implement the CAFO General Permit program. NYSDEC’sBureau ofWater Permits
X X X X
16. Investigate how information from the PesticideReporting Law can be incorporated into NewYork’s PWL process.
NYSDEC’sBureau ofWatershedAssessmentand Research
X X
17. For New York’s Coastal Nonpoint PollutionControl Program (6217):
a. two years to modify NY’s program toaddress storage of manure, facilitywastewater, and facility runoff for largeand small confined animal facilities.
b. one year to develop a strategy toimplement the management measures andidentify measurable results demonstratingimplementation for the remainder ofagriculture program.
DEC, DOSand DA&M
X
X
X
V.D.3 Atmospheric Deposition
l. Seek funding for the continuation of long-termmonitoring for acid deposition and lake waterchemistry, respectively.
DECDivisions ofAir Resources(DAR); and Fish, Wildlife,and MarineResources(DFW&MR)
X X X X X
2. Research and demonstration projects shouldbe conducted to explore possible mitigationmeasures for waterbodies affected by acid rain.Projects should include documentation of theeffectiveness of the measures employed.
DEC’s DAR;and Fish,Wildlife, andMarineResources
X X X X X
Chapter Action Agency(ies) 1998 1999 2000 2001
2002
VII--10
V.D.3. 3. a) A pilot integrated air-shed/watershed/water quality model should be developedto assess fate and impact of atmosphericnitrogen on a waterbody.
b) Water quality impacts of implementa-tionof the Clean Air Act should be furtherevaluated and incorporated into a phasedTMDL for Long Island Sound.
DEC’s DAR; DFW&MR;and DOW
X X
X
4. Track NOx and SO2 emissions reductions dueto Title IV implementation.
DEC’sDivision ofAir Resources
X X X X X
5. Develop a comprehensive overview andinterpretation of various Acid Rain monitoringefforts and expand data analysis to fill anyvoids.
DEC’s DAR ,incooperationwith DEC’sDFW&MRand theALSC.
X
6. Seek federal legislation to provide additionalregulatory controls over precursors required tocontrol out-of-state sources.
DEC’sDivision ofAir Resources;
USEPA
X X
7. Under CAA amendments, USEPA will developemission standards, based on maximumachievable control technology, for all thesource catagories by the year 2000.
USEPA X X X
8. USEPA will develop regulations for area orsmall sources of HAPs by the year 2000.
USEPA X X X
9. Through implementation of the CAArequirements, USEPA projects an 85%reduction in atmospheric deposition of metals,nationwide, over the next 10-15 years. Thisreduction will contribute to the attainment ofambient water qulity standards for mercury inthe NY/NJ Harbor/Bight.
USEPA;
NYSDEC;
other States
X X X X X
V.D.4 Construction
1. EPA is expected to promulgate Phase II StormWater Regulations.
USEPA X X
2. Investigate alternatives (amending ECL,revising permit, adding staff, promulgatingregulations, etc.) to strengthen theimplementation of the SPDES general permit forconstruction.
DEC’s BWM,and Bureau ofWater Permits(BWP)
X X
Chapter Action Agency(ies) 1998 1999 2000 2001
2002
VII--11
V.D.4 3. Take steps to involve local government in theenforcement and administration of the SPDESgeneral permit for construction as part of PhaseII stormwater controls.
DEC’s BWM,and BWP
X X
4. DEC and EPA should work together toencourage passage of local laws for stormwaterand erosion and sediment control.
USEPA;
DEC’s DOW
X X X X X
5. EPA should work with Congress to amendClean Water Act to allow use of 319 funds forstormwater control implementation.
USEPA X X X
6. Expand programs to disseminate theinformation contained in the New York UrbanErosion and Sediment Control Guideline usingTrain the Trainer program (slides, overheads),and thru local ordinances.
DEC’s BWM,SWCC,NPSCC,SWCDs
X X X X X
7. Seek to continue funding the following coursesfor the next five years:
- Train-the-trainer program to increase thenumber of trainers available
- erosion and sediment control training forcontractors
- short courses on water quality.
DEC’s BWM,SSWCC(StateSWCC’sEngineeringSpecialist)
X X X X X
8. For New York’s Coastal Nonpoint PollutionControl Program (6217): Three years to reviseState Uniform Fire Prevention and BuildingCode to incorporate pollution management innew construction and reconstruction, orprovide other means to do the same.
DEC and DOS X X X
V.D.5 Contaminated Sediments
1. Expand the current electronic database for NYSGreat Lakes contaminated sedimentinformation, and create a similar database forNY Harbor.
DEC’s DOW -BWAR
X X
2. Evaluate, edit and format sediment data forparts of the state not covered under #1.
DEC’s DOW -BWAR
X X
3. Add biological effects data to Great Lakesbasins site prioritization scheme.
DEC’s DOW -BWAR
April1999
Chapter Action Agency(ies) 1998 1999 2000 2001
2002
VII--12
V.D.6 Hydrologic and Habitat Modification
1. To better provide integrated technical andfinancial assistance to local efforts at streamcorridor management planning, an ongoingforum should be developed for coordinationbetween federal, state and local agenciesdealing with stream corridor managementissues:
a. Disemination of principles in DEC’sStream Corridor Management manualacross the state.
b. Training sessions for SWCDs and RC& DCouncils to encourage the application ofthese principles.
c. Educational activities to increase publicawareness of the benefits of streamcorridor management, encourage creationof community stream protection programsto implement management practices.
DEC’s DOW -BWM andBFP, NYCDEP’s Stream
ProtectionUnit, SWCC,DEC’sDFW&MR
CCE, CornellUniversity, othercolleges,DOW-BWM
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2. The benefits of wetlands as nonpoint sourcefilters should also be highlighted in outreachand educational programs. Development oflocal wetland protection regulations, andestablishing new, or improving existingenforcement capa-bilities or incentives areneeded.
DEC’sDFW&MRand DOW-BWM, CCE
X X X X X
3. Promotion of the existing cost-sharingprograms (Conservation Reserve Programunder FSA, Stream Corridor Protection andStormwater Mitigation Programs underNYCDEP) for treatments such as vegetativebuffer strips is needed.
USDA’sNRCS andFSA,SWCC, and
NYC DEP
X X X X X
Chapter Action Agency(ies) 1998 1999 2000 2001
2002
VII--13
V.D.6 4a. The Memoranda of Understanding which arerequired for local governments under theprovisions of the Stream Protection Permitprogram should include requirements forutilizing best management practices to minimizestream disturbance. Granting of MOUs shouldbe conditioned on satisfactory completion bytown highway department personnel of acertification program, to be developed by theDEC.
4b. DEC should develop a certification programconsisting of workshops on the streamdisturbance permitting process, how toeffectively install BMPs to minimizedisturbance, and basic principles of streamhydrology, including the relationship betweenchannel form and sediment transport. (Thisrecommendation also applies to the resourceextraction category.)
DEC’sDivision ofFish, Wildlifeand MarineResources(DFW&MR)and DOW-BWM, andNYC DEP’sStream Pro-tection Unit
DEC’sDFW&MR,and BWM,and NYCDEP’s StreamProtectionUnit
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5. Regulatory programs which control runoff toprevent damage to streams should bedeveloped in conjunction with the stormwatermanagement program. There should be re-quirements for the attenuation of peak runofffrom newly developed areas. Riparianrestoration should be pursued to reduce sedi-mentation and erosion problems, and to controlflooding problems in the upper, less impactedportions of the watershed, and so return to amore natural annual flow regime.
DEC’sDivision ofWater andDFW&MR,and NYCDEP’s StreamProtectionUnit
X X
6. A program should be developed to assess andclassify the morphology of NYS streams andrivers, prioritized by DEC’s use classification(i.e., beginning with highest use streams). Anessential element of this program should be todevelop regional curves relating streamgeometry and discharge to drainage area. Thiswould then allow stream distur-bance permitsunder Article 15 to include conditionsspecifying the cross-sectional dimension, planand profile appropriate to a stream’smorphology type and bankfull discharge.
NYC DEP’sStreamProtectionUnit;
NYS DEC’sDOW andDFW&MR.
X X
Chapter Action Agency(ies) 1998 1999 2000 2001
2002
VII--14
V.D.6 7. New York’s Coastal Nonpoint PollutionControl Program (6217): three years to: a) address problems (i.e., water quality and
habitat) in existing channels, [wherechannel modification has altered or hasthe potential to alter instream and riparianhabitat such that historically present fishand wildlife are adversely affected].
b) address problem of eroding streambanksor shorelines causing pollution where notreviewed under existing permit authorities.
DEC and DOS
X
X
V.D.7 Land Disposal
1. Develop workplan for priority toxics samplingfor the Great Lakes including a project scopeand schedule.
DEC’s DOW -Great LakesSection andContaminatedSedimentsSection
X X
2. Clarify inter-divisional groundwater con-tamination site responsibility at DEC by makingneeded changes to current Memoranda ofUnderstanding.
DEC’s DOW -BWAR, andDivision ofSolid andHazardousMaterials
X X
V.D.8 Leaks, Spills and Accidents
1. BSPR should continue working with other stateand local agencies to inventory and mappetroleum and hazardous materials storagefacilities within important aquifer areas. Thiswill help identify potential problem areas forlocal government. GIS also helps coordinatewith other utility and transportation activities.
DEC’sDivision ofEnvironmental Remediation-BSPR, DOH,RegionalPlan- ningBoards, andcounties
X X X X X
2. Communities should be encouraged to holdcleanup/disposal days for pesticides and otherhazardous chemicals. These cleanup daysshould be held in conjunction with aneducational program to make homeownersaware of the damage which can be caused byimproper disposal of hazardous chemicals.
DEC’s DER-BSPR andDivision ofSolid and HazardousMaterials,
and CCE
X X X X X
Chapter Action Agency(ies) 1998 1999 2000 2001
2002
VII--15
V.D.8 3. In setting DEC’s bulk storage inspection andenforcement priorities, BSPR in conjunctionwith other DEC staff will recognize theimportance of primary water supply aquifers.
DEC’s DER-BSPR andDOW-BWAR, NYCDEP, andDOH
X X X X X
V.D.9 Marinas and Recreational Boating
1. NYSDEC and partner agencies should use theManagement Practice Catalogue for Marinas toencourage impementation or installation ofrecommended practices.
DEC; DOS;
NY Sea Grant;other Ad HocMarinaCommitteeMembers
X X X X X
2. New York’s Coastal Nonpoint PollutionControl Program (6217): two years to achievestormwater runoff management at new andexpanding marinas, and at existing marinas forat least the hull maintenance areas.
DEC and DOS X
V.D.10 Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems
1. Model sanitary code requirements forindividual OWTS should continue to beimplemented on a local level. Counties whosecodes do not meet or exceed the requirementsof the provisions should be encouraged toadopt such.
DEC’s DOW,DOH, CCE
X X X X X
2. Programs should be developed to provide formore frequent inspection of septic systems andseptic tank pumping. Alternatives such ascreation of waste-water management districts,l o c a l w a t e r - s h e d a u t h o r i t i e s a n dimplementation of self-help programs shouldbe considered.
DOH, EFC,DOS, NYCDEP
X X X X X
3. Existing enforcement authority should be usedto require corrective actions by personscausing water quality problems due toinadequate on-site wastewater systems.Priorities should be established based on thePriority Waterbodies List (PWL), andappropriate inventories of groundwaterproblems.
DEC’s DOW,
DOH
X X X X X
Chapter Action Agency(ies) 1998 1999 2000 2001
2002
VII--16
4. Propose legislation so financial incentiveprograms, such as the New York State CleanWater Revolving Fund (CWSRF), can beexpanded to assist property owners infinancing the construction of new orrehabilitated OWTS.
DEC, DOH,EFC
X X X X X
V.D.10 5. Foster interagency and financial insti-tutionefforts to identify potential methods forfinancing replacements of failing OWTS wheresuch replacements would result in financialhardship to system owners. This informationcould then be made available to systemowners.
DEC, DOH,DOS, EFC,NYC DEP
X X X X X
6. Demonstration projects should be used toillustrate new methods for solving theproblems caused by failing on-site systems.Alternatives to conventional collectionsystems and treatment plants should bestudied. Projects using methods such ascluster systems that collect sewage from small-lot residences and distribute it to nearby siteswith suitable soil should be encouraged.
NYC DEP, DEC, DOH
X X X X X
7. Further develop educational programs to makethe public aware of water quality impactsresulting from improperly functioning ormaintained OWTS.
DOH, CornellUniversity,CCE, DEC’sBWM
X X X X X
8. Re-examine the DEC/DOH MOU regardingOWTS regulatory responsibility in order toincrease the role of local health departments forregulating commercial and institutional OWTS.
DEC’s DOW -Bureau ofWater Permits
X
9. Funding options for local health departmentadministration of a commercial and institutionalOWTS program should be developed.
DEC’s DOW-Bureau ofWaterPermits, DOH
X X X X X
10. The 1988 DEC Design Standards forWastewater Treatment Works Inter-mediateSized Sewerage Facilities should be updated toinclude recent technology advances and toprovide consistency with DOH standards.
DEC’s DOW -Bureau ofWater Permits
X
11. New York’s Coastal Nonpoint PollutionControl Program (6217); three years to address:
a) OSDS issues impacting nitrogen limitedwaters
b) Inspection of operating systems
DEC, DOSand DOH
. X
X
Chapter Action Agency(ies) 1998 1999 2000 2001
2002
VII--17
V.D.11 Resource Extraction/Exploration/Development
1. Work with industry and local governments todevelop and implement a comprehensiveprogram that ensures timely plugging by theresponsible owner of every well that is nolonger economically viable or is creating anenvironmental hazard.
DEC’sDivision ofMineralResources
X X X X X
2. The Stream Protection Permit Program shouldinclude provisions requiring local governmentsto obtain permits for the mining of sand andgravel from stream beds and banks of streamsclassified C or higher through modification ofArticle 15, Title 5, of the EnvironmentalConservation Law.
DEC’sDivision ofFish, Wildlife,and MarineResources
X X
3. The statutory requirement for well owners tomaintain financial security should be updatedto reflect actual plugging costs.
DEC’sDivision ofMineralResources
X X
V.D.12 Roadway and Right-of-Way (ROW) Maintenance
1. Encourage research projects that explore theimpacts of salt and sand application alonghighways.
CornellUniversity,DEC’s DOW,DOT
X X X X X
2. Encourage the implementation of BMPs thatreduce the erosion due to maintenance ofroadbanks and road ditches.
DEC’s DOW,Cornell,NRCS, DOT
X X X X X
3. Develop technology transfer to educatelocalities and highway superintendents on themaintenance of roadway/ROW (i.e. State-wideor regional seminars on roadway maintenanceincluding discussion of roadway maintenanceissues, BMPs, new techniques, studies.)
DEC’s DOW,Cornell,NRCS, DOT
X X X X X
4. New York’s Coastal Nonpoint PollutionControl Program (6217): one year to develop astrategy to address nonpoint source issues forlocal roads, including a program to evaluatebackup authorities.
DEC and DOS X
Chapter Action Agency(ies) 1998 1999 2000 2001
2002
VII--18
V.D.13 Silviculture
1. A research project is being initiated over thecoming years to evaluate silvicultural BMPapplication and effectiveness in variousregions of NY. Additional funding is neededto expand this study statewide and providecurrent data concerning program effectivenessand identify any areas for potentialimprovement.
DEC’sDivision ofWater andDivision ofLands andForests,NRCS, NYCDEP
X X X
2. Cost-sharing for installation of certain BMP’shas proven an effective means to ensure theiruse but funding for these programs waned.Additional funds targeted to sensitive sitesand costly practices, such as bridges, wouldencourage greater application of silviculturalBMP’s.
DEC’sDivision ofWater andDivision ofLands andForests,NRCS, NYCDEP
X X X X X
3. Complete field guide version of the DECNonpoint Source Catalogue on Silviculture.
DEC’sDivision ofLands andForests;partner agen-cies in NewYork andother States
X
V.D.14 Urban Runoff
1. EPA should promulgate Phase II Storm Waterregulations.
USEPA X X
2. New York needs to develop a clearly definedstatewide storm water manage-ment program.
DEC’s DOW X X
3. NY’s permit review process under EPA’s PhaseII stormwater regulations should include anassessment of the long-term and cumulativeeffects on downstream runoff which will resultfrom the proposed single development.
DEC’s DOWand Divisionof ComplianceServices
X X
4. Include EPA Phase II requirement to check forand eliminate illicit connec-tions (therebyreducing runoff from existing urban areas) intoNY’s stormwater program.
DEC’s DOW X
X
5. EPA should pursue an amendment to the CleanWater Act to allow Section 319 to fund theimplementation of the Phase II Storm WaterRegulations.
USEPA X
X X
Chapter Action Agency(ies) 1998 1999 2000 2001
2002
VII--19
V.D.14 6. Include EPA Phase II educational requirementsinto NY’s stormwater program to make localofficials (especially planning boards) aware ofthe opportunities which exist to control runofffrom new development. (land use planning,local zoning, critical area protection, limitingthe extent of impervious surfaces, and theSEQR process.
DEC’s DOWand Divisionof ComplianceServices.
X X
7. Research and demonstration projects to studytreatment techniques, such as the use ofcreated wetlands to remove pollutants fromurban runoff, should be encouraged/ funded.
DEC’s DOW,NRCS, SWCC
X X X X X
8. Technical training efforts are needed to makelocal officials aware of the importance ofmaintaining storm water control facilities.Actions such as cleaning catch basins andperiodic removal of sediment from rechargebasins could be included in a stormwatermanagement manual written to help them keepfacilities functioning properly.
DEC’s DOW,DOT, SWCC
X X X X X
9. DEC will research and propose technologiesfor CSO abatement. Public support for cost-effective measures to control CSOs isnecessary for their implementation. New YorkCity has a Citizens Advisory Committee andholds public meetings specifically on CSOs.
DEC’s DOW -BWP, andNYC DEP
X X X X X
10. DEC will research and determine the need formanagement practices to control nonpointsource pollution from large-scale recreationalfacilities such as golf courses and ski resorts.
DEC’s DOW -BWM and
Division ofOperations
X X
11. New York’s Coastal Nonpoint PollutionControl Program (6217) :a.) two years to develop a strategy to
assure watershed based management toreduce generation of nonpoint sourcepollutants and mitigate impacts of urbanrunoff throughout the entire 6217management area.
DEC and DOS X
b.) two years to develop a strategy to assurereduction of surface water runoff pollutantloadings from all urban areas and existingdevelopment areas.
DEC and DOS X
c.) three years to revise State Uniform FirePrevention and Building Code to incorporatepollution management in new construction andreconstruction.
DEC and DOS X
Chapter Action Agency(ies) 1998 1999 2000 2001
2002
VII--20
VI Watershed Planning for the Control of Nonpoint Source Pollution
1. Integrate and facilitate coordination amongDEC-DOW programs within the river basinplanning and management framework outlinedon pages VI-2 and VI-3 to protect and enhancesurface and groundwater resources throughoutthe seventeen river basins within the State.
DEC’s DOW X X X X X
2. Establish “Planning Teams” consisting ofcentral office and regional staff for each riverbasin in the State. It will be the planningteam’s responsibility to prepare and facilitateimplementation of river basin plans within theriver basin planning framework.
DEC’s DOW X X X X X
3. Within the river basin context, planning for theremediation and prevention of pollutants fromnonpoint sources will be undertaken in prioritywatersheds at the USDA Hydrologic Unit(watershed) level or smaller.
DEC’s DOW X X . X X X
4. Develop or adopt a screening tool or model forprioritizing subwatersheds in river basins for nonpointsource planning and plan implementation.
DEC’s DOW X
5. Facilitate an ongoing process at the State andlocal level to periodically review and updatewatershed priorities at the watershed orsubwatershed scale by providing copies of theObstacle Analysis to all County Water QualityCoordinating Committees in the State.
DEC’s DOW X X X X X
6. Use the Watershed Planning Handbook forthe Control of Nonpoint Source Pollution as itsbasic reference document for plan preparationat both the river basin and 11- or 14-digitHydrologic Unit scale. Ensure that proceduresrecommended by NRCS for considering andminimizing impacts to soil, air, plants, animalsand people are adopted.
DEC’s DOW X X X X X
7. Adopt a goal which seeks to ensure that BMPimplementation is preceded by soundwatershed planning. The DOW will graduallyincrease technical resource and fundingassistance to facilitate watershed planning.
DEC’s DOW X X X X X
8. County WQCCs should be encouraged, educated andfunded to initiate or continue with watershed planningincluding prioritizing watersheds within their counties,or in multi-county regions, and implementation ofmanagement practices.
NPSCC,DEC’s DOW
X X X X X
VIII-1
Chapter VIII
SOURCES OF FUNDING AVAILABLE
TO IMPLEMENT NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS
A. Introduction
There have been substantial changes in funding forabatement of nonpoint sources of pollution since the1990 NPS Management Plan. A number of thefunding programs previously listed no longer exist (forexample, the CWA construction grants program). Other programs have been created by federal and NewYork State government. The purpose of this chapter isto identify potential sources of funding available tomunicipalities, Indian tribes, Soil and Water Conservationdistricts, farmers, property owners, specific types ofbusinesses, nonprofit corporations, and public benefitcorporations to implement nonpoint source controlprojects and management programs. It is not the intentof this chapter to cover funding to state agencies viafederal and state appropriations for the purpose ofimplementing nonpoint source programs.
Numerous agencies (local, state, federal) and nonprofitorganizations have programs and funds for thetreatment, management or control of nonpoint sources.Some programs focus directly on nonpoint sourcecontrol while others advance water quality as a sidebenefit. Some of these programs have funds that areavailable for distribution to municipalities, othergovernment agencies, organizations and land users toplan and/or implement nonpoint source water pollutionprevention measures.
In the preceding chapters some of the programs thatprovide funding for activities related to nonpoint sourcepollution control have been introduced. Some of these,like the 1996 Farm Bill, the 1996 Amendments to theSafe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the New York StateEnvironmental Quality Bond Act, Local WaterfrontRevitalization Program Grants, the EnvironmentalProtection Fund, the New York City WatershedAgreement, and the Clean Vessel Act Program
(CVAP) are new since the 1990 NPS ManagementPlan.
The following sections provide a description of thevarious funding programs available to finance nonpointsource projects and programs. Table VIII-1 furtheramplifies the data provided below. The funding sourcesdescribed in Table VIII-1 are listed below:
1. Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)2. Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
(DWSRF)3. Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act of 19964. Environmental Protection Fund (EPF) - Non-Ag
Projects
5. Environmental Protection Fund (EPF) -AgProjects
6. Environmental Protection Fund - Hudson RiverEstuary Program
7. Environmental Protection Fund (Title 5 - SolidWaste) - Landfill Closure State AssistanceProgram
8. Environmental Quality Bond Act of 1986 (Title3 - Solid Waste) - Hazardous Waste SiteRemediation
9. Environmental Protection Fund - Open Space10. Environmental Protection Fund - Ag Open
Space11. Environmental Protection Fund (Title 11) -Local
Waterfront Revitalization Program Grants
12. Environmental Quality Incentives Program(EQIP)
13. Conservation Reserve Program14. New York City Watershed Agricultural
Program15. Catskill Watershed Corporation Programs
VIII-2
16. Skaneateles Lake Watershed AgriculturalProgram
17. Clean Vessel Assistance Program18. Great Lakes Protection Fund19. New York State Great Lakes Protection Fund20. Transportation Enhancement Program21. New York State Energy Research and
Development Authority (NYSERDA) - EnergyEffluent Public Water and Waste-waterTechnologies
22. New York State Energy Research andDevelopment Authority (NYSERDA) -Agricultural Nonpoint Source Management
Table VIII-2 provides a comprehensive listing of fundingavailable from private sources for nonpoint source andrelated activities. Approximately 60 funding sources arelisted that provide specific grants ranging in size from afew thousand to multi-millions of dollars.
B. Funding for Capital Projects by Federal andState Agencies.
1. Clean Water State Revolving Fund(CWSRF) for Water Pollution Control (seealso Table VIII-1, Item 1)
General: New York’s Clean Water StateRevolving Fund has gained widespreadrecognition as a program that provides low-interest rate loans to municipalities to constructwater quality protection projects. As the loansare repaid, money is available to be used againfor new loans - a true revolving fund. TheCWSRF program, in existence since 1990, hasmade over $3.75 billion in loans. Over 250municipalities have saved significant interestcosts to date by receiving financial assistancefor the planning, design, and construction of avariety of projects that protect water quality.
The New York State Environmental Facilit-iesCorporation (EFC) is responsible for
administration of the CWSRF. The New YorkState Department of EnvironmentalConservation is the recipient of SRF federalcapitalization grants and also has SRF programreview responsibilities.
Eligible Projects: Point source and nonpointsource projects are eligible for CWSRF loansper the Clean Water Act (CWA) amendmentsof 1987. Proposed projects must be publicly-owned and the primary purpose of the projectmust be water quality protection to be eligiblefor CWSRF financing.
In addition, funding may be provided for thewater quality protection portion of otherwiseineligible projects. For example, construction ofa new wastewater treatment plant is fullyeligible, whereas construction of a new solidwaste landfill is only partly eligible. The eligiblecomponents of a new landfill are generallylimited to the double-composite liner system andleachate collection, storage and treatmentsystem, which have a water quality protectionpurpose. The types of nonpoint source projectseligible for CWSRF financing include 1) cappingand closure of municipal solid waste landfills,landfill reclamation, and landfill leachatecollection, storage, and treatment, 2)remediation of contamination from leakingpetroleum/chemical storage tanks, undergroundinjection wells and inactive municipal hazardouswaste sites including landfills, 3)upgrade/rehabilitation or removal of existingpetroleum/chemical storage tanks for pollutionprevention, 4) highway deicing materials storageand efficient salt application equipment, 5)collection and treatment of runoff frommunicipal airports which has been contaminatedby aircraft deicers or other pollutants, 6)stormwater management facilities, such asstreet sweepers and catch basin vacuumvehicles, sediment traps and basins, constructedwetlands and biofilters, 7) waterbody restorationincluding stream bank stabilization and drainageerosion and sediment control, 8) restoration of
VIII-3
riparian vegetation, wetlands and otherwater bodies, 9) land purchase orconservation easements for water qualityprotection such as for wellheads orwatersheds, and 10) certain estuaryrestoration projects at USEPA designatedestuaries.
Types of Loans: Interest-free short-term loansmay be available for a term of up to three yearsto allow municipalities to design and initiateconstruction on their water quality projects orto prefinance costs that will be reimbursed fromproceeds of grants and loans from other fundingsources. EFC makes “leveraged” long-termloans to municipalities by issuing bonds onavailable State and federal capitalization dollars,thereby doubling or tripling the amount ofmoney that it can lend under the CWSRFprogram. The leveraged loans are made tomunicipalities at one-half or two-thirds of theinterest rate on EFC’s tax-exempt AAA-ratedbonds. Over the life of the loan, muni-cipalitiessave about $225,000 to $325,000 per milliondollars borrowed by utilizing the CWSRFprogram.
Application Process: The first step in applyingfor financing is to submit a prpject listing formto get a project into the annual “Intended UsePlan” (IUP). The second step is to submit acomplete application at an appropriate time inthe funding process.
2. Drinking Water State Revolving Fund(DWSRF) (see also Table VIII-1, Item 2)
The New York Drinking Water State RevolvingFund (DWSRF), created by State and federallegislation in 1996, is administered jointly by theNew York State Department of Health (DOH)and the New York State EnvironmentalFacilities Corporation (EFC). Similar to theClean Water State Revolving Fund, this
program provides subsidized low interest rateloans to municipalities for construction ofeligible water system projects. This programcontains provisions to finance a limited segmentof nonpoint source pollution control projectssuch as land purchase or conservationeasements for water quality protection forwellheads or watersheds. However, financingof wel lhead or watershed landpurchase/conservation easements is also eligibleunder the CWSRF program and the CWSRFwill be used to finance these projects toconserve DWSRF resources for other highpriority projects. The general way the DRSRFprogram operates, the types of loans available,and the application process are the same asdescribed above for the CWSRF program.
3. Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act of 1996(see also Table VIII-1, Item 3)
In November, 1996, New York voters approved theexpenditure of $1.75 billion for the Clean Water/ClearAir Bond Act. The Bond Act provides $790 million forclean water, $230 million for air quality, $175 million forsolid waste and $200 million for brownfields. A portionof these funds will be used to construct nonpoint sourceprojects. Projects located within the geographical areaand identified as a need in any of the following waterquality management plans will receive a higher priorityfor funding: 1) Hudson River Estuary Plan, 2) LongIsland Sound Comprehensive Conservation andManagement Plan, 3) Lake Champlain ManagementPlan, 4) Onondaga Lake Plan, 5) NY/NJ HarborComprehensive Conservation and Management Plan, 6)Great Lakes Program, 7) Finger Lakes and theirtributaries, 8) Peconic Estuary Management Plan, and 9)South Shore Estuary Reserve Plan. Table VIII-1contains a list of state agencies to contact, definition ofeligible grant recipients, list of eligible activities to befunded, initial funding level, and the grant applicationprocess.
VIII-4
4. Environmental Protection Fund (EPF) (seealso Table VIII-1, Items 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,11)
The Environmental Protection Fund is adedicated environmental fund that can be usedto finance nonpoint source water pollutionabatement and control projects. Eight separateprograms provide funding to eligible recipientsfrom the Environmental Protection Fund.These programs are:
1) the Nonpoint Source Implementation GrantsProgram (Non-Ag) whose eligiblerecipients are municipalities or entitiesdesignated to act on their behalf,
2) the Agricultural Nonpoint SourceAbatement and Control Grants Programwhose eligible recipients are County Soiland Water Conservation Districts,
3) the Hudson River Estuary Program whosegoal is to develop a management programfor the Hudson River including the river’stidal wetlands and tributaries,
4) the Title 3 Solid Waste Program whichfunds the remediation of inactive municipalhazardous waste landfills,
5) the Title 5 Solid Waste Program whose goalis the funding of the proper closure ofmunicipal owned solid waste landfills,
6) the Open Space Program for the purchaseof sites and easements that are listed on theState Open Space Conservation Plan,
7) the Agriculture Open Space Program forprojects that implement approved localagricultural protection plans, and
8) the Title 11 - Local Waterfront Revital-ization Program Grants. This fundingprogram is limited to the Great Lakes andLong Island coastal areas of the state plusdesignated inland waterways.
5. Environmental Quality Incentives Program(EQIP) (see also Table VIII-1, Item 12)
This program is derived from the 1996 FederalFarm Bill. It is designed to provide grants tofarmers for eligible conservation practices.Substantial funding is provided as listed in TableVIII-1 for this program, whose primary purposeis water quality protection.
6. Conservation Reserve Program
(see also Table VIII-1, Item 13)
This program is a carry-over from earlier FarmBills but the latest version is derived from the1996 Federal Farm Bill. It is designed toprovide payments to farmers, land owners andproducers for keeping land out of production.Additionally, 50% cost-sharing is available forestablishing eligible conservation practices onthe land removed from crop production.Funding is provided as listed in Table VIII-1 forthis program, whose primary purpose is waterquality protection and wildlife management.
7. New York City Watershed Program (seealso Table VIII-1, Items 14)
This program is a limited duration fundingprogram of the City of New York. The primaryemphasis is to ensure the long-term protectionof the water supply source of the nine millionpeople served by this water system. Thefunding for the Agricultural Program constituesa concept called “whole farm planning” andincludes implementation of Best ManagementPractices (BMP) for nonpoint source pollutionabatement.
VIII-5
8. Catskill Watershed CorporationProgram (see also Table 8-1, item 15)
The Towns in the Catskill watershed and theCity of New York created a non-profitcorporation dedicated to addressing waterquality issues in the watershed. The fundingfor this program includes on-site wastewatersystems, roadway deicing storage facilities,streambank/fish habitat improvements, andstormwater projects. Approximately $69million of eligible projects are to be funded.
9. Skaneate l e s Lake WatershedAgricultural Program (see also TableVIII-1, Item 16)
This program was created by the City ofSyracuse for the same reasons the NewYork City Watershed Agricultural Programwas created. The program funds thedevelopment of whole farm plans utilizing a“tiered approach” and the implementation of“Best Management Practices” that addresspriority water quality concerns.
10. Clean Vessel Assistance Program (seealso Table VIII-1, Item 17)
This funding program, due to end in 1999,funds sanitary pumpout and dump stations forportable toilets of recreational vessels atmarinas. The funding is available to privateor publicly owned facilities.
11. Transportation Enhancement Program(TEP) (see also Table VIII-1, Item 20)
New York State’s TEP is designed toimplement the federal program establishedwithin the Intermodal Surface Transportationand Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and continued inthe Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21). The TEP provides
federal reimbursement for non-traditionalprojects that add value to the transportationsystem by relating to human and environmentalaspects. Ten percent of federal SurfaceTransportation Program funds are set aside forthese activities. TEA-21 provides significantresources for TEPs nationally: $478 million inFFY98; $554 million in FFY99; $559 million inFFY 2000; $570 million in FFY 2001; $579.5million in FFY 2002; $590 million in FFY 2003.
Municipalities, state agencies (other thanDOT), and Authorities (public and quasi-governmental agencies with the authority toenter into a binding contract with the State ofNew York, are eligible to apply forreimbursement of projects mitigating waterpollution due to highway runoff, or otherprojects from a list of public access, aestheticand environmental projects.
12. Energy-Efficient Public Water andWastewater Technologies Program(see also Table VIII-1, Item 21)
This program is part of the statutory research,development , and demonstration activities of the New York State Energy Research andDevelopment Authority (NYSERDA). Theprogram offers to fund projects that study,develop, test, or demonstrate innovative andenergy-efficient water, wastewater and non-point source technologies. Successful projectsmust show all of the following within theirproposal:
Replicability - identify characteristics ofother sites and their locations in New YorkState where the technology would beapplicable;
Market Potential - provide the location,size, and value of the potential market forthe product or process; describe the
VIII-6
competitive advantage of the productor process in the marketplace; etc.;
Economic Feasibility - provide the ration-ale used to determine the potentialeconomic feasibility of the projectcompared to the status quo orwell-established, commercially availablealternatives; and
Energy, Environmental, and EconomicBenefits - describe and estimate thepotential net benefits of the proposedtechnology relative to the host communityand the potential New York Statemarket.
Multiple awards of up to $250,000 per projectare anticipated. Generally, $1,000,000 isavailable on a yearly basis. A ProgramOpportunity Notice (PON 466-99) isa v a i l a b l e o n t h e i n t e r n e t a thttp://www.nyserda.org .
13. New York State Energy Research andDevelopment Authority (NYSERDA) -Agricultural Environmental InnovationProgram (see also Table VIII-1, Item 22)
NYSERDA offers cost-sharing for feasibilitystudies, research, development, ordemonstration projects involving innovativeand energy-efficient methods to improvefarm profitability in such areas as:
. Management/treatment of farmwaste; wastewater and odor;
. Energy conservation or productivity;
. distributed energy generation;
. Energy-efficient processing ofimproved composts and other value-added products; or
. Other innovative agricultural activitiesto enhance agriculture in New YorkState.
Projects are selected through competitive solicitations.Through NYSERDA’s first solicitation multiple awardswere made of up to $250,000 for demonstration projectsand up to $50,000 each for feasibility studies.Opportunities for submitting proposals for currentlyopen solicitations can be found on NYSERDA’swebsite at: http://www.nyserda.ord.
C. Funding for Planning, Research,and Educational Programs
1. Environmental Protection Fund, HudsonRiver Estuary Program (see also TableVIII-1, Item 6)
The goal of the Hudson River Estuary Programis to develop a management program for theHudson River including the river’s tidalwetlands and tributaries.
2. Great Lakes Protection Fund (see alsoTable VIII-1, Items 18 and 19)
The regional Great Lakes Protection Fund isadministered by a board of directors withmembers from each of the seven participatingstates. The New York State Great LakesProtection Fund is administered by the NewYork State Department of EnvironmentalConservation. Non-profit organizations,environmental groups, universities and tradeassociations are eligible grant recipients.Eligible activities are those that promoteregional action to enhance the health of theGreat Lakes ecosystem. Table VIII-1 lists thecontact phone number for this funding source.
D. Potential Future Funding Directions -Clean Water SRF
VIII-7
The New York Clean Water State RevolvingFund (CWSRF) is currently authorized tomake loans only to municipalities. There is aneed to broaden the eligibility of the CWSRFprogram to include financing for the followingtypes of privately-owned facilities:
! residential on-site disposal systems(for replacement or rehabilitation offailing systems)
! removal of deteriorated undergroundoil tanks
! pollution prevention! best management practices for farm
owners (to fund nonpoint sourcewater pollution projects such asmanure disposal, animal feedlotrunoff, etc.)
! stormwater facilities for newdevelopment
! small businesses (such as forunderground tank removal orremediation for gas station owners,etc.)
To achieve this objective, the definition of aneligible borrower will need to be modified toinclude private borrowers for nonpointsource projects. Also, a stream-linedfinancing program would need to bedeveloped to provide residential owners orsmall businesses with a quick and easy low-interest lending program, through localfinancial insitutions to provide for waterpollution projects.
E. Private Funding Sources
Charitable Foundations: Usually, private foundationsfund only established institutions with federal nonprofitstatus. The major foundations or charitable trustsmaintain web pages that list their interests, which maybe by geographical area or topic, or both. Most havestrictly observed funding cycles, with a board reviewingrequests only once or twice a year. Smaller, localfoundations could also help; increasingly, civic leaderscitizens are establishing community funds to supportactivities of local civic benefit. Charitable foundationsoften favor projects that have significant social oreducational value to the community.
A web search through The Foundation Center(www.fdncenter.org) should prove fruitful when youare seeking funding for projects that might be includedin watershed restoration and protection. The largerfoundations tend to fund big projects, with at leastregional scope; national and international realms aremore their focus. But you could try a local project thathas widely applicable and replicable aspects. Check thefoundations’ web pages to see if your funding needs fittheir donation plans before deluging them withapplications.
VIII-8
Table VIII - 1
SOURCES OF FUNDING AVAILABLE TO PLAN AND/OR CONSTRUCT NONPOINT SOURCEPROJECTS
== 1 <<
Funding Source: Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
Authorization: Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), Sec. 603
Agency & phone #: New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation
1-800-882-9721 and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,Division of Water, Director’s Office 518-457-6674
Eligible Recipients: Municipalities defined as villages, towns, cities, counties, special improvement districts, Indianreservations and public benefit corporations or public authorities empowered to construct andoperate a project.
Eligible Activities: Funding of nonpoint source projects including landfill closures, landfill leachate treatment, siteremediation, petroleum/chemical storage tank remediation, highway and aircraft deicingstorage/treatment, stormwater management facilities, watershed restoration, watershed andwellhead protection, and estuary restoration.
Funding Level: Federal fiscal year 1997, $321.4 million available in resources for low-interest loans. Interestrates are generally one-half of the AAA rated bond market rate at time of loan (through9/30/2000). Short term (up to 3 years) and long-term (up to 20 years) loans.
Application Process: Two steps - first submit project listing form to get a project into the annual Intended Use Plan(IUP). Second, submit complete application at appropriate time in funding process.
== 2 <<
Funding Source: Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF)
Authorization: Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 1996 Amendments
Agency & phone #: New York State Department of Health, 1-800-458-1158 and
New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation
Eligible Recipients: Community Water Systems, both publicly and privately owned, and non-profit, non-communitywater systems.
Eligible Activities: Funding of eligible water system projects. Includes funding of land purchase or conservationeasements for source water protection for wellheads or watersheds.
VIII-9
Funding Level: Federal fiscal year 1997, $134,167,700 available in resources for low-interest long term (up to20 years) and state assistance payments. Interest rates are two-thirds of the market rate at thetime of the loan. Approximately $88,469,600 available in federal fiscal year 1998.
Application Process: Two steps - first submit application to NYSDOH to get listed on annual Intended Use Plan(IUP). Second, submit complete application to NYSEFC at appropriate time in funding process.
== 3 <<
Funding Source: Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act of 1996
Authorization: New York State Legislature, Title 3, 56-0303 laws of 1996
Agency & phone #: For general information contact the following state agencies:
- Department of Environmental Conservation at 518-457-2390,
- Environmental Facilities Corporation at 1-800-882-9721,
- Department of Health at 1-800-458-1158,
- Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation at
518-486-2933,
- Department of Agriculture and Markets at 518-457-2771/9271
- Department of State 518-474-6000, and
- Energy Research and Development Authority at 518-862-1090.
Eligible Recipients: Municipalities defined as a local public authority or public benefit corporation, a county, city,town, village, school district, supervisory district, district corporation, improvement district withina county, city, town or village, Indian nation or tribe recognized by the United States with areservation wholly or partly within the boundaries of New York State, or any combinationthereof. In the case of habitat restoration projects, the term municipality shall include the state.
Eligible Activities: Bond Act funds available for nonpoint source type projects include:
1) Water Quality Improvement Projects including wastewater treatment improvement projects,agricultural and nonagricultural nonpoint source abatement and control projects, aquatichabitat restoration projects, and pollution prevention projects,
2) Investigation or clean up of municipally owned contaminated properties, known asBrownfields,
3) funding to close certain solid waste landfills and develop municipal recycling projects,
4) Clean Air Projects,
5) Safe Drinking Water,
VIII-10
6) Open Space Prevention,
Funding Level: The total bond act authorization is $1.75 billion. The grant percentage depends on the type ofproject.
Application Process: Submit cover letter, completed application form, and municipal resolution to appropriate stateagency listed above.
== 4 <<
Funding Source: Environmental Protection Fund (EPF) - Non-Ag
Authorization: Article 17-1401 of Environmental Conservation Law
Agency & phone #: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Bureau of Watershed Management, (518) 457-0633.
Eligible Recipients: Eligible grant applicants are villages, towns, cities, counties, or an entity designated to act on theirbehalf such as a Soil and Water Conservation District.
Eligible Activities: Funding of nonpoint source water pollution control and abatement projects and activities. ECLSec. 17-1409.
Funding Level: Provides grants for up to 50 percent of eligible costs. Approximately $0.2 million available in1997.
Application Process: The next Request for Proposals will be announced through the Environmental Notice Bulletin,probably in 1998.
== 5 <<
Funding Source: Environmental Protection Fund (EPF) -Ag Projects
Authorization: Agricultural Nonpoint Source Abatement and Control Grants Program of NYS createdwithin the Soil & Water Conservation District Lae
Agency & phone #: New York State Department of Agriculture & Markets,
(518) 457-2771/9271
Eligible Recipients: Eligible grant applicants are County Soil and Water Conservation Districts or a group of districtsjointly.
VIII-11
Eligible Activities: Funding of initiatives that will reduce, abate, control, or prevent nonpoint source pollution fromagricultural activities through watershed-based and individual farm level assessments andimplementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs).
Funding Level: Provides grants for up to 75 percent of eligible costs (except up to 90 percent with landowneror operator contribution). Approximately $3 million available in 1997.
Application Process: Request for Proposals for annual fiscal year funding will be announced through theEnvironmental Notice Bulletin and the State Register.
- 6 -
Funding Source:Environmental Protection Fund - Hudson River Estuary Program
Authorization: Section 11-0306 of the Environmental Conservation Law of New York
Agency & phone #: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Region 3, (914) 256-3017
Eligible Recipients: Consultants, educational, and research institutions.
Eligible Activities: Implementation of Hudson River Action Plan 20 Commitments as part of the management planfor the river.
Funding Level: Fiscal year 1997-1998 funding of $6,000,000. Funding presently authorized through FY 1998-1999.
Application Process: Contracts selected through a competitive bid process.
== 7 <<
Funding Source: 1986 Environmental Quality Bond Act (Title 3) - Hazardous Waste Site Remediation
Authorization: Title 3 of Article 52 of Environmental Conservation Law
Agency & phone #: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division ofEnvironmental Remediation (518) 457-5861
Eligible Recipients: Municipalities defined as villages, towns, cities, counties, or any other public body created by orpursuant to State law, or an Indian tribe/tribal organization.
Eligible Activities: Funding of the proper closure of municipally-owned inactive hazardous waste landfills.
VIII-12
Funding Level: Project reimbursement is up to 75 % of eligible costs.
Application Process: Write a letter to Director, Division of Environmental Remediation, requesting a pre-applicationmeeting.
== 8 <<
Funding Source: Environmental Protection Fund (Title 5) - Solid Waste
Authorization: 1986 Environmental Quality Bond Act & Title 5 of Article 54 of EnvironmentalConservation Law
Agency & phone #: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Division of Solid & Hazardous Materials (518) 457-7146
Eligible Recipients: Municipalities defined as villages, towns, cities, counties, special improvement districts, Indiantribes, and public benefit corporations or public authorities, plus school districts.
Eligible Activities: Funding of the proper closure of municipally-owned solid waste landfills. Water qualityprotection provided by capping/closure of landfills, leachate collection and treatment, and landfillreclamation.
Funding Level: Project reimbursement is up to 90 % of eligible costs for communities under 3500 population andup to 50 % of eligible costs for communities 3500 population or greater. The maximum grant is$2 million for costs incurred after April 1, 1993. Interest-free loans are available for the localcost share for communities under 3500 population. Annual authorization is approximately$9,000,000 to $13,500,000 in fiscal year 1997-1998. Additional funding is available from theEnvironmental Quality Bond Act of 1986 and Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act of 1996.
Application Process: Contact Regional DEC office prior to requesting application packet.
== 9 <<
Funding Source: Environmental Protection Fund - Open Space
Authorization: Article 54 of Environmental Conservation Law
Agency & phone # New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Division of Lands & Forests (Real Property) 518-457-7670 and
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (518) 474-0474
VIII-13
Eligible Recipients: State of New York.
Eligible Activities: Preserve additions/scenic easements, water resources protection (aquifer recharge areas,watersheds), ecologically important areas, community tidal/freshwater wetlands or wildlifehabitat, public lands access/buffer/consolidation, shoreline protection plus land acquisition andeasements for Adirondack and Catskill Forest.
Funding Level: Approximately $30,000,000 available in 1997.
Application Process: Sites are first listed on the State Open Space Conservation Plan. Then the site must be listed inthe yearly EPF budget.
== 10 <<
Funding Source: Environmental Protection Fund - Ag Open Space
Authorization: Article 25 - AAA of New York State Agriculture & Markets Law
Agency & phone #: New York State Department of Agriculture & Markets,
(518) 457-2715
Eligible Recipients: County agricultural and farmland protection boards with approved plan or a village, town, or citywhich has in place a local farmland protection plan and has been endorsed for funding by thecounty Agricultural Farmland Protection Board.
Eligible Activities: Projects which implement approved local agricultural protection plans with preference given toprotecting viable farmland, farmland under significant development pressure, and providingbuffers for important public natural resources.
Funding Level: Approximately $4 million available in each of .SFYs 1996-1999 for 50 % matching grants.
Application Process: Request for Proposals issued annually.
== 11 <<
Funding Source: Environmental Protection Fund (Title 11) -
Local Waterfront Revitalization Program
Authorization: Article 54 of Environmental Conservation Law
Agency & phone #: New York State Department of State, (518) 474-6000
VIII-14
Eligible Recipients: Municipalities defined as cities, towns and villages located along coastal areas of state andcertain inland waterways.
Eligible Activities: Funding of planning and construction projects consisting of eligible waterfront revitalization, publicaccess, natural resource protection including water quality improvement, and water dependentuses and activities.
Funding Level: Generally 50/50 match grant. For 1997, $5,750,000 funding is available.
Application Process: Applications due end of calendar year.
== 12 <<
Funding Source: Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
Authorization: Federal Agricultural Improvement & Reform Act of 1996
Agency & phone #: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of USDA
(315) 477-6536
Eligible Recipients: Farmers
Eligible Activities: Certain conservation practices such as grassed waterways, filter strips, manure managementfacilities, etc.
Funding Level: $10,000 per year up to $50,000 over 5 years per farmer. Federal budget authorizes programfunding of $200 million per year through the year 2000.
Application Process: Requests for Proposals sent out annually. Up to 75% grants. Applicants develop and submita conservation plan.
== 13 <<
Funding Source: Conservation Reserve Program
Authorization: Federal Agricultural Improvement & Reform Act of 1996
Agency & phone #: Farm Service Agency office of USDA - Syracuse, NY (315) 477-6301
VIII-15
Eligible Recipients: Farmers, land owners, and producers
Eligible Activities: Protection of highly erodible and environmentally sensitive lands (such as public wellheadprotection areas) with filter strips, riparian buffers, windbreaks, grassed waterways, restorationof wetlands, enhancing wildlife habitat, etc.
Funding level: National funding exceeds $15 million annually. No set funding limit per state.
Application Process: Active farmers, land owners, and producers should contact local Farm Service Agency office(47 offices in New York).
== 14 <<
Funding Source: New York City Watershed Agricultural Program
Authorization: New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP)
Agency & phone #: Administered through Watershed Agricultural Council (WAC)
(914) 865-7790
Eligible Recipients: Farmers within New York City Watershed having gross income of $10,000 or more.
Eligible Activities: Whole farm planning and implementation taking into account water quality protection and farmingeconomic viability.
Funding Level: Approximately $35 million through the year 2002 from NYCDEP. Other funding includes USDAas well as private foundation grants.
Application Process: Active farmers, land owners, and producers should contact the Watershed Agricultural Council.
== 15 <<
Funding Source: Catskill Watershed Corporation Programs
Authorization: New York City Watershed Memorandum of Agreement
Agency & phone #: Catskill Watershed Corporation, (914) 586-1400
Eligible Recipients: Residential property owners, businesses and municipalities in the New York City Watershed.
VIII-16
Eligible Activities: Funding of replacement and upgrades to failing on-site wastewater treatment systems, storagefacilities for sand/salt/other roadway de-icing materials to protect water quality, streambankstabilization and fish habitat improvements, and design, permitting, construction, implementationand maintenance of stormwater facilities using Best Management Practices (BMPs).
Funding Level: Approximately $69.175 million to be expended for the above eligible activities. In addition, the“Catskill Fund for the Future” provides low-interest loans and grants for economic developmentand water pollution controls, some of which are defined as nonpoint source water qualityprojects.
Application Process: Application process is being developed, contact Catskill Watershed Coporation.
== 16 <<
Funding Source: Skaneateles Lake Watershed Agricultural Program
Authorization: City of Syracuse
Agency & phone #: Skaneateles Lake Watershed Agricultural Program
(315) 677-4630
Eligible Recipients: Farmers in the Skaneateles Lake Watershed (portions of Cayuga, Cortland and OnondagaCounties).
Eligible Activities: Design and implementation of Whole Farm Plans
Funding Level: Approximately $500,000 per year from City of Syracuse for operating expenses includingdevelopment of whole farm plans plus additional funding ($400,000 in 1997) from city, state andfederal sources for implementation of whole farm plans.
Application Process: Farmer and staff develop plan designed to meet environmental and farm business objectives ofeach farm.
== 17 <<
Funding Source: Clean Vessel Assistance Program
Authorization: Federal Clean Vessel Act of 1992
VIII-17
Agency & phone #: New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation
1-800-882-9721 and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Div.of Fish & Wildlife (518) 457-5698
Eligible Recipients: Private and public marinas.
Eligible Activities: Reimbursement of installation of sanitary pumpout and dump stations for portable toilets ofrecreational vessels.
Funding Level: Approximately $525,000 remaining funds until depleted or through end of program on 9/30/99.
Application Process: Applications are continually received and processed
= 18 <<
Funding Source:Great Lakes Protection Fund
Authorization: A regional fund created in 1989 by the Governors of the Great Lakes states.
Agency & phone #: Great Lakes Protection Fund, 35 East Wacker Drive,
Suite 1880, Chicago, IL 60601, phone (312) 201-0660
Eligible Recipients: Non-profit organizations, environmental groups, universities, trade associations, individuals.
Eligible Activities: Eligible activities are those that identify, demonstrate, and/or promote regional action to enhancethe health of the Great Lakes ecosystem health. The funds’ primary goals are to prevent toxicpollution, to support effective cleanup approaches, to support natural resource stewardship, andto clarify health effects of toxic pollution on humans and wildlife.
Funding Level: $97 million has been pledged by the Governors of the Great Lakes states to provide a permanentendowment. Earnings from the endowment are distributed in project grants.
Application Process: In response to annual call for proposals submit pre-proposal for review by staff and Board ofDirectors, and then if invited submit a full proposal.
== 19 <<
Funding Source:New York State Great Lakes Protection Fund
VIII-18
Authorization: Chapter 148 of the Laws of 1990, Section 97EE of the
State Finance Law.
Agency & phone #: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Division of Water, (518) 457-1158
Eligible Recipients: Planning entities, educational institutions, consultants, industry, government, environmental groups.
Eligible Activities: Legislation states that the NYGLPF be used to support the following areas: researching theeconomic, environmental and human effects of contamination in the Great Lakes.
Funding Level: NYGLPF is funded by a portion of the interest earned on New York State’s contribution to theGreat Lakes Protection Fund. Grants are generally $50,000 maximum per project.
Application Process: Respond to annual call for proposals. Submit pre-proposal for review by NYSDEC, then ifinvited, submit a full proposal.
== 20 <<
Funding Source:Transportation Enhancement Program (TEP)
Authorization: Federal Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)
Agency & phone #: New York State Department of Transportation, (518) 457-2935
Eligible Recipients: Municipalities, state agencies (other than DOT), Authorities (public and quasi-governmentalagencies with the authority to enter into a binding contract with the State of New York).
Eligible Activities: The Federal Highway Administration’s list of eligible categories includes: mitigation of waterpollution due to highway runoff, provision of facilities for bicycle and pedestrian safety andeducation, scenic easements, historic sites or highways, landscaping, historic preservation,rehabilitation of historic transportation structures, establishment of transportation museums,preservation and conversion to trails of railway corridors, control and removal of outdooradvertising, archeological planning and research, environmental mitigation of vehicle-causedwildlife mortality and maintenance of habitat connectivity.
Funding Level: TEA-21 TEP projects are reimbursed up to 80%. This is not a grant program. A project teamfirst demonstrates its ability to finance the project in a finance plan. Progress payments to thesponsor are allowed as per agreement. Administrative costs are not reimbursable. Certainresearch, planning and design costs are reimbursable. There is no maximum per project costspecified. Other federal and state rules and requirements also apply.
Application Process: A guidebook and applications are available on NYSDOT’s Web Page: www.dot.state.ny.us.
VIII-19
== 21 <<
Funding Source:Energy-Efficient Public Water and Wastewater Technologies Program
Authorization: Statutory Research, Development, and Demonstration Funds
Agency & phone #: The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA)
Questions about prospective projects should be directed to Larry Pakenas at (518) 862- 1090,ext. 3247, [email protected].
Eligible Recipients: Proposals may be submitted by New York State municipalities, including a county, city, town,village, district corporation, improvement district, public benefit corporation, public authority, oragency empowered to engage in such projects. Where appropriate, partnerships or teams areencouraged. All proposals must be cost-shared. Potential contractors must have the followingattributes: financial resources to perform the proposed work; technical experience and facilities,or the ability to get them; good project management capability; and be qualified for an awardunder applicable laws and regulations.
Eligible Activities: Programs in water and wastewater have targeted specific areas or included a list of eligiblecategories, including projects that study, develop, test, or demonstrate innovative andenergy-efficient technologies for municipal water and wastewater treatment or processing, waterdistribution or wastewater collection, sludge or biosolids management, watershed or reservoirmanagement, air pollution control, and energy management. Wastewater processing includesalternative wastewater treatment systems for small communities or cluster developments. Highway runoff pollution control is also included as an eligible project category.
Generally, $1,000,0000 has been made available per year, with multiple awards of up to $250,000per project. Contracts may require sharing of project costs (minimum 25% for municipalities,50% for all others) is required.
Application Process: Projects are selected through competitive solicitation. Opportunities for submitting proposals forcurrently open solicitations can be found on NYSERDA’s website at: http://www.nyserda.org,or by contacting:
Jane Powers, PON No. 466-99
NYSERDA, 286 Washington Ave. Ext. Albany, New York 12203-6399 (518) 862-1090, ext. 3342 Fax: (518) 862-1091 e-mail: [email protected]
VIII-20
== 22 <<
Funding Source:Agricultural Environmental Innovation Program
Authorization: A public benefit corporation created in 1975 by the New York State Legislature
Agency & phone #: The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
(NYSERDA) Technical questions should be directed to (518) 862-1090: Tom Fiesinger, ext 3218,[email protected]. Contractual questions should be directed to Elsie Beagle, ext. 3261,[email protected].
Eligible Recipients: Proposals may be submitted by any NYS agricultural facility.
Eligible Activities: All proposed projects must provide direct energy, environmental, or economic benefit to at leastone NYS agricultural facility and enhance the commercialization or replication of the technologyinvolved.
Funding Level: All projects must be cost-shared. Through its first solicitation, NYSERDA made multiple awardsof up to $250,000 each for demonstration projects and up to $50,000 each for feasibility studiesof innovative technologies or business plans for the development of innovative cooperative,collaborative, or partnership enterprises. Similar funding levels are anticipated for futuresolicitations.
Application Process: Projects are selected through competitive solicitations. The next solicitation is planned for thelast quarter of 2000. Opportunities for submitting proposals for currently open solicitations canbe found on NYSERDA’s website at: http://www.nyserda.org or by contacting:
Jane Powers NYSERDA, 286 Washington Avenue ExtensionAlbany, NY 12203-6399(518) 862-1090, ext. 3342 Fax: (518) 862-1091
e-mail: [email protected]
APPENDIX A
A-1
Note: This appendix lists, by chapter:
C documents or references specifically quoted, cited or identified in the chapter; andC documents or references not specifically cited, but used to develop the content of the chapter.
Where materials are referenced in more than one chapter, the reference will appear in the section of thebibliography entitled “ General References.”
APPENDIX A
BIBLIOGRAPHY
= Chapter I: Overview
New York State’s Nonpoint Source Program: A Status Report. 1995. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, AlbanyNY 12233-3508. Phone (518) 485-8743.
= Chapter II: Partnerships
Building Watershed Parnerships - Water Week 1997: Watershed Management. 1997. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3508. Phone: (518) 485-8743.
Procedure for Preparing and Implementing County Water Quality Strategies (Supplemental Guidance). 1992. NYSDEC,Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3508. Phone (518) 457-8960.
= Chapter III: Identifying and Evaluating Nonpoint Source Problems
SURFACE WATER
1997-1998 Health Advisories Chemicals in Sportfish and Game: Fish & Game Advisory. 1997-1998. NYSDOH, 2University Place, Albany, NY 12233-3313. Phone: 1-800-458-1158.
20-Year Trends in Water Quality of River & Streams (Biomonitoring) - Report: Monitoring & Assessment. 1993.NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3502. Phone: (518) 285-5682.
BASIN FACT SHEETS
Chemung River Basin Fact Sheet: General Information. 1997. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3508. Phone: (518) 485-8743.
A-2
Erie Basin Fact Sheet: General Information. 1997. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3508.Phone: (518) 485-8743.
Genesee River Basin Fact Sheet: General Information. 1996. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3508. Phone: (518) 485-8743.
Lower Hudson River Basin Fact Sheet: General Information. 1996. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY12233-3508. Phone: (518) 485-8743.
Bio-Assessment Reports for over 100 Streams, Lakes or Waterbody Segments (Individual Reports): Monitoring &Assessment. Varies. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3502. Phone: (518) 285-5682.
Canaries of the Stream: Water Quality/Biomonitoring. 1990. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3502. Phone: (518) 285-5682.
Citizens Statewide Lake Assessment Program Monitoring Protocol Manual: Monitoring. Reprint. NYSDEC, Division ofWater, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3508. Phone: (518) 457-8960.
Macroinvertebrate Studies (Specific Locations): Monitoring & Assessment. 1985-1995. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 WolfRoad, Albany NY 12233-3502. Phone: (518) 285-5682.
New York Water Quality 1998: Submitted Pursuant to Section 305(b) of the Federal Clean Water Act. NYSDEC, Divisionof Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3503. Phone (518) 457-0893.
Priority Waterbodies List 1996. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3503. Phone (518) 457-0893.
Priority Waterbodies List (Data Sheets): Water Quality. 1996. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3502. Phone: (518) 457-7130.
Priority Waterbodies List - Executive Summary: Water Quality. 1997. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, AlbanyNY 12233-3502. Phone: (518) 457-7130.
Priority Waterbodies List - Statewide Summary: Water Quality. 1997. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, AlbanyNY 12233-3502. Phone: (518) 457-7130.
Rotating Intensive Basin Studies (RIBS) Report (Series on selected NYS Drainage Basins): Monitoring & Assessment.1987-1997. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3502. Phone: (518) 457-7130.
Snapshot of New York State’s Water: General Information. 1996. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY12233-3508. Phone: (518) 485-8743.
Stream Classification: Classification of Waters. 1990. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3508.Phone (518) 457-8960.
Toxicity Testing Manual: Monitoring & Assessment. 1985. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3502. Phone: (518) 457-5320.
A-3
Trends in Water Quality of Selected Rivers in New York State: Monitoring & Assessment. 1995. NYSDEC, Division ofWater, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3502. Phone: (518) 457-8955.
GROUNDWATER (also see listing under Chapter VI below)
NYS Wellhead Protection Program. 1990. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3508. Phone: (518)457-8960.
Upstate NY Groundwater Management Program (Summary). 1986. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY12233-3508. Phone: (518) 457-8960.
= Chapter IV: Outreach and Education
Clean Water Starts with You: Stream Erosion. 1994. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3508.Phone: (518) 485-8743.
Clean Water - A Community Commitment to Protecting NY’s Watersheds: Watershed Management. 1992. NYSDEC,Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3508. Phone: (518) 485-8743.
Communication, Outreach and Involvement: A Strategy for Implementing New York’s Nonpoint Source ManagementProgram. 1993. NYNPSCC. Available from NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3508. Phone (518)485-8743.
New York’s Watershed Planning Tools - Water Week 1996: Watershed Management Information. 1996. NYSDEC, Divisionof Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3508. Phone: (518) 485-8743.
Primer on New York Watersheds - Water Week 1995: Watershed Management. 1995. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 WolfRoad, Albany NY 12233-3508. Phone: (518) 485-8743.
Public Involvement for Better Decisions: A Guidance Manual. America’s Clean Water Foundation, 440 North Capitol Street,NW, Suite 330, Washington, D.C. 20001.
Stormwater Runoff Education Packet - Water Week 1994. Stormwater. 1994. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road,Albany NY 12233-3508. Phone: (518) 485-8743.
Survey and Compendium of Local Laws for Protecting Water Quality from Nonpoint Source Pollution: Nonpoint SourcePollution. 1996. New York Planning Federation. Phone: (518) 432-4094.
Water Stewardship Report: Stewardship. 1995. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3508. Phone:(518) 485-8743.
Where to Find Information on Nonpoint Source Pollution in New York State. 1993. Published by the NYNPSCC. Availablefrom NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3508. Phone (518) 485-8743.
A-4
= Chapter V: Programs to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution
5.1 General Management Activities
1995 Nonpoint Source Implementation Projects. 1997. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3508.Phone: (518) 457-8960.
1995-96 Nonpoint Source Implementation Projects. 1997. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3508. Phone: (518) 457-8960.
1997 Nonpoint Source Implementation Projects. 1998. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3508.Phone: (518) 457-8960.
GREAT LAKES
Eighteenmile Creek Remedial Action Plan - Final: Great Lakes. 1997. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, AlbanyNY 12233-3508 Phone: (518) 457-8961 or NYSDEC, Region 9 Office, 270 Michigan Avenue, Buffalo, N.Y. 14203-2999. Phone:(716) 851-7200.
Eighteenmile Creek Remedial Action Plan - Summary: Great Lakes. 1997. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road,Albany NY 12233-3508 Phone: (518) 457-8961 or NYSDEC, Region 9 Office, 270 Michigan Avenue, Buffalo, N.Y. 14203-2999.Phone: (716) 851-7200.
Getting the Word Out (RAPS & LaMPS Brochure): Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans. 1994. NYSDEC, Division of Water,50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3508 Phone: (518) 485-8743.
Great Lakes Basin Advisory Council (NYS) 3rd Annual Report: Great Lakes. 1991. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 WolfRoad, Albany NY 12233-3508. Phone: (518) 457-8961.
Great Lakes Basin Advisory Council (NYS) 4th Annual Report: Great Lakes. 1992. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 WolfRoad, Albany NY 12233-3508. Phone: (518) 457-8961.
Keeping It On The Land: Great Lakes - Nonpoint Source. 1992. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY12233-3508 Phone: (518) 457-8961.
Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan: Great Lakes. 1991. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3508. Phone: (518) 457-8961.
Lakewide Impacts of Critical Pollutants on U.S. Boundary Waters of Lake Ontario: Great Lakes. 1994. NYSDEC, Divisionof Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3508. Phone: (518) 457-8961.
Niagara River Remedial Action Plan - Final: Great Lakes. 1994. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY12233-3508 Phone: (518) 457-8961 or NYSDEC, Region 9 Office, 270 Michigan Avenue, Buffalo, N.Y. 14203-2999. Phone: (716)851-7200.
A-5
Niagara River Remedial Action Plan - Summary: Great Lakes. 1994. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, AlbanyNY 12233-3508 Phone: (518) 457-8961 or NYSDEC, Region 9 Office, 270 Michigan Avenue, Buffalo, N.Y. 14203-2999. Phone:(716) 851-7200.
Niagara River Toxics Management Plan: Great Lakes. 1990. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3508. Phone: (518) 457-8961.
NYS 25-Year Plan for the Great Lakes: Great Lakes. 1992. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3508. Phone: (518) 457-8961.
RAPs in Action (Brochure): Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans. 1994. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, AlbanyNY 12233-3508 Phone: (518) 485-8743.
Remedial Action Plan Status Report Buffalo River: Great Lakes. 1995. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, AlbanyNY 12233-3508 Phone: (518) 457-8961 or NYSDEC, Region 9 Office, 270 Michigan Avenue, Buffalo, N.Y. 14203-2999. Phone:(716) 851-7200.
Remedial Action Plan Update Oswego River: Great Lakes. 1996. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY12233-3508. Phone: (518) 457-8961.
Remedial Action Plan Update St. Lawrence River at Massena: Great Lakes. 1995-1996. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 WolfRoad, Albany NY 12233-3508. Phone: (518) 457-8961.
Remedial Action Plan (RAPs) Newsletter: River Rap - Oswego: Great Lakes. Publication Date Varies. NYSDEC, Divisionof Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3508 Phone: (518) 485-8743.
Remedial Action Plan (RAPs) Newsletter: Watershed Watch - St. Lawrence River RAP - Oswego: Great Lakes. PublicationDate Varies. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3508 Phone: (518) 485-8743.
Rochester Embayment RAP (Executive Summary): Great Lakes. 1997. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, AlbanyNY 12233-3508. Phone: (518) 457-8961.
The Oswego River Remedial Action Plan Past, Present and Future (Brochure): Great Lakes/Remedial Action Plans. 1994.NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3508 Phone: (518) 485-8743.
5.2 Agriculture
Controlling Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution. 1991. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3508. Phone: (518) 485-8743.
Guide to Agricultural Environmental Management in New York State. 1997. NYS SWCC and the NYS Department ofAgriculture and Markets, 1 Winners Circle, Albany, NY 12235. Phone: (518) 457-3738.
Tipstrip: Your Farm’s Most Precious Crop - Clean Water. Current. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY12233-3508. Phone: (518) 485-8743.
5.4 Construction
A-6
SPDES General Permit (93-06; Construction). 1997. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3506.Phone: (518) 457-1157.
SPDES General Permits for Stormwater - Commonly Asked Questions and Answers. 1995. NYSDEC, Division of Water,50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3506. Phone: (518) 457-1157.
SPDES General Permits for Stormwater - Reference and Guidance Information. 1994. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 WolfRoad, Albany NY 12233-3507. Phone: (518)
5.5 Contaminated Sediment
Biological Assessment of Contaminated Sediments in NYS. 1995. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY12233-3502. Phone: (518) 457-8955.
5.6 Hydrologic/Habitat Modification
Coastal Erosion in NYS . 1984. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3507. Phone: (518) 457-8949.
Coastal Erosion in NYS - Great Lakes. 1984. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3507. Phone:(518) 457-8949.
Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act - Article 34 ECL: Flood Protection Legislation. 1985. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3507. Phone: (518) 457-8949.
Fish & Wildlife Habitat Inventory & Assessment of the Lower Buffalo River Watershed: Habitat. 1993. NYSDEC, Divisionof Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3508. Phone: (518) 457-8960.
Our Lake Ontario Sand Dunes: Coastal Erosion. 1985. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3507.Phone: (518) 457-8949.
Stream Corridor Management. 1986. Health Education Services. Phone: (518) 439-7286.
5.10 Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems
Recommended Standards for Individual Sewage Systems: Wastewater Facilities Design. 1990. Health Education Services.Phone: (518) 439-7286.
5.14 Urban Runoff
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System -- Proposed Regulations for Revision of the Water Pollution ControlProgram Addressing StormWater Discharges; Proposed Rule.
40 CFR Parts 122 and 123 (Phase II Stormwater Regulations). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Register,Friday January 9, 1998.
SPDES General Permit (93-05; Non-construction). 1997. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3506.Phone: (518) 457-1157.
A-7
SPDES General Permits for Stormwater - Commonly Asked Questions and Answers. 1995. NYSDEC, Division of Water,50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3506 Phone: (518) 457-1157.
SPDES General Permits for Stormwater - Reference and Guidance Information: General SPDES Permits. 1994. NYSDEC,Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3506. Phone: (518) 457-1157.
SPDES Stormwater Permit Brochures (Industry & Construction). 1994. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, AlbanyNY 12233-3506. Phone: (518) 457-1157.
= Chapter VI: Watershed Planning for the Control of Nonpoint Source Pollution
GROUNDWATER PROTECTION
Ground Water Supply Source Protection; A Guide For Localities in Upstate New York. Schenectady County PlanningDepartment, 1985. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3508. Phone: (518) 457-8960.
Local Groundwater Protection. American Planning Association, 1987.
Upstate New York Groundwater Management Program. Division of Water, May 1987.
Long Island Groundwater Management Program. Division of Water, June 1986.
Seminar Publication, Protection of Public Water Supplies from Ground-Water Contamination. USEPA, September 1985.
Wellhead Protection -- Tips for Communities in New York. Division of Water, October 1996.
Wellhead Protection -- Technical Considerations for Delineation of Wellhead Protection Areas. Division of Water, October1996.
A Guide To Wellhead Protection. American Planning Association, 1995.
Seminar Publication, Wellhead Protection: A Guide for Small Communities. USEPA, February 1993.
New York State Wellhead Protection Program. Division of Water, Submitted to USEPA September 1990.
LAKE MANAGEMENT
Citizens Statewide Lake Assessment Program (Brochure). 1986. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY12233-3508. Phone: (518) 457-8960.
Diet for a Small Lake: A New Yorker’s Guide to Lake Management. 1990. NYSDEC and the Federation of Lake Associations,Inc. Available from the New York State Federation of Lake Association, Inc. 2698 Shadyside Drive, Findley Lake, NY 14736.Phone and fax: 1-800-796-FOLA.
A-8
Lake Erie Lakewide Management Plan Stage I. In progress. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3508. Phone: (518) 457-0634.
Lake George Urban Runoff Study. 1983. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3508. Phone: (518)457-8960.
The Plan for the Future of the Lake George Park. 1987. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3508.Phone: (518) 457-8960.
Lakewide Management Plan for Lake Ontario. Stage I: Problem Definition. April 1997.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region II, Environment Canada, New York State Department of EnvironmentalConservation, Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3508. Phone: (518) 457-0634
.
Lakewide Management Plan for Lake Ontario. Stage I: Problem Definition Executive Summary. 1997. U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency Region II, Environment Canada, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, OntarioMinistry of the Environment and Energy. Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3508. Phone: (518) 457-0634.
NY Citizen Statewide Lake Assessment Program Sampling Protocol. 1986. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road,Albany NY 12233-3508. Phone: (518) 457-8960.
WATERSHED PLANNING
Hudson River Management Action Plan. 1996. NYSDEC Region 3, 21 South Putt Corners Rd., New Paltz, NY 12561-1696.Phone: (914) 256-3004.
Hudson River Management Action Plan - Executive Summary. 1996. NYSDEC Region 3, 21 South Putt Corners Rd., NewPaltz, NY 12561-1696. Phone: (914) 256-3004.
Hudson River Management Plan - Final. 1996. NYSDEC Region 3, 21 South Putt Corners Rd., New Paltz, NY 12561-1696.Phone: (914) 256-3004.
Hudson River Management Plan - Executive Summary. 1996. NYSDEC Region 3, 21 South Putt Corners Rd., New Paltz, NY12561-1696. Phone: (914) 256-3004.
L.I. Sound Comprehensive Conservation & Management Plan. 1993. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, AlbanyNY 12233-3506. Phone: (518) 457-8960.
Long Island South Shore Estuary Reserve Interim Report. 1998. New York Department of State. 41 State St. Albany, NY 12231-0001. (518) 474-6000.
National Planning Procedures Handbook. 1996. USDA NRCS, 441 South Salina Street, Suite 354, Syracuse, NY 13202. Phone:(315) 477-6504.
New York - New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program Final Comprehensive Conservation & Management Plan. March 1996.(Includes the Bight Restoration Plan.) NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3506. Phone: (518) 457-8960.
A-9
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ACTION: An Evolving Plan for the Future of the Lake Champlain Basin. June 1996. Prepared bythe Lake Champlain Management Conference. Lake Champlain Basin Program, Gordon Center House, 54 West Shore Road,Grand Isle, VT 05458. (802) 372-3213 or (800) 468-LCBP.
Peconic Estuary Program draft CCMP expected June 1998, final expected December 1998. New York Department of State. 41State St. Albany, NY 12231-0001. (518) 474-6000.
Predicting Pollutant Loading through the Use of Models (Appendix to Watershed Planning Handbook below). 1994.NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3508. Phone: (518) 457-8960.
Watershed Planning Handbook for the Control of Nonpoint Source Pollution. 1994. NYSDEC and the NYS SWCC. Availablefrom NYSDEC, 50 Wolf Road, Room 398, Albany, NY 12233-3508. Phone: (518) 457-8960.
= Chapter VII: Implementation Schedule for Nonpoint Source Management Program
Chapter VII is a compilation of the recommended Implementation Steps from the other chapters. There are no bibliographicreferences for this chapter.
= Chapter VIII: Sources of Funding Available to Implement Nonpoint Source Programs
Intended Use Plan Project Priority System: Project Priority List-Clean Water State Revolving Fund. October 1997, New YorkState Environmental Facilities Corporation, (Published Annually)
= General References
Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring and Protecting America’s Waters. February 1998, USEPA. National Center forEnvironmental Publications (800) 490-9198, or http://www.epa.gov/cleanwater.
Clean Water / Clean Air Bond Act - Water Quality Improvement Projects to Be Funded in SFY 1997-1998. August 1998,NYS DEC. (518) 457-8960.
Management Practices Catalogues for Nonpoint Source Pollution Prevention and Water Quality Protection in New YorkState. Updated annually. NYSDEC, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3508. Phone (518) 457-8960.Catalogues are available for each of the source categories addressed in this Management Program. See Appendix B of thisdocument for a summary of the information in these catalogues.
New York Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program. July 1995, NYS DOS in cooperation with the NYSDEC. Phone (518)474-6000.
Rules and Regulations for the Protection from Contamination, Degradation and Pollution of the New York City Water Supplyand Its Sources (NYC Watershed Regulations). May 1997. NYCDEP. (914) 742-2001.
APPENDIX B
B-1
APPENDIX B
NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
INTRODUCTION
The New York State Department of Envir-onmentalConservation (DEC) maintains catalogues of effectivemanagement practices for addressing nonpoint sourcepollution problems. These 10 catalogues, each of whichapply to a different source category, have been developedwith considerable outside input and are revised regularlyas new information becomes available. The catalogues arefor the following source categories:
! Agriculture
! Urban/Stormwater Runoff
! Construction
! Resource Extraction
! Roadway and Right-Of-Way Mainten-ance
! Silviculture
! On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems
! Hydrologic and Habitat Modification
! Leaks, Spills and Accidents
! Marina Operations (Interim Catalog)
This document explains how and why these catalogueswere developed, describes their content, how to use themand the process for modifying them.
A. The Nonpoint Source Management Practice TaskForce
Background
The federal Water Quality Act of 1987 placed increasedattention on the development and implementation ofnonpoint source (NPS) control programs. Section 319 ofthe Act required states to prepare an Assessment Reportidentifying waterbodies affected by nonpoint sourcepollution, determining categories of nonpoint sources thatare significant problems in the state and listing stateprograms available for the control of nonpoint sourcepollution. States were also required to prepare aManagement Program which explained how they planned
to deal with the source categories causing the majorproblems.
The DEC, by virtue of its statutory authority for themanagement of water resources and control of waterpollution in the State, has assumed the lead responsibilityin New York for control of nonpoint source pollution. Oneaction taken by DEC to carry out its NPS responsibilitieswas the development of a Nonpoint Source ManagementProgram in January, 1990. The Management Programoutlined how DEC would identify, describe and evaluatemanagement practices to be used to reduce nonpointsources of pollution and made recommendations foradditional control options needed to address nonpointsources.
Candidate Management Practices
The Clean Water Act recognizes the fundamentalimportance of the selection and use of best managementpractices (BMPs) to combat nonpoint sources ofpollution. BMP’s prevent or reduce the availability,release or transport of substances which adversely affectsurface and groundwaters. They act generally to diminishthe generation of pollutants from specific sources. This isin contrast to the control of point sources where thepollutants are generated, collected and then treated toprevent impairment of receiving waters.
The management practices provide an effective means ofreducing or preventing the impact of nonpoint pollutantsfrom a specific source category. Practices can beimplemented through voluntary action, financialincentives or regulatory requirements. While amanagement practice can have standards associated withits installation, operation or maintenance, it does notimpose effluent limitations for specific substances.Instead, it provides an effective means of reducing orpreventing the impact of nonpoint pollutants from aspecific source category. Management practices can havebroad generic application or be highly specific to certaingeographic, climatologic, hydrologic and chemical factors.Depending on the life span of the management practice,they may be temporary or permanent in their ability tocontrol pollutants. With some exceptions, the practices
B-2
listed in the Management Practice Catalogues are to somedegree in use in New York. In New York, a list of candidatemanagement practices was developed in 1989 by theNonpoint Source Working Group, a task force under DECleadership, composed of federal and state agencies andgroups representing a broad range of interests. TheWorking Group recognized that there are numerouspractices available with potential to control nonpointsource pollution. However, the management practiceswere not systematically inventoried or evaluated foreffectiveness in preventing or remediating nonpoint waterquality problems. In addition, they were not catalogued ina form that facilitated their widespread use.
A Nonpoint Source Management Practice Task Force wascreated in early 1990. The Task Force, composed of abroad range of interests, first met in February of that year.At that meeting, there was a discussion of the process tobe followed for establishing the list of managementpractices and each agency was given an opportunity toidentify source category subcommittees on which theywanted to participate.
B. The Management Practices Sub-committees
For 7 of the 10 source categories, subcommittees wereformed under DEC leadership to review the effectivenessof the candidate management practices and to consideradditional management practices. Subcommittees werenot formed for the Leaks, Spills and Accidents andResource Extraction Catalogues due to the existence inthose areas of well defined State regulatory programs. Asubcommittee was also not formed for the MarinaOperations Catalogue, however the Catalogue wasdeveloped with extensive input from the Ad Hoc MarinaAdvisory Committee.
Members of the subcommittees represented all interests atthe university, research, federal, state and private sectorlevels. All members served as reviewers of themanagement practice summary sheets, which wereprepared by DEC staff. A few Subcommittee members,with recognized, statewide technical leadership for amanagement practice, were asked to author some of themanagement practice summary sheets.
The individual management practice evaluations, knownas Management Practices Summary Sheets, collectivelyform the basis of the Management Practices Catalogues.The Catalogues contain the list of management practiceseligible for financial assistance under Section 319 programimplementation funds. The list is also used to establish
eligibility for the State Environmental Protection Funddollars for nonpoint source pollution control.
The Marina Operations Catalogue, while summarizingmanagement practices, does not contain individualsummary sheets. This is because it was originallydeveloped as a guidance/educational document and wasnot originally intended to be a Management PracticeCatalogue. The Leaks, Spills and Accidents Cataloguealso does not contain individual management practicessummary sheets. Instead, it summarizes existingpublications and regulatory requirements.
C. Nonpoint Source (NPS) Pollution in New YorkState
The NPS Assessment
In early 1989, a process was established to update DEC’slist of segments having water quality problems. Amongthe goals of this process was to use additional datasources to identify possible nonpoint source impacts, toprovide an opportunity to everyone with a knowledge ofwater quality problems to present this information and toexpand the list to include segments that are threatened bynonpoint source pollution.
DEC, working in conjunction with the New York State Soiland Water Conservation Committee, initiated a two-phased approach to identify problem waterbodies. Thefirst phase had each county Soil and Water ConservationDistrict conduct a survey of nonpoint source pollution intheir county. The second phase consisted of meetings ofrepresentatives from the key agencies within each countyto discuss the results of the NPS survey.
Recognition of a water quality problem was the startingpoint for discussion. The existence of a land use whichmay be associated with nonpoint source pollution was notsufficient to be considered a problem. A classified use ofa surface waterbody had to be precluded, impaired,stressed or threatened to be regarded as a problem.
The Priority Waterbodies List
The Bureau of Water Quality Management (now theBureau of Watershed Management) merged theinformation collected during the above update processwith the segment information contained in the Division ofWater’s 1988 Priority Water Problem (PWP) list andcompiled it in a series of databases. In December of 1991,
B-3
the Division of Water’s Bureau of Monitoring andAssessment (now the Bureau of Watershed Assessmentand Research), in conjunction with the Bureau of WaterQuality Management, published the PWP list. InDecember of 1993, the PWP database was again revisedbased on a year-long collection of segment updates and alocal verification process. The Department also issued a1996 Priority Waterbodies List (PWL) that updates theinformation contained in the 1993 PWP.
According to the 1996 PWL, 1,426 waterbody segmentsare being impacted in some way by pollution. A total of513 segments are classified as “precluded” meaning thatwater quality and/or habitat degradation precludes,eliminates or otherwise does not support a classified use.A total of 268 segments are classified as “impaired”meaning that water quality and/or habitat characteristicsfrequently impair a classified use. A total of 402 segmentsare classified as “stressed” meaning that reduced waterquality is occasionally evident and designated uses areoccasionally restricted. Finally, 243 segments areclassified as “threatened” meaning that water qualitypresently supports the designated use but that land usepatterns may result in future problems.
Nonpoint sources of pollution are the primary source ofwater body impairment for 1,328 of the 1,426 segments.Acid rain was the primary source affecting the mostsegments (397) followed by agriculture (197), urban runoff(188) and on-site systems (145). All are nonpoint sources.It should be noted that, with respect to acid rain, while thenumber of segments is large in number, most of them arerelatively small ponds and represent a relatively small totalwaterbody size.
When arrayed by total waterbody size affected, unknownsources, agriculture, urban runoff and on-site systems arethe most significant primary sources of pollution. All arenonpoint sources. When both primary and secondarysources of pollution are considered, agriculture, urbanrunoff and failing on-site septic systems are the mostsignificant sources of pollution of waterbody segments onthe PWL. Again, all are nonpoint sources.
D. Management Practice Summary Sheets
The following defines the terms used in the ManagementPractice Summary Sheets:
i. Title: is the management practice name found inthe block at the top of the summary sheet.
ii. Definition: is a brief statement that defines themanagement practice to be summarized.
iii. Water Quality Purpose: states why the practice isused for NPS pollution control.
iv. Source Category: describes the source of theproblem that would be addressed by themanagement practice.
v. Pollutants Controlled: identifies the NPSpollutants controlled by the management practice.
vi. Where Used: identifies the land uses or situationswhere the management practice can be applied.
vii. Practice Description: describes the managementpractice in terms of its vegetative, structural and/oroperational components.
viii. Practice Effectiveness: summarizes thedocumented practice effectiveness for controllingthe NPS pollutants identified. This information isbased on written national water quality researchfindings, university and agency research, waterquality monitoring and water quality modeling.Practice effectiveness can be quite variable, due towatershed location, specific site conditions (soils,drainage, slope, vegetative cover, rainfall, runoff,etc.), presence or absence of land use managementtechniques and the contribution of additionalmanagement practices used in a best managementsystem. This section presents practiceeffectiveness as a range of quantitative values, orwhere that information is not available, inqualitative terms. The information providedshould be used as guidance when estimating thepotential effectiveness of the management practicewithin a specific watershed planning situation.
ix. Impact on Surface Water: defines what impacts, ifany, the practice will have on surface water quality.Impacts are defined as None (neutral), Beneficial(positive), Slight (negative), Moderate (negative),and Severe (negative).
x. Impact on Groundwater: defines what impacts, ifany, the practice will have on groundwater quality.Impacts are defined as None (neutral), Beneficial(positive), Slight (negative), Moderate (negative),and Severe (negative).
B-4
xi. Advantages: are selling points for the managementpractice; they address cost-effectiveness,additional practice benefits and other tangible andintangible benefits.
xii. Disadvantages: are projected un-favorableconditions associated with the installation of themanagement practice; they address economics,operations and maintenance, and expectedproblems associated with the management practice.
xiii. Practice Lifespan: described in quantitative orqualitative terms.
xiv. Cost: described in unit costs, system costs, or inqualitative terms. These are estimated averagestatewide costs.
xv. Operation and Maint.: the successful control ofNPS pollutants depends upon conducting therequired O&M practices. In each case, where amanagement practice requires a specific course ofO&M, it is detailed, or referenced in themanagement practice summary sheet.
xvi. Miscellaneous Comments: this section deals witha variety of topics, including regulatoryrequirements (of NYSDEC, U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, and other agencies) affectinginstallation of the management practice; additionalmanagement practices that are needed; availabilityof technical assistance, or equipment, fromagencies that specialize in the installation of themanagement practice; and other pertinentmiscellaneous information.
xvii. References: those references used in theevaluation of the management practice are cited inthis section. Many publications are nationallyrecognized sources of management practiceevaluations and information. Every effort wasmade to utilize existing information from universityresearch and agency information from New YorkState. When that information was not available,and other states had appropriate information, itwas cited. The management practice that wasevaluated in the summary sheet is cited using abold footnote entitled: Management PracticeDesign Standard and Specification. In somecases, several agency or organizational stan-dardsand specifications were cited in this section.
E. How To Use Management Practice Catalogues
The list of management practices for each of the tensource categories is located at the end of this appendix.Management Practice Catalogues should be used duringthe watershed planning process to help guide selection ofappropriate BMP’s for the control of nonpoint sourcepollutants. A management practice or series of practicesis considered “best” only in the context of solving aparticular nonpoint source problem in a specificwatershed. For example, infiltration basins and pits mightbe the best management practice in one watershed whilean extended detention basin may be a more appropriatetreatment in another watershed.
These Catalogues are not design manuals and should notbe used to replace practice standards and specifications.The Catalogues are one of the technical tools professionalwatershed planners should use to evaluate managementpractices needed in a specific watershed planning effort.Using professional judgement and the Catalogues,watershed planners can select the BMP or system ofmanagement practices for the specific watershed situationat hand.
Where appropriate, management practices have beencategorized as operational, vegetative or structural,depending upon their purpose, function and design.
Operational practices: are practices that involve changesin management, usually resulting in a change in day-to-day decision-making. For example, Composting: Yard andHome Wastes, Proper Use and Disposal of HouseholdHazardous Substances, Street and Pavement Sweepingand Pet Waste Management and Control are examples ofoperational management practices.
Vegetative practices: increase the amount of herbaceousand/or woody vegetation in a critically eroding area. Forexample, Permanent Vegetative Cover, Urban Forestry,Streambank and Shoreline Protection and Filter Stripsare examples of vegetative management practices.
Structural practices: are usually practices that requireengineering design and often control runoff, the primarytransporter of most nonpoint source pollutants.Infiltration Basins and Pits, Water Quality Inlets(Oil/Grit Separators), Roof Runoff Systems and ExtendedDetention Basins are examples of structural managementpractices.
B-5
The following is a suggested procedure for using theCatalogues.
1. As a starting point, refer to the list at the end ofthis Appendix or in each Catalogue for a quickreview of the management practices.
2. Turn to the individual management practicesummary sheets in each Catalogue for the practicesthat control the pollutants you have identified.
a. Determine if the practice is appropriate for thelocation by checking the “Where Used”section of each summary sheet.
b. Refer to the “Practice Description” section todetermine if this treatment is appropriate to theidentified nonpoint source problem.
c. Read the “Practice Effectiveness” section todetermine if this management practice willprovide satisfactory expectations of pollutantprevention or reduction of pollutantavailability, release or transport.
F. Updating the Management Practices Catalogues
New York Nonpoint Source Coordinating Committee(NYNPSCC)
The New York Nonpoint Source Coordinating Committee(NYNPSCC) is responsible for updating the ManagementPractice Catalogues. NYNPSCC meets quarterly and atone meeting each year considers updates to ManagementPractices Catalogues.
NYNPSCC, which is composed of member organizationsand agencies, including DEC as lead agency, isresponsible for:
* Reviewing proposed additions, deletions, andrevisions to the Management Practices Catalogue.
* Identifying additional categories of nonpoint sourcepollution that have not been adequately addressedin the list of management practices.
* Suggesting research or demonstration projects onunproven or new management practices that appearto have potential for protecting water quality.
* Periodically reviewing the State list of managementpractices to verify the status of each practice. Thisreview should be based on recently publishedliterature and new or previously unknown researchor demonstration projects.
Conditions For Updating The Catalogue
Any agency, organization or group may propose anaddition, deletion or revision to the Catalogue. TheNYNPSCC will recognize four conditions for updating theCatalogue:
* Creation of a new management practice by anagency, university or recognized group.
* Modification of an existing management practice,either in its design requirements or operation andmaintenance, requiring a modification of the practicedefinition, water quality purpose, practice descrip-tion, practice effectiveness, impacts on surface orgroundwater, advan-tages/disadvantages, practicelifespan or cost.
* Emerging research data which indicates a change inmanagement practice effec-tiveness and/orpollutants controlled, requiring modifications ofwater quality purpose, practice description, practiceeffectiveness, practice impacts on surface orgroundwater, advantages/disadvan-tages, practicelifespan or cost.
* Revisions in state or national water quality policythat necessitate a higher level of waterbodyprotection, resulting in higher management practiceperformance standards. Policy revisions wouldresult in additions or deletions of managementpractices, modifications of practice description,design requirements, operation and maintenancerequirements, practice effectiveness, impacts onsurface and groundwater, cost and miscellaneouscomments.
How To Propose An Update Of The Catalogue
B-6
1. By December 31 of each year, proposed updatesshould be submitted to the attention of the New YorkNonpoint Source Coordinating Committee, NYSDEC,Bureau of Watershed Management, 50 Wolf Road,Room 398, Albany, New York 12233-3508.
2. The Coordinating Committee will review theproposed updates at their next regularly scheduledmeeting. A sub-committee of the Coordinating Com-mittee may be formed to study the update andrequest input from groups not represented on theCoordinating Committee.
3. The subcommittee of the Coordinating Committeewill review the proposed updates and determine ifthey meet the conditions for updating the Catalogue.In consultation with other interested groups, it willmake a recommendation to the members of the NewYork Nonpoint Source Coordinating Committee byMay 1 of the following year.
4. When the proposed update is approved, staff of theNYNPSCC will make the appropriate changes anddistribute copies of the addition to all CoordinatingCommittee members and holders of the ManagementPractices Catalogue Binder.
G. Catalogue and Management Practices List
Below is a list of the ten Management PracticesCatalogues along with the date of its last revision and alist of the practices included in each of the Catalogues.
Catalogue and Management Practices List
1. Agriculture
Access Road Improvement
Alternative Water Supply
Barnyard Runoff Management System
Conservation Tillage:
Minimum-Till
No-Till
Constructed Wetlands
Contour Farming
Cover and Green Manure Crop
Critical Area Protection:
Permanent Vegetative Cover
Streambank and Shoreline Protection
Crop Rotation
Diversions
Fencing
Filter Strips
Grassed Waterway
Integrated Pest Management (IPM):
Biological ControlsCultural Practices
Resistant Crop Varieties
Scouting
Trap Crops
Irrigation Water Management:Scheduling
Trickle Irrigation
Nutrient Management:Anaerobic Digestion
Composting
Fertilizer Management
Land Application of Manure
Manure Nutrient Analysis
Manure Storage System
Soil Testing
Nutrient/Sediment Control System
Pathogen Management
Pasture Management:
Short-Duration Grazing Systems
Pesticide Management:
Computerized Precision Application
Evaluation of Site- Specific Leaching and Surface Loss Potential
Pesticide Applicator Education and Training
Pesticide Handling Facility
Proper Equipment Calibration
Proper Timing of Pesticide ApplicationRead and Follow the Label Directions
Petroleum Product Storage Spill Prevention and Containment
Riparian Forest Buffer
Silage Leachate Control
Stripcropping
Terraces
B-7
2. Urban/Stormwater Runoff
Catch Basins
Collection and Treatment of Stormwater
Concrete Grid and Modular Pavement
Constructed Wetlands
Critical Area Protection:Mulching
Permanent Vegetative Cover
Streambank and Shoreline Protection
Diversions
Dry Detention Basin
Extended Detention Basin
Filter StripsFluidic Flow Regulators
Grassed Swales
Grassed Waterways
Implementation of Land Use Planning
Infiltration Basins and Pits
Infiltration Trench
Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
Irrigation Water Management:
Scheduling
Nutrient Management:
Composting Yard and Home Wastes
Fertilizer Management
Soil TestingPathogen and Nutrient Control:
Nuisance Bird Waste Mgmt. and Control
Pet Waste Management. and Control
Waterfowl Waste Mgmt. and Control
Peat/Sand Filter System
Pesticide Management:Proper Equipment Calibration
Proper Timing of Pesticides Application
Read and Follow the Label Directions
Porous Pavement
Proper Use and Disposal of Household Hazardous Substances
Public Education
Reduction of Traffic-Generated Pollutants
Retention Pond (Wet Pond)
Riparian Forest BufferRoof Runoff System
Stormwater Conveyance Systems Storage
Stream Corridor Protection Program
(Greenbelting)
Street and Pavement Sweeping
Urban Forestry (Trees and Shrubs)
Water Quality Inlet (Oil/Grit Separators)
3. Construction
Administrative Control Mechanisms
Check DamConstruction Road Stabilization
Construction Waste Management
Critical Area Protection:
Mulching
Temporary Vegetative Cover
Permanent Vegetative Cover
Structural Slope Protection
Streambank & Shoreline Protection
Diversion
Dust Control
Filter Strip
Grade Stabilization Structure
Grassed WaterwayHazardous Material Management
Level Spreader
Lined Waterway or Outlet
Paved Flume
Pipe Slope Drain
Planned Land Grading
Silt Fence
Stabilized Construction Entrance
Staged Clearing and Grading
Storm Drain Inlet Protection
Straw Bale Dike
Subsurface DrainSump Pit
Temporary Dike/Swale
B-8
Temporary Sediment Basin
Temporary Sediment TrapTemporary Storm Drain Diversion
Temporary Watercourse Crossing
Topsoiling
Turbidity Curtain
Waterbar
4. Resource Extraction
Casing and Cementing of Wells
Dikes Around Production Tanks
Drilling Pit Closure
Lined Drilling PitsOrientation and Beveling of Drilling Pits
Pressure Limitations on Injection Wells
Recycling of Process Waters
Use of Blowout Preventers
Use of Injection Wells for Produced Brine Disposal
Well Plugging
Wellsite Siting Restrictions
5. Roadway and Right-Of-Way Maintenance
Abrasive and Deicing Material
Application and Clean-up
Deicing Material Mixing and HandlingSalt Storage System: Drainage
Salt Storage System: Foundation/Floor
Salt Storage System: Shelter/Cover
Salt Storage System: Site Location Selection
Herbicide ManagementRead and Follow Label Directions
Proper Equipment Calibration
Proper Timing of Herbicide Application
Selective Aerial Application
Selective Herbicide Application in Sensitive Areas
Proper Mechanical Control of Vegetation
Proper Road Ditch MaintenanceCatch Basin Cleaning
Control of Bridge Paint Residuals
Dust Control
Street Sweeping/Road Clean-upRestoration of Disturbed Areas Within the
R-O-W
Maintenance of Vegetative Cover
Filter Strip
Proper Species Selection for Vegetative Cover
6. Silviculture
Planned Harvest Operations
Riparian Buffer Protection
Planned Watercourse Crossings
Planned Access RoutesRoad Water Management
Sediment Barriers
Vegetation Establishment
Hazardous Material Management
7. On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS)
Soil and Site Analysis
Percolation Tests
Deep Test Holes
Septic Tanks and Standard Absorption Fields
Aerobic Systems and Standard Absorption Fields
Septage Disposal ManagementGraveless Absorption Systems
Deep Absorption Trenches
Shallow Absorption Trenches
Cut and Fill Systems
Absorption Bed Systems
Seepage Pits
Raised Systems
Elevated Sand Mounds
Intermittent Sand Filters
Operation and Maintenance for Septic Tanks
and Standard Absorption Systems
Inspection and PumpingAdministrative Control Measures
High Efficiency Plumbing Fixtures
B-9
Graywater Separation
(also for Nitrate Removal)
Advocating Proper System
Design and Construction
Proper Use and Disposal of Household Hazardous Substances
Anaerobic Upflow Filters (AUF)
RUCK System
Recirculating Sand Filters
Non-Waterborne Systems
Constructed Wetlands
Holding Tanks for All Wastewater
from Existing Systems
Rotating Biological Contactors (RBCs)Trickling Filter-type Systems
8. Hydrologic and Habitat Modification
Modifying, Operating and Maintaining Flood
Control Structures
Modifying, Operating and Maintaining Reservoirs
Proper Dam Breaching
Streambank and Shoreline Protection (General)
Biotechnical Methods
Coastal Shore Protection
Controlling Instream Sediment
GeotextilesSelective Clearing and Snagging
Stream Grade Stabilization Structures
Structural Slope Protection
Constructed Wetlands
Improving Instream and Riparian Habitat
Restoring Freshwater Wetlands
Restoring Tidal Wetlands
Riparian Forest Buffer
Stream Corridor Protection Program
(Greenbelting)
9. Leaks, Spills and Accidents
Because of the existence of a well-defined State regulatoryprogram, a separate list of management practices for leaks,
spills and accidents was not developed. This Catalogueinstead summarizes existing publications and State andFederal regulatory requirements.
10. Marina Operations
A previously published document titled “MarinaOperations for Existing Facilities” was distributed as aninterim management practices catalogue in April of 1997.While this document does not contain summary sheetslike most of the other catalogues, there are descriptions ofhow to properly address various aspects of marinaoperations. The sections describing issues addressed arelisted below.
Stormwater Controls
Wash Water Controls
Hull Maintenance and RepairsFueling
Sewage
Solid Waste
Liquid Wastes
Fish Cleaning
Boat Operation
Shoreline Stabilization
Water Circulation
Hazardous Materials Handling
Public Education
APPENDIX C
C-1
APPENDIX C
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS
The following Public Involvement workplandocuments the goals, audiences and messages thatwill guide public involvement in developing andreviewing the Nonpoint Source ManagementProgram update. It also describes public involve-ment activities conducted before and during thedevelopment of the Update.
Program Goal: Produce a Nonpoint Source(NPS) Management Program document thatdescribes program direction for 1997-2002 so thatcooperating agencies and groups are informed aboutexisting programs, understand their roles inimplementing them, and take action to improve waterquality.
Public Involvement Goal: Provideopportunities for informed input into the programupdate so that stakeholders can contributeinformation that will increase the usability and successof the program. Information will be sought throughoutthe development of the document.
Publics to be Consulted:
State, federal and regional agenciesthrough the Nonpoint SourceCoordinating Committee (NPSCC)
County Water Quality CoordinatingCommittees (CWQCCs)
Key Representatives of NPScategories (e.g. forestry, agriculture,home builders, etc.)
Information to be Exchanged
Messages to Audiences
To update and improve theManagement Program, DEC andthe NPSCC would like your ideas on:
NPS program direction
Existing or potential partnerships
Need for additions, deletions orchanges to proposed implementationsteps for source categories.
Information from Audiences
Ideas on NPS program direction, whoshould be listed as partners, feedbackimplementation steps as describedabove.
Additional comments on the accuracyand completeness of the ManagementProgram.
Public Involvement Activities that willAccomplish Public Involvement Goals andObjectives
July 1996 - Conduct breakout sessions atstatewide meeting of County Water QualityCoordinating Committees in Syracuse to definefuture needs for each source category.
September 1996 - Present and discuss plan forManage-ment Program Update at meeting of DEC
C-2
Regional and Central Office NPS staff inAlbany.
October 1996 - Present proposed structure ofManagement Program Update to NPSCC anddiscuss necessary changes to strategies, manage-ment practices for six major source categories.
November 1996 - Present highlights ofManagement Program Update to WaterManagement Advisory Committee. Seek theirinput on the proposed structure of the ManagementProgram Update, additional management practices tobe included, and the relative significance of thevarious source categories as contributors to waterquality problems.
January 1997 - Present proposed Table ofContents for Management Program Update toNPSCC. Seek input on completeness and structure;seek participants to write or review sections of theUpdate.
April 1997 - Present preliminary draft of theManagement Program Update to NPSCC, seekinput on usability, completeness. Seek names of keyrepresentatives (individuals or organizations) ofsource categories to serve as additional reviewers.
September 1997 - Present review draft of theManagement Program Update to NPSCC, seekconsensus on completeness.
October 1997 - Distribute draft Management PlanUpdate to all NPSCC and WMAC members,DEC Division and Bureau Directors, and RegionalWater Engineers, County Water QualityCoordinating Committees, SWCDs and CCE(via WQCC contacts), three groups within CornellUniversity, and others by request, for review:about 350 copies in all.
November 1997 - Publish notice inEnvironmental Notice Bulletin with a review andcomment period closing date of December 14, 1997.
January 1998 - Prepare Comment ResponseSummary document. Revise Urban Runoff Sectionto reflect New York’s preparation to meet EPA’sPhase II Storm Water Regulations released indraft form January 9, 1998.
February 1998 - Meet with EPA to discusscontent of NPS Management Program Update inregard to meeting EPA’s Nine Key Elements andattaining Enhanced Benefits State status.
April 1998 - Present status of NPS ManagementProgram Update to the NPSCC. Present, anddiscuss with the NPSCC, plans to develop a PriorityAquifer List (PAL) to list groundwater resources andproblems .
May-July 1998 - Revise Chapter III Identifyingand Evaluating Nonpoint Source Problems to adda PAL development description and to incorporateenvironmental indicators (a part of EPA’s Nine KeyElement guidance) into both the Surface Water andGroundwater programs of DEC.
Update existing program tables with 1997-98 statusinformation.
Finalize the Summary for the NPS MP Update andthe Foreword to EPA.
August 1998 - Final editing by Nonpoint SourceSection.
Review by DEC Bureau of Watershed Managementand Division of Water Director.
C-3
April 1999 - Prepare a summary and appendicesdocumenting how the Nonpoint Source ManagementPractice Update addresses USEPA’s 9 keyelements.
May 1999 - Submit to EPA Region II and EPAHeadquarters for review and consideration forEnhanced Benefits State status.
November 1999 - EPA completes review of themanagement plan update and requests that NewYork enhance Key Element number 1 by providingmore specific and measurable short-term and long-term goals.
April 2000 - More specific Short-Term and Long-Term goals to protect surface and ground water aspart of the NPS Management Program Update weresubmitted to EPA. The goals were incorporated inthe Nine-Key Elements document as Key Elementnumber 1. The goals were developed by DEC-DOW and Natural Resources staff with help from theNPSCC work groups and staff from other agencies.
May 2000 - Discussed short-term and long-termgoals and objectives with EPA Region II and EPAHeadquarters. Partner Agency representatives helpedrefine goals and address EPA comments.
June 2000 - New York State submits revisedgoals.
August 11, 2000 - USEPA approves the updatedNonpoint Source Management Plan and recognizesNew York’s program as having “a proven trackrecord of effective program implementation” whichdistinguishes it as an Enhanced Benefit State.
Implementation of the NPS MP Update
April 1999
- Form Working Groups for priority sourcecategories to refine policy, strengthenpartnerships and identify key action items as partof implementing the NPS MP Update.
- Reconvene Information and EducationSubcommittee to mobilize NPSCC partners andprepare to coordinate Working Group I & Eoutputs.
- Continue development of a Community-BasedEnvironmental Management (CEM) program,under the subcommittee of the same name, fornon-agricultural NPS management inmunicipalities and watersheds.
Evaluation and Follow-Up
Some of the above activities included evaluationforms to assess their effectiveness at achieving publicinvolvement objectives. Further evaluation of theeffectiveness of public involvement in thedevelopment of the NPS MP Update may bedetermined by tracking responses to the Update
APPENDIX D
D-1
APPENDIX D
Strategies Submitted to EPA/NOAA for Full Approval of the
New York Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program
In July of 1995, NYS DOS and NYSDEC jointly submitted the New York Coastal Nonpoint Pollution ControlProgram to EPA and NOAA for their approval. On November 18, 1997, a decision for approval of theprogram was made by EPA and NOAA subject to several conditions to be met over the following threeyears. Administrative guidance of March, 1995, allowed up to five years after conditional approval to meetconditions, with an evaluation of progress after three years. The following four strategies were developedcooperatively by DEC and DOS for submission to NOAA and EPA.
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program (6217) Monitoring Strategy
as contained within the
New York State Water Quality Monitoring Strategy
BACKGROUND
Goal (from EPA/NOAA condition for full approval): Develop and implement a plan to assess the success,over time, of the Management Measures in reducing NPS loading and improving water quality. The CoastalNonpoint Pollution Control Program (CNPCP) submitted in 1995 proposed a three part approach: monitoringto determine implementation of pollution control practices (i.e. Management Measures); baseline water qualitymonitoring; and special project water quality monitoring to address gaps in knowledge.
INTRODUCTION
New York’s strategy for coastal nonpoint pollution control monitoring is to include it in our statewide WaterQuality Monitoring Strategy. This statewide comprehensive monitoring program was published in October1998 and submitted to EPA pursuant to Section 106 of the Federal Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977(PL 95-217). New York will monitor coastal waters as it proceeds through 17 drainage basins on a five yearrotating schedule. Nonpoint source monitoring is one of the component activities within the ComprehensiveAssessment Strategy discussed below.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING GOALS
Because of a variety of new water quality initiatives (Index of Watershed Indicators, Unified WatershedAssessments, NPS Management Program Update, Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program (CNPCP),etc.), high quality monitoring data are even more critical to the success of water resources managementefforts. At the same time, however, states must find ways to stretch limited monitoring resources to provideboth basic coverage of all waters, as well as appropriately intensify efforts in “priority” watersheds.
D-2
To address these needs, the NYSDEC Division of Water (DOW) has initiated a monitoring and managementstrategy for water resources and water quality that integrates numerous division activities into a coordinatedand comprehensive program. The goals of this initiative are to provide:
! a complete and thorough evaluation of monitoring data, ! a comprehensive assessment of water quality throughout the state, and! a coordinated approach to improving and protecting water resources.
This strategy requires each unit in the Division to look beyond individual program objectives and consider whatcontributions the program can make to the comprehensive monitoring and management efforts of the entireDivision.
ESTABLISHING COMMON OBJECTIVES
Such a comprehensive plan requires a unifying framework or approach–a brief statement outlining how thevarious Division component programs fit together and contribute to the achievement of the DOW’s largervision of protected and enhanced water resources. Such a framework, which represents how water qualityproblems and issues are addressed in the division, is represented by a cycle of water quality monitoring andmanagement.
The Division uses this cycle of water quality monitoring and management in an iterative cycle where effortsare focused on the distinct stages common to most water quality issues or problems. Specifically, thesestages include:
1) the assessment of water quality and impact on resources (i.e., Is there a water qualityproblem/use impairment or threat to a water resource?);
2) the determination of causes/pollutants (i.e., Why is there a problem/use impairment orthreat?);
3) the identification of sources contributing to the problem (i.e., What is causing the problem/useimpairment or threat?), or ;
4) the development and implementation of strategies to address the causes/sources and correcta verified problem using discharge permit limits or conditions; compliance orders and schedules; andtechnical or financial assistance (i.e., How is the problem/use impairment to be fixed or threatto be avoided?).
5) the re-assessment of water quality and impact on resources (i.e., Was the strategy to addressthe problem/use impairment or threat effective?)
D-3
Every core program in the Division can define its primary goals and objectives in terms of its contributionsto the activities outlined in this cycle of water quality monitoring and management. By defining the goals ofvarious monitoring and management efforts in terms of this common framework (rather than by individualprogram functions), relationships between the various separate component programs and the possibleintegration and coordination of these programs becomes clearer.
The three part approach of the CNPCP will be made a part of one or more stages of the cycle. Monitoring,or more accurately tracking, of the implementation of nonpoint source pollution control practices (i.e.Management Measures) is part of the strategy development and implementation in step 4; baseline waterquality monitoring conducted under the Division’s Rotating Intensive Basin Studies (RIBS) program is partof assessment and re-assessment in steps 1 and 5; and special project water quality monitoring may be partof a source track down project, or a more intensive, site-specific assessment of a nonpoint sourceimplementation project to determine what is causing the problem or what pollutant loadings or loadingreductions might be, steps 2 and 3.
NONPOINT SOURCE IMPLEMENTATION TRACKING
BOND ACT / ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FUND TRACKING SYSTEM
A database was set up to track projects funded by the New York Clean Water / Clean Air Bond Act andEnvironmental Protection Fund (EPF). Projects can be reported by political subdivisions, zip codes, DECregion, and by the five project types established under the Bond Act legislation.
Project descriptions are also maintained. Nonpoint source projects funded previous to the Bond Act underSection 319 and 604(b) of the Clean Water Act were also tracked and can be located geographically bycomputer. Annual reports contain project descriptions for these projects funded or installed in 1994-1997.
COUNTY LEVEL TRACKING
A portion of New York’s Section 319 money will be used to fund local implementation project summaryreports. This will provide a tracking mechanism based on information from the statewide network of countyWater Quality Coordinating Committees.
NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICE TRACKING
The NRCS computer system is currently in a transition period that will last through the summer of 1999.Their Field Office Computing System (FOCS) is no longer being supported. The Unix-based system is beingabandoned in favor of a Windows-NT desktop computer environment which will run the NRCS PerformanceMeasurement System. It is currently being tested in New York and in other States. DEC will work withNRCS to track the installation or implementation of agricultural management practices once this new systemis operational.
D-4
COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT STRATEGY
USEPA has established, and NYSDEC has adopted, a long-term goal of comprehensive monitoring andcharacterization of surface and groundwaters. This effort relies on a variety of strategies of water qualitymonitoring and management programs or activities within NYS-DEC Division of Water and in other Divisionsand Departments. This discussion describes how the DOW Comprehensive Assessment Strategy providesgreater integration of these programs to produce a more complete and thorough evaluation of monitoring data,a more comprehensive assessment of water quality, and a more coordinated approach to addressing waterquality issues and problems throughout New York State.
CORNERSTONES OF THE STRATEGY
The three (3) cornerstones of the Comprehensive Assessment Strategy are:
! Rotating Basin Schedules (Table 1)
! Enhanced Communication and Information Sharing! The Priority Waterbodies List
ROTATING DRAINAGE BASIN SCHEDULES
New York State’s strategy enables multiple programs to conduct coordinated efforts in two or three targetedbasins each year, resulting in a comprehensive assessment of the entire state within a five-year cycle. Theadoption of a common basin rotation schedule to drive most division programs further facilitates integrationof component programs and moves the division toward a more coordinated and unified monitoring strategy.While such a scheduling of activities may not be appropriate for every program, the adopting of a commonrotating basin schedule, where possible, enhances the Comprehensive Assessment Strategy. Under the newstrategy the original RIBS framework is expanded to accommodate greater integration of other monitoring,assessment and management efforts, both within and outside the division and department. The five-year timeframe will allow the effects of longer term nonpoint source control or abatement projects to manifestthemselves.
Enhanced Communication and Information Sharing
There are two aspects of the Comprehensive Assessment Strategy where this enhanced communication ishighlighted: the Annual Review of Sampling Activities and the Basin Planning Meeting.
At the beginning of each sampling year a group of division staff involved in various monitoring programs meetto review the goals and overall scope of work of all division programs planning to conduct monitoring workin the coming year. The purpose is to review each project in light of other efforts and point out whereefficiencies may be gained through coordination and cooperation. Additionally, the review group producesfor DOW staff an overview of planned division monitoring activities for the year.
D-5
At the beginning of a new comprehensive basin assessment effort, representatives of a variety of centraloffice program staff meet with regional staff from both DOW and other divisions. The purpose of this kick-off meeting is to discuss what the regional staff considers to be the most important water quality issues in thebasin and identify where upcoming monitoring activities should focus. Also considered during this meetingare areas where coordination of effort and the sharing of data would benefit everyone.
PRIORITY WATERBODIES LIST (PWL)
The Comprehensive Assessment Strategy also links all these monitoring activities with the PriorityWaterbodies List (PWL), the division’s inventory of waterbodies throughout the state having known orsuspected water quality problems or issues. The PWL incorporates monitoring data and information fromDivision of Water programs, other NYSDEC divisions and other agencies.
The PWL also includes a significant public participation component, incorporating input from the publicthrough the Water Management Advisory Committee (WMAC), the Statewide NPS Coordinating Committee(NPSCC), County Water Quality Coordinating Committees (WQCCs), citizen advisory committees (CAC)for Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) and Lake Management Plans (LaMPs), and other means. Regularlyupdated to reflect ongoing monitoring efforts, the PWL represents the division’s most complete repository ofwater quality information. As such, it provides the basis for generating the state’s periodic water qualityassessment reports (including the 305(b) Report to USEPA, and New York State’s 303 (d) list) identifyingareas where additional monitoring is needed, and targeting remediation and pollution prevention efforts andresources.
COMPONENT PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
Each year the Division of Water targets two or three major watersheds (about 20% of the state) on whichto focus the Comprehensive Assessment Strategy. The associated monitoring and assessment activities inthe target basins continue for three years. As a result, when fully implemented, some component of theComprehensive Assessment Strategy effort will be underway in 60% of the state during any one year.
Below is a more specific outline of the Comprehensive Assessment Strategy and its component programs.
Planning and Issue Identification (year 1)
The first year of a Comprehensive Assessment Strategy three-year basin effort begins with a reviewof existing water quality information and the identification of priority water quality issues in the studyarea. This planning effort leads to more effective targeting of limited monitoring resources. Monitoringactivities in the first year are generally limited to qualitative biological assessment of large numbers ofwaters in order to document good (or fully supporting) water quality, and other water quality screeningand problem verification efforts (toxicity testing, fishery community and habitat assessment, etc).
Watershed Partners - The first task in the study area is the identification of other groups or individualswith an interest in water quality and the management of water resources in the target drainage basin.Watershed partners are drawn from three general areas:
D-6
Central Office program staff, primarily from DOW but also other divisions, who link RIBS withother statewide efforts and provide information about the activities of these programs in the targetbasin (this group includes other state and federal government agencies, primarily the statewideWater Management Advisory Committee and NPS Coordinating Committee);
Regional Office staff (including Regional Fisheries and watershed-specific programs) ; and
Other Agency/Public/Community Groups (particularly the statewide network of County WaterQuality Coordinating Committees) that are also active in water quality issues in the basin.
Watershed Characterization - At this point, the watershed partners evaluate what is known aboutwater quality in the basin, and what issues need further study and attention. Regional staff input andan improved Priority Waterbodies List (PWL), in which all partners assist in updating, are necessaryfor effective watershed characterization.
Ambient Water Quality Screening - The initial RIBS monitoring efforts focus on qualitativeassessment of waters to determine and confirm where there are significant water quality issues andwhere water quality resources meet designated uses. This component of the program relies primarilyon macroinvertebrate assessments but also incorporates fishery assessments (Regional Fisheries), lakemonitoring information, etc.
Facility Screening - In an effort to more effectively target the division’s limited facility compliancemonitoring resources, relatively inexpensive bioassays can be conducted to determine the toxicity offacility effluents. In instances where significant toxicity is identified, more intensive chemicalmonitoring and analyses may be appropriate. Where possible, this sampling is conducted in conjunctionwith the ambient screening of the receiving water.
Volunteer (non-DEC) Monitoring Efforts - Volunteer monitoring data collected in the interval sincethe RIBS Program last studied the target basin may also provide useful information. Efforts toenhance the reliability of such data by establishing a “formal” volunteer monitoring network supportedand coordinated by the division are being discussed.
Monitoring and Data Collection (year 2)
The results of the Planning and Issue Identification phase are used to develop more intensive basinmonitoring plans for the target watersheds. The intensive monitoring component of the ComprehensiveAssessment Strategy begins with the RIBS Sampling Program. Traditionally, the RIBS effort hasincluded chemical analyses of contaminants in water, bottom sediment and whole organisms(macroinvertebrates) and fish flesh samples, as well as biological assessments and ambient toxicityevaluations. However, RIBS assessments have been expanded to accommodate other division anddepartment monitoring elements. These may including lake assessment and classification, fishery habitatand community assessment, fish tissue contaminant sampling, toxicity screening and chemical samplingof facility effluents, groundwater quality evaluation, pollutant trackdown efforts, and nonpoint sourcemonitoring.
D-7
Additional data for water quality assessments are also generated by monitoring programs conducted bymany other governmental agencies and public interest groups outside the NYSDEC. These monitoringprograms, which may focus on entire watersheds or individual waterbody segments, provide bothchemical constituent data and/or aquatic resource information including macroinvertebrate, plant and fishcommunity assessments. Efforts to cultivate and incorporate other agency (USGS, USF&W, USEPA,local health and planning agencies) as well as citizen volunteer (lake associations, county WQCCs,colleges and universities, etc.) monitoring activities into the intensive monitoring plan are also beingdeveloped by DEC with advice and ideas from both the statewide Water Management AdvisoryCommittee and NPS Coordinating Committee, including the NPSCC Monitoring and AdaptiveManagement Subcommittee.
Intensive Chemical Monitoring - multimedia sampling (water column, bottom sediment, toxicitytesting, biological tissue sampling) provided by a number of programs to build a comprehensive waterquality assessment.
Lake Classification and Inventory - This effort to assess trophic status and investigate otherpertinent lake uses will focus on regionally significant lakes or other waterbodies having informationgaps within the PWL.
Point Source Monitoring and Compliance - coordinated monitoring of the more significant pointsources. Both biological (toxicity) and chemical monitoring are recommended.
Nonpoint Source Activities - (special project water quality monitoring)
When nonpoint sources are considered significant contributors to water quality problems in awatershed, monitoring and modeling activities should be initiated to characterize the magnitude ofloading from these sources. The current nonpoint source monitoring efforts of the division are relatedto five regional initiatives in the state: New York City Watershed program and related monitoringprojects; management of phosphorus entering Lake Champlain; controlling stormwater runoff to LakeGeorge; nonpoint source monitoring in the Long Island Sound Watershed; a stormwater demonstrationproject in the Rochester Embayment Watershed (Great Lakes basin). As our comprehensivemonitoring strategy identifies other areas (watershed and subwatershed) with large nonpoint sourceimpacts, similar programs will be undertaken.
New York City Water Supply WatershedsThe New York City Watershed work is the most data- and resource-intensive of the division’s nonpointsource efforts. Two separate projects are being conducted in the watershed: 1) a study designed to quantifythe pollution-reducing effects of extensive BMP implementation on a dairy farm; and, 2) a long-termassessment of nonpoint and point source loading from the West Branch of the Delaware River (WBDR) tothe eutrophic NYC water supply, Cannonsville Reservoir. The farm study measures tributary loads ofphosphorus, nitrogen, carbon and sediment from a 350-acre farm watershed before and after implementationof a Whole Farm plan and compares them to loads from a control, forested watershed monitored during thesame time period. Automated equipment at both sites continually measure streamflow and collect watersamples during runoff events. Samples are collected during every event and over the entire extent of the
D-8
hydrograph. Prior to implementation, levels of pollutants in farm runoff were magnitudes greater than thoseat the forested site. The study will determine how close to background levels the water quality from the farmwill come after practice implementation.
Monitoring of the WBDR by the division occurred from 1980-1982, and from 1991 to the present. River flowis gauged by USGS and samples are collected manually during event and baseflow periods. Like the farmstudy, every event is sampled and concentration changes over the entire hydrograph are characterized. Thelong-term monitoring of the WBDR during the 1980 and 1990 periods has produced a data base for nonpointsource loading of nutrients and sediment that is unique in the state, if not the country. Agricultural nonpointsources and small municipal point sources in the WBDR watershed have been determined to be the largestcontributors of excess nutrients to Cannonsville Reservoir. These sources are being addressed through awatershed-wide pollution reduction program funded by NYC to protect the water quality of their drinkingwater supplies. The results of these management efforts on the water quality of the WBDR may bediscernible over time through the results of this monitoring program.
Another nonpoint source monitoring project began in 1998 on Town Brook in the New York City watersheds.This tributary of the West Branch of the Delaware River drains a mixed agricultural/forest, meso-scale sizewatershed that has been selected for large-scale agricultural BMP implementation in the future. A numberof agencies including New York City DEP, Cornell University, USGS, and NYSDEC will be involved in acollaborative effort to quantify and model the effects of these BMPs on water quality over the long-term.DEC began monitoring baseline water quality of Town Brook prior to implementation in October 1998.
Contact: Pat Longabucco, Watershed Management, Nonpoint Source Section
Lake Champlain Management Program
Lake Champlain management initiatives include nonpoint monitoring on 18 tributaries to the lake in order todetermine loadings of various pollutants. Tributary loads of phosphorus, nitrogen, carbon, sediment and metalsare estimated from utilization of the flow and concentration data with the load estimation software FLUX.
Regional water staff under Central Office direction perform event-based monitoring of the 12 majortributaries on the New York side, while Vermont water quality staff monitor the remaining 6 on its side of thelake. USGS gauging stations provide river flow for all of the New York trib. being monitored. A minimumof twelve events are captured each year, with the main focus being on the spring and fall runoff periods.Sampling is manual and attempts are made to collect samples at several points over the hydrograph.
Contact: Scott Quinn, Watershed Management, Lake Services Section
Lake GeorgeLake George nonpoint source monitoring activities focus on stormwater runoff into the lake at sites that werealso monitored by the division during the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) in the 1980s.Comparison of loads in the 1980s to current levels indicates that the amount of pollutants delivered to LakeGeorge via the monitored streams has increased since that time due to increases in development in thewatershed. Two of the sites are also being used to evaluate stormwater treatment practices throughevent-based monitoring. At one site the pollutant removal capacity of a manufactured stormwater treatmentdevice (Vortechnics unit) is being tested. At the other site, the ability of a created wetlands to handle andtreat stormwater from 500,000 ft2 of impervious roadway area is being evaluated.
D-9
One atmospheric station that measures wetfall, dryfall, precipitation and temperature is operated in thewatershed in addition to five stream or storm sewer monitoring sites. Samples are collected with automaticsamples at the stream/storm sewer sites during selected storm events and baseflow periods. Analyses doneon the samples include phosphorus, nitrogen, sediment, lead and chloride.
Contact: Jim Sutherland, Watershed Management, Lake Services Section
Long Island Sound Study Water Quality Monitoring of Blind Brook and Mamaroneck River
The Department of Planning, on behalf of the Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution in Long Island Sound,continued to sample the quality of Blind Brook and Mamaroneck River in 1998 through a $300,000 federalgrant administered by the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). The Manhattan CollegeDepartment of Environmental Engineering was hired by the Department of Planning in early 1997 to conducta three-year monitoring program for the lower Long Island Sound watershed in Westchester County. TheprogramÆs objective is to determine the nutrient and other nonpoint source pollutant loads delivered to LongIsland Sound from the watersheds of the Sheldrake and Mamaroneck rivers and Blind Brook. The monitoringincludes sampling for several forms of nitrogen and phosphorus, coliforms, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, waterand temperatures, water depth, water velocity, pH, conductivity, and total suspended solids. Sampling beganon April 1, 1997 and is expected to continue through to the spring of 2000.Through 1998, two sampling stationsrecorded data. One station is on the Mamaroneck River immediately south of its confluence with theSheldrake River at Phillips Park in Mamaroneck Village. The other is on Blind Brook at the Rye NatureCenter in Rye City.
The DEC is considering a 1998 proposal by HydroQual Inc. to input the data collected by Manhattan Collegeto the Long Island Sound Model (LIS3.0), which is the basis for many of the recommendations in the LongIsland Sound Study’s Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). Under the proposal,the 1997-2000 data from the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake rivers and Blind Brook on nitrate, nitrite, ammonia,total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus and orthophosphate taken by Manhattan College would be comparedto loadings assigned in LIS3.0 for 1988-89 conditions. The model would assist county and state agencies indetermining the loading rates for certain nutrients and pollutants in Westchester County. This determinationof nonpoint source pollutant loadings would assist any future regulatory decisions on nutrient and pollutant(effluent) trading between point and nonpoint sources of pollution.
Contact: Warren Ross, Chair of Committee on NPS Pollution in Long Island Sound
Contact: Philip M. DeGaetano, Associate Division Director, Division of Water
D-10
Great Lakes BasinWater Quality Inlet Demonstration - Rochester Embayment
This $100,000 cooperative project is a Section 319 funded stormwater control demonstration project. Led byMonroe County Soil and Water Conservation District staff, the State Soil and Water Conservation CommitteeState Engineer is providing consultation as match, the County Environmental Health Department staff isproviding monitoring services, and a local contractor will do the installation. The goal is to determine theeffectiveness of a commercial stormwater treatment device and a subsurface flow wetland (SFW), installedin series, by monitoring the influent and effluent of each unit during several runoff-producing storm events.A technology transfer presentation of the project’s results will be conducted for local municipalities andconsulting engineers. Unexpected project siting problems have delayed construction and installation ofpractices which is now expected to begin in the summer of 1999.
Contact: Pat Longabucco, Watershed Management, Nonpoint Source Section
Due to the greater amount of staff, equipment and analytical resources required for the storm-eventmonitoring associated with nonpoint sources, special and/or dedicated funding would likely benecessary to conduct such efforts. Nonpoint source monitoring would likely continue for two or moreyears in order to accurately determine inter-annual variability in loading to the watershed. Other localwatershed partners may be able to assist with the nonpoint source monitoring component. A stand-alone Nonpoint Source Monitoring Strategy will be developed for use by Regional staff or partnersby Central Office staff as personnel availability and resources allow.
Regional Ambient Sampling - Regional ambient monitoring efforts may be used to maintain amonitoring presence in a basin when statewide programs shift their attention to other basins. Theseactivities can also complement statewide efforts by providing more frequent data or data at additionalsites.
Source Water Assessments - The RIBS program and division groundwater resources staff should tryto coordinate with the NYS Department of Health to incorporate available source water andgroundwater monitoring data into the watershed assessments.
Evaluation and Assessment (year 3)The third year of the Comprehensive Assessment Strategy focuses on the evaluation and assessmentof results from the multi-faceted Year Two intensive monitoring effort, and a corresponding update ofthe PWL. The PWL Update process involves solicitation of input from a wide range of water qualityprofessionals (from both within and outside the division/department) as well as a significant publicparticipation component, which is coordinated through the county WQCCs. The update also incorporatesanecdotal information of water quality conditions that need to be verified.
Water Quality Evaluation - After the completion of the intensive monitoring effort, the resulting datamust be thoroughly evaluated to determine what additional information can be incorporated into ourknowledge of the water resources in the basin. The data analysis should focus on whether waters
D-11
support designated uses, evaluation of water quality trends, and identification of areas where additionalstudy is needed.
Modifications to Volunteer Programs - The knowledge gained from the intensive effort can be usedto better focus ongoing volunteer efforts in the basin.
PWL Update - All watershed partners should be encouraged to participate in the updating of the PWLinformation for the basin.
TMDL Development - The intensive monitoring data and updated PWL information can be used toupdate the division’s 303(d)/TMDL list of waters that do not meet water quality standards.
305(b) Reporting and Annual Electronic Update - The updated PWL information is used togenerate the data files of water quality information for the annual 305(b) electronic submission.Periodic revision and update of the published 305(b) Report, which provides the public with acomprehensive assessment of water quality, will also reflect the most current data and information.
Corrective/Management Strategies (years 4 and 5)At the conclusion of the three years of planning, intensive monitoring and assessment, DOW activitiesfocus on water quality management, including point source facility permitting and nonpoint source controlprojects. A lower level of maintenance monitoring may be continued by regional staff or non-DECvolunteer groups.
WICSS - The division’s Water Integrated Compliance Strategies System should incorporate theresulting monitoring information into the program.
Facility Permitting - pertains to point sources only. Facility permits could be re-issued in light of thecoordinated intensive monitoring effort in the basin.
Nonpoint Source Controls (special project water quality monitoring) - Likewise, the implementationand management of nonpoint source controls may be enhanced in light of the additional informationgenerated by the comprehensive monitoring activities. The priority of nonpoint source control projectsand their level of funding will also be determined or influenced by data developed from thecomprehensive monitoring activities.
Regional Activities - While the RIBS program focuses its attention on other drainage basins, the regionmay consider it useful to conduct additional monitoring or other activities to address specific waterquality issues.
Volunteer (non-DEC) Monitoring Efforts - Again, monitoring data collected by various citizenmonitoring groups may be useful in maintaining a monitoring presence while division efforts arefocusing on other regions of the state.
D-12
PROBABILITY-BASED MONITORING
USEPA encourages states to move to a “probabilistic” monitoring design, which relies on randomly selectedmonitoring sites and statistical methods to determine overall quality in a watershed. But while this approach mayprovide better comprehensive assessments regarding the general water quality in a watershed, it does so at theexpense of the site-specific monitoring needed to support other division programs. Recent modifications tothe division’s Rotating Intensive Basin Studies (RIBS) ambient monitoring program attempts to address both needs.The RIBS approach includes greatly expanded biological screening to provide broader coverage of the entire basinstudy area; as well as an intensive, site-specific component to collect more complete data in those areas of greaterinterest where more thorough information is needed.
The division’s monitoring program has been working with USEPA staff to develop a probabilistic monitoring designfor a pilot watershed in the state. This pilot study will be conducted and evaluated during the 1998 sampling season.
VOLUNTEER MONITORING
As has been discussed previously, the interest and enthusiasm of various groups (citizen, academic, private, public)in protecting water resources has led to a tremendous growth in volunteer monitoring activities throughout the state.The NYSDEC Division of Water has long supported a formalized volunteer monitoring program for lakes--TheCitizen Statewide Lake Assessment Program (CSLAP). Although a similar program for rivers and other watersdoes not currently exist, the division has recently developed a general framework for such a program.
While the volunteer monitoring framework includes multiple tiers or levels of monitoring effort, the primary focusof the approach would be the use of biological (macroinvertebrate) sampling to screen a large number of waters forpossible impairment. This information would be useful to the division in helping to identify:
! rivers and streams with good water quality, and! waters where more intensive division monitoring programs, including event-based nonpoint source
monitoring, might focus.
Due to limited staff and resources, a division volunteer monitoring program for rivers would be more limited thanthe CSLAP program in terms of training conducted by NYSDEC staff and providing analytic resources. Thesecomponents will require other partnerships and commitments from the volunteer groups themselves. But the divisioncan/could support this volunteer monitoring effort by providing a coordinator to arrange training sessions with acontractor, assist groups with getting their programs started, answer questions, develop communication tools,evaluate quality of data, and otherwise manage the implementation and coordination of the program.
CONCLUSION
Nonpoint source monitoring will be carried out on two levels. One, wholistic, as part of our comprehensivemonitoring program, and the second as an intensive review of the effectiveness of individual implementation projectsor best management practices. Knowledge of proper event sensitive monitoring will be transferred to our RegionalOffices so that unique and innovative projects can be evaluated asa part of our normal workplan activities.
D-13
Table 1
Schedule of Comprehensive Assessment Strategy ActivitiesBasin/Watershed 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Lake ChamplainLong Island
WQ Planning and Issue
Identification
Monitoringand DataCollection
Evaluationand WQ
Assessment
Corrective/ManagementStrategies
Genesee RiverDelaware River
WQ Planning and Issue
Identification
Monitoringand DataCollection
Evaluationand WQ
Assessment
Corrective/ManagementStrategies
Niagara RiverMohawk River
WQ Planning and Issue
Identification
Monitoringand DataCollection
Evaluationand WQ
Assessment
Corrective/ManagementStrategies
Allegheny RiverOswego-Sen-OneidaUpper Hudson
WQ Planning and Issue
Identification
Monitoringand DataCollection
Evaluationand WQ
Assessment
Corrective/ManagementStrategies
Chemung RiverBlack RiverLower Hudson
WQ Planning and Issue
Identification
Monitoringand DataCollection
Evaluationand WQ
Assessment
Corrective/Management
Strategies
Susquehanna R.Lake ChamplainLong Island
WQ Planning and Issue
Identification
Monitoringand DataCollection
Evaluationand WQ
Assessment
Genesee RiverSt. Lawrence R.Delaware River
WQ Planning and Issue
Identification
Monitoringand DataCollection
Niagara RiverMohawk River
WQ Planning
and Issue
Identification
D-14
AGRICULTURE - Proposed Strategy
for Full Approval of New York’s Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program
New York’s approach to addressing pollution threats from agricultural activity has evolved markedly sinceits 1995 6217 Program Submission. Developments can be grouped in two separate categories: initiation ofa SPDES program for CAFO operations and the Agricultural Environmental Management initiative.
NYSDEC is currently in the process of developing a general permit for agricultural operations of more than300 animal units. The permit is currently undergoing public comment and will be implemented in 1999. Alloperations of more than 1000 animal units will be covered under this permit. Animal operations of 300 to 1000animal units may be covered under the permit, based on whether there is the potential for pollution from adiscrete conveyance in their operations. Once the general permit for agricultural operations is in place(anticipated by the end of 1999), all operations covered under it will by definition be exempted from theconditions of 6217.
The broader initiative, the voluntary Agricultural Environmental Management (AEM) program, has progressedmarkedly since the July 1995 submission document was prepared. The following provides a summary of theconceptual approach embodied in the AEM initiative, an outline of the process used thus far and anticipatedin order to achieve full use of the program, and a summary of relevant backup authority.
CONCEPTUAL OUTLINE
Agriculture in New York is highly diverse. Just over half of New York’s 3 billion dollar agricultural receiptsderived from dairy products, making it the third most important dairying state, after California and Wisconsin.Many other products are important locally or regionally. For example, New York ranks in the top five statesnationally in the production of each of the following: corn for silage (2), apples (2), tart cherries (3), pears (4),grapes (2), cabbage (1), cauliflower (3), sweet corn (4), green peas (5), and snap beans (4). Many othercrops are important in certain portions of the state. (New York State Agricultural Statistics, 1996-1997)
The diversity of crops, soils, climatic conditions, and management strategies found in New York means thatany program focused on addressing pollution potential must account for the varied conditions and practicesfound on the State’s 36,000 farms. In response to this diversity, experiences gained in the New York Cityand Syracuse water supply watersheds (in response to the Filtration Avoidance Rule of the Safe DrinkingWater Act Amendments), and other factors, the New York State Department of Agriculture and Marketsbegan an Agricultural Environmental Management initiative. The goal of Agricultural EnvironmentalManagement is to provide a framework for the rational assessment of environmental risks from agriculturalactivities and to prioritize necessary remediation actions. Recognizing the economic pressures facing manyagricultural operations in New York, AEM was designed to focus on high risk issues.
D-15
The process a farm operator follows in order to participate in AEM is straightforward. First, the operatorcompletes a short “Tier 1" questionnaire, which is designed to provide a gross sorting of issues which mightbe of importance. The Tier 1 questionnaire essentially allows the determination of those aspects of anoperation which have the potential to pose environmental risks. For example, a certified organic operationwould be able to verify in the Tier 1 process that it need not complete any further information about pesticideuse.
The results of the Tier 1 questionnaire determine the suite of activities which are more fully investigated inTier 2. For each potential activity with pollution potential noted in Tier 1, one or more worksheets are availableat the Tier 2 level to assess the actual risk. In essence, the Tier 1 questions focus on whether an activityoccurs which might cause pollution. The Tier 2 worksheets function to determine how great a risk there isof pollution occurring.
In a typical case, the results of the Tier 2 worksheets indicate that some activities are in fact low risk for theoperation, while others pose a greater risk. The focus is then on reducing the most significant risks on thatoperation. This process might involve a few minor changes, such as the addition of locks to a cabinet usedfor storing hazardous materials. In many cases, one or a few issues of high concern are identified, so thata BMP Implementation Plan is prepared (Tier 3A). In a few cases, several areas of significant concern areidentified, such that a Whole Farm Plan is required (Tier 3B). In general, the distinction between 3A and 3Bplans is that the latter require changes in many different aspects of the operation, while the former can usuallybe accomplished by changes in only one or a few aspects.
A farm which undergoes the AEM process is thus evaluated for a wide range of potential environmentalimpacts, including erosion, nutrient loadings from fertilization and use of manures, manure disposal issues,including pathogen control, and pesticides. The end result is a plan which weighs the various options andprescribes a suite of management practices to reduce risk to an acceptable level. The AEM process alsodocuments management practices which are already in place, reducing pollution risk. Finally, by focusing onactual as opposed to theoretical risk, AEM avoids the need to implement management practices inunwarranted situations.
Additional information regarding AEM can be found in the Guide to Agricultural Environmental Managementin New York State, published in July 1997 and periodically updated.
PROCESS INFORMATION
New York anticipates achieving the agriculture condition as stated in the November 1997 “Findings for theNew York Coastal Nonpoint Program” through the AEM Program. Some operations which are currentlysubject to the provisions of 6217 will be exempted upon implementation of the general permit for animalfeeding operations, which is anticipated in 1999.
Because the AEM program is voluntary, New York will fully achieve the relevant Condition based on theFinal Administrative Changes in the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program Guidance for Section 6217
D-16
of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Act Amendments of 1990 (CZARA), which sets forth threerequirements:
1. A legal opinion from the attorney general or an attorney representing the agency with jurisdiction forenforcement that such authorities can be used to prevent nonpoint pollution and require managementmeasure implementation, as necessary;
2. A description of the voluntary or incentive-based programs, including the methods for tracking andevaluating those programs, the states will use to encourage implementation of the managementmeasures; and
3. A description of the mechanism or process that links the implementing agency with the enforcementagency and a commitment to use the existing enforcement authorities where necessary.
Article 17 of the Environmental Conservation Law grants authority to the Department of EnvironmentalConservation to “... abate and prevent the pollution of waters of the State...” (ECL 17-0303 (2). The ECLalso provides that “[I]t shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to throw, drain, run, or otherwisedischarge into such waters organic or inorganic matter that shall cause or contribute to a condition incontravention of the standards adopted by the department pursuant to section 17-0301" (ECL 17-0501). Ithas been established (Matter of Gae Farms, Inc. v Diamond, 40 A.D. 2d 909, 337 N.Y.S.2d 865) thatboth cease and desist orders and administratively assessed penalties may be used to enforce this provision.DEC thus clearly has the authority to stop activities which cause a contravention of water quality standardsor significantly contribute to such a condition. The requirement that backup authorities can be used to preventnonpoint pollution is thus demonstrated by case law, obviating the need for an attorney general’s opinionregarding prospective authority. Similarly, ECL 17-0501 provides authority to require management measureimplementation as necessary to protect water quality.
The “Guide to Agricultural Environmental Management in New York State” and “1998 Report on AgriculturalEnvironmental Management in New York State” submitted to EPA and NOAA under the Coastal NonpointProgram, provide detailed descriptions of the AEM program. At this time, the evaluation component of theAEM program is still under development. In addition to the AEM program and the many other extantprograms which provide information and expertise to agricultural operators (see, for example, CornellCooperative Extension and Soil and Water Conservation District programs), New York State has committedsignificant resources to incentive programs aimed at encouraging management practice implementation. TheClean Water/Clean Air Bond Act is providing $1.75 billion to address a variety of environmental problems,with over $600 million focused on water quality. In the last three years of the Clean Water/Clean Air BondAct, funds totaling $4,857,902 have been allocated for implementation of practices to reduce agriculturalpollution.
In addition to the Bond Act, New York State has the Environmental Protection Fund, a recurring budget item.In fiscal year 1998, the EPF totaled over $100 million, with $3,302,138 obligated for reduction of agriculturalpollution. Both the Bond Act and EPF monies are administered through a competitive grant process whichconsiders the extent to which proposed projects reflect AEM processes and priorities. In 1999, applications
D-17
for funds under both the EPF and Bond Act to address agricultural pollution threats must explicitly note therole of AEM-type evaluations in the determination of project priority. The combined effect of the variouseducational and voluntary programs such as AEM and the EPF and the Bond Act grant programs achievesthe goal outlined in point 2, above.
Finally, DEC is represented on the AEM Steering Committee, which forms a linkage between theimplementing and enforcement agencies, as required under point 3, above. DEC has in the past used itsauthority to regulate agricultural activities causing pollution, and retains that authority. As part of thecontinuing development of the AEM program, the Departments of Environmental Conservation andAgriculture and Markets will examine whether there is a need to further formalize their links through amechanism such as a formal Memorandum of Agreement.
Development of the AEM initiative is currently being pursued under the aegis of the Department ofAgriculture and Market’s AEM Steering Committee, with a membership which includes the state agencieswith responsibility for agricultural and environmental issues (including the Departments of EnvironmentalConservation and State, the 6217 agencies in New York), several federal agencies, research groups such asCornell University, and interest groups such as Farm Bureau and environmental organizations. (TheDOS/DEC Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program (6217) submission contains the membership list).
On August 24, 2000 Governor George E. Pataki signed into law legislation creating the AgriculturalEnvironmental Management Program (AEM). The Agricultural Environmental Management Act amendsthe Agriculture & Markets Law, the Environmental Conservation Law, the Executive Law, and the Soil &Water Conservation District Law. The primary goal of AEM is to protect and enhance the environment whilemaintaining the viability of agriculture in New York State.
STRATEGY SUMMARY
In cases of violations of water quality standards, DEC will continue its practice of first involving County Soiland Water Conservation Districts in a cooperative effort to alleviate problems, but will continue to use itsregulatory powers as needed. New York will continue pursuing full implementation of the AEM program,supplemented by incentive programs funded by the Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act and the EnvironmentalProtection Fund. Refinement of evaluation efforts is ongoing, and information is currently being collected toaid in establishing the extent of AEM participation. The Departments of Agriculture and Markets,Environmental Conservation, State, and Health will by November, 1999 have determined whether legislationis necessary in order fully to implement the AEM program. If so, legislation will be drafted in consultationwith the Executive Office.
Information regarding participation in AEM will be maintained as a mechanism to determine its effectivenessin achieving management practice implementation. Such participation information is expected to be part ofthe overall AEM evaluation strategy. For more information regarding the proposed evaluation strategy, seethe accompanying “AEM Evaluation” and “AEM Evaluation Approach- Notes for Discussion.” (Both areincluded in New York’s Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program submission).
D-18
LOCAL ROADS RUNOFF SYSTEMS - Proposed Strategy
for Full Approval of New York’s Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program
The State of New York has a multi-faceted strategy for addressing federal conditions for runoff systems forlocal existing, resurfaced, restored and rehabilitated roads, highways and bridges articulated in the New YorkCoastal Nonpoint Program Findings.
CONCEPTUAL OUTLINE
New York’s DEC has back up authority to prevent nonpoint pollution and require management measureimplementation. Article 17 of Environmental Conservation Law grants authority to DEC to: “ ... abate andprevent the pollution of the waters of the State . . . ” (ECL 17-0303 (2). Additionally, Article 17 provides that“[I]t shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to throw, drain, run, or otherwise discharge intosuch waters organic or inorganic matter that shall cause or contribute to a condition in contravention of thestandards adopted by the department pursuant to section 17-0301 (ECL 17-0501).”
Thus, ECL Article 17 grants broad authority to DEC to enforce state water quality standards when runofffrom existing, resurfaced, restored and rehabilitated roads, highways and bridges contribute to adverse effectsin surface waters and, when a specific water quality problem has been shown, the agency authority to requirethe implementation of appropriate management practices to address such specific problems. The State’sability to enforce against violations of its water quality standards and to require permits for a variety ofdischarges has been vigorously used to protect water quality. The DEC has used this broad prohibitionagainst pollution to assess civil penalties and impose abatement on discharges, whether direct or indirect, suchas discharge of poultry wastes and sediment from a sand and gravel pit (Gae Farms, Inc. v. Diamond, 40A.D. 2d 909 [1972], Colella v. NYSDEC, 196 A.D. 2d 162, 608 N.Y.S. 2d 361 [1994]).
DEC’s role in both implementation and enforcement of violations of water quality standards and its intent touse its existing enforcement authority will be further clarified by a formal memorandum of understanding thatwill be sought between the agency’s Division of Water and its Division of Environmental Enforcement. Thisclarification will assume a greater level of importance with the anticipated release and New York’simplementation of EPA’s Phase Two stormwater regulations that will apply to nearly all of the state’s coastalzone, transferring urban stormwater runoff control from Section 6217 to New York’s SPDES program,which is under the sole jurisdiction of NYSDEC. Thus the link between NYSDEC’s implementing programand enforcing program will be formally defined and established.
In addition, many areas of the state will be affected by the development and implementation of TotalMaximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), pursuant to section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. For areas for whichTMDLs will be developed, pollution from nonpoint sources, including runoff from local roads, will be included.
Incentive Programs and Voluntary Efforts
D-19
New York’s State Revolving Loan Fund (SRLF), Environmental Protection Fund (EPF), 1996 Clean Water/ Clean Air Bond Act and Transportation Enhancement Program are incentive programs that allocate statefunds for municipal remediation efforts that target priority water quality issues identified on the local level byindividual County Water Quality Coordinating Committees. Outreach and technical assistance by DEC, DOTand DOS staff at the onset of each funding cycle assure that municipalities submitting proposals request fiscalsupport for projects that address nonpoint source issues of local concern, and selection criteria for ratingproposals lean heavily in favor of projects that address high priority water quality problems. Typical projectsinclude stormwater wetlands, infiltration basins and trenches, vegetated swales, extended detention ponds,and other innovative structures that control and abate stormwater runoff. Significant funds available underthe Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act have already been allocated to reduce pollution from local roads.
A variety of community based environmental protection initiatives are also in place in New York to encourageimplementation of relevant management measures for urban local roads. Chief among these will be theearmarking of additional Clean Water Act section 319 funds for Cornell University’s Local Roads Program(CLRP) to broaden the extent and scope of their training and technical assistance to local roads officials.Since 1984, over 11,000 local highway officials have attended more than 400 CLRP one-day workshopsacross the state on road fundamentals, drainage, winter maintenance, and other related topics. Additionally,Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE) activities will continue to implement relevant management measuresfor the New York State Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program (CNPCP). Each year, more than eightmillion people participate in CCE seminars, computer-assisted learning programs, and tours or request helpfrom Cornell Cooperative Extension in making decisions. Other community based environmental protectioninitiatives include local programs, in part funded by DOS, to develop intermunicipal waterbody managementplans and equivalent efforts from DEC.
The Transportation Enhancement Program administered by NYS DOT is a reimbursement program, not agrant program. One category on the Federal Highway Administration’s list of eligible project categories ismitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff. So far, this category has received few applications. TheNew York NPS Coordinating Committee has been made aware of this and will be promoting its use.
Additionally, New York is exploring the feasibility of developing a Community Environmental Management(CEM) Program based on the State’s current Agriculture Environmental Management (AEM) Program. TheCEM program would be broader in scope than AEM and address all non-agricultural nonpoint issues, chiefamong them urban local roads. CEM would provide a framework and process for municipalities to assesstheir current nonpoint abatement and control practices, identify gaps in those practices, and establish prioritiesfor nonpoint pollution remediation and prevention projects. Thus the CEM program would function as acritical method for tracking and evaluating the success of voluntary efforts for the implementation of relevantmanagement measures.
Legislative and Regulatory Actions
New York will explore the option of approaching the State Legislature with requests to establish legislationthat would 1) require local Departments of Public Works / Highway Departments to adopt NYS Department
D-20
of Transportation (DOT) contract specifications, environmental procedures and highway design standards;2) mandate DOT conditions on federal pass-through funds to local municipalities that would requireimplementation of state environmental procedures, design standards and contract specifications; 3) definefederal pass-through funds to local municipalities as a Federal action open to review for consistency withState Coastal Policies; or 4) provide other mechanisms to assure the incorporation of nonpoint pollution controlin local road management.
Once federal guidelines for the Phase II stormwater regulations are finalized (anticipated October 1999), NewYork will develop permits, regulations, etc., as appropriate for their implementation. It is expected theseregulations will affect a significant portion of the coastal nonpoint area in New York. The need to addresspollution from transport networks within the coastal zone will be considered in the determination oif areas tobe affected by the Phase II program.
Two major existing programs cap New York’s strategy to implement controls on nonpoint pollution generatedby stormwater runoff from urban local roads. These are the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA) and the New York State Coastal Management Program (CMP). SEQRA provides that everyenvironmentally significant land development approval decision or direct action by a state or local agency aresubject to a determination as to its impact on water resources. New York’s CMP provides, in part, that allState and federal actions in the coastal zone are consistent with a single set of decision-making criteria, thestate’s federally-approved coastal policy statements.
STRATEGY SUMMARY
New York’s strategy for addressing federal conditions on runoff systems for urban local roads includes apossibility of legislative action, existing and new regulatory programs, and voluntary elements as stated in theNOAA / EPA proposed administrative changes for enforceable policies and mechanisms. Those elementsinclude:
(1) In lieu of an attorney general’s opinion regarding backup authority, the already demonstrateduse of its existing back up authority to address pollution problems causing or contributing towater quality impairments;
(2) incentive programs (including the Environmental Protection Fund and hte Clean Water/CleanAir Bond Act) and voluntary efforts to encourage implementation of management measuresfor urban local roads, and a Community Environmental Management Program, modeled afteran extant Agriculture Environmental Management Program, that will track and evaluate thesuccess of these programs and efforts;
(3) a formal memorandum of understanding that links the implementing agency (DEC’s Divisionof Water) with the enforcement agency (DEC’s Division of Environmental Enforcement)and establishes the intent to continue the use of existing enforcement authority wherenecessary.
D-21
ADDITIONAL MANAGEMENT MEASURES - Determination of Need
for Full Approval of New York’s Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program
DESCRIPTION OF PROCESS
NYS has in place a process to determine whether Additional Management Measures (AMMs) are neededto protect water quality once all relevant 6217 management Measures are fully in place. That process beginswith the updates to the Priority Waterbody List (PWL). In the past, the PWL was updated biennially.However, the program is shifting to updates on a rotating five year basis, in a process which is coordinatedwith the Rotating Intensive Basin Surveys (RIBS). The update process uses the results of the RIBS and othermonitoring programs and input from regional DEC staff, localized efforts such as intermunicipal watershedmanagement programs, national estuary programs, and regional management programs, local officials, CountyWater Quality Committees, and private interests. Individuals or groups may propose including a stream, lake,or other waterbody on the PWL and provide any supporting documentation available. Following the evaluationof available information, DEC develops draft revisions to the PWL. The PWL allows characterization ofwaterbodies as having designated uses precluded, impaired, stressed, or threatened. The PWL thereforefocuses on waters with impairments or threatened impairments, which is a suitable basis for assessing theneed for AMMs.
In addition to internal DEC review of the results of PWL updates, two standing committees have roles whichare relevant in assessing the need for AMMs and what mechanisms are appropriate for their implementation.The Water Management Advisory Committee (WMAC) has membership which includes state agencies withauthority and responsibility for addressing water quality in certain areas (Departments of Health, Agricultureand Markets, State, Transportation, etc.) as well as representatives of the legislature, Executive office, otherlevels of government (EPA and local governments), and private interest groups. WMAC meetings providea forum for the discussion of the results of PWL updates. If a PWL update indicates a significant numberof segments appearing on the list because of pollution sources not adequately addressed by existing programs,the WMAC can provide important advice on the need for additional management measures.
The Nonpoint Source Coordinating Committee (NPSCC), founded in 1990, has a membership which includesall state agencies with an interest in the management of nonpoint pollution. The NPSCC can therefore serveas an ideal forum in which DEC policy decisions regarding the management of a new source of nonpointpollution can be translated into proposals for specific actions and programs. In addition, the NPSCC caninitiate discussions without the need for referral from DEC. NPSCC agencies can thus discuss potentialapproaches to addressing nonpoint pollution problems, with all relevant state agencies present. Once thereis agreement regarding the preferred approach, DEC and other relevant agencies can take steps to implementit.
In summary, DEC will use the periodic update of the PWL to review water quality status and trends on awatershed basin basis. The WMAC and NPSCC, in reviewing the PWL updates, will focus on pollutionsources which cause water quality problems and which are either not addressed at present or are
inadequately addressed. WMAC recommendations to DEC regarding the management of nonpoint pollutionwill be brought to the NPSCC. The NPSCC provides a forum for the identification of problems and theanalysis of potential solutions. Because the NPSCC contains as members all relevant state agencies, theresulting proposed solutions can readily be drawn to the attention of the appropriate authority.
In addition to the statewide process outlined above, regional or local efforts can also lead to the identificationof the need for additional management of nonpoint pollution. Community based environmental protectioninitiatives such as some of the varied intermunicipal watershed management groups in the state, some of theregional management entities, etc., can identify the need for additional management and act on that need forthe region served, without the necessity of developing a statewide response. Thus, for example, pollutionmanagement initiatives undertaken as part of the New York City watershed’s programs need not involvestatewide action.
On a watershed basis, the need for additional management measures may also be identified in thedevelopment of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). Waters that are targeted as a priority for TMDLdevelopment are identified on the 303(d) list which is submitted to, and approved by, the USEPA every twoyears. When a TMDL is developed, DEC will identify the need for additional management measures if theload allocation for nonpoint sources can not be met through the implementation of the State’s 319 and 6217Programs in that watershed.
Because it is by definition impossible to determine in advance what problems might in the future be identified,it is also impossible to describe with any specificity how they will be addressed. However, the PWL-WMAC-NPSCC route provides a process for the determination of need for AMMs. Because the PWL update iscontinuous (on a five year basis for each basin in the State), the process for revision and adaptation is alsocontinuous.
D-23
Water Management Advisory Committee
In 1980, DEC’s Division of Water (DOW) established the Water Management Advisory Committee(WMAC) to provide guidance and perspectives as the Division works to accomplish its goals and objectives.The WMAC serves as an important link between the Division and government, economic, professional,environmental and public interests. Its activities include
! Reviewing and commenting on DOW workplans, policies, and programs
! articipating in problem-solving sessions,! Sponsoring DOW public participation projects, and ! Participating in specific DOW activities
In addition WMAC members promote awareness of DOW activites and intiatives among their constituents,and in turn bring their constituents reactions and concerns to DOW.
DOW formally consults with the WMAC four times a year, and the WMAC itself meets twice a year. Towiden the DOW’s pool of expertise, other interested indiviuals or groups beyond the WMAC’s 25 membersmay participate as corresponding members.
WMAC Representation
Association of Regional Planning and DevelopmentOrganizationsNew York Association of CountiesConference of Directors of Local Environmental
Health ServicesCooperative Extension Association of EMC'sAssociation of Conservation DistrictsAmerican Water Works AssociationConsulting Engineers CouncilFarm BureauNYS Builders AssociationBusiness CouncilWater Environment Association
NYS Chemical AllianceEnvironmental AdvocatesFederation of Lake AssociationsLeague of Women VotersTrout UnlimitedHudson River Sloop ClearwaterCitizens Environmental CoalitionCitizens Campaign for the EnvironmentCenter for Environmental ResearchGreat Lakes ProgramGreat Lakes Consortiummembers of the public
Liasons: NYS Legislative Commission on Water, NYS Department of State, NYS Department of Health, NYSDepartment of Agriculture and Markets, US Environmental Protection Agency, NYS Department ofTransportation and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation.
D-24
NYS NONPOINT SOURCE COORDINATING COMMITTEE
NYS Department of Agriculture & Markets
NYS Soil & Water Conservation Committee
NYS Department of Health
U.S. Geological Survey
NYS Department of State
USDA - Farm Service Agency
NY Water Resources Institute
Cornell Cooperative Extension
New York Sea Grant Extension
USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
NYS Department of Transportation
NYS Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of NY & LI
NYS Environmental Facilities Corporation
NYS Conservation District Employees Association
NYS Senate Committee on Water Resources
NYC Department of Environmental Protection
APPENDIX E
E-1
APPENDIX E
The Key Elements of New York’s
Nonpoint Source Management Program
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established nine key elements that are requiredfor federal approval of a state’s Nonpoint Source Management Program. This appendix describes in detailNew York State’s compliance with these key elements.
A. EPA’s Nine Key Elements - An Overview
New York State’s Nonpoint Source Management Program Update meets all of the nine key elementsspecified by EPA, as summarized below.
Key Element I Short-and Long-Term Goals: Long term restoration goals and specific short-term goals areset for statewide considerations and for the four most prominent nonpoint source categories. The prioritycategories were selected based on the Priority Waterbodies List and Section 305b Water Quality Reportfor 2000. The short-term goals and objectives specify measurable progress New York State will makeby 2005 in protecting human health, conserving and enhancing ecological health of our waters and reducingnonpoint sources of pollution.
Key Element II Partnerships and Linkages: From the inception of the nonpoint source program, all aspectsof policy and program development and implementation have been characterized by partnerships andcollaboration. The statewide New York Nonpoint Source Coordinating Committee (NPSCC) was createdin 1990 as an outgrowth of the participatory processes used to develop the original Nonpoint SourceManagement Plan. The collaborative model is repeated at the county level with county Water QualityCoordinating Committees (WQCCs) that provide guidance for local decision makers. Additional links toregional partners strengthen program direction and help guide the development and implementation ofprogram elements. After identifying priority nonpoint source categories, the Nonpoint Source CoordinatingCommittee established collaborative workgroups to strengthen partnerships, refine policies and determinehighest priority actions for addressing those source categories statewide. For the appropriate level andtopic, representatives are involved from local, regional, state, interstate, tribal and federal agencies;business, industry and public interest groups; academic institutions; private landowners and producers,concerned citizens and other stakeholder interests.
Key Element III Balanced Approach: Statewide activities are coordinated through the NPSCC;institutionalized through MOUs and cooperative agreements; and implemented through processes toreview, select, fund, initiate and oversee environmental restoration and protection projects. They are
E-2
tracked by databases and various water quality or compliance reports. Working groups of the NPSCChave been established to address the highest priority source categories at the statewide level. Basin orwatershed-level activities are conducted by regional or local watershed management groups and range frombroad partnerships in Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan (CCMP) areas to locally focusedactivities under geographically-specific watershed management plans.
Key Element IV Abating and Preventing NPS Pollution:
The Division of Water’s Permitting and Compliance program staff work to abate NPS pollution throughinformation, education, training, technical assistance and funding, with regulations and enforcement wherenecessary. The Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act (Bond Act) and Environmental Protection Fund providefunding for water quality improvement projects, including nonpoint source pollution abatement and control.The Nonpoint Source Program has developed annually updated management practice cataloguesaddressing ten major categories of nonpoint source pollution. Partner agencies help distribute cataloguesto appropriate audiences and work with them to select management practices to eliminate current problemsand prevent future problems.
Key Element V Identification and Process: DEC’s monitoring program covers all of New York’s 17drainage basins in a routine five-year cycle of intensive monitoring. For more than15 years, New York hasinvolved stakeholders in development of a Priority Waterbodies List (PWL) that identifies waters impairedor threatened by point and nonpoint sources of pollution and serves as a basis for focusing correctiveactions on those waters most in need of protection and restoration. New York establishes local waterquality priorities through its network of 58 county Water Quality Coordinating Committees, with guidancefrom the State Soil and Water Conservation Committee, the Nonpoint Source Coordinating Committeemember agencies and the nonpoint source staff in DEC’s nine regions and central office. Documentationfor waterbodies characterized as threatened is derived from reports of imminent land use changes. TheDepartment of Health and DEC’s Division of Environmental Remediation provide information on threatsand impairments to, or remediation of, the groundwater of New York.
Basin monitoring information was used to develop the Unified Watershed Assessment and serves as astarting point for developing the Watershed Restoration and Protection Action Strategies. Thus planningactivities are focusing on both statewide priority source categories and specific watersheds in need ofrestoration and protection. Both initiatives include attention to prevention and restoration, consideringidentified problems and potential threats. Programs focus on a unified approach to water quality and naturalresource issues. Within the five-year schedule for developing Watershed Restoration and ProtectionAction Strategies, New York’s statewide Source Water Assessment Program and AgriculturalEnvironmental Management Program will provide a second level of prioritization and planning at smallerwatershed units, in cooperation with regional and local partners and consistent with our Community-BasedEnvironmental Protection Strategy (CBEPS).
Key Element VI Program Review and Implementation: New York continues to implement all programcomponents of section 319(b) of the Clean Water Act. Water quality-based elements of the program arereflected in the TMDL program, the Unified Watershed Assessment and the developing Watershed
E-3
Restoration and Protection Action Strategies. Technology-based elements are promoted through the useof the annually updated Management Practices Catalogues, from which landowners or facility operatorscan select, with appropriate technical assistance and involvement of county Water Quality CoordinatingCommittees, the best practices for their situation.
A full mixture of regulatory, financial and technical assistance is provided to support both the water quality-based and technology-based elements of the program. Program coordination is achieved primarily throughthe quarterly meetings of the Nonpoint Source Coordinating Committee and Memoranda of Understandingor cooperative agreements between DEC and other federal, state and regional agencies.
Key Element VII Federal Lands Management Consistency: Federal lands total only 414 square miles inNew York State, including national historic sites and military installations. DEC continues to work closelywith EPA in programs for interstate and international waters. New York relies upon its Nonpoint SourceCoordinating Committee to present and resolve inconsistencies between state and federal program activitiesand to promote and develop complementary ones.
Key Element VIII Program and Financial Management: Program and fiscal management follow EPAGROG and GRITS procedures to ensure effective and efficient delivery of the nonpoint source program.The nonpoint source program is evaluated and adjusted through quarterly meetings of the Nonpoint SourceCoordinating Committee.
Implementation funding has been focused in specific watersheds where waters are impaired and threatened.Water quality management, including nonpoint sources, follows a comprehensive management cycle, withattention to statewide needs and basin-specific issues; with focus on prevention and restoration; with bothtechnology and water quality limits; and with attention to both water quality and natural resource issues.The cycle of monitoring, planning, implementation and compliance are supported by a full range of activities,including technical assistance, training, information and education, funding and enforcement.
Key Element IX Program Evaluation and Revision: As described in the Performance PartnershipAgreement (PPA) between EPA and the Division of Water, the nonpoint source management program isreviewed and evaluated together with all the other elements of the water program. Each year, New YorkState assesses the effectiveness of its programs in meeting its goals and objectives, then revises its activitiesand annual workplans to continually focus on reaching the goals and objectives established in the PPA. TheNonpoint Source Assessment and Management Program is expected to be updated every five years. NewYork State will continue to refine the environmental measures and indicators that it uses to measure andreport progress of watershed planning and implementation.
E-4
B. Analysis of the EPA Nine Key Elements in New York State’s Nonpoint SourceManagement Program
Key Element I The New York State program contains explicit short- and long-term goals,objectives, and strategies to protect surface and ground water.
New York State conducts its Nonpoint Source Management Program under the following vision andmission statements:
Vision Statement
Nonpoint source pollution caused by natural and human activities no long impairs New YorkState’s waters.
Mission Statement
The mission of New York’s Nonpoint Source Program is to control, reduce or treat pollutedrunoff through the implementation of structural, operational or vegetative managementpractices; to administratively coordinate various state agencies and other interestedpartners having regulatory, outreach, incentive-based or funding programs that fosterinstallation of management practices for any of the identified sources of nonpoint sourcepollution threatening or impairing the waters of New York; and to conduct localimplementation and statewide coordination and evaluation on a watershed basis.
Long- and Short-Term Goals for the New York State
Nonpoint Source Management Program
PROBLEM: For the waters of New York Statewhere uses are impacted by pollutants ordisturbances, 90 percent are attributed to nonpointsources. Problems associated with pollution fromatmospheric deposition and contaminated sedimentsare being addressed at the regional and nationallevels. Of the remaining categories, urban runoff,which includes construction and roadway/right-of-way maintenance, constitutes 33 percent of theprimary sources. Agricultural sources contribute 21percent of the impacts, onsite wastewater treatmentsystems 17 percent and hydrologic and habitatmodification, including streambank erosion, 14 percent. These are the four priority categories New York’s
E-5
program focuses on. The remaining 15 percent of sources (other) include unknown sources (9 percent),landfill and land disposal (3 percent), resource extraction (1 percent), and less than 1 percent each fromsilviculture, and chemical and petroleum leaks and spills.
Long-Term (15 year) and Short-Term (5 year) Goals for NPS Program
Statewide Long-Term Goals:
LT 1 By 2015, restore designated best uses in 25 percent of New York State waters where pollutionfrom nonpoint sources other than atmospheric deposition and contaminated sediments has had themost severe impacts.
LT 2 By 2015, New York State will fully implement CZARA Nonpoint Management Measures in the6217 management area designated by NOAA/USEPA. Many programs, such as the managementof onsite wastewater treatment systems, will be Statewide.
LT3 By 2015, New York State will implement all commitments identified in Watershed Restoration andAction Protection Strategies in all basins.
Statewide Short-Term Goals:
ST1 Water Restoration: By 2005, restore designated best uses to 10 percent of the waterscurrently listed on the Priority Waterbodies List (PWL) as precluded or impaired from nonpointsources other than atmospheric deposition and contaminated sediments.
ST2 Water Quality Impairment Verification: By 2005, assess 50 percent of waters thatcurrently need verification of impairment so that they are either verified and noted in the PWL ormoved to a listing of no known impairment.
ST3 Water Quality Assessment: By 2005, assess 50 percent of waters currently unassessed.
ST4 Natural Resource Information: By 2005, increase the amount and type of natural resourceinformation covered by the PWL.
ST5 Coastal Zone NPS Program: New York State will work towards full approval of the CoastalNPS Program.
ST6 Watershed Strategies: By 2006, all waters currently identified as precluded or impaired in thePWL will be reviewed. The cause and source of the impairments will be confirmed. New York
E-6
State will develop Watershed Restoration and Action Protection Strategies to correct theseimpairments for all basins.
ST7 Section 303(d) List: By 2002, New York State will update the 303(d) list which includesTMDL’s for waters that have a nonpoint source component.
ST8 TMDL’s: By 2008, New York State will develop TMDL’s for all waters impaired by nonpointsources.
ST9 TMDL’s: Within 10 years after development of a TMDL with a nonpoint source component,New York State will implement NPS management measures in that area.
ST10 New York State will periodically review progress towards goal attainment.
E-7
Urban, Construction and Roadway Runoff
Note: For the purpose of setting priority source categories, New YorkState has combined Construction and Roadway and Right-of-WayMaintenance with the Urban/Stormwater Runoff source category,expressed as urban, construction and roadway runoff (UCRR).
PROBLEM: Urban , construction and roadway runoff comprises 33 percent of the primary nonpointsources that preclude, impair or stress New York’s impacted waters, as reported in the state’s PriorityWaterbodies List. Stormwater management techniques have not always been understood and implementedat the local level, nor integrated with floodplain management.
UCRR Long-Term Goal:
By 2015, New York State will have restored designated best uses in 20 percent of its waters whereurban, construction and roadway runoff is currently the primary source of pollutants causing aprecluded or impaired designation on the Priority Waterbodies List (PWL).
Short-Term Goals:
UCRR1 Water Restoration: By 2005, New York State will have restored designated bestuses in 5 percent of its waters where urban, construction and roadway runoff is currentlythe primary source of pollutants causing a precluded or impaired designation on thePWL.
UCRR2 Water Quality Improvement By 2005, 10 percent of the waters currently listed onthe PWL as precluded, impaired or stressed from primary urban, construction site androadway runoff sources will show a reduction in severity of impairment from their currentlevels as listed on the PWL.
UCRR3 Source Reduction: Due to improvements, by 2005 urban, construction site androadway runoff will be reduced from a primary to a secondary source or the category willbe removed entirely as a source for 10 percent of the segments currently listed on thePWL as precluded, impaired or stressed for this category and where urban, constructionsite and roadway runoff is currently listed as a primary or secondary source.
UCRR4 Corrective Management Strategy Development/Implementation By 2005,20 percent of waters where urban, construction site and roadway runoff are currentlyidentified as the primary source of pollution causing a precluded or impaired designation
E-8
on the PWL will have an implemented management strategy or will show progress towardthe development/implementation of a strategy.
UCRR5 Administrative Response: The program will actively pursue administrative responsesto achieve the Long and Short-Term goals of restoring water quality.
OBJECTIVES for implementing short-term goals:
(1) Increase local capacity within each of New York’s 62 counties to addressurban runoff problems through information, education and training:
(a) By 2001, produce a stormwater manual to assist developers andtheir consultants and contractors, and state and local officials withpractices selection and design of stormwater managementmeasures for specific development sites.
(b) By 2001, establish a Floodplain and Stormwater Manager’sAssociation in New York State to help facilitate the understandingof floodplain and stormwater management among associationmembers, local officials, developers and contractors throughregional conferences, workshops and outreach.
(c) By 2002, update the Management Practice catalogues for Urban/Stormwater Runoff and for Construction Runoff
(d) By 2002, develop a protocol for facilitating stormwatermanagement planning on a watershed-wide basis.
(e) By 2002, establish a statewide award / recognition program toshowcase good stormwater management practices
(f) By 2003, update the Management Practice catalogue forRoadway and Right-of-Way Maintenance.
(g) By 2003, update and revise the manual Reducing the Impactsof Stormwater Runoff From New Development to serve asa companion document to the above design manual.
(2) Increase local capacity within each of New York’s 62 counties to addressurban runoff problems through technical assistance:
(a) By 2003, 85 percent of the municipalities automatically designatedby the Phase II stormwater regulations will have been issued astormwater permit.
(b) By 2002, update DEC’s model Stormwater ManagementOrdinance ensuring that it is consistent with Phase II stormwatermanagement requirements.
E-9
(c) By 2002, conduct a pilot program through Nonpoint Educationfor Municipal Officials (NEMO) to provide technical tools to localofficials.
(d) By 2001, provide copies of a video on roadway maintenance toall county highway superintendents.
(3) Increase local capacity within each of New York’s 62 counties to addressurban runoff problems through funding: By 2005, New York State willspend at least $25 million from the Bond Act and EnvironmentalProtection Fund and $20 million in loans from the Clean Water StateRevolving Fund to plan and implement stormwater runoff abatement andcontrol projects.
The following organizations are represented on the Urban Runoff Work Group:Cornell University - Dept of Natural Resources, Water Resources Institute
Greene Co SWCD
NYCDEP - Bureau of Water Supply Quality & Protection, Stream Monitoring
NYSDEC - Bureau of Watershed Management,Bureau of Flood Protection, Bureau of Water Permits,
NYSDEC Region 4
NYSDOS - Division of Coastal Resources
NYSDOT - Environmental Analysis Bureau
Putnam Co. - Division of Planning and Development
Tioga Co SWCD
US Fish & Wildlife Service
US Geological Survey
USDA NRCS
USEPA Region 2
Upper Susquehanna Coalition
E-10
E-11
Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems
PROBLEM: Failing or improperly installed onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS) comprise 17percent of the primary nonpoint sources that preclude, impair or stress the use of New York’s impactedwaters, as reported in the state’s Priority Waterbodies List. Often, homeowners moving from seweredhomes to rural areas have no experience with onsite systems and do not know how to maintain them. Ruralcommunities served by OWTS often cannot afford replacement sewers or other system enhancements.Local inspectors, installers and maintenance people may not have the skills necessary to oversee or to useproper installation techniques.
OWTS Long-Term Goal: By 2015, New York State will have restored designated best uses in 30 percent of its waters whereonsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS) are currently the primary sources of pollutantscausing a precluded or impaired designation on the Priority Waterbodies List.
OWTS Short-Term Goals:OWTS1 Water Restoration: By 2005, New York State will have restored designated best
uses in 10 percent of its waters where onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS) arecurrently the primary sources of pollutants causing a precluded or impaired designation onthe Priority Waterbodies List.
OWTS2 Water Quality Improvement: By 2005, 10 percent of the waters currently listed onthe PWL as precluded, impaired or stressed from primary onsite wastewater treatmentsystems sources will show a reduction in severity of impairment from their current levelsas listed on the PWL.
OWTS3 Source Reduction: By 2005, due to improvements, onsite wastewater treatmentsystems will be reduced from a primary to a secondary source or the category will beremoved entirely as a source for 10 percent of the segments currently listed on the PWLas precluded, impaired or stressed for this category and where onsite wastewatertreatment systems are currently listed as a primary or secondary source.
OWTS4 Corrective Management Strategy Development/Implementation: By 2005,20 percent of waters where onsite wastewater treatment systems are currently identifiedas the primary source of pollution causing a precluded or impaired designation on the PWLwill have an implemented management strategy or will show progress toward thedevelopment/implementation of a strategy.
E-12
OWTS5 Administrative Response: The program will actively pursue administrative responsesto achieve the Long and Short-Term goals of restoring water quality.
OBJECTIVES for implementing Short-Term goals:
(1) Enhance local capacity within each of New York’s 62 counties to addressNPS problems from OWTS through information, education and training:(a) By 2001, update the Management Practice catalogue for Onsite
Wastewater Treatment Systems.(b) By 2005, 30 counties in New York State will be using Home-A-
Syst to educate homeowners about OWTS.(c) By 2005, conduct a series of training sessions (at least 20
days/year) for local officials and OWTS installers and maintainers,with a total target attendance of 1200 persons
(2) Enhance local capacity within each of New York’s 62 counties to addressNPS problems from OWTS through technical and administrativeassistance: By 2005, the NYSEFC will have provided $60 million in zero-interest loans to financial hardship communities to address OWTSproblems through the Self-Help program.
(3) Enhance local capacity within each of New York’s 62 counties to addressNPS problems from OWTS through funding: By 2005, New York Statewill spend at least $40 million from the Bond Act and EnvironmentalProtection Fund for projects to plan and implement OWTS improvementsor replacements.
The following organizations are members of the OWTS Work Group:AWT Environmental, IncAssociation of TownsBray EngineeringCornell University - Textiles & ApparelDelaware Co SWCDKnight Treatment SystemsMadison Co Environmental Health - NYS Conference of Environmental Health DirectorsNE RCAPNYCDEP - Bureau of Water Supply Quality & ProtectionNYS Dept of Agriculture & Markets - SWCCNYSDEC - Bureau of Watershed Assessment & Research, Bureau of Watershed ManagementNYSDOH - Bureau of Sanitation & Food ProtectionNYSDOS - Division of Coastal Resources, Division of Local GovernmentNYS Environmental Facilities CorporationNYS Federation of Lake AssociationsNYSERDANorthrup Septic Service
E-13
SUNY @ Morrisville - Environmental Training CenterSUNY at Delhi - NY Onsite Wastewater AssociationSuffolk Co SWCDUSDA NRCS - Ellicottville Soil Survey Office
Hydrologic and Habitat Modifications Note: For the purpose of setting priority source categories, New YorkState has combined Streambank Erosion with the Hydrologic and HabitatModifications source categories, expressed as hydrologic and habitatmodifications (HHM).
PROBLEM: Hydrologic and habitat modifications comprise 14 percent of the primary nonpoint sourcesthat preclude, impair or stress the use of New York’s impacted waters, as reported in the state’s PriorityWaterbodies List. Stream restoration is often conducted on a site by site basis, without reference to thewatershed or the stream’s geomorphological characteristics. Although loss of wetlands is slowing, it stilloccurs. Local officials, especially local highway staff, often need training on techniques to protect waterquality while solving their flooding or erosion problems.
HHM Long-Term Goal: By 2015, New York State will have restored designated best uses in 20 percent of its waters wherehydrologic and habitat modifications (HHM) are currently the primary source of pollutants causing aprecluded or impaired designation on the Priority Waterbodies List.
HHM Short-Term Goals:HHM1 Water Restoration: By 2005, New York State will have restored designated best
uses in 10 percent of its waters where hydrologic and habitat modifications (HHM) arecurrently the primary source of pollutants causing a precluded or impaired designation onthe Priority Waterbodies List.
HHM2 Water Quality Improvement: By 2005, 10 percent of the waters currently listed onthe PWL and verified as precluded, impaired or stressed by pollutants from primaryhydrologic and habitat modification sources will show a reduction in severity of impairmentfrom their current levels as listed on the PWL.
HHM3 Source Reduction: By 2005, due to improvements, hydrologic and habitatmodifications will be reduced from a primary to a secondary source or the category willbe removed entirely as a source for 10 percent of the segments currently listed on thePWL as precluded, impaired or stressed for this category and where hydrologic andhabitat modifications are currently listed as a primary or secondary source.
E-14
HHM4 Corrective Management Strategy Development/Implementation: By 2005, 20 percent of waters where hydrologic and habitat modifications are currently identifiedas the primary source of pollution causing a precluded or impaired designation on the PWLwill have an implemented management strategy or will show progress toward thedevelopment/implementation of a strategy.
HHM5 Administrative Response: The program will actively pursue administrative responsesto achieve the Long and Short-Term goals of restoring water quality.
OBJECTIVES for implementing Short-Term goals:
(1) By 2005, restore ecosystems impaired by hydrologic and habitatmodifications:(a) Restore 13,500 acres of shoreline vegetation along waterbodies
and water courses.(b) Restore 25,500 acres of wetlands. (c) Restore 25 miles of morphologically impaired or flood-damaged
water courses.
(2) Increase local capacity within each of New York’s 62 counties to addressNPS problems from HHM through information, education and training:(a) By 2002, update the Management Practice catalogue for
Hydrologic and Habitat Modifications. (b) By 2003, update The Survey and Compendium of Local Laws
for Protecting Water Quality From Nonpoint SourcePollution and place it on the NPS web site.
(c) By 2004, update the manual entitled Stream CorridorManagement: A Basic Reference Manual.
(d) By 2003, conduct two series of workshops per year across thestate to train DEC regional staff, and DOS, SWCD, and DOTstaff in tools for managing and restoring wetlands and streamcorridors.
(e) By 2002, distribute 7,000 copies of new New York StateForestry Best Management Practices for Water Quality FieldGuide to timber harvesters, foresters, Conservation Districts, andother natural resource management professionals.
(f) By 2001, develop and distribute new Forestry BestManagement Practices brochure to increase landownerawareness and use of BMPs.
(g) By 2003, update the Silvicultural BMP Catalog.
E-15
(h) By 2004, diversify State Forest Nursery operation to produceplanting materials for riparian restoration and re-establishment.
(i) By 2002, expand cooperative NY Logger Training andCertification Program to include 2,000 operators; develop andconduct at least 5 workshops per year on BMPs and waterquality protection.
(3) Increase local capacity within each of New York’s 62 counties to addressNPS problems from HHM through technical assistance: By 2003, developa certification program for highway superintendents to include ways tominimize stream disturbance and maintain a more natural flow regime.
(4) Increase local capacity within each of New York’s 62 counties to addressNPS problems from HHM through funding: By 2005, New York Statewill spend at least $30 million from the Bond Act and EnvironmentalProtection Fund to plan and implement aquatic habitat restorationprojects.
The following organizations are members of the Hydrologic/Habitat Modification(HHM) workgroup:Cornell University - Dept of Natural Resources, Water Resources InstituteGreene Co SWCDNYCDEP - Bureau of Water Supply Quality & Protection, Stream MonitoringNYSDEC - Bureau of Watershed Management,Wetlands Coordinator - Fish and Wildlife, Div of Lands & Forests, NYS DEC Region 4NYSDOS - Division of Coastal Resources, NYSDOT - Envir Analysis BureauTioga Co SWCDUS Fish & Wildlife ServiceUS Geological SurveyUSDA NRCSUSEPA Region 2Upper Susquehanna Coalition
E-16
E-17
Agriculture
PROBLEM: Agricultural activities comprise 21 percent of the primary nonpoint sources that preclude,impair or stress the use of New York’s impacted waters, as reported in the state’s Priority WaterbodiesList. Although the AEM program (see explanation below) has proved effective, it is not yet in widespreaduse in all farm counties, nor is it yet integrated into educational programs. Other existing programs need tobe more fully implemented to increase progress in abating NPS runoff from agricultural activities.
AG Long-Term Goal:By 2015, New York State will have restored designated best uses in 30 percent of its waters whereagricultural runoff is currently the primary source of pollutants causing the precluded or impaired designationon the Priority Waterbodies List (PWL).
Short-Term Goals:AG1 Water Restoration: By 2005, New York State will have restored designated best uses in 10
percent of its waters where agricultural runoff is currently the primary source of pollutants causingthe precluded or impaired designation on the Priority Waterbodies List.
AG2 Water Quality Improvement: By 2005, 10 percent of the waters currently listed on thePWL as precluded, impaired or stressed by pollutants from primary agricultural sources will showa reduction in the severity of impairment from their current levels as listed on the PWL.
AG3 Source Reduction: By 2005, due to improvements, agriculture will be reduced from a primaryto a secondary source or the category will be removed entirely as a source for 10 percent of thesegments currently listed on the PWL as precluded, impaired or stressed for this category andwhere agriculture is currently listed as a primary or secondary source.
AG4 Corrective Management Strategy Development/Implementation: By 2005, 50percent of waters where agriculture is currently identified as the primary source of pollution causinga precluded or impaired designation on the PWL will have an implemented management strategyor will show progress toward the development/implementation of a strategy.
AG5 Administrative Response: The program will actively pursue administrative responses toachieve the Long and Short-Term goals of restoring water quality.
Since 1994 in New York State, the Agricultural Environmental Management (AEM)Initiative, a statewide, voluntary, locally-led and implemented approach, has been helpingfarmers comply with water quality objectives while meeting their business objectives.County Soil and Water Conservation Districts and their public and private sector partners
E-18
work with farmers in a five-step environmental planning and implementation process toaddress environmental concerns on their farms. With financial and technical assistance, theyconduct farm assessments (Tiers I and II), makes plans to abate pollutant runoff (Tier III)and implement projects (Tier IV), such as fencing livestock from waters and wetlands. TierV evaluates the project effectiveness on the farm and in the watershed.
OBJECTIVES for implementing Short-Term goals:(1) By 2005, for sources of NPS pollutants from agricultural activities,
including Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and AnimalFeeding Operations (AFOs) with more than 10 acres and greater than$10,000 in average gross annual sales, (a) 50 percent will complete AEM Tier 1;(b) 40 percent will complete Tier 2;.(c) 20 percent will complete Tier III planning;(d) 15 percent will complete Tier IV implementation.(e) An assessment survey (Tier 5) will be used to reevaluate these
goals for 2010.
(2) Increase local capacity within each of New York’s 62 counties to addressNPS problems from agricultural sources through information, educationand training:(a) By 2005, conduct AEM outreach and training for these special
interest groups:170 qualified AEM plannersFuture farmers, through community colleges and schools in 10counties.25 Watershed organizationsAgricultural producers in 55 countiesLocal decision-makers in 55 counties
(b) By 2002, update the Management Practice catalogue forAgriculture
(c) By 2002, establish a statewide award /recognition program toshowcase good agricultural practices.
(d) By 2001, update the AEM manual.
(3) Increase local capacity within each of New York’s 62 counties to addressNPS problems from agricultural sources through technical assistance: By2005,(a) Resource Management Systems will be planned on 165,000
acres of erodible cropland.
E-19
(b) Resource Management Systems will be applied on 132,000 acresof erodible cropland.
(c) Nutrient Management Systems will be applied on 295,000 acresof cropland in New York State
(d) Integrated Pest Management (IPM) will be applied to 36,500acres of cropland in New York State.
(4) Increase local capacity within each of New York’s 62 counties to addressNPS problems from agricultural sources through funding: By 2005, NewYork State will spend at least $15 million from the Bond Act andEnvironmental Protection Fund to plan and implement agriculturalnonpoint source abatement and control projects.
The following organizations are members of the Agricultural EnvironmentalManagement (AEM) Committee:
Albany Co SWCD - USDA FSACornell University - Cooperative Extension, Pro-Dairy Program, Water Resources InstituteDutchess Co SWCDNY Farm BureauNYC Watershed Agricultural CouncilNYSDEC - Bureau of Watershed ManagementNYSDOH - Bureau of Public Water Supply ProtectionNYS Dept of Agriculture & Markets – SWCCNYS Dept of State - Division of Coastal ResourcesNatural Resources Conservation ServiceSuffolk Co SWCDWyoming Co SWCD
E-20
Key Element II. New York State strengthens its working partnerships and linkages withappropriate state, tribal, regional, and local entities (includingconservation districts), private sector groups, citizens groups and federalagencies.
The statewide New York Nonpoint Source Coordinating Committee was created in 1990 as anoutgrowth of the participatory processes used to develop the original Nonpoint SourceManagement Plan. Its purpose is to coordinate nonpoint source pollution control activities inpartnership with federal and state agencies and other organizations with NPS responsibilities orinterests. The statewide committee also provides guidance and acts as a model for local decisionmakers in county Water Quality Coordinating Committees (WQCCs). The WQCCs representeach of New York State’s 62 counties, where the county Soil and Water Conservation Districtsusually play key roles. Other members usually include representatives of Cooperative Extension,NRCS, county health, county planning, environmental management council, lake associations, civicgroups and other interested parties.
New York’s partner agencies work closely with one another and with key stakeholders toeffectively avoid the transfer of problems among environmental media. At the state level, NewYork’s Environmental Quality Review Act, Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plansfor priority watersheds, Remedial Action Plans for Great Lakes Areas of Concern and Multi-Media Pollution Prevention programs provide both statewide and site-specific mechanisms forpartners to work together to control pollutant transfer. New York State has been a leader inavoiding the transfer of pollutants among environmental media, especially regarding atmosphericdeposition from Midwestern sources, through the Coalition of Eastern States and through GreatLakes programs. Regional partners, e.g., the Adirondack Council, are effective in advocatingregional protection.
Page #
A. New York State uses the state-wide, interagency Nonpoint SourceCoordinating Committee to provide cooperative programs and input fromrepresentatives of federal and state agencies and other organizations withnonpoint source interest or activities. Tribal interests are represented in specificgeographical management programs.
Chap IChap II
B. The NPSCC meets quarterly and promotes collaborative and inclusivedecision-making. In addition, New York has established working groups foreach source category. The Information and Education Subcommittee andCommunity- Based Environmental Management Subcommittee address cross-cutting outreach issues.
Chap IIChap IV
E-21
C. The state program specifies procedures to provide for periodic public inputinto the program through the annual Management Practices Catalog updatingprocess, county WQCCs, and the Water Management Advisory Committee.
App. B Chap II 2-3
D. New York State effectively incorporates a variety of organizations andinterests into the implementation of nonpoint source activities and projects. Thedevelopment and implementation of the NPS Management Plan has beenbased on participation of partners and stakeholders. The NPSCC’sInformation and Education Subcommittee has reconvened to continue sharingresources and providing outreach coordination.
Chap IV 3
Chap II 1-4
E. Partner agencies and stakeholders work together to avoid the transfer ofproblems among environmental media. The State Environmental QualityReview Act (SEQR) ensures site-specific review; the management plansensure a watershed perspective that will be enhanced through the WatershedRestoration and Protection Action Strategies; and Executive leadership andpolicy have focused on state and interstate initiatives.
Chap V
Key Element III. New York State uses a balanced approach that emphasizes both state-widenonpoint source programs and on-the-ground management of individualwatersheds where waters are impaired and threatened.
New York’s Nonpoint Source Management Program Update presents programs that implementstatewide control of nonpoint source pollutants and programs that address individual watersheds.New York’s watershed planning process provides a mechanism for addressing nonpoint pollutionproblems individually while including them in a comprehensive planning process.
Statewide activities are coordinated through the NPSCC; institutionalized through MOUs andcooperative agreements; and implemented through processes to review, select, fund, initiate andoversee environmental restoration and protection projects. They are tracked by databases andvarious water quality or compliance reports. Working groups of the NPSCC have been establishedto address the highest priority source categories at the statewide level: Onsite WastewaterTreatment Systems, Urban Runoff, Hydrologic/ Habitat Modifications, and Agriculture. TheAgricultural Environmental Management (AEM) initiative, under NYS Department of Agriculture& Markets leadership, established the prototype for continuing work in each source category. Aparallel program for communities is being developed as Community-Based EnvironmentalManagement
E-22
Basin or watershed-level activities are conducted by regional or local watershed managementgroups and range from broad partnerships in CCMP areas to locally focused activities undergeographically-specific watershed management plans. Watershed restoration and protectionprojects are selected and funded by basin to address the highest priority needs geographically. TheCEM initiative will encourage more local responsibility and capacity for solving local problemswithin a broader watershed context. The Unified Watershed Restoration and Protection ActionStrategies will coordinate all these activities within a given watershed, and identify additional stepsto fully restore and protect New York’s watersheds.
Statewide, the NPSCC has focused on empowering regional, county and local staff so they canprovide training, technical assistance and information and education to landowners and localofficials to prevent nonpoint source problems everywhere in the state. Implementation funding hasbeen focused in specific watersheds where waters are impaired and threatened.
Page #
A. The annual or multi-year work plans contain nonpoint sourceimplementation actions directed both at specific priority watersheds and atactivities of a state-wide nature.
Chap V- stepsat the end ofeach section;Chap VII.
B. New York State tracks both state-wide activities and watershed projects.The Unified Watershed Assessment process and 305(b) report trackstatewide activities; basin projects are tracked through regionalorganizations’ reports, including NPS Implementation Project Reports,CCMPs and RAP documents.
App. AChap V
C. New York State has institutionalized its program beyond the annualimplementation of 319-funded activities and projects through MOUs, contracts, Bond Act and EPF projects and basin-specific CCMPs.
Chap V tables
D. New York State uses an integrated watershed approach for assessment,protection and remediation that is well integrated with other water andnatural resource programs through programs that implement the CleanWater Action Plan.
Chap IIIChap VI 2-7
Key Element IV. The New York State program (a) abates known water quality impairmentsfrom nonpoint source pollution and (b) prevents significant threats towater quality from present and future activities.
E-23
New York’s Nonpoint Source Program staff work closely with DEC’s monitoring and assessmentstaff to determine water quality impairments, as reported in the NYS Priority Waterbodies List(PWL) for surface waters. A comparable process to assess ground water is currently under way.
The Division of Water’s Permitting and Compliance program staff work to abate NPS pollutionthrough regulatory means, technical assistance and enforcement where necessary. The CleanWater/Clean Air Bond Act (Bond Act) and Environmental Protection Fund provide funding forwater quality improvement projects, including nonpoint source pollution abatement and control.For example, in SFY 98-99, New York State provided approximately $10 million to municipalitiesand county Soil and Water Conservation Districts to implement nonpoint source managementpractices that would improve water quality in cases where the waters were listed on the PWL. Themunicipalities, Districts and landowners supplied a commitment of local match ranging from 10%to 50% for each project.
New York uses training, technical assistance and information/education materials to encourage theuse of management practices that will prevent threats to water quality from present and futureactivities. The Nonpoint Source Program has developed management practice cataloguesaddressing ten major categories of nonpoint source pollution. Catalogues are updated annually withthe help of NPSCC member agency staff. Partner agencies help distribute catalogues toappropriate audiences and work with them to encourage management practices to eliminate currentproblems and prevent future problems. Where regulatory controls exist, violations are pursuedthrough appropriate enforcement measures. Even in cases without regulatory controls, if waterquality standards are violated, DEC takes enforcement action.
Page #
A. In the Priority Waterbodies List, New York State has compre-hensivelycharacterized water quality impairments and threats for which nonpointsources are the principal origins or significant contributors.
Chap III
B. New York State has comprehensively characterized water qualityimpairments and threats likely to originate from, or to receive significant contributions from, nonpoint sources, as indicated in the PWL and the305(b) report. Program elements, e.g., TMDLs, that protect waters alsoimplement the Clean Water Action Plan.
Chap V 1- 3Chap III 2, 9 - 18
C. The New York State program addresses all significant nonpoint sourcecategories and subcategories.
Chap III 2;Chap VIIV 1- 3, 7-85App. B
E-24
D. New York State has identified specific programs to abate pollution fromcategories of nonpoint sources which cause or substantially contribute toimpairments identified in its assessments. The NPSCC has set up workinggroups for the top five categories.
Chap V 5 - 8and tables
E. New York State has identified specific programs to prevent future waterquality impairments and threats that are likely to be caused by nonpointsource pollution.
Chap V 5 - 8and tables
F. Additional information:The program tables in Chapter V contain remedial programs, preventiveprograms and programs with both aspects.
Chap V tables
Key Element V. The New York State program identifies waters and their watersheds
impaired by nonpoint source pollution and identifies importantunimpaired waters that are threatened or otherwise at risk. Further, NewYork establishes a process to progressively address these identified watersby conducting more detailed watershed assessments and developingwatershed implementation plans, and then by implementing the plans.
For more than15 years, New York has involved stakeholders in development of a PriorityWaterbodies List (PWL) that identifies waters impaired or threatened by point and nonpointsources of pollution and serves as a basis for focusing corrective actions on those waters most inneed of protection and restoration. The PWL expands on information listed in the 305b report andprovides a listing and data sheet for each of the impaired or threatened waters in each basin.
New York identifies waters and watersheds impaired by nonpoint source pollution and establisheslocal water quality priorities through its network of fifty-eight county Water Quality CoordinatingCommittees, with guidance from the State Soil and Water Conservation Committee, the NonpointSource Coordinating Committee member agencies and the nonpoint source staff in DEC’s nineregions and central office. Documentation for waterbodies characterized as threatened is derivedfrom reports of imminent land use changes. DEC’s monitoring program covers all of New York’s17 drainage basins in a five-year cycle of intensive monitoring. Biomonitoring program staff, andDEC Regional Water, Air and Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources staff all provide informationto assess nonpoint source impairments to New York’s surface waters. The Department of Healthand DEC’s Division of Environmental Remediation provide information on threats and impairmentsto, or remediation of, the ground water of New York.
The Unified Watershed Assessment (UWA) approach, as outlined under the federal Clean WaterAction Plan, integrates environmental quality and natural resource issues by watershed. The UWA,
E-25
submitted to EPA on October 1, 1998, describes how New York is identifying pollutant sources,establishing restoration priorities, and developing restoration action strategies for Category 1watersheds, those where the water quality does not support their clean water or natural resourcegoals. A five-year schedule is included for addressing priority waters in the state. Within the UWAframework, New York’s statewide Source Water Assessment Program and AgriculturalEnvironmental Management Program provide a second level of prioritization and planning atsmaller watershed units.
Agencies and groups such as WQCCs; SWCDs; regional planning boards; Regional DEC staffand other local, state, and federal groups have been addressing nonpoint source problems on ageographical basis for many years. The resulting local and regional watershed plans include thosefor Otsego Lake, New York City water supply, Keuka Lake, Skaneateles Lake (Syracuse watersupply) and Wappingers Creek . In addition, management plans have been prepared for lakes thatparticipated in the Citizens’ Statewide Lake Assessment Process (CSLAP) for five consecutiveyears; implementation is proceeding under the leadership of specific lake associations. All theseinitiatives are part of our Community-Based Environmental Protection Strategy (CBEPS).
E-26
Page #
A. Water quality assessments (including those performed under sections305(b), 319(a), 303(d), 314, and others), along with analysis of changingland uses within New York State, form the basis for the identification ofthe state's planned nonpoint source activities and projects. The PWLsummarizes information on impaired and threatened waters.
Chap III 3-10 Chap VII 11-12, 17-19
B. New York State activities focus on remediating the identified impairmentsand threats and on protecting the identified at-risk waters, based onpriorities and schedules developed in management plans, and funding fromBond Act, EPF and PPA. The Unified Watershed Restoration andProtection Action Strategies will enhance this process.
Chap VI 2 -7
C. New York State has provided for public participation in the overall identification of problems to be addressed in the state program and in theestablishment of a process to progressively address these problemsthrough statewide, regional and county coordination of agencies andinterests. More targeted public participation is conducted formanagement plans in specific watersheds.
Chap III 9-10, 14Chap VI 3 -5
D. New York State nonpoint source priorities and funding decisions aredeveloped collaboratively with other water resource managementagencies operating within the state, primarily through the interagencyNonpoint Source Coordinating Committee.
Chap II
E. New York State revises its identification of waters on a five-yearmonitoring cycle of Rotating Intensive Basin Studies (RIBS), updates thePWL and revisits its process for progressively addressing these problemsin preparing its various reports and through the NPSCC. The schedulefor developing the Unified Watershed Restoration and Protection ActionStrategies is based on the PWL update process.
Chap III 9
F. Additional information: The Source Water Assessment Program,Agricultural Environmental Management and the developing CEMprograms are additional sources of information for identifying impaired orthreatened waterbodies.
Chap II 4
Key Element VI. New York State reviews, upgrades, and implements all programcomponents required by section 319(b) of the Clean Water Act andestablishes flexible, targeted and iterative approaches to achieve and
E-27
maintain beneficial uses of water as expeditiously as practicable. Stateprograms include:
(a) A mix of water quality-based and/or technology-based programsdesigned to achieve and maintain beneficial uses of water; and
(b) A mix of regulatory, non-regulatory, financial and technicalassistance as needed to achieve and maintain beneficial uses ofwater as expeditiously as practicable.
New York continues to implement all program components of section 319(b) of the Clean WaterAct. Water quality-based elements of the program are reflected in the TMDL program and UnifiedWatershed Restoration and Protection Action Strategies. Technology-based elements arepromoted through the use of the annually updated Management Practices Catalogues, from whichlandowners or facility operators can select, with appropriate technical assistance and involvementof county Water Quality Coordinating Committees, the best practices for their situation.
A full mixture of regulatory, financial and technical assistance is provided to support both the waterquality-based and technology-based elements of the program, as described in section IV above.Program coordination is achieved primarily through the quarterly meetings of the Nonpoint SourceCoordinating Committee and Memoranda of Understanding or cooperative agreements betweenDEC and other federal, state and regional agencies.
1. New York State includes in its program and implements the following eight items:Page #
1A. The measures to be used to control nonpoint sources of pollution areidentified in an annually updated series of Management PracticesCatalogues, focusing on those measures that will be most effective toaddress the specific types of nonpoint source pollution prevalent withinNew York. The catalogues are developed for ten categories or subcategories of nonpoint sources; they are referenced in specific permitsand in local and regional watershed plans.
Chap V 1-8App. B
1B. Programs to achieve implementation of the measures are identified. Chap V tables
1C. Processes used to coordinate and, where appropriate, integrate variousprograms used to implement nonpoint source controls in the state areachieved through the NPSCC and Memoranda of Understanding withother state or regional agencies.
Chap I 2, 7-9
E-28
1D A schedule with goals, objectives, and annual milestones for programimplementation is presented for all programs, including the legal authoritiesto implement the program; available resources; and institutionalrelationships.
1990 Program;Chap VII;
Chap V tables
1E Recertification of the Nonpoint Source Program by the Attorney Generalwas not sought as all new initiatives are operating under existing legalauthorities.
N/A
1F. Sources of funding from federal (other than section 319), state, local andprivate sources are listed; all program elements are represented in the1996 Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act and in New York’sEnvironmental Protection Fund.
Chap VIII
1G. Federal projects and programs conducted on state lands or in statewaters and affecting state waters are subject to Section 401 water qualitycertification. Additionally, in the coastal zone, both federal and stateagency actions are subject to the Coastal Consistency program under theDepartment of State. (See Key Element VII)
Table V-1
1H. Monitoring and other evaluation programs to help determine short- andlong-term program effectiveness are described and listed.
Chap III 5, 8-10, 17-18
2. The New York State program also incorporates or cross-references existing baseline requirementsestablished by other applicable federal or state laws to the extent that they are relevant.
Page #
2A-D Program references include approved state coastal nonpoint sourcepollution programs under section 6217 of the Coastal Zone ActReauthorization Amendments of 1990; state forestry managementpractices programs; state construction, erosion or nutrient managementlaws; and federal or state transportation laws governing runoff from construction or maintenance sites.
Chap V 1Implementationsteps at the endof each sectionChap V tables
Key Element VII. New York State identifies federal lands and activities that are notmanaged consistently with state nonpoint source program objectives.Where appropriate, New York State seeks EPA assistance to help resolveissues.
E-29
Federal lands total only 414 square miles in New York State, or 0.08% of the state’s land area.This includes recreational areas, such as national historic sites, and non-recreational areas, such asmilitary installations. DEC continues to work closely with EPA in programs for interstate andinternational waters. New York has an interest in the USDA programs that provide assistance toindividual landowners, as listed or discussed in the agriculture and silviculture source categorysections. New York relies upon its Nonpoint Source Coordinating Committee to present andresolve inconsistencies between state and federal program activities and to promote and developcomplementary ones. In addition, DEC influences how EQIP funds are distributed, throughparticipation in the State Technical Committee and a subcommittee that reviews and recommendsEQIP projects for funding.
Page #
A. New York State reviews federal financial assistance programs,development projects, and other activities that may result in nonpointsource pollution for consistency with the state program.
Chap II, 1- 2Chap V 1, 10
B. New York State works with federal agencies to resolve inconsistenciesbetween federal programs and activities and the state programs. Agenciesinclude NRCS and other USDA programs; DOT; USACE; USDAForest Service and DOI National Park Service.
Chap II 1- 2
C. Where New York State cannot resolve federal consistency issues to itssatisfaction, it requests EPA assistance to help resolve the issues.
Chap II 1 - 2
D. New York State coordinates with federal agencies to promote consistentactivities and programs and to develop and implement joint orcomplementary activities and programs.
Chap II 1- 2, 4
Key Element VIII. New York State manages and implements its nonpoint source programefficiently and effectively, including necessary financial management.
New York’s watershed projects and statewide nonpoint source control activities are distributedamong several divisions within DEC and other state agencies with their own budgets, resources(and resource limitations), mandates and agendas to accomplish their missions. Increasingly,information is shared among these entities and coordination of programs is growing under theNPSCC and its statewide and regional mechanisms.
Tracking of federal and state monies is conducted under the audit and control proceduresestablished by the Office of the NY State Comptroller. The DEC Division of Water is developing
E-30
a contract and grants computer tracking system that will report information directly andautomatically into the federal Grants Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS).
Locally-based agricultural and non-agricultural nonpoint source grant projects funded by federaland/or state funds involve review and selection procedures that include the NPSCC, DEC, AndDEC Regional Water, Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources staff and DEC Central Office staff.Tracking of project implementation will also be a cooperative responsibility of the NPSCC memberagencies.
Comprehensive watershed plans are in place for Long Island Sound, NY/NJ Harbor Estuary,Hudson River Estuary, Lake Ontario, Lake Champlain and Onondaga Lake. Plans are underdevelopment for the Peconic and South Shore Estuaries. The state’s Clean Water/Clean Air BondAct and Environmental Protection Fund operate under state legislation and fund projects supportingpriority NPS actions in all of these management plan areas. The data gathering and planning aspectsof the nonpoint source program guide funding decisions for investing in implementation projectsthrough the Bond Act, EPF and Performance Partnership Grants. In addition, projects addressingnonpoint source pollution in the Finger Lakes and other waters of the state can be funded throughthese programs.
Page #
A. New York State's plans for watershed projects and state-wide activitiesare well-designed, with sufficient detail to assure effectiveimplementation. These plans guide funding decisions under the StateRevolving Fund (SRF), Environmental Protection Fund and CleanWater/Clean Air Bond Act.
Chap VIChap V 10-14
B. New York State's watershed projects focus on the critical areas, andcritical sources within those areas that are contributing to nonpointsource problems. Priorities established though management plans allowproposals that address critical areas and sources to score high inevaluations for funding under the SRF, EPF and Bond Act .
Chap V 7-8
C. New York State implements its activities and projects, including all tasksand outputs, in a timely manner, as detailed in individual program reportsand Bond Act/EPF/SRF project implementation reports.
App. A- reportsChap V tables
D. New York State has established systems to assure that it meets itsreporting obligations through the Performance Partnership Agreement,basin-specific Management Plans, federal Clean Water Act requirementsand in Bond Act/EPF/SRF reports.
E-31
E. New York State uses the Grants Tracking and Reporting Systemeffectively, including Bond Act/EPF/SRF implementation.
See narrativeabove.
F. New York State has developed and uses a fiscal accounting systemcapable of tracking expenditures of both section 319 funds andnon-federal match, including Bond Act/EPF/SRF implementation.
See narrativeabove.
G. Nonpoint source projects include appropriate monitoring to gaugeeffectiveness, including tracking and oversight of BMP projectimplementation. We will use indicators developed in the PPA.
Chap III 7-9, 17-18
Key Element IX. New York State periodically reviews and evaluates its nonpoint sourcemanagement program using environmental and functional measures ofsuccess, and revises its nonpoint source assessment and its managementprogram at least every five years.
New York uses its Rotating Intensive Basin Studies (RIBS) and Source Water Assessment(SWAP) as the water quality monitoring system for both point and nonpoint source pollution of thestate’s waters. The evaluation is portrayed in the Priority Waters List and Source WaterAssessment Report. As described in the Performance Partnership Agreement, the nonpoint sourcemanagement program is reviewed and evaluated together with all the other elements of the waterprogram. Each year, New York State assesses the effectiveness of its programs in meeting its goalsand objectives, then revises its activities and annual workplans to continually focus on reaching thegoals and objectives established in the PPA. The Nonpoint Source Assessment and ManagementProgram is expected to be updated every five years.
Building on work by an agency-wide task force, together with the progress indicators outlined inthe PPA, New York State will continue to refine the environmental measures and indicators thatit uses to measure and report progress as watershed planning and implementation.
Page #
A. New York State has and uses a process to periodically assess bothimprovements in water quality and new impairments or threats byupdating the PWL and the sections 305(b), 303(d) and 319 reports atleast every 5 years.
Chap III 7- 9, 15-18
E-32
B. New York State uses feedback loops based on monitoring and otherevaluative information, as described in the RIBS program, SWAP andwatershed planning processes. The nonpoint source managementprogram is reviewed and evaluated, and activities and annual workplansare adjusted to ensure progress in achieving the goals and objectivesestablished in the PPA.
Chap I 9Chap III 5-10
C. Quantitative goals for performance progress are established in the PPA.These will help assess the effectiveness of the NPS program in meetingits goals and objectives and in revising activities and annual work plans,as appropriate.
Chap IChap VI
D. New York State has prepared two status reports since adopting theNPS Assessment and Management Program. The NPSCC is thevehicle for updating the NPS program on a five year cycle; reports fromthe workgroups will show progress in meeting milestones, implementingBMPs, and achieving water quality goals listed in the PPA.
E. Additional information: The NPSCC is increasing its commitment tocoordinating policy, partnerships and communication among memberagencies and institutions and the regional and local entities involved.