New York State Five-Year Review of the NYC Watershed Agreement

8/14/2019 New York State Five-Year Review of the NYC Watershed Agreement

1/140

New York City Watershed Agreement

New York State 5-Year Review


2/140

The cover is a picture of a 2,400 foot section of stream that was completely restored in the Town of Jewett. Thistream was severely degraded from a number of activities including dredging, channelization, livestock access, andlooding. The stream was realigned to a more stable morphology, reconnected back to its floodplain, and the aquati

habitat was re-established.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; New York State Department of Agriculture andMarkets; New York State Energy Research and Development Authority; Greene County Soil and Water ConservatiDistrict; New York City Department of Environmental Protection; Watershed Agricultural Council; and the UnitedStates Geological Survey were all partners in this project.

Photo by Fran Zagorski


3/140

New York City Watershed Agreement

New York State 5-Year Review

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Overview 1

A. Introduction 1

B. Executive Summary 1

i. Watershed Rules and Regulations 1a. Analysis of Water Quality Data 2b. Review of Implementation and Enforcement 2

ii. Watershed Land Acquisition 3iii. Water Quality Monitoring 4iv. Watershed Protection and Partnership Programs 4

2. Watershed Rules and Regulations 7

A. Analysis of Water Quality Data 7

i. Review of Water Quality Data at Terminal Reservoirs 7ii. Review of Total Phosphorus Levels in Phosphorus 19

Restricted Basins

iii. WWTP Upgrades and Phosphorus Reductions 22

B. Review of Regulations 29

i. Review of DEP Records Related to Implementation, 29Enforcement and Emergency Response

ii. Regulators Comments on the Regulations 31

3. Watershed Land Acquisition 35

MOA 64 Catskill And Delaware Watershed Acquisition Goals 35

MOA 65 Catskill And Delaware Watershed Acquisition Milestones 37MOA 72 Recreational Uses: Newly Acquired Property 39MOA 73 Recreational Uses: Currently Owned City Property 41MOA 74 City Financial Commitments for Land Acquisition 43MOA 76 The States Croton Land Acquisition Program 45MOA 77 and 78 Watershed Agricultural Easements Program and Overview 48MOA 82 Land Held in Perpetuity for Watershed Protection 50

Page 1 of 3

4. Water Quality Monitoring 52


4/140

MOA 164 Enhanced Monitoring 52

5. Watershed Protection and Partnership Programs 56

MOA 121 SPDES Upgrades 56MOA 122 New Sewage Treatment Infrastructure Facilities for Towns, 59

Villages and Hamlets

MOA 123 Sewer Extensions 63MOA 124 Septic System Rehabilitation and Replacement 70MOA 125 Stormwater Retrofits 72MOA 126 Sand and Salt Storage Facilities 78MOA 127 Stream Corridor Protection 83MOA 128 West of Hudson Future Stormwater Controls 87MOA 129 Alterate Design Septic Systems 90MOA 138 Watershed Planning in the Croton System 92MOA 139 Sewage Diversion Feasibility Studies 96MOA 140 East of Hudson Water Quality Investment Program 98MOA 141 Upgrades to Existing WWTPs to Comply with 101

Watershed RegulationsMOA 143 Upgrades to Future Public WWTPs Required by the 107

Watershed RegulationsMOA 144 Phosphorus Controls in Cannonsville 109MOA 152 State Partnership Programs 111MOA 162 Total Maximum Daily Loads 114MOA 163 DEC Review of SPDES Permits in Watershed 119MOA 165 Phosphorus Pilot Program 124MOA 168 Pesticide and Fertilizer Technical Working Group 127MOA 169 Galley Study 130MOA 170 Septic System Siting Study 131

Tables & Figures

Table 1 - Qualitative Changes in Water Quality 12Table 2 - Keypoint Data from the Reference and Post-1996 Periods at 13

Terminal ReservoirsTable 3 - Comparison of Average Upstream and Downstream Total 25

Phosphorus Data Before and After WastewaterTreatment Plant Upgrades

Table 4 - Comparison of Improved Upstream Total Phosphorus Data 28Table 5 - Sewer Extensions for Each City-owned WWTP; 66

Status of Agreements, SUO, and Design/ConstructOversight; Listing of Flows for City-owned WWTPs;Final List of Extensions Selected by DEP for Funding

Table 6 - Round 1, 2 and 3 Application Awarded 1999 - 2001 75Table 7 - Round 1: 30 Facilities All Built Within WOH Watershed Boundary; 80

Round 2: Facilities Built Outside WOH Watershed Boundary

Page 2 of 3


5/140

Table 8 - Phase II Phosphorus Summary 117Table 9 - SPDES Permit Modifications 120

Figure 1 - Mean Monthly TC at Ashokan Reservoir Keypoint (EAR) 15Figure 2 - Six-month Moving Average of FC Samples Greater Than 16

20 cfu/100ml at Kensico Delaware System Keypoint (DEL18)Figure 3 - Six-month Moving Average of FC Samples Greater Than 17

20 cfu/100ml at Kensico Catskill System Keypoint (CATLEFF)Figure 4 - Mean Monthly Turbidity at Ashokan Reservoir Keypoint (EAR) 18Figure 5 - Mean Monthly TP Concentrations in the Cannonsville and 21

New Croton Lake ReservoirsFigure 6 - Upstream and Downstream Total Phosphorus (TP) Concentration 24

Before and After the Grand Gorge WWTP UpgradeFigure 7 - Map of WOH Showing Location of Round 1 Facilities 82

Acronym Reference 135

Page 3 of 3


6/140


7/140

Page 2 of 135

previously enacted in 1953. The Regulations were designed to protect water quality byremediating existing potential sources of pollution and minimizing future pollutant discharges.In 1998, New York State adopted the Regulations as State Regulations (10NYCRR Part 128).

The States evaluation of the Regulations includes an assessment of water quality data beforeand since 1997 in an attempt to determine if water quality improved, degraded or remainedunchanged; a review of the DEPs implementation of the Regulations, analyzing enforcementand emergency response records; and an analysis of comments and recommendations forimproving implementation of the Regulations made by State, county and local regulators andofficials. Overall, the evaluation indicates that the Regulations have been protective of waterquality as indicated by water quality improvements and specific pollutant reductions, such astotal phosphorus reductions resulting from the upgrade of the City-owned wastewater treatmentplants (WWTPs). Many of the regulators and officials interviewed agreed that the Regulationsand DEPs increased presence were beneficial for Watershed protection and water quality.

a. Analysis of Water Quality Data

A comparison of specific water quality parameter levels from before and after 1997 wasconducted for keypoint sampling locations in the terminal reservoirs (New Croton Lake,

Kensico, West Branch, Ashokan and Rondout Reservoirs). The analysis indicated thatmost of the keypoint locations in the terminal reservoirs exhibited an improvement inwater quality in the post-1996 data set (January 1997 through August 2000) whencompared to the reference data set (May 1993 through December 1996).

The total phosphorus (TP) concentrations from before and after implementation ofthe Regulations were also compared in two phosphorus-restricted City reservoirs(New Croton Lake and Cannonsville). The analysis indicated that for both reservoirsthere was a reduction in TP levels in the post-1996 data compared to the reference data

set.

In-stream phosphorus levels from before and after the upgrades of four City-ownedWWTPs were also compared. Following the upgrade at two WWTPs (Grand Gorge andGrahamsville) there was no longer a significant increase in TP concentrations indownstream samples. At the other two WWTPs (Pine Hill and Tannersville), thedownstream TP concentrations were still significantly higher than upstream TPconcentrations. However, the TP concentrations themselves, were lower than before theupgrades.

b. Review of Implementation and Enforcement

Approximately 1600 designs for septic system repairs and 100 stormwater plans andrelated permit applications were reviewed by DEP in the Catskill and DelawareWatersheds. In addition, approximately 200 design reviews for new septic systems were


8/140

Page 3 of 135

completed under county delegation agreements. Enforcement actions were initiated at26 WWTPs and more than 1200 septic systems. In addition, more than 500 summonseswere issued by DEP Police for violations of various environmental laws and regulations.

Comments from State, county and local governmental agencies and officials involved inthe Watershed Protection Programs and Regulations that supported specific changes tothe Regulations were few. One regulatory change is recommended in the future; theRegulations should be amended to reference the revised DEC stormwater general permit

when it becomes effective Statewide. The revised permit provides for greater designflexibility for smaller projects which can reduce the costs of these projects, whileproviding equivalent water quality protection.

Recommendations for implementation changes to improve coordination and reduceduplication among agencies, expedite the plan review process and eliminateinconsistencies within the review process, are included in the full report.

Several commentors cited the difficulties in dealing effectively with specific violations ofthe Regulations given the limited penalty provisions in the Regulations. It isrecommended that DOH propose an amendment to the Public Health Law to provide for

penalties under the Regulations that are more comparable with those levied under otherwater pollution control regulations.

ii. Watershed Land Acquisition

The MOAs land acquisition program is crucial for protecting the Citys water supply. Thisprogram allows the City to purchase title to or conservation easements on environmentallysensitive undeveloped lands from willing sellers in the Watershed. On a priority basis, the Cityhas agreed to solicit owners of 355,050 acres of eligible land in the Catskill and DelawareWatersheds and committed at least $250 million for the purchase of lands in these Watersheds.In addition, the City and State committed to spend a total of $17.5 million for Watershed lands in

the Croton Watershed. In order to provide additional protection to City-owned lands, the MOAalso requires that conservation easements be granted to the State for all property acquired by theCity.

The City has been successful in meeting its goals for solicitation in the Catskill and Delawaresystems. So far, 258,716 acres have been solicited. The State recommends that the Citymaintain its efforts to comply with the MOA. Both the City and State have also been successfulin meeting the requirements of spending $17.5 million for land acquisition in the CrotonWatershed. The State recommends that land acquisition in the important Croton Watershedremain a priority for the City and under the States Open Space and Conservation Plan. In fact,in March 2002, Governor Pataki committed another $10 million for land acquisition over thenext five years.

As the focus of the land acquisition program has been to solicit and acquire lands as quickly aspossible, the program has been lagging with respect to the transfer of conservation easements tothe State. However, in the past year, the format of the conservation easements has been finalizedand an agreement as to how the easements will be transferred has been executed. The State and

City should work to expedite a transfer of conservation easements over the next several years.


9/140

Page 4 of 135

The MOA requires that the City evaluate its lands and provide opportunities for public recreationon them when appropriate. This program has opened 11,866 additional acres (7,023 acres forhiking and fishing; and 4,843 for limited deer hunting) to the public for recreational uses over

the last five years. Unfortunately, due to the September 11th terrorist attacks on New York City,the City was forced to restrict all access to its Watershed lands in order to protect the watersupply and to ensure public safety. The City is trying to reopen its lands for recreation and hasadopted a new public access permit program to ensure it has updated information regardingrecreational users of City-owned lands. The City, State and federal government need to continue

working together to review the security risks on these properties and make them available, inaccordance with appropriate security measures, for public recreational uses as soon as feasible.

There has also been concern about the scope of the Citys provision of recreational opportunitieson these properties. For parcels adjacent to State-owned properties, particularly DECs ForestPreserve and State Land, the City should work with the State to manage these properties as theState does under its Land Management Program. The State will review activities on State-owned lands that are within the Citys Watershed to ensure that they will not adversely impactthe Citys water supply. The City, State, local communities, and sporting and environmentalgroups should be commended for their ongoing participation in the Sporting AdvisoryCommittees and the MOAs process of reviewing and recommending potential recreational

opportunities for these lands should continue.

iii. Water Quality Monitoring

Recognizing the importance of ensuring that all sectors of government (federal, State and local)effectively commit to coordinated enhanced monitoring, the MOA references an enhanced waterquality monitoring program. This program has been funded extensively through the federalSafe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The 1996 amendments to the SDWA authorizes up to$15 million annually over seven years for an enhanced water quality monitoring program for theCity's Watershed. Through the leadership of the Governor and the State's Congressionaldelegation, especially Congressmen Walsh and Boehlert, the State has received $26 million of

this funding through federal Fiscal Year 2002. In addition, this funding has been matched byequal funding from the State, the City and many of the upstate communities. The Governor'sOffice is already working with Congress on reauthorization of this funding to provide for thenext seven years. The State and City should continue to request this funding be provided at thefull level authorized. The enhanced water quality program for the Watershed should continue toassist the water quality program enhancements and Watershed protection programs such as TotalMaximum Daily Loads (TMDLs); pathogen and nutrient reduction; turbidity control; bestmanagement practice (BMP) effectiveness and stream restoration. An annual conference shouldbe conducted on Watershed protection/water quality monitoring programs and the results of thismonitoring should be made available to the public at least annually.

iv. Watershed Protection and Partnership Programs

The MOA includes many new and existing programs which the parties agreed to initiate orexpand in order to ensure that the high quality of surface waters in the Citys Watershed ismaintained. A number of these programs or efforts could not be accomplished successfullywithout the cooperation, hard work and determination of all involved parties. While at times

these efforts have been challenging, the sheer volume of work undertaken demonstrates theoverwhelming desire of the parties to make these programs a success.


10/140

Page 5 of 135

In its review, the State found that many of the Watershed Protection and Partnership Programsare being successfully implemented. Some others have experienced delays, but now appear to beback on track. All of the programs continue to be valid means to protect water quality. None of

the programs require substantial revisions, however, some programs could benefit fromadditional coordination, focus and funding. Specific recommendations are included in theseparate program reviews in the full report. Some more important recommendations are notedbelow.

While significantly delayed, DEP with EFC's assistance responded to a request from theregulatory agencies to work to get the WWTP Upgrade Program on schedule to address 83% ofthe wastewater discharged in the Catskill and Delaware portions of the Watershed by the secondquarter of 2002. The City is reporting that it remains on schedule to meet this timeframe.Enhanced communication among the involved agencies is needed to ensure that this programmoves forward in a more timely and effective manner.

While progress has been made on the New Sewage Treatment Infrastructure Facilities fortowns, villages and hamlets program, there have been delays. To address these delays, theprogram was modified by the involved parties to provide block grant funding for the first fivecommunities. Additional funding is needed to address the remaining communities who wish to

participate.

While the sewer extensions in the Sewer Extension Program have not yet been constructed,there has been progress in negotiations between the local municipalities and DEP. Work mustcontinue in order to come to consensus on the sewer extension agreement so that design andconstruction of facilities may proceed. The State also recommends that DEP considerappropriate additional sewer extensions in the future.

The Stormwater Retrofit Program has the potential to remediate serious stormwater discharges.The program should continue until the current level of funding has been exhausted. There isconcern that the program has a lower than anticipated level of participation and thus the State

encourages DEP and CWC to work to identify and encourage new applicants and work withthese applicants to expedite and complete the projects. Monitoring should be an integral part oflarger projects under this program and the City should use its enhanced monitoring program toquantify the cumulative benefits from the smaller projects on the receiving water and theeffectiveness of the treatment techniques.

The Septic Rehabilitation and Replacement Program has been very successful. To date, over1300 septic systems have been rebuilt. The program should be continued with a goal ofrehabilitating approximately 300 systems per year.

Five stream stability demonstration projects have been successfully completed under the StreamCorridor Program. The program should be continued and expedited.

Several projects selected in the West of Hudson (WOH) Future Stormwater Controls Programhave been completed. A plan to provide for ongoing maintenance for these projects as well asfor making monitoring of the receiving water an integral part of large projects, is recommended.


11/140

Page 6 of 135

In the East of Hudson (EOH) Planning Program, Putnam and Westchester Counties havecompleted sewage diversion feasibility studies for their respective counties. Putnam County hasdecided that diversion is not feasible and Westchester County is still considering whether to

undertake some diversion projects. Both counties are nearing completion of their draft CrotonPlan, which should be available for public review Spring 2002. The counties should beginimplementation of priority projects to address existing sources of water quality problems asidentified in the Croton Plan as soon as practicable.

The Pesticide and Fertilizer Technical Working Groups report included many importantrecommendations, including the need for educational outreach and a potential regulatory change.Educational outreach efforts should continue and a proposal for regulatory change should bemade.


12/140

Page 7 of 135

2. Watershed Rules and Regulations

A. Analysis of Water Quality Data

2.A.i. Review of Water Quality Data at Terminal Reservoirs

Summary of Findings / Recommendations

A comparison of specific water quality parameter levels from before and after 1996 was conducted todetermine if water quality has improved, degraded, or remained unchanged since the implementation of theRegulations and related MOA activities. The analysis shows (see Table 1) that most keypoint sites in theterminal reservoirs exhibited an improvement in water quality in the post-1996 data set (January 1997through August 2000) when compared to the reference data set (May 1993 through December 1996). Eachanalyzed parameter showed an improvement or no significant change, except for the levels of total coliform(TC) at Ashokan Reservoir and turbidity at New Croton Lake Reservoir (Table 1). The overall increase inTC at Ashokan Reservoir was likely due to an increase in TC during the summer months in the post-1996data set. With the summer-time peaks removed, there was no difference between the reference and post-1996 data sets. The reason for this seasonal increase in TC is unknown. The increase in turbidity at the NewCroton Lake Reservoir was most likely due to the influence of Tropical Storm Floyd in September 1999.

Goals

To protect the public health by averting future contamination to, and degradation of, the water supply and byremediating existing sources of pollution or degradation within the New York City water supply.

Description of Program Plan

Background

In order to better protect its source water reservoirs, the City promulgated new Regulations to control a widevariety of potential pollution sources (e.g., WWTPs, septic systems, stormwater runoff and storage of

hazardous materials) within its Watershed. The Regulations include some minimum treatment requirementsfor specific technologies that could control sources of pollution and, in some cases, specify effluent standardsthat these treatment technologies must meet. In addition, the Regulations restrict a variety of activities fromoccurring adjacent to reservoirs, watercourses and wetlands. The Regulations work in conjunction withexisting State and federal regulations and include additional provisions unique to the Citys Watershed.

To assess the impact of water quality within the Citys Watershed, DOH attempted to compare specific waterquality parameters at terminal reservoirs before and after the implementation of the Regulations and theMOA programs. The terminal reservoirs included in the analysis are Ashokan, West Branch, Kensico,Rondout and New Croton Lake Reservoirs (Croton Falls and Cross River Reservoirs were not included inthis analysis due to the limited amount of keypoints data available for these reservoirs). For each of the

selected reservoirs, water quality data from specific keypoints were analyzed. The keypoints used for eachreservoir were: EAR at Ashokan Reservoir; RDRR at Rondout Reservoir; DEL10 at West Branch Reservoir;NCLGH at New Croton Lake Reservoir; CATLEFF and DEL18 at Kensico Reservoir. Kensico Reservoirhas two keypoints representing the Catskill Aqueduct (CATLEFF) and Delaware Aqueduct (DEL18), whichare denoted in the subsequent text as Kensico (Cat) and Kensico (Del), respectively.


13/140

Page 8 of 135

The keypoints chosen provide a representative sample of water as it leaves each reservoir providing anintegrated assessment of all inputs to that system. Data collected at these sites provide a means with which tocompare water quality changes over time. However, since the City has the capability to operationallymanipulate the system to provide the highest quality of water leaving each reservoir, the keypoint data doesnot necessarily represent the water quality in the main basin of the reservoir. In addition, due to theinterconnectivity of the Citys water supply system, these terminal reservoirs also receive input from otherupstream reservoirs. In particular, keypoint data from Kensico Reservoir, which is the last reservoir in the

Catskill/Delaware system, may provide a net reflection of the various system inputs it receives.

The parameters used to assess water quality were TC, fecal coliform (FC), turbidity, TP, and total organiccarbon (TOC). These parameters were chosen due to their relevance to the Regulations, the MOA andcompliance with the Federal and State Surface Water Treatment Rules (SWTR). TC, FC and turbidity havespecific numerical objectives that must be met under the SWTR while TP, with its association to theeutrophication process, is a parameter of concern in both the Regulations and MOA. TOC was included sinceit can be used as a surrogate for organic carbon compounds in water supply reservoirs, some of which canreact with chlorine to form disinfection by-products in the water distribution system. In general, for eachkeypoint, daily monitoring data was available for TC, FC and turbidity, while weekly monitoring data wasavailable for TP and TOC throughout the 1993 to 2000 data set used for the analysis.

Approach

Electronic files with water quality data from the Citys reservoirs collected between 1987 and August 2000were supplied to DOH by DEP for review and analysis. A subsequent update of this database throughOctober 2001 was received, but is not incorporated into this analysis due to staff time constraints. Additionalanalysis of the updated database is continuing. Data for the water quality parameters of concern, TC, FC, TP,TOC and turbidity, were extracted from the database. Terminal reservoir keypoints from all three systemswere examined and included keypoints at the Ashokan, Roundout, West Branch, Kensico and New CrotonLake Reservoirs.

The task implied in the review of the data was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Regulations and activitiesrequired by the MOA in protecting public health by averting future contamination to and degradation of thewater supply . . .. Therefore, the data were initially segregated into two general periods: before and afterthe start of the activities related to the MOA. These data sets were defined as the reference (May 1993 -December 1996) and post-1996 (January 1997 through August 2000) data sets.

For each parameter, the raw water quality data were examined and tested to see how close the data were to anormal distribution. If the water quality data were not normal (e.g., exhibited low-end or high-end skew orsevere kurtosis), attempts were made to transform the data to a normal distribution. Traditional log,

quadratic, square root and reciprocal transformations were used as needed. In the event of severe skewness, aseries of exponential transformations was attempted. If the raw data were normal, or if the transformation

was successful, a parametric analysis was then used: a t-Test comparing the data before the reference dataset


14/140

Page 9 of 135

and the post-1996 data set was performed. If the water quality data were not easily transformed, a WilcoxonRank Sum non-parametric test was used to determine the statistical significance of any observed differences.The stated null hypothesis for this task was: there is no difference for each parameter between the referencedata (May 1993 through December 1996) and the post-1996 data (January 1997 through August 2000). TheSAS statistical software package was used for this portion of the work. These tests also involvedindependent verification using the SYSTAT statistical software package for certain non-parametric analyses(Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney).

To prevent undue bias (due to unusual leverage or influence) in the analysis, outliers were eliminated afterexamining how many standard deviations from the mean would allow maximum data inclusion. It wasdetermined that outliers would be limited to those that fall beyond 3.27 standard deviations resulting in theelimination of 0.11% of the data points (99.89% data included).

Evaluation of Program Effectiveness - Water Quality Assessment

Total Coliform

With the exception of the keypoint at Ashokan Reservoir, all other keypoints showed either a significantdecline (water quality improvement; Kensico (Del), Kensico (Cat), Rondout and New Croton Lake

keypoints) or no change (West Branch keypoint) in the mean concentration of TC between the reference andpost-1996 data sets (Table 2). In some instances, the declines were quite large, such as the RondoutReservoir keypoint where mean TC values in the reference data set were 344 cfu/100ml and in the post-1996data set they were 153 cfu/100ml. By contrast, a small yet significant decline was seen at the New CrotonLake Reservoir where a decline from 39.2 cfu/100ml to 31.0 cfu/100ml was found (Wilcoxon two-sample p

New York State Five-Year Review of the NYC Watershed Agreement

Documents