[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
DEC PUBLICATION Non t Source Voin Management rogram e7l. !h. b TD Jan'uary 1990 224 .N7 N38 1990 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM January, 1990 NEW YORK STA7E DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVA77ON PXOPOZ-ty of ('@-r Library r4- DIVISION OF WATER BUREAU OF WATER QUAMY A&WAGEMENT rl U - S . DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOE-SON AVENUE CHARLESTON, SC 29405-z`413 PREFACE As the major point sources of water pollution are brought under control, the impacts of nonpoint sources have become more apparent., Nonpoint source pollution is caused by diffuse sources that contaminate waterbodies through atmospheric deposition, runoff from the land and/or percolation through the soil. Nonpoint source pollution is the primary source of contamination for.more than 80% of the impaired waterbodies in New York. Finding solutions to nonpoint source problems represents a significant challenge tothe people of New York. It.will not be as simple as finding a pipe and issuing a permit to the municipality or industry requiring the meeting of certain effluent limits. In many cases, the solution to nonpoint source problems will involve coordination and cooperation of agencies from all levels of government as well as the public. Successful implementat ion. depends on a broad understanding of the problem and public support for controls. People must be willing to cooperate and accept responsibility for changing their own practices in agriculture and industry, in cities and suburbs, in the workplace and at home. As some controls will have to be regulatory and others voluntary, participating agencies must work together with farmers, developers, city planners, and others to implement controls. New York State has recognized this need for coordination and cooperation early in the nonpoint source control program development, and invited interested groups statewide to participate in writing the assessment and management program reports required by the Clean Water Act. Invitations were extended to fellow state agencies and groups representing interests of agriculture, community, local government, environment, natural resources, academia, forestry, business, industry and outdoor recreation to participate in a working group to help create a nonpoint source program for New York State. At workshops, participants identified statewide concerns and aired differences of 'opinion. The working group process proved to be a yaluable mechanism which created understanding among interest groups, developed creative solutions and identified issues for future discussion. The resulting document attempts to recognize the concerns expressed by the working group while conveying DEC Policy. This Management Program identifies management practices for the control of nonpoint source pollution, describes a watershed planning process for addressing nonpoint source problems, and. recommends control measures to address each category of nonpoint source pollution that is considered a problem in New York. The PREFACE (Continued) Management Program is meant to go hand-in-hand with the Assessment Report which identifies impacted waterbodies and existing programs for controlling nonpoint source pollution. The authors of this report wish to express their appreciation to all those who participated in the working group sessions and who provided comments on preliminary drafts of the report. New York State cannot hope to. effectively deal with nonpoint source problems without the continued cooperation of dedicated individuals such as these. A list of those members of the working group who participated in the process is included in the acknowledgement section. This Management Program was made available for public review as required by federal regulations. The report was modified in response to comments. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This Nonpoint Source Management-Program was prepared by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Staff members who. contributed to the writing of the report and who- developed and implemented the working group process include: Divis ion of Water Office of Public Affairs Patricia Longabucco Janet Essman Philip DeGaetano Barbara Hogan William Morton Mary,Kadlecek Allan Tedrow Lois New Robin Warrender Libby Smith Anthony Esser John Marra We especially wish to thank Barbara J. Crier for her work in typing the document. New York State Department of Environmental Conservatio n Nonpoint source Working Group Brian Grisi. Adirondack Park Agency Ed Hood Adirondack Park Agency Susan Mihalyi Atlantic States Legal Foundation Keith Porter Cornell University - WRI Carman Rau Environmental Planning Lobby Robert Stegeman Empire State Forest Prod. Assoc. Dwight Brown NY Farm Bureau Gary Hayes Federation of Regional Planning Boards Anne Seeley NYCDEP - Bureau of Water Supply Patricia O'Hara NYCDEP - Bureau of Water Supply Jacqueline Moody NYSDEC Arthur Newell NYSDEC - Fish and Wildlife Tim Sinnott NYSDEC - Fish and Wildlife Frank Hegener NYSDEC - Hazardous Substance Regulation Carl,Inglestrom NYSDEC - Lands and Forests Toni Callaway NYSDEC - Mineral.Resources Kathy Fitzpatrick NYSDEC - Mineral Resources Janes Sanford NYSDEC - Solid Waste Bruce Butler NYSDEC - Region 8 Michael Burke NYS Dept. of Health Thomas Reamon NYS Dept. of Health Sarah Johnston NYS Dept. of Law Steven Resler NYS Dept. of State - Coastal Management Gary McVoy NYS Dept. of Transportation John McLean NYS Public Service Commission David Pendergast NYS Soil & Water Conservation Committee Joseph Del Vecchio USDA SCS Tony Dore USEPA Region II Robert Alpern Environmental Protection Forum Robert Cook Water Management Advisory Committee Elizabeth Hawkins Water Management Advisory Committee David Church Heritage Task Force-Hudson R. Valley Richard Burton Monroe County Health Dept. Margy Peet Monroe County Planning Department David Coburn NYS Association of EMCs Karen Williamson USDA - SCS Nancy Beard Heritage Task Force-Hudson R. Valley Douglas Haith Cornell University Steven Pacenka Cornell University - WRI Patrick Harvey USEPA Region II Peter Mack NYSDEC Monitoring and Assessment James McCardell NYS Soil & Water Conservation Committee Ronald Kaplewicz NYS Soil & Water Conservation Committee John Wildeman NYS Soil & Water Conservation Committee Steven Machovec. USDA - SCS Olen Sharron USDA - ASCS Bridget Barclay Hudson River Sloop Clearwater Charles deQuilfeldt NYSDEC - Marine Resources Janes Gilmore NYSDEC - Marine Resources Ann Saltman- NYS Federation of Lakes Association Tracy Frisch NYS Assembly - Program & Council Staff Richard Fedele Sierra Club Julia Portmore American Clean Water Project Linda Van Cleef NYS Land Improvement Contractors Association Dennis Rapp NYS Dept. of Agriculture and Markets 11ONPOI111T SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Pace No. CHAPTER 1: OVERVILV A. Basic Concepts: Nonpoint Sources and Controls ............... 1-3 B. Historical Perspective of Nonpoint Source Planning in New York ........................ o ............. 1-6 C. State Clean Water Strategy .............................. 1-7 D. Content of the Management Progrwn ....................... 1-7 E. Pjanediation and Prevention .................................. 1-9 CHAPTER II: PROCESS FOR MAINTENX= AND ENHANCEMENT OF THE 1,IST OF STATE MATERS AFFECTED BY kMMnqT SOURCES A. Benefits of Updating Assessment ......................... II-1 B. Goals of Future Assessments ................................. 11-3 C. Process Initiation .......................................... 11-4 D. Verification Process ........................................ 11-5 E. Updating the Priority Water Problem List .................... 11-6 F. Use of Updated Assessment ................................... 11-7 G. Groundwater Problem Inventory ................................ 11-7. CHAPTER III: MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR REDUCIM NONPOI14T SOURCE EFFECTS A. Currently Recognized Management Practices ............. ...... III-1 B. Other Candidate Practices ................................... 111-2 CHAPrER IV: PROGRAMS TO CONTROL NM,1POINT SOURCE POLLUrION A. Categories of Sources ....................................... IV-1 B. Pollutants and Their Effects ................................ IV-4 C. Control Options ............................................. IV-4 D. Existing and Needed Nonpoint Source Control Prograzs ........ IV-7 1. General Management Activities ......................... IV-7 2. Agriculture ................. .......................... IV-13 3. Atmospheric Deposition ................................ IV-20 4. Construction .......................................... IV-24 5. Contaminated Sediment ................................. IV-29 6. Diffuse Urban Runoff .................................. IV-32 7. Hydrologic/Habitat Modification ....................... IV-39 8 Iand Disposal ......................................... IV-44 9. Ieaks, Spills and Accidents ........................... IV-48 10. Reso=ce EKtractiorVI@xploration/Developnent ........... IV-50 11. Silviculture .......................................... IV-52 12. Other Sources ......................................... IV-54 NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (Continued) Page No. CHAPTER V: WATERSHED PROGRAMS FOR CONTROLLING NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION A. Introduction ....... ......................................... V-1 B. Implementating Watershed Management Programs..................... V-4 C. Watershed Program Implementation Procedure .................. V-13 D. Additional Program Needs .................................... V-17 CHAPTER VI: IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM A. Implementation Schedule ..................................... VI-2 B. First-Year Implementation Activities ........................ VI-3 C. Second-Year Implementation Activities ....................... VI-4 D. Third-Year Implementation Activities ........................ VI-6 E. Fourth-Year Implementation Activities ....................... VI-8 CHAPTER VII: SOURCES OF FUNDING AVAILABLE TO IMPLEMENT NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS A. Funding Sources in the Water Quality Act of 1987 ........... VII-1 B. Other Funding Sources ..................................... VII-6 C. Potential Funding Sources ................................. VII-9 CHAPTER VIII: INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATE NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM A. Intergovernmental Review of Federal Projects .............. VIII-1 B. State Environmental Quality Review ........................ VIII-7 C. Additional Review Mechanisims .............................. VIII-10 D. Project Review Criteria ................................... VIII-11 APPENDIX A: Priority Candidates for Watershed Planning APPENDIX B: Chapter 436 of Laws of 1989: State Nonpoint Source Pollution Control APPENDIX C: Certification of Authority by the Attorney General (to be added at a later date) APPENDIX D: Matrix of Funding Sources CHAPTER I OVERVIEW Water qual ity programs traditionally have concentrated on controlling point sources Of pollution, and notable success has been achieved in New York. State through the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES), the municipal construction grants program, and other program efforts. As the major point sources of water pollution are brought under control in New York, the water quality impact of so-called "nonpoint" sources becomes more apparent. To continue progress toward cleaning up and preventing damage to New York's waters, existing nonpoint source problems must be identified, and their impacts be assessed and mitigated. Similar trends on a national level led the 100th Congress to include in the Water Quality Act of 1987 increased attention and priority on the development and implementation of nonpoint source control programs. This law amended the Clean Water Act . and included a new Section 319 which authorized federal assistance for nonpoint source programs. It required the states to produce two documents -- a nonpoint source assessment and a nonpoint source management program. Very specific language was included in the law to describe the contents, of these reports. Table I-1 has excerpts from thell,aw which detail the report contents. The provisions of the law have been used to guide and structure each of the separate, but related Assessment and Management-Program reports. Each must be read with an awareness of the content of the other. Nompoint Source Management Procfran Objectives This management program outlines a strategy for controlling nonpoint source pollution in New York. The objectives of the document are: 1. To identify approved management practices for the control of nonpoint source pollution; 2. To establish a watershed planning process and provide guidelines for setting priorities among watersheds; 3. To recommend control measures needed to address each ,category of nonpoint source pollution causing water . quality problems in New York; The Federal Water Quality Act of-1987 contains amendments to the Federal Clean Water Act. Reference to both Acts will be contained- throughout the Management Program, and both terms will be used interchangeably. Table 1-1 Contents of Nonpoint Source Documents Prepared for the Water Quality Act of 1987 For State Assessment Reports, Section 319(a)(1) calls for a document that: (A) identifies those navigable waters within the State which, without additional action to control nonpoint sources of pollution, cannot reasonably be expected to attain or maintain applicable water quality standards or the goats and requirements of this Act; (B) identifies those categories and subcategories of nonpoint sources or, where appropriate, particular nonpoint sources which add significant pollution to each portion of the navigable waters identified under subparagraph (A) in amounts which contribute to such portion not meeting such water quality standards or such goats and requirements; CC) describe the process, including intergovernmental coordination and public participation, for identifying best management practices and measures to control particular nonpoint sources identified under subparagraph (B) and to reduce, to the maximum extent practicable, the Level of.pollution resulting from such category, subcategory, or source; and (D) identifies and describes State and local programs for controlling pollution added from nonpoint sources to, and improving the quality of, each such portion of the navigable waters, including but not limited to those programs which are receiving Federal assistance under subsections (h) and (i). For the Management Program, Section 319(b)(2) specifies: (A) An identification of the best management practices and measures which wit[ be undertaken to reduce pollutant loadings resulting from each category, subcategory, or pa-,ticutar nonpoint source designated under paragraph (1)(b), taking into account the impact of the practice on groundwater quality. (8) An identification of programs (including, as appropriate, non-regulatory or regulatory programs for enforcement, technical assistance, financial assistance, education, training, technology transfer, and demonstration projects) to achieve implementation of the best management practices by the categories, subcategories, and particular nonpoint sources designated under subparagraph (A). (C) A schedule containing annual milestones for (i) utilization of the program implementation methods identified in.subparagraph (B), and (ii) implementation of the.best management practices identified in subparagraph (A) by the categories, subcategories, or particular nonpoint sources designated under paragraph (1)(B). Such schedule shall provide for utilization of the best management practices at the earliest practicable date. (D) A certification of the attorney general of the State or States (or the chief attorney of any State water pollution control agency which has independent legal counsel) that the laws of the State or States, as the case may be, provide adequate authority to implement such management program or, if there is not such adequate authority, a List of such additional authorities as will be necessary to implement such management program. A schedule and commitment by the State or States to seek such additional authorities as expeditiously as practicable. (E) Sources of Federal or other assistance and funding other than assistance provided under subsection (h) and 0 ) which wi I t be avai table in each of such f iscal years for supporting implementation of such practices and measures and the purposes for which such assistance will be used in each of such fiscal years. (F) An identification of Federal f inanciat assistance programs and Federal development projects for which the State wi I I review individual assistance applications or development projects for their effects on water quality pursuant to the procedures set forth in Executive Order .12372 as in effect on September 17, 1983, to determine whether such assistance appLica- tions or development projects would be consistent with the program prepared under this subsection; for the purposes of this subparagraph, identification shall not be limited to the assistance programs or development projects subject to Executive Order 12372 but may include any programs Listed in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance which may have an effect on the purposes and objectives of the State's nonpoint source pollution management program. 1-2 4. To identify potential sources of funding available to implement nonpoint source control programs; and 5. To establish a procedure ensuring that federal, state and local programs are consistent with the state's nonpoint source program. A. Basic Concepts: Nonpoint Sources and Controls The concept of "nonpoint source pollution" can be confusing. Nonpoint source pollution can be defined by contrasting it with "point source pollution." A point source of water pollution is defined as a discharge from a discrete, identif- 'iable location such as a pipe. A nonpoint source may be an areaw 'ide source or many sources distributed diffusely which cumulatively contribute to water quality degradation. The characteristics that generally distinguish point and nonpoint sources are as follows: POINT SOURCE POLLUTION NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION Pollutants discharged from a Pollutants entering water at single source at a discrete many locations from,many point. sources, distributed diffusely over an area. ,Pollution can feasibly be Usually best prevented or abated and/or controlled remediated by modifying through regulatory permits, activities, practices or inspections, monitoring and operations on the land, or compliance processes. by changing land use activities either through the use of financial incen- tives, voluntary compliance, or regulation. Usually controlled through Usually controlled by use of wastewater treatment reducing or preventing technologies to remove availability, release or pollutant before discharge. transport of pollutants that adversely affect water quality. Usually associ ated with the Usually associated with use and disposal of runoff from precipitation or water for industrial, events or with movement of commercial or municipal groundwater. purposes. Whether a certain type of pollution source is a point source or a nonpoint source is not always clear. some do not f it perfectly within the definition of either. For example, individual septic tanks are normally regarded as nonpoint sources of pollution 1-3 because groundwater can be polluted when many facilities are installed in a restricted area. However, an individual septic tank which discharges directly to a waterbody may be considered a point source. Pollution from most nonpoint sources occurs in res .ponse to hydrologic events. Contaminants transported in overland runoff following a storm event usually are characterized as nonpoint if they enter a waterbody diffusely or point if they enter at a discrete stormwater discharge point. Pesticides and fertilizers applied on large areas of land are considered nonpoint pollutants if they migrate to surface or groundwater. Airborne pollutants, including contaminants which are responsible for acid rain and particulates transported by wind, also are characterized as nonpoint. Although these pollutants are best controlled at their emission points by air quality.programs, their adverse impact on water quality demonstrates the need to include air quality programs as part of New York's nonpoint source and clean water management strategy. The classification of sources of groundwater contamination as nonpoint or point is slightly different than for surface waters. For sections of this management program relating to groundwater, any source not specifically permitted through SPDES is considered a nonpoint source. Table 1-2 lists by source category various nonpoint sources .of pollution affecting surface and groundwater in New York State. These categories represent a modification of the list the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided in its nonpoint source program guidance. The control and prevention of nonpoint source impacts on the state's waters requires a different approach from that used with point sources of pollution. Those involved with control of a point source include only a few entities: the source owner (private or public) and the regulating institutions. Managing nonpoint sources, on the other hand, calls for the participation of a wide variety of players. The Assessment Report shows that a large number of agencies are involved with the various aspects of nonpoint source pollution control. The great variety of sources, the range of expertise needed to deal with them, and the distribu- tion of legal authority and accountability all contribute to this sharing of the task. Nonpoint source pollution usually is best prevented or remediated by employing one or more management practices (MPs) - An MP is a means of preventing or reducing the availability, release or transport of substances which adversely affect surface and groundwaters. It is a practice used to prevent or reduce the impact of nonpoint pollutants from a specific source category. 1-4 TABLE 1-2 Nonpoint Sources Agriculture Resource Extraction/. Exploration/Developnent Row crops - Surface mining Grain crops - Dredge mining/spoil Orchard/vineyards disposal Pasture land/overgrazing - Petroleum activities Barnyards (brine solutions and Manure spreading sediment associated -.Fertilizer application with gas and oil - Pesticide applicati'on drilling operations) - Livestock access to streams - Mill tailings - Improper manure storage - Mine tailings - Milking center waste Silviculture Land Disposal - Logging adjacent to streams - Sludge (disposal of Skidding septage/sludge from - Logging road construction/ wastewater treatment) maintenance - Wastewater - Improper landing location - Landfills'(solid waste disposal Construction - Industrial wastes - On-site wastewater systems Highway/road/bridge (septic tanks) Land 'clearing/development - Hazardous wastes Diffuse Urban Runoff Hydrologic/Habitat Modification Impervious surface - Stream channelization (contaminants from - Dredging streets, sidewalks, - Flow regulation/ parking lots, roofs) modification Pervious surfaces - Removal of riparian. (pesticides/fertilizer vegetation application to lawns/ Streambank modification/ golf courses) destabilization - Surface impoundments Other - Contaminated sediment - Atmospheric deposition - Leaks, spills and accidents including toxic or hazardous substances - Saltwater intrusion resulting from overpumping/inter-basin transfers - Storage and application of deicing agents and abrasives - Natural (ambient conditions) 1-5 Many management practices should be used by individuals or groups to diminish the impact of nonpoint source pollution. They can be utilized without a formal planning process or without an identification of a specific problem. They can be adopted because they make good environmental sense. As with many environmental concerns today, there is a need to act with a degree of respon- sibility for the world,around us. Use of appropriate management practices is one aspect of such an approach. B. Historic PersRective of NonRoint Source Planning in New York During the last decade, a variety of programs have con- sidered the impact of nonpoint source pollution on New York's waters. These have included planning efforts, demonstration projects and implementation programs. A review of the major initiatives wi'11 help put the goals of this management program in perspective with past water quality initiatives in New York. Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 required states to undertake water quality management planning. States were to initiate a process to identify major water quality problems, assess the need for government actions to address those problems and establish the institutional framework to ensure that solutions to water quality problems would be implemented. A significant portion of the overall statewide 208 effort involved several studies designed to provide the State's initial program strategies in the area of nonpoint sources. The source categories of agriculture, silviculture, construction and mineral extractions were studied in the planning process. The 208 Plan recognized that program development for nonpoint source management was in its formative stages and that much additional problem assessment, research and planning was needed. Another planning requirement of the Clean Water Act is that, under Section 303 (e) , states are required to maintain a Continuing Planning Process (CPP). New York's original CPP was written and approved by EPA in 1983. It has been updated several times with the most recent revision dated January, 1989. The CPP is to be viewed as an overview of how water quality management decisions are reached and implemented. It describes each o, 'f the programs involved in water quality management, including the nonpoint source program. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) by virtue of its statutory authority for the management of water resources and control of water pollution in the state, has assumed the lead responsibility for control of nonpoint source pollution. One action taken by DEC to carry out its responsibility was the development of a draft Nonpoint Source Management Strategy in July, 1986. This strategy described existing programs and made 1-6 recommendations for new initiatives to address various nonpoint sources. This strategy was not issued as a final document due.to the pending amendments to the Clean Water Act which would have its own requirements for a nonpoint source management program. ' DEC will use its role as the lead agency for water quality activities in the state to require that other agencies who take actions under the auspices of the nonpoint source program be consistent with program objectives. This will be done through memorandums of understanding with appropriate agencies, consistency reviews of federal actions and contracts with regional planning agencies (and/or Soil and Water Conservation Districts) who receive pass-through funding under the Clean Water Act. C. State Clean Water Strategy Nonpoint source pollution control is one.of several program areas given new emphasis in the Water Quality Act of 1987. Programs that increase efforts to achieve the national goal of swimmable and fishable waters were strengthened. Among these , programs such as the Clean Lakes Progran and toxics control also are required to develop assessments of impacted waters as a first step in focusing available capabilities on waters needing atten- tion. EPA has suggested that states develop clean water strategies to coordinate water quality programs in an holistic Way. The long- term objective is to identify those waters not meeting water quality standards or supporting designated uses, whatever the cause, and then target appropriate programs and resources to deal with those situations. For New York, in the first round of assessments, each program will produce its own list of waters of concern using the Priority Water Problem list as a common data base. This assessment contains the current identification of waters affected by nonpoint. sources. In the future, after the completion of the statewide update of the assessment, a unified cross-program assessment procedure will be adopted with the purpose of improving the Priority Water Problem list. Revisions will be made biennially. This will provide a more complete basis for targeting all water quality management programs -as suggested by the clean water strategy guidance. D. Content of the Management Program New York's Nonpoint Source Management Program discusses all the topics required by the Water Quality Act of 1987 (see Table I-1) . In addition, several other key topics, identified during the development of the Assessment Report and the Management Program, have been addressed in the report. 1-7 0 MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LIST OF ST ATE WATERS AFFECTED BY NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION Chapter II describes New York's process for an ongoing assessment of waters impacted by nonpoint source pollution. While this was not a requirement of Section 319, it is regarded as an essential component of the Management Program. 0 IDENTIFICATION OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (MPs) TO BE USE D. TO REDUCE NONPOINT SOURCE EFFECTS Chapter III lists management practices currently recognized for addressing water quality problems. Lists of agricultural and silvicultural MPs are included. As MPs for each source category are approved (using the procedure .described in Chapter IV of the Assessment Report) , a catalogue of those practices will be prepared. 0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONTROL OPTIONS NEEDED TO ADDRESS NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION Chapter IV describes the major categories of nonpoint source pollution that are affecting waters in New York, identifies the-programs presently available to address these sources, and makes recommendations for new measures and control options. 0 TARGETED PROGRAM APPROACHES FOR CONTROLLING NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION Chapter V outlines the watershed planning process. It also explains when corrective actions should be taken on a watershed level and when a statewide approach is appropriate. The process used for setting priorities among watersheds is also described. This is another topic not required by Section 319 but viewed as an essential component of the management program. 0 SCHEDULE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM Chapter VI lists a four-year schedule for the implemen- tation of the components of the management program. 0 SOURCES OF FUNDING TO BE USED IN IMPLEMENTING NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS Chapter VII identifies potential funding sources for implementing the management program in addition to funds authorized by Section 319. 1-8 0 REVIEW FEDERAL PROGRAM S TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH THE NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM @ . Chapter VIII establishes a mechanism for the review of federal financial assistance programs and federal development projects to ensure that they are consistent with nonpoint source program implementation objectives and priorities.* E. Remediation and Prevention The nonpoint source program cannot focus entirely on water- bodies already impaired. Surface waterbodies and groundwater resources that are supporting designated uses but are threatened by existing or changing land use patterns must.be protected. The planning process described in Chapter V can be applied to watershed and aquifer protection programs as well as to remediation programs. It is not necessary for a problem to develop before protection measures are taken. 1-9 CHAPTER II PROCESS FOR MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF THE tIST OF STATE WATERS AFFECTED -BY NONPOINT SOURCES The assessment of water quality problems caused by nonpoint source pollution will be the basis for the implementation of control programs. Priorities for program development and for watershed planning will be established using information contained in the assessment. Therefore, the assessment ideally should provide an accurate and complete description of problems and their sources. An inventory of waterbodies affected by nonpoint source pollution is also required by Chapter 436 of the New York State Laws of 1989 (this law is included as Appendix B) . This law amended Article 17 of the Environmental Conservation Law creating a Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Program. According to Section 17-1405, DEC (in cooperation with the State Soil and Water Conservation Committee) is required to prepare a report by January, 1991 which: a. identifies those waterb odies within the state which, without additional action to control nonpoint sources of pollution, cannot reasonably be expected to attain and maintain applicable water quality standards; and b. identifies categories or subcategories of nonpoint sources or particular nonpoint sources which add significant amounts of pollution to each waterbody identified above." This report is to then-be updated at least every five years. A. Benefits of Updating Assessment The Assessment Report identifies numerous waterbodies in .the state that are affected by nonpoint source pollution. It was based primarily on the Priority Water Problem (PWP) list which is the Division's official list of impaired waterbodies. The Assessment provides a listing of problems known at the time the report was prepared. However, it cannot be viewed as a complete and final list. There are several ways in which the lists of affected waterbodies provided in the Assessment Report can be enhanced. II-1 1 Use additional sources of information to identify possible nonpoint source impacts. In the time available to complete the report, it was not possible to utilize data sources which require extensive analysis and interpretation. Studies such as DEC's'analysis of toxic substances in fish and wildlife and NOAA's estuarine models should be reviewed as part.of the process of updating the.Assessment. Groundwater information from Nassau and Suffolk Counties should be utilized. 2. Provide an opportunity for everyone with knowledge of nonpoint source problems and sources in New York to present' this information. A procedure to solicit input from sources outside of DEC must be established and this information factored into the Assessment. 3. Refine the inform ation provided with more details on specific nonpoint sources.. The PWP list only identifies general source categories, such as agriculture. For establishing statewide programs, more specific source informati'on is needed. For instance, knowledge of the extent of agricultural problems caused by source subcategories such as row cropping, barnyard runoff and livestock access to streams would be helpful in setting priorities for program development. 4. Expand the database to include waterbodies that are stressed or threatened by.nonpoint source pollution. The nonpoint source progran should include actions intended to prevent these waterbodies from becoming impaired. 5. Develop a statewide organized data 'management system f or groundwater quality. The Upstate Groundwater Management Program recommends that DEC develop a groundwater problem inventory for use in program performance assessment, priority setting and refinement of programs. This inventory could be used to identify groundwater problems caused by nonpoint sources. 6. Maintain a real time assessment of water quality problems in the state. Any assessment must be regarded as a snapshot which identifies problems known at the time it was performed. Periodic revisions will result in both additions ' and deletions to the list. As awareness of nonpoint source pollution increases, it is likely that more water quality problems will be identified. Successful implementation programs should result in some problems being solved, thus enabling removal of waterbodies from the list. Therefore, to address. these issues, an update of the assessment is recommended and provisions should be made to periodically update the lists of waterbodies with water quality problems. 11-2 B. Goals of Future Assessments The process for updating the assessment will use the available data sources and will be open to a wider audience. It will list waterbodies where there is a significant threat of water quality degradation from nonpoint sources due to proposed or actual changes in the watershed. Future assessments will also include breakdowns of source categories which will serve as guidance for program development activities. The upd ated assessment will reflect local perspectives and knowledge. DEC will advocate that eventually this assessment will be used to set priorities on the local level. By involving more people in the assessment process, the understanding of problems and the base of support for implementation of nonpoint source controls will be expanded. Agencies and groups involved with the implementation of management practices will be encouraged to concentrate efforts on watersheds identified in the assessment. A recommended watershed planning process is provided in Chapter V. Water quality problems will continue to be categorized based on the effects on a waterbody. As explained in the Assessment Report, every waterbody in the state has been classified according to its "best use". Each use has a set of standards associated with it that limit the concentrations of various contaminants that can be present in the water. These classifications and their standards are the basis for assessing water quality. A water quality problem exists only where a classified use is affected. The effects can range from precluding a classified use to threatening the ecosystem. The Division of Water has used several methods to categorize these impacts in the past. For future assessments, the effects of both point and nonpoint source pollution will be categorized by severity using the system shown below. Categories of Impacts Precluded: Water quality and/or associated habitat degradation precludes, eliminates or does not support a classified use; natural ecosystem functions may be significantly disrupted. This category is used for waters with the most severe impacts. Impaire Water quality and/or habitat characteristics frequently impair a classified use. Also applied when the designated use is supported, but -at a teveL significantly less than would otherwise be expected. Natural ecosystem functions may be disrupted. These waters have severe impacts. Stress Reduced water quality is occasionally evident and designated uses are intermittently or marginally restricted; natural ecosystem may exhibit adverse changes. These waters have moderate impacts. 11-3 0 01 Threatened: Water quality presently supporting designated use and ecosystems exhibit no obvious signs of stress; however, existing or changing land use patterns may result in restricted usage or ecosystem disruption. These waters have the least impacts. C. Process Initiation The first update of the Nonpoint Source Assessment Report was conducted in 1989. The process to be used for this was based on experience gained iron the PWP process and from the pilot assessment meetings described in the Assessment Report. Working in cooperation with the State Soil and Water Conservation Committee, DEC established a plan to accomplish this task. This process will provide the information needed for the inventory required in the new Section 17-1405 of ECL. A two-phase process for identifying problem waterbodies was used. The first phase had each Soil and Water Conservation District conduct a survey of nonpoint source pollution in their county. This gave Districts an opportunity to play a key role in the Assessment process. Districts invited agencies, groups and individuals from within their county to participate in identifying water quality problems. Districts collected information and presented.it to DEC during the next phase of the process. The second phase consisted of meetings of representatives from the key agencies within each county to discuss the results of the NPS survey and other available information about water quality problems. 'DEC coordinated these meetings. The meeting provided the Soil and Water Conservation District personnel and DEC Regional Water'and Fisheries staff with an opportunity to discuss water quality problems in each county. Prior to holding meetings, DEC collected.and analyzed water quality data from the sources mentioned'earlier in this chapter. Some of these data sources have been used in the past to identify impaired waterbodies, but they were now reviewed to find threatened segments. These include: DEC's Toxic Substances in Fish and Wildlife Analyses Since May 1, 1982 and the Clean Lakes Report. Data from these sources were reviewed to indicate waterbodies which are slightly below the established thresholds for impairment but might be considered stressed or threatened. other data sources which have not been used in the past due to @navailability of data or time constraints were reviewed to identify' waterbodies which may have water quality problems. Sources such as the NOAA estuarine models are included in this category. During the meeting, all participants had an opportunity to identify water quality problems. Discussions focused on one watershed at a.time. The Soil Conservation Service's Hydrologic 11-4 watershed Units were the basis for delineating the watersheds within the county. When there was a consensus that a water quality problem exists on a specific waterbody, information regarding the problem was recorded. Recognition of a water quality problem was the starting point for discussions. The intent of the assessment update is not to develop an inventory of-land uses. The existence of a land use which may be associated with nonpoint sour'ce pollution is not sufficient to be considered a problem, A classif ied use of a surf ace waterbody or groundwater must be precluded, impaired, stressed or threatened to be regarded as a problem. The level of information available to determine that a problem exists varied. In some cases, water quality monitoring data or modeling studies were available. For other cases, the recognition of the problem was based entirely on perception and professional judgement. The amount of documentation available was recorded along with other information about the segment. Background data such as segment name and affected area were noted. The pollutants present and their effects on the waterbody Were listed. Sources which contribute to the problem and their relative contributions were noted. Water quality problems identified during the assessment will be included on a revised list of waterbodies affected by nonpoint sources. This list will be kept separate from the PWP list and will be marked, "Draft, Subject to Agency Verification". D. Verification Process A procedure for verification of information presented during the Assessment update will be developed. Only segments with ,verified water quality problems will be included on the PWP list. verification may be conducted by DEC Regional Water or Fisheries staff during their routine operations. DEC Central Office staff from the Bureau of Technical Services and Research or the Bureau of Monitoring and Assessment may be called upon to conduct special studies. In some cases, other agencies may be involved in verification efforts. For segments where water quality monitoring or fish survey data exist, the data will be collected and analyzed to determine whether it supports the information provided. Fish population and habitat studies are generally available through DEC Regional Fisheries staff. Water quality monitoring data may be available from several sources. The Division of Water has several programs which conduct water quality monitoring. The primary activities are the Rotating Intensive Basin Studies and the Intensive Stream Surveys, both conducted by the Bureau of Monitoring and Assessment. The U.S. Geological Survey is another agency which performs water quality monitoring and may have data on a specific 11-5 stream. Some universities and colleges also have programs which collect data and study waterbodies. Finally, local groups (such as lake associations) may have data available from efforts such as .the citizen's lake assessment program or studies which they have hired a consulting engineer to perform. On many segments, there will be little or no monitoring data available. Additional monitoring may be recommended. In the case of water quality problems which are perceived to be associated with runoff, such monitoring would emphasize storm events, especially those associated with spring snow melt conditions. Some prioritization of problem watersheds should be undertaken before the monitoring is initiated to assure that the most significant problems are addressed. Modeling s tudies also, have a role in the verification process, and whenever possible, should be us-ed in conjunction with. monitoring data. The models should be based on continuous simulation --of hydrologic conditions and should be capable of relating water quality conditions to specific sources in a watershed or on the -land 'surface. In some cases, models calibrated by limited monitoring data may provide adequate verification of a water quality problem. Verification of nonpoint source related water quality problems through the analysis of existing data, the collection of new data or modeling studies may be done by the DEC Regional Offices, the DEC Central Office or another agency under the guidance of DEC. Because of the complex and episodic nature of nonpoint source pollution, expertise is needed in the proper collection of water quality monitoring data and interpretation of the results in terms of cause and effect. If monitoring is conducted by an outside agency, the verification scheme must be approved by DEC. The scheme must be- subject to the same scientific principles and data quality assurance procedures that apply to all sampling and monitoring carried out by DEC. E. Updating the Priority Water Problem List. The Division of Water will compile the next edition of the Priority Water Problem List in 1990. It will be-issued in 1991. The list will remain as the Division's official list of surface waterbodies with water quality problems. For the update, the categories of impacts. listed on pages 3 and 4 (precluded, impaired, stressed, threatened) will be used. It will be updated biennially after.1991. Inputs to the process for updating the PWP list will be the existing PWP list, the list of segments nominated from the county nonpoint source meetings and any other segments identified as having water quality problems. Segments for which it has been confirmed that a problem exists will be added to the PWP list. 11-6 There will be other segments which were nominated that will be dropped because verification procedures will demonstrate that no problem or threat to water quality exists'. Finally, for segments where no verification efforts have been performed, a separate list will be maintained. The segments will remain on this separate list until verification efforts confirm or refute the problem. Between updates of the PWP list, the Division of Water will accept nominations for segments with problems not previously identified. Information will be reviewed by the Bureau of Monitoring and Assessment and the Bureau of Water Quality Management. They will then transmit the data to the appropriate DEC Regional office for verification. Segments with verified problems will be added to the PWP list during the next cycle. F. Use of Updated Assessment The updated assessment will be used to prepare the inventory report required by Section 17-1405 of ECL. This report will identify waterbodies that have a designated use precluded, impaired, stressed or threatened. It will also identify significant categories of nonpoint sources that are affecting each waterbody. The report will be used to prepare a prioritized list of waterbodies as described in Section 17-1407. DEC will prepare this list after consultation with the State Soil and Water Conservation Committee. only projects located within. the watershed of a waterbody on this prioritized list will be eligible for cost-sharing assistance under the state nonpoint source pollution control program. Other agencies involved with the implementation of NPS controls will be encouraged to select waterbodies which appear on the prioritized list for implementation efforts. Projects which address problems on other waterbodies may be accepted in some cases. However, water quality monitoring data verifying that water quality problems exist will be required inthese situations. G. Groundwater Problem Inventg.Ky A system to collect information on groundwater quality problems must be established. The need for this system was recognized during the development of the Upstate and Long Island Groundwater Management Programs. Since groundwater management strategies are significantly different between Upstate and Long Island, the recommendations contained in each report will be discussed separately. 1. Upstate Groundwater Problem Inventory The following information is taken from Chapter IV-B of the Upstate New York Groundwater Management Program completed in May, 1987 by DEC. 11-7 To property evaluate groundwater program priorities and direct program activities, it is essential to know the types, frequency, severity, and trends of problems affecting the groundwater resource. The available information in this regard is currently rather sketchy and has been dispersed among various program areas. To support effective program planning and provide feedback on program performance in the future, there is a need for a low-level, non-resource intensive but ongoing groundwater problem inventory. The long-range goal for the Groundwater Problem Inventory is to develop and maintain a reasonably complete Listing of groundwater problems encountered. This will be accomplished by periodically updating the inventory, therefore providing current and historical trends by which to assist management decisions. It is not Likely that the utopian ideal of a truly complete and comprehensive inventory can ever be attained, because it would require excessive resources compared to the benefits achieved.. However, a stable, Low-te'vet. effort can achieve a more valid representative sample to better assess the sources and geographic distribution of problems -being encountered. The Contaminated Aquifer Segment Inven tory described below for Long Island serves as a model for the development of an upstate list. 2. Long Island Groundwater Problem Inventory Long Island has a massive groundwater management-related database, which is probably as extensive as that found anywhere. Important categories of information include data on the aquifer system itself; water quality; well punpage; important sources of groundwater contamination, particularly those regulated by permits; and others. Organization of data on groundwater quality problems has been underway for some time. A Contaminated Aquifer Segments Inventory (CASI) has been assembled utilizing data from a number of agencies. The segments are drawn from environmental management programs which, through their operation, identify instances of groundwater contamination. The segment types include oil spills; contaminated public water supply wells; groupings of contaminated private water supply wells; contamination incidents identified through compliance and enforcement activities pursuant to water pollution regulations; state and federal Superfund sites, and miscellaneously identified contamination sites. The Department's regional office is a member of a geographic information system (GIS) users group which shares data and is adding geographic locational data to existing data bases. Through this cooperation, data will be available to users with a minimization of duplicated effort.. The CASI will be the basis for the groundwater portion of revised assessment lists in the future for Nassau and Suffolk Counties. 11-8 CHAPTER III MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR REDUCING NONPOINT SOURCE EFFECTS The Clean Water Act recognizes the fundamental importance of the selection and use of best management practices (BMPs) to combat n6npoint sources of pollution. Management practices prevent or reduce the availability, release, or transport of -substances which adversely affect surface and ground waters. They act generally to diminish the generation of pollutants from specific sources. This is in contrast to the control of point sources where the pollutants are generated and collected and then treated to prevent impairment of receiving waters. Management practices can be operational, vegetative or structural. They provide an effective means of reducing or preventing the impact of nonpoint pollutants from a specific source category. Practices can be implemented through voluntary action, financial incentives or regulatory requirements. This chapter lists the management practices currently recognized to benefit water quality and those which will be examined for inclusion in the list. All are s 'ubject to the review process described in, Chapter IV of the Assessment Report. "Best" management practices will be selected from this approved listing. A management practice or series o f practices is considered "best" in the context of solving or preventing a particular nonpoint source problem in a specific area or in response to a generic statewide situation. Por example, contour farming might be the best management practice on one farm while terraces are the proper treatment on another. Similarly, depending on soil and groundwater conditions, the best practice for. controlling stormwater runoff in one area might be an infiltration basin while in another a wet pond would be appropriate. A. CURRENTLY RECOGNIZED MANAGEM ENT PRACTICES 1. Agriculture The State Soil and Water Conservation Committee (SSWCC) was delegated the implementation -of agricultural nonpoint source programs in the Statewide 208 -report. In 1981, the Committee published a report listing 27 management practices to be. considered in addressing problems. The appropriate BMP selection would be made after the problem and sources of the problem are identified and would be based on site-specific conditions. The practices are shown on Table III-1 along with the agricultural source subcategories to which they apply. III-1 2. Silviculture The Department of Environmental Conservation has issued a series of management practices for silvicultural activities - These practices are promoted by the Department and by other involved agencies and organizations and were certified as part of the Statewide water quality management plan at the conclusion of the Section 208 planning effort. They are incorporated into the joint DEC/NYS Timber Producer's Association Cooperating Timber Harvester Programs. . The practices and the areas of silvicultural activity which they address are shown in Table 111-2. Selection of the appropriate practice or practices will depend on specific site analysis and is determined on the site by the harvester. B. OTHER CANDIDATE PRACTICES Appendix A of the Nonpoint Source Assessment Report listed candidate practices to be reviewed by the management practices task force. Some of the practices on this list appeared on the lists of approved practices contained in this chapter. Although these actions were approved in earlier efforts, they will be reviewed again by the task force before a final approved list is developed. As described in Chapter IV of the Assessment, the task force members will recommend to the Department those practices which will protect or improve water quality. since programs already exist for promoting and assisting in installation of agricultural BMPs, the practices which address that source category will have top priority for 'review. The Division of Water has prepared a guide to the effectiveness and selection of agricultural management practices for improving water quality. This effort was based on an extensive literature review. This guide will be given to the management practices task force for review. . Second priority will be for urban stormwater. The importance of that source plus the development of a regulatory permit program in complliance with the Clean Water Act call for this category to be addressed soon. The approval of management practices for the remaining source categories will proceed as staff time permits. Priorities for categories will be established based on the extent of water quality problems caused by a particular source. The updated assessment lists will be used to determine the extent of problems. The candidate practice list shown in Appendix A of the Assessment Report has been revised slightly and is repeated as Table 111-3. 111-2 Table III-1 SSWCC Agricultural Management Practices Sources Addressed By Practice Barn- Row Fert. Pest/ Manure Yard Practice Crops Appl. Herb. Spread. Runoff Reduce excessive application x X X rates of chemicals Timing of chemical applications x X X Effective methods for x X x applications Timing of field x tillage operations Using alternative pesticides x Using resistant crop varieties x Reduced tillage systems x No tillage x Contour farming x Graded rows X Meadowless rotations x optimize planting ti me x Winter cover crops x Sod-based rotations x X X Contour strip cropping X x X x Permanent vegetative cover x Field borders x x Fitter strips X X Terraces X x x X Diversions x X Grassed outlets X surface drainage x Subsurface drainage x Retention ponds X X X X Roof gutters x Grade stabilization structure X Chemical mixing center x 111-3 Table 111-2 DEC Silvicultural Management Practices Sources Addressed By Practice Logging Logging Road Improper Near 'Crossing Const/ Lancling Streams Skidding Streans Maint. Location obtain stream protection X permi t cross stream at most direct route x Use crossing sites with low, stable banks x Cross streams at planned Location x Use and move temporary bridges and culverts to X cross streams Avoid cutting within 10 feet of stream bank X Don't skid up and down stream channet X x Avoid intermittent stream locations x Keep skidders back 50 feet from streams X x FeLL trees away from streams to keep debris out of x water Remove togging debris that gets into streams x Leave 50 feet uncut along streams X Set back roads 150 feet from waterways on steep X slopes Winch -Logs off steep slopes, minimize skidder x traffic Log slopes during dry weather or when soil is x frozen After logging, regrade roads and skid traits X x Keep roads & skid traits away wet spots & stream X X X banks .Use water bars, drainage dips and stoping to divert X X water off roads and primary skid traits Keep roads back from stream, ponds and marshes x Stop roadside ditches before stream crossing x X Choose road Locations to minimize erosion problems X Keep landings out of tow spots and poorly drained X places Locate landings on gently sloping ground x Keep landings back 200 feet from streams X, x Grade & level Landings after use x Direct excess surface waters around landings x Prevent spillage of fuel and X lubricants 111-4 Table 111-3 CANDIDATE 14ANAGEMENT PRACTICES AGRICULTURE SILVICULTURE Access road improvement Diversions of water from Logging roadsi (broad-based dips, Barnyard runoff management culverts and water bars) Biological controls* Logging andskidding on steep slopes only under optimal Conservation tillage conditions Contour farming Pesticide use controls Cover crop Proper access road design, construction and location Critical area planting Proper construction and location of stream crossing Crop rotation* Proper location and use of tog landings Cultural practices* Reseeding and regrading Destruction of pest breeding Revegetation of critical areas . and refuge sites* Skidding and yarding along the contour Diversions Tree planting Ecosystem diversifications* Vegetative buffer strip along stream Farming intensity Fencing (Livestock exclusion) Fitter strips URRAN/STORNWATER RUNOFF Grassed waterway Integrated pest management (IPM) Artificial wetlands Knowledge of crop-pest ecosystem* CotLection and treatment of.stormwater Livestock crossings Concrete grid and modular pavement anure application rate & method Diversions Manure storage & timing of manure Extended detention ponds application Drop-structures Mechanical weed control* Fertilizer and pesticide application control Method of application* Fitter strips Mulching Fluidic flow reguLatcrs Nutrient management Tidy housekeeping Pasture management Grassed swaLes and waterways Permanent Vegetative cover Infiltration basins and pits (dry wells) Pesticide formulation/aLternatives* Infiltration trenches Proper application rate Litter-and Leaf control Proper disposal of pesticides Porous pavement Resistant crop strains* Reduction of traffic-generated pollution Scouting* Retention (wet ponds) Sediment basin Rock-Lined channels SLow-reLease fertilizer Seepage areas Soil testing Stormwater conveyance system storage Spreading schedules Street cleaning Streambank protection Terraces Stream channel stabilization Urban forestry Strip cropping Water quality inlet (oiL/grit separators) Terraces Timing of application* Timing of tillage operations Timing of plant and harvest* Trap crops* @Jndicates an element of Integrated Pest Management when practice is used for reduction in pesticide applications. 111-5 Table 111-3 CANDIDATE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (Continued) CONSTRUCTION AND IJUID DEVELOPMENT RESOURCE EXTRACTION Critical area seeding Diversions Debris basin Drilling pits tined with impermeable plastic Design codes for septic systems install fluid dikes capable of handling 1 1/2 times tank Piversion volume around production tanks Earth dike Limit stripping of topsoil and overburden Erosion and sediment control ordinance Maintain drainage into excavation Filter fabric orient drilling pits to minimize degradation Grade stabilization structure Recycle process waters Grassed wa 'terway Require removal of drilling and completion fluids Land grading from pits within 45 days; pits then backfitted Lined waterway or outlet Restrict siting of tank farms and production facilities Mulch in proximity to waterbodies Perimeter dike swaLe Revegetate inactive stock piles Riprap . Settling ponds Rock outlet protection Stabilize active faces as soon as practicable Sediment basin Sediment trap Silt fence Sodding ROADWAY AND R-O-W MAINTENANCE Stabilized construction entrance Straw bate dike Construction contracts contain erosion and sediment Subdivision ordinances control requirements Subsurface drain Deicing minimized consistent with highway safety Sump pit impervious base in salt storage areas Temporary storm drain diversion Pesticide use controls Temporary rules and regulations, Proper sheltering of salt storage Temporary swate Salt storage located safe distance from waterbodies Tree planting Sheltering of salt and sand mixing areas Watershed rules and regulations Vegetative buffer strip between road and waterbody Zoning Vegetated road ditche s STREAMBAWK EROSION CHEMICAL AND PETROLEUM BULK STORAGE Gabion baskets Facility registration Livestock exclusion Keeping of inventory records Log cribbing Monitoring for Leakage Proper stream crossings Proper closure of abandoned facilities Riprap Reporting of actual or suspected releases Vegetative bufferstrips Standards for new construction Testing and inspection 01 111-6 CHAPTER IV PROGRAMS TO CONTROL WONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION Overall control of most nonpoint source pollution problems cannot be accomplished through a single program. This is due to the variety of sources, that are considered nonpoint sources. Nonpoint source pollution is associated with both long-term fixed land uses and more sporadic and transitory activities. Programs for the control of sources must be developed recognizing this diversity. Pollution from most nonpoint sources is best controlled through the use of proper management practices that can alleviate any existing water quality impacts and prevent new, ones from occurring. A. Categories of Sources Land uses and activities which are considered nonpoint sources are listed in Chapter I as Table. 1-2. The table identifies the major source categories and the sub-categories included in each. A discussion of known and suspected effects of the sources is contained in Chapter III of the Assessment Report. A brief description of each of the source categories fo r which control options will be discussed follows. The main source categories art listed in alphabetical order both here and in the detailed.discussion of sources later in this chapter. - Agriculture Agriculture is a leading industry in New York State and a critical sector of the State's economy. In 1987, nearly 8,600,000 acres were devoted to agricultural activities. Since agricultural land is often managed intensively, runoff can cause water quality problems. Poor land management and intensive production activities on agricultural land can result in pollution of waters by sediment, nutrients and agricultural chemicals. IAgricultural nonpoint sources of pollution can be classified into two groups: land use and management operations. The first group relates to the actual use of a parcel of land (e.g. , row crops, pastureland, and truck farms). The second group relates to the intensity of an agricultural operations (e.g., cultural techniques, pesticide and fertilizer . applications, grazing techniques and manure utilization) . Agricultural. nonpoint sources of pollution are not a result of the land use or the operations themselves, but the inappropriate use of the land (e.g., growing row crops on land not suited for intensive cultivation), and improper management of the agricultural operation (e.g-, over-fertilization or misap plication of pesticides) , which IV-1 increases the opportunity for contaminants from agricultural activities to reach either ground or surface waters. Atmospheric Deposition Atmospheric deposition and the subcategory of acid rain have been identified as the most frequently occurring cause of water quality impairment in the state. While acid rain affecting lakes in the Adirondack Mountains is the dominant source identified, atmospheric deposition in general is considered to be affecting waterbodies in other parts of the state as well. In addition, pollutants other than acid rain are causing water quality problems. .Atmospheric deposition of contaminants on urban impervious areas adds to the pollution of stormwater runoff. Construction Each year nearly 50,000 acres of.land in New York comes under development through public and private construction activities. Although this represents a small portion of the state's land area, sedimentation due to both water and wind erosion at construction sites can be locally severe. Studies have shown that rates of erosion from construction sites are among the highest of any source category. Contaminated Sediment Contaminated sediment has resulted in fishing advisories and fishing bans on several major waterbodies in the state. Lake Ontario and portions of the Hudson River are affected by this source. PCBs are the most common contaminant although other toxic chemicals such as dioxin, DDT, nirex and mercury are other examples.. Diffuse Urban Runoff Stormwater runoff from urban areas can be contaminated with sediment, oxygen demanding substances, pathogens, petroleum products and a number of toxic substances. The large amount of impervious surfaces in an urban area increases the quantity of runoff and decreases the time it takes for peak runoff to occur. These factors can lead to increased flooding in addition to the water quality problems resulting from the pollutant load. - Hydrologic/Habitat Modification The hydrologic/habitat modification category includes a variety of changes to rivers and streams. Some of the items included here involve changing the flow characteristics by construction or operation of a dam. Another important item is destabilization of streambanks which leads to erosion and sediment problems. Removal of riparian vegetation can increase water IV-2 temperatures in a stream which may have an effect on fish sur- vival. Changing land use patterns within the watershed can result. in increased runoff and lead to streambank erosion problems. Land Disposal Land disposal of solid wastes and wastewater can result in the contamination of groundwater and may eventually affect surface waters. The most-common problem sources within this category are landfills, abandoned hazardous waste sites and on-site wastewater disposal systems. The Assessment Report identifies on-site syste .ms as the most evenly distributed problem source among all source categories found across the state. Leaks, Spills and Accidents This category is primarily a groundwater concern although some surface waterbodies have-also been affected. Petroleum products were originally the focus of concern in this category. The Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) now regulates the storage and handling of most hazardous materials. Resource Extraction/Exnloration/Development Sand and gravel mining as well as oil and gas well fields are the most significant sources in this category. Sand and gravel operations account for 85% of the mining in the state. Most of the oil and gas well fields are located in the western and central parts of the state. Silviculture Forest harvesting activities affect a small percentage of the total acreage of woodland in New York each year. However, water quality problems due to sediment and thermal stress can result if proper techniques are not followed. Improper landing locations, poor logging road construction techniques and logging adjacent to streams can result in water quality problems. Roadbank Erosion Erosion from unvegetated ditches along state, county and local roads is believed to be a significant source of sediment during pring runoff each year. Many highway departments clean ditches in the fall, leaving no time to reestablish vegetation before s winter. Spring runoff then results in significant erosion. Storage and Application of Deicing Agents Road salt storage piles. have been responsible for contamination of groundwater in many locations across the state. Application of salt is regarded as a potential problem in many IV-3 areas. Road sanding has been identified as a problem on a number of streams in the Adirondack Mountain area. B'. Pollutants and Their Effects Pollution from nonpoint sources generally occurs during hydrologic events, such as"rainfall or snowmelt, or under heavy wind conditions. The pollutants are usually transported during these events, although some sources, such as failing on-site septic systems or contaminated sediments, can deliver pollutants at any time. Pollutants 'dissolved in runoff are generally more biologically available in waterbodies than sediment-based fractions and thus are potentially more damaging. Table IV-1 is a summary of common nonpoin't source pollutants and a description of some of their effects. C. Control Options Government programs that can be used to control nonpoint source pollution use one or more of the following control options to accomplish program goals. 1. Planning Programs that address nonpoint source pollution through planning can focus on statewide or local (watershed) issues. Planning, in this context, includes such activities as inventory, assessment and monitoring. It also includes any activities used to develop Management Practices and to develop the institutional mechanisms to facilitate and ensure their delivery when and where needed. 2. Regulatory Programs Regulatory programs can- also be either statewide or watershed-based. An example of the latter would be watershed rules and regulations developed and enforced locally. Regulations could apply to the use of land or activities upon the land. They can also apply to the handling, use and storage of specific substances, such as petroleum products or pesticides. Regulations can also be used to control discharges or waste disposal onto land or into surface or groundwaters. The federal government can use regulatory authority by controlling or banning an activity. This will be u sed particularly for interstate commerce issues. 3. Direct Government Action An agency of a federal, state or local government can decide to act directly to prevent or remedy a nonpoint source problem. Examples of such actions include removing contamination, building IV-4 01 Table IV-1 Suminary of Nonpoint Source Pollution Effects Sediment Sediment may destroy fish habitat through blanketing of fish spawning and feeding areas and elimination of certain food organisms; directly impact fish through gill abrasion and fin rot, and reduce sunlight penetration, thereby impairing photosynthesis of aquatic plants. Suspended sediment decreases recreational values, reduces fishery habitat, adds to the mechanical wear of Water supply pumps and distribution systems, and adds to treatment costs for water supplies. Nutrients and toxic substances attached to sediment par@cles are transported to waterbodies and may enter aquatic food chains, cause fish toxicity problems, impair recreational uses, or degrade the water as a drinking water source. Thermal Stress Elevated stream temperatures can exceed fish tolerance limits, reducing survival and lowering disease resistance. Cold water fish (such as trout) may be eliminated or the habitat may become marginally supportive of the fishery. Nutrient (phosphorus and nitrogen) enrichment of surface waters may cause excessive algae and aquatic plant growth, choking open waters and consuming oxygen (mainly through plant die-off). Fish and aquatic organisms, recreational values, and the use of the resource for water supply are thereby impacted. Nitrogen contamination of drinking water significantly above the drinking water standard may cause methoglobinenia (a blood disease) in infants and cattle, and has forced closure of several wa!e, supplies (primarily wells). Oxygen-Demanding Substa2ces Organic materials may enter surface waters dissoNed or suspended in runoff. Natural decomposition of these materia!s may deplete dissolved oxygen supplies in the surface waters. Dissolved oxygen (DO) may be reduced to below the threshold necessary to maintain aquatic life, impairing or killing fish and other aquatic biota. Toxic Substances Toxic chemicals may enter surface waters either dissolved in runoff or attached to sediment or organic materials, and may enter groundwaters through soil infiltration. The principal concerns in surface waters are their entry into the food chain, bioaccumulation, toxic effects on fish, wildlife and microorganisms, habitat degradation, and potential degradation of public water supply sources. The groundwater impacts are primarily related to water supply sources. Pathogens Bacteria and viruses include infectious agents and disease,producing organisms, normally associated with lum In and animal wastes. The principal concerns are the survival and transmission of such organisms and their impacts on drinking water supplies, shellfish, contact recreational waters, and fish and wildlife or domestic animals. IV-5 control structures or changing water flow. Dredging contaminated sediments or drilling and pumping a diversion well are specific activities that a government might undertake if circumstances warranted. 4. Financial Incentives Financial incentives include direct grants, low or no-interest loans, tax breaks, cost-sharing and cross-compliance between programs. Some of the programs listed in the Assessment Report provide full or partial funding for specific activities, usually at the local level. 5. Research and Demonstration Proiects Some of the programs listed promote research and demonstration projects. These projects typically will show how a certain land use practice or series of practices can reduce pollutant loadings from nonpoint sources. Demonstration projects can be designed to test the effectiveness of promising practices in real-world applications, to gain experience with design parameters of- new practices and/or to attract attention to new practices. Such projects may focus on a specific source category, such as manure spreading or landfill leachate. They may measure the effectiveness of certain control measures, such as planting vegetative buffer strips or using a new impermeable material to line landfills. Projects may also be tailored to specific watersheds. 6. Technology Transfer Although "technology transfer" is a type of education, it is considered to be a distinct enough activity to have its own category in this report. Technology transfer implies a narrowly-targeted audience which will utilize or directly apply the technology. It can be broken into two categories: technical assistance and professional training. Technical assistance is working directly with a landowner, a planning board, or a land user to implement management practices which will resolve an identified problem. Technical assistance is site-specific and accounts for site conditions. Professional training is commonly used to help professionals better perform as technical assistants. It is more general in nature focusing on advantages and -disadvantages of practices but not on specific sites. 7. Education Education programs to address nonpoint source pollution include any material provided as school (K-12) curriculum, or targeted for children of school age through organizations such as Scouts or 4-H. It includes any general pre-profession'al training offered in colleges and"universities. Also in this category are the full range of continuing education courses of long or short IV-6 duration offered to adults through institutions such as high schools, BOCES or Cornell Cooperative Extension System.. Public information and public awareness activities are included as education programs. Examples are publications, radio or television publ ic service announcements, slide/video shows and events such as DEC's Water Week. D. Existing and Needed Nonpoint Source Control Programs The Assessment Report listed 58 programs that have a role in the control of nonpoint source pollution in New York. Some of these programs have water quality as their primary focus while for others, water quality improvement is a secondary benefit. Several additional programs that were previously overlooked were identified during the development of the management program. These programs are described in the sections dealing with specific source categories. It is assumed that all existi ng programs will continue to contribute to controlling nonpoint source pollution. The management program will build on these existing efforts. In some cases, expansion or redirection of existing programs will be recommended, while in others new programs will be needed. The remainder of th is chapter will provide a basic plan for controlling nonpoint source pollution in New York. The additional program needs will be divided into two categories based on whether or not legal authority exists to carry out the recommendations. The recommendations which use existing. legal authority can be implemented in the short term while those that require legislative action should be considered long-term goals. The fir st section will deal with program recommendations that do not apply to any specific source category. These are general activities related to problem inventories, watershed planning and educational activities. Remaining sections will each address a specific source category. Source categories are listed in alphabetical order. For each category, there will be an assessment of the source and its effects on water quality in New York, a brief description of existing Programs that address the source., and a list of additional program needs. 1. General Management Activities a. Assessment of Source A fundamental activity within the overall management approach for nonpoint sources is assessing the sources or origins of their water quality effects. The Assessment Report provides listings which demonstrate the extent of nonpoint source pollution across the state. More than 80% of the impaired waterbodies in New York are impacted by nonpoint sources. More specific discussions of the IV-7 effects of particular source categories will be contained in the sections which deal with those sources. b. Current Programs to Control Source All of the programs listed in the Assessment Report are.part of the effort to control nonpoint source pollution. This section will discuss the programs which address a number of different categories of sources. Some of these are monitoring programs that measure water quality without regard to source. Others are regulatory-programs which can apply to several nonpoint sources. The Division of Water has several programs which assess water quality through monitoring and mapping. The Rotating Intensive Basin Studies and Intensive Stream Surveys are both monitoring efforts which identify water quality problems. The Groundwater Mapping Program identifies vulnerability of aquifers to pollutants and their sources. The Citizen's Lake Assessment Program i s jointly administered by the Division of Water and the N.Y. Federation of Lake Associations. It involves routine water quality sampling of lakes to build baseline data and to identify lake problems. The Lake Classifications Inventory samples lakes and classifies them according to trophic status. The Adirondack Lake Survey Corporation monitors the changes in pH and productivity brought about by acid precipitation. There are several planning programs that deal with water quality in specific regions. These programs will identify the water quality impacts of all sources, both point and nonpoint * The National Estuary Programs for Long Island Sound and the New York-New Jersey Harbor are efforts initiated to meet requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act. The Great Lakes basin is another area which is being studied intensively. Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) are being developed for areas of concern within the basin. These plans will identify measures to control existing sources and may recommend treatment measures. In addition to the RAPs, toxic management plans are being developed for Lake Ontario and the Niagara River. A phosphorus reduction strategy is another initiative in the Great Lakes basin. This strategy was developed to meet target phosphorus loads established for Lakes Erie and Ontario by 1990. some of the regulatory programs identified in the Assessment Report are designed to protect resources without regard to a particular category of nonpoint source. Several of these programs deal directly with water quality while others regulate land usage in a manner which will, have water quality benefits. The programs that address water quality directly will be listed first. The Stream Reclassification Program of the Division of Water is updating water use classifications for waterbodies across the state. The Shellfish Land Certification Program classifies waters IV-8 as to whether they are certified for harvesting shellfish. The Division of Marine Resources administers this program. The PYS Department of Health's Public Water Supply Program is responsible for the safety of public drinking water supplies. in assuring the delivery of potable water, they are concerned about any activities within a watershed that could adversely' affect drinking water quality. In cases where watershed rules and regulations have been adopted, DOH has regulatory controls over activities within the watershed. There are several general regulatory programs which focus on land usage. Most of these have limited geographic applicability. The one program which applies statewide is the SEQR process. it is part of both regulatory and planning processes. It ensures that all state and local government agencies will assess the environmental impacts of any action that they take or approve. The other programs apply to specific geographic areas. The Adirondack Park Agency (APA) has a variety of programs which regulate land usage within the Adirondack Park. One of the programs administered by the APA in the Park is the Wild and Scenic Rivers Program. This program protects outstanding rivers and their corridors by activities that would have an adverse impact on the river. DEC administers the programs along designated rivers outside the Adirondack Park. The Delaware River Basin Commission and the Susquehanna River Basin Commission have regulatory authority in the area of water resources management within the entire river drainage areas. Another program which uses the regulatory approach and addresses all nonpoint sources in certain areas is the NYS Department of State's Coastal Management Program. Within the coastal area boundary, including the marine district, the Hudson River and the Great Lakes, local government's waterfront revitalization programs regulate land, usage and require tMPs to mitigate nonpoint source problems. However, the local government must have an approved program before this authority can be used to regulate land usage. There are other programs which address a number of nonpoint sources and use a variety of control options. The Clean Lakes Program is administered by the Division of Water. It includes planning, education, technical and financial assistance for both remedial and preventive programs around a lake. The Water Resources Institute at Cornell University uses planning, education and technology transfer to address the full range of nonpoint sources. Soil and Water Conservation Districts focus on a variety of nonpoint source categories. The,program in each county is adapted to meet local needs. While agriculture is the primary source addressed in most counties, all districts deal with other sources IV-9 as well. Thirty-four districts are now involved in urban erosion and sediment control. In response to a particular need in their counties, many districts have developed programs to deal with specific nonpoint sources. Examples of source programs include stream corridor management (Rensselaer County), stormwater management (Westchester County), and on-site sewage disposal (Delaware County). The Nonpoint Source Water, Pollution Control Program, established by Chapter 436 of New York State Laws of 1989 (see Appendix C) includes planning activities and financial incentives. DEC is required to identify waterbodies affected by nonpoint source pollution and list the categories of sources that are causing the most problems. This inventory must be updated at least every 5 years. The law also includes provisions for a cost-sharing program to.address problems caused by non-agricultural nonpoint sources. A separate cost-sharing program, administered by the State Soil and Water Conservation Committee, is available for agricultural sources. The law also amends the'Soil. and Water Conservation District Law to include the control and abatement of nonpoint sources of pollution in the District's responsibilities. c. Additional Program Needs Some of the activities that will be required to address nonpoint source pollution in New York do not apply to any. one source category. These activities are related to program planning and oversight. They include assessing the condition of the water resource and problems affecting the resource, providing overall program direction and oversight, and developing programs for the general Protection of the resource. Recommendations Using Existing Authority 1. The assessment of waterbodies and groundwater affected by nonpoint source pollution must be updated periodically. An initial update of the assessment of surface waterbodies is being conducted using the procedure described in Chapter II. Recommendations for updating the groundwater inventory are also given in Chapter II. 2. Using information obtained from the updated assessments, corrective plans should be developed for watersheds with significant problems. These plans should consider the effects of all sources (including point sources) present within the watershed. The plans should include all steps needed in the analysis of a watershed. The analysis begins with monitoring to confirm problem sources and ends with documenting improved water quality from implementation of control practices. The watershed planning process is described in Chapter V of this IV-10 report. A document which details the process described in Chapter V is needed to guide agencies through the process. One caveat to be observed in identifying watersheds for planning is that some waters 'are adversely affected by sources well beyond their drainage boundaries (such as those affected by atmospheric deposition). 3. The standard methodology for watershed planning and analysis described above should be tested through a research/demonstration project on a waterbody impaired by nonpoint sources. 4. The principal method *for preventing or remediating nonpoint source pollution is employing "best management practices." A list of approved management practices should be established and distributed using the procedure described in Chapter IV of the Assessment Report. A catalogue of approved management practices will be prepared for each significant nonpoint source category. IlBest" management practices will be selected from this approved listing as part. of the watershed. planning process described in Chapter V of this report. 5. The state cost-sharing program established in the 1989 nonpoint source water pollution control law would provide financial assistance for the implementation of best management practices 'to control nonpoint sources where they are causing water quality problems. The law gives DEC and the State Soil and Water.Consetvation Committee the authority to promulgate regulations to implement this program. These regulations should be developed. 6. Increased educational efforts are needed to make the public aware of the impacts on water quality caused by various nonpoint sources. Both general initiatives and targeted programs are required. The general initiatives * will be designed to make the public aware of the extent of problems caused by nonpoint sources. For some sources, specific groups such as local government officials will be the primary audience. More details on these situations will be discussed in the sections which concentrate on the specific source categories. There are several agencies who should have an active role in these efforts. DEC should provide overall coordination for the program to assure that efforts are consistent with the management program. An entity with expertise in community outreach activities such as the Cornell Cooperative Extension System and the New York State Water Resources Institute might handle the development and implementation of the program. IV-11 7. A targeted education initiative aimed at local official S is needed to make them aware of the role of local government in protecting and preserving water resources and the control options available to them. Water quality management principles should be factored into local zoning, land use and site plan review decisions. Consideration. should be given to using watershed rules and regulations to protect critical watersheds. A manual that outlines the control options and explains how they can be incorporated in local planning effort's is needed. 8. Another educational program need is an information clearinghouse. This clearinghouse would collect reports on nonpoint source research, demonstration and implementation projects around the state. The information would then be readily available to people in a position to use it. The Water Resource Institute might be the best agency to implement this recommendation. 9. There are a number of existing programs administered by federal, state and local agencies which provide the basis for any efforts to control nonpoint source pollution. DEC should provide overall program oversight and coordination for the nonpoint source program through the establishment of defined coordination links with key agencies. Where appropriate, Memorandums of Understanding between DEC and other agencies should be developed to, coordinate water quality improvement efforts. The MOUs will help set direction for targeting of cost-sharing funds as well as technical assistance, technology transfer and educational efforts to solve documented water quality problems. 10. As stated in the January, 1989 Water Resources Managenent Strategy, water supply sources should be protected through watershed rules and regulations. 11. A technology transfer program should be developed to provide, where needed, water quality training to staff of county agencies that are involved in the control of nonpoint source pollution. 12. A planning effort is needed to develop a procedure for counties to use in preparing a county water quality strategy. A list of the agencies and groups that might be involved in preparing the strategy and a list of factors to be considered in establishing county priorities among identified waterbodies should be included in this guidance. IV-12 2. Agriculture a. Assessment of Source Nearly . one-third of New York's land area is devoted to agriculture with approximately 5.8 million acres used as cropland. The extent and.intensity of this major land use leads to concern about agriculture's contribution to, nonpoint source pollution. Agricultural operations and land resources are highly visible. Agricultural activities often include soil disturbance in preparation for planting, fertilizer and pesticide applications, concentrated animal populations and animal waste storage and disposal. Water quality problems generally arise when improper management and/or inappropriate land uses are part of the agricultural operation. Inthese instances sediment, nutrients, and pathogens as well as organic and inorganic materials may migrate from the farm into surface and ground waters where they may have an adverse impact. Agricultural nonpoint sources are generally associated with the detachment and subsequent movement of soil particles by water or wind or the direct transport of dissolved agricultural pesticides and nutrients by runoff to surface waters or infiltration to groundwater.. Therefore, agricultural nonpoint sources are generally associated with hydrologic events, rainfall and/or snowmelt, or heavy wind conditions. Agricultural nonpoint source pollutants include soil erosion, nutrients, pathogens and oxygen demanding substances. Areas of animal concentrations including overgrazed areas can contribute nutrients, organic matter, ammonia and pathogens. Removal of riparian vegetation and unrestricted livestock access to streams can result in increased streambank erosion as well as increases in stream water temperature which adversely affects fish survival and propagation. It is difficult to estimate the extent to which New York agriculture or other nonpoint sources causes impairment of the state's waters because a consistent statewide evaluation has never been ilone. However, there appears to be potential for adverse impacts on water quality from agriculture since it involves the use of so much land. There are known waterbody impairments resulting from agricultural activities and numerous research studies link agricultural land use to increased levels of some contaminants. The Nonpoint Source Assessment Report indicates that, in New York, lakes. and impoundments are more likely affected by agricultural nonpoint sources than streams or rivers. This is logical since these waterbodies are often the depositories for the sediment, nutrients, organic matter and chemicals lost from agricultural land. Furthermore, lakes and impoundments more IV-1 3 readily manifest the consequences of these. contaminants, regardless of the source. The PWP includes 22 segments across the state where agriculture is the primary source of impairment. The Assessment Report listed 31 segments with perceived agricultural nonpoint source impacts from the 10 counties included in the pilot assessment conducted by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and the NYS Soil & Water Conservation Committee. The latter number would indicate that the number of segments perceived to be affected by agricultural sources will increase as the assessment is updated. b. Current Program to Control Source Techni cally, there are few existing agricultural programs which directly focus on the control of nonpoint sources of pollution. There are a variety of programs administered by several local, state and federal agencies whose objective is to conserve and manage the soil and water resources. In many cases these programs do have a secondary benefit of improved water quality because of the nature of agricultural NPS contamination. Programs currently available include financial incentives, technical assistance, technology transfer and education. These programs are administered by: Federal: United States Department of Agriculture - Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) United States Department of Agriculture - soil Conservation Service (SCS) United States Department of Agriculture - Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) United States Department of Agriculture - Extension State: Service (USDA-ES)) New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets (A&M) New York State Soil and Water Conservation Committee (SS&WCC) Cornell University, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, and New York Water Resources Institute (WRI) IV-14 Local: County Soil & Water Conservation Districts (SWCD) County programs of the Cornell Cooperative Extension System (CCES) County Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Committees The programs offered by these agencies generally operate on a voluntary basis. Although staff may perform outreach activities to encourage- participation, it is the individual farmer's decision whether or not to participate. Federal initiatives to control agricultural nonpoint sources of pollution are primarily financial incentives. USDA-ASCS administers the Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP). The program helps solve soil and water resource problems. through cost-share assistance. Included in the ACP is a national water quality special project program. Through this special program, local ASCS Committees are encouraged to prepare requests for additional financial and technical assistance to carry out programs to improve water quality in identified problem areas. The USDA-SCS includes land treatment alternatives in P. L. 83-5661 the Small Watershed Protection Act, to provide for increased technical and financial assistance to farmers within watersheds with identified agricultural ly-related water quality problems. I USDA's Chesapeake Bay program operates through increased technical-and financial assistance and increased public awareness. Most of these efforts focus on agricultural activities and can be used in the Susquehanna and Chemung Basins of New York. Other federal initiatives which are not targeted toward but which have side benefits of improved water quality focus on conservation of the soil resource base through technical and financial assistance for soil conservation management practices. The framework of this program is the Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) administered by the ASCS which provides financial assistance and the Conservation operations program of the SCS which provides technical assistance to plan and install the necessary control measures. This work is done in conjunction with local Soil and Water Conservation Districts. Taking direction from the Resources Conservation Act (P.L. 95-192), SCS has identified protection of the quality of ground and surface water from nonpoint sources as the agency's second priority. The first priority is to reduce the damage caused by IV-15 excessive soil erosion of rural lands. As a re sult of these priorities, SCS has adopted a water quality policy which states, "The Soil Conservation Service will integrate water quality concepts, considerations, and management *techniques into appropriate programs." Furthermore, SCS has developed an action plan. which integrates water quality into the Conservation Operations Program. This includes providing the information, tools and training required by SCS field personnel to implement this policy. Congress introduced the concept of "conservation compliance" to the USDA through the Food Security Act of 1985. This Act contains provisions that link eligibility for most USDA agricultural program benefits and commodity payments to proper land management. This voluntary program requires fa rmers to reduce soil erosion to an acceptable level in order to remain eligible for most USDA program benefits. The primary provisions, called "sod-buster" and "swamp-buster", discourage the conversionof highly erodible lands and wetlands to cropland. Although the focus of the Food Security Act is not NPS reduction,, the soil erosion control provision can provide water quality benefits. The Food Security Act of 1985 also established the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) to reduce the amount of highly erodible land already in production. The CRP allows a farmer to enter into a contract with USDA to establish permanent vegetative cover on highly erodible cropland currently under cultivation. In return for the loss of the land's crop production, the farmer receives rental payments from USDA. The CRP has recently been amended to allow farmers to install vegetated buffer strips of land along streams under the program. These replace vegetative cover on streambanks, thereby reducing the delivery of NPS contaminants in runoff to the stream. In 1988, CRP was amended again to allow farmers to enter "scour erosion" and wetland areas into the program. Scour erosion areas are cropland areas within a floodplain which are regularly eroded by flood waters. Wetlands must have previously been under cultivation. State programs for the control of agricultural NPS are predominantly technology transfer programs, with the exception of the Pesticide Management Program administered by DEC. Under this program, DEC registers pesticides, certifies applicators, and conducts inspections of pesticide applications. Authority for the Pesticide Management Program is contained in the Environmental Conservation Law. Many technology transfer programs identified in the Assessment Report are administered by DEC. Programs such at the Great Lakes Phosphorus Reduction Plan, the Stream Corridor Management Program and the Stream Habitat Improvement Program all attempt to convince farmers to modify their practice in a manner that will reduce IV-16 nonpoint source pollution. Many of the programs are locally sponsored by Soil and Water Conservation Districts. The groundwater program uses the planning option in studying the effects of pesticides and fertilizers on groundwater. Chapter 436 of the New York State Laws of 1989 (see Appendix C) amends soil and water conservation districts law to include the improvement of water quality and the control of nonpoint sources of water pollution in the areas of concern for districts. The law establishes a matching grant program to implement agricultural nonpoint source abatement and control projects. . The grant program will be administered by the State Soil and Water Conservation Committee. Projects must be located in the watershed of waterbodies identified by DEC as being affected by nonpoint source pollution. The Water Resources. Institute at Cornell University operates state and federally funded programs using education and technology transfer options. The Institute has conducted a grants program, primarily within Cornell and Cornell Cooperative Extension, to fund water quality research and demonstration projects, including public education programs. They also have sponsored conferences, short courses and workshops on water quality management. The Institute has also frequently served as a vehicle for catalyzing Cornell University faculty involvement in research, education, and technology.transfer related to New York's water problems. The Cornell Cooperative Extension Systenand County Soil and Water Conservation Districts also play a key role in nonpoint source water quality management. Both are administered at the state level -- by Cornell and the New York Sta 'te Soil and Water Conservation Committees, respectively -- but are implemented at the county level. Both have extensive program delivery networks and use technology transfer and direct technical assistance as the primary control options. One of the key technology transfer programs of the Cooperative Extension is to disseminate the principles of integrated pest management (IPM). The goal of IPM is to achieve acceptable pest control with a minimal use of chemical pesticides. The Cooperative Extension also sponsors educational programs while the Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD) administer some financial incentive programs. The SWCDs also administer a provision of the New York Soil and Water Conservation District Law that requires farms 25 acres or larger to have a conservation Plan which includes management practices to reduce soil erosion. Implementation of the plan,however, is purely voluntary. All these programs have benefited water quality, although there is no way to accurately measure how much. An estimated 90% of New York farms have conservation plans, but a much lower IV-17 percentage are carrying out management practices. The Food Security Act of 1985 will encourage farmers to implement management practices on cropland. Through September 1989, a total of 50,500 acres of highly erodible cropland has been placed under contract through the conservation reserve program in New York. c. Additional Program Needs Present federal and state programs to control nonpoint source pollution from agricultural sources utilize both technical assistance and financial incentives. The programs are predominately voluntary. Technical assistance is available through SCS and Soil and Water Conservation Districts to all land users to help. resolve natural resource problems. . Recent SCS policy directs consideration of water quality concerns in this program. Financial assistance is available to all land users through a variety of programs administered by-ASCS, FmHA and SCS. The Food Security Act of 1985, however, introduced the "conservation compliance" provision which links eligibility for USDA program benefits and commodity programs to proper land management. The program is still voluntary since the farmer may choose to not receive government assistance. Most current federal technical and financial programs do not focus on water quality. They are available to all agricultural operators regardless of their proximity to water quality problem areas. There are two federal programs which do target problem areas: the ASCS national water quality special projects and the SCS land treatment watershed projects described earlier in this chapter.. Limited federal funding, however, restricts the widespread use of these programs. It is unlikely that present programs by themselves will be effective in successfully implementing management practices to control agricultural nonpoint sources. Other control options including some which may require new authority are needed. Recommendations Using Existing Authority 1. At the state level, p 1 anning' programs should investigate mechanisms to minimize the impact of agriculture on water quality. The planning efforts should concentrate on source subcategories which have been identified as causing significant problems. Development.of management practices and investigation of other control options to address these subcategories should receive priority. 2. Research projects are needed to examine commonly used soil and water conservation practices. The studies should consider the, effect of the practices on all aspects of nonpoint source pollution including the movement of contaminants into groundwater and surface IV-18 waters and the effects of such practices on groundwater quality. 3. The feasibility of low-input or low-intensity agriculture should also be investigated through research and demonstration projects. Low-input agriculture consists of minimal fertilizer input, optimal crop rotations, grasslands management . and extensive use of Integrated Pest Management. 4. Another state level research effort needed is to study the long-term water quality benefits of land remaining in agricultural use instead of being developed. Realistic approaches for agricultural land use preservation should be recommended if it is determined to be desirable. 5. Farm .level planning should consist of comprehensive agricultural. operation plans that address both macro and micro water quality concerns. The plans must go beyond soil erosion practices and identify management practices that control the availability and transport of sediment, nutrients and agricultural chemicals. Commonly used soil erosion management practices must be examined for their effect on all aspects of nonpoint source pollution including the movement of contaminants into groundwater. Existing laws can be used to encourage the integration of water quality concerns into farm conservation plans prepared for all agricultural operations in excess of 2.5 acres. 6. Memorandums of understanding between DEC and federal agencies that administer financial incentive programs should be developed. These MOUs should require that water quality problems be considered in selection . of projects to receive money. 7. Existing programs which provide technical assistance to farmers for addressing water quality problems should be expanded. Additional field personnel, trained to integrate water quality concepts in the application of management practices, are needed. The expertise required to go through the watershed planning process will have to be developed at the local level. 8. More technology transfer and education programs are needed to address management of animal waste related to the dairy industry. A considerable body of knowledge has been accumulated at Cornell University through recent research projects, but needs to be disseminated to farmers for practical application. Management practices available include manure spreading schedules, barnyard runoff controls,, manure/ tillage systems and others. IV-19 9. Educational programs to make farmers and landusers aware of water quality problems which can result from improper land management are needed. The goal should be to increase the awareness of the plant/soil/water relationships which control the driving mechanism for nonpoint source pollution. Recommendations Which Will Recruire New Authority 10. State level use of the concept of cross-compliance should be investigated, including the feasibility of utilizing the Agricultural Districts Law, the Agricultural Assessment Law and the Farm Planning Law. Eligibility for property tax relief could be tied to implementation of the farm plan. Eligibility for cost-share assistance and/or income tax credits could also be used to encourage compliance. 11. Alternatives to voluntary participation in conservation programs should be explored. Some form of regulation, incentives or disincentives can be used to encourage identified polluters to install necessary practices. While cost-sharing and technical assist.ance would be available to implement farm plans on farms that are identified as polluters, a system must be in place . to assure that the plan is followed. Incentives in the form of tax deductions or credits. should be considered to encourage farmers to implement their farm plans. Penalties in the form of fines could also be considered. 12. It has been reported that the Federal Farm Bill will be amended in 1990. The new bill should include an emphasis on water quality concerns. 3. Atmospheric Deposition a. Assessment of Source Atmospheric deposition is recognized as a major nonpoint source of pollution. Acid rain is the most well known form of atmospheric deposition, but there are other aspects of the problem that are equally damaging. Deposition occurs during all forms of precipitation and even occurs as dustfall on sunny days. Pollutants released to the air will eventually fall back to earth. The pollutants are deposited an the landscape and then carried to waterbodies during runoff events. The Handbook of Nonpoint Pollution, by Vladimir Novotny . and Gordon Chesters, categorizes.the sources of atmospheric pollution as point source (i 'ndustrial and power plant stacks), diffuse sources (urban are as, landfills, agricultural fields), and line IV-20 sources (highways). Generally, the magnitude of deposition is directly proportional to the distance from the source. For example, lead deposits from auto exhaust are almost all deposited within several hundred feet of the-highway. However, the practice of building taller stacks has caused the effects of point sources to be spread through a broader area. Precipitation causes gases, aerosols and large particles to be removed from the atmosphere and deposited on the surface. Pollutants contained in precipitation may include acidity, toxic materials, organic chemicals, phosphates and nitrogen compounds. Dry fallout is of significance only during times between precipitation 'events, but in some cases the overall,loadings have been found to be on the same order of magnitude as wet fallout.* b. Current Programs to Control Source The problem of acid rain largely originates from pollutants emitted into the air when fossil fuel is burned. The primary pollutants are sulfur oxides which combine with water to form sulfuric acid, and nitrogen oxides which combine with water to form nitric acid. The oxidation reaction is aided by metallic catalysts such as iron and manganese oxides which are commonly present in the fly ash emitted during the burning process. Acid rain results in lower pH and higher levels of aluminum in surface waterbodies. The aluminum is leached from soil and sediments by low pH water. The higher aluminum levels cause fish to produce excess mucus which clogs their gills and causes their death. The entire ecosystem can be affected by acid rain. The sensitiv,ity to acidic conditions varies among different animals and plants. In the most severe cases mortality and reproductive failure among certain fish are experienced. Impacts May be in the form of reduced food supply or death of newly hatched fry, the stage most sensitive for fish species. Acid rain has been listed as the primary source of impairment on 398 waterbodies within the Black, St. Lawrence, Lake Champlain, Upper Hudson and Mohawk basins. Recent information indicates that waterbodies within the Catskill Park and in higher elevations in southeastern New York are also affected by acid rain. Atmospheric deposition has been shown to be a significant source of pollutants in urban, areas as well. It contributes pollutants to many of the 70 segments on the PWP list that are impaired due to urban runoff. NURP studies indicate that urban runoff problems are probably more widespread than the PWP list Novotny, V. and G. Chesters, Handbook of Nonpoint Pollution, 1981, p. 137. IV-21 indicates. They also suggest that atmospheric deposition is a major pollutant source in urban areas. There are several programs presently operating in New York which address atmospheric deposition. All operate at the state level. However, to achieve long-term success, stronger federal programs will be required, not only for acid rain but for other forms of atmospheric deposition as well. The most direct control program to address acid rain is the Acid Deposition Control Program operated by the Division of Air' in DEC. It is a regulatory program designed to reduce the state's contribution to acidic deposition. The program issues permits for discharges and requ ires the use of sulfur content conforming fuel. The Division of Water has two programs which address acid precipitation. The Acid Rain program is a planning effort which monitors the water chemistry of four Adirondack lakes. The Clean Lakes program is a state and local program funded by the federal government. The program offers educational, planning, technical and financial assistance to correct problems in freshwater lakes. While acid precipitation is one of the sources addressed, it is not the primary focus of this program. Another planning program involves a corporation in which DEC is a major participant. A comprehensive survey of the impact of acid rain on New York's surface waters was conducted by the Adirondack Lakes Survey Corporation between 1984 and 1987. This Not-for-Profit Corporation was established in 1983 under the sponsorship of DEC and the Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation. DEC Is Division of Fish and Wildlife operates a lake. liming program on selected lakes in the Adirondacks. This program employs direct government action and is considered a management tool to help restore and protect valuable resources. There are 32 waterbodies presently included in the program. Other waterbodies may be viable candidates, but the program cannot be considered as a solution to the problem for the entire state. DEC has several programs which address atmospheric deposition by controlling substances released to the air. The Division of Air has regulatory control over point sources of air contamination in New York. The program, authorized'under Title 3 of Section 19 of ECL, requires permits from all sources except f or 25 types of contamination sources listed in the regulations. These 25 sources are exempt due to size or type of discharge. Under this program, a permit to construct -is needed before an air contamination source can be built. Information on the type, rate and. quantity of emission, as well as plans, specifications and operational information about the source must be provided. The IV-22 Division of Air reviews the application to determine whether the operation of the source will prevent the attainment or maintenance of applicable ambient air quality standards. Part 212 of 6-NYCRR establishes the degree of air cleaning required for emissions. The degree of cleaning required varies based on the emission. rate potential and the environmental rating of the pollutant. A certification to operate an air contamination source is also required. A stack test report can be mandated to assure that the actual performance conforms with the emission requirements. Failure to properly operate or maintain air cleaning equipment can result in revocation of the certificate to operate. The * Division of Air also conducts routine air monitoring through its Ambient Air Monitoring System. The air monitoring system is the basic measure of the effectiveness of the state's air pollution control program. The system is designed to measure compliance with ambient air quality standards and provide long-term air quality trend data. The Bureau of Air, Quality Surveillance prepares an annual report which provides.data summaries of most air" pollutants @ for which ambient air quality standards have been established. These include sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, total suspended particulates, inhalable particulates and lead. The Air Monitoring Network includes several special segments. The Atmospheric Deposition Monitoring Network is a special network of 17 stations used to obtain information on acidic precipitation in New York. An Air Toxics Monitoring Network is also in the initial phase of deployment across the state. Stations exist in Staten Island and on the Niagara Frontier. Ultimately, the network will consist of 20 stations. The Waste Management Institute at Cornell University conducts research programs related to solid waste management. One aspect of solid waste management being studied is combustion-based technology. Emission characteristic's and the control of toxics from incinerators are among the items being researched. Existing programs have begun to docum ent the problem and explore control options. It will not be possible to control this source b@ New York State efforts alone. Federal programs are required to control the sulfur and nitrogen emissions which originate out of state. C. Additional Program Needs As stated abovef a long-term solution to this problem will require Federal regulatory programs. New York has no control of sources outside the state and can only deal with the effects. However, documentation of the effects atmospheric deposition has IV-23 on waterbodies is needed to help convince federal officials that regulatory actions are needed. Recommendations Using Existing Authority 1 . Long-term monitoring and assessment of waters to document the impacts of atmospheric deposition is- needed. Numerous models have been developed to demonstrate the impacts of this,source but monitoring data is needed to determine the validity of the models. 2. Research and demonstration projects should be conducted to explore possible mitigation measures for waterbodies affected by acid rain. Projects should include documentation of the effectiveness of the measures employed. 3. Additional research on the impacts of. atmospheric deposition on waterbodies in urban areas is needed. Recomnendations Which Will Require New Authority, 4. Federal legislation which provides additional regulatory controls over precursors is required to control out-of-state sources. -4. construction a. Assessment of,Source Construction shares the characteristic with most other nonpoint sources of generating pollutants during runoff and. wind events. It also is a transitional land use, disturbing the'land surface and creating a vulnerability to erosion and the production of sediment for a period of.time. This discussion will be limited to the immediate impacts of construction activities. The long-term effects on stormwater runoff by the building, road, parking lot, etc. , constructed will be addressed in the section on urban runoff. Soil erosion from sites disturbed by construction activities can have a serious impact on water quality. Studies have shown that rates of erosion from construction sites are among the highest of any source category. During transport, sediment can increase turbidity in waterbodies, affecting aquatic life through abrasion and.reduced light penetration. Water supply uses can also be affected through increased treatment costs. As a result of sediment deposition, aquatic habitats can be blanketed, capacities of hydraulic structures decreased, and navigational uses affected. The pollutants associated with the construction category include the soil particles and the substances attached to the individual particles. Nutrients and toxic substances attached to IV-24 sediments can-become dissolved in the water column and enter the aquatic food chain, leading to problems other than those caused by the sediment. A nutrient source associated with construction may be over- f ertil izat ion in an attempt to establish grass on disturbed areas. Poor housekeeping and spills around construction sites can lead to toxics entering the water. Construction is noted on the priority water problem list as a secondary source for five segments. From the pilot assessment surveys and USDA-SCS lists, construction is the primary source for three segments and a less significant source for 21 others. Streams and lakes affected are about equal in number. While the affected water bodies were distributed around the state, Albany and Rensselaer counties have higher proportionate numbers. This may result from the level of land development activity in those counties compared to other counties surveyed in the pilot assessment program. b. Current Programs to Control Source There are a number of existing programs which assist in the control.of nonpoint source pollution from construction. Programs exist at all levels of government but the primary activities are at the state and local levels. Most of the programs use either the regulatory approach or technology transfer. At the federal level, there are several programs which deal construction. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to issue dredge and fill permits for activities which affect- navigable waters. A state water quality certification as specified in section 401 is needed before the permit can be issued. The Water Quality Act of 1987 requires states to phase in a program to regulate stormwater discharges from certain size municipalities and from industrial activities. Construction is listed as one of the regulated industrial activities. EPA is developing regulations to implement this permit program. Based on the provisions of the law, construction projects are to be permitted by February 1991. The Conservation operations Program in USDA's Soil Conservation Service (SCS) assists landowners and other units of government through -technical assistance. The Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) program is delivered through local conservation districts. The SCS CTA, program was authorized to control or prevent soil erosion and for the preservation of natural resources. , Another technical assistance' effort in which SCS has a significant role involves erosion and sediment control guidelines. These guidelines were prepared by a committee of federal and state, agencies and private organizations. SCS chaired the development committee. The guidelines contain a set of 38 IV-25 standards and specifications for vegetative and structural management practices to control off-site sediment damage from construction activities. ' They were compiled into a handbook entitled, "New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control". The Empire State Chapter of the Soil and Water Conservation Society published this handbook and is responsible for distribution.. The book is distributed both directly through Society members and by county Soil and Water Conservation Districts.' I In conjunction with distribution, many Districts have sponsored public training sessions to educate contractors, engineers, and planning board members on the use of the "Guide". As of March 1989, the SCS State Conservation Engineer had provided or scheduled training sessions in over 30 counties. In addition, SCS provided training to the Land Improvement Contractors Association and to the New York Planning Federation. State programs in the Department of Environmental Conservation tend to be targeted at protecting specific habitats or sensitive lands. Freshwater Wetlands Protection, Stream Protection, Tidal Wetlands, and Wild and Scenic Rivers are all regulatory in nature and are limited in application to designated areas of concern. Permits are required for any construction activity which will affect one of the designated areas. Control measures such as silt barriers are required to prevent adverse impacts. The SEQR process requires environmental impact reviews on all construction projects that could have a significant effect on the environment. Where the proposal is determined to have significant impacts, mitigative measures are proposed in the environmental impact statement. There is an opportunity to address the long-term runoff impacts of a project through the SEQR process, but that aspect will be addressed in the urban runoff section. The Division of Wat *er is preparing guidelines for Regional staff use in reviewing projects for erosion and sediment control. The guidance will be issued in 1990 as one of the Division's Technical and operational Guidance (TOGS) memos. the TOGS will call for use of the Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control published by the NY Soil and Water Conservation Society. The Department of State and the Department of Transportation have programs which address construction. The Coastal Management Program in the Department of State controls pollution from construction activities as part of the waterfront revitalization programs. The Department of Transportation employs source controls in its construction contracts by.requiring erosion and sediment controls. Since control requirements are part of the contracts, this program can be regarded as regulatory. The Adirondack Park Agency has several programs which regulate construction in the park. IV-26 The only local programs identified in the Assessment Report are one unique to the .New York City Reservoir watersheds and one which operates in -all counties outside of New York City. The City uses a regulatory approach to control construction runoff in its watersheds through SEQR reviews. The other local programs identified involves technology transfer assistance provided to units of government and landowners by County Soil and Water Conservation Districts. A 1989 survey of areas of responsibility revealed that 54% of the districts are involved in the control of nonpoint source pollution from construction activities. Although not enumerated in the Assessment Report, local land use regulation, primarily through site plan review, or through local erosion and sediment control ordinances, are other program means of addressing the nonpoint source aspects of construction. A survey conducted for the wellhead protection program indicated that a small percentage of communities across the state have sediment and erosion control programs. Most countiesTely on the Soil and Water Conservation Districts to address the problem. The effectiveness or degree of success of current programs is difficult to measure in terms of water quality improvement or protection for the sane reasons cited above in the discussion of identifying waterbodies affected by construction activities. Data on "with-control" and "without-control" comparisons are not available. In the 'terms of program coverage,.the various elements which are meant to protect specific critical resource areas can generally deal with erosion from within the area of concern. Protection fron sediment impacts.from upstream areas are only partially covered in most critical resource programs since the area covered usually includes only a limited buffer or transitional area, not the entire tributary upstream area. The municipal and county programs that regulate land usage and require permits prior to land development offer the best opportunity for comprehensive control of construction impacts. C. Additional Program Needs The primary control options now used for construction activities are a combination of regulation and technology transfer. Continuing this approach with appropriate modification of existing programs and new initiatives is recommended. Additional educational efforts to increase public awareness of water quality issues relating to construction are also needed. Recommendations Usincr'Existinct Authority 1 Programs to disseminate the information contained in the New York Urban Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines IV-27 should be expanded. Soil and Water Conservation Districts who. have not yet sponsored one of the SCS training sessions on the guidelines should be encouraged to do so. This technology transfer effort provides information to an important targeted audience. Pther groups such as local building inspectors should be encouraged to participate in the training sessions-. 2. A model erosion and sediment control ordinance should be developed. This could include best management practices (BMPs) and performance standards which can be used to determine whether the BMPs used are effective. It should also contain provisions for an.application fee system to support the review. The actual ordinances should specify a lead agency for performing reviews. The lead agency might be the county soil and water conservation district, the local. building inspector's office or some other agency. In developing the model ordinance, existing local laws should be reviewed and provisions which have proven to be effective should be incorporated into the model. 3. The Department should develop guidance on erosion and sediment control which could be used by interested parties on the review of development plans. 4. DEC should implement the program to regulate stormwater runoff from construction sites as required by ECL �17- 0808. If final regulations permit, the review and approval for individual projects should be handled by municipalities. Control over municipalities would be exerted through the general permits issued for their stormwater systems. Recommendations Which Will Reauire New Authority 5. Legislation to create a statewide erosion and sediment control program is needed. The legislation should require local or county governments to pass their own ordinance which contains all the provisions specified in the model ordinance. The law could possibly include incentives/disincentives to local governments who pass an ordinance (similar to the flood insurance program where if a community does not regulate land use in the flood plain, then they are not eligible for flood insurance). Tying this to eligibility for any nonpoint source cost-sharing money which might be available or the state revolving loan fund could be explored. IV-28 There should be provisions in the ,'law that if the local government does not pass their own ordinance,- then the state government will administer the program. Again, this is similar to the system used for the flood insurance program. The law could also require an inspection of erosion and sediment control measures installed. 5. Contaminated Sediment a. Assessment of Source Fish consumption advisories and fishing bans frequently. result from contaminated sediment. It is a problem in.a number of major waterbodies across New -York. The 1988 Priority Water Problem List report states that "at virtually any hydrological sink, lakes and the mouths of rivers to which toxics-bearing wastewater once discharged, toxic contaminated sediments remain." Bioaccumulation of toxic substances through the food chain is the cause of impairments that result from this source. Fish flesh data collected by DEC's Division of Fish and Wildlife have led the NYS Department of Health to issue consumption advisories an almost 40 waterbodies., The advisories range from a complete ban on fishing to guidelines for frequency of consumption. The pollutants-associated with this source are a variety of toxic substances which accunulate in the sediment. Polychlorinated biphyenyls (PCBs) are the most common contaminant. Other toxic chemicals, such as dioxin, DDT, mirex and mercury, are the contaminants in other segments affected by this source. Contaminated s*ediment is listed as the primary or secondary source of impairment in 37 waterbodies included on the PWP list. Many major waterbodies are affected by this source including the Hudson River, the Buffalo River, the Niagara River, Lake Champlain and Lake Ontario. The PWP report states that it is unlikely that all the waterbodies impacted by contaminated sediment have been identified. It goes on to say that criteria do not exist upon which evaluations of the degree of toxicity or risk associated with contaminated sediment can be made. b. Current Programs to Control Source Most of the existing programs to address contaminated sediment that were identified in the Assessment Report are planning activities at the state level. There are at least two initiatives which are taking actions to address problems with contaminated sediments in specific waterbodies. The Division of Water has a research/demonstrat ion project underway for the dredging and encapsulation of PCB contaminated IV-29 sediment from the Hudson River. This project has two primary goals: (1) successful completion of the dredging project, (2) through the construction of a sediment containment facility, accommodate the removal and encapsulation of PCB contaminated materials from the river. This project is also exploring viable contaminant destruction technologies such as biodegradation and incineration. The other initiative is by the Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation. They are involved in a project dealing with the mercury contained in the bottom sediments of Onondaga Lake. EPA's Great Lakes National Program office isconducting a 5- year study and demonstration program on the best ways to remove toxic pollutants from bottom sediments. The purpose of the program is to develop guidance on dealing with contaminated sediment problems, not to clean up specific sites. 'The Buffalo River is one of five demonstration projects included in this program. The projects include an assessment of the waterbody and sediments, a study of potential remedial technologies, and an evaluation of the environmental and economical effectiveness of the project. The Division of Water includes the analysis of sediment in many of its water quality monitoring programs. One of the objectives of the Rotating Intensive Basin Studies (RIBS) program is to expand knowledge of water quality cause and effect relationships through actions such as assessing the bioavailability of in-place toxics. The studies include-water column, sediment, macro invertebrate and fish monitoring. Sediment samples are analyzed for heavy metals, organochlorine pesticides and PCBs. The Intensive Stream Survey program conducts detailed studies on selected waterbodies. to locate sources and model pollutant fate. The effect that contaminated sediment has on fish and wildlife is the most common cause of impairment in this category. The Division of Fish and Wildlife collects contaminant data on various species. This data is summarized in periodic reports entitled "Toxic Substances in Fish and Wildlife." Several other programs are listed which address this source primarily in a planning fashion. The Great Lakes coordination effort will assess existing sources of pollution and develop Remedial Action Plans to address these sources. The National Estuary Programs for Long Island Sound and for the New York - New Jersey Harbor both are designed to study the effects of various sources including contaminated sediment. The programs will also deal with remedial actions through education, research and technology transfer efforts. In the regulatory area, the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, administered by the Division of Water, regulates the discharge of toxics from point sources. This system should greatly reduce the chance of further contamination of IV-30 sediment from point sources. The industrial pretreatment program also'helps limit the discharge of toxics. The NYSDOS Coastal Management Program is a multifaceted program with regulatory, educational and planning aspects'. Local government's waterfront revitalization programs can be used to address contaminated sediment problems. The 1988 Priority Water Problem List report identifies three concerns regarding programs to control contaminated sediment.. The first is that the location, extent and impact of problems caused by this source has probably not been adequately determined. The second concern is criteria do not exist to evaluate the degree of toxicity of sediment. Finally no practical means for management, treatment and removal of the sediment has been demonstrated. Consumption advisories and fishing bans remain the only management alternatives available to address this source. C. Additional Program Needs Continuation of present programs to determine the extent of the water quality problems caused by this source is recommended. However, until control technologies are ava'ilable to address existing contaminated sediments, little can be done to correct existing problems. Programs should continue to prevent further contamination of sediments and criteria should be established on a nationwide basis as to when sediment contamination is a problem. Recommendations Using Existing Authority 1. DEC should encourage EPA to develop criteria for evaluating the toxicity and risk associated with contaminated sediment to assure nationwide uniformity. 2. DEC should encourage federal research on the impacts of the removal of contaminated sediment including the alternative of in-place mitigation measures. 3. The possibility of having, more waterbodies that have contaminated sediments designated as state Superfund sites should be explored * This would then provide a ,funding mechanism for remediation of these problems. 4. A technology transfer effort is needed in the form of an international conference on all aspects of the contaminated sediment problem. Recommendations Which Will Require New Authority 5. Banning certain toxic substances and the restriction of discharges of other toxics are options which may be IV-31 considered. While the SPDES program provides the authority to control point source. discharges, it is more difficult to regulate discharges from nonpoint sources. Bans or use restrictions might be the most effective means of control in this case. 6. The creation of.a new funding mechanism, similar to the Superfund but dedicated exclusively to the remediation of contaminated sediment problems, should be investigated. This concept has been discussed in the past and the concept has been called an Aquafund. All cleanups would be preceded by detailed investigations. Parties responsible for the contamination would be required to pay their share of cleanup costs. 6. Diffuse Urban Runoff a. Assessment of Source Stormwater runoff from urban and suburban areas poses a serious threat to the water resources of New York State. In fact, there is evidence to indicate that developed area runof f may be as harmful 'to water quality as municipal or industrial waste discharges in some areas. The developed area runof f problem is not entirely limited to water quality. Urbanization also has a profound influence upon the hydrologic characteristics of watersheds which may lead to problems ranging from flooding to reduction in stream base flow during periods of dry weather. There are a number of sources which make up the broad category of urban runoff. Some of these are considered point sources while others are nonpoint sources. Urban runoff often is a combination of the two. One way to categorize sources is that runoff is considered a nonpoint source until it gets into a collection system and then it becomes a point source. Another method to categorize sources is by how the source is addressed. A source such as storm sewers or combined sewer overflows (CSOs) which can be addressed through end- of-pipe controls such as permits are considered point sources. Sources from which runoff flows directly into a waterbody and is addressed through the application of BMPs are considered nonpoint sources. In reality, it is not feasible to entirely separate point sources from nonpoint sources in regard to urban runoff. Even when the runoff eventually reaches a collection system, and so could be considered a point source, the best treatment method will frequently be through the application of BMPs which abate the runoff and the pollutants it contains before it reaches a collection system. IV-32 Rivers, streams, lakes, estuaries and coastal embayments can all be affected by pollutants that are commonly found in urban runoff. Pollutants vary in size, solubility and toxicity. Among the significant pollutants found in an urban setting are combustion products (such as nitrogen oxides and sulfides), deicing compou *nds, heavy metals, pathogens, roadway construction asphalts and vehicular hydrocarbons and hydraulic fluids. These pollutants accumulate rapidly on impervious surfaces and are easily washed off during runoff events. Atmospheric deposition is a major source of pollutants in an urban area. No single factor is responsible for the progressive. degradation of urban stream ecosystems. Rather, it probably is the cumulative effect of many individual factors such as sedimentation, scouring, increased flooding, lower summer flows, higher water temperatures,.rechannelization and pollution. Urbanization often will increase the peak flows in streams and reduce the tine it takes for the peak to occur. This will tend to increase flooding and result in scouring and sedimentation. Urban runoff can also alter the natural stream temperature regime. Factors which contribute to this increase in temperature include runoff passing over the heated urban landscape, fewer trees present to shade streams, and runoff stored in shallow ponds is heated between storms, then released in a rapid pulse. The large percentage of impervious area associated with urbanization reduces infiltration, which can affect groundwater recharge and base flows, Stormwater runof f f rom urban areas can , adversely impact . the fisheries.,'aesthetics and recreational use of lakes. Lakes that serve as a water supply for municipal and domestic consumption can also be affected by urban stormwater runoff through increased treatment costs. Of particular concern are nutrients, toxic materials and organic substances such as pesticides, heavy metals, pathogenic organisms, oxygen demanding substances and sediment which are picked up in urban stornwater and transported directly to lakes or streams flow into lakes. Marine waters are affected by toxic pollutants and pathogenic organisms, resulting in the closure of both shellfish harvest areas and beaches. The Nonpoint Source Assessment Report identifies several locations in the state impacted by urban stormwater runoff. Of the 70 segments identified on the PWP list as being impaired by urban runoff, 57 are in the Atlantic - Long Island Sound Basin. Many of the segments are bays in the heavily developed Sound. Runoff carrying coliform bacteria is reported as the primary cause of closures of numerous.shellfish beds in Suffolk County. The three NURP studies undertaken in New York State suggest that urban runoff problems are more widespread than the PWP list indicates These studies demonstrate that stormwater runoff from urban areas is responsible for significant pollutant loading fron IV-33 developing (and developed) are as in the state. Vast expanses of impervious surfaces in urbanizing areas have resulted in increased runoff, increased water temperatures and lower base flows. These factors have combined to degrade fisheries habitat in many of the state's urban waterbodies. b. Current Programs to Control Source There are a number of existing programs which address urban runoff. Some of the programs deal with the point source aspects of urban runof f while others are concerned strictly with the nonpoint source asp .ects. Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) are permitted through the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) in conjunction with municipal permits. There are 99 publicly owned treatment works with CSOs in New York. The 1988 305(b) Report, prepared by the Division of Water's Bureau of Monitoring and Assessment, contains the following description of. CSOs. "Most of the Larger cities in New York and some of the smaller cities have combined sewer systems that collect sanitary sewage and stormwater in the same system of pipes. The treatment facilities and pumping stations that are part of these systems are usually designed to accommodate a certain maximum flow, which is normally two to three times the average dry weather flow. Therefore, during rainstorms and snow melts when that f Low is exceeded in the system, there will be untreated discharges (overflows) of a mixture of sanitary sewage and stormwater. This combined sewage which is not treated, contains bacteria, suspended solids, etc., and may also contain some untreated or pretreated industrial wastes. These discharges can and do have a severe impact on water quality, particularly near large urbanized areas such as New York City." Storm sewers are a separate system for collecting or conveying stormwater runoff. The discharges from these collection systems are not presently regulated under the SPDES program. However, the Water Quality Act of 1987 requires states to phase in a program to regulate municipal storm sewers. Chapter 360 of New York State Laws of 1988 gives DEC the authority to regulate stormwater discharges as specified in the federal law. EPA is required to issue regulations by October 1, 1992 which establish requirements for state stormwater management programs. However, the larger and more significant storm sewer discharges will come under regulatory control sooner. Permits will be required by February, 1991 for discharges from munic ipal storm sewers serving areas with a population of 250,000 or more. For areas with a population of between 100,000 and 250,000, storm sewer discharges must be permitted by February, 1993. The law allows states to issue permits on a systemwide basis rather than permitting each outfall. Stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity or any stormwater discharge that contributes to a violation of water quality standards can also be regulated prior to 1992. IV-34 In December, 1988, EPA issued draft regulation's to implement the stormwater program. While the final form of this program is not known at this time, it will likely emphasize control of urban runoff through the implementation of BMPs. For several years, DEC has been regulating certain stormwater runoff through the aspect of the SPDES program which requires the imposition of BMPs to control toxics in stormwater at industrial sites. When SPDES permits for industrial facilities are renewed, monitoring of stornwater discharges are required when there is reason to suspect that toxics from "industrial activities" are present. If toxics are present in the stormwater, BMPs such as control of runoff from roofs and following regulations for storage of hazardous chemicals are required to address the problems. There are several state programs that provide an opportunity to address the effects of stormwater runoff from developing areas. These permit programs regulate development at the tine of construction. The permit review process should include an assessment of the long-term effects on runoff which will result from the proposed development. Measures to prevent stornwater runoff problems should be incorporated in the design. The program in this area with the widest scope is,the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) pi@ocess. All possible impacts of any proposed physical alteration or development must be, considered in the review process. When the proposed action will have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact statement is r,equired. The review agency can then require measures to control the impacts before approving a project. Other programs are targeted at protecting specific habitats or sensitive lands. Freshwater Wetlands Protection, Stream Protection, Tidal Wetlands, and Wild and Scenic Rivers each apply to a specific area. Permits are required for construction activities which will affect one of the designated areas. The review process can consider the long-term effects of the construction as well as the short-term impacts. Another program that targets a specific area is the Flood Plain Management Permits program. it regulates construction in flood prone areas. Communities that have adopted acceptable flood plain management regulations administer their own programs. DEC administers the program in other communities. 'Several existing state programs address urban runoff through planning efforts. These,programs are designed to determine the effects of urban runoff in a specific area and then make control recommendations. Examples of these are the Great Lakes Coordination Programs (including the RAPs and the toxic management plans for Lake Ontario and the Niagara River) and the National IV-3.5 Estuary Prograins f or the New York New Jersey Harbor and Long Island Sound. Two DEC.prograns deal with the effects of urban runoff. The Shellfish Land Certification program is a regulatory program which assesses water quality in the tidal. waters of New York Is marine and coastal district. The program prohibits harvesting shellfish in areas that do not meet established criteria. The Clean Lakes program uses federal monies to clean up lakes affected by sources including urban runoff. The program is administered by the Division of Water. The Division of Water has several other stormwater initiatives underway. A manual on stormwater management planning is being prepared to introduce the concept to local officials, planning board members and developers. This manual will provide basic information on assessing the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff and on stornwater management practices. The Division has nearly completed guidelines for controlling stormwater runoff from subdivisions and other developments. These guidelines will be issued in the form of a Technical and Operational Guidance Series (TOGS) memo. A TOGS memo which provides guidance on erosion and sediment control is also being prepared. This was discussed in the section on construction. Other state programs identified which address this source are the Coastal Management Prograin of the Department of State and environmental initiatives undertaken by the Department of Transportation. The Coastal Management Program reviews local waterfront revitalization programs and requires that nonpoint source problems are addressed through appropriate management practices. The Department of Transportation's routine maintenance activities such as street sweeping and catch basin cleaning reduce the pollutant load available during runoff events. DOT also has used recharge basins on Long Island to handle highway runoff. There is. one regional program in the state which has the authority to address urban runoff. The LakeGeorge Park Commission received authority in 1986 to implement a stormwater management program in the Lake George Basin. This program has a regulatory component to ensure that the quantity of stormwater runoff after development does not exceed pre-development conditions. It also has a component which seeks to control the quantity and quality of runoff from existing areas of development in the lake basin. Rules and regulations for program implementation under the regulatory phase currently are being developed. An initial study proposal has been prepared to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of various .options for controlling stormwater runoff from developed areas of the Lake George Basin. Some local governments have programs that are intended to reduce the pollutants coming from urban areas. Regular street IV-36 sweeping is done in some cities. However, many studies, including the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP), have demonstrated that. street sweeping is generally ineffective as a technique for improving the quality of urban runoff. Another program used in many localities is an animal waste control ordinance requiring pet owners to pick up and properly dispose of pet wastes. Several programs on the county and local level have been identified that use a regulatory approach to control the effects @f stormwater runoff from new development. These programs all involve the review of stormwater management plans to assure that certain design storms (ex. 2-year, 25-year, 100-year 24-hour storm) can be controlled. County Soil Water Conservation Districts are becoming involved in this review in many counties. For example, the Westchester County SWCD. is reviewing subdivision plans and other development projects for many of the municipalities in the county. These reviews are primarily limited to ensuring that the rate of runoff after development does , not exceed pre--development conditions. Stormwater detention facilities in Westchester County are designed for 2-year, 10-year, 50-year and 100-year storms. Under the leadership of the SWCD, county and local officials are moving.to create a county stormwater management (regulatory) agency. County Commissioners of Public Works are required by Real Property law to review drainage plans for subdivision approval. In many counties, designs frequently involve removing, surface water from a developed site as quickly as possible irrespective of the off-site impacts. The lack of proper stormwater management guidance and facilities design criteria for controlling both the quantity and quality of runoff may have contributed to this method of design. One notable exception to this is in Nassau County where over 600 recharge basins have been constructed. Recharge basins in Nassau County were initially considered to be, the most cost- effective method of disposing of stormwater from a development site. In more recent years, recharge basins have been routinely required in subdivisions not only for controllingrunoff but also for the aquifer recharge benefits they provide. There is general consensus among planning and water quality officials on Long Island that recharge basins do not adversely impact groundwater quality. Many municipalities in the state have adopted subdivision regulations that have provisions for reviewing drainage plans. However, there is a lack of consistency among municipalities in their review- of these plans. Some municipalities in heavily developed areas require stormwater management facilities to be designed based on specific storms. No municipalities in the state have been identified that have a fully integrated stormwater management program requiring control of the quantity as well as the, IV-37 quality of stormwater runoff to achieve flood control and water quality protection objectives. Control of diffuse urban runoff in the state is largely a local prerogative. There is no clearly defined statewide stormwater management program. For this reason, there is a lack of consistency in purpose, stormwater facility design requirements and results among communities involved in controlling runoff. Most locally administered stormwater programs have a I'd---ainagell bias. The primary concern is ensuring that surface runoff is quickly removed from a developed site. While some prograns do include provisions that runoff should not exceed predevelopment conditions, few programs include water quality protection as an objective. Another problem is that most existing programs consider only the effects of new development. There are very few initiatives which address problems caused by runoff from existing development. c. Additional Program Needs Diffuse urban runoff is re'cognized as F_ significant problem in New York State. While the majority of the segments impaired by urban runoff that have been identified are in the Atlantic-Long Island Sound Basin, evidence such as NURP studies indicates that this is likely to be a problem in most of the heavily developed areas of the state. State progrars which deal with urban runoff have limited geographic coverage. There are only a few counties' in the state with existing programs that are effective in addressing this source. These county programs deal with new development where runoff controls are incorporated in the design through measures such as zoning, increased perviousness and optimal design of conveyance systems. There is a need for statewide standards to assure consistency across the state. In addition, programs which deal with runoff from existing urban areas are needed. Recommendations Using Existing Authority 1. The Division of Water should complete its guidance manual on stormwater management planning. This will provide guidelines for local officials to consider in their review of development proposals. 2. Educational efforts are needed to make local officials (especially planning boards) aware of the opportunities which exist to control runoff from new development. Land use planning is partilcularly valuable in addressing this source of nonpoint source pollution. Local zoning can -be used to protect critical areas and control the extent of impervious surfaces (roofs, roads, parking lots, etc.). The effect of storm waterrunoff from a proposed IV-38 development project should be considered during the SEQR process. 3. DEC sho uld prepare model stormwater control ordinances which call for local implementation of standards. The ordinances should emphasize the importance of handling runoff before it reaches storm sewers. 4. DEC should work with municipalities to minimize the effects of stormwater runoff through the imposition of BMPs wherever appropriate. This may be done through the SPDES permits to be issued for storm water discharges as .required by the Water Quality Act of 1987. 5. Research and demonstration projects to study treatment techniques, such as the use of artificial wetlands to remove pollutants from urban runoff, should be encouraged. 6. -Technology transfer efforts are needed to make local officials aware of the importance of maintaining stormwater control facilities. Actions such as cleaning catch basins and periodic removal of sediment from recharge basins are needed to assure that facilities will continue to function properly. 7. DEC should review federally funded projects to insure that appropriate measures are undertaken to prevent or mitigate adverse effects from nonpoint source pollution. 7. Hydrologic/Habitat Modification a. 'Assessment of Source This category includes a variety of activities which change the nature of a stream corridor or a wetland area. Changes to the bed and banks of a stream, modification to flow patterns of streams and dredging/filling of wetlands are considered here.. Sometimes the problems experienced in the stream or wetland can be the result of changing land use patterns within the watershed. The water quality problems in streams associated with this category deal primarily with the fishery habitat. Fish survival can be affected through changes to the habitat and through.actions which damage the spawning environment. There can also be an impact on drinking water supplies. Increased treatment costs and reduced volumeof reservoirs are among the problems experienced. Modifications to wetland areas can affect the entire, ecosystem. Dredging or filling a wetland can result in habitat loss and the loss of buffering capacities which the wetlands provide. These problems have been observed in numerous locations IV-39 in the coastal district where the loss of wetlands has impacted shellfish through bed closures and possible stock reductions. Sediment and heat are the primary pollutants resulting from hydrologic modification. Sediment can increase turbi idity reducing light penetration which may impact fish as well as the aquatic habitat having an effect on fishery reproduction. Increased temperatures may cause the elimination of coldwater fish from the stream., Fluctuating water levels in reservoirs and reduced flow in segments downstream of dams can also be effects from this source. There are a variety of sources included in this category. Streambank modification and destabilization is one common source. Removal of riparian vegetation is a subcategory of this source. The modification of the stream can result from. agricultural activities, construction or development. Sedimentation resulting from streambank erosion and thermal stress problems occur as a result of these actions. Urban development can increase runoff which may result in increases in the magnitude and frequency of downstream flooding. Increased flow can cause widening and destabilization of stream channels. The flooding is sometimes addressed by channelization projects. While these correct the flooding problems during times of high flow, they can result in thermal stress during normal flow periods in the summer. Dredging frequently causes sediment problems. It can also affect the habitat for fish and aquatic vegetation. Surface impoundments are another sour ce included in this category. There can be detrimental effects bo 'th upstream and downstream of the dam. The water level fluctuations within the impoundment can disturb fish habitat and spawning. The change in downstream flow conditions can also affect fish survival. Limited releases can cause the stream temperature to rise. In some cases, stream segments may be completely dewatered during the operation of a hydroelectric power plant. There are 28 segments on the PWP list where hydrologic/ habitat modification is considered a source. The largest number of segments are affected by the operations of a dam. 'Water level fluctuations within the reservoir and dewatered stream segments downstream of the dam are frequent problem causes. Removal of riparian vegetation, streambank destabilization and dredging are considered problems on several segments each. Discussions during the NPS Pilot Assessment meetings indicate that streambank erosion is a widespread problem. Removal of riparian vegetation is another problem that appears to be more common than the documented numbers would indicate. IV-40 01 Certain types of problems have been identified in some areas but not mentioned in other parts of the state that are likely to have the same problems. Further educational efforts are needed to make people aware of the water quality problems that can occur as a result of this source category. b. Current Programs to Control Source Programs have been identified at the federal, state and local levels which address this source. Existing programs employ a range of approaches. Federal programs use financial incentives and direct government actions. State programs primarily employ a regulatory approach to address this category. Technology transfer is used,on both the state and-local levels. Federal'programs identified are operated by USDA. The Soil Conservation Service has the Emergency Watershed Protection program and the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention program (PL-566). The Emergency Watershed Program is remedial in nature and is designed to alleviate imminent hazard to life and property from floods' and products of erosion. The program uses technology transfer and financial incentive's to aid -local sponsors in correcting problems caused by natural disasters. The PL-566 program authorizes SCS to cooperate with state and local agencies in planning and constructing small watershed improvements. Financial incentives are also used in this program. Provisions in the federal Food Security Act use financial "disincentives" to improve water quality. If good conservation practices are not followed, the farm will become ineligible for farm program benefits. The programs,which affect this source most directly are the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the Swarpbuster program. .The CRP uses financial incentives to encourage farmers to take actions which will prevent erosion and filter runoff., Practices include the establishment of vegetative buffer strips on streambanks. The Swampbuster program encourages the preservation of wetlands that might otherwise be drained and tilled for crop production. The Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP), administered by USDA's Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Services, uses financial incentives to address this source. Cost-sharing assistance is available for implementing management practices such as streambank stabilization and tree planting. The Corps of Engineers administers a program of issuing permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act authorizes this program. The state must review each permit and provide a @rater quality certification under Section 401 before the Corps can issue a permit. IV-41 1P There are a-number of state-programs in this area. Several programs use a regulatory approach while others address this source through.planning or.-direct government actions. DEC administers several regulatory programs which address this source category. :,.The. Tidal,, Wetlands program applies further controls to. dredging operations. The Stream Protection Permit program and the Wild and Scenic Rivers program regulate any activities that would disturb streambeds or banks on streams classified "C(T)" or higher. The Adirondack Park Agency assumes responsibility for these permit programs in the Adirondack Park. There is a Memorandum of Understanding betwee 'n DEC and DOT which outlines procedures to be followed by DOT to protect streams. This MOU exists since state agencies are exempt from stream protection permit requirements. Local governments that have a memorandum of understanding with DEC are also exempt from stream protection permits. Local governments frequently mine sand and gravel from streams. Another DEC regulatory program is the Water Supply Permit program. When surface water is involved, these permits address the issue of hydrologic modification. Issues of flow regulation and modification are, considered during the review. A special case under flow regulation is the Reservoir Releases program. it requires cold water releases from New York City water supply reservoirs to protect and enhance the recreational use of downstream waters. Two DEC programs have been identified that employ direct government actions. The Flood Control Projects program constructs, operates and maintains flood control structures. Funding comes' from a combination of federal, state and local sources. The Division of Fish and Wildlife operates the Stream Habitat Improvement program which constructs structures and/or vegetative plantings along streams with public fishing easements. This program also encourages (through technology transfer and financial incentives) local organizations such as sportsmen's clubs to undertake habitat improvement activities. The Stream Corridor Management program in the Division of Water encourages the protection and maintenance of streams and their corridors. The program operates entirely through technology transfer. It promotes the management concepts to Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Environmental Management Councils and oth er local groups. The NYSDOS regulates dredging and filling activities within coastal areas through its Coastal Management program. The program is guided by 44 policies which cover the use of coastal waters and associated land resources through the maintenance and preservation of fish and wildlife habitats. The DEC Flood Plain Management IV-42 program regulates ac-:Avities within f lood prone areas across the state. The program is administered locally where adequate regulations are ir place. In other cases, DEC operates the program. In most coun--ies, Soil and Water Conservation Districts are the primary local agency which addresses hydrologic modification. They use planni*no, technology transfer and direct action approaches toward control cf this category. Existing programs deal with the problems associated with this source effectively within their jurisdictional limits. However, permit prograns cover only certain areas and in some programs, problem [email protected] such as agricultural activities are exempt from regulation. A more complete assessment of problems caused by this category is needed. Upon its completion a determination of the need to expand present programs or develop new ones can be made,. C. Additional Program Needs Existing programs to control this source have been effective in their limited areas of application. However, limited jurisdiction, activities which are exempt from the programs and lack of awareness of the source have hampered the control. Recomr,andations Using Existing Authority 1. The principles advocated in the Stream Corridor Management program need to be more widely disseminated @across the state. Training sessions should be@held for soil and water conservation districts as well as Resource Conservation and Development Councils (which presently include 32 upstate counties) to encourage the application of these principles. Included in this effort should be educational activities to increase public awareness of the benefits of stream corridor management. Stream conservation can have numerous benefits to a community. The programs should encourage the creation of community stream protection programs to implement management practices. The benefits of wetlands as nonpoint source filters should also be highlighted in educational programs. 2. Promotion of the existing cost-sharing programs (such as the Conservation Reserve Program through ASCS) for treatments such as vegetative buffer strips is needed. 3. The Memorandums of Understanding which are required for local governments under the provisions of the Stream. Protection Permit program should include requirements for utilizing best manage ment practices to minimize stream IV-43 disturbance. (This recommendation also applies to the resource extraction category.) 4. The Department should establish minimum instream flow criteria. Recommendations Which Will Require New Authority 5. Regulatory programs which control runoff to prevent damage to streams should be developed in conjunction with the stormwater management program. There should be requirements for the attenuation of peak runoff from newly developed areas. 8. Land Disposal a. Assessment of Source When properly designed and installed, land disposal facilities should notcause water quality problems. Numerous facilities do not meet accepted standards and pollutants leached from these facilities have resulted in impaired waters. The primary sources ,which are included in this category are landfills, hazardous waste sites, and on-site wastewater systems. Land disposal of solid wastes and wastewater can result in the contamination of groundwater and may eventually Affect surface waters. All fresh groundwater in the state is classified as a potable water supply. Land disposal most commonly affects this use. Pollutants from land disposal activities can also reach surface waterbodies. When this occurs, the pollutants can affect fish propagation and survival. The pollutants can also result in restrictions on shellfishing in marine waters as well as on contact and non-contact recreation in both marine and fresh waters. The pollutants associated with land disposal v ary among the different sources included in this category. The leachate from landfills and hazardous waste sites may contain a number of toxic substances which can affect surface water and groundwater. Discharge from on-site wastewater systems contains pathogens and nutrients, and nitrates. Most pollutants are removed by the soil in a system which is functioning properly. However, if the system is not properly designed, installed or operated, there may be adverse affects on water quality. In heavily developed areas, there may be water.quality impacts even when systems are properly designed. Numerous water quality problems across the state resulting from land disposal activities have been listed *in the Assessment Report. Landfills (both municipal as well as active and inactive hazardous waste sites) are a documented problem for both surface and groundwater. IV-44 On-site systems have been only documented as a problems for su.rface waterbodies, but they are also considered to be a threat for groundwater. For streams, the problems involve the lack of systems or failing systems within streamside hamlets. For lakes, dwellings along the shoreline can contribute excess nutrients which cause weed and algal problems. The most commo n threat to groundwater from on-site systems is degradation of individual water supplies by bacteria and/or nitrates. There is also a concern that new high density development or development with inadequate systems will result in contamination of surface or groundwater. b. Current Programs to Control Source Existing programs to control pollution from this source operate primarily at the state level. County and local programs that address certain sources also exist. The existing.programs employ regulatory and planning approaches as their primary tools. Technology transfer is used in several programs, while the Superfund program relies on direct government actions. Programs to regulate landfills and hazardous waste sites are operated by DEC under Federal and State laws. The Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) , as amended by the Haza.rdous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, and Article 27 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law provide the basic authority for the regulation and management of solid and hazardous wastes. RCRA applies to municipal solid waste as well as hazardous waste. However, USEPA has concentrated on the control of hazardous materials. Under RCRA, EPA has identified and listed hazardous wastes; established standards applicable to generators and transporters of hazardous waste; established minimum requirements for permitting hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities; and developed "cradle-to-gravell tracking of hazardous waste through-a.manifest system which tracks wastes from the time they are generated until they reach a final disposal site. DEC administers this program in New York. The Superfund program handles the remediation of inactive hazardous waste sites. This is done primarily through a regulatory approach. It also involves direct government actions where the responsible party cannot be found or is uncooperative. The Muni 'cipal Waste Permit program in DEC regulates the construction and operation of municipal landfills. The program includes the inspection of facilities and the initiation of enforcement actions against facilities that are not in compliance with regulations. Training courses are provided for municipal landfill operators under this program. IV-45 The authority for control of on-site wastewater disposal systems is based on New York's Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) and Public Health Law (PHL) . Both ECL and PHL provide for the review of wastewater systems for realty subdivisions of where lot size is less than 5 acres and there are 5 or more parcels subdivided within a 3-year period-. Approval of plans for these subdivisions by DEC, DOH or the county health department is required. There is no state level review of individual systems for homes which are not part of a subdivision. The DOH has established standards for individual systems. These standards have been incorporated into the state's uniform building code. Compliance with requirements for design and installation of individual systems is accomplished through review by local code enforcement officers. Some counties have adopted a sanitary code which may establish more stringent standards. Individual systems are reviewed and approved by county health departments in these cases. Soil and Water Conservation Districts play a role in the review in some counties that do not have health departments. Programs for the control of municipal landfills and hazardous waste sites appear to have adequate authority. Staffing limitations are the primary problem in some of the program activities. The I co,ntrol of on-site systems is somewhat uneven. Since counties and local governments have the primary responsibility for enforcement, there is a wide' range in the way the program is operated across the state. Some counties have very active programs and very stringent requirements, while in other areas programs are non-existent except for response to nuisance complaints resulting from faulty sewage disposal systems. C. Additional Program Needs Water quality problems caused by landfills and hazardous wastes exist but they are being addressed by existing programs. No recommendations for modifying these programs will be included in this report. Problems from on-site systems can be considered in two categories. The first relates to new development and-the threats to water quality that it poses. The second category is for existing development which is presently causing a water quality problem. The control options recommended will be different for the two categories. In the case of new developmentl regulatory, technology transfer and planning programs are recommended. For existing development, regulatory programs, financial incentives and demonstration projects would be desirable. The first two IV-46 recommendations below deal primarily with addressing new development. The remaining recommendations relate more to problems caused by existing development. iRecommendations Using Existing Authority 1. Model sanitary code requirements for individual on-site wastewater disposal systems should be developed. counties whose codes do not meet or exceed the requirements of the provisions should be encouraged to adopt such. 2. Technical guidelines should be prepared to assist lo -cal governments in effectively using local zoning as well as subdivision and site plan review authority to minimize on-site wastewater disposal impacts. The use of zoning is particularly appropriate in dealing with this source category. Soil and water table information should be considered when establishing maximum housing density for a particular area. Watershed rules and regulations might be used to ban on-site systems in certain critical areas. 3. Existing enforcement authority should be used to require corrective actions by persons causing water quality problems due to inadequate on-site wastewater systems. Priorities should-be established based on the PWP list. 4. Financial incentive programs, such as the revolving loan program, are needed to assist communities in funding collection and treatment systems. 5. A technology transfer effort to identify potential methods of financing projects is needed. Alternatives such as creation of wastewater management districts and implementation of the self-help program would be included. This information should then be made available to, communities with water quality problems caused by failing on-site systems. 6. Demonstration projects should be used to illustrate new methods for solving the problem caused by, failing on-site systems. Alternatives to conventional collection systems and treatment plants should be studied.. Projects using methods such as cluster systems that collect sewage from small-lot residences and distribute it to nearby sites with suitable soil should be encouraged. 7. Educational efforts are needed to make the public aware of the major impact of improper disposal of household hazardous waters (used oil, batteries, paint, solvents,, @tc.). The programs should inform the public that improper disposal can result in degradation of groundwater. IV-47 9. Leaks, Spills and Accidents a. Assessment of Source Leaks and spills of petroleum products and other hazardous ,materials are a significant problem in New York. Subsurface leaks have the greatest potential to contaminate groundwater while .surface spills can cause either- groundwater or surface water problems. Most of the problems that have been identified involve contaminated groundwater. All fresh groundwater in the state is classified as a source of drinking water. The toxic materials that are leaked and spilled can affect this use. Spills to surface water can impair designated uses of these waterbodies. Many of the pollutants in this category are hydrocarbons (organics). In the case of petroleum contamination, the dissolved constituents such as benzene, toluene. and xylene (BTX) are the primary pollutants. Chlorinated solvents, such as TCE, are the most important of the hazardous materials due to their mobility. Spills and leaks of petroleum products and of chlorinated solvents are significant sources of groundwater contamination. The Bureau of Spill Response maintains a data management system on- all reported petroleum and hazardous material spills. An indication of the magnitude of the problem is the number of spills that occur each year. The Assessment Report contains information from the Spill,Response data base on the number of active spills and leaks during the Fiscal Year 1987-88. Over 9,000 petroleum spills and more than 600 hazardous material spills were reported. The majority of the spills were either under land surface or to the ground. Only 10% of the spills drained directly to surface water. The effect that a particular spill or leak has depends on its proximity to wells or to a surface waterbody. The type of pollutant, and the geology of an area. Petroleum products most often cause contamination of shallower wells while the more mobile chlorinated solvents can cause problems.in deeper municipal water supply wells. The most important problem areas are in aquifer recharge areas where high storage tank density and high dependency on shallower groundwater coincide. b. Current Programs to Control Source Control of this source is performed predominantly at the state level. There are federal laws which apply but the programs have been delegated to the state. Local programs also exist for spill response and bulk storage in some areas of the state. The.Petroleum Bulk Storage (PBS) program and the Hazardous Chemical Bulk Storage (CBS) program are both operated by DEC's Division of water. They are primarily regulatory programs which require facility owners to register and test tanks. Construction codes for the installation of new tanks are another regulatory aspect of these programs. The programs also have planning aspects since they are providing an inventory of sources. PBS has been delegated to county governments in four counties. It is 01 IV-48 anticipated that CBS will eventually also be delegated to some counties. The Spill Response Program uses the regulatory approach and direct government actions. The responsible party is required to clean up petroleum and hazardous material spills. If the spiller is uncooperative or unknown, then the state hires a standby contractor to perform the cleanup. Legal action against the spiller is taken to.recoup the cost of the cleanup. Several other programs identified in the Assessment Report also address this source. DEC's groundwater program and the Department of Health's Public Water Supply program both involve planning to identify potential contamination sources. The water supply program can then use regulatory controls such as watershed rules and regulations to address these problems. Another program which concerns this source is the specialty course offered at the College of Environmental Science and Forestry. This educational program, offers courses in management of oil and gas brines and in hazardous waste handling and emergency response. These programs provide the basis for control of water quality problems caused by spills and leaks. The state has regulatory control over the primary sources through the PBS and CBS programs. The inspection and testing aspects of these programs identify leaks which must be remediated. The Spill Response program addresses spills and leaks as they are discovered. Watershed rules and regulations can be used to control the sources within critical watersheds. C. Additional Program Needs Spills, leaks and accidents continue to cause water quality problems in New York. However, programs to effectively regulate these sources do exist and the water quality problems caused by this category are being minimized. One area where further control efforts would be desirable is the protection of critical watersheds from hazardous materials. Recommendations Using Existing Authority 1. Inventories of petroleum and hazardous materials storage facilities within important aquifer areas should be developed and mapped. This will help identify potential problem areas for local government. 2. Communities should be encouraged to hold cleanup/disposal days for pesticides and other hazardous chemicals. These cleanup. days should be held in conjunction with an educational program to make homeowners aware of the damage which can be caused by improper disposal of hazardous chemicals. Recommendations Which Will Require New Authority 3. Incompatible use regulations are needed for the protection of all primary water supply aquifers inthe @state. These regulations could prohibit the storage of IV-49 hazardous chemicals within a primary water supply aquifer area. 10. Resource Extraction/Exploration/Development a. Assessment of Source The category of resource extraction includes both mining and the production of oil and natural gas. Sand and gravel production accounts for 85% of the mining activity in,New York State. Oil production occurs only in the southwestern portion of the state, whereas natural gas production occurs in both western and central New York. Most of the recent gas exploration and development activity is taking place in the Finger Lakes area. Sand- and gravel mining is the most extensive form of resource extraction performed across New York State. Operations conducted in and near streams have the greatest potential to affect water quality. The major pollutant associated with sand and gravel mining is sediment. At all permitted mining operations, erosion and sedimentation control options are implemented to ensure that excessive runoff does not occur. Removal of sand and gravel deposits from the bed and banks of a stream can also cause significant problems if not done in accordance with an approved mined land use plan. Sand and gravel mining is not listed as a significant source in the Nonpoint Source Assessment Report. When impairments from oil and gas production occur they are usually the result of operational problems such as leaking lines, wellhead connections, or tanks. Other operational problems that can be minor sources of nonpoint source pollution include accidental seepage loss of drilling fluids and spillage of oil. Leaks from old abandoned and improperly plugged wells may also be a major source of pollution in the long existing oilfields of southwestern New York. These leaks and other illegal brine discharges have caused brine contamination and impairments such as degraded water supplies in isolated areas. Lower fish survival rates are suspected and taste impairment of edible species have been reported by sportsmen. Five stream segments are on the Priority Water Problem list because of problems related to oil and gas well fields in the Allegany and Genesee River Basins. Many of these operations have existed for more than 100 years, since long before the implementation of any environmental protection regulations. o b. Current Programs to Control Source Existing programs which address this source operate at the state level. Federal and state laws regulate these sources. Most of the programs identified are operated by DEC. Mining operatio ns, are controlled primarily through the state Mined Land Reclamation Law. Permits are issued by DEC's Division of Mineral Resources for the extraction of minerals from the IV-50 ground. Applicants must submit a mined land use plan which includes plans for mining and reclamation. Best management practices such as settling ponds and stabilizing active faces as soon as practical are recommended. The removal of sand and gravel from streams classified 11C(T)11 or higher is regulated by the stream protection permit program and .the mined land reclamation program. . DEC's Division of Fish and Wildlife issues permits for any modifications or disturbance of the channel or bed of a stream.- There are some exemptions to this program including Department of Transportation activities and actions by any local governments having a memorandum of understanding with DEC. Local governments frequently mind sand and gravel from streams. The oil and Gas Regulation program is another activity administered by DEC's Division of Mineral Resources. Permits are required for oil and gas wells covering all phases of extraction from drilling to plugging and abandonment. Management practices to minimize water quality degradation,such as lining drill pits and installing adequate casing and cement in well bores, are required in the permits. The only other program identified in the Assessment Report that addresses this source is the educational program at the College of Environmental Science and Forestry. Courses offered at the College deal with oil and gas exploration techniques. One course listed which is pertinent to this source covers the management of oil and gas brines. In addition to the programs listed in the Assessment Report, the USDA - Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has two technology transfer. programs which address this source. They provide technical assistance in the form of preparing Mined Land Reclamation Plans for various sand and gravel operations. The SCS Plant Materials Program also provides technical assistance for the establishment of cover on mined land sites. These programs are delivered to or in conjunction with Soil and Water Conservation Districts. Existing programs appear to have adequate authority to control this source. One problem area regarding the authority concerns the exemption of local governments and state agencies from stream disturbance permit requirements. Mining sand and gravel from streams can cause sediment problems in the streams. The present system of MOUs between DEC and the agencies (local and state) that remove the gravel needs to be strengthened. C. Additional Program Needs The existing programs are performing satisfactorily in controlling this source., Only minor changes to existing programs are recommended. Recommendations-Using Existing Authority 1. The Memorandums of Understanding which are required for local governments under provisions of the Stream IV-51 Protection Permit program should include requirements for utilizing best management practices to minimize stream disturbance, (This recommendation also applies to the hydrologic/habitat modification strategy.) Recommendations Which Will Require New Authority 2. A legislative amendment to the Mined Land Reclamation Law has been proposed that, if passed, will significantly lower the statutory threshold for mining in streams. 3. The Stream Protection Permit Program should include provisions requiring local governments to obtain permits for the mining of sand and gravel from stream beds. 11. Silviculture a. Assessment of Source Silviculture is the systematic management or cultivation of woodland for the production of forest products. One aspect of silviculture, which takes place on only a small percentage of the state's 15 million acres of commercial forest each year, is the harvesting of timber, pulp and fuel wood. Water quality problems resulting from this activity tend to be localized and short duration impairments. Other silvicultural activities such as prescribed burning, the application of pesticides, and timber stand improvement are not considered to be water quality threats in New York. Sedimentation is the principal water quality impairment associated with harvesting and is caused by erosion from poor design and placement of logging roads, trails or landings. Sediment reduces the penetration of sunlight and may settle to adversely affect fish spawning areas. Sediment can shorten the life of water impoundments and add to drinking water treatment costs. A less common, but potentially serious stream impairment, is increased thermal energy resulting from the removal of streambank vegetation. Selective tree removal can reduce this impact and regrowth helps balance overall stream impact. Stream crossing during the harvest can accelerate streambank erosion and occasionally severely disrupt stream ecology. .b. Current Programs to Control Source Several programs which address silviculture have been identified in the Assessment Report. The programs are from every level of government although most are at the state level and are operated by DEC. Technology transfer is the preferred approach to handling.this source. The federal programs identified are the Agricultural Conservation Program and Forestry Incentives Program administered by USDA's Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. These are the only programs listed for this source which use financial incentives. Soil protection is a primary purpose of the silvicultural practices of the Agricultural Conservation'Program. The Forestry Incentives Program, while more production- oriented, IV-52 also provides soil protection benefits. Silviculture practices include tree planting, timberstand improvement and site preparation for natural regeneration. Cost-sharing is limited to 65% under the Forestry Incentives Program and up to 75% under the Agricultural Conservation Program. Another federal program which addresses this source is provided by the Soil Conservation Service. They provide technical assistance in the form of preparing conservation plans for erosion* and sedimentation control. The SCS assists in the proper layout of logging roads, the installation of sediment control practices and harvesting recommendations. The SCS program is ' delivered through or in conjunction with the Soil. and Water Conservation Districts. The state's strategy for dealing with waterquality problems associated with silviculture is coordinated bythe DEC Division of Lands and Forests. The strategy relies on technology transfer and education to promote the use of sound management practices. In addition to DEC, a number of other agencies are involved and other programs are used to enhance the process and achieve effective control of the condition and possible problems. DEC's Division of Lands and Forests is implementing Cooperating Consultant Forester and Cooperating Timber Harvester prograns in order to increase the rate of adoption and expand the area of application of approved BMPs. Cooperation with the Forest Practice Board and outreach educational efforts to forest landowners to create awareness and encourage the use of BMPs is also part of the strategy. Soil and Water Conservation Districts encourage the use of proper practices through their authority to prepare conservation Plans for forest holdings larger than 25 acres. Through an MOU between DEC and the State Soil and Water Conservation Committee which has been adopted by all 57 SWCDs, if a landowner proposes a harvest, the SWCD recommends the use of BMPs to avoid water quality problems and/or advises the use of a forestry consultant. The@Wild and Scenic Rivers program of DEC (administered by the Adirondack Park Agency within the Park) applies to silviculture. Forest harvesting along certain rivers is regulated by this program. Another program which addresses this source is the Stream Corridor Management program. It uses technology transfer to encourage the protection of stream corridors during logging operations. . The College of Environmental science and Forestry in Syracuse conducts an educational program for forestry consultants. They also provide further education and technology transfer through ?utreach efforts. These programs provide training for individuals involved . in silviculture. Cornell Cooperative Extension also .conducts educational programs dealing with forestry. Promotional materials are released through County Extension Offices. C, Additional Program Needs The- existing efforts to control this source which use IV-53 technology transfer as the primary control option, appear to be adequate. Additional funding to permit the expansion of existing programs is the primary need. Increasing the frequency of post timber harvest evaluations would also be desireable. 12. Other Sources There are several other categories of nonpoint source pollution which were not listed separately in the Assessment Report but which remain a significant concern. A brief description of these sources and the recommended control options for each follows. a. Roadbank Erosion Erosion from unvegetated ditches along state, county and local roads is believed to be a significant source of sediment during spring runoff each year. Many highway departments clean ditches in the fall, leaving no time to reestablish vegetation before winter. Spring runoff then results in significant erosion. No waterbodies have been identified which -are directly affected by roadbank erosion. It is regarded as a generic problem in many parts of the state but due to the intermittent nature of the source, the problems are frequently not identified. The existing programs which address this source are the general erosion control activities performed by Soil and Water Conservation Districts and the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) . The Districts encourage local governments to modify their practices to minimize roadbank erosion. Through the SCS's Plant Materials program, various amounts of seed, woody shrubs and plants can also be provided to stabilize roadbanks. Technology transfer appears to be the most appropriate control option for this source. Training materials are needed to demonstrate to highway superintendents that roadbank erosion is a. problem and to recommend management practices which will reduce the water quality impacts. These options can be pursued using existing authority. b.. Storage and Application of Deicing Agents Road salt storage - piles have been responsible for contamination of groundwater in many locations across the state. Application of salt is regarded as a potential problem in many areas. Road sanding has been identified as a problem on a number of streams in the Adirondack Mountains area as well as in other areas of the state. The primary effect of improper salt storage is to make groundwater unsuitable for drinking. While the chloride which enters wells is not considered a major public health risk, it can result in an objectionable taste in the water. High levels of sodium can pose health risks, however. Shallow individual wells are more frequently affected than deeper municipal wells. The threat to groundwater quality from the use of deicing compounds is considered far less significant than the threat from IV-54 improper storage. However, the use of deicing agents as well as sand spreading on highways during the winter can cause water quality problems in surface waters. Road sanding is listed as the primary source of impairment on 12 stream segments on the Priority Water Problem List. The sediment which enters streams as a result of this source adversely impacts fish propagation and survival. The groundwater program of DEC recognizes problems caused by road salt storage. It employs a planning approach by documenting the problems and assessing their impacts. The Division of Water. has issued a Technical and Operational Guidance Series memo on the storage and use of highway salt and salt/sand mixtures.. it encourages proper storage of salt and limiting the application of salt to only what is needed. More extensive use of the planning approach to document the extent of problems caused by deicing agents is needed. Research and demonstration projects to determine the * impacts that salt application has on the ecosystem along highways are also recommended. Technology transfer to encourage proper storage and application practices would be beneficial. Finally, since salt storage problems have been shown to be a common source of groundwater contamination, a regdlatory program to require storage facilities that will not result in water quality problems is needed. IV-55 CHAPTER V WATERSHED PROGRAMS FOR CONTROLLING NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION A. Introduction Prevention and control of nonpoint sources are achieved prin- cipally through use of management practices. As described in the Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, these practices are intended to preclude or reduce the availability or transport of materials that could adversely affect the quality of surface or ground waters. necessary part of the Nonpoint Source Management, Program is determining the appropriate geographic area for implementing such practices. There are and will be finite resources available for nonpoint source management. The program must recognize that certain problems are best addressed through practices applied at the watershed level while other sources will require a statewide approach. A comprehensive program for nonpoint source management must include provisions for both. use of Statewide and Watershed Programs The nature of a particular source, the threat it poses, or the problems it causes determine whether a statewide or watershed approach for control is appropriate. A statewide program is applicable in a number of circumstances. Firstf basic preventative programs to avoid water quality impacts from nonpoint sources should be implemented through regular application of management practices applied statewide with no particular geographic emphasis. A source category that constitutes an unacceptable threat to surface or groundwater or both no matter where it is located is one example of this situation; for instance, petroleum and hazardous materials bulk storage. The management practice which has been adopted to control this source is a construction code for storage tanks. A statewide regulatory program requires that this code be followed. Another example is where potential impacts may vary geographically, but control is feasible only in a statewide approach. The regulation of sale and use of pesticides that leach easily through sandy soils could fall in this category. Sources that have a transitory but*significant effect on water quality are also candidates for general approaches, for instance, requiring practices such as basic erosion and sediment control for construction'sites. Finally, in addition to prevent 'ing nonpoint source pollution, some practices may have other benefits such that their general use should be promoted even though water quality benefits may vary considerably according to geographic setting. Contour and strip crop farming are practices that cons erve soil wherever they are used and can protec t water V-1 quality, depending on the proximity of the treated land to a surface waterbody. Beyond the goal of problem prevention, the remediation of the effects of pollution from some nonpoint source categories call's for a statewide approach. These include the widespread use or discharge of various substances to the environment and existing pollutant accumulations from.prior activities on the landscape. Examples are atmospheric deposition, non-complying landfills, and contaminated sediments. For dealing with pollution from these sources, watershed programs will not help. A statewide (or national) program context must be-used. Watershed management programs have utility in addressing water quality problems or threats caused by land uses that change the earth's surface, add substances to it and/or change drainage patterns leading to additional soil erosion and transport of various contaminants to surface waters. Such factors as the density of activities on the land, the proximity of the land use to surface waterbodies (as well as groundwater recharge areas) , the nature of the terrain, the types of soil and climatological factors will affect the severity of the water quality impacts. Thus, the effects will vary according to the character of the watershed. Among the source categories that are of concern in these circumstances are urban runoff, agricultural activities and resource extraction. The most efficient approach to water quality problems caused by sources in this category focuses on the specific land uses and activities that degrade or threaten waters. 4 0 In this situation, the entire area that contributes runoff to the waterbody, known as a watershed, must be considered to properly address the problem. The validity of the hydrologic unit concept is supported by the pollutant-generating processes and transport mechanisms of nonpoint sources -bf pollution which are often widespread in origin. The pollutants are generally transported by surface runoff or by water infiltrating through the soil profile. The watershed is also the logical unit to plan a nonpoint source management program because the contributory area will often cross political boundaries. Nonpoint source problems can be resolved only when all land use activities significantly, contributing nonpoint source contaminants to a waterbody are managed. For each watershed, the list of appropriate management practices can be refined, critical sites can be identified and the extent to which management practices must be applied to meet the stated water quality goals can be determined. 2. Context for Choosing Watershed Priorities As described in Chapter V of the Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, there are a number of programs at all levels of government which have a role in the control of nonpoint source pollution in V-2 New York. Each program has its own goals and objectives and each has its own priorities. The Management Program must recognize these different priorities but still establish a framework which will allow programs to work together to control nonpoint source pollution. The scope of a program is one factor which influences priorities. Programs at the various levels of government (and even different agencies at the same level) likely will have different priorities and there must be a recognition that this will occur at federal, state, regional, and local levels for watershed management. The role of DEC in relation to the program structures that can develop in this setting will vary from acting as lead agency, in some instances, to cooperating through technical or financial assistance, to reviewing programs for consistency with state goals and programs. In carrying out its responsibilities for nonpoint source management, DEC will follow the guidelines listed below: a. Priority will be placed on addressing the waterbodies identified in the list of waterbodies prepared pursuant to Section 17-1407 of ECL for state funded projects, for consistency review of federal proposals, and for recommending proposal candidates for other agencies. b. For federal proposals with funding designated for waterbodies outside the state to which New York waters are tributary, such as the Chesapeake Bay, the Assessment List will not be a limiting review criterion. However, DEC will encourage the use of funds to also benefit waters within the New York portion of the drainage basin that are affected by nonpoint sources. c For federal or state funds appropriated for specific state waterbodies or drainage basins, such as the Great Lakes, DEC will recognize the geographic designation in reviewing proposals for. consistency with state programs. d. For local programs supported only by local funding and local efforts, DEC will recognize local priorities. DEC will also encourage the implementing agencies to utilize the prioritized list described above in a. in choosing projects. 3. Identification of Candidate Watersheds The Nonpoint Source Assessment lists waterbodies affected by nonpoint source pollution. Chapter II of this report describes the system to. be used in future DEC Assessments f or classifying the water quality effect of nonpoint sources and for keeping the list current. V-3 The sources of the pollutants affecting the waters listed in the'Nonpoint Source Assessment Report are sometimes related to activities on the land, sometimes not. For those waters primarily affected by atmospheric deposition and acid rain, for instance, the problem source lies outside the tributary watershed and local watershed programs will do little to diminish the impact. . For waters affected by contaminated sediments deposited as a result of past point or nonpoint source activities, resolution of the problem can be accomplished only by removal of the material or some in- place neutralization. If the parent sources no longer exist, watershed programs can do little to solve the problems. For other waters where the water quality impacts or threats are related to current activities in the watershed, a tarqeted approach for management is the appropriate means of reducing the effects. The first step in defining the universe of watersheds which are candidates for specific programs is to analyze the Assessment listing of degraded and threatened waterbodibs and sort-out those where nonpoint sources fron land use activities in the watershed are of concern. The size of the tributary land area for these waters can vary from a small watershed to an entire river basin. In designating the area to be managed, the hydrologic watershed units as defined on the USDA-So-%l Conservation Service "Hydrologic Unit Watershed Map-1980, State of New York" will be the basic areal units and will be the building blocks for describing larger hydrologic areas. Thus, a local.-A.zed problem in the headwaters of a river system could have a single hydrologic watershed associated with it while a large lake could have half a dozen hydrologic watersheds. The current watershed listing derived from the updated assessment (as described in Chapter II) is found in Appendix A of this report. It includes the tributary watersheds for those waters on the Assessment List which have a nonpoint source as a primary cause of water quality impact, excluding atmospheric deposition and contaminated sediment. Segments which have atmospheric deposition, contaminated sediment or a point source as the primary source have also been included when a nonpoint source is listed as a secondary source. B. , Implementing Watershed Management Programs 1. Roles of Different Governmental.Levels The spatial nature of nonpoint source water pollution suggests a control program with planning and implementation carried out at an appropriate level of government. Small watershed concerns can best be addressed at the local level; river basin needs may require a federal, state, or regional lead with local participation. The program, however, must not be fragmented. It will be developed under the leadership and coordination of NYSDEC, the state lead water quality agency, especially with regard to identification of V-4 water quality objectives, evaluation of water quality problems, and development of overall control program direction. An effective nonpoint source control program should foster the cooperation of diverse agencies and organizations. Federal agencies can bring external funding, related technical and organizational experience from similar projects, and other benefits to state NPS projects. Where appropriate, regional agencies should be involved because the water resources of a state can affect those in neighboring areas, and inter-Area cooperation will benefit ' all participants. Local agencies and organizations are essential because they can provide the commitment and implementation effort that ultimately determines success or failure. Section 10 of the Soil and Water Conservation District Law allows two or more districts to cooperate with one another. This arrangement might be useful in addressing problems on watersheds that are in more than one county. 2. Establishing Watershed Priorities Although high water quality resources are important to the economic welfare of New York and are valued by the public, there are not enough financial resources to address all existing significant water quality problems. Establishing priorities provides a means for focusing available technical and financial resources on a limited geographic region and improves chances for achieving visible water quality improvement. Such demonstrated water quality benefits, should result in increased public support of NPS control programs and better awareness of overall water quality issues. A change in attitude corresponding with an increase of knowledge and skill. of NPS control are primary ingredients in achieving lasting water resource protection. Setting priorities will help set direction, but may also cause conflict among the various state and local organizations and agencies that compete for limited resources. To keep the selection process open and to maximize the information available to reach an informed decision, all interested agencies and organizations should be represented. The causes and impacts of the NPS water quality problems are diverse; therefore, the process should include participation from all levels of government -- federal., state, regional, county and local. Appropriate agencies include those with interests in water resource planning, natural resource protection, land use planning, point source regulation, agriculture, mining and forestry, constructiont economic evaluation and health and welfare. At the. state level, problem watersheds (listed in Appendix A) should be prioritized to achieve an optimal distribution of efforts and funds. The procedure should be driven by several factors: V-5 uses being impacted (public health impacts vs. aesthetic problem) ; Severity of water quality problems; Extent of knowledge of those problems and their causes; The degree to which problems and threats are resolvable considering economic, political and social factors. Concerns and interests of participating agencies; and Resources and capabilities of institutions. A three-phase procedure will be used for designating priorities. The steps in this procedure are as follows: 1. DEC Division of Water, numerically. ranks candidate watersheds based on a technical water quality and pollution potential evaluation; 2. Committees in the DEC regions review ranked watersheds and make recommendations; 3. DEC, with the advice of various statewide agency and interest groups, establishes a list of priority watersheds. a. Scoring Candidate Watersheds Using Technical Criteria Step 1 above will involve scoring the affected waterbodies in the watersheds using objective, technical criteria. While the system produces a precise numerical score, the final output from the process will be a relative ranking of high, medium or low for each waterbody. This ranking will then be utilized as the priority determination process proceeds. A system that has been used by DEC for a number of years in developing the priority water problem (PWP) list also will be used here. Rather than attempting to develop an independent system, DEC proposes to continue the use of the procedure in the nonpoint source arena. As experience is gained with the scoring process, adjustments'can be made. The scoring system is described in the DEC publication, 1988 Prigrity Water Problem List, April 1988. A description of this scoring system, updated to reflect the new categories.of impact given in Chapter II, is provided as Table V-1. A description of the water quality classifications used in New York is given in Table V-2. In summary, the factors which are included in the scoring are the classified best use, which sets the water quality objective for the waterbody; a problem severity factor; a public access factor; a uniqueness factor; and a factor which relates to the size of the affected waterbody. V-6 TABLE V PRIORITY UATER PROBLEM LIST SCORING SYSTE Details on the scoring factors used to rank segments on the Priority Water Problem (PWP) list follow. Some background on the process Leading to the scoring may be helpful in understanding how or why water segments are or are not-included. A detrimental effect on the best uses assigned under New York State water quality standards must be demonstrated in order for a segment to be I is ted. Tab Le V-2 contains the water qua tity c I ass if i cations assigned under the standards and shows the best use for each class. Based upon discussions with Regional office personnel, a work sheet is prepared for each segment. Basic information about the affected segment and the type and severity of the problemlsl and supporting documentation is recorded an the work sheet. The information recorded on the work sheet is then utilized to compute a segment score. The formula for scoring a segment is as follows: Score = P 1W1+P 2W2+P3WF3 +P4 Maximum Score P1= Classification Factor: 35 points P2= Problem Severity Factor: 30 points P3= Flow Factor: 10 points P4= Poten tial Resource Value: 25 points 100 points Vj_ (Stream Classification Weighing Factor) V2 (Frobtem Severity Weighing Factor) Factor Stream Classification Factor Severit 1.0 W, AA(T), A(T), A-Special, 1.0 Precluded AA-SpeciaL, AA(TS), A(TS), SA 0.8 Impaired 0.9 A, AA 0.6 Stressed 0.8 B(T), B(7S) 0.2 Threatened 0.7 8, SB 0.6 C(T), C(TS) 0.5 C, SC, I 0.4 D, SD V3 (Flow Weighing Factor) Factor MA7CD/10 Flow 1.0 Over 150 cfs, Lake, Estuary 0.7 20 - 150 cfs 0.4 Under 20 cfs V-7 TABLE V PRIORITY WATER PROBLEM LIST SCORING SYSTEM (continued) P4(Potentiat Resource Value) FOR FRESHWATER SEGMENTS: FOR KARINE WATERS: (Summation of Three (3) Factors) Public Access Factor Description (Potential Resource Value) a. Segment includes shellfish 25 (maximum) Points Accessabitit areas which are among the most productive in the state 6 Greater than 50% for any one of the following: 4 10-49% surf clam, hard clam, oyster, 2 Less than 10% bay scallop, blue mussel; Uniqueness Factors or Points Segment includes migratory passage- way for anadromous fish. 12 unique statewide fishery resource 10 Potentially unique or historically b. Segment includes productive or 21 signifcant potentially productive shell- 8 Similar resources within county fish beds. 6 Similar resources available Locally c. Segment supports commercial use is Resource Affected Factor (for food or recreation) of fishery resources. Points Length/Area d. All other segments. 15 7 More than 5 mi streams More than 100 A Lakes e. Segments conists of a blind 10 (minimum) tributary which is not part of 5 Between 1 and 5 mi streams a stream or river. Between 10 and 100 A Lakes 3 Less than 1 mi streams Less than 10 A Lakes Finally, using the scoring equation, a score is computed for each of the factors, and the factors are summed. Each segment is assigned a priority ranking of high, medium, or tow using the following criteria: Rank Score High 80-100 Medium 60-79 Low Less than 60 V-8 ~0 ~2p~p~3664;92;60;72qR ~2p~3956;92;76;72qX~1p~4180;92;60;72qIr~CAT IONS AND ~~~~~ ~J~L (~) ~~~"~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~ of ~~~~ Mild "lift ~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ 11~~~~ 'AS Of ~~~ ~4~~~ ~~.~~. Im~.~F~~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~@~ ~~~~~~~ aim ~~r~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ WATER BEST 'HIGHEST CLASSIFICATION USES BUT usr" Waters within Natural condition Natural condition forest preserve ~N Natural water, Water in natural ~i~n~qf~l~u~d~0qn best uses condition for A ~I~d ~A~A below Drinking water - Drinking water. A, ~A~A Primary contact ~- recreation Secondary contact - Fishing and recreation fish propagation Fresh ~G~A Potable groundwater - Drinking water Water Group Primary contact ~- swimming recreation (higher to lower secondary contact - Fishing and class) recreation fish propagation Primary contact Swimming recreation ~C Secondary contact - Fishing and recreation fish propagation Primary contact ~- Swimming recreation ~D Secondary contact - Fishing recreation (T~) Trout survival - Trout survival in Suffix t~o iti~o~n to best ~q:~q:~q: of ~cl~a~s Classes ~AA, sifi~c~a~- A, B a~nd C ti~o~n ~(~T~S) Trout propagation Trout propagation Suffix to in addition to best Classes ~AA, use classification A, ~B and ~C saline (commercial) ~- ~s~h~o~l~l~fi~s~h~i~ng ~sh~ellfishi~qN ~S~A Saline primary ~- Swimming contact recreation saline secondary - ~F~i~nf~i~s~h~i~n~g and contact recreation fish propagation ~S~q:~I~i~n~e ~Q~S~A Grou~n~dwat~er~s W ter sources of potable Drinking water& Group mineral voters~. conversion to pot- (higher ~a~bl~e~w~at~ers or raw to lower material for ~m~a~z~u- class) facture of ~qN~aC~1 Saline primary Swimming ~SB contact recreation, Saline secondary ~F~i~z~f~i~s~h~in~g a~nd contact recreation fish ~vr~op~a~v~ati~o~n ~2~C saline secondary ~- ~r~l~n~f~4~.~h~4 ~a~nd contact recreation fish Pro ~qM atLon ~S~D saline non- ~- ~T~L~o~b survival contact recreation ~6qM~2~1 & ~s~h~q"~I~f~i~s~h~) Uri Saw Ole ~qO~q"~qi~qf~qf~qt~qe cis" ~qA~q-~qs~qp~qw~ql~q.~ql~q: ~qb~q.~q0~qw~qe~q'~ql, Mote") ~qb"~q, ~q0~q0~q0 ~q1. WWI,= I, ~q.~q-~qSo~qm~qe~q,~qc~q: It-. ~qD~qL~qM~qD~qI~qO~qI~q. ant". inner ~qS~qi~qA~qb~qo~q. ~qA~qW~q4~q. ~qM~qW ~qC~qO~q-~q.~q. WNW ~qs~qi~qv~qa~ql.~q, ~q2~q"~q'~qM~q: "~q"' "~qW~q"~q"~q" ~qa~6qw~ql~q.~q1 ~q.~q1~8q@~q' IS. ~q6 ~qV~qT~4qM ~qc~qi~qed"~qS ~q1~qJ~q.~q-~qS~qO~qMIC~q1~q4~q1~q: ~qC~qL~qO~q-~qe~qr I~qf~qt~q,11~q9~q0~q"~q, a" ~q1I~qN'~qt city am ~qt~qw~qo ~ql~qs~qi~qm~qs ~qb~qu~qt~q"~q.~q1~q1~q1 pawl V~q-9 ~4qI~8qL~6qC~qS b. Developing the Feasibility of Watershed Management Through Regional Review The second phase will provide for local input, review and recommendations in the priority setting process. Annually, ranked candidate watersheds will be sent to NYSDEC Regional offices for review by a committee of local agencies and organizations. The local review process will refine the ordering of the candidate watersheds based on the professional judgment and opinions of the commi ttee. The committee will be chaired by the DEC Regional Director. Committee kepresentation should include, but not be limited to: NY9DEC Regional Divisions of Water and Fish and Wildlife, County Planning Boards, Environmental Management Councils, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, County Health agencies, Cornell Cooperative Extension and Regional Planning Organizations. Factors to be considered in determining the feasibility of control in a watershed include the following: i. Severity of the Water Ouality Problem or Threat - The scoring from the first step in the priority setting process provides a measure of the relative severity of problems in the region. ii. Understanding of the Cause of the Water Oualitv Problem- The degree to which the effects on water quality and the designated 'uses have been verified and documented must be considered. Also, the extent that prior planning and analysis has taken place to identify solutions or preventative actions should be considered. iii. Institutional and Program Capability to Act on the Problem - In assessing the feasibility of implementing a control plan in a specific situation, the review committee must consider whether there is an appropriate program available to support the work. Additionally, there must be in existence an appropriate local entity with the necessary authority that is willing to carry out the plan. iv. Availability of Funding from State or Federal Sources Whether funding is available or can be expected to underwrite implementation of the control plan is a basic factor in determining feasibility. State and federal agencies should provide advice to the review committee at the outset as to the availability of monies based on federal or state geographic priorities or on categories of nonpoint source pollution. V. Extent of Public Benefits - The magnitude of the net benefits that could accrue if the identified problem or threat were mitigated is an important consideration in V-10 the' review. widespread public and water resource benefits would outweigh those with a more confined or narrow scope. The value of a resource to the public should be considered (for instance, public vs. private waterbody). vi. Likelihood of Success - Whether a plan can be implemented or not depends on several additional factors: Are there technical means available to mitigate the problem? Is there public support evident locally for the proposal? Are those who must take action (i.e., the landowner) willing to participate?. vii. Costs of Inaction - Consideration must be given to the magnitude of damage to the.water resource and its use that would occur if no action s were taken After considering these factors and any other pertinent concerns, the review committee will identify the watersheds believed to be of highest priority for inplementati'on and submit its findings to the DEC Regional Director. C. List of Targeted Watersheds Once reviewed by.the regional committees, the DEC Division of Water will make a final ranking of priority watersheds where state funds should be and where federal funds ought to be directed. In doing this, DEC, will consult with other state agencies, such as the Soil and Water Conservation Committee, and with state offices of federal agencies, such as the USDA. 3. Allocating State and Federal Funds Funding sources for implementing nonpoint source control programs are listed in Chapter VII. Some of the sources make funding available for planning activities while others provide cost-sharing assistance for implementation of best management .practices. Certain funding is available to address specific nonpoint sources while some money can be used for any source. ,The state Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control program will provide cost-sharing assistance to correct nonpoint source pollution problems. Funding for non-agricultural projects will be administered by DEC, while funding for agricultural projects will be handled by the State Soil and Water Conservation Committee. Each agency is authorized to promulgate regulations regarding the cost-sharing program. Those regulations will set the requirements for the program. DEC will work with state and federal agencies that have funding available to emphasize priority waterbodies. The inventory of priority waterbodies, required by the Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control program, will be distributed to interested groups. lie V-11 The allocation of funding to nonpoint source management activities will be part of this management activity. The availability of . state and federal funding will determine the magnitude of the nonpoint source effort. Allocation of funding will be based on priorities for program action. This will apply bot@ to direction of personnel and funding in support of watershed programs. If local governments want to pursue a nonpoint source problem .with their own funding, they will be encouraged to follow guidance from the state program. The selection of watersheds and management practices are the primary areas where consistency is needed. 4. Initiatincf Programs Watershed programs, particularly those dealing with small drainage areas, will be initiated at the local level. Successful identification and installation of [email protected] practices must be preceded by planning. The planning process. should include a public participation element. DEC will encourage the development of watershed programs by publicizing the Nonpoint Source Program. In cooperation with the State Soil and Water@Conservation Committee, county SWCDs will be made aware that program support is available. Also, DEC will provide the current list of targeted watersheds to those federal agencies with. nonpoint source programs and encourage them to address priority watersheds. Periodic interagency meetings will be held to discuss and coordinate programs at the pre-proposal stages. 5. Monitoring and Evaluatinct Programs As part of its overall water quality management responsibility, DEC will incorporate monitoring to track progress of watershed programs into its assessment program. To acquire information for documenting water quality improvements over the years, the Division of Water will conduct water quality monitoring programs that focus both on small watershed efforts and river basin concerns. The Division of Water will also provide guidance to other agencies to perform monitoring. Because of the. complex and episodic nature of nonpoint source pollution, expertise is needed in the proper collection of water quality monitoring data and interpretation of results in terms of cause and effect. if monitoring is conducted by an outside agency, the verification scheme must be approved by DEC. The scheme must be subject to the same scientific principles and data quality assurance procedures that apply to all sampling and monitoring carried out by DEC. To maintain public support for adequate funding of the nonpoint source program, it is vital that the program be able to V-12 demonstrate explicitly its effectiveness in restoring and maintaining water quality to support designated uses. C. Watershed Program Imple mentation Procedure The watershed planning process is a sequence of steps which lead to successful implementation of a nonpoint source control program for a specific watershed. It is a logical series of elements which progresses from establishment of improvement objectives through the implementation of resource management systems and to the documentation of water quality-results. There must be a cooperation between planning agencies, implementers and land owners/users. The basic components of the watershed planning process are described below. 1. Identification of Lead Actency For any specific watershed project, a lead agency must be established to supervise implementation of the program. In general, the geographic jurisdiction of the agency should include the entire drainage area of the targeted waterbody. Thus, for a small watershed project, a local water quality agency such -as a county soil and water conservation district could be the lead. For a major river basin effort, a state or federal agency could be appropriate unless a regional agency with management capability exists or is created for the purpose. At all levels of scale, an alternative would be an interagency group created to focus on a specific watershed or basin project. The lead agency would have the.responsibility of identifying the various interests needed for participation in the program and establishing procedures for efficiently carrying out the process. 2. Initiation of Public Participation Process General public awareness of the problems and a broad base of support for control measures will increase the chance of success for a watershed management plan. Effective implementation requires involvement by local decision makers and their constituents in the problem identification and watershed planning process. Initiating the public participation process early in the program development phase may increase the acceptance of the control program eventually recommended. 3. Watershed Planning a. Identify Problems and Opportunities for Improvement and Protection The first step in the planning process is to verify the existence of the water quality problems and threats identified in the assessment. Any other impacts identified during the verification process should also be confirmed. Identifying the lie V-13 19 pollutants of concern and the sources then follows. Estimating the relative contribution of the sources present and establishing pollutant reduction goals are *the next steps. These steps will be the responsibility of the lead agency with guidance from DEC and cooperation from other appropriate agencies. i. Confirm Water Quality Status and Use Impacts or Threats Before initiating a detailed planning process-for any hydro- logic unit, there must be a verification of the problem or threats. A water quality problem exists only where a classified use is affected. Until the impact on or threat to the use is confirmed, no detailed planning efforts should be undertaken. For segments where water quality monitoring data exists, the first step of the verification will be to collect and analyze the data to determine if they support the information previously provided. For many segments no monitoring data will exist. Water quality monitoring might be required on some segments. Certain types of impacts might be confirmed using other information. For example, fish surveys might be sufficient to demonstrate a fish survival impairment. Any water quality sampling must conform to the sampling handling protocol and data quality assurance technique used by DEC. ii. Determine Existing and Potential Pollutants The next step toward developing a watershed management program is to determine the pollutants of concern. To some extent, this ,may be evident from the nature of the use impairment or threat identified above but it may also require water quality studies to resolve. iii. Assess the Watershed and Contributing Sources Water quality problems resulting from nonpoint sources are frequently caused by more than one source. Therefore, the implementation program may need to - address several source categories to achieve water quality improvements. The planning process must assess the entire watershed and estimate the relative contributions from all sources of pollution. The f irst step is to construct a map of the watershed with all known point and nonpoint sources plotted. Land uses should also be shown on the map. Overlays might be developed which show factors such as the depth to bedrock, erosion potential, soil type and slope. These would be useful in identifying potential nonpoint source delivery areas. Field reconnaissance should be conducted to ver.ify watershed characteristics shown on the map. V-14 iv. Estimate Contributions from Nonpoint and Point Sources A control program which addresses only the primary source will often be insufficient to improve water quality. However, it may not be feasible or desirable to address all nonpoint sources which exist in a watershed. An effort to estimate the contribution from each source is needed*before selection of implementation options. Use of available studies and water quality monitoring data will provide some information about the contribution of sources. In many cases, mathematical and/or computerized models that relate land use to nonpoint source water quality.impacts can be used to estimate the relative impacts. Models should be based on continuous simulation of hydrologic conditions and should be sensitive to storm event periods. Additionally, they should be capable of relating water quality conditions to specific sources in a watershed or on the land surfaces. The modeling and monitoring studies must be able to establish the linkage between pollutants generated by the sources -and impacts to water quality observed in the waterbody. The results of monitoring data and modeling studies can be used in conjunction with the watershed profile map to identify critical nonpoint source areas.. They will also help in establishing a priority among the sources that need to be addressed in the implementation plan. b. Establish Water Quality Goals and Determine Needed Pollutant Reductions Objectives The basic water quality objectives to be met by the watershed management program are provided by the classifications of the waterbodies in the watershed. These specify the uses to be protected and the associated water quality needs. They are the basis for determining..the degree of impairment. Pollutant reductions needed to meet the water quality objectives must be established. These reduction goals could then be translated into areas needing treatment to control specific substances found in runoff or into other suitable parameters for planning. At thi-S point in the process, design of a water quality monitoring system to document changes in the receiving I waterbodies may be appropriate. C. Identify Alternative Management Practices or other Control Measures After identifying the sources or source categories of concern and the needed pollutant reductions, the next step is,to consider the control options which are available to achieve these reductions. An analysis of management practices which might be used should be conducted. The mix of practices which should be implemented to V-15 achieve the water quality goals must be determined. Additional model studies might be required before "best" management practices are selected. An analysis of. practice effectiveness and cost should be factored into determining the best practice. d. Identify Funding and Programs Currently Available to Support Implementation In this step of the process, the reality of resources and programs available at the time of implementation must be determined to develop a program plan with maximum opportunity for success. Federal, state and local funding sources should all be examined. e. Select Alternatives for the Plan Here the program plan for the watershed. comes together by drawing on steps c. and d. above. By combining considerations of what practices are needed with what funding is available, a proposal for a watershed implementation program can be developed.. To assure that all involved understand the implementation program, the measures and controls to be adopted, the responsible parties and the schedule for implementation must be documented. This implementation program will be the basis for review and approvals by other supporting agencies. Before proceeding further with implementation, all interjurisdictional and interagency agreements must be established. These agreements could involve defining cooperative tasks, establishing funding arrangements or clarifying responsibilities. The plan would be provided to DEC and others for review at this point. Further public participation efforts at this stage would also be appropriate. 4. Implementation of Plan The lead agency proceeds with the implementation of the approved plan; providing for technical assistance and utilizing funding as specified in the plan. The lead agency would also be responsible,for reporting progress. 5. Monitoring and Follow-up The lead agency, along with cooperating agencies, would provide for monitoring of results of the work and follow-up to ensure maintenance of the installed measures. Effects on water quality would be documented and need for mid-course corrections in the plan be identified. The procedure summarized above will be re peated for each targeted watershed or hydrologic unit which progresses through implementation. The resources and effort devoted to each step in the process will vary from watershed to watershed. Such factors as the degree of verification of problems, the knowledge of water V-16 quality and the sources impacting water uses, and the ease of selecting and implementing best management practices will affect the emphasis placed on each step. A fundamental requirement of all watershed programs is the establishment and maintenance of public participation throughout the implementation program. If the people who will enjoy the benefits of a watershed program and who will be called upon to contribute to the implementation of the program, understand the nature of the problem and participate in finding a solution, then the program has a better chance of being successful. D. Additional Program Needs The series of steps outlined in this chapter are the basic building blocks of the watershed planning process for controlling nonpoint source pollution. Some of the methodology, particularly the analyses of the source/contribution/water quality effects and the cost-effectiveness of alternate management practices nay require, sophisticated monitoring and modeling techniques. Research and demonstration projects are needed to test various methodologies in a watershed with documented water quality problems. V-17 CHAPTER VI IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Nonpoint source pollution management 'is a complex issue. Numerous land uses and activities are considered nonpoint sources. A nonpoint source problem is often the result of a variety of land uses and many individual sources distributed diffusely over a wide area. Control of nonpoint source pollution by a single program is not,.feasible. Nonpoint sources are usually best controlled by modifying activities, practices or operations on the land or by changing land use activities. These modifications can be achieved in many ways including regulation, financial incentives and voluntary compliance. Since many programs already exist that play a role in controlling nonpoint source pollution, it is essential that the management program recognize those efforts and build on to them wherever possible. . Numerous state agencies have programs that address nonpoint sources. DEC has programs within several of its divisions that deal with sources or their effects. The Divisions of Water, Air, Lands and Forests, and Mineral Resources are among those that have programs related- to nonpoint source pollutants. Other state agencies with related programsinclude the Department of Health, the Department of State, the Department of Transportation, the Adirondack Park Agency, and the State Soil and Water Conservation Committee. County Soil and Water Conservation Districts play a key role across the state in managing several types of nonpoint sources. Many counties also have programs in their health department and planning department that deal with nonpoint sources. Town planning boards and code enforcement officers also address certain nonpoint sources. Many County Cornell Cooperative Extension Associations are involved in educational work related to water quality management. This entire report describes methods and recommendations for dealing with nonpoint source pollution in New York. Several of the chapters describe processes to be used to handle certain aspects of the problem. Chapter II describes the process for enhancement of the list of state waters affected by nonpoint sources. Chapter V outlines a watershed program implementation p rocedure. Chapter VIII establishes a review process to assure that federal programs are consistent with the state's nonpoint source program. The majority of the. recommendations for programs to control nonpoint sources are contained in Chapter IV. That chapter VI-1 discusses each source category, describes the existing programs which deal with the source and makes recommendations for additional program needs. A. 'Implementation Schedule This chapter is intended to meet the requirements of Section 319 (b) (2) (c) of the Water Quality Act of 1987 which call for a program implementation schedule. EPA guidance requires thatthe @anagement Program contain a 4-year program. The years outlined in the schedule are based on New York State fiscal years. Therefore, the First-Year refers to the period from April 1, 1990- March 3i, 1991; the Second-Year is from April 1, 1991 - March 31, 1992. The Third-Year is from April 1, 1992-March 31, 19934nd the Fourth-Year is from April 1, 1993-March 31, 1994. The commitment of staff or funding resources to water quality programs is an annual management process. With the year-to-year uncertainty in funding from both state and federal sources, DEC is not in a position to commit to performance objectives which depend on future budgets. Adjustments to the program may also be required annually based on changing priorities set during the Division of Water's management planning process. In addition, as stated above, control of nonpoint. source pollution will require cooperative efforts, from a number of federal, state and local agencies. DEC has no control over priority setting or the budget process for these agencies and therefore, cannot make commitments for these other agencies. The four-year schedule shown below is taken from recommendations made in Chapter IV. The recommendations are listed in the order that they appear in the chapter. They are not listed in any priority ranking. The number to the left of each item refers to the section of Chapter IV that contains the specific recommendation. An evaluation of the effectiveness of the many components of this schedule should be performed at the end of the four year program. @fter each item on the schedule, the suggested lead agency or agencies are listed. The abbreviations are explained on Table VI-1. in many cases, other agencies will also have a role in implementing a specific recommendation. In many cases, the activity listed is a program development activity and the agency listed will have a lead role for that phase. Cooperation of local agencies such as Soil and Water Conservation Districts.or County Health Departments will be required for the eventual implementation of many _of these programs. organizations such as the New York State Association of Conservation Districts and the Soil and Water Conservation Society will also be called on to assist in implementation efforts. VI-2 Table VI-1 .List of Abbreviations: USDA United States Department of Agriculture EPA Environmental Protection Agency DEC NYS Department of Environmental Conservation DOW Division of Water SCS Soil Conservation Service SWCD Soil & Water Conservation District WRI Water Resources Institute SSWCC State Soil & Water Conservation Committee ASCS Agricultural Stabilization & Conservation Service, CCES Cornell Cooperative Extension System DEC-DOA Division of Air DEC-DFW Division of Fish and Wildlife RCD Resource Conservation and Development Councils DOH NYS Department of Health DEC-DCM Division of Construction Management DEC-DMN Division of Mineral Resources DEC-DLF Division of Lands and Forests B. First-Year Irplerentation Activities 1-1 Conduct an update of the assessment of waterbodies and groundwater segments affected by nonpoint source pollution. (DEC-DOW; SSWCC; SWCD) 1-2 Develop a watershed planning process for waterbodies with significant water quality problems resulting from nonpoint sources. (SSWCC; WRI; SCS; DEC-DOW) 1-3 Conduct a re sea rch/demonstrat ion project on an impaired waterbody which applies the watershed planning process to a specific watershed. (DEC-DOW) 1-4 Establish catalog of approved management practices for agriculture and diffuse urban runoff nonpoint source categories. (DEC-DOW) 1-5 Promulgate regulations for- implementation of the state nonpoint source control cost-sharing program. (DEC-DOW; SSWCC) 1-9 Develop Memorandums of Understanding with key agencies to assure the coordination of efforts in controlling nonpoint sources. (DEC-DOW; SSWCC; SCS) VI-3 1-11 Develop a water quality training program for staff of county agencies involved in the control of h onpoint source Pollution. (DEC-DOW; CCES) 1-12 Develop a procedure for counties to use in preparing county water quality strategies. (DEC-DOW) 2-5 Incorporate water quality considerations in farm level planning. (SWCD; SCS) 2-6 Develop Memorandums of Understanding with key agencies tha t administer financial incentive programs for installing agricultural management practices. (DEC-DOW; ASCS) 2-12 Advocate that the 1990 Federal Farm Bill include an emphasis on water quality. (DEC) 4-1 Expand programs to disseminate the information contained in New York Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines. (SWCD; SCS) 4-2 Develop a model eros ion and sediment control ordinance. (DEC- DOW) 4-3 Develop guidance on erosion and sediment control. (DEC-DOW) 6-1 Complete stormwater management planning guidance manual. (DEC- DOW) 6 -7 Implement the review of federal development projects to assure that appropriate measures are taken to prevent or mitigate adverse effects from nonpoint source pollution. (DEC-DOW) 7-2 Promote the use of existing cost-sharing programs for treatments such as vegetative buffer strips. (SWCD; ASCS) 9-1 Develop inventories of petroleum and hazardous material storage facilities within important aquifer areas. (DEt-DOW) 10-2 Pursue the legislative amendment to the Mined Land Reclamation Law which will lower the statutory threshold for mining in streams. (DEC-DMN) 12b-1 Develop a more complete inventory of the problems caused by deicing agents. (DEC-DOW) C. Second-Year Implementation-Activities 1-2 Implement the watershed planning process for two or more waterbodies affected by nonpoint source pollution. This could VI-4- also include aquifer/wellhead protection programs. (DEC-DOW; SWCD) 1-4 Establish catalog of approved management practices. for remaining source categories. (DEC-DOW) 1-6 Increase educational efforts to make the general public aware of the water quality impacts of nonpoint source pollution. (DEC-DOW; CCES/WRI) .1-8 Establish an information clearinghouse to collect reports on nonpoint source research, demonstration projects and control activities and make them available statewide. (WRI) 1-10 Develop watershed rules and regulations for the protection of water supply sources. (DOH) 2-2 Conduct research on the effects of common agricultural management practices on water quality. (WRI; DEC-DOW; SWCD) 2-7 Expand prograns that provide technical assistance to farmers; incorporate water quality concepts into the application of management practices. (SCS; SWCD; CCES) 3-4 Encourage federal legislation to regulate the discharge of precursors to the air. (DEC) 5-1 Encourage EPA to establish nationwide criteria for evaluating the toxicity and risk associated with contaminated sediment.' (DEC-DOW; EPA) 5-2 Encourage federal research on the impacts of removal of contaminated sediment and on inplace mitigation measures. (DEC-DOW;,EPA) 5-3 Explore the possibility of designating waterbodies with contaminated sediment as state Superfund sites. (DEC) 6-2 Develop. educational programs to make local officials aware of opportunities to control runoff from new development. (WRI; CCES; SWCD) 6-3 Prepare a model stormwater control ordinance. (DEC-DOW) 6-5 Encourage research and demonstration projects to study treatment techniques for urban runoff. (DEC-DOW) 7-1 Establish a program to disseminate the principles of stream corridor management across the state. (DEC-DOW; RC&D; SWCD) VI-5 7-3 Include requireme nts for BMPs which minimize stream dis- & turbance in the Memorandums of Understanding between DEC 10-1 and local governments under the stream protection permit. program. (DEC-DMN) 8-1 Develop a model sanitary code for individual on-site wastewater disposal systems. (DEC-DOW; DOH) 8-3 Increase enforcement activities against persons where failing on-site wastewater systems are causing water quality problems. (DEC-DOW) 9-3 Prepare a legislative proposal which establishes incompatible use regulations to protect all primary aquifers in the state.(DEC-DOW) 12b-2 Encourage research projects that explore the impacts of salt and sand application along highways. (DEC-DOW; WRI) 12b-3 Develop technology transfer efforts to encourage localities to properly store and apply deicing agents. (DEC-DOW; WRI) 12b-4 Develop regulations for deicing agent storage facilities that will not result in water quality problems. (DEC-DOW) D. Third-Year Implementation.Activities 1-2 Implement the watershed planning process for two or more waterbodies affected by nonpoint source pollution. This could also include aquifer/wellhead protection programs. (DEC-DOW; SWCD) 1-7 Develop a targeted educational program to make local officials aware of the control options available to them,in controlling nonpoint source pollution. (CCES; DEC-DOW; SWCD) 2-1 Investigate mechanisms to minimize the impact of agriculture on water quality. (SCS; DEC-DOW; WRI.) 2-3 Encourage research/demonstration projects on the feasibility of low-input and low-intensity agriculture. (WRI; SWCD; CCES) 2-8 Develop technology transfer programs to disseminate available information on the management of animal waste. (CCES; SWCD; WRI) 2-10 Investigate the potential for using the concept of cross- compliance at the state level for addressing agricultural nonpoint s'ource problems. (DEC-DOW; SSWCC) VI-6 2-11 Explore alternatives to the present voluntary participation in conservation programs for agriculture. (DEC-DOW; SSWCC; SWCD) 3-3 Conduct research on the impacts of atmospheric deposition on waterbodies in urban areas. (DEC-DOW) 4-4 Implement a program to regulate runoff from construction sites based on requirements of ECL Section 17-0808. (DEC-DOW) 4-5 Develop a legislative proposal which mandates local erosion and sediment control programs. Th is.program should include provisions for inspection of erosion control measures installed. (DEC-DOW) 6-6 Develop technology transfer programs to make local officials aware of, the importance o-Af maintaining stormwater control facilities. (WRI; CCES) 7-5 Develop regulatory programs (in conjunction with the stornwater management program) which control runoff to prevent damage to streams.-ADEC-DOW) 8-2 Prepare technical guidelines to assist local governments in using zoning -as well as subdivision and site plan review autho-rity to minimize the impacts of on-site wastewater disposal systems. (DEC-DOW; DOH) 8-4 Make funding available for communities to correct land disposal problems through the revolving loan fund. (DEC-DOW; DEC-DCM) 8-5 Develop a- description of potential funding sources for communities to address problems caused by on-site.wastewater disposal systems. (DEC-DOW; DEC-DCM) 8-6 Encourage demonstration projects which are innovative solutions to correct problems caused by failing on-site wastewater systems. (DEC-DOW; DEC-DCM) 8-7 Develop educational programs to make the public aware of water quality impacts resulting from improper disposal of household hazardous wastes. (CCES) 11-1 Increase the frequency of post-timber harvest evaluations. (DEC-DLF) 12a-1 Establish a technology transfer program to make highway superintendents realize that roadbank erosion does cause water quality problems and to demonstrate BMPs which can reduce the impacts. (DEC-DOW; WRI; SWCD) VI-7 E. Fourth-Year Implementation Activities 1-2 Implement the watershed planning process for two or more waterbodies affected by nonpoint source pollution. This could also include aquifer/wellhead protection programs. (DEC-DOW; SWCD) 2-4 Conduct research on the long-term water quality benefits of land remaining in agricultural use instead of being developed. .(DEC-DOW) 2-9 Develop educational programs to make farmers aware of water quality problems that can result from improper land management. (CCES; SWCD; WRI) 3-1 Expand air and lake monitoring to document the long-term impacts of atmospheric deposition. (DEC-DOW; DEC-DOA) 3-2 Conduct 'research and demonstration projects on possible mitigation measures for waterbodies affected by acid rain. (DEC-DOW; DEC-DFW; WRI) 5-4 Encourage the assembly of an international conference on all aspects of the contaminated sediment problem. (DEC; EPA) 5-5 Investigate banning certain toxic substances'and restricting the discharge of others. (DEC), 5-6 Encourage the creation of a new funding mechanism to remediate contaminated sediment problems. (DEC;EPA) 6-4 Work with municipalities, through the issuance of SPDES permits for stormwater systems, to minimize the effects of stormwater runoff. (DEC-DOW) 7-4 Establish minimum instream flow criteria. (DEC-DOW; DEC-DFW) 9-2 Encourage communities to hold clean-up/disposal da ys for pesticides and other hazardous chemicals. (DEC) 10-3 Propose a modification to the Stream Protection Permit Program that will require local governments to obtain permits for mining sand and gravel from streambanks. (DEC-DOW) VI-8 CHAPTER VII SOURCES OF FUNDING AVAILABLE TO IMPLEMENT NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS Numerous agencies (local, state, federal) have programs and funds for the treatment, management or control of nonpoint sources. Some programs focus directly on nonpoint source control while others advance water quality as a side benefit. Some of these programs have funds which are available for distribution to other agencies, organizations and land users to plan and/or implement nonpoint source water pollution control measures. The focus of this chapter is to identify the limited sources of available funding for implementation of nonpoint source control programs. It will identify available program funds which are dedicated or may be redirected to nonpoint source water quality activities. Further information about programs listed is available in Chapter V of the Nonpoint Source Assessment Report (February, 1989). A matrix provided as Appendix D, assesses the existing and potential support for nonpoint source control and prevention from the programs listed in the Assessment Report. A. Funding Sources.in the water Ouality Act of 1987 There are several nonpoint source funding mechanisms identified in the Water Quality Act of 1987 in addition to,Section 319 (Nonpoint Source Management Programs). The federal financial assistance is provided to states to carry out the legislative intent. In New York, the programs are administered by DEC which has been designated as the state's lead water quality agency. 1. General Sources of Funding a. Section 106 - Pollution Control Programs Grants are available to states for the cost of developing and carrying out a pollution control program. The amount available for each state is the reasonable cost of the program as determined by EPA or the allotment for the state, whichever amount is lesser. All water pollution control programs, including the nonpoint source program, are eligible for funding under this section. The funds available in New York were $4.17 million in FFY 19890.) Most of the activities carried out by the Division of Water are eligible for funding under this section. These funds were not used for the nonpoint source program since they were needed to support other activities mandated by federal law. FFY 1989 refers to the federal fiscal year which began on October 1, 1988 and ended on September 30, 1989. VII-1 b. Section 201(g)(1) - Governor's 20% Discretionary These resources are available for any purpose for which a grant may be made under Sections 319(h) and 319(i) (including any innovative and alternate approaches for the control.of nonpoint sources of pollution) provided that no more than 2 *0% of the state. Section 205 allotment for construction of wastewater facilities may be used for this purpose. Based on the federal allocation, the maximum amount available for nonpoint source control under this provision was $20.6 million in FFY 1989. However, due to an overwhelming demand for increased and improved facilities to control and manage point sources, it is unlikely that any portion of these funds will be apportioned to nonpoint source planning and management. C. Section 205(g) - Administration of Construction Grants Program Grants are available to states, that have been delegated the authority to administer thesections of the Act that implement the construction grants program (Sections 201, 203, 204 and 212). The amount of the grant may be up to the reasonable . cost of administering the program. Water quality planning activities including the nonpoint source program are eligible for funding under this program. The funds available in New York were $5.36 million in FFY 1989. It is unlikely that money appropriated under this funding will be used for the nonpoint program since the funds are already committed to administer the Construction Grants Program. d Section 205(ij(2) - Water Quality Management- Planning Grants are available to states for determining the nature, extent and causes of water quality problems in the state and for identifying the most cost-effective facility and nonpoint measures to meet and maintain water quality standards. Up to 1% of the funds allocated to the state under Section 205 are available for these subsections. The total funds available under this Section in New York were $1..03 million in FFY 1989. However, Congress mandates that 40% of these funds (or $412,000 in FFY 1989) be passed through to local planning agencies. This pass-through funding is described in section e. on the next page. The $518,000 which remains is used to accomplish administrative functions. Many of the activities of the Division of Water, including the nonpoint source program, are eligible for funding under this section. However, the 60% administrative funds are not presently used for the nonpoint source program. VII-2 Section 205(i)(3) -.Pass-Throucih Funding Under this section, at least 40%,of grants provided to states under Section 205(j) (1) must be allocated to regional public planning organizations for water quality management planning activities * This allocation is being used to fund a number of projects in New York including several which are related to the nonpoint source program. Among the projects that were funded in New York in FFY 1988 and 1989 are the following: Prolect Study Focus 205(i) Funding Bouquet River Water quality $ 16,036 testing and erosion control V. of LeRoy Water supply $ 52,800 watershed mapping and educational program Onondaga Lake Water quality $380,500 models for lake Rochester Water quality $199,620 Embaynent management plans for watersheds that empty into embayment Peconic River Brown tide $200,00 Herkimer-Oneida Groundwater $85,750 Counties Protection Southern Tier Groundwa'ter $97,400 West Protection Tug Hill Groundwater $22,400 Protection Funding for these projects which address nonpoint sources of surface water and groundwater total more than $1 million for FFY 1989. It is anticipated that five projects dealing with groundwater protection will be funded for FFY 1990. f. Section 205(j)(@) - Nonnoint Source Reserve Up to 1% of the funds available under Section 205 can be set- aside for carrying out Section 319 of the CWA. This is in addition to the 1% set-aside under Section 205(j)(1). These funds may be used for: program development, implementation of the nonpoint VII-3 source management program and implementation of groun .dwater protection activities., Section 205 (j) (5) funds used for program development require no match while funds used for implementation of NPS management program require a 40% non-federalcontribution. Section 205(j) (5) funds utilized for groundwater protection require 50% non-federal contribution. Funds available for NPS in New York @ere $1.03 million in FFY 1989. The emphasis of Section 205 (j) (5) is on planning and management. This is the primary funding source used in the nonpoint source program in New York. 9- Section 603 (c) (2) - State Water Pollution Control Revolving Funds This section establishes the State Water Pollution Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) and authorizes federal funds' to capitalize the State SRFs. SRF funds may be used for construction of publicly- owned treatment works, implementation of state nonpoint source .management programs, as well as development and implementation of state estuary conservation and manag ement plans. Funds have been allocated and $105.1 million has been set-aside to capitalize New York's program. New York State legislation signed in 1989 created the New York State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund. This legislation was the necessary first step in making the federal allocation available for use in New. York. The Federal Act authorizes an additional $770 million over the next five years, although annual appropriations could turn out to be 1 ess. .DEC has compiled a list of known projects that will need financing over the next decade. The list totals $9.0 billion. With anticipated federal grants and state matching funds, the maximum amount available is only $1.05 billion. Through financial, leveraging, DEC estimates that about $4 billion in projects can be financed by the end of this century. Since the available funding is less than half the money needed for known proje .cts, it is unlikely that a significant amount will be available for nonpoint source projects through this fund. h. Section 604(b) Funds for-PlanninQ Up to 1% of the funds allotted to the state under this section are available to carry out planning activities under Sections 205 (j) and 303 (e) of the Act. The total funds available in New York under this Section were $1.03 million in FFY 1989. Many of the activities of the Division of Water,including the nonpoint source program, are eligible for funding under this section. However, the funds are not presently used for the nohpoint source program. VII-4 2. Targeted Sources of Funding a. Section 104(b) (3) - Research Grants EPA is funding grants under the authorities of Section 104(b) (3) of the Clean Water Act, Sec't-ion 8001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Section 1C3 of the Clean Air Act, Section 10 of the Toxic Substances Control Act and Section 1442 (b) (3) (c) of the Safe Drinking Water Act. These grants support pollution prevention programs that address the. reduction of pollutants across all environmental media: air, surface water, land, groundwater and wetlands. The conc,2pt being encouraged. through these grants is that further improvemcnts in environmental quality will be best achieved by preventinc the generation of potentially harmful pollutants. Source reduction and environmentally sound recycling practices are the means recommended to achieve this goal. This concept ties into S-:@ction 104 through theconcept that research projects to prevent, r,-duce or eliminate pollution may be funded. Grants awarded for FFY 1989 totaled $3.8 million. EPA expects to make at least ten grant awards in amounts not to exceed $300,000 during FFY 1990. organizations awarded funds will be required to contribute at least 10% of the total cost of the pi:,jects. State and interstate agencies are eligible to apply for fLnding. b. Section 118 - Great Lakes To help meet the goals of the Great Lakes 1,17a er Quality Agreement of 1978, this section continues the Great L&k s National Program Of f ice (GLNPO) , establishes the Great Lakes Rese@_ rch Of f ice within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administ-ration, and provides funds to states to improve water quality within the Great Lakes basin. Distrib 'ution of appropriated funds will be; 40% for the GLNPO for demonstration projects on the feasil.,i'ity- of controlling and removing toxic wastes, 7% for the GLNPc for a nutrient monitoring program and 30% for the Great Lakes RLsearch Office. Nationwide authorized funding is $11 million per year for FFY 1987 through 1991. C. Section 314(b) - Clean Lakes Survey This section requires biennial preparation of a report identifying all publicly-owned lakes in the state. The report must classify lakes according to trophic conditi..1n and list lakes in the state known.to be impaired. It must descr_U:@ procedures to control pollution sources and restore water qual.Jit, in impaired lakes. The report must also list methods and procedures used to mitigate th 'e harmful effects of high acidity. Finally, it must include an assessment of the status and trends of water quality in lakes. . New York received $649,000 in FFY 1989 through this program. VII-5 water quality in lakes.. New York received $649,000 in FFY 1989 through this program. d. Section 314(d) - Clean Lakes Demonstration Projects This subsection establishes.a demonstration program to develop cost-effective technologies for the control of nonpoint sources of pollution. The funding can also be used to demonstrate techniques for the removal of contaminated lake sediments and to prevent the deposit of sedimentin lakes. Beginning in FFY 1987, $40 million was authorized nationwide to carry out this subsection. The money was to be available until expended. e.. Section 320 - National Estuary Progra This provides funding for attainment or maintenance of water quality in designated estuaries. Estuaries given priority consideration include: Long Island Sound, New York-New Jersey Harbor and Delaware Bay. Funds are available to state, interstate and r;gional water pollution control agencies, coastal zone management a .gencies as well as institutions and organizations. Grants under this program are available for research, surveys, studies or modeling necessary for the development of a management plan for the estuary.. Grants may not exceed 75% of the total cost of the research project. Funding f or this aspect of the Long Island Sound was $1.4 million for FFY 1989. The New York-New Jersey Harbor has proposed one study to. assess loadings fron atmospheric deposition, resuspension of sediments and stormwater discharges and another to evaluate best management practices and stormwater tontrols in a small watershed during FFY 1990. B. Other Funding Sources 1. NYSDEC Hazardous Substances Bulk Storacie This preventive management program regulates the construction and operation of hazardous chemical bulk storage facilities. The program includes both petroleum bulk storage and chemical bulk storage. Each of these have their own regulations. There are 1,000 hazardous substances listed in 'DEC regulations that are subject to the chemical bulk storage program. The hazardous substance bulk storage fund was created from storage facility registration fees. The annual authorized spending from this program has remained at $2.139 million for the last few years. In addition, -$315,800 comes from federal UST funds to finance this program. VII-6 2. USDA - Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service a. Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) i. Basic Program This preventive implementation program provides financial assistance to farmers to install soil and water conservation practices which contribute to the reduction of agriculturally related nonpoint sources. Federal cost sharing can be as high as 75% of the cost of the practice (80% for an approved low income producer). The amount budgeted in New York in FFY 1989 was $4.5 million. ii. Special Projects This is a remedial imp lementation program. There is a portion of the annual national ACP budget set-aside for water quality projects. The program, administered by ASCS, provides financial assistance to farmers within approved watershed areas to install soil and water conservation practices that contribute to the reduction of agriculturally related nonpoint sources. These special project funds are distributed to areas through a national competitive procedure. Project applications are initiated at the local level. The amount awarded for projects in New York during FFY 1989 was $0,.6 million. The ASCS program in New York also reserves a portion of their annual ACP allocation for state special projects. These projects are selected through a state competitive procedure. Project applications are initiated at the local level. Improvement of water quality is included in the acceptable goals of these projects. In FFY 1989, $.15 million was awarded for projects through this program. b. Food Security Act This is a preventive implementation program with regulatory aspects. Public Law 93-198 was enacted to stabilize food production and to protect soil and water resources. The law contains five provisions, two of which offer funding opportunities. i. Conservation Reserve Program' This program allows USDA to enter long-term contracts with landowners. In return for financial incentives, the landowner agrees to remove highly erodible land and streambanks from crop production and to control soil erosion by establishing long-term grass and tree cover. Cost share assistance is available for up to 50% of the cost of establishing permanent protective cover on the highly erodible land under contract. Through the first eight signups, a total of 50,500 acres of highly erodible cropland has been placed under contract. Annual rental payments, for the VII-7 signups, a total of 50,500 acres of highly ero dible cropland has been placed under contract, Annual rental payments for the contracted acres equals $2.8 million. Cost-sharing assistance through this program for FFY 1989 was on the order of $.2 million. ii. Conservation Easements This program allows the Farmers Home Administration to partially cancel loans that are in or near default, in exchange for the placement of highly erodible land and wetland and fragile land in long-term (50 year) conservation, recreation or wildlife use. The dollar value of,this program is not readily available. C. Forestry Incentive Program This preventive implementation program p rovides financial assistance to encourage landowners to plant trees on suitable open land and to improve existing stands of trees. Federal cost sharing through*this program can be as high as 65%. The amount allocated to New York for this program during FFY 1989 was $63,000. 3. USDA - Soil Conservation Service a. Emergency Watershed Protection Prog ram This is a remedial implementation program. Under this program! P.L. 95-334, SCS is authorized to expend- funds for necessary emergency measures to protect life and public property threatened by a natural occurrence. Technical and financial assistance is available to units of government to stabilize streambanks eroded by natural disasters. Funding is authorized by Congress as needed. b. . Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention This is a remedial implementation program for watersheds of less than 250,000 acres. Authorized by P.L. 79-566, this program focuses on the control of flooding and/or correction of water quality problems resulting from agriculture and hydrologic modification. Technical and financial assistance is available to landowners through the program. The amount budgeted for watershed activities-in New York in FFY 1989, was.$O.1 million. 4. NYS Department of State Coastal-Zone Progra While this is primarily a planning program it does have a limited financial assistance aspect. Communities with approved local government revitalization programs (LWRPs) can apply for Waterfront Implementation Grants. These grants can be f or the study of a water quality problem or for the design and construction of solutions to the problem. There is a 50% matching requirement for these grants. VII-8 C. Potential Funding Sources It should be apparent from this chapter that, at present, there are limited funds available for address ing water quality problems caused by nonpoint sources. Major funding sources (Section 201(g)(1); Section 603(c)(2)) are being used to correct other high priority problems. Sources directed specifically at nonpoint problems have limited funds available. New funding sources must be developed that are specifically directed at nonpoint source problems. 1. NYS Nonpoint Source Water-Pollution Control Program Chapter 436 of New York State's Laws of 1989 established a state nonpoint source water pollution control program. The purpose of this law is to safeguard the waters of the state by controlling and abating new and existing sources of nonpoint source pollution. It establishes two grant programs. Both programs provide matching grants for up to 50% of the cost of implementation of best management practices in watersheds of priority wate'rbodies as identified by DEC. one program is administered by DEC and is available for abatement of non- agricultural nonpoint source problems. The other program is administered by the State Soil and Water Conservation Committee and is to be used to address agricultural nonpoint source problems. The law did not provide an appropriation sufficient to establish the cost-sharing program. Funding will be needed to.make this a viable option. VII-9 CHAPTER VIII INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATE NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM One requirement for the Management Program, based on Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, is a listing of federal financial assistance programs and federal development projects which the state plans to review for their effect on water quality. The purpose of this review is to determine whether such assistance or development projects are consistent with the state's nonpoint source program. There are several review mechanisms that can be used for federal projects. The primary opportunity is under the provisions of Executive Order 12372 which requires f 'ederal agencies to make changes in response to the concerns of a state program. The National Environmental Policy Act provides another, review opportunity to consider federal actions. However, federal projects make up a small percentage of construction that occurs in the state each year. State agencies and local governments approve numerous actions which can have significant environnental impacts.. The State Environmental Quality Review Act provides an opportunity to assure that many of these actions are consiste.nt with the state nonpoint source program. The purpose of this chapter is to describe the existing review opportunities and explain how the consistency requirement provisions will be applied to the nonpoint source program. it outlines the criteria that will be applied in the review process., A. Intergovernmental Review of Federal Prolects Presidential Executiv e Order 12372, issued in 1983, requires federal agencies to follow the process that the state establishes for reviewing prospective applications for federal aid. It also says that federal agencies should make efforts to accommodate state and local concerns about proposed projects. Under EO 12372, appropriate agencies and departments of the federal government are required to accommodate the concerns that the state may express. Used in this context, the term "accommodate" means that "any project proposed to be developed by a federal agency or for which, any person is seeking assistance must be in conformance with state views, policies, regulations and laws. If a state objects to any aspect of a proposed project, then that aspect must be modified to reflect the views communicated by the VIII-1 state" If a federal agency cannot accommodate the state's concerns, it must explain why it cannot do so. Accordingly, the New York State Intergovernmental Review Process was established on October 30, 1984, by Gubernatorial Executive Order No. 51. The state's Division of Budget was designated as the State Clearinghouse to administer the project review process. 1. Goals The goals of the review process include: a. Providing opportunities for intergovernmental consultation on applications with a view toward strengthening deficient proposals before they are submitted to the appropriate federal agency for approval; b. Fostering intergovernmental cooperation and coordination; C. Avoiding duplication; a nd d. Providing a for mal mechanism for the timely exchange of information among the various levels of government on proposals that will potentially affect them. 2. Program Coverage Under Executive Order 12372, each stateis to determine which federal programs will be subject to the state's review process. There are numerous programs listed in the 1988 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) with the potential for taking actions that could contribute to nonpoint source pollution. Review of individual applications is the best method for assuring consistency for some programs, but for others that is not feasible. A more general method for review is needed for those other programs. The appropriate method for review of a specific program will be determined based on its nature. Programs that involve significant construction activities of significant financial magnitude will be reviewed through the weekly project list compiled by the State Clearinghouse. For operational prograins such as those sponsored by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service and Cooperative Extension, reviewing individual project applications is not feasible. Memorandums of Understanding between DEC and key agencies will be used toachieve consistency with these programs. Comments of Senator Durenberger of Minnesota speaking to his understanding and interest in the enactment of the federal consistency portions of Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. (Congressional Record, Senate, January 4, 1987). VIII-2 Table VIII-1 lists the eligible federal programs that will be reviewed for consistency with the nonpoint source program. The extent of review for individual projects will be based on the likelihood that a project will have a significant impact on water quality. The nature of the review process will also be determined by the number of staff available to perform the reviews. Most of the programs shown on Table VIII-1 are. curre ntly included in the New York State Intergovernmental Review Process. Arequest to add programs that are not included will be sent to the State Clearinghouse. As the nonpoint source program develops, additional programs may be added to the review process. Programs will be added to the list when it is determined that they are having a major impact on water quality. As discussed above, review of individual applications is not feasible for some programs. Memorandums of Understanding between DEC and the appropriate federal agency will be developed in these instances. The following are federal agencies with which this method will be used to assure consistency with the nonpoint source program: Department of Agriculture: - Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service; - Extension Service (administered by Cornell Cooperative Extension); - Soil Conservation Service. Department of Interior: Geological Survey 3. Review Coordination State-level review is coordinated by the State Clearinghouse. All federal agencies with notification responsibilities and all applicants for federal assistance under covered programs are instructed to transmit notifications of interest to: New York State Clearinghouse, Division of the Budget, State Capitol, Albany, NY 12234. Local review outside of New York City is coordinated by regional planning boards where they exist, and through county governments, in those counties not falling within the jurisdiction of a regional planning board. In New York City, the review is coordinated by the Mayor's Office. 4. Notification And Review Process Federal agencies subject to the review process that propose to undertake any direct development activity within New York State VIII-3 Table VIII-1 Federal Program Which Fund Projects That DEC Wishes To Review For Nonpoint Source Consistency 1. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE A. Farmers Home Administratio 10.414 Resource Conservation and Development Loans 10.416 Soil and Water Loans 10.418 Water and Waste Disposal System for Rural Communities 10.419 Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Loans 10.4n Business and Industrial Loans 10.4n Community Facilities Loans B. Soil Conservation Service 10.901 Resource Conservation and Development 10.904 Watershed Protection and Flood Protection 10.906 River Basin Surveys and Investigations 11. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE A. Economic Development Administration 11.300 Economic Development - Grants for Public Works and Development Facilities 11.302 Economic Development - Support for Planning Organizations 11.304 Economic Development - Public.Works Impact Projects 11.305 Economic Development - State and Local Economic Development Planning III. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE A. Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers 12-100 Aquatic Plant Control 12.101 Beach Erosion Control Projects 12.104 Flood Plain Management Services 12.105 Protection of Essential Highways, Highway Bridge Approaches and Public Works 12.106 Flood Control. Projects 12.107 Navigation Projects 12.108 Snagging and Clearing for Flood Control 12.109 Protection, Clearing.and Straightening Channels 12.110 Pianning Assistance to States IV. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URJIAN DEVELOPMENT A. Community PLanning and Development 14.218 Community Development Block GrantelEntittement Grants 14.221 Urban Development Action Grants 14.852 Public and Indian Housing - Comprehensive Improvement Assistance Program VIII-4 Table VIII-1 Federal Program Which Fund Projects That DEC Wishes To Review For Nonpoint Source Consistency (Continued) V. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION A. Federal Aviation Administration 20.106 Airport Improvement Program S. Federal Hinhway Administration 20.205 Highway Planning and Construction C. Urban Mass Transportation Administ ration 20.500 Urban Mass Transportation Capital Improvement Grants D. Maritime Administration 20.801 Development and Promotion o f Ports and IntermodeL Transportation VI. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 59.037 Small Business Development Center V11. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 66.418 Construction Grants for Wastewater Treatment Works 66.433 State Underground Water Source Protection 66.435 Clean Lakes Cooperative Agreements 66.45.6 Comprehensive Estuarine Management 66.501 Air Pollution Control Research 66.502 Pesticide Control Research * 66.504 Solid Waste Disposal Research 66.505 Wat er Pollution Control - Research, Development and Demonstration * 66.600 Environmental Protection Consolidated Grants - Program Support 66.760 Pesticide Enforcement Program* 66.801 hazardous Waste Management - State Program Support 66.804 State Underground Storage Tanks Program These programs are not currently included in the New York Intergovernment Review Process. A request will be made to add them to the process. VIII-5 must inform the State Clearinghouse. The agency must also inform prospective applicants of their obligation to provide a timely notification of intent to the State Clearinghouse. Notification procedures for applicants are described in the "Draft Procedural Guideline Governing New York State Intergovernmental Review Process". 2 Upon receipt of a notification of intent, the State Clearinghouse determines whether it constitutes a reviewable project. on a weekly basis, the State Clearinghouse compiles a summary of reviewable. project notifications received during the prior week. This list is sent to all state review agencies, including the NYSDEC. As a general rule, the deadline for receipt of review comments is 30 days after the date on which the list is distributed, but the State Clearinghouse reserves the right to alter this period. The time period can be extended if any review agency notifies the Clearinghouse that it requires .more time to evaluate potential problems with a proposal or to negotiate revisions with an applicant. in all cases, however, final action on a proposal must occur no later than 60 days after its inclusion on the broadcast list. At the end of the review period, both the State Clearinghouse and the appropriate substate review coordinator directly notify each applicant of the outcome of the review. The substate review agency responds to the Iapplicant with either: (a) a clearance letter, together with any informal comments it wants to communicate,* or (b) a notice that formal comments setting forth objections to the proposal have been transmitted to the State Clearinghouse for its disposition. The State Clearinghouse responds to each applicant with either: (a) a clearance letter, together with any comments received from reviewing agencies; or (b) a notice that a recommendation has been sent to the federal funding agency. Federal agencies are advised to look for the Sta te Clearinghouse response as evidence that intergovernmental review procedures have been completed with respect to individual applica- tions or proposed projects. 5. Role for DEC in the Intergovernmental Consistency Review Process The following are steps that DEC's Division of Water (DOW) will take to facilitate the review of federal projects for consistency with the Nonpoint Source Management Program. 2 New York State Division of the Budget, State Capitol, Albany, NY 12224. VIII-6 a. DOW will review the weekly broadcast list. b. DOW will request through the State Clearinghouse that eligible federal programs in Table viii-1 currently not covered in the intergovernment review process be added to the list of those covered. C. DOW will designate project review coordinators in Central and Regional Offices. d. DOW will develop project review criteria. e. bow will review project proposals to assure consistency with the no.npoint source program. B. State Environmental Ouality Review The State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), which became effective June 1, 1976, provides an additional opportunity for ensuring consistency with the Nonpoint Source Management Program. The basic purpose of SEQR is to incorporate the consideration of factors into the existing planning, review -and decision-making process of state, regional and local government agencies at the earliest possible time. 3 To accomplish this goal, SEQR requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they directly undertake, fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment, and if they do, prepare or request an environmental impact statement. No agency is to carry out, fund or approve an action until it has complied with the provisions of,SEQR. No physical alteration related to an action is to be commenced by a project sponsor, and an agency is not to issue a decision on any action that it know s any other involved agency has determined may have a significant effect on the environment until a final EIS and.findings statement has been prepared. 1. Actions under SEQR Actions under SEQR include: a. Approval or direct development of physical projects. For example: shopping centers factories and office buildings dredging residential development, 3 SEQR is applicable to all state and local agencies within New York State including all political subdivisions, districts, departments, authorities, boards, commissions and public benefit corporations. VIII-7 public buildings gravel mines roads landfills b. Planning activities that require a government agency decision. For example: park development plans formation of districts land use plans C. Adoption of agency rules, regulations, procedures and policies. For example: local zoning and planning wetlands protection publichealth regulations handling of toxic wastes 2. Determination of Significance To require an environmental impact statement (EIS) for a proposed action, the lead agency must determine that the action may include the potential for significant environmental effect. For example, stormwater runo ff from a proposed subdivision or shopping plaza might have a significant environmental impact on a waterbody in terms of downstream flooding, water quality degradation and possible loss of fish and wildlife habitat. In making a determi nation of significance, the lead agency must: a. consider the action as defined in Section 617.2(b) and 617.3(k) of the Rules and Regulations for SEQR; b. identify relevant areas of environmental concern; c@,- thoroughly analyze the areas of environmental concern to determine if the action may have a significant effect on the envirorment;,and d. set forth its determination of significance in a written form containing a reasoned elaboration including reference to any supporting documentation. 3. Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement All agencies are to prepare, or cause an applicant (for a permit) to prepare an environmental impact statement on any action they propose or approve which may have a significant effect on the environment. The purpose of the impact statement is to provide detailed information about the effect a proposed action is likely to have on the environment, to list ways in which any adverse VIII-8 effects might be minimized, and to suggest alternatives to the action. The statement is used as the basis for a decision whether to undertake or approve the action. An environmental impact statement must include information setting forth the following: a. a description of the proposed action and its environmental setting; b. the environmental impact of the proposed action including short-term and long-term effects; C. any adverse environmental ef fects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented; d. alternatives to the proposed action; e. any irreversible commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented,- f. mitigation measures proposed to minimize the environmental impact; 9. the growth-inducing aspects of the proposed action, where applicable and significant; h. effects of the proposed action on the use and conservation of energy resources, where applicable and significant. 4. Recommendations for Facilitating Coordination Between the Nonpoint Source Management Program and the SEQR Process The following are recommended steps that DEC's DOW should take to facilitate coordination between the Nonpoint Source Management Program and the SEQR process: a. DOW to develop guidance documents on nonpoint source pollution control standards of performance and BMPs that can be used by agencies and/or project sponsors to minimize, alleviate or mitigate the short- and long-term water quality impacts associated with proposed development projects or related actions. b. Nonpoint source management guidance documents to be made available to assist state and local agencies, and others outside government involved in the construction industry in complying with SEQR. VIII-9 C. Additional Review Mechanisms A number of other Programs exist which may be used to facilitate consistency between various actions and-the state's Nonpoint Source Program. 1. Other Program Review opportunities Procedures have-been established to review proposed federal actions for their consistency with New York's Coastal Management Program. The New York Department of State has a bureau that reviews about 1,000 federal actions each year to assure consistency with the programs. When a local government adopts their own coastal, management program, the local officials are then responsible for reviewing federal actions. The state is a parti cipant in the National Estuary Programs for Long Island Sound and the New York-New Jersey Harbor. Section 320 of the Water Quality Act of 1987, which establishes the National Estuary Program, provides the authority for review of federal financial assistance programs and federal development projects to assure consistency with the estuary program. This review would provide another opportunity to assure that federal actions are consistent with the state's nonpoint source management program. The National Environmental Policy Act'' s (NEPA Is) Environmental Assessneht/Environmental Impact Statement process can be a useful mechanism for identifying and tracking proposed federal development projects. Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) prepared for all major federal actions, as well as the environmental assessments prepared to determine the need for an EIS, should disclose the potential nonpoint source impacts of the action and therefore indicate the need for a review of consistency with New York's Nonpoint Source Program. 2. Recomm.endat ions for Coordinating, Consistency Reviews The following are recommended steps that DEC's DOW should take to facilitate coordination between the Nonpoint Source Program and the Coastal Management Program, National Estuary Program and the NEPA process. a. DOW to provide guidance documents on nonpoint source pollution control standards of performance and BMPs to Coastal Management Program staff and National Estuary Program staff for -use in consistency reviews. b. DOW to review Environmental Impact Statements prepared under NEPA. DOW to provide sponsoring agencies or applicants involved in preparing an EIS with guidance documents on nonpoint source pollution control standards of performance and BMPs. VIII-10 D. Prolect Review Criteria Review criteria for the state Nonpoint Source Program will take the form of: consistency with established nonpoint source implementa- tion priorities (as discussed in Chapter V); specific performance standards or guidelines for specific nonpoint source categories; and. approved management practices for specific nonpoint source categories. Different performance standards (guidelines) and management practices will be used for each nonpoint source category. The basis of authority for the standards and practices will also vary among the categories. For example, the standards for controlling leaks and spills have been promulgated as regulations f 'or the petroleum and hazardous chemical bulk storage programs. In contrast, the guidelines for controlling urban runoff are contained in a Division of Water Technical and Operational Guidance Series Meno. In addition to performance standards and BMPs, the following illustrative questions are intended to help guide the consistency review process: 1. Does the project comply, or furnish reasonable assurances of compliance with applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations and ordinances? 2. Is the project' consistent with state, areawide, and/or local planning efforts? 3. Is the project likely to produce any significant adverse effects on the environment (e.g., does it reflect appropriate land use, prudent development and conserva- tion of natural resources)? VIII-11 APPENDIX A PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING APPENDIX A Appendix A is a list of Waterbodies identified as having water quality problems with a nonpoint source (excluding atmospheric deposition and contaminated sediment) as the primary source. They have been grouped according to watershed. The listing also includes waterbodies where the primary source is a point source or contaminated sediment or atmospheric deposition but there is a nonpoint source as the secondary source. The list was derived from the 1989 update of the Assessment. The data was collected using the process described in Section C of Chapter II of this report (pgs. 11-4 and 11-5.) There has been no verification of the data presented. The degree of the water quality problem, as well as the pollutants and sources contributing to that problem, must be verified before the segments can be added to the Division's Priority Water Problem list. The verification procedure was described in Section D of Chapter-II (pgs. 11-5 and 11-6). A-1 RAFT APPENDIX A-1 SUBJECT TO AGE14CY VERIFICATIOR PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING LAKE ERIE - NIAGARA RIVER BASIN (01) BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPQINT CODE NYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------ ----- -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- 01-01 Niagara River Main Stem 04120104.010 Peace Bridge to 15-001 NIAGARA RIVER Eric. Priority organics Urban Runoff Tonawanda Creek Niagara River Main Stem Peace Bridge to 15-002 TWO MILE CREEK Erie Aesthetics Urban Runoff Tonawanda Creek Niagara River Main Stem Peace Bridge to 15-003 SCAJAQUADA CREEK Eric Aesthetics Urban Runoff Tonawanda Creek Niagara River Main Stem Peace Bridge to 15-039 DELAWARE PARK LKE Eric Nutrients Urban Runoff Tonawanda Creek Niagara River Main Stem 04120104.100 Grand [stand 15-012 GRAND ISLAND Eric Pathogens On-site Wastewater Systems Niagara River Main Stem 04120104.110 Tonawanda Creek to 32-001 UPPER FIERGHOLTZ Niagara Aesthetics On-site Wastewater Systems Lake Ontario Niagara River Main Stem Tonawanda Creek to 32-004 BERGHOLTZ CREEK Niagara Priority Organics Land Disposal (landfills) Lake Ontario Niagara River Main Stem Tonawanda Creek to 32-005 BLOODY RUN CREEK Niagara Priority organics Land Disposal (landfills) Lake Ontario Niagara River Main Stem Tonawanda Creek to 32-006 @BLACK CREEK 'Niagara Priority Organics Land Disposal (landfills) Lake Ontario Niagara River Main Stem Tonawanda Creek to 32-008 CAYUGA CREEK Niagara Priority organics Land Disposal (landfills) Lake Ontario 01-02.Tonawanda Creek 04120104.020 Upper Tonawanda Creek 19-002 LIT.TONAWANDA CK. Genesee Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion Tonawanda Creek Upper Tonawanda Creek 19-003 TONAWANDA CREEK Genesee Pathogens Agric. - Row Crops Tonawanda Creek Upper Tonawanda Creek 19-005 TONAWANDA CREEK Genesee Oxygen-Demanding Agric. - Row Crops Substances Tonawanda Creek Upper Tonawanda Creek 61-005 TONAWANDA CREEK Wyoming Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion Tonawanda Creek 04120104.030 Middle Tonawanda 15-004 LEDGE CREEK Erie Pathogens On-site Wastewater Systems Creek Tonawanda Creek 04120104.040 Murder Creek 15-005 MURDER CREEK Erie Pathogens On-site Wastewater Systems Tonawanda Creek 04120104.050 Tonawanda Creek 15-006 TONAWANDA CREEK Erie Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion Tonawanda Creek Tonawanda Creek 15-007 BEEMAN CREEK Erie Pathogens On-si.te Wastewater Systems Tonawanda Creek 04120104.070 Mud Creek to Ransom 15-008 RANSOM CREEK Erie oxygen-Demanding On-site Wastewater Systems Creek Substances Page A-1.1 -- DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments DRAF APPENDIX A-1 0 PRIORITY CAND 'D ATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATI R LAKE ERIE - NIAGARA RIVER BASIN (01) BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE NYS DEC SUBBASI N NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- 01-02 Tonawanda Creek 04120104.080 Ransom Creek to Mouth 15-009 ELLICOTT CREEK Erie Pathogens On-site Wastewater Systems Tonawanda Creek Ransom Creek to Mouth 15-010 ELLICOTT CREEK Eric Thermal Changes Hydrologic/Habitat Modification Tonawanda Creek Ransom Creek to Mouth 15-011 DORSCH CREEK Eric Thermal Changes Agric. - Raparian Veg. Removal 01-03 Buffalo River 04120103.050 Buffalo Creek 15-021 BUFFALO CREEK Eric Nutrients Agric. - Row Crops Buffalo River Buffalo Creek 15-022 BUFFALO CREEK Erie Thermal Changes Agric. - Riparian Veg. Removal Buffalo River Buffalo Creek 61-003 BUFFALO CREEK Wyoming Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion Buffalo River 04120103.060 Cayuga Creek 15-023 CAYUGA CREEK Erie Nutrients ** On-site Wastewater Systems Buffalo River Cayuga Creek 15-024 LITTLE BUFFALO CR Erie Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion Buffalo River Cayuga Creek 61-004 CAYUGA CREEK Wyoming Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Row Crops Buffalo River 04120103.070 Cozenovia Creek; 15-025 CAZENOVIA CREEK Eric Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion Buffalo Rr to Peace Bridge Buffalo River Cazenovia Creek; 15-026 BUFFALO RIVER Erie Priority Organics Urban Runoff Buffalo Rr to Peace Bridge 01-04 Eastern Lake Erie 04120102.010 Upper Cattarougus 05-002 UPPER CATTARAUGUS Cattaraugus Thermal Changes Streambank Erosion - Creek Eastern Lake Erie Upper Cattaraugus 05-003 ELTON CREEK Cattaraugus Thermal Changes Streambank Erosion Creek Eastern Lake Erie Upper Cattaraugus 05-014 LIME LAKE Cattaraugus Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Creek .Eastern Lake Erie Upper Cattaraugus 15-027 CATTARAUGUS CREEK Erie Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion Creek Eastern Lake Erie Upper Cattaraugus 15-028 SPRING BROOK Erie Thermal Changes Agric. - overgrazing Creek Eastern Lake Erie Upper Cattaraugus 61-001 JAVA LAKE Wyoming Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Creek Eastern Lake Erie Upper Cattaraugus 61-002 JAVA LAKE OUTLET Wyoming Thermal Changes On-site Wastewater Systems T Page A-1.2 -- DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW = Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem-- it is either a point source, ntmo. dep. or contaminated sediments MOM ,RAFT APPENDIX A-1 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION LAKE ERIE - NIAGARA RIVER BASIN (01) BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE NYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME . TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------_----- Creek Eastern Lake Erie 04120102.030 Lower Cattaraugus 05-001 S. BRANCH CATT CR Cattaraugus Silt (Sediment) Streambank,Erosion creek Eastern Lake Erie Lower Cattaraugus 15-029 DERBY BROOK Eric Silt (Sediment) Streambank Creek DestabiLization/Modification Eastern Lake Erie Lower Cattariugus 15-030 CATTARAUGUS CREEK Erie Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion Creek Eastern Lake Erie Lower Cattaraugus 15-031 CLEAR CREEK Erie Silt (Sed .iment) Streambank Erosion Creek Eastern Lake Erie Lower Cattaraugus 15-033 SPOONER BROOK Erie Silt (Sediment) streambank Erosion Creek Eastern Lake Erie 04120103.010 Cattaraugus Creek to 15-013 DELAWARE CREEK Eric Unknown Toxic Junkyard Eighteenmi(e Creek Eastern Lake Erie cattaraugus creek to 15-014 WIDE REACH AQUIFE GW Erie Priority Organics oil spreading on roadg; PCB's Eighteenmile Creek Eastern Lake Erie Catterougus Creek to 15-015 BIG SISTER CREEK Erie Nutrients Storage/App of Deicing Eighteenmile Creek material Eastern Lake Erie Cattaraugus Creek t o 15-016 BIG SISTER CREEK Erie Unidentified Urban Runoff E i ghteenmi I. e Creek Eastern Lake Erie Cattaraugus Creek to 15-036 PIKE CREEK Erie Pathogens On-site Wastewater Systems E 1 ghteenmi I eCreek Eastern Lake Erie 04120103.020 Eighteenmile Creek 15-017 EIGHTEEN MILE CRK Erie Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion Eastern Lake Erie Eighteenmite Creek 15-018 EIGHTEEN MILE COK Erie Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion Eastern Lake Erie Eighteenmile Creek 15-034 EIGHTEEN MILE CK Erie Silt (Sediment) Urban Runoff Eastern Lake Erie 04120103.030 EighteenmiLe Creek to 15-019 RUSH CREEK Erie oxygen-Demanding On-site Wastewater Systems Smoke Creek Substances Eastern Lake Erie 04120103.040 Smoke Creek 15-020 SMOKE CREEK Erie Metals on-site Wastewater Systems 01-05 Western Lake Erie 04120101.110 State Line of 07-001 GAGE GULF Chautauqua Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion Chautauqua Creek Western Lake Erie State Line of 07-015 TWENTY MILE CREEK Chautauqua Silt (Sediment) Streembank Erosion Chautauqua Creek Page A-1.3 -- DRAFT DATA: SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW = Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source. atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments I)RAFT APPENDIX A-1 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION, LAKE ERIE - NIAGARA RIVER BASIN (01) BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE NYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME. TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- DI-05 Western Lake Erie 04120101.120 Chautauqua Creek to 07-002 CHAUTAUQUA CREEK Chautauqua Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion Little Canadaway Creek Western Lake Erie 04120161.130 Little Canadnway 07-003 CANADAWAY CREEK Chautauqua Silt (sediment) Streambank Erosion Creek to Silver Creek Western Lake Erie Little Canadaway 07-019 CROOKED BROOK Chautauqua Aesthetics On-site Wastewater Systems Creek to Silver Creek Western Lake Erie Little Canadaway 07-020 HYDE CREEK Chautauqua oil 9 Grease Chemical Leaks and Spills Creek to Silver Creek Western Lake Erie 04120101.140 Silver Creek to 07-004 SILVER&WALNUT CKS Chautauqua Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion Cattaraugus Creek Page A-1.4 DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source. atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments RAFT APPENDIX A-2 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING ALLEGANY RIVER RIVER BASIN (02) SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICAtIOR BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC , SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARYNONPOINT CODE RYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- 02-01 Allegany River Main Stem 05010001.050 State Line to Dodge 02-005 LITTLE GENESEE CK Allegany Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Creek Allegany River Main Stem 05010001.060 Direct Pennsylvania 07-012 LOWER STILLWATER Chautauqua Thermal Changes Agric. - Riparian Veg. Drainage Removal Allegany River Main Stem 05010001.070 Dodge Creek 02-004 DODGE CREEK Allegany Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion Allegany River Main Stem 05010001.080 Haskell Creek 05-006 HASKELL CREEK Cattaraugus Thermal Changes Agric. - Riparian Veg. Removal Allegany River Main Stem 05010001.100 Olean Creek (Cuba 02-001 CUBA LAKE Allegany Pathogens On-site Wastewater System Lake) Allegany River Main Stem Olean Creek (Cuba 05-004 OIL CREEK Cattaraugus Thermal Changes Land Disposal (landfills) Lake) Allegany River Main Stem Olean Creek (Cuba 05-005 ISCHUA CREEK Cattaraugus Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Riparian Veg. Lake) Removal Allegany River Main Stem 05010001.110 State tine (Dodge 05-013 OLEAN GROUNDWATER GW Cattaraugus Priority Organics Chemical Leaks and Spills Creek) to Fivemite Creek Allegany River Main Stem 05010001.140 Fivemite Creek to 05-008 LOW -GREAT VALLEY Cattaraugus Priority Organics Resource Great Valley Creek Extraction/devetopment Allegany River Main Stem 05010001.150 Great Valley Creek 05-009 UP - GREAT VALLEY Cattaraugus Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Row Crops Allegany River Main Stem 0 5010001.160 Little Valley Creek 05-010 LITTLE VALLEY CRK Cattaraugus Thermal Changes Agric. - Row Crops Allegany River Main Stem 05010001.180 Cold Spring Creek 05-011 COLD SPRING CREEK Cattaraugus Thermal Changes Agric. - Row Crops Allegany River Main Stem 05010001.190 Great Valley Creek to 05-007 'ALLEGANY TRIBS Cattaraugus Silt (Sediment) silviculture Quaker Run 02-02 Conewango Creek 05010001.270 Brokenstraw Creek 07-005 BROKEN STRAW Chautauqua Thermal Changes Streambank Erosion Sub-basin Conewango Creek 05010002.010 Upper Conewango Creek 05-012 UPPER CONEWANGO Cattaraugus Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Row Crops Sub-basin Conewango Creek Upper Conewengo Creek 07-016 UPPER CONEWANGO C Chautauqua Silt (Sediment) Dredging Sub-basin Conewango Creek 05010002.020 Chautauqua Lake - 07-006 C"AUTAUOUA LAKE Chautauqua Nutrients Agric. - Other Sub-basin Chadakoin River Conewango Creek Chautauqua Lake - 07-007 CHADAKOIN RIVER Chautauqua Thermal Changes Urban*Runoff Page A-2.1 -- DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. URAFT APPENDIX A-2 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING ALLEGANY RIVER RIVER BASIN (02) 'SUBJECt TO AGENCY VERIFICATIOR BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE MYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT KLO48ER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE.CATEGORY ----- ------------------------- -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- Sub-besin Chadakoin River Conewango Creek Chautauqua Lake - 07-017 CHAUTAUQUA LK WS Chautauqua Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion Sub-basin - Chadakoin River Conewango Creek 05010002.030 Cassadaga Creek 07-008 MILL'CREEK Chautauqua Water Level or Flow Streambank Erosion Sub-basin Conewango Creek Cassadaga Creek 07-009 CASSADAGA LAKE Chautauqua Nutrients On-sfte Wastewater Systems Sub-basin Conewango Creek Cassadaga Creek 07-010 CASSADAGA CREEK Chautauqua Nutrients Streambank Erosion Sub.-basin Conewango Creek Cassadaga Creek 07-011 BEAR LAKE Chautauqua Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Sub-basin Conewango Creek 05010002.040 Lower Conewango Creek 07-018 LOWER CONEWANGO C Chautauqua Sitt.(Sediment) Streambank Erosion Sub-basin Conewango Creek 05010004.010 French Creek 07-013 FRENCH CREEK Chautauqua Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Riparian Veg. Sub-basin Removal Conewango Creek French Creek 07-014 FINLEY LAKE Chautauqua Nutrients Waterfowl Sub-basin Page A-2.2 DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. =.wpm M RAFT. APPENDIX A-3 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERMUT1014. LAKE ONTARIO BASIN (03) BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE NYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- -- --------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- 03-01 Lake Ontario West 04130001.020 Tweivemite Creek 32-002 TWELVE MILE CREEK -- Niagara Oxygen-Demending Hydrotogic/Habitat Substances modification Lake Ontario West 04130001.030 Twetvemite Creek to 32-007 BOND LAKE Niagara Nutrients Agric. - Row Crops Eighteenmite Creek Lake Ontario West 04130001.040 Eighteenmite Creek 32-003 EIGHTEEN MILE CK Niagara Metals Agric. - Row Crops Lake Ontario West 04130001.060 Johnson Creek 32-011 JEDDO CREEK TRIB Niagara Pesticides Land Disposal ((Andfitts) Lake Ontario West Johnson Creek 32-012 LAKE ONTARIO Niagara Priority Organics ** Land Disposal (landfills) Lake Ontario West Johnson Creek 37-004 JOHNSON CREEK Orleans Silt (Sediment) Agric. Barnyard Runoff Lake Ontario West Johnson Creek 37-005 LAKEWOOD VIL.POND Orleans Unknown Toxic Unknown Lake Ontario West 04130001.070 Oak orchard Creek 37-001 OAK ORCHARD CREEK Orleans Pathogens On-site Wastewater Systems Lake Ontario West Oak orchard Creek 37-002 OAK ORCHARD CREEK Orleans Nutrients Agric. Barnyard Runoff Lake Ontario West Oak Orchard Creek 37-006 NYS BARGE CANAL Orleans Unknown Toxic Land Disposal (Landfills) Lake Ontario West Oak orchard Creek 37-007 OAK ORCHARD CREEK Orleans Nutrients Agric. - Truck Farm Lake Ontario West 04130001.080 Oak.Orchard Creek to 37-003 SANDY CREEK Orleans Unknown Toxic Land Disposal (landfills) Sandy Creek Lake Ontario West 0413aOO1.O9O Sandy Creek to 28-001 BRADDOCK BAY Monroe Silt (Sediment) Land Ctearing/Devetopment Braddocks Bay 03-02 Lake Ontario Central 04140101.030 Fourmite Creek to 28-010 FOUR MILE CREEK Monroe Unknown Toxic Land Disposal (landfills) Salmon Creek at Puttneyvitte, NY Lake Ontario Central Fourmite Creek to 59-013 MILL CREEK AQUIFR GW Wayne Unknown Toxic Land Disposal (landfills) Salmon Creek at Puttneyvitte, NY Lake Ontario Central 04140101.040 Salmon Creek at. 59-014 MINK CREEK Wayne Nutrients Agric. - Other Puttneyvitte, NY to Sodus Point Lake Ontario Central 04140101.050, Sodus Creek (Sodus 59-002 SODUS CREEK Wayne Nutrients Agric. - Fertilizer Bay) Application Lake Ontario Central Sodus Creek (Sodus 59-003 FIRST CREEK Wayne Silt (Sediment) Unknown Bay) Lake Ontario Central Sodus Creek (Sodus 59-004 SODUS BAY Wayne Nutrients on-site Wastewater Systems Bay) Page A-3.1 -- DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW - Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. APPENDIX A-3 .DRAFT PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING SUBJECT M AGENCY VERIF It LAKE ONTARIO BASIN (03) BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SPD TLIG9 SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE HYS DEC SUBRASIIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- 03-02 Lake Ontario Central 04140101.060 Sodus Bay to Walcott 59-005 MUDGE CREEK Wayne Nutrients Agric. - Maniure Spreading Creek Lake Ontario Central Sodus Bay to Walcott 59-006 EAST BAY Wayne Nutrients on-site Wastewater Systems Creek Lake Ontario Central Sodus Bay to Walcott 59-007 PORT BAY Wayne Nutrients Agric. - Manure Spreading Creek Lake Ontario Central Sodus Bay to Walcott 59-008 WOLCOTT CREEK Wayne Nutrients Agric. - Manure Spreading Creek Lake Ontario Central 04140101.070 Walcott Creek to 06-001 LITTLE SOOUS BAY Cayuga Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Ninemile Creek Lake Ontario Central Walcott Creek to 06-002 STERLING CREEK Cayuga Nutrients Agric. - Row Crops Ninemite Creek Lake Ontario Central Walcott Creek to 59-009 RED CREEK Wayne Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Ninemile Creek Lake Ontario Central 04140101.080 Ninemite Creek to 38-001 NINEMILE CREEK Oswego Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Oswego River 03-03 Lake Ontario East 04140102.010 Oswego River to 38-003 WINE CREEK Oswego Unknown Toxic Land Disposal (landfills) Little Salmon River Lake Ontario East 04140102.020 Salmon River to 38-010 LITTLE SALMON'RIV Oswego Nutrients Streambank Grindstone Creek Destabitization/Modification Lake Ontario East Salmon River to 38-012 SAGE CREEK Oswego Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Riparian Veg. Grindstone Creek Removal Lake Ontario East 04140102.030 Grindstone Creek 38-011 GRINDSTONE CREEK Oswego Thermal Changes Agric. - Riparian Veg. Removal Lake Ontario East 04140102.070 Salmon River to South 23-001 JACOBS BROOK Jefferson Thermal Changes Agric. - Livestock In Stream Sandy Creek Lake Ontario East Salmon River to South 38-008 LITTLE SANDY CREE Oswego Thermal Changes Agric. - Riparian Veg. Sandy Creek Removel, Lake Ontario East Salmon River to South 38-009 NORTH/SOUTH SANDY Oswego Nutrients Streembank Sandy Creek Destabitization/Modification Lake Ontario East 04140102.090 Sandy Creek 23-002 SANDY CREEK Jefferson Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Row Crops Lake Ontario East Sandy Creek 23-003 FLOODWOOD POND Jefferson Nutrients Agric. -Row Crops Page A-3.2 -- DRAFT DATA: SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW Groundwater: ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. mot APPENDIX A-3 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING Im LAKE ONTARIO BASIN (03) BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE NYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT WMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- ---------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ------------------------------ 03-03 Lake Ontario East 04140102.100 Sandy Creek to Stoney 23-004 CRYSTAL LAKE Jefferson Nutrients On-sfte Wastewater Systems Creek Lake Ontario East Sandy Creek to Stoney 23-005 BLACK POND Jefferson Silt (Sediment) Agric. Riparian Veg. Creek Removal Lake Ontario East Sandy Creek to Stoney 23-006 STONY CREEK Jefferson Silt (Sediment) Agric. Row Crops Creek Lake Ontario East 04150102.040 Chaumont River 23-008 CHAUMONT RIVER Jefferson Nutrients Agric. Barnyard Runoff Lake Ontario East 04150102.050 Chaumont River to 23-009 CHAUMONT BAY Jefferson Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Cape Vincent Lake Ontario East Chaumont River to 23-010 MUD BAY Jefferson Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Cape Vincent Page A-3.3 DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT 70 AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW = Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. ORAFT APPENDIX A-4 CATIop PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANN ING. SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFI GENESEE RIVER BASIN (04) BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE NYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME 10 SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- 04-01 Rochester Area 04130003.100 Oatka Creek to Mouth 28-008 GENESEE RIVER Monroe Silt (Sediment) 'Flow Regulation/Modification Rochester Area 04140101.010 Allen Creek 28-014 ALLEN CREEK Monroe Nutrients Urban Runoff Rochester Area 04140101.020 Genesee River to 28-011 SHIPBUILDERS CK Monroe Silt (Sediment) Land Ctearing/Devetopment Fourmite Creek Rochester Area Genesee River to 28-012 MILL CREEK Monroe Priority organics Land Disposal (landfills) Fourmite Creek Rochester Area Genesee River to 28-013 THOMAS CREEK Monroe Silt (Sediment) Land Clearing/Development Fourmite Creek Rochester Area Genesee River to 28-015 IRONDEQUO17 BAY Monroe Nutrients Urban Runoff Fourmite Creek Rochester Area Genesee River to 28-016 IRONDEQUOIT CREEK Monroe Silt (Sediment) Land Clearing/Devetopment Fourmile Creek Rochester Area Genesee River to 28-017 LAKE ONTARIO SHRE Monroe Pathogens Urban Runoff Fourmite Creek Rochester Area Genesee River to 28-018 NYS BARGE CANAL Monroe Water Level or Flow Flow Regulation/Modification Fourmite Creek 04-02 Mt. Morris to Barge 04130003.010 Beards Creek 26-009 LITTLE BEARDS CK Livingston silt (sediment) Agric. - Row Crops Canal Mt. Morris to Barge Beards Creek 61-007 LAKE LAGRANGE Wyoming Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Canal Mt. Morris to Barge 04130003.020 Conesus Creek 26-005 CONESUS LAKE Livingston Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Canat, Mt. Morris to Barge 04130003.030 Upper Honeoye Creek 35-001 HONEOYE LAKE Ontario Nutrien't� Nutrient Enriched Sediments Canal Mt. Morris to Barge 04130003.040 middle Honeoye Creek 26-006 HEMLOCK LAKE Livingston Silt (Sediment) Flow Regulation/Modification Canal Mt. Morris to Barge Middle Honeoye Creek 26-007. LOWER HONEOYE CK Livingston Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion Canal Mt. Morris to Barge Middle Honeoye Creek 26-008 HEMLOCK OUTLET Livingston silt (sediment) Streambank Erosion Canal Mt. Morris to Barge Middle Honeoye Creek 35-002 LOWFR HONEOYE CK Ontario silt (sediment) Agric...- Row Crops Canal Page A-4.1 DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. M =0 M M M = = M M I M M M . M M M M 1mb m m APPENDIX A-4 DRA PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR-WATERSHED PLANNING GENESEE RIVER BASIN (04) W " SUBJECT TO AGEMPT PRIMARY NONPOINT BASIN SCS HYDROV0991FIWIP SEGMENT SEG* CODE NYS DEC SUSBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE C IATEGORY -------------------------- ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ - 04-02 Mt. Morris to.Barge 04130003.040 Middle Honeoye Creek 35-003 HEMLOCK LAKE Ontario Silt (Sediment) Flow Regutation/Modif ication Canal Mt. Morris to Barge Middle Honeoye Creek 35-004 HEMLOCK LK. OUTLT Ontario Water Level or flow Flow Regulation/Modification Canal Mt. Morris to Barge Middle Honeoye Creek 35-005 CANADICE LAKE Ontario Priority organics Streambank Erosion Canal Pit. Morris to Barge 04130003.'050 Lower Honeoye Creek 28-004 LOWER HONEOYE CK Monroe Silt (Sediment) Urban Runoff Canal Mt. Morris to Barge 04130003.060 Canaseraga Creek to 26-003 MID.GENESEE RIVER Livingston silt (Sediment) Flow Regulation/Modification Canal Oatka Creek Mt. Morris to Barge Canaseraga Creek to 26-010 BIDWELLS CREEK Livingston Ammonia Agric. - other Canal Oatka Creek Mt. Morris to Barge Caneseraga Creek to 28-005 GENESEE RIVER Monroe Unkonwn Toxic Land Disposal (Landfills) Canal Oatka Creek Mt. Morris to Barge 04130003.070 Oatka Creek 19-006 LEROY RESERVOIR Genesee Nutrients Nutrient Enriched Sediments Canal Mt. Morri s to Barge Oatka Creek 26-011 OATKA CREEK AQUIF GW Livingston Unknown Toxic Chemical Leeks and Spills Canal mt. Morris to Barge Oatka Creek 28-002 ORING CREEK Monroe oxygen-Demanding Waterfowl Canal Substances Mt. Morris to Barge Oatka Creek 28-006 OATKA CREEK Monroe silt (Sediment) Agric. - Row Crops Canal Mt. Morris to Barge Oatka Creek 61-006 OATKA CREEK Wyoming Silt (Sediment) Agric, - Row Crops Canal Mt. Morris to Barge 04130003.080 Black Creek 19-001 UPPER BIGELOW CK Genesee Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Manure Spreading Canal Mt. Morris to Barge Black Creek 19-004 UPPER BLACK CREEK Genesee Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Row Crops Canal Mt. Morris to Barge Stack Creek 28-007 BLACK CREEK Monroe Nutrients Agrfc. - Row Crops Canal Mt. Morris to Barge 04130003.090 Red Creek 28-003 RED CREEK Monroe Silt (Sediment) Urban Runoff Canal FT Page A-4.2 -- DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. DRAFT -APPENDIX A-4 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING GENESEE RIVER BASIN (04) SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERM"TIV BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SE& PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE NYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ------------- --- ---- ------------- -- 7--------------------- ----------------------------- 04-03 Pa. Border to Mt. Morris 04130002.D60 State Line to Dyke 02-006 GENESEE RIVER Allegany Priority organics Land Disposal (landfills) Creek Pa. Border to Mt. Morris 04130002.070 Dyke Creek 02-007 DYKE CREEK Allegany Pathogens On-site Wastewater Systems Pa. Border to Mt. Morris 04130002.080 Van Campen Creek 02-011 VAN CAMPEN CREEK Allegany Oxygen-Demanding Land Disposal (landfills) Substances Pa. Border to Mt. Morris 04130002.090 Dyke Creek to 02-008 VAN DER MARK CK Allegany Thermal Changes Agric. - overgrazing Angelica Creek Pa. Border to Mt. Morris Dyke Creek to 02-009 KNIGHT CREEK Allegany Priority Organics Resource Angelica Creek Extraction/development Pa. Border to Mt. Morris Dyke Creek to 02-010 GENESEE RIVER Allegany Silt (Sediment) Flow Angetica Creek Regutation/Modification Pa. Border to Mt. Morris 04130002.110 Angetica Creek 02-012 ANGELICA CK AQUIF GW Allegany Pathogens On-site Wastewater System Pa. Border to Mt. Morris 04130002.130 Caneadea Creek 02-002 RUSHFORD LAKE Allegany Pathogens On-site Wastewater Systems Pa. Border to Mt. Morris Caneadea Creek 02-003 CANEADEA CREEK Allegany Thermal Changes Agric. - Riparian Veg. Removal Pa. Border to Mt. Morris Caneadea Creek 02-015 RUSH CREEK Allegany Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Other Pa. Border to Mt. Morris 04130002.150 Wiscoy Creek 61-011 WISCOY CREEK Wyom i ng Thermal Changes Agric. - Row Crops Pa. Border to Mt. Morris Wiscoy Creek 61-012 EAST KOY CREEK Wyoming Thermal Changes Agric. - Row Crops Pa. Border to Mt. Morris Wiscoy Creek 61-013 TR18#4 - EAST KOY Wy(xniHg Oxygen-Demanding Agric@ - other Substances Pa. Border to Mt. Morris 04130002.160 Viscoy Creek to 26-002 UPPER GENESEE RIV Livingston Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion Canaserags Creek Pa. Border to Mt. Morris Wiscoy Creek to 61-008 SILVER LAKE Wyoming Nutrients Agric. - Row Crops Canaseraga Creek Pa. Border to Mt. Morris Wiscoy Creek to 61-009 WOLF CREEK Wyoming Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Canaserega Creek Pa. Border to Mt. Morris Wiscoy Creek to 61-010 GENESEE RIVER Wyoming Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion Canaseraga Creek 04-04 Canaserags Creek 04130002.170 Canaseraga Creek 02-014 CANASERAGA CREEK Allegany Pathogens On-site Wastewater System Canaseraga Creek Canaseraga Creek 26-004 CANASERAGA CREEK Livingston Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion Page A-4.3 -- DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW = Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. RAF APPENDIX A-5 RJORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATIO@ CHEMUNG RIVER BASIN (05) BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE MYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- 05-0? Chemung River 02050105.130 Cohocton River to 08-001 POST CREEK Chemung Aesthetics Land Disposal (landfills) Post Creek Cheming River Cohocton River to 49-004 POST CREEK Schuyler Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion Post Creek Chemung River Cohocton River to 51-010 CORNING WELLS GW Steuben Priority Organics Chemical Leeks and Spills Post Creek Chen" River 02050105.140 Post Creek to Sing 08-006 HORSEHEADS AQUIFR GW Chemung Priority Organics Land Disposal (landfills) Sing Creek Chemung River 02050105.170 Hoffman Brook to 08-005 NEWTOWN CREEK Chemung Thermal Changes Streambank Erosion ewtown Creek Chemung River :offman Brook to 08-007 TRIB-BEAVER BROOK Chemung Unknown Unknown Newtown Creek Chemung River 02050105.200 Seeley Creek 08-002 COLD BROOK CREEK Chemung Aesthetics Dumping/Trash Chemung River Seeley Creek 08-003 SOUTH CREEK Chemung Nutrients Agric. - Row Crops Chemung River Seeley Creek 08-004 SEELEY CREEK Chemung Thermal Changes Streambank Destabitization/Modification 05-02 Cohocton River 02050105.020 Upper Cohocton River 26-001 UPPER CONOCTON RI Livingston Silt (Sediment) Agric. Row Crops Cohocton River 02050105.030 Neil Creek 51-008 CASTLE CREEK -Steuben Nutrients Agric. Barnyard Runoff Cohocton River 02050105.070 Neil Creek to 51-oo6 SMITH POND Steuben Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Campbell Creek Cohocton River Neil Creek to 51-007 GOFF CREEK Steuben Nutrients Agric. - Barnyard Runoff Campbell Creek Cohocton River 02050105.100 Mud Creek 49-003 LAMOKA LAKE Schuyler Nutrients on-site Wastewater Systems Cohocton River Mud Creek 49-005 WANETA LAKE Schuyler Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Cohocton River Mud Creek 49-006 TOBEHANNA CREEK Schuyler Nutrients Agric. - Manure Spreading Cohocton River 02050105.110 Meads Creek 49-007 MEADS CREEK Schuyler Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosibn Cohocton River Meads Creek 49-008 CINNAMON LAKE Schuyler Silt (Sediment) Silviculture Cohocton River 02050105.120 Lower Cohocton River 51-002 COHOCTON RIVER Steuben Silt (Sediment) Agric. Row Crops Cohocton River Lower Cohocton River 51-003 COHOCTON RIVER Steuben Nutrients Agric. Barnyard Runoff Cohocton River Lower Cohocton River 51-011 LAKE SALUBRiA Steuben Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems 05-03,Canisteo River 02050104.030 Canacadea Creek 02-013 CANACADE A CREEK Allegany Silt (Sediment) Urban Runoff Canisteo River Canacadea Creek 51-005 ALMOND POND Steuben Silt (Sediment) Flow Reoutation/Modification T Page A-5.1 -- DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW =-Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source,identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. DRAFT APPENDIX A-5 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION CliEMUNG RIVER BASIN (05) BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE NYS DEC SUBBASIN NA14E UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY w--------------------- -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ --------- ------------------- 05-03 Canisteo River 02050104.170 Lower Tioga River 51-009 TIOGA RIVER Steuben Unknown Unknown Page A-5.2 DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW = Groundwater; ** Nonpoint-source identified is not primary water quatity probtem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. RAFT APPENDIX A-6 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN (06) SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATIOP, BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE NYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NLR48ER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------- ----- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- -------------- -- --------------------- ----------------------------- 06-01 Upper Susquehanna 02050101.010 Oaks Creek 39-002 CANADARAGO LAKE -- Otsego Nutrients Agric. - Row Crops Unaditle River Upper Susquehanna 02050101.020 Cherry Valley Creek 39-008 CHERRY VALLEY CK Otsego Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Unadilla River Upper Susquehanna 02050101.030 Upper Susquehanna 22-003 YOUNG LAKE Herk.imer Nutrients Agric. - Row Crops Unaditta River River Upper Susquehanna Upper Susquehanna 22-004 WEAVER LAKE Herkimer Nutrients Agric. - Row Crops Uneditte River River Upper Susquehanna Upper Susquehanna 22-005 CRIPPLE CREEK Herkimer Nutrients Agric. - Row Crops Unaditle River River Upper Susquehanna Upper Susquehanna 39-001 GOODYEAR LAKE Otsego Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Unaditta River River Upper Susquehanna Upper Susquehanna 39-007 OTSEGO LAKE Otsego Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Unaditta River River Upper Susquehanna 02050101.040 Fly Creek 39-005 ELK CREFK Otsego Silt (Sediment) Streambank Unaditle River Destabitization/Modification Upper Susquehanna 02050101.050 Schenevus River 39-004 WHARTON CREEK Otsego Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Manure Spreading Unaditta River Upper Susquehanna 02050101.060 Charlotte Creek 48-011 CHARLOTTE CREEK Schoharie Silt (Sediment) Land Disposal (landfills) Unaditta River Upper Susquehanna 02050101.070 Otego Creek 39-003 OTEGO CREEK Otsego Nutrients Storm Sewers Unaditte River Upper Susquehanna 02050101.090 Outeout Creek 13-005 EAST SIDNEY LAKE Delaware Nutrients Agric. - Barnyard Runoff Unaditta River Upper Susquehanna Outeout Creek 13-013 MERIDITH SO. AQFR GW Delaware Nutrients Agric. - Manure Spreading, Unaditla River Upper Su squehanna 02050101.110 Carr's Creek 13-003 CARRS CREEK Delaware Priority Organics On-Site Wastewater Systems Unaditla River Upper Susquehanna Carr's Creek 13-011 SIDNEY CENTER AOF G.W Delaware Pathogens On-site Wastewater SysteM Unadille River Upper Susquehanna 02050101.120 Schenevus Cre ek to 39-006 SUSQUEHANNA RIVER Otsego Unknown Toxic Unknown Unaditta River Unaditta River Page A-6.1 -- DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION m w b @'GW = Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. URAFT APPENDIX A-6 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING SUBJECT M AGENCY VERIFICATIOF! SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN (06) BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE NYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ --------- :------------------- 06-01 Upper Susquehanna 02050101.140 Upper Unaditta River 27-013 UNADILLA RIVER Madison Silt (Sediment) Agric. Other Unedftte River Upper Susquehanna 02050101.150 Warton Creek 39-010 SUMMIT LAKE Otsego Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Unaditte River Upper Susquehanna 02050101.170 Great Brook 09-011 CHENANGO LAKE Chenango Nutrients On-site Wastewater.Systems Unadftla River Upper Susquehanna 02050101.180 Lower Unadi(ta River 09-003 UNADILLA RIVER Chenango Aesthetics On-site Wastewater Systems Unaditta River Upper Susquehanna Lower Unaditta River 09-004 GUILFORD LAKE Chenango Nutrients On-site Wastewater System Uneditta River Upper Susquehanna Lower Unaditla River 39-009 SILVER LAKE Otsego Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Unadilla River Upper Susquehanna 02050101.190 Big Brook - 13-016 E.MASONVILLE POND Delaware Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Unaditle River Masonvitle Creek Upper Susquehanna 02050101.200 Kelsey Brook 09-001 BUMPS CREEK Chenango Aesthetics Land Disposal (landfills) Uneditta River Upper Susquehanna Kelsey Brook 09-002 AFTON LAKE Chenango Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Unaditta River Upper Susquehanna 02050101.350 Pierce Creek 9 04-018 PIERCE CREEK Broome Silt (Sediment) Land Ctearing/Devetopment Unaditta River Bayless Creek Upper Susquehanna 02050101.370 State Line to 04-006 PARK CREEK Broome Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Unedille River Chenango River Upper Susquehanna State Line to 04-021 SUSQUEHANNA RIVER Broome Aesthetics.. Urban Runoff Unaditta River Chenango River Upper Susquehanna State Line to 04-023 KIRKWOOD WELLS Broome Priority Organics Land Disposal (landfills) Uneditle River Chenango River 06-02 Chenango-Tjoughnioga 02050102.020 Upper Chenango River 09-012 NORWICH RESERVOIR Chenango Nutrients On@site Wastewater System Rivers Chenango-Tioughniogs Upper Chenango River 09-013 COLD BROOK Chenango Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Improper Manure Rivers Storage Chenango-Tioughnioga Upper Chenango River 09-014 FLY CREEK Chenango Nutrients Agric. - Manure Spreading Rivers Page A-6.2 -- DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. MIR= M ORAFT APPENDIX A-6 RIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATOK SUSOUEHANNA RIVER BASIN (06) BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE NYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- --------- --- ------------------------ ----------------------------- 06-02 Chermngo-Tioughnioge [email protected] Upper Chenango River 27-001 GORTON LAKE Madison Nutrients On-site Wastewater System Rivers Chenango-Tioughnioga Upper Chenango River 27-002 EATON RESERVOIR Madison Nutrients on-site Wastewater System Rivers Chenongo-Tioughnioga Upper Chenango River 27-003 LAKE MORAINE Madison Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Rivers Chenango-Tioughnioge Upper Chenango River 27-014 MORRISVILLE AQUI. GW Madison Salts Storage/App of Deicing Rivers Material Chenango-Tioughnioga 02050102.030 Canasawacte Creek 09-015 CANASAWACTA CREEK Chenango Silt (Sediment) Dredging Rivers Chenango-Tioughnioga Canasawacta Creek 09-016 PLYMOUTH RESERVR. Chenango Nutrients On-site Wastewater System Rivers Chenango-Tioughnioga 02050102.050 Middle Chenango River 09-005 NORTH POND Chenango Aesthetics On-site Wastewater Systems Rivers Chenango-Tioughnioga Middle Chenango River 09-00.6 EDDY BROOK Chenango Unknown Toxic Chemical Leaks and Spitts Rivers Chenango-Tioughnioga Middle Chenango River 09-007 MILL BROOK Chenango Unknown Toxic Land Disposal (tandfills) Rivers Chenango-Tioughnioga Middle Chenango River 09-008 CHENANGO RIVER Chenango Nutrients Agric. - Row Crops Rivers Chenango-Tioughnioga Middle Chenango River 09-009 CHENANGO RIVER Chenango Aesthetics On-site Wastewater Systems Rivers Chenango-Tioughnioga Middle Chenango River 09-010 CHENANG0 RIVER Chenango Aesthetics On-site Wastewater Systems Rivers Chenango-Tioughnioga 02050102.070 Otsetic River 04-002 WHITNEY POINT RES Broome Silt (Sediment) Flow Regulation/Modification Rivers Chenango-Tioughnioga Otselic River 04-003 OTSELIC RIVER Broome Silt (sediment) Roadbank Erosion Rivers Chenango-Tioughnioga Otsetic River 04-004 PAGE BROOK Broome Nutrients Agric. - Row Crops Rivers Chenango-Tioughnioga Otselic River 09-017 OTSELIC RIVER Chenango Thermal Changes Agric. - Riparian Veg. Rivers Removal Page A-6.3 -- DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. URAFT APPENDIX A-6 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN (06) BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE HYS DEC SUBBASIN MA14E UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- 06-02 Chenongo-Tioughnioga 02050102.070 Otsetic River 09-018 BRAKEL CREEK Chenango Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Riparian Veg. Rivers Removal Chenango-Tioughnioge otselic River 12-009 OTSELIC RIVER Cortland Thermo( Changes Streembank Erosion Rivers Chenongo-Tioughnioga Otsetic River 27-012 OTSELIC RIVER Madison Thermal Changes Agric. - Riparian Veg. Rivers Remove( Chenango-Tioughnioga 02050102.080 Upper Tioughnioga 12-001 UPPER LIT.YORK LK Cortland Nutrients Agric. - Row Crops Rivers River Chenango-Tioughnioga Upper Tioughnioga 12-002 TULLY LAKE Cortland Nutrients Nutrient Enriched Sediments Rivers River Chenango-Tioughniogs Upper Tioughnioga 12-003 SONG LAKE Cortland Nutrients Agric. - Row Crops Rivers River Chenango-Tioughnioga Upper Tioughnioga 12-004 E.BR.TIOUGHNIOGA Cortland Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Other Rivers River Chenango-Tioughnioge Upper Tioughnioga 12-008 HOMER PREBLE AQUF Cortland Nutrients Urban Runoff Rivers River Chenongo-Tioughnioga Upper Tioughnioga 12-010 FACTORY BROOK Cortland Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Row Crops Rivers River Chenango-Tioughnioga Upper Tioughnioga 27-004 DERUYTER RESERVR. Madison Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Rivers River Chenango-Tioughnioge Upper Tioughnioga 34-018 FABIUS BROOK Onondaga Thermal Changes Agric. - Row Crops Rivers River Chenango-Tioughniaga 02050102.090 Dry Creek & Otter 12-007 DRY/OTTER CK AQUF GW Cortland Priority. Organics Land Disposal (landfills) Rivers Creek Chenango-Tioughnioge 02050102.100 Lower Tioughnioga 04-017 DUDLEY CREEK Broome Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Riparian Veg. Rivers River Removal Chenango-Tioughnioga Lower Tioughnioga 12-005 TROUT BROOK Cortland Unknown Toxic Land Disposal (landfills) Rivers River Chenango-Tioughnioga Lower Tioughnioga 12-006 LOW. TIOUGHNIOGA Cortland Oil & Grease Unknown Rivers River Chenango-Tioughnioga 02050102.120 Page Brook 04-015 PAGE BROOK Broome Silt (Sediment) Land Ctearing/Devetopment Rivers Page A-6.4 -- DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. RAFT APPENDIX A-6 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING SUBJEff TO ACENO V911RUTIOR SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN (06) BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE NYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- 7--@ -------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ --------- w------ 1------------ 06-02 Chenango-Tioughnioga 02050102.130 Lower Chenango River 04-001 PORTER HOLLOW CK Broome Silt (Se. diment) Unknown Rivers Chenango-Tioughnioga Lower Chenango River 04-005 OS@ BORNE CREEK Broome Silt (Sediment) Streembank Erosion Rivers Chenongo-Tioughnioga Lower Chenango River 04-009 CHENANGO AQUIFER GW Broome Unknown Toxic Lord Disposal (landfills) Rivers Chenango-Tioughnioga Lower Chenango River 04-010 CHENANGO RIVER Broome Metals Streambank Erosion Rivers Chenango-Tioughnioga Lower Chenango River 04-011 CHENANGO RIVER Broome Nutrients Agric. - Row Crops Rivers Chenango-Tioughnioga Lower Chenango River 04-012 BALLYHACK CREEK Broome Silt (Sediment) Land Ctearing/Devetopment Rivers Chenango-Tioughnioga Lower Chenango River 04-013 PHELPS CREEK Broome Silt (Sediment) Land Clearing/Development Rivers Chenango-Tioughniogo Lower Chenango River 04-019 RANNEY WELL Broome Priority Organics Chemical Leeks and Spills Rivers Chenango-Tioughnioga Lower Chenango River 04-022 CHENANGO FORKS HS GW Broome Priority organics Land Disposal (landfills) Rivers 06-03 Lower Susquehanna 02050103.010 Chenango River to 04-007 FINCH HOLLOW CRK Broome Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Westover Lower Susquehanna Chenango River to 04-016 LITTLE CHOCONUT Broome Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion Westover Lower Susquehanna Chenango River to 1 04-020 LITTLE CHOCONUT Broome Silt (Sediment) Lard Ctearing/Development Westover Lower Susquehanna 02050103.050 Twin Orchard to 04-014 CHOCONUT CREEK Broome Silt (Sediment) Urban Runoff Tracey Creek Lower Susquehanna 02050103.060. USGS Gaging Station 04-008 NANTICOKE CREEK Broome Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion to Broome-Tioga County Line Lower Susquehanna 02050103.090 Tracey Creek to 54-009 APALACHIN CREEK Tioga Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion Applachin Creek Lower Susquehanna 02050103.100 Broome-Tioga County 54-008 SUSQUEHANNA RIVER Tioga Silt (Sediment) Land clearing/Deve(opment Page A-6.5 -- DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW = Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. URAFT APPENDIX A-6 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATIOM SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN (06) BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE MYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- Line to Owego Creek Lower Susquehanna Broome-Tioga County 54-010 SUSQUEHANNA RIVER Tioge Nutrients Agric. Manure Spreading Line to Owego Creek Lower Susquehanna 02050103.120 Catatonk Creek 54-001 CATATONK CREEK Tioga Silt (Sediment) Agric. Barnyard Runoff Lower Susquehanna Catatonk Creek 54-002 TRIBS OF CATATONK Tiogs Sitt (Sediment) Agric. Barnyard Runoff Lower Susquehanna Catatonk Creek 54-003 SULPHUR SPRINGS C Tiogs Aesthetics Land Disposal (landfills) Lower Susquehanna Catatonk Creek 54-004 CANDOR AQUIFER GW Tioga Satts Storage/App of Deicing Materiat Lower Susquehanna 02050103.140 Owego Creek 54-005 DOOLITTLE CREEK Tioga Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion Lower Susquehanna Owego Creek 54-006 W. BR. OWEGO CRK. Tioga Sitt (Sediment) Agric. - Barnyard Runoff Lower Susquehanna Owego Creek 54-007 E. BR. OWEGO CRK. Tioga Aesthetics On-site Wastewater System Lower Susquehanna 02050103.200 Pipe Creek to State 54-011 SUSQUEHANNA RIVER Tioga Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion Line Lower Susquehanna 02050103.220 Cayuta Creek 49-002 CAYUTA LAKE Schuyler Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Lower Susquehanna Cayuta Creek 49-009 JACKSON CREEK Schuyler Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion Page A-6.6 DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW z Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. mom M R APPENDIX A-7 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING SUBJECT M AGENCY VERIFICATIOM SENECA-ONEIDA-OSWEGO RIVER BASIN (07) BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE NYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ ------_----- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- --- r--------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- 07-01 Lower Seneca Oswego 04140201.350 Skaneateles Ck to 34-014 SENECA RIVER Onondaga Salts On-site Wastewater Systems Rivers Onondaga Lk, Canal South Lower Seneca Oswego Skaneateles Ck to 34-021 OSWEGO/SENECA RVR Onondaga Salts Urban Runoff Rivers Onondaga Lk, Canal South Lower Seneca Oswego 04140201.390 Owasco Outlet to 06-003 SENECA RIVER Cayuga Silt (Sediment) Agric. Row Crops Rivers Onondaga Lk, Canal North Lower Seneca Oswego Owasco Outlet to 06-011 OTTER LAKE Cayuga Nutrients Natural Rivers Onondaga Lk, Canal Worth Lower Seneca Oswego Owasco Outlet to 06-012 CROSS LAKE Cayuga Oxygen-Demanding Agric. Row Crops Rivers Onondaga Lk, Canal Substances North Lower'Seneca Oswego Owasco Outlet to 34-010 CROSS LAKE Onondaga Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Rivers Onondaga Lk, Canal North Lower Seneca Oswego 04140202.150 Oneida River 38-007 ONEIDA RIVER Oswego Nutrients FIlow Regutation/Modification Rivers Lower Seneca Oswego 04140203.010 Oswego River 34-009 BEAVER LAKE Onondaga Nutrients waterfowl Rivers Lower Seneca Oswego Oswego River 38-004 OSWEGO RIVER Oswego Metals Streambank Rivers Destabilization/Modification Lower Seneca Oswego Oswego River 381006 LAKE NEATAHWANTA Oswego Nutrients Agric. - Row Crops Rivers 07-02 Onondaga Lake 04140201.360 Ninemite Creek 34-003 OTISCO LAKE Onondaga Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Row Crops Onondaga Lake Ninemile Creek 34-015 NINE MILE CREEK Onondaga Salts Land Disposal (landfills) Onondaga Lake Ninemile Creek 34-016 GEDDES BROOK Onondaga Unknown Toxic Land Disposal (landfills) Onondaga Lake 04140201.380 Onondaga Lake to 34-001 ONONDAGA LAKE Onondaga Pathogens Urban Runoff Oswego River Onondaga Lake Onondaga Lake to 34-002 ONONDAGA CREEK Onondaga Salts Urban Runoff Page A-7.1 -- DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION ArT *GW Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. URAFT APPENDIX A-7 PRIORITY CANDIDA TES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION SENECA-ONEIDA-OSWEGO RIVER BASIN (07) BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE NYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME , UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME , TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ --------------------- ------- Oswego River Onondaga Lake Onondaga Lake to 34-006 HARBOR BROOK Onondaga Silt (sediment) Land Ctearing/Devetopment Oswego River Onondaga Lake Onondaga Lake to 34-011 HIAWATHA LAKE Onondaga Nutrients Urban Runoff Oswego River Onondaga Lake Onondaga Lake to 34-012 MEADOW BROOK Onondaga Salts Urban Runoff Qswego River Onondaga Lake Onondaga Lake to 34-013 FURNACE BROOK Onondaga Silt (Sediment) Land Ctearing/Development Oswego River Onondaga Lake Onondaga Lake to 34-020 LEY CREEK & TRIBS Onondaga Aesthetics Land Disposal (landfills) Oswego River 07-03 Oneida River 04140202.040 Woods Creek North of 33-002 WOOD CREEK Oneida Silt (Sediment) Urban Runoff Barge Canat Oneida River Woods Creek North of 33-004 CANADA CREEK Oneida Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Row Crops Barge Cana( Oneida River 04140202.070 Upper Oneida Creek 27-015 STOCKBRIDGE AOUIF GW Madison Unknown Toxic Land Disposal (Landfills) Oneida River Upper Oneida Creek 33-003 SCONONDOA CREEK Oneida Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Row Crops Oneida River 04140202.080 S&E Shore Barge Cana( 27-010 LOWER ONEIDA CRK. Madison Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Truck Farm to Cowaseton Creek Oneida River 04140202.090 Cowaseton Creek 27-018 COWASELON CREEK Madison oxygen-Demanding Agric. - Truck Farm Substances Oneida River Cowaseton Creek 27-019 CANASERAGA CREEK Madison Oxygen-Demanding Agric. - Truck Farm Substances_ Oneida River 04140202.100 Limestone Creek 27-016 NEW WOODSTOCK SPR GW Madison Nutrients Agric. - Manure Spreading Oneida River Limestone Creek 34-005 JAMESVILLE RESERV Onondaga Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Row Crops Oneida River Limestone Creek 34-007 POOLS BROOK Onondaga Silt (Sediment) Land Ctearing/Devetopment Oneida River Limestone Creek 34-008 LIMESTONE CREEK Onondaga Silt (Sediment) Resource Extraction/development Oneida River Limestone Creek 34-017 BUTTERNUT CREEK Onondaga oil & Grease Urban Runoff Oneida River 04140202.110 Upper Chittenango 27-007 CAZENOVIA LAKE Madison Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Creek Oneida River Upper Chittenango 27-008 TUSCARORA LAKE Madison Nutrients On-site.Wastewater Systems Page A-7.2 -- DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. RA T APPENDIX A-7 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING SENECA-ONEIDA-OSWEGO RIVER BASIN (07) SUBACT TO AGENCY VERWICATIM BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG*' PRIMARY NOMPOINT CODE MYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ----------------------- -------------- -------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ----- ------------------ ----------------------------- Creek Oneida River upper chittenango 27-011 CHITTENANGO CREEK Madison Silt (Sediment) Land Clearing/Devetopment Creek Oneida River Upper Chittenango 27-017 CHITTENANGO CREEK Madison Nutrients Agric. - other Creek Oneida River 04140202.120 South Shore Cowaseton 27-009 ONEIDA LAKE Madison Nutrients Agric. - Truck Farm Creek to Oneida River Oneida River South Shore Cowaselon 34-019 CHITTENANGO CREEK Onondaga Nutrients Agric. - Row Crops Creek to Oneida River Oneida River 04140202.130 North Shore Fish 38-002 ONEIDA LAKE Oswego Nutrients on-site Wastewater System Creek to Oneida River Lower Seneca Oswego 04140203.010 Oswego River 38-005 OX CREEK. Oswego Silt (Sediment) Unknown Rivers 07-04 Clyde River 04140201.160 Watershed Divide to 35-010 CO.RTE.32 AQUIFER GW Ontario Salts Storage/App of Deicing Hathaway Brook, Cana( Material South - Other Clyde River Watershed Divide to 35-011 SCHAFFER CREEK Ontario oxygen-Demanding Agric. Hathaway Brook, Cana( Substances S(xith Clyde River Watershed Divide to 35-012 GANARGUA CREEK Ontario Pesticides Agric. - Pesticide Hathaway Brook, Canal. Application South Clyde River Watershed Divide to 59-020 GANARGUA CK AOUFR GW Wayne Priority organics Chemical Leaks and Spills Hathaway Brook, Canal. .South Clyde River 04140201.170 Hathaway Ok to 59-015 MARBLETOWN CK AOR GW Wayne Pathogens Agric. - Barnyard Runoff Canandaigua Outlet, Canat South Clyde River Hathaway Ok to 59-016 MILITARY RUN Wayne Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Truck Farm Canandaigua Outlet, Canat South Clyde River Hathaway Bk to 59-018 MARBLETOWN CREEK Wayne Pesticides Agric..-.Pesticide '16 F Page A-7.3 -- DRAFT DATA: SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW = Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. URAFT APPENDIX A-7 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION SENECA-ONEIDA-OSWEGO RIVER BASIN (07) BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE MYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- Canandaigua Outlet, Application Canal South Clyde River 04140201.180 Naples Creek 35-006 GRIMES CK RACEWAY Ontario Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Clyde River 04140201.190 Canadaigua Lake 35-009 CANANDAIGUA LAKE Ontario Pesticides Agric. - Row Crops Clyde River Canadaigua Lake 62-002 CANANDAIGUA LAKE Yates Pesticides On-site Wastewater Systems Clyde River 04140201 .210 Flint Creek 62-005 FLINT CREEK Yates Pesticides Agric. - Pesticide Application Clyde River 04140201.220 Canandaigua Outlet 35-008 CANANDAIGUA OUTLT Ontario Nutrients Urban Runoff Clyde River 04140201.230 Watershed Divide to 59-001 RED CREEK Wayne Nutrients Agric. Other Black Brook, Canal, North Clyde River Watershed Divide to 59-019 MACEDON CTR AQUFR GW Wayne Unknown Toxic Land Disposal (landfills) Black Brook, Canal North Clyde River 04140201.260 Canadaigua Outlet to 50-001 BLACK BROOK Seneca Unknown Toxic Land Disposal (landfills) Seneca River, Canal, South Clyde River Canadaigua Outlet to 50-002 WHITE BROOK Seneca Nutrients Agric. other Seneca River, Canal South Clyde River Canadaigua Outlet to 50-007 DUBLIN BROOK Seneca Oxygen-Demar?ding Kgric. Barnyard Runoff Seneca River, Canal Substances South Clyde River Canadaigua Outlet to 59-011 CLYDE RIVER Wayne oxygen-Demanding Agric. Barnyard Runoff Seneca River, Canal substances South Clyde River 04140201.270 Crane Brook 06-004 CRANE BROOK Cayuga Nutrients Urban Runoff Clyde River 04140201.280 Black Brook to Owasco 06-010 DUCK LAKE Cayuga Nutrients Natural Outlet, Canal North Clyde River Black Brook to Owasco 59-010 SENECA RIVER Wayne Nutrients Agric. - Pesticide Outlet, Canal North Application Clyde River Black Brook to Owasco 59-012 CRUSOE CREEK Wayne Pesticides Agric. Pesticide Page A-7.4 -- DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW a Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified Is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. RAFT APPENDIX A-7 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING SUBJEcr M AGEN" VERIFICATIOM SENECA- "ONEIDA-OSWEGO RIVER BASIN (07) BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC - SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE NYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME . ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- -------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- Outlet, Canal North Application Clyde River Black Brook to Owasco 59-017 NYS BARGE CANAL Wayne Water Level or Flow Flow Reguiation/Modification Outlet, Canal North 07-05 Upper Seneca River 04140201.010 Catharine Creek 08-008 CATHARINE CREEK Chemung Nutrients on-site Wastewater Systems Upper Seneca River Catharine Creek 49-014 CATLIN MILL SPRNG GW Schuyler Pathogens On-site Wastewater Systeins Upper Seneca River 04140201.020 Glen Creek 49-010 UPPER DAM LAKE Schuyler Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion Upper Seneca River Glen Creek 49-011 WHITES HOOLOW LK Schuyler Silt (Sediment) Streembank Erosion Upper Seneca River Glen Creek 49-012 PUNCH BOWL LAKE Schuyler Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion Upper Seneca River Glen Creek 49-013 CATHERINE CREEK Schuyler Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Row Crops Upper Seneca River 04140201.040 Keuka Lake Outlet 51-004 KEUKA LAKE Steuben Pesticides On-site Wastewater Systems Upper Seneca River Keuka Lake Outlet 62-001 KEUKA LAKE Yates Pesticides On-site Wastewater Systems Upper Seneca River Keuka Lake Outlet 62-004 SUGAR CREEK Yates Silt (Sediment) Streembank Erosion Upper Seneca River Keuka Lake Outlet 62-007 KEUKA LAKE OUTLET Yates Thermal Changes Flow Regulation/Modification Upper Seneca River 04140201.050 Kashong Lake 62-003 KASHONG CREEK Yates Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Row Crops Upper Seneca River 04140201.060 Seneca Lake 35-007 SENECA LAKE Ontario Salts Storage/App of Deicing Materials Upper Seneca River Seneca Lake 49-001 HECTOR FALLS CK Schuyler Unknown Toxic Land Disposal (landfills) Upper Seneca River Seneca Lake 49-016 SENECA LAKE Schuyler salts Storage/App of Deicing Materials Upper Seneca River Seneca Lake 49-017 BREAKNECK CREEK Schuyler Metals Land Disposal (landfills) Upper Seneca River Seneca Lake 50-006 SENECA LAKE Seneca Salts ** Agric. - Row Crops Upper Seneca River Seneca Lake 62-.006 LONG PT RD AQUIFR GW Yates Unknown Toxic Land Disposal (landfitts) Upper Seneca River Sene ce Lake 62-008 SENECA LAKE Yates Salts Agric. - Row Crops Upper Seneca River 04140201.070 Seneca Lake to Cayuga 50-003 CAYLIGA/SENECA CNL Seneca Silt (Sediment) on-site Wastewater Systems Lake Upper Seneca River Seneca Lake to Cayuga 50-004 KENDIG CREEK Seneca Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Row Crops Lake Upper Seneca River 041,40201.080 Cayuga Inlet 55-002 CAYUGA INLET Tompkins Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion Upper Seneca River Cayuga Inlet 55-003 SIXMILE CREEK Tompkins Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion Upper Seneca River Cayuga Inlet .55-004 CASCADILLA CREEK Tompkins Silt (Sediment) Streembank Erosion Upper Seneca River 04140201.090 Virgil Creek 55-006 DRYDEN LAKE Tompkins Nutrients Agric. - Fertilizer Application Page A-7.5 -- DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GU r Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. URAFT APPENDIX A-7 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERM"T10" SENECA-ONEIDA-OSWEGO IRIVER BASIN (07) BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE NYS DEC SUBIBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- -- ---------------------- --------------- :-------------- 07-05 Upper Seneca River 04140201.100 Felt Creek 06-007 LAKE CUMO Cayuga Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Upper Seneca River Felt Creek 55-005 FALL CREEK Tompkins Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion Upper Seneca River 04140201.120 Taughennock Creek 49-015 BOLTER CREEK Schuyler Silt (Sediment) Resource Extraction/devetopment Upper Seneca River 04140201.140 Yawger Creek 06-009 YAWGER CREEK Cayuga Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Row Crops Upper Seneca River 04140201.150 Cayuga Lake 06-008 CAYUGA LAKE Cayuga Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Upper Seneca River Cayuga Lake 50-005 CAYUGA LAKE Seneca Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Upper Seneca River Cayuga Lake *55-001 CAYUGA LAKE Tompkins Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion 07-06 Owasco Creek 04140201.300 Owasco inlet 06-005 OWASCO INLET Cayuga Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion Owasco Creek 04140201.310 Dutch Hollow Brook 06-006 DUTCH HOLLOW ORK. Cayuga Silt (Sediment) Dredging Owasco Creek 04140201.320 Owasco Lake 06-013 OWASCO LAKE Cayuga Silt (Sediment) Streembank Erosion Owasco Creek 04140201.330 Owasco outlet to 06-014 OWASCO OUTLET Cayuga Nutrients Agric. - Row Crops Skaneateles Ck, Canal South 07-07 Skaneateles Creek 04140201.340 Skaneateles Creek 12-011. GROUT BROOK Cortland Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion Skaneateles Creek Skaneateles Creek 34-004 SHOTWELL BROOK Onondaga Silt (Sediment) Agric. Row Crops Page A-7.6 DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, stmo. dep. or contaminated sedi ments. RAFT, APPENDIX A-8 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION. BLACK RIVER BASIN (08) BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE NYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME 10 SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ------------------------------ 08-01 Bieck River Main Stein 04150101.060 Middle Branch Moose 21-022 4TH LAKE Hamilton Silt (Sediment) Storage/App of Deicing River Material Black River Main Stein Middle Branch Moose 21-023 8TH LAKE Hamilton Silt (Sediment) Storage/App of Deicing River Material Black River main Stem Middle Branch Moose 21-024 7TH LAKE Hamilton Silt (Sediment) Storage/App of Deicing River Material Black River Main Stem Middle Branch Moose 22-006 FULTON CHAIN LAKE Herkimer Pesticides Unknown River Black River Main Stein 04150101.070 Moose River 25-017 MOOSE RIVER Lewis Other Inorganics Land Disposal (landfills) Black River Main Stem 04150101.080 Fisk Creek 25-010 BRANTINGHAM LAKE Lewis Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Black River Main Stern 04150101.090 Otter Creek 25-015 OTTER CREEK Lewis Unknown Toxic Land Disposal (landfills) Black River Main Stem 04150101.100 Upper Middle Black 25-003 WHETSTONE CREEK Lewis silt (Sediment) Streembank, River Destabitization/Modification Black River Main Stem Upper Middle Black 25-016 FISH CREEK Lewis other Inorganics Land Disposal (landfills) River Black River Main Stem 04150101.110 Independence River 25-009 CHASE LAKE Lewis Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Black River Main Stem 04150101.150 Beaver River 25-005 BLACK CREEK Lewis silt (Sediment) Silviculture Black River Main Stem Beaver River 25-006 EFFLEY FALLS RESE Lewis Water Level or Flow Flow Regutation/Modification Stack River Main Stem Beaver River 25-007 SOFT MAPLE RESERV Lewis Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Black River Main Stein Beaver River 25-008 BEAVER LAKE Lewis Nutrients on-site Wastewater Systems Block River Main Stein Beaver River 25-012 BEAVER RIVER Lewis Pathogens On-site Wastewater Systems Black River Main Stem 04150101.160 Middle Stack River 25-001 BLACK RIVER Lewis Pesticides Chemical Leaks and Spills Black River Main Stem 04150101.170 Deer River 25-004 DEER RIVER Lewis Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Black River Main Stem 04150101.180 Lower Middle Black 25-002 BLACK RIVER Lewis Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems River Stack River Main Stem 04150101.190 Lower Black River 23-007 BLACK RIVER Jefferson oil & Grease Agric. Row Crops Page A-8.1 DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW = Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality prGb(em - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. I)RAFT APPENDIX A-9 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING ST. LAWRNECE RIVER BASIN (09) SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATIOM BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NOMPOINT CODE NYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ----------------- ------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- 09-01 St. Lawrence River Main 04150301.010 Cape Vincent to Otter 23-011 BAYS ON ST.LAWRNC Jefferson Nutrients On-site Wastewater System Stein Creek St. Lawrence River Main Cape Vincent to Otter 23-022 LAKE OF THE ISLES Jefferson Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Stem Creek St. Lawrence River Main 04150301.020 Otter Creek to 23-021 GOOSE BAY Jefferson Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Stem Chippewa Creek St. Lawrence River,Main 04150301.050 Sucker Brook to Gress 45-011 SUCKER BROOK St. Lawrence Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Row Crops Stem River 09-02 St. 04150306.040 Deer River 45-012 DEER RIVER St. Lawrence Nutrients Agric. - Row Crops Regis-Saimon-Chateaugay @Rivers St. 04150307.010 Pike Creek 17-011 PIKE CREEK Franklin Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Riparian Veg. Regis-Satmon-Chateaugay Removal Rivers St. 04150307.030 Salmon River 17-005 SALMON RIVER Franklin Silt (Sediment) Lard Ctearing/Development Regis-Salmon-Chateaugay Rivers St. Salmon River 17-006 INDIAN/MT VIEW LK Franklin Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Regis-Satmon-Chateaugay Rivers St. Salmon River 17-007 MALONE SWIM. HOLE Franklin Pathogens Agric. Truck Farm Regis-Satmon-Chateaugay Rivers St. Salmon River 17-008 MALONE AOUIFER GW Franklin Pesticides Agric. Truck Form Regis-Saimon-Chateaugay Rivers St. Salmon River 17-010 LAKE TITUS Franklin Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Regis-Salmon-Chateaugay Rivers St. 04150307.080 Chateaugay River 10-015 U. CHATEAUGAY LK. Clinton Water Level or Flow Flow Requietion/Modification Regis-Satmon-Chateaugay Rivers Page A-9.1 -- DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. RAFT APPENDIX A-9 PRIORITY CANDIDATES IOR WATERSHED PLANNING SUBJECT M AGENCY VERIFICATION, ST. LAWRNECE RIVER BASIN (09) SASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE NYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- ')9-02 St. 04150307.080 Chateaugay River 17-004 BOARDMAN BROOK Franklin Aesthetics Agric. Manure Spreading Regis-Satmon-Chateaugay Rivers St. Chateaugay River 17-009 L. CHATEAUGAY LK. -- Franklin Water Level or Flow Ftow Regutation/Modification Regfs-Salmon-Chateaugay Rivers St. 04150307.120 English River 10-016 ENGLISH RIVER Clinton Silt (Sediment) Road sanding Regis-Satmon-Chateaugay Rivers 09-03 Reouette River 04150305.010 Raquette Lake 21-017 SHAW BROOK Hamilton silt (Sediment) Storage/App of Deicing Material Raquette River Raquette Lake 21-018 UTOWANA LAKE Hamilton- Silt (Sediment) Storage/App of Deicing Material Raquette River Requette Lake 21-019 EAGLE LAKE Hamilton Silt (Sediment) Storage/App of Deicing Material Raquette River Requette Lake 21-020 BLUE MOUNTAIN LAK Hamilton Silt (Sediment) Storage/App of Deicing Material Raquette River Requette Lake 21-021 RAQUETTE LAKE Hamilton Silt (Sediment) Storage/App of Deicing Material Requette River 04150305.030 Long Lake 21-015 LONG LAKE Hamilton silt (Sediment) Storage/App of Deicing material Raquette River 04150305.080 Tupper Lake 17-001 LITTLE WOLF POND Franklin Pathogens Land Disposal (landfills) Requette River 04150305.130 Parkhurst Brook to 45-004 NORWOOD LAKE St. Lawrence Water ILevel or Flow Flow Regulation/Modification Plumb Brook C9-04 Grass River 04150304.050 Harrison Creek 45-005 ELM CREEK St. Lawrence Oxygen-0emanding On-site Wastewater Systems Substances Grass River 04150304.060 Llttte River 45-003 LI TILE RIVER St. Lawrence Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Row Crops Grass River 04150304.080 Little River to 45-006 GRASS RIVER-MIDDL St. Lawrence Nutrients Agric. - Row Crops Massena 09-05 Oswegatchie kfver 0050302.020 Little River 45-002 LITTLE RIVER St. Lawrence oil 9 Grease chemicat'Leeks and Spills Oswegatchie River 04150302.040 Upper West Branch 25-014 LONG POND Lewis metals Unknown Oswegatchie River Page A-9.2 -- DRAFT DATA: SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW Groundwater; Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. k)RAFT APPENDIX A-9 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATIOM ST. LAWRNECE RIVER BASIN (09) BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC . SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE NYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- 09-05 Oswegatchle River 04150302.060 Matoon Creek 457016 HATOCIN CREEK St. Lawrence Silt (Sediment) Agrfc. - Row Crops Oswegatchie River 04150302.090 Upper Oswegatchie 45-008 UPPER OSWEGATCHIE St. Lawrence Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Row Crops River Oswegatchie River Upper Oswegatchie 45-013 TURNPIKE CREEK St. Lawrence Metals Resource River Extraction/devetopment Oswegatchie River 04150302.100 Governeur to Bolard 23-012 MOON LAKE Jefferson Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Creek Oswegatchie River Governeur to Boland 45-009 OSWEGATCHIE RIVER St. Lawrence Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Row Crops Creek Oswegatchle River 04150302.110 Boland Creek .45-010 BOLAND CREEK St. Lawrence Nutrients Agric. - Row Crops 09-06 Indian River 04150303.010 Upper Indian River 25-011 LAKE BONAPARTE Lewis Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Indian River Upper Indian River 25-013 INDIAN LAKE Lewis Metals Unknown Indian River 04150303.020 Upper Middle Indian 23-024 INDIAN RIVER Jefferson Silt (Sediment) Military Maneuvers River Indian River 04150303.040 Lower Middle Indian 23-023 INDIAN RIVER Jefferson Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems River Indian River 04150303.060 Lower Indian River 23-015 CRYSTAL LAKE Jefferson Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Indian River Lower Indian River 23-016 SIX BERRY LAKE Jefferson Nutrients On-site Wastewater System Indian River Lower Indian River 23-017 MILLSITE LAKE Jefferson Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Indian River Lower Indian River 23-025 INDIAN RIVER Jefferson Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Indian River 04150303.080 Black Lake 23-013 CLEAR LAKE Jefferson Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Indian River Black Lake 23-014 MUD LAKE Jefferson Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Indian River Black Lake 23-018 LAKE OF THE WOODS Jefferson Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Indian River Black Lake 23-019 GRASS LAKE Jefferson Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Indian River Black Lake 23-020 BUTTERFIELD LAKE Jefferson Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Indian River Black Lake 45-001 BLACK LAKE St. Lawrence Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Page A-9.3 DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified 'is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. mom RAFT APPENDIX A-10 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN (10) SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC S.EGMENT SEG* PRI14ARY NONPOTNT CODE NYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNITNAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------ 7------------------ -------------- ---------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- jo-01 Lake Champlain Proper 02010001.250 Nfligrook 16-027 MILL BROOK Essex silt (Sediment) Road sending Lake Champlain Proper 02010001.260 Lake C Ihamptain 16-.010 NORTHWEST BAY Essex Pathogens on-site Wastewater Systems Mittbrook to Split Rack Point Lake Champlain Proper 02010004.010 Lk Champlain W. 16-001 WHALLLONS BAY Essex Pathogens Waterfowl Shore; Split Rock Pt to Bmquet Rr Lake Champlain Proper 02010004.040 Wittsboro Bay - Lake 16-004 LAKE CHAMPLAIN Essex Priority Organics Chemical Leaks and Spills Champlain take Champlain Proper Willsbor IoBay - Lake 16-005 WILLSBORO BAY Essex Nutrients On-site .Wastewater Systems Champlain Lake Champlain Proper 020 10004.090 salmon River 10-011 CLIFFHAVEN BEACH Clinton Ammonia Storage/App of Deicing Material Lake Champlain Proper Salmon River 10-023 SALMON RIVER Clinton Silt (Sediment) Road sanding Lake Champlain Proper 02010006.050 Cumberland Say Lake 10-008 ALLENS BAY Clinton Pathogens On-site Wastewater Systems Champlain Lake Champlain Proper Cumberland Bay Lake 10-009 DEAD CREEK Clinton Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Manure Spreading Champlain Lake Champlain Proper Cumberland gay - Lake 10-027 LAKE CHAMPLAIN Clinton Priority Organics Unknown Champlain Lake Champlain Proper Cumberland Bay - Lake 10-031 COMFORT BAY Clinton Silt (Sediment) Land Clearing/Development Champlain Lake Champlain Proper 02010006.090 Lower Great Chazy 10-001 GREAT CHAZY RIVER Clinton Pathogens Agric. - Manure Spreading River Lake Champlain Proper Lower Great Chazy 10-002 GREAT CHAZY RIVER Clinton Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Row Crops River Lake Champlain Proper Lower Great Chazy 10-017 GREAT CHAZY RIVER Clinton Silt (Sediment) Road sanding River Lake Champlain Proper Lower Great Chazy 10-018 GREAT CHA7Y RIVER Clinton Silt (Sediment) Road sanding River Lake Champlain Proper Lower Great Chazy 10-019 GREAT CHAZY RIVER Clinton Silt (Sediment) Road sanding River mob Page A-10.1 -- DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *dW = Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contnminated sediments. URAFT APPENDIX A-10 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING ATIOM LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN (10) SUBJECT" AGENCY VERIFIC BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE NYS DEC SUBB ASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY - ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ --------- b------------ ------- 10-01 Lake Champlain Proper 02010006.100 Lk Champlain - Great 10-006 KINGS SAY Clinton Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Chazy Rr to Canadian Border 10-02 Great Chazy River 02010006.070 Little Chazy River 10-004 LITTLE CHAZY RIV. Clinton Unknown Toxic Agric. - Row Crops Lake Champlain Great Chazy River Little Chazy River 10-005 W. CHAZY AOUIFER GW Clinton Pathogens Land Disposal (landfills) Lake Champlain Great Chazy River Little Chazy River 10-007 MONTY BAY Clinton Nutrients Agric. - Manure Spreading Lake Champlain Great Chazy River 02010006.080 Upper Great Chazy 10-003 GREAT CHAZY RIVER Clinton Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Row Crops River Great Chazy River Upper Great Chazy 10-020 N. HR. GR. CHAZY Clinton Silt (Sediment) Road sending River 10-03 Saranac River 02010006.010 Upper Saranac River 16-014 SARANAC RIVER Essex Silt (Sediment) Road sending Saranac River Upper Saranac River 16-015 SARANAC RIVER Essex Silt (Sediment) Road sanding Saranac River Upper Saranac River 16-016 LAKE FLOWER Essex Silt (Sediment) Road sanding Saranac River Upper Saranac River 17-002 UPPER SARANAC LK. Franklin oxygen-Demanding Agric. - Truck Farm Substances Saranac River 02010006.020 North Branch - 10-022 N. HR. SARANAC R. Clinton Silt (Sediment) Road sanding Saranac River Saranac River North Branch - 17-003 N..BR. SARANAC R. Franklin Silt (Sediment) Highway/Bridge Construction Saranac River Saranac River 02010006.030 Middle Saranac River 10-010 SARANAC RIVER Clinton Pathogens_ On-site Wastewater Systems Saranac River Middle Saranac River 10-021 SARANAC RIVER Clinton Silt (Sediment) Road sanding Saranac River Middle Saranac River 10-029 SARANAC RIVER Clinton Aesthetics On-site Wastewater Systems Saranac River Middle Saranac River 10-030 SARANAC RIVER Clinton Water Level or Flow Flow Regutation/Modification 10-04 Ausebte-Bouquet River 02010004.020 North Branch Bouquet 16-022 N. HR. BOQUET R. Essex Silt (Sediment) Road sanding River Ausabie-Bouquet River 02010004.030 Bouquet River 16-002 LINCOLN POND Essex Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Ausebte-Bouquet River Bouquet River 16-003 BOQUET RIVER Essex Aesthetics Dumping/Trash Ausebte-Bouquet River Bouquet River 16-023 BOQUET RIVER Essex Silt (Sediment) Road sanding Ausebte-Bouquet River Bouquet River 16-024 BOOUET RIVER Essex Silt (Sediment) Road sanding Page A-10.2 -- DRAFT DATA: SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW e Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, ntmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. RAF @APPENDIX A-10 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATIOM. LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN (10) BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE MYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ------ ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- 10-04 AUSebte-Bouquet River 02010004.030 Bouquet River 16-025 BOOUET RIVER Essex Silt (sediment) Road sanding Ausable-Bouquet River Bouquet River 16-026 THE SRANrR f900.) Essex Silt (Sediment) Road sanding Ausabte-Bouquet River Bouquet River 16-033 BnO11111 RIVER Essex Silt (Sediment) Road sanding Ausebte-Bouquet River Bouquet River i6-n-4 BOQUET RIVER Essex Aesthetics On-site Wastewater Systems Ausabte-Bouquet River 02010004.050 East Branch AtisabLe 16-009 E. BR. AUSABLE R. Essex Pathogens On-site Wastewater System River Ausabte-Bouquet River Fist Branch Ausebte 16-013 PHELPS BROOK Essex Silt (Sediment) Silviculture River Ausabie-Bouquet River East Branch Ausable 16-019 E. BR. AUSARLE R. Essex Silt (Sediment) Road sanding River Ausablr-f',@uquet River East Branch Ausnbte 16-020 E. BR. AUSABLE R. Essex Silt (Sediment) Road sanding River Ausable-Souquet River East Branch Au-able 16-021 CASCADE BROOK Essex Silt (Sediment) Road sanding River Ausabte-Bouquet River East Branch Ausebte 16-035 CHAPEL POND TRIB Essex Silt (Sediment) Road sanding River Ausable-Bouquet River 02010004.060 West Branch Ausabte 10-028 PALMER BROOK Clinton Aesthetics On-site Wastewater Systems River Ausebte-Bouquet River West Branch Ausabte 16-006 COLD BROOK Essex Silt (Sediment) Urban Runoff River Ausabte-Bouquet River West Branch Ausabte 16-007 PARADOX BAY Essex Silt (Sediment) Unknown River Ausabte-Bouquet River West Branch Ausabie 16-008 CHUBS RIVER Essex Silt (Sediment) Dumping of collected road River snow Ausable-Bouquet River West Branch Ausable 16-017 W. BR. AUSABLE R. Essex Silt (Sediment) Road sanding. River Ausable-Bouquet River West Branch Ausable 16-018 W. SR. AUSABLE R. Essex Silt (Sediment) Road sanding River Ausabte-Bouquet River West Branch Ausebte 16-032 W. BR. AUSABLE R. Essex Aesthetics On-site Wastewater Systems River Ausable-Bouquet River 02010004.070 Lower Ausable River 10-014 AUSABLE RIVER Clinton Aesthetics Land Disposal (landfills) Ausabte-Bouquet River Lower Ausable River 10-625 AUSABLE RIVER Ctinton Silt (Sediment) Road sanding Page A-10.3 -- DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. WRAFT APPENDIX A-10 PRIORITY CA4D 'DATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING ON LAKE CHAMPL .AIN BASIN (10) SQBJE@T TO AGENCY VERIFICATI BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE MYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- 10-04 Ausebte-Bouquet River 02010004.070 Lower Ausabte River 16-031 AUSABLE RIVER Essex Water Level or Flow Flow Regutation/Modification Ausabte-Bouquet River 02010004.080 Little Ausable River 10-012 LITTLE AUSABLE R. Clinton Pathogens ** Agric. - Row Crops Ausabte-Bouquet River Little Ausebte River 10-013 SILVER STREAM Clinton Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Livestock in Stream Ausabte-Boucwt River Little Ausable River 10-024 LITTLE AUSABLE R. Clinton Silt (Sediment) Road sending 10-05 Lake Champlain Stream 02010001.120 Mettawee River 58-006 INDIAN RIVER Washington Thermal Changes Agric. - Riparian Veg. Removal Lake Champlain Stream Mettewee River 58-007 METTAWEE RIVER Washington Thermal Changes Agric. - Riparian Veg. Removal Lake Champlain Stream 02010001.140 Wo@d Creek 57-011 HALFWAY CREEK Warren Thermal Changes Urban Runoff Champlain Canal Lake Champlain Stream Wood Creek '- 57-012 CEMETERY BROOK Warren Silt (Sediment) Highway/Bridge Construction Champlain Canal Lake Champlain Stream Wood Creek - 57-013 GLEN LAKE Warren Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Champlain Canal Lake Champlain Stream Wood Creek - 58-005 BIG CREEK Washington Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Riparian Veg. Champlain Canal Removal Lake Champlain Stream 02010001.220 Putnam Creek 16-011 PUTNAM CREEK Essex Pathogens On@site Wastewater Systems Lake Champlain Stream Putnam Creek 16-028 PUTNAM CREEK Essex Silt (Sediment) Road sending 10-06 Lake George 02010001.190 Lake George 57-014 ENGLISH BROOK Warren Silt (Sediment) Road sanding Lake George Lake George 57-015 WEST BROOK Warren Silt (Sediment) Road sanding Lake George Lake George 57-016 SMITH BROOK Warren Silt (Sediment) Road sanding Lake George Lake George 57-017 INDIAN BROOK Warren silt (sediment) Road sanding Lake George Lake George 57-018 FINKLE BROOK Warren Silt (Sediment) Road sending Lake George Lake George 57-019 HUDDLE BROOK Warren Silt (Sediment) Road sanding Lake George Lake George 57-020 HAGUE BROOK Warren Silt (Sediment) Road sanding Lake George Lake George 57-021 LAKE GEORGE Warren Nutrients Urban Runoff Page A-10.4 -- DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW - Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. RA APPFNDIX A-11 1-4 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATIO1. UPPER HUDSON RIVER BASIN (11) BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE NYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- 11-01 Upper Hudson Main Stem 02020003.0.10 Hudson River - 46-007 STURDEVANT CREEK Saratoga Silt (Sediment) Demolition Material Secandaga River to Clendon Brook Upper Hudson Main Stem Hudson River - 57-010 BEAVER DAM BROOK Warren Silt (Sediment) Land Ctearing/Devetopment Sacandaga River to Ctendon Brook Upper Hudson Main Stem Hudson River - 57-022 HUDSON RIVER Warren Pathogens On-site Wastewater Systems Sacandaga River to Clendon Brook Upper Hudson Main Stem 02020003.020 Hudson River - 46-006 RICE BROOK Saratoga oxygen-Demanding Land Disposal (landfills) Ctendon Brook to Substances Snook Kilt Upper Hudson Main Stem Hudson River - 46-016 SNOOK KILL TRIBS -- Saratoga Silt (Sediment) Land ctearing/Devetopment Ctendon Brook to Snook Kitt Upper Hudson Main Stem Hudson River - 57-023 HUDSON RIVER Warren Unknown Toxic Land Disposal (landfills) Ctendon Brook to Snook Kitt Upper Hudson Main Stem 02020003.030 Hudson River - Snook 58-1003 SUMMIT LAKE Washington Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Kill to Batten Kill Upper Hudson Main Stem 02020003.090 Hudson River - Snook 46-001 KAYADEROSSERAS CK Saratoga Silt (Sediment) Construction Kitt - Fish Creek Upper Hudson Main Stem Hudson River - Snook 46-002 KAYADEROSSERAS 2 Saratoga Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion Kitt - Fish Creek Upper Hudson Main Stem Hudson River - Snook 46-003 WHEELER CK TRIB Saratoga Aesthetics Dumping/Trash Kitt - Fish Creek Upper Hudson Main Stem Hudson River - Snook 46-004 SPRING RUN Saratoga oxygen-Demanding Land Disposal (landfills) Kitt - Fish Creek Substances Upper Hudson Main Stem Hudson River - Snook 46-005 TRIB 2-SPRING RUN Saratoga Silt (Sediment) Construction Kilt - Fish Creek Upper Hudson Main Stem Hudson River - Snook 46-008 CLOVER MILL CREEK Saratoga Metals Land Disposal (landfills) Kilt - Fish Creek Page A-11.1 -7 DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW z Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source.identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. URAFT APPENDIX A-11 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING UPPER HUDSON RIVER BASIN (11) SUBJECt IM AGENCY VERIFICATIOM BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE HYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ ----------------------------- ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- -------- 11-01 Upper Hudson Main Stem 02020003-240 Hudson River - Hoosic 46-009 LONGKILL Saratoga Silt (Sediment) Construction River to Mohawk River Upper Hudson Main Stern Hudson River - Hoosic 46-012 DWAAS KILL - MAIN Saratoga Silt (Sediment) Land Ctearing/Devetopment River to Mohawk River Upper Hudson Main ttem Hudson River - Hoosic 46-013 DWAAS KILL TRIBS Saratoga Silt (Sediment) Land Ctearing/Devetopment River to Mohawk River Upper Hudson Main Stem Hudson River - Hoosic 46-014 DWAASS KILL-TRI82 Saratoga Silt (Sediment) Land Clearing/Devetopment River to Mohawk River Upper Hudson Main Stern Hudson River - Hoosic 46-015 ANTHONY KILL 07 Saratoga Pesticides Land Ctearing/Devetopment River to Mohawk River 11-02 Hoosic River 02020003.180 Little Hoosic River 42-005 LITTLE HOOSIC RIV Rensselaer Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion Hoosic River 02020003.230 Hoosic River 42-001 TOMHANOCK RESERVR Rensselaer Nutrients Agric. - Row Crops Hoosfc River Hoosic River 42-011 HOOSIC RIVER Rensselaer Priority Organics Unknown Hoosic River Hoosic River 42-012 JOHNSONVILLE RES. Rensselaer water Level or Flow Flow Regutation/Modification Hoosic River HooSic River 42-013 HOOSIC RIVER Rensselaer Priority Organics ** Flow Regutation/Modification Hoosic River Hoosic River 58-001 LAKE LAUDERDALE Washington Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems 11-03 Battenkitt River 02020003.070 White Creek 58-004 WHITE CREEK Washington Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Row Crops Battenkilt River 02020003.080 Batten Kitt 58-002 COSSAYUNA LAKE Washington Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems 11-04 Hudson Headwaters 02020001.010 Indian River 21-007 INDIAN LAKE Hamilton Water Level or Flow Flow Regulation/Modification Hudson Headwaters Indian River 21-008 INDIAN RIVER Hamilton Water Level or Flow Flow Regutation/Modification Hudson Headwaters Indian River 21-009 LAKE ABENAKEE Hamilton Water Level or Flow Flow Regutation/Modification Hudson Headwaters Indian River V-010 ADIRONDACK LAKE Hnmitton Nutrients Nutrient-rich sediments Hudson Headwaters Indian River 21-025 MIAMI RIVER Hamilton Silt (Sediment) Storage/App of Deicing Material Hudson Headwaters Indian River 21-026 LEWEY LAKE Hamilton Silt (Sediment) Storage/App of Deicing Material Hudson Headwaters 02020001.020 Cedar River 21-016 LAKE DURANT Hamilton Silt (Sediment) Storage/App of Deicing Material Hudson Headwaters Cedar River 21-029 CEDAR RIVER Hamilton Silt (Sediment) Storage/App of Deicing Material Hudson Headwaters 02020001.060 North River Hudson 57-001 THIRTEENTH BROOK Warren Silt (Sediment) Resource Page A-11.2 -- DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW = Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point-source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. mom M RAFT APPENDIX A-11 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING UPPER HUDSON RIVER BASIN (11) SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATIOM, BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE NYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------- ----------------------------- River Extraction/development Hudson Headwaters 02020001.070 Mitt Creek - Hudson 57-003 MILL CREEK Warren Silt (Sediment) Highway/Bridge Construction River Hudson Headwaters 02020001.080 Upper Schroon River 16-030 THE BRANCH (SCHR) Essex Silt (Sediment) Road sanding Hudson Headwaters 02020001.090 Middle Schroon River 16-029 ROGERS BROOK Essex silt (Sediment) Road sanding Hudson Headwaters Middle Schroon River 57-004 SCHROON LAKE Warren Priority organics Unknown Hudson Headwaters 02020001.100 Trout Brook 16-012 MINERVA LAKE Essex Nutrients on-site Wastewater System Hudson Headwaters 02020001.110 Lower Schroon River 57-002 LOON LAKE Warren Pathogens Parasite from snails Hudson Headwaters Lower Schroon River 57-005 SCHROON RIVER Warren Silt (Sediment) Road sanding Hudson Headwaters Lower Schroon River 57-006 SCHROON RIVER Warren Aesthetics on-site Wastewater Systems Hudson.Headwaters Lower Schroon River 57-008 BRANT LAKE Warren Nutrients On-site Wastewater System Hudson Headwaters 02020001.130 Stoney Creek Hudson 57-007 STONY CREEK Warren silt (Sediment) Roadbank Erosion River Hudson Headwaters 02020002.010 Lake Pleasant 21-004 OXBOW LAKE Hamilton Nutrients. On-site Wastewater Systems Sacandaga River Hudson Headwaters Lake Pleasant - 21-005 SACANDAGA LAKE Hamilton Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Sacandaga River Hudson Headwaters Lake Pleasant - 21-006 LAKE PLEASANT Hamilton Pathogens Waterfowl Sacandaga River Hudson Headwaters Lake Pleasant - 21-011 SACANDAGA LAKE Hamilton Nutrients Beaver dam dismantling Sacandaga River Hudson Headwaters 02020002.030 Piseco Lake - 21-002 PISECO LAKE Hamilton Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Sacand6ga River Hudson Headwaters Piseco Lake - 21-003 KETTLE CREEK Hamilton Salts Storage/App of Deicing Secandaga River Material Hudson Headwaters 02020002.050 Middle Sacandaga 21-027 SACANDAGA RIVER Hamilton Silt (Sediment) Storage/App of Deicing River Material Hudson Headwaters Middle Sacandage 21-028 SACANDAGA RVR, WS Hamilton Silt (Sediment) Storage/App of Deicing River Material Hudson Headwaters 02020002.060 East Stoney Creek 21-013 SACANDAGA.RVR-E.8 Hamilton Silt (Sediment) Storage/App of Deicing Material Hudson Headwaters East Stoney Creek 21-014 EAST STONY CREEK Hamilton Silt (Sediment) Storage/App of Deicing Page A-11.3 -- DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION =16 *GW = Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. URAFT APPENDIX A-11 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED.PLANNING SUBJECt TO AGENCY VERIFICATIOM UPPER HUDSON RIVER BASIN (11) BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE HYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME 10 SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT' SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- Material Hudson Headwaters East Stoney Creek 57-009 EAST STONY CREEK Warren Silt (Sediment) Silviculture Hudson Headwaters 02020002.080 Secandaga Reservoir 18-001 KENNYETTO CREEK Fulton Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Livestock in Stream Hudson Headwaters Secandaga Reservoir 18-002 KENNYETTO CREEK Fulton Pathogens On-site Wastewater Systems Hudson Headwaters Secandaga Reservoir 18-003 GREAT SACANDAGA L Fulton Water Level or Flow Flow Regutation/Modification Hudson Headwaters Secandage Reservoir 18-004 MAYFIELD LAKE Fulton Pathogens on-site Wastewater Systems Hudson Headwaters Sacandaga Reservoir 46-017 GREAT SACANDAGA L Saratoga Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion Page A-11.4 DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *nW Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. RAFT APPENDIX A-12 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING SUBJECT M AGENCY VERIFICATIMi MOHAWK RIVER BASIN (12) BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE, MYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- 12-01 Mohawk River Main Stem 02020004.010 Delta Reservoir 33-005 DELTA LAKE Oneida Water Level or Flow Flow Regutation/modification Mohawk River Main Stem Delta Reservoir 33-006 MYS BARGE CANAL Oneida Silt (Sediment) Dredging Mohawk River Main Stem Delta Reservoir 33-016 MOHAWK RIVER Oneida Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Row Crops Mohawk River Main Stem. 02020004.020 Nine Mite Creek 33-007 NINE MILE CREEK Oneida Thermal Changes, Agric. - Riparian Veg. Removal Mohawk River Main Stem 02020004.030 Delta Reservoir to 33-020 VALLEY FILL AOUIF GW Oneida Salts Storage/App of Deicing Oriskany Creek Material Mohawk River Main Stem 02020004.050 Sauquoit Creek 33-001 MUD CREEK Oneida Silt (Sediment) Hydrologic/Habitat Modification Mohawk River Main..Stem Sauquoit Creek 33-018 SAUQUOIT CREEK Oneida Silt (sediment) Urban Runoff Mohawk River Main Stem 02020004.060 Nine Mite Creek to 22-010 MOHAWK TRIBUTARIE Herkimer Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Livestock in Stream Sterling Creek Mohawk River Main Stem Nine Mile Creek to 22-076 MOHAWK RIVER Herkimer Oxygen-Demanding Land Disposal (landfills) Sterling Creek Substances Mohawk River Main Stem Nine Mite Creek to 33-012 CRANE CREEK Oneida Salts Storage/App of Deicing Sterling Creek Material Mohawk River Main Stem Nine Mile Creek to 33-015 STARCH FACTORY Oneida Silt (Sediment) Urban Runoff Sterling Creek Mohawk River Main Stem Nine Mite Creek to 33-019 MOHAWK RIVER Oneida Thermal Changes Urban Runoff Sterling Creek Mohawk River Main Stem 02020004.070 Sterling Creek to 22-011 MOYER CREEK Herkimer Nutrients Agric. - Manure Spreading West'Cenada Creek Mohawk River Main Stem Sterling Creek to 22-017 STERLIN G CREEK Herkimer Water Level or Flow Streambank West Canada Creek Destabilization/modification Mohawk River Main Stem 02020004.080 Steele Creek 22-001 SPINNERVILLE POND Herkimer Pathogens waterfowl Mohawk River Main Stem Steele Creek 22-002 STEELE CREEK Herkimer Silt (Sediment) Streambank Destabitization/Modificatiort Mohawk River Main Stem 02020004.090 Fulmer Creek 22-008 FULMER CREEK Herkimer Silt (Sediment) Streambank Destabitization/Modification Mohawk River Main Stem Fulmer Creek 22-014 LIMESTONE AQUIFER GW Herkimer Pathogens On-site Wastewater Systems Mohawk River Main Stem 02020004.110 South Branch West 21-001 VLY BROOK Hamilton Salts Storage/App of Deicing Canada Creek Material Page A-12.1 -- DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. URAFT APPENDIX A-12 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR. WATERSHED PLANNING MOHAWK RIVER BASIN (12) SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION, BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE NYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRI14ARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- v --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- 12-01 Mohawk River Main Stem 02020004.200 Lower East Canada 18-011 CANADA LAKE Fulton Water Level or Flow Flow Regutation/modification Creek Mohawk River Main Stem 02020004.210 Otsguago Creek 22-012 OTSQUAGO CREEK Herkimer Nutrients Agric. - Improper Manure Storage Mohawk River Main Stem Otsguago Creek 29-010 OTSOUAGO CREEK Montgomery Thermal Changes Agric. - Riparian Veg. Removal Mohawk River Main Stem 02020004.220 East Canada Creek to 29-005 ZIMMERMAN CREEK Montgomery Thermal Changes Agrfc. - Riparian Veg. Caroga Creek Removal Mohawk River Main Stem 02020004.230 Caroga Creek 18-007 EAST CAROGA LAKE Fulton Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Mohawk River Main Stein Carogs Creek 18-008 NORTH CREEK Fulton Pathogens Agric. - Manure Spreading Mohawk River Main Stem Carogs Creek 18-010 PECK LAKE Fulton Water Level or Flow Flow Regutation/Modification Mohawk River Main Stem Caroga Creek 29-001 CAROGA CREEK Montgomery Water Level or Flow Flow Regutation/Modification Mohawk River Main Stein 02020004.240 Otsquago Creek to 29-004 CANAJOHARIE CREEK Montgomery Thermal Changes Agric. - Riparian Veg. Canajoherie Creek Removal Mohawk River Main Stern 02020004.250 Canajoharie Creek to 29-003 FLAT CREEK Montgomery Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Row Crops Flat Creek Mohawk River Main Stem 02020004.280 Ceyadutta Creek 18-005 HALES CREEK Fulton Silt (Sediment) Agrfc,. - Barnyard Runoff Mohawk River main Stem Cayedutta Creek 18-006 MATHEW CREEK Fulton Unknown Toxic Land Disposal (landfills) Mohawk River Main Stem Cayadutta Creek 18-009 CAYUDUTTA CREEK Fulton okygen-Demanding Agric. - Row Crops Substances Mohawk River main Stern Cayadutta Creek 29-009 CAYUDUTTA CREEK Montgomry oxygen-Demanding Agric. - Row Crops Substances Mohawk River Main Stem 02020004.300 Cayadutta Creek to 29-006 DANASCARA CREEK Montgomery Nutrients Agric. --Barnyard Runoff North Chuctanunda Creek Mohawk River Main Stem 02020004.320 North Chuctanunde 29-007 NO.CHUCTANUNDA CK Montgomery oxygen-Demanding On-site Wastewater Systems Creek Substances Mohawk River Main Stem 02020004.350 Sandsea 47-001 MOHAWK RIVER Schenectady Piiority organics Urban Runoff Kitt-Chaughtanoonda Ck to Atptaus Kitt Mohawk River Main Stem Sandsea 47-004 GREAT FLATS AOFR GW Schenectady Priority organics Urban Runoff Kitt-Chaughtanoonda Page A-12.2 -- DRAFT DATA: SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW - Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - It is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. RAFT APPENDIX A-12 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING SUBJECt TO ACENCY VERIFICATION MOHAWK RIVER BASIN (12) BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE NYS DEC SUBBASIN MAKE UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ -------------------- -------- Ck to Atplaus Kitt Mohawk River Main Stem Sandsea 47-007 COWHORN CREEK Schenectady Nutrients Urban Runoff Kitt-Choughtanoonda Ck to Aiptaus Kitt Mohawk River Main Stem Sandsea 47-008 COLLINS LAKE Schenectady Nutrients Urban Runoff Kitt-Chaughtenoonda Ck to Atptaus Kitt Mohawk River Main Stein Sandsea 47-009 COLLEGE'CREEK Schenectady Nutrients Urban Runoff Kitt-Chaughtenoonda Ck to Atplaus Kitt Mohawk River Main Stein Sandsee 47-010 POENTIC KILL Schenectady Unknown Toxic Land Disposal (tandfitts) Kitt-ChaUghtenoonda Ck to Alplaus Kill Mohawk River Main Stem Sandsea 47-011 SCHEMERHORN CREEK Schenectady Nutrients Urban Runoff Kitt-Chaughtanoonda Ck to Alptaus Kitt Mohawk River Main Stem Sandsea 47-012 VALE CEMETARY PD Schenectady Nutrients Urban Runoff Kitt-Chaughtanoonda Ck to Atp(aus Kitt Mohawk River Main Stern 02020004.370 Atp(aus Kitt to.Lisha 47-002 LISHA KILL Schenectady Nutrients Urban Runoff Kitt Mohawk River Main Stein 02020004.380 Atptaus Kitt, to 46-010 STONEY CK TRIBS Saratoga Thermal Changes Land Ctearing/Development Stoney Creek Mohawk River Main Stem Atplaus Kitt to 46-011 MOHAWK RIVER 7RIB Saratoga Silt (Sediment) Urban Runoff Stoney Creek Mohawk River Main Stem 02020004.400 Lis ha Kitt to mouth 01-001 MOHAWK RIVER Albany oxygen-Demanding Unknown Substances Mohawk River Main.Stern Lfshe Kitt to mouth 01-017 ANN LEE POND Albany Nutrients Urban Runoff 12-02 Schoharie Creek 02020005.010 Schoharie Reservoir 20-009 SCHOHARIE CREEK Greene Silt (Sediment) Streembank Erosion Schoharie Creek Schoharle Reservoir 20-010 LK RIP VAN WINKLE Greene Pathogens On-site Wastewater Systems Schoharie Creek Schoharie Reservoir 20-011 SCHOHARIE CREEK Greene Water Level or Flow Flow Regutation/Modification Schoharie Creek Schoharie Reservoir 48-005 SCHOHARIE RESERVR Schoharie Silt (Sediment) Land Cteaeing/Development Page A-12.3 DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW - Groundwater; ** Monpoint source Identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated s(-diments. URAF APPENDIX A-12 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING SUBJECT M AGENCY VE91FICAT101 MOHAWK RIVER BASIN (12) BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE NYS DEC SUBBAS I N NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- 12-02 Schcharle Creek 02026005.010 Schoharie Reservoir 48-014 SCHONARIE RESERVR Schoharie Silt (Sediment) Land Ctearin ,g/Devetopment Schoharie Creek 02020005.020 Batavia Kitt 20-008 BATAVIA KILL Greene Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion Schoharle Creek 02020005.030 Manor Kitt 48-010 MANOR KILL Schoharie Silt (Sediment) Agric. - overgrazing Schoharle Creek 02020005.050 West Kitt 48-007 SUMMIT LAKE Schoharie Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Schoharie Creek 02020005.070 Upper Schoharie Creek 48-004 BLENHEIM/GILBOA R Schoharie Silt (sediment) Flow Regutation/Modification Schoharie Creek 02020005.080 Little Schoharle 48-006 HUNTERSLAND CREEK Schoharie Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion Creek Schoharle Creek 02020005.090 Fox Creek 01-002 FOX CREEK A I bony Pathogens Agric. - Manure Spreading Schoharle Creek Fox Creek 01-003 ONDERDONK LAKE Albany Nutrients On-sIte Wastewater Systems Schoharie Creek Fox Creek 01-016 WARNERS LAKE Albany Oxygen-DOmanding On-site Wastewater Systems Substances Schoharle Creek Fox Creek 01-023 SWITZKILL Albany Silt (Sediment) Agric. Livestock in Stream Schoharie Creek Fox Creek 48-001 FOX CREEK Schoharie Silt (Sediment) Land Ctearing/Devetopment Schoharie Creek 02020005.100 Cobteskitt Creek 48-002 ENGLEVILLE POND Schoharie Nutrients Agric. - Row Crops Schoharie Creek Cobteskilt Creek 48-008 COBLESKILL RES. Schoharie Pathogens Agric. - Livestock in Stream Schoharfe Creek Cobteskitt Creek 48-009 CENTRAL BRIDGE RS Schoharie Pathogens Agric. - Livestock in Stream Schoharie Creek Cobleskitt. Creek 48-012 WEST CREEK Schoharie Pathogens On-site Wastewater Systems Schoharie Creek Cobleskilt Creek 48-013 COBLESKILL CREEK Schoharie Nutrients Agric. - Row Crops SchoKarie Creek 02020005.130 Lower Schoharie Creek 29-002 SCHOHARIE CREEK Montgomery Thermal Changes Flow Regutation/Modification. Schoherfe Creek Lower Schoharie Creek 48-003 SCHOHARIE CREEK Schoharie Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion 12-03 West Canada Creek 02020004.130 Hinckley Reservoir 33-008 HINKLEY RESERVOIR Oneida Water Level or Flow Flow Regutation/Modification West Canada Creek 02020004.140 Center West Canada 22-015 COLD BROOK Herkimer Aesthetics On-site Wastewater Systems Creek West Canada Creek Center West Canada 22-018 WEST CANADA CREEK Herkimer Aesthetics On-site Wastewater Systems Creek West Canada Creek Center West Canada 33-010 STEUBEN CREEK Oneida Silt (Sediment) Agric. Overgrazing Creek West Canada Creek Center West Canada 33-017 CINCINNATI CREEK Oneida Aesthetics On-sfte Wastewater Systems Creek West Canada Creek 02020004.150 Lower West Canada 22-009 WHITE CREEK Herkimer Silt (Sediment) Agric. Riparian Veg. Creek Removal West Canada Creek Lower West Canada 22-013 MALTANNER CREEK Herkimer Silt (Sediment) Streambamk Erosion Page A-12.4 -- DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - It Is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. M MOM mmmmmmlkm M-MMMM T APPENDIX A-12 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PIANN NG SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATIO?.@ MOHAWK RIVER BASIN (12) 1 BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE INYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------- -------------- --------------------- -------- ------------------ ---- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- Creek 12-04 Oriskany Creek 02020004.040 Oriskany Creek 27-005 MADISON LAKE Madison Nutrients Land Ctearing/Devetopment Oriskany Creek Oriskany Creek 27-006 LELAND POND Madison Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Oriskany Creek Oriskany Creek 33-009 DEANS CREEK Oneida Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Row Crops Oriskany Creek Oriskany Creek 33-011 ORISKANY CREEK Oneida Silt (Sediment.) Agric. - Row Crops Oriskany Creek Oriskany Creek 33-013 BARKER BROOK Oneida Silt (Sediment) Highway/Bridge Construction Oriskany Creek Oriskany Creek 33-014 BIG CREEK Oneida Silt (Sediment) Streambank Erosion ITAT Page A-12.5 DRAFT DATA: SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW a Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. U AFT APPENDIX A-13 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATIOM LOWER HUDSON RIVER BASIN (13) BASIN SCS.HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE NYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------_---------- -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ -------------------------- 13-01 Lower Hudson River Main 02020006.020 Poestenskitt to Mitt 42-006 BURDEN LAKE Rensselaer Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Stem Creek Lower Hudson River Main Poestenskitt to Mitt 42-007 MILL CREEK Rensselaer Silt (Sediment) Land Ctearing/Development Stem Creek Lower Hudson River Main Poestehskitt to Mitt 42-015 CRYSTAL LAKE Rensselaer Nutrients On-site Wastewater System Stem Creek Lower Hudson River Main Poestenskitt to Mitt 42-016 GLASS LAKE Rensselaer Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Stern Creek Lower Hudson River Main Poestenskitt to Mitt 42-017 SNYDERS LAKE Rensselaer Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Stem Creek Lower Hudson River Main 02020006.040 Mitt Creek to 42-002 MOORDENOR KILL Rensselaer Silt (Sediment) Land Ctearing/Development Stem Mooredenor Creek Lower Hudson River Main Mitt Creek to 42-003 SCHODACK TER.AOFR GW Rensselaer Unknown Toxic Land Disposal (Landfills) Stem Mooredenor Creek Lower Hudson River Main Mitt Creek to 42-009 HAMPTON MANOR LK. Rensselaer Nutrients Urban Runoff Stem Mooredenor Creek Lower Hudson River Main 02020006.060 Onesquathaw Creek 01-005 ONESOUETHAW CREEK Albany Water Level or Flow Flow Regutation/modification Stem Lower Hudson River Main Onesquathaw Creek 01-006 HELDERGERG LAKE Albany Nutrients Agric. - Row Crops Stem Lower Hudson Rivet Main Onesquathaw Creek 01-019 COEYMANS CREEK Atbany Silt (Sediment) Land Disposal (tandfills) Stem Lower Hudson River Main 02020006.070 Hannacrois Creek 01-004 HANHACROIS CREEK Albany water Levet-or flow Flow Regutation/Modification Stem Lower Hudson River Main' 02020006.080 Mooredener Kilt to 42-004 VLOCKIE KILL Rensselaer Nutrients Agric. - Row Crops Stem Kinderhook Creek Lower Hudson River Main 02020006.130 Hannacrois Creek to 20-001 SLEEPY HOLLOW LKE Greene Nutrients Agric. - Fertilizer Stem Catskill Creek Application Lower Hudson River Main Hannacrois Creek to 20-002 BRONCKS LAKE Greene Nutrients Agric. Barnyard Runoff Stem Catskill Creek Lower Hudson River Main Hannacrois Creek to' 20-003 NEW BALTIMORE AO. GW Greene Pathogens On-site Wastewater Systems Stem Catskill Creek R Page A-13.1 -- DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, ntmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. M MPM M M M M M MIR M M M M M M M DRAVT APPENDIX A-13 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATIOP LOWER HUDSON RIVER BASIN (13) BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE NYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- 13-01 Lower Hudson River main 02020006.210 Cementon, NY t o 56-003 SAWKILL Ulster. Nutrients Chemical Leaks and Spills Stein Rondout Creek Lower Hudson River Main 02020008.010 Rhinecliff, NY to 14-003 INDIAN KILL Dutchess Pathogens On-site Wastewater Systems Stem Wappingers Creek Lower Hudson River Main Rhinectiff, NY to 14-004 MORGAN LAKE Dutchess Silt (Sediment) Urban Runoff Stem Wappingers Creek Lower Hudson River Main Rhinecliff, NY to 14-005 CASPER CREEK Dutchess Priority organics Urban Runoff Stem Wappingers Creek Lower Hudson River Main 02020008.080 Unnamed trib at 36-017 ORANGE LAKE Orange Aesthetics On-site Wastewater Systems Stem Marlboro, NY to Moodna Ck Lower Hudson River Main Unnamed trib at 36-018 QUASSAIC CREEK Orange Unknown Toxic Urban Runoff Stem Marlboro, NY to Moodna Ck Lower Hudson River Main 02030101.010 Beer Mountain Bridge 60-003 WESTCHESTER LAKE Westchester Nutrients Lawn Chemicals Stem to Annsvitte Creek Lower Hudson River Main 02030101.020 Annsvilte Creek to 40-023 LAKE TIBET Putnam Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Stem Croton River Lower Hudson River Main Annsvitte Creek to 40-024 LAKE OSCAWANA Putnam Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Stein Croton River Lower Hudson River Main Annsvitte Creek to 40-025 LAKE PEEKSKILL Putnam Pathogens On-site Wastewater Systems Stem Croton River Lower Hudson River Main Annsvitte Creek to 40-026 ROARING BROOK LK Putnam Nutrients Urban Runoff Stem Croton River Lower Hudson River Main Annsvilte Creek to 60-004 DICKEY BROOK Westchester Nutrients Lawn Chemicals Stem Croton River Lower Hudson River Main Annsv itte Creek to 60-005 PETERSON POND Westchester Nutrients Urban Runoff Stem Croton River Lower Hudson River Main Annsvitte Creek to 60-006 PEEKSKILL HOLLOW Westchester Pathogens On-site Wastewater Systems Stem Croton River w Lower Hudson River Main Annsvitte Creek to 60-007 CORTLANDT LAKE Westchester Pathogens On-site Wastewater Systems Stem Croton River Page A-13.2 DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW = Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it Is either a point source, stmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. CRAFT APPENDIX A-13 lop PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICAT LOWER HUDSON RIVER BASIN (13) BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE RYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- -------------- t--- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- 13-01 Lower Hudson River Main 02030101.020 Annsvitte Creek to 60-008 FURNANCE BROOK Westchester Pathogens On-site Wastewater Systems Stern Croton River Lower Hudson River Main Annsvitte Creek to 60-009 FURNANCE BK LAKE Westchester Silt (Sediment) Urban Runoff Stem Croton River Lower Hudson River Main Annsvitte Creek to 60-010 LAKE MEAHAGH Westchester Pathogens On-site Wastewater Systems Stem Croton River Lower Hudson River Main 02030101.060 Putnam Lake Brook 40-004 PUTNAM LAKE Putnam Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Stern Lower Hudson River Main Putnam Lake Brook 40-005 PUTNAM LAKE AQUFR GW Putnam Salts Storage/App of Deicing Stem Mater ia I Lower Hudson River Main Putnam Lake Brook 40-006 LOST LAKE Putnam Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Stern Lower Hudson River Main 02030101.100 Titicus River above 60-014 TITICUS RIVER Westchester Nutrients Agric. - Improper Manure Stem Titicus Reservoir Storage Lower Hudson River Main Titicus River above 60-017 NYS WETLAND L-10 Westchester Silt (Sediment) Land Clearing/Development Stem Titicus Reservoir Lower Hudson River Main 02030101.120 Waccabuc River 60-016 TRUESDALE LAKE Westchester Silt (Sediment) On-site Wastewater System Stem Lower Hudson River Main 02030101.140 Popolopen Brook to 44-001 LAKE TIORATI BRK. Rockland Silt (Sediment) Land Ctearing/Development Stem near Rockland Lake Lower Hudson River Main Popotopen Brook to 44-002 TIMP MOUNTAIN BRK Rockland Silt (Sediment) Land Ctearing/Devetopment Stein near Rockland Lake Lower Hudson River Main Popotopen Brook to 44-003 LAKE BULLOWA Rockland Oxygen-Demanding On-site Wastewater Systems Stem near Rockland Lake Substances Lower Hudson River Main 02030101.150 Croton River to 60-001 UNNAMED PONDS Westchester Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Stein Harlem River Lower Hudson River Main Croton River to 60-002 SAW MILL RIVER Westchester Priority Organics Urban Runoff Stem Harlem River Lower Hudson River Main 02030101.160 Near Rockland Lake to 44-010 SPARKILL Rockland Pesticides Golf course runoff Stem State Line 13-02 Croton River 02030101.080 Upper Croton River 14-010 DUTCHESS Dutchess Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Croton River Upper Croton River 40-001 MUDDY BROOK Putnam Priority Organics Land Disposal (landfills) Page A-13.3 -- DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW = Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. MOM M RA APPENDIX A-13 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING LOWER HUDSON RIVER BASIN (13) .,..91ECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONP61NT CODE NYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME To SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ------------------------------ 13-02 Croton River 02030101-080 Upper Croton River 40-002 LITTLE POND Putnam Silt (Sediment) Storm Sewers Croton River Upper Croton River 40-003 LITTLE POND Putnam Nutrients Land Clearing/Development Croton River Upper Croton River 40-007 LAKE TONETTA Putnam Nutrients on-site Wastewater System Croton River Upper Croton River 40-008 TONETTA BROOK Putnam Priority Organics Chemical Leaks and Spills Croton River Upper Croton River 40-009 PEACH LAKE Putnam Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Croton River Upper Croton River 40-010 LAKE'CARMEL Putnam Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Croton River Upper Croton River 40-011 MIDDLE BRANCH RES Putnam Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Croton River Upper Croton River 40-012 LIT.BUrK MW.POND Putni)m Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Croton River Upper Croton River 40-013 HORSE POUND BROOK Putnam Nutrients Construction Croton River Upper Croton River 40-014 PALMER LAKE Putnim Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Croton River Upper Croton River 40-015 WEST BRANCH RES. Putnam Silt (Sediment) Land Ctearing/Devetopment Croton River Upper Croton River 40-016 DIXON LAKE Putnam Pathogens On-site Wnstewnter Systems Croton River Upper Croton River 40-017 LAKE GILEAD Putnam Nutrients Urban Runoff Croton River Upper Croton River 40-018 LAKE GLFNEIDA Putnam Nutrients Urban Runoff Croton River Upper Croton River 40-019 CROTON FALLS RES Putnam Nutrients on-site Wastewater Systems Croton River Upper Croton River 60-047 PEACH LAKE Westchester Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Croton River 02030101.130 Lower Croton River 40-020 LAKE MAHOPAC Putnam Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Croton River Lower Croton River 40-021 KIRK LAKE Putnam Nutrients Urban Runoff Croton River Lower Croton River 60-011 TWIN LAKES Westchester Nutrients Lawn Chemicals Croton River Lower Croton River 607012 'STONE HILL RIVER Westchester Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Croton River Lower Croton River 60-013 MILL POND Westchester Nutrients Urban Runoff Croton River Lower Croton River 60-015 TIT ICUS RESERVOIR Westchester Pathogens Agric. - Improper Manure Storage Croton River Lower Croton River 60-018 COLABAUGH POND Westchester Silt (Sediment) Urban Runoff Croton River Lower Croton River 60-048 CROSS RIVER RESER Westchester Nutrients Lawn Chemicals Croton River Lower Croton River 60-049 LAKE KITCHAWAN Westchester Aesthetics On-site Wastewater Systems 13-03 Moodna Creek 02020008.090 Moodna 36-008 WOODBURY STREAM Orange oxygen-Demanding Urban Runoff. Creek-Otterkitt Substances Moodna Creek Moodna 36-009 BLACK MEADOW AQUI GW Orange Oil & Grease Chemical Leaks and Spills Creek-otterkitt Moodna Creek Moodna 36-010 WALTON LAKE Orange Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Creek-otterkitt @TT Page A-13.4 -- DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. DRAFT APPENDIX A-13 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING NOJECT TO AGENCY VERWICATION, LOWER HUDSON RIVER BASIN (13) BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NOMPOINT CODE NYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- 13-03 Moodna Creek 02020008.090 Moodna 36-016 LAKE HILDEGARD Orange Aesthetics On-site Wastewater System Creek-Otterkitt 13-04 Fishkitt.Creek 02020008.070 Castle Point, NY to 14-008 HILLSIDE LAKE Dutchess Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Fishkitt Fishkilt Creek Castle Point, NY to 14-009 WHALEY LAKE Dutchess Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Fishkitt 13-05 Wappinger Creek 02020008.050 Huns Lake Creek 14-006 HUNNS LAKE Dutchess Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Wappinger Creek 02020008.060 Wap@ingers Creek to 14-001 SILVER LAKE Dutchess Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Castle Point, NY Wappinger Creek Wappingers Creek to 14-002 LONG POND Dutchess Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Castle Point, NY Wappinger Creek Wappingers Creek to 14-007 UPTON LAKE Dutchess Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Castle Point, NY Wappinger Creek Wappingers Creek to 14-013 WAPPINGERS LAKE Dutchess Sitt (Sediment) Agric. Other Castle Point, NY 13-06,Rordout-Wattkitt Rivers 02020007.050 Pochuck Creek 36-004 WAWAYANDA RIVER Orange Oxygen-Demanding Urban Runoff Substances -Rondout-Wattkilt Rivers Pochuck Creek 36-011 WALLKILL RIVER Orange Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Truck Farm Rondout-Wellkitt Rivers Pochuck Creek 36-012 WHEELER CREEK Orange Nutrients Agric. - Barnyard Runoff Rondout-Waltkitt Rivers Pochuck Creek 36-014 POCHUCK CREEK Orange Sitt (Sediment) Agric. - Truck Farm Rondout-Wattkitt Rivers Pochuck Creek 36-015 QUAKER CREEK Orange Sitt (Sediment) Agric. - Truck Farm Rondout-Wat tki t tRivers 02020007.060 Upper Wallkill River 36-013 RUTGERS CREEK Orange Sitt (Sediment) Agric. - Barnyard Runoff Rondout-Wallkilt Rivers 02020007.080 Lower Wallkill River 36-007 LAKES & STREAMS Orange Sitt (Sediment) Land Clearing/Devetopment Rondout-wattkitt Rivers Lower Wallkill River 56-001 LAKE LOUISE Utter Nutrients Agric. - Row Crops Ronclout-Wattkitt Rivers 02020007.110 Headwaters to Vernooy 53-013 SUGAR L OAF BROOK Sullivan Salts Storage/App of Deicing Kitt Material Rondout-Waltkitt Rivers Headwaters to Vernooy 53-014 CHESTNUT CREEK Sullivan Pathogens On-site Wastewater Systems Kitt Rondout-Wattkill Rivers Headwaters to Vernooy 53-015 RED BROOK Sullivan Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Kitt Rondout-Wattkitt Rivers Headwaters to Vernooy 56-008 ROUNDOUT CK-UPPER Ulster Priority Organics Storage/App of Deicing Kilt Material Page A-13.5 -- DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it Is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. APPENDIX A-13 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING CATION LOWER .HUDSON RIVER BASIN (13) RIECT TO AGENCY VERIF1 BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINi CODE NYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- 13-07 Esopus Creek 02020006.190 Upper Esopus Creek 56-002 SUBBEATY Ulster Silt (Sediment) Land Ctearing/Devetopment Esopus Creek Upper Esopus Creek 56-004 ESOPUS CREEK Ulster' Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Row Crops Roetiff Jansen Kitt 02020006.180 Kinderhook Creek to 11-010 ROELIFF JANSEN Kt. Columbia Oxygen-Demanding Agric. - Manure Spreading Jansen Kitt Substances Roetiff Jansen Kitt Kinderhook Creek to 11-011 ROBINSON POND Columbia Nutrients Agric. Manure Spreading Jansen Kill .Roetiff Jansen Kitt Kinderhook Creek to 11-012 HUDSON RIVER Columbia Silt (Sediment) Storage/App of Deicing Jansen Kitt Material Roetiff Jansen Kitt Kinderhook Creek to 11-013 HUDSON RIVER Columbia Salts Storage/App of Deicing Jansen Kill Material 13-09 Catskill Creek 02020006.140 Upper Catskill Creek 01-022 BASIC CREEK Albany Nutrients Agric. - Barnyard Runoff Catskill Creek Upper Catskill Creek 01-024 BASIC CREEK RES. Albany Nutrients Nutrient Enriched Sediments Catskill Creek Upper Catskill Creek 20-007 CATSKILL CREEK Greene Aesthetics On-site Wastewater Systems Catskill (@reek 02020006.150 Kaoterskill Creek 20-004 KISKATOM CREEK Greene 0xygen-Demanding Agric. - Improper Manure Substances Storage Catskill Creek 02020006.160 Catskill Creek to 20-005 CATSKILL CREEK Greene Unknown Toxic Land Disposal (landfills) Cementon, NY Catskill Creek Catskill Creek to 20-006 GREENS LAKE Greene Silt (Sediment) Land Ctearing/Devetopment Cementon, NY 13-10 Kinderhook Creek 02020006.100 Upper Kinderhook 42-014 SPRING LAKE Rensselaer Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Creek Kinderhook Creek 02020006.110 Cteverack Creek 11-003 COPAKE LAKE Columbia Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Kinderhook Creek Ctaverack Creek 11-005 CLAVERACK CREEK Columbia Unknown, Toxic Land Disposal (landfills) Kinderhook Creek Claverack Creek 11-008 TAGHKANIC CREEK Columbia Water Level or Flow F low. Regut at i on/Modi f i cat i on Kinderhook Creek Ctaverack Creek 11-009 LOOMIS CREEK Columbia Unknown Toxic Land Disposal (tandfitts) Kinderhook Creek 02020006.120 Lower Kinderhook 11-001 OUEECHY LAKE Coturrbia Pathogens On-site Wastewater Systems Creek Kinderhook Creek Lower Kinderhook 11-002 SMITH POND Columbia Aesthetics Storm Sewers Creek Kinderhook Creek Lower Kinderhook 11-004 KINDERHOOK LAKE Cotumbia Priority Organics Agric. - Row Crops 'Creek Kinderhook Creek Lower Kinderhook 11-007 PUNSIT CREEK Columbia Oxygen-Demanding Agric. Improper Manure Page A-13.6 -- DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW - Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. L)RAFT APPENDIX A-13 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION LOWER HUDSON RIVER BASIN (13) BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE NYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- Creek Substances Storage Kinderhook Creek Lower Kinderhook 42-008 NASSAU LAKE Rensselaer Priority Organics On-site Wastewater System-, Creek Kinderhook Creek Lower Kinderhook VALATIE KILL Rensselaer Priority Organics Land Disposal (landfills) Creek 13-11 Normanskitt Creek 02020006.030 Mohawk River to 01-007 THOMPSONS LAKE Atbany Nutrients Unknown Normanskitt Normanskitt Creek Mohawk River to 01-008 NORMANSKILL Albany Water Level or Flow Flow Regutation/Modification Normanskitt Normanskill Creek Mohawk River to 01-009 GLASS POND Albany Silt (Sediment) Land Ctearing/Devetopment Normanskilt Normanskitt Creek Mohawk River to 01-010 KRUMKILL CREEK Albany Unknown Urban Runoff, Normanskitt Normanskitt Creek Mohawk River to 01-011 LOWER NORMANSKILL Albany Silt (Sediment) Urban Runoff Normanskilt Normanskitl Creek Mohawk River to 01-012 RENSSELAER LAKE Albany Silt (Sediment) Highway/Bridge Construction Normanskitt Normanskilt Creek Mohawk River to 01-013 PATROCIN CREEK Albany Unknown Toxic Urban Runoff Normanskitt Normanskitt Creek Mohawk River to 01-014 BUCKINGHAM POND Albany Silt (Sediment) Urban Runoff Normanskitt Normanskitt Creek Mohawk River to 01-015 KROMMA KILL Albany Unknown Toxic Urban Runoff Normanskitt Wormanskitt Creek Mohawk River to 01-018 WATERVLIET RESEVR Albany Nutrients Nutrient Enriched Sediments Normanskill Normanskitt Creek Mohawk River to 47-003 NORMANSKILL Schenectady Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Normansk i t t Normanskitt Creek Mohawk River to 47-005 DUANE LAKE Schenectady Nutrients On-site Wastewater System Normanskilt Normanskitt Creek Mohawk River to 47-006 BECHER BROOK Schenectady Silt (Sediment) Land Ctearing/Devetopment Normanskitt Normanskitt Creek Mohawk River to 47-013 MARIAVILLE LAKE Schenectady Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Page A-13.7 -- DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. mom URA APPENDIX A-13 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED.PLANNING LOWER HUDSON RIVER BASIN (13) SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICAT10F GASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE NYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ------ ------------------------ ---------- --- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- Normanskitt FT Page A-13.8 DRAFT DATA: SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW = Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. URAFT APPENDIX A-14 PRIORITY CAND IDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION DELAWARE RIVER BASIN (14 8.ASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE MYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ ------------------------------------ -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ------------------------------ 14-01 Delaware River Main Stem 02040101.110 East Branch Delaware 13-006 DELAWARE R. MAIN Delaware Water Level or Flow Flow Regutation/Modification River to Catticoon Creek Delaware River Main Stem 02040101.130 Catticoon Creek 53-004 CALLICOON CREEK Sullivan Nutrients On7site Wastewater System Delaware River Main Stem Cattfcoon Creek 53-012 BRISCOE LAKE Sullivan Nutrients Nutrient Enriched Sediments Delaware River Main Stem 02040101.170 Catlfcoon Creek to 53-003 LAKE HUNTINGTON Sullivan Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Laxawaxen River Delaware River Main Stem 02040104.020 Laxawaxen River to 53-001 HALFWAY BROOK Sullivan Pathogens On-site Wastewater Systems Mongaup River Delaware River Main Stem Laxawaxen River to 53-002 MOHICAN LAKE Sullivan Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Mongaup River Delaware River Mein Stem 02040104.030 Mongaup River 53-005 LOWER MONGAUP RIV Sullivan Water Level or Flow Flow Regutation/modification Delaware River Main Stem Mongeup River 53-011 SACKETT LAKE Sullivan Silt (Sediment) Land Ctearing/Devetopment Delaware River Main Stem 02040104.050 Neversink Reservoir 53-009 KRAMER BROOK Sullivan Nutrients On-site Wastewater System Delaware River Main Stem Neversink Reservoir 56-006 NEVERSINK-EAST BR Ulster Acid/Base ** Storage/App of Deicing Material Delaware River Main Stem Neversink Reservoir 56-007 NEVERSINK-WEST BR Ulster Acid/Base ** Trash 9 DuTping 14-02 Neversink River 02040104.080 Lower Neversink River 53-006 KIAMESHA LAKE Sullivan Nutrients Golf Course Runoff Neversink River Lower Neversink River 53-007 EVENS LAKE Sullivan Nutrients Land Clearing/DeveLopment Neversink River Lower Neversink River 53-008 MORNINGSIDE LAKE Sullivan oxygen-Demanding Golf Course Runoff Substances 14-03 East Branch Delaware 02040102.010 Pepacton Reservoir 13-001 PEPACToN RESERVR Delaware Pathogens On-site Wastewater Systems River East Branch Delaware Pepacton Reservoir 13-012 EAST BR.DELWRE RI Delaware Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems River East Branch Delaware 02040102.060 Lower East Branch 13-007 DELAWARE R. E.BR. Delaware Thermal Changes Flow Regulation/Modification River Delaware River East Branch Delaware Lower East Branch 13-008 CADOSIA CREEK Delaware Unknown Toxic Land Disposal (landfills) River . Delaware River 14-04 West Branch Delaware 02040101.010 Upper West Branch 13-002 UP.W.BR.DELAWARE Delaware Nutrients Agric. Manure Spreading River Delaware River West Branch Delaware 02040101.020 Little Delaware River 13-010 COULTER BROOK Delaware Pathogens On-sfte Wastewater Systems Page A-14.1 -- DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW = Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. drp. or contaminated sediments. mom URAFT APPENDIX A-14 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING SUBJECT M AGENCY VERIFICATION DELAWARE RIVER BASIN (14) BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* P:IMARY NONPOINT CODE NYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME. TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT OURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ ------------ --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- River West Branch Delaware 02040101.050 East West Brooks to 13-009 CANNONSVILLE RES. Delaware Nutrients Agric. - Row Crops River Cold Spring Creek West Branch Delaware 02040101.100 Cold Spring Ck to 13-004 DELAWARE R. W.BR. Delaware Water Level or Flow Flow Regutatfon/modification River Oquaga Ck & E. Br. Delaware West Branch Delaware Cold Spring Ck to 13-014 SILVER LAKE Delaware Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems River Oquaga Ck & E. Br. Delaware West Branch Delaware Cold Spring Ck to 13-015 CRYSTAL LAKE Delaware Nutrients On-site Wastewater System River Oquaga Ck & E. Br. Delaware Page [email protected] DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality probtern - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. ORAFT APPENDIX A-15 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING PASSAIC-NEWARK RIVER BASIN (15) SUBJECT M AGENCY VERIFICAT101! BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE NYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ ------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- 15-01 Ramapo River 02030101.140 Potolopen Brook to 44-012 STONY POINT RESER Rockland Silt (Sediment) Land Ctearing/Devetopment near Rockland Lake Ramapo River 02030103.060 Wanaque River 36-002 GREENWOOD LAKE Orange Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Ramapo River Wanaque River 36-003 LONGHOUSE CREEK Orange Oxygen-Demanding On-site Wastewater Systems Substances Ramapo River 02030103.080 Upper Ramapo River 36-001 MOMBASHA LAKE Orange Pathogens Urban Runoff Ramapo River 02030103.090 Mawah River 44-009 MAHWAH RIVER Rockland Pathogens Agric. - Manure Spreading Ramapo River 02030103.160 Upper Hackensack 44-004 SWARTOUT LAKE Rockland Nutrients Land C(earing/Development River Ramapo River Upper Hackensack 44-005 LAKE DEFOREST Rockland Silt (Sediment) Urban Runoff River Ramapo River Upper Hackensack 44-006 LAKE TAPPAN Rockland Silt (Sediment) Urban Runoff River Ramapo River Upper Hackensack 44-007 W. SR. HACKENSACK Rockland Silt (Sediment) Land Ctearing/Devetopment River Ramapo River Upper Hackensack 44-008 NAURAUSHAUN BROOK Rockland Oxygen-Demanding Agric. - Improper Manure River Substances Storage Ramapo River Upper Hackensack 44-011 ROCKLAND LAKE Rockland Nutrients Golf course runoff & River Waterfowl Page A-15.1 DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION 1%W Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. RAFT APPENDIIX A-16 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION HOUSATONIC RIVER BASIN (16) BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT' SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE MYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ------ v----------------------- 16-01 Housatonic River Main 01100005.480 Ten Mile River 14-011 WEBATUCK CREEK Dutchess Silt (Sediment) Agric. - Riparian Veg. Stem Removal Housatonic River Main Ten Mile River 14-012 SWAMP RIVER Dutchess Chlorine Agric. Rapierien Veg. Stein Removal Housatonic River Main Ten Mite River 14-014 RUDD POND Dutchess Nutrients Streambank Erosion Stein Page A-16.1 DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION m M ob *GW = Groundwater; ** Nonpoint.source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. L)RAFT APPENDIX A-17 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING ATLANTIC OCEAN - LONG ISLAND SOUND (17) "SCUBJECT To MENCY VERIFICATIOM BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE NYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- 17-01 Atlantic Ocean 02030202.030 Nassau-Queens tine to 30-003 HALLS POND Nassau Priority Organics Urban Runoff Baldwin Bay Atlantic Ocean Nassau-Queens line to 30-006 HEMPSTEAD LAKE Nassau Nutrients Urban Runoff Baldwin Bay Atlantic Ocean Nassau-Queens tine to 30-013 ROOSEVELT POND Nassau Priority Organics Urban Runoff Baldwin Bay Atlantic Ocean Nassau-Queens tine to 30-014 SMITH POND Nassau Priority Organics Urban'Runoff Baldwin Bay Atlantic Ocean 02030202.050 Baldwin Bay to 30-002 FREEPORT RESERVR Nassau Priority Organics Urban Runoff arraskatuck Creek Atlantic Ocean :atdwin Bay to 30-007 LOFTS POND .Nassau Priority Organics Urban Runoff Narraskatuck Creek Atlantic Ocean Baldwin Bay to 30-010 MASSAPEQUA LAKE Nassau Nutrients Urban Runoff Warraskatuck Creek Atlantic Ocean Baldwin Bay to 30-011 MASSEPEQUA RESERV Nassau Priority Organics Urban Runoff Narraskatuck Creek Atlantic Ocean Baldwin Ba y to 30-016 WANTAGH POND Nassau Priority Organics Urban Runoff Narraskatuck Creek Atlantic Ocean 02030202.060 Jones Inlet to Fire 30-015 SOUTH OYSTER BAY Nassau Pathogens Urban Runoff Island Intet Barrier Island Atlantic Ocean Jones Inlet to Fire 52-007 GR. SOUTH BAY (C) Suffolk Pathogens Urban Runoff Island Intet Barrier island Atlantic Ocean 02030202.070 Narraskatuck Creek to 52-001 BELMONT LAKE Suffolk Priority Organics Urban Runoff Connetquot River Atlantic Ocean Narraskatuck Creek to 52-002 BRIGHTWATERS POND Suffolk Priority Organics Urban Runoff Connetquot River Atlantic Ocean Narraskatuck Creek to 52-004 CHAMPLINS CREEK Suffotk Unknown Toxic Unknown Connetquot River Atlantic Ocean Narraskatuck Creek to 52-022 SANTAPOGUE CREEK Suffolk Unknown Toxic Unknown Connetquot River Page A-17.1 -- DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. RAFT APPENDIX A-17 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING ATLANTIC OCEAN - LONG ISLAND SOUND (17) BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NOMPOINT CODE NYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRI14ARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------- -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- 17-01 Atlantic Ocean 02030202.070 Narraskatuck Creek to 52-029 AMITYVILLE CREEK -- Suffolk Pathogens Urban Runoff Connetquot River Attentic Ocean Narrasketuck Creek to 52-030 NEGUNTATOGUE CR Suffolk Pathogens Urban Runoff Connetcluot River Atlantic Ocean 02030202.090 Upper Connetquot 52-011 LAKE RONKONKOMA Suffolk Pathogens Urban Runoff River to Carmans River Atlantic Ocean 02030202.100 Connetquot River to 52-003 CANAAN LAKE Suffolk Nutrients Land Disposal (landfills) Carmans River Atlantic Ocean Connetcluot River to 52-008 GR. SOUTH BAY (E) Suffolk Pathogens Urban Runoff Carmans River Atlantic Ocean Connetquot River to 52-025 SPRING LAKE Suffolk Priority Organics Urban Runoff Carmans River Atlantic Ocean 02030202.130 Carmans River to East 52-015 MORICHES BAY Suffolk Pathogens Storm Sewers End Moriches Bay Atlantic Ocean Carmans River to East 52-027 WEST MILL POND Suffolk Nutrients Nutrient Enriched Sediments End Moriches Bay Atlantic Ocean 02030202.160 North Shore-Litt(e 52-009 HASHAMOMUCK POND Suffolk Pathogens Urban Runoff Peconic Bay, et.aL. Atlantic Ocean 02030202.170 Moriches Bay to 52-005 FLANDERS BAY Suffolk Nutrients Urban Runoff Montauk Point Atlantic Ocean Moriches Bay to 52-013 MECOX BAY Suffolk Pathogens Urban Runoff Montauk Point Atlantic Ocean Moriches Bay to 52-017 NORTH SEA HARBOR Suffolk Pathogens Boat po itution Montauk Point Atlantic Ocean Moriches Day to 52-018 MONTAUK HARBOR Suffolk Pathogens Urban Runoff Montauk Point Atlantic Ocean Moriches Bay to 52-020 QUANTUCK BAY Suffolk Pathogens Urban Runoff Montauk Point Atlantic Ocean Moriches Bay to 52-021 SAG HARBOR &COVES Suffolk Pathogens Storm Sewers Montauk Point Atlantic Ocean Moriches Bay to 52-023 SHINNECOCK BAY Suffolk Pathogens storm Sewers Page A-17.2 -- DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW a Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, stmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. t)-RA-FT APPENDIX A-17 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATIOR ATLANTIC OCEAN - LONG ISLAND SOUND (17) BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE MYS DEC SURBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- Montauk Point Atlantic Ocean Moriches Bay to 52-026 THREE MILE HARBOR Suffolk Pathogens Storm Sewers Montauk Point .17-02 Long Island Sound 01100006.280 Mitt River 60-022 MILL RIVER Westchester Silt (Sediment) Hydrotogic/Habitat, modification Long island Sound 01106006.350 Mianus River 60-019 MIANUS R IVER Westchester Pesticides AgrIc. - Fertilizer Application Long Island Sound Mianus River 60-020 MIANUS RIVER Westchester Priority Organics Chemical Leaks and Spills Long island Sound Mianus River 60-021 MIANUS RIVER Westchester Nutrients Urban Runoff Long Island Sound 01100006.410 Upper Byrom River 60-026 WAMPUS LAKE Westchester Silt (sediment) Land Ctearing/Devetopment Long Island Sound Upper Byrom River 60-027 WAMPUS BROOK Westchester Silt (Sediment) Land Clearing/Development Long island Sound Upper Byrom River 60-028 BYRAM RIVER Westchester Nutrients On-site Wastewater Systems Long Island Sound 01100006.430 Lower Byrom River 60-023 BYRAM RIVER Westchester Priority Organics Urban Runoff Long Island Sound Lower Byrom River 60-024 BYRAM RIVER - 2 Westchester Priority Organics urban Runoff Long island Sound Lower Byrom River 60-025 PORT CHESTER HARR Westchester Priority Organics Urban Runoff Long Island Sound 02030102.020 Bronx River 6.0-029 KENSICO.RESERVOIR Westchester Silt (Sediment) Land Ctearing/Devetopment Long Island Sound Bronx River 60-030 BEAR GUTTER CREEK Westchester Silt (Sediment) Lord Ctearing/Development Long island sound Bronx River 60-031 TIBBETTS BROOK Westchester Pathogens Storm Sewers Long Island Sound Bronx River 60-033 MILTON HARBOR Westchester Silt (Sediment) Land Ctearing/Devetopment Long Island Sound 02030102.030 Bronx River to 60-045 HUTCHINSON RIVER Westch ester Priority Organics Urban Runoff Mamaroneck River Long Island Sound Bronx River to 60-046 LAKE ISLE Westchester Nutrients Lawn Chemicals Mamaroneck River Long island Sound 02030102.040 Mamaroneck River 60-035 GOODLIFFE POND Westchester Nutrients Urban Runoff Long Island Sound Mamaroneck River 60-036 SHELDRAKE RIVER Westchester Nutrients Urban Runoff Long Island Sound Mamaroneck River 60-037 SHELDRAKE LAKE Westchester Nutrients Urban Runoff Long Island Sound Mamaroneck River 60-038 GARDENS LAKE Westchester Silt (Sediment) Highway/Bridge Construction Long Island Sound Mamaroneck River 60-039 LOWER SHELDRAKE R Westchester Silt (Sediment) Urban Runoff Long Istand Sound Mamaroneck River 60-040 SILVER LAKE Westchester Nutrients Urban Runoff Long Island Sound Mamaroneck River 60-041 MAMARONECK RIVER Westchester Silt (Sediment) Urban Runoff Long island Sound Mamaroneck River 60-042 EAST CREEK Westchester Pathogens ** Urban Runoff Long island Sound Mamaroneck River 60-043 PINE BR60K Westchester Priority Organics Urban Runoff Page A-17.3 -- DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. RAFT APPENDIX A-17 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICAT104 ATLANTIC OCEAN - LONG ISLAND SOUND (17) BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE NYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ----------------------- -------------- ------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- - 17-D2 Long island sound 02030102.040 Mamaroneck River 60-044 GUION CREEK Westchester Pathogens Urban Runoff Long Island Sound 02030102.060 Blind Brook 60-032 BLIND BROOK Westchester Nutrients Urban Runoff Long Istand Sound Blind Brook 60-034 MEAD POND Westchester Nutrients Urban Runoff Long Island Sound Blind Brook 60-050 LONG ISLAND SOUND Westchester Pathogens ** Urban Runoff Long Island Sound 02030102.070 Coastal Drainage - 60-051 BEAVER SWAMP BRK Westchester' Silt (Sediment) Land Ctearing/Devetopment Milton Harbor to State Line Long island So" 02030201.030 Nassau-Queens tine to 30-008 LONG IS SOUND (W) Nassau Pathogens Urban Runoff Sand Point Lighthouse Long Island Sound Nassau-Queens tine to 30-009 MANHASSET BAY Nassau Pathogens Urban Runoff Sand Point Lighthouse Long Island Sound 02D30201.040 Sand Point Lighthouse 30-001 DOSORIS POND Nassau Pathogens Urban Runoff to Sayville, NY Long Island Sound Sand Point Lighthouse 30-004 HEMPSTEAD BAY Nassau Pathogens Urban Runoff to Bayvitle, MY Long island Sound Sand Point Lighthouse 30-005 HEMPSTEAD HARBOR Nassau Pathogens Urban'Runoff to Sayville, NY Long island sound 02030201.050 Bayvitte, NY to Lloyd 30-012 OYSTER BAY Nassau Pathogens Urban Runoff Point Long Island Sound Rayvitte, NY to Lloyd 30-017 COLD SPRING HAROR Nassau Pathogens Urban Runoff Point Long Island Sound 02030201.060 Lloyd Point to 52-010 HUNTINGTON BAY Suffolk Pathogens Urban Runoff Nissequogue River Long Island Sound 02030201.070 Nissequogue River 52-014 MILLERS POND Suffo(k oxygen-Demanding Urban Runoff Substances Long Island Sound Nissequogue River 52-024 SMITHTOWN BAY Suffolk Pathogens Urban Runoff Long Island Sound Nissequogue River 52-028 MISSEQUOGUE RIVER Suffolk Pathogens Urban Runoff Long Island Sound 02030201.080 Nissequogue River to 52-006 GOLDSMITHS INLET Suffolk Pathogens Urban Runoff Orient Point Long Island Sound Hissequague River to 52-012 MATTITUCK INLET Suffolk Pathogens Urban Runoff Orient Point Long Island Sound Nissequoque River to 52-016 MT SINAI HARBOR Suffotk Pathogens Boot pollution Page A-17.4 -- DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW - Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, stmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. URAFT APPENDIX A-17 PRIORITY CANDIDATES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING ATLANTIC OCEAN - LONG ISLAND SO(JND (17) SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION BASIN SCS HYDROLOGIC SCS HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT SEG* PRIMARY NONPOINT CODE NYS DEC SUBBASIN NAME UNIT NUMBER UNIT NAME ID SEGMENT NAME TYPE COUNTY PRIMARY POLLUTANT SOURCE CATEGORY ----- ------------------------ -------------- --------------------- -------- ----------------- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ------------------------------ orient Point Long Island Sound Nissequogue River to 52-019 PORT JEFFERSON H. Suffolk Pathogens Urban Runoff orient Point Page A-17.5 DRAFT DATA; SUBJECT TO AGENCY VERIFICATION *GW Groundwater; ** Nonpoint source identified is not primary water quality problem - it is either a point source, atmo. dep. or contaminated sediments. APPENDIX B CHAPTER 436 OF LAWS OF 1989 ,STATE NONPOINT SOURCE.POLLUTION CONTROL STATE OF NEWYORK 7224--A 1989-1990 Regular Sessions IN ASSEMBLY March 28, 1989 introduced by M. of A. HINCHEY, BRAGMAN, HOYT, TONKO, GRANNIS, TALLON -- Multi-Sponsored by -- M. of A. BENNETT , BRENNAN, BRODSKY, CASALE, CONNELLY, CONNERS, COOMBE, DiNAPOLI., LASHER, R. H. MILLER, ORTLOFF, PASSANNANTE, PATAKI, PILLITTERE, PROUD, SEMINERIO, STRANIERE, SWEENEY, TOCCI, WEINSTEIN, YEVOLI, YOUNG,.ZALESKI -- read once'and referred to the Committee on Environmental Conservation -- reported and referred to the Committee on Rules -- Rules Committee discharged, bill amended, ordered reprinted as amended and recommitted to the Committee an Rules AN ACT to amend the environmental conservation law and the soil and water conservation districts law, in relation to the abatement and control of nonpoint source pollution The People of the State of.New York, represen ted in Senate and Assem- bly, do enact as follows: 1 Section 1. Article 17 of the environmental conservation law is amended 2 by adding a new title 14 to read as follows: 3 TITLE 14 4 NONPOINT SOURCE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL 5 Section 17-1401. Purpose. 6 17-1403. Definitions. 7 17-1405. Inventory. a 17-1407. Priority rtonpoint source pollution. 9 17-1409. State assistance for non-agilculLural nonpoint source 10 abatement and control proiects. 11 17-1411. Regulations. 12 S 17-1401. Purpose. 13 It is the purpose of this title tO.Safeguard the waters of the state 14 'from nonpoint source pollution by controlling and abating new and exist- 1@ ing4sources of nonpQint source pollution. ZXPLANATION--Mtter.in italics (underscored) is new; matter In brackets is old law to be omitted. LBDO0958-05-9 A. 7224--A 1 S 17-1403, Definitons, 2 As used in this titile: 3 1. "Best management practices" means methods, measures or practices 4 determined to be the most practical and effective in preventing or 5 reducing the impact of pollutants generated by nonpoint sources to a 6 level compatible with water quality standards established pursuant to 7 section 17-0301 of this article. Best management practices include, but 8 are not limited to, structural and nonstructural controls and operations 9 and maintenance procedures. Best management practices can be applied 10 before, during or after pollution producing activities to reduce or 11 eliminate the introduction of pollutants into receiving waters. 12 2. "Municipal corporation" means a county, city town or village or an 13 entity designated to act on behalf of such. 14 3. "Nonpoint sourc" means any source of water pollution or pollutants 15 which is not a discrete convevance or point source permitted pursuant to 16 title seven or eight of this article. 17 4. "Nonpoint source abatement and control program" means a program of 18 activities and projects for the abatement and reduction of nonpoint 19 source pollution through the implementation of best management 20 practices. 21 5. "District" menas a county soil and water conservation district 22 created pursuant to section five of the soil and water conservation dis- 23 tricts law. 24 S 17-1405. Inventory. 25 1. Within eighteen months of the effective date of this title the com- 26 missioner, in cooperation with the state soil and water conservation 27 committee, shall prepare a report which: 28 a. identifies those water bodies within the state which, without add- 29 tional action to control nonpoint sources of pollution, cannot reasona 30 bly be expected to attain and maintain applicable water quality stan- 31 dards; and 32 b. identifies categories or subcategories of nonpoint sources of par- 33 ticluar nonpoint sources which add significant amounts of pollutionto 34 each water body identified above. 35 2. The report prepared pursuant to this section shall be revised by 36 the commissioner in cooperation with the state soil and water conserva- 37 tion committee at least every five years. 38 S 17-1407. Priority nonpoint source pollution. 39 From the inventory developed pursuant to section 17-1405 of this title 40 the commissioner, after consultation with the state soil and water con- 41 servation committee, shall develop a prioritized list of water bodies, 42 management of which will reduce and control nonpoint source pollution 43 and improve water quality. In developing such list, consideration shall 44 be given to the exisiting water quality of the water body, the best usage 45 of the water body pursuant to section 17-0301 of this artice and its 46 potential for improvement. 47 S 17-1409. State assistance for non-agricultural nonpoint source abate- 48 ment and control projects. 49 1. Subject to the availability of funds appropriated therefor, a mat- 50 ching grant program is established to fund the cost of implementing 51 nonpoint source abatement and control projects that meet the following 52 criteria: 53 a. the project must consist of activities and projects which will sig- 54 nificantly reduce, abate or control nonpoint source pollution originat- 55 ing from non-agricultural activiities; A. 7224--A 3 1 b. the project must be proposed for implementation by a municipal cor- 2 poration, or by a district at the formal request of such corporation; 3 c. the project must be located within a water body identified by the 4 commissioner, pursuant to section 17-1407 of this title; 5 d. the project must propose to implement best management practices 6 which meet the criteria promulgated pursuant to section 17-1411 of this 7 title; and 8 e. the municipal corporation must have funds available to pay for its 9 share of the eligible project costs. 10 2. Applications for matching grants shall contain the following 11 information; 12 a. the name and location of the water body and the nonpoint source 13 problem to be addressed; 14 b. identification of the best management practice to be implemented; 15 c. a cost estimate for the proposed project; 16 d. the source of funds available to pay for the non-state share of the 17 eligible costs; 18 e. information sufficient to demonstrate that the criteria set forth 19 in subdivision one of this section have been set; and 20 f. such other information as may be required by the commissioner 21 through regulations. 22 3. In awarding grants pursuant to this section, the commissioner shall 23 give preference to those projects located in the highest priority water 24 bodies identified pursuant to section 17-1407 of this title. 25 4. Eligible costs that may be funded pursuant to this section are ar- 26 chitectural and engineering services, plans and specifications, con- 27 sultant and legal services and other direct expenses related to project 28 implementation. 29 5. Matching grants awarded pursuant to this section shall be up to 30 fifty percent of the eligible costs for any specified project. 31 S 17-1411. Regulations 32 1. The commissioner may promulgate regulations necessary to effectuate 33 the purposes of section 17-1409 of this title including, but not limited 34 to, regulations setting forth criteria for submission and processing of 35 grant applications, components of best management practices and state 36 standards necessary to control nonpoint source pollution. 37 2. Regulations promulgated pursuant to subdivision one of this section 38 shall not require the approval of the state environmental board pursuant 39 to paragraph a of subdivision two of section 3-0301 or subdivison two 40 of section 5-0107 of this chapter. 41 S 2. The opening paragraph of section 17-0105 of the environmental 42 conservation law is amended to read as follow: 43 When used in titles 1 to 11, inclusive, and (title) titles 14 and 19 44 of this article; 45 S 3. Section 2 of the soil and water conservation districts law, as 46 amended by chapter 887 of the laws of 1964, is amended to read as 47 follows; 48 S 2. Declaration of policy. It is hereby declared to be the policy of 49 the legislature to provide for the conservation of the soil and water 50 resources of this state, and for the improvement of water quaility, and 51 for the control and prevention of soil erosion and for the prevention of 52 floodwater and sediment damages and for furthering the conservation, 53 development, utilization and disposal of water, and thereby to preserve 54 natural resources, control and abate nonpoint sources of water pollu- 55 tion, assist in the control of floods, assist in the drainage and irri- 56 gation of agricultural lands, prevent impairment of dams and reseroirs. A. 7226--A 4 1 assist in maintaining the navigability of rivers and harbors, preserve 2 wildlife, protect the tax base, protect public lands, and protect and 3 promote the health, safetly and general welfar of the people of this 4 state. 5 S 4. Section 3 of the soil and water conservation districts law is 6 amended by adding five new subdivisons 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 to read as 7 follows: 8 (13) "Nonpoint source" means any source of water pollution or pol- 9 lutants, as defined in section 17-0105 of the environmental conservation 10 law, which is not a discrete conveyance or point source permitted pur- 11 suant to title seven or eight of article seventeen of the environmental 12 conservations law. 13 (14) "Nonpoint source abatement and control program" means a program 14 of activities and projects for the abatement and reduction of nonpoint 15 source pollution through the implementation of best management 16 practices. 17 (15) "Agricultural nonpoint source abatement and control program" 18 means a program consisting of activities and projects for the abatement 19 and reduction of water pollution from agricultural nonpoint sources 20 through the installation, operation and maintenance of best management 21 practices. Such program shall address agriculturally related activities 22 and their impact on water quality and shall include, but not be limited 23 to, activities and projects for controlling losses from the land includ- 24 ing nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus, pathogens, toxic 25 contauination of surface waters and groundwaters from heavy metals, 26 pesticides and other organic substances, and not the prevention of 27 ailtation and sutrophication of streams, rivers, lakes and other water 28 bodies. 29 (16) "Best management practices" means methods, measures or practices 30 determined to be the most practical and effective in preventing or 31 reducing the amount of pollutants generated by nonpoint sources to a 32 level compatible with water quality standards established pursuant to 33 section 17-0301 of the environmental conservation law. Best management 34 practices include, but are not limited to, structural and nonstructural 35 controls and operation and maintenance procedures. Best management prac- 36 tices can be applied before, during or after pollution-producing activi- 37 ties to reduce or eliminate the introduction of pollutants into receiv- 38 ing waters. 39 (17) "Priority water body" means a water body identified by the com- 40 missioner of environmental conservation pursuant to section 17-1407 of 41 the environmental conservation law. 42 S 5. Subdivisons 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 10 of section 9 of the soil and 43 water conservation districts law, as amended by chapter 887 of the laws 44 of 1964, are amended to read as follows: 45 (1)(.) To conduct surveys, investigations, and research relating to 46 the character of soil erosion (and), floodwater (and), sediment damages 47 nonpoint source water pollution, and the preventive and control measures 48 needed, to publish the results of such surveys, investigations, or 49 research, and to disseminate information concerning such preventive and 50 control measures, provided, however, that in order to avoid duplication 51 of research activities, no district shall initiate any research program 52 except in cooperation with the New York state college of agriculture. 53 and any agency of the state or of the United States as may be dealing 54 with allied problems; 55 (2) To carry out preventive and control measures within the district 56 including, but not limited to, engineering operations, methods of culti- A. 7224--A 5 1 vation, the growing of vegetation and changes in uses of land and 2 drainage, irrigation and other agricultural water management operations 3 and measures for the prevention of floodwater and sediment damages, or 4 for the control and abatement of nonpoint sources of water pollution on 5 lands owned or controlled by this state or any of its agencies, with the 6 consent and cooperation of the agency administrating and having jurisdic- 7 tion thereof, and on any other lands within the district and, 8 notwithstanding any general, special, local or other provision of law, 9 including the lands of directors, officers or employees of said dis- 10 trict, upon obtaining the consent of the occupier of such lands or the 11 neccessary rights or interest in such lands; 12 (3) To cooperate, or enter into agreements with, and within the lim- 13 its of appropriations duly made available to it by law, to furnish 14 financial or other aid to, any agency, governmental or otherwise, or any 15 occupier of lands within the district. In carrying on of erosion- 16 control, flood prevention and sediment damage prevention operations, 17 control and abatement of nonpoint sources of water pollution, and land 18 use adjustments including ditching, draining and flood control opera- 19 tions for effective conservation and utilization of the lands and waters 20 within the district, subject to such conditions as the directors may 21 deem necessary to advance the purposes of this chaper; 22 (5) To make available, on such terms as it shall prescribe, to land 23 occupiers within the district, agricultural and engineering machinery 24 and equipment, fertilizer, seeds, and seedings, and such other material 25 or equipment, as will assist such land occupiers to carry on operations 26 upon their lands for the effective conservation and utilization of soil 27 and water resources (and for the), prevention and control of soil ero- 28 sion (and for the), prevention of floodwater and sediment damages, and 29 for the control and ebatement of nonpoint sources of water pollution; 30 (7) To develop comprehensive plans for the conservation of soil and 31 water resources (and for the), control and prevention of soil erosion, 32 (for the) prevention of floodwater and sediment damages, control and 33 abatement of nonpoint sources of water pollution, and for agricultural 34 water management within the district, which plans shall specify in such 35 detail as may be possible, the acts, procedures, performances, and 36 avoidances which are necessary or desirable for the effectuation of such 37 plans, including the specification of engineering operations, methods of 38 cultivation, the growing of vegetation, cropping programs, tillage prac- 39 tices, and changes in the use of land, and to publish such plans and in- 40 formation and bring them to the attention of occupiers of lands within 41 the district; provided, however, that in order to avoid duplication of 42 educational activities no district shall publish any such plans and in- 43 formation except in cooperation with the New York state college of agri- 44 culture and with the approval of the state soil conservation committee; 45 (8) To act as agent for the United States, or any of its agencies, or 46 for this state or any of its agencies, in connection with the acquisi- 47 tion, construction, operation, maintenance or administration of any 48 soil-conservation, erosion-control, or erosion-prevention, agricultural 49 water management, flood prevention (or), sediment damage prevention, or 50 nonpoint source water pollution control and abatement project within its 51 boundaries; to accept donations, gifts, and contributions in money, ser- 52 vices, materials or otherwise, from the United States or any of its 53 agencies, or from this state or any of its agencies, and to use or ex- 54 pend such moneys, services, materials, or other contributions in car- 55 rying on its operations. A. 7224--A 6 1 (10) As a condition to the extending of any benefits under this chap- 2 ter to or the performance of work upon, any lands not owned or con- 3 trolled by this state or any of its agencies, the directors may require 4 contributions in money, services, materials or otherwise to any opera- 5 tions conferring such benefits, and may require land occupiers to enter 6 into and perform such agreements or convenants as to the long term use of 7 such lands as will tend to prevent or control erosion, (and) prevent 8 floodwater and sediment damages, control and abate nonpoint sources of 9 water pollution, and make for more effective agricultural water manage- 10 ment theron; 11 S 6. The soil and water conservation districts law is amended by add- 12 ing a new section 11-b to read as follows: 13 S 11-b, Agricultural nonpoint source abatement and control projects. 14 1. Subject to the availabiltiy of funds appropriated therefor, a mat- 15 ching grant program is established to fund the implementation of agri- 16 cultural nonpoint source abatement and control projects that meet the 17 following criteria: 18 a. the project must consist of activities and plans which will reduce, 19 abate, control or prevent nonpoint source pollution originating from 20 agricultural sources; 21 b. the project must be proposed for implementation by a district or 22 group of districts acting jointly; 23 c. the project must be located within a priority water body identified 24 by the commissioner of enviromental conservation pursuant to section 25 17-1407 of the enviromental conseervation law, and propose to implement 26 best management practices, as defined in section three of this chapter; 27 and 28 d. the district or districts must have funds available to pay for its 29 share of the eligible project costs. 30 2. Applications for matching grants shall contain the following 31 information: 32 a. the name and location of the water body and the nonpoint source 33 problem to be addressed; 34 b. identification of the best management practices to be implemented; 35 c. a cost estimate for the proposed project; 36 d. the source of funds available to the district to pay for its share 37 of the eligible costs; 38 e. information sufficient to demonstrate that the criteria in subdivi- 39 sion one of this section have been met; and 40 f. such further information as may be required by the committee 41 through regulations. 42 3. In awarding grants the committee, upon the recommendation of the 43 commissioner of environmental conservation, shall give preference to 44 those projects located in priority waterbodies identified pursuant to 45 section 17-1407 of the environmental conservation law. 46 4. Eligible cost that may be funded pursuant to this section are ar- 47 chitectural and engineering services, plans and specifications, con- 48 sultant and legal services and other direct expenses related to project 49 construction. 50 5. Matching grants awarded pursuant to this section shall be up to a 51 maximum of fifty percent of the eligible costs, as determined pursuant 52 to subdivison four of section 17-1409 of the environmental conservation 53 law, for any specified project. Such maximum shall be increased by a 54 percentage equal to the percentage of the total eligible costs for such 55 specified project that are contributed by the owner or operator of agri- 56 cultural land upon which such specified project is being conducted, A. 7224--A 7 1. provided, however, that in no event shall the total of such matching 2. grants exceed seventy-five percent of such eligible costs for an speci- 3. fied project. 4. 6. The committee may adopt rules and regulations necessary to effectu- 5. ate the purposes of this section 6. S 7. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the commis- 7. sioner of agriculture and markets shall sub-allocaate to the department 8. if environmental conservation the sum of fifty thousand dollars for the 9. nonpoint source water pollution control program out of monies appropri- 10. ated therfor. 11. S 8. This act shall take effect immediately. APPENDIX C CERTIFICATION OF AOTHORITY BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (To be added at a later date) APPENDIX D MATRIX OF FUNDING SOURCES APPENDIX D EXISTING FUNDING FOR NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS Chapter V of the Nonpoint Source Assessment Report identified 58 programs with a role in controlling nonpoint source pollution in New York. All of these programs allocate funding or staff time to activities that reduce or prevent nonpoint source pollution. These programs and others subsequently identified are listed in the matrix which follows. Programs are classified, based on scope, into two categories, planning/management and implementation. These are further classified into two subcategories, internal and external. An internal activity is a program that basically supports the existing agency. An external designation means that the primary mechanism for carrying out the program is by assisting, educating or training organizations and/or individuals outside the program. An example of the matrix is as follows: PLANNING & MANAGE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM INTERNAL EXTERNAL INTERNAL EXTERNAL Conservation Oper. I-S (I USDA - SCS $$$ (2 "TAIT (3 In the matrix, three line's are used for each program. Line (1) identifies the program objective, line (2) indicates the relative magnitude, and line (3) shows the mode of operation of external programs. The entry for objective is a two-letter description which defines how the program addresses nonpoint sources and the area of application. objective is defined by a I'D" for direct and "I" for indirect. Program objective is further identified with a lisle IIRII or IIWII to identify area of appicability: D-1 S - Statewide; resources available to control nonpoint source problems across the state on a first come basis. R - Regional; resources available to control nonpoint source problems within a county or a geographic region, on a first come basis (follows political boundaries). W - Watershed; resources available to control nonpoint source problems within a watershed and for specific identified problems within the area (follows natural boundaries). Relative magnitude is based on actual funding available rather than authorized funding. It is displayed using 11011, 11$11, 11$$11' and "$$$" to identify the magnitude of the program. The following table shows the meaning of these entries. Relative Funding or Staff Magnitude Available Available 0 0 None $ < $300,000 < 5 staff yrs. $$ $300,000-$600,000 5-10 staff yrs. $$$ > $600,000 > 10 staff yrs. Mode of operation of external programs is designated by either "TA" or a "$X/$X. A "TA" means no financial assistance is available; program funds are for technical.assistance. Financial assistance is identified by "$x/$x" and shows the amount the source agency requires the receiver to contribute -as a. condition of receiving the funds. A "$/$" shows a requirement that the grantee contribute one dollar for each dollar received; a 11$6/$411 shows a requirement that the grantee contribute four dollars for every six dollars received; "$/$0" means source resources are available without a match. D-2 ESTIMATED FUTURE FUNDING EXISTING (FY1999) (1990 AND 1991) PLANNING/MANAGE IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING/MANAGE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM INTERN EXTERN INTERN EXTERN INTERN EXTERN INTERN EXTERN CWA S. 2 01 (g) (1) (B) D - S D - S D - S D - S Governor's 20% 0 0 0 0 Discretionary If$/$Ofl CWA - S.205(j)(5) D - S D - S D S D - S,,@ D - S D - S D - S D - S Nonpoint Source $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$' $$$ $$$ $$$ Reserve If$/$Of' 11$6/$411 01$6/$4 If$/$Oil 11$6/$411 11$6/$411 CWA S.319(h) D - S D - S NPS Implementation 0 0 11$6/$411 .11$6/$411 CWA S.319(i) D - D - S 0 0 Pro tecting Groundwater CWA - S. 603 (c) (3) D - S D S .Water Pollution Control $$$ $$$ Revolving Funds CWA - S.117 D - W D - W Chesapeake Bay 0 0 11$3/$" 11$3/$" .118 D W Great Lakes D = Direct S = Statewide $ = < 5 staff years ($300,000) $1 for $1 match (50%) I = Indirect R = Regional $$ = 5-10 Staff years (<600,000) 11$6/$411 $6 for $4 match (40%) W = Watershed $$$ = >10 staff years (>600,000) 11$/$011. $ avail without match 11TAll Technical Assist avail ESTIMATED FUTURE FUNDING EXISTING (FY1989) (1990 AND 1991) PLANNING/MANAGE IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING/MANAGE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM INTERN EXTERN INTERN EXTERN INTERN EXTERN INTERN EXTERN CWA - S.,320 D - S National Estuary Program CWA - S.314 D S D Clean Lakes Program $$ S CWA - S.104(b) D S D S Pollution Prevention $ $ Bulk Storage - Division D S D - S D S D - S of Water $$$ $ $$$ $ "TAII "TA" Clean Lakes Program D S D - S D - S D - S Division of Water $ $ $ $ "TA'r 11TA" Dredging of Contaminated D S D S sediments - Division $$ $$ of Water Forest Products Harvest D - S D - S management - Division of $$ $$ Lands & Forests "TAII ITTAII D = Direct S = Statewide $ = < 5 staff years ($300,000) "$/$" = $1 for $1 match (50%) I = Indirect R = Regional $$ = 5-10 Staff years (<600,000) 11$6/$411 = $6 for $4 match (40%) W = Watershed $$$ = >10 staff years (>600,000) If$/$Ofl = $ avail without match "TA" = Technical Assist avail ESTIMATED FUTURE FUNDING EXISTING (FY1989) (1990 AND 1991) PLANNING/MANAGE IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING/MANAGE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM INTERN EXTERN -INTERN EXTERN INTERN EXTERN INTERN EXTERN Great Lakes D - W D - W Coordination - Division $ $ of Water Great Lakes.Phosphorus D - W D - W D - W D - W Reduction Plan 0 0 0 0 Division of Water Groundwater Program D - S D - S Division of water $$$ $$$ Municipal Waste Per- D - S D - S mitting - Division of $$$ $$$ Solid Waste Pesticide Management D - S D - S Division of.Hazardous $$$ $$$ Substance Regulation Spill Response D S D S Division of Water $$$ $$@$ Superfund - Division of D - S D - S D S D - S Hazardous Waste .$$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ Remediation D = Direct -S = Statewide $ = < 5 staff years ($300,000) $1 for $1 match (50%) I = Indirect R = Regional $$ = 5-10 Staff years (<600,000) 11$6/$411= $6 for $4 match (40%) W = Watershed $$$ = >10 staff years (>600,000) "$/$011= $ avail without match "TA" = Technical Assist avail ESTIMATED FUTURE FUNDING EXISTING (FY1989) (1990 AND 1991) PLANNING/MANAGE IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING/MANAGE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM INTERN EXTERN INTERN EXTERN FINTERN EXTERN INTERN EXTERN Stream Habitat Improve- D - S D - S D S D-- S ment - Division of $ $ $ Fish & Wildlife OITA" OITA's Wellhead Protection D - S D - S Program Division of $ $ Water Agric. Cons. Prog. Spec. D - W D - W Projects - USDA ASCS $$ $$ 11$3/$11 11$3/$11 Emergency Watershed D - W D W Protection Program $ $ USDA SCS If$/$Off If$/$Off Great Lakes Phosphorus D W D W Reduction - US EPA $ $ Watershed Protection & D W D - W D W D - W Flood Prevention - USDA $ $$$ $ $$ SCS $ varies $ varies Environmental Anaylsis D - S D S D S D S Bureau - Department of $ $$ $ $$ Transportation D = Direct S = Statewide $ = < 5 staff years ($300,000) 11$/$11 = $1 for $1 match (50%) I = Indirect R = Regional $$ = 5-10 Staff Years (<600,000) 11$6/$411 = $6 for $4 match (40%) W = Watershed $$$ = >10 staff years (>600,000) II$/$0II = $ avail without match 11TAII = Technical Assist.avail ESTIMATED FUTURE FUNDING EXISTING (FY1989) (1990 AND 1991) PLANNING/MANAGE IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING/MANAGE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM INTERN EXTERN INTERN EXTERN INTERN EXTERN INTERN EXTERN Individual sewage Treat- D - S D - S D - S D - S ment Program - NY Dept. $$ $ $$ $ of Health "TA" "TA" Water Resources D-S,R,W D-S,R,W D-S,R,W D-S,RrW D-S,R,W D-S,R,W D-S,R,W D,S,R,W Institute - Cornell $ $ $ $ $ $ $ University Water Supply Protection- D - W D - W D - W D- W NYC Department of Envir. $$ $ $$ $ Protection "TA" "TA" Acid Deposition control- I - S I - S Division of Air $$$ $$$ Acid Rain Program I - R I R Division of Water $ citizen Lakes Assessment S S Division of Water $ D = Direct S = Statewide $ = < 5 staff years ($300,000) $1 for $1 match (50%) I = Indirect R = Regional $$ = 5-10 Staff years (<600,000) 11$6/$411 =$6 for $4 match (40%) W = Watershed = >10 staff years,(>600,000) "$/$0" = $ avail without match "TA" = Technical Assist avail ESTIMATED FUTURE FUNDING EXISTING (FY1989) (1990 AND 1991) PLANNING/MANAGE IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING/MANAGE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM I INTERN EXTERN INTERN EXTERN INTERN EXTERN INTERN EXTERN Delaware River Basin I - W I, - W Commission - Division of $ $ Water Freshwater Wetlands I - S I S Protection - Division of $$$ $$$ Fish and wildlife Flood Control Projects- I S I S Division of Water $$ 00 Intensive Stream Surveys I S I S Division of Water $$$ $$$ Mining Permits.& Mine I - S I - S I - S I S Land Reclamation - Div. $$ $$ $$ $$ of Mineral Resources Oil and Gas Regulation- I S I - S I - S I- S Division of Mineral $$$ $$$ $$$ Resources Reservoir Release I S Program - Division of $$ Water D = Direct S = Statewide $ = < 5 staff years ($300,000) "$/$" = $1 for $1 match (50%) I = Indirect R = Regional $$ = 5-10 Staff years (<600,000) 11$6/$401 = $6 for $4 match (40%) W = Watershed $$$ = >10 staff years (>600,000) "$/$0" = $ avail without match "TA" = Technical Assist avail Bob= =me=== M ESTIMATED FUTURE FUNDING EXISTING (FY1989) (1990 AND 1991) PLANNING/MANAGE IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING/MANAGE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM H ERN EXTERN INTERN EXTERN INTERN EXTERN INTERN EXTERN Shellfish Land terti- I - R I - R fication - Division of $$ $$ Marine Resources SEQR - Division of I - S I - S Regulatory Affairs 0 0 stream Corridor Manage- I S I S ment - Division of $ $ Water "TA" "TAII Stream Protection Permit I - S I S Program - Division of $$$ $$$ Fish & Wildlife Stream Reclassification I - S I - S Program.- Division of $ $ Water Susquehanna River Basin I W Commission - Division of $$ Water Tidal Wetlands Regula- I - R I - R tory Program - Division $$ of Marine Resources D = Direct S = Statewide < 5*staff years ($300,000) $1 for $1 match (50%) F I.= Indirect R = Regional 5-10 Staff years (<600,000) 11$6/$411 $6 for $4 match (40%) W = Watershed >10 staff years (>600,000) "$/$0" $ avail without match "TA" Technical Assist avail ESTIMATED FUTURE FUNDING EXISTING (FY1989) (1990 AND 1991) PLANNING/MANAGE IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING/MANAGE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM INTERN EXTERN INTERN EXTERN INTERN EXTERN INTERN EXTERN Wild and Scenic Rivers I - R I - R Division of Lands and $$ $$ Forests Agricultural Conser- I - S I - S vation Program USDA $$$ $$$ ASCS 11$3/$" 11$3/$" Community Development I - S I - S tj Block Grants - US HUD $$ $$ 0 Coastal Zone Manage- I W I W ment Act - US.Depart- $$$ $$$ ment of Commerce 11$6/$411 11$6/$411 Conservation Operations- I S I S us soil Conservation $$$ $$$ Service "TA" "TA" Food Security Act USDA I S I - S I S I S Agricultural Stabil- $$$ $$$ ization & Cons. Service $ varies $varies Forestry Incentive I - S I - S Program - USDA ASCS $$ $$* $/ $ $/$ D =.Direct S = Statewide $ = < 5 staff years ($300,000) $1 for $1 match (50%) I = Indirect R = Regional $$ = 5-10 Staff years (<600,000) 11$6/$411 = $6 for $4 match (40%) W = Watershed $$$ = >10 staff years (>600,000) -"$/$0" = $ avail without match "TA" = Technical Assist avail mom M ESTIMATED FUTURE FUNDING EXISTING (FY1989) (1990 AND 1991) PLANNING/MANAGE IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING/MANAGE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM 1.11 - I INTERN EXTERN INTERN EXTERN INTERN EXTERN INTERN EXTERN Resource Conservation & I - R I - R Development - USDA SCS $$$ $$$ "TA" "TA" .Adirondack Park Agency I R I R I R I R "TA" "TA" Coastal Zone Program I W- I W I W I W NY Department of State $$ $$ $$ Environmental Management I - R I R Agencies - county Level varies $varies Health Departments I - R I - R County Level $varies $varies Cornell Cooperative I/D-S I/D-S I/D-S I/D-S Extension $$ $$ $$ $$ "TA" "TA" Planning Boards - County I - R I R and Town Level varies $ varies D = Direct S Statewide < 5 staff years ($300,000) $1 for $1 match (50%) I Indirect R= Regional $$ = 5-10 Staff years (<600,000) 11$6/$411 = $6 for $4 match (40%) W= Watershed $$$ = >10 staff years (>600,000) "$/$0" = $ avail without -match -11TA" = Technical Assist avail ESTIMATED FUTURE FUNDING EXISTING (FY1989) (1990 AND 1991) PLANNING/MANAGE IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING/MANAGE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM . 11 1 INTERN EXTERN INTERN EXTERN JL_ INTERN EXTERN INTERN EXTERN NY State Soil and Water I - S I - R I - S I - R Conservation Committee $ $$$ $ $$$ "TA" - "TAII Private and Not-for- Program Program Program Program Program Program Program Program Profit Organizations varies varies varies variI@es varies varies varies. varies $ varies $ varies $ varies $ varies $ varies $ varies $ varies $ varies Public Water Supply I S I - S NY Department of $$$ Health Soil and Water Conser- I - R I R vation Districts varies varies County Level "TA" "TA" D = Direct S = Statewide $ = < 5 staff years ($300,000) "$/$" = $1 for $1 match (50%) 1 = Indirect R = Regional $$ = 5-10 Staff years (<.600,000) 11$6/$411 = $6.for $4 match (40%) 1 W = Watershed $$$ = >10 staff years (>600,000) "$/$0" = $ avail without match 11TA11 = Technical Assist avail WPM M M DATE DUE GAYLORDINo. 2333 -T-