Please sign on to this Management Plan

A CROTON WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN

Introduction

The NYC Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is under a Consent Order to filter Croton water in order to comply with stricter Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) regulations that will become operative around 2010. DEP’s proposed chemical treatment/filtration plant, at a present cost of $1.5 billion, is designed not only for a worst-case scenario in terms of water quality, but also to fulfill far more stringent future regulations than those being promulgated by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

However, according to DEP, there is no indication that Croton water is slipping from its present high standard. The watershed’s natural resiliency, so far, has prevented pollutants from degrading the quality of the water in its streams and reservoirs. We believe, therefore, that it is better policy to protect and enhance the watershed’s natural filtering capacity than to build a massive chemical treatment/filtration plant that will be conducive to more development that will finally overwhelm the watershed. Even DEP concedes that its proposed plant is not capable of neutralizing runoff from roads and parking lots, deemed among the most toxic, carcinogenic contaminants in drinking water.

In the following, we present a watershed management program that will offer substantial watershed protection, and continue to guarantee high quality water. We believe that this program can lead to compliance with the future regulations by means of a less massive, less costly plant that will have far less impact on the human and natural environment than the proposed plant. We believe that our program will go a long way towards providing safe, clean and affordable drinking water to the 9 million users in the New York City metropolitan area.

Water Quality in the Croton System

Despite the pressures of development in the watershed, Croton water quality remains high. In its November, 1997 Extended Special Study Report, DEP states that “The Croton System raw water, typical of high quality surface waters (emphasis added), has low particle counts and low concentrations of cysts.” [1] There are no indications that Croton water quality has decreased since then.

Levels of Giardia and Cryptosporidium in the Croton remain extremely low as confirmed, on a weekly basis, on the DEP’s own website. In fact, Croton levels have been consistently below those of either the Catskill or Delaware systems. This is particularly evident regarding Giardia. [2]   DEP maintains cutting edge research in its monitoring of levels of Cryptosporidium in its reservoirs. In order to comply with future, stricter federal regulations, (the Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule), regarding Cryptosporidium among others, DEP is using the most advanced USEPA approved method of detection, known as Method 1623HV. DEP claims that; “Monitoring results with Method 1623HV indicate that New York City’s source waters are well  below the treatment threshold required in the proposed regulations.” [3] Interestingly, the source of most Cryptosporidium confirmed through genotyping the oocysts in stormwater samples, appears to originate with wildlife. Wildlife sources are unlikely to infect humans. From the foregoing, it may be concluded that Giardia and Cryptosporidium are at remarkably low levels in the NYC’s reservoirs.

Occasional color and odor violations occur in the Croton System.  These could be substantially reduced by decreasing phosphorus levels in the reservoirs.

As little as 1 pound of phosphorus can trigger the growth of over 113 pounds of algae; [4] hence phosphorus has been termed the “limiting factor” in terms of algal growth in fresh water systems.

When algae decay, they settle in the reservoirs’ benthic (bottom) layers where they are consumed by bacteria. This process requires oxygen, which the bacteria extract from the iron and manganese oxides that are common components of reservoir sediment. The metals are then released, discoloring the water.

Removal of oxygen from the water, a manifestation of eutrophication, has several negative consequences:

• an increase in water turbidity caused by algae;
  
• an increase in total organic carbon from algae that can lead to an excess of disinfection byproducts;
  
• taste and odor problems;
  
• decreased dissolved oxygen, which is necessary for a healthy ecosystem. [5]

Algae, in and of themselves, can also be the cause of unpleasant odors.

Recommendations for decreasing phosphorus in the reservoirs will be discussed in the section on Stormwater Runoff.

The greater the amount of algae and other organic carbon, the more chlorine will be needed for disinfection purposes, and the higher the concentrations of disinfection by-products (DPBs). Some of these such as Trihalomethanes (THMs) and Haloacetic Acids  (HAAs) are deemed possible carcinogens and their concentrations are regulated at the state and federal levels. Apart from one small spike in HAAs during 2003, Croton water has complied with all present standards for DBPs.

Certain naturally occurring metals that may be toxic, such as arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury and cyanide have not been detected in the Croton reservoirs. The absence of industrial plants in the watershed has helped to keep these metals out of the reservoirs. Anthropogenic, i.e. man-made, toxic chemicals such as 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene and methylene chloride have not been found in the Croton. [6]

The high level of Croton water quality indicates that the Croton watershed has a natural “immune system”, aided by its abundance of glacial till soils, wetlands and forests, that protects it against the impacts of development. If these natural resources are protected, and measures instituted to mitigate the effects of poorly-planned development, water quality will improve even further. In the following, we present measures that can be taken to accomplish those ends.

Development and Land Acquisition

State health codes give the City the legal right to take land in the watersheds.  However, in the MOA, the City explicitly agreed not to take lands by eminent domain. [7]   This has led to situations like one recently in Somers.  The town asked the DEP to buy a peninsula jutting into the Amawalk reservoir in order to prevent 19 homes from being built on it.  The developer wanted $15 to $20 million for the property. Town Councilman Paul Meyer stated that he felt the value was closer to $5 million.  The developer planned to sue the town in federal court if the issue was not settled to his satisfaction. [8] Small municipalities do not have the budget or the legal staff to defend themselves against these lawsuits.  Clearly, this situation is not in the best interests of water quality.

Watershed Land Acquired by DEP or under Protection

Westchester County: According to the Westchester County Department of Planning 2002 summary of Croton Watershed Land Use Acreage, 25,588 acres or 24.4% of Croton Watershed land within the County is either parks or open space. According to the categories listed, all of this land is protected. Therefore, it should qualify for inclusion in the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 25% minimum of protected lands in a watershed that is necessary for maintaining healthy source water.

Westchester watershed land under protection: TOTAL  25,588 acres

Putnam County: Significantly less land is under protection than in Westchester but far more open space is still available. According to a letter dated September 26, 2002 from the State of New York, Office of Real Property Services to George Michaud, Director of Putnam County Real Property Tax Services, the total number of acres in State property (tax exempt) in the watershed areas of Carmel, Southeast and Patterson totals 2,069 acres. In addition, since 1998, DEP has acquired land totaling 781.25.acres. This brings the total of DEP and State protected lands in the Croton Watershed in Putnam County to 2,850.25 acres. In addition, County Conservation Areas and Parks total 2,107.36 acres.

Although, in Putnam County, a total of approximately 10,000 acres have been protected through land acquisitions, parks, etc., some 6,000 of those acres were acquired by the DEP in the West Branch Boyds Corner watershed, which has been designated as part of the Cat/Del system.

According to Putnam County records, the average cost per acre of the 6000 acres acquired in the West Branch/Boyds Corner watershed was $6,460.17.

Total land in the Croton Watershed is approximately 380 square miles or 243,000 acres. Of this, 25% or 60,750 acres must be protected in order to fulfill EPA’s guidance for effective watershed management. Since 29,588 acres (30,000 acres in round figures) are already protected, there remain 30,750 acres to be protected, either by outright purchase or by negotiating conservation easements.

 Therefore, to acquire by outright purchase, or to protect through conservation easements the remaining 30,750 acres could cost on the order of $250 million, [or about as much as the park improvements that are part of the Van Cortlandt Park filtration project.] 

However, outright purchase is not needed in order to insure land protection. Less costly means are available. For example, landowners may give up the right to develop portions of their land (but retain possession) in return for which DEP pays the pro-rated taxes on the land that it holds in conservation easement. In a 11/24/03 Journal News article by Michael Risinit, Paul Gallay),executive director of the Westchester Land Trust stated: “…with land values going up, there is also a greater willingness to create an easement.”

Although the City is constrained by the Watershed Agreement to pay no more than fair market value for land in the Croton it could, besides acquiring conservation easements, buy land in partnership with other agencies such as DEC, Open Space Institute, Trust for Public Lands, various Land Trusts and various municipalities that have voted to purchase land By pooling their resources, none of the partners individually would individually be paying more than fair market value.

Residents of the Watershed have demonstrated unequivocally their dedication to preserving open space. Residents of Westchester watershed towns have overwhelmingly voted to increase their taxes in order to purchase land. In Putnam County, the government has used available East of Hudson funds to purchase land such as Tilly Foster Farm and Mahopac Airport.

New York City should appropriate $200 million towards land purchases and the acquisition of conservation easements in the Croton Watershed, particularly in Putnam County. Within the next three years, the City should itself set a goal, preferably in partnership with other government agencies, private citizens and land trusts, to protect at least half of the 30,750 acres that still need protection. With local sentiment running high against the rapid disappearance of open space, the City would find the strong support among the citizenry that would make such protection possible.

Stormwater Runoff from Nonpoint Sources

According to the DEP/DEC study [9] on “potential management practices and programs for controlling nonpoint source pollution which, if implemented, would provide reasonable assurances that nonpoint source reductions attain the Phase II TMDL Load Allocations”, over 85% ofthis loading comes from nonpoint sources.  Phosphorus is the prime cause of eutrophication of the reservoirs, and color and odor problems in the drinking water that reaches New York City taps. The largest loads of phosphorus get transported into the streams and reservoirs during storm events.

The 1999 National Research Council Report [10] states: “Eutrophication is a general term that refers to an array of conditions associated with increased growth and productivity of organisms in aquatic ecosystems. Eutrophication occurs when elevated supplies of macronutrients, particularly phosphorus and nitrogen, are delivered to surface waters…In the past several decades, society has recognized the cost effectiveness of reducing pathogens, chemical pollutants, and nutrient loadings to recipient lakes and reservoirs for maintenance of high water quality …Relatively simple control measures within drainage basins can be implemented to minimize pollutant loadings, and such measures are often much more economical than treating degraded water supplies (emphasis added).”

In a recent article in Stormwater [11] , the authors opine that: “cultural eutrophication, the human-caused enhancement of water with nutrients (usually phosphorus) is the primary cause of most eutrophication today. Natural eutrophication also takes place but it is insignificant by comparison (emphasis added)…Soil erosion from agriculture and construction activities (emphasis added) is also a primary contributor of phosphorus to many waterbodies. Fertilizers used for crops, lawns and home gardens usually contain phosphorus, and when used in excess, the nutrient usually ends up in streams, rivers and lakes. Draining swamps and marshes for farmland, housing and commercial or industrial parks (emphasis added) releases nutrients such as phosphorus that have remained dormant in years of accumulated organic deposits. In addition, drained wetlands no longer function as filters of silt and phosphorus, allowing more runoff – and phosphorus – to enter waterways.”

Based on the opinion of these experts, reducing the amount of phosphorus that enters the reservoirs will have a major beneficial effect on water quality. In the following, we list some of the actions that should be taken to achieve this result.

• Close to 200 sites which carry heavy loads of sediment and pollution into the streams and reservoirs have been identified by Trout Unlimited. [12] In 2 volumes, the authors list the 50 most egregious sites and describe in meticulous detail the site locations, possible remedial actions, and information regarding federal, state and local laws that are being violated. Although this study was brought to public attention in the year 2000, involved agencies such as DEP and DEC and the affected municipalities have done only minor remedial work. The exception to this is the DOT, which is working on 16 sites that are either completed, near completion or in the design phase. [13] John Keane of Trout Unlimited was the principal author of the report. He estimated that the worst 50 stormwater runoff sites could be remediated for less than $7 million. The interest earned on the $68 million that DEP gave to Westchester and Putnam counties for watershed improvements could easily cover that expense. DEP should spend its fair share to protect its Croton reservoirs by actively participating in the remediation of those sites identified by Trout Unlimited.



• The aforementioned DEP/DEC TMDL study has allocated to each reservoir a phosphorus reduction load that would achieve compliance with the allowed phosphorus concentration. The higher the phosphorus concentration allowed, the less phosphorus reduction is needed. Only one reservoir wholly in the Croton system, the New Croton Reservoir, is allocated a low concentration of 15 micrograms/liter (µg/L). With the exception of Croton Falls and Cross River reservoirs, whose waters are fed into the Delaware aqueduct in times of drought, all other Croton reservoirs are allowed 20 µg/L The West Branch, considered a component of the Cat/Del System since it receives Delaware water is allocated 15 µg/L. DEC should assign all reservoirs East of Hudson (EOH) the 15 µg/L phosphorus concentration limit. This will result in less phosphorus being allowed into the reservoirs (i.e., lower TMDLs), better water quality, less chlorine required for disinfection and, consequently, lower concentrations of disinfection byproducts.



• The study assigns to each municipality the amount of phosphorus reduction it has to achieve for each reservoir that lies partially or wholly within its boundaries. So far, there does not appear to be any plan at the municipal level. For example, most planning boards will not go beyond asking an applicant to keep phosphorus runoff from a new development within its pre-development limits. DEPand DEC should lend their expertise to help towns comply with their phosphorus reduction requirements, and provide legal backup for the  lawsuits that will inevitably follow.



• Under the Storm Water Phase II Program, all of the EOH has now been designated a regulated small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4), and each municipality has to adhere to the SPDES General Permit No. GP-02-02 [14] . Furthermore, under the Phase II program, small construction activity, i.e. between 1 acre and 5 acres of disturbance, has to comply with the SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges for Construction Activity, GP-02-01 [15] . During construction, the regulations and guidelines encompassed in the NYS Stormwater Management Design Manual for 2002 must be followed. The new regulations will undoubtedly help reduce stormwater runoff provided they are understood and adhered to. As with any new, stricter regulations, those who are affected will initially need guidance and monitoring by the regulatory agency, in this case DEC. Therefore, it is critical that strict compliance with Phase II regulations be enforced by the regulatory agencies. If necessary, extra staff should be hired and funding should be included in the New York State budget. Given the size of the fines DEC imposes (up to $25,000 per violation), a vigorous enforcement program would likely generate enough revenue to be self-financing.



• Stormwater runoff increases with the addition of parking lots, roads, driveways or other impervious surfaces. Unable to soak into the ground, stormwater will find its way into the nearest streams and thence, into the reservoirs.  It has become widely accepted that stream bank erosion starts to manifest itself with as little as 10% imperviousness within a drainage basin. With the proper stormwater management practices, these impacts can be mitigated and phosphorus levels reduced to their pre-development values. However, given the present state of the art in the design of stormwater devices, the limit to mitigation occurs at around 40% imperviousness, depending on pre-existing conditions. [16]   Beyond that, no combination of stormwater devices will be capable of reducing phosphorus to its pre-development levels. [17] Moreover, “…it is important to utilize regional data (emphasis added) for phosphorus event mean concentrations (EMCs) and background loads.” [18] It is also important to realize that stormwater runoff starts with the small, headwater streams as they drain into larger streams within a watershed. “Headwater streams make up at least 80 percent of the nation’s stream network.” They protect water quality, trap excess sediment, and provide flood control among other benefits. [19] Therefore, it is more effective to protect the watershed beginning at the small stream level, rather than allowing these streams to be eroded and the resulting sediment to be carried downstream to be treated in large stormwater devices. Within each sub-drainage basin [20] in a new development submitted for approval, the level of imperviousness should be kept at 10% or below unless the developer can prove, based on site specific data - not the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) data which are national averages – that the proper mitigation methods can maintain the phosphorus runoff at its pre-development levels. DEP engineers should be at the disposal of town lead agencies to help carry out such site plan reviews.



• The need to limit imperviousness has led to the development of pervious paving alternatives for driveways and parking lots. For example, in a recent article in Stormwater, [21] the author presents an upbeat picture of the positive results, over a 20-year period, of a type of pervious surface developed by Cahill Associates of West Chester, PA. “Porous pavement is especially well suited for parking lot areas…These systems continue to work quite well as both parking lots and stormwater management systems. In fact, many of these systems have outperformed their conventionally paved counterparts in terms of both parking-lot durability and stormwater management.” Agencies such as DEP, DEC and DOT should encourage and facilitate the use of pervious driveways and parking lots among homeowners and for commercial enterprises. Towns should be made aware of the advantages of pervious paving, and assisted in revising their codes to permit the use of such products.



• There has been widespread reliance on so-called Simple Methods to compute relative changes in pollutant loading due to stormwater runoff from new development. Such methods provide only rough estimates, as explained in the Handbook. [22] “While simple methods provide for a rapid means of identifying critical areas with minimal effort and data requirements, they rely in general on large-scale aggregation and neglect important features of small patches of land. They rely on generalized sources of information and therefore have low to medium requirements for site-specific data. Thus, simple methods…provide only rough estimates of sediment and pollutant loading and have limited predictive capability. [23] In the watershed, more accurate methods and models than the Simple Method for predicting pollutant loads should be required. Furthermore, the input data used in the model (e.g., on phosphorus) should be determined by pre-development, on-site measurements, and then compared with post-development on-site measurements to determine if the stormwater management devices are performing as predicted. This type of analysis, which includes the measurements of on-site data, is currently being carried out by DOT engineers in a sub-basin of the Kensico Reservoir.



• In many site plans, the stormwater pollution prevention plan (SPPP) is added after the site plan has been approved by the lead agency.  Consequently, the stormwater management devices are likely to be sited where most convenient rather than in the most effective manner to prevent pollution. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan  (SPPP) for a development should be included in the overall site plan from the start. [24] Furthermore, all SPPPs should clearly designate the agency responsible for their devices’ maintenance.

Wetlands

Wetlands are valuable resources in the watershed since they help purify the water by absorbing pollutants, controlling floodwaters, and recharging the groundwater aquifers that, in turn, are connected to the streams and reservoirs.

For example, The Great Swamp of Putnam County is a freshwater wetland of approximately 4,800 acres stretching 20 miles along Route 22, through the eastern portion of Putnam County and into Dutchess County.  It is one of the largest freshwater wetlands in New York State. [25]    Located less than 70 miles from New York City, this vast and fragile wetland is an outstanding example of the numerous benefits provided by wetlands. To residents of the Harlem Valley it provides drinking water protection, flood control, recreation, open space, and wildlife habitat.

The south flow of The Great Swamp in Putnam County controls the headwaters of the East Branch Croton Reservoir, whose waters are then connected through a daisy chain of reservoirs (Diverting, Croton Falls and Muscoot) to the New Croton.

Many other albeit smaller [26] wetlands play critical roles in protecting streambanks from erosion, and in preventing pollution from reaching lakes and reservoirs.

These wetlands’ attributes make them key in maintaining high water quality levels and, therefore, it is important to protect them from infringements. Most of the land suitable for development in the Croton Watershed (particularly in Westchester County) has already been built on. Remaining land is marginal and consists largely of wetlands, steep slopes, erodible soils and rock outcroppings. Notwithstanding these obstacles, the attraction of living in Westchester and/or Putnam County and the resulting ever-increasing home prices have induced developers to invest in marginal land. Proposals for development increasingly include applications for building on steep slopes, building access roads through wetlands and buffers, and disposing of sewage in unsuitable soils.

With the average developer having far more money at his disposal than the average small town, the norm is for lead agencies to obtain some mitigation from the developer and then approve the project. The common point of view is that the owner has the right to develop the land as he pleases, within certain restraints. These can range from moderate to severe, depending on the particular town code and the degree to which the lead agency has the will to enforce it. Most often, roads are allowed to traverse a wetland so as to allow the developer access to land where he can build more houses. Filling in even a small percentage of a wetland to construct a road can, nonetheless, have a major impact in terms of interrupting its flow and disrupting its normal hydrology. In all such cases, protecting the public interest by protecting the water supply for 1 million residents [27] should take precedence over the developer realizing maximum profits. We recommend that no wetlands be crossed to allow more development unless there is a feasible way of installing a bridge crossing.

Wetlands protection varies sharply with municipality. A few have strong wetlands ordinances, most have some and a few have none. [28] In the latter case, the town wetlands are regulated by federal and state law.

On January 9, 2001, the US Supreme Court issued the SWANCC (Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County) decision. The Court ruled that the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) lacked statutory authority to regulate what it described as “an abandoned sand and gravel pit in northern Illinois which provides habitat for migrating birds.” The Court held that the Corps could not regulate activities in the non-navigable. isolated, intrastate waters described in the Corps’ definition of “waters of the US” at 33C.F.R.#328.3(a)(3) based solely on the use of such waters for migratory birds pursuant to the “Migratory Bird Rule.” Corps and EPA Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction is limited to “navigable waters” defined in the CWA as “waters of the United States”. As a result, it remains unclear to what extent the Corps and the EPA have continuing CWA jurisdiction over isolated, non-navigable and intrastate waters.

Five months after the Supreme Court SWANCC ruling, the State of Wisconsin passed a law giving the state authority to protect such isolated wetlands from filling and dredging. New York State has yet to pass such legislation. However, on December 5, 2001, Governor Pataki designated the entire EOH Watershed as Critical Resource Waters (CRW), which means significant extra protection for the watershed’s reservoirs, wetlands, streams and tributaries. The NY District of the Army Corps of Engineers approved the designation in January 2002. “Through the designation of Critical Resource Waters, projects and activities in that area are subject to a comprehensive review process under the Army Corps’ Individual Permit Program, which provides for an analysis of alternatives and public review and comment…Activities within the East of Hudson portion of the Watershed that now will be subject to an Individual permit Program review include: residential, institutional and commercial development; outfall structures and maintenance; stormwater management facilities; utility line projects; linear transportation projects; mining; recreational facilities; the maintenance of flood control facilities; and maintenance dredging of existing basins.” The CRW designation includes all wetlands EOH, isolated or not isolated and regardless of size. However, until the SWANCC ruling has been tested in the law courts and, possibly, clarified by the Supreme Court, it will remain unclear whether the Corps has jurisdiction over isolated wetlands. The safeguards against wetlands impacts that are implicit in the Critical Resource Waters designation should be fully enforced by the lead agency during the site plan review of any application where wetlands, or other waterbodies are involved. NYS should supply the legal backup in cases where legal challenges ensue.

Buffers remove soluble nutrients; reduce thermal impacts to streams and waterbodies as well as wetlands; reduce erosion, and provide infiltration, “thereby restoring the chemical, physical and biological integrity of water resources.” [29] Riverkeeper argues for the need for 150-foot buffers. “For water quality improvements, the National Resources Conservation Service recommends 150 feet for forested buffer strips…While recommendations and requirements vary among states and regions, water quality benefits are significant when buffers exceed the minimum 100-foot width.” Based on research by Riverkeeper and others, we support the 150-foot recommendation for forested buffer strips. Within the watershed, 150 feet should be the minimum buffer width. No stormwater management devices should be allowed within buffers – a common practice. Buffers should remain thickly vegetated and not transformed into lawns.

Wetlands’ configurations change with time, induced by changes in flow patterns. For example, runoff from a construction site could increase the size of a nearby wetland, or depletion of the groundwater that supplies neighboring wells could have the opposite effect. Changes in climate will also affect wetlands. For these reasons, at regular intervals, DEC remaps wetlands that are 12.4 acres or over, and others that have special value. A recent remapping proposes to add 3,300 acres to the Croton watershed in Westchester County and 2,400 acres outside the watershed. DEC will undertake a remapping of Putnam County wetlands starting in 2004. Delineating extra wetland areas in the watershed is an important first step towards protecting them. The remapping of Putnam County (and other) wetlands will require DEC-trained staff to enforce the new regulations. Additional staff should be hired as needed.

Wetlands Mitigation

 A report released by the National Research Council states that “Efforts to restore wetlands have made some headway...But in many cases, wetlands are created in areas where they simply can’t thrive or the required compensation actions are poorly designed or carelessly implemented...Up to 20 years may be needed for some restored or created wetland sites to achieve functional goals.” (From the Ohio State University website [30] )

The report outlines several recommendations for stopping the loss of wetlands including:

• creating or restoring mitigation wetlands before filling the original wetland in;
  
• choosing wetland restoration over creation;
  
• designing and constructing individual mitigation sites to maximize the likelihood that they will make an ongoing contribution to the watershed; and
  
• securing the replacement of lost wetland function by providing effective legal and financial assurances for long-term sustainability and also monitoring all compensatory wetland projects.

Other studies agree with these conclusions.

The created wetland can take months, years or even decades to reach “ecological equivalency” with the natural, reference wetland, i.e., the wetland that is being replaced. Furthermore, different components of the mitigation wetland achieve their respective final state over different time periods. Some, possibly, do not ever attain their final equilibrium. We recommend that until the science of wetlands mitigation progresses well beyond the current “hit-or miss” stage, no mitigation be acceptable as a substitute for wetland destruction. At the very least, the presently accepted 5-year monitoring limit should be extended over the entire lifetime of the mitigation wetland.

Forests

In the early nineteen hundreds, most of Croton Watershed land in Westchester and Putnam Counties was farmland. For this purpose, the land had been denuded of trees. Runoff from farms into the local streams resulted in water quality far inferior to present day quality. As farming activity in the area declined the trees gradually reestablished themselves. Today, much of the watershed is thickly covered with second growth forests that should reach maturity before the end of this century. Watershed forests, together with the wetlands, are at the root of the Croton’s extraordinary robustness that has enabled it to withstand the onslaught of development. The role of forests in protecting water quality was recognized as far back as 1929. Unfortunately, as the forests approach maturity, so does their value as lumber. The recognition of the forests’ irreplaceable value in protecting our water is in grave danger of being supplanted by the urge to derive economic benefit by “harvesting” them.

“The State Reforestation Law of 1929 and the Hewitt Amendment of 1931 set forth the legislation which authorized the Conservation Department to acquire land by gift or purchase for reforestation areas. These State Forests, consisting of not less than 500 acres of contiguous land, were to be forever devoted to reforestation and the establishment and maintenance thereon of watershed protection (emphasis added), the production of timber, and for recreation and kindred purposes.” [31] We note here that watershed protection takes first place. However, the original intent of the forest program evolved over the years. The Park and Recreation Land Acquisition Act of 1960, and the Environmental Quality Bond Acts of 1972 and 1986 specified that State Forest Lands “would serve multiple purposes involving the conservation and development of natural resources, including the preservation of scenic areas, watershed protection, forestry and recreation.” Here, watershed protection has been relegated to second place. Even more damaging, tax laws defining the economic uses of forested lands put watershed protection in last place. Under Section 480-a of the Real Property Tax Law resulting from the 2002 Farm Bill, owners may qualify for a tax deduction provided they agree, among other provisions, that “Eligible tracts must be managed primarily for forest crop production. Although other compatible uses, such as forest recreation and watershed management can be allowed.” [32]   Here, watershed protection becomes an afterthought.

How does this change in attitude affect the Croton Watershed and water quality? The effects are already being felt as DEC proposes to “manage” 415 acres of the 1,023 acres it owns on Mt. Nimham in Putnam County. These acres dominate the crest of the mountain at whose foot lies the nearby West Branch Reservoir. During those times when the Kensico Reservoir is unusable (for example, as when the Kensico had to be bypassed in the early 1990s due to high levels of fecal coliform), NYC has to turn largely to the West Branch for its 1.3 BGD water needs.

Despite the critical importance of the West Branch Reservoir and the need to protect it, the project proposal is to cut down up to 60% of the trees on an initial 87-acre plot including the clearcutting of 15 acres. Fire and herbicides will be used to control invasive shrubs. Jeff Wiegert, forester for DEC states: “Forest management promotes the growth of the biggest and best trees, and there is removal of wood which isn’t as hardy. The focus here is on water quality, and managing the forest properly improves the quality of the watershed.” The proposal for Mt. Nimham defies both commonsense and logic. There is no proof whatsoever that clearcutting 15 acres, thinning the forest up to 60% and applying herbicides to clear underbrush will not harm water quality in the nearby reservoir, let alone enhance it. DEC’s emphasis is on the “biggest and best trees”, i.e., those that provide the greatest return as lumber, rather than on providing protection for the reservoir or habitat for the wildlife. We agree with Mr. Wiegert that forests are important for water quality. Not a single tree should be cut down in Putnam County’s Nimham Forest until DEC can prove that its forest management proposal will, as claimed, improve water quality in the West Branch Reservoir.

A 1/8/03 article in the NY Times, by Mike Dombeck, chief of the US Forest Service from 1997 to 2001, entitled The Forgotten Forest Product: Water, clearly states the argument for forest protection: “…water is perhaps the most important forest product. Forests generate most of the water in the country, providing two thirds of all the precipitation runoff – the water that comes from the sky – in the 48 contiguous states….How do forests produce water? The complex array of trees, shrubs, groundcover and roots slows runoff from rain and snow, and water is purified as it percolates through the soil and into aquifers. By slowing runoff, forests also reduce floods and erosion, minimizing the sediment entering streams and rivers. Mature forests do their work best (emphasis added). They have the best soil and their mixed canopy – a mosaic of open and closed spots among the treetops - allows for snowfall accumulation and eventual runoff. Old trees use less water for growth than young trees do. And as intact forests (emphasis added) better regulate water chemistry and temperatures, they enhance habitat for aquatic species (In many streams this means better recreational opportunities such as trout fishing)….New York City has some of the best water in the world because it maintains healthy forests in its Catskill, Delaware and Croton watershed system…”

As forests reach maturity in both the Westchester and Putnam watersheds, there will be a growing urgency for landowners to cut down trees on their property and sell the wood for profit. Unfortunately, this will have long-term negative impacts on water quality. It will not even produce the hoped-for economic benefits. According to the 1994 Unit Management Plan for this region: [33]

“...Nevertheless, only one hour from downtown Manhattan, and serviced by two railroads, two interstate highways and the Taconic parkway, the Unit is easily reachable by well over 100 million people on any given day. As the region’s population continues to grow and more and more open space is lost to development, it is expected that demand for recreational opportunities provided by State lands in the Hudson Highlands Management Unit will become acute.”

Additionally, the same report states that in 1990 in Putnam County recreational fishing generated more than 1.6 million dollars to the local economy. Move those numbers up to today with a much increased local population and add in mountain biking, horseback riding, hunting and the new sense of out-of-doors respect for the land and that number must surely be a very important component of Putnam’s economy. [34]

Fishing, hiking, camping, hunting, cross-country skiing, and horseback riding are recreational activities that already bring revenue to the watershed counties. These sources will disappear if the forests are scarred with tree stumps and the streams are choked with sediment from runoff. The recreational value of preserving the watershed forests should be promoted by DEP as a source of income that easily surpasses the income from logging. At the same time, DEP should educate the public, the local municipalities and the county governments on the irreplaceable value of forests in protecting water quality. [35]

In the more urbanized areas of the watershed, trees are vital in treating stormwater and reducing runoff volume. . “Depending on the species and the soil conditions (both the type of soil and its saturation level), trees can absorb a considerable amount of water. Also, water-polluting nitrates, phosphorus, and potassium, which in many areas are spurring the development of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for receiving waters, are readily absorbed by trees, which consider these substances food. Just how much can trees do to help? According to the American Forests organization (www.americanforests.org), ‘a healthy tree canopy can tremendously reduce stormwater runoff, saving its host city millions of dollars in infrastructure costs…The Windows-compatible CITYgreen software offers modeling capabilities that allow users to compare economic benefits of various site plans by analyzing a site’s ecosystem and producing data on a number of factors: stormwater runoff, air quality, summer energy savings, carbon storage/avoidance, and tree growth…The software compares land cover, the soil complex, and ratio of rainfall to determine projected runoff. In general, the thicker the vegetation on a site, the more the water is inhibited (emphasis added).’” [36] Town planners should be encouraged and helped to incorporate strong tree protection laws into their town codes

Groundwater and Stream Contamination by Pesticides, Pharmaceuticals and Road Salt

The possibility of pharmaceuticals contaminating the reservoirs has been a growing concern. So far, however, DEP has not reported the presence of any pharmaceuticals in NYC tap water.

Pharmaceuticals could be conveyed into the reservoirs from wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) contaminating the streams and from failing septics contaminating the groundwater.

Over 80,000 Westchester County residents use septic systems. According to a recent study commissioned by the Westchester County Department of Planning [37] , 60% of Westchester water that supplies streams and lakes comes from underground but “most municipal planning agencies do not have data on their communities’ underground water tables.” Even well-maintained septics can be overwhelmed by an excess of nonpoint stormwater runoff caused by over-development and imperviousness. The effluent from the septic fields will mix with groundwater and likely attain the streams and reservoirs.

Poorly-maintained septics, are also a threat to water quality. So far, according to the report “Groundwater concentrations or health impacts of such releases are not well understood.”

Under the 1997 Watershed Agreement, all WWTPs in the NYC watershed must be upgraded to tertiary levels, including microfiltration, unless the effluent is diverted to outside the watershed. The effluent from such upgraded plants is of extremely high quality, arguably higher than the water quality in most of the local streams. However, excessive infiltration into the pipes leading to the plant, caused by nonpoint stormwater runoff, can overwhelm the capacity of a plant to treat the sewage resulting in partially treated sewage accessing the streams and reservoirs. DEP should hasten the upgrades of the remaining WWTPs that, so far, have not been upgraded, to microfiltration. DEP should also institute a septic upgrade program for the Croton, similar to its successful septic upgrade program for the Catskill/Delaware watershed.

During the summer of 2000, in cooperation with DEC, the US Geological Survey (USGS) investigated pesticides and pesticide degradates in the Croton Watershed. [38] More than 150 pesticides and their degradates were investigated. Of these, nine had concentrations in excess of 0.10 µg/L (micrograms per liter). These included three insecticides, one fungicide and five herbicides. Only two compounds had concentrations in excess of 1 µg/L – simazine and 2,4-D. Only simazine exceeded the NYS surface water standard of 0.5 µg/L.

Pesticides are among the array of chemicals known as endocrine disrupters. The endocrine system regulates hormones that, among others, regulate reproduction and embryo development, and growth and maturation. Other endocrine disrupters include PCBs, fertilizers, detergents, dioxin, corticosteroids and ammonium perchlorate (even low levels of which may affect fetuses and newborns). [39]

The report states that these results represent baseflow concentrations which, of course, are lower than stormflow concentrations. The highest concentrations corresponded to the highest population densities. The authors attribute this to “urban, residential, and other developed land uses”. DEP should partner with local Conservation Advisory Boards and Garden Clubs to instruct watershed residents on alternative methods of landscaping their property without the use of or, at least, the minimum use of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides.

The report is, however, clear regarding the ill effects of salt spread on the roads during the winter months. Salt is described as one of the major contaminants of groundwater, streams and reservoirs. Up to 298 tons of road salt/lane/mile/year are applied to NYS roads, quite possibly posing a serious threat to the water quality of NYC's drinking water supply and to public health. Salt is also destructive of plant and animal life. There are less harmful alternatives to salt such as potassium acetate (KA) and calcium magnesium acetate (CMA). [40] They have far fewer environmental impacts but are up to twenty times the cost of road salt. We urge the county, state and federal Departments of Transportation to reduce their excessive use of road salt. New technologies such as infrared equipment give truck operators an estimate of road temperature and a better estimate on the amount of salt that is needed. In areas contiguous to drinking water reservoirs, more environmentally benign products such as KA and CMA should be used.

Finally, the aquifers that supply groundwater to municipalities throughout the watershed should be identified, together with their main recharge areas – often the areas lying directly above the aquifer. Covering recharge areas with impervious surfaces will prevent the underlying groundwater from being replenished. The drawing down of groundwater can cause pollutants to be pulled in from the surroundings by over-pumping. Areas that include gas stations, cleanering establishments and other possible sources of pollution should be especially carefully monitored for groundwater contamination. Groundwater resources should be mapped throughout the watershed, and water budgets prepared. In areas that are largely dependent on groundwater to supply their water needs, local municipalities, with the help of DEC, should inventory this resource, and development should be kept within the available groundwater limits. Recharge areas should be kept free of impervious surfaces

Waterfowl Management Program

DEP’s waterfowl management program has been one of its more successful endeavors. Geese, ducks and seagulls find many of the reservoirs to be suitable habitats. This can results in water quality being seriously degraded by fecal coliform. [41]

DEP has used various means to reduce the waterfowl population in the reservoirs, most notably in the Kensico in the early 1990s. DEP has used egg addling, egg piercing, and loud noise to deter the birds. The program has been carried out on the Rondout and Ashokan reservoirs West of Hudson (WOH) and is now being proposed for the West Branch, Croton Falls and Cross River Reservoirs EOH.

Although both Croton Falls and Cross River are officially Croton reservoirs, in times of drought when the Croton is called upon to supply up to 30% of the area’s needs their waters are diverted to the Delaware aqueduct which supplies unfiltered water to the New York City metropolitan area. Therefore, DEP is careful to protect them above and beyond the other reservoirs, even to the point of giving them an AA(T) [42] designation. They are the only Croton reservoirs to be accorded such a high rating other than the New Croton reservoir, which is a source water supplier.

Remaining reservoirs, such as the Amawalk, Muscoot, East Branch etc… are given the lower “A” designation offering less protection since, according to DEC, this is deemed sufficient for reservoirs that supply water that is to be chemically treated and filtered. [43]

DEP should extend to all Croton Watershed reservoirs that need it an effective program to protect them from waterfowl pollution.

Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades or Diversion

New York State allows treated sewage effluent to be discharged into its drinking water reservoirs. Under the MOA regulations, this effluent has to be treated to tertiary levels with microfiltration or dual sand filtration. Such treatment will guarantee extremely high water quality that will improve the quality of degraded streams. In other words, the sewage plant discharge will, in many cases, be of higher quality than the water of the stream into which it is being discharged.

Sewage effluent carries with it dissolved phosphorus that is readily taken up to form algae. The MOA regulations require that the phosphorus levels in effluent be extremely low. [44]

DEP has carried out the upgrades for its wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) that discharge into Cat/Dal reservoirs. However, it has lagged in carrying out a similar program for its Croton WWTPs. Here, the emphasis has been on diverting the raw sewage to the Peekskill and Yonkers WWTPs on the Hudson. The diversion project has been under scrutiny by the Westchester County Department of Planning and the Northern Westchester Watershed Towns for 5 years. In the meantime, proponents of WWTP upgrades rather than diversion have succeeded in convincing the Westchester County Board of Legislators to conduct a study on upgrades to the same level of detail as diversion. The proposed $500,000 study awaits approval by DEP.

After completion of the study, the alternatives of diversion vs. upgrades will be compared and evaluated in terms of their efficacy in protecting the reservoirs from pollution.

We recommend that a non-segmented, comprehensive study of the effects of upgrades and/or diversion on Westchester County’s environment, development patterns, demographics and economy be carried out prior to deciding which path to follow: diversion or upgrades of WWTPs and individual septics, with a special emphasis on the growth-inducing potentials of each.

Protection of the Croton Water Supply is Incomplete Without Infrastructure Repairs

Without effective watershed protection, no chemical treatment/filtration plant will be capable of reliably providing safe drinking water.  However, of equal importance is the condition of the infrastructure that delivers the water to the consumer. This should be the subject of a separate intensive study since, at the moment, it is unclear where the problems with Croton water, such as color and turbidity, truly originate.

The contents of two FOILs [45] initiated by CWCWC  lend support to the opinion that

• many of the pipes in 100-year-old Croton distribution are leaking, and their interior walls are coated with layers of deposit, and
  
• the New Croton Aqueduct is being infiltrated by contaminated groundwater, due to the ‘weep-holes’ that line it at 20-foot intervals, and also to its state of disrepair.

While it is not clear from the Morris Park study whether the distribution system is partially or wholly responsible for the coloration of water in that area, yet the need for frequent flushing of the pipes indicates a problem that requires further investigation. The threats to drinking water posed by ancient, leaking distribution pipes are well recognized by leading experts in the field. “Risks from distribution systems may be more important than risks from inadequately treated water – e.g.; sewer lines adjacent to distribution system lines may be a much bigger issue than poor quality source water, depending upon how well the distribution system is managed. The distribution system is a contributor, possibly greater on the East Coast, because the systems are older.” [46]

Our recommendation is to institute an effective watershed management program along the lines that we have proposed along with needed repairs of the Croton’s ancient infrastructure that includes both the aqueduct and the distribution system. We believe that if these measures are carried out, the problems with Croton water will no longer require for their solution the massive chemical treatment/filtration plant that is now being proposed.

[1] NYC Department of Environmental Protection Extended Special Study Program Report, November 1997, page 3-5.

[2] Reports on giardia and cryptosporidium concentrations in the three reservoir systems may be accessed at www.ci.nyc.ny.us/dep

[3] Ibid. New York City’s Water Supply System – Cryptosporidium and Giardia Background Information and Monitoring Program, pp.2 &3.

[4] NYC Watershed Phase I Total Maximum Daily Loads/Watershed Allocations/Load Allocations for Phosphorus in the Croton River System, Jack Douglas Smith, Ph.D. An algal biomass is described by the chemical formula 12C107 1H263 16O110 14N15 31P1 according to which 1 lb. of P can trigger 113.5 lbs. of algae. P is regarded as the limiting factor in the promotion of algae in fresh water systems.

[5] Watershed Management for Potable Water Supply: Assessing New York City’s Approach, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., p. 164.

[6] AN ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT TECHNIQUE FOR A PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SUPPLY – CROTON WATERSHED WATER SUPPLY, NEW YORK CITY, by Ripple Engineering, P.C., James W. Roberts, P.E., February 2002 (unpublished)

[7] Watershed Management for Potable Water Supply, p. 280.

[8] The New York Times/Westchester, Tina Kelley, December 14, 2003.

[9] Nonpoint Source Implementation of Phase II TMDLs, April 2001 – Prepared by  the NYC Department of Environmental Protection and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation. Note: TMDL is the acronym for Total Maximum Daily Load.

[10] See footnote #5, page 79

[11] The ABCs of Water-Quality Assessment in Georgia by Catherine A. Fox and Charles B. Absher, Stormwater, March/April 2002, pp. 10-22.

[12]   A Study of Stormwater Conveyances as Point Sources of Pollution in the East of Hudson Watershed, New York City Drinking Water Supply, 2001 by John Keane, Clifford Ginn, Vincent Keane

[13] Communication from Marc Yaggi, Senior Attorney at Riverkeeper, December 31, 2003.

[14] EPA – Storm Water Phase II Final Rule,  An Overview – Fact Sheet 1.0

[15]   EPA – Storm Water Phase II Final Rule, Small Construction Program Overview – Fact Sheet 3.0

[16] See Footnote No. 5, pages 319 and 320.

[17]   Some of the most toxic, carcinogenic pollutants such as motor oil, grease, lead, nickel, cyanide and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) are swept into streams and reservoirs during storm events. (see: Urban Sprawl Leaves its PAH Signature, by P.C. Van Meter, B.J. Mahler, E.T. Furlong – Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 34, No. 19, 2000, pp. 4064 – 4070. The DEP concedes that “…a filtration plant does not effectively remove some pollutants…A number of the contaminants …cannot be eliminated or completely controlled through filtration (i.e. petroleum products and hazardous substances).”

[18] See Footnote #5, page 269.

[19] Where Rivers are Born – The Scientific Imperative for Defending Small Streams and Wetlands – www.sierraclub.org/cleanwater/reports_factsheets.

[20] We use the term “sub-drainage basin” here to indicate a sub-unit of the development’s total watershed. Similar to the watershed that comprises it, the sub-drainage basin is a unit of land on which the water that collects on it runs off via a common outlet.

[21] Porous Asphalt Pavement with Recharge Beds: 20 Years and Still Working”, by Michelle C. Adams, Stormwater, May/June 2003, pp. 24-32.

[22] Predicting Pollutant Loading Through the Use of Models – A Supplement to the Watershed Planning Handbook for the Control of Nonpoint Source Pollution, November 1994. Prepared By: NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and NYS Soil and Water Conservation Committee.

[23] Ibid.

[24] DOT’s Plan for Route 120 - Will it Protect the Drinking Water for 9 Million People? CWCWC Letter to the Editor of the Journal News, 5/17/2000

[25]   A Guidebook to the Great Swamp of Putnam and Dutchess Counties, New York, Published by the Nature Conservancy for Communities of the Great Swamp Watershed, 1996

[26] See footnote No. 20. The report explains that small streams and wetlands provide multiple benefits such as protecting water quality, maintaining water supplies, providing natural flood control and maintaining biological diversity, by being linked to the larger system of wetlands through groundwater connections.

[27] Croton water supplies over 2 million residents of the Greater NYC Metropolitan area in times of drought.

[28] The Regulation and Protection of Wetlands Within the New York City Watershed: A Report for Policy-Makers and Concerned Citizens, July 23, 1999. By James M. Tierney, NYC Watershed Inspector General.

[29] Letter from Marc Yaggi @ Riverkeeper to Bedford Town Supervisor John Dinin & Members of the Town Board – Letter dated May14, 2003, Re Draft Comprehensive Plan.

[30] 2/16/00 DO MITIGATED WETLANDS REALLY WORK? ONLY TIME WILL TELL, Columbus, Ohio - Are man-made wetlands really as good as the real thing?

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/wetlands.htm - size 8.6K

[31] Hudson Highlands Unit Management Plan, May 1994 – Prepared by NYSDEC Division of Lands and Forests.

[32] New York State DEC Forest Tax Law brochure, 2002

[33] Update on Saving Mount Nimham,  posted on PlanPutnam web-site, November 12, 2003.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Ibid.

[36] TREES – The Oldest New Thing in Stormwater Treatment? By Janis Keating, Stormwater, March/April 2002, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 56-61.

[37]   County Studies Water Quality, by Roger Witherspoon, The Journal News, June 9, 2003

[38]   Concentrations of Pesticides and Pesticide Degradates in the Croton River Watershed in Southeastern New York, July-September 2000, by Patrick J. Phillips and Robert W. Bode, Report 02-4063.

[39] Endocrine Disrupters – What are they doing to you? By Kathy Jesperson – On Tap Magazine, Winter 2003

[40]   Environmental Impacts of Road Salt and Alternatives in the New York City Watershed, William Wegner and Marc Yaggi,  Stormwater, July/August 2001, pp 24-31.

[41] The Waterfowl Management Program Draft Environmental Impact Statement ,October 30, 2003; www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/dep/html/news/depnewsframeset.html

[42] See footnote 43 for a definition of the AA designation. AA(T) means that in addition to fulfilling the AA criteria,  the stream is also suitable for trout propagation.

[43] NYSCRR Title 6, Chapter X  # 701.5 Class AA fresh surface waters – (a)The best usages of Class AA waters are: a source of water supply for drinking…(b) This classification may be given to those waters that, if subjected to approved disinfection treatment…will be considered safe and satisfactory for drinking water purposes.  NYSCRR Title 6, Chapter X # 701.6 (a) The best usages of Class AA waters are: a source of water supply for drinking… (b) This classification may be given to those waters that, if subjected to approved treatment equal to coagulation, sedimentation, filtration and disinfection, with additional treatment if necessary to reduce naturally present impurities…will be considered safe and satisfactory for drinking water purposes (emphasis added).

[44] New York City Watershed WWTP Upgrade Program – Town of Yorktown, May 2000 – Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc., page 1-2: “Additionally, based on the SPDES permitted flow of 1.5 mgd, the Yorktown WPCP must meet an effluent phosphorous concentration of 0.2µg/L (30-Day average)”

[45]  

1. Letter dated January 12, 2001 from Charlotte Abo-Comitini, Records Access Officer at DEP, detailing the reasons for Croton Aqueduct Shutdowns from 1996 to 2001. Apart from a prolonged shutdown in the aftermath of Tropical Storm Floyd, there was only one week (9/14/98 – 9/21/98) during which the aqueduct was shut down for water quality reasons. All other shutdowns were due to spill remediation, inspection or sampling. The longest shutdown was due to infiltration of cleaning fluid into the system, south of Jerome Park Reservoir (from 6/15/00 to 2001). A chemical treatment/filtration plant sited even as far south as JPR would be unable to treat the water
   .
2. Letter dated March 14, 2003 from Frank Feigherty, Chief, Records Retention and Correspondence Unit at DEP.  The letter details the work done on the water distribution pipes within a 1/2-mile radius of the Morris Park area in the Bronx. A CBS broadcast purported to show that dirty water at Morris Park during Ocotober, 2002 was originated in the Croton reservoirs. The FOIL showed that during a nearly six-week period from mid-September 2002 through most of Ocotober 2002, there were close to 40 incidents when hydrants needed flushing due to dirty water. There was also a main break.

[46]  Mark LeChevallier, American Water Works Service Co. Inc., remarks made at EPA Stage 2 Microbial/Disinfection Byproducts Health Effects Workshop in Washington, DC, February 12, 1999, as summarized in the Final Meeting Summary, June 1999.