EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

We are proposing an effective Croton Watershed Management Plan (Plan) that provides a cohesive program in response to the current inadequate and insufficient programs proposed by the NYC Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in their White Paper of May 23, 2003. It is our position that the signatories of the 1997 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) bear the responsibility to maintain the high quality of Croton water. Our management plan is a reflection of that position. It offers a series of recommendations for strong, meaningful, watershed protection, the core of any program that purports to deliver safe, clean and affordable drinking water to New Yorkers.

Almost seven years since the signing of the MOA, despite official neglect, lack of infrastructure rehabilitation, lackadaisical enforcement, disparity in allocation of funds for Watershed Protection vis-a-vis the Catskill/Delaware, and threats to its resiliency due to overdevelopment, the Croton continues to meet all federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), DEP, city and state standards for unfiltered drinking water. The high quality of Croton water can be attributed to the Croton’s natural “immune system” - a combination of a profusion of wetlands, glacial till left over from 10,000 years ago when the area was covered with a mile-thick deposit of ice, and abundant reforestation after the gradual disappearance of farming which began in the early 20th century. The Croton’s mere 380 square miles includes over half the wetlands in New York City’s close to 2000- square mile watershed. And yet, as this proposal will demonstrate, it is this “immune system” that is being compromised as town and planning boards in the Croton Watershed routinely approve development proposals and issue variances to developers that devastate wetlands, infringe on wetland buffers, pollute streams and destroy forests. These insults to the Croton’s “immune system” compromise its ability to filter out particulates and dissolved phosphorous carried by stormwater runoff originating from impervious surfaces. Indeed, according to an April, 2001 report prepared jointly by the DEP and DEC, over 85% of phosphorous found in reservoirs originates from these non-point sources.

The Plan analyzes the impacts on water quality. It offers suggestions on how to minimize those impacts so that the Croton Watershed will continue to supply high quality water that will need minimal treatment in order to comply with future federal regulations.

The Plan is based on the premise that Croton water is high quality and that it can be improved even further by implementing the various components of the program.

Land Acquisition –

“Purchasing private land is one of the most important nonstructural tools used to protect a watershed.” This statement by the National Research Council echoes the beliefs but not the actions of the regulators of the Croton watershed.

The startling contrast between DEP land purchases in the Croton and the Catskill/Delaware (Cat/Del) reflects how commitment to watershed protection can be undermined by the mere prospect of chemical treatment/filtration for the water - Cat/Del at $250 million versus an original $17.5 million for the Croton, recently augmented by $25 million.

Of the total 243,000 acres of the Croton Watershed, 25% or 60,750 acres must be protected in order to fulfill EPA’s requirements for filtration avoidance. Yet, according to Putnam County records, since 1998 DEP acquisitions have occurred in the West Branch/Boyds Corner watershed of the Cat/Del, leaving 28,150 acres unprotected. Since 1997, the total land acquired in Putnam and Westchester has been a slim 443 acres at a cost of $7.4 million. By contrast, during the same period the City has acquired a total of 31,132 acres in the Cat/Del.

We recommend that within the next three years, the City should set a goal to protect, either by outright purchase, alone or in partnership, or though conservation easements, at least half of the 28,000 acres that still need protection. With public sentiment running high against development, with residents in Westchester willing to expend tax dollars for preservation and with county officials in Putnam disposed to use of East of Hudson (EOH) funds for land acquisition, the City would find the strong moral and financial support among the citizenry and the political will among its public officials that would make such protection a reality.

Stormwater runoff from nonpoint sources –

Stormwater runoff carries with it a heavy load of phosphorus, 85% of which originates from nonpoint sources. Stormwater runoff increases with imperviousness: as little as 10% imperviousness can cause streambank erosion. Headwater streams make up at least 80% of the nation’s stream network, therefore watershed protection should begin at the small stream level rather than allow these to be eroded and sediment carried downstream to be treated in large stormwater devices.

Site specific data should be used when estimating pollutant removal capabilities of proposed stormwater abatement devices. Site specific data should also be used as input to the pre-development contaminant levels of the land. Levels of phosphorus runoff should be kept at pre-development levels or below, in order to comply with the local Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program. Active involvement by DEP and NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is essential in assisting town lead agencies to review site plans.

Wetlands –

Wetlands are invaluable resources in the watershed, purifying water by absorbing pollutants, controlling floodwaters, and recharging the groundwater aquifers that, in turn, are connected to the streams and reservoirs. New York State’s third largest wetland, The Great Swamp of Putnam County a freshwater wetland of approximately 4,800 acres, stretching 20 miles along Route 22 through eastern portion of Putnam and into Dutchess County, controls the headwaters of the East Branch Croton Reservoir whose waters are connected through a daisy chain of reservoirs: the Diverting, Croton Falls and Muscoot). Ninety-five percent privately owned, The Great Swamp is threatened by residential and commercial development on an unprecedented level.

On Dec. 5, 2001, Governor Pataki designated the entire East of Hudson Watershed as Critical Resource Waters (CRW) with the Army Corps of Engineers approving the designation in January 2002. All waterbodies in the area including The Great Swamp, will be the beneficiaries of this extra protection.

On January 9, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered the SWANCC (Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County) decision. The Court ruled that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers lacked statutory authority to regulate activities in non-navigable, isolated intrastate water. The ruling is being challenged. Therefore, whether the CRW designation includes isolated wetlands remains to be decided in the courts.

We recommend that the safeguards against wetland impacts that are implicit in the CRW designation should be fully enforced by the lead agency during the site plan review of any application where wetlands, or other water bodies are involved.

Wetland buffers remove soluble nutrients; reduce thermal impacts to streams and water bodies as well as wetlands; reduce erosion, and provide infiltration thereby restoring the chemical, physical and biological integrity of water resources. According to the National Conservation Service, water quality benefits are significant when buffers exceed minimum of 100 feet and 150 feet for forested buffer strips. Based on research by Riverkeeper who has strongly argued for the 150 ft standard, we recommend that buffers should remain thickly vegetated, that 150 feet should be the minimum width and that stormwater devices be prohibited within buffers.

Wetlands Mitigation -

Until the success rate in man-made wetlands mitigation is much improved, we recommend that mitigation not be an option that allows for the destruction of natural wetlands.

Forests –

Watershed forests, together with the wetlands, are at the root of the Croton’s extraordinary robustness that enables it to withstand the insults and assaults perpetuated by development. Laws originally promulgated such as The State Reforestation Law of 1929 and the Hewitt Amendment of 1931 that gave primacy to reforestation as a significant watershed protection measure have slowly evolved relegating watershed protection to an afterthought. Through the Park and Recreation Land Acquisition Act of 1960 and the Environmental Quality Bond Acts of 1972 and 1986 reforestation now included multiple purposes such as recreation, the preservation of scenic areas and then watershed protection. Compounding the de-emphasis on watershed protection, 480-a of the Real Property Tax Law resulting from the 2002 Farm Bill, gave landowners license to view their forests as crop production.

DEC is now proposing to add Mt. Nimham in Kent as part of its Model Forest Plan, clear cutting 15 acres and selectively cutting an additional 60 acres on an initial 87-acre plot of the “biggest and best trees” i.e. those that provide the biggest return as lumber, rather than on providing protection for the reservoir or habitat for wildlife.

Therefore, we recommend that the DEC Mt. Nimham proposal be tabled until the DEC can prove that its proposal will improve water quality in the West Branch, as claimed. Additionally, we recommend that town planers should be encouraged and given technical assistance in incorporating strong tree protection laws into their town codes.

Groundwater and stream contamination -

Pharmaceuticals could contaminate the streams and reservoirs because of failure to upgrade wastewater treatment plants to tertiary levels including microfiltration. Septics should also be inspected on a regular basis and repaired or replaced as needed. Contamination can also reach the streams and reservoirs through stormwater runoff that carries with it pesticides and lawn fertilizers. Excessive use of road salt is also a threat to the integrity of the water. So far, no pharmaceuticals have been detected in NYC tap water.

Waterfowl Management Program –

Although one of the DEP’s most successful programs, it nevertheless falls short of the mark. In order to comply with EPA mandates for 2002 Filtration Avoidance for the Catskill/Delaware system and to reduce the potential for waterfowl to serve as a source of human pathogens to the New York City water supply,the DEP has embarked on a program to minimize fecal coliform loads resulting from birds roosting on the reservoirs during the migratory and winter seasons. DEP has expanded the pogram beyond that of the Kensico Reservoir to five additional City reservoirs: Rondout, Ashokan, West Branch, Croton Falls, and Cross River. However, although both Croton Falls and Cross River are official 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 New York City’s metropolitan area. In order to maximize protection for these reservoirs, the DEP has accorded them its highest rating, a AA(T) designation, leaving the other Croton reservoirs Amawalk, Muscoot and East Branch with the lower “A” designation offering less protection.

Therefore, we recommend that DEP equalize protection and expand their Waterfowl Management Plan to all reservoirs that need it.

Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) upgrades or diversion -

A non-segmented, comprehensive study of the effects of upgrades and/or diversion on Westchester County’s environment, development patterns, demographics and economy should 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.

Infrastructure Repairs –

Although not intrinsic components of the Watershed, the New Croton Aqueduct and the Croton distribution system in the City itself have a critical role in maintaining water quality. Known, numerous leaks in the Aqueduct and the state of disrepair of the ancient pipes in the distribution system will undoubtedly contribute to the sometime color and turbidity problems of Croton water. Rehabilitating the Aqueduct and the distribution system, as well as instituting our proposed watershed management program would be wise moves prior to determining whether the proposed massive, costly, environmentally harmful chemical treatment/ filtration plant is really necessary. We are confident that if these programs are carried out, DEP will conclude that a far lesser enterprise will suffice to comply with the future EPA regulations pertaining to drinking water quality criteria.

Please sign on to this Management Plan

If your organization approves of this Management Plan we would appreciate your signing
on to it by filling out this form. Then email it to us at CWCWC simply by clicking "Send"!