RESPONSE TO PUBLIC INPUT
ON THE NEW YORK STATE/EPA
AGREEMENT
-------
AGREEMENT ON THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW YORK STATE'S
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW
YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION AND THE REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR, -REGION II, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.
The Regional Administrator of Region II of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Commissioner of the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) do
hereby enter into an agreement for the development and implementation
of New York State's Water Quality Management Program.
SCOPE OF AGREEMENT
The Scope of the Agreement consists of the following:
(a) The March 28, 1978 draft agreement document.
(b) Responses to public input on the New York State/EPA
Agreement. The responses override some portions of the
draft agreement document and also indicate areas in the
agreement document that will be changed in the annual
update.
(c) Summary of Funding Priorities - This contains funding
amounts, sources and intended uses of nearly $600 million
of Federal and State funds. The funds are subject to
State and Federal budgetary processes.
BACKGROUND
On March 28, 1978 a draft agreement was initialed by both agency
heads and submitted to fourteen public meetings and four public
hearings. A great amount of interest was expressed and many comments
were received. The comments have been carefully reviewed and analyzed
and a response document has been prepared. NYSDEC has also completed
tables that establish the timing, costs and sources of funding for
the activities presented in the agreement. EPA is reviewing the
tables and, when approved, the tables will be included as part of
the first update to the agreement.
NATURE OF AGREEMENT
The Agreement provides a firm guide for the many program grant plans
developed and underway in this fiscal year and for those under
preparation now for the approaching fiscal year.
The State/EPA Agreement shall be interpreted to be consistent with
Federal and State Statutes and Regulations. To the extent the
Agreement is inconsistent with Federal and State Statutes and
Regulations, the Agreement shall not apply.
-------
2.
This agreement shall take effect upon execution by both parties and
remain in effect for one year unless terminated in whole or in part
by either party, provided that thirty days written notice is_given
by the party initiating such termination to the other party, or
until it is rescinded by mutual agreement.
MODIFICATION
This agreement shall be amended as necessary on an annual basis.
This agreement may be amended at any time by formal written
agreement of both parties.
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Peter A. A. Berle
Commissioner
Date :
/
Envi
al Protection Agency
fckardt C.~"Beck
Regional Administrator
Date:
-------
INTRODUCTION
A significant amount of public comment has been received on the draft
New York State/EPA Agreement. The comment falls in three categories:
1. Input received at public meetings held in each
of the six designated and eight non-designated areas
of the State.
2. Testimony received at the public hearings held in
Buffalo, Rochester, Albany and New York City.
3- Written comments on the Agreement sent to EPA and NYSDEC.
This document presents a summary of the public comment which was
received, and describes how the Agreement has been or will be modified
to respond to it. It should be emphasized that the summary of public
comment does not attempt to restate all the comments which were
received. Comments were grouped by topic, analyzed, and briefly
paraphrased. The total public record is cited in Appendix A and is
available for review at the EPA New York Office and the NYSDEC Albany office.
It is our position that this careful review analysis and response to the
public comment finalizes this first attempt at preparing a comprehensive
State/EPA Agreement. It should be noted that public comment was solicited
and welcomed, and that the public suggestions will result in substantial
improvements to the Agreement in the next update. The Agreement will be
modified on a continuing basis. The preparation of next year's Agreement
will begin in February-March, almost as this draft is completed.
-------
General Comments
Public reaction to the draft NYS-EPA Agreement was mixed. Many reviewers
commended the state and EPA for developing such a comprehensive water
quality management tool, and applauded the Agreement as a valid attempt
to integrate programs under the Clean Water Act and other federal and
state legislation. Other reviewers objected to adoption of the Agreement
in its present form, citing insufficient public participation in developing
the Agreement and the absence of a specific role for local government in
implementing it.
Comments were received on a wide range of subjects. Subsequent sections of
this chapter will deal with specific comments on technical subjects. But
before those issues are addressed, there is a need to respond to the general
philosophical and procedural comments made by reviewers. This section attempts
to do that, although its exclusion of the many positive and favorable comments
received makes it less than representative of the general reaction to the
draft Agreement.
For the sake of clarity, we have divided the general comments into five,
somewhat overlapping categories: Public Participation and Review Procedures,
Intergovernmental Cooperation, Purpose and Scope of the Agreement, Priorities,
and Implementation.
Public Participation and Review Procedures
Largely because the NYS-EPA Agreement was the first comprehensive Agreement
of its kind developed in any state, certain logistical problems were apparent.
The public complained that there were not enough copies available for review,
and that when copies were obtained, review was made difficult by the sheer
volume of the document and the extraordinarily detailed fashion in which it
was written. The public also questioned the rather formal and finished
appearance of the Agreement, believing that even though it was labeled a draft,
the state and EPA would be reluctant to make substantial changes in it.
Central to all of these issues is the unprecedented nature of the NYS-EPA
Agreement. When it was begun, there were no previous agreements or published
procedures to guide its development. There was no way to predict the size
of the finished document or the level of public interest it would generate.
As it turned out, insufficient funds were available for printing, and only 500
copies of the 800-page draft Agreement were produced. The limited supply
was distributed as fairly as possible; copies were sent to state agencies,
regional planning boards, local officials, and selected private and public
interest organizations. In addition, copies were made available for loan
or onsite review at each of the nine regional DEC offices and at major
public libraries across the state.
Both the state and EPA realize that the length of the document and its
rather detailed style are drawbacks to widespread distribution and public
review of the Agreement. In the future, as suggested by several reviewers,
the state and EPA will prepare an Executive Summary for general distribution
-------
-2-
and will make the complete text available for reference at key locations.
This is one way to encourage a high degree of public participation, which
is a prime objective of both the state and EPA.
Another key to public participation was the series of fourteen public
meetings and four public hearings held on the draft Agreement. Although
a concerted effort was made to alert all interested parties to these
meetings and hearings, some reviewers felt that the notification procedure
was inadequate. Further, they felt that the confusion arising from inadequate
notification, added to the already mentioned difficulties in obtaining copies
of the draft Agreement, cut into the public review period to such an extent
that a thorough review was impossible within the established timeframe.
The public notice procedure followed by DEC and EPA consisted of mailing
notices directly to approximately 10,000 individuals and groups known, or
thought, to be interested in the draft Agreement. Notifications were published
in several newsletters, including DEC'S Environment, EPA's Region II Report,
and many of the 208 agency newsletters. With a grant from EPA, the Center
for Environmental Information conducted a public information campaign of
modest size. In addition, a press release was issued before the start of
the public hearings.
Despite the large number of notices distributed, confusion did exist, and
DEC and EPA decided to extend the review period beyond the close of the last
public hearing. The review period was rescheduled to close on August 15, 1978,
However, all comments received, regardless of their date, were accepted.
The problems encountered in coordinating the public participation aspect of
the draft Agreement led reviewers to suggest improvements. Some reviewers
were concerned that since the draft Agreement went to public review missing
certain chapters, namely those on Air and Other Environmental Programs, there
would be no further opportunity for public participation in the development
of the remainder of the Agreement. These reviewers noted that full public
involvement in all parts of the Agreement is essential. Other reviewers
went further, recommending that the Agreement not be signed until a model
public participation program is developed and reviewed by citizens.
The need for full public involvement in the development of the Agreement is
acknowledged. As with all elements of the Agreement, the chapters omitted
from the draft Agreement because of their preliminary status will not be
added until the opportunity for full public involvement has been afforded.
However, nothing is to be gained by delaying signing of the Agreement
pending development of a model public participation program. Ongoing pro-
grams covered in the Agreement require guidance now. Moreover, public
involvement has not been absent from the development process. In September
1977, when work on the Agreement began, a meeting was held to solicit input
to the Agreement from representatives of the six designated areawide planing
agencies in New York and from the state, along with public advisory committees
in the non-designated portions of New York. The Citizens' Union has also
-------
-3-
been active in the development process, serving as a Clearing-house for
several public interest groups in critiquing the Agreement from its earliest
draft stage. The public hearings and the request for written comments on
the draft Agreement were intended to bring the Agreement to the attention
of the general public as well as the special interest groups.
Considering the pilot program status of this Agreement, the level of public
response has been encouraging. However, the state and EPA agree that there
is room for improvement. The NYS-EPA Agreement was the first attempt at
comprehensive state-federal water quality management planning, and to a
large extent, the details of what an Agreement should cover and who should
be involved in its preparation evolved along with the Agreement. The
experience gained during preparation of the NYS-EPA Agreement has been used
in revising and codifying EPA's Water Quality Management Regulations (40 CFR,
Part 35). When these regulations are published in final form or provided
in the form of guidance, they will constitute standard procedures for develop-
ing all future state-EPA Agreements. Some reviewers suggested that the
Agreement was not in conformance with these draft regulations. The agreement
which is in conformance with existing regulations (40 CFR, Parts 130 and 131)
and with the spirit and intent of those proposed, will be kept current with
revisions as they occur. Moreover, the opportunity for public participation
in the Agreement does not end with its initial signing. The Agreement is
an ongoing process, subject to renegotiation annually. Next year, public
involvement will begin at the earliest stage of development of the update
to the/Agreement.
Apart from the federal regulations to which the Agreement is subject, some
reviewers maintain that the Agreement should also be subject to the environ-
mental assessment requirements of New York's State Environmental Quality
Review Act (SEQR). This will be considered in the next update of the Agree-
ment.
Intergovernmental Cooperation
Closely related to the public participation concerns voiced by reviewers
were their concerns about the role of local and regional agencies in
developing the draft Agreement. Many reviewers felt that the lack of a
significant local role in developing the Agreement impaired its effectiveness,
and some of these reviewers contended that the Agreement should not be signed
until it was revised to reflect local priorities.
Most of the concern and confusion centered on the role of areawide planning
agencies and the relationship between 208 water quality management plans and
the Agreement. Reviewers pointed out that EPA's proposed water quality
management regulations will, when published, require full participation of
designated areawide planning agencies in the development of state-EPA
Agreements. Reviewers also pointed out that the 208 plans being developed
by the areawide planning agencies should govern the program strategies set
-------
-4-
forth in the Agreement, particularly the program strategies for nonpoint
source control.
One reason this relationship was questioned is that the 208 plans have not
yet been adopted, certified, and approved. When the certification and
approval process is complete, the 208 plans will form the basis for revising
the Agreement, as descriped in Chapter 3B. Therefore, the program strategies
in the Agreement will indeed be governed by the 208 plans. The descriptions
in Chapter 3B will be expanded to further clarify the relationship between
208 plans and the Agreement.
Beyond questions about the relationship between the Agreement and areawide
planning, many reviewers expressed concern about the implications of the
Agreement for individual localities. This is understandable since the
Agreement is not now area-specific. The draft Agreement does establish
the framework and set the priorities for development and implementation of
the state's water quality management program. However, the state and EPA
recognize the need to make the Agreement fully responsive to local needs,
and will therefore take the following steps:
1) Working with the designated areawide planning agencies, DEC will
start to define the program development needs and responsibilities
in each of the six designated planning areas and in the non-
designated portion of the state. The result of this will form
the basis for revising Chapter 2C of the NYS-EPA Agreement.
2) As the 208 water quality management plans are adopted certified,
and approved, they will define the roles and responsibilities
for implementing the state's water quality management program
in both the designated and non-designated planning areas. These
will then be reflected in revisions to the Agreement.
Although the principal responsibility for water quality management programs
in New York State rests with DEC and EPA, certain other agencies administer
programs involving both water quality managment planning and implementation.
Several reviewers thought that these agencies should participate in the
development of the Agreement in proportion to their involvement in water
quality management. The Delaware River Basin Commission, the New York
State Department of Health, and the New York State Department of Transpor-
tation are three such agencies. They have each proposed modifications
to the Agreement to reflect their water quality management responsibilities,
and appropriate modifications will be made in the next Agreement.
Not only the activities of other agencies, but those of other contiguous
states could have a bearing on the programs and strategies outlined in the
Agreement. Both the state and EPA agree with reviewers that a discussion
of interjurisdictional, especially interstate, issues should be added to
the Agreement. Chapter 3A will be modified accordingly.
-------
-5-
Purpose and Scope of the Agreement
Most reviewers welcomed the idea of a coordinated state-federal approach
to water quality management. However, some reviewers felt that the funds
expended in developing the Agreement would have been better spent in
implementing solutions to water quality problems. These reviewers argued
that an increasingly disproportionate amount of the available pollution
control funds is being spent on costly planning, administrative, and
regulatory programs that produce no immediate return in the way of water
quality improvements.
While it is true that planning and management concepts have assumed greater
importance in the pollution control field in recent years, this is simply
a reflection of the experience gained with various operational programs.
Effective planning is essential not only to set the direction for the
operational programs but also to eliminate duplication of effort and to
use the available funds to best advantage. Program implementation receives
by far the largest portion of the available pollution control funds. The
funds expended on developing the NYS-EPA Agreement are comparatively small
and become even less significant when considered in light of the potential
water quality benefits.
Other reviewers, while they did not question the expenditure of funds on
the Agreement, objected to the Agreement's multi-year funding commitments.
These reviewers recommended that the Agreement be developed using annual
zero-base budgeting techniques.
First of all, the Agreement does not contain multi-year funding commitments,
but five-year funding estimates. This is in line with the current EPA
regulations governing water quality management; the regulations require a
level of detail and timing of water quality management plans to comply with
the Clean Water Act (40 CFR, 130.11). The regulations also require a state
strategy for preventing and controlling water pollution over a five-year
period (40 CFR, 130.20). Thus the five-year timeframe is not only useful
from the standpoint of effective planning, but also entirely consistent
with the applicable regulations. Actual funding commitments, via grant
contracts, cover only one year's activities.
Secondly, zero-base budgeting is only one of the many cost analysis techni-
ques available, and perhaps not the most appropriate technique for use in
the Agreement. However, cost-benefit analyses are being done through the
various implementing programs, as described below.
Those who did not object to the Agreement on principle did, nevertheless,
have numerous suggestions for improving it. Most of these suggestions
involved expanding the Agreement to cover issues, related to, or affected
by, water quality management.
-------
-6-
One suggestion that the state and EPA intend to adopt is that the Agreement
begin with an environmental policy statement similar to the Water Resources
Council's principles of environmental management. Another suggestion
that will be followed is the expansion of Chapter 3B to describe in greater
detail the process for updating the Agreement, especially in light of EPA's
proposed water quality management regulations.
Many reviewers disagreed with the state and EPA's decision to present the
draft Agreement without the chapters on Air and Other Environmental Programs.
These chapters were deferred because of their preliminary status. Provision
of the water quality management guidance contained in the Agreement would
have been unacceptably delayed if publication were held up pending inclusion
of these two chapters. However, the NYS-EPA Air Agreement is currently being
developed. When both the Air and Water Agreements are completed, an Air/Water
Interface Chapter will be added to each. It may be possible to develop the
chapter on Other Environmental Programs in time for inclusion in the first
update of the Agreement.
The economic implications of the Agreement generated a great deal of
interest. Reviewers wanted to know what the direct costs would be of
implementing the Agreement, and what the indirect costs would be for
local government, private industry, and individuals. Recommendations
that a cost-benefit analysis be included in the Agreement were numerous,
as were recommendations that the Agreement's energy implications be
analyzed.
The state and EPA will include in the updated Agreement cost data for
carrying out the strategies, as well as related information on sources
of funds, timing, and priorities. Although the need for a cost-benefit
analysis is understood, neither the state nor EPA believes that the Agree-
ment itself is the best vehicle for conducting such an extensive analysis.
However, the results of programmatic cost-benefit analyses could be used
to modify the Agreement as necessary. An analysis of the Agreement's
energy implications could be handled in the same way.
Priorities
There was strong support among reviewers for the priorities established
in the Agreement, and some indication that other areas should be given
priority status. The Agreement's emphasis on controlling toxic sub-
stances, especially in relation to sources of public drinking water, was
most favorably received. Several reviewers took the position that pro-
tection of drinking water should be the highest priority. Other felt that
available funds should not be so heavily allocated to correcting problems
and that preservation of high quality waters was neglected.
The state and EPA agree that protection of public water supply sources is
of the utmost importance. Available pollution control funds have never
yet been allocated on a strictly "worst first" basis. In New York, six
water quality management problems have been identified as requiring priority
-------
-7-
attention: industrial discharges, municipal discharges, residual wastes
(solids and liquids), combined sewer overflows, urban storm runoff, and
hydraulic/hydro!ogic modifications. Funds available for dealing with these
six problem areas can be allocated to either correction or prevention, as
necessary. This issue will be one of those addressed in the updated Agree-
ment's introductory environmental policy statement.
Nonpoint source pollution control was frequently mentioned by reviewers as
an area that should have been given priority status. The reason it was not
included was that insufficient data were available to determine its state-
wide significance. The general consensus among reviewers was that increased
monitoring of nonpoint sources was needed to determine the magnitude of
the problem in New York State and to develop cost-effective nonpoint source
control programs.
Monitoring is, of course, essential to the overall nonpoint source management
program. In terms of nonpoint sources, monitoring must cover activities on
the land, the effectiveness of controls, and the instream impact. Despite
current budget restrictions, some nonpoint source monitoring is planned.
However, since nonpoint source monitoring techniques are not as well defined
as those for point source monitoring, the initial focus will be on the
development of an overall monitoring protocol based on the study of selected
test basins. Over the next year, the West Branch Delaware Basin will be
monitored; the information and techniques developed will greatly influence
the nature and extent of nonpoint source monitoring in New York State.
Implementation
The prospects for implementing the strategies outlined in the Agreement
were a source of concern to reviewers. Several pointed out that the
Agreement's effectiveness depends to a large extent on the personal com-
mitment of the Commissioner of DEC and the Regional Administrator of EPA.
A few reviewers suggested that the Governor rather than the Commissioner
of DEC sign the Agreement, to be consistent with EPA's proposed water
quality management regulations.
Without doubt, the Commissioner and the Regional Administrator must be
personally committed to the implementation of the Agreement for it to
succeed. Both officials have expressed their strong support for the
Agreement. Their respective agencies have worked closely over an extended
period of time to produce an Agreement that they consider both reasonable
and workable. Under the existing regulations, the Commissioner of DEC, as
head of the designated state water quality management planning agency, has
the authority to sign the NYS-EPA Agreement. Any changes in the regulations
governing state - EPA Agreements will be complied with as they occur.
Several reviewers indicated that implementation of the Agreement would be
hampered by a lack of state staff and federal resources. They suggested
that priorities be carefully established and that a greater role be given
-------
-8-
to local government in implementing the Agreement. Both the state and EPA
agree that these are essential to the successful implementation of the Agree-
ment.
In addition to developing strategies and setting priorities, reviewers
noted the importance of establishing milestones and assigning responsi-
bilities. They also questioned whether there was too much emphasis on
regulation in the Agreement and not enough on incentives. The state and
EPA will include both milestones and responsibilities in the various work
plans that will be developed in comformance with the Agreement, progress
reports will also be required. The Agreement seeks to strike a balance
between regulation and incentives, and this goal will be included in the
updated Agreement's introductory environmental policy statement.
-------
COMMENTS
WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT
(1 and Appendix A)
Numerous comments were received on the water quality assessment in
the Agreement. These comments are especially important since the
water quality assessment provides the basis for the priorities
established in the Agreement.
1. Several reviewers questioned the overall framework used to
analyze water quality and to select priority problems.
a. The Citizen's Union, acting as a clearinghouse for a number
of reviewers, commented that the framework for the analysis
(the listing of water quality management problems) is fund-
amentally flawed. They indicate that the problems are not
management problems, and they include an alternative list of
water quality management problems.
b. The Citizen's Union also indicates that the seventeen basins and
fourteen areas selected are flawed in that they do not define the
systems which must be managed comprehensively- Another reviewer
indicated that watersheds not political boundaries should be the
basis for program decisions.
c. One reviewer indicated that no discussion was included relating .
the problems to the goals of the Clean Water Act. A water quality
management problem should be added .... "Fishable, swimable water
quality impairment."
2. One reviewer suggested the need for better scientific justification
for program decisions. Input should therefore be solicited from
the academic community.
3.Many reviewers commented on the overall priority assifgned to categories
of water quality management problems.
a.Several comments indicate that on-lot disposal should receive a
higher priority, especially in rural areas.
b.Several comments indicate that the Agreement gives inadequate
attention to radioactive wastes.
c.Several comments indicate that the Agreement emphasizes urban
'problems at the expense of rural areas.
d.Several comments indicate that the maintenance of high quality
waters should receive greater attention.
-------
e. One reviewer suggested that higher priority be given to
environmentally unsound development and to vessel wastes.
f. A large number Of reviewers questioned the reasons why non-
point source pollution was not selected as a Statewide priority.
One reviewer suggested that nonpoint source problems should
receive greater attention since they are amiable to lower cost
non-structural solutions.
g. One reviewer suggested that aquatic weeds should be considered
a pollutant.
4. Reviewers in a number of areas commented specifically on the water
quality problems specific to that area.
a. Specific, detailed comments on the assessment were received from
the Delaware River Basin Commission, the Erie and Niagara Counties
Regional Planning Board, the Town of Tonawanda Environmental Com-
mission and the Erie County Department of Environmental Protection.
The comments will not be repeated here.
b- Westchester County indicated that the assessment did not reflect
the priorities previously submitted by Westchester. In almost all
cases, priorities had been downgraded.
c. A reviewer stated that WQ problems on the Genessee River resulting
from irrigated agriculture and erosion should receive more attention
as should construction sediments in the Newark River.
d. A reviewer was particularly concerned with erosion along the Lake
Ontario shoreline and wants higher priority to be placed on problems
in and around the Great Lakes.
Q
•e. A reviewer stated that the primary problems of Tioga County relatwa
to cultural acceleration of sedimentation and leachate from landfills.
*• Reviewers indicated that arid rain is a high priority problem in
the Black River Basin and in DEC Region III (the Shawangunk Mountains),
g. Several reviewers noted that salt from de-icing causes significant
groundwater problems in Central New York, and in the Rochester area.
h- A reviewer indicated that problems in the Chemung River Basin should
receive higher priority attention.
-------
RESPONSES
WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT
(1 and Appendix A)
1- a- We disagree that the framework for the analysis is flawed; we do
recognize that certain terms used are not properly defined. It
would be more appropriate, for example, to replace the term
• "Water Quality Management Problem" with the term "Activities
Which Cause Water Quality Problems". The framework for the
water quality assessment will be reviewed and improved during
the first update. Management issues are discussed in Chapter 3.
1. b We believe that the approach taken to define water quality
problems using the Statewide basin breakdown and the 208
management planning areas is adequate. Identification of systems
to manage water quality problems may be on either a watershed
or political boundary basis, or combination of these two. The
management system recommendations in the certified and
approved 208 plans are intended to become part of the Agreement.
1. c The specific term "fishable, swimmable waters", as a goal of the
CWA, is not defined in the Agreement, However, the goals of the
Act are embodied in the State's water quality standards. The
basis for conducting the water quality assessment is the water
quality standards. "Fishable, swimmable water quality impair-
ment" is not an activity which causes "water quality problems"
and therefore, will not be listed as such.
2. We agree that more input is needed from all segments of the
public concerning program decisions, including the scientific
and academic community. A more comprehensive public
participation system will be recommended in the Statewide water
quality management plan which will become part of the Agreement.
3. a-g Several suggestions were made about the selection of priority
water quality management problems in the Agreement. It is
recognized that different people will have different perspectives
on what are in fact water quality problems for any geographical
area. These priorities will be reviewed in the first update of
the Agreement. Completion of the Statewide water quality
management plan will provide additional information which will
serve as the basis for possible restructuring of water quality
pollutant and water quality management priorities.
-------
4. a-h Many comments were received recommending particular water
quality problems for specific geographical areas. These
recommendations together with the recommendations of the
Statewide water quality management plan will serve as the basis
for the first update of the Agreement.
-------
COMMENTS
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
2.A.4
l. Several reviewers commented on this chapter. They made the
following comments:
a. The Agreement properly emphasizes nonstructural solutions,
cost factors, alternative analysis, "demo" projects, and
the need for legislative amendments.
b. When evaluating the cost effectiveness of structural and non-
structural approaches to dealing with urban runoff and CSO's,
the benefits and costs should also be allocated among water
quality improvements, soil retention, and decreased flooding
damages.
c. EPA should be more flexible in 201 funding of CSO projects.
Exclusions of costs because they result in flood protection
are not appropriate since the sewers serve a dual purpose.
d. More emphasis should be placed on O&M issues and demonstration
projects. O&M problems and "demo" projects are mentioned in
the chapter introduction but not in "strategies and activities."
They should also be discussed in "strategies and activities."
e. The role of 208 agencies in developing solutions to CSO problems
should be described in the "strategies and activities" section.
f. Extensive water quality sampling should be done in order to
identify problem areas before "demo" projects begin.
-------
RESPONSES
COMBINED SEWER OVERLFOWS
2.A.4
.l...a No Comment
.l.b-c "These factors must be and are considered in evaluating combined
sewer overlfow projects in the 201 facilities planning process.
Current federal regulations restrict the eligibility for funding to
those project elements related to water quality improvements. Since
both conveyance of storm water runoff to alleviate flooding and water
quality improvements are integral elements of a combined sewer overflow
.project, they must be evaluated together when developing alternative
.solutions _in any particular project. New York State Department of
-Environmental Conservation feels that unless all aspects of the project
are determined eligible for Federal funding, the community will find
it difficult to finance its share of the project.
l.d :Each combined sewer overflow system is unique in terms of the capa-
bilities of the system to minimize overflow and the impacts on the
receiving water. Operation and maintenance of the system is one of
the-key factors for minimizing overflows -and this should be stressed
-.in the development of management solutions. USEPA has funded many
demonstration projects over the past 10 years in an attempt to obtain
information on the effectiveness of structural and non-structural
solutions. Although some demonstration projects may be warrented,
-it is now time to integrate the results of past demonstration projects
into viable combined sewer overflow abatement projects. These concepts
will be introduced in the first update of the Agreement.
i.e Designated 208 agencies do have an important role and some have included
.the development of solutions to combined sewer overflow problems
where they have been identified as priority water quality problems.
These will be included in the Agreement after the certification and
approval of designated agency plans.
l.f .Extensive sampling to determine the impact of combined sewer overflows
will be required of the community during the 201 - facility planning
process. A combined sewer overflow strategy will be included in the
draft of the Statewide 208 Plan.
-------
COMMENTS
URBAN STORM RUNOFF
2.A.5
Reviewers of the urban storm runoff chapter had the following comments:
1- The statements on pages 2-31 and 2-32, which indicate that the
existing N/SPDES program does not cover urban runoff, are in-
correct. Since urban runoff is covered by N/SPDES, these
reviewers state that:
a. DEC should utilize existing authority to regulate stormwater
discharges.
b. CSO's need not have a higher priority than urban runoff.
2. Prevention (e.g. street sweeping, etc. ...) should be emphasized
in the control of urban runoff.
3. 201 funding should be made available for the control of urban
runoff.
4. Control methods should be carefully developed before they are
imposed through regulatory programs.
5. It is essential that urban runoff storage facilities be developed
to allow for subsequent treatment to eliminate toxic pollutants.
-------
RESPONSES
URBAN STORM RUNOFF
2.A.5
l.a+b Urban runoff is not exempt from the N/SPDES permit program. Because
of the high priority for issuance of permits for point source discharges,
initiative has not been taken at either the federal or state levels to
issue permits for urban run-off. Such permits may be issued where
urban runoff is determined to have a significant effect on water quality.
Such a determination has not been made at this time. Available infor-
mation indicates that urban runoff associated with combined sewer
overflows will have a higher priority over separate discharges of
stormwater run-off.
2. Prevention measures are important and will be emphasized in the
Agreement update as well as in the strategies.
3. DEC agrees and has so testified before Congress. EPA is presently
conducting a nationwide study of urban run-off which may result in
recommended changes to the Clean Water Act.
4. Agreed.
5. Urban run-off storage facilities and subsequent treatment should be
considered as one alternative to urban run-off pollution control.
-------
COMMENTS
HYDRAULIC/HYDROLOGICAL MODIFICATIONS
2, A-6
Several reviewers commented on this chapter. They made the
following comments:
a. Hydrological modifications should not be considered to be a
high priority problem. The only water quality problem
associated with hydroelectric dams is caused by minor flow
modification. The Agreement contained no evidence of other
adverse water quality impacts of such dams. For these
reasons, the Reservoir Release Program and State Stream
Protection Laws do not need to be amended.
b. This chapter of the Agreement is too narrowly focused on flow
regulation, release, and streambed alteration. Dredging,
resource recovery operations, channel modifications, with-
drawal and recharge activities, construction impacts and mining
should also be covered.
c. One reviewer was concerned with disturbance of benthic deposits
and also believed that salt water intrus ion needed to be worked
into the discussion of flow changes.
d. A task should be added to identify current hydro!ogic operating
procedures in the State of New York. CNY should perform
the task for the State and make recommendations on technical and
institutional problems of existing hydrologic structures and-
operations in the State. A proposed work program for the task
was sent in by Central New York.
-------
RESPONSES
HYDRAULIC/HYDROLOGICAL MODIFICATIONS
~~
l.a We disagree. Chapter 1 (Water Quality Assessment) cites specific
water quality management problems in 6 major basins (the Seneca-
Oneida-Oswego, Upper and Lower Hudson Rivers, Genesee, Black, St.
Lawrence). Problems include reduced waste assimilation capacity
resulting from diversions for hydroelectric power and barge canals,
sedimentation, PCB's (and other in-place pollutants) in dredge spoils,
increased stream temperature from construction activity, and others.
In addition, the state proposal for expansion of the existing legislation
is designed to afford the state more direct control over water quality
related activities and is appropriate.
l.b Dredging and resource recovery operations are covered in Section 2.B.9.
Channel modifications are covered by New York State's Stream Protection
Law and will be added to the Agreement as it is updated. Construction
and mining are mentioned in the NPS chapter and will be further
discussed in future updates.
l.c Benthic deposits (in place pollutants) are discussed in the Toxics
chapter. Potential for advancing saltwater wedge in the Hudson River
is discussed in Chapter 1 (Water Quality Assessment). Both in-place
pollutants and saltwater intrusion will be covered in updates to the
nonpoint source section. Saltwater intrusion is also covered in the
Nassau-Suffolk 208 Plan.
l.d. The task of identifying current hydrologic operating procedures in
New York State is implied in item #3 of the Strategy. It will be made
more specific. This is a task that, because it is statewide in nature,
will be undertaken by NYSDEC. Regional aspects could be delegated to
areawide agencies.
-------
COMMENTS
Construction Grants and Municipal Dischargers
2. B.I and 2. A. 2
Comments in this subject area often referred to both chapters. They are
presented as one group to assure consideration of themf as a whole.
1. Several comments referred to the employment of different types of
technology for waste treatment, the evaluation of these alternatives
in funding decisions, and the operation of these technologies.
a- Cluster on-site systems, pressure collectors and land treatment
must be compared fairly to traditional treatment technology in 201
funding decisions. An educational effort should be initiated to
explain these methods.
b. Advanced waste treatment is not always necessary, 201 funds should
be available to determine whether they are or are not through stream
studies. Sound information for the current DEC waste load allocations
is not always readily available.
c. A permanent State Operation and Maintenance program is recommended
with 25% State support. Special 0 & M aid should be considered for
high treatment technology facilities.
d. Many 208 agencies commented on the role of their agencies in the
grants and discharge control programs.
e. The relationship between*201 and 208 planning processes needs to be
clarified.
f. Designated agencies should be included in several of the construction
grants activities particularly those concerning combined sewer over-
flows, urban storm runoff and land treatment. 201 funds should be
available to 208 agencies for performing portions of facility planning
needs such as population, waste load and flow projections.
g. Maximum utilization of local personnel and laboratories must be made
in meeting the important local need of developing valid waste load
allocations, especially for smaller streams.
2. Priorities for the program and overall objectives were discussed in
several letters.
a.. The use of the statutory term "fishable, swimable waters where
attainable" should be clarified. What does it mean?
b. Priority issues involve water conservation, better operation and
maintenance, indirect discharge of toxics, and sludge disposal;
many of these issues have not been dealt with.
-------
- 2 -
c. Effluent limits should be reviewed. Situation variable limits
should be considered rather than rigid effluent limits. "Secondary
. treatment" as ^requirement may be excessive for achieving ambient
standards in warn estuarine waters.
d. The priority list system should be clarified and explained.
e New requirements regarding the evaluation of the effects of dischargers
on downstream water supplies and water conservation and reuse should be
evaluated carefully to avoid unnecessary dau^tH^m on small projects.
tt**-dtk«p$
3, In the area of sanitary sewers and stormwater, several notes were received.
a. Urban storm runoff strategies must include quantity as well as water
quality effects.
b. Every county should develop revised sanitary codes for the control of
private sewage disposal.
c. The problem of separating sanitary and storm sewers has not been
dealtl with.
>"9
d. A policy is needed on regulatsap sanitary sewer overflows.
Comments were also received on:
4< The multi-use concept which calls for using treatment facilities where
possible to fill open space needs s educational opportunities and, in
some cases, recreation.
a. The existence of legal impediments to the multiple-use concept in
special use sewer districts should be researched.
b. "Multiple-use'should be considered in a broad sense. Not only for
increasing the uses given a plant site, but also in uses of water
quality funds in general.
5. Other comments received included:
a. The question of leachate noted as "previously discussed" in this
chapter (Municipal Discharges 2. A. 2) could not be found.
b. Local costs of disruption to private citizens due to construction
should be considered in the grants program.
c. The application procedures in the construction grants program must
be simplified. The State should not be delegated the construction
grants program. It will add to the costs.
d.The agreement notes that DEC may undertake certain elements of 201
planning that may best be done on the State level. The specific
elements should be determined in the agreement.
e. Tfe ftlvbtn^f beftvt&n D^t SAtfcffM AjWiMtrf eu^rf
U^p
-------
RESPONSES
MUNICIPAL DISCHARGES AND CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
2. B. 1 and 2. A. 2
1. a We agree that educational efforts are necessary to bring
descriptions of new treatment techniques to the attention of
municipalities and their consultants. Amendments to the 1977
Clean Water Act require the evaluation of innovative and
alternative technology, land treatment and the use of on-lot
disposal systems. New York will promote these systems
through the expanded State management of the construction
grants program as required by Section 205(g). The update of
the Agreement will incorporate expanded elements of the State's
Construction Grants program.
1. b We agree that advanced waste treatment (AWT) is not always
necessary to meet stream standards. We will encourage the
use of the 201 process for the collection of water quality data
necessary to assess waste load allocations. National policy on
AWT has been recently developed to as SUB* that AWT plants
are necessary before they are built.
1. c We agree that the State OfeM grant program should be continued.
Changes to the program such as additional aid for high treat-
ment technology facilities would require legislative changes and
possibly additional appropriation.
l.d&f The role of 208 planning and management agencies should be in-
cluded in the water quality management plans which they develop.
This role and the responsibilities of a planning vs. a management
agency should be recognized. Continued planning functions
delegated to 208 agencies can play a strong role in the facilities
planning process of the construction grant program. Policy and
regulations do not permit the granting of 201 funds to planning
agencies. We will continue, however, to encourage broad appli-
cations of these funds, as permitted by law, to assure that
program functions are carried out by the most capable institutions.
1. e The relationship of 201 and 208 planning processes will be
clarified in the first update of the Agreement.
1. g We agree.
-------
COMMENTS
I^PDES and Industrial Dischargers
2.B.2 and 2.A.1
the comments received on each of these two chapters of the agreement
apply to both. Any modifications should consider both chapters as a whole.
l. Several inquiries were received which asked for clarification of the
role of external organizations in the NSPDES process. These included:
a. A request to describe in this section standard setting authority as
it bears on permits.
b. Several 208 agencies suggested that the role of these agencies should
include: receiving NPDES permit violation reports; carrying out
economic investigations (as suggested in the chapter); coordinating
the identification and establishment of toxic control strategies;
being included in the development of a statewide pretreatment strategy.
c. Others noted that local county and city officials and DEC Regional
Offices should be involved in drafting "abatement schedules" along
with 208 agencies.
2. In the area of "priorities" these points were noted:
a. Economic considerationsmust be weighed to avoid severe hardship. If,
however, this becomes a program objective it, i.e. economic benefits,
should be noted "up front" with other goals such as environmental
and public health objectives.
b. In classifying dischargers as "major" the presence of toxics is
considered for industrial emitters. The chapter notes that flow is
primarily used in classing majors among municipal dischargers. Both,
perhaps, should be using toxics as a factor for distinguishing majors.
c. Care must be taken not to set standards or regulations which are
greater than those set by Federal law. They may adversely impact
industry and the State economy.
3. Several commentors requested that program changes due to the passage
of the Clean Water Act be reflected in the agreement.
a. This should include particularly those statutory changes regarding
municipal and industrial time extensions and the fact that public
notification of permits changes due to the Act should be required
if the permits are ever made less restrictive.
b. Also the authorized usage of non-structural BMP's should be used
in permits for CSO problems. Pilot CSO programs throughout the
State should be considered.
4. Concerning the roles of different departments and agencies commentors
noted:
-------
- 2 -
a. Waste load allocations should be prepared by the Bureau of Monitoring
and Surveillance (NYSDEC) because they have the necessary verified
stream models.
b. The enforcement of pretreatment standards may best be accomplished by
DEC or EPA rather than local agencies.
-------
RESPONSES
N/SPDES AND INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES
2.B.2 and 2.A.I
l.a Technology based effluent limits as established under Federal Law
must be imposed as a minimum in N/SPDES permits where State water
quality standards require more stringent controls than are imposed.
l.b The role of 208 planning and management agencies in permit issuance
should be developed through, the water quality management plan for
the particular area. This role will be incorporated into the Agree-
ment as appropriate.
l.c In accordance with federal and state law, development of industrial
abatement schedules are the responsibility of DEC central and regional
offices in conjunction with the particular discharges. 208 planning
and local agencies can establish priorities for abatement to achieve
desired water quality goals and so identify these priorities in the
areawide water quality management plans.
2.a We agree that economic considerations and economic benefits should be
considered along with environmental and public health objectives.
A clear statement of this and other principles will be added in the
first update of the Agreement.
2.b We agree. Along with flow, the presence of industrial discharges in
a municipal system are a factor in classifying municipal discharges
as majors.
2.c We agree that New York State's water quality standards and regulations
should be consistent with criteria recommended by the Federal government
to assure consistency with standards for adjacent states.
3. a The first draft of the NYS/EPA agreement was drafted prior to enactment
of the 1977 Clear Water Act. However, before going to press changes
were made incorporating many of these new statutory requirements.
Additional changes will be made in the first update of the Agreement
to reflect the statutory requirements of that Act.
3.b. The requirement to utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's) to
minimize the discharge of pollutants from industrial facilities will
be incorporated into the renewal of industrial permits. Considerable
research has been conducted on the effect of Best Management Practices
in reducing pollutants in combined sewer overflows. BMP's will continue
to be examined for inclusion in municipal permits. See comment l.d
in the combined sewer overflow section.
4.a We agree that waste load allocations are the responsibility of and
should be prepared by DEC. For the category of first priority dis-
charges, i.e. inadequately treated municipal and industrial effluents,
this process has been relatively straight forward. As we approach
the correction of the next priority pollution sources, namely, combined
sewer overflows, urban runoff and non-point source pollution, con-
siderably more information will be required to establish allowable
waste loadings. Cooperative efforts of State and local agencies
-------
-2-
are necessary to obtain adequate data to conduct a cost-effective
analysis of future pollutant load reductions.
4.b Final regulations concerning the implementation of pretreatment
requirements have been promulgated by EPA since the preparation
of the draft State/EPA Agreement. These regulations provide for
the delegation of pretreatment programs to the State and local level.
Local agencies will be encouraged to adopt, implement and enforce
pretreatment requirements. DEC will retain an overview responsibility
to oversee local pretreatment programs and may directly undertake the
implementation of this program for certain communities. The first
update of the Agreement will include a discussion of the proposed
New York State pretreatment program.
-------
COMMENTS
NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT
2. 6-3
1. Several comments were received related to the scope of the non-
point source chapter.
a. A number of commentors questioned why the chapter dealt only
with agriculture, silviculture, mining and construction. Sug-
gestions were made that priority attention should also be given
to urban runoff, on-lot disposal, and in-place pollutants (ben-
thic deposits)) in areas where they are major problems. On-lot
was cited as a major problem in rural areas.
b. The schedule for theAnonpoint source chapter should be presented.
2. A large number of reviewers commented on the need to involve and
utilize the expertise of local, state and federal agencies in the
development of the State Nonpoint Source Management Plan.
•H*
a. A main thrust ofAcomments was that the water quality management
program must fully utilize local identification and prioritization
of nonpoint pollution problems and must pursue the resolution of
the problems on a watershed by watershed basis within the context
of overall State guidelines. DEC should delineate the legal effect
and applicability of these guidelines, or minimum standards of
performance. State mandates regarding priorities could lead to
inefficient use of funds to attack low priority problems in given areas,
b. DEC must involve SCS, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Coop-
erative Extentions, Cornell University, SUNY College of Environmental
Science and Forestry and "208" areawide agencies in developing BMP's.
One commentor went so far as to say that DEC should be ijjS»dated to
accept the determinations of expert agencies.
c. One reviewer suggested that the Agreement mention the need for NYS DOT
controls on the storage and application of de-icing substances
(See page 2-129).
d. One commentor sought clarification of activities l(a) and l(b) on
page 2-134. Will these activities involve negotiation only with
agencies operating existing programs or also with agencies assuming
new responsibilities:
-------
e. One commenter sought further clarification of the nonpoint
source parameters to be included in water quality standards
(See Activity 5(e)).
3. A large number of reviewers supported the concept of a voluntary
nonpoint source pollution program as opposed to a regulatory
program.
a. Regulatory controls over nonpoint pollution are unacceptable
without first documenting that a problem exists. We must
concern ourselves with what is socially acceptable and not
acceptable.
b. Farmers fear nonpoint control programs laid out in "208" plans
because once these plans are adopted they take on the force of
law. We shouldn't let the costs of controls drive New York State
fanners out of business. Financial assistance should be part
of the plan.
c. Support was indicated for a voluntary program coupled with moni-
toring to assess its effectiveness., The voluntary program should
then be abandoned only as a last resort.
d. If a regulatory program is required, local regulatory programs
should be considered as an option.
e. There is a need for an educational outreach program, perhaps through
the Cooperative Extension, to let fanners know what's going on in "208"
4., Several comments were made concerning programs for the control of pol-
lution from on-lot disposal.
a. Septic tank inspection and maintenance ordinances are not enough.
Inspection and maintenance systems must also be established and
supported.
•b. Only counties and not DEC have the capability to inspect individual
waste disposal systems.
'5. Several reviewers commented on the need for nonpoint source monitoring
and local involvement in such monitoring.
a. Nonpoint source monitoring is important in identifying and gauging
the success of control programs. Increased resources should be
devoted to nonpoint source monitoring in order to allow testing
for nonpoint source loadings at peak flow and to develop long-term
trend analyses. A "go slow" approach was advocated with a 10 year
period of monitoring to identify nonpoint source problems. One
-------
commentor recommended monitoring of sediments resulting from
erosion. It was suggested that monitoring data be developed
through further 208 studies.
b. Local involvement is important for nonpoint source monitoring.
DEC should seek the assistance of local groups and universities
in nonpoint source monitoring.
c. The participants in the decision making process for funding
priorities and, hence, delegation of monitoring responsibilities
to local entities should be specified (page 2-139).
d. One commentor stated that contrary to indications on page 2-187,
the 208 effort has assessed relative impacts of upstream non-
point sources on water quality.
e. Commentors pointed out the following inconsistency: despite the
fact that there is a lack of knowledge regarding nonpoint source
(page 2-131), recognition of a need for long term commitment to
monitoring (page 2-133) and a stated need to develop a program
to assess nonpoint sources (page 2-190), DEC cannot justify non-
point source monitoring (page 2-187).
6. A number of reviewers commented on the type of management agencies
that are desirable for implementing the State Nonpoint Source Plan.
a. There was concern that the agreement specified DEC as the nonpoint
source management agency.
b. Nonpoint source management agencies should be as close to the local
level as possible. There should be local management and technical
application wherever the expertise exists.
7. Reviewers made the following additional comments on the nonpoint source
chapter:
3i. The NYS DOT suggested revisions to the agreement that would more
adequately describe their efforts in the nonpoint source area.
b. The national nonpoint source program's emphasis on non-structural
solutions was neglected in the Agreement.
c- The objectives of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement should be
included.
d. The Housing and Community Development Act should be added to
"Pertinent Laws" on page 2-121.
-------
RESPONSE
NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT
2.B.3
General. The completion of the Statewide Water Quality Management Plan will
heavily influence the revision of this Chapter. A draft of the
Statewide Plan is expected to be available for review in March of 1979.
l.a Agriculture, Silviculture, Mining and Construction are mentioned
because these activities are under active study under the 208 pro-
grams. Urban Run-off is covered in Chapter 2.A.5. As described on
page 2-223 of the Agreement, in-place-pollutants and on-lot disposal
will be given more attention in agreement updates.
l.b This chapter will be revised as part of the overall Agreement update.
The proposed federal rules and regulations call for the completion
of a draft revision by June.
2.a To the extent possible, New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation will involve local governments and agencies in the
identification and prioritization of non-point source problems.
NYSDEC is currently using the inputs of County Health Departments,
County Soil and Water Conservation Districts and designated 208 agencies
to identify streams that may be stressed by nonpoint sources of pollu-
tion. The language in the Agreement will be modified as necessary to
include this concept.
2.b All of the agencies mentioned are currently involved in the development
of best management practices (EMP's). In particular, Cornell University
is developing the Agriculture -BMP's and SUNY College of Environmental
Science and Forestry is developing the Silviculture BMP's.
2.c The need for this will be considered in the Agreement update.
2.d Under the 208 program NYSDEC is currently examining existing NPS
programs, and as part of both the current and future 208 programs,
negotiations would be conducted with agencies with existing responsi-
bilities and agencies that might be considered for new responsibilities.
2.e The parameters have not yet been determined.
3.a-,b.c Nonpoint source pollution is not one program or one problem. It
consists of a great many activities which may contribute to water
quality degradation. The most practicable program strategies for many
of these activities will include voluntary controls with incentives
and guidelines. However, other activities, such as on-lot disposal
(septic tanks), already have widely accepted regulatory programs.
We agree that it is important in these programs to be reasonably
sure that there are 5.ndeed existing or potential water quality impacts
before voluntary or regulatory programs are seriously considered.
There also exists a need to monitor the effectiveness of both voluntary
and regulatory programs.
-------
-2-
3.d If regulatory programs are required, local regulatory programs would
be considered as an option. Nevertheless, there is a definite need
for statewide uniformity in regulation.
3-e We agree that there.is a need for an educational outreach program,
particularly in an area as broad and vague as nonpoint pollution.
The Cooperative Extension is one possible agency to accomplish this.
4. We agree. On-lot disposal systems require construction, inspection
and routine maintenance. The draft Statewide 208 plan implementation
strategy for on-lot disposal envisions a strong role for counties in
the construction, inspection and maintenance of on-lot disposal systems.
5.a+e We recognize that monitoring is an important element in the overall
nonpoint source management program. Monitoring, as described here,
includes the monitoring of activities on the land, monitoring the
effectiveness of controls on these activities, and monitoring their
in-stream impact. There is a need to develop an effective overall
monitoring program which includes assessment in all three of these
areas. Despite current budget restrictions, some nonpoint source
monitoring will occur. However, since nonpoint source monitoring
techniques are not as well defined as point source monitoring techniques,
the initial forms will be on the development of an overall monitoring
protocol through the selective study of test basins. Over the next
year a monitoring protocol will be developed and monitoring will occur
in the West Branch Delaware basin. The information and techniques
developed will greatly influence the nature and extent of future non-
point source monitoring in New York State.
5.b We agree. Local involvement is important in many nonpoint source
monitoring activities and DEC will continue to seek the assistance of
local groups and universities.
5.c The designated 208 agencies have the opportunity to recommend funding
priorities and monitoring responsibilities in their 208 plans. In
the non-designated areas, the advisory committees can make similar
recommendations to DEC.
5.d Some designated 208 agencies developed information on impacts of
nonpoint source activities. However, much of this information requires
further expansion, analysis or refinement.
6.a,b New York State Department of Environmental Conservation agrees that
the NFS management agencies be close to local government. NYSDEC
has statewide responsibilities and the draft Statewide 208 plan suggests
a strong role for County Soil and Water Conservation Districts. The
agreement does not designate management agencies; the Statewide Water
Quality Management Plan will.
7. These suggestions will be considered in future updates.
-------
COMMENTS
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
2.B.4
l. A number of reviewers recommended a change in the orientation
of WQ standards policy as reflected in the Agreement.
a. There isn't enough resource-based orientation in the Agreement.
Consideration should be given to non-degradation, fish and wild-
life habitat preservation, watershed protection and the like.
b. The NYS stream classification system should be revised as
follows:
1) upgrade a stream classifications to reflect standards actually
being attained instead of existing uses.
2) retain "d" classification only for intermittent streams.
3) review classification to ensure attainment of standards
downstream.
4) establish seasonal use designation.
2. Several reviewers commented on antidegradation policy.
a. One reviewer disagreed with the statement on page 2-156 that
strict adherence to antidegradation would preclude new discharges
and development without "sufficient cause". Adherence could
involve higher levels of treatment, but would not preclude new
discharges and development since there are exceptions for necessary
economic or social development. Compliance with Federal and State
laws is "sufficient cause" for adherence to antidegradation.
b. Designated 208 agencies should review DEC decisions made under
the antidegradation policy.
3. Several comments were received that made suggestions concerning the
role of local governments in standards development and review.
a. The Agreement should clarify who will develop WQ standards.
b. Designated 208 agencies should participate in the development
of WQ standards.
c- WQ information exchange programs should be developed at the local
level for specific programs, i.e., 201, 208, county health depart-
ments, etc.
-------
d. The need to involve 208 agencies in the standards revision
and classification process should be repeated for emphasis
throughout the chapter.
A number of comments were received on other aspects of the water
quality standards chapter:
a. DRBC requested a number of changes describing its important
role in standards development and revision.
b. There is a need for a better method of informing the public
of proposed standards revisions.
c. The statement on pages 2-160 and 161 that realistic water use
designations are more important than meeting the November, 1978
deadline could place DEC in violation of Federal law.
d. Hydrologic modifications made by utility companies should be
added to those made by DOT on page 2-159, 2nd paragraph.
e. "Environmental" should be added to the list of factors in item
fl(c') on page 2-161.
f. - The standards chapter should include things said in other parts
of the Agreement, i.e., the CSO and pretreatment standards
discussions.
-------
RESPONSES
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
2.B.4
1. a An overriding goal of the entire Agreement is resource preserva-
tion. A clear statement of this and other principles will be added
in the first update of the Agreement.
1. b The New York State classification system is based on existing
and proposed uses of a particular water body and not the actual
quality of the water body. As part of NYS's water standards
and classifications process the D classification is currently
going through the public hearing process. Any changes will be
reflected in the first update of the Agreement. Water classifi-
cation does take into account downstream uses. Seasonal use
classifications are established where appropriate.
2. a We agree in concept with the comment regarding anti-degradation.
The anti-degradation statement as promulgated by New York
State fulfills the intent that, within criteria for specified water
uses, water quality will be maintained at a high level. A
mechanism for assuring that standards are met is the N/SPDES
program which provides for the establishment of more stringent
effluent limits based on the assimilative capacity of the stream.
2. b The New York State anti-degradation policy is in part implemented
through the permit program. All interested parties, including
208 agencies,have the opportunity for a review and comment on
permit conditions via the public notice/public hearing process.
In addition to the policy statement,anti-degradation is imple-
mented through a series of general and special laws such as
Article XIV of the State Constitution enacted in 1895 for main-
taining the Forest Preserve as forever wild; the Wild, Scenic
and Recreational Rivers System added to the Environmental
Conservation Law by Chapter 869, Laws of 1972; Title 17 of the
Environmental Conservation Law specifically prohibiting
discharges into certain named rivers, streams and lakes; stream
classifications AA special and N where no discharges are allowed,
and the formation of Agricultural Districts to preserve land for
agriculture use in accordance with the Laws of 1971. In addition,
the NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System)
process serves the intended function of preventing degradation.
-------
3. a, b, d The Agreement should be clear that the State is responsible for
the development of water quality standards and classifications.
208 agency involvement in the standards revision and classifica-
tion process is available through 1) areawide water quality
management planning devel.6pm.ent and 2) the public notice/
hearing process. All public and private parties can participate
in the development and revision of water quality standards
through the public notice/hearing process.
3. c We agree that formal programs for the exchange of water
quality data should be developed'with interested and concerned
local regulatory agencies. Through the development of desig-
nated and Statewide water quality management plans, local
regulatory agencies can specify the degree of involvement in
specific program activities. This includes the exchange of
water quality information. In addition, water quality data is
available from all data collection agencies on request.
4. a The responsibilities of regulatory agencies such as the DRBC
in standards development and revision is recognized. This role
will be reflected in the first update of the Agreement.
4. b The need for more effective methods of public participation in
regulatory standards setting is recognized. Suggestions for
improving this communication are welcome.
4. c DEC is proceeding with an orderly upgrading process which has
a sound basis in planning. EPA concurs with this process and feels
that it is consistent with the intent of the law.
4. d The statement "Hydrologic modification proposed by DOT" was
offered as example of an activity which might change stream
conditions. Hydrologic modification made by other public and
private entities are certainly to be included in this assessment.
4. e "Environmental factors" will be included in the elements for
consideration.
4. f Requirements of other program areas will be included in the
water quality standards chapter as appropriate.
-------
COMMETST S
MONITORING
1. Some commentors made statements concerning the level of future
effort in monitoring.
a. There should be more data gathering and monitoring in general.
b. One commentor sought clarification as to whether the State will
gather more instream data than in the past.
2. Several reviewers made comments relating to the priorities for
different types of monitoring activities.
a. The comments on the nonpoint source chapter discuss priorities
for nonpoint source monitoring.
b. Given the heavy emphasis in the Agreement on toxics, pesticides,
chemicals and fertilizer, it is inconsistent to have additional
assessment of these substances to be addressed during the CPP
(see page 2-212).,
c. Strategies should be included for monitoring to lead to standards
revisions with a greater focus on public health, fish, and shellfish
impacts of pollutant levels.
d. New York State should have a Great Lakes monitoring program.
3. Several commentors were concerned about the local role in monitoring.
a. The monitoring program should be a cooperative effort between State
and local government. Use of local resources should be utilized
to the maximum extent possible as that tends to be more cost effective
Areawide 208 agencies should coordinate the effort between DEC and
local governments.
c b. The Agreement should describe coordination between DEC regional
offices and local agencies in WQ sampling.
c. Local county agencies should be involved in review and follow-up
on self-monitoring information.
d.Page 2-186 should specify who determines the State priorities for
delegation of monitoring responsibilities to counties and what
criteria are used in setting those priorities.
-------
4. Several reviewers commented on the need to integrate data from
various monitoring programs and make it available to decision-
makers and the public.
a.. Water quality data collected by various programs should be
transferable and usable by all programs so that all data
relating to a given problem can be assembled. The Agreement
should describe what will happen to the data after it is collected.
b. Reporting of ambient monitoring data to the public should be a
primary goal of the Agreement.
c. Page 2-200 should state that EPA and DEC will work with the Corps
to ensure that data collected is interpreted and distributed to the
public.
d. Page 2-203 should state that DEC monitoring should be compatible
with STORE! .
5. There were several comments relating to the certification of labor-
atories and the quality assurance program.
a. Contrary to page 2-214 there is a certificationVor commercial labs
and a quality assurance program run by the NYS Dept. of Health.
There is confusion in the Agreement as to whether a new laboratory
certification program is needed. While there is a program for labs
conducting water supply analysis, it is not clear whether there is
a program for labs conducting wastewater analyses (pages 2-203, "
2-204).
b. The proposed quality assurance strategy should include development
of regulations requiring use of licensed or certified labs for self-
monitoring analyses.
6. Several commentors wanted to know where the 8 stream segments where
intensive surveys are to take place are located. One of these commentors
wants the Seneca-Oneida-Oswego River System to be a top priority.
7. Reviewers also made the following comments:
a. The Oswego River Harbor should be a high priority for monitoring
dredged material .
b. There should be further development and testing of computer models.
c. A balance between dry weather and storm water monitoring and a
protocel for stormwater sampling should be established, especially
given the high priority placed on urban runoff and CSO's.
-------
RESPONSES
MONITORING
2. B. 5
1. a&b We agree there is a need for more water quality monitoring.
Additional monitoring is constrained by the lack of funds.
2. a No comment.
2. b We disagree. Most available resources are being concentrated
on point sources of toxic substances. Some resources will be
directed to nonpoint source toxics activities over the next two
years.
2. c We agree to the need for more monitoring to determine the
impact of various pollutant levels. The biggest constraint is
the availability of funds to carry out this monitoring. Heretofore,
we have had to rely on national research efforts to determine
the acceptable pollutant level for various water uses.
2. d We agree that more effort would be expended toward the Great
Lakes monitoring program. New York State does sample major
tributaries discharging to the Great Lakes. Development of
such a program is again constrained by the lack of funds.
3. a To the extent feasible, monitoring programs are coordinated
with local government. The ability of local government, however,
to undertake this effort is also constrained by the availability of
resources for sample collection, analysis and quality assurance.
We do not agree that 208 agencies need to play a coordinating
role- However, 208 agencies have the opportunity to recommend
a monitoring program for their area.
3. b We agree that DEC Regional of fices should act as the coordinator
with local governments in monitoring programs. This will be
stated in the first Agreement update.
3. c Local agencies should become involved in the followup of self-
monitoring information to the extent that they have regulatory
authority to achieve pollution abatement.
-------
3. d Priority for the delegation of monitoring activities to the local
level is established by the DEC Regional office in conjunction
with the Central office program managers. Criteria for
delegation of monitoring responsibilities is dependent on the
adequacy of staff and laboratory support servi ces available at
the local level.
4. a-c We agree that water quality data should be compiled, evaluated
and disseminated for use of all concerned. This concern is
partially addressed by strategy la in the water quality assess-
ment section and Ib in the Public Water Supply section. This
element will be further evaluated in the Agreement update.
4. d DEC has agreed to review STORET prior to further developing
its own system. The state currently has its own data processing
system for water quality monitoring data. It is not directly
compatible with STORET. However, on a regular basis computer
tapes of DEC data are transferred to EPA for entry into STORET.
5. a There currently is a laboratory evaluation program (quality
assurance) which is conducted by DOH. This program includes
both private, commercial and regulatory agency laboratories.
There is a certification program for private and commercial
laboratories engaged in water supply analysis., but not for waste
water analysis. Such a certification program needs to be developed.
5. b Once a certification or licensing program for wastewater labora-
tories is established, regulations can be promulated which require
that only certified laboratories be used for a permit related analysis,
6. The intensive stream surveys scheduled for the summer of 1979
are identified in the 106 Annual Program Plan.
7. a-c We acknowledge that additional water quality monitoring is
required. This monitoring should be designed to evaluate
conditions during both dry weather conditions and storm related
events. A shift in the emphasis of monitoring will be made as
particular pollution problems such as urban runoff and NFS
become higher priority program areas.
-------
ENFORCEMENT
2.B.6
l. Several writers inquired as to the roles of different agencies
in the water quality management enforcement strategy.
a. Two commentors stated that the NYS Health Department Enforce-
ment Actions under SDWA, Coast Guard Actions against water craft
dischargers and groundwater enforcement actions were omitted
or under-emphasized and should be fully covered.
b< A request was received asking that DRBC enforcement authority
be cited on page 2-220.
c. A commentor noted that the reliance on the Corps of Engineers
for dredge and fill on page 2-236 fails to account for dredge
spoil deposited on land.
d. • A designated 208 agency noted that such agencies should be
involved in determining enforcement priorities in their areas
and the means for their involvement should be described in the
SEA on page 2-226. The same letter requested that 208 agencies
be included in the development of enforcement strategies for
NfS and residual wastes, and the method of involvement specified
on page 2-235.
2. Comments were received with suggestions in the area of enforcement
policy and strategy. Considerable support was evident for giving
a high priority to enforcement against toxic dischargers.
a. One commentor suggested carrying out more follow-up inspection
after abatement facilities are completed. The commentor also
wanted more fines to be levied against the owner.
b. A letter received objected to the high priority given to compliance
schedules on page 2-227 on the basis of concern about toxic dis-
charges in the interim period before facilities are completed.
The commentor wants a balanced approach between compliance schedules
and effluent limitations on a case-by-case basis.
c. The need for an enforcement strategy for rural areas was represented
d. A commentor questioned a statement on page 2-225 which indicated
that 208 plans may be a tool in controling toxic dischargers. His
query noted that he felt enforcement against toxics would come under
the toxic substances control laws.
-------
e. Another commentor wants an extended explanation of the pro-
posed "revaluation" of policy regarding enforcement against
municipal facilities, given the evidence that secondary
treatment may not be necessary to achieve standards.
-------
RESPONSES
ENFORCEMENT
2.B.6
l.a&b We agree. The responsibility of other State and Federal
regulatory agencies will be added in .the first update
of the Agreement.
1-c We agree that disposal on upland areas is beyond the
jurisdiction of the Corps. Future federal RCRA regula-
tions may deal with this issue- In the meantime, State
solid waste regulations do apply. At any rate, this
issue will be discussed in the update of the Residuals
section of the Agreement.
l.d The role of 208 planning or management agencies in the
establishment of enforcement strategies and priorities
should be developed in the designated agency water
quality management plan.
2.a Inspections of industrial and municipal pollution control
facilities are scheduled on the basis of priority of
the discharge. This priority is geared toward more
frequent inspections of major dischargers (at least
once a year). The total number of inspections is
constrained by available resources.
2.b High priority will continue for the establishment of
compliance schedules and completion of abatement
facilities to abate toxic discharges. Where human
health and the environment are threatened, interim
effluent limits are established and enforced prior to
completion of treatment facilities.
2.c The strategy for rural waste is being developed in the
Statewide 208 program. When certified, strategy will
be incorporated into the Agreement.
2.d Control of toxics will come via many routes: The
National/State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(N/SPDES), The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), etc. The
Toxic Substances Control Act (JSCA) is by no means the
primary enforcement mechanism.
2.e The process of establishing effluent requirements for
municipal and industrial dischargers is mandated by the
Clean Water Act (CWA). Our discretion is limited in
modifying these requirements of law. New York agrees
that the broad requirement for secondary treatment of
all discharges may not be necessary to achieve ambient
water quality standards.
-------
COMMENTS
TOXICS
2.B.7
The roles, responsibilities and funding of other agencies in
the environmental field received several comments:
a. Several designated agencies noted that they should be
included in the State toxic substances program.
b. The NYS Department of Transportation noted that their
responsiblities regarding hazardous water and oil spills
should be included in the Agreement.
c. The DRBC requested that their study of the final disposal
of "industrial exotics" with the objective of examining
alternative waste management systems for toxics should be
described in the Agreement.
c. DRBC also noted that the direct provision of RCRA funds
should be considered to interstate agencies. They state that
present policy provides for funding through State agencies only.
d.One commentor suggested that the self-monitoring of sanitary
landfills be conducted at the County level with DEC support
and training.
2. Other comments received on the Toxics chapter referred to the
general priorities reflected in the strategies, or supported the
overall high priority given to toxics programs in the State/EPA
Agreement.
a.The Agreement correctly emphasizes prevention rather than cures
that are too late. EPA should develop standards, guidelines, rules
and regulations which govern the use of chemicals.
b.Contamination of groundwater by toxic nuclear wastes should re-
ceive top priority attention, especially in West Valley. Radio-
active wastes should be removed from this location.
cJDn page 2-285 a statement should be corrected which seems to imply
that the treatment of toxics must always be an alternative. It need
not always be an alternative. Controlling the manufacturing or distri-
bution of chemicals might be selected where treatability is not feasible
-------
RESPONSES
TOXICS
2. B. 7
The role of designated agencies in a toxic substances control
program should be outlined in that agency's water quality manage-
plan.
1. b Since preparation of the draft Agreement, DEC and DOT have
negotiated an Agreement concerning responsibility to oil and
hazardous material spills. The cooperative arrangements es-
tablished through this Agreement will be incorporated in the
first update of the State-EPA Agreement.
1. c To the extent that it is applicable to New York State, the DRBC
study concerning disposal of toxic substances and alternative
waste management systems will be included in the Agreement.
l.d We disagree that RCRA funds should be provided directly to
interstate agencies. To the extent that interstate agencies par-
ticipate with a given State in the implementation of a toxic
substances program, funding should be directed through the
State agency.
1. e The monitoring of land fills is addressed by Environmental
Conservation Law part 360.
2. a We agree. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), through
the premanufacturing notification process will screen potentially
harmful chemicals prior to their widespread use. Also, under
TSCA, EPA has authority and will regulate the use of chemicals
shown to pose unreasonable risks to health or the environment
where limitation on use is the most appropriate control mechanism.
Limitation of use is but one of the mechanisms to control these
problem chemicals under TSCA.
2. b A section on radioactive wastes will be added to the "Other
Environmental Programs" area in the further updates of the
Agreement.
-------
The statement on Page 2-285 correctly states that treatability
of a potential toxics discharge must be evaluated as an alternative.
This must be done to properly examine the full range of control
options available. Treatability would be an important factor
considered in action to ban or imit uses of a problem chemical.
-------
COMMENTS
PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY
2JO
l. Several 208 designated agencies provided comments which
either corrected certain facts in the SEA regarding specific
208 agencies' activity or suggested water supply-related tasks
which may be performed by these agencies.
a. The designated agencies cited as having examined groundwater
levels and quality are incorrect. New York City is incorrectly
included and Westchester incorrectly omitted.
b. Locating and classifying all existing and abandoned residual
disposal sites is suggested as a task which may be performed
by 208 agencies.
c. Similarly these agencies should be utilized to develop water
conservation and reuse programs.
2. Water quantity was noted by several •commentors as a concern that
must be given a priority equivalent to water quality.
a. The Agreement should emphasize the need to find new approaches
to assessing new supply needs and meeting them; and, a higher
priority should be given to problems related to reservoirs,
conveyance facilities, i.e., "infrastructures".
b. Non-structural solutions should be examined.
c. An increased effort towards water conservation and water
supply is favored.
d. One reviewer requested that the DEC involvement in water supply
distribution management be described.
e. The impact and use of water supplies on waste treatment is as
important as the effect of waste on water supplies. For example,
the impact of massive water intakes (e.g. by "high flow skimming")
on downstream pollution.
3. Groundwater programs and concerns also received several comments.
Some of these referred to aquifters at specific locations.
-------
a. Recharging wastewaters, and water conservation can maintain
high water tables and prevent the seepage of contaminants into
the Magothy aquifer. The League of Women Voter's strongly
supports Commissioner Berle's proposed legislation on water
conservation.
b. One inquirer asked whether there was duplication between the
new underground injection control program under the Safe Drinking
Water Act and the N/SPDES program in New York State which also
regulates groundwater dischargers.
c. The Otter Creek Aquifer in Cortland County should be a candidate
for sole source aquifer designation.
4. Program relationships with other State and Federal agencies were
suggested in several letters received. Some also referred to specific
water supply studies.
a. Other State institutions should also be included in the SEA, such
as, the Public Service Commission, and, possibly the Office of
Disaster Preparedness. Also, other Federal agencies should be
involved, such as, the Corps of Engineers and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
b. DRBC's authority, including powers in planning, allocations,
diversions, releases, construction, emergency powers and rates
and charges for water supply should be cited.
c. Updating the Oswego County Water Supply Study should be a
high priority.
d. The DOH in a thorough review letter has submitted editorial and
substantive changes or additions to provide the necessary cross
references and continuity to other sections in the Agreement.
e. The description of the history and status of drinking water surveys
in New York is not wholly adequate. Not all water quality moni-
toring programs are noted.
-------
RESPONSE
PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY
2TB7S
General. It Is agreed by both, the State and EPA that there is a need for a
major expansion of the Public Water Supply chapter to include strategies
sufficient to serve as the basis for the annual program plan under
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
l.a Both agencies did a minimal amount of groundwater analysis. The first
agreement update will correct the referenced statement.
l.b We agree. This would be considered as an eligible activity in areas
where this is not yet completed.
l.c New York State Department of Environmental Conservation would welcome
the help.
2.a With the exception of Southeast New York, the State does not agree
that water quantity concerns be given an equivalent priority with
water quality. In upstate New York, surface and ground water supplies
are generally adequate to meet projected demand. Emphasis is placed
on protection of the quality of surface and groundwaters through
the CWA and SDWA.
Concern with regard to quantity in Southeastern New York is manifest
through the North Atlantic Piegional Study, the New York Southeast
Water Supply Study, the Northeastern U.S. Water Supply study and
the current Hudson River Level B study. For example, the State has
requested the Corps of Engineers to accelerate action on the third
New York City water tunnel as part of the Hudson River project.
Further emphasis on water resources management will be included
in the .update of the Agreement. In this update, strategies will
be developed which deal directly with water supply planning, including
planning for reservoirs, conveyance facilities and the like.
2.b+c Agreed. The use of non-structural solutions to water quantity problems
will be included in the first update of the Agreement. The Agreement
already reflects an increased concern for water conservation and water
supply management. Section 2.C.3 describes water conservation and
reuse strategies. Furthermore, the entire Agreement reflects priority
concern for the protection of potable water supplies.
2.d Agreed, DOH has the prime role in water supply distribution management.
The relative roles of DEC and DOH will be delineated as part of the
Interagency Agreement called for in strategy l(a),
2.e We disagree. However; in some instances there is such an effect.
Where such an effect exists it should be considered in the environ-
mental impact analysis of the withdrawal project. Furthermore,
issues of this type are generally dealt with in the Hydraulic/Hydrologic
Modification chapter.
-------
3.a Groundwater protection Is a major concern to New York State. The
208 plan for Nassau and Suffolk Counties makes major recommendations
on recharge, protection and zoning. We agree that additional study
and analysis Is necessary.
3,b There Is the potential for overlap between the UIC and N/SPDES programs,
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and NYS Department of
Health will work to avoid any potential duplication.
3.c Initiation of the Designation of the Otter Creek Aquifer in Cortland
County is up to local agencies or individua.ls. EPA in conjunction
with the State would consider such a request„
4. a We agree. There are some other state and federal agencies which
should be eventually involved. In oi'der to develop the Initial draft
agreement, however, the number of participants was kept to the principal
state and federal agencies„
4«b This will be cited by reference in the first Agreement update.
4. c NYS Department of Health will be prioritizing which county public
water supply studies should be updated,,
4»d Department of Health changes and additions will be reflected in the
first Agreement update„
4,e We disagree,, We , feel the description was adequate. If more specific
detail is supplied, it will be considered.
-------
COMMENTS
RESIDUAL WASTES
2.A.3 and 2.B.9
1- Several reviewers wanted to change the basic orientation and
priorities of the residual waste program.
a.. There should be more emphasis on source reduction, source
separation and on-site treatment and disposal instead of big
centralized facilities.
b. Source reduction should be a major priority of the resource
recovery program. Markets must be developed for the end
products of resource recovery.
c. The resource recovery plan places too much emphasis on urban
areas. DEC should also emphasize alternate solutions to
problems in suburban and rural areas. ^
d. The technology for resource recovery appears not to be econ-
omical or sufficiently proven yet to move ahead into implementation.
EPA and DEC should provide technological leadership before going
forward.
e. The level of effort to be put into resource recovery needs
clarification given the heavy emphasis on land filling as a
solution to residuals and solid waste problems.
£. The problem of landfill leachate collection, treatment and
control should be discussed in the Agreement, especially in
light of the regulation of such sources under ttt SPDES. A
task should be added to the strategy whereby leachate control
methods would be identified.
g. The Agreement should include a DEC monitoring and surveillance
program for residual waste. Such a program could identify
problems for the Interim Solutions Plan.
h. "Residuals" is poorly defined in the Agreement, and appears
to cover all but water quality problems created by direct dis-
charges into air, aquifers, or waterways. Aquifer contamination
by deep well injection and salt water intrusion should have been
addressed in the residuals section. Dredged spoil and stored
liquids are not residuals.
-------
2. Reviewers wanted EPA and DEC to take the lead in developing
technology and alternative methods for solid waste disposal
and residual management"; Resource recovery and landfill leachate
treatment are two areas where leadership is especially needed.
3- Several reviewers recommended that the Agreement be revised to
more adequately involve local government in solid waste and
residuals management.
a. The DEC should integrate the residuals management program
with existing local plans and with problem areas identified
by the 208 program.
b. Where designated 208 agencies have identified water quality
problems caused by residuals, the agencies should assist the
DEC in the development and regulatory residual waste plan.
c. The State should work with designated 208 agencies in mapping
ground and surface water supplies (see page 2-367(d)).
d. The strategy discussed on page 2r,20 should stress that identification
of planning and management agencies for residuals must by law be
done in consultation with local elected officials.
e. The roles of designated solid waste planning and management agencies
in the development of the Statewide Management Regulatory/Enforce-
ment Plan must be spelled out.
f- Responsibilities for registration of septic tank cleaners and
industrial waste collectors should be taken from DEC regional
offices and delegated to county health departments (see page
2-352).
Reviewers made several other comments:
a. Some explanation is needed on the relationship between components
of the State Residuals Management Program (Development Plan,
Regulatory Plan, and Interim Solutions Plan): the NYS Comprehensive
Resource Recovery and Solid Waste Management Plan required by sub-
title D of RCRA.
t>. A cost analysis of alternatives to ocean dumping should be developed
even though such dumping will be banned by 1982.
c. Section 201 funding should be made available to alleviate the bur-
dens that compliance with SPDES requirements for treatment of
landfill leachate will place on local governments.
-------
do Comments of the NYS DOT described DOT dredge and spoil
disposal activities not covered in the Agreement.
e0 There should be no duplication with other programs in the
areas of residual waste management and resource recovery.
f. Irs analysis of samples for toxics, the Agreement should specify
who will conduct the laboratory analysis.
g. One commentor wanted an amplification of the statement on
page 2-354 that DEC and Connecticut have initiated a strategy
to handle dredged spoil disposal for Long Island Sound.
-------
RESPONSE
RESIDUAL WASTES
2.A 3 and 2.B 9
Agreed. DEC and EPA will continue to encourage consolidation of
solid waste management systems where economies of scale and more
efficient operation may be realized; however, this is not meant
to preclude the opportunity for a municipality to provide a low
technology facility to handle its own waste and ship the non-re-
coverables to a central disposal facility. DEC maintains a one
million dollar financial assistance program for local government
to establish source separation systems. We concur with the corn-
mentor on the importance of this issue. The Agreement will continue
to recognize the need for source reduction and separation and on-
site treatment and disposal wherever feasible.
Agreed. The previous response acknowledges our agreement with the
need to emphasize source reduction. Similarly, we recognize the
importance of market development. See 2-346, 2-347, 2-352, 2-360,
2-365. It is the general belief in the Resource Recovery field
that markets exist (for recovered products and energy) and need
only be identified or developed, not created. Note, however, that
markets can only be developed on the basis of economies, supply and
demand. They cannot be mandated but they can and will be encouraged.
The Resource Recovery Plan presumably refers to the draft New York
State Comprehensive Recovery and Solid Waste Management Plan. Note,
this plan is a separate document which is consistent with the goals,
objectives and strategies of this Agreement. It provides however
considerably more detail. As to the point raised, the plan and the
Agreement were intended to encourage local municipalities to pursue
alternative solutions applicable to their circumstances and best
interests, rural or urban. The plan provides for flexibility in
this regard rather than a structurally rigid approach. Population
densities, however, do-support different solutions to solid waste
problems. For example, centralized Resource Recovery will receive
a higher priority in urban areas (2-348, 2-359, 2-360). Low density
areas may permit the use of low technology facilities. We believe
the Agreement and the plan reflect this policy.
We do not agree. Resource Recovery facilities are under construction
in the County of Monroe, City of Albany, Hempstead, Hooker Chemical
in Niagara County. (The latter two are privately financed.) Tech-
nology in this field is new, but proven. Under the provisions of
the Environmental Quality Bond Act, New York State has been out front
in assisting the construction of first generation recovery systems.
EPA also provides a national grant program for new technologies.
Our staff numbers follow closely the development of these technologies,
and are equipped to provide technical assistance to municipalities in
New York State.
-------
-2-
le. This will be corrected. The tables containing funding levels
should assist in defining levels of effort given resource recovery.
Additional working level detail may also be found in the annual
solid waste program plan. As a five year policy statement we
intend to emphasize long-range strategies in the Agreement. These
do, we believe, presently emphasize resource recovery-
lf. Agreed. A procedural process is in its final development stage for
Department coordination of multiple permit requirements including
SPDES as they relate to landfill facilities. These permits are
limited to the regulation discharges to surface and ground waters.
This new procedure is not represented in the Agreement now. It
will be added in the context of a policy statement or strategy.
lg. Agreed. DEC has instituted a monitoring and surveillance program
related to solid waste. There is some reference to it on page 2-352,
We agree that the reference in inadequate. A broader explanation
of the monitoring strategy will be added. Note, however, we will
keep this reference on the "strategy" level. The entire monitoring
program description is in the annual (CEPPS) program plan.
Ih. The scope of the residuals chapter is under discussion right now.
We started out with a traditional "Solid Waste" scope and found many
problems such as sludge and dredge spoils are so directly related to
this program that logically it should fall within it. However, the
RCRA statute has a definition that is narrower than the range of
elements we have included. We are resigned to the fact that no
system or "categories" will be. "air tight" and comport with each
statute, preference, and organization. We do believe, however,
that deep well injection and salt water intrusion will best be
handled elsewhere in the Agreement.
2. Agreed. Items #1 and #4 cite our grant and technical assistance
programs that DEC and EPA employ to promote progress in residua}.
waste disposal and recovery. Particular systems supported by
New York State include RDF-electricity generation, RDF-steam
generation, hydropulping, pyrolization, shredding, glass and metals
separation and source separation projects. In addition, several
landfills now have liners, leachate collection and treatment,
leachate recirculation, shredders and balers. We believe the
Agreement presently reflects our policy to continue support for
developing technology and alternative methods for residuals management
3a. Agreed. Historically, local government has directed the path to
solutions in the solid waste field. DEC and EPA are committed to
involve local government in the improvement of solid waste manage-
ment systems in New York State. Further, we are so bound by law.
40 CFR 25 outlines specifically how public participation and
involvement are to be undertaken. These mandates will be met.
-------
-3-
3a, b,c, e. Agreed. There are several references in the Chapter to utilizing
and coordinating activities with designated agencies. Page 2-367
describes mapping ground and surface waters and identifying
environmentally sensitive areas through the"water quality manage-
ment process". This is the program in which designated agencies
participate and through their plans influence the programs that are
implemented. Another reference is found on page 2-371 which cites
the opportunity for "water quality management planning" to partici-
pate in the design of the regulatory component of the State residual
program. Note also, the "State Development Plan" includes further
details on 208 agency involvement. We believe the above cited pages
describe the opportunity for the 208 involvement.
Agreed. The comment correctly notes that we are required by law to
include the public in the designation of planning and implementation
agencies. The State has already held 18 public hearings throughout
the State and they have generally indicated concurrence with the
designations. We will stress this involvement with local elected
officials, as suggested, on page 2-20.
We agree in part. Qualified counties are involved in the registra-
tion of septic tank cleaners. Such counties are responsible under
contract with this Department for the receipt of annual registration
applications, their review and issuance of permits, and approval and
insepction of disposal sites. The processing of industrial hauler
applications, however, is retained in the central office because of
the potential presence of hazardous wastes. Such wastes require
special staff capabilities not available at either the Department
regional or county level.
Agreed. The relationship of each solid waste program document will
be fully explained.
To some extent this is being done through the construction grants
program. Planning for alternative methods of sludge disposal is
an eligible cost under the Section 201 grant program. A cost
analysis is an important element of this plan. Most of the major
municipal sludge dumpers are in receipt of a grant to prepare
alternative plans and will perform this analysis as part of the
plan. To some extent the EIS on Ocean Dumping (September 1978, EPA)
also addresses the cost of alternatives on page 160.
Section 201 funding elegibilities are determined by Statute and
regulation. These funds are restricted in use to the disposal
and treatment of domestic sewage. We agree that there is a need
for support, but our discretion is limited by Statute.
As described on page 2-370 a dredge spoil program will be developed.
We will include in this the New York State DOT dredge spoil
as appropriate.
-------
-4-
4e. The purpose of undertaking this Agreement is to examine our
programs as a whole and in so doing eliminate duplication. Every
effort will continue to be made for minimizing any duplication
of effort between programs and agencies in effectuating a
satisfactory comprehensive residual waste management and resource
recovery program in this State.
4f. In the Agreement we have attempted to parcel out responsibilities
for "strategies" and "activities". The Agency identified as
responsible for any item will be found in the tables at the end
of each chapter. Greater specificity of work to be performed may
be found in the annual work plan for the Solid Waste program.
4g. The program for dredge spoil is to be developed as noted in item #20
and on page 2-370. As this program takes shape the relationship
of agencies involved in dredge spoils will be described further.
There is an agreement between New York and Connecticut for Long Islanj
Sound that is in existence right now. Details on this can be
provided by DEC upon request.
-------
COMMENTS
AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT
2.$.10
This section was not included in the draft Agreement. Nevertheless,
the comments received related to air-quality management are para-
phrased below.
4. Since this section was not included in the draft, there is a
fear that no opportunity will be provided to comment on this
important section.
2. The relationship between air-quality management and water quality
management is too important to be left for later development.
3. Concern was raised over air pollution problems that result from
water quality problems. The example given was the release of
toxic organic and inorganic chemicals, and viruses from a
proposed natural draft cooling tower.
4. More attention and research should be devoted to nonpoint pol-
lution problems transported by air." Interstate and international
agreements are necessary to control this type of pollution which
causes problems hundreds, perhaps thousands of miles from its
source.
5. Acid rain should receive priority attention.
-------
RESPONSES
AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT
2. B. 10
The comments on Air Quality will be addressed in the State -
EPA Air Quality Agreement targeted for completion in late Spring 1979.
An Air/Water interface chapter will subsequently be added to the Water
Agreement.
1. There will be an opportunity for comment on the Air Agreement.
2. The Air Agreement could not have been drafted in time to be
included in the first State-EPA Agreement on Water Quality
Management.
3. Air pollution problems resulting from toxics pollution of water
are addressed both in review of power plants mandated by
Article VIII of the Public Service Law and through an attempt
to integrate the problem into the Department's new Toxic
Substances Coordination Program.
4. Research is now underway within DEC and should be expanded.
The Air Resources division will attempt to address the need for
intergovernmental agreements in the Air Agreement.
5. Acid rain is being researched in terms of origin and chemical
conversion mechanisms as well as effects on wildlife and fish.
The legislature has held hearings on this subject and EPA is
beginning to make efforts ,to address the problem. Further
research would be useful.
-------
COMMENTS
OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
(2.B.11)
This section was not included in the draft Agreement. Nevertheless, the
comments received are paraphrased below.
1. There is no listing (outside of three items) of existing programs
that may be impacted, or new porograms that may be contemplated.
When developed, the draft chapter must be the subject of public
scrutiny.
2. Reference was made to the study "Legislative Guidelines for Environ-
mental Management in Monroe County" which presents model ordinances to
protect critical features. A model town drainage ordinance was pre-
sented.
3. The absence in the Agreement of a plan to deal with radioactive wastes
is unacceptable.
4. A number of reviewers commented on the lack of a strategy to deal
with marine sanitation devices.
5. The Agreement has an inadequate emphasis on NEPA and SEQR.
-------
RESPONSES
OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
2. B. 11
General. The Other Environmental Programs chapter will be developed
as the Agreement is updated.
1. We agree. There will be public input in the development of this
chapter.
2. Thank you.
3. Radioactive wastes will be covered in this chapter.
4. The commentor is referred to the annual 106 program plan which
extensively discusses NYS DEC's strategy dealing with marine
sanitation devices (MSD). MSD's will be addressed in the upda.be
to the Municipal discharge section of the Agreement. MSD's are
also covered in the Nassau-Suffolk 208 plan.
5. NEPA and SEQR will be covered in the update of the Agreement.
-------
COMMENTS
LAND USE MANAGEMENT
The following comments relate to the land use management section of
the Agreement. Reviewers stated that:
1. The land use management section lacks focus since it never
identifies the ways in which land use planning affects water
quality. The reviewer described examples of land use/water
quality interactions.
2. Additional strategies should be included:
a. Population projection policy should be described. The policy
should deal with the role of EDB state projections, the issue
of cross acceptance, and the application of projections to
facility planning areas.
b. State aid can play a key role in land use management through
improvements in site selection and design for large scale
developments.
c. Planning for economic development should ensure maximum
exploitation of fishable, swimmable waters.
3. The planning function is weak at the state level. Responsibilities
are fragmented, funding is inadequate, and executive support is
missing.
4. On page 2-397, the Agreement should be revised to indicate that
Governor Carey has adopted the 701 land use element.
5. Table 2-17 shows no input from local authorities in the land use
planning strategy. The designated 208 agencies should be included
as responsible agencies since they have already performed a con-
siderable amount of land use planning.
opposed
6. Erie-Niagara noted a preference for 16 land use categories as appBBMrf
to LUNR's 51 categories. Furthermore, they indicate that the Agreement
is unclear in indicating whether LUNR will be replaced or updated.
7.
The statement "DEC and EPA will support the implementation of land
use controls" will irritate advocates of home rule.
-------
The Agreement should cite DRBC's and DEC's roles in assuring
compatibility of NYSPOS, water resources and water supply
planning with the DRBC comprehensive plan. This will be especially
important when the final Delaware Level B plan is used to deter-
mine major mid-course corrections to DRBC's Comprehensive plan.
(See page 2-396).
-------
RESPONSES
LAND USE MANAGEMENT
2.C. 2
1. The land use management section is based upon the assumption that there is a
direct relationship between land use and water quality. Future updates will
elaborate on this relationship.
2a. The agreement currently addresses a population procedure under "strategy for
coordination with other State and Federal agency programs" on page 3-30. In
the chapter on Construction Grants page ,2-75,under "status/needs" it is stated
that EPA and the State would jointly develop a policy for developing population
projections for the State.
2b. The agreement appears to adequately address this concern under Program Develop-
ment needs, point,which proposes technical assistance to various levels of
local government in incorporating water quality management requirements into
the community planning process. Criteria for site selection and design for
large scale development would be part of the land use management strategy pro-
moted through technical assistance to local government.
2c. We agree that maximum utilization should be made of waters which have been
cleaned up to make them attractive for public use. This will be a key element
in future land use planning.
3. Throughout the section on Land Use Management heavy emphasis has been placed
on both DEC and the Department of State (NY) working together to coordinate
their own programs and to give technical assistance to local government.
4. Agreed.
5. The role of Areawide Agencies in land use planning should be defined in their
WQM plansc
6. The status of LUNR updating is unclear at this time. The comment will be con-
sidered as this chapter is revised.
7. The State and EPA support and encourage land use controls and it is the re-
sponsibility of local governments to actively develop and implement such
controls.
8. Agreed. This comment will be handled as the Agreement is updated.
-------
2. a See response 1. c in the Water Quality Assessment section
(section 1).
2. b These issues were 'covered in other^ sections of the Agreement.
We agree that the discussion of O&M, pretraatment and sludge
disposal might require expansion in the update of the /Agreement.
2. c The process for establishing effluent requirements for municipal
and industrial discharges is mandated by the Clean Water Act.
These limits do vary to accommodate different industrial
technologies and capabilities. A minimum level of treatment,
however, is required for most dischargers. Our discretion is
limited in modifying these minimum requirements of law.
New York agrees that the broad requirement for secondary
treatment of all dischargers may not be necessary to achieve
ambient water quality standards.
2. d A discussion of the Municipal Project Priority List will be
incorporated in the update of the Agreement.
2. e We agree. Each project is evaluated on an individual basis to
assure that water quality standards are met.
3. a&b We agree.
3. c The replacement of existing combined sewers with separate
sanitary and storm sewers is evaluated on a case-by-case basis
and is undertaken where cost-effective. This occurs pre-
dominantly in small communities. In large urban areas, it is
recognized that sewer separation is generally not cost-effective.
This policy will be reflected in the update of the Agreement.
3. d A policy on sanitary sewer overflows will be included in the
update of the Agreement
4. a Agreed. Where "multi-use" is restricted by local statute it
cannot be attempted.
-------
4. b We agree that the multiple use concept for waste water treatment
facilities should be considered in a broad sense and is required
under the amendments of the 1977 Clean Water Act. However,
the use of funds for water quality programs are not constrained
by both Federal and State legislation.
5. a The residual waste chapter (Section 2. B. 9) addresses the issue
of leachate.
5. b Project cost related to the replacement of water lines, roads,
lawns, etc. , are eligible construction grants cost where justified.
5. c In the Delegation Agreement for transfer of management of the
construction grant program from EPA to the State, a review of
the application process and procedure will be undertaken with
the expressed intent of simplifying the application process. We
disagree that transfer of this program to the State will add to its
cost. Delegation of project approval and grant award to the
State should result in a shorter time period for the award of a
grant, thus reducting the overall cost of the project to the
community, i. e. projects will proceed to construction quicker
thereby reducing inflation costs.
5. d The update of the Agreement will elaborate on elements of the
construction grant facility process where it may be advantageous
for DEC to continue this planning.
5. e Agreed. The relationship between the State-EPA Agreement
and the construction grants Delegation Agreement will be
explained in the first update of the Agreement.
-------
COMMENTS
WATER CONSERVATION AND REUSE
^.C. 3
Reviewers stated that:
1. The water conservation and reuse strategies lack detail.
2. Leakage monitoring and control should be managed locally
rather than Statewide.
3. The use of the term "universal metering" should be clarified.
4. Westchester County requested the opportunity to review the
comprehensive water conservation bill package "being completed
by DEC for introduction in the State Legislature."
-------
RESPONSES
WATER CONSERVATION & REUSE
2.C. 3
1. No comment.
2. Agreed.
3. Will be clarified in update.
4. Package was sent to the legislature and did not pass. It will be resub'
mitted. Westchester County is welcome to review it.
-------
COMMENTS
LAKE RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT
2-C.f
1. A number of reviewers indicated their general support for this
section.
2. Erie-Niagara supported the creation of a funding source for grant
application research.
3. A number of reviewers emphasized the need for the involvement of
the 208 Areawide Agencies in the Clean Lakes program.
4. The Chautauqua County Department of Planning and Development raised
specific issues regarding differing analyses of Chautauqua Lake,
and the subsequent treatment requirements imposed on local dis-
charges .
5. The Seneca County Planning Board described a problem with excessive
aquatic vegetation in Cayuga Lake, and recommended that the 208
program consider aquatic vegetation as a pollutant in the State's
water bodies.
-------
RESPONSES
LAKE RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT
2.C. 4
2. We agree with Erie Niagara. The 314 regulations, expected to be published
as a draft in early 1979, will provide funding for grant application "re-
search". The funding level will probably be 70% federal, 30% other.
3. To the extent that designated 208 agencies have identified in their manage-
ment plan the existence of lakes with water quality problems, they are in-
volved in the Clean Lakes Program. Support of 208 planning agencies is
desirable when lake restoration projects are submitted for grant consider-
ation. 208 agencies may participate through the development of project
proposals.
4. The National Eutrophication Survey concluded that Chautauqua Lake is
nitrogen limiting which would require nitrogen fixation units on all
plants which would discharge to the lake. DEC, however, has concluded
that the treatment facilities serving Chatauqua Institute and Mayville
need provide only secondary treatment to ensure the maintenance of the
water quality standards. As a result, only portions of the treatment
process required by the State and by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency are eligible for construction grant assistance. The decision to
provide additional treatment at the Chautauqua Institute sewage treat-
ment plan was made solely by the applicant with the result that the
additional cost was borne by them.
The requirement for providing additional treatment for the South and Center
Chautauqua Lake Sewer District (C-36-680) which services Celoron is to
maintain water quality standards for dissolved oxygen in the Chadakoin
River and has no relationship to nutrient levels in Chautauqua Lake. Gen-
erally speaking, when the activated sludge process of providing second-
ary treatment is used, the most efficient and least costly process to provide
higher levels of reduction of oxygen demanding substances is nitrification.
Nitrification does not remove nitrogen and its compounds from the water
stream, per se, but reduces the oxygen demand from the nitrogenous substances
in the sewage. Two water quality surveys of the Chadakoin, Cassadaga, and
Conewango sub-basin have been conducted to determine the reasons for low
dissolved oxygen levels and fish kills in the basin. The surveys results
indicated that the problems were the result of the combined effects of
industrial discharges from the Jamestown area, municipal discharges from
Jamestown and Falconer, and nutrient enrichment from Chautauqua Lake. Thus
the requirements for nitrification in the South and Center Chautauqua Lake
Sewer District facility is imposed in order to ensure the attainment and
maintenance of the standard for dissolved oxygen in the streams downstream
from Chautauqua Lake, and not for the purpose of reducing nutrients in
Chautauqua Lake.
5. The presence of aquatic vegetation in a particular water body is not in it-
self a pollutant. Aquatic vegetation is a manifestation of a pollution
problem whether it be a result of the natural lake aging process or the
result of cultural development. This is a typical example of what the
public perceives as the result of pollution. Through the 208 planning pro-
cess adyerse conditions such as excessive algal growth or aquatic vegetation
can be identified as a water quality problem.
-------
COMMENT S
FINANCING NYS's WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
1. Erie-Niagara objected to the implication that "208" had not
taken a close look at the abilities of municipalities to
finance water pollution control facilities. They described the
work they had done in this area.
2. The Citizen's Union,Acting as a clearinghouse for other review-
ers^ stated that this section "shows a welcome sensitivity to the
fiscal burdens created by wastewater management on local govern-
ment, and to the need for more versatile federal aid and for long
term State assistance for operation and maintenance." They,
however, also cited deficiencies.
a. The focus of the chapter is limited to wastewater management.
b. The chapter does not deal with limitationson'use of 201 funds
to fund stormwater projects.
c. The chapter does not deal with the "Enterprise Fund" concept which
deals with segregation of water quality management revenues.
d. The chapter stresses the cost of "second generation" problems,
but the list of second generation problems is not consistent
throughout the Agreement.
3. One reviewer stated that the Agreement should address situations
where capital and O&M costs preclude the building of sewage
treatment plants.
-------
RESPONSES
FINANCING NYS'S WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2.c. 5
Erie-Niagara was correct; They did look at financial
implications. The updated agreement will make changes
Update of Agreement will incorporate the suggestions
noted. The draft SW 208 Plan has already incorporated
this suggestion.
This concern is addressed in the draft State WQM Plan
Strategies developed will be reflected in the update
of the Agreement.
-------
COMMENTS
MANAGEMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS
OF THE STATE'S WQM PROGRAM
1. Westchester states that this sub-chapter disregards the role
of areawide agencies, and the recommendations of the 208 plans
Special districts may be unnecessary. Westchester found that
the necessary capabilities to implement WQM controls already
exist in the County.
2- The Citizen's Union states that this section adds nothing to
the Agreement and should be dropped.
3. One reviewer stated that a lead water pollution agency in each
county should be designated and receive financial assistance
from DEC.
-------
RESPONSES
MANAGEMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS
.OF THE STATE'S WQM PROGRAM
2.C. 6
1. DEC agrees that Westchester County may already have the necessary capabili'
ties to implement the WQM control needed in that County. However, all
other designated 208 agency plans in NYS have recommended some changes.
2. We disagree. Program implementation requires consideration of management
agency capabilities.
3. The draft Statewide 208 plan suggests that there be a lead agency at the
county level responsible for water quality management.
-------
COMMENTS
DESIGNATION. DELEGATION AND COORDINATION OF PLANNING
3.4
1. A number of reviewers commented on the sensitive issue of the
relationship between EPA, DEC and the six designated agencies.
•At
a. Contrary to the requirements of Section 208 of Clean Water Act,
the Agreement places planning powers for the entire State,
including the designated areas, in DEC. EPA and DEC may not
circumvent the requirements of the law by means of a contract.
Several reviewers saw this as an attempt to remove decision making
from the hands of local government.
b. An objection was raised to the statement that designation gives
an areawide agency "a franchise to carry out DEC's role under
Section 208".
c. Interjection of DEC as a third party to all grant agreements
made between EPA and a designated agency is illegal. Furthermore,
designated agencies should receive funding directly from EPA.
d. The New York metropolitan area, because of its interstate nature,
requires a strong federal involvement. Testimony at the New York
City public hearing indicated a strong desire to continue a direct
EPA - designated agency relationship. This desire was also indi-
cated in comments received in the Erie and Niagara Counties area.
e. Three options for continuing designated agency involvement (desig-
nation, delegation and coordination) are mentioned. However, the
functions that the designated agencies will perform are not specified
The continuing role of the designated agencies should be clarified
throughout the Agreement.
f. The present pattern of designation is not adequate to deal with
the management of natural water systems. The planning boundaries
differ.
2. A number of reviewers commented on how best to determine continuing
planning needs, and to specify responsibilities for meeting those needs.
Individual reviewers stated that:
-------
a. Delegation of responsibilities to planning agencies would be
acceptable only if the DEC and regional planning agencies could
negotiate a long-term agreement (5 years) for future work. This
agreement would be similar to the EPA/State Agreement.
b. The priority program development needs are not sufficiently
'developed in the draft Agreement to allow DEC to recommend
assignment of 208 funds allocated to New York State.
c.The statement that "DEC will actively involve all areawide and
local agencies in the decision making process for determining
future timing and priorities for planning in the program" is
not consistent with the rest of the Agreement. It is perceived
that the Agreement establishes priorities. Therefore, the state-
ment should be clarified.
d.There is a need for increased stability in the funding of 208
areawide planning agencies. Without stability, it is hard to
generate the momentum required to go from planning to implementation.
3.A specific item of concern was the development of population projections.
Reviewers indicated:
a.The Agreement should place greater emphasis on the significance
'of EDB population projections, and should describe how they are
to be used. The description of the relationship between federal,
state and local population projections contained in EPA's Cost
Effectiveness guidelines received support.
b.HUD 701 planning should be cited as being responsible for growth
direction, not population projections.
c.All federal agencies should be required to use the same set of
geographic projections and relate those projections to a single
responsible State agency.
d.208 agencies or county planning agencies should certify 201 pop-
ulation projections. Population projections should provide for a
range of from 10-15 percent on a 20-year design basis
4. A number of reviewers emphasized the need for coordination among programs
Reviewers indicated that:
a. The Agreement does not adequately deal with coordination with Corps
programs and the Coastal Zone Management program.
-------
b'Cooperation between the Departments of Health and Environmental
Conservation should be emphasized.
c.The Agreement should contain a description of Tri-State's role
in 208 planning.
d.There should be interstate and international agreements for dealing
with arid rain.
5.Other comments included the following:
a.The Agreement does not come to grips with a mechansim for resolving
interregional (especially interstate) disagreements.
b.The section on designation, delegation and coordination provides
almost no background on the key problems in planning in New York
State. Therefore, subsequent recommendations "come from nowhere".
The recommendations deal with some, but not all of the problems.
c.DEC should use future funds to expand regional staff. Assign a
coordinator to each county to act as a laison between DEC and local
communities.
d.DEC and DOH should each use a 75% re-imbursement rate for County
Health Departments.
e.The NYS Department of State made several editorial recommendations.
-------
RESPONSES
DESIGNATION, DELEGATION AND COORDINATION OF PLANNING
3.A
l.a Under Section 130.12 of EPA's Rules and Regulations
published in the Federal Register on November 28, 1975,
it states that a State Planning Agency is responsible
for the conduct and coordination of 208 planninn
throughout the State, and the State Planning Agency
must assure that each element of the States approved
planning process is achieved. Therefore, it is DEC's
position that it is responsible for assuring that
requirements of the federal regulations, 40 CFR,
Parts 130 & 131 are achieved Statewide, including the
areas where the Governor has designated areawide
planning agencies to do water quality management
planning. However, the Agreement also recognizes the
important authorities and responsibilities of designated
208 agencies. These authorities remain unchanged.
Local, state and federal entities are all concerned
about meeting the objectives of the Clean Water Act.
Three years of 208 planning has taken place in NYS
since the first 208 grant was offered in July 1975.
It is now time to evaluate this experience and based
upon this review to assign parts of the planning process
to those agencies that have demonstrated competence,
be it a municipal, regional, state or federal agency.
This will be initiated through the certification and
approval process and incorporated in revisions to the
State/EPA Agreement.
l.b The Statement should be corrected to read "the authority
and responsibility to carry out areawide waste treatment
planning under the overall supervision of DEC".
l.c EPA has advised DEC that it could not allow the State
to be a third party to any grant agreement between EPA
and the designated agencies within New York State.
1-d Grants will continue to be made directly from EPA to
designated 208 agencies as required by law. However,
DEC feels that the existing pattern of designated and
non-designated 208 planning areas in New York State does
not provide an optimum structure for long term program
development. As described in the Agreement, EPA Region II
will be delegattngbroader supervisory responsibilities
for the management of designated agency work to DEC.
-------
1-e DEC agrees that the roles to be played by the desi ana-ted
agencies over the next few years should be spelled out.
DEC and the areawfde agencies will be in a better
position to spell these out once the initial 208 plans
have been completed by the areawide agencies and sub-
mitted to the State for certification. It is hoped
that the functions of the designated agencies can be
clearly spelled out in the first update to the Agreement
1-f Designation of the areawide boundaries tried to incor-
porate all environmental constraints. Of course, the
boundaries are not perfect and can be changed if there
is adequate justification and significant beneficial
advantage. In analyzing NYS it is important to look
at the Water Management Problems on both a municipal
boundary basis and on a drainage basin basis. The
State will continue to look at water quality manage-
ment problems throughout the State on a basin basis.
Where designated agencies continue to perform water
quality management planning on a municipal boundary
basis, DEC will advise them concerning activities
above or below them in the basin.
2.a,b,c At the time the initial Agreement was drafted, there
was not sufficient information available to develop
the priority program development needs for the assign-
ment of 208 funds to designated agencies. As stated
in response to question 1, DEC agrees that it is
important to define the responsibilities of planning
agencies over the five year period, and hopes that
this wfll be incorporated into the first update of
the State/EPA Agreement. This will be done in close
consultation with the designated agencies.
2.d Agreed. EPA is endeavoring to gain stability in the
208 program. However, funding is greatly dependent upon
the actions of the present 208 agencies in implementing
present plans.
3.a The Population Projection issue has caused a great deal
of concern both to the designated agencies and to the
State (DEC). In the draft Statewide 208 plan, the
State is proposing a population projection strategy
consistent with EPA's cost-effectiveness guidelines.
This strategy has the following concepts:
(i) population projections used by State agencies
shall be equal to those developed by the
Department of Commerce.
-------
(ii) where designated agencies population projections
are not equal to those developed by the Department
of Commerce, the designated agencies will revise
the population projections to meet those of the
Department of Commerce.
(iii) 208 funds shall not be the only source of funds
used to develop population projections. Other
potential sources of funds include HUD 701 funds,
205g funds and 201 funds.
3.b This point will have to be resolved by the State, EPA and
HUD.
3.c We desire that all federal agencies use a common set of
population projections, and EPA will endeavor to obtain
this common use.
3.d All 201 population projections must be consistent with the
projections in approved 208 plans. We disagree with the
use of a range.
4.a The update of the Agreement will consider placing more
attention on coordination with the Corps program and
the current coastal management program. Currently EPA
is endeavoring to coordinate with all federal agencies,
including the Corps of Engineers and the Coastal Zone
Management program. In a like manner DEC is endeavoring
to provide the necessary coordination with New York State
programs. This will be reflected in the Agreement update.
4.b The Agreement required both the Department of Health and
the Department of Environmental Conservation to meet over
the next several months and develop an agreement to define
the responsibilities of each agency in the water quality
management field.
4.c The role of Tri-State in 208 planning is now being worked
out with its state jurisdictions. The role of Tri-State
is important in land use plans affected by water and air
pollution control actions. Tri-State's Land Use Committee
is trying to clarify its role.
4.d See Air Quality Management, response number 4.
5.a The authorities and responsibilities of the local, state
and federal governing bodies are often redundant and over-
lapping. In New York City efforts are being made to
unravel the problems and to come up with an equitable
solution which is agreeable to all parties. This is a
difficult task. In the update to the State/EPA Agreement
-------
consideration will be given as to whether or not the
State/EPA Agreement should be the vehicle for identify-
ing mechanisms to resolve inter-regional or inter-state
di sagreements.
5.b
5.c
This comment will be considered during the Agreement update
DEC has requested State funding to expand regional staff,
basically putting a public participation specialist in
each regional office. Also, under the 205 (g) construction
grant delegation agreements, it is DEC's intent to put an
additional public participation coordinator in each region
to assist in meeting the public participation requirements
of the construction grants program.
5.d
5.e
No comment.
These comments
update.
will be considered during the Agreement
-------
COMMENTS
CONSOLIDATION OF PLANNING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
3-5
1. One reviewer objected to the statement that the Agreement fully
meets the requirements for an agreement on the level of detail
and timing of water quality management plan preparation. This
objection Was based on the lack of timing and cost information in
the tables following each sub-chapter.
2. The Citizen's Union, acting as a clearinghouse for many other
reviewers, suggested that:
a. Ultimately Subchapter 3B must be expanded to coordinate
other plans and reports including:
(1) EDB population projections
(2) 701 plans
(3) CZM plans
(4) Level "B" plans
(5) NYS/EPA Air Agreement
(6) NJS/EPA Air and Water Agreements
(7) Connecticutt Air and Water Agreements
(8) Water Quality Standards Review
b. The suggested process should be reviewed in, at most, five
years, and consideration should be given to replacing State/
EPA Agreements with State/FRC Agreements.
c- The schedule should be revised to show State/EPA Agreement
preparation preceeding revision of the Statewide water quality
management plan. This is based on the logic of proceeding
from the most general to the most specific documents.
3. One reviewer cited the need to discuss block grants in the Agreement
At a minimum, the Agreement should describe the institutional and
fiscal changes required to accomodate block grants.
-------
RESPONSES
CONSOLIDATION OF PLANNING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
3.B
1. EPA and DEC understand the concerns about the lack of
time and cost information. The Agreement is being
revised to provide this information to the extent
feasible.
2.a Consideration will be given to expand sub-Chapter 3.B
to include an analysis of the items mentioned and in
particular how they affect water quality management
planning or how water quality management affects those
activities.
2.b DEC intends to review the Agreement process on a yearly
basis. Use of an FRC/State Agreement might be a long
term option.
2.c The new regulations governing the preparation of State/
EPA Agreements will probably show revisions to the State/
EPA Agreement preceeding revisions to State water quality
management plans. In either case, it is DEC's intention
that both the Agreement and the Plan be updated on an
annual basis, this is a cyclical process. The completed
WQM Plan provides input to the State/EPA Agreement which
in turn feeds plan updates.
3. No comment.
-------
COMMENTS
PUBLIC INFORMATION AND PARTICIPATION
(Chapter 4)
This section paraphrases comments received on Chapter 4 of the draft
Agreement. Chapter 4 presents the strategy for involving the public
in New York's water quality management program.
Specific comments on public involvement in the development of the
draft Agreement are not paraphrased here. They are discussed under
the heading "General Comments" at the beginning of the chapter.
I, The most fundamental deficiency cited in the Public Information
and Participation Chapter was inadequate involvement of the public in
the decision-making process. Comments included the following:
a.The government is not interested in public participation. It is
only interested in carrying out a token program.
b.The chapter fails to indicate how citizen participation fits into
"the agency's decision-making process."
E.The emphasis is on information exchange and education, there
should be more emphasis on technical and evaluative review.
d.Effective public participation requires a rational planning process
(State, regional and local) to which the public can relate. The.
current planning process does not fulfill this condition.
e.The major gap is a failure to specify an acceptable and consistent
consultation process whereby local government and local government
agencies can be involved in plan formulation.
f.Program development should be delayed, if necessary, to allow proper
public involvement.
g-Implications in guidance and literature that the public will set the
course for water quality management is misleading, and may lead to
frustration. The law sets severe constraints on what may be done.
2. A number of reviewers commented on the structure for public participation.
Comments included the following:
a.There is a need to reevaluate the system of environmental management
councils and 208 advisory committees. Opportunities exist for
integration. One commentor stated that Environmental Management Councils
-------
are an institutionalization of public involvement, and that
their role should be supported and reinforced.
b. There is a need to define the continuing role of existing "208"
advisory committees. They are unsure of their future role.
c. The maintenance of a clearinghouse to ensure public input to
decision making should be a continuing function of government.
d. A citizen's channel should be established to allow more effective
public input to DEC and EPA. This channel could be used, for
example, to allow public comment on N/SPDES permits, or to ensure
public input to the State's water monitoring program.
e. Industrial Advisory Councils should be cited.
f. The Commissioner's Advisory Council on the Environment should meet
regularly, not periodically.
3. A number of reviewers commented that the public must be involved in
all stages of the program from the earliest stages of development to
implementation. Public hearings do not constitute public involvement
since most decisions have been made by the time the meetings are held.
Furthermore, involvement should be a continuing function.
4. A number of reviewers commented on the resources available to support
the public participation program.
a. Not enough people know about "208". A broad based public education
effort is required. However, it does not appear that adequate funds
are available.
b. There is a need to reimburse citizens for travel and meal expenses.
c. A part-time person should be hired in each county to explain 208
to the public.
d. Staffing resources must be made available to advisory committees.
Technical experts should be available to aid advisory committees.
Furthermore, staff is needed to support outreach programs.
e. Available funds are inequitably distributed. Designated areas
received far more than non-designated areas.
f. All the strategies in the Chapter are meaningless without the
resources to back them up. A number of reviewers commented that the
percentage figures for public involvement, as stated in the draft
-------
Agreement are too low. Alternative suggestions ranged be-
tween 10% and 15% of the total program.
g. Funds should be made available to assist local citizens in
"attacking" local pollution problems.
5. Public participation should focus more broadly on environmental
problems. The current focus of public participation is the "208"
program. This leads to a biased focus on water.
6. Extensive detailed comments, in addition to those cited above,
were submitted by the Citizens Union, the Region III 208 CAC
(including the input from a number of other advisory committees),
and C.M. Wacenski and M.K. Foster.
7. TheSe should be public participation in the revision to the 1972
Bi-Lateral Agreement between Canada and the United States. The
revised phosphorus effluent nn&£itai being considered will SSIrkedly
affect sewage treatment plant O&M costs. Therefore, the Bi-Lateral
Agreement should be mentioned in this Agreement.
8. One reviewer commented that New York City's public participation
program should be described in Section 4.2.4.
-------
RESPONSE
PUBLIC INFORMATION AND PARTICIPATION
(Chapter 4)
General. We view the comments received on the public participation chapter
of the New York State/EPA Agreement as very constructive. We
have decided that the public participation chapter should be
substantially revised as a result of public comment and the following
programs and regulations which have been proposed since the
Agreement was drafted:
--proposed public participation regulations
covering all water programs
--delegation of the construction grants program to NYSDEC,
which will increase DEC responsibilities for assuring adequate
public participation
--full time public participation coordinators in each DEC
Regional Office, as a result of the delegation
--pilot toxics public participation program
--proposed Water Quality Management regulations governing
public participation in the Z08 program
la. The Congress has demonstrated its commitment to assuring public
participation in all Federally mandated programs by including public
participation requirements in all recently enacted laws. EPA has
proposed a set of regulations covering all water programs, which will
not only require increased public participation, but will require that
responsiveness to public comment be demonstrated. These regulations
also provide the necessary resources by making public participation
activities grant eligible. Both DEC and EPA have increased staff
resources to assure that citizen comments and concerns are responded
to. With funds available as a result of the delegation of the construction
grants program, DEC will provide a full time public participation
specialist in each Regional Office for 201 activities. DEC will also make
public participation staff available for other water related programs.
Ib. See Introduction.
Ic. Agreed
Id&e. A national planning process does exist. However, it needs to be presented
more clearly, with associated public and local government impact points.
If. Program development is a continuing process. Public involvement needs to be
improved but delay serves no purpose.
-------
Ig. The laws (Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act) also specifically require that the
public be provided an opportunity to participate in all Federally
mandated and funded programs. While there very often are severe
constraints, the public can and must participate in choosing among
existing alternatives.
2a. Agreed.
2b. Agreed.
2c. Agreed.
2d. A purpose of this chapter is to support and define these channels.
2e. Agreed. Others should be cited as well.
2f. To be considered.
3. Agreed.
4a. Agreed.
4b. For some programs these costs are eligible but must be individually
considered based upon budgetary constraint.
4c. This is the responsibility of 208 staff in designated areas. A significant
portion of 208 funds has been allocated for public participation activities.
Adequate public education is one of the criteria which will be used to evaluate
the effectiveness of 208 plans. For the Statewide effort in non-designated areas,
staff in both the DEC headquarters office and each of the nine Regional offices
will be responsible for providing opportunities for the public to participate
in the 208 process. While placing staff in each county is not feasible, the
establishment of public participation staff in each DEC Regional Office should
result in an increase in activities at the county level.
-------
4d. To be considered.
4e. Funding distributions were made to comply with the law and rules and
regulations prior to July 1, 1975. Subsequent court decisions mandated
208 planning for all portions of all state.s. A greater amount of 208
funds was available prior to July 1, 1975 to fund the designated agencies
than was available after the court decision to fund the non-designated
areas. Future distribution will be made according to priorities set in
this Agreement.
4f. To be considered.
4g. Although there are no funded programs designed specifically for this purpose,
the new public participation regulations will result in an increase in resources
for public participation activities at the local level. The regulations
covering the construction grants program allow for reimbursement of citizen
advisory committee member expenses. All public participation activities relating
to the construction grants program will be grant eligible.
Agr eed.
To be considered.
The Bilateral Agreement has been signed. There were public hearings held
on the draft stages of the Agreeme nt. A reference to the Bi-lateral Agreement
will be added to chapter 3.
The overall strategy for public participation will define the role of local
public participation programs. The document must retain a 5 year scope
with strategy level thinking. The details of an individual program should
not be included.
-------
Appendix "A" - NYS/EPA Agreement - Public Record
Summaries of Public Meetings
May 3, 1978
May 4, 1978
May 8, 1978
May 10, 1978
May 11, 1978
May 11, 1978
May 15, 1978
May 16, 1978
May 17, 1978
May 17, 1978
May 18, 1978
May 18, 1978
3une 1*, 1978
Transcripts of Public Hearings
June 26, 1978
June 28, 1978
June 30, 1978
July 5, 1978
Written Statements
Organization
1. Delaware River Basin
Commission
2. Central New York Planning
and Development Board
3. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
4. Erie & Niagara Counties Regional
Planning Board
5. Westchester County 208
6. Senator John Marchi
Ellicottville
Syracuse
Hauppauge
New York City
Albany
Corning
Rochester
Grand Island
Canton
Warrensburg
Binghampton
Utica
Westchester
Rochester
Albany
New York City
Buffalo
Date Nature
8/22/78 Letter: Hansler to Beck
7/31/78 Letter: Hennigan to Eichler
8/2/78 Letter: Toennies to Seebald
8/11/78 Letter: Griffin to Beck
8/8/78 Letter: Weber to Berle
6/30/78 Statement for public hearing
7. 208 PAC Mohawk - Hudson
8. Chautauqua County Dept. of
Planning & Development
New York, New York
6/28/78 Statement for public hearing
Albany, New York
7/5/78 Letter: Luensman to Berle
and Beck
-------
-2-
9. Tri-State Regional Planning
Commission 7/27/78
10. Region ni CAC
•$1. Madison County Water Quality
Advisory Committee 6/16/78
12. Yates County Legislature 7/21/78
13. Town of Tonawanda 8/10/78
1*. Broome County Environmental
Management Council 7/6/78
15. New and Used Water
Sepcialists Inc. 6/20/78
16. State University College
Oneonta Biology Department 6/27/78
17. Syracuse Comm. for the Con-
servation of the Environment 6/21/78
18. International Paper Company 6/30/78
19. Temporary State Commission
on Tug Hill 6/27/78
20. Seneca County Planning Board 6/23/78
21. 208 CAC Steuben County 6/21/78
22. Town of Amherst 5/24/78
23. Monroe County Environmental
Management Council 6/29/78
on
24. The Mohawk Trust 7/5/78
25. Rochester Committee for
Scientific Information 7/8/78
26. William C. Larsen, P.E. 6/27/78
27. Broome County Department of
Public Works 5/30/78
Letter: Carrel to Berle
and Beck
Review Comments
Letter: Crawford to Beck
Letter: Multer and Lawson
to Bonchonsky
Letter: Melrose to Bonchonsky
Letter: Marsi to Bonchonsky
Letter: Mikaelian to Beck
Letter: New to USEPA OPA
Statement
Letter: Whittemore to DEC
Letter: Quinn to Elchler
Letter: Ely to Keller
Letter: Hudson to Beck
Letter: Sharpe to Buechi
Letter: Nelson to Beck
Letter: Smiley and Beard to
USEPA OPA
Letter: Berg to Beck
Letter: Larsen to Beck
Letter: Pitman to Berle
-------
-3-
28. Bob Alpern
29. Citizens Union
30. £lma Environmental Commission
31. .-
32.
33. NYS Dept of State
34. Nanco Environmental Services Inc.
35. Director of Utilities for City of
Niagara Falls
36.
37.
38.
39.
Erie County Dept. of
Environmental Planning
League of Woman Voters of
Nassau <5c Suffolk Counties
41. Erie County Legislature
42. Mr. E. Robinson
43. Broome County, Executive
44. Elma, New York
45. NYS Dept. of Health
46. Central New York Regional
Planning <5c Development Board
47. NYC 208 CAC
48. Office of Forest Marketing &
Economic Development
6/11/78
Memo; Alpern to Bonchonsky,
Marshall and Fenske
Review Comments
Letter: Frank to Beck
Rec'd 5/25/78 Comments on Chapter IV -
Wacenske, Foster
4/27/78 Comments concerning EPA/NYS
Agreement: Veechi, Over, Winsor
5/23/78 Memo to Eichler from
H. Williams
5/3/78 Letter: M. Gaind to Berle
5/18/78 Letter: R. Matthews to
J.C. McMahon
6/2/78 Letter: Loring to OTooleJfc.
6/12/78 Letter: Loring to M. Hurd
6/9/78 Letter: Loring to W. Friedman
8/16/78 Letter: Loring to Beck
€4*1.
6/30/78 Memo: 3. Northam'to
vtoflt. Beck, et. al.
7/3/78 Letter: Richardson to Berle
7/7/78 Letter: Robinson to Berle
7/11/78 Letter: McManus to Berle
7/12/78 Letter: Frank to Berle
8/15/78 Letter: Helfgott to Eichler
8/28/78 Letter: Hennigan to Eichler
9/13/78 Memo: Danels to Beck
9/27/78 Memo: Oettinger to Eichler
-------
*9. Onondaga County Environmental
Management Council 9/12/78 Letter: Hennigan to Eichler
50. Buffalo Sewer Authority 8/2/78 Letter: Menno to Secbald
51. Central New York Regional
Planning & Development Board 9/5/78 Letter: Hayes to Eichler
52. NYS Department of State 8/11/78 Memo: Williams to Eichler
53. NYS Dept. of Transportation 7/27/78 Letter: Smith to OToole
54. Erie County Department of
8/15/78 Letter: Voell to Friedman
r«
-------
SUMMARY OF FUNDING PRIORITIES
IN THE NEW YORK STATE-EPA AGREEMENT
-------
State/EPA Agreement on Water Quality Management
The State/EPA Agreement has been developed to ensure the orderly
integration of water quality management planning and implementation activities
which are being pursued by the various entities representing Federal, State, and
local government, and to ensure that these activities are consciously geared to
achieve the attainment and maintenance of the objectives of the Clean Water Act.
It also serves as a broad management document reflecting important decisions
of New York State and EPA on New York State's environmental problems, priorities,
timing of solutions, responsibilities and allocation of resources available from the
Clean Water Act (CWA), Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as well as the State funding. Funding is
dependent on State and Federal budgeting processes.
Clean Water Act (CWA)
New York State, through the Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC), will be receiving grant awards through four sections of the CWA: §106,
§201, §205g, §208* and §314. These water grants are reflected in the activities
listed in the Agreement.
1. Section 106. Water Pollution Control (WPC) Program Grant
Federal Fiscal Year 1979
Federal Grant Funds $2,886,400
State Matching Funds 4, 466, 765
TOTAL $7, 353, 165
A federal grant under section 106 is provided to foster development of
affected state programs to implement the Clean Water Act. These programs
include: monitoring and surveillance, development of water quality standards
and stream classifications, issuance and enforcement of discharge permits,
administration of the municipal construction grant program and response to
water quality emergencies.
2. Section 201 and 1972 Environmental Quality Bond Act
- Municipal Construction Grant Program
Federal Fiscal Year 1979
Federal Grant (75%) $446,077,800
State Matching Grant (12^%) 74, 346, 300
Local Share (12J%) 74, 346, 300
TOTAL $594,770,400
A federal and State grant program for the construction of publicly owned
treatment works. ^ The direction for this program is in accordance with the strategies
and activities as identified in the Agreement.
*208 grants are also made directly to designated areawide agencies.
-------
3. Section 205g. State Management Assistance
Federal Fiscal Year 1979
"First Round" 205g (construction grant program) $6, 500, 000
"Second Round" 205g (Permit program, wpc, program
support, New Office of Policy and Program Analysis) 1, 500, OOP
TOTAL $8,000,000
The Clean Water Act of 1977 includes an amendment to Section 205 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act which provides funds for states to manage
certain aspects of the water pollution control program. These funds are available
to states to manage the municipal construction grants program, the wastewater
discharge permit program, the dredge or fill material permit program and the area-
wide waste treatment management planning program, in the order of priority listed.
The level of funding available through Section 205, State Management Assistance,
is 2% of the State's annual construction grant allotment. New York State intends
to spend this at the rate of approximately $8 million per year (for six years), assuming
a national construction grant appropriation of $4. 5 billion and New York's allotment
of 10. 62%. Each year's funds are available for expenditure for a period of 5 years.
"First Round" 205g funds will be used by DEC to assume from EPA
substantial delegation and administration of the federal Construction Grants
Program - $6, 500, 000.
"Second Round" 205g While first round monies will be used to
assume the administration of the construction grants program, second round
monies, amounting to $1. 5 million, and . 830 million freed-up State Purposes
funds (first round monies free-up state funds from positions associated with
the construction grants program), are proposed for the following:
--Toxic Substances Coordination
--Industrial programs
--Permits, Compliance and Standards
--Monitoring and surveillance
--Staff training (Pure Waters)
--Office of Policy and Program Analysis
--The Areawide Waste treatment Management Program
--Additional administrative support services necessitated by
additional 205g funded workload
4. Section 208. Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plans
Federal Fiscal Year 1977 Funds
October 1, 1978-May28, 1979 Grant Extension
Federal Grant (additional allocation - 75% grant) 835,000
State Matching Funds 278, 00^0
TOTAL 1, ti •:, 000
-------
Section 208 mandates an areawide planning process which is underway in
New York to ascertain the most effective ways to achieve the 1983 national goal of
swimmable, fishable waters through better management of society's wastes.
Six urban regions in the State were designated by the Governor to conduct
208 planning programs. The "designated areas" have completed drafts of the...
plans and are currently applying for new grants for their continuing areawide
planning process. DEC was selected as the 208 planning agency for the rest of
the State. The State's initial 208 plan will be completed by May 29, 1979. DEC
must also oversee the designated area programs and coordinate their separate
plans into the NYS plan.
Specifically all the Plans must:
a. Provide cost effective, point source treatment and control for
areas of urban-industrial concentrations having substantial
water quality control problems.
b. Provide for control of non-point sources in urban industrial
and other areas where such controls are required including
prevention of water quality problems in the future.
c. Provide for coordinated waste treatment management in such
areas. It is anticipated that EPA will conditionally approve
the designated area plans and DEC will continue to provide
coordinated technical guidance beyond 1979 for both their
initial and continuing annual update planning process.
EPA Region II has received $5. 883 million and expects an additional
$. 499 million in federal FY 208 funds. A limited amount of the $5. 883 million
has already been obligated in the form of interim grants to designated areawide
and state planning agencies. The remainder will be obligated among areawide
and state agencies on the basis of demonstrated need. In NYS the vehicle for
demonstrating need will be a revised Chapter 2-C of the State/EPA Agreement.
5. Section 314. Clean Lakes (Proposed)
State Fiscal Year 1979-80 (approximately)
Federal Grant (70%) $100,000
State Matching Funds 46, OOP
TOTAL $146, 000
To develop a lake management strategy for New York State's Lakes which
acknowledges the diverse recreational uses of lakes such as swimming, boat,
fishing, etc. ; provides for the devd opment of data on factors which affect those
-------
uses such as aquatic plant growth, algae growth, water quality; develop a
classification system for NYS lakes; provides for the development of restoration
techniques for lake improvement; improves public education and information
dissemination on lake problems and management techniques. The Clean Lakes
program involves all State agencies and DEC program divisions concerned with
lake use and management.
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Department of Health (DOH)
Federal Fiscal Year 1979
Grant (75%) $1,431,900
State Match 659, 084
TOTAL $2,090,984
DOH is continuing to administer the State Water System Supervision
Program in New York State. This program entails supervision and technical
assistance for water quality surveillance at both community and non-community
water systems. Activities include microbiological, organic and inorganic chemical
radioactivity and .turbidity sampling and analysis as well as plan review, laboratory
services and certification, training and certification of water treatment plant operators,
enforcement and emergency planning.
The department is also continuing its surface impoundment assessment
study using a separate grant of $200,000.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Division of Solid Waste
Federal Fiscal Year 1979
Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Management $ 841,175
Subtitle D-State or Regional Solid Waste Plans 943, 500
Federal Grant Total $1,784,675
State Matching Funds 608, 031
TOTAL $2,392,706
Subtitle C of RCRA provides for the authorization of state regulatory
programs for hazardous waste management and for financial assistance for such
programs. Chapter 639 of the Laws of New York of 1978, the Industrial Hazardous
Waste Management Act, provides regulatory authority to DEC for controlling the
transfer, storage and disposal of hazardous waste.
Activities to be undertaken include review and amendment as necessary of
legislation and regulations, permitting, devd opment of a manifest system to track
hazardous wastes, surveillance and enforcement, technical assistance, registration
of waste collectors and development of a notification system to alert officials to
persons or firms generating, storing, transporting, treating or disposing of hazardous
wastes.
-------
Subtitle D of RCRA requires that all solid waste (not including hazardous
waste) be utilized for resource recovery or be disposed of in an environmentally
sound manner. It supports states in their establishment of regulatory control
over the disposal of solid wastes not regulated pursuant to Subtitle C, and to
encourage resource recovery.
Activities include updating State strategy, developing a regulatory plan,
identification of local and regional planning responsibilities with assistance for
development, review of regulatory powers, inventorying and closing or upgrading
of open dumps, review of disposal facility plans, prohibition of new open dumps,
technical,administrative and marketing assistance to local governments and private
groups to promote resource conservation and recovery programs, as well as
training courses. Facility planning and development technical assistance will be
supplied on a limited basis. Technical assistance training and public education of
a general nature to help regional and local governments improve solid waste management
facility operation and refuse collection practices will also be undertaken.
State/EPA Agreement-Deferred Activities
Due to budgetary restraints DEC has had to prioritize programmatic
activities. Certain of the strategies for implementation will not be undertaken
or will only be undertaken on a limited basis until later in the Agreement period.
These strategies are:
1. 2-1 Hydraulic/Hydrologic Modifications
- Almost all deferred until later in Agreement period
2. 2-14 Public Water Supply
_ With the exception of the development of the DOH-DEC Interagency
Agreement, virtually all strategies affecting the integrated role between
DOH and DEC are deferred.
3. 2-17 Land Use Management
- Many of the activities deferred
4. 2-18 Water Conservation and Reuse
Virtually totally deferred
5. 2-21 Management and Institutional Aspects
- Largely deferred
------- |