New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Final Phase II Watershed Implementation Plan for New York Susquehanna and Chemung River Basins and Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load January 7, 2013 ANDREW M. CUOMO JOE MARTENS GOVERNOR COMMISSIONER STATE OF New YORK DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ALBANV, NEW YORK 12233-1010 JAN - 7 2013 Mr. Jeffery Corbin Senior Advisor to EPA Administrator Jackson for Chesapeake Bay and Anacostia River 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis City Marina Annapolis, MD 21403 Dear Mr. Corbin: Enclosed please lind New York'sfinal Phase II Watershed Implementation Plan (Phase II WIP). including the narrative and "input deck" with respect 10 the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program to reduce phosphorus. nitrogen and sediment pollution entering Chesapeake Bay. New York is pleased to have completed this milestone as part orour mutual efforts to improve the water quality. habitat and flood resiliency ofthe Bay and its watershed. In July of this year, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) submitted a dJ"{~(i Phase II WIP to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). At that time, DEC circulated those draft documents widely among the affected stakeholder communities throughout New York's Susquehanna and Chemung River Basins. The recent stakeholder consultations were part ofan ongoing collaborative dialogue that has involved regular community meetings, deliberations and problem-solving. Previously. DEC had submitted to EPA a two-year milestone program detailing the morc immcdiatc actions New York Statc will undertake to make incrcmcntal progress toward reducing pollutant loadings within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The final Phase 11 WIP submittcd today is similar to the draft document prcviously submitted, with the exception ofa small adjustmcnt downward of approximately 11,000 pounds of phosphOfus per year in the Phase II WIP targct load. DEC submits the Phase 11 WIP on the condition thaI any "backstop" limitations previously applicable to any "Bay significant" New York waste water treatment plants, and described in the documcnts associated with the December 2010 Chesapeake Bay TMDL, will be removed in favor ofan "enhanced oversight" categorization for these facilities. Our understanding is that such a categoriZ<'1tion would remove the potential for any independent EPA effort to modify the Clean Water Act pemlits (known as State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System or SPDES pcmlits in ew York) to increase treatment requirements beyond what is reflected in the linal Phase II WIP. DEC acknowlcdges that. collectively. we must achieve compliance with waler quality standards associated with nitrogen. phosphorus and sediment loadings into Chesapeake Bay under the Clean Water Act. In that regard, New York is committed to doing its fair share to achieve water quality standard compliance. DEC looks forward to working with EPA and the United States Department ofAgriculture to assure the fullest possible level offederal assistance to ew York so as 10 off-set the significant costs of these programs to New York's hard-pressed fanners and municipalities. EPA has stated its inlention t.o review and update its December 2010 TMDL for Chesapeake Bay in 2017. DEC recognizes, under the Clean Water Act framework, that the modeling, monitoring and assessments associated with the 2017 TMDL update may result in the need for the Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions to undertake further efforts to assure water quality standard compliance. In the alternative, the 2017 TMDL review may result in a finding that somewhat less stringent pollutant target loads than those identified to date would result in the achievement of water quality standards. In the event New York's final Phase II WI.P program is not sufficiently effective in achieving the target loads, or that the 2017 TMDL revision results in equitable increases in the stringency of target loadings or allocations to achieve water quality standard compliance, New York would seek to explore the following (non-exclusive) options for the most cost·cffective program to achieve additional required pollution reductions: (i) heightened federal air emission controls or efficiency standards on automobiJes, boilers and the like to reduce overall emission and subsequenl deposilion ofoxides of nitrogen; (ii) a TMDL modeling assessment of the impacts of market-driven conversions ofcoal· fired electric power plants or industrial boilers to lower NOx-producing natural gas fuels; (iii) heightencd phosphorus and/or nitrogcn trcatmcnt systems or methods on the Bay­ significant industrial or municipal waste water treatment plants; (iv) innovative or heightened managcmenl practic~s on the landscape to reduce levels of targeted pollulallls from fann, forestry, or mining activity; (v) programs to reduce pollutant loadings from residential septic systems; (vi) road-side ditch or highway maintenance practices designed to reduce erosion and infiltrate stonn waters along rural roadways; (vii) increased implementation ofstonn water management practices. including green infrastructure, within urbanized areas in a manner that is consistent with the Municipal Separate Stoml Sewer System General Pennit and underlying technical criteria; (viii) a TMDL model assessment to assure that the model fully accounts for the benefits ofair emission limitations and faml management practices undertaken by New York; (ix) heightened implementation of DEe's General Permits for Constnlctioll Activity and Multi-Sector Industrial Activity; (x) ifauthorized, implementation ofengineering, burtt:r and regulatory protocols concerning high volume hydraulic fracturing for natural gas; (xi) bio-harvesting practices within Chesapeake Bay; (xii) potential modification by Maryland ofthe stringency ofcertain water quality standards. in particular. the dissolved oxygen criteria in two deep-channel segments (not mid-level or surface areas) ofthe 92 water segments within Chesapeake Bay; (xiii) full implementation ofNew York's stream and wetland protection statutes, along with expansion of tile wetland construction/restoration programs led by the Upper Susquehanna Coalition; (xiv) a full TMDL model accounting for the implementation of New York's reccntly adopted low phosphorus lawn fertilizer and low phosphorus dishwashing machine detergent statute: (xv) continued stream restoration. re-vegetation and stabilization projects to improve flood resiliency and reduce stream bcdlbank erosion under the" Y Works" program and the Natural Resources Conservation Service "Emergency Watershed Protection" program; and (xvi) heightened nood plain managemcnlmapping, codc enforcement and training in conjunction with municipal governments and the Federal Emergency Management Agency's national nood insurance program. DEC understands that the measures identified in the Phase 11 WIP must be tracked and maintained over the long-ternl, and that adequate levels of fedcral financial support will be necessary to implcment and maintain these measures. Without adequate and consistent levels of federal funds over the next several years. New York will not be able to meet these TMOL commitments. Sincerely, c: Judith Enck Chesapeake Bay TMDL New York State Final Phase II Watershed Implementation Plan New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Water Final Phase II Watershed Implementation Plan for New York Susquehanna and Chemung River Basins and Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load Prepared by: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation In collaboration with: New York State Department of Agriculture & Markets Upper Susquehanna Coalition Page 3 of 199 Chesapeake Bay TMDL New York State Final Phase II Watershed Implementation Plan This page intentionally left blank. Page 4 of 199 Chesapeake Bay TMDL New York State Final Phase II Watershed Implementation Plan Table of Contents List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................... 8 List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. 10 Section 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 12 1.1: New York and the Chesapeake Bay ............................................................................................... 12 1.2: A Plan to Improve Water Quality ................................................................................................... 12 1.3: Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load ................................................................................. 12 Section 2: Interim and Target Loads ............................................................................................ 14 2.1: Sub-allocation to the Major Source Categories in New York ........................................................ 15 2.2: Federal Funding ............................................................................................................................. 17 Section 3: Agriculture ................................................................................................................. 18 3.1: Current Loading Baseline and Capacity of New York’s Agriculture Program ................................ 18 3.2: Agricultural Environmental Management Program ...................................................................... 19 3.3: NYS Concentrated