FINDINGS FOR THE
     NEW YORK COASTAL NONPOINT PROGRAM


FOREWORD

     This document contains the findings for the coastal
nonpoint pollution control program submitted by the State of New
York pursuant to Section 6217(a) of the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA).  The findings are
based on a review of the New York Coastal Nonpoint Program,
Final Program Submittal, July 1995, and supplemental material
provided by New York subsequent to the program submittal.  The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviewed this
information and evaluated the extent to which it conforms with the
requirements of CZARA.

     NOAA and EPA commend New York on the substantial
amount of time and effort put into developing your program and
we appreciate the commitment the State has shown to complete an
ambitious task with limited resources.  We will continue to work
with coastal states and territories to ensure that these findings
represent an accurate assessment of current state and territory
abilities and efforts to address coastal nonpoint source pollution. 
We recognize that there may be further administrative changes to
the coastal nonpoint program that will impact these findings and
we assure you that, once such changes are finalized, we will review
these findings in light of the changes and make any necessary
adjustments. 


APPROVAL DECISION

     NOAA and EPA approve the coastal nonpoint pollution
control program submitted by the State of  New York  pursuant to
Section 6217(a) of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments of 1990, subject to certain conditions.  

     This document provides the specific findings used by
NOAA and EPA as the basis for the decision to approve the State's
program.  It also provides the rationale for the findings and
includes conditions that will need to be met for New York to
receive final approval of its program.  We recognize that New
York has already proposed some changes to its program that
would, if finalized, ensure implementation of the management
measures in conformity with the section 6217(g) guidance.  In
these cases, the conditions are based on New York's proposed
changes. The timeframes associated with conditions become
effective on the date of the approval letter for these findings.
INTRODUCTION

      This document is organized by the major nonpoint source
categories and subcategories identified in the section 6217(g)
guidance and the administrative elements identified in the program
guidance (including the boundary for the 6217 management area). 
Where appropriate, NOAA and EPA have grouped categories and
subcategories of management measures into a single finding.  The
structure of each finding follows a standard format.  Generally, the
finding is that the state program includes or does not include
management measures in conformity with the (g) guidance and
includes or does not include enforceable policies and mechanisms
to ensure implementation.  In some cases, the finding reflects that
the state has identified a back-up enforceable policy, but has not
yet demonstrated the ability of the authority to ensure
implementation.  For further understanding of terms in this
document, the reader is referred to the following:

Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of
Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters (EPA, January 1993)
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program:  Program
Development and Approval Guidance (NOAA and EPA, January
1993)
Flexibility for State Coastal Nonpoint Programs (NOAA and EPA,
March 1995)

     The references in this document refer to the New York
Coastal Nonpoint Program, Final Program Submittal, July 1995
("program submittal").  NOAA and EPA have written this
document as succinctly as possible.  We have relied upon, but do
not repeat here, the extensive information that the State has
included in its program submittal.  Further information and
analysis, including material provided by New York subsequent to
the program submittal, is contained in the administrative record for
this approval decision and may be reviewed by interested parties at
the following locations:

EPA/Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Nonpoint Source Control Branch
401 M Street, SW (4503-F)
Washington, DC  20460
Contact: Ed Drabkowski (202-260-7009)

NOAA/Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
Coastal Programs Division
SSMC-4, N/ORM3
1305 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD  20910
Contact: Helen Grady (301-713-3105 ext. 150)
     
U.S. EPA, Region II
290 Broadway, 24th Floor
New York, NY  10007
Contact:  Donna Somboonlakana (212-637-3700)

I.   BOUNDARY

FINDING:  New York's boundary is sufficient to control the land
and water uses that have or are reasonably expected to have a
significant impact on the coastal waters of New York.

RATIONALE:  New York's 6217 management area includes all
of Long Island, the entire watershed of the lower Hudson River
(below the dam at Troy), and most of the area draining into the
Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River, as well as the Mohawk and
Oswego River basins.  This management area conforms with
NOAA's boundary recommendation. 

II.  AGRICULTURE

FINDING:  New York's program contains management measures
in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance, except it does not
provide for the storage and management of runoff and wastewater
from large and small confined animal facilities as specified in the
management measures.  The State has identified a backup
enforceable authority for all the agricultural management
measures, but has not yet demonstrated the ability of the authority
to ensure implementation for the agricultural management
measures throughout the 6217 management area.

CONDITIONS:  Within two years, New York will modify its
program to ensure the provision of storage and management of
manure, facility wastewater, and facility runoff consistent with the
management measures for large and small confined animal
facilities.  Also, within one year, New York will develop a strategy
to implement the agricultural management measures throughout
the 6217 management area (in accordance with Section XIV, page
13).

RATIONALE:  New York's program does not meet the portion of
the facility wastewater and runoff from confined animal facility
management measure that calls for storage of facility 
wastewater and runoff, except generally in the Skaneateles Lake
watershed where the design storm is not specified.

For the facility wastewater and runoff from confined animal
facilities management measures and the other management
measures, the State is proposing two authorities to address
implementation of the management measures:  The Soil and Water
Conservation Districts Law (SWCDL), and the Environmental
Conservation Law, enforcement and pesticide provisions.  Under
the SWCDL, the State provides incentives to farmers for
developing soil and water conservation plans, which are based on
practices listed in the State's Agricultural Management Practices
Catalogue.  These practices are in conformity with the 6217(g)
measures, except for the large and small confined animal facilities
management measure.  While the SWCDL provides for a voluntary
program with incentives for meeting the management measures,
this program does not have an enforceable mechanism to ensure
compliance.  The Environmental Conservation Law provides broad
backup authority by allowing enforcement against water quality
violations, but New York has not described how it will use this
authority in combination with other existing voluntary and
regulatory authorities to achieve management measure
implementation.  




III. FORESTRY

FINDING:  New York has provided sufficient justification to
support a categorical exclusion of forestry from its coastal
nonpoint program.

RATIONALE:  New York has indicated in its supplemental
information package of January 17, 1996 that an estimated 70,000
acres of forest land (approximately 1% of the 7 million forested
acres in the 6217 management area) are harvested annually.  This
level has been relatively constant over several years.  The rate of
harvesting on acreage is fairly evenly distributed throughout the
area.  Harvesting sites are generally small, with the estimated
average harvested area being less than 200 acres.  Fifty-three
percent of forest landowners hold less than 10 acres.  Seventy-six
percent of forestland is held in ownerships of 20 to 449 acres. 
Forests in New York are generally managed under an uneven aged
system with harvesting on a selective basis, which maintains forest
cover while removing mature trees, thinning the stand, and creating
small opening regeneration.  Clearcutting is a rare forest
management practice in New York unless old plantations are being
converted from softwood to native hardwoods.  Because selective
cutting is used, the principal threat from erosion associated with
forestry operations occurs where roads are located on sites with
nearby streams.  The State estimates that there are annually
approximately 3,500-5,250 acres of commercial timberland within
the 6217 management area (which encompasses approximately
half of the State) where such potential exists.

New York's water quality monitoring program includes many
water areas where forestry occurs.  Of the 93 segments of bays and
estuaries listed as having water quality impairments on the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation's Priority
Water Problem List, none of these segments indicate forestry as a
primary source of pollution.  Similarly, silviculture is not listed as
a primary source for any segments of the Great Lakes or ocean. 
Within the 6217 management area, for waterbodies that drain
directly to coastal waters (i.e., mainstream tributaries), 12 miles are
primarily affected by forestry (threatened) and 44 are secondarily
affected by forestry (24 stressed miles and 20 threatened miles). 
None are listed as impaired by silviculture. 

Based on the relatively small acreage harvested and the character
of forestry operations, as well as the absence of silvicultural-related
impairments, forestry does not and is not reasonably anticipated to
present significant adverse impacts to coastal waters.

IV.  URBAN

     A.   NEW DEVELOPMENT, SITE DEVELOPMENT,
     CONSTRUCTION SITE EROSION AND SEDIMENT
     CONTROL, and CONSTRUCTION SITE CHEMICAL
     CONTROL

FINDING:  New York's program does not yet include
management measures in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance or
enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation of
the new development, site development, construction site erosion
and sediment control, and construction site chemical control
management measures throughout the 6217 management area.

CONDITION:  Within three years, New York will revise, as
proposed, the State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code
(UFP&BC) to include (1) performance standards that implement
the 80 percent total suspended solids (TSS) reduction requirement
of the new development management measure; (2) the specific
elements of the site development management measure; (3)
requirements for approved erosion and sediment control plans in
conformity with the construction site erosion and sediment control
management measure for all activities covered under the
UFP&BC; and (4) construction site chemical control practices in
conformity with the construction site chemical control
management measure as a component of all building permits
issued under UFP&BC authority.  If the proposed revisions to the
UFP&BC are not enacted, the State will implement an alternative
approach resulting in inclusion in its program of management
measures in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance and of
enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation of
the new development, site development, construction site erosion
and sediment control, and construction site chemical control
management measures.

RATIONALE:  New York has a number of well-crafted programs
that address urban nonpoint source pollution.  These programs
include its Technical Operation Guidance Series (TOGS) under the
State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and the
Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Act.  The UFP&BC provides a good
foundation to use in strengthening the State's urban runoff
program.

New York recognizes that its current programs are "limited to
specific areas or specific types of projects," and do not fully
provide for implementation of the management measures.  For
example, the TOGS is considered only where SEQRA requires
review of a project involving state or local authority or agency
approval, funding or direct action.  Limited geographic coverage
also exists for specific areas such as those designated under the
Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers System Act, and the
freshwater and tidal wetlands authorities.  Furthermore, the permit
review agency for those programs has the discretion to require or
not require measures to control impacts, and is not bound to do so
on a uniform basis.  

In addition, the State's TOGS include guidelines that control the
"first flush," or first one-half inch of runoff from land areas for
which perviousness has been changed over pre-development
conditions.  According to New York, this can remove from 70 to
95 percent of the contaminants in storm water though infiltration
practices.  However, it is unclear how practices are selected so that
80 percent TSS reduction is achieved. 

In recognition of these limitations, the State is proposing
amendments to the UFP&BC to address runoff from building
construction, which is one of the most significant sources of urban
runoff.   The State has not yet provided specific language regarding
the UFP&BC revisions, or details regarding implementation and a
time line for completing the revisions.  Where revisions to the
UFP&BC will rely on the use of guidance documents, e.g., the
TOGS, by permit reviewers or site developers, a clear tie in the
UFP&BC should be made to those guidance documents.  If
revisions to the UFP&BC are not adopted, New York will develop
other methods for ensuring implementation of these management
measures.




     B.   WATERSHED PROTECTION MANAGEMENT
     MEASURE and EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

FINDING:  New York's program does not contain management
measures in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance for the
watershed protection and existing development management
measures, nor enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure
implementation throughout the 6217 management area. 

CONDITION:  Within two years, New York will include in its
program management measures for watershed protection and
existing development in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance, and
enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation
throughout the 6217 management area.

RATIONALE:  New York has identified several laws, plans and
programs that either take into consideration watershed protection
(e.g., the New York Nonpoint Source Management Program,  local
waterfront revitalization programs), or manage and protect
environmentally sensitive areas.  These include several excellent
programs, including the New York City Water Supply and
Protection Rules and Regulations, the Freshwater and Tidal
Wetlands Rules, and the Wild and Scenic River Systems Act.  New
York has also demonstrated its commitment to addressing
watershed protection through the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) 1993 Priority Water
Problem List, the Nonpoint Source Management Program, and the
County Water Quality Coordinating Committees.  However, the
State lacks enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure
implementation of integrated watershed protection strategies on a
watershed-by-watershed basis.  While the programs the State has
identified address specific facets of the management measure, they
do not do so in an integrated or comprehensive manner.  

The State is proposing a bill that will authorize the identification of
watersheds for restoration and management as critical coastal
areas.  This bill would serve as an excellent foundation for
addressing impaired or outstanding waters and would provide for
the codification and implementation of enforceable policies and
mechanisms that could address the protection of all sensitive areas
and areas that provide significant water quality benefits.  However,
the bill, as proposed,  does not ensure coverage of all watersheds
within the 6217 management area, nor does it contain specific
language addressing the protection of sensitive areas and areas
providing water quality benefits.  

Several of the existing programs mentioned above may encompass
existing development.  These programs, however, do not directly
address the identification of and a schedule for the implementation
of urban retrofits even though retrofits may be included within the
scope of the programs.  The State is encouraged to fold urban
retrofit inventories and implementation into its overall watershed
planning process as well as promote these activities in existing
programs such as the development of the County Water Quality
Coordinating Committee water quality strategies.





C.   NEW AND OPERATING ON-SITE DISPOSAL
SYSTEMS (OSDS)

FINDING:  New York's program includes management measures
in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance, except that it does not
have measures for (1) the protection of nitrogen limited waters, and
(2) the inspection of operating OSDS.  New York's program
includes enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure
implementation of the management measures.

CONDITION:  Within three years, the State will include in its
program management measures in conformity with the 6217(g)
guidance for (1) nitrogen-limited surface waters, and (2) the
inspection of operating OSDS.

RATIONALE:  With the exceptions noted above, New York's
program achieves the goals and objectives of the management
measures for both individual households and residential buildings. 
The Standards of the State Commissioner of Health adequately
address design, siting, construction and installation of OSDS, and
are in conformity with the (g) guidance.  Any rules, regulations and
orders adopted or issued by county and local boards of health must
be at least as stringent as the State's sanitary code. The State
maintains the authority to override local and county board of health
orders where the public health is affected beyond the local board's
territory, and can assess penalties for violations.  State law requires
that completed systems be certified prior to household occupancy. 
In addition, residential and subdivision developers must file a plan
or map demonstrating adequate sewerage facilities, and install
them.

New York's program involves several enforceable policies and
programs, including sections 201 and 225 of the Public Health
Law, which allow the State and local health officials to supervise
and regulate sewage disposal and investigate potential health
threats, including improperly operating OSDS.  In addition, State
law restricts or prohibits the sale and distribution of household
cleansing products with high levels of phosphorus and other
detrimental ingredients, and sewage system cleaners in Nassau and
Suffolk counties.  New programs that are being developed that
would address nitrogen-limited surface waters in Long Island
Sound include the Peconics National Estuary Program and the
South Shore Estuary Reserve Comprehensive Management
Program.  The State has several educational tools which also assist
in meeting this management measure, including requiring
contractors to provide new home owners with a pamphlet on
proper OSDS operation and maintenance, and an OSDS
management practices catalogue which is used by private,
government, and commercial entities.  

New York generally does not provide for periodic inspections,
which are conducted only in certain private-sector  programs that
require inspection and repair when underwriting certain loans and
some mortgages, depending on the lending institution.  Thus the
State does not inspect OSDS at a frequency adequate to ascertain
whether OSDS are failing.  The State may wish to consider a
program that assures, at least, that OSDS are inspected prior to a
change in ownership.

D.   POLLUTION PREVENTION

FINDING:  New York has pollution prevention programs that are
in conformity with the section 6217 (g) guidance.

RATIONALE:  New York addresses each of the sources listed in
the management measure.  Expansion of the State's outreach
program to encompass additional commercial and retail business
would complement the State Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (SPDES) program efforts.  

E.   ROADS, HIGHWAYS, AND BRIDGES

FINDING:  New York's program includes management measures
in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance for roads, highways, and
bridges, except for runoff systems.  The State has enforceable
policies and mechanisms for implementing the management
measures for State roads, highways and bridges, but has not yet
demonstrated its ability to ensure implementation throughout the
6217 management area for local roads.

CONDITION:  Within two years, New York will include in its
program management measures for runoff systems for State and
local roads in conformity with the 6217 (g) guidance.  Also  within
two years, New York will develop a strategy to implement the
roads, highways, and bridges management measures for local roads
throughout the 6217 management area (in accordance with Section
XIV, page 13).

RATIONALE:  The New York State Department of
Transportation (NYSDOT) is responsible for the planning and
construction of State and federal highways.  In planning and
implementing projects,  NYSDOT procedures require the use of
manuals and Technical Operation Guidance Series (TOGS) that
contain standards and best management practices that meet the
management  measures.  NYSDOT requires the preparation of
Erosion and Sediment Control Plans for all projects that involve
clearing and grubbing, grading, or excavation.   

For both State and local roads, projects may be subject to
NYSDEC review under SEQRA where such highway projects also
require a permit under other resource programs  (e.g.,  wetlands,
streambank protection, coastal erosion hazards).  Under SEQRA, 
NYSDEC uses the TOGS as guidance in the review of proposed
projects.  In addition,  NYSDEC identifies and lists priority water
problems on a watershed basis, which can be used by NYSDEC
and NYSDOT to target water quality impacts due to runoff from
highways.

Where the State does not have direct oversight authority through
the Environmental Conservation Law (including SEQRA and
resource laws) or the Statewide Subdivision Control Law to ensure
that the local Departments of Public Works (DPWs) implement the
management measures in their local road construction and
maintenance activities, the State does have the authority to enforce
any violation of water quality standards.  However, the State has
not yet demonstrated the ability of this oversight authority to
ensure implementation of the management measures for local roads
throughout the 6217 management area. 

V.   MARINAS AND RECREATIONAL BOATING

FINDING:  New York's program contains management measures
in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance for marinas and
recreational boating, except that it does not contain management
measures in conformity with the stormwater runoff management
measure.  The program provides enforceable policies and
mechanisms to ensure implementation of  the measures. 

CONDITION: Within two years, New York will include in its
program management measures in conformity with the stormwater
runoff management measure.

RATIONALE:  New York has both broad and specific authorities
and guidelines to implement the marina management measures. 
New and expanding marinas must apply for a permit for
development actions in or near freshwater and tidal wetlands,
constructing a dock in or across a natural stream, and constructing
or expanding any structure on or above State-owned land
underwater.  

State permit review procedures include completing an
environmental assessment form (EAF), a comprehensive checklist
that addresses and requires responses that relate to each of the
CZARA management measures for marinas to determine the need
for an environmental impact statement.  Permit applicants must
show on project plans the site design features and information on
existing tides, currents, and circulation that may affect water
quality and flushing action, and describe site operation and
maintenance practices.  In reviewing the EAF for marina permit
applications, the NYSDEC relies on the "Marina Operations for 
Existing Facilities" manual, which includes best management
practices.  New York addresses storm water runoff in its technical
manual by listing various technologies that may be used. 
However, the marinas manual does not specify the 80 percent
removal of TSS, nor does it state that particular highly effective
practices must be chosen.  In addition, 80 percent TSS reduction is
not specified in the State's Stormwater Management Guidelines for
New Development (see Urban section, page 5).

The State is in the process of standardizing and formally
incorporating the marina manual as technical guidance into the
State's Management Practices Catalogue.  This Management
Practices Catalogue will serve as the reference document for the
technical guidance series being developed by the State for review
of new marina permits.  NOAA and EPA encourage the State to
continue standardizing the marinas manual, to fully incorporate it
into the Management Practices Catalogue, and to clearly tie the
identified marina practices to the permit review process.  In
addition, NOAA and EPA strongly encourage the State to
complete the marinas technical guidance series for permit review.   

In addition to the permitting program, New York has listed several
authorities which allow the State to consider and enforce practices
addressing shoreline stabilization, petroleum storage, water quality
standards, vessel sewage disposal, littering of the waterways, trash
receptacles at marinas, fish waste, storage of hazardous substances,
marine fuel handling, waste oil recovery, recycling and
transportation, and boat operation. 

VI.  HYDROMODIFICATION

FINDING:  New York's program includes management measures
in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance for new channelization,
channel modification, most dams, and eroding streambanks and
shorelines, and includes enforceable policies and mechanisms to
ensure implementation.  However, the program does not include a
process to improve surface water quality and restore instream and
riparian habitat through the operation and maintenance of existing
modified channels.  In addition, exemptions in New York's
program preclude the State from fully implementing the
management measure for dams.

CONDITION:  Within three years, New York will include in its
program (1) a process to improve surface water quality and restore
instream and riparian habitat through the operation and
maintenance of existing modified channels.  Also within three
years, the State will eliminate or revise exemptions identified
below that preclude the State from fully implementing the
management measures for dams.

RATIONALE:  New York  requires permits for new
channelization activities, modification of existing channels, erosion
and chemical pollutant control for dam construction,
reconstruction, and repair, and projects to stabilize eroding
streambanks and shorelines under several existing State authorities. 
An Erosion and Sediment Control (E&SC) Plan is used in the
permit process to evaluate the effects of proposed activities. 
Guidelines for preparation of E&SC plans are contained in the
State's TOGS.

In reviewing permit applications for construction of new dams and
reconstruction of existing dams, the State also implements
management measures for protection of water quality and habitat. 
The State applies informal standards for practices to protect water
quality and habitat, including aerating reservoir waters and
releases; improving oxygen levels in tailwaters; adjusting
operational procedures to improve water quality; restoring or
maintaining aquatic and riparian habitat; and maintaining fish
passages.  These standards were formally adopted in November
1995 and incorporated into a "Hydrologic and Habitat
Modification Management Practices Catalogue," for continued
utilization in the review of permit applications for new and
reconstructed dams.  NOAA and EPA encourage the State to
develop and implement a process to clearly tie the standards in the
Catalogue to the review of permit applications.  

In addition, projects that address water quality problems caused by
hydromodification can be funded through New York's Nonpoint
Source Implementation grants program.  If a county identifies such
a project as a priority, it can seek funds to address the problem. 
For projects that are funded, operation and maintenance activities
would be done in a way that addresses water quality concerns. 
However, it is not clear how projects not designed to improve
water quality would be designed to do so.

While New York's program provides for implementation of the
management measures in channels and dams, there are two
exceptions.  First, the State's program does not include a process to
address water quality and habitat in existing channels.  Second,
exemptions in permit authorities preclude the State from fully
implementing management measures for dams.  Statutory and
regulatory exemptions include structures whose drainage is less
than one square mile, certain farm ponds, and structures whose
drainage area is less than one square mile unless the structure is
more than ten feet in height, or the quantity of water exceeds one
million gallons, 
or the structure is under the jurisdiction of the Department of
Docks in a city or town with a population of over 175,000.  

New York's program also includes a process to identify and
address existing streambank or shoreline erosion causing a
nonpoint source pollution problem.  Segments of waterbodies
having shoreline erosion problems are identified on the State's
Priority Waterbody List and are prioritized with other water quality
problems on a county basis by the Water Quality Coordination
Committees.  The problems are then addressed by applying DEC
or NRCS management practices locally or by DEC's general
authority

VII. WETLANDS, RIPARIAN AREAS AND VEGETATED
TREATMENT SYSTEMS

FINDING:  New York's program includes management measures
in conformity with the 6217 (g) guidance and includes enforceable
policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation.

RATIONALE:  New York requires permits for activities within
all tidal wetlands or freshwater wetlands of greater than 12.4 acres,
or regulated adjacent area, generally extending a distance of 100-
300 feet landward from the wetland boundary.  Under the Stream
Protection Program, New York regulates activities, including
disturbance of protected streams and excavation or fill in navigable
waters, which have the potential to adversely affect wetlands and
water of the State, including any size freshwater wetland
contiguous to navigable waters.  New York further intends to
implement the management measures through other mechanisms,
including establishing cooperative agreements with local and
municipal governments for the purpose of preserving, maintaining,
restoring or enhancing wetlands; using SEQRA review of State and
local actions to evaluate impacts to wetland and riparian areas from
activities outside of the wetland or regulated adjacent area;
protecting lands bordering wetlands and riparian areas through the
Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act;  using the Wild Scenic and
Recreational Rivers program to preserve natural flows; utilizing
voluntary actions to protect stream corridors through the Stream
Corridor Management Program; and applying coastal zone
management consistency requirements and policies through the
State coastal management program and Local Waterfront
Revitalization Programs.  

New York encourages the use of constructed wetlands and
vegetated treatment systems in each of the State's regulatory permit
programs.  Several programs, including those identified above, and
local land-use regulations encourage the use of vegetated treatment
systems, and implement standards for the use of vegetated
treatment systems to reduce impacts of proposed actions.

VIII.     ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION

FINDING:  New York's program includes mechanisms for
coordination among State agencies and between State and local
officials.

RATIONALE:  New York's program includes the administrative
coordination mechanisms necessary to meet the program
implementation requirements.  The State is relying on memoranda
of agreement/understanding, joint permitting reviews, formal
interagency comments during other agencies' permitting processes,
State statutes and regulations describing expectations for
interagency cooperation and coordination, and county and State
nonpoint source coordinating committees, and has described these
mechanisms throughout its program document.

IX.  PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

FINDING:  The New York program provides adequate
opportunities for public participation in the development and
implementation of the coastal nonpoint program.

RATIONALE:  As part of meeting the public participation
requirements, numerous presentations on the New York coastal
nonpoint program were made to State, local and county agencies
and committees, advisory committees, universities, and public and
private interest groups throughout program development.  The
State also utilized its extensive existing nonpoint pollution
education network to disseminate information on the program
through written and video-taped materials, and actively sought
public education opportunities.  The State has provided an
acceptable public review and comment period, and has adequately
demonstrated its continuing commitment to public education
throughout implementation of this program.

X.   TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

FINDING:  New York has included programs that will provide
technical assistance to local governments and the public to
implement additional management measures.

RATIONALE:  New York proposes relying on existing
mechanisms to provide technical assistance regarding nonpoint
source pollution management for local governments and the public. 
Member agencies of the New York State Nonpoint Source
Coordinating Committee, and County Water Quality Coordinating
Committees will be vehicles for disseminating technical
information.  County Water Quality Coordinating Committees will
also be a mechanism for the request of technical assistance.  In
addition, the NYSDEC, Public Information Section; Cornell
Cooperative Extension; and the New York State Department of
State Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization
have broad responsibilities for providing technical information and
assistance.

XI.  ADDITIONAL MANAGEMENT MEASURES

FINDING:  New York has not adequately provided for the
implementation of additional management measures where coastal
water quality is impaired or threatened even after the
implementation of the section 6217(g) management measures.

CONDITION:  Within one year, the State will provide a
description of its process for implementation and continuing
revision of  additional management measures where coastal water
quality is impaired or threatened even after the implementation of
the section 6217(g) management measures.

RATIONALE:  New York is not currently proposing any
additional management measures.  Instead, the State is proposing
to defer consideration of  additional management measures, based
on the results of ongoing monitoring programs.  

It is possible that as a result of the State's proposed Critical Coastal
Areas bill, the State will identify critical coastal areas, which could
lead to the identification of additional management measures.  The
State could use this process or a non-legislative process to develop
its approach to determining the need for and identifying  additional
management measures.

XII. CRITICAL COASTAL AREAS

FINDING:  New York has not identified or established a process
to identify critical coastal areas.

CONDITION:  Within two years, the State will either adopt its
proposed legislation to identify critical coastal areas, DOS #95-24,
or take other appropriate steps necessary to identify and map
critical coastal areas.

RATIONALE:  New York has chosen to pursue new legislation to
address the 6217 program requirements for identifying critical
coastal areas.  In essence, the legislation would instruct the New
York Secretary of State, in coordination with the NYSDEC, to
identify watersheds or sub-watersheds of coastal and inland waters
which are either not meeting, or are not expected to meet,
applicable water quality standards, or which exhibit significantly
superior water quality important to related water uses.  According
to the legislation, such watersheds will be prioritized, and
management plans will be developed between State and local
governments for the purpose of coordinating nonpoint source
pollution management efforts, developing and implementing
additional management strategies where existing programs are not
sufficient, and providing for technical and financial assistance to
local governments participating in the management plans.  This
legislation would, if enacted, meet the program approval
requirements.  If the legislation is not enacted, the State will need
to consider other options to assure that critical areas are addressed
adequately.

XIII.     MONITORING

FINDING:  New York's program does not contain a plan to assess
over time the success of the management measures in reducing
pollution loads and improving water quality.

CONDITION:  Within one year, New York will develop a
monitoring plan that enables the State to assess over time the
extent to which implementation of management measures is
reducing pollution loads and improving water quality.

RATIONALE:   New York makes it clear in the program
submittal that assessment over time of whether the management
measures are reducing pollution loads and improving water quality
is a program weakness.  The State is investigating ways to fill this
gap.

     XIV. STRATEGIES AND EVALUATION FOR BACKUP
     AUTHORITIES

Within one year, New York will develop a strategy to implement
the management measures for agriculture and for local roads,
highways, and bridges throughout the 6217 management area. 
This strategy will include a description and schedule for the
specific steps the State will take to ensure implementation of the
management measure; describe how existing or new authorities can
be used to ensure implementation where voluntary efforts are
unsuccessful; and identify measurable results which, if achieved,
will demonstrate the State's ability to achieve implementation of
the management measures using the described approach.

New York will also develop and apply credible survey tools to
demonstrate the ability of the State's approach to achieve
implementation for these management measures.  The use of
credible assessment techniques is necessary in order for NOAA
and EPA to evaluate, at the end of the three year period described
in the March 16, 1995 guidance issued by NOAA and EPA entitled
Flexibility for State Coastal Nonpoint Programs, whether the
State's approach has been successful or whether new, more specific
authorities will be needed.