dec-reponse-9-1-2015pdf.pdf

8/18/2019 DEC-Reponse-9-1-2015pdf.pdf

1/29

REPONSE TO A DEC LETTER I RECIVED ON AUGUST 3rd 2015

My comments back to Paul are in italic

Mr. D'Amato: First, staff reviewed the question of whether the construction of the plant changed the

drainage from an easterly to westerly slope, moving water away from the small tributary. Byexamining the detailed topographic maps created prior to the construction of the plant (whichare more precise than the USGS maps apparently used by Dr. Richards) we determined thatthe drainage was, in fact, to the west prior to construction. Coupled with the staff's visualassessment of that area and familiarity with the wetland the west from previous regulatoryreviews, we are confident that the direction of the drainage in that area was unaltered by theconstruction project.

My Respo nse:"The basis of your information seems to be focused on the DEC and NWI wetlands to the Wes

that were not altered as shown in the overlay below, however the WTP site had many interiorwetlands that where destroyed that fed this stream. The drawing shows Wetlands drawn in pink

that where present before construction based on the O'Brien and Gere drawings.

The Wetlands shown in "Pink" (a good portion of the WTP 42 acre site) can be seen in thediagram below. The background of the photo is of the plant (grayed out) but you can see therelationship of the stream to the original wetlands and where they once existed. The mitigationarea everyone keeps mentioning is a small portion of the overall site. The mitigation area is onlylocated in the North section of the 42 acre site near the RGE ROW as you know.

The second Photo shows how much ground water there was that once fed the stream. You cansee in the construction photograph how close the ground water was to the surface." This photoonly shows part of the site. I will be including a Google Earth movie as well. Even tireimpressions had ground water in them!

Also O'Brien and Gere who gave the Site assessment to obtain permits for the WA states the property slopes gradually to the North and Stormwater sheet flows North or towards an existing"interior" wetlands that no longer exists or to the RGE ROW. See paragraph 2.


2/29


3/29

Mr. D'Amato:

Second, both the "lagoons" associated with the plant, and the new wetland areas

constructed as mitigation as part of the federal wetland permit process are at elevations

above the tributary in question, eliminating the possibility that they could be diverting

water from the stream within the MCWA facility to the detriment of downstream flows.

The U.S Army Corps of Engineers monitors the created wetland, and as recently as this

spring has confirmed that they are performing as designed. Staff also saw no evidence

that water was diverted from the tributary to the MCWA compensatory wetlands via the

RG&E Right of Way.

My Response:

Think ground water. Also please look at the entire site outside the mitigation area.

Below is an section I copy/pasted taken from a very well written article I found about urbanization. I beliethat is similar to what has happened here. The WTP site collects rainwater (ground water ) as part of theStorm Management System that would otherwise feed the stream. They have utilized the water tables thfed the stream.

Water, Interru pted In a natural watershed, rainfall infiltrates into the ground, where it recharges groundwater aquifers.Wetlands retain and clean water on the surface, and groundwater slowly replenishes streams and lakes.Some surface water evaporates back into the atmosphere and rain falls again, completing the circle.

But this is not what happens in the fractured watersheds.

"With this huge urban sprawl, the more impervious surfaces we have—

roads, parking lots, rooftops, etc.the less infiltration happens when it rains," he says. "What this means is that, first of all, there are biggerfloods, and secondly, there isn't as much infiltration to the water table. You're starting to starve the watertable component to feeding local streams."

As you can see by the photos the entire 42 acres was full of ground water.

Mr. D'Amato:

As you recall, as far back as 2010 DEC staff (Mr. Jackson, now retired) advisedyou

that a significant factor in your situation is likely the fact that your impoundment leaks.

You were advised at that time to seek a permit from the U. S. Army Corps. of Engineers

if you wished to repair it. While this would not affect the amount of water entering the

pond, a leak would certainly impact how quickly the pond level decreases. If you havenot yet addressed this matter, you may wish to do so.

My Respo nse: The sudden decrease of water in the pond was not due to a leak in our

impoundment but lack of water coming into our property via the stream. The following

photos show our pond dropping rapidly (as indicated by the pins). Each pin represents a

24 hour period.


4/29

When we had the problem we walked back to the plant to see what was going on and

noticed the stream was completely graded over at the WTP site which slowed the stream

down immensely . The photo below shows the 95 feet of stream that was "temporality

impacted". You can see how sudden it made an impact directly to the stream. As the photo shows it was trying to re-establish itself again.

My point is how fast the Western Tributary impacted the stream/ponds going into our

properties. We called the Town of Webster, the DEC and the Water Authority. A

representative from each came out to see this first hand. Greg Wysocki from Monroe

County Water Authority took photos both here and across the street. Nothing was said to

us as a follow-up by anyone about the root cause. It was obvious to us the graded over

stream caused the problem.


5/29


6/29

What is shown here is how quickly any changes made to the stream effected the flow.

Eventually, a few weeks went by and the pond level came back up to the normal level.

The water coming down the stream was accompanied by large plums of sediment. See:


7/29


8/29


9/29

Also to repond to your comment about a permit for our impoundment, it's not required.

According to your Permit requirements on the DEC website our impoundment needs to

reach a height of 6 feet to be required to need a permit, which it is not.

I would also like to make clear that we never had any problem with our pond until the

construction started.

Mr. D'Amato: Fourth, both on site observations of vegetation and a review of aerial photos

demonstrate that no impact to the dynamics associated with groundwater contribution

in the area have occurred as a result of the construction of the plant. The location of

more "lush" vegetation in historically wetter areas is consistent with the expected dynamic,

i.e. that when the water table is elevated groundwater contributes to the overall quantity

of water in the area. When the water table is lower, the area becomes dryer. This is

consistent with staff's knowledge and experience in that watershed and wetland areas

over time, both prior to and since the plant construction.

My Response :

I don't see any lush vegetation, maybe perhaps right around the mitigation wetland area.The entire WTP site is completely dry with some grass.

Mr. D'Amato: Fifth, on site observations revealed no physical impediments to flow through theMCWA facility, and the volume of inflow to the site and outflow as water headeddownstream appeared to be consistent.

My Response: Correct, I didn't see any impediments above ground either, butwhat about what you can't see? Underground there are huge pipes, huge pumpsetc that block and/or utilize the ground water that used to infiltrate to the natural

stream before. In a sense that is what is happing underground. Also the berming


10/29

around the Lagoons etc when the property was relatively flat before constructionand sloped to the North. (O'Brien and Gere)

The second part of your response mentions the same volume of water coming intothe south end as leaves the north end of the stream. If you will notice on any givenmap the original stream never touched the southern property line, it stopped short

of reaching it. The WTP made the connection (stream channel) to the two smalldrainage pipes that route the parking lot water runoff from the Waste Managementfacility into a small drainage ditch that go into those pipes. Below is a photo.

The water that fed this stream came from ground water, not from a small drainage

ditch at the south end coming into their property. It has nothing to do with thestream.

If you look at the drainage/culvert pipes next to our property that go under SchlegelRoad they are large enough in order to accommodate large volumes of water, large

enough in fact that our paddle boat fit though it and ended up at the park one day!Look at Shallow Creek right down the street from us, and look at the culvert size forthat small intermittent stream. Compared to ours it's really small. Big differencehere!

Mr. D'Amato:

Sixth, the sudden cessation of flow that you expressed occurred in August 2014 does

not correlate to the timing of the on-site activities by the MCWA. The wetland mitigation

was constructed by 2011 and by 2013 the current surface features of the facility were

complete. Further, the operation of the facility, which involves only water from Lake

Ontario, commenced August of 2013, a full year bef ore the condition you described.


11/29

My Response :

Yes, the wetlands where constructed but are still being monitored for several years to

observe performance. It even states that they are to be monitored and supplemented

when water level decreases, and is the responsibility of the WA. **ALSO some of the

operations of the plant where not completed yet in 2013 and awaiting approvals from the

State Health Department for approvals**. Perhaps you should look beneath the surfaceand how it affected the ground water that fed the stream. You say it only involves water

from the Lake but the Backwash includes Storm water (rain/ground water), collected

Waste Water, and Backwash from cleaning the Filters.

Mr. D'Amato: Finally, with regard to the concern about impacts to Four Mile Creek,

the tributary going through theMCWA site is such a small contributor to the overall volumes in the watershed that its conditionwould not have a s ignificant impact on Four Mile Creek.

My Response:

According to the EIS it would. In fact the Permit obligations state that avoidance of disturbing the TroutSpawning from June 1 to October is to be implemented when talking about dry and wet cut methods ontributary 0-99-1-1 -tribes to Fourmile Creek. And even point out our stream on the design drawing.

Mr. D'Amato:

Furthermore, since staff is confident that the MCWA facility is not negatively affecting

the tributary, Four Mile Creek would also not be impacted from the plant's construction.

My Respo nse:

Allowing the stream to dry up has made a huge negative impact to Fourmile Creek. In fact the PermObligations state that any work done, (activity,) on 0-99-1-1, (and points out the location of the strea

has to be done so that it does not affect the Trout Spawning from October 1 to June. If this was suchconcern during the Construction Phase then how is it that the stream is allowed to stop completelyand not flow at all after Construction?

See:

My Response: Our Pond is now almost unbearable to look at and reacts more like an Ephemeral stream with

even less flow than a intermittent stream with flowing water for brief periods in response to rainfall insteaof the healthy perennial stream that never stopped flowing. This has affected us as well as othersdownstream including the Arboretum Park and the Webster Golf Course. There may be others as well.

We have Riparian Rights to this water under Common Law. This also goes against the Canadian-US-Treaty amended in 2013. Your own officer said they are not allowed to stop the flow of the stream when h


12/29

was here last year. The Environmental laws state this cannot happen as well and that the Turbidity andVelocity of the stream cannot be altered. We now have erosion issues as well and a great deal ofsediment. If you notice we had to place large boulders around our pond to keep the erosion at bay. TheWebster Golf Course is also dealing with the same problems. I cannot speak for the Park.

All we are asking here is the DEC to continue to look deeper into the issues that have created this

problem and remedy this. If the WTP is allowed to put water in at the Webster Golf Courvia a Hydrant then why can't they put water in a the WTP site ? The infrastructure is alreain place because they do occasionally release water into the stream from the Storm Management facilityPond so this is an easy fix! You need to uphold the Permit obligations. You are a Protection Agency not

just a Permit Agency.

Mr. D'Amato: YStaff recognizes that watershed dynamics can be altered as construction takes place in an area, and clearly there has been construction around this watershed over the past


13/29

few decades, beyond the construction of the MCWA plant. But staff remains very

confident that there has been no meaningful impact to the quantity of water available to

that tributary resulting from the construction or operation of the MCWA facility.

My Response:

The stream didn't dry up over time,,, it just abruptly stopped in mid August of 2014. Around

mid August our pond was dropping at a rapid rate, just like in 2010. By Labor day weekend

the stream just stopped for the very first time. In 2010 the stream slowed to a trickle. It all

happen within a few weeks time. Any remaining water made its way down until there was

nothing left for it to give by the last Friday in August.

We have spoke to many folks that live near and next to Fourmile Creek. And a family that

has lived 30 plus years next to Hedges Restaurant that dock boats at Fourmile Creek.

They noticed how much the water dropped and was wondering what was going on. Quite a

few people we have talked to thought someone had "dammed up" the stream because of

the sudden stoppage of the stream.

Also to respond to your comment that "there has been no meaningful impact to the

quantity of water available" seems very unreasonable for you to say given the fact that

about approx 640, 000 gallons of water travelled through here daily.

Here are some before and after photos and then tell me if you feel the same way. None of

you live here and see it on a daily basis. This mishap has completely ruined the ecstatic of

our properties, the Park and Golf Course not to mention the biological and hydrological

ramifications to the environment. The first photo is the Arboretum Park "famous" little falls.

This water fall is even pictures on the Webster Town website. Many prom and wedding

photos take place here.


14/29


15/29

This is before and after of stream going to Webster Golf.


16/29


17/29


18/29


19/29


20/29


21/29


22/29


23/29


24/29

Baldwin Property


25/29


26/29

Sediment piled on left


27/29


28/29

Lastly for those who may think we are just trying to "sue" the WA is untrue. We had a 50-Hhearing last December as a result of getting nowhere with the WA and DEC when trying toget concrete answers. Similar to what we are getting now, a year later.

At the end of the Hearing we were asked; What exactly are you seeking? Our answerwas...." from an environmental perspective, we'd like to see the stream flowing like it has inthe past and also the wildlife gets maintained for the miles that the stream goes". "We havea dried-up stream that used to support lots of wildlife that will no longer do the job it used tofor the last thousand years"

If you like I can scan the actual transcript section so you know I have not changed thewording.

When we looked at our home back in 2002 one of best features was the setting. The pond, pool and wooded lot is really what sold us. We purchased our home and moved in Feb.

2003. We never had a problem until the construction started in 2010. It has been a hugesource of entertainment for us from fishing to duck races and kids having fun on our paddleboat.

This has severely affected our property as well as everyone along the stream and FourmileCreek. We believe it to be somewhere around 650,000 gallons per day that came throughnon-stop. Sometimes more. Even during droughts the stream NEVER stopped flowing.


29/29

Honestly this has taken a toll on me as I have cried myself to sleep many nights. I ask, howis this possible that something like this could happen? We now have a HUGE hole in ourbackyard we see every day. The only time it get's water is only if it rains and sometimes thatis not enough to fill up the pond. The stream that once flowed daily has stopped completely.

I'm sure the fish will start to bubble up soon like before, due to lack of water, oxygen andwarmer water temperatures.

We would ask that you further investigate the issue here and look into other possibilitiesbeyond the mitigation area and how the Storm Management is handled. We would ask thatyou could try and remedy this in a timely manner.

Sincerely Sandra and John Baldwin

c Webster Parks and Recreation, Webster Golf Club

Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention.

dec-reponse-9-1-2015pdf.pdf

Documents