The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGround Watershed - Steve JonesPLANNING BOARD MEMBERS BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Gt{ORGE RITCI-IIE LATI-IAM, JR. RICHARD G. WARD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: FROM: RE: DATE: AIl Int ere sted Parties Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairma Groundwater Protection and Management Study May 3, 1999 The Planning Board has received a set of working papers from Steve Jones, Director of the Suffolk County Department of Planning. At his presentation to the Southold Town Planning Board in February, Steve Jones indicated that a written version of the material he had discussed would be given to the Board for its review. These working papers include technical background information along with the draft recommendations about groundwater protection and management strategy within Southold Town. The working papers will be reviewed carefully over the coming weeks. There are sure to be many questions about the feasibility and potential ramifications of the recommendations. Our efforts will be focused on conducting a thorough review of this material in order to determine which elements of the recommendations should be accepted, modified or rejected. Due to the preliminary nature of the working papers, I strongly caution against pre- judging thek merits. The decision by the Planning Board to release these papers should not be seen as either an endorsement or a dismissal of the recommendations by the Planning Board. Because this material has not been reviewed and assessed, adopting a stance for or against groundwater protection and management will be viewed as grossly premature. No one on the Planning Board has a "position" on these recommendations at this time. Further, this none of these recommendations have been forwarded to the Town Board for action. Developing a fair and effective groundwater protection and management strategy is of utmost importance to Southold Town's immediate and long-term future. At the very least, it is deserving of an impartial assessment and careful study of the various available options. Because of the preliminary nature of this material, the Planning Board will hold no public hearings or debates at this time. However, written comments will be taken into cOnsideration. Plan Summary The Town of Southold, situated on the North Fork of Long Island, continues to embody the natural beauty, serenity, and bucolic setting which was once typical for vast areas of Long Island and Suffolk County, It's rural, tourist-based economy dePends heavily on the high quality of life, agricultural economy and rich history which are the cornerstones of what makes the Town of Southold a special place. Because of the attraotivenes~ of the area, many people have sought to make Southold their permanent or second home, rather than just being visitors. The growth and development in the town have brought mixed blessings. The purpose of this plan is to examine principally how past and future growth impact the groundwater, the s01e source of drinking water on the north fork. Further, thc plan seeks to square the seeming dilemma of how to accommortate additional growth while preserving the farming economy of the town. Maintaining the rural qualities of the Town of Southold will require a close examination of the existing rules and regulations governing development on the local level and how they aff~zt the quantity and quality of available drinking water, in an effort to answer the following questions: How much new growth can the town sustsin and sOJ1 maintain its rural qualities? Where should this growth Occur in order to minimize its effect on far~adng operations, municipal services and most importantly, the sole source of drinldng water in the town? The goals and objectives of the plan are grouped around the issue of drinking water: How to make sure there is enough for the future; howto make sure the quality of drinking water does not dvteriorate from overdevelopment, or inappropriat~ farming practices; how to avoid costly efforts to treat well-water to meet health standards; how to provide high quality drinking water to each and every'existing and future resident and bUSiness in the town. The TOwn of Southold was analyzed from the pcrspeefive of its existing land uses, its zoning, and its future development potential ufilLzing a geographic information system ( GIS ), which is a data base assembledge of information about every tax parcel in the Town of Southold. The quality of information enables the USer to characterize existing development and future trends in order to formulate strategies to achieve the goals of the plan. Major findings are as follows: · A third of land is used for agriculture · A third is residential · Rapid residential growth occurred between 1983-1988, but has now leveled off · /Mmost half °fthe acreage available for development is used for farming · Potential exists for a.67% increase in the amber of houses (8300 mom units) · - Over two thirds of these future homes (5600 units) could be built either on converted farms (2800 units) or single and separately-owned existing undeveloped lots (2800 units) The saturation population, using the existing split between year round and seasonal units is projected at 63,000 people In addition to the GIS analysis, a survey of the current scientific literature, reports, groundwater characterizations, test well data, public water services, and hydrology reveal thc following findings: · · · · · · Elevated levels of fertilizers and pesticides exist in the ground water due to current or past agricultural practices Very few homes overall are located within the large blocks of farmland 'The groundwater is particularly sensitive to ovcrwithdrawl and salt-water inlxusion because of the horizontal and vertical limits to the fresh water lens Existing and potential well fields have a capacity to be pumped at 3.2 million gallons per day, to support a population of 30,000 people Past efforts to r~nove targeted compounds from drinking water via in'home treatment systems on a broad scale have been successful Farm preservation limits strain on the drinking water supply and need for muniCipal services, as well as presenting potential for groundwater quality improvement through the institution of carefully crafted farm management modifications Recommendations based on the findings include the following: The Town needs to limit growth potential because of limited drinking water supplies Growth needs to be directed away from the farm blocks and into areas where infrastructure presently exists or is planned, including public drinking water Growth can be accommodated by widening the taxpayer-based Purchase of Development Rights programs to include private development on single and separate lots Farmland loss canbe averted through process-based i~menfives at the Town Board and Planning Board, i.e. conservation subdivisions Filtration Districts should be established for homes and businesses without access to public water mains DEPAF:~M~-NT OF PLANNING COUNTY OF SUFFOLK SUFFOLK COUNTh' EXECUTIVE ~TEPHEN M. JONES, A.I.C.P. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING April 26, 1999 Valerie Scopaz,.Planning Director Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Valerie: Pursuant to our contract with you to prepare a plan for Ground watershed Protection and Water Supply Management, attached please find a draft of that plan. We have followed the format to which we agreed recently, which is slightly different that the scope of services, but which includes everything contemplated by the scope of services. This draft contains a substantial amount of research material which we did not directly generate but which is important for contextual purposes. We have attempted in this plan to synthesize the goals of preserving drinking water supply and the goal of preserving working farms; a difficult task, but one of paramount importance for the future of the Town of Southold. This is a draft plan, but since our proposal of $35,000 was cut back to $20,0000, we have little stafftime reserved for substantial draft modifications. The mapping is an outgrowth of our GIS data base, so, in addition to this paper material, we are preparing to reformat all our electronic data to your specifications pursuant to the contract. We look forward to completing our work for you in a timely and satisfactory manner. SMJ/tk cc: Michael A. LoGrande, SCWA O:\11 TLK\SCPD\SOUTHOLD.WPD Sincerely, APR o Southold Town Planning Board LOCATION MAIUNG ADDRESS H. LEE DENNISON BLDG. - 4TH FLOOR · P.O. BOX {51 O0 · (5 I 6) 853-5 190 I O0 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, NY I 1788~009 F~ <5 I 6) 8S3-4044 Ground Watershed Protection and Water Supply Management Strategy Southold Township 2000 Town of Southold, County of Suffolk New York Suffolk County Planning Department April 1999 Ground Watershed Protection and Water Supply Management Strategy Southold Township 2000 TABLE OFCONTENTS PURPOSE, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS Existing Land Use Characteristics Existing Public Water Supplies and Facilities. Survey of Existing Studies on Groundwater Issues Analysis of Suffolk County Water Authority Reports, Water Table Maps, and the SGPA Plan Review of Hydrogeologic Watershed Boundaries ~ Survey of Existing Areas in Need of Public Water Supply Overview of Water Treatment Technologies Population and Development Trends Land Available for Development and Saturation Population Analysis Legal Issues Relating to Water Resource Protection Property Tax Implications of Water Resource Protection Analysis of PDR Programs ACTION STRATEGIES Upzoning Recommendations for. Oversized Vacant Land Groundwater and Farm Management Districts Rural Development Balance Local Law Incentive Zoning / Density Transfers Southold Code Amendments Ground Watershed Protection and Water Supply Management Strategy Southold Township 2000 Purpose: To design, adopt and implement a strategy for the protection and management of the sole source aquifer of the Township of Southold. The strategy shall defme the areas to be protected, areas suitable for development, areas designated for farm and agricultural protection and how the watershed will be managed in order to ensure the highest quality potable drinking water for private and public water supply wells. Goals: 1. To protect and preserve a healthful drinking water supply sufficient to serve the existing and furore residents of the town, while maintaining and enhancing the natural resoUrces and quality of life in the town. 2. To provide public drinking water to existing residents and businesses in need without precipitating uncontrolled growth. 3. To manage future growth to ensure a sustainable drinking water supply from the Southold Township sole soUrce aquifer. 4. To preserve the own s farming blocks ~n order to protect farmmg operations, limit the · need for additional drinking water in these areas, and provide, through agricultural best management practices, a continual improvement tothe groundwater quality in the area. 5. To conserve drinking water supplies by reducing wasteful water use. 6. To integrate land conservation, agricultural activities, and development rights conveyance strategies to preserve a sustainable balance between water recharge and drinking water use. 7. To constructively protect the Town's sole source aquifer from contamination by inappropriate land use practices. C:\l ISMY~SOUTOLDI.WPD 1 April 16, 1999 Objectives: 1. Develop land management and zoning strategies: To prevent inappropriate land uses or practices from occurring within designated groundwater protection areas; To guide development in order to minimize its impact on the groundwater aquifer; To scale development to a level which respects the limitations of water supply. 2. Develop strategies to mitigate or remove existing threats to designated groundwater protection areas, or mitigate possible deterioration to drinking water quality, especially in private wells. 3. Promote and guide compact, orderly growth into areas where sustainable drinking water supplies exist. 4. Preserve and protect groundwater recharge areas in and around existing and planned drinking water supply well-heads. 5. Accommodate growth and change within the Town which: respects the geographical and geological limitations to the drinking water supply; does not damage the groundwater aquifer; does not, by cumulative impact, destroy the fundamental economic base, environmental character and unique way of life which make up the quality of life in the Township of Southold. C:\l 1SMJ~SOUTOLD1.WPD 2 April 16, 1999 INVENTORY AND ANAI~YSIS Existing Land Use Characteristics Ground Watershed Protection and Water Supply Management Strategy Existing Land Use Characteristics Introduction The land use inventory conducted for the Town of Southold was prepared at tax map scale and field verified in 1998. The Suffolk County Planning Department's Geographic Information System (GIS) was utilized to link land use data with parcels shown on *.he Suffolk County Real Property Tax Map. The GIS was employed to plot the full-color existing land use map of the town showing 13 categories of land use and to generate acreage figures. Land Use Classification System Use of town tax assessor code data expedited the attainment of land use inventory objectives. These data sets were available in electronic format and keyed to Suffolk County tax map parcels. They provided a starting point for the land use inventory work. Tax assessor codes are assigned to parcels for the purpose of raising revenue through real property taxation. There are literally scores of codes assigned to ratable property. To facilitate interpretation, the land use methodology grouped these codes under the following 13 general land~ use categories that are commonly used for regional planning purposes: low density residential, medium density residential, high density residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, recreation and open space, agriculture, vacant, transportation, utilities, waste handling and management, and surface waters. Appendix Table 1 shows the general land use categories and the property type classification and ownership codes assigned to each category. The groupings in this table do not necessarily reflect the divisions in the assessor's manual (New York State Division of Equalization and Assessment 1991). The 13 general land use categories are more suitable for characterizing community layout and .function, determining land available for development, estimating future population levels and preparing master plans. Each and every parcel on the tax map was assigned to one (and only one) of the general categories. Land Use Inventory Process The following is a brief listing of the steps in the process used for conducting the inventory of existing land use. · Using the GIS, combine tax map parcel line work with the three digit, tax assessor property code data and prepare a coverage at tax map scale for each town showing 13 general land use category attributes based on grouped assessor code data and residential density criteria_ · Prepare large scale plots of all tax map sections. These plots show the land use attribute code numbers for the 13 general land use categories listed in Appendix Table 1, one of which is assigned to each tax map parcel. · Verify parcel attribute codes via field inspection, aerial photo interpretation, use of Real Property Tax Service Agency property data and owners list files, etc., and manually correct same where necessary on the tax map section plots. · Correct the GIS data base. · Merge the tax map section sheets.and prepare preliminary, color-coded GIS existing land use map. Inspect and correct parcel line work and attribute codes, where needed. · Plot final, color-coded existing land use map at desired scale. · Use the GIS to tabulate acreage figures by general land use category and sub-watershed zone. The steps in the process are conceptually simple. However, the level of effort required to prepare usable GIS coverages, verify and correct land use codes, and produce an accurate parcel- specific land use data base was quite substantial. · ~a,,u Use Classification Com'entions Experience gained with the initial phases of the land use inventory and field check process resulted in the establishment of several conventions that were used to simplify and expedite the work, and help assure that land use code attributes were being assigned in a consistent manner by the several staff members involved. These conventions are summarized below. · When more than one use was found to occur on a single parcel, the primary use of that parcel was determined and assigned to that parcel. Primary use is based on the relative intensity of the use in comparison with that of the other use(s) in question, with consideration also given to the areal extent of the use on the parcel. Typical examples follow: - A 100-acre parcel is used for both residential and agricultural purposes. Crops are grown on about 80 acres, 15 acres are in woodlands, and a house is located on site. Even though the parcel accommodates three uses (including vacant), it is assigned a classification of agriculture, since most of the parcel is dedicated to this use. - A two-story structure is located on a 10,000 sq. ft. tot in the retail portion ora central business district. A hardware store occupies the first story of the building and the second floor is used for an apartment. While used for both commercial and residential uses, this parcel is classified as commercial, given the relative intensity of the uses in question and the prevailing nature of neighboring retail uses. - A country estate is located on an 18-acre parcel, some of which is wooded, with the remainder used as pasture. This parcel is classified as low density residential, given the fact that it falls within the density criteria of < ld.u./acre. - A road right-of-way parcel traverses a bay, but the improved portion of the parcel does not extend over the water. The entire parcel is classified as transportation. · Dedicated common areas on tax map parcels in condominium/townhouse projects were classified as recreation and open space, since such areas are not available for development in the future. Small, privately owned parcels that are the sites for residential structures in these projects were classified as high density residential. · Agricultural land that had reverted to old field habitat due to non-use was classified as vacant. Actively cultivated lands and those recently left fallow were classified as agriculture. · When structures on improved parcels are unoccupied, the parcels are not classified as vacant. They are classified according to the type of structure present, i.e., commercial, industrial, residential, etc. · Whether a parcel is publicly owned or privately owned does not necessarily determine how that parcel is classified. For example, parcels classified as recreation and open space can be owned by property owners associations, private conservation groups, or private clubs, as well as public entities. · Privately owned, commercially oriented, intensive recreational activities, such as bowling alleys and sports complexes, are classified as commercial. · All publicly owned parks and conservation lands, whether actively or passively used, are classified as recreation and open space. · Parcels owned by the Suffolk County Water Authority were classified as utility, regardless of whether the parcels were improved or not. · The existing zoning designation of a parcel is not a factor in how that.parcel is classified as to existing land use. · The number of residential su-ttctures on a parcel, as opposed to the number of dwelling units, was used in conjunction with parcel acreage to determine density, and hence, the classification of the parcel as low, medium or high density residential. · The context within which a parcel is located, i.e., the uses found on adjacent and nearby parcels, can often help in making jud~mnents in the field as to how to classify that parcel. · Parcels that are adjacent to commercial uses in-business districts and are used as. parking lots in connection with these uses were classified as commercial. Parcels used for parking that are directly related to a nearby transportation use, e.g., ferry or railroad, were classified as transportation. The tax map base shows property boundaries, and not geographical features, the extent of various "surface covers" or datums. Hence, the boundary of a parcel located on the shoreline may, or may not, coincide with the location of the land/sea interface. The apparent shoreline on the existing land use maps, i.e., the boundary between parcels classified as surface waters and adjacent parcels classified as one of the 12 upland land use categories, should not be interpreted as the water's edge or mean sea level, etc. Overlay of the tax map base on appropriate maps, such as USGS topographic maps, can indicate the extent to which the shorelines replicate each other. A lake or pond located within a larger tax map parcel will not be shown on the existing land use map as surface waters. If the lake/pond is a separate parcel, i.e., the shoreline is a property boundary, then it will be classified and shown as surface waters on the map. Existing Land Use Map Accuracy The Existing Land Use map shows thousands of parcels, each assigned to a land use category. In evaluating the accuracy of this map, one has to consider two types of potential error. The first type is judgment error, resulting in the assignment of the wrong classification category to a particular parcel. The second type is attribute error, where the wrong classification is assigned to a parcel in the GIS data base, and this error is not detected in review of preliminary maps. Given the extensive level of effort devoted to the land use inventory, the staff is confident that the incidence of both types of error is very low. Users of the Existing Land Use map and the acreage tabulations by land use category that are derived from the GIS data base should be aware of the methodology employed, so that proper interpretations can be made. In addition to being assigned to a land use category, each parcel of property.was assigned to a specific sub-watershed zone. All parcels assigned to a land use category, other than transportation, lie entirely within a specific sub-watershed zone. The transportation category was assigned to town-wide railroad and public right-of-ways that traverse sub-watershed zone boundaries. In order to maintain the integrity of the tax parcel data base, transportation right-of- ways were not segmented to conform to sub-watershed boundaries. As a result, the GIS was only capable of calculating a town-wide acreage figure for the transportation category. Transportation acreage figures for each sub-watershed zone were estimated by multiplying the town-wide transportation acreage total by the percentage of town-wide study area acreage found in each sub- watershed zone. Since the parcels assigned to the other 12 !and use categories were entirely located within a sub-watershed zone, the acreage calculations generated by the GIS for these categories did not have to be manually adjusted. Further explanation may help to reduce confusion with respect to the differences between preliminary maps showing uses determined by assessor codes and existing land use maps prepared by using the land use methodology described herein. Each municipality can assign assessor codes to parcels in different ways according to local practice. In almost all towns, it is evident that publicly owned parcels and other non-ratables often are not assigned any category. In addition, the assessor code data sets vary greatly by town in the extent and frequency of update. The use of this methodology and field verification assured comparability of inventory results throughout the county 'and their accuracy and suitability for planning purposes. RESULTS OF THE LAND USE INVENTORY The results of the existing land use inventory are portrayed in map and numerical formats. The full-color, parcel-specific, computer generated maps that accompany this report portray the distribution of the 13 land use categories as of 1998. The GIS was utilized to generate land use acreage data from the tax map parcel/land use data base, which is depicted on the Existing Land Use map. These data are grouped by land use category and sub-watershed zone. The acreage in the Town of Southold is divided into 14 sub-watershed zones.The acreage distribution by land use category within 13 of the 14 sub-watershed zones in the Town of Southold (excluding Fishers Island) is shown in Table 1. The Existing Land Use map for the Town of Southold and data shown in Table 1 illustrate that nearly one-third (31%) of the mainland upland acreage (32,244 acres) in the Town of Southold is in agricultural use. Residential use occupies 29% of the town-wide acreage. Generally, the residential development is situated in close proximity to the shoreline while the agricultural property is located on large interior lots. Vacant property accounts for 17% of the acreage within the town. Recreation and open space comprises only 11% of the town; Orient Point State Park and its underwater lands, publicly owned wetlands in Orient, recent public acquisitions around Laurel Lake, and several private golf courses are the largest holdings in this category. Transportation related activities occupy 6% of the town. Most of the institutional acreage in the town is located on Plum Island. Table 1, 7 Existing Land Use Acreage: Town of S0uthold (excluding Fishers Island) - 1998 [ow densi residential* : ~ ........ ~ ..................... 455 281 4'11 426 581 888 133 208 14 ',53 616 4031<o¢~08 4,777 15% High dansity residential ,0 14 ~ ~ 7 12 8 .158 5 3 0~' 0 7 7o~ 7 228 1% IndUstri.~l; . 0. 18 0 ~ 9 8 ~ 61 1 0 0 0 18 231o, .1i 139 0% V~cant . 0 298 421 369 553 1,819 113 378 25 17 603 514 372 5,402 17% ut,ities oi ~ ~2 3 2i 2.1 0 0 ~urface waters (fresh) 0 29 23 0 O~ 26 0 0 0 0 0 321.,,.. 0 110 0% *RObins Island (455 acreS) ls inClUded in Sub-watershed zone 0 and is classified as IOW denSity residential. **Plum Island (823 acres) is included in sub.-watershed zone 0 and is classified as institutional. C:\111RVXLOCALSTU\SOUTHOLD\sHLD-FI.WPD I April 5, 1999 Appendix Table 1. Land Use Classification System (p.1 orS) Low Density Residential (<1 d.u./acre)* - attribute code I - symbol #83 - yellow** 210 220 Residence 230 Residence 240 250 260 270 312 316 439 483 One Family Year-Round Residence Two Family Year-Round Three Family Year-Round Rural Residence with Acreage Estate Seasonal Residences Mobile Home Residential Land Including a Small Improvement (not used for living accommodations) Waterfront Vacant Land Including a Small Improvement (not used for living accommodations) Small Parking Garage Converted Residence 220 Residence 230 Residence 260 270 312 Medium Density Residential (>1 to <5 , d.u./acre)* - attribute code 2 - symbol g84 - gold** 210 One Family Year-Round Residence Two Family Year-Round · Three Family year-Round Seasonal Residences Mobile Home Residential Land Including a Small Improvement (not used for living ~[~'~c~9~mmo dations) 3 ~ Wate~Vacant Land Including ~m.al~loI2~n~ (not used for " living accommo.,'~9~s) 439 Small Parldng 483 Converted Residence High Density Residential (~ 5 d.u./acre)* - attribute code 3 - symbol #92 - peru** 210 One Family Year-Round Residence Two Family Year-Round 220 Residence 230 Residence 260 270 Three Family Year-Round Seasonal Residences Mobile Home 271 Multiple Mobile Homes 280 Multiple Residences 312 Residential Land Including a Small Improvement (not used for, living accommodations) 316 Waterfront Vacant Land Including a Small Improvement (not used for living accommodations) 410 Living Accommodations 411 Apartments 416 Mobile Home Parks (trailer parks, trailer courts) 439 Small Parking Garage 483 Converted Residence *Parcels designated as residential requke lot size calculation to determine residential density classification (low, medium or high density). **The symbol # and color assigned to e~t~h land use category were selected from the shadeset of Colornames in ARC/INFO 7.04. Appendix Table 1. Land Use Classification System (p.2 of 5) Commercial - attribute code 4 - symbol #110 - red** 414 Hotel 415 Motel 417 Camps, Cottages, Bungalows 418 Inns, Lodges, Boarding & Rooming Houses, Touxists Homes, Fratemity & Sorority Houses 420 Dining Establishments 421 Restaurants 422 Diners & Luncheonettes 423 Snack Bars, Drive-Ins, Ice Cream Bars 424 Night Clubs 425 Bar 426 Fast Food Franchises 430 Motor Vehicle Services 431 Auto Dealers - Sales & Svc. 432 Service & Gas Stations 433 Auto Body, Tire Shops, Other Related Auto Sales 434 Automatic Car Wash 435 Manual Car Wash 436 Self-Service Car Wash 437 Parking Garage 438 Parking Lot 450 Retail Services 451 Regional Shopping Centers 452 Area of Neighborhood 8hopping Centers 453 Large Retail Outlets 454Large Retail Food Stores 455 Dealerships - Sales & Services (other than auto with large scale operation) 460 Bank & Office Buildings 461Standard Bank/Single Occupant 462Drive-in Branch Bank 463 Bank Complex w Office Bldg. 464 Office Building 465 Professional Building 470 Miscellaneous Services 471 Funeral Homes 472 Dog Kennels, Veterinary Clinics 473 Greenhouses (retail sales) 474 Billiards 480 Multiple Use of Multi purposes 481 Downtown Row Type (with common wall) 482 Downtown Row Type (detached) 484 One Story Small Smacmre 485 One Story Small Structure - Multi-occupant 486 Minimart 510 Entertainment Assembly 511 Legitimate Theaters 512 Motion Picture Theaters 513 Drive-in Theaters 514 Auditoriums, Exhibition & Exhibition Halls 515 Radio, T.V. & Motion Picture Studios 520 Sports Assembly 521 Stadiums, Arenas, Armories, Field Houses 522 Racetracks 530 Amusement Facilities 531 Fairgrounds 532 Amusement Parks 533 Game Farms 534 Social Organizations 540 Indoor Sports Facilities 541 Bowling Centers 542 Ice or Roller Skating Rinks 543 YMCAs, YWCAs, etc. 544 Health Spas 545 Indoor Swimming Pools 546 Other Indoor Sports 550 Outdoor Sports Activities 554 Outdoor Swimming Pools 555 Riding Stables 556 Ice or Roller Skating Rinks 557 Other Outdoor Sports 570 Marinas 583 Resort Complexes 691 Professional Associations **The symbol # and color assigned to each land use category were selected from the shadeset of Colornames in ARC/INFO Vet 7.04. Appendix Table 1. Land Use Classification System (p.3 orS) Industrial - attribute code 5 - symbol #127 - purple** 440 Storage, Warehouse & Distribution Facilities 441 Gasoline, Fuel, Oil, Liquid Petroleum Storage and/or Distribution 442 Bottled Gas, Natural Gas Facilities 443 Grain & Feed Elevators, Mixers, Sales Outlets 444 Lumber Yards, Sawmills 445 Coal Yards, Bins 446 Cold Storage Facilities 447 Tracking Terminals 448 Piers, Wharves, Docks & Related Facilities 449 Other Storage, Warehouse & Distribution Facilities 475 Junkyards 710 Manufacturing & Processing 720 Mining and Quarrying 721 Sand & Gravel 740 Industrial Product Pipelines (non- utility companies) 741 Gas 742 Water 743 Brine 744 Petroleum Products 749 Other Institutional - attribute code 6 - symbol #45 - deep sky blue** 610 Education 611 Libraries 612 Schools 613 Colleges & Universities 614 Sp~ial Schools & Institutions 615 Other Educational Facilities 670 680 620 Religious 630 Welfare 631 Orphanages 632 Benevolent & Moral Associations 633 Homes ,for the Aged 640 Health 641 Hospitals 642 All Other Health Facilities 652 Office Building (Government) 653 Parking Lots (associated with government building) 660 Protection 661 Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine & Coast Guard installations, Radar, etc. 662 Police & Fire Protection, Electrical Signal Equipment & Other Facilities for Fire, Police, Civil Defense, etc. Correctional Cultural and Recreational 681 Cultural Facilities (museums, art galleries) 693 Indian Reservations 694 Animal Welfare Shelters **The symbol # and color assigned to each land use category were selected from the shadeset of Colornames in ARC/INFO Vet 7.04. Appendix Table 1. Land Use Classification System (p.4 of 5) Recreation & Open Space - attribute code 7 - symbol #70 - green** 190 Fish, Game & Wildlife Preserves 552 Public Golf Courses 553 Private Golf Country Clubs 560 Improved Beaches 50°0 Camps, Camping Facilities and Resorts 59O 581 Camps 582 Camping Facilities Parks 591 Playgrounds 592 Athletic Fields 593 Picnic Grounds 682 Nature Trails, Bike Paths, etc. 695 Cemeteries 920 Private Hunting & Fishing Clubs 930 State Owned Forest Land 932 State Owned Land Other Than Forest Preserve 940 Reforested Land & Other Related Conservation Purposes 941 State Owned Reforested Land 942 County Owned Reforested Land 960 Public Parks 961 State Owned Public Parks, Recreation Areas, and Other Multiple Uses 962 County Owned Public Parks and Recreation Areas 963 City/Town/Village Public Parks and Recreation Areas 970 Other Wild or Conservation Lands 971 Wetlands, Either Privately or Governmentally Owned, Subject to Specific Restrictions as to Use 980 Taxable State Owned Conservation Easements 990 Other Taxable State Land Assessments 993 Transition Assessments for Taxable State Owned Land 994 Transition Assessment for Exempt State Owned Land Agriculture - attribute code 8 - symbol #69 - lawn green** 105 Agricultural Vacant Land (Productive) 110 Livestock & Products 120 Rights 130 140 150 160 170 180 111 Poultry & Poultry Products 112 Dairy Products 113 Cattle, Calves, Hogs 114 Sheep & Wool 115 Honey & Beeswax 116 Other Livestock: donkeys, goats 117 Horse Farms Field Crops 129 Acquired Development Truck Crops - Mucklands Truck Crops - Not Mucklarids Orchard Crops 151 Apples, Pears, Peaches, Cherries, etc. 152 Vineyards Other Fruits Nursery & Greenhouse Specialty Farms 182 Pheasants **The symbol # and color assigned to each land use category were selected fxom the shadeset of Colornames in ARC/INFO Vet 7.04. Appendix Table 1. Land Use Classification System (p.5 0£5) Vacant - attribute code 9 - symbol #26 - white** 310 Residential 311 Residential Vacant Land 313 Waterfront Vacant Lots 314 Rural Vacant Lots <10 Acres 320 Rural 321 Land Abandoned Agricultural 322 Residential Vac. Land >10 A. 323Other Rural Vacant Lands 330 Vacant Land Located in Commercial Areas 340 Vacant Land Located in Industrial Areas 350 Urban Renewal or Slum Clearance 910 Private Wild &Forest Lands 911 Forest Land 912 Forest Land Transportation - attribute code 10 - symbol #33 - light grey** 650 Government 651 Highway Garage 692 Roads, Streets, Highways & Parkways, Express or Otherwise including Adjoining Land 821 Flood Control 840 Transportation 841 Motor Vehicle 842 Ceiling Railroad 843 Nonceiling Railroad 844 Air 846 Bridges, Tunnels & Subways Utilities - attribute code 11 - symbol ~31 - It. slate grey** 810 Electric & Gas 812 Electric Power Generation- Coal Burning Plant 813 Electric Power Generation - Oil Burning Plant 814 Electric Power Generation - Nuclear Plant 815 Electric Power Generation - Gas Burning Plant 82O 830 816 817 818 Water 822 Gas Generation Plant Electric Transmission & Distribution Gas Transmission & Distribution Water Supply Communication 835 '836 831 Telephone 832 Telegraph 833 Radio 834 TV other than Community Antenna T.V. Community Antenna T.V. Telecommunications 847 - Pipelines (used by utility companies) 860' Special Franchise Property · 861 Electric & Gas 862 Water 866 Telephone 867 Miscellaneous 868 Pipelines 869 Television Waste Handling & Management - attribute code 12 - symbol #28 - dk. slate grey** 850 Waste Disposal 851 Solid Wastes 852 Landfills & Dumps 853 Sewage Treatment & Water Pollution Control 854 Air Pollution Control Surface Waters - attribute code '13 -symbol #52 - pale turquoise** 183 Aquatic: oysterlands 315 Underwater Vacant Land 845 Water (canal) 972 Land Under Water, Either Privately or Governmentally Owned **The symbol # and color assigned to each land use category were seteeted fxom the shadeset of Colornames in ARC/INFO Ver . 7.04. Existing Public Water Supplies And Facilities SCWA SOUTHOLO WELL FIELDR WELL_FIELD Inlet Drive Laurel Lake Sunset Ddve Browns Hills Rd. Main-Bayview Ackerly Pond Lane Middle Road North Rd. Mill Rd. Brecknock Halt Kennys Rd. Island End · TAX MAP NO, 1000-9g,-2-16.1 1000-121-5-5:1 & 1.10 1000-10~9.38 1000-18-4-9 1000-88-6-13.53 ID{30-69-3-4 1000-59-3-24 1000-54-3-22 1000-74-2-1,7 10{30-35-1-25 1000-59-3-16.6 1000-35-02-15,1 1998 ANNUAL PU MPAG 23,051 18,30D,DOD 3,417,200 5,088,750 1,400,300 39, D63,800 110,507,00{3 32,275,800 7,514,00{3 35,247,000 t23,996,90{3 Out of Service/Will Return in Sewice Summer 1999 QUALITY Low Lave/O~ganics One well high in iron Iron Filter System Chlorides High Nitrates. Dachtal/Carbon Filter on Well RO Filters Installed In Homes Very limited capacity/60 GPM Multiple Organic-Pesticide-Herbicide Contamination/Carbon Filter Good Quality High In Nitrates, Pesticides Nitrate Removal SystemfCarbon Filter Good Quality with Umited U~e Good Quality with LJmlled Use Good Quality High Nitrates WELL FIE!,~D Long Way No~ Rd. Rocky Polnt Rd. Ge/er (North Rd.) Bergen Ave, TAX MAP NO. 1000-30-2-100 10D0-6~-1-1.003 1000.-31.2-32.5 1000-40-04-001 1000-1I~-2-1 -2- 1998 ANNUAL. PUMPAGE Out of Service Undeveloped in Service Summer 1999 Undeveloped Undeveloped High Nitrates Potential Nitrate Problem Survey of Existing Studies On Groundwater Issues WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM TO DETECT PESTICIDE CONTAMINATION IN GROUNDWATERS OF NASSAU AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, NY INTERIM REPORT June 1998 Suffolk County Department of Health Services DMsion of Environmental Quality Joseph H. Baler, P.E., Director Bureau of G'roundwater Resources Martin Trent, Project Manager TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .......................................... 1 Methods ............................................ I sample Dk~u~bution .................................... 2 Sampling Results ...................................... 2 Agricultural Areas ................................... 3 Suburban Areas ..................................... 4 Golf Courses ....................................... 5 Surface Waters ...................................... 5 Metals Results ....................... ................. 6 Nitrate Results ........................................ 6 Conclusions &.Recommendations ........................... 6 Table I Table II Table Table IV Table ¥ Table VI Table VII TABLES & APPENDICES Number of Water Samples ...................... 8 Nassau Pesticide Sample Di~tt~ution 8 Suffolk Pesticide Sample Distt~ution .............. 8 Sample Types ................................ 8 Pesticides & Maximum Concentrations Detected ..... 9 Well Locations Exceeding MCLs ................ 10 Suffolk Nitrate Summary ...................... 11 Appendix A Appendix B Appendix B.1 Analyses & MDLs ........................ 12 Well Sites Exceeding MCLs ................. 15 Well Sites Exceeding MCLs, North & South Forks of Suffolk County ........ 16 Water Quality Monitoring Program to Detect Pesticide Contam vm:~'u m Groundwaters oflqassau and Suffolk Coun~--~ Interim Report - J~r. ~ INTRODUCTION Pesticide contamination o£groundwater has become a national issue due to growing concerns potential public health impacts. These concerns are particularly acute on Long Island, groundwater is the sole-source of drinking water for Nassau and Suffolk Count7 residents. Suffolk County Department of Health Services is conducting a comprehensive pesticide mom~:~ program i.n cooperation vd~ the New York State Department of Environmental Conserv~.~'." Division of Solid & Hazardous Materials. The project was initiated to fulfill the requireme*~ Section 33-0714 of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL), to conduct a water q~.' monitoring program to detect and assess pesticide contamination of ground and surface watts Long Island and throughout the state. The objective ofthe program is to identify and define ~ impacts on Long Island groundwater from use by agriculture, residents, businesses, and instia~-,~- The program is innovative from thc perspectives ofboth the large number of COmpounds being t~-~e~ and the geographic dism'bution of sample sites. This interim report provides the results of testing for the NYSDEC Water Quality Monittvca~ Program to Detect Pesticides in Groundwaters of Nassau and Suffolk Counties. The interim presented are based upon testing conducted between October 1, 1997 and March 31, coinciding with the end of the state fiscal year. The term pesticide as used herein refers to compound or element utilized.as an insecticide, nematicide, herbicide, or fungicide, or any meta~r~e of these chemicals. A total of 2,000 samples is contracted to be analyzed over a two-year Sampling for the project began on October 1, 1997. METHODS Wells were sampled in all thirteen townships across the two counties to provide full geo ~grap~ coverage. Many sample sites were selected based upon their high vntnembility due to the pro~;-,hy to areas of known pesticide use -- agricultural as well as indmkial -- shallow well depths - and previous t~fing that had shown pesticides. Site-specific surveys were conducted to sample additional private wells where si~ifieant or unexpected analysis results were obtained. New monitoring wells were drffied and sampled in both l~hly impacted areas and in regions where no other sampling points were available. Monitoring wells provide data on impacts to the groundwater resource that may not be detected if testing were conducted only at public or private drinking water supply wells. Raw (untreated) water was tested at drinking water supplies where filtration or treatment exism. Sample collection is being conducted by the Suffolk County by the Department of Health Sen4ces (SCDHS) and the Nassau County Department of Public Works. Samples collected in Suffolk are tran~qported directly to the SCDHS Public and Environmental Health Laboratory (PEI-IL), wl~e sa,,,l,les from Nassau County wells are refrigerated and delivered to the SCDHS PEHL twice weekly. Through March 31, 1998, a total of 1,111 samples was analyzed representing 898 wells. Each sample set is analyzed utilizing the following eight methodologies: metals (USEPA Method 200.8), volatile organic compounds (524.2), microextractable compounds (504), chlorinated pesticides (505), methyl carbamate pesticides.(531.1), semi-volatile pesticides (525.2), chlorinated -1- Water Quality Monitoring Program to; '~-'-~- 7~,~ &-i& Ccmtamination in Ground~te~ of N~x~- ~ S~fi~lk Counti~, ~' :~n R~x~ - June 1995 aci~ (555), ~d ~ct~ ~m~tes (SCDHS develo~ method, pub~hed ~d ~x~z mxSewed). The ei~t ~tho~ pro,de ~omtion on 157 chewers, of w~ch appro~ately 7¢ z'~' ~ co~idered pesticides. Appendk A conta~s a ~t~g of the compo~ds ~al~ed by ~ n-erho& ~d the ~m detection level ~L) for each pmmeter. SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION Tables I through HI indicate the number of wells sampled in each county and to~v~ship, the number of wells in which pesticides were detected, and the number of those detections L~at exceeded state and federal drinking water Maximum Contaminant Levels (lVlCLs). Seventeen W-rcent of the total number of wells tested were located in Nassau County and 83% in Suffolk Cou~D~ .'- Samples were collected in all 13 townships across the two counties, with the fewest m~mber o£wells being tested on Shelter Island (9), and the greatest number within the Town of Southold (173). The SCDHS installed and sampled 42 new monitoring wells to gain information on groundwater quality in areas in which it was lacking in Suffolk County. Many of the wells drmed were sampled at several levels in the aquifer in order to vertically profile water quality and detect zones where contamination might exist. Other monitoring wells were installed to target specific land uses such as golf courses. SAMPLING RESULTS The. project's data indicate that 24 different pesticides or metabolites have been detected 'iv. groundwater smnples to date (see Table V), and that eight of these co-,founds have exceeded drinking water MCLs. The compounds that have exceeded MCLs are: alachlor, aldicarb, bis 2- ethylhexylphthalate, 1,2-dichloropropane (DCP), 1,2-d~romoethane (ethylene ch'bromide or ED B~ simazine, tetmclaloroterephthalic acid (TCPA is a dacthal metabolite), and 1,2,3-trichloropropane (see Table hr). When an MCL is exceeded, the homeowner is notified by SCDHS, told not to drink their water, and advised of alternative water supply sources. A total of 234 individual wells (26 percent of the wells tested) contained detectable concentratiom of at least one pesticide or metabolite compound. One in every ten wells (90 of 898) sampled exceeded a pesticide-related drinking water MCL. The vast m~ority of the exceedances were from wells located in the agricultural areas of Suffolk County. Eleven wells in agricultural areas exceede~ MCLs for more than one pesticide or metabolite compound. It is important to recognize that these contamination statistics are not representative of publk drinking water supplies where treatment is provided to remove any contarcfination. Approximately one-half of all the wells tested were targeted, specifically in areas considered to have a high potentia~ for pesticide it~acts, and 80.percent (%) ofihe total wells tested were either domestic private wells or monitoring wells. Four public (community) supply wells located in eastern Suffolk County. exceeded pesticide MCLs, but these wells have granular activated carbon filtration in place ft>z contaminant reduction. -2- Water Quality Monitoring pro~:a'n' *,: L'~ -'~-'--': P'~,~cide Conm.m~:'x~ in Groundv, mc~ .,.~x~.-.-.~u ~-'d Suffolk Coun6~..x,~~ t~-~--'~r'rn Report -June 1N Welt locations exceeding MCLs are depicted on the map of Long Island a~_~ed as Appendix B. The map in Appendix B.1 shows a detail of impacted areas of the north m~ .<uth forks of Suffok County. The most l~equently detected pesticides or metabolites are listed below together ,aSth the number percent of wells in which the chemical was found. Each insecticide and he~.~.'~zide listed is appli~ directly to the soil, as opposed to foliar application. The four most comm>~y detected compounds are no longer actively used on Long Island. Pesticide :' I # Detects 1% of Walls ' aldicarb (sulfoxide/sulfone) 121 13.5 Tetrachloroterephthalic acid (TCPA) 50 5.5 1,2-dichloropropane 35 3.9 ethylene' d~romide (EDB) 21 2.3 metolachlor 19 2.1 1,2,3-trichloropropane 11 1.2 sima~ine 11 1.2 Aldicarb (trade name Tem~), a systemic carbamate insecticide applied primary' to potato crops, w~ withdrawn from the Long Island market in 1979. Its manufacturer, Rhone Poulene Ag Company, voluntarily withdrew the chemical from use on potatoes in 1990 nationwide due to concerns al>om groundwater conmmlnation. Carbon filters are provided to homes when the aldicarb standard is exceeded. The United States Environmental Protection Agency suspended the use of ethyleae dibromide (EDB) as a soil fumigant in 1983. Dacthat, of which TCPA is a metabolite, was withdrawn from use on Long Island in 1988. Di~ts~ufion labels were modified at the request o fNYSDEC in 1991. DCP (1,2-dichioropropane) applications to the island's nematode-infested potato farms by the U.S. Department 0fAgricutmre were halted in 1982. The widespread findings oftbese chemicals many years later demonstrates tbek stability and persistence in Long Island's groundwater environment. Ofthe 90 wells found to exceed pesticide MCLs, the vast majority (86) were impacted by agricuta~ chemicals_ (including nursery and sod uses). A majority of the 86 were due to aldicarb (47). The easternmost townships of Strffolk County accounted for 46% ofthe wells tested and 94% ofthe welJs that exceeded a pesticide-related standard. Homeownei use or residential applications of pesticides Were not implicated in any of the findings of wells exceeding drinking water standards. -3- Water Quality Monitoring Program to Dclec~ Pest~,~ in Ground~te~ of N~u and S~k C.~nfi~ NY Interim ~ex~ - ~unc SAMPLE RESULTS - AGRICULTURAL AREAS In addition to being the most frequently detected pesticide, aldicarb also exceeded its MCL of 7 ~tgfL more than any other contaminant. Parent aldicarb was not found, metabolites aldicarb .<5~(,~de and aldicarb sulfone were detected. Forty-seven wells in 15 communities in eastern Suffolk C,~unV were found to exceed the aldicarb standard. The highest concentration of aldicarb detected x~ 4 Aldicarb, used 0n Long Island from 1975-1979, was applied directly to the soils of over 2-~.~k30 acres of potato fields. Sampling in an agricultural area of Calverton led to the discovery of nine private wells ~cted by the soil fumigant EDB. EDB concentrations in the private wells ranged from 0A6 to 29.8 micrograms per liter &g/L). The drinking water MCL for EDB is 0.05/~g/Lo A series of monitoring wells were installed and vertically profiled to help detemiine if the unusual findings re,ted from a point source or ~om field applications. EDB was found at multiple levels in the groundx~ater and in a cross section of wells approximately 0.5 miles wide, indicating applications to seve~o.1 fields as potential sources. An EDB point source within this area also remains a poss~ility since a monitoring well installed at a hot spot contained 91.9/xg/L EDB (April 1998), a level more than 1,800 times the MCL. Seventeen of the 20 wells exceeding the MCL for EDB were within this area of Calverton- EDB exceeding standards were also detected in Mattituek, Cutchogue, and Orient on Suffolk's north fork. The daethal metabolite tetrachloroterephthalie acid (TCPA) exceeded the Unspecified Organic Compound CtJOC) standard orS0 gg/L (established in Part 5 of the NY8 Sanitary Code) in 29 wells in eight communities. Twenty-eight of the 29 wells exceeding the TCPA MCL are located in agricultural areas of Suffolk County on the north and south forks. Daethal is a pre-emergence herbicide that is applied to the soil. Of the pesticides found, TCPA was detected in the highest concentration during the program at 766 ktg/L in a private well in Riverhea& Private wells in this area have contained concentrations as high as 1,753 gg/L TCPA (April 1996). Soil thn~,igants 1,2,3-trichloropropane and 1,2-dichloropropane exceeded the 5/~g/L MCL for each comnound in one and four wells, respectively. These chemicals were widely applied to potato acreage for nearly 30 years, be~nnlng in the 1950s on Long Island, at very high. application rotes. The wells found exceeding standards are located in Cutchogue, Melville, Wainscott, and Water Mill The herbicide alachlor was found in two wells exceeding its 2/~g/L MCL in Shelter Island and Water Mill. In recent sampling by the SCDHS, alaehlor was detected in numerous private wells adjacent to landscape nurseries, in several Suffolk communities. SAMPLE RESULTS - SUBURBAN AREAS' Sima~ine, a tria~ne herbicide, exceeded its 4/~g/L MCL in two monitoring wells located in Aquebogue and Great River, and one private well in Shirley. Sima~ne is another chemical product that may be soil applied. The two monitoring wells are downgradient of LILCO substations. LILCO applied the chemical for weed control at 101-substations in Suffolk County at industrial application -4- Water Q~alily Monitoring Program to Detect Pesticide m Groundwaters of Nassau and Suffolk Count,,---. Interim Report - Jur,.- rates (-10 times greater than agricultural rotes) between 1979 and 1993. In cooperation with LI'., a separate SCDHS survey was completed and detected simazine in wells located in proximity substations. NYSDEC has required label restrictions that prohibit higher application rates. Only one well was found to exceed pesticide-related MCLs in Nassau County, and four exceeded standards inthe more suburban western five towns of Suffolk County, despite the fact these areas account for nearly 54% of the total number of wells sampled. The low rate ofpestkSde detections in Nassau County may be at least partially explained by the fact that 40 (26%) ofthe tested in Nassau were greater than 300 feet deep, with several over 1,000 feet deep. These are typical for public water supply wells, and are considered the least vulnerable to ~ contamination. The five contaminated suburban area wells and potential sources of the contamination are de~ below. The single shallow (monitoring) well exceeding an MCL in Nassau contained TCPA aM is downgradient ora golf course in Sands Point. A monitoring well in Con-,n-~ack exceeded the standard for bis 2-ethylhexylphthalate, a plasticizer that is also used as a pesticide carder. This well ak~o contained sima~ne and is located do ~wngradient of a LILCO substation. DCP (1,2-dichloroprol:o-ne) was detected in a new SCDHS monitoring wetl drilled in a former potato farming area of Melv~e~ Simazine was found to exceed the MCL in a monitoring well downgradient ora LILCO sub.station in Great River. A private well in Shirley that exceeded the sima~ine MCL also contained hi~n concentrations of toluene and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs) tSom an unknown source. Although past testing by SCDHS has occasionally attributed a few private well contaminations m residential applications of pesticides, none were implicated in any of the findings of wells exceeding drinking water standards in lhls program. SAMPLE RESULTS - GOLF COURSES Twenty wells located on or downgradient of 10 different golf courses were sampled to ex~mine h nl',acts of golf course pesticide use on groundwater. The wells included 12 new shallow monitoring wells installed by the SCDHS at three Suffolk County operated courses at Timber Point, West. Sayvllle, and Indian Island. The monitoring wells were targeted in areas immediately downgradient of greens, fairways and tees -- areas expected to be the most heavily treated with pesticides (and ferfili?ers). The results, as previously noted, show one well in Sands Point that exceeded the MCL for TCPA, and two monitoring wells at West Sayville contained detectable traces of bis 2- ethylhexylphtbal~te and 4-nitrophenol. There Were no detections of pesticides or metabolites in the remaining 17 wells at golf courses. SAMPLE RESULTS - SURFACE WATERS Groundwater provides the base flow for Long Island's streams and rivers. Sampling was conducted at twelve rivers near the end of March. The results of the testing in~catcd no detection of pesticide related parameters in any of the rivers. VOCs were detected in seven of the I2 rivers sampled~ Methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE), trichloroethcne CIRCE), and tetrachioroethene (PCE)~ were the most ' common VOCs detected. PCE exceeded the drinking water MCL in two streams. Nitrate was -5- Water Qualib' Monitoring Program lo Detect Pesticide in GroundWatexs of Nassau and Suffolk Co~ Interim Report - 2~ ~-~ detected in 11 of 12 streams, and the average stream nitrate concentration was 2.2 mg/L. surface water testing is planned. METALS RESULTS There were low-level detections of some metals that may have had utilization in pes~Sd¢ formulations in the past. It is unclear whether any of these findings are actual remnants ofpe~ide applications. Arsenic and cadminm were detected in 16 and 22 samples, respectively. W]~ the exception of one cadmium finding, all detections were below drinking water MCLs, the k>ne exception being a well in Nassau County that exceeded the cadmium MCL of 5/~g/L. The o~ sample ofthis well showed 1.12/ag/L cadminm, and a resample 11.2 $tg/L. Cadmium was regi~x-ed for lawn and turf uses from 1959 to 1986 by the USEPA- Initial analysis of some samples indicated detections of mercury in concentrations less tk~- one mlerograra per liter. The results ofr~ampling showed no detections in 15 of 16 analyses. The ex, ct cause of the false positives has not been conclusively determined. Method limitations have ~ discussed withthe latx)ratory insm,ment's manufacturer, and it is posm'ble that there may have ~ random contamination ofsmnple bottles used in the very sensitive analysis by the Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometer. NITRATE RESULTS Nitrate analyses were also COnducted, where poss~le, for wells sampled in Suffolk County. Wells in Nassau were not tested for nitrate due to the restriction ofanalytical methed holding times. Excess. nitrate in drinking water is of public health importance due to the potential occurrence of metbemoglobinemia (blue baby syndrome). Sixty-five (12%) ofthe 565 Suffolk County wells (see Table VII) tested during this phase ofthe project for nitrate exceeded the drinking water MCL of 10 milligrams per liter (rog/L). The highest concentration of nitrate found was 31.3 mg/L in a Manorville private well located downgradient of a large nursery operation. A 1996 study by the 8CDHS of the results of testing over 45,000 private wells in Suffolk from 1972-1994 showed that 7.4% of the wells exceeded the nitrate MCL. The greater percentage in the current project may be attn'bntable to the concentrated testing in agricultural areas where ferfili?afion practices contribute to elevated nitrate levels in groundwater. The average nitrate concentration in the 19 golf course wells sampled in Suffolk County was 4.9 mgtL. In co ~mparison, The Suffolk Cownty Water Resources Management Plan (1987) and previous studies have concluded that developing l~nd at a density of 1 and 2 dwelling unit(s) per acre yields an average nitrate concentration of 4 and~6 mg/L; respectively, and comparatively, Nitrate and Pesticide Impacts on Groundwater Quality, Suffolk County, NY (1996) found that the 20 year average nitrate concentration of monitoring wells in agricultural areas was 11.3 mg/L. -6- Water Quality Monitoring prog~s ~e ~'-.',&,c t Pcstici& in Groundwaters ~x'x~,.'~u and Suf~n'~r Interim R~ CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS The initial sampling of groundwaters for this project was concentrated ~ ~atlow wells ia areas thought to be vulnerable to pesticide contamination. Because of this, the data cannot be com&lemd representative of all groundwater on Long Island. The interim results of the studY demonstrate the vulnerability of Long 1.4a,~-xt's groundwater to impacts t?om pesticides and their metabotites, particn!arly to agricultural chem~'-'~ applied to the i~-nd surface. These findings are clearly most evident in agricultural areas in eastern 2~affolk Co,rn~y ~hcm nearly all of the MCL exceedances were found. Based upon the data, the following recommendations are made: Cominue to provide the necessary resources to expand analytical capat~ity to monitor the groundwater for additional pesticides and metabolite compotmcls. · A high priority should be given to taking the steps necessary to provide for rem~]ation'ofmms with contaminated private wells through the extension of public water supplies. 062998 Water Quality Moniloring Program lo Detec~ ~4vck.k' Ccea~-~x.~ in Groundwaters of Nassau ~, ~fli.~k Cc*am~ 'x~.- Table I Number of Water Samples Oct 1997-Mar 1998 Nassau Suffolk Blanks 152 746 ~1., Table II Total 1,11l Nassau Pesticide Sample Distribution Township # Wells Sampled # Detects # >MCL Hempstead 73 5 0 North Hempstead 35 3 1 Oyster Bay 44 2 0 Totals 152 10 1 Table III Suffolk Pesticide Sample Distribution Township ~ # Wells Sampled # Detects # >MCL Babylon 23 3 0 Brookhaven 124 12 1 East Hampton 58 19 5 Huntington 53 12 1 Islip 21 4 1 Riverhead 86 41 28 Shelter Island 9 I 1 Smithtown 108 6 1 Southampton 91 36 9 Southold 173 90 42 Totals 746 224 89 Table IV Sample Types (Nassau & Suffolk) Monitoring 306 Community Non-Corem ! Private ! · 45 . 118 ~ 417 Surface 12 . Water Quality Monitoring Program to Detect Pesticide in Groundwaters of Nassau and Suffolk Interim Report Table V PESTICIDES & MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS DETECTED Nassau County Suffolk County Result Pesticide Max.Cone. Pesticide MCL Max. TCPA* (1) 89.0.ug/L alachlor (2) 2.0 6.6e-~L aldiearb sulfoxide & sulfone (47) 7,0 4i.0 Greater than bis 2-ethylhexyl phthalate (2) 6.0 14.13 MCL 1,2-dichloropropane (4) 5.0 1 t.0 EDB (20) 0.05 77.$ ~g. iL simazine (3) 4.0 12~ 4~L TCPA (29) 50.0 766.0 1,2,3-triehtoropropane (1) 5.0 6.0 .~L arsenic (6) 30.9 stg/L alaehlor '(2) 2.0 025 atrazine (3) 0.2 gg/L aldicarb sulfoxide & sulfone (74) 7.0' 6.9 ~.~L cadmium (9) 11.2 /xg/L arsenic . (10) 50,0 11.0 2,4-D (1) 0.97/~g/L atrazine (5) 3.0 0.77 ~ dieldrin (I) 0.78 gg/L .bis 2-ethylhexyl phthalate (5) ,6.0 3.9 ~ : dinoseb (1) 0.59btg/L cadmium (13) ', 5~0 2.89~.g/L Greaterthan prometon (1) 0.2 t~g/L earbofuran (3) 40.0 4.7 MDL simazine (1) 0.4 txg/L 2,4-D (6) 50.0 1.08 ~ TCPA (2) . 33.0 /~g/L 1,2-dichloroethane (4) . 5'0 1.0 1,2-dichloropropane (3'1) 5.0 4.0 1,3-dichloropropane (1) 5.0 1.0 ,~g~L dieldrin (1) 5.0 0.33 .~grL dinoseb (5) 7.0 2.61 ;~gfL EDB (1) 0,05 0.03 endosulfan Sulfate' (t) 50.0 1.99 ~gdL MCPP (l) 50.0 1.$ ~L metalaxyl (7) 50.0 1.2 ~g~L methomyl (1) 50.0 1.7 metolachlor (19) 50.0 .11.4 ;~g/L metfibuzin (2) 50.0 0.21 ~g~ 4-nitrophenol (4) 50,0 2.41 oxamyl (8) 50.0 11.0 ~ prometon (2) 50.0 3.8 ~gtL simazine (7) 4.0 3.0 TCPA (18) 50.0 33.0 ~g/L 1,2,3-ffichloropropane (10) 5.0 4.0 k~g/L deet (1) bromacil (1) Unquantified dicamba (1) butachlor (1) Positives dichloroprop (1) ~' chlorobenzilate (I) oxamyl . (1) diaz/non (1) pentacMorophenol (1) dichloroprop (2) propoxur ( 1 ) pentachlorophenol (5) I propoxar (2) Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of detects. Water Qualhy Monitoring Prog~n in Groundwate~ ~ x..~.-~= and Suflblk ~ NY lab.'rim Repo~- ~ I99S Table VI WELL LOCATIONS EXCEEDING MCLs PESTICIDE COMMUNITY #WELi S Alachlor Shelter Island 1 Water Mill t Amagansett I Bridgehampton l Calverton 8 Cutchogue 12 East Hampton 1 Jamesport 2 Laurel 3 Mattituck 5 Aldicarb Sulfoxide & Sulfone Orient 1 Peconic 1 Riverhead 2 Sagaponack 3 Southold - ~ 3 Wa'mscott 2 ,'Water Mill 2 bis 2-ethylhexylphthalate Commaek 1 Water Mill 1 Cutehogue 1 1,2-Diehloropropane Melville 1 Wains¢ott 1 Water Mill 1 Calverton 17 Ethylene Dibromide Cutehogu¢ 1 Mattituck 1 Orient t Aquebogue 1 Shnazine Great River 1 Shirley 1 Calverton 5 Cutchogue 10 East Marion 4 TCPA Jamesport 1 Orient 3 P.i~verhead . 5 Sands Point (lq) 1 Water Milt 1 1,2,3-Trichloropropane Cutchol~ue 1 Water Quality Monitoring Program to Dcs.x'. :'zesfiZ'ide Contarnimakat in Groundwaters ofNax~a :~ Sung& Counties. ~ ~-,m R¢~'~ -June Table VII Suffolk Nitrate Summary # Analyses 545 # Exceed MCL 65 (12%) Highest Concentration 31.3 mg/L Bridgehampton 1 Bellport 2 Calverton 1 Cutchogue 9 ! East Hampton 2 East MariOn 4 East Moriehes 1 Well Locations , East Quogue 1 Exceeding MCL Flandets t Head of Harbor 1 Huntington 2 Laurel 1 Manorvilte I Mattituck 1 Medford 1 Melville 7 Montauk 2 New Suffolk 1 Orient 3 Peconic 3 Riverhead 1 Ronkonkoma 1 Sagaponack 1 Saint James 5 ~ Shelter Island 1 Southold 4 Speonk 1 Wainscott 1 Water Mill 1 West Sayville 2 Yaphank 2 METAL ANALYSES EPA Method 200.8 Analyte MDL ug/L Aluminum 5.0 Antimony 1.0 Arsenic 2.0 Barium 5.0 Beryllium ' ~ 1.0 Cadmium 1.0 Chromium 1.0 Cobalt 1.0 Copper 1.0 Lead 1.0 Manganese 1.0 Mercury 0.4 Molybdenum 1.0 Nickel 1.0 Selenium 2.0 Silver 5.0 Thallium 1.0 Thorium 1.0 Tifanium 1.0 Vanadium 1.0 Zinc 50.0 VOLATILE ORGANIC ANALYSIS EPA Method 524.2/624 AnaNte MDL ~tg/L 1,2-Dichlorobenzene(o) 0.5 1,2,4-Trknethylbenzene 0.5 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.5 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.5 t,2-Dichlompropane 0.5 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 0.5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.5 1,1-Dichloroethane 0.5 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane 0.5 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.5 1,2,4,5-Tetramethylbenzene 0.5 1,1-Dichloroethene 0.5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.5 1,2,4-Trichl'orob enzen e 0.5 1,2,3 -Trichl orobenzene 0.5 Water Quality Monitorin$ :",x~m:: te D~ect Pesticide C.:..;.~..;~ti~n in Grou n,.~,-~-~-'- .ff N.~.-.-au and Suffo~ Cc,~fies, NY Interim R.e~ - ~ 1098 APPENDIX A VOLATILE ORGAX~C .aaNALYSIS (Continued) 1,1,-Dichloropropeze 0.5 1,4-Dichlorobutane 0.5 l,l-Dichloroethene 0.5 l,l,2,2-Tetrachlorre'~e 0.5 1-Bromo-2-chlorolax~xme 0.5 1-Methylethylbenzme 0.5 2,3-Dichloropropene 0.5 2,2-Dichloropropane 0.5 2-Bromo-l-chloropmpane 0.5 2-Butanone(MEK) 20.0 2-Chlorotoluene 0.5 3-Chlorotoluene 0.5 4-Chlorotoluene 0.5 Benzene 0.5 Bromobenzene 0.5 Bromochloromethme 0.5 BromodichlorometMne 0.5 Bromoform Bromomethane Carbon tetrachloride Chlorodffiuoromethane Chloroethane Chloroform Chlommethane . ' Chorobenzene cis- 1,2-Dichloroethene cis-1,3 -Dichloropropene Dibromomethane Dichlorodifluoromethane Dhnethyldisulfide Ethenylbenzene (Styrene) Ethylbenzene Freon 113 Hexachlorobutadiene Isopropyltoluene(p-cymene) m,p-DicMorobeuzene m-Xylene Methy-tert-butyt-ether Methyl sulfide Methylene chloride n-Butylbenzene 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 .0.5 0.5 0.5 0°5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 APPENDIX A (page 2) VOLATILE ORGANIC ANALYSIS (Continued) n-Propylbenzene 0.5 Napthalene 0.5 o-Xylene 0.5 p-Diethylbenzene 0.5 p-Xylene 0.5 sec-Butylbenzene 0~5 T.Chlorotoluene 0,5 T.Xylene 0.5 tert-Butylbenzene 0.5 Telmchloroethene 0.5 Tetrahydrofuran 20.0 Toluene 0.5 trans- t,3-Dichloropropene 0.5 Tram- 1,2-Dichloroethene 0.5 Trichloroethene 0.5 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.5 Vinyl chloride 0.5 CHLORINATED PESTICtDE ANAI~YSIS EPA Method 50~5 Analyte MDL ag/L 4,4-DDE 0,2 4,4~DDD 0.2 4,4,DDT 0.2 Alachlor 0.5 Al&in 0.2 alpha-BHC 0.2 bem-BHC- 0.2 Chlordane 1.0 Dacthal 0.2 delm-BHC 0:2 Dieldrin '0.2 Endosulfan I 0.2 Endosulfan [[ 0.2 Endrin 0.2 Endrin aldehyde 0.2 gamma-BHC (Lindane) 0.2 Heptachlqr 0.2. Heptachlor epoxide 0.2 Methoxychlor 0.5 Water Quality Monitoring Ptogram to De*,~ ?- -~x ~ Conmmirartc= in Groundwaters ofNa~ a~ .~ ~q.q k Co~mti~ x.D- MICROEXTRACTABLE AN(t_~3IS EPA Method 50.4 Analvte MDL ugrL 1,2-dibromoethane 0.02 1,2-dibromo-3-dichloropropam 0.02 SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC .&NALYSIS EPA Method 525_,2 Analyte 5ff)L u o.q/L Alachlor 02. Atraz!ue 0.2 Benzo(a)pyrene 02 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)adipate 0.5 Bis(2-ethylhexYl)phthalate Z0 Bromacil 0.5 Butachlor 0.2 Dacthal ' 0.2 Dia~inon 0.2 Hexachlorobenzene 0.2 Hexachlorocyclopent~idiene 0.2 Metolachlor 0.2 Metn'b. zln 0.2 Prometon 0.5 Propachlor 0.2 Simazine 0.2 CARBAMATE PESTICIDE ANALYSIS EPA Method 531.1 AnaMe MDL 1-Naphthol 1.0 3-Hydroxycarbofuran 1.0' Aldicarb sulfone 1.0 Aldicarb sulfoxide 1.0 Aldicarb 1.0 Carbaryl 1.0 Carbofumn 1.0 Methiocarb 1.0 Methomyl 1.0 Oxamyl 1.0- Propoxur 1.0 APPENDIX A (page 3) Water Quality Monitoring Progran-s., ~'t. te~ F'..xticidc Cm in Groundwaters ~-x_.~..-~-~ ~',d Su fink CHLORINATED ACDS EPA Method .5_5_5 Analyte MDL ug/L 2,4-DB 0.5 2,4,5-T 0.5 2,4-D 0.5 3,5~Dichlorobenzoic Acid 0:5 4-Nitrophenol 0.5 Acifluorfen 0.5 Bentazon 0.5 Chloramben 0.5 Dicamba' 0.5 Dichloroprop 0.5 Dinoseb 0.5 MCPA 0.5 MCPP 0.5 Pentachlorophenol 0.5 Picloram 0.5 - Silvex (2,4,5-TP) .0.5 · DACTHAL METABOLITE ANALYSIS Analyte. MDLug_/L Monomethyltetrachloroterephthalate 10.0 · Tetrachloroterephthalic acid (TCPA) 10.0 Appendix B Location of Wells Exceeding Pesticide MCLs Through March 31, 1998 NYC N 0 5 10 Miles Legend ·l,2-dichloropropane ·Alachlor ~,$lmazJne OTCPA "re Indl~3ated by the htghe~t contaminant detecled only, Appendix B.I Location of Wells Exceeding Pesticide MCLs Through March 31, 1998 East End of Suffolk County · · · O Legend · 1,2-dichloropropane ·Alachlor ·Aldicarb ~Bis-2-ethylhexyl-pht halate OEDB OTCPA 0 2 4 Miles FaX $15 ~$T $8n3 XYSDEC DS&I~ BP_~f .x- ~8~2 New ¥or~< Slate Departrnen~ of Environmental Division of Solid & H2-.~.~-,*dous Materisjs ANNUAL REPORT ON NEW YORK STATE 997 PESTICIDE SALES AND APPLICATIONS Draft June 26,1998 GEORGE E. PATAKI, Governor JOHN P. CAHILL,'Comrnissioner ACI'~NOWLED G~L~_~-TS Cornetl Universiv/ Suffolk County. Department of Heatth Lrnited States Geological Survey New 'fork Sta~e ~,Vater Resources L~r/raze T.~BLE OF CONTENTS A. B. C. D. E. F. G. PAGE EXECUTIVE SL~- I?vlARy LNTRODUCTION ................................................. DEV-ELOP.M2F~NT .-~N-D L-~-EPLE3IENTATION OF Tlff,~ PESTfC]2DE R~PORTLNG L~k~; JTJL¥ 96- M_4¥ 31, 1998 Dc~paxtmcn~ Staffing, Training and Guidance Reporting Form Desi_m: and D~s~bu~ion ........................ Public ~ach ~d Educa~on ........................... Pilot P~jec~ ................................... ............................. Elcc~o~c R~o~g Specifications ' ' .......................... FOlmx ~C~SiO~ ............................... III. CHALLE,N'GES TO INIPLE~MrENTATiON Eleczronic R~oning ........................................... IV. RFPOR.TL'NG DATA Disc~ion of Summaries Dam Qualifcations v.. - WATER QUALITY MONITORING FORPESTICIEiE$ PROGR_~%I CECL § 33-0714) B. C. D. In~'oduct/on and Purpose Program Components .................................. Y~ocus ~ofC_ur~ent Monimr~g and Analyr/cal Results .. ' ....... :,-,-teas mr Furore Study... ' ............... -DRAFT .rune26,1998 (tl:16~,9 ~.'SDEC V. CONCLL'SIO..NS .%aND RECOb~L%.rlZNi)ATIONS %-'t. A-PPE_N-DICE S PAGE '-~' '-~'~w'-- -, ~, Laws of 1996 as Amended B. t 997 Rq~o.,-r Form ........................ A- I C. 1998 R~orr Forms ......................................... B-I D. Publzc Outreach and Education" 'i ............................. _.C-! E. ' ......... ''' ............................ ~d-1 Water Quamy Momtormg for Pesticides Pro=m'am Steer/rog Committee Membem F. USGS Analytical LLs-m ........ : ..................... E-! G. >.'Y'SDOH z~nal}xical Lists ...................... H. Listing of USGS Sims .................................. G-1 L USGS Fact Sheer ................................... '-.. H-I .......... J- SCDOI-IS Interim Report (To be re,Ased) ....................... _r_ t 'v'OL L~I'ES 2-9 D R A F T Jane 26~ 1998 (ll:16am) iii £xeeurive S ummm-v Reporting Dam. On Jul,,' ~. ', .... ....... ~- s~e~ ;mo Law ~na~rer 279, Laws ~ esr~tishing ~e ~:shcide Sales md Law (Pesticide Repomg Law or 1997.) ' - The Pesz~cide Reporting Law rec',aires ail commercial pesticide applicators .,~ rc=m'z, m ~ Departrnent information re,attire each pesticide application that *..kev ~ eh-~_. :mntmi basis. The cormmer¢ial ¢er~drree~ are required to repor~ -ail sales of~ nest/~de produe',s -~r~d sales of gene.mi use pesticfde products sold m private appli -enters' for ~ m agricutmraI u,~'op product[on and sales of restricted ~esricide products :o ~--~mr~c.-emf perm/trees and commezv/~ appiicaror~. The Lmv's' enac~i,ent was driv~ by the d~ m evaluate possible links benveen pesticide use and breast cancer. The Pub,Sc'Heahh Law provisions were subsequently '--mended ro include prostate and resr/cutar ~mcer ,'z=~m~h and education, f.L. 1997. C.2!9 ~ffective January 14, 1998) To facilkate sound imp[eme~zz*.ion of the Lass-. the re~mJJated commumr2-~-.__~ '-,-~-~-: ,- parme-m in the design-oft, he mer2~ods, procedures and forms used to proud.: ~e d~r, called for by the leg/slafion. In addition, a comprehensive outreach and training program was devetop~ and implemented by the Stye De~armaent of Envirorrmenraf Conservation-(the 'Deps.,'r-'?ur*) to educate the reg-alated commum~, about the requiremenlm of the Law. Tkis effort included holding nine state,.~Sde xvork_chops beuveen October t996 and D~ember !~gv that were armnded by more than 3,600 panicipanr~.~ In addition, i 18 oummch oppormnit/c.s r.o var/mm pesticide user ~oups and association& bre~t canc~ :~dve~_c.- ,m'oups. en',~ronmental ~oups, the pubhc, and others were conducted by Depamn~._ As a result, ~ of June i9. 1~95, t2,483, or 85 percent, of commercial pesr/cq~ ap. plica--~-~ and 4t7, or 93 percent, of comr~ercial pe~ii~irtees complied with the reporting requ/remenrs of the Law/n irs flint year. To assist the regula~ed commuuky iu understanding and complying with the new reporting requdremenrs, a Technical and Administrative Gu/rl~nce Memorandum ("TAGM") and other _~aidance documents were developed and d/srributed. Continued e~crrs have be~-n und~_~ken to compel the regulated cornmunJr; to with *-he reporting requirements oft_he law; Several Ierters were sent to non-comoli~.-_ D RAFT June 26, !998 (t hltam) iv · '26-'g&. F'RI 1,~:4~ F.42[ $15 4.57 ~.$I~3 .NTSI)EC DS-&I~! BP3! N ~? t notilS'ing them o£the requirement to report and warning of ~rther actions =~2a ';~uid be taken by The Depva tment m re=~onse to ~eir non-compliance. On June Environmental Conservation Officers visited 25S re-o-elated enritie~ ac.mss ~: s.~:s iq-at had nor repcr~ed 2-s required..-r. 2ese ~'~rides were sen, ed with ~ Admiv2z~-:_v_v~ Cornea, arian Aor~earm,~ce T:,,-t-~, (ACAT) that carded fines as high as operation was coordinated wi:h a press release issued by ~e Department '- maximize expoaure of ~ operation and encoumue rho~e rernal.i.? non-~cnrm--Z_~-x :o submit report. - ro enhance direct commuv, icat:ons, the Department esm§lishcd a toll-free number on fammry 15, 199-,' to provide assistance and infol-,~t/ou to the .r=~, communit3, and ~e public. There were 8.S77 calls to this umber berreee....Tan,a~.: t997 ~nd Apnt I998, Various methods were explored :o enhance the efficiency a=d accumcv of..~_e ,~,~ coilecnon. These motto& ineiu~d pilot projecm ~ing h~d-~td eo~m== mr ~ coltec~on, ev~ua~g ~e use of so. noble fo~ bv pesfici~ appgcato~ ~d ~: exp~ded ~e of elec=onic me~a to file accm~e repom. ~ese e~o~ ~ 5e~z exp~ded for ~o~g ye~ ! 998. ~ For catendza-ye= t 997. i~brmarion regarding ~ pesticide applications pesticide s.ales was received and entered into the computerized data base. 90 percent oft. he data receive~ wa~ in the form ofhzndwr/rr~n reports. " ' Water Qua/iw Monitoring for Pesticides Since rJ:te passage of the Pesticide Reporting Law, the Department has dev~_~ed a ~arer Quati~., Afoniroring.for t=esricides Program that provides data to aid in the effective management ofpesncides in the state. The following are key re~ults of this program's first year's finding: The USGS monitored and analyzed upstate surface waters for a number of pesticides. Of these pesricide~, some were found to m/grating into ~e en',~ronment and some were nor. In general, th~ USGS results showed that levels ofpere/cides seen art consistently low (in perm per trilIion) when co~a~ared to drinking water ~randards. The monitoring also identified areas v-here fu_,-Jer study and/or continued smd.v is warranted. DRAFT .rune26.1998(ll:16am) v NYSDEC D$&FJ! -~P3! .W As a result ofmoni:or~mz on Lon_~ Island_ i£fezred ind/:Sdu~s have been ~exed by ~e~ co~w heal~q dep~enm o}' o~clde con~k~ucn m ~ek ~n~n~ wat~' wel~. ~ ~ese cases, residen~ were advise~ ofakemx:v~ rhr obrai~u* accep~bte ~g ,~'arer. Detection of pesticides above drink/ng water --randards kris [ed the Depara~-._.eut to request changes in hbeiing of products such as S;r-,~e ~-ud Dacthat to r~move certain usage re:es and exctude gee=m-apb/cai :,ocauens ~4mt were cor. qdered i~-,ppropriare. In addition, the detection o£c..~rm/~ pesfi~d~ and their me~bolki,~ has caused the Dep~uuent to include ~ .~-, m ...... ohs agaim~ ,:heir use ii1 re~-q~rradcn decisions rec~mfly before thc Department. The wides.mead detection of certain pesticide sroducrs and their merabol/rcs has caused rh~_ Department rc include restrictions im.:-~in~t rile. ir use on. Lon~ Island re~srrarion decisions r~cendv before the Deo~xment. In addition, thc-data showing the sens/t/x/tS, o£ certain areas of N~:v 'York co~*x~ ~iq thenecessiw of state-specific pesticide re~stration de¢/sions to profit 'abe war~r resources'of New York State. Given these results, the D~r~uuent believes th/s initiative is important in aiding irs mission consisrem to ECL §33-0714. The mon/to.~mg provides the Department v,5th a better understanding of the environmental [mpacrs o£pesficide use m the sram. In ram, this. in~?rmat/on has irnmediareiy been used in mak/ng pest/cide re~a-atSon decisions, rc'vmwmg suspensions and cancellations ofpest/cide re~/strations in the st,~e and assessing the st.ams and ~rends ofpesr/cide eonmrnmar/o~n in ground and surf'ace waters. tn. the future, t/tis monitoring will be continued to assess long-term umnds and will be expanded to cover ail the water resom-ces of New York State. Nerr year the pm=mm'a wsll beg/n re assess impacts in Lake Cayuga and several public water supply res¢,woirs. (. I. Introduction This first 3u'mual Re~,-t is subm~ned pursuant re file Enviror~atal Consem'a~ion Law ("ECL") §33- ~201 (2):'which requires the Deparun~nt of Envi~enml Conservation (DEC) Comm/ssioncr m "prepare an a-~uai repor~ ~g pest/c/de sales, quanti~ of pesticides used. care_~o~; ofa~nlicator and region cf -::pptication.' _ce~ Appendix A. "The report shall be subr~irr'ed to ~te governor, the t .cr~omry prcsidcm of the serrate and the speaker of .:he assembly .... ""The first report sh~ be submiu~i on Iuty first, nin~een hundred ~-ev;-ei~_ht and ~ulv flint annually there~',~er.:? As ~ year t997 pesticide sales, thc qu.~.drv, o£pesucides used, the ca~ego~' of applicator, ami regiou of application. This information is provided b? count-y and -;? cod~. As required, this report excludes the name, address, or any ott-~r ~formatien tha~ would other~-isc identify a commercial or private applicstor, any person who sells or offers/'or sale resuSc~ed use or general use pesticides to who received the services ot'a commercial applicator. ' The Pesticide R~orting Law was a bipartisan effort driven bv the desire to cvaluam Possible tlnk.~ bcnveeu .,zesticide use and breast cancer. Bo~h houses of the ,Legislature passed the Law tma~oUSiy and it was signed into law by Governor G ~ata.ki on July 8, 1996, hecomi~n~ effective on January I, 1997. The pesticide eorge Reporting Law enhances the pWolic-"s fight to know. It also provides i~forrnation to hei= rezearchers evaluate potential health ris~. The in£oiw~tioi1 not~ cormmmlti~ abou~ the usc of pesticides in their locale. The Pesticide Reporting Law atzo e=i~blished the Health Research Science Board m support and fund cancer research. The Public Health Law provisions v-ere *ubsequenrly amended to include proutate and te~i~'mlar camcer research and education. II.- Development and Implementation of the Pesticide Reporting Law- July 1996 to May 31, 1998 ' A. Department Staffing, Training and Guidance The pesticide reporting pro=m-am was provided with a $~1 m/llion budget for Sine Fiscal Year 199% 1998. The Depa~unent developed an initial'fiscal plan for t-kis budge:, and refined the plan az ~he program developed. To imptemmat the prograr,: 2! positior~ were a_=proved and filled. ' D R A F T s~me 2a, t 998 (I t: 16am) 1 of 25 N'~SDEC -~-=~T ! C I DES Dunng rbis drs~ year of':=-nplcmentadom due De~a~'uuenr. :.' enhance coniston: proa,-um dc!iv¢~y, developed and provided information'on hhe La'.~-'s :amMi/anc= ismies to regi_'onai Dcpm'amcm employees. As implementation issue/*,ve~ .~coun:ered. information was provided ~u-ouf__~ou: the year to De~a~'u~ent em~qe~'ees. Cemra/O~ce staff ais~ .i~veloped and pro,Stied regi.'on_al Pesricide'Con~roi Sp~.s-~ wi~ ou~eacfi material :o use during public presentations. B. Reporting Form Design and Distribution A rusk fore= composed of members representers a bro~ co~- w~ ~l~d ~ p~d= ~t to ~: Dcp~: ~ ~ ~veiopm~ of pes~cide r~o~ng fo~. T~k Force ~c~sfons d~eiope~ ~d c~ulated before finali~don of~e Ibn~ ~ w~ ~ ~e ~ ~o~ were d~,c!opcd to o~ly consider ~c ~ve~e ne~ of~c rc~:cd c~~ ~d the mandated r~o~ng ~kcmenm. A~mxmmtv 30,000 ~g ~ms w~ m~ted m J~u~ 1997 m ev~ New Yo~ State c~fied comm=~ ~ulic~r, m~s:ered p~ci~ bmn~s, and cocz~at fo~s for ~pomg pesticide ~e and sat~ for cMen~ ye~ 1997, ~d AppendLx C d~ for 1998. Public Outreach and Education The State Legislaurre passed the Pesticide R~o~ng Law *.4th a requirement for prompt implementation. To assure the highest level of compliance po~'ible in ~ short per/od of time, the Depmm,en: placed a primary emphasis on the education of the ~gulated community about the requirements of the Law. The Demauaent conducted rune workshops in var/ous locations across the state t/sat were a~ded by over 3,600 participants. The Deparanent participated in 118 outreach opportunities across the ~ata ro pesr/cide user groups and associations, breast canc~ advocacy ~m'oups, enviromental advocacy groups, thc public and othem, These out~sach Opportunities reached thoUSands ofinter~sred pardes. Also, th, Dcpa~:tment mass mailed info, marion and £om~s to all known entities that were impacted by the Law. Appendix D has a listing of the grmrps addressed and copies of documents that were mailed. In addition, the Department established communication links with rcgulated ~adfies through our exmail address prt~,.gw, dec. srate, ny. tts and a toll-free hot linc ~etephone number 1-888-~57-01 t0. This hot line received 8,877 telephone calls between January. !997 and April I998. Customers could contact the Deoa, unenr, have questions answered, receive forms or conduct other business associated ,,~rith the pesticide program. nRA F T June26', 1998(11:I6am) 2of25 fork is pro~m-essin~ on thc development of a World Wide Web ~m ~ ~l] ~ Mteme~ acc=ss :o P=s~cid= R%o~ Law reformation, inciu~n~ a c~y of ~e ~ fo~m~ ~ c~ be p~ted, a copy offs A~u~ R~o~ ~d g~i ~-~ mn~ T~ne Depa~u~enc also publfsheck on December i 7. 1997, a Adw~,~iswativc Guid.~c¢ Memorandum (TAGM') that o~o,,-ides ~,'~ce and c!arif~es program issues for Depat ,~,cnt sra~ thc public a~d th~ re~.tlate~ a:-,:~,un2y. Addifitmat TAGMs will be written and published as necessary ;o enh~uc¢ un~-aln~ of compliance with the Law (See Appendix D, p. D-7). D. Pilot l~'oj ects Hand. Held Computer (Itt'C) Dam Collection - pilot Project The Department conducted a pilot project in the Syracuse ~--~ in summer i997 to evaluate '.he usc of hand,held data colic:t/on computers :o collect ?~-t/cide R.c~ltia! Law infocmation. The Department. in consultation with ,.he Oove=:cr~s Office for - T¢chnology., conducmd this project in order :o eva/uatc ~e potentisi b,mcfit to the S~*c and regulated community from direct etecu'onic transfer ofpcsrici~ usc data i~o the main Pesticide Reporting Law dam base. : (- Eight pes~cide fu-m~ were selected from a list of volunteers n~ ~art/cipam/n the project. Thc fir~- rep~sented a cross-sectiOn of the un/verse ofbus/r[esses required to report inforrn~on under, the Pes-dcidc Reporting Law. On June 30, 1997, a request forbid was published in the New' York State Cor, wacr Reporter. Seven companies responded to thc bid requc~c After review of the proposed coSt amounts and company references, Paradigm4 was selected to conduct the ~oiect Pamdi~n4 Provided the data collection devices, programming services, training and SltppOl'iL PestiCide usc data recorded on the hand-held dca-ices by ~c selected busine~cs was brought back to personal com~uters in the/r office at the end of the day, and uploadcd to a dzta collect/on site operated b~ Parad/_m'a4. Initial results of the pilot project were promising. Data was successfully uploaded by participants from the hand-held computers into their PC's by modem to the Paradi~i~4 data collect/on site. The majority of participants found thc application useful, and they.. provided us with recommendations that would be valuable if such a pm~utn Were carried ~C ou~ on a stam,.~gde basis. Based an tfiea¢ suggcsfiorm. :~¢ Dcvaru-n~-. ~ e.'mlor/=~- ~/s option in =~re.~ter detail. - - = Scannable Form PiIor (Intelligent Cha racter,.Oprical Character Recognition) The Dep~u,~,¢=r also conducted a pilot proje= mi¢ B~aio ~ m ¢~uare ~e ~e ofsc~bl¢ ~po~ fo~ m :olI~: P~ Repo~ Law ~~ ~ vfiot w~ Eso done, ~ co--ration ~h ~e Gov~or's 0~ for T~ot~ :o ev~ ~ b~cff~ of ~ me.od of~m c~e. A notice was published in the $~ate Contra~Reperrer req. u~;~,~ a v-e=dcr to design a scannable pesticide reporr/ng fo,,,, and run a prior project m mst t~. feom'bili~, o£ using the~e farms. The selecxed vendor prepared a draft ~amaable fc,,~ for the Department's .agproval. Six pesticide fi*am a~mxed to participate in testing ff~/s new scannable .re~rr form. .4a in/rial meeting was held-an Oc:ober 23, 1997, in East Aurora. l-a, £onm and instructScms were handed our to ',he parr/e/pants with m/n/mA1/-rfforrrlav2otl so th.~x a ' text of the forms and ir,-~tructions could be obralned. A m~ring v'as held on Nov~mb~ 6, t997, in East Aurora to conclude the pilot program and receive commem~ on the forr~< .~.e; design of dee rbrm, likes and disl/kes, how the new scannable fortm ,compa~ to exist/rig paper forms, how it compared to electronic repot-&ng methods, wov2d the be more ua¢fut in a loose form or in bound pads, etc.). The completed for~tq wer~ the= shippec~ to the vendor for The pilot con~,,ued rhnt use of the new' scamaable forms would/mm'ore readabiI/q; and accuracy, and would provide a level of automation for pr-~sshag t 998 dam. T'ne pilot also demonstrated .'_his reporting method as cost-effective for ~e state. Based cra comments received, thc form wa~ substantiatlv revised. The fiaal form was approved by the Depa~uncmt and two million forms were t~rimcd a~d d/zrributed to all State regizmz=d pesticide businesses for use during the t998 reporting year. The response to the new form~ has berm favorable. It is likely that the number or'entities using these scamaable forms will continue to increase tttroughout 1998. R A ~c~ T June26, 1998(11:16am) 4of25 E. Data Base Development and Data £ntr3.- The Pesticide Reporbmg Law requires the De~armacnt ,-c ~geveiop a p~ci~ ~d ~e com~u[~ ~ta b~e m conj~c~on wi~h Co'ell UMv~'. .... Such ~m a~lI co,iai of alt Mfo~a~on compiled ~m r~m submi~ ~ ~e p~a~t :o {~33-130~ md 33-I207 of~is fide. Such r~o~ ~ be ~ m~nra~ed on a compu~zcd ~ b~e and s~lt he up'ted ~y.' [ECL ~33-1201. 120~ ~d 1207.] (fee Appen~x On September 9. t997, a Memorandum of Agreement ~-~ executed ber~'een Comeil Universiw and the State Depa,uaent o£Environmenmi Conservation (DEC) for the development ora pesticides sales and use computerized ~_~r~ base. La compliance with the Law, Cometl University, in eonhmcUon with the Depa~u.ent developed it computerized pesticide sales and use'dam base. Consistent with the present legislation, the data base will track the euimtiries and !ecations of pesticides applied by commercial applicators. It will also ~z~c'k quantities =d a.~lication lecations of restricted use and agricultural general use pesticides purchased by private applicators, and quantities of restricted use pesticides sold by manufacturers iu New York State. Information compiled from repons submitted to the D .ep=~.:ent was ent=~d in~o ,sis data ba~e. It was necessary, for the Depa, tu~eat to conu-act wkh a comps, with expertise in this ~ield to keypunch the reporm' data. The Depart, chi released a Request for Proposal CRleP), seeking a firm to enter the data on more th~ 10 mitlion pesticide reporting forms that the Deparzmem expected to receive. This mzmber wa~ an ~Amate arrived at after discussions wir. h representatives of the regular,~i cor~munity. At the time bids were being received for the work, ~rr~ual report forms were being received from the regulated commtmity. It soon became at:rparent ',hat the i0 rrfillion estimate was ~xcessive and a new estimate o£2.2 million t~,~,-~ was determined to be more realistic. Because of these di~arate numbers, the P. F1a was declared v~id and the irrojec: was reissued as an Invitation for Bid (IFB). (The EF~ ~:e~sed the Department's expectation to r~c:iv¢ infomml:ion on as many as 17.6 milHon regulated pesticide actions on approximately ?.2 million copies o£1~-~e independent h~vd copy paper forms.) Lason, lac., a ~_~o~! data entry firm, was the low bicld~ and a contract for the data entry work was signed on A!:rcii 6, I998. As requital by the contract, all of the reports received by the Deparm:=t as of May I were picked up by Lason and the info,a:arion contained on them is included in this report. In£oc,aation from report~ received by the Department after May 1, was not mctuded in this report, but will be included in the data base where it will u~ed by l~ealth researcher~, the public, ~e Department,. and other groups and associations. ~r~ R A F T .1un¢26, 1998 (ll:16am) 5o£25 3~N-2~-i?-~8 I-':~7 ~ NYSDEC-=E=-]'iCIDES TC F. Electronic Reporting Specific-~,~ions Thc Pesticide Report/ng La,,- al]ows regulated entm~ = ~e "a ~o~ or ~s... ~j~ ~ dcp~ent on computer dis~ or m ~ fo~m .... " [ECL {SS- t 205] To mist ~ose enu~ rhnt d~kcd to su~: ~Mr p~de ~o~ info,ms, on on co~ur~ ~skeue or via o~ e!~=onic m~. C~mett U~vemi~' ~ve!cp~ ~ eI~u~c fi~lg ~e~flca~ons. N~em~ ~io~ w~m hc!d ~ for Technolo~ ~so cobb;cd on ~c ~ speci~c~do~. ~ speed,ca, ions w~ submi~ed by Comcll Lr~v~i~· on J~t~; D~ent ~roved ~e spe~ficatio~ for r~o~g 1997 ~ Com~I ~o developed a re~udon sy~ ~br ~ose e~es ~ ete~omc~y. The Depaxu~uenz sent survey cards to approximamtv 50) comraerc/al peauit holders and 5.000 roistered pes~ide businesses inquirin~ as to their inter~st and capabiEty ot'r~porC/ng 1997 or 1998 d~m electronically. Com~il Univers/tv m~iled a letter and a copy ofthe/r e!ec~ronic fil/ng specifications to afl !68 e. miti~s t~at r=sponded to rb.,,~ survey stating their interest in electronic rc'ao~Lug. T_~e Dc~artment refers entitie~ xvisking to submit their data e!e;u-onically, to Cor~lell Unive~.[,:,' f~r r¢~strafion, mcificatious and addi~onal information. G. Forms Revisions As ind/c.~ted earlier, three mmual ~eFort forms wer~ d/sm~ut~d to the comr~uni~- in ~anuary 1997 (See Appendbc B). Corrrmems v,'~ received Conc~g ~heir ~bcmat. utili .fy, and suggestions for-~mproving the fo~m for the 1998 r~porting y~. As a result, the Deparanen£ r~viscd the three annual report form~. A forma~ occurred with the following ru-port forms: "'Commercial ,4z~vlicaror,4~nu~i Reoorr- Pesticides Uxed" 44-15-26 and "Commercial Permirtee Resz~dted or Pesticides Sales Report" 44-15-2Z These two reports wer~ reduced to 8.5" x I1", thus sra,udardi=-iug the size of all thre, ~e~orts. The "Restri~ed P~ticides Annual Repor~ for Commerc/al Perrnitt~s (Including Importers, Manufacturers, and Compounders)" 44-t5-25 was originally released in th~s s~ze format, Also, a larger border was added to the let of these reports rn facilitam their usc on clipboards'. Revisions were made to the titles of all uhrec £mms based on r~view ol~the d;aff documents by Depatuuent legal counsel. These chang~ will help clarify the regulatory requirements o£the annual R A F T 3'une26, 1998(11:t6~an) 6of25 ,~por~s. To facfiim;e r_he repordn~ ofmukiptc Commercial Applics~ by ~ pesticide businesses, a new form en:/fied '%far q£Co~zmercicdA.v.~f~.'---~rs" z~-;3-~!~. has been devetoved. H. Work with N¥SDOH and Health Research Science Moan/ ~i-~c Dcpa~-~eut held man,..' meednE$ with tke StaTe ~o ~e a smoo~ ~t~cc be~,ecn ~c ~vo d~en~ usc of~c pc~ci~ ~ for hcEth r~c~ch pu~oscs. ~ ora number of key is~ such ~ en~ ~e co~denfi~ ~fe~d be~'e~ ~e ~o d~n~ ~d dez~ng ~o In a&/idon, these rneezin~ were used to idend~, issues and ?7.,~re documen~ which the Health Research Science Board (Board) mi_eAt operational Many of these bri¢~ consisted ofback_m'ouud docum.-'n~s described the pm~m-am's implementation and opemr/on prior to the ~--~zion ofth~ Board. These briefings also oucH-ed the :SSues tha~ thc Board could expec~ Addi~onally, preparatory work was done re_~arding the duties that the Bocci ~ a.~i_~ned to accompi/sh under thc Pest/c/de Repo~ng Law. Thc Law requ/res w/ew their Frogra~s and determine whether the.-,' have valuable inf~ma~ion .~earcherz engaged/n breast, prostate and tesr/cular cancer research. A list~i of Stare agencies with potent/ally relevant m~terial was devetoved, as well as a draft s-arvey s~nt to those a~encies for use by the Board. These actions e--bled the Board their work immediately upon appo/n=nen~, with very little start up r~e req~,ir~ III[. Challenges to Implemenr. afion Electronic Reporting Many entities submitted their report forms on computer diskettes. This Frescoed a major chalI~ngc ~o bo~h thc De~a, u~ent and Comclt University. Thc r~pc~'ts ~ provided using a large variety ofsof~waxe such as Microsof~ Excel, Lores 123, ASCIt files, Microsoi~ Works, Microsoft Access, etc. In order to read each d/slg Cor~;.1 University needed to have the same soft,care applications as those used by thc cowrnuniry.. This took an enormous-mount of staf£ rime. Even then some rites wer~ not accessible. Once the repor~ was opened, khad to be rc£ormatted to the Depa,~ent's approved electronic spcdfications so that it could be downloaded into the data Sase. O R A F T .rune 26, 1998(11:15am) ?of2~ IV. REPORTIx~'G DATA Discussion of Summaries In conjunction with Comeit Universt~.? ae Deparunent has ~ for calendar year 1997 pesticide sales, the quant/W of pesticides ~.-.-ed. the category of applicator aud reg/onofappiication. For caleudar ye~ 1997. regarding pesticide a~. pticaticns and pesti:ide sales was received and entered into thc compute~...'zed data base. The imlm-m.xtion is prox-Sded in 8 data summaries. These summaries can be found at the ~ afl, is Da~ S .m:un~_ 1 prm4des me dam for t 997 Commercial A.u92-camr i:~id~ apphcauons in New York State (summ~ed by producT). D~ Summary 2 provides the dam for 1997 Co,~mercial A. ppiicator pesticide .a~. iicarions in New York Sram (suramarized by county.). Data Summa- 3 provid~ the dam for 1997 Commercial Applicator pesticide applications in New York S-~-se (sunnnariz~ by zap code). Data Summa-y. 4 .m'-ovidei the da~ for 1997 Co--al Pe~-mittees (Including Importers, Manufacmrers,-and Com~ounders/Re, aid:ed Use Postlude Sales to Commercial Pe.mai~ Holders for Resal~ (summariZed ky. product). Sunima.ty $ provides the data tbr 1997 Commercial Perrnit~z'~ (tncludinz Importer:, Manufacmr..--s, and Coml~unders) Restrictcd Use ?~sticide S-ales to Commercial Applicators for End Use (summariZed by prating. D~i~ Sununary. 6 provides the data for 1997 Commercial P~mittees Sales of R__~-~¢ted Use Pesticides and General Use A~o-'icultural Pesticides to Private A.mplicators (summarized by produco. Data Summm-y 7 provides the dam for 1997 Commercial Pe~,~fii:r. ee$ Sales of Restricted Use Pesticides and General Use Agricultural Pesric/des m PiSvate Applicazors (summmSzed by county). Data Summary 8 provides fne data for 1997 Commercial Permirrees Sales of Rma/cred Use Pesticid~.-s and General Use Agricultural Pesticides m Private .Applicators (summarized by zip code). As required, these almmaries exclude ~he name, address or any other iufarmarion th.t would otherwise identi~, a commercial or private applica~or, any person who sells or offe~ for sale restricted use or Senegal use pesticides to a private applicator, or any person ~tto received the services ora commercial applicator. B. Data Qualificatious The Depa~auent has developed a pesticide sales and use computer data base in conjunction with Cornel[ and compiled the information from reports _ummlant to ECL ' D R A F T June 26, 1998 (1 · 8 of 25 §§33-i20f and 33-1207. This data base was used to prepare ~ut ~"-a] ,'=port regmns ofapplic~on. ~ ~m smm~zes ~: ~fo~a6on ~,'~ m~ng and ~age ~ r~o~ed m the Depma~tent by ~ m~ated ~m:~c. ~: D~enr c~ot aaes~ to ~e ac~y of~: m/o,~,~fion con~ in ~e ~ Users ofthe data arc cautioned against the use of the data= '.ck--aw specific conclusions regm'd/ng pesticide sales and use in New York State. ?~ny of the pes~cide reports w~.~ filed a~er the February 1, t 998 deadline. Due to the ::~--e recuired to enter and process these data, any reports rec~ved af--.cr May 1, 1998 lure x, ot b~en enw. r~ into Re database. Therefore the report tables are incomplete. The con~. ieee report ta~les for 1997 will be available once these data have been :memd and ver~ed. The Dep~uu,,en~ is aware th~ duplicate dam were introd~i [nm the ~,~b~se. Due to time constraints: these duplicated data have not been rern~ from ~he d~,:abasc = thi~ t~me. Pes~/cide dsm r~port~d on non-standard forms we~ acccptc~ by the Depauaent These forms include Did versions of thc sm.ndard form% cusm~ forms genem~'d by 'busin~ses and applicators, and data submitted on untroDden-able d. ccuments. Many of ( rh~se forms were r~ected by the data ~auy vendor. The Departrncnt is working to idemifif these data usLag microfilm copies o£the forms. These data ar~ not/nctuded in the report tables at this time, but wiI1 be inciuded0nce quality assu~nce ~,~ been perfoii,,ed. . Some pe~c/d~ data subrnitr.~d on non-standard forms were em=red. On ~ese ~hrms the required report field~ were no~ located in ~e same places as on ~e srsna~d fo,,s. In ma.ny c~es the non-stand-rd form~ did not include ~il the :~quired repo. n fields. The data enu7 operators wer: forced to search for data ~-t were either not there, located in a different section of the form, or even on separate pages altogether. The quality, of these data are not as mliable as the data submitted on the somdard forms. The similarit~ in desi~%n of the "Commercial Permittee Resmcted or Agricultural Pesticide Sales Keport" and thc "Commerc-/al Applicators Annual Report- Pe~t/cides Uscd" was comfiaing to thc businesses and applicators. Some application dam were reported on thc Sales form and may h~ve been PrOcessed as sales clam. This h~s be~ . addressed in the t998 report forms. DRAFT Iune 26, 1998 (1 l:16am) 9 of 25 TO The Law requires the Depm'trnent To accept data ~rom the ..-~mia~.~ communi~ on h~d ~nen fe~s. ~ese fo,~ accoun:eg i~r approxi~Iy 97~ cite to~ n~ offo~s received by ~e Dep&~enL ~e ~ on ~e ~%~ms ~ ~im ~c~t for ~e ~m enoz opemto~ to deciph~. ~ne quati~' of:hese ~m ~e n~ ~ ~iable as ~m ~bmi~ed on ~ or comp~-~encm~d fo~s. Usage of zip code, to d¢6=e application -~.d sales locatior~ ~.-~amd a numb~ of ~blem~. Zip c~ m~es~ postal ~live~ l~afions. L~e ~2~ess ~ or ~l~d may have few iffy deliv~ poNm. Since mail ~ not ~v~ to thee locations, ~ey ~ t~c~y not lo,ted in a zip c~. DctemU~on ofw~ zip c~ ~o~ for ~ application or ~nded a~lica~on in one of~ !~o~ ~ ~obl~c for ~e ~n~s~ ~d ~H~tom. Some zip cod~s reprcsem more than one contiguous locaticm Without more accurate address data than is currently collected, there is no way t~ divide application or intended al:rplication quantifies between the separate locations r .eWrsc'ated by these zip ' codes. Data reported for setcc:ed zip codes have not been reported under that zip code. These selected zip code~ ar~ unique to a location and could be us~ *.o identify where an · plication or intended appticat/on occurred. Th/s is not allowed by the Pesticide ~..ec~rting Law. In these instances, these clam have been reported by counw; however., if the zip code was Iocar~d entirety within a single enclosing zip code, the data were rel~rtcd under that enclosing zip code. Quantifies for some pesticides were repormd mslng both weight and volume-ba~ed units of measure. The validation data to determ4,e which type of measurement unit should be rased to report ti'mt particular pesticide are not cmse=~fly available in a fomz applicable to the repormd pesticide data. Therefor=, the reports list bo~ measuremenm, ~s it was reported ~o the Depmtment. Products with a quantity, of zero reflect that applications or intended applications of the product were made, but that the quantity was indcciph~rable on the z¢t.,ort form, 26, 1998 (li:t6am) t0of25 i-~: E~9 .--~OM NySE~C-r"_C~T iCI DES TO V. '~Vater Quality blonitoring for Pesticides (ECL §33-0714) A. Introduction and Purpose Pu ,rsuan. rro the Pesticide Repo~iae Law {ECL §33-0714), (See A~x A. p. A.-2), the Depa~aent has developed a ~7~rater Quali~ Monitor/nM thr PmgTam that creams inforraarion that can be used :o more effec~vely maz~_~ c~r pe.~cide program. Early results mggesr that this pro~ara has a/ready be~ row~rcis achieving rhi~ goal. The tbHowing are key resuIts of this program,s first year's findings: United States Geological Survey monitoring of upstate surface w~ idemified those pe.sticides that are migrating into the env~ro-vnea~t as well as ~knse that nor causing lYrobtems. In general the USGS results showed that the ieveis of pesticides seen are consistently Iow when compared to drin}Ong w~--standards. The mort/toting also identified areas where further study is warranmi As a remgt of monitoring art Long Island. many homeowners have ~-~ alerted by ~heir cormty hea/~ d~a~t~en~ of pestiCide conmminaiion prezem/= theLr v,'etIs. · ha these cases, residents were also aLn'ted :o alternatives for uncontaminated drinking water. The program h~ detected previously unlmown contaminant plumes ofnon- regist~ed pesticides on Long Island (ethylene da'bromide). In these cases. ~e Department has initiated follow-up investi~mmons. In addition, the De~m'n'aenr is developing plans for a collection program for -nregistered pestiCide~. ' Detection of contamination h~ also led to'voluntary changes in tabeiine by the registrants of products such as Simazine and Da~&~l in or~ier to remov;c~ usage rates and geograph/cal Iocazions that were considered inappropriate. The widespread detection of certain pesticide products and their membolites has caused the Depa~u~aent to include resn'icfions sga/nst their me on Long Island in m~strafion decisions recendy before the Deparmaenr~ In addition, the data showing the sensiriv/ty of certain areas of New York cor~,,,.~ the necess/v/of state-specific pesticide registration decisions to protecx the water resoumes of New York State. n R A F T Jtme26, 1998 (lI:16am) Ilof25 TOTAL P. 12 Currex:b.:: using a paza~erzhip approach. *~e }5;az~r Om:x:..Uonizor~o~for Peszicfdex Pro~'c,m has zizr¢-~ ~is:mcz components with eac~ c:~z m~qagcd by one of~e monkofing pm~uem: fee L'rated Smms Geoio~cai S~v~*:-~e Su~bkk ~o~- Depa~ment o f ~ealth Ser.'Scez: and ~e New York ~te Ware R~c~cg ~ns~m:e. Thc resuk of this pes.:icide monitoring pro,am ',,,-ill also be c=ordina:cd ,nigh the DEC Division of Wamr (DOW) as parc of.N'ew York State's m-_~..-?-s/biiiw m assess and report to the US Environmental ?ro¢ee:ion Age=cF (EPA) on t~ ~=21ie:' ,J£-.he smr~.'s watcr~ under Section 305(b5 of the Clean ~Varer Act. Nc~v Yo~ ~.u~ is re~-mired :o suro~mamze ~he q 'tmli£: ofd'.e state's waterz t~oc~ surface and m--. :u_u. d5 according ro established EPA =mJidance, and submit reporm every rwo year~. In addition, individual b~ins are to be seiected on a m-m~g basis across the sm~e and assessed every five years. B. Program Component~ In developing the [r<~:er '.O_ uali~. ,[[oniro rin g for P exricid-~ ?~gwam. D~a~,~ent ~i~ly' established ~ int~,,a~ Smcfing Co~z~ ~ up 0f State. !oc=t md Federal agency staffxt~o ~e invoNed mcmbe~ of the Ste~g Com~=ee ~e listed N Appendix E.) ~(~ co~e prodded D ep~ment smffM~ a br~d ~dc~ng of ~e mortaring =~ ~d ism~ ~ociated x~5~ p~cidc use in New Yo~ S~te md w~ a up of this new pm~. ~c Dep~em is ~xe~l for the p~on md Npur prodded by all of~e Steering Commi~ee membe=. Due to :he v~t amount of work required To monitor the entire state's water~ for pesticide i.mpacm, the Depa;ta.,em has sou~_hr to find partners to share the burden, bv identiO'ing other State and Federal agencies that have similar monitor~u interests.' This parme~hip approach was called for in the Pesticide Reporfin_= Law in tl~e re~uir .e-.nent that the Department work "in coordination with ~e United S~ates Geoto~cai'Sttwey National Water Quality Assessment Program, thc New York Stare Water Resources .institute, and other panics...." This coordinated approach hat al/owed the Department to achieve si?ificant progress where a partner ha~ had an ex/~ting monitoring totog'ram for pe~ticides~ In some ca, es, beeatme oft. h~ shared need for monitoring information, the Depm tment wa~ able tO enter into agreements where the partners would provide matching fund~ to help complete the work. As the prog£mm =~rowi and matures, additional partners may be added. D R ~t F T Jtme26, t998 (lt:16am} 12of25 26 95 Fill 13:$0 XYSDEC DS&tt~I BP)I ( A desampden of~.e ~.kree components or,he pro~am !olloevs: United Sra~cs" · ' - .... ~;eo:o~ ~al Survey, (USGS'~ Working under an e.'asung Cooperative :-kgreement betxve'"~ ie Depa~auent ~d the USGS. Sm~e ~d Fede~ ~ have been ~ed to exp~d ~d ex, end ~e Human ~ver 5~m ~mdy of~¢ USGS X~o~ Water C~w A~sessmenz ~'AWQ.a) pro~ into o~er are~ of nbc state, rn~o~ ~ndv being gathered x~lI be used by ~e D~a~ui~t m ~d~fi~' ~h-~n, are~d ~c~ff: skes within ~h~se arezs ~br Iong-~e~..monito~g ~t' ~ n ~¢~:ic~de ~fion ~d impac~ t~ou~hout ~e sram. ~ ~is ~o~ wa~ ~t~ ~ collecmd ~'o q~es of sites, "s~op~c" ~d "fme~~ ~d ~e smsa ~oofic sims ~ s~vled once d~nR b~efiow con~fio~ over a ~de geo~c~ F~ed are s~plcd.~ m~v as ~en times ~u~ou~ ~e vesr. L'~ax~mely semi,ye ansI)~cal me~o~. ~e ~fo~a~on ~iop~ bft~ pro~ ~dil be used m ~sess ~ m ~esficide con~inafion ~u~hout the s~ ~d m oroxdde ~ e~ty wamm~ syss~ for un~p~cmd p~ficid~leve~ ~at ~' be tb~ Monkormg in the USGS t)ro~ram has been accomplished ~ :'._sing three highly precise analytical ~nctt~ods with levels of detection d~':..~ ~o ~rts per trillion. The pesd~d¢ product~ and metaboliz¢~ (break-do~ ssod~¢r of chemical decomposition) beLug sought in each analytical method a~d ~¢ der~erion levei~ that ca~u be achieved are included as AppcndL~c F. This h/gh :grot of proc/sion is meeded ~o obtain uscfuI dam' for mos¢ pesticides: which typi~,.~l, y are found extrerneiy Iow levels. Without these precise methods, Iow4~-et rcs/dues would undeeecred: and accurate trend anslys~s~ a kev fro:mr in evaiun~u~ pas~ registration decisions, would be ~mpossible. In addition, a !ack of precise methods would ma~k thc pres~ce of some pesticides ~hat ma), o:rfly occur at e.'m-emely low levels in the environwenn This masidng would ~aszmte the efforts of r~ose se=],4ng to correlate thc _~mdy:s dam obscm-able health impacts. Levels of detection would also make it impossible to firmly demonsu-am a lack ofmiiradon for the many commonly used p~sticides rimt ar~ ~encrally not moving into th~' waters of New York Sate. This in£ommtion is crucial to support regiswa~ion decisions for thc many re,stared products that ar~ not impacting New York waters. DRAFT .To. ne 26, 1998 (1 l:16arn) 13 of 25 .X"I.'$DEC DS&.~_! .BP)! N Suffolk C-,~)unrv Department of Health Se.-.~ze.; (SCL'CF-S) Recent water quatiD- monitoring by me SCDOHS has :hd./cared that there may Be more pest/tide conrxminafion plumes rZ~r re..m, am um&n~fied in the ~.o-,oundwater of Nassau and Suffolk counties. Under a -re'o-year join: 5.mdi~g agreement x~Yrh the Deparrrnenr~ SCDOHS has been conducdmg an im~,:e-'_~vc study of public and prYvare wa~er supply- Wells and settled monitoring_ wc,~2s ro identi~, any uraknown pesticide contm'nination plumes in N'a.~sa,_' .,=~ Suffolk ~undc~. SCDOHS is sampling approximately 2.000 public and ?~vaxe water supply and monlmring wells over the nex-r r~'o >'ears. Ail sampI~ ~fl be azml~ ~hr an expanded lis~ of pesticide compounds and metabolito~:/~cludin~ many rtmt have not been ,~-tyzed prc~'iousty on Long Island. rn add/don, the l~vels of detection wYtl be, in many cases, lower than the levels :revioustv. . sought by SCI)OHS. A Iist of the compounds and the mi~mum deteeion teve~s being achieved bY SCDOHS are included as Appendix G. .Mew -'Fork State %'amr Resources Institute tWRI) Working undenan existing contraez bew,'een the Department and Cometl University, the ~q~l is using data obtained in previous years and ne~, dam tim: continues ~o be collecmd by the USGS in r. he Canajoha~i¢ Watershed to evaluate r. he ei~cacy of modeling as a mol m aid in predict/rig of!x~ricfde m/grat/on witbi~ a wamrshed. WRI will use rahe model to make predictions ~h_at Can be checked against data being garJacred by the USGS in the watched. If the modeling effort proves successful. ~e work being done by WRI will have, number of bcnc~m. First, it will provide the Department With an important new' tool ro assis.r m maki~, re~. ~ualSon deck, ions and review/rig suspensions and cancell.~rbns of.pesticide re~mLsrradons. For those/n agriculture, ~e. modei may help rhcm m assess thc bcnc~Sts o£impiememZng diffcrmr farm management pratt/cea to reduce pesticide impacts before they occur.. For health researchers. this model may be valuable for evaluating pestle/de On public health and the environment, tn many ways, th/spro~z~n may provide a link between data ~ collection and the abiiiry to predict potent/al ~mpacts of Pest/tide Use. D R A F T June26, 1998 (lt:16am) 140f25 C. Focus of Current .SIonizoring and Analyfici Kesuits: United Stares Geolo~ca/Survey (USGs), (S32,000 SFY 1996-97, S271.000 SF'Y 1997-98) The work being p.e:-form.~d by the USGS in Stare F[s-,7 Years t996-i998 analysis ora wide varie~- cf Fes2ci~es ~-nd their membolircs ~ ~Lx fixed sires and 50 s.~mop_ tic sites. Figure 1 show_~ :he location dr.:hose sites. T~ sires were tsa-ge~d evaluate ambient water qualiR;, not public or private dr~nkit~e ~ supply in.as. .-kppendLx bt provides a description of each site and the analx.'.-._c~ me&od each site. Each of the fixed sires has typically been sample~ ~ rimes during t~c per/od. provM~,g informar/on on seasonal c~.~,,g~ ar these sites, h~,~ .synoptic study, w'ar~r samptes were collected once per sire from a statew/de network et'64 ~tes from eariv .rune .to .early {uly 1997, after most a~_°'Ucultural pesticides had been -.-Fpiied, in order to oi;min mrotmauon on the spadat 6~m?.ur/on ofpesucide residues undo' base-flow conditions. (Because the majority ofinpm ~o rivers and streams during ba_~ flow conditions comes from groundwater, baseflow moni~orin_e, is.believed to b~ a hj~-k,, effective mcthed of' analyzing thc levels ofpesricid~ in groundwater fer large an-Ta~.j Many of the sires in ri'ds :.'ear's sampling were located N ~e highly agriculru~i -areas of western Ne~v York State, an area with significant pes~rAde uae and very. little e..dstmg pesticide monitoring dam for ~oundwater and surface .water. A supplemental work pL-,, execured near the end of the Stare F~se~I Year 199%98: ex'rended the [;'SOS work re include the analysis ofsaraples in areas of concern rh,~t have be~n identified by SCDOHS. D R A F T Jtme2d, 1998 (!l:ldam) 15 of 25 NEW YORK STATE .... WATER QUALITY ,: MONITORING PROGRAM FOR PESTICIDES, 1997 . ..~-~. ",-'d r" ; :", ..... · ~.-,-i .i '~ "" ..... "?, .,,'i~"' 'j '--~ ..-'~ "~..,..~.~3, 39 26 36vt · ~... !'~J' ~T.~'~'"-~" ( '~:~- I .......... / ~ "~'~;'~""~ ' .,,,/,;T I'" ...... I'1 :,,.,,'r'.""'-l;~"i, .':,. ~.....-"-".... i. I '~:~ I ~o I I v I..,-- '~T.,...,.,' ' L -.---1 V ! / / j ¥ / I ' '""' · fl Fixr~d ,'qlo ,r i~ 8~opll~ silo 6~26.95 F~I 1~:~1 FAX ~18 .XTSDEC D$&tDI BP!! The res-aim fi.om the synoptic srady (64 si:es samptes one time = ~?r/ngj are summar/zec[ below and are the subject cfa USGS fact sheer that vail b~ pt~biished shordv. preiimLrmry copy ofth/s ricr 5hee~ is inclUded ss Appendix The results of the sync~ ~¢ sampling generai!:: show tow ccuc~ons of 25 different pesffcides tbm~: rarely exceeded 0.1 rmcrc_?ams per liter (ug.']k No oesricides exceeded Eerier, 1 maxLrnum contam/nanr levels i~Cr_si tbr public w~ ?~pties. Other s-~sndards were only rarely exceeded. Twenw-uhree pest,des r_ha~ w~ ~_naiy~ed ia the s:udy we~ no~ detected in any ~rmapie. The mos~ ~equendy de~ecmd pes~cidcs in upsmm .N'e~v York ~ ~e cam herbicides .&u~/ne, MetoiacMor and the Aaazine degrnHa~/on compo~d. · Deethylau.~e. These v-ere detected at 80 percent or more o£~he su'e~ns sampled. Other common corn herbicides: Atachlor and Cwn.~ne, were detected ~ rcuehlv ~0 and 50 percent of the streams sampled, re.~ectivety~ Simazinc, a herbicide ~nt.~' used/n orchards and vineyards, was de:e~ed in 72 percen~ of the streams sainted. Not surprisingly, thc detection of pesticides was clearly related m ~fie relanVe amoun~ of land used for ~e yin-ions agr/culrural purpeoses in each v~'arersSed. Rivem and streams with the highest concenu-adons of S;rn~e drain watersheds v~th Iarge significant areas dedicated to orchards .and ~neyards. The highest conc~tr~ons of corn herbicides occurred in streams uhat drain areas ~,,~th the highest corn production. For a complete description of this study and a more complete r .c?orxi~_~ of the levels ofpcs~/cides detected, see Appendk I, wMch is a ~elimi~,~ ca~ of~ USGS fact shee~, '~:~cide Concen~o~ in Su~%c: Wat~ of New York S~te in ReiaUon Land Use." ~s ~ sheet c~ be ob~ed on ~e ~rld Wide WeB ~ h~:/."~dnyalb.~.usgs.gowprojee~/n~estici~s/pubs.h~t Dam from ~he s~opfic sites c~ be fo~d on ~e World W/de Web at h~:,', nt02 ~y~b.er.~.go V~scnpm~ide/nawq~pes~fi~'qhe.p/ Due to the longer term.monitoring at the ~xecl sires, co,npilation of thc results is nor yet complete. A fact shee~ summarizing this work will be comnteted th/s summer. Both fact sheets will he made available over the USGS ~.nd DEC ~eb sires, and will be distributed by the Dep~xuz~ent. Also, thc results of the USGS w~rk on Long Island '~i]l be made available as soon as the data is compiled and reviewed for accuracy. DRAFT June 26, 1998 (l ht6am) 17 of 25 ~$,,25;D~8 FRr 1.1;06 FAX $15 457 8803 Suffolk County. Department of Etealrh Services ($CD@~t$) ($100,000 S~' 1997-95) SCDOHS has analy=ed sa-al=les throughou~_',,'ass~ ~ Suffolk cotml:ie~ d~.g 1995, t'ocu~ed primarily on ~ five ~tem rown~hip~ ~-jork7 of Long Islamd'_~ a~¢ulmrai tared is coneearra~£ S¢.~v¢~a October i, 1997, and March 3 I, 1998, 898 wells w-e~ sampled and ~6 d~C-~--~r ccrmpounci~ w-e~ det~teck primariiy pesticides or ff~eir memboHres (breakdown The most frequently detected ~ompoumds include: ,C,pm=ound Of these, SL, nazine and .Memlachlor are the ordy p~cides on Long Island. The Deparrmem is curremly working ~rh SCDOHS a~ rt~ agricultural c~.mun~ to rcduc: ~e~c Sbt pesficid~ related compounds h.~ve exceeded S~ar~ cfi ;-'~-g water m~ximum contm-ninant level~ (MCI.a) imcludimg: Compound MCL Max.Concm~trat~o~ Fotmd Alachlor 2 Aldicarb 7 ug/1 1,2-dichloropropame 0DCP) 5 uEdl l~2-d~romoethane C~B) 0.05 ug~l Simazi~e 4 u~,l Tetra~h/oroterephth~lic a~icl (TCPA) 50 ugA 6.66 ub'l 41.0 ugdl 11.0 ugzl 77.g ugq 12.3 u~dl 766.0 u~l Two pesticides were detec:ed above DEC Water Quality Standards for Class GA ~oundwa~r. D R A F T lime26, 1998 (ll:16am) 18 of 25 Fill 13:$~ F3LI $18 45? 8805 .X'I'$D£C DS&]~I BP3! N Comno~md Ct-a_s.s_GA Std. Max. C,meenvT(gqB Found Die!dr=n 0.004 ug..'l 0.78 u~'l Methomyl 0.2- 5 uT1 1.7 ut I Of r. hese. only AlacF2or. MethomvI. and Sim.~.-ine are ~-~srered for use ~ pesticides on Long Island. Two other compounds, sometimes related te p~ticide me. were also found in excess of MCLs: bis 2 erhyihexyiphthatare, and 1.2.3-u'ichi .orc¢~m. one. Twenty-eight percent of the wells (248) contained detee=b!e concenu-aticns (parts p~r billion) of one or more of the compounds anaiyzeck Mast of fire 90 wells khat exceeded a pesticide-related State drinking wat~ MCL v-ere cuucentra~ed in the highly a=m'iculrural areas of fire castcm townships.ofSuffolk County. In ~e _agricultural townships on ~e easmm end of Suffolk County, 20 percent of~e wells (85 of the 417 wells sampled) had an exceea~,~cc of an MCL In thc more urbau areas, approximamly 1 percent o£thc wctls (1 of the [52 wclls sampled irt Nassau CoUm'3· and four o£th¢ 329 wells in ~c more suburban wcsmm towns of Suffolk County) had an excc~4,~ce of au MCL. Of t. hc 90 wells with MCL v/olations, 62 wore priv.~te wells, 21 were mordmr wells and 6 were community or non-communiw (schools ~c.) public water supphcs. (.adl of the public water supply wells use carbon ~ltration or have alread? been closed.) Of these 86 were related to agriculmml sources (inclurlin~ nurs~-y and sod uses)~ three r~sulted fi.om unknown sources, two wells were conmminaed by indusu-ial pesticides applications and one was near a golf course, and one was from an unknown source. Homeovmer use or application of pesticides was nor implicated in any of the wells tha~ exceeded dr/nking water standards. This information is more fully described in the June 1998 interim progress report · from Suffolk County and included as Appendix J ofrhi~ g----I Report .... Water Resources Institute ($$0,000 SFY 1997-98) The ~ work on the C~n~job,dc Watershed project fhi~ year included development and implementation of a pesticide use survey, and data compilation for development of the model. No dam outputs are current/y available; however, the Depa~ ~ent expects to receive the survey results later this year from the WI~I..A~ soon as this intb~marion is available, preliminary model runs wflt begin. This ~nfo,~ation will be D R A F T June26, 1998 (ll:I6am) 19o£25 ~,-26.98 FRI 13:S6 FAX $15 45? ~n3 ~002 u~ed ~o predic~ levet¢ of pesticides chot should be expected a~ v~o~ sites wascrshed. L]dm~cly, dues¢ pred~cfio~ will be compared wid~ ~m obr~eci ir~ .~revious years and ne;v d.~_~ that is being coite,-'ted by the USGS in the C~sjoharie 'vVare:-shcd. This modeling effort is expected to be completed m December D. .-~-ens for Future StUdy By design, this storewide mcnitoring pro~,xm ha~ had to .m-~oritize ~eas of Much im~ortans infonuatien has ."~"-~d,' b~-,,,, ,-~,~,~ ~,,*-~, ~-- ~tI ~s much work :o be done. 'In State Fiscal Year 1998-99, the USGS and SCDOHS w~a~ continue existing programs to ob,a~,, follow-up data m areas of concern. The USGS pm_m-am-will also be expanded to include monitoring of Lake Cayuga and a number of public water ~ppty reserveim in the wesmm part of the _~mte where indcpenden~ studies by -,.he USGS and ri~ State Health Department have suggested farther monitoring is needed. Discussions also have been held within the Department and with other a=~en~es to develop similar monimr/ng pro=~ums in the New York City Wate~bed and the Susquehana River Basin as pan of ongoing investigations aimed ~ source water protection for public water suppEes. Fin~/ly, in order to idend~, other areas where monitoring is,needed, the Deparmaent intends to reconvene the Wamr Qua{i~' Monitoring for Pesticieles Program Steering Cowrn;tt~e thiz fall to review th~ data and to seek input on o~er priority are~ for investigation o£pestieide impaet~ to the ground and surface water~.o£ New York State. VI. Conclusions and Recommendations CONCLUSIONS The Pesticides Keporv/ng Law has provided the Department with a mechanism m collect data on millions.of pesticide applications, sales, and pesticide migration. With this report and the establishment of~he mandated Water Quality Monkorlng for P~ucides, the Department has fulfilled the mandates of the Pesticides R~porting Law. D R A F T /Itme26, I998 (ll:16am) 20of25 NYSDEC D$~-~f BPN ~ Even k irs first year, these programs have provided inval~e hdormstio= to the Deparunen: in the enhancement of the Pesticide Management P:-cgum. The Law -and' irs implc~mentafion by the Department leads :~ ~ the following conclusions and recommendations: Pesdcfdes Reporting Information The Depa~ucnfs com~. rehensive outreach ~d ~ning p~m developed to e~ca:~ ~c r~a~ed comm~, on ~e rc~em~m o~: Law w~ vec~ success~l. ~e m~a:sd co~'s ,md~m~i~g on ~cid~ rep~dng is s~t~ l~g ~d nee~ to im~ve. The De~a~ anent ohm/ned a compliance rate of 93% of co--m/al perm/rices {those that sell pesticides and are required to r~porr) and $~% for commemkal pesticides applicators who have reported.. Thi~ is an ~ccelle~t response for thc fi~sr year of the new Pesticides Ret~orting Law. To enhance the future quali .fy of the reporting data, there is s need to provide further education of the regulated cornmuni .ry. For cal~n~r year 1997, i.~ormafion rcgar~i-$ p~Iici~ applications and __ pe~icid~ sales wa received and entered into-the corned data base. The result of the Report's data shows that __ percent of the restricted pesticide applications were made in Depa~'uuent Regions .(Counties) and percent o£pesfi~des retailed for agricultural use were sold in counI/cs. Approximately ~ pe~emt of commercin/applicators reported no pesticide applications during calend= year 1997. The scann.blc forms p/lot project w~ very successful. The p/lot con f,, reed that use o£the new scannable fo.us could improve rea~_~bility, accuracy, and provide a level of automation for processing 1998 data. ' The p/tot also dcmonstmtcd this reporting method as a cost-effective solution for the State. Based on' comments received, the pilot form was substantially re-vised. The final form was approved by the Depa~u-ent and:two ~Ul~on for~. were prinmd and distributed to all New York State registered pesticide businesses for use during the 1998 reporting year. D R A F T Jmae26, 1998 (1I:16~) 21'of25 )a.~2~,'9S FRI 13:S7 F?,I SIS 457 $803 .~"JSD£C D$&~.~ - The response to the new £o~ms h,~.q been favorable. :r N Iik~y that the numb~ of entities using these scannable forms will conr/~ue te mcr~se r2a'ougkont I998. .'['he hand-held coml~umr proje= appears ro have =or-~d~ ~s a dam collection option. The use of these computers for pesticides r .e~-'dng needs to be rexq~ked ~ Zke furore. 'The Deparanent encouraged elecrronic filing of dam however 90 percent of the information came in as handwritten copy. Tn/s was ~x~.- difficult to h,~ndle and efforts need to be made to encourage a shift Water Quality Monitoring for Pesticides Program The Del~m'tmenr has developed a Water QuaFuy Monitory'rig for Pesticides Program that provides dam to aid in the effective m~gem~nt of pesticides in the State. Tae USGS monitored and ~nalyzed upstate ~xtrface w~re= for a number of pesticides. Of these pes~cides, some wer~ found to migrating into the en'~Sronmenrand some were not. In general, the USGS r~sul~ shoWed that the levels ofpestic/des se~n ar~ consismnfly low (in parm per n/llion) when ¢orm2ared to drinking wa~ standards. The non/raring also irt~,ti~ed ~reas wher~ fun~ srady and/or continued rmdy is warrant_--& M~y pesticides for which analyses were done, w;~; not detected. ir is not sm'lmsfiag *h.~ pe~icides are detected in ex~mely sr~ll concentrations/n mn-face or gro--d waters. It is our mission to sssure these levels do not sign/ficantly ~,~p. ac; human health or the enviro-,,~¢nn The Federal rn~ecricide, Fungicide, and Rodenricide Act (FIFRA) requires the EPA Admimstramr ro balance the need for a pesticide with its impacts m assure it will per,btm its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the moment. Given Long Island's geolog-y and agricultural use, certain g'mund waters on Long Island am p~ticulsrly vulnerable topesticides ¢onmmln~tiom The program has detected previously nnknov,'n contaminant plumes ofnon- re~stered pesticides on Long Island. The Depm~ment has in/t/atedfollow,up . investigation.s; D R A F T June26, 1998 (II:16am) 22of25 3<26.-95 FA! 13:$? F.-L~ 51S 4,57 S8o3 3'~'SDEC DS-AE31 bt-. As a result of moniror'mg o- Long Island. a~'ec:eC mdi-~Sd,mt~ have been ai~rted by their couw:y b_¢ait~k cleparr~nrs of pesticide z~nr~radon present in their drinking water wells, tn these cases, residents we~ ad~Ssed ofalte,.adv~ for obmi,,{-g acc .~able &~/nking water; Der~ction of pesticides above dr~g wamr s~ ;~ ted ~e D~m~ent m ~s[ cb~=~ E Iabelin~ of~oducS su~ ~ S~ ~d Dalai m ~ove ce~u~ ~e mt~ ~d exclude geo~p~cal iec~o~ ~g were comi~ ~ppropmm. ~ ad~om Ec datec~on of ce~ F~ci~ ~d ~ h~ ca. ed ~e Dep~u~ent ~ ~cl~c reactions ~-~ ~eir ~e ~ re~u~ de~io~ mccoy bef~e ~e D~enn P ~ COM~LE~N-DATIONS Pesticides Reporting Law Given the volume of inform.~tion required, m be r~-=ived, analYzed, and reported, the time allocated in the Law is insufficient to do ~hejob properly. As part of its annual Ieg/sla~ve in/t/at/yes, the Dep. a e,-en~ ~ co~id~ · e PesficM~ R~o~g Law. Pesticides Reporting Data De, attract should seek mn~mum compliance for 1997, and subsequent via an aggressive enforcement program in 1998. Deparmaent supports req~,idng certain segutent of thc p~d~ ~dus~ m file ~ in D~ut ~pmved ele~onic fo. mat. Tow~ ~t ~ ~c Dc~t ~H p~ el~o~c ~fica~ons to ~e re. amd co~m~.. The Department should expand the use ofthe sca=able forr~ for reporting. The Depa, tment should conduct more outreach.mad education m improve the quality o£ the data. D R A F T ~u~ 26, 1998 (ll:16~m) 23 of~ Water Qu-niiq, Moni£oring for Pesfieddes Program Dep~u'aaenr shouid evaluate the need m-~d er~ecdv~ness of conducting a "P~Ucid~ .%-~es'v/Day" th~s yem' zbr Long Island. The Depamnent should develop a Pesuczaes Menagem~n~..an for Long ~irk -Ac participation of the general public, .~sricides users and other smk.~ holders. Dep~rr~en: should,, as n~essary, expand ~he ~: of r.m'get pesticides and me~.boihes k analyzes in ~ound and su_-~e water samples. DePan~ncnr should corrrimm m assess sites wh~,,~ pesticides have been detected in ground ~vat~r above t~ DOH drinki'~g wamr suandards. Depa~u~cnt should seek EPA fiscal support ~o address the pesticides conc-~ms associated with this re-porn The Depa~uen~ should evaluate options for Conducting .Statev~de pc~ticid_~s.. arnnest'~'collection days in ~e ~umre. The Department should continue and expand the Wamr Quality Monitoring for Pesdc/des. VII. Appendices A. Text of Chapter 279, Laws of 1996, as amended B. 1997 Report Fo, ms Package C. 1998 Report Forms - "Commercial Applicator Annual' Report-Pesticides Used" d4-15-26 - "Cor~rciat Applicator.~n~ual Report-Pesticides Lrscd" d,i, l 5-26 ($cannabte Version) - "Commercial Pcrm(ttce R~crict~d or Agricultural P~ticid~s Sales R~por~" 44-15-27 D R A F T Sune 26, 1998 (lhl6,~r-) 34of2S Ee "R~tricted Pe~:i~ A nv,,,~} Report for Comm~ial Peia~ir:ees (Including !rnpc~s. ~hnufactur:~. and C~m.~ound~.~)' -~, ~!: 15-25 "L/st oxCommcr~ Apphcamrs ii I4-26A Public Outreach and Education - M~ss Mailin~s - List o£Public Work.<uops - Sp~chedOutr~ach at Pubhc Mc:~gs - Tee~ A~i~five G~c: M~mo~d~ (TAGM) - E-m~ A~ss - ~SDEC ~et Web Site - Toll-~ee Hot L~ Water Quality Monitoring for Pesticides Program Steering Committee Members F4 Ge USGS Axmlvrical Lists NYSDOH Analytical Lis~ H. Lisdng of USGS Sites I. USGS Fact Sheet J. SCDOHS Interim Report (To be revised) D R A F T itme26, 1998(lh16am) 25of25 Analysis of Suffolk County Water Authority Reports, Water Table Maps, and the SGPA Plan MEMORANDUM DD-99-002 TO: Stephen M. Jones FROM: DeWitt Davies DATE: January 5, 1999 Southold Study - Deep/Vertical F1ow Protection Zone Chris Schubert (USGS) discussed the Southold l~d use/land available for development GIS maps with groundwater divide/water table contour overlays with Steve Colabufo (SCWA). The joint USGS/SCWA groundwater modeling effort for the north fork will produce outputs which can be used to infer the location of the vertical/deepflow zone in Southold. These results will not be available until spring. It was suggested by Ckfis that the following qualitative approach be used as an interim nde-of-thumb for planning tmilt the more definitive boundary results are available. Considerations: The regional groundwater divide does not move appreciably north or south in the "Cutchogue area," since this is an elongated groundwater flow system bounded by salt water. The SCWA views the area within the 5 ft. water table contour as the main source of potable water supply, and it has concerns over agricultural use in the area. The concept of vertical/deep flow protection does not apply to the groundwater mound located to.the west of Mattituck Inlet in Southold (groundwater flow here is upward, rather the vertically down), nor does it apply to the more limited groundwater resources to the east of Cutchogue bounded by the 2 ft. water table contour where agricultural use is not as prevalent Deep/Vertical Flow Protection Zone: Groundwater protection efforts should be focused in the zone surrounding the regional groundwater divide in the Cutchogue area. This zone should extend 2,000 feet both to the north and south of the divide line, with the east and west boundaries consisting of that portion of the 5 ft. water table contour line intersected by the 2,000 foot north/south buffer lines. The boundary of the zone is Shown in black (hand drawn - not GIS) on the attached existing land use map for Southold, which also shows the regional groundwater divide and various water table contour lines. MEMORANDUM TO: Stephen M. Jones FROM: DeWitt Davies DATE: December 8, 1998 Southold Study - 12/7/98 meeting with USGS - Chris Schubert et al. and SCWA - Ed Rosavitch et al., at Corm, NY. Chris Schubert gave a presentation on the North Fork Modeling Project that the USGS is conducting for the SCWA. There are three isolated water table mounds on the North Fork to the east of the Mattituck Creek area; these mounds are underlain by salt water. There is concern over the capacity of groundwater to service demand. Agricultural pumpage is about two times thai pumped for domestic water supply in the region. Agriculture pumpage is, however, a consumptive use, since all water pumped is either lost by ex~poration or crop transpiration. The model allows prediction of movement of the salt water interface, both laterally inland near the shore, as well as vertically upward in the central portion of the North Fork. The model will be used to test the .effects of water supply/use scenarios based on well location and future land use, with outputs that predict the movement of the salt water interface in the aquifer, changes in water table elevations under different conditions (drought, etc.), and movement of groundwater contaminants via particle tracking. In this regard, USGS would like to know your thoughts on projected agriculture use in Southold in the future. Schubert discussed model results that showed the sah xvater interface moved up.in the center of the North Fork (upconing) due to agricultural pumpage. Such effect would be exaggerated during drought conditions. Ed Rosavitch wanted the Planning Dept. to be aware of the ramifications of agriculture on water supply. In addition to being a consumptive water user, fanning introduces polluta~, ts to the system. The SCWA has been finding contaminated water in locations where future well sites have been planned. Pollutants include nitrates, sulphates and perchlorate. Treatment at the 'wellhead (via iron exchange) would be necessary to develop such water supply sources.The USGS model will be used to test the extent to which potential well locations can be protected. The most important thing that could be. done to preserve future water supplies in Southold is to "protect" the zone of deep, vertical flow that abuts the groundwater divide on the North Fork. Recharge in this relatively narrow band eventually flows laterally and upward to the shorelines. (The residence time, or age, of groundwater is short on the North Fork, i.e. 50 years or less, as compared-to that in central Suffolk County [hundreds. of years]). This is the source o£supply to public wells located closer to the shoreline. The location of the deep flow zone changes as the location of the groundwater divide moves in response to' changes in . precipitation and pumpage. The width of the deep :iow zone varies from west to east, being wider in the Cutchogue area (perhaps half a mile) and smaller in the Greenport area. USGS will provide a copy of the GIS coverage including the ~,,undwater divide and water table contours (found in Schubert, Christopher E. 1998. Areas ('~ntributing Ground Water to the Peconic Estuary, and Ground- water Budgets for the North c~z.d South Forks and Shelter Island, Eastern Suffolk County, New York. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 97-4136) to the Planning Dept. for overlay on the To~ of Southold existing land use and land available for development maps. We can then review these combinations with the USGS to further define boundaries of the deep flow zone, within which ~undwater protection strategies can be formulated. DD-98-034 Areas Contributing Ground Water to the Peconic Estuary, and Ground Water Budgets for the North and South Forks and Shelter Island, Eastern Suffolk County, New York U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4136 Suffolk County Prepared in cooperation with the . Peconic Estuary Program and Suffolk County Department of Health Services ,USGS science for a changing world Areas Contributing Ground Water to the Peconic Estuary, and Ground-water Budgets for the North s. nd South Forks and Shelter Island, Eastern Suffolk Counh*. New York by Christopher E. Schubert U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water Resources Investigations Report 97-4136 Prepared in cooperation with the PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM and SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES Coram, New York 1998 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Sec:?~ary U.S. Geological Surve', Mark Schaefer, Acting Di~?c:or For additional information write to: U.S. Geological Survey 2045 Route. 112, Bldg. 4 Coram, NY 11727 Copies of this report may be purchased from: U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services P.O. Box 25286 Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225-0286 GONTENTS Abslract .............................................................................................................. Introduction ................................................................... Purpose and scope .......................... ' .................................... Previous investigations .............................................. , ................................ Acknowtedgmems ........... : ....................................................................... Description of sludy area .................................................................................... Popuhttion and land use ................................................................................ ~Valer use ............................................................................................................................................................... 5 Hvdr~:~ 2Yp 13 itadon and recharee ...................................................................................................................... 13 Hydrologic boundaries .......................... 13 Directions iff around-water flow ..... ' .......................................................................................................... 16 Areas contributing ground water to the Peconic Estuary. and m'ound-water bud~crs tbr the Nons ~d South Forks and Shelter Island ............................................................ 7 .......... 7 .....................~ .......................................... 17 Delineation of contributin~ areas ...... ,..~ ................... ~ ...................................... 17 Developmem of eround-water budgets ......... 19 Amdysis of Fluctuations m Ground-Water Discharge .............................................................................. i ............... 27 ~ttnlmltl'v alld conclusions .................................................. . .................................................................................... ~ ....... 34 References oiled ............................................................................................................................................................... 35 PLATES I PhIlc is in pocket] I. Map of castcrn Sul'l~flk C~unty. N.Y. showing watcr-lablc altitude in March-April 1994-. ~l[llllhcrs and water Icvcts. a~ld appmxlmalc boundaries tlf al'oas contributin,.: ~l-Otlnd water i,, ~<Icctcd cmbaymcnts within thc F'cconic Estuary on Iht Norlh and South Forks and ~l;clter Island FIGURES I. M;. p ~ 'L ng lslanct N.Y.. showm~ location .f Ibc Poe.nit Estuary :md study area in cas~cm 5ulfiflk ('.unty. ...... 2 ( :Mcclin~llt~tlsc ('reck. Sag Hitl-l~or C{>vc. ;uld ~Vcsl Neck Bay }. selected prcclpitillit~ll-lllC:t~ur~mcnl ~SlAIIOIIS. ;tlld ~. Maps et local sludv arc:Ls showin~ t~bscrvalJon-wcll Iocalions and numbers_ c;tstcrn Suffiflk C ,univ. N.Y.: ,.k. Mcclin~Jmusc Creek sludv area ......................................................... : ....................... B. Sa~ Harbor Cove sludv area: ................. . ........................ C. %~sl Neck Bay study itl'ca ................................. . ..: ..... : ............... 4 M~3t~tsltltv rc sltxx no] c I~nol t'llctlltultlltn : t9 , t d n l) 4 il tst Him Soulhamplon. and Southold Towns. eastern Sul'fi4k Counlv. N.Y. ........................................ t 1 5. Map of study area showing Iocatmn of scwa~c-treatmcnl d~slricts and rcmonal public watcr-.~pplv diMrlClS and sclcctcd wctl lictds, eastern Suffidk C.untv N Y'' 12 6. Maps {~1' local study areas.showing WalcI'-Iit}~[C alliludc in March 1995. tdascrvali(m-wcll xvalc; ~cvcls..md zlppl'oxilllalc boundaries of m-cas COll[i'ibutillg ~:-Oulld W;tlcr lo scJcclcd.clllhavillcllIs. C[lslcrn A. Mcctinuhm~sc Crcck sludv al'ca ................................................................... ~ ........................ B. Sac Harbor Cove study area ............................... , .................................................................. [}CC~*IIIC [SSttlary on thc Sol,ih illltl Sot h J:( rks iuld Shchcr Iskmd. eastern Nufl}*lk ('*~tllllV. N S. (h'aphs q~owing annual Iolat prcc~pitatimi al (;I'~cllpOl-t and W~llcl--labl~ ;l{lllHdes 111 so[ccIcd , ,--cf~ ;lllt~n wcl]s -n Ibc Norfll Fork. calendar 5,cars 1976-95. eastern Suffidk C.umv. N.S( ....................................................... 28 t) (;raphs showillg anlltlal lolal prcc'ipilall~n at (irccnp{m [ina Waler-lahlc altitudes in sclCClcd ~?-crV;lllOll wells ~m Shchcr tMantt. ¢ilJczldar 3'cars 1976-95. caslcrn Sul'l'(flk Counly. N.Y. 29 Contents iii 10. Graphs showing annual total precipitation at Bridgehampto,-, and water-table altitudes in selected observation wells on thc South Fork. calendar years 1976-95. eastern Sxtl'~lk County, N.Y. I 1. Grapbs showing annual total precipitation at Riverhead. warcr4able altitudes in selected observation wells on thc main body of Long Island. and annual mean discharec ,*ftbc Pcconic River at Rivcrhead. calendar years 1976-95. eastern Suffolk County, N.Y. ~ - TABLES 1. Monthly pumpage in 1994 for selected regional public water-supply districts, e,'tstem Suffolk County, N.Y. ................ 14 2. Cuhivation characteristics of selected major crops grown on Long Island, N.Y. ............................................................. 16 3. Lon~-tcrm mean precipitation amounts at Bridgchampton. Greenport. and Riverhead. eastern Suffolk County. N.Y.... 16 4. Ground-water budgets lbr comributing areas on thc North and South Forks and Sheher Islund, eastern Suffolk County, N.Y. ........................................................................................................................................................... 25 5. Departures of annual mean water-table ahitudcs from lorrg-lcm't mcan in selected observulion ;veils on the North and South Forks and Shchcr lshmd, and Brown 'Fide occurrences m thc Pcconic Estuary. calendar years 1976-95. eastern Suff(flk Cmlnty, N.Y. ........................................................................................................................................................ 3B CONVERSION FACTORS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND VERTICAL DATUM Multiply By To Obtain Length ulch lin. ) 25.4 millimeter IOt, ( It ) 0.3048 meter A rea acre 0.4047 square mite I mi2) 2.590 %flume galhm lilcr L'allotl per lllllltllC (~al/lllill} cubic lbol per day III ~/d) inch per year [inlyr 3.785 [tier per minute o I 28~2 cubic meter per day _3.4 millimeter per year 5, ea tcvcl: Ill tills lcporl, "',ca Icv,,.q" I'clcrs Io Iht Natlml;t{ (}codcllc Vertical Daltlln ol [929 tNt}VI) <,1 t929)--a ec-dcuc iv Areas Contributing Ground Water to Peconic Estuary, and Ground-Water Budgets for North and South Forks and Shelter island Areas Contributing Ground Water tothe Peconic Estuary, and Ground-Water Budgets for the North and South Forks and Shelter Island, Eastern Suffolk County. New York By Christopher E Schubert. Abstract The Peconic Estuary, itt the eastern end of Long Is ~ M. has been plagued by a recurrent algal bloom, locally ret~rred to as "Browll Tide." that has caused the severe decline of local marine resources. Although the lhctors that trigger Brown Tide bk)oms remain uncertain, ground-water dis- charge has previouslY been shown to aflbct sur- face-water quality in the western part of the estuarv. A U.S. Geological Survey ground-water- flow model of d~e main body of Lent Island indi- cates [hat a total of about %5 x I ()f' flO/d (cubic ~et per day) of freshwater discharges to tl~e west- crn part of the estuary, but the model does not include the ground-wa[e- flow systems on the North and South Forks and Sheher Island. which contribute significant amouuts of freshwater to the central and eastern parts of the estuary. Thc need for information on freshwater discharge ch[irc estuary prompted the U.S. Geological Sur- vey lo eva]liare ground-water discharEe from file North and South Forks and Shctler Island. Source aFoas that contribute ground water to the Peconic Estuary were delineated, and ground- water budgets Ibr these areas were developed, to evaluate the distribution and magnitude of m-erred- water dischm'ge to the central and eastern p~rts the estuary. Contributing-area boundaries that were delineated coincide with the hydraulic boundaries of iht" - - h esh g~ ound-water-flow systems of tile North and South Forks and Sheher tslaud: these bOulldaries are of two [ypcs~xlernal (saltwater bodies) anti internal (gm[md-water dividcsL Hydrologic components that were evalualed -elude recharge fi'on] precipitation, public-supply .d~ch-awal and return ltow. and agricuhural with- drawal. Values l~)r each of these components were calculated or estimated L,r th,: individual fresh- water flow st bsystems Ikat [})illl each ground- water-budget area. lhen Kmm~ed to obtain the total dischame= of fi'esh grouna ~ ater to tidewaten Ground-water dischz? to the Peconic Estu- ary is about 3.8 x I (P fl: d fi'om the Nord~ Fork. I I x I (P fl-;/d from the South Fork. and 1.7 x 10{' fr~/d fi'om Sheher Island. The total contribu- tion tQ the estuary lmm ~ncse areas is about 16 x I(P fl"/d~roughly twice the total contribution from the main body of Long l~land. In contrast to d~e freshwater contribtm,,n fi'om the mare body of Long Island. which is co:2ccntrated near the head of the es[urn% the contnSuuons from the North and South Forks and She2er IMand are distributed along the cast-west teng~ of the esluary. Changes inwater-taNu' · altitude and the rcsuh- ing changes in total discharge to the Peconic Estu- ary were estimated fi'om dne relative chan,,es in annual metal water level at obscrvatitm welN. The' 1985-95 interval included 7 years { 1985-88. 1991 - 92. 1995) of generally below-average water-table altitudes that presumabl3 caused similar decreases in ground-water discharge to {he estuary: intense Brown Tide blooms coincided with six of these years( 1985-88. 1991. 19951. and localized blooms coincided with the remaining year(1992). Water- table altitudes in the remaining 4 yearsof thc 1985-t55 interval ( t 989-t~). 1993-94) were nearly average or above average, and presumably duced comparably near-average or increased amounts of ground-water discharge 1o the esl[Iai'y: IIOllC of lhesc )OaFS NiIW ;lily %% idcspread Brown 'Fide blooms. Fltlctualjoil5 in [lac alltOUnls gl'OUlld-walof discharge ,~ the estuary appear affect the occurrence of Brown Title bloonts: although the tktctors that trigger the blooms have not been determined. Abstract I INTRODUCTION The Peconic Estuary, which consists of an inter- connected series of shallow coastal embavments at the eastern end of Long Island. N.Y. (fig. /).'has been repeatedly plagued since 1985 with an unusual algal bloom ora previously unknown species {Aztt'eococctt,¥ anophagq[ferenx) (Suftblk County Department of Health Services. 1992). Adverse et~Ects of the algal bloom, locally re/Emed to as "Brown Tide." include the severe decline of major shellfisheries and a sha~ reduction in the abundance ofeelgr~s (Zostera marina) beds. which provide critical habitat tbr com- mercially important finfish as well as shellfish. Although the onset, duration, and cessation of the Brown Tide bloom remain unpredictable (Peconic' Estuary Program [PEP] Program Office, I996), the Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Manage- merit Program ~BTCAMP). begun by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) in ~ 988, has tbund t~at the blooms are not triggered by conventional macronutriems, but possibly by thctors, such as atypical climatic ....... c~e~icals (chelalo~, specific organic nutrients, cer- lam metals~ (Suft~lk County Department of Health Services. 1992). Detailed inSb~ation on the spatial 4'{ '00' 74°00 · 73'30' YORK ' and lc::';'~,raj &'currence of Brown Tide bloontx in Pecom: Estuary through the summer of 1992 am given :~ :~- BTCAMP report (Suffolk County ~p~ merit c: Eeahh SenSces. 1992). E.<:~fine surface-water-quality monitoring a~ numen:z: modeling conducted under the BTCAMP effort h~,.e found that ground-water dischame to the Peconic Ri~er ~d Fianders Bay, at the head of the Pecomc Esruan- ~ in the xxotem - fi~ '~ affects surface-water qual~ - . most eutrophic part of the estua~. 1992. ~be Peconic Estuan, was included in the National EstuaD, Program. administered bv the U.& Environmental Protection Agency under ~ection 3~ of the C~e~ kVater Act. and the Peconic Estuan, Pr~ gram (p~ subs~uently began under the coor~ina- - Lion of the SCDHS. On the basis of the BTCAMP results, one of the prima~ efforts of the PEP is to obtain info.aLien on ur~und-water discharze to the entire Peconic Esma~ for use in estuafine surface- water modeling and evaluations of management alternatives, and in the development of watershed- managemem efforts. A U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) numerical ground-water-flow model of the main body of Lonz Island (B uxton and others. 1991 ) has yielded estima~ of ground-~ ater discharge to the western pan of the 73'00' 72'3~' 72'00' CONNECTICUT LONO iSLAND SOUND BLOCK ISLA ND SOUND LONG' NASSAU CO.1 S UFF()LK CO. I S L A N D ~TUDYAREA-_Detail ~s shown in figure 2. ATLANTIc OCEAN 40'30' 0 10 20 MILES EXPLANATION o lO 20 KILOMETERS APPROXIMATE EXTENT Base from U.~ OF PECONIc ESTUARY Figure 1. Location of the Pecon~c Estuary and study area in eastern Suffolk County, Long Island, N.~ Areas Contributing Ground Water to Peconic E-stuary, and Ground-Water ~udgets for North and South Forks and SheRer Island 41'07'30' 41 '00'00' 40'52'30' 72'37'30' 72'30'00' LONG ISLAND SOUND 3latrttucL , 72'22'30' 72'15'00° 72'07'30' 72'00'00' T I I I '~ Southol~ 71'52'30' BLOCK' ISLAND SOUND · GARDINERS ~ BaY ~..~,~, , ~;HELTER ~ ~(;,Xkl)INI~RS ISLAND I) ISI &ND Riverhead Occk Cove 4 GREAT Brld'-'eJlan~l*h m PECOATC · '~ BAY ~ ~ Canal East Hampton & /' Southampton A TLA ATTIC EXPLANATION LOCAL STUDY AREAS- -Detail ia shown in figure We~l Neck TOWNSHIP BOUNDARY OCEAN '~ 0 5 10 MILES · PRECIPITATION --MEASUREMENT STATION o 5 lO KILOMETERS · STREAMFLOW - GAGING STATION ~ ................. 1 ....................... 1' [ ..... I I. ...............I i ..... Base from U S. Geological Survey digital data .... · Figure 2 L ocahons of the Nmlh and Soutl~ Fmks and Shelte~ Island, lu,.~l study areas (Meetinghouse Greek, Sa9 Narbor Cove, and West Neck Bay), selected prec~pitation.measurement stations, and Peconic River streamflow-gag ng stat on n eastern Suffolk County, N.Y. Peconic Estuary. The model simulates equilibrium conditions during a Period (1968-83) in which average precipitation was comparable to the long-term mean, and public-supply withdrawals were relatively stable (H.T. Buxton and D.A. Smolensky, U.S. Geoiogical Survey, written commun., 1996); these conditions are assumed to still apply in eastern Suffolk County at present (1996). Details on the extent of the numerical- mode/grid and on model representation of aquifers, confining units, and boundary condiqons ~ · . Buxton and others ~lgn,, ~' · .' -~ ar~gzven m · ~ ~O. l<estuts md(cate that a total of about 7.5 x 106 ft$/d of freshwater is discharged from the main body of Long Island and that nearly two-thirds of this amount (about 4.7 x 106 ft3/d) is contributed by the freshwater and estuarine reaches of the Peconic River; the rest is contributed as direct ground-water discharge to Plunders Bay and the .west- em part of Great Peconic Bay (about 1,9 x 106 and 0.92 x I06 ft3/d, respectively) (fig. 2). The model does not simulate the ground-water-flow systems on the North and South Forks and Shelter Island, however which are hydraulically isolated/'rom the ' water-flow system of the main ground- body of Long Island and contribute freshwater to the central and eastern pans of the estuary (figs. I and 2). The need for information on ground-water dis- charge to the entire Peconic Estuary prompted the USGS, in cooperation with the PEP and SCDHs, to begin a 3-yea~- investigation in 1993 to (I) delineate the source areas (coutributing areas) of ground water that uhimately euters the estuary and develop ground- water budgets tbr the North and South Forks and Shel- ler Island, and (2) idemit¥ the patterns aud rates of ~round-water discharge to three small embayments within lhe estuary. These efforts entailed (I } the use of a geographical infbrmation system (GIS) to evaluate the distribution and magnituf~..of ground_water dis- charge to the estuary/'rom the North and South Forks and Shelter Island, and (2) the development of ~round- water-flow models, coupled with particle-track~-n~ pro- cedures, to analyze ground-water flow paths and'~rav- chime to the three embayments. Purpose and Scope This report delineates the areas that contribute grouud ~Vater to the Pecomc Estuary and presents ground-u, ater budgets for the North and South Forks and Sbcher Island. lA companion report [C.E. Schu- bert, U.S. C, rxqogicai Survey, written commun.. identific.-~ the Patteras. and rotes of ground-waterffts. charge k, the three r4'nall embayments.) This rep~ also (I) Je-~bes the Population and land use, wa~ use, and &vdrolo%, (precipitation and recharge, logic bo~m'danes.'-and d/rections of ground-water rio, of the N~h Fork. South Fork, and Shelter Island study areas. ~ '~ - · -'~ explmn:~ the methods used to delinea' contribunng areas and to estimate gmund-Water~_,~ get comlxments, and (3) presents an analysis oflh~ ations in ground-water discharge. Previous Investigations Many previous studies by the USGS and othem have examined the geology and hydrology of the North and South Forks and Shelter Island. The first comprehensive report on the geology of the North :and_ South Forks was provided by Fuller (1914). Recon- naissance studies of the water resources of the Nor~a Fork are described bv Hoffman (1961)and Cranddi {1963); a reconnaiss;nce of the water resources of the Montauk area of the South Fork is described by Perlmutter and DeLuca ~1963). Subsequent investiga- tions that have examined the geOlogy and hydrology of the North Fork include Baier and Robbins (1982a}. Soren and Stelz (1984), Bohn-Buxton and others (1996), McNew-Canwri~ht (1996), and Misut and McNew-Cartwright ( 199~5)_ Reports that describe the geology and hydrology of the South Fork include Holzmacher. McLendon. and Murrel {1968), Fetter ( 1971, 1976). Berkebile and Anderson 11975), Ban and others (1976). Nemickax and others ii977), Baler and Robbins (1982b), Nemickas and Koszalka (1982}. Prince (1986), and Cartwr/uht (1997). The hydrogeo- logy of Shelter Island is ret;orted by Soren (1978) and Simmons (1986). Several previous investigations have character- ized ground-water discharge from pans of the Long Island ground-water-flow s~'stem. A comprehensive water bt,dget Ibr Nassau Cr~unty and most of the main body of Suffolk County is given in Franke and McClymonds (1972L and provides estimates of ground-water discharge to the northern and southern shores of Long Island. A description of the ground- water resources of Suffotk County is given in the Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan (Suffolk County Departmem/ff Health Service:, Dvirka and Banilucci. and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc~. 4 Areas Contributing Ground Water :to Peconic Estuary, · and Ground-Water Budgets for North and South Forks and Shelter ISland 1987), and provides a summary of ground-water dis- charge information for this area. Bohn-Buxton and others (1996) simulate ground-water flow paths and traveltime for two small areas on the North Fork. and provide information on the local patterns and rates of ground-water discha~e to the adjacent tidewaters of the Peconic Estuary: more work would be needed. however, to determine whether these results apply to other coastal areas of the estuary. Acknowledgments The author thanks Vito Minei and Walter Dawydiak of the PEpprogram Office for their techni- cal support and cooperation during the investigation. Thanks are also extended to several individuals who provided information or assisted with data collection during the investigation: Edward Olson, Ronald Paulsen. and Thomas Nanos of the SCDHS; Dewitt Davies of the Suffolk County Planning Department; Steven Colabufo, Jeff A ltofer, and Paul KuZman of the Suffolk County Water Authority: Allan Connell of the Natural Resources Conservation Service; Kathryn Vreeland of the Northeast Regional Climate Center: ?rank Iannazzo, Frank Basile, Brian Boogertman. and John Brennan of the SCDHS well-drilling crew: and Conrad Strebel and others of the Delta Well and Pump, Inc. well-drilling crew. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA ~The North Fork investigation focused on the area east of Mattituck Creek and James Creek and encompassed most of the Town of Southold. including adjacent Robins lstand (fig. 2). The South Fork inves- tigation focused on the area east of' Shinnecock Canai . and encompassed the eastern half of the Town of Southampton and the Town of East Hampton. includ- ing adjacent Gardiners Island. The Shelter Island investigation encompassed all areas within .the Town of Shelter Island. Additional detai.led study to help refine the delineation of contributing areas focused on three local areas encompassing the uplands of the three small embayments (Meetinghouse Creek. Sag Harbor Cove, and West Neck Bay) that are the subject 9fc°ncentrated watershed-management efforts under =- PEP (fig. 2). The ~Meetin,v. house Creek study area -.ncompasses 44.8 m~- near the west end of the North Fork.(fig. 3A): tN- Sat Harbor Cove study area encompasses 61.x mi- in the central part of the South Fork (fig. 3B); m~,: the West Neck Bay study area encompasses the c::~ire 12.0-mi2 area of Shelter Island (fig. 3C). Population and Land Use The year-routed population of the five eastern Suffolk County Townships--East Hampton, River- head, Shelter Islan& Southampton. and Southold (fig. 2) onJanuar~ 1. 1991 is estimated by the Long Island Lighting Company (1991 ) to have been about 107,000. During the summer, an additional 171,000 seasonal residents .md tourists visit the area for its rural and agricultural character, natural beauty, and recreational opportunities (Long Island Regional Plan- ning Board. 1987: Suffolk County Department of Health Services. 1992). Land-use analy~s' by the Long Island Regional Planning Board in i982 indicate that land in the five eastern Suffolk County Townships (East Hampton, Riverhead, Shelter Island, Southampton, and Southold) in 1981 x~:~s 42 percent vacant. 20 percent agricultural. 13 percent residential, and 12 percent rec- reational and open space. Vacant land was predomi- nant in the Towns of East Hampton (52 percent), Southampton (49 percent), a~d Southold (40 percentl: agricultural land was predominant in the Town of Riverhead (40 percent): and recreatioual land and open space was predominant in the Town of Shelter Island (41 percent) (Long island Regional Planning Board, 1982). The'extent of agricultural land in the five east- em Suffolk County Townships in 1994. based on pre- liminary GIS analyses by the Suffo'lk County'Planning Department of Township tax-assessor designations (Dewitt Davies, Suffolk Coumy Ptannihg Department. written commun., 1995), is shown in figure 4. Water Use Ground water is the sole source of drinking water in Suffolk County. and the communities within the 'study area are served by seven regional public water- supply systems at present (1996) (lig. 5). The service- area locations indicated for the Greenport. Hampton Bays, and Riverhead Water Districts'in figure 5 are based on a GIS coveraee assembled by the SCDHS Description of Study Area 5 41'00'00'i 40'57'30' 72'40'OO' I LONG ISLAND 72'37'30' SOUND 72'35'00' ·53333 ·51582 · 16756 '",.., · 106195e e51587 91614 51568 · · 106198 51572e 106200 ~106203 · 106191 ~ · · 106204 51586 · · ~' e4523 106192 · · 71572 515~t 54885 83792 · 40'55'OO' 52449 47231 · FLANDERS BAY GREAT PECONIC BAY · 74304 · 74308 '54886 Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data e5,3333 ·74298 ~ · 46536 · 74;99 46534 O 1 2 MILES EXPLANATION ~ ' ~ ' ' 0 1 2 KILOMETERS OBSERVATION WELL - -.Well measured in March 1.995. Number is assigned by New York State Department of Enwronmental Conservation. Prefix "S" denoting Suffolk County m omitted. Figure 3A. Locations of observation wells in the MeetinghoUse Creek study area, eastern Suffolk County, N.Y. (Location of study area is shown in fig. 2.) 6 Areas Contributing Ground Water to PeconJc Estuary, and Ground-Water Budgets for North and South Forks and Shelter island · · ( Dennis Jackson. Suffolk County Department of Health Services. written commun., 1995); the service- area locations for the East Hampton, Montauk, Southampton. and Westhampton distribution zones of the Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA) were digitized in this study from the SCWA's 1995 distribu- tion-system maps (Jeff Altofer. Suffolk County Water Authority, written commun., 1996), Well-field locations for the Greenport Water District, which withdraws ground water from and distributes water supply to communities on the North Fork, were digitized from a 1992 map of existing and proposed facilities (Roy F. Weston, Inc.. 1992): well- field locations for the East Hampton. Montauk, and Southampton distribution zones of the SCWA. which withdraw ground water from and distribute water sup- ply to communities on the South Fork. were digitized from the SCWA's t 995 distribution-system maps {Jeff Altofer, Suffolk County Water Authority, written commun.. 1996). Monthly pumpage in 1994 (table 1 ) was compiled for each well field associated with the Greenport Water District 4TA. Nanos. Suffolk County Department of Health Services, written commun.. 1995. 1996} and the East Hampton, Montauk. and ;outhampton distribution zones of the SCWA (Paul Kuzman. Suffolk County Water Authority, written commun.. 1995). Monthly pumpage in 1994 also was compiled for the Hampton Bays and Riverhead Water Districts tTA, Nanos, Suffolk County Department of Health Services, written commun.. 1995. 1996), which distribute water supply to. but do not withdraw gronnd water from. selected communities on the extreme western part of the South Fork and within the Meet- inghouse Creek study area. respectively {figs. 2 and 5. and table I I. The Westhampton distribution zone of the SCWA was not considered in this investigation because it neither withdraws ground water from. nor distributes water supply to. communities ou the North Fork, South Fork, or Shelter Island, nor the areas of detailed study. Most of the water pumped for public supply is eventually returned to the water table, mainly throt~gh ' cesspools and septic tanks and. to a lesser extent, as leakage from the water-distribution system: the rest is lost through consumptive water use. Calculations of the rate of inliltration of public-supply water to thc water table indicate that. in unscwered areas of Long island, about 85 percent of total public water-supply .,umpage is returned to the ground-water system {Frankc and McClymonds. t972: Suffolk Couuty Water Authorty, 1990 in general, communities not served by the regionai :,-xtblic water-supply systems derive drinking water ,"r~-m local water-supply systems or private wells and r~x'~rm most of this water to the ground-water system ~n nearly the same area from which it was withdmx~n, therefore, the withdrawal and return flow of local- t~r private-supply water was not considered in this invesngation. Ground water aisc ts used for crop i~gation in the study area. Information on the amount of irrigation water that is derived from private wells generally is unavailable because the actual pumping rates typically are less than the New York State Department of Envi- ronmental Conservation's required reporting level of 45 gal/min. Nevertheless, ~e consumptive water use and seasonal irrigation reqmrement of crops can be esti- mated from crop-evapotranspiration calculations and the average crop-eme%'ence date and length of growing season as determined b_x 'the Natural Resources Conser- vation Service (NRCS) ~A.S. Connell. Natural Resources Conservation Service. written commun. 1995). These NRCS data were used with long-term mean growing-season precipitation data to calculate the seasonal irrigation requirements for the major crops grown on the North and South Forks and Shelter Island. The acreage, growing .~eason. evapotranspiratton rate. precipitation rate. and irriganon requirement for eight raajor crops are summarized in table 2. Calculations of the seasonal irrigation require- ment assume that crops are grown under opmnum moisture conditions. These conditions could provide somewhat more water than is needed by crops grown to meet market requirements ~A.S. Connell. Natural Resources Conservation Service. oral commun.. 1995): therefore, the calculations could overestimate the amount of irrigation water actuall3 used..Aherna- tively, the transmission and delivery of ground water withdrawn for most irri~ation purposes can entail s~gnificant volume losses, which would result in underestinlation of the average amount of water actually withdrawn for irrigation. These opposing assumptions probably counteract one another to some degree, hfformation on crop-irrigation practices fi'om the Comell Coopera. tive Extension shows reasonable agreement with the calculations of seasonal irrigation requiren~cnt given in table 2 (William Sanok. Corncll CooperatiYe Extension. oral commnn., 1996): there- l'ore, the calculationg in table 2 probably can be - considered reliable approximations of the,average amount of ground water withdrawn for irrigatitm. Description of Study Area 7 72'22'30' ........................ 72'20'00' 41 '02'30' ' ~ ~ 41 '00 '00' 40'57 '30' PECONIC BAY 046359 13204 · 82402 57368 · 58958 48433 · NO)c'ACIed BAY 52695 · ,o o22 , 8 .65 Sag Harbor Cove 088718 628; 88720 ·88718 106178 e88719 ·46528 58959 ~ · 52654 · 57~69,106182 · 106184 (D 57370 .48438 ,,d'~ ~)~ · 46528 106186 · · ~ 58960 · ~,8833 48426· 46527 · 33921' .' I 72'17'30' 3'AG HARBOR BAbY 106190 ·108188 72'15 '00 ' 48524 ° · 48517 · 48437 · 108189 46525 52853 ,> · 48428 ~ e8838 48518 40'55'00' 48432 · · · 46529 58957 62393 · 48425 52669* ~ · 52870 15507 48430 · 52667 52671 46530 · 52675 · 52876 · 52677 e52678 · 52879 62395 · 52680 ~ · 48441 · 8836 e54020 Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data EXPLANATION · 46525 o 1 0 1 2 KILOMETERS OBSERVATION WELL - - Weft measured in March 1995. Number is assigned by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Prefix "S" denoting Suffolk County is Omitted. 2 MILES Figure 3B. Locations of observation wells in the Sag Harbor Cove study area, eastern Suffolk County, N.Y. (Location of study area is shown in fig. 2.) 72'22'30 - LONG. ~ 4-1'o7'3o- ISLAND ~. 1 , . ~51180 51172 38461 ~: ~51178 SOUB~LD ~ e75~1 41'02'30" -7 ., 51177 51 7 · SOUND iSlaND LIJ1LE NOYACK BAY PECONIC SAG HARBOR BAY BAY Base from U:S. Geological Survey digital data 0 I 2 MILES · 51183 EXPLANATION t , , , , 0 1 2 KILOMETERS (~BSERVATION WELL- -Well m~ssured in March 1'995. Number assigned by New York State Department of Environmental Con'servation. Prefix "S" denoting Suffoik County is omitted. Figure 3C. Locations of observation wells in the West Neck Bay study area, eastern Suffolk County N.Y. (Location of study area is shown in fig. 2.) ' ' 10 Areas Contributing Ground Water to Peconic Estuary, and Ground-Water Budgets for North and South Forks and Shelter Island 41'07'30' 41'00'00' 40'52'30" LONG 72'37'30' 72'30'00' I 72'22'30' 72'15'00' 72'07'30' 72'00'00' ISLAND SOUND MatatuckCreek. · 0 ~"~ R(3BINS Riverhead N, creek 'x~ISL,~ND GREAT Meetinghouse Creek PE C O NI C BAY Shitmecock f~ '~ Southampton BLOCK GARDINERS BAY SHELTER , ~ GARDINERS ISLAND ~ ISLAND 71'52'30" ISLAND SOUND ~gHarbor~X~ Cove~ East Hampton ATLANTIC OCEAN EXPLANATION AGRICULTURAL LAHD TOWNSHIP BOUNDARY ~ 0 5 10 MILES 0 5 t0 KILOMETERS [ Base from U.S, Geological Survey digital data I I I I Figure 4. Location of agricultural land in 1994 in East Hampton, Riverhead, Shelter Island, Southampton, and Southold ToWns, eastern Suffolk County, N.Y. (Agricultural land-use data from Dewitt Davies, Suffolk County planning Depadment, written commun., 1995.) 41 '07 '30" 41 '00'00° 40'52'30' 72'37 '30' LONG ISLAND Matrituck (?reck Riverhead Water District R/VER Suffolk County Water Authority" Weathampton Zone 72'30'00' SOUND GREAT PECONIC BAY Shinnecock 72'22'30' Greehport Water District ROBINS °29 *28! '31 '24 · 30 2Z Suffolk County Water Authority S°uthampton Zone Hampton Bays Water District o 5 lO MILES 0 5 1.0 KILOMETERS Rase from U,S, Geological Survey digital data 72'15'00' 72'07'30' __ 72'00'00' 71'52'30' BLOCK ISLAND SOUND ISLAND y [St. AND ATLANTIC Suffolk County Water Authority East Hampton Zone OCEAN EXPLANATION I SEWAGE-TREATMENT DISTRICT- -Area eerved in 1994, ~ REGIONAL PUBLIC WATER-SUPPLy DISTRICT- -Area served in 1994, · 5 SELECTED PUBLIC WATER - SUPPLY WELL FIELD AND IDENTIFIER - - Well field in operation in 1994, See table 1, I Figure 5. Location of sewage-treatment districts and regional public water-supply districts and selected well fields, eastern Suffolk County, N.Y, (Service. area locations for sewage-treatment districts and Greenport, Hampton Bays, and Riverhead Water Districts from Dennis Jackson, Suffolk COunty Department of Health serVicesl wrilten cOmmun., 1995. WeIFfield locations for Greenport Water District from Roy F, Weston, lnc,, lgg2, Serv~c~e-area and well4ield locations for Suffolk County Water Authority from Jeff Altofer, Suffolk Cmmty Whim' AlitlloHly¢ Wi:lite, it Hf~WittliHt.i f I~¢1 f Hydrology The fresh ground-water reservoirs on the North Fork consist of a series of hydraulically distinct fresh- water lenses within the upper glacial (water-table) aquifer thai generally are bounded laterally and below by saltwater. The fresh ground-water reservmr on Shelter Island consists of an isolated fl'eshwater flow system within the upper glacial (water-tablel aquifer that generally is bounded laterally by saltwater and below by a confining unit. All drinking-water and irri- gation-water supply on the North Fork and Shelter Island is withdrawn from the upper glacial aquifer because ground water in the deeper aquifers in both areas is mostly saline. The fresl~ ground-water reservoir on the main body of the South Fork consists of a principal fresh water flow system that extends through the upper glacial (water-table) and Magothy (deep) aquifers and generally is bounded laterally and below bv saltwater. The fresh ground-water systems on the Mt~ntauk pen- insula and in several localities on the Sonth Fork generally consist of a series of hydraulically distinct freshwater lenses within the-upper glacial (water- ,.ble) aquifer that are bounded laterally and below ~y saltwater. Most water supply on the South Fork is withdrawn from the upper glacial aquifer, but some is withdrawn from the underlying Magothy aquifer. The fresh ground-water system of the Meeting- house Creek study area extends through the upper gla- cial (water-table} and Magothy (deep) aquifers and is hydraulically connected to the freshwater flow system of the main body 'of Long Island. The freshwater flow system is bounded laterally (in areas near the shore) and below by salr;vater. Most water supply in this area is supplied from the upper glacial aquifer. Details on the hydrogeology of the North Fork, South Fork, and Shelter Island areas are given in many reports: a description of previous investigations in the study area is presented in the section "Previous Investigations." Precipitation and Recharge 'The sole ,source of natural freshwater to the water table in Suffolk County is recharge from precipitaiion. The amount of recharge is determined by the pattern and rate of precipitation, and by the amount of precipi- tation that is lost as evapotranspiration and as surface off. Although precipitation in Suffolk County is ~airly evenly distributed throughout the year (Petersen, 1987), evapotranspiratwn is greatest during the sum- mer (growing season): therefore, most recharge takes place during the fall, ~vinter, and spring. Seasonal fluc- tuations in recharge generally are greater than any annual or longer term fluctuations. Long-term daily records for the precipitation- measurement stations at Bndgehampton. Greenpmt~ and Riverhead (fig. 2) were obtained t¥om the Northeast Regional Climate Center ~ Kathryn Vreeland. Northeast Regional Climate Center. xvritten commun.. 1995) and used to calculate long-term averages (table 3). Long- term mean annual precipitation at Bridgehampton. Greenport, and Riverhead are nearly identical, with values of 45.4, 44.8, and 45.6 in,, respectively. Estimates of the percentage of precipitation that becomes recharge on Long Island were reviewed and summarized by Peterson ~ 1987) and are generally con- s~stent with a recharge rate equal to about 50 percent of mean annual precipitation. An alternative method of calculating recharge tSteenhuis and others. 1985) specifies an annual recha~e rate equal to 75 to 90 percent of precipitation t¥om October 15 through May 15. Calculations of recharge based on 50 percent of long-term mean.annual precipitation are similar to those based on 75 to 90 percent of long-term mean precipitation from October 15 through May' 15 at Bridgehampton, Greenpom and Riverhead (table 3). Hydrologic Boundaries The natural hydrologic boundaries of the fresh ground-water.reservoirs on the North and South Forks and Shelter Island consist of the hydrologic features that bound the extent of the individual freshwater flow systems, and the hydraulic stresses that control the rate at Which freshwater enters and exits the flow systems. The recharge boundary is the water table, where fresh- water enters through infiltration of precipitation and as return flow of public-supply water (in unsewered areas). Discharge boundaries are near the shore, where freshwater exits as seepage across the seabed into saline surface waters or as seepage through confining layers into sediments bearing saline ground water. Dis. charge boundaries also are where the land surface intersects the water table and freshwater exits as seep- age to streams or as wetland evapotranspiration. The freshwater/saltwater interface, where freshwater is separated from denser saltwater by a zone of diffusion, acts as a relatively impermeabIe boundary that moves Description of Study Area 13 Table 1. Monthly pumpage in 1994 for selected regional public water-supply districts, eastern Suffolk County, N,Y. lJ-~L'allofl ol ptlbJlC walcr-SLlj)pl~ dlMrJcts alkJ \~.eJJ field, qmwa m m, ~ ) · - .... I Ulllpds~ dala ( Gfgg lporl, talllplOll Bays. alki RJv~rhRad Walor Disll':Cl, J'rom T.A, NalHis, StlfJ~)lk ('otlal) DCpdI'IIIIL'Ill Of Heahh Services, ~rlllen coll~ rllull.. 1995. I gg~ pi ilpaffe dala for Suffolk COUllIy Water Aufllorlly from Paul Ktlzman. Sul'lblk COUIIIy W~[ol' Atllhorlly, writlea cOlnllltlH,. 1995] ~ Well field Map number Name Plant ilamber 3 Phlm number 4 Phmt nLHnher 6 Plaal namber 7 Phllll number 8 plant nu nber 9 Plaat number 12 Plant number 15 'lbial lbtal January February March 30 0 33 Pumpage (thousands of gallons) April May June July August September October November December Total GREENPORT WATER DISTRICT -- 0 0 3 0 54 0 39 0 8 167 60 ?) 90 0 58 54 0 449 7.580 5,839 4,468 3,,354 4.023 11.604 9.420 1,509 9.321 9,440 11,677 8,332 7.891 12,538 9,718 15.895 0 0 21 0 0 36 5 14 0 0 22 0 0 541 1,214 2.002 2,567 1,218 3.449 5,165 7.969 8.737 15.244 10.984 4.698 3,821 3.758 6.172 9,489 9,483 15.304 9,768 6, 19 3,745 2.246 2-1,256 2/t,318 2.t,518 2-1.023 2%130 42.996 50,905 40,675 3 I, 15-1 26,057 21,15,t I IAMFFON BAYS WATER I)ISTRIC'T ' ...... 42 0 35 1.509 6.178 2.995 11,197 7,893 8.734 13 0 12 2,508 2,66 2,132 9.694 5.541 5.000 9 Bridgehampi0n Road 10 Cross Highway'#1 I I Cross Highway #2 12 Oakview Highway 13 Spring Close Highway Total 38,396 34.183 35.006 39.225 63.254 106.8.16 132.082 98.251} 76,535 56.349 39,709 RIVERHEAD WATER DISTRICT 77.170 64.985 71.024 86,082 122.022 222.249 256.382 156,971 137.700 109,263 75,896 SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY--EAST HAMPTON ZONE 3,605 5.060 4,770 9.580 23,610 40,300 48,400 45,330 34.340 22.640 18.390 -- 754 807 795 863 848 6.267 9.244 5.387 5, 184 1.892 411 59 453 591 529 747 3.228 5.160 4.230 3.170 1.521 315 16,846 14.911 6.310 6.787 19.260 28.798 43.960 36.925 26.176 25.711 4.148 8.588 5,727 15.31 16,638 20.540 40,146 40.154 27.489 17,940 11.411 10.565 30.384 26.958 27.777 34.397 65.005 118,739 146,918 119.361 8&810 63,175 33~829 48 836 2,100 61.579 7.693 120.329 18 119 2.624 13.704 3.960 79.528 3~973 78.648 2()..12,1 tS,tglh 33.137 752.972 73.734 1.453.478 5.960 26 .985 425 32.877 322 20.857 5.225 235.O57 14.632 229,141 26,564 779.917 TaL · Monthly pumpage in 1994 for selected regional pubhc water supp,y districts, eastSrn"S~{{(~i~' Well field Pumpage (thousands of gallons) Map number Name January February March April May June July August September October November December Total SUFFOLK COLINTY WATER AUTHORITY--MONTAUK ZONE 14 Edgemere Road 55 0 0 0 0 312 6.334 7.542 4.205 986 371 415 20, 220 15 Edismt Drive 6 Fairtll(Ull Avetlue 17 Farrington Road I ~ Flalllttl[/t~ AX entie 19 Flanungt} Axellue North 20 Flanders Road 21 MOlIIiItl k SI;lie Botllex ard 22 South Davis Avenue 23 SOtll h Ftllhul glrcel Tt)I;II 1.974 2.1 6 .009 294 396 1.703 3,454 2.678 2.825 2.389 1.213 1.952 1.069 1.610 1.620 3.536 4.039 3.852 2.585 589 471 1.900 3.227 1.285 2.596 3.565 6,065 8.347 9.007 9.193 6,180 6.512 3.262 2334 1.751 2,02n 2.478 4.456 4.170 4.685 2.180 1.846 1,441 1,911 293 301 427 329 677 1.608 1.992 2.308 1.534 436 254 698 1,033 113 1,071 1.270 2.777 3.931 3.406 2.101 677 1.346 582 467 603 545 943 7.957 11.409 11.576 8.334 3.529 522 2.123 1.400 .936 1.802 2.685 5.213 7.821 6,191' 4.994 5.232 791 0 o 105 285 225 165 510 270 180 180 150 1.541 21.592 1,331 24.554 1.484 60.723 773 30.045 248 10.41)7 1.255 19.678 627 47.094 738 40.926 180 2,250 13.238 t ~ 9.4._ 10.419 11.989 20.253 36.291 52.995 47.929 32.788 21,853 11.720 8.592 277.489 SUFFOLK CO[1NTY WATER AUTHORITY--SOUTHAMPTON ZONE 24 1)~ t~lon Streel 19.903 16,332 15,623 20.281 24.325 33,818 38,456 32,027 23,779 26,274 20.134 19,695 290.647 25 Edge t)l Wo(~ds Road 21.070 285.496 26 Long Springs Ruad 27 l.umbcr Lane ~4 3.566 322.862 I 116 g~ ~r)4 28 I.umne~ I.;me ti5 I 2 ~ 9WI 29 NoPth Ma~ee Streel t .445 202,265 30 SCtllllcho]e Road 726 48.163 31 We~t Prcspect Street 1.206 99.637 48.947 1,335.651 24.209 16,864 21.505 22.114 18.718 42.653 45.720 26.438 2(}.349 22.300 2.823 4.048 857 1.208 54 62 4.568 6,096 533 344 68 304 53.115 45358 49.395 59.155 06.972 94,622 264.960 203.473 3.556 4,603 3.139 34.999 45.462 72.443 52.577 42.449 23.653 33.100 4,895 1.48t 2.662 12.788 19.210 17.930 19.101 t,587 7~9 I ()8 108 108 I iiX 162 5.1 ti Ii 2.060 10.9lq8 20,729 39.613 50,396 38.759 15.833 10.553 1,225 407 912 5.031 6.353 17.334 9.303 5,411 I.II6 693 194 132 400 13.827 21.239 26.385 23,769 11.908 105 150.691 99.391 59.572 E Table 2. Cultivation characteristics of selected major crops grown on Long Island, N.Y. [Long-term mean growine season precipitation reported for Ri.v~.--z~ead: station location shown in fig. 2 199'1 estimated extem of cultivation from Wi 1 am }anok, Cometl Cooperati~,e Extension. :~mten commun.. 1996. Crop-evapotranspiration and _omwin~- season data from A.S. Connell Natural Resources Conservation ,%.~ice written commun. 1995 Precipitation Vreeland, Northeast Regional Climate Center, written commun.. ;oq5] data from K~_ 1991 estimated extent of cultivation Estimated Calculated Long*term mean seasonal irri~ Average seasonal evapo- growing season requiremefl~ Percentage growing transpiration precipitationa (ET minus Crop Acreage of totalc season (ETJ, in inches (P), in inches in inches Potatoes 7,500 21.4 4/30 to 7/29 12.9 I0.1 2.8 Nursery 5,800 16.5 4/15 to 9/27 24.6 19.6 5.0 Bluegrass sod 4,000 11.4 4/I to 10/28 32.6 25.0 7_6 Cabbage I ~700 4.8 4/15 to 7/29 13.7 12. I 1.6 Gropes 1,600 4.6 5/t to 11/7 19.6 22.4 0.0 Sweet corn 1,600 4.6 7/I to 9/29 10. l 10.8 0.0 Fruit orchard 800 2.2 4/t 5 to I 0/12 26.3 21.4 4.9 Cauliflower 750 2.1 6/15 to 11/12 14.3 17.6 0.0 Growing-season precipitation IP) data incomplete for I. or more 5'ears: data Ibr these years not used to compute long-term mean value. h Negative values (where p exceeds ET) are reported as zero. c Includes 5,(×)D acres 114. I percent} of grain lnot irrigatc~ and 6.3q0 acres t 18.3 percent) of other crops. Table 3. Long-term mean precipitation amounts at Bridgehampton, GreenporL and Riverhead, eastern Suffolk County, N.Y. [Station locations are shown n fig 2. Data lycra Kalhrvn Vreeland, N~)rtheast Regmnal Climate Center, written ' commun., 1995] gradually in response to changes in the balance between recharge and discharge. Directions of Ground-Water Flow Precipitation (inches) Calendar .October 15 year to May 15 50 per- cent of 75 per- . 90 per- Period Total tota! cent cent Station 16 . The movement of fresh ground water on the North and South Forks and Shelter Island is controlled by the distribution of hydraulic properties within the freshwater flow systems, and the hydraulic gradient determines the direction of ground-water flow (from areas of higher hydraulic head to areas of lower hydraulic head). Water levels measured at 246 wells by the USGS and the SCDHS during March-April 1994 were hand contoured and then digitized to prodnce a water-table map of the study area (pl, 1 t. Water-table contours on the North Fork and Shelter Island generally parallel.thc trace of the shore and ' indicate that ground waier flows radially outxvard from inland water-table mounds. Areas Contributing Ground Water to Peconic Estuary, and Ground-Water Budgets for North and South Forks and Shelter'island Water level s measured at selected wells in the ah-central part of the South Fork are significantly higher than those on the rest of the South Fork and indi- cate areas of poorly permeable deposits that are hydrau- lically isolated from the principal flow system: these water levels were not used to contour the water-table map shown on plate I. Instead. the contours on plate 1 depict the inferred potentiometric-surface altitude of the upper glacial aquifer below these poorly permeable deposits and represent the approximate distribution of hydraulic head within the pnncipal flow system. Water levels measured at 195 wells in the three local study areas (Meetinghouse Creek. Sag Harbor Cove. and West Neck Bay) by the USGS and the SCDHS during March 1995 were used to construct detailed water-table maps of these areas. The water- table map of the Meetinghouse Creek study area (fig. 6A) depicts part of the Long Island mainland flow system near the west end of the North Fork and indi- cates a narrow zone of eastward flow inland that curves northward toward Long Island Sound or roughly southward toward embayments of the Peconic Estuary, including Meetinghouse Creek. The water- table map of the Sag Harbor Cove study area (fig. 6B) picts part of the principal flow system of the South Jrk: the inferred potentiometric-sufface configura- tion shown depicts the approximate distribution of hydraulic head in the upper glacial aquifer below areas of poorly permeable deposits. Ground-water flow is radially outward from the inland water-table mound and generally curves northward toward embayments of the Peconic Estuary, including Sag Harbor Cove. or southward toward the Atlantic Ocean. The water-table map of the West Neck Bay study area (fig. 6C) depicts the freshwater flow system on Shelter Island and indi- cates that ground water flows radially outward from inland regions of the irregularly shaped water-table mound toward embaymencs of the Peconic Estuary, including West Neck Bay. Ground-water levels on the North and South Forks and Shelter Island fluctuate in response to sea- sonal or annual variations in recharge from 15recipita- tion and. to a lesser extent, to changes ~n water use. Long-term ( 1950~76~ water-level- records from wells on the South Fork indicate that the water-table altitude generally declines t¥om May through early October. when recharge is lowest and water use is highest, and ,mnerallv rises from the end of October through the of April. wheu recharge is highest and water use is ~owesl (Nemickas and Koszalka. 1982~. Long-term water-level records from wells on the North Fork (McNew-Cartwright. l oeO) and Shelter Island (Simmons. 1986) exhibit similar patterns. Seasonal water-table fluctuations on the South Fork reach a maximum of less than -1 fr in the center of water-table mounds, and a minimum of about Ift close to the shore and in proximity to a nearly constant sea level; annual and longer-term water-table fluctuations appear to show a similar pattern, but with a roughly 1-year lag in their response to annual variations in recharge (Nemickas and Koszalka. 1982). Seasonal water- table-altitude fluctuations on the North Fork ~,McNew- Cartwright, 1996) and Shelter Istand (Simmons, t986) also decrease with proximity to the shore but are gen- erally smaller than tho~ on the South Fork. Seasonal water-table fluctuations within a given year generally exceed the annual and longer-term fluctuations. AREAS CONTRIBUTING GROUND WATER TO THE PECONIC ESTUARY, AND GROUND-WATER BUDGETS FOR THE NORTH AND SOUTH FORKS AND SHELTER ISLAND . The contributing areas delineated in this study are based on the hydrologic boundaries of the ground- water-flow systems of the North and South Forks and Shelter Island, as inferred from regional and local water-table maps (pl. I and fig. 6). The ground-water budgets for these contributing areas consist of calcula- tions or estimates of the principal ground-water-inflow and outflow components of the respective flow systems. Delineation of Contributing Areas The contributing-area boundaries defined in this study coincide with the hydraulic boundaries of the fresh ground-water-flow systems 6f the North and South Forks and Shelter Island. These contributing- area boundaries are of two types--external (saltwater bodies) and internal (ground-water divides). External boundaries are represented by saline ground-water and surface-water bodies that separate or isolate individual freshwater flow systems, and internal boundaries are represented bv local and regional ground-water divides that separate flow subsystems, or groups.of flow subsystems. [rom one another within the la~er flow systems. Areas Contributing Ground Water to Peconic Estuary, and Ground-Water Budgets for the North and South Forks and Shelter Island 17 41 '00 '00 ' 40~7'30o 72'40'00' ~ 72'37'30' 72'35'00' LONG ISLAND SOUND ,. a.7 ""---' '~ --- ~ ~ %,.~' .,,-~-.. ~ -, -c/ o - / .... . -- ~ . ·4.4 e2.0 G~'ZF_.A T Meetinghouse PECONIC Creek BAY FLANDERS BAY 40'55 '00 ' 75.3 ~ 13.1 Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data EXPLANATION ~ ~ OXIMATE BOUNDAR -- --- APPR Y OF 3 REGIONAL GROUND -WATER WATER -TABLE CONTOUR - -Shows.altitude CONTRIBUTING AREA of Water labia on March 20- 23, 1995. ....... _Dashed where approximately located. Contour APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIEs OF · 5~1 interval 3 feet. Datum is sea level. SELECTED LOCAL GROUND- OBSERVATION WELL- --Number indicates WATER CONTRIBUTING AREAS altitude of Water, in feet above sea level. (Well numbers are indicated in figure 3A~ Figure 6A. Water-table altitude in March 1995, Water levels in observation wells and approximate boundaries of areas contributing ground water to selected embayments in the'Meetinghouse Creek s~udy area, eastern (Lo.cation of study area is shown in fig. 2.) Suffolk County, N.Y. 18 Areas Contributing Ground Water to Peconic Estuary, and Ground-Water BudgetS for North and South Forks and Shelter Island rThe water-table configuration on the North and ~ brks and Shelter Island (pl. 1) is characterized f[~ ,~ series of isolated water4able mounds, each of lhich corresponds to a hydraulically distinct fresh- ~ter flow system. The North Fork has three oblong ~ter-table mounds east of Mattimck Creek and James reek (Pl. 1) that represent the principal freshwater ~w systems; local freshwater flow systems are ferred to coincide with several isolated peninsulas ong the southern shore of the North Fork and acent RObins Island, but data on these local flow ~tstems are generally lacking~ The South Fork has two dn~pal water-table mounds (pl. 1 ) that correspond to ie individual freshwater flow systems of the main y of the South Fork and of the Montauk peninsula; al freshwater flow systems are inferred to coincide ~th several isolated peninsulas along the northern ~ore of the South Fork and Gardiners Island, but data ~ these local flow systems are generally lacking as ~ell, The freshwater flow system on Shelter Island is 6haracterized by one principal water-table mound that ~ntains two local areag of relatively hilgh water-table ~ltitude (pl. 1 ). 3 The freshwater flow systems on the North and Sot'" *:orks and Shelter Island contain a series of flow ~ ~ems, each of which corresponds to the area Contributin~ ground water to an individual coastal gmbayment. These flow subsystems are generally separated from one another by local and regional ground-water divides that extend inland from the coast and converge toWard the respective water-table mounds. Local ground-water divides separating flow subsystems that correspond to the areas contributing ground water to selected embayments within the Peconic Estuary are delineated on plate 1. Regional ground-water divides separating the groups of flow subsystems that correspond to the areas contributing ground water to Long Island Sound, the Peconic Estuary, and the Atlantic Ocean are included on plate 1, and form an inland boundary for contributing areas along the coast of the areas studied. Additional observation wells were installed in each of the three local study areas (fig. 3) to help refine the lbcation of local and regional ground-water divides. Figure 6 (A. B, and C) depicts the water-table configuranon and the approximate boundaries of areas contributing ground water to selected embayments within the three local study areas, including-Meetin~- hc Zreek (fig. 6A) on the North Fork, Sag Itarbor C,_ .,~ r lig. 6B) on Ihe South Fork.'and West .Neck Bay (fig. 6C) on Shelter Island. A composite assemblage of the contributing-area boundaries for selected embay- ments within the Peconic Estuary (pl. I and fig. 6~ is shown in figure 7. Local and regional ground-water divides that separate individual flow subsystems are seldom stationary; rather, they shift in response to se:~qonal or annual variations in recharge from precipitation or to changes in water use. The amount of recharg-e is affected by seasonal and longer term fluctuations in the pattern and rate of precipitation, although the effects are generally distributed uniformly across large areas and, therefore, probably do not significantly alter the positions of ground-water divides. In addition, the proximity of the study area to a nearly constant sea 'level limits the magnitude of water-table-altitude fluctuations and the extent to which water4able mounds can shift and, therefore, probably also limits the movement of ground-water divides. Similarl.~x the area's rural character with relatively small public water-supply pumpage (table 1 ) probably affect most water,table mounds only minimally, although the increased summer pumping could cause local shifts. Thus, the local and regional ground-water divides rep- resented by the contributing-area boundaries in figure 7 should not be interpreted as discrete lines, but rather as narrow zones ranging ftom a few hundred feet wide near the coast to a few thousand feet wide inland. Development of Ground-Water Budgets Hydrologic components that were evaluated for the contributing areas identified in figure 7 were recharge from precipitation, public-supply withdrawal and return flow, and agricultural withdrawal. Values for each of these components were calculated or esti- mated for the individual freshwater flow subsystems that form each ground-water-budget area and were then summed to obtain the total discharge of fresh ground water from these systems to tidewater. Recharge from precipitation in land areas and through fresh surface-water bodies was evaluated for all contributing areas identified in figure 7. ReCharge to the ~vater table in land areas, calculated as the average of 50 percent of long-term mean annnal precipitation at Bridgehampton, Greenport, and River- head (table 3), was 22.6 in/yr. Recharge to the water table through fresh surface-water bodies, xvas ·calcu- lated as the difference between long-term mean annual Areas Contributing Ground Water to Peconic Estuary, and Ground-Water Budgets for the North and South Forks and Shelt~ Island 19 71'21'30' 72'20'00' 72'17'30" 72'15'00' I I ,% 41 '00'00° 40'57 '30' NOYACK BAY / ,gAG tlARBOR BAY / t LITTLE Sag Harbor I PECONIC Cove '-. · I BAY · -- I ! 5.5 · §.8 / ~'11.5 ,~30,8 · ,.~ ~ .. ,... '"" ~.7 ..21,0 ~. .... 3 ,, . ,,' '- ~33.9 .~;31.5 ~-14.1 · "~ ...... .' ~ ,''37.5 / % ' ~ , · · ' .... :" \ 11.1 '... .' .' 27.4 * ' ..,, ,. : " 8.8 ." *26.4./ ,/~' '"" ~: -- 12.8 / 40'55'00'~ ·7.§ · 6.6 ·6.3 11.8 ·8.6 ·8.1 C 4.8 Base from U,S, Geological Survey digital data EXPLANATION -- APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY OF REGIONAL GROUND- WATER cONTRIBUTING AREA ....... APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES OF SELECTED LOCAL GROUND-WATER CONTRIBUT NG AREAS --4--- WATER-TABLE CONTOUR- -Shows altitude of water table on March 21 -23, 1995. Dashed where approximately located. Contour interval. in feet, is variable. Datum is sea level. O 1 2 MILES O 1 2 KILOMETERS ....... POTENTiOM ETRiC - SURFACE CONTOUR - -Shows inferred · de of otent ometric surface of upper glacial aquifer ~letltoUwa ,reaPo~f low - permeability deposits on March 21 - 23, 1995. Contour interval 4 feet. Datum is sea level. · 10,5 oBsERVATION WELL SCREENED iN AREA OF MODERATE TO HiGH PERMEABILITY - -Number indicates altitude of water, in feet above sea level. (Well numbers are indicated"in figure 3B,) ~ 63,5 OBSERVATION WELL sCREENED IN AREA CF I OW PERMEABILITY - - Number indicates altitude of water, in feet above sea level. Water level not used in contouring. (Well numbers ere indicated in figure 3B.) Figure 6B. Water-table altitude in March 1995, water levels in observation wells, and approximate boundaries of ar(JaB contr~buhn~J ground water to selected embayments in the Sag Harbor Cove study area, eastern Suffolk County, N.Y, (Location of study area is shown in fig. 2,) fl 41 '07'30" 72'20'00~ 72"22'30' - LONG ~ ISLAND _~. $OU~ .~ Oriel ['~arbor GARDINER$ BAY 41'05 41'02'30 SOUTttOLD BAY LIT1LE ~ ~ NOYACK BAY PECONIC BAY Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES OF SELECTED LOCAL GROUND- WATER CONTRIBUTING AREAS D SOUND o I 2 MILES EXPLANATION o i 2 KILOMETERS 1 · WATER -TABLE CONTOUR- - Sh0ws altitude of water table on M arcf~ 17-20, 1995. Dashed where approximately located. Contour interval 1 foot. Datum is sea level. · 1.8 OBSERVATION WELL - - Number indicates altitude of water, in feet above sea level. (Well numbers are indicated in figure 3C.) Figure 6C. Water-table altitude in March 1995, water levels in observation wells, and approximate boundaries of areas contributing ground water to selected embayments in'the West Neck Creek study area, eastern Suffolk County, N.Y. (Location of study area is shown in fig. 2.) 22 Areas Contributing Ground Water to Peconic Estuary, and Ground-Water Budgets for North and South Forks and Shelter Island ~ 72'07'30' 72'OO'00" _ _ 72'30'00' 72'22'30' 72'15'OO" I 41'07'30' 41'00'00 -- 40'52~30~ 72'37'30' LONG ISLAND. sOuND ' IxlF2 BLOCK ISLAND SOUND t GARDINERS )~.._~ R - "'x ~ GARDiNER$ SHELTE '~'~ ISLAND ISLAND ~ fi SF14 Mattituck Creek Creek SF2 ,' Sag Harbor / Cove '~ SF19 GREAT ,, PECONIC ,, BAY / Shitmecock · Canal /" 5 10 MILES 0 5 10 KILOMETERS I Bede ham U.S. Geological Survey digital data ATLANTIC OCEAN EXPLANATION GROUND -WATER CONTRIBUTING AREA - -Identifier corresponds to ground - water- budget data in table 4, NF, North Fork (includes RI, Robins island) SI, Shelter laland SF, South Fork (includes Gl, Gardiners Island) MC, Meetinghouse Creek Figure 7, I ocatiel/s al areas contrtb fling groHed water to selected ombayments within the peconic Estuary on the North and South Forks and Shelter Island, eastern Suffolk County, N,Y. r! precipitation (table 3) and annual lake evaporation. The long-term mean rate of lake evaporation on Long Island is about 33.7 in/yr, as calculated from an average pan coefficient of 0.7, which relates the rate of annual lake evaporation to annual pan evaporation (Lins e.v and Franzini, 1979), and mean annual evapo- ration of 48.1 in. from a land pan in central Nassau County during 1949-60 (Pluhowski and Kantrowitz. !964). Recharge to the water table through fresh surface-water bodies was applied to freshwater bodies of 10 acres or more (fig. 7) at a rate of 11.6 in/yr. Exceptions to this were the main channel of the Peconic River and brackish surface-water bodies along the shore, which were assumed to contribute no net recharge to the water table. Recharge ta the water table through fresh surface-water bodies of less than 10 i~cres was assumed to be comparable to the rate of recharge in land areas; therefore, these small fresh- water bodies were not differentiated from surrounding areas whhin the ground-water-budget areas.' The withdrawal of ground water for public sup- ply, and the return flow of public-supply water in unsewered areas, were evaluated for land areas of the contributing areas shown in figure 7 that overlap the regional public water-supply systems within the ground-water-budget areas (fig. 5). Public-supply withdrawal for a given contributing area was calcu- lated its.total 1994 pumpage for all well fields within that contributing are:i; contributing areas With' no'well fields were assigned a value of zero. The rate of pub- lie-supply return flow withiu a given public water-sup- ply system (ii- 5) was estimated to be 85 percent of t. he overall rate of public-supply withdrawal with n that system. ~ts calculated from total 1994 purnpage for an individual public water-supply district (table f), divided by its service area; ail contributing areas that overlap the unsewered land areas of a given public water-supply system were assigned the same rate of public-supply return flow, regardless of the number of well fields within individual contributing areas. Public-supply return flow was app ed at a rate of 2.3 in/yr to unsewemd hind areas within the Greenp0rt Water Disu'ict. and at rates of 4.0. 3.7, and 4.4 in/vt. respectively, to uuscwered land areas within the East Hampton. Montauk. and Southampton distribution zones of the SCWA_ The rate of public-supply return /tow tbstrlbuted to uusewered land amas within the Hampton Bays aud Riverhead Water Districts (figs. 5 and 7) was assigned a value of 3.7 and 2 9 in/yr, respectively. Differences in the rates of public-supply withdrawal and remm flow between public water- supply systems proi"ably reflect differenc~ in intemi~ or type of land use ~-rd water use among .~rvice are~ but may also be atmbuted partly to differ~ces amoag techniques used to c's.-timate the extent of ~rvice areas. Agricultural x~,tlndrawal of ground x~uter evaluated for land apeas of the contributing are. ms shown in figure 7 that coincide with the distribution of agricultural lands x~ ..'thin the ground-water-budget areas (fig. 4~. The rotc of a_ncmtural w~thdrawaa approximated as the mean {weighted by extent of cul- tivation) of the calculated seasonal irrigation require- ment for selected major crops grown on Long Island (table 2). The resulting rote of agricultural withdrawal. based on nine crops, including grain (not irrigated). that occupy 8~.7 percent of the available cultivated land on Long Island in 1991. was 3.0 in/yr. Ground-water budgets for areas on the North and South Forks and Shelter Island that contribute grotmd water to Long Island Sound, the PeConic Estuary'. and the Atlantic Ocean am given in table 4. which also includes a ground-water budget for the area on the main body of Long Island that contributes ~ound water to Meetinghouse Creek. The first inflow term (recharge from precipitation) represents a re~onal long-term average based on the assumption of no ne~ change in the lateral dimensions of individual contrib- uting areas through time. This assumption is probabb' reasonable because vhriations in the pattern and rate of recharge from precipitanc, u am generally distributed uniformly across large areas and. therefore, are not likelY to significantly a~ter the positions of contribut- ing-area boundaries. Fhe assmnption of no net change in the lateral dimensic~ns of individual eontributin~ areas through time is also supported by ( 1 ~ the nea~rlv constant sea level in the adjacent tidewaters, which limits the extent to which contributing-ama boundaries could change, and (2) the area's rural character with relatively small public water-supply pumpage, which probably affects most contributing-area boundaries only minimally. The second inflow term tremrn flow of public-supply watert, together with one of the outflow terms (public-supply withdrawal ~. represent annual (1994) calculations and are the most reliable values in the ~round-water budgets, but these terms assume no net change in public ~wtter-suppi:. pu.mpasze or in the seiMce areas of the public water-supply systems through time. In. reality, incremental increases in both quantities through time can be expected, and would be accompanied by annual fluctuations in 24 Areas Contributing Ground Water to Peconic Estuary, and Ground-Water Budgets for North and South Forks and Shelter Ta? 4. GrOund-water budgets for contributing areas on the North and SOuth ForkS and Shelter ~siand. ~ Suffolk County, N.Y- [Contributing-area locations are shown in fig. 7. Acreages reported to 3 significant figures (to the nearest l0 acres) to 7.~[.tncc contributine areas. Ground-water-budeet components reported to 3 significant figures (to the nearest t00 cubic feet p~< .:,av~ to balance inflow and outflow. No values in this table are accurate to more than 2 significant figures, and some values ma> ~' accuratr to lessl Contributing area Map identifier Acreage NFl 6.580 NF2 1.450 NF3 980 ~q'ot,a! 9.010 NF4 ' 2111 NF5 1.610, NF6 460 NF7 2.940 NF8 2.700 - 680 tO 810 NFl 1 1.780 NFl 2 150 NFl 3 37O NFl4 2.490 NFl5 %780 h.CTotal 17,000 RI 460 ~'Total I 7 SII 1,720 S12 500 SI3 1,680 SI4 1.610 SI5 840 S16 880 SI7 430 hTotaI 7.670 Inflow (cubic feet per day) Outflow (cubic feet per day) Recharge from Public-supply Agricultural Public-supply TOtal precipitation return flow withdrawal withdrawal dischargea NORTH FORK AREAS CONTRIBUTING TO LONG ISLAND SOUND 1,4go,O00 1,800 -98,000 -80,500 - 1.3C~.000 325,000 23.700 -800 -5.200 -_:~3.000 220,000 0 -6,400 0 - 2 I4.000 2,020,000 25.500 - 105.000 -85,700 - I .$~ .000 NORTH FORK AREAS CONTRIBUTING TO PECONIC ESTUARY 46,800 0 0 ¢1 -!.6.800 358,000 0 .19,8(X) 0 t 04,000 0 -2.400 0 - 1 659.000 36.500 -5.300 -200 -090.000 606,000 35,2(Y0 - I 7.000 -44, 100 -580.000 152,000 0 0 0 - 152.000 183,000 (l -2.900 0 - 180.0bX) 400,000 0 -25,900 0 -374.000 34,500 0 0 0 -34.500 82,800 (} 0 0 559.000 0 -30.300 0 -529.000 '~'~ 0 -30.700 0 -591.0II() 6_~.(X)0 3.8 ! 0,000 71,700 - 134.000 -44.300 -3.7{×) 000 103,(X)0 {) 0 0 - 103.0(X) 3,910,000 71.700 - 134,000 -44.300 -3,800.000 SHELTER ISLAND AREAS CONTRIBUTING TO PECONIC ESTUARY 387,000 0 -2,200 0 -384~000 t 13,000 0 0 0 - 113.000 377,000 t) 0 0 -377,00(1 363.000 0 0 0 -363.000 187,000 0 - 1.5(g) {} - 186,0(}(} ] 99 .{}{}{} {} -900 {} - 198,0{}{} 97~700 (} - 100 0 -97.600 1.720.(X)(} 0 -4.600 0 - 1.720.00(I Areas Contributing Ground Water to Peconic Estu.ry, and Ground-Water Budgets for the North and South Forks and Shelter Island 25 Table 4. Ground-water budgets for contributing areas on the Nodh and Sot..~, Forks and Shelter Island, eastern Suffolk County, N.Y.--continued Contributing area Inflow (cubic feet per day) Outflow (cubic feet per day) Map Recharge from Public'supply Agricultural Public-supply Total identifier Acreage precipitation return flow withdrawal withdrawal dischargea SOUTH FORK AREAS CONTRIBUTING TO PECONIC ESTUARY SFI 4.750 i .060,000 I 1,500 -900 -74.100 -996.000 SF2 6,°60 ! .560.000 17,400 3~400 -105.000 - 1,470.0{D,,, SF3 40 9,400 0 0 0 -9.400 SF4 70 15,000 0 0 0 - 15,000 SF5 2,180 489,0()0 f) - 1.00{) 0 -488.0{)0 SF6 830 186.000 400 0 0 - t 86.0{)0 S F7 650 t 46,000 800 0 0 - 147,000 SF8 300 67;f~00 5.800 0 0 -73.4{)0 S F9 3.300 732,000 28,200 -4.000 - 106.000 -649,00{) SF10 6,990 1.570.000 18.800 -200 0 - 1,590.00{) S F I 1 6.680 1,50IL000 2,300 -4()0 0 - 1,500.ID0 S F 12 5,070 1. t 40.000 1.300 - 200 0 - 1, t 40,000 SF t 3 930 209,000 3.1 00 0 0 -212.000 SF 14 440 100.000 600 0 0 - I 01.000 S F 15 3,070 674,0{)0 18,400 0 -42.400 -650.000 SFI6 2.360 524,000 34.10{) -200 -33,300 -524.000 SFI 7 1.710 356,(X)0 0 0 0 -356.000 h'dTotal 46.300 10,300,000 t 43,000 - 10.200 -361,000 - 10. t 00,000 Gl 3,310 682,000 0 0 0 -682,000 t'Total 49.600 I 1,000.000 143.000 - 10.200 -361.000 - I 0,8(}0.000 SOUTIt FORK AREAS CONTRIBUTING TO ATLANTIC OT'EAN S F 18 4.10(} 915.0IX) 35,000 -6IX) -26,000 -923~000 S FI 9 37.400 8,270.000 584,0(X) -200.000 -490,000 -8,160,000 bTotal 41,50(} 9.180,0{)0 619.000 -201 .{}0{1 -516.0{)0 -9.(}80,0{ )0 LONG ISLAND MAINLAND AREAS CONTRIBUTING TO MEETINGHOUSE CREEK MC 1.370 308,000 22.900 - 17. t 0{} f) -314.00{} a Estimate of lbtal discharge determined from computed sum nf rccha~ne l¥om precipitation, public-supply xvithdrawal aIld return Itow. and agricultural withdrawal. The quantity may not equal the sum of these components Nicause of rounding to signilicant digits. b Total may not equal the sum or' values because of rnunding tn significant digits. c Total excludes quantilies dete?mined Iht Robins Island (m~p identilier RI). d Total excludes quantities determined fi~r Gardiners lsland (map identilier GI)~ 26 Areas Contributing Ground Water to Peconic Estuary, and Ground-Water Budgets for North and South Forks and Shelter Islanc *hat, in years of unusually high or low water ~e as large as 20 percent (Paul Ponturo, Suf- k County Department of Health Services, oral com- in., 1996). The remaining outflow term tagricultural thdrawal) represents a regional approximation that les on long-term mean agricultural and climatic data d on estimated land use in 1994, and assumes no net ange in agricultural or climatic factors, nor in the ~tribution of farmlands through time, The complex- .' of this tenn. and the uncertainty in the validity of e governing assumptions, make this term the least liable term in the ground-water budgets. The last rm in table 4 (total discharge) represents the sum of e above-mentioned ground-water-budget compo- mrs for each contributing area and, therefore, can be .msidered an approximation based on a combination [ (1) long-term, average estimates, and (2) short-term, erailed calculations, and probably is no more accurate lan the least reliable quantity evaluated for each con- ributing area. The ground-water budgets in table 4 indicate that otal discharge to the Peconic Estuary is about L8 x 106 ft3/d from the North Fork, 11 x 106 ft:~/d from :he S,mth Fork, and 1.7 x 106 ft-~/d from Shelter tsltmd. ~ , .I contribution of fresh ground water to the es~uar) from the North and South Foi-ks and Shelter Island amounts to about 16 x 106 ft3/d--roughly twice as much as the total contribution of fresh ground water from the main body of Long Island, which is about 7.5 x 106 ft3/d, as indicated by the USGS ground- water-flow model of the main body of Long Island (Buxton and others, 1991 ). In contrast to the fresh- water ~ontribution from the main body of Long Island, which is concentrated near the head Of the Peconic Estuary, the freshwater contributions from the North · and South Forks and Shelter Island are distributed 'along most of the east-west length of the estuary- Analysis of Fluctuations in GrOUnd-Water Discharge The values in table 4 indicate that recharge from precipitation is by far the largest hydrologic compo- nent in the computation of total discharge from the North and South Forks and Shelter Island. Although recharge from precipitation was evaluated as a long- tc .... mean component, it can undergo significant sea-. . and longer term fluctuations. ()ne eft'eot of such fltlctuations on fresh ground-whter systems is changes in the amount of freshwater in storage: another is fluctuations in fresh ground-water dischahze, although these can be moderated and damped through time by concomitant changes in the amount of freshwater storage. The time required for precipitation to infiltrate through the unsaturated zone and reach the water table also can delay the effects of fluctuations in recharge. although this delay is assumed :o be relatively short because the depth to the water-table is relatively shallow in most parts of the North and South Forks and Shelter Island. Annual total precipitaticn during calendar years 1976-95 at Greenport is plotted in figures 8 and 9: average annual precipitation during this interval (46.8 in.) was about 4 percent above the regional long-term average value used to calculate recharge from precipitation in the ground-water budgets. Water levels measured periodically during 1976-95 at three observation wells screened within each of the three principal freshwater flow systems of the North Fork (fig. 8) indicate that seasonal water-table fluctuations within individu/~l years of this period generally exceeded the annual and long-term fluctuations, as did water levels measured periodically during the same time interval at two observation wells screened within the principal i¥eshwater flow system on Shelter Island (fig. 9). These relatively large seasonal water-table fluctuations on the North Fork and Shelter Island, which are primarily a response to seasonal wmations in recharge, indicate that concomitant changes in the relatively small amounts of freshwater in storage at these locations would not substanual ) buffer short- term fluctuations in freshwater discharge. Annual total precipitation during calendar years 1976-95 }tt Bridgehampton is plotted in figure average annual precipitation during this interval · (46.2 in.) was about 2 percent above the regional long-term average wllue used to calculate recharge from precipitation in the ground-water budgets. Water levels measured periodically during 1976-95 tit obser- vation wells S8833 and S8843 (fig- 10), screened within the freshwater flow system of the main body of the South Fork, and at observation welt S48579, screened within the principal freshwater flow system of the Montauk peninsula, indicate that Seasonal water-table ttuctuations within individual years of this period generally are comparable to the annual and Iong4erm fluctuations unlik~ those on the North Fork and Shelter Island. These relatively moderate seasonal water-table fluctuations on the main body of thc South iAreas Contributing Ground Water to Peconic Estuary, and Ground-Water BudgetS for the North and South Forks and Shelter island 27 - 80 46.8 inches 6 SI§787 ! ! ! ! ! i !1976-95 mean 1 : : ; : : : : : : ,3.04 feet ._~ St' ! !i ! ~ i : ! i : : : WATER LEVEL i I ANNUAL IviEAN: : : : : : : : : t00 -~o -4o - 20 -0 --20 --40 --6o --8o -100 t00 -8o 6o 40 - 20 ~o -20 -40 -~o 0 12 S53324 ! ] ] i ! i i1976-95 mean ! i ! i ! : : .j : : : : : : : : : 6.31 feet : : : : : : : WATER LEVEL . I ANNUAL MEAN: : 100 -80 L6o -40 - 20 L_2o L-40 L-~o 2-80 1976 1978 1980 t982 1984 1986 i988 1990 1992 :994 Figure 8. Annual total precipitation at Greenport and water-table altitudes in selected observation wells on the Norlh calendar years 1976-95, eastern Suffolk County, N.Y, (Precipitation data from Kathryn Vreeland, Northeast Reg~onai Cimate Center, written commun., 1995, 1996. Precipitation-measurement station location is shown m fig. 2, Estimated values unavailable data for an individual month, and were calculated from data for corresponding month from Bddgehampt:¢ station. Well locations are shown on pl. 1.) 28 Areas Contributing Ground Water to Peconic EstUary, and Ground-Water Budgets for North and South Forks.and Shel-~'~ 90- GREENPORT I§76-95 mean 46.8 inches 8o-' 7o ] 60] -40 L 20 LO i_20 --6o --8o -¢ -20 -o -100 ,20 Lo -80 ~ WATER LEVEL: : ~ AN~AL"EAN: : : : : : : : t976 1978 t980 ~982 1984 1986 1988' 1990 1992 1994 Figure 9. Annual total precipitation at Greenport and water-table altitudes in selected observation wells on Shelter island, calendar years 1976-95, eastern Suffolk County, N.Y. (Precipitation data from Kathryn Vreeland, Northeast Regional Climate Center,. written commun., 1995, 1996. Precipitation-measurement station location is shown m fig. 2. Estimated values reflect unavailable data for an individual month, and were calculated from data for corresponding month from Bridgehampton station. Well locations are shown on pl. 1 .) Areas Contributing Ground Wa~er to Peconic Estuary, and Ground-Water Budgets for the North and South Forks and Shelter island 29 8a- z _o 70] 6o-' o_~ 50 ~<- 4o-~ z~ 20- 10- 0 BfllDGEHAMPTON 1976-95 meon 46.2 inches ] 80 _F~ _ _~_.__t~ L 60 140 L20 -0 6 $48879 : : : : : :1976-95 mean : : i ! ! ! ! i i 3.27feet i ! ~ i i i ~ 4 i i : : ! ! : i i : i i i i i i ; 2-80 2-60 -40 -2o i-4o i-~o -- WATER LEVEL i i ~ANNUALMEANi i ! i i i i : i 1-80 ~ $8843 : : : : : : 976-95 mean 18j~ : : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9.87 feet : ; : : : : bSO ~ ~ ~ , 220 E ~S _ A _ Lo ~ . o ~ ~ --20 ~ - 5_ : : : : : : : : : : ~ ~ ~ ~ : : . : 1-60 ~ 0 m , , , ~ , , , , , , , , , , , , , , -100 S8833 : : : : : 976-95 mean ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ] 80 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ 16.63 fee : : : : : - 16o ~ -40 ~ - 20 ~ -0 ~ - -20 < ~ ' - - : : : : ' : : z 1976 1978 ]980 1982 ]984 1986 ]988 ]990 1992 ]994 Figure 10. Annual total precipitation at Bddgehamp~on and water-table altitudes in selected obse~ation wells on the Fork, calendar years ]976-95, eastern Suffolk County, N.Y. (Precipitation ~ata from Kathwn Vreeland, Nodhe~t Regc%~ Climate Center, wri~en commun., 1995, 1996, Precipitation-measurement station location is shown in fig. 2. Estimat~ values reflect unavailable data for an individual month, and were Calculated from data for corresponding month from GreenpoR station. Well locations are shown on pl. 1_) 30 Areas Contributing Ground Water to Peconic Estuary, and Ground-Water Budgets for North and South Forks and Shett~- lsta~ Cork and on the Montank peninsula indicate that oncomitant changes in the relatively moderate amounts of freshwater in storage at these locations would substantially buffer short-term fluctuations in freshwater discharge. Annual total precipitation during calendar years t976-95 at Riverhead is p!otted in figure !ti average annual precipitation during this interval (46.2 in.) was about 2 percent above the regional tong,term average value used to calculate recharge from precipitation in the ground-water budgets. Water levels measured peri- oatcally during 1976-95 at observation wells on the main body of Long Island (fig. 11 ) indicate that sea- sonal water-table fluctuations within individual years generally are comparable to the annual and long-term fluctuations and that concomitant changes· in the rela- tively large amounts of freshwater in storage at this location wbuld substantially buffer short-term fluctua- tions in freshwater discharge, as on the main body of the South Fork and on the Montauk peninsula. Never- theless, annual mean discharge of the Peconic River (measured at the USGS gage in Riverhead) during 1976-95 (fig. t 1 ) indi'cates that annual and long-term : quctuations in recharge, and the resulting water-table ( .uctuations~ cause relatively large changes in the annual mean discharge of the river. However. because the Peconic River derives about 95 percent of its total flow from ground-water seepage (Reynolds. 1982), · small changes in the hydraulic gradient between the ~vater table and land surface have a ~reater effect on the river discharge than on direct ground-water dis- charge to the Peconic Estuary from this area. Freshwater discharge to the Peconic Estuary from lhe North and South Forks and Shelter Island occurs primarily its direct ground-water outfloxv to saltwater bodies and, to a lesser extent, as ground-water seepage to streams. Changes in the amounts of direct ground- water discharge to saltwater bodies are generally controlled by changes in the hydraulic gradient between the water table and a nearly constant sca level at the shore: therefore, relative changes in water-table -ultitude xvithin ii given flow system should provide reasonable estimates of the relative changes in rural discharge to thc Peconic Estuary from this system. The relative magnitude of chauges in water-table altitude, and the resulting changes in total discharge to thc ,~stuary from the North and South Forks and Shelter ,land, was estimated through an evahlation of the relative changes in annual mean water level at obscr- ration wells screened within the principal flow s3 s- tems from these areas (table 5). The results in table 5 indicate that the 1°,85-95 interval included 7 years ( 1985-88. 1991-92, 1995) of generally below-average water-table altitudes in the study area that are expected to have caused propor- tional decreases in the amounts of fresh ground-water discharge to the Peconic Estuary. Intense Brown Tide blooms in the Peconic Estuary coincided with six of these years ( 1985-88. 1991. 1995), and localized Brown Tide blooms in two Shelter Island embayments (West Neck Bay and Coecles Inlet) of the estuary coincided with the remaining year (1992) {Suffolk County Department of Health Services, 1992: Peconic Estuary Program [PEP] Program Office. 1995~. The 1985-95 interval also included 4 years ( 1989-90, t993-94) of nearly average or above-average water- table altitudes in the study area (table 5) that are expected to have produced comparably near-average or increased amounts of fresh ground-water discharge to the Peconic Estuary. None of these years saw any widespread Brown Tide blooms in the Peconic Estuary (Suffolk County DePartment of Health Services. 1992: Peconic Estuary Program [PEP] Program Office. 1995). These data appear to indicate that fluctuations in the amounts of fresh ground-water discharge to the estuary affect the occurrence of Brown Tide blooms, although the factors that trigger the blooms have not been identified. The data also support a general analy- sis of Peconic River discharge and water-table alti- tudes along the western part of the estuary (LaRoche and others, in pressl indicating that, Brown Tide blooms am correlated with increased estuarine salini- t, ies and inversely correlated, with increased ground- water discharge, which may affect the supply of cer- tain dissolved nutrients. Although more xvork w(mld be needed to explain why Brown Tide blooms were not reported before 1985, a recent evaluation of trends in precipitation and water-table altitudes on Long Island indicates that annual precq~itation was greater and more vltriable during the 1980's lhan previously and resulted in increased water-table fluctuations (Scorca, 1997). These. m turn. would have produced wider iluctuations in ground-water discharge as xvell. The results also indicate that continuons monitoring of precipitation, xvater-table altitude, and the resulting changes in fresh ground-water discharge along the .Peconic Estuary could provide dala to forecast fuinre occurrences of Brown 'Fide blooms. Areas Contributing Ground Water to Peconic Estuary, and Ground-Water Budgets for the North and South Forks and Shelter Island 31 90- RIVERHEAD ~ 80- o_ 60- ~i 4o~ ~ ~o~ = 20- 0 1976-95 meon 46.2 inches I I r i r r 1 I ~ I I I ~ I I I I ~ ' $54886 i : : : ! i1976-95meoni i ! ! : .......... 18.81 feet .... lO0 : ER LEVEL ANNUAL MEAN S4271 : : : : : 1976-95 mean : : : : ' ! ! 11.19 feet .... : ! . . : : : : : WATER LEVEL I ANNUAL MEAN i : lO0 ~'80 -60 -4o 220 -o --2o --40 --60 --80 -100 PEC0NtC RIVER AT RIVERHEAD 1976-95 meen __ . 39.8 cubic feet per second I00 70 - ] 80 z ,~ oz 60- ]~o < ~ 240 ~: 50- ~ ~ -2o z~- 40- -0 m ~- 50- --20 z o 20- --40 z z < z_ --60 10- - --8o ~ o -~00 ~97fi ~978 ~980 D82 1984 ~986 1988 t990 1992 D94 Figure 11. Annual total precipitation at Riverhead, water-table altitudes in selected observation wells on the main body of Long Island, and annual mean discharge of the Peconic River at Riverhead, calendar years 1976-95, eastern Suffolk County, N.Y. (Precipitation data from Kathryn Vreeland, Northeast Regional Climate Center, written Commun.; 1995, 1996. · Precipitation-measurement stat on ocation is shown in fig. 2. Streamflow-gaging station location is shown in fig. 2. Well locations are shown on pl. 1.) 32 Areas Contributing Ground Water to Peconic Estuary, and Ground-Water Budgets for North and South Forks and Shelter Table 5. Depadures ef annual mean water-table altitudes from long-term, mean ~n selected observatlorl Wells or1 tl'~e North and :5outh Porks S '[ Island, and Brown Tide occurrences in the Peconic Estuary, ca; 'r years 1976-95. eastern Suffolk County, N.Y, INem~ti;'e values (shadedl are departures below 1976-95 IDeal~, Dashes ilMicate no Brown fide bloom reported. Anoual aad 1976-95 recall water-table altitudes are sbowa in ligs. 8-11, Well locations are shown on pi, 1. Well number rs asstgned by New York State Departmeot of Enviroamentat Conservation. Prolix "S" denoting Suffolk County is omitted. Brown Title data from Suffolk Coanty Department of lleallh Services. 1992. and Peconic Estuary Program iPEP/Program Office. 1995] Departure of annual mean water-table altitude (percentage above or below [-] 1976-95 mean) Long Island mainland North Fork wells Shelter Island wells South Fork wells wells Year 16787 16783 53324 Average 52084 38461 Average 48579 8843 8833 Average 54886 4271 Average Brown Tide occurrences in the Peconic Estuarya Ill 1976 -11 -14 3 -7 -10 -1 -6 -I0 1977 -8 -3 -12 -8 -5 -4 -4 -3 1978 12 8 11 10 45. 25 35 6 1979 20 18 19 19 21 18 20 4 1980 -20 -23 -20 -21 -22 -17 -20 -14 1981 -28 -23 -41 -31 -31 -27 -29 -12 1982 16 0 -7 3 20 19 20 -3 1983 19 23 12 18 13 22 18 3 1984 45 17 32 31 37 31 34 9 t985 -23 -13 -18 -18 -29 -26 -28 -9 1986 -7 -6 -20 -11 -13 -16 -14 -2 1987 2 -14 16 I 9 9 9 11 1988 -14 -6 -I6 -12 -16 -13 -14 -2 1989 17 22 22 20 23 . 21 22 5 1990 14 -1 31 15 t4 14 14 5 1991 -3 0 0 -1 -5 -5 -5 4 1992 -13 -4 -17 -11 ~20 -15 -18 -1 1993 10 8 6 8 5 8 6 5 1994 2 ~ 4 3 5 6 6 4 1995 -25 -5 -25 -18 -29 -25 -27 -4 6 0 -1 2 3 2 -2 -3 -8 0 -6 -3 14 4 8 I0 7 8 16 5 8 13 9 11 -3 -6 -8 2 -3 0 -22 -17 -17 -7 -16 .12 -i1 · -11 -8 -8 -10 -9 8 I 4 -1 2 0 13 7 I0 12 18 15 -12 -10 ~10 -2 3 0 -18 -16 -12 -17 -14 -16 8 -3 5 -6 -8 -7 -3 -4 -3 -9 -13 -11 7 6 6 2 -3 0 13 13 10 13 14 14 0 5 3 2 5 4 - 10 -4 -5 -7 2 -2 0 I 2 -2 2 0 0 3' 2 -2 3 0 -18 -10 -11 -12 ~9 -10 intense blooms intense blooms intense blomns intense blooms localized elevated cell countsb intense blooms intense blooms Brown Tide blooms were not reported in the Peconic Estuary before 1985. Elevated Brown Tide cell cotults reported in West Neck [lay. Itigh conccntradoos of Brown Tide cells reported in West Neck ttay and Cooties ltarbor. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The Peconic Estuary has been repeatedly plagued since 1985 by the "Brown Tide," an unusual algal bloom that has caused the severe decline of local marine resoumes. Although the onset, duration, and cessation of the Brown Tide remain unpredictable, ground-water discharge has previously been shown to affect surface-water quality in the western part of the Peconic Estuary. Results from a USGS ground-water- flow model of Long Island indicate that a total of about 7.5 x 106 ft3/d of freshwater is discharged to the west- em part of the estuary from the main body of Long Island and that nearly two-thirds of this (about 4.7 x 106 ft3/d) is contributed by the Peconic River; the rest is contributed as direct ground-water discharge to Flanders Bay and the western part of Great Peconic Bay (about 1.9 x 106 and 0.92 x 10~' ft3/d, respectively). The model does not simulate the ground-water flow systems on the North and South Forks and Shelter Island. which are hydraulically isolated from the ground-water-flow · system of the main body of Long Island but contribute freshwater to the central and eastern parts of the estu- ary. The need fo_.r information on ground-water dis- charge to the entire Peconic Estuary prompted the USGS to evaluate ground-water discharge from the North and South Forks and Shelter Island. Areas contributing ground xvater to the Peconic Estuary, were delineated, and ground-water budgets for these areas were developed, to provide data on the dis- tribution aud magnitude of ground-water discharge to the central and eastern parts of the estuary. This effort focused on the North and South Forks and Shelter Istand, with emphasis on the uplands of three small embayments (Meetinghouse Creek, near the west end of the North Fork; Sag Harbor Cove, on the South Fork: and West Neck Bay, on Shelter Island). The fresh ground-water reservmrs on the North and South Forks and Shelter Island consist of a series of hydnm- lically.distinct freshwater lenses, bounded by salt- water, within a vertical sequence of unconsolidated deposits. All drinking water and irrigatiou water on the North Fork and Shelter Island is withdrawn from the upper glacial aquifer: the deep aquifers in both areas contain mostly saline ground water and are not used for xvater supply. On the South Fork, most water is withdrawn from the upper glacial aquifer, but some is withdrawn from the underlying Magothy aquifer. · Contributing-area boundaries that were delineated coincide with thc hydraulic boundaries of thc fresh ground-water-flow systems of the North and South Forks and Shelter Island. These boundaries are of two types--~'xtemal (saltwater bodies) and internal (ground-water divides). External boundaries are repre- sented by saline ground waters and surface waters that separate or isolate individual freshwater flow s)~ems. and internal boundaries are represented by local and regional ground-water divides that separate flow sub- systems, or groups of flow subsystems, from one another within the larger flow systems. Hydrot ~o°JJc components that were evaluated for the contrilx~ting areas include recharge from precipitation, public-suppt? withdrawal and return flow, and agricultural with- drawal. Values for each of these components wen= cal- culated or estimated tbr the individual freshwater flow subsystems that form each ground-water-budget area and were then summed to obtain the total discha~ee of fresh ground water from these systems to tidewater. Ground-water discharge to the Peconic Esman,, is about 3.8 x I0(' ft3/d from the North Fork, t I x 10~ ft3/d from the South Fork, and 1.7 x 106 ft31d from Shelter Island. The total contribution of f~esh ground xvater to the estuary from these areas is about 16 x 106 fF/d--roughly twice as much as the total contribution from the main body of Long Island. In contrast to the freshwater contribution .from the main body of Long Island. which is concentrated near the head of the Peconic Estuary, the freshwater contribu- tions from the North and South Forks and Shelter Island are distributed along most of the east-west length of the estuary. · The relative magnitude of changes in water-table altitude, and the resulting changes in total diseharge to the Peconic Estuary, From the North and South Forks and, Shelter Island, was estimated through an eyalua- tion of the relative changes in annual mean water level at observation wells screened xvithin the pnncipat riot,: systems from these areas. Results indicate that the 1985-95 interval included 7 years ( 1985-88. 1991-9'~ 1995) ot~generally below-average water-table ahitude~ that are expected to have caused proportional decreases in the amounts of fresh ground-water discharge to the Peconic Estuary: intense Brown Tide blooms in the estuary coincided with six of these years ( 1985-88, t99I, 1995), and localized blooms in two Shelter Island embayments (West Neck Bay and Coecles Inter)of the estuary coincided with lhe remaining year(1992). The 1985-95 iutcrval also included 4 years I 1989~9(L 1993-94 } of nearly-average or above-average water-table ahitudcs that.are 34 Areas Contributing Ground Water to Peconic Estuary, and Ground-Water Budgets for North and South Forks and Shelter ey-~cted to have produced comparably near-average teased amounts of fresh ground-water discharge o the PecOnic Estuary: none of these years saw any widespread Brown Tide blooms in the estuary. These data appear to indicate that fluctuations in the amounts of fresh ground-water discharge to the Peconic Estu- ar5, affect the occurrence of Brown Tide blooms, although the factors that trigger the blooms have not been identified. REFERENCES CITED Baier. J.H.. and Robbins. S.F.. 1982a, Report on thc occur- rence and movement of agricultural chemicals in ~roundwater--north fork of Suffolk County: Haup- pauge, N.Y.. Suffolk County Department of Health Services, 71 p. 1982b, Report on the occurrence and movement of agricultural chemicals in groundwater--south fork of Suffolk County: Hauppauge. N.Y., Suffolk County Departmem of Health Services. 68 p. Bart, Jeffrey, and others. 1976, Preliminary hydrok)gic investigations of the Somh Fork of Long Island: Prin- · ceton, N.J.. Princeton University Water Resources Program WRP 76- t. p. A 1 -G36. Berkebile, C.A_ and Anderson. M.P., 1975, Town of Southampton, 1974-75 ground water resources moni- toring program: Southampton, N.Y., Suuthamplon Collcoc~, t I0 p. Bohn-Buxton, D.E.. Buxmn. H_T.. and Eagcn. V.K.. 1096. Simulation of grt~und-watcr flow paths and travel- time in relation to tritium and aldicarb concentrations in the upper glacial aquifer on the North Fork. Long Island, New York: U.S~ Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-761.36 p. Buxton. H.T., Rcilly. T.E.. Pollack. D.W., and Smolcnsky. D.A., 1991. Particle tracking analysis of recharge areas on Long Island. New York: Groundwater, ¥. 29. no. 1, p. 63-71. Cartwright. R.A.. 1997. Hydrogeologic-sctting classilica- tion for Snffolk County. Long Island. New 'I ork. with results of selected uquilk2r-tcst amtlyses: U.S. Geological Survey Open-[:it¢ Report 96-457. t 8 p. Crandcll. H.C.. :h'., 1963. Geology :md ground-water res(tortes of tl~c Town of Stmd~old. Suffolk County. New York: U.S. £ieotog~cat Snrvcy Water-Supply Paper 1fltg-(iG. 36 p. r~ '%r. C.W.. Jr.. 1971. Hydrt~gct)logy <)l'thc south fork of Long tstand. New York: BIo(mungton. Ind.. Indiana University. unpublishcd Ph.D. dissertatmn. 236 p. __ 1976, Hydrogeology of the south fork of Long Island, New York: Geological Society of America Bulletin. v. 87, p. 401-406. Franke, O.L. and McClymonds, N.E., 1972, SummaD' of the hydrologic situation on Long Island, N.h_'.. as a guide to water-management alternatives: U.S. Geo- logical Survey Professional Paper 627-E 59 p. Fuller, M.L.. 1914, The geology of Long Island, New U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 82. 231 p. Hoffman, J.E. 1961. Hydrology of the shallow ground- water reservoir of the Town of Southold, Suftblk County, Long Island. New York: New York State Water Resources Commission Bulletin GW-45. 49 p. Holzmacher, McLcndon. and Murrel. I968. Comprehensive public water supply study, Suffolk County. New York: Melville, N.Y.. Holzmacher. McLendon. and Muffet CPWS-24 [variously pagedl. LaRoche, Julie, Nuzzi, Robert, Waters, Robert, W~,man, Kevin. Falkowski. P.G.. and Wallace. D.W.R.. 1997. Brown Tide blooms in Long Island's coastal waters linked to interannual variability in groundwater llow: Global Change Biology, v. 3, p. 397-410. Linslcy, R.K.. and Franzini, J.B., 1979. Water-resources engineering: New York, McGraw-Hill, 716 p. Long Island Lighting Company, 1991. Population survey 1991: Hicksville, N.Y.. 38 p. Long Island Regi6nal Planning Board, 1982. Land use 198 l---quantification and analysis of land use for Nassau and Suffolk Counties: Hauppaugc, N.Y-, 48 p. __ 1987. Estimated seasonal populatkm in eastern Suf- tk~lk County: Hauppau.ge. N Y_ McNew~Cartwright, E_R.. 1996, Hydn~geoiogic data t¥om an investigation of water resources near Grcenport. Suffolk County. New York: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Repot! 95-427, 41 p. Misul, P.E.. and McNcw-Canwright. E.R.. 1996. Calibra- tion of a ground-water-flow model by regression: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-388. llp_ Nemickas. Bronius. and Koszalka. E.J.. 1982, Gcohydro- logic appraisal ol water resources of thc South Fork, Long Island. New %~rk: U.S: Getflogical Survey Water-Supply Paper 2073, 55 p. Nemickas: Bronius. Koszalka. E.J.. aud Vaupcl. D.E., 1977, Hydrogcologic data from investigation ol' water resources of thc South Fork. Suffolk County. New York: Sutlkflk County Wuter Authority. Long Island Water Resources Bulletin 7. 31 p. Pcconlc Estuary Program (PEP) Program O flicc. 1995. Prc- limmary comprehensive conscrva[ion and mun!.tgc- ment plan. Rivcrhcad. N.Y. t unpuginatcdl. References Cited 35 Peconic Estuary Program (PEP) Program Office, 1996, Con- ference overview: Peconic Estuary Program First Annual Contk:rence Information Package, Riverhead. N.Y. [unpaginated}. Perlmutter. N.M., and DeLuca. F.A., 1963, Availability of fresh ground water, Montauk Point area. Suffolk County, Long Island, N.Y.: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1613-B, 39 p. Peterson. D.S.. 1987, Ground-water recharge rates in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 86- 4181, 19p. Pluhowski, E.J., and Kantrowitz, I.H., 1964, Hydrology of the Babylonolslip area, Suffolk County, Long Island, N.Y.: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1768, l19p. Prince. K.R., 1986, Ground-water assessment of the Mon- tauk Area. Long lslan~, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation Report 8~5- 4013, 103 p. Reynolds, R.J., 1982. Base llow of streams on Long Island. New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 81-48.33 p. Roy F. Weston. Inc., 1992. Draft groundwater management study report: Carle Place. N.Y.. Roy E Weston, Inc. lunpaginatcd}. Sc{~rca. M.P., t997, Urbanization and rechmgc in the vicinity o1' East Meadow Brook. Nassau Coumy, New York. Part l--streamflow and water-table altitude, 1939-90:' U.S. Get,logical Survey Water-Resources Investiga- lions Repm-t 96-4187, 39 p Simmons, D.L., 1986, Geohydrolegy and ground-water quality on Shelter Island. Su~tblk County, Long Island, New York, 1983-1984: U_S. Geological Sur- vey Water-Resources Investigation Report 85-416& 39 p. Soren, Julian, 1978, Hydrogeologic conditions in the to~-~ of Shelter Island, Suffolk County. Long Island. Ne~ York: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation 77-77, 22 p. Soren, Julian, and Stelz, W.G., 1984, Aldicarb-pesticide contamination of ground wa~er in eastern Suffolk County, Long Island, New York: U:S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 84- 4251, 34 p. Steenhuis, T.S., Jackson, C.D., Kung, S.K.J., and Brutsatm_ Wilfried, 1985, Measurement of groundwater recha~e on eastern Long Island. New York. USA: Journal of Hydrology, v. 79, p. 145-169. Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Dvirka and Bartilucci, and Malcolm Pimie, Inc., 1987, Suffolk County comPre, hensive water resources managemem plan: Hauppauge, N.Y. [variously paged]. Suffolk County Department of Health Services, 1992, Brown Tide comprehensive assessment and manage- ment program: Riverhcad. N.Y. [variously paged].' Suffolk County Water Authority. t996, 1996 annual water quality statement Suffolk C{)unty Water Authority (lk*r calendar year 1995~: Newsday, March 28, 1996,_ p. B37-46. ~.'US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1998-610-999 36 Areas Contributing Ground Water to Peconic Estuary, and Ground-Water Budgets for North and South Forks and Shelter THE LONG ISLAND COMPREHENSIVE SPECIAL GROUNDWATER PROTECTION AREA PLAN Dr. Lee E. Koppetman Arthur Kunz Dr. Edith Tanenbaum Dr. DeW'~ Davies 1992 Long Island Regional Planning Board H. Lee Dennison Office Building Veterans Memodat Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788-5401 The preparation of this report wa~ financed in part through a contract with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) with funds allocated by the New York State Legislature in an Act effective on September 1, 1987 entitled, "Article 55 - Sole Source Aquifer Protection. ~ The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the State Legislature or DEC.. Southold SGPA GENERAL BACKGROUND - The Southold SGPA encom- passes a more than 2900 acre corddor extending from the east side of Mattituck inlet to Southotd hamlet in the vicinity of County Route 48 and the Long island Railroad. Although located on the North Fork, all of which is part of the shallow flow Hydmgeologic Zone W, and consisting pdmadly of farmland, this area was designated an SGPA by NYSDEC Commissioner Joding at the request of the Town of Southold and on the recommendation of the Citizens Advisory Commit- tee and of the LIRPB. Support for the designation was based on two considerations; namely, that this area represents a ma- jor portion of the locally significant deep recharge and that designation could facilitate the improvement and ultimate res- toration of groundwater quality. SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY - The Haven-Riverhead associa- tion is found throughout the entire Southold SGPA. This is a north shore outwash plain association, characterized by gently sloping to level soils with slopes of between one and 12 per- .cent. Some areas are pitted with kettle holes. Good drainage ~d a high moisture capacity make these soils excellent for ,arming. Ease of excavation makes them equally suitable for development, except in areas where the water table is high. VEGETATION ASSOCIATIONS - The area in the Southold SGPA is predominately agricultural except for a small band of woodlands between Goldsmith Inlet in Peconic and Great Pond in Southold. This woodland is a typical moist oak woed- land characterized by mixed oaks -- mostly red, along with post, black, and white oak, Amedcan beech, and red maple dominating the canopy. Flowering dogwood usually forms the tree understory. Maple-leaved viburnum, sweet pepperbush and honeysuckle are common in the undergrowth. RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES AND SIGNIFICANT HABITATS - Two plant species, the dwarf plaintain and the or- ange-fringed omhis (T), were noted in the eastem region of the Southold SGPA. However, the last recorded observation of these species occurred more than fifty years ago. SURFACE WATERS AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS - The Southold SGPA has freshwater wetlands located .south and east of Goldsmith Inlet. These wetlands encompass 26 acres and have been ranked as Class II and Class III wetlands. , ,¥'DROGEOLOGY - The SGPA is located on the North Fork be- tween Mattituck Inlet and the hamlet of Southold, with the major portion lying north of the groundwater divide. See Figure 3-29. - Surficial deposits in the area consist of glacial outwash sand and gravel derived from the Harbor Hill terminal mo~ine, which forms a ddge along the north shore. In most porlXms of the SGPA, these deposits are underlain by a significa~ unit formed in lake and shallow madne environments durir~ the interval between the Ronkonkoma ice shee~ retreat and the Harbor Hill ice-front advance. The top of the unit tes 60'- 120' below sea level, and may be related to found in west-central Suffolk. Below the clay unit there am older glacial deposits, which rest upon continental rna~jin de- posits of the Magothy Formation. The only hydrogeologic unit of regional significance, from a water supply standpoint, is that portion of the upper glacial aquifer lying above the clay, since glacial deposits below t~3e clay contain only limited amounts of fresh groundwater (above the saltwater interface), and the underlying Magothy is entireiy salty. The clay unit limits the volume of the usable freshwater resource, but also protects large agricultural and public s~uCy wells from upconing saltwater. Where the clay is absam, the usable fresh water resource extends down to the salt',~ater ~- terrace, but wells in these areas are susceptible to saJtwata' upconing. Such condition exists in the Mattituck Creek area. where a large channel was eroded through the clay and ~ subsequently refilled by sand and gravel outwash deposits. GROUNDWATER FLOW - The general direction of groutS- water flow in the study area east of Mattituck Creek is towa~ Long Island Sound, normal to the line of the central divide. The tidal waters of Mattituck Creek, however, influence flow direc- tions west of Cutchogue. Horizontal flow velocities within the study area are generally less than one-half foot per day, b~ may increase to almest one foot per day dudng pedods of high rainfall, when water table elevations have been observed to in- crease by 50 pement or more above long-term average val- ues. Residence times for groundwater within the study area range from several years near Mattituck Creek, to a century or more near the divide in Cutchogue. WATER SUPPLY - Only one public water supply we~ field, Greenport Water District's Plant 7 on Ackerley Pond La,ne, is located within the boundaries of the study area. Almost all the pumpage from this field is utilized and discharged outside to the east of the SGPA. The 90' well at Plant 7 has been in op- eration since t980. Maximum pumpage occurred in 1986, when 118 million gallons were withdrawn - - an average o~ 225 ' gpm, compared to the authorized capacity of 400 gpm. A sec- ond 400 gpm well, with a depth of 81' was recently installed. A new well field (Plant 12), with a 90' 500'gpm' well, is proposed for Kennys Road, just east of the SGPA boundary.~ Agricultural pumpage represents by far the largest consumptive use of the 3-117 study area's groundwater resoume. Using the Cooperative Ex- tension Service estimated unit pumpage rate of 0.14 million gallons per acre per year for irrigation of mixed vegetable crops, approximately 335 million gallons per year ara applied to the 2400 acras of cropland within the SGPA. This volume of water equivalent to about 20 pement of average annual re- charge to the 3.000 acre study area or about one percent of the groundwater stored beneath it. WATER QUALITY - Agricultural chemicals have contaminated groundwater throughout much of the horizontal and vertical ex- tent of the aquifer below the study area. These chemicals in- clude the inorganic constituents of fertilizers (e.g., nitrate, sulfate, chloride) and various organic pesticides..including car- bamates (aldicarb, carpofuran) and 1,2-dichloropropane used on potato crops. The impacts of these chemicals on the aquifer are reflected in the quality of numerous shallow private wells. Greenport Water District supply wells at Plants 7 and 12. aon SCDHS monitoring wells, including deep profile wells along Depot Lane. Fertilizer contaminants can be found throughout the vertical extent of the aquifer sYstem. F_ertilizers have been used for m~'"v years. Their inorganic constituents'are mobile and unre- /- · Nitrate concentrations in agricultural areas frequently exceed the 10 ppm ddnking water standard, and are occasion- ally as high as 2030 ppm. Concentrations at Greenport's Plant 7 wells have remained just below the 10 ppm standard, while the test wells at the Plant 12 site range from 5.7 ppm to 9.8 ppm. Elevated chloride and sulfate concentrations are usually found in association with elevated nitrates, but neither constituent is considered a health threat, nor are they often found to ap- · proach their respective drinking water standard (250 ppm). Typical chiodde and sulfate concentrations are on the order of 30-50 ppm, but both occasionally occur in the 100-150 ppm range or higher. Pesticide contamination is also widespread within the study area. Pesticides such as aldicarb, carbofuran, and dichlo- propane have proven to be very mobile and unreactive as they move through the aquifer. While the maximum concentrations decrease due to dispersion, the total mass of contamination is not reduced by biodegradation, absorption, or other proc- esses. For example, aldicarb has been detected in about 20% of the samples from East End pdvate wells since monitonng ' began in 1980 and, while the average concentration of positive samples has decreased from 25 ppb in 1980 to 12 pp.b in 1988 the median value has remained about 8 ppb over this 9an. On the average, 250 additional private wells or about 10% of those sampled each year are found to exceed the 7 ppb ddnk-. lng water guideline for aldicarb. These wells ~ fitted wr'm carbon filters that are supplied by the manufectur~c Sioce te~- lng commenced in 1980, the raw water quality m ,more tha,~ half of the wells closest to farm fields, which were .~z3acted b atdicarb first, has improved to the extent that filta--- ,'~n be r¢ moved. This trend should continue as aldicarb ~mmatic moves away from the areas of application. Aldicarb concentrations at Greenporrs Plant 7 (~a~t 7-1) hav~ consistently been close to or at the 7 ppb guideline, neces~- rating GAC treatment. Preliminary test results forW~ 7-2 in~-- cated no aldicarb, while the test wells at Plant 12 ~ected ppb of aldicarb, but only at the shallowest depth Given the relatively short period of time that ~;icarb was used. and the dispersion that has occurrea, it is ~,,r~hle tt',~ virtually all groundwater within the study area wJl be suitab~: for drinking water purposes without the need for aJd~xb trea~- merit within the next decade or two. The outlook for nitrate ~ not as clear, and will depend, in large part. on w~e~her future agricultural practices for limiting nitrogen leaching tram crop~ sbch as potatoes, mixed vegetables, and sod are effective_ The ultimate potential for treatment-free water s.,~pty, how- eve[ will depend on whether additional problems ~se from past or future pesticide use. LAND USE - The Southold SGPA is first and foremc~ an agr,- cultural area. Nearly 72 percent of the total acraa~ ~ devotee to vineyards, nursery/greenhouse operations, so~ ~rms arc crops. Suffolk County and the Town of Southold haYe obtaine~ the development rights to 15 separate farm pa.~:~s encom~ passing a total of almost 200 acres or a little t~ss man orc tenth of all agricultural land within the SGPA. Approximately ten pement of the land ~s used for tow and me- dium density residential development at scattere~ locations throughout the area. Only one pement of the land is dedicate~ open space: however, some nine pement of the SG--~A remains vacant. A little more than six pement of the acreage cons~ting of roads and the Long Island Railroad corridor, is use~ for trans- portation. A few commercial uses -- generally tcx.~ted along Route 27, Depot Land or Bddge Street --together w~th a few small industrial establishments and one institutioc~ use oc- cupy the remainder of the area. See Table 3-45 for :o~al acre- age by land use category and Figure 3-30 for 19~ Existing Land Use. ZONING - Virtually all of the SGPA is zoned ·agr~J:'ture/con- servation, a category that allows single family homes on lots of two ac[es or more. There are a few small tracLs zoned for 3-120 .)mes on one acre. three small business uses and some par- cels zoned for tight industry. PROBLEMS AND CONCERNS - Most local as well as bi- county concerns relate to the difficult but not impossible pmb- tem presented by two valid but somewhat conflicting goals; namely, the preservation of a viable agriculture and agricultural way of life and the maintenance or improvement of the ground- water resource. Owners of nearly half of the existing farmland have estab- lished the Southotd Agricultural District, which will remain in place until 1995. There is concern that sooner or later some of New York State's most productive farm soils, not only in the Agricultural Distdct but elsewhere in the SGPA, could be con- verted to home sites and other non-agricultural uses. .. Advocates ot farmland subdivision ~nd conversion have claimed, with justification, that the :use of fertilizers and pesti- cides have degraded the groundwater. There is concern that some farmers will continue to use agricultural chemicals as in the past; ~rather. than adopting the best management practices needed.to protect groundwater. The Southold Town Landfill represents an existing, docu- ented source of contamination that may or may not affect .ater quality in the SGPA. The landfill in Cutchogue is located north of the groundwater divide, just outside the study area boundary. Leachate detected in groundwater on the north side of the facility is characterized by ammonia-nitrogen concentra- tions exceeding 1.00 ppm and chloride concentrations on the order of 300 ppm. The extent of the plume fadher downgradi- ent has no[ been delineated. The landfill has been listed as a New York State Superfund site. The. Comelt University analy- sis of historic aerial photos' identified four disturbed sites within the study area boundary, none of which are suspected of pos- ing a signrficant threat to groundwater. Evidence of dumping was seen only at the sand mine site located SOuth of Great Pond. Finally, there.are only a few remaining wooded parcels. These parcels, which are extremely desireable for home sites, overlie some of the best quality water in the Southold area. Develop- ment rather than retention of woodlands as open space could preclude their ultimate use as well sites. OPPORTUNITIES - County and Town of Southold continuation of farmland development rights acquisition programs could in- sure the permanent protection of a considerable portion of one of the North Fork's major assets. The zoning of farmland at one dwelling unit per five acres, together with an incentive for the transfer of development rights to sites outside the SGPA at e dwelling unit pe? two acres or mandatory clustering at one unit per five acres within the SGPA could fac~tate the retenti,.~: of farmland and its continuing productive use_ New residential development could be limited to infilling in ~ isting developed areas around Peconic, C-~chogue and west of Southold hamlet, thus reducing the pr~ure on farmlarc The dissemination of up-to-date information and the adopt~ of best management practices could reduce rel~nce on ferti~- ers and pesticides, improve irrigation practices and lessen threat to groundwater. Changes in the type or variety of c, ..u~: could also reduce the need for agricultural chemicals. Public acquisition of the few remaining woodland parcels couc add to the open space while insuring the ava'lability of suit=~'-~ well sites at such time as they may be needed. In order to provide for the water supply needs of the enur~_- Town, well sites will have to be established in the vicinity Laurel Lake, which is part of the Central Suffolk SGPA, arc eventually in the Southold area. Since so much of tt~ S0uthold land is farmed at the present time, purchase of ~ few wooded parcels in the Cutchogue area could prow3~ some Well sites that have not been impacted by agdcultura activities. Recommendations · Suffolk County and the Town of Southold should continue to purchase farmland development dghts ar~ to encourage and facilitate other programs and measures to protect farmland, such as renewal of Agricultural District agreements and the establishmen[ of agricultural reserves. · Suffolk County should continue to support the.Come!J Cooperative Extension Service efforts to introduce arc to secure adoption Of best management practices for agriculture. · .The Town of Southold should upzone farmland to require a five acre minimum lot size but should provide_ for the transfer of development rights 1o sites outside the SGPA at the currently prevailing two acre density. · The transfer of development rights to sites in nearby .' hamlets or along the Sound shorefront, where undeveloped acreage is still available, should be permitted in order.to offset the impact of very Iow density zoning. Suffolk County should utilize funds fror~ its quarter-cent sales tax program to acquire wooded watershed lands within the Southold SGPA. See Tables 3~46 and 3-47 for Plan Land Use acreage by ca, e- gory and a comparison of existing and Plan Land Use. ~ Figure 3-3t for the location of Plan Land Uses. 3-121 TABLE 3-45 Existing Land Use (acres) in the Southold SGPA, 1989, 1989 Existing Land Use Category Land Use % of Total*' Residential 308 10.5 Vacant 271 9.2 Underwater Land 1 0.0 Commemial 16 0.5 industrial 13 0.4 Institutional 3 0.1 Utilities 185 Open Space 31 1.1 - Agdcuitural 2,112 71.8 Total ' 2,940 "' Column may not ~lal 100.0 due to rounding. Source: Long Islam3 Regloc~aJ Planning Board. Use Cateqory TABLE 3-46 Plan Land Use (acres) in the Southold SGPA Plan Land Use % of Total** Residential 976 33.2 Vacant 0 0.0 Underwater Land I 0.0 Commercial 15 0.5 Industrial 9 0.3 Institutional 3 O. 1 Utilities 188 6.4 Open Space 75 2.6 Agricultural '1,665 56.6 Others' 9 0.3 Total 2,941 · Others includes plan options, such as planned unit development, land/ill reclamaaen, relocat=on, etc., that could not be ass~gced to a specific land use c.~tegory. "Column may not total 100.0 due to mun~ng. Source: Long Island Reglcn,aJ Planning Board TABLE 3-47 Existing and Plan Land Use (acres) in the Southold SGPA Char 1989 Existing Plan (+ = ga~: Land Use Category Land Use Land Use - = lossl Residentiai 308 976 +668 Vacam 271 0 -271 Underwater Land 1 I 0 Commemial 16 15 ol Industrial 13 9 -4 Institutional 3 3 0 Utilities 185 188 +3 Open Space 31 75 ~. ~ 4 Agricultural 2,112 1,665 -447 Others* -- 9 +9 Total 2,940 2,941 .* Others includes plan oplJons, such. as planned unit development. ~an~fil rectamaa~, relocation, etc., that coulo not be ass~gnecl to a specie lancl category. 3-126 MEMORANDUM TO: Stephen M. Jones FROM: DeWitt Davies DATE: June 18, 1998 RE: Southold Study - Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc. 1992. Master Plan for Providing a Public Water Supply to the Town of Southold, New York. Suffolk County Water Authority, Oakdale, NY. This 1992 report summarizes the limitations on water resource availability in Southold, in terms of potential well yield, aquifer constraints (recharge magnitude, ground water storage, salt water encroachment, etc.), agricultural consumptive use and chemical contamination, and supply infrastructure considerations. Six potential well-field sites and generalized, circular zones of contribution are identified in the area between the Riverhead border and the hamlet of Peconic (shown on large fold-out map). If current thinking.gives priority to these well-field sites, then the '~hreat" of developing available land in these areas (or the actua~ zones of capture) should be addressed. The well-field sites are located on lands having elevations of at least 35t + msl, in order to accommodate an overall tank elevation of 185'. Ground-water resources in the Orient area are already "fully subscribed" by existing levels of usage. From. a water supply standpoint, preserving farmland in this area will reduce the options for supply, in the furore, given the consumptive use of water by farming. Options for.the then-private Greenport Water District are not discussed in the report. The report concludes that there is "sufficient fresh ground water in the Town of Southold to support the expected future population growth into the early part of the next century." The six potential well fields identified have a total sustained capacity of 3.2 mgd, -which is a "sufficient yield to supply a population of about 303000 people. This is well in excess of the population projections for the entire Town of Southold to the.year 2020." However, the report does not contain any population projections. Our data indicate that the 1990 year-round plus seasonal population of 36,438 in the entire Town will increase to 62,799 at saturation (a 72 % increase). It seems to me that the reports findings should be re-examined in light of the potential growth that could occur. This report does not contain any graphics that depict the extent of ground water contamination in Southold. If summary information does exist in GIS fonuat, e.g., contours of nitrate-nitrogen concentration (and/or concentration of other contaminants) in the upper level of the aquifer, it would be useful in the context of this study to overlay same with the land available for development coverage to aid in determining land protection priorities. Perhaps the SCDHS could be of assistance in portraying available ground-water quality information in this fashion. DD-98-021 LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. PROFESSIONAL GROUND-WATER CONSULTANTS A PUBLIC. WATER SUPPLY TO THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK PREPARED FOR SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHoRiTy JULY 1992. L~ COLrlNTy ~¥~.T~Z.R-~tFrX_xor{x,X,~y. ST. PAUL' MINNESOTA RAMSEY NEW JERSEY WILTON CONNECTICUT TAMPA FLOR/DA EXTON PENNSYLVANIA FISHKILL NEW YORK SIOUX FALLS SOUTH DAKOTA ALBUQUERQUe- NEW MEXICO NASHUA NEW HAMPRI.-¢I~ R. G. SLAY~ACK G. SIDNEY FOX FRANK ti. CRUM MICHAEL R. BURKE ROBERT LAMOKICA ",VII.! .la, M K. BECKMAN DAN C. B LtZ~A $, KEVIN POWERS W. pht t:.u, BALL.EAU LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. PROFESSIONAL GROUND-WATER CONSULTANTS 72 DANBURy ROAD WILTON, CT 06897 203-/62-1207 FAX 203-'/62-8062 July 28, 1992 DAVID $C01'T J.~:.H-R.E Y B. FRANK L ~E K. BUERHO~ .Mr. Edward Rosavitch, P.E. Chief Engineer Suffolk County Water Authority 4040 Sunrise Highway Oakdale, NY 11769 ,Dear Mr. Rosavitch: Enclosed for your use are twelve (12) copies of our report "Master. Plan- for Providing a Public.Water Supply to 'the Town of Southold; New York", · Bob.Lamonica or I will be pleased to respond to questions or comments. We hope this document is responsive to 'your needs. truly yours. LEGGETrE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, /Nc. RGS:skd Enclosures sufcon.ltr/92_34 M][DLa- ND PARK. N~V ~ERSEY ~T. PAUl.. MINNESOTA ALBUQUb2RQUE, NEW MEXICO TAMPA. I"LORIDA MASTER PLAN FOR PROVIDING A PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY TO THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK Prepared For Suffolk County W~t~r Authority LEGGE1TE, BRASI-IEARS & GRAHAM, INC. Prof_e~_sional GroundrW~t~r Con.sult~nts 72 Danbury Road W'dton, CT 0~897 SUMMARY POPULATION AND WATER USE WATER-SUPPLy AVAILABILITY Hoffman - BUlletin GW45 Crandall, USGS WSP-1619-GG Comprehensive Public Water SUpply Study (CPWS-24) ........... 9 North Fork Water Supply Plan - SCDHS .............. · ...... 10 . LBG Reports ..................................... i i WEIJ.-FIEI.D SITE SELECTION CRITERIA ..................... 12 Population Centers Storage Tanks ..................................... 12 Fresh-Water Mound Sources of Known or Potential Contamination ................. 14 Competition With Irrigation ............................ 14 PROPOSED V'ELL-F!ELD LOC :?'(- Site A .............................. , .......... 17 Site B ......................................... 17 Site C Site D ......................................... 18 Site E Site F Site-Specific Testing .............................. . . . 19 Orient Area LEGG~ ~v.~ BRASHEARS & Gm.,a~ l~c. TABLE OF (CONTINU~.~) GROUND-WATER QUALITY . . ............................. 20 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................... 20 REFERENCES APPENDIX PLATE FIGURE 4-1 FROM THE NFWSP PRF~!_~MINARY WATER-SUPPLY PLAN 'l MASTER PLAN FOR PROVIDING A PUBLIC WATER SLrPpLY TO THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK SUMMARY The Upper Glacial aquifer in the Town of Southold contains a series of fresh- water lenses separated by tidal creeks or inlets. Development of ground water for public supply pu .rposes is feasible in the lens are~, but individual well withdrawal rates will be smaller than in western and central Suffolk County to minimize ~he threat of salt-water intanasion by lateral encroachment or vertical upconing. A widespread interstadial clay offers greater protection from upconing on the North Fork than exists in the Montauk The largest present water use in the Town is for seasonal agricultural irrigation, a largely consumptive water use, that is forecasted to decrease in future years. Public water-supply usage will be mainly non-consumptive, as most of such usage is returned to the ground by septic systems. Six prospective public water supply well-field sites have been identified in the western sector of the Town of Southold, with a preliminary, yield potential of 3.2 mgd (million gallons per day). Individual well yields are estimated ~o range from 200 to 625 gpm (gallons'per minute). Each of the sites meets the Water Authority criterion for tank overflow elevation at or near the well-field location. The chosen well sites are mostly located on the southerly side of the fresh-water lenses, so as to minimize water main distances to population centers Which are mainly along the Peconic Bay coast. Eventually, a transmiSSion main could provide a continuous interconnection from the Riverhead system to the Greenpori Water District, and perhaps eventually to Orient. A prospective well site of modest yield potential (110 gpm) has been identified in the Orient Ground-water quality on the North Fork has been adversely impacted by agricultural chemicals. Although it is possible that concentrations of such chemicals of any given well site may not exceed drinking water limits, the Water Authority should plan on treatment for nitrate removal and for removal of pest/c/de, herbicide and fungicide residues. Naturally-occurring iron and/or manganese concentrations may also require water treatment. L£GGe.~ ~ E. BRASH.EARS & GRAHAM. INC. · -2- INTRODUCTION On May 5, i992, the Southold Town Board adopted the following resolution: WttEREAS, the Town Board is responsible for the health, safety and welfare of its citizens; now, therefore, be it RIe-_~OLV~.D that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby endorses a study of a pilot plan by the Suffolk County Water Authority to provide public water to the people in the area from the vicinity of the Riverhe:ad Town boundary, South of the Long Island Rail Road, up to the vicinity of Bay Avenue in the Mattituck area, subject to the Town Board reviewing and approving the survey before it is released; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Board endorse~ an initial study by the Suffolk County Water Authority of Water needs to serve Cutchogue and New Suffolk. As a responsible provider of a safe and plentiful supply of water to over one million people in Suffolk County., the Suffolk County Water Authority believes it is prudent to anticipate the needs of the entire North Fork of Long Island so that, if the need arises in the future, they are in a position to expand the initially envisioned pilot- area system. As part ora coordinated effort to generate a Master Water Supply Plan for the Town of Southold, the Authority requested that Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc. (LBG), Professional Ground-Water Consultants, prepare a water availability study. No specific attention has been given in chis.study to me area served by the Greenport Water District, but this distr/ct could eventually be integrated into a townwide distribution system, The elements of the study include determination of the safe yield of the aquifers underlying the town, estimation of current usage, determination of the optimum locations for water-supply wells and storage, facilities,, and review of potential water quality in future production wetls. POPULATION AND WATER USE Population in the Town of Southold in 1990 was listed by the U.S. Census Bureau as 19,836 persons. The. LLLCO estimate for January l, 1991 'was 19,83I. The U.S. L£GGe. i l e.. BRASHEAR$ ~ GRAHAM, INC. -3- Census data break out as follows by geographic areas according to "Census Designated Places" (CDPs), which are not necessarily political boundaries. SOU~I'HOI.D TOV,~N U.S. CENSUS ESTIMAT]:-q Lauret 598 962 1,094 Mattituck 3,039 3,923 3,902 Cutchogue - New Suffolk 2,718 2,788 3,001 Peconic 835 1,056 I,I00 Southotd 3,749 4,770 5,192 Greenport West 1,682 1,571 1,614 (unincorporated) Gceenport Village 2,481 2,273 2,070 (incorporated) ~:~t Marion - Orient 1,240 1,511 1,534 Fishers Island 462 318 329 Totals 16,804 19,172 19,836 For the area of the Town of Southotd west of the service aa-aa of the Greenport Water District, the first four listings - Laurel to peConic - show a 1990 population of 9,097, about 46 percent of the Town population. According to LILCO; the 1991 population estimate represents 8,229 households, of which 3,774 are located in the four western CDPs; 46 percent. The summer-season population is not so clearly known, but the North Fork Water Supply Plan (NFWSP) provided estimates from the Suffolk County Planning Board of a townwide summer inctc-~aue of 19,760 in 1980, slightly more than double the year-round population. These increases are dominated by second home and summer guest populations, but also include motel and camping visitors. Per-capita water use in 1980 in the Greenport and Riverhead Districts was listed in the NFWSP as 110 and I20 gpd (gallons per day), respectively. With a year-round population of 20,000 in the Town of Southold, this translates to 2.2 to 2.4 mgd of domestic water use. Present summer-season domestic water use would be expected to be essentially double these values. Based on the water-supply experience in the Montauk area, a growth in summer-vacation home populations could lead to seasonal water use approaching four times the year-round rates. For the four western CDPs, the Greenport and Riverhead per-capita usage figures correspond to a demand of about half the townwide values. At present, these water demands are being met by individual domestic supply wells, with the exception of the Captain Kidd Estates water system which is operated by the Suffolk County Water Authority. The initial pilot-project plan announced by the Water Authority is to extend a main from the Riverhead system along Peconic Bay Boulevard east to Bay Avenue, with the expectation of serving a substantial number of residences and businesses from the Long Island Railroad/Route 25 area south to Peconic Bay. This area involves approximately 800 property owners, and is known to have a history of private well contamination with nitrates and/or pesticides, as well as high iron content. It is a. nticipated that new weil sources would be developed within :bout t~rze ,,'ears and that the initial pilot project would be expanded to the north and east. WATER-SUPPLy AVAILABILITY The hydrogeologic framework of the North Fork of Long Island has been studied for the past 35 years by the United States Geological Survey and other concerned agencies. The reference list of this report illustrates the coverage of the various studies. Fresh,water supply in the Town-of Southold is derived from local ground water in the Upper Glacial aquifer. The Magothy aquifer contains salt water throughout the North Fork. Available studiea indicate that there is a surplus of shallow ground water available for development, but that care must be taken to avoid unnecessary water-quality problems related to agricultural land use and potenhal salt-water encroachment. LEGG~i I E. BRASHEARS & GRAHAM. INC. -5- The most important recent finding concerning water availability is that there is an areally extensive clay layer, previously only inferred, exumding from Riverhead at least as far east as Richmond Creek (NFWSp, 1980, Bohn-Buxton et al., in press). This interstadia! clay is present at approximately 50 f~et below sea level in the LaurellMattituck area, sloping northerly and easterly to about 100 feet below sea level in Shore Acres/Wolfpit Lake and in Cutchogue. Its thickness varies from about 20 feet__ in the west to as much as 90 feet in Cutchogue. Figure 4-1 from the NFWSP is appended to this report, a longitudinal section from Riverhead to Orient which shows the relationship of this clay to the fresh_water lensex. There is also a lower inte~=mdial clay unit, but it is below the fresh-water/salt-water interface over much of the study are~. The presence of the upper clay unit limits the potential for upconing of salty water beneath production Wells. As with most coastal ground-water resources, the key availability parameters are aquifer transmissivity and individual-well yield potential, volume of (fresh) water in aquifer storage, and recharge rates. On this peninsula, which functions hydrogeologically like an elongated oceanic island, a series of fresh-water lenses float on a large body of underlying salt water, with lateral separation and salty zones between the Ienses at the major estuarine, creeks. An overview of the more recent previous studies of the area summarizes the available body o£ knowledge on ~ese hydrogeoiogic parameters. As with most hydrogeologic studies, the more recent reports are in part derivative of earlier studies. Hoffman - Bulletin GW-45 Hoffman (1961) of the United States Geological Survey, examined the specific capacity - the yield divided by the drawdown - for 77 wells throughout Southold, and found the following: Range in specific capacity (gpm/ft~-~) 40 or more 30 to 39 20 to 29 1 Percent of wells 14 2O 45 10 to 19 Less than 10 Gallons per minute per foot of drawdown. 2O Thus, there is a reasonable expectation that properly designed and constructed wells will have specific capacities greater than 20 gPm/ft, and prObably more than 30 gpmlft, depending on local subsurface conditions. From these data, Hoffman. concluded that the transmissivity of the glacial deposits "ranges from values somewhat less than 200,000 gpd per foot to values somewhat greater". He further noted that the coefficient of permeability may rangebetween 1,12)00 and 5,000. gpd per square foot. With reference to storage, Hoffman utilized a specific yield of 0.17 and the mainland part of the Town of Southold as. 83,000 million gallons in April 1950. This may be broken out into three segments: MG-y Matt/tuck Inlet to Hashamomuck Inlet (~¢ntral: Chapel I nne, Greenport to Causeway, East Marion Orient Total (rounded) J./ Million gallons. 70,000 6,100 7,000 83,000 Lr_~c,.~s s~ BRASHEARS & GRAHAM. INC. By far, the largest volume of fresh-water storage occurs in the west area, near Mattituck. Cut~hogue, and the Village of Southold. It should be noted that Hoffman did not consider the storage in the part of the Town of $outhold west of Mattituck Creek. Of his grand total, only 2,000 million gallons, or 2.4 percent, was storage above sea level, ~_%-entially in direct proportion to the Ghyben-Her-zberg ratio (40: I). Hoffman estimated average annual recharge to these three areas as: MG West ~ 8,600 Central ~ 860 g~nt 1,I00 10,600 Thus, in contm~t to most of Long Island, the annual replenishment is a significant percentage of the fresh-water storage, an important factor in water-supply planning. In this light, Hoffman also looked at the annual recharge during a 3-year period of minimum precipitation, in which only 30 percent of the precipitation became recharge. ~To~ (Average) _1./ Square miles. Area - -------- 29.2 6.7 4.7 Annua recharge MG 5,750 585v 715 ?,o5o MGD/mi 0.54 ._._~0.24-~ 0.42 (0.48) Estimate reflects 2 mi2 area with Surficial clay, assumed to have zero recharge. Thus, in an area where flesh ground-water storage is limited, Hoffman estimates a conservative drought recharge rate of about half the accepted average recharge rates for Long Island. L_r~,~., s& B~ & G~.saua~ Ivac. Crandall. USGS WSP-1619-GG Crandall (1963) questioned Hoffman's assumptions about evapotranspiration rates, and calculated average recharge rates for four areas of the Southold peninsnla (pins two island-peninsulas not considered here), with reductions in parts of the Greenport area to allow for local clayey sediments and paved areas. The west-~:enwal (B), central (C), and easmm (D) areas were essentially identical to Hoffman's, but a wesmm area was added to the west of Mattituck Inlet and- extending about a mile into the Town of Riverhead. His average recharge values for Area B wer~ less than Hoffman estimated for his West area to ~e ea.~t of Mattimck Inlet. Area Annual recharge (MG) A (West) 1,500 B (West-Central) 5,300 C (Central) 850 D (East) '-Total ,1,100 8,750 Crandall noted that recharge may range from 25 to 35 percent of the total annual precipitation ia yeW dr-,' or very .,ct yea.rs, re.H~ec:/vely. Crandall offered his own estimates for fresh-water storage based on a larger specific yield of 0.22 and deductions .for fill and clay units. His values, which are substantially larger than Hoffman's, are: L~6~ ~& Bm~sh-mms & G~,a~VXXM, L'~c. Area A (West) Fresh-water storage (MG) 46,000 B (West-Central) 134,000 C (Central) 10,n00 D (E,ut) [ 10,400 Total [ 200,800 Nev~rthele~, Crandall's storage estimates indicate that the largest fresh-water storage irt the Town of Southold occum between Mattituck Inlet and Haahamomuck Inlet, Comprehensive Public Water Suooiv Study (CPWS-24} The Comprehensive Public Water Supply Study for Suffolk County (CPWS-24) (1968) by Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell provided a fresh approach to ground-water supply~vallability by proposing "Permissive Sustained Yields" for specific areas withirt the County. Permissive Sustained Yields was defined aa "the maximum rate at which w~ter can be consumed perennially without bringing aborn ~ome undesired result'. In effect, the estimate.~ of Permissive Safe Yield began with area-specific recharge rates, made reductions for near-coast areas out.side the main water budget area, and made further reductions ba..~d on an "optimum" position of the' salt-water interface, including cons/derations of drought. The CPWS-24 report also defined "Average Net Yields", which were based on average-year recharge rates. For Southold, the findings were: West of MaUituck Creek Ma~tuck Creek to Hashamomuck Pond Hashamomuck Pond to Orient Harbor East of Orien£ Harbor Total Per,,,l~sive Sustabled Yield (lSD (mgd) 2 5.5 PSY per ml2 of wa~er budget area 0.40 0.35 Average Net Yield (ANY) (mgd) 3.4 10.4 North Fork Water Supply Plan - $(~)Hg The North Fork Water Supply Plan (NFWSP) (1983), prepared by ERM-Northeast and Camp, Dresser & McKee for the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS), offers little new data related to basic aquifer parameters, but much useful data on historical and projected water use. For ground-water ava/lability, this study reexamined and generally accepted'the 'Permissive Sustained Yields" from the CPWS-24 report, but a~usted the water-budget areas slightly. Table 7--4 from the NFWSP, a part of which is reproduced below, is a useful summary of the ava/labie water budget, compared to the estimated consumptive water use in 1980. ~ . LEGGE~ ~e:, BRa. S~ & G~a~, b~c. o11- SUMMARY OF WATER BUDGET ANALYSIS (From Table 74, NFWSP) I - Riverhead 2 - Riverhead & West Southold 3 - West Central 4 - Central 5 - East (mgd) (mgd/sq.mile) 29.4 5.6 0.40~ 0.7 0.35 0.25 0.25 I/ Present coasump.. tive use (mgd) 4.7 3.9 3.3 0.5 Potentially available for future use (mgd} 24.7 /.7 Since the underlying aquifem in these zones have insufficient storage, the,~ values are conservatively based on drought conditions and would be larger for a year of average precipitation. The zero entry indicates that the present consumptive use is approximately equal to the permissive sustained yield in Zone 5 during drought conditions. LBG Reports LBG has prepared several reports on the Southold area for the Water Authority dealing with ~Factors Affecting Water Supply Development" (1985) and sim-specific reports (Mill I-ane-l~89, Oregon Road-t991, Laurel ]'ake-1992). For these reports, the CPWS-24 ~Permissive Sustainable Yields" have been adopted az the most conservative values for water-supply planning purposes, and site-specific data have been utilized for well-field pianning. The "Factors" reports dealt with the historic fluctuations of the fresh ground-water mound in ~he area between Mattituck Inlet and Richmond Creek, in effect the west- central, Area B, or Area 3 region of previous studies, and theoretical aspects of salt- .! -12- water upconing beneath a pumping well as related to yield and positioning of the welt screen, as well as general well-field spacing. The three site-specific reports provided preliminary Yield-potential estimates ranging from 175 gpm at Mill Lane, to 350 gpm at Oregon Road, to 625 gpm at Laurel I~ke. In each case, consideration was given to vertical upconing and lateral encroach- ment of salt water as the potential iimiting parameters. WELL-FIRJD SITE SELECTION CRITERIA It is evident that salt-water encroachment, vertically and/or horizontally, is the practical limiting factor for public supply Well fields. In' practice, it has been~ found that lateral encroachment is the more limiting factor for well or well-field yield in Southold when theoretical performance is evaluated..As was determined earlier on the South Fork, this means that the optimum locations for ground-water development are along the central spine of the North Fork, where fresh, ground-water mounds or lenses occur between the major creeks/tidal inlets, roughly coincident with the Long Island Railroad track. This area affords the greatest aquifer thickness and the greatest distances from · salt-water bodies, However, there are other factors which have to be considered in Southold. Pgpulation Centers The primary population centers are located along the southern portion of the town adjacent to Peconic Bay, and also along Mattituck Creek. It therefore becomes inefficient to consumer well fields in the interior because of water-main Iength 'and exeessive pressure losses through the transmission pipes. The well-field site selection process included placing wells in rmsonably close proximity to population centei's. Another factor is storage tank placement. In order to be able to integrate the Southold system with the Riverhead system, as well as other Authority systems, the tanks must have an overflow elevation of 185 feet above sea level. The tallest tanks the LFe. GGI:.a ~. B~HEA~ & GRa~aJvt, INC. -13- Authority constructs are 150 feet, which means that they mua-t be located at 35 feet above sea level. The 35-foot contour i~ the western part of the Town of $outhold, shown on plate I, is approximately coincident with a water-table elevation of 4 to 5 feet above taxa level on the southerly side of the fresh-water mound. At this elevation, the prospective well sites are sufficiently removed from m/t-water bodiea to minimize lateral aalt-water intrusion potential. All of the six well-field sites in we~ern Southold could accommodate a tank at elevation 35 feet above sea level onsite or in near proximity. A detailed review of aXorage needs is beyond the scope of this study but is a potentially important factor in an area with high seasonal weekend u~age. F~resh-Water Mound The LBG .report of March' 1985 outlined the normal and extreme drought year (1966) water-table mound centered on Cutchogue Station, between Mattituck Creek and Richmond Creek. A number of proxpective production well-field locations have been considered essentially between the normal +4- and +5-foot water-table elevation contours. These general locations have been chosen because they are downgradient of the ground-water divide, sufficiently distant from tidal water, have a relatively thick fre~h-water lens, are sufficiently separated to avoid undue mutual dmwdown interference, are reasonably ~ ~ . c,o_~ to populzdon canters J-nd M~Jn Ro:,.d ,(R~ute 25) kd, in a preliminary, way, are in areas where property may be readily available to the Water Authority. Previous studies by LBG show that at'water-table elevations of 4 feet above sea level, well yields as high as 700 gpm can be a~:hieved without inducing upconing of salt water (LBG, 1985). These calculations were completed without consideration of the areatly"extensive interstadial clay layer, which would be even more protective of high- yield wells. Based on the above factors, six well-field locations have been selected, as shown on plate 1. The anticipated long-turin yields of the well fields, also shown on plate 1, are based on a recharge rate of 0.5 mgd/mF, and the indicated circles around each well site symbolically represent the equivalent recharge area. The actual zone of capture for -14- each well field would have a parabolic shape centered on the wells and widening up to and, in some cases, beyond the present ground-water divide. As any site is tested and developed, site-specific zone-of-capture modeling should be used to define the actual zone of recharge capture. The total selected welt-field network would have a combined sustained capacity of 3.2 mgd, sufficien[ yield to supply a population of about 30,000 people. This is well in exce~ of the population projections for the entire Town of $outhold to the year 2020. It is important to recognize that short-duration seasonal pumpage substantially greater than the year-round rated capacities may be accommodated. The presence of upper intersmdial clay in western Southold implies that seasonal upconing of saline water will be less of a limiting factor than on the South Fork. $ource~ of Known or Potential (~ontaminatio,, The most recent 'inventory of land disturbances that may involve potential haznrdous w_aste/storage facilities is the Cornell University CLEARS stUdy for the SCDOHS, in which a county-wide inventory of potential waste-disposal sites was made by derailed analysis of aerial photographs for 1962, !978 and I984. Such features as dumps, landfills, pits, lagoons, barrels or drums, mined areas, disturbed land and above- ground tanks were identified, and changes a-ssociatcxI with these sites over the photo hisroc,' were ue.scr/bed. Wi:ere /x.r'anent, CLEARS information for fine vicinity ui proposed well-field sites is discussed be!ow ia the section on each proposed well-~eld location, and the mapped sites are shown on plate 1. IJom~>etiti0n W~th Irrieation As can be seen in table 7-4 from the NFWSP (page 11 of this report), agricultural irrigation is the larger consumer of water on the North Fork. Eafimates of the past irrigation pumpage have been given in previous reports, vary considerably from wet to dry year, and are considered unreliable by local agricultural experts. LEGGv..a a~ BRAS~ & GRAHAM. INC. A windshield survey of the North Fork was conducted in June 1992 for a hand understanding of the active farming and irrigation activkies, especially in relation to prospective public water supply well sites. In the Town of Southold, there appears to be considerable agricultural diversity, with the historic dominant potato acreage giving way to sod ~,nd wi;ne gropes, and a large acreage still in vegetables and berries. Table 7-3 from the NFWSP, reproduced below, gives estimates of crop acreage and annual water consumption in 1980 based on estimates by the Suffolk County Cooperative Extension Service. . IRRIGATION REQUiR17MENTS FOR CROPS GROWN ON THE NORTH FORK!t (From Table 7-3, NFMSP) Crop type Acreage . potatoes ~ 12,1300 Mixed vegetables Cabbage and Cauliflower 3,500 Rye 2,000 Nurse~ stock 2,000 Pastures ~ 1,000 Sod Sweet corn ~ 800 Fruit trees Grapes 350 Greenhouses 25 TOTAL 27,275· Irrigation requirementS-t (gallons per' acre per year) 125,1300 205,000 205,000 165,000 20,t300 245,000 125,000 125,000 815,000 140,000 (weighted average) 1/ Communicat/on with D. Fricke et al. from Suffolk County Cooperative Extension Serv/ce. _21 Peppers, spinach, beans. 3/ All figures rounded. 4/ Acreage was est/mated. By contrast, a 1991 estimate for all of Long island for 1991 from the Farm Bureau shows only 7,500 acres in potatoes, 2,450 acres in cabbages and cauliflower, but with substantial increases in nursery stock, sod and grapes. Irrigation practices vary widely by crop and individual preferences, but mainly involve moveable spr/nk!ers, with some trickle-irrigation in nursery stock areas. The ~r-le of thumb" is that most crops need an inch of natural or irrigation water per week during their growth cycle. In a typical year, sod requires about double the water that potatoes need because of the growth cycle, whereas wine grapes are rarely irrigated except in the initial season of planting until the deep roots are set. A representative of the Soil Conservation Service offered his opinion that most crops in the Town of Southold are under-irrigated because of the lack of sufficient equipment and labor, and that the grape crop could be improved by periodic irrigation. In June 1992, a fairly sizeable a¢,c:age was in ~hay or lying fallow, with some areas ~howing ~old field progression" to woody plants. Numerous 'for sale" signs were evident on inactive and on some active fax-ms. As housing displaces farms, the consumptive use of ground water will decrease. Whether homes are supplied by individual wells or by public water supply, the major part of domestic water use Willbe returned to the ground by septic systems. Most of the previous reports on the North Fork forecast a !ong-te.wn reduction in commercial aeficulturat activity in the future. following patterns from the west. If realizexi, hhis wiil rc~uit ia leas consumptive use of ground water. A working Paper by the 1991 US/UK Countryside Stewardship Exchange Project found that .there were 470 parcels of land of 10 acres or larger in the Town of Southold, comprising. 13,500 acres. Active commercial farms, 84 in number, involved ownership of only 3,670 acres. Retired.farms comprised 2,533 acres. Substantial acreage, much in sod, Was leased land, not included in the active farm list. A total of 1,100 acres of farmland in the Town .have reportedly had their development rights sold. L~m-rr_ Bm~sar_.a~,~s & Ga.*~adv~ I~c~ PROPOSF. D WELl.FIELD LOCATIONS Site A Site A is a fa~',s site in an area presently used for cabbages and potatoes and with wine grapes, more potatoes and a small horse fa,,,, in the immediate area. For the present, ther~ would be moderate competition for the available water for irrigation purposes, and only minor potential for interference with domestic supply wells. The preliminary yield potential of this site is estimated as 0.5 mgd. Site B. Site B is in unoccupied woodlands directly to the east of the Laurel l.ke tract. Nearby farmland is lying fallow; there is some active potato farming to the west and southwest. Competition with irrigation is deemed minor. There is minor potential for interference with domestic supply and commercial wells within the Lauret commumty, the Camp Malloy area and along Main Road (Route 25). The preliminary field potential is estimated as 0.9 mgd. An issue that will need to be addressed during t~ting will be potential impacts on fresh-water wetlands about 1,000 feet to the north of the site. There is mu abandoneA s~md z:,d ~mvet Fit to the east of I_~uret Lake prospective well site. It has a hummocicy appearance that looks like sand and gravet was dumped in; perhaps to cover something, rather than a typical mined-out appearance. No direct evidence of damping was observed. This site should be checked out by test borings and a monitoring welt during testing for a production well siie. 'The CLEARS study make_s note of this site and another gravel mining site south Of Main Road near Bray Avenue. In.addition, an industrial site between Main Road and railroad tracks has a history of above-ground storage tanks, scattered waste and soil mounds. One or more monitoring wells would be warranted in this direction. Site C Site C is in fa~'mland presently in use for vegetables and 'near some fallow land. Potatoes are grown to the west, wine grapes to the south, and more'fallow land lies to F F -I8- the eaxL At present, there is moderate seasonal competition for the local ground water /'or irrigation, and some potential for interference with domestic supply wells along Main Road (Route 25). The preliminary yield potential is estimated as 0.5 mgd. Site D Site D is pre~ntly a Christmas tree farm. Wine grapes and beans are being grown to the west and northwest. The Town of Southold landfill is located 1.2 miles to the north-northwest, on the northerly side of the ground-water divide. Competition with seasonal irrigation water use appears light, but some potential for interference with domestic supply wells along Main. Road (Route 25)and nearby side streets. The preliminary yield potential is estimated as 0.5 mgd: Site E Site E is mainly in a wine-grape area, mostly associated with a single vintner. Competition with seasonal irrigation is presently light and the potential for interference with domestic wells is slight. The preliminary yield potential is estimated as 0.5 mgd. Site F Site F is in a prirnar/ty residential and :vooded area. Directly to the northwest is a recharge baSXnlpond which has wettanas characteristics, and directly across Middle Road is a gasoline station. The site is too small to accommodate a storage tank but land 1,000 to 2,000 feet to the northeast on the north side of Middle Road, near the power line right-of-way, may be suitable. There is little to no competition with irrigation supplies,, but some potential for interference with domestic supply wells. A 1989 test well at thi._s.~site showed excellent water q~mlity, and pore-water samples from the interstadial clay showed fresh water to .more than i00 feet below the production zone. The preliminary yield potential is estimated as 0.25 to 0.30 mgd: A Public water-supply permit has been issued for two wells at this site with an authorized withdrawal rate of 288,000 gpd (gallons per day). L£GG~ ~ BRA~HEARS & Gm, od. INc. Site-Specific Testin? Once suitable properties are located for well installation, a tearing program wouid be initiated. At each site, a test well would be installed and a controlled pumping test run to determine the zone of contribution. The tes~ would utilize existing or newly- installed monitor wells to determine water-level drawdowns at specific distances froTM the well fields. The final recommended well yields would be ba.~d on the aquifer testing. The initial development is planned for the l ~urel Lake area. It is anticipated that this well field will be capable of supplying water to the communifie~ west of Mattituck Creek along Peconic Bay, as well as most of Mattituck. In addition, the present investigation has included consideration of prospective well sites both east and west of Mattituck Creek and in .Orient. No consideration has been given to the Village of Greenport which operates its own public supply system supported by wells. Qrient Are~ Plate 1 also shows the much smaller and lower ground-water mound in Orient, with the location of a prospective well-field site. Bas~ on Table 7-4 of the NFWSP (page Il of this report), ~e Pe~wissive Sustained Yield 'of this area is a/ready over- Subscribed, mainly by agricultural pumpage. Considering that both the agricultural and residential consumption peak during the same months, and the small volume of local fresh ground-water storage, it appean likely that increases in pumpage would likely lead to salt-water encroachment, especially.in drought years. A local source of public water supply by shallow.wells might be feasible if a ~ignificant volume of agricultural pumpage is mU_red. A rectangular manmade pond about a half mile to the east at the headwaters to the wetlands was identified by the CLEARS stUdy. The 1978 and 1984 photos showed the pond being filled in with material including miscellaneous waste. The estimated yield potential of this site is about 0.15 mgd. 1 .? GROUND-WATER QUALITY Ground-water quality in the Town of Southold has been widely degraded bY leaching agricultural chemicals. Heavy fertilizer use has caused elevated nitrate levets. commonly exceeding the drinking water standard of I0 rog/1 (milligrams per liter) of nitrate-nitrogen. Concentrations of residues of aldicarb and other pesticides and fungicides also commonly exceed drinking water limits. Naturally-occurring dissolved iron and, to a lesser extent, manganese are also commonly esthetic nuisances for private well owners. Where present above the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels in public water-supply wells, treatment for removal would be required and would be a benefit to customers. Well-site selection can minimize the concentrations of agricultural chemiczds. Initial sampling results from the Mill Lane test well in Peconic indicated' excellent water quality, but sustained high-yield pumpage at any site will tend to draw in' water from laterally-remote areas, and to draw water from the upper part of the water table where surficial chemical impacts tend to be concentrated. Any well in the Southold area should be expected eventually to show impacts of agricultural chemicals, although not necessarily in excess of drinking water standards. It would be prudent to plan on water treatment for nitrate and ~sticide/herbicide/fun~cide removal and for iron and/or CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. There is sufficient flesh ground water in the Town of Southold to support the expected future population growth into the early part of. lhe next century. L£GG~ se., BRA.SHEARS & Gaaaa~,,/2qc. -21- 2. The expected future reduction in commercial agricultural activity will reduce the consumptive use of ground water, resulting in a more favorable hydrogeologic budget. Ground water used for domestic water supply is largely returned to the ground by septic systems. 3. Ground-water quality in the Town of $outhold has been impaired by residues of agricultural chemicals. Although any well site may initially show satisfactory water quality, some water-quality degradation over time should be expected. Treatment for nitrate and/or pesticide/herbicide/fungicide residue removal and for iron and/or manganese removal should be planned for any public water well field in the Town. Over the very long term, reduced agricultural activity should result in some ground-water quality improvement. 4.__ Six well-field sites have been identified in the western part of the Town, from the Riverhead border to the hamlet of Peconic. These sites-have individual projected yield potentials of 200 to 625 gpm, and an aggregate estimated yield of 3.2 mgd. Tank locations that would meet the Authority's elevation criterion are available at or near each well site. The well-field and tank sites have been situated so as to be rea3onablv close to F~pulafiOn can :ers that may 'vr_.nr gubiic warer-~upp~y .... ultimate distribution system would likely tie into the Greenport Water District, providing additional back-up capacity for that system.. 5. Ttfe ground-water resources in the Orient area appear to be fully subscribed by domestic and agricultural usage. If agricultural acreage is retired, a small local well field may be feasible. -22, .6. As with any Water Authority exploration program, a full-scale testing program should be conducted at any proposed well-field site to ascertain the hydraulic characteristics of the subsurface material,' the depth of the salt-water interface, the stratigraphy, the water quality and any potential impact~ of water-supply development. skd July 28, 1992 southold.rpt./92-34 I-~GGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. President ~ Robert I ~monica, CPG- Vice President ]. ] R~YERF_.NCES Baler, J. H. and Dennis Moran, 1981, "Status Report on Aldicarb Contamination of Groundwater as of September 1981", Suffolk County Department of Health Services. Baler, J. H. and S. F. Robbins, 1982, "Report on the Occurrence and Movement of Agricultural Chemicals in Groundwater - North Fork of Suffolk County", Suffolk County Department of Health Services. Bohn-Buxton, Debra E., Hefoert T. Buxton and Valerie-ann K. Eagen,'in press, "Ground-Water Flow Patterns and Travettimes on North Fork, Long Island, New York, in Relation to Atdicafo Contamination", United States Geological Survey. Crandall, H. C., I963, "Geology and Ground-Water Resources of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York", United States Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper. 1619-GG. I 1 1 ER.M-Northeast Engineers, P.C. and Camp, Dresser & McGee, t983, "North Fork Water Supply Plan, Suffolk Count-y; New York", prepared for Suffolk County Department of Health Service~. Town of Sour. hold. Suffolk County, Long Island, New York', United States Geological Survey, Bulletin GW-42. · Holzmacher, McLendon '& Murretl, 1970, "ComprehensiVe Public Water SuPpl'y Study, Suffolk County, New York, CPWS-24. Jensen, H. M. and Julian Soren, I974, "Hydrogeology of Suffolk County, New ' York~, United States Geological Survey, Hydrologic Investigations Arias HA-501. Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., 1985, "Factors Affecting Water-Supply Development io the Southold Area, Long lsland, New York', prepared for Suffolk County Water Authoifity. LEGGy- l lt:;. BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. -24- Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., I989, 'Hydrogeologic' Evaluation of the Richmond Creek Subdivision Property, Mill lane, Peconic, New York~, prepared for Suffolk County Water Authority. Leggette, Bmshears & Graham, Inc., I991, "Hydrogeologic Evaluation of the property at Oregon Road, Oregon Hills, Town of Southold, New York~, prepared for Suffolk County Water Authority. Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., 1992, "Potential Land Acquisition, Laurel, New York', prepared for Suffolk County Water Authority. .Luscynski, N. J. and J. F. Hoffman, 1951, 'The Water Table as of April I950 in Southold Township, Suffolk County, Long Island, New York~, United States Geological Survey, Open-File Report. · · McClymonds, N.' E. and O2 L. Franke, 1972, 'Water-Transmitting Properties of ' Aquifers on Long Island, New York", United States Geological Survey, Professional' Paper 627-E. Soren, Julian and W. G. Stelz, 1984, Idlcafo-Pestac~de Contamination of Ground Water in Eastern Suffolk County, NeW York", United-States Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report. Suffolk County Water Authority, 1990, 'Southold Water~hed Management Plan: Evaluation of Proposed Alvah's Lane Wellsite, Hamlet of'CutchOgue~. APPENDIX FIGURE 4-1 FROM ~ NFWSP ] 150' 125 ' ~00 ' 75- 50- ~'25- SEA LEVEL 0 -25 50' 75' I00- 125' 150' 175' 200' 225- 250. 275 3OO 325' 350 - 375 - 400- 425- ZONE I RIVER HEAD LINE WATER TABLE CLAY AND ANDY FRESH WATER TO BEDROCK ZONE 2 RIVERHEAD SOUTHOLD BOUNDARY I ZONE ::5 WATER TABLE AY AND ZONE ZONE 5 DAM ;ERVATIONAL TEST WELL GLACIAL U ~'~ Figure 4-1 , Geologic Cross - Section ReView of Hydrogeologic Watershed Bound ~aries Ground Watershed Protection and Water Supply Management Strategy Hydrogeologic Watershed Boundaries/Land Use Study Area Boundaries A U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) map showing the boundaries of the groundwater contributing area of the Peconic Estuary System on the north and south forks and Shelter Island, as well as the boundaries of its constituent sub-watersheds, was used as the primary source of information for defming the upland area subject to !and use inventm-j ~_nd ana!ys~s for the Peconic Estuary Program (found in Schubert, Christopher E. 1998. Areas Contributing Ground Water to the Peconic Estuary, and Ground-water Budgets for the North and South Forks and Shelter Island, Eastern Suffolk County, New York. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 97-4136). The groundwater divide was superimposed on the tax map base for the Towns of Brookhaven, Riverhead, Southold, Shelter Island, Southampton and East Hampton. The land use study area boundary was then drawn using a combination of tax map parcel boundaries ~ primarily road right-of-ways - that approximated the location of the groundwater divide. Care was taken to be inclusive of the upland area defined by the divide lines. The resulting land use study area boundary lines in the towns are primarily linear and angular, as opposed to curvilinear, since they mirror surveyed land parcel boundaries and roadways. Parcel boundaries were not split in order to avoid the problem of changing the parcel data base, which is indexed by tax map identification number. U.S. Census maps showing census block boundaries were then used to delineate the approximate location of sub-watershed boundaries in each of the towns. This source of information was used to expedite the population analysis component of the PEP. Care was taken to avoid splitting block boundaries, i.e., sub-watershed boundaries were drawn to include entire Census blocks. A map of each town was prepared that shows the boundary of the land use study area and the sub-watershed boundaries within same as determined above. Ten sub-watersheds were created within the PEP study area for the Town of Southold. The mainland portion of the Town of Southold not within the PEP study area was divided into three additional sub-watersheds based on the coastal reach boundaries contained in the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. Fishers Island was designated as a separate sub-watershed. Thus, the Town of Southold was divided into 14 sub-watersheds. Numerical land use acreage data, land available for development data, and population estimates are displayed by sub-watershed and town total. SUrvey of Existing Areas In Need of Public Water Supply DEC-01-1998 1~:~6 SCi~A CHAIRMANS O~C. 516 565 ~5~ Pi~ $OUTHOLD'S WATER LIMITATIONS in the 1992 Leggette, Brashears & Graham (LBG) report prepared for the SCWA concerning the Town of Southold, it was found that the daily sustainable yield from all aquifers in the town was approximately 3.2 million gallons per day. The ~eport estimated the tot~t potent, fat population, served by this yield as approximate!y 30,000 people. it should be noted that LBG also recommended the planning of nitrate removal, pesticide/herbiddelfungicide removal, iron and/or manganese removal, essentially stating that much of the available water has substantial contaminants that will need extensive and expensive water treatment facilities. Newi locally identified chemical contaminants such as MTBE (methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether), perchlo~ate, phthalate and others currently being reviewed by the Federal EPA, will require additional ~eatment considerations. Southold relies on a severely limited aquifer that will require an extraordinarily high investment in treatment and infrastructure to provide safe water to existing and potential families. There is great concern among regulators that a significant number of Southold familias drawing water from private wells are probably ingesting a wide range of contaminants with the exception of a small number of families that regularly test their. water and treat accordingly. In planning Southolcrs future, cons~eration must be given to the limitations of the water supply both from a sustainable quantity and quality standpoint. The common fa~ in all this is how much should Southold residents pay for water now and in the future. And, as a corollary, should present Southold citizens subsidize extraordinary growth? Clearly these decisions are political in nature and require sufficient data and information for local government to make decisions in the best interest of its citizens. DEC-01-1~98 12:07 SCW~ CHAtRMANS OFC. 516 5~ 05~ p.05 The limited water supply may be treated or augmented by transporting water long distances or possibly relying on desalinization of surrounding seawater or any combination of these. Complete reliance on either desalinization or transporting water would not only result in heavy costs but also in sy~iems that have no back-up in the event of major breakdown. Localized, muiti-wellfield systems do not havethis problem. The limitation on the growth of Southold town due to a scarce and fragile water supply is real. Any proposals to rely on alternative systems are so exceedingly expensive that Southold's present population will have to heavily subsidize ell future growth. A wise economic policy for the Town of Southold to follow is to give pdority to existing families on private wetls to hook-up to the safer public water supply whfle scaling back growth to a rate at which additional Public water sources can be developed. This policy, allowing for the development of a safe and reliable water supply without stimulating growth, must also be accompanied by a declaration that the maximum sustainable population of Southold Town cannot exceed thirty thousand year-round residents. Controlling both the rate of growth and the maximum population wilt insure a safe and continuous public water supply. TOTAL P.05 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Stephen M. Jones DeWitt Davies September 2, 1998 Southold Study - Population Projections and Groundwater Quality Aspects 1. The following report was reviewed with respect to the above topics, and as a follow-up on a previous memo (attached) on the Leggette, Brashears & Graham (1992) report. ERM~Northeast and Camp Dresser & McKee. 1983. North Fork Water Supply Plan,. Suffolk County, New York. Report prepared for the Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services. Hauppauge, NY. 2. The North Fork Water Supply Plan 0xlFWSP) contains the following population figures for the Town of Southold (excluding Fishers Island): 1980 year-round population: 18,854 1980 peak summer population increase consisting of guests, second home owners, campers and.motel users: 19,760 These figures were used in the Leggette report. The NFWSP projected the circa year 2000 resident population to be 23,050. The Leggette report remains ambiguous with respect to its use of a 2020 projection of population for addressing adequacy of water supply. 3. Two generalized graphics (albeit of poor quality) from the NFWSP report are also attached. They show: 1. the areal extent of nitrate contamination in the upper glacial aquifer (There is also extensive vertical distribution of this contaminant in the upper glacial.); and 2. the aerial extent of Aldicarb contamination on the North Fork. The NFWSP report does not contain quantitative estimates of the amounts of uncontaminated groundwater available for consumption, but does state that they are substantially less than the permissive sustained yields. A key question remains to be addressed. How have conditions in Southo!d changed since these pronouncements were made 15 years ago? 4.The report contains the following conclusion: Groundwater contamination is currently extensive and will remain so for many.years. As additional groundwater data is collected, more contamination problems will be . discovered. Water supply implementation for the North Fork must proceed immediately. Alternative solutions must consider the fact that the limited volume of fresh groundwater is further limited because large portions have been contaminated by agricultural chemicals. It also contains the following recommended preventive measure: !ncorporate detailed water quantity and qu.ali¢- considerations into rez,oning and variance decisions because of the critical water supply problems which exist in most of the study area. If rezoning and variance decisions result in more intensive water usage than is currently anticipated, costly water supply treatment systems (desalinization, for example) may be required. DD-98-025 AREAS HAVING NITRATE CONCENTRATION OVER 8mg/I Figure 5-1 Nitrate Contamination Areas AREAS WITH ALDICARB CONCENTRATIONS OVER 7pg/I Figure 5-2 Aldlcarb Contamination Areal Overview of Water Treatment Technologies MEMORANDUM TO: Stephen M. Jones FROM: DeWitt Davies DATE: December 30, i998 In-home Filtration Technology The Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan prepared in 1987 by the SCDHS and its water supply consultants contains an overview (copy attached) of the technologies available for the point-of-use/point-of-entry (POU/POE) treatment of water supply at the single residence level. Ion exchange, Iow pressure reverse osmosis, and granulated . activated carbon adsorption units designed for household application can be used to reduce nitrate, pesticide and volatile organic Compound concentrations to acceptable levels. The overview includes an analysis of treatment costs, assuming certain design criteria, e.g., only water used for cooking and consumption is treated (about 5 gallons per day), monitoring costs are not included, unit maintenance replacements occur two times per year, etc. The results (in mid-1984 dollars) show a high capital cost per unit of $550, and a high annual operating cost per unit of $300. Sy Robbins has indicated that the SCDHS has not prepared any more up-to-date analyses of POU/POE technology and associated cost options for application in Suffolk County. While the costs estimates in the 1987 report may not be too out of line, Paul Ponturo suggested contact with local distributors that install in-home treatment units designed to address specific contaminant problems on-site (Culligan Water Conditioning, 785 Raynor Ave., Riverhead, NY. Phone # 727- 6600; GNS Mermaid Water Systems, Main Rd., Mattituck,. NY. Phone # 298-4278). ~ In an attempt to get information on home treatment units, the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) website was consulted (http://www..nsf. org). This organization certifies drinking water treatment units according to strict standards and testing, and maintains a listing of products that address specified contaminant problems. A copy of the search inquiries made at the NSF. web site is attached; this search follows a path that identifies products for nitrate reduction (The data base contains scores ofproductsthat do this.), and ends up at the Culligan website with reference to the local distributor in Riverhead. It appears that cost data on product lines, installation, servicing, etc. are not available except through a free water consultation conducted by a company technician sent to the specific home requesting this type of service. Additional information would be included in the NSF Consumer Guide to Drinking Water Filters ($6.00); it is described in the attachment. DD-98-037 SUFFOLK COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN MICHAEL A. LOGRANDE COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DAVID HARRIS, M.D., M.P.H. COMMISSIONER ALDO ANDREOLI, P.E. DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PREPARED BY: DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTALHEALTH, SCDHS DVIRKA & BARTILUCCI, CONSU[TING ENGINEERS MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC. JANUARY 1987 8.2.4 Point-of-Use/Point-of-Entry Treatment Point-of-Use/Point-of-Entry (POU/POE) treatment for ni- trate, pesticides, and VOCs may provide a technically and economically feasible alternative to centralized treatment facilities, especially for very small water systems where.the economies of scale for centralized treatment cannot be real- ized. Point-of-use devices are 'installed within residences, most commonly under the kitchen sink. A simple bypass of the existing cold water line provides water to the unit, which is attached to an extra kitchen faucet (Figure 8-18). Only the water required for drinking and cookinG is treated, thus re- ducing size and replacement requirements to a minimum, More expensive options are to treat all water intended for indoor use, or to treat all water delivered to the. property (for both indoor and outdoor use) with a point-of-entry treatment unit. Treatment units have been used to soften water for many years, but are now being employed to remove nitrate, pesti- cides, and VOCs. Ion exchange, low pressure reverse osmosis, and GAC adsorption processes are adaptable to single- and multi-family residences. These systems require a minimum'of operating controls,~ can be actuated by water pressure, and can be automated, if desired. Several POU/POE devices have been field tested and have shown that commercial units are adaptable to household appli- cation. Ion exchange and reverse osmosis devices .have been tested in New Hampshire. Home GAC treatment units have been used for aldicarb removal on the North Fork of Suffolk (Moran, 1983), and for VOC removal in several-locations, including Rockaway Township, New Jersey. 8-42 DRINKING WATER FAUCET ION EXCHANGE OR GAC CARTEIDGE ION EXCHANGE OR GAC TREATMENT UNIT BOOSTER PUMP , ---~ ~ _~~~INKING WATER FAUCET REVERSE OSMOSIS TREATMENT UNIT Figure 8418 POINT-OF-USE DEVICES " 8-43 Operating and maintenance costs are an important consider- ation in the evalution of the POU/POE treatment option. Ica exchange resins and GAC must be periodically regenerated ~n place or removed and regenerated at a centralized location. The frequency of regeneration will depend in large part on tke contaminant content of the feed water and the size of the unit. With reverse osmosis, the membranes must be r~placed period- i~ally. Home reverse osmosis treatment units are currently avail- able in a range of sizes -- from under-the-counter units used to treat only drinking water to full-scale units capable of treating all the water used by an apartmen.t complex. Several manufacturers are available, which ensures competitive capital costs and strong warranties. The"smaller RO units can effec- tively treat up to 5 gallons per day using normal system preS- sures. For larger capacities, booster pumps are required to increase the operating pressure across the RO membrane. Ser- vicing (membrane replacement) appears to be necessary at 6- to 12-month intervals. Preliminary cost estimates for point-of-use treatment were developed usin~ the followin~ design criteria: o The water utility or community has responsibility for the purchase, installation, and regular maintenance of the unit. o A single type of device will be selected for all'residences in a given area, and all units will receive equal and uni- form maintenance consisting of two replacements per year of the treatment cartridge (either GAC, resin, or membranes). o Filters and screening units are not included as pretreat~ent protections for the devices, but may be necessary where feed water quality requires filtration. o No costs for monitoring water quality have been included in the operating cost estimates. o Capacities are based on one unit per household .for use in cooking and drinking only (minimum 2-5 gpd).· 8-44 Unit capital and operating costs for point-of-use systems are presented in Table 8-9. The low range cost is based on the use of GAC. The high range cost is based on the use of ion exchange or reverse osmosis. The average cost is based on an equal number of GAC and ion exchange/RO devices being instal- led. Unit capital costs can be reduced if a large nUmber of 'units are purchased at one time (e.g., by a municiDality for a water quality treatment district). WRMP Table 8-9 TREATMENT COSTS FOR NITRATE, PESTICIDE, AND VOC REMOVAL USING POINT-OF-USE DEVICES* Capital Cost per Unit ($) Low 350 High 550 Average 450 Annual. Operating Costs per Unit ($) Low 150 High 300 Average 225 Total Treatment Costs (¢/1,000 gal)** Low 260 High 485 Average 370 * Mid-1984 dollars. ** Based on amortization of capital costs over 20 years at 12 percent interest plus'annual operating costs. 8-45 ~ 4NSF International: HACCP, Food Safety, Water ... Page 1 of 2 HighlightS This Month: t~l~ EPA/NSF Technology Verification (ETV) proiect~q li~ Listings of DWTUs Certified by NSF to RemoVe Cryptosporidium Information From NSF: ~Find out about NSF's Education and Training seminars and workshops. Register Online! ~ Click here to Apply for NSF Product Certification. You can Apply Online! ii, First NSF Intemational Food . ~lMu,ti-Li~guaiheo~aaou I I ~1~ NSF Product Certification Marks and what Nov. 16-18 in Albuquerque. '"they mean, plus Marks you can download! Register Online! ~i~ First NSF International Indoor held May 3-5, 1999 in Denver. ~ See live pictures of the new NSF World lteadquart-'~rs under construction. i~ Consumer Guides to Drinking Water Treatment Units (eh Espanol), Bottled Water, and Faucets.. Search the NSF Certified Product database. t~ Find out what NSF's Engineering and Research Services can do for you. http://www.nsf, org/ 12/22/98 SF International: HACCP, Food Safety, Water ... ~ Year 2000 Readiness Disclosure. Page 2 of 2 Current Newsletters: ~Read the Third Quarter Standard of EXcellence newsletter. Read the July Regulatory World newsletter. i~ Read the Fall Food Safety Today newsletter. Read the Summer Building & Plumbing Officials Bulletin Read the March WaterWorks neWSletter. ~Read the Summer Indoor Air Health newsletter. B OWSE NSF'S Recent Press Releases: NSF Announces Electrical Certification Program! i~ Cotmvo Named NSF International Vice preSident NSF and IAPMO Address Industry Needs ~New NSF Consumer Drinking Water Book Makes a Splash i[~ .Argentina's Leadin~ Certifier Joins NSF Food safety Network. HomeWater Inc. Sued for Misrepresentation. Faucets Must Meet New Lead Rules. i~NSF Is First ANSI Audited Designator for Standards. i~NSF Certification Addresses EPA Lead Compliance Requirement. Cholera Outbreaks and Climate. i[~ International Water Conference Focuses on Underserved Populations. McKesson Eams.NSF HACCP-9000® Registration. ~ BROWSE NSF'S PRESS RELEASE ARCHIVE NSF International PO Box 130140 Ann Arbor, MI 48113-0140, USA Telephone: (+1) 734-769-8010 Toll Free (USA): 800-NSF-MARK Fax: (+1) 734-769-0109 E-mail: info~nsf, org Contact NSF Departments or Regional Offices Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998 NSF International. All rights reserved. No portion of this material may be reprinted in any form without the express Written.permission of NSF International. http://www.nsf, org/ 12/22/98 NSF Drinking Water Treatment Units Program Page 1 of 1 NSF has served the point-of-use, point-of-entry Drinking Water Treatment Unit (DWTU) industry since I968. NSF was asked then by the state drinking water administrators, and later by the USEPA, to develop consensus standards and certify health and aesthetic contaminant reduction claims for DWTUs. Apply for NSF Certification Now.* Contact the Drinking Water Treatment Units (DWTU) Prom E-mail Nanc~ General Manager for the Drinking Water Treahnent Units Pro_gr__~_ These Standards have become important to manfacturers around the world as they seek entrance into this growing market.'In 1996, NSF became .a World Health Organization Colaborative Centre for Drinking Water Safety and Treatment, which positions NSF Standards and NSF Certified products to be embraced around the world2 More information on: The NSF Drinking Water Treatment Units Certification Program NSF Drinking Water Treatment Units Standards The NSF Drinking Water Treatment Units Guide for Consumers Copyright © 1998 NSF Intemational. All rights reserved. No portion of this material may be reprinted in any form without the expressed written permission of NSF International. http://wWW.ns£org/dwm/ -12/22/98 '" Consumer Guide to Drinking Water Filters Page 1 of 2 eonsumer guide to Drinking Water Filters It is necessary to perfOrm a water quality evaluation to detemdne those water quality concerns which apply, and which must be treated. This evaluation is achieved using the following outline. Note: This process may differ frotn country to country. If there is a specific contaminant which is causing Problems in your water and you know the contaminant, you can search the product database for Certified systems which will reduce the contaminant. 2. If the contaminant which is causing the problem is unknown but causes a visual problem, or you suspect an unknown contaminant in your water, follow the steps below to identify the possible contaminant. Then search the product database for Certified systems which will reduce the contaminant(s).in your water. 1. If you are on a municipal water system: 1. Contact your city water utility depath, ent and ask for a copy of the Municipal Drinking Water · Contaminant Analysis Report. Review the report for any contaminants that may be present in your water. 2. Compare the results .with. the table entitled EPA Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels to identify potential problem contaminants. 2. If you are on a private well: 1. Contact'your local health department and ask for: · A list of the typical well water contaminants in h ttp : //www.nsf. org/ consumers/ con gui d e 2.h tml 12/22/98 ~C ' ' onsumer Grade to Drinking Water Filters Page 2 of 2 your area; The names of laboratories certified in your state to analyze drinking water. 2. Contact a laboratory to have your drinking water tested, reqUesting the necessary sample bottles and instructions. (Read and follow the instructions carefully!) 3. Upon receipt of the report, compare levels of contaminants identified with the USEPA Safe Drinking Water Act's Maximum Contaminant Levels and Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels that were found in your water. If you identify an excessive level of one or more contaminants, or one that is causing a visible problem, look for drinking water treatment devices Certified by NSF to reduce the contaminant(s). They are listed in our Certified product database and in our printed booklet. After finding specific Model Numbers of Certified systems, in our Certified product database or in the guide, contact the manufacturer of the device you are considering purchasing and ask for the name, address, and telephone number of you nearest distributor or retail outlet. Or, you can link directly from our database to those manufacturers which have registered their web sites with NSF. Next rage... Copyright © 1997 NSF Intemational. All rights reserved. No portion of this material may be reprinted in any tbrm without the expressed written permission of NSF International http://www.nsf, org/consumers/conguide2.html 12/22/98 Consumer Guide to Drinking Water Filters Page 1 of 1 VerCiOn en Espanoi (~onsumer guide to Drinking Water Filters The NSF International Consumer Guide to Drinking Water Treatment Units (also called 'filters') will assist you in selecting the proper type of water treatment device to address a specific water quality concern. The water treatment devices we certify, which can be identified through searching our Certified Product Database, have been tested and Certified by NSF International to reduce specific contaminants from drinking water and do not contribute any known contaminants to your drinking water. NSF cannot recommend any specific manufacturer or product. All products we certify have met the requirements of our standards and have been certified to reduce contaminants to acceptable drinking water levels. If you would like to order a hard copy booklet of this consumer guide, either fill out our Consumer Guide request form, or call us at 1-800-NSF-MARK. There is a $6.00 shipping and handling charge for each Consumer Guide. This charge will appear on an invoice in the package--there is no pre-payment involved. Payment may be made by personal check or money order. To the Consumer Guide... Copyright © 1997 NSF International. All rights reserved. No portion of this material may be reprinted in any lbrm without the expressed written permission of NSF International. http://www.nsf, org/consumers/conguide.html 12/22/98 _ ~, .NSF International: Certification Programs Page 1 of 2 Important Note: All information in the printed guide is available on this web page and in our product database. The NSF drinking water treatment unit consumer guide will assist you in selecting the proper type of water tremment device to address a specific water quality concern. The devices listed in the guide and in our database are officially Certified products which have been tested and Certified by NSF International as meeting the appropriate ANSI/NSF standard. Certified devices effectively reduce specific contaminant(s) from drinking water and do not contribute any known contaminants to your drinking water. NSF cannot recommend any specific manufacturer or product. All products in the guide have met all of the requirements of the standard and have been certified to reduce contaminants to acceptable drinking water levels. The guide is divided into two parts. The first part of the booklet includes Aesthetic Effects Concerns, such as taste, odor; or color that may not be harmful to your health but are undesirable in drinking water. The second part, Health Effects Concerns, includes contaminants that are considered harmful to your health if you drink them in your water. To receive a copy of the drinking water treatment unit consumer guide, please fill out the form below: Name: Company: Street Address: City/State/Zip: Telephone: FAX: http://www.nsf, org/dwtu/dwtuguide.html 12/22/98 NSF International: Certification Programs E-Mail (Required): [ Comments: Page 2 of 2 How did you hear about NSF? Please be aware: there is a $6. O0 shipping and handling charge for each Consumer Guide. This charge will appear on an invoice in the package-there is no pre-payment involvea[ Due to the large volume of requests we receive for this consumer guide, please allow 2-3 weeks for delivery. Copyright © 1997 NSF International. All fights reserved. No portion of this material may be reprinted in any form without the expressed written permission of NSF International. http://www.nsf, org/dwtu/dwtuguide.html 12/22/98 NSF Certified Product Listings Page 1 of 1 The NSF Certified Product Listings show currently listed companies and products. Although every reasonable effort has been made to assure accuracy, omissions or errors may occur due to the complexity of these Listings and their conversion for the Internet. II'you notice an omission or error, please report it to: webmaster~_,nsf, org. Please select the Product Listings you would like to Search Drinkin,q Water Treatment Units Bottled Water and Packa.qed Ice lii~ Drinkin.q Water Additives (Treatment Chemicals and ..System Components) ii, Authorized Protocol Certifications Wastewater Treatment Unit.*. Food Equipment ~Plastics Piping and Plumbing System Components · ~1~ Swimming Pool,s, Spas and Hot · Tubs ~ Biohazard Cabinetry ~i~ Biohazard Cabinet Field Certifiers If you have any questions about whether a product is NSF Certified or about how to interpret these Listings, please contact the NSF Certification Records Departtnent at 800,NSF,MARK (or 734-769,8010) or the NSF'Consumer'HOtline' at 800-NSF:8010. · Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998 NSF International. All rights reserved. No portion of this material may be reprinted in any form .without the express written permission of NSF International. http ://www.nsf. org/ database.html 12/22/98 NSF International: Certified Product Database Page 1 of 1 Instructions To locate a sPecific product, please enter the Manufacturer Name and Model Number below. To locate a list of products by the function(s) that they perform, select one or more of the FUnctions from the 16 listed below. The following Functions can also be used as search criteria to help locate the desired item. Note: If you want systems certified for Trihalomethane Reduction, check VOC Reduction. . Product Function [] Asbestos Reduction [] BarilunReduction [] Cadmium Reduction [] Copper Reduction [] Cyst Reduction [] Fluoride Reduction [] Hexavalent Chromium Reduction [] Lead Reduction [] Mercury Reduction [] Nitrate Reduction [] Radium 226/228 Reduction [] Selenium Reduction [] TDS Reduction [] Trivalent Chromium Reduction [] Turbidity Reduction [] VOC Reduction [ Lo,ac Moae~ J http://208.246.217.227/listings/dwtusel_inf, cfin 12/22/98 'NSF International: Certified Product Database Page 1 of 4 fb_ts database shows the Listings as of 8:00 PM, December 21, 1998, Eastern Standar~ ime. The Listings are continually changing. Please contact NSF to confirm statUs ofI an~ Listing, report any errors, or make any suggestions. NSF STANDARD 058 Reverse Osmosis Drinking Water Treatment .Systems NOTE: All Replacement Modules Are Components ATLANTIC FILTER CORPORATION 3112 45TH STREET WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33407 561.683-0101 Plant at: # 1 USA Trademark/ Model Designation Plumbed-In to Separate Tap HR-35-TFC-4W Replacement Daily Production Function Element Rate (gpd) S1448RS 10 Nitrate Reduction CULLIGAN INTERNATIONAL COMPANY ONE CULLIGAN PARKWAY NORTHBROOK, IL 60062 847-205-6000 Plant at: NORTHBROOK, IL Trademark/ Model Designation Plumbed-In to Separate Tap AC- 15 Nitrate AC-30 Nitrate Replacement Daily Production Function Element Rate (gpd) 01-0001-45 15 01-0074-02 30 Nitrate Reduction Nitrate Reduction http://208.246.217.227/lisfings/dwtudtl_inf, cfm?RequestTimeout=600&STD=0 I2/22/98~mpz~y 'NSF International: Certified Product Database AC-30M Nitrate 01-0074-02 30 AC-30L Nitrate 01-0074-02 30 + Tested and Certified for VOC Reduction with 250 gallon capacity. * From serial number I000001. Page 2 of 4 Nitrate Reduction Nitrate Reduction 01'0024-64 post-filte EVERPLJRE, INCORPORATED 660 N. BLACKHAWK DRIVE WESTMONT , II. 60559 630-654-4000 Plant at: WESTMONT, IL Trademark/ Mo del Designation Plumbed-In to Separate Tap ROM II ROM l-Il+ + Tested and Certified capacity. Replacement Daily Production Function Element Rate (gpd) TFC 12 Nitrate Reduction VOC #1 12 Nitrate Reducfion for VOC Reduction with VOC #1 post-filter. 3 HELLENBRAND WATER CONDITIONING 404 MARAVIAN VALLEY ROAD P.O. BOX 187 WA UNAKEE, WI 53597z0187 608'849-3050 Plant at: # 1 USA Trademark/ Model Designation Plumbed-In to Separate Tap Millennium MRO-35 Replacement Daily Production Function Element Rate (gpd) S 1448RS 10 Nitrate Reduction HYDROTECHNOLOGY INC. 25555 WEST AVENUE STANFORD VALENCIA , CA 91355 800-356-1836 805-257-1777 http://208.246.217.227/listings/dwtudtl_inf, cfm?RequestTimeout=_600 &STD=012/22/98~mpany 'NSF International: Certified Product Database Page 3 of 4 Plant at: VALENCIA, CA Trademark/ Replacement Daily Production Function Model Designation Element Rate (gpd) Plumbed-In to Separate Tap 10203*+# 41400003 4.6 10204*+# 41400004 7.4 10205*+# 41400005 11.5 10206*+# 41400006 ii 10207*+# 41400007 15 10103*+# 41400003 4.6 10104*+# 41400004 7A 10105*+# 41400005 11.5 10106*+# 41400006 11 10107*+# 41400007 15 Nitrate Reduction Nitrate Reduction Nitrate Reduction Nitrate Reduction Nitrate Reduction Nitrate Reduction Nitrate Reduction Nitrate Reduction Nitrate Reduction Nitrate Reduction Above model'designations may be followed by a .three digit suffix system configurations: 101 - Pushbutton monitor 102 - Faucet monitor 103 - Nitrate. ReductiOn model with push'button monitor 104- Nitrate ReduCtion model with faucet monitor NOTE: Daily production rates for 101 through 104 are identical. .Starting serial # is 00001. Also included is the year, week, and type of product. 9 = 101/102/103 ** Conforms to the material requirements only. *** Models have passed air gap verification testing. + Only models followed by the 103 suffix or 104 suffix are NSF Cert Nitrate Reduction. } Model designations are followed by a one digit suffix indicating style: 0 = No indicator light 1 = 1 LED indicator light 2 = 2 LED indicator lights 3 = 3 LED indicator lights http://208.246.217.227/listings/dwtudtl_inf, cfia?RequestTimeOut=-60'0&STD=012/22/98~mpany NSF Intern~ion~: Certified Product D~abase Page 4 of 4 #Models are Certified for use with any of the following storage ta assemblies: 42600001 42600002 42600003 42600021 @ An additional one digit suffix indicates component color: 1 for White Faucet 3 for Almond Faucet 4 for Black Faucet 5 for Black/Chrome Faucet 7 for White/Chrome Faucet NOTE:These components do not bear the NSF Mark. Evidence of Certifica will appear on the manufacturer's literature and packaging. [View Next 5 Companies] http://208.246.217.227/listings/dwtudtl_inf, cfm?RequestTimeou~600&STD=012/22/98~mpany -Culligan Water Technologies, Inc. Page 1 of 2 Welcome Our Mission Visit US Filter Capabilities Products & Distribution International Operations News Franchise Opportunities Career Openin.qs History of Culliqan Dealer Links FAQ's on Water Glossary of Water Terms Favorite Chicaqo Links Culli.qan Corn panies Site Map eo Culligan is Water! Water and Culligan. Culligan and Water. The two are interchangeable. With over 62 years of service, Culligan has come to represent the world-wide standard in quality water treatment. Water is perhaps our wodd's most valuable resource, and at. Culligan, water is our only business. Use our Web site as a handy resource for answers to frequently asked questions about water, water problems and solutions to your water problems. Because for all your water solutions, Culligan technology is the answer. No matter what the water problem in your part of the. world, Culligan has the solution. With a growing, family of over 1,500 dealers and distributors in 90 countries worldwide, Culligan and its family of companies have the resources and .technology to deliver solutions to your water problems using cutting-edge technologies and superior service, anywhere in the world. Culliqan Dealer Locator Culligan Sponsors The Holiday Bowl! Press Release 1-800-CULLIGAN FAX (847) 205-6030 E-Mail Culliqan http://www.culligan-man.com/homepage-n2.htm 12/22/98 .-Culligan Water Technologies, Inc. Page 2 of 2 Welcome Hission US Filter Capabilities Products International News. Franchises Careers History Dealer Links FAO WaterTerms Chicaqo Sites Culliqan Companies Best viewed with MS IE 4.0+. I~t~n~~ ~! Year 2000 Readiness Disclosure Information provided you either in wlJfing or verbally regarding preduats and services offered by U.S. Filter Corporation or with respect to our Year 2000 processing capabilities ur resdiness are 'Year 2000 Readiness Disclosures" in conformance with the Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disdosme Act of 1998 (Publio Law 105-271, 112 Stat. 2386) enacted on October 19,1998. This designation applies to information delivered directly to you, tl~rough or derived from the Company's pa.qt or presmt Year 2000 di~!osun~ t~ This page, and all contents, are Copyright (C) 1998 by Culligan Intema~onal Company, Northbmok, Illinois, 60062 USA. ~1~ http://www, culligan-man.com/homepage-n2.htm . 12/22/98 Residential Water Treatment Page 2 of 3 Dealer Installed Household Products Total Home Treatment Systems for almost any water problem.., no matter where in the world you live. Culligan's full line of Total Home Treatment Systems can be customized from over 60 individual components, by your local independent Culligan dealer, to meet the specific waterproblems in your home. Water Softeners Problem Water Filters Reverse Osmosis Systems Drinkin~ Water Filters Residential Water Treahnent Page 3 of 3 Bottled Water -.~ -' Benefits of ~ Soft Water Benefits of High Quality { ~[~'~ D~g Water NSF Certified Products Remm To Products Welcome MissiOn Careers Histo _ry US Filter Capabilities Products International News Dealer Water FAQ Water Chicago Cull/gan Links Tek ms Sites Companies Culligan International Company One Culligan Parkway, Northbrook, IL 60062 USA 1-800-CULLIGAN FAX (847) 205-6030 E-Mail Culligan Franchises Home Page ReSidential Reverse Osmosis Water Treatment Page 2 of 2 Culligan Residential Reverse Osmosis Products Our full line of Reverse Osmosis Home Treatment Systems produce delicious, high quality drinking water for all your needs. Reverse Osmosis Systems Reverse Osmosis Rental Systems Reverse Osmosis Drinking Water Console Return To Household Products Menu Welcome Mission Careers History_ US Filter Capabilities Products International News, Dealer Water Chicag° Culligan Home Links Water FAQ Terms Sites Companies Page Franchises Culligan International. Company One Culligan Parkway, Northbrook, ll J 60062 USA 1-800-CULLIGAN FAX (847) 205-6030 E-Mail Culligan m M~tro,on. ~lI Best viewed with Internet Explorer 4.0 I ~.ter.et or higher- download it here. I Exmo~e~ This page, and all contents, are Copyright (C) 1998 by Culligan International Company, Northbrook, Illinois, 60062 USA. http://www.culligan-man.com/roprods.htm 12/22/98 ' · Good Water Machine DW System Page 2 of 6 THE CULLIGAN® GOOD WATER MA CHINEm DRINKING WA TER SYSTEM One of the world's most advanced water treatment technologies. Now available in a home system. The reverse osmosis method of drinking water treatment has long been regarded as one of the most efficient ways to reduce impurities. It's the technology we've used to build the Culligan® Good Water Machinetm. So if you want to give your family healthful, deliciously crystal clear drinking water, there's no better system than this one. Triple-Filtered. Triple Sure. Particulate filter removes dirt, sediment, and other particles that cause cloudy, unpleasant water. With the Culligan Good Water Machine System your water is filtered three times before it ever reaches your glass. Carbon filter gets rid of chlorine, sulfur, and other causes What comes out is clear, delicious, http://www.culligan-man.com/acleerdw, htm 12/22/98 Good Water Machine DW System and other causes of bad taste and odors. Reverse osmosis filter uses semipeimeable membrane to squeeze out most chemicals and many other microscopic impurities. Culligan drinking water. Page 3 of 6 Space-saving design · Entire unit needs only 1 1/4 square feet of space. · Designer faucet mounts conveniently on sink. Limited Lifetime Warranty · Strong, sturdy construction. · · Built for long life and years of dependable service. · Streamlined design makes filter changes quick and easy. Designer Faucet Delivers delicious water at the . touch of a finger. Available in polished chrome or white. Good Water Machine Sentry m Monitor http://www, culligan-man.com/acleerdw.htm. 12~22/98 Good Water Machine DW System Page 4 of 6 A unique option that continually monitors reverse osmosis filtration to help make sure system is operating at top levels. 5-Micron Particulate Filter Removes impurities 15 times smaller than a grain of sand. Activated Carbon Filter Activated carbon filter effectively removes bad tastes and odors. Reverse Osmosis Membrane Filter One of the f'mest methods of filtration available. Removes substances as small as an atom. Manual Shut-Off Allows for quick and easy filter changes. Automatic Shut-Off Water-saving device that Shuts off system when reservoir tank is full. Durable, High-Capacity Reservoir Tank Made of durable, high-quality steel, this sturdy tank helps ensure you'll have a plentiful supply of clear, refreshing water at the touch of a finger. Polishing Filter The system even _includes a second activated carbon filter as an added assurance your water will be crystal clear. An essential ingredient to your family's good health. · Good clean drinking water is essential to everyone's health. Nutritionists recommend you drink 8 glasses a day. A Culligan Good Water Machine System is a smart, convenient way to make sure your family is getting the clear, fresh water they need. In fact, many families find that with delicious Cullian water at home, their kids drink fewer sugary soft drinks. Improves a lot more than just water Crystal clear Culligan water is ideal for: http://www.culligan-man.com/acleerdw.htm 12/22/98 Good Water Machine DW System · Coffee - Tea · Soup · Juice · Recipes · Baby formula · Houseplants · Pets · Pasta · Ice cubes · Steam irons · Drink mixes · Everything you make with water Page 5 of 6 The Water Experts. Nobody,s better at solving water problems than your Culligan Man. Prompt, efficient. Culligan Man service is something other brands or retail stores just doit have. With over 800 independently operated Culligan dealers in the U.S. and Canada, you'll find Culligan Man service from coast to coast. The Culligan Good Water Machine has been tested and certified by NSF Intemati0nal for average removal Ofmany contaminants. - Independent testing by NSF International has certified the Culligan® Good Water Machinem, Model AC-30 series for average removal of the following: Copper 99.9% Giardia Lamblia 99.9% Asbestos 99.6% Lead 98.6% Barium 90.1% Mercury 83.1% Cadmium 98.9% **Nitrate 95.1%** Chromium IH i97.9% Radium 226/228 80.0%* Cryptosporidium 99.9% Selenium 94.5% Fluoride 96.7% l'DS/Sodium Chloride 91.3% Chromium VI 82.6% **Nitrite 88.9%** *pproved testing methods with Barium as surrogate. 'l'he substances removed by this system are not necessarily in your water. See performance data Mtp://www.culligan-man.com/acleerdw.htm 12/22/98 Good Water Machine DW System ~heet for exact percentages of contaminant removal. Not intended for use on microbiologically unsafe water or water of unknown qualiO~. May be used on disinfected water supplies containingfilterabte cysts. ** ~C-30 Nitrate models only Page 6 of 6 Return To RO Products Menu Welcome Mission Careers History US Filter Capabilities Products International News Franchises Dealer Water Chicago Culligan Home Links Water FAQ Temps Sites Companies Page Culligan International Company One Culligan Parkway, Northbrook, IL 60062 USA 1-800-CULLIGAN FAX (847) 205-6030 " E-Mail Culli. g_.~ This page, and all contents, are Copyright (C) 1998 by Culligan Intemafional Company, Northbrook, Illinois, 60062 USA. http://www, culligan-man.conffacleerdw, htm 12/22/98 What Is RO? Page 1 of 5 REVERSE OSMOSIS DRINKING WA TER SYSTEMS Answers to frequently asked questions about RO WHAT IS ~VERSE OSMOSIS? Reverse Osmosis (RO) is a process that separates water from its impurities by forcing the water through a thin plastic film or "RO Module". The impurities are flushed away and the high quality water is collected. HOW IS REVERSE OSMOSIS USED? RO has.many applications. It is used to desalinate sea water for drinking. It is used to prOduce high quality water for kidney dialysis. RO is used to reduce heavy metals and other contaminants from waste waters so that it can be recycled and reused. RO is also critical to industry for production of ultra-pure water used in micro chip manufacturing and other sensitive processes. It is also one of the most economical ways to provide high quality drinking water in the home. HOW DOES A REVERSE OSMOSIS DRINKING WATER SYSTEM IMPROVE MY DRINKING: WATER? A Culligan, Clean Water Machine, reverse osmosis drinking water system typically combines an RO module-with particulate and activated carbon filters to reduce a wide range of substances from tap water. The particulate filter is used to reduce larger particles such as dirt, sand, and rust suspended in the water which could clog the membrane of the RO module. The activated' carbon filter reduces unpleasant tastes and odors as well as chlorine. The RO module reduces the amount of total dissolved solids (TDS) in the water. Included in this TDS group are heavy metals and inorganic substances such as sodium, lead, arsenic, nitrates, asbestos, and many others. Some organic substances .are also reduced. A final activated carbon filter is added to polish the taste of the water as it is dispensed. Remember.that these substances are not necessarily in your water. httl"://www'culligan-man-c°m/whatro-htm 12/30/98. ,What Is RO? Page 2 of 5 A reverse osmosis drinking water system can improve the taste and clarity of your drinking water. Because RO systems can reduce a variety of substances from water, they can also help to ease your concerns about some of these substances. CAN A REVERSE OSMOSIS SYSTEM TREAT ALL THE V~'ATER IN MY HOME? Yes it could, but, reverse osmosis is a slow process! Most household RO systems produce up to about twenty-five gallons of purified water per day. A very large system would be required to. treat all the water required for daily household uses such as washing clothes, doing dishes, and showering. The complexity and expense of such a system typically limits its use to commercial.applications. Also, the high-quality of RO water is not necessary for most household chores. Softened water is often better suited to these uses. HOW DO REVERSE OSMOSIS SYSTEMS DIFFER FROM OTHER TYPES OF DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS? Activated Carbon Filters can reduce many organic substances and chlorine. They cannot reduce total dissolved solids, nitrates, sodium, or other inorganic substances which can be reduced by RO. Activated carbon filters filter water on demand and do not require a storage tank. However, they do have a limited capacity. Particulate Filters reduce only physical particles suspended in the water, such as sand and dirt from drinking water. They do not improve the taste or odor of water, nor do they reduce diss~lYed organic and inorganic substances. Particulate filters filter water on demand. Ultraviolet Lights kill bacteria and other living organisms which may be present in water. UV cannot reduce or remove substances from water. Therefore, UV is often used with other ti:eatment products such as activated carbon and particulate filters. UV systems require electricity. HOW DO I KNOW WHICH DRINKING WATER SYSTEM IS RIGHT FOR ME? First, have your water tested to detetJuine the quality of your water supply. Then deteimine which type of product gives you the type of filtration that best answers your concerns. Your local health department or state certified lab can test your water, or, call your local independent Culligan dealer. A Culligan http://www.culligan-man.corn/whatro.htm 12/30/98 What Is RO? professional can arrange for a Water test and recommend the water treatment equipment which best suits your needs. Your Culligan dealer installs and 'services the Culligan brand products she/he sells. When selecting a reverse osmosis drinking water system, carefully check the product's contaminant reduction capabilities, its daily capacity, and look for the product to be certified by NSF International. NSF International is the most highly respected independent testing institution in the water treatment and similar industries. Culligan leads the industry by being the fn'st company to offer an RO system certified to NSF International standards. The Culligan Aqua-Cleer H-83 Series reverse osmosis drinking water systems and the Culligan Good Water Machine, have been tested and certified to ANSI/NSF International Standard 58. This standard requires: Page 3 of 5 · High quality water production · Superior performance · Safe operation and durable construction · Proven inert materials Effective contaminant reduction, specifically: · Arsenic · Asbestos · Barium · Cadmium · Hexavalent Chromium · Trivalent Chromium · Fluoride · Lead · Mercury · Nitrate · Sodium/TDS · Selenium · Radium 226/228 · Cysts Note: Remember that the substances reduced by these systems may not be in your water supply. ONCE MY REVERSE OSMOSIS DRINKING WATER SYSTEM IS INSTALLED, IS THERE ANY TYPE OF MAINTENANCE THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE? The activated carbon and particulate pre filters in the system http://www.culligan-man.com/whatro.htm 12/30/98 What Is RO? remove chlorine and sediment. They must be changed periodically. Typically, these filters should be replaced annually along with the final carbon polishing filter. Replacement frequency may vary due to your local water conditions and the quantity of water being filtered by the system. With proper pre filter maintenance, the RO module will typically last several years. Your local water expert, the Culligan Man, can recommend the filter replacement schedule that's right for your condition. HOW CAN I TELL IF MY SYSTEM IS WORKING? Your system's perfmmance is checked when the system is installed. If your RO water tastes good and looks clear, your system is probably working effectively, the Culligan Aqua-Cleer Sentry Water Quality Monitor can be added to your system to monitor the quality of the water being produced by your system. It electronically chgcks your drinking water each time the special drinking water faucet is used and signals when the RO module may need to be replaced. It is a great way to be sure that your system is working properly. Of course, if you notice a change in the taste or odor of your water, immediately contact your Culligan Man to have your system checked. DON'T PEOPLE NEED THE MINERALS THAT ARE REMOVED FROM THE WATER? It's true that certain vitamins and minerals aid in the promotion of good health. To ensure that recommended levels are maintained, it's best to depend on eating a well balanced diet. the beneficial minerals present in tap water typically exist in such small amounts that enormous amounts of water would have to be consumed to realize any dietary benefit from them. IS RO WATER OK FOR PLANTS? RO drinking water is not only OK for Plants, it is recommended. The chlorine and dissolved heavy metals that may be present in tap water can cause the soil to harden, inhibit water absorption, and cause leaves to discolor. In addition, mineral deposits which may develop over time in potted plants can become toxic to the plant. Since RO water has a very low mineral content, these problems are avoided. CAN I USE RO WATER FOR OTHER THINGS? High quality RO water is recommended for cooking, making ice cubes and beverages, giving to pets, and cleaning glass and jewelry. Its low mineral content makes it ideal .for use in steam irons, car batteries, and humidifiers. It can even be used as a spot-free rinse for your car. Page 4 of 5 http://www.culligan-man.com/whatro.htm · 12/30/98 'Culligan Water Conditioning of Riverhead Page 1 of 3 Culligan Water Conditioning of Riverhead 785 Raynor Ave. Riverhead, NY 11901 Riverhead: 727-6600 Southampton: 287-2900 Huntington: 422-3100 Babylon: 547-1200 Toll Free: 800 427-0033 Welcome to Culligan of Riverhead's web site! We're glad you stopped by. In this site youql find infoxmation about our dealership and it's services. Whatever your water needs, Culligan is your source for better water~ We understand that a water improvement system is an investment in your family's health and well being, or your business's quality. About Our Dealership: Culligan Water Conditioning of Riverhead has been serving Sulfolk County for the last 28 years. Since that time we have served Riverhead, the North & South Forks, the Hamptons, Brookhaven, Babylon and Huntington township with quality water systems. In following with our high standards of business and community commihnent, we are active members in the NSF (National Sanitation Foundation), WQA (Water Quality Association), IBWA (International Bottled Water Associat/on), Better Business Bureau members, and Licensed by Consumer Affairs. Residential Services: " -Culhgan Water Conditioning of Riverhead Page 2 of 3 Nobody's better at solving water problems than the Culligan Man! That's why we'll start by sending one of our highly trained technicians to your home to provide you with a free water consultation. Next, your Culligan representative will help you decide which of our systems best suits your home and family needs. From there we will deliver and install your Culligan system. it's that easy to enjoy pure, great tasting Culligan water! If you need expert repair, regardless of the make or model of your softener, look no farther than our factory trained repair depat hnent. Commercial & Industrial Services: Culligan Water Conditioning of Riverhead has a factory trained commercial/industrial representative on staff. Our industrial depathnent gives you a. comprehensive choice of water treatment equipment, systems, and supplies. We also keep a large inventory of vital parts for our factory trained repair depatinxent, and light commercial systems in stock at all times. Your business can count on us for countless products and services including; · Softeners · Carbon & Iron · Filters Dealkalizers · Equipment · Deionizers Rentals · Custom Design & Build Delivery: · Membrane Technology · Ultra Pure Water · ReVerse Osmosis Systems For your convenience, we offer scheduled delivery of portable exchange units, salt and five gallon bottled water for both homes and'businesses. We also have automatic service and reminder postcards for routine maintenance. Store Information: Our office hours are 8a.m.- 5p.m., Monday-Friday, and 9a.m.- 12 noon on Saturdays. To make owning a Culligan system as easy as' possible, we accept MasterCard and Visa and have great in-house financing. :Culligan Water Conditioning of Riverhead Click here for a free water consultation. '~l& Conduct New Search'"'"[ Return To Home Page 3 of 3 ~7~9~/1 qq~l 1R.' Rq l acsimile guffolk Cnunty Water Authnrity To: Herman Miller, P.E. Com,,,tny: SCWA R! From: Scott Meyerdierks Company.: Suffolk County W~r Authority Phone: (516) 563-0293 Da2: ~uly 24, 1998 including this cover page: I C~ ill~3~fltf.: As requemed, the £ollowin8 are general Clpitnl and O&tvi ca~t e~m~te; £m' both the AST ISEP (eerousei ~pe)Nitrate Rcmovel System end Conventional IonExeh~nge Nit, ate l~unlov~l System: Budg~xry Capital Cost for Equipmcut Only (1,:200 8pm wfs~cm) --$?~0,0oo to $900,000 F.~cd West~ Disposal Costs ~ S6S per l,OOO gnllflns F..mtimated System O&M Costs = $0.35 to 0,40 per 1,000 gallons treated CONVENTIONAL I01~ EXCHAHGE SYSTEM Budgetary Capital Cost for Equipment Only (1,".00 $pm system) =$?00,000 to $900,000 Eatimat~cl Wast~ Disposal Co,ts L- S65 per 1.000 ~ailons Estimated System OSr~ Costs = $0.45 to 0.50 per 1,000 gallons treated Again, these are general costs, at this thne we do not have enough i~Formation ~t om AST to make a 8nod equal cost comparison of both systems. Please call if you have an)' questions. S~,ott )/~ilin_~ ~ -P.O. ]{ox 37, t"kk'hle. ~ York 11769. Acta: Shipping Add.,~ - ]52~ Su~.~e Hir. hwav. Greai River. New York 11739. Arm: En~ia-~ei'iu~ Th lrsty New Jersey Resort Sees New Use for Saity Water By ROBERT itANLEY CAPE MAY, N.J. -- For decades, rata-! tlone, have flocked to this resort's broad beach on the Atlantic. its big hotels and Its quaint pantei Victorian guest homes, bring- lng a welcome inluslan of cash. But the 91struts have had a devnstatin8 effect on Cape May's underground water Supply, depleting it to the point that, since 1950, two community wells have been abort- cloned after they became contaminated by salty ocean water thai seeped in to replace the fresh water, and the use of two others has been curtailed. With the salt front threatening its fifth and last well, Cape May is installing the first desalination plant in the Northeast, becom- ~.~' lng the northernmost of dozens of resorts.~. and cities on the East Coast that have turned to desaltlng to offset strains on their water supplies. All are purifying brackish ground water that was once useless. The move toward desalinatinn begait iat the late 1970's in highly developed resorts Florida's gulf coast like Sarasota, Fort My- ers and Cape Coral, said James Blrkette, a consnltant on desalination from Maine, Boca Raton and Hollywood on Florida's Atlantic coast also rely on the plants. Re- cently, desalination moved northward to Mount 'Pleasant, S.C.; Cape Hatteras and Nags Head on North Carolina's Outer Banks; Newpor~ News and Chesapeake in canslal Virginia, and now, to New Jersey's southern tip. "It's a natural result of population growth and overstress on aquifers," Dr, Blrkette said of coastal cities' growing reliance on desaltlug plants, The common denominators for the re- sorts, he said. are the steady arrival of new residents and. tourists and the overpumping o! aquifers, porous undergroand layers con- 'raining water. By allowing the resorts to use once-undrinkable salty water, the plants ease the strain on aqu fers and help slow the incursion of salt water. When fresh water Is f.removed in large quantities, r4inwater and . streams cannot replenish the aquifers quickly enough, and salt water then seeps In. in Cape May, summer tourism swells the population to nearly 40,000 from about 4,500 and pushes dally water demand on busy weekends to about 2.7 million gallons from about 900,000 gallons, said Thomas Phelan, , a former Mayor and now head of Cape May's desalination committee. Over the last 50 years, salt water has been spreading through Cape May's well field at an Increasing speed. In the 1950's, the salt frnnt, crept northward at a rate of about 92' feel a year. By the late 1980's, the incursion had sped up to about 271 feet a year, accord. lng to a study conducted by the United States Geological Survey in 1992. F. ederal geologists estimated at the time that the salt front would reach Cape May's only unaffected well, No. 5, by 2000. "We had to take 1998 as the year it was going to hit, to be on the safe side," Mr. Phelan said. The salt front encroaching on Cape May is not New Jersey's first. Two others in the last 20 years have' ruined hundreds of wells in commu. nlties along Raritan Bay and on the Delaware Rh'er south of Camden. About $500 million was spent for a new reservoff new, water treatment p ants and distribution pipes on the Raritan and Delaware Rivers, said water managers in the state's De. partment of Environmental Protec. tion. Saltwater intrusion Is also a prob- lem, though a much less severe one, on Long Island, which gets all of its drinking water from aquifers. In Nassau County, water officials said, salty water has doomed two wells in Great Neck. which like Cape May is on a peninsula, and forced that com- munity to drill new wells farther inland. Cape May's $5 million desalination plant allowed it to drive its first well Into the deepest of five aquifers, which are stacked In layers beneath the Cape May Peninsula, and tO be- gin treating the previously unused brackish water. That aquifer, called the Atlantic City Sand, is 800 feet below the surface and 600~feet below the Cohansey aquifer, which cape May has used for its five wells. Cape ' May will cut back on its use of the overpumped Cohansey, which has' been increasingly fouled by salt. State environmental officials had been prodding Cape May to rely less on the Cohansey in hopes of slowing the anrtherly march of the salt front toward t.he well fields of two neigh- boring communities, Lower Town- ship and Wildwood, which also draw from the Cohansey. The new plant is to begin test runs early this month, and officials hope to have it operating by Labor Day. It ~'. Is designed to treat ! miUlon gallons ,". a day and can be expanded to treat million _gallons. The sodium chloride, or salt, level in the Atlantic City Saod's water Is : about 2,000 parts per million, far higher than both the Federal drink. lng water slandard of :250 parts per million and the level In the Cohansey, which Is up to 400 parts per million in the two wells that have been closed and in the other two fouled by salt. In the fifth well, the salt level is well below the Federal standard. The plant is intended to eliminate all the salt, said David Blair, project manager for Metcalf & Eddy, the engineering company that designed Cape May's plant, t Like the other plants on the East . Coast, Cape May's relies on a filtra- tion process called reverse osmosis. Under this process, the brackish wa. tar in the aquiler, which is cohsidera- bly less salty than water in the ocean, Is pumped at'high pressure into an array of 40-foot-long tubes filled with rolls of semipermeable membranes. As Ihe brackish water is forced through the rails, the chlorides are separated out, and that stream of brine Is eventually discharged to a creek flowing to the Atlantic. After flowing through the mem- branes, the purified water reaches a hollow core at the center of the rolls and enters the water distribution net- work. 'Officials say reverse-osmosis plants are far cheaper to operate than desalination plants that treat sea water, which has chloride counts of 35,000 parts per million. These plants, common in the Middle East, use a technology called flash distills. tion, which removes contaminants by boiling sea water and condensihg the steam, iligh energy costs have made such plants rare in the United States. llere in Cape May, Federal and state loans and grants paid the plant's $5 million In construction costs. Thed01ant will add $1.,2~ ncr 1.~_000 gR~lo~s to ih6 re'sort's summer- .'tt~b--w~r-~V"a~ cfi~rge of' $14.~3 ~. I',fr. Phela, ~t th~ desalination committee said he ex. peered his family's,water bill to in. crease about $85 a year. F elllng a Saltwater Invasion Over lhe last 50 years, me underground aquifer that provides water Ior Cape May has been depleled, resulling in Ihe Iouling of municipal wells with salt water. In response, the local government is installing a desalling planl that will clean brackish water tapped tram a deeper aquifer Problem: Salt Water In the Wells Feet below WELLS · O ~ sea level 345 6 i i - Bul the bi~ hotels on the oce~ use low~s anrth of Cape May should ~ from I million to 8.5 million gallons of water a year, city officials said. ' The new plant will add anywhere from $1,250 to $10,625 to their annual water bills, they said. Residents and Innkeepers seem more resigned to the rate increase than angry about it. After all, they have wrestled for years with the need for water conservation and threats the salt front poses for tour. ism, the backbone of Cape Mayas economy. Dane Wells, owner of the Qu~4n victoria., one of cape May's 60 and breakfasts, said that thro~gjh conserving water and raising rates he would cover the higher wa- ter charge, But he said residents of EnSEY , .. · A U I n ti~k~,~t~.J. Idwoo ,,, KEY TO MAP Wells contaminated by salt wa~er: aband~ed ~n 1950 and 1963. respechvely Wells ~ouled Well ~ree ol saltwater= con[aminahon Naturafly brackish water will be p~rified by Ihe new desa~ing planL . a surcharge to underwrite Ca.I]e May's higher costs because the r9- sort city is cutting back on its use @! the Cohansey aquifer to help keep ihe salt front away from well fields in those towns. "Because we're on the front edge, we're paying for rampant develop- merit north of us," Mr, Wells said. "The state should charge others and the money should go to a fund to help Cape May." Mr; Wells has reduced his inn's water use by installing pressurized toilets that uso less water per flush. And like many other residents, I~e has sunk a private well on his prop. erty for water to wash his car arid sprinkle his lawn and flowers. ~'*Rmedyt L)esaltlng by osmosis 'e a distillation process used to desalt water, the process used ,e new plant is caIlea reverse osmosis. This is how it works: % Aquiler water enters a 40-foot cylinder ' '* Item a high-pressure pump. ~1 MEt ~eRANES ' 2 Tho salty water 3 The salty I II.... i'-'~ is Iorced Ihrougfl ware, fillers II U .~ ~~ rolls of mom- Ihrou~h several I I ' ? HOLLOW I/~llU II branes lo a hollow more lubesh Th~ ~ CO~ ~f~]]~ core, separating conconlrated PURmFmED ~ Ihe salts. The residue is then WAlER CROSS- clean water flows discharged )o a RESIDUE FR~ smctlen to Ihe municipal creek flowing Io HOLLOW CORE water supply. Ihe Atlanlie ~urces U S G~ical ~tvey. Ca~ ~y Wat~ ~ar~nt. ~t~lf & Eddy Inc. Four years .ago, Mr. Wells ~"~n' giving two- or three-night guests'tfl, e option of using the same bed linens during their stay, .That policy has c6t water used for laundry by 20 perc~t, he said. ' But some year-round residents said conserving water has not sa~'~d them much money. Pat Dillon, a s'eb- rotary at the Chamber of Commer~c~, switched to Iow-flush toilets. She said the toilets cut her water use in but that did not save her mon~y because Cape May raised wA|~r rates to offset' the loss of revehde brought on by conservation. State officials say Cape shift to the,Atlantic City Sand aquifer will require careful monitoring be- cause it Is the main source of water for resorts on a 70-mile stretch;p! cbastline from Stone Harbor to the northern end el Long Beach Island. Much of the aquifer In that stretch has been heavily pumped and con- tains a precursor of a salt front lnya. sion: a huge V-shaped void that drolo..glsts call a cone of de...pressip~n, Over decades, If overpumping tinnes, salty ocean water might,f~ll the cone of depression, as it has done here. So far, monitoring wells have npt detected any intrusinp of salt in ~the Atlantic City Sand north of the CalVe May Peninsula, said Robert Kecsl~s, a section chief in the state's Offic,~,of Jim Perrylll~e New York Times Environmental Planning, But, I)e added, state hydrologists and gists are uncertain whether Ca~e May's pumping that aquifer v~ill cause a salt front to pop up else- where on New Jersey's resort strip. if that happens, the optiotis include more desalting plants, he said.. But he said a mere I~kely response wo'u~d be to have the next generation sewage treatment plants discharge treated effluent into the ground i~- stead of the ocean, so it can filter down to aquifers, Any salt intrusion along the coast north of Cape May is years away he said. We all beflev~ there's enou[~h time to react to it safely and inexpep- sively," he said. I Population And Development Trends HISTORICAL POPULATION TRENDS IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, 1960 THROUGH 1998 Population Overview The Town of Southold consists of the eastem portion of the North Fork of Long Island. The Town of Southold lies completely outside of urbanized areas as classified by the U.S. Census Bureau. An urbanized area is defined ,~ densely sealed cont.iguo~s terri_tou with at least 1,000 persons per square mile. The urbanized area on Long Island stretches eastward from New York City as far east as Wading River on the north shore and Eastport on the south shore. Population density on Long Island is greatest in the western portion-of the island and generally decreases as one heads east. Population density in the Town of Southold was 386 persons per square mile in 1998, compared to 2,213 persons per square mile in the five western Suffolk towns and 4,501 persons per square mile in Nassau County. At the same time, density in the Town of Southold was 0.6 persons per acre, compared to 3.5 persons per acre in the five western Suffolk towns and 7.0 persons per acre in Nassau County. Since 1970, population growth in the western Suffolk towns has of course been larger in number than in Southold, but in percentage terms, growth in Southold has been slightly greater. The population of the five western towns of Suffolk County increased 20% from 1,042,539 in 1970 to 1,249,391 in 1998. During the same time, the popUlation of the Town of Southold rose 23% from 16,804 to 20,710. While the population of Southold Town has grown substantially in past four decades, the rate of growth has diminished somewhat in recent years. Year-Round Population The Town of Southold comprises 1.5% of Suffotk County's total population. The year-round population o f Southold has steadily grown since 1960 when it was t 3,295, and had grown to 20,710 by 1998. (See Chart 1.) Chart 1. Year-Round Population Town of Southold, Suffolk County 25 i 1960 April 7, 1999 C:\WPWlN60\PEP\supop.wpd (PKL) 1970 t980 1990 1998 The raw increase was greatest in the decade of the 1960s and was smaller in the 1970s, and smaller still in the 1980s. Thus far in the t990s, the increase has already been greater than the increase during the 1980s. (See Table 1.) Table 1. Year-Round PopulatiOn, Town of Southold 1960 13,295 1980 19,172 2,368 14.1% 1998 20,710 874 4.4% While year-round population growth continues in Southold, the growth is not as dramatic as it was twenty and thirty years ago. The year-round population in Southold grew by 26% in the 1960s, 14% in the 1970s, and 3% during the 1980s. From 1990 to 1998, the total population increased slightly more rapidly, by 4%. Year. Round Households A household inCludes all the persons who occupy a housing unit. The occupants may be a single family, one person living alone, two or more families living together, or any other group of related or unrelated persons who share living arrangements. The'number of year-round households l0 I Chart 2. Year-Round Households Town of Sunth01d, Suffolk County has been steadily increasing in the Town of Southold. In 1960, year-round households totaled 4,384 and by 1998 that number had increased 97% to 8,640. (See Chart 2.) 1960 1970 1980 1990 1998 April 7, 1999 C:\WPWlN60XPEP\supop.wpd (PKL) Over the same period (1960 to 1998) the population in Southold increased by 56%. The growth rate in households has exceeded the growth in total population because household sizes have continued to decline in Southold. This' trend toward smaller household sizes has also taken place both regionally and nationally. In the Town of Southold, the number of households increased by 33.0% in the 1960s, 28,0% in the 1970s and 8.9% in the 1980s. So far in the 1990s the number of year-round households has increased by 6.3% in Southold. (See Table 2.) Table 2. Year.Round Households, TOwn of Southold 1960 4,384 ...... 1980 7,461 1,632' 28.0% 1998 8,640 515 6.3 % As with total population, the growth in the number of year-round households continues but is not as large as it was during the 1960s and 1970s. The growth in the number of households has come from both new construction of year-round housing units and the conversion of previously seasonal homes to year-round use. Total Housing Units A housing unit is defined by the U. S. Census Bureau as a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is intended for occupancy as separate living quarters. Growth in the number of housing un/ts in the Town of Southold has been more substantial than growth in the year-round population in recent decades; This is because many new housing units in Southold are constructed for occasional or seasonal use, in addition to those units constructed for year-round use. The number of housing units increased by 62% between 1960 and 1990, increasing from7,972 to 12,979. '(See Table 3.) April 7, t999 C:\WPW1N60\PEPXsupop.wpd (PKL) Table 3, Units, Town of Southold 1960 7,972 ...... 1980 11,130 2,390 27.3% The rate of growth in the number of housing units increased from 9.6% during the 1960s to 27.3% in the 1970s. The increase during the 1980s was smaller, 16.6%, but still substantial..The rate of growth in housing units in the 1980s was much larger than the increase in year-round population or households during that decade, because of second home construction. Seasonal Housing Units Seasonal housing units are defined as vacant housing units that are for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. These housing units are used or intended for use only in certain seasons or for weekend or other occasional use throughout the year. Seasonal homes have historically played an important role in Southold's demographics Chart 3. Seasonal Homes during the summer months. Slightly less than ~o,~ofso~ou~s~ottcou~y one-th/rd of all housing units in Southold are s second or seasonal homes. Between 1970 and n 1990, the number of seasonal homes increased from 2,674 to 4,!52. (See Chart 3.) This was a ~3 -- 55% increase in 20 years. ~2 There was a larger increase in seasonal homes in the 1980s than in the 1970s in the Town of Southold. (See Table 4.) o tg70 1980 1990 April 7, 1999 C:\WPW1N60~PEP\supop.~vpd (PKL) Table 4. Seasonal Homes, Town of South°Id 1970 2,674 ..... Estimated Seasonal Population Increase motel occupants add 1,300, and campers total 700 at peak. The 25,500 additional seasonal residents excludes day-trippers, however. The population ofeastem Suffolk County increases substantially during the summer months because of tourism and the presence of seasonal homes. The Suffolk Comity Planning Department ha~ estimated seasonal population based on available data from the 1990 U.S. Census and in-house sot~ces. It is estimated that the popUlation in the Town of Southold more than doubles during peak seasonal times, expanding from the 1990 year-round figure of 19,836 up to 45,339 during peak se~sonat times (an increase of 25,503 Or 129%). (See Chart _4.) These additional 25,500 seasonal persons come from various sources. Seasonal homes contribute the most to the seasonal population, adding 17,300 people. Seasonal guests occupying year-round households add another 6,200, Chart 4. Year-Round and Seasonal Population, 1990 Town of Southold 5O 40 10- Southold ~ Additional Peak Seasonal Population · Year-Round Population April 7, 1999 C:\WPWl-N60\PEPksupop.wpd (PKL) Ground Watershed Protection and Water Supply Management Strategy Town of Southold Rate of Development Trends - Building Permits The rate of housing development in Southold Town was fairly consistent from the 1960s through the !980s. In that period, on average, be .tw. een 150 and 200 housing units were authorized by building permit in the Town each year. These new housing unit permits were primarily for single family residences, although some multi-family construction authorization occurred. As the table below shows, in the 1960s, building permits for 1,627 housing units were issued in the Town of Southold. Housing Unit Permits Issued, Town of Southold, by Decade Decade Total HousingUnit Permits Issued 1960s 1,627 1970s 1,915 1980s 1,772 1990-1998 864 Source: U.S. Census Bureau By the 1970s, the number of permits increased to a decade total of 1,915, reaching an annual high of 339 in 1973. In the 1980s, brisk permit activity continued, totaling 1,772 housing units for the decade. The years 1984 through 1987 had the highest activity, .with more than 200 permits issued annually in Southold. By 1989, annual activity had declined to 91 housing unit permits, and has remained at about t00 housing units annually in each year since. In the years 1990 through 1998, a total of 864 housing units have been authorized by building permit. In the1990s, the highes~t number has been 114 units authorized in 1994, and the lowest was 72 units authorized in 1993. In 1997, permits for 103 units were issued, and in 1998, 107 units were authorized. The percentage of building permits in Suffolk County that were in the Town of Southold has varied slightly over the years. In the 1960s, of all building permits issued in Suffolk County, 1.3% of the new housing units were in the Town of Southold. By the 1970s, 2.2% of all housing, units authorized by building permit were in Southold, and in the 1980s, that figure rose to 3.2% of all ne~v units authorized. Between 1990 and 1998, the percentage of new building permits in Suffolk County that were in Southold declined slightly, to 2.5%. April 6, 1999 C:\WPWlN60\PEP\subp.wpd (PKL) New Residential Housing Units Authorized by Building Permit Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York TOTAL HOUSING UNITS City of Glen Cove City of Long Beach Town of Hempstead Town of North Hempstead Town of Oyster Bay NASSAU COUNTY 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 30 121 43 67 117 100 69 12 87 71 27 3 17 24 43 43 56 94 34 19 13 7 38 136 99 625 165 96 166 31 39 26 72 63 56 24 21 49 548 608 415 584 908 1,015 937 970 423 475 229 279 257 418 302 377 276 752 351 147 333 295 294 346 301 348 334 306 235 167 62 89 109 203 162 178 286 271 654 505 293 394 622 516 509 613 413 317 197 75 122 171 142 222 442 219 327 1,389 1,580 1,053 1,377 2,129 2,031 2,488 2,094 1,325 1,264 651 458 511 794 753 860 976 1,372 1,032 Town of Babylon 200 208 Town of Brookhaven 743 674 Town of East Hampton 300 489 319 Town of Huntington 255 274 340 Town of lslip 229 201 365 Town of Riverhead 137 70 58 Town of Shelter Island 31 42 32 Town of Smithtown 86 128 178 Town of Southampton 553 619 437 Town of Southold 115 113 122 SUFFOLK COUNTY 305 381 444 428 882 627 287 239 221 186 .185 161 511 157 296 463 161 808 1,688 2,442 2,842 3,867 3,886 3,741 3,080 2,762 1,730 1,526 1,061 1,110 1,158 1,405 1,509 2,100 368 417 433 213 47 63 395 377 599 657 194 274 461 566 578 540 370 343 608 567 600 813 767 732 137 176 185 217 36 51 42 500 942 519 737 827 781 211 284 226 412 320 146 153 162 194 221 276 291 248 368 438 342 141 161 274 262 259 226 227 237 262 790 638 390 459 465 516 868 509 917 484 742 477 167 157 284 144 101 133 143 159 164 183 44 17 12 11 12 11 12 18 22 28 33 527 296 161 196 190 220 205 232 539 213 207 743 415 277 242 375 337 476 425 522 508 681 142 91 106 74 103 72 114 94 91 103 107 2,649 2,818 2,964 4,735 5,825 6,652 8,991 8,137 7,601 5,605 4,373 3,496 3,436 2,935 :~,909 3,238 4,469 3,957 4,844 NASSAU-SUFFOLK 4,038 4,398 4,017 6,112 7,954 8,683 11,479 10,231 8,926 6,869 5,024 3,954 3,947 3,729 4,662 4,098 5,445 5,329 5,876 Source: U.S, Census Burean - Construction Statistics Division - Building Pemlits Branch Prepared by the Suffolk County Planning Department/Long Island Regional Planning Board 1/29/99 \I23RSW~HOUS1NG\BPI.WK4 (PKL) New Residential Housing Units Authorized By Building Permit Town of Southold, Suffolk County, NY 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 Source: U,S. Census Bureau. Prepared by Suffolk County Planning 4/11/99 \hgw\pep\su.prs (PKL) Land Available for Development And Saturation Population Analysis Ground Watershed Protection and Water Supply Management Strategy Land Available for Development Introduction The methodology discussed in this report was used to identify, map and quantify the land available lbr development in the Town of Southold at tax map scale, using the Existing Land Use map, town zoning map and SCPD GI8 coverages of zoning data, farm!and prese_wation data, easement information, etc. Land available for development is defined in this report as vacant land or land that has not yet been developed te the maximum extent as permitted by municipal zoning law. Vacant parcels; agriculturally used property with intact development rights; residentially developed property capable of further residential subdivision according to zoning; and a select group of"special case" properties that are not included in any of the above three categories were considered as land available for development The methodology used for land available for development assumes that every parcel so designated will be residentially, commercially or industrially developed to the fullest extent according to town zoning regulations. In all cases, the projected use ora parcel available for development is determined by the existing zoning classification of that particular parcel. Designating a parcel of land available for development does not connote that the parcel should necessarily be developed. It simply states that under current zoning regulations, that parcel can be developed, or the existing use occurring on the parcel can be intensified. Current zoning serves as a blueprint for the type and intensity of future development one can expect within a municipality, and it is used as a planning tool to assist in the identification, mapping and quantification of the land available-for development in the Town of Southold. Land available for residential, commercial and industrial development in the town was inventoried. Acreage and the number of tax map parcels were quantified for both'commercially and industrially zoned land available for development. The acreage, number of tax parcels, and the potential number of dwelling units were calculated for all residentially zoned available land, and the results are displayed for each residential zoning classification. The land available for development analysis also included consideration of the re-development of selected large parcels of developed property in the study area where changes in use are likely to occur over the near- tenn. The results of the land available for development analysis and data from the U. S. Census Bureau on the number of persons per household have been used to calculate saturation population estimates for the Town of Southold. Saturation population is the furore potential population that would exist when all available land is developed in accord with existing zoning. Methodology The categories of land available for development in this analysis are defined as follows: Residential Commercial vacant, residentiall~ zoned, non-subdividable property vacant, residentially zoned, subdividable property residentially developed, residentially zoned, subdividable property agriculturally used, residentially zoned, subdividable property Industrial Special cases vacant, commercially zoned property agriculturally used, commercially zoned property vacant, industrially zoned property agriculturally used, industrially zoned property large parcels that have near-term re-development potential tmdeveloped, old-filed map areas The methodology employed to analyze residentially, commercially and industrially ZOned land available for development first requires an accurate, parcel-specific GIS tax map base and GIS coverages depicting parcel-specific land use and municipal zoning. Each parcel of land shown on the Suffolk County Real Property Tax Map base was assigned one land use classification a~uibute and one zoning classification attribute. When a single parcel is covered by two or more zoning districts, the primary zoning classification was determined and assigned to that parcel. This is the same process that was used when multiple land uses occurred on individual parcels, ke., the principal use was assigned to the parcel in the existing land use inventory. The land available for development was derived from queries of the GIS data base relating to land use, zoning, and parcel size. As a result of the queries, data records listing residentially, commercially, and industrially zoned land available for development were sorted and tabulated in Lotus spreadsheet files by sub-watershed zone, zoning classification, and parcel size for each of the following categories: · vacant, residentially zoned, non-subdividable property where the lot size is less than twice the minimum lot size as required by existing zoning. · vacant, residentially zoned, subdividable property where the lot size is greater than or equal to twice the minimum lot size as required by existing zoning. · residentially used, residentially zoned, subdividable property where the lot size is greater than or equal to twice the minimum lot size. as required by existing zoning. · agriculturally used, residentially zoned, subdividable property (includes only parcels with development rights intact). (Note: land in State Agricultural Districts is considered available for development, since the development status of such land can change.) · vacant, commercially zoned property. · agriculturally used, commerciallyzoned property (includes only parcels with development rights intact). · vacant, industrially zoned property. · · agriculturally used, industrially zoned property (includes only parcels with . . development rights intact). The query statements that were applied to the GIS data to obtain land available for development by municipality are shown in the Appendix. These statements reflect.the complexity of the land available for development methodology. The number of parcels and acreage that fell into the above categories were quantified by sub-watershed boundary for each residential ZOning classification, and the results were then used. to calculate the potential number of dwelling units that could be created from land available, for development. The potential number of dwelling units within the vacant, residentially zoned, non- subdividable property category is equal to the number of tax map parcels in the subject category. A residentially zoned tax map parcel classified as vacant, residentially used or agriculturally used was considered subdividable and available for development if it was greater than or equal to twice the minimum lot size as required by existing zoning. Agriculturally used parcels with severed development rights owned by Suffolk County or town governments, farmland held in private conservation land trusts, and subdivision reserves for agricultural use owned by property owners associations were manually deleted from the GIS generated list of parcels available for development. However, land in State Agricultural Dish"icts is considered available for development, since th~ development status of such land can change. The potential number of dwelling units that could be accommodated on land available for development in the three residentially zoned, subdividable prol~rty categories (vacant, residentially used and agriculturally used) is calculated by multiplying the number of acres available for development by a dwelling unit yield per acre factor for each zoning classification. The dwelling unit yield factor was applied to the sum of the acreage available for development within the residentially zoned, subdividable property categories (vacant, residentially used, and agriculturally used) for each zoning classification rather than to each parcel individually. It should be noted that the potential number of dwelling units that could be accommodated on land available for development in the residentially used, residentially zoned, subdividable property category was reduced by the number of residentially used, residentially zoned, subdividable tax map parcels within each zoning classification in order to take account of the existing development. The dwelling unit yield factors used to determine potential dwelling units are shown in Table 1 (Long Island Regional Planning Board 1978). The yield per acre factors for various zoning lot sizes in Table 1 represent average values associated with conventionally designed subdivision plats. Table 1. Estimated Number of Dwelling Units Based on Existing Zoning Source: Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan,.Vol II, Table 9-2, p. 309. The calculation of the potential number of dwelling units from land available for development using the above methodology was further refined for the following reasons: [] Through sanitary code regulation, the Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services (SCDHS) requires that a building lot proposed for residential development in an area served by public water contain a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet for the issuance of apermit to construct an on-site subsurface sewage disposal system. Therefore, since most of the study area is not sewered and the SCDHS will not usually issue permits for'new residential construction on lots that are less than 6,000 square feet, vacant lots of less 6,000 square feet were not included in the land available for development analysis. · The number of vacant lots remaining in partially developed subdivisions and old-filed map areas was counted in the land available for development analysis. It is highly unlikely that fully undeveloped old-filed map areas will ever be built as currently platted. Therefore, dwelling unit yield calculations for a fully undeveloped old-filed map area were based on minimum lot size as required by existing zoning for the old-filed map area as a whole. Fully undeveloped old-filed map areas were classified as "special cases." The number of potential dwelling units derived from the land available for development analysis should be interpreted as a maximum figure based on existing zoning. A site plan analysis of each parcel inventoried as available for development was not within the scope of this study. The land available for development analysis may overstate the actual number of potential dwelling units for the following reasons: · No attempt was made in the land available for development analysis to predict how dwelling unit yields could/would be reduced by natural resource characteristics (underwater lands, beaches, wetlands, dunes, bluffs, steep slopes, etc.) on a parcel- specific basis. · Only zoning regulations concerning pemiitted uses and required minimum lot size were considered in the land available for development analysis. The shape of the parcel was not considered in the suitability of the parcel for development. Parcels that meet the minimum lot size requirements may not necessarily meet setback requirements contained in local zoning ordinances. · The physical location of an existing house on a residentially developed, subdividable parcel was not considered in the land available for development analysis. A second residential structure would probably not meet zoning setback requirements ifa house was already situated in the center of a parcel that was twice the minimum lot size required by zoning. · Any vacant or residentially used subdividable parcel may be prohibited from further subdivision and development through the existence of permanent easements unbeknownst to SCPD. Quantification of commercially and industrially zoned land available for development was less complex than residentially zoned land available for development. The acreage and number of parcels of all commercially and industrially zoned land available for development (either currently vacant or agriculturally used) were aggregated by sub-watershed zone. No attempt was made to determine the yield on available commercially and industrially zoned property. Although current zoning may permit further intensification of development on p~rcels already designated as commercially or industrially used, the land available for development analysis did not address the potential max'unization of development according to zoning on existing commercially or industrially used property. Also, non-conforming residentially developed property situated on commercially or industrially zoned land was not considered for more intensive development in the land available for development analysis. The inventory of land available for development was adjusted as necessary by an evaluation of special cases. The special case category includes: · large, privately owned recreation and open space parcels not protected by development restrictions, permanent easements, etc. (Note: land .subject to non- permanent easements is considered available for development, .since the development status of such land can change.) · large, vacant old-filed subdivision mapped areas. The conduct of this analysis for the Town of Southold required the judicious use of the Planning Department's GIS data bases on existing land use and municipal zoning. Numerous interim work maps were plotted, analyzed and subjected to manual adjustment, especially where data bases needed for some specific aspect of the work were not readily available or in a computerized format tied to the Suffolk County Real Property Tax Map. GIS queries were structured by the charactersfics used to define the various categories of !and available for development. The end result - the Land Available for Development map and numeric tabulations - is the product of both GIS and manual manipulations. Results of the Land Available for Development Analysis The results of the land available for development analysis are displayed in map and numerical formats. The full color, computer generated Land Available for Development map that accompanies this report consists ora parcel-specific base map depicting the distribution of residentially, .commercially and industrially zoned land available for development in the Town of Southold. The numeric results of the analysis are discussed below. The mainland upland acreage of the Town of Southold encompasses approximately 32,2501 acres on nearly 18,000. real property parcels. Table 2 depicts the town-wide number of acres, tax map parcels, and potential dwelling units in residentially zoned land available for development categories. The number of acres and tax map parcels classified as commercially or industrially zoned land available for development is also shown in Table 2. The type of information shown in Table 2 for the town as a whole, is also illustrated by sub-watershed in tables contained in the Appendix. Over 15,000 acres (47%) of the mainland upland acreage in the Town of Southold are still available for development. In terms of acreage, residentially zoned land accounts for 97% of the land available for development. Commercially and industrially zoned property comprise 1% and 2%, respectively, of the acreage available for development. Development of the residentially zoned available land under current zoning conditions has the potential for the creation of 8,324 new dwelling units. In 1990 12,979 dwelling units existed in the Town of Southold. Maximization of residential development according to existing zorfing could result in a total of 21,279 dwelling units in the Town of Southold - a 64% increase in the number of dwelling units than existed in 1990. Commercially and industrially zoned land available for development - 194 acres and 321 acres, respectively - represent 3%.of the total.land available for development in the town.. Development of the commercially and industrially zoned land available-for development would represent a 3 t % and a 231% increase in the mount acreage currently devoted to commercial and industrial activities, respectively. Table 2, Land Available for Development: Town of Southold - Town Total (excluding Fishers - 1998 category I. otAr~a; ;Fa~ :., :TOtal Potential Potential )otentia] Potential Potential Potential Lots Per Tax Map Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Building ' I Tax Map Building Tax Map Building square_feet Acre Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots ~--400 Res. 400,000 0,08 5.1 1 1 __ 5,1 1 1 R-200 Res. 200,000 0,16 58,8 19 19 20,9 . 2 '3 10.3 i ' 179.8 11 . 28 269,8 33 50 {-t20 Res, 120000 0,30 Agr. Cons, 80,000 0.40 382,0 290 290 878,0 77' 346 420.6 54 111 5,564.2 241 2 222 127.1 3 50 7,371,9 665 3,019 R~80 Res. 801000 0.40 622,2 439 439 I 250.7 104 497 987.6 106 283 1,~56.8 88 538 162.4 .5 64 4,379.7 742 1;821 R-40 Rea. 40,00{~ 0.80 1,169.7 2,037 2,037 397,1 78 3il 503.8 164 234 153.7 35 122 7.1 1 5 2,231.4: 2,315 2,709 Hamlet 10,000 2,70 75,8 5 .204 185.0 3 496 , 260.8 8 700 Affordable t0;000 _ 2,70 11.0 20 20 11,0 2O 20 Res. Office 40,000 0,80 1,3 I 1 .'4,~ i . 3 2.1 1 8.1 3 4 Total Residential 2 250.1 2 807 2,807 2,627,2 267 1,364 2,109.4 329 t,124 7,254,5 375 2_~,910 _ 296.6 9 119~ ..14,537.8 3~787 8 324 3ommercial 15t.3 105 19,4 9 23.5 1 | 194,2 115 Industrial _~ ' i38,1 31 183.2 7~--- 321.3 38 04/09/99 LA-SHOLD.WK4 List of Appendices Appendix Table Al. ApPendix Table A2. APPENDIX Land Available for Development Queries Land Available for Development by Sub-watershed Zones Table Al. Land Available for Develo ment Queries - Town of Southold Zoning Minimum Query Criteria Vacant Non- Category Lot Area Subdividable Lots square feet Land Use/ Zoning Acres Acres Lots (BTCAMP #) R-400 Res. 400,000 vacant (9) R-400 <18.366 R-200 Res. 200,000 vacant (9) R-200 <9.183 R-120 Res. 120,000 vacant (9) R-120 <5.510 Agr. Cons. 80,000 ~,cant (9) AC . <3.674 R-80 Res. 80,000 vacant (9) R-80 <3.674 R-40 Res. 40,000 vacant (9) R-40 <1.837 Hamlet vacant (9) HD all lots Affordable vacant (9) AHD all lots Res. Office 40,000 vacant (9) RO <1.837 Total Residential Commercial vacant (9) com.* all lots Industrial vacant (9) ind.** all lots ;ommercial zoning category includes: Resort Residential (PR); Limited Business (LB); Hamlet Business (HB); General Business (B); Marine Business (MI); and Marine Business (MID. Industrial zoning category includes: Light Industrial Office/Park (LIO); and Light Industrial (LI). Table Al. Land Available for Develo nent Queries - Town of Southold Zoning Minimum Query Criteria Vacant Category Lot Area Subdividable Lots square feet Land Use/ Zoning Acres Acres Lots (BTCAMP #) R-400 Res. 400,000 vacant (9) R-400 > 18.366 R-200 Res. 200,000 vacant (9) R-200 >9.1831 R-120 Res. 120,000 vacant (9) R-120 >5.510 Agr. Cons. 80,000 vacant (9) AC >3.674 R-80 Res. 80,000 vacant (9) R-80 >3.674 R40 Res. 40,000 vacant (9) R-40 e 1.837 Hamlet na na na na na Affordable na na na aa na Res. Office 40,000 vacant (9) RO > 1.837 Total Residential Commercial na na na na na Industrial na na na na na Table Al. Land Available for Develo nent Queries - Town of Southoid Zoning Minimum Query Criteria Residential Category Lot Area Subdividable Lots square feet Land Use/ Zoning Acres Acres Lots (BTCAMP #) R-400 Res. 400,000 low dens. res.(1) R-400 > 18.366 R-200 Res. 200,000 low dens. res;(1) R-200 >9.183 R-120 Res. 120,000 low dens', res.(1) R-120 >5.510 Agr. Cons. 80,000 low dens. res.(1) AC >3.674 R-80 Res. 80,000 Iow dens. res~(1) R-80 e3.674 R-40Res. 40,000 Iow dens. res.O) R-40 >1.837 Hamlet na na na . na na Affordable na na na na na Res. Office 40,000 low dens. res.O) RO > 1.837 Total Residential Commercial na na na na na Industrial na na na na na Table Al. Land Available for Develo ment Queries - Town of Southold Zoning Minimum Query Criteria Agricultural Category Lot Area Lots square feet Land Use/ Zoning Acres Acres Lots (BTCAMP #) R-400 Res. 400,000 agriculture (8) R-400 all lots R-200 Res. 200,000 agricultm-o (8) R-200 all lots R-120 Res. 120,000 agriculture (8) R-120 all lots Agr. Cons. 80,000 agriculture (8) AC all lots R-gO Res. 80,000 agriculture (8) R-80 all lots R-40 Res. 40,000 agriculture (8) R-40. all lots Hamlet agriculture (8) HD all lots Affordable agriculture (8) AHD all lots Res. Office 40,000 agriculture (8) RO all lots Total Residential Commercial agriculture (8) com. * all lots Industrial agriculture (8) ind. ** all lots Commercial zoning category includes: Resort Residential (PR); Limited Business (LB); Hamlet Business (HB); General Business (B); Marine Business (MI); and Marine Business (MII). Industrial zoning category includes: Light Industrial Office/Park (LIO); and Light Industrial (LI). Table A2. Land Available for Development: Town of Southold - Sub-watershed Zone 0 ~ 1998 Potential POtential Potential Potential Potential Potential Lots Per Tax Map Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Building square feet Acre Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels LOts Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots R-400 Res. 400,000i 0.08 R-200 Res, 200,000 0.16 R-120 Res. 120,000 0.30! Agr, Cons. 80 000 0.40 R-80 Res. 80,000 0.40 R-40 Res. 40,000 0.80i Hamlet 10,000 2,701 .... Affordable 10,000 2.70 Res. Office 40,000 0.80 Total Residential 3ommercial industrial -- ___ I .......... Table A2. Land Available for Development: Town of SOuthold - Sub-watershed Zone 10 - 1998 Cat6~,ry: ;Eot. Area ;Ea~t~ Pr:op~, SuSd~dablePrope~y :S~bd!~d~51e:Prope~y: = ,~::Sp~c!~lCases Total ~otential Potential Potential Potential Potential Potential Lots Per Tax Map Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Building square feet_. Acre Acres Parcels LOts Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots R-400 Res. 400 000 0.08 R-200 Res. 200,000 0,'16 __ --- R,120 Res. 120,000 0,30 Agr. Cons. 80,000 0.40 32.1 28 '28 34,6 3 13 43,9i 6 11 580.3 25 232 690,9 62 284 R-80 Res, 80,000 0,40 36.5 28 28 95.0 91 38 94,9 5 32 !18;6 --2 47 31,0 1 12 376.0 45 157 R-40 Res. 40,000 0.80 38.9 88 88 5.7 2i 4 4,2! 2 -- 1 48,8 , 92 93 Hamlet 10,000 '~,70 Affordable 10,000 2.70 Res. Office 40,000 0.80 Total Residential 107.5 144 144 135,3 14 55 143.0 13 44 698,9 .27 279 31.0 1 12 1,115.7 199 534 3ommercial 15.1 13 15,1 13 Industrial 7,5 1 71,3 1 _ 78.8 ~2 04/09/99 LA-SHOLD.WK4 Table A2. Land Available for Develo :: ToWn of Southold - SUb-watershed Zone 20 - 1998 · Zoning. Requi'ed Yie~ category L~t,Are~ Factor Potential Potential Potential Potential Potential Potential Lots Per Tax Map Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Building square feet Acre Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres ?_ar, cels Lots R-400 Res, 400 000 0.08 R-200 Res, 200,000 0.16 R-.120 Res, 120,000 0.30 -- Agr. Cons. 80,00-~ 0.40 72.2 54 54 112.0 1'2 44 49.4 9 10 674.5 29 2691 127.1 3 50 1,035.2 107 427 _R~80 Res. 80,000 0.40 30.0 23 23 33.1 3 13 84.5 7 26 110.8 4 441 258~4 37 106 R-40 Res. 40,000 0.80 95.2 ' 142 142 27.4 8 21 70.8 27 29 26.8 1 21 7.1 1 5 227.3 179 218 Hamlet 10,000 2.70 Affordable 10,000 2.70 Res. Office 40,000 0.80 _ · Total Residential 197.4 219 219 172.5 23 78 204.7 43 65 812.1 34 334 134.2 4 55 1,520.9 323 751 3ommercia 7.7 6 1.9 1 9.6 7 Industrial Table A2. Land Available for Develo Town of Southold - Sub-watershed Zone 30 - '1998 :: ·zoning: Requ red Yield', N0n~S~lSdividable:i~I, ,Vac~i~t,:Subdiv dable ~; D~ve op_ed: ~':' '. · CategOry, Lot:Area Facto'r ..:.:,; r, :'/,? :~'~i =~: '~??. ,~,~ ;:i:i.i~,:!:~?pro'perty: ,,i:~:,~' ;SUbdMdable.~r0p~rty~ SUlJdi~id~bl~P~0~.:~{ 'i, ::i~i~l'Cas~s::: :, i:" Total: ' Potential Potential Potential Potential; Potential Potential Lots Per Tax Map Building Tax Map Building tax Map Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Building _square feetAcre Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres , Parcels Lots {-400 Res. 400,000 0.08 R-200 Res. 200,000 0,16 R-120 Res. 120,000 0.30 A-~r. Cons. 80,000 - 0.40 18.5 15 15 57,1 5 22 37.0 5 9 551.5 32 220 664.1 ' 57 266 R-80 Res. 80,000 0.40 55~8 29 .29 25.3 4 10 43.5 8 9 134.6 12 53 259.2 53 101 ~-40 Res. 40,000 0.80 128.6 228 228 22.0 9 17 94.4 _--30 45 ...... 245,0 267 290 Hamlet 10,000 2.70 46,8 1 126 _ 46.8 1 126 ~ffordable 10,000 2.70 _ ~es. Office 40,000 0.80 _ .... Total Residential 202.9 272 272 151.2 19 175 174.9 43 63 686.1 44 273 1.215.1 378 783 3ommercia 13.7 8 _ 5.4 3 , 19.1- 11 Industrial 04/09/99 LA-SHOLD.WK4 ,r Develc ~t: Town of Southold - Sub-watershed Zone 40 - t998 Rb~uired .~yi6!dI: N~S~b~ ~ d~b ~ ~ Sab~ vidabie; R~ld~ntiallyD6~el0'~ed :;::; Ag~ic~ltata~; : : :_ . Potential Potential Potential Tax Map Potential Potential Pote6tial Lots Per Tax Map Building Tax Map Building iTax Map Building Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Building square feet Acre Acres ParCels Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres parCels LOts Acres Parcels I Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots R-400 Res. 400,000 0.08 -- R-200 Res. 200 000 0.16 R-120 Res. 120,000 0.30 AfL. Cons. 80,000 0.40 117~1 95 95 201.9 17 80 142.0 9 47 613.7 31 245 -1 074.7 152 467 -~-80 Res. 80,000 0.40 34.2 21 21 20,5 3 8 122.3 9 39 98.2 6 39 275.2 39 i07 R-40 Res. 40,000 0.80 120.5 223 223 37,2 11 29 40.3 12 20 198.0 246 272 Hamlet 10,000 2.70 Affordable 10,000 2.70 :{es. Office 40,000 0.80 Total Residential 271.8 339 339 259.6 31 117 304.6 30 106 711.9 37. 284 __ 1,547.9 437 846 0.6 1 Commercia 0.6 I --- -- I Industrial ~ ........ -- 3ment: Town of Southold - Sub-watershed Zone 50 - 1998 ' P0i~ntial Potential Potential Potential Potential l Potential LotsPer TaxMap Building TaxMsp Building TaxMap Building TaxMap BUilding Tax Map { Building TaxMap Building square feet Acre Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels I Lots Acres Parcels LOts R-400 Res. 400,000 0.08 R-200 Res. 200,000 0.16 R-120 Res. 120,000 0.30 A__gr. Cons, 80,000 0.40 44.8 33 33 '165.1 9 66 27,8i 3 8 271.1 21 108 508.8 66 21r, R-80 Res. 80,000- 0.40 152.6 131 131 590.1 42 236 243.5 20 77 217.8 17 87 1,204.0 210 531 R-40 Res. 40,000 0.80 347.4 654 654 166,9 32 133 1'16.8 30 63 125.0 33 100 756,1 749 950 Hamlet t0,000 2.70 29.0 4 78 41.2 2 109 ..... 70.2 6 187 Affo~dab;e 10 000 2.70 11.0 20 20 11.0 20 20 Res. Office .40,000 0.80 0.4 1 1 4.7 1 3 2.! 1 7.2 3 4 Total Residential 556.2 839 839 955.8 88 516 431.4 56 257 613.9 71 295 2,557,3 1,054 1,907 .~ommercial [- 73.1 52 10.8 4 23.5 1 107.4 57 I_lr{dustrial~ 79.8 19 2.5 1 82.3 20 04/09199' LA-SHOLD.WK4 I Available for Develo TOw 1 of Southold - Sub-watershed Zone 60,1998 Required Yield. . NomSubdMdab e :~ V~icant SulSdDidable: ..:: :fj,/De~elop~d.i= ;. ] ;~. ~';,~::A~rlcultural:F: :,:~.:!~;;: ,: =: :r ? : :: :~;~ :: ' cat~g0ry .l~dtiAi:e~ Pact(~ ;' :' :~::':::Totat: )otential Potential Potential Potential Potential Potential Lots Per Tax Map' Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Building square feet Acre Acres Parcels, Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots, Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots R-400 Res, 400 000 0.08 R.200 Res. 200,000 0,16 =,-120 Res. 120,000! 0.30 Agr, Cons. 80,000 0,40 R-80 Res. 80,000 0.40 ' 44.7 31 .31 44.6 6 17 32,4 3 9 123.4 13 49 245.1 53 10~- R-40 Res. 40,000 0.80 20.6 34 34 1.9 1 1 22.2 7 10 44.7 42 45 Hamlet 10,000 2.70 Affordable 10,000 2.70 Res. Office 40,000 0.80 Total Residential 65.3 65 65 46.5 7 18 54.6 10 19 123.4 13 49 __ 289.8 95 151 Commercia 1.1 1 _ 1.1 1 _ industrial for Develo ~ent: Town )f Southold - Sub-watershed Zone 70 - 1998 ;¢~t~d~ LotAi:ea; F~b~ ;:; Sabdigid~ble~perty ~Ubai~idabie~ ro~e~yi ;;;; ;' ~°tai ' Potential Potential Potential Potential P0lei~llal Potential Lots Per Tax Map Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Building TaX Map Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Building square fe.~t_ _Acre A_cms parcels Lots Acres Parcels _ Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres 3arcels Lots {-4-00 Res. 400,000 0.08 R-200 Res. 200,000 0.16 58.~8 19 19 20.9 2 3 10.3 1 179.8 11 28 _~ 269.~ 33 50 ~;.120 ReS. 120,000 0.30 · Ajr~ Cons. 80 000 0.40 R-80 Res. 80,000 0.40 68.1 53 53! 118.4 13 47 68.1 12 15 251.9 15 100 506.5 93 215 R-40 Res. 40~000 0.80 93.4 130 130 16.6 I 13 9.1 4 _ 3 1.9 1 1 ...... 121.0 136 147 Hamlet 10,000 2.70 Affordable 10,000 2.70 - Res. Office 40,000 0.80 Total Residential 220~3 202 · 202 155.9 16 63 87.5 17 18 433.6 27 129 897.3 262 412 1.5 1 3ommercial 1,5 1 -- Industrial 04/09/99 LA-SHOLD.WK4 Table A2. Land Available for Develo )ment: Town of Southold - Sub-watershed Zone 80 - '1998 Minimum Lot vacant ,.::,i,i.,; ~..i::?i:.;i~'.i ;; .;.. :; ' 'Residentially zoning Required Yield NomSubdividable: :/;; "V~icant;Subdividable :: Developed · .: A~]ridultural ..:: .:. ·., :'. · _Category Lot Area Factor . ' 'proi~ert~ :':"?' ::: :: ~;: ~ Property Sbbdivldable Property Sbbdlv~iabl'e Property ' speciaiCases Total Potential ~otential Potential Potential Potential Potential Lots Per Tax Map Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Building square feet Acre Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots R-400 Res. 400,000 0.08 5.1 1 1 5.1 1 1 R-200 Res. 200,000 0.16 R-120 Res. 120,000 0.30 Agr, Cons. 80,000 0.40 .. R-80 Res. 80,000 0.40 5.0 2 2 5.0 2 2 R-40 Res. 40,000 0.80 14.6 14 14 14.6 14 14 Hamlet 10,000 2.70 Affordable 10,000 2.70 Res~ Office 40,000 0.80 Total Residential i 24.7 17 17 24.7 17 17 .,ommerclal~ industrial Table A2. Land'Available for Develo iment: Town of Southold - Sub-watershed Zone 90 - '1998 Potential Potential Potential Potential Potential Potential Lots Per Tax Map Building Tax Map Building tax Map Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Building square feet Acre Acres ParCels Lots Acres Par~ s LOts Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres PatOis Lots Acres Parcels Lots ~-400 Res. 400,000 0.08 R-200 Res. 200,000 0.16 R-120 Res, 120,000 0.30 ~r. Cons, 80 000 0.40 . . R-80 Res. 80,000 0,40 R-40 Res. 40,000 0,80 11.8 15 15: 4~8 1 3 16.3 5 8 32.9' 2~ 26 Hamlet 10,000 2.70 -Affordable 10 000 2,70 {es. omce 40 000 0,80 To~al Residential 11.8' 15 15 4.8 1 3 16.3 5 8 32.9 21 26 Commercia ,Industrial 04/09/99 LA-SHOLD.WK4 Table A2. Land Available for Develo )ment: Town of Southold - Sub-watershed ZOne 100 - 1998 Potential Potential Potential Potential Potential Potential · Lots Per Tax Map I Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Buildfng TaX Map Building Tax Map Building square feet Acre Acres Parcels Lots Acres parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres parCels Lots Acres Parcels ' Lots Acres _Parcels Lots R-400 Res. 460,000 0,08 ~ R-200 Res. 200,000 0.16 R-120 Res. 120000 0.30 A_.gr. Cons. 80 000 0.40 19.8 12 12 129.9 19 51 92.7 16 21 i 1,783.0 62 713 2,025;4 109 797 R-80 Res. 80,000 0.40 79.6 43 43 168.0 11 67 123.9 21 28 190.8 13 76 562,3 88 214- R-40 Res. 40,000 0.80 125,8 i99 199 19.7 7 15 73.0 26 32 218.5 232 246 Hamlet 10,000 2,70 Affordable 10,000 2.70 019 Res. Office 40,000 0,80 0.9 __ Total Residential 226,1 254 254 317,6 37 133 289.6 63 81 1,973.8 75 789 _ 2,807.1 429 1,257 Commercial 25.6 19 '- 1,3 1 26.9 20 -Industrial 5.8 4 , . _ ....... 5.u 4 ~ilable for Develo of Southold. Sub-watershed Zone 1t0 - 1998 cate=g~ Eb[ A~ea : ~otential Potential Potential Potential Potential Potential Lots Per Tax Map Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Building T~ Map Building Tax Map Building · square feet Acre Acres Par~ls Lots Acres Par~ls Lots Acres Pamels Lots Acres Pamels Lots Acres pamets Lots Acres Parcels Lots 'R~00 Res. 400,000 0,08 R-200 Res. 200,000 0.16 R-120 Res, 120,000 0~30 ~r. Cons. 80,000 0,40 61,3 37 37 105,4 6 42 27,8 6 5 1,060,7 39 424 1,255,2 88 508; R.~0 Res. 80,000 0,40 65.7 41 41 94.9~ 12 37 120,7 15 33 68,6 .4 27 349.9 72 138 R~0 Res. 40,000 0,80 79,2 131 131 61.5: , ,, ,4 49 34.6~ 14 13 175.3 149 193 Hamlet 10,000 2,70 Affordable 10,000~ 2.70 , , Res, Office ,40,000: 0.80 Total Residential 206.2 209 209 261.8 22 128 183,1 35 51 i,129.3 43 451 1,780.4 309 8~9 3omme~cia~ I 1,8 1 1.8~ 1 Industrial 43.7 6 109.4 5 153.1 11 , 04/09/99 LA-SHOLD.WK4 Table A2. Land Available for Devel° Town of Southold - Sub-watershed Zone 120. 1998 Potential Potential Potential Potential Potential= Potential Lots Per Tax Map Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Building ~ Tax Map Building square feet Acre Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lets Acres Parcels Lots ; Acres Parcels Lots ~-4Q0 Res 400,000 0.08 R-200 Res. 200,000 0.16 R-120 Res. 120,000 0.30, A_gr. Cons. 80,000 0.40 16.2 16 16 72.0 6 28 29.4 2 11 117.6 24 55 R-80 Res. 80,000 0.40 50,0 .37 37 60.8 ~ 24 53.8 6 15 42.1 2' 16 131.4 4! 52 338,1 50 144 R-40 Res. 40,000 0.80 93.7 179 179 33,4 2 26 22/ 7 10 ' ~ 149.2 188 215 · Hamlet 10,000 2.70 -. 143.8 1 387--~L 143.8 1 387 Affordable 10,000 _ 2,70 - -- Res. Office; 4~,000 0.80 i '- Total Residential 159.9 232 232 166,2 9 78 2'19.7 14 412 71.5 4 ' 27 131.4 4 52 748,7 263 801 3_ommercia 11,1 3 11,1 3 industria~ I Land Available for Devel, )ment: Town of Southold - Sub-Watershed Zone 130 - '1998 Potential Potential Potentta Potential potential Potential: Lots Per Tax Map Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Building Tax Map Building Tax Mapl Building Tax Map Building square feet i Acre Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels Lots Acres Parcels I Lots Acres Parcels Lots R-400 Re~. 400,000 0,08 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 R-200 Res. 200,000 0.16 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 R-120 Res. 120,000 0,30 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 Agr. Cons. 80,000 0.40 0 0 '--- 0 0 0,0 0 0 R-80 R_es, 80,000 0.40 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 R-40 Res. 40 000 0.80 -- 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 Hamlet·. 10,000 2.70 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 Affordable 10,000 2.70' 0 0 0 0 0.0! 0 0 Res~ Office 40,000 0.80 0 0 0 0 0,01 0 ' 0 Total Residential 0.0 0 0 0,0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0,0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 3ommercial -- 0.0 0 Industrial 0.0 0 04/09i99 LA-SHOLD.WK4 ACREAGE AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT Town of Southold (excluding Fishers Island) Private Rec. & O.S. 1.7% Underdeveloped 13.0% Vacant Com. & Ind. 3.1% Vacant Subdividable 19.1% Vacant Single & Sep 13.9% Farms (intact dev rts) 49.2% Acreage Available for Development (excluding Fishers Island) = 15,829 Total Upland Acreage in Town (excluding Fishers Island) = 32,2'44 Suffolk County Planning Department POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS Town of Southold (excluding Fishers Island) 1,364 d.u. Vacant Subdividable 16.4% 1,124 d.u. Underdeveloped 13.5% 2,807 d.u. Vacant Single & Sep 33,7% 2,910 d.u. / Farms(intact dev rts) 35.0% 119 d.u. Private Rec. & O.S. 1.4% Potential Additional Dwelling Units (excluding Fishers Island) = 8,324 Total Existing Dwelling Units (excluding Fishers Island) - 12,448 Suffolk County Planning Department SATURATION POPULATION, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Total Housing Units at Saturation The total number of housing units under saturation development conditions within the Town of Southold~ for each zone was calculated. The number of housing units in the Town of Southold at saturation is expected to be 20,903. This is an increase of 8,454 units or 68% above the 1990 census figure of 12,449 housing units. Seasonal Housing Units at Saturation Seasonal housing units are defined as vacant housing units that are for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. Seasonal homes have historically played an important role in Southold's demographics during the summer months. It is expected that inthe future, the same . proportion of all housing units in Southold Town will continue to be used for seasonal purposes as were seasonal in 1990 (30%). Of the additional 8,454 potential new housing units in the PEP study area, 2,606 of them are expected to be seasonal units. The total number of seasonal housing units in the Town of Southotd at saturation is eXPected to be 6,383, an increase of 69% over the 1990 census figure. Saturation Population Total year-round population under saturation development conditions within the Town of Southold for each zone was calculated. For the Town of Southold, the year-round population is expected to increase to 33,871 at saturation. This figure represents an increase of 14,364 persons or 74% over the 1990 census population figure. Seasonal Population Increase at Saturation The population of the Town of Southold increases substantially during the summer months because of tourism and the presence of seasonal homes. With an estimated four persons per household in seasonal housing units, seasonal resid.ents are expected to increase the population in the Town of Southold by 24,792 persons over the seasonal plus year-round population in 1990. The total year-round plus seasonal population in the Town of Southold is expected to be 59,401 under saturation development conditions. This figure represents and increase of 72% over the 1990 year-round plus seasonal population of 34,609. lin this report, data for the Town of Southold excludes Fishers Islan& Prepared by Suffolk County Department of Planning July 1998 I \wpwin6 0\pepX, s usat .wpd (PKL) Summary Based on an analysis of land use, zoning, and land available for development, the number of potential additional housing units was determined for the Town of Southold by zone. From these figures, the number of potential seasonal housing units was calculated, as well as the total year-round population and seasonal population under saturation development conditions. The number of housing units in the Town of Southold at saturation is expected to be 20,903, an increase of 8,454 or 68% over the 1990 census figure. The year-round saturation population of the Town of Southold is 33,871 persons, an increase of 14,364 or 74% over the population in 1990. Based on an analysis of saturation year-round population and potential seasonal housing units at saturation, the potential year round plus seasonal population was determined for the Town of Southold and its zones under saturation development conditions. The year-round plus seasonal saturation population of the Town of $outhold is 59,401 persons, an increase of 24,792 or 72% over the 1990 census figure. Prepared by Suffolk County Department of Planning July 1998 2 \wpwin60\pep~susat.wpd (PKL) Year-Round and Seasonal Housing Units, 1990 and at Saturation Town of Southold* Year-Rd. Hous. Units Year-Rd. Hous. Units 14,520 8,672 Seas. Hous. Units 3,777 1990 *Excluding Fishers Island Suffolk County Planning Department 7/8/98 \hgw~pep\su.prs (PKL) Seas. Hous. Units 6,383 Saturation Year-Round and Seasonal Population, 1990 and at Saturation Town of Southold* Year-Round Pop, 19,507 Add'l Seas. Pop. 15,102 1990 *Excluding Fishers Island Suffolk County Planning Department 7/8/98 \hgw\pep\su.prs (PKL) Year-Round Pop. 33,871 Add'l Seas. Pop. 25,53O Saturation Year-Round and Seasonal Housing Units 2O 15 1990 and at Saturation Town of Southold* 10 5 0 *Excluding Fishers Island 1990 Suffolk County Planning Department 7/8/98 \hgw\pep\su.prs (PKL) Saturation Year-Round and Seasonal PoPulation, 1990 and at Saturation Town of SouthOld* 3O 2O 10 0 *Excluding Fishers Island 1990 Suffolk County Planning Department 7/8/98 \hgw~pep\su.prs (PKL) Saturation Population at Saturation Town of Southold* Year-Round Pop., 1990 19,507 Add'l Seas. Pop., 1990 15,102 Future Seas. Pop. 10,428 Future Yr-Round Pop. 14,364 *Excluding Fishers Island Suffolk County Planning DePartment 7/8/98 \hgw\pep\su.prs (PKL) Housing Units at Saturation Town of Southold 1990 Housing Zone Units Potential Additional Housing Units Housing Units At Saturation °4o Change 1990 to Saturation 0 1 0 I 0% 10 863 593 1,456 69% 20 1,069 786 1,855 74% 30 1,371 789 2, i60 58% 40 1,040 895 1,935 86% 50 4,816 2,191 7,007 45% 60 349 151 500 43% 70 199 425 624 214% 80 80 17 97 21% 90 96 26 122 27% t00, 110, 120 2,565 2,581 5,146 101% Total, Excluding Fishers Island 12,449 8,454 20,903 68% 130 530 453 983 85% Town Total 12,979 8,907 21,886 69% Prepared by Suffolk County Dept. of Planning July 1998 \123r5w\pep\susat.wk4 (PKL) Seasonal Housing Units at Saturation Town of Southold 1990 Seasonal Housing Un~ 1990 Total Percentage of Seasonal Housing Units Housing Units Seasonal At Saturation %Change 1990 to Saturation 0 1 0 0% 10 271 31% 457 69% 20 263 25% 457 74% 30 448 33% 706 58% 40 342 33% 636 86% 50 1,345 28% 1,957 45% 60 115 33% 165 43% 70 66 33% 207 214% 80 26 33% 32 21% 90 52 54% 66 27% 100, t10, 120 848 33% 1,701 101% Total, Excluding Fishers Island 3,777 30% 6,383 69% 130 375 71% 696 85% Town Total 4,152 32% 7,078 70% Prepared by Suffolk County Dept. of Planning July 1998 \123r5w\pep\susat.wk4 (PKL) Year-Round Population at Saturation Town of Southold Additional Year-Round Persons Housing Units Per Zone at Saturation Household Additional Population At Saturation 0 1 - 0 t0 407 2.56 1,040 20 593 2.52 1,493 30 531 2.35 1,249 40 601 2.66 1,596 50 1,579 2.33 3,684 60 101 2.04 207 70 284 2.49 706 80 11 1.82 21 90 12 1.93 23 Year-Round % Change 1990 Population 1990 to Population At Saturation Saturation 0 0 0% 1,421 2,461 73% 1,912 3,405 78% 2,061 3,3i0 61% 1,685 3,281 95% 7,557 11,241 49% 430 637 48% 299 1,005 236% 88 109 24% 79 102 29% 100, 110, 120 1,728 2.52 4,345 3,975 8,320 109% Total, Excluding Fishers Island 5,848 2.45 14,364 19,507 33,871 74% (~ 130 132 2. t7 287 329 616 87% Town Total 5,981 2.42 14,650 19,836 34,486 74% Prepared by Suffolk CoUnty Dept. of Planning July 1998 \123r5w\pep\susat.wk4 (PKL) Year-Round Plus Seasonal Population at Saturation Town of Southold 1990 Year-Round Year-Round Plus Seasonal Plus Seasonal Population Zone Population At Saturation % Change 1990 to Saturation 0 0 0 0% 10 2,504 4,289 71% 20 2,965 5,231 76% 30 3,853 6,134 59% 40 3,052 5,823 91% 50 12,937 19,069 47% 60 890 1,296 46% 70 563 1,833 226% 80 192 235 22% 90 287 366 28% 100, 110, 120 7,367 15,125 105% Total, Excluding Fishers Island 34,609 59,401 720/0 130 1,829 3,398 86% Town Total 36,442 62,799 72% Prepared by Suffolk County Dept. of Planning July 1998 \123r5w\pep\susat.wk4 (PKL) Legal Issues Relating to Water Resource Protection Ending Polarization over Property Rights new AP'l-survey of landowners shatters negative stereotypes. By EHiott Negin · Illustrations by Mark S. Fisher Across the country, from Congress to statehouses to city halls, a heated debate over private property rights flares t,p whenever lawmakers propose new environmental or land-use laws. The "taking" of property by restrictive government regulation is vigorously opposed by some and justified by others as essential to a dean environment and efficient land use. Ail too often, reasoned discussion gives way to rhetoric and name-calling. As AFT Clmirman William K~ Rcitly puts it, "The tendency to resort to abstract theories and polarizing arguments has led to a paralysis of policy in some instances and to desecration of the landscape in others."' AFT's ability to save farmland and promote environmentally sound farming practices has been affected by this stalemate. "There is a growing disagreement over how to achieve public goals on private land," says AFT President Ralph Grossi. "Even the most reasonable farmland protection programs meet opposi- tion as either too harsh on landowners or too expensive for the public treasu~:' AFT decided to ask agricultural landowners themselves about the issues to help end the deadlock. Grossi, a fourth-gen- eration California carte rancher, explains, "In my travels around the countrs.: I have met many farmers and ranchers who are not comfortable with the extremes that now dominate the debate. Many claim to speak for them and anecdotes about their plight abound. But there has been little systematic analysis of what those who bare the most at stake really believe. AFT went straight to the horse's mouth for an answer: To gauge laodowner opinion. AFT turned to Dr. J. Dixon Esseks. prol~ssor of public administration at Northern Illinois University aod an associate of AFT's academic research arm, the Center tbr Agriculture in the Environment. Esseks and his col- leagues surveyed 1,729 owners of at least 5 acres of farm or ranchland in 162 counties spread among 42 states. HIS sample fit the broad profile o£American agricultural landowners: about a third of them earn less than $10,000 a year from agficulture~ while a quarter made more than $100,000. The questionnaire he used was reviewed by agricultural as well as environmental experts, and was carefully tested to eliminate bias. "We focused on three issues that are relevant to how the cost of environmental protection is shared by landowners and the public: says Edward Thompson Jr., AFT senior vice president for public policy, who conceived the idea of the survey and over- saw the project. "What is the impact of current regulations on property, values? What approach do landowners favor to protect natural resources--regulation, voluntary, incentives or doing nothing? And what factors do they think should be used to decide if compensation for regulation is appropriate?" The findings of the AFT survey' de~ conventional wisdom- and shatter the stereotypes of landowners as either beleaguered victims of government regulation or greedy, uncaring environ- mental Neanderthals. Impact of Re~lation on Propergy Values One of the most surprising things the survey found is that near- ly three-quarters of all landowners (71 percent) reported they have not suffered any toss of property value as a result of gov- ernment environmental or land use regulations. Another 9 per- cent said they had incurred mdy a small loss in property value. "With 80 percent of respondents reportiug little or no loss of t~roperty value resulting from regulation," says Esseks, "it would ~pear that the impact of government regulation ou the value of private property is quite modesC' Regulations regarding wedands preservation and soil erosion control were the most troublesome. About one in eight landowners attributed losses to them. Fewer than 3 percent of those surveyed said reh~latious protecting endangered species, which generate so many headlines, lowered their property valuei Zoning adversely affected about only 10 percent. Another suq)rising survey finding came when landowners were preseuted with various situations aud given a choice as to whether they should be handled by voluntary incentive pro- gl-ams, government regulation, or private citizens resolving the conflict either in or out of court. Landowners were asked about protecting farmland, curbing water pollution from livestock and logging, protecting wetlands, and protecting endangered species. In three out of the five objectives, a clear majority favored reg- ulation over incentives; in only one instance was regulation flat- ly rejected. For example, to protect agriculture by preventing conflicts with residential development, .58 percent supported zoning regulation, while 16 percent supported landowner incentive programs, such as the purchase ofdevelopment rights. "This see~ns to suggest;' says Thompson, ~that most farmers recognize that zoning benefits them and their farming opera- :ions. It certaiuly debunks the nution that landowners universat- ~ppose this very effective method of protecting farmland." Respoudents similarly supported regulatiou preventing runoff £rom livestock and logging operations from l~Olluting dyers and other waters. Itl the national sample, 59 percent favored regulatioo lbr livestock and 55 percent supported, it for logging--if cost-share payments were available to ease the cost of compliance. Even a majority of livestock ranchers and loggers favored regulation over incentives alone or simply doing noth- ing. "This is a strong endorsement of :hybrid' progmms~ says Grossi. "The idea of combining carrots and sticks, using bo~h regulations, has great appeal for landowners." For wetlands protection, landowners were mixed in their response. Forty percent favored regulations, 45 percent volun- tary incentives. But to protect endangered species, it was a dif- ferent story, with incentives preferred by a three-to-one margin. "These findings show that landowners do not want to bear the cost of environmental protection by themselves, but are willing to share it with the general public.." says (;rossi. "At the saane time, it is clear that doing nothing, leaving environmental pro- tee:ion up to the marketplace, is not an acceptable solution?' ~A~hen to Compensate? The survey also asked landowners wizen riley thought it ~was appropriate to be compensated if regulations reduced tile value of their property. This has become a hotly debated issue, rein- forced by the constitutional prohibition against "taking" private property without just compensation. Generally, courts have ruled ttmt landowners should not be compensated unless their la~d is actually taken from them, for example, to build-a h[gii~vay(~t:-~S ~'endered virtually worthless by regulations that limit its use. Some say this forces landowners to bear a disproportionate share of the cost of environmental protection. Congress and many states are considering bills that would change this formula and require compensatiou wizen reg- ulations lower property value by a fixed percentage. The survey found that 68 percent of agricultural landowners reject this kind of legislation. ~Rather than expecting autoumtic or unqualified compensation, we found that respondents typi- cally felt that it should depend on the circumstances of the mat- ter at hand]' says Esseks. "There wasn?t a knee-jerk response claiming that landowners sliould automatically be paid any time government action lowers their property value." What circumstances should be considered? Three-quarters of the respondents felt that landowners who knew about an applicable regulation when they bought their land were not emi- fled to compensation. Nearly two-thirds said that the mount of effort landownen put into trying to comply with regulations should factor into the amount of compensation they should be eligible to receive. Thirty percent agreed that the burden on the landowner should be considered, and a quarter said the poten- tial harm to public health and safety that regulations would pre- vent also should determine whether a landowner is entitled to compensation. Another factor landowners said should be token into account when detemfining compensation is whether past government regulation or projects had increased the value of the property. For instance, one question presented respon- dents with a case in which farmland increased in value when the local government paved an adjacent road, then decreased due to zoning that limited its development to protect agriculture. While $~ percent of the landowners surveyed said no compeusa- llon should he paid, another $§ percent said the compen~ salion should be reduced because the original increase m properD' value was due to a taxpayer expenditure. Thompson says this is a "si~xificant recognition by landowners of thc government's broader impact on private property--that there are 'givings~ as well as 'ruldngs? It sheds new light on the fairness of regulation and compensationY Sharing the Responsibility When the question was put directly to landowners, two out of three agreed that the cost of protecting the environment should be borne by both landowners and the general public. Only 30 percent said the public should pick up the full tab. "The bottom line~~ says Grossi,' is that most landowners are willing to share the responsibility with the rest of society, but do not think it is fair if they have to bear it alone: So, what would AFT recommend for future policy-ro,l,~rs? Fa'st, the AFT survey report recommends a more accurate accounting--an audit--of how government programs are now allocating the cost of environmental protecfiom "In ~ome case~' says Thompson, "the benefits of regulation to landowners may be compensation enough; in others, there will need to be some additional effort to share the cost." .... l op rty Right "' Responsibilities ~ ~ ~ ~m m ~ m p~u~ f~ ~d ~ s~ so ~ ~d ~ ~r ~ ~ not ~ ~To ~ ~ ~ mdpm~ ~ ~. pm~ ~at ~dally inflam t~d ~u~. "It N ~e~' says Grossi, "to end ~e pot~ debate ov~ pm~ fighm ~d ~e endmmen~ ~d m e~mee a po~ of ae~o~fion b~ on ~e concept of sh~d responsive. ~efi~'s ~ md m~ l~do~em a~ r~ to rote ~ ~t- i~ step. ~e our pofi~-m~?" Second, the AFT report calls for more hybrid pro- gTams that combine reason- able regulations with ade- quate incentives to spread out the cost of compliance. Third, considering the need for environmental pro- tection generally, and farm- land protection in partio,lar: the report says that federal, state and local governments probably will have to dsa- matically increase the num- ber of incentives, but target them m spcci~c land and problem areas. Fiv~lly, the report c'~tls for an end to counterproductive ~_.~. Elliott 3regin is the editor of American Farmland. AFT's survey, "Sharing the Responsibility" can be found on /IFT's web page at www.farmlan,t org. Commentary Water Resource Protection and the Takings Issue ByJon D. Wi~en, AICP Water is an essential resource for viable communities and is too often jeopardized by today's land uses. Protecting water resources is a challenge for planners and political leaders for a variety of reasons including the fact that, unlike land-use impacts like traffic counts, water pollution is more difficult to project, detect, and monitor. And water resources, includ- ing watersheds and aquifers, frequently require case-by- case definition and tailored regulations to protect them. But one of the major legal hurdles for planners and their legal advisers to overcome in crafting laws and programs ro protect water is the takings issue. This article is designed to assist planners and municipal counsels to develop water resource protection regulations that are consistent with tradi- tional and recent takings law. Following a brief summary of relevant takings law to date, the article focuses attention on how courts are likely to apply takings law principles to water- shed and water resource protection efforts, and provides a series of recommendations for practitioners to follow. Today, planners and attorneys generally understand that governments can 'go too far" in their regulation of private property, and they have encountered at least one instance where a landowner has raised the takings flag. At issue for most local government planners and attorneys, however, is how the emerging takings law applies to specific land-use decisions made by the typical planning or zoning board. This article focuses on local government's response to one set of decisions evaluating land development's impact on water- sheds--as a response to enacted federal and state initiatives encouraging cities and towns to plan (and presumably regu- late) at the watershed level See for example, requirements set by the Source Water Assessment Program within the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments ~f 1996 (P.L. 104-182). WATERSHEDS AND WATER RESOURCES A first step in reacting to federal and state initiatives is to define the watershed and water resources. A watershed in- cludes two components: the surface water drainage basin and the groundwater drainage basin. The surface water drainage basin is the land that all surface water drains from, toward a surface waterbody at a lower elevation. The groundwater drainage basin is the land and associated subsurface through which the groundwater drains through on its way to a surface waterbody at a lower elevation. The surface basin mav be larger or smaller than the groundwater basin, dependin~ on local conditions of soils, slope, and surface cover. Precipitation is the primary source of water in a water- shed. Approximately one-half of precipitation is recycled Jon D. Witten is a reporter for Land Use Law& Zoning Digest and a land- use lawyer'and president of the environmental engineering firm of Horsley & Witten. Inc. in Sandwich, Massachusetts. back to the a~nosphere via evapotranspiration (the combi- nation of evaporation and plant transpiration). Depending upon the local geologic, soil, vegetative, and slope condi- tions, water that has not been lost to evapotranspiration flows through the watershed as either sheet runoff, stream flow, or groundwater flow. Watershed boundaries can be identified on a topographic map by connecting points of highest elevation around a lake and its tributaries. In some cases, watershed boundaries may also include the capture area for a storm drainage system that discharges into a watershed. Geology, topography, and climate determine where and in what quantity water will be found in a region. For ex- ample, the Continental Divide serves as a major watershed divide for North America, wi th rainfall on the east side of the Rockies destined for the Atlantic Ocean and rain on the west side destined for the Pacific Ocean. Local watersheds are sometimes subsets (or subwatersheds) of larger, regional ones. For example, the watershed to a small tributary is a subwatershed of the watershed to a larger river, which, in turn, is part of a larger watershed. Protection of a water resource may require analysis on a watershed basis, or it may require separate analyses for each subwatershed, depending on the size and type of resource and nature of the threats posed. Local governments have adopted a range of regulations based on varying levels of science and precision. Many of these efforts raise serious questions of validity when reviewed under a regulator, takings analysis. REGULATIONS Water resource protection regulations generally include text and maps relating to the regulated area (e.g. the watershed, wellhead protection area, or coastal embayment, etc.) and text establishing the extent of the regulation within the regu- lated area. The regulated area is ~,pically depicted with overlay map- ping. After the resource area is delineated, it is laid over the zoning districts. This is the recommended approach because it would be extremely difficult to conform underlying zon- ing districts to the haphazard shapes of watershed and water resources. The degree of precision used to identify resource areas varies significantly, as discussed below. The text establishing the rules for the overlay district varies depending upon the resource being protected: Some regulations prohibit most uses deemed a threat to water resources, others use "performance based" criteria. Most water resource protection regulations list uses that are pro- hibited because they are deemed a threat to water systems. tn some cases, this list is extensive, in others, onty the al- lowed uses are listed. If not allowed, ordinances often state that unlisted uses are prohibited2 Ordinances that allow uses via a conditional permit vary in their precision and sophistication. Some regulations allow 1. This is the recommended approach as identifying ail the possible uses that would be incompatible with water resource protection is practically impossible. Moreover, water resource protection regula- tions are more likely to sustain court scrutiny if tailored to protect the unique characteristics of the community's water systems. Specific in- clusions of uses deemed in concert with water quality protection goals require local governments to pursue a deliberative process, one consis- tent with the judicial holdings discussed below. L~nd Use Law k'~av tOog ~ Commentary conditional uses upon a general (and ineffective) finding by ~e permit granting agency that the proposed use "will not threaten water quality." Others require complicated nutri- ent loading analysis. In the latter case, the reviewing 'agency grants the permit only if the established carrying capacity of the water resource will not be threatened~ Assessing the degree of threat of a land*use proposal, however, requires extensive analvsis. The detail used in identifying the water resource bound- aries is ~mportant in the regulatory, takings analysis. In addi- tion, the defensibili~, of the regulation and cc~nditions im- posed depends on the level of effort employed in analyzing, based on good science, true water quail .ty impacts. The good news, however, is that a well-drafted regulation, even in light of recent takings cases, is likely to survive a takings claim. REGULATORY TAKINGS LAW The U.S. Supreme Court succinctly stated the regulatorv tak- ings analysis in Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (19~0), 32 ZD 256. The Court explained that a regulatory taking occurs where government's action (either through pr~)mulgation of a new regulation or imposition of a condition as a prerequisite to a development permit) fails to advance a legitimate govern- mental interest (the so-called "first prong") or denies the landowner economically viable use of his land fthe so-called "second prong"). For example, assume that all the lots in a proposed development will be connected to an off-site mu- nicipal treatment plant and stormwater runoff is similarly "-eated. If a local government requires a 50 percent reduction the number of lots as a condition of permit approval within a wellhead protection area, a court is likely to conclude that the condition has no relationship to the permit being sought and that a taking has occurred. A court would also probably rule that a local government has caused a taking when it passes a zoning ordinance that renders a landowner's proper .W valueless--for example, if no uses are allowed within the wellhead protection area. Here, a court is likely to find that because no economically viabIe use of the owner's land is possible, the second pronk of Agins has been violated. The focus of this article is the first prong of ARias--the advancement of a legitimate governmental interest as de- fined by recent Supreme Court cases: Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 107 S.Ct. 3141 (1987), 39 ZD 226, and Dofan v. City ofTigard, 114 S.Ct. 2309 (1994), 46 ZD 232. But it isalso important to review how water protection regulations may relate to the extremes of regulatory, takings (physical invasions and no economic viability) as presented in two additional landmark cases: Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982), 35 ZD 21, and Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, ll2S.Ct. 2886, 44 ZD 302 (1992). In Loretto, the Court ruled that a physical invasion of private property, regardless of the extent of the invasion, constitutes a regulatory taking. The invasion, because it infringes on one of the essential attributes of property own- ership--the right to exclude--requires government com- nsation regardless of the landowner's' injury or the pur- ed public purpose. Local governments should be able to avoid physically invading property as long as they remember that any inva- sion, regardless of the extent of the invasionary element, will constitute a taking. For example, in Loretto, the Court ruled 4 May 1998 Land Use Law that requiring easements for cable access in buildings were unconstitutional physical invasions. Similarly, the installa- tion of a well for monitoring upgradient contamination-- even a two-inch diameter well--will be a taking if the land- owner does not consent to its installation. In addition, requiring measuring devices on water resources such as stream gauges, if permanent in nature or design, will constitute physical invasions and trigger compensation requirements.2 In Lucas and cases since, courts have held that compensa- tion for an economic wipeout result4ng from a regu!ato~' action can be avoided only if existing state or property law principles identify the proposed use of the land as a nu/sance.~ As a result, governments cannot simply interpret ordinance language as prohibiting a use because of an even tualnuisance. The nuisance law banning the use must first be established. Local governments should pay careful attention to the holding in Lucas for several reasons. First, Lucas prevents governments from denying all economically beneficial uses of proper .fy where, under existing common'law, the uses do not constitute a nuisance. Second, boilerplate ordinance lan- guage, common to many water resource protection regula- tions, grants local governments little added advantage in their efforts to protect water resources. Government cannot simply point to an ordinance preamble or purpose section and conclude that the applicant's proposed useis a nuisance. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Lucas illustrates that water resource protection is best accomplished by mi~i- gating the impacts of land development (e.~. through land ~cquisition or use of conditional permits) as opposed to absolute preclusion of development? However, in light of Nollan and Dolan, and as discussed more fully below, local governments must be extremely careful with their use of conditional permits for water resource protection. As noted above, traditional regulatory takings analysis in ~eneral, is relatively straightforward--the rules are well es- tablished and a regulatory taking is generally easy to spot. At 2. See.for example, Headier v. United States, 952 F.2d I364 (Fed. Cir. 1991) where the Court heid that U_S. EPA's installation of a series ot monitoring and extraction wells on plaintiff's property, installed to protect downgradient drinking water wells from a hazardous waste plume, constituted a taking absent the landownerls consent. "The intruder who enters clothed in the robes of authority, in broad davlight commits no less an invasion of these rights than if he sneaks in the'night wearing a burglar's mask. In some ways, entry by the authorities is rpore to be feared, since the citizen's right to defend against the intru- sion may seem less clear. Courts should have no doubt as to whose side the law stands upon .... A physical occupation of private property bv the government which is adjudged to be of a permanent nature'is ~ taking, and that is true without regard to whether the action achieves an important public benefit or has only minimal impact on the owner." Id. at 1375. 3. See.for example, K&K Construction v. Department of Natural Re- sources, 551 N.W.2d 413, (Mich. App. 1996), 49 ZD 18, ,... the state must identify background principles of nuisance and property law that prohibit the uses the landowner intends in the circumstance~ in which the property is found." hL at 417, citing Lucas, 112 S. Ct. at 2901. 4. It should be noted that absolute preclusion of land development is the most effective means of water resource protection. Preclusion can occur in several different ways, however. For example, governments ur nonprofit agencies can purchase land, in fee or less than fee, within water resource protection areas and ae-oer run the risk of suffering a regulatory, taking claim. But attempts to achieve this goat through regulation--leaving a lando~vner with no economically beneficial use .of her land--are always likely to trigger ~ takings claim.' Commentary one extreme, Loretto tells us a physical invasion is almost always a taking. _At the other extreme, Lucas instructs that a regulation preventing a common law nuisance rarely causes a taking. In the middle, Agins repeats that all regulations must have both a valid governmental purpose and must not leave private property with no economic value. The rules established by the above-noted cases offer guid- ance with respect to water resource protection strategies; however, several questions arise. For example, the Agitzs test requires that the regulation or government action promote the traditional police powers of government: health, safety, or welfare. Is Agins satisfied by the adoption of large lot zoning premised on the notion that fewer lots minimize risk to water resources? Nollan expanded upon the Agins requirement(and, in many respects, Nollan defined the Aglns test) by stating that the exaction or permit condition must also be based on a link--nexus--between the action and the harm the government sought to avoid or minimize. In this context, does Nottan stand for the proposi- tion that the local government cannot require, as a condition of discretionary permit approval, an increase in tot sizes absent an analysis of the beneficial results such a require- ment might have? Dolan stood for the principle that even where a nexus between the regulation and harmsought to be prevented exists, the extent of government's harm-avoiding measures must be in proportion to the threat posed. Does Dolan therefore require that the city's permit condition in the above example cannot require a 10-acre minimum lot size if five acres would be sufficient? Because few appeals courts have applied the regulatory takings analysis to watershed management, clear answers to these questions are not available. However, developing wa- ter resource protection regulations requires abiding by tradi- tional regulatory drafting rules and takings case law: tf carefully crafted, municipal water resource protection regu- latory programs can readily avoid federal and state regula- tory takings violations. As noted above, current regulatory takings law comprises two extreme situations and the more complicated middle ground that involves an analysis of whether regulation,goes "too far." It is into this middle ground that most water resource protection programs fall, and this is the subject of the remainder of this article. A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTEREST Prior to the Court's holding in Nollan, there was little doubt that protecting watersheds, water resources, and wellheads was a logical use of the police power. For example, an issue in Agins was whether the City of Tiburon could effectively downzone the plaintiff's land based on, among other goals, the preserva- tion of open space. The Court concluded that although the rezonin~g did redUce th~ development potential of the property, the ordinance substantially advanced a legitimate gp~!--the protection of open svace~nnd reduction of sl~rawl--and there- fore the first prong of Agins was not violated. Applying the first prong of Axins to a typical water re- source protection regulation, it would be logical to conclude 5. One such analysis would include the determination of current levels of regulated contaminants in the water resource, the levels if buildout were to occur under present zoning, and the resulting im- provements in water quality under the downzoning proposal. that the regulation'substantially advances a legitimate gov- ernment interest. Unfortunately, until the Nollan decision, little guidance was available to assist local governments in determining what constituted a substantive or legitimate government interest.~ After Nollan, however, there is a question about whether water resource regulations would pass the heightened stan- dard of review articulated by the majority opinion in NolIan.~ For example, assume that for water protection purposes, a local government shifts from allowing uses by right to ap- proving them as conditional uses and imposing conditions when a use is approved for a permit. Under the "old" Agins standard, it was presumed that the municipality's statement of the need for any conditions imposed in approving condi- tional uses was sufficient. Under the "new" Nollan test, however, it is likely that courts will require the municipality to do more to demonstrate that the permit conditions placed on various uses substantially advance a legitimate state interest. Put another way, courts are likely to require that government agencies seeking to protect water resources through conditional approvals establish clearer, more direct, and more logical links between the regulation adopted and the harm the government seeks to minimize. Providing these links requires an understanding of the resource being protected and the drafting of clear and pre- cise regulatory language based on(~ science." In other words, a Watershed protection ordinancen'nuKt ye based on an accurate delineation of the watershed. A wellhead protec- tion regulation must be based on an accurate computer model of the zone of contribution to the pumping well And, a coastal protection overlay district must be based on an accurate understanding of both groundwater and surface water inputs. ECONOMICALLY VIABLE USE OF LAND The second prong of Agins, based on the rule set forth in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), 30 ZD 434, states that a taking will be found where a land-use regulation or required condition denies an owner economically viable use of her land. It is important to note that courts have established that denial of economically viable uses means all or substanti'allv all of the use 9~_he_ [~land. A. mere diminution in value has not been 13elcl to / c-'~-~nstitute a regulatory taking? Local governments have con- 6. "Our cases have not elaborated on the standards for determining what constitutes a 'legitimate state interest' or what .type of connection between the regulation and the state interest satisfies the requirement that the former 'substantially advance' the latter.' Nollan, 483 U.S. at 834. 7. Justice Scalia seemed to go out of his way to reject Justice Brennan's assertion that the appropriate standard of review for regulator:' takings cases is similar to those in due process and eq ual protection claims. "To the contrary., our verbal formulations in the takings field have generally been quite different. We have required that the regulation 'substantially ad- vance' the 'legitimate state interest' sought to be achieved, pot the 'State could rationally have decided thaf the measu re adopted might achieve the State's objective.'" Nollan, 483 U.S. at 836, footnote 3 quoting Minnesota v. Clover Leaf CreameryCo., 449 U.S. 456,466 (t981). 8. See for example, Moore v. City of Costa Mesa, 886 F.2d 260 (~th Cir. 1989) and Lucas, 505 U.S. at 1033. See also William Haas & Co. v, City and County of San Francisco, 605 F.2d 1117 (gth Cir. 1979), 32 ZD 33, where the U.S. Court of Apveals upheld a city zoning regulation that] / effectively reduced the plair~tiff's property valhe from $2 million to less// than $100,000. ,/ Commentary sistently been upheld, under the first prong of Agins, where in their attempts to protect health, safety, and welfare, pri- vate property has been inadvertently devalued. Thus, a watershed protection ordinance that prohibits some uses of land within the watershed or wellhead protec- tion area is unlikely to be considered a taking as a total deprivation of economic value. In fact, the majority of water- shed protection regulations currently in effect todav do not prohibit alt uses of land. but rather regulate certain-types or densities of development. But if development is allowed up to a certain and pro- scribed threshold, a difficult problem is raised. For example, development is allowed within a watershed, but only if the receiving waters are not at their defined carrying capacitv. With this type of standard, it is likely that someone will eventually be denied permit approval. No economically vi- able use of her land will be permitted. Unless the proposed use is a common law nuisance (an unlikely circumstance), this permit denial will likely constitute a taking. The irony is that this carrying capacity approach makes infinite sense and is likely to find favor with courts strictly applying the rough proportionality test of Dolan. However-. the,~y~ver_y Vat,:re otLsuch regulations means that at some poiot, the water resource cannot accommodate additionat_~gEowlh; no viable economic use of private property will remain because the_water resource, cannot~sustain any add~iitig_oa] man-m__.~do inputs. Yet, implementation ot ttus regulation will likely constitute a compensable taking. As a result, the regulation establishing the carrying capac- ltv requirement should contatn provisions that allow the permit granting agency a way to soIten the regulation's im- pact (for example, bvallowing development COgditiol~od npon .m~t~gatm~_,g_measures such as use of best management prac- tices, denitrifying septic systems, restrictions on use of certain chemicals, etc.). In addition, and prior to the carrying capacity being reached, the local government should t~ave in placb _al~o rno~nS of vrotectin~ the water resource. These include estabhshlng an ophonal transter of development ngh_ts regulation, earmarking funds for land acquisition, and con- tinued refinement of methods by which development's im- pact on water resources can be mitigated. While carrying capacity regulations are effective, the community mu~t be prepared once the carrying capacity is reached..Simply saving "~n.o more" will not survive a takin s challenge ~'~ ' - ESTABLISHING THE REQUIRED NEXUS It is logical to conclude that local governments must accu- rately match threats to public health, safety, and welfare with regulations designed to minimize those threats. This is the first prong of Agins and one of the kev holdings in Nollan. For example, a municipality can restrict development in a designated floodplain if it can demonstrate that the regula- tion advances its interests in protecting downstream land from flood damage. A more difficult task is accurately identifying the water resource being protected. Delineating floodplains is simple ompared with accurately matching watersheds to surface 9. "We are in danger of forgetting that a strong public desire to improve the public condition is not enough to warrant achieving the desire by a shorter cut than the constitutional way of paying for the change." Permsylvama Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S.'393, 416 (1992). waters and recharge areas to drinking water wells (welLhead protection areas). Because these tasks are more challenging, time consuming, and often expensive, they are often not completed correctly. Municipalities face even greater challenges when they seek to allow only certain uses or densities based on the threat to water quality. In these cases, governments set thresholds beyond which development will be denied or curtailed. Not surprisingly, asu_rv~ey pf local watershed protecfion measures reveals that the sc~tific foundations of the mea- sures are suspect. ¥or example, one community in New England has adopted a groundwater protection overlay zone that requires significantly larger lots than land outside the overlav. Land is also subject to discretionary permitting for specific projects. For the most part, howeve?~ n~ the overlay zone has little relationship to .the geolo~c deposits from wh~ci~ the community obtains its~drinking water. This ~ismatch the area being regulated has little relationship to the purpose of the ordinance provides an excellent and all too common illustration highlighted in Nollan: a regulation or permit condifion that fails to advance the purpose of the ordinance or condition? Yet, there is a second identificafion approach that is even more likely to be invalidn under NolIan, ironically referred to tn official circles as "arbitrary fixed radii.'p- These are over- lay regulations, drawn as circles around drinking water wells, that prohibit certain uses and require discretionary reviews of applications. Not only must accurate science underlie land-use regula- tions, but also, the implicafion from a 1993 Supreme Court decision, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993) is that water resource protecfion regulations must be supported by current science. Prior to Daubert, courts were unlikelv to admit into evidence scientific testimony that had not yet reached a level of acceptance (general accep- tance) to be considered scientifically valid. In Daubert, the Court substituted the common law "general acceptance" test with a more liberal and encompassing test for admitting expert scientific, technical, and other specialized testimony. Today, federal and state courts following Federal Rules of 10. "The evident constitutional propriety disappears, however, if the condition substituted for the prohibition utterly fails to further the end advanced as the justification for the prohibition.., the lack of nexus between the condition and the original purpose of the building restric- tion converts that purpose to something other than what it was." NoIlan, 483 U.S. at 837. 11. Note that the foregoing discussion assumes that the presumption of validity standards in land-use matters, first established in Euclid, later refined by Nollan, has been overcome. Once overcome, the re- viewing court must make a determination as if no presumption existed. This point emphasizes the need for accuracy in setting water resource regulations. 12. U.S. EPA coined the phrase "arbitrary fixed radius" in reference to wellhead protection area delineations consisting of simple circles of arbitrary distances around the drin king wa ter well Despite their lack of scientific defensibility, many states and numerous local governments still employ arbitrarily defined circles in their groundw,ater protection program. Some states and municipalities use this approach as part of a multi-tiered protection scheme; the radius is the first line of defense and is typically defined as a "no-build" zone. Other state and local govern- ments, however, still rely on the arbitrary circle as their principal means of groundwater protection. Commentary Evidence 702 are allowed to admit expert testimonv not necessarily fitting the "general acceptance" category.. This means that in post-Daubert trials, courts will allow landown- ers' experts much greater latitude in placing scientific evi- dence before the court in their attacks against water resource protection regulat4ons. It is critical, therefore, that these regulations be based not only on sound scientific foundations but that those founda- tions must also be current. That is, a community should not simply rely on past assumptions about water resource bound- ary identifications or threats to the system. Where the com- munity is uncertain about the scientific foundations of its ordinance, or is unable to develop strong scientific backing, the ordi~nance shouid re~fflect its "tempor_~ar~v interim" status and the fact that additional refinement is ongoing..This in- terim status of the ordinance and the presumption of validity should protecte~ it fr~m challT~n~e~t~ ilk s~ier~tifiC accu~cv.' ESTABLISHING ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY The lessons for designing water resource protection regula- tions from Dotan are also clear. Once an exaction or permit condition imposed passes the Nollan hurdle, it must also pass the test established in Dolan: The extent of the extraction or permit condition must be proportional to the harm gov- ernment seeks to minimize. Many interpretations of the Court's holding in Dolan limit the decision's reach to conditions where a landowner's prop- erty has been taken by virtue of the condition (e.g. the condition requires p~rivate land to be conveyed to a public entity). This article takes the position that Dolan probably applies to conditional approvals that do not necessarily include forced donations of private property. This is a logical conclusion following Ehrlich v. Ctdver city, 12 Cal.4th 854 (1996), 48 ZD 183, in which California's highest court ruled that both the nexus and rough proportionality requirements apply to conditional permit exactions and extactions--not just those involving acquiring title to private proper .ty. In Ehrlich, the California Supreme Court, following a re- mand bv the U.S. Supreme Court,k~ concluded that condi- tions imposed pursuant to a legislative action (e.g. a rezon- lng) will be valid provided the two-prong A~,,ins test is satisfied. The heightened constitutional scrutiny established by Nollan and Dolan is not required in these circumstances. Ehrlich, 12 CaI.4th at 906. However, the California high court held 'that the govern- ment bears the burden of satisfying both the Noltan nexus and Dolan rough proportionality requ!rements when it im- poses a condition adiudicativety. In our view, the intermediate standard of judicial scrutiny formulated by the high court in Nollan and Dohm is intended to address just such indicators in land use "bargains" be- tween property owners and regulatorybodies--those in Which the local government conditions permit approval for a given use on the owner's surrender of benefits which purportedly offset the impact of the proposed development. It is in this . paradigmatic permit context--where the individual prop- erty owner-developer seeks to negotiate approval ora planned development--that the combined Nolhm and Dohul test quintessentia, lly applies. Id. at 868. 13.1 t4 S.Ct. 2731 { 1994). The Court remanded the case tn the Califor- nia Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of Dolan, de- cided just three days prior. Guidelines for Developing Specific Criteria for an Interim Water Protection Ordinance 1. Identify Areas. The ordinance should identify water re- source areas that are subject to the specific criteria. The regulation must reference or contain an accurate map or other visual depiction of the watershed, wellhead protec- tion area, or other resource being regulated. 2. Identify Contaminant Impact of Proposals. The regulaQon should contain values for assessing the contamination impact of proposed land uses. A. The regulation must provide sufficient detail and guidance to an applicant for a development permit as to what contaminant values should be used for as- sessing impact. For example, various components of land development contribute differing levels of nitro- gen. Nitrogen loading from lawn fertilizer is esti- mated at three pounds per 1,000 square'feet per year whereby Ioading from on-site wastewater facilities (septic systems) is estimated at five pounds per per- son per year and loading from road runoff is esti- mated at 0.19 pounds of nitrogen per year. B. In addition to providing the values to be used in the calculations, the regulation should also explain how the values are applied on a case-by-case basis. For example, assessing impacts from individual develop- ments does little to protect a resource from the effects of cumulative loadings generated by other develop- ments within the watershed or wellhead protection area. The regulation should be clear in its mandate. Are applicants for a development permit required to assess impacts to the water resource from that project solely, or from all the existing and potential projects as well? While .the recommended approach is the latter, the ordinance must be clear cm the extent of its requirements. 3. Identify Contamination Thresholds. Thresholds for measur- ' lng the acceptability of proposed development should be clearly listed in the regulation. A. Establishing thresholds---limil;s--against whi~ de- '-~lovment proposals should be measured is the key .to water resource protection. B. Where the threshold is not known, the ordinance should clearly specify a range of acceptable thresh- olds and be clear that a purpose of the ordinance is to arrive at the appropriate regulatory, limit. C~ In addition, the ordinance must specify what happens when proposed development will exceed the estab- lished threshold. The ordinance should contain pre- cise language as.to the options that will be available to the permit granting authority. For example, the ordi- nance could state that where the carrying capacity values will be exceeded, the permit granting author- ity has the power to reduce contaminant inputs through limitations on floor area, numbers of lots, numbers of units or bedrooms, reduction in road length, improve- ments to stormwater treatment, and so on. The kev is · ._to be S~c and to identify in the orcl~nanee range ot mitigating measures available to the review-' mg agency. Land Use Law Mav ]~og 7 Commentary Successful protection of water resources combines both egislative and adjudicative efforts and the logic used in Ehrtich seems applicable throughout the country. Legislative approaches such as rezoning watersheds areas from com- mercial to low-density residential may adequately remove the threat from toxic and hazardous materials. Re~E~zoning alone, however, is unlikely to provide comprehensive regu- Iator'~-~-protecnon. home d~gree ot pertormance-based~'u- ~-icat'ive 'permit~ng\vilt also be needed because it is a more precise tool than legislation for the focusing on the unique- ness of water resources and the impact of each development proposal on those resources. Regulations can assist the permit granting agency in meet- ing the rough proportionality between conditions imposed and harm prevented by giving the agency both guidance and flexibili .ty. The guidance may be in clearly spelling out "how" and "how much" the permit granting agency can condition the permit. For example, many water resource protection regulations contain language that allows the agency to limit the type and quantities of certain materials to be used on-site (e.g. materials deemed hazardous to drinking water sup- plies). In contrast, the flexibility needed in a regulation grants the agency the power to condition permit approval based on the land use's perceived threat to water quality. Be- cause this can rarely be determined in advance, the agency needs the authority to review each case, ad hoc, to arrive at the permit conditions or requirements necessary for specific circumstances. This ad hoc nature of conditional · vermit approval goes to the very heart of water resource rotection. In the past several years, government agencies have in- creased efforts to regulate, on a case-by-case basis, against certain contaminants within specific resource areas. One contaminant common to all water resources, and the one receiving signifjr~-tt--gtrentiork at federal, state, and local levels, however, is mtrogen." Applying the ~ro/a~-~to a government's attempt at minimizing nitrogen loading presents several interesting problems. First. the degree of acceptable nitrogen loading varies depending on the water resource. For example, in drinking water, the Safe Drinking Water Act has established a maximum contaminant level for nitrogen at 10 parts per million. There is a wide variation of acceptable levels of nitrogen in coastal waters, however. ~ The variation depends on many factors, including the flushing rate of the water body, its depth, sediment type, extent of bordering wet- lands, and temperature. As a result, no model or generic contaminant level can be deeeloped. 14. Although all forms of nitrogen are critical components of natural systems, nitrogen can cause water quality degradation if present in excessive quantities. In drinking water supplies,elevated nitrate-nitro- gen levels can cause an illness variously known as methemoglobin- emia or "blue baby syndrome" in infants. In addition, high nitrate- nitrogen levels ha've'been linked to the formation of carcinogenic nitrosamines. In aquatic systems, elevated nitrogen levels may cause pxcessive plant growth and other symptoms of eutrophication~ Nitro- m is generally considered to be the limiting nutrient for growth 'in .any marine systems. The precise relationshipbetween nitrogen load- mg and'marine p. roductivity has not been well documented and varies widely. · 15. In some cases, coastal water bodies have maximum contaminant levels of tess than 1 part per million of nitrogen. May lqqg Land Use Law One of the dilemmas in designing a water resource protec- tion regulation is the fact that while various types of water resources have different standards for measuring nitrogen contamination, almost all water resources are connected in some way. A surface water body such as a river may ultimately drain to a coastal water body. Along the way, the waters from the river may provide recharge to a drinking water well obtain- ing water from subsurface aquifer materials. In attempting to comply with the rules articulated in Nollan and Dolan, which level of nitrogen should be used? If the level used is for coastal resource protection, but the government's main goal is drinking water preservation, will the regulation fail the rational nexus test? If the permit granting agency, conditions development approval on an incorrect standard, will the implementation of the wrong standard fait the rough proportionality test?~ More impor- tantly, how can the typically understaffed and financially stressed local government calculate the proportionality be- tween the ordinance's effect and its goal. The following illustration should help. In attempting to understand the nutrient loading impact that a proposed large commercial development will have on sur- face, ground, and coastal water resources, a zoning board of appeals required a conditional use permit applicant to pay for a detailed analysis. While portions of the surface water body flowing to the coast are within the watershed to the developer's property, the locus is over 30 miles from the ocean. The results of the studv concluded that to preserve the coastal system, wastewater generated by the development would have to be reduced by over 50 percent. This reduction was necessary due to nitrogen generated by the proposed development as well as numerous other developments within the coastal watershed. No detrimental impacts to drinking water or surface water resource were likely to result from the development. Citing its comprehensive plan and goal of protecting the municipality's coastal resources, the zoning board granted approval of the development subject to a 50 percent reduction in wastewater flows. This conditional approval ks tantamount to a significant reduction in leasable commercial area square footage. These facts indicate the difficulty in applyin.g the roughly proportional test to water resource protection. Under a strict application of Dolan to the permit condition, the.municipal- ity would lose because the degree of harm minimized by the municipali~'s actions is not logically proportional to the harm avoided. The mdnicipality's action may have reduced impacts to the coastal waters, but unless the municipality similarly regulated all new development, or at a minimum determined how much loading the coastal waters could assimilate, the exaction went too far2: 16. Interestingly, and as noted in Dolan, in reference to the holding in Noltan, a reviewing court may never reach the issue of rough propor- tionality if it cannot first establish the rational nexus: "In evaluating petitioner's claim, we must first determine whether the'essential nexus' exists between the 'legitimate state interest' and the permit condition exacted by the city, If w~rtintd thgt a_n.~;~,,~ exi*~* ~-,,, ~,,~t t h_9_n decide the required de~ree of connection between the exactions and the vro- lected impact nt the proposea c~ ~._..~.~.ment. We were not required to reach-this.question in Nollan; because we concluded that the connec- tion did not meet even the loosest standard." Dolan, 114 S.Ct. at 2316, citing Nollan, 107 S.Ct. at 3148. 17. Of particular concern is the Court's justification in Dolan for invaIidating the city's bikepath exaction. The Court concluded that the Commentary Limiting development to a prescribed nitrogen level is also likely to fail under a strict application of Dolan unless the government can demonstrate-quantify the development's nitrogen impact on the water resource. The problem is that the science is not precise and yet many factors must be carefully analyzed. Quantification of nitrogen impacts to water re- source receptors requires an analysis of the current status of the receiving waters, a calculation of the loading from existing sources, and loadings from all potential sources. Once com- pleted, the process requrres a comparison between acceptable nitrogen levels lso-called carrying capacity levels) and levels likely to occur at buildout. But even the determination of calct~lating carrying capacity limits may be challenged. Unfortunatelv. the accuracy of an analysis of nitrogen im- pacts can be jeopardized by many elusive factors. For ex- ample, what nitrogen loadings will eventually reach the wa- ter resource? Knowing the impact on the water resource also requires knowing the time of travel of the nitrogen. (Unfortu- nately, few regulations reviewed, even those with time of travel components, differentiate between flow times of differ- ent contaminants. I In addition, nitrogen is attenuated re- moved Mong its travels by, among other things, wetland vegetation. Few of t__h.~ _r_egul_a~ions reviewed incorporated __nitrogen uptake into the ordinance. Moreover. because many of these factors are difficult to accurately measure, they are often omitted from water resource protedtion ordinances. These omissions set the stage for challenges under Dolan (and perhaps Nollan L By failing to incorporate a greater level of accuracy in the regulation and its attendant exactions. government is vulnerable to claims that the regulation or permit condition lacks the requisite degree of connection. Even where the nexus exists, government's actions may be challenged as excessive in degree. To avoid challenges under the nexus or the rough propor- tionality test, government officials must admit, where neces- sary, that the water resource regulation nr permit condition is t~ased on an temporary interim regulation and that more precise data are forthcoming. For example, a local govern- ment mav adopt a carrying capacity regulation that sets limits on the total nitrogen loading allowed by any one development within a wellhead protectio~ area, even though the precise carrying capacity of water supply is not vet known or conflicting regulations exist as to the appropriate regulatory threshold.'* CltV'S calculation that the bikepath couhL as opposed to weuhl reduce traffic flow was insufficient. Although "no precise mathematical cal- culation is required." the city must make "some effort to quantify its finding,~ in support ~t the dedication for the pedestrian/bicycle ~ath- way beyond its condusorv statement that it could offset some of the traffic demand generated.;' Dolan, 114 S.Ct. at 2322. 18. For example, the Safe Drinking Water Act regulates nitrogen in drinkin~ water at 10 parrs per million, vet many states and local ~,overnmen s. conc udin~ mar this level is not sufficiently con,~prva- _rive. have adopted tar lower thresholds. While the bat~ Drinking W'ater Act doe2, not preclutle~ state or local government from adopting, more restrlctwe standards, it is clear from a read of the act as well as more restrictive counterpart reg, ulations at the state and local levels, that ,~ here i~ little vrec~slon to the regulatory thr~sholds adopted. Three considerations are required in usin~ ordf~-ii6ce tn tins s~tuatlon, ktrst, in the ordinance, the local government should aclc, nowledge that the precise carrying capaci ,ty level is not known and the purpose of the regulation is to impose nitrogen limitations during the period in which it will collect and analyze more precise data. This approach seems to respond to the Court's requirement of "no precise mathematical calculation" (Dolan, 114 S.Ct. at 2322) more appropriately than hiding behind traditional health, safety,, and welfa re protection defenses. Second, the interim ordinance should contain specific crite- ria that the permit granting agency, can use to evaluate which projec~ should be approved, conditioned, or denied. See also the box on page 7, Guidelines for Developing Specific Criteria for an Interim Water Protection Ordinance. These perfor- mance criteria altow agencies to avoid relying on generalized "purpose and intent" language, and permit the application of standards that can be used on a case-by-case basis. Third, and perhaps most importantly, a body granting permits under the ordinance must know what it is doin .g~__ zoning, board of review that has no understanding of nutri- ent loadings or groundwater flow dynamics should not be e..~nntrusted to apply a complicated water resource protection r_regulation without training, staff, or consulting support. For example, using the illustration above, successful application of the ordinance will require requesting the correct informa- tion and accurately analyzing potential impacts. Requiring too much of an applicant or inaccurately linking permit conditions with articulated water resource objectives plays directly into the traps established bv Noltan and Dolan. CONCLUSION The protection of water resources ground, surface, and drinking--is federally mandated and embraced by all 50 states and most local governments. At issue is how best to craft land-use control regulations that protect water, systems while avoiding the clear pitfalls identified in almost 100 years of takings jurisprudence. At first glance, the task seems easy..Never physically, inva.,..~de private property, never extract without a clear and established nexus and, when the nexus is established, do not extract too~-uch.. But truly protecting water systems is a complex task. No two water resources are identical and no generic methodology for their protection is available. Thus the most effective recipe for water resource protection contains three ingredients. First, cra ft regulations that are taiIored for the water svstem by preparing accurate delineations of the relevant wa tershed or contrib~ting 9reafM. Second, adopt protection measures through '~is_2ative me. an~ in keeping with Agins's legitimate government interest requirement. Third. adopt regulatory, text that allows review- lng agencies to accu ra telv analyze development's impact on the resource on a case-by-case basis; Finallv. make sure that this third element ad hoc decision making-~comports with the Dolan rough proportionally, test. Extractions designed to pro- tect water resources are permissible, provided the deeree of the .exaction is rou.,hl~ proportional to the harm.threatenedb? the ~_devetopment proposal. , Land Use Law M~v 372 plaintiffs should be given the opportunity to obtain additional information ~hrough discovery since the facts are particularly within the knowledge of the individual de- fendants (see Limmer v. Medallion Group, 75 A.D.2d 299, 42~ N.Y.S.2d 961). In sum, plaintiffs have demonstrated fac- tuat issues with respect to the alleged void acts constituting gift and waste so as to defeat summary jud~ment~ Judgment of the Supreme Court, West- chester County (MARBACH, J)-, entered November 2~, 1980, reversed, on the taw, with $50 costs and disbursements, and mo- tion for summary judgment denied. S KEY NUMBER SYSlEM 446 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES and (2) two-family review beard's grant of special permit must be annulled and matter remanded to board for new de~rmination made upon findings determining whether standards in the local law concerning grant- ing such permits had been met~ Reversed and remanded. 84 A.D.2d 401 ~ ~ ~ In the Mat/ar of Harvey SHERMAN, et al, Respondents, ¥o Charles FRAZIER et al., Appellants; Joseph Roth, Intervenor. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. Jan..29, 1982. A special proceeding was brohght to annul a town's two.family review board's determination granting applicant permit to maintain two-family residence in distn'ct zoned for one family dwellings. The Su- preme' Court, Suffolk County, Victgr J- Orgera, J., t06 Misc2d 129, 431 N.¥.S.2d 305, granted the petition and appeal was taken. The Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- sion, Laser, J., held that: (1) town.beard's local law creating a two.fam~qy review beard empowered to issue special permits to owners of one fami%y houses illegally con- verted into two.family houses or to owners intending to undertake such conversion was a valid delegation of power by town board, 1. Certiorari *,23 Article 78 proceeding is not proper ve- hicle by which to review legislative action. McKinney's CPLR 7801 et seq. 2. Declaratory Judgment ~:~312 Although Article 78 proceeding was not proper vehicle by which to review legisla- tive action, Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- sion, would treat declaratory portion of pe- tition as action for declaratorY judgment and dispose of proceedings on its merits. MeKinney's CPLR 7801 et seq. 3. Zoning and Planning ~=~5 Town beard may adopt zoning regula- tions by virtue of its municipal home rule law powers as well as those granted by the Town Law. McKinney's Municipal Home Rule Law §§ 10, sub& 1(ii), par. d(3), 10, subd. 1(ii), par. a(14), 10, subd. 6; McKin- ney's Town Law §§ 267, 267,'subd. 1; Laws 1981, c~ 92, § Z 4. Zoning and Planning ~14 Zoning article of Town Law can be superseded by local law. McKinney's Mu- niclpal Home Rule Law §§ 10, sub& 1(ii), par. d(3), 10, subd. 100, par. a(14)~ 10, sub& 6; McKinney's Town Law §§ 267, 267,' subd. 1; Laws 1981, c. 92, § 2~ 5. Zoning and Planning ~=~373 Town board can reserve power to issue special permit.&. McKinney's Town Law §§ 263, 267. 6. Zoning and Planning ~::~41 Town board's local law 'creating two- family review board empowered to issue special permits to owners of One family houses illegally converted into two-family houSeS'or to owners intending to undertake such conversion was a valid delegation of SHERMAN v. FRAZIER Cite a~, App. Div~ 446 N.Y-.~2d 372 power by town board. McKinney's Munici- pal Home Rule Law §§ 10; subd. l(ii), par. d(3), 10, subd. 1(ii), par. a(14), 10, subd. 6; McKinney's Town Law §§ 267, 267, subd. 1; Laws 1981, c, 92, § 2. 7. Zoning and Planning ~:~29 Town board's exercise of supersession power overrides mandate of section of Town Law requiring consideration of pecu- liar suitability of zoning district for particu- lar uses, with view to encouraging most appropriate use of lands throughout the municipality; thus, enactment of local law delegating the power to issue special per- mits to two-family review board was not a nullity, even though it was not enacted in accordance with a comprehensive plan. McKinney's Town Law. §§ 263, 267. 8. Zoning and Planning ~=~726 Two-family review board's granting special permit to convert one family home into two-family home must be annulled and matter remanded to beard for new determi- nation made upon findings determining whether standards contained in the local law with respect to granting such permits had been met. McKinney's Town Law §§ 263, 267. Josepk F. Klein, Town Atty., Lindenhurst (Raymond F. Wolfram, North Babylon, of counsel), for appellants. Abrams & Herman, P. C., Huntington (Norman S. Abrams, Huntington, of coun- sel), for respondents. Before DAMIANI, J. P., and LAZER, COHALAN and BRACKEN, LAZER, Justice. The focus of this appeal is the Town of Babylon's legislative reaction to the bur- geoning problem of illegal two.family hous- es. At issue is a judgment which (1) an- nulled a determination of the town's Two- Family Review Board granting the interve- nor a special permit to convert his one-faro- ily home into a two, and (2) struck down the Local Law which Created and empowered the review board to. legalize past two-family 373 house conversions and to authorize them in the future. Prominent in our dispesitive reasoning is an obscure amendment to the Municipal Home Rule Law which--with a few specified exceptions--permits towns to supersede or amend the Town Law when enacting local laws. Unauthorized conversions of one-family homes for two.family use have become an oft-discussed subject of public concern in recent years (see "Wide Appeal for 'Acces- sory Apartments' ", New York Times, Jan. 3, 1982, § 8, p. 6, col. 1; "Why so Many · Families are Doubling Up", U. S. News & World Report, March 9, 1981, p. 53; "Make Your House a Money-Saver", 50 Plus, March 1981, p. 76; "Legal or Not, Single- Family Homes Adding Apartments", New York Times, June 3, 1979, § 8, p. 1, col. 6; "2-Family Housing Called a Necessity by Priorities Panel',, Newsday, April 9, 1978, p. 3, col 1; "Illegal rentals, a major problem and a major part of the solution", Newsday, March 27, 1978, p. 6, col. 1). Illegal conver- sions are the consequence of decreasing availability of rental housing to the young and increasingly burdensome costS of one- family house maintenance for the not-so. young whose children have departed, leav- ing their parents with .unused house space. This c~e reveals how rampant is the spread of such conversions in but a single Long Island town. Illegal two.family conversions are not, of ' course, unique to Babylon, and several Long Island municipalities have enacted legisla- tion in efforts to solve or alleviate the prob- lem (see, e.g., Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Oyster Bay, art. I, § 1; Zoning Code of the Village of Lindenhurst, § 85- 66, subd. E; Municipal Code of the City of Long Beach, ch. 9, art. 1, § 9-105.7). The Long Beach solution, which provided for almost categoric legaliZation'of premises converted up to a particular date, ultimate- ly was accorded legal approbation by the Court of Appeals (see Ilasi v. Cfty of Long Beach, 38 N.Y2d 383,.379 N.Y.S.2d 831, 342 N.E.2d 594). Babylon has chosen a differ- ent and more selective response to its diffi- cultie~ 374 Babylon's problem is substantial. The town is largely populated by blue collar families; its average household income in 1979 was $17,050 and more than 40% of its homeowners are 50 years of age or older (see ',Report on Illegal Two-Family Dwell- ings in the Town of Babylon", Town of Babylon Department of Planning and De- velopment, Jan. 10, 1979, pp- 5, 9). The cited Planning Department study revealed that the 880 legal two-family homes in Ba- bylon were accompanied by a much larger number of illegal ones, then estimated at 10 to 20% of the approximately 38,000 single. family houses in the unincorporated area of the town (.rd., p. 4), Only one of Babylon's four residential zoning districts porrnits two-family homes and that zone is rather limited in area. It is apparent that the Babylon Town Board was not enamored of a vast law enforcement effort against the thousands of person~s, involved in ownership and occupancy of illegal dwellings as a solu- tion for its troubles. The chosen method was a scheme for selective grants of tempo- rary permits for two-family bo/nes. In enaCting the requisite legislation, the town board did not amend the zoning ordi- nance to expand the availability and legali- ty of two-family homes as permitted uses in the residential zones. Instead, it enacted Local Law No. 9 of 1979 entitled "Special Permit Law for Temporary Two-Family Dwellings." This statute created a Two- Family Review Board to consist of seven members empowered to conduct public hearings and determine special permit ap- plications by those who own illegally eon- 446 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES square feet of habitable space per unit; (3) have two on-site parking spaces; and (4) have a single front entrance with any addi- tional entrances at the side or rear. In deciding whether to exercise its discretion to issue a permit, the review board is re- quired to consider the character of the area, property values, traffic congestion, safety and Welfare, overcrowding of land, unrea- sortable proximity to ~hurehes, schools, the- aters, recreational areas and places of pub- lic assembly and reasonable development of established uses in the area These start- dards may easily be recognized as tradition- al special exception guidelines found in many zoning ordinances. But superimposition of Local Law No. 9 upon Babylon's existing zoning scheme crc- ares a curious anomaly. An owner cannot obtain a building permit to construct a two- family home in a one-family zone but he can convert an existing one-family home to a two, legalize an existing illegal cenver- sion, or if the property is vacant, build a one-family house and convert it afterwards. Recognition of the last option as having the potential for widespread abuse led the town board (during the pendency of this litiga- tion) to adopt a seven-year moratorium upon special permit applications for premis- es constructed after January 1, 1980' (see Local Laws, 1982, No. I of Town of Baby- Ion). The instant controversy resultz from the application of Joseph Reth for a special permit to convert his single-family home tq two-family use~ Although there was some vetted two-family houses or intend to un- opposition at the hearing on the ground dertake such conversion. The special per- mit authorized by the Local Law grants the that a traffic hazard would be created by cars leaving the Reth driveway and enter- owner the right to use his single.fam~qy lng a three-read intersection, the review dwelling as a two-family house u~e for a two-year period, provided there is filed with the County Clerk's office a covenant declar- ing that the permit terminates upon the death of the owner or the transfer of the property. Upon expiration of the permit, the owner may apply for renewal. Under the Local Law, special permits are available for premises which (1) are owner occupied; (2) contain a minimum of 500 board approved the application and granted the permit. Unfortunately, it made no findings of fact~ In this article 78 proceeding, the petition- ers (who are R°th's next door neighbors) argue that Local Law No. 9 violates section 267 Of the Town Law because it delegates powers to the Two-Family Review Board instead of to the Zoning Board of Appeals SHERMAN v. FRAZIER ~ite a~, App.Div~ 446 N.Y.S~d and because it is not in accordance with a comprehensive plan'(see Town Law, § 233). As to the determination itself, petitioners contend that the failure of the board to make findings of fact require~ a remand. Babylon responds that it is not constrained by Town' Law provisions because section 10 (subd. 1, par. [iii], cl. d, subel. [3]) of the Municipal Home Rule Law (MHRL) has be- stowed upon it the power to amend or persede the Town Law. Special Term re- jected the town's position and declared the Local Law to be invalid on the ground that article 16 of the Town Law does not autho- rize the creation of a two-family review board and the delegation of powers to it (see Matter o£ Sherman v. Frazier, 106 Misc.2d 129, 431 N.Y.S.2d 305). We con- clude there should be a reversal. [1, 2] Although an article 78 proceeding is not the proper vehiCle by which to review legislative action (Matter o£ Lakeland Water Dkt. v. Onondagas County Water Auth., 24 N.Y.2d 400, 407, 301 N.Y.S.2d 248 N.E.2d 855), we will treat the declarato- ry portion of the petition as an action for a declaratory judgment (see, e.g., Matter of Kovarsky v. Housing & Dev. Admin. of City o£ N. Y., 31 N.Y.2d 184, 191-192, 335 N.Y. S.2d 383, 286 N.E.2d 882) and dispose of this proceeding on its merits. It is not clear whether the far-reaching effects of the 1976 amendment to section 10 of the MHRL (sec L.1976, ch. 365) were comprehended at the time of the enact- ment Most of the comments found in the legislative bill jacket view the legislation as affecting the power to restructure town government. · But, as this litigation indi- cates, the potential reach of the amendment is well beyond mere matters of structure. .' As it no~v stands; section 10 of the MHRL. grants local law powers to towns ~s follows: ".1. In addition to powers granted in the constitution, the statute of local govern- ments or in any other law, "(i) every local government shall have power to adopt and amend local laws not inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution or not inconsistent with any general law relating to its property, af- fairs or government and, 375 "(ii) every 1°cal government, as provided in this chapter, shall have power to adopt and amend local laws not inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution or not inconsistent with any general law, relating to the following subjects, wheth- er or not they relate to the property, affairs or government of such local government, except to the extent that the legislature shall re~trict the adoption of such a local law relating to other than the property, affairs or government of such local government: "a~ A county, city, town or village: "(14) The powers granted to it in the statute of local governments. "d. A town:. "(3) The amendment or supersession in its application to it, of any prevision of the town law relating to the property, affairs or government of the town or to other matters in relation to which and to the extent to which it is authorized to adopt local laws by this section, notwith- standing that such provision.is a general law, unless the legislature expressly shall have prohibited the adoption of such a local law. Unless authorized by other state statute this subparagraph shall not be deemed to authorize supersession of a state statute relating to (1) a special or improvement district or an improvement area, (2) creation or alteration of areas of taxation, (3) authorization or abolition of mandatory and permissive referendum or (4) town finances as provided in article eight of the town law; provided, however that nothing set forth herein shall Ere- elude the transfer or assignment of func- tions, powers and duties from one town officer or employee to another town 6~fi- - ~r or employee, and provided, however, further that the powers of local legisla- tion and appropriation shall be exercised by the local ~egislative body." 376 446 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES SuNlivision 6 of section 10 of the Statute of Local Governments grants towns the power "to adopt, amend and repeal zoning regula- tions." Prior to 1964, only suburban towns had the power to enact local laws (see Town Law, former § 51-a) but the constitutional and legislative home rule package of 1963- I964 (see N.Y.COnst., art. IX; LA963, ch. 843; see, also, L.1964, ch, 205) resulted in amendment of the Constitution and enact- ment of the Municipal Home Rule Law and the Statute of Local Government~ Despite references to the changes as a bill of rights for local government (see Matter of Resnick v. County of Ulster, 44 N.Y.2d 279, 286, 405 N.Y.S.2d 625, 376 N.E.2d 1271) and claims that local powers were being increased ~ig- nificantly (see Memorandum of State Office for Local Governments, 1963 McKinney's Session Laws of New York, p. 2100;. Gover- her's Memorandum, 1963 McKinney's Ses- sion Laws of New York, p. 2069), the home rule power granted to towns was constrict- ed by the requirement that local laws enact- ed pursuant to the new statutes not be inconsistent with general law (see N.Y. Const., art. IX, § 2, subd. Ici; MHRL, § 10, subd. ~1, pars. Iii, [ii] ). Town boards were thus constrained from venturing into vari- ous areas which traditionally had been for- bidden (see, e.g., Matter o£ Helfant v. Town o£ Brookhaven, 65 A.D2d 628, 409 N.Y.S.2d 529; Zumbo v. Town of Farmingten, 60 A.D.2d 350, 401 N.Y.S.2d 121; Matter of .Bon-Air Estates v. BmTding Inspector o[ Town of Ramape, 31 ~D.2d 502, 298 N.Y. S.2d 763; Friendly Hillside Motel v. Town of Brunswick, 74 Misc~2d'I001, 347 N.Y.S~2d 112; Matter o£ Trifaro v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Red Hook, 73 Mis~2d '483, 342 N.Y.S:2d 95; Klm v. Town of Or- angetewn, 66 M~ 364, 321 N.Y.S~2d 724), and not very much could be accom- plished by local law that could not have been accomplished by ordinance even prior to the home rule legislation. Onto this comparatively placid scene came the 1976 amendment to section 10 of the MHRL granting towns the power to supersede or amend--with exceptions relat- lng to improvement districts, taxation, ref- erendums and town finances--the' previ- sions of the Town Law. Since village boards of trustees had been given the pow- er to amend and super~e the Village Law as early as 1953 in subdivision 4 of section 11 of the former Village Home Rule Law (see L.1953, ch. 744), and, in a limited sense, even earlier (see Village Home Rule Law, § 11, subd. 1, par. [bi; I~1940, ch. 823), the 1976 amendment did not appear to work a radical alteration in the existing scheme of things. Indeed, the original enactment of the MHRL in 1963 repealed subdivision 4 of section 11 of the Village Home Rule Law and incorporated its provisions in section 10 of the MHRL. The 1976 amendment mere- ly gave to towns (in almost identical lan- guage) that which villages had pesseesed since 1953. The supersession power contained in chapter 365 of the Laws of 1976 has its constitutional foundation in article IX (§ 2, sub<h [bi, par. [3] ), which declares that "the legislature ~ * * Is]hall have the power to confer on local governments powers not re- lating to their property, affairs or govern- ment* * * in addition to th6se 'otherwise granted by or pursuant to this article." This provision is similar to former section 16 of article IX~ relied upon in Snyder v. Delmin Realty Corp., 207 Misa 215i 137 N.Y~S.2d 137 to uphold subdivision 4 of section 11 of the Village Home Rule Law. In Rozler v. Franger, 61 A.D.2d .46, 401 N.Y. S2d 623, affd. 46 N.Y~2d 760, 413 N.Y. S~xl 654,.386 N~ :E_2d 262, the MHRL grant of sup~rsession powers to villages was sus- rained against constitutional challenge. Although we are aware of the contrary holding in Klebetz v. Town of Ramapo, 109 Misc.2d 952, 441 N.Y.S.2d 216, we have no doubt that the supersession power includes the power to amend or supersede the zoning provisions of the Town Law. The 1976 amendment 'to section 10 of the MHRL permits supersession or amendment of the . Town 'Law with relation to the ,property, affairs or government of the town" and to "other matters in ~elation to which and to~ the extent to which [the town] is authorized to adopt local laws." "Property, affairs or SHERMAN v. FRAZIER Cfm ~s, A~q~ Div~ 446 N.Y.S.2d 3T2 government" are words of art with a spe- cial limited meaning to be defined by judi- cial gloss and not by any dictionary defini- tion (Adler v. Decgan, 251 N.Y. 467, 167 N.E. 705).' While it is proper to analyse custom and to ascertain which matters are considered state affairs and those which are purely those of local government (see Id., p. 478, 167 N~E. 705), the lines of demarcation are not' precise and definition must be on a c,~?e-~ by-ca~e basis (Bald~dn v. City of Buf- falo, 6 N.Y2d 168, 189 N.Y.S2d 129, 160 N.E.2d 443). Matters involving substantial state interests do not fall within the "prep- erty, affairs or government" of a locality, even if they also touch upon local concerns (Wambat Realty Corp. v. State o£ New York, 41 N.Y.2d 490, 393 N.Y~2d 949, 362 N.E.2d 581; Floyd v. New York State Ur- ban Dev. Corp., 33 N. Y2fl 1, 347 N.Y.S.2d 161, 300 N.E.2d 704). Although historically zoning has been considered a purely local concern (see Adler v. Deegan, supra, 251 N.Y. pp. 485-486, 167 N.E. 705, concurring opn. by CARDOZ0, Ch. J.), more recent cases display recognition of the regional and State*wide impact of local land use regulations (sec Kurzius, Inc. v. Incorporat- ed Viii. o£ Upper Brookville, 51 N.Y.2d 338, 434 N.Y.S.2d 180, 414 N.E.2d 680; Berenson v. Town o£ New Castle, 38 N.Y.2d 102, 378 N.Y.S.2d 672, 341 N.E.2d 236; Matter o£ Golden v~ Planning Bd. o£ Town o£ Ramapo,' 30 N.Y~2d 359, 334 N.Y.S~2d 138, 285 N.E.2d 291, app. dsmd. 409 U.S. 1003, 93 S.Ct. 436, 34 L.Ed.2d 294).. [3] Whether the "property, affairs or government" provision permits supersession of zoning regulations need not be decided here because other language of the super- session statute is dispositiV~ With the mentioned exceptions, the Town Law may be amended or superseded "to the extent to which [the town board] is authorized to adopt local laws by this section" (MHRL, § 10, subd. 1, par. [iQ, cl. d, subel. [3]). As we have seen, section 10 '(suM. 1, par. [ii], ct. a, subcl. [14] ) of the MHRL authorizes a town to adopt local laws to exercise "It]he pewers granted to it in the statute of local governments." The Statute of Local Governments, in turn, gives towns the pow- 377 er to "adopt, amend and repeal zoning regu- lations'' (see § 10~ subd. 6). It follows, then, that a town beard is enabled to adopt zoning regulations by virtue of its MHRL powers as well as those granted by the Town Law (see Yoga Soc o£ N. Y. v. Incor- porated Town o£Monroe, 56 A.D.2d 842, 892 N.Y.S2d 81; Town of ClifWn Park v. C. P. Enterprises, 45 A.D.2d 96, 356 N.Y.S~2d 122; see, also, 1976 Opnsaktty. C-em 127; I An- demon, New York Zoning Law and Prac- tico, § 4.03). [4] The legislative intent to permit towns to supersede Town Law sections re- lating to zoning is illustrated by a recent amendment to subdivision I of section 267 of the Town Law, which altered that stat- ute by authorizing town boards, which had previously increased the number of beard of appeals members to seven, to reduce their number to five. Section 2 of the amendato- ry legislation (see L.1981, ch. 92) provides that the amendment to section 257 of the Town Law thus enacted "shall not be deemed or construed to affect the authority of a town beard to amend section two han- dred sixty-seven of the town taw pursuant to authority conferred in section ten of the municipal home ru~e law." Since the Legis- lature has thus told us that the number of beard of appeals members can be reduced by a local law which supersedes or amends section 267 of the Town Law, it is manifest that the zoning article of the Town Law can be superseded by local law. [5, 6] In view of that supersession pow- er, potitioners' contention that the Babylon Zoning Board of Appeals is the only body that can issue special permits is meritless. In section 267 of the Town Law, the Legis- lature granted bom4s of appeals the power to issue variances, but we know that the power to grant special permits vested in a beard of appeals must derive from town board delegation (see, e.g., Br/ck Hill Constr. Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of AppeMs of Town o£ Somers, 74 .~D2d 810, 425 N.Y. S.2d 516; Matter of Carlstein v. ZoninK Bd. o£ Appeals of Town of Union, 71 A.D.2d 768, 419 N.Y.S2d 307). Not only can a 378 town board reserve the power to issue spe- cial permits (see Matter o£ Green Point Sav. Bank v. Board of Zoning Appeals o£ Town of Hempstead, 281 N.Y. 534, 24 N.E.2d 319; Matter of Larkin Co. v. Schwab, 242 N.Y. 330, 151 N.E. 637; Su££olk Outdoor Adv. Co. v. Hulse, 56 A.D:2d 365, 377, 393 N.Y. S.2d 416, mod. on other grounds 43 N.Y2d 483, 402 N.Y,S.2d 363, 373 N.E.2d 263, app. dared. 439 U,S. 808, 99 S,Ct" 65, 58 L.Ed2d 101), but nothing in section 267 of the Town Law it.serf can be read to preclude a town :board from delegating Special permit pow- ers to a body it creates by ordinance. In any event, if there is an inconsistency be- tween Local Law No. 9 and section 267 of the Town Law, it is immaterial because the Town Law has been superseded. There- fore, the delegation to the Two-Family Re- view Board is a valid one. [7] Petitioners 'have yet a further claim--that Local Law No. 9 is a nullity because it was not enacted in accordance with a comprehensive plan. · Section 263 of the Town Law requires consideration of the peculiar suitability of the zoning district for particular uses, with a view to encouraging the most appropriate use of land through- out the municipality. A comprehensive plan requires that a zoning amendment Should not conflict with the fundamental land use policies and development plans of 'the. community (see Udell v. H~s, 21 N.Y~2d 463, 473, 288 N~Y.S.2d 888, 235 N.E.2d 397). Nevertheless, petitioners'.alle. gation that the Local Law does not accord with Babylon's comprehensive plan is base- less not only becaus~ it is a bald and unsup- ported conclusion, but because the town beard's exercise of the supersession power overrides the mandate of section 263. Whether the requirement for a compre- hensive plan implicates constitutional proM- bitions such as due process and equal pro- tection (see Hanr, "In accordance with a Comprehensive Plan", 68 Harv. L.Rev. 1154, 1172; i Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning, § lpg01; see, also, Kurzius, Inc. v. Incorporated Viii. of Upper Brookville, 51 .N.Y.2d .338, 343, 434 N.Y.S.2d 180, 414 N.E~2d 680, supra), may be of interest in 446 NEW YORK SUPP!.EMENT, 2d SERIES future litigation but the'instant petitioners have not addressed the constitutional issue in any of the allegations of their petition or in their brief in this court. [8] Although we thus decide that peti- tioners' challenge to Local Law No. 9 must fail, the review beard's determination still should be annulled and the matter remand- ed to the beard for a new determination accompanied by findings of fact. When an agency fails to delineate the findings which provided the basis for its decision, proper judicial review is impossible (Matter o£ Syr- acuse Aggregate Corp. v. Weise, 51 N.Y~2d 278, 283-284, 434 N.Y.S2d 150, 414 N.F_,2d 651). Upon the remand, the board should make findings determining whether the standards contained in the Local LaW have been reel Accordingly, the judgment must be re- versed, on the law, Local Law No. 9 de- clared to be valid, the determination an- hulled and ~che matter remanded to the Two-Family Review Board of the Town of Babylon to make a new determination based, upon findings of fact. In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to (1) review a determination of the Two-Family Review Board of the Town of Babylon granting a special permit to con- vert a one-family home into a two-family home and (2) declare Local Law No. 9 of the Town of Babylon to be .invalid and unconstitutional, the appeal is from a judg- merit of the Supreme Court, Suffolk Coun- ty, entered September 29, 1980 which granted the petition, and decreed that the determination and Local Law No. 9 are void. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or'disbursements~ and petition granted to the extent of annulling the determina- tion, and that part of the proceeding which was to declare Local Law No. 9 of the Town: of Babylon invalid and unconstitutional is converted into an action for a declaratory judgment and it is declared that Local Law No. 9 is valid. The matter is remanded to tnt ~p~dtioners ~tutional issue eir petition or :ide that peti- ~w No. 9 must rrnir~tion st/l! .utter remand- determination act. When an ~indings which ~isiou, proper Matter of Syr- .~/se, 51 N.Y.2A 50, 414 N.E.2d .~ board should whether the ce. al Law have ,t must be re- .aw No. 9 de- ~rmination an- uanded to the )f t~ '~n of de~, ..,~nation m CPLR article dnation of the af the Town of. permit to con- .o a two-family Law No. 9 of be invalid and is from a j udg- . Suffolk Court- 9. 1980 which ~ecreed that the Law No. 9 are he law, without petition granted the determina- ,roceeding which (~ 9 of the Town constitutional is or a deelaratery · that Local Law - is rr ~nded to PEOPLE v. MUSACCHIO Cite as, Ap~.Dtv~ 44~ N.Y..~2~ 379 the Two-Family Review Board for further proceedings consistent herewith. DAMIANI, J. P., and COHALAN and BRACKEN, JJ., concur· 86 A. D2d 677 The PEOPLE, etc. Respondent, Ralph MUSACCHIO, Appellant. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. Jan. 29, 1982. Defendant was convicted before the Supreme C~urt, Kings County, Cooper, J., of manslaughter in the first degree, and he appealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that trial court did not abuse its discrotion in permitting defendant's eight-year-old daughter, overwhelming bulk of whose testimony was in fact corrobo- rated, to testify as unsworn witness. Affirmed. Witnesses c~40(2), 227 Trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting defendant's eight-year-old daughter, overwhelming bulk of whose tes- timony was in fact corroborated, to testify as unsworn witness. William E. Hellerstein, New York City (Susan Manca, New York City, of counsel), for appellant. Elizabeth Holtzman,. Dist. Atty4 Brooklyn (Lucille DiBello, Asst. Dist. Atty., Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent. Before MOLLEN, P. J., and DAMIANI, GIBBONS and THOMPSON, JJ. 379 MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT. Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Suprem~ Court, Kings County, rendered December 4~ 1979, convicting him of man° slaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. . Judgment affirmed. The defendant was indicted for second degree murder for the death of his wife, by strangulation, in December, 1978. Defend- ant testified that on the night of his wife's death he had returned home, watched a television program with his wife and seven- year-rid daughter and had then sent the child to he~ He then told his wife he had to go out again for a job interview at a restaurant in Manhattan. He had been un- employed for some time. His wife ques- tioned his going out and the two had words.' He left and returned some hours later to a dark apartment. He told a police officer, and he testified, that he went directly to the bathroom and then to the master bed- room, where he noticed his wife was not in bed. He' went to the dark 'living room and stumbled over what proved to be his wife's feet. The seven-year-old child awoke, and he kept her from the living room and sent her back to bed. He said he called the police who put him on hold, so he hung up and called his mother and gave her the number of a car service so she could come over. When his mother arrived, the two called the police two (or three) more times before they arrived. He informed the po- lice that $600 and some of his ,wife's jewelry were missing. He also later said he recalled shaking or pushing his wife by the sbouI- ders and recalled her lying at his feet He said at trial that this happened as he tried to revive her after he found her body. He said he did not push her during the argu- ment earlier in the evening. A police offi- cer t~tified that the defendant had told another officer the same thing but also said that he recalled her falling at his feet He also told the officer he had some lapses of memory. The jewelry was found a few days after the victim's death, in an appar- ently undisturbed jewelry box in the cou- ple's bedroom. 302 662 N.~.2d 87 N.Y2d 344 the Matter of 8hahid U. KIL~N, Respondent, ZONING BOARD OF APPFJiLS OF the VILIAGE OF IRVINGTON et al_; Appellants. Court of Apg~,~ of Ncr~, York. Jan. 16, 1996. Landowner eummeneed Article 78 pro- eeed~ng contenting denial or builcLLng ~c rarian~e by mqta~, zo-i-~ L~ard of ap- peah The Supreme Court, Westehester County, Cowhey, J, ruled in favor of and hndowner appealed. The 8up,me Court, Apl~.ilate DivLniun, 19,t &D2d 599 N.¥~q£d 975, rev~Tsedo and board h*.ave to appeal The (:mart or Rm£th, J., held ~at: (D there urax no legal h~uSL~ for c~eat/on of separate comthun,laW r/gh: that wo~fld automa~/caUy exempt ptop. er~y owncn-~ from area re~tt/c-t/oua without ~aing ordinance providi~ exempt/one minirtllLrn lot or ar~a .eeg*alal:ions (lid ~Ot ply to rc~our~e protection regulatitms; and (~) ?nra acted aporo~ra~ly ~ denying Order of Appellate l~n'~io, revers~I; pt'titi~m di~n_ lazed. 1. Zoning ami Planning Mtmidpali~ may, ia r~zo~,le exerciae ,ff ira police POwers, change ira zordng to cunwol laml ct~e and develvgmenL 2. Zon~n~ o~:d Planning ~a,R}3 Municipality that choc~-a to make chahge~ Co its zoning to contel land u~e and &welupntent may, but need not, exempt ex- L~ting owne~ o[ au~tandard Iota from the changes' more onerous elleet, s: abrogating Mctt~ of P~n v..~o'Wing Bd, vf Atrpe~n, 19I A.D~Od ,~8, 5.94 N-¥.$2d 80<J, Mrn'in v. gonb'~9 l/d of A~o?.nn~.~, liLg ~D.Od :189, 558 N.Y32d 117, Matter of M.i:;.F. Bldrs. 'a $i~el, 102 A.D2d 533, ~ N.Y.S2d 639 NEW YORK S[~PLE~2qT. ~ SERIE.S C~b~, i15 ~ ~, 4~ N.Y~.~ ~ M~ of M~ v. M~i~ ~ ~ ~.~.S~d ~. 3. Z~g ~ P~ing ~ V~ ~g 0~t~. whioh ~t ~m ~t of ~y a~o~g i~ on ~. p~i~ ~ ~ ~ limt~ ~ 47~.D. 4, ~ ~d Pl~n~ ~, ~ aap~d by au~t~ evide~. 5. Zo~.~d Pi~i~48L 4~ ~y, a '~w v~e- ~ ~ ~ c~t ~ ~e a ~ or u~ h~p. Me'intern Town ~w ~ 253~; ~ '~ v~', ~vol~ m~ lo~ ~o~ de~i~ r~,i~ ~ ~ ~% nor d~~~ ~ pU~ Wo~s and ~ KHAN .. ZONING liD. OF APPEAL.5 OF HIVINGTON ;}0~ C!~a~639 N.Y2g.~M ~2 {CI.A~ I~} 8. Zoning und Pl~mnL~g ~'.~ V/mq~ 7~ning ~ of ~ ~d apishly and ~ n~g I""h~ce~ app~on for that ~dan~ ~ ~t 9. Zoning m~! Pl.~nning ~='379, ~ ~ed ~ ~m~ ~t ~.i~ of ~ v~ or ~!~ ~o~i w c0nf~ ~ foflo~ ~e of reg~>n U~ cons~a~ion un ~ p~ I~d~r a~t offer p~f ~:f v~ue of ~ ~o~ =d ~r ~oa went ia~ OPINION OF TI4~: COURT SMITH, J~ge. · ~mdent ~ so,bt ~ ~t~ a ~id~ on ~ ~t ~, ~ subj~ ~ he ~ught it. ~e p~ imue ~ ~ c~e is whe~r a ~am ~i~,~ w~ ~o~ fur p~ hem M ~e gad ~ a~i~ of t~e new ~~ ~g ~. ~ ~ the ~n ~ ~ u~ apply m ~e ~g ~n ~ ~ue d~ .ja... Respondeu~, Sh~/d U. l~. aeek~ pul~uant ~o CPLR Article 7~, to vacale and annul a dedaioe by appelh~t, Zoning Bo~d of Aov~ls uf the V~lage of/r~agtoa m.C~er ZBA), wt~ dealed r~ondeat's r~- quest for lsm~aee of a lmilding permit m., in the altera~ve, a ~ariance. ll~-~pomlont the ow~cr of two parcel~ (both improved tmim~ of ~ property (Tax Map $~.c~ 10B, Block i2~, Leta 83. 84. 85 and portior~ of 81 ~d 82) located in the ~ of lr~ingto~, We~tehester County, New York. :.r/, t.q89, ureter a $iagle conU-act of $ale two ~parate.. dee&. No ap~rtionment the parclmae price waa made betwem the ,-wu pareel$ by the ~ .or the contract, However, the v'.duaUun of t~ two purce~/or traruffer tax purposes was ~L~/O,O00 fo~ ~e imp~uved parcel and $10.000 for the ~nim- proved paxreL Respoade~t acquired L~ improved parcel ia his name* only ami ac- quired the parcel imlyroved with a single- family dwelling jointly with }da Wife. ;mpn ea ~ar~e.l ia not ia issue h~re. Both par~ek~ wer~ he, Id by tl~e previoua ow~ta-s az one ~ Respondent divided the parcels in order to build on the a~tmproved property and setl iL Ou Junuary .30. 1989, alter the purch,~c aad divlaiuu of the two par~e~, respondent applied for a building .r~t to cor~lruct a ho~se on the unimproved par~A. Re~p~no de~t w~a ingor~ed that bec~l~e the pruperty was located in a 'flood p 'laiU area, before a buildiug permit eoukl he issued, he had tn apply for a development permit 304 6;S9' NEW YORK SUPPLELY, 2d SRRIE8 vari~ee irom the ¥~ll~ Board of under chaFter 1~ of ~ Y~ ~.' mon~ ~ ~nd~t ~ ~e jc~ ~, ~e ~ of ~ ~ce ~ ~ e~ent of the ~n' ~ ~ ~ of ~ ~ ~d ~o~t ~d ~m ~ ~ p~on ~d". The P~ ~ d~ ~. 1~, ~ud~t a~ W ~e Z~ (1) ~p t~ls~ Zoni~ O~n~ ~ 47- 5.D)~ ~ (2) for ~ ~ v~-~. ~y ~, t~ m~ d ~e ZB~ ~out a ~, a v~ue of .~y $1~. L C~w 19 w~s ~ ~ ~1~ 16, 19~8 87 N.Y~d dc~truct~ou ut' the a~:tic value of ~e ~ men~ ~e ~A ~nc~d~ t~ s~ 47~D ~ ~ppli~ to ~e .fa~ hem ~e ~ ~men~ (or b~dlng on ~. It for a ~v~b~ ~o~ of ~o~ 47- ~e d~on of ~e ZBA ~d d~ I~ld t-hat since respondent owned ~e ~j~t p~ m ~ng~ ~d ~ ow~p ~ ~t b ~ d~e p~ for ~i~ p~. ~t ZBA ~ ~t ~t a~.D of ~ 7~m~ ~ ~d ~ ~e ~t ~ a ~1 Zom~ Bt of A~ 191 ~D~ ~. ~2 NX.S~ ~, ~ N.E.~ ~; M~- ~D~ ~, ~ N.Y,S~ 117; M~r N.Y~ T~0; C~ v. ~ 146 ~D~ Cr~- ~. C~ 115 ~2d ~ ~ ~, 401 N.Y~2d M~r of ~ ~. ~i~ S~ ~- Y~ ~ ~l ~, 313 N.Y.~ '~ ~. ~ of g~i~ A~ld ~ ~1 N.Y~Id ~, ~t 21 N.Y~ ~ of M~ C~r. ~. ~ 9 · ~ ~r d w~t w~ on~ a b~able ~d~g a conw~ ~ ~c~un ~d KHAN v. ZONING BD. OF APPEALS OF IRVIN~TON ~0~ varian~ a, a matter of right aud withmat r~gard to eeutmmie ~ury, ~ff-im~ - ha~hip or ~e ~ of ~ ~e ~ (;~.~ ~). Si~fif~, ~ d~ ~-~ m~ ~ p~ ~,~ who ~te ~ ~pt ~ a ~e. 8 m~ty o~ of ~ wa~ ~ ~mp~ak ~, a ~ for ~9~ f~r pm~ ~ ~ held ~ ~e ~d ~F~ ~p. 1~ e~g ~ ~ ~u ~ ~ h&-~ Zon- ing B~ ~ ~Is ~ ~. ~ ~ or h~~ ~ga~ ~ some ~v~men~ ~bi~s ~ ~ ~- a~ty ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ no le~h~ ~o~ by ~ a ~ ~m- ~n-~w ~t ~ ~d aunty ~- ~p. ~hmppl~Me. T~ ~ u~tt~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p~d~ ~t ~n- ex~ ~ ~ lot or ~a ~- 6~9 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d 8ERIES that of ;my mtjuining ia. nd on the effective date Of the ontinan~ ami ia :4till .,~: owned at thc time of the requeat for a bu/lding permiL A.~ .such, it £s similar U, ,ordinances generally. used for p, vpet~y held in ":tingle and sepa- rate owm.~hip" or 'grandPathe. r~clau.,m' type prm~ioau for zoning tegula6~ma involving ~ubstaudard lets (see, I Rader~,m. New Yurk Zoning L~w arid .Pra(~Jce ~ 9.43, al: 471:-~79 [Y,d ed] ). The urdiaaace relau.'s to area. and width ami Baa no app{icufion here where Resource lhaXm, t/on regulaUona were de- C, ted to prot~t pruperty aW-,;fmt rluod.~ [41 Thu& La trak:r to Dry, ail, re~ondent would huve to ~hmv cnt/tl~munt ,'thaust as & matter of law since u Zoning Board:~ dcterminaUou rational and suppurted by substantial evi- deuce [Matter of 441. z.4~., 410 N.Y24.2d Ap/~a/~ 40 N.Y2:d 3~J, al4, :186 N.Y.S&:d [Si tb~pondent's bunien turr~ on wheth- er a tree or area varmta:e is ~ L~aue. Cmner- ally, a use variance will allow use of land a~ a maR~r of diacretioa in cirtaa, natancn~ when the desired exec, ptional ,,nc h'-,a been pro. ~ribed by the ~mniug regulut/oaa (C'~.~oti- dated ,~dfi~n.C'o..v. Hoffm~a, 4'~ N.Y.2d 698, ~, 4ir3 ~.¥,S2d IgC, 3'/4 N. E2d 1tLS). The applicaat must make a showin~ of un- aecesaary hanLahi? (see, .M~arr of Sasau Os.~od. ~ N.y_od .5~4. 6~3 N.Y.82d 259, N.E2d 2~; Mat2er of Otto ::. 2~ N.Y. 71, 24 N. E2d 851)? [61 Here, respondent is seeking an area valance. 'Generally spe-~,~g, aa area vari- ance lavulVe~ no etumge in the em~utial char- ~eter of the r~ncd district" (Mm~er v. Zon/~ B& of A~'& 17 N.¥2d 24,9,254, Z/0 N.Y. S2a ~6~, 217 N.E2d ~33; 8~g Matter o/¢~rh///B/rig Co. v. De/m~j, ~ N.Y.:Id 449, ~ N.¥.,CL?.d 6/)6, L%rl N.~2d ~), nor does it seek ta change t~ ~ssential uae of the hnd (Mater of Nat/ona/M~ u. Wei.~% 41 N.Y.2d ~ 441, ~ · T/9, 361 N.E.2d 10~). Thus. an are~ vari- ;~. The r~qu,remcut~ /or a d~uwing of -hardship arc now ~t fort{t in Town Law § 2&?-h ;,nd 87 N.Y.~I .t51 ante involves "matters such ~ ~ ~, deity ~ ~d ~ ~~. [7] ~ M~ of S~ ~ 0~ (~ of To~ ~ ~ ~-b(3) ~d ~d ~ ~ ~d ~i~ ~e ~t ~ ~ ~t W. ~e a~t ae~ ao ~n~ fsi Applying that test ia thia ca~ we conclude t.J~.t the Zoning Board acted appro- priately aud withhl its powers ia denying, the [9] Finally, t~spoaden~'a atL, ument that denia! of a varumee aud permit ~amotmt to a cuu~atory taking i~ rejeeu.~l. ReslX,adeut fa/lcd to offer pruof of the value of the prop. erty before aud aider the regu.{atioa we~ into effect (Mat~. ofKr~,~,t.,n/~ v. $cheyer, 176 A-D2d 7'~, 574 N.Y~q.2d 968, affd. 80 N. Y2d 78~, 587 N.Y.S.2d 2'/2, $~ N.E2d 6'/6). Accordiagly, the, order of the Appeila~ Division .,thould b~ reversed, mi~h cost~, ami Order revert, ed, etc. KAYE, G.J., and SIMONS, TITONE, BELLACOSA, LEV1NE and GIPARICK, JJ., conetw. Villat,,c Law § 7-712-b. Property Tax Implications Of Water Resource Protection FOR EVERY TAX DOLLAR PAID PER ACRE Farms Use $0.30 single Family Homes Use $1.23 Fol' Necessary Municipal Services Ground Watershed Protection and Water Supply Management Strategy Property Tax Implications Of Water Resource Protection The following analysis compares the property tax costs ofissu~g a $50 million bond for the purchase of development rights with the property mx costs of additional residential development. The Mattituck-Cutchogue area was used for purposes of analysis, because this area contains a significant amount of farmland and because its boundaries conform rather closely to census and other areas previously studied. The analysis shows that the average residential household pays around $1,207 less than the total property tax costs per housing unit ($4,288 vs. $5,495), indicating that the average household costs local government more than it returns in property taxes. If the agricultural land used in this example were developed with about 2,400 new residences, the analysis shows that existing housing units would be forced to pay an average of an additional $681 in property rexes a year in perpetuity. By contrast, a $50 million bond issue with a term of 30 years at 8 percent interest would cost the average homeowner around $323 per year, and this expense would end after 30 years. Current and Future ProPerty Tax Burden For Existing Southold Residences (Mattitu c k-C utchog ue) Total Local 1998-1999 Total Local Estimated No. of Government Average 1998-1999 Average Government Existing Tax Lew Taxing Residential Tax Rate Residential Tax Levy Housing Units Per Housing Jurisdiction Assessment* Per $1000 Tax Bill 1998-1999 1998 Unit i School (Mattituck-Cutchogue))$6,433 !Library (Mattituck) $6,433 Town $6,433 i County $6,433 'Fire District (Mattituck) $6,433 Solid Waste District $6,433 Park (Mattituck) . $6,433 Total $432.338 $2,781.23 $15,012,077.00 $22.705 $146.06 $460,878.00 $140.488 $903.76 $12,626,074.00 $26.126 $168.07 $2,361,306.65 $33.530 $215.70 $711,520.00 $11.432 $73.54 $t ,021,463.00 .$10.769 $69.28 $228~510.00 I · $4,288.36 I $32,421,828.65 3,959.00 $3,791.89 3,959.00 $116.41 t3,736.00 $919.20 13,736.00 $171.91 3,959.00 $179.72 3,959.00 $258.01 .. 3~959.00 $57.72 $5,494,85 Potential Future Taxing Housing Jurisdiction Units Potential Potential Potential Property Total Local Annual Tax Government Net Paid Tax LeW Cost School (Mattituck-Cutchogue) 2,400 $6,674,952.85 Library (Mattituck) 2,400 $350,547.04 Town 2,400 $2,169,022.33 County 2,400 $403,364;54 Fire District (Mattituck) 2,400 $517,676.38 Solid Waste District 2,400 $176,500.93 Park.(Mattituck) 2,400 $166~264.74 Total $! 0,458,328.81 * Based on Town Assessment Rolls For 1,2, 3:Family Residential Taxing Parcels $9,100,526.60 $2,425,573.75 $279,390.55 ($71 ,t56.48) $2,206,070.01 ' $37,047.68 $412,575.42 $9,210.88 $431,333.16 ($86,343.21) $619,224.85 $442,723.92 ' $138,525.89 ($27,73,8.85) $13,187,646.49 $2,729,31.7.68 Prepared By Suffolk County Department of Planning January 29, 1999 C:\myflies',farmlandanalysle.wb3 (sf/pkl) Potential Estimated Annual Net Future Cost Per Existing Residential Housing Unit Tax Bill $612.67 $3,393.90 ($17.97) $128.09 $2.70 $906.46 $0.67 $168.74 ($21.81) $193.89 $111.83 $185.37 ($7.01) $62.27 $68t.08I $4,969.44 Additional Amount That Existing HOmes Will PaY to Support Future Homes Bond Purchase of Development I hts Bond Analysis Estimated No. of Existing Annual Cost Interest Years Housing Units Per Housing Rate Term Annual Cost Total Cost 1998 Unit $50,000,000.00 $50,000,000.00 $50,000~000.00 8% 8 $69,605,904.24 8% 20 $101,852,208.82 8% 30 $1.33~241,150.08 Prepared By Suffolk County Department of Planning January 29, 1999 C;\myfiles\far mlandanalysi$.wb3 (sf/pkl) $8,700,738.03 13,736.00 $633.43 $5,092,610.44 13,736.00 $370.78 $4t441~371.67 , !3~736.00 $323.34 Tho~o ¢o$t$ find With tho Torm of th~ Bond $80O Annual Cost to Southold Taxpayer PDR Bond vs. Current DeVelopment ~ $700 $600 $500 "~ $4O0 $3OO $200 $370 30 Year 20 Year 8 Year Bond Options No Bond Prepared by Suffolk County Department of Planning. 1/29/99 /farmlandanalysis.wb3 Analysis of PDR Programs TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FARMLAND VALUES SALE A SALE B SALE C SALE D SALE E 7/§7 11/89 2/89 1/90 5/90 Peconic Peconic Mattituck Pecomc East Matfituck 74-1-38 75-7-1.05 119.2-1.01 74-1-35 115-7-p/o 13 Ag-Con Ag-Con Ag-Con Ag-Con Ag-Con 45 7 22.4 60.0 45.7 16 8 $665.000 $182,000 $1.205.000 $710,000 $420.000 $14.551,42 $8.125.00 $20.083.33 $15,536.11 $25,000.00 $0.00 $000 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $14.551,42 $8,125.00 $20.083.33 $15.536.11 $25.000.00 SIMILAR SIMILAR SIMILAR SIMILAR SIMILAR $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 SIMILAR SIMILAR SIMILAR SIMILAR SIMILAR $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $000 SIMILAR SIMILAR SIMILAR SIMILAR SIMILAR $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 YES NO YES YES YES $0.00 $000 $0.00 $0.00 $0,00 NO NO =ENDING NO NO $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $000 $0.00 $000 $0.00 $0.00 $8.125.00 $20.083.33 $25,000,00 L .~"~ Sa!~s_ Da!a SALE F SALE G SALE H SALE SALE d SALE K SALE L 81890 11/90 4/91 4~92 2/93 I0/94 6/95 Cutchogue Cutchogue East Mattituck Cutchogue Southold Mattituck Cutchogue 96-2.5 85-2-11 03 109-t-8.07 84-1-2 75-1-20 94-3-1.03 83-2-10.3 Ag-Cot Ag-Con Ag-Con Ag-Con Ag-Con Ag-Con Ag-Con 22.3 37.2 36.4 19.1 50.8 12.5 17.9 $185.000 $375.000 $706 000 $342.000 $545.000 $180.000 $200,000 $8.307,14 $10.080.65 $t9.230.77 $17.924,53 $10.728.35 $14.393.09 $11.148.89 $0.00 $0.00 S0.00 $0.00 $0.00 S0.00 $0.00 $8.307.14 $10.080,65 $19.230,77 $17.924.53 $10.728.35 $14.393.09 $11,148.89 SIMILAR SIMILAR SIMILAR SIMILAR SIMILAR SIMILAR SIMILAR S0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 SIMILAR SIMILAR SIMILAR SIMILAR SIMILAR SIMILAR SIMILAR $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 SIMILAR SIMILAR SIMILAR SIMILAR SIMILAR SIMILAR SIMILAR $0.00 $0.00 $0,00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 NO NO YES YES YES YES YES $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0,00 $0.00 $0.00 NO NO NO NO NO EXPIRED NO $0,00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $10.080.65 $10.728,35 $11,148.89 ADJUSTED VALUE FOR AVERAGE SALE PRIDE PER ACRE OVERALL: $14,629.45 AVERAGE SALE PRICE PER ACRE WITH DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS: $19,357.01 AVERAGE SALE PRICE PER ACRE WITHOUT DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS: $8,837,59 SAY $14,$00 SKY $19,808 SAY $9~000 SALE M 3/96 Mattituck 100-4-5.01 Ag-Con 38.3 $577,500 $18,073.61 $0.00 $15,073.61 SIMILAR $0.00 SIMILAR $0.00 SIMILAR $0,00 YES $0.00 NO $0.00 $0,00 $18,073~61 Fannland,wk4 #of Acres (f %1 31.863 B-2 76.843 B-3 25.292 C-1 27.515 C-2 31.895 C-3 6.408 C-4 18.734 C-5 8.335 D-1 34.9 D-2 14.361 D-3 6.909 D-4 49.172 D-7 37.087 D-8 20.4 D-9 53.041 SILO-38 42.3 SHO-83 30.7 SHO-196 116.87 SHO-216 69.7 SHO-331 26.0182 SHO-334 32 SHO-334 18.4 ~ SHO-335 25.56 STFFP C-38 14.4862 SHO-510 12.9602 SHO-600 12.0085 SHO-700 22.269 SHO-710 18.1987 SHO-770 27.9733 SHO-800 62.'141 SHO-720 41.779 SHO-740 21.704 SHO-790 16.14 SHO-840 16.95 SHO-850 65.77 SILO-880 36.074 SHO-870 37.471 Value of Development R~gh~ $149,510.00 $272,400.00 $83,860.00 $110 400.00 $143 940.00 $19 200.00 $56 300.00 $25 050.00 $94 500.00 $38 775.00 $18665.00 $131 175.00 $97 700.00 $65 270.00 $161,750.00 $84,675.00 $70,300.00 $373,100.00 $142,260.00 $78,150.00 $110,453.00 $55,122.00 $74,400.00 $72,43O.OO $64,8OO.OO $213,055.00 $189,300.00 $287,978.00 $335,679.6O $695,979.20 $501 348.00 $260 448.00 $145 26O.OO $177 975.OO $559 O7O.5O $295 970.00 $299 768.00 Value Per Acre $4,692.28 $3 544.89 $3 315.67 $4 012.36 $4 512.93 $2 996.25 $3 005.23 $3 OO5.4O $2 707.74 $2 700.02 $2 701.55 $2 667.68 $2 634.35 $3 199.51 $3 049.53 $2 001.77 $2 289.90 $3 192.44 $2,041.03 $3,003.67 $3,451.66 $2,995.76 $2,910.80 $4,999.93 $4,999.92 $17,742.02 $8,500.61 $15,824.10 $12 0~0.00 $11 200.00 $12 000.00 $12 000.00 $9 000.00 $10 500.00 $8,500.39 $8,2O4.52 $8,000.00 TOTALS: 1,210.2281 $6,556,016.30 $5,417.17 FARMLAND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM AREA NO. TAX MAPNO. ACRES DEV. RIGHTS VALUE TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON (cont.) IIA IIA - IIA IIA IIA IIA III SHP-306 SHP-307 SHP-308 SHP-309 SHP-310 SHP-312 SHP-700 0900-082-02-006.010 0900-082-02-006.004 0900-082-02-006.005 0900-102-01-001 0900-038-01-004.002 0900-038~01-009.002 0900-068-01-001.009 0900-038-01-019.002 0900-115-20-022.011 59.100 19.714 20.110 12.200 26.208 24.526 33.500 TOTALS: 730.591 TOWN OF SMITHTOWN $822,650.00 $93,600.00 $275,000.0O $171,875.00 $360,155.00 $410,375.00 $636,500.00 $5,617,379.00 II IIC ST-208 ST-600 0801-003-03-005.002 33.80 0801-005-01-025 9,40 ~00-051-07-005.004 20.54 TOTALS: 63.74 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD $296,800.00 $200,000100 $496,800.00 B-1 B-2 1000-019-02-010 31.863 1000-019-01-018.002 76.843 $149,510.00 $272,400.00 04/16/97 6 PHASE FARMLAND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS 'PROGRAM AREA NO. TAX MAP NO. ~ DEV. RIGHTS VALUE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD (cont.) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II II II II IIA IIA IIA IIA IIC B-3 C-1 C-2 'C-3 C-4 C-5 D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 D-7 D-8 D-8 D-9 SHO-38 SHO-83 SHO-196 SHO-216 SHO-331 SHO-334 . SHO-334 SHO-335 STFFP C-12 1000-020-03-001.002 1000-109-05-023.002 1000-110-08-032.004 1000-102-06-023.002 1000-103-11-001.002 1000-103-11-023 1000-084-04-010.001 1000-084-05-001.003 1000-084-05-003.002 1000-074-01-037.003 1000-085-02-011.003 1000-096-03-006.003 1000'096-03-006.004 1000-097-01-011.002 1000-085-02-010.002 1000-084-01-007.003 1000-084-01-007.004 1000-019-01-007.003 1000-101-02-018,006 1000-101-02-021.003 1000-102-01-003.003 1000-094-03-004.002 1000-107-04-001.001 1000-100-03-016 1000-085-02-017.002 1000-059-09-028.002 25.2920 27.5150 31.8950 6.4080 18.7340 8.3350 34.9000 14.3610 6.9090 49.1720 37.0870 14.6000 5.8000 53.0410 42.3000 12,0000 18.7000 116.8700 12.6000 50.2000 6.9000 26.0182 32.0000 18.4000 25.5600 14.4862 $83,860.00 $110,400.00 $143,940.00 $19,200.00 $56.300.00 $25 050.00 $94 500.00 $38 775.00 $18 665.00 $131 175.00. $97 700.00 $65 270.00 $161,750.00 $84,675.00 $70,300.00 $373,100.00 $142,260.00 $78,150.00 $110,453.00 $55,122.00 $74,400.00 $72,430.00 04/16/97 7 /' FARMLAND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM TOWN OF SOUTHOLD (cOnt..) IIC IID III III III III III III III III III III III SHO-510 SHO-600 SHO'700 SHO-710 SHO-770 SHO-800 SHO-720 SHO-740 SHO-790 SHO-840 SHO-850 SHO-880 SHO-870 1000-059-09-030.008 1000-110-08-001.001 1000-096-02-006 1000-110-01-001 1000-075-06-009.004 1000-069-05-018 1000-069-05-018.001 1000-095-04-005.003 1000-086-01-003.004 1000-101-02-024.005 1000-125-01-002 1000-085-02-018 1000-085-03-010.002 1000-085-03-012 1000-095-03-003.003 1000-083-02-013.001 Totals: 12.9602 12.0085 22.2690 18.1987 '27.9733 62.1410 41.7790 21.7040 16.1400 16.9500 65.7700 36.0740 37.4710 1210.2281 $64,800.00 $213,055.00 $189,300.00 $287,978.O0 $335,679.6O $695,979.20 $501,348.00 $26O,448.00 $145,260.00 $177,975.00 $559,070.50 $295,970.00 $299,768.00 $6,556,016.30 04/16/97 8 ACTION STRATEGIES Upzoning Recommendations For Oversized Vacant Land Ground Watershed Protection and Water Supply Management Strategy Upzoning Recommendations An analysis was undertaken to determine the number of potential dwelling units that could be constructed on land available for development in the Town of Southold both under current zoning conditions and under an upzoning scenario. The Agricultural Conservation (A-C), Residential Low Density A (R-80), and Residential Low Density AA (t[-40) zoning categories were the only zoning categories considered in the upzoning analysis. The upzoning assumed that the minimum required lot size for a residential building lot would be as follows: · A-C from current 80,000 sqnare feet to 200,000 square feet · R-80 from current 80,000 square feet to 200,000 square feet · R-40 from current 40,000 square feet to 80,000 squ~re feet Property that would be impacted by the upzoning includes all vacant and agricultural parcels in the town zoned A-C, R-80 or R-40 which are at least as large as the resultant zoning classification shown above. Residentially developed subdividable property (lots that are at least twice as large as the proposed minimum lot size under upzoning) and special case property (primarily privately owned golf courses and camps) would also be impacted by the upzoning. No substandard parcels would be created by the upzoning, which would be enacted to preserve the rural character of the town, reduce pollutant loadings to the Peconic Estuary, reduce traffic congestion and reduce negative cash flow for expanded municipal services. The results of the analysis are displayed in the following two tables. The first table shows the acres, number of tax map parcels, and resulting number of potential building lots from the land available for development under existing zoning. The second table illustrates the same type of information under the upzoning scenario. Upzoning as described above and applied town wide within the three subject zoning categories would result in approximately 3,000 less dwelling units than under existing zoning at full build out. Land Available for Devele under existin d - Town Total - 1998 R.80 Res. R-40 Res. Total Land Available : Town of Southold -Town Total - 1998 Cases Total R.80 Res~ R*40 Res. Totat *Pamels with development potential impacted by upzonlng (potential dwelling units calculated by individual parcel) AC from 80,000 square feet to 200,000 square feet RS0 from 80,000 square feet to 200,000 square feet R40 from 40,000 square feet to 80,000 square feet UPZONE2.WK4 04/01/99 Groundwater and Farm Management Districts Ground Watershed Protection and Water Supply Management Strategy Area in Need of Public Water Supply A GIS coverage showing the distribution of public water supply mains that exist in the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport was superimposed on the Land Available for Development map. Proposed water mains are also shown on the map for residential areas (excluding Orient and Fishers Island) currently not se~ed by public water. The agricultural properties zoned A-C generally are not served by public water and are not proposed for public water hookup. The agricultural land in the Town of Southold, which comprises nearly one-third of the townwide acreage, would be incorporated into a private drinking well filtration district. Ground Watershed Protection and Water Supply Management Strategy Water Quality Treawaent Districts This state law, enacted in 1984, authorizes counties and towns to create, by resolution or petition, new districts known as Water Quality Treatment Districts, in areas not presently being served by a public water supplier, The district would test water quality, install and maintain water treatment systems when necessary, and advise well owners how to reduce contamination. SUBPART 5-5 WATER QUALITY TREATMENT DISTRICTS (Statutory authority: Public Health Law, § 225) SeC. 5-5.1 Propose 5,5.2 Applicability and scope 5-5.3 Definitions 5-5.4 Submission for approval 5-5.5 Amendments and modificaXions 5-5.6 Water quality 5-5.7 District operation Historical Note Subpart (§§ 5-5.1 --5-5.7} filed Nov. 7. 1988 eft. Nov. 28. 1988. § 5-5.1 Purpose. The rules contained in this Subpart have been promulgated to provide protection for persons served by nonpublic water supplies, and to conform to the requirements of the County Law and the Town Law. Historical Note Sec. filed Nov. 7. 1988; amds. filed: March 19. 1991 as emergency measure, expired 90 days after filing; June 18~ 1991 elf. July 3, 1991. § 5-5.2 Applicability and scope. This SUbpart sets the requirements for State approval relating to the formation and operation of water quality treatment districts within New York State. Historical Note Sec. filed Nov. 7, 1988 elf. Nov. 28. 1988. § 5-5.3 Definitions. As used in this Subpart, the following words and terms shall have the indicated meaning, except as otherwise specifically provided: (a) Nonpublic water system means any water supply serving less than 25 individuals on a daily basis and having less than five service connections. (b) Point-of-use treatment means any type of chemical added to the water or any' type of treatment device or system of devices installed on a water line within the property line of a consumer or on a nonpublic water source to improve water quality. (c) Service connection means the pertinent pipes, valves and fittings that connect a distribu- tion system to a consumer's facility. (d) State means the State Commissioner of Health. or his designated representative. (e) Water quali~, treatment district means a district established under applicable provisions of the County Law and the Town Law which allow county or town ownership and operation of point-of-use treatment systems. Historical Note Sec. filed Nov. 7. 1988; amds. filed: March 19. 1991 as emergency measure, expired 90 days after filing: June 18. 1991 eff. July 3, 1991. Amended (b), (e). 1-1-95 (Reissued 7/95) 113 tleatth § 5-5.4 Submi~4on for approval Maps, plans and specifications submitted to the State for approval shall be signed and sealed by an engineer licensed to practice in New York State. Approval will be based on completeness of submission, appropriate treatment for the contaminants, demonstrated effectiveness of treatment units, provision for adequate installation, operation and maintenance of treatment units and protection of the occupants and operators. Submissions shall include, but are not limited to, the following items: (a) A map of the proposed water quality treatment district. The map or maps shall include: (1) location of district boundaries; (2) existing public water system boundaries adjacent to or within the proposed water quality treatment district; (3) sites of proposed installation of point-of-use treatment systems: (4) sites of samples collected to determine water quality. Number and distribution shall be adequate to determine extent and degree of contamination: and (5) sites of existing installations of point-of-use treatment systems. (b) Plans and specifications of the proposed point-of-use treatment systems. -- (c) Plans and specificat/ons of typical installations. (d) An engineering report detailing the following items: (1) test results of sampling conducted to determine water quality at water sources within the proposed district; (2) alternate non-point-of-use treatment solutions considered; (3) alternate types of point-of-use treatment considered: (4) results of pilot studies: (5) recommended alternative showing the type and location of proposed point-of-use treatment systems; (6) evaluation of existing point-of-use treatment systems and necessat3t improvements; (7) operation and maintenance of the point-of-use treatment installations; (8) operator qualifications and training; (9) administration and financing of the water quality treatment district. If all or part of the water quality treatment district services are to be subcontracted to another agency, private company or individual by the county or town, the qualifications and responsibilities of the subcontractor shall be included; (10) monitoring (parameters and frequency) of the point-of-use treatment systems and sources within the water quality treatment district; and ( 1 1) disposal of waste water and materials. [Hstorical Note Sec. filed Nov. 7.' 1988; amds. filed: March 19, 1991 as emergency measure, expired 90 days after filing; June 18. 1991 elf. July 3. I991. § $-5.5 Amendments and modifications. All amendments to water quality treatment district plans and modifications to the approved plan of operation must be submitted to the State for approval before adoption. Historical Note Sec. filed Nov. 7. 1988: amds. filed: Maxch 19. 1991 as emergency measure, expired 90 days after filing; June 18. 1991 elf. July 3. 1991. 114 Health {Reissued 7/95) I-1-95 CHAPi ER I STATE SANITARY CODE § 5-5.6 Water quality. Treated water quality must meet all applicable water quality standards or guidelines for community water systems as defined by Subpart 5-1 of this Part. Historical Note Sec. filed Nov. 7. 1988; amds. filed: March 19, 1991 as emergency measure, expired 90 days after filing: June 18, 1991 eff. July 3, 1991. § $-$.? District operation. The water quality treatment distyict shall comply with all conditions detailed in the written approval from the State, and all provisions of this Subpart. (al All treatment systems in the water quality treatment district shall be under responsible charge of an operator with demonstrated knowledge and experience with the type of treatment systems in use in the dis~ct, as determined by the State. (b) The water quality treatment district shall monitor treated and untreated water for the parameters and at the frequency stated in the written approval. Samples taken to demonstrate compliance with water quality standards or guidelines shall be analyzed in an approved laboratory as defined by section 5-I~74 of this Part. Analysis of operational samples shall be made by an analyst with demonstrated competence using appropriate equipment, as determined by the State. (c) The water quality treatment district shall report all available sample results to the State quarterly within 15 days of the end o£a quarter, except when treated water exceeds a standard or guideline requiring State notification. Results exceeding a standard or guideline requiring State notification shall be reported to the State and to the impacted consumers in the water quality treatment district within 48 hours of learning the results. (d) The water quality treatment district shall submit an annual report covering the previous calendar year to the State on or before July Ist each year. The annual report shall contain, but not be limited, to the following applicable items: ( 1 ) number, type and location of treatment systems in service, and the number and type of treatment systems added or deieted during the year; (2) effective life of units; (3) treatment system failures; (4) maintenance problems; (5) operational problems: (6) supply problems; (7) changes in types of treatment devices in service; (8) consumer complaints: (9) summary and trends in monitoring test results: (10) changes in water quality treatment district boundary; (11) changes in water quality treatment district operational and/or administrative proce- dure; and (I 2) list of names, addresses and telephone numbers of administrators and operators of the water quality treatment dis~ct. Historical Note Sec. filed Nov. 7. 1988; amds. filed: March 19. 1991 as emergency measure, expired 90 days after filing; June 18. 1991 elf. July 3. 1991. Amended (al-(c}. I- 1-95 (Reissued 7/95) 115 Health Rural Development Balance Local Law Legislative Intent Rural Development Balance Local Law The Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby finds that, as pan of the update to its Comprehensive Plan: The town's farmlands, which are the very foundation of the economy, rural life. community fabric, and historical heritage, are increasingly being converted to non-agricultural uses, prinipally residential development. The continued loss of farmlands in the town has been shown in the comprehensive plan update to represent a threat to the adequacy of public drinking water to handle the increase in population resulting fi'om the conversion of farmland. The continued loss of farmland threatens the vitality of the tourism industry, the largest economic base ~br the Town of Southold. ' Oppornmities exist to redirect the residential development which might take place on prime farmland to other areas in the town better suited to additional development because of the presencce of existing infrastructure, highways, fire protection, etc and existing, or future public drinking water supply, pursuant to Town Law 261-a. Existing zoning and population density have been examined as pan of the Comprehensive Plan, to determine that lands outside the Agricultural-Conservation Zoninz District are appropriately zoned and that lot area requirements are appropriate and adequ~ate to protect the health, safety and welafi-e of existinz and future residents living outside of the AC District. ~ All properties held in single and separate ownership prior to the establishment of this law and the zoning laws governing lot area requirements in all existing residential districts, have been identified as to their location, tax map identifier number, and size. Purpose: This-law is hereby enacted for the purpose of expanding the purchase of development rights program currently in place, which is and has been the principal means of preserving working farms. This law, enacted pursuant to Municipal Home Rule Law and Town Law 261-a. hereby strikes a balance needed to accommodate additional development in the town. while at the same time insuring the continuance of the farming economy, so important to the Town of Southold. Requirements: Hereaiker. all lots held in single and separate ownership, for which a building permit is required to build a home, wh/ch do not meet the lot area requiremnt of the zoning district within which they are located, shall be required to do one of the following in order to be considered buildable, in addition to all other current requirements for said building permit: If the lot area of the single and separately owned lot is seventy-five (75%) percent or greater than the lot area requirement of the zoning distriuct within which the lot is located, then a building permit for a principal dwelling or structure shall not be issued unless and until either: 1) additional square footage is secured from another tax parcel which would in the aggregate bring the subject parcel to conforming lot size or 2) a Development Right is secured from another parcel to be applied to the subject parcel. The square footage or development right interests shall be secured through the preparation of documents in recordable form indicating an easement, to be recorded simultaneously with the issuance of a building permit, reflecting the conveyance of the subject square footage or development right, and eliminating such square footage Or development rights from the conveyed parcel(s). This easement shall be documented pursuant to title three of article forty-nine of the Environmental Conservation Law. and Section 261,a.2.c. of Town Law. If the lot area of the single and separately owned lot is less than seventy-five (75%) percent of the lot area requirement of the zoning district within which the lot is located, no building permit for a principal dwelling or structure shall be issued unless and until a development right is sec_ured from a parcel located within the AC District. The development right shall be secured by either: 1) the preparation of documents in recordable form as noted in Section 1 above, indicating that an easement will be filed simultaneously with the issuance of building .permit, eliminating a development right from a parcel(s) in the AC District or, 2 ) submission of receipt issued by the Town Clerk on behalf of the Town Board, that sufficient funds have been deposited with the Town of Southold to reimburse the Town of Southold for the purchase ora development right in the AC District made within the prior six months. Incentive Zoning / Density Transfers DRAFT Incentive Zoning/Density Transfers It is the purpose of these regulations to authorize the Town Board, Town Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals to permit supplemental residence and nonresidence development for the purpose of preserving farmland in the AC Agricultural Conservation District in connection with alt change of zone, special exception, subdivision and site plan applications. The Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals may be authorized to consider and approve such density transfers under this section, without the necessity for Town Board review and approval. The Town Board may, however, establish criteria relative thereto. The authorizing board may permit an increase in residence density by not more than 20% where density conveyances are transferred to the site or by not more than ten (10%) per cent building lot coverage on nonresidence zoned lands. Each residence development right shall allow an increase in allowable density by one lot or unit. Notwithstanding the foregoing limitations, in the case where the permitted yield is four lots or less, the Planning Board may authorize an increase in the permitted density by one additional building tot. provided that a full density conveyance is transferred to the site and all other conditions of this section are complied with. Where the density incentive for housing for moderate income families is authorized, at least 50% of the additional dwelling units shall be for moderate income families as defined in Article V of this Chapter. C. A density transfer may be authorized in ali zoning districts except specified farmland areas within the AC Agricultural Conservation District. No densitv transli~r may be authorized on specified farmland areas xvithin the AC Agricultural Conservation District and on environmentally sensitive lands as established by the Town Board, E. The site on which the density transfer is to be authorized shall be no tess that 10 acres in the R-400. R-200. R-t20 and R-80 Zones and no less than five acres in all other zones. Fo Where a density transfer is al lowed, the dimensional requirements shall be set by the authorizing Board and delineated on the approved plan rather than determined by any other provisions in this Code. The Town Board. Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals shall have the right to require the applicant or owner to execute such agreements and covenants as may be necessary, to Implement the purposes of this section. Said agreements or covenants ~hall be recorded in the County Clerk's office and shall constitute a covenant running with the land. Such covenant or agreement may be modified or released only as set forth in said covenant or agreement after a public hearing by the Town Board. H. If the applicant wishes to utilize density incentives pursuant to this subsection, a request shall be made in writing, to the Town Board. Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals. Nothing herein shall be construed to limit the existing authority of the Planning Board to control the layout of subdivisions or the design of site plans. Each density incentive development right shall be equivalent to a sewage flow rate of three-hundred (300) gallons per day as described in the Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Standards andJor up to a two (2) percent increase in lot coverage. Ko In no case shall the yield exceed a sewage flow rate equivalent to 600 gallons per acre per day unless the site is served by public water and the Suffelk County Dept. of Health Services has approved the method of sewage treatment. A density incentive transfer may be authorized where the Town Board. Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals finds that the development will be beneficial, compatible and harmonious with the surrounding land uses and not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment. A density transfer shall also be consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. Southold Code Amendments SOUTHOLD CODE AMENDMENTS The following is Suffolk Counw Department of Planning's proposed revision of Chapter I00 of the code of the Town of Southold to include changes to the pemfitted and special exception uses by removing single family (one-family) detached dwellings as a permitted use in the AC zone and changing all special exception uses in the AC zone by the Zoning Board of Appeals to special permit uses approved by the Town Board. In addition~subsections A106-20 thru 24 have been revised to reflect the Minor/Major subdivision review procedure. - Items 3trdck out = recommended text to be removed. - Items in bold italics = recommended text additions. 100~13 Definitions (zoning) DEVELOPMENT RIGHT- The legal interest and rights permitted to a lot, parcel or area of land under this chapter respecting permissible use, area, density, bulk or height of improvements executed thereon. DENSITY CONVEYANCE- The process by which development rights are transferred from one lot, parcel or area of land in any sending area to another lot, parcel or area of land in one or more receiving areas. INCENTIVE ZONING- A system under which developers are given bonuses (pursuant to Town Law subsection 261-b) in exchange for providing community benefits relating to the preservation of agricultural lands. SPECIAL PERMIT- special permits for special permitted uses as authorized in this chapter for the AC zoning category shall issue from the Town Board. Special permits will issue in the form of a resolution of the Town Board, statingfindings and conditions. SPECIAL EXCEPTION- Special Exception uses as authorized in this chapter shah issue from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Special Exceptions will issue in the form of a resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals, stating findings and conditions. A 106-13 Definitions (subdivision) CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION-- The use ora variety of public and private conservation strategies for the preservation of agricultural lands and soils through the subdivision process that result in the preservation of eight), percent (80%) ora particular tract of land. Through a "Conservation Opportunities Planning Process"a private/public.cooperative partnership is' formed that is a cost-effective approach to protecting farms and farmland by leveraging limited public funds for the purchase of development rights with limited development and other private conservation strategies including conservation easements, bargain sales, etc. The Conservation Opportunities Planning Process; a) incorporates the long and short term goals of the landowner in the overall plan, b) defines areas within tire landowners property (ha~ ,contain prime agricultural soils and other resources that qualify for protection through the purchase of development rights program or other public and private conservation techniques, and c) assists landowners in exploring alternative conservation planning tools for the future use, ownership, and management of the property. Note: conservation subdivisions receiving Special Permit approval from the Town Board pursuant to subsection 100-31 B. of the Code of the Town of Southold may substitute the Special Permit process as the Preapplication step in a ~linor Review procedure as described in subsection ~t106-13 of the Code of the Town of Southold. ~}fAJOR REVIEW PROCEDURE- The process by which a subdivision will undergo that includes a thorough review and analysis, not limited to alternatives to the proposed layout, due to the fact that the Planning Board deems the proposed plat not in conformance with the goals and objectives of the Town of Southold Comprehensive Plan. MINOR REVIEW PROCEDURE- ,4 subdivision of land may be reviewed by the Planning Board under the minor review procedure provided in this chapter if the proposed subdivision meets the general requirements of paragraph (a) and tire performance standards of either paragraph (b) or (c) below. (a) General requirements (i) The subdivision does not adversely affect the development of the remabtder of the parcel or adjoining property. (ii) The subdivision is conforms to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Law. (iii) The subdivision complies with environmental regulations which impose setbacks, buffers, clearing restrictions, fertilization restrictions or other standards. (b) Performance standards. (i) The resulting subdivision density is no greater than one dwelling unit per twelve acres in the AC District; (ii) The proposed lots front on an existing street and the subdivision does not involve the construction of any new streets or roads, or extends existing streets; (iii) Flag lots do not constitute more than forty percent (40%) of the total number of lots created. (iv) Existing public utilities have the capacity to service the proposed lots without major extensions thereof; (v) The subdivision does not require the installation of drainage facilities to handle stormwater runoff. (c) Alternate performance standards. Where the subdivision plan goes beyond the minimum requirements of the Code of the Town of Southold in providing open space or improvements which will benefit the public, or will have the effect of furthering other town policies and goals, minor review may be applied. To meet these requirements, the subdivision must conform with one (1) or more of the following: (i) At least eighty percent (80%) of the tract is being preserved as open space in the Agricultural-Conservation District pursuant to subsection ,4100-13 "Conservation Subdivision", of the code of the Town of Southold; .-It least sixty percent (60%) of the tract is being preserved in any other zone; (iii) The total density or yield is reduced by a minimum of twenty-five percent (25%); (iv) .¥eeded public facilities not otherwise required by this chapter are provided, in a zone other titan the ,4griculturat-Conservation District, including but not necessarily firehouses, schools, recreation facilities, sidewalks, water mains, transportation facilities, etc: or (v) The subdivision involves the platting of lots resulting from a transfer or elimination of development rights duly authorized by the Town Board under the provisions of Subsections XXXX ( incentive zoning, etc.) of the Code of the Town of Southold. PREAPPLICA TION-- A submission of a proposed subdivision, showing the information specified in subsection A 106-21 of these regulations, to enable the subdivider to save time and expense itt reaching general agreement with the Planning Board as to the form of layout and objectives of these regulations. ARTICLE III ~ 100-30. Purpose. The purpose of the Agricultural-Conservation (A-C) District and thc, T ,,.- ..... - ...... - ..................... ~ is to reasona control and. to the extent possible, prevent the unnecessary, loss of those currently open lands Within the town containing large and contiguous areas of prime agricultural soils which are the basis for a significant portion of the town's economy and those areas with sensitive environmental features, including aquifer recharge areas and bluffs. In addition, these areas provide the open rural environment so highly valued by year-round residents and those persons who support the Town of Southold's recreation, resort and second-home economy. The economic, social and aesthetic benefits which can be obtained for all citizens by limiting loss of such areas are well documented and have inspired a host of governmental programs designed, with varying degrees of success, to achieve this result. For its part. the town is expending large sums of money to protect existing farm acreage. At the same time. the town has an obligation to exercise its authority to reasonably regulate the subdivision and development of this land to further the same purposes while honoring the legitimate interests of farmers and other thrmland owners. 100-o I. Use regulations. IntheA-C o on n ,'~n ~, ',nn.._~o ,~n · - "- .....- ...... - .........-~,,0 Districts. no building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a building shall be erected or altered which is arranged, intended or designed to be used. in whole or in part. for any uses except the following: A. Permitted uses. L ................... ., ......... -, .,, e tbltowing agricultural operations and accessory, uses theretO, including irrigation, provided that there shall be no storage of manure. fertilizer or other odor- or dust-producing substance or use. except spraying and dusting to protect vegetation, within 150 feet of any lot line: (a) The raising of field and garden crops, vineyard and orchard farming, the maintenance of nurseries and the seasonal sale of products grown on the premises. [Amended 11-29-1994 by L.L. No. 25-1994; 5-13-1997 by L.L. No. 8-1997] (b) The keeping, breeding, raising and training of horses, domestic animals and fowl (except ducks)EN on lots of I0 acres or more. (c) Barns. storage buildings, greenhouses (including plastic covered) and other related structures, provided that such buildings shall conform to the yard requirements for principal buildings. (d) The retail sale of local produce l¥om structures of tess than 20 square feet floor area shall be set back at least 10 feet from any lot line. [Added 5-13-1997 by L.L. No. 8-1997] (e) Farm labor housing as an accessory use to farm properties itt active Cultivation. (2)(~)Bm. ldmgs, strucLures and useg owned or operated by the Town of Southold. school districts. park districts and fire districts. (3)(4~[Added 11'2%1994 by L.L. No. 26-1994] Wineries which meet the following standards: (a) The winery shall be a place or premises on which wine made from primarily Long Island grapes is produced and sold: (b) The winery shall be on a parcel on which at least 10 acres are devoted to vineyard or other agricultural purposes, and which is owned by the xvinery owner: and The winery structures shall be set back a minimum of 100 feet from a major road: (d) The xvinei'y shall obtain Site ptan approval. (4) Horses attd domestic attimals other than househohl pets, provided that such animals shall not be housed within forty (40)feet of any lot line. Itousingfor flocks of more titan twenty~five (25) fo wi shall not be constructed within fifty (50) feet of any line. Br^----,-~,',',, ,,,,, r T ~Tn ',',,,, -] Sp by lp by .t ............. ,- .... I b".~ ............ % Use e~itted specia ermRcxccptlon' the Town Board, after a public hearing pursuant to section ~ of the Code of the Town of Southold. ~. The tbllowing uses ~e pe~itted ~ special permit cxccpt~zn by the Town Bo~dTM..... , ..c ~ ..... ,~ ........ p~ ..... as hereina~er provided. ~d. cxccpt c ........ ~._:,..., .... .: .... ~_~ .~ .........c~_.~ :~ ~..u ...... :~ ~" '~' ~ ..... ' bj bdivisio it pi pp 1 by the Planing Bo~d: ( 1. General standards. For every such special permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Town Board that: (i) Such use will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes and intent of this Chapter as stated in subsection 100-30. (ii) The subject parcel is sufficient, appropriate and adequate for the use and the reasonably anticipated operation and expansion thereof. (iii) The proposed use w4ll not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties, particularly where they are in a different district. (iv) The site is particularly suitable for the location of such use in the town. (v) The characteristics of the proposed use are not such that its proposed location would be unsuitably near to a church, school, theater, recreational area or other place of public assembly. (vO Access facilities are adequate for the estimated traffic from public streets and sidewalks, so as to assure the public safety and to avoid traffic congestion; and furtlter, that vehicular entrances and exits shall be clearly visible from the street and not be within seventy-five (75)feet of the bttersection of street lines at a street intersection, except under unusual circumstances. (vii) There are off-street parMng and truck loading spaces at least in the number required by the provisions of subsection lO0~I91A, but itt any case an adequate number for the anticipated number of occupants, both employees and patrons or visitors; and further, that the layout of the spaces and driveways is convenient and conducive to safe operation. (viii) Adequate buffer yards and screening are provided where aecessary to protect adjacent properties and land uses. (ix) Adequate provisions will be made for the collection and disposal of stormwater runoff from the site and of sanitary sewage, refuse or other waste, whether liquid, solid, gaseous or of other character. 2. Specific Standards. The Town Board shall be guided bt its decision as to whether to issue a Special Permit by the followbtg: (i) The subject property is not itt New York State Agricultural District No. 1 pursuant to the NYS Agriculture and Markets Law. (ii) The subject property is not substantially contiguous to a parcel or parcels in New York State Agricultural District No. 1 pursuant to the NYS Agriculture and Markets Law. (iii) The subject property is not protected or preserved farmland via the removal of development rights or encumbered by the placement of covenants, restrictions or easements on the deed. (iv) The subject property is not substantially contiguous to protected or preserved farmland. (v) The subject property does not afford a substantial scenic vista by way of l°ng road frontage or provide a vista to a large block of farmland. (vi) The subject property does not contain substantial amounts of prime agricultural soils as defined by the Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan by the Suffolk County Department of Planning, 1996. (vii) The subject property is not situated in such a way to be unduly impacted by customary farm operations in nearby areas. (viii) The subject farm has not been actively farmed for two years. (ix) The subject application is a "conservation subdivision" as defined pursuant to subsection 106-13 of this chapter. 3. The following shall be special Permit uses: (1) One-family detached dwellings, not to e~rceed one dwelling on each lot, when not part of a conservation subdivision. (2)(1)Two-family dwellings not to exceed one (1) such dwelling on each lot. (3)(2)Places of worship, including parish houses (but excluding a rectory or parsonage, which shall contbrm to the requirements tbr a one-family dwelling), subject to'the/bllowing requirements: (a) No building or part thereof shatt be erected nearer than fifty (50) feet to any street line and nearer than twenty (20) f~et.to any lot line. (b) The total area covered by all principal and accessory, buildings shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the area of the lot. (4)(3)Private elementary, or high schools, colleges and other educational institutions, subject to the following requirements: (a) No building shall be less than fifty (50) feet from any street or tot line. (b) The total area occupied by all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the area of the lot. (c) Any school shall be a nonprofit organization within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Act and shall be registered effectively thereunder as such. (d) Any such school shall occupy a lot with an area of not less than five (5) acres plus one (1) acre for each twenty-five (25) pupils for which the building is designed. (5)(4-)Nursery schools. (6)(5)[Amended 12-27-1994 by L.L. No. 30-1994:11-t2-1996 by L.L. No. 20-1996] Philanthropic, eleemosynary or religious institutions, health care, continuing care and life facilities, but excluding facilities for the treatment of all types of drug addiction, subject to the following requirements: (a) No building or part thereof or any parking or loading area shall be located within one hundred (I 00) feet of any street line nor within fifty (50) feet of any lot tine. (b) The total area covered by principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the area of the lot. (c) stories. The maximum height shall be thirty-five (35) feet or two and one-half(2 ½) (d) The entire lot. except areas occupied by buildings or parking or loading areas. shall be suitably landscaped and properly maintained. (e) standards: Any health care. continuing care or life care facility shait meet the following Ill [2] [31 [4] All buildings shall be of fire-resistive construction. All such uses shall be served by adequate water and sewer systems approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health. Patients suffering from communicable diseases shall not be permitted in any nursing home or sanatorium. (Communicable diseases are defined by the Sanitary Code of the Public Health Council of the State 6fNew 'York.) Eight thousand (8,000) square feet of lot area shall be provided for each patient bed. (7)(6)Public utility rights-of-way as well as structures and other installations necessary to serve areas within the town. except that wireless communication facilities must obtain appr~)val pursuant to Article XVI. subject to such conditions as the Town Board of--&ppe~ may impose in order to protect and promote the health, safety, appearance and general welfare of the community and the character of the neighborhood in which the proposed structure is to be constructed. [Amended 11-12-1997 by L.L. No. 26-1997] (8)(7)Beach clubs, tennis clubs, country clubs, golf clubs, public golf courses and annual membership clubs catering exclusively to members and their guests and accessory playgrounds, beaches, swimming pools, tennis courts, recreational buildings and maintenance buildings, subject to the following requirements: (a) No building or part thereof or any parking Or loading area shall be located within one hundred (100) feet of any street line Or within fifty (50) feet of any lot line. (b) The total area covered by principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the area of the lot. (c) Such use shall not be conducted for profit as a business enterprise. (d) No such use shall occupy a lot with an area of less.than three (3).acres. EN (9)(g)Children's recreation camps organized primarily for seasonal use and subject to the following requirements: (a) No building, tent. activity area or recreation facility shall be less than two hundred (200)' feet from any lot line. and any such building, tent. activity area or recreation facility shall be effectively screened theret?om as required by the Planning Board. Buildings intended for use as sleeping quarters shall be not less than thirty (30) feet from each other, except tents, which ' shall be not less than ten (10) feet apart. (b) The minimum lot area shall be not less than ten thousand (I0,000) square feet for each cottage, tent or other principal building and not less than three thousand (3,000) square feet of land area shall be provided for each person accommodated in the buildings or tents on the. premises. (c)ENThe sound level of all outdoor public-address systems shall not exceed the intensity tolerable in a residential neighborhood. (lO)(9)Farm labor camps as a principle use, subject to the following requirementsi (a) All farm labor camps on farms shall be construed in conformance with applicable laws and shall not be located nearer to any other residence than the residence of the employer. except by specific review and approval of the Planning Board. (ll)(10)Veterinarian's offices and animal hospitals, subject to the following requirements: (a) The housing of all animals shall be in a fully enclosed structure, if nearer than one hundred fifty (150) feet to any lot line. (12)(11)Cemeteries. (13)(i2)Stabies and riding academies as a principle use not associated with the on-site breeding and training horses. (14)(13)ENOne (i) accessory apartment in an existing one-family dwelling, subject to the following requirements: (a) The accessory, apartment shall be located in the principal building. (b) The oxx~ner of the existing dwelling shall occupy one (1) ofthe dwelling units as the owner's principal residence, The other dwelling unit shall be leased for year-round occupancy, evidenced by a written lease for a term of one (t) or more years. (c) The existing one-family dwelling shall contain not less than one thoUSand six hundred ( 1,600) square feet of livable floor area. (d) The accessory apartment shall contain not less than four hundred fifty (450) square feet of livable floor area. (e) The accessory apartment shall not exceed forty percent (40%) of the livable floor area of the existing dwelling unit. (f) A minimum of three (3) off-street parking spaces shall be provided. (g) Not more than one ( 1 ) accessory apartment shall be permitted on a lot. (h) The accessory apartment shall meet the requirements of a dwelling unit as defined in § 100-13 hereof: (i) The exterior entry to the accessory apartment shall, to the maximum extent possible, retain the existing exterior appearance ora one-family dwelling. (j) All exterior alterations to the existing building, except for access to the apartment. shall be made on the existing tbundation. (k) The certificate of compliance shall terminate upon the transfer of title bythe owner or upon the owner ceasing to occupy one (1) of the dwelling units as the owner's principal residence. In the event of an owner's demise, the occupant of an accessory apartment may continue in occupancy until a new owner shall occupy the balance of the dwelling or one (1) year from date of said demise, whichever shall first occur. [Amended 5-20-t993 by L.L. No. 6-1993] (1) All conversions shall be subject to the inspection of the Building Inspector and renewal of the certificate of occupancy annually. [Amended 5-20-1993 by L.L. No. 6-1993] (m) The building which is converted to pemfit an accessory, apartment shall be in existence and have a valid certificate of occupancy issued prior to January 1, 1984, or proof of occupancy prior to that date. [Amended 5-20-t993 by L.L. No. 6-1993] (n) The existing building, together with the accessory apartment, shall comply with all other requirements of Chapter t00 of the Town Code of the Town of Southotd. (o) Notwithstanding the provisions of § t 00-3 t B hereof, no site plan approval by the Planning Board shall be required for the establishment ofan accessory apartment. (p) Approval by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services of the water supply and sewage disposal systems shall be required. (q) No bed-and-breakfast facilities, as authorized by § 100-31B(14) hereof, shall be permitted in Or on premises for which an accessory apartment is authorized or eXists. [Added 3-14-1989 by LiL. No. 3-t989] (15)04-)[Amended 3-14-1989 by L.L. No. 3-1989; 2-7-t995 by L.L. No. 3-1995] Bed-and-breakfasts which have been issued a bed-and-breakfast permit by the Building Inspector. Said pemfit shall be issued for a term of one (1) year ifthe following conditions are met: (a) A smoke alarm shall be provided on each floor and in every guest room. (b). The dwelling shall have at least two (2) exits and there shall be a window large enough for emergency egress in each guest room. (c) The identification sign shall be ho larger than two (2) square feet in areas zoned Residential-Office or higher, but there shall be no exterior signage identifying the use as a bed-and-breakfast in residential areas. (d) No accessory apartment, as authorized by § 100-3 t B(13) hereofi shall be permitted in or on premises for which a bed-and-breakfast facility is authorized or exists. (16)(15) Historical society. [Added 11-12-1996 by L.L. No. 20-t996] C. Accessory uses, limited to the following uses and subject to the conditions listed in § 100-33 herein: (1) Any customary, structures or uses xvhich are customarily incidental to the principal use, except those prohibited by this chapter. (2) [Amended 4-9-1991 by L.L. No. 10-1991; 7-28-1992 by L.L. No. 14-1992] Home occupation, including home professional office and home business office. In permitting these uses. the Town Board recognizes that the residents historically have operated small businesses which provide services to the community from their homes. The Board finds that these businesses have not impacted negatively on the appearance of these residential zones. In the Board% judgment, it finds that in order to maintain the economic viabilit2,.' of the town, to maintain the rural quality of life and in the interests of the welfare of the residents, these businesses (or home occupations) should be pemfitted to continue. In setting forth the following subsections, the Board intends to permit as of right certain business uses in residential zones with the understanding that these uses are to be conducted in a manner that will not alter the character of the residential neighborhoods. The Board believes that the following subsections provide sufficient safeguards to accomplish that aim. These uses shall be permitted, provided that: (a) No display of products shall be visible from the street, and no stock-in-trade shall be kept on the premises. (b) Such occupation is incidental to the residential use of the premises and is carried on in the main building by the residents therein with not more than one (1) nonresident assistant for whom off-street parking must be provided on site. (c) Such occupation is carded on in an area not to exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the area of all floors of the main building, and in no event shall such use occupy more than five hundred (500) square feet of floor area. (d) There shall be no exterior effect at the property line, such as noise, traffic, odor, dust. smoke, gas, flames or radiation. (e) Studios where dancing or music instruction is offered to groups in excess'of five (5) pupils at one (1) time or where concerts or recitals are held are prohibited. (f) In no manner shall the appearance of the building be altered, nor shall the occupation be conducted in a manner that would cause the premises to lose its residential character, including but not limited to the use of colors, materials, construction or lighting. (g) Notwithstanding anything set forth elsewhere in this Article, home occupations, home business offices and home professional offices shall in no event be deemed to include animal hospitals, kennels, barbershops, beauty partors~ clinics or hospitals, mortuaries, nursery schools, clubs, auto repair shops, restaurants, tourist homes, rooming houses or boardinghouses and uses similar to those listed above. (h)ENHome occupations, home business office and home professional offices shall not include manufacturing, fabrication or construction of any type on the site, except that necessary for and associated with,farming operations.. (i) The outdoor storage of equipment necessary for residents connected with aquaculture shall be screened from view and shall Conform to the setbacks for accessory structures. (3) Boat docking facilities for the docking, mooring or accommodation of noncommercial boats, subject to the following requirements: (a) There shall be docking or mooring facilities for no more than two (2) boats other than those owned and used by the owner of the premises for his personal use. (b) The Town Trustees shall approve new boat docking facilities. (c) Boats at such docking facilities shall not be used for overnight sleeping purposes.' (4) Garden house, toolhouse, storage building, playhouse, wading po0t. swimming pool 0r tennis court incidental to the residential use of the premises and not operated for gain. sUbject to the following requirements: (a) Any swimming pool shall be completely enclosed with a permanent chain link (or similar type) fence of not more than two-inch mesh, not less than four (4) feet in height, erected, maintained and provided with a self-closing, self-latching gate to prevent Unauthorized use of the pool and to prevent accident~. However. if said pool is located more than four (4) feet above the ground, then a fence is not required, provided that all points of access to said pool are adequately. protected by a self-closing, self-latching gate. Any swimming pool in existence at the effective date of the provisions of this subsection shall, within one (1) year from such date, comply with all of the provisions hereof: (b) Individual outdoor tennis court related to residential use on a tot containing a single-family detached dwelling, provided'that the same is set back not less than six (6) feet from all lot lines and that there is no lighting for after dark use.. (5) Private garages; provided, however, that not more than two (2) passenger automobile spaces in such garages may be leased to persons not resident on the premises. (6) Off-street parking spaces accessory to uses on the premises. Not more than/bur (4) .... off-street parking spaces shall be permitted within the minimum front yard. (7) The storage of either a boat or travel trailer owned and used by the owner or occupant of the premises on which such boat or travel trailer is stored, for his personal use, subject to § 100-191 Q, Supplemental parking regulations. EN and the following requirements: (a) Such boat or trailer shall not exceed thirty (30) feet in length. (b) Such boat or trailer shall be stored only in the required rear yard. and the area occupied thereby, together with the area of all buildings in the rear yard, shall not exceed forty percent (40%) of the area of the required rear yard. (c) line. Such boat or trailer shall not be located within fifteen (15) feet of any street or lot (8)(9)ENYard sales, attic sales, garage sales, auction sales or similar types of sales of personal property owned by the occupant of the premises and located thereon, subject to the following requirements: (a) Not more than one (1) such sale shall be conducted on any lot in any one (1) calendar year. (b) Adequate supervised parking facilities shall be provided. (c) No signs, except one (1) on-premises sign not larger than six (6) square feet in size displayed for a period of not longer than one (I) week immediately prior to the day of such sale, shall be permitted. ' . ~ (d) A permit shall be obtained therefor from the Town Clerk upon the payment of a fee of fifteen dollars ($15.). [Amended 8-24-1993 by L.L. No. 18-1993] (e) The display permit issued by the Town Clerk Shall be posted on the premises so it can be read from the street and removed before sundo~vn on the day of the sale. [Added 8-24-1993 by L.L. No. 18-1993] (9)(10) Wineries may have an accessory gift shop on the premises which may sell items accessory to wine, such as corkscrews, wine glasses, decanters, items for the storage and display of wine, books on wine making and the region and nonspecific items bearing the insignia of the ~winery. Wineries may not have a commemial kitchen as an accessory Use but may have a noncommercial kitchen fhcility for private use by the employees. [Added 11-29-1994 by L.L. No. 26-1994] (10)(1 I) Child care. [Added 11-12-1996 by L.L. No. 20-1996] ARTICLE IItA Low-Density Residential R-80, R-120, R-200 and R-400 DistrictsLo~-~,~,o,~' ~'~-='" ~,~o~,,,,; -=~-':~ § 100-30A. 1. Purpose. The purpose of the Low. Density Residential R-80, R-120, R-200 and R-400 Districts Districts are i~ to provide areas for residential development where existing neighborhood . characteristics, water supply and environmental conditions permit residential development pursuant to the minimum lot area of the ~" ~ ~--~' ...... a._~:.: ~ _c ....... : .... ~* ~ ......... s v ...... and where open space and agricultural preservation objectives can be balanced with appropriately designed residential development arc. ...... ~ ~-:-'-~ § 100-30A.2. Use regulations. In an R-80, R-120, R-200 andR 400 Dtstrict ........... ,. no building or premises shall be used and.no building or part of a building shall be erected or altered which is arranged, intended or designed to be used. in whole or in part, for any uses except the following: A. Permitted uses: (1) One-family detached dwellings, not to exceed one dwelling on each lot. B. Uses permitted by special exception of the Board of Appeals. The following uses are ". permitted as a special exception by the BoardofAppeals. as 'hereinafter provided; and subject to ~ . site plan approval by the Planning Board: (1) Same as § 100-31B of the'Agricultural-Conservation District, except that a children's recreation camp, farm labor camp and veterinarian's office and animal hospital are not permitted. and bed-and-breakfast uses do not require site plan approval. C. Accessory uses, limited to the following: (1) Same as § 100-31C of the Agricultural:Conservation District~ ARTICLE IIIB A Low-Density. Residential R-40 District [Added 1-10-1989 by L.L. No. 1-1'989] ~ 100-30B~r. 1. Purpose. · The purpose of the Low-Density Residential R-40 District is to provide areas for-residential development where existing neighborhood characteristics~ ~vater supply and environmental conditions permit thtl development densities o£ approximately One (1) dWelling per acre and where open space and agricultural preservation are not predominate objectives; ,. § 100-30B~r.2. Use regulations. In an R-40 District, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a building . shall be erected or altered xvhich is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part. for any uses except the tbllowing: A. Permitted uses: (I) Same as § 100-30-t-A2.A ofthts chapter ..... s .......... - ....................... except that wineries are excluded. [Amended 11-29-1994 by L.L. No. 26-1994] B. Uses pemfitted by special exception of the Board of Appeals. The following uses are permitted as a special exception by the Board of Appeals, as hereinafter provided, and subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board: (1) Same as § t00 aOA. 2+B otthtscltapter ...... s .......... - ....................... except. that a children's recreation camp. farm labor camp and veterinarian's office and animal hospital are not permitted. ~-' (2) C. Libraries. museums or an galleries. Accessory uses. limited to the following: (1) Same as § I00-31C of the Agricultural-Conservation District. Note: ali other subsections of chapter 100 not shown here remain unchanged ARTICLE II. Procedures § A106-20. General requirements. Before making any offer to sell. or before entering into a contract for the sale o£ any part of a proposed subdivision, and before any permit for the erection of a structure, removal of topsoil or for dredging any channel in such subdivision shall be granted, and before undertaking any land clearance, grading or Channel dredging operations. EN the subdivider shall apply to the Planning Board for approval of such proposed subdivision in accordance with the requirements and pursuant to the procedures set forth in these regulations. § A106-21. Skctch plan Preapplication Procedures A. Submission ofpreapplication akctch plm'~. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Board at least two (2) weeks prior to the regular meeting of the Board twelve (t2) copies of the preapplication akctch plan of the proposed subdivision, with road profiles and topographic elevations at five-thor contours and the proposed drainage areas. A complete preapplication shall consist of the appropriate number of copies of 1) a Yield Map in accordance with the underlying zoning category; 2) A Planned Residential Development (cluster) alternative and 3) the appHcants preferred plan. Such plans shall comply xvith the requirements of Article IV. § A106.40. [Amended 5-8-1973] ( 1 ) All applications ~br preapplications sk'eteh-p~ submitted for approval c^_ - ............ shall be accompanied by a fee of seven hundred fifty ~vc ~"~drcd dotl~s G750)($500.) per lot. together with ~ inspection fee of one tholed doll,s ($1,000, ). [Added 4-23-1991 by resolution] An additional inspection fee equal to s~ percent (6~) of the a~unt of an approved pe~ormance bond (~ appropriate) m~t be paid after approval of the bond amount by the Town Board and before final approval of the plat. B. Conference and report. (Discussion of improvements, requirements and classification). (1) A preapplication conference shah be held within 45 days of a receipt ora complete submission. Notice of such conference shall be provided to the subdivider by mail at least 15 days before the conference. (Add public notice requirements pursuant to Southold Town law.) The conference shah take place at a scheduled meeting of the Planning Board, and the subdivider and the public in attendance shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard. At its Preapplication conference mccr~ng with the applicant, the Planning Board shall 3hould discuss the objectives of thc3c subdivision regulations, zoning regulations, environmental regulations and the requirements for street improvements, drainage, sewerage, water 'supply, fire protection and other similar aspects. In addition, the review will cover the availability of existing services and other pertinent information and applicable standards. (2) A-~ Within 45 days of the completion'of the preapplication conference, the Planning Board shah issue a report that shah determine the following: '~:L,,lO .... 1,,.,.t1,~,:- _ .t.,1,~ ~m~--:-,~a,,1~ ~n .... (a) Whether the application shah be processed under the major or minor review procedures set forth in subsection A 106-13 (b) Whether a standard plat or planned residential development is preferred; (c) Whether the submission complies with applicable standards, policies, regulations and laws; (d) Whether there are any recommendations by the Board that should be incorporated into the next formal application stage; and (e) Any other relevant comments relating to the proposed subdivision. (3) Nothing shall preclude or bind the Planning Board from issuing or changing its recommendations if new information or a change in circumstances arise at or prior to the ne2ct formal application stage. The report of the Planning Board shall be valid for a period of six months from the date of issuance. No further Planning Board action will be taken after such expiration until a new preapplica~ion has been submitted. (4) Within six (6) months after the approval of the preapplication report by the Planning Board, the subdivider shall submit an application for approval of a preliminary plat or final plat (in the case of minor subdivision review). If such application is not received within six (6) months, the Planning Board approval of the preapplication plan shall expire. The plat shall follow the layout-of the preapplication plan, as approved by the Board, plus any recommendations made by the Planning Board. Said application shall also conform to the requirements listed in Article IV, 6~ A106-41. (5) The time periods of this section may be extended upon mutual consent of the applicant and the Planning Board. Note: no further changes to subsection A106-21 § A 106-22. Approval by of minor subdivision procedure. A. Application. [Amended 4-23-t991 by resolution] ( 1 ) Within six (6) months after the approval of the zkctch plan preapplication report by the Planning Board. the subdivider shall submit an application fbr approval of a final plat. If such application is not received within six (6) months, the Planning Board approval of the akct¢~h plaa preapplication report shall expire. The plat shall follow the layout of the 3kctch pla~qpreferred plan as recommended in the preapplication report, as approved by the Board,' plus any recommendations made by the Planning Board. Said application shall also Conform to the requirements listed in Article IV, § A106-4 t. Note: no additional changes to subsection A106-22 § A 106,23. Preliminary aitc subdivision plan for major subdivision procedure A. Application. [Amended 4-23-1991 by resolution] (I) Prior to the filing of an application for the approval by the c~f a major subdivision procedure plat, the subdivider shall file with the Town Clerk an application in duplicate for ,the approval of a preliminary plat o£the proposed subdivision, in the form prescribed in Article IV, § A106-42. The preliminary, plat shall comply with the requirements Set forth in these regulations, including Article IV, § A106-42, and § §'276 and 277 of the Town Law. ' (2) (Reserved) Note: no additional changes to subsection A106-23 § AI06-24~ Final plat for major subdivisionprocedure. [Amended 5-8-1973] - Note: no additional changes to subsection At06-24 Note: end of revisions