HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnvironmental Report Suff Cty 5/82Report to the Suffolk County Legislature
by
PETER F. COHALAN
County Executive
ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
May, 1982
PREFACE
This third environmental message to the Suffolk County Legislature
and people of our County is a continuation of the first two reports for
1980 and 1981. The readers will note that with each year there is an
expansion in the detail and coverage of the document. T his is a reflec-
tion of my continuing concern for the status and health of the general
environment of our county.
I am very pleased to note that each year has shown a steady positive
progression in the accomplishments of the various departments with
responsibilities for the protection of our ground and surface waters,
our parklands, our wetlands, our farm areas, and the general status of a
clean environment necessary to protect the health of the people within
the county.
At this writing, Phase II of the farm preservation program is virtually
complete. I had made an earlier commitment that Phase II would be
accelerated, and with the cooperation of the various departments
involved, this has been accomplished.
Several programs worthy of note include the execution of a contract
to expand water studies on the North Fork of the county, as well as
proposed changes in the health code relative to underground oil
storage tanks. This potential time bomb, identified in the 208 Waste
Treatment Management program, should be ameliorated by the forth-
right action of the Department of Health Services.
Of particular importance are the actions that I have taken this year to
intervene in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission hearings relative to
the nuclear power plant proposed for operation at Shoreham by the
Long Island Lighting Company. There can be no more immediate nor
greater concern for the protection of the environment and the well-
being of our citizens, than to insure with absolute certainty the safety
of the construction and operation of this questionabte p~ant. I have,
therefore, made a total commitment of my office to secure the best
talent in the nation to enable us to properly intervene to achieve the
objectives as stated. We are indeed fortunate in having secured one of
the leading firms in the nation who, I might parenthetically add, were
the only counsel thus far to successfully reverse a nuclear power plant
decision. I am, of course, referring to the Diablo Canyon case. We have
secured additional consultants to work with our in-house staff to
produce these results.
I commit this report to the Legislature and the citizens of Suffolk
County with the certain knowledge that your continuing concern and
commitment to a cleaner environ ment will be continued with vigilance.
May 1982
Peter F. Cohalan
County Executive
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE ........................................
GROUNDWATER .......................................................... 1
Introduchon ........................................................ 1
1. History and Basic Characteristics .......................... 1
2. Adequacy of the Groundwater Resource ........................ 1
Problem Areas ............................................................................2
t. Organic Pollutants ......................................... 2
2. Pesticides .................................................. 3
3, Nitrates ................................................................
4. Landfills and Other Nonpoint Sources ...... 6
5. Water Quality in the Pine Barrens ............................... 8
Trends ..................................................................... 8
1 Patterns of I mprowng or Declining Water Quality .......... 8
2 Emergence of New Contaminants ............................ 9
3. Environmental Enforcement .................................... 9
4. Environmental Review Actwitms .................................. 9
Governmental Programs and Activities ............................... 9
1. Federal Programs ..................................... 9
2. State Programs .................................................................... 12
3. County Programs ................................................................ 12
Extent of Implementation of 1981 Recommendations ......... 14
1. Water Supply ................................................................... 14
2. Hazardous and Toxic Chemicals ............ 14
3. Agricultural Chemicals .................................................. 14
4. Stormwater Runoff ........................................................... 14
5. Permits, Enforcement and Lab Services ........................ 14
6. SCDHS Reorganization ...................................... 15
Recommendahons ............................................... 15
SURFACE WATERS ............................................. 16
Introduction ..................................................................... 16
1. General Surface Water Characteristics ......................... 16
2. Monitoring .......................................................................... 18
Description of Problems and Problem Areas ............................. 16
1. Existing Conditions General ........................................... T6
2. Recent Events ............................................. 16
Trends .................................................. 16
Government Programs and Activities .................... 17
1. Federal and State Laws ........................................... 17
2. Discussion and Update of the NYS Wild, Scenic and
Recreabonal Rivers System AC~ ....................................... 19
3. County Involvement ........................................... 19
4. Summary of Local Government Laws and Programs ............. 21
Extent of Implementation of 198t Recommendations ............. 21
Recommendations ..................................... 21
FRESHWATER WETLANDS ............................................................ 23
General Conditions ......................................... 93
1. Description of Suffolk's Freshwater Wetlands ................... 23
2. Significance ......................................... 23
General Impacts .................................................... 23
Trends .............................................................................. 23
1. Public Acquisition ........................................... 23
2. Recent Court Cases Challenging Wetlands Laws .......... 24
Government Programs and Activities ............................. 24
Extent of Implementation of 1981 Recommendations ........... 26
Recommendations .......................................................... 26
Coastal Zone Management ....................... 35
1 Commercial Fishery Facility at Shinnecock I nlel . 35
2. Greenport Commercial Fishery P~er .................. 36
3. Mattituck Creek .......................... 36
4. Lake Montauk ................................ 36
5 Coastal Erosion .......................................... 37
6. Coastal Energy Impact Program ............ 39
Government Programs and Activities ........... 39
1. Federal Programs .............................. 39
2 State Programs ............................ 42
3 County Programs ........................... 42
Extent of Implementation of 1981 Recommendations ........... 42
Recommendations ............ 43
ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS ......... 44
Introduction ..............................
Precipitation ..................................... 44
Temperature ........................................ 48
Winds ................................................................... 48
Air Quality ........................................................... 46
1 Sulfur Dioxide .............................................. 48
2. Carbon Monoxide .................................... 47
3. Ozone ................................................. 48
4 Nitrogen Dioxide ............................................ 48
5 Total Suspended Particulates ....................... 48
6. Lead ............................ 48
Problem Areas ....................................... 48
Trends ............................................................. 49
Government Programs and Activities .............. ~9
1 Federal Government Programs ................ 49
2. New York State Programs ............................ 5~
3. Suffolk County Programs ..............................
Extent of Implementation of 1981 Recommendahons
Recommendations .........................
NOISE .. ~2
Introduchon...:.:.:.:'. ..... .' .'...'..' .' ' 52
Problem Areas ..................... 52
Trends .................................................... 53
Government Programs and Activibes ....... 53
1. Suffolk County Noise Program .... 53
2 Local Noise Abatement Programs .... 53
Extent of Implementation of 1981 Recommendahor~s' .' 53
Recommendations 53
OPEN SPACE .................................. 58
I ntroduction ............................ ...... 58
State of Open Space Acquisdions ...... ....... 88
1. 1981 Open Space Acreage ...................... 58
2. Recently Acquired Open Space... 58
Problems and Opportunities ........... 58
Government Programs and Activihes .... 58
1 Federal Programs ....... 58
2 State Programs . .. 59
3. County Programs ......... 59
4 Local Programs and Actiwhes ............... 62
Extent of Implementahon of 1981 Recommendations . . 62
Recommendations ................... 82
MARINE ENVIRONMENT AND
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ..................... 30
Report on Suffolk County Marine Water Quality
Problems and Trends in 1981 ..................................... 30
1. Genera] Overview .......................... 30
2. Algal Blooms ................................. 30
3. Salinity ................................................................. 30
4. Floatahle Strandings and Fish Kills ....... 30
5 Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Strandings ......... 30
6. Toxic Spills in Surface Waters ................................ 30
7. Public Health Issues ............................................ 31
Marine Related Actiwties ......................... 32
1. Marine Wetlands ........................ 32
9. Dredging ......................................... 32
3. Marine Fisheries ......................................................... 32
4 Mariculture .............................................. 32
SOLID WASTES ................................................. 86
Update of Ex~sting Solid Waste Situation ~n Suffolk County
I Town of Babylon .............
2. Town of Brookhaven .........
3. Town o[ East Hampton .......
4 Town of Huntington ...........
5 Town of ]slip ..........
6. Town ct Rwerhead ................
7. Town of Shelter Island .....
8 Town of Smithtown .............
9 Town of Southampt0n .......
10 Town of Southold .........
11 Fire Island Communibes.. .
Problem Areas ............
1 Resource Recovery ...
2 NYS Part 380 Liner Policy ....
66
66
66
66
66
66
66
....... 66
................ 67
.......... 67
67
.............. 67
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Trends .............................................................................................. 67
1. Landfills Reaching Capacity ...................................................... 67
2. Resource Recovery Plants ......................................................... 67
3. Source Separation ...................................................................... 67
4. Methane Gas ............................................................................... 67
Government Activities ..................................................................... 67
1. Federal and State Governments ............................................... 67
2. Local Governments ...................................................................67
Extent of Implementation of 1981 Recommendations ................ 67
Recommendations ........................................................................... 67
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT ................................... 68
Existing Situation .......................................................................... 68
Problem Areas ................................................................................. 69
1. Underground Tank Testing Replacement
and New Construction ............................................................... 69
2. Above Ground Tank Upgrading and New Construction ........ 69
3. Portable Container Storage Facilities
Upgrading and New Construction ............................................ 69
4. Contaminated Well Investigations ........................................... 69
5. Tank Registration ....................................................................... 69
6. Abandoned Tank Program ........................................................ 70
7. Spill Investigations and Clean-Up Operations ........................ 70
8. Emergency Response ................................................................. 70
Trends ............................................................................................... 70
Government Programs and Activities .......................................... 71
1. New York State ........................................................................... 71
2. Suffolk County ........................................................................... 71
Extent of Implementation of 1981 Recommendations ................ 71
Recommendations ........................................................................... 72
ENERGY .............................................................................................. 73
The Present Energy Situation ....................................................... 73
1. Liquid and Solid Fuels .............................................................. 73
2. Electricity ..................................................................................... 73
Problem Areas ................................................................................. 79
1. Shoraham .................................................................................... 73
2. Nine Mile Point 2 ........................................................................ 73
3. Coal Burning ............................................................................... 73
Trends ............................................................................................... 74
Government Programs .................................................................... 74
1. Federal and State Programs ..................................................... 74
2. County Programs ....................................................................... 74
Extent QI Implementation of 1981 Recommendations ................ 75
Recommendations .......................................................................... 75
RADIATION CONTROL ..................................................................... 75
introduction ...................................................................................... 75
Government Programs and Activities ........................................... 75
1. Dental and Medical X-Ray Programs ....................................... 75
2. Environmental Monitoring Program ......................................... 76
3. Transportation of Radioactive Materials
and Emergency Response ......................................................... 76
4. Non-ionizing Radiation .............................................................. 76
5. Public Information and Special Activities ................................ 76
Recommendations ..........................................................................76
SEQRA AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW AND ENFORCEMENT ....................................................... 77
Introduction ...................................................................................... 77
Description of Problems and Problem Areas ............................... 77
Trends .............................................................................................. 77
Governmental Programs and Activities ....................................... 77
1. Federal Programs ..................................................................... 77
2. New York State ........................................................................79
3. Suffolk County ........................................................................79
4. Local ............................................................................................. 79
Extent of Implementation of 1981 Recommendations ............... 80
Recommendations ..........................................................................80
LIST OF FIGURES
I -- Hardness of Groundwater in the United States ..................... 2
2 -- Proposed Fishing Facility at Shinnecock
Inlet -- Southampton ................................................................ 34
LIST OF TABLES
I -- Chemical Analysis of Groundwater in New York
(Concentrations in migigrams per fiter [mg/lJ) ................. 1
2 -- SCDHS Drinking Water Sampling 1981 .............. 3
3 -- Pesticide Screening Program ........................... 4
4 SCDHS Aldicarb Samphng Results .......................... 4
5 -- SCDHS Carbofuran Sarnpl~ng Results ........................... 4
6 -- Suffolk County Test Wells -- Nitrate Nitrogen Levels ..... 5.6
7 -- Number of Pubhc Wells Exceeding 6 ppm Nitrate ...... 6
8 -- Trace Organic Results thru Dec 31. 1980 --
Standard Observation Wells ........................ 9
9 -- Trace Organic Results thru 1981 --
Standard Observation wells .................... 9
10 -- Federal, State and County Laws
Dealing With Groundwater ............................. 10, 11
11 -- 1981 A-95 Sole-Source Aquifer ~SSA) Reviews --
{Quarterly Distribution of Reviews and Prolect Funding)... 14
12 -- Summary of Selected Federal and
State Programs Affecting Surface Waters .................. 17-19
13 -- Summary of Selected Government Programs
Affecting Freshwater Wetlands ........................... 24, 25
14 -- N.Y.S. Marine District Waters Closed
for Shellfishing as of August 1981 ................ 31
15 -- Dredging Projects Conducted by
Suffolk County During 1981 .......................................... 32
16 -- Average Monthly Precipitation in Sulfolk County ....... 44
17 -- Monthly Total Precipitation (m ~nches)
for Eight Sites in Suffolk County.
New York -- 1980 and 1981 ........................ 44
18 -- Annual Precipitation Total {m inchest
For Eight Sites in Suffolk CouNty.
New York -- 1975-1981 ................................... 44
19 Average Snowfall in Suffolk ............................ 45
29 -- Monthly Total Snowfall Hn inches)
1or Six Sites in Suffolk County,
New York -- 1979-80 and 1980-81 ........................ 45
21 -- Average Monthly Temperature in Suffolk County .......... 45
22 Average Monthly Temperatures at Six Sites
m Suffolk County. New York 1980 and 1981 ..... 45
23 Monthly Total Heating Degree Days for Six Sites
in Suffolk County, New York 1979-80 and 1980-81 . 46
24 -- Annual Mean Wind Speed
IMPH For Various D~recbons) ...................... 46
25 -- Summary of Ambient Air Standards --
Federal and State -- June. 1979 ...................... 47
26 -- Sulfur D~ox~de -- Annual Averages in ppm --
1974 through 1980 ............................... 47
97 -- Sulfur Dioxide Annual Averages in ppm
from the Long Island L~ghting
Continuous Air Monitoring System ......................... 48
28 -- Ozone -- Annual Averages 1976 through 1980 .................... 48
29 -- Total Suspended Particulates
Annual Geometric Means 1970 through 1980 ............. 48
30 -- Federal. State and County Laws
Dealing with Air Quality ................................ 49, 50
33 -- Rating of Noise Sources .................................... 52
32 -- Federal, State, County and Local Laws
Dealing with Noise Control .................................... 53-57
33 -- Suffolk County Properties in Process of
Nomination to National Register of Historic Places ........... 59
34 -- Suffolk County owned or Utilized Properties
Potentially Eligible for Listing in the
National Register of Historic Places ................................. 60
35 -- 1981 Recommended Sites for Acquisihon
by Suffolk County ..................................... 63
36 -- 1982 Recommended Sites for Acquisition
by Suffolk County ......................................... 65
37 -- Status Report -- Article 12 of the
Suffolk County Sanitary Code --
"Toxic and Hazardous Materials Storage
and Handling Control". .......................................... 71
38 -- Radiation Dose Data from Various Sources ................... 76
39 Major Federal, State and County Laws
Dealing with General Environmental
Review and Enforcement .................................... 78
GROUNDWATER
INTRODUCTION
1. History lind BIiiIc Characteristics
Historically, the groundwater supply in Suffolk County has
been plentiful and of high quality. The early development of public
water supply systems was concentrated in the more populated com-
munities. Most homes outside the developed communities utilized
their own on-s~te wells. AS the population increased, particularly after
World War II, many small public water supply wells were established.
Efforts were made to consolidate the many small public water
systems with the establishment of the Suffolk County Water Authority.
Since its inception in 1951 asa public water supplier, the Authority has
acquired 31 municipal or private water companies for a total purchase
price of $23,385,000. 1981 saw three acquisitions of companies in
Corem, Rocky Point and Selden. Additional efforts are still required,
however, since there are presently more than 80 municipal and private
water companies in Suffolk County. in addition, approximately
250,000 residents rely on individual private wells.
The quality of the groundwater of Suffolk County traditionally
has been considered excellent. It is only since the mid-1970's that
water quality problems have been discovered.
Table I presents sampling results on general groundwater
quality for various regions of New York State. taken from a 1974 report
by Geraghty and Miller entitled "Groundwater Pollution in the North-
east." It can be seen in Figure I that, compared to other regions of the
State, Long Island water is more acidic, as evidenced by generally
lower PH values, is relatively "soft" and contains fewer dissolved
solids. As a reference note, "hardness" represents the amount of
dissolved materials in water. The amount of calcium carbonate
(CaCO3) present in the water is generally used to estimate this
parameter.
2. T he Adequacy of the Groundwater Resource
The water budget area, or recharge area, for Suffolk County
provides about 900 million gallons per day (MGD) of groundwater
recharge. Not all of this is available for use. The term permissive
sustained yield, which is generally defined by the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services (SCDHS) as the amount of water that
can be withdrawn without inflicting undesirable changes in the water
resource and in water dependent ecosystems, was estimated as 441
MG D. T his figure is considered conservative and because more timely
data is not available, the following discussion will utilize 441 MGD.
Future demands on the groundwater system, as forecasted by
the Comprehenstve Public Water Supply Study, Suffolk County, N.Y.,
{CPWS-24). a 1968 engineering report written for SCDHS, will reach
336 MGD in the year 2000. This value is based on a much larger
population than is currently projected and begins to approach the
figure of 441 MG D only if the 336 MGD is not recharged back into the
aquifer system. Since most of the water used by consumers is returned
to the aquifer, a standard comsurnptive use figure of 20 per cent plus
present wastewater plants discharging to surface waters would yield a
consumptive use of 109 MGD. This translates to a reserve of 332 MGD
(441 - F 09) which is available for supplemental water use. T his reserve
is further reduced to 296 MGD if the following is considered:
· Shelter Island has a self-sufficient wafer supply system.
· The South Fork has a self-sufficient water supply system.
· Southold will need to receive water from the western portion
of the County,
Possible future demands on this 296 MGD surplus beyond
developmental stresses, ar~
· Streamflow augmentation. 30 MGD (based on size of the
Bergen Point plant and assuming the use of additional
groundwater to supplement streamflow).
· NassauCountyMaeferWaterPlan. 28MGD(throughunder-
flow west into Nassau County).
· Southold wafer. 25 MGO--conservative estimate from
CPWS-24.
Taken together, these total 83 MGD, and when compared to
the estimated surplus of 296 MG D, it would appear that the above three
activities could be implemented without endangering the permissive
sustained yield in Suffolk County. T his analysis should be kept in mind
when droughts (defined as a year with less than average rainfall) or
water shortages are mentioned.
L~atlefl
NORTHEAST REGION
TABLE 1
Chemical Analysis of Groundwater In New York* (Concentrations In milligrams per liter (m~/1)
Tatar 0.ardness Total Dissolved Solidi pH Iron IFc) Chloride loll Solflta IS041
N Range M N Range Id N Range Id N Range M N Range M N Range E
St Lawrence Couoty 4 52-485 -- 3 Z95-432 ~ 4 6.7-75 -- 2 014-0.16 -- 5 08~2 15 2 36~4 --
Lake Cl,,amplaio/UH~e Hudson 39-526 6D-6~5 6.74.4 0.01-2.6 0.1-104 0.4-22? --
SOUTRL~ST REGION
KEY
From Gmundwatar PoRutle~ in the Northeast United States
by Gmaghty & Mdler. JUll~ 19'/4.
FIGURE 1
Hardness of Groundwater in the U hired States
Areas delineated represent average conditions on a generahzed bas~s
(according to the methodology of Ackerman and Lof, Technology in
American Water Development, Resources for the Future, Copyright
1959 by the John Hopkins University Press).
Source: Groundwater Hydrology, by David Todd
Table 17' and 18, in the"ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS" sec-
tion of this report, present monthly precipitation data for 1980 and
1981 for eight sites in $uffolk County together with the annual average
precipitation for 1975 - 1981. It is obvious that rainfall in 1980 and 1981
was well below the average annual rainfall for the Island, approxi-
mately 44 inches. 1980 and 1981 press releases were prepared by
SCDHS along with water table maps produced by the department. T he
following paragraph has been excerpted from these releases:
"A comparison w/th the f979 and 1980 water table maps
shows that there has been a general annual decline in
water levels throughout the County. The drop ~s ~n large
part due to a decrease in precipitation during each preced-
ing year. Annual declines tn 1980 add 1981 reflect a gradual
return to an average ground water elevation foflowing the
record-breakmg high water levels of 1979. According to
Suffolk County Health Commissioner, Dr. David Harris,
"These groundwater declines will provide some much
needed relief for flooded basements in western Suffolk
County. However, they may begin to affect private resi-
dential well water quahty in some ~ear-$hore areas on the
east end." The one foot change in water level observed in
areas where the groundwater resource is limited(e.g., the
North Fork. South Fork, North Haven and Shelter/s/and)
will create measurable decreases ~n groundwater storage
and, hence, supply."
SCDHS' annual water table map Hlustrates the shape and
gives elevation above mean sea level of the groundwater reservoir, it is
constructed using water level information from 534 monitormg wells
that are located throughout the County's ten towns The rnajor~ty of
these wells are owned and maintained by SCDHS for the purpose of
monitoring quality and quantity changes in the groundwater. Water
level ~nformat~on for some ol these wells dates back to 1912. T he map
is a resource document for t~ose who require generalized hydrogeo-
logic intormation, and can be used to determine the depth of ground-
water from a known land surface elevation. Engmeers and contractors
can use this information Ior the siting and selection of sephc systems,
swimming pools and recharge basins. It may also be used to estimate
the horizontal component of local groundwater flow
PROBLEM AREAS
1. Organic Pollutants
The pollution of groundwaters by organic chemicals, referred
to ~n lasl year's report, remains a widespread problem. Major classes of
chemicals being found include halogenated hydrocarbons, which are
used as solvents for fats, waxes, natural resins, paints, and in dry
cleaning operations, degreasers, etc.; heavy metals, which usually
enter the environment as by-products of industrial operations and
automobile engine combustion; pesticides and weed killers; sulfates
and chlorides, one of which (vinyl chloridel has been found in both
gaseous and liquid forms; petroleum constituents from leaking stor-
age tanks, spills and leaks or illegal discharges; chemicals contained
~n household consumer products (degreasing agents, paints, solvents
and cleaners, etc.); and, gases such as methane and vinyl chloride,
which are being found ~n conjunction with landfill operations.
2
The Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS)
reports that the following chemicals have been identified in Suffolk
groundwaters;
Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
T etrachloroethylene
Benzene
Xylene
Bromobenzene
Chiorotoluene
Dichlorobenzene
Methylene Chloride
Freon 113
Toluene
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Carbon Tetrachloride
Ethylbenzene
1,2,4 Trimethylbenzene
1,2 Dichloropropane
1,1 Dichloroethane
1,1 Dichloroet hylene
1,3,5 Trimethylbenzene
Chiorobenzene
Cis-Dichloroet hylene
Chloroform
1,2 Dichloroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 Dichloroethane
Chlorodibromethane
Dioctyl P hthalate
The organic contaminants which have been detected origi-
nate from a variety of sources, including illegal industrial discharges
or accidental spills, and commercial and residential uses of products
which contain organic materials (including cesspool cleaners). Many
of the organic substances eventually find their way into the ground-
water supply via cesspools and leaching fields; recharge basins; direct
percolation through the ground; gas station storage tanks or runoff;
underground oil storage tanks; and. agricultural operations.
The investigations which have been done to date in Suffolk
County indicate that much of the contamination may come from multi-
ple sources. The pinpointing of the specific sou rca or point of origin of
pollution may be difficult or impossible in some cases. Material
already in the groundwater aquifer may impact drinking water supp-
lies for many years to come.
N o community (public) water supply wells were restricted the
past year due to synthetic organic compound levels in excess of the
New York State Health Department guidelines. Nine non-community
public water supply systems exceeded the recommended guidelines
(50+ parts per billion (ppb) for any single contaminant: 100+ ppb for
multiple contaminants). Table 2 summarizes SCDHS' drinking water
sampling program for 1981 with respect to organic pollutants.
TABLE 2
SCDHS Drinking Water Sampling - 1981
1 ) Number of organic samples taken during 1981:
Community water supplies: ............ 863
Non-community and private wells; . ...4,459
5,322 Total
2) Number of wells closed due to organic contamination:
Total al of Restricted
Dec., 1981 In 1981
Commumty water supplies ...... 22 0
Non-community ................ 21 9
Private wells .................. 400 118
443 127
The hum bar of public water supply wells that have been closed
because of organic chemical contamination remains at 22. This
represents 3.6% of the County's public water supply wells. The loca-
tions of the closures and Hst of chemicals exceeding guidelines at
those locations were given in last year's Environmental Report.
Although there is no specific legal mandate to monitor exist-
ing private wells, which serve approximately 250,000 residents, the
Health Department conducts routine sampling of private water supp-
lies and responds to homeowner requests to examine wells. There
were 118 private wells restricted for exceeding the State guidelines in
1981, bringing the total number of restricted private wells in the
County to 400. This represents only a small fraction of the 60-80,000
private wells that exist on the Island, but the number of wells that have
been sampled is likewise a small percent of those in operation. The
most common organic compounds found in the restricted private
wells were trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene and
gasoline-related materials such as benzene, toluene and xylenes. T he
probable sources of contamination were often related to commercial
and residential uses of products containing organics and to leaking
storage tanks. Although no specific breakdown of sources can be
established, some of the contamination can be attributed to past
industrial discharges or accidental spills.
W hanover organic contaminants are identified in a community
public water system, the water company is advised to refrain from
using the affected well and switch to an alternate, uncontaminated
source. To date, this option has been practical because of the availa-
bility of alternate wells.
In the case of private wells exceeding guidelines, a recommen-
dation is made to the residents not to use the water for drinking
purposes. The best solution for private well contamination is to be
connected to a public water supply system. If public water is not
available, the owner may relocate or deepen the well, or use bottled
water.
At present, there are no specified federal, state or local pro-
grams available to assist in the extension of public water mains. The
only source of funding that has been available is the community
development program; however, the funds for water main extensions
are very limited. During the year, public water mains were extended to
sections of Mastic Beach; Center M oriches; Crescent Street, Yaphank;
Birchcroft Colony in S mithtown; and in several sections in the Town of
Babylon.
DETERGENT BAN -- During 1981 the County Executive
signed into effect a law lifting the County's 10-year old Detergent Ban.
The Department of Health Services assisted the Suffolk County Legis-
lature in the preparation of a draft and final statement regarding the
environmental impact of allowing soft detergents 1o be sold in Suffolk
County. The law was amended by the County Executive in November.
1981.
AS a result of the lifting of the ban, the use of "soft", or readily
biodegradable detergents is expected to increase in Suffolk County.
However, the industrial use of detergents and other chemicals are
controlled by both the State Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion (NYSDEC) and the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, and epidemic-
logical, clinical and experimental evidence indicate that soft
detergents are not associated with adverse health effects (either acute
or chronic). In addition, data on detergent levels in streams and shal-
low wells in unsewered areas of Nassau and Suffolk Counties show
identical downward trends. Foaming is no longer observed, and chem-
ical analysis shows barely detectable levels in both counties. For those
reasons, no adverse environmental effects are anticipated from the
lifting of the ban.
2. Peaticides
Because of the discovery of aldicarb in eastern Suffolk
groundwater, concern was expressed as to the possibility of other
pesticide compounds contaminating groundwater. SCDHS is pres-
enfly involved in a testing program for other pesticides marketed in the
County. Testing has been done for 40 pesticide compounds. The
limiting factor in the program is the lack of laboratory capability to
analyze for many of the pesticides. However, the monitoring effort is
continuing, utilizing whatever limited laboratory resources that may
be available. Table 3 summarizes the SCDHS Pesticide Screening
Program.
ALDICAf~B SAMPLING -- SCDHS has continued to sample
for the pesticide aldicarb, manufactured by Union Carbide, which has
caused problems on the East End of the County. A total of 624 water
supply wells were sampled during the period of May through July,
1981. The majority of the sources sampled were resamples of wells
that had been found to contain traces of aldicarb below the recom-
mended guideline of 7 parts per billion (ppb). Analyses were per-
formed by the Union Carbide Laboratory in South Charleston. West
Virginia. Table 4 gives a summary of the results of the analyses:
CARBOFURAN SAMPLING -- Carbofuran is another pesti-
cide that has caused problems for the East End of the County, SCDHS
began sarnpling for the compound in May. 1981. A total of 569 water
supply wells were sampled during the period of May 12 through J uno
30, 1981. The samples include private and public water sources. Ana-
lyses were performed by the FMC Corporation laboratory in Middle~
port, New York. Table 5 gives a summary of the results of the analyses.
3
Compound
Aldicarb (Temik)
Aldrin
Arsenic
Atrazine
Benlate (Benomyl)
Carbofuran (Furadan)
Chlordane
Dacthal
Diazinon
Dibrom
TABLE 3
Pesticide Screening Program
No. of Samples
Analyzed Detected
>9,000 Yes
67 No
>700 No
14 NO
6 No
>900 Yes
67 No
14 No
f7
Dichlorvos
Dieldrin
Dinoseb
6 No
67 No
55 --
DDT (o, p)
DDT (p, p)
Endrin
Eptam
ETU
Guthion
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Expoxide
Ke[thane
Lannate (Methomyl)
Lead
Lindane
Linuron (Lorox)
Mancozeb
Maneb
Manzate (EBDC)
Monitor
Methorychlor
Organochlorine Screen
Organophosphate Screen
Oxamyl (Vydate)
Paraquat
Permethrin (Pounce, Ambush)
Simazine (Princep)
Thiodan I & II (Endosulfanl
Toxaphene
Telone (D-D)
Vorlex
Zineb
2,4,5 TP
67 No
67 NO
88 NO
12 NO
49 No
54 No
67 NO
67 No
28 No
20 NO
>700
88 No
28 No
34 No
49 NO
28 No
14 NO
88 NO
15 No
15 NO
8 sites No
29 No
14 No
29 No
88 No
32 --
30 --
28 NO
88 No
88 NO
'>100 additional samples analyzed for 1,2 Dichloropropane
Possibly detected ~n one well
Traces detected
Confirmation samples wdl be
collected.
Traces found m 3 wells up to
2.6 ppb -- Additional samples
to be collected.
Traces detected
Test program continmng
Traces found 1 well,
sample negabve
1,2 Dichloropropane
detected'
1,2 Dichloropropane
detected'
Status date 2/5/82
TABLE 4
SCDHS AldJcerb Sampling Results
Concentration No. Wells % Wells
Non-Detected 168 26.9
Traces (1-7 ppb*) 264 42.3
Exceed (8* ppb) 192 30.8
Total 624
The highest concentration that was detected was 161 ppb. 187 wells
increased their concentration of aldicarb an average of 13 ppb. 113
wells decreased in concentration an average of 2 ppb. 36 wells re-
mained at the same concentration.
TABLE 5
SCDHS Carbofurftn Sampling Reeults
Concentration No. of Wells % Wells
Non-Detected 283 49.8
Traces 0.1 - 4.9 ppb 167 29.3
Traces 5.0 - 9.9 ppb 52 9.1
T races 10.0 - 14.9 p pb 22 3.9
Exceed 15 ppb' 45 7.9
Total 569
The highest concentration that has been detected is 41 parts per
billion (ppb). The New York State Department of Health t~as estab*
lished a guideline of 15 ppb.
AS a result of the pesticide sampling program, 237 additional
wells were identified which exceeded the recommended safe levels for
aldicarb and carbofuran. The manufacturers of the pesticides offered
to provide granular-activated carbon treatment units to the affected
homeowners. More than 1,000 treatment units have been installed,
based upon the results of the 1980 sampling program. Although consi-
dered an interim measure, the filters have been effective in removing
the pesticides. Extension of public water has not been possible due to
the lack of water mains in the immediate vicinity of agricultural com-
munities. The Greenport Water District's service area is in affected
communities; however, two of the Greenport wells are impacted by
residual aldicarb.
SCDHS has compiled a report that brings up to date ail of the
investigations that have been performed, and are being performed,
with respect to the contamination of groundwater from the pesticide
aldicarb. The background portion of the report presents information
on: the chemical itself; how it received registration; use in Suffolk
County; the standard (7 ppb): and a discussion on the health effects
resulting from exposure and/or ingestion. The initial samplings led to
the development and completion of a major sampling program which
was detailed in last year's report.
The conclusion borne out by the work thus far is that sub-
stantial contamination of the groundwater aquifers in the farming
communities has occurred because of aldicarb. T he material behaves
as a consen/ative constituent in groundwater, and therefore the indi-
cations are that it will continue to contaminate additional areas as it
moves with the groundwater. Furthermore, the material is still present
in the soil and will continue to leach down to the groundwater. It will be
decades before any improvement is expected in areas already affected
by the chemical.
Because the affected areas rely primarily on individual wells, it
is imperative that local and county government, along with agencies
such as the Cooperative Extension and Cornell University, work to-
gether with Union Carbide to arrive at a workable solution to the
problem.
Aldicarb is only the first pesticide to undergo scrutiny and
analysis of this magnitude. Local and county officials, together with
the Health Department, will be required to study other pesticides in
order to make critical decisions involving the status and future use of
groundwater in farming communities.
3. Nitrates
SCDHS NITRATESAMPLING -- For the period 1979~1 water
samples from a total of 666 or 6.2 percent of all private wells sampled
county wide were found to exceed the allowable maximum contam-
inant level for nitrates. The wells were mostly screened in the shallow
glacial aquifer. Communities in agricultural areas have shown higher
levels of nitrates due to use of fertilizers. Some non-agricultural com-
munities also had a higher percentage of wells exceeding standards.
These communities were generally o~der, established areas with high
population densities. The probable sources of nitrates in these com-
munities are septic tank leaching and homeowner use of lawn fertil-
izers. Table 6 summarizes the SCDHS nitrate sampling program from
Suffolk County test wells.
Public water supplies are regularly tested for a number of
constituents, including nitrates. Over the period 1979-1981, well sam-
pling results have shown that: 1 ) 42 public wells have exceeded 6 ppm
at least once. (The Long Island208 Study recommended a guideline of
6 pprn as an indicator of the need for sewering an area.) 2) 15 public
wells have exceeded or equalled 10 ppm, the New York State Health
Department recommended guideline for nitrates, at least once. 3) A
breakdown of public wells exceeding 6 ppm by aquifer, average depth
of well and highest concentration, is given in Table 7.
In summary, there are several public water supply wells which
exceed the standards for nitrates; however, nitrate pollution is not
considered a major problem at this time. Where public water supply
wells have been contaminated, sufficient alternative sources are avail-
able, or acceptable water quality is achieved by blending with wells
from deeper aquifers. Only three community public water supply sys-
tems have problems meeting the nitrate standards. These systems are:
G reenport Water District, Roanoke Water Corporation and the Reeves
Beach Water Company.
TABLE 6
Suffolk County Test Wells - Nitrate Nitrogen Levels
Fiva Western Townl
Babylon Brookhavan Huntington Isllp Smlthtown
Total Wel~s 55 65 13 26 1 g
Total samples 272 586 126 253 81
No. of wells where
average nitrate
exceeds 6 mg/l 11 12 8 9 3
Percent of total wells 20% 18% 62% 35% 30%
NO. of wells where
average nitrate
exceeds 10 rog/1 2 6 4 3 2
Percent of total wells 4% 9% 31% 12% 20%
No. of wells where
single sample
exceeds 6 mg/1 18 23 9 16 5
Percent of total wells 33% 35% 69% 62% 50%
NO. of wells where
single sample
exceeds 10 mg/1 10 15 6 11 3
Percent of total wells 18% 23% 46% 42% 30%
No. of samples
exceeding 6 rog/1 94 70 63 87 10
Percent of total samples 35% 12% 50% 34% 12%
No. of samples
exceeding 10 rog/1 28 34 32 41 5
Percent of total samples 10% 6% 25% 16% 6%
TABLE 6 (Cont'd.)
Five Eastern Towns
East Hampton RIverheed Shelter Island Southampton Southold
Total Wells 32 29 17 52 21
Total samples 163 303 114 288 133
NO. of wells where
average nitrate
exceeds 6 mg/1 0 10 2 1 10
Percent of tota~ wells 0 34% 12% 2% 48%
NO. of wells where
average nitrate
exceeds 10 mg/1 0 3 0 0 3
Percent of tota~ wells 0 10% 0 0 14%
NO. of wells where
single sampte
exceeds 6 mg/1 4 15 3 3 16
Percent of total wells 13% 52% 18% 6% 76%
NO. of wells where
single sample
exceeds 10 mg/1 1 11 3 1 9
Percent of tote] wells 3% 38% 18% 2% 43%
No. of samples
exceeding 6 rng/1 8 93 8 20 65
Percent of total samples 5% 31% 7% 7% 49%
No. of samples
exceeding 10 rog/1 2 49 4 2 24
Percent of total samples 1% 16% 4% 1% 18%
TABLE 7
Number of Public Wells Exceeding 6 ppm Nitrate
Average Hlghelt NO3
Aqulter # of Wells Depth Concentration
Glacial 47' 187 ft. 15.9 mg/1 (ppm)
Magothy 3 389 ft. 10.8 mg/1 (ppm)
*This number excludes 2 wells, having depths of 562 ft. and
602 ft. which terminate in Glacial deposits located in buried
Magothy valleys in the Town of Huntington.
Completion of the Southwest Sewer District in Islip and Baby-
lon Towns is expected to alleviate the severe problems those towns are
encountering with nitrates from cesspools. Listed below are total
nitrogen concentrations from observation wells in the Town of
Babylon:
1972 1973 1974 1975 1976
8.91 -- 9.41 8.08 9.97
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
6.92 7.99 7.93 8.66
While some variation is evident in the annual average, the level
of total nitrogen remained relatively stable. This established record
will be the basis for determining the improvement in groundwater
quality brought about by sewerJng. It also shows the high levels of
nitrogen which were, to a large degree, responsible for the efforts
undertaken to initiate a county sewer district.
For an update on Southwest Sewer District operahons, as well
as updates of 201 Waste Treatment Facilities Planning Studies m
progress, see the "MARINE ENVIRONMENT AND COASTAL ZONE
MANAGEMENT" section of this report.
4. Landfills and Other Nonpolnt Source.
1981 has seen growth ~n awareness on the part of both the
public and government of groundwater problems associated with
landfilling and waste disposal practices, There are presently20 active
and 13 closed landfills in Suffolk County which are discu~ed in detail
in the "SOLID WASTE" section of the report. The active landfills
receive mixed municipaJ waste from domestic and commercial sour-
ces. The two major problems associated with landfills are 1 ) ground-
water contamination from the rain-driven discharge of ieachate and 2)
methane, vinyl chloride and other toxic gas migration from the landfill
site.
Rain washes through landtlll sites and leads to the discharge
of leechate containing materials such as lead, iron, manganese and
other heavy metals, organic chemicals, and nitrates. Highly corrosive
because of its high carbon dioxide content, this leachate helps dis-
solve other contaminants in soils and percolates into the Surrounding
groundwater. Leachate studies have been conducted at Babylon,
Sayville, Southampton, Isllp, Westhampton and Southold. SCDHS. in
cooperation with the towns, monitors and landfills by testing public
and private wells for inorganic and organic materiais, identifying
leachate plumes, and testing for methane and other toxic gases.
The U,S. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRAI
and N.Y. State Part 360 landfill requirements include monitoring sys-
tems, liners and leachate collections systems. At present, only Smith-
town, Brookhaven and Babylon have installed liners and only
Brookhaven, I slip. Southold, and East Hampton have permanent mon-
itoring wells in piece. Babylon is attempting to resurrect its former
monitoring system. The rest of the towns are negotiating with con-
sultants to establish monitoring systems
6
At the request of NYSDEC. the SCDHS assembled previous
data and also sampled wells upgradient and downgradient of several
Suffolk County landfills in an attempt to characterize the g rou ndwater
and leachate in relation to RCRA standards. Information for ten land-
fills, showing the types of data collected, drinking water standards
exceeded and a short summary of the monitoring, is as follow,~
EAST NORTHPORT LANDFILL. HUNTINGTON
Data Utilized: Private well survey (13 wells)
PrimaryStandardsExceeded: selenium (2 wells), lead.
barium, cadmium also re-
ported.
SecondaryStandardsExceeded: iron, manganese, zinc,
chloride, nitrates.
Summary: A concentrated leachate plume is impacting
private wells northeast of the landfill. Very high
chloride, iron, ammonia, sodium and methane
concentrations are characteristic of leachate
contamination. Heavy metals and possibly or-
ganic chemicals are included in this plume.
Groundwater monitoring wells are currently
being installed and are expected to be com-
pleted by the Spring of 1982
BABYLON LANDf=ILL, BABYLON
DataUti~ized: SCDHS Monitoring Well
Private Well Survey
SCWA Well Survey
Summary of results from USGS Study of
Babylon Landfill
Primary Standards Exceeded: None
SecondaryStandardsExceeded: iron. chloride, manganese
Summar'f A well developed, extensive leachate plume
exists at the Babylon Landfill. This is docu-
mented by a USGS report (Kimmel and Braids,
1977) and other studies. SCDHS data shows no
primary standards exceeded although selen-
ium, lead, fluoride and arsenic were found
during the USGS study. Organic contamina-
tion in this area cannot necessarily be attributed
to the landfill.
SMITHTOWN BAI_EFILL, SMITHTOWN
DataUtilized: SCDHS Test Well Analyses
Private Well Survey
Primary Standards Exceeded: None
Secondary Standards Exceeded: manganese, iron
Summary: Leachate contamination is not indicated by
these test results. Iron and chloride concentra-
tions have increased substantially since the
installation of one well in 1973, possibly indi-
cating the first stages of leachate production.
YOUNGS AVENUE LANDFILL, RIVERHEAD
Data Utilized: One on-site supply well tested
Primary Standards Exceeded: selenium
Secondary Standards Exceeded: iron, zinc
NO organics, pesticides or herbicides analyses available.
Summary: Leachate production is indicated by this one
result. Further testing is necessary to determine
extent of contamination.
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL. SOUTHOLD
DataUtilized: SCDHS Monitoring Well Analysis
Private Well Survey (7 wells)
Primary Standards Exceeded: selenium
SecondaryStandardsExceeded: ammonia, manganese, iron
Summary: Concentrated leachate ~s being produced by
the Southold Landfill. T his is shown by the high
chloride, ammonia and sodium concentrations
as well as the elevated groundwater
temperature.
SHELTER ISLAND LANDFILL. SHELTER ISLAND
Data Utilized: A private well survey (10 homes) and results
from a nearby SCDHS test well
Primary Standards Exceeded: cadmium
Secondary Standards Exceeded: zinc, iron
Summary One well has been impacted by leachate as
indicated by high ammonia, iron and methane
concentrations. Cadmium and zinc concentra-
hons at another are possibly due to water
standing in galvanized pipe since the dwelling
was vacant when sampled. The SCDHS test
well is not affected by leachate, as might be
expected since it is not directly downgrad~ent
from the landfill.
ACABONACK ROAD LANDFILL, EAST HAMPTON
DataUtilized: Private well survey and town-installed moni-
toring well data are enclosed
Primary Standards Exceeded: None
Secondary Standards Exceeded: iron
Summary; No leachate contamination is indicated by
these results. One private well on the landfill
property has an elevated methane concentra-
tion that is indicative of decomposing garbage
but ammonia and chloride levels are Iow
Another exceeds the recommended NYS De-
partment of Health guidelines with respect to
tetrachlorethylene. Other organic compounds
are also present at this well and others tested.
BULL PATH LANDFILL, EAST HAMPTON
Data Utilized: Private well survey and town-~nstalled mom-
toting well data
PrimaryStandardsExceeded: selemum equals standard
NO leachate contamination is indicated.
HITHER HILLS LANDFILL. EAST HAMPTON
Data Utilized: One on-site supply well tested
NO contamination is indicated.
HAMPTON BAYS LANDFILL, SOUTHAMPTON
Data Utilized: SCDHS Monitoring Well Analysis
NO leachate contamination indicated.
The U.S. Geological Survey has completed studies for the
Babylon and Sayville landfills. SCDHS has completed studies at Sonia
Road {Islip Town), North Sea (Southampton Town) and Southold
landfills. SCDHS p~ans for 1982 will include a leachate study at River-
head land fi~l.
7
The Town of Islip has constructed three monitoring wells at its
Slydenburgh Road landfill, but none have as yet given indications of
the presence of a leachate plume. Recent groundwater samples col-
lected by SCDHS indicate that vinyl chloride continues to conta m~nate
wells to the east el the facility.
5. Water Quality in the Pine Barrens
Increasing attention is being paid to the value of the Pine
Barrens Area as a pristine water source, and is reflected in various
planning efforts and legislative attempts to preserve this critical water
recharge area. T he Pine Barrens comprise much of the Hydrogeologic
Zone III, and were characterized by the Long Island 208 Study as a
region of deep, vertical recharge to the groundwater aquifer
Recent data obtained from the Suffolk County Department of
Health Services files tend to support the conclusions in the Long
Island 208 Study that, in general, Hyd~geologlc Zone III is an area of
h~gh quality groundwater with a large potential for water supply This
prevailing favorable condition of the groundwater is unquestionably a
direct result of the fact that large tracts of land remain undeveloped.
Moreover, although several known or suspected point sources of con-
tammahon have been identified, their impact relative to the entire Pine
Barrens Study Area appears to be somewhat limited.
However. despite the overall exceptional water quality of the
upper glacial aquifer, there is a need for continued and. where pos-
sible, increased diligence in the surveillanceand control of wastewater
discharges, hazardous materials storage, handling and transporta-
tion, land development and associated activities, and water supply
practices
PUBLIC WA TER SUPPLY -- There are 38 public supply wells
located within the study area. The Suffolk County Water Authority,
which is the major public water purveyor within the study area, oper-
ates seventeen wells from nine wellfields within its district service
areas of Port Jefferson, Patchogue andWesthampton Beach. The Pine
Barrens Study Area only includes parts of these district service areas.
Other suppliers include Brookhaven National Laboratory, Shorewood
Water Company, Calverton Hills, and the Riverside Water D~strict
Three rest homes also operate non-community supply wells: Cedar
Hollow, Oa~( Crest, and the Ridge Rest Home.
Data for 1980 revealed that none of the sampled wells within
the Pine Barrens Study Area exceeded the drinking water standard of
10 rog/1 for nitrate-nitrogen. However, samples taken from two wells in
Medford were found to be in excess of the L.l. 208 Study guideline of
6 0 mg/1. They were the wells at Beechnut Avenue (6.5 rog/1 NOS-N)
and at Race Avenue (6.9 mg/1 NO3-N). Both wells are located in a
medium density residential area.
N one of the public well samples from the study area exceeded
the 50 ug/1 guideline for one chemical. The only indication of any
organic chemical contamination of a public supply was in the well at
Race Avenue in Uedford which had5 ug/1 of 1,1 ,I -trichloroethane in a
sample taken on 10/16/1~0.
PRIVATE WATER SUPPLIES -- Suffolk County Department
of Health Services private well sampling data for 1/78 - 3/81 for the
study area identified only five wells within a nitrate-nitrogen concentra-
tion in excess of 10 rog/1 and three wells (five samples) with organic
chemical concentrations in excess of the 50 ug/1 guideline for any
single constituent.
A residential area adjacent to Lake Panamoka in northern
Ridge is the only location within the study area that apparently has a
problem with localized nitrate-nitrogen contamination. Two wells *n
this area had a sample in excess of 10 rog/1 NO3-N and two had 7.9
rog/1 NO3-N. The area surrounding Lake Panamoka is extensively
developed with housing built on small lots and with cesspools close to
shallow private drinking water wells. A private well at 15 Panamoka
Trail also had a sample containing 82 ug/1 of 1.1.1 -trichloroethane,
which was attributed to chemical additives applied to a nearby failing
cesspool.
Detechon of xylene (45 ug/1 ) and benzene (441 ug/1 ) in the
well at 30 Ruth Lane in Ridge was attributed to a gasoline spill from a
nearby gas station.
A special sampling survey for radioachve contamination in
private wells was done in the area southeast of Brookhaven National
Lab. One private well had 4100 pc/1 (pice-curies per literl of tritium
and 0.58 pc/1 of strontium-90.
OBSERVATION WELLS -- The upper glacial aquifer underly-
ing the Pine Barrens has been actively monitored by the Suffolk
County Department of Health Services for several years by use of 40+
observation wells. These wells are part of the network of observahon
wells located throughout Suffolk County. Observation wells are in-
stalled by the SCDHS for various monitoring purposes including
groundwater levels, ambient water quality, sewage treatment eh'luent
and special studies (e.g., FANS, landfill leachate, fuel spills, etc.i
Sampling data for 1980 indicated that none el the wells had a
sample which exceeded nitrate-nitrogen Jlmit of 10.0 rog/1 Two wells
wdhin the Pine Barrens Study Area each had a sample which exceeded
the guideline of 50 ug/1 of one orgamc chemical. O ne well is a sewage
treatment plant monitoring well located at Smith Road in Ridge, which
was sampled on 10/18/80 and found to contain330 ug/1 of chloroform
(trichloromethane). The other well is located south of Grumman Air-
port m Calverton, and was found to contain 120 ug/1 of 1 1,1 -trichloro-
ethane m a sample taken 10/29/80.
POINT SOURCES -- T he following is a lishn9 of the identified
known or potenhal point sources of contamination within the Pine
Barrens:
TYPE OF SOURCE Number
Domestic Sewage Treatment Plants.... 19
Toxic and Hazardous Sp~lls ............. 21 (1974 19811
Industry -- Hold/Haul . . 10
Junk Yards ..... 4
Laundromats ..................... 4
Road Salt Storage .......................... 6
Duck Farms ............................ 2 (SW~
Landfills .................................... 6 (3 achve & 3
closed)
Most of the domestic sewage treatment plants in tho area have
discharge flows less than 100,000 9pd. The facility of most immediate
concern is the Brookhaven Scavenger Wastes Facility in Manorville. A
study of alternative disposal measures has been completed by the
town. The existing facility is to be abandoned when the selected
alternative is implemented.
In recent years, there have been increasing incidents of toxic
and hazardous materials spills. The major occurrences in the Pine
Barrens were the two spills at the Air National Guard Station in West-
hampton Beach where thousands of gallons of jet fuel contaminated
several private water supplies
TRENDS
1. Patterns of Improving or Declining Water Quality
While it is impossibJe to make a statistical evaluation using just
two years of organic data, some observations can be made from the
Suffolk County test well data. it appears that fewer wells had organic
levels exceeding recommended guidelines, and fewer wells had detect-
able levels in 1981. While this may represent a seasonal or hydrologic
perturbation, it hopefully reflects an increasing public awareness of the
proper usage and disposal of products containing synthetic organic
compounds. It also qu~te possibly shows some immediate benefit
resulting from the ban on cesspool cleaners and the impact of in-
creased enforcement of Article 12 of the Suffolk County Sanitary
Code.
Tables 8 and 9 (data through December 31, 1980 and through
December 31, 1981) are provided for comparison of trace orgamc
results from Suffolk County observation wags. From these two tables
can be seen an apparent reduction in organic chemicals ~n the wells.
TABLE 8
Trace Organic Resulta Thru Dec. 31, 1980
Stand.rd Observation Wells
Total % %
Number Exceeds Detected
County Wide 188 7% 32%
Huntington 10 10% 70%
Babylon 15 66% 93%
Smithtown 5 None 60%
Islip 17 12% 65%
Brookhaven 35 3% 20%
Riverhead 30 3% 17%
Southampton 25 None 8%
Southold 20 None 15%
East Hampton 14 None 64%
Shelter Island 17 None None
TABLE 9
Trace Organic Results - 1981
Standard Ob.ervatlon Wells
Total % %
Number Exceeds DeteCted
County Wide 188 4% 22%
Huntington 10 10% 60%
Babylon 15 33% 80%
S mithtown 5 N one 20%
Islip 17 6% 53%
Srookhaven 35 3% 20%
Riverhead 30 3% 3%
Southampton 25 None 4%
Southold 20 None 10%
East Hampton 14 None 21%
Shelter island 17 None None
During 1981 several synthetic organic compounds and pesti-
cides were detected for the first time in Suffolk County's groundwater.
They are:
Ethylbenzene
1,2,4 Trimethylbenzene
1,2 Dichloropropane
1,1 Dichloroethane
1,1 Dichloroethylene
1,3,5 Trimethylbenzene
1,2 Dichloroethane
There are thousands of chemicals in use, and as the capability for
testing becomes more refined, other materials will most likely be
found.
3. Environmental Enforcement
T he need for tough enforcement of pollution controls is grow-
ing. In spite of the national recession, industrial activities in Suffolk
County seem to be growing steadily with many large, new plants
added in 1981. Several of the existing industrial parks are developing
rapidly and a new one was opened in 1981 in the Town of Babylon at
the old Zahn's Airport property. In addition, several towns have
created aggressive development programs, with Brookhaven Town
setting the example.
Enforcement of pollution controls in Suffolk County has
recently improved with theadoption of Article12 of theSuffolk County
Sanitary Code. Local enforcement efforts have resulted in the signing
of 88 SCDHS consent orders by pollution violators. These orders are a
legal and binding agreement to stop the activity or activities causing
the pollution. The number of cases that had to be sent to NYSDEC for
enforcement d topped from 64 in 1980 to just8 in 1981. Enforcement of
SPDES permits by SC[3HS has been strengthened considerably. For
further details see the update on the SCDHS SPDES program under
"GOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES" within this
section.
In addition, through a change in the state conservation law, the
local District Attorney's Office can now enforce state pollution laws
where it was previously barred from doing so. This has resulted in the
formation in the Suffolk County D.A.'s office of a special Environmen-
tal Crimes Unit which is discussed in detail within the "SEQRA AND
OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND ENFORCEMENT" section
of this report.
A third significant event in enforcement involves the creation
by NYSDEC of a Special Investigations U nit with a legal staff and two
conservation officers operating locally but independently of the
Regional Office, primarily for under-cover investigative work.
Lastly, the State Attorney General's Office has become
involved in pollution enforcement; the most important case being that
of Jameco Industries of Wyandanch, which resulted m the filing of
charges against the corporation. At the request of the State Attorney
General's Office, SCDHS' drilling crew was used to fake core samples
of the Jameco property, which resulted in the discovery of substantial
quantities of metal sludge buried in the area where Jameco used to
operate sludge drying beds.
4. Environmental Review Actlvlttas
The workload of environmental permitting and review actions
~s steadily growing, year by year. The major causes seem to be:
· theever-lncreasingpaceofdevelopmentintheeasternpor-
tion of the County (Brookhaven and points east) which
means that more and more activities requtre review.
· the shift by state and county agencies to a more vigorous
enforcement effort is an incentive for more companies and
projects to comply more fully w/th review and permit re-
quirements, creating more paper work.
· the enaction of new review ant~ permit requirements on e
local level(Article 12 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Codel.
as bublic agenctes become more knowledgeable and aware
of the far-reaching environmental effects of many kinds of
activities that in the past had been assumed harmless,
creates a whole new workload.
GOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
Table 10 summarizes relevant Federal, State and County Laws
affecting groundwater, indicating for each the popular name and cit-
ation of the law, the administering agency, the stated purpose of the
act, and its major groundwater related provisions
For updates of the Long Island segments of the Nationwide
Urban Runoff Program (NURP), continuing 208 planning and imple-
mentation, and 201 waste treatment facilities planning programs, see
the "MARINE WATERS" section of this report.
U.S. GeologlcelSurvey (USGS) -- The USGS carries on inde-
pendent studies relating to Long Island's hydrogeology and water
quality. Their more recent activities include:
· Collection of Hydrologic Data: The USGS collects hydro-
logic data resulbng from stream gauging, observation wells,
water level measurements ancl water quality analyses.
· Hydrologic Date Analysis' USGS maintains large data bank
on hydrologic information.
· Hydrogeology of Nassau and Suffolk Counties (2 separate
projects): Separate studies of the stratigrabhy of the major
hydrogeologic units in Nassau as weft as Suffolk Counties
are underway. Summary maps of wa tar levels, public supply,
pumpage, and general chemical quality of groundwater will
be prepared.
9
Name
TABLE 10
Federal Law. Dealing With Groundwater
Admlntslerlng
Agency Primary Purpose
Provisions
Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (Ctean Water
Act) and Amendments,
1971, 1977 (33USC & 1251
et. seq.)
Safe Drinking Water Act,
1974 (42USC & 300 (f))
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, 1976 (42USC
6901-6987 )
Toxic Substances Control
Act, 1976 (15USC
2601-2629)
Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act, 1977 (30
USC 1201-1326)
Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability
Act, 1980 (Super-fund)
NYS Environmental
Conservation Law (Article
27, Art. 37, Art. 71 )
U.S. EPA
U.S. EPA
U.S. EPA
U.S. EPA
U.S. Dept. of Interior
U.S. EPA
NYSDEC
Restore and maintain the chemical.
physical and biological integrity of
the nation's waters. (EPA directed to
prepare or develop comprehensive
programs for preventing, reducing or
eliminating the pollution of navigable
waters and ground waters.)
Assure safe drinking water supplies
(EPA directed to establish drinking
water quality standards, require, as
needed, application of specific water
treatment technologies)
Promote improved solid waste
management and resource recovery.
(EPA directed to regulate the
disposal of municipal and hazardous
industrial wastes}
Safeguard the environment from the
manufacture, use and dispOsal of
toxic substances (EPA directed to
regulate the manufacture, use and
disposal of toxic substances)
Safeguard the environment from the
mining of coal (Interior Dept.
directed to regulate coal mining
operations.
Prevent environmental degradation
from multimedia releases of haZardous
materials and other pollutants.
Maintain reasonable standards of
purity of the waters of the State,
require the use of all known available
and reasonable methods to prevent
and control the pollution of the
State's waters.
11 Mandate to require State
promulgation of groundwater
quality standards.
2) Groundwater planning efforts
under 208 long range water
quality planning.
3) With states, equips and
maintains water quality
su~eillance system for surface
and ground waters
4) NPDES discharge permits.
? ) Underground In~action
Control t UIC) Program regulates
waste injection well discharges
2) Gonzales Amendment
establishes sots-source aquifer
designabons
1) Soli~ wasle management
practices guldehnes include
groundwater protectron
2) Groundwater momtonng
required at hazardous waste
disposal operations.
3) States must consider
groundwater rmpacts in
inventorying soli(~ waste
disposal operations for "O pen
Dump" review.
1 ) Regulatory control of existing
chemicals from manufacture to
disposal.
21 Assess methodologies for
determining fate and transport
of classes of chemicals.
1 ) Provisions [or prevention ot
chemical contamination and
hydrologic disruption of
groundwater.
1) Sets up a Hazardous Waste
Response Fund to pay for
cleanup of releases of hazardous
materials and to respond to
claims for natural resource
damages,
2) Provides for liability of
persons responsible for releases.
1) Directs NYSDEC to group the
state's waters into classes with
pre-set quality standards
2) SPDES permit system
regulates discharges of more
than 1,000 gaFday (state
implementation of EPA's
NPDES)
3) List of substances hazardous
to the environment, regulation of
d~scharge and storage of such
substances.
41 Funding for stu(3y and
construction of sewage
treatment works.
10
TABLE 10 (Cont'd.)
Name
Citation
Admlnlaterlng
Agency
Pdma~y Purpose
Groundwater
Provision
NYS Navigation Law
(Article 12)
a) NY Water Pollution
Control Regulations
(NYCRR V (d), Parts 608,
b) NY Regulations on Oil
Spill Prevention Control
(NYCRR, I, Parts 30-32)
Suffolk County
Environmental Bill of Rights
Suffolk County Sanitary
Code
County Cesspool Cleaner
Ban (Local Law ~12-1980)
NYSDEC
Suffolk County Council on
Environmental Quality
SCDHS
SCDHS Suffolk County
Legislature
Control the use and provide for the
protection of NYS waters, certify
major onshore petroleum facilities,
establish environmental priorities and
procedures for petroleum cleanup
and removal.
Conserve and protect the County's
natural resources, and the quality of
its environmental and natural scenic
beauty, and to encourage the
conservation of its agricultural lands.
Prescribe general health standards
for the County.
Ben the sale of certain cesspool
additives harmful to the County's
groundwater.
1 ) Requires submission of a spill
prevention control and
countermeasure (SPCC) plan by
onshore facilities.
2) Requires immediate initiation
of cleanup procedures following
spills, deployment of cleanup
equipment for the purpose of
environmental protection,
prohibits use of chemicals at
site, sets guidelines for cleanup
and removal of spilled
petroleum.
3) Fixes financial responsibility
for oil spill cleanup and control.
1 ) Report to County Executive
and Legislature on county
developments likely to have an
impact on the quality of the
environment, prepare guidelines
on projects/activities likely to
significantly impact the
environment so that attention
may be focused on them.
2) Review and appraise any
project or activity affecting the
quality of the environment.
1 ) Art. 4 -- standards for
operation of public water
supplies
2) Art. 6 -- requires provision of
water supply and sewage
facilities in new subdivisions.
3) Art. 12 -- regulates storage
and handhng of toxic and
hazardous materials.
Directs SCDHS to enforce the
ban by inspecting for and
stopping the sale of banned
cesspool additives.
Long island Regional Aquifer Study: The existing three
dimensional 5-layer Long Island digital model is being ex-
panded to include the Lloyd aquifer as sixth layer. Lloyd
aquifer is being modeled separately by finite difference
methods in 2 dimensions. 2 and 3 dimensional maps are
being constructed.
Long Island Groundwater Models: Several digital models
will be prepared to study various aspects of the Long Island
groundwater system. Regional and local models are
included.
Impact and Mitigation of Sewering~- The project is deter-
mining: a) the present volume of freshwater discharge into
Great Bay from streams and from groundwater, b) the
impact of sewering on total freshwater discharge and on
individual stream flow, c) the effectiveness of stream aug-
mentation by shallow and deep recharge wells. A three
dimensional model of the aquifer-stream system will be
used to determine freshwater discharges.
· The Long Island portion of the Nationwide Urban Runoff
Program (NURP): An ongoing project with the LIRPB to
study urban runoff. The objectives are to determine the
source, type, quan flty and fa te of pollutants m runoff flowing
to stormwater basins, to evaluate changes in runoff ex-
pected to result from different management practices; and
to determine changes in runoff quafity during percolation to
the water table.
· Long Island Water Quality: This ongoing project examines
the natural physical and chemical character of water on
Long Island and the effects of man's activities.
· Aldicarb Pesticides in Suffolk County Groundwater; The
project will define areas in Suffolk County where aldicarb
has been detected in groundwater and will determine the
relationships among aldicarb application, its detection in
groundwater and patterns of groundwater flow and natural
recharge.
11
· NYSDEC's Long Island Groundwater Management Pro-
gram: USGSisacontractorunderthegroundwaterproject.
Their focus is on development of groundwater quafity/
quantity guidelines and methodologies to assess problems.
· Nassau County Recharge: A prolect to acquire and inter-
pret information on the operation of a system of recharge
basins and shallow injection wells in central Nassau County,
and the impact of large scale artificial recharge wdh re-
claimed water on the Long Island groundwater system.
· Recharge of Tertiary TreatedSewage(Medfordl: The pur-
pose of the project is to evaluate treatment capability of
unsaturated zone under conditions of Iow-rate recharge.
Wastewater effluent is being pumped into a basra and
sampling of unsaturated zone is being conducted. The
study is a continuation of earlier projects.
2. State Programs
New York State Deparfment of Environmental Cor~e~ffon
(NYSDEC) -- As part of continuing 208 planning. NYSDEC is carrying
out a Long Island groundwater management study. The purpose of the
Long Island Groundwater Management Project, begun in May, 1980 is
to develop and implement a program to manage the Island's ground-
water resources in order to assure a sufficient supply of water of
suitable quality to meet water supply demands and to protect ground*
water-dependent ecosystems. The project, although technically-
based, is aimed at the management of the groundwater resource by
the organizations and institutions involved in groundwater protection
and water supply,
The New York State Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion is administering the project with the assistance and advice of a
Long Island Groundwater Coordinating Committee formed for that
purpose. The draft final program plan is scheduled to be completed m
May 1982. Background portions of the plan have been produced deal-
ing with the nature and extent of the groundwater resource, the
groundwater and water supply problems and their causes, and a des-
cription and evaluation of the existing groundwater management
program.
1981 work has concentrated on the identification of priority
groundwater problems and their causes, and the key programs which
deal with them. Workshops were held in December 1981 with opera-
tional personnel involved in the key program areas of resource
management; pesticides and fertilizers; municipal solid waste; on-lot
systems; consumer product, and scavenger waste; sewage treatment
plants; industrial waste; toxic and hazardous materials; and water
supply. Management needs have been identified and, following further
review, will form the basis for development of alternative solutions.
Other approved projects to start soon: Consumer Products
Study; Spills and Leaks of Hazardous Materials; Fertilizers/Pesticides
Program. Funding for the programs is provided by the U.S. EPA.
NYSDEC contracts with agencies and consultants to perform much of
the technical work.
STATE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
(SPDES) -- NYSDEC requires and issues permits for all discharges of
pollutants into surface or groundwaters of the State. Permits specify
effluent limitations and standards, compliance schedules and re-
quired monitoring. Industrial, commercial, municipal and septic dis-
charges are covered.
WA TER SUPPLY -- NYSDEC requires all well drillers in Nas-
sau, Suffolk, Queens and Kings Counties to register with DEC and
submit reports before and after drilling. Wells with pumping capacity
greater than 45 gallons per minute must be approved by DEC.
SEPTIC TANK CLEANER AND INDUSTRIAL WASTE COL-
LECTOR REGISTRATION -- NYSDEC requires and issues permits
annually to all scavenger waste haulers. Annual reports must also be
submitted to DEC. Haulers of domestic, marina, commercial and
industrial process wastes must comply.
PESTICIDE CONTROL -- NYSDEC regulates the registration,
commercial use. purchase and application of pesticides. All pesticides
must be registered annually. For "restricted use' pesticides com-
mercial permits are required for sale, and purchase permits are re
quired for purchase; applicator certihcates are also required for
commercial applicators who must register with DEC.
New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH)
PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY -- NYSDOH promulgates and
enforces standards for the planning, design, operation, surveillance
and protection of public drinking water systems. The Department
certifies or issues permits /oF all new water supply projects (coun-
ties): all new water sources or new service areas (counties); apl inter-
state carrier public water systems; distributors of bottJed wate~ users
of pesticides in aquatic environments; all operators of community
water systems (counties). Watershed rules and regulations may be
promulgated jointly by the Department of Health and municipalities to
protect water supplies. Waivers of chlorination requirements are
issued by county offices. All community water supply systems are
inspected annually by county departments.
GROUNDWATER PROTECTION -- Under U.S. EPA's Under-
ground Injection Control (UIC) program, NYSDOH's present actiwty
is the assessment of surface impoundments. NYSDOH also handles
water supply emergency situations. The department is stuoying sur-
face impoundments used to treat, store and dispose of liquid waste.
The UlC program will evaluate the effects of shallow well disposal on
groundwater.
3. County Programl
a. Suffolk County Depertrt~tt of Health Services (SCDHS)
A-95 AREA WIDE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW -- Apphcations
for projects requiring federal financing are distributed to interested
public and private agencies for review. They are revlewect for rele-
vancy to existing land use planning and to their effect on the hydro-
geologic zones as identified in the Long island 208 Waste Quality
Management Plan. Long Island has been designated as a sole source
aquifer region by EPA. Pertinent project applications being reviewed
under the A-95 regulations were given a concurrent sole source
aquifer review until 1982 when personnel cuts at EPA in Region
made such a review unpractical
201 FACILITIES PLANNING -- The County is responsible for
review functions related to 201 Step 1 Faci~ibes Planning. Studies are
being conducted by municipalities in the County. SCDHS provides
review and comment on wasteload allocations for facilities and water
quality standards and criteria.
PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
INSPECTION AND MONITORING PROGRAM -- The major program
emphasis is on the periodic sampling and inspection of public water
supply systems for water quality; periodic inspections of community
and non-community public water supply facilities for regulatory com-
pliance; investigation of consumer complaints; review of plans for new
facilities; evaluation of requests for waivers from mandatory disinfec-
tion requirements: and. review of proposed legislation
During 1981, the Drinking Water Supply section continued
routine monitoring of the chemical and bacteriological quality of the
public water supplies within Suffolk. Over 4,000 water samples were
anaiyzed from public water supplies.
The sampling and analyses of public water suppty wells for
synthetic organic compounds continued to be one of the most
portent of the Unit's water quality surveillance programs. Over 700
organic analyses were performed on samples from community water
supplies in 1981. The number of organic compounds routinely ana-
lyzed by the public health laboratory have increased to approximately
40 parameters.
PRIVATE WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM -- A continuing sur-
veillance program ensures safe drinking supplies. Efforts concentrate
on fulfilling requests for sample analysis and performing special sur-
veys in areas with potential problems.
During 1981. more thanS,000 water samples from private wells
were analyzed for a greatly increased number of chemical constitu-
12
ants. Over 4,000 of the samples were analyzed for synthetic organics
and hydrocarbon compounds.
DATA PROCESSING -- The data processing program for
groundwater related activities is part of the Environmental Data Sys-
tems Services U nit. Approximately 30.000 analyses are stored on Sys-
tem 2000 relating to test wells, private wells and municipal wells. Some
data from 1972, others from 1979.
In 1981, the Data Base Management System was made more
accessible with the installation of a word processor/terminal at the
Unit's office. This direct access to the UNIVAC computer at SUNY,
Stony Brook, has been extremely beneficial in processing the vast
amounts of water quality data. In 1981, historical water quality data
from private well sources dating back to 1972 were input into the
system. The information in the data base has resulted in the ability to
quickly access data and prepare statistical information which has
been useful in delineating problem areas.
COMPREHENSIVE WATER SUPPLY AND WATER RESOURC-
ES PROGRAM -- SCDHS participates in comprehensive water stud-
ies and manag_ement of water resource studies in Suffolk County.
The major emphases of program-specific studies are the South Fork
Study (comprehensive water resources study of East Hampton and
eastern Southampton); the FlowAugmentation NeedsStudy(FANS),
an evaluation of the impacts of sewering on southwest Suffolk County;
the NYSDEC Long Island Groundwater/Water Supply Study.
GROUNDWATER MONITORING AND WELL DRILLING --
SCDHS monitors all factors and parameters influencing groundwater
resources of Suffolk County. Areas monitored include steams, lakes,
groundwater and meteorological sites. Information gathered includes
water quality, water levels, flow, geologic, rainfall, humidity, tempera-
ture, evapotranspiration and runoff. In 1981,168 wells were d tilled for
a total of 12,450 feet, an increase of more than 1,000 feet over 1980.
Article 12 Implementation -- See the "HAZARDOUS MA TER-
IALS MANAGEMENT" section of this report.
The STATE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYS-
TEM (SPDES) requires a permit for point source discharge of 1,000
gallons or more per day of sanitary waste to ground or surface waters
and for discharge of industrial waste regardless of quantity involved.
The permits are renewable every five years.
Enforcement of SPDES has been strengther~ed due to agree-
ments made with NYSDEC which allows for local enforcement for
certain classes of violations. Monitoring requirements have been
stepped up considerably and implementation of a new data base of
information on Suffolk County industry is expected to step up activi-
ties aimed toward industrial compliance due to the quicker availability
of data.
In 1981,153 new permits were issued bySCDHS, and 142 were
renewed, for a total of 295 permits processed by the department.
SCDHS reviews and comments on all SPDES permit applications and
has input into the promulgation of standards.
SPECIAL STUDIES -- SCDHS conducts special studies to
investigate ground and surface water pollution. Some are ongoing,
some respond to particular problems. Several are funded by external
sources. Present studies include leachate plume delineation at land-
fills, a long term project to monitor landfills, and e water budget
verification study. The major emphasis at present is investigation and
monitoring for aldicarb on the East End.
SPECIAL WASTE-WATER STUDIES -- SCDHS conducts re-
search and development on wastewater treatment technologies to
evaluate new processes and keep abreast of new developments.
NEW CONSTRUCTION REVIEW AND INSPECTION PRO-
GRAM -- SCDHS is responsible for developing, revising and issuing
guidelines governing construction of private water supply and sewage
disposal facilities. Plans for all new facilites are reviewed and approved
in accordance with standards. Field inspections are made of all
systems.
REALTY SUBDIVISION REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION
PROGRAM -- SCDHS approves applications for new realty subdivi-
sions within the County. Field evaluations are made of soil and water
conditions which serve as the basis for design of water supply and
sewage facilities,
SCDHS Enforcement of Article 12, SPDES PERMITS AND
THE COUNTY CESSPOOL CLEANER BAN -- The County can either
initiate action or refer cases to NYSDEC. Informal meetings are first
held to attain voluntary compliance and other legal actions are taken if
compliance is not attained. County enforcement of the cesspool law
includes fines or civil penalties. Between two and four inspections per
year are made to determine compliance with SPDES and Article 12,
citizen complaints are investigated, and surveys of retail stores are
conducted.
CESSPOOL ADDITIVE CONTROL PROGRAM -- The combi-
nation of state and county laws banning the use of cesspool additives
has successfully eliminated all organic cesspool treatment products
from the market shelves in Suffolk County. N o violators of the ban have
been found. Seventy different products have been reviewed since the
law went into effect with 54 gaining approval as being either inorganic,
bacterial or enzymatic in nature and, therefore, outside the definition
of products banned by the law.
O ne product, Drainz, has been reformulated to circumvent the
state law and can, therefore, be sold in Nassau County but it is still
considered banned under Suffolk County ~aw.
Products Reviewed:
1880 1981 Total
Cesspool Additive Products Reviewed 50 20 70
Cesspool Additive Products Approved 39 15 54
Capital Budget Projects:
· CapitalProject4012--NitrogenRernovalinaModifiedSub-
surface Sewage Disposal System
Designs for a series of alternate subsurface disposal
facilities were completed during 1981 and a contract was
executed with the owners of theSetauket Knolls apartment
complex to construct the experimental facility. A contract to
handle the general construction, supervision, testing and
analysis was executed during 1981.
Construction on the various systems will begin m the
Spring of 1982. Data on the cost for installation of each
system and the effectiveness of nitrogen removal will also
be collected. The project is expected to continue for a
period of 5 years.
· CapitalProject8120--Research and Experimentation in
the Use of Recharge Systems tn
Sewage Disposal (College Park De-
nitrification project)
A pilot facility was installed at the College Park treatment
plant and operation was begun on July 6, 1981. Since the
start of the operation, separate influent and effluent samples
at the pilot unit have been analyzed two or three times per
week. During the first six months of operation, problems
have occurred in maintaining a uniform water flow through
the facility. A new pump has been ordered to correct this
problem. Although the pilot facility has been successful in
removing nitrogen, its effectiveness has steadily decreased.
Data gathering will continue after completion of installation
of a new pump.
Testing of the facility will be completed and design of
Phase 3 will begin. Phase 3 includes installation of a passive
nitrogen removal system at the recharge bed to evaluate the
feasibility of retrofitting existing recharge beds for nitrifica-
tion. Operational data will be gathered to determine nitrogen
removal efficiency.
13
Long lala nd R eglonni Plenning Beerd( L I R P B ) and the Suff olk
County Planning Del~Hmeni (SCPD)
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING -- LIRPB has adopted a com-
prehensive development plan (CDP) for the region. It includes 208.
coastal zone management, transportation, open space and other ele-
ments. 0 ngoing activities include technical assistance with respect to
site development and ElS preparation, development of performance
standards and best management practices geared to water quality.
The CDP includes an assessment of land capability, based, among
other things, on groundwater considerations. Performance standards
are recommended, and portions of hydrogeologic zones I and III are
now being mapped as part of 208 plan implementation. LIRPB/SCPD
develops plans for county acquisition of land, based on environmental
characteristics.
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT -- The LIRPB has been
charged with execution of the implementation portion of the 208 plan.
It coordinates the Long Island segment of the Nationwide Urban
Runoff Program (NURP), which includes sampling and demonstration
projects. In addition, it reviews capital budget projects for conform-
ance with the 208 plan. Water quality staff sit on the Suffoik County
Water Management Committee. Technical assistance is emphasized.
LIRPB is developing a Nonpolnt Source Handbook for towns' water
pollution abatement efforts and research to support planning ( popula-
tion and land use).
A-g6 SOLE-SOURCE AQUIFER REVIEW -- On behalf of the
U.S. EPA, the LIRPB performs preliminary reviews of federally funded
projects that could potentially contaminate the sole source aquifer.
EPA has the authority to make the final determination. Table 11 su m-
marizes 1981's review activities.
Council on EnvlronmenMl Qualify
The CEQ shares staff with the Suffolk County Planning
Department and LIRPB, yet is autonomous. It was created under
Suffolk County Charter. It provides assistance to county government
in assessing the environmental implications of county policies and
projects; prepares guidelines on activities that have significant impact
on the environment. (See SEORA section of report for further details.)
TABLE 11
1981 AM 8els-Sautes Aquifer (SifA) Revlem-
(Quarterly Dlstifbutlon of Re,law. and pre~ect funding).
19~1 A-95 Sole-Source Reviews
# of # of SSA
Applications Reviews Required
QI: 27 4
Q2: 26 5
Q3: 28 5
Total~ 97 15
1981 Total Project Funding, By Quarter
QI: ......................... 59A08,781
Q2: ........................ $171,895,168
Q4: ........................ $ 160.430
TOTAL: .................... $341.647.396
EXTENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF 1981 RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Wnier Supply
a. A county-wide groundwater management strategy was sub-
mitted to the Suffolk County Executive's Office, the Legislature and
the Health Committee of the Legislature.
b. AS indicated earlier, public water main extension was carried
out in several areas of Suffolk County with federal grants paying for
some of these extensions. However, recent federal program cuts have
all but eliminated funds used for this work
c. There was no assignment of agency responsibility with re-
spect to special improvement districts.
d. Progress has been made on a water supply emergency
response program. During 1981 a report was written bySCDHS evalu-
ating and indicating those water supplies considered marginal in S
folk County. A questionnaire was.also prepared and sent to all water
suppliers requesting that they present information on their emergency
response capability (availability of standby power, standby chlorina-
tion, interconnections, etc.). When the results of the questionnaires
have been analyzed, SCDHS will then address those water supplies
that lack proper emergency response facilities.
e. The 208 TAC has reviewed and continues to review major
water problems in both counties.
f. Comprehensive Pine Barrens planning continued under the
leadership of the Long Island Regional Planning Board (LIRPB).
g. Studies of water supply alternatives for the North and South
Forks were initiated in 1981
h and I. No action has been taken to allow the Suffolk County
Water Authority (SCWA) first rights of refusal on surplus county lands.
SCWA has petitioned the New York State Legislature for permission to
install public water facilities in parklands.
J. T he SCDHS does have t he facilities and technical capability to
provide assistance to the Department of Consu mar Affairs in evaluat-
ing water treatment equipment. No requests were made by the Depart-
ment of Consumer Affairs in 1981.
2. Hazardous end Toxic Chemical.
See the "HAZARDOUS MATERIALS" section of this report.
3. Agricultural Chemicals
a. During 1981, SCDHS initiated a screening program for pesti-
cides in county groundw&ters. Representative sites have been ana-
lyzed for approximately 40 pesticide compounds. Initial results
indicate a need for more intensive pesticide screening for many more
agricultural, commercial applicator and homeowner-used pesticides.
b. T he County Cooperative Extension Service (CES), in conjunc-
tion with the Department of Agricultural Engineering at Cornefl Uni-
versity, is presently working to develop a screening program for
pesticides proposed for use in the County. Computer models will be
used to simulate leaching rates and groundwater transport in order to
effectively assess the potential impact of proposed chemicals.
8. The assessment of runoff ~mpacts and control measures is
continuing under the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP).
b. The Long Island Regional Planning Board (LIRPB) applied for
Federal Clean Lakes Funding for Lake Ronkonkoma. The application
has not been acted upon by either theState(NYSDEC) or EPA. See the
"SURFACE WATERS" section of this report for further information.
c. Deicing salt applications of town and county highway depart-
ments are being assessed as part of the LIRPB's Nonl~lnt Source
Ha~lboek, being developed under the 208 Planlmplementation grant.
5. Permits, Enforcement and Laboratory Services
a. Design of an industrial data base system was begun in lg81.
The purpose of the system is to coordinate data so that all industry-
related information is available. The system is expected to be imple-
mented in 1982. Use of the system will be a major step forward and
increase the Health Department's monitoring efficiency, since et pres-
ent, the data is stored in several different locations, The new system
will include information relevant to industrial SPDES permits, solid
waste permits, air pollution permits and hazardous material storage
14
permits. When fully implemented, the system will also include data on
industries which at present require no specific permits. T his will be an
aid in monitoring the changes in the use of industrial plants. The
system will also facilitate the cross-checking of hazardous chemicals
stored and used with those covered by the various permit systems.
b and c, As was mentioned previously, 1) the formation by NYS-
DEC of a Special Investigations U nit, 2 ) the involvement of the County
and State District Attorneys in enforcement of the State Environmental
Conservation Law, 3) the initiation of county enforcement efforts
under Article 12 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, and 4) SCDHS
improvements in the handling of SPDES permit violations have all
contributed to ~mproved pollution control. For further information, see
the environmental enforcement section in the "TRENDS" section of
this report and the SCDHS SPDES program update in the "GOVERN-
MENTAL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES" section.
d, SCDHS' laboratory has increased the efficiency of its environ-
mental sampling unit with the purchase of new, automated sampling
equipment. T his has greatly improved the turnaround time for environ-
mental samples and decreased the need to contract with outside
laboratories 1981 statistics from SCDHS' Groundwater Resources
section shows that increased ~aboratory capacity for handling trace
organics samples virtually doubled the section's monitoring output.
6. SCDHS Reorganization
The end of 1981 marks the completion of the first year of
reorganization of SCDHS' D~vision of Environrnental Health, following
a recommendation from the 1980 Annual Environmental Report. The
extensive reorganization of the Division, which occurred in January,
1980 has been highly successful due to the cooperation of all involved
and a desire to see the new system work.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Water Supply & Aquifer Protection
· Adopt a formal, comprehensive, county-wide groundwater
management strategy that includes both water supply
management end aquifer protection components. The
Suffolk County Water Management Committee should be
responsible for overseeing the objectives and programs of
the strategy.
· Continue to assist the towns in the development of plans for
the phased extension of pubfic water. Explore alternate
sources of funding to assist in paying for extensions and
hookups in Iow-income areas. Continue to make every effort
to extend public water to all communities within the County
where private well contamination has been detected.
· Amend the Suffolk County Charter to allow the County the
option to establish special improvement districts for water
· Undertake a capital project, to be carried outbySCDHS as
part of the 1983 capital budget, that would produce a
county-w;de water supply plan and evaluation s;m~lar to the
work now being done for the North and South Forks.
· Continue to develop an emergency response program to
provide water (on an interim basis) to areas w;th ground-
water contain/nsf/on. This contingency planning should
include an inventory of available equipment, equipment
· Encourage the Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA) to
carry out its mandate of consolidation and takeover of
private water supplies, particularly margmafiy operated
Deputy County Executive, the D;rector of the County Plan-
ning Department and the Chief Engineer of the SCDHS
Diwsion of Environmental Health and direct it to meet with
the SCWA to discuss the problem of deteriorating water
suppfles and review SCWA's regulations with respect to
· Give the Suffolk County Water Authority the right of first
that potential weft field sites are not lost.
· ModifyrelevantStatelawstoallowtheSuffolkCountyWater
Authority access to State, County and town parklands for
the purpose of establishing weft t/aids.
· Continue comprehensive planning for the Pine Barrens
under the leadership of the LIRPB to assure protection of
groundwater resources.
· Continue to utdize the Technical Advisory Committee Of
the Long Island Regional Planning Board es a forum for the
review and coordination of actions on water problems
common to both counties.
· Direct the Department of Consumer Affairs, in con/unction
w~th the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, to
evaluate the effectiveness( and dangers) of household water
treatment equipment, and make this information available
to the pubfic.
2. Sformwater Runoff and Other Research
· The County should continue to participate in and support
water quafity research and monitoring efforts, including on-
going 208 planning, the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program
( NURP ), Pine Barrens planning, continuing U.S. Geological
Survey~SCDHS cooperative efforts. Town water quality
modeling and studies, e lc., and continue to carry out its own
3. Agricultural Chemicals
· initiate a comprehensive assessment of past agricultural
usage to identify existing and potential groundwater prob-
lems. The program should include:
-- a survey of past use (locations and rates)
-- a review of laboratory data on these chemicals (from
EPA )
-- screening of groundwater samples for those chemxcals
[ and their breakdown products) that have the potential
to leach to groundwatec
4. Permits, Enforcement end Laboratory Services
· Increased efficiency in the County's SCDHS laboratory has
improved the turnaround time and capacity for environ-
mental samples, but there is continued difficulty m dealing
with the "dirty" samples. SCDHS should investigate the
feasibility of using outside laboratory capabilities to screen
these samples. If outside laboratory capabifities are needed,
monies should be allocated for the purchase of such
· Develop SCDHS' System 2000 data base into a Suffolk
County computer data base of SPDES, Article XII, and other
permit data to improve the effectiveness of the SPDES pro-
gram ( by fa c/fits ting the cross-checking of ch emlcals stored
and used with those covered by discharge or hold-and-
haul permds l.
· SCDHS' entire enforcement effort, which consists primarily
of the preparation of documents, etc., necessary for the
prosecution of pollution violations, is presently being
handled by one sanitarian who ts attending law school. This
special combination of legal and environmental expertise is
essential for the continued success ofSCDHS' enforcement
activities. A para-legal from the County Attorney's Office
will be assigned to work full-time with SCDHS. If this
arrangement is not satisfactory, then the County should
the Diwston of Environmental Health and one that requires
legal skills, to assure effective prosecution of enforcement
In any case, the County should establish a formal mechan-
ism of coordination between the Division of Environmental
Health Services and the Environmental Enforcement Unit
of the D~strict Attorney's office, the state D~strict Attorney's
Environmental Prosecution Bureau, and NYSDEC's Special
Investigations Unit and Prosecuting Attorney.
15
SURFACE WATERS
INTRODUCTION
1. General Surface Water Characteristics
Fresh surface waters include intermittent streams, rivers, nat-
ural takes such as Lake Ronkonkoma, natural ponds, and artificially
created ponds and lakes.
Suffolk rivers and streams in undeveloped areas are normally
shallow, have a Iow gradient, and represent groundwater level during
dry periods. Intermittent streams have a higher gradient and are
created by overland flow of stormwater during storms. Streamflow in
developed areas are heavily influenced by development-induced
stormwater, oveHand runoff, and subsurface stormwater collection
systems. Streams are generally edged with a narrow hand of wetlands
and include larger areas of freshwater and tidal wetlands.
Ponds, lakes, and freshwater marshes in Suffolk County result
from (1) depressions in glacial topography or (2) are man-made,
Hydrologic differences categorize three types of ponds: (1) ground-
water ponds, where the water level is the grOundwater level; (2}
perched ponds, in which the sou rca of water is from stormwater runoff
and subsurface flow (natural and man-made systems); and (3)
~mpoundment ponds which are fed by upland stream flow, stormwater
runoff, subsurface flow. and groundwater.
Freshwater streemflow in Suffolk County consists of water
from direct precipitation, surface-storrnwater runoff, subsurface flow
and groundwater. Long Island streams during baseflow conditions are
fed by groundwater. T he water quality of the streams depend upon nu-
merous factors, such as size, percentage, type and location of devel-
opment within the watershed or drainage basin. The type and
concentrahon of pollutants in stormwater runoff is directly related to
land use patterns, activities and densities. The direct discharge of
liquids or solids *nto streams, the removal of stream bank vegetation
and the ~oss of freshwater wetlands are among the activities that result
m lowered water quality and reduced stream biota. These effects are
d~scussed in more detail under "Description of Problems and Problem
Areas" w~thin this sechon.
2. Monitoring
T he information on streams in Suffolk County varies greatly by
stream. Streams located within the boundaries of the Southwest
Sewer Distr~ct are being studied extensively in the FlowA ugrnentation
Needs Study (FANS). Other streams in Suffolk have been monitored
by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the Suffolk County
Department of Health Serwce$ (SCDHS). Extensive information has
been gathered on the Peconic and other major rivers in the County.
L~ttle or no information is available on either physical or biological
propertres of most smaller streams.
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEMS AND PROBLEM AREAS
1. Existing Conditions-- General
T he most s~gnificant stresses on freshwater bodies result from
the changes in rate, flow, and quality of freshwater reaching the sys-
tem. These changes are caused by the alteration of surface and sub-
surface hydrology.
The increase in stormwater runoff attributable to the increase
of impermeable surfaces from development may alter the continuous
recharge of streams by the aquifer. It also can increase the Sediment
load that results in the further erioslon of stream banks and loss of
vegetation along the stream corridor. Stream temperatures can also
increase. Increased turbidity from higher streamflow and motorboat
activity along with higher temperatures create a stressful environment
for resident aquatic species, especially in stag nant ponds or lakes with
minimal outflow. Where direct dumping of wastes or infilling of
streambeds is still occurring, major impacts upon these streams and
associated biota are evident.
S~nce many Long Island surface water systems are ground-
water dependent and are extremely sensitive to changes in the level of
the water table, a decline in the level of the water table is reflected m 1 )
reduced streamflow, 2) reduced outflow from lakes and ponds, and 3)
changes in vegetation, including the loss of wetlands. Ponds, lakes,
and streams that do not exhibit a significant flow are especially sensi-
tive to the introduction of pollutants, particularly nutrients and coli-
form bacteria. Many ponds and lakes in developed areas are already
characterized by high coliform counts due to increased surface runoff
subsurface how containing cesspool wastes, and waterfow~ wastes.
The elfects of waste disposal on freshwater Oodles may
include the eutrophication of susceptible ponds from non-point pollu-
tion sources. Potential increases in nutrient concentrations in streams
can be minimized by the presence of bordering marsh vegetation
which effectively reduces pollutant loadings, and by collection and
treatment of sewage, with bay or ocean discharge of the treated
effluent.
Ponds and streams that support d~versa or u tuque wildlife I~ave
been d~minishing end their retention should be an important consider-
ation in the evaluation of proposals for upland development. The use
of buffer zones can also aid in the protection of natural waterways from
biochemical and thermal degradation by encroaching development.
AS described elsewhere, the illegal dumping of various wastes,
debris, construcbon material, vegetation cuttings, discarded automo-
biles, and oil and gas spills result in extenawe environmental damage
to surface waters throughout the county. This situation is especially
prevalent in h~gh density areas and where the collection of garbage
and other materials is not a function of the local municipality
Other environmental impacts on surface waters include those
impacts that effect freshwater wetlands. Many are similar and closely
related to each other. These impacts are d~scussed in the "FRESH-
WATER WETLANDS" section of this report
2. Recent Events
In late J uno of 1981 there were 14 reported fish-kills in au rface
waters on Long Island since the winter thaws. Normally, about four or
five spring kills are reported. Although most events involved fewer
than 100 fish and were considered small natural kills, others were
considered as a direct result pt pollution originating from stormwater
runoff.
At Agawam Lake in Southampton, an estimated 225,000 to
350,000 fish d~ed in the worst fish-kill reported on Long Island. A
profile of the lake is indicative of many lakes and ponds in Suffolk. T he
lake is very shallow with no outlet for it to empty and stormwater gows
directly into it. Sediments are also carried into the lake by runofl in
addition to such materials as peshcides, fertilizers and other nutrients
which can produce algal blooms. Decomposition of the algae can then
create a high biological oxygen demand which removes oxygen from
t~e lake. Fish-Sills along with the mortality of many other oxygen-
demanding organisms can resug. Higher temperatures also play a role
in the eutrophication process of lakes such as this
A few weeks later, a second fish-kill was reported a couple of
redes east at Old Town Pond. it was estimated that2,0g0 fish died. T he
size of this pond was comparatively smaller than Agwam Lake.
Although these anaerobic (no oxygen) conditions do not
remain, the events are significant and point to the many additional
burdens that increased development, its re~ated increases in polluted
stormwater runoff, and nearby cesspool operations can create Future
events of this type will increase especially where more ~ntensive devel-
opment occurs and when harmful toxic substances enter our fresh-
water systems.
TRENDS
Programs which momtor stream quantity are decreasing at all
government levels and data on surface water quality is still not avail-
able. Because of concerns raised over the environmental effects of the
full operation of the Southwest Sewer District. this study area is one of
the Only areas at this time which is actively monitoring streams ir
Su[folk
Conhnu~ng illegal filling and dumping prachces are gradually
16
decreasing the size of many smaller stream channels, stream beds,
and lake and pond surface areas. T he introduction of new insecticides.
herbicides, chemical product wastes, and toxic and hazardous wastes
into Suffolk can result in detrimental impacts upon surface waters m
the future if allowed to enter such systems without any surveillance.
Reported increases in fish-kill incidences last year red,cate the
serious consequences from non-point source pollutants entering sur-
face waters.
With the present lack of enforcement to regulate point source.
futu re cutbacks in federal aid, increasing illegal du roping actiwtles and
the need for a comprehensive stream management ordinance, fresh
surface water quality will continue to deteriorate until changes m these
procedures and conditions are made.
GOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
Level
TABLE 12
Summary of Selected Federal & State Programs
Affecting Surface Waters
Legislation or Program Description
Programs Progress, Problems and Needs
Federal
Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (FWPCA) -- Clean Water Act
1. 208 Implementation
2.314 Clean Lakes
3. 402 National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act
Wild & Scenic Rivers Act
Environmental ProtechonAgency
(EPA)
1. National Urban Runoff Program
(NURP)
As a result of the FWPCA. a w~de range
of programs to ~mprove water quality
and to eliminate untreated d~scharge
were established and are discussed
below:
The 208 Water Quality Management
Plan prepared by the Long Island
Regional Planning Board addresses
those items which are most significant
and urgent on Long Island. The
protection of surface waters by
controlling non-point sources of
pollution wdh legal, instituhonal and
land use techniques is amalor part of
this program.
Under the FWPCA the EPA has the
authority to administer programs and
assist local governments to restore the
quality of publicly-owned land to states
which idenhfy and classify such lakes
and submit procedures, processes and
methods to control sources of pollution
into such lakes.
NPDES establishes criteria and
standards for the imposition of
technology-based treatment
requirements through a permit program
for point pollution discharges.
This Act is to provide technical and
financial assistance for the development
of management plans and facilities for
the recovery of energy and sohd wastes,
its safe d~sposal and regulation of the
management of hazardous wastes.
This Act declares that certain selected
rivers, with their immediate
environments, possess certain
outstanding features that shall be
protected by designahng the initial
components of the system and
prescribing the methods to best
maintain such features.
To determine the source, type, quanhty
and fate of pollutants in stormwater and
to evaluate changes in runoff quality in
response to selected management
practices.
A Non-point Source Handbook is being
prepared by the LIRPB and ~s ~n its
final stages of review and pubhcahon. Its
attention ~s focused on the
implementation of areawide
recommendahons which deal with major
non-point sources of pollution, among
them stormwater runoff, on-lot waste
disposal systems, fertilizer and pesticide
use, deicing prachces, boat pollution,
and animal wastes.
See Part c-3 on Lake Ronkonkoma in
following text.
The NYS SPDES program carries out
the requirements of NPDES (see State
section below}.
See Chapter on Solid Wastes
See State section below and Part b in
following text
See Part c-2 on NURP in following text
17
Level
New York
State
Legislation or Program
TABLE 12 (Conl'd.)
Description
2. Spill Response and Clean-up
3. Flow Augmentation Needs
Study (FANS)
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
State Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (SPDES)
Wild, Scenic and Recreational
Rivers System Act
Stream Protection Act
Program aimed at defining the
state-of-the-art in oi~ spill response and
clean-up procedures. USEPA has
designated Long Island as a study area.
EPA has mandated Suffolk County to
prepare and execute a study to
determine the primary and secondary
environmental effects of sewering in
southwestern Suffolk. The major
purpose of FANS is to determine whether
it ~s necessary to moderate possible
declines in streamflow and lake levels in
the study area in order to counteract
any effects of sewering and to prevent
adverse environmental consequences
As part of this study, the impacts of
predicted reduced streamflow from the
Southwest Sewer District on the salinity
of the Great South Bay are being
studied.
The USGS has had programs to momtor
streamflow in Suffolk County for over 50
years. Approximately 19 continuous
recording stations in Suffolk measure
daily streamflow on the major rivers
within the County. Forty stations
measure partia~ recordings three or four
times a year under baseflow conditions.
SPDES is a State-delegated program
partially administered by the SCDHS
Environmental Services and NYSDEC. It
is essentially a permit system for
discharge to ground and surface waters.
Permits are required for any discharge
of sewage, industrial waste or other
wastes to groundwater or surface
waters. All buildings tllat discharge
more than 1,000 gaVday are covered by
the program. These permits are
renewable every 5 years.
See Part b -- Discussion and Update of
the NYS Wild, Scenic and Recreational
Rivers System Act.
Identdies local permit agencies and
requires a permit for certain designated
disturbance activities (such as
fiIHng,dredging, dumping, etc.)
according to a classification system. The
alphabetical designation to categorize
surface waters indicates the best use for
the surface water and the water quality
standards which are to be maintained.
These standards are based on "best
use" and water-body characteristics,
including the ability of the water to
receive pollutants and the suitability of
the existing and future water uses.
18
See Chapter on Marine Environment and
Coastal Zone Management.
The project ~s divided into three
milestones: Milestone I evaluates the
existing conditions; Milestone II will
determine the effects of sewering
(no-action alternative); and Milestone III
will present, if needed, a plan to alleviate
the problems caused by the lowering of
groundwater table. The results for
Milestone II is discussed in Part c-1 in
the following text.
An annual report is prepared containing
the actual gauge station results for
streamflow for 19 continuous gauge
stabons and numerous minor stream
gauge sites. This year they prepared a
computer simulation ol their results for
use by the SCDHS as part of the FANS
study discussed below.
A major handicap has been the lack of
capital and personnel which has
curtailed monitoring and enforcement of
each permittee's discharge loadings. All
enforcement is handled on a complaint
basis. There has been no major effort to
determine if all those requiring permits
have applied. Loopholes ~n the law. such
as considering junkyards and other
pollutant sources as non-point sources
are not being covered by SPDES. Older
buildings and their SPDES requirements
are hard to detect unless they change
ownership or renovate. In addition,
dlegal dumping is difficult to catch.
because of ~nadequate enforcement
resources.
See Part b -- Discussion and Update of
the NYS Wild, Scenic and Recreational
Rivers System Act in following text.
At this brae this law ~s not being
adequately enforced and the fine tsvied
against a violation is usually not
sufficient as a deterrent. The
classification of NYS surface waters
does not always comply with the
FWPCA and the present system needs
extensive revision. The law exempts
Class C and D streams from requiring a
permit. Since many streams are
~mproperly classified as Class C or D m
Suffolk. this poees a serious problem to
the County's efforts to protect its
surface waters. Many other serious
problems stem from the inadequacy ol
this antiquated law including minimal
consideration of water quality.
surrounding land uses and the value of
these habitats to support local wildlife
and d~verse aquatic biota
LeVel
Leglitatlofl or Program
TABLE 12 (cenrd.)
Description
State Environmental Quality
Review Act (SEQRA)
2. Discussion and Update of the NYS Wild, Scenic and Recreational
Rlver~ System Act
New York State eat abllshed the Wild Scenic and Recreational
Rivers Act (ELL-15-2703) to recognize outstanding natural, scenic,
historic, ecological and recreational values of rivers in the state. It was
declared policy of the state '... that certain selected rivers.., be
preserved in free-flowing condition and that they and their immediate
environs shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present
and future generations." Suffolk County's four major river systems are
currently being presented through screening studies and manage-
ment plans for designation and/or subsequent adoption of their plans
by NYSDEC. Administrative and implementation responsibilities
would then be delegated to both the state and local governments, The
current status of these rivers is described below:
· Carman's River -- Since its designation and subsequent
moratorium, a preliminary dralt management plan has been prepared.
Finalization has been delayed pending a decision on proposed revi-
sions to the Rivers System Act. The management plan presently con-
tains recommendations to acquire some sites, upzone certain
residential areas, and replace non-operable cesspools and install new
homes with nitrogen removing cesspool systems in the study area,
· Connelquot River -- Located entirely within publically
owned lands, this designated recreational river system was also identi-
fied, for the Connetquot River State Park portion, as a park reserve in
1978 by the State Parks Commission. Under this title, restrictions
allowed only 15% of the park preserve acreage to be developed. A draft
management plan for the Connetquot has been prepared but accept-
ance by New York State has not been approved as of this date. The
plan has called for various conservation measures to protect and
enhance the environmental resources of this watershed through
stream management practices and preservation of natural conditions
and native vegetation.
· Nleaequogue River -- The NYSDEC reviewed the screening
study and has requested a few revisions and inclusions into the report.
The C~tizens Advisory Committee of Smithtown was appointed to
make the necessary amendments to the study and prepare a man-
agement plan for the Nissequogue River. The plan will examine var-
ious land use management procedures, set up specific guidelines for
the river's utilization and make recommendations for its proper
management.
· P~Conlc River--The screening study report has been com-
pleted as of this date. Three towns were involved with the study and
their respective sponsors were; The Riverhead Town Conservation
Advisory Council. the Southampton Town Environmental Board, and
the Brookhaven Town Conservation Advisory Council The screening
Modeled after the Federal National
Policy Act (NEPA), the State
Environmental Quality Review Act
(SEQRA) was enacted in New York.
Under SEQRA, any substantial adverse
change in water quality or a substantial
increase in potential for erosion,
flooding or drainage problems is criteria
for a Type I action.
Although the State has required local
governments to implement SEQRA,
there has not been a concerted
education program for municipalities
nor has the State issued funds to aid in
the implementation of the law. As a
result, many municipalities are not fully
educated as to proper procedures and
the SEQRA process is inefficiently
administered. Agencies are not
coordinated and lack of communication
brings about a situation where one
agency doesn't know what another
agency is doing even though they are
both involved in reviewing the same
project. Lack of funds leaves local
municipalities without the wherewithal
to properly implement SEQRA review
which can be a considerable cost in and
of itself. For further d~scussion of local
situation see Part c-5 in the following
text.
study included a general description of the fiver and its natural and
cultural features, including land use, zoning, water quality, plant and
animal life, historic sites, etc. It also identified portions of the river that
met the criteria for possible scenic or recreational river designation by
the state.
3. County Involvement
Flow Augmentation Needa Study (FANS) Update -- (Also
refer to "MARINE ENVIRONMENT AND COASTAL ZONE
MANAGEMENT" section under "GOVERNMENTAL PRO-
GRAMS" for relationship to marine waters).
The 1981 Annual Environmental Report discussed the FANS
Milestone I Reports in detail. During the past year the FANS Milestone
II Reports were completed.
The objective of Milestone II was to present the predicted
environmental and hydrological impacts of the sewering program as
they relate to the 22 streams in the study area and to the salinity of
Great South Bay. The results includec~
· Groundwater Table -- The U.S. Geological Survey's sub-
regional three-dimension groundwater model showed a
maximum water-table drop of 7 feet near the Nassau/Suf-
folk border at the Long Island Expressway; a minimum of O.7
feet in Amityvifle; no change in the northeastern part of the
study area(GreatRiver, Centrallslip);andaO.7-footchange
at Heckscher State Park. The greatest change is nearest the
Nassau/S uffolk County Line. reflecting the additional effect
of the Nassau County sewering program. Changes were
minimal east of the Carll's River.
· Streamflow -- A total flow loss of 34 cfs(22 MGO) was pre-
dictad, with the percentage of rio w loss ranging from 75 per-
centforAmityvilleCreekto<l percent at Connetquot R aver.
· Stream Length -- Four streams showed shortenings of 1,000
feet or more, but in general most streams were predicted to
still have enough water to sustain the wetland and upland
communities. Shortenings will occur trom the northern por-
tion of the streams and extend south.
· Underflow -- A change of only6.7 cfa(4.4 MGD) was noted
for the study area.
· Water Quality -- Due to the great variability of groundwater
quality, both area wide and on site, very little change in
stream quality was predicted.
19
· Eutrophication -- No evidence was shown that increased
residence time will intensify nuisance algal bloom
conditions.
· Salinity -- Maximum increase of one part/thousand in the
open portion of the bay. near shore, quickly dropping to 0.5
ppt at the Nassau/Suffolk border and Coenetquot River on
the east. Some higher increases did occur ~zithin the miata
and the mouths of several creeks.
· Streambed Exfiltration -- A maximum conservative design
exhltration loss. based upon a water table 4-6 feet below the
streambed, of 7.44 x 10-4 cfs per foot of streambed was
observed.
· Recreation -- Impact to recreational areas of only f~ve
· Aesthetics -- This factor appears most sensitive to stream-
flow reduction, as changes in stream and lake geometry
affect local scenic vistas.
· Ecology -- Wetlands show little impact now but wilt gradu-
ally change their vegetation to adapt to any change in
groundwater levels.
· PropertyValue--Smalltonegligtblechangesarepredicted.
as they support and provide aquatic habitats, recreational
· Time -- The straamftow and water table for no-action
results will reach 90 percent of the predicted values five (5)
years after maximum hook-up is achieved ( five years from
start-up of the districtl.
· Ranking -- Streams in the western part of the Southwest
Sewer District receive the most impact. Results for greatest
to least impacted are:
t. Amityville Creek
2. Carll's River
3. Woods Creek
4. Santapogue Creek
5. Neguntatogue Creek
6. Lawrence Creek
7. W iftets Creek
8. Great Neck Creek
9. Sampawams Creek
10. Cascade Lakes
11. Watchogue Creek
12. Strong's Creek
13. Trues Creek
14. Orowoc Creek -- West Branch
tS. Penetequd Creek
16. Connetquot River
17. Champlin Creek
18. Orowoc Creek -- East Branch
19. West Brook
20. Awixa Creek
21. Bkookwams Creek
22. Thompson's Creek
The EPA must now make recommendations to the County on
whether mitigation is needed for streams and/or the bay. If needed,
specific streams are to be recommended by EPA. The county will then
proceed with Milestone III to prepare a mitigation plan.
In the event that no mitigation is required, the project will
terminate. The county will continue to monitor the effects of the
sewering program on the groundwater and streamflow.
Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) -- (Also refer to
"MARINE ENVIRONMENT AND COASTAL ZONE MANAGE-
MENT" section under"GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS" for rela-
tionship to marine waters).
AS an offshoot of the nationwide water polluhon control and
208 planning effort, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is fund-
ing a three-year study of stormwater ru neff on Long Island. T he study
is being coordinated by the Long Island Regional Planning Board;
technical and field work is being carried out by the U.S. Geological
Survey, SCDHS and the Nassau County Health Department.
The purpose of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program is to
determine the source, type, quantity, and fate of pollutants in runoff and
to evaluate changes in runoff quality in response to selected manage-
ment practices. Areas of present and future urban runoff control prob-
lems will be identified based on land use type. density, activity, and
relation to receiving waters. Suggested stormwater runoff control
procedures will be developed and implemented, and the effectiveness
of these various schemes will be evaluated using computer models.
Four surface water sites -- two m Nassau and two in Suffolk --
have been selected for study. The following list indicates the sites, the
receiving waters, and the control measures to be employed:
Site Receiving Water Control Measure
Bayville Village Oyster Bay In-line storage
Unqua Pond South Oyster Bay Pond modification
Carll's River (2 s~tes) Great South Bay Street cleaning
Orowoc Creek Great South Bay Energy d~ssipation
The procedures developed as a regiOnal approach to urban
runoff control will have implementation oriented to various localities
on Long Island and similar areas of the nation with specific instruc-
tions for management, operation, and maintenance of the proposed
systems.
During 1981 to the present, the N URP study looked at a variety
of techniques to minimize pollutant loadings reaching the freshwater
and marine waters of Ihe bi*county area. The researchers looked at
how ponds functioned as retention and detenhon areas for coliform
bacteria. Over a period of time, stormwater inflow and outflow mea-
surements were taken at the various NURP test s~tes Samples were
also taken in the groundwater beneath the recharge basins
It was determined that ponds retain storm flows more effec-
tively during Iow intensity storms as indicated by reduced coliform
counts m samples at the pond outlet. The stormwater entering ponds
from high intensity storms tends to "shorl-clrcult" the system, the
resultant being minimal reduction in total coliform loadings down-
stream. As a result of this problem, the study team is working on
environmentally sound methods to obtain increased storage hme of
stormwater upstream, in the ponds, wetlands and ~owland areas adla-
cent to streams and ponds. In addition to this technique, they are
considering the placement of leaching pools as a method of storm-
water storage and detention, therefore increasing the time it takes for
stormwater to reach the shellflshing habitats. Techniques such as
energy dissipators are used to reduce the velocity. The reduced veloc-
dy allows for sediments to settle along with some of the attached heavy
metals a nd bacteria. I t also allows fo r add itional time fo r th e bacteria to
die off. The coliform bacteria populations significantly decrease after
a 24-hour period.
The study team is recommending the preservation of stream
corridors as open space The preservation of stream corridors is
essential if downstream pollutant loadings are to be minimized. The
stream corridors include dry streambeds, embankments and adjacent
lowland areas.
It ~s generally agrsed that management techmques will vary
depending on whether the area is located north or south of Merrick
Road and Montauk Highway. A site has been selected in Babylon to
study water quality improvements from intensive street cleaning prac-
tices, this year.
Public education is needed so that the public will support and
implement dog waste controls and other measures needed to reduce
coliform counts.
Lake Ronkonkoma
Lake Ronkonkoma ~s a prime recreational resource forSuffolk
County This resource requires a comprehensive program for protec-
ben. Suffolk County has invested in this resource by acquiring lands
for the purpose of protecting the water quality of the lake. Other lands
are being acquired for the above purpose and to provide lake-side
recreation in a heavily populated area. The County is attempting to
design the use of these lands so that environmental impacts u pon the
lake will be minimal. The designs will be consistent with the previous
plan developed for the Lake.
An application has been made by theSuffolk County Planning
Department (Planning Department), assisted by the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services (SCDHS) for federal assistance to
address the problem of the Lake. This assistance ~s being sought
under the authority of Section 314 of the Clean WaterAct(33 USC 1251
et. seq.), which is administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Assistance is requested from USEPA to conduct a
Phase II Study for design-construction and monitoring. The purpose
of this project is to approach and minimize existing and future take
water quality problems and to develop a monitoring program to evalu-
20
ate the effectiveness of the methods designed to restore and protect
Lake Ronkonkoma. This two (2) year project is scheduled to begin in
June of 1982.
The previous data developed does not justify the previous
conclusions that were made regarding the sources of impacts upon
the lake. A monitoring program in accordance with USGS andUSEPA
approved methods is required to effectively evaluate the existing
impacts upon the lake and the functioning of the existing biofiltration
ponds.
Based upon the results of this analysis acom prehensive man-
agement plan will be developed for the Lake to protect the water
quality and the environmental resources of the county-owned lands
surrounding the Lake. Coordination of these activities with future
planning and development of the county-owned park properties sur-
rounding the lake ~s essential.
Suffolk County De/~rtment of Health S ervlces
Eleven streams in the Southwest Sewer District are continuing
to be sampled regularly by the SCDHS. Still, the majority of stream
sampling ~s conducted by the USGS throughout the County.
Again, this year, cutbacks have hampered any additional mon-
itoring of streams by the SCDHS. As in the past, the SCDHS responds
to complaints regarding stream quality and impacts on streams and
take stream samples at these sites.
County laws, such as Article 6 -- RealtySuDdiws~on and Arti-
cle 12 -- Toxic and Hazardous Materials, Storage and Control provide
specific regulations for the protection of groundwater resources. U Iti-
merely, any legislation that protects groundwater also aids in protect-
ing surface waters (since many su trace waters are groundwater fed on
Long Island) To this end, support of groundwater protection regula-
tions ~s also directly important to the protection of many fresh surface
waters. (For further discussion, see the "GROUNDWATER" section.)
SEQRA
listed under SEQRA's Type I Action.
SuffOlk County Conservation Corps
Through the Suffolk County Department of Labor, the Suffolk
County Conservation Corps is involved in various conservation activi-
ties including the clean-up of streambeds and surface waters. They
coordinate their work details with local municipalities in addition to
state and other county conservation needs, to provide an on-going,
areewide clean-up program.
Their work involves stream maintenance through the removal
of debris and the subsequent prevention of entrophic conditions;
recharge basin cleanup of litter and obstructions from culverts of
feed-in pipes; and other litter removal and landscaping activities.
Through the "Keep Suffolk Clean" Program Hotline, county residents
can contact the conservation corps and request litter removal. Due to
recent cutbacks in the CETA program which supports these conserva-
tion efforts, the work force has been substantially red uced. The efforts
of the corps now directs its actions to those areas in greatest need of
restoration improvements.
Surface waters such as freshwater streams, rivers, ponds and
lakes are protected in varying degrees under a number of codes of
laws and ordinances by jurisdictions throughout Suffolk. Emphasis
and degree of protection depend upon local concerns for adequate
drainage, dredging or filling operations, sedimentation, diversions or
obstructions or water flow, flood damage and/or water quality.
Most towns have various types of local legislation which
attempt to protect natural drainage patterns from being diverted or
obstructed through local grading, subdivision, site plan review, flood
control, excavation and soil removal rag ulations. These laws and ordi-
nances are primarily geared toward the protection and physical safety
of their constituents from the effects of Improper drainage, sedimenta-
tion and misdirection of surface water flow especially during bad
storms or flooding events.
Other local regulations pertain to the requirement of permits
for the removal or deposition of materials in waterways, streams or
wetlands. Through marine conservation laws and specific legislation
for streams, water courses and wetlands, alterations to fresh surface
waters are regulated. In those municipalities that have such legisla-
tion, practices which dispoil, pollute or eliminate surface water bodies
are only permitted through review procedures of appointed town con-
servation councils or certain town departments or boards.
Water quality becomes a more important concern when local
laws specific to pollution sources are present and when discharges of
haZardous substances into any waterway are considered unlawful
These substances can be, but are not limited to, such items as oil gas,
organic chemicals and sewage.
Some additional statutes have been enacted to further protect
surface waters. An amendment to the Subdivision of Lanq Law of
Southampton states that all surface waters are deemed important and
shall be protected from siltation, nutrification or degradahon from
development. A special boat ordinance such as the one in Shelter
Island restricts any use of motor boats on roland fresh waters.
All these regulations unfortunately represent a piecemeal
approach to surface water protection. Some munic~pahties have been
comprehensive in their approach where others have minimum provi-
sions to safeguard against unwarranted development or unnecessary
modification of fresh surface waters.
EXTENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF 1981 RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations for the enactment of a CountyStream Pro-
tection Law and implementation of programs to prepare a stream
ratings system, provide stream channel and upland protection, and
monitor streams were not attained. The recommendahon to ~mple-
ment these programs by establishing a capital program to prowde
basic tools and guidelines for presenting proposals was not
implemented.
Requests to the local municipalities to designate all areas
within a t housa n d feet of a freshwater wet la n d o r surface water body as
critical environmental areas (therefore making all activities within this
boundary a Type I Action) were not implemented.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. SuHace Water Protection Zone Ordinance
I n the previous Environmental Report, recommendations were
made to protect the quality and quantity of surface waters. They have
focused on an improved New York State Stream Protection Act and a
County Stream Protection Law. If the valuable resources of the lakes,
ponds and streams in Suffolk County are to be protected, the signifi-
cant and immediate watershed area, including the wetlands and asso-
ciated surface waters must also be protected. It is recommended that a
Surface Water Protection Zone Ordinance be established by local
municipalities to protect surface waters and the adjacent watershed
areas. A major purpose of a Protection Zone Ordinance is to protect
the surface waters from the im pact resulting from upland development
activities. An additional advantage of a Protection Zone Ordinance is
that it can protect development from the high water table and flooding
hazards associated with stream corridors, and areas surrounding
lakes and ponds. Another important consideration ~s that if the
upstream areas are protected then the impact upon the downstrean~
shellfish areas can be minimized
T he main objectives of a Surface Water Protection Ordinance
would be accomplished either through the adoption of a comprehen-
sive ordinance or amendments to existing regulations that would
produce protection for all criteria outlined below The towns should
evaluate their existing Stream or Surface Waters Protection Laws to
see that all surface waters and associated systems are included and
that the appropriate environmental items listed below, such as vegeta-
tion and hydrologic management, are included within.
21
The following general criteria and gu~dehnes are presented
below to identify those items that should be included in the Protection
Zone Ordinance.
A Protection Zone Ordinance:
· should Pe responsive to the watershed characteristics to
which the regulations are to be appbed.
· must be feasible to tmplemenL
· must De economically compatible to the resources.
· should include performance standards where possible so
that the impacts can be controlled while allowing mnovahve
techniques for development.
· should include the protection of surface waters in urban or
developed areas in addition to developing or undeveloped
areas
· should include definitions for the type of surface waters
(streams, ponds or lakesl to be protected.
· should specify which uses and act/vihes will be allowed or
disallowed w~thin the protected area.
· should provide for per/odlc rewew of fha Ordinance.
· should require tl~at fines De levied and enforced against
offenders of the /aw.
Management Guidelines General management guidelines
should be prepared for the Protection Zone by the town departments
of environmental prolection. T hose guidehnes should be d~st ributed to
those indwiduals who are seeking a site development permit or a
building permit within the zone Several ~mportant considerahons are'
· Measurestoassuretheprotechonandbufferingcapacityof
the natural vegetation.
· Natural hydrologic considerations will remain. ( Th~s
includes stormwater runoff, channel size channel depth
and stream afignment).
· Accelerated erosion and sediment wig be prevented
· Ali dumping or dredging achwhes, except those in accor-
dance with a management p/an. will not be allowed.
Protection Zone Boundary Description -- The towns should
identify those areas within the town that should be included within the
Protection Zone Maps of the Protection Zone, along with theOrdr-
nance, should be distributed to the permitting agencies within the
town. The following dams should be included in the boundary
description'
· The protected area of the stream, pond or lake should vary
with the existing hydrologic characteristics including the
100-year flood plum boundary and the length and slopes of
adjacent land areas and variations in vegetation cover. The
edge of the water body from which the protection zone
width ts measured should be defined( protection zones usu-
ally vary from 25 to 300 feet),
· Theseprotechonzoneboundarmsshouldbedefinedinthe
law, ordinance or regulation.
· Specifications for the type of vegetation that can be thinned
w~thin the zone should be identified.
Wetland -- Sample Erosion Control Ordinance ~n tPe
Hydrologic Management -- The following hydrological con-
trois are important specifications that should also be incorporated into
the ordinance:
· The d~rect discharge of stormwater ~nto surface waters
· The velocity of stormwater entering natural wetlands and
surface waters and streams should be minimized by energy
· Stormwater leaving the development s~te should not be
allowed to exceed stormwater runoff during nafgral condi-
hons( before s~te developmentl.
· NO alteration of the stream channel geometry should be
permitted. This includes no dumping or dredging within the
protected zone boundary except that as identified m the
Protected Zone Management Plan
Administration end Enforcement Responelblfitle~ -- Feasible
regulations are a necessary element for adequate protection of sur-
face waters. The following items shoud be included m the administra-
tive responsibilities of the ordinance:
· Responsibility for adrnin~stration and enforcement should
be specified ~n the law or ordl/lance
· Responsibility for admin~strahon and enforcement should
be vested in one agency.
· Provide foradequate funding andpersonnelforadmlnistra-
tion and enforcemen[
nance of the zone and abatement of disturbance within the
zone Provision for bonding, penalties, taxing, or other
mechanisms to restore hydrologic conditions should be
· A mechanisn~ should be prov/ded to up*date the /aw or
ordinance.
should be considered to protect the zone from future
impacts after the initial development phase is completed.
OeacHption of Pollutants, AIIoweble Level. end M onliorlng--
Specifications for these items should be included in the ordinance to
assure basic standards of compliance. The following guidelines
request that:
· Types of pollutants and related controls, should be specifi-
cally addressed m the legislation and ordinances.
· Maximum allowable levels of pollutants and duration of
occurrence should be specified for various streamflow
levels.
· Monitoring should be Specified. w~th exphc/t guidelines as
to methods, frequency, and responsibillhes.
PermlBed Use~ W#hln the Protection Zone -- In the past,
unsuitable land uses, construction, dredging, filling and other nega-
tive environmental impacts, have been allowed in the critical water
shed areas and ~n and upon the surface waters T hose activibes should
be re-evaluated. Those activities which cause a s~gnificant negative
~mpact should be identified in the ordinance and prohibited within the
Protection Zone.
22
FRESHWATER WETLANDS
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. Description of Sutfolk's Fre;hw&ter Wetlands
Freshwater wetlands encompass those areas where fresh-
water ~s the predominant factor determining the nature of soil develop-
ment and the support of rich vegetative and wildlde communihes.
T hey generally border on freshwater ponds and streams or are located
within kettleholes and other topographic depressions having a shal-
low depth to groundwater. Freshwater wetlands are defined by char-
actenshc plant species which depend upon seasonal or permanent
flooding or sufficiently waterlogged soils to gwe them a competitive
advantage over other species.
2. Significance
Although freshwater wetlands occupy a very small proportion
of Suffolk's land area, these features are s~gnificant resources which
provide many benefits such as:
· Flood and storm control by their hydrologic absorption and
storage capacity. Some areas in which natural wetlands
were previously filled during development are currently
experiencing flood/ng proP/ems due to reduced flood
adsorption and storage capacihes;
· Sedimentation control by serwng as sedimentation areas
and hltermg basins, absorbing silt and organic matter,
thereby protecting channels and harbors;
· Pollution treatment by serving es natural biological and
cfiem~cal treatment areas for stormwater runoff:
· Protection of groundwater resources in some areas by pro-
vidmg valuable watershed components and by recharging
groundwater supphes;
· Sources of nutrients in freshwater food webs and nursery
grounds and sanctuaries for freshwater fish;
· Wildlife habitat by providing breeding, nesting and feeding
grounds and cover for many forms of w~ldlife including
migratory w~ldfowl and rare species;
· Education and sc~enfific research by providing readily
accessible outdoor biophysical laboratories;
· Recreafior~ by providing areas for nature observance, fish-
ing, hiking, photography, camping, hunting by permit and
other use3;
· Open space and aesthetic appreciation by prowd~ng visual
diversity and often the only remaining open spaces in deve-
loped areas
GENERAL IMPACTS
Suffolk's freshwater wetlands are experiencing serious
impacts including reduction of quantity and degradation of quality.
The wetlands are ~mpacted indirectly by activities in the watershed or
adjacent to the wetland, or directly by achy/ties on the wetland.
Wetland protection through the enforcement of ex~sting controls ~s
difficult. The impacts include'
· Construction acfiwties in close proximity to wefiands fre-
quenfiy result in accelerated site erosion and wefiand sedi-
mentafion ~mpairing many of the wetland functions.
· Surface l~ydrology is impacted by alterations Of the natural
terrain associated with development and increased runoff.
Modifying the surface hydrology can create or destroy
wetlands. Cutting, fifimg and grading activities associated
wdh road construction and development have filled many
wetland areas, cutting off the water supply for some
wetlands while impounding others, increased stormwater
runoff from upland development intensifies hydrologic
extremes. Groundwater levels and flow are reduced in dry
periods and more water reaches wetlands during storms.
· Iflegaldumpingofsobdtoxicandhazardouswastessuchas
garbage debris, construction materials and landscaping
debris, and oil and gasoline spills resufl in extensive enw-
ronmental damage. These achvifies occur frequently and
are generally unregulated.
· Numerous acres of freshwater wetlands have been illegally
reduced in Suffolk County by the continued piecemeal fil-
ling to render wetland parcels available for development.
0 thor wetlands are lost by private property owners expand-
ing their "landscaping".
· L Dss of the wetlands andlands adlacent to surface water has
resulted m the further loss of natural stormwater storage
and sedimentation areas. Therefore. the pollution attenua-
tion capacity of the immediate watershed areas adjacent to
surface waters has been reduced.
· The water table m southwest Suffolk County is expected to
decline below natural levels as the SouthwestSewer D~strict
becomes fully operabonal. This is I~kely to s~gn~hcanfiy
min~sh the acreage of freshwater wetlands tn the area and
degrade their hydrologic, ecologic, and aesthetic values.
Locally s~gnificant adverse impacts on freshwater wetlands
can be expected to occur wherever large quantities of
groundwater are withdrawn without being adequately
recharged.
· Boahng activities result In increased pollution and wakes.
Powered and non-powered boats may damage freshwater
wetland vegetafion.
· Flooding has resulted from the filling and development of
former wetland areas and has ~ncreased h~gh water table
levels. During the t 960's, when the groundwater levels were
very Iow, many wetlands and flood prone areas were devel-
oped. Increased precipitation ~n the Ig70's permitted the
water table to rise. Flooding subsequently occurred m the
developed lowland and wetland areas. The flooding caused
extensive property and road damage and on-s~te waste sys-
tem ( cesspools and sepfic tanks) malfunchons. A s a result,
considerable public expense was required for costly dram-
age projects which can only parfia/ty correct the problems.
· The natural decline of the water table towardaverage eleva-
tions probably is not hkety to create signzficant adverse
effects on Suffolk's freshwater wetlands. The groundwater
levels are generally only 3 to 5 feet below the h~ghest
recorded levels in 1979.
· Most of the wetlands in Suffolk County are less than 12.4
acres (the minimum acreage dehndion in the N.Y.S.
We f/ands A ct) and are not protected by the N. Y.S. Wetlands
Law unless they have been specifically approved by the
NYSDEC Commissioner. Therefore, piecemeal unregu-
lated filling of wetlands occurs frequently in small wetland
areas. They are filled tn by developers Pefore a building
permit or site plan approval has been given, or by property
owners for the purpose of raising their property elevation for
construction or to extend the "landscaped" areas of their
properbes. Th~s is illegal ~n most municipalities in Suffolk.
however, enforcement is difficult.
Wetlands greater than 12.4 acres are Sublect to NYSDEC
review. However. illegal dumping and filling of these larger
wetlands continues to occur. Morover, enforcement of the
law and protection of wetlands ~s limited to the lack of
personnel at both the State and town levels, and the lack of
public awareness and concern to notify the author/f/es
when filling occurs. Also. It is very costly and time-
consuming to prosecute offenders.
TREND~r
1. Public Acquisition
From the late t950s through the 1970s, large areas of Suffolk
freshwater wetlands were acquired as part of the State, County and
local perks and open space prog rams. Due to h~gh land costs and new
fiscal conditions, wetlands acquisitions have s~owed in recent years.
23
however, some significant wetlands were acquired ~n 1981 Suffolk
County acquired approximately 204 acres surrounding Lake Ronkon-
korea; a significant proportion is freshwater wetlands. This acq uisltion
~s intended to protect the wetlands, to improve the water quality of
the lake which is providing Suffolk County citizens with a valuable
recreational resource.
In western Suffolk the dimimshing amount of vacant bu~ldable
land will create more pressure to develop in and adjacent to wetlands
Regulahon alone wJlr probably be insufficient in protecting wetlands
from development, leaving acquisition as the most viable alternative.
Due to high land costs governments will not be able to purchase all of
the wetlands that will need to be acquired. Cluster development, dedr-
cation from subdivision, and perhaps the transfer of development
rights are becoming increasingly rmportant wetland acquisition
techniques
2. Recent Court Cases Challenging Wetlands Lawa
In recent years wetlands laws have been challenged with
m~xed success m the courts. The Town of Smithtown whrch had
refused to issue a building perm it for a residence on a one acre wetland
lot, was ordered by the court to either issue the permit or buy the
property. Similar court actions were brought against Brookhaven aha
against NYSDEC elsewhere in the State. Court decisions against
wetlands laws concluded that the appScant~ had beef1 de,lied all
reasonable u~e of Ihblr grol3erty end fhat the appflcaflon of the laws
constituted takings wltho~t just compensation.
GOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
Table 13 is a summary of ex,sting federal state, county and
local legislation and programs
TABLE 13
Summary of Selected Government Programs
Affecting Freshwater Wetlaada
Purpose Description
Federal Protection of Minimize
Wetlands destruction of
Executive Order wetlands
(E.g. 11988)
Water Pollution
Control Act (see
section on Surface
Water)
State Freshwater Preserve, protect
Wetlands ACt (Art. and conserve
24 and Title 23 of treshwater
Art. 71, E.C.L.) wetlands.
State Incorporate the
Environmental consideration of
Quality Review environmental
Act (SEQRA-6 factors into
NYCRR 617} planning and
decision making
processes at the
earliest possible
time.
County SEQRA Process
Implement SEQRA
at the county level.
Enwronmental B~II Conserve and
of Rights, 1970 protect natural
resources inc~ud~nC~
wetlands.
Requires federal agencres to avoid
construction ~n wetlands unless
there is no practical alternative.
Requires most activities in or within
100 feet of wetlands larger than
12 4 acres to be compatible wdh
the purpose of the Act.
Municipalities have enacted
ordinances to locally implement the
Act.
Potenbal significant adverse
impacts by proposed activiheS on
wetlands (and other resources) are
~dentibed Alternatives and
corrective measures to reduce
~mpacts are evaluated Implemented
at the State, County and local
levels.
The county initiates the process tor
county funded projects or projects
on county lands. The county gives
~nput where appropriate to the
process at other levels. Process
helps protect wetlands.
It established the Council on
Environmental Quality and assigned
it responsibihties which beneficially
affect the environment including
wetlands.
Most of Suffolk's wetlands are less
than 124 acres and are not
adequately protected NYSDEC and
municipalities lack adequate
personnel for effective enforcement
Activities beyond 100 feet
~mpacting wetlands are not
regulated.
There is often a lack of
communicahon between agencies
and government levels
Consequently, many agencies
cannot give input on projects which
affect wetlands
(See Stat~-SEQRAI
24
TABLE 13 (Cont'd.)
Government
Level Program Purpose Description
Program Problems and Needs
Local
Management
Acquisition
Wetlands
ordinances
Environmental
quality review
ordinance
Site Plan Review
Management
Efforts
Acquisition
Various pubhc
purposes including
recreation.
Preserve, protect
freshwater
wetlands.
Implement SEQRA
at the local level.
Improve quality of
residential
institutional,
commercial and
industrial
development.
Various public
purposes.
Various county agencies manage
18,000 acres not including highway
rights-of-way Through
interdepartmental cooperation
wetlands on county lands are
conserved and protected. The
county also implements as far as
possible the recommendations of
federally funded projects such as
208, NURP, FANS AND CZM. (See
surface water and coastal zone
management sections.)
Land is acquired via eminent
domain, purchase and tax sales.
Most municipalities in the county
have adopted local laws pursuant to
the State Freshwater Wetlands Act.
Provisions in the laws are nearly
identical to those in the State law.
Most municipalities have adopted
local laws pursuant to SEQRA
which are generally admimstered
through conservation advisory
councils. Wetlands are often
considered as critical areas,
protecting them from most
activities.
All of Suffolk's mumcipalities have
subdivision regulahons allowing for
the control of residential
development. Most municipalities
have provisions ~n zoning
ordinances permitting review of
non-residential site plans,
regulating design, drainage and
landscaping.
Municipalities generally do not have
articulated policies for the
management of their own wetlands,
however, they avoid achwhes which
would impact wetlands.
The Town of Huntington is
noteworthy of re-establishing
wetlands. Some towns have nature
preserve ordinances which can help
protect freshwater wetlands.
Most of Suffolk's municipalities
acquire wetlands as dedicated land
from subdivision approvals. The
amount of wetland acquired can be
greatly enhanced by clustering
development. Some towns try to
acquire wetlands through County
tax sales. Some wetlands have been
also acquired as portions of
parkland and open space.
Management efforts are often
uncoordinated, conflicting, and/or
redundant. Management plans are
needed for county land. Nature
preserve sites should be designated
to protect freshwater wetland
amenihes.
Frequently tax sales of wetlands are
completed to the public.
aggravating wetland protection
programs. High land costs reduce
the amount of wetlands that can be
acquired through eminent domain
and purchase.
Some municipalities do not regulate
wetlands smaller than 12.4 acres,
leaving a large proportion of the
wetlands in the county unprotected
Most local agencies do not have
adequate personnel to effechvely
enforce the laws.
In most municipahties many
activities subject to SEQRA are
approved without going through the
process due to a lack of
communication between
departments. Many mumc~pahties
lack professional staff to review
activities.
Protechon of wetlands, is a
secondary concern. The review is
often conducted by agencies
without appreciation of wetland
benefits.
More municJpalihes lack nature
preserve regulation. Municmpahties
need to develop official
management policies regarding
freshwater wetlands.
Acquisition by municipalities is less
than that needed to protect
wetlands,
25
Some m un/c/pal/ties m the County have also acquired consid-
erable wetlands and adjacent areas, unfortunately, acquisition has
slowed ~n recent years, and some vulnerable wetlands remain unpro-
tected. At no cost to the taxpayers, municipalities can acquire much
more wetland acreage via subdwis~on review and cluster development
than they currently acquire. Most towns permit cluster development.
however, they usually do not cluster to the degree permitted by Town
Law (Section 281 I-
EXTENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF 1981 RECOMMENDATIONS
No recommendations regarding freshwater wetlands were
made in last year's Annual Environmental Report.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A variety of legal, structural, and management techniques are
required to protect S uffolk's freshwater wetlands so that further degra-
dation of wetland resources and benefits does not occur. Described
dations which are designed to protect present and future residents of
Suffolk County from further damage and loss of freshwater wetlands
All levels of government should increase their efforts to
educate the pubhc regarding freshwater wetland values,
characteristics and laws. These efforts would help increase
public awareness and concern to notify authorities when
h/ling occurs.
NYSDEC should complete /ts freshwater wetlands map-
ping program as soon as possible. Headngs for the final
maps are scheduled for June 1982 and the final maps are no t
expected to be completed unhf one year after the hearings.
Delays in comp/etlon of the maps will cause delays ~n local
~mplementation of the freshwater wetlands law
The State should mit~a tea program of freshwater wetland
acquisition m Suffolk. To date. all State acquisihon$ under
the 1972 Bond Act have been upstate. Local governments
should not be required to hear the total burden of acdu/r~ng
freshwater wetlands of regional significance.
Suffolk County should continue to acquire freshwater
wet/ands and their adlaCent areas in order to preserve
wetlands and protect the public from property, personal.
economic, recreational and aesthehc loss caused hy the
degradation of wetlands. The County should acquire from
tax foreclosures as much wetland and adlacent areas as
possible Inasmuch as real property prices in Suffolk are
high, acqu~s~hons by purchase must be made wisely. The
purchase of wetlands should he prioritized on the basis Of
natural resource v./uas and development pressures. The
freshwater wetland system of the Peconic /s the recom-
mended top priority acquisition and the rema/ning privately
owned wetlands should be acquired Dy the County.
The County should assist local municipalities in mapplntl
freshwater wetlands less than 12.4 acres.
Suffolk County/ands should be manatled ~n accordance
with performance standards designed to mmimxze detri-
mental effects on wetlands and other natural resources A
26
set of performance standards has been drafted for County
development on County lands in or adjacent to critical
enwronmental areas including areas ~mmedietely adjacent
to wetlands. The performance standards draft should be
reviewed by various County departments in the coming
months and wit/be includeq as part of the N on-Point Source
Pollution Handbook which will be published this year.
Local municipalities should augment acquisitions of
freshwater wetlands and adjacent areas. Where contiguous
to local publtc open spaces local governments should
acquire we t/and parcels at tax sales. Proposed de velopment
in close proxtmity to wetlands should be clustered to a
greater degree than has been generally done m the past.
Wetlands and adjacent areas should be dedicated as con-
servatlon easements and should be protected by a restric-
bye deed. Development should be kept as far from the wet-
lands as possible. Acquiring wetlands for their ecological
value and other purposes is usually more economical to the
municipafity than permittmg development which often
creates problems requiring expensive structure/solutions.
Zoning maps should be amended to permit m freshwater
wetlands only those uses which are most compahble with
wetland values and constraints. The Comprehensive Plans
and zoning maps for most of Suffolk's municipalities were
developed before it was widely understood that wetlands
are valuable resources which merit protection. AS a result
some of the wetlands in the County are zoned for inappro-
priate uses including industrtaL commercial business, and
moderate to high density residential uses. More than ade-
quate vacant upland ~s available to satisfy the demand for
these types of uses in the foreseeable future.
Municipalities should adopt local erosion and sediment
controls in order to prevent adverse impacts on wetlands
the t are ca used by ac t/v/ties that are not in close proximity to
the wetlands. Wetlands themselves help control erosion and
sedimentation, however, they can be seriously degraded by
too much sedimentation. Erosion and sediment controls
also help the municipalities in numerous other ways includ-
ing reduction of massive public and private expenddures
caused by erosion and siltation damage; retention of top-
soil; and protection of surface waters, wildlife, air quahty,
end visual quality.
A model erosion and sediment control ordinance prepared by the N.
Y. Depart merit of S tare is presented below, however, mu nicipahties are
cautioned to modify it to be compatible with their particular legal/insti-
tutional context.
MODEL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ORDINANCE
Source: New York S~ate Department of State
Sect,on I 00 PURPOSE
It ~s the purpose of this ordinance to protect public health, safety, an~ welfare in
Section
SEPARABILITY
If any section, subsection, paragrapt~, sentence, cmuse or other part of this
ordinance ,S for a/t~, reason invalid, the valid,fy of the remaining p;~rt,on of this
ord,nance shall not be affected
DEFINITIONS
AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS All actor,has (~lreclly relate(l to the growing
or raising or crops or livestock for the Sale of agricultural ;>roduce. ,nclud~ng
horticultbral ano tru,t o0erahon$
27
I1 01 E,x~sbng teetures map(si, at a scale no smaller than one i~ch eqb,~15 tWU
hundred feet Il" = 2~O') Indlcahng.
rll T~e bour~arles of all parCelS on wh,¢h $1~e preparehOn act~,,~e~ are
proposed to ~)e undertaken
12) All structures end roads within a d~$tance of f=ve hun~reo~5OOj feet of ~ne
28
termination of the permit or the operation, WhlCheyer may come first, the
Rather than add individual ordinances to a Town or Village
Code in an ad hoc fashion to solve various environmental problems
(e.g.. freshwater wetlands, marine wetlands, water ways, noise, re-
grading and excavating, erosion and sediment control, trees, environ-
mental quality review, site plan review, etc.), perhaps it would be better
to combine the provisions of these ordinances into a uniform environ-
mental conservation ordinance. This approach would minimize redu n-
dancy: "red fal3e": and conflicting definitions, review procedures, and
provisions, while improving the efficiency and effectiveness of
environmental management.
29
MARINE ENVIRONMENT AND
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
REPORT ON SUFFOLK COUNTY MARINE WATER
QUALITY PROBLEMS AND I'RENDB IN 1981
1. General Over~iew
The imprint of the New York Metropolitan Region ~s clearly
evident in the gradation of water quality that exists along the shore-
lines of Long Island. Water quality generally improves as distance
increases from areas with high population density; it also improves as
distance increases from areas where tidal flushing action is poor and
incapable of rapidly diluting pollutants. Suffolk County is fortunate in
that the most serious water quality problems in the region are located
to the west lin the apex of the New York Bight and western end of Long
Island Sou nd). and that hundreds of robes of its coastline are adjacent
to marine waters of high quarity. The public's perception of water
quality problems is often the result of a specific event that causes
economic dislocation, inconvenience, or lack of recreational oppor-
tunity. Events of this nature include oil spills or greaseball/floatable
strandings. Of greater significance, because of their scope and diffi-
culty associated with their solution are problems stemming from the
discharge of stormwater runoff containing bacteria and nutrients to
surface waters. These loadings can result in the closure of shellfish
areas and potential phytoplankton blooms with subsequent depletion
of dissolved oxygen and associated deleterious ~mpacts.
2, Algal Blooms
Changes in the light intensity, water temperature, nutrient
regime stimulatory and/or inhibitory substances, may be responsible
for periodic increases in algal populations termed"blooma"; however,
knowledge of the precise effects of the causative agents is incomplete.
Four major algal blooms and one ciliate bloom were investigated in the
County during 1981 by the Suffolk County Department of Health
Services (SCDHS).
In June, areas of the Patchogue River turned a rusty red as a
result of a Gymnodinium splendens bloom. Blooms of this dinoflagel-
late plankton have been previously documented from this area.
G. splendens and another dinoflagellate, Prorocentrum mini-
mum, bloomed in West Babylon Creek in July.
The chrysophyte, Olisthod/$cus sp., reached bloom propor-
tions in Cold Spring Harbor and West Babylon Creek in August. A
reddish tinge characterized the water at that time.
In August, the photosynthetic ciliate Mesodlnium rubrum was
responsible for turning areas of Huntington and Norfhport Bays red.
Although blooms of the organisms mentioned above result in
aesthetic water quality problems, public health is not jeopardized by
their occurrence. In contrast, the presence of the toxic red-tide dine-
flagellate Gonyaulax tamarensis poses a potential threat to public
health. This organism is associated with paralytic shellfish poisoning
which is a consequence of ingesting shellfish that have grazed on G.
tamarensis. Although no health hazard currently exists in Suffolk
County, the discovery of cysts in sediments in Mattituck Inlet, Center-
port Harbor, Mud Creek (a tributary of Great South Bay in Babylon),
and M oriches Bay warrants a program to study and monitor the distri-
bution and abundance of G. tamarensts. Such a program will be
mititated in March 1982 in a joint effort among the SCGHS, the Marine
Sciences Research Center at Stony Brook, and the NYS Dept. of
Environmental Conservation.
dead-end canals on the north shore of Great South Bay flied com-
plaints concerning odors emanating from stagnant waters. Decaying
vegetation was determined to be the cause. Prevailing southwesterly
summer winds tend to transport uprooted eelgrass and planktonic
vegetation to these canals where the vegetation remains and decom-
poses during the summer.
3. Salinity
R~slng salinity levels, especially m Great South Bay and ~ts
tributaries, are of general concern to the County because of their
potential impact on the viability of shellfish populations. This topic ~s
addressed, in part by the Flow Augmentation Needs Study, which is
discussed later in this section. It is expected that the U.S. Environ men-
tal Protection Agency will make recommendations concerning mea-
sures to mitigate the impacts of reduced stream flow on the marine
ecosystem found in the western portion of the G rest South Bay during
1982.
The Manna Sciences Research Center salimty study ,n
Moriches Bay funded by Suffolk County last year has been incorpo-
rated into a larger study of the bay area with a termination date of 31
August 1982. The other portions of this broader effort, funded by
Suffolk County on a 50/50 cost sharing basis with the State of New
York, involve the design of a calibrated, numerical hydrodynamic
model of Moriches Inlet and Bay, and the evaluation of the biological
effects of changing the bay's flushing rate. The model will be used to
predict water elevations in the bay and other information given the
occurrence of a breach in the south shore barrier beach. It is expected
that a breach through the Westhampton barrier will be modeled
4. Floatable Strandings and Fish Kills
The SCDHS received one report of floatable mater~a~ I~.e..
"greaseballs'l strandmg on Fire lsland in1981 Thepublic~mpactwas
negligible since the stranding occurred in April.
The NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservabon investigated
two fish/shellfish kills m Suffolk County's marine waters during 1981.
In May, hundreds of dead and moribund eels were discovered ~n an
embayment at Head of the Harbor, Stony Brook. Subsequent anaiys~s
revealed that Vibrio bacteria were the likely cause of mortality. On 8
August, dead winter flounder and mussels in Cold Spring Harbor
prompted an ~nvestigation into the cause of death. It was found that
several previous windless days resulted in a r~se of water temperature
to 76°F. Since the stress temperature of winter flounder is 73ar, and the
lethal temperature is between 77-81 ~F. ~t was concluded that the mor-
tality in the harbor was temperature-related
5. Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Strandings
The Long Island marine environment prowdes habitat for
whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals and sea turtles. Occasionally. dead
or moribund individuals of these protected species are beached or
discovered in shallow waters. The Okeanos Ocean Research Founda-
tion, Jamesport. New York, in conjunction w~th the NYS Department of
Environmental Conservation, coordinates the New York State Marine
Mammal and Sea TU rile Stranding Program. The program ~s designed
to investigate (and where possible, assist) all diseased, injured, dis-
tressed and dead marine mammals and sea turtles in NewYork waters
and associated beaches.
In 1981, five whale, four dolphin, one porpoise, four seal and
seven sea turtle strandings were reported in Suffolk County The
causes of these strandings included disease, entanglement with fish-
ing nets. boat collision and possible shark attack. Most pt thse ani-
mals were either dead or died shortly after discovery; however, one
highly publicized event concerned a successful treatment for pneu-
monia and subsequent release of a 24-foot male sperm whale which
stranded on Oak Beech in April. This was the first successful rehabili-
tation of a sperm whale in history, in September, a Humpback whale
was successfully freed from a fishing net off Montauk.
Persons with information about strande[J marine mammals or
sea turtles should contact the New York State M arine Mammal and Sea
Turtle Stranding Program at (516) 653-4511.
6. Toxic Spills in Surface Waters
Toxic discharges in the county during 1981, as ~n 1980. primar-
ily impacted groundwater rather than surface waters. I n 1981,17 toxic
spills involving surface water occurred: only 9 of these spills were
greater than 50 gallons in volume. A total of 2.700 gallons of gasoline.
diesel fuel and lubricating oil was spilled.
30
7. Public Health Issues
The presence of coliform bacteria in water has long been used
as an indicator of tecal pollution. While coliform themselves are gener-
ally harmless to man, their presence is used as a surrogate to indicate
thai pathogenic bacteria and viruses may also be present. In produc-
tive bay ecosystems, excessive contamination by pathogens can
render shellfish unfit for consumption. Shellfish tend to concentrate
particulate contaminants and associated coliforms when filter feeding
in polluted waters. The total coliform standard for shellfishing areas is
70 MPN per 100 milliliters.
The acreage c~oseq to shellfishing in the various marine areas
of the Long Island region is listed in Table 14. Sixteen percent of NYS
Marine District waters were closed to shellfishing in August, 1981.
Marine water quality improvements in Suffolk County have resulted in
a net gain of 2,055 acres of underwater lands certified for the taking of
shellfish, as compared to the acreage closed in January, 1978.
Depending upon weather conditions, the NYS Dept. of Environmental
Conservation conditionally opens certain areas where water quality
improves during dry periods.
The SCDHS monitors public bathing beaches during tbe
period from May-September to ascertain whether or not the State
water quality standard for bathing is exceeded. During 1951, three
bathing beaches (Camp Paquatuck on Kaler's Pond in Moriches: Port
Jefferson "Lagoon"; Yaphank Lake) in Suffolk County were closed
due to high coliform levels.
In March 1981, a cooperative agreement wes reached between
the Fire Island National Seashore (FINS) and the SCDHS to share the
task of monitoring water quality at the beaches within the boundaries
of the Seashore. Under the agreement, FINS provides the personnel
and transporlation to collect water samples, and SCDHS supplies the
collection equipment, analyzes the samples and reports on the
As in prewous years, a number of"awlmmer'a itch" complaints
were received by the SCDHS during the 1981 bathing season. This
skin rash is caused by an infestation of schistosome larvae {cercaria}
under the surface of t~e skin: parts of the body that are protected by
bathing suits are not affected. In all cases, the malady occurred after
persons came into contact w~th these organisms in relatively enclosed
embayments.
During July, complaints of skin irritations developing on pro-
tected body surfaces were received from persons bathing in sections
of Northport Harbor, Stony Brook Harbor and Great South Bay. Water
analyses, zooplankton samples and inspection of particles removed
from the interior surfaces of bathing suits revealed a high abundance
of crab {Brachyura) larvae. These larvae have numerous, sharply
pointed spines, making them likely candidates for causing the skin
irritations.
Other marine organisms also caused various forms of dermati-
tis. Rashes resulted from contact with the "liutl's mane" jellyfish
(Cyanea), which is abundant in south shore waters in late summer.
T he entire jellyfish or frag merits thereof should be avoided as they can
cause skin irritations such as ~tching, stinging and welts.
There appears to be no major health risk to the public from
these naturally occurring marine organisms, with the possible excep-
tion of persons with a history of allergies, such as hives and insect bite
reactions. Persons prone to allergies are cautioned to check with their
physician if they develop these skin irritations after bathing. In an
effort to prevent misdiagnosis and, consequently, mistreatment of the
aforementioned symptoms, a paper pertaining to dermatitis caused by
various marine fauna is being prepared for distribution to local
physicians.
N.Y.S. Marine District Waters Cloaed for Shellfieqlng
aD of I August 1981
Acreage
Total Closed to
Body of Water Acreage Shallflahlng
Hempstead Bay 11',850 10,350
Soutb Oyster Bay 6,190 2,810
GreaI South Bay 11,450 3,155
Total Closed to
Body ot Water. Acreage Shellflahlng
Great South Bay 18,980 1,110
Great South Bay 16,325 635
Great South Bay 11,525 550
Bellport Bay 5,595 495
Moriches Bay 10.900 4,430
Quantuck Bay & Canal 730 165
Shinnecock Bay 9,170 220
Mecox Bay 1,045 1.045
Nepeague Bay 9,135 0
Montauk Harbor 1.085 150
Three Mile Harbor 1,025 0
Gardiners Bay 48,950 0
Northwest Harbor 1,550 0
Shelter Is. Sound 9,450 180
Sag Harbor & Cove 575 155
West Neck Harbor 625 0
Noyack Bay 3,540 0
Southold Bay 1,340 0
Orient Harbor 3,560 0
Coecles Harbor 1,205 0
Little Peconic Bay 13,725 0
Cutchogue Harbor 585 2
Great Peconic Bay 19,060 0
Flanders Bay 3,090 780
Mattituck Bay 125 30
Wading River 50 50
Mt. Sinai Harbor 455 10
Pt. Jeff. Complex 1,550 657
West L.I. Sound 88,300 26.650
Center L.I. Sound 188,000 0
East L I. Sound 121,000 300
Stony Brook Harbor 855 0
Nissequogue River 555 555
Smithtown Bay 22,300 900
Huntington Say 2,420 0
Northport Bay 1,525 0
Northpor~ Harbor 410 250
Centerport Harbor 490 185
Duck Is. Harbor 185 0
Lloyd HarbOr 800 0
Huntington Harbor 340 165
Oyster Bay Harbor 5,040 316
Cold Spring Pond 1,325 215
Desoris Pond 105 105
Hempstead Harbor 3.465 3,465
Fishers Is. Sound 7,990 910
Stirling I~asin 135 52
P~pes Cove 370 0
Napeague Harbor 885 0
Westchester Shore 15,520 15,520
Manhasset Bay 2,275 2,275
Raritan Bay 12,410 12.410
Lower Say 31,400 31,400
Upper Bay 6.740 6,740
Jamaica Bay 12,235 12,235
Cold Spring Pond 220 0
Sebonac Creeks 430 0
North Sea Harbor 225 10
Wooley Pond 30 0
Brooklyn-Queens 23,000 21,623
Nassau County 28,700 2,510
Suffolk County 231,500 0
Block Is. Sound 125.700 0
Goldsmith Inlet 20 0
Georgica Pond 350 0
Sagaponack Pond 160 0
Oyster Pond 117 g
East River 8,860 8,860
Hudson River 3,100 3.100
L.I Sound {NYC) 13,560 13,560
Source: Mr. James Redman, NYSDEC, Region I, Stony Brook, N.Y.
31
MARINE RELATED ACTIVITIES
1. Marine Wetlands
T he long-term trend of marine wetlands destruction so evident
in the period from 1950 to the early 1970s has been effectively curtailed
by the regulatory program established under Article 25 of the NYS
Environmental Conservation L aw. (In 1954, there were 20,590 acres of
wetlands in Suffolk County; by 1971 only 12,725 acres remained.)
Wetlands provide natural habitat and also perform valuable functions
pertaining to marine water quality. During 1981, less than five acres o1
wetlands were destroyed as a result of development and/or storms and
associated accretion
The NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation is continuing
ds program of wetlands acquisition w~th funds prowded under the
Environmental Quality Bond Act of 1972. Three sites totalling57 acres
were acquired ~n Suffolk County during 1981; a proposal to acquire an
additional 130 acres was presented TO date, approximately 1,600
acres of wetlands have been acquired in the County by the State under
various programs.
Other interested parties including the Town of East Hampton,
the Nature Conservancy and theU.S F~sh and Wgdlife Service have
drafted independent proposals to acquire an additional 130 acres of
wetlands in Suffolk County.
2. Dredging
During calendar year 1981, the Suffolk County Department of
Pubhc Works completed 25 dredging projects as ~dentified inTable 15.
These projects ~nvolved the dredging and disposal of 199,000 cubic
yards of spoil, and had a total cost of about $936,000. The spo~l was
used primardy for beach nourishment: no wetlands were destroyed as
a result of spoging activity during 1981. Eight of the projects involving
33,750 cubic yards, or 17% of the total cubic yards dredged, were
completed by the County. The remaining projects were executed by
private contractors
N o channel dredging or beach nourishment projects in Suffolk
County were executed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1881.
T he New England D~vision of the U .S. Army Corps of Engineers
has proceeded with the required environmental impact analys~s
procedures in connection with the proposal to designate a dredged
spoil disposal site in western Long Island Sound. Spoil dredged from
harbors in the western section of the Sound coutd be dumped at the
site. Some of these harbors have been contaminated with toxic mate-
hals including petro-chemicals and heavy metals The Corps of Engi-
neers proposal to use Long Island Sound as a dumping ground for
contaminated spoil is not acceptable to Suffolk County. This pracbce
should be halted; other alternatwes to dumping contaminated spoils in
the Sound such as incinerabon and the construchon of land disposal
sites and containment areas along the shoreline, should be cons,-
dared. The cost effectiveness of various alternaOves and long-term
environmental impact of dumping m the Sound must be evaluated
U rider Public Law 96-572, the Ocean Dumping Act, the U.S Environ-
mental Protection Agency is charged with the monitoring of dredging
projects involving the disposal of more than 25.000 cubic yards of
material ~n Long island Sound. The County will impress upon EPA the
need to scrutinize any plans that the New England Division may have
for dumping in the Sound. T he County will also counter any attempts
to weaken EPA regulahons governing ocean dumping acbvities. If
satisfaction is not achieved, the County ~s prepared to radiate legal
acbon to prevent the dumping of contaminated spoil in the Sound
3. Marine FlaheHes
Commercial hshery ~andings data from 1880 to the present
hmo indicates that over 100 species ol fish. shellhsh, and crustaceans
have been landed by New York manna commercial fisherman For the
most part. the State's commercial fishing industry ~s based ~n Suffolk
County. In 1981, 28 2 million pounds of fish and shellfish w~th an
exvessel value of $39.3 million were landed nero. Th~s harvest
amounted to 78% by weight and 87% by value of total manna fishery
products landed in the State in 1981
mt~e commercial hSnlng ~ndustry nas considerable economic
~mpact on the local region and the State; the local ~mpact has bee[~
estimated at about $100 million m 1981, and the i m pact on the State as
a whole at $180 migion. (These figures do not reflect the ,mpact of
retag seafood sales.) Approximately 8,000 Suffolk County residents
are engaged in full or part-time commercial fishing actiwties, while
TABLE 15
Dredging Project. Conducted by Suffolk County During 1981
Date Cubic
Project Location Town Completed
1. Saltaire Harbor Ishp 3-13,81
2. New Suffolk Boat Ramp Southold 4-10-81
3. Centerport Harbor Huntington 5-13-81
4 Red Creed Pond Southampton 5-15-51
5. Cedar Beech Harbor Inlet Southold 5-15-81
6. Wickham Creek Southold 5-39-81
7. Wooley's Pond Southampton 5-20-81
8. Little Creek Southold 5-29,81
9. Timber Point Police Marina Islip 6%3-81
10. Fresh Pond Southampton 6-11,81
11. Sebonac (outer) Southampton 6-15-81
12. North Sea Harbor Southampton 6-19,81
13. Wooley Pond Southampton 6-25-81
14. Trues Creek Islip 7-17-81
15. Brushes Creek Southold 7-22,81
16. Miamogue Lagoon Riverhead 7-28,81
17. Corey Creek Southold 7-31,8t
18. Hard Estate (Marine Museum) Ishp 7-31-81
19. Mill Creek Southold 8-26-81
20. East Creek R~verhead 8-21,81
21. Howells Creek Babylon 9-18-81
22. Little Creek Southold 9-30-81
23. Far Pond Southampton t2-2-81
24. West Islip Marina Islip 12-9-51
25. Fair Harbor Islip 12-26-81
Yda.
1,797
2,000
70,600
4,230
9,734
1.680
960
2,400
480
3,000
8,889
2,880
1,920
t,632
5,750
1,000
10,200
368
4,500
4,280
13,710
5,500
8,000
3,751
29.473
Cost
$21,871.10
506,397.80
33,547.50
4,486.50
944.00
4,932,00
1,100.00
54,390.04
12,950.00
10,360.00
13,837.50
39,760,00
5,400,00
165O7.50
68,548.00
17,065.40
123.687 90
Spoil Disposal
Adjacent beach east of
Ferry Dock
adjacent beach, south
upland Sand City
adlacent beach, west
adjacent beach, east
upland west
adjacent beach, south
adjacent beach, north
upland wast
adjacent beach, west
adjacent beach, east
adjacent beach, east
adjacent beach, south
adjacent beach, east
adjacent beach, east
adjacent beach, west
adjacent beach east
and west
adjacent beach, west
adjacent beach, island
to west
adjacent beach, east
upland west
Tanner Park
adjacent beach, north
adjacent beach, east
upland west
beach. Atlanhc Ocean
side
32
hundreds of others are engaged in ancillary industry activihes, such as
fish transport, vessel repair, etc. There are about 90 processors and
wholesalers of fishing products in Suffolk County.
The commercial fishing industry in Suffolk County can be
divided into deep water and shallow water segments. Fishing actiwty
in the shallow water segment is focused In local estuaries, such as
Great South Bay and Peconic Bay. The primary targets are the hard
clam and oyster. In 1981, 4.3 million pounds of hard clams with an
exvessel value of $17.3 million were reported landed in Suffolk County.
Hard clam landings in the County have continued to drop dramatically
from the recent peak in 1976 when 8.9 migion pounds were landed.
Fewer clams were reported harvested in 1981 than in any year since
1961
Employment m the shallow water segment has fluctuated ~n
the past, in part due to changes in species abundance. Unpredictable
changes in abundance and current management practices may not
result in a sustained high level of fishery-related employment in this
segment in the future. Growth in this segment, under existing manage-
ment arrangements, is severely limited. Indeed, many believe that
overfishing of hard clam stocks is the cause of the problem.
The deep water segment consists of the offshore operations in
Long Island Sound, Block Island Sound and the Atlantic Ocean, and
requires the use of relatively large, deep draft vessels and related gear
to catch such species as lobsters, scup, butterfish, flounder, tilefish,
whiting and squid. These vessels primarily fish the New York Bight
area as wel~ as areas to the south and east of Cape Cod including
Nantucket Shoals and Georges Bank. The deep draft vessels require
port facilities with channels of sufficient draft Jn order to insure ready
and safe access to offshore fishing grounds.
In recent years, conflicts have developed between commercial
fishermen and other users of the Long Island marine environment.
Commercial fishermen and their vessels have been displaced from
traditional docking areas along the waterfront, inadequate pier and
dockage space and the lack of fish processing facilities are the major
impediments to expansion of seafood production activities in the
County. Projects related to these impediments are discussed later in
the section on coastal zone management.
The Suffolk County Fisheries Council was formed in 1980 to
help foster the development of the County's offshore fishing industry.
Consisting o the five East End Supervisors, N.Y. Sea Grant Institute,
L.I. Fishermen's Association and the Suffolk County Office of Eco-
nomic Development representatives, this group seeks to encourage
facility development and job creation in this sector of the County
economy. The Council supports the County's effort to secure funding
for the construchon of publicly-owned commercial fishery piers at the
terminus of the LiRR in the Village of G reenport and on the bay side of
the barrier beach near Shinnecock Inlet.
In cooperation with the Office of Economic Development and
through a g rant from the M id-Atlantic Fisheries Development Founda-
tion, Inc., the Council sponsored a two-day trip in May, 1981 for the
data gathering and inspechon of commercial fisheries facilities at
various New England ports including Stonington, Conn., Pt. Judith
and Newport, R.I., and New Bedford, Mass. The Suffolk County offi-
cials who toured these ports gained valuable first hand experience on
the operation of successful, full service commercial fishery facilities,
and the compatibility of commerciaJ fishing and tourism-related uses.
4. Marlculture
Manculture, or the growth of marine orgamsms under con-
trolled conditions, can bolster both the commercial and recreational
fishing industries. The island's marine environment offers great
opportunities for the controlled culture of selected species of shellfish.
crustaceans, finfish and marine plants. Such activity could lead to
expansion of marine-related employment. Public stocking programs
could aJso increase resources avagable to commercial fishermen and
anglers as welt. However, growth of mariculture on Long Island
require a change in attitudes on behalf of government and the pubhc,
and the implementation of baywide resource management plans that
allocate specific areas to competing uses. I reproved management, and
in some cases restrichons, will be necessary to assure equitable
access to manne resources by competing groups.
Suffolk County Shellflsh Management A cfivlty in Peconlc end
Gardlnera BayJ
The first piece of State legislation that affected oyster culhva-
tion ~n Gardiners and PeconJc Bays was passed in 188a Known offi-
cially as Chapter 384, "A n Act to cede lands under water of G ardiners
and Peconic Bays, to Suffolk County, Long Island. for the cultivation
of shellfish," this legislahon permitted Suffolk County to ~ssue grants
of underwater land for the purpose of oyster culture only. All grantees
were to have their deeds recorded in Suffolk County and pay property
taxes on the underwater land. Under L 1884, ch 385, three Comm~s-
stoners of Shal~fisheries were to be appointed by the County. These
commissioners were authorized to sell and convey, by warranty deed,
four-acre parcels of underwater lands to persons who would agree to
plant specified quantities of oysters within one year. This legislation
was amended m 1896, 1906 and 1923. Approximately 8,700 acres of
underwater lands in Peconic and Gardiners Bays are currently con-
troged by private interests as a result of grant activihes conducted by
Suffolk County pursuant to L 1884, ch 385.
In 1969 a new lawentitled,"AnActtocedelandsunderwaterof
Gardiners and Peconic Bays to Suffolk County. and in relahon to the
management of such lands for the cultivation of she#fish, "was passed
that supplemented the 1884 Act (L 1969, ch 990). T he preamble to this
law noted that shellfish other than oysters were being harvested m
these bays. and that the status, location and title of underwater parcels
were uncertain. The Legislature found that the Commissioners of
Shellhsheries had ceased to function, and the best interests of the
people in the State would be served by the survey and management of
the area so as to promote the cultivation of shegfish.
Under the provisions of this law, lands which had previously
reverted or may m the future revert to the State as a result of non-
payment of taxes were ceded to Suffolk County for the purpose of
shegfish cultivation; existing oyster cultivahon grants were ratified
and confirmed; and underwater lands would be leased rather than
granted. T he area ceded to Suffolk County extends from the mouth of
the Peconic River east to a line running from the most easterly point
of Plum Island to Goff Point, at the entrance of Napeague Harbor.
The rights ceded to Suffolk County are conhngent upon cer-
tain requirements. Before leasing or using the underwate~ lands ceded
to it, Suffolk County must survey the land and prepare maps from the
survey showing:
· town boundary lines in Gardiners and Pecomc Bays;
· ordinary high water mark and a hne 1.000' therefrom:
· location of existing grants, easements, franchises and cable
· federally designated hsh trap areas;
· underwater lands presently privately owned for the purpose
of oyster cultivation;
· areas where bay scallops are produced regularly and har-
vested on a commercial basis;
· structures on the lend and federal aids to navigahon that are
useful for taking ranges and determining points on the sur-
face of the waters; and
· proposed plots for leasing and location of buoy markers.
A local law must then be enacted, which contains regulations
governmg
· lease applications, required notices, and fees for filing
apphcatlons, maps and documents;
· the form, terms, transfer and renewal of leases;
· re-survey and mapping where significant changes ~n the
location of the shoreline occurs, or where there are changes
in range markers or navigation aids.
33
FIGURE 2
Propoted Fishing Facility at Shinnecock Inlet - Southampton
· the placing and maintenance of marker buoys: and
· the use of lands not leased.
With the regulations and surveys in hand. the County may then
lease underwater lands for the purpose of shellfish cultivation only to
Suffolk residents ( one year residency required) in plots containing 50
acres or more for a term of 10 years, tJ nderwater lands within 1000' of
the high water shoreline are exempt from leasing, as are "areas where
bay scallops are produced regularly and harvested on a commercial
basis." Seventy-five percent of the lease fees received by the County
must be returned to the towns of River head, Southold, Shelter Island,
Southampton and East Hampton in an amount proportional to the
leased acreage located within each town
Wh~le Suffolk County has authority to develop and implement
a shellfish management program for this area, including the opbon of
leasing bay bottom for shellfish cultivation, it does not have the puwer
to do so because the requisite surveys of underwater lands have not
been prepared, and other provisions ~n the law, such as the enactment
of a local law detailing the management program, have not been
carried out. Suffolk County could play a significant, direct role in the
development of mariculture enterprises utilizing intensive techmques
on Long Island. In accord with L 1969, ch 990 (or perhaps amendments
to it), the County should implement a cultu re prog ram for Peconic and
Gardiners Bays. To assure its political feasibility, as well as value to
society as a whole, this program should be based on a comprehensive
bay management plan that is sensitive to various interests, implemen-
tation of the program should proceed on a limited geographic scale.
By proceeding in this way, mariculture demonstration and p~lot scale
projects could be started. T his will. in itself, provide a direct means for
the evaluation of the potential of mariculture in the County and the
techniques that appear to be most promising.
Late in 1981, the County Executive's ofhce prepared a draft
resolubon providing funds for the mapping and surveying of the
underwater lands in Peconm and Gardiners Bays. Over the past few
years the Real Property Tax Service Agency has compiled information
for this project, but additional mon~es are required to complete the
survey maps and obtain required information. Several public informa-
tional meetings have been held on the intent of the County to comblete
this mapping projeCl. Local baymen and fishermen groups have
voiced concern over the need for the project and have opposed ~t. This
opposition is based on the perception thal the County will enter into a
leasing prog ram involving very large tracts of underwater land with the
result that the baymen will be excluded from areas that they have
traditionally fished. The baymen also fear that aquaculture concerns
would be able to obtain a marketing and price advantage because of
the culturists' ability to supply product on demand. There ~s also the
belief that marginally productive underwater ~ands subject to leasing
may become commercially viable for harvesting given the passage of
time, and that the leasing of such grounds would unreasonably restrict
baymen access
Others at the meetings stressed the need for the County to
secure its shellfishing authorities ,n Peconic and Gardlners Bays in
order to retain control of the underwater lands at the local level vs. the
state level. Aquaculture interests pointed out that it ~s possible to
conduct intense aquaculture activdies involving small plots of land ~n a
way that minimizes conflict with commercial tishermen The Town of
Riverhead expressed interest m obtaining shellfish management
rights to bay bottom in the Flanders region for the use of ~ts baymen
The preparation of the survey maps wilE: .11 clarify questions
as to the title of privately held underwater lands; 2) help resolve
boundary disputes; 3) assure equitable real property assessments
and aide the collection of property taxes; and 4) provide a means to
protect both public and private shell fishing rights by the ~dentification
of the location where such rights apply. More importantly, completion
of the survey maps will contribute toward retaining certain shellfish
management authorities m Peconic and Gardiners Bay at the local
level.
Suffolk County is not ,n a position now to lease underwater
lands; such action will not be supported until ell the potential ramifica-
tions and viewpoints are assessed ~n a planning study on this subject
Such a study has not been completed. The premise of the study would
be to ascertain if both public com mercial fisheries and private maricui-
tu re ventures could coexist in Peconic and Gardiners Bays. T he key to
any mariculture venture will be the attainment of production levels of
selected species over those that would occur in nature w~thout man's
intervention, while at the same time providing a net increase in marine-
related employment opportunities. The County would not consider
any maricultu re operation that could not satisfy this general criterion.
The type of culture that would be of benefit to Long Island
would not require the leasing of large tracts of lands to big companies.
A few individuals are now conducting such activities on the Island and
the outlook is promising. T heir activities do not require the use of large
dredge boats, and in fact are very tabor intensive.
The overall goal of a culture program is to develop the poten-
tial multi-purpose use of Peconic and G ardiners Bays in a fashion that
would be capable of maintaining the long-term harvest of various
fishery products from both the traditional "wild" fishery sources es well
as the sea farm sector. In this way, marine-related jobs could be
maintained or even increased in the future, regardless of the vagaries
of nature or hu man actions that may result in the diminution of the wild
resources available for harvest.
Suffolk County is in the process of preparing a Memorandum
of Agreement with the NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation that
would establish procedures for review of applications for State off-
bottom culture of shellfish permits and the use of underwater lands in
Peconic and Gardiners Bays. The review procedures pertain to the
area where there is shared shellfish management responsibilities by
both the County and DEC -- the area covered by L 1969, ch 990. It is
expected that the Memorandum will be executed early in 1982. In
essence, DEC will not issue an off-bottom culture of shellfish permit if
the County disapproved of the application.
b. Other Culture Actlvltle.
During the last several years local governments on Long
Island have become increasingly active in the management of public
shellfish resources, particularly the hard clam. Faced with both
increased commercial and recreational harvests of public shellfish
resources, programs and policies striving to augment naturally occur-
ring stocks of shellfish have been implemented and adopted by town
governments with the hope of maintaining, and if possible, increasing
the long-term productivity of the public shellfish resource.
Most towns that have significant public hard clam resources
have participated in State-sponsored programs for the transplant of
hard clams hydraulically dredged from uncertified waters and
replanted within certified waters, and the relay of ripe spawner clams
from coo~er northern waters to Long Island bays after the native hard
clam populations have spawned. It is assumed that the implementa-
tion of spawner relay programs increases the period of time clam
larvae are present in the bays. thereby increasing the probability of a
successful clam set. However, interest in spawner transplanting
appears to be declimng among management agencies and baymen,
and the culture of hatchery-produced seed clams is gaining increasing
favor as a potential management tool to artifical[y enhance
recruitment.
With the exception of the North Fork and Shelter Island, all of
the towns in Suffolk County purchased hatchery-reared seed clams in
1981. Over5 million seed clams ranging in size from 1~ mm, over 15
million seed clams .5 mm in size, and 3 million newly set seed clams for
planting were purchased. Most o these seed clams were obtained from
hatcheries located in New England. A~I but one town in Suffolk County
has expressed interest in the purchase of seed clams in 1982.
Private mariculture operations located in the G rest South Bay,
Shinnecock Bay and Peconic Bay have been conducting off-bottom
shellfish culture activities during the last several years. Bluepoints
Co. is growing hatchery-produced seed clams in off-bottom trays
located on company-owned grounds in the Great South Bay. The
clams are left in the off-bottom trays until they attain a size suitable for
planting. Through this off-bOttom culture 1echnic~ue, Bluepoints
hopes to augment natural recruitment and provide a means to main-
tain hard clam production levels. Coastal Clam Farms has also been
experimenting with art off-bottom culture technique for growing hard
clams on several acres of leased bay bottom in Peconic Bay. The
Shlnnecock Indians are growing American oysters on submerged
platforms on several acres of Southampton town-owned bay bottom in
Heady Creek. No town permits or lease agreements are required
because of Shinnecock Indians ancient hunting and fishing rights.
During the past two years, the N.Y. Sea Grant Institute in
conjunction with tbe Gas Research Institute and Genera~ Electric
Corp. completed the initial phases of a long-term research program to
demonstrate the economic and technical feasibility of commercial
methane productiort from marine biomass grown in the waters contig-
uous to New York State. The concept involves the use of marine
biomass in the form of various seaweeds harvested from offshore
farms as a feedstock for anaerobic digestion that produces methane.
This methane will then be blended with natural gas from traditional
sources and distributed for consumption as an alternative energy
source to help the State lessen its dependence on external energy
supplies.
In 1981, the Long Island Regional Planning Board participated
as a contractor in this project. The Board developed and applied
criteria for determining the suitability of various marine areas for the
establishment of a test farm of limited size and scope for the evaluation
of the growth characteristics of various candidate algal species. A
report, entitled "Preliminary Review of Potential Sites for Deployment
of a Biomass Farm in the New York Bight" was cum plated by th e Board
in November, 1981. Although the paucity of information on seaweed
growth requirements precluded selection of an optimal site for sea-
weed culture, the report did identify three areas in the Bight that posed
minimal use conflicts to the establishment of a test farm. The uses
reviewed included transportation and shipping, ocean dumping, and
commercial/recreational fishing activities.
The marine biomass project could greatly benefit the citizens
of Suffolk County, should the commercialization of this concept prove
to be possible. Jobs would be created and an important new source of
fuel would be available. At ptesent 55% of the homes on Long Island
are heated by natural gas, the supply of which could be augmented by
biomass methane.
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
1. Commercial Fishery Facility at Shlnnecock Inlet
The Long Island Regional Element of the NYS Coastal Man-
agement Program states that the highest priority need of the deep
water segment of the Island's commercial fishing industry is the provi-
sion of addiliOnal dock and pier facilities for commercial fishing ves-
sels in the Shinnecock Inlet/Bay region. The existing private dock
facilities at Shinnecock have become overburdened by an influx of
commercial fishing vessels. The County proposal for theconstruction
of a commercial fishery dock and pier facility on a portion of Suffolk
County-owned land situated on the north side of Dune Road on the
barrier beach just west of the existing commercial development at
Shinnecock Inlet, Southampton, will alleviate the present congestion
that has foreclosed the opportunity for expansion of the present com-
mercial fishing fleet.
Suffolk County has applied for a $550,000 grant from theU.S
Department of Cum merce, Economic Development Administration for
the construction of the proposed commercial fishery dock and pier
facility. In addition to providing the land for the proposed facility, the
County has authorized a matching contribution of $400,000 for facility
construction and has appropriated $55,000 for the preparation of a
preliminary design report and draft environmental impact statement
(ELS). A $10,000 grant to the Long Island Regional Planning Board
from the NYS Department of State under the Coastal Management
Program initiated the design process for the proposed facildy. The
decision by EtA to fund the project depends upon when and how
much funding is made available to EDA by Congress.
The proposed County-owned commercial fishery facility at
Shinnecock Inlet will consist of a T-pier. bulkhead and parking lot. In
addition, this facility will have a storm drainage system, telephone
service, area lighting, electrical service and fire protection. ThaT-pier,
approximately 18 ft. wide by 225 ft. long, will be capable of berthing20
vessels ranging from 13 to 25 ft. in beam. 40 to 90 ff. in overall length,
and 5 to 12 ft. in draft. Approximately 600 linear feet of shoreline at the
site will be proteced by both bulkhead and gabion slope revetment.
The parking lot will accommodate approximately 80 vehicles.
The proposed County-owned dock and pier facility will serve
35
only as a berthing facility for commercial fishing vessels; adjacent
private commercial fishery facilities will provide the full range of serv-
ices needed for the operation of a commercial fishing fleet. The
County has proposed, and the Town of Southampton has agreed, to
operate and maintain the facility through a lease arrangement.
The County has produced a final ElS and issued a final deter-
mination on the project stating that in the opinion of the County all
requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)
have been fulfilled. T brough the Dept. of P u blic Works, the County has
applied for all the necessary permits required by the Corps of Engi-
neers, NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation and Trustees of the
Town of Southampton for the construction of the facility. The Board of
Trustees of the Freeholders and Commonality of the Town of South-
ampton has issued permits to the County for the construction of the
facility and for dredging. Permits with the COE and NYSDEC are still
pending.
2. Greenport Commercial Fishery Pier
pier designed for dockage of commercial fishing vessels received the
Permit applications have been forwarded to both the Army
Corps of Engineers and NYS Dept. of Conservation by Dept. of Public
Works to construct a new dock 20 ft. wide by 377 ft. long with an L
sect~o n 20 ft. by 99 ft.; d red ge a 400 ft. by 500 ft. area to a depth of 16 ft.
below mean Iow water; place 50,000 cu. yds of spoil as follows 35,000
cu. yds. in an offshore disposal site 500 ft. by 1,000 ft. approx '~ m~le
due south of the dredging area; and 15,000 cu. yds. on an upland diked
site at the MTA/L[RR property adjacent to dock. Two thirds of the
la,000 cu. yds. will be removed to the Southold Town beach at Kenny's
Beach Road for beach nourishment, and the remaining 5,000 cu. yds.
will be utilized by the Village of Greenporf for various projects.
The LIRR leased a portion of their Green port property, includ-
ing the railroad dock, toSuffolk County for a20 year term ending 1995
The County has negotiated a newS0 year lease with the LIRR that will
allow for the construction and operation of the proposed new pier.
Engineering drawings and specifications for the new pier have been
prepared by the Dept. of Public Works. Depending upon the arrange-
ment of mooring piles and the manner in which vessels dock, between
12 and 18 vessels ranging up to 90 ft. in length and 12 ft. in draft could
be accommodated at the proposed dock.
3. Mettltuck Creek
At the request of the Mattituck Inlet Advisory Committee,
acting on behalf of the Town of S outhold, the Suffolk COUnty Dept. of
Planning completed in April of 1981 a report entitled, Inventory of
Existing Conditions and identification of Development Opporlunities,
for the Mattituck Creek Watershed. The report contains findings con-
cerning the limitations imposed on development by the nature of the
resource base. and a description of planning opportunities regarding
re-use of developed areas, improvement of park properties and public
access, stormwater runoff control, preservation of natural resources,
and the reduction of developmental impacts m sensitive areas not
suitable for standard subdivision.
The total land ares in the Mattituck Creek Watershed is
approximately 2,000 acres; the surface area of Mattituck Creek is
about 150 acres. Development in the watershed is groundwater
limited. Highlights of the planning opportunitms contained in the
report are summarized below:
· The zoning classification of the 13.6 acres of mostly vacant,
industrial property located between Mattituck Creek and
Naugles Rd. should be modified to accommodate a mix of
recreation, marine recreation, marine commercial and var-
~ous public uses. The industrial classlficabon on the 34 acre
parcel that is leased by Northville Industries, which is used
for dockage and the storage of equipment utilized /n the
maintenance and operahon of its off-shore oil terminal.
should be maintained in the future as a non-conform/ng use
· The temporary unimproved access road between Bailie
Beach Road and the east laity should be abandoned.
regraded and planted for stabilization purposes. A port,on
of the area occupied by this road should be uhlized as a
parking facility. There is also a need to improve control of
the beach access by off-road vehicles/n this general area.
· Sds planning for the recreational use of the Maftltuck Park
Distr~ct property on LIS west of Mattituck Inlet should be
done in conjunction with the re-use of the adlacent indus-
trial area.
· The Town of Southold property adjacent to Matfituck Park
District property at the head of the Creek should be
~mproved for tfie expansion of adlacent park uses and for
the enhancement of the scenic corridor that is visible from
County Rd. 27.
· Natural swale areas which drain into the Creek need fo be
preserved and stormweter runoff control projects should be
undertaken on seven sites identified in the report to help
prevent further degradation of marine water quality.
· Thirty acres of privately owned tidal wetlands Iocstedalong
the northeast portion of the creek shoreline should be
acquired by NYSDEC as soon ss possible
· Clustering Of development and the use of special siting of
structures, roads, lawns, septic tanks and $tormwater dram-
age systems so that prime agricultural lands, natural drain-
age systems, woodland and other sensitive areas can be
protected should De considered on six sites identified in the
report.
· A special overlay d~strict should be created Py the Town of
S outhold that would include all th~se areas within fha Town
con raining prime agricultural soils. A II land within this over-
lay district currently zoned Residential/Agricultural should
be up-zoned to preserve the prime agricultural soils.
· A collection of strategies for the protection of surface water
quality ~n the Creek includes enactment and stdct enforce-
ment by the Town of statutes regulating boating activities;
and continual surveillance of environmental quality in Mufti-
tuck Creek.
4. Lake Montauk
A report entitled, Future Development Alternatives at Lake
Montsuk and Fort POnd Say, was completed by the County Planning
Dept. in December, 1981 pursuant to a request from the Town of East
Hampton for technical assistance in preparing a comprehensive plan
for the Lake Montauk region. The study provided information on
natural resources, demographics, existing and projected land use, and
water quality. Several scenarios reflecting various degrees of future
development were presented to assess potential environmental
impacts in relation to land use and marine activities. The recommen-
dations made strike a balance between future development in the
watershed and the maintenance of water quality in the lake and
groundwater system. The highlights are outlined below.
· Acquisitions and Easements -- Utilization of various types
of runoff control technidues involving bioflltreflon end flow
attenuation on Town easements will be necessary to
improve water quality at the southern end of Lake Montauk
and prevent further degradation of water quality as vacant
parcels are developed. Acqutaltions should include a 30
acre parcel containing Stepping Stone Pond to prevent
development adjacent to and, in turn. degradahon of the
36
pond end the southern porhon of the lake; three parcels
totahng 22.5 acres at the southern t~p of Star Island to
provide access to the lake by town residents; and four small
vacant parcels fronting on Block Island Sound and imme-
diately west of the Town of East Hampton beach to help
satisfy future recreahonal bathing needs associated with
potential inland motel development.
· Cluster Development -- Clustering of development or~ nine
parcels provides an opportunity to mitigate resource
impacts while allowing for environmentally acceptable
growth.
· Stormwater Recharge -- Various structural measures
including the use of permeable pavement materials, leach-
mg wells and flow attenuation devices, and nonstru~tural
techniques such as site grading and vegetation planting
should be used to mi~mize stormwater runoff from all new
development in the watershed, and maximize stormwater
recharge on-site.
· Development of Suffolk County Parkland -- A pubfic camp-
grounds should be established on a small portion of the
highly underuhlized county parklands at Montauk.
· CoordmationofRedeveloprnentofLakeMontaukCommer-
cial District -- Redevelopment of various properties should
De accomphshed to provide parking facilities and pedes-
trian access ways.
· S~tes on Fort Pond Bay for the Development of a Commer-
cial Fishery and Related Fac/l/bas -- Shorefine sites on Fort
Pond Bay offer potential alternative locations for establish-
~ng pr/vale commercial fishery fac/hi/es capable of provid-
ing support services to the fishing fleet of the Town of East
Hampton. Use of the sites for facilities that would supple-
ment those already evadable ~n Lake Montauk, as well as
prowde serwces that are presently unavailable on the South
Fork, could obviate the need for developing s~milar facihties
at L aka Montauk and other Iocations in the Town. The aban-
doned sand mining site and the New York Ocean Science
Laooratory are two sites that should be considered for
future development of a commercial fishery and'or related
Protechon of Lake Montauk -- The Town should strictly
enforce la ws prohibiting the dumping of oil, refuse, garbage
or waste and the discharge of toilets into town waters.
Sources of stormwater runoff, fac/l/ties adlacent to the lake.
and lake water quality should be monitored regularly.
6. Coastal Erosion
In recent years beach stabilrzation, bluff erosion, and property
development along the shoreline of Suffolk County have become
controversial issues, generating sociah economic, legal, and technical
debates. The potential for storm-induced erosion damage has
increased greatly in recent years because of shoreline construction
activity ~n the late 1960s and 70s. Perhaps this construction activity has
been spurred by a false sense of security arising from the absence of
major damage producing hurricanes and northeasters impacting Suf-
folk County during this time period, indeed, many county residents
have had tittle or no experience with the effect of storm surge and
winds resulting from a major hurricane. A future crisis of immense
proportions looms on the horizon should a severe hurricane hit the
island -- an event that has occurred many times ~n the past. It is
estimated that occurrence of the standard project h urricane, with tides
of 15 ft. above sea level along the ocean shoreline, and over 11 ft. in the
bays at high tide, would result in over $700 million in damages (1976
price level) along the south shore from Fire Island Inlet to Montauk
Point.
Damages from shore erosion include the ~oss of beaches used
for public and private recreation, the continuing loss of waterfront
land, and substantial damage to highways, residences, commercial
development, and other waterfront structures. The dollar magnitude
of these damages is substantial, especially where shoreline areas have
been subject to intense use and development.
Annual damages arong the south shore, including both loss of
Jand and structural damages have been estimated at about $85,000 per
mile of shore. Estimates of erosion costs from land Joss, repair and
maintenance of shore protection devices, and shore cleanup arong the
Sound shoreline are also high.
In addition to the problem of structural damage, the region
must also deal with long-term shoreline regression and man-induced
shoreline erosion. Reviews of available literature on the stability of the
county's shorerines indicate that:
· the glacial bluffs of the north shore are typically eroding at
rates of l to3 ft./yr.:
· the relatively protected Pecontc coasflme along the inner
side of the "flukes" of eastern Long island is eroding on the
order of t ft./yr.; and
· the extreme variability of the position of the south shore
barrier complex -- areas have h/storicatiy eroded and
accreted at rates greater than 10 ft./yr -- is generally due to
the changing form of the bamer xsland over time, and the
influence of t/da/in lets and shoreline erosion control struc-
tures on eros/on/deposition patterns.
Suffolk County was fortunate in that flood-related damages to
structures in shoreline areas were relatively Iow during 1981 N o ma~or
storms occurred keeping the damage total Iow. The Federar Emer-
gency Management Agency processed 43 damage cra/ms for struc-
tures m S uftolk County and made payments totaling $101,750 in 1 g81.
rn 1980, flood insurance claims totaling $321,426 were paid to county
residents. It should be pointed out that these damage estimates do not
include structures not covered by flood insurance in coastal areas as
well as damages to public facilities such as roads or bulkheads.
Three areas of concern pertaining to coastal erosion and
development were raised during 1981:
· the stabilization of Modches Inlet:
· the Corps of Engineers beach fill and dune construction
project at Westhampton Beach;
· undeveloped coastal barriers.
These topics are addressed below.
For over three decades Suffolk County has been concerned
about the stabilization of Moriches Inlet and the maintenance of the
shoreline on the barder beach in the vicinity of the inlet. During the
period from 1934 to 1978, Suffolk County was directly involved in 11
construction and dredging projects in the inlet area. Over $2.8 million
was expended: 2.3 m~llion cubic yards of material were dredged from
the rnlet and spoiled on adjacent beaches.
In 1980, Suffolk County cooperated with New York State and
the Federal Government in the execution of an emergency project for
closu re of the breach flanking the east jetty on the inlet. This coopera-
tion will result in the expenditure of over $1 million in County funds.
The repair of the breach was a major concern of the County, and to
help forestall the occurrence of e sim/tar event in the future, the
County has elected to participate with the State of New York in the
construcbon of a 1,600 ft. rip-rap r'evetment at the site of the breach.
Work on this revetment began in November 1981 and is expected to be
co mpleted by M ay 1982. T he total cost for th e project is $1,400,180; the
Suffolk County share is $420,054.
County activities at Moriches Inlet reflect responses to water
quality, navigation and beach stabilization problems that have arisen.
The experience gained during this period of response to crises indi-
cates the need for a more comprehensive approach to dealing with
these problems m the future. This need bas been reflected m recent
planning studies conducted by the Long Island Regional Planning
Board and the decision of the County to fund research projects
designed to fill important knowledge gaps, The numerical hydrody-
namic model of Moriches Bay developed by the Marine Sciences
Center at Stony Brook wi~h County and State funds should be used to
37
evaluate whether or not navigation channel re-alignment ~n Moriches
Inlet/Bay is a feasible alternative for reducing tidal current scour and
erosion on the bay side of the barrier beach in this region.
The stabilization of Monches inlet is vital to the maintenance
of water quality in Moriches Bay. This has been recognized in several
research studies including the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
investigations during the period 1950 to 1955 on the hydrography and
ecology of the south shore bays. These studies showed the impacts of
inlet closure on pollubon levels and plankton blooms in M oriches Bay.
T he 1954 report concluded,"lt is considered Imperative that Moflches
Inlet be maintained In as open · condition 8s poaalble, Closure of the
Inlet would certainly be followed by the 'ceupool like' condition
Modchea Bay expedenced from 1951 to 1953." Not only does
Moriches Inlet reduce pollution levels in Moriches Bay, but its very
existence reduces the exchange of Moriches Bay water into Great
South Bay through the Narrows at Smith Point.
The Board's Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment
Management Plan prepared for the U.S. EPA in accord with section
208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments of 1972
points out the importance of Modches Inlet in maintaining water
quality in M daChaS and adjoining bays. The208 plan recommends that
Monches Inlet should be stabilized or upgraded to maintain adequate
bdal flushing and pollutant dispersion in Moriches Bay.
The Long island Regional Planning Board's Coastal Manage-
ment Plan prepared pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972 as amended for the N.Y.S. Dept. of Statecalla for the implementa-
tion of the Federal Moriches Inlet Channel Improvement Project with
inlet stabilization and the initiation of sand by-pesalng. This project
has been included as a high priority recommendation in previous
issues of the Annual Environment Report.
The District Engineer of the Corps discussed the project for
stabilizing Moriches Inlet with State, County and local officials in
December, 1951. The project design calls for construction of a 10'
deep channel approximately 0.7 mi. long, a deposition basin 14' deep
and 200' wide; and a 6' x 100' channel to the intracosstal waterway.
Repairs of the two jetties are also contemplated. The cost is approxi-
mately $5 million.
A public meeting will be held in October, 1982 on the project.
The District Engineer's report will be forwarded to the Division Engi-
neer by March, 1983. Contracts for construction, if the decision is
made to proceed, could not be issued prior to mid-1984. The District
Engineer is optimistic about the outcome of the design studies; in
short, he feels that on the basis of available information, the navigation
project is technically, economically and'environmentally feasible
Suffolk County participation on a cost-sharing basis with the
State on this project must await completion of design plans and appro-
priations by the Federal Government. The County is in favor of main-
taining a navigable inlet at Morlches; it reserves comment on the
engineenng aspects until details are available from the Corps of
Engineers.
The Army Corps of Engineers Beach and Dune Fill Project for
5.5 miles of shoreline at West hampton Beach was not implemented in
1981 This project Is part of the broader Fire Island Inlet to Montauk
Point Hurricane Protection Project that was discussed in the 1981
Annual Environmental Report. At this juncture, the State of New York
and the County are not in a position to provide local cost-sharing for
the project as presently authorized. The current cost-sharing formula
limits Federal participation to onty6% of periodic beach nourishment
costs. It is the State and County's position that nourishment costs
should be equated with construction costs to realize a more equitable
cost-sharing formula for State and local interests. Efforts have been
initiated to investigate the feasibility of modifying the project by a
resolution of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of
the House. Future County participation in the project rests with the
outcome of this activity and future deliberations.
Section 341 (d)(1) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
ofi981 (OBRA P.L. 97-35;95 Stat.419) established a new Section 1321
of the Nat/one/Flood Insurance Act of lgdg (NFIA). Section 1321(a)
provides that no new flood insurance coverage shall be provided on or
after October 1,1983, for any new construction or substantial improve-
manta of structures located on undeveloped coastal bart*ers which
shah be designated by the Secretary of the Interior Four types of
coastal barriers are specifically mentioned in the statutory definition--
bay barriers, tombolos, barrier spits and barrier islands. Each of the
four types of coastal barriers must exhibit each of the following
characteristics:
sofidated sedimentary materials;
· is subject to wave, tidal and wind energies, and
The legislation states that a coastal barrier which ~a mclu($ed
within the boundaries of an area established under Federal State, or
local law. or held by a qualified organization primarily Ior wildlife
refuge, sanctuary, recreational or natural resource conserVahon pur-
pose shall not be designated es an undeveloped coastal barrier.
The statutory definibon of an undeveloped coastal hamer
does not require an entire coastal barrier be included. A minimum of
one-quarter rnlle of ocean-facing shoreline is generally required for
designation as an undeveloped coastal barrier
· be located on the fsstland portion of the coastal barrzer,
· have a foundation, an enclosed ground area, or, ~f elevated.
a projected ground area exceeding 200 square feet:
· be a walled and roofed building as described previously.
and
will be counted).
All or part of a coastal barrier will be considered developed
even when there is less than one structure per bye acres of fastland. ~f
there is a full complement of infrastructure in place
T he status of the coastal barrier is to be determined as of a date
to be established by the Secretary of Interior. Changes on coastal
barriers related to these elements after that date wHI not affect the
determination of whether the coasta~ barrier is considered developed
under present provisions of Section 1321. The following areas, or
portions thereof, have been identified on draft maps as undeveloped
coastal barriers on Long Island:
Fishers Island North Haven
Gardiners Island Clam Island
Eatons Neck Napeague
Crane Neck Mecox
Old Field Beach Southampton
Shelter Island
creation of the drafters of Section 1321 of NFIA. Rather, it incorporates
3252 as introduced in the 97th Congress) which was itself a product of
38
companion bill in the Senate. S 1018, contains definitions identical to
those in H.R. 3252.
The grincipal emphasis of the proposed legislation would be
to prohibit Federa~ expenditures on and financial assistance (grants,
loans, loan guarantees, and insurance) for development of coastal
barriers, or portions thereof, which are not presently developed. The
proposed legislahon does not give the Federal government any new
acquisition authority, nor does it authorize appropriations for acquisi-
tion purposes. I n addition the bill does not prohibit issuance of Federa~
permits for dredging projects, sewage disposal, etc.. nor does it
preempt local government zoning and permitting authorities. Passage
of the proposed CBRA would supercede the newly enacted Section
1321 of the NFIA of 1968, as amended.
6. Coastal Energy Impact Program
Oil spill trajectory studies have indicated that the Long Island
south shore Ja susceptible to tanker-related oil discharges thst could
occur in the established navigation lanes servicing the Port of New
York and New Jersey. U nder"woml casa" conditions, an oil spill enter-
ing the south shore bays through the inlets in the barrier beach could
cause severe ecological impacts that would require a decade to erase.
Recognizing this threat, the Long Island Regional Planning Board
initiated a three-phase program to develop oil spill response plans for
the south shore inlets end Interior bays with funding provided under
the NYe Coastal Energy Impact Program. These plans outlined initial
response actions that were designed to prevent or minimize oil spill
damage, and identified equipment needed to stage the responses.
Such a plan was prepared in 1979 for Fire Island Inlet under Phase I, Jn
1981 for Shinnecock and Jones Inlets under Phase,Il, and in 1981 for
East Rockaway and Morlches Inlets under Phase II1. The conclusions
and recommendations of the contingency plans for Shinnecock and
MorJches Inlets are outlined below; the plan for Fire Island Inlet was
discussed in the 1980 Annual Environmental Report.
· Due to the presence of shallow water and swift currents
within Shinnecock Inlet and bay, it is likely that conven-
tional booming and skimming would be only partially effec-
hve, and large shoreline areas along the bay would become
contaminated if the area was subject to an offshore spill.
The predominance of shallow water in Morichea Bay and
rapidly changing shoals preclude the uae of ali but one of
the locally available self-propelled skimmers. Boats towing
cooms in "U" configurations could be used to herd oil for
pick-up by small skimmers. Rapid currents in Morichas Inlet
would curtail booming at this location; therefore, it is fikely
that o~1 would enter Moriches Bay and deposit on some
shorelines, mainly at the north end of the bay.
· morethanadequateamountofoilspitiequipmentisavaila-
bls in the L cng Island area to respond to e spill offshore from
Shinnecock or Moriches Inlets. Ample time is available to
implement predetermined response actions prior to impact.
· The construction of permanent anchor points at all shore*
line boom termination points in both bays could help reduce
response times, in addition to providing the necessary eta-
cie anchoring points required for booms under increased
tensile forces.
· The use of chemical dispersants to treat an oil slick in
offshore waters would be necessary in limiting the amounts
of oil washing onto the barrier island beaches and through
the inlets /nrc adjacent bays.
The U.S. Coast Guard and the N YS D apl of Transportation are
the two agencies to contact should toxic spdl$, including oil, be
encountered. 0~1 spills that have stranded along the shoreline can be
reported to the Dept. of Transportation Oil Spili Bureau at the follow-
ing phone numbers:
516-g79-5082 (Weekdays from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.)
515-457-7362 (24 hours a day)
The Coast Guard should be notified of sp~lls impacting marine
waters, including those that are at sea prior to stranding. The following
numbers should be used.
203-432-2464 t for L.I. Sound between Hempstead Harbor and
Orient Harbor)
212-688-7920 ( for L.I. Sound west of Hempstead Harbor. the
entire south shore of Long island, and Pecon~c and Gardiners Bays)
GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
1. Federal Programs
a. 208 Plan Implementedo.
In July, 1979 the Long ~sland Regional Planning Board
received funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for
208 Plan Implementation. The objectives of this effort are to:
· immediately undertake the implementation of those 208
Plan recommendations that are within the legal and fiscal
capability of existing management agencies.
· identify the control techniques and institutions through
which comprehensive water pollution control management
can be carried out and to identify those agencies that have
or should be given sufficient authority to supplement exist-
ing regulatory controls in order tO facilitate attainment of
federal water quality goals.
· foster greater public understanding of water quality prob-
lems and control needs )n order to create the political ct)-
mate necessary for s) voluntary compliance with non-point
source control recommendations and b) the enactment ct
new laws and ordinances, the promulgation of more effec-
tive regulations, and the provision of more adequate
funding.
· enhance the effectiveness of local management agency
activities through the provision of technical assistance.
· facilitate the regular exchange of technical information
and/or other water management data to ensure bettar coor-
dination of subregional planning end research efforts.
· provide current detailed lend uae information, together with
small area population data and projections, that can serve
as e basis for the refinement of Long Island's present and
future water management needs and for the development of
programs to meet those needs.
The Board has made significant progress in achieving these
objectives in the following ways:
· The Board has participated in the development of laws.
regulations, and policies expected to further Plan imp/e-
mentation. These have included Suffolk County Local Law
NO. 12-1980 Prohibiting the Sale of Certain Cesspool Addi-
byes; Articles 6 and 6a of the Suffolk Sanitary Code. cover-
mg the density criteria for single and multi-family
development; a Suffolk County groundwater strategy, for
the Health Committee of the Suffolk County Legislature; a
plan for Lake Ronkonkoms, a plan for the Pine Barrens (in
progress); and the North Fork Study. which is presently
getting underway.
· The Board has screened A-g5 grant applications and has
performed preliminary sole source aguifer reviews on
behalf of USEPA. I t has reviewed the Nassau County Master
Plan ( wa tar) as wee as the ongoing 201 studies. The Techni-
cal Adviaory Committee has considered and pro vided advi-
sory opinions respecting the appliction of 209 Plan
recommendations in the case of three proposals for new or
expanded landfills.
· TheBoardispreparingahandbookforusebylocalofficials,
developers, and others. The handbook will describe best
management practices for the control of non-point sources
of pollution.
39
· TheBoardhasidentifiedandbegunanasseasmentofalter-
native approaches to the estabhshment and operation of a
centralized groundwater quality date bank. A first step
toward the implementation of a regional groundwater data
base was accomplished when the Suffolk County Water
Authority acquired the equipment needed to interface with
the U S.G.S system.
· The Board has held four seminars: The Relationahtp of 201
and 208 Programs, Pathogens tn Stormwater Runoff, Toxic
and Hazardous Materials, LandfilI Design and Construction.
These seminars were intended to provide a forum for tfie
exchange of information relating to water management on
Long Island.
· The Board is in the process of u~)dati~g land use maps and
population estimates and projecttons.
b. 201 Waste Treatment Fac///ty Plans
The Southwest Sewer District system began operahons in
October, 1981. Approximately 4 million gallons per day are being
treated and discharged via the ocean outfall. Thus far, approximately
1,900 serwce connections to homes and busi ness establish merits have
been completed. Approximately 80,000 connections will have to be
made in the future. Ten pumping stations remain to be constructed.
Step I of the Port Jefferson study area 201 facilihes plan ,s
wrtually complete. The plan calls for the upgrading of the Port Jeffer-
son sewage treat ment plant to seco ndary t reatme nt. It also c ails for the
construction of a secondary plant with nitrogen removal at Strath-
more. Sewage from SUNY at Stony Brook will be treated using the
oxidation ditch method of treatment. T he effluent will be d~scharged to
the existing force main pending a groundwater assessment for the
Stony Brook area. If the effluent and groundwater are of sufficiently
high quality, the effluent will be recharged.
The 201 Study for Greenport --Southold/Shelter Island is ~n
the Step 1 phase. The environmental and engineering data report has
been prepared. Alternatives evaluation and environmental assessment
are anticipated for the summer of 1982, with final plan selection by the
fall of 1982.
The 201 Study for Huntington -- Northport is also in theStep 1
phase. T he environmental and engineering data report has been com-
pleted. Presently, the consultant on this project ~s reevaluating recom-
mendations pertaining to sewering. Alternatives evaluation and
environmental assessment are expected by the summer of 1982; the
selected plan ~s expected by the fall of 1982.
The scavenger waste study for R iverhead -- West Southamb-
ton is in the Step 2 (design) phase. An engineering data report is still
forthcoming for the sewage treatment facilities. Alternatives evalua-
tion and environmental assessment are expected by the summer of
1982, and the plan by the fall of 1982.
East Hampton and eastern Southampton are encompassed in
a 201 Study Area. An engineering and environmental data report has
been prepared. Major conclusions indicate that additional sewering is
apparently not necessary for the study area Scavenger wastes dispo-
sal practices must be improved.
Negotiations continue between the Village of Patchogue and
NYSDEC regarding the initiation of a 203 Facility Plan for the village.
A plan of study for theWest Central Study Area was prepared
by the SCDHS and submitted to the NYS DEC for review. Work on this
project was terminated when the local funds necessary to conduct the
study were not encumbered.
A plan of study for the Yaphank/Central Suffolk 201 Study
Area was prepared jointly by the Board and the SCDHS and submitted
to the NYSDEC. Work will commence on this plan pending receipt of
funding.
c. NationaSde Urban Runoff Pro~rem (NURP) Also refer to
"SURFACE WATERS" section under "GOVERNMENTAL PRO-
GRAMS" for relahonsh~p to fresh waters
The following preliminary conclumons pertaining to marine
waters have been developed under the N.U R.P. study
· Theaignlficanceofurbanrunolfasacontrlbutorofcol~form
loadings to surface waters, indicated m the L.h 208 and
ongoing monitoring studies, has been conhrmed by exten
sxve baseline sampling. When load contributions from point
sources are factored out of the total loadmgs to the bays, it is
found that coliform contammahon levels remain high
enough to keep shel/hsh beds closed
· Nassau and Suffolk Counties represent two enhrely d~ffer
ant situafions ~n terms of runoff effects and control Ti~e
western south shore bays of Nassau are su~)ject to much
greeter tidal flushing, which d~srr~butes loadings through-
out the Nassau SayS ystem. T fie Suffolk portion Of the Day ~ s
much more stable and, hence, tends to concentrate load
ings close to their discharge points. TO achieve load reduc
tion ~n Nassau, controls must De instituted on a global scale.
while in Suffolk reductions can be achieved using localized
controls.
· There is ewdence that large waterfowl populations on
pOndS contribute e sigmficant portion of the total coliform
load to the ponds, small populations do not. Oi~portunihes
for control are fruited.
4O
d. See Grant Inatlfuta Greet South Bey Study
The report, A Dye Diffusion Study of Great South Bay, was
completed ~n June 1981 by the Marine Sciences Research Center at
Stony Brook. This study was funded through a contract authorized by
the Suffolk County Legislature to provide information to shellfish
management personnel regarding hard clam spawner transplant pro-
grams ~n Great South Ray. A known quantity of a dye tracer was
released and subsequently monitored to determine its spatial and
temporal distribution as it dispersed rn the bay The study provided
quantitative ~nformation on the coefficients of turbulent diffusion, i.e.,
spreading rate of waterborne substances, which is a required input to a
dispersion model of the bay. Results of scaling the dye concentrations
to hard clam setting densities were somewhat inconclusive due to
~ncomplete knowledge of the hard clam ~ar~al mortality rate between
spawning and setting. Mortality and dilution reduce larval setting
density, therefore, the relative effect of di~utlon cannot be fully ascer-
tained until the amount of mortality is known. However. it was con-
cluded that spreading by physical processes is of the same order of
magnitude as mortality and. as a result, transplant programs consist-
ing of 1,000 bushels or less of spawner c/ams are unlikely to achieve
any significant augmentation of the natural set.
e. Flow Augmentallon Need~ Study-- Also refer to "SURFACE
WATERS" section under "GOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS" for rela-
tionship to fresh water.
In October 1981. EPA pu hr/shed a document entitled Estuarine
impact Assessment ($hellhsh Resourcesl For the Nassau-Suffolk
Streamflow Augmentation Alternatives. Th~s report provides a
detailed description of the shellfish resources and the physical, chem~-
cai and biological environment of the bays, based on a hterature
review and field survey conducted in 1978. The data and other ~nfor-
mahon collected, analyzed and presented m this report wdl be used to
assess potanbal impacts of altered streamflow and changes in sahnity
nn the shellfish resources. Particular attention is g~ven to benthic
invertebrate shellfish predators because their abundance is often
closely related to salinity.
The basic study method was to determine the existing d~Strl-
but/on and abundance of clams and to identify the environmental
factors influencing their distribution and abundance in the study area
through a field survey and literature rewew Knowledge of the relation-
ships between the present abundance of shellfish and enwronmenta[
variables is valuable for prediceng changes that can be expected in the
cram populations if bay salinity is altered. By delineahng Iocahons of
the most productive and valuable clamming grounds and 13y del/rang
areas of the bay that are most hkely to be affected, the b~olog~cal and
economic impacts on the clam resources Can be determined
The EPA must now make recommendtions to the County on
whether mibgation is needed for streams and/or the bay. If needed.
specific streams are to be recommended by EPA. The County wdl then
proceed w~th M~lestone III to prepare a mit/gabon plan
f. Sewage Sludge Dumping
The dumping of sewage sludge ~n the Atlantic Ocean 12 miles
south of Long Island poses a tangible threat to the Island's coastal
enwronment, and to the tourism and fishing industries that depend on
the quality of coastal waters. The memory of the inundation of the
island's south shore beaches in June 1976 by targa amounts of floata-
bias. litter and debris remains vivid The floatablee d~spersed over
7.500 square nautical redes in the New York Bight, mostly to the south
and west of Long island, were driven ashore by southerly w~nds.
Ofhcials found it necessary to close many south shore beaches to
swimming because of potential health effects, and, as a result, there
was severe disruption to Long Island's $2.5 bi~bon tourism/outdoor
recreation related economy. The effect on the Island's $40 million a
year fishing industry was more difficult to ascertain: however, a sludge
accident has the potential to drastically upset the marine ecology on
which the fishing industry depends. In the light of the potential threat
of environmental degradation and the resultant impact on the Long
Island economy, Suffolk County opposes the dumping of sewage
sludge at the 12 mile site.
Suffolk County supports the EPA proposal to change the loca-
tion of the current dumpsite to one located 106 mi~es offshore. This
issue wil~ be formally considered by EPA during 1982 when ocean
dumping regulations are revised.
g. Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf OII/Ge~ Leaalng Actlvlllae
U p to the present time, three lease sales have been held by the
U.S Dept. of Interior ~n the Baltimore Canyon region {Sales #40, 49
and 59), and one sale bas been held in the Georges Rank region (Sale
· 42). The most recent sale held ~ Sale ~'59 in December 1981 --
resulted in the U .S. Dept. of the Intarior accepting high bids totaling
about $322 million for 50 t facts covering 288,000 acres offshore sout h-
ern New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. The tracts are found
in water 3,000-7,000 ft. deep on the continental slope. Additional sales
have been scheduled for both of these areas. Mid-Atlantic Sale ~76 has
been scheduled for March 1983 andNorthAtlanticSale~52 forAugust
1982 The steps required to conduct the sales r~ave been inihated
Exploratory drilling activity has occurred m the Baltimore
Canyon region. As of November 1981, drilhng r'esults show 28 wells
drilled, with 23 dry holes and 5 wells containing mostly natural gas. N o
commercial discoveries have been announced. If Such an announce-
ment is made by the oil industry, then development activities will be
expected to occur. Prior to development, a development plan and
environmental impact statement wil~ be prepared
Exploratory drilling commenced on Georges Bank ~n July
1981. NO commercial gas or od deposits have been encountered to
41
date. Three dribing rigs are currently drilling exploratory wells in the
region.
The oil industry has expressed a"low Intereet" in areas within
15 rages of the Long island coast in response to the Lease Sale #76 Call
for Nominations and Comments.
The plans of the Dept. of the Inter,or to lease oH and gas
drilhng rights ~n areas that are proximate to Long Island's coast.
could have disastrous impacts upon marine ecology and the island's
tourism and fishing industries. Th~s concern is reflected ~n more detail
m the 1981 Annual Environmental Report.
The Long Island Regional Planning Board has conducted spill suscep-
tibihty analyses that indicate the vulnerability Of the south shore
beaches to spills originating on the outer continental shelf The NYS
Dept of E nwron mental Conservation has recogmzed this problem and
has recommended that no tracts be leased north of 40°15'N latitude
and that this area be deleted from future lease sales Suffolk County
endorses the position taken by the State of New York on th~s issue, as
adoption of this proposal by the Interior Dept. would mean that no
drdhng would Occur closer to Long Island than 25 to60 miles offshore.
Suffolk County w~ll work with the State of New York on th~s
issue. The State should take an active role in prohibiting these sales.
However. if the State fails to safeguard the enwronment, the County
Attorney's office will be d~rected to prepare the necessary legal docu-
ments to in~tiate a suit against the Federal government if it appears
hkely that drilling north of this boundary will occur
2. State Programs
a. NYS CoastaI Manmgement I~rogr~m
WBth federal funds under the Coasta~ Zone Management
(CZMI Act of 1972. as amended, the NYS Depar[ment el State (NYS-
DOS) developed a draft Coastal Management Program over the past
several years. Two laws were adopted bytheStatein July1981 relating
to management of the State's coastal zone. Passage of the two acts
entitled, "Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources" and
"Coastal Erosion HazardAreas" was deemed a necessary conddion by
the U.S. Department of Commerce for continued State eligibility for
funding under Section 306 of the CZM Act covenng program imple-
mentation. Pending federal approval and ~ssuance o{ a favorable env,-
ronmental impact statement by the U.S. Department of Commerce on
the State Coastal Management Program. New York will qualify for
approximately $4 milhon in funding under Section 306 ~n 1982
Article 34 of the Enwronmental Conservation Law "Coastal
Erosion Hazard Areas" designates the NYS Dept. of Enwronmental
Conservation as the agency to administer a coastal erosion regulatory
program, and to ~dentify crdical erosion areas. Similar to the approach
taken in the NYS Fresh Water Wetlands Act. local governments would
be given six months to prepare local erosion control regulabons that
must be approved by NYSDEC. If local governments fail to act. coun-
ties would have the option to prepare and implement regulations; if
local governments and counties fad to act. NYSDEC would regulate
the erosion areas. Regulations must include land use and development
standards, erosion protection standards for the design and construc-
tion of erosion protection structures and prohibition of such struc-
tures, and restoration and stabdization standards
The second piece of legislation amends the Executive Law by
adding a new A~ticle 42 -- "Waterfront Rewtalization and Coastal
Resources" that designates the NYS Department of State as the
agency to administer waterfront planning activities. The ACt prowdes
for optional local govern ment participation in the development of local
waterfront revitalization programs in which the State, through the
NYSDOS, would provide both techmcal and financial assistance
Local governments may withdraw from th~s program at any nme
3. County Programs
a. Suffolk County DepL of Heeffh Services
The Marine and Bathing Water Monitonng Und ~n the Diwsion
of Environ mental Health Serwces has conducted regular marine water
quahty monitoring programs ~n many of Suffolk County s waterbod~es
where potential pollution problems could occur. Some aspects of
these monitoring activities are not directly related to public health, but
are designed to provide data on env*ronmental trends one to s~gnal
changes ~n water quality. Data reports have been produced on a
regular basis However, because of the EPA mandate requiring mom
toting of Southwest Sewer District gulf all pipe construction, and the
fact that no augmentabon of the Umt's staff was made as racom
mended in the 1980 and 1981 Annual Enwronmental Reports, all pro
grams during 1981 were limded
EXTENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF 1981 RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Work has proceeded on implementation of the ShinnecOck
dock and p~er commercial fishing facility. The Suffolk County Council
on Environmental Quality completed its SEQRA review of th~s project
and a favorable final determination statement was issued. The con-
cerns of the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service and the Army Corps of
Engineers were addressed by addibonal enwronmental analyses
Applications for various construchon permds were hied by the Suffolk
County Dept. of PubhcWorks {SCDPW). The Suffolk County Dept of
Planning (SCDP) has maintained contact wdh the U.S Dept. of Corn
merce. Economic Development Admm~strabon (EDAI ~n an effort to
obtain favorable action on the County's apphcahon for construcbon
monies. The protect ~s considered a priority by EPA but funding
awaits resolution of Congressional budget problems.
2. The SCDPW has prepared design recommendations fo~
reconstruchon of the LIRR dock ~n the VHlage of Greenport. D~scus
sions with local ofhc~als have oeen held to determine the best solut,on
for the disposal of dredge spoil resulting from prolecl construction
Applicabons for construction permds have been flied
3 Effort5 have been undertaken Dy the SCDP to help atlract
fish processors to locate processing taciht~es in the County. T h~s effort
has been primarlty one of promoting various s~tes m the County that
would be suitable for this type of actiwty
4 The County Attorneys office and the SCDP have worKe(~
in concert w~th the NYS Dept. of Enwronmental Conservation to pre-
pare criteria for the rewew of off-bottom culture ot shellfish permit5
pertaining to areas ~n Peconic and Gardiners Bays. The ~ssue of pre-
paring the survey map for the underwater lands m these bays was
act,rely discussed and the resolubon providing fun ds for this actlv,t¥ is
under consideration by the Legislature
5. The County is in favor of the acqu~sit,on anO preservation
of Robins Island, but will not act along these lines unless theTown ol
Southo&d adopts a resolution calling for County acbon. Currently the
Town Board is spht on the ISSUe However. the Long Island chapter of
the Nature Conservancy has recently offered to manage Robins Island
~f the Town Board passes the resoIuhon requesbng B uffolk County to
acquire the ,sland. E/forts to acquire Maple Swamp have been discon-
hnued at the present time.
6 Work on the preparahon of a plan for the acqu~sdion of
shorefront land following a catastrophic storm has not been initiated.
The Long Island Regional Plann,ng Board is. however. ~ri the process
of preparing an apphcation for such a study to be funded bv FEMA
7 Work on the development of a comprehens,ve dredging
plan for the County was not initiated because of staff limitations
8 The SCDP has not prepared a scop~ng study on the recla
motion of dredge spoil d~sposal sdes on County-owned property
because of staff hmdations
9. The joint State,'County revetment project at Moriches Inlet
wHI be completed by May 1982 Moricheslnletstablhzabonandsand
by-passing is shl] under cons~derabon bytheNewYork District. Corps
42
of Engineers. A favorable review of the navigation improvements at · Take steps to encourage both the expansion of existing hsh
M oriches Inlet is expected to be made by the New York District in 1983. processing facilities and the location of new fish processing
Preconstruction planning has not been initiated for St~innecock Inlet. facilities on Long Island.
10. Fire Island Inlet sand by-passing and stabilization is part
of a continual Corps project.
11. New York State and Suffolk County cannot assure local
cost-sharing on the beach fill project at Westhampton Beach. Efforts
are underway to obtain a favorable cost-sharing formula for local
interests.
12. A review of the status of various201 Studies is included in
the 201 Waste Treatment Facility Plan section of this report.
13. Amendments to the New York State Environmental Con-
servatio~ Law that would have broadened State control by including
finfish and marine plants as culture species were not passed by the
State Legislature in 1981.
14. As a result of the recently enacted Section 1321 of the
National Flood insurance Act of 1968 (NFIA), areas to be designated
by the Secretary of the Interior as undeveloped coastal barriers will no
longer be eligible for new Federal flood insurance coverage on or after
October 1, 1983, for any new construction or substantial improve-
ments of structures. In addition, areas so designated would be subject
to the proposed Coastal Barrier Resources Act which prohibits Fed-
eral expenditures on and financial assistance (grants, loans, loan
guarantees, and insurance) for development of coastal barriers. Pas-
sage of the proposed Coastal Barrier Resources Act would su percede
the newly enacted Section 1321 of the NFIA. as amended.
15. NO action was taken on the proposal to convince the
State to return to the County taxes collected on the sale of marine fuels
and fees collected for the registration of boats with the funds to be
used for the navigation channel maintenance.
16. The staff of the Marine and Bathing Water Monitoring
Section of the SCDHS was not augmented as recommended, thus
limiting al~ monitoring programs. Due to limited manpower, the moni-
toring of dissolved hydrocarbons in Great South Bay was not initiated.
A survey of the metal in the sediments at Pt. Jefferson Harbor was
performed
17. Attempts to develop a monitoring program for theSouth-
west Sewer District ocean outfall have been stalled due to the fact that
there is no legislation requiring such a monitoring program. There-
fore, there is no funding for such studies. Discussion with NYSDEC
have resulted in a requirement for dye testing of the outfall pipe on a
quarterly basis.
18 Information has been prepared on the nature of various
forms of dermatitis caused by marine faunal species.
19. Cooperative efforts for the exchange of information
between the SCDHS and other agencies have ~ncreased. included ~n
these efforts are:
· Sampling of Fire Island beaches with Fire Island National
Seashore;
· Investigation of paralytic she#fish poisoning wdh SUNY-
Stony Brook; and
· Exchange of data with NYSDEC es related to bacterial con-
tamination of shellfish waters.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Maline Environment & Coastal Zone Man-
agement
· Prowde adddinnal dock and pier facilities for commercial
fishing vessels in the Shmnecock In/et/Bay region.
· Replace the deteriorating LIRF~ dock in the Village of Green-
port with a new pier designed for dockage of commercial
f~shery vessels.
43
· Develop and implement a mar/culture management pro-
gram for G ardiners and Pecomc Bays pursuant to L 1969, ch
99O
· Acquire Robins Island for conservation purposes.
· Develop a contingency plan for public ecqu~sdinn of shore-
front land for future public use or for conservation purposes
folio wing destruction of existing development by a ca tastro-
phic storm.
· Prepare a comprehensive dredging plan for the County that
would include project scheduling (priorities) and spoil dis-
posal. Such a plan would increase the efficiency of dredge
operahons by coordinating dredging of adjacent channels
and identification of (long-term) spoil disposal areas.
An overafl plan of action and environmental assessment
would also speed regula tory processing. A scoping study o f
the reclamation of dredged spo# disposal sites on county-
owned property should be included in the plan. Reclama-
tion plans for those sites not needed in the future should be
drafted in conjunction with the Dept. of Parks, Recreation
and Conservation. The racisms t/on plans should emphasize
the creation of fish and wildlife habitat values as well as
compatible uses.
· Implement Federal inlet stabihzat/on and sand by-
passing projects at Moriches and Shmnecock inlets.
· Secure a more equitable cost-sharing formula for local
interests in connection with the federal beach erosion con-
trol project at Westhampton Beach.
· Amend and clarify the provisions of the NYS Environmental
Conservation Law that hinder mar/culture development.
· A monitoring program in GreetSouth Baydesignedspecifi-
cally for evaluating the operation of the Southwest Sewer
Distrmt outfall pipe in the bay should be initiated by the
SCDHS. The Marine and Bathing Water Monitoring Section
of the Dept. of Health Berwces should be provided with
adequate staff to conduct a regular water quality monitoring
program of the county's surface waters in addition to the
outfall monitoring m Great South Bay. Because of the
obwous threat posed by paralytic shellfish poisoning, the
join t monitoring program that wit be initiated in 1982 should
receive sufficient support to insure the protection of the
public health as well as to protect the she#fishing industry
from undue hardship and perhaps unwarranted poor
pubhclty.
· Take steps to assure that the results of the Sea Grant Insti-
tute Great South Bey Study. which has been supported in
part by local funds, are translated into a format sudable for
use in improving the management of the county's marine
resources. This can only be accomplished through better
coordination of management indlatlves at local, county and
state levels with the academic community.
· The National Flood Insurance Program should be modified
by the Congress and the Department Of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) so as to also ehminate the availability
of flood insurance on new development located in high
hazard coastal erosion areas not designated as undeve-
loped coastal barriers. HUD shOUld discourage the redevel-
opment of high hazard coastal erosion areas that have been
subject to substantial property losses. TO prevent the future
development of vacant coastal/and in high hazard coastal
erosion areas through public purchase, Congress should
appropriate sufficient funds to enable the Secretary of HUD
to implement section 1362 of the Flood Insurance Act of
1968.
ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS
INTRODUCTION
Suffolk County's climate is considered temperate and its
weather is moderated due to its coastal location. During the summer
months, on-shore breezes originating from tropical air masses domi-
nate. The majority of Suffolk's precipitation is generated by these
tropical air masses. During the winter months, continental arctic air
masses dominate for about one and a hall months of the year creating
higher pressure and drier conditions.
The periods of Spr~ng and Fall on Long Island are times of
transdion. In the Spring the sharp frontal boundary between arctic and
tropical air masses lessens decreasing winter storm frequency. The
re-emergence of tropical air in the Long Island region brings with it
thunder storms in the Spring and early Summer. Increased cooling in
the Fall lessens the circulation between the land messes and ocean,
setting the stage for the return of arctic air currents 0uring the winter.
PRECIPITATION
Suffolk County has more rain than most sites m t~e Un*te(l
States at comparable latitudes and receives ample prec~pitahon ri.r-
mg all seasons of the year. The annual average precipitation for Suf
lolk County is approximately 44 inches a year
Table 16 shows the Suffolk County long term monthly precipi-
tation rates for January through December over a fifty year period as
given in the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administra
hon's (NCAA) New York Climatological Data Reports
Table 17 shows the average monthly total prec~p~tahon m
inches for eight sites in Suffolk County during 1980 and '81.
AS can be noted trom the table, preclpltat,o~ rates can vary s~gn*6-
cantly throughout the County depending on the site's south to north
location, or west to east location.
from 1976 through 1981.
TABLE 16
Average Monthly Precipgatlon In Suffolk County
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
Long Term 4.90 3.59 4.61 3.62 3.49 2 89 2 92 4.46 3.66 3.55 4 61 4 10
TABLE 17
Monthly Total Precipitation (in Inches)
For Eight Bites in Suffolk County, New York
lg80 and 1981
Site Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
Belmont Lake 1980 1 88 1.22 7.23 6.39 2.59 3.79 2 26 1.35 1 14 2 81 4 37 66
1981 0.77 4.93 1.03 3.48 1.77 3 70 4.50 1 51 8.09 4 16 1.72 4 63
Vanderbuil! 1980 1.51 1.25 9.28 9.84 2.71 4.32 4.52 1.21 1.11 331 4.97 95
Museum 1981 0 66 5.92 I 12 3 75 2 70 2.56 4.61 1.08 5 94 4 23 ~ 78 4.70
Patchogue 1980 9.25 1 15 6.87 7.65 2.17 446 2.18 1.67 .97 354 466 3 11
1981 1.30 4.84 2.20 4.45 1.93 5.48 2.62 0 60 5 07 4 69 2 83 ~ 60
Medford 1980 1.63 0.86 5.t3 4 91 1.28 2.93 1.23 1.23 0.90 2.83 2.31 2 58
1981 0 5 3.85 1.15 3.8 1.25 3.8 2 05 0.5 3.75 3 7 2 43 3 90
Setauket 1980 1.07 0 89 8.94 6.93 2 27 4 76 6.49 89 1.73 3 75 4.84 ~ 05
1981 1.62 5 17 1 03 3 95 1 92 2.80 2.71 3 27 6.19 4.49 2 17 4 61
Riverhead 1980 1.63 .83 6.21 5 11 ~ 82 3.76 1.67 1.33 1 40 3.69 3.62
1981 0.8 5.73 0.90 4.52 3.12 4 44 2 12 0.66 4.71 4 09 2 80 4 33
Bridgehampton 1980 1.83 1 06 6.96 5.91 1.82 2 44 2.46 9 19 0.38 4 10 3 18 i 50
1981 0.85 6 18 ~ 47 4.54 3 49 5.49 2.48 ~ 88 3.~6 3.53 2 79 3 8.3
Greenport 1980 1.68 0.8! 6 63 5 52 1 77 3.10 3.45 1 74 1.86 3.80 3 34 ~ 61
1981 0.80 6 42 1.07 4.88 3 34 4.05 2 74 1 52 3 40 4 46 2 84 5 47
TABLE 18
Annual Precipitation Totals (In Inches)
For Eight Sites in Suffolk County, New York
1975-1981
1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975
Belmont Lake 40.29 35.69 52.37 50 85 52 1 52 90
Vanderbuilt Museum 38.95 42 98 -- -
Patchogue 41 61 38.68 --
Medford 30.68 27.84 50.59 42.64 46 34 49 3 47 60
Setauket 37.92 41 93 53.71 47.16 53 96 52.5 56.50
R~verhead 38.17 31.98 51.67 50.36 50.62 51 7 52 9~
Bridgehampton 39.69 33.83 51.42 47.54 51.82 42 43 56 53
Greenport 40.99 35 31 50.22 53.20 48 77 51 5 49 50
Average 38.54 36.03 51.66 48 18 50 39 49 92 52 66
NOTE; Suffolk County annual average aproximately 44 inches
44
Generally, the yearly average annual precipitation rates from
1975 to 1979 for Suffolk County were considerably higher than the
long term average of 44 in. This resulted in rising groundwater levels
and subsequent flooding problems which were extensively discussed
in the 1980 and 1981 Annual Environmental Reports. However. for
1980 and '81, the yearly averages have been sigrlificantly lower than
the long term average, resulting in a subsequent lowering of the
groundwater level, as discussed in the "GROUNDWATER" section of
this report.
Snowfall within Suffolk County generally occurs between the
months of November through April, with the largest accumulations in
January, February and March. The annual average snowfall for the
County is 29.7 inches. Table lg shows the long term average monthly
snowfall in ihches, while Table 20 shows the actual monthly snowfall
during the seasons of 1979-1980 and 1980-1981 for six sites in Suffolk
County.
During those seasons, total snowfall was significantly less than the
average.
TEMPERATURE
Suffolk County is characterized as having mild winters and
cool summers. This is a direct result of the moderating influence of
large water bodies on coastal climate. T he warmest month of the year
is July with an average temperature of 71 °F. and the coldest month is
January with an average temperature of 31°F. Table 21 shows the
average monthly temperatures in the area over a 50 year period as
stated in NOAA's Climatological Data Reports.
Table 22 shows the average monthly temperatures at six sites
within Suffolk during 1980 and '81.
Jan. Feb.
Long Term 8.1 7.7
TABLE 19
Average Snowfall In Suffolk
Mar. Apr.
7.5 0.3
Nov. Dec. Annual
0.4 5.7 29.7 in.
Setauket 1979-80
1980-81
R iverhesd 1979-80
1880-81
~rldgehampton 1979-80
1980-81
Greenport 1979-80
1980-81
Jan. Feb.
Long Term 30.9 31.2
July
TABLE 20
Monthly Total Snowfall (In Inches)
For Six Site, In Suffolk County. New York
1979-80and1980-81
Aug. Sept. Oct. No~ Dec. Jan. Feb. Ma~ Apr. May June Total
2.6 2.0 T 2.0 6.5
2.0 7.0 -- 5.0 14.0
2.0 5.0 2.0 4.0 13.0
1.0 13.5 -- 8.5 23.0
1.5 1.0 2.5 2.0 7.0
1.3 7.4 -- 4.5 13.2
.8 T 0.8
0.5 1.6 18.3 -- 6.0 26.3
0.5 5.0 3.3 2.5 11.3
T 1.5 10.1 -- 8.5 20.1
T -- 1.5 -- 1.5
-- g.o -- -- 9.0
TABLE 21
Average Monthly Temperature In Suffolk County
Mar. Apr. May June July Aug.
37.2 46.8 55.5 65.1 71.1 70.4
TABLE 22
Average Monthly Temperatures
At Six Sltel In Suffolk County. New York
1980 and 1881
Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
Sits Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. De~.
Vanderbilt 1980 32.4 29.8 39.2 51.2 62.4 67.6 76.0 76.2 69.2 54.8 43.3 32.7
Museum 1981 25.0 37.4 39.7 52.8 62.0 70.9 76.3 73.6 65.3 54.1 46.1 34.7
Patchogue 1980 31.2 28.8 37.6 48.9 60.7 66.1 74.2 75.1 67.7 52.8 42.8 31.5
1981 22.8 35.7 38.6 50.1 58.9 68.9 75.4 71.2 64.1 51.7 45.1 33.7
Setauket 1980 32.3 29.7 38.6 50.5 62.2 66.2 74.5 74.8 68.5 54.7 44.2 31.6
1981 24.4 36.4 39.6 52.3 60.3 69.6 75.2 73.0 64.7 52.7 45.8 34.2
Riverhead 1980 32.8 29.3 38.6 50.5 62.0 66.5 74.8 75.4 68.0 54.4 42.9 31.4
1981 23.7 36.5 38.5 50.6 60.1 70.3 75.9 71.7 64.6 52.9 45.7 34.1
Bridgehampton 1980 31 7 28,4 37.5 47.8 58.9 64 0 72.8 73.1 65.5 52.2 42.1 30.7
1981 22.8 35.6 36.9 48.4 57.5 66.7 72.9 69.5 63.0 51.3 43.9 33.7
Greenport 1980 32.5 27.4 38.6 48.8 60.0 64.7 74.0 75.3 67.9 54.4 44.4 30.8
1981 24.7 35.3 36.9 49.9 59.0 67.8 74.2 71.4 64.5 54.3 46.0 35.6
45
Temperature plays an ~mportant role in many aspects of land
suitability Many types of agriculture are possible in the Suffolk
County area because of the warm summer and the 200 to 2t0 day
frost-free growmg season. Temperature data can be analyzed in terms
of heating degree days.
Based on the fact that most buildings require no heat to main-
tain an ~nside temperature of at least 700 when dady average outside
tern peratures are 650 or hag her, no heating degree days are recorded d
the daily average temperature is equal to or above 650 If the daily
outside temberatu re average is less than 65~, then the degree day total
~s figu red as the difference between the base ternperatu re (650) and the
actual average temperature for the day. In a qualitahve way heating
degree days reflect fuel consumption. The higher the number of
degree days. the more fuel is required to heat a building durmg /he
season. Table 23 Shows the monthly heating degree days at six spe-
cific site Iocabons throughout Suffolk County for the heating seasons
of 1979-1980 and 1980-1981.
AIR QUALITY
Basically. Suffolk's a~r quality remains satisgaclory wdh no
major polluhon problems except for photochemical ox,dants (ozonel
affechng large areas throughout Suffolk. Table 25 is a summary of
federal and state ambient air standards for sulfur dioxide, carbon
monoxide, ozone, hydrocarbons, suspended particulates and lead. In
add~bon. New York State also has standards for Beryllium. Fluondes.
Hydrogen Sulhde and Settleable Parbculates toustfall) E~cept 1or
violation at specihc stationery sources, all of the pollutants, other than
ozone, are withm standards throughout the County
The New York State Department ol Enwronmental Conserva
tion(NYSDEC) puts out ah annual New York S tare Air Q uahty Report
the latest one being for 1980. Suffolk County lies wdhtn the metropoli
tan air quality control region (AQCR). In SuffoIk County, there is only
one continuous monitoring site in Babylon The closest continuing
monitoring site outside of Suffolk is at Elsenhower Park in Nassau
Site Season July Aug.
TABLE 23
Monthly Total Heating Degree Days
For Six Sites in Suffolk Co~Jnty, New York
1979-80 and 1980-1981
Norms
Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June Total July-June
Vanderbilt 1979-80 8 3 47 332 450 822 1002 1019 795 405 115 40 5038 5174
Museum 1980-81 0 0 33 317 644 994 1234 766 777 357 137 8 5267
Patchogue 1979-80 12 7 63 338 479 814 1041 1041 838 477 152 65 5336 5712
1980-81 0 0 59 373 658 1032 1393 814 811 439 207 T5 5711
Setauket 1979-80 4 5 61 302 438 779 1008 1019 813 430 114 62 5035 5174
1980-81 0 0 33 316 619 1029 1255 793 780 376 181 q2 5394
Riverhead 1979-80 4 8 52 312 442 772 990 1031 814 429 119 48 5021 ~330
1980-81 0 0 42 325 659 1036 1273 1053 814 425 186 9 5581
Br~dgehampton 197940 7 12 79 333 484 801 1024 1953 849 511 195 93 5441 5628
1980-81 0 1 7t 391 683 ~058 1306 817 863 493 240 ~7 5947
Greenport 1979-80 7 7 55 291 489 799 1000 1085 811 483 164 78 5189 5628
1980-81 0 0 54 325 597 1055 1243 823 863 445 202 ~7 7624
Anaiys~s of Table 23 shows that the 1979-80 heating season was
warmer than average, while the 1980-1981 season was colder than
normal.
WINDS
The average yearly wind velocity in Suffolk m 7 to 9 MPH. T able
24 shows the annual mean wind speed (MPH) for various d~rections at
theSuffolk County Airport for the years1943 to1945 and1951 to1967
TABLE 24
Annual Mean Wind Speed (MPH for Various Directions)
N ............................. 7.3
NNE ........................... 77
NE ............................ 8.4
ENE .......................... 8.6
E ............................ 8.3
ESE ........................ 8.1
SE ............................ 7.0
SSE ......................... 6.8
S ............................. 6.9
SSW ......................... 7.7
SW ........................... 8.2
WSW ......................... 7.7
W ............................. 6.7
WNW .......................... 8.2
NW ............................ 8 7
N NW .......................... 8.2
Source. Frizzola. 1975
Analyses of the various prl mary air contaminants as stated in the 1980
DEC report is as follows'
1. Sulfur Dioxide
Since 1971 sulfur d~ox~de levels ~n the Nassau-Suffolk region
have dechned s~gnificantly to welJ below the primary standard of
which the 12 month average,s not to exceed 0.03 ppm Typical of tins
decrease in SO2 concentrations is E~senhower Park, where ~he annuat
mean has dropped frorn 0.022 ppm to 0.011 ppm m 1980, an overall
decline of 50",0 for the ten year period The SOt concentrations at t~e
Babylon monitoring s~te ranged from 0 020 to 0.011 ppm during the
1974 through '78 per~od. During the last two years, concentrabons
have declined to 0.008 ppm in 1980 Table 26 shows the annual aver
ages for sulfur dioxide concentrations measured at the Babylon site
for 1974 through 1980.
In addihon Table 27 contains reformation Obtained from four
sites of the Long Island Llghhng Company's continuous air mon*tor-
~ng system within Suffolk which shows SO: ambient levels wed Oelow
air quahty standards 1or the past seven years
The Port Jefferson monitor has been cons~siently ~gher than t~e
other sites on both a short and long term basis, but the annual sulfur
dioxide levels at that location still remam relahvely Iow 10.009 to 0.013
ppm).
46
TABLE 25
Summery of Ambient Air Standerds- Federal end Stere
June, 1979
Contaminant (D Averaging Period
SULFUR 12 Consecutive
DIOXIDE Months
so~
24 - HR.
3-HR.
CARBON 8 - HR.
MONOXIDE
CO f - HR.
OZONE
(PHOTOCHEMICAL 1 - HR.
OXIDANTS)
HYDROCARBONS 3 - HR.
(NON-METHANE) (6 - g A.M.)
NITROGEN 12 Consecuhve
DIOXIDE Months
PARTICULATES 12 Cnnoec. Mos.
(SUSPENDED)
TSP
24 HR.
30 DAYS
60 DAYS
90 DAYS
LEAD 3 Consoc. Mos.®
New York Stole Standards
Level Coon. Units Statistic ~) Coon.
ALL 0.03 PPM A.M. (Arith. Mean of 80
24 hr. avg. concert.)
ALL 0.14® MAX.® 365
ALL 0.50® MAX.
ALL 9 MAX. 10
ALL 35 MAX. 40
ALL® 0.12 MAX. 235
ALL 0.24 MAX. 160
ALL D.05 A.M. 100
75 .ug/m3 G.M. 75
65 (Geometric mean of
55 24 hr. avg. concert.)
45
250 MAXIMUM
135 A.M.
115
100
80
115 A.M.
95
85
70
105 A.M.
90
80
65
Corresponding Federal Stsnderds
Primary Secondary
UnRs.® Stat. Coon. Units StaL
.ug/m~ A.M.
.ug/m3 MAX.®
1300 ,ug/m3 MAX.
mg/m~ MAX. 10 mo/m3 MAX.
mg/m3 MAX. 40 mg/m3 MAX.
,ug/m3 MAX. 235 .ug/m3 MAX.
,ug/m3 MAX. 160 ~ug/m3 MAX.
,ug/m3 A.M. 100 ~g/m~ A.M.
.ug/m3 G.M. 60® ,ug/m3 G.M.
260 ,ug/m MAX. 150 /zg/m MAX.
1.5 .ug/m3 MAX.
N.Y.S. also has standards for Beryllium, Fluorides, Hydrogen Sulfide,
and Settleabie Particulates (DustfaJl).
All maximum values are values not to be exceeded mote than once a
year. (Ozone std not to be exceeded during more than one day per year)
Also during any 12 consecutive months, 99% of the values shall not
exceed 0.10 ppm (not necessary to address this standard when
predicting future concentrations)
Also during any 12 consecutive months 99% of the values shall not
exceed 0.25 ppm (see above)
Gaseous concentrations are corrected to a reference temperature of
250C and to a reference pressure of 760 millimeters of Mercury.
As a guide to be used in assessing implementation plans to achieve
24-hour standard.
TABLE 26
Sulfur Dioxide -- Annual Averagee In PPM
1974 through 1980
Station 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
Babylon .O14 .Oll .O14 -- .O20 .O10 .O08
For enforcement only, monitoring to be done only when required by
N.Y.S., (not necessary to address this standard when predicting future
concentrations.
Existing N.Y.S. standard for Photochemical Oxidants (Ozone) of 0.08
ppm not yet officially revised via regulatory process to coincide with
new Federal standard of 0.12 ppm which is currently being applied to
determine compliance status.
New Federal standard for lead not yet officially adopted by N.Y.S. but
is currently Peing applied to determine compliance status.
2. Carbon Monoxide
The long term tre~ds Jn eight-hour carbon monoxide concen-
trations, as well as the nu tuber of contraventions of the eight-hour air
quality standards have declined at air state operating monitoring sites
during the past six years, reflecting at least in part the increasing
proportion of motor vehicles with exhaust emission controls. Specifi-
cally within Suffolk County carbon monoxide contamination has not
been a problem due to the relative rural nature of the area. Concentra-
tions do increase in areas of high traffic usage, such as major roads
and malls, however, the standard has not been exceeded as far as can
be ascertained.
47
3. Ozone
Soth the E~abylon and Eisenhower Perk sites have exceeded
the one-hour ozone standard of 0.12 ppm or greater on one or more
days for each year since 1974. Table 28 shows the annual average
ozone concentrations for the Babylon and Eisenhower Park sites from
1976 through 1980.
Whde maximum one-hour ozone averages exceeded 0.200
ppm at many locations in the metropodtan AQCR during the 1976
Ihrough 1979 period, the Babylon site was the only one to continue this
trend during 1980. On a long term basis annual ozone averages at
Babylon have generally been 0.020 ppm or greater since sampling
began, while annual means at other sites in the region have been
generally less than that.
4. Nitrogen Dioxide
The trend in nitrogen dioxide levels at conbnuous monitoring
s~tes in the region have been generally downward since 1971. Read-
~ngs at Eisenhower Park, the closest station where nitrogen dioxide
data has been taken, show such a downward trend where the annua~
mean has decreased from 0.061 ppm in 1973 to 0.041 in 1979 A slight
~ncrease was indicated for 1980.
5. Total Suspended Particulates
Total suspended particulate levels in the metropohtan a~r qual-
ity control region have decreased markedly du nng the ten year period
1970 to 1980 Table 29 shows the average annual suspended particu-
late levels for eight sites throughout Suffolk County.
In no ~nstances were the standards exceeded. The h~ghest levels were
noted in Islip and Babylon.
6. Lead
Annual averages al E~senhower Park I the closest s~te to Suf-
folk where readings have been taken} Show a general down trend ,n
lead concentrations between t973 and 1980. The decrease can be
parbally attributed to increasing use of Iow lead gasoline during the
past few years, which has undoubtedly contributed to the drop in
atmospheric lead concentrahons.
PROBLEM AREAS
With respecl to SuffoIk's air quality, Oxidant exposures within
Suffolk continue to exceed federal and state standards. The major
sources of the oxidant levels m the County still appear to originate
TABLE 27
Sulfur Dioxide Annual Averages in PRM From The
Long Island Lighting Continuous Air Monitoring System
S ration Site N o. 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
Huntington 5136-01 .010 .009 .009 010 005 007 006
Po~t Jefferson 5149-01 .013 .011 .011 .012 010 .009 .010
Terrywlle 5151-07 -- 009 .008 .009 .008 .006 006
S etau ket 5151-08 .010 009 .010 .010 009 007 .008
TABLE 28
Ozone - Annual Averages 1976 Through 1980
humber oi Days with One*Hour Avg.
Greeter Then 0.12 ppm
One-Hour Average -- 1980 Net to Exceed an Exp~lnd Avg. of One Per
Annual Arithmetic Meen (ppmI Ne, oi Observetletls Highest Values IDaOy) Calendar Year Ouring Last Three Years'
STATION % >0.12 IR79 1679 1960 Exp.
(Encon Region) Site No. 1676 1977 1978 1979 1980 Total Avail. PPM let 2nd 3rd 4th M E M E M E Avg.
TABLE 29
Total Suspended Partlcul&tas -
Annual Geometric Means 1970 Through 1980
Annual Geometric Mean I6.M.I
AAQS Net to exceed AAOS [G.M.i
Stetlen /,,g/m3
(Encan. Reo.i Site NO. ~g/m3' 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
24 - Hour Average - 1980
Maximum - Net t~ exoand 250 pg/n~ more than
once Dar calendar year *
No. gl Ob~rveUons Highest Velues
48
from areas to the west, such as New York City and Northeastern New
Jersey. An overview of the health effects resulting from high oxidant
levels can be found in the 1981 Annual Environmental Report,
An increasing number of complaints concerning health re-
lated problems associated with formaldehyde insulation were
received during 1981. In 1981, the Department of Health Services
received 101 requests as opposed to 54 the year before to sample
homes and offices for the presence of this pollutant, The Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (EPA) looked into the health problems asso-
ciated with formaldehyde insulation during 1981. AS a result, the
Federal Consumer Protection Board banned the use of urea formalde-
hyde foam insuration in residential homes as a result of research
indicating formaldehyde to be a potential human carcinogen. As a
result, the Cepartn~ent of Hearth Services has been inundated with
requests to sample homes in which the Insulation has been installed
for the presence of formaldehyde. The Department has shifted its
manpower from Other programs to perform this sampling. There are
approximately four hundred (400) homes awaiting sampling at this
writing.
TREND8
Due to the decline in precipitation and the resulting lowering
of groundwater levels, flooding conditions throughout Suffolk County
have likewise been alleviated. Except for the high oxidant levels, the
other primary contaminants of air quality appear to have been de-
clining over the last ten years. These declines, according to the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC),
seem to be attributed in part to implementation of pollution contro~
devices on vehicles, as well as the use of unleaded fuels.
With the onset of the oil surplus and tbs apparent stabilization
of home heating oil prices, at least for the time, it appears that the
number of homes converting from oil heating to the use of wood and
coal stoves is decreasing, thus holding down air pollution resulting
from the use of such equipment.
AS discussed in the 1981 Annual Environmental Report, the
major indoor air pollutant~ formaldehyde, nitric oxide, carbon mon-
oxide, soot, benzopyrene, asbestos, and radioactive radon may be
ever-increasing problems due to the new breed of energy efficient
homes.
GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
Table 30 is a summary of the major federal, state and county
laws dealing with air quality.
1. Federal Ciovernment Programs
At the federal levei, the Clean Air act and its 1977 amendments
is presently under review by Congress. Recent efforts by the Reagan
ad ministration to ~essen federal governmental regulations on business
are currently expected to result in a weakening of the law.
TABLE 30
FEDERAL, STATE AND COUNTY LAWS
DEALINQ WITH AIR QUALITY
Administering Primary Purpose Major
Agency Provisions
FEDERAL
Clean Air Act of 1963 and
Amendments (42 U.S.C.
7401 et. seq.)
Energy Supply and
Environmental Coordination
Act of 1974 (PL 93-319)
Environmental Protection
Agency
Federal Energy
Administration
To achieve and maintain national air
quality to protect public health and
welfare. The Congressional
philosophy being that "the prevention
and control of air pollution at its
source is the primary responsibility
of the State and local governments."
To provide for a means to assist in
meeting the essential needs of the
United States for fuels.
49
1. Authorizes federal emission
standards for new vehicles and
required auto standards to be
effective in 1975 end 1976.
2. Establish National Ambient
Air Quality Standards, "Primary"
standards to protect public
health and "secondary"
standards to protect public
welfare (see Table 25).
3. Each state is required under
Section 110 to submit for EPA
approval an implementation plan
(SIP) outlining the state's
strategy for attaining and
maintaining the nation ambient
air quality standards within
deadlines.
4. Section III requires EPA to
establish performance standards
for new and modified sources
and keep new pollution to a
minimum.
5. Section 112 allows EPA to
establish standards on any
haZardous emissions causing
serious illness or mortality.
6. Requires states to designate
areas failing to attain the
national ambient standards
(nonattainment areas) and areas
which meet the standards as
well as new requirements
governing such designated
areas.
1. Amends the Clean Air Act by
authorizing EPA to issue orders
permitting sources converting to
coal to delay compliance with
applicable SIP emission limits
until 1985.
TABLE 30 (Cont'd.)
Administering Major
Agency Primary Purpose Provisions
Citation
STATE
Environmental Conservation
Law Article 19 -- Air
Pollution Control
{ L. 1972 ,c .664 ,§2 )
Air Pollution Control Rules
6 NYSRR Chapter III
Subchapter 6
COUNTY
Suffolk County Sanitary
Code, Article X-Ab
Pollution Control
Department of
Environmental Conservation
Department of
Environmental Conservabon
or local Dept. of Health
Department of Health
Services
It ~s the purpose of this article to
safeguard the a~r resources of the
state from pollution by. (1)
controlling or abating air pollution
which shall exist when this article
shall be enacted and (2) preventing
new air pollution, under a program
which shall be consistent with the
declaration of policy above stated
and ,n accordance with the
prowmons of this article.
implementation of N.Y. A~r Pollution
Control Law ~
Part 201--Requires issuance of
permits for construction or
alteration of a source Ct a*r
contamination.
Part 202--Stack samphng may
be required when it is believed a
source of air pollution may be
violating the law.
Part 204--Limits hydrocarbon
emissions from storage and
loading fatalities ~n New York
metropolitan area.
Part 205--L~mits the emission of
organic solvents into the
atmosphere of the New York
metropolitan area.
Part 207--Requires the
establishing of Episode Action
Ptans.
Part 211 --Restricts the opamty
or density of a wsible
emission--also puts restnchons
on odors. (Pending final
approval.)
TO safeguard the air resources of the
County of Suffolk from pollution by
controlling and abating existing air
pollution and prevenbng new
pollution.
50
1. Formulate, adopt and
promulgate, amend and repeal
codes and rules and regulabons
tor preventing, controlling or
prohibiting mr polluhon in the
state.
2. Promulgate standards for
composition of fuels m
attainment and nonattainment
areas.
3 Promulgate standards for
crankcase venhlating systems
and air contaminant emission
control systems in accordance
with the Vehmle and Traffic Law.
4. Hold pubhc hearings, conduct
mveshgations compel the
attendance of witnesses rt!cewe
such perbnent and relevant
proof and do such ortner th~ngs
as i~ may deem to be necessary
proper or desirable in order that
it may effechvely d~Scharge ~ts
code, rule and regulation
makmg duties and
responsJbllihes under th~s
arhcle
5. it shall De the duty and
responsibdky of the DEC to
prepare ano develop a general
comprehensive plan for the
control or abatement of eXlsbng
air polluhon and tor the control
or prevention of any new a~r
pollution recognizing varying
requirements for ddferent
areas of the state
6. Promulgate standards for the
use of fuel or fuel addihves for
dse in motor vehicles or iTiotor
Vehlcleengmes taking due
recogndlon of federm star~dards
and requirements
Part 215--Open burnmg
Allows the control of air
pollution from fuel burnmg
equipment, incmerators, open
burmng, vehicle ~dling. nu~sahce
odors and sand Oiashng through
a permit process.
In 1978. the Congress enacted the National Climate Program
Act, Public Law 95-367. The purpose of the Act, as set forth in Section
3, is"to establish a national climate pregr~m that t~lll assist the Nation
and the world to undemtand and respond 1o natural and man-induced
climate processes and their Implications,'
The primary mechanism to achieve this purpose ~s the
National Climate Program, established by Section 5 of the Act. The
Program. which includes both research an(~ applications, is intended
to im prove our understanding of climate processes and to make useful
climate information available to the Federal and State governments,
industry, and the public. The objectives of the Program will be
achieved through coordination of efforts among many agencies and
institutions that conduct climate research and disseminate and use
climate information.
A three-part plan for the next 5 years of the National Climate
Program was presented in a 1980 report by NOAA entitled, National
Climate Program. The document includes:
· Part One, "Development of the Climate Plea" (Chapters I
and II), introduces the National Climate Program Act and the 5-year
plan and reviews existing Federal activities related to climate. It also
discusses the priority-setting process for projects and activities that
are proposed ~n response to statutory mandates as well as advice and
recommendations from the scientific community.
· Part Two, "The Climate Plan" (Chapters Ill-VI), presents
specific projects and activities that are proposed in three categories
that will be given special emphasis over the next 5 year~
· Providing cfimate information.
· Responding to impacts and policy implications of chmate.
· Understanding cflmate.
Part Two also includes a discussion of the total scope and structure of
the National Climate Program, which includes a broad base of contin-
uing activities. These activities are organized into three components:
climate impact assessment; climate system research; and data, infor-
mation and services.
· Part Three, "Implementation of the National Climate Plan"
(Chapters VII-IX), considers three special aspects of the program:
international activities, an intergovernmental climate program that will
provide cooperative FederaVState efforts, and experimental climate
forecast centers to develop and test innovative approaches to long-
range prediction. Part Three also discusses ad ministration of the pro-
gram and resources and future plans.
Existing Federal climate programs have a strength and
breadth that provide a solid foundation for the National Climate Pro-
gram. Seven Federal departments and agencies have substantial
climate-related activities--the Departments of Agriculture, Com-
merce, Defense, Energy, and the Interior, the National Aeronautics
and S pace Administration (NASA), and the National Science Founda-
tion (NSF). The Department of Agriculture (USDA), the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the Department
of Commerce (DOC). NASA, and NSF account for over three-fourths
of the Federal funding for the National Climate Program activities. The
FY 1980 budget for the climate activities detailed in the Program is
$115 million, and the President's budget request for FY 1981 is $127
million.
The program is administered by the National ClimateProgram
Office with the assistance a~ld guidance of several interagency bodies
plus the statutory Climate Program Advisory Committee. The Office
works closely with the concerned agencies, the O trice of Science and
Technology Policy, and the Office of Management and Budget in
prebaring and analyzing the budget proposals to implement the Pro-
gram described in the Plan.
2. New York Stele Programs
According to Section 110 of the Clean Air Act, each state, after
public hearings, is to submit an implementation plan to EPA for appro-
val within nine months of the promulgation of ambient air quality
standards. The plan, among other things, must describe existing air
quality in each area of the State (for those polrutants covered by an
AAQS), identify the sources of that polrutant and their emission levels,
and set forth whatever measures, principally emission limitations,
which when met by those sources, wourd achieve the national AAQS.
Under the timetable in the 1970 Act, State implementation plans
(SIP's) were due on January 30, 1972. The law then permitted the
Ad ministrator of EPA four months to approve or disapprove all SIP's. I f
a State failed to submit a plan, or submitted a pran which the Adminis-
trator deemed to be inadequate, the Administrator was to promulgate
a Federal plan as a substitute for or supplement to whatever portion of
the State's plan was disapproved. Once implementation plans were Jn
effect either by EPA approval of State submissions or by EPA promul-
gation they were enforceable by the Federal government if the states
failed to enforce. To date, the State has still not had an air quality
implementation plan approved by EPA.
In 1981 the automobile inspection maintenance program was
begun by the State. In its initial phase, owners were only informed as to
whether their vehicles met the state standards or not. In 191i2, vehicles
failing to meet standards will have to have repairs made before receiv-
ing their yearly inspection stickers. Because ors uffolk's acceptable air
quality, it is felt that this program should not have been implemented
within the County. It would have been better to initiate the program in
New York City first to gauge impact as to air quality improvement.
3. Suffolk County Programs
The air quality program conducted by the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services' Air Pollution/Solid Waste Control sec-
tion. as agent for the NYSDEC, resulted in the following:
Reviews of Permits to Construct or Certificates
to Operate Sources of Air Contamination ...... 1105
Complaints received ............................. 589
Notices of Violations issued ....................... 80
Air samples collected ............................ 608
Number of cases in which formal ~egal action
was initiated .................................... 8
In addition, the Department of Health Services' Water Re-
sources Bureau operates precipdation, temperature and wind speed
monitoring equipment at Belmont Lake, Medford and Riverhead, and
raw data is collected weekly. Precipitation quality is also taken at the
Medford site. However, the precipitation data is the only information
analyzed on a regular basis.
EXTENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF 1981 RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The State Air Quality implementation Plan is still before
the Environmental Protection Agency for approval. Though the LILCO
N orthport electric generating facility is no longer a candidate for coal
conversion, the Port Jefferson plant is at the environmental impact
review stage.
2. Suffolk County has requested to be removed from the
inspection maintenance program for automobiles, however, to no
avail.
RECOMMENDATIONS
· Revisions to Part 212 of the State's regulations which
became effective on May 10, 1981, removed numerous ~our-
cea from the exempt category with regard to meeting tiling
requirements. Previous to May 10. 1981. small spraybooths,
fume exhaust hoods, welding exhaust systems and the tike
were not required to possess Certificates to Operate. How-
ever, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency required
the State to ~mprove its inventory of hydrocarbon emission
sources because of the ozone standard violations discussed
previously. Though the changes were we# intended, the
result was to drastically increase the workload on both the
engineering and field staff of the Department of Health
Services. This increased workload, however, only serves to
increase paperwork rather titan decrease pollution.
· It is recommended that the state re-establish the exempt
categories previously contained in the regulations SO that
the County's energy can be focused on large sources of
pollution needing attention.
51
NOISE
INTRODUCTION
Noise can be defined as unwanted sound and is dependent
upon many subjective factors, such as setting and sources. I n terms of
the general public, noise and quiet ere relative terms depending upon
the perception of the individuals involved. The 1980 and 1981 Suffolk
County Annual Environmental Reports went over the general charac-
teristics of noise as well as the physical and psychological effects of
excess noise on people. Those reports should be referred to with
respect to those areas. Table 31 rates the various sources of noise and
their perceived impact on people.
TABLE 31
Rating of Nolae Sources
Sound Quality Decibels Sound Sources
Painful 140 Jet plane at takeoff
Fire Siren
Subway train
130 Rock band
Loud motorcycle
120 Power lawnmower
Deafening Outboard motor
110 C hamsaw
Snowmobile
100 Farm tractor
90 Food blender
Diesel truck at 50 mph
Very loud and at 50 feet
80 Garbage grinder
Automobile at 65 mph at 25 feet
Clothes washer
70 Average traffic
Loud Vacuum cleaner
Dishwasher
Normal conversation
50 Average business office
4O
Quiet Library
30
g0 Broadcasting studio
Very quiet
Whisper
Hearing threshold 0 Rustle of ~eaves
PROBLEM AREAS
Suffolk County is sob relatively a suburban and rural area.
Noise related problems are sporadic and not considered at this time to
be severe. Recent analysis of noise complaints shows that there are
about a dozen sources of noise which are considered a nuisance
throug hour the County. The following is a summary of various types of
no~se sources and the nature of the problems involved:
1. Barking Dog~
This problem appears to be common everywhere. Although
barking during the night hours is most noticeable, barking also causes
disturbances during the daytime. Frequent and/or prolonged barking
may result from the failure of owners to provide adequate training,
discipline, and attention for their dogs.
2. Motor Vehicles
Noise from automobiles, trucks, buses, and motorcycles is
also universal and is frequently the most serious problem in a com-
munity. Most often such noise is caused by inadequate and faulty
mufflers and, in some cases, the absence of mufflers. In addition.
many motor vehicles are equipped with glasspack and straight-p~pe
mufflers which are much less effective than standard baffled mufflers.
Noise from motor vehicles is high during the daytime hours when
traffic is heaviest but individual vehicles without adequate mufflers
can cause great disturbances during nighttime hours.
3. Entertainment Eatabllshments
The most troublesome types of estabgshments, based on
no~se complaints, are bars and those which feature amplified ~ive and
recorded music. At bars, noise may result from boisterous customers
and 1cud music. At other establishments. [cud music, especially by
live rock bands, can cause a serious disturbance. Since most of these
establishments are frequented during the late night and early mormng
hours, such noise is very noticeable and carries considerable
distances.
House Parties
Noise, Includmg loud music and boisterous guests, at prwate
residences is a frequent complaint during the summer months, espe
c~ally in the resort areas of the County (Southampton Town Pohce
reported nearly 300 such complaints over a th rea month per~od du nng
1978) S~nce part,es usually take place durmg the mght and early
mornmg hours, the noise can cause conslc~erable disturbances in
residential neighborhoods.
5. Off-road Motor Vehicles
The most common type of off-road vehicle ~n Suffolk appears
to be the trad hike ( including rnotorcross and mlnlbikes). These are
often operated without adequate mufflers and near res~denhal areas
where the loud. persistent noise can cause serious disturbances.
6. Fireworks
7. Automobge Racetracks
There are at least three racetracks m Suffolk. Racing, during
the summer months, is usually limited to certain hours or one or two
days of the week, although drivers may also make practice runs al
other times. Since the noise emanating from race tracks as very loud
ithe vehicles are usually not muffled) and can travel many miles, the
noise can cause serious disturbance to residential areas within a
substantial distance from such tracks.
8. Aircraft
There are at least eight (8) public and private airports *n Sui-
folk and, although statistics on aircraft noise complaints were not
acquired, it is assumed that these are the sources of some of the noise
dmturbances. Most of the flights revolve small, private a~rcraft,
although large commercial jets operate out of the Long Island McAr-
thur Airport in Islip. Concerns have been voiced by residents of the
Westhampton area about Air National Guard jet planes using the
Suffolk County Airport. Residents of eastern Suffolk have often com-
plained about the noise from helicopters used to spray agricultural
fields. With the exception of the Is[ip Airport, aircraft landings and
takeoffs occur only during the daytime hours. Likewise, most heli-
copter crop dusting is done during the daytime, although some of the
spraying ~s also done during the early morning hours when nearby
residents are still sleeping
10, Residential Power Tools
T he two noisiest power tools used around the home are lawn-
mowers and chainsaws Disturbances are caused when Such tools are
used persistently and during the early and late hours ct the day
52
11. Fire Sirens
Located throughout the County are hundreds of stationary fi re
sirens, many of which are tested routinely. Sirens are one of the most
serious noise problems because they are often situated in or near
residential areas and are very loud. Sirens and air horns on emergency
vehicles can also cause disturbance when used unnecessarily, espe-
cially while residents are sleeping.
12. Refuse Trucks
Vehicles used to collect refuse are often noisy. W hen refuse is
collected during the early morning hours, such noise can awaken
sleeping residents. The use of non-metallic refuse containers has
reduced the noise to some extent.
13. Gunshots
There are several outdoor rifle and pistol ranges located
throughout the County which may be of a source of annoyance when
situated near residential areas. In addition, shots during the hunting
season can disturb nearby residents.
14. Street Muslc
The loud playing of portable (including car) radios, and tape
players on the streets, in parks, and at beaches is a growing noise
problem Such are often played at any hour of the day or night, without
regard to the disturbance it causes others.
15. Agricultural Noise
Farming operations, located primarily in the East End, often
generate noises which may disturb nearby residents. Noise sources
include tractors, planting and harvesting equipment, and irrigation
pump engines (which often operate round the clock during the
summer months).
TRENDS
As discussed earlier, because of the relatively rural and subur-
ban nature of Suffolk County, noise has not been considered to be a
severe problem. However, total noise levels are significantly higher in
more developed urban areas than in less developed rural communi-
ties, therefore, as Suffolk County continues to develop and people
come in closer proximity to one another, noise problems may take on
increased importance.
GOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
CONCERNED WITH NOISE
Table 32 summarizes the federal, state, county and local laws
dealing with noise. For the most part, federal and state laws deal with
specific guidelines and standards regarding noise levels from specific
sources. Enforcement of such standards usually lies at the county and
local levels.
1. Suffolk County Noise Program
The Department of Health Services' Division of Air Quality is
responsible for implementation of the county's noise program which is
rather limited. Under the county program, technical assistance is
provided on a request basis and may involve review of proposed local
noise ordinances and design of noise specifications for equipment.
The work is carried out on a part-time basis by one engineer employed
by the department. Noise equipment used by the division includes a
B+K sound level meter and a B+K active band analyzer.
2. Local Noise Abatement Programs
The only formalized abatement program at the local level is
that of the Town of Brookhaven which was described in the 1980
Annual Environmental Report. During the past year the Town created
a new code enforcement section, part of whose responsibility is to
check out noise complaints and issue summonses where necessary.
The other municipalies which have noise ordinances as designated in
Table 32 do not have formalized implementation programs. They rely
on the Suffolk County Police or local police to check out complaints
and enforce the law.
EXTENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF 1981 RECOMMENDATIONS
The Department of Health Services received 55 requests for
assistance with respect to noise related problems in 1981. On those
occasions where the noise sou rce could be technically evaluated and
abated, appropriate recommendations were forwarded to the con-
cerned parties. In those other instances such as barking dogs, loud
parties, etc., which were non-technical in nature, the information was
forwarded to the appropriate local authority hawng jurisdiction.
RECOMMENDATIONS
· The County noise program conducted by the Department
of Health Services should be continued on a limited basis
upon request.
Nam
Citation
TABLE 32
FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY AND LOCAL LAWS DEALING WITH
NOISE CONTROL
Administering Primary Purpoae
Agency
Provisions
FEDERAL
Noise Pollution and
Abatement Act of 1970
(PL91-604.42 U.S.C. §
1857, et. seq.)
Environmental Protection
Agency
To thoroughly investigate the effects
of noise on the public health and
welfare, and to identify major noise
sources.
1. Establish a non-regulatory
Office of Noise Abatement and
Control to determine the
following: effects at various
levels: projected growth of noise
levels in suburban areas through
the year 2000: the psychological
and physiological effect on
humans; effects of sporadic
extreme noise (such as jet noise
near airports) as compared with
constant noise; effect on wildlife
and property (including value);
effects of sonic booms on
property (including value); and
such other matters as may be of
interest in the public welfare.
53
Citation
Administering
Agency
TABLE 32 (Conrd.)
Primary Purpose
Provialons
Noise Control Act of 1972
(PL92-842, 42 U.S.C. 3
4901, et. seq.)
Federal Aviation Act of 1968
(49 U.S.C. 3 611 and 1431)
Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1971 (29
U.S.C. 600 et. seq.)
NEW YORK STATE
New York State
Constitution (Article 14,34)
Environmental Conservation
Law (Article 3)
Environmental Conservation
Law (Article 19)
Vehicle and Traffic Law
(3375 and 381 )
Navigation Law
Parks and Recreation Law
(3 25.75)
Labor Law (327-29 and 200)
Penal Law (3240 and 722)
Public Service Law (Article
VIII)
Town Law(3130)
ViJlage Law (3 4-412)
COUNTY
Suffolk County Sanitary
Code (ArticFe 10)
Environmental Protection
Agency
Federal Aviation
Administration in
conjunction with the
Environmental Protection
Agency
Occupational Safety and
Health Administration in
U.S. Department of Labor
Legislature
Department of
Environmental Conservation
Department of
Environmental Conservation
Dept. of Motor Vehicles and
local Police Depts.
Dept. of Motor Vehicles
Dept of Parks & Recreation
Department of Labor
State and Local Police
Public Service Commission
Local Police or
Enforcement Unit
Local Pohce or
Enforcement Unit
Department of Health
Services
To set the broad goal of protechng
all Americans from "Noise that
leopardizes their health and we.are."
Regulahng aircraft and mrport noise.
Protechon of employees from
adverse effects of noise while on the
job
General state pohcy that the
legislature shall include adequate
provisions for the abatement of
excess and unnecessary noise.
D.E.C. Commissioner will provide for
prevenhon and abatement of noise.
Prevent air poIlubon and noise is
listed as an air contaminant
Prevent motor vehicle noise.
Prevent noise from boats and other
floating structures
Prevent noises from vehicles m
parks.
Provides for noise control in areas
SubleCt to the Labor Law i.e.,
factories and construction sites.
To prevent loud and disturbing noise
Limit no~se associated with major
utility transmission facilities
Provides that Towns may prevent
unreasonable loud or d~sturbing
noise.
Provides that villages may prevent
unreasonable loud or d~sturbing
noise
To prevent loud and disturbing noise
1. To serve as a coordinator
within the Federal Government
for noise contro~ effort.
2. To establish no~se standards
based on scientific criteria
documents.
3. TO requlate noise emissions
from products ~n commerce.
4. To provide general
mformahon to the public on
noise emission of such products
1 To provide for the control and
abalement of sircraft no,se and
sonic boom.
2. Issue standards and
regulations for all new a~rcralt
1 Develop or adopt sound Jevel
and exposure standards.
2 Enforce noise standards
adopted
R~ght to conduct necessary
studies and formulate standards
Adopt appropriate standards d
necessary
Requires mufflers on motor
vehicles and stipulates standards
for vehicle noise emissions
Requires mufflers and exhaust
standards for water related craft
Requires mufflers on
snowmobiles
Allows for Industrial
Commissioner to adopt noise
control provisions
Noise can De used as a standard
)or determining d~sorderly
conduct.
Requires S[JDmlSsIOnS Of noise
~nformatlon as part of
application for certificate of
enwronmental compahblhty
local laws section of this tablei
54
Townlhlp
Types of Noise
TABLE 32 (Cont'(L)
Town Noise Control Ordinances
Sound Level (dBA) Distance
Time
Penalty
Babylon
Brookhaven
East Hampton
Huntington
Smithtown
Southampton
1979
1977
1969
1971
1960
1970
air conditioning 50~J5 3 feet
commercial, business. 65 or L10 of 60
industry 55 or El0 of 82
construction L10 of 80 property line
130 (impulsive)
stationary motor vehicle
in excess of 10,000 lbs.
motor vehicle 86-90
motor boat 84
any unreasonable 95 for 30 seconds
public entertainment
animals & birds, sound
reproduction devices,
shouting & peddling,
loading and unloading
motor boats 80 dBA
standing motor vehicle 20 min. PH
in excess of 10,000 lbs.
air conditioning 55
construction or L10 Of 80
demolition
commerce, business 65, L10 Of 60
and industry 55, L10 of 50
radio, phono
sound device and
apparatus
radio, phono, t.v.
yelling, shouting,
singing
machinery, pile drivers,
etc.
construction, demo-
lition, road repair
sound devices and
apparatus
radio, phono, t.v.
machinery and equipment
construction, demo-
lition, etc.
sound device or
apparatus
radio, phono, t.v. 70
construction, demo-
lition, etc.
sound device or
apparatus
machinery and 70
equipment
radio, phono, t.v.
yelling, shouting and
singing
sound device and
apparatus - permit
needed
55
50 ft. from center lane
50 ft. or shoreline
any point occupied
by customers
at any shore
across residential
real property
boundary
outside window at
property line
across residential
property line
across residential
property line
50 feet
500 feet
property line
property line
7am-7pm
7pm-7am
8pm-7am
30 min. during
8pm*7am
any hour
8pm-Tam
8pm-7am
8pm-7am
7pm-7am
12 mid-Tam
12 rnid-7am
lOpm*7am
6prn-Tam
lOpm-9am
11pm-Tam
lOpm-7am
6pm-7am
6pm-Tam
6pm-7am
up to $250./$500
for violation or
immediate halt
up to $50. and/
or 15 days
up to $50. and/
or 15 days
$250.-$500.
and/or 15 deys
up to $50. and/
or 15 days
up to $50. and/
or 15 days
Time
Brlghtwaters
East Hampton
Lindenhurst
Lloyd Harbor
1979
1948
amplifying apparatus
sound amplifying
devices, radio, tv, etc
animals causing long
continued noise
automobiles, mo(or-
cycleS, etc.
construction and
sound device or
apparatus
factory warehouse
equipment
singing, whistling
loading & unloading
construction or repair
of buildings
95
30 ft from polnt of
orig~n
200 ft. of residential
zone
30 ft
100 ft
56
gpm-7pm
9'30pm-10am
Opm-Sam
8pm-7am
8pm-7am
wkdys
8pm-gam
Sundays
8pm-7am
lgpm-7am
10pm-7am
10Dm-9am
wkdys.
8pm~am
Sundays
8pm-7am
7pm-Tam
weekdays
5pm~am
6pm-ram
5pm~am
up to $250
up to $250
up to $050.
and/or 15 Gays
up to $250
and/or 15 days
up to $250
and/or 19 days
up to $250.
and/or 15 Oays
Ocean Beech
Old Field
Petchogue
1949
1979
1973
30 ft.
60 ft.
450 ft.
95
80 at any shoreline
unreasonable $50. not to
period time exceed $250.
7am-Spm
8pm-7am
8pm-7am
9am-spm
50-55
50
65 or LIO of ~0
55orlgofSO
8pm-7am
7am-7pm
7em-7pm
50 ft. from building 11 pm-Tam
100 It. 11pm-7am
6pm-7am
1Opm-Tam
100 ff. 11 pm-Tam
lOpm-7am
street adjacent to school
or hoepltal
6pm-7am
6pm-7am
$25. not tO ex-
radio, phone, tv,
musical instrument
vehicle horn or warning
device
yelling, shouting.
whistling or singing
sound device for corn-
50 ft. from point Of
origin
up to $100. for
diSOrderly
57
OPEN SPACE
INTRODUCTION
Open space in Suffolk County includes vacant or undeveloped
land, public, private and quasi-publically-owned open space (park-
land. preserves, golf courses, other commercial recreation s~tesl.
farmland and open space dedicated as scenic corridors and conserva-
tion easement areas. Low density development also provides some of
the benefits of open space.
In the past year, approximately 400 acres were added to the
publicly and privately owned open space system. Open space lands
that are left m the natural state provide valuable scenic, recreational.
and environmental assets to the County and serve to protect the h~gh
quality groundwater recharge areas that supply the County's under-
lying aquifer system. Protection of the aquifers will assure high quahty
drinking water to future generations. Open space lands also serve to
protect surface water quahty, prime wildlife habitats and unique, rare
and endangered species habitats.
STATE OF OPEN SPACE ACQUISITIONS
1. 1981 Open Space Acreage
In 1981, ~n Suffolk County. there were5,536 acres of Federal
parkland, 27,666 acres of New York State parks and preserves, 1,579
acres of wetlands owned by the New York State Department of Con-
servabon and 17,770 acres of county-owned open space. The Town
open space and park acreage totaled 10,803 acres. In addibon to the
publicly owned open space, private groups, including theNatureCon-
servancy, owned 4,509 5 acres
2. Recently Acquired Open Space
I~1 the past year, Suffolk County completed most of the pro-
posed Lake Ronkonkoma Parkland acquisition. The County also has
acquired numerous acres through tax default Some of these acres
include valuable freshwater and tidal wetlands, flood plain areas,
prime aquifer recharge areas, prime watershed management areas,
and prime wildlife habitats. At the present time, some of these acres
are in the process of being transferred to Suffolk County Parkland
(See Recommendabons).
The NYSDEC purchased the following tidal wetlands during
Acreage Location
15 Napeague
Town of East Hampton
42 Baiting Hollow
Town of Riverhead
78" Baibng Hollow
Town of Riverhead
The NYSDEC also is in the process of acqu*r~ng six (6) addi-
tional tidal wetlands properties.
~-Acqu*red through easement
'Source: Personal Communication w~th K. Koetzner. NYSDEC,
2/18/89
The Nature Conservancy has acquired the following sites in
the past year
Additional Acres at Wad*ng Wad*ng Rwer
R~ver Marsh Town of Rlverhead
Griffith Preserve Quogue
(2 acres) Town of Southampton
Mud Creek Preserve Mathtuck
(15 acres) Town of Southold
Henry Reppa Pond
Watershed at Wading R~ver
Atlanbc Double Dunes
(This acquisition is m
cooperation w~tn
East Hampton Town)
The Nature Conservancy is ~n the process of acquiring
additional prime sites in Suffolk County."
"Source: 1981 Acbvities Report of the Long Island Chapler of the
Nature Conservancy
PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Publlcally-owned open space is expensive to acquire and
acquisihon results in a tax loss to school districts and mun~crpallties.
However. resulting cost-benefits to society of open space acquisition
~s difficult to eshmate W hen open space lands are developed, the need
for pubhc serwces increases (such as police and hre protection, road
and drainage, sewage treatment, etc.). The need for classroom space
may also increase where the existing capacity is limited. The acquisi-
tion of open space lands can also result in the appreciation of adjacent
and nearby properties and thus add to tax revenues.
O ne of theproblems with the CUrrent dedication of open space
durra9 the subdivision review and development process, is Ihat lands
proposals slated for an open space -- "forever wild" designahon as
~denbfied on subdivision maps may not be implemented if a restrictive
covenant has not been developed to protect th~s land. and d the
"open space" remmns on the tax rolls, these lands may become tax
delinquent In order for the tax delinquent lands to be protected,
Suffolk County must acquire the lands and designate them "forever
wild" parkland. In order for the County to do this, the back ta;~ es must
be paid. The towns m their building permit process could w~thold the
certificate of occupancy until a protective deed has been secured and
the back taxes pa~d. Land set aside as a conservation ease mint should
not be taxed as developable land. The full tax burden for a Subdivision
should be transferred to a developed portion of Ihe property. Reduc
lion of taxes for open space lands such as conservation easements is
adwsable
been through the use of clulteBng. Clustered development, COmbined
with the dedication of conservation easements, can protect lhe enw-
Ishp, Smithtown and Huntington have obtained over 1,000 acres of
public parklands through clustering or density modihcal,on Brook-
limits to public acquisition funds, this method of preserwng open
The management of the public and private lands is a major
County concern since there must be taxation and maintenance poli-
cies that guarantee retention of the land for open spaces and a prohibi-
t,on on open areas be,ng used tor dumping purposes and othe~
detriments to the community
GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
1. Federal Programs
The Federa~ Laws affecting open space are included m a chart
~n the 1981 AnnualEnwronmentalReport (See Table 27, page 471
58
2. State Programs
T he proposed parks for New York S tare and other NYS activ~-
ties are listed on pages48 and 49 of the 1981 report.
The NYSDEC Pine Barrens Task Force (Task Force} has pre-
pared a management statement for the Long Island Pine Barrens. T he
NYSDEC has also prepared a management Report entitled the Unit
Management Plan for the Pine Barrens Preserve, for the RCA property
in Rocky Point, Town of Brookhaven. This report was recently distrib-
uted for review and comment. T he Task Force has also monitored the
recent open space activities within the Long Island Pine Barrens.
3. County Programs
The most significant county programs and activdies with
regard to open space are described below.
Suffolk County Planning Commission
According to the amended New York State Municipal Law,
county planning agencies are now required to review all condomini-
ums as if they were subdivisions, regardless of their location in the
county. Chapter 793 of the Laws of 1978, et. seq.. Section 339 (fi of the
Real Property Law was amended so that all county legal planning
boards were given authority to review condominiums as subdivisions.
Town. Village, and City do not have authority to review condos as
subdiwsions IChap. 705 of the Laws of 1980, Secbon 339 (fi).
Article 13, of the Suffolk ecu nty Charter has been amended to
conform with the State Law. This article adds review of proposed
condominiums to the Commission's subdivision review authority.
Final authority to approve or disapprove subdivisions rests with the
local plannmg agencies.
b. Historic Trust
1981 saw a year of tremendous involvement on the part of the
Suffolk County Historic Trust in its charter mandate to preserve, pro-
tect and maintain the County's cultural and historic resources. The
Historic Trust Committee expanded its meeting schedule from one to
four meetings per year and met at various historic locations owned by
the County. In addition to concerning itself solely with the physical
upkeep of Suffolk's historic properties, the Historic Trust amplified its
scope to discuss mnovatlve preservatior~ strategies.
A basic tenet of the HistoricTrust is that historic preservation
is to be considered m all aspects of county initiated projects and
activities. Historic responsibilities are also to be encouraged whenever
possible at the local level. Therefore levels of cooperation have been
estabfished between different County departments, local govern-
ments and historical groups to insure the preservation of Suffolk
County's architectural and natural heritage.
The procedures and policies set forth in the Htstoric Trust
Manual (1975 B. Van Liew, CEQ) were the foundation for Suffolk's
preservation efforts during 1981. The County's historic properties
were evaluated in a contextual nature, examining the different cultural
significance of each and their interrelationship to one another. In this
manner the County will be in a positio~ to interpret widely varying
aspects of our heritage for the residents of Suffolk. Through publiC
involvement it is hoped a sense of time and place, along with a feeling
of regional identity and respect for history will develop. Historic prop-
erties entrusled to public care represent the hope and aspirations of
one generation for the next and preserve a quality of life that is all too
quickly being extinguished.
In order to attract as broad a support base as possible for the
preservation and restoration of County-owned historic resources sev-
eral acbons were expanded or initiated du ring 1981. Final nominations
to the National Register of Historic Places are in the process of com-
plehon by New York State for Coindre H all and the Blydenburgh Park
Historic District and nomination of other Suffolk County properties is
pending, as shown in Table 33. Table 34 shows other county proper-
ties eligible for listing on the Nationai Register of Historic Places. In
addition, the historic area ~n Blydenburgh Park was the first of a long
list of planned dedications to the County Historic Trust.
TABLE 33
Suffolk County Properties In Process of
Nomination to Natlon&l Register of
Historic Places
1. COINDRE HALL. HUNTINGTON--Final nomination now pending.
First County owned property to be nominated to National Register
by Committee on Registers (COR) for the New York State Board
for Historic Preservation.
2. BLYDENBURGH PARK HISTORIC DISTRICT (NISSEOUOGUE
RIVER MILLS), SMITHTOWN--District includes all buildings in
proposed Historic Trust Area. Nomination to National Register
granted by COR on April3, 1981.
3. VANDERBUILT MOTOR PARKWAY--Towns of Hungtington,
Smithtown, and Islip.
4. GREENPORT RAILROAD DOCK AND ADJACENT RAILROAD
BUILDINGS.
5. VANDERBILT MUSEUM--Centerport.
6. RUDOLPH OYSTER CULL HOUSE, PENNEY BOAT HOUSE, TWO
BOATS, MODESTY AND PRISCILLA--At Suffolk County Marine
Museum, West Sayville, New York.
7. COUNTY COURT HOUSE AND ADJACENT BUILDINGS.
(COURTHOUSE HISTORIC DISTRICT)--Riverhead, New York.
TABLE 34
Suffolk County Owned or Utilized Properties
Potentially Eligible for Listings In the
National Register of Historic Places
CATHEDRAL PINES EAST COUNTY PARK--Middle Island, Barn
Complex, Dayton House, Cathedral Pines.
CEDAR POINT LIGHTHOUSE--Cedar Point Park, East Hampton.
COL. FLOYD ROBERT HOUSE--Mastic Beach (So. of Brookhaven
Health Center)
COUNTY FARM--Yaphank, Barn
CRANBERRY BOG--RIverhead, Barn
HAWKINS-JACOBSEN HOUSE--Yaphank
HUBBARD COUNTY PARK--Flanders: Black Duck Lodge, (Hubbard-
Hutton House) Support Buildings and Cemetery,
LONG WHARF--Sag Harbor
MONTAUK COUNTY PARK--Montauk, Big Reed Pond, Blockhouse,
Indian Fields and Third House,
SANS SOUCE LAKES PRESERVE--Sayville. Roosevelt Summer Est-
ate, Main House and Support Buildings.
SOUTHAVEN COUNTY PARK--Anson B. Hard House, Hard-Gerard
House ("Yellow House"), Barn, Mill site, Cemetery, Railroad Bridges.
TIMBER POINT CLUB--Great River, Main Clubhouse and smalJ sup-
port structures.
WEST HILLS COUNTY PARK--Huntington, Jacob Smith Cottage.
WEST SAYVILLE COUNTY PARK--Hard Mansion, support buildings
Negotiations also began during the past year with several
educational and historic organizations to sustain the County's historic
resources. During 1982 it is expected that a major public/private effort
will be announced leading to the restoration and interpretabon of
Suffolk County's historic properties. Such a project would rely heavily
on the role of a private non-proht orgamzation that would assist Suf-
folk County government in generating funds,developing colJections
eno consolidating public support.
The following is a status report on preservation projects at County
owned properties undertaken by the Department of Parks, Office of
the Historic Trust, during 1981.
59
HUBBARD COUNTY PARK, Flendera -- Severely damaged by van-
dals in 1977 the historic Black Duck Lodge owned successively by the
Astor. Hubbard and E. F. Hutton families seemed on the verge of total
ruin by 1981. However, through the efforts of the Department of Parks
stabilizahon work was begun on the structure with preservahon and
security requirements uppermost in mind. The building received a new
wood shingle roof. windows and structural reinforcement. An apart-
ment is presently being finished in one wing of the building with a M ay
1st completion date. At that time a resident caretaker will provide
round the clock security to this remote historic site, unhi a public use
plan is developed.
HAWKINS-JACOBSEN HOUSE, Yaphank -- This historic structure
on busy Yaphank Avenue, acknowledged as Yaphank's most ,mpres-
s;ve home. was the scene of concentrated restorahon acbvity during
1981. The Department of Parks has completed about 95% of the exte-
rior restoration while the Yaphank H~storical Society made substanhal
progress on the interior. Master craftsmen painstakingly restored mtn-
cate plasterwork in the double parlors and main hall Tentative plans
project opening the house on a limited basis in June 1982
COINDRE HALL, Huntington The former George McKesson Brown
estate was leased to the Eagle Hill School during 1981 and much
needed capital ~mprovements to the property were undertaken almost
~mmediately. Eagle Hill has committed ,tself to the preservation of
s~gniflcant architectural and decorative features ot the castle hke
structure and w~ll work w~th the Historic Trust to restore Co,ndre Hall
1o ~ts previous splendor.
BL YDENBURGH PARK, SmBhtown -- Suffolk County's first Histor~c
Trust area was dedicated by the Legislature in April 1981. A twenty
three acre section on the north side of Blydenburgh Park is now
protected from incompatible development and intrusions. The Bly-
enburgh Historic Trust area includes the New Mill (1798), adjacent
Mdler's House (1801). the main Blydenburgh residence (1821) ane
several other historic farm buildings. The inter,or of a Carpenter-
Gothic farm cottage near the main park gate was restored during 1981
and now serves as a field office for the Suffolk County Historic Trust.
The exterior of the building will be returned to its 19th century color
scheme dunng 1982 Other restoration projects at Blydenburgh
involved the ma~n house which was returned to itsVictorian colors and
received a new wood shingle roof.
Among other ~mprovements in the Blydenburgh Historic area
were landscape and scenic view restoration, removal of unsightly
physical elements and the coordination of a pedestrian and vehicular
traffic plan designed to protect the fragile terrain and cultural re-
sources at Blydenburgh.
In December 1981 an historical exhibd and reception were
held at the Blydenburgh-Weld House as the first tailor step to estab-
hshing a pubbc-private effort in the restoration of historic buildings at
Blydenburgh. During 1982, with help from the private sector, the
Department of Parks hopes to open to public viewing a restored sec-
tion of the M~ller's H dUSe. T his would mark the first time the house has
been publicly available since its purchase by the County in 1~4
A restorahon Master Plan for the Blydenburgh Historic Trust
Area is presently being developed by the County Historic Trust Man-
ager. Components of the plan include the restoration of the grist mi II to
operating condition. The mill is to be the focal point for a working 19tn
century farm/industrial complex at Blydenburgh. A "wheat to flout"
interpretation of the historic area is envisioned with a five year target
date. The project promises to become one of Long Island's most
unique restorations.
ROOSEVELT ESTATE, Savvllle -- A major effort at the former John
Roosevelt estate during 1981 involved thoroughly cleaning the Colon-
ial Rewval Roosevelt house and cataloguing its contents. The man-
sion, uninhabited since 1936, required several weeks labor on the part
of Parks Department employees who removed valuable artifacts and
furnishings to secure storage elsewhere. It is expected that the R oose-
velt property will be dedicated to the Historic Trust during 1982.
Restoration and use programs for this magnificent h~storlc property
are now being developed.
DAYTON HOUSE, Cllfhedr~l PIne~, Yephenk A small badly vandal-
~zed dwelling within the boundaries of Cathedral Pines East County
Park was scheduled for demolition until it was discovered that ~t dated
from the 1790-1812 period. Further research revealed that it was the
home of "Uncle BII¥1 Dayton who early in the 19th century plan/ed
seedbngs that grew into massive trees for which the park ~s no,ed.
After consideration by the Historic Trust Commdtee, the Department
of Parks attractively sealed the structu re to msu re its protechon untd a
restoration program can be developed.
c. The Urban Parka end Recreation Recovery Program
The Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program ( UPARR )
Planning Grant for Sulfolk County was completed this year by the
Suffolk County Planning Department. It prowded an opportunity for
the towns, villages, non-profit or private organlzahons, school districts
and [he County to prepare, integrate and coordinate the*r park and
recreation planning etlorts. Overall, this report represents a compre-
hensive plan of the park and recreation resources and future re~abillt-
abve and innovative projects for possihle federal and state funding
over the next five years for various jurisdictions throughout the
County
As part of this program, each mumc,pality developed a park
and recreabon plan based on a needs assessment and user input. They
particularly directed their efforts where recreational resources were
most severely limited or open space was scarce.
Through the use of demographic data on populahon dens~hes
and economic profiles, fourteen target areas throughout the County
were identified. Neighborhoods of high density, Iow income and/or
minority populations in addition to other characterisbcs were criteria
for selection as a target area.
Prior,ties and subsequent plans 1or rehablbtation anciror
expansion of certain existing parks with deteriorated facilities which
service the designated target areas were developed by each mumc~-
paldy. Although opportunities for federal funding of these park pro-
posals are uncertain at this time, the implementation of these plans
has begun on the local level.
AS part of Suffolk County's portion of the plan. the following
County parks were proposed for improvements:
West H~IIs Lake Ronkonkoma
Van Bourgond~en Southaven
Gardiner Hubbard
Blydenburgh Peconic Dunes
Additionally. relocation of activities, improved protection of
certa,n enwronmentally sensitive areas and redesign of inadequate
walkways and access trouble spots for the handmapped have been
~ncorporated into these park plan recommenaations based upon user
needs and nearby neighborhood input. The County Capdal Program
has allocated funding for a portion of these plan proposals. T he vacant
land surrounding Lake Ronkonkoma is one of the County's recent
acquisitions. Th~s land was acqu*red to provide watershed protection
for the Lake as well as to provide fresh water recreational opportunibes
for Suffolk Cdizens Phasel -- Park Planning for the use and prolec-
tion of these lands was completed in 1981
Suffolk County's major goals and oblecbves for future park
and open space acquislhons were ~dentlfied in this plan. The County's
main concerns to protect the underlying groundwater resources, nat-
ural and seas*tire environments and exisbng open space holdings
were of paramount importance to tt~e development of these goals and
are presented below
· acquirelandssultableforSuffolkCountyforparkpurposes
~n densely populated areas where parkland acreage and
recreahonal facilities are presently lacking.
· acquire additional shorefront lands to augment the pres-
ently congested conditions.
60
· acquirecontiguouspercelsoflandtoconnectexistingopen
space in order to provide extended recreational activities
and trail systems.
These goals along with pressing environmental concerns w#l
shape Suffolk's proceedings for the future acquisition of open space.
d. Plennlngfor2OeZonelll-- CentrelSu#olkPIneBerrenl
Since March 1981 the Suffolk County Planning Commission
has been working with the staff of the Long Island Regional Planning
Board (LIRPB) and members of the Pine Barrens Planning Council to
develop a comprehensive land use management plan for the Pine
Barrens Study Area. The study area incorporates approximately
95,000 acres which are located within Zone III, a region of deep aquifer
recharge, that was identified in the 208 Long Island Comprehensive
Waste Treatment Management Plan. The study area is the largest
contiguous tract of relatively undeveloped land on Long Island. Within
this tract, development pressures have been intense. The population
within the study area has more than doubled since 1970.
The Pine Barrens Planning Council (PBPC) is an advisory
body to the staff of the LIRPB and the Suffolk County Planning Com-
mission. The PBPC has set up several sub-committees, each of which
is dealing with the issue of open space according to its scope of
delegated responsibility. The staff of the LIRPB has worked closely
with the PBPC. The staff has considered the Council's suggestions in
the course of its work on various portions of the plan and on several
maps. The staff, with the help of the PBPC, is developing guidelines
that will help it identify those lands which should remain as open
space. As part of this project, the staff, along with the Water Resources
subcommittee, is developing water quality related development and
land management guidelines. Finally, the staff is working with the
Ecological subcommittee to develop an ecologically sound basis for
land management decisions in the Pine Barrens. This particular pro-
ject involves determining the ecological value of specific tracts of land
and defining the impact of existing development on those tracts.
The County owns 4,321 acres of parkland and, in addition, the
County owns hundreds of parcels of #tax lisle" lands within the study
area. It is the County's policy to review these properties before putting
them up for auction or determine if the property should be preserved
as County-owned space.
The Suffolk County Planning Department in cooperation with
the PBPC will also be developing a recreation plan for the Pine
Barrens. R ecreation goals and objectives have already been prepared
by the Suffolk County Planning Department staff and reviewed by the
PBPC. The plan will use soils, environmental and slope information as
a basis to determine what types of recreation various areas can sustain
(i.e. passive vs. active recreation). The plan will then be reviewed by
the PBPC, particularly it~ subcommittees, in relation to ecological,
water resource and economic considerations. The recreation plan will
then be integrated into the comprehensive plan for the Pine Barrens.
e. Farmlands
The Phase II portion of the Suffolk County Farmland Program
that will preserve approximately 3400 additional acres has been
approved by the Legislature. The purchase of development rights of
farmland in seven Suffolk County towns will result in a total of approxi-
mately 6,600 acres for Phase I and Phase II combined.
In addition to these acres, an East Moriches Agricultural Dis-
trict in Brookhaven Town has been created and the Easthampton
Town Farmland Program has been approved. TheTown of Southamp-
ton is acquiring two tracts of farm~and and they will be negotiating for
additional parcels. This action is a part of the town's efforts to supple-
ment the Suffolk County Farmland Program.
f. County-Owned Properties Recommended for "Forever Wild"
Designation
There are three environmentally significant undeveloped sub-
divisions located in eastern Suffolk County of whicl3 the County owns
the majority of the parcels.
The lands are "tax lien" properties. "Flower City", located in
the Town of Brookhaven is comprised of 190 acres of which the
County owns approximately 146 acres. The remaining 42 acres are
privately owned and are interspersed throughout the subdivision.
Only approximately three (3) acres of this site are developed. It is
recommended that the County acquire the remaining acres and that
the entire property be designated "forever wild" county parklands.
Wading River Estates is located in the Town of Riverhead. T he
County sold their parcels (27 acres) located north of O ak Street, at an
auction in May of 1979. The County owns a little more than 50% of the
land located south of Oak Street, with the remaining parcels in private
ownership. The County should acquire the remaining acres of these
environmentally sensitive lands.
The Dwarf Pines (Westhampton Manor Subdivision) is a 156
acre s~te, located in the town of Southampton. Suffolk County owns
approximately 108 acres of the subdivided land. There are also unsub-
divided lands, located within and surrounding the subdivision which
remain in private ownership. It is recommended that Suffolk County
acquire the remaining privatey owned parcels in each subdivision.
Each site would then be comprised of contiguous County-owned
undeveloped lands. Once acquired, these subdivisions, in their
entirety, should be placed under the"'Forever Wild" parkland designa-
tion allowing them to remain indefinitely as open space.
Each site has significant environmental characteristics. The
Flower City property is located within the prime watershed area of the
Carman's River. The Wading River Site Is located near the Peconic
River and it includes freshwater wetlands and high water table areas.
The site is generally not suitable for development. The Dwarf Pine
Plains in Southampton is a unique habitat for a nu tuber of species not
found elsewhere on Long Island. It is also located in the 208 -- Zone III
Deep Aquifer Recharge Zone.
g. Lake Ronkonkome
The County has recently acquired the majority of privately-
owned undeveloped waterfront and underwater lands surrounding
Lake Ronkonkoma. Several of these parcels require immediate atten-
tion to reclaim the land, reduce the erosion and sedimentation now
occurring on these parcels, fo prevent further destruction of the natu-
ral vegetation on these sites, and to provide needed recreational activi-
ties for Suffolk residents.
There are still several parcels that need to be acquired. A plan
for this Lake has been developed by the Suffolk County Planning
Department working with the Lake Ronkonkoma Citizens Committee.
The Committee is chaired by Legistator JohnWehrenberg of Islip. The
membership includes Legislators Donald AIIgrove and John Foley,
representing Smithtown and Brookhaven, private citizens, community
leaders and representatives of the Suffolk County Parks and Public
Works Departments. Phase II of this plan should be completed in 1982.
This portion of the plan will include site designs. See Fresh Surface
Waters for a description of further planning for the Lake R onkonkoma
watershed.
h. Addltlonal Proposed Acquleltlone
Robins Island
On March 23,1982, theSoutholdTown Board passed a resolu-
tion supporting County acquisition of Robins Island and County
designation of the island as a nature preserve to be managed by the
Nature Conservancy. The County Executive supports the preservation
of the 433 acre island which is located in the Town of Southold
between Little and Great Peconic Bays. The County Executive will
initiate appraisals and other steps necessary to present this package to
the County Legislature.
Edgewood Hospital Property
The State of New York and the NYS Office of Genera{ Services
~s negotiating with Suffolk County on the terms of the transtar of the
Edgewood property to Suffolk County. It is intended that the area will
be managed as a preserve and that the undisturbed portion of this land
will be protected from environmental impact
61
Frlede's Riverboat Property
The Suffolk County Planning Commission has recommended
that the 9 acre parcel bordering the Nissequogue River on Jericho
Turnpike in Smith/own be added to the county holdings along the
river. The site contained a restaurant that was destroyed by fire in
1981. The Iow-lying nature of the site meant that runoff and overflow-
ing sanitary systems on the property have already had a negative
impact on the river. Acquisition will allow creation of a canoe launch-
ing site, with use of the existing parking area.
4. Local Programs and Activities
The most signihcant local activities this year was the comple-
tion of the Suffolk County Comprehensive Park Plan. This plan
includes new detailed parks plans of the towns and villages of Suffolk
County The Plan was distributed in March. 1982. {See Part 3
"County" above).
b. Local Acgullltlon Through the Subdlvlilon Review Process
Local municipalities are continuing to acquire or preserve
open space as a part of the subdivision process which must comply
with the existing zoning laws. Additional techniques are recluired to
protect and manage these once they have been dedicated as open
space or as a conservation easement. (See Part F Recommendations)
EXTENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF 1981 RECOMMENDATIONS
The 1981 Open Space recommendahons implementation status
is described in Table 35.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Management of Perpetual Conservation Ealements
a. Problem
Conservation Easements require guidelines for proper
management and protection. Setting aside a parcel of land for open
space or designating that a property shall be forever wild does not
protect the property from impacts from nearby land use activities nor
does the classification protect the existing natural features, vegetation
or wildlife habitats from normal site alteration and subsequent impacts
Some of the most significant impacts upon natural areas are
listed below.
· Add~tionalpawngandstructuresareaddedtoresidentiahor
other) properties, after the subdivision sites are developed
and aRer existing s/ottawa/er facet/has have been installed.
The additional impermeable pawns increases the storm-
water runoff from the developed s~te. The increased runoff
may result ~n increased erosion and/or sedimentation in or
upon the conservation easement area. Sheet, r/Il or gully
erosion may destroy vegetation and associated wildlife hab-
~ta ts, and result in a loss of soils. S oil loss may make replac e-
men/ of vegetation more difficult, if the conservation area
includes wetlands, excessive sedimentation can accelerate
the loss of or change in wetland species. Nutrients applied
to la wns and plants from upland areas impact surface water
quality and accelerate plant growth and eventual loss of the
water body.
· The natural areas may be harvested, resulhng in extensive
environmental damage. Unrestricted tree cutting and re-
moval of the more desirable plant species can result ~n loss
of the vegetation "gene pool".
can result from illegal site grading ac tivifies and the rem oval
of vegetation and top sol/as specified in the subdivision
· Swimming pool owners may allow their pool water to dra~n
onto the conservation easement area. resulting in impacts
upon vegetation and soils.
· illegal trash and rubbish disposals in natural areas is a key
problem in Suffolk County
· Motor bikes and other vehicles can result In extensive site
damage. The impacts upon the site include loss of vegeta-
tion and softs, increased erosion, sedimentation and fire
hazards.
· Horse trails and pedestrian trails located on unsuitable
soils, or trail overuse can result in extensive trail damage.
· Any overuse of a site can result in significant enwronmental
~mpacts
· Furtherdevelopmentorotherlanduseactivlbeslocatedtoo
close to wildlife nesting and breeding grounds or to wildlife
food sources can result in the eventual loss of dependent
wildlife species
· Dumping and fl/hng of sotl and debris results in loss of
vegetation. Fl/Img or dumping in surface waters Will result ~n
water quality impacts and possible permanenl loss of plant
and animal species
· Thelmproperslze. typeoruseofOoats~nwetlandareasorm
shallow surface waters can have significant ~mpacts upon
aquatic plant and aroma/species Bank erosion can result
from wave action created by power boats
c. Recommended Guidelines
The conservation easement may contain wetlands lhdal or
guidelines listed below are generaJ and apply to all areas above
an area must have approval by the governing body in charge
of management of the area. I This would include a person
designated by the governing body to review and evaluate
selected by the governing body to manage the land, to give
al by the governing body in charge of management of the
amount of discharge must be approved either by Ihs
the person given authority by that body to protect and man-
· Innocaseshal/stormwaterrunoffbedirectlydeposited~nto
62
Site Name
1. Baiting Hollow
2. Barcelona Neck
3. Carll'$ River
4. Carman's River
Flower City
(subdivision)
TABLE 35
1981 Recommended Sites for Acquisition by Suffolk County
Statue
Recommended
Acreage Le~atlon (Town) Completed In Progress -no action
363 Riverhead
355 East Hampton
29 Babylon
430 Brookhaven
190 Brookhaven X
Abandoned
×
Comments
Abandoned for County
action. Mostly acquired by
the State.
See Chapter on Surface
Waters and Freshwater
Wetlands-NYS. Wild,
Scenic & Recreational
Rivers Systems Act.
To be reviewed by the
Town. Approximately 60%
of the land is County-
owned.
5. Dwarf Pine Forest
(Westhamptcn Manor
Subdivision)
6. Gardiner'slsland
7. Lake Roflkonkoma
8. Long Pond Greenbelt
9. Maple Swamp-
Birch Creek
10. Nissequogue River
11. Peconic River
Wading River
Estates
(subsidivion-south
of Oak Street)
Southampton
3,380 East Hampton
204 Brookhaven,
Islip,
Smithtown
800 Southampton
2,000 Southampton
50 Smithtown
1,250 Riverhead,
Brookhaven
117 Riverhead
X
X
X
To be reviewed by the Town.
Approximately 60% of the
land is County-owned.
Would like to make sure it's
preserved (privately).
As of January 1982 acquisi-
tion of properties, adjacent
to the Lake, for park
purposes is complete. Other
lands are being obtained
by tax default.
Status=24% Complete by
1983.
Grant Proposal has been
withdrawn. Some land has
been acquired for
developmeot.
See Chapter on Surface
Waters and Freshwater
Wetlands-NYS Wild,
Scenic & Recreational
Rivers.
See Chapter on Surface
Waters and Freshwater
Wetlands-NYS Wild,
Scenic & Recreational
Rivers Systems Act.
To be reviewed by the
Town. Approximately 50%
of the land is County
owned.
12. Robbins island
460 Southold
63
· Tree cutting m the conservation areas may De allowed with a
permit from the governing body. All trees to be c ut should be
carefully selected by the conservation easement area man-
ager. Supervision by the conservation management officer
may be required.
· Spraying of pesticides in or on properties contiguous w~th
the conservation area shall not be permitted unless
approved by the governing body.
· Areas where endangered, protected or unique species
occur shall be protected from uncontrolled samples being
taken, or removal of species.
· Fires shall not be allowed tn conservation areas.
· Dumping. rifling and deposition of debris are not permitted
in any conservation easement area.
· Noalteratlonsofanykindwglbepermittedinaconservafion
easement area without approval of the governing body and
unless it is identified in the plan for the conservation ease-
ment area.
· No vehicles will be allowed in the conservation area w~thout
a permit.
· NO parking wifl be allowed in the conservation easement
area unless it is clearly marked or approved by the govern-
mg body. All parked vehicles will be ticketed.
· NO boats will be allowed in the conservahon easement area
without a permit.
· "Normal and usual" maintenance w~fl be permitted in the
conservation easement area. Normal and usual mainte-
nance may include any activities defined as "normal and
usual" by the governing body. Suggested "normal and
usual" activities are listed below.
--Selected tree removal.
--Removal of diseased plants or animals.
--Removal of dead branches on trees.
--Additions of approved plant and animal species. The
governing body may require that only selected indigen-
ous species may be added to the area.
--Limited and controlled use of the area.
--Removal of vines from trees and shrubs.
--Mowing of selected areas on a regular bas,si2 to3 times a
yearj.
--Pruning of selected vegetation for plant health or s~te use.--Removal and possible replanting of plants to allow for
approved uses of site including trail maintenance.
--Erosion and sedimentation control measures.
S tormwater control measures. ~ncludlng measures to trap
sediments, nutrients and other pollutants and to reduce
stormwater velocities, should De allowed.
--A II ac tivlties must be approved by the govern mg body and
be in accord with a Conservation Easement Area Manage-
ment Plan end, or the Conservahon Area Site Plan. If
necessary, activities may require supervision Dy the con
servation management off, car
All existing stormwater management faclhties located ~n the
conservahon easement area shall be properly maintained as
outlined in the Conservation Easement Area Management
Plan
The County should conhnue to implement the Co[inly
Execuhve's t980 Open Space Policy See Table 36 for the
1992 recommendations. The lands located near and Stile-
cent to the Peconic, Nissequogue and Carmen's R~ver
system should receive top priority.
The Long Island Regional Planning Board. with the aid of
the P~ne Barrens Planning Council should complete the
Comprehensive Management Plan. Phase I. for the 208
Zone Ill. Pine Barrens of Central Suffolk. m 1982
· The Council on Enwronmental Quality. w~th the aid of the
Plannmg and Parks Department. should continue to inven-
tory recommended Nature Preserve sites. All of the Nature
Preserve sites located w~thzn the Pine Barrens Study Area,
should be included ~n tlse Comprehensive Management
Plan for the 20g Zone III Pine Barrens.
· The Historic Trust Manager should continue to ~mplement
the Historic Trust recommenqahons.
64
81ta Name
1. Baiting Hollow
2. Barcelona Neck
3, Carll's River
4. Carman's River
Flower City
(subdivision)
5. Dwarf Pine Forest
(Westhampton Manor
Subdivision)
6. Gardiner's Island
7. Lake Ronkonkoma
8. Long Pond Greenbelt
9. Maple Swamp-
Birch Creek
Ac~aoe
363
TABLE 36
1962 Recommended Site. for Acquieltion by Suffolk County
Status
Racemmended
Leeatien [Town] Completed in Pregreas -no aetlen
Riverhead
190
3,380
204
8O0
2,000
355 East Hampton
29 Babylon
430 Brookhaven
X
190 Brookhaven X
Southampton
East Hampton
Brookhaven,
Isllp,
Smithtown
Southampton
Southampton
10. Nissequogue River 50 Smithtown X
Riverhead, X
Brookhaven
11. Peconic River
Wading River
Estates
(subsidivion-south
of Oak Street)
1,250
X
X
X
117 Riverhead X
12. Robbins Island 460 Southold X
Abandoned
X
Cemmenta
Abandoned for County
action. Mostly acquired by
the State.
See Chapter on Surface
Waters and Freshwater
Wetlands-NYS. Wild,
Scenic & Recreational
Rivers Systems Act.
To be reviewed by the
Town. Approximately 60%
of the land is County-
owned. The County would
like to acquire the remain-
ing acreage.
To be reviewed by theTown.
Approximately 60% of the
land is County-owned.
Would like to make sure it's
preserved (privately).
As of January 1982 acquisi-
tion of properties, adjacent
to the Lake, for park
purposes is complete. Other
lands are being obtained
by tax default.
Status=24% Complete by
1983.
Grant Proposal has been
withdrawn. Some land has
been acquired/or
development.
See Chapter on Surface
Waters and Freshwater
Wetlands-NYS Wild,
Scenic & Recreational
Rivers.
See Chapter on Surface
Waters and Freshwater
Wetlands-NYS Wild,
Scenic & Recreational
Rivers Systems Act.
To be reviewed by the
Town Approximately 50%
of the land is County
owned. The County would
like to acquire the remain-
ing privately owned
acreage.
65
SOLID WASTES
UPDATE OF EXISTING SOLID WASTE SITUATION IN SUFFOLK
COUNTY
1. Town of Babylon
Solid waste continues to be buried at the Town of Babylon's
Gleam Street facility. Landfilling is the exclusive means of disposal
within the Town of Babylon. The town continues to affiliate themselves
with Multitown.
In the fall of 1981, the scavenger waste lagoons were closed.
All waste is currently being transported to the Southwest Sewer Dis-
trict's Bergen Point facility.
The accumulation of scavenger waste gathered over the years
has recently breached its confines and flooded Iow lying areas at the
site before percolating into the ground thus alleviating the question of
the disposal of nearly six million gallons of septic wastes
The town has petitioned the New York State Department of
Enwronmental Conservation {NYSDEC) for a variance from current
liner policy in exchange for a comprehensive program to insure that
downgradient consumers are provided with public water. Apparently
there are residents using contaminated private wells within the plume.
This extension would involve approximately thirteen acres upgradient
of the existing landfill. Based on the water quality wdhin the plume
generated by this facility, and adiacent industries, the Health Depart-
ment supports the variance.
The existing life of this facility continues to be about four
years.
2. Town of Brookheven
The problems associated with cover, which occurred last year,
have been resolved which in turn resolved the amount of odor com-
plaints received by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Air Pollution/Solid Waste Sections. The facility continues to receive
over 1,200 tons of solid waste per day, six days a week.
3. Town of East Hampton
Th is town continues to operate aJI of their landfill faclhtles with
no significant increase in volume. They do, however, plan to close Bull
Path in the Spring
4. Town of Huntington
This town continues to affiliate themselves with the M ultitown
Project. The town is attempting to operate all of their incinerators
around the clock with some success although incinerators of th~s
nature do require periodic maintenance.
H unti ngton currently intends to extend their landfill in a north-
erly direction. This new site is expected to occupy approximately 4.8
acres and should extend landfill life at the facility for a short period of
time. This extension is downgradient of the existing facility and the
town wishes to avoid lining the site due to the economics associated
with the project. In a recent meeting between NYSDEC and the town of
Huntington, the NYSDEC indicated that this determination would
require SEQRA review.
Volume at this facility has not changed significantly although
current landfilling activity is ir) full view of surrounding residential
communities. The proposed final elevation at this facility is 250 feet.
Methane on the site ,s ~n check with the ~nstallahon of the
second migration system, although another extension is anticipated m
a northeasterly direction.
Groundwater monitoring wells are currently being installed
and completion of this task ~s expected in the spring
5. Town of lallp
There are no s~gnifican~ changes in t he amount of waste being
processed by the Town of Islip although much has changed with
regard to the way this material is processed. The town is in their
second year of source separation and plans to extend this operation
town-wide. Thru proposed type of operation w~ll incorporate all the
small refuse districts within the town. Residents will have no choice
but to accept this program since pick-up fees will be incorporated with
real estate taxes
The town also intends to construct a new garbage-to-energy
fac~hty m conlunchon w~th this source separation prolect. This facdity
will replace the Blydenburgh Road Landfill once this facility is fil~ed to
capacdy (by 1985)
The town currently operates two fac~lihes' Blydenburgh Road
Landfdl m Hauppauge and the Lincoln Avenue facibty in Saywlle. The
town scavenger waste plant has been closed with the start up of
Bergen Point An extension to Blydenburgh Road Landfill ~s currently
under construction. The entire remaining land at this facihty ~s sche-
duled to be lined with a double liner and full leachate collection
system. To date, approximately two acres have been completed. The
town plans to open th~s new area in the near future. The town is also
mstalhng a weigh station to monitor the flow of refuse into the site
turbines and sell power to the LILCO grid
Groundwater monitoring -- the town has constructed three
mondoring wells, yet samples obtained do not indicate that they have
encountered the plume. Recent groundwater samples collected by the
Suffolk County Department of Hea)th Services' DrinkingWater S upp~y
Section indicate thai vinyl chloride monomer continues to contami-
nate wells to the east of the facility along Blydenburgh Road
Recychng -- the town's WRAP {W~th Recychng, Alternatives
Are Possible) Program has distinguished itself by recycling 200 tons-
week of materials formerly slated lot landfllling. Th~s program's pur-
pose was mainly to extend landfill life. The development of this project
along with important pohcy with regard to source separation has
prowded the town with first hand experience in this new science of
refuse handling. They have developed markets in glass, paper, waste
oil and metals; they continue to strive to reduce the need for landfill
space in any way they can.
Whlpoorw~ll School the school remains closed and vacant
The SuffoJk County Department of Health Services has not ~dentihed
any contaminant with regard to gas or water that would support the
permanent closure
Mold SporeStudy- the Department of Health has completed
a 30-week du ration study to determine ~f a serious problem exists with
regard to mold spores downwind of active landtids. The Blydenburgh
Road Landfill was used as a sample Iocatron. The results are
lorthcoming.
The town has submitted an environmental report during the
year 1981. The most salient issue noted is the town's request for
variance from Part 360 liner policy. The extension to the Young Avenue
facility ~s upgradient of the existing facihty. The determination should
be made by NYSDEC after a specific case review. There has been no
s~gnificant change in refuse quantity.
7. Town of Shelter Island
No significant change ~n handling or quantity has occurred
during 1981
66
8. Town of Smlthtown
No significant change in handling or quantity has occurred
during 1981.
9. Town of Southampton
There is no significant change in the amount of volume
handled by the town. The town is currently planning to utilize the area
upgradient of the existing site in a landfill extension. They have pre-
sented a plan to NYSDEC (January 1981 ), which suggests the use of
on-site clay as liner material. This plan will be reviewed by the
NYSDEC for determination as to acceptance.
Scavenger Waste -- the joint Riverhead/Southampton sca-
venger plant continues to occupy the drawing boards. There has been
no significant movement towards ground breaking. The town cur-
rently disposes of scavenger waste at North Sea and Westhampton
Beach.
HamptonBays -- the Town of Southampton has officially
closed the landfill at this site and has constructed and put into opera-
tion a new transfer station which is currently used to move refuse to
North Sea but can serve to transfer refuse to any location.
10. Town of Southold
There have been no significant changes in the quantity of
refuse disposed of at this facility although the town is exploring other
disposal options; specifically, the feasibility of a long term contract
with a firm that will employ the use of modular incinerators. Ultimately
the proposed facility will process this refuse into energy which will be
sold to the LILCO grid. A proposal has been made by Energy Develop-
ment Corporation of Norwich, Connecticut.
In a recently submitted environmental report, the town has
requested a variance from the current liner policy for their extension in
an easterly direction. T his determination will be made by the NYSDEC.
11. Fire Island Communltlee
Ocean Beach Incinerator is dismantled. Barging is a prevalent
means of disposal from the Island. Contractors bid to provide a barge-
/truck service at that specific town's solid waste facility.
The only areas utilizing incineration are Saltaire and Sea-
view/Ocean Bay Park.
PROBLEM AREAS
1. Relouroe Recoyery
The Multitown Authority, reduced now to the Towns of
Babylon and Huntington, continues to move towards groundbreaking
at their proposed Pilgrim State Facility. Completion is scheduled for
1985/86. The Town of Isllp, having withdrawn from the project, plans
to utilize the same garbage-to-energy concept, on a smaller scale.
2. NYS Part 360 Liner Policy
Several towns are currently seeking variances from the
requirement that new landfill areas must be lined. The Town of
Babylon has already lined a two (2) acre site with clay and wishes to
avoid further lining by providing public water supply to residents
located downgradient, who are currently exposed to contaminated
water.
The Towns of Huntington, Riverhead and Southold are also
seeking to avoid lining. This determination will be made by the NYS-
DEC on a case by case basis.
TRENDS
1. Landfills Reaching Capacity
The Town of Babylon expects to reach capacity in four (4)
years, and Huntington in two (2) years, at which time it is hoped that
the M ultitown facility will be in operation. The Town of Islip expects to
close the Blydenburgh landfill in 1985, replacing it with a resource
recovery facility, generating electricity. The Town of East Hampton
will be closing their Bull Path landfill this year.
The ban on non-returnable beverage containers goes into
effect in April, 1982. It is hoped that thiswill contributeto the extension
of landfill life.
2. Resource Recovery Plants.
T he Towns of I slip, Southold and Brookhaven are all consider-
ing building garbage-to-energy plants. This is an option available to
the other townships.
3. Source Separation
The Town of Islip is currently recycling 200 tons/week of
refuse materials in their WRAP Program, out of a total of 800 tons
generated per day. Markets have been developed for the sale of glass,
paper, waste oil, and metals. The town intends to extend the WRAP
Program town-wide, and is planning to set up Garbage Districts which
are necessary to regulate the quality and flow of separated refuse.
Interest has been shown by private industry, in the collection
of methane from large active landfills within Suffolk County. It is
proposed that the gas be burnt in gas turbines coupled to electric
generators. The power so generated would then be sold to LILCO.
GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES
1. Federal end State Governments
Little activity has been seen at these levels of government
concerning solid waste management.
The towns are currently exploring various means for extend-
ing the useful lives of their respective landfills. A number of them are
taking the view that extending landfills in the same direction as the
leachate plume creates little further degradation of groundwater, and
consequently are seeking variances from the state regulation requir-
ing liners.
The Town of Islip is planning to establish town-wide Garbage
Districts to manage the expanded WRAP Program for source
separation.
EXTENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF 19~1 RECOMMENDATIONS
Some activity has taken place with regard to the Multitown
Authority, landfill re-construction, gas monitoring and control and
leachate plume monitoring. However, much remains to be done, and
the recommendations are repeated below, with minor modifications.
RECOMMENDATIONS
· The Multi-Town Authority should accelerate the construc-
tion and startup of the proposed resource recovery facility.
The Town of S mithtown should come to an agreement with
the Authority for the use of their landfill. The Southwest
Sewer D~strict should undertake to accept the facifity's
waste waters for treatment, subject to adherence to the
County Sewer Ordinance.
· Gasmonitoringshouldbeperformedataflfacilitiestodeter-
mine if there is gas migration off site. Where gas migration is
found, a negative pressure gas migration control system
should be installed at the facility.
· Existing leachate plumes should be identified and mapped
from each landfill. AS they are identified, the responsible
town should require that all homes constructed within the
confines of the leachate plume to be connected to public
water. The Town should set aside funds to insure tha~ all
67
existing homes served Dy prtvate wells, located within the
path of the leachate plume, can be connected to pubhc
water as the leachate plume reaches them.
· In considering the future of solid waste disposal on Long
Island, each area must be studied individually. Proper solid
waste disposal is not an inexpensive process. If we are to
switch to high technology solid waste treatment and dispo-
sa/, costs may become prohibitive and with shrinking Fed-
era/and State assistance, it may be unrealistic to reach this
goal. An environmental analysis should be made for each
case which would include the financial, aesthetic end enw r-
onmentsl impacts essociatsd with each alternative con-
sidered. It may very weft be that in some cases, continued
landfilling would be jushfied provided the 208 Study guide-
lines are followed.
· The New York State Department of Environmental Conser
vahon has been following a policy of requiring capping of
completed lendhlls as a means of controlling leachate gen-
eration. We believe this procedure should be thoroughly
stud~ed to determine tis effectiveness before Its widespread
application is undertaken.
· The Power Authority of the State of New YorktPASNY~
should be approached tn order to review the entire poten-
Pal of power generation from municipal solid waste in the
County and the extent of PASNY's interest in such an
undertaking.
· The Towns are urged to comply w~th State Part 360 requ~re-
manta and complete the reconstruction of their landfdls by
t985.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT
EXISTING SITUATION
The end of 1981 marks the completion of the hrst year ol
existence of the Hazardous Materials Section of the Bureau of Enw-
ronmental Pollution Control. The extensive reorganization of the
Bureau, which occurred in January, 1980, has been highly successful
due to the willing cooperation of all involved and a desire to see the
new system work. Everyone now seems accustomed to the new organ-
ization and all levels are functioning routinely.
The work of this section is being performed in spite of the
steadily ~ncreasing load caused by the implementation of Article 12.
N o new people have been added during the year but on the other hand.
this section successfully survived the budget cuts of the last few
months.
Enforcement of pollution problems in Suffolk County has
taken a major leap forward after the endless years of bureaucratic
inertia, and now presents a record of outstanding success. The pas-
sage of Article 12 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code has allowed, for
the first time, local enforcement resulting in the signing of 88 consent
orders by the Health Department with pollution violators. The number
of cases that had to be sent to NYS DEC for enforcement dropped trom
64 in 1980 to just 8 in 1981.
T he success of Article 12 implementation, in spite of the lack of
additional personnel, must be listed as a highlight of this year's actiw-
bas. Article 12 has already resulted in the coltsction of $126,825 m
registration and construction fees and fines
Hundreds of tanks of all types have already been replaced w~th
tanks meeting the new construction standards. Throughout the
County old facilities are being upgraded and new facilities are being
bugt in accordance with the new standards.
The first commercially produced double-walled hberglass
tank of its type to be sold ~n the U.S was recently imported from
Germany and installed in Suffolk County to meet Article 12
requirements.
In addition, through a change ~n state conservation taw, the
lOCal District Attorney's Office can now enforce state pollution laws
where they were previously barred from doing so. This has resulted in
the formation in the Suffolk County D.A's office of a special Environ-
mental Crimes Unit. As its hrst major case. th~s unit took up the
prosecuhon ot Lawrence Aviation Corp. for mass~ve storage and d~s-
charge v,olations at their site in Port Jefferson Station. The case was
very carefully prepared and presented to the G rand Jury over a six (6)
month period, eventually resulting m indictments being handed up
against the corporation and several of ~ts employees, as welt as an
industrial waste hauling hrm and one of ~ts employees
The comb/nihon of state and county laws banning the use of
cesspool additives has successfully ehmmated all organic cesspool
treatment products from the market shelves in Suffolk County No
violators of the ban have been found requiring legal achon
Seventy different products have been reviewed since the law
went into effect w~th 54 gaining approval as being e,ther ,norgamc.
bacterial or enzymatic in nature and, therefore outside the definition
of products banned by the law.
One product. DralnZ. has been reformulated to circumvent the
state law and can therefore, be sold ~n Nassau Counly but ~t isst~ll
considered banned under Suffolk County law. The company Jancyn
Mfg Co, has still not conducted the research program, which would
be required for approval of the product in Suffolk County
There were 248 petroleum spig incidents of all types recordea
by NYSDOT in Suffolk County m 1981. We do not have a detailed
breakdown by type or volume.
68
Suffolk County records show a total of 178 hazardous mate-
rials incidents investigated in 1981 in the following categories
Contaminated wells - 48
Surface water spills - 8
Chemical spills - 33
Pesticide spills - 1
Misc. spills - 13
Gas Station/underground tank leaks - 27
Roadway spills - 6
Hazardous materials incidents not resulting in spills -42
There are, at present, 21 recovery well installations in opera-
tion in Suffolk County. They are as follow~
NYSDOT Spill # Owner and Location
628 Suffolk County, Yaphank
1170 Exxon, S mithtown
78-0146 Tuthill, Riverhead
79-0392 Mobil, Port Jefferson
79-0452 S hell, Smithtown
79-0831 Power Test, Medford
7§-0962 Exxon, Greenport
79-0997 Shell, Huntington (191 Walt Whitman Rd.)
79-1117 Shell, Huntington (405 N.Y. Avenue)
79-1339 Mobil, Greenport
79-1408 Getty, Amityville
79-1646 Shell, W. Islip
80-0049 Getty, Mastic
80-0205 Shell, Patchogue
80-0404 Shell, Deer Park
80-0620 I.R.S., Holtsville
80-0826 Mobil, Ronkonkoma
81-0096 Shell, Cutchogue
81-0435 Strong, Hampton Bays
81-0596 Sunoco, Mastic Beach
81-0905 Amoco. Bay Shore
The largest oil spill ever recorded in Suffolk County occurred
at Northville Industries Corp. terminal at Northville. A ruptured pipe
coupling caused a portion of the contents of one large tank to spill into
the containment area around the tank. A total of over 200,000 gallons
spilled of which Northville succeeded in recovering all but 34,000
gallons. This amount soaked into the soil and had to be excavated.
Two other spills of sig nificance actually occurred prior to 1981
but their recovery operations have continued up to the present. The
first is the County Garage leak at theYaphank County Center in which,
to date, a total of over 34,000 gallons of gasoline have been recovered.
The other spill is at the Tuthill fuel oil tank in RIverhead, which leaked
into the ground through a hole in the bottom of the tank. Over 18,000
gallons of f~2 fuel oil have been recovered so far at this site.
PROBLEM AREAS
1. Underground Tank Testing Replacement and New Construction
Article 12 requires that all underground tanks be replaced with
non~corrodable tanks by 1995 and that they be tested by prescribed
method during the transition period at a frequency depending upon
tank age. In 1981,313 tanks were tested, 104 of which failed initially.
Sixty of these finally passed after piping repairs were made, leaving44
confirmed tank leaks, all of which are currently under investigation.
Nearly all of these tests were witnessed by personnel from this sec-
tion. Test data sheets are received and reviewed for errors.
The replacement of existing underground fuel tanks and
installation of new underground fuel tanks is managed by the General
Engineering Section under Mr. Villa's supervision. However, all other
underground and above ground tanks are supervised by this section.
Although the major oil companies are heavily into the program
of tank replacement, some of the small, independent firms and many
industries have not yet faced the problem.
2. Above Ground Tanks Upgreqlflg and New Construction
Most above ground tanks are of the vertical cyhnder type and
have been built with their bottoms placed directly on the ground.
Article 12 requires that these be entered, cleaned, sand-blasted, re-
paired and epoxy lined to protect the bottoms from internal corrosion.
Additionally, they must be surrounded by an impervious diked con-
tainment capable of capturing any product that might spill
3. Portable C~talner Storage I=aclllflel
Upgrading and New Construction
Article 12 requires that drums and other portable containers
be stored indoors on impervious diked areas unless other arrange-
ments are approved by the Department.
Standards have been written for portable container facility
construction.
I n 1981,25 plans were reviewed for portable container storage.
Construction was completed on most of them. The review of these
engineering plans and plans required by other sections of the Code
has taken up a major part of the time of the engineers of this section
during 1981.
Republic Aviation is a good example of a firm that has up-
graded its drum storage conditions by constructing a completely new
chemical storage building.
4. Contamlnateq Well Investigations
Another responsibility of this section is to investigate reports
of contaminated wells. Usually the first report comes from the Drink-
ing Water Quality Section in the form of a laboratory analysis showing
contamination. The information is normally plotted on a large scale
map and a search for other contaminated wells in the area is begun.
The groundwater flow direction is determined and contours drawn on
the map and potential sources investigated. If necessary, a request is
made for the use of the Health Dept. drill rig to install observation wells
to define any contamination plume that might exist. In 1981,49 such
investigations were conducted.
A substantial study of the Medford area was conducted and
maps prepared for presentation to the Medford Civic Association et
the request of Legislator Foley. The maps showed contamination from
a dry cleaning establishment and three (3) road salt storage piles as
well as from undetermined organic solvent contamination, probably
resulting from cesspool cleaning.
Another investigation in the Shirley area disclosed that
another dry cleaning establishment was the probable cause of the
contamination of several wells.
Upgrading of aboveground tanks must be accomplished by
1985. Many facility owners are moving along quickly with this program
to avoid running short of time in 1985. Twenty-eight of these tanks
have been internally lined so far. Personnel from this section have
inspected with great care, each tank that has been coated to determine
the condition of the bottom plates. This involves a visual inspection on
hands and knees with a strong light, including corrosion pit measure-
ment and sand-blast profile examination. The company is required to
perform ultrasonic and vacuum tests on the tank bottom.
The section personnel also inspect the coating during and
after application and observe the subsequent thickness and "holiday"
testing.
An intensive education program has been carried out during
this year to make the section personnel sufficiently informed on the
subjects of tank inspection and coating techniques to be able to make
proper field judgments.
5. Tank Registration
The registration of tanks, as required by Article 12, is being
carried out by the General Engineering Section with over 2800 tanks
registered so far.
69
A computer registration form was designed and sent out origi-
nally to all fuel tank owners. Forms are being sent to other categories
of tank owners as they become evident. Information Irom the forms is
presently being computerized by Mr. Green of the Health Dept. Data
Processing secbon and the first printout has just been produced.
Testing notices, based on the computer listing, are now being sent out.
6, Abandoned Tank Program
Article 12 requires that abandoned tanks be removed from the
ground or opened and filled with inert material. An abandoned tank ~s
one that has been out of use for two {21 years or longer. During the
testing and installation of active tanks, it has been discovered that
there is apparently a tremendous number of abandoned and forgotten
tanks m the ground scattered around the County. A very large number
of them seemed to have been abandoned with some product stgl m
them. They are a major undefined pollution threat An organized
program of locating them, pumping them out and filhng them in must
be developed. The program could not start ~n 1980 or 1981 because
two years had to pass before a tank could be declared as"abandoned"
The program will have to begin in 1982.
7. Spill Investigations and Clean-Up Operations
The overall number of hazardous materials incident investiga-
tions logged in by this section in 1981 was 178 as compared to157 m
1980. Most of these were caused by leaks or spills.
NYSDOT records 709 petroleum sp41s so far m Suffolk ecu nty
s~nce they have been keeping records, 248 of which occurred m 1981.
There are 21 clean-up sites presently in operation where re-
covery equipment is installed and operating. Cooperation between
NYSDOT Spill Unit and this Department remains good.
The clean-up operatmn at the county gasoline spill at Yaphank
continues without abatement. A total of 34,000 gallons of gasoline
have been recovered so far. Likewise, the Tuthill Petroleum spill in
Greenport continues with a total of 18,117 gallons of ~2 fuel od re-
covered so far.
Another spill of interest that occurred this year involved the
accidental pumping of 4500 gallons of #2 fuel o~1 into the ground via
the U-tube leak detection device installed beneath a new tank at the
Narda Corp. Quick action on the part of the company, substantially
resolved the potential pollution problem by the excavation of approxi-
mately 1,000 cu yds of contaminated soil.
Some hazardous material incidents are of a true emergency
nature and involve police and fire personnel and may involve inlury
We do not differentiate between these and any other type of hazardous
materials incident. However, an example of such a situation was the
Bioclinical Labs fire.
Another incident that could possibly be included in this cate-
gory, involved a home in the O akdale area where a leak in a fuel oil Ii ne
caused several hundred gallons of fuel to collect under the basement
floor. Unfortunately, the house had just recently been treated for
termite control and substantial quantities of chlordane had been
pumped under the basement floor. A rising water table recently
caused the od/chlordane mixture to seep into the basement, creating
heavy fumes. The family evacuated their home until repairs were made
to the basement by the insurance company of the exterminator, who
was responsible for creating the oil leak.
Several meetings were held through the year with personnel of
Suffolk County Police Department, Fire Safety and NYSDEC to dis-
cuss contingency plans for facilities handling toxic waste as required
by the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Preliminary
plans were received from four (4) facilities and the corn mittee is now in
the process of developing guidelines for writing contingency plans
TRENDS
I n spite of the nahonal recession, industrial acbvlties in Suffolk
County seem to be steadily growmg, with many large, new plants
added in 1981 such as Narda, Natcon. Monitor Boxart, Bioclinical
Laboratories and Chemlawn to name a few. Several of the existing
~ndustrial parks are developing rapidly and a new one was opened in
1981 in theTown of Babylon at the oldZahn's Airport property. Several
towns have created aggressive development programs with Brook-
haven Town setting the example
Th~s state of affarrs ~s certainly something toDethankful for, as
far as general prosperity is concerned. But. bearing in mind the fact
that Long Island draws its water supply from the ground, the prolifera-
tion o1 rnd ustry, and particularly chemical mdustry requires the ulmost
vigilance. The year 1981 has seen a quantum increase ~n pollution
control actrvrtieSr for whrch Article 12 can claim to be the rnitiating
force.
The vulnerability of our sole-source aquifer requires us to
continue and expand control activihes, particularly m hydrogeolog~c
Zone III, and to a very ~arge extent in Zones I and ~V
GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
1. New York State Programs.
Facdihes with hazardous waste storage musl obtam a State
Part 360 parred. The County Hazardous Materials Management Sec-
tion ~s handling the processing of all Part I 360 permds, which are
those facilities with on-sde storage capacity of less than 40 drums or
with tanks of less than 5,000 gallon total volume So far. twenty-rune
360 permit applications have been receweQ
A s~gndicanl event in enforcement involves the creation by
NYSDEC of a Special Invesbgations Umt w~th a legal staff and two
conservation officers operabng locally but ~ndependenby of the
Regional Office. primarily for undercover ~nvest~gative work
The State Attorney Generals Ofhce has gotten ~nvolved
legally in poPutlon enforcement: the most ~mportant case bemg that of
Jameco Industries of Wyandanch, which resulted m them hling
charges against the corporahon. At the request of their ofhce, the
Health Dept. drilling crew was used to take core samples on the
Jameco property, which resulted in the d~scovery of substanbal quan-
hties of metal sludge buried in the area where Jameco used to operate
sludge drying beds.
The county and state laws have successfully removed cess
pool additives containing soJvent materials from sale m Suffolk
County. Seventy different products have been reviewed since the law
want into effect, 54 of whmh have gamed approval as being e~ther
inorganic, bacterial or enzymatic ~n nature. There nave been no vlOla-
hons of the ban found which require legal action. One product has
been successfully re-formulated to circumvent the state law and can,
thereforer be sold in Nassau County hut it IS still banned m Suffolk
County because the company manufacturmg it has shit not conducted
the research program required for approval of ~he product ~n Suffolk
County.
2. Suffolk County
All industries are being respected for Arbcle 12 comphance by
the field inspectors as they conduct their other inspections. Thru
involves such things as seeing that mterior tanks are properly betted.
that no floor drains exist rn commercial storage areas, seeing tho!
sprinkler systems are modified to prevent overfilling of tanks during
fire emergencies, checking chemical storage areas and Iookmg for
underground chemical pipmg. Eventually. all facgities storing hazard
ous materials will have to obtain an Article 12 parred.
Arhcle 12 implementation ~s reflected in the stabstics on the
attached Table 37. The information from the tank registration forms is
being computer,zed and soon it wdl De possible to send out tank
testmg and replacement notihcations automatically Enforcement is
progressing very smoothly as the stabstics show Above ground tanks
are being upgraded by sandblasting, repair and interior epoxy lining.
Twenty-eight tanks have been improved so far
70
TABLE 37
Statul Report
Article 12 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code
"Toxic and Hazardoum MateHall Storage and Handling Control"
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
Tank Tearing
Tanks Tested
Confirmed Leaks
Tank Testing Companies Licensed
County Tanks Tested
County Tanks Taken Out of Service
Enginesring Plans Approved
Gallonage of Approved Tanks (Total)
Gallonage of Removed Tanks (Total)
ABOVE-GROUND TANKS
DRUM STORAGE FACILITIES
ENFORCEMENT
Penalties Suspended
Cases Referred to State DEC
FEES COLLECTED
January 6,1982
1880
350
39
325
2.589.550
373
222
1.013,000
54
37
$9,550
$81,875
64
1981
313
44
7
199
466
3,383,250
767
2.813
28
73
$24,900
8
$58,750
$42,600
Total Revenues End of 1981:
Fees Collected $101.350
Penalties Collected $ 22.375
$123.725
Total
663
83
7
330
791
5,972,800
1,140
633
2,804,200
2,813
28
73
115
88
$34,450
$197,325
72
$58.750
$42,600
A capital project has been proposed, entitled "Sludge and
Septage Management Study. "The purpose of this study is to invest~-
gate environ mentally acceptable methods of handling and disposal of
the increasing quantities of sludge and septage being generated in
Suffolk County. The study win examine the problem in detail from a
county-wide and localized point of view. delineate existing and esti-
mate future quantities of sludge, septage and toxic wastes, investigate
conditions for reuse, look at environmentally safe management alter-
natives and provide a design and evaluation of a selected strategy.
EXTENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF 1981 RECOMMENDATIONS
(The 1981 recommendations included here cover the rele-
vant items in both the Groundwater section and the Sohd
and Hazardous Wastes section.)
1. Informal coordination between town and county inspec-
tion and emergency response personnel has continued to improve as
all of the hazardous control programs have advanced. However, for-
mal mechanisms have not changed significantly yet. Discussions are
underway with Islip Town personnel at the present time to attempt to
develop some formal agreements on cooperative implementation of
some Article 12 requirements. I n addition, theWehrenberg Committee
on Hazardous Materials Transportation has been meeting regularly
and is planning the formal creation of an emergency response team.
Regular meetings have been held between members of this section,
the police department, Fire Safety and NYS DEC to review contingency
plans for emergencies at facilities handling hazardous waste
materials.
2. The development of an emergency spill response program
has been an ongoing effort of the Wehrenberg Committee on Hazard-
ous Materials Transportation and all of the items in this recommenda-
tion have been addressed but none has been finalized.
3. As previously stated, the program to locate and monitor
abandoned storage facilities and illegal dumps has been included in a
1983 capita~ budget request.
4. A consumer product survey was proposed jointly to
USEPA by NYSDEC, the Long island Regonal Planning Board and
SCDHS. during fiscal year '81 (ended Oct. 31, 1981). Work on this
survey is expected to begin during 1982.
5 State regulations require that waste oil be collected. No
public educational program yet exists, however.
6. A cleanup fund exists for petroleum spills, and is operated
by the State Department of Transportation. Chemical spills and dump
sites are not covered.
71
7. A Iow-cost means of disposal bas been established for
domestic toxic and hazardous materials, but little pubhc education has
been undertaken.
8 Manpower and laboratory needs sbll hamper the opera-
tions of the Health Dept.
9. Study of the location and construction of a toxin and
hazardous waste treatment facility in New York State came to a halt,
during the year
tO Design of an industrial data base system was begun in
1981. The purpose of the system is to coordinate data on industrial
locations so that all ~nformation is available. The system is expected to
be ~mplemented rn 1982. U se of the system will b a major step forward
and increase the Health Department's monitoring efficiency since at
present, the data is stored in several different locations. The new
system will include information relevant to industrial SPDES permits,
solid waste permits, air pollution permits and hazardous material stor-
age permits. When fully implemented, the system wirl also include data
on industries which at present require no specific permits. This will be
an aid in monitoring the changing use of industrial locations. The
system will also facilitate the cross-checking of hazardous chem*-
cals stored and used with those covered by the various permit systems
RECOMMENDATIONS
· Legislation should be proposed to the State for a fund to
assist the cleanup of toxic and hazardous spills, and of
abandoned dump sites. The present proposed "m~m-fund"
bdl should be expanded to include cleanup of any toxic or
hazardous contamination problem and should be funded
like the oil spill fund.
· A pubhc education program should be undertaken to advise
homeowners on the disposal of domestic to~c and hazard-
OUS restdues, and collection stations should be established
to whtch homeowners can bring such residues.
· An /ncrease in held survedlance manpower and laboratory
capacity is essential to the proper enforcement of all of the
regulations pertaining to toxic and hazardous d~scharges.
· Thepostof"EnforcementProgramCoord~nator". requiring
legal quabhcations, should be formally established in the
Bureau of Environmental Control of the Department of
Health Services. in order to strengthen the enforcement of
Article 12
facility would be appropriate to Long Island.
· The passage /s strongly urged of the item enhtled 'l-ox/c
Dump Location Study" in the 1983 capital budget. It ~s a
proposal to use htstor~cal aerial photography and a public
information survey to pinpoint potenhal toxic or industrial
dump sites in Suffolk County. The work would be done Dy a
contractor and a proposal for such has already been submit
ted by Cornell University.
· The operations of the Hazardous Materials Management
Section would be greatly enhanced by providing personnel
with radio-equipped cars.
include:
Safety and NYSDEC to discuss contingency plans for facih
aquifers" The County is urged to support th~s legislation
72
ENERGY
THE PRESENT ENERGY SITUATION
1. Liquid and Solid Fuels
Every two weeks, approximately, the County Executive's
Office issues a news release, which gives the current prices of three
types of gasohne [regular, no-lead and premium), diesel fuel, gasohol,
home heating oil, coal, kerosene and wood.
Home heahng oil in January 1981 cost $1.13 to $1.18 per
gallon. The price ju roped to $1.29 at the end of February and stayed at
approximately th~s figure through May. It then dropped a few cents to
reach $1.26 ~n eaHy September and then rose gradually back to $1.29
in mid-December. I n other words, home heating oil rose by about 15¢
per gallon in the first two months of the year, and remained fairly
constant for the rest of the year. During M arch, April and M ay, the price
was about 30¢ higher than in the same period in 1980. Before and after
those months, it averaged 26¢ higher than in 1980.
Gasoline average prices started the year at $1.265/gal. regular,
$1 320/gal unteaded, and $1.393/ga1. premium. All three increased m
price by 13-15¢/gal. by March-April, and thereafter slowly tailed off by
a few cents to end the year about 10C/gal. above the January prices.
Starting in late-September, the news releases began to compare the
differences in gasohne prices between East Suffolk andWest Suffolk.
For all grades, and at al~ times, average gasoline prices were higher in
the East than the West. Regular ran 6.5 to 9.1¢/ga1. higher, unleaded
5.6 to 8.5C/gaL higher, and premium from 0.1 to 3.4¢/ga1. higher.
Diesel fuel and gasohol followed a pattern similar to the gaso-
lines. They started the year at $1.247 and $1.387/ga1., respectively.
They rose to peaks of $1.421/ga1. for diesel {April) andS1.539/ga1, for
gasohol {March). By September, they had dropped to $1.395 and
$1.458/ga1.. respectively
The price of coal followed a different pattern, starting the year
at $113/ton and climbing steadily, to end the year at $136/ton. Fire-
wood prices were recorded only at the beginning and the end of the
year. The Iow was $138/cord, and the high $150/cord. Kerosene. like
the other liquid fuels, reached a high in April, then tailed off over the
rest of the year Prices were $1.400/gal. in January, $1,533 at the high,
and $1.479 m December
2. Electricity
Abnormal ~nflation, high interest rates and fuel price increases
conhnued in 1981. However, inflation appears to be moderating. Oil
prices peaked m March 1981 and declined 20% by year-end. Rate
increases of $183.1 milhon in electric and $8.6 million in gas revenues,
were granted respectively in May and Nov., 1981.
As much immediate relief from high oil costs as possible was
achieved through the purchase of non-oil produced power from
neighboring electric systems, and the use of surplus natural gas in
place of oil. Th~s. plus the cost-savings that result from being able to
use less expensive high-sulfur oil in connection with the operation of
t he Environ mental Quality Air Cont roi monitoring system, resulted in a
total of some $125 million ~n sawngs to LILCO electric billpayers m
1981.
1981 again saw substantial numbers of Long Island home-
owners turn from oil to natural gas to meet home heating needs. I n the
last three years, the number of LILCO residential gas space heating
customers increased by 31,000, or 22.4%. Gas customers now total
168,000. This increased use of natural gas displaces over 650,000
barrels of home heating oil. annually.
For the past two years, substantial quantities of natural gas
have been burned to generate electricity during the non-winter
months in certain plants. Nuclear, coal and hydro power, have been
purchased, when available, from Canada and other utilities through
the New York Power Pool and New England
I n 1981. bu ming natural gas saved 3.9 million barrels of oil, and
saved the customers $22.7 million. Also in 1981. power purchases
saved 4.8 mill~on barrels of oil, and saved the customers $54.4 million.
LILCO's Environmental Quafity Control System (EQUAC).
referred to previously, constantly measures the sulfur dioxide content
of the air, indicating when less expensive higher sulfur oil can be burnt.
Thus, when atmospheric conditions permit, a greater amount of sulfur
dioxide can be released without contravening permissible air quality
standards. In 1981, EQUAC saved Long Islanders $48 million m fuel
COSTS.
PROBLEM AREAS
1. Shoreham
Major steps in the process of securing an operating hcense
were completed during the year. The NRC staff issued their Safety
Evaluation Report, and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safe-
guards issued a favorable report. Both recommended that. subject to
the resolution of a number of issues (which must be done before fue~
can be loaded), the NRC should issue Shoreham a full-power operat-
ing license. It is expected that NRC public hearings w~l begin in the
Spring. if these are not drawn out, fuel loading could take place m Fall
1982, and commercial operation could begin six months later.
The plant is now undergoing comprehensive testing of all
plant equipment. By the end of 1981, almost 90% of the plant's
mechanical and electrical systems had been turned over to start-up
teams for testing.
Staffing levels at the plant are expected to exceed NRC
requirements. Staff training has utilized special programs developed
by the Brookhaven National Laboratory, and has emphasized training
assignments to operating nuclear stations similar to Shoreham.
LILCO will install a simulator to replicate the operation of the plant as
an aid to training.
A radiological emergency response plan is currently being
developed, in time for the spring public hearings.
2. Nine Mile Point 2
LILCO has an 18% share, or 195 MW. in the unit being built by
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation at Nine Mile Point, near Oswego.
New York. When in operation, it will save about 8% of LILCO's oil
needs, 2 million barrels per year.
Consultants have reported that a 1986 commercial operation
date was possible, but that they expected afu rther year slippage. They
concluded that completion of the unit (which is in dispute) is war-
ranted, when compared with alternate plans for new coal-fired facih-
ties, even ~f construction costs are substantially in excess of those
estimated by the co-owners. Public hearings were held in December
1981, and a PSC decision is expected early in 1982.
3. Coal Burning
The U.S. Department of Energy has rescinded its proposed
orders, which would have prohibited the burning of oil at LILCO's
Northport Power Station, and has terminatsd the related proceedings.
However, LILCO is continuing to investigate the use of such new
technologies as firing a coal/oil mixture or a coal/water slurry (CWS).
in such p~ants as Northport, which were never designed for burning
coal. A research team is currently investigating the feasibility of burn-
ing CWS as a utility fuel. Adelphi University's Center for Energy Stu-
dies is part of the research team, and is conducting laboratory tests on
coaVwater mixtures of various types. EBASCO, Inc., is studying what
modifications to a power plant are necessary to permit the use of CWS
as fuel. Babcock and Wilcox, a major boiler manufacturer, is investi-
gating the impact of CWS burning on boiler performance. O n the other
hand, the plants at Port Jefferson and Island Park were originally
designed as coal-burning units, and LILCO is continuing to investi-
gate the feasibility of re-converting them.
The disposal of coal ash is one of the more important prob-
lems, and LILCO has made inquiries of the State Department of Envir-
onmental Conservation of utilizing for this purpose an area in East
Setauket. This site lies w~thin hydrogeoIogic Zone I, designated in the
bi-county 208 plan as being a prime groundwater recharge area, in
which new landfills are to be prohibited Discussions are continuing.
73
TRENDS
In 1980, LILCO, jointly wdh New York State Electric and Gas
(NYS EG ), petitioned the New York State Board on Electric Generation
Siting and the Environment for permission to build two nuclear plants
at Jamesport. This petition was rejected, but permission was granted
to build an 800 MW coal-fired plant at that site in October 1981.
NYSEG withdrew from the project, but LILCO condihonally accepted
and has a year to find new partners and conduct studies of the plant's
ophmum size and completion date.
In early 1981, LILCO and NYSEG petitioned the PublicService
Commissmn Ior authority to amortize and recover in taxes the nuclear-
related portion of the Jamesport project expenditures. The PSC
deferred action on this request.
LILCO proposes to file for increased gas and electric rates ~n
1982. to go into effect early in 1983.
It is expected that the price advantage that gas has over oil wdl
narrow in the years ahead, as gas de-regulation becomes more wide-
spread But, the anticipation is that gas will remain at least price com-
petitive with oil heating
LILCO is aggressively promohng such energy-efficient dew-
ces as neat pu raps and solar water heating systems, and strengthening
the home energy audit and consumer conservation seminar programs.
Total area employment ~ncreased last year and 1982 business
activity IS expected to grow at a rate doubled that of the country as a
whole
In July 1980, LILCO and 13 other northeastern utilities formed
Boundary Gas. Inc, to import Canadian gas and transport it through
existing interstate pipelines. LILCO's share ~s 8 4 billion cubic feet per
year, about 13% of LILCO's current contractual gas supplies. Govern-
ment agency permits are expected late in 1982, and Canadian gas ~s
expected to begin arr~ving on Long Island m late 1983.
LILCO has tunded research ~nto, and development of, new
technologies to meet Long Island's present and future e~ectr~c needs
~n environ mentally and economically acceptable ways. Topics include
coal gasification and liquifaction; solar and other renewable resources
and improved fossil-fixed technologies; environmental studies
including the causes and etfects of acid rain; and energy conservation
and more efficient transmission and dmtribution systems
Working with Battelle Laboratories, LILCO is providing the
meteorological and land-use data to establish a method of evaluating
potential wind turbine s~tes. An instrument tower. 160 ff. high, 5 miles
west of Montauk Point, at the Ocean Science Laboratory. has been
collecting wind-energy data for 5 years. Another tower is planned for a
s~te one-half mile from the Montauk Lighthouse. One year of simul-
taneous readings from the two towers will indicate whether or not
winds m the area are strong and consistent enough to power a 2-3
MW wind turbine
GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS
1. Federal and State Programs
As menboned previously, a number of Federal programs in
research and development are conhnuing. These include new tech-
nologies for finng coal, and alternahve energy sources such as solar
and wind power. It is still not clear at what level these activihes
continue to be funded.
The Home Energy Assistance Program (HEAP) grants federal
funds to heip quahfied persons pay their heating or utility bills. Long
Islanders received over $2 0 million in aid through this program in
1981. and $2 3 milbon ~s allocated lor 1982. TheNew YorkStateHome
Insulation and Energy Conservation Act (HIECA) mandated that
utihties provide subsidized energy audits and loans for eligible home-
owners or tenants. Through the end of 1981, 24,000 home energy
audits had been carried out, s~nce the program began in June 1978
Other Federal and State energy-related actiwhes are referred
to in more detail below
2. County Programs
a. Suffolk County Department of Public Works
Lighting Elhclency Program All studies on major county
buildings are complete, and the department is now ~mplemenhng the
consultant's recommendations. Most of these pertain to the judm~ous
removal of lamps. (Care is being taken to ensure that, when fluores-
cent lamps are removed, the ballasts also are removed Otherwise,
little reduchon ~n energy is obtained.)
Technical Assistance toSchools, Hospitals and Local Govern-
ment Buildings -- A program was undertaken to study energy conser-
vation in all tailor county buildings in the Hauppauge, R ivernead and
Yaphank centers, ~ncludlng the Home and I nhrmary al Yaphank New
York State Energy Office provided $196,000 which was matched by
county funds. All studies have been completed, and all recommend-
lions reviewed Twenty projects were selected showing tt~e most
favorable payback periods, and request for funding these have been
included m the 1982 cap,iai budget Improvements include replacing
single-glazed windows with double-glazed ones, reducing the number
of windows, adding attic insulation, installing more efficient heating
systems, installing more sophishcated controls on exisbng systems,
and so on
lisbng of energy efficiencies for all buildings. Then. d hnanc~al
software package available for the information system
b. Suffolk County Community College
Program (HEAP) ofbcially started in Suffolk County The 100 per cent
York State DSS
74
In order to perform this extensive function in Suffolk County,
Suffolk DSS had to devise a system of operation, hire and train per-
sonnel for the Hauppauge and Riverhead Centers and coordinate
efforts with the Office for the Aging and the local New York State
Employment offices who are also accepting HEAP applications and
forwarding them to DSS for validation.
DSS adult protecbve caseworkers made visits to about 150
homebound frail elderly indiwduals to help them to procure emer-
gency fuel.
By the week ending February 26, Suffolk's DSS Emergency
Heating Unit had taken 10,245 HEAP applications in addition to pro-
cessing over 4,700 non-HEAP emergency welfare applications for
energy funds.
T he PA Fuel U nit operating with the Emergency Services U nit
after hours and on weekends, has processed over 1,000 emergency
heating vouchers.
In addition to all of the non-public assistance HEAP opera-
tions, active PA cases were being processed by the PA Fuel Unit from
October 1 through February 20 to the extent of 17,900 heating oil
vouchers for over 7,200 active PA families.
EXTENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF 1981 RECOMMENDATIONS
A perusal of the 1981 recommendations shows that there has
been movement in some areas. The Shoreham Nuclear Plant is under
considerable pressu re from the NRC and the County to ensu re proper
standards of safety and operating training in the areas of energy
conservation in County buildings, there ~s now a body of information
gathered in a number of funded studies, and specific proposals have
been made in the capital budget for substantial revamp and improve-
ment. We have therefore dropped some of last year's recommendtions,
but have retained the rest.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The County must seek clarification concerning the methods
end routes by which nuclear fuel rod assemblies will be
brought into the County for fueling of the Shoreham plant.
The County should urge the Public Service Commission
to review the decision to permit a 800 MW coal-fired power
station et Jamesport, and examine the possibility of siting it
at Shoreham instead.
· TheCountyshouldreviewthetaxmcentivesthatalllevelsof
government make available to owners of houses end busi-
nesses in the County, for the purpose of encouraging
energy conservahon and reducing the consumption of pet-
roleum products. The County should determine ways in
which the tax incentive package can be ~mproved, and ma ke
the necessary recommendations to the appropriate levels of
government. The County should further take the necessary
steps to bring this information to the attention of the puDfic.
· The County should give some consideration to the prob-
lems of air pollution and fuel availability that may arise from
the proliferation of wood-burning stoves.
· TheCountyshouldpressforthecreabonofanlnterjurisd~c-
honal committee to intervene in Public Service Commission
(PSC) utility rate increase hearings, the commlffee to sup-
port the following steps, amo~lg others:
--Exclusion of construction work in progress from the rate
base, or requiring the PSC to set specihc standards for ~ts
inclusion.
--Requiring the PSC to better balance consumer interests
w~th uhlity ~nterest$.
--Asking the PSC to study the feasibility of additional natu-
ral gas distributorships on Long Island.
RADIATION CONTROL
INTRODUCTION
Radiation in our environment Is both natural and man-made
The natural component is the sum of Cosmic radiation and natural
terrestrial radioactivity, while the man-made contribution is the result
of many different causes. Table 38 lists some of the most important
sources of radiation of both kinds.
GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
1. Dental and Medical X-Ray Programs
It is apparent from Table 38 that the next most important
source of population exposure, after natural background, is Medical
x-ray exposure. The major efforts of our County Health Services
Department Radiation Control Umt are aimed at reducing patient
exposure (and operator exposure) from medical and dental x-rays to
the lowest amount that is"reasonably achievable". This is the object of
a large number of Federal, State, and local programs in recent years.
We are currently participating in a program sponsored by the FDA's
Bureau of Radiological Health, called DENT (Dental Exposure Nor-
mahzation Technique) which was developed as a means of identifying
dental x-ray facilities where patient exposure ~s outside a normal
range, correcting th~s through consultation and education. Incom-
plete data shows that the program to date has resulted ~n an average
dose reduction of 25% per film in the offices visited. As a byproduct of
this program we have obtained the use of valuable radiation monitor-
ing devices from the FDA.
The unit inspects all medical and dental x-ray machines in the
County on a regular schedule to determine their compliance with
County, State, and Federal Codes 734 inspection visits were made
during 1981 and 1293 machines were inspected or reinspected.
Approximately 40 facilities had uncorrected violations remaining at
year's end
Recent revisions of the State Code and Federal programs in
the area of quality assurance have expanded the scope of our inspec-
tions. Subjects such as radiation protection prachces, instruction of
employees, personnel monitoring and film processing are given
greater emphasis than in the past
75
The extent of the dose reduction possible for medical x-ray
procedures when equipment is optimized and the operator m ade-
quately trained and supervised, is estimated to be over 30%. An addi-
tional benefit is reduced to the x-ray operator and other facility
employees.
2. Environmental Monitoring Program
Many of the important environmental radionucbdes are beta-
radiation emitters. The bulk of atmospheric beta radiation is now
contributed by the natural decay products of Rn~, but by the end of
this decade average concentrations of Kras from nuclear power are
expected to about equal these. AS man conbnues to modify his envE
ronment by increased reliance on nuclear fuel and by redistributing
natural radioactivity, efforts should be made to monitor long-term
trends in /he distributions of selected radionuclides. This will become
increasingly important as the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant nears
completion. Presently the radiation unit conducts an environmental
monitonng program Which includes the regular collection of water
milk. soil and vegetation samples. Three air samphng stations are also
maintained to generate data on beta-radiation emitters. The tilters
from one station are sent to the State Radiation Laboratory for analy-
s~s, another goes to Brookhaven National Laboratory and the third IS
part of the EPA's EnvironmentaI Radition Ambient Monitoring System
(ERAMSI. The ERAMS stations provide a method tot estimating
ambient leve~s of airborne pollutants with emphasis directed toward
possible sources of plutonium and uranium. Unlike the other two
stations, the operator estimates the gross beta radioactivity in a~r by
comparison of the filter's activity with a calibrated standard before
sending it in. If the results of the field estimate are greater than a
predetermined alerting level, the unit immediately reports the results
Dy telephone.
3. TranJportatlon of Radioactive Materials and Emergency Response
Under the County Code. notification is required of Intent to
transport radioactive materials through the County Liaison is main-
tained with the Department of Emergency Preparedness and F;re-
mabc, SO that prompt assistance can be obtained for any emergency
situation ~nvolving radmtion.
4. Non-Ionizing Radiation
Neither ~he State nor the County has any code requirement tot
non-ionizing radiation. Common sources of this kind of radiation are
m~crowave ovens, FM broadcast towers and radar installations. Cur
rently we have a microwave oven meter on loan from the FDA. Of the
ovens surveyed to date none have been i~l violation of the Federal
Performance Standard. EPA studies of broadcast towers and satellite
relay stations indicate that populahon exposure from these sources is
well below any hinds that are likely to be adopted
5. Public Information and Special Activities
Many telephone calls are received by the u mt. requeshng ~nfor-
ma/ion and advice on a wide range o[ radiation CO~lcerns. The most
common topics at present are color m V emissions, video display
terminals, smoke detectors, microwave towers, microwave ovens
anti-theft devices and medical and dental x-rays
The unK also mveshgates special cases ~nvolving radioactive
material. In the past few years a substantial number of gold r~ngs and
jewelry contaminated with radioactwe material were found in western
N.Y. State The State Health Department recommended tesbng of any
ring purchased from the western part of the State prior to 1960, or any
ring which had caused ~rntation or soreness. Th~s und gave informa-
non and advice to concerned callers and surveyed jewelry for radioac-
tiv,ty No problem rings or jewelry have been found in this area ~o date
RECOMMENDATIONS
TABLE 38
Radiation Doae Data From Various Sources
Cosmm Radiation
Natural Terrestrial Radioachvity
Radon in potable water supplies
Radon in Natural gas
Coal-fired electric generabng station
Oil-fired electric generating station
Nuclear power reactors--BWR
PWR
Medical X-Radiation
Cardiac pacemaker
Consumer Products
Timepieces
Smoke Detectors
Artificial teeth
T.V. (5 cm. from set)
Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic RadMtlon
Broadcast Towers & Airport Ra~iar
All Sources
MIIIIrem/Year/Peraon
46 [Fence line boundary dose]
103 [est mean active bone[
[marrow dose to adults]
0.025 -0.043 M~R
HR
Internal Doae
MIIlirem/Year/Person
4000 Tract~ea
Bronchial dose
1250 Stomach dose
15-54 Trachea
Bronchial (~ose
5 7O
~5000
140-1390 Dose to
S uperfic~al
Tissues
Microwatts Indlv:dual
Cm~ Exposure
FROM: EPA 902/4-78-002
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
76
SEQRA AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW AND ENFORCEMENT
INTRODUCTION
As highlighted in the other major sections of this report there
are numerous federal, state, county and local environmental laws
which specifically deal with groundwater, freshwater wetlands and
surface waters, the marine environment, atmospheric conditions,
open space, solid and hazardous wastes, energy and radiation. How-
ever, large projects in many instances can affect one or more of the
above environmental areas and, therefore, the need for a broad envir-
onmental review covering all aspects of any given project is necessary.
Overall environmental review of any given project is mandated by the
Nahonal Environmental Po/icy Act(NEPA) at the federa~ level, and by
the New York State Enwronmental QualityReview Act(SEQRA) at the
state, county and local levels.
N EPA requires that all federai projects and activities, including
those funded by the United States government or requiring a federal
permit, must undergo environmental review. The main purpose of the
law is to take enwronmental concerns into account during the plan-
ning phase and make them part of the decision making process along
with the economic, social and political aspects.
SEQRA is New York State's law which parallels NEPA and
requires environmental review at the state, county and local levels. All
government actions, as well as those requiring permits admimstered
by governmental agencies within the State, must undergo some type
of environmental review mandated by SEQRA. Such review may
re(~uire one or more of the foilowin<~: an environmental assessment, a
draft environmental impact statement, a public hearing, a final envi-
ronmental impact statement, before an action is approved.
In addition to the federal and state ElS laws, New York State
under Article 47 of the Environmental Conservation Law and Article 12
F of the General M unicipal Law allows for the Creation of Environmen-
tal Management Councils at the county level and Conservation Advi-
sory Councils at the local level. These councils are to advise their
respective governing bodies on environmental matters within their
jurisdiction. Throughout the State, many of the EMC's and CAC's, in
addition to their overall enwronmental adwsory capacity, are given
responsibilities under SEQRA.
New York State also has given the County District Attorney
Offices the right to initiate and conduct prosecution of wolations of the
various state and local environmental laws described ~n this report
This has aided the DEC and local municipalities to enforce the various
environmental laws.
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEMS AND PROBLEM AREAS
All of the problems *dentified in the 1980 and 1981 Annual
Environmental Reports with respect to enwronmental review are still
pertinent. Delay resulting from the environ mental process, complexity
of regulation, along with the lack of manpower and money have
resulted in opposition to NEPA and SEORA since they have been
~mplemented. Another problem arises in the lack of continuity and
coordination in the environmental review process at all levels of
government. For example, take the necessary steps that have to be
completed at the federal, state, county and local levels in order to get
approval of a single dredging project. Application has to be made to
the Army Corps of Engineers for a dredging perm it. The Army Corps of
Engineers' application requires specific environmental information to
be included in the application. AS part of the Army Corps review
process, the application is forwarded to the United States Department
of Fish and Wildlife for their comments. If the action is deemed to
significantly affect the environment, then a federal ElS is required At
the state level, a tidal wetlands application requiring environmental
information, as well as a water quality application including additional
environ mental information, have to be submitted to the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation for review. At the county
level, an environmental assessment is prepared and submitted to the
Council on Environmental Quality for their comments. At the town
level, a dredging permit must be applied for which requires more
environmental information. In addition to the various permits and
reviews necessary at the state, county and local levels, an environmen-
tal impact statement may also be required by any one of those entities.
Because of all of the paper work and redundant environmental infor-
mation required at the federal, state, county and local levels for one
dredging project, it takes on average approximately two years to get
approval from all agencies concerned.
TRENDS
Despite all of the problems that have been associated with
environmental review, it must be noted that the process is relatively
new and with time many of the inconveniences now recognized as
being unworkable will be resolved. In addition to incorporating enwr-
onmental concerns into the decision making process during the early
planning phases of a project, environmental impact assessments and
statements do serve to consolidate all the information w~th respect to
an action, including ~ts description, impacts, possible alternatives and
costs, into one document. That makes it eas~er for decision makers to
make a final determination. Such statements also inform the public as
to the nature and scope of actions being considered by government
and allow them to participate in the decision making process through
public hearings. This process of public disclosure and involvement
makes government agencies more accountable.
Studies seem to indicate that as the world becomes more
populated and natural resources more scarce, the overall ~mpact on
the environment is becoming increasingly important. This is borne oul
by analysis of the SEQRA process throug hour the State which shows a
direct correlation between population density and levels of SEQRA
activity. The major portion of SEQRA activities ~n New York took place
on Long Island and in the lower Hudson Valley region, an area hawng
the highest population density in the State. The Syracuse, Rochester
and Buffalo regions, which are moderately to heavily populated, also
had high levels of SEQRA activity.
Prior to implementation of NEPA and SEQRA there were pre-
dictions that such environmental review laws would result m frequent
litigation. Analysis has shown that there has not been a flood of
gation, in fact, the vast number of actions undertaken by government
are determined to not significantly affect the environment and require
no review at all. O f the projects that do undergo environ mental review.
the overwhelming majority of decisions have been negative declara-
tions stating that the actions w~l not result m any significant enwron-
mental impacts.
GOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
Table 39 summarizes the various federal, state, county eno
local laws deahng with general environmental review and enforcement.
1. Federal Programs
As pointed out, NEPA is the major law dealing with environ-
mental review of federal projects and activities. Title 2 of N EPA estab-
lished the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and
required that they assist and advise the President in the preparation of
the Environmental Quality Report. It is also the duty of the CEQ to
gather information and conduct studies on the conditions and trends
in environmental quality and assess the progress towards achieving
the national environmental policy of encouraging productive and
enjoyable harmony between man and his environment. Moreover, the
federal CEQ is charged with developing and recommending to the
President national policy and legislation to protect the environment.
The Reagan administration during 1981 severely cut back the CEQ
budget and reduced the staff by at least half. This action seriously
hampers the federal CEQ's capability of fulfilling NEPA. A major con-
sequence of this will be a decrease in the monitoring and analyzing of
existing national and worldwide environmental problems, as well as
fostering an inability to detect new environmental trends.
77
TABLE 39
MAJOR FEDERAL, STATE AND COUNTY LAWS DEALING WITH
GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND ENFORCEMENT
Nlm Administering
(ClteEon) Agency Primary Purpose
Major
Provisions
FEDERAL
National Environmental
Policy Act (42USC §4321 et.
seq.)
STATE
State Environmental Quality
Review Act -- Art. 8 of the
Environmental Conservation
Law
Counc=l on Environmental
Quality and all Federal
Departments and agencies
Department of
Environmental Conservahon
and all state and local
agencies
Reduce the degradation of the human
environment and achieve a balance
between developmen~ and resource
To declare a state policy which will
encourage productive and enjoyable
harmony between man and h~s
environment; to promote efforts
which will prevent or eliminate
damage to the environment and
enhance human and community
resources, and to enrich the
understanding of the ecologica~
systems, natural, human and
community resources ~mportant to
the people of the state
Requires federal agencies eno
licenses to analyze ~mpacts of
actions on land and wa~er
resources and to choose the.
enwronmen~ally preferable
alternative or to explain why that
alternative was no~ chosen
Requires a~t state and local
agencies and licenses to anaWze
impacts of actions on the
environment and to mimm~ze
any impacts that can not be
avoided
Title 6 NYCRR Part 617
Article 71 of the
Environmental Conservation
Law
COUNTY
Environmental BHI of
Rights--Article I of the
Suffolk County Charter
Department of
Environmental Conservation
and all state and local
agencies
Department of
Environmental Conservatlorl
and County D A. Offices
Council on Environmental
Quality and all County
Departments
Rules and Regulations ~mplementmg
SEQRA
Enforcement of N.Y. Environmental
Conservabon Law
The pohcy of Suffolk County shall be
to conserve and protect its natural
resources, including ds wetlands and
shorehnes, and the quality of its
environment and natural scenic
beauty, and to encourage the
conservation of its agricultural lands
In ~mplemenhng th~s policy, the
County Legislature shall make
adequate prowsion for the abatement
of air, water and soil pollution and of
excessive and unnecessary no,se, the
protection of wetlands and
shorelines, and the conservabon and
regulation of water resources
78
enwronmental impact
assessments and statements and
when they are required
2. Establishment of read agency
3. Review time schedules
~ Governs DEC and Attorney
General's enforcement of the
2 G~ves delegation of criminal
enforcement authordy to the
Distr~ct Attorney of the County
in whm~ the violation occurs
Estabhshes ti3e Suffolk County
Council on Environmental
Quality ICEQ) and assigns them
the following respons~bilibes:
1 Prepare guidelines on what
act~vdies are likely to have a
sigmhcant impact on the
environment;
2. Recommend properties tor
dedtcabon to the County Nature
Preserve and Historic Trust,
3. Assist the County Execuhve m
the preparabon of his Annual
Environmental Reports;
4. Advise the Cou.ty Legislature
and County Execuhve on
developments in the County wdh
environmental signihcance
5 Rewew the environmental
,mpact of any projecl at the
request of the County
Legislature or County Executive,
6 Review and report on
environmental impact statements
that are required to be prepared
by County agencies. In addition
all projects and activilies
undertaken by the County that
may s~gnificantly affect the
N&me Admlntstaring
(Citation) Agency
TABLE 39 (ConY(I,)
Primary Purpose
Major
Provlalons
Local Law NO. 23, 1977. A
Local Law implementing
SEQRA
Council on Environmental
Quality and all Departments
initiating county projects
and actions
2. New York State
SEQRA, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law,
mandates environmental review at the state, county and local levels of
government. In the Second Year Monitoring Report on theState Envir-
onmenta~ Quality Review Act, prepared by the New York State Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation, it states that only approximately
47% of local governments are now aware of the SEQRA process even
though it was passed in 1975, and only one quarter of the agencies
have filed their own SEQRA procedures. Summarizing a local govern-
ment survey, DEC points out that:
--84% or 1,301 actions out of a reported 1,552 actions subject
to SEQRA were found not to significantly affect the environ-
ment and were issued negative declarations
--16% or 251 of the 1,552 actions required environmental
impact statements.
--26% or 66 of the total 251 projects for which an ElS was re-
quired were modified or changed to reduce adverse envi-
ronmental impacts as a direct result of the SEQRA process.
--3% or 52 of the actions were identified by local agencies to
be delayed because of SEQRA.
--99.3% or 1.541 of the total 1,552 actions were ultimtely
approved leaving only 0.7% or 11 actions being denied
approval on the basis of information in the SEQRA process.
3. Suffolk County
a. SEQRA Review
At the Suffolk County level the Council on Environmental
Quality reviewed the 1982~84 County Capital Program to identify
which of the items required some sort of formal environmental review.
Out of the 192 program requests evaluated. 105 projects were judged
to be Type II Actions requiring no environmental review at all, 75
projects were judged to need environmental assessments and 12 pro-
jects had the environmental review complete.
During the course of 1981, the County completed environmen-
tal review of 35 projects of which 30 were considered unlisted actions
and 5 were Type I Actions. Of the total, 28 negative declarations were
~ssued of which 13 had conditions attached in order to minimize envi-
ronmental impact. Six of the projects required environmental impact
statements. Although many of the projects were modified to minimize
environmental impact either as part of the negative declaration or
through the environmental impact statement process, none of the
projects were disapproved on the basis of information in the SEQRA
process.
b. EnvlronmenMI Crime Unit
In addition to the general environmental review, in November.
1980. the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office established its
Environmental Crime Unit staffed by two veteran Assistant District
Attorneys. The unit was formed pursuant to Legislative amendment to
Article 71 Environmental Conservation Law (§71-0403) providing the
County District Attorney with authority to prosecute environmental
Implementation of the State
Environmenta~ Quality Review Act at
the County level.
1. Sets County rules and
provisions for environmental
review of county actions.
2. CEQ is in charge of
administrating the environmental
review process.
3. Departments are in charge of
preparing environmental impact
assessments and statements.
crimes. Although the State Enwronmental Conservation Law allows
for criminal prosecution of water pollution offenses (ECL Article 19),
the work of the District Attorney's Office over the past year has
focused principally on cases involving Hazardous Wastes and Toxic
Chemicals.
Environmental legislation enforced by the D.A. 's Office includes Arti-
cle 12 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. which is implemented by
the Suffolk County Board of Health, and constitutes one of the most
comprehensive laws regulating storage and disposal of toxic and
hazardous materials In New York State. Vid/at~ons of this law consti-
tute offenses punishable by a frae of $250 and/or 15 days incarceration
($CS C Sec. 217). If violahons of the code are commdted"edllfully", the
offense constitutes a misdemeanor punishable by six months incarcer-
ation and/or a fine of $500.
Prior to September 1981, the State law dealing with storage,
treatment, disposal or transportation of hazardous wastes was set
forth in NY ECL Article 27. Title 9. Section 27-0913. Violation of th~s
section of law constituted a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of
$25,000 and/or incarceration of one year, (Sec 71-2705 Subd. 21.
In May, 1981. Senator Ralph Merino conducted hearings into
the activities of the hazardous waste industry on Long Island. As an
outgrowth of those hearings, the New York State Legislature enacted
NY ECL Sections 71-2707 through 71-2727 (effechve September 1,
1981), Unlawful Possession of Hazardous Wastes, Second Degree
(§71-2707): Unlawful Disposal of Hazardous Wastes, Second Degree
(§71-2711 ): and Unlawful Dealing in Hazardous Wastes, First Degree
(§71-2717)--each constitutes a Class "E" felony, punishable by a fine
of $100,000, and/or imprisonment of a term of 4 years. The crimes of
Unlawful Possession of Hazardous Wastes, F~rst Degree (§71-2709):
and Unlawful Disposal of Hazardous Wastes, First Degree (§71-27131
constitutes Class "D" felonies punishable by a fine of $100,000 and/or
,mprisonment of seven years
On or about Ju~y 31,1981, the New York Legislature approved
Section 380 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. This statutory provision
effective 12/1/81, deals with the obligations and requirements
imposed upon transporters of hazardous materials. F~rst and second
violations of this law constitute a misdemeanor whereas a th,rd viola-
tion of said law constitutes a felony
Since its ~nception, the District Attorney's Enwronmental
Crime U nit has, and is continuing to vigorously prosecute wolations of
these various laws. The most revolved case thus far handled by the
office involves the Port Jefferson Corporation, Lawrence Aviation
Industries. Inc. The case. involving numerous storage and disposal
violations, was very carefully prepared and presented to the Grand
Jury over a six (6) month period. This investigation resulted m indict-
ments being handed up against the corporation and several of its
employees, as well as an industrial waste hauling firm and one of its
employees.
Another case being prosecuted involves the Farmingdale facil-
ity, Hazardous Waste Disposal, Inc and its President, George Law-
rence. Charges were filed against both in May. 1981 for Unlawful
Storage and Disposal of Hazardous Wastes, and Unlawful Discharge
of Toxic or Hazardous Materials. The case is pending.
79
Because of the highly technical and scientific nature of these
cases, the Assistant District Attorneys have attended several seminars
and have worked very closely with personnel from the Suffolk County
Health Department and the Medical Examiner's Office.
Local SE(~RA ordinances have been passed by all ten towns
within Suffolk County as weft as the ViPages of East Hampton, Sag
Harbor, Head of the Harbor, North Haven, Lindenhurst and Nerthport
In response to a questionnaire mailed to the various municipalities
wffflln Suffolk concerning the number of projects reviewed under
SEQRA for 1981 the following information was obtained:
To~al SEQRA Type II Unlisted Type I Actions
Town Actions Actions Actions Requiring ElS
Babylon 564 562 2 0
IsJJp 125 t3 108 4
Riverhead 604 602 0 2
Shelter Island 1 0 0 1
Southampton Data 121 Data 3
Unavailable Unavailable
Southold 262 262
The Towns of Babylon, Brookhaven, Huntington and Ishp
have Environmental Departments which aid in their towns' SEQRA
reviews and in many Instances, serve as lead agencies. Some of them
are also mandated to enforce their towns' environmental laws.
At the local level Article 12 F of the General Municipal Law
allows for the creation of Conservation Advisory Councils (CAC)
which are to advise their respective towns and villages on environ men-
tal matters. Suffolk County has a total of 19 CAC's which are duly
authorized by the Department of Environmental Conservation and
receive from 25% to 50% state a~d. The municipalities of Babylon.
Brookhavenr East Hampton, Huntington. Islip, Riverhead, Shelter
island, S mithtown, Southampton, Southold, Asharoken, Brightwaters
Head of the Harbor, Lloyd H arbor. Nissequogue. Old Field, Port Jeffer-
son. Village of the Branch and Westhampton have CAC's. All of the
CAC's play a direct role in the SEQR A review process at the town and
village level advising their respective governments on the various
actions being considered. In addition, the State Law requires that
CAC's prepare an Open Space Index identifying all publicly owned
lands, open marsh areas, swamps and other wetlands, as well as other
undeveloped areas. The importance of all open space should be dis-
cussed and recommendations made to the governing body of the
municipality identifying those areas that should be preserved, along
with a program for ecologically suitable utilization for all such areas
CAC's can also undertake environmental programs of particular in-
terest within their municipality
EXTENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF 19~1 RECOM~ENDATIONS
During the course of the year the Council on Enwronmental
Quality has worked closely with other county departments in order to
initiate environmental input and review at the earliest possible time m
the planning stage. By incorporating environmental concerns early in
the planning process for the proposed development of Lakeland
County Park. the proposed Fishery Facility at S hinnecock Inlet and the
proposed Reconstruction of C.R. 28, New H~ghway, enwronmental
impacts were minimized and the environmental review was processed
expedihously without delaying the projects or increasing costs
RECOMMENDATIONS
· Effort~ ~hould be undertaken to improve, consolidate, and
coordinate environmental ~evlew at the Federal. State,
Cau?y and local levels ~n order to eliminate ~mplicabon and
mtntmize delay.