No preview available
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.