The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGroundwater Protection Area Plan 1992 THE LONG ISLAND COMPREHENSIVE SPECIAL GROUNDWATER PROTECTION AREA PLAN Dr. Lee E. Koppelman Arthur Kunz Dr. Edith Tanenbaum Dr. DeVV'~I Davies 1992 Long Island Regional Planning Board H. Lee Dennison Office Building Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788-5401 The preparation of this report was financed in part through a contract with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) with funds allocated by the New York State Legislature in an Act effective on September 1, 1987 entitled, ~Article 55 - Sole Source Aquifer Protection.' The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the State Legislature or DEC. Library of Congress Card Number: 92-061526 LONG ISLAND REGIONAL PLANNING BOARD Morton Certilman, Esq. Chairman Dr. Frank Cipdani Joseph R Famighetti Dr. Carl L. Figliola John Wickham John J. Hart, Esq. ~ce Chairm~z NASSAU COUNTY John M. Waltz Acting Commissioner Department of Public Works Dr. Lee E. Koppelman Executive Director Ex Officio SUFFOLK COUNTY Stephen G. Hayduk Commissioner Department of Public Works Peter T. King Comptroller Joseph Caputo Comptroller Advisory Honorable Thomas S. Gulotta County Executive Honorable Robert J. Gaffney County Executive Honorable Joseph N. Mondello Presiding Supervisor County Board of Supervisors Honorable Donald Blydenburgh Presiding Officer County Legislature County Coordination Paul F Ponessa Director County Planning Commission Arthur Kunz Director County Planning Department STUDY,PARTICIPANTS Administrative and Report Preparation Lee E. Koppelman Arthur H. Kunz Edith G. Tanenbaum DeWitt S. Davies James F Bagg. Jr. Lauretta R. Fischer Peter Lambert Carole Swick Christine Viladesau Paula Davantzis Penny Lasquadm Professional Staff Support Staff Jeanne Widmayer Cartographic Thomas Frisenda Carl Lind Al D'Amelio Laurie Higgins Gary Palumbo Ronald Verbarg Michael Volpe Ba~ara Horosld Samuella Martin Report Publication Anthony Tucci Accounting Lucille Gardella Center for Regional Policy Studies Edith Jones Ruth Klein Advisory Council Participation At the beginning of the study in 1988, an SGPA Advisory Council was established. Volunteers from municipalities, agen- cies and major environmental groups were invited to participate on a continuing basis to revlaw the material that would eventually result in a special groundwater area protection plan. The major participants were the local towns, County Health De- partments, Cooperative Extension age~iss, State Department of Environmental Conservation, State Legislative Commission on Water Resoumes, Suffolk County Water Authority and United States Geological Survey (USGS). Meetings were held on a monthly basis between 1988 and 1991 in order to review the various phases of work. During the course of the study, presentations were made by the Nassau and Suffolk Health Departments, Cornell Cooperative Extension agencies, the USGS, and water specialists from the Brookhaven National Laboratory. All of the information reviewed by the Committee has been incorporated into the final report. In addition to agency presentations, most meetings contained a summary of the work of the staff of the Long Island Regional Planning Board (LIRPB), so that the members were fully informed about the basic research, environmental findings and prelimi- nary plan recommendations. The Council also evaluated proposed legislation that might affect groundwater, and discussed new legislation that might be nec- essary to implement the special groundwater study. In addition, the Council also reviewed ongoing issues in the two County area that would have a current effect on the areas designated for groundwater protection. Following is a listing of the Advisory Council participants. SGPA Advisory Council Name Aldo Andreoli, RE., Ph.D. Joseph H. Balar, P.E. Bridget M. Balog Philip Barbato, RE. Russell Barnett Rhoda Becker Steven Biasetti Don Bingham Eisa Brunn Stuart Buckner, Ph.D. Theodore B. Burger, RE., Ph.D. Michael E. Burke, RE. Steven V. Cary, P.E. Maria Cinque Ray Corn/in Brian Culhane S. Robert Dassler Organization Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Citizens Campaign for the Environment New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Town of Srnithtown Department of Environmental Control Town of North Hempstead Department of Planning Group for the South Fork United States Geological Survay Town of Islip Department of Environmental Control Town of Islip Department of Environmental Control Nassau County Department of Health New York State Department of Health Suffolk County Department of Health Cornell Cooperative Extension - Nassau County Suffolk County Water Authority New York State Legislative Comm. on Water Resource Needs of Long Island Suffolk County Water Authority John W. Follis, Jr. Judy Foy Jeffrey Fullmer Penny Hadgeoff Richard W. Hanley Nancy Nagle Kelley, A.I,C.P. Joan Kesner Amy Knutson Darrel J. Kost. RE. Lisa M. Liquori, A,I.C.P. Michael Litwa Margaret Lloyd Mark Maimona, P,E. Mark S. McDonald Steve McGinn Sarah J. Meyland James Mulligan, RE. Margo S. Myles David Newton Ed Oaksford Ruth Oliva Jed Pomerantz George Proios Kevin Quinn Tom Reamon Sy F. Robbins Kevin J. Roberts Kenneth L. Robinson Edward J. Rosavitch, P.E. Patricia A. Roth-Maclntyre William J. Sanok Valerie Scopaz William H. Spitz Maryellen Suhrhoff Carnie S. Swick, R.L.A. Thomas Thorsen Vincent L. Vario Robert Villa, P. E. Andrew Walker Jeanne Waters Nassau County Planning Commission New York State Legislative Comm. on Water Resoume Needs of Long Island Citizens Campaign for the Environment Town of Babylon Department of Environment Control Town of Riverhead Department of Planning Group for the South Fork Town of Oyster Bay Town of Sm/thtown Department of Environmental Protection New York State Department of Transportation Town of East Hampton Planning Dept. Town of Babylon Department of Environmental Control Nassau County Soil and Water Conservation District Nassau County Department of Public Works McDonald Geoscience Town of Huntington Planning Department Citizens Campaign for the Environment Nassau County Dept. of Public Works Town of Huntington Dept. of Planning Comell Cooperative Extension Suffolk County United States Geological Survey Town of Soutbeld, Councilwomen Long island Association New York State Legislative Comm. on Water Resoume Needs of Long island Town of North Hempstead Planning Department New York State Department of Health Suffolk County Department of Health Se~ces New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Sierra Club Suffolk County Water Authority New York State Department of Health Cornell Cooperative Extension - Suffolk County Town of Southold Planning Board New York State Department of Environmental Conservation New York State Legislative Comm. on Water Resource Needs of Long Island Town of Breokhaven Department of Planning, Environment & Development Town of Southampton Planning Department Nassau County Planning Commission Suffolk County Department of Health Services Nature Conservancy Huntington Farmlands Association Table of Contents Preface ........................................... i Chapter One ........................................ 1-1 Introduction ...................................................... 1-1 Importance of the Deep Aquifer Recharge Areas ................................. 1-1 Creation of Special Groundwater Protection Areas ................................ 1-5 Chapter Two ........................................ 2-1 General Recommendations ............................................ 2-1 Introduction .................................................... 2-1 Opportunities ................................................... 2-2 Regional Overview ................................................ 2-2 Policy Considerations ............................................... 2-4 Watershed Rules and Regulations ........................................ 2-9 Best Management Practices ........................................... 2-13 Chapter Three ....................................... 3-1 Individual SGPAs ................................................... 3-1 Introduction .................................................... 3-1 SGPA Land Use Methodology ........................................... 3-1 Soils and Topography ............................................... 3-2 Vegetation Associations .............................................. 3-2 Rare and Endangered Species and Significant Habitats ............................. 3-2 Surface Waters and Freshwater Wetlands ..................................... 3-3 Hydmgeologic Overview Procedure ........................................ 3-3 Plan Maps ..................................................... 3-4 Summary ..................................................... 3-5 North Hills SGPA ................................................... 3-6 Recommendations ................................................ 3-15 Oyster Bay SGPA .................................................. 3-18 Recommendations ................................................ 3-27 West Hills-Melville SGPA .............................................. 3-31 Recommendations ................................................ 3-39 Oak Brush Plains SGPA .............................................. 3-42 Recommendations ................................................ 3-52 South Setauket Woods SGPA ........................................... 3-53 Recommendations ................................................ 3-61 Central Suffolk SGPA ................................................ 3-65 Western Sector ................................................. 3-83 Recommendations ................................................ 3-84 Southeast Sector (Southampton Portion) .................................... 3-85 Recommendations. Northeast Sector ................................................ -89 Recommendations ................................................ 3-94 South Fork SGPA. ................................................. -95 Recommendations. Hither Hills SGPA ................................................. -108 Recommendations Southold SGPA Recommendations Chapter Four ........................................ 4-1 Implementation .................................................... 4-1 Introduction Reducing Contamination From Existing Soum .es ................................. 4-1 Avoiding The Establishment of New Soumes of Contamination .......................... 4-4. Facilitating Plan Implementation .......................................... 4-7 Staffing Recommendations ............................................ 4-9 Chapter Five .................................... 5-1 Citizen Participation ................................................. 5-1 Introduction ..................................................... 5-1 Business Community Concerns .......................................... 5-2 Anti-degradation vs. Non-degradation ....................................... 5-6 The Plan's Eleven Requirements ......................................... 5-8 Cumulative Impacts ................................................ 5-9 Industrial Parcel North of Gombrieski County Airport .............................. 5-10 Existing Use Zoning ............................................... 5-11 Watershed Rules and Regulations " ~' 5-12 Justifications for Five Acre Zoning ........................................ 5-14 Appendix A - Bibliography .................................. A-1 The United States Geological Survey ....................................... A-1 Introduction ................................................... A-1 History ...................................................... A-1 Nassau County ................................................... A-8 Water Supply and Groundwater Studies .................................... A-8 Nassau County Department of Health ....................................... A-9 Nassau County Department of Public Works .................................... A-13 Suffolk County ................................................... A-14 Water Supply and Groundwater Studies .................................... A-14 Appendix B - The Delineation Process ...... ' .................... B-1 Boundary Maps and Descriptions ......................................... B-2 List of Tables ~ble 1-1 2-1 2~ 2-3 2-4 2-5 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 3-7 3-8 3-9 3-10 3-11 3-12 3-13 3-14 3-15 3-16 3-17 3-18 3-19 3-20 3-21 3-22 3~3 3-24 3-25 3-26 3-27 3-28 3-29 3-30 3-31 Page Chapter References to Eleven Requirements .................................. 1-9 Existing Land Use (acres) in all SGPAs, 1989 .................................. 2-3 Estimated Population of SGPA's, 1980 and 1988 ................................ 2-3 SGPA Saturation Population Estimates ..................................... 2-4 SGPA Plan Open Space and Developed Land inventory (acres) ......................... 2-8 Acreage Already Zoned 5 Acres ......................................... 2-8 Description of Soil Associations Found Within Long Island's SGPAs ...................... 3-2 Acreage of Freshwater Wetlands Within Each SGPA ............................... 3-3 Plan Land Use (acres) in all SGPAs ....................................... 3-5 Well Sites Within, Adjacent andDowngradient to the North Hills SGPA ................... 3-10 Existing Land Use (acres) in the North Hills SGPA 1989 ........................... 3-11 Plan Land Use (acres) in the North Hills SGPA ................................ 3-15 Existing and Plan Land Use (acres) in the North Hills SGPA ......................... 3-15 Well Sites Within the Oyster Bay SGPA and Within 1 Mile of the Oyster Bay SGPA ............. 3-22 Existing Land Use (acres)in the Oyster Bay SGPA, 1989 ........................... 3-26 Plan Land Use (acres) in the Oyster Bay SGPA ................................ 3-27 Existing and Plan Land Use (acres) in the Oyster Bay SGPA ......................... 3-30 Water Supply - West Hills SGPA ........................................ 3-32 Existing Land Use (acres) in the West Hills-Melville SGPA, 1989 ....................... 3-33 Plan Land Use (acres) in the West Hills SGPA ................................ 3-39 Existing and Plan Land Use (acres) in the West Hills SGPA .......................... 3-39 Water Supply - Oak Brush Plains SGPA .................................... 3-43 Existing Land Use (acres) in the Oak Brush Plains SGPA, 1989 ....................... 3-46 Plan Land Use (acres) in the Oak Brush Plains SGPA ............................ 3-52 Existing and Plan Land Use (acres) in the Oak Brush Plains SGPA ...................... 3-52 Water Supply - South Setauket Woods SGPA ................................. 3-54 Existing Land Use (acres) in the South Setauket Woods SGPA, 1989 .................... 3-55 Plan Land Use (acres) in the South Setauket Woods SGPA .......................... 3-64 Existing and Plan Land Use (acres) in the South Setauket Woods SGPA ................... 3-64 Community Water Supply Well Fields ..................................... 3-69 Existing Land Use (acres) in the Central Suffolk SGPA, 1989 ......................... 3-73 Existing Land Use (acres) in the West Portion of the Central Suffolk SGPA, 1989 ............... 3-73 Existing Land Use (acres) in the Southeast Portion of the Central Suffolk SGPA, 1989 ............ 3-80 Existing Land Use (acres) in the Northeast Portion of the Central Suffolk SGPA, 1989 ............ 3-80 Central Suffolk SGPA: Sewage Treatment Plants ............................... 3-81 Central Suffolk SGPA; Landfills & Hazardous Waste Sites .......................... 3-82 Central Suffolk SGPA; Petroleum Spills and Leaks Impacting Groundwater .................. 3-82 Appendix C - Water Conservation ............................... C-1 Nassau County ................................................... C-2 Suffolk County ................................................... C-2 Water Conservation Techniques .......................................... C-4 Water Conservation In The Home Environment ................................. C-5 Potential For Conservation In Exterior Water Use ................................ C-6 Potential For Conservation In Interior Water Use ................................ C-7 Water Conservation Considerations ....................................... C-7 Appendix D - Existing Programs ................................ D,-1 Introduction ..................................................... D-1 Appendix E - Watershed Rules and Regulations ......................... E-1 Introduction ..................................................... E-1 Examples of Proposed Watershed Rules and Regulations ............................ E-2 Appendix F - Pine Barrens Review Commission Standards - 1989 . , ,4 ............... F-1 Introduction ...................................................... F-1 Policy and Standards ................................................. F-2 Appendix G - Golf Course Management and Nitrates in Groundwater ................ G-1 Historical Perspective of Turfgrass Fertilization and Groundwater ......................... G-1 Managing Golf Courses to Minimize Nitrate Leaching ............................... G-2 Nitrogen Sources .................................................. G-5 Nitrogen Application Rates and Timing ....................................... G-6 Irrigation Management ............................................... G-6 Other Approaches ................................................. G-7 Implications for Golf Courses ............................................ G-8 References ..................................................... G-9 Appendix H - Suffolk County Acquisition Program ........................ H-1 Suffolk County Acquisition Plan .......................................... H-1 Subwatershed Descriptions ............................................ H-4 Core Watershed Corridor .............................................. H-10 Appendix I - SGPA Land Use Categories ............................ I-1 Description of SCWA Groundwater Information Overlays .............................. I-3 Appendix J - Rare and Endangered Species by SGPA ....................... J-1 Rare and Endangered Species List by SGPA .................................... J-1 Appendix K - Model Existing Use Zoning Ordinance for Rural Townships ............... K-1 List of Figures Figure 1-1 1-2 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 3-7 3-8 3-9 3-10 3-11 3-12 3-13 3-14 3-15 3-16 3-17 3-16 3-19 3-20 3-21 3-22 3-23 3-24 3-25 3-26 3-27 3-28 3-29 3-30 3-31 H-1 H-2 Page Hydrogeological Zones - (Nassau - Suffolk) ................................... 1-3 Location Map of the Nine SGPAs ........................................ 1-7 Groundwater Conditions - North Hills SGPA ................................... 3-9 1989 Exlaang Land Use - North Hills SGPA .................................. 3-13 Plan Land Use - North Hills SGPA ....................................... 3-17 Groundwater Conditions - Oyster Bay SGPA ................................. 3-21 1989 Existing Land Use - Oyster Bay SGPA .................................. 3-25 Plan Land Use - Oyster Bay SGPA ...................................... 3-29 Groundwater Conditions - West Hills-Melville SGPA ............................. 3-35 1989 Existing Land Use - West Hills-Melville SGPA .............................. 3-37 Plan Land Use - West Hills-Melville SGPA ................................... 3-41 Groundwater Conditions - Oak Brush Plains SGPA .............................. 3-45 1989 Existing Land Use - Oak Brush Plains SGPA .............................. 3-49 Plan Land Use - Oak Brush Plains SGPA ................................... 3-51 Groundwater Conditions - South Sstaukst Woods SGPA ........................... 3-57 1989 Existing Land Use - South Setauket Woods SGPA ........................... 3-59 Plan Land Use - South Setaukst Woods SGPA .............................. '.. 3-63 Groundwater Conditions - Central Suffolk SGPA ............................... 3-71 1989 Existing Land Use - West Portion of the Central Suffolk SGPA ..................... 3-75 1989 Existing Land Use - Southeast Portion of the Central Suffolk SGPA ................... 3-77 1989 Existing Land Use - Northeast Portion of the Central Suffolk SGPA ................... 3-79 Plan Land Use - West Portion of the Central Suffolk SGPA .......................... 3-87 Plan Land Use - Southeast Portion of the Central Suffolk SGPA ....................... 3-91 Plan Land Use - Northeast Portion of the Central Suffolk SGPA ....................... 3-93 Groundwater Conditions - South Fork SGPA ................................. 3-99 1989 Existing Land Use - South Fork SGPA ................................. 3-103 Plan Land Use - South Fork SGPA ..................................... 3-107 Groundwater Conditions - Hither Hills SGPA ................................ 3-111 1989 Existing Land Use - Hither Hills SGPA ................................ 3-113 Plan Land Use - Hither Hills SGPA ...................................... 3-115 Groundwater Conditions - Southold SGPA .................................. 3-119 1989 Existing Land Use - Southold SGPA ................................. .. 3-123 Plan Land Use - Southold SGPA ....................................... 3-125 Appendix Figures The Seven Suffoll( County SGPAs and their Subwatersheds ......................... H-3 SGPAs and The Core Watershed Corridor ................................... H-11 3-32 Plan Land Use (acres) in the West Portion of the Central Suffolk SGPA ................... 3-85 3-33 Existing and Plan Land Use (acres) in the West Portion of the Central Suffolk SGPA ............. 3-85 3-34 Plan Land Use (acres) in the Southeast Portion of the Central Suffolk SGPA ................. 3-88 3-35 Existing and Plan Land Use (acres) in the Southeast Portion of the Central Suffolk SGPA .......... 3-88 3-36 Plan Land Use (acres) in the Northeast Portion of the Central Suffolk SGPA ................. 3-94 3-37 Existing and Plan Land Use (acres) in the Northeast Portion of the Central Suffolk SGPA .......... 3-94 3-38 Water Supply for the South Fork SGPA .................................... 3-97 3-39 Existing Land Use (acres) in the South Forks SGPA, 1989 .......................... 3-100 3-40 Plan Land Use (acres) in the South Fork SGPA ............................... 3-105 3-41 Existing and Plan Land Use (acres) in the South Fork SGPA ........................ 3-105 3-42 Existing Land Use (acres) in the Hither Hills SGPA, 1989 .......................... 3-116 3-43 Plan Land Use (acres) in the Hither Hills SGPA ............................... 3-116 3-44 Existing and Plan Land Use (acres) in the Hither Hills SGPA ........................ 3-116 3-45 Existing Land Use (acres) in the Southold SGPA, 1989 ............................ 3-126 3-46 Plan Land Use (acres) in the Southold SGPA ................................ 3-126 3-47 Existing and Plan Land Use (acres) in the Southold SGPA ......................... 3-126 5-1 Cumulative Impacts (land available for development) .............................. 5-9 Appendix Tables C-1 Pumpage by Water Use Category ....................................... C-3 C-2 1980 Interior and Exterior Water Use ..................................... C-6 C-3 Residential Interior Water Use ......................................... C-7 D-1 Summary of Existing Programs to Major Groundwater Management Agencies ................ D-2 F-1 PBRC Clearance Standards ........................................... F-3 F-2 Suitable Groundwater Alternatives for Long Island ............................... F-7 Summary of Nitrate Leaching From Fertilizera Applied to Turtgrass ...................... G-3 The Properties of Nitrogen Sources Used on Golf Courses .......................... G-5 Typical Yearly Nitrogen Fertilizer Program for Golf Couraes .......................... G-6 Nitrogen Requirement Ranking of Turfgrass .................................. G-7 H-1 SGPA and Subwatershed Comparisons .................................... H-8 H-2 Drinking Water Protection Program Purchases by Subwatershed ....................... H-9 I-1 Special Groundwater Protection Area Study Land Use Categories ....................... I-1 I-2 Aerial Photographs Used for Land Use Interpretation Within SGPAs ...................... I-2 Preface The single unifying environmental element in all comprehensive planning work carried out over the past three decades on Long Island is that of groundwater. Nassau and Suffolk Counties are indeed an island totally isolated from any external source of water importation, except for the pumhase of bottled water. There are no underground rivem emanating from New England that move subterraneously under Long Island Sound to miraculously surface at Lake Ronkonkoma. There are no distri- bution tunnels and pipelines that can transport New York City water to the two counties. Nor for that matter is there New York City water. The City imports almost all of its water from upstate sources whose quantity often come perilously close to crisis shortage in times of drought. There are no snow-capped mountains on Long Island that provide swollen rivers with spring wa- ters. The so-called rivers and streams in the two counties are merely surface manifestations of exposed groundwater. Rainfall and that portion of the rain that permeates the ground in significant quantity is the sole soume of drinking or potable water. Perhaps the water regime is the greatest single factor in making the Island one of the finest natural settings for human set- tlement. For more than ten millennia the water cycle, which is impressive in its simplicity, has provided a renewable resource that has sustained the flora and fauna since the recession of the last glacier period. Rain falls, and a portion of it permeates the ground to be absorbed in the root systems of grasses, shrubs and trees that provide shelter and food for animal lite. The plant life contributes to air chemist~J in the carbon dioxide/oxygen cycle, and in moisture transpired through its foliage. Water vapor from plants, combined with the general evaporation of surtace waters, both fresh and saline, contributes to the formation of new rain clouds. A signiticant portion of sudace and underground water finds its way to the marine waters of Long Island Sound and to the various bays providing a mixing of saline ocean waters with fresh water and enabling a healthy shellfish population to thdve and fostering the growth of marsh grasses that serve as spawning habitats for fish and shellfish. The combination of rain- fall, soils and moderate climate provide the mix on which farming and fishing sustain the framework for human existence. Whatever occurs in the course of building towns, villages and hamlets, we rarely change the basic water cycle, from a quantity point of view. We can and have, however, changed the relationships between the components of the cycle -- often in a dramatic and damaging way. Construction and paving can remove permeable ground thereby reducing recharge in those areas. The in- stallation and use of recharge basins can offset the recharge losses due to the removal of permeable surfaces. Overpumpage of potable water in near shore areas can accelerate salt water intrusion. Construction of sewage treatment plants and the dis- charge of sewage effluent water into the Ocean or Sound can reduce the quantity that could have been recharged thereby chang- ing the quantity of groundwater and its level. A most obvious and immediate consequence is the lowering of water levels in surface streams with accompanying degradation of the surface water dependent wetland ecosystem. And so the simplicity of the generalized water cycle in terms of its symmetry is in reality exceedingly complex when impacted by the perturbations of human activity. These impacts affect quantity as defined by the term safe yield meaning how much water can be withdrawn before nega- tive trends occur. These impacts also affect the quality of groundwater as measured by a variety of standards. An early concern for Long Islands' aquiter yield was expressed in a report of a study conducted by Russell Suter in which he as- sessed the problems of overpumping in Brooklyn and Queens and its impact on the supply needs of New York City. He con- cluded that portions of the Long Island aquiters should be restored through the curtailment of all commercial and industrial pumping in the two Boroughs, and that use of the Nassau and Suffolk portions of the aquifers should continue at least until New York City could begin to tap the Delaware aqueduct from the Roundout reservoir? As the area was transformed after World War II, from sparsely settled to the fastest growing suburban counties in the country be- tween 1945 and 1960, hydrologists and engineers -- increasingly aware of the importance of groundwater-- became active in Suter, Russell, Enginee#ng Repot1 on the Water Supplies of Long Island, Bulle#n G W-2, State of New York Department of ConservalJon; Water Power and Control Commission, 1937, Long Island groundwater reseamh. Nassau County initiated a three part study of its water resources in 19562, followed by two Suffolk County studies in 1957. During the twenty year period following this limited beginning, there has been an explosion of Long Island water quantity and water quality reseamh projects and studies carded out at every level of Long Island government. Appendix A contains a bibliographic listing of many of these reports. Colonel Wiggin attempted to address the issue of water quantity. His seminal study in 1957 estimated the pementage of water available for recharge into the ground based on annual rainfall data after discounting losses due to runoff and other factors.3 His elementary approach concluded that Suffolk County had a sufficient quantity of water to support a population of approximately three million people. During this same time period the County of Suffolk retained an engineering firm to address the growing problem of highway flood- lng.4 Although the origin and intent of the study was odented to transportation, the consultants recognized that a major compo- nent of drainage control was tied to watershed management. Among the firm's recommendations was a proposal that the County acquire 16,000 acres of land encompassing the four r'n/er valleys, Nissequogue, Connetquot, Peconic, and Carmen's in order to protect against encroachment by private interests. The report pointed out that, .4 large volume of rainfall is caught ~nd returned to the water table in an efficient and inexpensive way. Rainfall is the County's only source of water supply. Nothing happened until 1960, neady two years after the voters had opted by referendum in 1958 to change the form of Suffoik's government from a Board of Supervisors into a charter county headed by a County Executive and to change the Planning Board into a Planning Commission with new powers added to its existing advisory functions. The first study undertaken dealt with parkss. Suffolk had taken over the dubious distinction of being the fastest growing county in the United States from Nassau County and was faced with the entire array of urban and rural planning problems, e.g., the need for health, education and govern- mental facilities and programs, inadequate transportation capacity, migrant labor and slum housing conditions, inadequate job availability, etc. Any one of these topics could have justifiably been given preference. Open space was selected in recognition of the impact that development was having in transforming natural lands into built-up communities, and that if steps were not taken to bring development into harmony with environmental needs, the future quality of existence would be seriously impaired. The section on conservation repeated the 1957 recommendation to save the four river watersheds observing that significant en- croachment had occurred between 1957 and 1960. One of the factors cited was water conservation. The knowledge that Robert Moses intended to place a referendum on the statewide ballot calling for the creation of a $75 million bond issue for the purchase of park lands provided a second important impetus for concent~:ating on open space.7 H. Lee Dennison, Suffolk County's first County Executive was a close friend of Moses and was informed of his intentions before the is- sue was under consideration by the New York State Legislature. In fact, Moses assigned a key member of his staff on the Long island Park Commission to work closely with the director of the Suffolk County Planning Commission, and suggested that Suffolk would receive at least $3 million of the $25 million that would be allocated to the 57 counties of the state, or 12 1/2 per cent. The successful vote in November 1960 launched Suffolk County's open space program well beyond the modest expenditures the County itself was making. The first purchases were in the Peconic River watershed. A fuller history and discussion of open space planning is the subject of a separate volume in the Comprehensive Plan Series entitled The Long Island Comprehensiue Open Space Plans. Greeley and Hansen, Report on Water Resources; Parts I, II, and III, Nassau County, N.Y., August 1956, November 1956, December 1958. Wiggin, Col. 'n~omas H. Report on a Comprehensive Plan for the Development And DistribufJon of ina Avai!at~e Water Supply of S uffc~k, LI., N. ¥. Suffolk Coun[y ~ter Auinori[y, January 1957. Nussbaurner, Clarke & Velzy, Report on Drainage Study, Suffolk Coun~ Planning Board, July 1957. Ibid., p. 47. Leonard and Koppelrnan, People andParks, Hauppeuge, N.Y., Suffolk County PJanning Commission, October 1960. Article 16-C Park and Recma~on Land Acquisil~on Act Sections 875-885, McK]aney's Consolidated Lsws of New York Book 1 O, ConseNa'~on Law. Koppelman, et al., The Long Island comprehensive Opeft Space Plan, Hauppauge, N,Y., Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1992. ii Regional interest in drinking water was translated into political action in large measure as the result of a heavy drought in the northeast during the early and mid years of the 1960s. New York City relying almost entirely on upstate soumes was concerned with dwindling water levels in its reservoirs; Long Islanders not actually experiencing drinking water shortages were nevertheless becoming increasingly aware of water issues. Suffolk County allocated $800,000 for a test well program to gain a greater under- standing of the underground aquifers. This program was combined with a $340,000 grant from the New York State Health Depart- ment to enable the County to have consultants prepare a comprehensive plan for the best utilization of the fresh water resou~es.9 The study was undertaken during the latter half of the 1960s and released in three volumes between 1968 and 1970.'" A viscous fluid model was developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to enable the consultants to have a stronger predictive capability than provided at the time by the United States Geological Survey's electrical analog model. The major conclusions regarding water quant~ reinforced those of the Wiggin study, pointing out that continued and expanded ocean discharge of sewage effluent would reduce the level of surface waters even though Suffolk could rely on a sa?e yielE for a population in excess of 3 million people. The report also examined a range of water quality issues, such as salt water intru- sion, heavy metals and other toxic contaminants and the need for advanced water treatment if effluent was to be recharged in- stead of discharged to marine waters. This work was carried out with the participation of the Nassau-Suffolk Re~onal Planning Board (now titled the Long Island Regional Planning Board, LIRPB), which between 1965 and 1970, was in process of developing Long Island's first comprehensive plan? One of the first issues confronting the panners was the number of people the two counties should accommodate by 1985-1990, the end of the planning pedod, This was not an abstract or rhetorical question. It lies at the heart of the entire process. Since there are obvious limits to growth; economic, ecological, geographical, political, social, etc., what should be used as the guide? The two counties encompass four times the land area of New York City. A continuation of the Brooklyn-Queens development pat- tern, which was already occurring in the Town of Hempstead, could have resulted eventually in a population of 10 million people. Unthinkable! An examination of the limits to growth based on job development was no more useful. These two fastest growing counties seemed to have an almost boundless capacity to create jobs and thus attract new residents. The only limits that could be quantified in any rational manner was the carrying capacity of Long Island as constrained by available potable water. Nassau County, which is approximately the same size as the five bemughs that make up New York City (300 square miles), had a popu- lation in excess of one million people and was experiencing a sedes of water problems including salt water intrusion from over- pumping in the southwest, depletion of surface waters, such as Hempstead Lake, resulting from ocean discharge of sewage effluent, or closure of public wells due to contamination. In short, Nassau County appeared to be near or at the carrying capacity of the natural regime. It must be understood, however, that it is important to differentiate between carrying capacity based solely on water supply, in contrast with other environmental considerations pertaining to stream corridor and/or wetlands protection. Sur- face water depletion is not a measure of adequate quantity or safe y~ld of drinking water. It is an indicator of a much broader range of water related problems. By 1970, Nassau County reached a population of 1.4 million, which has decreased over the past 20 years. Concurrent with the rapid growth of the County, various communities established independent water systems to meet the needs of the residents. Due to the individualized political communities that developed over several decades, coupled to the nature of the groundwater sys- tem, the County has 51 major public water systems, with a total of 400 supply wells. These separate systems provide adequate delivery of high quality water to their consumers, but the ability to provide water to adjacent areas is severely limited to short- term emergencies. The transfer of large quantities of water on an intra-County basis is constrained by the capacity of the inter- connection system. The Nassau County Department of Public Works (NCDPW) is currently addressing the issues of streamflow and saltwater intro- sion that may require changes in the water systems in Order to provide workable solutions to the existing limitations, 9 The Sta~ ffant was made possible by kzrtds a~c~t~d under Article 5, Part V-A of ~e Consarvation Law. ~0 Holzme. che[, McLendon, & Murretl, Re~ort-Comprehensive Publi~ Water Supply Study, Suffolk Courtly, New York CPW$-24, in 3 volumes, Suffoll( County, N.Y. Koppelman, et al., The Nassau-Suffolk Comprehensive Development Plan, Hauppaage, N.Y., Nassau-Suffolk Regional P~anning Board, 1970. iii in 1986, NYSDEC began imposing pumpage limitations on some water purveyors in Nassau County. This was undertaken upon recognition that consumptive use of groundwater was causing conditions such as stream ltow decline, (with some stream seg- ments and wetlands drying up), aquifer water level declines, and sallwater intrusion in Nassau County. The imposition of pum- page limitations, while potentially a stop-gap measure, came only after the documented loss of important surface and groundwater resoumes. However, the State action and the perceptions it created must be placed in a proper perspective. For example, saltwater intru- sion is not a major problem, since it has not affected public water supply wells. The main concern over saltwater intrusion is in the southern coastline of the County where the deep ocean saltwater pressure is greater than the inland freshwater pressure, thereby creating the condition for saltwater intrusion. Along this coastline, the movement inland of salty groundwater is relatively slow, almost stationary in most places. According to the U'nited $~(~tes C~olo~cc~! $[~rue~, (USGS), in a comprehensive study in the mid 1960's of this phenomena, the position and alignment of the saltwater/freshwater interface in southern Nassau County is attributable mainly to natural conditions that prevailed long before the start of groundwater development in this area. In fact, if is mainly due to the sea level rise of 300 feet during the past 16,000 years. Verification of these USGS findings has been docu- mented by the County itself through the use of its highly complex three-dimensional computerized groundwater model which simulates the saltwater intrusion phenomena. By using this same model, the County is in the process of investigating measures that can be taken to minimize saltwater intrusion in order to protect the public water supply wells. The previous decline of the Nassau County water table due to increased consumptive use associated with urban growth and sewering decreased the available groundwater to feed surface water streams, lakes and ponds. The current equilibrium level should remain stable due to important conservation programs instituted by the State, the County, and local water purveyors since 1987. Public pumpage has been reduced by over 20 million gallons from almost 190 to approximately 168 million gallons per day. NCDPW is also using its three-dimensional computerized groundwater model to identW other cost-effective measures that could be taken to restore Eeshwater wetlands along stream corridors and minimize the threat of saitwater intrusion to public water supply wells. Suffolk County, in contrast, is three times larger than Nassau County and all estimates have indicated a safe yield for a Suffolk population of 3.5 million people12. The legal limit to population as expressed by zoning would have allowed a combined population in the two counties of more than 6 million people. Obviously, a dangerous mismatch existed between allowable practice and sound environmental planning. The planning target became clear and inescapable. The population must not be allowed to exceed the carrying capacity of the aqui- fem. initially, that would have meant a maximum population of 4.5 - 5 million (3.5 million people for Suffolk and a maximum of 1.5 million for Nassau). However, this number did not take sufficient account of the fact that any increase in water contamination would mean an effective loss in quantity, or major expenditures for treatment. The LIRPB set a maximum population for the two counties at a range of 2.5 million to 3 million.13 The decision was based on a simple application of the engineering concept of £(zc- f;or o£s~z£ef;~,. The Board notified the various municipalities even prior to the final completion of the comprehensive plan that they should bdng their zoning into compliance with this concept of water limits. A variety of parallel concerns; rising taxes, loss of open space, negative attitudes of residents toward continuing suburbanization, growing environmental awareness, among oth- ers, -- now reinfomed by the apparent potential cdsis in water created the political climate necessary to create a movement for major upzonings, mainly in Suffolk County. Alter the release of the bi-county plan in the early 1970s, the planning staff made almost 300 presentations of the plan to civic, environmental, business, and governmental audiences in order to gain the widest understanding and support for the plan's rec- ommendations. The single greatest response to any of the substantive elements contained in the plan -- other than the contro- versies over the housing portion -- was the deep-felt need to mere fully examine the quality aspect of Long Island's groundwater. Holzmacher, Mciendon & Murrell, pp. 358-373 Ibkl, Comprehol~ive D~v*lopment ~an S~r~e$: Pol.~l~on iv NEW JERSEY YQRK UFFO NIASBACH Ur~ETT~ ~- [3 N N EC~ rlCUT LOCATION MAP The enactment of the amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972TM was most timely in providing the means for Long island to further augment its knowledge of the aquifer system. The Act set new goals for water quality by stating as na- tional purpose that the surface waters of the nation shall be fishable and swimmable, and the fresh water supplies drinkable by 1980. Section 208 of this Act authorized funds for planning grants for states and/or areawide regional planning agencies to under- take research and to develop comprehensive water quality management programs. Long Island was one of the first areas desig- nated in New York State to receive a 208 grant and, in 1975, commenced work on the project which was completed in 1978.ls This plan accomplished mere than the basic requirements of the Act. It helped to build a broad based constituency and led to several significant actions. The findings of the study led the United States Enuironmental Protection Agency (EPA) to designate Nassau and Suffolk County's groundwater as a Sole Source Aquifer pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act. The New York State Legislature, responding to the urgency for legislative action as recommended in the plan, created The New York State Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of Long Island to address these needs. The 208 plan introduced the concept of hydrogeologic zones based upon differences in groundwater flow pattems and related water qualify. In essence, there ara two types of zones; One includes the land areas that contribute recharge to the deep aqui- fem. The other includes the land areas that contribute shallow recharge or transmit recharge flows to surface waters. Eight hydro- geologic zones were de§ned to mere specifically describe differences of quality recharge or discharge within the two broad categories. The zonal approach made clear for the first time the need for different protection criteria and approaches to address the differ- ences in conditions within the varies sectors of Long Island's overall aquifer system. Viral and organic contaminant research indicated the purity and freedom from viral infection of most of the groundwaters; and conversely, the almost ubiquitous presence and contamination of surface and upper glacial aquifer sources from trace quantities of organics - many of which are potentially carcinogenic. EPA satisfaction in the work was e)¢pressed by the award of unsolicited funds to undertake two additional research projects. The first was the implementation of 208 recommendations and, among other activities, the creation of a Nonpoint Management Hand- book to guide local governments in achieving the objectives of the 208 plan. The second was the inclusion of the two counties in the zVationw~ Urban EunoffProgrom(NURP).17 The Long Island region was among the first nineteen areas selected throughout the United States to address the role of stormwater non-point runoff as a major contributor to water quality.18 It was an attempt to improve the adequacy of information concerning pollutant sources, areal accumulation patterns, washoff and trans- port mechanism.s, instream behavior of pollutants and control measure effectiveness? Much of the land within the deep recharge area in Nassau and western Suffolk was already suburbanized by 1982 and the im- pact of development on the aquifer was clearly apparent. Only Iwo areas in Nassau and seven in Suffolk remained relatively ~ree of these impacts. New York State's Long island Groundwater Management Program and the LIRPB's Nonpoint Source Hand- book identified these nine areas as Special Groundwater Protection Areas (SGPAs) and called for the development of new man- agement programs to ensure the preservation of the existing water quality and the continued recharge of uncontaminated water to these portions of the aquifer. ~4 P,L. ~-500. 15 Koppalman, et al., Long I.da~d Comprehen~va Waste Treatment Management Plan, Vol. I & II, Hauppauge, N.Y., Long Island Regional Planning Board, July 1978. 16 Koppalman, L.E., Tananbaum, E., and Swick, C., Nonpok~t Source Management Handbook, Long Island Regional Planning Board, Hauppauge, N.Y., 19~4 17 P.L. 95-217, An amendment t0 lhe Clean Walars Act. 18 Koppelmen, L.E., end Tananbaum, E., at al., The Long I~iand Segmantof the Na#onwide Urban RunoffPrognam, Hauppauge, N.Y., Long Island Re,oral Planning Board, December 1982. 19 Water Planning Division, U.S. Envi,'onmantel Protection Agency, 1978.1978-1983 Work Plan for the Nationwide Urban Runoff program, Wat~' Planning Division, U.S.E.P.A., Washington, D.C. Further a~endments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act earmarked five pement of each State's sewage treatment plant construction grants for planning purposes.2° New York State DEC provided funds to the LIRPB, matched equally by the LIRPB to undertake a pilot study of two of the nine SGPAs. It was a pilot study in several ways. First, there were not sufficient funds to undertake the study of all nine SGPAs.21 Second, this was another new area of planning and hydrogeological inquiry and a pilot approach would demonstrate the relative success of such work. Third, there was the expectation that if the study proved suc- cessful and useful, additional funding would be made available by the Federal government and/or the State of New York. Several efforts made by Congressman Downey with support from other members of the Long Island Congressional delegation to have funds included in the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments to expand the LIRPB's work on SGPAs were unsuccess- ful. The LIRPB also sought support from the N,Y,S. Legislative Commission on Water Resoume Needs of Long Island. The Commis- sion. which had been consistently supportive of SGPA work from the beginning, introduced several versions of the Sole Source Aquifer bill during the 1984, 1985, and 1986 Legislative sessions, Finally, the Legislature acted positively in 1987 due in large measure to Senator Caesar Trunzo's, Assemblywoman May Newburger's and Assemblyman I. William Bianchi's unflagging ef- forts?2 This report is the result of that effort. The environmental predicament confronting Long Island is that the development potential, including the inescapable modifica- tions to the environment, has and continues to occur more rapidly than our abil~ to foresee or deal with the uifimate effects of such activities. Until a better match is achieved, prudence would mandate that when in doubt, environmental values take precedence over devel- opment -- particularly when the development would cause or contribute to an irreversible condition. Thus rational comprehen- sive environmental planning must accomplish more than the prevention or correction of known environmental problems. Somehow. planning must strive to take into account the unexpected and provide for latent consequences. The preservation. maintenance, and enhancement of compatible environmental diversity must be the objective of planning. March 15. 1992 Lee E, Koppelman 20 P.L. 97-117, SeclJon205J, 1981. 21 1~3ppelman L.E., Tanenbeum, E., end Sw(ck, C., Special Ground-water Protecffon Area Project for ~e Oyster Bay and Brookhaven Pilot Areas, Hauppauge, N.Y., Long Island Regiona Planning Board, 1986. 22 Ch.628of~eL~v~sotlg67, Ntic~e55o~EnvironmenlalConsewa'donLaw. Note: AssemblywomanMayNeuburgerco-chaired~eCommission from Ig61-1987; AssemlY, ymen t. V~llliam Bianchi co-chaired '~e Commission f~om 1987-1g89. vi Chapter One Introduction Importance of the Deep Aquifer Recharge Areas There are three major aquifers or saturated water-bearing strata underlying the surface of Long Island that supply high quality potable water for the more than 2.7 million peopla of Nassau and Suffolk Counties. They are the · Upper Glacial Aquifer · Magothy Aquifer · Lloyd Aquifer They are composed of unconsolidated materials, generally sands and gravels. The upper glacial and Magothy aquifers are the primary soumes of potable water. The Lloyd aquifer, lo- cated directly over the bedrock, is the deepest, contains the oldest water, is used in only a few locations, and is absent in both the North and South Forks of the island. Approximately one-half of the annual rainfall percolates through the soil to recharge the aquifer. Rainfall entering the Glacial moves horizontally and vertically as groundwater flow. Some of this rainfall picks up inorganic and organic contami- nants as it washes over the land surface before permeating the ground. The impact on the quality of the aquifers from these point and non-point soumes and from point source diS- charges to groundwater varies throughout the laland. There is, however, a direct correlation between the intensity of human development and activities and water degradation. In conjunction with this study the Water Resources Division of the United States Department of the Interior's Geological Survey (USGS) undertook a cooperative project to model and assess the impacts on the quality of the shallow groundwater aquifer resulting from a vadety of activities and uses. This work is the beginning of a process to improve predictive capa- bilities of the potential impacts of future development within SGPAs. Although preliminary in nature and therefore not suffi- ciently definitive to enable planners and water managers to de- rive verifiable standards, the USGS model does clearly estab- lish a direct linkage between human activities and the impact on the shallow aquifer. The linkage is all directly proportional to the intensity of human use. in short, the more development that occurs, the greater the impact23. This issue is discussed again in Chapter 2 in the segment on zoning. The 208 plan utilized more than 1000 test wells throughout the two counties to assess the relative quality of the aquifers and discovered that the upper glacial regime was already impacted by organic contamination and nitrates in many areas. The Magothy, however, was generally of high p~3table quality and is the prime soume of dependable, safe drinking water. The four deep recharge areas that transmit the majority of recharge to this aquifer cover most of the interior portions of the Island. Three of them occupy the central portion of the Island extend- ing from the New York City line eastward to Riverhead. The fourth occupies a segment of the south fork east of the Shinnecock Canal. The age of the water in the Magothy is measured in centuries. Some of the water in this aquifer fell as rain when General Washington and his troops were on the Island. Some fell as rain before the first English settlers came to the Island. The un- polluted portion of this aquifer is truly pristine and offers the highest quality of drinking water to be found anywhere. When one realizes the vulnerability of this remarkable natural re- source, which has been centuries in the formation, then one also realizes the need to take all the steps necessery to pro- tect the quality of this supply. The hydrogeological zones are depicted on Figure 1-1 and are described in the following paragraphs. Zones I, It, and III are the major deep recharge zones. Zone I, located in Nassau County and western Suffolk, contributes water to the middle and lower portions of the Magothy Aquifer. Portions of the Glacial, and to a lesser extent, the Magothy aquifers have been contaminated by nitrates from fertilizers and on-site wastewater dis- posal systems and by synthetic organic chemicals from industrial and other discharges. Initially, the nitrate con- 23 Water Resources Division, Statistical Modeling of Shallow Groundwater Quality in fha Central Suffolk Pine Barrens SGPA, Suffolk County, Long Island, N. ~ USGS, 1991. 1-1 HYDROGEOLOGIC ZONES [I I o c k I s I a n d S o v~ n ct City New o/ York HUNTINGTON HEN, JPSTEAD = ISLB BABYLON BROOKHAVEN Long and Sound RIVERHEAD Atlantic D~re ~ 27 t992 uTER ScaJe U~880~ ,:¥ EAST HAi~PTON ~''~' tamination was a result of farming practices and then, later, of urbanizatioin. As the source of water supply for the majority of NaSSau and Suffolk residents, Zone ! re- quires the most careful management. Although the greater part of the geographic area within Zone ! is ur- banized and subjact to contamination, several of the northern sectors are still relatively undeveloped and pre- vide opportunities for clean recharge of the aquifers. Zone II, primarily located in eastern Nassau County (a small portion is located in western Suffolk County), is bordered on three sides by Zone I. Much of the ground- water in this zone is severely contaminated as a result of industrial discharges and, although most of the dis- charges have ceased, the contamination is spreading be- yond the zone boundary. Zone ]]I, located in central Suffolk and a small portion of eastern Suffolk County, includes a major portion of the Long Island Pine Barrens. Most of the area within the zone is relatively undeveloped and contains ground water of excellent quality in the upper glacial, Magothy and Lloyd aquifers. Some contamination occurs in the upper glacial aquifer in the western portion of the zone. This contamination seems to be associated with the im- pacts of development, including the discharge of sewage from on-site systems. It appears likely that there are sav- eral small plumes of contamination that originated from sewage treatment plants, old landfills or as a result of spills and other activities. Zone tv' encompasses the North Fork, Shelter Island, and the northern and eastern portion of the South Fork. The ground water underlying the recently identified deep recharge areas on the South Fork (portions of Zone ~ now redesignated Zone V) is generally of excellent qual- ity. Zone [V is characterized by shallow flow systems that discharge to streams and marine waters. A large por- tion of Zone r,v' on the North Fork has been contami- nated as a result of agricultural activities. Zone V extends over the cental portion of the South Fork and the ground water in this zone discharges to ponds, bays and the Atlantic Ocean. Afew areas of Zone V have also been impacted by agricultural activi- ties. Zone Vi, located on the south shore of Suffolk County, discharges streamflow and under[Iow to Modches Bay and eastern Great South Bay. The waters are generally of high quality. Zone V]] is also located on the south shore and dis- charges to Nassau and western Suffolk south shore bays, where greater tidal exchange facilitates the dilution and dispersion of contaminants. Some instances of salt water intrusion already exist, particularly in the Long Beach area of Nassau County. In some cases both the glacial and Magothy aquifers ara affected. Zone VI]] is located on the north shore of Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Groundwater flows towards the har- bors, bays, or to the Long Island Sound. 1-4 Creation of Special Groundwater Protection Areas Special groundwater protection area shall mean re- charge watershed area within a designated sole source area contained within counties having a population of one million or more which is particularly important for the maintenance of large volumes of high quality groundwa- ter for long periods of time. For the purposes of this arti- cle, each special groundwater protection area shall be classified as a critical area of environmental concern as used under article eight of this chapter.24 These areas are significant, largely undeveloped or sparsely developed geographic areas of Long Island that provide re- charge to portions of the deep flow aquifer system. There is an urgent need to maintain them as soumes of high quality re- charge. They represent a unique, final opportunity for compre- hensive, preventive management to preclude or minimize land use activities that can have a deleterious impact on groundwa- ter. Therefore, the protection of groundwater in these areas is a first-order priority. Section 55-0101 of Article 55 declared it · ··public policy to provide funds for the preparation and implementation of groundwater watershed protection plans in order to maintain existing water quality in spe- cial groundwater protection areas··.and to further the im- plementation of nonpoint source controls for the protection of the potable supply underlying the entire re- charge area. Article 55 set forth a procedure for the nomination of Special Groundwater Protection Areas other than the eight designated areas mentioned in Section 55-0113. The already designated areas included North Hills, Northern Oyster Bay, Woodbury RoadA, Vest Pulaski Road/West Hills, Oak Brush Plains, Setauket Pine Barrens, Central Pine Barrens, South Fork Morainal Forest and Hither Hills· Al the request of the Town of Southold the SGPA Advisory Council (SGPAAC) considered the addition of a ninth SGPA, and agreed that a portion of farm area in the central part of the Town be recommended for designation. See Appendix B for a discussion of the designation process. Figure 1-2 depicts the location of the nine SGPAs. A seven part criteria was set forth in Section 55-0109 for the selection of SGPAs: - Whether the special groundwater protection area is a recharge zone for groundwater with a present or future water supply potential. - Whether the special groundwater protection area is largely undeveloped with tracts of natural vegetation, or natural geological conditions. - Whether the groundwater which is recharged through the special groundwater protection area is of high quality. - Whether the hydregeologic conditions are such that development could lead to degradation of water quality. Whether portions of the groundwater within the sole soume aquifer area are already contaminated with toxic organics, nutrients, salts or other pollutants so as to warrant special protection for areas which recharge high quality groundwater. - Whether maintenance of existing high quality in the groundwater recharged through the special groundwater protection area would have significant economic, social, ecological, recreational or aesthetic benefits for the sole soume aquifer area. - Whether degradation of such groundwater would have significant economic, social, ecological, recreational and aesthetic costs for the area. The Legislative expectations regarding the contents of the SGPA plan are comprehensive in form and set forth as eleven requirements in Section 55-0115. They are: 1. A determination of the quality of the existing groundwater recharged through said special groundwater protection area, the natural recharge capabilities of the special groundwater protection area watershed and the dependence of any natural ecosystems in the special groundwater protection area on the water quality and natural recharge capabilities of said area; 2. An identification of all known existing and potential point and non-point sources of groundwater degradation; 3. Development of specific watershed rules and regulations pursuant to section eleven hundred of the public health law, which are designed to accomplish the purposes of this article; 4. A map showing the detailed boundary of the special groundwater protection area or areas as well as a precise written description of such boundaries; 24 Secf~on 55-0107 ECL Article 55 1-5 Figure 1-2 Location of the Nine SGPAs SPECIAL GROUND-WAT ER PROTECT ION AREAS OYSTER BAY OYSTER BAY PILOT AREA NORTH HILLS LONG ISLAND SOUND SOUTH SETAUKET WOODS BROOKHAVEN PILOT AREA OAK BRUSH PLAINS SOUTHOLD SOUTH FORK HITHER HILLS CITY OF NEW YORK WEST HILLS/MELVILLE ATLANTIC OCEAN CENTRAL SUFFOLK 5. A resource assessment which determines the amount and lype of human development and activity which the ecosystem can sustain while still maintaining existing ground and surface water quality and protecting unique ecological features; 6. The identification and proposal of limits on federal, state and local government financially assisted activities and projects which, directly or indirectly, may contribute, in any way whatsoever, to any degradation of such groundwater or any loss of natural surface and subsurface infiltration or purification capability of the special groundwater protection area watershed; 7. Development of a comprehensive statement of land use management as it pertains to the maintenance and enhancement of groundwater quali~ and quantity; 8. Proposal of limits on land uses that might have an adverse impact on water quality and/or recharge capabilities in the special groundwater protection area; 9. Consideration and proposal of specific techniques, including, but not limited to: clustering, large lot zoning, purchase, exchange or donation of conservation easements or development rights, and other innovative measures sufficient to achieve the objectives of this section; 10. Designation of specific areas within special groundwater protection areas suitable and appropnate for public acquisition; and 11. A program for local governmental implementation of the comprehensive management plan described in this subdivision in a manner that will insure the continued, uniform, consistent protection of this area in accord with the purposes of this article. Every effort has been made to meet the spirit and the letter of the law. This has necessitated a greater financial input than that provided for in the law. The original funding of $300,000 provided in the contract between the LIRPB and the NYSDEC was to be matched by a $100,000 contribution of local support. The actual local share has well exceeded the state sum in cash and in-kind costs. The LIRPB, and county agencies in Nassau and Suffolk counties have demonstrated their commit- ment to the importance of this work by not limiting their partici- pation to a level of effort commensurate with the state funding. As a result, this report addresses all eleven requirements. However, it must be stressed that the response to each spe- cific requirement varies in detail and quantitative specificity. For example, requirement five implies that the concept of car- rying capacity, which is based on an aquifer recharge rate of one million gallons per day (MGD) per square mile. While qualitative and subjective analyses are possible, the state of the art does not yet permit mathematically precise assess- ments. In every case in which limited knowledge could lead to contrasting interpretations, an effort was made to err on the side of conservatism and to follow a minimal growth scenado in the SGPAs. This approach is consistent with the overall Long Island Groundwater Management Strategy, which calls for a high level of protection throughout the two counties, irre- spective of location; an even higher level within the deep charge areas; and the highest level of protection in the SGPAs. The nine SGPAs cover slightly more than one-quarter of the land area of the two counties, and contain some 60 pement of the remaining open lands. Therefore, planning for the appropri- ate, environmentally acceptable use of those properties is the most significant aspect of the study. This SGPA plan provides a detailed blueprint for groundwater and environmental protection for the lands within each of the nine SGPAs. It includes proposals for major watershed ecqui- sitions through a variety of means, recommendations for the restriction of activities that could have an adverse impact on current and future water supplies, and administrative programs for watershed management including watershed management rules and regulations. The plan completes the effort that commenced with the publi- cation of the 1986 study covering the two pilot areas in Oyster Bay and the western Pine Barrens in Brookhaven. The report format consists of four major chapters following this introduc- tory chapter as well as a set of Appendices. The second chap- ter discusses issues of a general nature that apply to all the SGPAs and also addresses requirement items 1,3,5,6,7, and 8. The third chapter presents the data, maps, and manage- ment proposals for each individual SGPA. This part addresses requirement items 2,4,5,6,7,8, and 10 as they apply to the unique conditions of each SGPA, both in its entirety and in re- spect to specific parcels or activities. The fourth chapter is de- voted to implementation of the plan and addresses requirements g and 11. The fifth chapter is devoted to a dis- cussion of the responses received by the LIRPB from business and environmental organizations and the general public that emanated from the public presentations and hearings held by the staff, or from newspaper reporting on the study. The ap- pendices contain inventory and statistical data, and detailed written boundary descriptions (the descriptive portion of re- quirement 4) that may be of interest to the more limited audi- ence concerned with technical, tabular and other supporting materials. See Table 1-1 1-8 TABLE 1-1 Chapter References to Eleven Requirements Requirement Chapter Adetermination of the quality of groundwater recharged in each SGPA; the recharge capabilities of each SGPA watershed; the dependence of natural ecosystems in SGPAs on the above. An identification of known and potential point and non-point soumes of groundwater contamination. Development of Watershed Rules and Regulations. Maps and written boundary descriptions of each SGPA. A resoume assessment which determines the amount and type of development and activity which the ecosystem can maintain while maintaining water quality and protecting unique ecological features. An identification and proposal of limits on federal, state and local government financed projects which may degrade groundwater. A development of a comprehensive statement of land use management pertaining to the maintenance of groundwater quality and quantity. Proposal of limits on land uses that may be adverse to water quality or recharge capabilities. Consideration of land use techniques to achieve program objectives. Designation of properties for public acquisition. A program for local governmental implementation of the plan. Chapter 2; Chapter 3 Chapter 2; Appendix H Chapter 2; Chapter 3 Chapter 3; Chapter 4 Appendix A Chapter 2; Chapter 5; Appendix E Chapter 3; Appendix B Chapter 3; Chapter 5 Appendix F; Appendix J Chapter 5 Chapter 2; Chapter 3 Appendix C; Appendix D Appendix G; Appendix K Chapter 2; Chapter 3 Chapter 4; Chapter 5 Appendix D Chapter 5; Appendix I; Appendix K Chapter 3; Appendix H Chapter 4 1-9 Chapter Two General Recommendations Introduction A/though the magnitude and specific sources of the exist- ing and potential problems vary within and among the SGPAs, there is considerable similarity in respect to ground- water impacts. Some of the water quality problems result from the introduction of contaminants in concentrations that exceed the natural ill- tering ability of the soils above the aquiters. Some of the prob- lems are of long duration and are evidence of past events, including improper practices that no longer occur but unfortu- nately have left a legacy of residual pollution. Some of the problems ara reflective ot current on-going practices that are adding new levels of contaminants. The sources are numerous but in all instances are the result of human activities that ara part of the urban, suburban and rural patterns inherant in the creation of communities or use of the natural environment for food production, recreation and exploi- tation of mineral resoumes. They include on-site septic sys- tems loadings that are not adequately attenuated by the receiving soils; commercial and industrial discharges, legal and otherwise; improper storage and disposal of raw and haz- ardous materials or wastes; and non-essential or inappropriate application of agricultural and turf chemicals. The use and disposition of consumer products, including or- ganic cesspool cleaners, paint thinners, cleansers and auto- motive fluids, have added a host of toxic and hazardous contaminants to the unsaturated zone and, ultimately to the groundwater beneath or downgradient from residential areas. The unregulated or illicit discharges and other waste disposal practices of small quantity generators have led to the prolifera- tion of contaminant t~ot spots, often in the vicinity of industrial and service establishments, institutions and governmental fa- cilities. The open or poorly protected stockpiles of hazardous materials, ranging from deicing salts to junked cars, have con- tributed leachate and polluted runoff to the groundwater re- source; while leaking storage tanks and accidental spills have added petroleum products and other chemical contaminants to the soils and to the aquifer. Sandmining has created open pits, frequently exposing the surface of the water table and facilitating the rapid movement of contaminants from the surface to the aquifer without the benefit of any attenuation in the unsaturated zone. Finally, agriculture has contributed nutdent and pesticide en- riched leachate partially as the rasult of extensive use of agri- cultural chemicals, poor timing of applications, over irrigation or weather conditions. Residential development resulting in the bread scale clearance of natural vegetation and the installation of lawns and landscaping requiring fertilization, pest control and irrigation has also ad(A~d many of the same contaminants to the soils and groundwater. Problems associated with the maintenance of a desirable vol- ume of clean recharge are present in all but the Hither Woods SGPA; however, the problem varies in severity depending on the current status of development, the nature and extent of protected open space, and the intensity and type of develop- merit pressures, It is easier to maintain the volume of recharge than to insure its quality. Thus, when lawns and landscaping replace natural vegetation, almost the same amount of rainfall may reach the aquifer, but the contaminant concentrations can be expected to reflect the extent of horticultural chemical usage. When im- permeable surfaces, such as paved driveways and parking lots designed to discharge runoff on site, replace open fields or woodlands, the volume of rainfall that is recharged may actu- ally increase slightly in specific locations. A greater problem is that the more rapid rate of runoff associated with impermeable surfaces increases the likelihood that the runoff will pick up contaminants normally present on such surfaces and will transport them to the point of discharge without attenuation. To the extent that runoff is not retained onsite but is conveyed to a stream discharging to marine waters, there is a loss of re- charge. Finally, the loss of wetlands or the impairment of their ability to serve the dual function of stormwater retention and pollutant attenuation or removal affects groundwater quantity and qual- ity as well as the viability of fresh water dependent ecosys- tems. 2-1 Opportunities Opportunities to prevent the degradation of the groundwater resoume and to maintain a satisfactory volume of high quality recharge exist to varying degrees in each of the SGPAs. Even in those areas where considerable development has already occurred, such opportunities exist. There is still a chance to guide and to manage future develop- ment and activities to prevent or minimize groundwater degra- dation in SGPAs. The municipalities and the County health departments can use their respective zoning and sanitary code authority to limit or prohibit the establishment or expansion of land uses and activities involving the storage, use or disposal of potential contaminants. Towns and villages can utilize zon- ing and other land use control powers to establish or maintain appropriate residential densities and site clearance regulations that will minimize potential nitrate and household hazardous product contamination. Health departments, through sanitary cede regulation of onsite systems based on lot size, can sup- port the effort to achieve environmentally acceptable residen- tial densities. State and local governments and quasi-public entities can con- tinue the bi-county effort to pumhasa and presewe open space and insure the quality of the underlying groundwater. Munici- palities can use the transfer of development rights to retain open space within the SGPA in return for higher than other- wise allowable densities outside the area. There is a c~ance to reduce existing and future degradation caused by land uses and activities. The State and the Coun- ties can expand, refine and prioritize their regulatory actions to optimize contaminant source control. They can support house- hold hazardous waste disposal programs and the dissemina- tion of information on the proper use of agricultural chemicals and the maintenance of septic systems. The State and the mu- nicipalities can insure the appropriate reclamation and sensi- tive redevelopment of abandoned or soon to be abandoned sandmines to prevent the uncontrolled disposal of wastes at such sites. Opportunities to protect the volume and quality of the recharge also exist in each of the SGPAs. The same State, County and local open space acquisition programs that protect groundwa- ter from the degrading effects of urbanization can also protect future recharge. Local subdivision regulations that mandate clustering of major subdivisions and the dedication of remain- ing acreage as open space further assure the widespread availability of protected areas for aquifer replenishment. The State, the Counties, school districts and municipal govern- ments have a chance to protect existing clean recharge areas associated with their own institutions and facilities and with pd- vate institutions. Their retention of undisturbed woodlands, wetlands, natural buffer areas and rights of way can prevent the long term loss of clean recharge in exchange for a one- time monetary gain. In short, there is a hiearchy of preservation techniques that can be employed to maximize the quantity and quality of future recharge. These techniques range from outright fee acquisition through acquisition of development dghts or transfer of devel- opment rights (TDR) to large lot zoning with clustering on one acre parcels. The balance of this chapter consists of two sections. The first, under the heading of Regional Overview, describes the gen- eral demographic and land use characteristics of the SGPAs, and includes projections of saturation or maximum growth that might be expected to occur if no new groundwater protection measures are implemented. The second and larger section, Policy Considerations, contains a detailed discussion and set of recommendations that can and should be applied to ail of the SGPAs. The lead portion mentions the State's anti-deg- radation policy and its implications for the Long Island SGPAs. This is followed by a discussion of watershed rules and regula- tions. The relationship of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) to Article 55 is reviewed, fol- lowed by a three-part concluding discussion and set of recom- mendations on zoning and open space acquisitions and Best Management Practices (BMPs). Regional Overview Several characteristics are common to all of the SGPAs. Since all nine areas were chosen because they have the best poten- tial for existing and future high quality deep recharge, it is axi- omatic that they would comprise the least developed lands in the two counties. Comparlaon of demographic and land use data for the SGPAs and the counties as a whole clearly con- firm this statement. The overall density of population in the SGPAs as expressed in the number of persons per acre is significantly lower than that of the surrounding areas. In seven of the areas the dens~ was one person or less per acre25. North Hills, the western- most and second smallest SGPA, located in the Town of North Hempstead, has a density of 1.7 persons per acre. The South Setauket Woods SGPA in the Town of Brookhaven has a seemingly high density of 2.6 persons per acre (which is roughly the equivalent of one family per acre). However, this area includes the State University of New York at Stony Brook which if excluded from the overall SGPA would reduce the density to 1.3 persons per acre. The Hither Hills SGPA is to- 2.-2 tally in the public domain and is virtually at zero persons per acre. The vacant undeveloped lands within the SGPAs exceed 60,000 acres and represent more than one-half of all the va- cant land in the two counties, and approximate almost one- third of the 207,000 acres in the SGPAs. Open space, conservation and recreation lands dedicated for public use or held by non-profit environmental organizations account for al- most 19 per cent or 38,800 acres; and agricufiural lands add another 13 per cent or 27,900 acres. This means that approxi- mately 127,000 acres or 61 per cent of the total land area of the SGPAs is currently open. Residential uses, generally Iow density development, occupy 24 per cent. Non-residential uses other than institutional (schools, hospitals, government buildings, etc.) are insignifi- cant in terms of acres, but are significant in terms of impact. Commercial and industrial uses, some of which are existing or potential sources of serious ground-water contamination, ac- count for less than 3 per cent of the SGPA lands. Utilities and transportation uses, transmission lines, roads and railroad lines account for the remainder. Table 2-1 contains a summary of the ex~sting land uses for all the SGPAs as quantified from 1989 data. Individual tables for each SGPA may be found within the text in Chapter 3 of this report. TABLE 2-1 Existing Land Use (acres) in all SGPAs, 1989 1989 Existing Percent of Land Use Cateqo/y Land Use To~l* Residential 49,437 23.8 Vacant 60,053 29.0 Underwater Land 1,500 0.7 Commercial 2,361 1.1 Industrial 2,466 1.2 Institutional 12,690 6.1 Utilities 12,157 5.9 Open Space 38,839 18.7 Agricultural 27,869 13.4 Total 207,372 *Column may not total 100.0 due to rounding Source: Long Island Regbnal Planning Boan;I The population in the SGPAs in 1980 comprised only 5 per cent of the bi-county population but the SGPAs contained 25 per cent of the total land area. In the following decade the population within these areas increased by almost 20 per cent. In Nassau County the North Hills SGPA population increased by 75 per cent. The Oyster Bay SGPA also increased. This is in sharp contrast to the county-wide pattern of population de- clines which resulted in a loss of 3400 persons or 0.10 per cent. Similarly, in Suffolk County, which sustained a modest population increase of almost 38,000 persons or approxi- mately 3 per cent, more than one-half the growth occurred in the SGPAs. This is understandable since the acreage within the SGPAs represents the major share of the open space lands that are subject to development. The nun~bers clearly demonstrate the need for open space protection if the SGPAs are to be retained for aquifer protection. Table 2-2 contains population estimates for each area and the totals for all the SGPAs for the years 1980 and 1988. TABLE 2-2 Estimated Population of SGPA's, 1980 and 1988 Estimated Estimated 1980-1988 1980 1988 % Population Population Change North Hills 2,767 4,846 75.1 Oyster Bay 25,170 29,561 17.4 West Hills/Melville 7,526 6,942 -7.8 Oak Brush Plains 3,931 3,047 -22.5 S. Setauket Woods 9,870 10,652 7.9 Central Suffolk 74,494 92,651 24.4 South Fork 4,742 5,780 21.9 Hither Hills 5 6 20.0 Southold 6,36 706 11.0 Total 129,141 154,191 19.4 Source: Long Island Regional Planning Board The period 1980-1988 was generally a time of rapid growth and extreme pressure on the remaining vacant land; how- ever, preservation efforts and zoning changes limited the im- pact of new development in most of the SGPAs. Two areas, West Hills/Melville and Oak Brush Plains, actually lost popu- lation due to a reduction in the number of persons living in a New York State Department of Mental Hygiene institution within the SGPA. 25 Nor'~ Hills and South Setau~t V~ods are two of the nine SGPAs Hat exceed the populalion density of one person per acre, 2-3 North Hills and the Brookhaven Pilot Area sustained the great- est relative increases. The development of luxury condomini- ums and single family housing spurred growth in North Hills, while development of single family and retirement housing added to the population of the pilot area. Under a worst case scenario, the SGPAs, which in 1988 housed an estimated year-round population of 155,000 per- sons and a seasonal increment of more than 26,000, could ul- timately accommodate 269,000 year round residents and a seasonal increment of 59,000. These figures are based upon a calculation of saturation population; that is, the sum of all per- sons who could be e)~pected to inhabit a given area were the area to reach the maximum development permissible under existing zoning. The saturation estimates, presented in Table 2-3, reflect the count of existing and potential dwellings, multi- plied by a household size 1actor adjusted for the type of hous- ing and character of the community. For those SGPAs with a significant proportion of seasonal units, the seasonal popula- tion increment has been calculated separately and the num- bers added to the year-round estimates. If this rate of growth were allowed to continue, the inescapable consequence would be the deterioration of groundwater quality and the loss of future supplies of high quality potable waters. Policy Considerations Article 55 of New York State Conservation Law known as the Sole Source Aquifer Protection Act stated in ifs declaration of policy that the public policy of the state la to maintain or ira- prove existing water quality in special groundwater protection areas wifhin federally designated sole source aquifer areas. This clearly and unambiguously sets the parameters which planning and implementation efforts must strive to meet. it is implicif in this declaration that the aquifers cannot be al- lowed to degrade; and therefore, one objective ol~ SGPA plan- ning must be the continuation of a nondegradation policy and program. The implementation and administrative actions that flow from this objective must include the maximum retention and protection of the undeveloped portions still extant within the areas, the development of workable and comprehensive watershed rules and regulations, and the strengthening of regulations and enforcement of all laws that further the aims of SGPA protection. The following pages discuss each of these key components. It should be noted that new courses ara being set, and new administrative respons/bilities considered. This will require a new flexibility and a new mindset on the part of citizens, ad- ministrators and elected officials, if SGPA planning is to amount to more than just another study on a dusty shelf. Since nearly every participant in the preparation of this study came to the project with preconceived opinions and strongly held views, it was inescapable that this would lead to less than total consensus on each and every issue and recommendation. Since planning must be an open process with maximum input, the Project Director unilaterally es- tablished the rule that every view must be heard, debated and given visibility. In the event that a consensus could not be reached,the majority view would be presented and TABLE 2-3 SGPA Saturation Population Estimates 1988 Yr. Round Population North Hills 4,846 Oyster Bay 29,561 West Hi~s/Me~ville 6,942 Oak Brush Plains 3,047 So. Setauket Woods 10,652 Central Suffolk 92,651 South Fork 5,780 Hifher Hills 6 Southold 706 Total 154,191 *Includes projectecl increases in number of seasonal residents. Source: Long island Regional Platting Board Yr. Round+ Yr. Round+ 1988 Yr. Round+ Yr. Round Seasonal Seasonal 1988 to Seasonal Saturation Saturation Saturation Population Population Population Change 4,846 7,167 7,167 47.9 29,561 43,602 43,602 47.5 6,942 12,564 13,488 81.5 3,047 4,211 4,211 38.2 10,652 16,48g 16,489 54.8 107,082 167,767 196,632 83.6 16,927 14,137 41,401 * 144.6 6 6 6* 0.0 1,415 2,816 5,644* 298.9 180,208 268,759 328,640 82.4 2-4 identified as the findings of the group, but the dissenting opin- ions would be identified and included in t hetext. NONDEGRADATION POLICY - In response to federal legisla- tion and input based on work carried out in the 1960s by the New York State Water Resoumes commission, an antidegra- dation policy was adopted by the State on May 7, 1970.26 The policy statement was subsequently approved by the Fed- eral Water Quality Administration of the Department of the In- terior and by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The powers and responsibilities of the Water Re- soumes Commission were transferred to NYSDEC in 1970. The following paragraphs contain the language of the policy.27 DEC ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY - It is recognized that cer- tain waters of New York State possess an existing quality which is better than the standards assigned thereto. The qual- ity of these waters will be maintained unless the following pm- visions have been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Environmental Conse~/ation: That allowing lower water quality is necessary to accommodate significant economic or social development in the affected areas. That water quality will be adequate to meet the existing usage of a waterbody when allowing a lowering of water quality. Where waters are meeting higher uses or attaining §uality higher than the current classification, the Department will use the SEQR process to assure that potential adverse environmental impacts are adequately mitigated and higher attained uses are protected. In addition the highest statutory and regulatory requirements for all new point sources and cost effect ve and reasonable best management practices for non-point source control shall be achieved; and the intergovernmental coo~'~ination and public participation provisions of New York s continuing planning process will be satisfied. Water which does not meet the standards assigned thereto will be improved to meet such. The water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect such uses shall be maintained and protected. It is logical that if it is a public policy objective to maintain and protect the potable waters of high quality, then these waters should not be subjected to contamination. In other words, gov- ernment should take every step to preclude the introduction of pollutants into the aquifers regardless of the costs to the com- munity. This is known as zero degradation. In reality, however, tradeoffs often become necessary in order to meet significant economic or social requirements. In such cases, it is essential to mitigate or minimize the negative impacts on the aquifers. This plan is based on the application of the concept of nonde- gradation rather than zero degradation. All Long Island groundwaters are classified as GA regardless of their present condition. The recommendations of this study support the state policy of maintaining the high quality of the aquifers especially in the SGPAs. It must be noted, however, that some contamination of Long Islands's waters has already occurred as the result of State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit violations and other soumes. If maxi- mum protection is to be achieved then: maximum restrictions must apply. SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS - There am 33 sewage treat- ment plants (STPs) located within five of the nine SGPAs. Tm serve educational facilities in Oyster Bay; one san/es the State Developmental Center in the West Hills- Melville SGPA; one, the Pilgrim State Hospital in the Oak Brush Plains SGPA; one, the SUNY Campus at Stony Brook in the South Setauket SGPA; and the remaining 28 serve a variety of public and pri- vate institutional facilities and residential developments in the Central Suffolk SGPA. An additional ten STPs are proposed or under construction, including one in the West Hills-Melville, one in the South Setauket Woods and eight in the Central Suf- folk SGPA. The Stony Brook STP, the Bmokhaven National Laboratory STP and the Calverton (Grumman) STP discharge to surface waters. New York State has agreed to replace the substandard Pilgrim State STP with a connection to the collection system of the Southwest Sewer District treatment plant in Babylon, which also discharges to surface waters. There are divergent views as to the best way to protect groundwater from point soume discharges such as those cov- ered by SPDES permits. One recommendation would be to bar additional significant SPDES discharges within SGPAs, ex- cept in the case of new STPs where they are essential to the improvement or maintenance of water quality. Another would be to minimize but not preclude the establishment of either re- mediation or cooling water discharge. There is agreement that it is necessary to reduce contaminant loadings from existing STPs and from septic systems. Expansion of the Southwest Sewer District STP, the State Uni- versity at Stony Brook STP, the Yaphank and the Riverhead STPs to serve portions of the Oak Brush Plains, the South 26 Organization and Delegation Memorandum No, 85-40, Water Quality Anfidegradafion po[icy, NYSDEC. 27 Ibid 2-5 Setauket Woods and the southwestern and northeastern sec- tom of the Central Suffolk SGPAs, respectively, could be ex- pected to reduce or minimize the potential for groundwater contamination. Since there would aisc be a reduction in charge, it would be essential to increase water conservation efforts in areas served by these STPs. See Appendix C for water conservation recommendations. Other actions to reduce or minimize the potential for pollution include the regionalization and centralization of treatment fa- cilities in those portions of the Central Suffolk SGPA that can- not be served by STPs with discharges to sudace water or shallow flow groundwater, and the consclidation of the remain- ing existing and proposed facilities wherever feasible in order to insure the creation or continuation of viable state of the art sewage treatment within the SGPA. New sewage treatment plants with onsite discharges should be permitted in Special Groundwater Protection Areas subject to the following conditions: · As a replacement to an existing sewage treatment plant or plants where due to the new siting standards or new operating and discharge standards, it is not feasible to expand and upgrade existing sewage treatment plants. · Where the clustering of development or the creation of a PUD.(Planned Unit Development) will require the averaging of the discharge over the entire property and where this will result in an unacceptable discharge to groundwater. · Where the pattern of existing development has caused contamination of the groundwater and the establishment of an STP can be e~pected to minimize further contamination. In Nassau County, where all municipal STPs discharge to sur- face waters, and in Suffolk County where STPs discharge to surface or to groundwater, 201-type studies should be under- taken to investigate the need for sewerlng of already devel- oped unsewered areas within the SGPAs where the current density exceeds existing 208 Study criteria and where there are documented adverse groundwater impacts. The presence of single-wall petroleum and home heating oil fuel tanks throughout Long Island are potential problems. The threat of leaks was a great concern during the preparation of the 208 Plan and recommendations were made to eliminate these tanks from commemial establishments. Several serious leaks at gas station and petroleum products distribution and storage facilities were evidence of the problem. The storage of gasoline and fuel oil at larger facilities (over 1100 gallons) is al- ready regulated by New York State and both counties. A ques- tion remains as to whether leakage from typical residential fuel oil storage tanks (275/550/1000 gallon capacity) poses a throat to the quality of the aquifer. A study is presently being conducted by the Nassau County Departments of Health and Public Works to determine the impact of failures from such tanks upon the aquifer. If a problem does exist, a tank replace- ment program should be instituted. This may involve substan- tial cost to both the homeowner and government. A program of assistance should be developed to reduce this financial bur- den. See Chapter 4. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES - To the extent that the size of lawn areas and the types of grass used for residential, commemial and golf course turf require the application of agri- cultural chemicals, they pose a threat of groundwater contami- nation from organics and inorganics. Best 3'/'anz~'en~r~t Prc~ctices (BMPs) would include minimal turf areas surround- ing buildings; the use of slow release nitrogen fertilizers; and the use of selected grasses and groundcovers that require minimal fertilization, and are relatively disease free and drought resistant sc that irrigation and pesticide uses can be stringently limited. OPEN SPACE AND LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS - The most effective, the most complete, and often the most costly strategy for maintenance of aquifer quality in the SGPAs is to protect the overlying watershed land surfaces by placing the undeveloped lands in the public domain, fencing them in, and then providing adequate policing to insure against pollution. Unfortunately, there are insufficient tax dollars and other re- scumes to permit the accomplishment of this objective. How- ever, as this plan demonstrates in Chapter 3, which deals with the individual SPGAs, large parcels of open land within the Suffolk SGPAs have been and will continue to be acquired by means of Suffolk County's sales tax pumhase program and the pumhase of development rights of agricultural lands with funds allocated by county and municipal bond issues. Recommenda- tions for the furtherance of these programs and similar recom- mendations for Nassau County are discussed in Chapter 4 under Implementation. The second best approach is to limit the density of future de- velopment within the larger undeveloped or open tracts that cannot be preserved through pumhase. This would apply es- pecially to the golf courses within both Nassau and Suffolk SGPAs. For many years, the two County Planning Commis- sions and the LIRPB have been on record in favor of the pres- ervation of all remaining golf courses because of their importance for recreation and the positive advantages they of- fer as part of the open-space watershed inventory. Best Man- agement Practices in turf and irrigation procedures can minimize and mitigate any maintenance associated impacts on the groundwater. 2-6 If development must be allowed, then it should be subject to mandatory cluster zoning based on five acre residential zon- ing. Many portions of the SGPAs in Brookhaven, Southampton, East Hampton, and Oyster Bay are already zoned for five acre residential use. The housing units could be single family detached structures on one acre lots, with the to- tal yield not exceeding that which could be obtained through conventional subdivision of the entire pamel of five acres per dwelling unit. The undeveloped portion of the pamel which could amount at least to four-fifths, or 80% of the property, would remain undeveloped in perpetuity. Coordinated develop- ment of clustered housing on adjacent parcels could maximize contiguous open space and protected environmentally sensi- tive habitat. The SGPA Advisory Council and the staff of the LIRPB gave considerable thought, and engaged in intensive debate over the question of a blanket recommendation for five acre zoning, as opposed to less sweeping gecgraphically specific zoning proposals. A number of issues had to be addressed. Some were pragmatic in origin, others were based on interpretations of current scient/fic knowledge and standards. Representatives from governmental regulatory agencies expressed the view that they had to be guided by current requirements and stand- ards. For example, nitrate-nitrogen concentration is the current ksgaily enfomeable standard that guides the DEC and the County Health Department. The 208 Study indicated that a residential zoning density of one dwelling per one acre lot is adequate to permit development without exceeding acceptable loadings. Environmental organization representatives argued that while this might be true for nitrogen, it was not necessarily true for contamination from organics. Improper use and dis- posal of hazardous or toxic products from a single household cou/d impedl a portion of the aquifer. A mere pragmatic set of arguments advanced in favor of the more stringent five acre zoning included the fact that much of the undeveloped land in the Central Suffolk and South Fork SGPAs, which constitutes over 80 per cent of the un- developed lands in all the SGPAs, is already zoned for five acre residential use. Even the most westerly SGPA at North Hills has two and a half acre zoning on the Whitney Estate. Therefore the amount of land that would be affected relative to the overall real estate in the two counties is modest, in- deed, when weighed against the greater benefit of a mom protected aquifer. Another feature of the five acre recommendation is the flexibil- ity afforded in the sub-division process. Maximum set aside of open space can be achieved while still providing the opportu- nify for single family detached housing on one acre sites that would fit within the general community character, particularly in the mere suburban areas of Long Island. Protection of terres- trial habitats would also be enhanced by the five acre zoning. Of course, the final decisions will have to be made by the towns 'and villages whose jurisdictions cover the specific SGPAs. At the very least, this study sets a goal towards which communities can stdve if it is the public will to maximize groundwater quality and protection. In those already developed portions of the SGPA where pre- viously platted lots exist as scattered properties, building should be permitted even though the established density ks higher than five acres. However, wherever conditions permit, unsubdivided and unsewered parcels in established neighbor- hoods should be upzoned to at least 3/4 acre to 1 acre, and 2 acre if the pamel is large enough to conform to the general pattern. A long festering problem in some communities within the SGPAs is the existence of old filed sub-division maps with nu- merous small lots that do not meet zoning requirements as to size, but remain in single and separate ownership. The munici- pality having jurisdiction should attempt to acquire and replat these lands to conform with current zoning and standards. It is also important that multi-family or condominium develop- ment be strictly limited. In those instances that overriding con- siderations of social need warrant such construction, units should be clustered and the sites selected to provide sewage collection and hookup to a treatment facility that maximizes SGPA watershed protection. New industrial and non-essential commemial uses28 should be limited throughout the SGPAs. Existing vacant non-residen- tially zoned properties should be rezoned by town or village action to residential zoning wherever development patterns or the absence of development permits. Existing developed non- residential uses that pose a threat to groundwater should be classified as incompatible with groundwater protection and treated as a non-conforming use with sunset provisions in or- der to phase them out of existence within a reasonable pedod of time. SEQRA - Article 55 of the Environmental Conservation Law dealing with Sole Soume Aquifer Protection specifies, under Section 55-0107 dealing with Dei'initions, that Special Ground- water Protection Areas shall be classified as Critical Environ- 28 Koppelman, L.E., Tananbaurn, E., and Swick, C., Nonpoint Source Management Handbook, Long island Regional Planning Board, Hauppauge, N.Y., 1984. 2-7 TABLE 2-4 SGPA Plan Open Space and Developed Land Inventory (acres). Existing Open Proposed Cluster Open Developed SGPA Name Space a Acquisitions b Space c Land d Total/SGPA North Hills 753 414 135 1,597 2,899 Oyster Bay 5,332 1,746 253 23,018 30,349 West Hills-Melville 1,572 657 703 3,777 6,709 Oak Brush Plains 993 -- 30 2,102 3,125 South Setauket Woods 356 90 574 3,124 4,144 Central Suffolk 37,253 9,842 18,982 58,567 124,644 South Fork 4,917 2,661 4,477 17,637 29,692 Hither Hills 2,748 -- -- 112 2,860 Southoid 713 113 914 1,201 2,941 Total 54,637 15,523 26,068 111,135 207,363 includes existing open space and preserved farmland. includes proposed acquisitions end recommended purchase of farmland development rights. includes open space from residential duster, industrial cluster, replat and cluster, farmland cluster, PUD and TDR recommendations. includes residential, underwater land, commercial, industrial, institutional, and utility uses, as well as others, such as planned unit development, landfill reclamation, relocatian, etc., that could not be assigned to a specific lend use category. SGPAName TABLE 2-5 Acreage Already Zoned 5 Acres Acreage Impacted by 5Acre Total Upzoning Acreage in Recommend- SGPA ation* Acreage Already Zoned 5 Acres** North Hills 2,900 1,100 0 Oyster Bay 30,342 850 994 West Hille-Melville 6,708 1,980 0 Oak Brush Plains 3,125 130 0 South Setauket Woods 4,144 620 0 Central Suffolk ~. 124,661 22,200 17,530 South Fork 29,692 8,950 6,202 Hither Hills 2,860 0 0 Southold 2,940 1,900 0 Total 207,372 37,730 24,726 *Acreage of tmge (greater then 5 acres), vacant, residentially zoned parcels that would be upzoned to 5 acre residential. 'R~is acreage figure does not include those lands a~raady zoned 5 ac~e residential, otd fled subcr~visions,vacant subdiwded land and protected farmland. **Acreage of vacant ~nd zonad for residen~l use at 1 d.u. or less per .6 acres. mental Areas of special concern as defined in Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law. Furthermore, Section 55- 0117;6 dealing with the boundaries of the special groundwater protection areas states that upon adoption of the boundaries by the planning entity, the special groundwater protection ar- eas shall be designated as critical environmental areas pursu- ant to SEQRA. Section 617.2 (i) of '13tle 6 NYCRR (SEQRA Rules and Regulations) specifically defines a CriticaZ Environmental Area (CEA) as: .... a specific geographic area designated by a state or lo- cal agency, having exceptional or unique characteristics that make the area environmentally important. Any un- listed action located within a CEA must be treated as a Type I Action by any involved agency, According to the most recent list from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, local municipal governments including the County of Suffolk as well as the Towns of Brookhaven, East Hampton, Huntington and Southampton, have previousty designated Critical Environ- mental Areas within proposed SGPA boundaries. Official CEAs currently exist within all of or part of the Oak Brush Plains, South Setauket Woods, Central Suffolk, Brookhaven Pilot Area, South Fork, and Hither Hills SGPAs. Once the SGPAs have been designated as Critical Environ- mental Areas, they become part of the statewide SEQR Type I list pursuant to Title 6 NYCRR Part 617.12 (b) (12). Any un- listed action occurring wholly or partially within or substan- tially contiguous to any Critical Environmental Area is 2-8 considered to be a Type I action for any local or state agency involved in that action. CEA designation assures that the procedures for Type I ac- tions will be followed for each unlisted acfion. Specifically, in- volved agencies must agree on a lead agency to coordinate the project's SEQR review. Notices of the lead agency's deter- mination of significance must be publicly filed with the appro- priate filing points listed in the SEQR rules and regulations under Section 617.10 (a) (2). In addition, agencies may · file wifh agencies that may be affected by the action, even though they are not jurisdictionally involved · notify affected landowners · provide for general public notice (posting, open files, public notices, etc.). Further, a full Environmental Assessment Form (EAP) must be used by the lead agency in determining the significance of an action associated with a CEA. The EAF is comprehensive in nature. As a componenl of the public record of a project, the dAF provides a clear indication of the considerations made by the lead agency. Although Type I actions do not always result in a determination that an Environmental Impact Statement is required, they are more likely to require an ElS than Unlisted actions. CEA des- ignation does not automatically cause an ElS to be pre- pared for every proposed action within a designated CEA. It is important to recognize that CEA designation is sometimes a less effective tool for environmental protection than the impo- sition of special zoning or requirement of easements. How- ever, the CEA process is unique in that it insures more public involvement and environmental review of proposed activities in such areas, even though it does not place additional controls or land use restrictions on areas covered by the designation. In 1990 and 1991 the state amended Article 8 of the Environ- mental Conservation Law (SEQRA), Section 8-0109; as well as Article 55, Section 55-0117, dealing with the certification by the NYSDEC Commissioner of the SGPA Cornprehensive Plan and ifs relation to SEQRA. The revisions require that upon cer- tification of the plan by the commissioner, any project undergo- ing SEQRA review within the SGPA must demonstrate how the project is in conformance or nonconformance with the recom- mendations of the SGPA Study. Any action found to have a significant impact upon SGPAs shall require the preparation of an environmental impact statement which shall include a de- tailed analysis of the effects of the proposed action on, and ifs consistency with, the comprehensive management plan of the special groundwater protection area program. For any action within an SGPA for which the lead agency decides that an environmental impact statement is not required, the agency shall show how such action would or would not be consistent with SGPA comprehensive master plan as certi- fied by the NYSDEC commissioner. See Chapter 4 for im- plementation recommendations. Watershed Rules and Regulations Historically, the major thrust of New York State agencies in implementing Watershed Rules and Regulations (WRR) has been directed at insuring the potability of surface waters used for public supplies. However, within the last decade, there has been increasing statewide awareness of the rela- tionship between activities at or near the surface of the land and of groundwater quality. The 208 study definitively identi- fled numerous activities that have already impacted ground- water quality. One of the major challenges in this study is to proVUe work- able mechanisms to ensure the maximum protection of the aquifers underlying the SGPAs. As narrowly defined in New York State Public Health, WRRs are those regulatory controls recommended by purveyors and promulgated by the New York State Department of Health in order to allow a water utility to address watershed activities that may place a water supply source at dsk.~ The concept of wellhead protection as devel- oped pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act is similar in pur- pose if not in detail. In a sense, wellhead protection focuses on the parts; that is, on the individual wells or well fields, while WRRs focus on larger segments of the aquifer as a whole. Neither the WRRs as narrowly defined, nor the wellhead pro- tection approach, appears likely to provide the coordinated protection needed for Long Island's large multi-layered com- plex aquifer that serves as the soume of water for the two dozen or so suppliers with wells located within or immediately adjacent to the SGPAs, and lhe more than two and a half times that number that serve neady all the residents of Nassau and Suffolk. The term WRRs as used in this document comprises an ex- panded array of groundwater protection regulations ranging from areawide to site specific controls. Enacted or promul- 29 New York State Public Health Law ~ Sections 1101-1107. 2-9 gated by New York State, the counties, towns, villages and special districts,these include such varied measures as Criti- cal Environmental Area (CEA) designation, the State Pollut- ant Discharge Elimination System, County Sanitary Code provisions -- dealing with onsite systems, the storage of haz- ardous materials and the establishment or expansion of poten- tially contaminating industrial activities, local zoning ordinances and sewer district industrial pre-treatment rules. They even include a Suffolk Sanitary code provision requiring the establishment of a restricted water supply sensitive area around and upgradient of shallow glacial wells -- a wellhead protection measure. The value of WRRs in SGPAs in particular is that SGPAs represent well defined regions of Long Island that have been targeted for concentrated watershed management. By providing heightened management and protection of these watershed regions, the broader, general water supply area reaps the benefits in improved water quality. Further, by addressing the smaller sectors of the shallow unconfined aquifer that contribute water to existing and proposed individual well sites, the highest possible protec- tion can be provided to the well sites where public water supply production is occurring, or may occur in the future. Section 00115-3 of the Sole Source Aquifer Law (Article 55 of the Conservation Law) calls for the development of specific watershed rules and regulations as part of the SGPA plan. WRR OBJECTIVES - The objectives or goals to be achieved by the application of WRRs must be consistent with the overall goals and policies of the overall SGPA program. In one sense an argument could be made that an entire SGPA should be treated as a watershed management area and that, in effect, all policies related to land use, zoning, and governmental ac- tivities within the SGPA constitute overall WRRs. WRRs in the form of wellhead protection regulations generally apply to somewhat narrower geographic areas such as zones of influ- ence and zones of contribution associated with specific well- heads. Therefore, it is useful to examine and discuss the various issues and approaches that can be taken in order to maximize groundwater protection, in stating a number of goals it must be understood that although this study applies to spe- cifically designated SGPAs, water purveyors in both counties view the need to protect wellheads in or out of the SGPAs as of equal importance. In other words, the readers should not conclude that greater protection emphasis is being given to lo- cations within the SGPAs. Instead, the SGPAs should be viewed as areas of generally high quality if not pristine ground- water where open land and relatively Iow density development provide opportunities for both watershed and wellhead protec- tion. The following five goals are recommended: To establish special groundwater standards or goals that ensure the protection of the groundwater quality within the SGPAs as a whole and within the wellhead protection zones for wells in the upper glacial aquifer. To define the types of activities that are compatible and/or incompatible for areas of protection within SGPAs in general and around well heads specifically. - To emphasize the importance of non-point pollution controls in the SGPAs and within specific wellhead protection zones. - To integrate, support, and augment the enforcement of existing statutes, codes and regulations designed to regulate contaminating activities and protect groundwater quality. - To define zones of management and protection around wells within or proximate to SGPAs in order to insure adequate protection of the groundwater quality produced by the wells. Achievement of the goals of watershed and wellhead protec- tion will depend upon the coordinated application of existing and expanded regulatory measures. The following paragraphs discuss available measures and recommendations for their ex- pansion or improvement. There are at least seventeen federal, state, or county laws or programs relating to groundwater quality and quantity. See Ap~ pendix D. They range from the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act to the various Articles in the Nassau and Suffolk County Sanitary Codes. All of these laws should be considered as part of WRRs. These laws would provide that no federal, state or county agency shall perform any act or grant any permit or ap- proval that would result in the contravention of standards for water quality. In the event that any conflict or difference exists among the various regulations, the most stringent and/or the most protective requirements shall control. For example, Article 6, 7 and 12 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, summarized below, provide basic protection. ARTICLE 6 provides the requirements for water supply and sewage disposal for realty subdivision, commercial, and industrial developments. It recognizes the various groundwater management zones and establishes specific requirements for each zone. The intent of Artic e 6 is to reduce the amount of wastewater generated from these land uses with special restrictions in Zones IH, V, and VI. ARTICLE 7 deals with the control of specific soumes of pollution. It recognizes the water supply importance of deep recharge areas and water supply sensitive areas and attempts to protect them through prevention and control of contaminants. The regulations are quite specific in prohibiting the types of hazardous waste that can be generated in these special areas and the amounts that can be stored. 2-10 - ARTICLE 12 deals with the storage and handling of toxic and hazardous materials. Adopted in 1980, it became the model for subsequent state and federal regulations. The regulations apply to the design, construction and testing of underground and above-ground storage tanks as well as indoor and outdoor chemical storage areas. Other regulations supportive of watershed or wellhead protec- tion can be found in 6NYCRR Part 703, which provides that no state, county, town or local government agency having jurisdic- tion shall perform any act which may result in the contraven- tion of groundwater quality standards for class GA groundwaters and also provides that no state, county, town or local government agency having jurisdiction shall grant any permit or approve any use or activity which may result in the contravention of groundwater quality standards for class GA groundwaters.3° Article 15-0514 of the Environmental Conservation Law en- acted in 1983 authorized the Department of Environmental Conservation to promulgate rules and regulations that wooid restrict or prohibit incompatible uses in pdmary groundwater recharge areas. To date such rules and regulations have not been promulgated. New York State law requires that any spills of petroleum prod- ucts, and spills of hazardous and/or toxic substance in excess of one pound must be reported to DEC and the County Health Agency having jurisdiction immediately upon discovery. Al- though it is not currently required, it is imperative that the re- spective water utility receive notification as soon as possible. All well fields within SGPAs should be posted by the water util- ity with signs that include information of prohibited activities near the well field, and whom to notify in case of spills or other emergencies. AREAWIDE CONCERNS - Another concern is the presence of existing underground pipelines and oil fiited powerlines. It is recommended that New York State require permits for all such pipelines except those conveying natural gas, sewage, storm drainage or drinking water; and that the State notify the County health department and water supplier of any proposed pipeline within their respective jurisdictions. The permitting agency should inspect the entire length of the pipelines within its juris- diction or service area at least on an annual basis. If replace- ment is required, the new sections should be constructed of double-walled piping. The installation of new petroleum or other hazardous materials pipelines should be prohibited within SGPAs. In addition, all sanitary waste discharges from industrial facili- ties in excess of 1000 gallons per day are to be considered major significant discharges requiring SPDES permits and are to be monitored and enforced as a major discharge. Where groundwater deterioration may be caused by a land use or activity, municipal officials should enact changes in zon- ing or other controls to prevent groundwater contamination. Uses or activities that are potential sources of pollution are in- compatible with groundwater protection. Where such uses al- ready exist, they may be continued subject to compliance with all applicable WRR and subject to periodic review by the county health agency acting on its own behalf and that of the water supplier. Existing industrial buildings housing wet indus- tdes should be connected to STPs with discharges outside and downgradient of the SGPAs. Sunset provisions should be established for industrial operations not sewered as recom- mended.31 These sunset provisions should also apply to all in- compatible commercial operations such as dry cleaners, gas stations, or other commercial facilities that cannot conform to the provisions of Nassau County's Article XI or Suffolk County's Articles 7 and 12 regarding the storage of toxic and hazardous materials. No building, structure or property accommodating an incom- patible activity should be enlarged, altered or extended in any manner that is deemed by the respective health departments or by NYSDEC to increase the threat to the groundwater or otherwise contravene the purpose and intent of watershed regulations. Appropriate local governing bodies should notify the respective health departments and NYSDEC of actions of this type and should not issue building permits or certificates of occupancy without prior consent of the health departments and NYSDEC. In the event that any incompatible use is dis- continued, it should permanently cease. Existing commercial/industrial facilities within the SGPAs should be examined on an establishment by establishment basis by the appropriate state or county agencies. A deter- mination should be made in each ease as to whether the fa- cility poses a threat to the groundwater and whether the installation of monitoring wells is required. A person en- gaged in an activity that is found to have the potential to ad- versely impact the groundwater, should be required to develop and implement an approved monitoring and source reduction plan and to obtain Health Department approval of the plan in advance of implementation. If monitoring wells 3O Class GA waters are those gmundwaters for which the best usage is as a source of potable supply. 3~ Sunset provisions allow for the continuation of a usa for a limited period of time in order fo permit the amortization of the reasonable value of the ~'wesiment in Ihat use, 2-11 am installed, the appropriate water supplier should be notified and should receive copies of any monitoring well analytical data submitted tothe Health Department. SPECIFIC WATERSHED RULES AND REGULATIONS - In addition to the above general rules, the following specific ac- tivities should be regulated under the SGPAs WRR: SPDES Permits - All applicants for a permit under the New York State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) should simultaneously submit a copy otthe application and supporting documentation to the respective water supplier. These materials will be reviewed upon receipt, and if a problem is detected, appropriate action taken. The water supplier should also be notified of any SPDES permit that is issued or violations that have occurred. · Spills - A spill is any intentional or unintentional action or omission resulting in an unpermitted releasing, spilling, discharging, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying or dumping of any petroleum product, radioactive material, toxic substance or any other potentially hazardous matedal so that such items may enter the environment. Cleanup of spills is the responsibility of the owner or, in the case of material in transit, cleanup is the responsibility of the carrier. · Any person who is the owner of, or in actual possession or control of a potentially hazardous substance, or any agent or employee thereof, or any person in a contractual relationship therewith, who is responsible for or has knowledge of any spill, as defined above, which is likely to have an adverse effect on water quality or quantity, should immediately notify the respectivehealth department, NYSDEC and the water supplier. · All public water suppliers within the SGPAs should establish and maintain an education program for soume reduction, which should include field inspections and outreach communication with commemial and industrial establishments that may pose a potential contamination threat. · Well sites on lands acquired for open space or watershed protection by the State of New York, either county local village and town governments should be made available to water suppliers. Add tionally, well sites on federal, state, county, town and village presewes, park lands and golf courses should be made available in order to provide the public with the highest quality water supply at the minimum cost consistent with protection of unique ecosystems. · Exceptions to the WRRs may be granted by the respective health departments after appropriate study and review, based on prior usage and unique local conditions. Such exceptions will only be granted if the safety of the water supply system will be protected. The Nassau and Suffolk County Departments of Health should notify water suppliers of its bi-monthly appellate procedures by providing meeting agendas, etc. WELLHEAD PROTECTION - In addition to watershed man- agement for the entire SGPAs, it is vital to protect existing or future wellhead locations. All wells within SGPAs can be con- sidered as falling within two zones. The first, designated as the Zone Of Maximum Control (ZOMC) is that area immediately surrounding the well for a minimum radius of 200 feet, or an area of approximately 3 acres. This zone should be under the direct control of the water utility either through fee ownership or an easement in order to provide direct protection from tres- pass, accidental contamination or sabotage. The second zone is the entire SGPA. All relevant regulations and recommendations contained in this SGPA study should be incorporated in the WRR. It is also essential that water utilities have the most compre- hensive and current knowledge of where the water they draw upon is coming from, and what the quality is of that water. Through recent developments in both understanding, empirical observations and computer and mathematical modelling, it is possible to locate the soume of water for unconfined wells with relative precision and to relate this information to areas of the land surface, relative to a specific well or wellfield. In this way, areas around a well site can be mapped and managed so as to provide a high degree of confidence that the well and the water it produces is protected. The concept of mapping the soume of water around well sites or a water source is not new, but is implicit in the Wellhead Protection Program mandated under the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act. Furthermore, DEC well permit applications require the identification of the area of contribution to a proposed well. For Long Island aquifers, the mapping of the zones of contribution applies to upper glacial aquifer or shallow Magothy wells in areas where there is no upper glacial aquifer or confining clay layer. In order to identity and map the zone of contribution for each well it is essential to establish sufficient monitoring wells and to maintain a continuous periodic measuring program. Therefore, water utilities should initiate or expand their efforts to produce this information, and the county health departments should adopt WRRs that require that this work be undertaken. DEC should require this for all new or renewed well permits. It is also recommended that the water utilities maintain up-to-date maps and inventories for all existing activities that have the potential to impair the quality of the water produced by their wells. Appendix E contains a discussion of watershed rules and regulations and wellhead protection and two pro- posed sets of WRRs. 2-12 Best Management Practices RESIDENTIAL Outside of the areas to be acquired or those pamels in open space use, residential uses are expected to be the major land category. Therefore, turf and landscape management practices by developers and individual homeowners become significant in protecting the groundwater. On woodlands, especially the pine barrens, there are recommendations to limit cleadng and the subsequent need for introduction of turfgrass, See Appen- dix F for Suffolk County Pine Barrens Commission clearance standards for each zoning category. In areas that are already cleared and require new landscaping, the amount of fertilizer, watering and the overall use of grassed areas has to be controlled. Extensive reseamh has been done on the use of nitrogen fer- tilizer on tuffgrass at the Long Island Horticultural Research Laboratory, and at golf courses and cemeteries as well as on individual lawns, These studies included fertilizer leaching, comparison of the types and solubility of fertilizers used, timing of applications and variety of grasses used. Perhaps the most important recommendation for turf manage- ment relative to nitrate use has been the recommendation for increased use of Fescue varieties of grass that require less ir- rigation and less fertilizer. This applied research has resulted in a reduction in the amount of fertilizer that is recommended for most grass varie- ties. A total of one pound of nitrogen per 1,000 square feet per year, delivered in several applications is suggested. In order to minimize the potential for leaching to the groundwater, different types of fertilizers are recommended, depending on the sea- son. The irrigation requirements, varietal response and soil types have been studied with revised recommendations allowing for the minimal use of irrigation water and potential for leaching. AGRICULTURAL Pesticides: Use Integrated Pest Management (IPM) principles: · Make best use of cultural practices such as crop rotation, resistant or tolerant varieties, time of planting, spacing, and use of mulch to prevent disease, weed and insect problems. ,, Establish and use economic thresholds for pest management and control. · Use biological controls when possible and practical. · Use the minimum quantity of pesticide needed for proper control. · Use pesticides having the least negative environmental effect with particular attention to groundwater. Water Use: Establish systems that provide for the most efficient use of irrigation water to crops: · Use management practices that provide for the most efficient crop growth such as proper use of limestone, fertilizer, crop rotation and cover crops. · Make use of trickle irrigation where practical. · Manage irrigation based on crop needs soil reserves, plant transpiration, stage of crop growth, etc. · Establish permanent cover crops especially on highly erodible land and perennial crops. · Establish sod swales where necessary to retain and allow for percolation of surface water. · Use good soil conservation practices such as subsoiling or chiseling, contour farming use of filter strips, diversions. There are already areas of protected farmland in the SGPAs and the plan recommends the preservation of additional acre- age to maintain this important industry. In order for agricultural land uses to co-exist with groundwater protection, the agricul- tural industry must fellow best management practices to mini- mize the leaching of fertilizers, and pesticides or their components to groundwater. The following recommendations cover the three areas where farming practices as recommended by the Cooperative Exten- sion would make agriculture compatible with groundwater pro- tection. These are Best Management Practices (BMPs) for use by farmers on Long Island to minimize the amount of fertilizers (primarily nitrates) and pesticides leaching to the ground water. Fertilizers: · Use pH and mineral analysis to determine soil fertility. · Adjust pH to maximize fertilizer usage by the crop. · Limit the use of nitrogen based on crop needs and uptake. · Adjust timing, placement and method of fertilizer applications to maximize crop uptake and utilization. · Limit applications at planting and adjust sidedress applications based on plant needs. · Use minimum till practices where possible to lessen the potential of groundwater contamination. · Use cover crops. The Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County, along with research support from Comell University at Ithaca and the 2-13 Long island Horticultural Research Laboratory at Riverhead, has the major role in establishing and keeping BMPs current. Other agricultural agencies involved in implementing BMPs in- clude the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Agricultural Stabili- zation and Conservation District, Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation Service, New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, and USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Reduction of fertilizer use makes good economic sense, espe- cially since this is a high cost item. Pesticides are necessary to control some of the persistent pests, b~ awareness of soil properties, correct timing, increased reliance on biological con- trois and use of pesticides at the lowest effective application rate may reduce the need for agricultural chemicals and less- en the resultant impact on the water supply. The ongoing shifts in agricultural activities that ere occurring on Long Island, such as conversion from potato fields to or- chards and vineyards, are beneficial since they allow the use of irrigation practices that limit th~ waste of valuable water. RECREATIONAL Golf courses account for 5,446 acres in all of the SGPAs. Proper management of these acres is important in protecting groundwater. The conversion of golf courses to residential de- velopment has fortunately been limited to a few locations, most notably the Links Club in the North Hills SGPA. Additional conversions can lead to more contamination, if proper man- agement techniques are not followed. See Appendix G for a discussion of golf course management and nitrates in ground- water. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL New commercial or industrial land is recommended to be se- verely restricted in the SGPAs. However, where these uses are recommended, natural areas should be retained on the site. For cleared sites, the use of drought-resistant landscap- ing is recommended. See the Non-Point Source Handbook for specific practices to protect groundwater. 2-14 Chapter Three Individual SGPAs Introduction This chapter contains the analysis and plan recommenda- tions for each of the SGPAs. In essence, the following pages represent the greater part of the staff input over the throe year period of the study. Several sets of inventory data wero collected in order to facili- tate characterization of the environmental and physical condi- tions of each SGPA. The data cover · land use · zoning · soils and topography · vegetation associations · raro and endangered species and significant habitats · surface waters and freshwater wetlands · hydrogeology including waler table contours · groundwater divides · groundwater flow · water supply including well locations · groundwater pumpage, and water quality data · pollution soumes A brief general description of the methodologies used and the plan format for each SGPA follows this introduction. Additional matedal has been abstracted from a recently com- pleted Suffolk study that contains a comprohensive set of rec- ommendations for County pumhase of lands for water protection.32 These lands were to be acquired with funding from the County's 1/4 cent sales tax pmgrom. An attempt was made to rationalize priorities for pumhase by defining sub- watersheds within SGPAs as aroas medting first consideration. The principles used in the study aro incorporated in this report and the pamels recommended for each SGPA aro in accord with the County program. See Appendix H for a description of the Suffolk County Program. The balance of the chapter contains the discussion and rec- ommendations for each SGPA. SGPA Land Use Methodology The first step in the identification and mapping of existing land use required a determination of the degree of specificity neces- sary for the investigation. In this case, it was especially impor- tant to identify land uses that could have significant impacts upon groundwater quality. Appendix Table [-1 lists the land usa categories that were identified and inventoried by field investi- gators. The New York State Division of Equalization and Assessment property type classification code breakdowns were used. Nassau and Suffolk County real properly tax map sections were assembled for each SGPA to allow pamel-specific identi- fication of land uses. The accuracy of this information was checked in two ways. First, recent aedal photographs were re- viewed and compared with file data. Appendix Table I-2 lists the aedal photographs used in this analysis. Second, field veri- fications were conducted in 1988 and 1989 to improve upon the accuracy and specificity of the land use data. Even with field inspection, interpretations were required in thosa in- stances whero the nature of the land use was not readily ap- parent. Once land uses had been identified and interpretations made, land use codes wero assigned to base map pamels. The land use data wero then used as input in the development of a computer generated base map, utilizing a Geographic Information System (GIS). Land use codes wero transferred from the base map to the GIS base map, if was necessary to modify the GIS base map by removing parcel boundary lines in those instances where parcels of similar land use were ad.ia- cent to one another. This was done to improve map clarity while maintaining accuracy, Once large scale mechine-gener- ated maps were pdnted, their accuracy was checked against 32 Halpin, Pab'ick G., The Suffolk County Drinking Water Protecffon Program, Haupflauge, N.Y., October 1990. 3-1 field maps. Utilizing the GIS statistical capability, the acreage fig- ures for each land use code within each SGPA were calculated. Town zoning maps were reviewed and the information trans- ferred to draft land use maps in order to facilitate calculation of the potential yield if all the vacant, agricultural, private recrea- tional and estate land were to be developed. Since the Towns of Bmokhaven and Riverhead were in the process of amend- ing their codes, the proposed amendments were used in place of the existing codes. The acreage in each zoning category was quantified in tabular form. The maximum number of new residential units was cal- culated by applying the appropriate yield per acre factor for each zoning category to the number of unplatted available acres in that category. The estimated saturation population was calculated by multi- plying the anticipated number of residential units at saturation by a projected household size factor. Soils and Topography An inventory of soil associations was conducted for each SGPA. Information was obtained from the following sources: Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York (USDA, Soil Conservation Service, 1975) and Soil Survey of Nassau County, New York (USDA, Soil Conservation Service, 1987). A brief description of the major soil associations found within the SGPAs is provided in Table 3-1. TABLE 3-1 Description of Soil Associations Found Within Long Island's SGPAs BRIDGEHAMPTON-HAVEN ASSOCIATION: Deep, nearly level to gently sloping, well drained to moderately well-drained, medium- textured soils on outwash plains. CARVER-PLYMOUTH-RIVERHEAD ASSOCIATION: Deep, roll- ing, excessively drained and well-drained, coarse-textured and moderately coarse- textured soils on moraines. DUNE LAND-TIDAL MARSH-BEACHES ASSOCIATION: Sand dunes, tidal marshes, and beaches of the barrier beach and south shore. HAVEN-RIVERHEAD ASSOCIATION: Deep, nearly level to gently sloping, well-drained, medium-textured and moderately coarse- textured soils on outwash plains. MONTAUK, SANDY VARIANT-PLYMOUTH ASSOCIATION: Deep, rolling and hilly, excessively drained, coarse-textured soils on moreines. MONTAUK-ENFIELD ASSOCIATION: Dominantly nearly level to strongly sloping, well-drained, medium-textured and moderately coarse- textured soils; on knolls and hills. MONTAUK-HAVEN-RIVERHEAD ASSOCIATION: Deep, nearly level to strongly sloping, well-drained to moderately well-drained, moderately coarse-textured soils on moraines. PLYMOUTH-CARVER ASSOCIATION, Neady level and undulat- ing: Deep, excessively drained, coarse-textured soils on outwash plains. PLYMOUTH-CARVER ASSOCIATION, Rolling and hilly: Deep, excessively drained, coarse-textured soils on moraines. RIVERHEAD-PLYMOUTH-CARVER ASSOCIATION: Deep, nearly level to gently sloping, well-drained and excessively drained, moderately coarse-texturedand coarse-textured soils on the southern outwash plain. URBAN LAND-MONTAUK-RIVERHEAD ASSOCIATION: Domi- nantly urban land and nearly level to strongly sloping, well- drained, medium-textured and moderately coarse-textured soils; on Iow hills. URBAN LAND-RiVERHEAD ASSOCIATION: Dominantly urban land and nearly level, well-drained, moderately coarse-textured soils; on plains. RIVERHEAD-PLYMOUTH ASSOCIATION: Dominantly moder- ately steep or steep, well-drained and excessively drained, mod- erately coarse-textured and coarse-textured soils; on hillsides. RIVERHEAD-ENFIELD-URBAN LAND ASSOCIATION: Domi- nantly neady level to strongly sloping, well-drained, moderately coarse-textured and medium-textured soils and urban land; on Iow hills and ridges. Vegetation Associations The major vegetation associations, i.e., trees, shrubs and grasses found in each SGPA are identified in the section of this chapter dealing with the individual SGPAs Rare and Endangered Species and Significant Habitats An inventory of rare and endangered species was prepared utilizing data collected by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and The Nature Conservancy. See Appendix J. The inventory cataloged those native species and habitats that should be preserved in order to maintain the highest quality examples of the State's natural communities. It concentrates on plant and animal species considered rare, threatened, or endangered, plus terrestrial and aquatic habi- tats and other unique natural features. It is impodant to note, however, that this data collection effort is ongoing and the data 3-2 · Location · Water supply · Geology · Water Quality · Groundwater flow · Pollution sources Overview maps were also prepared for each SGPA showing groundwater divides, flow directions, well fields, pollution soumes, and other pertinent information; SGPA base maps (scale 1"=100') and/or USGS Quadrangle Maps (scale 1"=2000') were used. LOCATION: SGPA boundaries were compared with the loca- tions of regional and subregional groundwater divides, and the boundaries of hydrogeologic zones delineated during the Nassau-Suffolk 208 Study. GEOLOGY: Summaries of local geology were prepared based on data contained in published United States Geological Survey reports, and logs of exploratory wells previously in- stalled by the SCDHS. GROUNDWATER FLOW: Descriptions of groundwater flow patterns and assessments of the susceptibility of deeper aqui- fer segments to surface contamination were developed using geological data, and water table and Magothy potentiometric surface maps regularly prepared by the USGS and SCDHS. GROUNDWATER PUMPAGE: Data for public supply wells within and adjacent to each SGPA were culled from records of the New York State Department of Environmental Conserva- tion's Office of Water Supply. WATER QUALITY: Quality conditions for poblJc and private wells within and proximate to each SGPA were summarized based on data provided by the SCDHS' Office of Ddnking Water. Additional groundwater data were obtained from SCDHS' Office of Groundwater Resoumes monitoring network and investigation files, which were used to assess the impacts of agricultural activities and industrial spills of organic chemi- cals. POLLUTION SOURCES: Potential soumes of groundwater contamination were identified from files maintained by the SCDHS' Office of Hazardous Materials and Office of Environ- mental Engineering and Pollution Control. Such soumes in- cluded sewage treatment plants, pipelines, landfills, and facilities storing hazardous materials (under Suffolk Sanitary Cede Article 12 permits). The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's Office of Spill Response pro- vided data on petroleum spills. Additional potential sources were identified using the results of the Cornell University air- photo inventory (CLEARS). Plan Maps The maps for the individual SGPAs reflect a range of policy recommendations dealing with land use categories, acquisi- tions, and other techniques needed to preserve the deep re- charge locations. These recommendations, together with others that do not lend themselves to visual presentation, are listed in the text for each area. The information shown on the maps was originally coded by individual tax map and land use pamel. The plan maps show three categories of residential use and single cate- gories of commercial, industrial, public, and utility uses. The residential densities are generally based on the prevailing zoning unless there are overall recommendations to rezone the property to a lower intensity use. Therefore, Iow density or high density could be somewhat different depending on the general land use and zoning pattern of the locale. A category of estate residential land is shown for the Oyster Bay portion of the SGPA. This category includes large holdings that should be redeveloped at the lowest possible density to retain as much open space as is practical. Villages in the Oyster Bay area use clustering to a very limited extent. Therefore, the gen- eral cluster recommendations in most of the other SGPAs would not be fully applicable here. Clusters of commemial land are indicated mainly where there are existing uses of this type. Where new commemial develop- ment occurs in an SGPA area, the plan calls for adhering to strict clearing standards to preserve some open space. The same is true of the industrial category. Some industrial clusters shown are contemplated in areas where there is very Iow den- sity industrial land; i.e., 5 acre minimum lot sizes that can be clustered to preserve some open space. The plan maps show a series of key acquisition pamels in each of the SGPAs. Selection of pamels was based on data from the County Health Departments and the Suffolk County Water Authority relative to groundwater divides, water flow patterns and the relafionship of tracts of land to well sites that do or could produce high quality water and on the Suffolk County Acquisition Plan. See Appendix ] I~or a description of the Suffolk County Water Authority Groundwater Information Maps. In order to supplement the acquisitions, many areas have been designated as cluster tracts. These locations require the clustering of development on a porfJoa of the land and the dedication of the remainder as open space contiguous with 3-4 should not be considered a complete compilation of all habitat information within these areas. Surface Waters and Freshwater Wetlands Freshwater wetlands include fresh surface watem with associ- ated emergent and submergent vegetation, as well as bogs, swamps and upland wet woods. Wetlands located within the SGPAs were identified utilizing the New York State Freshwater Wetlands interim Maps and Descriptions. Wetland boundaries were located on USGS quadrangle maps at a scale of 1" = 2,000'. Each wetland is listed in one of four classes, ranked according to the degree of ecological benefit that each wetland type pro- vides. A Class t wetland is considered most valuable. The de- gree to which wetlands yield benefits depends upon many factors, including the vegetative cover, ecological associations, special features, hydrological and pollution control features, and distribution and location. Table 3-2 lists the acreage of freshwater wetlands found in each SGPA. TABLE 3-2 Acreage of Freshwater Wetlands Within Each SGPA SGPA Acres North Hills SGPA Oyster Bay SGPA West Hills-Melville SGPA Oak Brush Plains SGPA South Seteuket Woods SGPA Central Suffolk SGPA South Fork SGPA Hither Hills SGPA Southoid SGPA Total Acreage 62 378 91 0 8 4,361 907 297 26 6,130 Hydrogeologic Overview Procedure Hydrogeologic/water quality overviews for Nassau County's Special Groundwater Protection Areas (SGPA's) were pre- pared by the Nassau County Department of Health and the Department of Public Works Water Management Unit, Each of the overviews consisted of a narrative description of the follow- ing topics: Location · Groundwater Pumpage · Geology · Water Quality · Groundwater Flow · Pollution Sources (Actual and Potential) Overview maps were also prepared for each of the two SGPAs located within Nassau County showing groundwater divides, groundwater flow, locations of public supply and monitoring wells, pollution soumes and other relevant information. LOCATION: The SGPA boundaries were compared with the lo- cations of regional and sub-regional groundwater divides, as well as the boundaries of hydrogeoiogic zones delineated dur- ing the Nassau- Suffolk 208 Study. GEOLOGY: The descriptions of local geologic features of the SGPA's were compiled from data included in published U.S. Geological Survey reports and geophysical logs of exploratory wells installed by both the USGS and the NCDPW's Water Management Unit. GROUNDWATER FLOW: Groundwater flow patterns were de- lineated based on hydrogeoiogic data and potentiometric sur- face maps of both Upper glacial and Magothy aquifers as prepared by the USGS and NCDPW. GROUNDWATER PUMPAGE: The summaries of public supply wells located within and immediately adjacent to the SGPA's were compiled from records of the NYSDEC's Office of Water Supply, the NCDPW's Water Management Unit and the indi- vidual purveyor, WATER QUALITY: Water quality information for public water supply and monitoring wells located both within and immedi- ately adjacent to the North Hills and the Oyster Bay SGPA was provided by the NCDH's Bureau of Public Water Supply and the NCDPW's Water Management Unit. This information was used to assess the water qualify for each SGPA by aquifer, to determine the areas of the most significant groundwater con- tamination and to relate the water quality to land use. POLLUTION SOURCES (ACTUAL and POTENTIAL): Infor- mation on actual and potential sources of groundwater con- taminet~on were provided by the NCDH Bureau of Water Pollution Control. Sources include sewage treatment plants, petroleum and other spills, superfund sites, pipelines, landfills and petroleum storage facilities. Hydrogeologic/water quality ovewiews for Suffolk's SGPAs were prepared by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services' Division of Environmental Quality, Groundwater Re- sources Section. Each overview consisted of descriptions and assessments of the following: 3-3 nearby pre. sewed tracts wherever possible. Clusters can also be used to create reserve areas that can be used for future well field sites. There is some farmland located in deep recharge areas, and the plan identifies three ways to presen/e additional farmland: the purchase of farmland development rights, the clustering of new development to preserve the large tracts of productive farmland, and the use of transfer of development rights. The latter is recommended where preserved farmland to~ally sur- rounds land that is still available for development and where the development of that property would have an adverse im- pact on the farmland. Other sections of this report deal with the impact of farmland on groundwater and how certain farm- ing activities can be accommodated without degradation of the water resources. The purchase of development rights to preserve farmland is an ongoing Suffolk County program and it is expected that some expansion will occur based on current funds and policies. In addition, the plan shows a few locations where the purchase of development rights could be used to presewe woodlands to protect an existing or proposed well site. Planned unit developments or mixed uss zones are shown for a couple of locations where the trenspo~lation network, zoning, or adjoining land use justify a mix of activities. The idea of a mixed use development would be to allow various activities rs- garded as compatible with groundwater protection, while also requiring the developer to set aside a certain amount of open space in conjunction with the development. The plan also calls for modification and/or elimination of cer- tain land uss categories that are considered aa undesirable within SGPAs. These include some landfills, sand mines, and other potentially contaminating commercial and indus- trial uses. The plan calls for the replatting and clustering of a number of areas. These are old filed maps which, if developed according to the current ownership pattern, would produce either a higher density than would be desirable or a land use pattem that would not preeawe open space. Summary The overall recommendation of the SGPA Plan calls for at least 47% of all property to remain in open space. This would roean that of the 207,000 acres in the study area, mom than 96,000 would be retained for watershed protection. Existing open space and protected farmland currently account for 26% of the 207,000 acres. Another 7% is recommended for permanent open spaca through the acquisition of woodlands, the purchase of farmland development rights, and the transfer of development rights. Another 14% is recommended through the use of clustering on both woodlands and farmlands, planned unit developments, industrial clusters and replattiog of old filed maps.. About 38% of all of the SGPA land is expected to be used for residential purposes. Most of this residential land is now devel- oped at a Iow or medium density, and vacant land la expected to be developed at Iow density. TABLE 3-3 Plan Land Use (acres) in all SGPAs Land Use Cateflo/y Plan Land Use Residential 78,279 Vacant ~0- Underwater Land 1,421 Commercial 2,687 Industrial 2,467 Insfifutional 12,591 Utilities 11,812 Open Space 79,081 Agricultural 17,081 Others* 1,878 Total Acreage 207,363 * O~hers Includes plan op~ons such as planned u~it development, landfill reclamalian, relocatino, etc.. that could not be assigned to a specific land use category. The small parcels of industrial or commercial uses ara mostly existing parcels or are infill parcels that are totally surrounded by non-reaidential uses. The removal of some conforming or non-conforming industrial uses offsets some of the infill so that the general industrial and commercial total will account for 2 !~% of the land excluding any of the planned unit devel- opment or industrial clusters that have an open space coro- portent. Institutional and utility uses are projected to remain at 12% of the overall total. 3-5 North Hills SGPA GENERAL BACKGROUND - One of the smallest of the nine Special Groundwater Protection Areas, the North Hills SGPA, covers 2,900 acres or approximately 4.5 square miles. The greater portion of the SGPA is located to the north of the Long Island Expressway between Lakeville Road and Searingtown Road. The remainder is located to the south of the Express- way from the New York City line to Shelter Rock Road. A de- tailed description of the SGPA boundaries may be found in Appendix B The one remaining western Nassau area with over 60 percent of its land in Iow intensity recreational and residential use, this SGPA comprises the entire Village of North Hills and part of the Village of Lake Success and approximately one-third of the unincorporated Manhasset area in the Town of North Hempstead, Although formerly an enclave of large estates, private country clubs and County parkland, the SGPA has sustained major in- creases in population during recent years, as condominiums and single family homes have replaced private open space. From 1980 to 1988, the number of area residents increased by more than 75 percent, to an estimated 4,846; and the pressure to develop much of the remaining acreage continues. SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY - This SGPA contains two differ- ent soil associations. Approximately 80% of the area is made up of the Montauk-Enfield soil association. These are well- drained, medium- textured to coarse-textured soils that range from nearly level to strongly sloping. The steeper parts are found on hillsides or along sides of drainage ways. The less sloping areas are on broad ddgetops and hillcrests or on foot slopes. Slopes ranges from 0 to 15 percent. The Montauk soils in this association have a dense, slowly permeable substratum that hinders efficient sewage disposal, while Entield soils have a rapidly permeable substratum that is a poor filter of effluent, and thus may pose the threat of pollution to groundwater. An Urban Land-Montauk-Riverhead soil association touches the northern and eastern boundaries of the North Hills SGPA and covers approximately 20% of the area. These medium- textured and moderately course-textured soils are found on slopes ranging from 0 to 15 percent. The greater use of this association is in urban use. The open soil areas are generally in lawns, gardens, or playgrounds in residential areas; how- ever, there are a few moderately large wooded tracts, mostly in areas of very poorly drained soils. Onsite sewage disposal is limited in the Montauk soils be- cause of the moderately slow or slow perreeability in the sub- stratum. Generally, fh~ IZl ~rh~l ~-,~;Io ..... ;f~hl ¢'~. homesites, but in places, slope limits building and the substra- tum is a poor filter of effluent, causing a pollution hazard to the groundwater. VEGETATION ASSOCIATIONS - Most of the remaining open space in the North Hills SGPA area has been disturbed and consists mainly of golf courses and old estates. The remaining wooded area consists of an upland deciduous forest associa- tion characterized by mixed oaks, mostly red, with moisture- loving species, such as tulip tree, Amedcan beech, red maple and black birch dominating the canopy. Flowering dogwood usually forms a tree understory, while maple- leaved viburnum and/or spice bush are common shrubs. The ecologically sig- nificant woodland in the study area is the remaining portion of what has been identified as the Grace Forest, located between the Long Island Expressway South Service Road, New Hyde Park Road, the Northern State Parkway, and Shelter Rock Road. Other deciduous woodlands can be found on the Payson-Whitney Estates along with ornamental trees and shrubs, pasture and brush indicative of previously disturbed areas. RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES AND SIGNIFICANT HABITATS - No Natural Heritage Program elements have been found in the North Hills SGPA to date. SURFACE WATERS AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS - The surtace waters and freshwater wetlands within the North Hills SGPA consist of Lake Success, located in the southeast cor- ner of the SGPA, and Whitney Pond located in the northern portion of the study area south of Route 25A. Additional wet- land acreage was located close to Whitney Pond. Altogether, there are 62 acres of freshwater wetlands in this SGPA. HYDROGEOLOGY - The North Hills SGPA is located in Hydrogeologic Zone l within several different surficial geologic boundaries primarily typified by morainal deposits. Specifically, the north and oorthwestem sectors of the SGPA are made up of Harbor Hill and morainal deposits consisting of till with strati- fied sand and gravel. An isolated lobe of Ronkonkoma terminal morainal deposits, also consisting of till with stratified sand and gravel, lies in the central and southeastern sectors of the SGPA. The northeast and southwestern sectors consist of Harbor Hill outwash deposits made up of stratified sand and gravel. These glacial deposits range in thickness from 100 to 220 feet. The Magothy aquifer, directly underlying the glacial deposits, ranges in thickness from 100 feet in the northwestern sector of the SGPAto 200 to 300 feet in most other areas. The Magothy consists mainly of lenticular and discontinuous beds of ve~j 3-6 fine to medium sand, commonly clayey or containing thin clay lenses, that are interbedded with clay and sandy clay, silt and some sand and gravel. A greater occurrence of clayey zones in the upper portion of the Magothy causes water to become increasingly confined with depth. A narrow nodh-south trend- ing channel, extending southward from the head of Manhasset Bay, cuts through Magothy deposits and is filled with Harbor Hill outwash material as well as ice contact deposits. There are no known confining units within the glacial deposits or the Magothy aquifer that are of continuous nature. However, as is common with morainal material, beds of glacial till can support pemhed water tables or retard the downward move- ment of water (recharge) to the water table. Within about two- thirds of the SGPA, the water table can be found in the Magothy aquifer. Any increases in consumptive use, whether the result of sewering and marine discharge, irrigation or other activities that exceed recharge can be expected to reduce the volume of freshwater stored in the aquifer and cause long term declines in water table elevations. Since the groundwater un- derlying the SGPA is part of a larger system, water table eleva- tions may be affected by the extent of consumptive use both within and outside the SGPA. GROUNDWATER FLOW - The regional groundwater divide is located close to the southern boundary of the SGPA, south of the Long Island Expressway. The primary direction of horizon- tal flow is northwest with a more westedy component near the southern boundary of the SGPA. Shallow groundwater flow ve- locities within the SGPA range between one and one and one- half feet per day. Recharge in the SGPA will discharge to Manhasset Bay on both the east and west flanks of the bay near the bases of the Great Neck and Port Washington penin- sulas. Recharge reaching the Magothy aquifer will travel to- ward the Great Neck Peninsula for eventual discharge to Little Neck Bay and the Long Island Sound through overlying Pleis- tocene deposits. The groundwater divide and the direction of flow are indicated on Figure 3-1. WATER SUPPLY - The Manhasset-Lakeville Water District provides potable water to most residents and other consumers in the area. Three other water districts serve small portions of the SGPA. The Garden City Park Water District serves the Links Golf Course area, which is now being developed; the AI- bertson Water District serves a small area to the east of Sear- ingrown Road, north of the Expressway, and the Roslyn Water Distdct serves the remainder of the SGPA to the east of Searingtown Road. There are a total of 20 active and inactive public supply wells at 14 well fields located within or immediately adjacent to the SGPA. Two of the wells are screened in the Upper glacial aqui- fer; 16 in the Magothy and 2 in the Lloyd. An additional seven active wells are located within one mile downgradient. Table 3- 4 lists the wells by location and well number and indicates the aquifer from which water is withdrawn, permitted capacity and 1990 pumpage. Fourteen of the wells are sited within the boundaries of the SGPA. Two of them, in Nassau County's Christopher Morley Park, belong to the Port Washington Water District, which has been unable to provide adequate pumpage within its own serv- ice area. The total 1990 average daily pumpage of roughly 7.0 mgd from within and adjacent to the SGPA represents about 20% of the permitted capacity of all sites. The 1990 withdrawal of 7.06 mgd was distributed by aquifer as follows: Upper glacial - less than 1%, Magothy - 89%, and Lloyd - 10.2%. The Manhasset- Lakeville Water Distdct brought a new Magothy well (N-11509) on line in 1991. It is located within the SGPA (Shelter Rock Road, Grace Field development) and will have a permitted ca- pacity of 2.02 mgd. WATER QUALITY - Public water supply testing by the Nassau County Department of Health and the water suppliers and monitoring well testing by the Nassau County Department of Public Works indicated that groundwater quality within and ad- jacent to the North Hills SGPA is generally good with some areas of excellent quality (good: nitrate 1-6 ppm with only in- termittent traces of volatile organic chemicals; excellent: ambi- ent, with nitrate less than 1 ppm and no organics detected). Based on the most recent testing, public water supply well volatile organic chemical (VOC) quality in most parts of the SGPA is excellent with the exception of that in the eastern bor- der areas. In the past, the two Manhasset-Lakeville Water District's gla- cial wells in the southwest corner of the SGPA have exhibited volatile organics contamination. The District is installing an air stripping plant to remove VOCs; however, at present the wells show no detectable VOCs. Twelve of the 15 Magothy wells are located along and directly outside of the eastern boundary of the SGPA. Six of these wells contain total VOCs ranging from 2.1 to 25.3 ppb, while the remaining six do not contain detect- able levels of VOCs. The most significant contamination oc- curs in the Manhasset-Lakeville Water District well located just outside of the boundary in the southeastern section of the SGPA. Tetrachloroethylene, a solvent commonly used by dry cleaners, makes up 25 ppb of the 25.3 ppb total VOCs in this well. This well is currently removed from service and no plans for treatment are being considered at present. One well, lo- cated just north of the two glacial wells in the southwestern portion of the SGPA mentioned above, will be treated by the air-stripping plant being built to treat the two glacial wells. 3-7 7747 9300 09898 08877 700 O 9188 83424388 09901 0970 ~ N-1618 01102 -"--"-- 0~i0290 0 9902 ~ 3523 9904 8309 0 0 571j % ~ LILCO ~Cable eak Unisys A Superfund Site N-712 8551 O 09907 ZOZO N-5528 4623 889 N-7651 i~9768 ~ i-6945 To~* Lal Site ~ Existing Sewage Treatment Plant ~-~ Proposed Sewage Treatment Plant ~ Public Water Supply Well Site [~ Monitoring Well Site ~0~ Future Well Site ~ Clears Potential Hazardous Waste Site ~ New York State Superfund Site I~ Petroleum Product Spill ~ Groundwater Divide /~/o Northville Industries Petroleum Pipeline Direction of Groundwater Flow /~/ SGPA Boundry /~/ Major Road Network 0 ft. Scale: 1:27088 2257 4514 6771 LOCATION MAP ~stead Figure 3-1 Groundwater Conditions in the North Hills SGPA NORTH HILLS SGPA GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS 0AlTo 6-5-91 TABLE 3-4 Well Sites Within and Adjacent to the North Hills SGPA Well Site NYS Well # Aquifer Permitted Capacity 1990 Pumpage N-01328 Lloyd 2.16 mgd 0,71 mgd N-01618 Lloyd 2,16 mgd 0.01 mgd N-02028 Magothy 2.09 m~l 0.00 mgd N-03905 Upper Glacial 1.51 mgd 0.01 mgd N-04243 Upper Glacial 1.51 mgd 0.00 mgd N-05099 Magothy 1.51 mgd 0.47 mgd N-05528 Magothy 1.51 mgd 0.00 mgd N-05710 Magothy 2.02 mgd 0.00 mgd N-07126 Magothy 2.02 mgd 0.21 mgd N-07651 Magothy 2.02 mgd 0.00 mgd N-07892 Magothy 2.02 mgd 0.41 mgd N-10557 Magothy 1.94 mgd 1.47 mgd N-10889 Magothy 1.94 mgd 1.29 mgd N-11509 Magothy 2,02 mgd 0.00 mgd N-06945 Magothy 1.73 mgd 0.08 mgd N-09768 Magothy 1.73 m~l 0.69 mgd N-10612 Magothy 1.73 mgd 0.35 mgd N-07551 Magothy 2.02 mgd 0.00 mgd N-07552 Magothy 2.02 mgd 0.61 mgd N-04623 Magothy 1.73 mgd 0,76 m~l 35.37 mgd 7.06 mgd Manhasset-Lakeville Shelter Rock Manhasset-Lakeville Valley Road Manhasset-Lakeville Searingtown #1 Manhasset-Lakeville Parkway #1 Manhasset-Lakeville Parkway #2 Manhasset-Lakeville Cumberland Manhasset-Lakeville Searingtown #2 Manhasset-Lakeville Water District Manhasset-Lakeville Campbell #1 Manhasset-Lakeville Water District Manhasset-Lakeville Campbell #2 Manhasset-Lakeville Water District Manhasset-Lakeville Water District Manhasset-Lakeville Water District Garden City Park Water District Garden City Park Water District Garden City Park Water District Port Washington Water District Port Washington Water District Roslyn Water District Total Well Sites Downgradient of the North Hills SGPA Well Site NYS Well # Aquifer Permitted Capacity 1990 Pumpage N-03523 Magothy 1.37 mgd 0.28 mgd N-07747 Upper Glacial 2.30 mgd 0.28 mgd N-09308 Lloyd 2.02 mgd 0.87 mgd N-00022 Magothy 1.54 mgd 0.22 mgd N-04388 Magothy 1.80 m~l 0,66 mgd N-00700 Upper Glacial 1.44 mgd 0.16 mgd N-08342 Lloyd 1.51 mgd 0.57 mgd 11.98 mgd 3.04 mgd Manhasset-Lakeville Munsey Park Manhasset-Lakeville E. Shore Road Manhasset-Lakeville E. Shore Road Water Authority Great Neck North Water Authority Great Neck North Water Authority Great Neck North Water Authority Great Neck North Total The most significant contaminated well within the SGPA is a Port Washington Water District well located at Christopher Morley Park, east of Seadngtown Road and north of the Long Island Expressway. This well contains 16,5 ppb of total VOCs of which tetrachloroethylene at 11.0 ppb, makes up the largest share of the contamination. A second, slightly deeper well (469 feet vs. 454 feet) is located at this same site but contains only 2.1 ppb of the total VOCs. The Port Washington Water District has installed a Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) unit to move the VOCs from the most highly contaminated well. Other wells affected by VOCs include two Garden City Park Water District wells located adjacent to a residential-commercial area at the southeastern extremity of the SGPA. The wells contain total VOCs in the 6 ppb range. The water supplier is building an air-stripping plant to treat these two wells. The remaining Magothy well located in the northeastern corner of the SGPA near the eastem boundary contains 2.6 ppb of total VOCs and is located next to a well containing no VOC contamination. Both of these wells are at the same approximate depth and are operated by the Manhasset-Lakeville Water District. The distdct is planning VOC removal by air-stripping to treat both of these wells. 3-10 Two additional Magothy public supply wells exist in the SGPA. One well is ~ocated on the northern border Jn the central por- tion of the SGPA. This well contains less than 1 ppb of total VOCs and is next to a Lloyd well that contains no VOCs, The other Magothy well is located outside of the eastern border of the SGPA and contains no VOCs. There is a second Lloyd well in the western region of the SGPA. This well also shows no VOC contamination. Two monitoring wells within the SGPA were tested. Both of these are upper glacial wells, located along Community Drive in the western portion of the SGPA. No VOCs were detected in either of these wells. A total of eight public supply wells within the SGPA either have or are scheduled to have treatment installed in order to re- move organics. However, it should be noted that six of these wells can provide water that meets the current stringent State standards without any need for such treatment at the present time. Nitrates in the upper glacial aquifer vary from non-detectable (N.D.) to 7.37 ppm in the western portion of the SGPA. This is the only area, however, where upper glacial wells exist. The 7.37 ppm concentration was found in a monitoring well that is located adjacent to an existing golf coume. The next highest ni- trate concentration detected in a upper glacial well was 2.1 ppm. Nitrates in the Magothy vary from N.D. to 7.5 ppm. All of the data for this aquifer come from public supply wells. No nitrate levels were found in excess of the current drinking water standard of 10.0 ppm as nitrogen. Nitrate levels greater than 4.0 ppm were generally found in wells located in or adjacent to existing or former golf courses or parks, Nitrate concentrations in the Lloyd aquifer, based on only two Lloyd public supply wells, reflect ambient conditions, with levels less than 1 ppm. Approximately two-thirds of the area is sewered, The remain- der must rely on onsite systems. The Village of Lake Success portion of the SGPA is sewered, as is a major part of the Village of North HiLls. Sewage from Lake Success is handled by the Belgrave Water Pollution Con- trel District, while that from North Hills is handled by Nassau County's New Hyde Park and Albertson Williston Collection Districts, which transmit the sewage to the Bay Park treatment facility. The treated effluent is discharged to madne waters. LAND USES - There is a mix of land uses consisting of recrea- tion and open space; estates; Iow, medium and high density housing; institutions, transportation and utilities; and com- merce. The two major land use categories, estates and recrea- tion -- primarily golf courses and County parklands -- and TABLE 3-5 Existing Land Use (acres) In the North Hills SGPA 1989 1989 Existing Land Use Category Land Use % of Total* Residential 1,292 44.6 Vacant 171 5.9 Underwater Land 49 1.7 Commercial 78 2.7 Industrial 0 0.0 Institutional 308 10.6 Utilities 261 9.0 Open Space 741 25.6 Agricultural 0 0.0 Total 2,90O * Column may not total 100.0 due to rounding. Source: Long Island Regional Planning Board open space occupy 717 acres and 126 acres, respectively, and together account for approximately 29 percent of the total acreage. High density, residential uses and institutional uses rank third and fourth in importance; occupying another 240 acres and 290 acres, respectively. Medium and Iow density residential uses, transportation and utilities and commercial/in- dustrial uses occupy the remainder of the area. Table 3-5 pre- sents a summary of total acreage by land use category. The preponderance of the estate and recreational properties are located in the northern sector of the SGPA, while the high- est density residential uses are located in the eastedy portion of both sectors. The fifteen institutional uses are scattered throughout the SGPA; however, the two largest institutional uses -- Great Neck South High School and the North Shore Hospital -- are located along Lakeville Road south of the Expressway and along Community Drive north of the Expressway, respectively, in the western portion of the area. The Expressway and the Northern State Parkway, Lakeville Road, Community Drive, New Hyde Park Road, Shelter Rock Road and Searington Road traverse portions of the area. The single largest commemial use, the Abraham and Straus store and adjacent shops, is located at Community Drive and Northern Boulevard. There are a small number of additional commemial uses, including medical and other office buildings along Community Drive, and several office buildings along the south service road of the Ex~aressway and New Hyde Park Road. There is a small non-conforming industrial use, a junk- /ard that occupies less than an acre, in the Village of North Hills. See Figure 3-2. ZONING - Although prescribed densities vary significantly from urisdiction to jurisdiction and within each municipality, all but a small portion of the SGPA is zoned for residential use. 3-11 EXISTING LAND USE - 1989 NORTH HILLS SGPA Residential - Estates Residential - Low Density Residential - ~dium Density Residential - High Density Commercial ~ Institutional H Industrial Agricultural ~ C~ral Open Sp~ce I 6oil Course JJJ Cemetery Town,County,State Park/Open Space Utilities 6ov't Highway Facilities Vacant Underweter Lands LOCATION MAP ~,: 7-~-~ 0 ff. Scale 1: 15216 1268 2536 3804 The Town of North Hempstead has zoned Greentree, the Whitney Estate, at 2.5 acres per dwelling. The Village of North Hills has placed the abutting country clubs and remaining es- tares and Nassau County's Christopher Morley Park in its Iow- est density or 2.5 acres per dwelling unit category. The Town has classified the additional residential areas within its part of the SGPA at densities ranging from just over three units per acro to eight units per acro. Inasmuch as the areas in ques- tion aro all located in the vicinity of Community Drive and Northern Boulevard, the zoning categories assigned to them, like the Business Center category assigned to the Abraham and Straus retail complex and the Hospital category assigned to the North Shore Hospital, merely reflect existing development. With the exception of two small areas zoned for business, the re- mainder of the Village of North Hills is zoned for traditional resi- dential development at one-half or one-third acro or for clustered development at an average of seven units to the acro. The Village of Lake Success has placed its three largest hold- ings, a private country club, the municipal golf course and the Groat Neck School District property in its lowest density resi- dential category, 40,000 square feet per dwelling unit. An aroa north of the Northern State Parkway from the city line to Lakeville Road is also zoned and has been developed at one acre per unit. Most of the remaining area is zoned for residen- tial use at two dwellings per acre. There is one small aroa zoned four units per acre and an extremely small one at six units per acro. There is an economic development zone adja- cent to the public housing on Community Drive and a reseamh and office area at the south service road of the Expressway and Hollow Lane. PROBLEMS AND CONCERNS - The last remaining estate and recreational properties located within the North Hills SGPA have been and continue to be subjected to extreme pressure for conversion to more intensive use. The Town of North Hempatead has rezoned the largest single holding, the Whitney Estate, to preclude development al less than two and one-half acres per dwelling unit; however, further action is needed to assure the retention and appropriate management of the open space recharge areas not only in North Hempstead, but also in the Village of North Hills and the Village of Lake Success portions of the area. There is particular concern regarding the introduction of me- dium or high density residential uses into unsewered areas, since such development can be expected to contribute unac- ceptably high amounts of nitrates to ground water. The exten- sion of sewage collection and treatment, with madne discharge of the effluent, in order to permit such development cannot be considered a desirable altemative, since it fosters the consumptive use of the water resource. Virtually any land use or activity involves the release of some contaminants into the environment. The minimization of con- taminant discharges associated with existing or proposed uses or activities is necessary to preserve or enhance the quality of the groundwater. There is concern that excessive use of agri- cuitural chemicals on golf courses and other recreational areas and on residential properties could contribute unnecessarily large amounts of nitrates and pesticides to relatively clean groundwater; that homeowner disposal of such hazardous wastes as spent solvents, photographic chemicals and motor oils and school and hospital disposal of those and other wastes could introduce a vadety of trace organics and other contaminants; that accidents such as the 800 gallon gasoline spill in Christopher Morley Park or the loss of approximately 10,000 gallons of Iow viscosity oil resulting from the failure of a section of a LILCO underground oil-filled power cable, which was hit by lightning; and that the continuation of industrial ac- tivities within the SGPA could pose a further threat to water quality. Except for the seasonal, sporadic elevations in chloride concentrations, the stormwater runoff collected in the recharge basins along the highways or next to large parking lots and then allowed to percolate through the soil to the aquifer is con- sidered beneficial in maintaining water quality and quantity. OPPORTUNITIES - There are opportunities for the mainte- nance of clean recharge through the retention and proper management of the recreational lands and the preservation or minimal development of the remaining estates and institutional open space. The approximately 500 acre Whitney Estate, together with the adjoining estates and golf courses, constitutes the area's last large block of open space. The water quality of the area and the feeling of open space created by these properties should be maintained. There is a chance to limit or moderate the increasing demand for potable water through the adoption and adherence to envi- ronmentally sensitive development policies and land use con- trois, and through the support of water conservation measures. There is an opportunity to prevent the avoidable impairment of the water resource often associated with medium or high den- sity development without the extension of sewage collection, treatment and marine disposal of effluent, through the exclu- sion of new medium or high density development in unsew- ered areas. Finally, there is an opportunity to reserve and protect additional well sites through upzoning and land acquisition. 3-14 Recommendations PRESERVE EXISTING OPEN SPACE · Nassau County should acquire the 500 acre Whitney Estate (Greentree) for open space preservation. · The villages should preserve the remaining golf courses. The two municipal golf courses should remain in recreational use. Inasmuch as the groundwater impacts associated with well managed golf courses are likely to be Jess damaging to groundwater quantity and quality than those associated with various types of housing or with non-residential development, the two villages with private courses should make every effort to prevent their converaon to other uses. Large lot zoning, tax abatement, tax deferral, acquisition of development rights or even purchase and lease back should be considered, if necessary, to facilitate preservation of the three private courses. · In the event that Nassau County is unable to acquire the Whitney Estate, the development of Greentree and the ad acent estates should be planned as part of a single entity that maximizes watershed protection, preserves the open character of the area and provides land for future well sites. The permissible number of dwelling units for the three contiguous estates should be based upon the five acre per unit zoning, rather than ~aann the current two and one-half acre zoning of the hasset (Greentree) portion of the area. With good site planning, it should be possible to preserve close to three-fourths of the open space in this area. Units should be clustered on one acre parcels located in the northerly portions of the properties. · The Village of Lake Success should upzone the private Fresh Meadow golf course, now partially in the half acre and partially in one acre category, to five acres per dwelling unit. It should also place the Great Neck School District property in the same category in order to insure that any development resulting from the future sale or conversion of these properties will be compatible with the goals of water resoume preservation. Recreation lands owned by the school district should be kept as open space if the school facility is ever declared surplus. · The Village of North Hills should upzone the two remaining private golf courses and the adjacent estates to five acres per dwelling unit so as to conform with the Town of North Hempstead zoning of the Whitney property and thus assure the retention or environmentally sensitive development of the last significant block of open space land in western Nassau County. · The Village of North Hills should encourage the phase out of the remaining non-conforming industrial use and should preclude the introduction of new industrial or potentially contaminating commercial uses. Consult Table 3-6 for Plan Land Use and Table 3-7 for a com- parison of existing and proposed acreage by land use cate- gory. See Figure 3-3 for the location of Plan Land Uses. TABLE 3-6 Plan Land Use (acres) in the North Hills SGPA Plan Land Use Category Land Use % of Total** Residential 866 29.8 Vacant 0 0.0 Underwater Land 49 1.7 Commercial 87 3.0 Industrial 0 0.0 Institutional 335 11.6 Utilities 260 9.0 Open Space 1,302 44.9 Agricultural 0 0.0 Others* -- Total 2,899 * Others includes plan options, such as planned unit development, lend/ill reclamalJon, re,~car,~n, etc., that could not be assigned to a specific lend use category. ' Colurn,3 may not total 100.0 due to rounding. Source: Long Island Regional Planning Board. TABLE 3-7 Existing and Plan Land Use {acres) in the North Hills SGPA Change 1989 Existing Plan (+ = gain; Land Use Category Land Use Land Use - = loss) Residential 1,292 866 -426 Vacant 171 0 -171 Underwater Land 49 49 0 Commemial 78 87 +9 Industrial 0 0 0 Institutional 308 335 +27 Utilities 261 260 -1 Open Space 741 1,302 +561 Agricultural 0 0 0 Others* -- -- -- Total 2,900 2,899 * Others includes plan options, such as planned unit development, landfill raclama~on, relocation, eto., that could not be assigned to a specific tend use category. 3-15 Figure 3-3 Plan Land Use in the North Hills SGPA 7. ~) - PLAN - NORTH HILLS Residential - Estate Residential - Low Residential - High Commercial institutional Industrial Preserved Farmland Open Space Utilities Vacant Underwater Lands Proposed Open Space Acquistion Cluster Development Farmland - Cluster Replat and Cluster OTHER Relocate TDR (Transfer of Development) Purchase Dev./Farm Dev. Right Industrial Cluster Reclaim Dump Fill and Redevelop PUD Mixed Use Historic District Scale 1: 15216 0 ff. 1268 2536 3804 Oyster Bay SGPA Pilot Area GENERAL BACKGROUND - This 45 square mile northwestem Nassau SGPA encompasses part or all of twelve villages, por- tions of the city of Glen Cove and within the unincorporated portion of the Town of Oyster Bay. Originally part of Long Island's Go~.E Coc~, the area has been developed primarily for Iow density residential use. Some of the old estates have been converted to parks and preserves; others to institutional uses. Fourteen private country clubs and one municipal golf course help to preserve the open, partially wooded character of this unique area. SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY - Five different soil associations are found within the SGPA. At least 60% of the area is made up of the Montauk-Enfield association. This soil unit occurs in the center of the SGPA and along the eastern boundary. Mon- tauk-Enfield soils are medium-textured to moderately coarse- textured and are neady level to sloping. Slopes range from 0 to 5 percent. The dense, slowly permeable substratum of the Montauk soils can hinder efficient sewage disposal, while the Enfield soils have a rapidly permeable substratum which is a poor effluent filter. Cesspools in Enfield soils may pose a threat of groundwater pollution. A Riverhead-Enfield-Urban Land association, located in the northern portion of the SGPA, and in sections near Oyster Bay Cove, Syosaet and Woodbury, covers approximately 30 per- cent of the SGPA. These soils are nearly level to strongly slop- ing. Slopes generally range from 0 to 15 pement, but may be as much as 25 pement. Slope is the major limitation for land- seaping and development in these areas. The Riverhead and Enfield soils are moderately coarse-textured and have ade- quate permeability for on-site sewage effluent disposal. How- ever, because permeability is rapid in the substratum, there is the risk that effluent will not be filtered properly. Approximately six pement of the Oyster Bay SGPA is made up of the Riverhead-Plymouth soil association. This unit consists of very deep soils on drainage ways and hillsides located in the Mill Neck, Oyster Bay Cove and Cold Spring Harbor areas. Slopes range from 15 to 35 pement and may limit residential development in some areas. These moderately coarse-tex- tured soils are well-drained to excessively drained. Cesspools may pose a threat of groundwater pollution in these soils be- cause the rapidly permeable substratum is a poor effluent filter. A small area of the Urban Land-Montauk-Riverhead associa- tion is found on the west side of the SGPA, in the vicinity of Glen Head. It covers approximately two pement of the area. These medium- textured and moderately coarse-textured soils are found on slopes ranging from 0 to 15%. Much of this asso- clarion is in urban use, consisting primarily of man-made struc- tures. The open soil areas are mostly lawns, gardens or play- grounds. On-site sewage disposal is limited in the Montauk soils due to slow substratum permeability. Riverhead soils are suitable for residential development, but the substratum is a effluent filter, which may increase this likelihood of groundwater contamination. The Urban Land-Riverhead association just touches the south- west comer of the SGPA and comprises approximately two per- cent of the area. Slopes for these soils range from 0 to 3%. Most of the association is classified as urban land. Much of the precipi- tation on this part of the unit is collected and channeled through storm sewers into groundwater recharge basins. The Rlverhead soils are moderately coarse-textured and are generally suitable for homesites. The main limitation for reads, driveways, and side- walks is the potential for frost action; and, as indicated above, the substratum is a poor filter of septic effluent. VEGETATION ASSOCIATIONS - Mixed mesophytic forest is the major vegetation association in the Oyster Bay SGPA. The canopy consists mainly of tulip tree, American beech, red oak, red maple, sweet bimh, scarlet oak and silver maple. Pignut hickory, shagbark hickory, as well as witch hazel, may also be ~, distinct secondary tree layer dominated by dogwood may also be present along with a dense layer of shrubs and saplings, including black raspberry, maple-leafed viburnum, sapphireberry, white ash, red maple, black cherry and sassa- fras. Many species of vines such as Virginia creeper and cat briar are common. In the dryer areas, beech, red maple, sweet bimh, and hickory become less numerous in the canopy, being replaced by black oak and white oak. Mountain laurel may also be found to occur on excessively well-drained soils. RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES AND SIGNIFICANT HABITATS - A total of thirteen species were identified by the Natural Heritage Program in the Oyster Bay SGPA. The Muttontown Preserve provides habitat for three rare plant spe- cies: green milkweed, persimmon, and rattlebox. The tiger salamander (Endangered Species - E) has also been found in the Muttontown area. Several plant species, including Ameri- can strawberry-bush (Threatened Species - T)i sweet bay, flower, and yellow giant hyssop, can be found around Beaver Brook and its environs. Furthermore, the Mill Neck Creek wetlands have been identi- fied as a Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat by New York State Dept. of State. The Beaver Lake portion of these wet- lands is within the Oyster Bay SGPA. Beaver Lake is a pri- vately owned, freshwater impoundment, which is approximately three feet deep and 60 acres in size. The lake is 3-18 an impodant resting and feeding area for Oyster Bay Harbor's wintering watedowl populations. Data on waterfowl popula- tions in Beaver Lake for 1982-84 indicate and average con- centration of almost 220 ducks each year (primarily mallard, black duck, and canvasback). This wetland provides suitable habitat for the Canada goose, green-backed heron, red- winged blackbird, and fish crow. The area is also used for feeding by osprey, herons, and egrets. SURFACE WATERS AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS - The Oyster Bay SGPA contains several freshwater wetlands that are associated with stream corridors. The largest wetland sys- tem follows Glen Cove Creek through the northwestern comer of the SGPA. Other significant wetland areas can be found at Beaver Lake and along Island Swamp Brook. There is a large area of freshwater wetlands in Muttontown County Park, and smaller wetlands and keffle holes are scattered throughout the SGPA. All of the wetlands in this SGPA are ranked Class I, and total 378 acres. All of the streams in the Oyster Bay SGPA flow north to the Long island Sound. They include Glen Cove Creek, Island Swamp Brook, Beaver Brook, Mill Creek, and Cold Spdng Brook. HYDROGEOLOGY - The Oyster Bay SGPA is located in deep flow Hydrogeologic Zone l. The surficial geology of approxi- mately three-fourths of the area reflects the advance and re- treat of the Harbor Hill ice sheet. Harbor Hill end morainal deposits -- consisting of till with stratified sand and gravel -- extend from west to east across the middle of the SGPA. There is a band of Harbor Hill outwash deposits -- typically stratified sand and gravel -- south of the Habor Hill end mo- raine deposits. Ronkonkoma terminal morainal sediments -- chiefly till, with stratified sand and gravel -- cover much of the southern boundary of the SGPA. The Manetto Gravel, an early Pleistocene deposit as much as 220 feet thick occurs along the Nassau-Suffolk border within the extreme southeastern corner of the SGPA and in an isolated area near Wheatley Hills. Glacial deposits throughout the Oyster Bay SGPA range in thickness from 10 to 380 feet. The Magothy aquifer, of Upper Cretaceous age, underlies the Upper glacial aquifer in most areas of the SGPA. It consists of beds and lenses of light-gray fine to coarse sand with some in- terstitial clay and ranges in thickness from 0 to 650 feet, from northwest to southeast, respectively. In the northern portions of the SGPA, deep channels cut into the Cretaceous deposits were filled with late Cretaceous and/or Pleistocene deposits called the Port Washington aquifer and Port Washington con- fining unit. The combined thickness of these two units ranges from 0 to 300 feet. Deposits of morainal material can commonly support pemhed Nater tables within the SGPA as well as retard the downward flow of water. Confining units in the SGPA also retard but do not prevent the downward flow of water. Due to the complex geologic structure within the SGPA, the Upper glacial aquifer is ~robably hydraulically continuous with the Lloyd aquifer in some areas. GROUNDWATER FLOW - Most of the SGPA lies to the north of the regional east-west groundwater divide. The divide inter- sects the southern boundary. Shallow groundwater flows north or south on both sides of this divide. A significant local divide trending northwest from the Brookville area through the Locust Valley area controls the direction of shallow groundwater flow. Groundwater to the east of the local divide moves in an east- erly direction toward discharge areas along or underlying Long Island Sound, Mill Neck Creek, Oyster Bay Harbor and Cold Spring Harbor. Groundwater west of the local divide moves westward toward discharge areas along Glen Cove Creek or into Hempstead Harbor. Water from the Magothy discharges into the Upper glacial aquifer in areas adjacent to Hempstead Harbor, Oyster Bay Harbor and into the Port Washington con- fining unit elsewhere. See Figure 3-4 WATER SUPPLY - Several public suppliers and one private company provide portable water to most of the SGPA. There are 27 active wells within the SGPA and another 41 within a one mile radius. Four water districts -- Jericho, Oyster Bay, Locust Valley and Roslyn -- and two municipalities -- the City of Glen Cove and the Village of Old Westbury actually have well sites within the SGPA. Table 3-8 lists the wells by location and well number and indicates the aquifer from which water is withdrawn, permitted capacity and 1990 pumpage. The suppli- ere listed in Table 3-8 plus five additional districts and the Sea Cliff Water Company have wells located outside but within one mile of the SGPA. Table 3-8a provides location, aquifer, capac- ify and pumpage information for those wells. The total 1990 average daily pumpage of approximately 11.5 mgd from within the SGPA is about 24 percent of the approved capacity in the area. Of the 68 active wells within and adjacent to the SGPA, 21 are located within the Town of North Hempstead and the remaining 47 within the Town of Oyster Bay. Over 98 pement of the 1990 withdrawal came from the Magothy aquifer and the rest from the Lloyd. None of the purveyors plan to establish new well sites in the near future either within or adjacent to the SGPA. WATER QUALITY - Groundwater quality within and adjacent to the Oyster Bay SGPA is generally good with some areas of excellent quality (good: nitrate 1-6 ppm with only intermittent 3-19 Existing Sewage Treatment Plant Proposed Sewage Treatment Plant Public Water Supply Well Site Monitoring Well Site Future Well Site Clears Potential Hazardous Waste Site New York State Superfund Site Petroleum Product Spill Groundwater Divide Northville Industries Direction of Groundwater SGPA Boundry Major Road Network Scale = 1:1600 0 ft. 1600 3200 4800 Figure 3-4 Groundwater Conditions in the Oyster Bay SGPA OYSTER BAY SGPA GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS Petroleum Pipeline Flow TABLE 3-8 Well Sites Within the Oyster Bay SGPA and Within 1 Mile of the Oyster Bay Well Sites Within the SGPA Jedcho Water Distdct Jedcho Water District Jericho Water Distdct Jericho Water District Jericho Water District Jedcho Water Distdct Jedcho Water Distrct Jericho Water District Jericho Water District Jericho Water District Jedcho Water Distdct Jericho Water District Jericho Water District Jericho Water District Jedcho Water Distdct City of Glen Cove City of Glen Cove Oyster Bay Water Distdct Locust Valley Water District Locust Valley Water District Roslyn Water District Ros~yn Water District Old Westbury Village Old Westbury Village Old Westbury Village Old Westbury Village Old Westbury V[Uege Well Sites Within 1 Mile of SGPA NYS Well ii Aquifer N-03474 N-03475 N-06092 N -06093 N-07446 N-07593 N-07772 N-07773 N-07781 N-08043 N-08355 N-08713 N-10149 N-11107 N-11295 N-09210 N-09211 N-04400 N-05152 Uoyd N-07665 Magothy N~4265 Magothy N-07873 Magothy N-00107 Magothy N-O0152 Magothy N-07513 Magothy N-07549 Magothy N-08658 Ma~othy Total NYS Well Jericho Water Distr~ct N-00198 Jericho Water Distdct N-00199 Jedcho Water District N-00570 Jericho Water Distr~ct N-04245 Jedcho Water Distdct N-05201 Jedcho Water District N-06651 Jericho Water District N-07030 r of Glen Cove N-03892 r of Glen Cove N-05261 f o1 Glen Cove N-05762 f of Glen Cove N-08326 of Glen Cove N-09334 Water District N-08183 Water Distdct N-09520 Water District N-00585 Water District N-00735 Water District N-00736 Water District N-03486 Water District N.03561 Water District N-00118 Water Distdct N-0011g · Distdct N-02400 n Water District N-05852 Roe n Water District N-07104 .~ Water Disbrict N-00101 Westbury Water District N-05007 Westbury Water District N-07353 Weetbu~J Water District N-07785 Westbup/Water District N-08007 Sea Cliff Water Company N-00901 Sea Ctitf Water Company N-05792 Sea Cliff Water Company N.07857 AJbertson Water District N-O3732 AIbertean Water District N-03733 AIbertson Water Distdct N-04206 Carle Place Water District N-04206 Cade Place Water Distdct N-06315 Plainview Water District N-07526 Williston Park Water District N-00103 Williston Park Water District N-00104 Garden City Park Water Dist. N-00651 Total Aquifer Magothy Magothy Magothy Magothy Lloyd Magothy Magothy Upper Glacial Upper Glacial Magothy Upper Glacial Magothy Pr. Washington Pr. Washington Upper Glacial] Upper Glacial] Upper Glacial] Upper Glacial] Upper Glacial] Lloyd Source:Nassau County Department of Health and Nassau County Department of Public Works Capacity 1.73 moJ:~ 1.73 mgc 1.73 mgc 1.73 mg¢ 1.73 mgc 1.73 mgc 1.73 mgc 1.73 rage 1.73 mgc 1.73 mgc 2.00 mgc 2.00 rog( 2.00 2.00 2.00 mg( 2.02 mg( 2.02 mg( 1.65 rog( 1.58 m~ 1.73 rog( 1.44 mg( 1.73 m, 2.02 m~ 0.79 m, 1.73 m, 1,73 rr 1.90 mg( 47.64 SGPA 1990 Pumpa,q~ 0.32 rog( 0.29 rog( 0.53 rr 0.45 rr 0.38 rr 0.85 ~r 0.40 m, 0.02 m~ 1.01 m 0.46 m 0.14 m 0.05 m 0.41 m 0,88 m 0.67 m 0.75 m 0.69 m 0.51 m O.1B m o.9g m 0.11 m 0.13 0.00 0.08 0.41 0.41 0.37 m 11.49 m Capacity 1.63 mgd 1.61 mgd 1.73 mgd 1.73 mgd 1.73 mgd 1.73 mgd 1.73 mgd 1.01 mgd 2.02 mgd 2.02 mgd 2.02 mgd 2.02 mgd 1.58 mgd 1.73 mgd Combined Capacity 2.16 mgd 1990 Pumpage 0.27 mgd 0.61 mgd 0.48 mgd 0.97 mgd 0.00 mgd 1.13 mgd 0.00 mgd 0.00 mgd o.00 mgd 1.40 mgd 0.00 mgd 0.92 mgd 0.17 mgd 0.37 mgd Combined 1990 Pumps 0.00 mgd 1.80 mgd 2.30 mgd 1.44 m~l 1.73 mgd 1.73 mgd 1.44 mgd 1.94 mgd 2.02 mgd 2.02 mgd 2.02 mgd 2.50 mgd 1.99 mgd 2.02 mgd 1.44 mgd 1.44 m 1.73 m 2.00 m 1.73 m 2.02 m 1.44 m 1 ,g8 m 0.72 m 64.90 m 0.00 rr 0.00 rr 0.o0 rr 0.72 rr 1.24 n' 0.00 rr 0.37 rr 0.25 ~r 0.14 n* 0.31 rr 0.00 rr 0.76 rr 0.43 ml 0.78 rr o.og r~ 0.67 rr 0.16 rr 0.32 rr 0.30 rr 0.39 rr 0.41 rr 0.00 rr 13.86 mi 3-22 traces of volatile organic chemicals; excellent: ambient, with nitrate less than 1 ppm and no organics detected). This analy- sis of the SGPA water quality is based on public water supply well testing by the Nassau County Department of Health (NCDH) and the public water suppliers (NYS approved private laboratories) and monitoring well testing by the Nassau County Department of Public works (NCDPW). Public water supply well volatile organic chemical (VOC) qual- ity throughout the SGPA is excellent. There are one Lloyd and 26 Magothy public supply wells within the SGPA and seven Magothy public supply wells immediately adjacent to it. Of these 33 Magothy wells, VOCs were detected in only five wells, with a maximum total VOC concentration of 2.2 ppb. All of the wells in which VOCs were detected are located along the borders of the SGPA in or adjacent to commercial or indus- trial areas. No VOCs were detected in the one Lloyd public water supply well. No glacial public supply wells are located in the SGPA. Fourteen Magothy monitoring wells and 16 glacial monitoring wells in or adjacent to the SGPA were tested. VOCs were de- tected in four of the Magothy wells. Total VOCs were less than 3.3 ppb in three wells and the fourth well, located in Oyster Bay Cove, contained 22.6 ppb. Most of the VOC contamina- tion was due to toluene and benzene (16.9 and 4.8 ppb, re- spectively). VOCs were detected in five of the glacial monitoring wells. Three of these, located in the northwestern comer of the SGPA in the City of Glen Cove, contained total VOCs of 7.8, 53.9 and 136.9 ppb, respectively. This isthe only area within the SGPA where significant groundwater contami- nation by VOCs is evident. The SGPA is generally a Iow density residential area, the ma- jority of which is not connected to public sewers. Nitrates in the Magothy vary from none detected (ND.) to 7.14 ppm and in the glacial from N.D. to 8.00 ppm. The level of nitrate in both aquifers was most frequently in the range of 1 to 3 ppm in both public water supply and monitoring wells. No nitrate levels in excess of the ddnking water standard of 10.0 ppm were found. Of the two glacial monitoring wells that exceeded 6 ppm, one is located adjacent to a golf course in Glen Cove and the other is on the Nassau-Suffolk border adjacent to a recently active farming area. The Magothy monitoring well exceeding 6 ppm is adjacent to a golf course in Old Brookville. No public water supply wells (Magothy) exceeded 6 ppm but two exceeded 5 ppm. One of these wells is located outside of the SGPA south of Jericho Turnpike in Jericho and the other is located in Syosset. No specific soumes of this nitrate could be deter- mined. LAND USE - More than three-fifths of the SGPA is in residen- tial use -- generally at densities of one, two or five or more acres per dwelling unit. Single family homes and estates pre- dominate, although a number of high density luxury condo- miniums have been built at the southern edge of the SGPA in the Jericho area. Approximately one-sixth of the area is in open space -- in golf courses, public parks and preserves. Golf courses account for the major portion of acreage in this category. Slightly less than one-tenth of the area is occupied by institu- tional uses, many of them located on properties that were for- merly large private estates. There are a few remaining farms and nurseries within the area and a small number of commercial and industrial uses, most of them located along Jericho Turnpike. See Table 3-9 for a quantification of acreage by land use category and Figure 3-5 for the geographic distribution of existing land uses. Less than six percent of the land is vacant. However, that fig- ure does not represent the amount of land that could be util- ized. Many of the existing estates could be re-subdivided, thus freeing up additional acreage for future development of land uses. ZONING - Zoning in the Oyster Bay SGPA is within the juris- diction of 12 incorporated villages, the Towns of Oyster Bay and North Hempstead and the City of Glen Cove. The greater part of the area is zoned for single-family residen- tial use on lot sizes ranging from less than one acre to five acres. The portions zoned less than one acre are almost negli- gible in size in relation to the total area of the SGPA. In addi- tion to single- family uses, most of the ordinances permit schools, religious uses and membership clubs. The areas zoned commercial are along the SGPA southerly boundary bordering Jericho Turnpike and the area in and around Underhiil Boulevard. PROBLEMS AND CONCERNS - There is an urgent need to preserve existing and potential watershed protection areas as infilling of already subdivided properties adds to the population and water usage in the SGPA. The possible development of key parcels -- components of the proposed greenbelt in the Old Westbury- Brookville-Jericho area, the properties abutting the Muttontown Preserve and the Coe Estate, and the lands within the environmentally sensitive stream corridors or adja- cent to freshwater wetlands -- constitute a major concern. Financially stressed pubiic agencies and private institutions may be tempted to sell currently unused or under-used lands that now provide important groundwater recharge areas. Es- tare owners or their heirs may choose to subdivide or sell their 3-23 Scale 1,: 59604 Figure 3-5 1989 Existing Land Use - Oyster Bay SGPA EXISTING LAND USE - 1989 OYSTER BAY SGPA Residential- Estates Residential - Low Density Residential- Medium Density Residential- High Density Commercial Institutional industrial Agricultural General Open Space Golf Course Cemetery Town,County,State Park/Open Space Utilities Gov't Highway Facilities Vacant Underwater Lands Bate: 7-15-91 TABLE 3-9 Existing Land Usa (acres) in the Oyster Bay SGPA, 1989 1989 Existing Land Use Category Land Use % of Total* Residential 18,640 61.4 Vacant 1,752 5.8 Underwater Land 163 0.5 Commemial 350 1.2 Industrial 78 0.3 Institutional 2,736 9.2 Utilities 933 3.1 Open Space 4,697 15.5 Agricultural 993 3.3 Total 30,342 * Column may not total 100.0 due to rounding. Source:Long Island Regional Planning Board. holdings for development, in some cases limiting opportunities for the protection of existing public open space or critical envi- ronmental areas. Country clubs may decide to offer unused portions of their acreage for housing sites, thus increasing the likelihood of groundwater, especially nitrate, contamination. Although water quality is generally good, there are existing and potential soumes of pollution within or upgradient from the SGPA. Less than 10 percent of the SGPA is sewered. The largest sewered area, part of Nassau County Sewage Disposal Dis- tdct No. 3, is located in the southeastern sector of the SGPA. The other areas, located along the perimeter of the SGPA, are served by the City of Glen Cove and Oyster Bay Sewer Dis- tdct sewage treatment plants (STP). Secondary sewage treatment plants serve C.W. Post College in Brookville and the New York Institute of Technology in Old Westbury. Both plants discharge their effluent to groundwater. Design flows for these plants are 0.273 million gallons per day (MGD) and 0.34 MGD respectively. Average monthly flows for 1990 were 0.086 MGD and 0.017 MGD. A sewage pumping station and rome main are presently under construction by C.W. Post. The sewage will be diverted to the Nassau County Cedar Creek STP and the college's plant will be abandoned upon completion of construction. It is expected that this will occur before year's end. There are two superfund sites located upgradient from the SGPA. They are the Syosset Landfill and Cerre Conduit Com- pany. Two petroleum storage terminals and an organic chemi- cai recovery site straddle the Expressway, just south of the SGPA boundary, in Plainview. The terminals have SPDES dis- charge permits and the recovery operation, which is expected to begin shortly, will also have a discharge permit. A LILCO oil-filled underground power cable lies within the SGPA in the Village of Old Westbury while a section of the Northville petroleum pipeline runs west along the Long Island Expressway from the County line to the terminal at Plainview. No problems with oil leakage have been associated with either facility to date. A loss of approximately 75,000..gallons of fuel oil, which is still under investigation, did take place on the SUNY Old Westbury campus. Golf courses, a significant component of the SGPA open space, have also contributed to groundwater contamination. There is a need to reduce excessive reliance on agricultural chemicals; that is, fertilizers and pesticides, and to select drought resistant species of grass wherever feasible in order to reduce the need for irrigation. There is a need to phase out isolated commercial and indus- tdal uses that could contaminate the groundwater and to pre- vent the establishment of new commercial or industrial uses outside of existing business areas. OPPORTUNITIES - There are opportunities to preserve and expand public and quasi-public holdings within the SGPA. Co- ordinated actions involving the State University at Old West- bury, private clubs and the Town of Oyster Bay could result in the creation of a sizeable permanent greenbelt in the vicinity of the groundwater divide. Nassau County purchase of the fee or the development rights to some or all of the 81 acre parcel on the westerly side of the Muttontown Preserve, or other ad- jacent parcels, could assure the protection and expansion of an extensive watershed preservation areas. A New York State decision to dedicate the underdeveloped Bethpage State Parkway Right of Way as permanent open space could contribute to the establishment of a 271 acre north-south greenbelt extending from Cold Spring Harbor, through the ponds and woodlands along the Nassau-Suffolk border, to Stillwell Woods and finally, to Plainview. There is little opportunity to encourage any type of extensive farmland preservation; however, there are some opportunities to preserve open space through clustering. Generally, the in- corporated villages have not been receptive to the idea of clustering to preserve woodland or other environmentally sen- sitive parcels. The City of Glen Cove and the Town of Oyster Bay have used the cluster technique. There are a few addi- tional opportunities in the unincorporated area of the Town, especially in the Jericho and Woodbury areas, to cluster in or- 3-26 der to add existing open space to land that is already in that category or to buffer future housing from nearby commercial development or major roadways. If the Village of Lattingtown, Mill Neck, Muttontown and Old Bmokville were to use clustering they could preserve portions of currently unprotected stream corridors or could add to ex- isting County or Nature ~Conservancy holdings. Even with den- sity modifications --the reduction of individual pamel sizes by as little as 10 to 15 pement -- the villages could acquire land or development rights so as to preserve or buffer some par- ticularly sensitive areas. Although there is currently little interest in new well sites, the as yet un-subdivided estate lands provide opportunities for the reservation of such sites to meet future needs. Recommendations · New York State, Nassau County and the municipalities should make every effort to preserve the existing open space character and recharge potential of the SGPA. · The State University of New York at Old Westbury should set aside between 275 and 300 acres as a permanent preserve and recharge area. · New York State should either dedicate and manage the unused northern part of the Bethpage State Parkway right of way as a permanent greenbelt or should transfer the land to the County for that purpose. · Nassau County should continue to acquire key watershed parcels as indicated in the preceding section and should provide assistance to , municipalities in the purchase of lands identifieo as major components ofgreenbelts or other significant open space watershed or conservation areas. · The County and the municipalities should consider measures necessary to ensure the preservation of the bgolf courses. Such measures should include but not e limited to the acquisition of development rights, tax abatement and rezoning. · The municipalities should amend their zoning ordinances as necessary to limit the expansion of non-residential uses beyond the boundaries of already committed areas, such as those at the periphery of the SGPA in Glen Head, Oyster Bay and Muttontown and along the Long Island Expressway (L.I.E.) in Woodbury. The small concentrations of commercial activity in Old Brookville, Glen Head, Old Westbury and the large concentration in Jericho should be confined to their existing area. The same is true of the three commercial locations in Woodbury, which comprise the community's main business center. No intensification of commercial activity should be permitted along Route 25A east of the existing business area in Greenvale and, wherever possible, existing non-conforming uses should be phased out. · The Town of Oyster Bay should dedicate the Town owned former sand mine adjacent to the L.I.E. as permanent open space. However, if that is not feasible, the Town should sell the property for commercial development that would have minimal impact on groundwater quantity or quality and should utilize the proceeds of that sale for the acquisition of open space of comparable economic and environmental value elsewhere in the SGPA. · The water purveyors, in cooperation with the Nassau County Department of Health and the Nassau County Department of Public Works, should identify areas where well sites may be needed in the futura and should notify the municipalities in which these areas are located. Prior notice of purveyor interest will help to ensure the availability of suitable well sites at such time as they are needed. See Figure 3-6 for the location of Plan Land Uses and Tables 3-10 and 3-11 for Plan Land Use acreage by Land Use Cate- gory and a comparison of existing and Plan Land Use, respectively. TABLE 3-10 Plan Land Use (acres) in the Oyster Bay SGPA Plan Land Use Category Land Use % of Total** Residential 18,916 62.3 Vacant 0 0.0 Underwater Land 122 0.4 Commercial 357 1.2 Industrial 67 0.2 Institutional 2,690 8.9 Utilities 866 2.9 Open Space 7,279 24.0 Agricultural 52 0.2 Others* -- Total 30,349 * Others includes plan options, such as planned unit development, landfill reclama~on, relocation, etc., that could not be assigned to a specific land use category. **Column may not total 100.0 due to rounding Source: Long Island Regianal Planning Board 3-27 0 fl, Figure 3-6 Plan Land Use - Oyster Bay SGPA - PLAN OYSTER BAY Residential- Estate Residential- Low Residential- High Commercial institutional industrial Preserved Farmland Open Space Utilities Vacant Underwater Lands Scale I: 59604 4967 9934 14901 Date: 7-15-91 SGPA Proposed Open Space Acquistion Cluster Development Farmland - Cluster Replaf and Cluster OTHER Relocate TDR (Transfer of Development) Purchase Dev./Farm Dev. Right Industrial Cluster Reclaim Dump Fill and Redevelop PUD Mixed Use Historic District TABLE 3-11 Existing and Plan Land Use (acres) in the Oyster Bay SGPA Change 1989 Existing Plan (+ = gain; Land Use Cate,qory Land Use Land Use - = loss) Residential 18,640 18,916 +276 Vacant 1,752 0 -1,752 Underwater Land 163 122 -41 Commercial 350 357 +7 Industrial 78 67 -11 Institutional 2,736 2,690 -46 Utilities 933 866 -67 Open Space 4,697 7,279 +2,582 Agricultural 993 52 -941 Others* -- -- -- Total 30,342 30,349 · Others incJuclas plan options, such as planned unit development, landfill reclamaf~on, relocation, etc., that could not be assigned to a specific land use category. 3-30 West Hills-Melville SGPA GENERAL BACKGROUND - The 6,708 acre West Hills- Melville SGPA is the westernmost groundwater protection area in Suffolk County and is an easterly extension of the partially contiguous Oyster Bay Pilot araa in Nassau County. Most of the area is located in the Town of Huntington; how- ever, a small but critical portion is in the Town of Babylon. ' The SGPA is characterized by varied topography - the highest point in the bi-county region is located in the SPGA, a mix of land uses, a major New York State Developmental Facility and significant open space. SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY - This SGPA contains three differ- ent soil associations. The Carver-Plymouth-Riverhead asso- ciation juts into the center of the area from the southwest comer and covers approximately 20% of the area, including the West Hills County Park. Found on the Ronkonkoma mo- raine, this association is characteristically rolling, with slopes ranging from nearly level to steep. The soils ara excessively drained due to the coarse-textured sand and sandy loam which makes up much of the surface layers and subsoils. This sandy texture combined with slope makes these soils poorly suited to farming. However, they readily support residential and recreational land uses. Another soil association found in this SGPA is the Montauk- Haven- Riverhead association. It covers approximately 50% of the area. This association is noted for rolling hills and morainal soils that ara nearly level to strongly sloping. A few boulders dot the landscape of these soils, and the West Hills County Park araa has many kettle holes that remain wet or water-filled most of the year. In general, these soils are well-drained to moderately well drained, and ara medium-textured to coarse- textured. The soils are well suited to farming, but the more sloping areas may be subject to severe erosion. Slow infiltra- tion in the subsurface fragipan layer presents moderate limita- tion to excavation and housing developments. The Haven-Riverhead soil association also appeam within this SGPA and comprises approximately 20% of the area. Found on outwash plains, these soils are nearly level with short, gen- tle slopes along shallow drainage ways. Slopes range from 1 to 12 percent. Because these soils have good drainage and moderately high available moisture capacities, this as- sociation provides one of the best farming soils in the County. VEGETATION ASSOCIATIONS - According to existing litera- ture, the vegetation association within the West Hills SGPA consists of oak- dominated forests. Andrew M. Greller, in a pa- per on mature forests on Long Island, identified oak-mountain laurel and oak-mixed heath forests in this araa, as well as throughout central Long Island, on and south of the Ronkonk- oma moraine. The major woodlands within this SGPA are found within West Hills County Park andthe adjacent araa and in the Half Hollow Hills region south of the Expressway. The latter area represents a transitional zone that supports ele- ments of both the northern oak forest and oak brush pi'ains as- sociation. The woods consist mainly of oaks -- white, black, red and scarlet -- and an understory that includes flowering dogwood, blueberry and maple-leaved viburnum. In some of the moister areas such as depressions and swales, American beech, red maple and black birch can also be, found. For many years agriculture flourished within this SGPA and it still exists in several areas today. Previously cleared fields now in various stages of succession can also be found throughout the SGPA. Abandoned fields in first succession contain such species as broom grass, goldenrod, buttedly weed, St. John's wort, evening primrose, astor, strawberry, rabbit-foot clover and reindeer lichen, as well as remnants of former agricultural crops. Downs and overgrown fields in second succession are distinguished by the incursion of small trees and woody shrubs into the abandoned field habitat. Such species may include black cherry, grey birch, swamp juneberry, smooth sumac, winged sumac, pitch pine and sassafras, as well as under- growth including bayberry, blackberry and huckleberry. In addi- tion, some areas of West Hills Park and other areas throughout the SGPA contain first growth woods, characterized by trees such as black locust, wild black cherry, red cedar, ailanthus, and grey birch, as well as undergrowth including poison ivy, raspberries, multiflora rose, catbriar and grape, among others. RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES AND SIGNIFICANT HABITATS - Five rare and endangered species were identified in the West Hills-Melville SGPA. The southeast portion of Half Hollow Hills, near Colonial Springs, serves as habitat for three significant plant species: St. Andrews cross, dwarf plantain, and tick-trefoil, in the Cold Spring Harbor area, two rata and endangered plant species were reported around the stream's pond system and associated freshwater wetlands. The only currently known New York location of bushy St. John's wort is located here as well. SURFACE WATERS AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS - Within the West Hills- Melville SGPA there is an elongated cor- ridor of freshwater wetlands adjacent to the stream that leads into Cold Spring harbor. Except for this corridor, which is a 3-31 Class I wetland, all others in this SGPA are ranked as Class II wetlands. Other wetlands include a few kettleholes in the West Hills area, as well as some small freshwater wetlands in the southeast corner of the SGPA within the Town of Babylon. There is a total of 91 acres of wetlands in this SGPA. HYDROGEOLOGY - The West Hills-Melville SGPA straddles the groundwater divide in westernmost Suffolk. The divide runs approximately east-northeast from Manetto Hills at the Nas- sau- Suffolk border, and is located in the region between and just north of Old Country Road and Northern State Parkway. Both the northern and southern portions of the SGPA lie within the deep recharge zone, where groundwater flow has a signifi- cant downward component. Glacial and Magothy deposits underlie the entire SGPA, al- though their relative thicknesses vary significantly from north to south. Glacial scouring removed most of the Magothy in the northern region, where glacial deposits now extend to depths of -400 feet. The Magothy reaches a maximum thickness of about 700 feet near the divide, where it extends above ssa level. In this region and to the south, glacial deposits are rela- tively thin, and the top of the Magothy occasionally lies less than 100 feet below the water table. No significant clay units are present below any portion of the SGPA, so there are no barriers to inhibit the natural downward flow of recharge, or prevent the drawdown of surface contamination by deep public water supply wells. GROUNDWATER FLOW - Vertical flow is greatest near the di- vide, where groundwater moves downward at a rate on the or- der of 6 feet per year. Horizontal flow north and south of the divide has a slight easterly component due to the influence of the water table mound located near the Nassau-Suffolk border. To the far north, shallow flow is influenced by Cold Spring Harbor and has a western component. Horizontal flow rates are generally less than one foot per day, making the natural travel time through the aquifer system several hundred years or more for water recharged near the divide. See Figure 3-7 WATER SUPPLY - Five public water supply well fields lie within the boundaries cf the SGPA, and another eight are lo- cated adjacent to or immediately downgradient of the area; their combined pumpage (8.55 mgd) is equal to about 15% of the total pumpage for the Towns of Huntington and Babylon. See Table 3-12. The pementage of pumpage used outside the boundaries of the SGPA is probably large; thus, net withdrawals for the re- gion are on the order of 3/4 of average recharge (assuming an area of 12 square miles and a recharge rate of about 1 mgd/sq mi). The watershed, therefore, has only limited potential for in- creased utilization. TABLE 3-12 Water Supply - West Hills SGPA Well Fields Within the SGPA Capacih/ 1987 Puml)a.c~e SCWAHarbor Rd. 2.02 mgd 0.24 mgd So. Huntington Gynne Rd. #9 2.02 mgd 0.68 mgd So. Huntington Old Country Rd #16 1.44 mgd 0.09 mgd So. Huntington Old Country Rd. #4 1.73 mgd 0.25 mgd Dix Hills Elkland Rd. 2.02 mgd 0.53 mgd Total 9.23 mgd 1.79 mgd Fields Adjacent to the SGPA 1987 Capaci~ Pumpa,qe East Farmingdale Route 110 2.02 mgd 0.73 mgd SCWA Woodchuck Hollow Rd. 6.34 mgd 1.30 mgd SCWA Circle Dr. 4.90 mgd 1.21 mgd So. Huntington West Rogues Rd. 1.44 mgd 0.40 mgd So. Huntington Oakwocd Rd. 1.99 mgd 1.15 mgd So. Huntington Downs Rd. 1.99 mgd 0.94 mgd So. Huntington Walt Whitman Rd. 4.03 mgd 0.64 mgd East Farmingdale Gazza Blvd. 4.03 mgd 0.39 mgd Total 26.74 mgd 6.76 mgd WATER QUALITY - Groundwater quality within and immedi- ately downgradient of the SGPA can be inferred from public water supply well data. These data indicate that, in general, groundwater quality is good (i.e., nitrate 1-6 ppm, only intermit- tent traces of organics) to excellent (ambient, i.e., nitrate less than 1 ppm, no organics). Some isolated contamination prob- lems exist, however, and some negative trends have been identified. Groundwater quality in the region near the divide has been im- pacted somewhat by past agricultural activities and more re- cent residential and commercial development. Nitrates in Magothy public supply wells 300-450 feet deep have in- creased in recent years to the 4-6 ppm range; traces of or- ganics have been detected on one or two occasions (South Huntington W.D. Old Country Read Plants #16 and #4). Even the 660-foot Magothy well at South Huntington's Gwynne Road (Plant #9) wellfield has shown spikes of inorganic and trace organic contamination, although the general quality is still excellent. Farther south, Magothy wells 550-700 feet deep located along the Route 110 Corridor have remained unimpacted, even though the wellfields -- South Huntington W.D. Wait Whitman Road, East Farmingdale W.D. Route 110- are in commercial/industrial areas, and the wells are high ca- pacity (1,300 gpm). 3-32 Water from public supply wells in the Half Hollow Hills portion of the SGPA is generally of excellent quality, although the 700- foot Magothy well at the Dix Hills W.D.'s Elldand Road welffield did experience a brief occurrence of tract organics (18 ppb TCE) in 1984. Pristine water quality has consistently been found in all four wells (200' glacial, 230' Magothy, 530' Mag- orby, 620' Magothy) at the SCWA's Circle Drive welJfield just south of the SGPA, reflecting the very Iow intensity of land use in upgredient areas. To the north of the groundwater divide, Magothy water quality remains at or near the pdstine level, as reflected by the quality of supply wells at South Huntington W.D.'s Downs Road and Oakwood Road wellfields (both located just outside the SGPA boundary). Glacial water quality, including deep glacial, has been impacted to various extents, presumably due to past ag- ricultural activities and more recent resJdentia~ development. The 300-foot glacial well at South Huntington W.D.'s West Rogues Path wellfield has experienced an upward trend in ni- trates since the 1970% reaching 3.2 ppm in 1987. Nitrate con- centrations in the 250-300' glacial wells at the SCWA's Harbor Road wellfield (along the Nassau-Suffolk border in the north- ernmost portion of the SGPA) show minimal impact, ranging from 1-2 ppm. Significant impairment, however, is seen at the SCWA's Woodchuck Hollow wellfield located just north of the SGPA where three glacial wells over 500 feet deep have had nitrate levels up to 7 ppm, and have been contaminated with traces of the agricultural fumigant 1,2-dichloropropane, prompting the installation of carbon filters. LAND USES - Almost all of the West-Hills-Melville SGPA is in iow intensity uses. See Table 3-13 for a listing of acreage by land use category. Residential and open space uses account for more than three- fifths of the total area. Agricultural uses occupy slightly less than one-tenth of the area and nearly one out of every eight acres remains vacant. Residential densities are typically one unit per acre or more in the West Hills portion of the SGPA; more than one dwelling unit per acre in the Melville portion. In the Huntington part of the area, there is extensive public open space in the vicinity of the divide. Most of this open space is Suffolk C:ounty land that is excellently located for wa- tershed preservation. The West Hills County Park already con- tains pumping sites of the South Huntington Water District. Two recreational facilities, the 780 acre West Hills County Park and the 460 acre Federation of Jewish Philanthropies Camp, account for the major portion of the open space. Both contain TABLE 3-13 Existing Land Use (acres) in the West 1989 Hills-Melville SGPA, Land Use Cate.qory Residential Vacant Underwater Land Commemial Industrial Institutional Utilities Open Space Agricultural Total 1989 Existing Land Uee % of Total* 2,174 32.4 813 12.1 16 0.2 81 1.2 1 0.0 568 8.5 470 7.0 1,956 29.2 629 9.4 6,708 * Column may not total 100.0 due to rounding. Source:Long Island Regianal Planning Board, large expanses of undisturbed natural vegetation. The 149 acre Cold Spring Country club is the largest private recreation area. Other conservation or recreational holdings include the County- owned Wicks and Froelich Farms at the north end of the SGPA, town lands in a few locations, State properties and the Nature Conservancy headquarters. One of the State prop- erties is a right-of-way for the proposed Bethpage Parkway ex- tension adjacent to Route 108. Most agricultural uses are located in the Melville sector where growers produce high value crops, for the most part, sod and nursery stock. There are numerous institutional uses, of which the largest is the 515 acre New York State Long Island Devel- opment Center. There is a small amount of commemial devel- opment and virtually no industry within the SGPA; however, the adjacent Route 110 Corridor is Long Island's largest em- ployment center, with extensive acreage in commemial and in- dustrial use. See Figure 3-8 for the geographic distribution of land uses. ZONING - Virtually all of the SGPA is zoned for residential use, Allowable densities range from two acres per dwelling unit in much of West Hills to one acre per dwelling unit in the remain- der of the Town of Huntington portion of the SGPA. Resi- dences are permitted on one-fourth of an acre in the Babylon portion, A small area is zoned for commemlal use. PROBLEMS AND CONCERNS - The retention of the existing open space and the watershed protection benefits it provides constitutes the single most important concern. The ultimate disposition of the Federation of Jewish Philanthropies site, up- gradient from a nearby wellfield outside the SGPA; of the va- cant acreage south of the Long Island Expressway and TURN?IK£ N id, Existing Sewage Treatment Plant Proposed Sewage Treatment Plant Public Water Supply Well Site Monitoring Well Site Future Well Site Clears Potential Hazardous Waste New York State Superfund Site Petroleum Product Spill Site ~ Groundwater Divide Northville Industries Petroleum Pipeline Direction of Groundwater Flow SGPA Boundry Major Road Network 0 ff. Scale = 1:1644 1644 3288 4932 Figure 3-7 Groundwater Conditions for the West Hills SGPA WEST HILLS / MELVILLE SGPA GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS DAT~ 0 fL Sc~e 1:45192 3766 7532 Figure 3-8 1989 Existing Land Use for the West Hills SGPA EXISTING LAND USE - 1989 WEST HILLS / MELVILLE SGPA Residential- Estates Residential- Low Density Residential - Medium Density Residential - High Density Commercial Institutional Industrial Agricultural General Open Space Golf Course Cemetery Town,County,State Park/Open Space Utilities Oov'f Highway Facilities Vacant Underwater Lands LOCATION MAP adjacent to the Town of Huntington park; of the State owned but undeveloped Bethpage Parkway extension right-of-way, close to the ponds leading to Cold Spring Harbor; of the Cold Spring Country Club, of the Otto Kahn estate may either pre- serve or reduce the quantity and quality of the recharge that reaches the aquifer. A major institutional use, the Suffolk Development Center, oc- cupies almost 500 acres. There is a proposal to use a portion of the open land for group residences and to utilize the existing buildings for other uses. The potential intensification of devel- opment, with the loss of open space and the additional burden on the currently inadequate sewage treatment facility, is a seri- ous concern. The need to reduce or mitigate contamination associated with past or present point and non-point soumes and to preclude the introduction of new sources is also a concern. The aquifer system in and around the SGPA has been impacted to varying degrees by point and non-point contamination associated with agricultural, residential, and various commercial/industrial land use activities. Areas outside the SGPA contributing contamina- tion to the SGPA include the region south of the divide from Route 110 east, and the region south of the Long Island Rail- read to the east of the SGPA boundary. The point sources include two STP's and a small number of other facilities with SPDES permits for discharges to ground- water. The Times Square Mall STP, located just upgradient of the SPGA near the groundwater divide, is a tertiary plant that until the early 1980% produced total nitrogen concentrations as high as 24 ppm in groundwater at the recharge site. The other STP, at the Suffolk Developmental Center, is an old secondary plant at which no groundwater monitoring has been con- ducted. Monitoring wells will be required in the near future as part of the upgrade requirements. Some nearby commercial and industrial operations may have already affected the groundwater. There are 150 to 200 facili- ties with Article 12 Hazardous Materials Storage Permits in and around the SGPA (including the entire Melville industrial area). The groundwater impacts of past storage and disposal practices and inadvertent discharges at these facilities are un- known. The past and continuing use of agricultural chemicals and the compatibility of farm practices with groundwater pro- tection is another concern. Northville Industries' petroleum pipeline traverses the SGPA. The line runs from the Hoitsville terminal along the Long Island Expressway to the terminal in Plainview. Pressure testing is conducted every year in accordance with an agreement with the New York State Public Service Commission; thus far, no problems have been detected. OPPORTUNITIES - There are several opportunities to acquire the fee or lesser interests in key watershed protection proper- ties and to use clustering to preserve open space in conjunc- tion with development. The 460 acre Federation of Jewish Philathropies property in Wheatley Heights is just north of the main SCWA well site that serves the Wheatley Heights and Wyandanch area. Acquisition of the fee or of the development rights to this camp property could guarantee that an open space use would remain in this generally built-up area. There is also a small wetland area in the Town of Babylon and near the camp site. Preservation of the wetland would en- hance habitat diversity as well as groundwater protection. Acquisition of several small pamels near the ridge line in Hunt- ington would permit a 90 acre expansion of the Town Park and the creation of protected sites for future wells. E~pansion of the Town holdings near Old Bethpage Village to include vacant outparcels could create a watershed preserve that could also serve as a buffer between residential uses and future industrial area. State retention of the Huntington portion of the Bethpage Parkway right-of-way and dedication of the land as a conser- vation area could create a permanent greenbelt in an ecologi- cally sensitive area. Public pumhase of the fee or development rights, the transfer of development dghts and even clustering could be used to }reserve the one golf course and a sizeable portion of the Kahn estate should the present owners decide to sell. There are some opportunities for clustering that would add newly dedicated open space to existing open areas and would provide somewhat larger watershed protection sites. A State determination to limit occupancy and retain most of the existing open space at the Suffolk County Developmental Center could insure the maximization of clean recharge in an area served by an old sewage treatment plant. There are two opportunities for some planned development that are immediately adjacent to the major commercial and in- dustrial uses but could provide mostly residential uses, or of- fice development combined with some open space. That approach could be useful, especially on the tract that is north of the Long Island Expressway and east of Pinelawn Road. 3-38 Recommendations Preserve the existing open space as described under Opportunities and depicted in Figure 3-9, Plan Land Use. Suffolk County should purchase the fee or development rights to the Federation property and to small parcels adjacent to the West Hills County Park. The Town of Huntington should purchase or otherwise acquire vacant pamels ad acent to the other town holdings within the SGPA. In the event that it is unable to acquire these lands, development should be limited to ow density residential use with mandatory clustering as recommended in the Melville GElS and the Town s Comprehensive Plan. TABLE 3-14 Plan Land Use (acres) in the West Hills SGPA P/an Land Use Category Land Use % of Total** Residential 2,643 39.4 Vacant 0 0.0 Underwater Land 16 0.2 Commemial 73 1.1 Industrial 2 0.0 Institutional 516 7.7 Utilities 527 7.9 Open Space 2,882 43.0 Agricultural 50 0.7 Others* -- Total 6,709 * Others includes plan options, such as planned unit develolxnent, landfill reclamaf~on, relocation, etc., that could not be assigned to a specific land use categor~ ~*Column may not total 100.0 due to rounding. Source: Long Island Regional Planning Board · The State of New York should dedicate the Bethpage Parkway right- of-way as a permanent greenbelt. · The Town of Huntington should facilitate the transfer of development rights and the use of clustering wherever feasible, to preserve the maximum amount of open space. (See Tables 3-14 and 15). · New York State should refrain from selling off land and buildings or otherwise increasing the residential density or the intensity of uses on the State School property. · The State should upgrade the existing STP to provide tertiary treatment. TABLE 3-15 Existing and Plan Land Use (acres) in the West Hills SGPA Change 1989 Existing Plan (+ = gain; Land Use Category Land Use Land Use - = loss) Residential 2,174 2,643 +469 Vacant 813 0 -813 Underwater Land 16 16 0 Commemial 81 73 -8 Industrial 1 2 +1 Institutional 568 516 -52 Utilities 470 527 +57 Open Space 1,956 2,882 +926 Agricultural 629 50 -579 Others* -- -- -- Total 6,708 6,709 * Others includes plan options, such as planned unit development, landfill realamaf~on, relocation, etc., that could not be assigned to a specif c and use category. 3-3g Scale 1:45192 0 ft. 3766 7.532 11298 Figure 3-9 Plan Land Use for the West Hills SGPA - PLAN - WEST HILLS / MELVILLE SGPA Residential- Estate Residential- Low Residential- High Commercial Institutional Industrial Preserved Farmland Open Space Utilities Vacant Underwater Lands Proposed Open Space Acquistion Cluster Development Farmland - Cluster Replat and Cluster OTHER Relocate TDR (Transfer of Development) Purchase Dev./Farm Dev. Right Industrial Cluster Reclaim Dump Fill and Redevelop PUD Mixed Use Historic District Location Map Oak Brush Plains SGPA GENERAL BACKGROUND - This small SGPA covers a little over 3,000 acres located at the juncture of the Towns of Smithtown, Huntington, Babylon and Islip. The SGPA extends from Hauppauge Road to Long Island Avenue, in the vicinity of the Long Island Expressway/Sagtikos Parkway interchange. The Oak Brush Plains SGPA is unique in two respects; namely, the nature of the existing vegetative cover and the predominance of institutional land uses. The shrubby heath- oak brush thickets constitute the largest single area of its kind on Long Island. The predominant institutional land use which accounts for approximately 60% of the area, includes the Pilgrim State Psychiatric Center, the currently abandoned Edgewood State Hospital, the Western Campus of Suffolk County Community College and an adjacent junior high within the Brentwood School District. SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY - A single soil association, the Haven- Biverhead is present throughout approximately 95% of the area. This well-drained, medium-textured, outwash plain soil association occurs on level to gently sloping sectors of the SGPA. Slopes range from one to twelve percent. Due to good permeability and ease of excavation, such soils are generally suitable both for farming--with supplementary irrigation--and for residential developments. The Carver-Plymouth-Riverhead association is present in the remaining five pement of the SGPA. Found on slopes ranging from nearly level to steep, these coarse-textured sandy soils and sandy loams occupy a small, roiling morainal area south of the Northern State Parkway. Although the sandy texture and steep slopes limit farming uses, the soils are well suited for housing and recreational purposes. VEGETATION ASSOCIATIONS - The major vegetation asso- ciation within the Oak Brush Plains SGPA is part of an approxi- mately 1,400 acre, largely wooded system, referred to as the Edgewood Oak Brush Plains. This area, which comprises a sizeable tract of natural woodlands, represents the northern portion of coastal-plain vegetation found on Long Island. The Oak Brush Plains are a manifestation of past glacial activ- ity, which deposited vast quantities of permeable sand/gravel soils, forming Long Island's outwash plain. These infertile droughty, sandy soils, coupled with repeated fires, have shaped the ecology of the Oak Brush Plains community in this SGPAarea. Most of the woodland areas in the SGPA have been bumed over by severe fires one or more times in recent history. Dry soil surface conditions and brushy vegetative cover have fa- vored the repeated occurrence of fires and the development of a fire climax ecosystem. Fires maintain short, thick heath and oak shrub layer and the sparse canopy that typify this dry eco- system. Species capable of reproducing under stressful and recurring fire conditions have become dominant, with plants and animals adapting to life in a fire-prone environment. John F. Cryan and John L. Turner in the Long Island Pine Barrens Society Newsletter, ~'~.e Hec~h/-J'en, have deso~ibed the Oak Brush Plains vegetation as follows: .... All upland oak brush plains vegetation is dominated by shrubby thickets composed vertically of three layers an upper layer of two dwarf oak species, scrub or bear oak and dwarf chestnut oak 0.5 to 2 m (1.5 to 6 feet) tall, a middle shrub layer dominated by plants of the heath family (Ericaceae) and relatives, commonly black huckie- berry, early and late Iowbush blueberries, staggerbush, and sweetfern, and a shrub and herb layer with winter- green, bearberry, tailing arbutus (rarely), and pine bar- rens heather, with incorporated herbs like blue and pine barrens toadflax, pinweeds, blue lupine, and frostweeds. Horizontally, oak brush plains vegetation is strongly pat- terned as well, with large areas of dwarf oak thicket, so dense that walking through them is impossible, peri- odically punctuated by large to small openings filled with emergent grasses and wildflowers, especially prairie grasses, asters, and goldenrods, which need full sunlight unimpeded by shrubs to reach their mature heights of over two feet. Above this species-rich shrub thicket in most of the re- gion are scattered, columnar pitch pines, bereft of limbs along their lower trunks, with scraggly flat-topped crowns. Most of these trees now are mere shadows of the formerly majestic pines, 80 feet tall and 2 to 3 feet in basal diameter, which originally loomed over vast, im- penetrable stretches of dwarf oak thicket, but which were lost to greedy colonial lumbermen for navel stores, barrel staves, and torchwood. The pitch pines of the Oak Brush Plains were and still are physically and ecologi- cally distinct from populations of this tree species in other Long Island Pine Barrens regions to the east. Parcels that were not as severely burned are interspersed among the brush areas. These parcels are vegetated with a canopy of pitch pine (P~nus Rinds) and a less dense shrub layer. The absence of oak trees and the abundance of under- story shrubs have created an unusual vegetative association recognized by the New York State Legislature, NYSDEC, and New York State Natural Heritage Program for its radty among pine barrens communities. 3-42 RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES AND SIGNIFICANT HABITATS - The Edgewood section or southwest corner of the SGPA provides habitat for five rare and endangered species including the southern yellow flax (Threatened-T) and lespedeza (Rare species-R). Two animal species, the common barn owl (Special Concern - SC) and the coastal barrens buck- moth (SC) are also reported here. One type of rare plant, the New England blazing star, can be found in the southeast cor- ner of the SGPA. SURFACE WATERS AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS - There are no surface waters or freshwater wetlands identified within this SGPA. HYDROGEOLOGY - This west central Suffolk SGPA is located in Hydrogeologic Zone ]. The groundwater divide and the di- rection of the groundwater flow in the SGPA and vicinity are shown in Figure 3-10. As indicated, the area lies south of the groundwater divide and east of the Huntington water table mound. Water recharging the aquifer beneath the Oak Brush Plains has a significant vertical component. Most of the SGPA is located on the glacial outwash plain that lies south of the Ronkonkoma terminal moraine. In the small portion of the SGPA north of the east-west trending Ronkonkoma moraine, the Smithtown clay unit lies within the sequence of glacial deposits some 130' below land surface and 65' below the water table; however, there is no evidence that the unit represents a significant aquiclude in this region. The northern limit of Gardiners Clay is usually estimated to lie south of the SGPA, although a clay unit if variable thickness and unknown continuity was found some 75'-95' below the water table in and around the SGPA during the Flow Augmen- tation Needs Study and the Multi-Town Resoume Recovery site investigation. The eroded, irregular surface of the Magothy is found some 150'-300' below grade (100'-260' below the water table), with the greatest depths located central to the SGPA. GROUNDWATER FLOW - The direction of horizontal ground- water flow is controlled in large part by the Huntington water table mound to the west. Radial flow off the mound results in a large easterly component of flow throughout the SGPA, with an increasing southerly component from north to south. Hod- zontal flow rates are generally on the order of one foot per day. WATER SUPPLY - The Suffolk County Water Auth'ority pro- vides potable water to much of the area, while the Brentwoed Water District(WD) serves the remainder, including the Pilgrim State Hospital. There are no public water supply wells within the Oak Brush Plains; however, there are six community water supply well fields located adjacent to or just downgradient of TABLE 3-16 Water Supply - Oak Brush Plains SGPA 1987 Fields Downgradient of SGPA SCWA Wicks Road SCWA Emjay Blvd. SCWA Locust Drive SCWA Industry Court Brentwood WD Morris St. Brentwood WD Third Ave. Total Capacity Purnpage 5.04 mgd 0.73 mgd 5.47 mgd 1.61 mgd 4.03 mgd 0.62 mgd 3.46 mgd 0.75 mgd 5.18 mgd 2.30 mgd 3.74 mgd 1.02 mgd 26.92 mgd 7.02 mgd the SGPA. Table 3-16 lists the well fields by location, capacity and 1987 average pumpage. The combined 1987 average daily pumpage of 7.0 mgd repre- sents about 26% of the total installed pumping capacity at the fields. The maximum day pumpage is usually estimated at 4-5 times the daily average for large systems like the Suffolk County Water Authority and Brentwood Water District. WATER QUALITY - The quality of the shallow groundwater in several SGPA and nearby locations is unsatisfactory. Samples drawn from observation wells reveals excessive nitrate or or- ganic concentration or even both. (See discussion of problems and concerns). The quality of the deeper groundwater is un- known, but may be reflected in part by that of the water from three shallow Magothy (375'-418') wells at the SCWA Wicks Road wellfield, which have up to 7.7 ppm nitrate and traces of organics in the two shallowest wells. Most of the Magothy supply wells located downgradient of the SGPA still have pristine water; these include the 283' and 654' wells at SCWA Industry Court, the 611' well at SCWA Locust Drive, the 515' and 753' wells at Brentwood Water District Third Avenue, and the 755' well at Brentwood Water District Morris Street. Slightly elevated nitrate concentrations (2-2.5 ppm), however, have been detected in the three 600+' wells at SCWA Emjay Boulevard, and even higher concentrations (5.2 ppm) have been found at the 436' well at Brentwood WD Morris Street. LAND USE - Institutional facilities, together with ancillary uses and associated open land predominate, occupying some 60 pement of the area. However, in terms of acreage committed to a specific use, open space, including publicly owned land, a golf course and a cemetery, constituted the largest single cate- gory, accounting for more than one-fourth of the SPGA; utili- ties, the second largest with just one-fourth and educational and health facilities, third largest, with also just under one- fourth, accounted for one-tenth. See Table 3-17 for a quantifi- cation by land use category. 3-43 @ 0 SCDHS S-45210 Organic Coutaminatloa 1982 ! SA NORTHERN STATE PKV Sca le 1:2687 L I ,~Eup~ess~ @ rim St, tal @ @ @ NYS 495 8reul 8reatwood Third Ave.~ 8061 Existing Sewage Treatment Plant Proposed Sewage Treatment Plant Public Water Supply WeJ] Site ~ Monitoring We~ J Site Future ~el J Site J-~ Clears Potential Hazardous Waste L-~ New York State Superfund Site Petroleum Product Spi~l Groundwater Divide Northvi I le ~ndustries Petroleum Direction of Groundwater F~ow /~/ SGPA Boundry ,/%/ ~ajor Road Network Known Contaminated Plume LOCATION MAP Figure 340 Groundwater Conditions for the Oak Brush Plains SGPA OAK BRUSH PLAINS SGPA GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS Site Pipeline TABLE 3-17 Existing Land Use (acres) in the Oak Brush Plains SGPA, 1989 Land Use Cateqor~ 1989 Existing Land Use % of Total* Residential 2 0.1 Vacant 367 11.7 Underwater Land 0 0.0 Commercial 80 2.6 Industrial 307 9.8 Institutional 763 24.4 Utilities 771 24.7 Open Space 825 26.4 Agricultural 10 0.3 Total 3,125 · Column may not total 100.0 due to rounding. Source: Long Island Regional Planning Board. Recreation and open space uses are located on portions of the institutional properties. Approxirnately 700 acres of open space is presently owned by the NYSDEC. This includes the former Edgewood State Hospital property and adjacent lots. The Hamlet Golf Course is the only private recreational facility within the study area. It is located in the northernmost section of the SGPA. Utilities include the new Deer Park Long Island Railroad Sta- tion and expanded parking lot, located along the southern bor- der of the area. Two park and ride areas are located adjacent to the Long Island Expressway exits within the SGPA. Institutional uses, or health and educational facilities, comprise the Pilgrim State Hospital, the Community College, and a school. There are approximately 100 acres of vacant wooded land on the Multi-town Solid Waste Management Authority property and an additional 88 acres on a parcel owned by the Town of Islip. A large area of open fields is located on the SCCC prop- erty along Wicks Road. (See Figure 3-11). There is a 300+ acre industrial development, the Heartland In- dustrial Park, located south of the Pilgrim State Hospital com- plex. The pamel has been completely cleared of vegetation and, as of January 1988, industdal/commemial development has been initiated on about one-fourth of the area. A large sand mining operation is located north of the Long Island Expressway. Scattered commercial uses are located along Commack Road. There is a shopping mall at the intersection of Commack Road and the LIE, where there is also a hotel facility and a large cin- ema complex. Other commercial uses are located among mixed industrial uses, including a construction yard, along Crooked Hill Road south of the LIE and along Long Island Ave- nue near Commack Road. ZONING - This SGPA has a wide range of zoning categories since it is located in four towns. However, since there is a large amount of public ownership of the land, the zoning is not a sig- nificant factor because many uses are exempt from local zon- ing decisions. The public land in the Town of Islip is all zoned for single family homes on one acre lots, while the privately owned industrially zoned land has minimum requirements of 1/4 and ¥~ acre per building lot. The open space and institu- tional land in the Town of Babylon is zoned for single family homes on V4 acre lots. The Town of Huntington zoning pro- vides for single family homes on V2 acre or acre lots. Although it covers a small area, the zoning in the Town of Smithtown is more complex. It encompasses three separate categories of business districts, one of wholesale services and two of various types of light and heavy industry, along with a small segment of residentially zoned land with minimum lot sizes of 1/4 acre. PROBLEMS AND CONCERNS - The aquifer system in and around the SGPA has been impacted to varying degrees by point and non-point source contamination associated with resi- dential and institutional land use activities. The region just south of Northern State Parkway has been heavily impacted by organic chemicals that were first identified in private wells along Crooked Hill Road. A 1982 SCDHS fol- low-up investigation found total organic concentrations as high as 41,000 ppb; contamination generally increased with depth in the upper 30 feet of aquifer (the only horizon sampled). The source of this contamination was not identified, but was prob- ably illegal dumping at a recharge basin on Motor Parkway. Possible, but less likely sources, included an old landfill b- cated on mile upgradient, and Deutsch Relays, located two miles upgradient, which is known to have discharged organics with a similar fingerprint. The central portion of the SGPA has been affected by a num- ber of point and non-point scurcas. Road runoff impacts were detected in test well B-1 installed on Commack Road during the Multi-Town study. Here chloride was slightly elevated (16 ppb) and petroleum odors were detected, although only lead (12 ppb) was found in the water sample. Contamination of residential origin is evident 30'- 40' below the water table in SCDHS well S-43820 located just north of the Edgewood State Hospital site on Commack Road. Nitrates have frequently exceeded 10 ppm, and chlorides have been as high as 18 ppm. 3-46 The Pilgrim State Hospital primary STP has had a consider- able impact on water quality in the central portion of the SGPA. Monitoring wells immediately downgradient of the disposal beds have detected high concentrations of organic nitrogen at the water table. Similar concentrations were also found just above the Gardinem clay unit (90' below the water table), and even in the upper Magothy aquifer beneath the four foot thick clay unit, reflecting the large downward component of ground- water flow in the region. The downgradient limit of this con- tamination is unknown. It was not detected in Multi-Town well C-2 which may be west of the plume, or in SCDHS well S-45717, located at the intersection of Sagtikos Parkway and Pine Aire Drive. The latter is screened some 25'-35' below the water table and may therefore be too shallow to intercept the plume. The influence of goff course associated agricultural chemical usage on shallow water quality beneath the northemmost por- tion of the SGPA has not been monitored, but may be partially reflected in the four ppm nitrate detected near the water table in SCDHS test well 5a, located immediately downgradient on Daly Road near Commack Road. Additional contamination is contributed by upgradient soumes, including unsewered, me- dium density (1/4-1~ acre) residential development and institu- tional uses. The effect of these additional pollution soumes is reflected in the water quality in SCDHS observation well S-45210 on Hauppauge Road -- downgradient of the YMHA cesspool system and Gurwin Geriatric Center STP, where ni- trate concentrations of 10-27 ppm have been detected 30 feet below the water table. As the preceding discussion indicates, both point and non- point soumes have been and continue to be responsible for the degradation of portions of the groundwater underlying the SGPA. Point soumes include two sewage treatment plants. The Gurwin Geriatric Center STP on Hauppauge Road is a new tertiary pla~t that has experience start-up difficulties. The Pilgrim State Hospital STP is an old primary plant with limited treatment capability. In recent years flows have been in the 0.5 to 0.8 mgd range, and are expected to continue until a new plant is constructed or the hospital and Brentwood campus of Suffolk Community College are hooked into the Southwest Sewer District. The unsatisfactory operation of the new facility, which serves a relatively small population, and the continuing reliance on an obsolete, totally inadequate facility, which serves a large population, are clearly cause for concern. There are existing and potential non-point soumes within and upgradient of the SGPA. Existing soumes include upgradient unsewered residential development at three or more units per acre and improper or illegal disposal of toxic materials at SGPA and upgradient sites. The Cornell University airphoto in- ventory identified numerous open dumps, landfilling opera- tions, and send mines where contaminants may have been disposed. An uncontrolled construction and demolition disposal site -- Expressway Aggregates near the LIE -- was automat- ically placed on the State Superfund list, although there were no allegations of illegal toxic dumping at the site. Unpermitted dump- ing has occurred at a State Superfund site located near the north- em end of the Pilgdm State property adjacent to Garofalo Carting Company, just west of Crooked Hill Road. Potential soumes include on-going or expanded unsewered in- dustrial operations, municipal solid waste disposal activities, il- legal dumping of waste at the old-filed map subdivision site, and the presence of the Northville Industries pipeline. The pipeline, which carries petroleum product from the Holtsville to the Plainview terminal, is pressure tested annually pursuant to an agreement with the New York State Public Service Commission. No problems have been reported to date. The maintenance of open areas that facilitate the pemolation of clean recharge is increasingly constrained by efforts to con- vert the remaining undeveloped areas on the Hospital property and elsewhere to commemial uses or to municipal uses not readily accommodated at other locations. A 27 hole golf course has been converted to a condominium surrounded by a greatly reduced, 18 hole golf course. Some of the vacant land at the Pilgrim Psychiatric Center is scheduled to be used for various types of not-for-profit housing. Vacant land at the SCCC cam- pus has been selected as the site for an arts facility and tour- ism related activities. An 80 acre vacant parcel owned by the Town of Islip has been chosen as the location for its new com- posting operation. Only the properly in the Towns of Babylon and Huntington that was used by Edgewood State Hospital has been protected through the creation of the Oak Brush Plains Preservation Area. The hospital has been demolished and the land allowed to return to its natural state. The gradual loss of the remaining open areas and the need to devise strategies and techniques for slowing or offsetting that loss is a continuing concern, especially in an area that has already suf- fered some impairment of water quality. OPPORTUNITIES - Since virtually all of the acreage has al- ready been developed or committed to specific uses, opportu- nities to effect significant changes in the type of location of land uses and activities are limited. However, there are numer- ous opportunities to mitigate the impacts of the existing and proposed development. Construction of a connection between the Southwest Sewer District Commack Road interceptor and the Pilgrim State Hospital - SCCC collection system could provide water quality benefits through improved treatment and out of area discharge of treated effluent. Older industrial or commercial uses with permitted discharges to groundwater that are considered likely 3-47 LIE STATE PKW'¢ NYS 4 Sc~ I: 22800 Figure 8-11 1989 Existing Land Use for the Oak Brush Plains SGPA EXISTING LAND USE - 1989 OAK BRUSH PLAINS SGPA Residential- Estates Residential- Low Density Residential- Medium Density Residential- High Density Commercial Institutional Industrial Agricultural General Open Space Golf Course Cemetery Town,County,State Park/Open Space Utilities Gov't Highway Facilities Vacant Underwater Lands LOCATION MAP S~AT[ 0 ft. Scale 1:27799 2317 4634 6951 Figure 3-12 Plan Land Use for the Oak Brush Plains SGPA - PLAN - OAK BRUSH PLAINS SGPA Residential- Estate Residential- Low Residential- High Commercial Institutional Industrial Preserved Farmland Open Space Utilities Vacant Underwater Lands Proposed Open Space Acquistion Cluster Development Farmland - Cluster Replaf and Cluster OTHER Relocate TDR (Transfer of Development) Purchase Dev./Farm Dev. Right Industrial Cluster Reclaim Dump Fill and Redevelop PUD Mixed Use Historic District LOCATION IAAP io contaminate could be required to hook up. Unlike the alter- native plan, which called for the upgrading or rebuilding of the existing STP and onsite discharge of treated effluent, intercon- nection with Southwest follows the general recommendations for maximizing groundwater protection through the discharge of STP effluent outside the SGPA whenever possible. The redirection and expansion of State and local regulatory activities could reduce the inadvertent or deliberate mishan- dling of hazardous materials or the disposal of hazardous waste. State and local prioritization of abandoned waste site investigations to target those likely to have the greatest impact on SGPA water quality could enhance the value of remediation expenditures. Vacant portions of the old filed map subdivision could be ac- quired and replatted to permit appropriate development and thus eliminate the opportunity for illegal dumping. Finally, the retention of some portions of the remaining unprotected open space could be achieved through skillful site planning and the imposition of clearance limitations. Recommendations · The State and Suffolk County should resume planning for the extension of the Southwest Sewer District collection ~yStem to serve the Pilgrim State - SCCC complex. SDEC should prohibit any new construction or intensification of use of the hospital or the SCCC Campus until the hook-up to Southwest is in place. · At the same time, Suffolk County should investigate the feasibility of connecting industrial and commercial establishments to an extended collection system. · The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Suffolk County Department of Health Services should expand regulatory activities and remediatory efforts within the SGPA to preclude avoidable contamination and, where feasible, reduce the impact of earlier storage and disposal practices. · The Town of Smithtown should acquire and replat portions of the old filed map subdivision on Crooked Hill Road. The Town should then sell the new, larger lots -- subject to conservation easements and clearance standards -- for dry industrial and commemial development, thus eliminating an opportunity for uncontrolled dumping and insudng the quality of the future non-residential development in the area. · New York State, Suffolk County and the Town of Islip should maximize the preservation of existing open space within their respective holdings so as to protect the remaining undisturbed recharge areas. See Table 3-18 for Plan Land Use and Table 3-19 for a com- parison of existing and proposed acreage by land use cate- gory and Figure 3-12 for Plan Land Use. TABLE 3-18 Plan Land Use (acres) in the Oak Brush Plains SGPA P/an Land Use Cateqor~ Land Use % of Total** Residential 125 4.0 Vacant 0 0.0 Underwater Land 0 0.0 Commercial 132 4.2 Industrial 288 9.2 Institutional 687 22.0 Utilities 779 24.9 Open Space . 1,023 32.7 Agricultural 0 0.0 Others* 91 2.9 Total 3,125 * Others includes plan options, such as planned unit development, landfill reclamaf~on, relocation, etc., that could not be assigned to a specific land use category. ** Column may t~t total 100.0 dee to rounding. TABLE 3-19 Existing and Plan Land Use (acres) in the Oak Brush Plains SGPA 1989 Change Existing Plan (+ = gain; Land Use Categoq/ Land Use Land Use - = loss) Residential 2 125 +123 Vacant 367 0 -367 Underwater Land 0 0 0 Commercial 80 132 +52 Industrial 307 288 -19 Institutional 763 687 -76 Utilities 771 779 +8 Open Space 825 1,023 +198 Agricultural 10 0 -10 Others* -- 91 +91 Total 3,125 3,125 * Others includes plan options, such as planned unit development, landfill reclamalJon, relocation, etc., that could not be assigned to a specific lend use category. 3-52 South Set~uket Woods SGPA GENERAL BACKGROUND - The South Setauket Woods SGPA comprises 4,000 acre in northwestern Brookhaven. With the ex- ception of some 12 acres in the Village of Lake Grove, the entire SGPA is located within the unincorporated portion of the Town. This predominantly undeveloped area is surrounded by residen- tial development to the west, north and east; and by both resi- dential and strip commemial development to the south. The presence of the State University of New York at Stony Brook, occupying approximately one fourth of the entire SGPA, has been the single most important influence in shaping the development of the area. SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY - Most of the SGPA is located within the intermorainal outwash plain south of the Harbor Hills moraine. The moraine traverses the southern portion of the SUNY Stony Brook campus and the Northville-East Setauket terminal. Three different soil associations--the Carver-Plymouth-River- head, the Haven-Riverhead and the Plymouth Carver -- are found in this SGPA. The first of these, located in the northern portion of the SGPA, covers roughly 35 percent of the total area. A morainal asso- ciation, found mainly along the north shore, it is generally deep and well-drained. The rolling landscape, many wooded areas, and proximity to water make the acreage with soils in this as- sociation highly desirable as sites for residential development. The second association covers an area similar in size, but lo- cated in the central portion of the SGPA. These soils define the southerly outwash plain associated with the Harbor Hill Moraine. Slopes range from one to twelve percent and, in some areas, are pitted by steep-sided kettle holes. This asso- ciation is characterized by medium-textured, loamy soils, which cause it to be well-drained and suitable for farming or development. The last, the Plymouth-Carver series, covers the remaining 30 percent of the SGPA. Outwash plain soils of this association occupy a nearly level to slightly undulating, intermorainal area in the southern portion of the SGPA. Widely separated drain- age ways constitute the only breaks in these relatively flat ar- eas. Slopes range from one to eight percent. The major soils in this association are coarse-textured, droughty, and Iow in fertil- ity. The droughty and infertile character of the soil impedes the establishment and maintenance of lawns and foundation plant- ings, while the coarse texture facilitates rapid percolation to the water table, thus reducing the potential for contaminant at- tenuation within the unsaturated zone. VEGETATION ASSOCIATIONS - Most of the South Setauket Woods SGPA, whether developed or undeveloped, is still wooded. There are two distinctive types of woodland vegetation -- deciduous hardwood forest in the north in the vicinity of the moraine, and pine barrens in the south on the outwash plain. The deciduous hardwood forests are found on fertile, well drained soils and level to steep sloping topography. Red, black, white and scarlet oak trees intermixed with various hick- ory species dominate the vegetative associations. In many lo- cations, a heavy mountain laurel understory occurs. Cleared or othe~vise disturbed areas that are now reverting to climax oak forest suppott fast growing flora, consisting largely of trees and vines, including black locust, wild black cherry, red cedar, ailanthus, grey birch, poison ivy, raspberries, muitiflora rose, catbriar, and grape. Old fields, abandoned farm or nursery fields in various stages of successional vegetation, are found at scattered locations throughout the area. In a few areas a high groundwater table has contributed to the creation of a bottomland type of habitat. Moderate to steep slopes, Iow elevation and the presence of red maple, black tupelo, gray birch, tulip tree and American beech trees charac- terize these habitats. The pine barrens are associated with the very dry con.,'~tions of the outwash plains. Although rainfall volume is equivalent to that of other areas, the soil is a highly acidic sand and sand- loam mixture from which most nutrients are leached very quickly. Sunlight-to-ground penetration is very intense. Pitch pine, found in combination with white oak, post oak and scarlet oak, dominates the vegetative association. The ground cover generally consists of shrubby and herbaceous plants, primarily scrub oaks, blueberries, huckleberries and bracken ferns. There is an approximately 1000 foot wide transitional zone where morainal and outwash plain ecosystems meet. In a March 7, 1980 report, South Setauket Woods - Prelimi- nary Environmental Analysis, prepared for the Town of Brookhaven Planning Board by Thomas W. Cramer, identi- fied it as a unique oak forest-pine barrens transition zone. The report stated that the area where the moraine and out- wash meet is also where the forest types meet. This tran- sition zone is unique, for it is one, if not the only, location left in its natural state which reflects the natural and geo- logic heritage of Long Island. The Nature Conservancy has identified this area as one of the top twenty locations within Suffolk County that is worthy of preservation because of its size and diversity of species. 3-53 RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES AND SIGNIFICANT HABITATS - The South Setauket Woods SGPA includes a pine barrens community. The area southeast of Setauket hamlet and north of Nesconset-Port Jefferson Highway (Rte 347) is described as an open canopy pine barrens with pitch pine, white oak, black oak, and scarlet oak and an understory of scrub oak and heath shrubs. Two rere species of pinweed and one animal of special concern, the coastal barrens buckmoth, range throughout this association. SURFACE WATERS AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS - A small, eight acre cluster of freshwater wetlands is located in the northwest corner of the South Setauket Woods SGPA along Nicolls Road on the Stony Brook Campus. These are all ranked Class II wetlands. HYDROGEOLOGY - The South Setauket Woods SGPA is lo- cated north of the groundwater divide, which runs approxi- mately east-west in the area just north of Route 25. The entire SGPA lies within the deep recharge zone Hydrogeologic Zone ! where groundwater flow has a significant downward compo- nent. The groundwater conditions in the SGPA and vicinity are shown in Figure 3- 13. Most of the SGPA is located within the intermorainal outwash plain south of the Harbor Hill moraine. The moraine traverses the southern portion of the SUNY Stony Brook campus and the Northville-East Setauket terminal. Glacial deposits in- crease in thickness from 100'-300' in the north along the mo- raine to 250'-450' in the south near the groundwater divide; this places the top of the Magothy aquifer 160 feet or less be- low the water table near the moraine, and almost 400 feet be- Iow the water table near the groundwater divide. There is a clay unit, the Smithtown Clay, just below the water table, within the sequence of glacial outwash deposits through- out much, if not most of the area once occupied by a glacial lake, located north of the Ronkonkoma moraine. Unlike the marine-formed Gardiners Clay on the south shore, the lacus- trine Smifhtown clay does not appear to represent a significant sub-regional barrier to the downward flow of recharge and the contamination it may contain. However, localized restrictions to downward flow may be present, as seen at the Northville East Setauket terminal, where a clay unit causes significant water table mounding. The direction of the horizontal groundwater flow is primarily northward throughout most of the SGPA, with increasing west- eriy and easterly components in the northern portion due to the influence of Smithtown Bay and Port Jefferson Harbor, re- spectively. Horizontal flow rates are generally on the order of one foot per day. WATER SUPPLY - The Suffolk County Water Authmity pro- vides potable water to residential and non-residential consum- ers within the SGPA. There are four SCWA well fields within the boundaries of the SGPA, and another four that are located adjacent to or immediately downgradient of the area. Table 3-20 lists the well fields by location, capacity and 1987 average pumpage. TABLE 3-20 Water Supply - South Setauket Woods SGPA 1987 Well Fields Within the SGPA SCWA Oak Street SCWA Daniel Webster Dr. SCWA Hen~J Clay Dr. SCWA Oxhead Road Total Fields Adjacent to the SGPA SCWA Hawkins Road SCWA Shemj Dr. SCWA Mud Road SCWA Stem Lane Total Capacity Pumpage 5.18 mgd 1.50 mgd 5.11 mgd 1.23 mgd 5.18 mgd 1.11 mgd 4.97 mgd 0.90 mgd 20.44 mgd 4.74 mgd 1987 Capacity Pumpa,qe 5.18 mgd 0.27 mgd 5.47 mgd 1.09 mgd 4.35 mgd 0.62 mgd 3.46 mgd 0.96 mgd 18.36 mgd 2.94 mgd The combined 1987 average daily pumpage of 7.7 mgd repre- sents about 20 percent of the total installed pumping capacity at the fields; approximately 2 mgd was used by SUNY Stony Brook. It should be noted that maximum day pumpage is usu- ally estimated at 4-5 times average daily pumpage for a large system like the SCWA's. WATER QUALITY - The quality of groundwater within and proxi- mate to the SGPA, as inferred from public supply well data, is generally good to excellent (good: nitrate 1-6 ppm, only intermit- tent traces of organics; excellent: ambient, with nitrate less than 1 ppm, no organics). Nonetheless, there are several significant water quality problems, including the contamination caused by the major gasoline spill at the Northville Terminal. Unsewered medium-density residential development in the re- gion upgradient of the SGPA near the groundwater divide has had a significant impact on shallow water quality. The degrad- ing effect of too closely spaced on site systems is reflected by the 150' glacial production well at the SCWA's Hawkins Road wellfield, located just upgradient of the SGPA. Prior to its clo- sure in 1983, water from this well had nitrates in the 13-16 ppm range, and total organic solvent concentrations consis- tently in the 20-30 ppb range. Some of this contamination had passed through 50' of Smithtown clay and, by 1983, had reached the 552' Magothy well on site. By 1988, nitrate con- centrations had dsen to 3.5-4.8 ppm. No organics were found. The 604' Magothy well at the same welffield remains unimpacted. Groundwater quality below the undeveloped central portions of the SGPA can be assumed to be pristine. This region, how- ever, constitutes only a small pementage of the SGPA ama. LAND USE - Approximately 1,400 acres, or 35 pement of the land, is vacant. Some 173 acres of the vacant land am within old filed subdivisions. These subdivisions, which were platted prior to 1933, contain pamels that are substandard in size but legally de- velopable if they have rernained in separate ownership. In addi- tion to the vacant land, there are also 177 acres of Town parkland and Suffolk County Nature Preserve. See Table 3-21 Land in institutional uses accounts for the greatest area within a single category developed land use. The State Univemity of New York at Stony Brook comprises over 1,000 acres. To date much of this acreage has remained undeveloped; however, proposed pre jects include a convention center and a Veterans Hospital. See Figure 3-14 Commercial land uses within the study area include a gas sta- tion, tennis club, retail store, farm stand, lumber yard, theater, and two small office buildings. However, developers have pm- major commemial facilities encompassing more than 100 acres along Nessonset-Port Jeffemon Highway. Industrial uses comprise a 60 acm bulk fuel storage and distribution ter- minal located in the northeastern corner of the SGPA and a va- riety of rnanufacturing and service enterprises along Belle Meade (Terminal) Road. Utilities and transport, primarily a LILCO high tension line and right of way and a petroleum pipe- ine located along the same right of way, occupy the remainder of the area. ZONING - The SGPA is zoned for residential, industrial, com- memial and mixed use development. The industrially and com- memially zoned parcels are located in the heart of the area, for the most part, in a north-south corridor extending from the Northville Terminal to Route 347. Residential land, zoned at one acre per dwelling unit but in some cases already devel- oped at higher densities, surrounds the industrial, business and mixed use area. TABLE 3-21 Existing Land Use (acres) in the South Setauket Woods SGPA, 1989 1989 Existing Land Use Cate,qo~y Land Use % of Total** Residential 801 19.3 Vacant 1,407 34.0 Underwater Land 0 0.0 Commemial 50 1.2 Industrial 89 2.1 Institutional 1,167* 28.2 Utilities 304 7.3 Open Space 307 7.4 Agricultural 19 0.5 Total 4,144 *This acreage includes the 40 acre, forever wild Ashley Schiff nature preser~ located on the SUNY @ Stony Brook campus. ** Column may not total 100.0 due to roun(~ng. Residential uses occupy a small part of the study area. The majority of the residential subdivisions am served by public water. Even though existing residential use is limited in the SGPA, them is on-going new development. New or planned residential developments include a 60 acre condominium pro- ject in the northeastern corner of the area and a pre posed sin- gle family development of 44 homes. Agricultural use is limited in the study area. There are 1,119 acres of farms and nure eries in the study area. AND CONCERNS - The aquifer system in and around the SGPA has been affected to varying degrees by point and non-point soume contamination associated primarily with residential, commemial and industrial land uses and activities. ~oint soumes include two active sewage treatment plants -- Stony Hollow (formerly Univemity Gardens) and Lakes at Setauket -- both located on Old Town Road. The Stony Hollow secondary plant has had a history of operational difficulties, and is under orders to upgrade to tertiary. The Lakes at the Setauket STP plant is a new tertiary facility. A third plant along Old Town Road north of Route 347 is proposed for Lakeview Estates. Since January 1989, the Strathmore Suffolk County Sewer District 10 secondary treatment plant, which formerly discharged to gre und water, has diverted flow to the SUNY Stony Brook plant, which discharges to Port Jefferson Harbor. Additional point sources include communal cesspool systems at the 112-unit Setauket Knolls Garden Apartments, located south of Nesconset Highway and at SCSD #19 (Mark Tree Estates), located south of Hawkins Road, which serves over 70 private homes. The SUNY Stony Brook power plant, which has a permit to re- charge cooling water, and the Northville Terminal, which has a to discharge pavement drainage from the loading ama to a recharge basin once the drainage has passed through an oil/water separator, are among the few other facilities within or immediately upgradient of the SGPA with SPDES permits for large sanitary or industrial discharges to groundwater. 3-55 ~SCWA Mud Rd. ~SCWA H. C}ar oz. Oxhead $CS0 ,Oak St, 0 ff. Existing Sewage Treatment Proposed Sewage Treatment Public Water Supply Well Monitoring Well Site Future Well Site Clears Potential Hazardous New York State Superfund Petroleum Product Spill Groundwater Divide Northv Direct Plant Plant Site Waste Site Site lie Industries Petroleum Pipeline on of Groundwater Flow /¥ /¥ Scale t:$9952 3329 6658 9987 SGPA Boundry Major Known Road Network Contaminated Plume Figure 3-t 30roundwater Conditions for the South Setauket Woods SGPA SOUTH S[TAUK[T WOODS SGPA GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS Figure 3-14 1989 Existing Land Use for the South Setauket Woods SGPA EXISTING LAND USE - 1989 SOUTH SETAUKET WOODS SGPA 0 ff. Scale 1:28894 2408 7224 Residential- Estates Residential- Low Density Residential i Medium Density Residential - High Density Commercial Institutional Industrial Agricultural Oeneral Open Space Oolf Course Cemetery Town,County,State Park/Open Space Utilities Oov't Highway Facilities Vacant Underwater Lands LOCATION MAP Dote: 7-15-91 Groundwater quality north of the SGPA varies. The one-million gallon gasoline spill at the Northville Terminal has severely im- pacted groundwater in the immediate vicinity of the terminal, but no extensive downgradient movement of free-floating prod- uct has been identified. Dissolved components of gasoline (benzene, toluene, xylene, etc.) have been detected 100 feet below the water table beneath the terminal site and a shallow plume of BTX and organic solvents (from a vapor recovery system on site) has been tracked some 1,200 feet northeast of the terminal. To date, quality at the SCWA's Sherry Drive well field, located over one mile downgradient (NNW) of the Northville terminal, has not been affected. Farther to the west, residential development has impacted the SCWA's Mud Road well field, where the 127' glacial well was taken off line in late 1988 due to solvent (TCA) contamination; at the time of closure, nitrates in the well were in the range of 4-6 ppm. The two deep Magothy wells at Mud Road, which have not been impacted, now handle the pumping load. Stormwater runoff and at least one petroleum spill have im- pacted shallow groundwater quality along Route 347. Storm- water runoff impacts are evident in the increasing concentrations of chloride and sodium in samples from a SCDHS test well located at the intersection of Route 347 and Pond Path. A 7,000 gallon gasoline spill at Route 347 and Mark Tree Road in 1987 resulted in free product floating on the water table. Thus far, test wells and private wells north of the highway remain unaffected by free or dissolved product. Most of the central and northern portions of the SGPA lie downgradient of residential development, or have been cov- ered by industrial and institutional land uses, which have .im- pacted quality in the glacial aquifer and upper part of the Magothy aquifer. For example, moderately elevated nitrates (3-7 ppm) are present in samples from the shallowest wells at Oxhead Road (264' Magothy), Daniel Webster Drive (178' glacial), and Oak Street (288' and 294' glacial). The Oak Street well samples have consistently shown traces of organic sol- vents (not related to the Northville spill), prompting planning for the installation of a carbon filter, even though drinking water standards have not been exceeded. The 315' Magothy well at Stem Lane has also shown traces of the solvent trichlo- roethane; however, no treatment is presently planned. As previously noted, upgradient medium density residential development outside the SGPA has already caused the degra- dation of groundwater quality within the southernmost portion of the South Setauket Woods area. There are about 20 facilities, including three on the west side of Terminal Road, with Suffolk County Sanitary Code Article 12 permits concerning hazardous materials storage and handling. No monitoring data are available with which to assess possible groundwater impacts due to past storage and disposal prac- tices, or inadvertent discharges. It should be noted that these and all other commemial and industrial facilities in the SGPA are subject to Sanitary Code Article 7 restrictions, which pro- hibit the storage of organic solvents in excess of 250 gallons (or the addition of more than this volume of storage, if the facil- ity was in existence prior to 1985). The Comell University ai~photo inventory failed to identify any significant dumping or waste disposal activities within or up- gradient of the SGPA. Photos from 1962 and 1972, however, did indicate the existence of two small open dumps -- off Oxhead Road and Old Town Road -- and three small sandpit operations along Nesconset Highway -- two east of the LILCO right.of-way, and one southeast of the intersection with Mark Tree Road. Future development on the State University campus at Stony Brook, with the resultant intensification of land uses and activi- ties, is likely to increase the consumptive use of groundwater and decrease the opportunities for clean recharge. Proposed industrial development could cause a locally significant loss of natural vegetation and the creation of potential soumes of groundwater contamination. The old filed map areas may become areas of haphazard infill and substandard development, while the existing agricultural land and golf course could offer the potential for change to less appropriate uses. OPPORTUNITIES - Although roughly one-third of the total area of the SGPA remains vacant, the location of vacant par- cels and the magnitude of development pressures have lim- ited, but not eliminated, the opportunities for public preservation of a few large tracts of contiguous open space. Given the character of the existing development and the ongo- ing intensification of uses on the University campus and along Nesconset Highway, it has become increasingly important to preserve and to retain the maximum amount of open land for recharge, for conservation and for recreation. Condemnation, replatting and clustering of the previously sub- divided 100+ acre pamel east of Pond Path and north of Route 347 and of the 150 acre old filed map subdivision between Nicolis Road and Route 347 could provide open land in a key location where some of it could be linked to existing public parklands. State University recognition of the need to retain most of the re- maining open land at Stony Brook in order to offset some of the effects of the increasingly intensive use of the 1000 acre campus, together with county or municipal action to acquire the St. George 3-60 Golf Course and Country Club, were it to be offered for sale, could ensure the retention of important open areas. There are opportunities to eliminate or reduce point and non- point soumes of contamination, especially those emanating from small sewage treatment plant operations or onsite sys- tems. The regionalization of existing collection and treatment facilities and the consolidation of operations at one or, at most, two plants with effluent discharge outside the area could effec- tively eliminate several existing and potential sources. Ex- panded regional facilities could accommodate sewage flow from currently unsewered areas where densities are too great for satisfactory onsite treatment and could thus reduce non- point source contamination. Significant losses in groundwater storage, if any, could be offset by the promotion and adoption of conservation measures. See Appendix C for a discussion of conservation programs. The potential for industry-related groundwater degradation could be reduced by changing the zoning category of the Southgate property from industrial to residential, and by the imposition of s~r~set provisions on selected industrial and com- memial activities that pose a serious, well-documented threat to ground water. Reductions in allowable residential densities wherever feasible could minimize damage from onsite systems, fertitizer use and occasional careless use or disposal of household products. Finally, there is an opportunity to provide a new well site at a location within the County greenbelt east of the LILCO power line, should one be necessary to replace the Oak Street site. Recommendations · The County and the Town of Brookhaven should assure the permanent preservation of open space. The County and Town should continue to purchase or otherwise acquire the fee or lesser interests in parcels adjacent to the existing greenbelt. · The County or the Town should attempt to purchase the old filed map subdivisions and retain the land in its natural state whenever watemhed and wellhead protection or valuable habitat preservation needs warrant. Where outright preservation cannot be justified, the Town should acquire the old filed map subdivision- through condemnation, if necessary -- and should replat to permit clusteringat a lower, more environmentally acceptable density. The Town and the V age of Lake Grove should rezone as necessary to limit or where possible eliminate potential sources of po ut on. The Town and the Village should rezone vacant subdividable residential and and privately owned recreational land to ensure that most future development will be based on an average density of at least five acres per unit. Small subdivisions at less than two acres per unit should be allowed in areas where they will be surrounded by existing higher density developments. · The Town of Brookhaven should rezone the Southgate property from industrial to Iow density (5 acre) clustered residential. · The Town should prohibit new multi-family development on the Carrefour site and elsewhere in the SGPA unless appropriate sewage treatment is available. (see pp. 2-5 and 2-6). · Suffo k County and the Town should investigate and act to reduce or mitigate the effects of existin~ sources of contam nat on. The Town, in cooperation w~th the Suffolk County Department of Health Serv ces should review and consider the nature of industrial and commercial activities within the SGPA and their impact on ground water. It should evaluate the need to impose special conditions or require the phaseout of activities known to damage the ground water. · Suffolk County should establish a new consolidated sewer district covering the SGPA and adjacent areas. A s ngle district with boundaries extending beyond the SGPA could facilitate the reorganization of sewage collection and treatment, and could facilitate the extension of service to unsewered portions of the district where on site systems are causing ground water degradation. The County should work with the Suffolk County Water Authority in selecting and reserving a future well site within the Suffolk County greenbelt. See Table 3-22 for Plan Land Use; Table 3-23 for a compari- son of existing and proposed acreage by land use category; and Figure 3-15 for the location of Plan Land Uses. 3-61 Figure 3-15 Plan Land Use for the South Setauket Woods SGPA - PLAN - SOUTH SETAUKET SGPA WOODS / I Residential - Estate Residential - Low ResidentM - Commercic~ institutional bdustrM Preserved Farmland Ope~, Space Utilities Vacant Lbderwater Lands I Proposed Ope~ sp~e Acqubtian Cluster Development Farmbnd - Cluster RepOt aM Ck~ter OTHER Relocate T~ (Transfer of Deve!opment) Purchase Dev./Farm Dev, Right ~ustrid Cbsfer Reclaim Dump Fill oral Redevelop RIO Mixed Use Historic District F 0 fL Scde I: 28894 2408 4816 7224 TABLE 3-22 Plan Land Use (acres) in the South Setauket Woods SGPA Plan Land Use Cateqory Land Use % of Total** Residential 1,319 31.8 Vacant 0 0.0 Underwater Land 0 0.0 Commercial 71 1.7 Industrial 205 5.0 Institutional 1,154 27.9 Utilities 375 9.0 Open Space 1,020 24.6 Agricultural 0 0.0 Others* _ Total 4,144 * Others includes plan opfions, such as planned unit development, landfill reclamation, relocation, etc., that could not be assigned to a specific land use catagor~ ** Column may not total 100.0 due to rounding. Source: Long Island RegionaJ Planning Board TABLE 3-23 Existing and Plan Land Use (acres) in the South Setauket Woods SGPA Change 1989 Existing Plan (+ = gain; Land Use Category Land Use Land Use - = loss) Residential 801 1,319 +518 Vacant 1,407 0 -1,407 Underwater Land 0 0 0 Commercial 50 71 +21 Industrial 89 205 +116 Institutional 1,167 1,154 -13 Utilities 304 375 +71 Open Space 307 1,020 +713 Agricultural 19 0 -19 Others* -- _ -- Total 4,144 4,144 * Others includes plan options such as planned unit dave opmont, lanclfill reclama~on, relocation, etc., that could not be assigned to a specific land use category. Central Suffolk SGPA GENERAL BACKGROUND - The Central Suffolk SGPA, the largest of the nine SGPAs, covers 125,000 acres or approxi- mately 195.3 square miles within the Towns of Brookhaven, Riverhead and Southampton and a small portion of Southold. Approximately half of the SGPA lies within Breokhaven. Almost 90% of the land in the Town of Riverhead, approximately 40% of that in the Town of Brookhaven, and nearly 33% of that in Southampton are included within the SGPA. Central Suffolk comprises virtually all of the Pine Barrens as officially desig- nated by Suffolk County, an adjacent area to the northwest and a large woodland and farm area to the east. Open wood- lands characterize the Brookhaven, Southampton and Southold portions of the area; farmlands characterize the Riverhead portion. The boundaries approximate those of deep flow Hydmgeologic Zone III, the zone with the best quality groundwater, plus the portion of the Hydrogeologic Zone P¢ on the North Fork west of Mattituck Inlet. The pattern of development generally reflects the eastward pressure of urbanization, the desirability of resort areas, the quality of agricultural lands and public and private efforts to preserve the recreation opportunities and unique habitats of the SGPA. SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY - Four different soils associations are found in the Central Suffolk SGPA. The Haven-Riverhead association covers the northern and northeastern portion of the SGPA as well as the central section in the vicinity of the William Floyd Parkway, or approximately 40% of the entire SGPA. The well- drained, medium-textured soils of this asso- ciation define the outwash plain. Nearly level, with slopes ranging from 1 to 12 pement, these deep soils have a high moisture capacity and are suitable for farming or development. The Riverhead-Plymouth-Carver association is found along the southern border, in the areas of Yaphank, South Manor, and Eastport, and includes approximately 12 percent of the SGPA. This association is made up of well-drained, coarse- textured soils of the southern outwash plain laid down by out- wash deposition beyond the limits of the glacier and therefore free of kettle hole formations. Characteristically nearly level, slopes generally range from one to six pement, except on the sides of drainage channels, where slopes can range from eight to 35 pement. This association is mainly in woods or within ar- eas of urban expansion. Level topography, ease of excavation, and good drainage generally make this association well suited lo urban and suburban developments. Nearly level and undulating, Plymouth-Carver Association soils are found along the eastern half of the southem border, includ- ing the area around Suffolk County Airport. This soil associa- tion, which can also be found in the North Selden and Coram areas, accounts for approximately 15 per cent of the SGPA area. These out~,ash plain soils are excessively drained, coarse-textured, and droughty. Nearly level, with slopes rang- ing from one to eight percent, these soils offer few limitations to development. However, the extremely permeable soils pre- sent the potential for groundwater contamination from cess- pools and septic tanks and are poorly suited for farming. Rolling and hilly Plymouth-Carver soils cover the central por- tion of the SGPA, including the Peconic River corridor, and ac- count for approximately 30 percent of the area. Located on the Ronkonkoma moraine, this association consists of soils that are characteristically strongly sloping to steep, with slopes ranging from eight to 35 percent. The soils are coarse-tex- tured, droughty, and highly permeable, thus presenting the po- tential for groundwater contamination from cesspools and septic tanks. Steep slopes, together with difficulties in estab- lishing and maintaining lawns and landscapes, severely limit these soils for housing or similar development. VEGETATION ASSOCIATION - The malor association found within the SGPA is the outwash plain and morainal pine-oak for- est that constitutes the Long Island Pine Barrens. The pine bar- rens zone, which extends from Hauppauge through the Central Suffolk SGPA east to Bridgehampton, is interspersed with wet- land habitats associated with the Carmans River and Peconic River systems. The pine barrens habitat is generally charac- terized by very dry conditions -- rainfall is usually less than 40" per year -- and there is very good sunlight with high ground penetration. The soil is a highly acidic sand and sand-loam mix- ture from which most nutrients are rapidly leached. In addi- tion, very little humus is produced in the soil due to the high acidity resulting from the tannic acid content of the fallen pine needles and oak leaves. The vegetation in the Long Island Pine Barrens consists mostly of pitch pine, which is dominant, along with white oak, post oak and scarlet oak. According to John R. Cryan in the July, 1980 issue of T/~e Heat/~ ~ren, ...The structure of pine barrens vegetation, as well as its species constituents, is very distinctive. Most upland pine barrens areas are known as shr~zb s~zuc~n~c~s by vegetation scientists because they consist of dense knee- to head-high chestnut oak, and smaller shrub spe- cies like black huckleberry, Iowbush blueberries, sweet fern, winterberry, pine barrens heather, sheep laurel, praide willow, and bearberry, overtopped by a broken canopy of slender, scraggly pitch pine and small tree- sized oaks. The shrub layer is usually dominant, whereas in a typical eastern deciduous forest, the tree layer predominates, allowing little light to penetrate to the shrub layer, which consequentially is sparse and ir- 3-65 regular. The herbaceous or non-woody plant layer of pine barrens areas, incorporated within or beneath the dense shrub layer, contains many unusual and rare spe- cies (such as bracken fern, wild indigo, blue lupine, American goat's-rue, narrow-leaved aster, and birdsfoot violet) which can only grow in the open sun-drenched pine barrens vegetation, and which die if shaded by other plants. This type of habitat is fire dependent and, therefore, identified as a fire climax forest. Periodic natural wild fires are required to maintain the Long Island Pine Barrens vegetation. Most of the plants and animals found in the pine barrens pos- sess one or more characteristics that allow them to survive fre- quent fires, thus contributing to the perpetuation of the pine-oak ecosystem. The Pine Bush or Dwarf Pine Plains is an interesting variation of the Pine Barrens found in the Central Suffolk SGPA. Al- though nearly identical to the Pine Barrens in the diversity of its flora, this microhabitat is distinguished by dwarf pitch pines that grow no taller than six or seven feet. The area is probably more xeric than the standard pine barrens, since a smaller proportion of broad leaf oak species in the brush allows better sunlight to ground penetration. The Dwarf Pine Plains covers about 3,000 acres northwest, west and adjacent to the Suffolk County Airport in Westhampton. North of the hamlet of Riverhead and the Peconic River, the vegetation changes from a pine barrens to an upland decidu- ous forest association in which oaks dominate the canopy, al- though American beech can account for more than 20% of the canopy. Greller, in his publication on mature forests on Long Island, identities this type of association as oak, beech, mixed dicot forest, noting that sweet bimh is a common subcanopy tree along with dogwood, and that the shrub density in these woods is Iow and the herb layer floristically poor. The area ad- jacent to Laurel Lake provides an example of such a woodland association. In the past, farming was an important activity within the Central Suffolk SGPA; therefore, old field habitats can be found scat- tered throughout the SGPA wherever agricultural fields have been allowed to lie fallow. The overgrown or old field habitats vary in respect to the dominant type of growth. The herb domi- nated fields typically contain goldenrods and asters with Queen Anne's lace, yarrow, bush clover, evening-primrose and chicory also present. Vadous grass species, including little bluestem, may also occur along with big bluestem and rescue. As succession proceeds, the old field habitat is invaded by shrubs including eastern red cedar, northern bayberry, autumn olive, multiflora rose, sumac and raspberry. The shrub layer eventually becomes dominant. In the later stages of succes- sion, trees such as black locusts, red cedar, ailanthus, and grey bimh, as well as undergrowth including wild blackberry, poison ivy, raspberry, multiflora rose, catbriar and grape form a first growth woods. RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES AND SIGNIFICANT HABITATS - The Central Suffolk SGPA is not only the largest SGPA but contains the greatest number of habitats of reare and endangered species. A total of 137 natural elements were re- ported within its boundaries. Among the habitat communities identified in this SGPA by the Natural Heritage Program are pitch pine-oak-heath woodland, dwarf pine plains, coastal plain Atlantic white cedar swamp, pine barrens shrub swamp, coastal plain pond shore, cardinal flower and coastal plain poor fern. Many rare and endangered species can be found in or near the extensive Peconic River wetland system. Especially high concentrations of species were located west of Wading River/Schultz Road among a chain of ponds and associated wetlands. Species common throughout this region include the pine barrens gerardia (R), lespedeza (R), coastal barrens bucktooth (SC), and tiger salamander (E). Several individual occurrences of species were also noted within this SGPA. The grasshopper sparrow (SC) and northern cricket frog (3') have been reported near Swan Pond in Riverhead. Tall tick-clover (T) and the silvery aster (S) have been sighted in the Manorville area. Two threatened animal species, the osprey and a rare turtle species, have been re- ported as ranging throughout the Penny Pond and Wehrman's Pond area in Southport. New York State has designated the Peconic River and its envi- rons as a Wild, Scenic, and Recreational River and NYSDOS has designated it a Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat. This river corridor habitat extends approximately 15 miles from County Rte. 73, in the center of Riverhead, to the river's tribu- taries in the westem portion of Peconic River County Park. Nearly all of the upper watershed remains relatively undis- turbed. The river supports extensive bog and freshwater mamh communities. The entire length of the Peconic River is a pro- ducfive habitat for warm water fisheries. Some of the more abundant species that naturally reproduce here include large- mouth bass, yellow perch and chain pickerel. In addition, the Peconic River is one of only two localities in the State that sup- port populations of banded sunfish. The abundant fisheries re- soumes of the Poconic, support a recreational freshwater fishery of regional significance. The river's associated wet- lands furnish an outstanding habitat for a variety of avian wild- life, including Canada geese, black duck, great blue heron, white-tailed deer, and little brown bat. Peconic River County 3-66 Park provides public access to the river's fish and wildlife resources. One natural element, the rare pine barren sand wort, has been found in the northwest comer of the SGPA. Twenty-tour differ- ent rare and endangered species have been identified in the central portion. The Carmans River and its associated wet- lands provide habitat for many of these species, including the silvery aster (E), whip nutrush (R), southern yellow flax (T) and tiger salamander (E). Other species have been identified near freshwater wetlands scattered throughout the SGPA. A small wet- land association in the vicinity of Granny Rd. suppods popula- tions of pine barren sandwort (R) and three-ribbed spikemsh (T). Two rere plant species, the dwarf bullmsh and slender pinweed, have been found near Artist Lake and nesting osprey ('T) were identified near the Suffolk Meadows race track. New York State and NYSDOS have also designated the Car- mans River as a Wild, Scenic, and Recreational River and a Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat, respectively. The desig- nated portion of the habitat within the Central Suffolk SGPA covere approximately five miles of the river. This area extends northward from the SGPA's southern boundary to the river's headwatem in Cathedral Pines County Park, just south of Middle Country Rd. Vegetation along this section includes both pine-oak forest and deciduous forested wetlands. During spring and summer months, the Carmans River prevides suit- able nesting habitat for osprey. Other bird species that utilize the area include the reugh-legged hawk, red- tailed hawk, mareh wren, and many species of watedowl. White- tailed deer, eastern cottontail, raccoon and muskrat also use the area. An abundance of freshwater fish, including brook trout, brewn trout, rainbow treut, yellow perch and carp may be found in the upper reaches of the river. New York State also stocks the river with trout each year. The dwarf pine plains community near Suffolk County Airport in Westhampton provides habitat for many animal species, in- cluding three rare lepidoptera species. In addition,the largest and most dense population of coastal barrens buckmoth (SC) in New York is found in the dwarf pine plains community. SURFACE WATERS AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS - A main feature of the freshwater wetlands within the Central Suffolk SGPA is the abundance of streams, lakes and upland wetlands associated with the Peconic and Carmans river sys- tems. There is a total of 2083 acres of wetlands distributed threughout the length of the Peconic system from the Bmokhaven National Laboratory to Riverhead. Numerous Class I freshwater wetlands occupy extensive acreage along the stream and its tributaries. Other wetlands in proximity to the Peconic have been categorized as Claes II and III wetlands. A significant portion of the freshwater wetlands, some 868 acres, is associated with the Carmans River. This river and ifs associated wetlands originate in Middle Island and extend through the southeast comer of the SGPA. This system is ranked as a Class I wetland. There ara other significant freshwater wetlands within this SGPA, among them a cluster of wetlands in the southwest cor- ner in the vicinity of South Manor, as well as wetlands associ- ated with creeks that flow into Moriches Bay. Some larger pond systems, such as Seam Pond, Bellows Pond, Penny Pond and House Pond, are located in the Flanders area. These have been ranked, for the most part, as Class I and Class II wetlands. In the eastern end of the SGPA, in the Town of Southold, there are a number of wetlands, including Laurel Lake -- a large kettle hole -- and its environs. These have been listed as Class II and Class Ill wetlands. The sudace watere of the Central Suffolk SGPA include sev- erel creeks and streams located in the southeastemmost part of the SGPA. Three of the streams originate within the area, flow north towards the SGPA boundary and eventually empty into Flanders Bay. Other streams cross the southern boundary of the SGPA and flow towards Great South Bay and Shinnecock Bay. Smaller wetlands can also be found associated with several lakes and ponds in the Middle Island area. The majority of these are Class II wetlands. The remainder of the wetlands in this general area are found in small clusters and are primarily Class I wetlands. In all, the Central Suffolk SGPA contains a total of 4361 acres of wetlands. HYDROGEOLOGY - The boundaries of the Central Suffolk SGPA encompass regions of deep aquifer recharge on both sides (north and south) of the main groundwater divide, which traverses central Breokhaven and on both sides of the North and South Fork divides, which extend east of the headwatem of the Peconic River. These boundaries approximate those of deep flow Hydregeologic Zone III, with the addition of inland portions of the North Fork west of Mattituck inlet (Hydrogeologic Zone IV). About two-thirds of the BGPA lies within the outwash plain lo- cated between the Harbor Hill and Ronkonkoma terminal mo- reines; the other third lies within or south of deposits of the Ronkonkoma moraine, which extends east-west across the southern Brookhaven and northern Southampton portions of the SGPA. Glacial deposits within the SGPA are generally on 3-67 the order of 200-300 feet thick, and the top of the Magothy aquifer is generally found 125-175 feet below the water table. There are exceptions in areas where the Magothy has been eroded, such as north-central Brookhaven, where 600-700 feet of glacial deposits fill a northeast-southwest trending valley from Rocky Point to Centereach, and the North Fork near Mattituck inlet, where the thickness of g~acial deposits reaches as much as 500+ feet. The Gardinere Clay unit is present as a 10-20 foot thick mix- ture of clay and sand separating the upper glacial and Magothy aquifers throughout much of the region south of the Ronkonkoma moraine, extending north of the moraine only in the area of Brookhaven National Laboratory. It does not, how- ever, appear to be a significant hydrologic barrier to Magothy recharge within the SGPA. The Smithtown clay unit has been {dentitied within the sequence of glacial deposits between the two moraines throughout much of the SGPA west of Middle Island, and may be present as far east as Manorville. Found at or above sea level, the Smithtown clay often contains silt or sand, and does not appear to have any regional effect on downward flow within the groundwater system. The North Fork clay unit, which is generally found 60 or more feet below sea level, has been identified west of Mattituck inlet in the area of Northville-Jamesport, and is probably responsible for the higher than expected water table elevations in the area. The North Fork clay also confines lower glacial and Magothy de- posits, resulting in an easterly extension of fresh water within these units. GROUNDWATER FLOW - Shallow groundwater flow velocities within the SGPA are generally in the range of one-haft to one foot per day. The directions of horizontal flow are primarily north and south on the respective sides of the main groundwa- ter divide, with a slight easterly component throughout much of the SGPA. The influence of the Peconic River extends west- ward just beyond Brookhaven National Laboratory, where the main divide splits into northern and southern branches. Re- charge in the region between the divides either discharges to the Peconic river as shallow flow, or travels downward and eastward within the Magothy. The northern branch of the di- vide approximately bisects the North Fork out to Mattituck in- let. The southern divide generally follows the topographic high formed by the Ronkonkoma moraine. (See Figure 3-16) WATER SUPPLY - Six community water suppliers provide public water to roughly three fourths of the residential, busi- ness, industrial and institutional users in the are~. The largest purveyor, the Suffolk County Water Authority, serves approxi- mately 75 pement of those on public water. Two purveyors, the Riverhead Water District and the Shorewood Water Company, each serve about ten percent and three -- the Hampton Bays Water District, the Caiverton Hills Association and the Riverside Water District -- serve the remaining five percent. There are 17 active well fields located within the boundaries of the SGPA, and another 17 fields located within a mile down- gradient. Their combined 1987 average daily pumpage of over 20 mgd represents approximately 20% of installed capacity at these fields. The pumpage by town is as follows: Brookhaven, 15 mgd Southampton, 3.6 mgd Riverhead, 1.4 mgd These figures represent the tollowing (maximum) percentages of total pumpage within each town, based on 1980 estimates: - Brookhaven, 25% - Southampton, 45% - Riverhead, 10% Over 60% of the 20 mgd is withdrawn from the glad, al aquifer. Additional water is pumped by individual facilities such as Brook- haven National Laboratory (6.3 mgd) and Grumman (0.2 rngd). Table 3-24 provides a list of community water supply well fields by location, capacity and pumpage. Numerous future well field sites have been purchased by the SCWA at locations within and just downgradient of the boundaries of the SGPA. Fourteen of these sites are in the Town of Brookhaven: eleven within the SGPA -- Harrison Avenue, Radio Avenue, Helme Avenue, Shady Lane, Paul's Path, Patchogue-Port Jefferson Road, Bartlett Road, Longwood Road, Sally Lane, Middle Country Road, Long Pond Road; and three downgradient -- New York Avenue, Jamaica Avenue, Seatuck Avenue. Two future SCWA well field sites are located in the Town of Southampton within the SGPA: Evergreen Avenue and Quogue-Riverhead Road. The River- head Water District has identified nine possible future well field sites, some of which have been purchased: Doctors Path (Plant 10, Mill Road (Plant 11-1), Edwards Avenue (Plant 12), River Road (Plant 14), Edwards Avenue (Plant 14A), Manor Road (Plant 15), Middle Country Road (Plant 15A), Reeves Avenue (Plant 16), and Schultz Road (Plant 16). WATER QUALITY - Groundwater quality within the Central Suffolk SGPA is generally excellent; however, human activities have impacted the shallower portions of the aquifer system in some regions, including the more densely developed, unsew- ered areas in the westernmost portion of the SGPA, and agri- cultural areas of Mt. Sinai and Riverhead. Large facilities like Brookhaven National Laboratory and Suffolk County Airport have also impacted shallow groundwater quality (See Problems and Concerns). The deeper portions of the 3-68 TABLE 3-24 Community Water Supply Well Fields Well Fields Within the SGPA 1987 Capacity Pumpage SCWA Wheat Path 2.80 mgd 0.42 mgd SCWABicycle Path 4.90 mgd 0.69 mgd SCWA Chestnut Street 4.03 mgd 0.56 mgd SCWA Strathmore Court 6.05 mgd 1,05 mgd SCWADare Road 5.90 mgd 1.85 mgd SCWA Flint Lane 4,03 mgd 2.06 mgd SCWA Meehan Lane 2.88 mgd 0.27 mgd SCWABailey Road 4.46 mgd 0.84 mgd Shorewood WC Bridgewater Dr .2,g5 mgd 0.73 mgd SCWAWilliam Floyd Pkwy. 4,46 mgd 0.15 mgd SCWACountry Club Drive 2,74 mgd 0.18 mgd SCWA Moriches-Riverhead Rd. 2,44 rngd 0.02 mgd SCWA Old Country Road 1,62 mgd 0.46 mgd SCWASpinney Road 2,88 mgd 0.83 mgd Hampton Bays WD Bellows Rd, 2,16 rngd 0.45 mgd Riverhead WD Middle Road 1,73 mgd 0.88 mgd Riverhead WD Sound Ave. 2.16 mgd 0.00 mgd Total 58.2 mgd 11,4 mgd 1987 Fields Down,gradient of SGPA Capacity Pumpage SCWAJayne Boulevard 6.34 mgd 0.88 mgd SCWA CrystaJ Brook Hollow 4.03 mgd 0.63 mgd SCWA Mt. Sinai-Coram Road 1.87 mgd 0.36 mgd SCWANorth Country Road 5.04 mgd 1.02 mgd SCWAWater Road 4.18 mgd 0.23 mgd Shorewood Water Co. Briarcliff Rd 1.62 mgd 0.51 mgd Shorewood Water Co. Knight St. 1.44 mgd 0.27 mgd SCWA Prince Street (Sini) 1.58 mgd 0.22 mgd SCWA Fairmont Avenue 4.03 mgd 0.75 mgd SCWA Beechnut Ave. 1.01 mgd 0.00 mgd SCWA Race Avenue 2.88 mgd 0.19 mgd SCWA Patchogue-Yaphank Rd. 4.03 mgd 0.70 mgd SCWA Railroad Avenue 2,88 mgd 0.35 mgd SCWA Meetinghouse Road 4.18 mgd 0.65 mgd Hampton Bays WD Ponquogue Av 4.75 mgd 1.16 mgd Riverhead WD Osborne Ave. 3.17 mgd 0.74 mgd Riverhead WD Pulaski Street 3.96 mgd 0.55 mgd Total 57.0 rngd 9.21 rngd aquifer system appear to be unaffected thus far, although some deep public supply wells have been degraded due to drawdown of surface contamination. Glacial supply wells located in developed areas near the groundwater divide, where natural and induced vertical flow is greatest, have shown some of the most significant impacts. For example, the two 150' glacial wells at the SCWA Meehan Lane wellfield in Coram have consistently had nitrate concen- trations of 6-7 ppm. Trichloroethane (TCA) contamination, which is associated with past cesspool cleaner use, was 4-6 ppb during the early 1980s, but has been steadily decreasing, and the wells are still in service. The shallowest of the glacial wells at SCWA Dare Road in Selden provides another example of glacial aquifer contamina- tion related to development near the divide. This well is over 400' deep, but has experienced a steady increase in nitrate concentrations up to 4-5 ppm, and has consistently had traces of TCA and other organics, prompting the SCWA to voluntarily remove it from service in Mamh 1989. The next deepest well at Dare Road (457' glacial) has 2-3 ppm nitrate and no organics, while the deepest wel~ (484' glacial) is close to pristine, indicat- ing that ambient quality in the deeper portions of the aquifer are unimpacted, but also that the well field is accelerating the local downward movement of contamination. Not all shallow pub- lic supply wells in the westernmost portions of the SGPA have been seriously impacted, however. The two 220'-230' glacial wells at SCWA Flint Lane (Coram), located in a less densely de- veloped area, have nitrate concentrations less than 3 ppm, with only occasional traces of organics (1 ppb or less). The impacts of development on shallow groundwater in the western portion of the SGPA are also reflected by the water quality of private wells in those few areas not served by public water. For example, the area of Coram-Middle Island north of Route 25 has numerous wells that have been contaminated by organic solvents; this contamination has led to one Federal Superfund water main extension project (Oak Lane), and two extension projects -- Swezeytown Road and White Oak Street -- under the Suffolk County matching fund program. Another example is the area of Ridge south of Route 25, where a small number of wells have been impacted by the soluble compo- nents of gasoline. The quality of the water furnished by public supply wells north of the divide reflects not so much background aquifer condi- tions but rather the susceptibility of such wells to surface con- tamination due to self-induced drawdown in the absence of a substantial intervening clay unit. Some shallow Magothy wells have been impacted, including the two 340' Magothy wells at SCWA Wheat Path in Mt. Sinai, three miles north of the divide, which have had nitrates in the 3-5 ppm range and 1-2 ppb of 3-69 Existing Sewage Treatment Plant Groundwater Proposed Sewage Treatment Plant ~v~ Northvi~le Public Water Supply Well Site Direction o Monitoring Well Site i~/ SGPA Boundr Future Well Site /Xv~ Major Road Clears Potentia~ Hazardous Waste Site New York State Superfund Site Petroleum Product Spil~ ~ Scale 1:I0~10 0 ff 8884 17768 Divide ndustries Groundwater :etwork 26652 Petroleum Flow Pipeline Figure 3-16 Groundwater Conditions in the Cental Suffolk SGPI CENTRAL SUFFOLK SOPA GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS 0,1 TCA. Another example is the shallowest of the four Magothy wells at SCWA Jayne Boulevard in Terryville, also three miles north of the divide and just outside the SGPA, which, although 450' deep, has experienced a steady increase in nitrates to 6 ppm, and has had 2-3 ppb of TCA since 1984. These impacts have occurred even though these fields contain no shallower glacial wells that might accelerate the downward movement of contamination. Water from the deep (660') glacial wells at SCWA Chestnut Street, however, remains pristine, as does that from the 350' glacial well and 560' Magothy wells at SCWA Bicycle Path; only the 160' glacial well at Bicycle Path has shown any signs of impact, with nitrates slowly increasing to the 2-3 ppm range. Agricultural activities have impacted some public supply wells in Mt. Sinai, Riverhead, and Southampton. The 208' glacial well at SCWA Strathmore Court (Mt. Sinai), has had up to 5 ppb of the nematocide dichloropropane off and on since 1981; the 600' glacial well at SCWA Mt. Sinai-Coram Road just out- side the SGPA had traces of aldicarb in the eady 1980s, and was voluntarily taken out of service in May 1989 due to ele- vated nitrates. The Riverhead Water District's 254' glacial well at Middle Road has had only moderate elevations in nitrate (3-4 ppm), but has consistently had 1-2 ppb of aldicarb break- down products. In the Southampton portion of the SGPA, where farming activities are limited, at least one well has been impacted -- the 118' glacial well at SCWA Spinney Road in Oakville, located immediately downgradient of a farming area. Nitrate concentrations have steadily increased to 8 ppm, and aldicarb concentrations have been high enough to prompt the voluntary installation of Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) fil- ters. Aldicarb has also been a problem in a number of private wells within the SGPA, including areas along Mt. Sinai-Coram Road, and throughout farming areas of Riverhead. Agricultural contamination in these regions is also evident in shallow SCDHS test wells, which generally show nitrate concentrations approaching or exceeding the 10 ppm drinking water standard and sometimes reaching as high as 20 ppm. Aldicarb contami- nation is also evident, although concentrations appear to be decreasing as aldicarb moves through the aquifer system and undergoes mechanical dispersion (dilution). There are no indi- cations, however, that agricultural contamination has impacted the deeper portions of the glacial aquifer (i.e., those portions below clay units), or any portions of the Magothy aquifer. The best water quality is found in relatively undeveloped, non- agricultural regions of the SGPA, including western Brookhaven, south of Route 25; eastern Brookhaven, western Riverhead, and most of the Southampton portion of the SGPA. The glacial wells at SCWA Fairmont Avenue in Medford and SCWA Patchogue-Yaphank Road in Yaphank, both just down- gradient of the SGPA, have remained below 3 ppm nitrate and have been free of organics. Farther east, all the glacial and shallow Magothy wells at SCWA William Floyd Parkway in Upton and SCWA Bailey Road on the divide in Middle Island have water quality close to pristine. Similar pristine water qual- ity is found in the two deep (240'-300') glacial wells at SCWA Moriches- Riverhead Road near the South Fork divide on the Brookhaven/Southampton border, while the three shallow (70'- 160') glacial wells at SCWA Old Country Road in Westhamp- ton have shown only the slightest elevations of nitrate. Not all public supply wells in the central and eastern portions of the SGPA are pristine, however, as evidenced by the Shore- wood Water Company's Bridgewater Drive well field, where one of the shallow (140') glacial wells has had intermittent problems with nitrates and chlorides. As described above, the shallow glacial wells at SCWA Spinney Road have been im- pacted by agricultural chemicals. In addition, the two 160' gla- cial wells at SCWA Country Club Road in Manorville have nitrates in the 3-4 ppm range and elevated sulfates, most prob- ably related to existing golf course and past farming activities. LAND USE - Although there is considerable variation in the type and intensity of land use in different parts of the SGPA, land uses generally tend to be Iow density and open in charac- ter. As indicated in Table 3-25, more than 34.0 pement of the Central Suffolk acreage is classified as vacant; 20.6 pement as open space, and 15.5 pement as agriculture. With the exception of the Selden-Terryville sector, the SGPA contains large tracts of public and quasi public land that are classified within the recreation/open space category. These in- clude Suffolk County parklands -- Peconic River, Bald Hill, Cranberry Bog, Sears Bellows, Maple Swamp and part of Hubbard; S.C. Nature Presen/e Property; Brookhaven State Park; the David A. Sarnoff Pine Barrens Preserve, managed by NYSDEC; Camp Wauwepex; and the Quogue Wildlife Refuge. In addition to the above list, large portions of the BNL, the Grumman Calverton complex, S.C. Airport and National Veterans Cemetery serve as open space. There are seven golf courses -- Middle Island, Spring Lake, Pine Hills, Rock Hill, Swan Lake, Hampton Hills, L.I. Country Club, and several red and gun clubs and shooting ranges. Agricultural uses in Riverhead include farms that grow field crops or sod, vineyards, greenhouse/nursery stock operations, horse farms and omhards. There is some agricultural land use in Eastport, South Manor, the area east of Quogue/Riverhead Road, and in the Mount Sinai area. The most extensive single family residential development found in the SGPA is located in Selden-Terryville, Coram, the Lake Panamoka area, Manorville, Flanders and the area sur- rounding the Riverhead CBD. Multi-family housing is found in Selden-Terryville; in Manorville, primarily in conjunction with 3-72 golf course facilities; and in Riverhead and Riverside in the form of trailer parks. The Central Suffolk areas undergoing the most intensive resi- dential development are Selden-Terryville, Ridge and Manorville. Commercial land use is found primarily in the Riverhead area along Route 58 and Route 25, and in Selden-Terryville along Route 25A, Route 347, Route 112 and Route 25. Some strip commemial development is beginning to occur on CR. 111 just south of the L.hE. The areas with the greatest concentration of industrial uses_in- clude Riverhead, between Route 58 and Route 25 west of Pu- laski Road; Suffolk County Airport and new development along Old Riverhead Road; Speonk/Riverhead Road, between OW Country Road and Sunrise Highway; Calverton (Grumman); the industrial park east of William Floyd Parkway between the L.I.E. and LIRR; and Route 112. There are two small pockets of industrially used land in Port Jefferson Station and in Coram in the northwestern section et the SGPA. There are approxi- mately a half a dozen sandmining operations and several ce- ment and asphalt plants located in the SGPA. The Riverhead Town landfill and the Brookhaven Town Brush Disposal Facility, along with several town DPW storage yards, are also located in the SGPA. The more than 5000 acre Brookhaven National Laboratory, located in the western section adjacent to the William Floyd Parkway, constitutes the largest institutional land use. In order to facilitate comparison of the differences in the total acreage and distribution of land uses, Tables 3-25, 3-26, 3-27 and 3-28 present a breakdown of acreage by land use cate- gory for the SGPA as a whole and for each of the three sectors. (See Figures 3-17, 3-18 and 3-19 for Existing Land Use). ZONING - Most of Central Suffolk is zoned for Iow density resi- dential use at lot sizes ranging from one acre to five acres per dwelling unit. Most of the Town of Brookhaven is zoned one acre, with two and five acres required on some of the environ- mentally sensitive land. The Town of Southampton is generally zoned for development at one and one-half, three or five acres per unit. Riverhead has four-acre zoning near Calverton and one acre for much of the farmland. Southold zoning is at two acres. There are scattered industrial and commemially zoned areas in the west central portion of Bmokhaven. In Riverhead, the commercial and industrial zoning extends from the Calverton Airport to the edge of the Riverhead hamlet. Southold has a commemial area at the edge of the SGPA. In Southampton there is commercially zoned land near the County Center id Riverside, in part of Fianders and in Hampton Bays. There is industrial zoning near Suffolk County Airport in Westhampton. TABLE 3-25 Existing Land Use (acres) in the Central Suffolk SGPA, 1989, 1989 Existing Land Use Catego~/ Land Use % of Total* Residential 17,974 14.4 Vacant 42,337 34.0 Underwater Land 932 0.8 Commercial 1,564 1.3 Industrial 1,667 1.3 Institutional 7,075 5.7 Utilities 8,215 6.6 Open Space 25,635 20.6 Agriculfural 19,262 15.5 Total 124,661 · Column may not total 100.0 due to rounding. Source: Long Island Regionat Planning TABLE 3-26 Existing Land Use (acres) in the West Portion of the Central Suffolk SGPA, 1989. 1989 Existing Land Use Category Land Use % of Total* Residential 12,234 25.3 Vacant 12,732 26.4 Underwater Land 199 0.4 Commercial 1,084 2.2 Industrial 788 1.6 Institutional 6,220 12.9 Utilities 1,373 2.8 Open Space 10,484 21.7 Agricultural 3,189 6.6 Total 48,303 · Column may not total 100.0 due to rounding. Source: Long Island Regional Planning B~ard. PROBLEMS AND CONCERNS - The potential for greund- water contamination that is inevitably associated with human presence and land use activities, however well intentioned, emphasizes the need for action to preserve the open space and watershed protection value of already dedicated conser- vation and recreation lands and to limit or mitigate the adverse impacts of essential development. The quality of groundwater, particularly shallow groundwater, within the SGPA has been impacted by various point and non-point sources of contami- nation. Sewage treatment plants (STPs) are a major category of point sources within the SGPA. There are 28 existing and 10 proposed STPs. Not all existing plants have tertiary treatment (nitrogen removal), but operators of all those with flows over 3-73 Figure 3-17 1989 Existing Land Use in the West Portion of the Central Suffolk SGPA EXISTING LAND USE - 1989 CENTRAL SUFFOLK SGPA (West) Residential- Estates Residential- Low Density Residential - Medium Density Residential - High Density Commercial Institutional Industrial Agricultural General Open Space Golf Course Cemetery Town,County,State Park/Open Space Utilities Gov't Highway Facilities Vacant Underwater Lands CATION MAP OAI£: 7-t5~91 Figure 3-18 1989 Existing Land Use in the Southeast Portion of the Central Suffolk SGPA EXISTING LAND USE - 1989 CENTRAL SUFFOLK SGPA (South) Residential - Estates Residential - Low Density Residential - Medium Density Residential - High Density Commercial Insfifufiun~l Industrial Agricultural 6ener~ Open Space Ocli Course Cemetery Town,County,State Park/Open Space Utilities Oovl Highway Facilities Vacant Underwater Lands N MAP 0 ft. Scale 1: 64826 5402 10804 16206 Residential - Estates Residential - Low Density Residential - Medium Density Residential- High Density Commercial Instituiiona! Indusirial Agricultural General Open Space Golf Course Cemetery Town,County,State Perk/Open Space Utilities Gov't Highway Facilities Vacant Underwater Lands 0 fl, Scale 1:62128 5177 105~1 i531 Figure 3~19 1989 Existing Land Use in the Northeast Portion of the Central Suffolk SGPA EXISTING LAND USE - 1989 CENTRAL SUFFOLK SGPA (North) 7-15-9t TABLE 3-27 Existing Land Use (acres) in the Southeast Portion of the Central Suffolk SGPA, 1989. Land Use Cateqory 1989 Existing Land Use % of Total* Residential 3,884 7.6 Vacant 26,277 51.4 Underwater Land 630 1.2 Commemial 298 0.6 Industrial 592 1.2 Institutional 660 1.3 Utilities 3,377 6.6 Open Space 12,742 24.9 Agricultural 2,630 5.1 Total 51 ,O9O * Column may not total 100.0 due to rounding. Source: Long Island Regional P~anning Board. TABLE 3-28 Existing Land Use (acres) in the Northeast Portion of the Central Suffolk SGPA, 1989. 1989 Existing Land Use Category Land Use % of Total* Residential 1,856 7.3 Vacant 3,328 13.2 Underwater Land 103 0.4 Commemial 182 0.7 Industrial 287 1.1 Institutional 195 0.8 Utilities 3,465 13.7 Open Space 2,409 9.5 Agricultural 13,443 53.2 Total 25,268 * Column may not total 100.0 due to rounding. Source: Long Island Regional Planning Board, 30,000 gpd ara now required to upgrade to include denitrifica- tion. Table 3-29 indicates the name, location and type of treat- ment provided for each Central Suffolk STP. The ability of existing tertiary plants to produce effluent meet- ing the 10 ppm drinking water standard for nitrate has been in- consistent at best, due primarily to inconsistent operation and maintenance. Shallow groundwater quality downgradient of these plants often reflects their suboptimal performance, and the potential for impacting water supplies, both public and pri- vate, clearly exists. Known or suspected cases where an in- adequate or poorly operated STP has impacted water supplies include that of the Homestead Village STP (Coram), which has caused amonia-nitragen contamination of a few private wells located immediately downgradient. The Brookhaven Laboratory's STP discharges to the headwaters of the Peconic River, but during dry periods the entira flow recharges to groundwater before raaching the BNL's eastern boundary. Lim- its on effluent concentrations of tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen, wera voluntarily lowered by the BNL after contami- nation below the drinking water standard was discovered in about one-half dozen private wells downstream. Landfills and other potential hazardous waste disposal sites ara another major category of point sources within the SGPA. Among the municipal landfills are three active and five former sites. All except the Old Westhampton landfill are included on the NYSDEC's April 1989 State Superfund list of possible inac- tive hazardous waste disposal sites (IHWDSs). The SCDHS has identified a leachate (inorganics) plume downgradient of the Riverhead landfill, and studies conducted for the Town of Brookhaven have confirmed groundwater contamination, in- cluding ammonia and organic solvents that may be ralated to the scavenger waste lagoons on the site at the Manorville landfill. All the landfills on the list will be the subject of Phase II State Superfund studies, including groundwater monitoring, in the near future. Table 3-30 indicates the name, general loca- tion and status of landfills and hazardous waste sites. Also on New York State's list of inactive hazardous waste dis- posal sites are seven other facilities, including landfills at pri- vate or quasi-public facilities. Disposal of hazardous materials has been confirmed at all these sites but solvent contamina- tion has been detected only at Brookhaven Aggregates and thrae locations at the BNL. The laboratory sites consist of two landfills -- one active and one closed -- and a hazardous waste management facility (HWMF), which is used as a trans- fer station. The two landfills have been soumes of Iow levels of tdtium and organic solvents, while accidental spills at the HWMF have produced a significant solvent plume, which is being ramediated using recovery wells and spray irrigation. Spills and leaks of petroleum products constitute another source of contamination within the SGPA. Many of the inci- dents have occurred at local service stations, including five along Middle County Road (Route 25) from Middle Island to Ridge. Brookhaven Lab has raported at least 8 incidents, al- though none appears to have resulted in free product reaching the water table, and only one (a 20-25 thousand gallon leak- age of No. 6 fuel oil in 1977 at the Central Steam Facility) was found to have contaminated groundwater with traces of ben- zene, toluene, and xylene (BTX). Four spill sites are being monitored at Grumman's Calverton facility -- at the Fire Train- ing Area, Fuel Depot, Fuel Calibration Araa, and Steam Plant. Suffolk County Airport is the site of two recovery operations -- 3-80 TABLE 3-29 Central Suffolk SGPA: Sewage Treatment Plants Facility Name Woodhaven Nursing Home Woodcrest Estates Sagamore Hills Condos Selden Sanitary (SCSD#11) Village in the Woods Allstate Headquarters Blue Ridge Condominiums North Isle Aparfments Bmokwood Comm. Apts. Bretton Woods Condos LaBonne Vie Apts. Homestead Village Apts. Tallmadge Woods Forest Green Estates Rocky point Coop Apts. Rocky Point Meadows Oak Hollow Numing Home Bal Moral Townhouses Bimhwood @ Spring Lake Middle Island Coop Apts. Coventry Manor Townhouses Artist Lake Apts. Lake Pointe Condominiums Leisure Village Ridge Haven Estates Strathmore Ridge (SCSD#8) Colonial Woods(Parr V.) Bmokhaven R&D Plaza Anton Meadows Bmokhaven Nat. Lab. Grumman Aerospace HeathenNood @ Calverton Pine Hills Apts. Greenwood Village Manor Run Suffolk Co. Comm.College Osborne Ave. Condos Chesterfield Estates Community Port Jeff Sta. Porf Jeff Sra. Port Jeff Sta. Centereach Selden Farmingville Medford Coram Coram Coram Coram Coram Mt. Sinai Mt. Sinai Rocky Point Rocky Point Middle Island Middle Island Middle Island Middle Island Middle Island Middle Island Middle Island Ridge Ridge Ridge Yaphank Yaphank W. Yaphank Upton Calverton Calverton Manorville Manorville Manon/ille Speonk Riverhead Riverhead Tertiary Treatment none; need for under study included in plant design operating off-line since c.1982; upgrading to be addod in 1991 operating operating operating operating operating none; need for under study to be added in 1991 included in plant design included in plant design none; need for under study included in plant design operating operating included in plant design none; need for under study operating operating operating operating operating none; connecting to Parr V. 1990 operating included Jn plant design included in plant design none; considered surface discharge none; considered surface discharge none; need for under study operating operating included in plant design operating included in plant design included in plant design 3-81 TABLE 3-30 Central Suffolk SGPA; Landfills & Hazardous Waste Sites Municipal Facility Name Pine Road Ecology Site Riverhead Landfill Westhampton Landfill Manorville Landfill Eastport Landfill Old Westhampton Landfill Hampton Bays Landfill Quogue Landfi~ Private Facility Name Comm[lnity Corem Riverhead Westhampton Manorville Eastport Westhampton Hampton Bays Quogue Community Brookhaven Aggregates RCA Rocky Point Brookhaven Lab RCA Riverhead Suffolk County Airport Suffolk County Airport Oakville Drum Site Miller Place Rocky Point Upton Flanders Westhampton Westhampton Oakville Comment past open burning; suspected IHWDS active; suspected IHWDS active; suspected IHWDS old scavenger lagoons; confirmed closed; suspected IHWDS closed; not on IHWDS list closed; suspected IHWDS closed; suspected IHWDS Comment debris disposal; confirmed IHWDS PCB contaminated soil removal organics plume being remediated PCB contaminated soil removal open dump; suspected IHWDS kennel site; PCB soil removed asphaltic matedal in drums one at the main tank farm at the southern end of the facility, and one near the buildings on the west side of the facility (in- formally known as the Baumann Bus site). The Fire Training Area located off the airport runway is being investigated for possible petroleum and solvent contamination. Tank failures at the former Bomam site (now owned by Suffolk County) did not result in significant groundwater contamination. Table 3-31 provides a list of petroleum spills end leaks known to have af- fected Central Suffolk groundwater. Nonpoint sources are both ubiquitous and significant. They in- clude unsewered medium-density residential and commemial developments which release sewage nitrogen through cess- pools. These land uses are also a soume of organic chemi- cals, although the magnitude of the residentia~ contribution was significantly reduced with the banning of cesspool clean- ers containing solvents in 1980. Farming activities also fall within the non-point soume cate- gory; groundwater impacts come from plant nutrients like ni- trate, and pesticides like aldicarb, dichloropropane, and dacthai. Agriculture may also be the soume of other, as yet un- detected, contaminants in groundwater. Accidental spills or discharges ot hazardous substances like organic solvents are a problem of unknown proportions within the SGPA. Any commemial or industrial facility utilizing such materials is a potential source, even if process water is treated TABLE 3-31 Central Suffolk SGPA Petroleum Spills and Leaks Impacting Groundwater Community Middle Is. Facil~ Name Getty-Power Test Pilot Service Sta Middle Is. Texaco Middle Is. Rt.25; Power Test Serv. Sta. Ridge Mobil Ridge Brookhaven Lab. Upton Grumrnan Calverton Tuthill Petroleum Calverton Suffolk County Airport Westhampton Suffolk County Airport Westhampton Big "E" Farm Riverhead Comment Rt.25; gasoline;recovery Rt,25; gasoline;recovery gasoline;monitoring Rt.25; gasoline;recovery Rt.25; gasoline;recovery fuel oil BTX plume; monitoring 4 sites being monitored Edwards Ave; fuel oil; monitoring Fire Training Area; monitoring Tank Farm & Baumann; fuel recovery Sound Ave; gasoline; recovery 3-82 or held in storage for removal, since traces of solvent can be discharged to sanitary pools during normaJ cleanup proce- duns, and spills can be washed into floor drains that dis- charge to dry wells, a practice that is now prohibited. At the Bmokhaven National Laboratory, four of the shallow water supply wells in proximity to the mseamh buildings have been contaminated with solvents. Grumman Calverton is another potential problem area, as indicated by the intermittent organic contamination in a SCDHS monitoring well (S-51591) !ocated downgradient of the facility on Swan Pond Road. At the Suffolk County Airport, there is a known source of groundwater con- tamination on the south side of the facility that resulted from the illegal discharge of a paint stripping solvent to floor drains. The Corneit University analysis of air photos from 1947, 1962, and 1972 identified almost 200 potential hazardous dump sites within the boundaries of the SGPA. Inventoried sites range from mined areas and locations with disturbed vegetation, to open dumps with barrels and drums. Dumping activities were identified at 67 sites, wh/ch included informa~ landfills, old sand mines, and farm dumps. Ten of these sites, however, also had evidence of the storage/disposal of barrels and/or drums -- in Terryville, east of Port Jefferson-Patchogue Road, in Coram, north of Route 25; at BNL (2 sites); at Grumman Calverton (2 sites), south of Route 25 (Calverton); in Manorville, south of Nugent Drive; in Centerville, south of Reeves Avenue; and in East Quogue, north of Old Country Road. The existence of old filed map subdivisions containing sub- standard but nonetheless legal building lots and the constant pressure to rezone residential properties to aJJow the construc- tion of higher density, presumably more affordable housing, pose the threat of increased nonpoint pollution. Single lot de- velopment of old filed maps adds to the number of persons re- siding in unsewered areas, Similarly, the continued availability of vacant commercial and industrial land on the periphery of existing development in- creases the probability that new soumes of contamination might be introduced and the groundwater adversely impacted. Applications for continued commercial development both on Routes 25A and 112 are submitted on a regular basis. OPPORTUNITIES - In view of the size of the SGPA and differ- ences in land use and development pressure, a separate dis- cussion of opportunities is presented for the west, the southeast and the northeast portions of the Central Suffolk Area. Western Sector There is a great need to upgrade and expand sewage treat- ment, especially in the northwestern portion of the area. As in- dicated in the County sponsored North Central Brookhaven Waste Management Study, both expansion and consolidation are technically feasible. If sewering couU be extended to serve exist- ing higher density and new developments and effluent quality could be assured, groundwater quality would be improved. There are a few opportunities for replatling o~d filed map subdi. visions to reduce potential density and preserve some of the land through clustering. Suffolk County owns portions of an old filed map subdivision located between throe apartment com- plexes in Coram. Since this site is accessible to transportation and commemial activities, replalting and clustering to create affordable housing in a development that would be connected to a sewer system would protect the underground water sup- ply, while allowing some needed housing. Nearby there are other old filed maps that should be replatted either to protect an existing well site or to create the opportunity for some fu- ture water protection area. Replatting and clustering could also add to the pamel that the County has set aside for a preserve, provide additional open space, some connections between ex- isting open space parcels, or the continuation of an open space corridor such as that along County Route 83. The most significant open space in the relatively urbanized northwestern portion of the western sector has been protected through cluster developments that have been built in different parts of the area. The Town of Brookhaven has acquired a few other tracts for local recreation purposes and the Nature Conservancy has a preserve in Coram. A current cluster pro- posal encompasses most of the remaining farmland in this part of the SGPA. The proposa~ provides some open space for rec- reation and some land, on Route 25A, that will remain in an agricultural preserve. A combination of clustering or transfer of development rights on the farmland that adjoins Route 25A in Miller Place could set aside almost 100 acres for future agricul- tural use. Orchards or sod farms are the current uses, and with best management practices, they could help to protect the well site that is immediately to the north of the agricuitura~ land. In the western sector as a Whole, there are more than 10,000 acres of open space consisting of pine barrens, river cord- dors, golf courses and cemeteries. The State of New York is lhe largest land holder with over 5,000 acres in the Rocky Point preserve. County and town holdings, two large golf courses, a camp, plus homeowner association lands make up the balance. A series of acquisitions, extending from Route 25A on the north to the Long island Expressway on the south, could pro- tect the resoumes of the area. The largest proposed acquisi- tion is the Warbler Woods area in Yaphank. This property is an extensive forest that extends from the Carmans River almost to the headwaters of the Peconic River. The core of the area is an old filed map in which more than 3/4 of the parcels are cur- rently owned by the County of Suffolk. Other proposed large acquisitions include the Coram Woods wetlands, which are lo- cated between County and town holdings in Coram, and a large tract of land adjacent to Granny Road. Another is the for- mer Camp Olympia, which is located at the southern edge of the deep recharge zone, provides access to the Carmans River and could add a significant parcel to the public lands along the river corridor. Acquisition of another parcel could pm- tact the headwaters of the Peconic River just west of the Brookhaven National Laboratories on William Floyd Parkway. Smaller acquisitions are proposed to link various state and county holdings. These include the outparcels adjacent to the RCA property in Rocky Point and at Ridge, plus the parcels that connect the town holdings to the state holdings near Whiskey Road in Miller Place. There is also a key parcel be- tween the two segments of the Cathedral Pines County Park in Middle Island. The acquisition of some of these properties would not only aid in protecting the watershed, but would form the basis for a se- ries of greenbelts throughout the SGPA. When combined with a coordinated clustering of new development, it would be pos- sible to create a series of north-south and east-west intercon- nected public and private properties that could be used as walkways, hiking trails or for similar types of linear park uses. There are Town holdings as far west as County Route 83 that could, with a few key acquisitions and coordinated clusters, be continued across Route 112 and north to the Coram business district, east into Gordon Heights or south into Medford. The Warbler Woods acquisition would allow such a greenbelt to ex- tend even farther in an easterly direction to William Floyd Parkway. There are also north-south connections extending from the Long Island Expressway almost to Middle Country Road in the Yaphank-Ridge area or from the Expressway all the way through the New York State preserve in Rocky Point, if County Route 8 is ever carded forward. The Brookhaven area east of William Floyd Parkway contains large amounts of land that are already in public ownership. The most significant are the Brookhaven National Laboratory, the State and Town parks that ara north of Route 25, the County properties, along the Peconic River and in Manorville, and the Federal clear zone area that is also in Manorville. With the acquisition of land around the headwaters of the Peconic River and in the area east of Route 111 in Manorville public lands could form a con- tinuous corddor of open space extending from central Brookhaven through the edge of Riverhead and into the Town of Southampton. Recommendations · Suffolk County should continue its efforts to upgrade consolidate and expand sewage collection and treatment within the northwestern portion of this sector. · The County, alone or in conjunction with New York State and the Town of Brookhaven, should acquire and preserve the watershed lands described under Opportunities. The proposed acquisitions include but are not limited to the Warbler Woods tract in Yaphank the Coram wetlands, Camp Olympia, a parcel at the headwaters of the Peconic River and various smaller properties adjacent to or linking existing public lands. · The Town of Brookhaven should concentrate commercial and industrial activities to the maximum extent permitted by existing land uses. The Town should consider further rezonin~ls as necessary to limit the expansion of strip commercial and other non- residential development beyond the periphery of already committed areas. The Town has already rezoned a portion of the land abutting Route 25 some of the commercial properties along Routes 25A and 112. It has already rezoned a ma or commercial site on Canal Road, which could be used for some type of multi-family units that would be tied into the sewer systems that exist in the general area. · Brookhaven should utilize its zoning powers to contain the two pockets of industrial activity in Port Jefferson Station and Coram and to change the classification of the large land locked parcel northwest of the clear zone of Brookhaven Airport, Rezoning of the property for residential use would permit clustered development of this pine barrens tract, with housing next to existing homes and open space between the housing and the clear zone. · The Brookhaven National Laboratory should continue its ongoing efforts to remediate the groundwater contamination caused by some past waste disposal practices and accidental spills. See Tables 3-32 and 3-33 for Plan Land Use acreage by Land Use category and a comparison of Existing and Proposed Land Use. See Figure 3-20 for Plan Land Use. TABLE 3-32 Plan Land Use (acres) in the West Portion of the Central Suffolk SGPA Plan Land Use Category Land Use % of Total** Residential 18,841 39.0 Vacant 0 0.0 Underwater Land 207 0.4 Commemial 1,308 2.7 Industrial 633 1.3 Institutional 6,206 12.8 Utilities 1,124 2.3 Open Space 18,117 37.5 Agricultural 1,104 2.3 Others* 761 1.6 Total 48,301 * Others includes plan options, such as planned unit development, landfill reclama~on, relocation, etc., that could not be assigned to a specific land use category. ** Column may not total 100.0 due to rounding. Source: Long Island Regional Planning Board The Southeast Sector (Southampton Portion) OPPORTUNITIES - The Southeastern part of the Central Suffolk SGPA continues the large expanse of the green space in central Brookhaven and extends all the way to Hampton Bays. Eventually three fourths of all the land located in the por- tion of this sector between Route 24 on the north and Sunrise Highway on the south will be in some type of public ownership. Extensive County holdings around the County center at Bald Hill, near the Community College, at Maple Swamp, and at Hubbard and Sears-Bellows County Parks account for the largest share of the open space. The State Department of Environmental Conservation holdings account for another 2,000 acres. There are other County lands south of Sunrise Highway at the airport and in the dwarf pines area. Most of the additional open land in the Southeast sector is being preserved by means of major watemhed acquisitions; however, there are opportunities to set aside some open space through clustering. Clustering of new residential developments could secure dedicated acreage adjacent to Peconic River properties, preserve an open pine bar- rens corridor along the Long Island Expressway and could add to some of the holdings in the eastern portion of Manorville. It could also provide pockets of open space in the mom developed por- tions of Manorville and some key pieces along the old railroad right-of-way that might one day serve as a hiking trail, connecting Old Country Road in Eastpert with the lands near the Peconic River. Clustering could also preserve some wetlands adjacent to TABLE 3-33 Existing and Plan Land Use (acres) in the West Portion of the Central Suffolk SGPA Change 1989 Existing Plan (+ = gain; Land Use Category Land Use Land Use - = loss) Residential 12,234 18,841 +6,607 Vacant 12,732 0 -12,732 Underwater Land 199 207 +8 Commemial 1,084 1,308 +224 Industrial 788 633 -155 Institutional 6,220 6,206 -14 Utilities 1,373 1,124 -249 Open Space 10,484 18,117 +7,633 Agricultural 3,189 1,104 -2,085 Others* -- 761 +761 Total 48,303 48,301 * Others includes plan options, such as planned unit development, landfill reclamation, relocation, etc., that could not be assigned to a specific land use category. the State property. In fact, the Town of Southampton has al- ready utilized mandatory clustering to create a continuous cor- ridor from the County holdings to Squires Pond in the eastern part of the SGPA. Owners of two of the golf courses in this sector have already given up the development rights to the properties, which will therefore remain as open space. Two other courses, Swan Pond and Long Island Country Club are not permanently pro- tected. The former, which is located south of the Navy owned airport used by Grumman, will be completely surrounded by public lands. There is an opportunity to assure the continued availability of the two golf courses for recreation and water- shed protection through negotiation and implementation of some type of non-development agreement or through County or Town pumhase and lease back. There are a series of old filed map subdivisions near the re- maining farmland in Manorville and in Southampton. Acquisi- tion, replatting and cluster development could provide open space and residential development at an appropriate density, thus avoiding piece-meal development on substandard lots. Acquisition and retention as conservation land could preclude intrusive development in the ecologically significant dwarf pines area in Southampton. 3-85 Figure - PLAN - CENTRAL SUFFOLK SGPA (West) Residential - Estate Residential - Low ~ Residential- High ~ Commercial ~ Institutional ~ Industrial ~ Preserved Farmland ~ Open Space ~ Utilities ~i~i Vacant ~ Underwater Lands Proposed Open Space Acquisfion ~ Cluster Development Farmland - Cluster Replat and Cluster OTHER 0 ft. Scale 1: 56441 4705 94O6 14D9 Relocate TDR (Transfer of Development) Purchase Dev./Farm Dev, Right Industrial Oluster Recbim Dump Fill and Redevdop PUD Mixed Use Historic District Recommendations Suffolk County should establish a Dwarf Pines Preserve to the north and west of the Suffolk County Airport. Such a preserve, incorporating existing County holdings in the area, would constitute part of an open corridor along the south side of Sunrise Highway and would complement the public lands on the north side. The County and the Nature Conservancy should continue to acquire the remaining old filed map lots in the dwad pines area and should add them to the Dwad Pines Preserve. The County or the Town of Bmokhaven should acquire, and replat the remaining old file map subdivisions or undeveloped portions thereof for clustered housing and open space. The Towns of Brookhaven and Southampton should attempt to acquire the development rights or otherwise preserve the Swan Pond and the Long Island golf clubs. The County or the Town of Southampton should acquire the development rights to the small pockets of farmland at Lewis Road and along Riverhead - East Moriches Road. The Towns of Brookhaven and Southampton should facilitate the conversion of obsolete or inappropriately located extractive and industrial properties, such as the sand mine on South Street and the industry along Nugent Drive, to residential use. In the case of the Nugent Drive properties, homes could be connected to the STP that serves a nearby condominium, thus ~r. otecting the groundwater and the nearby Peconic iver. TABLE 3-34 Plan Land Use (acres) in the Southeast Portion of the Central Suffolk SGPA Plan Land Use Cate.qoq/ Land Use % of Total** Residential 12,359 24.2 Vacant 0 0.0 Underwater Land 586 1.1 Commemial 211 0.4 Industrial 622 1.2 Institutional 639 1.3 Utilities 3,412 6.7 Open Space 32,409 63.5 Agricultural 615 1.2 Others* 220 0.4 Total 51,073 * O~hers includes plan options, such as planned unit development, landfill reclamation, relocation, etc., that could not be assigned to a specific lend use category. ** Column may not total 100.0 due to rounding. Source: Long Island Regional Planning Board · The Town of Southampton should permit new industrial development only in those areas where such uses already exist. These areas include the Suffolk County Airport and the ad acent properties that have not been rezoned for residential use, the area around the County Bomam facility and along Speonk Road and a small, partially developed industrial area in the Village of Quogue. A comprehensive plan for the airport ama has recommended preservation of some key pamels and development or redevel- opment that would meet the water protection standards for the area. Since extensive amounts of land in this area have been rezoned from industrial to residential, there are only limited op- portunities for any industrial expansion in the future. A sand mining operation northeast of the airport should be phased out. However, there should be no housing on most of the prop- erty since it is necessary to maintain a clear zone for the main runway. A transfer of the development rights to pamels outside the airport clear zone is suggested. All three towns -- Brookhaven, Southampton and Riverhead should prevent the spread of commemial land uses beyond the limits of the existing business areas in Manorville, at the in- temection of the Long island Expwy. and County Route 111 at the southeastern edge of the Riverhead business district, in Hampton Bays and at a few scattered locations near the air- port. Such development should be designed to serve local needs and should be connected to the STP planned for a nearby condominium. See Tables 3-34 and 3-35 for Plan Land Use acre- age and a comparison of Existing and Plan Land Use. TABLE 3-35 Existing and Plan Land Use (acres) in the Southeast Portion of the Central Suffolk SGPA Change 1989 Existing Plan (+ = gain; Land Use Categoq/ Land Use Land Use - = loss) Residential 3,884 12,359 +8,475 Vacant 26,277 0 -26,277 Underwater Land 630 586 -44 Commemial 298 211 -87 Industrial 592 622 +30 Institutional 660 639 -21 Utilities 3,377 3,412 +35 Open Space 12,742 32,409 +19,667 Agricultural 2,630 615 -2,015 Others* -- 220 +220 Total 51,090 81,073 * Others includes plan options, such as planned unit development, lendfill reclamation, relocation, etc., that could not be assigned to a specific land use category. 3-88 Northeast Sector OPPORTUNITIES - The northeast sector of the Central Suffolk SGPA contains a continuous belt of farmland that extends from Wading River on the west to the Riverhead-Southold town boundary on the east, and from Route 25 on the south to Sound Avenue on the north. With selective acquisitions that belt could be linked with the farm areas in western Southold. Over 3000 acres of productive agricultural land have been pro- tected from development, primarily through the Suffolk County Farmland Development Rights Program. There is an opportu- nity to expand the Farm Preserve through continued purchase of development rights, albeit on a reduced scale, and through the transfer of development rights to sites outside the SGPA. The use of mandatory clustering with the reservation of at least half of the property for agriculture or open space could al- low further expansion of the protected area at minimal cost. Such clustering could preserve half of the farmland while al- lowing development that meets Health Department regulations to occur on the remainder. it would be most desirable to transfer the development rights of properties that are surrounded by protected farmland to ar- eas north of Sound Avenue or around the hamlet of Riverhead. Admittedly, farming activities have been a soume of ground- water contamination, however, there is an opportunity to em- ploy modern best management practices that reduce the reliance on agricultural chemicals and lessen the threat to groundwater. The acquisition of selected woodland and other non-tarm par- cels could facilitate watershed preservation and wellhead pro- tection. Purchase of the unused portion of Camp Wauwepex in Wading Rh/er could protect pine barrens land and provide a well site that would be preferable to the proposed Wading River Road site in the middle of the farmland. A few smaller acquisitions in the Town of Riverhead could enhance the al- ready partially protected Peconic River corridor. The Federal government could contribute to watershed preser- vation in the western part of Riverhead by placing the land it owns outside the fence at the National Cemetery in Calverton in a protected category similar to that of nearby County lands. The Town of Riverhead's landfill is currently in the center of the SGPA. Converting this to a transfer site once the landfill closes and creating a buffer area as development from nearby par- cels encroaches could allow the continuation of solid waste ac- tivities without a conflict with watershed protection goals. In addition to the Grumman complex, there are a series of small groupings of industrial uses throughout the SGPA in Riverhead. The Town has rezoned many acres of industrial land in recent years; however, more could be rezoned, espe- cially in the Calverton area. Most industrial uses in the Town could be concentrated either outside of the SGPA or in the area where existing industries are grouped at the end of the Long Island Expressway where it meets Routes 25 and 58. A planned industrial area that preserves some open space and is ultimately tied into the Riverhead sewer system would con- fine industrial growth to a much smaller part of the Town. There is a large industrial use in Aquebogue that will continue to exist, but other smaller uses in the SGPA could be phased out and the land reused for residential purposes. Most of the commercial development in Riverhead is outside or at the periphery of the SGPA, and could be confined to pre- sent locations. There are some commercial services located at the end of the Expressway, and the edge of the Wading River business district is in the SGPA. There are also small business areas in Jame%oort and Aquebogue, and a few neighborhood or highway commercial establishments on Sound Avenue, Middle Road and Route 25. In western Southold, there is ex- tensive commercial development south of the railroad tracks in Mattituck and a small cluster of commercial buildings on Aldrich Land and Route 25 Jn Laurel. The siting of new busi- ness development at locations outside the SGPA or within the boundaries of existing commercial areas within the SGPA could help to maintain the integrity of the agricultural and open space lands that protect the groundwater and surface waters in this sector. The Southold portion of the sector, which extends from the Riverhead line to Maffltuck, includes a combination of wooded and farming areas around Laurel Lake. It is possible to create a preserve for future watershed puq3oses in the western part of the Town of Southold that would contain over 200 contigu- ous acres in the deep recharge area in the vicinity of the lake. There is some farming, some vacant woodlands, a former mining area and a camp site that could form the core of such an area. 3-89 Figure 3-21 PLan Land Use in the Southeast Portion of the Central Suffolk SGPA - PLAN - CENTRAL SUFFOLK SGPA (South Proposed Open Space Acquistion Cluster Development Farmland - Cluster Replat and Cluster OTHER Relocate TDR (Transfer of Development) Purchase Dev./Farm Dev, Right Industrial Cluster Reclaim Dump Fill and Redevelop PUD Mixed Use Historic District Residential- Estate Residential- Low Residential - High Commercial Institutional Industrial Preserved Farmland Open Space Utilities Vacant Underwater Lands D~e: 7-15-91 0 it, Scale 1:64826 5402 ~0804 16206 Residential - Estate Residential- Low Residential - High Commercial institutional Industrial Preservea Farmland Open Space Utilities Vacant Underwater Lands Proposed Open Space Acquisfion Cluster Development Farmland - Cluster Replaf and Cluster OTHER Re ocaTe TDR (Transfer of Development) Purchase Dev,/Farm Dev. Right Industrial Cluster Reclaim 3ump Fill and Redevelop PUB Mixed Use Historic District Figure 3-22 Plan Land Use in the Northeast Portion of the Central Suffolk SGPA - PLAN - CENTRAL SUFFOLK SGPA (North) Scale 1:62128 0 ff. 5177 10354 15531 LOCATION MAP Da}e: 7-t5-91 Recommendations · Suffolk County together with the Towns of Riverheed and Southold should expand the existing agricultural preserve. The County should continue to acquire development rights under its Farmland PreserVation Pmgram. · The Town of Riverhead should amend its zoning to require a five acre minimum lot size for all farmland located within the SGPA. At the same time, it should provide for the transfer of development rights to non-farm sites outside the SGPA at one owelling unit per two acres. · The Town of Riverhead should require clustering of development on those parcels where T.D.R. is not feasible. The County and the Town of Southold should use a combination of selective acquisition, T.D.R. and mandatory clustering to assemble and protect a 200+ acre watershed preserVe in the vicinity of Laurel Lake. Such a preserVe would comprise both woodlands and portions of farm parcels. · The County should acquire the unused_port? of Camp Wauwepex while permitting the uoy scouts to continue using the remainder. The County ,or the Town, of Riverhead should acquire the Canoe LaKe area ana p_.~.rt or all of several small parcels along the Peconic Hiver. · The Federal Government should place excess land at the National Cemete.n/_ and in the Airport clear zones for the Calverton facility in a prolected category. Such lands constitute an important part of the deep recharge area and should be retained as open space. · The Town of Riverhead should reduce the amount of industrially zoned land and should concentrate such development in existing industrial areas at the end of the Long Island Expressway. The Town of Southold should facilitate the phase out of the former mining operation and of the small industrial use on Sound Avenue. Both properties should be converted to residential use and further industrial development should not be permitted in this part of the SGPA. · The Towns of Riverhead and Southold should review their zoning ordinances and amend them as necessary to preclude the expansion of commercial activities beyond the limits of those SGPA areas where such activities currently exist. See Tables 3-36 and 3-37 for a breakdown of Plan Land Use and a comparison of Existing and Plan Land Use, respectively. TABLE 3-36 Plan Land Use (a~:res) in the Northeast Portion of the Central Suffolk SGPA Plan Land Use Cate,qoty Land Use % of Total** Residential 6,424 25.2 Vacant 0 0.0 Underwater Land 101 0.4 Commercial 306 1.2 Industrial 432 1.7 institutional 236 0.9 Utilities 3,430 13.6 Open Space 4,121 16.3 Agricultural 9,711 38.4 Others* 509 2.0 Total 25,270 · Others includes plan options, such as planned unit development, landfill reciamal~on, relocation, etc,, that could not be assigned to a specific land use catag~J. ** Column may not total 100.0 due to rouncing. Source: Long Isla, nd Regional P~anning Boafcl TABLE 3-37 Existing and Plan Land Use (acres) in the Northeast Portion of the Central Suffolk SGPA Change 1989 Existing Plan (+ = gain; Land Use Category Land Use Land Use - = loss) Residential 1,856 6,424 +4,568 Vacant 3,328 0 -3,328 Underwater Land 103 101 -2 Commemial 182 306 +124 Industrial 287 432 +145 Institutional 195 236 +41 Utilities 3,465 3,430 -35 Open Space 2,409 4,121 +1,712 Agricultural 13,443 9,711 -3,732 Others* -- 509 +509 Total 25,268 25,270 * Othars includes plan options, such as planned unit development, landfill reciamal~on, relocation, etc., that could not ba assigned to a specific land use category. 3-94 RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES AND SIGNIFICANT HABITATS - The majority of the natural elements in the South Fork SGPA occur near ponds and their associated freshwater wetlands in the Sag Harbor area. The coastal plain pond shore, ecological community has been identified in this SGPA. Plant species common to many of the ponds include creeping St. John's wort (E), rose coreopsis (R), ludwigia (R), Carolina redroot ('r), the long-beaked bald rush (R), short- beaked bald rush (R), and reticulated nutrush (R). Singular occurrences of certain species have also been noted around ponds in this area. For example, Atlantic white cedars (R) are found near Seven Ponds, and eastern mudminnows are reported in Long Pond. One animal, the Tiger Salamander (E) is also common to these ponds. The Grassy Hollow area provides habitat for two threatened plant species, bush rockrose and white milkweed. The coastal barrens buckmoth (SC) and orange-fringed omhis (T) can be found in a region east of the East Hampton Airport. One threatened plant species, the tick-trefoil, was sighted in Amagansett. SURFACE WATERS AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS - The freshwater wetlands within the South Fork SGPA are charac- terized by the different features of the area's landscape. Many of the wetlands that are found along the southern border of the SGPA are associated with several streams and pond systems. In the western half of the SGPA, there are many ponds, streams and associated upland wetlands, including Mill Pond, which flows into Mecox Bay. Other wetlands include areas around Long Pond and Shorts Pond in the vicinity of Scuttlehole Road. Farther to the east, some of the wetlands are associated with Georgica Pond are also located within the SGPA. These wetlands in the southern part of the SGPA are mostly Class I wetlands. Along the northern border of the South Fork SGPA, many of the wetlands are associated with ponds and streams that flow into Peconic/Gardiners Bay, such as the extensive Sebonac Creek system. In the center of the South Fork SGPA, the Long Pond system provides an extensive wetland area from Sag Harbor to Bridgehampton, and consists mostly of Class I wet- lands. Farther to the east, there are some wetlands located south and east of Northwest Harbor. In the southwest corner of the SGPA, another creek flows south towards the southern boundary of the SGPA. Throughout the entire South Fork SGPA, many of the kettle holes that dot the landscape support between Class II and Class III wetlands. Altogether, the South Fork SGPA has 907 acres of freshwater wetlands within its boundaries. HYDROGEOLOGY - The South Fork SGPA straddles the groundwater divide in the region east of Shinnecock Inlet and west of Napeague. The divide runs east-west, and essentially bisects the SGPA, which lies almost entirely within deep re- charge Hydrogeologic Zone V. Only the easternmost portions of the SGPA lie within shallow flow Hydrogeologic Zone IV. GEOLOGY - The geology of the South Fork reflects the com- plex sequence of events that occurred prior to and dudng the Pleistocene (Wisconsin) Glaciation. The most prominent geo- logic feature is the Ronkonkoma moraine, which trends east- west in the northern portion of the SGPA. The moraine reaches heights of over 250 feet in the Noyack area, and is crossed by north-south trending channels -- including those south of Sag Harbor and Three Mile Harbor --that were cut by water ponded north of the moraine as the glaciers retreated. Within the morainal deposits, clay and till lenses reduce verti- cal permeability, resulting in a mounded -- possibly pemhed -- water table in the Noyack area. See Figure 3-23. The region south of the moraine consists of highly permeable outwash plain deposits that range in thickness from 200 to 350 feet, with a general increase from west to east. Outwash de- posits directly overlie Magothy deposits, with the exception of the Bridgehampton area, where a marine Gardiners clay unit intervenes. The top surface of the Magothy increases in depth from west to east, from minus 150 feet at Hampton Park to minus 300 feet or more at Amagansett. The region north of the moraine consists primarily of glacial outwash directly overlying the Magothy. Units of lower perme- ability, however, may be present within or just below the se- quence of glacial deposits, including the Montauk Till Member in easternmost portions of the SGPA, and a clay (Gardiners) unit in the northernmost port[on of Noyack, which may contrib- ute to the mounding of the water table seen in this region. The thickness of fresh water in the glacial aquifer generally in- creases from west to east within the SGPA, from 150+ feet at Hampton Park to 200-300 feet at Grassy Hollow, and 300+ feet at Amagansett. Freshwater thicknesses in the Magothy aquifer are greatest (400+ feet) in the south central Noyack area, and are generally at least 200 feet beneath most of the SGPA. The exceptions are the northeastern portion (Grassy Hollow) and easternmost portion (Amagansett), where the Magothy is salty. The total thickness of the freshwater lens be- low the SGPA ranges from 600+ feet in southcentral Noyack to 350+ feet at Hampton Park, and 200-400 feet at Grassy Hollow and Amagansett. GROUNDWATER FLOW - Horizontal groundwater flow veloci- ties within the SGPA are generally on the order of 0.5-0.75 ft/yr, which are somewhat less than those on the main body of Suffolk. Areas west of Noyack are characterized by a westerly component of flow, while areas east of Noyack have an east- erly component. Variations occur near the boundaries of the 3-96 South Fork SGPA GENERAL BACKGROUND - The South Fork SGPA encom- passes over 29,000 acres in the heart of the eastern Long Island resort, farm and residential area. Two-thirds of the acre- age is in Southampton Town and the remainder in East Hampton Town. The hilly topography and extensive woodlands of the northern morainal area, together with the farmlands of the outwash plain to the south contribute to a pemeption of open space and tranquility that complements and enhances the higher density resort development in nearby areas. SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY - Four different soils associations are found in the South Fork SGPA. The Plymouth-Carver as- sociation, rolling and hilly, covers approximately half of this SGPA. It occupies most of the central areas as well as the north and west boundaries of the SGPA. Found on the Ronkonkoma moraine, these soils are strongly sloping to steep, with a surficial incline of between eight and thirty-five pement. The major soils are deep, coarse-textured and exces- sively drained. Some areas contain ridges with large amounts of gravel on the surface. Permeability is rapid. These charac- teristics severely limit the soils for development. The Bddgehampton-Haven soil association, found in several areas along the southern border of the South Fork SGPA, coy- ere roughly 30% of the area. These South Fork outwash plain soils are level to gently sloping. Slopes range from one to six pement. Some areas near the moraine are pitted by steep- sided kettle holes. Depth, good drainage, and moderate to high available moisture capacity make this association one of the best farm soils in the country. There are few limitations to use for building or industrial sites. However, Bridgehampton soils tend to be slightly wet in some areas and, therefore, are not always desirable for septic lank drain fields and cesspools. The Montauk, sandy variant-Plymouth soil association is found in two areas located at the eastern end of the SGPA. This as- sociation covers approximately 15% of the SGPA and occurs on generally very hilly or rolling morainal deposits, with slopes ranging from one to thirty-five pement. Because these soils are coarse-textured, droughty, and readily eroded, less sloping ar- eas are more appropriate for farming. Soils on less sloping ar- eas have few limitations for use however, the hardpan in these soils slows infiltration and makes the installation and mainte- nance of cesspools difficult. A small area of well-drained Montauk-Haven-Riverhead asso- ciation soils covers approximately five percent of the SGPA in the northwestern sector, near Noyack Bay. This association is characterized by rolling hills, with soils that are nearly level to sloping. The soils ara well suited to farming, but the more slop- ing areas are subject to severa erosion. Montauk soils have moderate to severe limitations for housing developments be- cause of slow infiltration in the hardpan layer. VEGETATION ASSOCIATION - The major vegetation associa- tions found within the South Fork SGPA are oak-dominated forests and pine barrens. The oak dominated forests are found in areas of moist, fertile soils on portions of the moraine and outwash plains throughout the SGPA. The canopy composition is dominated by white oak, black oak, red oak and scarlet oak. On some of the moderately wet soils, the canopy also includes American beech, rod maple, black bimh and tulip can also be found in the canopy. There is a good understory that can in- clude flowering dogwood, blueberry and maple-leaved vibur- num, among other evergreen and deciduous shrubs. The pine barrens association predominates in areas of exces- sively drained less fertile soils on the moraines and outwash plains. In the pine barrens of the South Fork, pitch pine to- gether with white oak, is generally dominant. Black oak, scarlet oak and post oak may also be present. Major ground covers consist of shrubby and herbaceous plants including scrub oaks, huckleberry, blackberries, bracken fern and sweeffem. A white pine association can also be found scattered through- out woodlands in between Northwest and Three Mile Harbors. This association tends to occur on sites where the soils are coarser and more moist than those that support the pitch pine. The composition of the white pine forest consists of a canopy layer of white pine with some oaks and maples and a ground layer of sweet pepperbush and high bush blueberry, with only immature white pines in the understory. In the past farming was more extensive than it is today. Throughout the South Fork SGPA there are sites that have been cleared, farmed, abandoned or converted to other uses. Examples of natural vegetation succession from old field to first growth woods abound. The overgrown or old field habitats vary in respect to the dominance of herbaceous and shrub growth. The herb dominated fields typically contain goldenrods and asters, with Queen Ann's lace, yarrow, bush clover, eve- ning-primrese and chicory also present. Various grass species, including little bluestem, may also occur along with big bluestem and rescue species. As succession proceeds, the old field habitat is invaded by shrubs including eastern red cedar, northern bayberry, autumn olive, multiflora rose, sumac and raspberry. The shrub layer eventually becomes dominant. In the later stages of succession, trees such as black locusts, red cedar, ailanthus, and grey bimh, as well as undergrowth in- cluding wild blackberry, poison ivy, raspberry, multiflora rose, catbriar and grape form a first growth woods. 3-95 SGPA, where flow directions are influenced by tidal surface waters such as Northwest Creek and Three Mile Harbor. Hod- zontal flow directions, and the position of the groundwater di- vide in the region south of the Noyack water table n~ound are unknown, and depend on lhe extent to which the mound repre- sents a pemhed water table. WATER SUPPLY - Two purveyors, the Suffolk County Water Authority and the Bridgehampton Water Company, serve the population on public water. There are three community public water supply well fields within the SGPA boundaries, and an- other six located adjacent to or just downgradient of the SGPA. See Table 3-38. Their combined 1987 average daily pumpage of 4 mgd represents 16 percent of the total installed pumping capacity at the fields; it should be noted that maximum day pumpage is usually estimated at four to five times average daily pumpage. The SCWA owns future well sites near the dj- vide on Water Mill - Towd Road, Roses Grove Road, Scuttle Hole Road, and Sag Harbor Turnpike. It also owns an aban- doned well field on Cozzens Lane that formerly belonged to the Amagansett Water Company. TABLE 3-38 Water Supply for the South Fork SGPA Well Fields Within the SGPA SCWA Edge of Woods Rd. SCWA Long Springs Rd. Bridgehampton Lumber La. Total Fields Downgradient of SGPA SCWA West Prospect St. SOWA Division St. SCWA Bridgehampton Rd. SCWA Oak View Hwy. SCWA Spring Close Hwy. SCWA Cross Hwy. Total Capacity 1987 Pumpage 2.02 mgd 0.66 mgd 5.04 mgd 0.52 rngd 3.46 mgd 0.34 mgd 10,52 mgd 1.52 mgd Capacity 1987 Pumpage 1.01 mgd 0.20 mgd 3.17 mgd 0.43 mgd 3.24 mgd 0.45 mgd 2.88 mgd 0.34 mgd 2.45 mgd 0.89 mgd 1.54 mgd 0.12 mgd 14.29 mgd 2.43 mgd WATER QUALITY - Glacial water quality south of the divide in the western portion of the SGPA has been impacted by agri- cultural chemicals, particularly nitrate and pesticides. This con- tamination is apparent in many private wells throughout the region, and in most of the shallow public supply wells. ,All gla- cial supply wells have elevated nitrates, some approaching the 10 ppm standan:l, and most have pesticide (aldicarb) concen- trations necessitating GAC treatment. Among those being treated are the 160' well at SCWA West Prospect Street, which was taken off line in 1985-6; the two shallowest (87'-100') wells at SCWA Long Springs Road, and the two shallowest (110') wells at Bridgehampton Water Company's Lumber Lane well field. The two other glacial wells at Long Springs Road have also been impacted by pesticides, but have never ex- ceeded drinking water guidelines. See Figure 3-23 for Greund- water Conditions. Thus far, the Magothy wells at western well fields south of the divide have remained pesticide-free, although slight increases in nitrate and agricultural chloride have been observed in those at West Prospect Street and Lumber Lane. This trend can be expected to continue for the conservative contami- hunts; however, the eventual appearance of pesticides wJJJ de- pend on the rate at which they degrade within the aquifer, which is presently unknown. In any event, it is possible that agricultural contamination in the form of nitrate and pesticides will eventually be encountered at the SCWA's well field site on Scutfie Hole Road that has been leased to the Bddgehampton Water Company. The well field is located near the divide and is surrounded by I'armland. The water quality is considerably better north of the divide in the western portion of the SGPA, since almost all farming ac- tivities are located south of the divide, and the Iow intensity of land use in the region can be expected to preclude the intro- duction of potentially significant pollution sources. For exam- pie, both the glacial (268') and Magothy (366') wells at SCWA Edge of Woods Road produce pristine water, as should future wells at the proposed SCWA well fields at Roses Grove Road and Water MilI-Towd Road, which is just south of the divide. Groundwater below the undeveloped central porfion of the SGPA can be assumed to be pristine as reflected by the quai- ity of the three glacial production wells at SCWA Division Street, and SCDHS profile test well S-71318, located just north of the LIRR near Town Line Road, which sampled the upper 100 feet of the glacial aquifer. Superior water quality should also be present in the northeast (Grassy Hollow) area, and south toward East Hampton Airport and the future SCWA well field site on Sag Harbor Turnpike. Localized contamination problems, however, may be present in the vicinities of the Sag Harbor, Old Bddgehampton, and Old East Hampton (Bull Path) landfills. At least one industrial solvent plume has been identi- fied along Carroll Street in Sag Harbor where Federal Super- fund monies were used to extend public water to twenty-five homes. Groundwater in the southeastern portion of the SGPA is rela- tively unirnpacted, except for some agricultural contamination affecting a number of pdvate wells in the Hard~::rabble area, and the three shallow glacial supply wells formerly pumped at the Amagansett Water Company well field at Cozzens Lane, A SCDHS profile test well at Cozzens Lane found nitrate (10-15 ppm) down to the limit of ddlling 100' below the water table; 3-97 Figure 3-23 Groundwater Conditions in the South Fork SGPA SOUTH FORK SGPA GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS Existing Sewage Treatment Plant Proposed Sewage Treatment Plant Public Water Supply Welt Sitel C~ears Potential Hazardous WaSte Site Hew York State Superfund Stteli Petroleum Product Spill ~ Groundwater Divide Northville Industries Direction of Groundwater SGPA 8oundry Major Road Network Known Contaminated Scale = 0 ft. 5365 Petroleum Pipeline Flow 1:5565 10720 lC~85 and carbamate pesticides (7-34 ppb) in the horizon 30'-50' be- low the water table. Glacial production wells at SCWA Bddgehampton Road also have had elevated nitrates (2-5 ppm) related to agricultural activities. GAC treatment of these wells, however, has been undertaken to remove organic sol- vents (trichloroethane), which probably originated as a result of illegal dumping somewhere upgradient to the north. A com- bination of old agricultural activities and more recent residen- tial development are probably responsible for the slightly elevated nitrate concentrations in the 162' glacial well at SCWA Oak View Highway, and in the 125' glacial and 244' Magothy wells at SCWA Spring Close Highway. Water quality at the two 150' glacial wells at SCWA Cross Highway appears unaffected by human activities. Chloride concentrations ars very slightly elevated (20+ ppm), however, due to the proximity of ocean salt spray. The phenomenon of saltwater upconing-- the localized upward movement of the freshwater/saltwater in- terface due to pumping--has been experienced at two SCWA supply wells in the SGPA region. Chloride concentrations in the 287' Magothy well at SCWA Long Springs Road increased from initial values around 12 ppm in the early 1970s to around 100 ppm by 1982; subsequent reductions in pumping stress at the well have allowed its continued use, with a gradual drop in chloride concentrations back to the 30 ppm range. Similarly, the 466' Magothy well at SCWA Oak View Highway increased in chloride concentrations from 26 ppm in 1979 to 112 ppm in 1986, when a larger portion of the pumping load was shifted to a new, shallower (303') Magothy well on site. LAND USE -Three land use categories -- vacant, agricultural and open space -- account for two thirds of the acreage within the SGPA. The number of acres of vacant land; that is, land not being used for any particular purpose, includes more than two fifths of the SGPA total. Vacant land in the terminal moraine is pri- marily wooded. Approximately 20% of the vacant land within the SGPA is included in old filed subdivisions. Vacant land on the outwash plain is predominantly in old field vegetation and was probably farmland at one time. Agriculture is still a signifi- cant land use activity in the South Fork SGPA, especially in the southern portion or outwash plain. Crops account for ap- proximately two-thirds of the agricultural acreage. Nursery stock and horse farms probably account for the remaining one- third. Manure piles, presumably awaiting use as fertilizer, were observed adjacent to fields. Suffolk County, the Town of Southampton, and the Town of East Hampton have under- taken efforts to preserve farmland. Suffolk County has pur- chased 671 acres; the Town of Southampton, 516 acres; and East Hampton, 64 acres of development rights to farmlands in the SGPA. In addition, a review of subdivisions recently filed with the Suffolk County Clerk indicates a growing trend toward cluster- ing of housing units, with the remaining acreage set aside as an agricultural reserve. Low density residential land use is increasing within the area of the terminal moraine. The housing units are relatively high priced and are used seasonally; the lots range in size from one to five acres. Use of the flag lot is widespread. The lots are usually heavily wooded with minimal clearance for lawns. Me- dium density development, with homes on pamels ranging in size from one tenth to just under one acre, occupies roughly four- fifths of the residentially used land. A significant portion of the medium density residential use is found along major town and County roads in the outwash plain. There is little commemial or industrial land usa. Most of the ex- tremely limited commercial activity is located along Montauk Highway. Industrial land uses in the SGPA are centered in the Three Mile Harbor Road/Springs-Fireplace Road area. With the ex- ception of sand mining, industrial activity within the SGPA ap- pears to be insignificant. There are several abandoned and active sand mines. Some of the abandoned sand mines are being used as dump sites. Total acreage in recreation and open space appears to be in- significant in the SGPA. The 521-acre Bridgehampton Race Cimuit, a unique commemial-recreational use, has been aban- doned and the land is now available for redevelopment. See Table 3-39 for total acreage by land use category. TABLE 3-39 Existing Land Use (acres) in the South Forks SGPA, 1989. 1989 Existing Land Use Category Land Use % of Total** Residential 8,246 27.8 Vacant 12,914 43.5 Underwater Land 305 1.0 Commercial 142 0.5 Industrial 311 1.0 Institutional 70 0.2 Utilities 961 3.2 Open Space 1,899 6.4 Agricultural 4,844 16.3 Total 29,692 ** Column may not total 100.0 due to taunting. Source: Long Island Regional Planning Board. 3-100 ZONING - Most of the South Fork SGPA is zoned for residen- tial use at densities that range from one fo five acres per dwell- ing unit in both Southampton and East Hampton. In some cases higher densities are permitted on farmland, while wood- land areas are generally placed in the lowest density category. However, there are a few exceptions to this pattern. There is very little non-residential zoning in the South Fork SGPA, with [he exception of the land around the East Hampton Town Air- pod. This area has the most industrial zoning in the SGPA. There are also some industrial and commemially zoned par- cels near East Hampton Village. PROBLEMS AND CONCERNS - The South Fork problems and concerns generally relate to the contaminant impacts of past and present land uses and activities; the need to preserve clean recharge areas and well sites; and the potential for salt- water upconing, due to overpumping. As indicated in the eadier discussion of water quality, glacial aquifer water in the western, and in part of the southeastern portion of the SGPA already shows the effect of heavy agricul- tural chemical usage. A continuation of practices that involve fertilizer usa in excess of potential plant uptake, poor timing of fertilizer and pesticide applications or exclusive reliance on or- ganic chemical pesticide applications could exacerbate exist- ing groundwater contamination. Poor design and maintenance of farm gasoline and diesel distribution pumps and equipment storage areas or careless use of petroleum products could fur- ther impair the water supply. There are three landfill sites -- Sag Harbor, Old Bridgehamp- ton, and Old East Hampton (Bull Path)--within the SGPA boundaries, while another three--Old North Sea, North Sea, and East Hampton (Springs-Fireplace Road) -- are located just outside the boundaries. Only the leachate plume for the active North Sea site has been defined. The direction of groundwater flow carries this plume to the northwest, away from the SGPA. The Comell Univemity analysis of historic aerial photos re- vealed 40 sites within the SGPA where vegetation had been disturbed; pits were dug; or sand mining operations were con- ducted. Each of these sites may have been used for uncon- trolled (open) dumping. In addition, over a dozen other sites ---primarily sand mines -- were identified where dumping and landfilling definitely took place. These include sand mines in central Noyack, Bridgehampton, and northern Amagansett. Few industrial or commemial operations are located within the SGPA that could pose a significant threat to groundwater qual- ity. Only one major industrial plume has been identified--from a site formerly occupied by Rowe Industries on the east side of Sag Harbor Turnpike. This plume was found to consist of mul- tiple organic solvents and to extend 1/2 mile downgradient (NNW) through a residential area (Carrell Street). The Rowe industrial site was placed on the State Superfund list. Other possible saumes include underground petroleum stor- age tanks at local gas stations and the East Hampton Airport, and scattered service businesses such as exterminators' shops, auto repair shops and vehicle fleet storege areas. For many years, woodlands covered a large part of the SGPA and protected the quality of the recharge. However, the exten- sive residential development now occurring in the pine barrens area of Southampton, together with the development that oc- curred in the Town of East Hampton during the past decade, has reduced and continues to reduce the size of the undis- turbed recharge area. The existence of a series of largely vacant but developable old filed map subdivisions in the far western portion of the SGPA poses the threat of high density unsewered development in an otherwisa open area. Elsewhere, a pattern of land ownership based on long narrow pamels hinders clustering and open space retention even when development occurs at an appro- priate density. Past incidents of chlodde contamination -- one affecting a Magothy well within the SGPA in Southampton and the other, a Magothy well outside and downgradient to the south -- sug- gest the possibility of future saltwater upconing in the event of significant increases in pumpage. OPPORTUNITIES - Much of the SGPA is in agricultural or Iow density residential use. There is an opportunity to assure the continued agricultural use of the prime soils of the outwash plain in a manner that is compatible with groundwater protec- tion. There is also an opportunity to retain a considerable por- tion of the morainal woodlands as open space and protected recharge area. A large farmland preservation area has already been established in the Town of Southampton, stretching from Water Mill through Bridgehampton. It contains extensive County and Town development rights pamels as well as pamels whose owners have elected to join an agricultural district. There is a smaller farmland preservation area just north of the Village of East Hampton and an agricultural preserve in Amagansett. Additional purchasas of development rights in the first two ar- eas, where the County and the Towns have already provided for permanent preservation of a number of pamels, and in the third area, where current arrangements afford only short term protection, could preclude the piecemeal, irretrievable loss of a productive asset. Dedications of land or development rights as a consequence of clustering or the transfer of development rights to sites outside the farm area could be used to supple- 3-101 Figure 3-24 1989 Existing Land Use in the SoL~h Fork SGPA EXISTING LAND USE - 1989 SOUTH FORK SGPA 0 fl, Scale 1:622.~6 5186 10372 15558 Residential- Estates Residential- Low Density Residential- Medium Density Residential- High Density Commercial Institutional Industrial Agricultural General Open Space Golf Course Cemetery Town,County,State Park/Open Space Utilities Gov't Highway Facilities Date: 7-15-91 Vacant Underwater Lands L/ ment County and Town purchases, especially when located adjacent to contiguous farm parcels. Farming activities involving frequent or heavy use of agricul- tural chemicals have been a soume of groundwater contami- nation; however, today there is an opportunity to employ modem best management practices to reduce reliance on fer- tilizers and pesticides and lessen the threat to groundwater quality. County and Town proposals for woodland and other greenbelt acquisitions could protect relatively undisturbed re- charge areas and at the same time permit the creation of a trail system and continuous dbbon of parkland through large portions of the special groundwater preserve. In fact, the Towns of Southampton and East Hampton have already pre- pared detailed, lot-by-lot plans for part of the area. There is an opportunity to purchase key watershed pamels at Edge of Woods Road, in the area stretching from Long Pond to Camps Pond and eastedy to the Sag Harbor greenbelt with a continu- ation across into the area around East Hampton Airport. There is also a chance to pumhase other key pamels in the Grassy Hollow and Stony Hill Woods; and to supplement the major ac- quisitions with land obtained through clustering or T.D.R. Clus- ter development on large pamels such as the Bridgehampton race track, the airport area, and Grassy Hollow could further expand the protected open space and provide areas for future well sites. Town of Southampton or County acquisition and re- platting of the old filed map subdivisions in the western portion of the area could provide for both residential use and the re- tention of open space. The open space could serve as a local greenbelt or as an expanded buffer for the North Sea landfill. Both towns could facilitate clustering and open space reserva- tion by providing incentives to owners of long narrow contigu- ous parcels to develop two or more such parcels as a single clustered subdivision. Finally, there is an opportunity to rehabilitate and reuse the old sandmines, primarily for residential or recreational use. Recommendations · Suffolk County, the Town of Southampton and the Town of East Hampton should continue to purchase farmland development rights in order to consolidate and expand the farm preservation area. The towns should also use clustering and TDR as appropriate to add to the area. To the extent feasible, road frontage should remain in agricultural use. · Suffolk Count}/should continue to support the Comell Cooperative Extension Service efforts to introduce and to secure the adoption of best management practices for agriculture. · The County and the towns should continue to acquire and preserve woodland and other non-farm pamels in accordance with the towns' greenbelt plans. The towns should also utilize mandatory clustering and, where appropriate, TDR to supplement their pumhases. · The Town of Southampton should acquire and replat all or as much as possible of the old filed map subdivisions to prevent unsewered development at densities that are incompatible with groundwater protection. · The towns should rezone areas not already zoned for residential use at five acres per dwelling unit to require a minimum lot size of five acres. However, provision should be made for the transfer of development rights to sites outside the SGPA at the rate of one unit for every two acres. · The towns should consider granting a density bonus that would permit development at less than five acres per dwelling unit whenever two or more of the long narrow lots are merged in a clustered subdivision. · The towns should limit commemial and industrial uses to those few areas already committed to them. · The New York State Department of Conservation and the two towns should require the filling and regrading of mined sites. The Town of Southampton should consider the reuse of the deep hole just west of the Bridgehampton Race Track as part of a recreation oriented residential development. See Tables 3-40 and 3-41 for a quantification of Plan Land Use acreage by land use category and a comparison of Existing and Plan Land Use, respectively. 3-104 TABLE 3-40 Plan Land Use (acres) in the South Fork SGPA Plan Land Use Category Land Use % of Total** Residential 15,790 53.2 Vacant 0 0.0 Underwater Land 305 1.0 Commercial 127 0.4 Industrial 208 0.7 Institutional 125 0.4 Utilities 794 2.7 Open Space 8,171 27.5 Agricultural 3,884 13.1 Others* 288 1.0 Total 29,692 * Others includes plan options, such as planned unit development landfill reclama~on, re ocation, etc., thai: could not be assigned to a specific land use category, ** Column may not ~ota1100.0 d~e to roandJr~g. Source: Long island Regional Planning Board TABLE 3-41 Existing and Plan Land Use (acres) in the South Fork SGPA Change 1989 Ex/sting Plan (+ = ga/n; Land Use Cate~qory Land Use Land Use - = loss) Residential 8,246 15,790 +7,544 Vacant 12,914 0 -12,914 Underwater Land 305 305 0 Commercial 142 127 -15 Industrial 311 208 -103 Institutional 70 125 +55 Utilities 961 794 -167 Open Space 1,899 8,171 +6,272 Agricultural 4,844 3,884 -960 Others* -- 288 +288 Total 29,692 29,692 Others includes plan options, such as planned unit development landfill reclamaf~on, re ocet on, etc., that cou d not be a ssigneci to a specific land use categor~ 3-105 Figure 3-25 Plan Land Use in the South Fork SGPA - PLAN - SOUTH FORK SGPA Scale 1:62236 0 ff. 5186 10372 15558 esidenfial- Estate esidenfial - Low esidential - High ommercial stitutional lustrial eserved Farmland Space tilities 'acant ' [nderwater Lands Proposed Open Space Acquisfion Cluster Development Farmland - Cluster Replat and Cluster OTHER Relocate TDR (Transfer of Development) Purchase Dev./Farm Dev. Right Industrial Cluster Reclaim Dump Fill and Redevelop PUD Mixed Use Historic District Date: 7-15-91 U Hither Hills SGPA GENERAL BACKGROUND - The Hither Hills SGPA encom- passes approxirnately 2900 wooded acres in the Town of East Hampton. Most of the Montauk peninsula from Nspeague Harbor on the west to Fort Pond Bay on the east lies within the SGPA. For the most part, the water beneath the Hither Hills area -- a critical soume of potable supply for the extreme easterly por- tion of the South Fork -- is adequately protected. More than 97 percent of the entire SGPA has been set aside for public recreation and conservation. Hither Hills, a well established State Park; the Hither Woods Preserve, which was placed in the public domain through the combined efforts and financial contributions of New York State, Suffolk County and the Town of East Hampton; and, finally, the Lee E. Koppelman Preserve, the first pamel selected for Suffolk County pumhase under the Quarter Pement Watershed Acquisition Program, constitute an unbroken expanse of permanently protected open space. SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY - Two soils associations -- the Dune land- Tidal Marsh-Beaches association and the Montauk, sandy variant- Plymouth association -- are found within the SGPA. The Dune land-Tidal Marsh-Beaches association, which cov- ers approximately one quarter of the SGPA, occurs in the western end of the area bordering Napeague Harbor. This is a barrier beach association with topography typical of sand dunes and beaches. Just landward of the beaches, there are uneven dunes made up primarily of nearly even-sized sand grains that have been piled up by winds. Vegetation is sparse on most dunes. In places, dunes have encroached on mareh- land, and the water table is within two or three feet of the sur- face. The tidal marsh has an organic surface layer that ranges in thickness from a few inches to several feet. The organic layer is underlain by white sand. The water level is at or near the surface throughout the year. The Montauk, sandy variant-Plymouth association, which cov- ere approximately three-quarters of the SGPA, occurs in the eastern portion of the area. These coarse morainal soils are very hilly and rolling, with slopes ranging from one to 35 per- cent. The coarse texture and droughty character of the soils, combined with a high water table, severely limit the develop- ment of these areas. VEGETATION ASSOCIATIONS - Hither Woods is a densely wooded site with several scattered grassy downs areas. The wooded areas consist mostly of oaks, predominantly white oaks. Other trees include hickory, red maple, sassafras, and holly. Stands of beech were sighted at a few locations in the southwestern section. Substantial growths of mountain laurel can also be found on the eastern part of the site, especially in the Rod's Valley area. A couple of Natural Heritage species have been found in the grassy downs areas of Ram's Level, Quince Tree Landing, the open areas along the LILCO right-of- way and along the Old North Road (see below). A number of New York State protected plants can also be found in the area, including holly, bayberry, laurel, trailing arbutus, the New York lady fern and interrupted fern species. The flora of transitional zones between the grassy downs and the forested areas com- prises such bushy species as smooth sumac, shadebush, blueberry, and huckleberry. Maritime influences are clearly seen in the stunted, bushy growth found north of the railroad tracks. Here the ground cover consists primarily of stunted oak trees, scrub oak, blue- berry, bayberry, dusty miller, rosa rugosa, beach plum and beach grass. RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES AND SIGNIFICANT HABITATS - The Hither Hills SGPA contains a total of 15 differ- ent rere and endangered species and four ecological commu- nities including maritime grassland, madtime interdunal swale, madtime oak-holly forest and madtime heathland. The western peninsula of the Hither Hills State Park provides habitat for two plant species, the seabeach amaranth and seabeach knot- weed, as well as two endangered bird species, the least tern and the piping plover. Maritime interdunal swales bordered by a maritime oak-holly forest exist in the area of the Walking Dunes, where several threatened and rare plant species are found. The bushy rockrose ('r) and Nantucket juneberry (E) grow in the grassy downs area between Hither Hills Overlook and Quincetree Landing. These same species plus slender crabgrass (R) are found in a maritime grassland at the east end of the SGPA in the Hither Woods area. In addition, the Hither Hills Uplands has been designated as a Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat. The boundaries of this habitat encompass the entire South Fork SGPA. The Hither Hills Uplands represent one of the largest undeveloped tracts of coastal upland areas on Long Island, and include one of the largest deciduous forests in the region. Consequently, the area provides extensive suitable habitat for a vadety of wildlife spe- cies, among them the white-tailed deer, red fox, red-shoul- dered hawk (SC), northern harrier (SC), spotted turtle (SC) and Fowlers toad. The SGPA also provides significant opportunities for human use and enjoyment of fish and wildlife resoumes. Hunting is al- lowed throughout much of the area, and sportsmen pursue a variety of game species. In addition, this is a locally popular area for birdwatchers. 3-108 SURFACE WATERS AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS - The Hither Hills SGPA encompasses extensive wetland areas, es- pecially those associated with Fresh Pond and at other loca- tions within the borders of the Hither Hills State Park. Almost all wetlands in this SGPA are Class I wetlands and they cover and area of 297 acres. HYDROGEOLOGY - Unlike all but one of the other SGPAs, Hither Hills is located outside the deep flow hydrogeologic zones. However, the central portion of the SGPA represents a locally significant deep recharge region for the underlying freshwater lens, even though the entire SGPA falls within shal- low flow Hydrogeologic Zone IV. The major portion of the Hither Hills area lies north of the local groundwater divide. See Figure 3-26. GEOLOGY - The geology, like that of the rest of the South Fork, reflects the complex sequence of events that occurred prior to and during Pleistocene glaciation. The upper 300 feet of sediments, from bottom to top, generally consists of the foP- lowing units: continental margin deposits of the Magothy For- mation, up to 70' of post-Cretaceous glaciofluvial deposits, a 20'-40' thick marine clay unit similar to Gardiners Clay, and glacial deposits of Pleistocene age consisting of highly-perme- able glaciofluvial sand and gravel. Overlying units of Iow per- meability, such as (Montauk) till and (Ronkonkoma) morainal deposits, are generally absent within the SGPA. The Pleistocene glacial deposits overlying the marine clay are the only major freshwater-bearing unit in the region, and are referred to as the princip(z! c~ui/'er. Fresh groundwater within the aquifer exists as a lens that reaches a maximum thickness of about 140' in the center of the region. Its lower limit, the freshwater/saltwater interface, generally occurs within or just above the marine clay units at about 100'-140' below sea level. The post-Cretaceous unit underlying the clay is salty except for the upper 15-20 feet near the center of the region, and the Magothy below is also salty. Neither represents a potential source of water supply. GROUNDWATER FLOW - The Montauk peninsula from Napeague Harbor to Fort Pond Bay approximates an oceanic s~rip isl~z/zd where the directions of groundwater flow are nor- mal to the line of the central divide. Near the westernmost boundary, however, flow moves radially outward toward the shoreline. Horizontal groundwater flow velocities within the SGPA are generally on the order of one-halt foot per day-- even less near the divide-- and increase to about one foot per day at 1,000 feet from the shoreline. The volume of fresh water within the lens, on the order of 30 billion gallons, has an aver- age turnover rate or residence time of about 15 years. Water recharged near the central third of the lens can be expected to have a greater residence of up to many decades, while that re- charged within 1000 feet of the shoreline may be discharged within two to three years. WATER SUPPLY - Three SCWA well fields, each with a single well with an authorized capacity of 300 gpm, are located just to the east of the SGPA boundary. The South Davis Avenue well, installed in 1974, experienced an increase in chlorides from 10 ppm to 50-60 ppm after 1984, when pumping rates were in- creased by over 50% to 0.11 mgd-- the equivalent of a con- tinuous 75 gpm. The Montauk Point State Boulevard well, installed in 1980, has increased pumpage to almost 0.2 mgd or close to one-half its authorized capacity. Chloride concen- trations in early 1989 were in the 20-25 ppm range. The Edison Drive well, installed in 1988, is still operating under a temporary permit. Initial water quality samples have shown chloride concentrations in the 20-25 ppm range. LAND USE - As previously indicated, the predominant land use is public recreation/conservation or open space. This cate- gory, together with underwater land, accounts for all but 78 acres or 2.7 pement of the 2860 acres within the SGPA. The 57 acres classified as utilities are owned by the Long Island Railroad (LIRR) for transportation puq:~oses. The remaining 21 acres, listed as vacant in 1989, are part of a former sand mining site that is to be converted to residential use. See Table 3-42 for total acreage by land use category. Also see Figure 3-27 for location of existing land use. PROBLEMS AND CONCERNS - There is no evidence that water quality below the SGPA is anything but pristine. One of the few potential soumes of contamination is the LIRR, which may have used waste oil and pesticides on the track right-of- way. Another potential soume is the leachate plume from the East Hampton Town landfill, which may intersect the eastern- most portion of the SGPA. The landfill has been placed on New York State's Superfund site list. In addition, the Cornell University air photo inventory identified three small sand mines along the shore of Fort Pond Bay; however, there is no evi- dence that contaminating substances were disposed of at any of these sites. Now that State, County and Town efforts have assured the continued existence of the unique natural resource repre- sented by the Hither Hills SGPA, concern has shifted from the need for public acquisition to questions of management and use. The sensitivity of some habitats and the presence of nu- merous rare and endangered species suggest that not all parts of the SGPA are equally well suited for recreation, however ~assive, or for water supply development. OPPORTUNITIES - Although several agencies share respon- sibility for portions of Hither Hills, there is an opportunity to )lan for and manage the SGPA as an entity. Such an inte- 3-109 Plant Plant Site Exist ng Sewage Treatment Proposed Sewage Treatment Public Water Supply Well Monitoring Well Site Future Well Site Clears Potential Hazardous Waste New York State Superfund Site Petroleum Product Spill Site Groundwater Divide Northville Industries Petroleum Pipeline Direction of Groundwater FI ow SGPA Boundry Major Road Network J-- 0 fl. Sc~ = 1:2000 20O0 '~%o ~ooo Town Hump SCWA Stat SCWA eEdison Dr. Figure 3-26 Groundwater Conditions in the Hither Hills SGPA HITHER HILLS SGPA GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS DATE 5-21-~ Residential - Estates Residential - Low Density Residential - Medium Density Residential - High Density Commercial Institutional Industrial Agricultural General Open Space Golf Course Cemetery Town,County,State Park/Open Space Utilities Gov't Highway Facilities Vacant Underwater Lands Figure 3-27 1989 Existing Land Use in the Hither Hills SGPA lNG LAND USE - 1989 HITHER HILLS SGPA Scale 1:20887 0 ft. 1740 3480 5220 LOCATION MAP D~e: 7-15-9~ Figure 3-28 Plan Land Use in the Hither Hills SGPA - PLAN - HITHER HILLS Residential- Estate SGPA Residential- Low Residential- High Commercial Institutional Industrial Preserved Farmland Open Space Utilities Vacant Underwater Lands 0 ff. Scale 1:20887 1740 3480 5220 LOCATION MAP Date: 7-15-91 TABLE 3-42 Existing Land Use (acres) in the Hither Hills SGPA, 1989. Land Use Cateqory 1989 Existing Land Use % of Total* Residential 0 0.0 Vacant 21 0.7 Underwater Land 34 1.2 Commercial 0 0.0 Industrial 0 0.0 Institutional 0 0.0 Utilities 57 2.0 Open Space 2,748 96.1 Agricultural 0 0.0 Total 2,860 · Colurnn may not total 100.0 due to roundir~. Source: Long Island Regional Planning Board. TABLE 3-43 Plan Land Use (acres) in the Hither Land Use Cateqory Hills SGPA Plan Land Use % of Total** Residential 21 0.7 Vacant 0 0.0 Underwater Land 34 1.2 Commemial 0 0.0 Industrial 0 0.0 Institutional 0 0.0 Utilities 57 2.0 Open Space 2,748 96.1 Agricultural 0 0.0 Others* -- Total 2,860 * Others includes plan options, such as planned unit development, landfill reclama~on, relocation, etc., that could not be assigned to a specific land use category. ** Column may not total 100.0 due to rounding. Source: Long Island Regional Planning Board grated approach could ensure consideration, even optimiza- tion of recreational, esthetic, ecological and watershed values. State and County personnel, with the assistance of a non- governmental group such as the Nature Conservancy could investigate, classify and map open space units according to their environmental sensitivity and significance. The knowl- TABLE 3-44 Existing and Plan Land Use (acres) in the Hither Hills Land Use Cateqo/y SGPA Change 1989 Existing Plan (+=ga~; Land Use Land Use -=loss) Residential 0 21 +21 Vacant 21 0 -21 Underwater Land 34 34 0 Commercial 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 0 Institutional 0 0 0 Utilities 57 57 0 Open Space 2,748 2,748 0 Agricultural 0 0 0 Others* -- -- -- Total 2,860 2,860 * Others includes plan options, such as planned unit development, landfill reclamalJco, relocation, etc., that could not be assigned to a specific land use category. edge thus obtained could serve as the basis for determining the type, size and placement of recreation facilities--including the location of trails -- and for evaluating the impacts of pro- posed well sites that meet hydrologic and engineering criteria. Recommendations The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Conservation or the Long Island State Park Commission and the New York State Department of Conservation should each appoint a representative to work with County and Nature Conservancy or other appropriate personnel and to assist in the investigations and management planning described under Opportunities. Suffolk County should assume overall responsibility for program initiation, preparation of a preliminary work plan and cost estimates, and the identification of sources of funding. As in the case of all other SGPAs, two tables~one listing Plan Land Use acreage by land use category, and one providing a comparison of Existing and Plan Land Use -- follow the recommendations. Since the acreage figures in Tables 3-43 and 3-44 deal with broad categories of use and since virtually all of the land is in a single category, the tables are useful only for the comparison of Hither Hills and other SGPAs. See Figure 3-28 for the location of Plan Land Uses. 3-116 Southold SGPA GENERAL BACKGROUND - The Southold SGPA encom- passes a more than 2900 acre corddor extending from the east side of Mattltuck inlet to Southold hamlet in the vicinity of County Route 48 and the Long Island Railroad. Although located on the North Fork, all of which is part of the shallow flow Hydmgeologic Zone IV, and consisting primarily of farmland, this area was designated an SGPA by NYSDEC Commissioner Jorling at the request of the Town of Southold and on the recommendation of the Citizens Advisory Commit- tee and of the LIRPB. Support for the designation was based on two considerations; namely, that this area represents a ma- jor portion of the locally significant deep recharge and that designation could facilitate the improvement and ultimate res- toration of groundwater quality. SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY - The Haven-Riverhead associa- tion is found throughout the entire Southold SGPA. This is a north shore outwash plain association, characterized by gently sloping to level soils with slopes of between one and 12 per- cent. Some areas are pitted with kettle holes. Good drainage and a high moisture capacity make these soils excellent for farming. Ease of excavation makes them equally suitable for development, except in areas where the water table is high. VEGETATION ASSOCIATIONS - The area in the Southold SGPA is predominately agricultural except for a small band of woodlands between Goldsmith Inlet in Peconic and Great Pond in Southold. This woodland is a typical moist oak wood- land characterized by mixed oaks -- mostly red, along with post, black, and white oak, American beech, and red maple dominating the canopy. Flowering dogwood usually forms the tree understory. Maple-leaved viburnum, sweet pepperbush and honeysuckle are common in the undergrowth. RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES AND SIGNIFICANT HABITATS - Two plant species, the dwarf plaintain and the or- ange-fringed orchis (T), were noted in the eastern region of the Southold SGPA. However, the last recorded observation of these species occurred more than fifty years ago. SURFACE WATERS AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS - The Southold SGPA has freshwater wetlands located south and east of Goldsmith Inlet. These wetlands encompass 26 acres and have been ranked as Class Il and Class III wetlands. HYDROGEOLOGY - The SGPA is located on the North Fork be- t~Nee~ ~ltuck ~nlet and the hamlet o~ Southold, with the maior portion lying north d the groundwater divide. See Figure 3-29. Surficial deposits in the area consist of glacial outwash sand and gravel derived from the Harbor Hill terminal moraine, which forms a ridge along the north shore. In most portions of the SGPA, these deposits are underlain by a significant clay unit formed in lake and shallow madne environments during the interval between the Ronkonkoma ice sheet retreat and the Harbor Hill ice-front advance. The top of the unit lies 60'- 120' below sea level, and may be related to Sn~if.l~tou~n Cl(z~, found in west-central Suffolk. Below the clay unit there are older glacial deposits, which rest upon continental margin de- posits of the Magothy Formation. The only hydrogeologic unit of regional significance, from a water supply standpoint, is that portion of the upper glacial aquifer lying above the clay, since glacial deposits below the clay contain only limited amounts of fresh groundwater (above the saltwater interface), and the underlying Magothy is entirely salty. The clay unit limits the volume of the usable freshwater resource, but also protects large agricultural and public supply wells from upconing saltwater. Where the clay is absent, the usable fresh water resource extends down to the saltwater in- terface, but wells in these areas are susceptible to saltwater upconing. Such condition exists in the Mattituck Creek area, where a large channel was eroded through the clay and was subsequently refilled by sand and gravel outwash deposits. GROUNDWATER FLOW - The general direction of ground- water flow in the study area east of Mattituck Creek is toward Long Island Sound, normal to the line of the central divide. The tidal waters of Mattituck Creek, however, influence flow direc- tions west of Cutchogue. Horizontal flow velocities within the study area are generally less than one-half foot per day, but may increase to almost one foot per day during periods of high rainfall, when water table elevations have been observed to in- crease by 50 percent or more above long-term average val- ues. Residence times for groundwater within the study area range from several years near Mattituck Creek, to a century or more near the divide in Cutchogue. WATER SUPPLY - Only one public water supply well field, Greenport Water District's Plant 7 on Ackeriey Pond Lane, is located within the boundaries of the study area. Almost all the pumpage from this field is utilized and discharged outside to the east of the SGPA. The 90' well at Plant 7 has been in op- eration since 1980. Maximum pumpage occurred in 1986, when 118 million gallons were withdrawn - - an average of 225 gpm, compared to the authorized capacity of 400 gpm. A sec- ond 400 gpm well, with a depth of 81' was recently installed. A new well field (Plant 12), with a 90' 500 gpm well, is proposed for Kennys Road, just east of the SGPA boundary. Agdcuifural pumpage represents by far the targest consumptive use of the 3-117 Scale = 1:$116 0 ft. $~ 6232 $CDHS $~71044 0 SCDHS 71171 0 $CDHS S-71280 Greenport Water ist,C~ Plant No. Gte ~ort ¥ ant port Existing Sewage Treatment Plant Proposed Sewage Treatment Plant Public Water Supply Well 5ire Monitoring Well Site Future Well Site Clears Potential Hazardous Waste 5ire New York State Superfund 5ire Petroleum Product Spill Groundwater Divide Northville Industries Petroleum Pipeline Direction of Groundwater Flow SGPA Boundry Major Road Network LOCATION ~dAP Figure 3-29 Groundwater Conditions in the Southold SGPA SOUTHOLD SGPA GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS study area's groundwater resoume. Using the Cooperative Ex- tension Service estimated unit pumpage rate of 0.14 million gallons per acre per year for irrigation of mixed vegetable crops, approximately 335 million gallons per year ara applied to the 2400 acres of cropland within the SGPA. This volume of water equivalent to about 20 percent of average annual re- charge to the 3,000 acre study area or about one pement of the groundwater stored beneath it. WATER QUALITY - Agricultural chemicals have contaminated groundwater throughout much of the horizontal and vertical ex- tent of the aquifer below the study area. These chemicals in- clude the inorganic constituents of fertilizers (e.g., nitrate, sulfate, chloride) and various organic pesticides, including car- bamates (aldicarb, carbofuran) and 1,2-dichloropropane used on potato crops. The impacts of these chemicals on the aquifer are reflected in the quality of numerous shallow private wells, Graenport Water District supply wells at Plants 7 and 12, and SCDHS monitoring wells, including deep profile wells along Depot Lane. Fertilizer contaminants can be found throughout the vertical extent of the aquifer system. Fertilizers have been used for many years. Their inorganic constituents are mobile and unra- active. Nitrate concentrations in agricultural areas frequently exceed the 10 ppm ddnking water standard, and are occasion- ally as high as 20-30 ppm. Concentrations at Greenport's Plant 7 wells have remained just below the 10 ppm standard, while the test wells at the Plant 12 site range from 5.7 ppm to 9.8 ppm. Elevated chloride and sulfate concentrations are usually found in association with elevated nitrates, but neither constituent is considered a health threat, nor are they often found to ap- proach their respective drinking water standard (250 ppm). Typical chloride and sulfate concentrations are on the order of 30-50 ppm, but both occasionally occur in the 100-150 ppm range or higher. Pesticide contamination is also widespread within the study area. Pesticides such as aldicarb, carbofuran, and dichlo- propane have proven to be very mobile and unreactive as they move through the aquifer. While the maximum concentrations decrease due to dispersion, the total mass of contamination is not reduced by biodegradation, absorption, or other proc- esses. For example, aldicarb has been detected in about 20% of the samples from East End private wells since monitoring began in 1980 and, while the average concentration of positive samples has decreased from 25 ppb in 1980 to 12 ppb in 1988, the median value has remained about 8 ppb over this time span. On the average, 250 additional private wells or about 10% of those sampled each year are found to exceed the 7 ppb drink- ing water guideline for aldicarb. These wells are fitted with carbon filters that are supplied by the manufacturer. Since test- ing commenced in 1980, the raw water quality in more than half of the wells closest to farm fields, which were impacted by aldicarb first, has improved to the extent that filters can be re- moved. This trend should continue as aldicarb contamination moves away from the areas of application. Aldicarb concentrations at Graenport's Plant 7 (Well 7-1) have consistently been close to or at the 7 ppb guideline, necessi- tating GAC treatment. Preliminary test results for Well 7-2 indi- cated no aldicarb, while the test wells at Plant 12 detected 4 ppb of aldicarb, but only at the shallowest depth (65'). Given the relatively short period of time that aldicarb was used, and the dispersion that has occurred, it is probable that virtually all groundwater within the study area will be suitable for drinking water purposes without the need for aldicarb treat- ment within the next decade or two. The outlook for nitrate is not as clear, and will depend, in large part, on whether future agricultural practices for limiting nitrogen leaching from crops such as potatoes, mixed vegetables, and sod ara effective. The ultimate potential for treatment-free water supply, how- ever, will depend on whether additional problems adse from past or future pesticide use. LAND USE - The Southold SGPA is first and foremost an agri- cultural area. Nearly 72 pement of the total acreage is devoted to vineyards, nursery/greenhouse operations, sod farms and crops. Suffolk County and the Town of Southold have obtained the development rights to 15 separate farm pamels encom- passing a total of almost 200 acres or a little less than one tenth of all agricultural land within the SGPA. Approximately ten pement of the land is used for Iow and me- dium density residential development at scattered locations throughout the area. Only one pement of the land is dedicated open space; however, some nine percent of the SGPA remains vacant. A little more than six percent of the acreage consisting of roads and the Long Island Railroad corridor, is used for trans- portation. A few commercial uses -- generally located along Route 27, Depot Land or Bridge Street -- together with a few small industrial establishments and one institutional use oc- cupy the remainder of the area. See Table 3-45 for total acre- age by land use category and Figure 3-30 for 1989 Existing Land Use. ZONING - Virtually all of the SGPA is zoned agriculture/con- servation, a category that allows single family homes on lots of two acres or more. There are a few small tracts zoned for 3-120 homes on one acre, three small business uses and some par- cels zoned for light industry. PROBLEMS AND CONCERNS - Most local as well as bi- county concerns relate to the difficult but not impossible prob- lem presented by two valid but somewhat conflicting goals; namely, the preservation of a viable agriculture and agdculturel way of life and the maintenance or improvement of the ground- water resoume. Owners of nearly half of the existing farmland have estab- lished the Southold Agricultural District, which will remain in place until 1995. There is concern that sooner or later some of New York State's most productive farm soils, not only in the Agricultural District but elsewhere in the SGPA, could be con- verted to home sites and other non-agricultural uses. Advocates of farmland subdivision and conversion have claimed, with justification, that the use of fertilizers and pesti- cides have degraded the groundwater. There is concern that some farmers will continue to use agricultural chemicals as in the past, rather than adopting the best management practices needed to protect groundwater. The Southold Town Landfill represents an existing, docu- mented soume of contamination that may or may not affect water quality in the SGPA. The landfill in Cutchogue is located north of the groundwater divide, just outside the study area boundary. Leachate detected in groundwater on the north side of the facility is charectedzed by ammonia-nitrogen concentra- tions exceeding 100 ppm and chloride concentrations on the order of 300 ppm. The extent of the plume farther downgredi- ent has not been delineated. The landfill has been listed as a New York State Superfund site. The Cornell University analy- sis of historic aerial photos identified four disturbed sites within the study area boundary, none of which are suspected of pos- ing a significant threat to groundwater. Evidence of dumping was seen only at the sand mine site located south of Great Pond. Finally, there are only a few remaining wooded parcels. These parcels, which are extremely desireable for home sites, overlie some of the best quality water in the Southold area. Develop- ment rather than retention of woodlands as open space could preclude their ultimate use as well sites. OPPORTUNITIES - County and Town of Southold continuation of farmland development rights acquisition programs could in- sure the permanent protection of a considerable portion of one of the North Fork's major assets. The zoning of farmland at one dwelling unit per five acres, together with an incentive for the transfer of development rights to sites outside the SGPA at one dwelling unit per two acres or mandatory clustering at one unit per five acres within the SGPA could facilitate the retention of farmland and its continuing productive use. New residential development could be limited to infiiling in ex- isting developed areas around Peconic, Cutchogue and just west of Southold hamlet, thus reducing the pressure on farmland. The dissemination of up-to-date information and the adoption of best management practices could reduce reliance on fertiliz- ers and pesticides, improve irrigation practices and lessen the threat to groundwater. Changes in the type or variety of crops could also reduce the need for agricultural chemicals. Public acquisition of the few remaining woodland pamels could add to the open space while insuring the availability of suitable well sites at such time as they may be needed. In order to provide for the water supply needs of the entire Town, well sites will have to be established in the vicinity of Laurel Lake, which is part of the Central Suffolk SGPA, and eventually in the Southold area. Since so much of the Southold land is farmed at the present time, purchase of the few wooded parcels in the Cutchogue area could provide some well sites that have not been impacted by agricultural activities. Recommendations · Suffolk County and the Town of Southold should continue to purchase farmland development rights and to encourage and facilitate other programs and measures to protect farmland, such as renewal of Agricultural District agreements and the establishment of agricultural reserves. · Suffolk County should continue to support the Comell Cooperative Extension Service efforts to introduce and to secure adoption of best management practices for agriculture. · The Town of Southold should upzone farmland to require a five acre minimum lot size but should provide for the transfer of development rights to sites outside the SGPA at the currently prevailing two acre density. · The transfer of development rights to sites in nearby hamlets or along the Sound shorefront, where undeveloped acreage is still available, should be permitted in order to offset the impact of very Iow density zoning. Suffolk County should utilize funds from its quarter-cent sales tax program to acquire wooded watershed lands within the Southold SGPA. See Tables 3-46 and 3-47 for Plan Land Use acreage by cate- gory and a comparison of existing and Plan Land Use. See Figure 3-31 for the location of Plan Land Uses. 3-121 Scale 1:3t44,3 I ~ 2620 5240 7860 LOCATION MAP Figure 3-30 1989 Existing Land Use in the Southold SGPA EXISTING LAND USE - SOUTHOLD SGPA 1989 Date: 7-15-9I Residential - Estates Residential - Low Density Residential - Medium Density Residential - High Density Commercial Institutional Industrial Agricultural General Open Space Golf Course Cemetery Town,County,State Park/Open Space Utilities Gov't Highway Facilities Vacant Underwater Lands U Figure 3-31 Plan Land Use in the Southold SGPA - PLAN - SOUTHOLD SGPA Scale 1:51443 0 fl, 2620 5240 7860 Proposed Open Space Acquisfion Cluster Development Farmland - Cluster Repbf and Cluster Residential- Estate Residential- Low Residential- High Commercial Institutional Industrial Preserved Farmland Open Space Utilities Vacant Underwater Lands OTHER Relocate TDR (Transfer of Development) Purchase Dev./Farm Dev. Righ~ industrial Cluster Reclaim Dump Fill and Redevelop PUD Mixed Use Historic District LOCAl]ON ~ ~ Da~e: 7-15-91 TABLE 3-45 Existing Land Use (acres) in the Southold SGPA, 1989. 1989 Existing Land Use Category Land Use % of Total** Residential 308 10.5 Vacant 271 9.2 Underwater Land 1 0.0 Commercial 16 0.5 Industrial 13 0.4 Institutional 3 0.1 Utilities 185 6.3 Open Space 31 1.1 Agricultural 2,112 71.8 Total 2,940 ** Column may not total 10o.0 due to rounding. Source: Long Island Regional Planning Board. TABLE 3-46 Plan Land Use (acres) in the Southold SGPA Plan Land Use Category Land Use % of Total** Residential 976 33.2 Vacant 0 0.0 Underwater Land 1 0.0 Commercial 15 0.5 Industrial 9 0.3 Institutional 3 0.1 Utilities 188 6.4 Open Space 75 2.6 Agricultural 1,665 56.6 Others* 9 0.3 Total 2,941 · others includes plan options, such as planned unit development, landfia reclamation, relocation, etc., that could not be assigned to a specific land use category. ** Column may not total 100.0 due to rounding. Source: Long Island Regional Planning Board TABLE 3-47 Existing and Plan Land Use (acres) in the Southold SGPA Change 1989 Existing Plan (+ = gain; Land Use Category Land Use Land Use - = loss) Residential 308 976 +668 Vacant 271 0 -271 Underwater Land 1 1 0 Commercial 16 15 -1 Industrial 13 9 -4 Institutional 3 3 0 Utilities 185 188 +3 Open Space 31 75 +44 Agricultural 2,112 1,665 -447 Others* -- 9 +9 Total 2,940 2,941 * Others inciudes plan options, such as pJanned unit development, landfill reclamation, relocation, etc., that could not be assigned to a specific land use category. 3-126 Chapter Four Implementation Introduction The preceding chapters have described a number of gen- eral and site specific watershed management issues and have offered a comprehensive set of recommendations de- signed to provide maximum protection of the groundwater in the SGPAs. This chapter focuses on the ways and means for translating management proposals into actions that will pre- serve the relatively uncontaminated portions of Long Island's sole soume aquifer. For ease of comprehension, problem statements, recommen- dations, responsible agency or agencies and implementing ac- tions are grouped under three major headings · reducing current and future contamination associated with existing sources · avoiding the establishment of new sources · providing the necessary management tools, manpower and money Approximately one third of the proposed actions relate to con- taminant soume elimination or reduction; a similar proportion, to new soume prevention, and the remainder, to the provision, enhancement or more effective application of the tools and techniques for watershed management. A discussion of staff- ing requirements and costs closes the chapter. REDUCING CONTAMINATION FROM EXISTING SOURCES PROBLEM Unpermitted discharges pose a major threat to the groundwa- ter resource. Suffolk County's Department of Health Services in its source monitoring program clearly demonstrated that dis- charges of highly concentrated toxic materials to on-site septic systems, unregulated injection wells, storm drains or ground surfaces are a major concern. [] RECOMMENDED ACTIONS · The Nassau County Department of Health and the Suffolk County Department of Health Services should focus their regulatory efforts on industries that are known or suspected soumes of contamination and are ocated in geographic areas where the impact of discharges is most significant, i.e., pollution sources n SGPAs. · The health agencies, with their technical expertise and extensive groundwater and contaminant data bases, should bear the major responsibility for ensuring the reduction of inadvertent or deliberate illicit or unpermitted discharges. · The Suffolk County Department of Health Services should increase monitoring of discharges to septic tanks and stormwater recharge basins located in industrial areas. · As a first step the Suffolk County Department of Health Services should develop a pilot program for the monitoring of inadvertent or deliberate discharges of toxics to septic tanks and/or stormwater recharge basins in industrial areas. Such a program should involve the sampling of septage during pumpouts at a representative cross section of industrial and commerc al establishments and the collection of grab samples of stormwater runoff from a similar selection of catch basins. The SCDHS should then review the analytical data obtained during the study to determine whether a full scale sampling program is likely to provide significant contaminant reductions and, if so, the most cost-effective method for achieving the desired results. · In the interim, the Suffolk County Board of Health should amend the Sanitary Code to r..~., uire sampling of soils at industrial and commercial facilihes where analysis of septage reveals concentrations of toxic contaminants considered likely to impair the quality of the groundwater. PROBLEM Although all of Long Island's groundwater has been classified as G.A., and a policy of antidegradation has been established, indicating that it should be considered for best usage -- drink- ing water supply, activities have been allowed that have re- sulted in contamination entering the groundwater and precluding its best usage. Some contamination of the ground- water has been caused by violations of SPDES permits, while other contamination may have resulted from permitted activi- ties that allowed the discharge of contaminants in concentra- tions that exceed the State Health Department's current maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). Drinking water stand- ards or MCLs have become more restrictive, e.g, the reduc- tion of VOC levels from 50 ppb to 5 ppb for some constituents. However, SPDES permits, which are issued for a five year pe- riod, may be slow to reflect the new standards. 4-1 RECOMMENDED ACTION · The State and the County Health Departments should expand SPDES monitoring and enfomement activities within SGPAs. The health agencies should examine the existing industrial andnon-industrial permits for d scharges located within the SGPAs and should assess the adequacy and applicability of permit conditions and the need, if any, for cnanges to assure better groundwater protection. As part of that effort, the SCDHS should review the serf-monitoring data furnished by SPDES permit holders as well as other relevant information and should request that NYSDEC modify permit conditions whenever changes in industrial processes or activities or applicable water qualify standards so warrant. PROBLEM Non-industrial SPDES permittees are not required to monitor their domestic wastewater discharges for organic chemicals. In addition, certain facitities that are not covered by SPDES per- mits, such as small commemial establishments and resi- dences housing medical practices with discharges less than 1,000 gallons per day, may also be contributing to groundwater contamination. [~ RECOMMENDED ACTION · The S.C. Board of Health should amend the Sanitary Code to require thepump-out of septic tanks and the chemical analysis of septic tank wastes at non-industrial SPDES permitted facitities and at small commercial establishments and residences hous ng med cai facilities located within an SGPAin accordance with the following schedule: residential facilities with SPDES permits (i.e., multi-family units) -- every three years residential systems handling medical and other potentially damaging wastewaters -- annually; and, all commemial facilities -- annually If problems are detected, the sampling of leaching pools, and more pump-outs and/or groundwater monitoring, should be required. PROBLEM Virtually no sewage treatment facility can be adequately moni- tored for toxic or hazardous wastes that may enter its system. Large STPs do not enforce pre-treatment regulations ade- quately. Small plants have no way of preventing homeowners or businesses from dumping inappropriate chemicals into the waste line. The discharge of inadequately treated effluent ca- pable of contaminating groundwater is predominantly a Suffolk County issue, especially in the Central Suffolk SGPA. ~ RECOMMENDED ACTION · The Suffolk County Legislature should adopt a po cy supporting the expansion of existing STPs with effluent discharge to surface waters whenever such expans on will allow the extension of service to nearby SGPA areas where existing unsewered development has impaired or threatens to impair the quality of the groundwater. · The Legislature should also go on record in support of the consolidation of small sewer districts in order to facilitate the elimination of poorly operated or otherwise inadequate facilities. · Neither the SCDHS, the S.C. Sewer Agency nor the NYSDEC should sanction the establishment of a new STP within an SGPA unless it meets one or more of the cdteria set forth in Chapter 2. PROBLEM In those parts of the SGPAs served by sewage collection and treatment systems with effluent discharge to surface waters outside the SGPA, the diversion of effluent that would other- wise recharge the aquifer will be lost and the amount of water stored in the aquifer will be reduced. [~ RECOMMENDED ACTION · The county agencies with water supply oversight responsibilities should cooperate with the individual purveyors and with the Long Island Water Conference ~n promoting water conservation practices and devices within those SGPAs or portions of SGPAs where STP effluent discharges to surface waters are likely to create an imbalance between withdrawal and recharge. See Appendix C for a discussion of conservation practices, water saving fixtures and regulatory measures. PROBLEM Unsewered development on half acre or smaller lots may be contributing nitrate and/or organic contamination to groundwater. ~ RECOMMENDED ACTION · In Nassau County, where all municipal STPs discharge to surtace waters and in Suffolk County, where STPs discharge to surface and to groundwater, the counties should undertake 201 -type studies to investigate the need for sewers in developed areas within SGPAs where the current density exceeds existing 208 study criteria and there are demonstrated adverse groundwater impacts. PROBLEM Agriculture is a vital segment of the economy of eastern Suffolk County. Its continuance is strongly supported by local, County and State programs and funding. However, past agri- cultural practices related to fertilization, irrigation, and the use of toxic and hazardous chemicals for pest control have contdb~ uted to groundwater pollution. New approaches are needed to minimize agricultural chemical damage to groundwater. 4-2 [~ RECOMMENDED ACTION · Suffolk County should continue to provide support for the Comell Cooperative Extension Service outreach programs that assist farmers in reducing excessive or inappropriate use of agricultural chemicals or irrigation. · The Extension Service should continue to inform growers of alternatives to traditionalpesticide applications including but net limited to biological controls such as the use of pheromone treated t es to prevent grape berry moth damage to vineyards; the application of non-phytotoxic oils for mite control ea.rl¥ in the season, thereby eliminating the need for miticioal sprays on woody ornamentals later in the season; and the financial as well as environmental benefits of Integrated Pest Management. PROBLEM For many years, the Long Island farm economy was based to a great extent on a single fertilizer intensive, pesticide depend- ent crop -- potatoes. Excessive or poorly timed fertilizer appli- cations and the use of pesticides that leached more readily than anticipated have resulted in locally significant ground- water contamination. [3 RECOMMENDED ACTION · The Comell Cooperative Extension Service should encourage the ongoing shift from potatoes to crops that require lesser amount of agricultural chemicals and ' water such as fruits and horticultural products. Nitrogen loading alone can be reduced from 180 pounds to 20 pounds per acre by this change in crop. · Cooperative Extension should urgethose farmers who continue to grow potatoes to rely on split applications of fertilizer and better timing of fertilization in order to ensure maximum crop uptake and minimum groundwater impact. Cooperative Extension should attempt to minimize the groundwater effects of necessary pesticide use through technical assistance to growem in respect to pesticide selection, application techniques and hming, methods for increasing biological activity within the soils and lowest effective pesticide application rates. PROBLEM Farmers may be slow to change long-standing management practices in order to reduce agricultural chemical usage with- out financial assistance for capital costs and ample evidence of the efficacy of proposed modifications. ~ RECOMMENDED ACTION · Congress should increase the level of support for the existing cost-sharing Integrated Crop Management (ICM) program of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service to provide funding for additional pilot programs to reduce the use of agricultural chemicals. · Suffolk County and the towns should encourage owners of parcels already in or to be added to farmland development rights programs to rely on Integrated PestManagernent (IPM) for crop protection with minimal groundwater impact. PROBLEM Almost one-half of the greenhouse production in New York State is located on Long Island with the greatest concentration in Suffolk County. Greenhouse production involves a more concentrated use of water, pesticides, growth regulators and fertilizers than con- ventional agriculture because - greenhouses are operated year round intensity of growth is greater - there is a greater turnover in crop production The capability to control all inputs and environmental factors within a greenhouse makes it feasible to also control potential contamination of the environment. Research efforts have been targeted to reduce use of irrigation water - Ii.mit qr e!im. in. ate th.e releas, e of ag.ricu.ltural chemicals in[o surface an(] grounawater. Educational programs are essential to enable greenhouse op- erators to develop and utilize cost effective systems that meet increasingly strict environmental standards while maintaining a viable business. [~ RECOMMENDED ACTION · Cornell Cooperative Extension should continue to develop educational programs that will result in the decreased use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers and to encourage growers to adopt these methods: · Integrated Pest Management ImDrove sanitation practices in and around the gr(.~enhouse to decrease pest problems. Pest .cont. r. ol R.ractic. es, .based on monitoring and the use OT acnon mresnolas. Alt ,emativ. es to chemical.pest control including so~ation (e.g. screening). Selection of effective but least toxic pesticides. · Environmental control of crop growth to reduce or eliminate the need for plant growth regulators where possible. · Irrigation and fertilization technology. Subirrigation to reduce the quantity of water used. Recirculation of irrigation solution to achieve zero discharge. Reduction of fertilizer rates based on zero discharge technology. Aitem. ative, m,eth,ods of, fe.r~ilization, especially the use o! comrol release fertilizers. Optimj.ze, .crqp,.prod,uction .by mg,nitoring [e. ve!s of essen! {¥ reriiiizer elements aha levels or toxins that limit plant growth, 4-3 PROBLEM Non-farm uses of agricultural chemicals to maintain tun'grass and ornamental plantings around homes and buildings and on parklands and goif courses may result in groundwater con- tamination. The choice of plant materials that require large amounts of fertilizers, pesticides and water as well as exces- sive or poorly timed applications of agricultural chemicals threaten groundwater quality. [~ RECOMMENDED ACTION · Cornell Cooperative Extension should continue to inform homeownem, turf managers, landscape design and maintenance professionals and lawn and landscaping products dealers regarding best management practices to minimize groundwater impact. Such practices should include increased reliance on native vegetation or non-native species that require relatively little water, fertilizers or pesticides, as well as the use of slow-release fertilizers, of proper timing of chemical applications, and of techniques for minimizing water loss associated with unavoidable irrigation. · The water purveyors should assist the Cooperative Extension by including informational inserts describing best management practices in their spring and summer billings. PROBLEM In the past, the improper handling of hazardous materials and the on site disposal of hazardous wastes at federally owned facilities have led to localized groundwater contamination. [~ RECOMMENDED ACTION · NYSDEC andthe county health departments should continue and expand initial local, state and federal cooperative efforts to remediate existing contamination and prevent future degradation of the groundwater. AVOIDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION PROBLEM Maximum protection of the groundwater resoume can be at- tained through a program of permanent public open space ac- quisition of watershed lands within SGPAs. Although there are a variety of available techniques, ranging from outright dona- tion to the pumhase of the fee simple, and including a host of variations -- among them the transfer of development rights, pumhase of development dghts, donation of scenic ease- ments, etc., the bottom line is public funding. The recent defeat of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Bond Act, coupled with the State's severe fiscal situation means that, for the short term, the two counties must rely on local funding if lands are to be acquired. Suffolk County has already earmarked one-half of the esti- mated revenues to be raised during this decade from a one- quarter cent sales tax or appreximately $300 million for open space pumhases. The other one-half of the revenues are to be used for a variety of water-related projects. Nassau County, which has less than 1000 acres of undeveloped lands within SGPAs, has been acquiring open space but does not have a dedicated source of funding for open space acquisition. [~ RECOMMENDED ACTION · Nassau County and its municipalities should expand the ongoing acquisitior) problem in order to save crucial parcels identified in this study, such as the recently acquired Boegner Estate in Old Westbury and the Schiff property in Oyster Bay Cove. PROBLEM At the same time Nassau and Suffolk Counties and some mu- nicipalities are purchasing open space, the State of New York and various school districts are seiling lands that should be re- tained for watershed protection. [~ RECOMMENDED ACTION · The State of New York should refrain from disposing of the open lands on its university and college campuses, mental hospitals and other State owned sites. The retention of open land associated with institutional uses provides opportunities for recharge, and offsets the very intensive use of the developed portion of the site. · The New York State Department of Education should prohibit school districts from disposing of open, unused or buffer areas while the sites are utilized for educational purposes. The DEC should require school districts to protect the open status of the undeveloped areas to the maximum extent feasible when the sites are sold or leased for non-educational use. PROBLEM The introduction of inappropriate or overly intensive land uses and activities may create new sources of groundwater con- tamination. [~ RECOMMENDED ACTION · The municipalities should utilize their police power authority to enact land use controls that will preclude or limit new sources of contamination within the SGPAs. As part of their watershed protection efforts, they should amend their zoning ordinances as necessary to achieve the following: · Reduce the amount of vacant acreage zoned for industrial or commercial use outside of already developed non-residential areas. · Limit residential densities to five acres or more per dwelling unit. In those communities where established land use patterns cannot support a. five acre lot size, steps should be taken to upgrade the zoning wherever possible to at least two acres per dwelling unit. In-filling should be allowed on previously platted lots of less than two acres where higher density development has already occurred. 4-4 · Cluster units on one acre or on larger parcels, provided the overall density or average density of the entire parcel does not exceed one unit per five acres and provided the undeveloped portion of the pamel remains ~n open space. Cluster development on parcels of one acre or more with the imposition of clearance standards and limitations on fertilized vegtation is preferable to build out at one unit per five acres, since the foliage affords considerable protection to water quality while preserving contiguous open space for clean recharge. · Restrict mufti-family or condominium development that exceeds recommended single family residential densities to those sites where connection to a sewage treatment plant that maximizes SGPAwatershed , protection can be assured prior to occupancy of any oT the dwelling units. PROBLEM The Central Suffolk, Oak Brush Plains, South Setauket and South Fork SGPAs all contain vacant or largely vacant areas that were platted prior to the advent of zoning and subdivision regulations. In many eases individual lots within these old filed maps ars too small to meet current density requirements, and necessary infrastructurs is virtually non-existent. The courts have held that any owner of an old filed map lot that has been retained in single and separate ownership may develop his property, zoning and Health Department rsgulations notwith- standing. The continued existence of these legal but substan- dard subdivisions poses a severe localized threat to groundwater. ~3 RECOMMENDED ACTION · Suffolk County and/or the municipalities should attempt to acquire undeveloped old filed maps or portions thereof and should either retain the land as open space or where sufficient acreage cannot be assembled, replat to mitigate groundwater impacts by increasing lot sizes and improving site design. PROBLEM A change in ownership or tenancy of an industrial or commer- cial properly may result in a shift from an acceptable to a po- tentially polluting activity without knowledge of the responsible rsgulatory agencies. ~ RECOMMENDED ACTION · The municipalities should require all new property tenants to obtain a Certificate of Compliance from the Count/health agency indicating that proposed activities will be ~n conformance with all relevant regulations. · Water suppliers should withold service to new owners and tenants until presented with a copy of the Certificate of Compliance. PROBLEM Problem Currently permissible SPDES discharges from indus- trial and non-industrial point soumes may impair futurs water quality. [~ RECOMMENDED ACTION · NYSDEC, the State Department of Health and the county health departments should jointly consider the need to establish more stringent groundwater effluent standards for SPDES discharges within the SGPAs, pursuant to Title 6, Section 702.18 of the Environmental Conservation Law. PROBLEM Landscape designs that call for plant materials that requirs large quantities of water and agricultural chemicals for survival create the potential for further groundwater contamination. I~ RECOMMENDED ACTION · Municipalities should require a landscape management plan for new business properties, single family homes, condominiums and apartment complexes. These plans should call for the use of lawn grasses and landscape plants that require relatively small amounts of water, fertilizers and pesticides. PROBLEM In the past, NYSDEC reliance on federal pesticide registration data provided by the manufacturers and based on field trials in other parts of the country led to the local use of a pesticide which, although effective, caused serious contamination of the groundwater in farm areas where it was applied. Subsequent testing of other commonly used pesticides indicated similar leachability under Long Island conditions. Although federal registration requirements have been strength- ened, EPA cannot provide assurance of the envirenmental ac- ceptability of registersd products under all conditions. The recently developed National Pesticide Strategy recognizes the need for state determination of acceptability for use. ~ RECOMMENDED ACTION · NYSDEC should review its pesticide rsgistration procedures and strengthen them as necessary to prevent pesticide contamination of recharge. · NYSDEC should cooperate with Cornell and with the Suffolk County De~rtment of Health Services in testing new pesticides on Long Island prior to registering them for use in the bi-county area. · NYSDEC should utilize its authority to restrict or to can the application within an SGPA or other environmentally sensitive area of any highly leachable pesticide considered likely to contaminate the groundwater. PROBLEM Current county health department standards allow for new on- site sewer systems on one acre lots in unsewered areas. ~ RECOMMENDED ACTION · The Nassau County Department of Hea th and the Suffolk Department of Health Services should cons der amending their respective Sanitary Codes to norease the minimum lot size to two acres for new onsite systems in unsewered areas whenever the onsite system is located in Hydrogeologic Zone III or in a sparsely developed portion of an SGPA in Hydrogeologic Zone I. PROBLEM Maximum recharge of stormwater runoff is essential to offset groundwater losses due to surface water discharge of sewage treatment plant effluent and to various other consumptive uses. [~ RECOMMENDED ACTION · Municipalities should require the recharge of stormwater runoff as close as poseib e to the point of origin. They should also adopt DEC's recently prepared Stormwater Regulations. The best management practices (BMPs) developed by the L RPB n the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program study and the BMP aHland, book relating to stormwater management should so De fully implemented within all SGPAs. PROBLEM Municipal programs for the collection and disposal of hazard- ous products and product containers are lacking or in need of expansion. ~ RECOMMENDED ACTION · Nassau and Suffolk Counties should provide financial or other assistance to municipalities for the establishment of additional sites and ongoing collect on programs for the safe disposal of hazardous household products and/or product containers. Suffolk County should consider the establishment of a county site in addition to town locations. Nassau County has already done this. · The counties should evaluate parcels acquired through the purchase of tax liens and, where appropriate, reserve them for use as hazardous waste collection sites. These properties should not be sold but should be transferred to the municipality in which the land is located as authorized by Section 72-h of the N.Y.S. Real Estate Law. · Both counties should also establish an educational program to inform the public how to dispose of these products properly. · The State Legislature should cons der the use of State i,nitiated incentives for proper disposal, such as a (~eposlt that would be refunded when the items are surrendered to a collection facility. · NYSDEC should establish and enfome strict performance standards for the use, handling, storage and disposal of small quantities of toxic and/or hazardous materials. PROBLEM The widespread use of consumer products containing hazard- ous substances also poses a threat to the groundwater re- source. The presanoe of effective but potentially toxic chemicals in some cleaning, laundry, home improvement and hobby-related products increases the likelihood of inadvertent groundwater contamination. Suffolk County has enacted a Household Hazardous Waste Reduction Law but has not moved to implement it. [~ RECOMMENDED ACTION · The counties should encourage the use of less hazardous consumer products whenever these are available. · Suffolk County should establish the consumer information/education program called for in its Household Hazardous W~ste Reduction Law. PROBLEM Even the best managed construction and demolition debris (C&D) landfill can become a repository for hazardous mated- als. This study recommends the curtailment of clean fill con- struction and demolition debris (C&D) landfills in SGPAs and the prohibition of new C&D landfills except in previously mined areas where a properly designed site and carefully monitored disposal of non-hazardous C&D materials can be used to re- store the land to an acceptable grade. Although the current state requirements (Part 360-8) mandate that any clean fill landfill in the deep flow recharge areas of Long Island must have a double synthetic liner, this does not seem sufficiently protective for a disposal site located within an SGPA. [~ RECOMMENDED ACTION · The State should require that C&D landfills located within an SGPA be double lined, with the primary liner being a synthetic membrane, and the secondary ner ,bein~g a composite liner. Primary and secondary ~eacnate collection and removal systems should be constructed as part of the liner system. · The State should also requ re that any clean fill landfill located in an SGPA should have an environmental technician monitoring the site during a hours of operation. The monitor should be employed b~y NYSDEC but paid by the permlttee. The monitor would inspect all materials brought to the facility, to ensure compliance with all permit conditions. · One way of ensuring compliance with permit conditions would be to construct a presorting facility or building at .the site where C&D materia s could be deposited for ~nspecfion. The inspectors could separate out unsuitable materials that would have to be disposed of elsewhere. The C&D operator should not accept any shredded materials since it is not always p~. ssible to determine the components of such matenal. 4-6 PROBLEM Failure to deal expeditiously with petroleum product or other hazardous materials spills may result in otherwise avoidable groundwater contamination. Thero is a need to reduce emer- gency response time and to provide compensation for third parties damaged as a result of such spills. [~ RECOMMENDED ACTION · The Nassau County Board of Supervisors and the Suffolk County Legislature should each establish a contingency fund for emergency cleanups. · They should also authorize their respective county attorneys to initiate litigation to recover costs and should provide County Comptrollers with the authority and staff needed to assess claims. FACILITATING PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEM Successful plan implementation depends in large measure upon public understanding of its stake in the protection of Long Island's groundwater and of the actions it and others can take to preserve the quality and quantity of the resource. Both the public and its officials are often unaware of what can and should be done to avoid groundwater pollution from point and non-point sources. ~ RECOMMENDED ACTION · New York State, Nassau and Suffolk Counties, municipalities and all water purveyors should provide informational materials that descnbe current methods for the elimination of non-point source pollution and indoor and outdoor water conservation. These materials should be distributed to homeowners, PnrOfessional horticulture groups, the landscape service ~ dustry, business, civic organizations and governmental agencies. A mechanism to provide speakers to interested groups should be expanded (perhaps in conjunction with a Long Island Water Resoumes Institute). See Appendix C for information on public education programs conducted by Comell Cooperative Extension,Nassau County Department of Public Works and other agencies. Comell Cooperative Extension of Nassau and Suffolk Counties is a resource for information on the following topics: - proper fertilizer and pesticide use and disposal - househq, ld toxiq product use alternatives and proper o~sposa~ - septic system maintenance - water conservation inside the home - water conservation in the landscape - protection of our water supply - proper disposal of automotive waste products · Education is one of the most cost-effective methods to protect groundwater. Several approaches can be undertaken or expanded immediately. For example: - Government and local merchants can send ruelcome letters and information packets to new residents. Information on water protection could be included. - Water purveyors could send relevant information to customers with each bill, as LILCO does on matters of energy conservation. - Towns could distribute such information at Town Hall and include flyers in mailings to constituents. - The media could present public service programs and articles to keep the issue of water protection before the public. - Local public and school libraries could expand their educational role by having reference material available for display and distribution. - NYSDEC, the health agencies, major water purveyors, and the two county extension services could organize seminars for the benefit of retailers such ashardware stores, garden centers, auto repair and auto supply shops, etc., to inform them of water protection practices relative to the product they handle or sell, and could provide brochures or other informational materials to purchasers of such products as to proper use and disposal of these materials. NYSDEC and Cornell Cooperative Extension could provide additional displays of water conserving landscapes at public sites. PROBLEM State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) require- ments constitute a potentially useful tool for minimizing ad- versa impacts of proposed development within the SGPAs. Confusion as to the requirements and reluctance or inability to assume the associated administrative burdens have limited SEQRA's effectiveness in protecting groundwater. [~ RECOMMENDED ACTION · NYSDEC, other state agencies and local municipalities should take all necessary steps to require the preparation of an environmental impact statement (ELS) pursuant to SEQRA and Article 55 for any actions expected to have a significant environmental impact within the SGPA. Any project that contravenes the recommendations of the SGPA Plan should be regarded as having a significant impact. The ElS should include a detailed statement of the effects of any proposed action on, and its consistency with, the Comprehensive Management Plan of the Special Groundwater Protection Area Program as certified by the Commissioner of DEC. · The municipalities should handle all non-exempt non Type II actions (unlisted actions) occurring within an SGPA as Type I actions. This is already required for any SGPA or portion thereof that has been legally ~es'~cj~ated a.s a Ct*~ticat En'~rortmentat Area (CEA~ and 4-7 will be required throughout all SGPAs upon approval of the Management Plan by the LIRPB or certification by the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. PROBLEM The ElS may be flawed because the lead agency responsible for project evaluation is unaware of the existence of relevant information or lacks access to it. Improved procedures are es- sential if SEQRA is to help insure consistency and compatibil- ity with the Management Plan. ~ RECOMMENDED ACTION · The lead agency should consider the LIRPB and the affected water utilities as interested parties pursuant to SEQRA and should provide them with copies of Environmental Assessment Forms (EAFs) prepared for all projects located within an SGPA. · The county health departments should coordinate their mandated reviews with the SEQRA process and should provide the lead agency with information indicating whether and to what extent the proposed action and the departmental determination in respect to it is consistent with the recommendations of the SGPA Management Plan. PROBLEM Many agencies collect or receive data that relate directly or in- directly to groundwater management. There is some inter- agency data sharing; however, much information that could enhance the effectiveness of implementation efforts remains relatively unavailable. A complete, organized data management system for ground- water quality and quantity does not exist, although several lo- cal agencies do have significant G.I.S. systems available for their respective areas. ~ RECOMMENDED ACTION · A Groundwater Institute should be established on Long Island in cooperation with both Counties, all fifteen major municipalities, the eight-three water puweyors operating in Nassau and Suffolk, and NYSDEC and DOH. The institute should have two primary functions: - To assemble in one location and to maintain a comprehensive data management system pertaining to groundwater and all potential soumes of contamination. - To establish a reseamh agenda based on the needs of the local governments and water purveyors of Long Island. PROBLEM Article 55 of the Environmental Conservation Law calls for the inclusion of wellhead protection measures as part of the SGPA Managemant Plan. However, wellhead protection as envi- sioned in the Safe Ddnking Water Act and EPA publications and in the New York State's Wellhead Protection Plan as Jt ap- plies to other parts of the state is largely based on the notion that there is a discrete, readily identifiable area from which and through which water flows to each well. The imposition of the most stringent controls to eliminate all existing or potential contaminant soumes in the immediate vicinity of the wellhead or welifield, slightly less stringent controls to regulate contami- nant sources in the adjacent area or Zone of Contribution; and moderate or even minimal controls in the remainder of the wa- tershed or recharge area is presumed sufficient to protect the water supply. It is also expected to provide early warning of any water quality problem and allow time for corrective action. On Long Island, where the recharge areas for the large, inter- connected aquifers cover almost all of the island and where numerous wells or welifields and variations in aquifer geology distort flow pattems, the narrowly focused wellhead protection concept provides for fewer water quality benefits than a broader watemhed management approach. ~ RECOMMENDED ACTION The water suppliers, the towns, the counties and NYSDEC should rely on the SGPA Plan in combination with existing ordinances, county sanitary codes and NYSDEC regulatory programs for wellhead protection be~yond the immediate well site. The SGPA Plan retlects an overall resource preservation philosophy that is compatible with the zonal approach but extends the area of protection beyond the five or ten year presumed travel time for water to reach a well to encompass the entire SGPA. Water suppliers should control the immediate wellhead area, not so much to protect water quality as to prevent vandalism. Individuals and public purveyors siting upper glacial aquifer wells in Suffolk County must also observe Department of Health Services areal protection requirements. PROBLEM Prudence would dictate the siting of public supply wells in pro- tected open space areas whenever possible. However, current policies or regulations often preclude or severely limit access to appropriate sites. ~ RECOMMENDEDACTION The State of New York, the counties, and the localities should enact laws or pass resolutions that will allow for the installation of public wells, where appropriate, on lands acquired for open space or watershed protection, in order to provide the public with the highest quality water supply at the lowest cost. Within the SGPAs, developers should dedicate open space within clustered sub-divisions to the municipality or the county. Where appropriate this open space should also be available for water supply purposes, 4-8 PROBLEM A former Nassau County proposal to establish pumping cen- ters at Muttontown and Manetto Hills could cause significant water table and strearnfiow reductions in Suffoik County that would impact the deep recharge areas including nearby SGPAs. [~ RECOMMENDED ACTION · The technical agencies involved, i.e., the two county health departments, Nassau County DPW, SCWA, and NYSDEC should draft a bi-county water development agreement to be ratified formally by the two county legislative bodies. PROBLEM Chapter 662 of the Laws of 1983 requires NYSDEC to notify water suppliers in the Sole Soume Aquifer of any SPDES per- mit violation occurring within three miles of their wells. This law has not been adequately complied with. ~] RECOMMENDED ACTION · DEC should publish a report of any substantive SPDES violations for Region I in the Environmental Notice Bulletin and should send a copy to every water purveyor. PROBLEM The effectiveness of water resoume management efforts rests to a great extent on a thorough understanding of the ground- water system and the stresses that are placed upon it. A com- prehensive, coordinated network of monitoring wells can provide essential information. Numerous public and pdvate monitoring wells already provide water level and water quality data; however, selective expansion and better integration of monitoring activities is needed. ~ RECOMMENDED ACTION · Suffolk County Department of Health Services, in cooperation with the water purveyors, should install additional monitoring wells where needed to identify and map the soume of water to glacial wells and to document existing and potential sources of contamination. NYSDEC or SCDHS should require installation of a minimum of three wells -- one upgradient, two downgradient -- at every industrial d~scharge location. The cost of ddlling and monitoring these wells should be borne by the discharger. · The USGS, NYSDEC, the Nassau County Departments of Health and Public Works and the Suffolk County Department of Health Services should coordinate the design and operation of a groundwater monitoring system that would allow the regulatory agencies to document existing or potential soumes of contamination, while allowing the water suppliers to focus on the source of water to wells. PROBLEM The transfer of development rights, a cost effective way of pro- tecting environmentally sensitive lands such as Special Groundwater Protection Areas has been used infrequently. The primary obstacle to TDRs has been the fact that the sand- ing areas are often not within the same school district as the areas. Thus, one school district loses a tax base and another one gains lt. [~ RECOMMENDED ACTION · Municipalities should encourage school districts planning consolidation to achieve educational efficiency and cost savings to consider ways to facilitate TDR. Wherever feasible, district boundaries should be redrawn to facilitate use of this planning tool. STAFFING REQUIREMENTS This last section is an acknowledgement that implementation cannot be successful without sufficient staff to carry out the re- seamh, monitoring, regulation and enforcement called for in the overall plan. The need for additional public funding at this time when the State and all units of local government are ex- periencing a serious fiscal crisis is recognized. Suggestions are offered to ameliorate the budgetary shortages and allow implementation of SGPA objectives. A table summarizing the various agency responsibilities in effectuating the SGPA com- prehensive management plan concludes the chapter. PROBLEM Chapter 951 of the Laws of 1983 directed DEC to promulgate regulations to restrict or prohibit incompatible uses in Hydrogeologic Zones ! - V. This has never been done. The reason DEC has not implemented this law is that funding was not provided to carry out the work. [~ RECOMMENDED ACTION · The State of New York should provide adequate funding to allow DEC to fulfill the mandate. In promulgating regulations, the DEC should give first attention to the protection of pristine, largely undisturbed or undeveloped areas. PROBLEM New York State and County agencies responsible for ground- water protection and regulation on Long Island are inade- quately staffed to permit proper enfomement of existing laws---let alone permit the assumption of additional assign- ments. [~ RECOMMENDED ACTION · NYSDEC and the two County Health Departments should prepare budget requests for the 1993 budget year based on the staffing, laboratory and operational ex~penses necessary to permit adequate management of the SGPAs. They should also increase interagency coordination and pool their resoumes in order to minimize expenses and duplication. 4-9 PROBLEM Although thero is general agreement that the groundwater should be protected, thero is a significant mismatch between public policies, governmental programming and budgetary al- locations to support the necessary research, monitoring and regulatory control. [] RECOMMENDED ACTION · Suffolk Counly should establish a dedicated fund for the upgrading of existing STPs and for financing inspections ar,~l enfomement actions. This fund could be financed through user fees, activity fees, fines and surcharges. For example: - Goundwater protection assessments could be charged for commercial/industrial establishments occupying land located within the SGPAs. Modest charges could be ustified by the need for additional inspection and monitoring of commercial and industrial properties. Additional activity fees should be charged for the use of SGPA related facilities, such as parks, golf courses, trails, etc. NYSDEC fines should increase for failure to comply with all substantive aspects of SPDES permits. Differentiation should be made between paperwork violations and substantive violations that pose an actual threat to the groundwater. - The health agencies should charge a reasonable fee to help defray the cost of inspection in all cases of change in ownership or tenancy of commercial and industrial properties. -. Water suppliers should establish a dedicated fund for watershed protection and source reduction programs. This fund could be financed by a small surcharge on all water bills. 4-10 Chapter Five Citizen Participation introduction In addition to the regular sessions of the Special Ground- water Protection Area Advisory Council (SGPAAC) which met monthly dudng the three year preparation of the plan, and the separate sub-committee meetings that contributed specific inputs to the plan, the Board held a series of informational meetings and received testimony at four public hearings. Informational meetings were held in eight of Suffolk's ten towns, and at the Suffolk County Planning Commission, and the Suffolk County Pine Barrens Commission. Meetings were also held with the North Hills and Lake Success Villages and the Town in the North Hills SGPA, the Oyste[ Bay Town gov- ernment, and with the environmental committee of the Long Is- land Association. Formal public hearings were held in Brookhaven, North Hills, Oyster Bay, and the Huntington/Babylon/Smithtown SGPAs. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a record of the com- ments of those who criticized various portions of the plan document and the response of the LIRPB and the SGPAAC to the criticisms. Comments from the public in support of the plan have not been included since they did not call for further amendment consideration. Oral and written testimony received from the participants at the hearings have been aggregated according to subject matter and is addressed herein: The SGPAAC was reconvened to consider the criticisms and a vote was taken on whether or not the plan should be amended to reflect these views. The following text indicates either agreement with the changes that were requested, in which case the plan maps contained in Chapter three for each SGPA were amended, or rejection of the criticism. If the rejection re- ferred to an issue of substance, e.g., well-head protection zones, or a model existing use zoning ordinance, the materials submitted were included in the Appendices. This chapter addresses the eight broad topics that reflect the range of concerns. They are as follows: · The plan is too stringent in its impact on affordable housing, commemial and industrial activities and, therefore, will negatively impact on the economy of Long Island if implemented. · The plan addresses anti-degradation and not non-degradation. · The plan does not address the eleven points contained in the law. · The plan does not address requirement number 5 specifically in regard to cumulative impacts. · The plan improperly designated land for an industrial use north of Suffolk County's Airport. That site should have been recommended for acquisition. · The plan is not imaginative enough on the subject of innovative land use controls, since it omits any discussion of existing use zoning. · The plan does not adequately address watershed rules and regulations and more specifically the issue of wellhead protection. · The plan does not justify the five acre recommendation as strongly as it should. The concluding section of the chapter identifies the resolutions of support from those governmental entities that have the statutory power and jurisdiction to implement zoning and sub- division powers. 5-1 Business Community Concerns The Long Island Associations' Environmental Committee sub- mitred a detailed listing of questions concerning various rec- ommendations contained in the draft plan that it interpreted as potentially injurious to the sound economic development of the Island. The following paragraphs identify each of the concerns and present the Board's response. An eighteen point list of con- ceres and objections to the SGPA plan was submitted by the Environmental Committee of the Long Island Association and discussed at two meetings with the L.I.A. participants. The questions and/or concerns and the LIRPB responses follow. QUESTION A The imposition of the proposed land use control strategy will make it difficult, if not impossible, to develop or sustain many businesses and support affordable housing in SGPA's. The Plan will create major economic hardship for residential and commemlal/industrial developers and to ex- isting commercial/industrial firms or properly owners. [~ ANSWER The effect on existing businesses will be minimal in nearly all cases. Industrial expansion within all but two of the SGPAs-- Hither Hills and Southold--is already cov- ered by the previsiOns of either the Nassau or Suffolk County Sanitary Code. The proposal to limit new indus- trial or business activity to infill sites within existing busi- ness areas is not 0nly good environmental but good land use planning that should result in enhanced property val- ues in both the commercial areas and the residential ar- eas protected from the haphazard intrusion of commercial uses. Opportunities for constructing affordable housing within the SGPAs may be reduced. There is a tradeoff between densities that may endanger groundwater quality and re- charge and affordable housing. The construction of af- fordable housing may be feasible at a few sites within SGPAs where sewage treatment is available. It must be stressed that the question raised by the LIA is legitimate. A great deal of attention has been paid to this issue in the preparation of the plan. The majority of va- cant industrially zoned land within SGPAs was mainly contained within the Central Suffolk SGPA, which in- cludes more than haft of all the acreage in the 9 SGPAs. The Planning Commission did a separate study and rec- ommended the creation of a planned industrially zoned area in South Yaphank outside the SGPA in exchange for the elimination of the greater part of the vacant indus- trially zoned land within the SGPA. On the issue of affordable housing, it has been a long- standing planning recommendation that such housing be located in already existing communities where services, utilities, transportation and shopping are available. Fur- thermore, in the commercial segment of the Comprehen- sive Plan, the LIRPB has recommended that much of the vacant commercially zoned land be razoned to per- mit residential development at densities that will allow the construction of affordable housing. In addition, the SGPA plan recommends the use of TDR both to encourage preservation within the SGPA and to fos- ter iow cost residential construction outside the SGPA by giving the developer an increase in yield for using TDR. QUESTION B The proposed SGPA land use controls will serve to en- hance the image of Long Island as being inhospitable to business. Certainly, the future supply of adequate pota- ble water to serve the projected Long Island population would not require such rigid and unrealistic anti-degrada- tion approaches in 208,398 acres, (28% of the total and one-half of the remaining open areas of Long Island). [~ ANSWER It should be noted that of the 208,000 acres, approxi- mately 1/3 is already developed. Within these areas the plan recommends that development or infilling on vacant parcels be allowed to continue in accordance with the previously established pattern. One-third of the acreage is already in the public domain in the institutional, open space and agricultural catego- ries. Thus, the plan really affects about 60,000 acres in currently vacant large tracts. Instead of affecting 28% of the Island's real estate, the correct number is closer to 8%. The proposed land use controls may well add to the per- ception that Long Island does not welcome development at any price. However, a careful reading of the recom- mendations will reveal that the LIRPB is not hostile but selective in respect to the nature and location of eco- nomic development. In proposing the sewering or, as a last resort, the elimination of contaminating uses and the prohibition of new ones, the LIRPB is enlisting the assis- tance of the County Health Departments and municipali- ties in protecting the public's health and pocketbook. To the extent that the recommendations minimize ground- water contamination, they also reduce the risk that a business or industry may find itself liable for environ- mental impairment. QUESTION C Perhaps it is time to re-evaluate the state and local gov- ernmental unquestioned commitment to viewing the en- tire Long Island aquifer system as a source of potable 5-2 water. Should all Long Island groundwater be classified as GA? A carrying capacity needs/benefits study should be considered. The real question should be what we can and should afford in assuring an adequate soume of po- table water. Let's stop mixing the need for open space with the question of future adequate water supply. [] ANSWER The issue of State classification of surface and ground- waters is something of a sacred cow, and has not been addressed in this report. It may be that the cost and diffi- culty of mapping minor differences in groundwater qual- ity--.there are no dead fish floating on the water tablo make reclassification unlikely at this time. The LIRPB is in no position to undertake a needs/benefits study; however, it would support a well designed study that builds upon the vast amount of water resource and water supply data that has been collected by federal, state and Long Island agencies. In our judgment the real issue is not one of classification. The LIRPB would not support a downgrading of our pota- ble supply. In the 208 Study we identified areas such as Zone ]! (Bethpage area) that do not meet the GA (pota- ble water) standard. The second part of your point C is well taken. You are en- tirely correct in asserting that the justification for open space is not synonymous with the issue of a future ade- quate water supply. The 208 Study and the SGPA Study, including the modeling work carried out by Cornell Unver- sify clearly demonstrate that between one and two acre residential zoning will meet the more stringent 208 ni- trate guideline of no more than 6 mg/I. The USGS modeling indicated that one or more acre residential development would not be likely to cause shallow aquifer groundwater impairment due to organic contamination. It is clear that the 2, 3, 4, and 5 acre resi- dential zoning that currently exists within the ovem/helm- lng majority of the nine SGPAs is already protective of the aquifer. The reason for open space acquisition to pre- serve farmlands, golf courses, unique habitats, while par- allel to the need to preserve groundwater, is a separable issue. The Board agrees with the LIA that each of these two topics must be viewed in it's appropriate context. QUESTION D We can support water conservation programs which in- clude public education, limits on turf irrigation and the use of water conserving fixtures and appliances. We would not support the imposition of water caps on the water purveyors unless sufficient technical justification exists for the cap on a particular supplier or area serving Long Island since 1926. [] ANSWER The LIRPB is in full agreement with the LIA. The SGPA Plan does not deal with water caps. It does support con- servation and includes a discussion of the subject in the Appendix C to the report. QUESTION E While Nassau would be minimally affected by the pro- posed land use controls, Suffolk would be severely im- pacted by restrictions on a range of commercialAndustdal activities, including a sunset (i.e. closings), on some busi- nesses. ~ ANSWER It is incorrect to say that Suffolk would be severely im- pacted by restrictions on a range of commercial/indus- trial activities. Many restrictions are already in place. The proposal for sunset provisions based on documented groundwater impact is new, but should not prove particu- larly onerous since its applicability is limited. QUESTION F-1 No new sewage treatment plants to be permitted in SGPAs unless the discharge is downstream of well sites and outside the SGPAs (surely no Long Island commu- nity would accept the treated sewage effluent of another community). ~ ANSWER The Plan does allow for new sewage treatment plants in SGPAs provided they meet specific criteria. There are 33 sewage treatment plants (STPs) located within five of the nine SGPAs. Two serve educational fa- cilities in Oyster Bay; one sewes the State Developmen- tal Center in the West Hills-Melville SGPA; one, the Pilgrim State Hospital in the Oak Brush Plains SGPA; one, the SUNY Campus at Stony Brook in the South Setauket SGPA; and the remaining 28 serve a variety of public and private institutional facilities and residential developments in the Central Suffolk SGPA. An additional ten STPs are proposed or under construction, including one in the West Hills-Melville, one in the South Setauket Woods and eight in the Central Suffolk SGPA. The Stony Brook STP, the Brookhaven National Labora- tory STP and the Calverton (Grumman) STP discharge to sudace waters. New York State has agreed to replace the substandard Pilgrim State STP with a connection to the collection system of the Southwest Sewer District treatment plant in Babylon, which also discharges to sur- face waters. There are divergent views as to the best way to protect groundwater from point source discharges such as those 5-3 covered by SPDES permits. One recommendation would be to bar additional significant SPDES discharges within SGPAs, except in the case of new STPs where they are essential to the improvement or maintenance of water quality. Another would be to minimize but not pre- clude the establishment of either remediation and cool- ing water discharge. There is agreement that it is necessanj to reduce contaminant loadings from existing STPs and from septic systems. Expansion of the Southwest Sewer Distdct STP, the State University at Stony Brook STP, the Yaphank and the Riverhead STPs to serve portions of the West Hills- Melville and the Oak Brush Plains, the South Setauket Woods and the southwestern and northeastern sectors of the Central Suffolk SGPAs, respectively, could be ex- pected to reduce or minimize the potential for groundwa- ter contamination. Since there would also be a reduction in recharge, it would be essential to increase water con- servation efforts in areas served by these STPs. See Ap- pendix C for water conservation recommendations. Other actions to reduce or minimize the potential for pol- lution include the regionalization and centralization of treatment facilities in those portions of the Central Suf- folk SGPA that cannot be served by STPs with dis- charges to surface water or shallow flow groundwater; the consolidation of the remaining existing and proposed facilities, wherever feasible, in order to insure the crea- tion or continuation of viable state of the art sewage treatment within the SGPA; and the prohibition of the es- tablishment of new small STPs, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the operation of the facility will result in the improvement of groundwater quality, or local re- charge through the inclusion of existing sources. New sewage treatment plants should be permitted in Special Groundwater Protection areas whenever they meet one or more of the following conditions: · As a replacement to an existing sewage treatment plant or plants where due to the new siting standards or new operating and discharge standards, it is not feasible to expand and upgrade an existing facility or facilities. · Where the clustering of development or the creation of a PUD (Planned Unit Development) will require the averaging of the discharge over the entire property and where this will result in an unacceptable discharge to groundwater. · Where the pattern of existing development has already caused contamination of the groundwater, and the establishment of an STP canbe expected to minimize further contamination. In Nassau County, where all municipal STPs discharge to surface waters, and in Suffolk County where STPs dis- charge to surface or to groundwater, 201-type studies should be undertaken to investigate the need for sewer- lng of already developed unsewered areas within the SGPAs where the current density exceeds existing 208 Study criteria and where there are documented adverse groundwater impacts. QUESTION F-2 Require all nonindustrial SPDES permit holders to have annual pumpouts and sampling. [~ ANSWER There is new, clearer language regarding pumpouts. See pg. 4-2-Problem: Non-industrial SPDESpermit holders are not required to monitor their domestic wastewater discharges for organic chemicals. In addi- tion, certain facilities that are not covered by SPDES per- mits, such as small commercial establishments and residences housing medical practices, with discharges less than 1,000 gallons per day, may also be contribut- ing to groundwater contamination. - RECOMMENDED ACTION Within SGPAs, require the pump-out and chemical analy- sis of septic tank wastes according to the following schedule: · residential facilities with SPDES permits (i.e., muir!family units) -- every three years; · residential systems handling medical and other potentially damaging wastewaters -- annually; and · all commercial facilities -- annually. Where problems are detected, require sampling of leach- ing pools, and pump-outs and/or groundwater monitor- ing, if indicated. QUESTION F-3&4 Limits residential development to proposed 5-acre upzoning requirement. We believe the 208 Study recom- mendations, which have been incorporated into Article 6, are sufficient to allow for continued groundwater protec- tion without significant degradation from residential de- velopments. Increase minimum lot size to two acres for on-site sys- terns in Hydrogeologic Zone II! or in sparsely developed portions of Hydrogeologic Zone 1. ~ ANSWER Article 6 does not reflect the 208 recommendations in their entirety. In the opinion of the LIRPB, Article 6 is helpful but does not afford the level of protection appro- priate for an SGPA. For that reason, the report reiterates the 208 recommendation for Zone 111 (2 acres for onsite systems) and proposes its extension to sparsely devel- oped portions of Zone ! that are located within an SGPA. 5-4 QUESTION F-$ Recommending Suffolk County establish a dedicated fund for the upgrading of existing sewage treatment plants and for financing inspections and enfomement. This fund would be financed threugh user fees, activity fees, fines and surcharges. [3 ANSWER This recommendation came from Dr. Andreoli of S. C. Health Services. We do not understand your objection. Those who benefit should pay. The only other option would.be to tax everyone. QUESTION F-6 Recommending sunset provisions to be established for industrial operations and incor~/~ztible commercial facili- ties not sewered, (such as dry cleaners and gas sta- tions). Basically, heretofore permilted businesses would be fomed out of business. Over what time pedod will they have to phase out? Will economic incentives be pro- vided to keep them in the same community? same town? on Long Island? These questions need answers in order to assess the impact of these potential policies on the economics of the area and Long Island. ~1 ANSWER Proposed sunset provisions, where applicable, would have to be technically justifiable, clearly related to the stated goal of groundwater protection and equitable. In all likelihood, no business operating in accordance with current regulations would be shut down unless it posed an imminent danger to public health. Businesses re- garded as potential soumes of contamination might be required to upgrade storage, processing and discharge facilities and practices or cease specific operations after a reasonable period of time. We probably would need a multi-disciplinary committee of experts, including specialists in hydrogeology, ground- water chemistry, risk assessment and law, to come up with defensible sunset provisions. QUESTION F-7 Insufficient information has been provided in order to as- certain what percentage of industrially zoned land in each town would be eliminated from future industrial use under this proposal. Clearly, if the percentage in any given town is substantial, such a policy of no industrial development within SGPAs could have a very significant impact on that town's economic well-being. In that case, alternatives must be considered including transfer of de- velopment rights, designating and establishing new in- dustrial corridors, etc. ANSWER This information will be in the final report. Your observa- tion is a good one. We did give a great amount of plan- ning attention to this issue and recommended a major new industrial area for Brookhaven outside of the SGPA. QUESTION F-8 We believe the existing network of groundwater monitor- ing wells is rather extensive, particularly in Nassau County, and that an across-the-board increase in ground- water monitoring wells to facilitate monitoring and pump testing of wells is expensive, time-consuming and not necessary. Additional monitoring wells should only be lo- cated in those areas where there is lack of groundwater data, where a contaminant plume exists, or where the potential for a contaminant release is significant. ~3 ANSWER We thoroughly agree with the LIA. The report does not propose the installation of unnecessary monitoring wells. See p. 4-8 (Watershed Management) for precise lan- guage. - RECOMMENDED ACTION · Additional monitoring wells should be installed in order to map the source of water to glacial wells, as well as to document existing and potential sources of groundwater contamination. This effort should utilize the existing networks of monitoring wells to the extent possible. · It is further recommended that a minimum of three wells -- one upgradient, two downgradient -- be installed for every industrial discharge location. The cost of drilling and monitoring these wells should be borne by the discharger. Work should be coordinated with the health agencies and DEC to ensure up-to-date water quality data for suppliers. This coordinated effort should allow the regulatory agencies to document existing or potential sources of contamination, while allowing the water suppliers to focus on the source of water to wells. This would be a very limited program and at the discre- tion of the water purveyors. QUESTION F-9 The current law that requires DEC to notify water suppli- ers of any SPDES violation within three miles of a well is sufficient. We do not see the need to expand this list to include the almost one hundred water purveyors on Long Island. ~ ANSWER See pp. 4-8, 4-9 for current language. Report makes the point that DEC is not currently complying with the law, 5-5 and suggests a Iow cost way for it to do so. Problem:- Chapter 662 of the Laws of 1983 requires NY- DEC to notify water suppliers in the Sole Source Aquifer of any SPDES permit violation occurring with 3 miles of their well. This law has not been adequately complied with. RECOMMENDED ACTION DEC should publish a report of any substantive SPDES violations for Region I in the Environmental Notice Bulle- tin and should send a copy to every water puweyor. If it is published in the ENB it automatically will go to each purveyor at little if any cost increase. QUESTION F-10 The Plan should give consideration to allowing commer- cial/industrial activities within SGPAs subject to ade- quate site-specific engineering controls to prevent contamination of the groundwater. [~ ANSWER Commercial/industrial activities are allowed within SGPAs. QUESTION F-11 No consideration is given in the Plan for processing the additional scavenger waste that will be generated from the annual pumpout of nonindustrial SPDES permit hold- ers. Currently, there is inadequate capacity for scaven- ger waste treatment. ~3 ANSWER LIA is correct. The report should and will recommend ex- pansion/upgrading of scavenger waste facilities outside the SGPA. Studies are underway at Pilgrim with hook- ups to Southwest Sewer District, and at Yaphank. QUESTION F-12 The financing of a dedicated fund through user fees, ac- tivity fees, fines and surcharges could lead to abuses re- sulting in exorbitant fees and fines to finance regulatory agencies' activities. ~ ANSWER This is a legitimate and serious concem, particularly in these days of budgetary shortfalls; however, the need to raise proper revenues to carry out essential projects and programs is self-evident. Perhaps a committee of regulators, developers, water purveyors and the LIA envi- ronment committee should be established to explore these issues in depth. QUESTION F-13 The recent DEC decision to ban denitrification systems should be examined in relation to the SGPA plan. The cost of sewage treatment plant construction could drasti- cally alter the conclusion of the study. O ANSWER The study was completed before the DEC action. The LIA is correct. This must be considered. The issue will be raised before the SGPAAC and addressed in the final report. CONCLUSION In closing, we request that the Long Island Planning Board reconsider the proposed SGPA management plan to determine what economically pressed Long Islanders' truly need to pay to guarantee an adequate supply of po- table water. On page 2-4 of the report you indicate a new/~e~bilit~, will be required to implement the study. Such flexibility, however, is not to be found in most places in the study. [~ ANSWER We understand the LIA concems. We also are con- vinced that the LIA is equally aware that protection of the aquifer is essential. Without an inexpensive and quality water supply the entire Island is out of business. It is also important to understand that remediation and treat- ment at the wellhead -- let alone importation of water is far more costly than keeping the water clean in the first instance. Anti-degradation vs. Non-degredation CRITICISM One of the concerns raised by the Group for the South Fork was the use of the term c~nti-Eegrc~at~on instead of the term no~.degr~c~jo~ as cited in the law. Their interpretation was that non was more strict than anti. They further opined that by using anti the plan was therefore illegal. [~ RESPONSE A discussion with one of the major drafters of the law elicited the comment that, to his knowledge, no distinction was in- ferred or understood to exist between the two terms. In fact, neither term is defined in any state law. The lawyer for the Group acknowledged this fact by having to refer to cor~r~on usc~. Websters New Collegiate Dictionary defines as follows, .... t~ lower in grade, rank, or status: Denote the prefix non is generally defined to mean not. 5-6 Simply put, following common usage of the term non-degrada- tion the plans' policy could be construed as continuance of the status quo. The plan would therefore be in compliance if exist- ing groundwater quality conditions were maintained. Another interpretation of non-degradation that is just as valid is that of not exceeding established and regulated standards. Water quality, according to this point of view, does not become degraded until a relevant standard or measure of quality is contravened. For example, the N.Y.S. standard for NO3-N is 10 mg/I. The LIRPB guideline is 6 mg/I. The essence of the criticism though should be given consid- eration beyond semantic interpretation and in terms of what the plan is trying to achieve. The group seeks and recommends: ..... that existing pollution sources be severely curtailed in order to offset the pollution caused by additional develop- ment. For example, nitrogen and other pollutants intro- duced into SGPAs by a new subdivision would necessitate elimination of the same amount of pollutants from existing pollution sources. To achieve nondegradation, the remaining undeveloped areas in the SGPAs should allow primar#y parks, perma- nent open space and tightly-clustered Iow-density resi- dential development. Proposed uses which unduly compromise groundwater quality should be located out- side SGPAs. Despite permitting only limited uses within SGPAs, they still may collectively degrade the aquifer in contravention of the strict nondegradation standard. Therefore, the plan must dramatically diminish existing pollution sources in order to maintain orimprove existing overall water quality. Such measures include: refusing to renew SPDES permits where violations have been chronic, re- turning turfed areas to natural vegetation, upgrading ex- isting sewage treatment plants and systems, requiring more aggressive integrated pest management for exist- ing farm operations, eliminating point sources of pollu- tion and amortizing commercial or industrial practices that are polluting groundwater. Every one of the above implementation measures is strongly set forth in the plan. Instead of acknowledging that fact, the Group instead chose to fault the plan for term usage and not substance. The reason the term anti was used in the draft report was that no definition of the prefix non existed. The term anti-degrada- tion however was defined in a memorandum from the Com- missioner of DEC received by the Board dated September 9, 1985, which established a policy of antidegradation for his de- parfment. This policy applied mainly to surface rather than groundwater -- but it was the only expression of policy in ex- istence. EPA however, has recently questioned New York State's im- plementation of antidegradation as defined in the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987. A reevaluation carried out by DEC resulted in the draft anti-degradation policy of 1990. In 1991 the term was discarded, and the current language is neither anti or non, but Water Quality Enhancement and Protection Po//cy. As of this writing the new proposed polk;¥ has three parts: · Discharge Restriction Categories Goal: Protect sensitive waters that cannot assimilate the effects of general discharges or discharges of specified substances. · Antidegradation Goal: Maintain the high quality of waters that are cleaner than standards require. · Substance Bans Goal: Protect all waters from specific persistent toxic substances. The only source found that uses the term non-degradation was the 1982 brochure Watershed Planning: The Protection of Longlsland's Groundwater put out privately by a group of en- vironmental organizations in 1982. Their glossary defined the term as: A policy in water quality management in which ambient water quality is used to estab#sh standards; non-degradation means maintenance of ambient water quality Ambient means the background or existing water quality in the vicinity. In undeveloped areas that have not been subjected to earlier contamination, the ambient water quality may be pris- tine or less than 1 or 2 mg/I NO3-N (and, presumably, no or- ganic contamination.) In some portions of the various SGPAs the ambient concentrations may be of 5-6 mg/l. By these definitions the plan should strive to maintain and/or hopefully improve upon existing water quality conditions. In fact the plan for each SGPA addresses this concern. Whether the term anti or non is used, the intent is the same. The plan has been amended to delete the term anti-degrada- tion except where historical reference warrants its retention. The significant issue is whether or not the plan, if imple- mented, will maintain ambient conditions and also improve water quality in those portions of the SGPAs that are not cur- rently pristine. The plan does provide for this objective by calling for the maxi- mum retention of undeveloped privately held lands, in large measure through acquisition and presen/ation as part of the public domain; and for a host of regulatory and administrative 5-7 procedures to improve water quality in already developed and impacted areas within the SGPAs. The Plan's Eleven Requirements The coalition against the plan argues that the plan document fails to address the eleven required elements set forth in Article 55 of the Environmental Conservation Law and listed on pages 1-5, 1-8 and 1-9, above. The SGPAAC thoroughly disagrees with this criticism. With one possible exception, every point of the law has been addressed. There is a vast dif- ference between satisfying the critics who may not like the conclusions of the study and the substantiation of their charge that the requirements are not addressed. Table 1-1 on page 1-9 clearly identifies where each of the elements is dis- cussed in the report. The criticism was valid as respects the eighth requirement call- ing for the identification of federal, state, and locally financed activities that degrade groundwater. The criticism in particular identified the jet fuel spill that occurred at Westhampton Airport a decade ago. The subject was considered; but, for several reasons, was omitted from the text. First, the only projects that would con- ceivably fall within the parameters of this requirement are in the transportation field. This would include highways and airports. Second, any projects past, present or proposed have either al- ready passed SEQRA review, are currently under SEQRA re- view or will be under SEQRA review. For already approved projects the issue is moot. For current or proposed projects the time to suggest limits is when all the facts are in and an intelli- gent decision can be made. The purpose of this plan is not to stop the world, but to enable elected policy makers to make more rational choices based upon as broad an array of alter- natives and knowledge of their consequences as possible. The airport issues involve the Gombrieski County Airport at Westhampton, the U.S. Navy Facility at Calverton, and the Breokhaven Airport at Mastic. The County airport has been the subject of several compre- hensive plans and is in operation. The SGPA plan did change its earlier recommendation for the industrial parcel north of the airport, which now is listed for county acquisition. Past fuel spills are subject to EPA, and DEC regulations and, while us- lng better management and control, the plan does not recom- mend closing the field or hobbling its ability to operate. The Brookhaven Airport is under consideration as the site for Dowling College's School of Aviation. Any proposed buildings or improvements are Class 1 actions under SEQRA and will have to comply with proper design, construction, and environ- mental safeguards. The Plan supports this use and does not recommend limits other than those already contained within the body of the Plan. It must also be noted that the activity as proposed is outside of the SGPA. The Navy facility at Calverton is currently the subject of a fea- sibility study sponsored by the F.A.A. to determine if joint mili- tary/commercial air operations can coexist. The feasibility study will also examine whether or not freight cargo operations would be economically beneficial. Until the study is completed it is premature to consider limits other than those that would apply to any activities within the SGPAs. In other words, the SGPA will be input to the feasibility study. The LIRPB has been on record for mere than a decade that road construction on new rights-of-way within the Pine Barrens be eliminated or severely restricted. The Suffolk County Planning Commission in its annual review of county capital projects has followed this policy, resulting in the elimination of the proposed extension of County Route 111 from the Long Is- land Expressway to Middle Island. The only other highway project that is located within the boundaries of the SGPAs is the expansion of the Long Island Expressway to four lanes from Exit 30 in Queens to Exit 62 in the Town of Brookhaven. This proposal does not affect Central Suffolk SGPA; it does, however, traverse or abut portions of the North Hills, Oyster Bay and West Hills-Melville SGPAs. The affected segments of the Expressway are located be- tween exit 32 in Lake Success to exit 49 in Melville. The rest o1 the project is outside of the SGPAs. The SEQRA process has been completed for the segment from exit 49 through exit 57 and the road improvements are under construction. The balance of this project will also receive full ElS evaluation. More to the point, the project is within the existing boundaries of the highway and is adequately designed for road runoff and recharge. The Plan proposes no limits be- yond those with which the State of New York is already com- plying. Since the fourth lane is designed to improve safety and to relieve a highway that in this section is utilized well beyond its original design capacity, this project is expected to reduce congestion without negative impact on the environment. 5-8 Cumulative Impacts The fifth required element is: A resource assessment which determines the amount and type of human development and activity which the ecosystem can sustain while still maintaining existing ground and surface water quality and protecting unique ecological features. This work item in effect is meant to provide answers to the question of the carrying capacity of the land within the SGPAs to sustain development without compromising the existing quality of the groundwater. The requirement as stated is vague, poorly written and, like much of the law, ambiguous. As a result differing interpretations and expectations have arisen. Some individuals expressed the hope that this element of the study would reinforce their commitments to the preservation of the pine barrens or of other properties in those SGPAs without pine barrens. Some individuals interpreted the language to mean that development could occur, so long as the additional growth would not lower the existing quality of the groundwater. Some other individuals argued that growth could occur if the guideline for NO3-N that was adopted in the 208 plan was not exceeded. Some argued for the maintenance of ambient con- ditions with a plan for upgrading existing conditions, even where existing conditions are good, e.g., NO3-N less than 6 ppm. {6 mg/I). This debate also raised two other issues; namely, whether or not the plan must follow an anti-degradation policy or non-deg- radation policy, and what both of these policies mean. Is non- degradation the same as zero degradation? This area of dispute is discussed separately under its own heading. The authors of the plan postulate that requirement #5 has to refer to two carrying capacities and thus two sets of cumulative impact have to bo considered. The simplistic bumper stickers that say No Pine Trees, No Water is simply not true. At least half of the SGPAs have no pine barrens. The primary purpose of the study is to develop a plan that will address the protection of the portion of Long Island's aquifers within the SGPAs. The issue of cumulative impact should be limited to the relationship between development and its impact on water quality. The current legal limit for acoeptable potable water is the nitrate/nitrogen standard of 10 milligrams per liter. The 208 study, and the subsequent studies, laws and pro- grams since the release of the 208 Report in 1978 have estab- lished a tougher guideline of 6 mg/I. The unanswered question during the conduct of this study -- and it still remains unre- solved -- concerns the impact of organic contamination result- ing from development. To this day there are few adopted standards and little epidemiological or other data that provide definitive scientific answers. In fact, the Long Island 208 study was the first in the nation to even test for organics. That effort led to the discovery of the ubiquitous nature and presence of ~'emik (Aldicarb) in the Southold aquifer and the Board sup- ported the Suffolk County Health Services efforts to provide for the installation of carbon filters to treat the water supply to all of the affected homes. Many organic compounds when tested on rats do induce a va- riety of tumors. Whether this constitutes proof of a correlation with humans is really not the issue. If even a potential for health impacts exists, then the public must be protected to the maximum extent possible. Therefore the Board commissioned a special study undertaken by the Long Island office of USGS in cooperation with colleagues at Ithaca to develop a prob- abil~ model that would link varying densities of development and the probable presence of organic contaminants. The evi- dence thus far shows a correlation between intensity of devel- opment and the likelihood of organic contamination. As one would expect, areas of commercial and industrial land uses and high density residential use are likely to experience organic contamination. Conversely, iow density residential ar- eas without any commemial or industrial uses are likely to be free of organic contamination. The Iow density was one-half acre zoning or 1.8 houses per acre. Simply put, this means that the entire SGPAs could sustain less than one acre resi- dential zoning and not create a problem. In other words, if the density were kept at one house per two acres, the ground- waters would be well within water quality standards. Table 5-1 summarizes the land available for development, the current water quality, the allowable density and finally the cumulative impact for each SGPA. Zoning N-NOs I acre 4-6 5 acre 1-3 TABLE 5-1 Cumutative Impacts (land available for development) Population Cumulative /Acre Population 2.80 148,000 0.56 33,600 Cumulative No. of Dwell. Units 48,0O0 10,000 5-9 As indicated, the protection of water quality clearly cannot sup- port the plan recommendation calling for five acre zoning for most of the undeveloped tracts. In fact, this is the basis for much of the opposition to the plan from the developers, land owners, and builders who argue that the protection of water does not require such Iow density. With the exception of the Project Director, members of the Ad- visory Council who are health, engineering and planning pro- fessionals were in almost total agreement that they could not support five acre zoning based on the need to protect the aqui- fers. They could not accept more than one or two acre zoning as necessary for water quality protection. In fact, it was the po- sition of the County Health Agencies that one acre could pre- vide the requiste groundwater protection. They did agree to support the plan and a five acre recommendation if the rea- sons for such Iow density were other than aquifer protection, and also if the Iow density did not conflict with other objectives, such as the need for Iow-cost or affordable housing. This latter concern was addressed in the plan and in the Com- memial Analysis portion of the Board's current comprehensive planning effort. Affordable housing should be provided in es- tablished communities where transportation, shopping and community infrastructure exist. There is more than enough va- cant commemially zoned parcels along major roads, providing a supply vastly in excess of need. Many of these strip com- memial pamels should be rezoned for affordable housing at densities that would keep housing costs down and are also re- flective of the value of the commemial land. From a planning perspective, five acre zoning with clustered development provides increased assurance of watershed pro- tection as well as the opportunity to retain ecologically signfi- cant aggregations of undisturbed open space. Other arguments in support of five acre zoning include the fact that Brookhaven, Southampton and East Hampton have al- ready zoned large portions of the SGPAs within their bounda- ries for five acre use in order to protect the rural character of their communities. This is also tree of several Nassau Villages and the issue has been juridically upheld in the Upper Brookville case. Another argument in favor of five acre zoning is that the scien- tific evidence is not yet fully available in regard to organic con- tamination. Therefore, prudence would be a sound planning approach to follow. This issue is more fully discussed in the following pages under the heading of Justification for Five Acre Zoning. Interestingly enough, the business community is opposed to the recommendation, as expected; but the so-called environ- mentalists have not shown great support either. The second and separate debate over cumulative impact is specifically re- lated to the pine barrens. This is a particular forest with unique attributes of flora and fauna and one that merit attention even if no aquifer or water issues were present. Obviously any development in the pine barrens will have a cu- mulative impact, but not necessarily one related to water. The major species of pine trees indigenous to the barrens are serotinous. This means that the seeds contained within the pine cones can only be released after the cones have been subjected to intense heat. Unless planned or accidental burn- ings occur, the forest will not survive as a pine barrens. If pres- ervation of the pine barrens ecosystem is a goal of the Plan, then five acre zoning with clustered development or the trans- fer of development rights can be justified as a means of sup- plementing extensive public pumhases designed to set aside areas large enough for fire management. The larger the acqui- sifion program and the more extensive the use of large lot zon- ing, the greater the reduction of the potential cumulative impacts of development. The problem however is cost. There are over 50,000 acres of undeveloped pine forest tracts within the SGPAs in Suffolk County. If all of the County's open space monies were as- signed solely to the pine barrens (which they are not) less than one-fifth of the vacant acres could be permanently preserved. Thus the challenge is multifold. Every tool in the planning arse- nal has to be used (see the discussion on Existing Use Zon- ing); and the efforts should be focused on the preservation of contiguous tracts. Implementation of the plan could achieve permanent preservation of more than 80 pement of all the va- cant lands. The developers say this is too much, the preserva- tionists say it isn't enough. The probable outcome will be somewhere in-between. Industrial Parcel North of Gombrieski County Airport The section of the plan covering of the south-eastern portion of the Central Suffolk SGPA recommended that one third of the industrially zoned and privately owned property directly north of the airport be retained for industrial use. Earlier planning by the County of Suffolk and the Town of Southampton had made such a provision on the basis of compatibility with the airport, and the need to generate jobs and tax base for the town and school district. A portion of the property does contain some dwarf pine forest. The Suffolk County Legislature adopted a resolution calling for the purchase of this property to be added to the County's Open Space Preservation program. Since the overall plan for 5-10 all nine SGPAs included as a given all of the open space ac- quisition recommendations made by the Nassau County Plan- ning Commission, the Suffolk County Planning Commission and the Long Island Regional Planning Board, it follows that this parcel recommended by the Legislature should be simi- lady supported. However, it must be noted that this pamel was leased by the United States Air Force for 30 years and was used as a stor- age site for hazardous material. County acquisition could in- volve liability for a cleanup. The Legislature has stipulated that an environmental audit be conducted prior to purchase. There- fore, the LIRPB will amend the draft plan to include this parcel for acquisition, subject to a finding that the property is not sub- ect to a major cleanup. Aerial Photo of the Industrial Parcel North of the Airport E×isti~g U~ Zoning INNOVATIVE LAND USE CONTROLS: The Open Space Council of Brookhaven commented that the section of the plan concerning land use control techniques for acquisition and/or preservation of lands was too limited and should be expanded. The Council recommended that in addi- tion to purchase, donation, retention of tax default parcels, mandatory clustering, planned unit development (PUD), trans- fer of development rights (TDR), purchase of development rights (PDR), and upzoning to five acre residential use which the plan calls for, that the LIRPB list EXISTING USE ZONING. In essence, the Council's argument is that wa- tershed lands, hunting and fishing preserves, golf courses, forests, and farms are uses; and if currently open lands were zoned for those pur- poses, it would be possible to protect undevel- oped acreage in the SGPAs without having to buy it. From the standpoint of those who do not own the properties it is an idea with some ap- peat. See Appendix K for model ordinance. This concept was not recommended in the plan because it is patently unconstitutional. A owner is entitled to a reasonable use of land, mean- ing some economic benefitl although not nec- essarily maximum profit. To zone pine barrens as pine barrens, i.e., existing use would deny any economic return and therefore be confisca- tory. The techniques that are recommended in the plan are the result of four decades of study and practice of land use contro! by the study team, and are the only workable tools available. In the preparation of the open space segment of Long Islands' Comprehensive Regional Devel- opment plan every workable and theoretical land use control measure was considered. It is true that some states - California, Hawaii and Oregon for example - do provide for agri- cultural and/or forest zoning. It is feasible to some extent in those states because agricul- ture and timbering are economic activities. More to the point, the industries support the zoning for their own protection. The history of the California Coastal Conservation Commis- sion, which has very broad powers to control land uses, has been a mixed record. When the Commissions actions became confiscatory, it was reined in. 5-11 Here, in the State of New York, the judicial actions of other states do not constitute a precedent for support. Even the con- stitutionally created Catskill and Adirondacks (forever wild) Forest Preserves are zoned for Iow density residential not for- est or existing or watershed use. If the towns which control zoning, wished to create an agricul- tural or golf course zone they could do so, because some eco- nomic return is possible. At the least the owners would be entitled to a reduction of assessed value commensurate with the loss of development potential. The New York State Agricul- tural District Law recognizes this approach. However, the land must be set aside for agricultural use by voluntary action of the owner, not a mandate by the governmental mandate. There are also pragmatic realities that are even more pertinent than the constitutional constraints. Long Island needs a plan that can work; a plan that can be implemented. The owners of undeveloped lands in the SGPAs did not ac- quire them with the intention of becoming public benefactors -- save for the few who have donated their properties to the County or Nature Conservancy. Most farmers oppose upzon- lng of their lands because the farm serves as collateral in se- curing the short term bank loans for operational needs. As the land is upzoned and the potential development return reduced, the ability to borrow against the land is similarly reduced. If it is not possible to convince the Town of Riverhead to upzone from one acre to five acre~, what likelihood is there of achiev- ing a change from one acre residential to non-development agriculture zoning? If the Open Space Council wishes to pur- sue the adoption of a n~od~! orEinance for open space zoning the Board does not wish to dissuade it from its mission. It must be observed however, that it took those who developed the current laws almost two decades to get clustering accepted, another decade to have it made mandatory at the town's dis- cretion; three decades to get T.D.R., and a similar more than three decade battle to move from quarter, third and half acre zoning to the current two, three and five acre residential zoning. Proposed actions must be doable now if the majority of the 60,000 remaining undeveloped lands in the SGPAs are to be preserved. Watemhed Rules and Regulations WELLHEAD PROTECTION vs. WATERSHED PROTECTION Historically watershed rules and regulations had been pro- posed for sudace waters where it is easy to delineate the drainage area contributing to a lake or reservoir. This process is obviously much more difficult for groundwater. Even here on Long Island where there is extensive information on the hy- drology, it is difficult to pin point the location or soume of water for individual wells or wellfields, especially those that tap the deep magothy aquifer. The Federal Government required New York State to prepare a wellhead protection plan based on the concept that it is possible to delineate the zones of contribution to individual wells and to regulate activities within those zones to insure some degree of protection to the water supply that is being derived from those wells. DEC has recognized that a zonal approach with restrictions based upon an arbitrary calcu- lation of a five, ten or twenty year time of travel may not be ap- propriate in the bi-county region. Here on Long Island, the wellhead protection concept can only be applied to shallow glacial wells where it is possible to simulate the zones of con- tribution by doing pumping tests and calculating draw downs. There are still many local conditions that might affect the accu- racy of the results such as the presence or absence of clay lenses in the area, influences of other public wells in the area and changes in rainfall pattems. Most of the Island's .qeolo- gists and water purve~yo[s feel that the concept is not rst~evant in respect to the delineation of the sources of water for the deep magothy wells. Since 50% of the Island's wells tap that portion of the aquifer, they feel it would be misleading and an exercise in futility to proceed to develop wellhead protection plans based on a scientifically indefensible formula. Wellhead protection for Suffolk County does present some specific problems it none other than shear numbers (over 500 wells on 250 sites). These problems are: · The hydrogeology of the aquifers require different programs for each aquifer. · Urbanization has already impacted many existing sites and must be considered for future sites. · Current groundwater classifications do not reflect present knowledge of the aquifers. · Enforcement of wellhead protection will be difficult for water suppliers and are described below. Wellhead protection calls for establishing protective zone(s) around a wellfield. In Suffolk County this may be extremely dif- ficult for some wellfields primarily due to Long Island's hydro- geology. The two major aquifers (glacial and the Magothy) are used almost equally for Suffolk County water supply. For the glacial aquifer it would be possible to establish site specific protection areas since the quality of this upper aquifer is di- rectly influenced by land activities surrounding each wellsite and hydrogeologic data is available. However, Article 7 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code has already established an area approximating 1,500 feet upgradiant and 500 feet downgradi- ant from a well. Site specific investigations would be neces- sary on each wellfield if more detail is required. Establishing boundaries for the Magothy Aquifer will be extremely difficult if not impossible for the following reasons, In dealing with the Magothy Aquifer, which in some places may be as thick as 5-12 2,000 feet, well screen loeaf~ons am often referred to as upper, middle, or basal Magothy. The basal (deepest) Magothy water originates from areas closest to the groundwater divide. This can be as distant as 10 miles from a well site. As well screen depth de- creases in the Mag~hy the origin of the well's water moves away from the groundwater d~de (north or south) generally closer to the well. The depth versus distance problems combined with other aquifer properties would make boundary sizes too large. The Magothy is further complicated by its own geology i,e,; the presence of clay lenses throughout the aquifer. These days are non-contiguous and site specific and provide any well with additional vertical protection from land activities immediately surrounding the welifield. Setting practical boundaries of the Magothy wells should not be considered unless further infor- mation or improved predictive tools can be made available. The many groundwater studies mentioned earlier have shown that some aquifer segments are already contaminated. This is especially true in the upper glacial aquifer, where organics and pesticides have been found throughout the county. Wellhead protection must, therefore, look at existing wellfields to exam- ine their contamination potential and then address the location of future sites. For many well sites development has occurred all around them and they may just be surrounded by the time bombs. Regardless of what protection zones are developed the water suppliers could only control activities on their own well sites. They would have to rely on county or state health depart- ments for enforcement of regulations affecting other properties. Current standards do not recognize the existing contamination. Present standards classify the Long Island groundwater as Class GA (drinking). This may not be adequate in a portion of Suffolk County where contamination renders the water non-po- table. Some consideration should be given to making adjust- ments in the classifications. For example: A GA classification was given to the Long Island Aquifers in the 1960s, designat- ing the best use as drinking. Since that time, a wealth of knowledge about the Long Island groundwater systems and aquifer contamination has been developed. Different flow re- gimes were recognized, leading to creation of groundwater management zones; and groundwater protection programs are being actively pursued on a county and town level, through land purchase and local anti-pollution measures, in order to prevent future contamination, This knowledge should now be applied to the groundwater classifications -- specifically by providing additional classifica- tions that can be applied to each aquifer. Long Island has three major water-bearing aquifers, the upper glacial, Magothy and Lloyd. Special state legislation has already been enacted identifying the Lloyd aquifer as sensitive to pollution and with- drawals, and imposing a moratorium on the aquifer's use. The legislation recognizes special sensitivity for the Lloyd aquifer and, appropriately, this aquifer should have a higher classifica- tion than GA, but none exists. The Magothy Aquifer is recognized as the major water supply source for Nassau and Suffolk Counties, and it will continue to be the pdme water supply source for generations, and is ap- propriately designated as GA The upper glacial aquifer is the uppermost water-bearing stra- tum and receives contamination from the land uses above it. It is known that land uses from certain portions of the glacial aquifer (known as deep recharge areas) impact the Magothy water quality, and conversely, the land use outside deep re- charge {discharge areas) does not. This factor should be con- sidered in the classification of the glacial aquifer. For example, in western portions of Suffolk County, the upper glacial aquifer has been found to have the most contamination, and drinking water use would not be recommended. However, in Eastern Suffolk pristine glacial water can still be found, making this water excellent for water supply. The enforcement of a wellhead protection program or even Watershed Rules and Regulations (WRR) may be difficult for a local water supplier. For example: Watershed Rules and Regu- lations become part of the State's sanitary code and for the ex- ecutive law. However, the water supplier may not be able to gain access to a suspected pollution source {due to the lack of authority) and may also lack the administrative authority to im- pose penalties or administrative judgements. The enforcement arena may be better left to existing regulators (NYSDEC, NYS- DOH, SCDHS). Conclusions · Long Island hydrogeology makes it extremely difficult to establish a wellhead protection program. · Existing glacial well sites should be investigated within the context of a wellhead protection program in order t( determine pollution potential. · Future glacial well sites can be located to provide adequate wellhead protection, · It is not possible to establish wellhead protection at Magothy well sites beyond well site boundaries. Further research needs to be undertaken. Similar difficulties will be experienced in locating future Magothy sites. The exception to this would be to site,, on or near the groundwater divide. · A great deal of groundwater contamination presently exfsts in the upper glacial aquifer. The location of ne water supply sites in this aquifer would probably require water treatment. · Existing regulations by DEC,and SCDHS are adequate beth wellhead protectDn ar~ watershed rules and regulations. 5-13 · Locating future well sites is complicated by inconsistencies in the present groundwater classifications. More flexibility is needed. · Enforcement by water suppliers of wellhead protection or watershed rules and regulations will be cumbersome and difficult. Full responsibility should be given to existing regulators. From our perspectuve, the entire Island could be considered a watershed since virtually at every point there is water that moves downward towards some portion of the aquifers and re- charges them. Obviously, in the coastal areas this water is not going to be withdrawn by any public wells and therefore will end up moving out to coastal waters. For the purpose of the SGPA Study, the entire nine areas should be considered as watershed areas, since they provide recharge to the deepfiow portions of the entire aquifer system. The water beneath these areas may not necessarily find its way into a glacial or mag- othy well located downgradient. However, to the extent that it is possible to prevent or minimize contaminant entry into the water supply from these points, current and future wells could be assured a quality of water that would meet drinking water standards. The plan recognizes this fact and, for the most part, calls for the location or relocation of potentially contaminating commemial industrial facilities outside of this region. Those recommendations, in addition to the upzoning of the remaining residential land and the clustering of development, offer the maximum protection achievable without outright acquisition, which is not feasible for all of the remaining open space. Justification for Five Acre Zoning ORGANICS There has been a great deal of discussion among the SGPA advisory members as to whether or not it is actually possible to predict various organic loadings to the aquifer based on exist- ing land use. In ifs latest report to the Regional Planning Board, the USGS has stated that analysis of samples from 90 monitoring wells along the groundwater divide of the Island has indicated that samples from 38 pement of these wells, some of them in high density residential areas of four to ten units per acre, showed evidence of organic contamination. There are a number of assumptions in the USGS study that obviously could be questioned. For example, volatiles, by their very definition, can evaporate before reaching the aquifer sys- tem as opposed to other synthetic organic compounds that are both more persistent and possibly more soluble. Pesticides and herbicides for example that are used by many homeown- ers may be more likely to enter the groundwater system than some volatile organics. Also the proximify of the monitoring wells to actual specific development is not accurately defined nor was there an attempt to look at groundwater flow patterns to insure that the water being analyzed came from a specific identifiable land use. There was an assumption that the land and related activities directly above the moniforing well was the most responsible for the water qualify being analyzed; but, as everyone knows, even along the groundwater divide there tends to be lateral movement as well as vertical movement, especially in response to heavy rainfalls and droughts which tend to shift the location of the groundwater divide both north and south throughout the year. Another shortcoming of the study is the fact that only one sample was taken in one year in order to arrive at this conclusion. The Suffolk County Water Authority has a substantial amount of data regarding various contaminants in their wells that shows that the concentrations vary from day to day and, in some instances, are not detected at all although several weeks later they exceed the state limits. It is doubtful that we are ever going to develop an organic model of such sophistication that it will be able to accurately predict the potential for contamination from a wide renge of varying organic compounds to a water table located at various depths throughout the Island. The problems in developing such a model include a wide range of differences in persist- ency between the various organic compounds, the extremely complicated interactions that occur between each compound and those compounds in conjunction with other compounds both at the point of discharge and throughout the soil column, which also changes significantly from one test boring to an- other; and other variables such as pH, temperature, and rain- fall. Cornell University tried to create such a model for one particular organic constituent, aldicarb. They did this for a sin- gle lens aquifer in Southold and had many variables that had to be plugged into the model to make if work. As different soil profiles, rainfall patterns, and application rates were imputed, and as the compound degre ded from aldicarb to its metabo- lites, the visual screen showed both the shape, size and extent of the plume changing as each of these parameters changed. Since there may never be enough verifiable scientific data to support a finding that a certain type of residential land use will result in a specific contravention of a certain organic standard, it is moro prudent to utilize the approach taken in formulating the SGPA Plan. It is known that as density increases, or as land use changes from residential to commercial, and/or industrial uses, the likelihood of introducing organic compounds increases, it is more likely that contamination will reach the water supply. Based on that general principle and a number of other planning con- cepts, including the quality of life, transportation issues, and keeping significant open areas vacant, the plan recommends five acre zoning for much of the area throughout the nine SGPA's. As previously indicated, the data for nitrate and/or organic con- tamination associated with residential development cannot jus- tify minimum lot size requirements in excess of one to two acres. However, other planning and environmental considera- 5-14 tions, among them the preservation of community character, the need to protect open space for recharge and for ecosys- tem viablility, a desire to maintain ambient water quality and uncertainty as to the groundwater impacts of current and fu- ture activities support the recommendation for five acre zoning. NITROGEN Much of Suffolk County's up-zoning as well as S.C. Health Department's Article 6 were based on nitrogen loadings and modeling done as a result of the 208 Program. Cornell created a model which assumed a certain nitrogen loading from cess- pools and turf, and thus predicted that the nitrogen standard of 10 mg/I would not be exceeded if every home had a minimum lot size of 1/2 acre. Applying the Pine Barrens Commission's standards of no more than 10% of a lot to be placed into turf, as well as allowing the use of other types of on-site septic sys- tems in Suffolk County, (for example tile fields which the State Health Department estimated can provide a 60% reduction in nitrogen loadings compared to the conventional cesspool used here) could easily invalidate the findings of the model and lead to the conclusion that even developing on 1/4 acre of land or less would not result in the contravention of the nitrogen standard. Average (mean) values for the inorganic parameters for each of the ten land use categories are indicated in SCDHS Table 6-3, of Appendix A of the Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan (1987). Although these values represent current best estimates of the impacts of land use on groundwater quality, they must be interpreted in light of the lim- ited amount of data on which they are based, the ranges of values found during the study, and the methodological prob- lems of selecting representative well locations and depths. The results from this study indicate that all land uses impact groundwater to some extent. Agricultural activities were found to have significant impacts, producing nitrate and insecticide concentrations near or above drinking water limits, and ele- vated concentrations of chloride, sulfate, calcium, and magne- sium. Industrial and commercial activities were found to result in a wide range of inorganic chemical concentrations, and often significant organic pollution. The impacts of road salting are reflected in the seasonally high sodium and chloride values for the transportation category. The wells monitoring institutional land use and recreation/open space appear to be picking up contamination originating be- yond the land use boundaries; the mean values for these cate- gories, therefore, should be viewed with extra caution. The effects of residential development on groundwater nitrogen concentrations were found to vary directly with housing den- sity, and are discussed in detail in the following paragraphs. The 208 Study determined an empirical relationship between housing (population) density and average median nitrogen concentrations in water supply wells in unsewered areas of Nassau County. The 208 Study also found that if the average nitrogen concentration of water in a well is 6 ppm, then there is a 10 percent chance that any sample from the well will exceed the drinking water standard of 10 ppm; an average concentra- tion of 4 ppm, on the other hand, will mean that almost no samples will violate the standard. Based on these relation- ships, Article 6 of the Suffolk Sanitary Code was adopted to limit average groundwater nitrogen concentrations to about 4 ppm in 208 Study Hydrogeologic Zone ]I! (to protect the deep aquifer recharge area) and Zone V! (to protect the ecology of South Shore bays), and about 6 ppm elsewhere. Recent studies by Cornell University utilizing a computerized mass-balance model referred to as WALRAS indicate that, at the present average turf fertilization rate of 2.5 pounds per year per thousand square feet and turf coverages for residen- tial lots, the average contribution of fertilizer nitrogen in re- charge is 4-4.5 ppm, regardless of lot size. This result implies that average groundwater nitrogen concentrations will exceed 4 ppm, even in Iow density residential areas. The recharge nitrogen contribution from sewage, on the other hand, was found by the WALRAS model to be directly propor- tional to population density, and was found to equal the contri- bution from fertilizers at a housing density of about 2 dwelling units or 6.5 people per acre. Therefore, the WALRAS model predicts groundwater nitrogen concentrations of about 8-9 ppm for half-acre development, assuming a Suffolk County av- erage household size of 3.25. WRMP values for Iow density residential development were within the range of values pre- dicted by the 208 relationship and WALRAS model, while cate- gory means and ranges of well averages were considerably lower than predicted values for medium and intermediate den- sity development. Wells with the highest concentrations in each of the latter two categories, however, were fairly close to 208 study predictions, indicating that the 208 relationship may be used to assess potential worst c~se conditions on which prudent planning is usually based. The WALRAS model results, on the other hand, are consis- tently higher than the nitrogen concentrations found during the SCDHS study. This may be due to a number of factors, includ- ing: over-estimation of the amount of fertilizer nitrogen applied to lawns; over-estimation of the percentage of fertilizer nitro- gen leached to groundwater; overestimation of the nitrogen content in domestic sewage; and/or, under-estimation of the efficiency of septic tanks and the unsaturated zone below cesspools to reduce leachate nitrogen concentrations. 5-15 Appendix A: BIBLIOGRAPHY The United States Geological Survey INTRODUCTION The United States Geological Survey is the leading hydroscientific research agency of the Federal Government with responsi- bility for collecting and disseminating information concerning the source, quantity, quality, distribution, movement and availability of both surface and ground waters. Since its creation in 1879, the research and fact-finding role of the USGS has grown and been modified to meet changing needs. As part of that evolution, the USGS has become the primary source of data on the Nation's surface and ground water resources. Today's pregrerns serve a diversity of needs and users. Programs on Long Island include: · Collecting, on a systematic basis, data needed for the continuing determination of the quantity, quality, and use of a sole source aquifer system. · Conducting analytical and interpretive water resource appraisals describing the occurrence, availability, and the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of surface water and ground water. · Conducting supportive basic and problem oriented research in hydreulics, hydrology, and related fields of science to improve the scientific basis for investigations and measurement techniques and to understand hydrologic systems sufficiently well to quantitatively predict their response to stress, either natural or manmade. · Disseminating the water data and the results of these investigations and research threugh reports, maps, computerized information services, and other forms of public releases. · Previding scientific and technical assistance in hydrologic fields to other Federal, State and local agencies. HISTORY The U.S. Geological Survey was established by an act of Congress on Mamh 3, 1879, to provide a permanent Federel Agency to conduct the systematic and scientific classification of the public lands, and examination of the geologic structure, mineral re- sources, and products of national domain. The earliest investigations on Long Island were financed solely by the Geological Survey, and include A.C. Veatch's 1904 Professional Paper #44, Underground Water Resources of Long Island, N.Y., and ML. Fuller's 1914 classic The Geology of Long Island. These reports were among the moot extensive and intensive of any investiga- tions of ground water supplies ever made in the United States up to that time. Before 1910, water resources investigations in New York were directed from Boston with a subdistrict office in Utica. In 1910, a District Office was established in Albany super- vised by the firet District Engineer. On Long Island, critical water problems were developing due to the rapid urbanization and population growth that took place in the 1920's. The first major investigation of these problems was brought about through a cooperative agreement between the U.S. Geological Survey and the Joint Legislative Committee of the Legislature of the State of New York signed in 1931. At that time excessive industrial and municipal pumpage over a period of years in the western part of Long Island had depleted the under- ground reservoirs and lowered the water table so that there had been an inflow of salt water into the aquifers. A number of large public supply pumping stations had been abandoned and others had been threatened. In order to prevent overdevelopmont and to protect the remaining public supply wells from salting, the State Legislature placed the control of Long Island's ground water resources in the hands of the New York State Water Power and Control Commission. This enabled the Commission to regulate the drilling of new wells in areas of excessive withdrawal and thus eventually to slow down the rate of increase of contamination of the aquifere. The investigations of the Geological Survey were originally designed to previde data to be used by the Water Power and Control Commission in carrying out its conservation policies and to reach conclusions regarding ground water condi- tions of Long Island, with particular reference to the safe yield of the severel aquifers in different parts of the area. It was fully re- alized that reliable conclusions could not be reached on the basis of a short investigation, and that a long term association would be essential. A-1 In 1932, the cooperative agreement specifically included the new York State Water Power and Control Commission, and the Nassau County Department of Public Works. Cooperation was extended to include the Suffolk County Board of Supervisors in 1933. An office was opened in Jamaica in early 1944. This was later moved 1o Mineola in 1949, and then to Syosset in 1977. Develop- ment of the New York District continues as local and national demand for water information and research increases. A review of past accomplishments reveals that the work of the U.S. Geological Survey on Long Island has acquired an international reputa- tion for its sophistication and innovative approach to solving the complex water problems of such a vulnerable and densely popu- lated area. Because of its extensive knowledge cf the bi-county area developed through decades of conducting basic data studies and ground water investigations, the United States Geological Survey was chosen as one of the principal public agency consultants for the Long Island 208 Study by the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board. The following subject areas have been historically examined by the USGS. Relevant technical reports ara cited with each desig- nation. For a complete listing of reports please refer to the January 1991 Bibliography of Cooperative Water Resources Reports Prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey, New York District, Long Island Subdistrict. BASIC DATA OR MONITORING REPORTS Barnell, R.L., and DeLuca, F.A., 1961, Ground water levels in Long Island, New York, 1958-59: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report, 66p. Buxton, H.T., 1985, Estimating average base flow at Iow-flow partial record stations, Long Island, New Yorlc. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 84-4240, 32p. Buxton, H.T., Smolensky, D.A., and Shernoff, P.K., 1989, Hydrogeologic correlations for selected wells on Long Island, New York--A data base with retrieval program: U.S. Geological Survey Water--Resources Investigations Report 86-4318, 107p. Donaldson, C.D., and Keszalka, E.J., 1983a, Potentiomet#c surface of the Magothy aquifer, Long Island, New York, in March 1979: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 82-160. Doriski, T.P., 1987, Pot entiometric surface altitudes of the Water table, Magothy, and Lloyd aquifers on Long Island, New York, in March 1983: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 85-4321,6 sheets. Erlichmann, Freddy, 1979, Distribution of ground water withdrawals on Long Island, New York, in 1973 by area, aquifer, and use: Suffolk County Water Authority, Long Island Water Resources Bulletin LIWR-10, 16p. Koch, Ellis, and Koszalka, E.J., 1973, Potentiometric surface of the lower part of the Magothy aquifer in March 1972, Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report, 1 pl. Koszalka, E.J., and Koch, Ellis, 1974, Water table on Long Island, New York, March 1971: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report, 1 map. Nakao, J.H., and Erlichman, F.R., 1978, The water table on Long Island, New York, in March 1975: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 78-569, 10p. Prince, K.R., 1976, The potentiometric surface of the Magothy aquifer on Long Island, New York, in March 1975: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 76-536, 12p. Reynolds, R.J., 1982, Base flow of streams on Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation Report 81-48, 33p. Smolensky, D.A., 1984, Potentiometric surfaces on Long Island, New York, A bibliography of maps: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 84-070, 31p. A-2 Vaupel, D.E., Prince, K.R., Koehler, A.J., and Runco, Marie, 1977, Petentiometric surfaces of the upper glacial and Magothy aquifers and selected streamflow statistics, 1943-1972, on Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 77-528, 12p. Veatch, A.C., 1906, Fluctuations of the water levels in wells with special reference to Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 155, 83p. AREAL INVESTIGATIONS ON LONG ISLAND Buxton, H.T., Soren, Julian, Posner, Alex, and Shernoff, P. K., 1981, Reconnaissance of the ground water resources of Kings and Queens Counties, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 81-1186, 64p. Crandell, H.C., Jr., 1962, Geology and ground water resources of Plum Island, Suffolk Coun~ N. Y.: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1539-X, 35p. Crandell, H.C., Jr., 1963, Geology and ground water resources of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1619-GG, 36p. DeLaguna, Wallace, 1963, Geology of Brookhaven National Laboratory and vicinity, Suffolk Coun~ New York: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1156-A, 35p. Krulikas, R.K., 1986, Hydrologic appraisal of the Pine Barrens, Suffolk County, New Yortc U.S. Geological Survey Water Resoumes Investigations Report 84-4271,53p. Lubke, E.R., 1964, Hydrogeclogy of the Huntington-Smithtown area, Suffolk Coun~ New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1669-D, 68p. Nemikas, Bronius and Koszalka, E.J., 1982, Geohydrologic appraisal of water resources of the South Fork, Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2073, 55p. Perlmutter, N.M., and DeLuca, F.A., 1963, Availability of fresh ground water, Montauk Point area, Suffolk Coun~ Long Island, N. Y;: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1613-B 39p. Pluhowski, E.J., and Kantrowitz, I.H., 1964, Hydrology of the Babylon-lslip area, Suffolk Coun~ Long Island, N. Y~: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1768, 119p. Prince, K.R., 1986, Ground water assessment of the Montauk area, Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 85-4013, 103p. Simmons, D.L., 1986, Gechydrology and ground water quality on Shelter Island, Suffolk Count, Long Island, New York, 1983-84: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resoumes Investigations Report 85- 4165m 39p. Warren, M.A., DeLaguna, Wallace, and Lusczynski, N.J., 1968, Hydrology of Brookhaven National Laboratory and vicinity, Suffolk County, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1156-C, 127p. GEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS: MAPPING THE WATER BEARING UNITS Doriski, T.P., and Wilde-Katz, Franceska, 1963, Geology of the "20 fooF clay in southem Nassau and southwestern Suffolk Counties, Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resoumes Investigations 82-4056, 17p. Faust, G.T., 1963, Physical properties and mineralogy of selected samples of the sediments from the vicinity of the Brookhaven National laborato~ Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1156-B, 34p. A-3 Krulikas, R.K., 1981, Hydrogeologic data from selected wells and test holes in Suffolk Coun~ Long Island, New York, 1972-80: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 81-500, 27p. Krulikas, R.K., Koszalka, E.J., and Doriski, T.R, 1983, Altitude of the top of the Matawan Group-Magothy Formation, Suffolk Coun~ Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 83- 137, 1 pl. Krulikas, R.K., and Koszalka, E.J., 1983, Geologic reconnaissance of an extensive c/ay unit in north-cantral Suffolk County, Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resoumes Investigations 8204075, 9p. Perlmutter, N.M., and Todd, Ruth, 1965, Correlation and foraminifera of the Monmouth Group (Upper Cretaceous), Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 483-1, 24p. Soren, Julian, and Simmons, D.L., 1987, Thickness and hydrogeology of aquifers and confining units be/ow the upper glac/al aquifer on Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 86-4175, 3 sheets. WATER QUALITY STUDIES Cohen, Philip, Vaupel, D.E., and McClymonds, N.E., 1971, Detergents in the streamf/ow of Suffolk County, Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 750-C p. C210-C214. Eckart, D.A., Flipse, W.H., and Oaksford, E.T., 1989, Relation between land use and ground water quality in the upper glacial aquifer in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 86- 4142, 35p. Ehrlich, G.G., Ehlke, T.A., and Vecchioli, John, 1972, Microbiological aspects of ground- water recharge --injection of purified chlorinated sewage effluent: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 800-B, p. B241-B245. Harr, C.A., 1971, Partial chemical analyses of water from selected sources in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report, 23p. Harr, C.A., 1973, Chemical constituents in water from selected sources in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report, 23p. Katz, B.G., and Krulikas, R.K., 1979, Analysis of ground water by different laboratories--A comparison of chloride and nitrate data, Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 79-1063, 8p. Katz, B.G., Ragone, S.E., and Linder, J.B., 1978, Monthly fluctuations in the quality of ground water near the water table in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, Long/s/and, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations 78-41,38p. Kimmel, G.E., and Braids, O.C., 1980, Leachate plumes in ground water from Baby/on and/slip landfills, Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1085, 38p. Mallard, G.E., 1980, Microorganisms in stormwater--A summary of recent investigations: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 80- 1198, 18p. Pearsall, K.A., and We)der, E.J., 1986, Organic compounds in ground water near a sanitary landfill in the Town of Brookhaven, Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 85-4218, 22p. Perlmutter, N.M., and Guerrera, A.A., 1970, Detergents and associated contaminants in ground water at three public supply well fields in southwestern Suffolk County, Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2001-B, 22p. Ragone, S.E., Guerrera, A.A., and Flipse, W.J., 1976, Change in methylene blue active substances and chloride levels in streams in Suffolk Coun~ New York, 1961-76: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 76-600, 65p. A.,4 Ragone, S.E., et al., 1976, Chemical Quality of Ground Water in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, Long Island, New York: 1952 through 1976. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 76-845. Mineola, N. Y.: Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board. Seabum, G.E., 1969, Effects of urban development on direct runoff to East Meadow Brook, Nassau County, Long Island, New York: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 627-B, 14p. Soren, Julian, and Stelz, W.G., 1984, Aldicarb pesticide contamination of ground water in eastern Suffolk Countj4, Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 84-4251,34p. Wexler, E.J., 1988, Ground water flow and solute transport at a municipal landfill site on Long Island, New York--hydrogeology and water quality: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 86-4070, 43p. HYDROGEOLOGIC MODELLING STUDIES Buxton, H.T., and Reilly, T.E., 1985, Effects of sanitary sewering on ground water level8 and streams in Long Island, New York-- Development and application of Southwest Suffolk County model: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resoumes Investigations Report 83- 4209, 39p. Franke, O.L., and Getzen, R.T., 1976, Evaluation of hydrologic properties of the Long Island ground water reservoir using cross- sectionalanalog models: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 75-679, 80p. Getzen, R.T., 1977, Analog mode/analysis of regional three dimensional flow in the ground water reservoir of Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 982, 49p. Harbaugh, A.W., and Getzen, R.T., 1977, Stream simulation in an analog model of the ground water system of Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations 77-58, 15p. Harbaugh, A.W., and Reilly, T.E., 1976, Analog model analysis of effects of waste water management on the ground water reservoir in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New Yo~' U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 77-148, 24p. Kimmel, G.E., and Harbaugh, A.W., 1975, Analog model analysis of hydrologic effects of sewerage in southeast Nassau and southwest Suffolk Counties, Long Island, New York: U.S. geological Survey Open File Report 75-535, 22p. Linder, J.B., and Reilly, T.E., 1983, Analysis of three tests of the unconfined aquifer in southern Nassau Coun~ Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 82-4021,52p. Reilly, T.E., Buxton, H.T., and Franke, O.L., and Wait, R.L., 1983, Effects of sanitary sewers on ground water levels and streams in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York, Part 1---Geohydrology, Modeling StrategJ4, and Regional Evaluation: U.S. GeoJogical Survey Water Resources Investigations 82-4045, 45p. Reill¥, 'E E., and Harbaugh, A.W., 1980, A comparison of analog and digital modeling techniques for simulating three dimensional ground water flow on Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations 80-14, 40p. SPECIAL HYDROGEOLOGIC STUDIES Aronson, D,A., 1976, Evaluation of alternative methods of supplemental recharge by storm water basins on Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 76-470, 65p. Aronson, D.A., 1978, Artificial Recharge on Long Island, New York. Long Island Water Resources Bulletin 9 LIWR-9 (U.S.G.S./NCDPW) Aronson, D.A., and Seabum, G.E., 1974, Appraisal of the operating efficiency of recharge basins on Long Is/and, New York, in 1969: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2001-D, 22p. A-5 Brice, H.D., Whitaker, C.L., and Sawyer, R.M., 1956, A progress report on the disposal of storm water at an e.~erimental seepage basin near Mineola, New York: U.S. Geological Report, 34p. Cohen, Philip, and Dur~or, C.N., 1966, Design and construction of a unique injection well on Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 550-D, p. D253-D257. Cohen, P. and G.E. Kimmel, 1971, Status of Sa/t-Water Encroachment in 1969 in Southern Nassau and Southeastern Queens Counties, Long/s/and, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 700-D Franke, O.L., 1968, Double mass curve analysis of the effects of sewering on ground water levels on Long/s/and, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 600-B, p. B205-B209. Franke, O.L, and Cohen, Philip, 1972, Regional rates of ground water movement on Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 800-C, p. C271-C277. Isbister, J., 1966, Geology and Hydrology of Northeastern Nassau Coun04, Long Island, New York. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1825. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office Ku, H.F.H., and D.J. Sulam, 1976, Distribution and Trend of Nitrate, Chloride, and Total Solids in Water in the Magothy Aquifer in southeast Nassau Count]4, New York, from the 1950's through 1973. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations 76-44. Mineola, N.Y. Ku, H.F.H., J. Vecchioli, L.A. Cerrillo, 1975, Hydrogeology Along the Proposed Barrier-Recharge-Well Alignment in Southern Nassau County, Long Island, New York. Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-502, Reston, Va.: U.S. Geological Survey Lusczynski, N.J., and W.V. Swarzenski, 1966, Salt Water Encroachment in Southern Nassau and Southeastern Queens Counties, Long Island, New York. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1613-F. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Pdnting Office Mack, T.J., and Maus, P.E., 1987, Detection of contaminant plumes in ground water of Long Island, New York, by electromagnetic terrain conductivity surveys: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 86-4045, 39p. Prince, K.R., Franke, O.L., and Reilly, T.E., 1988, Quantitative assessment of the shallow ground water flow system associated with Connetquot Brook, Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2309, 23p. Rich, C.A., K.R. Prince, and A.G. Spinello, 1975, Potentiometric Surface of the Lloyd Aquifer on Long Island, New York, in Janua~ 1975. Geological Survey Open File Report. Mineola, N.Y. Seaburn, G.E., 1970, Preliminary analysis of rate of movement of storm runoff through the zone of aeration beneath a recharge basin on Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 700-B., p. B196-B198. Seaburn, G.E., and Aronson, D.A., 1974, Influence of recharge basins on the hydrology of Nassau and Suffolk Counties, Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2031 66p. Vecchioli, John, Ehrlich, C.C., and Ehlke, T.A., 1972, Travel of pollution-indicator bacteria through the Magothy aquifer, Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 800-B, p. B237-B239. OVERALL REPORTS ON GEOLOGY AND GROUND WATER RESOURCES OF LONG ISLAND Bailey, Bruce, Kenneth Webster and Ronald Steward Long Island Precipitation Pa~tems and Drought Probability, Atmospheric Sciences Research Center, State University of New York at Albany, March 1985 Booz-Allen and Hamilton, October 1974 Water-Management Alternatives on Long Island A-6 Cohen, Philip, Franke, O.L., and McClymonds, N.E., 1969, Hydrologic effects of the 1962-1966 drought on Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1879-F, 18p. Cohen, P., O.L. Franke, and B.L. Foxworthy, 1970, Waterforthe Future of Long Island, New York. New York Water Resoumes Bulletin, 62A. Albany, New York Collins, M.A. and L.W. Gelhar, 1970, Ground Water Hydrology of the Long Island Aquifer System. Hydrodynamics Laboratory Report No. 122. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, School of Engineering, Cambridge, Mass. Collins, Michael A. and Lynn W. Gelhar, Hele-Shaw Model of the Aquifer System, Journal of Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, September 1972, P. 1712 Collins, Michael A., December 1972, Ground. Surface Water Interactions in the Long Island Aquifer System, Water Resoumes Bulletin, American Water Resource Association, Vol. 8, No. 6 Doriski, T.P., 1988, Potentiometric Sudace Altitudes of Major Aquifers on Long Island in March, 1984: United States Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 86-4189. Ehrlichman, F., 1979, Distributions of Groundwater Withdrawals on Long Island, New York, in 1973 by Area, Aquifer and Use. Long Island Water Resources Bulletin 10. Oakdale, N.Y., Suffolk County Water Authority Final Report. NYSDEC, June 1986. Long Island Groundwater Management Program Franke, O.L., and N.E. McClymx)nds. Summary of the Hydrologic Situation on Long Island, New York, as a Guide to Water Franke, O.L., and McClymonds, N.E., 1972, Summary of the hydrologic situation on Long Island, New York, as a guide to water rnanagementalternatives: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 627-F, 59p. Fuller, M.L., 1914, The geology of Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 82, 231 p. Gather, M.S., 1986, Geohydrology of the Lloyd aquifer, Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 85-4159, 36p. Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, P.C., Melville, N.Y.: March 1972. Hele-Shaw Model Study of Contaminant Motion in the Long Island Aquifer System Jensen, H.M., and Soren, Julian, 1974, Hydrogeology of Suffolk County, Long Island, New York: U.S Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigation Atlas HA-501,2 sheets. LIRPB, June 1983.Investigation of the Feasibility of a Regional Groundwater Management Information System for L.I. Lusczynski, N.J., and Arthur H. Johnson., 1951, The Water Table in Long Island, New York, in January 1951. (Bulletin GW-27), Albany, N.Y.: State Department of Conservation, Water Power and Control Commission McClymonds, N.E., and Franke, O.L., 1972, Water transmitting properties of aquifers on Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 627-E, 24p. Nemickas, Bronius, Mallard, G.E., and Reilly, T.E., 1989, Availability and historical development of ground water resources of Long lsland, New York an intr~ducti~n: U~S~ Geo~~gica~ Survey Water Res~urces ~nvestigati~ns Report 88-4113~ 43p~ New York State Conservation Dept. Division of Water Resoumes. Albany, N.Y. Office of Planning Coordination, January 1970 Long Island Water Resources A-7 New York State Conservation Dept., 1968. Albany, New York. Report of Long Island Groundwater Withdrawal During 1967 New York State Office of Planning Coordination, Albany, N.Y.: 1970. Fresh Water Resources of Long Island. New York Water Resoumes Commission, 1968, An Atlas of Long Island's Water Resources, Bulletin 62 Seabum, G.E., and D.A. Amson, 1973, Catalog of Recharge Basins on Long Island, New York, in 1969. Bulletin 70. Albany, N.Y.: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Suter, R., 1945, Memorandum-Recent Developments on Long Island Ground Water: New York State Department of Conservation Water Power and Control Commission. Temporary State Commission of the Water Supply Needs of Southeastern NY, December 1973. Water for Tomorrow, Recommendations of the Commission US Corps of Engineers, 1973-75, July 1977. Northeastern United States Water Supply Study Veatch, A.C., Slichter, C.S., Bowman, I., Crosby, W.O., and Horton R.E., 1906, Underground Water Resources of Long Island, New York: United States Geological Survey Professional Paper No. 44 Wilson, J.L, lit,June 1970, A Hele-Shaw Model for the Study of the Long Island Ground Water System. Masters Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass. NASSAU COUNTY Water Supply And Groundwater Studies GENERAL STUDIES DeLuca, F.A., J.F. Hoffman and E.R. Lubke. Chloride Concentrations and Temperature of Waters of Nassau County, Long Island, New York. state of New York Conservation Department, Water Resources Commission, Bulletin 55. Albany, N.Y. 1965 Dvirka & Bartilucci, February, 1978, Water Supply Interconnection Study. Woodbury, N.Y.: Town of North Hempstead, Nassau County, New York Geraghty & Miller, Inc., Port Washington, N.Y.: February 1979. Supplemental Report to the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board on the Current Status of Ground Water Investigations for Organic Chemicals in the Naesau-Suffolk Area Greeley and Hansen. Melville, N.Y., June 1971. Comprehensive Public Water Supply Study. CPWS-60. Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C. Greeley and Hansen, August 1956. Report on Water Resources: Part I-Water Requirements. Nassau County, New York Greeley and Hansen, November 1956. Report on Water Resources Part II-Water Resources. Nassau County, New York Greeley and Hansen, December 1958., Report on Water Resources Part itl- Development of Resources. Nassau Coun~ New York Greeley and Hansen, June 1963., Report on Water Supply. Nassau Coun~ New York Greeley and Hansen, June 1971 .Comprehensive Public Water Supply Stu~. Nassau County, New York, CPWS-60 Hardman, J.L., and P.N. Uneramisinoff, December 1978, January 1979, and February 1979, Determining the Utility Value of Water Supply Interconnections, Parts I and II and IlL Water and Sewage Works A-8 Henderson and Casey, P.C., Westbury, N.Y.: March 1978. Report, Water Supply Study, Mitchell Field H2M Corp, 1980.Master Water Supply Plan - Nassau County, State of NY. (2 vols) Hughes, Henry, James Pike, Keith Por~er, 1984, Assessment of Groundwater Contamination by Nitrogen and Synthetic Organics in Two Water Districts in Nassau County N.Y., Center of Environmental Reseamh, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. Isbister, T, 1959, Ground Water Levels and Related Hydrologic Data from Selected Observation Wells in Nassau County Long Island, N.Y. Bulletin GW-41. Albany, N.Y.: State of New York Dept. of Conservation, Water Power and Control Commission Jacob, C.E., 1945, The Water Table in the Western and Central Parts of Long Island, New York. Bulletin G W- 12, Albany, N.Y.: State of New York, Department of Conservation, Water power and Control Commission Kilburn, C., 1979, Hydrogeology of the Town of North Hempstead, Nassau County Long Island, New York. Long Island Water Resoumes Bulletin 12 (USGS), Mineola, N.Y.: Nassau County Dept. of Public Works Nassau County Environmental Management Council, 1974. Environmental Master Plan for Nassau County New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Region 1, Water Unit, Water Quality Section, Baseline Groundwater Conditions: Nassau County, April 1986. Sulam, D.J. Analysis of Changes in Ground Water Levels in a Sewered and Unsewered Area of Nassau County Long Island, New York. Groundwater 17(5):446-455 (September-October 1979). Nassau County Department of Health GROUNDWATER AND WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 1968, Report on Untreated Water Quality for Public Supply Wells in Nassau County. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 1970, Report on Untreated Water Quality for Public Water Supply Wells in Nassau County Nassau County Dept. of Health, Minecla, N.Y. 11501 1972, Public Health Justification for a Municipal Sewerage System in the Kings Point-Manhasset Area. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 -- 1973, Report on Untreated Water Quality for Public Supply Wells in Nassau County Nassau County Dept. ol Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 1976, Nassau County Water Quality Assessment Report for 1975 Report Year. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 1977, Nassau County Water Quality Assessment Report for 1976 Report Year. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 1978, Nassau County Water Quality Assessment Report for 1977 Report Year. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 -- 198~~ Rec~mmendati~ns f~r a Regu~at~ry Strategy t~ C~ntr~~ Synthetic ~rganic chemica~s in Drinking Water ~f Community Public Water Systems. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Min~ola, N.Y. 11501 -- 1982, Report of Investigation of Port Washington Landfill. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 A-9 --., 1990, Investigation of Contaminated Aquifer Segment, City of Glen Cove, Nassau Coun~ New York. Nassau County Department of Public Works, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Alarcon, M.J., 1971, Report on Corrosion of Lead Water Pipes, Village of Williston Park. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Alarcon, M.J., 1987, Safeguarding Drinking Water Quality - Coping with New Federal Standards. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Alarcon, M.J., 1988, Clean Drinking Water: The Facts, the P/ans. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Alarcon, M.J., 1989, Drinking Water Quality in Nassau County. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Alarcon, M.J., et al., 1982, Investigation of Iron Control Treatment in the New York Water Service Corp. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Alarcon, M.J., et al., 1982, Report of Investigation of Contamination of Water Storage Tanks by Organic Chemical Solvents in Applied Pains, Nassau Coun04, New York. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Alarcon, M.J., et al., 1985, Report of Investigation of Drinking Water Contamination by Lead/l'in So/der, Nassau Coun~ New York. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Alarcon, M.J., et al., 1987, Report of Investigation of Drinking Water Contamination by Sodium Hydroxide in New Hyde Park, Nassau County, New York, on Janua~ 1987. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Alarcon, M.J., 1988, Public Ddnking Water and Bottled Water Quality Regulation. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Baier, J., 1969, Rusty Water Investigation of the Long Is/and Water Corp. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Baler, J., Santeramo, R., 1970, Report on Corrosion of Copper Water Pipes. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Baier, J., Spiess, D., 1966, Evaluation of the East End Iron Removal P/ant. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Baier, J., Spiess, D., 1968, Evaluation of the Magnolia Boulevard Iron Removal P/ant. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Baler, J., Spiess, D., 1970, Evaluation of the Jones Beach State Park Iron Removal Plant. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Baler, J., Spiess, D., 1970, Evaluation of the Lido Point Lookout Iron Removal Plant. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Baier, J., Spiess, D., 1970, Evaluation of the Long Island Water Corp. Iron Removal Plant. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Baier, J., Spiess, D., 1970, Evaluation of West End Iron Removal Plant, City of Long Beach, Long Island. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Baier, J., Spiess, D., 1971, Evaluation of the South Farmingdale Iron Removal P/ant. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Cusumano, R.D., 1960, Report of Private Well Survey, Breezy Point Area, West Amityville, New York. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 A-10 Cusumano, R.D., 1979, Investigation of Organic Chemical Contamination - Roosevelt Field Water District Well #3. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Dowling, J.D., 1978, Past, Present, andFuture Water Quality Problems in Nassau County. NassauCounly Dept. of Health, Mineoia, N.Y. 11501 Dowling, J.D., 1981, Review of Groundwater Resource Management, Nassau County. New York. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Dvirka and Bartilucci,, 1986, Investigation of Contaminated Aquifer Segments, Nassau Coun~ New York ERM-Northeast., 1983, InvestigationofLanclfitl ImpactonGroundwaterQuality Famiglietti, L.J., 1981, Chemical Quality of Untreated Water frorn Community Public Supply Wells in Nassau County. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Fleisher, M.B., 1978, Final Report of Investigation of Organic Contamination of Groundwaters, Glen Cove. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Fleisher, M.B., Mackay, S.L., 1977, Assessment of the Impact of Organic Solvent Cesspool Cleaners and Drain Openers on Nassau County Drinking Water Supplies. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Flynn, J.M., Padar, FV., et al., 1969,, Final Report. Long Island Groundwater Pollution Stud~ N.Y. State Dept. of Health, Albany, N.Y. Mackay, S., 1978, Nassau County Consumer Product Inventoq/Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Mangino, M, 1986, Consumer Products Project: Inventory Phase Report. N.Y. State Dept. ct Envfronmental Conservation, Albany, N.Y. Myott, D. H., 1990, Groundwater and Public Water Supply Facts. Nassau County Department of Health, Mineoia, N.Y. 11501 Myotl, D.H., 1975, Chemical Quality of Untreated Water from Public Supply Wells in Nassau County. Nassau County Dept. Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Myott, D.H., 1975, Detergents Trends in Public Supply Wells in Nassau County, New York. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Myott, D.H., 1977, Inorganic Chemical Quality of Untreated Water from Public Supply Wells in Nassau County. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Myott, D.H., 1980, Water Supplyin Nassau Coun~ New York Bdefing Report. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Myott, D.H., 1980, Groundwater Levels and Groundwater Accretion in Nassau County, New York, January 1969-December 1979. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Myott, D.H., 1980, Groundwater Quality Assessment, Nassau County, New York, 1978 Report Year. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Myott, D.H., 1981, Water Supply in Nassau Coun~ New York, Briefing Report. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 A-11 Myott, D.H., 1981, Abandoned or Deepened Public Supply Wells in Nassau County, 1950-1981. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Myott, D.H., 1984, Glacial Monitoring Expansion Project, Nassau Coun~ New York. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Myolt, D.H., et al., 1984, Report of Evaluation of Drinking Water Quali~ South Farmingdale Water District. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Myott, D.H., Lovejoy, J.L., and Tonn, A.M., 1988, Assessment of Groundwater Contamination by a Broad Spectrum of Organic Chemicals and Heavy Metals, Nassau Coun~ N.., 1980-1986. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Myott, D.H., Scanlon, D.L., 1970, Survey of Cedar Swamp Creek, Nassau County, N.Y. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Myott, D.H., Smith, S.O., 1988, Ground Water Facts. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Padar, F.V., 1960, Report of Private Well Survey, Nassau Shores, Massapequa, New York. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Padar, F.V., 1963, Private Well Survey, West Amityv#1e, Town of Oyster Bay, Nassau Coun~ New York. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Padar, F.V., 1971, Influence of Sewage Constituents on Quality of Nassau Waters. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Padar, F.V., 1975, Need for Sewers in Nassau County. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Padar, FY., 1978, Control of Organic Chemical Contaminants in Underground Source of Drinking Water, Nassau Coun~ New York. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 1501 Padar, FV., 1979, Long Island Water Supply - A Regional Perspective. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Padar, F.V., 1979, Public Water Supply in Nassau County - The Threat from Organic Chemicals. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Padar, F.V., 1984, Synopsis of Accomplishments and Current Programs in Water Management by Nassau County Department of Health. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Padar, F.V., 1985, Policies and Strategies for Dealing with organic Chemicals in the Environment. Nassau County Department of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Padar, F.V., 1987, The Quality of Drinking Water in Nassau Count~ Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Padar, EV., 1987, Evaluation of NYDEC "Capping Program" for Water Supply Management in Nassau Coun~ New York. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Padar, F.V., 1987, impact of Proposed Federal Standards for Drinking Water. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Padar, F.V., 1988, Groundwater Protection - A Regional Perspective. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 A-12 Padar, FV., Davis, D., 1963, Report on Private Well Survey Jones & Merikoke Avenues, Wantagh, Town of Hempstead, Nassau Coun~ New York. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Powers, S., 1974, Groundwater Levels in Nassau County, New York. Jan. 1969 - Dec. 1973. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Powers, S., 1976, Comprehensive Water Budget Analysis for Nassau County, New York. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Reinhard, W., Spiess, D., 1971, Evaluation ofthe East End Iron Removal Plant. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Smith, S.O., 1965, Report on Water Quality New York City Water Supply Facilities in Nassau Coun~ Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Smith, S.O., 1969, Occurrence and Treatment of Iron in Groundwater of Long Island, Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Smith, S.O., 1978, Progress Report, Identification and Abatement of Sources of Organic Chemical Contaminants in Groundwater. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Smith, S.O., Baler, J., 1969, Report on Nitrate Pollution of Groundwater. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Smith, S.O., Myott, D.H., and Mangino, M., 1986,. Ground Water Facts. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Walerstein, J., 1977, Study of Recharge Practices for Air Conditioning and Cooling Water. Nassau County Dept. of Health, Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Nassau County Department of Public Works Kimmel, G.E., et al., 1977, Analog Model Prediction of the Hydrologic Efforts of Sanitary Sewerage in Southeast Nassau and Southwest Suffolk Counties, New York. Long Island Water Resources Bulletin LIWR-6, Mineola, N.Y.: Nassau County Dept. of Public Works Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers, October 1980, Streamflow Augmentation Study Within Nassau County Sewage Disposal Districts No.2 and No.3, County of Nassau Department of Public Works Perlmutter, N.M., and E. Koch., 1975, Hydrogecchemical Data from Investigations of Water Quality in Sewered and Unsewered Areas, Southem Nassau Coun~ Long Island, New York. Long Island Water Resources Bulletin, LIWR-4. Mineola, N.Y.: Nassau County Dept. of Public Works Perlmutter, N.M., and J.J. Geraghly. Geology and Ground Water Conditions in Southern Nassau and Southeastern Queens Counties SUFFOLK COUNTY Water Supply And Groundwater Studies Water supply and groundwater resoumes of Suffolk County have been extensively investigated. The studies per[ormed have ad- vanced our knowledge of the principle of groundwater hydrology, soumes of contamination, remediation measures and provided a basis for future planning efforts. The intent of the following listing of reports and studies is to provide a representative sampling of the efforts of various agencies and individuals to expand our understanding of the major water resoumes issues. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND RESOURCE EVALUATION REFERENCES Beginning with the 1904 W.H. Burr reports which evaluated the potential of using Long Island groundwater resoumes to supple- ment New York City drinking water supplies, periodic master planning for preservation and development of Suffolk County fresh water resoumes have been undertaken including: Burr, W.H., Hering R. and Freeman J.R., 1904, Report of the Commission on Additional Water Supply for the City of New York: Martin B. Brown Co., New York Center for Environmental Reseamh, 1983, Land Use and Groundwater Quality in the Pine Barrens of Southampton: Comell University, Ithaca, New York (November 1983) Cohen R, Frenke O.L. and Foxworthy, 1968, An Atlas of Long Island's Water Resources: New York State Water Resources Commission Bulletin 62 Dvirka and Bartilucci, 1987, Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan (2 vols), (January 1987) ERM-Northeast, Camp Dresser and McKee, 1983, North Fork Water Supply Plan, Suffolk County, New York: Prepared for the Suffolk County Department of Health Services Holzmacher, McLendon, and Murrell, Consulting Engineers, 1970, Comprehensive Public Water Supply Study: Suffolk Count]4, New York: Melville, N.Y. Koppelman, L.E., 1978, The Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan, Volumes I and Ih LIRPB Hauppauge, N.Y. Koppelman, L.E., 1983, The Long Island Segment of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program: Long Island Regional Planning Board, Hauppauge, N. Y. New York State Water Resoumes Planning Council, 1989. Water Resources Management Strategy - Long Island Region: NYSDEC/NYSDOH (January 1989) Suffolk County Department of Health Services, 1987, Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan: Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Hauppauge, N.Y. (January 1987) TYPE AND SOURCES OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION REFERENCES Sources of groundwater pollution have been extensively eveluated. Initial concerns during the 1950-60's included potential for salt water intrusion, effects of synthetic detergents and other sewage constituents, and the impact of industrial wastewater dis- charges. Dudng the 1970-80's, nitrates, organic chemicals and pesticides were found to be compounds which significantly de- grade the water supply aquifers. Reports which address this subject include: Andres, Barry D.; Flynn, John M.; and Davids, Herbert W., 1959, Effects of Synthetic Detergents on Ground Water By Launderette Wastes In Suffolk Coun~ N. ~ A-14 Baler, J. and Moran, D., 1981, Status Report on Aldicarb Contamination as of September 1981: SCDHS, Hauppauge, N.Y. Comell University, 1983, A Toxicological Evaluation of Aldicarb and its Metabolites in Relation to the Potential Human Health Impacts of Aldicarb Residues in Long Isiand Ground Water. Ithaca, New York ERM-Northeast, 1990, Low Level Toxic or Hazardous Waste Management Study, Suffolk Count)4, New York: Prepared for the Suffolk County Department of Health Sewices. Flynn, John M.; Andreoli, Aldo; and Guerrera, G.; 1958, Study of Synthetic Detergents in Ground Water: Journal American Water Works Association, December 1983 New York State Department of Health, 1969, The Long Island Groundwater Pollution Study Pacenka, S. and Porter, K., 1981, Preliminary Regional Assessment of the Environmental Fate of the Potato Pesticide, Aidicado, Eastern Long Island, New York: Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, March 1981 Suffolk County Department of Public Health Services, 1982, Report on the Occurrence and Movement of Agricuitural Chemicals in Groundwater, North Fork of Suffolk County: Bureau of Water Resources, Hauppauge, N.Y. (August 1982) Suffolk County Department of Health Services, 1982, Report on the Occurrence and Movement of Agricultural Chemicals in Groundwater, South Fork of Suffolk County: Bureau of Water Resources, Hauppauge, N.Y. (September 1982) Suffolk County Department of Health Services, 1983, Vinyl Chloride Contamination of Groundwater, North Bay Shore, N. Y.: Bureau of Water Resources, Hauppauge, N.Y. (November 1983) Suffolk County Department of Health Services, 1983, Investigation of an Industrial Organic Chemical Plume in Groundwater, West Babylon, N.Y.: Bureau of Water Resources, Hauppauge, N.Y. (December 1983) Suffolk County Department of Health Services, 1984, Investigation of Groundwater Contamination at the Locust Avenue Well Field, Bohemia, N.Y.: Bureau of Water Resources, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Apd11984) Suffolk County Department of Health Services, 1985, Right-of-way Chemical Survey: Drinking Water Sectior~ (August 1985) Suffolk County Department of Health Services, 1989, Status Report- Pesticide Sampling 1980-1988: Bureau of Drinking Water (July 1989) Zaki, M.; Moran, D.; and Harris, D., 1982, Pesticides in Groundwater: The Aidicarb Story in Suffolk Coun~ New York, American Journal of Public Health (December 1982) . WATER QUANTITY AND DROUGHTREFERENCES Information available on groundwater elevation levels, precipitation and assessment of effects drought conditions may have on the aquifers are found in the following: Bailey, B.H.; Webster, K.; and Stewart, 1985, Long Island Predpitation Patterns and Drought Probability: Atmospheric Science Research Center Publication No. 1000, SUNY Albany Frizzola, J.A. and Baier, J.H., 1975, Contaminants in Rainwater and Their Relation to Water Quality: Water and Sewage Works; Melville, N.Y. Jackson, C.D., 1982, Evapotranspiration and Recharge on Long Island: Comell Soil and Water Publication SW82-1 A-15 Jacob, C.E., 1945, Correlation of Ground Water Levels and Precipitation on Long Island, New York: Dept. of Conservation, Water Power and Control Commissioner Bulletin GW-14 Porter, K.F., and Baskin, L.B., 1977, A Recharge Model for Nassau and Suffolk Counties, Long Island: Cooperative Extension Association of Suffolk County, Comell University WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY REFERENCES . Investigation and evaluation of treatment technology used to remove contaminants found in Suffolk County groundwater include: Baler, Joseph H., 1989, Removal of Nitrate from Agricultural Groundwater Using Ion Exchange Part I, Pilot Demonstration Using Downflow Regeneration: SCDHS/USEPA (May 1989) Baler, Joseph H. and Martin, Thomas M., 1990, Removal of Nitrate From Agricultural Groundwater Using Ion Exchange Part II, Pilot Plant Study Using Countercurrent Regeneration: SCDHS/USEPA (November 1990) H2M Corporation, 1978, Denitrification of Ground Water Research and Demonstration Project, Phase II, Laboratory Research and Report: Melville, New York Moran, D., 1983, Report on Granular Activated Carbon Treatment Units Used For Removal of Aldicarb Residues in Private Wells of Suffolk County: SCDHS, Hauppauge, New York Moran, D., 1988, H~me Water Treatment: Remediating Aldicarb Contamination in Suffolk Countj4, New York: Freshwater Foundation, St. Paul, Minnesota Nova, Inc., 1984, Investigation of Ice Pond Technology for Water Purification: NYS Emergency Reseamh and Development Authority, Albany, New York Suffolk County Department of Health Services, 1984, Report on Central Water Supply Distribution Center: SCDHS, Drinking Water Section PUBLIC AND PRIVATE WATER SUPPLY REFERENCES Information on the quality of public and private water supply soumss and efforts to extend public water to communities with con- tamination are found in the following: Suffolk County Department of HealthSen/ices, 1981, Marginal Water Suppliers: Ddnking Water Supply Section Suffolk County Department of Health Sen/ices, 1982, Corrosion Monitoring-Community Public Water Systems: Drinking Water Section Suffolk County Department of Health sen/ices, 1984, Drinking Water Supply Survey, Napeague, Town of Easthampton.: Drinking Water Supply Section (March 1984) Suffolk County Department of Health Services, 1984, Report on Water Supply Priorities: Drinking Water Section (April 1984) Suffolk County Department of Health Sen/ices, 1985, Priority Pollutant Testing: Drinking Water Section (August 1985) Suffolk county Department of Health Sen/ices, 1987, Public Water Corrosion Monito#ng Survey: Bureau of Ddnking Water (Apdl 1987) Suffolk County Department of Health Sen/ices, 1987, Trihalomethane Monitoring Public Water Systems: Bureau of Drinking Water (June 1987) A-16 Suffolk County Deparlment of Health Services, 1987, Sodium Monitoring Public Water Systems: Bureau o~ Drinking Water (May 1987) Suffolk County Department of Health Sewices, 1988, Radon in Drinking Water: Bureau of Drinking Water (March 1988) SUPPLEMENT Anon, 1968, Report to New York State Department of Health and Suffolk County Department of Health Upon Waste Water Reclamation via Artificial Recharge at Riverhead, New York: John J. Baffa, The Lauman Company Laboratories, Inc. Baffa, John J., 1965, Appendix H - Recharge Studies Report Comprehensive Sewerage Studies, Five Western Towns, Suffolk Coun~ N. Y. Baffa, J.J., 1970, Injection Well E)q~erience at Riverhead, New York: Jour. Am. Water Waters Assoc., V. 62, No. 1 Baffa, J.J. and N.S. Bartilucci, Waste Water Reclamation by Groundwater Recharge on Long Island: Jour. Water Poi. Control Fed., V. 39, No. 3 Brashears, M.L., Jr., 1946, Artificial Recharge of Ground Water on Long Island, New York: Econ. Geology, V. 41, No. 5 Cohen, Philip, Artificial Recharge and its Role in Scientific Water Management with Emphasis on Long Island: A.W.W.A. Symposium, November 6, 1967 Fuller, Myron L., 1914, The Geology of Long Island, N.Y.: U.S.G.S., p. 23 Lieber, M., N.M. Perlmutter and H.L. Frauenthal, 1964, Cadmium and Hexavalent Chromium in Nassau County Ground Water: Jour. A.W.W.A., Vol. 56, No. 6 Parker, G.G., Philip Cohen and B.C. Foxworthy, 1967, Artificial Recharge and its Role in Scientific Water Management with Emphasis on Long Island, New York: Proc. Nat'l. Symposium on Ground Water Hydrology, Nov. 6-8, 1961, Am. Water Resources Assoc. Smith, S.O. and J.H. Baler, 1969, Report on Nitrate Pollution of Ground Water. Nassau County Department of Health Stevens, D.B. and John Peters, 1966, Long Island Recharge Studies: Jour. Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 38. Nb. 12 A-17 Appendix B: THE DELINEATION PROCESS Article 55 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law predesignated nine SGPA's and established preliminary boundaries based on Article X of the Nassau County Sanitary Code in the case of North Hills and Northern Oyster Bay and on the delineations in the State Groundwater Management Plan (NYSGMP) in the case of the remaining SGPA's. As part of the Special Groundwater Protection Area Project (the Pilot Area Study), the Long Island Regional Planning Board undertook a review of the SGPA boundaries depicted in the State Plan. The process for the confirmation or modification of previously identified SGPA's included the review and evaluation of the areas on the basis of the following four criteria identified in the NYSGMP. · Water recharging through the area contributes to a relatively deep aquifer system. · Recharge water is of high quality. · The land surface is relatively undeveloped, and there is potential to protect recharge quality by controlling future development. · The potential exists for the future development_of wat~ supply ~sou.r,ce..s .fi'om. t.he ,aqu~ifer system, re~. ~ha.r~]e... 4_.~ a ~sult of the evaluation, the boundaries of the Northern uyster uay, the ~ouzn ~emuKez wooos, the (.;enTrm ~U]TO~K vine uarrens and the South Fork SGPA's were expanded fo encompass contiguous pamels or areas that meet the criteria. The organization of the Special Groundwater Protection Area Advisory Council, at the commencement of the full scale planning effort, as mandated in Article 55, provided an opportunity for the affected municipalities and other agencies to review and to sug- gest additional revisions to the boundaries. Town representatives assisted in the provision of land use and environmental data and proposed further inclusions and one deletion. The Council approved a new set of boundaries with the proviso that it have a chance to make final modifications as the results of the study became available. Additions generally comprised institutional properties, golf courses and other large Iow density areas. At the request of the Town of Southold, the Council considered the extension of the northern portion of the Central Suffolk SGPA eastward to include the Laurel Lake area in Southold. Inasmuch as the area in question appears to meet the four cdteria cited above, the Council readily approved the proposed addition. Downtown Riverhead, a densely developed area with numerous commercial and industrial land uses, constituted the only significant deletion. The Town of Southold further requested the Advisory Council to consider a 3,000 acre corridor extending from Mattituck to Southold in the vicinity of County Route 8 and the Long Island Railroad for nomination as a new SGPA pursuant to ECL Article 55, Sections 1109 and 1111. Although the area in question does not conform in all respects to the definitional criteria for an SGPA, the Council instructed the LIRPB to develop the requisite information and submit a petition for nomination. In December 1989, the Board, acting on behaff of the Advisory Council, submitted a petition to NYSDEC Commissioner Thomas C. Jorling. The petition called for the designation of a Southold Special Groundwater Protection Area in order to protect a major portion of a locally significant groundwater recharge area lying within the shallow flow Hydrogeoiogic Zone IV. On March 9, 1990, Commissioner Jorling approved the petition subject to the modifications set forth in his letter. The modifica- tions required that the plan address two additional issues: how implementation will result in the improvement of existing ambient water quality and how if will assure the maintenance of sufficiently large volumes of high quality ground water. As noted in Part I, the pre-designated Woodbury Road-West Pulaski Road area has been eliminated as a separate SGPA and the land area therein incorporated into the Oyster Bay and the West Hills SGPA's, leaving eight SGPA's for which the LIRPB was contractually obligated to provide boundary delineations and management plans. 'The LIRPB has also agreed to provide bound- ary delineation and a management plan for the newly designated Southold SGPA, thus increasing the number of areas for which plans have been formulated to a total of nine. B-1 Boundary Maps and Descriptions NORTH HILLS SPECIAL GROUNDWATER PROTECTION AREA The Special Groundwater Protection Area shall include the area contained within the defined boundaries as fellows: Beginning at a point where the southerly side of the Long Island Expressway (Interstate Route 495) intersects the Nassau- Queens County boundary; then southward along the Nassau-Queens County boundary line to the northerly boundary of the Northern State Parkway; then easlward along the northerly boundary of the Northern State Parkway to the point of intersection with the Village of North Hills-Herricks boundary; then eastward along the Village of North Hills-Herricks boundary line to Shelter Rock Road; then northward along the easterly boundary of Shelter Rock Road to the northerly boundary of the Long Island Expressway (In- temtate Route 495); then northeastward along the northerly boundary of the Long Island Expressway (Interstate Route 495) to the point of intersec- tion with the Village of North Hills boundary; then generally north and west along the boundary line of the Village of North Hills to the point of contact with Shelter Rock; then southwestward across Shelter Rock Road to the eastern side of Brinkerholf Land opposite Third Street; then southward along the easterly boundary of Brlnkerhoff Lane to Fourth Street; then westward along the southerly boundary of Fourth Street to Clapham Avenue; then northward along the westerly boundary of Clapham Avenue to Centre Drive; then westward along the southerly boundary of Centre Drive to East Drive; then southward along easterly boundary of East Drive to South Drive; then westward along the southerly boundary of South Drive to West Drive; then northward along the westerly boundary of West Drive to Northern Boulevard (State Route 25A); then westward along the southerly boundary of Northern Boulevard (State Route 25A) to Community Drive; then southward along the westerly boundary of Community Drive to Pond Mill Road; then westward along the southerly boundary of Pond Mill Road to Allen Drive; then southward along the easterly boundary of Allen Drive to Cumberland Avenue; then westward along the southerly boundary of Cumberland Avenue to Lakeville Road; then southward along the easterly boundary of Lakeville Road to the Long Island Expressway (Interstate Route 495); then westward along the southerly boundary of the Long Island Expressway (Interstate Route 495) to the point or place of beginning. OYSTER BAY SPECIAL GROUNDWATER PROTECTION AREA The Special Groundwater Protection Area shall include the area contained within the defined boundaries as follows: Beginning at a point where the westerly side of Northern State Parkway intersects the northerly boundary of Jericho Turn- pike; then eastward along the northerly boundary of Jericho Turnpike to the point of intersection with the boundary line of the Village of Muttontown at Underhill Boulevard; then generally northward along the boundary line of the Village of Muttontown to a point due west of Belvedere Dr.; then due east to Belvedere Dr.; then northeastward along Belvedere Dr. and Sagamore Dr. to a point of intersection with the westedy boundary of Somerset PI.; then northward along westerly boundary of Somerset PI, to a point of intemection with the boundary of the Village of Oyster Bay Cove; then generally southeastward along the boundary line of the Village of Oyster Bay Cove to Berry Hill Road; then southward along the eastedy boundary of Berry Hill Road to Renee Road; then eastward along the northerly boundary of Renee Read to Cold Spring Read (Syosset-Cold Spring Road); then eastward along the northerly boundary of Cold Spring Road (Syosset-Cold Spring Road) to South Woods Road; then southward along the eastedy boundary of South Woods Road to Syosset-Woodbury Road; then B-2 westward along the southerly boundary of Syosset-Woodbury Road to the westerly boundary of the Sisters of Mercy Convent property (Section 15, Block C, Lots 13E, 13F and 667; and Section 15, Block F, Lots 34B and 34D of the Nassau County Land and Tax Map); then southward along the westerly boundary of the Sisters of Mercy Convent property (Section 15, Block C, Lots 13E, 13F and 667; and Section 15, Block F, Lots 34B and 34D of the Nassau County Land and Tax Map) to the westerly boundary of the Municipal Golf Course of the Town of Oyster Bay (former Bruce Estate); then southward along the westerly boundary of the Municipal Golf Course of the Town of Oyster Bay (former Bruce Estate) to Jericho Turnpike; then eastward along the northerly boundary of Jedcho Turnpike to its intersection with South Woods Road; then southward along the easterly boundary of South Woods Road and Piquers Lane to Woodbury Road (Hicksville-Woodbury Road); then southwestward along the easterly boundary of Woodbury Road (Hicksville-Woodbury Road) to the Long Island Expressway (Interstate Route 495); then eastward along the northerly boundary of the Long Island Expressway (Interstate Route 495) to the point of intersection with the Northern State Parkway; then eastward along the northerly boundary of Northern State Parkway to the point of intersection with Plainview Road (Washington Avenue); then southeastward along the easterly boundary of Plainview Road (Washington Avenue) to the point of intersection with the Long Island Expressway (Interstate Route 495); then southeastward along the northerly boundary of the Long Island Expressway (Interstate Route 495) to the Nassau/Suffolk County line; then northward along the Nassau/Suffolk line to North Hempstead Turnpike (State Route 25A); then westward along the southerly boundary of North Hernpstead Turnpike (State Route 25A) to Moore's Hill Rd.; then northwestward along the southerly boundary of Moore's Hill Road to Cove Road; then northwestward along the westerly boundary of Cove Road to East Main Street; then westward along the southerly boundary of East Main Street to the point of intersection with the western boundary line of the Village of Oyster Bay Cove; then southward along the western boundary line of the Village of Oyster Bay Cove to the point of intersection with northeast comer of the Pine Hollow Country Club; then generally west and then south along the western boundary of the Pine Hollow Country Club to North Hempstead Turnpike (State Route 25A); then westerly along the northerly boundary of North Hempstead Turnpike (State Route 25A) to Jericho-Oyster Bay Road (State Route 106); then southward along the eastedy boundary of Jericho-Oyster Bay Road (State Route 106) to the point of intersection with the boundary line of the Village of Muttontown; then southeastward and then generally northwestward along the boundary line of the Village of Muttoutown to the point of inter- section with the boundary line of the Village of Upper Brookville; then generally eastward along the boundary line of the Village of Upper Brookvitle to the point of intersection with the western boundary of Jericho-Oyster Bay Rd. (State Route 106); then northward along the westedy boundary of Jericho-Oyster Bay Road and Pine Hollow Road (State Route 106) to the bound- ary of the Village of Upper Brookville opposite High Street; then generally northwestward along the easterly boundary of the Village of Upper Brookville to Lake Avenue; then northward along the westerly boundary of Lake Avenue to West Shore Road; then northward along the westerly boundary of West Shore Road to Cleft Road; then northwestward along the southerly boundary of Cleft Road to Feeks Lane; then westward along the southerly boundary of Feeks Lane to Bayville Road; then northward along the westerly boundary of Bayville Road to Horse Hollow Rd.; then southwestward along the southerly boundary of Horse Hollow Road to Lattingtown Road; then generally northwestward on the southerly boundary of Lattingtown Road to Dosoris lane; then southward along the easterly boundary of Dosoris Lane to Old Tappan Road; then eastward along the northerly boundary of Old Tappan Road to the western boundary line of the Village of Lattingtown; then generally southeastward along the boundary line of the Village of Laftingtown to the northerly boundary of the Long Island Railroad right-of-way at its intersection with Oyster Bay Road; then B-3 south across the Long Island Railroad right-of-way to the northerly boundary line of the Village of Matinecock; then generally westward along the northern boundary line of the Village of Matinecock to a point directly south of the southeast corner of the Nassau Country Club; then north across the Long Island Railroad right-of-way to the southeast corner of the Nassau Country Club; then generally nodhward along the eastern boundary line of the Nassau Country Club to Forest Avenue; then westward along the southerly boundary of Forest Avenue to a point of intersection with the northwest corner of the Nassau Country Club; then generally south and west along the boundary of the Nassau Country Club to Highland Road; then southwestward along the easterly boundary of Highland Road to Duck Pond Road; then eastward along the northerly boundary of Duck Pond Road to Viola Drive; then southward along the eastedy boundary of Viola Drive to Frost Pond Road; then westward along the southerly boundary of Frost Pond Road to a point of intersection with the southern boundary line of the City of Glen Cove; then southwestward along the City of Glen Cove boundary line to a point of intemection with the eastedy boundary of Long Is- land Railroad right-of-way; then south along the eestedy boundary of Long Island Railroad right-of-way to the southwest corner of the Glen Head Country Club; then generally southeast along the southern boundary of the Glen Head Country Club to a point directly north of the western end of Hill Lane; then south to the northern boundary of Hill Lane; then eastward on Hill Lane to a point of intersection with Hill Drive; then eastward on Hill Drive to a point of intersection with Glen Cove Drive; then eastward on Glen Cove Drive (Villa Place) to a point of intersection with Greenvale - Glen Cove Rd. (State Route 107); then east across Greenvale - Glen Cove Rd. (State Route 107) to the intersection with the western boundary of the Village of Old Breokville; then generally southward along the western boundary of the Village of Old Bmokville to a point of intersection with the northern boundary of North hempstead Turnpike (state Route 25A); then west on North Hempstead Turnpike (State Route 25A) to the North Hempstead-Oyster Bay Town Line; then southeastward along the Town line to a point of intersection with the boundary line of the Village of Old Westbury; then generally southwestward along the western boundary line of the Village of Old Westbury to a point of intersection with the south service mad of the Long Island Expressway (Interstate Route 495) (Old Westbury Road); then westward on the south service road of Long Island Expressway (Interstate Route 495) (Old Westbury Road) to a point of in- tamection with the Northern State Parkway exit road to the Long Island Expressway (Interstate Route 495); then southward along the westerly boundary of the Northern State Parkway exit road to a point of intersection with the western boundary line of the Village of Old Westbury; then generally south along the western boundary line of the Village of Old Westbury to a point of intersection with the northeast comer of the Wheatley Hills Country Club; then generally west and south along the Wheatley Hills Country Club boundary to a point of intersection with East Williston Ave. (Hillside Ave.); then eastward on the northerly boundary of East Williston Ave. (Hillside Ave.) to a point of intersection with Northern State Park- way; then southward on the westerly boundary of Northern State Parkway to a point or place of beginning at Jericho Turnpike. WEST HillS - MELVILLE SPECIAL GROUNDWATER PROTECTION AREA The Special Groundwater Protection Area shall include the area contained within the defined boundaries as follows: Beginning at the point where NYS Route 25A intersects the Suffolk-Nassau County Line; then southward along the Suffolk-Nassau County Line to the southern boundary of the Town of Huntington Pineridge Park (Tax Parcel #0400-254.00-02.00-046.200); then eastward along the southerly boundary of the Town of Huntington Pineridge Park (Tax Parcel #0400-254,00-02.00-046.200) to Tax Pamel #0400-254.00-02.00-043,000; then B-4 eastward along the southerly boundary of Tax Parcel #0400-254.00-02,00-043,000 to the Leaves of Green Condominiums (Tax Parcel #0400-254.01-01.00-121.000); then northward and eastward along the easterly and northerly boundaries, respectively, of the Leaves of Green Condominiums (Tax Parcel #0400-254.01-01.00-121.000) to the westerly boundary of V~alt Whitman Road; then northward along the westerly boundary of Walt Whitman Road to the Long Island Expressway right-of-way; then northwestward along the northerly boundary of the Long Island Expressway service road right-of-way to Tax Parcel #0400- 265,00- 01,00-002,O0; then northwestward along the northerly boundaries of Tax Parcels #0400-255,00-01.00-002.00. 400-255-1-1,0400-256.00- 02.00-062,000 and 0400-256,00-02.00-051.000 to Sweet Hollow Road (Pine Lawn Road); then southward along the eastedy boundary of Sweet Hollow Road (Pinelawn Road) to Colonial Spring Road (Baylis Road); then eastward along the northerly boundary of Colonial Springs Road to Main Avenue (Seamans Road); then; eastward along the northerly boundary of Main Avenue (Seamans Road) to Conklin Avenue; then northward along the westerly boundary of Conklin Avenue to Bagatelle Road; then northward along the westerly boundary of Bagatelle Road 1o the Huntington-Babylon Town Line; then westward along the Huntington-Babylon Town Line to Tax Parcel #0400-271.00-01.00-062.000; then northward along the easterly boundaries of Tax Parcels #0400- 271,00-01.00-062.000, 0400-271.00-01.00-047.000, and 0400-271.00- 01.00-030,000; then westward along the northerly boundary of Tax Parcel #0400- 271.00-01.00-030.00 to Northcote Road; northward along the westedy boundary of Northcote Road to Wilmington Drive; then northward along the westedy boundary of Wilmington Ddve to Elkland Road; then northeastward along the southerly boundary of Elkland Road to Woodmount Road; then northeastward along the westerly boundary of Woodmount Road to Roundtree Drive; then northward along the westerly boundary of Round Tree Road to the Long Island Expressway; then westward along the southerly boundary of the Long Island Expressway to Half Hollow Road; then northeastward along the northerly boundary of Halt Hollow Road to Carmen Road; then northward along the westerly boundary of Carmen Road to Northern State Parkway; then westward on the northerly boundary of Northern State Parkway to tax parcel #0400-229.00-01.00-013,000; then northward along the easterly boundary of tax parcel #0400- 229.00-01.00-013,000 to the easterly boundary of West Hills County Park (tax parcel #0400-230,00-02.00-007.000); then northward along the easterly boundary of West Hills County Park (tax parcel #0400-230.00-02.00-007,000) to tax parcel #0400- 232.00-05.00-001.000; then northward along the easterly boundary of tax parcel #0400- 232.00-05.00-001.000 1o the northerly boundary of tax parcel #0400- 232.00-05.00-001.000; then westward along the northerly boundary of tax parcel #0400- 232.00-05.00-001.00 to the easterly boundary of West Hills Park (tax map parcel #0400-230,00-02.00-007.000); then northward along the easterly boundary of West Hills Park (tax map parcel #0400-230.00-02,00-007.000) to tax parcel #0400-231.00- 02.00-011.000; then northward along the easterly boundary of tax parcel #0400- 231,00-02.00-011.000 to Chichester Road; then westward along the southerly boundary of Chichester Road to Sweet Hollow Road; then northward along the westerly boundary of Sweet Hollow Road to the northern bou,qdary of tax parcel #0400-191.00-03,00- 034,000; then westward along the northerly boundary of tax parcel #0400- 191.00-03.00-034.000 to tax parcel #0400-191.00-03.00- 016.000; then westward along the northerly boundary of tax parcel #0400- 191.00-03.00-016,000 to tax parcel #0400-191.00-03.00- 013.002; then westward along the northerly boundary of tax parcel #0400- 191,00-03.00-013,002 to Hartman Hill Road; then southward along the easterly boundary of Hartman Hill Road to the northerly boundary of West Hills County Park (tax par- cel #0400- 226.00-03.00-002.000); then westward along the northerly boundary of West Hills County Park (tax map #0400-226.00-03.00-002,000) to Round Swamp Road; then northward along the easterly boundary of Round Swamp Road to Jedcho Turnpike (S.R. 25) then eastward along the northerly boundary o1Jedcho Turnpike (S.R. 25) to Cold Spring Hills Road; then B-5 northward along the westerly boundary of Cold Spring Hills Road to Forestdale Ddve; then westward and northward along the southerly and westerly boundary of Forestdale Drive to Meadow Lane; and westward along the southerly boundary of Meadow Lane to Oak Ridge Road; then westward along the southerly boundary of Oak Ridge Road to East Gate Drive; then northwestward along the southerly boundary of East Gate Drive to the Long Island Railroad; then eastward along the northerly boundary of the Long Island Railroad to Oakwood Road; then northward along the westerly boundary of Oakwood Road to Tax Map Pamel #0400-090.00-06.00-016.000; then westward along the northerly boundaries of Tax Map Pamels #0400-090.00-06.00-016.000, 0400-090.00-06.00-017.000, 0400-090.00- 06.00-018.000, 0400-134.00-03.00-002.000, 0400-134.00-03.00- 001.000, 0400-1 34.00-01.00-003.000 and 0400-134.00-01.00-002.000 to Woodbury Road; then southward along the easterly boundary of Woodbury Road to Woodlee Road; then northwestward along the westerly boundary of Woodlee Road to Saw Mill Road; then northeastward along the southerly boundary of Saw Mill Road to Tax Map Pamel #0400-088.00-01.00-012.001; then northward along the easterly boundary of Tax Map Pamel #400- 088.(X3-01.00-012.001 to Lawrence Hill Road (S.R. 25A); then westward along the southerly boundary of Lawrence Hill Road (North Hempstead Turnpike) to the point or place of begin- ning. OAK BRUSH PLAINS SPECIAL GROUNDWATER PROTECTION AREA The Special Groundwater Protection Area shall include the area contained within the defined boundaries as follows: Beginning at the point where the Smithtown-Huntington Town Line intemects the southerly side of Hauppauge Road (New Highway); then westward along the southerly boundary of Hauppauge Road to Daly Road; then southeastward along the easterly boundary of Daly Road to Commack Road; then southward along the westerly boundary of Commack Road (C.R. 4) to the Long Island Railroad; then eastward along the northerly boundary of the Long Island Railroad to the Sagtikos State Parkway; then northward 4114 feet along the easterly boundary of the Sagtikos State Parkway to the southern boundary of the Pilgrim State Hospital (Tax Map Parcel 0500-71-1-13); then eastward 505 feet along the southerly boundary of Tax Pamel #0500-071.00-01.00-013.000; then northwestward 935,7 feet along the boundary of Tax Pamel #0500-071,00-01.00-013.000; then eastward 1946 feet along the boundary of Tax Pamel #0500- 071.00-01.00-013,000 to Crooked Hill Road; then northward along the westerly boundary of Crooked Hill Road to the southern boundary of the Pilgrim State Hospital (Tax Parcel #0500-071.00-01 .O0-012,001 ); then eastward 859 feet along the southern boundary of Tax Pamel #0500-71.00-01.00-012.001; then eastward 1039 feet along the southern boundary of the Union Free School District (Tax Pamel #0500-072.00-02.00- 001.000) to W~cks Road; then northward along the westerly boundary of Wicks Road to the Smithtown-lslip line (Motor Parkway) C.R. 67; then westward and northward along the southerly and westerly boundary of Motor Parkway C.R. 67 to Commack Road; then northward along the eastern boundary of Commack Road Smithtown-Hunfington Town Line to the point or place of begin- ning. SOUTH SETAUKET WOODS SPECIAL GROUNDWATER PROTECTION AREA The Special Groundwater Protection Area shall include the area contained within the defined boundaries as follows: Beginning at the point where the westerly boundary of Old Town Road intersects the southerly boundary of Lower Sheep Pasture Road; then westward along the southerly boundary of lower Sheep Pasture Road to Upper Sheep Pasture Road; then southward and westward along the southerly boundary of Upper Sheep Pasture Road to Cinderella Lane; then westward along the southerly boundary of Cinderella Lane to Robin Hood Lane; then southward along the easterly boundary of Robin Hood Lane to Storyland Lane; then westward along the southerly boundary of Storyland Lane to Pond Path Drive; then northward along the westerly boundary of Pond Path Drive to Lower Sheep Pasture Road; then B..6 westward along the southerly boundary of Lower Sheep Pasture Road to Bennetts Road, then northward along the westerly boundary of Bennetts Road to the L.I.R.R.; then westward along the southerly boundary of the L.I.R.R. to Stony Brook Road; then eastward along the northerly boundary of Stony Brook Road 171 feet to the boundary of the State University of New York at Stony Brook; then in an eastward, then southward, and then westward direction along the boundary of the State University of New York at Stony Brook to Stony Brook Road; then southward along the eastwardly boundary of Stony Brook Road to Oxhead Road; then eastward along the northerly boundary of Oxhead Road 2,284 feet to the southeasterly most point at the State University of New York at Stony Brook; then northward and eastward along the easterly and southerly boundary of the State University of New York at Stony Brook to Nicolls Road (CR 97); then northward along the westerly boundary of Nicolls Road to Hills Lane; then eastward along the northerly boundary of Hills Lane to Pond Path Drive; then southward along the easterly boundary of Pond Path Drive to 34th Street; then westward along the southerly boundary of 34th Street to Sycamore Circle; then southward and westward along the easterly and southerly boundary of Sycamore Circle to Sycamore Drive; then westward along the southerly boundary of Sycamore Drive to Nicolls Road (County Route 97); then southward along the easterly boundary of Nicolls Road to Nesconset-Port Jefferson Highway (Route 347); then southwestward along the southerly boundary of Route 347 to Lakeside Avenue; then southward along the easterly boundary of Lakeside Avenue to Twisting Drive; then southward along the easterly boundary of Twisting Drive to Tulip Grove Drive; then southward along the easterly boundary of Tulip Grove Drive to Pond Path Drive; then northward along the westerly boundary of Pond Path Drive to Wood Avenue; then southward along the easterly boundary of Wood Avenue to Spruce Street extended to Wood Avenue; then eastward along the northerly boundary of Spruce street to Hammond Lane; then southward along the easterly boundary of Hammond Lane to Florence Street; then eastward along the northerly boundary of Florence Street extended to Washington Avenue (Stony Brook Road); then southward along the easterly boundary of Washington Avenue (Stony Brook Road) to Forest Road; then northward and eastward along the westerly and northerly boundaries of Forest Road to Mark Tree Road; then northward along the westerly boundary of Mark Tree Road to Bette Anne Drive (Nicolls Road, CR 97 Northern Service Road); then eastward along the northern boundary of Bette Anne Drive to Balin Avenue; then northward along the westerly boundary of Balin Avenue to Chester Street; then eastward along the southerly boundary of Chester Street to Wireless Road; then southward along the easterly boundary of Wireless Road to Strathmore Village Drive; then eastward along !he northerly boundary of Strathmore Village Drive to Milbury Lane; then northeastward along the northerly boundary of Milbury Lane to Patricia Lane; then northeastward along the northerly boundary of Patricia Lane to Doe Lane; then eastward along the northerly boundary of Doe Lane to Fawn Lane West; then northeastward along the westerly boundary of Fawn lane West to Arrowhead Lane; then northward along the westerly boundary of Arrowhead Lane to the southwestern comer of Tax Pamel #0200-253.00-001.00- 024.000: then northward and eastward along the westerly and northerly boundary of Tax Parcel #0200-253.00-01.00-024.000 to the boundary of Tax Parcel #0200-278.00-06.00-001.000; then northwestward and southwestward along tho nodhem boundary of Tax Parcel #0200-278.00-06.00-001,000 to Fireside Lane; 'then northward along the westerly boundary of Fireside Lane to Rack Lane; then eastward along the northerly boundary of Rack Lane to Longhorn Lane; then southward along the easterly boundary of Longhorn Lane to Cabin Lane; then eastward along the northerly boundary of Cabin Lane to Deer Lane; then B-7 northward along the westerly boundary of Deer Lane to Tax Parcel #0200-226.00-01.00-007.001; then northward along the westerly boundary of Tax Parcel #0200- 226.00-01.00-007.001 to Old Town Road; then northwestward along the westerly boundary of Old Town Road to the point or place of beginning. CENTRAL SUFFOLK SPECIAL GROUNDWATER PROTECTION AREA The Special Groundwater Protection Area shall include the area contained within the defined boundaries as follows: Beginning at a point where the southerly side of Nesconset- Port Jefferson Highway (Route 347) intersects the easterly side of Jayne Boulevard; then southward along the easterly boundary of Jayne Boulevard to Marlboro Drive; then eastward along the northerly boundary of Madboro Drive to Joline Road; then southward along the easterly boundary of Joline Road to Erie Street; then southward along the easterly boundary of Erie Street to Greene Avenue; then eastward along the northerly boundary of Greene Avenue to Long Street; then southward along the eastedy boundary of Long Street to Clinton Avenue; then westward along the southerly boundary of Clinton Avenue to Champlain Street; then southward along the easterly boundary of Champlain Street to Norton Avenue; then westward along the southerly boundary of Norton Avenue to Old Town Road; then southward along the easterly boundary of Old Town Road to Jayne Boulevard; then southward along the easterly boundary of Jayne Boulevard to Dare Road; then southward along the easterly boundary of Dare Road (North Lane) to Middle Country Road (Route 25); then eastward along the northerly boundary of Route 25 to Patchogue-Mount Sinai Road (County Route 83); then southward along the easterly boundary of County Road 83 to Bicycle Path Drive; then southeastward along the easterly side of Bicycle Path Drive to Mt. McKinley Avenue; then southward along the easterly boundary of Mt. McKinley Avenue to Granny Road; then northeastward along the northerly boundary of Granny Road to Port Jefferson-Patchogue Road (Route 112); then southward along the eastedy boundary of Route 112 to Horse Block Road (County Route 16); then eastward along the northerly boundary of County Route 16 to Maine Avenue; then northward along the westerly boundary of Maine Avenue to the extension of the northerly boundary of Fire Avenue; then eastward along the northerly boundary of Fire Avenue to John Roe Smith Avenue; then southward along the easterly boundary of John Roe Smith Avenue to Jeff Street; then eastward along the northerly boundary of Jeff Street to Hagerman Avenue; then southward along the easterly boundary of Hagerman Avenue to the Long Island Expressway (Route 495); then eastward along the northerly boundary of Route 495 to the William Floyd Parkway (County Route 46); then southward along the eastedy boundary of County Route 46 to the Long Island Railroad main line; then eastward along the northerly boundary of the Long Island Railroad tracks to Tax Parcel #0200-555.00-01.00-018.100; then southward and eastward along the boundary of Tax Parcel #0200- 555.00-01,00-018.100 to the intersection of North Street and Manor- Yaphank Road; then southward along the easterly boundary of Manor-Yaphank Road to Moriches-Middle Island Road; then eastward along the norhterly boundary of Moriches-Middle Island Road to Sunrise Highway (Route 27); then eastward along the northerly boundary of Route 27 to Manorville Branch C,R. 91 (old railroad grade-unpaved); then southeastward along the northerly boundary of C.R. 91 (old railroad grade-unpaved) to Old Country Road (Route 71); then eastward along the northerly boundary of Route 71 to the Long Island Railroad tracks; then eastward along the northerly boundary of the Long Island Railroad tracks to Montauk Highway (Route 80); then eastward along the northern boundary of Route 80 to Riverhead- Hampton Bays Road (S.R. 24); then northward along the westerly boundary of Route 24 to Sunrise Highway (Route 27); then eastward along the northerly boundary of Route 27 to Squiretown Road; then northward along the westerly boundary of Squiretown Road to Upper Red Creek Road; then westward along the southern boundary of Upper Red Creek to Lower Red Creek Road; then B-8 southward along the easterly boundary of Lower Red Creek Road to Riverhead-Hampton Bays Road (Route 24); then westward along the southerly boundary of Route 24 to Peconic Avenue; then northward along the westerly boundary of Peconic Avenue to the centedine of the Peconic River (Riverhead-Southampton townline); then westward along the center line of the Peconic River (Riverhead-Southampton town line) to Forge Road (Dam Road); then northward and eastward along the westerly and northerly boundaries of Forge Road to West Main Street (State Route 25); then eastward along the northerly boundary of State Route 25 to Kroemer Avenue; then northward along the westerly boundary of Kroemer Avenue to Old country Road (County Road 58); then eastward along the northerly boundary of County Road 58 to Mill Road; then northward along the westerly boundary of Mill Road to Middle Road; then eastward along the northerly boundary of Middle Road to Main Road (State Route 25); then eastward along the northerly boundary of Main Road (past the Riverhead-Southold town line) to the Long Island Railroad; then eastward along the northerly boundary of the Long Island Railroad to Factory Avenue (Railroad Avenue); then northward along the westedy boundary of Factory Avenue to Sound Avenue; then westward along the southerly boundary of Sound Avenue (past the Riverhead-Southold town line) to its intersection with State Road 25A; then westward along the southerly boundary of State Road 25A to Nesconset-Port Jefferson Highway (S.R. 347); then westward along the southerly boundary of Nesconset-Port Jefferson Highway to the point or place of beginning. SOUTH FORK SPECIAL GROUNDWATER PROTECTION AREA The Special Groundwater Protection Area shall include the area contained within the defined boundaries as follows: Beginning at the point where the easterly side of Noyack Road (C.R. 38) intersects the easterly boundary of Majors Path; then southward along the easterly boundary of Majors Path to Great Hill Road; then eastward along the northerly boundary of Great Hill Road to the exlension of the easterly boundary of the North Sea Land- fill (Town of Southampton property); then generally southward and westward along the easterly and southerly boundaries of the North Sea Landfill to Majors Path; then southward along the eastedy boundary of Majors Path to the Village of Southampton boundary; then eastward along the Southampton Village boundary to Sebonac Road (County Road 39); then eastward along the northerly boundary of County Road 39 to the Long Island Railroad; then eastward along the northerly boundary of the Long Island Railroad to Hedges Lane; then southward along the easterly boundary of Hedges Lane to Montauk Highway (S.R. 27); then eastward along the northerly boundary of Route 27 to Cove Hollow Road; then northward along the westedy boundary of Cove Hollow Road to the Long Island Railroad; then eastward along the northerly boundary of the Long Island Railroad to the Village of East Hampton Boundary; then northward and eastward along the westerly boundary of the Village of East Hampton to Gould Street; then northward along the easterly boundary of Gould Street to Cedar Street; then westward along the northerly boundary of Cedar Street to Hands Creek Road; then northward along the westedy boundary of Hands Creek Road to Oak View Highway; then eastward along the northerly boundary of Oak View Highway to Three Mile Harbor Road (C.R. 40); then northward along the westedy boundary of Three Mile Harbor Road to West Drive; then eastward along the northerly boundary of West Drive to Springs Fireplace Road; then northward along the westerly bound- ary of Springs Fireplace Road to Ocean Parkway; then eastward along the northerly boundary of Ocean Parkway to Acoabonac Road; then southwestward along the westerly boundary of Accabonac Road to the Long Island Railroad; then eastward along the northerly boundary of the Long Island Railroad to Cranberry Hole Road; then eastward along the northerly boundary of Cranberry Hole Road to Cross Highway; then northwestward along the westedy boundary of Cress Highway to Alberts Landing Road; then westward along the southerly boundary of Alberts Landing Road to Amagansett Springs Road; then northward along the westward boundary of Amagansett Springs Road to Neck Path Road; then B-9 northwestward along the westedy boundary of Neck Path Road to Accabonac Road; then southwestward along the westerly boundary of Accabonac Road to Talmadge Avenue; then northwestward along the southerly boundary of Talmadge Avenue to Springs-Fireplace Road (C.R. 41); then northward along the westerly boundary of Springs-Fireplace Road (C.R. 41) to Cross Highway; then westward along the southerly boundary of Cross Highway to Three Mile Harbor Road; then southward along the eastedy boundary of Three Mile Harbor Road to Springy Banks Road; then northward along the westedy boundary of Springy Banks Road to Ocean Parkway; then westward along the southerly boundary of Ocean Parkway to Middle Highway; then northerly along the westerly boundary of Middle Highway to Shorewood Drive; then westward along the southerly boundary of Shorewood Drive to Hands Creek Road; then northward along the westerly boundary of Hands Creek Road to Ely Brook Road; then northward along the westedy boundary of Ely Brook Road to Alewive Brook Road; then northward along the westerly boundary of Alewive Brook Road to Northwest Road; then southwestward along the southerly boundary of Northwest Road to Old Nollhwest Road; then northward along the westedy boundary of Old Northwest Road to Northwest Landing; then westward along the southerly boundary of Northwest Landing Road to Swamp Road; then southwestward along the southerly boundary of Swamp Road to its intersection with the southern boundary of Northwest Harbor County Park; then generally westward along the southern boundaries at Northwest Harbor County Park and the New York State land known as the Sag Harbor Golf Course to S.R. 114; then northwestward along the westerly boundary of S.R. 114 to the Sag Harbor Village boundary; then westward and northwestward along the Sag Harbor Village boundary to, and along, the northern shore of Round Pond and again westward along the Sag Harbor Village boundary to Brick Kiln Road; then westward along the southerly boundary of Bdck Kiln Road to Stony Hill Road; then northward along the westerly boundary of Stony Hill Road to Noyack Road (C.R. 38; then westward and southwestward along the southerly and easterly boundaries of Noyack Road (C.R. 38) to the point or place of beginning. HITHER HILLS SPECIAL GROUNDWATER PROTECTION AREA The Special Groundwater Protection Area shall include the ama contained within the defined boundaries as follows: Beginning at a point where the westerly boundary of Hither Hills State Park intemects with the northerly boundary of Mon- tauk Point State Boulevard S.R. 27; then eastward along the northerly boundary of Montauk Point State Boulevard S.R. 27 to Tax Parcel #0300-044.00-01.00- 001.000; then northward and then eastward along the westerly and northerly boundaries of Tax Parcel #0300-044.00-01.00-001.000 to Tax Parcel #0300-048.00-03.00-008.007; then northward along an extension of the westerly boundary of Tax Pamel #0300-048.00-03.00-008.007 to the northerly bound- ary of the Long Island Railroad (Tax Parcel #0300-026.00-01.00-002.000); then westward approximately 1,100' along the northerly boundary of the Long Island Railroad (Tax Parcel #0300-026.00-01.00- 002.000), to the westedy boundary of Tax Parcel #0300-026.00-01.00-004.000; then northward along the westedy boundary of Tax Parcel #0300- 026.00-01.00-004.000 to the Block Island Sound Shoreline; then generally westward and southward along the shoreline of Block Island Sound, Napeague Bay and Napeague Harbor (as ap- pmxirnated by the seaward boundaries of Tax Pamels #0300-026.00-01.00-001.100, #0300-026.00-01.00-001.200, and #0300-086.00-02.00-001.000) to the point or place of beginning. B-lO SOUTHOLD SPECIAL GOUNDWATER PROTECTION AREA The Special Groundwater Protection Area shall include the ama contained within the defined boundaries as follows: Beginning at a point where the southerly boundary of Oregon Road intersects the easterly boundary of Mill Lane; then southward along the easterly boundary of Mill Lane to a point 500 feet south of the southern boundary of the Long Island Railroad property; then eastward fi.om a point 500 feet south of the southerly boundary of the Long Island Railroad properbj to Terry Court; then northward along the westedy boundary of TerTy Court to Glover Lane; then northeastward along the northerly boundary of Glover Lane to Tucker Lane; then northward along the westedy boundary of Tucker Lane to Middle Road (County Road 48); then westward along the southerly boundary of Middle Road (County Road 48) to Kenny Road; then northward along the westerly boundary of Kenney Road to Sound View Avenue; then westward along the southerly bound- ary of Sound View to Mill Road; then northwestward along the southwesterly boundary of Mill Road to View Avenue (Sound Avenue West); then westward along the southerly boundary of View Avenue (Sound Avenue West) to Henry's Lane; then southward (approximately 50 feet) along the westerly boundary of Henry's Lane to the LILCO R.O.W.; then westward along the southerly boundary of the LILCO R.O.W. to its intemection with Cox's Lane; then southward along the westedy boundary of Cox's Lane to Middle Road (County Road 48); then westward along the northern boundary of Middle Road (County Road 48) to Depot Lane; then northward along the westedy boundary of Depot Lane to Oregon Road; then westward along the southerly boundary of oregon Road to the point or place of beginning, B-11 Appendix C: WATER CONSERVATION In Nassau and Suffolk Counties 2.6 million people depend upon the water frem undergreund aquifers for their drinking water. There are three principal sand and gravel filled geological formations. The Upper Glacial closest to the land sur[ace, is already partially contaminated, and is likely to become more so. There is a growing underetanding of the need to provide additional pre- tection for the upper glacial and deeper aquifers (Magothy and Lloyd) from contamination, to maximize recharge into the aquifers, and to conserve the water that flows through them. Availability of groundwater is influenced by a number of factors including recharge and evaporation, storage and discharge. Esti- mates of the amount of available water must consider water lost through evaporation or discharge to the ocean. Evaporation, though a natural and unavoidable part of the water cycle, prevents water frem returning to the aquifer, and is thus a consumptive process. Evaporation also includes the water lost frem irrigation of agricultural fields and landscaping. Discharge to the .ocean in- cludes sewage treatment plants in both counties, other treatment plants discharge to estaudne waters. Water is said to be used consumptively when it is not returned to the aquifer for future use. Due to discharge to the ocean, undergreund flow to the bays is reduced which could negatively affect surface water quality. Although the supply of this valuable resoume is continuously replen- ished or augmented by precipitation, there is a limit on the quantity of water which can be withdrawn from the greundwater reser- voir over an extended period of time without unfavorebly affecting the viability of the system, or creating adverse envirenmental impacts. Estimates have been made, at various times in the past, of the amount of groundwater which can be withdrawn and used con- sumptively without creating unacceptable effects, which may include saltwater intrusion, Iowedng of the groundwater table, or the drying-up of lakes and streams. This is called the sa£e 3del(/concept. Although the safe yield concept is somewhat subjective, it can be used to establish the approximate amount of water available for use. The current estimates of safe yield are 180 MGD in Nassau County and 466 MGD in Suffolk County. Current greundwater pumpage by the Jamaica Water Supply Company in Queens is considered to be significantly in excess of any reasonably established safe yield. The Jamaica Water Supply Company serves about 520,000 people in Queans and west- ern Nassau. Pumpage has resulted in a depression of the water table to roughly 10 feet below sea level in eastern Queens, re- sulting in serious effects on the aquifer in that area and in underground water flow across the border from Nassau. In Nassau County, various water supply studies over the past 25 yeare have estimated the safe yield and have projected ground- water consumptive uses through the year 2000. The Permissive Sustained Yield (PSY) was established at 151 MGD by historical studies prior to development of the 1980 Nassau County Master Plan for Water Supply. The 1980 Master Plan estimated a PSY of 180 MGD for Nassau groundwater, or 207 MGD assuming 27 MGD of underlfow from Suffolk County. The revised PSY of 180- 207 MGD would result in a significant lowering of water levels and the potential elimination of groundwater flow supporting year- round streamflow and freshwater wetlands. In 1978, the total public supply pumpage in Nassau was 182.3 MGD, of which 140 MGD was consumed or lost to the groundwater system. Although the range of 180-207 MGD is clearly well in excess of the cur- rent consumptive use of 140 MGD, it is not clear that the effects associated with that level of pumpage would be fully consistent with proper management of the regional greundwater resoume. The aquifers underlying Nassau County and western and centrel Suffolk County, are a part of a single system and therefore each area should be managed as part of a whole. Nassau County water levels are declining. It has bean documented that overpump- lng and mining of greundwater can adversely affect water levels, wetlands and the volume of stream flow within the system. To date, lowered greundwater elevations, streamflow declines and stream shortenings have not been evident in southwestern Suf- folk County as a result of the development of the Southwest Sewer District #3. However, as part of the Suffolk County l~low A~Ementc~tion l?eecl~ Stud3' (FANS) Milestone III report (Suffolk County Depmtment of Public Works 1990), a set of triggering mechanisms was developed to indicate if and when augmentation will be necessavj. C-1 Nassau County In July 1987 a Comprehensive Water Conservation Plan Ordinance went into effect in Nassau County. This county-wide Compre- hensive Management/Conservation Program is designed to regulate or limit the use of water throughout the County, including the towns, cities, viltages and special districts, and provide enforcement to conserve, protect and manage the waters within its juris- diction. This ordinance was enacted in response to pumping restrictions imposed on the public water purveyors in Nassau County by the NYSDEC in 1986. This was initiated in order to curb water withdrawals to ensure a long-term wafer supply for Nas- sau County. Nassau is dependent upon a sole soume aquifer system which serves the domestic, industrial, commercial and/or recreational needs of its residents. Due to the environmental sensitivity and consumption of this aquifer's water supply it was de- termined that certain lir~tations were necessary at this time. Included Jn the ordinance were lawn sprinkling use restrictions, air conditioning water recimulation requirements, car wash recimulation requirements and fire hydrant use restrictions. In addition, a Speaker's Bureau has been formed by Nassau County's Department of Public Works to educate the public on water and conservation by giving public presentations. The program targets both children and adult citizens and the audience has increased due to the continuing outreach efforts of both the Department and the Cornell Cooperative Extension. Because public education is a long-term effort that requires several years before results are observed, the County has imple- mented other measures that should yield results in the short-term. The short-term efforts include proposed capital projects to ret- rofit County facilities, implementation of the provisions of the County's Water Conservation Ordinance, distribution of water saving kits for the home to the public, and the explanation of practical water conserving ideas and techniques to the public. The County has distributed to residents an updated water conservation brochure, and one on the proper use and application of fertilizers. The publications are a cooperative effort between the Department, Nassau County Health Department, and Coopera- tive Extension. In addition, Cornell Cooperative Extension's staff and educational literature of up-to-date, unbiased, research-backed information on water quality and quantity issues was made available to Nassau County residents through the efforts of the Cooperative Extension of Nassau County. According to Nassau County Department of Public Works, the year-round effects of the program should become evident in a few more years as more data is collected from which reliable comparisons can be made. It should be noted, however, that there does appear to exist a very real County-wide pumpage reduction of approximately 4% during the base pumpage months of January through March and October through December of 1989 when compared to pumpage of the prior five (5) years for the correspond- ing months. Suffolk County The demand for water in Suffolk County will continue to increase due to population increases and growth in public, commercial and industrial facilities. Suffolk's sole source aquifer has an adequate supply of water to meet projected needs; however, there are areas of the county where the water supply is stressed, either because of limited freshwater resoumes, such as those on is- lands and peninsulas, or because of significant groundwater contamination, such as on the North Fork. In these stressed areas, the conservation of water is a necessary element in water supply management. In the remainder of Suffolk County, water conser- vation is a well advised management practice and a wise use of resoumes. Water conservation can help ensure the long-term adequacy of the groundwater reservoir as a soume of water supply, and to prevent unfavorable impacts on the environment that would occur due to reduced water levels. Water conservation can also result in significant monetary savings due to a reduction in capital expenditures by water suppliers for additional wells, pumps, storage tanks, conventional treatment facilities, and transmission mains, and in operation and mainte- nance costs for power, equipment, labor, chemicals, etc. In some instances conservation may eliminate the need to use water which requires extensive and costly treatment to remove chlorides, pesticides, nitrates, and synthetic organic chemicals. In addi- tion to cost reductions to water suppliers, which result in pass-through savings to consumers, water conservation can also result ~n direct ~avings to the ho,,'T~o~wner, prJmerily through the reduction of energy costs to heat hot water and to pump water from pri- vate wells. C-2 There are a nurrtber of other potential benefits derived from water conservation. One such benefit is a significant reduction in capital, operation, and maintenance costs for sewerage facilities in areas that are served by wastewater collection and treatment facilities. Homeowners can save money by pumhasing less water and using less energy to prod~(~e hot water. In addition, water conservation may help to protect groundwater quality, since the use of turf, gmundcover, and land ~s?ping that requires less irrigation will also generally require less fertilizer. An important consideration in the assessment of the potentJal effectiveness of a water conser- vation program is the quantity of water presently used. Water pumpage in Suffolk County during the year 1980 is indicated below. Although residential use constitutes 65 pement of all present water use, a successful water conservation program requires th~ participation and cooperation of all categories of water users. On a per capita basis, the total pumpage was 162 gallons per cap- ira per day (gpcd), and residential use was 105 gpcd. Actual records of interior and exterior residential use are not documented in Suffolk County, but studies conducted throughout the countr,j, primarily for the drought plagued western states, indicate that the actual interior residential use of water varies from 44.5 to 76.0 gpcd. The principal exterior residential use is irrigation, primarily for lawns. TABLE C-1 Pumpage by Water Use Category Cateqo~ 1980 Pumpage (m,qd) % of Total Use Residential 134.95 65.0 Commercial/Industrial 44.32 21.4 Agricultural 15.24 7.3 Institutional 9.78 4.7 Cemetery/Golf Course 3.20 1.5 Total 207.49 100.0 The main objective of a water conservation program is a reduction in the use of water without adversely affecting the health and well-being of residents and visitors. Based on the present supply of water, conservation efforts should not reduce the current standard of living, but rather curtail wasteful water use practices in all user categories. Based on an analysis of present water use in Suffolk County, and an evaluation of the potential for water conservation, it is esti- mated that a reduction in total water use of twenty-five pement could be achieved with no significant adverse effect on the stand- ard of living. However, a reduction of this magnitude would require the universal use of water-efficient plumbing units and appliances; a reduction in the pementage of land planted with turf; the use of the minimum essential amount of water for the irri- gation of lawns and agricuitural crops; and, the complete cooperation of all segments of the community. It is not anticipated that reductions of this magnitude will be achieved unless a water shortage caused by drought or groundwater contamination necessitates the imposition of mandatory restrictions. Without such restrictions, the reduction of water use through voluntary conservation will probably be more modest (on the order of 5% in presently developed areas), and will result primarily from the increased cost of water and energy. Replacement of existing plumbing fixtures with more efficient units would make it possible to achieve a larger water use reduction. In newly developed areas, where the use of water-efficient plumbing units is mandatory and zoning regulations restricting the per- centage of land planted with turf may be adopted, it is believed that a ten percent reduction in per capita water use below present levels can be reasonably anticipated. C-3 Water Conservation Techniques Available water conservation techniques may be classified into five categories: structural, operational, economic, legal and edu- cational. Although a successful conservation program will probably include elements from all five of the catagodes listed above, the individual components of the program must be tailored to suit the needs of each community. Conservation methods available in each of the five categories listed above aro described in this section. STRUCTURAL Structural methods of reducing interior water use include the following: · Iow water use plumbing fixtures (sink and lavatory faucets, urinals, and toilets); · Iow water use appliances (clothes and dishwashers); · flow regulators on faucets (orifices, aerators, and spray taps); · flow regulators on showers (fixed and variable orifices) and Iow flow shower heads; · pressure regulators on water mair~ and service lines; · elimination of household plumbing leaks (e.g., in faucets and toilets); · insulation of hot water pipes (to reduce wastage pdor to the receipt of hot water at sinks, tubs, etc.); · use of water for several purposes with or without treatment (e.g., household water used for soap-related purposes could be reused for toilet flushing or irrigation). On a system-wide basis, wastewater could be treated and used for potable or non-potable purposes, although rouse for potable purposes has not received wide acceptance. Structural methods of reducing exterior water use including the following: · use of grasses and plants that require less water than the commonly used blue grass lawn; · landscaping to efficiently utilize precipitation and irrigation (e.g., gentle slopes, contoured grading); · use of land cover other than grasses (e.g., stones, rocks, wood chips, wooded areas); · use of efficient irrigation practices that employ moisture sensors, flow meters, irrigation schedules (related to precipitation and evapotranspiration rates), and application rate controls. OPERATIONAL Operational methods of water conservation that can be initiated by a water purveyor include the following: · leakage detection and elimination in the water distribution systems; · installation and maintenance of meters at all installations, including public buildings and fire service lines; · installation of separate meters for outdoor water use; · installation of building service lines of sufficient diameter to provide adequate, but not excessive, quantities of water; · water meter maintenance and replacement prograrns. ECONOMIC Economic techniques that may be used to promote water conservation include the following: · pricing policies that employ uniform rates regardless of the volume used, or rates that increase with increased water usage; · demand pricing, which employs rates that vary with the time of use (e.g., rates may increase during the summer or during the time of day when the demand peaks); · incentives, such as rebates or tax credits, for customers who conserve water; · monetary penalties for customers who use excessive quantities of water; C-4 · programs that publicize energy savings through reduction of metered cost, fuel for hot water, and electricity for pdvate wel/operation. LEGAL Building codes plumbing codes, zoning ordinances, and other local, state, and federal statues may include provisions designed to en- courage water conservation. Some activities that have been controlled by law, or may be considered for future legal action, include: · mandatory use of Iow water-use plumbing fixtures. (The use of efficient fixtures has been required for all new installations and all replacement units by a 1980 amendment to the New York State Environmental Conservation Law. This amendment and a subsequent revision, effective January, 1988, limit the flow in sin, k a, nd lavatory faucets an,d showerheads to 3 gallons per minute; the water usage or udnals to one gallon per nusn; and the usage of tohets to three and one-haft gallons per flush.); · mandatory use of water conserving models of appliances such as clothes washers and dishwashers; · metering of all water service lines and well pump discharge lines, including agricultural wells; · restrictions on the use of water for cooling, which could be included in well permits and invoked when required by local conditions; · restrictions on the use of water for lawn irrigation, car washing, swimming pool filling, fountains, etc. · restrictions on the use of water for industrial purposes. (For example, industries that use large quantities of water could be excluded by laws or ordinances from stressed areas. During droughts or other emergencies, the use of water for industrial purposes could be temporarily curtailed by government regulations); · restrictions on the percentage of a parcel of land that may be planted with irrigated high maintenance turf; · restrictions on the use of water for farm irrigation. PUBLIC EDUCATION A well informed public is an essential element of a successful water conservation program. All water users must be informed re- garding their source of water, limitations on the volume available, and the practices that jeopardize the quality or quantity of the water supply. The public must be aware of water conservation, and must be advised on how to participate. Public information programs may include the following elements: · direct mailings (e.g., water bill inserts, newsletters, pamphlets); · news media (e.g., newspapers, radio, television); · personal contact (e.g., telephone calls, public meetings, talks at schools, civic associations, and service clubs); · special events/e~hiblts (e.g., displays in shopping centers, county fairs, schools); · formal courses or contests in the elementary schools, high schools and colleges. Water Conservation in the Home Environment The following sections dsscdbe various water conservation programs that may be suitable for water uses inside and outside the home. The total estimated pumpage for interior and exterior uses in each of the five land use categories in Suffolk County is shown in the fol- lowing paragraphs. C-5 User Category Residential Commemial/Industrial Agricultural Institutional Cemetery/Golf Course TABLE C-2 1980 Interior and Exterior Water Use Interior Use Exterior Use Total (mgd) (mgd) Pumpage 111.7 23.2 134.9 43.0 1.2 44.2 0.0 15.3 15.3 8.3 1.6 9.9 0.0 3.3 3.3 163.0 44.6 207.6 Potential for Conservation in Exterior Water Use The exterior use (outdoor use) of 44.6 mgd, which is primarily for the irrigation of lawns, shrubbep/, and farmland, constitutes 21.5 percent of the total pumpage. This water is transmitted to the atmosphere by evaporation and transpiration; none of it is assumed to return to the aquifer (i.e., 100 percent consumptive use is assumed). The agricultural use of 15.3 mgd is significant since it represents 7.4 percent of the total pumpage in Suffolk County, and occurs in many areas where fresh groundwater resources are limited. There is presently no requirement to meter the flow from privately owned agricultural wells, and there is little incentive to reduce the quantity of water used (other than the cost-savings resulting from decreased pumpage). Conservation practices that can be employed in agriculture include better timing of irrigation; crop rotation using crops that re- quire less water (e.g., grain); and, drip irrigation, which is now becoming more feasible for application in Suffolk with the increas- ing popularity of orchards and nursery crops. The remaining 29.3 mgd of exterior use is primarily lawn irrigation. Although this activity is aesthetically rewarding, and improves the standard of living, it is non-essential. Education of the public to eliminate wasteful practices such as e~essive lawn irrigation can achieve significant savings, with no reduction in the standard of living. The quantity of water used for irrigation in new residential and commercial developments can be significantly reduced below pre- sent rates by limiting the percentage of tufted area; utilizing appropriate blends of turf grasses, land-covers, and landscaping shrubbery; and, installing separate meters to facilitate the charging of higher rates for water used outside of buildings. The potential exists in both existing and new areas to reduce peak and maximum day demands. By imposing restrictions on the use of water for exterior purposes (e.g., restrictions on the days and time of day that irrigation is permissible), such as those re- quired in Nassau County, reductions of maximum day and peak demands can be achieved. This can ultimately reduce costs and the need for new facilities, such as wells and storage tanks. Another potential for water conservation is the reduction of unmetered water in water supply systems. The difference between pumpage and sales, sometimes called unaccounted for water, which can often be more than 10 percent of total pumpage, includes leakage; water used by water purveyors for wall blowoff, filter backwash, and tank overltow; and, water discharged from hydrants. It is not feasible to eliminate all unmatered water, but a reduction in leakage is frequently cost-effective. A one percent reduction in pumpage could also eliminate the need for one or two wells and appurtenances. More significant savings would be realized by larger reductions in leakage. C-6 TABLE C-3 Residential Interior Water Use Estimated Use' Present Use W/th Conservation Water Use (gpcd) (%) (gpcd) % Savings Toilet 25 40 17.0 32 Bath 20 30 16.5 18 Lavatory Sink 3 5 2.5 17 Laundry 10 15 6.0 40 Dishwashing ~., 3 5 2.5 17 Drinking/Cooking 3 5 2.5 17 64 100 47,0 27 Potential for Conservation in Interior Water Use The typical residential interior use of water is shown below. The average interior use of water is appmxJmately 64 gallons per capita per day, primarily for toilet flushing, bathing, and laundry. It is estimated that a water conservation program consisting of public education, pressure regulation, and use of water saving ap- pliances and plumbing fixtures could reduce the use to 47 gpcd -- a 27 pement reduction -- with no impact on the standard of living. A similar reduction could also be achieved in institutions such as hospitals and dormitories, and in commemial estab- lishments. Water Conservation Considerations Some of the more viable water conservation methods to consider are: · creating a county-wide public information program aimed at creating a knowledgeable and cooperative citizenry. · creating specific sub-regional water conservation programs in areas where the water supply is stressed; · requiring water suppliem to prepare studies aimed at reducing leakage and other wasteful components of un~ccoun~d for [uater in their systems; metering all water pumped from wells, including public, commemial, and industrial wells; metering all water services, including public buildings and fire lines; · metering all agricultural irrigation wells; · eliminating decreasing block rates for water, and adopting uniform block rates or, when justified by expenditures, increasing block rates; · encourage elimination of household plumbing leaks and the voluntary conversion to water-efficient plumbing fixtures when their use is not mandated by law. (A tax incentive similar to those for energy conservation should be considered to encourage the installation of water-efficient units.); · incorporating the 1980 water conservation amendment to the New York State Environmental Conservation Law into state, county, and local building codes, and also encouraging enfomement of these regulations. (Also, publicizing the law as part of an educational program, and enforcing the prowsions of the statute regulating the sale of water-efficient fixtures through plumbing wholesalers and retailers.); · encouraging the use of water-saving appliances by stressing the potential savings in water and energy costs and the overall advantages of water conservation; · encouraging the reuse of water in industrial applications; · adopting restrictions on extedor water use aimed at reducing peak demands, maximum day demands, and overall outdoor use, when necessary; · limiting the percentage of land in newly developed areas that may be planted with turf; · installing separate meters in newly developed areas to measure the quantity of water used outdoors, and establishing a higher rate for outdoor use; C-7 · limiting the use of water by new industry, especially in quantity stressed areas. · encouraging the use of grasses, land-cover, and landscaping that will require less irrigation, and the voluntary reduction of turfed areas around existing residences and commercial buildings; · encouraging the use of moisture sensom, rather than timers or manually operated controls to activate lawn sprinklers; · encouraging or requiring appropriate water conservation measures by all classes of users, i.e., residential, commemial/industrial, agricultural, institutional, and cemeteries/golf courses; · carefully scrutinizing all applications for cooling water wells in order to avoid adverse effects, such as deterioration of water quality or a reduction in quantities available for essential purposes; A majority of these conservation methods can be considered for implementation as part of a public information program. Specific state and local legislation, however, may be required in some instances. Most of the methods are applicable on a county-wide ba- sis, although some may be more important for specific areas. C-8 Appendix D: EXISTING PROGRAMS* Introduction Overview of Major Agency Roles and Responsibilities The entire subject of groundwater management, particularly on Long Island, is extremely complex. The threats to the resoume are many and diverse. Correspondingly, there exists a variety of agencies and programs at all levels of government to control, manage, or regulate various threats; or to carry out other activities related to management of the resoume; or to protect public health and the environment. Concern for groundwater on Long Island is not new. The long standing importance of groundwater within the overall water resoume picture as a critical soume of drinking water supply, has always influenced the application of public health, water supply, and environmental programs. There is a very strong history of program activity on Long Island, with groundwater as a principal focus. Rarely, however, have agencies had the luxury of viewing the entire array of programs and ac- tivities as an integrated package with respect to overall management and protection of the groundwater resource. Existing pro; grams have derived much of their statutory authority and funding from the federal and state levels and have focused on specific types of threats (e.g., municipal and industrial wastewater discharges, landfills, etc.) to both ground and surface waters. Conse- quently, the mix of existing programs has developed piecemeal with respect to the groundwater resoume. Historically, the major integ~tors of programs on Long Island have been the local (county and city) health agencies, which have undertaken various lo- cal program initiatives as well as administering major portions of state environmental and public health programs through delega- tion. Long Island has been fortunate in having strong local agencies which have been able to effectively tailor the administration of many state and federal program initiatives to best meet groundwater resoume management needs. The program development efforts described in this document have not sought to create a new and separate program to replace the existing structure. Rather, program development is seen as a refining of existing institutions and program elements along with selected new program elements where justified, within an integrated framework. Most of the program elements required for Long Island groundwater management already exist. This Chapter will briefly describe the major existing programs and participants which currently manage Long Island's groundwaters. Table D-1 illustrates the existing program elements relating to groundwater management on Long Island, and the pattern of exist- ing agency roles and responsibilities. The Table categorizes program elements within eight major areas of program activity: · Resource Management: Program elements which apply to overall management of the resoume rather than the control of specific threats. · Source Control: Programs designed primarily to prevent water quality impacts from specific categories of pollution sources. · Zonin~ and Land Development Control: A critical category of prevention activities which are exclusively within the authority of local government. · Water Supply: Programs to prevent water quantity impacts and protect consumers through public water supply regulation. · Response and Remediation: Programs to investigate groundwater contamination, locate and cut off its soumes, and help users to find aitemative sources of supply. · Public Education and Participation. · Research. · Regulatory Enforcement. Public education and participation, research and regulatory enforcement are essential activities supporting all of the other pro- gram elements. The element-by-element description of existing programs, which begins on page D-4, is organized according to the general categories shown in Table D-1. * New York State Department of Environmental Conserva~on, 1986, Lo~glslandGroundwaterMana~ernentPr~gram. D-1 TABLE D.-1 Summary of Existing Programs Related to Major Groundwater Management Agencies Program Area F{esoume Management Standards & Classifications Planning & Review Monitoring, Data Coll. & Manipulation Env. Review {SEQR, Sole Source) Regulatory Program Direction Hazardous Material St·rage/Handling Ind./Comm. & Hazardous Wastes Municipal Solid VVaste Sewage Treatment Ind./Comm. Wastewater On-Site Sanitary Waste Pasticide/Fertilizer Age~an~a~n 000000000000000000000 O,e · 0000 · · 0 · 00 * 00000 0=00000000000000000000 0 O0 · · · 0 · 0 · · 0 0 · · · · · 0 · 0 OeO · · 0 · · · · 0 0 · · · Zoning & Land Development Controls I I I I I I I I Io[ I I [ lei I Iol [ Ioi I Water SMDD~V Well Permits & Driller Registrations Public Water Supply 0 0 · · · · · · · · · · Contamination Response/Supedund Contaminated Aquifer Management Well Head Treatment Sew·ring Regional Water DisE & Importation O0 ·00 0 0,0 O· ·0· Public Education & Participation Reseamh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Iollllolollollllllllllllotl Legend: ~-]Primary Program Role [-~--]Participating Program Role ~Little or No Role D-2 Arrayed against the program elements in a matrix format are agencies and organizations. The sheer size of the matrix (23 ele- ments by 21 agencies or categories of organizations) is ample illustration of the complexity and diversify of the existing institu- tional framework for Long Island groundwater management. As shown, a variety of federal, state and local agencies are directly responsible, or are otherwise involved in the various management, regulatory, or other activifies which collectively comprise the ground-water management framework. In many cases, a particular agency or agencies carry out important activifies within a program element. These are shown as hav- ing pr~mc~y program roles. In other cases, the program activity is one in which all or most agencies are involved in the normal course of doing business; or an agency has a significant but not central or statutorily mandated role. These are shown as having participc~ting program roles. Several conclusions can be drawn from this Table with respect to the structure of agency roles and responsibilifies: - There are five principal regulatory management agencies which have major statutory authority and carry out the bulk of the actual regulatory program activities in the areas of standards setting, contaminant source controls, water quantify regulation, public water supply regulation, and regulatory enfomement.These are the New York State Departments of Environmental Conservation and Health; the Nassau and Suffolk County Health Departments; and the New York City Department of Health. They can reasonably be viewed as the core regulatory participants in the overall program. - Other federal, state and regional level agencies have important roles in the current program, but the roles are generally limifed in scope. These include the USEPA, the USGS, the LIRPB, and the Nassau County Department of Public Works. Many of these agencies have crifical roles in one or more program elements. - Cifies, towns and villages have the major statutory authorify for zoning and land use control, a crifical element where the ma or state county and federal agencies have ne authorify. These local jurisdictions also play a major role in the construction and operat on of facilifies, and in nc dent response. Prior to an element-by-element description of the existing program, it is important to review the major participants at the federal, state, county and local levels and their areas of responsibility. FEDERALLEVEL There are two federal agencies wifh important roles and responsibilifies in groundwater management: The []'.S. Protection A~enc~ (USEPA) and the U.S. C-eolog~cal Survey (USGS), a unit of the Department of Interior. The Environmental Protection Agency The USEPA is the major federal environmental agency and is responsible for the administration of several federal programs which provide regulatory safeguards against groundwater contamination. These include programs under the Resource Conserva- tion and Recovery Act (RCRA); Superfund (CERCLA); the Clean Water Act (CWA); the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); the Toxic Substances Control Act ('rscA); and the Safe Ddnking Water Act (SDWA). EPA policy is generally to delegate specific programs to the States, upon request and upon attainment of legislative require- ments; to provide flexibilify for States to effectively implement the policies and plans embodied wifhin their groundwater pre- grams, to the extent permitted by statute; to oversee state performance in carrying out delegated national programs which use federal grants; and to support the States through provision of technical expertise and research. New York State has sought and received delegation of several federal programs. Of particular importance for the state's greund- water program are the delegated progreme under the Clean Water Act delegated to NYSDOH. The authorifies provided under these Acts are mirrored by comparable state legislation, and the delegated programs provide essential funding support to assist state programs in water pollution control and solid and hazardous waste management. EPA has been developing an agency policy on groundwater which recognizes that state and local governments have the principal responsibilify for the management and protection of groundwater. This is consistent wifh New York State's program, and the Long Island program wifh the exception that USEPA should move aggressively to develop national drinking water quality standards and national technology standards for ind_ustria! wastew~ter tre~tmen!. N~!ior)~! st~nd~rH-_~ in these- ~n:~.~ ~re ~,.~ential to estab- lish a reasonable level of equity among States and regions. D-3 The U.S. Geological Survey The second major federal agency with a critical role in Long Island groundwater management is the USGS. Historically, USGS programs to define and evaluate the groundwater resource have provided much of the available information on Long Island's groundwater resoume. The USGS is a highly professional organization which will continue to have an important role in conduct- ing groundwater resoume evaluations to support the program. The USGS maintains a sub-District (i.e., sub-State) office on Long Island and conducts resoume evaluations through cooperative agreements with several local (county) agencies in the area as well as with state agencies. STATE LEVEL The two state agencies with the most extensive responsibilities and programs are the Departments of Environmental Conserva- tion (NYSDEC) and Health (NYSDOH). DEC is the environmental agency of the state, responsible for assuring the quality and quantity management of groundwater that is loose in the environment. The DOH is the public health agency of the state, responsible for assuring delivery of a safe water supply to the public. Department of Environmental Conservation The Department of Environmental Conservation has the responsibility for administering an array of environmental quality and natural resource programs, several of which directly relate to groundwater. Principal among these are the water quality and water resource programs, currently administered by the Division of Water. However, they also include programs in areas such as Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, Pesticide Regulation, Mineral Resoumes, Oil and Gas Regulation, and others. DEC is spe- cifically charged with the coordinated manaEen~nt of water r~sources (ECL Article 15) and the control of water pollution and maintenance of reasonable standards of purity of the State's waters, both ground and surface (ECL Article 17). Major elements of the Department's water program integral to Long Island groundwater management include water resources planning, water quality standards and classifications, water quality manitoring and surveillance, municipal and industrial wastewa- ter discharge permits (SPDES) and programs for the development, operation and maintenance of municipal wastewater facilities. Also, the DEC's Long Island Well Permit program constitutes the only currently existing statutory authority and program for quan- tity management on Long Island. Department of Health The Department of Health under the New York State Public Health Law is responsible generally for the protection of public health and, more particularly, for assuring a safe potable supply of water for the State's citizens. Under the Public Health Law and Part 5 of the State Sanitary Cede, DOH administers a major program to assure that all public water supply systems in the state are propedy operated and maintained and that all consumers are assured delivery of a safe and adequate supply of water. This pro- gram includes activities relating to regulation of public water supply facility design and construction; periodic monitoring of the quality of waters delivered to the tap; periodic inspection and evaluation of all public water systems; emergency response to water supply systems experiencing critical water quality or quantity problems; laboratory services; and establishment and en- fomement of state drinking water standards. Because water supply is the dominant and most important use of groundwater, the DOH necessarily has a very strong role in groundwater management. New York State Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of Long Island The State Legislative Commission was established in 1979 through the action of the State Legislature as an indication of its con- cern about water resource problems on Long Island. The Commission's mandate authorizes it to . investigate and evaluate studies and reports; D-4 · recommend ways to regulate and supervise activities that deplete, defile, damage or adversely affect the waters and lands of Nassau and Suffolk; · identify uncontaminated soumes of water; · recommend legislative or administrative actions to preserve and protect the water resoumes. In addition to its legislative role, the Commission works closely with the towns and counties, citizen groups, and the various agencies, as an advocate to improve and facilitate efforts directed at water management and protection. COUNTY AND LOCAL LEVELS State and federal agencies, by themselves, will never have the full range of authority, resources, and capability to adequately manage and protect Long Island's groundwater resources. Historically, much of the basic regulatory program for which authority resides at the state level has actually been carried out at the County level through delegation. Patterns of land use and urban de- velopment are important determinants of impacts on Long Island's aquifer system. Authority to control land use lies strictly at the local (town, city and village) level. County and City Health Agencies The Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS), the Nassau County Department of Health (NCDH) and the New York City Department of Health (NYCDOH) are the major local regulatory agencies addressing groundwater on Long Island. These agencies administer, through delegation, major elements of state (DEC and DOH) programs for water pollution control, solid waste management and water supply regulation which are critical to the groundwater program. In addition, these agencies administer groundwater programs utilizing their own legal authority and funding. For example, a local program of major impor- tance is the Suffolk County Article 12 program to regulate the storage and handling of hazardous materials. These major County regulatory agencies - acting either under their own authority or as agents of the state - currently perform the bulk of the day-to-day activities required to administer regulatory programs for groundwater management and protection on Long Island. The very central role of these agencies will undoubtedly continue in the futura. Long Island Regional Planning Board The Long Island Regional Planning Board (LIRPB) has also played an important role in groundwater protection by developing the 1978 Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan (Nassau/Suffolk 208 Plan) and related planning projects. This plan focused public awareness on the sensitivity of Long Island's groundwater resource and advanced a series of recom- mendations, including the Hydrogeologic Zones, for protecting the resource. Through its planning oversight role, the LIRPB has encouraged and assisted local governments to render zoning and land use decisions strengthening groundwater protection. Towns, Cities, and Villages Towns, cities and villages in New York State ara vested, under state law, with responsibility for regulation of land use. Land use controls will necessarily be an important element of groundwater protection programs on Long Island in the future, particularly in critical geographic areas subject to development pressure. The groundwater management program in New York State, will look to local governments to carry out zoning and other land use control responsibilities in a manner which will assist in providing for bet- ter protection of the resource. Further, local governments play a major role in groundwater management through their direct op- eration of well fields, water and sewage treatment plants, and landfills. In these operational functions they ara the direct consumers of the groundwater and are responsible for direct threats to the groundwater. D-5 Appendix E: WATERSHED RULES AND REGULATIONS Introduction Over the years a groat many groundwater monitoring and pollution investigations have taken place on Long Island. The result of these efforts have supported the obvious conclusion that man's activity on the land sun'ace can and often does lead to groundwa- ter contamination. This contamination may be areawide, as in the case of urbanization or farming, or localized as in the case of a point soume such as a landfill or industrial discharge. The extent of contamination is documented in many studies and plans, among the most recent of them, the Suffolk County Water Resource Management Plan (SCWRMP); the Long Island Groundwater Pollution Study (LIGWPS); the New York State Water Resource Management Study - L.I. Region; and the studies and reports issued by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). In addition to studies, the various government entities have enacted regulations to protect groundwater. The Environmental Pro- tection Agency (EPA) has issued regulations addressing water pollution, hazardous wastes, and drinking water. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has enacted many regulations dealing with solid waste, hazardous wastes, etc., through the Environmental Conservation Law and subsequent rules and regulations. The New York State Department of Health has similar laws and regulations administered through the Public Health Law and the State Sanitary Cede. Local govern- ment - - in this instance, Nassau County and Suffolk County - - has each enacted its own groundwater protection rules and regu- lations. Most of these measures are contained in the various sections or Articles of their respective Sanitary Codes. The content of seven such articles, three from Nassau and four from Suffolk, are summarized below. Article VI of the Nassau County Sanitary Code titled Public Drinking Water Supply regulates the public drinking water supply in order to assure the protection of soumes and the quality of drinking water and to provide for the effective design, operation and safety of public water supply facilities. Article VI, Section 5, provides requirements for the protection of sources of drinking water which include Department preparation of County-wide Wellhead Protection Regulations which must be approved by the Board of Health and which will take precedence over Watershed Rules and Regulations of individual public water suppliers except where the latter are more restrictive. In order to preserve groundwater quality beneath the SGPAs, Article X of the Nassau County Public Health Ordinance requires that within an SGPA each new residence utilizing an on-site sewage disposal system be located on a pamel having an aroa of at least 40,000 square feet per dwelling unit or the equivalent, based upon sewage flow, for non-residential uses. The ordinance also applies to any building or structure within an SGPA which would result from a proposed alteration, addition or change of us- age. The discharge of industrial wastewater, even if treated, is prohibited within these areas. All facilities within SGPAs in Nassau County, including those operated by municipalities, hospitals, laboratories, nursing homes, commercial and industrial establishments, educational institutions and country clubs, aro also subject to Article Xl of the Nassau County Public Health Ordinance. This ordinance regulates the storage, handling and control of toxic and hazardous materials in- cluding chemicals, heating oil, road deicing salt and medical waste. In Suffolk, Article 4 of the County Sanitary Code deals with water supply and recognizes that Long Island's groundwater is the sole source of drinking water. The regulation covers new soumes of water, bottled water, water treatment, prevention of cross- connections, etc., as required to protect the purity of the water supplied to the consumer. Article 6 establishes the requirements for water supply and sewage disposal for roalty subdivision, commemial and industrial de- velopments. It recognizes the various groundwater management zones; imposes specific requirements for each zone, and em- phasizss the need to limit pctential wastewater generation associated with future lind uses, especially in Hydrogeologic Zones Ill, V and VI. Article 7 deals with the control of specific sources of pollution. It recognizes the water supply importance of deep recharge and water supply sensitive areas and attempts to protect them through prevention and control of contaminants. The regulations aro quite specific in prohibiting the types of hazardous materials that can be stored at locations within the deep flow recharge aroa. E-1 Article 12 deals with the storage and handling of toxic and hazardous materials. Because it was enacted in 1980, it became the benchmark for subsequent state and federal regulations. The regulations apply to the design, construction, and testing of under- ground and above ground storage tanks as well as indoor and outdoor storage areas. All of these studies and regulations focus on the overall goal of protecting and preventing further contamination of Nassau and Suffolk County's groundwater and, thereby, hopefully providing safe and plentiful ddnking water for the future. They all recognize that the aquifer system has been impacted by past and present land use. As a result, environmental programs have a two-fold di- rection: dealing with the present contamination and preventing further contamination. These two concerns become important in the development of Watershed Rules and Regulations. Detailed wellhead protection measures can be and frequently are a key component of watershed rules and regulations. The views of the Advisory Council respecting the applicability and significance of a wellhead by wellhead or well field by well field ap- proach to the maintenance of high quality ground water is reflected in the relevant sections of chapters two and five. Examples of Proposed Watershed Rules and Regulations Two sets of WRRs, one designed to protect the small watershed of an upstate village and one recommended by an environ- mental lobby on Long Island have been included for information only. Neither has been endorsed by the Advisory Council, which believes that the existing body of federal, state and local laws and regulations constitute an uncodified but generally effective set of watershed rules and regulations. Example One Proposed Rules and Regulations for the Village of Millbrook, Dutchess County N.Y. Pursuant to the authority vested in the State Commissioner of Health by Section 1100 of the Public Health Law, new section 112.5 of Part 112 'l-~tle 10 (Health) of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules Regulations of the State of New York, to be effec- tive upon publication Notice of Adoption is hereby added to read as follows: SECTION 112.5 Village of Millbrook, Dutchess County. (a) APPLICATION: The rules and regulations set forth in this Section duly made and enacted in accordance with the provisions of Section 1100- 1107 of the Public Health Law shall apply to the source of public water supply of the Village of Millbrook. Said water supply is located approximately one mile east of the Village along NYS Route 44 On land identified as Dutchess County Office of Real Property Tax number 6865-265185. The location of boundaries designated for the protection zones, which compdse the Millbrook public water supply watershed, are described on the watershed protection zone described on the watershed protec- tion zone map, dated April 1992 and filed with the New York State Commissioner of Health, Albany, New York, and with the Village Clerk of the Village of Millbrook, Dutchess County, New York, and included as Appendix A of these Rules. (b) DEFINITIONS: (1) Agricultural associated animal waste shall mean manure obtained from agricultural industries. (2) Aquifer shall mean a consolidated or unconsolidated formation or groups or par~s thereof, capable of storing and releasing water. (3) Chloride salt- Any bulk quantities of chloride compounds and other deicing compounds intended for application to roads, including mixtures of sand and chloride compounds in any proportion where the chloride compounds constitute over eight percent of the mixture. A bulk quantity of chloride compounds means a quantity of one thousand or more .but does not include ,any chloride comp,ounds, in a solid form, including granules which are packaged in waterproof bags or containers wnich do not exceea one nundred pounds each. (4) Commissioner of Health unless otherwise noted, shall be the Commissioner of Health of the State of New York. E-2 (5) Disposa/shall mean the discharge, deposit, in ection, dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing of any solid waste, radioactive material hazardous waste, or wastewater into or on any land or water so that such solid waste, radioactive material, hazardous waste, or wastewater will remain on the land or water and w not be removed. (6) Environmentalassessment form shall be a form used by an agency to assist it in determining the environmental significance or nonsignificance of actions as defined in 6 NYCRR, Part 617. (7) Fertilizers shall be any commercially produced mixture generally containing phosphorous, nitrogen, and potassium which is applied to the ground to increase nutrients to plants. (8) Floodplain shall be the 100-year high water level of streams, ponds, estuaries, and lakes. (9) Groundwatershall be any water beneath the land surface in the saturated zone. (10) Hazardous materialshall mean any substance listed in either 6 NYCRR Part 371, or 6 NYCRR Part 597, alone or in combination, including but not limited to petroleum products, organic chemical solvents, heavy metal sludges, acids with a pH less than or equal to 2, alkalies with a pH greater than or equal to 12.5, pathogenic or infectious waste or any material exhibiting the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity or EP toxicity (11) Herbicides shall mean any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any weed, and being those substances defined as herbicides pursuant to Environmental Conservation Law Section 33-0101. (12) Human excreta shall mean human feces and urine. (13) Manure shall mean animal feces and urine. (14) Non-agricu#ural associated animal waste shall mean manure obtained from non-agricultural industries. (15) Non-point discharge shall mean discharges of pollutants not subject to SPDES State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements. (16) Open storage shall mean the holding of a material in a way that the material is exposed to the elements of nature. (17) Pest shall mean (1) any insect, rodent, fungus, weed, or (2) any form of terrestrial or aquatic plant or animal lite or virus bacteria or other micro-organism (except viruses, bacteria or micro-organisms on or in hving man or other living animals) which the Commissioner of Environmental Conservation declares to be a pest as pmv ded by Env mnmenta Conservation Law Section 33-0101. (18) Pesticide shall mean any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest, and any substance or mixture of substances intended for use as a plant regulator, defoliant or desiccant, and being those substances defined as pesticides pursuant to Environmental Conservation Law Section 33-0101 et seq. (19) Point Source discharge shall mean pollutants discharged from a point soume as defined in Environmental Conservation Law Section 17-0105. (20) Protection zone shall mean any of the watershed management zones, as delineated on the watershed protection zone map, dated April 1992, and included as Appendix Aof these Rules and described herein. These zones shall be designated Zone I, Zone II and Zone III. (21) Radioactive material shall mean any material in any form that emits radiation spontaneously, excluding those radioactive materials or devices containing radioactive materials whose receipt, possession, use and transfer are exempt from licensing and regulatory control pursuant to regulations of the New York State Department of Labor or United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (22) Radiation shall mean ionizing radiation; that is, any alpha particle, beta particle, gamma ray, x-ray, neutron, high-speed proton, and any other atomic particle producing ionization, but shall not mean any sound or radio wave, or visible, infrared, or ultraviolet light. (23) Recyclables handling and recovery facility shall mean a solid waste management facility, other than pickup and transfer vehicles, at which recyclables are separated from the solid waste stream, or at which previously separated recyclables are collected, for collection, storage, and off-site shipment. (24) Septage shall be the contents of a septic tank, cesspool, or other individual wastewater treatment wo~ which receives domestic sewage wastes. (25) Sludge shall be the solid, semi-solid or liquid waste generated from a waste processing facility, but does not include the liquid stream of effluent. (26) Solid waste shall mean all putrescible and nonputrescible materials or substances discarded or rejected as being spent, useless, worthless or in excess to the owners at the time of such discard or rejection, including but not limited to garbage, refuse, industrial and commercial waste, sludges from air or water control facilities, rubbish, ashes, contained gaseous material, incinerator residue, demolition and construction debris, discarded automobiles and offal but not including sewage and other highly diluted water carried materials or substances and those in gaseous form, and being those wastes defined as solid waste pursuant to Environmental Conservation Law Section 27-0701. E-3 (27)Solid waste management facility means any facility employed beyond the initial waste collection process including, but not limited to, transfer stations, bailing facilities, rail haul or barge haul facilities, processing systems including resoume recovery facilities or other facilities for reduc ng so d waste volume, sanitary landfills, facilities for the disposal of construction and demolition debris, plants and facilities for compacting, composting or pyrolization of solid wastes, incinerators and other solid waste disposal, reduction or conversion facilities, as defined in Environmental Conservation Law Section 27-0701 et seq. (28) Spill shall mean the leaking, pumping, emitting, emptying or dumping of wastes or materials into or on any land or water. (29) State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) shall mean the system established pursuant to Article 17 Title 8 of Environmental Conservation Law for issuance of permits authorizing discharges to the waters of the State of New York. (30) Stormwater runoff recharge basins shall mean a man-made device capable of retaining surface water runoff to induce groundwater infiltration. (31) Supplier of Water shall mean the Village of Millbrook, Dutchess County, New York, incorporated under the laws of New York State. The Village of Millbrook is the owner and operator of the public water supply facilities located within the watershed protection zones as described on the watershed protection zone maps, datedAl~ri11992, filed with the New York State Commissioner of Health, Albany, New York, and with the Village Clerk of the V~llage of Millbrook, Dutchess County, New York, and included as Appendix A of these Rules. (32) Wastewater treatment workshall mean any treatment plant, sewer, disposal field, lagoon, pumping station septic system, collection and distribution pipes, on-site disposal systems and seepage units, constructed drainage ditch or surface water intercepting ditch, or other works not specifically mentioned in this paragraph, installed for the purpose of transport, treatment, neutralization, stabilization, storage, or disposal of wastewater. (33) Wastewatershall mean aqueous carried waste including, but not limited to, dredge spoil, solid waste hazardous waste, incinerator ash and residue, septage, garbage, refuse, sludge, chemical waste, infectious waste, biological material, radioactive materials, heat, and industrial, municipal and agricultural waste. (34) Water Supply Protection Zone shall mean the land area, known as Zone II, delineated on the map, dated Apd11992 and filed with the New York State Commissioner of Health and with the Village Clerk of the Village of Millbrook, and included as Appendix A of these rules. The Water Supply Protection Zone includes a portion of the Millbrook stream bed, a portion of the intermittent surface stream network, the southeastern gravel deposit areas of the watershed and other areas of the watershed having gravely and sandy soils. (35) Watershed Protection Zone shall mean the land area, known as Zone III, which is tributary to Zone II and is the tributary surface area from which the aquifer is replenished by runoff. The Watershed Protection Zone is delineated on the map, dated April 1992 and filed with the New York State Commissioner of Health and with the Village Clerk of the Village of Mi#brook, and included as Appendix A of these Rules. (36) Water supply shall mean the public water supply of the Village of Millbmok. (37) Watercourse shall mean eveP/spring, stream, wetland, marsh, and channel or conduit of water which flow or may flow into the Village of Millbrook public water supply. (38) Watershedshall mean that land area which contributes water to a specific stream, aquifer or aquifer recharge area or portion(s) thereof and shall include the three designated protection zones known as Zone I, Zone II, and Zone (39) Well shall mean any present or future artificial excavation used as a source of public water supply which derives water from the interstices of the rocks or soils which it penetrates including bored wells, drilled wells, driven wells infiltration galleries, and trenches with perforated piping, but excluding ditches or tunnels, used to convey groundwater to the surface. (40) Well Head Protection Zone shall mean the _+119.0 acre parcel owned by the supplier of water (identified as tax pamel #6865-265185) located at the confluence of the Shaw Brook and the Mill Brook which contains the public water supply facilities and the well cone of depression. This zone shall also be known as Zone I as delineated on the map, dated April 1992 and filed with the New York State Commissioner Health and with the Village Clerk of the Village as Appendix A of these Rules. (c) GENERAL PROVISIONS. (1) The manufacture, use, storage, disposal or discharge of any products, materials or by-products, such as wastewater, solid waste, hazardous waste or any pollutant within the identified protection zones must conform to the requirements of these Rules. (2) Any person or entity preparing an environmental assessment form or an environmental impact statement for a project in Zones I, II, or III as defined in this section shall file a copy with the Commissioner of Health and the supplier of water. (3) An inventory and census shall be initiated and updated every five years by the supplier of water of all systems, facilities and activities in the protection zones that may contribute to water supply source contamination including, as a minimum, those activities included in the original inventory and census, a summary of which is included as Appendix B of these rules. E-4 (4) Spills: Within any of the herein defined Protection Zones, any person who is the owner of, or in actual or constructive possession or control of a hazardous material, petroleum, or radioactive material, or any agent or employ, ee thereof, or any person in a contractual relationship therewith, who is responsible for, or has knowledge of any sp~ll, as defined in subdivision (b) above, of any hazardous material, petroleum or radioactive material to the ground surface or any water body, shall notify the supplier of water, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Dutchess County Department of Health. All spills shall be reported to the supplier of water, the New York State Deparlment of Environmental Conservation and the Dutchess County Department of Health within two (2) hours of such spill or when knowledge of such spill is obtained and shall be abated in accordance with the provisions of Article 12 of the Navigation Law, Sect ons 170 through 197, and Article 17 of the New York Slate Environmenta Conservation Law. (d) SPECIFIC REGULATIONS: ZONE I (I) All land shall be protected and controlled through direct ownership of the land or through the acquisition of protective easements or other appropriate measures by the supplier of water in order to prevent contamination. (2) All systems, facilities and activities are prohibited except for physical pumping and treatment facilities and controls. The area shall not be used for any purpose other than public water supply except when a permit has been issued by the Village Board for non-intrusive recreation uses such as hunting, fishing, picnicking, nature study, or hiking. (3) The development of the water sources shall be designed, constructed and maintained subject to the approval and enfomement authority of the Dutchess County Health Department and New York State Health Department so as to eliminate the opportunity for pollution to enter the water sources. (4) The physical pumping facilities and controls shall be protected against damage from tampering by fencing or other enclosures or by their manner of construction and installation. (5) The area shall be posted prohibiting trespass for any purpose except as permitted in subdivision (d)(2) above. (e) SPECIFIC REGULATIONS: ZONE II (1) Wastewater Treatment Works: (i) all wastewater treatment works receiving wastewater without the admixture of industrial or other wastes, as these terms are defined in Environmental Conservation Law Section 17-0701, in quantities of less than 11000 gallons per day shall be designed, installed and maintained in accordance with the standards established in 10 NYCRR Part 75 (Appendix 75A) and any wastewater disposal standards promulgated by the Dutchese County Health Department where such standards are more stringent. Where required, permits for the installation or continued use of wastewater treatment works-shall be obtained and may be denied when rapid percolation is found; and (ii) all other wastewater treatment works, including design, installation and maintenance, are sub ecl to the approval and enforcement authority of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservat on. (2) Point Source Discharge. Point soume discharges, other than stormwater runoff conduits and discharges pursuant to Subdivision e(I)(i) of this section, are prohibited except pursuant to an authorization issued by the New York State Deparlment of Environmental Conservation. (3) Septage and Sludge: (i) storage of septage, sludge or human excreta, other than storage associated with the operation of an individual wastewater treatment work, is prohibited; and (ii) the land application of septage, sludge or human excreta is prohibited. (4) Solid Waste Management Facilities. The establishment or continued operation of solid waste management facilities are prohibited, except for a disposal area located within the property boundaries of a single family residence or farm for solid waste generated from that residence or farm or a recyclables handling and recovery fac~l"~fy with an on-site capacity not exceeding 450 tons peryear, operated pursuant to a valid permit, regulatory exemption or other authorization by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. (5) Animal Waste Storage. Areas utilized for the storage stockpiling of manure and agricultural associated animal waste shall be constructed and maintained such that seepage, leachate or runoff from storage or stockpiling of animal waste cannot adversely impact the qualify of the groundwater or surface water. (6) Hazardous Material: (i) storage and use of hazardous material are subject to the approval and enforcement authority of the State Department of Environmental Conservation or other agency having jurisdiction; and (ii) disposal of hazardous material is prohibited. (7) Radioactive Material. Storage, use and disposal of radioactive material are subject to the approval and enforcement authodfy of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the State Department of Health, and any other state or federal agency having jurisdiction. E-5 (8) Fertilizer and Manure Use: (i) open storage of fertilizers for non-farm and non-residential use is prohibited; (ii) agricultural use of fertilizers and land application of manure shall be in conformance with best management ,p, ractices as developed by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and contained in Controlling Agricultural Nonpoint Source Water Pollution in New York State - A Guide to the Selection of Best Management Practices to Improve and Protect Water Quality", dated 1991, and included as Appendix C of these rules; and (iii) fertilizer use for non-farm and non-residential usage shall not be applied in a manner or at rates which would contaminate the Village water supply. (9) Pesticide and Herbicide Use: (i) pesticide and herbicide storage and use are sub ect to the approval and enforcement authority of the New York State Department of Environmenta Conservat on; (ii) disposal of pesticides, including herbicides other than for those uses set forth in subdivision (e)(9)(i) of this section, is prohibited; (iii) disposal of water used for make-up water or for washing of equipment is prohibited except pursuant to an authorization issued by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; and (iv) use of streams as a soume of water or for make-up water or washing of equipment used in conjunction with pesticides and herbicides is prohibited. (10) Petroleum Storage: (i) aboveground or underground petroleum storage tanks, including design, installation and maintenance, are subject to the approval and enforcement authority of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation as per Environmental Conservation Law Sections 17-0303 and 17-1001 et seq; and (ii) abandoned petroleum tanks are subject to the closure requirements of 6 NYCRR, Section 613.9. (11) Stockpiles: (i) storage of chloride salts is prohibited except in structures designed to minimize contact with precipitation and constructed on Iow permeability pads designed to control seepage and runoff; and (ii) storage of coal is .prohibited except in structures designed to minimize contact with precipitation and constructed on Iow permeability pads designed to control seepage and runoff. (12) Chloride Salt Application. Deicing chloride salt use is restricted to the minimum amount needed for public safety. (13) Construction and Closure of Wells: (i) oil and gas well construction, maintenance and abandonment are subject to the approval and enforcement authority of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; and (ii) water supply well construction, maintenance and abandonment are subject to the approval and enforcement authority of the Dutchess County Health Department and the New York State Health Department as set forth in standards and procedures contained in Part 5-1.22 ol~ the State Sanitary Cede and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation under 6 NYCRR, Part 601. (14) Cemeteries. All cemeteries shall be operated to prevent contamination of the public water supply. (15) Sediment Generation: (i) farm tillage practices shall be in conformance with best management practices as developed by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, included in "Controlling Agricultural Nonpoint Source Water Pollution in New York State - A Guide to the Selection of Best Management Practices to Improve and Protect Water Quality, dated 1991, and included as Appendix C of these rules; and (ii) land disturbing activities which may result in deterioration of the quality or quantity of the public water supply source, including general construction, highway construction, access road construction and maintenance are prohibited except where remedial measures have been put in place to prevent erosion and sediment production. (f) SPECIFIC REGULATIONS: ZONE III (1) Wastewater Treatment Works: (i) all wastewater treatment works receiving wastewater without the admixture of industrial or other wastes, as those terms are defined in Environmental Conservation Law, Section 17-0701, in quantities of less than 1,000 gallons per day shall be designed installed and maintained in accordance with the standards established in 10 NYCRR Part 75 (Appendix 75A) and any wastewater disposal standards promulgated by the Dutchese County Health Department where such standards are more stringent. Where required, permits for the installation or continued use of wastewater treatment works shall be obtained; and (ii) all other wastewater treatment works, including design, installation and maintenance, are subject to the approval and enforcement authority of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, or its agent. E-6 (2) Point Source Discharge. Point soume discharges, other than stormwater runoff conduits and discharges pursuant to subdivision (f)(I)(i) of this section, are prohibited except pursuant to an authorization issued by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. (3) Septage and Sludge: (i) land application of septage, sludge or human excreta within 200 linear feet of any stream, watercourse or Zone Ior Zone II boundary is prohibited; and (ii) land application of septage, sludge or human excreta which is permitted under this subdivision shall be pursuant to a permit issued by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation or New York State Department of Health as appropriate. (4) Solid Waste Management Facilities. Solid Waste Management facilities may be established or operated pursuant to a valid permit, regulatory exemption, or other authorization issued by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. (5) Animal Waste Storage. Areas utilized for the storage or stockpiling of manure and agricultural associated animal waste shall be constructed and maintained such that seepage, leachate or runoff from storage or stockpiling of animal waste cannot adversely impact the quality of the groundwater or surface water. (6) Hazardous Material. Storage, use and disposal of hazardous matedal are subject to the approval and enfomement authority of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York State Department of Health or other agency having jurisdiction. (7) Radioactive Material. Storage, use, or disposal of radioactive material are subject to the approval and,enforcement authority of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York State Department of Health and other state or federal agencies having jurisdiction. (8) Fertilizer and Manure Use: (i) open storage of fertilizers for non-farm and non-residential use is prohibited; (ii) agricultural use of fertilizers and land application of manure shall be in conformance with best management practices as developed by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation as included in "Controlling Agricultural Nonpoint Source Water Pollution in New York State - A Guide to the Selection of Best Management Practices to Improve and Protect Water Quality," dated 1991, and included as Appendix C of these rules; and (iii) fertilizers for nonfarm and non-residential usage shall not be applied in a manner or at rates which would contaminate the Village water supply. (9) Pesticide, including Herbicide, Use: (i) all pesticide, including herbicide, storage, application and use shall be subject to approval and enfomement authority of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; (ii) disposal of pesticides, including herbicides, other than those uses set forth in subdivision (f)(9)(i) of this section is prohibited unless approved by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; (iii) disposal of water used for make-up water or for washing of equipment is prohibited except pursuant to an authorization issued by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; and (iv) use of streams for make-up water or washing of equipment used in conjunction with pesticides and herbicides is prohibited. (10) Petroleum Storage: (i) aboveground or underground petroleum storage tanks shall be installed, operated and maintained as required by Environmental Conservation Law Sections 17-0303 and 17-1001 et seq; and (ii) abandoned petroleum tanks are subject to the closure requirements of 6 NYCRR, Section 613.9. (11) Stockpiles: (i) storage of chloride salts is prohibited except in structures designed to minimize contact with precipitation and constructed on Iow permeability pads designed to control seepage and runoff; and (ii) storage of coal is prohibited except in structures designed to minimize contact with precipitation and constructed on Iow permeability pads designed to control seepage and runoff. (12) Chloride Salt Application. Deicing chloride salt use is restricted to a minimum amount needed for public safety. (13) Construction and Closure of Wells: (i) oil and gas well construction, maintenance and abandonment are subject to the approval and enforcement authority of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; and (ii) water supply well construction, maintenance and abandonment ara subject to the approval and enforcement authority of the Dutchess County Department of Health and the New York State Health Department as set forth in the standards and procedures contained in Part 5-1.22 of the State Sanitary Code and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation under 6 NYCRR, Part 601. E-7 (14) Cemeteries. All cemeteries shall be operated to prevent contamination of the public water supply. (15) Sediment Generation: (i) farm tillage practices shall be in conformance with best management practices as developed by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation included in "Controlling Agricultural Nonpoint Source Water Pollution in New York State - A Guide to the Selection of Best Management Practices to Improve and Protect Water Qualify", dated 1991, and included as Appendix C of these Rules; and (ii) land disturbing activifies which may result in the deterioration of the quality or quantity of the public water supply source including general construction, highway construction, access road construction and maintenance are prohibifed except where remedial measures have been put in place to minimize erosion and sediment production. (g) INSPECTIONS: The officials of the Village of Millbrook, or any persons charged wifh the maintenance or supervision of the public water sup- ply system by ifs officers or their duly appointed representative, shall make regular and thorough inspections of the identi- fiod protection zones to ascertain compliance with the rules and regulations set forth in this section. It shall be the duty of the aforesaid officials to cause copies of any rules and regulations violated to be served upon the persons violating the same, together with notices of such violations. If such persons served do not immediately comply wifh the rules and regula- tions, if shall be the further duty of the aforesaid officials to promptly notify the Commissioner of Health or his designee of such violations. The aforesaid shall report to the State Commissioner of Health in wrifing annually, prior to the 30th day of January, the re- suits of the regular inspections made during the preceding year. The report shall state the number of inspections which were made, the number of violations abated and the general condifions of the protection zones time of the last inspection. (h) VARIANCES: (1) The Commissioner of Health, or his authorized representative, may, upon wdtten application from the owner, operator, or person in charge of a site, grant a variance from the requirements of these regulations, provided that a vadance may only be granted if the regulated activity, alone or cumulatively with any other proposed activity, will not cause the contamination or degradation of the water supply. The issuance of a variance shall not authorize any use or extension of use in Zones I, I1,/11 for which a permit is required by any local, state or federal authority, but shall authorize the filing of a permit application. (2) An application for a variance must: (i) include the applicant's name, address, and his interest in the subject property; and the owner's name and address if different from the applicant; (ii) include the owner's signed consent to the application if made by any person or entity other than the owner of the site; (iii) include the street address and legal description of the subject site; (iv) include a sketch plan illustrating all proposed site alterations, all stnJctures existing on site, the existing uses and zoning of adjacent pamels, sife contours and drainage patterns; (v) demonstrate that the regulated activity will not cause an increased risk of contamination or degradation of the water supply; (vi) identify the specific provision of these Rules and Regulations from which the variance is sought; (vii) demonstrate that due to conditions unique and peculiar to the applicant's sifuation, compliance with these Rules and Regulations would be unduly burdensome or result in substantial hardship that cannot be otherwise mifigated; (viii) demonstrate that any undue burden or substantial hardship was not created by the applicant, and cannot be avoided except by a variance; (ix) demonstrate that alternatives to the regulated activity have been considered and that there is no available alternative which would not require a variance; (x) demonstrate the regulated activity as proposed includes adequate mifigation measures to justify such variance; and (xi) be submitted to the supplier of water and the Commissioner. E-8 (3) Review by the Supplier of Water. Within ninety (90) days of the receipt of an application for variance, the supplier of water shall make a written recommendation to the Commissioner as to whether the applicant has met the standards for a variance. In order to make its recommendation, the supplier of water may request additional information from the applicant. The supplier of water may also hold a public hearing on the application, upon thirty (..30) days notice. T. he supplier of water's written recommendation shall be foP, yarded by the supplier of water to the ~ommissioner an(] served on the applicant. (4) Decision of the Commissioner: (i) The Commissioner or this authorized representatives may solicit the views of the supplier of water on a variance application. After reviewing the application and any recommendations provided by the supplier of water, the Commissioner will render a decision to grant, grant with conditions or deny a variance application; The requirements of subdivision (h)(2) of this section shall be used as the basis for each decision. The Commissioner may hold a pubhc hearing on the application, if deemed necessary, to seek further information prior to rendering a final decision; (ii) The Commissioner shall impose such conditions as he or she may deem necessary or prudent to preserve the quality of the water supply. All conditions shall be expressly set forth and the reasons for such conditions specified. Violations of the conditions of a variance shall be a violation of these Rules and Regulations; (iii) The issuance of a variance from a requirement imposed by this section shall not act as a vadance from any regulation or requirement of any other federal, state or local agency, or any other regulation or requirement of the Department of Health; and (iv) In granting a variance or a conditioned variance, the Commissioner may require financial security, impose time limitations or limit transfer of the approval. (v) Remedies for Violation: Remedies for violation of these roles and regulations shall be those specified by Sections 1102 and 1103 of the Public Health Law. Appendix A: Village Of Mi#brook - Watershed Protection Zone Map, April 1992 Appendix B: Millbrook Watershed Inventory And Census Summa~ Revised 1992 Appendix C: "Controlling Agricultural Nonpoint Source Water Pollution In New York State - a Guide To The Selection Of Best Management Practices To Improve And Protect Water Quali~" 1991, NYSDEC Text of proposed rule appendices, the regulatory impact statement, and the regulatory flexibility analysis, if any, may be obtained from: Donald MacDonald, Department of Health, Bureau of Management Services, Corning Tower, Room 2230, Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12237, (518) 474-8734. Data, reviews or arguments may be submitted to: Same as above. Revised Regulatory Impact Statement The proposed Watershed Rules and Regulations for the Village of Millbrook, originally published on July 29, 1991, have been re- vised based on public comments. Numerous changes were made to clarify the proposed regulations, provide consistency be- tween zone requirements, provide consistency with existing Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) terminology, allow for more implementable and enfomeable regulations and to more clearly identify the zone relationships. The following are the subdivisions which were revised and the reasons for making the changes: · (a) Application - The term '~NelIs" was replaced by "soume" and the map accompanying the regulations will now be referred to as the Watershed Protection Zone Map, dated April 1992. · (b)(2) Aquifer - definition modified to more accurately reflect hydrological conditions. · (b)(3) Zone II is now referred to as Water Supply Protection Area and will not have a "-G" suffix. The new definition will be found in (b)(34). · (b)(3)Chloride salt - the phrase "excluding liquid chlorides" and the second sentence was deleted to clarify intent. · (b)(5) Toxic substance was dropped from the definition of disposal. · (b)(7) Artificial was dropped from the definition of fertilizers. E-9 · (b)(8) The word "average" was deleted from the definition of flood plain.. · (b) (10) Hazardous waste was changed to hazardous material for consistency. · (b)(14) The definition for linear distance was deleted. · (b)(16) A new definition was added for open storage to provide clarification. · (b)(20) The odginal definition for petroleum was deleted. · (b)(20) The definition of protection zones was revised to emphasize watershed zones rather than groundwater management zones. The zones will now be I, II, and III as opposed to I-G, II-G, and III-G. · (b)(21) Radioactive material - definition modified to provide consistency with ECL terminology. · (b)(27) The definition for sewage system cleaner was deleted. · (b)(28) The word "accidental" was dropped from the definition of spill. · (b)(30) The definition of stormwater recharge basin was revised to provide clarity. · (b)(34)-(35) The original definitions for stream and storage were deleted as being unnecessary. · (b)(31) The definition of Supplier of Water was modified to reference the the term watershed protection zones. · (b)(37) The original definition for toxic substance was deleted to provide consistency with ECL terminology. · (b)(34) Water Supply Protection Zone is the new definition/term used for Zone II and replaces the original (b)(3) definition. · (b)(35) Watershed Protection Zone is a new definition/term used for Zone III and replaces the original (b)(40) definition. · (b)(37) The definition of watercourse was modified to provide clarity by dropping the term of any kind. · (b)(38) The definition of watershed was modified to reference the three protective zones. The suffix -G is dropped from the numerical zone designations to clarify the groundwater/surface water interrelationship. · (b)(40) The definition for the term well head was dropped and included in the definition for Well Head Protection Zone. This Zone is now referred to as Zone I. · (b)147)-(49) The odginal subdivisions naming the protection zones were deleted and incorporated into the specific zone definitions ~n(b)(34), (b)(35) and (b)(40). · (c)(1) The last clause of this provision was deleted as being unnecessary. · (c)(2) The Zones are now referred to as Zone I, II, and III. · (c)(3) The inventory and census is now required every five years and the listing of what elements should be included in this update has been dropped as being unnecessary. · (c)(4) A new subsection was added for reporting accidental spills. The comparable sections in (e) and (0 were deleted. · (d) The new reference to Zone I is noted, with the suffix -G deleted. (d)(3) The first two sentences dealing with Part 5-1.22 compliance and protection of the area have been dropped as being unnecessary. · (e) This Zone is now referred to as Zone II. · (e)(iii) - (iv) These odginal subsections were deleted as being unnecssary or confusing. · (e)(v) Deleted and incorporated into (e)(i). · (e)(2) Modified to more properly reference NYSDEC authority and to except stormwater runoff from prohibition within this section. · (e)(3) Disposal was changed to land application. · [e)(4) The phrase "operated pursuant to a valid permit, regulatory exemption" or other authorization by the State Department of Environmental Conservation" has been added. · (e)(5) This section is now referred to as animal waste storage. The last sentence has been deleted as being unnecessary. · (e)(6)(i)(ii)(iii) Toxic substance was deleted to conform to ECL terminology- In addition, (e)(iii) was deleted as being unenforceable. · (e)(7)(ii) and (iii) These sections were deleted as being unenforceable. E-10 · (e)(8)(ii) The document, "Controlling Agricultural Nonpoint Soume Water Pollution in New York State", developed by NYSDEC, will be used for referencing best management practices. · (e)(8)(iii) The phrase "... the water source or present a threat to the consumer" has been dropped. The terms non-farm and non-residential are used throughout to provide consistency. · (e)(9)(ii) Revised to appropriately reference those activities in (e)(9)(i). · (e)(9)(iii) Exceptions to the prohibition ara provided pursuant to NYSDEC authorization. · (e)(10)(i)(ii) and (iii) The term chemical and chemical storage tanks were deleted to conform to ECL terminology. · (e)(ll) The odginal accidental spill section was moved to section (c). · (e)(12) This section is now referred to as chloride salt application. In addition, (e)(12)(ii) is deleted. · (e)(13)(ii) Reference is now made to 6 NYCRR, Part 601. · (e)(15)(i) The document "Controlling Agricultural Nonpoint Source Water Pollution in New York State", developed by NYSDEC, will be used for referencing best management practices. · (e)(15)(ii) The term minimize was changed to prevent to clarify intent. · (t) This Zone is now referred to as Zone III. · (f)(1)(iii) and (iv) have been deleted. · (f)(3)(i)and (ii) Storage or disposal was changed to land application. · (t)(4) will now read "... are permitted under this subdivision pursuant to a valid permit, a regulatory exemption, or other authorization by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation". · (f)(5) This section was modified and now conforms to the same requirements of Zone II. · (0(6) Hazardous waste and toxic substance has been changed to hazardous material. · (0(8) The subsection now pertains to both fertilizer and manure use. The same NYSDEC document referenced in (e)(15) is also referenced in this subsection for best management practices. · (0(10) Chemical storage was dropped. · (f)(ll) The original accidental spill section was moved to section (c). · (f)(12), (13), (15) Revisions were made to correspond with those made in section (e). · (h) Variances - a new section was added providing extensive procedures for reviewing and granting variances. Statutory Authority Public Health Law, Section 1100 authorizes the Department of Health to make rules and regulations to protect public water supplies from contamination. Legislative Objectives These regulations are for the protection of water supply source(s) for the Village of Millbrook. Limiting distances for different activities which could contaminate the sources are set forth in the regulations. Needs and Benefits The regulations protect the soume of the public water supply serving the Village of Millbrook. Different activities on the water- shed, which may result in the contamination of the source(s), are restricted or prohibited by these regulations. Limiting dis- tances for different activities which could contaminate the source of the public water supply serving the Village of Millbrook are set forth in the regulations. E-11 COSTS Costs to State Government The Department estimates an expenditure of approximately 1 to 5 mandays maybe incurred in the regulatory rev ew process if otherwise permitted facilities are restricted or prohibited by these regulations. However, no permit applications for such fac - ties have been made as of this date. One manday may also be expended annually to review and evaluate variance applica- tions. The Region 3 Office of the NYSDEC may e~(.per~ence an increased workload within its ongoing environmental protection program as a result of enhanced surveillance and inspections of the watershed by the Supplier of Water. Costs to Local Government The Village of Millbrook may incur costs associated with the required watershed inspections of approximately 5 to 10 person- days per year. In addition, 1-5 mandays may be expended by the Supplier of Water review and evaluate vanance applica- tions. It will also cost about $250 publish the rules in the local newspaper. Significant costs have been incurred for professional services to draft and implement these regulations. The Department estimates that the Town of Washington may incur additional costs in rood repair and maintenance and also in the already required closure of its existing landfill. The annual cost increment to the local highway department would be less than $1,000 per year. Cost to Private Regulated Party The supplier has investigated the potential costs to private regulated parties and has determined that there is no immediate upgrade requirements for existing facilities. In the future it is possible that some additional costs may be incurred by some regulated parties due to compliance with regulated activities or to seek a variance. Although the exact cost cannot be deter- mined with precision due to the speculative nature of the possible compliance actions the Department estimates that the cost would potent ally range between $100 to $1,000 for compliance. Cost to the Department for Implementation and Continued Administration of the Rule No new cost would result. Implementation of these regulations would be part of ongoing program responsibility. Paperwork The water supply officials are required to keep yearly records of the number of watershed inspections made, number of viola- tions found, number of notices served and numner of violations abated. A bdef report must be submitted to the Department re- port must be submitted to the Department summarizing these efforts. One manday will be expended compiling this data. No additional paperwork would be required by regulated parties as a result of these proposed regulations. These records are to be submitted to the State Commissioner of Health in the month of January of every year. Local Government Mandates The implementation of this regulation will require,the Village of Millbrook to conduct annual inspections in the various protec- tive zones, prepare inspection reports, describe and cite violations and prepare an annual summary report to the Commis- sioner of Health. Duplication This rule does not duplicate requirements of other existing State or Federal regulations. The intent of this regulation is to sup- plement existing State and Federal regulations with the particular Millbrook. When possible, the ECL was utilized and refer- enced in the text of this regulation. E-12 A/ternatives The "No Action" alternative exists for protecting the Village of Mi#brook's public water source. This alternative relies primarily on the existing State regulations for protecting water resour, c, es statewide. The No Action alternative does not recognize the distinct an,d unique characteristics of the Village of Mi#brook s watershed and does not protect against the possible threats to the Village s water supply source. It is therefore considered an inferior option for this particular setting. The use of zones of protection in watershed rules and regulations enables a community to focus on the primary threats to its water supply in each zone, based on technically sound principles. Since a watershed or aquifer may not be fined to municipal boundaries, it is for Supplier of Water to adopl specific regulations for its specific source. There are no alternatives to the imposition of limitive dislances for water contaminants or to the limitations on activities which could contaminate the water supply. The distances selected, where used, were deemed the shortest allowable consistent with the public health. Example Two Proposed Rules and Regulations from Citizens Campaign for the Environment V SECTION 100: GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF WATERSHED RULES AND REGULATIONS 100.1 GOALS The goal of Watershed Rules and Regulations is to provide the highest possible protection for the source and quality of public water supplies in Special Groundwater Protection Areas. 100.3 OBJECTIVES The objectives are designed to achieve the goal of Watershed Rules and Regulations. WR&Rs should be consistent with and complimentary of the policies of the SGPA Plan. WR&Rs are written as a document to be implemented by the individual water utility. The objectives reflect the responsibilities and interests of the implementing entity. The following objectives are recom- mended for SGPAs: 100.3.1 To define zones of management and protection around wells within or proximate to SGPAs in order to insure the highest possible protection of the groundwater quality produced by the wells. Four zones are proposed. 100.3.2 To define the types of compatible or incompatible activities for areas of protection within SGPAs in general and around well heads specifically. 100.3~3 To integrate, support, and augment the enforcement of existing statutes, codes and regulations designed to regulate contaminating activities and protect groundwater quality. 100.3.4 To prepare and implement programs designed to work with those facilities that may pose a risk to water quality due to the use, handling and/or storage of toxic and hazardous materials thereby reducing the likelihood of their introduction into the aquifer. Such programs shall be designed to: (a.) alert landowners, citizens, commercial and industrial enterprises of the legal regulations and/or restrictions on specific landuse, chemical use and disposal activities as well as the threat they pose to SGPAs and to specific well sites; and (b.) provide informational and professional assistance to those enterprises which, in the course of operations, must handle products that, if introduced into the aquifer, could degrade the groundwater. 100.3.5 To establish strictperformance standards for the use of, handling, storage, and/or disposal of toxic and/or hazardous materials and to identify the location of facilities which use such materials so as to preclude and/or minimize their introduction into the aquifer. 100.3.6 To establish specific groundwater qualify goals that ensure the non-degradation of the groundwater quality within the SGPAs and wellheadprotection zones. E-13 100.3.7 To emphasize the importance of non-point pollution controls in the SGPAs and within specific welhead protection zones. SECTION 200: DEFINITIONS 200.1 A Definitions Section is usually included in WR&Rs. An example of a Definitions Section is appended. SECTION 300: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS TO SE APPLIED WITHIN SGPAs Most WR&Rs have a Section which presents General Requirements or Prohibitions that are applied uniformly across the watershed. The following provisions are recommended: 300.1 GENERAL PROHIBITIONS No person, corporation or public entity, including Federal or State agencies or any political subdivision thereof, shall perform any act or grant any permit or approval which may result in the contravention of standards for water quality. The following regu- lations and their authorizing legislation are incorporated into this Article: (1 .) 10 NYCRR PART 170 (Source of Water Supply) (2.) 10 NYCRR PART 700-705 (Water Quality Regulations) (3.) 10 NYCRR PART 5 (Drinking Water Standards or any subsequent revisions to or replacement thereof) (4.) Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C.) (5.) 10 NYCRR PART 75 (Individual Water Supply and Individual Sewage Disposal Systems) (6.) 6 NYCRR PART 326 (Restricted Pesticides) (7.) 6 NYCRR PART 360 (Solid Waste Management Facilities) (8.) 6 NYCRR PART 371-374 ( Hazardous Waste) (9.) 6 NYCRR 700 - 705 (Water Quality Regulations for Surface Waters and Groundwaters) (10.) 6 NYCRR PART 750-757 (SPDES) (11 .) Suffolk County Sanitary Code, Article 4 (Water Supply) (12.) Suffolk County Sanitary Code, Article 7 (Water Pollution Control) (13.) Suffolk County Sanitary Code, Article 12 (Toxic and Hazardous Materials Storage and Handling Controls) (14.) Nassau County Sanitary Code, Article 6 (Drinking Water Supply) (15.) Nassau County Sanitary Code, Article 10 (Special Groundwater Protection Areas) (16.) Nassau County Sanitary Code, Article 11 (Toxic and Hazardous Materials Storage, Handling and Control) E-14 300.1.3 Where there may be a conflict or difference in requirements among the regulations cited, either here or in any other sections of this article, the most stringent requirements shall control. 300.1.5 The Suffolk County Sanitary Cede, Article 6 (Realty Subdivisions) is not to be applied in SGPAs with respect to the averaging of contaminant loadings. Averaging of discharge Ioading's over the entire development site, as permitted by Article 6, is expressly prohibited in SGPAs. For SGPAs, the loading impact of a discharges is to be analyzed and calculated at the point of discharge only. 300.3 SPILLS 300.3.1 Spills of gasoline, petroleum products, hazardous, toxic,or flammable substances in excess of 10 gallons shall, in addition to being reported to the local department of health and the NYS-DEC, also be reported to the water utility in a timely manner. (a.) All well fields within SGPAs shall have signs which provide information regarding prohibitions and regulations, including the procedure for notifying the water utility in case of spills or other emergencies. 300.5 SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS 300.5.1 No new Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) shall be permitted within the SGPAs unless the STP discharges its effluent outside the SGPA. 300.5.2 No private STP shall be permitted, repermitted or expanded which is not incorporated under the Transportation Corporation Act (Article 10). 300.5.3 All existing STPs within SGPAs shall be notified that they are located within a SGPA and sent a copy of the WR&Rs. No STP within a SGPA may continue to operate in violation of the WR&Rs. 300.7 UNDERGROUND BULK TRANSPORTATION PIPELINES 300.7.1 New underground pipelines for the bulk transportation of hazardous/toxic/flammable substances shall be prohibited within SGPAs. 300.7.2 Existing underground bulk transportation pipelines within SGPAs shall have a monitoring and maintenance program which shall be submitted to and appr .oved by the water utility. The monitoring program shall utilize state-of-the-art vapor or groundwater monitoring equ~pmant and technology. The entire length of the pipeline route which occurs within a SGPA shall be inspected for escaping product at least once annually using the methodology specified in the monitoring and maintenance program. 300.9 BULK STORAGE FACILITIES 300.9.1 New Bulk Storage Facilities for hazardous/toxic/flammable chemicals are prohibited with SGPAs. 300.11 SANDMINING AND CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS DISPOSAL 300.11.1 New sandmining sites shall be prohibited within SGPAs. 300.11.2 New Construction and Demolition (C&D) disposal sites shall be prohibited within SGPAs. 300.11.3 Expansions of existing sandmining or C&D sites shall be prohibited within SGPAs. E-15 300.13 WASTEWATER DISPOSAL 300.13.1 Any sanitary/industrial waste discharge of more than 1,000 gallons per day(GPD) shall be considered a major significant discharge as per US-EPA and NYS-DEC policy, requiring a SPDES permit, monitoring and enforcement as a rna or discharge. Under no circum,stances can a point source discharge of 1,000 GPD or more be granted a waiver or perm tted to discharge w thout a va d SPDES perm t. 300.15 ENFORCEMENT 300.15.1 Any person, corporation or governmental entity may bdng suit in the Supreme Court of New York to enforce the provisions of this Article. 300.17 SEVERABILITY 300.17.1 If any part of this Article is found to be illegal or unconstitutional, the remaining provisions of the Article shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 400: WELLHEAD PROTECTION ZONES FOR WELLS WITHIN SGPAs 400.1 SHALLOW WELLS For Shallow Wells within SGPAs (shallow wells meaning the well is screened in an unconfined aquifer), three zones of protec- tion shall be defined and mapped in addition to the general SGPA boundaries. (1 .) ZONE I shall be designated as the Zone of Maximum Control (ZOMC). The ZOMC shall extend out around the well for a minimum radius of 200 feet, which is consistent with recommendations of the NYS Wellhead Protection Program ~approxirnately 3 acres). Ideally, a larger site should be acquired as is recommended by the Suffolk County omprehensive Water Resources Management Plan, e.g. ten acres. The water utility shall have fee-simple title or covenanted easement when the land is publicly held, to this area. (2.) ZONE II shall be designated as the Zone of Influence (ZOI). The ZOI shall be that area around each wellhead out to the one-foot draw down point on the water table surface at equilibrium when the well is in use. (3.) ZONE III shall be designated as the Zone of Contribution (ZOC). The ZOC shall be defined by one of two methodologies depending on the water table gradient: (a.) For flat/nearly flat* water table gradients, the ZOC will be defined as an area where recharge equals the authorized rated capacity of the well given a specified rate of recharge; or ~ (b.) For areas of steeper* gradient, the ZOC shall be determined by the Uniform Flow Equation. This will define a parabolic-shaped area extending out from the well in the direction of groundwater flow. It will point toward the groundwater divide. For management purposes, this area can be limited by a specific time of travel. Aten-year time of travel is recommended. *note: the final version of WR&Rs shall give the technical delineation and details of these terms. (4.) ZONE IV shall be the area known as the Special Groundwater Protection Area (SGPA) The relevant regulations and recommendations from the SGPA Plan shall be applied to this zone and incorporated into this Ar- ticle. It is assumed that special provisions for Zones I, II, and III shall be either more restrictiveor additive to those of Zone IV. E-16 400.3 DEEP WELLS 400.3.1 For Deep wells within SGPAs (i.e. all those remaining wells not defined as shallow), two wellhead Zones shall be designated: ZOMC and SGPA. 400.3.2 The ZOMC shall be a 200-foot radial area around the wellhead over which the water utility has maximum control through fee-simple absolute or covenanted easement. 400.3.3 The relevant requirements and recommendations contained within the SGPA Plan for that area outside the ZOMC shall be designed and intended to provide adequate protection for the deep wells. 400.5 MAPPING THE ZONES 400.5.1 The water utility shall identify and map the zone boundaries for each shallow well inside a SGPA as well as each shallow well which has some part of Zone I, II, or III within a SGPA. It shall also map the location and ZOMC for each deep well within the SGPA. 400.7 RISK ANALYSIS WITHIN THE ZONES 400.7.1 The water utility shall identify and map all activities within Zones I, II, and III which have the potential to place the water supply well at risk. The types of activities which should be inventoried are listed in Section 500. 400.7.2 All identified potentially contaminating facilities (PCFs) shall be notified that they have been so identified as being within Zones I, II, or III and the specific well/s that they have been identitied for. 400.7.3 The water utility shall provide a map locating each well, its ,wellhead protection zones and ail PCFs and their locations as well as the WR&Rs to each municipality within the utility s service area which contains part or all of a SGPA. 400.7.4 The water utility shall review proposals for projects within any part of a SGPA which has the potential to degrade groundwater quality or exceed water quality goals. Comments shall include a review for consistency with the WR&Rs and the SGPA Plan. Comments shall be submitted to the jurisdiction which is administering the proposal or considering the granting of a permit associated with the project. 400.9 NEW WELLS 400.9.1 New wells sited in SGPAs shall be shallow wells unless the site specific conditions of the aquifer hydrology preclude it. 400.11 SPECIAL CASES 400.11.1 Special cases where Zones I, II, or III extend beyond the SGPA boundaries shall be considered and addressed on a case-by-case basis. 400.11.2 Where the delineation of the ZOI and ZOC for the down-gradient area of the well are identified so that the ZOC falls inside the ZOI, the ZOC boundary shall serve as the down-gradient boundary for both the ZOI and ZOC. E-17 SECTION 500: SPECIFIC REGULATIONS APPLIED TO EACH WELLHEAD ZONE 500.1 ZONE I: ZONE OF MAXIMUM CONTROL (ZOMC) 500.1.1 For each wellhead, the water utility shall possess fee-simple absolute title or covenanted easement to the land within a minimum of 200 radial feet around the wellhead. (a.) For multiple wellheads within the same well field, the 200-foot radial areas should not overlap. (b.) For existing well sites within SGPAs which do not meet this minimum requirement, the water utility shall attempt to gain full control over the ZOMC where and when opportunities are available. (c.) New well sites shall not be established on existing sites that do not provide a non-overlapping 200-foot radius of protection. 500.1.2 The use of fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, sodium chloride or similar deicing chemicals, or any other potentially contaminating chemical applications to the land, air, fauna or flora are prohibited. 500.1.3 Within the ZOMC, any new or expanded activity, system, or facility (except for the physical pumping, treatment, controls and access facilities associated with water supply production) is prohibited without the express approval of the water utility. 500.1.4 The approval, construction or placement of a new on-site sanitary waste disposal unit or its associated leaching fields or a receptacle of any kind for either the temporary storage or permanent disposal of human sanitary waste is prohibited. 500.1.5 For existing activities, facilities or systems (i.e. those in existence at the time of adoption of this Article) that would be prohibited if new, the following regulations shall apply: (a.) The facility owner/operator shall be notified that they are within the ZOMC of a specific well site which should be identified by location, name and number. (b.) A copy of the Watershed Rules & Regulations shall be provided to them. (c.) ,A, ny facility storing or selling gasoline or petroleum products and which is subject to regulation by the County weights and Measures Department for such sale shall receive a copy of the WR&R's annually at the time of inspection by the Department of Weights and Measures. (d.) Any facility which is a customer of the water utility shall have their identity as being in a ZOMC noted on the util~ty's customer data base. Additional relevant information regarding the PCF shall also be kept. 500.1.6 The water utility shall create a program to actively cooperate with and educate the facility owner/operator about the appropriate laws, rules and best management practices that will minimize the threat to the water supply represented by these facilities. (a.) If the facility owner/operator refuses to cooperate or participate in this program, the water utility shall require the facility owner/operator to install a monitoring well between the adjacent public water supply well and the facility, at the owner's expense. (b.) The details of monitoring well installation and regulation shall be the same as those required in Section 500.2. (c.) The test results shall be compared with the ambient water quality goals for the ZOMC to determine whether a violation of the WR&R's has occurred. A further examination of the suspect site shall be conducted to determine if the PCF is the cause of the violation. 500.1.7 The ambient water quality goals for the ZOMC shall be the highest attainable drinking water quality. This shall mean levels of indicator contaminants like nitrates shall be less than 1 ppm. Volatile organics and similarly regulated chemicals shall be non-detectable. A detailed list of constituents and quality goals shall be listed in the appendix. 500.1.8 In general, no person, corporation, partnership, governmental entity or a~lency shall place, discard, dispose or store any substance or undertake any action or activity which is likely to result ~n a violation of water quality standards, water quality goals, regulations or laws contained in section 300 or cause a water supply well to exceed federal or state drinking water standards or pose a public health threat. E-18 500.3 ZONE I1: ZONE OF INFLUENCE (ZOI) 500.3.1 The water utility shall identify and map the ZOI for all shallow wells regulated by this article. 500-3.2 The following types of Potentially Contaminating Facilities or Activities (PCFs) should not be sited within the ZOI as new facilities: (1 .) Gasoline or sewice stations (2,) Automotive repair facilities (3.) Dry cleaning establishments (4.) Chemical or petroleum bulk storage facilities (5.) Solid waste management facilities (6.) Sandmining or C&D disposal operations (7.) Hazardous waste collection or transfer operations (8.) On-site waste water disposal units for residential buildings built on less than a 5-acre lot (9.) On-site waste water disposal units for discharging more than 1,000 gallons per day (10.) Private Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) (11 .) Municipal STPs which discharge inside the SGPA (12.) Sod Farms (13.) Salt Piles (14.) Radioactive materials handling operation (15.) Establishments which are sewed by an on-site waste water disposal unit and which use toxic and/or hazardous chemicals. Such establishments shall include but not be limited to: photo processing facilities elect mnics/electmplating shops furniture refinishers paint distributors paint shops printers (16.) Home heating tanks storing less than 1100 gallons which do not meet the standards for tanks storing more than 1100 gallons. 500.3.3 The water utility shall ident~ all potentially contaminating facilities (PCFs) listed in 500.3.2 above which exist within the ZOI at the time of adoph'on of this article as well as those which occur within the ZOI in the future. The list of PCFs shall be kept as current as possible. (a.) All PCFs shall be notified that they have been so identified and advise them of the wells and ZOIs they are within. They shall also receive a copy of the WR&Rs 500.3.4 PCFs identified in 500.3.3 above shall be regulated by the following requirements: (a.) They shall be considered a non-conforming use within the context of this article. (b.) They must be in conformance with local zoning regulations or have a valid waiver as a non-conforming use. (c.) They must be in compliance with all applicable statutes, regulations and codes. (d.) They cannot expand by more than 20 pement or change from one category of PCF to another as listed in 500.3.2 without first notifying the water utility of their plans. If a local permit or approval is required, the PCF must give the water utility 30-days notice prior to applying for such permit or approval. 500.3.5 All PCFs shall permit the water utility access to inspect the facility for compliance with the WR&R~. 500.3.6 All PCFs shall participate with the water utility's Chemical Source Reduction and Education Program. If the PCF refuses or fails to participate in the Chemical Source Reduction and Education Program, the PCF shall be required to nstall a monitoring well between their facility and the water utility well related to the ZOI the PCF is within. 500.3.7 For those PCFs which are required to install monitoring wells, the following requirements shall apply: (a.) Monitoring wells shall be at the owner's expense. E-19 (b.) Where a leak spill, accident or other potentially contaminating incident is being investigated or remediated, information shall be provided to the water ut ity n a t mely manner, if the effects have migrated beyond the owner's property. (c.) Where no leak, spill, etc. is known, semi-annual testing shall be required for the presence of all toxic/hazardous chemicals used, stored or sold by the facility. (d.) The water utility and the local department of health shall identify the chemicals to be tested for. (e.) Results of testing shall be provided to the water utility and the local department of health in a timely manner and shall be available to the public from these entities upon request. (f.) The water utility reserves the right of access to monitoring wells for independent inspection and testing. (g.) The exact location and depth of the monitoring well/s shall be approved by the water utility and the information shall be kept by the water utility as part of its WR&Rs data base. (h.) The monitoring well/s shall be designed constructed and operated in such a manner so as to provide the most likely indication of a leak, spill, accident, etc. which could affect the ZOI well. (i.) Test results from the monitoring well/s shall be compared with the ambient water quality goals for the ZOI to determine whether a violation of the WR&R has occurred. A further examination of the suspect site shall be conducted to determine if the PCF is the cause of the violation 500 3 8 Any PCF wh ch is a customer of the water utility shall have their identify as being in the ZOI noted on the utility's customer data base. Additional relevant information regarding the PCFsha a so be kept. 500 3.9 Al Sewage Treatment P ants (STPs) within the ZOI shall be required to install monitorin~.q wells as outlined in 500.3.7 above, regardless of their participation in a Chem ca Soume Reduction and Education Program. (a.) Each STP shall meet ali specifications of its SPDES permit. Notification of any violations shall be provided to the water utility in a timely manner. (b) The water utility reserves the right to discont nue water supply to the STP after four SPDES violations. Additionally, the water utility reserves the right to increase the schedule of monitoring to a STP which is violating the SPDES permit. (c.) The water utility may levy a surcharge on water used by the STP if the STP is a water utility customer. The surcharge shall be fixed at a specific percentage rate of the metered gallons per day of waste water flowing through the STP The surcharge may rema n n effect as long as the STP is not in compliance with the SPDES parameters. All the funds collected bythis means shall be placed in a special account of the water utility for Wellhead Remedication and Soume Reduction Programs. (d.) The water utility must be notified of any intent to expand an existing STP. 500.3.10 The use app cation or disposal of toxic hazardous, flammable, contagious, or infectious substances to the land or subsurface which would result n the exceedence of water quality goals for the ZOI or represent a public health threat is prohibited. 500.3.11 The Water Quality Goals for the ZOI shall be: (a). Nitrates not to exceed 1 ppm. (b). VOCs and similarly regulated chemicals, 1 ppb. (c.) A detailed list of constituents and quality goals shall be listed in the appendix. 500 3 12 The water utility shall work with and encourage municipalities to use performance standards and other tools to assure that the water quality goals are ma ntamed in the ZOI. 500.5 ZONE III ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION (ZOC) 500.5.1 The water utility shall identify and map the ZOC for all shallow wells regulated by this article. 500 5 2 The water utility shall identify all p~. tent a ly contaminating facilities (PCFs) listed in 500.3.2 which exist within the ZOC at the time of adoption of this article as well as those which occur within the ZOC in the future. The list of PCFs shall be kept as current as possible. (a.) All PCFs shall be notified that they have been so identified and advised of the ZOC they are within as well as the well-site name and location associated with the ZOC. They shall also receive a copy of the WR&Rs. E-20 500.5.3 The water utility shall review all projects proposed for a ZOC. Where an opportunity for siting a non-conforming use outside the ZOC exists, the water utility shall recommend siting the project outside the ZOC. Non-conforming uses should be sited as far from the wellhead as possible. (a.) The water utility shall make additional recommendations for a non-conforming use which are designed to ensure that the pro~ect achieves the water quaitty goals for the ZOC. 500.5.4 All non-conforming uses shall comply with provisions 500.3.4 through 500.3.9. 500.5.5 The use, application, or disposal of toxic hazardous, or flammable substances to the land or subsurface which would result n the exceedence of water quality goals for the ZOC is prohibited. 500.5.6 The water quality goals for the ZOC shall be: (a.) Nitrates, not to exceed 1 ppm. (b.) .V. OC,.s, a, nd si~milarly regulated chemicals, not to exceed more than 50 pement of the MCL as set forth in Public mea[[n Law, ~-'art 5. (c.) A detailed list of constituents and quality goals shall be listed in the appendix. 500.5.7 The water utility shall work with and encourage municipalities to use performance standards and other tools to assure that the water quality goals are maintained in the ZOC. 500.7 ZONE IV SPECIAL GROUNDWATER PROTECTION AREAS (SGPAs) 500.7.1 The LIRPB shall provide a detailed map of the SGPA boundaries 1o the water utility. 500.7.2 Land use, zoning and regulatory programs recommended within the SGPA Plan shall be strictly applied and enfomed within this area. 500.7.3 Subwatersheds within SGPAs shall receive the highest possible protection for the siting of future water supply wells. (a.) C, lustering of any development within a subwatershed shall be prohibited un ess the wastewater from such a aevelopment is collectedcommunally and discharged outside of the SGPA. (b.) Applications of all chemicals shall be prohibited within subwatersheds. (c.) The water quality goals for a subwatershed shall be the same as those which apply to the ZOMC. 500.7.4 The water quality goal for the SGPA, other than a subwatershed, shall be: (a.) Nitrates, not to exceed 1 ppm. (b.) VOCs and similarly regulated chemicals, not more than 50 percent of the MCL as set forth in the Public Health Law, Part 5. (c.) A detailed list of constituents and quality goals shall be listed in the appendix. SECTION600: ENFORCEMENT 600.1 INSPECTION AND ENTRY The water utility may inspect any facility within the SGPA to ascertain con331iance with the WR&Rs The water ut ity may with- out fee or hinderance, enter examine and survey all grounds, structures, monitoring wells, buildings and places within the SGPA to ascerta n compliance. 600.3 NOTICE OF VIOLATION In any case where the water utility has reason to believe that any provision of the WR&Rs has been or is being violated by any I?eraon, the water utile/shall serve a notice of violation upon such person. The notice of violation sha state the nature and ~ocation of the violation, the iF~rticular provisions which the water utility a leges have been violated and the applicable pen- alties. Copies of such notice of violation shall be sent to the applicable state and Jocal regulatory and enforcement authorihes. The water utility may request the Department of Health to bring an enforcement action or may bring such action on its own. E-21 600.5 PENALTIES Penalties for violations of these regulations shall be recoverable in accordance with section 1103 of the Public Health Law. Penalties may be imposed for each day of which such violation continues. Such penalties shall be recoverable in a proceed- ing before any court having jurisdiction thereof. 600.7 CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS n the case of a v o ation concern ng an activity which involves a tem~.rary or permanent source or act of contamination to the water supply, the water utilily may, m addition to serving a notice of v~olation, order in writing any person(s) responsible for such violation to immediately cease and desist from such activity. Any further activity is prohibited until the requirements of the WR&Rs have been complied with. 600~9 SUMMARY ABATEMENT f any person receiving a notice of v olat on and/or cease and desist order does not comply within 5 working days of such or- der with the prov sions of the WR&Rs, the water utility may summarily abate or remove the cause of the violation, employing such rome as may be necessary and proper, and see. k reirn~u.rsement from t, he respon.sible person.,for co.sts incu. rr.e(~.; Failure by the water utility to exercise the right ot ,summary aDatemem shall not be (3eemed to De a waiver ~nereoT, nor sna, me rem- edy by abatement be construed to be exclusive. 600.11 COURT ACTION The water util~ may in the case of a person failing t.o c.ompl~., w..ithin.. 5 wo.rk!ng.,days with a no. tice o!..violatio, n. and/o.r .a ce.a. se and des st order mainta n an action in any court hawng lur~s{3~c[ion meteor mr ~ne recovery o~ ~.ena~es an(3 .~o,r an in)unc[~o..n restra n ng such person from continuing to violate these regulations. Where the water utility believes that a v~o~ation ~s crea~ng an imminent threat to the water supply, it may immediately maintain such court act on. 600.13 PRIVATE ACTIONS Where the water utility or the Department of Health fails to enforce the WR&Rs, any person may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction to enfome the provisions of this article. E-22 Appendix F: PINE BARRENS REVIEW COMMISSION STANDARDS - 1989 Introduction The County of Suffolk in enacting Articles 13 and 37 of the Suffolk County Charter, has recognized that protection of the Pine Barrens is of vital importance. In so doing, the County has found that: · The Pine Barrens is a significant groundwater recharge area; · The Pine Barrens is a unique natural ecological community; · The Pine Barrens incorporates a variety of natural, recreational, ecological, and aesthetic resoumes; · The Pine Barrens are under increasing development pressures and competing demands that threaten to impair these resources. In accordance with the authorizing legislation (C37-3D) the ideal way to effect comprehensive protection of the Pine Barrens is~to prepare a master plan which would be implemented through the cooperative authority of local, county, and state governments. Until such time that a master plan is prepared, the Pine Barrens Review Commission will use the following policies and standards when reviewing applications for land uses and development within the Pine Barrens Zone. These principles have evolved from interim principles that have been used since 1985. In formulating many of the standards for review of applications the Commission depended on theories developed in the £ong ;Jsland Comprel~nsiue W~te Treatment Management Plan, LIRPB, 1978. The Pine Barrens Review Commission encourages developers and design professionals to contact the staff of the Review Commission in the preliminary and conceptual stages of development to ensure that the project will be consistent with these standards. Table of Contents Number Subject 1 .............. Groundwater 2 .............. Wetlands 3 .............. Sudace Waters 4 .............. Rare and Endangered Species 5 .............. Native Vegetation Disturbance 6 .............. Fertilized Vegetation and Landscaping 7 .............. Steep Slopes 8 .............. Runoff Water 9 .............. Farmland 10 .............. Rezoning of Land 11 .............. Commercial and Industrial Development 12 .............. Clustering of Development 13 .............. Coordinated Design 14 .............. Open Space Management 15 .............. Wellhead Protection F-1 POLICIES AND STANDARDS 1. GROUNDWATER The primary purpose in protecting the Pine Barrens Zone is to prevent contamination of the groundwater. Nitrate-nitrogen, a con- taminant which emanates from numerous types of land uses, is a recognized indicator of groundwater quality. Pdmary factors de- termining the concentration of nitrogen loading are the area of fertilized turf and the density of dwelling units generating sewage effluent. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services abides by the State of New York nitrate-nitrogen standard for drinking water from public wells of 10 ppm. To ensure that the probability of nitrate-nitrogen concentrations exceeding this standard re- mains less than 90%, the Suffolk County Pine Barrens Review Commission has established a maximum nitrogen loading factor of 6 ppm. It is the policy of the Pine Barrens Review Commission to recommend disapproval of any development proposal where the nitrogen loading factor will exceed 6 ppm on the site. Fudhermere, the Commission may recommend disapproval of all devel- opment proposals that are in contravention of Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Cede. Sewage treatment plants may be rec- ommended for subdivisions in Hydrogeologic Zones ][]~, V, and VI where the proposed density is greater than 1 unit per acre and the size of the proposed development justifies their use. 2. WETLANDS Freshwater wetlands which exists within the Pine Barrens are considered to be an important natural resoume providing for flood and erosion control, the filtering of contaminants and sediments from storm water runoff, and the habitat for plants and wildlife. The Pine Barrens Review Commission may recommend disapproval of any development proposal where freshwater wetlands are not protected by a minimum 100 foot non-disturbance buffer area (measured horizontally from the wetland edge as defined by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation or local ordinance) or when, based on supporting evidence fresh water wetlands will be negatively impacted. Buffer areas shall be delineated on the plat and a conservation easement thereon shall be dedicated to the Town or its designee. Tidal wetlands existing within the marine environment bordering portions of the Pine Barrens Zone are equally valuable natural resoumes. These wetlands support the reproduction of finfish and shellfish, provide habitat for waterfowl, and contribute a scenic quality that supports recreational economics. The Pine Barrens Review Commission may recommend disapproval of develop- ment proposals where tidal wetlands are not protected by a minimum 100 foot non-disturbance area (measured horizontally from the identified wetland edge) or where, based on supporting evidence, tidal wetlands will be adversely impacted. 3. SURFACE WATERS Surface waters, which include freshwater bonds, lakes, streams, and dvers as well as saline ponds, creeks, and bays, occur throughout the Pine Barrens Zone. These water bodies are considered to be resources of significant value in economic, aesthetic and ecological terms. Their protection is judged to be vital to the dynamics o~ the Pine Barrens. The Pine Barrens Review Commission may recommend disapproval of any development proposal which does not provide a 100 foot non-disturbance buffer (measured horizontally from the water or wetland edge) or which may, based on supporting evidence, negatively impact the integ- rity of a surface waterbody in terms of its quality, quantity, or natural function. 4. RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES The Pine Barrens ecosystem encompasses several species of reare, endangered, and threatened animal and plant species, as well as species of special concern, including the buck moth, tiger salamander, and lady slipper. The State of New York has identi- fied such species and has enacted laws to protect their number and habitat. The Pine Barrens Review Commission may recom- mend disapproval of any development proposal that may negatively impact a habitat essential to those species identified as reare, endangered, or threatened species by New York State maintained lists. 5. NATIVE VEGETATION DISTURBANCE The vegetation association that defines or characterizes the Pine Barrens includes pitch pines and various species of oak trees, plus numerous understory and ground cover plants such as blueberry and bearberry and grasses such as praide bluestem and F-2 indian grass. Excessive, and often unnecessary, clearing of this native vegetation can result in severe soil erosion, excessive stormwater runoff, and destroyed plant and wildlife habitat. Furthermore, the replacement of native vegetation by plants and lawns requiring artificial fertilization increases the risk of groundwater contamination. Please see Table F-2 for suggested species. It is the policy of the Pine Barrens Review Commission to encourage minimal clearing of native vegetation. Development propos- als may not be recommended for approval if the disturbance/removal of vegetation on the site exceeds the standard in Table F-I. These pementages shall be taken over the total site inclusive of roads, building sites and drainage structures. The clearance standard that would be applied to a project site if developed under the existing residential category, should be applied if the pro- posal involves multi-family units, attached housing, clustering or modified lot designs. Submissions to the PBRC for subdivisions shall contain calculations for clearing limits. These limits shall become part of the filed map. Furthermore, subdivision and site design should encourage preservation of natural vegetation in large unbroken blocks or green- belts that allow contiguous open spaces to be established when adjacent pamels are developed. TABLE F-1 PBRC Clearance Standards Total site clearance including lots, roads, drainage and other improvements. Proposed Zoning Category Max. Recommended Residential Lot Size Acreage Site Clearance 10,000 s.f. 1/4 Acre 90% 15,000 s.f. 1/3 Acre 70% 20,000 s.f. 1/2 Acre 60% 30,000 s.f. 2/3 Acre 58% 40,000 s.f. 1 Acre 57% 60,000 s.f. 1 1/2 Acre 46% 80,000 s.f. 2 Acres 35% 120,000 s.f. 3 Acres 30% 160,000- 200,000+ s.f. 4-5 Acres 25% Commercial and Industrial 65% Note: In calculating the percentage of land cleared me preserved areas in a development should be good quality native vegetation. 6. FERTILIZED VEGETATION AND LANDSCAPING The 208 Wastewater Treatment Management Plan indicated that fertilizers are a significant source of nitrogen and phosphorous contamination to ground and surface waters. Because of Iow natural fertility, soils common to the Pine Barrens (Carver, Haven, Plymouth, and Riverhead) require both irrigation and fertilizer application for establishment and maintenance of tud and non-na- tive vegetation. As native Pine Barrens vegetation is replaced with turf, through residential development, increased contamination may be expected along with a general change in the ecosystem. The 205 Special Groundwater Protection Areas study discussed limiting the amount of land devoted to turf as a way to limit the amount of nitrogen leached from Iow density residential develop- ment (greater than or equal to 1 acre/unit). It is the policy of the Pine Barrens Review Commission to discourage extensive establishment of turf and fertilizer dependent non-native vegetation. The Commission may recommend disapproval of applications proposing to place more than 15% of each lot in vegetation requiring fertilization or 15% of the entire site for attached residential, commercial or industrial development. Ta- ble F-2 should be consulted for examples of vegetation species appropriate as alternatives to the establishment of turf in the Pine Barrens. For more specific landscaping and fertilization recommendations the chapter on FERTILIZER, 208 Nonpoint Source Manage- rnent Handbook, LIRPB, 1984, should be consulted. F-3 7. STEEP SLOPES Disturbance of and construction on steep slopes within the Pine Barrens Zone can require considerable removal of native vegeta- tion resulting in excessive surface water runoff and severe soil erosion. Additionally, steep sloped areas are subject to more rapid spread of wildfire than flat ground. Ideally, all land clearing and construction should be confined to sites where slopes are no greater than 10%. The PBRC will require that clearing envelopes be drawn for lots within a subdivision containing slopes greater than 10 pement. These envelopes should be located on the lots to minimize the disturbance of those slopes to the greatest extent possible. Con- struction of homes, roadways and private driveways on slopes greater than 10% may be approved if technical review shows that sufficient care has been taken in the design of stabilization measures, erosion control practices and structures so as to mitigate any negative environmental impacts. PBRC review would be facilitated if submissions contain a slope analysis showing slopes 0-10%, 11-15% and 15% and greater. In areas with steep slopes slope analysis maps may be required. This can be done with cross hatching or shading on the site plan for the appropriate areas. In addition, erosion and sediment control plans may be recommended in steeply sloped areas. 8. RUNOFF WATER Development of lands within the Pine Barrens Zone inevitably results in an increase of runoff water following precipitation. Runoff water originating from the roofs of buildings and from driveways is usually discharged directly to subsurface dry wells situated on the building lot. However, the great volume of runoff water originating from paved streets and roads is usually discharged by pipes into large open recharge basins or sumps. These basins may cover several acres and require the removal of much native vegetation to the detriment of the site's ecology and aesthetics. The Pine Barrens Review Commission may discourage the construction of large excavated recharge basins and may encourage the use of alternative natural recharge areas and/or drainage system designs that will cause less disturbance of the site. Such al- ternatives include, but are not limited to, the use of natural swales and depressions and/or the installation of perforated pipe, ver- tical drains or dry wells. The Pine Barrens Review Commission may recommend disapproval of a proposal if all stormwater runoff originating from devel- opment on the property is not recharged on site. Ponds should only be created in place of recharge basins, not for aesthetic pur- poses. They should be constructed and planted to create a shallow marsh habitat to filter rubnoff to the maximum extent possible. A management plan should be developed which requires minimal augmentation and attempts to balance evaporation with size limitation of the pond. 9. FARMLAND Scattered throughout the Pine Barrens Zone are parcels of farmland. Some of the parcels may consist entirely of active farmland, whereas others may encompass farmland and mature forest. While the Pine Barrens Review Commission is sensitive to and supportive of the need to preserve prime farmland, its primary responsibility is to protect the groundwater quality and native vege- tation/habitat of the Pine Barrens. The Pine Barrens Review Commission may give its highest priority to presewing the wood- lands. For parcels that are entirely in active agriculture and within Hydregeologic Zones [1! and V and contain prime agricultural soils, the Commission recommends the clustering of structures on the poorest soils and retention of the remaining prime farmland for agricultural use of a nature that will cause minimal impact on the groundwater quality. For parcels consisting of both active farmland and forest, within Hydrogeologic Zones [!I and V the Commission recommends that preservation of the woodlands be given the higher priority. Furthermore, if active farming is planned for the underdeveloped area, the density standard of one dwell- ing unit per two acres adopted by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services must be met. Any area outside Hydro- geologic Zones [1! and V may contain active farming. F-4 10. REZONING OF LAND The protection of groundwater quality and native vegetation/habitat are two paramount goals of the Pine Barrens Review Commission. Both of these goals may be threatened by rezonings that increase density or intensity of land use (such as rezoning from large-lot single-family residential to high-density multiple-family residential or rezoning from Iow-density residential to com- mercial or industrial use). The Pine Barrens Review Commission may recommend disapproval of any rezoning applications that increase density or intensity of use, unless applicants are able to demonstrate that rezoning will not have a greater threat to groundwater quality and/or native vegetation/habitat than existing zoning. Proposed rezoning should comply with all other policies and standards of the Commission. Due to the sensitive nature of the Pine Barrens, and their resulting ecological and environmental importance in the protection of our sole source aquifer, the compatibility of increased density in those areas to create an affordable price is not justified, if it com- promises those standards and policies deemed necessary to protect the Pine Barrens. If a town board decides to endorse a change of zone to MF or PRC for affordable housing within the Pine Barrens, the Commis- sion will work to insure that standards and criteda are followed for aquifer protection. The Commission suggests that these projects could be sited more advantageously in less sensitive areas outside the Pine Barrens Zone. 11. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT Throughout the Pine Barrens Zone are numerous pamels of land that are zoned for industrial use. Future development of these parcels by industries that store and use toxic and hazardous chemicals could increase groundwater contamination. It is the policy of the Pine Barrens Review Commission to encourage the rezoning of vacant industrial sites within the Pine Barrens Zone to less intensive/less potentially hazardous uses, and the concentrating of industrial development outside the boundaries of the Zone. Furthermore, the Commission may recommend disapproval of any industrial/commercial development which contravenes the provisions of Article 7 and 12 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. 12. CLUSTERING The use of the clustering technique within the Pine Barrens Zone will be required when large open space tracts can be preserved through coordination between contiguous projects. The developer should contact the staff of the PBRC for assistance prior to de- signing the site plan. It is the recommendation of the PBRC to dedicate all open space resulting from clustering, if possible, to public or private groups whose interests are the preservation of natural areas. Clustering can be used in site planning to minimize disturbance of sensitive portions of the site. The following should be used as guidelines in clustering residential subdivisions: · Wo~ded Parcel - with slopes less than 10% on parcel. Recommendations - The development on a parcel, if adjacent to other parcels to be reviewed or adjacent to existing dedicated open space, should be clustered to take advantage of increasing natural open space. · Wooded Parcel- more than 50% of parcel has slopes less than 10%; remainder of parcel has slopes greater than 10%. Recommendations - Lots should be clustered on slopes less than 10%. · Parcel Partly Wooded and Partly Old Field/Agricultural Recommendations - Clustering shall occur on the open field portion of the site first with the intent of preserving as much of the natural Pine Barrens as possible. · Wooded or Field- with slopes greater than 10% throughout site. Recommendations - Cluster lots to keep building envelopes (per town zoning) on slopes less than 10%. Roads and driveways should be designed to minimize the transvereing of slopes of greater than 10% and to minimize cuts and fills. Details of retaining walls and erosion control structures shall be provided for roads and driveways which transverse slopes greater than 10%. No retaining wall or erosion control structure shall be constructed beyond the R.O.W. or 8' beyond the edge of roadway which- ever is less. F-5 For pdvate driveways the limits of retaining walls and erosion control structures shall conform to the clearing limits set forth by the PBRC. Any subdivision applications which contain building envelopes with slopes greater than 10% or which, based on technical review, contain extensive usa of retaining walls for the roadway system, may require a DEIS to analyze the impact of erosion and the changing of the character of the land. The Commission may disapprove an application where a tighter cluster than proposed is possible and preferable. 13. COORDINATED DESIGN Comprehensive, coordinated planning and design of development proposals, especially residential subdivisions, within the Pine Bar- rens Zone is essential to ensure maximum preservation of open space. Frequently, landownem design their subdivisions without ade- quate consideration of the existing development and/or of future plans for the adjacent pamels. This can result in inefficient road paltems that may require unnecessary clearing and lot layout which may prevent the preservation of large, unbroken tracts of forest. The developers should contact the staff of the PBRC or Town for input on coordination of open spaces between adjacent parcels. It is the policy of the Pine Barrens Review Commission to review all development proposals for individual parcels in light of the potential or existing layout of all adjacent parcels to ensure that the designs are coordinated and that minimal clearing and maxi- mum open space presen/ation can be achieved. The owners of parcels are urged to consult with the town planning personnel be- fore designing their subdivisions. 14. OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT The preservation of open spaces and the conservation of native vegetation within the Pine Barrens Zone is a central goal of the Pine Barrens Review Commission. Such open spaces may be configured as buffer areas, green belts, slope management areas, or wetland protection areas. However, proper management of these areas is essential in order to protect open spaces from illegal dumping, clearing, motor vehicle trespass and other abuses of the environment. The Pine Barrens Review Commission may rec- ommend that proposed open space be designated with easements that specify proper restrictions on its usa. Additionally, these easements shall be in favor of an entity properly organized for the management of the resoume such as a homeowners associa- tion, local government agency, or not-for-profit land trust. 15. WELLHEAD PROTECTION Given the variability in subsurface geology and the movement of water through the unsaturated and saturated zones and the dif- ferences in well depth, capacity and pumpage patterns, the application of a general formula for calculation of the zone of contri- bution may result in overprotection of certain well sites and insufficient protection of others. For many years the New York State Department of Health has advocated the exclusion of potentially contaminating activities from an area extending for 200 feet in all directions from the well site. Although this may have been considered adequate to prevent the rapid drawdown of bacterial contamination or its entry into ground water through poorly constructed wells, it seems unlikely to provide an appropriate level of protection against the suite of organic and inorganic pollutants that threaten the community water supplies. Pine Barrens Review Commission will consider the location of nearby public supply wells and consult with the purveyor. Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services guidelines for private wells will be used for wellhead protection. If it can be demonstrated by staff that a project may impact water quality at a public well site, the project may be disapproved. F-6 TABLE F-2 Suitable Groundcover Alternatives for Long Island*** Plants Suitable for Sandy or Loamy Soils, Areas Near Salt Water and Dune Areas (Also good for General Use) Low Growing Common Name Dusty Miller Beach Grass (Dunes only) Sea Oates (Dunes only)** Bayberry Rugosa Rose White Rugosa Rose Virginia Creeper Beach Plum Japanese Rose Memorial Rose Shore Juniper Bearberry Genera/Use Groundcover Juniper Bugle Weed Myrtle or Periwinkle(Partial shade) Japanese Spurge(Partial shade) Purple-Leaf Wintercreeper English Ivy (Partial shade) Baltic Ivy (Partial shade) Curly-Leaf Ivy (Partial shade) 238th Street Ivy (Partial shade) Scientific Name Evergreen Artemisia stelleriana Ammophila breviligulata Uniola paniculata Myrica pensylvanica Rosa rugosa Rosa rugosa alba Parthenocissus quinquefolia Prunus rnaritima Rosa rnultiflora Rosa wichuriana Juniperus conferta Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Juniper Species Ajuga reptans Vinca minor Pachysandra terminalis Euonymus fortunei radicans coloratus Hedera helix Hedera helix baltica Ivy Hedera helix conglornerata Hedera helix cultivar 238 Steep Banks-Slopes-Low Maintenance Areas Crown Vetch Coronilla varia Plant the Following Shrubs in Large Numbers to Achieve Effect of Groundcover Azalea Rock Cotoneaster Early Cotoneaster Skogsho]men Cotoneaster Mountain Laurel(Part shade) Wilson Rhododendron (Part shade) Japanese Skimmia (Part shade) English Weeping Yew Potentilla Blackberries, Blueberries, Raspberries Note: Ail plants in lhis chart are perennials *Tall shrubs - over five feet Rhodendron species Cotoneaster horizontalis Cotoneaster praecox Cotoneaster Skogsholrnen Kalmia latifolia Rhododendrom wilsoni Skimmia japonica 21zxus repandens Potentilla species Rubus and Vaccinium Species X X X X Groundcover Shrub Form X X X X X X X X* X* X X X X varies varies* X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X* X X X X X X X X* X X X X X X X* In addition to meadow grass mixes, ~o native One barrens' Bluestem Grasses (Andropogon virginicus, gerard/and Scoparius) and ~ndlan Grass (Sorghastrurn nutans) may also be used. *** Source: 208 Nonpeint Source Management Handbook, LIRPB, 1984 F-7 Appendix G: GOLF COURSE MANAGEMENT AND NITRATES IN GROUNDWATER* It is impossible to overstate the importance of groundwater supplies to our nation. Groundwater - the water pumped from wells below the soil surface -- presently accounts for 50 percent of our nation's drinking water. In rural areas 95 percent of drinking water supplies come from groundwater. Protecting this nonreplaceable natural resource should be a pdority of every citizen. Many chemicals can be considered potential contaminants of groundwater. The list usually includes pesticides, leachate from landfills, organics (such as cleaning solvents, gasoline and oil) and nitrates from septic fields or fertilizers. The issue having the potentially greatest ramifications for golf courses is nitrates from fertilizers. Nitrates have been associated with several environmental problems, including surface water quality (eutrophication), productivity of both managed and natural ecosystems, acid rain and the depletion of the stratosphere ozone by nitrous oxides. When you consider groundwater as a main source of drinking water, however, the effect of nitrates on human health is the greatest concern. The list of potential health risks associated with nitrates includes birth defects, cancer, nervous system impairments and the blue baby syndrome. This syndrome -- called methemoglobinemiz~ -- is the main health hazard of consumption of nitrates and oc- curs when nitrate reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood. This condition occurs most often in infants less than 3 months old who are not on solid foods. Citrus fruits or vitamin A supplements reduce the chance of methemoglobinemia. Older children or adults are generally not affected by nitrates (or nitrites) in water or food. About 86 pement of the adult intake of nitrates comes from vegetables and only 1 percent from water. The average person in the United States consumes 22.5 mg (0.0008 ounces) of nitrate-N each day. The U.S. EPA recommends the maximum concentrate limit of 10 mg of nitrate-N per liter, or 10 ppm, in drinking water. The lowest level recorded to cause a health problem was 20 mg nitrate-N per liter. There have been virtually no reports of methemogloo binemia in the United States in recent years. One report in 1982 concerned a 6-week-old infant whose formula was prepared with well water containing 121 mg nitrate-N per liter. The symptoms quickly disappeared when the well water was no longer used. The other health-related effects of nitrates in drinking water have not been widely confirmed and are considered more speculative in nature. Thus, new research will have to show a clear health risk before stronger measures will be taken to reduce the nitrate levels acceptable in drinking water. Historical Perspective of Turfgrass Fertilization and Groundwater In the early 1970s, one of the first areas of the country to find high nitrate levels in municipal drinking wells was Long Island, N.Y. With about 28 percent of the land area of Long Island's two counties (Nassau and Suffolk) being used in turfgrass cultura, cou- pled with a high average rate of nitrogen applied (2.3 lbs. N/1,000 sq. ft. per year), implications were made that turfgrass fertiliz- ers contaminated groundwater. The controversy was further fueled by preliminary research results. A study done on a lawn type turfgrass showed that between 20 percent and 80 percent of the nitrogen applied was accounted for by plant uptake. The conclu- sion was that an average value of 50 percent of the nitrogen fertilizer applied ended up in the plant, and the rest would leach (Sel- leck et al, 1980). It was assumed that nitrates not taken up by the plant must leach into the groundwater. In the last 10 years, a wealth of knowledge has been generated about the fate of nitrogen applied to turfgrass. Even though about half of the nitrogen applied to turfgrass does end up in the plant, the other haft can be found either stored in the soil, lost to the at- mosphere, leached into groundwater or transported as run-off into surface water. Petrovic, A. Martin. 1989, Golf course management and nitrates in groundwatec the ma/story. Golf Course Management 57 (9}: 54-64. Article reproduced with the permission of the au~or. G-1 Fertilizer nitrogen found to be stored in the soil and thatch was shown to be between 36 pement to 47 percent of the amount ap- plied (Staff and DeRoo, 1981). Nitrogen lost back to the atmosphere from an application to a turfgrass site occurs from two differ- ent processes: ammonia volatilization and denitrification of nitrate. If urea is used as the fertilizer soume, ammonia volatilization can be as high as 40 pement of the fertilizer applied (Nelson et al, 1980). However, if weather conditions are dry or the urea is irri- gated in, the losses are almost zero (Bowman et al, 1987). Research on denitrification as related to turfgrass is limited to only one report, which notes that on soils that are either cool ( _<68°F) or not saturated, little or no denitrification occurred. However, on warm soils (>86°F) that were saturated, 93 pement of the applied nitrogen was denitrlfied and lost back to the atmosphere (Mancino et al, 1988). It is fair to say that, on average, about 25 pement to 35 pement of the fertilizer nitrogen applied may be lost back to the atmosphere -- especially if urea is used as the nitrogen source. The controversy of nitrates in groundwater as it relates to goff courses centers on the nature and management of golf course turfs. When people think of greens and tees, some think of very sandy, highly modified soils that drain very easily, are heavily irri- gated and do not hold nutrients. Add the pemeption that golf courses use heavy amounts of fertilizer and if is easy to see how some people might conclude that golf courses contaminate groundwater with nitrates. A number of weaknesses are found in this conclusion: The highly send portions of most golf courses are confined to greens and possibly tees, though this is usually true on courses~vounger than 20 years. This relates to about 2 to 4 acres of the 60 to 100 acres of turf on a t.yp~c~z! 18 hole golf course. To put this in perspective, for a state like New York with 1,000 golf courses, there would be about 2,000 acres of greens and tees out of a total of 30 million acres in the state, or 0.00007 percent of the land area. Comparing this with lawns 700,000 acres, or 2.3 percent or cropland 6 million acres, or 20 percent, the portion of golf courses having the highest potential for nitrate leaching represent an insignificant threat to the environment as a whole. Research information on sites like golf greens containing high amounts of sand do not support the conclusion that golf courses are prone to heavy nitrate leaching, especially with today's trend toward lower nitrogen use rates and the use of slow-release soumes. Early work done on USGA specification greens of bermudagrass (Brown et al, 1982) found that 22 percent of the fertilizer, in this case ammonium nitrate applied at an excessive rate of 3 lbs./1,000 sq. ft. in February, leached in the first 50 days after it was applied. However, when rates of nitrogen more typical of standard maintenance practices were applied (1 to 1.5 lbs. per application) to straight sand greens of either bentgrass or bermudagrasa, nitrate leaching was only 1 pement to 2 percent of the amount of nitrogen applied (Sheard et al, 1985 and Synder et al, 1981), even for urea. In the case of bermudagrass (Synder et al, 1981), the average concentration of nitrate in the drainage water was 0.2 mg nitrate-N/I, far below the sere drinking water standard of 10 mg/1. · Research findings from sites with less sandy soils, more typical of fairways, older greens and trees, roughs and general turfgrass sites, further support the conclusion that golf courses do not contaminate groundwater with high levels of nitrates. In an unirrigated (Starrand DeRoo, 1981 ) or conservatively irrigated lcrrun-t. Tpe site with season-long fertilizer rates of 4 lbs. N/1,000 scl. ft. or less (Morton et al, 1988), nitrate levels leaving the root zone were not significantly higher than those of unfertilized plots. When research does show nitrate leaching from turfgrass areas, that leaching fortunately lends itself to being controlled by the best management practices. This most often occurs as follows: when excessive nitrogen amounts are used (Brown et al, 1977), more often when highly water soluble nitrogen sources are used (urea, ammonium nitrate, ammonium sulfate or potassium nitrate) (Synder et al, 1978); when nitrogen fertilizer is applied in a dormant or semi-dormant period of limited plant uptake andgreater water percolation through the soil (Petrovic et al, 1986, and Synder et al, 1984); and where excessive irrigation has caused greater amounts of leaching (Synder et al, 1984, Brown et al, 1977, and Morton et al, 1988). Managing Golf Courses to Minimize Nitrate Leaching Several factors are important in determining the leaching potential of a fertilizer applied to turf. These factors include the source of nitrogen and how readily available or soluble it is, the rate of application, the season of the year of the application, irrigation practices and soil type. Fortunately, a turfgrass manager has control over the first three factors; thus, nitrate leaching can be kept near zero or at least at an acceptable level. What follows is a discussion of these factors as they relate to golf course manage- ment. G-2 Summary of Nitrate Leaching From Fertilizers Single N Total Information Nitrogen Application Yearly Source(location) Source Rate N Rate lbs N/lO00 fl. Brown et al 1977 (Texas) Brown at al 1982 (Texas) Nitroform 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Ammonium 3.5 3.5 Nitrate 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Milorganite 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ammonium 0.5 0.5 Sulfate 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 IBDU 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Milorganite Nitroform Ammonium Nitrate Urea/Fluf Motron et al 1988 (Rhode Island) Mosdell and Ammonium Schmidt 1985 Nitrate (growth chamber) IBDU Nelson et al 1980 IBDU Urea Petrovic et al 1986 Nitroform (New York) PCU (150D) Milorganite Urea SCU Sheard et al 1985 Urea (Ontario) ---er'~' 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 I 2 I 2 1 5 1 5 0 0 0 0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.5 6.0 Applied to Turfgrass Concentrate of Season Turfgrass % of N Nitrate-N Applied Soil Type Irr~qation Type Leached In Water June sand/peat 0.25'/da~ June san ,,d~eat O.35'/dai 0.41 "/dai Feb. 0.25'/da 0.35'/da 0.41 "/da Oct. 0.25'/da 0.35'/da 0.41 '/dai Summer O.4'/day O.4'/day O.4"/day O.4"/day June sand/peat 0.4',!day sand/soil/ peat sandy loam soil Oct. sand/peat loam soil sandy loam soil June sand/peat sand/soil/ peat sandy loam soil Feb. sand/peat 0.4'/day* sand/soil/ 0.4'/day* peat sandy O.4"/day* loam soil June-Nov. sandy 0.5'/wk** loam 1.5'N/k 0.5"/wk** 1.5'/wk 0.5'N~k** 1.5'/wk cool silt loam 1 cool 2'N,,k warm 1 '/wk warm 2"/wk cool 1 '/wk cool 2'N,,k warm l'/wk warm silt loam O.9',!day thatch warm silt loam thatch Nov. sandy none loam Bermuda- grass green Kentucky bluegrass red rescue lawn m,q/1 <1 <1 <1 >10 for 20 days >10 for 28 days <3 <6 <5 37 <10 25 <10 22 >10 on 3 day 6 >10 on 3 day 0.9 0 0.7 <2 0,1 <1 Kentucky bluegrass grean,,nouse Kentucky bluegrass rewth c~amber Kentucky bluegrass lawn whole year sand not g~iven Bentgrass greens 7.7 0 2.4 2.2 0.5 0 0.2 0 0.3 0 0.1 0 22 >10 for 25 days 22 >10 for 25 days 8.6 >10 for 25 days 0.87 1.77! 1.24 4.02! 0.61 0.36 0 0 1.2 2.6 2.7 0 0 0 26 7 32 84 0.4 0.0 0.3 29-47 11-12 2.0 1.2 <1.3 <1.3 G-3 Information Nitrogen Source(;ocatlon} Source Staff and DeRoo Ammonium 1981 (Connecticut) Sulfate TABLE (Cont'd.) Single N Total Application Yearly Rate N Rate lbs N/1000 ft. 1.8 3,7 Synder et al 1981 Check 0 (Florida) Methylene 0.8 Urea Nitroform SCU IBDU Urea Calcium Nitrate Menthylene 1.6 Urea Nitroform SCU IBDU Urea Calcium Nitrate Synder et al 1984 Ammonium 1/month (Florida) Nitrate SCU Fertigation Ammonium 1/m~)nth Nitrate SCU Fertigalion Ammonium 1/month Nitrate SCU Fertigation Ammonium 1/month Nitrate SCU (season) Fertigation Ammonium Nitrate SCU Fertigation Ammonium Nitate SCU Fertigation Season Turfgrass % of N Applied Soil Type Irriqation Type Leached May/Sept. sandy none loam 0 whole, year s~,,nd 5.0 Kentucky 0 bluegrass/ red fescue lawn as needed Bermuda- 0 grass <1 10.0 2 Feb.-Mar 0.23"/day (daily) 2 June-July sand Apr.-May <1 0 0.5 0 3.7 2.0 0.1 0.8 5.5 0.9 9.3 54.6 Concentrate of Nitrate*N In Water rn,q/1 0 1/month <1 1/month Feb.-Mar, <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 * Irrigation applied every other day **lrrigalJon input delivered dd not result in water moving out of the root zone. ! Values significantly higher than unfertilized control p~ots. 1 <1 1.4 <1 2.4 9.4 33,1 6.5 " 7.0 1.2 0.12"/day Bermuda- 8.3 3.2 (sensor) grass 1.6 0.8 0.8 0.1 22.2 3.2 10.1 1.4 15.3 2.1 1.9 6.2 0.3 1.0 0.3 1.0 56.1 19.9 14.4 4.8 3,6 1.2 40.5 14.4 11.2 4.0 6,3 2.2 0,48"/day (daily) 0.12'/day (sensor) 0.32"/day (daily) 0.06"/day (sensor) G-4 Nitrogen Sources Understanding the various nitrogen soumes is essential to minimizing the nitrate leaching problem. The worst possible scenado occum when a large amount of water-soluble nitrogen is present in the soil and a substantial volume of water passes through the soil. There are two ways to avoid this situation. One is to use slow-release nitrogen soumes that control the amount of soluble ni- trogen present at any one time. The second involves very light, but frequent, surface applications of soluble nitrogen sources; this may be done by using standard application procedures or by fertigation. Nitrogen Source The Properties of Nitrogen Sources Used on Golf Courses Fo/ia: Percentage Low Temp Initial Residual Water: Burn Acidifying: Leaching Type Nitrogen Response* Response** Response... Solubility Potential Potential Potential Ammonium Synthetic 33 G F L H H M H nitrate Inorganic Ammonium 21 G F L H H H H sulfate Activated Natural 4-7 M-P M-S E L L L L sewage organic Sludge (M~organite) Digested 1-3 M-P S E L L L L sewage IBDU Synthetic 31 M M-S M-E L L L M organic Urea 45 G F L H H M H Urea 38 P M-S E L L L L formaldehyde Sulfur-coated 32 M M M-E M-L L M M urea G, Good; M, Moderate: P, Poor ** F, Past: M, Medium; S, Slow ...E, Exteaded; M, Moderate: L, little :H, High; M, Moderate; L, Low Nitrogen soumes that release nitrogen at a slow rate are called slow-release. The slow-release property is sometimes a result of synthetic or naturel organics requiring microbial activity to convert the nitrogen to a plant available form. In some cases, water very slowly dissolves the nitrogen. Finally, the slow- release preperty can be due to the soluble nitrogen being physically pro- tected With a coating. One practice a golf course superintendent can adopt is the use, whenever possible, of a slow-release nitro- gen soume to protect against an uncontrollable event that could lead to unusually high potential for leaching. Such an event occurs, for instance, when a significant amount of rain (1 or 2 inches) falls within several days of applying a highly soluble nitro- gen source at the high rate of 1 lb. N/l,000 sq. ft. Another sound practice is to apply a soluble nitrogen source frequently, but at a lower rate (1/10 to 1/4 lb. N/l,000 sq. ft.) This spoon £eec~nE approach avoids substantial leaching, even from soumes that have a high potential for leaching. So why not use only slow-release nitrogen sources to protect groundwater quality? In general, the slow-release nitrogen soumes give poor to moderate response in cool weather. In such weather, therefore, it is necessary to use highly soluble nitrogen soumes. Slow-release nitrogen sources generally are also more expensive and are usually applied in a dry form, which under some cimumstances is inconvenient. If the golf course superintendent is following the spoon £e¢Eing approach, it would be more apprepriate to use highly water soluble nitrogen sources. However, on less highly managed portions of the golf course that are fertilized (fairways, roughs and grounds areas), it may be wise to use slow-release nitrogen soumes exclusively to reduce the po- tential for nitrate leaching. G-5 Nitrogen Application Rates and Timing One of the main goals of any fertilizer program is to provide the optimum amount of a given nutrient necessary to provide the desired response. The optimum amount can vary from course to course and from grass to grass within a given course. Thus, general fertilizer programs have been broadly developed, recognizing the need for local adjustment. There has been a trend over the past 10 years to reduce the total yearly amount of nitrogen fertilizer applied to some portions of the goff course, especially greens and fairways. This has occurred in response to a variety of concerns, including the desire for a fast putting surface, the need to reduce maintenance costs, the relationship between higher nitrogen levels and the plants' ability to withstand environ- mental extremes and an increased awareness of environmental concerns. The total amount of nitrogen to be used on warm-or cool-season grasses reflects differences in grass type and length of growing season. The range of recommended application rates takes into consideration differences between nitrogen sources and differ- ences in superintendents' programming desires. Generally, lower rates (1/10 to 1/2 lb. N/1,000 sq. ft.) ars recommended when using highly water soluble nitrogen sources (urea, ammonium sulfate/nitrate) as compared to the slow-release sources that can be applied at higher rates (1/2 to 1.0 lb. N/1,000 sq. ft.) in each case, the goal is to produce turf with consistent color and a uni- form growth rate as evidence of a consistent supply of nitrogen. From the perspective of groundwater quality, the time of year to avoid fertilizing with higher amounts of soluble nitrogen is when the temperatures are cool (reflecting little or no plant uptake) and precipitation is plentiful. Generally, this occurs in late fall (No- vember-December) for cool-season grasses and eady spdng (February) for warm-season grasses. At this time, more water is percolating through the soil into the groundwater, the plant is not taking up much nitrogen and only limited amounts of nitrogen are being tied up by microbes. The net result is a much greater potential for substantial nitrate leaching. If nitrogen must be applied at this time, the golf course superintendent should use either lower rates of soluble nitrogen sources or use slow-release sources. Typical Yearly Nitrogen Fertilizer Program for Golf Courses GRASS TYPE Creeping Single Location Bentgrass* Bermudagrass** Application Rate -lbs. N/1,000 ft/yr- -lbs. N/1,000 ff- green 2 to 6 4 to 12 0.1 to 1.0 tee 2 to 6 5 to 10 0.1 to 1.0 fairways 1 to 4 3 to 9 0.5 to 1.0 roughs/general areas 1 to 2 * Creeping bontgress or other cool-season grasses **bermudagrass or other warm-season grasses Irrigation Management Proper irrigation of a golf course is extremely important. First, it is obvious that there is a need to conserve and manage our fresh- water supplies. Second, irrigation -- particularly over-irrigation -- results in significantly more nitrate leaching under some condi- tions. Therefore, in terms of water conservation and water quality, proper irrigation is critical. An efficient irrigation program is one that relies on a well- designed and installed system and a procedure for adjusting irrigation events based on rainfall and plant water needs. The former is the responsibility of the designer/contractor, and the latter is under the control of the golf course superintendent. Programming of the irrigation system should be based on replacing the amount of water that is used by the plant and not supplied by rainfait. This implies that no water is wasted through over- irrigation and that soluble chemicals, such as nitrates, do not leach. The golf course superintendent must use the latest technology available to make the irrigation programs as efficient as possible. This technology includes irrigation controllers directly linked to instruments such as rain gauges or tensiometers or to other sources of data related to evapotranspiration. This information can then be used to support irrigation programs. G-6 Other Approaches Several other approaches to consider to reduce potential nitrate leaching include using grasses or other plants that have a Iow ni- trogen requirement; collecting, treating or recycling run-off or drainage water; and amending soils to retain nitrogen. These should be considered as minor in comparison to the previous section but can be a valuable part of an overall plan to reduce the potential for nitrate leaching. Low Nitrogen Requirement Ranking of Turfgrasses Moderate red fescue chewings rescue hard rescue tall fescue sheep rescue centipedegrass carpetgrass bahiagrass perennial ryegrass Kentucky bluegrass St. Augustinegrass - annual bluegrass - - creeping bentgrass - - colonial bentgrass - - zoysiagrass - High bermudagrass One approach to limit the potential of nitrate leaching is to reduce the total amount of nitrogen applied to the golf course. This can be accomplished either by decreasing the amount of land devoted to higher-nitregen-raquidng grasses or by using lower- nitro- gen-requiring grasses. Reducing the size of fairways and roughs is a start in the right direction. Using grasses, where applicable, with a lower nitrogen requirement can also accomplish this goal. Wherever possible, grasses with lower nitrogen requirements should be used. Caution should be exerdised in considering a reduction in the size of greens and tees. Greens must be large enough to provide a safe landing for the approach shot and to handle the amount of traffic placed on them. Small greens may make the hold too difficult to play and may suffer from too much traffic concentrated in a small area. Many new golf courses are also using native plants, wildflowers or ornamental grasses in non-play areas. Generally, these plants are beneficial because they need lower amounts of water and nutrients (especially nitrogen) and require less mewing. The use of these plants can make the game more challenging and can make the course mere aesthetically appealing. Most important, these plants help to conserve natural resoumes. Other physical systems can be incorporated into a water quality management program. Included in this are collecting and possi- bly treating surface run-off and subsurtace drainage water. Where run-off appears to be a problem, attempts could be made to in- temept the water. Providing a level grc~sseE intercept zone just below the sloped site would encourage infiltration of the water into the soil. A catchment system could also be used to hold run-off; such a system could be linked with the irrigation supply to recycle the run-off. Before an extensive system of this nature is installed, it must be shown that a problem does e)dst. For almost all situ- ations, a measure this drastic is not necessary. New goff course construction, where drainage systems ara being installed, provides an opportunity to collect and recycle drain- age water that could contain trace amounts of either nutrients or pesticides. Recycling of water by applying it back to the turfgrass surface will put any chemicals in the water through the natural biological filter and not into groundwater. The holding and recycling of drainage water may require the development of new technology. With regulations in some parts of the country requiring a zero level of any contaminate reaching the groundwater, mandatory drainage water recycling systems may be a way of lite in the near future. Amending sand for putting green construction may prove to be a valuable means of reducing nitrate leaching. Sand, by nature, does not absoft:) nutrients (Iow cation exchange capacity), especially the inorganic forms of nitrogen (ammonium and nitrate) and potassium. Most sources of nitrogen fertilizers generally go through a conversion from ammonium to nitrate (nitritication). Ammo- nium, being a cation (+ charge), is held in soils having a high cation exchange capacity (not sand). Nitrate, on the other hand, is an anion (- charge) and is not held in soil, so it is easily leached if water is passing through the soil. G-7 The ideal amendment would stop nitrogen from leaching but still allow the green to have the physical properties of good drainage and aeration and compaction resistance. Clay has good cation holding properties but would destroy the physical properties of the green. One material potentially meets both criteria - natural zeolite. One natural zeolite, called clinoptilolite, is a secondary min- eral with a high silica content formed from volcanic rock. Large deposits of clinoptilolite are found in the Western United States. Ciinoptilolite can be crushed and screened to sandsize particles with good physical properties and a cation exchange capacity like clay. initial studies have shown that the physical properties of sand mixtures containing 5 percent clinoptilolite are maintained at the same time that the cfinoptilolite protects the ammonium from being converted to nitrate (Ferguson et al, 1988). Large-scale field testing is now under way to determine to what extent clinoptiiolite-amended sand will resist nitrate leaching. Implications for Goff Courses As shown in this article, golf courses can be managed so that nitrates from fertilizers do not contaminate groundwater supplies. The following are practices that can help accomplish this goal: · Apply frequent light rates of nitrogen or use slow-release nitrogen sources, even though they may be more costly. · Avoid fertilizing at times of the year when turfgrass is naturally slow growing, especially in cool weather. · Conservatively irrigate the golf course to save water and reduce leaching. · Reduce the scope of the l~e~u~l;y mana£ecJ areas of the golf course and use less energy-demanding plants where possible. When one compares these practices to traditional row-crop agriculture, golf courses are far less likely to contaminate groundwa- ter with nitrates. The following are typical row crop agricultural practices: ·Only one, possibly two, applications of nitrogen are made per growing season. · Single application rates are up to four times higher than tuffgraes. · Only highly water soluble nitrogen sources are used because of the high cost of slow-release nitrogen sources, · irrigation is often not as highly controlled as that found on a golf course, thus resulting in a greater potential for leaching. · Less diffuse and extensive surface root system exist to take up nutrients. One study has compared the nitrate leaching losses from l~zruns and from row crop agriculture. Corn leaching losses were 36 pement of applied nitrogen fertilizer, compared with 12 percent for turfgrasses grown on similar soils with similar irrigation prac- tices (Gold and Sullivan, 1988). Thus, row crop agriculture resulted in three times more nitrate leaching than turtgrass. Golf courses have a positive environmental effect and value to society in these ways: · Golf courses have little or no effect on municipal services like police, fire and school systems. · Non-municipally owned golt courses provide tax revenue. · The image of a community is enhanced by what recreation opportunities are available. · The golf course serves as a local employer. · Property values of lands surrounding golf courses increase markedly. · Golf courses provide the beneficial ~reen sp~c~s in urban areas and olten provide an opportunity for wildlife in flourish. In summary, golf courses have been viewed by some as having a negative effect on the environment. With good management practices, groundwater quality can be protected from nitrate contamination. Communities in general benefit greatly from the pres- ence of golf courses. G-8 Ref~l'~ces Bowman, D.C., J.L. Paul, W.B. Davis and S.H. Nelson. 1987. Reducing ammonia volatilization from Kentucky bluegrass turf by irrigation. HortSci. 22:84-87. Brown, K.W., R.L. Duble and J.C. Thomas. 1977. Influence of management and season on fate ofNapplied togolf greens. Agmn. J. 69:667-671. Brown, K.W., J.C. Thomas and R.I.Duble. 1982. Nitrogen source effect on nitrate and ammoniium leaching and runoff losses from greens. Agron. J. 74:947-950. Ferguson, G.A., A.M. Petrovic and Z.T., Huang. 1988. Clinoptilollte zeolite: a nitrogen and water conserving amendment for man-made soils. Agron. Abs. p. 306. Gold, A.J. and W.M. Sullivan. 1988. Assessment and reduction of nonpoint water borne pollutants. USDA. CSRS Annual Repor~ from Hatch Project 307, University of Rode Island. Mancino, C.F., W.A. Torello and D.J. Wehner. 1988. Denitification losses from Kentucky bluegrass sod. Agron. J. 80:148-153. Morton, T.G., A.J. Gold and W.M. Sullivan. 1988. Influence of overwatering and fertilization on nitrogen losses from home/awns. J. Environ. Qual. 17:124-130. Nelson, K.E., A. J. Turgeon and J.R. Street. 1980. Thatch influence on mobility and transformation of nitrogen carriers applied to turL Agron. J. 72:487-492. Petrovic, A.M., N. W. Hummel and M.J. Carroll. 1986. Nitrogen soume effects on nitrate leaching from late fall nitrogen applied to turfgrass. Agron Abs., Amer. Soc. of Agron, Madison, WI. p. 137. Selleck, G., R.S. Kossack. C.C. Chu and K.a. Rykbost. 1980. Studies on fertility and nitrate pollution in turf on Long Island. Long Island Hod. Res. Lab. Report. pp. 165-172. Sheard, R.W., J.M A. Han, G.B. Johnson and J.A. Ferguson. 1985. Mineral nutrition of bentgrass on sand rooting systems. In. F.L. Lemaire (ed) Proc. of 5th Int. Turgrass Res. Conf. INRA. Angers, France. pp. 469-485. Starr, J.L. and H.C. DeRoo. 1981. The fate of nitrogen applied to turfgrass. Crop Sci. 21:531-536. Synder, G.H., E.O. Burt and J.M. Davidson. 1981. Nitrogen leaching in Bermudagrass turf: 2. Effects of nitrogen sources and rates. In. R.W. Sheard (ed) Proc. 4th Int. Turfgrass Res. Conf. Univ. Guelph, Ontario. p. 313-324. Synder, G.H., B.J. Augustin and J.M. Davison. 1984. Moisture sensor-controlled irrigation for reducing N leaching in Bermudagrass tun~. Agron J. 76:964-969. G-9 Appendix H: SUFFOLK COUNTY ACQUISITION PROGRAM Suffolk County Acquisition Plan OVERVIEW OF PROGRAM - The Suffolk County Drinking Water Protection Program (Article Xll of the Suffolk County Charter) was approved through a referendum by 83 pement of the voters in 1987. The program extended a 1/4 cent of the sales tax until the year 2000. Originally, this tax went toward property tax relief for resi- dents in the Southwest Sewer District, and was due to expire at the end of 1989. Changes in the program, proposed by County Executive Halpin in 1988, were also approved by 83 pement of the voters. These changes allowed the county to borrow money against anticipated future sales tax revenues so the county could more rapidly ac- quire land that may otherwise be developed in the future. Upfront bonding has also allowed the county to take advantage of a sof- tening in the real estate market. Article XII of the Suffolk County Charter designated the areas where the county could acquire land; the P~ne Barrens W~lc~rness and/or the Water Protection Preserve. These two areas comprise the legal buying area. In the summer of 1989, County Executive Halpin created an advisory committee made up of environmentalists from Long Island to advise the county on the implementation of the program. In addition, a Hydrology Subcommittee was created to develop a more refined acquisition strategy than Article XII provides. The members of the Hydrology Subcommittee reviewed numerous methods for evaluating, prioritizing, and ranking nominated parcels. After considerable trial applications, it became clear that a more sophisticated, hydrologically-based and technologically- driven approach was necessary. Historically, approaches to prioritizing acquisition sites on a formal basis have created numerical ranking systems initially appeal- ing but ultimately ineffective. The significance of this report's operational cdteria is the absence of a parcel-by-parcel evaluation, wherein decisions are based solely, or primarily, upon the score of a real property-defined portion of land. The Hydrology Subcommittee agreed that identifica- tion of watershed acquisitions strictly, or solely, upon a parcel-by-parcel basis should be avoided. Since high priodty watershed regions will be located in the areas of the county which are distinct from each other with respect to; hydrology, ecology, land use, population, water supply infrastructure, real estate markets and other factors, no evaluation scheme can be endorsed which compares individual parcels in one watershed region with those from other regions. This principle prevents a number of inadvertently inequitable comparisons from being made. A parcel with shallow groundwater recharge on the North Fork, for example, could otherwise be n3nl~E lower than a parcel elsewhere with deep recharge, despite the potentially equal value of the two within their respective regional watersheds, and thus to the surrounding communities. Similarly, a relatively small open space parcel in Western Suffolk might fare poorty against a large central or East End tract on the basis of average recharge per day - despite the importance of that parcel within its local watersh~. ,'egion. Based upon the Hydrology Subcommittee's review of environmental management literature and actual land evaluation efforts, it became clear that the best guidance for the Suffolk County Drinking Water Protection Program was one that identified discrete, localized assemblages of land parcels that contained a mixture of public and private holdings. Each of these assemblages blended considerations of hydrology, groundwater protection, ecological values and local significance. The Hydrology Subcommittee endorsed the definition of a number of regional subwater~heds within Suffolk County and the Suf- folk County Pine Barrens Zone. H-1 I'he assemblages are termed subwatcrsheds because they occur within the larger groundwater watersheds identified within the legal buying areas of Article XII of the Suffolk County Charter. The private land holdings within the subwatersheds are therefore potential candidate sites for public acquisition. The subwatersheds are portions of the SGPAs and Pine Barrens Zone, and are areas in which locally desirable scientific condi- tions and opportunities to acquire private open space lands coincide. Hydrology and opportunity thus became an important crite- ria. A number of regional criteria were utilized while defining the subwatershed boundaries. These cdteria include, but are not limited to, the following: Regional Scientific Criteria Located in a SGPA Recharge hydrology Proximity to groundwater divide Water table contours Water quality Groundwater flow direction Suitability for water supply and/or recharge Wellhead protection areas Relationship to surface waters Ecological integrity Regional Planning Criteria Population distribution Amount of private undeveloped land Amount of publicly he~d open space Development projections Water quality threats Subwatersheds reflect the patchwork real~ of the present day landscape: variable-sized open space tracts within a matrix of pre- dominantly developed land. As such, they represent the best remaining opportunities for building large, contiguous, protected tracts of watershed land in Suffolk County. In each subwatershed, one of more keystone parcels can be defined. Keystone par- cels are those sites which are crucial to making a subwatershed work. They may be single parcels or a collection of several con- tiguous lots which, when taken together, secure the essential features of the subwatershed. It is the recommendation of this subcommittee that the expenditure of acquisition funds from the Drinking Water Protection Pro- gram be concentrated in these subwatersheds. Further, the subcommittee members believe that this methodology may be appli- cable to future public land acquisition programs which are designed to protect our fragile groundwater. The subwatersheds defined by the Hydrology Subcommittee are shown on Figure H-1. H-2 THE SEVEN SUFFOLK COUNTY S.G.P.A.s AND THEIR SUB-WATERSHEDS ,,~ ~,~ ~ .~..., Sou~hold ,, ? ,:., ~; - ~ South ,~ .... ,, ,,,, ~ ',:: ', ',~: ~ ~ ..... ' ,' ~..k ~ -~l,J~, ,,~.~, ~ Pecomc P~ne Barrens -~ :~, .~ ,~.~- ~ . , / fl ~ ,~,, ,~2.~' ~ ~anorwlle Hamlet ,jf'~*'"" .,2,}::,~'' ~ East Central Pine Barrens ~-:~' ~ Laurel Lake Woods ~'-' ~ Oak Brush Hams ~) Central Southold (~) South Setauket Woods (~ Long Springs (~) Northern Centereach (~ Noyack Hills/Airport Ridge (~) West Melville (~) Coram ~) Stony Hill Woods West Hills (~) East Melville (~) West Central Pine Barrens (~) Hither Woods Subwatershed Descriptions The subwatersheds listed here vary widely in size, land use, etc., and this diversity reflects the reality of Suffolk County's remain- ing privately held open space. As such, they are the last opportunities for constructing a county-wide watershed lands assem- blage. West Hills Subwatershed Occupying the portion of the West-Hills-Melville SGPA from the Northern State Parkway to the northern boundary of the SGPA, this subwatershed is characterized by one and two acre residential zoning, and several large open space pamels. The 785 acres of West Hills County Park, the Nature Conservancy's Uplands Farm and Franklin Pond Preserves, and the recently purchased 99 acre Wick's Farm all lie to the north of the groundwater divide. Several private parcels of substantial size remain here, and provide, in combination with cun-ent public conservation lands, the opportunity to protect both a recharge and several public supply wells. West Melville Subwatershed Located in the southwestern portion of the West-Hills Melville SGPA, this subwatershed is approximately bounded by the Long island Expressway south service road on the north, the county line on the west, Wait Whitman Road on the east, and the southern boundary of the Town of Huntington parkland on the south. East Melville Subwatershed Encompassing the southeasternmost portion of the West Hills- Melville SGPA below the Long Island Expressway, this area is characterized by a combination of residential, agricultural, institutional, and open space land uses. Zoning patterns vary from one acre residential in the Huntington portion to one quarter acre residential in the Babylon portion. A notable private open space holding of 475 acres, currently used for nonprofit activities, is the most salient opportunity here, although other private open space is extant as well. Oak Brush Plains Subwatershed Near the juncture of the Islip, Babylon and Huntington town lines, and situated in the southwestern comer o! the Oak Brush Plains SGPA, this subwatershed is composed of the state's Edgewood/Oak Brush Plains Preserve and the former Multi-Town Solid Waste Authority Site. Delineation of this subwaterehed was driven by its context within the overall Oak Brush Plains SGPA. Outside this subwatershed, commercial, industrial, transportation, institutional and residential land uses predominate. Additional acquisition opportunities are accordingly Defy Zirni~ed. Although not within this SGPA, and therefore not included in this subwatershed, there is additional adjacent public open space on the west side of Commack Road, including a portion of the state lands and Huntington's Otssgo Park. A Suffolk Water Authority wellfieid is located adjacent to (upgradient ct) that additional public land. immediately southeast of the overall SGPA lies the 38 acre Bishop's Tract, the first Ddnking Water Protection Program purchase undertaken jointly by a town (Islip) and the county under the program's Environmental Trust Fund initiative. South Setauket Woods Subwatershed Possibly the most complex of the SGPAs addressed by the Hydrology Subcommittee, the South Setauket region contains one half acre residential, D-1 commercial-business, apartments and single family units, private and public open space, and is home to numerous residential, commercial, and industrial proposals. H-4 Several water supply wells are located in or near this SGPA, and several future water supply sites have been identified by the Suffolk County Water Authority, both to replace current facilities and to satisfy projected demand increases. Groundwater flow here is generally north, as the area is downgradient of the divide which lies just north of NYS Route 25 (outside the SGPA). However, local geology can be extremely complex, and therefore unpredictable, as experience with the Northville oil plume in the extreme north central portion of the SGPA has clearly demonstrated. Selection of acquisition subwatersheds here is complicated by the above mentioned factom, though two distinct regions were extensively debated by the subcommittee members. North of NYS Route 347, a subwatershed was delineated which includes portions of the region north of NYS Route 347, west of the developed lands along Old Town Road, south of Upper Sheep Pasture Road and west of the developed land along Pond Path and Mark Tree Roads. Included in this area are the country's South Setauket Woods Conservation Area, several vacant pamels and old filed maps to the north and northeast of the county land and presently vacant land on both sides of Belle Meade (Terminal) Road. This area excludes the Northville Industries properties, site of an ongoing oil spill recovery and remediation effort, but includes areas possessing recharge value for nearby public supply wells. Also excluded are existing residential, commercial and industrial developments along Terminal Road and the subwatershed boundary roads. It should be noted that delineation of this subwatershed resulted in honest disagreements among subcommittee members. Ultimately, however, the Hydrology Subcommittee's operational methodology - using the subwatershed concept to highlight areas where hydrology and opportunity coincide - led to the current definition. This difference of opinion did lead to general agreement that the following policy statement, applicable to all portions of the legal buying areas, be emphasized for this subwatershed. The subwatersheds are intended to represent concentration areas (not confining areas) for acquisition efforts. While acquisition is clearly the highest level of protection, the subcommittee recognizes that the relative scarcity of program resources in comparison to Suffolk County's watershed protection challenge may lead to hard decisions about the county's future landscape. In light of this, the Hydrology Subcommittee strongly urges the protection (by donation, clustering, covenants or site design) of as much as possible of the unacquired portions of this subwatershed, if the acquisition alternative cannot be successfully applied in any particular case, it must be supplanted by vigorous application to this region of all available planning and management tools. Northern Centereach Subwatershed The second subwatershed within the South Setauket SGPA is the Northern Centereach Subwatershed. This region will contain the majority of new well sites and is best described as being within the area south of NYS Route 347, excluding road frontage property already developed or for which imminent proposals exist. This region is deliberately defined broadly, so as to permit flexibility in both the siting of new wellfields, as well as the establishment of wellhead protection areas. Several scattered opportunities exist within this area. Coram Subwatershed Located in the extreme west central portion of the Central Suffolk SGPA, the Coram Subwatershed is located directly upon the groundwater divide. It is bounded by NYS Route 112 on the west, Pine Road on the north, Coram-Mt. Sinai Road on the east, and NYS Route 25 on the south. Strategically chosen acquisitions here, combined with other planning tools, would provide a tightly defined, but nonetheless valuable, recharge protection area. H-5 West Central Pine Barrens Subwatershed The westernmost of the large subwatersheds defined by the subcommittee, the West Central Pine Barrens Subwatershed stretches from NYS Route 25A on the north, to the Long Island Expressway on the south, and is entirely contained within the Central Suffolk SGPA. The intent in defining this large subwatershed was to encompass existing public holdings where significant connections, expansions, and infilling opportunities exist. A further goal was to define a protection and acquisition target area which would straddle the groundwater divide and extend for as long a distance as possible in both downgradient directions. With this in mind, the remaining boundaries were selected as the western side of the New York State Rocky Point holdings, Miller Place-Yaphank Rd., proposed County Route 8, the William Floyd Parkway, the Pine Trail Nature Preserve, and the eastern border of the state holdings. This area contains the NYS Rocky Point Natural Resoume Management Area (5100+ acres), the county's holdings at Cathedral and Prosser Pines (323+ acres), Flower City (200 acres), Lower Lake in Yaphank (75 acres), Bmokhaven Town's Longw~od Estate and Longwood Greenbelt, the NYS Middle Island Hunter Check Station, and other smaller holdings. Considerable private open space holdings exist, all of which would directly contribute to hydrological and/or ecological protection, with attendant other benefits. The landscape of this subwatershed, though presently intact, stands to change dramatically and quickly in the next 10-30 years. Acquisition activity must be undertaken quickly here, as present selections will become lost opportunities during that pedod. Peconic Pine Barrens Subwatershed Combining both hydrological and ecological opportunities, this dch and diverse area offers future well sites, well head and watershed protection areas, location near the groundwater divide, coastal plain ponds, and major portions of the Peconic River watershed. Specifically, the area is bounded by NYS Route 25, Schultz Road and Swan Pond Road on the north, East Margin Drive and the eastern border of the developed portion of Brockhaven Lab on the west, and the Long Island Expressway and Nugent Drive on the south. Approximately three quarters of the subwatershed is already in public ownership, with federal and county lands predominating. The groundwater divide is in the northwest corner of the subwatershed and the area contains a wide range of recharge conditions. Among the publicly held tracts are several purchased under the Drinking Water Protection Program. These include 329 acres of the Manorville Patent (Senne) purchase in scattered locations, the 31 acre Manorville Holding property along the Pine Trail Nature Preserve, and the 24 acre Tarzia property (formerly the American Cancer Society land) near Halsey Manor Road. Zoning density is two to four acre residential in Brookhaven and four acres in Riverhead, with state Wild, Scenic, and Recreational River regulations also applying in much of the subwatershed. Opportunities are numerous here, and include several large parcels and numerous smaller ones (including old filed maps). Manorville Hamlet Subwatershed Immediately below the Peconic Pine Barrens Subwatershed, the Manorville Hamlet subwatershed is bounded by the Long Island Expressway, County Route 111, South Street, and Hot Water Street (that portion west of County Route 111 .) Land use is predominantly single and multifamily residential, with limited commercial activity. Acquisition opportunities remain at this time, although they are becoming increasingly scarce as residential projects proceed through the review process. This is another example of a subwatershed where acquisition, if such a policy is to be adopted here, must proceed soon. On the northwestern side of this subwatershed boundary lies one of the many Manorville Patent (or Senne) parcels. H-6 East Central Pine Barrens Subwatershed The largest o{ the subwatersheds, this region also contains the highest concentration c~ public lands among the subwatemheds (approximately 10,000 acres). The area is roughly bounded by the Long Island Expressway and Nugent Ddve on the north, the Sears Bellows region on the east, a line midway be{ween the Sunrise Highway and ~uk Highway on the south and Counbj Route 111 on bSe While an array of planning and groundwater protection tools have been applied to this region, acquisition has played, and should continue to play, a significant role in ddnldng water protection here. The groundwater divide and several water table peaks stretch throughout this region, with public and pdvate water supply wells in many areas. Due to its size, this region also provides significant broad area recharge protection for an entire stretch of the more populous south shore area, stretching from East Moriches to Westhampton Beach. Benefits from protection of this area therefore extend far off site, and include, on the north, protection of the southern portion of the Peconic River surface watershed as well. This subwatershed is home to significant stretchs of public lands, including the state Samoff Preserve, the county's various Riverhead Hills holdings, and the Sears-Bellows and Flanders Bay assemblages. Complementing these, Drinking Water Protection Program purchases have included 184 acres of the Manorville Patent (Senne) purchase, the 499 acre Cuales property near Hot Water Street and the Expressway, the 219 acre Schwartzberg tract, the 197 acre Raskin/5 Star Development property, the 551 acre Peconic Associates pamels, the 1428 acre Hampton Hills purchase, and the 99 acre Tule property, all situated in the western and central pad of the subwaterahed. The easternmost extent of the subwatersheds in the Red Creek/Sears Bellows area, contains the 54 acre Penny Pond Estates purchase. Laurel Lake Woods Subwatershed Identical to that portion of the Central Suffolk SGPAwhich extends into the Town of Southold, the Laurel Lake Woods area provides excellent opportunities for well siting and wellhead protection for the future needs of western Southold Town. Both the Suffolk County Water Authority and the Town of Southold have expressed strong interest in this region. Central Southold Subwaterahed Strstching from Elijah's Lane on the west to Henry's Lane on the east, and from the nodhem to southern SGPA boundaries, this area, despite its predominantly agricultural state, still presents numerous opportunities for recharge, well site, and wellhead protection purchases. As a future source of public water for the Town, the candidate parcels in this subwaterahed derive their significance from the reliance of the Nodh Fork upon its shallow recharge acquifer. Long Springs Subwatershed Carved out of the southwestemmost corner of the South Fork SGPA, this area is roughly bounded by the SGPA boundary, David White's Lane, and Edge of Woods Road. A public well site is near the center of this small but significant subwatershed, and others are located nearby. Wellhead protection would be a prime benefit from protection of this compact region. Noyack Hills-Airport Ridge Subwaterahed Occupying the central portion of the South Fork SGPA, this region is bounded by Deerfield Road, Noyack Path, Lopers Path, Millstone Road, Scuttlehole Road, Bridgehampton-Sag Harbor Turnpike, the Long Island Railroad, Stephen Hands Path, NYS Route 114, and the northern SGPA boundary. Zoning is predominantly three to five acres, with industrial activity located at the East Hampton Airport. As both a watershed protection and future well site region, this large subwatershed offers numerous open space opportunities and existing public holdings. H-7 The 149 acre Sabin property (site of the formerly proposed Forest Woods development and purchased under the Ddnking Water Protection Program) lies in the northwestern portion of this subwatershed. Stony Hills Woods subwatershed The Stony Hill woods area is located in the extreme eastern portion of the South Fork SGPA, and is bounded by Abraham's Path, Town Lane, Amagansett Springs Highway, Neck Path, and Accabonac Road. Potential well sites have been identified in this area by the Suffolk County Water Authority, and the topography and water table both favor production facilities and recherge/wellhead protection. Hither Woods Subwatershed Among the fimt of the SGPAs to be targeted by the Ddnking Water Protection Program, the Hither Woods subwatershed is simply the entire SGPA. Overwhelmingly in public ownership, the major parcels include the Lee E. Koppelman Nature Preserve (777 acres bought in 1988, the first of the program's purchases), the Hither Woods North parcel (a 563 acm joint purchase by the State, county, and town in 1986), and Hither Hills State Park. Currently under study by the Suffolk County Water Authority for the eventual installation of several wellsites on the Koppelman Nature Preserve tract, this area benefits the eastern South Fork, from Amagansett through Montauk village. Table H-1 lists the total acreage in each SGPA and the vadous subwatersheds within each SGPA by acreage. TABLE H-1 SGPA and Subwatershed Comparisons SGPA / Subwatershed Acres West Hills-Melville SGPA West Hills Subwatershed West Melville Subwatershed East Melville Subwatershed Oak Brush Plains SGPA Oak Brush Plains Subwatershed South Setauket SGPA South Setauket Woods Subwatershed Northern Centereach Subwatershed Central Suffolk SGPA Corem Subwatershed West Central Pine Barrens Subwatershed Peconic Pine Barrens Subwatershed Manorviile Hamlet Watershed East Central Subwatershed Laurel Lake Woods Subwatershed Southold SGPA Central Southold Subwatershed South Fork SGPA Long Springs Subwatershed Noyacl{ Hill-s-Airport Ridge Subwatershed Stony Hills Woods Subwatershed Hither Hills SGPA Hither Hills Subwatershed 7,764 3,552 585 1,312 3,131 755 4,021 788 683 127,686 716 14,709 8,843 1,653 28,571 1,124 2,891 1,694 29,909 705 10,159 1,402 3,117 3,117 Note: Areas are measured from digital date tepresentet{ons of SGPAs and subwatersheds at county-wJbe resolution, C, isc~epancies from o~er figures may be expected. Source: Watershed oversight and Protection Dept, Suffolk County Water Authority, October, 19gO. Table H-2 lists the Suffolk County open space acquisitions as of May 1991 within each SGPA by acreage. TABLE H-2 Drinking Water Protection Program Purchases by Subwatershed West Hills Subwatershed Wick's Farm Oak Brush Plains Subwatershed Bishop's Tract (Not in subwatershed; outside in southeastern corner of SGPA) West Central Pine Barrens Subwatershed Bianca / Carman's River Pumhase Warbler Woods / Timber Ridge Peconic Subwatershed Mohawk / Manorville Patent / Senne Parcels (Part of larger 516 acre purchase) Manorville Holding Tarzia / American Cancer Society Manorville Hamlet Subwatershed Portions of Senne Pamels (Part of 516 acre pumhase) East Central Pine Barrens Subwatershed Porlions of Senne Parcels (Part of 516 acre pumhase) Cuales Pumhase Schwartzberg Pumhase Peconic Associates Hampton Hills Parcels Raskin / 5 Star United Artists Tule Pumhase / Flanders Preserve Penny Pond / Red Creek Subtotal Subtotal Subtotal 99 Acres 38 Acres 44 Acres 241 Acres 285 Acres 329 Acres 31 Acres 24 Acres 384 Acres 3 Acres 184 Acres 499 Acres 219 Acres 551 Acres 1,528 Acres 197 Acres 478 Acres 99 Acres 54 Acres 3,709 Acres Noyack Hills - Airport Ridge Subwatershed Sabin Pumhase Hither Hills Subwatershed Hither Woods Grand Total* Source: DWPP Comprehensive Acquisition Plan, Appendb( B, Octobei' 1990 (original). Revisions reflect purchases through December 1990. *As of May 1991 approximately 1000 addif~onal acres within the vadous subwatersheds are in conb'act. 149 Acres 777 Acres 5,444 Acres H-9 SPECIAL GROUNDWATER PROTECTION AREAS T H E C 0 R E WA T E R S H E D CORRIDOR ~ ~ SUFFOLK COUNTY W,iTER AUTHORITY Watershed Oversi( nd Protection March t[ ~ Special Groundwater Protection Areas Groundwater Divide Core Watershed Corridor Core Watershed Corridor The Suffolk County Water Authority's Watershed Protection Committee, during ifs early work in 1987, recognized the importance of protecting the land surface around the groundwater divide. Water recharged at the divide penetrates the deepest portions of the aquifer, resulting in long residence times wifhin the aquifer system. Further, this water eventually reaches downgradient areas, including the many public supply wells located away from the di- vide. To encourage the protection and wise management of this crucial area, the Watershed Protection Committee defined an area known as the Core Watershed Corridor (CWC), which follows the path of the groundwater divide, and extends for approximately two miles on each side. This four mile wide corridor is not uniform across Suffolk County. In some areas if narrows or is found only on one side of the di- vide. This deviation is due to the mapping of exclusion zones around the m~jor ricer corridors. Each fiver corridor exclusion zone is defined such that the land area excluded has a recharge value roughly equal to the discharge flow of the rivers. Originally intended for development of watershed and wellhead protection inifiatives, and as guidance to municipal land use authorities, the Core Watershed Corridor was one of many regional scientific criteria considered by the committee in the deline- ation of the SGPA watersheds. The resulting subwatersheds straddle or lie very near to the divide. Figure H-2 illustrates the CWC. Source: Suffoik County Water Authority, Watershed Protectioo Committee notes. 1987. H-10 Appendix I: SGPA LAND USE CATEGORIES, AERIALS and SUPPLEMENTARY GROUNDWATER DATA Code TABLE I-1 Special Groundwater Protection Area Study Land Usa Categories (New York State Standard Land Use Property Classification) Desc#ption Catego~ 250 Estate Estates (subdividable) 210 One Family Low Density Residential (2 One acm per unit) 215 One Family Medium Density Residential (< than One acre per unit) 28~ Multipla Residences Mul~EamJ y 400 General Commemial CommemJal 410 Hotel, etc. 420 Restaurants 430 Auto Service 432 Gas and Service Stations 433 Auto Body, 'l~m Shops, olher related Auto Sales 440 Storage, Warehouse & Distribution Facilities 444 Lumber Yards 450 Retail Services 452 Area Shopping Center 460 Offices 472 Dog Kennels, Veterinary Clinics 475 Pest Control 522 Race Tracks ~0 i3d~[ ~p~rt~ Fad itie~.:'Tenni~. B(~wlJng 441 Oil Distribution - Fuel Storage Industrial 700 General Industrial (Junk Yard included) 710 Manutactudng & Processing 534 611 612 613 614 62O Social Organizations (Senior Citizens Center) Library School University Special Schools & Institiutuions (Nurseries) Chumh Institutional 631 Orphanages 641 Hospitals 642 Health Facilities (Nursing Homes) 652 Governmental Buildin~ 653 Paddng Lots 654 Gov't. Reseamh Facility (BNL) 533 Game Farms Open Space - Recreational 552 Golf 555 Riding Stables 557 Other Outdoor Sports - Tennis 581 Camps 695 Cemetery 960 T.,C.,S. Park/Open Space 970 Other Conservation Lands (TNC) 920 Private Hunting & Fishing Clubs I-1 TABLE I-1 Cont'd. Special Groundwater Protection Area Study Land Use Categories (New York State Standard Land Use Property Classification) Code Description Category 100 General Agricultural 111 Chicken, Ducks etc. 116 Horses 120 Field Crops 151 Apple, peach, pear orchards, etc. 152 Vineyards 179 Nurseries & Greenhouse 184 ......... ~d 300 Vacant Land Vacant 651 GoVt. Highway Facilities Transportation 692 Roads 843 Non-Ceiling Railroads (LIRR) 817 Power Distribution Utilities 822 Wellsite 833 Radio Stations 852 Landfill Waste Handling-Managercent 853 STP 866 Public Services - Telephone TABLE I~. 2 Aerial Photographs Used for Land Uss interpretation Within SGPAS The LIRPB staff used the following black and white, 9" x 9" contact aerial prints for land use interpretation purposes: Town year of Photos Scale North Hempstead 1984' 1" = 1000' Oyster Bay 1990 1" = 1000' Huntington 1983* 1" = 1600' Babylon 1983' 1" = 1600' Smithtown 1986 1" = 1000' Islip 1984 1" = 1000' Brookhaven 1987 1" = 1000' Riverhead 1987 1"= 400' Southampton 1988 1" = 1000' Southold 1988 1" = 1000' East Hampton 1988 1" = 1000' * Color Contact Pdnts I-2 Description of Suffolk County Water Authority Groundwater Information Overlays The SCWA prepared a set of groundwater information overlays scaled to fit the existing land use maps of the Suffolk County SGPAs. Five of the Suffolk SGPAs were covered by one overlay each, while the remaining two (Central Suffolk and South Fork) each re- quired two overlays. A total of nine overlay sheets were provided to the Board in July 1990, plotted at the approximate scale of 1 inch = 1000 feet. Each overlay contains the information listed below. Digital versions of the information were produced by SCWA. Information Source SGPA Boundary Pine Barren Zones1 1989 Watertable Contours 1987 Groundwater Divide SCWA Wells SCWA Glacial Well Contribution Zones2 LI Regional Planning Board 1988 blue-print map except for the revision of the Southold SGPA, boundary refinements since early 1988 ara not incorporated. Written description from SC Charter Article 32. mapped on 1988 SC tax maps and digitized directly from them. S.C. Dept. of Health Services, 1989. Interpreted by SCWA from SC Dept. of Health Services 1987 Water Table Contours map. SCWA, 1989. Locations of all Upper Glacial and Magothy SCWA wells within or near the Suffolk SGPAs ara shown. Non-SCWA public supply wells and private wells are not shown, as complete data on such facilities was not available within the SCWA database. SCWA, March 1990. Delineated using the SCWA's implementation of the uniform flow equations, and aquifer characteristics derived from a variety of sources. The zones of contributions (ZOCs) reflect a ten year, continuous pumping situation. 1Only applicable to the South Setauket, Central Suffolk South Fork and Hither Hills SGPAs. 2Note that zones of contribution are not shown for SCWA magothy wells, non-SCWA public supply wells and private wells. i-3 Appendix J: RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES BY SGPA KEY: Endangered Species (E) are any species which meet one of the following criteria: · Any native species in imminent danger of extirpation or extinction in New York (as defined by NYS Environmental Conservation Law Sec. 11-0535. · Any species listed as endangered by the United States Department of the Interior, as enumerated in the Code of Federal Regulations 50 CFR 17.11. Threatened Species (T) ara any species which meet one of the following criteria: · Any native species likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future in New York (as defined in NYS Environmental Conservation Law Sec. 11-0535). · Any species listed as threatened by the United States Department of the Interior, as enumerated in the Code of Federal Regulations 50 CFR 17.11. Special Concern Species (SC) are those native species which ara not yet recognized as endangered or threatened, but for which documented concern exists for their continued welfare in New York. These species could become endangered or threatened in the future and should be more closely monitored. Unlike the first two categories, species of special concern receive no additional legal protection under Environmental Conservation Law Section 11-0535 (Endangered and Threatened Species). This category is presented primarily to enhance public awareness of this group of species which bear additional attention. Rare Species (R) are those plant species that have 20 to 35 extant sites, or 3,000 to 5,000 individuals statewide (as defined by NYS Environmental Conservation Law Sec. 9-1503). Protected Species (P) wildlife include wild game, protected wild birds and endangered species of wildlife (as defined by NYS Environmental Conservation Law Sec. 11-0103). Rare and Endangered Species List by SGPA NORTH HILLS SGPA No rare and endangered species have been identified within this SGPA. OYSTER BAY SGPA Elements: tiger salamander - Ambystoma ti~rinium (E) collins sedge - Carex collinsii (R) green milkweed -Asclepias virdiflora (R) rusty flatsedge - Cyperus odoratus sweet bay - Magnolia virginiana persimmon - Diospyros virginiana (R) rattlebox - Crotalaria sagittalis (R) tick-trefoil - Desmodiurn ciliare (T) downy lettuce - Lactuca hirsuta pencil-flower - Stylosanthes biflora yellow giant-hyssop - Agastache nepetoides osprey - Pandion haliaetus (T) American strawbem] bush - Euonyrnus americanus (T) J-1 WEST HILLS - MELVILLE SGPA Elements: St. Andrew's cross - Hypericum hypericoides (E) bushy St. John's wort -Hypericium densiflorum (E) woods rush - Juncus subcaudatus (R) dwarf plantain - Plantago pusilla - tick-trefoil - Desmodium ciliare (T) OAK BRUSH PLAINS SGPA Ecological Communities: pitch pine-scrub oak barrens Elements:. - barn owl - 3~yto alba (SC) lespedeza - Lespedeza violacea (R) sandplain wildflax - Linum intercursum (T) southern yellow flax - Linum Medium var. texanum (T) New England blazing star - Liatris scariosa var, novae-angliae (R) coastal barrens buckmoth - Hemileuca maia maia (SC) pinweed - Lechea racemulosa (R) lespedeza - Lespedeza stuevei (R) SOUTH SETAUKET WOODS SGPA Ecological Communities: - Pine barrens Elements: - coastalbarrensbuckmoth-Hemileucamaiamaia(SC) - pinweed - Lechea racemulosa (R) - slenderpinweed-Lecheatenuifolia(R) CENTRAL SUFFOLK SGPA Eco/o, #cai Communities: pitch pine-oak-heath woodland Chamaecyparis swamp coastal plain Atlantic white cedar swamp dwarf pine plains pine barrens shrub swamp coastal plain pond shore coastal plain poor fen Elements: pencil flower - Stylosanthes biflora cut-leaved evening-primrose - Oenothera laciniata creeping St. John's wort - Hypericium adpressum (E) reticulated nutrush - Scleria reticularis var. reticularis Z. lunifera (R) fewflower nutrush - Scleria pauciflora ('r) frosted elfin - Incisalia irus swamp Iousewort - Pedicularis lanceolata (R) ,chain fern borer - Papaipema sten~celis J-2 - tall tick-clover - Desmodium glabellum (T) southern yellow flax - Linum medium var. texanum ('r) dwarf bullrush - Hemicarpha micrantha (R) Hessel's hairstreak - Mitoura hesseli pitcher plant borer - Papaipema appassionata Atlantic white cedar - Chamaecyparis thyoides (R) herodias underwing - Catocala herodias gerhardi golden dock - Rumex maritimus var. fueginus (T) rough rush grass - Sporobolus clandestinus Virginia false gromwell- Onosmodium virginianum (R) swamp sun flower -Helianthus angustifolius (T) pine barrens sandwort - Minuatria caroliniana (R) rush bladderwort - Utriculariajuncea (R) quill leaf arrowhead - Saggitaria teres E pine barrens gerardia -Agilinus virgata (R) banded sunfish - Enneacanthus obesus (SC) small floating bladdenNort - Utricularia radiata (R) fiberous bladderwort - Utricularia fibrosa (R) field dodder - Cuscuta campestris (R) coastal barrens buckmoth - Hemileuca maia maia (SC) knotted spikebrush - Elocharis equisetoides (T) painted bluet - Enallagma picture tooth cup - Rotala ramosior (R) two flowered bladderwort - Utricularia biflora (R) clustered bluets - Hedyotis uniflora ('r) three-ribbed spikerush - Elocharis tricostata (T) grasshopper sparrow - Ammodramus savannarum (SC) northern cricket frog - Acris erepitans (T) silverweed - Potentilla anserina (R) catfoot - Gnaphalium hellerii var, micardenium capitate beakrush - Rhynchospora cephalantha slender pinweed - Lechea tenuiflolia (R) tiger salamander -Ambystoma tigrinum (E) mountain bellwort - Uvulariapuberula (E) ludwigia - Ludwigia sphaerocarpa acadian flycatcher - Empidonax virescens (P) slender crabgrass - Digitaria filiformis (R) coastal goldenrod - Solidago elliottii drowned horned rush - Rhynchospora inundata (E) long beaked bald rush - Psilocarya scirpoides (R) orange fringed orchis - Platanthera ciliaris ('r) sedge - Carex hermathoides (R) silvery aster - Aster concolor (E) comb-leaved mermaid weed - Prosperpinaca pectinata (R) reticulated nutrush - Scleria reticularis (R) Nutall's Iobelia - Lobelia nutallii (R) spotted salamander - Ambystoma maculatum (SC) lespedeza - Lespedeza stuevei (R) eastern bluebird - Sialia sialis (P/SC) rose coreopsis - Coreopsis rosea (R) Carolina redroot - Lachnanthes caroliana ('r) short beaked bald rush - Psilocarya nitens (R) violet dart - Eoxoa violaris pink sallow - Psectraglaea carnosa ,J-3 osprey - Pandion haliaetus (T) eastern mud turtle - Kinosternon subrubrum (T) hog aster - Aster nemoralis (R) a notuid moth - Heterocampa varia __ - Chaetaglaea cerata jair underwing - Catocalajair ssp2 dusted skipper - Atrynonopsis hianna whip nutrush - Scleria triglomerata (R) button sedge - Carex bullata (R) white m hairstreak - Parrhasius m-album SOUTH FORK SGPA Ecological Communities: - coastal plain pond shore Elements: pigmyweed - Tillaea aquatica (E) creeping St, Johns wort - Hypericium adpressum (E) knotted spikerush - Eleocharis equisetoides (T) long beaked bald rush - Psilocarya scirpoides (R) short beaked bald rush - Psilocarya nitens (R) reticulated nutrush - Scleria reticularis var. reticularis R rose coreopsis - Coreopsis rosea (R) long tubercled spikerush - Eleocharis tuberculosa (T) pine barrens gerardia - Agalinis virgata (R) Carolina redroot - Lachnanthes caroliana (T) ludwigia - Ludwigia sphaerocarpa (R) painted bluet - Enallagma picture eastern mud minnow - Umbra pygmaea southern yellow flax - Linum medium var. texanum ('r) white milkweed - Asclepias variegata ('r) lespedeza - Lespedeza stuevei (R) clustered bluets -Hedyotis uniflora (T) tiger salamander - Ambystoma tigrinum (E) eastern spadefoot - Scaphiopus holbrookii aureolaria seed horer - Rhodoecia aurantiago wafer ash: Ptelea trifoliata (R) white honesat - Eupatorium leucolepsis (E) Atlantic white cedar - Chamaecyparis thyoides (R) bushy rockrose - Helianthemum dumosurn (T) tick-trefoil - Desmodium ciliare (T) coastal barrens buckmoth - Hemileuca maia maia (SC) orange fdnged orchis - Platanthera ciliaris (T) HITHER HILLS SGPA Ecological Communities: sand plain madtime interdunal swale madtime oak-holly forest madtime hoathland J-4 Element~. Nantucket juneberry - Amelanchier x nantucketensis (E) slender crabgrass - Digitaria filiformis (R) bushy rockrose - Helianthemum dumosum (T) New England blazing star - Liatris scariosa var novae angliae (R) a noctuid moth -Euxoa pleuritica piping plover- Charadrius melodus (E) least tern - Sterna antillarum (E) crested fringed orchis - Platanthera cristata ~) seabeach amaranth - Amaranthus pumilus seabeach knotweed - Polygonum glaucum pine barren sandwort - Minuartia caroliniana (R) SOUTHOLD SGPA Elements: dwarf plantain - Platago pusilla orange fringed orchis - Platanthera ciliaris (3') SOURCE: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and The Nature Conservancy (1990 J-5 Appendix K: MODEL EXISTING USE ZONING ORDINANCE For Rural Townships* AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS: It is in the public interest to avoid excessively dispersed development within the non-urban ized portions of the township and strip development along its prima~y and secondmy highways and reads, to avoid the unneces. sa~y and scattered conversion of open space land to developed uses, to inhibit urban sprawl, and to prevent or mitigate the resultant adverse impacts of such development, conversion and sprawl, including (i) despoliation of the township's natural envi- ronmental quality by air, water, and noise pollution, (ii) impairment of the township's non-urban character and the quality of life en- joyed by its residents, (iii) destruction of its scenic beauty, (iv) disturbance of the ecology and habitat, (v) traffic congestion, (vi) hazards related to geology, fire and flood, (vii) loss of lands suitable for agriculture and forestry, and (viii) excessive costs of pro- viding the necessary public services and infrastructure to accommodate isolated and dispersed pockets of denser development. It is therefore declared to be policy and objective of this township to prevent or mitigate such adverse impacts by directing new construction and development projects away from the remaining open space lands of the township and to consolidate such new construction and projects either in compact new settlements or on lands that are adjacent to or within the portions of this town- ship that have already undergone significant development through the formation of cities, villages, hamlets and other settlements. COMMENT: Land use regulations will effect a "taking" under the fifth amendment if they do not "substantially advance legiti- mate state interests." Agins v. Tiburon, 447 US 225, 260 (1980). By the same token, it has long been recognized as a legiti- mate governmental purpose for a municipality ''to protect the residents...from the ill effects of urbanization" Id. at 261. The language of these "Findings and Declarations" are drawn from the City of '~buron ordinance, quoted with approval by the US Supreme Court. Id. at 261 n.8. Further tailoring may be desirable to conform these findings and declarations to the spe- cific conditions that apply within the enacting municipality. THEREFORE, the zoning ordinance of the township of "Existing-Use Zoning" and reading as follows: is hereby amended by adding a new article __ entitled 1. Designation of Existing-Use Districts. -- [Define areas of the Existing Use Districts.] COMMENT: -- It is intended that the Existing-Use Districts be essentially confined to the largely non-urbanized portions of the township. The established cities, villages, hamlets and other seltlements would be more appropriately regulated by con- ventional zoning categories (i.e., residential, commemial, light industrial, etc.). Because of the need to accommodate growth, the Existing-Use District cannot encompass all of a municipality's undevel- oped lands. Portions of the township should therefore be left as designated growth districts, regulated by conventional zon- ing categories. Ideally, the designated growth districts should be concentrated within and adjacent fo the established developed areas. The Existing-Use District would, as a result, encompass only those rural areas outside of the pre-planned designated growth boundary. The growth districts should be sufficiently extensive to meet the needs for anticipated growth without revision for a period of 5-10 years. 2. Permi~ed Uses Within Existing-Use Districts. -- For each pamel within an Existing-Use District the following uses are permit- ted fo the extent otherwise permilted by law or ordinance: a. Continuation of the existing uses actually being made of each such pamel as of (the date of adoption of this ordinance, as well as any uses made of such parcel on a substantial basis during the immediately preceding period of five years, at the same general level of intensity and density of such uses. b. Forestry, silveculture and tree farming. * Submitted by me Open Space Council of Brookhaven, New York K-1 c. Crops, grazing and other agricultural uses. d. Management for watershed, and for fish and wildlife habitat, hunting and fishing. e. Accessory uses that are customarily incidental and subordinate to any of the foregoing principal uses actually being made or to which the parcel is suited, and uses that are reasonably necessary in order to continue and maintain such princi- pal uses. f. Any other uses, including recreational uses, that (i) are compatible with one or more of the foregoing uses actually being made orto which the parcel is suited, and (ii) do not require substantial new construction, grading, fill, improvements, road- cutting, clear-cutting, draining, dredging or other modifications of the existing surface features of the parcel. g. No use. COMMENT: The owner's freedom to continue existing uses would be unaffected by existing-use zoning. However, without a Special Permit (see below), the owner could not lawfully expand either the intensity or the density of the existing uses, except for those uses specified in b, c, and d. For example, a 10-acre lot and residence could not be lawfully subdivided to created 9 additional residences, but forestry or agricultural uses of the lot could be initiated and also expanded without re- striction. The accessory use category would authorize substantial new construction or other modifications of the land's existing sur- face features without a Special Permit (see below). Other laws may, however, require the owner to obtain permits, tree- cut- ting permits, mining permits, or the like in connection with anticipated accessory uses. Such permits should, of course, be issued only if in conformity with the applicable zoning, i.e., only if the intended activity is a truly "accessory" use. 3. Variances. -- Fora period of 5 yearn from (the date ofadq~)tion of this ordinance) the [Zoning] Board may upon appeal author- ize variances to permit additional uses, or greater intensities or densities of use, of particular pamels within the Existing-Use Dis- trict, provided that such variance will not be contrary to the public interest and, owing to special conditions unique to the pamel, a iiterel enfomement of the use limitations applicable to the pamel would cause extreme hardship to the owner. Any such variance which is granted shall thereafter expire unless the additional use, or greater intensity or density of use, permitted thereby is sub- stantially commenced within one year of the granting of the variance. Extreme hardship shall be found to exist only if the permitted uses leave the owner with no worthwhile use, no means of ob- taining an appreciable economic retum, and only a bare residuum of value under applicable market conditions. Hardship shall not include owner-created hardship, nor shall hardship include any condition that results from prior use or abuse of the land by any current or prior owner of an interest in it, including prior extraction or destruction of the land's natural reseumes. Hardship resulting from voluntary subdivisions may be considered only (a) to the extent that the subdivisions were approved and completed pdor to (the date of adoption of this ordinance.) or (b) if a finding is made that the original subdivided tract cannot be re-consolidated, in whole or in part, on economically viable basis. No variance shall be authorized merely because the permitted uses, or intensities or densities of use, (i) result in practical diffi- culty, (ii) provide less than the highest or best return to the owner, or (ii) prevent a return proportionate to the current owner's in- vestment in the pamel if, under applicable market conditions, the amount of such investment exceeds the fair market value which the parcel had in light of ifs use, adaptions for use, intensity or density of use or surface features at the time that the investment was m~de. Except as provided in this section, no variance shall be authorized from the permitted use, or intensifies or densities of use, 'within the Existing-Use District. COMMENT: The variance provision is written as a transitional measure to ovemome possible challenge under the takings clause on the grounds that the existing-use zoning regulations go '1oo far" by denying the owner "economically viable use." Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 US 393, 416 (1922); Agins v. Tiburon, 447 US 255, 260 (1980). The five year vari- ance window is designed to provide "a reasonable grace period in which ownem could protect their rights." Texaco, Inc. v. Short, 454 US 516, 527 n.21 (1982). To the extent that development rights are extinguished under this provision: "It is the owner's failure to make any [economically viable] use of the property -- and not the action of the State -- that causes the lapse of the property dght: there is no 'taking' that requires compensation." Texaco, Inc. v. Short, 454 US at 530. Clearly, se long as the variance provision is in effect, its presence should insulate the existing-use zoning ordinance from any successful facial challenge. See McDonald, Sommer & Frates v. County of Yolo, 477 US 340, 349-52 (1986); William- son v. Hamilton Bank, 473 US 172, 186-94 (1985); Hodel v. Virginia Surface Min.& Reclam. Ass'n, 452 US 264, 294-98 (1981). K-2 4. Special Permits. -- The [Zoning] Board may, upon application by the owner, grant special permits authorizing otherwise pro- hibited additional uses, or greater intensities or densities of use, of particular pamels within the Existing-Use District, including new construction, residential structures, grading, fill, improvements, road-cutting, clear-cutting, draining, dredging or other modifi- cations of the existing surface features of the pamel, if the applicant makes an affirmative showing that: a. In view of the available alternatives within the township, the public interest would be best served by permitting such addi- tional use, or greater intensity or density of use, at the proposed location; and b. the same public interest cannot be reasonably served by the permitted use of other lands within or outside of the Exist- ing-Use District. COMMENT: By providing for changes of use by special permit, this provision further insulates the existing-use zoning ordi- nance from successful facial challenge. Its pdmary puq~ose, however, is to provide the municipality with flexibility to re- spond to those public interest concerns that override the governmental interests declared in the Findings and Declarations. 5. Conditions on Variances and Special Permits. -- Every variance and special permit shall include such conditions as the [Zon- ing] Board shall determine to be necessary to assure that any additional use, or greater intensity or density of use, authorized thereunder will be accomplished with the minimum possible modification of and impact on the existing surface features of the par- ticular pamel, and without impairment of the uses for which the neighboring lands are reasonably adapted. 6. Takings. -- If, upon the petition of any aggrieved owner of an interest in land within the Existing-Use District, the court finds that the denial, suspension or revocation of any permit pursuant to this article constitutes the equivalent of a taking without com- pensation, the court may, at the election of the township, either (a) set aside the order of denial, suspension or revocation and re- mand for further proceedings, or (b) require the Township to acquire the such owner's interest in the affected land under the power of eminent domain. COMMENT: This provision guarantees that every owner will have either a reasonable use for his/her land or compensation for its fair value. 7. Severability. -- The provisions of this article shall be severable, and if any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or part of this article shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder thereof but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision,section or part thereof directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered. K-3