REPORT ON
  POLLUTION OF THE NAVIGABLE WATERS
                OF
         MORICHES  BAY
                AND
       EASTERN SECTION OF
       GREAT SOUTH  BAY
         LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK
      U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION

  HUDSON-CHAMPLAIN AND METROPOLITAN COASTAL
COMPREHENSIVE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECT

         METUCHEN, NEW JERSEY

           SEPTEMBER, 1966

-------
                                    for

 "REPORT ON POLLUTION OF THE NAVIGABLE WATERS OF MORICHES BAT AND EASTERN
                         SECTION OF GREAT SOUl'M BAT"
Page 14:  Table V- Figure under heading "Total Coliform per day11 should

          read 7-1 x 3D11 instead of 2.5 x 10lif.

-------
                   REPORT ON

       POLLUTION OF THE NAVIGABLE WATERS

                      of

                 MORICHES BAY

                      and

      EASTERN SECTION OF GREAT SOUTH BAY

             Long Island, New York
       U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION

   HUDSON-CHAMPLAIN AND METROPOLITAN COASTAL
 COMPREHENSIVE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECT

             Metuchen, New Jersey

                September, 1966

-------
"Great South Bay and Moriches  Bay, Long  Island, N. Y.
 ...  Biologists studying this  problem conclude that until  such a
 time as the pollution is stopped at its  source or the  inlets
 to Moriches and Great South Bay are appreciably widened and
 stabilized, the shellfish industry and the recreational in-
 terests in the area will be at the mercy of unpredictable and
 uncontrollable meterological  conditions."
                           The President's  Science Advisory Committee

                           November,  1965
                                  ii

-------
                            TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                Page

  Conclusions and Recommendations 	  iv

  I.  Description of Area
        Geography 	   1
        Population and Economy 	   1

 II.  Hydrography 	   3

III.  Water Use
        Domestic Water Supply 	   6
        Bathing 	   6
        Finfishing 	   6
        Shellfishing 	   7
        Boating 	   7
        Duck Farming	   7

 IV.  Sources of Wastes
        Duck Farms 	   9
        Industrial Wastes 	  13
        Municipal Wastes	  15
        Cesspools and Septic Tanks 	  15
        Recreational Boating 	  17
        Other Sources of Pollution	  18

  V,  Effects of Wastes on Water Quality and Uses
        Bacteria	  21
        Nutrients	  22
        Suspended Solids 	  24

 VI.  Pollution Abatement Programs 	  26

VII.  Bibliography	  30
                                 APPENDIX

      New York State Conservation Department, Notice to all
         Shellfish Harvesters, Town of Southampton

      New York State Conservation Department, Notice to all
         Shellfish Harvesters, Town of Brookhaven

      New York State Department of Health, Order of
         Modification
                                   iii

-------
                   CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS






      1.  The navigable waters of Moriches Bay and the easterly end of




Great  South Bay receive the discharge of wastes from extensive duck farms,



municipal and domestic sewerage systems, industrial operations, recre-




ational boats, and land drainage.  As a result, these waters are




polluted by bacteria, suspended solids, and nutrients.




     2.  As a result of the bacterial contamination of the overlying




waters, substantial areas in Moriches and Great South Bays have been




closed by State authorities to the harvesting of shellfish.  These clo-




sures have resulted in substantial economic injury with the loss of a




shellfish crop with a value in excess of $2,500,000 annually.




     3.  Accordingly, the pollution of these navigable waters is sub-




ject to enforcement measures under the provisions of Section 10 of the




Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.




     U.  In addition to constituting a health hazard via shellfish,




the bacterial contamination of the waters of the study area constitutes




a potential hazard to the health and welfare of persons utilizing these




waters for recreation.  The pollution of these waters by suspended




solids and nutrients has resulted in an unsightly appearance, the pro-




duction of objectionable odors, and excessive growths of algae and




other aquatic plants.  These conditions limit the use of these waters



for recreational bathing, boating, and esthetic enjoyment.




     5.  The major sources of bacteria, solids and nutrients to these




waters are the extensive duck growing farms lining the shores of a






                                 iv

-------
number of tributary streams.  Although these farms do provide settling




ponds, the existing treatment facilities do not provide effective re-




moval or control for BOD, nutrients and bacteria and are only partially




effective in removing settleable solids.  Other known sources of pol-




lution in the area include the discharge of primary treated municipal




wastes from one sewage treatment plant, industrial waste discharges,




the transport of nutrients and bacteria from individual domestic




sewage treatment facilities, and the discharge of bacteria and solids



from recreational boats using these waters.  Surface and groundwater




runoff of agricultural chemicals also serve as additional contribut-




ing factors in the pollution of these waters.




     6.  The pollution of these waters is complicated further by the




natural hydrographic conditions.  The Bays have extremely limited




circulation patterns so that flushing times are extreme.  The silta-




tion of Moriches and Fire Island Inlets has been shown to be an




important factor in the control of water quality problems in the



study area.




     7.  The waters under consideration have been classified and




water quality standards have been adopted by the New York State De-




partment of Health, the agency having legal jurisdiction over water




pollution control in the study area.  This classification has been




conducted through the New York State Water Resources Commission, the




state agency charged with such classification.




     8.  To date abatement orders issued by the State of New York




have failed to abate effectively pollution of these waters.



                                  v

-------
Modification of these orders to incorporate new abatement requirements




and time schedules is currently underway.




     9.  In order to achieve satisfactory  water quality it will  be




necessary for all waste discharges to be abated at the source.




    10.  Adequate treatment facilities should be constructed to  handle




the effluent from all duck farms discharging into the study area.




Such facilities should meet, as a minimum, the requirements called




for in the New York State proposed order of modification, which  re-




quires that the facility be capable of providing at least 85% removal




of suspended solids and BOD, a substantial removal of phosphates,  and




effective disinfection to the extent that  the final effluent shall at




all times contain a chlorine residual of not less than one-half  part




per million after not less than 15 minutes contact time, and an  MPN




of coliform organisms not greater than 100 per 100 ml in at least




90% of the samples in a series thereof, provided that at no time may




the MPN of such organisms in the final effluent exceed 10,000 per




100 ml.  Design and construction of facilities to accomplish the




above treatment should be in accordance with the following time sched-




ule included in the New York State Order of Modification:




         a.  Preliminary plans for treatment to be submitted on or




             before January 1, 1967;




         b.  Final construction plans to be submitted on or before




             August 1, 1967;




         c.  Construction to be initiated  on or before November 1,





                                vi

-------
             1967 and to be completed on or before April 30, 1968;




         d.  After construction, such facilities shall be maintained




             and operated in such a condition that they shall meet




             the requirements listed above.




In addition to the requirements of the Order of Modification, substan-




tial removal of other nutrient materials, particularly the nitrogen




group, should also be required.



    11.  The treatment requirements and time table listed above should




also be adopted for all other sources of wastes discharging to these




waters with the exception of individual cesspools and septic tanks




handling domestic sewage.  Current plans for the formation of sewer




districts to collect and provide adequate treatment of the wastes now




being handled by these individual systems should be implemented as




soon as possible, with facilities in operation no later than January




1, 1970.




    12.  Recent legislation requiring all recreational boats in the




area having toilets to provide either adequate treatment facilities




or holding tanks capable of storing waste material for subsequent




discharge to on-shore treatment facilities should be  implemented as




soon as possible.
                                VI1.

-------
                       I.  DESCRIPTION OF AREA






Geography




     The area under consideration for this report lies on the south




shore of Long Island, New York.  It consists of Moriches Bay, west of




Westhampton Beach, and the eastern end of Great South Bay, east of a




line connecting Blue Point and Water Island.  Included are Patchogue




Bay, Bellport Bay and Narrow Bay, the connecting waterway between




Great South Bay and Moriches Bay.  Also included are the coves,




rivers and estuaries tributary to the main bays.  Figure 1 shows the




study area.




     Great South Bay and Moriches Bay are separated from the Atlan-




tic Ocean by a narrow sand bar, in places only a few hundred yards




wide.  Both bays are extremely shallow, varying in depth from one to




11 feet with a mean depth of four feet.  Moriches Bay is nine miles




long and varies from one to two miles in width.  Great South Bay, in




its entirety, is 24 miles long, averages three miles in width, and




has an area of 95 square miles.  That portion of Great South Bay in-




cluded in this report is eight miles long and two to four miles wide.




Population and Economy



     The study area lies in the towns of Brookhaven and Southampton




in Suffolk County.  These towns are essentially rural in character




and are dotted both inland and along the shore by small incorporated




villages and unincorporated areas.  The townships have experienced an




upsurge in population growth in recent years.  In the period 1950-1961,

-------
the population of the town of Brookhaven increased from 44,522 to




114,780, while that of the town of Southampton increased from 17,013




to 28,467 people.  During this same decade, the entire Suffolk County




experienced a 149 percent increase in population, from 276,129 to




697,462.* The population boom in Suffolk County has continued, with




estimates of 756,000 by 1963 and 950,000 by the end of 19652.   These




figures indicate the rapid growth experienced on Long Island as




people have moved farther from New York City.




     Land use in the study area is mainly residential, recreational




and agricultural.  There are many summer homes along the ocean and




bay shores, and a number of public and private bathing beaches are




maintained throughout the area.  Smith Point County Park, located




on Great South Beach between Great South Bay and Moriches Bay, is




part of the long narrow sand bar lying to the south of Great South




Bay which constitutes Fire Island National Seashore.




     The area is well known for both produce and poultry.  Potatoes,



cauliflower, asparagus, tomatoes, lima beans and strawberries are the




chief crops.  The Long Island duck has become a household word




throughout the country.  These ducks are raised on farms lining the




shores of the rivers and inlets along the mainland.  In 1965, there




were 39 active duck farms in Suffolk County2.  Thirty-two of these,




producing more than three million ducks per year, are located in the




study area.

-------
                        II.  HYDROGRAPHY




     Although the annual rainfall in Suffolk County averages 43 inches,


due to the small size of the watershed there are no major fresh water

                                                      3
streams discharging into the bays under consideration.   However, there


is a large groundwater reservoir under all of Long Island.  According to


the U. S. Geological Survey, there is a natural discharge from this subsur-


face reservoir, which occurs through a seaward movement of groundwater and


some surface streamflow.  As a result of the'limited surface runoff, there


are only small volumes of fresh water which enter Moriches and Great South


Bays.  Enough sea water enters through the Fire Island and Moriches Inlets


to maintain the salt distribution in the bays but the volumes of new ocean


water available for mixing in each tidal cycle are extremely small away

                k
from the inlets.


     The main circulation in the two Bays appears to result from the prog-


ressive nature of the tidal wave, which because of the shallow depths and


differing lengths of the two bays causes hydraulic currents in the narrow


connecting channels.  When both Fire Island and Moriches inlets are open,


the water movement is easterly from Great South Bay into Moriches Bay.


When Moriches Inlet is closed due to silting, water movement is reversed.


One series of measurements, taken in July 1950 when both inlets were open


indicated that about 20 million cubic feet of water moves from Great South


and Bellport Bays into Moriches Bay during one tidal cycle.5


     This tidal circulation is so limited that wind induced currents can


nullify or even reverse the flow.  In November 1951, for example, a per-


sistent wind augmented the flow between the two Bays for four successive

-------
days, and moved the equivalent of two-thirds the volume of Moriches Bay




west into Bellport Bay.  Undoubtedly, part of this movement was due to the




fact that Moriches Inlet was closed so that the normal net tidal flow was



westerly.




     During the summer, the prevailing winds are light and westerly,6




inducing circulation patterns which augment the normal tidal circulation.




As a result, water from Great South Bay is transferred to Bellport Bay,




increasing the hydraulic head on the Smith Point end of the narrows and




moving water into Moriches Bay.  This same combination of tidal hydraulics




and prevailing winds then results in the movement of Moriches Bay water




east through the Potunk Point Narrows into Shinnecock Bay.5




     The maximum water current is eight feet per second through Fire Island




Inlet and six feet per second through Moriches Inlet.  The total volumes per




tidal cycle flowing through these inlets are 2.0 billion and 0.2 billion




cubic feet, respectively.5'7  There is a net flow seaward through Moriches




Inlet,  which has been measured as about 18 million cubic feet per tidal




cycle.5  In the open Bays, the maximum tidal current is one half a foot




per second, and the east-west tidal excursion is of the order of 1.5 miles.




The few measurements of net drift that have been made indicate upper values




of about one mile per day.  Flushing times of four to ten days have been




estimated for the western portions of Great South Bay.**"  The mean tidal




range is ^.1 feet at Fire Island Inlet and 2.9 feet at Moriches Inlet,




and decreases to 0.8 feet at Bellport and 0.5 at Mastic Beach.  Maximum




reported storm tide (November 1950) at Fire Island Inlet was 9.4 feet




above mean'sea'level.?

-------
     In general, this tidal circulation is sufficient to prevent strati-




fication in the open Bays, but not near the inlets and rivers.  For




example, the water is definitely stratified in the upper tidal portion



of the Forge River, a factor which sometimes contributes to poor water




quality.9'10




     Water temperatures range from freezing to about 30°C.  In summer,




the highest temperatures are found in the extensive shallow areas and in




the upper portions of the river estuaries. '9




     Salinities range from close to zero in the upper portions of the




river estuaries to more than 30 parts per thousand in the open portions




of the Bays.6'9




     The weak circulation in these Bays results in a limited amount of




available dilution water.  This unsatisfactory condition for waste




assimilation is worsened by the tendency of winds and currents to confine




wastes and waters to the eastern end of Great South Bay, at the farthest




possible point from sources of clean dilution water.  Hence, due to these




circulation problems, the Bays are not suited for the assimilation of




large pollution loads.

-------
                          III.  WATER USES




Domestic Water Supply




     The primary source of water supply for all purposes in Suffolk




County is ground water, generally obtained from individual wells.




These same ground waters also provide water for agricultural irriga-




tion and for operating duck farms.  Almost 20 billion gallons of




ground water were withdrawn from Suffolk County's underground reser-




voirs in 1956H.  This withdrawal is accompanied by a high return




rate.  The U. S. Geological Survey has estimated that for 1961 in




Suffolk County, "probably 80 percent of the water  pumped from pub-




lic, private and industrial wells is returned to the ground."




Bathing




     The waters of Mariches and Great South Bays are used exten-




sively for recreational bathing at both public and private beaches.




In 1965, the Suffolk County Department of Health issued permits for




108 bathing beaches.  There are also many miles of privately owned




shore line where the waters are used for bathing.  In 1966, a portion




of the sand bar separating Great South Bay from the ocean was dedi-




cated as Fire Island National Seashore.  With this facility available,




it is expected that recreational bathing will increase as an influx




of tourists begins to enjoy this site.




Finfishing




     The area serves as an important commercial fishing source.  In




1961, a total of 354,000 pounds of fish were landed in Great South




Bay and Mariches and Shinnecock Bays.l




                                  6

-------
     Sport fishing is also very popular in the area.   Many deep sea




fishing boats operate from the various marinasi and private boats  of




all sizes are used for fishing.




Shellfishing




     Shellfish, primarily hard clams, are harvested extensively from




the area.  In 1961, more than two million pounds of shellfish were




taken from the area1.  At one time, the area supported an extensive




oyster harvest, but in recent years the crop of oyaters has been




reduced and the oyster is no longer a significant factor in the




economy of the area.




Boating




     The dramatic increase in recreational boating activities on the




national level has been reflected along the entire Long Island shore.




As increasing numbers of persons have more leisure and income, there




has been an accompanying growth in boating, so that there is now an




abundance of all types and sizes of pleasure boats using the waters




of Great South Bay and Moriches Bay.  Nine yacht clubs and numerous




marinas dot the shoreline from Patchogue Bay to Westhampton.



Duck Farming




     The operators of duck farms make extensive use of the waters of



the rivers, creeks, coves and estuaries, which drain into the bays.



These bodies of water and the adjacent shore areas are fenced and diked




to form holding pens which provide the ducks with access to both land




and water.  With traditional methods of duck farming, the majority




of the wastes are carried away from the pens by surface water that




                                  7

-------
is diverted through the runs, or by ground water that is either pumped




into the runs or infiltrates into them.  Water usage at typical duck




farms ranges from 14 to 120 gpd per duck.  At the larger farms, water


                                    12
usage can be in the order of 2-3 mgd   .  In some instances dry farm-




ing techniques have been adopted in order to reduce the water require-




ments.

-------
                        IV.  SOURCES OF WASTES


      The waters  of  the  study area serve as a receiving body for the

 discharge of  wastes  from extensive duck farms, municipal and domestic

 sewerage systems, industrial operations, recreational boats, and sur-

 face run-off  and land drainage.

 Duck Farms

      There are 34 duck  farms, two of which are reportedly out of

 business,  located on waters tributary to Kbriches, Bellport and

 Patchogue Bays.  The location of the farms is shown  in Figure 1.

 The  owners and the  reported annual production are given  in Table 1.
                               Table  I
                DUCK FARMS  TRIBUTARY TO STUDY WATERS
                                                     12
 Location
'No.*

 Trib.  to Bellport Bay:

    1
    2
    3
 Total  to Bellport Bay:

 Trib.  to Moriches Bay:
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
   10
   11
   12
   13
   14
   15
   Owner
Gallo Brothers
Leskowicz
Carmen River Farm
Paul Choenoma
De Piazzy
Jucglielewicz
Swift Stream Duck Farm
Borak Farm
Lukert
Hallock Brookside
Forge River Duck Farm
Harry A. Smith
Walter R. Smith
Robert H. Smith
Stanley Chornoma
 Yearly Duck
  Production
    250,000
    200,000
    200,000
    650,000
     50,000
    100,000
    150,000
    100,000
    100,000
    150,000
    120,000
    100,000
     50,000
Out of business
     60,000
     80,000

-------
                                     Table I (Cont'd)

 Location                                                   Yearly Duck
 No.  *                              Owner                   Production
   16                         Chi-Dux Duck Farm               90,000
   17                         Joseph Podlaski                 50,000
   18                         Vigliotta & Son                 60,000
   19                         Mam Soroka                     50,000
   20                         Adam Kanas                      60,000
   21                         Breezy Acres                    60,000
   22                         Zygtnunt Babinski                50,000 '
   23                         Chester Massley                 50,000
   24                         Big Seatuck Duck Farm           90,000
   25                         Antone Anczurowski            Out of business
   26                         Peter Kostuk                   150,000
   27                         Tuttle Brothers                 80,000
   28                         Eastport Spec.Duck Waste Dist. 350,000
   29                         Spring Water Duck Farm          80,000
   30                         Anna Pacholk                    50,000
   31                         Stephen Kuczma                   70,000
   32                         Leroy Wilcox                    50,000
   33A)                        C & R Duck Farm               Unknown(Breeders!
   33B)

Total to Moriches  Bay                                      2,450,000

Total to Heliport  & Moriches  Bays:                         3,100,000

*As  shown on Figure 1.

     In large scale duck production,  holding pens  and di-kes are built

across the stream  or other body  of  water and on the adjacent shore.

The  ducks move freely between  the  land  and water,  depositing waste

directly into the  stream as well  as on  the banks.   During rainfall,

the  accumulated organic matter is washed into the  stream.   Even when

the  shoreline droppings are raked up,  some organic matter is retained
                                               .12
by the soil and washed to the  water area by  rains.

     A number of studies have  been  conducted of the characteristics

of the wastes associated with  duck  farms.  The results  of  several such

                                   10

-------
 studies by the New York State Department of  Health are  presented  in

 Table II«


                              Table II

               CHARACTERISTICS OF RAW DUCK FARM WASTES13,lfr,15

                                             Ranges  Reported
        Characteristic                      lbs/day/1000 ducks

        BOD                                    20'6  - 37

        Total  Solids                              163

        Suspended Solids                            96

        Total  Nitrogen                          5.7  - 6.2

        Kjeldahl  Nitrogen                           8.2

        Total  Phosphate                         6.8  - 12.4

        Soluble Phosphate                       2.6  - 6.9


     The volume  of waste flow from duck farms varies widely.  A study

by Gates16 in 1959 reported water use varied from four to 96 gallons

per duck.  The same study showed coliform concentrations in the ef-

fluent ranged from 5.8 x 106 to 58 x 106 MPN per 100 ml.  Cosulich12

found the water use at five selected farms ranged from W to 120 gal-

lons per day per duck, and that coliform concentrations were of the

same order of magnitude as reported by Gates.

     No measurement has been made of the total waste loadings from

duck farms.  Table III presents estimated loads,  based on the data
                                               i
cited above,  and on duck production figures  shown in Table I.  These

loads were calculated on the basis of a nine month (March through

                                 11

-------
                                Table III
                  ESTIMATED LOADS FROM DUCK FARM WASTES

Tributary No.
To : Farms
Bellport Bay 3
Moriches Bay 29
Study Area 32
Flow
Yearly Ave. Duck MOD
Production Population (1) (2)
650,000
2,450,000
3,100,000
116,700 7,0
439,800 26.4
556,500 33.4
MPN
Coliform
Per Day (3)
5 x lO1^
20 x 1015
25 x 1015
Loadings in Pounds per Day (4)
Tributary
To : BOD
Total Susp.
Solids Solids
Total Kjeldahl
N N
Total Soluble
Bellport Bay  2,920   18,670   11,670     700      930     1,170      580

Moriches Bay 10,990   70,370   43,980   2,640    3,520     4,390    2,200

Study Area   13,910   89,040   55,650   3,340    4,450     5,560    2,780
   (1)  Assuming 9 month (39 weeks) season and duck life of 7 -weeks.

        Average Duck Population = 7/39 x yearly production.

   (2)  At 60 gal/day/duck.

   (3)  Assuming waste MPN coliform density of 20 x 106/100 ml.

   (4)  Based on following waste characteristics in pounds per 1,000  ducks
        per day:
        BOD                   25
        Total  Solids         160
        Suspended Solids      100
        Total  Nitrogen         6
Kjeldahl Nitrogen       3
Total Phosphate        10
Soluble Phosphate       5
                                   12

-------
November) duck production season and an average duck life of seven




weeks.



     Based on the data in Table III, the duck farming industry repre-




sents a source of 14,000 Ibs per day BOD; 3,300 Ibs per day total



nitrogen; 5,600 Ibs per day total phosphate; and 55,600 Ibs per day




of the suspended solids in a total waste flow of 33MGD.  In addition,




these wastes contribute 25 million billion MPN coliform per day to




the receiving waters.  It is recognized that these loadings are for



raw wastes and that some attempts have been made to treat the waste




at selected farms.  By 1965, all of the duck farms in the area had



settling lagoons in operation for removal of duck waste solids.



These existing treatment facilities were reported to be only partly




effective in removing settleable solids, and are not effective in re-




moving biochemical oxygen demand, nitrogen, phosphates and micro-



organisms.  In addition, there were times when some farms bypassed


                           2 12
their treatment facilities. '




Industrial Wastes




     Industrial waste discharges in the area emanate from a poultry



processing plant and a fabric finishing mill.




     A study17 of duck-processing wastes was made in 1964 at two



plants on Long Island, one of which was reported to discharge its




waste through ponds to an area of Moriches Bay.  The results of the



1964 study at this plant are presented in Table IV.
                                13

-------
                              Table IV

             CHARACTERISTICS OF RAW DUCK PROCESSING WASTES

          Waste Flow, gallons per duck                   24.3

          BOD, Ib.  per  1000 ducks                        43.2

          Susp. solids, Ib. per 1000 ducks               31.0

          Coliform, No. per 100 ml                   56,800

      During the four  days of the study, the plant processed an aver-

 age of  13,675 ducks per day.  Table V presents the estimated raw

 waste loads from this plant, using this production figure and the

 data from Table IV.


                               Table V

           ESTIMATED LOADINGS - RAW DUCK PROCESSING WASTES

 Flow               BOD           Susp.  Solids       Total Coliform
gal/day           Ibs/day         	Ibs/day              per day

332,000             590               420              2.5 x lO1^


      In 1964,  the raw waste from this operation was discharged to a

 settling pond prior to discharge to Moriches Bay.   NO data are avail-

 able on the efficiency of treatment obtained by this settling  or on

 the quality of  final effluent discharged to the bay.   However, visual

 observation of  the settling pond and final effluent indicate an un-

 satisfactory removal of  waste material.

      No  data are  available on the wastes  from the  fabric  finishing

 plant in Patchogue,  the  Patchogue-Plymouth Mill.   During  the early

 1950's  this firm  discharged  fabric  finishes and dyes  to Patchogue

                                 14

-------
  Creek.  In 1954, the New York State Department of Health initiated
  abatement action against this firm.  By January, 1963 abatement had
  been achieved according to Health Department records.
  Municipal Wastes
       The only municipal waste source discharging to the study area
  waters is that of the Village of Patchogue, which has a sanitary
  sewer and primary treatment plant operated by the Patchogue Sewer
  District.  In 1951, this plant was reported^ to provide inadequate
  treatment for 3,400 persons.  By 1954, alterations and improvements
  were underway and the State of New York indicated the plant would
                                                       19
  provide adequate treatment on completion of the work.    The avail-
  able data on this plant as of 1966 are presented in Table VI.
                                Table VI
                                                            9O
            DATA ON PATCHOGUE SEWER DISTRICT TREATMENT PLANT
Type of     Population    Design                              Receiving
System        Served     Flow-MGD          Treatment            Water
Separate-     5,000        0.5      Screens, grit removal,    Patchogue
Sanitary                            settling, post-             Creek
                                    chlorination

       Assuming a BOD of raw municipal sewage equal to 0.17 Ibs. per
  capita per day and 30% removal by primary treatment, the discharge
  from this plant represents a load of 600 Ibs. per day of BOD which
  is only five percent of that attributed to the duck farms.
  Cesspools and Septic Tanks
       The majority of the residents in the drainage areas of the study
  waters dispose of domestic sanitary sewage by individual cesspools or

                                   15

-------
septic tanks.  If the soil is porous and has a high ground water level,

the wastes from such systems tend to contaminate and become a part of

the ground water flow.  This contamination of the ground water has been

demonstrated by pollution of many wells in the area.  In 1963, for

example, the Suffolk County Department of Health estimated that 35 per-

cent of the individual wells in Center Moriches were polluted.  In

areas of non-porous soils, cesspool and septic tank systems fre-

quently overflow and the waste becomes a part of the surface run-off.

     The rapid increase in population for the study area and for all

of Suffolk County has been described earlier in this report.  Table

VII presents the 1960 population data for those communities lying

within the drainage area under consideration and south of Sunrise

Highway.  These communities, with the exception of a portion of

Patchogue, rely on individual sub-surface disposal means to handle

sanitary wastes.

                              Table VII

                 MAJOR COMMUNITIES IN DRAINAGE AREA.
                      South of Sunrise Highway

Name                  1960 Population1     Means of Waste Disposal

Bellport Village          2,461            Individual Sub-surface

Center Moriches           2,521            Individual Sub-surface

East Moriches             1,210            Individual Sub-surface

Mastic Beach              3,035            Individual Sub-surface

Mastic-Shirley            3,397            Individual Sub-surface

Patchogue Village         8,838             (3,838 Ind. Sub-surface
                                            (5,000 Patchogue Sewer Dist.
Total 1960 Population    21,462

                                  16

-------
      Hence, of  the  21,000 persons in the immediate area, more than




 16,000  attempt  to discharge their wastes into the ground.  Previous



 studies  of ground water flow in the area of Brookhaven, Suffolk County,




 have  shown a general southwesterly movement of ground water at a rate



                                 99
 of approximately 0.3 feet per day  .  Although the movement of sub-



 surface  water through soil does reduce bacterial contamination and



 suspended solids, dissolved materials such as nitrogen and phosphate




 can be transported with no decrease in concentration.  Hence, the



 use of septic tanks and cesspools by the large rural type population




 provides a mechanism for injection of pollutants into the ground




 water and subsequent transport via the sub-surface aquifers into the




 adjoining surface waters.  The transport of nutrients such as nitro-




 gen and  phosphate in this manner presents a significant source of




 pollution to the waters of the study area.



Recreational Boating




     While no information is available as to the magnitude of prob-




 lems associated with the use of these particular waters for




 recreational boating, studies elsewhere havs shown that recreational



boating  represents a significant source of pollution.  In areas of



high boat density, such as marinas, the discharge of human waste with



 inadequate or no treatment results in pollution by bacteria and




 solids.



Other- Sources of Pollution



     In addition to the sources of pollution described above, water




quality may be adversely affected by a variety of other land and water




                                17

-------
based activities.  As part of the intense agricultural activity



associated with truck farms found throughout Suffolk County, large




quantities of agricultural chemicals are spread over the surface of




the land.  As a result of rainfall, excess chemicals are washed into




the surface waters or percolate into the ground water aquifers.




Hence there is a transport of material, including nutrient fertili-




zers and toxic herbicides and pesticides, across and through the




land into adjacent bodies of water.  This source should be recognized




as a possible contributing factor to the problems in the waters of



the study area.



     Additional degradation of water quality can occur as a result




of extensive dredging activities.  The disturbance of the bottom by




dredges can result in a re-suspension of accumulated organic sludges



and silt.  In addition, uncontrolled dredging can result in the




formation of significant potholes in the bottom of the bays.   Such




potholes can markedly increase detention time and reduce circulation,




thereby preventing adequate mixing of pollutants with the receiving



water, and subsequent flushing of the system.
                                18

-------
         V.  EFFECTS OF WASTES ON WATER QUALITY AND USES






     There have been many water quality studies in Moriches Bay and the




eastern portion of Great South Bay.  Most of these studies were conducted




for relatively limited purposes and hence did not include consideration




of all parameters of water quality and all adverse effects of degradation




in quality on the various water uses.  Hence, it is necessary to draw on




a number of reports for an overall evaluation of the extent of pollution




and its effects.




     The President's Science Advisory Committee has summarized the pollu-




tion problem in Great South Bay and Moriches Bay as follows:




     "1.  Great South Bay and Moriches Bay, Long Island, N. Y.:  Agricul-'




tural and domestic sewage pollution.—A serious pollution problem which




caused the failure of a once prosperous shellfish industry and lessened




the recreational use and esthetic value of Great South, Moriches, and




Shinnecock bays prompted the towns of Islip and Brookhaven (Suffolk Co.,




N.Y.) to commission Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (W.H.O.I.) to




conduct an analytical survey toward finding the causative agents and their




necessary remedial measures.  W.H.O.I, has conducted this survey since 1950,




     "Using phosphorous concentration as an index of pollution, W.H.O.I.




investigators traced the source of pollution to duck farms in Great South




and Moriches Bay.  Studies of the bay's hydrography showed that the low




flushing rates of the bays were responsible for holding the pollutants long




enough to permit massive proliferations of minute algae which were dele-




terious to oysters.  Dredging Moriches inlet open served to increase the




                                  19

-------
flushing rate and consequently pollution was substantially reduced.  It




did not recur until the inlet silted in sufficiently to lower the flushing




rate.  Conclusions from this study were that low salinity and low flushing




rates augment ill effects of these pollutants  (in this case the organic




nitrogen compounds from duck-farm waste) and that remedial measures are




any that will raise salinity and flush out nitrogenous wastes.  These




generalizations appear to have held true during the period of the in-




vestigation.




     "Biologists studying this problem conclude that until such a time as




the pollution is stopped at its source or the  inlets to Moriches and Great




South Bay are appreciably widened and stabilized, the shellfish industry




and the recreational interests in the area will be at the mercy of un-




predictable and uncontrollable meterological conditions.




     "In 196^ residents of Brookhaven and adjacent towns complained again




of foul smells emanating from Great South Bay.  In spite of a decline in




the duck farming industry, pollution was great enough to hamper recrea-




tional use of parts of the Bay, and bubbles of H2S and methane belching




from bottom potholes discolored paint of houses near the water.  It was




then found that dredged areas along the shore  served as traps for large




multicellular algae which underwent anaerobic degradation, producing




the unpleasant gases.  Much of the rotting material came from abnormally




expanding Zostera beds in shallow areas of the Bay.  It appears now that




pollution from the duck farm wastes is now being augmented by an increasing




human population along the bay shore and that  septic tank wastes may have




become the major source of algal nutrient.  No study of these new develop-




ments is in progress as of this date.******""




                                  20

-------
     Many of the specific conditions described below have been observed




in the streams that receive duck farm wastes in the area under considera-




tion, and have led to numerous complaints.  The discharge of wastes to




these waters has caused economic injury to the shellfish industry, de-




creased esthetic enjoyment, produced offensive odors, decreased producti-




vity of fish and other aquatic life, and interfered with recreational




uses of the waters.  On the beaches adjacent to the mouths of some of the




streams strips of black, odorous sludge have accumulated on the sand at




the water's edge, or may be uncovered by digging into the shallow layers




of sand that have been washed over them by wave action.




Bacteria




     Bacteria from duck and human feces constitute a major pollution




problem in the waters of the area.  The major source of bacteria is the




duck raising industry, although some bacteria survive the sewage treat-




ment process of the Village of Patchogue, or may reach the bay waters from




inadequate private sewage disposal systems of individual homes along the




waterfront.  Other bacteria are discharged from recreational boats using




these waters.




     Bacterial pollution has caused the closure of valuable shellfish




water in both Moriches Bay and Bellport Bay, as well as in other areas




of Great South Bay.  Those areas closed to shellfishing are shown in




Figure 1.  Copies of the closure orders are included in the Appendix.




According to the Shellfisheries Management Unit of the State of New York




Conservation Department, harvesting of clams is prohibited in 4,510 of




the 10,775 acres of Moriches Bay and 1,600 of the 3,840 acres of Bellport





                                 21

-------
 Bay.   The  combined  closed acreage, representing 42% of the total water




 area,  is estimated  to be capable of producing more than 300,000 bushels




 of  clams annually,  with a value in excess of $2,500,000.  This unharvest-




 able crop  represents a major economic loss to both the shellfish industry




 and the area  as a  whole.  Most of the bacterial pollution that necessi-




 tates  closing of these shellfish waters appears to originate on the many




 duck farms clustered along the streams of the area from Speonk River on




 the east to Carmans River on the west, as shown in Figure 1.




     An additional  400 acres of shellfish beds in Patchogue Bay are closed




 to  harvesting because of bacterial pollution from the Village of Patchogue




 sewage treatment plant.  Summer homes that may contribute to the bacterial




 pollution  of adjacent waters are located principally along Narrow Bay




which connects Moriches and Bellport Bays.




     The economic loss in shellfish production is not the only damage




caused by bacteria.  The streams on which duck farms are situated, in-




cluding their tidal sections and adjacent waters, are subjected to bac-




terial pollution that in some areas is a definite hazard to the health of




those coming in contact with the waters.  In other areas, the bacterial




contamination makes the use of the waters for such recreational activities




as swimming, boating, and fishing questionable.  The detection of particu-




lar species of Salmonella bacteria known to cause human gastrointestinal




diseases, in the wastes of several duck farms and the receiving waters




emphasizes the existence of this hazard to human health.




Nutrients




     Human and animal feces contain phosphorus and nitrogen that serve as




                                 22

-------
nutrients, or fertilizer, for both land and water plant life.  Although




other elements are necessary as nutrients for plant growth, deficiencies




in phosphorus and nitrogen are believed to be the most common limits on




aquatic plant growth.  Current technology permits the design of treatment




plants capable of removing these elements from sewage and industrial




waste, although conventional treatment plants provide only slight reduc-




tion of these materials.




     Both Moriches and Bellport Bays, as well as the entire Great South




Bay, are rich in phosphorus and contain adequate nitrogen to support




prolific growths of both suspended and attached algae.  Whereas open




coastal waters commonly contain 0.02 to 0.05 milligrams per liter (mg/1)




of phosphorus (as P), the enclosed Moriches and Bellport Bays have been




found to contain from 0.02 to more than 1.0 mg/1 of phosphorus.  While




the limiting concentration of phosphorus for excessive algae growth in




sea water has not been established, the commonly accepted limiting con-




centration in fresh water is 0.01 to 0.015 mg/1.




     The limiting value of nitrogen for aquatic plant growths in fresh




water is generally accepted to be 0.3 mg/1 (as N).  The waters of the two




bays have been found to contain from 0.2 to 0.9 mg/1 of total nitrogen.




Sources of this phosphorus and nitrogen are the wastes from duck farms,




the direct discharge of domestic and municipal sewage, and percolation




from private home sewage disposal systems.




     With the adequate supply of nitrogen and the abundance of phosphorus,




the waters of the bays support luxurious growths of suspended algae,




attached filamentous algae and rooted aquatic plants.  The suspended





                                 23

-------
algae have caused both economic and esthetic damage.  In 1955 especially,




and to a lesser degree in other years, a particular form (Nannochloris




atomiusj of very minute suspended algae clogged the gills of clams and




markedly  reduced their quality and production in Moriches Bay, resulting




in economic losses.  The suspended algae generally reduce esthetic enjoy-




ment of the bay waters by reducing their clarity, sometimes to the extent




that objects in more than two feet of water are not visible from the surface.




     These algae forms also pose a threat to the dissolved oxygen content of




the bay waters.  Dissolved oxygen is necessary to support aquatic life,




including fish.  With unfavorable changes in environmental conditions, the




sudden death and subsequent decomposition of the dense algae population can




deplete the dissolved oxygen of areas of the bays to the extent that fish




and other aquatic life are not able to survive.




     The attached filamentous algae and rooted aquatic plants cause another




and very obvious type of esthetic damage.  They become detached from their




moorings, especially during periods of turbulent water, accumulate as




slimy masses in the surf and wash up on the shore.  It is not uncommon to




see masses of these detached plants covering long reaches of the shore




several inches deep and many feet from the water's edge.  They not only




present a most unsightly appearance but also decay and produce extremely




offensive odors.  With shoreline conditions such as these, the waters have"




an extremely limited recreational value.




Suspended Solids




     Wastes from duck farms contain variable concentrations of suspended




solids.  In some cases, the concentration of suspended solids may be as

-------
much as one-half of that found in untreated domestic sewage.  These sus-




pended solids include large proportions of decomposable organic solids.




     Upon discharge to the receiving streams, the suspended solids immedi-




ately impart a disagreeable grey turbidity to the waters and diminish their




esthetic appeal.  The heavier solids settle to the stream bottom in the




vicinity of the points of discharge and form objectionable and harmful




sludge deposits.  These sludge blankets cover and destroy the bottom aqua-




tic animals that serve as food for fish.  The organic material in the sludge




undergoes a decomposition process which lowers the dissolved oxygen level




in the overlying waters, at times to below that needed for fish and other




aquatic life to survive.  When complete depletion of oxygen occurs, the




further decomposition of organic matter produces obnoxious hydrogen sul-




fide gas which appears as bubbles on the surface.  This gas breaks loose




masses of the deposited sludge and lifts them to the surface where they




appear as unsightly grey to black odorous clumps and rafts.




     The lighter suspended solids are carried downstream by the velocity




of the flowing water to settle and form similar sludge banks in eddy




areas distant from the points of discharge.  In coastal streams, the salt




content of the sea water precipitates the fine colloidal portions of the




suspended solids to form additional sludge deposits where fresh and salt




waters meet.




     Thus, these suspended solids may produce harmful effects throughout




the entire lengths of the receiving streams from the points of discharge




to their mouths.






                                 25

-------
                VI.  POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAMS






     The State of New York, originally through its Water Pollution Control




Board and more recently through the New York State Water Resources Com-




mission, conducts a program of classification of state waters.  Such a




program delineates the best usage for the waters and establishes applic-




able water quality standards which are to be met so as to make possible




such water usage.




     In 1951, the State classified the waters of Moriches Bay and its




tributary streams.  This was followed in 1954 by the adoption of classifi-




cations for the waters of Patchogue and Bellport Bays, the adjoining




southerly portion of Great South Bay, and the tributaries to these waters.




In general, the classifications adopted require water quality suitable




for shellfish propagation in the open bays and bathing on the shoreline,




with lower classifications for the various tributary streams so as to




permit reasonable use for waste disposal.




     Following classification, the State issues comprehensive plans for




the abatement of pollution and upgrading of the waters to meet the adopted




standards of water quality.  In February of 1952, a comprehensive plan was




issued for the abatement of pollution from the waters of the Moriches Bay




drainage basin.  This plan included orders for the abatement of pollution




resulting from the operation of duck farms and set a timetable requiring




completion by April, 1954, but was noted as being flexible and took recog-




nition of the lack of satisfactory methods for the treatment of duck farm




wastes.




                                 26

-------
     In January 1954, a comprehensive plan was issued for the abatement of




pollution from the waters of the Great South Bay - Easterly Section Drain-




age Basin, which includes Patchogue and Bellport Bays and their tributaries.




This plan established a requirement for the removal of all ducks from open




natural waters and the installation and operation of devices for the




effective removal of settleable solids.  No date for the meeting of such




requirements was established by this order.




     Based on available information, the requirements of the abatement




orders issued in 1952 and in 1954 have yet to be met by the various duck




farms.



     In early 1966 the New York State Department of Health was considering




an order of modification establishing a timetable for the abatement of




pollution by duck farm wastes.  Under the terms of this order, a copy of




which is included in the Appendix, submission of preliminary plans for




biological treatment would be required on or before January 1, 1967.




Such treatment would be required to provide at least 85% removal of sus-




pended solids and BOD, removal of a substantial portion of the phosphorus,




and effective disinfection of the effluent.  The order also stipulates




that final construction plans for such facilities must be submitted on  or




before August 1, 1967 and construction must be undertaken on or before




November 1, 1967 so as to be complete on or before April 30, 1968.  The




order would further require maintenance and operation of these treatment




facilities so that they shall, at all times, meet  the performance  criteria




described above.




     The Suffolk County Department of Health conducts an annual inspection




                                  27

-------
program of duck farm waste treatment facilities.  The Department's Annual




Report for 1963 described the poor compliance record obtained through that




date.  By 1965, however, inspection showed that all of the active duck




farms had in operation settling lagoons.




     A number of studies have been made to determine feasible means of




treatment of the duck farm wastes.  In 1957, a Special Waste Disposal




District was established in the Town of Southampton to construct a treatment




plant to abate pollution from several duck farms.  The project was deter-




mined to be eligible for financial assistance under the Construction Grants




Program of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and construction of a




primary treatment plant was started in June of 1958.  In January of 1959,




the Public Health Service made a partial payment of $5,000 towards the




cost of the plant„  The plant was reportedly completed in July of 1961 at




a total cost of $29,400 and a request was made for a final payment of




$2,350 by the Federal Government.  However, an inspection by the Public




Health Service immediately after completion of construction indicated a




structural failure in the tank.  After correcting this failure, the




operating agency still failed to complete connections to the plant and




to operate the plant in a satisfactory manner.  The Federal Government




has not yet made its final payment toward the cost of this plant due to




continuing lack of adequate operation and maintenance, and a field visit




in August 1966 indicated the plant was not in use.




     The interest in the abatement of pollution from duck farm wastes is




demonstrated by the emphasis placed upon this problem by the New York




State Joint Legislative Committee on Natural Resources.  The 1959 Report




                                 28

-------
of this committee noted "Each year for the past seven years the Committee




has convened a year-end inventory conference on the Long Island duck wastes




pollution problem."  The Committee has reviewed this problem and made




specific recommendations over a number of years.




     In September of 1965 the Suffolk County Department of Health received




an interim report on a comprehensive sewerage study for the five western




towns of Suffolk County.  This report suggested the creation of two sewage




districts to collect, treat, and dispose of water-borne waste.  The pre-




liminary design encompasses a series of interceptor sewers, a treatment




plant providing 90% or better removal of all objectionable constituents,




outfalls to conduct plant effluent to the Atlantic Ocean, and facilities




for the recharge of the groundwater by treated effluent.




     Also in September 1965 the Suffolk County Board of Supervisors




authorized the formation of a Suffolk County Sewer Agency charged with




carrying out studies leading to the preparation of plans and ultimate




construction of sewerage facilities for Suffolk County.
                                 29

-------
APPENDIX

-------
                            VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY

 IS  Statistical  Abstract of Nassau and Suffolk Counties.  The Franklin
     National Bank of Long Island, 1962.
 •'.. "£/•?,•
 2.   Annual Report - 1965.  Suffolk County Department of Health.

 3.   Hud son- Champ la in Project Basic Data Book.  U. S. Department of
     Health, Education,  and Welfare, Federal Water Pollution Control
     Administration, Hud son -champ la in and Metropolitan Coastal Compre-
     hensive Water Pollution Control Project.  Unpublished, based on
     U.  S.  Geological Survey Surface Water Records, 1966.

 b.   A Study of Water Circulation in Parts of Great South Bay, Long
 '.:';   Island.  Field Operations Section, Technical Services Branch,
     DWSPC,  R. A.  Taft Sanitary Engineering Center, Cincinnati, Ohio
     and  Water Supply and Pollution Control Program, Region II, New
     York City, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, U. S.
     Public  Health Service.  (Unpublished Manuscript) 1962.

 5.   Survey Report - Moriches and Shinnecock Inlets, Long Island, New
     York.   U. S.  Army Engineer District, New York, Corps of Engineers.
     Revised,  1958.

 6.   Ryther, J. H. ; Vaccaro, R. F. ; Hurlburt, E. M. ; Yantch, C. S. ; and
' 1.1  Guillard, R.  R. L.   Report on a Survey of the Chemistry, Biology
     and  Hydrography of  Great South Bay and Moriches Bay Conducted During
     June and September,  1958, for the Townships of Islip and Brookhaven,
     Long Island,  New York.  Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Reference
     Number  58-57  (Unpublished Manuscript) 1958.

 7.   Review  Report on Beach Erosion Control Cooperative Study - Atlantic
     Coast  of  Long Island, N» Y. , Fire Island Inlet and Shore Westerly
     to Jones  Inlet.  U.  S. Army Engineer District, New York, Corps of
     Engineers, 1963.

 8.   U.  S. Department of  Commerce, Coast and Geodetic Survey.  Tide
 ?:;-  Tables, East  Coast  North and South America Including Greenland.
     U. S.  Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 1966.
      -                         '
9.  Barlow, John  P.;  Lorenzen,  C.  J. ;  and Myren, R. T. Eutrophication
    of a  Tidal  Estuary.   Limnology and Oceanography 8(2) ;251-262.  1963.
    J        -       <              - — — --
10. Myren, Richart  T. A Study on the Effect of Turbulence and Oxygen  in
    the  Estuarine Environment.  (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell
    University,  College of  Agriculture, Ithaca, New York) 196^.    vV'
                                   30

-------
 .11.  Hoffman,  J.  F.  and Lubke,  E.  R.  Ground Water Levels and their
'^q?2>  Relationship to Ground-Water Problems in Suffolk County, Long
      Island,  New  York=   U,  S<  Geological Survey, Bulletin GW-44, 1961.

 12.  Cosulich,  William  F,  Treatment of Wastes from Long Island Duck
Jr'..l(.<; Farms.   Report  for Suffolk County, New York, Department of Health,
 ^f   March  1966,

 13.  Unpublished  Data,   Division of Laboratories and Research, New York
      State  Department of Health, 1952„

 14.  Ibid,  1955.

 15.  Ibid,  1957,

 16,  Gates, Co  D.  Treatment of  Long Island Duck Farm Wastes.  Water
'^v,fi 3 Pollution  Control  Board,  New York State Department of Health, 1959.

 17.  Morris,  Grover  L,  Duck-Processing Waste.  Public Health  Service
A-^i/i, Publication  No.  999~.WP-.31j July 1965 =
18.  Report on Water Pollution Control,  New York-New Jersey Metropolitan
    Area,  Fed
    Water Poll
    July 1951.
 .   Area,   Federal  Security Agency, Public Health Service, Division  of
 ^ui Water  Pollution Control,  North" Atlantic Drainage Basins Office,
                    Plan for Abatement of. PoUutioji , Great Squt£  Bay_-
     Easterly  Section,,  Water Pollution Control Board, New York State
     Department  of  Health,  January 1954.

 20c Unpublished Data.  New  York State Department of Health Sewage
     Treatment Works  Inventory, May 1966.

 21. Annual Report  -  1963.   Suffolk County Department of Health.

 22. Long Island Ground Water Pollution Study. Temporary New York
 ^1M State Water Resources  Planning Commission, July 1963.

 23. Etestoring the  Quality  of Our Environment . Report of the Environ-
     mental Pollution Panel, President's Science Advisory Committee,
     The White House., November 1965,,
                                     31

-------
                               COPY

                                                  TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON
                                                  Page 1 of 4

                NEW YORK STATE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT
             SHELLFISH SANITATION AND ENGINEERING SERVICES
                OAKDALE, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK  11769


                  NOTICE TO ALL SHELLFISH HARVESTERS

     The following is a Statement of the Sanitary Condition of the
shellfish lands including a listing of those areas which are closed
to the taking of shellfish of all kinds for the town in which you
claim residency.  THE STATE LAW PROHIBITS YOU FROM WORKING IN ANY
AREAS THAT ARE CLOSED TO THE TAKING OF SHELLFISH.  You may not work
in any of these closed areas without first obtaining proper permits
from this Department.  The Conservation Department holds you respon-
sible for being acquainted with the sanitary condition of any and
all areas from which you harvest shellfish.

     If you intend to harvest shellfish in waters of any town other
than that in which you claim residency, it is mandatory that you
contact either the Town Clerk of the town in which you intend to
work, or the Shellfish Sanitation and Engineering Services Office of
the New York State Conservation Department and obtain a listing of
any areas that may be closed to shellfishing in that town.

NOTICE OF CONDITION OF ALL SHELLFISH GROUNDS LOCATED WITHIN OR ADJA-
CENT TO THE TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK,

     The shellfish lands within the County of Suffolk, Town of South-
ampton, except those listed hereafter, are in such sanitary condition
that shellfish thereon may be taken for use as food, and such lands
are designated (open) areas.

     The following shellfish lands within the County of Suffolk, Town
of Southampton, are in such sanitary condition that shellfish thereon
shall not be taken for use as food, and such lands are designated un-
certified (closed) areas.

Town of Southampton

     Moriches Bay

     1.  All of Seatuck Cove and its tributaries north of a line ex-
         tending easterly from the southernmost tip of Havens Point
         to the mouth of the canal known locally as Wetzel's Creek,
         including all of Wetzel's Creek.

-------
                                                 TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON
                                                 Page 2 of 4

Town of Southampton

     Moriches Bay (Continued)

     2.  All rivers, creeks and canals of the mainland shore between
         Havens Point and the highway bridge at Potunk Point, including
         all those at Westhampton Beach, except Ouantuck Canal.

     3.  That area of Speonk Cove north and west of a line extending
         northeasterly from the southernmost tip of Speonk Point to the
         summer cottage near shore on the property of the Cedar Beach
         Hotel at the foot of Jagger Lane at Tanner Neck (local land-
         mark ).

    4.  Also that area lying north and east of a line extending north-
        easterly from the southeasternmost tip of Forge Point to Buoy
        Fl R"27" in the main channel and thence easterly along the
        buoyed channel through the bay to the highway bridge at Potunk
        Point including all of the buoyed channel, from May 1 to
        October 31, both inclusive.

     Quantuck Bay

     1.  All mainland creeks and canals at Quogue except Quogue Canal.

     2.  Ouantuck Creek north of the Montauk Highway.

     Shinnecock Bay

     1.  All creeks and canals at East Quogue including that area of
         Weesuck Creek north and east of a line extending due east from
         the southeasternmost utility pole on Weesuck Avenue to the
         opposite shore.

     2.  All of the Shinnecock Canal.

Note:  All reference points in the above areas in the Town of
       Southampton taken from U.S.C. & G. S. Nautical Chart 120-SC
       edition of 1964, except as indicated as "local landmark."

     Mecox Bay

     1.  Hay Ground Cove north of a line extending due west from the
         northern shore of Calf Creek at its mouth (local names).

     2.  Also Hay Ground Cove, Calf Creek and the area within a one-
         quarter-mile radius of the mouth of Hay Ground Cove, from
         May 1 to October 31, both inclusive.

-------
                                                       TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON
                                                       Page 3 of 4

Town of Southampton

     Mecox Bay (Continued)

Note:  All reference points in Mecox Bay in the Town of Southampton taken
       from U.S.C. & G.S. Chart #1212 dated May 25, 1963, except as indicated
       as "local names".

     Sag Harbor

     1.  That area of Sag Harbor and its tributaries lying within or west
         of the breakwater and south and west of a line extending north-
         westerly from the northern end of the breakwater to the south-
         eastern corner of the 1 last white house at the southern end of
         East Harbor Drive at North Haven (owned in January 1965 by J. B.
         Carr) and east of the highway bridge known as the Sag Harbor-North
         Haven Bridge (local landmarks).

     2.  That area of Sag Harbor Cove and Upper Sag Harbor Cove lying west
         of the highway bridge known as the Sag Harbor-North Haven Bridge
         (local landmark).

Note:  All reference points in Sag Harbor in the Town of Southampton taken
       from U.S.C. & G.S. Chart #363 dated August 31, 1964, except as
       indicated as "local landmark".

     Peconic River

     1.  All tidal waters of the Peconic River and its tributaries within
         the Town of Southampton.

     Flanders Bay and Reeves Bay

     1.  That area of Flanders Bay and Reeves Bay lying south and west of a
         line extending northwesterly from Red Cedar Point to Channel Buoy
         Fl R"6" and thence northerly to Sims Point at Fanning Beach (local
         landmarks).

     2.  All rivers, creeks and canals tributary to Flandera Bay and Reeves
         Bay.

Note:  All reference points in Peconic River, Flanders Bay and Reeves Bay
       in the Town of Southampton taken from U.S.C. & G.S. Chart #363, dated
       August 31, 1964, except as indicated as "local landmark".

-------
                                                        TOWN  OF  SOUTHAMPTON
                                                        Page  4 of k

Town of Southampton

     Atlantic Ocean

     1.  All areas of the Atlantic Ocean in the Town of  Southampton  are
         certified (open) for the taking of surf clams  only.
Dated:  Albany, N.Y.
        March 20, 1965

        As Amended through
        March 15, 1966
                                   By:
                                        R.  Stewart Kilborne
                                        Conservation Commissioner
Quentin R. Bennett
Marine Fisheries Sanitarian

-------
                               COPY

                                                 TOWN OF BROOKHAVEN
                                                 Page 1 of 4

               NEW YORK STATE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT
           SHELLFISH SANITATION AND ENGINEERING SERVICES
                OAKDALE, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK  11769


                  NOTICE TO ALL SHELLFISH HARVESTERS

     The following is a Statement of the Sanitary Condition of the
shellfish lands including a listing of those areas which are closed
to the taking of shellfish of all kinds for the town in which you
claim residency.  THE STATE LAW PROHIBITS YOU FROM WORKING IN ANY
AREAS THAT ARE CLOSED TO THE TAKING OF SHELLFISH.  You may not work
in any of these closed areas without first obtaining proper permits
from this Department.  The Conservation Department holds you respon-
sible for being acquainted with the sanitary condition of any and
all areas from which you harvest shellfish.

     If you intend to harvest shellfish in waters of any town other
than that in which you claim residency, it is mandatory that you
contact either the Town Clerk of the town in which you intend to
work, or the Shellfish Sanitation and Engineering Services Office of
the New York State Conservation Department and obtain a listing of
any areas that may be closed to shellfishing in that town.

NOTICE OF CONDITION OF ALL SHELLFISH GROUNDS LOCATED WITHIN OR AD-
JACENT TO THE TOWN OF BROOKHAVEN, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK.

     The shellfish lands within the County of Suffolk, Town of
Brookhaven, except those listed hereafter, are in such sanitary con-
dition that shellfish thereon may be taken for use as food, and such
lands are designated certified (open) areas.

     The following shellfish lands within the County of Suffolk,
Town of Brookhaven are in such sanitary condition that shellfish
thereon shall not be taken for use as food, and such lands are desig-
nated uncertified (closed) areas.

Town of Brookhaven (South Shore)

     Great South Bay

     1.  All of Patchogue Creek, Swan Creek, Mud Creek, Hedges Creek,
         Howell Creek, and all other creeks and canals between Blue
         Point and Howell Point.

-------
                                                        TOWN OF BROOKHAVEN
                                                        Page 2 of H

Town of Brookhaven (South Shore)

     Great South Bay (Continued)

     2.  That area of Patchogue Bay, and all adjacent creeks and canals,
         lying north and west of a line extending southeasterly from a
         privately maintained light (Fl G"B") at the end of the bulkhead
         forming the entrance to the canal and boat basin at Blue Point
         (Corey Creek) to Buoy N"4" in the channel leading to Patchogue
         Creek, and continuing northeasterly to a privately maintained
         light (F-R) at the southeastern tip of the bulkhead forming the
         Village Dock at the foot of Ocean Avenue in Patchogue, and thence
         easterly to the southern tip of two sunken wooden barges (local
         landmark) near the entrance to the first canal and boat basin east
         of Mud Creek.  (When the above lights are not operating the bulk-
         head extremities on or near which the lights are located will
         serve as markers for the lines of closure.)

     Bellport Bay

     1.  That area north and east of a line extending easterly from the
         flagstaff at the Bellport Yacht Club at the dock at the foot of
         Bellport Lane in Bellport to Black Buoy Fl G"5" in the main channel,
         and continuing southeasterly along the main channel to Red Buoy
         Fl R"12" near Smith Point, and thence northeasterly to the tip of
         Smith Point.

     Narrow Bay

     1.  All that area, including Johns Neck Creek and all creeks and
         canals of the mainland shore, between a line extending southerly
         from Smith Point to the flag tower on Great South Beach and a line
         from shore to shore passing due north and south through Buoy Fl
         G"17" located in the main channel near Pattersquash Island.

     2.  All of Pattersquash Creek and the area of the mouth of Pattersquash
         Creek.

     3.  The canal known locally as Mastic Beach Lagoon and the area of the
         mouth of said canal.

     Moriches Bay

     1.  That area north and west of a line extending northeasterly from
         the mouth of Home Creek (local landmark) to Masury Point, including
         all of Home Creek, the Forge River and its tributaries, and all
         other creeks and canals of the mainland shore between Forge Point
         and Masury Point.

-------
                                                        TOWN OF BROOKHAVEN
                                                        Page 3 of 4

Town of Brookhaven (South Shore)

     Moriches Bay (Continued)

     2.  That area north and west of a line extending northeasterly from
         Masury Point to the privately maintained light (Fl G) at the mouth
         of Orchard Neck Creek, including all of Senix Creek, Orchard Neck
         Creek and all other creeks and canals of the mainland shore between
         Masury Point and Orchard Neck Creek.

     3.  That area including the Terrell River lying north and east of a
         line extending southeasterly from the privately maintained light
         (F-G) at the mouth of Orchard Neck Creek to Buoy Fl G"31" in the
         main channel and thence northeasterly to the southernmost tip of
         Tuthill Point.

     4.  All of Tuthill Cove north and west of a line extending northeasterly
         from the southernmost tip of Tuthill Point through Channel Buoy
         N"4" to the shore at the Moriches Coast Guard Station (Moriches
         CG No. 76).

     5.  All of Hart Cove and its tributaries north and west of a line
         extending northeasterly from shore at the foot of Evergreen Avenue
         (local landmarks).

     6.  All of Seatuck Cove and its tributaries north of a line extending
         easterly from the southernmost tip of Havens Point to the mouth of
         the canal known locally as Wetzels Creek, including all of Wetzels
         Creek.

     7.  Also that area lying north and east of a line extending northeaster-
         ly from the southeasternmost tip of Forge Point to Buoy Fl R"27" in
         the main channel and thence easterly along the buoyed channel
         through the bay to the highway bridge at Potunk Point including
         .all of the buoyed channel, from May 1 to October 31, both inclusive.

Note:  All reference points in the Town of Brookhaven (South Shore) taken
       from U.S.C. & G.S. Nautical Chart 120-SC edition of 1964, except as
       indicated as "local landmark".

Town of Brookhaven (North Shore)

     Port Jefferson Harbor

     1.  All that area of Port Jefferson Harbor south and east of a line
         extending southwesterly from the flashing light and bell on the

-------
                                                        TOWN OF BROOKHAVEN
                                                        Page 4 of 4

Town of Brookhaven (North Shore)

     Port Jefferson Harbor (Continued)

         jetty at the eastern side of the entrance to Port Jefferson
         Harbor to the flashing red light on the jetty at the western
         side of the harbor entrance and then continuing southerly to a
         stone jetty at the shore near Buoy C"3" at the entrance to
         Setauket Harbor.

Note:  All reference points in the Town of Brookhaven (North Shore) taken
       from U.S.C. & G.S. Chart #361 dated July 6, 1963.
                                          R.  Stewart Kilborne
                                          Conservation Commissioner
                                   By:
Dated:  Albany, N.Y.
        March 20, 1965

        As Amended through
        March 15, 1966
Quentin R. Bennett
Marine Fisheries Sanitarian

-------
                                   C £ P Y

                            ORDER OF MODIFICATION

     A Notice of a consolidated public hearing and a Complaint in
the above entitled proceedings having been duly served and the Res-
pondent, by GREENWALD, KOVNER and GOLDSMITH, his Attorneys, pursuant
to Part 76.4 of Chapter II of Title 10 of the Official Compilation
of the Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York, having
waived such hearing and having stipulated with the Counsel of the
New York State Department of Health that all of the allegations of
the Complaint contained in paragraphs                      are true
and that facts exist upon which this Order may be predicated and that
the same might be made, filed and served,

     NOW on reading and filing said Notice of Hearing and Complaint
and proof of service thereof and stipulation, and due deliberation
having been had, it is

     ORDERED:

     1.  THAT said stipulation be and the same hereby is approved
and the facts thereof are found and the conclusions thereof are
arrived at.

     2.  THAT all Orders of the Water Pollution Control Board and
of the Commissioner of Health of the State of New York directed to
or against the Respondent be and they hereby are modified to provide
that the Respondent shall, and said Respondent is hereby ordered and
directed to, on and after January 2, 1967, cease and abate, and
thereafter keep abated all discharges of duck wastes and duck process-
ing wastes by him or through or from lands or facilities owned by him
or under his management or control into the waters of the State unless
said Respondent shall:

         (a)  On or before January 1, 1967, submit to the New York
State Department of Health, through the Suffolk County Health Depart-
ment, preliminary plans showing facilities for biological treatment
of all such wastes and/or effluents thereof to the extent that at
least 85% of the suspended solids and at least 85% of the biochemical
oxygen demand and a substantial portion of the phosphates thereof
and therein shall be removed and facilities for disinfecting such wastes
and/or waste effluents to the extent that the final effluent shall at
all times contain a chlorine residual of not less than one half part
per million after not less than 15 minutes contact time and a MPN of
coliform organisms not greater than 100 per 100 ml. in at least 90%
of the samples in a series thereof, provided that at no time may the
MPN of such organisms in said final effluent exceed 10,000 per 100 ml.

-------
         (b)  On or before August 1, 1967, submit final construction
plans, in approvable form, prepared by or under the direction of a duly
licensed professional engineer, for such facilities.

         (c)  On or before November 1, 1967, initiate construction of
such facilities.

         (d)  On or before April 30, 1968, cause construction of such
facilities to be completed.

         (e)  Thereafter maintain and operate said facilities in such
manner that they shall at all times meet the performance criteria set
forth in decretal provision 2(a) hereof and that the standards of no
waters of the State shall be contravened by reason of the wastes
aforesaid or their effluents.

     3.  THAT any and all permits for the discharge of wastes or waste
effluents into the waters of the State issued to the Respondent or to
his predecessors or assignors by or on behalf of the New York State
Department of Health or the Commissioner of Health of the State of New
York or the Water Pollution Control Board be and they hereby are modi-
fied, effective May 1, 1968, or upon default of performance of any of
the alternative decretal provisions hereof prior thereto, to refer and
relate to and permit only the discharge of waste effluents treated in
the facilities construction of which is hereby alternatively ordered.
DATED:  Albany, New York
                    1966
                               HOLLIS S. INGRAHAM, M.D.
                               Commissioner of Health  of  the  State
                               of New York
TO:  WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION

     GREENWAU), KOVNER & GOLDSMITH
      (Attorneys for Respondent)

-------
 PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY

-------