REPORT ON
POLLUTION 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
June 8, 1966
-------
REPORT ON
POLLUTION OP M3RICHES BAY
and
EASTERN SECTION OF GREAT SOUTH BAY
Long Island, New York
U. S. DEPARTMENT OP THE INTERIOR
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
HUDSON-CHAMPLAIN AND METROPOLITAN COASTAL
COMPREHENSIVE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECT
Metuchen, Hew Jersey
June 8, 1966
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Conclusion and Recommendations
Conclusions ————————— ii
Recommendations————————— iii
I. Description of Area
Geography and Hydrology--.--————————— 1
Population and Economy——————————— 2
II. Circulation Characteristics—————— b
III. Water Use
Domestic Water Supply—7
Bathing————————————— 7
Duck Farming—————————— 8
IV. Sources of Wastes
Industrial Wastes—---- — 13
Municipal Wastes———————— lfc
Cesspools and Septic Tanks—————— 15
Recreational Boating——————— 17
Other Sources of Pollution———— 17
V. Effects of Wiastes on Water Quality and Uses
Suspended Solids—---—-—-—-—————— 21
VI. Pollution Abatement Programs—————— 23
VII. Bibliography — ————— 26
Appendix
N.Y. state Conservation Department Notice to
Shellfish Haroesters
N.Y. State Department of Health Order of Modification
i
-------
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
1. The discharge of wastes from duck farms and from other sources
has resulted in the pollution of the navigable waters of Mariches Bay
and the easterly end of Great South Bay on Long Island.
2. The most significant constituents of these waste discharges are
bacteria, suspended solidi, and nutrients.
3. As a result of the bacterial contamination of the overlying
waters, these waters have been closed by State authorities to the harvest-
ing of shellfish. These'closures have resulted in a substantial economic
injury.
4. Accordingly, the pollution of these navigable waters is subject
to enforcement measures under the provisions of Sec. 10 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.
5. Bacterial pollution of the waters of the study area, as a result
of the discharge of wastes from duck farms and other sources, constitutes
a hazard to the health and welfare of persons utilizing these waters for
recreation.
6. The degradation of these waters by pollution has resulted in un-
sightly appearance, 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.
7. The waters under consideration have been classified and water
quality standards adopted by the New York State Department of Health,
the agency having legal jurisdiction over water pollution control in the
ii
-------
study area.
8. To date abatement orders issued by this agency have failed to
produce satisfactory corrective action in the abatement of pollution of
these waters. A new abatement schedule is currently under discussion.
Recommendat ions
1. Adequate treatment facilities should be constructed to handle
the effluent from all duck farms discharging into the study area. Such
facilities should be capable of providing at least 85% removal of sus-
pended solids and BOD, substantial removal of nutrients, including phos-
phorus and nitrogen, and effective disinfection of the wastes prior to
discharge to the waters.
2. The timetable included by the State of New York in its proposed
Order of Modification of 1966 should be adopted for all sources of waste
discharging to these waters with the exception of individual cesspools
and septic tanks handling domestic sewage.
3. Current plans for the formation of sewer districts to collect
and provide adequate treatment to the wastes from individual homes now
being discharged to cesspools and septic tanks should be implemented.
4. A more vigorous program of activity should be undertaken to in-
sure compliance with the requirements noted above.
iii
-------
I. DESCRIPTION OP AREA
Geography and Hydrology
The area under consideration for this report lies on the south shore
of Long Island, New York. It consists of Moriches Bay, west of T.festhamp-
ton 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 Atlantic
Ocean by a narrow sand bar which in places is only a few hundred yards
wide. Both bays are extremely shallow. They vary in depth from 1 to 11
feet with an approximate mean depth of 4 feet. Moriches Bay is approxi-
mately 9 miles long and varies from 1 to 2 miles in width. Great South
Bay, in its entirety, is approximately 24 miles long and averages about
3 miles in width with an area of 95 square miles. The area east of the
line from Blue Point to Water Island is approximately 8 miles long and
varies from 2 to 4 miles in width.
Circulation in these bays is extremely limited. Great South Bay is
connected directly to the ocean only by means of Fire Island Inlet. The
only direct connection which Moriches Bay has with the ocean is Moriches
Inlet, a narrow shallow inlet which provides a limited influx of new
ocean water.
The annual rainfall in Suffolk County averages about 43 inches. The
U. S. Geological Survey reports that natural discharge from the county's
-------
ground water reservoir takes place mainly through the seaward movement og
streamflow and ground water underflow.^
Population and Economy
The area lies in the Towns of Brookhaven and Southampton in Suffolk
County. These towns are essentially rural in character and are dotted
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, population of the town of Brookhaven in-
creased from 44,522 to 114,780. The town of Southampton increased from
17,013 to 28,467 people during the same period. The population of Suffolk
County itself grew from 276,129 to 697,462 during this period, a 149% in-
2
crease. The county's population had increased to 756,412 by 1963.
These figures are indicative of the rapid growth experienced on Long
Island as the general population has grown and as people have moved farther
from New York City. Sewage disposal is provided primarily by subsurface
systems of septic tanks and cesspools. Private wells are the major source
of water supply. The U. S. Geological Survey estimated in 1961, that in
Suffolk County "probably 80 percent of the water pumped from public, pri-^
vate and industrial wells is returned to the ground." This high rate of ^
< ~ - -
return has resulted in pollution of the ground water. For instance, the
Suffolk County Health Department estimated in 1963 that 35 percent of the
individual wells in Center toriches were polluted.
The only portion of the subject area which is sewered with a sewage
treatment plant is the Village of Patchogue. Primary treatment is pro-
vided the wastes from an estimated 5,000 persons. Chlorinated effluent
is discharged into the Patchogue River, 1.1 'miles upstream from Patchogue
Bay.
2
-------
Land use in the area is mainly residential, recreational and agri-
cultural. Shore and bay frontage contains many summer homes. 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 its produce and poultry. Potatoes, cauli-
flower, asparagus, tomatoes, lima beans and strawberries are the chief
crops. Fertilizers, extensively used in the farm operations, enrich the
waters of the area. Duck farms line the shores of the rivers and inlets
along the mainland. There are currently 32 active duck farms operating
in the area, producing more than three million ducks per year. These
duck farms constitute a source of pollution for the area waters.
3
-------
CIRCULATION characteristics
Small volumes of fresh water relative to the Bay sizes enter
Moriches and Great South Bays from rivers.^ Enough sea water enters
through the Fire Island and Moriches Inlets to maintain the salt
distribution, but the volumes of "new" ocean water available each
tidal cycle for mixing are extremely small away from the inlet.
The net flow through Moriches Inlet is from the estuary out to
sea,5 and the same is presumed true for Fire Island Inlet.
The main circulation in the two Bays appears to result from the
progressive nature of the tidal wave, which because of the shallowness
of the Bays (less than 12 feet deep) and their differing lengths causes
hydraulic currents in the narrow channels connecting the Bays. The
average motion appears to be easterly, from Great South Bay into
Moriches Bay when both Bays' inlets are open and the reverse when
Moriches Inlet is closed. One series of measurements (July 1950)
indicated that about 20 million cubic feet per tide entered Moriches
Bay from Bellport Bay.5
This main circulation is so slow, and the Bays so wide and shallow,
that wind induced currents can nullify or even reverse the flow. In
November 1951, for example, a persistent wind augmented the flow between
the two Bays for four successive days, and pumped the equivalent of
two-thirds the volume of Moriches Bay west into Bellport Bay. However,
this event took place when Moriches Inlet was closed and the normal
net flow was^westerly.5
4
-------
The westerly prevailing winds in summer are light.® These
winds induce circulation patterns which tend to augment the tidal
circulation by piling up Great South Bay water in Bellport Bay,
increasing the hydraulic head on the Smith Point end o£ the narrows.
This same combination of tidal hydraulics and prevailing winds
results in Moriches Bay water moving east through the Potunk Point
Narrows into Siinnecock Bay-^
Maxima currents are about 8 feet per second in Fire Island Inlet
and 6 feet per second in Moriches Inlet. The total volume per tidal
cycle flowing through the inlets is 2.0 billion and 0.2 billion cubic
feet, respectively.^' The net flow seaward through Moriches Inlet
has been measured as about 18 million cubic feet per tide.^
In the open Bays, the maxima tidal current speeds are about half
a foot per second, while the east-west tidal excursienlkfogpf the order
of 1.5 miles.® The few measurements of net drift ^^^pve Seen made
indicate upper values of about one mile per day. ^|^&^ng times of
JO
four to ten days have been estimated for the western portions of
Great South Bay.**
Mean tidal ranges are 4.1 feet at Fire It s| and 2.9 feet
at Moriches Inlet, decreasing to 0.8 feet at^F£$£$^rtJiknd 0.5 at
Mastic peach. Maximum reported storm tide XrofttiQber 1950) at Fire
Island Inlet was 9.4- feet above mean sea level.'
In general, the tidal motion is enough to prevent stratification
in the open Bays, but not near the inlets and rivers emptying into
the Bays. For example, the water is definitely stratified in the
upper tidal portion of the Forge River, a factor which sometimes
Q JO
contributes to poor water quality. '
5
-------
Mater 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.
Salinities range from close to zero in the upper portions of
the river estuaries to more than 30 parts per thousand in the open
6 9
portions of the Bays. '
Hence, circulation in these Bays is very weak and the available
volume of dilution water is small. Ihese unsatisfactory conditions
for waste assimilation are worsened by the tendency of winds and
currents to confine wastes and waters in the eastern end of Gteat
South Bay, at the farthest possible point from sources of clean dilu-
tion water. In general, the circulation and dilution in the Bays are
not suited for the assimilation of large pollution loads.
6
-------
hi. water ma
Domestic Water Supply
The primary source of water supply for all purposes in Suffolk
County is ground water, generally obtained from individual wells.
Ground waters also provide water for irrigating produce farms and for
operating duck farms. Almost 20 billion gallons of ground water were
withdrawn from Suffolk County's underground reservoirs in 1956.*
Bathing
The waters are used extensively for recreational bathing at public
and private beaches. Suffolk County approved and issued permits for
99 bathing beaches in 1963. There are also many miles of privately
owned shore line where the waters are used for bathing. The study
area includes a portion of Fire Island National Seashore.
Pinfishing
The area serves as an important commercial fishing source. In
1961, a total of 354,000 pounds of fish were landed in Qreat South Bay
2
and Moriches and Shinnecock Bays.
Sport fishing is also very popular in the area. Many deep sea
fishing boats operate from various marinas and private boats of all
sizes are used for fishing.
ShelIfishing
Shellfish, primarily hard clams, are harvested extensively from
the area. In 1961, more than two million pounds of shellfish were
2
taken from the area.
7
-------
Boating
The area has an abundance of pleasure boats of all types and
sizes. There are nine yacht clubs and numerous marinas along the
shores from Patchogue Bay to Ifesthampton.
Duck Farming
Extensive use is made by duck farm operators of the waters of
the rivers, creeks, coves and estuaries, which, drain into the bays.
These bodies of water and adjacent shore areas are fenced off by the
farmers to provide the ducks with access to both land and water.
Traditional methods of duck farming are such that the majority of the
wastes are carried away from the farms by surface water that is
diverted through the runs, or by ground water that is either pumped
into the runs or infiltrates into them. flfater usage at typical duck
farms ranges from 14 to 120 gpd per duck. At the larger farms, water
usage can be in the order of 2-3 mgd.1* in some instances dry farming
techniques have been practiced which substantially reduce the water
requirements.
8
-------
IV. SOURCES OF WASTES
The waters o£ the study area serve as a receiving body for the
discharge of wastes from extensive duck farms, municipal and domestic
sewerage systems, industrial plants, recreational boats, and agricul-
tural run-off.
Duck Farms
There are a total of 3** duck farms located on waters tributary to
Moriches, Bellport and Patchogue Bays. Of these, two are reportedly
out of business. The location of the farms is shown in Figure 1*
The owners and the reported annual production are given in Table I.
Table I
DUCK FARMS TRIBUTARY TO STUDY WATERS
Location
No. *
Owner
Yearly Duck
Production
Trib. to Bellport Bay:
1
2
3
^^3allo Brothers
it i/Leskowicz
v/Catmen River Farm
250,000
200,000
200,000
650,000
Total to Bellport' Bay:
Trib. to Moriches I
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
£^ucgl ielewicz
./Swift Stream Duck Farm
^ «/Borak Farm
i/tukert
ig /HaHock Brookside
^.^Forge River Duck Farm
*-'Harry Av Snith
*"Walter R. Smith
V^&obert.. H. Snith
^^Jtanley( Chornooa
< vChi-Dux Duck Kara
Out of Business
50,000
100,000
150,000
100,000
100,000
150,000
120,000
100,000
50,000
60,000
80,000
90,000
50,000
60,000
50,000
60,000
9
-------
Table I (CONTINUED)
Location Yearly Duck
No. * Owner Production
21 .^VBreezy Acres 60,000
22 ^t/Zygmunt Babinski 30,000
23 3^'/Chester'Mas8ley 50,000
24 ^jBig Sea tuck Duck Farm 90,000
25 intone Anczurowski Out of Business
26 ter Kostuk 150,000
27 fc/Ttottle Brothers 80,000
28 ^/Eastport Spec.Duck Waste Dist. 350,000
29 ^.1/Spring Water Duck Farm 80,000
30 -^v/Anna- Pacholk 50,000
31 ^i/Stephen Kuc2tna 70,000
32 ^Leroy Wilcox 50,000
33A) ±yC & R Duck Farm Unknown (Breeders)
33B)
Total to Moriches Bay: 2,450,000
Total, Bellport & Moriches: 3,100,000
* As shovm on Figure 1.
In large scale duck production, holding pens 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 by the soil and washed to the
11
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
studies by the New York State Department of Health are presented in
Table II.
10
-------
Table II
12,13,14
CHARACTERISTICS OF RAW DUCK FARM WASTES-—
Ranges Reported
Characteristic lbs/day/1000 ducks
BOD ~ 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 Gates^ in 1959 reported water use varied from 4 to 96 gallons per
duck. The same study showed coliform concentrations in the effluent
ranged from 5.8 x 10*> to 58 x 10® MPN per 100 ml. Cosulich** found water
usage at five selected farms ranged from 14 to 120 gallons pec day per
duck, and that coliform concentrations were of the same order of mag-
nitude as reported by Gates.
No oeasurement has been made of the total waste loadings from duck
farms. Hable III presents estimated loads, based on the data cited
above, and on duck production figures reported to the Suffolk County
Department of Health. In developing these estimated loads, it was recog-
nized that the duck production season is from March through Nbvember,
a nine month period, and that the average duck life is seven weeks.
Based on the data in Table III, the duck farming industry
11
-------
Table III
Estimated Loads Prom Duck Farm Wastes
Flow
Ave. Duck M3D
Population (1) (2)
—m—
Coliform
Per Day (3)
Tributary No.
To: Farms
Yearly
Production
Bellport Bay 3
Moriches Bay 29
Study Area 32
650,003
2,450,000
3,100,000
94,000 5.6
353,000 21.2
447,000 26.8
2.9xl014
.14
11.2x10
14.1x10
14
Loadings in Pounds per Day (4)
Tributary
To:
BOD
Total
Solids
Susp.
Solids
Total
N
Kjeldahl
N
Total
ro4
Soluble
ro4
Bellport Bay
2,340
15,030
9,400
560
750
940
470
Moriches Bay
8,820
56,500
35j300
2,120
2,820
3,530
1,765
Study Area
11,160
71,530
44,700
2,680
3,570
4,470
2,235
(1) Assuming 9 month season and duck life of 7 weeks.
(2) At 60 gal/day/duck
(3) Assuming waste MPN coliform density of 20x10^/100 ml.
(4) Based on following waste characteristics in pounds per 1,000 ducks/day:
BOD
Total Solids 160
Suspended Solids 100
Total N itrogen 6
Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total Phosphate
Soluble Phosphate
8
10
5
12
-------
represents a source of 11,000 lbs per day BOD; 2,600 lbs per day
total nitrogen; 4,500 lbs per day total phosphate; and 45*000 lbs per
day of suspended solids in a total waste flow of 27 MGD. In addition,
these wastes contribute an estimated 1.4 million billion MPN coliform
per day to the receiving waters. While it is recognized that these
loadings are for raw wastes and that some attempts have been made to
treat the waste at selected farms, these figures are considered valid
estimates of the actual loads since existing treatment facilities
"are only partly effective in removing settleable solids, and are not
effective in removing biochemical oxygen demand, nitrogen, phosphates
and microorganisms." **
Industrial Wastes
Industrial operations in the area are limited to a poultry process-
ing plant and a fabric finishing mill.
A study*** 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 Thble IV below.
Table T9
CHARACTERISTICS OF RAW DUCK PROCESSING WASTES
Waste Flow, gallons per duck
24.3
BOD, lb. per 1000 ducks
43.2
Susp. solids, lb per 1000 ducks
31.0
Coliform, No. per 100 ml
56,800
13
-------
During the four days oC the study, the plant processed an
average o£ 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.
Yafrte V
ESTIMATED LOADINGS - RAW DUCK PROCESSING WASTES
Flow BOD Susp. Solids Total Coliform
gal/day lbs/day lbs/day per day
332,000 590 420 760 x 109
In 1964, the, raw waste from this operation was discharged to a sett-
ling pond prior to discharge to Moriches Bay. No data are available on
the efficiency of treatment obtained by this settling, or on the quality
of final effluent discharged to the bay.
No data are available on the wastes from the Sabric finishing plant
in Patchogue, the Patchogue-Plymouth Mill. During the early 1950's this
firm discharged fabric finishes and dyes to Patchogue 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 reported17 as providing inadequate treatment for
3,400 persons. By 1954, alterations and improvements were underway and
the State of New York indicated the plant would provide adequate treatment
14
-------
18
on completion of the work. The latest available data on this plant
are presented below:
Tbble VI
19
DATA ON PATCHOOJE SEWER DISTRICT TREATMENT PLANT
Type of
System
Population Design
Served Flow,MGD
Treatment
Beceiving
Water
Separate-
Sanitary 5,000
Screens, grit removal, Patchogue Creek
0.5 settling, post-chlori-
nation
Assuming a BOD of raw sewage equal to 0.17 lbs. per capita per day
and 30% removal by primary treatment, the discharge from this plant re-
presents a load of 600 pounds per day of BCD.
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 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. In non-porous soils, such systems frequently overflew
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 Patchogue, rely on individual sub-
surface disposal means to handle sanitary wastes.
15
-------
Table VII
MAJOR COMMUNITIES IN DRAINAGE AREA
Name
Bellport Village
Center Moriches
East Moriches
Mastic Beach
Mastic - Shirley
Patchogue Village
Total 1960 Population
South of Sunrise Highway
2
1960 Population
2,461
2,521
1,210
3,035
3,397
8,838
21,462
Means of Waste Disposal
Individual Sub-surface
Individual Sub-surface
Individual Sub-surface
Individual Sub-surface
Individual Sub-surface
(3,838 Indiv. Sub-surface
(5,000 Patchogue Sewer Dist.
Hence, of the 21,000 persons in the immediate area, more than 16,000
discharge their wastes into the ground or surface runoff. 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
20
of approximately 0.3 feet per day. While it is recognized that 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 ground waters and sub-
sequent transport via sub-surface aquifers into adjoining surface waters.
Transport of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphate in this manner
presents a significant source of pollution to the waters of the study
area.
16
-------
Recreational Boating
While no information is available as to the magnitude o£ problems
associated with the use o£ these particular waters for recreational
boating, studies elsewhere have shown that recreational boating can re-
present a significant source of pollution in areas where such activity is
widespread and intense* In areas of high boat density, such as marinas,
the lack of adequate treatment facilities or holding tanks aboard recrea-
tional vessels presents problems which require further study.
Other Sources of Pollution
In addition to the sources of pollution described above, water quality
may be adversely affected by agricultural land runoff and dredging oper-
ations. In areas of intense agricultural activity such as the 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 such chemicals, which include
fertilizers, 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 study area waters.
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- sig-
nificant 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.
17
-------
V. EFFECTS OP WASTES ON WATER QUALITY AND USES
There have been innumerable studies of Moriches Bay and the eastern
portion of Great South Bay* including Bellport Bay. Most of these were
conducted for relatively limited purposes and did not include considera-
tion of all parameters of water quality and all adverse effects of
degradation in quality on water uses. It is necessary to draw on a num-
ber of reports for integrated evaluation of effects of pollution.
Many of the conditions described below have been observed in the
streams that receive duck farm wastes in the area under consideration*
and have led to numerous complaints. The wastes have decreased esthetic
enjoyment* produced offensive odors, decreased productivity of fish and
other aquatic life* and interfered with recreational uses of the waters.
The problems have extended even to beaches adjacent to the mouths of some
of the streams where 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 cause of the
serious pollution of the waters of the area. The most widespread bac-
terial pollution originates on the numerous duck farms. Some bacteria
survive the sewage treatment process of the Village of Patchogue* while
others probably reach the bay waters from inadequate private sewage dis-
posal systems of individual homes along the waterfront.
Bacterial pollution has caused the closure of valuable shellfish
water in both Moriches Bay and Bellport Bay, as well as in other areas
of Creat South Bay. The Shellfisheries Management Unit of the State of
18
-------
of New York Conservation Department reports that harvesting of clams is
prohibited in 4,540 of the 10,775 acres of Moriches Bay and 1,600 of the
3,840 acres of Bellport Bay. The locations of closed shellfishing areas
are shown in Figure 1. 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 unharvestable crop represents a major economic loss. Most of the
bacterial pollution that necessitates closing of the 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
slight 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
bacterial 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 at best. The
detection of Salmonella bacteria, which cause human gastrointestinal
diseases, in the wastes of several duck farms emphasizes the existence
of this hazard to human health.
19
-------
Nutrients
Human and animal feces contain phosphorus and nitrogen that serve
as nutrients, or fertilizer, for plant life, including that which grows
in water. Although other constituents of water 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 reduction 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. Uhereas 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.
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. Much of the phos-
phorus and nitrogen reaches the bay waters from the duck farms and from
domestic sewage, both as direct discharge and as percolation from private
home sewage disposal systems.
20
-------
The suspended algae have caused both economic and esthetic damage.
In 1955 especially, and to a lesser degree in other years* a particular
form (Nannochloris atomius) 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 enjoyment of the bay waters by reducing their clarity, some-
times to the extent that objects in more than two feet of water are not
visible from the surface.
Such algae forms also pose a threat to the dissolved oxygen content
of the bay waters that 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 could
deplete the dissolved oxygen of areas of the bays to the extent that
fish and other aquatic life could not 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. Such waters have
extremely limited recreational value.
Suspended Solids
Bastes 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.
21
-------
The suspended solids include large proportions of decomposable organic
solids. Upon discharge to the receiving streams the suspended solids
impart a disagreeable grey turbidity to the waters and diminish their
esthetic appeal.
Some of the heavier solids settle to the stream bottom in the
vicinity of the points of discharge and form objectionable and harmful
sludge deposits. The sludge covers and destroys the bottom aquatic animals
that serve as food for fish. The organic material in the sludge undergoes
a decomposition process which utilizes the dissolved oxygen in the over-
lying waters* Under extreme conditions, the dissolved oxygen is completely
utilized, with disastrous effects on fish and other aquatic life. When
such depletion of oxygen occurs, the decomposition process produces
obnoxious hydrogen sulfide gas* This gas breaks loose masses of the
sludge and lifts them to the surface 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.
22
-------
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 tri-
butary streams. This was followed in 19$k by the adoption of classifica-
tions 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
their use for waste disposal.
Following classification, the State issues comprehensive plans for
the abatement of pollution so as to enable meeting of the assigned classi-
fications. In February of 1952 such 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, 195U. This abatement plan, however, was noted as being flexible
and took recognition of the lack of satisfactory methods for the treatment
of duck farm wastes.
In January of 195U, a comprehensive plan was issued for the abatement
of pollution from the waters of the Great South Bay - Easterly Section
23
-------
Drainage 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 was
established by this order for the meeting of such requirements.
Based on available information, the requirements of the abatement
orders issued in 1952 and in 19$k have yet to be met by the various duck
farms.
In early 1966 the New York State Department of Health was considering
order of modification establishing a timetable for the abatement of
pollution by duck farm wastes. Under the terms of this order, preliminary
plans for biological treatment are to be submitted on or before January
1, 1967. Such facilities are to include biological treatment with at least
8$% removal of suspended solids and BOD, removal of a substantial portion
of the phosphorus, and effective disinfection of the effluent. 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
further stipulates 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
program of duck farm waste treatment facilities. The Department's Annual
Report for 1963 describes the poor compliance record obtained through
that date.
2U
-------
A considerable 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 undertake
construction of a treatment plant to abate pollution from several duck
farms. The project was determined to be eligible for financial assist-
ance under the Federal Construction Grants Program 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 $29,1*00 and a request was made for a final payment
of $2,350 by the Federal Government. Immediately after completion of
construction, inspection by the Public Health Service indicated a struc-
tural failure in the tank. On correction of this failure, the operating
agency 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.
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
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.
25
-------
Vtt. BIBLIOGRAPHY
¦>ii i i ii
/ 1. Hoffman, J. F. and Lubke, E. R, Ground Water Levels and their Rela-
tionship to Ground-Water Problems in Suffolk County, Long Island,
New York. U. S. Geological Survey, Bulletin GB-ljii, 1961.
/ 2. Statistical Abstract of Nassau and Suffolk Counties. The Franklin
National Bank of Long Island, 1962.
/ 3. Hudson-Champlain Project Basic Data Book. U. S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion, Hudson-Charaplain and Metropolitan Coastal Comprehensive Water
Pollution Control Project. Unpublished, based on U, S. Geological
Survey Surface Water Records, 1966.
v/ U. 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. Array Engineer District, New York, Corps of Engineers. Revised,
1958.
^ 6. Ityther, J.H.j Vaccaro, R.F.j Hurlburt, E.M.j Yantch, C.S.j and
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 Ihlet 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.j and Jfyren, R.T. Eutrophication of
a Tidal Estuary. limnology and Oceanography 8(2):251-262, 1963.
,/10. Jfyren, Richard 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) 1961;.
26
-------
/11. Cosulich, William F. Treatment of Wastes from Long Island Duck
Farms. Report for Suffolk County, New York, Department of Health,
March 1966.
/ 12. Unpublished Data. Division of Laboratories and Research, New York
State Department of Health, 1952.
-\13. Ibid, 1955.
^ Ik. Ibid, 1957.
^15. Gates, C.D. Treatment of Long Island Duck Farm Wastes. Water
Pollution Control Board, New York State Departmoit of Health, 1959.
^ 16. Harris, Grover L. Duck-Processing Waste, Public Health Service
Publication No. 999-WP-31, July 1965.
^ 17. Report on Water Pollution Control, New York-New Jersey Metropolitan
Area. Federal Security Agency, Public Health Service, Division of
Water Pollution Control, North Atlantic Drainage Basins Office,
July 1951.
t/18. Comprehensive Flan for Abatement of Pollution, Great South Bay -
Easterly Section. Water Pollution Control Board, New York State
Department of Health, January 195U.
^19. Unpublished Data. New York State Department of Health Sewage
Treatment Works Inventory, May 1966.
/ 20. Long Island Ground Water Pollution Study. Temporary New York State
Water Resources Planning Commission, July 1963.
!
-------
APPENDIX
-------
TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON
Page 1 of 3
NEW_YOkk STATE CCNSWATICP DEPARTMENT
SHELLFISH SANITATION A^D ENGINEERING SERVICES
OAKDAL1S, LOTO ISLATD, ™EW YORK 11769
NOTICE TO ALL SHELLFISH HARVESTERS
The following is a Statement of the Sanitary Condition of the shellfish
lands including a listing of thcjse 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 IF ANY AREAS THAT ART CLOSED TO THE TAKING
OF S'^ELLFIS^. You may not work in any Of these closed areas without first ob-
taining proper permits from this Department. The Conservation Department holds
you responsible 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 tteit 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 nay be closed to shellfishing in that town.
NOTICE OF CONDITION OF ALL SHELLFISH GROUNDS LOCATED WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO THE
TOW1 OF SOUTHAMPTONt SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK,
The shellfish lands within the County of Suffolk, Town of Southampton,.ex-
cept those listed hereafter, are' in such sanitary condition that shellfish
thereon ira.y be taken for vise as food, and such lands are designated certified
(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 uncertified (closed)
areas.
Town of Southampton
Moriches Bay
1. 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 Wetzel's Creek, including all of Wetzels
Creek.
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' Quantuck Canal.
3. That area of Speonk Cove north and west of a line extending north-
easterly from the southernmost tip of Speonk Point to. the summer
-------
TOWS QF SOUTHAMPTON
P;'.ge Z of 3
Town of Southampton
Moriches Ba- (Continued)
cottage near shore on the property of the Cedar Beach Hotel at the
foot of Jagger Lane at Tanner Neck (local landmark).
U. Also that area lying north and east of a line extending northeasterly
from the southeasternmost tip of Forge Point to Buoy F1 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. Quantuck Creek north of the Mcntauk 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 fron the south-
easternmost utility pole on Weesuck Avenue to the opposite shore.
?.. All of the Shinnecock Canal..
Nate: All reference points in the above areas in the Town of Southampton taken
from U.S.C. & G.S. Nautical Chart 12CUSC edition of 196^, except as
indicated as "local landmark".
Mecox Bay
.. .T
1. Hay Ground Cove north of a line extending due west from the nortliern
shore of Calf Creek at its mouth (local names).
2. Also Hay Ground Cove, Calf Creek and the area within a one-qu?rter-mile
radius of the mouth of :iay Ground Ccve, from May 1 to October 31» both
inclusive.
Note:' All reference points in Kecox Bay in the Town of Southampton taken from
U.S.C. & G.S. Chart #1212 dated May 25, 19^3. 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 northwesterly
2
-------
Tffc of spitthahptcf
Page 3 -of 3
Town of Southampton
Sag Harbor (Continued)
frcm the northern end of the breakwater to the southeastern corner
of the 1 last white house at the southern end of 'Sast 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
landmark's ).
2, That area of Sag Harbor Cove and Upper Sag Harbor Cove lying west
of the highway bridge known as the Sag Harbor-North Faven Pridge
(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 3I1 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
F1 R"6'' and thence northerly to Sims Point at Fanning Beach (local
landmarks).
2. All rivers, creeks and canals tributary to Flanders Bay and Reeves Bay.
Note: All reference ooints 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".
Atlantic Ocean
1. All areas of the Atlantic Ocean in the Town of Southampton are certi-
fied (open) for the taking of surf clams only.
R. Stewart Kilborne
Conservation'Commissioner
By:
Dated: Albnnjr, N.Y. Quentin R. Bennett
March 20, 19^5 Marine Fisheries Sanitarian
A3 Amended through
March 15, 1966
3
-------
TU;K OF BKOUKHnVift
i of 3
NEW YORK STATE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT
SHELLFISH SANITATION AND ENGINEERING SERVICES
QAKDALE, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK H769
NOTICE. TO 4LL 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 shell-
fish 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 SHELL-
FISH. You may not work in any of these closed areas without first obtaining
proper permits from this Department. The Conservation Department holds you
responsible 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 ADJACENT TO THE
TCWN OF BROOKHAVEN, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK.
The shellfish lands within the County of Suffolk, Town of Brookhaven, ex-
cept those listed hereafter, are in such sanitary condition 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 Brook-
haven are in such sanitary condition that shellfish thereon shall not be taken
for use as food, and such lands are designated uncertified (closed) areas.
T own of B rookhave n (Sddth Shcfcre)
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.
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 (F1 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"V in the channel leading to Patchogue Creek, and continuing
northeasterly to a privately maintained light (F-R) at the south-
eastern tip of the bulkhead forming the Village Dock at the foot of
Ocean Avenue in Patchogue, and therice easterly to the southern tip of
1
-------
TftfN OF BROOKHaVM
Page 2 of 3
Town of Brookhaven (South 5hol*e) (Continued)
two sunken wooden bai-ges (locg.1 landmark) near the entrance to the first
canal and boat basin east of Mud Ci*eek. (When the above lights are not
operating the "bulkhead extremities on or near which the lights are lo-
cated will serve as markers foir the l^nes 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 F1 G"5" in the main channel, and continuing
southeasterly aiong the aftia channel to Red Buoy ,F1 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 aoutherly 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 F1 G"17" located in the main
channel near Pattersquash -Island.
2. All of Pattersquash Creiek and the area' of the mouth of Pattersquash Creek.
3. The canal known locally as Jfestic 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 Heme Creek (local landmark) to Masury Point, including all of
Hone Creek, the Forge Rive^r and its tributaries, and all other creeks
and canals of the mainland share between Forge Point and Masury Point.
2. That area north and west of a line extending northeasterly frcro Masury
Point to the privately maintained light (51 G) at the mouth of Orchard
Neck Greek, including all of Senix Creek, Orchard Neck Creek and all
other creeks and canals of the mainland shore between Masury Point and
Orchard Heck.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 F1 G"31" in the.wain channel
and thence northeasterly to.the southernmost tip of Tuthill Point.
All of Tuthill Cove north and west of a line extending northeasterly
from the southernmost tip of Tuthill Point through Channel Buoy N'V
to the shore at the Moriches Coast Guard Station (Moriches CG Ro. 76}.
5. Ail of Hart Cove and its tributaries north and west of a line extending
northeasterly from shore at the foot of Evergreen Avenue (local land-
marks ) •
2
-------
TOWN OF BROOKHAVEN
r-ge 3 Of 3
Town of Brookhaven (South Shore) (Continued)
Moriches Bay
6. All of Seatuck Cove and its tributaries north of a line extending
easterly frcm 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 northeasterly
from the southeasternmost tip of Forge Point to Buoy F1 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 196^, except as in-
dicated as "local landmark".
Town of Brookhayen (North Shore)
Port -Jefferson Harbor
1. All that area of Port Jefferson Harbor south and east of a line ex-
tending southwesterly from the flashing light and bell on the jetty
az 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.
A3 Amended through
March 15, 1966
By:
R. Stewart Kilborne
Conservation Commissioner
Dated: Albany, N.Y.
March 20, 1965
dentin R. Bennett
Marino Fisheries Sanitarian
-------
ORDER OF MODIFICATION
A Notice of a consolidated public hearing and a Complaint in the
above entitled proceedings having been duly served and the Respondent,
by GREENWALD, KOVNER and GOLDSMITH, his Attorneys, pursuant to Part 76.1*
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. IHAT 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 processing 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 Department, pre-
liminary plans showing facilities for biological treatment of all such
wastes and/or effluents thereof to the extent that at least 8$% 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 re-
moved 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 MFN 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) Cto 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 afore-
said 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 modified, 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.
Comoissioner of Health of the State
of New York
TO: WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION
GREENWALD, KOWER & GOLDSMITH
(Attorneys for Respondent)
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
|